Talk:Israel–Hamas war: Difference between revisions

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Israel–Hamas war article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42Auto-archiving period: 1 days

Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. Parts of this article relate to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing the parts of the page related to the contentious topic: You must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on this article (except in limited circumstances) Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. If it is unclear which parts of the page are related to this contentious topic, the content in question should be marked within the wiki text by an invisible comment. If no comment is present, please ask an administrator for assistance. If in doubt it is better to assume that the content is covered.

Wikipedia is not censored. Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to some readers, to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to Wikipedia's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content and options to not see an image.

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

A news item involving Israel–Hamas war was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 7 October 2023.

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Current events This article is part of WikiProject Current events, an attempt to expand and better organize information in articles related to current events. If you would like to participate in the project, visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.Current eventsWikipedia:WikiProject Current eventsTemplate:WikiProject Current eventsCurrent events articles Crime and Criminal Biography Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. International relations Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Islam: Islam and Controversy Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Islam and Controversy task force. Israel Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Project Israel To Do: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Public Defence (Israel), Prisoner of Zion, Trial of Benjamin Netanyahu, Day to Mark the Departure and Expulsion of Jews from the Arab Countries and Iran, Pre-Modern Aliyah See also Basic Law proposal: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People Other : Translate to Hebrew : David Bar-Hayim, Guy Bavli, and Guy Oseary. Merge Nahal Rafiah (draft, heb) into Nahal as requested by Wikipedia authority Palestine-Israel enforcement}}, the ArbCom-authorized discretionary sanctions, the log of blocks and bans, and Working group on ethnic and cultural edit wars. You can discuss the project at its talk page.Israel Palestine CollaborationWikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine CollaborationTemplate:WikiProject Israel Palestine CollaborationIsrael Palestine Collaboration articles

Lebanon Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lebanon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Lebanon-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LebanonWikipedia:WikiProject LebanonTemplate:WikiProject LebanonLebanon articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: Asian / Middle East / Post-Cold War C‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles C This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale. This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Asian military history task force Middle Eastern military history task force Post-Cold War task force

	Palestine Top‑importance
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Syria Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Syria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Syria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SyriaWikipedia:WikiProject SyriaTemplate:WikiProject SyriaSyria articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Terrorism Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Terrorism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles on terrorism, individual terrorists, incidents and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TerrorismWikipedia:WikiProject TerrorismTemplate:WikiProject TerrorismTerrorism articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Daily pageviews of this article A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

On 7 October 2023, it was proposed that this article be 2023 Israel–Hamas war .

The female Israeli citizen's body that was displayed was not undressed, she was wearing shorts and a bra. A look through this female Israeli's social media account shows that she has posts of herself in that very same outfit and other similar loose, revealing outfits. There is no proof that the Palestinian fighters undressed her or sexually assaulted her. Revise this segment. 41.47.21.14 (talk) 00:14, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It'd be helpful if you specified the text you wanted changed and provided a reliable source that supports your proposed change. XeCyranium (talk) 00:20, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Widespread sexual violence and massacres of Israeli civilians have been reported." The citations do not mention any reports of "widespread sexual violence." One article mentions the woman discussed above, the other cites statements by American politicians speculating that sexual violence would occur. 2604:3D09:D07D:A830:98D4:DBCA:3D4F:805B (talk) 00:26, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting here that the LA Times has said that reports of sexual violence have "not been substantiated". Unsure how that fits in - we don't necessarily have to buy the LAT's editorial judgement, and even if we do, they're not saying they believe such reports are false or weren't made, just that they couldn't confirm them - but it is notable to some extent. AntiDionysius (talk) 01:38, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As stated by another commentator, both articles are void of any, let alone widespread sexual violence."

Proof that the body was dressed: https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRUg10ttmlCkRrSaKwohEx3DV_9ghmpoqQX7g&usqp=CAU

Proof that the deceased female Israeli wore such outfits regularly: https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSi8DSsnfuZoR_0BsRt0sU7ex66XFy9rJCpxA&usqp=CAU 41.47.21.14 (talk) 00:31, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

she was not a soldier but a german citizen attending a party 2A02:6680:110B:9A00:C4B1:4809:B0E2:1AD2 (talk) 12:19, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your "Proof that the body was dressed"

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRUg10ttmlCkRrSaKwohEx3DV_9ghmpoqQX7g&usqp=CAU center image which is a still from the video of her body in the pickup truck which clearly shows her bra/top pulled up over her breasts. Notice how high up in the shoulder blades the bra/top straps have been pulled --straps that usually meet in the middle back. In that image (and more visibly in the video clip), her bare breast is visible from the side. The image also shows her miniskirt seemingly split up the rear --likely not the original state of even such an immodest dresser as the victim. Cramyourspam (talk) 04:08, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A single photo of a person in any sort of dress isn't "proof that [they] wore such outfits regularly". There is also no confirmation that she is "deceased" as of today. Such assertions are patent violations of WP:BLP and should be removed. ElleTheBelle 14:57, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes to the comments of that "41.47.21.14" person and quite of a few of the other editors here. This is honestly a beyond vile discussion and the admins should probably step in right now. Randomuser335S (talk) 15:57, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Regardless of the comments above, the cited sources[1][2][3] clearly don't support the claim of "numerous cases of sexual violence against Israeli women", so that claim should be removed unless a different source can be found to support it. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 02:22, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Des Vallee: I see that you've removed the "not in citation given" tag. Could you please explain which part of the source you believe supports the claim of "numerous cases of wartime sexual violence"? —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 03:16, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mx. Granger: Hey, The Telegraph source documents a woman of German citizenship being paraded naked, "The naked body of a woman was paraded in the back of a pickup truck." (...) "Some in the crowd which included youngsters spat on the woman's body." This counts as sexual violence specifically sexually humiliation, her names was Shani Louk, although she was not alive when she was being paraded. Many thanks. Des Vallee (talk) 03:24, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Des Vallee: That sounds like one case of sexual violence, but I still don't see support for the claim of numerous cases. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 03:27, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mx. Granger: Perhaps then a better wording is available, or more citations to be necessary. The one does document substantial sexual violence. Des Vallee (talk) 03:38, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue it's pretty misleading. Most people would assume that sexual violence would refer to sexual assault or rape against a living victim. This would more accurately be described as desecration of a body rather than wartime sexual violence 2604:3D09:D07D:A830:98D4:DBCA:3D4F:805B (talk) 03:44, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sexual violence is not limited to being alive, necrophilia as an example is considered a form of sexual violence, despite the affected individual being dead. Likewise mutilation of a body for sexual purposes is also considered a form of sexual violence, and the given source describes her body as mutilated. Des Vallee (talk) 03:51, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Des Vallee: That may be true, but Sexual violence does not include anything about necrophilia or other post-mortem examples, and generally seems to imply that the victim is alive (or that the killing is part of the violence). This could be a problem with that article, but I agree with the IP user who commented before that the average reader would assume that we are talking about living victims. Renerpho (talk) 15:03, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's been reported by German news outlets that the woman in question is still alive, according to the testimony of her mother.

https://www.newsweek.com/shani-louk-still-alive-mother-reveals-1833453?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1696946587 186.102.24.14 (talk) 23:44, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Likewise, it wasn't "sexual violence" when they dragged that male Israeli commander out in his underwear, they were literally just caught with their pants down. FunkMonk (talk) 10:49, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Not an appropriate joke to make. Have some decency.

  Also, have you seen the video of the woman being captured by Hamas militants? There's literally a massive pool of blood in her vaginal/anal region. 100% this woman was raped. I'm too sickened and nauseous to search for an article confirming it was rape, so it's not necessarily valid for the article, but here it is. Obviously not for the easily disturbed, you've been warned:

  http://youtube.com/watch?v=6FVUxvp6Ah0 2601:40:C481:A940:BC5B:2D91:8072:848E (talk) 07:33, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Why are we arguing what is and isn't sexual violence? Do a preponderance of reliable sources call the specific instance being referred to sexual violence? Do a preponderance of reliable sources say there has been widespread sexual violence or say there has been sexual violence? That is what matters not editors arguing over what constitutes sexual violence. Nil Einne (talk) 15:29, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @

  WP:SYNTH. Renerpho (talk) 17:12, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

The answer here is that it is an emphatic no. No reliable sources mention sexual assault. This seems to be a fog of war situation, and also many people "defaultly" believing that a naked body of a woman is somehow definitive evidence of sexual assault (it is not). 2001:569:57B2:4D00:C9A0:AE48:F495:2536 (talk) 15:52, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone Mention the various images of violence against Israelis and at Israeli women? The are crimes and brutality. https://www.instagram.com/reel/CyGF3hJOLXn/?igshid=MzRlODBiNWFlZA== https://www.instagram.com/reel/CyGRHwMIzVO/?igshid=MzRlODBiNWFlZA== https://www.instagram.com/reel/CyHSu-ZIAUG/?igshid=MzRlODBiNWFlZA== https://www.instagram.com/reel/CyI3Ju0rkUL/?igshid=MzRlODBiNWFlZA== https://www.instagram.com/reel/CyIzHMYLIE2/?igshid=MzRlODBiNWFlZA== https://www.instagram.com/p/CyIZ1muONBH/?igshid=MzRlODBiNWFlZA== your tellking me this isnt violence? also these articles: https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/missing-israelis-viral-post-shows-pics-of-men-and-women-kidnapped-by-hamas-4461651

https://english.jagran.com/world/israel-gaza-under-attack-hamas-palestine-tel-aviv-military-operation-operation-iron-swords-benjamin-netanyahu-london-celebration-metropolitan-police-10105820 Azz205 (talk) 18:39, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.foxnews.com/world/videos-hamas-brutality-toward-israelis-eerily-reminiscent-isis-tactics Azz205 (talk) 18:40, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Violence doesn't equate sexual violence. That's the issue here. There is no evidence of any sexual violence just because women have been taken prisoner. FunkMonk (talk) 19:12, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.bbc.com/pidgin/articles/cye1k60kz23o source? Azz205 (talk) 23:01, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tablet magazine is reporting that women at the music festival massacre site were raped next to the dead bodies of their boyfriends. That one source may not be enough, but other media outlets are probably investigating. Cullen328 (talk) 23:11, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This source also claims that RFK Jr tells the truth about vaccines which is, shall we say, disputed. Brian Dell (talk) 03:56, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Raped next to the dead bodies of their boyfriends" is such an explosive claim that, if true, would be widely covered by international sources.VR _talk 01:46, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Times is describes the situation at the festival by Re'im thusly: People were shot at point-blank range, survivors tell of women being raped then killed. That people were raped is a bit less explosive, all things considered, than the fact that 260 civilians were intentionally killed. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 14:55, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It was the difference between Israel and Hamas all the time.

It was always Hamas who started the conflicts. Israel always responded with airstrikes to destroy Hamas buildings and personnel. But unfortunately and inevitably, civilians would be killed in such strikes. The Palestinian civilians who were killed by the guns of Israeli soldiers were armed with knives, guns, and stones themselves. So the soldiers could do nothing other than self-defense.

But on the other hand Hamas showed their true colors in the recent days. They -as you said- deliberately killed so many Israeli civilians with their guns from close range.

Poor civilians, whether Palestinian or Israeli. It's the consequence of Hamas actions. Aminabzz (talk) 15:54, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How unbiased.

What did Israel respond to when they bombed Gaza the 5 and 6 of October? 2A02:AA1:102F:523D:FC79:77E1:75A2:C6BF (talk) 21:49, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, there is evidenve of "widespread sexual violence" from mand news sources. You focusing on the case of Shani Louk doesn't mean anything other than you arguing with other about if she is naked or not. She isn't the only woman in this war Poles Ragge (talk) 05:36, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion appears to be original research. Reliable sources have reported on sexual violence. Analyzing photographs in this manner breaches our policy on original research and shows a lack of respect for the victims. Notice the wording is 'have been reported' and we do not have a mandate to make a decision whether those reports are true or not . Please stop. Marokwitz (talk) 18:50, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It definitely is, here's PBS with a first hand account of a survivor witnessing rapes: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/survivors-of-hamas-assault-on-music-fest-describe-horrors-and-how-they-made-it-out-alive. Yet the 3 references and reports made from reliable sources were removed again. For reasons I suppose. Chuckstablers (talk) 04:39, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a hamas terrorist saying they kidnapped women to rape them;

https://www.instagram.com/reel/CyQxuozIcUI/?igshid=MzRlODBiNWFlZA== Yaroniv (talk) 05:17, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's a reporting on these allegations here. They find: "But the source of the rape allegation remains murky. While sexual assault is a common feature of violent conflict worldwide, the Israel Defense Forces told the Forward Tuesday night that it does not yet have any evidence of rape having occurred during Saturday’s attack or its aftermath. And most mainstream media outlets have avoided mention of rape, with the Los Angeles Times and NBC News specifically stating they have been unable to verify the claims."--Carwil (talk) 01:20, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"The first shows an Israeli woman being removed from the back of a Jeep with her hands bound behind her back. She has blood on her arm, dirt stains on her legs and a large, dark stain across the seat of her pants.

A high-ranking Israeli military official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said that video was the only evidence of rape or sexual assault of which he was aware."

From that source that you cited. The one being used to justify this, pretty clearly POV statement: "Claims that women were raped have been made and widely repeated, but Israeli officials have said they have no evidence of rape." This statement is saying that Israeli officials have said they have no evidence of rape. This is at best a misrepresentation of the source, and at worse a lie. It leaves out the statements by a LOT of israeli officials, that were PREVIOUSLY cited but removed, saying that rape happened. Chuckstablers (talk) 05:04, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Did you really just say the female victim had a history on social media of wearing “revealing” outfits? You should be barred from this website. 2600:4040:9CDE:2B00:28EE:A5C6:518D:A2F2 (talk) 09:35, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is basically nothing in this article as to the nature of the Palestinian attacks. Thay should be characterized properly as surprise attacks against Israeli civilians. It might be going to far to describe them as "cowardly". However, it should certainly be clear that they were unprovoked surprise attacks aimed not at the IDF, or at least not only at the IDF, but primarily at civilians. TiltonHilton (talk) 15:43, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They have specifically taken over military bases and captured soldiers, so that is not a correct assessment. And "unprovoked" is the overstatement of the ages. FunkMonk (talk) 19:05, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Hamas militants gunned down civilians intentionally. These attacked were not against the IDF - they were trying to kill Israelis whether they were soldiers or not. TiltonHilton (talk) 19:43, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is mentioned. Their targets are mainly military and directed at the IDF but there have been civilian casualties (Re’im massacre). This isn’t just hamas though, basically all of Gaza is invading with various militias so it’s best not to put the blanket of “hamas” over all of them, which is what the IDF is doing The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 03:57, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Correct me if I'm wrong but the way I understand Hamas interviews they seem to insist that there are no civilians in Israel, only settlers, which they say allows them to attack them. Borgenland (talk) 04:32, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The rationale, whatever people think of it, is that all Israelis have served in the IDF and are eligible for call-up as part of the reserves, so therefore "all Israelis are soldiers". For what it's worth, Israel considers all men from 18-60 that they kill to be "terrorists" so Israel does the exact same thing. 2607:FEA8:A4E1:BC00:4807:859:2490:54CD (talk) 02:01, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a source supporting that second statement?

talk) 13:18, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

TiltonHilton it would be actually appropriate to call these attacks "cowardly" with attribution and probably in the reactions section. For example, "X condemned the attacks as 'cowardly'."VR _talk 20:33, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

“Unprovoked” surely they just attacked Israel out of the blue, surely Israel had not done anything the Palestinians to warrant all of this The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 03:55, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

These people hate Palestinians and think that Israel should "get rid of them", so of course they do things like ignore the entire history of the conflict. 2607:FEA8:A4E1:BC00:4807:859:2490:54CD (talk) 02:03, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah and what did those music festival goers do to provoke Hamas? Were they firing missiles into Gaza in between DJs? Beating up Palestinian children in the moshpit? 2604:3D08:7F7D:54C0:99EB:132D:7DCC:B5B (talk) 03:57, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Don’t even bother, these dudes will do anything to distance Hamas from their obvious barbarism. HailSatanLightbringer (talk) 20:48, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Did I mention the massacres specifically at all? He also claims it wasn’t against the IDF when many of the targets were The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 03:32, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@The Great Mule of Eupatoria By your faulty logic, nothing can be "unprovoked" because there is always some historical antecedent. For instance, Nazi Germany was "provoked" by the European powers due to the harsh conditions of the Treaty of Versailles. If we pursue that logic, we cannot truly hold anyone accountable for committing atrocities because someone else always "started it". Users who can't put forth a serious argument or counterargument should recuse themselves from this discussion. 38.23.187.20 (talk) 03:29, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t even know if I’m supposed to be on the talk page, every day I get told aboout 14 new Wikipedia policies but I’ll say this: is the 20 year old harsh treaty in any way comparable to what Israel has done to Gaza in the same period? I’m not just talking about hamas like people try to put in my mouth, I’m talking about the strip in general The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 03:36, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That comparison is irrelevant because the example I gave merely serves to illustrate a point, which is that anyone can deny accountability by claiming that they were provoked by someone else. The PA in Gaza can launch any attack on Israel and claim that it was provoked by years of occupation or this or that event; literally, they can cherry-pick the most convenient event to justify their attack. And we would of course have to accept it as a statement of motive, but we cannot accept at face value that something was "unprovoked" just because a justification was provided. 38.23.187.20 (talk) 03:56, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Typo correction: "cannot accept at face value that something was "provoked" just because..." 38.23.187.20 (talk) 03:58, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Then the Napoleonic wars would have been a better example of your point than Nazi Germany… The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 04:05, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's obviously not unprovoked, but "reliable sources" call it that, so that's what Wikipedia shall call it too. Shankar Sivarajan (talk) 04:32, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple sources have made this claim and called it "Israel's 9/11", but how accurate is this really? What consitutes a "terrorist attack" versus an "act of war"? You don't see most of the war battles throughout history listed among the list of terror attacks, so why would this be any different? If this is truly to be considered a "terror attack" then wouldn't the death toll rank it amongst the likes of attacks such as the Camp Speicher massacre in 2014 and 9/11 in terms of death toll? Undescribed (talk) 00:57, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Undescribed A terror attack is an attack carried specifically on civilians of a certain country / or people, in order to hurt or kill them.

Usually careied by extremists, intended to slaughter civilians, *to promote their agenda / ideals*, and literally "Installing terror onto the streets".

A declerance of war, is a country attacking another, and attacking the other's *military*, to seize land, and control the population. Not to slaughter them.

Usually in order to hurt the other side, and win specific things such as a complete control over the country, a weakening of the country, seizing specific land (See nagorno-karabakh), and more.

A WAR ON TERROR / WAR INCLUDING TERROR, is a war in which a terror organisation/entity, such is Hamas, is involved. Hamas slaughters civilians and innocents to promote his political agenda, and is controlling a certain amount of land (See Gaza Strip), and is, de facto, a country.

And when a large scale armed conflict, and with two entities fighting from their controlled areas, it's war.

When at least one side is using violence, mass murder, and yes, literally, "Terror", on the other side, it's a war including terror.

Again,

The terms are broad, blurry, and general, yet usually when the term "War on Terror" is used, it's specify a terror organisation, involved in a large-scale, armed conflict, consisting of two different entities, usually fighting from their controlled land (Usually); in which the terror organisation uses its arms to kill innocents of the other side, to promote their political agenda/Ideologies.

An example for a war including terror, is WW2 and the Holocaust. When Nazi Germany invaded several countries (War), and used its power and reasources in order to enslave, starve and slaughter population they regard as enemies of theirs (Thus promoting their political agenda with murder: Terror), such as Jews, Gays, Gypsies, prisoners of war, Communists, etc.

• NOTE: The difference between a war and a military operation, is that a war is usually a large-scale armed fight, while an operation is a smaller one.
• NOTE: Again, the terms are broad, in some cases even refrencing the same thing, and in some cases meaning two completely different things.

רם אבני (talk) 01:35, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Attempts to define terrorism by it's intentions have mostly failed. 9/11 needed new narratives to explain it as terrorism. It was different from any previous suicide attacks. After 9/11, there were numerous similar suicide attacks against US and pro-Western targets worldwide in places as obscure as Bali. The comparison to 9/11 is simply a statement about the impact this is likely to have on Israeli society and especially young people. There is no universal definition of terrorism. Hostage taking is terrorism. This isn't complicated. Ben Azura (talk) 09:19, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• It is generally described as a terrorist attack in most RS, but the question is legitimate, see e.g. here. My very best wishes (talk) 01:37, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @

  forum-like discussion. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 01:40, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

Here is one of refs [4] mentioning it as the "the deadliest attack in Israel in decades". My very best wishes (talk) 01:48, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• @Jprg1966 Yet it is factual. And therefore somebody needs to find a source who tells that, link it, and re-write the fact that it's the deadliest terror attack in Israel's history. רם אבני (talk) 01:44, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The reason why it is still relevant is because I was thinking about adding the statement to the article, but wanted to first get consensus on whether it constitutes a "true" terror attack like 9/11 which it has been compared with by multiple sources. If I just add it without discussing on the talk page first it will probably be removed. Isn't that what the talk page is for? Determining what information is relevant to an article? Undescribed (talk) 01:47, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Undescribed Not sure, yet I support you in adding said statement.

  Maybe the 9/11 part can come as a side note: "(...) It is the deadliest terror attack in Israel's history; regarded to be "Israel's 9/11". רם אבני (talk) 01:50, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  OK, that's fair. I apologize, I misunderstood what you were asking. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 01:52, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I just don't want to jump the gun on adding said statement, even if it is reliably sourced. This is a very high traffic article at the moment. I've even found sources claiming this to be the "second-deadliest act of terrorism in world history after 9/11". Even with a reliable source this seems like a rather controversial statement, no? Undescribed (talk) 01:55, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, that's difficult to weigh. I think with multiple RS, you could put it in the "analysis" section: "XYZ sources asserted it is the second-deadliest terror ...". I would avoid putting in the lead, though. That's my 2 cents. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 02:01, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Undescribed Well, you can certainly use a refrence of the amount of dead in each major terror attack. Possibly there's a table in Wikipedia of the deadliest terror attacks. Not that I know of.

  Controversial? Definitely not. If it is the second-most killed terror attack in the world, by amount of dead, then it is.

  You cannot argue against the amount of dead people.

  And when we're refrencing "the terror attack", we of course mean the suprsise terror invasion, who killed 700+ Israelis, and started said war (Which is the subject of the article).

  And not regarding specifically the war, but the attack that started it.

  (Which by the way should be another article) רם אבני (talk) 02:02, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, I think that is the main dilemma at this point. This article needs to be split with a standalone article focusing on the initial attack. Thats another reason why I'm so adamant about adding statements about it being "the deadliest terrorist attack ever in: xyz". This article is about the supposed war now, not a single attack. This type of statement should be added to the article about the attack that started the war, not in the war article itself. Just my two cents. Undescribed (talk) 02:10, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Undescribed May you please create a discussion on spilitting between the terror suprise attack and the war?

  (Which probably still for now counts as a continuing terror attack, since some Kibbutzim, Cities and areas still has Hamas' terrorists lurking around.

