Wikipedia

Talk:7 October Hamas-led attack on Israel/Archive 2

< Talk:7 October Hamas-led attack on Israel
Latest comment: 1 year ago by El-Baba in topic Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 November 2023
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Requested move 12 October 2023

Latest comment: 1 year ago178 comments71 people in discussion
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Operation Al-Aqsa Flood → ? – There are concerns that the name "Operation Al-Aqsa flood" might be POV. So what should this page be moved to? Options are:

  • Operation Al-Aqsa flood (status quo)
  • A descriptive title like "October 2023 Palestinian attack on Israel":
  • Oppose You assert that "there are concerns" that the name might be POV. You have cited no evidence that such concerns have been expressed (who? where?) Nor have you articulated any argument to support your bald assertion. The article does not need to be renamed because the title Operation "whatever" is not POV. There are many such articles in Wikipedia. O'Dea (talk) 14:14, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Something like "2023 Hamas attacks on Israel" is probably fine- adequately describes the culprit (Hamas) and target- albeit to avoid any further attacks later in the war being ambiguous, "October 7, 2023 Hamas attacks" would work. I don't think using Hamas's operation name Al-Aqsa Flood is neutral but I remain open to being persuaded either way on the best alternative title. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 20:17, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
"Operation al-Aqsa flood" is used by Times of Israel[1], albeit in quotes.VR talk 22:15, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
I agree, "2023 Hamas attacks on Israel" describes the event best. Sheesheesh (talk) 12:24, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
Support naming back to 2023 Hamas attack on Israel or similar. That is an unbiased title. A3811 (talk) 19:01, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
Attack?? Can you call it for what it was - a massacre -? 185.182.71.27 (talk) 11:50, 18 October 2023 (UTC) Struck per WP:ARBECR and WP:PIA. — MaterialWorks 20:49, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Your assertion is untrue that "We don’t name articles like September 11 attacks or Attack on Pearl Harbor based on the internal operation name that the attackers use".
Here are just a few of the many such Wikipedia articles:
* Operation Badr
* Operation Barbarossa
* Operation Blue Star
* Operation Condor
* Operation Downfall
* Operation Eagle Claw
* Operation Market Garden
* Operation Mincemeat
* Operation Overlord
* Operation Torch
In fact, there are so many military operation-named articles in Wikipedia that they are collected in a long list (have a look). O'Dea (talk) 13:54, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
"Invasion" is a somewhat incongruous term in the context, in that Gazan militants are less coming from the outside and invading anywhere so much as they are breaking out of the blockaded Gaza Strip. Invasion implies a much more external scenario, whereas this is occupied versus occupier. Incursion would be more passable, so something like 2023 incursion into (southern) Israel might be more the way to go for an WP:NCE title, much as Israeli intrusions into the Palestinian West Bank are often called 'incursions'. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:31, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
This. All of this but I think your proposal could use some modifications. Hamas incursion into Israel, with or without the year sound much better and natural. Killuminator (talk) 20:36, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
The whole sole association with Hamas is deeply murky, with the exact make-up in terms of group affiliation of the militants that made their way into Israel being basically unknown, but at the very least it is known that the PIJ was also involved - so having just Hamas in the title would be a misnomer unless it became 'Hamas-led' instead. The issues with finding a natural descriptive title is perhaps one of the points currently in favour of the operational name, since that is at least both recognisable and precise by default. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:49, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
The good thing about 2023 incursion into Israel is that it wonderfully meets the criterion "titles should unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but should be no more precise than that", since there was no other major incursion into Israel in 2023 besides this. But I'm not sure if its a common name, or if there is even a common name.VR talk 22:11, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose We should use recognizable names instead of brainstorming what we think is the most accurate description of an event. The current name serves that function well, for now at least. Pages like Case White, Case Black, Operation Southeast Croatia andOperation Corridor 92 are all pages about controversial events and they're named after code names used by people who carried out these events. Using the easily identifiable names for these historic events is not the same as endorsing them. None of the proposed names are persuasive either, especially invasion. Killuminator (talk) 20:35, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
@Killuminator: can you provide some evidence that this name is recognizable? VR talk 22:18, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