  When they hault from lurking around the gaza envelope, (Not to be confised with the gaza strip), and in Israel, then it'll probably be counted as the END of the terror attack, and then just a war.

  By "hault" I mean be killed by the Israeli military, or escape to areas that are safe for Hamas' people.)

  Sorry to put the responsibility on you, it's just 5:15, and I really wanna head to sleep.

  Thanks! רם אבני (talk) 02:16, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @רם אבני: And just like that, someone already removed the statement about it being the deadliest terrorist attack. What a surprise lol Undescribed (talk) 12:51, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The terrorist thing is well understood by now, we apply this label in WP voice if the balance of reliable independent RS is using that descriptor. Selfstudier (talk) 17:09, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Selfstudier Please define clearly "balance of reliable independent RS" and who is the arbiter that is going to decide whether the threshold has been met. Thank you. 38.23.187.20 (talk) 22:09, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  If it was removed after it was agreed in the discussions, then it may be griefing.

  I suggest we open a discussion on applying protection for the article, in order to prevent griefers. רם אבני (talk) 17:17, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Soldiers and police seem to account for about 2/3 of the killed. Attacking them is not terrorism. 2A02:AA1:102F:523D:FC79:77E1:75A2:C6BF (talk) 22:00, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a source calling it a terrorist attack:

https://www.jewishagency.org/

More importantly, this is the deadliest attack against Jews in a single day since the Holocaust:

https://www.jta.org/2023/10/08/israel/was-hamas-attack-the-bloodiest-day-for-jews-since-the-holocaust

https://www.timesofisrael.com/was-hamass-attack-on-saturday-the-bloodiest-day-for-jews-since-the-holocaust/

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/worst-massacre-of-jews-since-the-holocaust/ar-AA1hVS0R

https://news.yahoo.com/deadliest-single-attack-jews-since-115911584.html

https://www.afr.com/world/middle-east/worst-atrocity-since-holocaust-jewish-leaders-back-retaliation-20231010-p5eb3v 2601:40:C481:A940:BC5B:2D91:8072:848E (talk) 07:43, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Accoridng to Israeli media and sources 1000+ (mostly civilians) killed/murdered by Hamas. Deadliest mass killing of Jews since the holocaust. Homerethegreat (talk) 09:49, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

haaretz gives the number 600 after previously saying 900. About 2/3 seems to be combatants. 2A02:AA1:102F:523D:FC79:77E1:75A2:C6BF (talk) 22:01, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seems notable enough to be a stand alone article. Undescribed (talk) 02:29, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would make sense to have one eventually, but wouldn't it be a lot of the same information already in this article? Is there enough to differentiate it? --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 02:35, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I mean assuming this escalates to a full blown war on terror, which unfortunately seems to be the case, I think that there is already enough information for at least a basic article for now, and it will certainly be expanded in the future. We already have multiple articles on the attacks related to this even such as the

October 2023 Hezbollah strike, Re'im music festival massacre and Battle of Sderot, so why not have an article on the initial attack as well? Undescribed (talk) 02:50, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Yes, split already. Clearly the initial attack is already an entity on its own vis-á-vis the new conflict. XavierItzm (talk) 12:08, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I support splitting between the War and the Invasion / largest terror attack in Israel's history.

The suprise terror attack is a large scale invasion, and the War is a RESPONSE to it.

and it's still occuring. (We can regard the end of the invasion, when the last of the invaders be killed or escape into a safe area for him.)

Has somebody spit the article? I just don't know how, and I don't find another article. רם אבני (talk) 17:14, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support an article split, especially given

Operation Al-Aqsa Flood used to exist as a standalone article before being merged into here; it could easily be revived. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 13:49, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Wait , this is not yet the time to split of the article. Furthermore, you cannot disconnect the initial attack from the war. Homerethegreat (talk) 09:50, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The initial 24-48 hour incursion into Israeli territory is particularly notable, as part of this larger unfolding war. Loksmythe (talk) 16:08, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wait. We already have split this article into the initial attacks like

Taking a look at the

2006 Lebanon war we have a separate article for the 2006 Hezbollah cross-border raid but we don't really have an article for the Israeli response to that, the response is covered at the main article.VR _talk 18:37, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

I wouldn't use

Iskandar323 (talk) 10:13, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

I imagine the solution would be to have a parent for those smaller articles that sits as a child of this article, such that this page would become the grandparent of those smaller discrete pages.

Iskandar323 (talk) 10:15, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Support. News sources call the initial attack unprecedented due to the surprise, scale, coordination, and invasion of territory. I think readers would be interested in learning about these details but it would not fit in this article on the broader war. Merlin^sorca 12:19, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support. It is a very notable event, now found under "Timeline" and then spread out over half a dozen different "attacks" and "massacres". There should be one main article for the Hamas attack, not seven. -St.nerol (talk) 14:41, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Far too early for this, the current article is not even stable. Selfstudier (talk) 15:21, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support Based on the abundance of reliable sources and substantial content available, it's clear that the subject merits its own entry. Furthermore, there's a reasonable expectation that additional, high-quality scholarly works may emerge in the future. Infinity Knight (talk) 00:39, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The lead currently says:

Hamas' initial offensive is considered to be the deadliest non-state act of terrorism in Israeli history, as well as the second-deadliest event of that kind worldwide, surpassed only by the September 11 attacks in the United States

This takes as fact that the Palestinian offensive is an act of terrorism. While it is considered so by Israel, the US and many other countries, I think such an assertion is POV and requires attribution. (The assertion above is also inaccurate, because ISIL's Camp Speicher massacre has a higher death toll than all the total Israeli dead so far, which is around 900).VR _talk 21:14, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, because hundreds of RS's say it is. HammerFilmFan (talk) 23:28, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not any other official body. Thats POV.

At the very least one can Put a note that it was certain media or poticians. Eu/c explicitly did NOT say it. 37.252.92.97 (talk) 23:56, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It’s only “terrorism” if Arabs do to. When Israel does it Wikipedia editors will whitewash it and simply call it an “airstrike” The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 01:43, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The USA and the EU both recognize Hamas as a terrorist organization. The fact many offical parties in various countries, along with the literal definition of Terrorism of the use of violence against civilians, leads me to accept the definition of the offencive as an act of terrorism Doombrigade (talk) 05:36, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Hamas attacks civilian locations with no military activity of any type (beyond the protection of said locations, which at times is arguably military). They, in turn, use civilian locations for their terrorist purposes in the Gaza Strip to prevent the IDF from attacking their terrorist supplies and the terrorist leaders. Israel always considers this when deciding what to attack, but is frequently forced to attack civilian locations which the Hamas (and other terrorist groups) use as their headquarters or storage facilities. Animal lover |666| 13:53, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from

MOS:TERRORIST, here is the Guardian, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/10/hamas-attack-israel-us-opinion-divided

 :

"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. Selfstudier (talk) 14:12, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed.VR _talk 14:16, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The conflict has if anything only better exemplified the

Iskandar323 (talk) 08:17, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

The crux here is the notion that Israel "is frequently forced to attack civilian locations" - no, it is not; that is their claim and their rhetoric, but it has been shown frequently in Gaza that many targets have been unevidenced as places with any military function. Both sides exhibit war criminality.

Iskandar323 (talk) 08:15, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

It is regularly described as a terror attack in mainstream Swedish news coverage, (as well as in both right- and left-leaning news commentary). See e.g. [5][6][7][8]. St.nerol (talk) 17:15, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's an act of terrorism by any definition of the word, there is no POV about it. When your attack intentionally targets civilians, it's terrorism. If we can't agree on that then 9/11 is a matter of POV as well. 2A0D:6FC2:6B71:3D00:50E7:51D1:83CF:C354 (talk) 08:00, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I added a section on Palestinian prisoners, that includes the number of Palestinians imprisoned in Israel, Hamas statement that they abducted Israelis so they could exchange them, and Hamas' previous abduction of Gilad Shalit and the subsequent prisoner exchange. Most of the sources I used mention these facts in their own reporting of this conflict. Is there any issues with covering this in the background? VR _talk 21:42, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Noticing this claim by Hamas on the page is fine, but it does not mean we should include such large sub-section in "Background". As written, this sounds like a justification of the hostage-taking by Hamas. When the actual process of prisoner exchange will begin, we can include such info in the section about prisoners exchange. In brief, this is hardly relevant in that section and therefore reads as anti-Israel propaganda. My very best wishes (talk) 23:33, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

THEY Justified. Its the point (or one off) for crossing the strip to do so. 37.252.92.97 (talk) 23:40, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think that by making such large irrelevant subsection in this place, we make the point that the vengeance/hostage taking by Hamas was just. To be clear, this info is well-sourced. It just should not be in that section right now. My very best wishes (talk) 23:52, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Its not for us to OR. That is what the actors in the situation literally said and sourced by him above. 37.252.92.97 (talk) 23:54, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Like I just said above, this is not OR. This is merely an irrelevant information, clearly placed to paint Israel in a negative light. My very best wishes (talk) 02:14, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:NOTCENSORED. We similarly wouldn't exclude any information that painted the Palestinians in a bad light. We state the facts.VR _talk 12:18, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

• Al Jazeera: "Four in 10 Palestinian men spend time in Israel jails. Hamas says it wants to exchange captured Israelis for them."
• CBC News: "[Islamic Jihad] said hostages would not be released until all Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails are freed, referring to Israel's detention of over 1,200 prisoners, mostly Palestinians, without charges."
• The Economist: "Before October 7th Hamas held just two Israeli captives, plus the bodies of two soldiers killed during the 2014 war. Now it has scores of them, both alive and dead. Addameer, a Palestinian ngo, estimates 5,200 Palestinian prisoners are being held in Israeli jails, including more than 1,200 in so-called “administrative detention”—held without charge."
• Washington Post: "Hamas already has said it seeks the release of all Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails — some 4,500 detainees, according to Israeli rights group B’Tselem — in exchange for the Israeli captives. The fate of prisoners for Palestinians is perhaps just as emotional as it is for Israelis. With an estimated 750,000 Palestinians having passed through Israel prisons since Israel captured the West Bank in the 1967 Mideast war, most Palestinians have either spent time in Israeli jail or know someone who has. Israel sees them as terrorists, but Palestinians view detainees as heroes."
• BBC News: "Such incursions would give ample opportunity to capture Israeli officers and soldiers...According to the latest report by B’Tselem, the Israeli human rights group, there were 4,499 Palestinians in prison on what Israel defined as “security” grounds in June. That number included 183 from the Gaza Strip. Several hundred more are being held for illegally being inside Israel."
• Reuters: "The Palestinian Prisoners Association puts the number held in Israeli jails at about 5,250. If Israel agreed to releasing all of them, it would be a huge win for Hamas and other militant groups..."
• Al-Ahram: (published on 9 october) "Since 1967, Israel has detained approximately one million Palestinians in the occupied territories, including tens of thousands of children. Currently, there are 5,000 Palestinians incarcerated in Israeli prisons. Among them, 160 children and around 1,100 detainees are held without charge or trial, according to a UN report."
• NY Times "Thousands of Palestinians are being held in Israeli prisons, many of them convicted of security offenses or involvement in terrorism. Muhammad Deif, the leader of Hamas’s military wing, cited the detention of thousands of Palestinian militants in Israeli jails as one of the reasons for Saturday’s assault."
• Middle East Eye: "In Palestine, the fate of Palestinian prisoners held in Israel is also an important issue, increasingly so under the most far-right government in Israel's history. Over the past year, Israel's far-right national security minister, Itamar Ben Gvir, has sought to clamp down on the rights of Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails. From limiting family visits to moving dozens of Palestinians to Nafha prison, widely considered to be one of the most notorious in the country, Ben Gvir has adopted a policy of making the lives of Palestinian prisoners incrementally more difficult. There are around 5,200 political prisoners in Israeli jails, including more than 1,264 administrative detainees, according to Palestinian rights group Addameer. Under Israel's discriminatory system, Palestinians tried in military courts have a conviction rate of 99.7 percent, while Israelis are very rarely convicted over attacks on Palestinians. About a quarter of Palestinian prisoners are held without charge or trial in a controversial practice known as "administrative detention"."
• ABC News: "[ Mustafa Barghouti said 'Hamas is ready to release all the civilians, all the women in exchange for releasing 40 Palestinian women who are in Israeli prisons. I think it will be time to release the 5,300 Palestinians who are in Israeli prisons, including some who have been there for 44 years' "

So I think its fair to say that the issue of Palestinian prisoners is relevant to this topic.VR _talk 12:18, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I've also added the Israeli POV to that section. I had previously not done that, that was my mistake. I've added that many of the prisoners were convicted of terrorism in Israeli courts and that while Palestinians view some of the prisoners as heroes, Israelis view them as terrorists.VR _talk 15:29, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sure, this info is sourced, exactly as I said above. This is not an issue. And yes, painting Israel in a highly negative light (it seems we both agree about it) is not a reason for removal. The reason for removal is different: such info (whole big subsection) is hardly relevant for the Background. This page is about Israel-Hamas conflict and Gaza. The included text is about some generic Palestinian prisoners, not Hamas members (that would be more relevant). In addition, this page is not about prisoners, this is just one of many aspects of the invasion. Such info can be provided in a relevant section about prisoners exchange (if there will be one), not as a part of the general Background about this conflict. My very best wishes (talk) 20:08, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The sources above do make the connection, but what is it exactly? The Hamas leaders explain why they believe it was just for them to take Israeli hostages. I do not think we should create a subsection that makes such point. My very best wishes (talk) 20:23, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It says:"Hamas stated that it had abducted Israelis to secure the freedom of Palestinian prisoners". Yes, they stated it, but this does not belong to Background as something what had happen after the beginning of the events. Same with content of many other sources cited above. My very best wishes (talk) 22:47, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The sources above do make the connection, but what is it exactly? The Hamas leaders explain why they believe it was just for them to take Israeli hostages. I do not think we should create a subsection that makes such point. My very best wishes (talk) 20:23, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It says:"Hamas stated that it had abducted Israelis to secure the freedom of Palestinian prisoners". Yes, they stated it, but this does not belong to Background as something what had happen after the beginning of the events. Same with content of many other sources cited above. My very best wishes (talk) 22:47, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"In addition, this page is not about prisoners, this is just one of many aspects of the invasion." Shouldn't all major aspects of the invasion be discussed?

"The sources above do make the connection, but what is it exactly?" The connection is that Hamas took prisoners as bargaining chips in a possible prisoner exchange. Whether that prisoner exchange happens or not is irrelevant - it doesn't change the fact that 100+ Israelis have already been abducted for a particular goal.

Except for that last sentence (which we can drop if you like), all the other sentences are about events that happened before the invasion, hence appropriate for "background".

But the most important thing is that dozens of RS treat this information as relevant background to the war. So I don't understand why you're going against them?VR _talk 00:11, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I saw you moved the content to "Palestinian reaction" section. This really isn't the right place at all, as of the above 10 RS I quoted, only 1 is based on Palestinian sources. And none of this is a "reaction" given that its covering events preceding the war.VR _talk 02:01, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Going through the sources listed here, adding some lines about the prisoners, as the bargaining chips would be a development. I prefer the text to be the source voice, not solely what Hamas states. --Mhhossein ^talk 05:58, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just tried to follow the edits. @MVBW: the added portion is certainly not a reaction, as your edit implies. They are portrayed as a background by the utilized sources. Is there any substantiated objection against inclusion of this introductory text? --Mhhossein ^talk 06:11, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The text includes the following: Hamas stated that it had abducted Israelis to secure the freedom of Palestinian prisoners. This is an important part of it because it connects the entire text to the subject of the page. But this is not Background. This is a claim/reaction by Hamas made after the attack [9]. Therefore, I object including this to Background section. Some other sections - I am not sure. Yes, if it fits context. My very best wishes (talk) 15:36, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But I already accepted that Hamas' reaction should be in the Reactions section, but the rest of the text should be in the Background section. Consider that

Washington Post [points out

that "The fate of prisoners for Palestinians is perhaps just as emotional as it is for Israelis. With an estimated 750,000 Palestinians having passed through Israel prisons since Israel captured the West Bank in the 1967 Mideast war, most Palestinians have either spent time in Israeli jail or know someone who has." This is referring to a long-term trend in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, not just a reaction to the current events.

Secondly, roots of a conflict are always put in the background. Consider Six-Day War#Background or 2014 Gaza War#Background (which mentions the prisoner issue, albeit to a much lesser extent since no Israelis were captured by Hamas during that war).VR _talk 00:03, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

XavierItzm can you please self-revert this edit[10]? Besides the WSJ (not BBC as you erroneously stated), I can't find many sources that say Hamas said Iran is involved. In fact, Hamas has actually denied that Iran was involved (Senior Hamas official says Iran, Hezbollah had no role in Israel incursion, but will help if needed").

Therefore the claim that Hamas has linked Iran to the attack is an

?? There is MASSIVE news coverage from all quarters that Iran is involved. HammerFilmFan (talk) 23:27, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are spreading misinformation. Hamas claims Iran backed them.

https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/israel-hamas-gaza-rockets-attack-palestinians/card/hamas-says-attacks-on-israel-were-backed-by-iran-kb2ySPwSyBrYpQVUPyM9 AtypicalPhantom (talk) 23:38, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

He literally just answered that. Not very AGF of You to accuse him. On a restricted article. 37.252.92.97 (talk) 23:42, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please

assume good faith

and avoid speclative accusations.

The article you linked to is a reliable source. There is a similar article in the Times of Israel [11]. Unfortunately, neither of these articles appears to directly link to a BBC story. I think a direct link to an interview would meet a threshold for inclusion in the lead, as long as the language closely reflected what was in that report. Can we find that BBC story? --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 23:44, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

im not the one accusing anyone. Tell him to AGF. 37.252.92.97 (talk) 23:52, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I replied to AtypicalPhanom's comment, not yours. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 00:04, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jprg1966: there are no details in the Times of Israel article. What did Hamas say exactly? Also what about the interview in which Hamas explicitly denied receiving any support from Iran? (Senior Hamas official says Iran, Hezbollah had no role in Israel incursion, but will help if needed") VR _talk 23:57, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's fair to say that there is a great deal of speculation on Iran's involvement, without a clear picture at the moment. This is reaffirmed by media statements attributed to U.S. intelligence officials. So in that context, probably best to leave it out of the lead and have a fuller description in the body of the article. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 00:07, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The link is at the end of the sentence on the lead a Hamas spokesman said Iran gave support which is what it’s based on if another Hamas spokesman denies this then they can just be put side by side in the page but the wiki page is changing a lot and I haven’t checked on it I don’t know how it’s worded now Bobisland (talk) 01:46, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Meant to say lead states a Hamas spokesman* Bobisland (talk) 01:48, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! The reference is wrong. Meant to repair a ref. to the BBC, but must have pasted in error. Apologies. Will fix in the next 5 minutes. Sorry! XavierItzm (talk) 04:50, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed it and pasted the correct BBC ref from an earlier version of the article. Again I apologize. What had happened is this: people had moved the BBC ref to the infobox, then deleted the content together with the ref, then modified main text and just prior to my intervention there was a call to a ref name that no longer existed!, so the ref gave error. I searched for a prior version that still had a named ref and pasted it and thought it somewhow was still the BBC ref because it did mention the BBC but alas! it was totally wrong. Again I appreciate being called on this inadvertent error and the proper BBC ref is now presented as intended. Cheerio, XavierItzm (talk) 05:02, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not speculation, it's political propaganda.

Hamas is an extremist sunni organisation, that get support from wahhabi states. Iran is extremist shia.

Hamas doesn't get anything from Iran.

Iran has it's own organization in Gaza, the islamic jihad. 2A02:AA1:102F:523D:FC79:77E1:75A2:C6BF (talk) 22:07, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that my fixing my error as described above resulted in a new section as to whether the removal of the WSJ citation was fair. I know I read and have access to an independent WSJ source (which was earlier in the article, added by someone else) which fully corroborates the BBC source.
So, I'd like to respond to VR who said: "WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim for which there are not yet the amount of RS". I entirely disagree. I can provide additional sources such as the WSJ which say the same thing as the BBC. So please do not remove the current statement supported by the BBC unless (a) people fail to provide the sources (if you still require them) or (b) you can reach consensus for deletion. Thanks, XavierItzm (talk) 05:25, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The BBC source says "A Hamas spokesperson earlier told the BBC that the militant group had backing from its ally, Iran, for its surprise attacks on Israel, saying it was a source of pride. Ghazi Hamad told the World Service's Newshour programme that other countries had also helped Hamas, but he did not name them." The wording here is a bit strange, and it also contradicts another source above. I see you added "Hamas said Iran assisted with its attacks". It might be more accurate to say "One Hamas official said the attacks were backed by Iran and other countries, while another Hamas official denied that Iran was involved.([12]". Are you ok with that XavierItzm?VR _talk 12:31, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vice regent: yes, of course, but then also please note the following: A key Irani officer (Yahya Rahim Safavi)) said Iran supported the attack,^[1] whereas another, less senior Irani officer said Iran doesn't, and yet our article is not as exquisitely clear as you propose being clear regarding Hamas. Please consider being just as exquisitely clear on both counts. Thanks. XavierItzm (talk) 14:03, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@XavierItzm: Iran's supreme leader (and there is none more senior than him) has denied Iran's involvement[13]. So the lead can firmly say that "Iran denied involvement", although we can mention the rest of the nuances in the body. Do you agree?

Also I think you misinterpret the source above. Safavi said "We support the proud operation of Al-Aqsa Flood", notice the present tense of "support". The probably interpretation here is that Iran is praising the attack, we can't interpret Safavi as saying that Iran materially supported the attack.VR _talk 14:07, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that reference is a good find: straight from the horse's mouth! Yes, of course it should be included, also. I don't think we should paper over the conflicting statements. XavierItzm (talk) 14:21, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that another editor completely nuked the section with this edit, eliminating numerous sources and statements; I'm not sure how all the refs lost are brought back to the article.XavierItzm (talk) 14:37, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've questioned that decision below. It looks like it was collateral damage from trying to edit through an edit conflict, but they've yet to respond to a ping. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 15:08, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Economist has reported today that both Hamas and the IDF deny direct Iranian involvement in the initial attack, notwithstanding Iran's general support for Hamas. [14]

I think the IDF denial in particular ought to be included in the article alongside the Hamas and Iranian denials. It is relevant that both sides are in agreement. Riposte97 (talk) 01:46, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with you, IDF's POV should be taken into account, too. --Mhhossein ^talk 05:46, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

XavierItzm: Where's the so-called interview with BBC? --Mhhossein ^talk 05:51, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Twice the BBC has reported that Hamas told it Iran helped it with the attacks.

@XavierItzm: Did you mean to replace a WSJ cite with a BBC cite? The WSJ reporting seems to just as well support the statement, so I'm a bit curious as to the reason for its removal (rather than simply adding the BBC cite alongside it). — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:01, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Red-tailed hawk Please see full discussion on this above. Yes, I had pasted the WSJ ref in complete error, got called on it, I apologized, and my reply to the people asking me to fix my error is to place the BBC ref that I had originally intended. Please see full details above in the relevant section. Feel free to add the WSJ if you feel it complements the BBC. Thanks! XavierItzm (talk) 05:08, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! Should have seen that before opening this up. Page is getting quite long. My apologies. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:10, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@DRIS92: Is there a reason you overwrote a bunch of changes to the lead in this edit, including the reference thing here and some other tweaks? Your edit summary indicates that this may have been collateral; are you willing to self-revert the relevant portions? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 14:45, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again, DRIS92, any reason? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:51, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very mixed bag of edits. Three things that come to mind in a first reading: replacing a free site with a paywalled site that doesn't say quite the same thing? You change the meaning of a point that is being hotly debated in WP:RS (what does sending the USS Ford exactly mean?), finally you add a severe claim (banned chemical weapons) backed by no top level sources, let alone a consensus of RS? I really don't understand these changes and they should be reverted.

I may or may not agree with some of the points/opinions above that matters not: you need sourcing and consensus. There is room for improvement in the article, but it involves making it more NPOV not less.

I think this was pretty much an innocent mistake, but the editor should none the less self rv and be much more careful in the future. If I am dreadfully wrong, please explain?  // Timothy :: talk  07:36, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's crucial information in understanding these statistics. Fewer than 100 of them are military-affiliated. This was a massacre against civilians in Israel.

This is especially necessary since it is mentioned that the 1,500 dead from Palestine were militants. 2601:40:C481:A940:BC5B:2D91:8072:848E (talk) 07:22, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide a reliable source to back this up. I'm not disputing it, it's just how Wikipedia works. AncientWalrus (talk) 08:05, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here is IDF spoksperson's update on national TV (Kan11) from 2.5 hours ago, stating the number of IDF casualties is 123. The general number of confirmed casualties is at the moment above 900.

https://twitter.com/kann_news/status/1711651520628859274?t=fGmiSU3inGLE06gLRRtNFA&s=19 Doombrigade (talk) 09:22, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say the whole casualties section of the wikibox should be divided into civilian/military but would have to find enough reliable sources to do so. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 11:35, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I agree. It's misleading to have such all-inclusive casualty figures under the lists of combatants, it's not moral practice on war articles. Maybe put a disclaimer e.g. (includes civilians) until the figures can be split authoritatively. ----Pontificalibus 14:57, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Agree with the idea that casualties need to be as specific as reasonable: their age (children/adults), the manner (solider fighting, hostage execution, etc) and time they died (what phase of the conflict) as well as their status (civ/sol) are cats that should be considered. But however they end up being grouped a reader should clearly understand what any statistic represents. Footnotes are great.  // Timothy :: talk  06:58, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is requested that an edit be made to the extended-confirmed-protected redirect at October 2023 Gaza–Israel conflict. (edit · history · last · links · protection log) This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y". The edit may be made by any extended confirmed user. Remember to change the |answered=no parameter to "yes" when the request has been accepted, rejected or on hold awaiting user input. This is so that inactive or completed requests don't needlessly fill up the edit requests category. You may also wish to use the {{EEp}} template in the response. To request that a page be protected or unprotected, make a protection request.

Change "Israeli soldiers and civilians, including children, had been taken hostage by Palestinian militants to the Gaza Strip" to "Israeli soldiers were taken prisoner and civilians, including children, had been taken hostage by Palestinian militants and transported to the Gaza Strip" or to "Israeli soldiers and civilians, including children, had been captured by Palestinian militants and taken to the Gaza Strip".

The sentence is grammatically awkward in its current form, and the use of the term "hostages" to describe soldiers captured in combat is questionable in my view. Moreover, Wikipedia does not use this term to refer to Palestinians held in Israeli jails and prisons. More importantly, reliable sources are drawing the distinction:

Al Jazeera: "The Israeli army has acknowledged soldiers and commanders have been killed and prisoners of war have been taken."

Haaretz: According to Benn, "... Now this is first and foremost an attack against civilians, and for the first time we have dozens of military prisoners of war and civilians taken hostage in Gaza."^[1]

"... The dozens of hostages and prisoners of war are perceived as a powerful bargaining chip that could prevent a much longer campaign."^[2]

Forbes: Hamas Takes Israeli Soldiers, Civilians As Prisoners Of War

-- WillowCity (talk) 15:17, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I propose the following to avoid labels altogether, as, no matter how you phrase it, including both "prisoners of war" and "hostage" in the sentence makes it clunky:

"Israeli soldiers and civilians, including children, were captured by Palestinian militants and taken to the Gaza Strip".

An example of a more clunky proposal which is more in the spirit of yours is:

Israeli soldiers and civilians had been captured by Palestinian militants and taken to the Gaza Strip as prisoners of war and hostages, respectively.

Yue🌙 04:00, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Both are better than my original suggestion. I like the former: tidy, factual, and neutral. WillowCity (talk) 04:02, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what the proposal is. The captured soldiers are called "prisoners of war" and captured civilians are hostages. This is how sources describe them and there is nothing unclear or controversial here. Alaexis_¿question? 07:49, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and think the change should be made posthaste. Someone has already changed the sentence without changing the reference to "hostages" (so clearly there is little interest in building a consensus based on reasoned argument), nor has anyone mounted a cogent defence of the term's use here.

I would also refer to the Guardian article cited at the end of the sentence described above, which reads:

An unknown number of Israelis have been taken captive by fighters, with unverified social media footage showing elderly people and a young woman with her hands tied inside Gaza. The IDF later confirmed both civilian and military hostages had been taken to Gaza, but did not give details.

So, from the article that is referenced, we have the IDF using the term "hostages" while the RS uses the term "captive". Something needs to change here. WillowCity (talk) 19:51, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with @WillowCity. Riposte97 (talk) 01:22, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

don't know why it was removed, while i do think that MEMRI is very partisan on Israel's side, they have proof from Al-Aqsa's own telegram channel that talks about how they attacked the Israeli Al-Taybeh checkpoint and military camp in the West Bank, and Al-Aqsa is basically a wing of Fatah, so that would pretty much give a reason for its inclusion. 177.83.128.215 (talk) 16:44, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please familiarise yourself with

WP:OR for the policy reasons this was removed. Riposte97 (talk) 02:19, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

More material (e.g. Sen. Josh Hawley) one with sufficient authorization could still add. Alousybum (talk) 17:13, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Imho that article seems speculative. Might be prudent to wait and see what happens in Washington before including anything concrete in the article. Riposte97 (talk) 02:21, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In a while the topic will be either a footnote or an article, wait and see.  // Timothy :: talk  06:47, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As documented by the article itself, Palestinian Islamic Jihad and its military wing, the Al-Quds Brigades, are active in both the Gaza Strip and Southern Lebanon, having launched attacks against Israel on both fronts. With this in mind, the way the belligerents are geographically divided in the infobox doesn't seem quite right. Even if the bulk of PIJ activity has come out of the Gaza area, Hezbollah is not this conflict's sole belligerent in Southern Lebanon. Not sure what the best solution is; one idea is listing PIJ twice, in both categories. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 17:47, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It seems reasonable to me to list groups in the territory in which they are based. Many of these groups have an overseas presence, and things could get very confusing very quickly trying to cross-cite them all. Riposte97 (talk) 02:30, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This revert restores material that does not mention war crimes and the edit summary given is OR (editors opinion that these are war crimes). Selfstudier (talk) 18:09, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This material is well-sourced and describes actions that are internationally recognized as being war crimes. The material was removed by an editor whose explanation for the removal is OR (their opinion that it is not a war crime). parqs (talk) 18:13, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not my opinion, it's just not in the source, the source has to say it's a war crime or attribute someone as saying it is a war crime. Selfstudier (talk) 18:15, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the section with a new sentence that contains sources for the events described in the paragraph as being described as war crimes, negating any OR concerns. parqs (talk) 18:25, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think what parqs added might be

WP:SYNTH

that goes like this:

• Palestinians are accused of raping Israeli women.
• Rape is a war crime.
• Therefore Palestinians committed war crimes.

Such an analysis needs to come from an RS (preferably an RS which is a recognized legal expert).VR _talk 18:25, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the section with RS. parqs (talk) 18:26, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced war crimes text

This edit restores content I removed because it fails verification in the cited source. The sources do not allege war crimes by Israel in the current war. This needs to be removed. SPECIFICO talk 23:59, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Quote from the first source: “We are deeply alarmed by the mounting civilian death tolls in Gaza, Israel and the occupied West Bank and urgently call on all parties to the conflict to abide by international law and make every effort to avoid further civilian bloodshed. Under international humanitarian law all sides in a conflict have a clear obligation to protect the lives of civilians caught up in the hostilities,” said Agnès Callamard Amnesty International’s Secretary General. “Deliberately targeting civilians, carrying out disproportionate attacks, and indiscriminate attacks which kill or injure civilians are war crimes. Israel has a horrific track record of committing war crimes with impunity in previous wars on Gaza. Palestinian armed groups from Gaza, must refrain from targeting civilians and using indiscriminate weapons, as they have done in the past, and most intensively in this event, acts amounting to war crimes.”

The second source, the article from The Guardian was, referring to this statement from the UN. [15] It also refers to actions on both sides as war crimes, pointing out the indiscriminate killing of civilians (both sides), as well as Israel's announcement of a complete siege of Gaza (collective punishment). entropyandvodka | talk 07:20, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh, yes. One must have several strong RS saying that a specific event X was a war crime, not just some generic statements about "sides" and respecting civilians. At least some events in this section do not fit such criterion I think. They should be removed. My very best wishes (talk) 15:52, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  That would be the case if the article used wiki voice to say event X was in fact a war crime. In the edit @SPECIFICO linked, the article said Amnesty International characterized the actions of both groups as war crimes, which was exactly what was in the supplied links. Looking at it again, the article didn't mention the UN statement at that point (though it provided a link). Perhaps it would have been safer for the original writer to say Amnesty International urged both sides to avoid indiscriminately killing civilians. entropyandvodka | talk 16:17, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• @

  WP:BLP telling our readers that a specific individual is responsible for war crimes. This text - in fact the entrire Israel subsection as currently written - needs to be removed from the article page. SPECIFICO talk 16:46, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  The original edit you referenced was in the lede. Are you now discussing the War Crimes section? entropyandvodka | talk 17:10, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The statement (that presumably this edit evolved into) currently in the lede is "Human Rights Watch condemned both Hamas's and Israel's conduct as war crimes." It is followed by two sources. entropyandvodka | talk 17:11, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Per human rights watch:

  "Palestinian armed group’s apparent deliberate targeting of civilians, indiscriminate attacks, and taking of civilians as hostages amount to war crimes under international humanitarian law. Israeli authorities’ cutting off electricity to Gaza and other punitive measures against Gaza’s civilian population would amount to unlawful collective punishment, which is a war crime."

  That's from a reference used after the statement in the lede. It makes sense to have it as there is an entire section on war crimes. entropyandvodka | talk 17:19, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Israel citizens with dual nationality shouldn't be listed separately, i.e. Shani Louk (raised in Israel most of her life, resident at time of death, served in IDF, but born in Germany) should not be listed solely as a 'German national' under Israeli casualties. She was not a foreign tourist, but a permanent resident of Israel and Israeli citizen. Only people with non-Israeli citizenship should be listed as such (ex. the Thai foreign workers). Doing so, is inherently linked to political reasons to involve as many international Western powers as possible (USA, UK, Germany etc.). It has gotten to the point where IDF soldiers, who died in combat, are listed as 'British nationals' (in the case of Nathaniel Young as reported by BBC). Nobody sees how ridiculous this is? UK citizenship laws don't even allow its citizens to serve in a foreign military, and if an Israeli soldier (who happens to hold dual nationalities) is made a casualty, he/she should be counted solely as Israeli. Otherwise this is misleading information. If a non-dual Israeli American, British or German citizen was made a casualty, by all means list them separately. User6619018899273 (talk) 21:02, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Also, the Foreign and dual-national casualties table should have some info about those with dual citizenship. For example we can have something like Americans (killed): 10 (2). Where 10 would be the total amount of American Citizens and (2) could be those with dual-citizenship. Cristi767 (talk) 21:36, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, otherwise we are dabbling in this sensationalism like news articles titled "Americans killed!" when all the aforementioned Americans are dual Israeli citizens (in many cases permanent residents of Israel), it is far more appropriate given the context of Palestinian vs. Israeli to list them all as Israeli first and foremost, or in any case dual Israeli-American. There is a big political motive behind this, to list them as solely American in order to involve the USA on behalf of Israel, perhaps militarily. We need to be honest and state the factual info as per sources, and not omit this important distinction.User6619018899273 (talk) 21:09, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Cristi767 I second this solution. It provides additional information and avoids the confusion feared above. Riposte97 (talk) 03:26, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, I would suggest to count/sum them in the both categories, i.e. a person would be counted as Israeli and British citizen, for example. My very best wishes (talk) 21:42, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you insist then edit and list them as both, in this case Israeli-British. What I see currently is only 'British' under the casualty section for people who are described as dual Israeli-British citizens in the news articles.User6619018899273 (talk) 22:03, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that all people who appear in table Foreign and dual-national casualties are also counted among "1,200+ killed" [in Israel] in the infobox. Do not see a problem here. My very best wishes (talk) 23:13, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1300 killed now, see the source

https://t.me/tg301military/5244 77.248.247.89 (talk) 18:26, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a free article.

It claims 40 babies were murdered with some being beheaded. Please add that, too.

Please change the wording of "reporters found no dead bodies" to "sources cannot independently confirm the report"

https://www.thejc.com/news/israel/hamas-terrorists-murdered-40-babies-including-beheadings-says-report-2fdcCmtBjFvAcCCf5MDwKU 2601:40:C481:A940:E908:2F8E:C8E4:99D6 (talk) 01:38, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Paywalled sources are allowed and there is nothing wrong with them. See

WP:PAYWALL. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:49, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

"Israeli army tells Anadolu that they have no information confirming allegations that ‘Hamas beheaded babies’" https://twitter.com/anadoluagency/status/1711812910035407131?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1711881155581190601%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es4_&ref_url= --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 06:02, 11 October 2023 (UTC) https://theintercept.com/2023/10/11/israel-hamas-disinformation/ The IDF refuses to confirm the claim.[reply]

Too macabre, as reporter states, for me to discuss further. In French. Here you go...https://twitter.com/margothaddad/status/1711756690574479651#m

No more disputes over this matter 2601:40:C481:A940:E908:2F8E:C8E4:99D6 (talk) 09:56, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This incident is now included in the article. This topic is now redundant. Riposte97 (talk) 02:47, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, I misread. The IDF inability to confirm may well be relevant to the article as it currently stands. Riposte97 (talk) 02:52, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It has been proposed in this section that Israel–Hamas war be renamed and moved to 2023 Gaza War. A bot will list this discussion on requested moves' current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil. Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly. Links: current log • target log • direct move

Point of information - It may be useful to consult the recent

WP:NCEVENTS policy pages that were key in that discussion. - Fuzheado | Talk 13:03, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

• Oppose. The reason that the 2014 article is at that title is because the on-the-ground fighting was contained solely within the territory of Gaza. What is different now is that there was an invasion of Israel, which is to say that this is not merely a war in Gaza. As such, the current title is a better
  natural than it, as well. I see no other reason to move this page at this time; we can wait to see if the situation in the North of Israel/Lebanese border/Syrian border develops further, but for now Hamas and Israel seem to be the two preeminent belligerents on each side, respectively. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:06, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support, obviously PFLP and DFLP are never parts of Hamas. ——🦝 The Interaccoonale ^{Will be the raccoon race} _{(talk・contribs)} 04:12, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support—"Israel–Hamas" is simply inaccurate. The PIJ, PFLP, DFLP, and other groups are also involved. As for Red-tailed hawk's concerns, the majority of on-the-ground fighting took place in the close vicinity of Gaza. It's entirely reasonable to call it the "Gaza War". 〜 Festucalex • talk 04:44, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Israeli - Arab war

  Palestine - Israel war

  WP:A/I/PIA restriction applies. Aydoh8 (talk) 23:39, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Oppose - Same reasons as 'Red-tailed hawk' – 𝙰𝚔𝚜𝚑𝚊𝚍𝚎𝚟™ 🗿 04:45, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose As mentioned, fighting took place in Israel, so "Gaza War" is incorrect. I agree that other Palestinian militant groups were involved. However, I cannot think of a sensible alternative title which reflects the participation of these other groups. It's also worth noting that while other groups participated, Gaza is governed by Hamas, and the other groups (to my understanding) generally acted under Hamas' leadership.
  WP:A/I/PIA restriction applies. Aydoh8 (talk) 23:39, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose for now but in case more arab groups are fighting, then
  WP:A/I/PIA restriction applies. Aydoh8 (talk) 23:39, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  That’s way too ambiguous.

  WP:A/I/PIA restriction applies. Aydoh8 (talk) 23:39, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Oppose as per the reasons given above. It's not just confined to Gaza, fighting is also being conducted in Israel. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 05:35, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support
  Iskandar323 (talk) 05:47, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose – For reasons similar to those brought up by Red-tailed hawk. Yue🌙 05:56, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - this article better named as

WP:A/I/PIA restriction applies. Aydoh8 (talk) 23:39, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

I would love for either of those to be the title but I'm not sure if either of them meet

WP:COMMONNAME or at least not yet. Charles Essie (talk) 15:37, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Support, Hamas is not the only group involved on the Palestinian side, rendering the current title significantly misleading. Paragon Deku (talk) 06:22, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support 2023 Gaza-Israel War, the war isn’t only confined to gaza

WP:A/I/PIA restriction applies. Aydoh8 (talk) 23:39, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Oppose. The war started with Hamas attacking Israel outside of Gaza, making the geographical scope of this war larger than Gaza only. Calling it a Gaza war is misleading.

WP:A/I/PIA restriction applies. Aydoh8 (talk) 23:39, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

• Comment: We did just change the title yesterday, so maybe we should wait a while before changing the name. Besides, the invasion of Gaza hasn't yet commenced. Great Mercian (talk) 08:19, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I think the current title of Israel-Hamas war is bad as it gives the implication that only Hamas was involved, I think it will be necessary to use a noticeboard for consensus Bobisland (talk) 08:42, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for the same reasons as above. Gatepainter (talk) 08:41, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Red-tailed hawk. Loksmythe (talk) 08:46, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - As its not just confined to Gaza fighting it should be the Third intifada or even 2023 Israel War ZR1748 (talk) 08:56, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose current & proposed titles. It should be
  2023 Palestinian invasion of Israel, like Russian invasion of Ukraine & 2022 al-Shabaab invasion of Ethiopia. It's not confined to Gaza & Hamas isn't the only invading group. Jim 2 Michael (talk) 09:01, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  It shouldn't be so. Unless we want to create five more articles like 1967 Israeli invasion of West Bank, Golan Heights, Sinai Peninsula, and 2023 Israeli invasion of Gaza. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:52, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose The vast majority of the conflict thus far has been limited to Israeli territory. Ecrusized (talk) 10:01, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as fighting happened on both territories. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:51, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support move to

2023 Gaza-Israel War, Hamas isn't the only group that is fighting against Israel, and it's not just confined to Gaza. i think "2023 Gaza-Israel war" is a good name for now. Durranistan (talk) 10:56, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

• Oppose. It really wouldn't make sense to name a war after a specific location, because who knows? The combat may take place outside of Gaza, not to mention that there will be multiple spots where invasions occur, so naming this war the "Gaza War" would not make sense. (Editors note: When I was writing this, I did not have much information, so I really went off my own common sense, and something here may seem off or different.) SkullyWasHere (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 11:12, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support as the Jihad and partly Hezbollah (although that would require a different name) are part of this war, which the name Israel-Hamas war does not encompass.

WP:A/I/PIA restriction applies. Aydoh8 (talk) 23:45, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

• Oppose as this is clearly primarily about Israel vs Hamas. Mathmo ^Talk 11:55, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support We can have group or location, seems wrong to mix them as in current title. I would also support 2023 Gaza Israel war. Selfstudier (talk) 12:02, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose this war isn't about Gaza alone Abo Yemen✉ 12:01, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose the war involved parts outside Gaza.

WP:A/I/PIA restriction applies. Aydoh8 (talk) 23:45, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

• strongly support and strongly oppose the current title. The war is not with hamas alone but all palestinian people with all their resistance factions and groups not just hamas. It is either to be named
  2023 Gaza war
  since the war is centered around Gaza.

Stephan rostie (talk) 12:50, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support This Is much wider than it was 3 days ago, from Hezbollah to Syria, this appears to be a multi-faceted conflict now. Completely Random Guy (talk) 12:59, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: The current title probably isn't where we'll settle, since, as noted above, Hamas isn't the only belligerent on its side, but the fighting already extends well beyond Gaza. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 13:32, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, Israel isn’t the only belligerent either. Unless you want to call it the Israel/United States vs. Hamas War. 2600:4040:9CDE:2B00:28EE:A5C6:518D:A2F2 (talk) 09:30, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support changing the title for the reasons stated above (widening of the conflict, inaccuracy of the current title). The proposal for 2023 Gaza-Israel War (see e.g. the proposal of Iskandar323 above) is supported by RS (e.g., https://www.aljazeera.com/), unambiguous, and geographically accurate without misstating the identity of the multiple parties involved.

WP:A/I/PIA restriction applies. Aydoh8 (talk) 23:39, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Oppose this name is currently in common use; fine as the title until sources settle on a different one. – SJ + 13:53, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Oppose The conflict extends beyond Gaza. Fighting has occured within Israel and involves actors from beyond the Gaza strip. The 2014 war was more isolated to the Strip. And as mentioned, this name is in common use widely.Spilia4 (talk) 14:26, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – the war is not just in Gaza, but in many surrounding areas and other countries However, the primary belligerents are Hamas and Israel, with Hamas ruling over Gaza. The current name (2023 Israel–Hamas war) is preferable, as it includes more descriptive and informational language than just saying "Gaza" as the descriptor of where the war is and who is in it. Dark Energy9 (talk) 14:44, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Counterpoint I propose calling it "2023 Hamas Invasion of Israel" as it is similar to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine — Preceding

WP:A/I/PIA restriction applies. Aydoh8 (talk) 23:39, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Oppose for two reasons: (a) the attacks by Hamas had happen outside Gaza, and (b) there are already some related actions in West Bank and other parts of Israel. My very best wishes (talk) 15:30, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, since the close of the last RM clashes have flared up with Hezbollah and it's likely that a move to

2023 Israel–Palestine war will be needed. But wait a few days for certainty before doing anything. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 15:47, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

And this Selfstudier (talk) 16:01, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support

New York Times [Israel-Gaza War] and the BBC [Israel Gaza war] labels. JParksT2023 (talk) 15:51, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

The NYT seems to have changed to Israel-Hamas War now. The link you included now redirects to here and the event page also has the same title. However I would not be surprised for this to keep changing as events progress.

WP:A/I/PIA restriction applies. Aydoh8 (talk) 23:39, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Oppose on two accounts: that (1) throughout the course of events Hamas is the primary actor in the majority of attacks, with other militant groups playing a supportive role, and (2) Hamas being the only belligerent named as the enemy belligerent in most sources' descriptions of the Israeli declaration of war, e.g. [16] [17]. This would not be the first military conflict on Wikipedia after only the two major parties of several involved (e.g.