@Vice regent: — Al Jazeera, Reuters, & The United Nations (UN) are a few WP:RS examples. Copied from my oppose !vote below this reply. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:38, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose - Operation names are used all the time for redirects or article names on Wikipedia (i.e. Operation Overlord and Operation Detachment are POV sounding examples that would not ever be deleted/changed). Also, this is sourced by several WP:RS: Al Jazeera, Reuters, & The United Nations (UN). Most translations of it are "Operation Al-Aqsa Storm", however, there is enough sources saying the translation is "Operation Al-Aqsa Flood" to keep it. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:26, 12 October 2023 (UTC) Adding on to my original strong oppose: The United Nations published a new fact sheet/press release on 20 October, which also included the statement: On Saturday, 7 October...Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups launched Operation al-Aqsa Flood, a coordinated assault consisting of land and air attacks into multiple border areas of Israel. This may indicate lasting coverage/usage of the operation name. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 00:22, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
    I believe almost all sources use "Flood"; not sure where "Storm" came from. The more rarely used "Deluge", in the sense of a Biblical flood, is actually the most strictly accurate translation. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:05, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
    Agreed, “Al-Aqsa deluge” seems to be the most accurate translation with the context The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 08:25, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
    Another example would be the Anfal campaign, which was the Ba'athist Iraqi government's name for their genocidal campaign against the Kurds in the mid-to-late 1980s. The phrase "Kurdish genocide" is less commonly used, which is why it is a redirect to the Anfal campaign article rather than vice versa. The same logic should apply here. Kurtis (talk) 04:29, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
    As this was now cited quite often, I would mention that three sources do not make a common name. Al Jazeera, for example, does not use the name frequently (and the use above is actually by the author of an opinion piece). And, incidentally, the article for Operation Detachment is actually Battle of Iwo Jima - which is the actual common name, and counters your own argument. Averell (talk) 16:50, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:POVNAME: "In such cases, the prevalence of the name, or the fact that a given description has effectively become a proper name (and that proper name has become the common name), generally overrides concern that Wikipedia might appear as endorsing one side of an issue." Makeandtoss (talk) 21:46, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
How is it POV? It’s the name of the military operation The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 08:21, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
It's POV but its allowed if its reported by most reliable sources. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:10, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
I’d say 2023 Hamas offensive in (or) into Israel 78.171.249.53 (talk) 11:53, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
@Sunshine SRA: Do you have a source for this (i.e. how "common people refer to it"? Al Jazeera, Reuters, & The United Nations (UN), three well-known reliable sources distinctly refer to it as "Operation Al-Aqsa Flood". The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:16, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
to name a couple - including Al Jazeera
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/10/7/what-happened-in-israel-a-breakdown-of-how-the-hamas-attack-unfolded
https://abcnews.go.com/International/timeline-surprise-rocket-attack-hamas-israel/story?id=103816006 Sunshine SRA (talk) 21:34, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
Well...The literally sub-title for the Al Jazeera article you linked is: Palestinian group Hamas launched Operation Al-Aqsa Flood inside Israel, killing dozens and taking hostages in a shocking assault...so you sort of just helped proved that it actually is known by the operation name. That said, you are correct that the ABC News article does not refer to it by the Operation name. But, given you actually just gave an additional source that called it the operation name, there are still more operation name sources than non-operation name sources. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:37, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
True RE the Al Jazeera source. However the title called it an 'attack', same as in the sources you included that are not with an arab origin. Al Jazeera, owned by an arab owners from Qatar, has more arab readers who are able to understand better the naming origin, yet it still called it Attack in the main title. And actually, in the source of Reuters you shared the titled called it Attack as well... it does mentioned 'Palestinian militant Mohammed Deif, calls it Al Aqsa Floodcalled Al-Aqsa Flood' but the writer called it an attack so I believe there are more sources in supporting of calling it an attack Sunshine SRA (talk) 21:53, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
Fair enough. I do disagree with you, but you do have valid and strong points. The only thing I would comment on would be Operation Overlord, by far one of the most famous and well-known military operations in history. 99% of people who write about that are not going to call it "Operation Overlord" in their title. Most people probably don't recognize that operation name even, however Wikipedia's article is called it. Most people would recognize it as the Allied Invasion of France or more likely D-Day. But, I would about grantee almost no one will call it "Operation Overlord" in the title of say a news article. Obviously, that title sounds just as POV as this title does as well as only used by the Allies in WW2, like this article's title was used by Hamas. But, in terms of historical documentation, Operation Overlord and Operation Al-Aqsa Flood are just military operations. The UN referred to it as "Operation Al-Aqsa Flood" (see further down in this discussion for the exact word-for-word UN quote). So, while WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS cannot be used by itself as a discussion reason, given the sources as well as the UN calling it by the operation name, I think Operation Overlord is a strong enough analogy to keep it called "Operation Al-Aqsa Flood". The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:31, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the comment, it's interesting they don't mention anything like "Hamas" or "Palestinian militant" in the name.VR talk 22:09, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