Iran-Iraq War not including the variety of militant groups of various nationalities), and it would not be unreasonable to follow that convention rather than incorrectly imply that, for example, Palestinian Islamic Jihad had anywhere near as much authority or influence over the attacks as Hamas. Benjitheijneb (talk) 16:26, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

• Oppose - title was just moved. This is the correct title for now. Paul Vaurie (talk) 16:31, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose 2023 Gaza War or

2023 Israel-Hamas war and Support 2023 Israel-Palestine war: its not localized to gaza-israel conflict anymore.Gaza, The West Bank, Lebanon, Syria, and Iran are all involved(credible allegations of a potential link), citing the reason as the occupation of Palestine by Israel. Organizations such as Hamas, Islamic Jihad, PFLP, DFLP, Lion's Den, and Hezbollah are involved, and they are allies of the Palestinian Liberation Army. These organizations claim to represent Palestine and the Palestinians, and I haven't come across any Palestinians denying this claim. Hamas was even voted into power to do so. It's extremely ignorant to assume that Palestinians, in general, don't support these actions. Furthermore, more are likely to join. This act by Hamas is not condemned but rather supported and cherished by most Palestinians across the world, and unsurprisingly, also by the majority of the Muslim population of the world. Observer1989 (talk

) 16:41, 11 October 2023 (UTC) [reply]

I don't have an opinion on the name of the article one way or another, but we patently can't use reasoning like "These organizations claim to represent Palestine and the Palestinians, and I haven't come across any Palestinians denying this claim...It's extremely ignorant to assume that Palestinians, in general, don't support these actions. Furthermore, more are likely to join. This act by Hamas is not condemned but rather supported and cherished by most Palestinians across the world, and unsurprisingly, also by the majority of the Muslim population of the world." - You are right to note that it's bad to assume things about the feelings of Palestinians, but then go on to do exactly that two sentences later. I really would also encourage you to refrain from making sweeping statements & assumptions about the entire Muslim population of the world; this topic is already difficult and emotive enough as is. AntiDionysius (talk) 16:48, 11 October 2023 (UTC) [reply]

considering palestine dose not have an official army,airforce or navy and no condemnation by any palestinian authority for this action by hamas , it is a very credible assumption. and no i have not come accross a single instance of any condemnation by any islamic society either,maybe only uae and bahrain condemned it considering uae is the only country with considerable positive ties with non islamic world.infact there are rallies in support for it in many other non islamic countries and most islamic countries. so my "assumptions" are not unsubstantaited.but i agree it is an emotive topic and will hurt feelings. but the thing is i dont care for the feelings of terrorist sympathisers.there are many here who would and are actively trying to legitimise the actions of hamas.i wont be one of them and will raise my concerns from time to time even tho i understand i might be in minority here.

WP:A/I/PIA restriction applies. Aydoh8 (talk) 23:39, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Oppose 2023 Gaza War or

2023 Israel-Hamas war or 2023 Israel-Palestine war : We should not conflate Palestine with Gaza, there were Jewish, Christian, Druze and Muslim Palestinians under the Ottomans. Israelis were understood as Palestinian in 1948 when it the state was founded and an ontological disagreement that only Muslims can be Palestinians and therefore Gaza is is Palestine excludes the traditional understanding of Palestines which includes modern Israel as a secular state, albeit one that gives the right to citizenship to Jews, and its Christian, Druze etc other citizens as legitimate members. Gaza identifies the initial geography but the war is extending to the North of Israel and involving Hezbollah. So, Hamas does not cover Hezbollah. Gaza does not cover acknowledge the warfare involving Lebanon actors and the war is only in its early days. Israel is apart of Palestine with an meaningful understanding that isn't exclusionary to non-Muslims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaxjaxlexie (talk • contribs

) 17:24, 11 October 2023 (UTC) [reply]

well you are correct that the land for which fighting is goinng on is technicaly palestine.whole state of israel comes under palestine but we cannot just rename this to 2023 jew-muslim war(which technicaly it is).so basically in modern usage when we say israel it means secular jewish state where all religions are welcome and palestine is exclusively arab muslims of that land hellbent on ending israels existence(occupation for them) preferably by eliminating all jews. so a 2023 israel-palestine war should be more apt title.otherwise i dont mind if its changed to 2023 state of israel- muslim ummah war.

WP:A/I/PIA restriction applies. Aydoh8 (talk) 23:39, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Support Gaza War or 2023 Israel-Gaza war would be a lot more neutral. The problem with the title is that it implies that that everyone effected by the war is part of Hamas, when there are so many Palestinian civilan deaths. A term like Gaza War would be more neutral. The current title makes it seem like Israel is only fighting Hamas, which would make it an obviously just cause. These articles should be more neutral.

WP:A/I/PIA restriction applies. Aydoh8 (talk) 23:39, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Oppose - Let's not forget that Gazans invaded Israel, not the other way around. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 17:35, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - The conflict extends beyond Gaza, so a title implying that this is solely a "Gaza War" could be misleading.

WP:A/I/PIA restriction applies. Aydoh8 (talk) 23:39, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Oppose per

WP:COMMONNAME conclusions laid out in RM that was just closed. Yeoutie (talk) 18:14, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Oppose and Wait . The name used by most neutral sources for this ongoing event is Israel-Hamas war. We should wait another 30 days to see how things fold out. Marokwitz (talk) 18:33, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why 30 days? Why not a week, or six months, or 30 years? If we have an inaccurate title should we just wait and hope that it becomes more accurate over time? WillowCity (talk) 19:57, 11 October 2023 (UTC) [reply]

To elaborate: if anything, the fluidity of the situation weighs against a wait-and-see approach.

The logic behind opposition to a name change seems to be something along the following lines:

1. The name was recently changed as the result of RM discussions; and,
2. The situation is fluid and evolving; therefore,
3. The name of the article should not be changed.

I do not think the conclusion follows from those premises.

It has been repeatedly pointed out that the situation is dynamic; this actually weakens the first point: if facts on the ground have changed, then this calls into question the outcome of the prior RM discussion and suggests we should not be bound by it, notwithstanding its recency. This also implicates (and undermines the argument regarding)

WP:A/I/PIA restriction applies. Aydoh8 (talk) 23:39, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Rename to

2023 Palestine-Israel war as the war involves multiple Palestinian factions that are fighting against the Israeli state. The fighting also occurred in many fronts outside Gaza. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 18:55, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Lebanese factions are involved as well, so under that logic the word 'Palestine' is inappropriate. Furthermore the PLO / Palestinian National Authority is not currently involved. Marokwitz (talk) 09:13, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Drive-by comment. I would advise waiting a while to see what name becomes most widely accepted. It might take a few weeks or even months but this event will be talked about for years to come and a proper name will emerge sooner or later. I'm not sure it's worth the energy of moving it around and discussing moving it around while the events are still developing. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:01, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The conflict is in its infancy and seems to be just the start of a much larger conflict then previous Hamas and Israel have ever had before. I agree with the motion to change the name but the conflict has evolved already into a larger ordeal as habullah in lebanon gets more involved.

WP:A/I/PIA restriction applies. Aydoh8 (talk) 23:39, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

• Oppose. Associated Press, The New York Times, NBC News, CNN, CNBC, Aljazeera all call it Israel-Hamas war. And wait: in a year or so from now, major news media may well start calling it Sukkot war, similarly to
  WP:A/I/PIA restriction applies. Aydoh8 (talk) 23:39, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Strong Oppose based on tally of reliable sources.

1. If changed, it should be "2023 Israel-Gaza War" (the title of the 2014 War article just says Gaza because it was just in Gaza, whereas this war started in Israel).

2. Counter to the argument that it's not just Hamas: Hamas is by far the largest player (on the Gaza side). They're the largest, the instigator, the main target, sole governors of Gaza, etc.

3. The majority of reliable news sources (~12/16) currently describe it as 'Israel-Hamas War'. Here's a tally (focused on meta-pages (I.E. "live-coverage" and topic pages) rather than individual articles):

Israel-Hamas War:

• AP (Header / Navigation Bar: "Israel-Hamas war")
• NYT (Headline: "Israel-Hamas War")
• CNBC (Headline: "Israel-Hamas war live updates")
• NBC (Headline: "Israel-Hamas war live updates")
• Independent (Headline: "Israel Hamas war live updates")
• Guardian (Headline: "Israel-Hamas war live")
• CNN (Ribbon/banner: "Live Israel-Hamas war")
• Yahoo News (Headline: "Israel-Hamas war live updates")
• PBS (Headline: "Live updates: What’s happening on Day 5 of the Israel-Hamas war")
• Foreign Policy (Header: "Israel-Hamas War")
• Al-Jazeera (Headline: "Israel-Hamas war live")
• Reuters (Heading: "Israel and Hamas at War")
• WSJ (Heading: "Israel at War With Hamas")

Israel-Gaza War:

• BBC (Main Heading: "Israel Gaza war")
• ABC News (Headline: "Israel-Gaza live updates")
• Washington Post (Banner & lead: "Israel-Gaza War" (Note: The "section" class (right underneath) says "Israel-Hamas War"))
• Haaretz (Header says "Israel-Gaza War Live Updates", headline says "Gaza War")
• Al-Jazeera (Header/banner: "Israel-Gaza war")

Yaakovaryeh (talk) 21:04, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The sources provided by @Yaakovaryeh are enough to justify Hamas as the primary belligerent. This is primarily Hamas. The only modification I would make to the current title, if I could, would be to put Hamas first so that belligerents are in alphabetical order. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 22:25, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. this name is currently in common use; it’s a good title until sources settle on a different one or the new countries join the conflict.

V.B.Speranza (userpage, talk) 23:47, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Benjitheijneb’s reasoning. Agree with most oppose votes. Unnecessary change, Hamas and Israel are the main belligerents in this war due to Hamas invading Israel, with fighting occurring outside of Gaza. And Hamas is the main group, not Gaza. Justanotherguy54 (talk) 00:04, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Red-tailed hawk and Yaakovaryeh --Pithon314 (talk) 00:19, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I suggest we wait a few days, because we changed it recently. Eftekhar Naeem (talk) 01:26, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support it's not just Hamas that's retaliating against Israel, other factions in the Gaza strip are also participating in the conflict. Hence, a rename would be accurate. Rager7 (talk) 01:37, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. this name is currently in common use; it’s a good title until sources settle on a different one or the new countries join the conflict. Comfr (talk) 01:44, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support changing it to the 2023 Israel-Palestine War. Current name is too narrow, especially since other groups besides Hamas are fighting against Israel,like Hezbollah. BigRed606 (talk) 01:46, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Support It just sounds better, see Festucalix's response. 209.233.2.15 (talk) 02:33, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Israel declared war on Hamas not on Gaza. Dazzling4 (talk) 02:33, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Media currently refers to it as the "Israel-Hamas War" or some variation of that, as per @

talk) 04:52, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Oppose per Red-tailed hawk Andre🚐 06:12, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Red-tailed hawk. We can have multiple discussion about multiple new names everyday and it will be nothing but a timesink until the situation is contained or degenerates. This title is accurate at this point, if a clear consensus of WP:RS appears later to change it, then a discussion should take place.  // Timothy :: talk  06:35, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, "consistency with 2014 war" is not desirable, but a third option may need to be found. Geschichte (talk) 07:34, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per Red-tailed hawk and Yaakovaryeh. Red-tailed hawk pointed out the fighting is not contained within Gaza. Yaakovaryeh provided a list of new coverage showing the term "Israel-Hamas" has been used. Wiki6995 (talk) 09:52, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest speedy closure Overwhelming opposition, 34 oppose vs 8 support.

WP:SNOW. Ecrusized (talk) 12:18, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Use of "hostage" in the lede

Further up, I posted an edit request.

I do not want to belabour the point or be impatient, but I think the language should be changed to be more encyclopedic, to match RS, and for internal consistency with other Wikipedia articles about armed conflicts (e.g. the article about the ongoing Russian invasion of Ukraine describes military captives as prisoners of war, not as hostages).

Is this the appropriate forum to raise the issue and establish consensus regarding a change? I am still learning the ropes here on WP so apologies if I am out of line -- WillowCity (talk) 03:47, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is the appropriate forum. I gave my own proposal on the matter, and while I have the ability to make the change, I will not without further input from others as this is a contentious subject. I want to hear any concerns that may be raised by your opposition. Yue🌙 04:03, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What about the non-military hostages? They are not prisoners of war. SigTif (talk) 11:32, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They're unarmed civilian hostages, so, no. Andre🚐 06:38, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli’s use of white phosphorus

Multiple videos show white phosphorus being dropped into villages and towns. 74.96.7.109 (talk) 03:51, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Reliable sources are still speculating as to whether or not Israel has used white phosphorus again in Gaza, as may be shown in the videos you are referencing (but not linking). Yue🌙 04:30, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please share sources when you try to claim something. Many are just speculating or debating if israel is using white phospor. A widespread video apparentlx showing israeli use of white phosphorus has been debunked as a video from few years ago, showing the celebration after a football event Poles Ragge (talk) 05:40, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some news sources that report on the use of white phosphorus on Gaza by Israel, although not any major news outlets as of yet.

https://www.aa.com.tr/en/middle-east/palestine-accuses-israel-of-using-white-phosphorus-bombs-in-gaza/3014705

https://www.financialexpress.com/business/defence-reports-of-concern-the-use-of-white-phosphorus-in-conflict-zones-3267531/

https://new.thecradle.co/articles/operation-al-aqsa-flood-rages-on-as-israeli-jets-pound-gaza

https://www.egypttoday.com/Article/1/127577/Israel-uses-internationally-prohibited-white-phosphorus-against-Palestinians-Sources

According to Euronews "The Palestinian ministry of foreign affairs has accused Israeli forces of using white phosphorus against the Gaza Strip"

https://www.euronews.com/2023/10/10/israeli-pm-says-siege-just-getting-started-as-gaza-battered-overnight

Additionally, alleged use of white phosphorus at the Lebanese border by Israel as reported by the NYT

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/10/world/middleeast/israel-syria-lebanon-shelling.html ~~~~ Κυπρομέδουσα (talk) 08:57, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All of those sources claim that this "may" have happened and reference only one twitter picture, which is not reliable. Even the news sources themselves claim that "Euronews cannot independently verify this claim."

Shovalis (talk) 14:05, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Until it is confirmed to be Israel dropping white phosphorus in this particular war, we should refrain from adding it The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 09:52, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[18] Fake news, it has been shown to be images taken from the Russian bombardment of Bakhmut in Ukraine. WCM_email 16:19, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One video being a hoax does not make the entire thing necessarily "fake news", it just means that isn't evidence of it. Though I agree with others that we should wait for confirmation before adding it to the article, obviously. AntiDionysius (talk) 16:25, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Syrias involvement

Syria fired mortar shells into Israel and Israel has responded by launching rockets back into Syria. Add Syria as a Hamas side belligerent Evansnikolai (talk) 04:00, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. The Syrian government did not claim responsibility for the mortar fire and the Israeli government did not accuse the Syrian government of firing them either. The source given only states that Israel fired rockets back at the origin of the mortar rockets. Yue🌙 04:13, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Additional info indicates that Syria says it's a militia that fired the mortars. Without some pretty affirmative reporting that it was Syria, we can't do this. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:14, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Could you possibly add Syrian militants to the info box Evansnikolai (talk) 04:21, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, once Israel makes a statement on the identity of the attackers. The reason why adding "Syrian militants" may be premature is they could have been non-Syrians fighting in Syria, e.g. Hezbollah or the PLO. Yue🌙 04:29, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have references right now, but our media claims that Hamas has claimed responsibility for the fire at the north border as well.

Shovalis (talk) 14:06, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox casualties

The title frames the conflict as "Israel vs. Hamas" but lists Palestinian civilian casualties as under "Hamas". If the article is treating Hamas and Palestine separately, shouldn't civilian casualties go under the box? DenverCoder9 (talk) 04:03, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The casualty section makes no sense because the Israeli side's casualty figure includes foreign civilians who were killed by Hamas. Civilian killings should not be counted together with military casualties. Yue🌙 04:09, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ya it’s usually like this, as of now literally? All Palestinian civilian casualty claims are attributed while none of the Israeli ones are Bobisland (talk) 04:35, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Civilian casualties are clearly labelled as such in other articles, major examples being World War II and the Vietnam War. The problem is not just attribution; grouping Palestinian civilians who were killed with Hamas militants who were killed is problematic, as is (for example) Israeli civilians and foreign workers with Israeli military casualties. Yue🌙 05:04, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with @DenverCoder19 that the civilian box should be separate and blow, a la other precedents such as Tet Offensive. It may take some time for authoritative figures to be compiled, admittedly. Riposte97 (talk) 04:51, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hamas justification for the attack

We say that Hamas used a justification for the attack as the following: increased expansion of Israeli settlements and Israeli settler violence against Palestinian civilians, clashes in Jenin, the Al-Aqsa mosque, and Gaza killed almost 250 Palestinians and 32 Israelis. The source is a WSJ update to their dynamic updates, citing Hamas spokesman Ghazi Hamad in a BBC interview, who said the attacks came as a response to settler violence in the West Bank.

However, in another interview he says that the attack was to fight against "the occupation" by Israel.[19] This matches AP which says: the militant group ruling Gaza, which has said it launched the attack in response to mounting Palestinian suffering under Israel’s occupation and blockade of Gaza.[20] When this interview took place, Hamad was on an interview spree and argued aggressively with each interviewer to justify these actions and used different arguments against Israel in each case.

It seems WSJ randomly took a snippet from one interview and held it up as the official reason Hamas gave. I think we should be clearer that the West Bank settler justification comes from one spokesman and we should more closely reflect the justification from AP. And furthermore, we should remove the specific cases from the past year as reasons given by Hamas unless they are in particular mentioned by Hamas. At current they seem like

WP:OR. Regards, Solipsism 101 (talk) 04:39, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

So you want to remove the reference that a Hamas spokesman stated the attacks came due to settler violence? Bobisland (talk) 00:45, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Numbers conflict

If Israel has killed 1500 invading militants and other militants brought back 200+ Israeli hostages, then at least 2,000 Palestinian militants must have entered Israel, not the 1,000 stated in the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dubberke99 (talk • contribs) 05:54, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Moved this to the bottom of the page instead of the top. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:14, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As should be obvious, both in general and in this particular case, during the fog of sudden all out war, estimates of the number of invading combatants and the number of casualties are in flux, and the numbers change as the combat proceeds. As time goes by, we should see a rough consensus emerge among reliable sources regarding the number of Hamas invaders last Saturday, and the number of them who were killed. Large numbers of dead bodies of Hamas fighters were left behind, after all, and as time goes by, these bodies will be counted fairly accurately. It should be clear that meticulous counting is not high on the list of Israeli priorities at this time. Cullen328 (talk) 07:49, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is already doubt regarding IDF truthfulness about the 1,500 figure. Abductive (reasoning) 07:55, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Current estimates are that there have been 800-1000 *bodies* of inflitrators found in Israel. It makes lots of sense that about 1500 have managed to invade, and some hundreds took hostages and fled back into Gaza.

Current number of hostages is about 150, by the way

Shovalis (talk) 14:09, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

From videos we see that many people entered Israel unarmed.

IDF killed everybody without discrimantion, which is logical, and counted them as Hamas fighters.

It is therefore not clear at all to determine how many armed terrorist entered.

If we multiply the number of places that were attacked and the average number of fighters per attack we get something less than 1000 : less than 10 locations attacked by less than 100 fighters each time.

There remain the question to know where the 7500 IDF soldiers affected to Gaza division were and why absolutely nobody looked at Gaza ?!

Sources lack for this topic. RadXman (talk) 15:33, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Significant bias in a paragraph in the lead section

The paragraph "The crisis represented a tipping point in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict and the Gaza–Israel conflict, which followed a violent year that saw increased expansion of Israeli settlements and Israeli settler violence against Palestinian civilians, clashes in Jenin, the Al-Aqsa mosque, and Gaza killed almost 250 Palestinians and 32 Israelis; Hamas cited these events as justification for the offensive, and called on Palestinians outside of Gaza to join "the fight against the occupiers".In response, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declared states of emergency and war, and some opposition parties have called for the formation of a national unity government." is biased in the following ways:

• It uses language that is favorable to Hamas and critical of Israel. For example, it describes the Israeli government as "occupiers" and the Israeli settlement expansion as "violent."
• It omits important information that could provide a more balanced perspective. For example, it does not mention that Hamas has a long history of launching rocket attacks on Israeli civilians.Here is a more neutral version of the paragraph:

"The 2023 Israel-Hamas war was a major escalation in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It was preceded by a year of increased violence, including Israeli settlement expansion, Israeli settler violence against Palestinian civilians, and clashes in Jenin, the Al-Aqsa Mosque, and Gaza. Hamas cited these events as justification for its rocket attacks on Israeli civilians, which began in the lead-up to the war. In response, Israel launched a targeted military operation to eliminate Hamas's rocket launching capabilities and protect its citizens."

The following changes were made to make the paragraph more neutral:

• Language that is favorable to one side or the other was removed. For example, the phrase "occupiers" was removed, and the phrase "violent settlement expansion" was replaced with the more neutral phrase "settlement expansion."
• Important information that was omitted was added. For example, a sentence was added to mention Hamas's history of rocket attacks on Israeli civilians.

Alexandria Bucephalous (talk) 07:50, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond that one of the parts that I don't like is: "In response, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declared states of emergency and war..." It's not exactly clear what this is referring to. It makes it seem as if he's either A. declaring war in response to the lead up that Hamas cites or B. in response to this nebulous "crisis tipping point". However Israel declared war against Hamas in response to Hamas's invasion of Israel. It's not as if this were a mutual event. Alcibiades979 (talk) 08:20, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it can be rephrased to. the lines of "In response to the Hamas rocket attacks, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declared states of emergency and war." Alexandria Bucephalous (talk) 10:56, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexandria Bucephalous I agree but I would go further to say that this background should not be featured so prominently in the lead. All this detail should be moved into the Background section, or at best be given a single sentence referencing the wider Arab–Israeli conflict. Merlin^sorca 10:42, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For reference, if we look at the lead section in September 11 attacks we don’t see almost a full paragraph discussing the history of Al-Qaeda’s grievances with the U.S. as justification for the attack. Merlin^sorca 10:48, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree ! The background information on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict should not be featured so prominently in the lead of the article on the 2023 Israel-Hamas war. The lead of an article should provide a brief overview of the topic of the article, and it should not be used to provide a detailed history of the conflict.

The background information on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is important, but it is not essential to understand the main points of the article on the 2023 Israel-Hamas war. This information can be moved to the Background section of the article, or it can be condensed into a single sentence in the lead that references the wider Arab-Israeli conflict. Alexandria Bucephalous (talk) 10:58, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandria Bucephalous comments, far from being balanced, are pro-Israel. Does not the statement that the Israel launched a "targeted military operation" to eliminate Hamas's rocket launching capabilities and "protect its citizens", sound more like a press release from the IDF? For should not the bombing of innocent civilians by termed a Human Rights Outrage? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.69.169.27 (talk) 10:35, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The phrases "targeted military operation" and "protect its citizens" are often used by several organisations to describe their actions in the context of conflicts. Whether these phrases are fair or biased can depend on various factors and perspectives:

1. Precision and Intent: The term "targeted military operation" implies that the primary objective is to hit specific military targets while minimizing harm to civilians. In any conflict, it's essential to make a distinction between military targets and civilians to comply with international humanitarian law. The use of precision-guided weaponry and intelligence can support the claim of a targeted operation.
2. Self-Defense: The phrase "protect its citizens" is often used to convey the idea that the military action is a response to threats posed by groups like Hamas. In international law, states have the right to self-defense. Israel argues that it is acting to protect its citizens from rocket attacks. The fairness of this claim depends on the proportionality of their response.

Alexandria Bucephalous (talk) 11:03, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting how complete blockade of basic necessities such as food and water to 2 million civilians constitutes a "targeted military operation" in your eyes. 2600:4040:2867:EB00:28C4:6AC4:32A8:A254 (talk) 16:16, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The notion that the carpet bombing of Gaza is "targeted" is messaging that seems somewhat straight out of Israeli army press materials, though they've for sure "targeted" medics, journalists etc.

Iskandar323 (talk) 11:16, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Small world, right @

Iskandar323

 !

The bombing is Gaza is well covered ( here, here and here among others), and I could find only 1 source that mentions "carpet bombing" which was an article form Opindia. Opindia, is a blacklisted source on Wikipedia as I am sure you know well.

Would love to see you being able to provide an reliable sources, if you can. Alexandria Bucephalous (talk) 11:53, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also reported is the Israeli use of bunker busters in the densely populated area. Fyi, your Indian source isn't the only one to use the same slang as me. The Cradle, whatever that is, has to, as has the The Mirror, but yes, it's somewhat slang. Most sources just say "heavy bombardment".

Iskandar323 (talk) 12:05, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

The majority of sources do not mention "carpet bombing". As of your point of using bunker busters in the densely populated areas, this does not constitute indiscriminate bombing as bunker busters ( as the name suggests ) target underground bunkers only. Carpet bombing or Saturation bombing is a large area bombardment done in a progressive manner to inflict damage in every part of a selected area of land. Alexandria Bucephalous (talk) 12:23, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

someone deleted the entire paragraph which I reverted to reach consensus, in my trimming I made it more neutral? What do you guys think Bobisland (talk) 22:58, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• How about something like this: "Before the attack, Israeli-Palestinians clashes at Al-Aqsa mosque, Gaza and Jenin had killed 247 Palestinians and 36 Israelis.^{[a][2][1][3][4][5][6]} Its short, just one sentence, and objectively states the obvious facts that have been used as context by numerous RS.VR _talk 01:45, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • We can see that the lead of the Six-Day War devotes an entire paragraph to events that happened before the actual war.VR _talk 01:48, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Indeed, the paragraph needs to be more neutral, however reducing it to just one sentence does not make much sense. Alexandria Bucephalous (talk) 04:19, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I do not see how this sentence is explaining anything. It confused me the first time I read, which is why I came here. It is just there with out any connection to what is said before or after. I prefer Alexandria Bucephalous paragraph over this, but as Merlinsorca said, it should not be in the lead. 115.69.35.140 (talk) 09:28, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I concur, I believe that my original paragraph is a relatively good summary but it should be put in the later sections. Alexandria Bucephalous (talk) 10:09, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I like the idea of having one or two sentences to cover the background as part of a larger paragraph like War in Afghanistan (2001–2021) but I would prefer less detail. I don’t think it makes a good reading experience to list the exact locations and death tolls of background events directly in the lead section, and other war articles seem to avoid such specificity.

  Note that it will be very tricky to write something for this because this attack was a seemingly highly planned surprise attack that coincided with a holiday and anniversary. Attack on Pearl Harbor would be a good reference.

  Prior to the war, tensions rose in the decades-long Israeli–Palestinian conflict due to an uptick in violence in 2023. Hamas cites the Israeli occupation and blockade as rationale for launching the initial attack. Merlin^sorca 10:58, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Merlinsorca: support your version Makeandtoss (talk) 11:36, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arab citizens among the victims?

Nas Daily, cited by various RS, mentioned 40 Arab citizens of Israel among the victims (Haaretz, Times of Israel). I cannot find RS confirming this. If true and backed by RS, it would be good to add the breakdown of Israeli victims by ethnic and religious groups (e.g., those commonly found in official census data: [Jews, Muslims, Christians, Druze, Other] or [Jews, Arabs, Other]). a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 08:43, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Haaretz gave yesterday (Oct 10): At least six Arab Israelis missing since Hamas attack, likely kidnapped Six Arab Israelis are missing since Saturday's attack by Hamas, and at least of one them was seen in videos published by Palestinians from within the Gaza Strip. So there could be 40 deaths, 1 kidnapped, 5 missing among Arab Israelis? a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 09:14, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Found this: Bedouin Leader in Israel Says Community Lost Lives in Attack, WSJ: The mayor of the predominantly Arab Bedouin city of Rahat, Israel, said that 19 Bedouins had been killed in the assault by Gaza militants and urged the government not to forget that his community were victims of the attack. Ata Abu Mediam said dozens of Bedouins had also been wounded and others kidnapped and taken to Gaza.

Social Equality Minister Amichai Chikli said according to the ToI: the Bedouin population in the Negev, which has suffered casualties and missing people a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 14:09, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There have been not only dozens of Arab victims, but also Bedouin and Druze, and even one Palestinian man died because of a rocket attack that hit him in the West Bank

Shovalis (talk) 14:13, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've edited the article accordingly. If you have RS about Druze casualties please let me know. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 14:14, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

syria involvement?

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/liveblog/2023/10/10/israel-hamas-war-live-us-redoubles-israel-support-as-bombs-rain-on-gaza

"Hamas has continued to fire rockets at Israel, with Israeli forces and Lebanon-based Hezbollah fighters also exchanging fire. Israel’s military has also said that shells launched from Syria landed in open areas within Israel."

This seems significant. should we say that Syria is involved in the infocolumn? Or is it too early for that? Genabab (talk) 09:28, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Too early. See the above discussion: #Syrias involvement. Yue🌙 07:03, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign and dual-national casualties

The table also needs a total row. I know all three columns contain unknown entries. But we can still have a confirmed total row. Also, why are the countries inappropriately sorted based on the number of deaths? Aminabzz (talk) 10:03, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Article scope

The current article's title refers to the war, but the opening paragraph seems to focus only on the Hamas invasion. The question is, as the Israeli ground invasion of Gaza is currently unfolding, how will this be represented in the article? Makeandtoss (talk) 10:00, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It will probably be edited to represent the soon-to-follow ground invasion into Gaza.

There is already a part that talks about the israeli counter-invasion at the beginning.

But when the counter-invasion of Gaza, there will be more added probably, as we don't have anything else than israeli airstrikes and rocket attacks on Hamas buildings and territory in Gaza. Poles Ragge (talk) 10:24, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Does it really matter? 115.73.17.147 (talk) 11:39, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Present and future notice

The American President, the Israeli Prime Minister, and the Israeli army spokesman stated that Hamas had beheaded children and that it had killed children. In addition to mentioning this topic in international media. The Israeli journalist revealed that there is no evidence of this, his tweet can be seen on Twitter Osps7 (talk) 10:27, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

He didn't see any in his tour. This is not to say that it did not occur. SigTif (talk) 11:26, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Swiss EDU (Departement of foreign affaires) is looking for possible swiss casualties.

SRF (Official state-news agency of switzerland) reports that the EDU (EDU (Departement of foreign affaires) is searching for clues of possible missing swiss nationals or killed nationals.

The swiss EDU is also searching for SWISS-ISRAELI DUAL-NATIONALS and it will count dual-nationals as it's own nationals. Another reason why we should also count dual-nationals as foreign nationals casualties and not israeli, no matter how much they spend time in israel or their country of origin.

If countries are counting dual-nationals as their own, we should too! Poles Ragge (talk) 10:28, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

UN and war crimes

Please explain how "collecting evidence of war crimes committed by all sides" does not mean that they have charachterized the conduct as being war crimes @Alcibiades979:? Makeandtoss (talk) 10:31, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Plus you have violated 1RR. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:32, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because conduct means: "the act, manner, or process of carrying on" as per Merriam Webster, the inference then becomes that Israel and Hamas's being in and of itself in the conflict is criminal. Where as stating that war crimes have taken place doesn't pass judgement on. In a nutshell its the difference between saying someone committed crimes and someone is a criminal. Beyond that collecting evidence is also different from making an accusation. Alcibiades979 (talk) 10:41, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of finding alternatives however you just simply removed mention of the UN, and violated 1RR. There's no difference; someone who committed crimes is a criminal. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:55, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Collecting evidence does not mean that they believe that war crimes have been committed. Once the evidence is collected it may or may not prove this. Alaexis_¿question? 11:25, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of palestinian militant It should be palestinian terror organizations. As the definition of terror is: violence or the threat of violence used as a weapon of intimidation or coercion

violent or destructive acts (such as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demandsV

In the case, should not the Israeli 'Defence' Force be termed a terror organizations? For as you made clear, the definition of terror is: violence used as a weapon of intimidation. Given this, might not the terror bombing of civilian areas - in order to punish a population - be called a War Crime? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.69.169.27 (talk) 11:20, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

thats called whataboutery.israeli defence force cannot be compared to hamas or other terrorist groups. its not wise to play victim when idf retaliates after this sort of attack:

Legitimacy and Recognition:

IDF: The Israeli Defense Forces is the official military organization of the State of Israel and operates under the authority of a recognized government. It is recognized as a legitimate military force by many countries.

Hamas and other terrorist organizations: These groups are not officially recognized as legitimate military forces. They are often considered terrorist organizations by many countries and international bodies.

Objectives:

IDF: The primary objective of the IDF is to defend the State of Israel and its citizens, maintain security, and protect its sovereignty. It operates under the laws of armed conflict and aims to minimize civilian casualties.

Hamas and other terrorist organizations: These groups often have political, ideological, or religious objectives that may involve the use of violence against civilian populations, including Israel, with the intent of advancing their goals. Their tactics often involve deliberate targeting of civilians, which is considered a violation of international humanitarian law.

Methods:

IDF: The IDF is a conventional military force that follows the rules of engagement, international laws, and treaties. It uses military strategies and tactics in response to security threats and operates with the goal of minimizing collateral damage and civilian casualties.

Hamas and other terrorist organizations: These groups typically employ asymmetric warfare tactics, including guerrilla warfare, suicide bombings, rocket attacks on civilian areas,rape and other forms of violence that often result in significant civilian casualties.

Organizational Structure:

IDF: The IDF has a hierarchical structure, command chain, and established rules of engagement. It operates as a standing military force.

Hamas and other terrorist organizations: These groups often have more loosely organized structures, with smaller cells and less centralized command and control. They often operate covertly and are more difficult to track.

International Status:

IDF: Israel is a recognized sovereign state, and the IDF's actions are subject to international scrutiny and criticism, particularly in cases where there are allegations of human rights violations.

Hamas and other terrorist organizations: These groups are generally considered non-state actors and are often subject to sanctions and condemnation for their actions, particularly for targeting civilians.

ALSO terrorist is a very vague term and its definition is blurred. we should use "islamic terrorism/fundamentalism" and make it more specific. whatever hamas is doing perfectly fits the definition(i.e fighting for occupied land and how to fight is also covered in islamic texts ). so islamic terrorism is the best option her as per my opinion. Observer1989 (talk) 14:32, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Speaking about the Israel side, would their bombings of Gaza qualify as indiscriminate attacks? This is a tricky question because a civilian building occupied by the militants is a legitimate target. Yes, a number of civilians have died. But using civilians as hostages/shields is a war crime by the side that does it (i.e. Hamas). This is all complicated. My very best wishes (talk) 17:35, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  They would qualify as indiscriminate, as well as disproportionate. Assuming there is truth to the claim that in every bombing there was a legitimate military target, and even assuming Hamas was using human shields in every case, that doesn't alleviate the legal obligations of Israel. Human Rights Watch has previously found Israel's strikes in Gaza to be war crimes, and stressed those findings again when issuing statements about the present bombings. entropyandvodka | talk 23:08, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I see. This is United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict. Any urban warfare will result in deaths of numerous civilians or collateral damage. This boils down to Collateral_damage#International_humanitarian_law, see last paragraph in this section. My very best wishes (talk) 00:21, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Your analysis is not currently supported by

  WP:RS sources. We need to slow down a bit and see what the best sources say specifically and explicitly about Israeli actions in the current situation. References to past events are not helpful. SPECIFICO talk 01:48, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

Of course if they are going to do something like the destruction of Grozny, while blocking the exit from the city for civilians, that would be internationally condemned as a war crime.My very best wishes (talk) 19:54, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Instead of palestinian militant It should be palestinian terror organizations. As the definition of terror is: violence or the threat of violence used as a weapon of intimidation or coercion

violent or destructive acts (such as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demandsV 2A0D:6FC7:51D:DF76:98D3:C3D8:B4D4:F532 (talk) 10:38, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This has been raised numerous times. Once again, we do not conduct

WP:OR as editors. Riposte97 (talk) 01:29, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 October 2023 (4)

This 2023 Israel–Hamas war has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In the infobox table in the units involved: change Shin Bet to Shabak as it's better known as that terminology. Also add

Ministry of Defence to the units involved. Thank you. Shachar700 (talk) 11:23, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Shin Bet is more commonly used than Shabak in English language media, so I cannot fulfil that request per

MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE). Yue🌙 03:50, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Nature Party Atacks

You should add a paragraph (I belive) under October 10th about the Nature Party/Desert Concert atacks where many women were raped, many kidnapped, and 200+ people were left dead. Willamar86 (talk) 11:56, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is written in there and there is a whole article about it - Re'im music festival massacre Ronsiv8 (talk) 12:01, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Just a question - where is it written in the article? Willamar86 (talk) 12:07, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just Ctrl + F "Re'im".

• Timeline > Militant incursions into Israel
• Casualties > Israeli

Yue🌙 03:53, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 October 2023

This 2023 Israel–Hamas war has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

1) Change the following : Palestinian militant groups to Palestinian terrorist group Hamas isn't a militant group but a terrorist group in many of the world's countries. https://ecfr.eu/special/mapping_palestinian_politics/hamas/ Creekcrod (talk) 12:50, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is not black-and-white and there is no consensus, so please keep the more neutral language instead. TuukkaH (talk) 13:13, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: see TuukkaH's comment. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 23:58, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why the Documented and Officially Confirmed rapes and baby beheadings "are only reported by some sources"?

These are not alleged accounts; those are facts confirmed by International organizations. Therefore it is wrong to write that those war crimes "...are claimed by some Israeli sources".

Again, these war crimes and acts have been confirmed by international organizations.

"Some" Wikipedia user has omitted this in one of the last edits.

Now you all have to look back in the article history to find those references that were omitted by the aforementioned Wikipedia user. 2A02:14F:1F2:A1DA:0:0:9FDC:528F (talk) 13:10, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

when almost the whole islamic world is supporting hamas and justifying their actions it would be foolish to think muslim editors(who are in good numbers) will not be biased and wont try to dilute or whitewash these incidents.it directly undermines the palestinian narrative.it cannot be allowed. Observer1989 (talk) 13:34, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The claim of baby beheadings has been debunked. Furthermore, I would implore you to not assume every Muslim or Arabic speaker is in cahoots to downplay what’s going on. Paragon Deku (talk) 20:24, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

debunked by whow? which reliable investigative source? israeli army never denied anything and now you will twist their words and take it vas reliable source when it suits your narrative? now they are reliable source? there are multiple international sources,interviews etc confirming beheadings. but i am pretty sure every action of hamas will get "debunked" here somehow.lol.. i am also telling the same to other poor editors who wants to label freedom fighter hamas as terrorists that dont be surprised when certain editors and admins start whitewashing the acts of hamas.and i never said all arabic speakers support hamas.i implied majority arabic as well as non arabic followers of islam support hamas.might be my personal opinion but i stand my ground.not asking anyone to include this in article.just providing free information.take it or leave it.dosent matter Observer1989 (talk) 20:42, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Multiple reliable sources already confirmed the beheadings. Can an authorized editor please change it so that there isn't any equivocation? AtypicalPhantom (talk) 15:14, 11 October 2023claims

If that case, you will be able to mention all the "multiple reliable sources" that have confirmed this outrage? Also, to show that there is not any equivocation, should not an editor update the article in line with the best evidence?

The kidnapping of Nimrod aloni

The kidnapping of IDF officer Nimrod Aloni is a fake. See https://apnews.com/article/israel-hamas-gaza-misinformation-fact-check-e58f9ab8696309305c3ea2bfb269258e Please correct the informarion about him within the page. Shaishyy (talk) 13:11, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Change militants to terrorists

This 2023 Israel–Hamas war has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change all references of "militants" to "terrorists" - these are terrorists attacking a country and murdering innocent civilians, not "militants" engaging in "battle". You would never call 9/11 hijackers "al-Quaeda militants"... SensibleMortgage (talk) 13:11, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The repetition of the word militants is noticeable and a bit jarring. In Swedish mainstream media the event is uncontroversially described as a terror attack and the attackers as terrorists; see e.g. [21][22][23]. It's baffling, but nonetheless true, that several major English-language newspapers seem to actively avoid the "terror" word. If reliable sources use both terms descriptively the correct thing to do is probably to use them both interchangeably. –St.nerol (talk) 14:31, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See [24] BBC news and many media outlets are refusing to call them terrorists as that apparently means taking a side. I would suggest referring to a spade as an earth moving implement might be stylish but doesn't convey an accurate message. WCM_email 15:12, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What Hamas did does match the the definiton of terrorism. Many reliable sources do call it terrorism. I think a line like "which many nations, analysts, and media outlets have called terrorists" immediately after Hamas militants are first mentioned would suffice, and then we can continue calling them militants throughout the article. AtypicalPhantom (talk) 15:20, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes—"militant" connotes one engaged in warfare. By no stretch of imagination is killing women and children in their sleep "warfare" in any traditional sense of the word. It's hard to think of a clearer example requiring the use of "terrorist". ElleTheBelle 16:23, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:TERRORIST explains when the label can be used, viz "Value-laden labels – such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, sexist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion – may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution." Selfstudier (talk) 16:26, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

The attack is widely compared to

WP:GA where "terror", "terrorism" and "terrorists" are used half a dozen times in the lede alone without in-text attribution. –St.nerol (talk) 17:29, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Because it was in (nearly all?) sources and Al Qaeda is as well designated terrorist by the UN. Selfstudier (talk) 17:32, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ADD UK GOVERNMENTS STANCE AND COMMENTS. ALSO ADD HOW BBC OPPOSED IT.

This 2023 Israel–Hamas war has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

"The people who support Hamas are fully responsible for this appalling attack. They are not militants. They are not freedom fighters. They are terrorists. My message tonight from Finchley United Synagogue where I joined @chiefrabbi in vigil with local communities," Sunak posted on X, formerly Twitter.^[7][8] Anyone in the UK found to be supporting Hamas in the wake of its “barbaric acts of terrorism” on Israel will be held to account, the Prime Minister has vowed.^[9]The BBC's refusal to refer to Hamas murderers as terrorists was criticised by UK ministers.^[10] Observer1989 (talk) 14:55, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm here to announce you that all your references were gone to the bottom of the page. All other entries after yours are now between your topic and the references. Aminabzz (talk) 15:39, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

lol.. lets demand a collective resignation of wikipedia technical team then Observer1989 (talk) 16:09, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Same thing in the US, WH trying to force newsorgs to use the label. Selfstudier (talk) 16:29, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a well-established legal framework that governs the designation of terrorist organizations, following this framework is crucial. News publications should consider whether the government's request aligns with established legal procedures. left leaning news publications often do not work for or are concerned with national security. they have their own audience and agenda. also It's a fundamental journalistic principle to verify information and scrutinize government actions, regardless of the publication's political leaning but is it practiced fairly? these are democraticaly elected governments we are talking about whom these left leaning publications are opossing disragring the evidence of terrorism .not like the most reliable source al jajeera opossing qatar govmt action(ever heard about it?) Observer1989 (talk) 17:06, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the personal opinion. Selfstudier (talk) 17:23, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

your welcome.hope you learned something. Observer1989 (talk) 17:34, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See

International reactions to the 2023 Israel–Hamas war. I believe it's better placed there. Borgenland (talk) 16:32, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

there should be a brief mention of all the countries calling this "terrorism" in this article. Observer1989 (talk) 17:08, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

1. ^ ^{a b} "More than 200 Israelis killed in surprise Hamas assault on Israel, 232 killed in Gaza". Before Saturday's violence, at least 247 Palestinians, 32 Israelis and two foreigners had been killed this year, including combatants and civilians, according to Israeli and Palestinian officials.
2. ^ Cite error: The named reference apn1 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
3. ^ "Almost 1,100 killed in Israel war with Hamas". Before Saturday, the conflict had killed at least 247 Palestinians, 32 Israelis and two foreigners, including combatants and civilians, this year, according to Israeli and Palestinian officials
4. ^ "Hamas launches large-scale "combined attack" on Israel". So far this year at least 247 Palestinians, 32 Israelis and two foreigners have been killed in the conflict, including combatants and civilians on both sides, according to Israeli and Palestinian officials.
5. ^ "Israel pounds Gaza as PM Netanyahu warns of 'long and difficult war'". Before Saturday, the violence this year had killed at least 247 Palestinians, 32 Israelis and two foreigners, including combatants and civilians, according to Israeli and Palestinian officials.
6. ^ Cite error: The named reference aj1 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
7. ^ ""People Who Support Hamas...": Rishi Sunak's Israel Prayer At UK Synagogue". NDTV.com. Retrieved 11 October 2023.
8. ^ Online, E. T. (10 October 2023). "'Hamas not freedom fighters, terrorists; UK stands with Israel': PM Rishi Sunak at Jewish event". The Economic Times. Retrieved 11 October 2023.
9. ^ "UK-based Hamas supporters will be held to account, Sunak vows". The Independent. 10 October 2023. Retrieved 11 October 2023.
10. ^ Churchill, David (9 October 2023). "Rishi Sunak blasts the BBC for refusing to call the Hamas terrorists". Mail Online. Retrieved 11 October 2023.

Palestinian deaths

Should we sum the number of killed militants and civilians to have 2,555? We can then open a parenthesis to mention the number of civilian and militant deaths separately. Aminabzz (talk) 11:58, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

This 2023 Israel–Hamas war has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In the Palestinian War Crimes section, remove "it said that." SomeoneOK (talk) 15:19, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

and why? Abo Yemen✉ 17:36, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence puts off some uncertainty to me at least, if you don't believe so, go ahead and deny. Just seems like it's not necessary to have that there. I think it's pretty agreed upon killing and taking non-combatants as hostages is a war crime or perhaps turn it into a direct quote of what was said Article 3. However, I'm not a grammatician, so I could be wrong. SomeoneOK (talk) 18:39, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"It said that" is just attribution. If you omit attribution then Wikipedia itself is making the statement, which is not what an encyclopedia is (it isn't the news or a human rights organisation; it repeats but does not report). If the verb was "claimed" or "alleged" then that would be problematic. Yue🌙 03:57, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please add a statement about the ranking as a terrorist attack

The last discussion on this matter was closed prematurely. The death toll from the initial attack is up to 2,700 now when combining the 1,200 killed in Israel plus the 1,500 militants killed in Israel. There are plenty of sources that describe it as a terrorist attack and I feel like this article does not do justice in portraying the historical significance of this event. List of battles and other violent events by death toll#Non-state terrorist attacks already lists this as the 2nd deadliest after 9/11. Why is a statement relevant to this not being included in the article? Undescribed (talk) 15:23, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Undescribed This page is protected accordingly, yet sadly it seems like or those who can edit do not pay enough attention to the discussions, or somebody is politically editing this Wikiepdia article.

Truly a sad sight.

Wikipedia, as an informational website, MUST include statements about the terrorist atrocities Hamas has done, while staying netural to the war as much as it can. There is no perfect, but this is outrageous.

It's as if 9/11 wasn't a terror attack, but a declared war.

Only unreliable, extreme, insane, terrorist-supporting sources that claim 9/11 is justified. That any murder is justified. Then why isn't the truth being shown in this mass-murder, kidnapping, torture, videos of terrorists happy of killing children in front of their families, and promising to rape their daughters.

Wikipedia MUST show the truth.

We have opened enough discussions, and talked about this small fact.

Please. Add a sentence to the initial invasion being a terrorist attack. And not "militias" or anything. This is a terror attack. Nothing else. רם אבני (talk) 17:25, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@רם אבני Unfortunately we live in a world where propaganda runs rampant and sadly Wikipedia is becoming filled more and more with propaganda and "fake news" due to the political sources that it relies on. Pretty soon people won't know what historical events did or didn't happen, because we are all being lied to constantly by the mainstream media. What a disgrace it is really. There is a source RIGHT HERE: https://www.timesnownews.com/videos/times-now/india/hamas-vs-israel-former-international-media-advisor-to-president-of-israel-speaks-to-times-network-video-104344079 that states that "The October 7th massacre is now the 2nd deadliest terror attack in world history, after 9/11". But I guarentee you that if I put in the article it will still be removed. What can we do here? Undescribed (talk) 17:37, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The source you provided is from the times of ISRAEL. That source is and will always be biased; Also the same way you view palestinians as terrorists, they view the Israelis the same way Abo Yemen✉ 17:39, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's an Indian source I never heard of. Anyway the clue is in the url "former-international-media-advisor-to-president-of-israel-speaks-to-times-network-video-104344079" :) Selfstudier (talk) 17:44, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So what would be considered a "non-biased source" then? It is still baffling to me how 9/11 is considered a terrorist attack but not this. It seems to me that no matter what source we give, the few editors on here who like to "run the show" will just claim that anything that they don't agree with is "biased" and warrants removal. As stated before, multiple sources call this terrorism, including eastern sources. I mean, they're cutting civilians heads off, if thats not considered terrorism then I don't know what is. Undescribed (talk) 17:45, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

911 was reported as terrorist across the board and AQ is classed terrorist at the UN. Do the math. Selfstudier (talk) 18:04, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? Hamas is also considered a terrorist organization by the US, EU, UK, and many others. Not sure why that is less relevant than the UN. Do the math. Undescribed (talk) 18:10, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Non-biased sources on Wikipedia typically include left-leaning Western news publications, hindu bashing Indian sources, and qatar mouthpiece Al Jazeera etc. Given your experience editing Wikipedia, I assume you're already aware of this. Occasionally, significant events may prompt these sources to publish information that aligns with the content we aim to include on Wikipedia, although they may still reflect their own biases. In such cases, we must patiently await relevant content from these publications that can be used as reliable sources Observer1989 (talk) 18:13, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't even make sense lol The left leaning sources are generally the least reliable of all. Why specifically left is more accurate? And is the patronizing really necessary here? "Given your experience editing Wikipedia, I assume you're already aware of this". The majority of countries still consider Hamas a terrorist organization Undescribed (talk) 18:32, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

hey man i am with you on this.i dont approve how things are done in wikipedia .its just we have to adhere to the policies and wikipedia reliable sources otherewise some opportunist pro palestine admin will block you for some madeup reason. Observer1989 (talk) 18:37, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is why I really hate Wikipedia sometimes. Often I wish I didn't invest so many years of my life working on improving it. You work so hard on it and provide reliable sources and people revert all your hard work just like that. Wikipedia has become propaganda central. Undescribed (talk) 18:52, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

remember the words of Larry sanger Observer1989 (talk) 19:01, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

what about the 150+ countries that do not consider them as such? Abo Yemen✉ 18:17, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

also see

WP:RSPSOURCES for the official list of reliable sources according to wikipedia Abo Yemen✉ 18:21, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Many of those sources have decided this as a terrorist attack. Why is there no consistency on Wikipedia? List of battles and other violent events by death toll#Non-state terrorist attacks lists this as the 2nd deadliest with multiple sources so why can't it be stated in the article? Undescribed (talk) 18:49, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

many editors here are busy even removing grave act of sexual violence against women performed by hamas terrorists reported by numerous sources from different countries.what makes you think they will agree to list hamas as terrorist organisation. only exception might be if un also designates them.it will only happen if USA requets UN and i highly doubt biden government will ever do that.their vote bank will vanish. Observer1989 (talk) 19:00, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

why does it HAVE to be the UN that calls them terrorist? Why are they the final say? Undescribed (talk) 19:04, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

because i guess terrorist for someone is freedom fighter for another..lol. The United Nations officially represents all nations, although its credibility is often questioned. Nevertheless, we have no other choice. It doesn't matter what brutal acts a particular group has performed, as many people, a significant portion of the global population, justify these actions based on their political or religious beliefs Observer1989 (talk) 19:09, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

i mean just look at the profile of most editors and their religious affiliations who are against calling them terrorists and removing brutual acts of hamas.they proudly flaunt their religion. you dont even need any source for that.just eyes and brain. you wont find a single editor with that religious affiliation calling them terrorist. so let it be. Observer1989 (talk) 19:14, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

and yet it's still listed as #2 in List of battles and other violent events by death toll#Non-state terrorist attacks. Zero consistency Undescribed (talk) 19:21, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There it is also listed as islamic terrorism not just terrorism, which is accurate.try doing that here.i would say its a matter of time some fanatic admin/editor notices it and starts a talk page there to change it.this is cuurently a hot and highly viewed page so everyone is busy whitewashing here for now. Observer1989 (talk) 19:34, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

that's even worse Abo Yemen✉ 18:16, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is always some sense of urgency, isn't there? Wikipedia "must" do nothing. It is beholden to no-one.

talk 19:44, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

These are

MOS:TERROR

IDF bombing of UN-run schools which killed children, 11 UN aid workers, staff members & school teachers, would qualify as actual terrorist attacks. These attacks has to be mentioned in the page as part of the strategy of

state terror and indiscriminate bombing advocated by Netanyahu regime. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 19:05, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

See

WP:NOTFORUM (and I hope others heed that advice too). DFlhb (talk) 19:38, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Strength

Why isn't there a "Strength" part between "Units involved" and "Casualties and losses" in the infobox? Aminabzz (talk) 15:33, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Very good question. Or a least, I have exactly the same. The answer is that we don't have sources for this.

Usually 7500 IDF soldiers are affected to Gaza Division (2 brigades and 1 battalion). Security forces shoud be added. Where were they ? If they had been there Hamas would not have crossed the border. That's impossible. Images also show that Erez check point was empty. That's not possible. Why empty ? RadXman (talk) 15:37, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Syria clashes page

Should there be a page created for the for the attack from Syria and the subsequent Israeli Airstrikes, much like the page for

Lebanon. HuntersHistory (talk) 15:46, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Yes there should be one Abo Yemen✉ 17:40, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I decided to make one

October 2023 Syrian-Israeli exchanges HuntersHistory (talk) 20:48, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

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

This 2023 Israel–Hamas war has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Isreal Supported by America. Riyadh edits25 (talk) 16:04, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template.

This has been discussed already The US was listed in the infobox, but was removed. --AntiDionysius (talk) 16:11, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 October 2023 (6)

This 2023 Israel–Hamas war has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In the morning ofOctober 10, 2023, a Saturday and holiday celebration day for the Jewish people, the Hamas led a terrorists invation into Israeli territory, aiming to murder and kidnapp as many civilians as possible. The enent was led and performed by vicious terrorists, not by Palestinian militants, hence This is definitely NOT a part of the Israeli Palestinian conflict.

During 1st day of attack, the terrorists fired over 5,000 rockets at Israeli civilian's residents, as a distraction to tens of drones and parachutes bombing Israeli military cameras and sensors along the border with Israel, allowing hundred of vicious terrorists entering Israel to rape, kidnapp and brutally murder whoever comes in their way.

The terrorists aimed 3 places to be blitz attacked all at once. The military bases, knowing that a lot of the soldiers are on their holiday and Saturday vacation. A music party at Re'im, with more than 2,000 attendies, civilians. And Israeli Jewish settlements all along the border to the Gaza strip.

Aiming civilians on civilian territory in the settlements, they methodically went from house to house shooting residents, killing parents in front of their children and kidnapp the children into the Gaza strip, slaughtering whole families at their houses, and dicapetate some of them, including children.

In the party at Re'im a huge massacre accourd, as they shot all they could find in their way, raping woman, and kidnapping some of them across the border using cars stolen from the murdered civilians and with drones sent specifically for that purpose.

It is worth mentioning that images from the fight zones, plural fight zones as mentioned above, were taken by Israeli media and also by foreign media, but vast majority of them were censored by media channels of different states, while reporters talking about the photage they saw were wipping tears they could not hide from audience mentioning their experience in reporting from war and conflict zones, and how horrified they where at those photos from the terrorists attack in Israel Racheligalk (talk) 16:04, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. --AntiDionysius (talk) 16:07, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 October 2023 (7)

This 2023 Israel–Hamas war has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Add Syria to the Side of Hamas since they have also attacked Israel. Sources: https://www.spiegel.de/ausland/israel-wird-auch-aus-syrien-und-dem-libanon-angegriffen-und-reagiert-mit-beschuss-a-f1f33198-b1a7-4579-8c16-707864bf7ade https://www.juedische-allgemeine.de/politik/angriffe-auf-israel-auch-aus-syrien/ And many more, you can search it up لهثسن (talk) 16:16, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Its not Syria that is attacking, but Palestinian groups in Syria, and the attacks are very small.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:43, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also it's unclear which Palestinian group it was. Only source I could find blames unnamed Palestinian groups and Hezbollah.[25] Ecrusized (talk) 16:48, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligence warning

• Three days prior to the attack, Egyptian intelligence did alert Israel to something imminent in Gaza of this kind. It is not hearsay, since Michael McCaul confirmed that the US is aware that such a tip-off was passed on to Israel.
• US intelligence has picked up evidence that senior Iranian political and intelligence figures were surprised by Hamas' action.
• I'm not quite happy with this source, but editors should use it to examine our text on beheadings (I wouldn't put such murderous carnage out of the question:similar revolting atrocities have often occurred in Gaza- children were murdered en masse at that kibbutz and elsewhere). But the original source is suspect, however often picked up by the mainstream media.
• A further caution to avoid being caught up, or sucked into the mediatic fogs and hysteria that accompany wars in this area. The mere ascertained facts are nauseous enough. There are numerous reports inciting anxieties about Lebanese and Syrian involvement, particularly regarding 'aircraft' intrusions into Israeli airspace. Israel has regularly overflown both countries for years, and these surveillance flights (or bombings of Syria) have never been portrayed in mainstream Western media as provocations to, or preliminaries to, war, as are the drone (not aircraft) intrusions imputed to Hezbollah now.

Nishidani (talk) 16:51, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a split between Israeli sources which are more willing to discuss and criticize the intelligence response and what we're seeing in RS's from other countries. I'm in favor of inclusion if it's clearly discussed in reputable sources from Israel (or any other nation, but they seem to be giving it the most air time so to speak). Paragon Deku (talk) 16:56, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the first part to the relevant section AntiDionysius (talk) 16:59, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As for Iranian surprise, that's very interesting and to me, notable. I am unsure about where in the article it might fit, though AntiDionysius (talk) 17:01, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Egypt claims it warned Israel that Gaza could ‘explode’ before Hamas assault from the FT. Selfstudier (talk) 17:27, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We know that Egypt has warned the Israelis three days prior that an event like this could happen,” Republican Michael McCaul tells reporters following a closed-door intelligence briefing for lawmakers on the crisis.

Unlike the FT source, the ToL report presents this as factual, something ascertained by US intelligence, independent of both the Egyptian 'claim' and various Israeli official responses. It therefore should replace the claims and counterclaims, with of course, attribution to McCaul. Nishidani (talk) 17:34, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Based on that, there is no doubt some message was given. But what it was, exactly? “We know that Egypt has warned the Israelis three days prior that an event like this could happen” does not provide enough info. Was it just generic ("something can happen" - yes, sure, any time, that does not mean much) or more specific? My very best wishes (talk) 17:45, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bibi denied receiving a "specific" warning. Selfstudier (talk) 18:07, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this should be noted. But the story is well sourced and significant enough to be included to this page. Looking at sources, it seems that the warning mentioned a large-scale attack from Gaza, but no specific date. My very best wishes (talk) 19:49, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Our article still reads in a complete violation of NPOV:-

Israeli forces reclaimed Kfar Aza and began collecting the dead, reporting they found the bodies of victims mutilated, with women and babies beheaded in their homes. The bodies of 40 babies and young children were taken out on gurneys, out of what one estimate described as at least 100 civilian victims.[131][132][133][134][135][136][137] According to Mondoweiss, the allegations that the babies were beheaded has no foundation.

It is Nicole Zedek from the pro-Netanyahu

i24NEWS

who claimed soldiers had told her children had been beheaded. Three other journalists present at Kfar Aza stated that none of the many soldiers they interviewed at Kfar Aza knew anything of what their 124 colleague claimed.

• Andrea Tundo, Il massacro di Kfar Aza e i bimbi ‘decapitati’, cosa si sa e il racconto dei giornalisti: “Non li abbiamo visti”. Il ministero conferma alla Cnn Il Fatto Quotidiano 11 October 2023
• 'It's important to separate the facts from speculation': What we actually know about the viral report of beheaded babies in Israel Sky News 11 October 2023
• Mehmet Solmaz, Enes Calli Despite refutations from Israeli military, headlines that Hamas 'beheaded babies' persist, Anadolu Agency 11 October 2023
• See also the retraction of one of the reporters here and Max Blumenthal here.

The problem is, the IDF reportedly would neither confirm nor deny. The IDF is there, examined every house, brought out all of the victims, so it must know whether this report is true or false. The most one can say is. All we have is a rumour, which may be true or false, but the IDF will not at the stage confirm or deny it though they have all the information on the victims. Nishidani (talk) 20:49, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

confirmation of northern invasion 11th october

Hamas and hesbollah have sent drones and rockets to the north as per Times of Israel and i24 news Residents across north told to shelter as several aircraft appear to infiltrate Israel | The Times of Israel LIVEBLOG: As Israel Readies For Counteroffensive, Terror Attacks Continue, Death Toll Crosses 1,200 - I24NEWS

can anyone add this to the corresponding area? LionFireKing404 (talk) 17:00, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Add exactly what to map? Map does not depict anything aerial. Cactus Ronin (talk) 21:57, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

said/claim

@

MOS:CLAIM, we should avoid using "claim" as it can call their statement's credibility into question - can you switch back to a more appropriate word? BilledMammal (talk) 17:32, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

@BilledMammal I reverted the edit Parham wiki (talk) 17:44, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I also get confused about that sometimes. Borgenland (talk) 17:44, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Israel Airstrikes "targeted strategic buildings"

Apologies if this is a minor gripe, but I do think this is important and I can't edit it myself as I'm under the 500 edits count. The line in question is from the header:

"After clearing militants from affected areas, Israel responded with airstrikes in the densely-populated Gaza Strip targeting strategic buildings and military targets..."

I believe it should be rephrased as "...ostensibly targeting strategic buildings and military targets" or "...claimed to be targeted at strategic buildings and military targets" or something of the like. Given that the next clause states that they bombed hospitals, mosques, homes, and a refugee camp and the only source that they were "targeting military targets" is necessarily the IDF itself this seems appropriate.

Frankly I would remove this clause altogether since it's not sourced in the header or elaborated on in the body of the text anywhere. Would appreciate it if someone could make this change. Jhodders (talk) 17:38, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide multiple

reliable source publications that support your concern. SPECIFICO talk 17:46, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Why would he need sources when all he is saying is that the first sentence is contradictory to the second? It's not very good writing, at the very least.

And there is no citation for it, either. 68.111.7.219 (talk) 18:40, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We generally avoid words like ostensibly and claimed because they imply doubt. If sources disagree whether something is true, then

we describe who said it. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:17, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 October 2023 (8)

This 2023 Israel–Hamas war has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Add Fauda Palestine (anarchists collective) as one of the active belligerents in West Bank, but be noted that they are not sided neither Hamas/PFLP/Lion's Den coalition nor Israel, but independently and actively guerilla assault and sabotage IDF activity and infrastructure within West Bank. Source: [1] ^{[2] [3] [4]} 183.171.96.52 (talk) 17:50, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

1. ^ https://x.com/asranarshism/status/1711557963297832999?t=dd3kwC8d6l3Fboj1byI-LA&s=09
2. ^ https://reddit.com/r/TheDeprogram/s/MDFDLci2dX
3. ^ https://instagram.com/fauda_palestine?igshid=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==
4. ^ https://t.me/fauda_ps

 Not done - please provide some source that demonstrates this is a group with some relevance.

Walt Yoder (talk) 18:46, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Can you even call Gaza occupied?

If Israel

Hamas were elected? שי 19:25, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

It is still considered occupied by the US[26], UN[27] and others due to the blockade. DFlhb (talk) 19:39, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Who cares what the UN says. They have more criticisms against Israel than any other countries, surpassing North Korea, Iran, and Turkmenistan. When it comes to Israel, they can't be taken seriously. Their reputation proves it. By definition Gaza is NOT occupied. Oppressed? Absolutely. But occupation? Not even in the loosest definition of the word. As an encyclopedia, this needs to be academic, and thus dictionary definitions must be used.2601:40:C481:A940:E9C1:4443:E2FD:A8C8 (talk) 21:14, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On Wikipedia, we're only interested in what reliable sources say. We do not define words or concepts ourselves. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:19, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Would you consider having near-complete control of all resources that enter or leave Gaza it as well as complete controlling its naval, air, and land borders some sort of occupation The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 03:52, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Death timelines

The following (in the table below) was removed from the article. See diff. Edit summary: "this article is about the war, not the Israeli-Palestinian conflict at large. why is that even relevant here?"

As if the huge difference in the number of deaths preceding the war is not relevant to this war. Most of the Palestinian deaths are civilian deaths. And most are in Gaza. I think this should be in the "Background" section of the article. Or another background section of the article farther down. Maybe "More background. Deaths preceding the war". Or maybe in "Analysis" section.

Deaths preceding the war

Data is from the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs.[1] References ^ a b c Data on casualties. United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs - occupied Palestinian territory.

There are various articles mentioning these numbers in relation to this war. For instance:

• https://thewire.in/world/chart-6407-palestinians-and-308-israelis-killed-in-violence-in-last-15-years - it has a chart too.
• https://abcnews.go.com/International/palestinian-civilians-suffer-israel-hamas-crossfire-death-toll/story?id=103828889 - EXCERPT: According to the United Nations, roughly 6,400 Palestinians and 300 Israelis had been killed in the ongoing conflict since 2008, not counting the recent fatalities. ... According to the United Nations, 81% of the population in Gaza lives in poverty with food insecurity plaguing 63% of Gaza citizens. The poverty rate is 46.6%, and access to clean water and electricity remains inaccessible at "crisis" levels, the agency states. END of EXCERPT.

--Timeshifter (talk) 20:25, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, this should be in the article. This new Gaza-crisis is the worst we've ever had since 2008. More israelis died since saturday (writing on the 11.10.23) than in the previous years since 2008 COMBINED. This is an absolute necessary aspect to know to just understand the scale of this war, and why there has been such big international and national reactions. This is not just another escelation with just missles and airstrikes inside gaza and inside israel, this is a full-scale war with hamas terrorists and fighters entering israeli territory while israel is pounding Gaza like never before. This is a important war that we are currently witnessing, not just another flare up in a long conflict.

Thanks for the Data and for pointing this out. Poles Ragge (talk) 21:01, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think this would be detrimental. Text allows us to follow sources and contextualize things the same way they do, in the same terms they do. These graphs are contextless, and, by giving raw data, fail to give salience to what sources find relevant. A brief glance at these graphs (which is all they'll get from most readers) could on the contrary give the impression that deaths are at historically-average levels, or even at a historic low given the 2014 spike. Pictures are not always worth a thousand words. DFlhb (talk) 22:11, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We can include both the graphics and the text, right?VR _talk 03:59, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please use a common y-axis in both images. Or combine the bar graphs. EvergreenFir (talk) 00:06, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good idea.VR _talk 03:59, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Inbal Lieberman of Kibbutz Nir Am

Evidently, no casualties were reported among the residents of Nir Am. According to various sources, this extraordinary outcome is attributed to the actions of Inbal Lieberman. The question arises as to where this information should be incorporated and what level of detail is deemed appropriate

Sources:

• https://www.timesofisrael.com/in-ofakim-one-womans-graceful-bravery-offers-precious-solace-to-a-grieving-nation/
• https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-10-11/ty-article/.premium/israeli-woman-who-helped-save-a-kibbutz-im-not-a-hero-i-wasnt-there-by-myself/0000018b-1e4f-d47b-a7fb-bfdf2e560000
• https://www.news.com.au/world/middle-east/israeli-woman-hailed-as-a-hero-for-killing-terrorists/news-story/aebb533af17feddc4ebe761c7ba38ae5

Infinity Knight (talk) 21:01, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Invasion against"

The current opening line of the article speaks of "a large-scale invasion against Israel". That's not properly worded. Armies do not "invade against" other countries.

It should be either "a large-scale invasion of Israel" or "a large-scale campaign against Israel." 2600:1702:6D0:5160:3951:3C12:9280:B9B4 (talk) 21:03, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Infinity Knight (talk) 21:27, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Date format

As of October 11, the Washington Post reported that persons from 23 countries had been killed or went missing during the conflict.

Could be please change the date format in this paragraph to 11 October, to be consistent with the rest of the article? K175 (talk) 21:06, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Infinity Knight (talk) 21:31, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of the unverified allegation.

Regarding the statement in the lede section: "Survivor interviews provide claims of wartime sexual violence, including instances of rape committed by Hamas militants." Can anyone verify whether this might be an overblown wartime allegation from an Israeli official?

Before featuring it prominently in the opening section, we must first acquire more substantial and definitive evidence for this. StarkReport (talk) 21:26, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is not improbable. An Israeli friend of mine whom I trust had friends at that rave party. The daughter of one was raped three times before, presumably, being taken back to Gaza. That is not coming from an Israeli official.Nishidani (talk) 21:36, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes sadly there is a correlation between people who are willing to kill civilians in cold blood and people who are willing to commit sexual violence. The fact that the period of lawlessness was only a few hours long in most places would suggest it was not widespread though, hopefully. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:51, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A source that appended ahead of the line was about Israeli official alleging rape. While it would be unfortunate and horrible if this turned out to be true. But we must exercise caution and prioritize more and better WP:RS and WP:OR sources for this.

We should prioritize seeking independent sources rather than relying solely on Israeli sources to substantiate this grave claim, adhering to the core WP:PROVEIT. StarkReport (talk) 21:54, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It should be qualified as an allegation, if only from one source, and not stated in wiki voice. If that's the case it might not be due in the lede. entropyandvodka | talk 21:58, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Qualified as according to that source, rather, not qualified as an allegation because it is only from one source. entropyandvodka | talk 21:58, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For the time being, we should remove the allegation from the article's introduction until concrete evidence can substantiate the claims. StarkReport (talk) 22:06, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree on seeking independent sources.VR _talk 00:12, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am an Israely, and this whole discussion about weathr teenage girls were raped or not raped during the attack is extremly insensitive and offensive towrds the Israely people. I have seen many videos by Hamass oficial sources claiming and being proud of raping our girls saying proudly its something to celebrate! A Hammas terrorist interrogated admitted there was a mass rape at the rave of our young innocent girls next to their friends bodies. there are numerous videos of young girls kidnapped by hammas with blood oozing between their legs.... I know its hard to hear and belive but this is our reality, they are killing and raping our people and celebrating our death. This whole article is infuriating, why doesnt it call the attack by its name, just like president Joe Biden have said in his speech- a terror attack? Orohayon (talk) 00:44, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How many Palestinians entered Israel, and how many were Hamas militants?

Has anyone seen estimates of the number of people who entered, and how many were militants? IDF spokesman Richard Hecht said “Approximately 1,500 bodies of Hamas militants were found in Israel around the Gaza Strip” which is the figure we have in our infobox here. There are a lot of videos on Twitter showing masses of unarmed Palestinians in Southern Israel (e.g.[28][29][30][31][32]) so either there were many more than 1,500 people who crossed the border, or not all of those 1,500 were Hamas militants. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:16, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've been looking for the past couple of days and haven't been able to find an estimate; I would, however, assume that there were many more than 1500 because we know many militants escaped back to Gaza with hostages. BilledMammal (talk) 22:20, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes good point. It should be a multiple of those whose bodies were found, unless the majority of those who went out-and-in then went back out again afterwards.

Finding an estimate for the number of civilian Gazan Palestinians killed while in Israel would be valuable too. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:36, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are videos that show Palestinian civilians walking in and out of the Gaza barrier (so technically they do step inside Israel), but I doubt many civilians ventured far into Israel. Taking a few steps inside Israel (perhaps as a curiosity, since Gazans are never allowed to leave the tiny strip) is different from militants driving several kilometers inside on a mission to kill.VR _talk 00:08, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Four of the five Twitter videos above are clearly far inside Israel. Onceinawhile (talk) 00:16, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

After the attack was known Apache helicopters were deployed preventing anybody to cross the border. Many of these Gazans must have been trapped and finally killed.

So the 1500 adds Hamas terrorists and "curious".

With around 10 attacks involving around 100 fighters I think 1000 is a good estimate without precise sources. Probably an overestimate.

RadXman (talk) 00:28, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Conflicting reports about Baby Beheadings

The reference to Mondoweiss could either be removed or rephrased to include other sources perhaps.^[1][2][3][4] — hako9 (talk) 22:58, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

1. ^ https://theintercept.com/2023/10/11/israel-hamas-disinformation/
2. ^ https://news.sky.com/story/its-important-to-separate-the-facts-from-speculation-what-we-actually-know-about-the-viral-report-of-beheaded-babies-in-israel-12982329
3. ^ https://www.aa.com.tr/en/middle-east/israeli-army-says-it-does-not-have-confirmation-about-allegations-that-hamas-beheaded-babies-/3014787
4. ^ https://www.businessinsider.com/idf-says-wont-back-up-beheaded-babies-disrespectful-2023-10

— hako9 (talk) 22:58, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Infinity Knight (talk) 01:03, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia page hasn't incorporated the more recent reports on how the beheadings were unconfirmed. There are two locations to state they're unconfirmed. Hovsepig (talk) 09:56, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An IDF spokesperson, following a coroners investigation, has confirmed that Hamas militants beheaded babies at Kibbutz Be'eri. On the BBC's live feed. BilledMammal (talk) 10:02, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a lot of conflicting reports on this matter being updated frequently. See this CNN article. Question is - given the current uncertainty regarding this, should we wait until there is consensus by these sources? B3251 (talk) 11:19, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: There should be a page specifically for the 2023 South Israel Attacks, the initial terrorist attack that sparked this war, separate from the war page itself

I went into detail with it on the other page, but essentially right now we have this page for the war initiated by this terror attack(the equivalent of, say, the US War in Afghanistan page), and we have pages for some specific incidents in that initial terror attack like the Re'im Festival massacres(the equivalent of pages for the Pentagon Attacks, North Tower, South Tower), but we don't have a page specifically for the initial 2 days of massacres primarily targetted at civilians(an equivalent of the September 11 attacks page overall).

This will be especially important when the ground campaign of the war starts. We need a page SPECIFICALLY for the terrorist attacks that triggered it overall. Not just the page for the resulting war and the pages for specific events in that larger attack. I propose the name South Israel Attacks or South Israel Massacres(though I don't think the year will be needed in this case given the sheer magnitude of the event, you could easily slap 2023 in front of either) 2604:3D09:1F80:CA00:8CA:D767:50FD:E1DD (talk) 23:02, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Survivor interviews provide claims of large-scale wartime sexual violence, including instances of rape committed by Palestinian militant groups, including Hamas."

Since when did we start adding the word "claim" to survivors accounts of witnessing sexual violence? We generally avoid that as it casts doubt on what the reliable source says. We have three sources for that sentence; there is no need to put the word claim there.

We report what reliable sources say; the sources do NOT say that the person "claimed" they witnessed sexual violence. If you have a reliable source disputing this, then you put that in there and state what the reliable source said. Chuckstablers (talk) 00:18, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's a badly worded sentence in general; it should be reworded to Survivor interviews reported large-scale wartime sexual violence, including instances of rape committed by Hamas and other Palestinian militant groups. BilledMammal (talk) 00:20, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree. I don't have extended edit protection so unfortunately I can't make the edit myself. As it is written currently it might as well just say "These people SAID they witnessed sexual violence, but there's no actual evidence". Chuckstablers (talk) 00:24, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've switched it over. BilledMammal (talk) 00:48, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is not consistent with policy to source a claim in Wikipedia's voice to "Israeli official confirms women were raped during Hamas attack". That an Israeli official made the claim needs to be in the body of the article if such a source is used. The Israeli Foreign Minister also claimed that Jewish toddlers were being put in cages and the video to which he was referring to has been debunked as not related to the subject of this article. The second source, the Times of Israel, not only does not support the claims of "survivor interviews" but contradicts it saying "testimonies are yet to be taken." It also contradicts the claim of systematic sexual violence saying a "pattern of sexual assault" has yet to be established. That leaves thejc.com which apparently did not interview anyone instead referring to interviewing by "the Tablet". Now Tablet DID publish rape allegations in a "saying it's been said" manner but even that was by the same Leil Leibowitz who publishes things on Tablet like how RFK Jr is a vaccine truth teller. How hard can it be to find a straightforward non-Israeli media source saying there was rape? Even just one confirmed case? NYT, WaPo, BBC? Nothing from sources like that? It's not like reliable sources like these have been shy about making clear statements about other atrocities such as massacres.--Brian Dell (talk) 03:54, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We are saying that several sources have reported survivor accounts which reported sexual violence inflicted upon women by hamas. Not sure if this is even in the article, but see https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/survivors-of-hamas-assault-on-music-fest-describe-horrors-and-how-they-made-it-out-alive. It's been reported. We said it's been reported. We don't add "allegations" or "claims" when simply reporting what reliable sources say. We let readers make their own decisions on whether they believe or disbelieve the things being reported. We don't try to sway their views one way or another by adding terms like "claim", "alleged", or "allegations". If you have an issue with it, provide a reliable source that says the opposite.

"We go to hide in a bush, a big bush in the creek. And we was in the bush something like six or seven hours. A lot of terrorists go around us and search for people to kill. The terrorists, people from Gaza, raped girls. And after they raped them, they killed them, murdered them with knives, or the opposite, killed — and after they raped, they — they did that." - according to PBS a survivor of the attack. Chuckstablers (talk) 04:23, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of alleged Israeli war crimes

My very best wishes you pretty much removed Israeli war crimes from the article[33], even though reliable sources have made the allegations. If the allegation came from HRW, but not UN, then you could have edited to indicate that instead of also removing HRW allegations?VR _talk 00:59, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here to echo this concern. @My very best wishes removed crucial content about the proposed siege, which was being referred to by the Palestinian UN envoy. The current edit now starts with the Palestinian UN envoy mentioning the proposed siege without the context that preceded it in the paragraph before. Not only does this not make sense from a writing standpoint, but it seems like an effort to minimize mention of a proposed war crime by Israel. The addition of a US official downplaying the likelihood of the siege may be noteworthy, but now the section seems suspiciously POV. entropyandvodka | talk 01:30, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are sources that say the UN has also alleged war crimes (reuters, emphasis added):

Turk said Israel's "imposition of sieges that endanger the lives of civilians by depriving them of goods essential for their survival is prohibited under international humanitarian law". "This risks seriously compounding the already dire human rights and humanitarian situation in Gaza, including the capacity of medical facilities to operate, especially in light of increasing numbers of injured," he said, adding that a siege may amount to "collective punishment". Such acts may amount to a war crime, U.N. Human Rights spokesperson Ravina Shamdasani later clarified.

VR _talk 01:07, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Such allegations have also been made Hallie Ludsin[34], from

Norwegian refugee council[36].VR _talk 01:15, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

This is your godamn “reliable” sources????

WHAT IS THIS SOURCES? Never had I ever heard of them before. 2A06:C701:45F1:1300:2132:9A49:9F6F:913E (talk) 01:33, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reuters is a pretty reliable source. If Reuters said a UN official said something, then that UN official most likely did make that statement.VR _talk 01:35, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another quote from the ohchr.org source:

"The Commission is gravely concerned with Israel’s latest attack on Gaza and Israel’s announcement of a complete siege on Gaza involving the withholding of water, food, electricity and fuel which will undoubtfully cost civilian lives and constitutes collective punishment." entropyandvodka | talk 01:34, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Here is inline reference used on the page. It says The Commission [of UN] is gravely concerned with Israel’s latest attack on Gaza and Israel’s announcement of a complete siege on Gaza involving the withholding of water, food, electricity and fuel which will undoubtfully cost civilian lives and constitutes collective punishment. But it does not says that "water, food, electricity and fuel" would constitute a war crime. "War crime" has a very specific meaning with typical examples provided in War_crime#International_Criminal_Court_2002. Turning off electricity is not one of them. Saying that, you are welcome to include something, but the text must be supported by inline refs. It was not. My very best wishes (talk) 01:34, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • My concern with your edit it that you removed not only a couple of words that were not supported by an inline ref, but you actually removed an entire paragraph, most of which was indeed supported by inline ref. Can you please self-revert and remove only the part you don't think is supported by the ref? VR _talk 01:37, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is the case when HRW (1st ref) was saying one thing, while UN (2nd ref) was saying something different. I suspect this could be a misrepresentation and therefore can not take responsibility for inserting such text. My very best wishes (talk) 01:53, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So was the HRW source misrepresented? If yes, please explain how. If not, then please self-revert. You shouldn't be removing material without justification.VR _talk 01:56, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The UN source used on the page did NOT call it war crime. Why should we include it on the page as a war crime? My very best wishes (talk) 02:05, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But the HRW source did say that. So why did you remove the HRW source? VR _talk 03:57, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• • Collective punishment is a war crime. [37]https://www.hrw.org/reports/2008/ethiopia0608/18.htm entropyandvodka | talk 01:39, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your text was saying "UN", and the used inline reference (to UN) did not make such (war crime) assertion. Not every collective punishment is a war crime, only some of them. Turning off electricity and internet is something debatable if it was used to disable military communications (by Hamas in this case). My very best wishes (talk) 01:50, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we can reach a quick consensus. An older version showed:

"On 9 October, the Israeli defense minister stated that he had ordered a "complete siege" of the Gaza Strip, saying electricity, food, fuel and water would be cut off. According to Human Rights Watch, punitive measures against Gaza's civilian population would amount to unlawful collective punishment, which is a war crime."

Here's the relevant paragraph from the Human Rights Watch statement:

"Palestinian armed group’s apparent deliberate targeting of civilians, indiscriminate attacks, and taking of civilians as hostages amount to war crimes under international humanitarian law. Israeli authorities’ cutting off electricity to Gaza and other punitive measures against Gaza’s civilian population would amount to unlawful collective punishment, which is a war crime. The laws of war apply to all parties to a conflict, irrespective of the lawfulness of their going to war or imbalances of power between the parties."

Do you have any issue with that version of the paragraph? entropyandvodka | talk 02:02, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Collective punishment is a war crime. Which of the sources show that the HRW called the siege on gaza a "Collective punishment" or is it your conclusion from the article? Currently the electricy and water Israel provides Gaza is a humanitarinian aid, it's not gaza's electricity, Israel is the one who pays for it, therefore they don't "take away their resources" they simply stop providing what they gave them volunteeraly until now. Erduan also is not a member of the HRW, he is simply leader of 1 out of 193 countries who are part of the UN. You can cite the HRW euridic statements, but you're not a judge to refer them or proclaim them uppon anyone. Doing so is taking a narrative. On the same note, you also cannot call raping, taking civil hostages, beheading babies and literally everything else Hamas has done a war crime until HRW will officaly say it is (which I'm sure they'll do in the next few weeks).

The state "Collective punishment" is biased and based on personal narrative. Encyclopedic writing should say "Cut supply of humanitarinian aid which includes electricity and water". דוב (talk) 02:01, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This why the statement is attributed to HRW and not made in wiki voice. There's a world of difference between statements like "X argued Y's actions were war crimes" and "Y committed war crimes". entropyandvodka | talk 07:04, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• BTW, Entropyandvodka I couldn't find any source in which Amnesty has accused Israel of war crimes in the current conflict. Did you find anything? Amnesty so far has only accused Palestinians, so the article should reflect that.VR _talk 04:24, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Amnesty more admonished against the commission of further war crimes in the current conflict, while stating "Israel has a horrific track record of committing war crimes with impunity in previous wars on Gaza." They haven't leveled a specific accusation at Israel about the current conflict, to my knowledge. Obviously the article should reflect what they've said when referring to their statement, but the statements from HRW and the UN also bear relevance, as well as the statements from the respective UN envoys of Israel and Palestine. entropyandvodka | talk 04:53, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  If a notable source says something and it’s disputed by a Wikipedia user then it should be attributed not removed Bobisland (talk) 05:31, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Israeli war crimes" fails verification at this time

We have expressions of concern, exhortations to caution and restraint, and statements about the past. But there is no RS that states that the threatened siege or other Israeli actions this week are war crimes. Patience and Reliable Sources are needed now. SPECIFICO talk 02:00, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't justify removal of the mention of the threatened siege. Previously this was described by the line:

"On 9 October, the Israeli defense minister stated that he had ordered a "complete siege" of the Gaza Strip, saying electricity, food, fuel and water would be cut off."

This gives relevant context to the statement of the Palestinian envoy, and was properly sourced. entropyandvodka | talk 02:14, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article section is not about threats. It is about crimes. The only reported crimes to date are Hamas'. SPECIFICO talk 02:41, 12 October 2023 (UTC) SPECIFICO[reply]

The allegations of war crimes are not limited to Hamas. This is in multiple RS. entropyandvodka | talk 02:50, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No RS has been offered. If you know of multiple such sources, please provide links. SPECIFICO talk 03:09, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

C'mon SPECIFICO, look at the top of the section.VR _talk 03:54, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A few sources directly alleging or describing allegations of war crimes:

This one is also used for war crimes of Hamas:

" Israeli authorities’ cutting off electricity to Gaza and other punitive measures against Gaza’s civilian population would amount to unlawful collective punishment, which is a war crime. " [38]https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/10/09/israel/palestine-devastating-civilian-toll-parties-flout-legal-obligations

The statement from the Palestinian UN envoy; note that the Israeli envoy is also cited in the Wikipedia article:

" Such blatant dehumanization and attempts to bomb a people into submission, to use starvation as a method of warfare, and to eradicate their national existence are nothing less than genocidal," Palestinian U.N. envoy Riyad Mansour wrote in a letter to the U.N. Security Council on Tuesday, seen by Reuters. "These acts constitute war crimes," he wrote. "

[39]https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/palestinian-un-envoy-accuses-israel-genocidal-campaign-against-gaza-2023-10-10/

Example of another RS typically used in Wikipedia leveling the characterization; there are plenty of these online:

"ISRAEL’S DEFENSE MINISTER Yoav Gallant used genocidal language and ordered mass war crimes in the occupied Gaza Strip on Monday in response to Hamas’s weekend assault and massacre of Israeli civilians, setting the stage for a large-scale escalation of the violence that has already led to the killing of at least 800 Israelis and more than 500 Palestinians."

[40]https://theintercept.com/2023/10/09/israel-hamas-war-crimes-palestinians/

Some additional sources describing the bombings and/or siege order as war crimes:

[41]https://www.justsecurity.org/89403/the-siege-of-gaza-and-the-starvation-war-crime/

[42]https://reliefweb.int/report/occupied-palestinian-territory/israel-commits-widespread-war-crimes-gaza-humanitarian-catastrophe-imminent

[43]https://www.btselem.org/press_releases/20231010_revenge_policy_in_motion_israel_committing_war_crimes_in_gaza

For purposes of RS, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and UN statements are more than sufficient.

Whatever your standard for mentioning anything in this section, note that the same standard ought to be applied to the preceding Palestinian section, which no one seems to be fussing about not explicitly saying "war crime" in every single source next to every single action. Note that I'm not disputing the war crimes mentioned in that section, just stressing the application of a consistent standard in the article. entropyandvodka | talk 04:01, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• In addition to the UN, and two other sources that alleged war crimes (see top of section), here is HRW[44]: Israeli authorities’ cutting off electricity to Gaza and other punitive measures against Gaza’s civilian population would amount to unlawful collective punishment, which is a war crime."VR _talk 03:54, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Human Rights Watch has warned that while Hamas' attack absolutely constitutes a war crime, any collective punishment of Palestinian civilians through a siege could also be considered a war crime.[45]VR _talk 03:56, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

“Beheading babies”

The claim that hamas beheaded babies is very well shown on the war crimes page even if there is no verification and no bodies, and they dare say “Joe Biden confirmed it”. Was he there to see it? Even the Israeli forces don’t want to confirm this claim and the times of Israel deny this claim, and it should be removed from the war crimes section, just like every “alleged” Israeli war crime has been. Why is it still there?

https://theintercept.com/2023/10/11/israel-hamas-disinformation/

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/middleeast/live-news/israel-hamas-war-gaza-10-11-23/index.html

https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/white-house-biden-has-not-seen-or-independently-confirmed-hamas-beheaded-israeli-children/ The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 01:32, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It’s been discussed & cleared already. Look up. 2A06:C701:45F1:1300:2132:9A49:9F6F:913E (talk) 01:40, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your sources don't say that Hamas didn't behead infants, but rather that he denies the claims, which makes a lot of sense. Here are sources that are more reliable than the spokesmen of a terror organization:

• i24news
• CBS
• New York Post
• Independant

New york post and CBS by the way is not known for supporting Israeli agenda. But I guess you'll keep calling it biased untill you see the pictures yourself? דוב (talk) 23:00, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I literally included the times of Israel in my citation but alright. If there’s no proof then it’s not going to be included, just like all of Israel’s alleged crimes, some of which were eventually proven to not have happened The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 02:04, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It has not been cleared, I just checked and it’s still there The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 02:05, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See this source:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/israel-babies-killed-hamas-terror-attack-kibbutz-kfar-aza-first-responders-ay/ David O. Johnson (talk) 01:52, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And Iraqi soldiers are tearing babies out of incubators. And Gadaffi has rape gangs fueled by viagra. And WMDs are- We should not be including these claims in wikivoice until the dust settles. There is an extreme amount of hedging happening on many of these. Even Biden's claim to have seen the photos was clarified as not actually occurring by the White House. Paragon Deku (talk) 02:09, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a source to that? That biden lie and didn't really see the photos? Currently there are more than enough reliable sources of international reporters who have physically been there. Besides the president of the US said he saw the pictures. So all of the international reporters and the president lie or struck by a fog of war? Those are credible reports and witnesses and there is no reason for them not to be used as sources, specially when it's reliable and big news companies like The guardian and CNN. I'm not sure also why you see it as so farfetched while not so far away videos have been posted by Hamas themselves. דוב (talk) 02:17, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a source mentioning it:

https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/white-house-biden-has-not-seen-or-independently-confirmed-hamas-beheaded-israeli-children/ David O. Johnson (talk) 02:26, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, taking back president biden. Can you refer to the various sources who back up this claim? דוב (talk) 02:45, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Daily Beast discusses that Biden's statement was clarified to the Washington Post [46], and that he was relying on news reports and statements by Netanyahu. Sky News report from yesterday says that it stil unconfirmed [47], and the IDF has said they won't confirm it, according to Insider [48]. However, given that the claim has been coroborrated by Yossi Landau, regional head of ZAKA, who was there at the scene and interviewed by CBS [49], I think that some confidence can be given that the allegation is true. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:51, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If there's so much doubt regarding the veracity of the claims then the article should state the claim in doubtful or spurious terms. In the context of a war situation where conflicting and slanted claims are being relayed, I think it should be clear that a claim as sensitive and grave as "beheaded infants" should be held up to a very critical light. Would be far more reliable for someone who isn't IDF-adjacent (i.e. HRW) to confirm something like this. ‒overthrows 03:32, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree that some degree of uncertainty should be applied to the claims, but at the same time, I think its beyond merely a "rumor" at this point, which is what The Intercept describes the claim as [50]. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:46, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Translation request - Arabic to English

Can an Arabic speaker translate, this الدفاع الألمانية: وافقنا على طلب إسرائيلي باستخدام اثنتين من طائراتنا المسيرة في القتال ضد حماس?

Google translated it to "German Defense: We agreed to an Israeli request to use two of our drones in the fight against Hamas". However, another editor said that the translation was Germany sending drones to Ukraine, not Hamas. Can someone verify (not using Google or a translate tool) if "Ukraine" or "Hamas" was said? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 02:54, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The German defence forces: we have agree to an Israeli request to use two (I’m assuming two types) of our drones in the fight against hamas”

the Arabic text you posted does not mention Ukraine. The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 03:24, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated! I thought the translation from Google was right, since there is a secondary English source saying the same thing, but given the translation disagreement, I wanted it translated here. Thank you! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:26, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Germany

Is Germany a direct combatant? It sounds like they just approved the uses of drones? Does anyone have any clarification? LuxembourgLover (talk) 03:04, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If they are I must say I am super surprised we classified Germany as aa combatant before the US. LuxembourgLover (talk) 03:05, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) See talk page message above this one. Translation request was needed as another editor said the original report in Arabic was drones for Ukraine and not Israel. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:06, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As a reply to why it was added, both Al Jazeera & Reuters were reporting it was German drones and the German government gave them clearance to use their drones. Unlike a typical thing from the US which is "have these weapons", where they become Israels. These are on lease from the German government. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:08, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Should any other country that is supporting Israel and be added to the infobox? LuxembourgLover (talk) 03:12, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The "supported by" lines got moved out of use in the infoboxes and require a talk page consensus to add them to an infobox (per the hidden editor note in the combatant infobox section). The US is probably the only other country that could be added, since they are directly giving military support. Germany's was added strictly because the German government was leasing two of their own drones to Israel to fight Hamas, but not truly "giving" them the drones, which means the German government has a partial response in fighting Hamas. The US is similar, but instead of leases, it is more just a "these are yours now" style of supporting. I would not be opposed to adding a "Supported by" subsection in the infobox which is where the US (and maybe Germany with a consensus) would go. But at least for Germany's addition, this is a statement that the German government is militarily supporting Israel with their own weapons, so they are a combatant. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:20, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Reuters source says this (I just direct cite them), how to interpret this?

"Germany has leased five of these drones from Israel's arms maker IAI (ISRAI.UL), with two of them still deployed in Israel for training German drone pilots, the source said.

German Defence Minister Boris Pistorius on Wednesday approved a request by Israel to use the drones, Spiegel reported, adding the 16 German pilots in training were returning home because of the Hamas attack."

so Germany leased these drones from Israel's IAI, but now Germany agreed that Israel could use them. And these drones will be piloted by IDF? Haers6120 (talk) 03:22, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Side comment, the Arabic -

Al Jazeera reference for this was translated in the discussion above this one. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:27, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

So, Germany canceling their lease on two Israeli drones makes them a co-belligerent? That seems like nonsense. 84.54.70.4 (talk) 04:29, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the "supported by" lines from the infobox again. I would not be opposed to discussing whether it can be used in this article (preferably in the form of an RfC), but that should happen before it is used. Renerpho (talk) 06:26, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Collateral damage" - can we not?

Please change "The war has led to immense collateral damage, including the widespread deaths of civilians, and there have been allegations of war crimes" to "The war has led to immense destruction and loss of life, including the widespread deaths of civilians. Sources such as Human Rights Watch and the United Nations Human Rights Council allege war crimes by Palestinian militant groups and the Israeli authorities." The last phrase ("...Palestinian militant groups and the Israeli authorities") could be changed simply to "both sides" but I don't think that's necessarily better.

The above change reflects the content of the articles cited, and avoids the passive voice and the use of the term "collateral damage" (which is particularly problematic). Wikipedia itself notes (in keeping with the sources cited) that collateral damage is a controversial and potentially euphemistic term, and the very HRW article cited at the end of the sentence describes the war crimes as intentional (i.e., "collective punishment" requires intent) and not "collateral". WillowCity (talk) 03:39, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Guardian link at the end of the sentence also redirects to their topic/live feed page. Perhaps we should link the actual statement by the UNHRC ("The Commission has been collecting and preserving evidence of war crimes committed by all sides since 7 October 2023") instead. WillowCity (talk) 03:44, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Both of these suggestions seem sensible to me. Riposte97 (talk) 04:02, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Collateral damage is certainly a phrase typically used by militaries and the governments that command them to euphemistically minimize undue impact to civilian infrastructure.

Iskandar323 (talk) 04:09, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 October 2023

This 2023 Israel–Hamas war has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Add jenin brigade into the war since they joined earlier today 103.209.207.126 (talk) 03:47, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source(s) first, please. Yue🌙 03:59, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Claims of rape removed again

I don't understand what's going on here. We had MULTIPLE sources reporting on survivors claiming to have witnessed rape. What is the issue here?

"We go to hide in a bush, a big bush in the creek. And we was in the bush something like six or seven hours. A lot of terrorists go around us and search for people to kill. The terrorists, people from Gaza, raped girls. And after they raped them, they killed them, murdered them with knives, or the opposite, killed — and after they raped, they — they did that." -https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/survivors-of-hamas-assault-on-music-fest-describe-horrors-and-how-they-made-it-out-alive

This is a source interviewing someone who is identified as survivor of the attacks who is attesting to witnessing rape inflicted upon the victims by hamas militants. We had others, but they're being nitpicked and dismissed. This is getting into POV territory. Chuckstablers (talk) 04:30, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the new, cited, secondary source that covers the primary sources comprehensively: "What we know about accounts of sexual assault during the Hamas attack". Nurg (talk) 04:35, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the sources that were removed backing up the statement of sexual violence. In addition to PBS, which seems to be equally as reliable as the source you're providing. Chuckstablers (talk) 04:44, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"The first shows an Israeli woman being removed from the back of a Jeep with her hands bound behind her back. She has blood on her arm, dirt stains on her legs and a large, dark stain across the seat of her pants.

A high-ranking Israeli military official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said that video was the only evidence of rape or sexual assault of which he was aware". Well there's at least one then.

I read it. I get it; it's a fair point, but it's also a fair point that we have sources that said that this happened that are just as reliable as yours that said there was. Unless there's consensus for this change, which reading the talk page there definitely is not, There's multiple editors on here that disagree, so it doesn't seem to be in the spirit of cooperative editing to make such a change without reaching a consensus. Chuckstablers (talk) 04:48, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say, given what's in the source that was added, this statement is not correct. According to the source, there's at least one known case of rape that was committed that I just cited. Here's the statement claiming that Israeli officials stated they had NO EVIDENCE of it. "Claims that women were raped have been made and widely repeated, but Israeli officials have said they have no evidence of rape."

That's just not true. That's not what was said. It's POV, pretty clearly POV, and should be reverted. Chuckstablers (talk) 04:56, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

LGBTQ+ relevance?

I'm not sure I agree with the addition[51] of text that points out that LGBTQ folks have more rights in Israel than Gaza. It is true, but what is the relevance of that to this article? VR _talk 04:30, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that this addition seems to fail the relevance test. Riposte97 (talk) 04:34, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like scope creep - following the same segue as a side commentary is veering sharply away from the subject here and off on a tangent.

Iskandar323 (talk) 04:35, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Relevant to the wider conversation outside of Wikipedia, but not the scope of this encyclopedia article. Also worth pointing out that the point being made by the added content is not that queer folk face more legal discrimination and punishment in Gaza than Israel, but that, specifically, some leftists are trying to reconcile their support for LGBTQ+ rights with their support for Palestinian self-determination and governance. Again, this is relevant to the broader discussion outside of Wikipedia, but this is getting into super niche territory. Are we going to add what different currents of the right think about this conflict too in terms of monetary support and funding from Western governments? Yue🌙 07:01, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That section could focus on major political parties around the world, regarding if the event changed their stance on the topic. It could also have polling information from the general public (I think this would be considered unreliable, but for example there's a Fox poll out yesterday; perhaps we can expect more). Otherwise you may see such a build-up of tangentially related commentary. Though, the part about the "Sister Souljah moment" is at least related enough for me to think it's worth keeping in, as it kind of sets the most important information in a wider context. But even that isn't so important. VintageVernacular (talk) 08:14, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Considering how much discussion is happening right now and how many analyses are being produced, perhaps it would be sensible to split off an article titled "Analysis of the 2023 Israel–Hamas war"; there, all the less relevant but still connected opinion pieces could be covered, while the main article covers only the most important parts. Applodion (talk) 10:32, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

'End of Western sympathy for the Palestinian government'

This section presents issues. Firstly, the Palestinian Authority is not a party to the conflict. Secondly, the claim that this war marks the 'end of Western sympathy' for Palestinians is an extreme reach. There is no way of gauging whether that is or will be the case. Finally, as noted above, the LGBTQ+ paragraph seems to be

WP:UNDUE - it's essentially commentary on the political legitimacy of Israel. Riposte97 (talk) 04:39, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Definitely appears to be pre-emptive analytical overreach, and inaccurate, as mentioned, given that the PA is not involved here, so what the 'government' being talked about here is extremely unclear.

Iskandar323 (talk) 06:28, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

National Unity Government formed

NYTimes reports that a national unity government was formed: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/11/world/middleeast/israel-hamas-gaza-unity-government.html?smid=url-share CherrySoda (talk) 04:44, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't see that a paragraph was added about that lower in the page already. But I think that instead of "and some opposition parties have called for the formation of a national unity government" write that the national unity government has been formed. CherrySoda (talk) 04:47, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hamas fighters embarked on a rampage unprecedented even in previous Israeli-Palestinian confrontations, .... widely reported as the indiscriminate murder of hundreds of civilians and captives

Taking enemy combatants and using prisoners of war as bargaining chips for future negotiations is a military practice as old as human conflict itself. But the Hamas fighters embarked on a rampage unprecedented even in previous Israeli-Palestinian confrontations, spreading fear through what was widely reported as the indiscriminate murder of hundreds of civilians and captives. ^[1] Andre🚐 05:48, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

1. ^ "Analysis: Why did it take Israel three days to return to Gaza's boundary?". www.aljazeera.com. Retrieved 2023-10-12.

Original research "Sister Souljah Moment"

The article says The event was described by Noah Rothman as a "Sister Souljah moment" — a radical change of opinion — within left-leaning parties in the Western World; many had prominent elected officials who generally took the side of or expressed sympathy with the Palestinian government in the Israel-Palestinian conflict. Leaders of the Democratic Party in the United States, the Social Democrats in Germany, the Labour Party in the United Kingdom, the Liberal Party in Canada, and many other left-wing and center-left parties throughout the Western World expressed support and sympathy for Israel in the war. Shri Thanedar of Michigan announced that he was resigning from the Democratic Socialists of America for the organization's stance on the matter. Polling in the United States indicated that the Democratic Party's sympathy and approval of Israel had skyrocketed in the aftermath; an overwhelming majority took its side and expressed greater sympathy for Israel in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Most of this looks like synthesis. Most of the sources do show that these parties took a pro-Israel stance, but almost none of the sources (except one) support the idea that there was a "radical change of opinion". The National Review source[52] that does talk about change, only talks about change in Biden, not change in Democrats as a whole and says nothing about changes in the entire Western World.

This whole section currently looks like OR.VR _talk 06:13, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be an analysis of, if anything, the

Iskandar323 (talk) 06:24, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

It's sloppy, but there has been multiple polls showing radically altered opinion among center-left parties among many Western societies. (United States, United Kingdom, and a few others), although I agree it needs to be worded better. Per Fox News poll: "The main reason for the overall increase in support for Israel is Democrats have dramatically changed their position," says Republican Daron Shaw who conducts the Fox News survey with Democrat Chris Anderson. "They've moved from +7 Israel to +34, which undoubtedly reflects revulsion over the nature of the attacks.". I'm pulling up the other surveys I can find now. But there's been multiple articles writing about a shift in center-left parties among most of the major Western powers in the last few days.

It needs revised with better sourcing; not deleted. It's important information that doesn't seem to have an obvious spot outside of a separate section in the article. KlayCax (talk) 06:27, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Supporters of Israel

Unlike Iran which denies direct support while supporting the attack; US directly supports Israel and sends armaments and so do European nations; so I do not know why they removed US as a supporter of Israel RickyBlair668 (talk) 06:39, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There was an RfC on the use of "Supported by" in military conflict infoboxes, and the consensus was that the practice should be discontinued and avoided, with exceptions existing only if there was general agreement on the respective talk page(s) to do so. Yue🌙 06:44, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's also sufficiently blindingly obvious that it hardly needs saying.

Iskandar323 (talk) 07:04, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Infobox, 1,500 militants killed in Israel (per Israel)

I have removed this claim from the infobox for the time being as it is highly dubious. Only self reported casualties of the belligerents should be used for the time being. In the past, Hamas announced its casualties after a few days. Ecrusized (talk) 07:52, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's still better to put it out there regardless of whether it is dubious.

Israeli source is the only reliable source at this moment.

We need to get claim from both sides DaChigger (talk) 08:03, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We need to put back the casualties of Hamas militant. Even if it's an overestimation, it is still a source.

For every war on Wikipedia, we present claim of casualties from all sides for all sides. DaChigger (talk) 08:05, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's

first party claim. Ecrusized (talk) 08:33, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 October 2023 (2)

It is requested that an edit be made to the extended-confirmed-protected redirect at 2023 Israel–Hamas war. (edit · history · last · links · protection log) This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y". The edit may be made by any extended confirmed user. Remember to change the |answered=no parameter to "yes" when the request has been accepted, rejected or on hold awaiting user input. This is so that inactive or completed requests don't needlessly fill up the edit requests category. You may also wish to use the {{EEp}} template in the response. To request that a page be protected or unprotected, make a protection request.

There are many, many sources across all media channels that explain what really happened on October 7th. This page describes that very poorly. Hamas militants didn't "attack Israeli communities", They bombarded their way through the border (15 breaches, they brag about it themselves, really not hard to find this info) and obliterated whole villages. They went through houses, one by one, knocked on doors pretending to be Israeli soldiers. If people opened they got shot, burned, raped and kidnapped. Including Women, children and elderly. If people didn't open the door, they breached in anyone, and did the same things. If the residents were inside the safe room, Hamas burned the house to force them out. Hamas decapitated babies. They filmed their atrocities and bragged about them. They kidnapped 3yo kids. They sent videos and pictures through social media accounts of kidnapped Israelis to their families, to show how they killed and mutilated their loved ones.

This page does absolutely nothing representing reality as it is. I apologize if my request is emotional but it is veer difficult to see reality twisted this way. I understand you used sources you consider reliable, so the best I can do is provide a few others:

1. https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/at-least-40-babies-killed-in-israel-hamas-war-report-4468830 2. https://news.yahoo.com/least-40-babies-beheaded-found-154607044.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAE_2r9TylY4ZSwIFErNR07WoUwRYPv3YHWnot6nmj2GX6JqXqDZXX3xGuHCG7WieJNDeQXW1xIijfN6VOpXPDYLkzHQX61a_TFW6CbODntrK_SVTFCxN7Z9gc-nn4yIKd3Ix97b05wX7IZqT3NNwwy8vWFRWoypsaivil2vzzvW4 3. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8iibO7SHbgo 4. https://twitter.com/CNN/status/1712132220809298163 5. https://www.foxnews.com/live-news/hamas-attack-israel-war 6. https://www.foxnews.com/us/hamas-terrorist-sent-mother-video-son-girlfriends-gruesome-murder-israeli-reality-tv-star 7. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmDrd2giZzM 8. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0nIvL-PUGwU TruthWikiReporter (talk) 07:54, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick reply. While I agree with much of what you have said, Wikipedia prefers perennial reliable sources. Here is a checklist for you to scan to reference your statements: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources Johncdraper (talk) 08:19, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"The Israel Defense Forces have "told" a journalist that they "have no evidence" of rape"

This is an equivocation that should be removed ASAP per

WP:AMBIGUOUS

.

WP:SAID: In order to avoid the twin pitfalls of biased wording and tedious repetition of "he said ... she said ...", consider rewriting the prose to remove the need for such verbs in the first place; it is often repeated information, rather than the repetition of specific words, that creates a sense of repetition in prose. 2A02:14F:175:7688:0:0:B482:EFF (talk) 08:04, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Disinformation

"They rape girls; they parade women’s bodies; they deliberately target events where many of the injured and dead will be female... Yet every atrocity has its apologists, who claim the terrorists are really freedom fighters... Witnessing this species of rape apology over the last few days has made me sick to my stomach." Joan Smith, elected chair of Labour 'Humanists'

But this shamefully one-sided opinion should make any fair-minded person sick to their stomach. For unless there is good supporting evidence, should not the comment of this IDF apologist be moved to the Disinformation section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.69.169.34 (talk) 08:22, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It seems this IDF apologist is not a person but the Israel Defense Forces themselves, who "told" a journalist that they "have no evidence" of rape 2A02:14F:178:32D2:0:0:B48B:5BF2 (talk) 08:48, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

IDF confirms Islamic State flag found on terrorist killed during attack on kibbutz

Israeli toll reaches 1,300; NATO ministers shown uncensored video of Hamas atrocities | The Times of Israel

Does this mean we can say that Daesh are involved in this war or would that still be perceived as speulation? שי 08:49, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hamas Terrorists Hung An ISIS Flag While Attacking A Kibbutz In Israel - I24NEWS confirmed by i24 news שי 08:53, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

officialy not really. Those Hamas terrorists who had a flag either were affialitaed with Daesh (or isis or isil or is) or brangt it as a symbolic object. Daesh (or isis or isil or is) and Hamas ideologies are similare. Both want to destroy israel and destroy the jewish religion. Daesh (or isis or isil or is) is a bit more radical.

There could be Hamas terrorists who are even more into the ideology of Daesh (or isis or isil or is).

Officially it's just a flag of Daesh (or isis or isil or is). Those who had it are probably now dead. We can't really find it out anymore UNLESS Daesh (or isis or isil or is) publicly announces it support of Hamas and their role, like they did in their lone wolves terror attacks in brussels and paris. Poles Ragge (talk) 08:57, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish dual nationals

There are 2 - 1 killed 1 missing - Turkish/Israeli nationals. Please update the list.

Ref: Ref: https://gazeteoksijen.com/dunya/israil-hamas-savisinda-6-gun-saldirida-1-turk-vatandasi-oldu-1-turk-de-kayip-191349 2A02:3102:9D00:1940:6394:CC6A:4EC2:1149 (talk) 09:03, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

President Herzog's statements, should be added to warcrimes section

The same way Hamas have denied their targeting of civilians, the following claim should be mentioned too in terms of impartiality.

LIVEBLOG: Israel Continues Aerial Counteroffensive, Death Toll Crossed 1,200 - I24NEWS

"We are not retaliating. We are targeting the enemy, in order to uproot the capability of the enemy to carry on with its campaign of Israel. Trying to destroy it as part of an empire of evil which has its claws all around us, from the north with Hezbollah, from the south with Hamas and Islamic Jihad. Look around us, in the entire region, the havoc they have created everywhere Iran has touched. In Yemen, in Syria, in Iraq, in Lebanon This is exactly what I talked about in the Joint Session of Congress in July where I explained it is always our dream to make peace with our neighbors but we cannot accept terror. Unfortunately the world has seen the worst terrorist atrocity in quite some time." שי 09:04, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what this has to do with war crimes. He doesn't mention war crimes at all here. Maybe it belongs to the Reactions section. Alaexis_¿question? 09:09, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hamas deny that they have targeted civilians, this reaction is mentioned in the war crime section. I was suggesting that the reaction from the Israeli president should be added as well, otherwise the article shows one side clearly denying the claims and showing nothing from the other side addressing the situation.

If you were to add this to the reactions page, the Hamas statement should be moved there as well. שי 09:11, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see your point now. However I'm not sure that he was referencing the actions described as potential was crimes (such as cutting off the electricity and food supplies). If he did, we need to find his full speech. Otherwise we can wait until we get the explanation from some other official. Alaexis_¿question? 10:05, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"USA military aid to Israel"

This is completely redundant to the "Military reactions" section. VintageVernacular (talk) 09:23, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There has been found 1500 terrorist bodies in the gaza strip (IDF)

The IDF spokesman for foreign media told reporters this morning that 1,500 bodies of terrorists were found in the Gaza Strip. He added that the IDF has "more or less restored" control of the border. Later, the IDF spokesman stated that the army is in full control of the area - but there may still be clashes with terrorists Ballins55 (talk) 09:46, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli airstrikes in Syria

@

WP:SYN. Ecrusized (talk) 10:06, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

@Ecrusized so we have to remove Syria attribution from infobox Nauman335 (talk) 10:24, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@

October 2023 Syrian-Israeli exchanges article, I should have looked at the source before posting it. Parham wiki (talk) 10:25, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Israeli Airline overturns 41 year policy to bring Israelis over the world to Israel for their military drafts

Times of Israel writes:

El Al to fly on Saturday for 1st time in 41 years to bring reservists to Israel

By SHARON WROBEL

El Al Israel Airlines announces that for the first time since 1982, it will fly on a Saturday, the Jewish Sabbath, to bring back Israelis called up for emergency military reserve duty as well as security and rescue forces stranded abroad.

Israel’s national airline says it is preparing to operate flights this Saturday from the US and Asia to help bring back Israeli army reservists whose return to the country is vital during the current war with the Hamas terror group.

Reserve soldiers will be flying back on Saturday free of charge on two Boeing 787 aircraft leaving from New York and Bangkok. The cost of the flights will be borne by El Al and large US financial institutions, El Al says in a statement.

El Al says breaking its decades-long policy of not flying on the Jewish Sabbath has received halachic approval as the rescue flights are considered part of what is known in Hebrew as pikuah nefesh — the Jewish legal principle that saving a life trumps nearly all other religious requirements.

Quite a historic moment since Israelis from across the globe are being required to fight against Hamas terrorist groups.

שי - LionFireKing404 10:46, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I understand due to Wikipedia's neutrality rules that Hamas can't be mentioned as a terrorist organisation (much to my frustration) but an adapted version should be included שי - LionFireKing404 10:55, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should probably be mentioned. Would it fit best under

2023_Israel–Hamas_war#Reactions_in_Israel? Best, GPL93 (talk) 12:08, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Redundant references

There is a continuous effort of adding unnecessary and sometimes completely unacceptable references into the article. What benefit does adding a reference of Algerian statement to the lede, when there is already a reference mentioning most Arab countries? What benefit does adding a twitter link as reference? What benefit when the same piece of information is referenced in five or more references stating the same information? What benefit do we have from adding Arabic and Hebrew references when we have overwhelming English coverage? Please refrain from adding such sources and remove them as soon as they appear. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:07, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Holocaust reference

Can someone remove this nonsense from the lede? Makeandtoss (talk) 11:19, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense because it invokes historical incidents that have nothing to do with the current situation, by political actors seeking to rally military support; not encyclopaedic or relevant in any way. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:14, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it nonsense?! Are you a Holocaust denier? Aminabzz (talk) 11:47, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Attributed to Biden, seems he is mixing up Jews with Israel. Selfstudier (talk) 11:52, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Selfstudier

Most Israelis are Jewish Parham wiki (talk) 12:02, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And 25% are not. Also not only Jewish Israelis were killed. Selfstudier (talk) 12:04, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is an unfortunate reference. But, it was said by Biden, so I don't see how it can be avoided. @

WP:PA O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:08, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

It should definitely be in the prose (likely in the international reactions subsection), I'm not sure if it being in the lede makes sense. Best, GPL93 (talk) 12:15, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Just because Biden, the king of bloopers, utters something sensationalist, it doesn't automatically become lead-worthy -- not least because he is outspokenly biased.

Iskandar323 (talk) 12:19, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

@Makeandtoss Why? Parham wiki (talk) 12:03, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's just another politician looking for a soundbite? It can stay as long as it is attributed to Biden. Selfstudier (talk) 12:05, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Biden's opinions doesn't belong in the lede anyway. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:14, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha> tags or {{efn}} templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}} template or {{notelist}} template (see the help page).