The present name is used by several reliable sources including: Al Jazeera, Reuters, & The United Nations (UN). Heavily biased/one sided operation names are articles on Wikipedia (example is Operation Overlord). The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 14:51, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
Note that we have a redirect Hamas attack on Israel, 2023. My very best wishes (talk) 17:30, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
No, based on the usage in sources (e.g. [2]), "Operation Al-Aqsa Flood" is NOT applied to the actions by Israeli forces ("The sword of iron"), which are the most significant part of the war right now. This is not a common name for the entire war. My very best wishes (talk) 16:51, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
This article was specifically for the Hamas operation, where “Operation Al-Aqsa Flood” is the WP:COMMONNAME for their specific operation. Same as how we (Wikipedia) have an article Operation Overlord, which is the name of an allied invasion in WWII. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:53, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
Yes, sure. This article is specifically for the Hamas (and allied militant groups) operation that started the war. My very best wishes (talk) 16:57, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
To make this nonsensical argument work, you need another separate article for the Israeli operation as well as the war article which is both operations together...duh. Selfstudier (talk) 16:59, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
Why? We have a separate big page about the war already. As about the Sword of Iron - that's irrelevant. We may or may not have such page in a future. My very best wishes (talk) 17:04, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
If that's irrelevant so is this. Selfstudier (talk) 17:11, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
Selfstudier, that argument is not a valid reason. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:38, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS says we do not. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 17:00, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
I don't think that people searching online would know this name or search it, they would search for an attack/massacre because these are the words used by media. Sheesheesh (talk) 17:09, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
Most would just be searching Israel Gaza/Hamas war by now. Selfstudier (talk) 17:13, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Searching for it is irrelevant. Would you randomly search for “Operation Overlord”? Probably not and not many people would because the most famous part of Operation Overlord is D-Day. That said, Wikipedia still has an article about it, despite not being the most “searched” item. The WP:COMMONNAME, even proved by several secondary reliable sources (Al Jazeera, Reuters, & The United Nations (UN)) show it is a common term for the Hamas attack on 7 October. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 17:14, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
The Reuters article you linked to shows the conflict with using the term operation al-aqsa flood: "Israel calls last week's devastating attack by Hamas its 9/11 moment. The secretive mastermind behind the assault, Palestinian militant Mohammed Deif, calls it Al Aqsa Flood."
Calling it a massacre/attack describes what happened, it is neutral not taking a side or using a name from any side.
I don't understand the logic yet of using operation al-aqsa flood as the title. Sheesheesh (talk) 17:51, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
this current title is completely insensitive. it wasn't some miliary operation, it was a horrible and barbaric massacre of civilians. to use their name for it would be as if we are supporting it. 2603:7000:6400:E058:A82E:923C:6040:C38B (talk) 17:18, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
@2603:7000:6400:E058:A82E:923C:6040:C38B: — Do you have a source specifically stating “it wasn’t a military operation”? The United Nations stated and I quote, “On Saturday, 7 October — a Jewish sabbath day, the end of the weeklong Jewish festival of Sukkot, and a day after the 50th anniversary of the Yom Kippur War — Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups launched Operation al-Aqsa Flood, a coordinated assault consisting of land and air attacks into multiple border areas of Israel.” Obviously this comment is very opinionated, but as far as Wikipedia policy (and the United Nations is for that matter) concerned, this was a military operation. Cheers! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 17:29, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
This whole article is just a POV fork, I am thinking deletion/merge nomination is the way to go here. Selfstudier (talk) 17:21, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
@Selfstudier: Do you have a reliable source for the accusation that it is a POV fork? If your argument is based on common name and/or not being a military invasion, then you just accused the UN of being POV when it also stated the name of the operation was this. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 17:43, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
Nominated for deletion/remerge. Selfstudier (talk) 17:44, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
@Selfstudier: Why on earth would you start an AfD in the middle of the RM? That is blatant disruptive editing and serves no purpose except beating the point because of a “I have to be right” mentality. I urgently request you withdraw your AfD until the RM concludes, at which point, you can continue the AfD. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 18:15, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
This was raised at my talk page and I have responded there. Selfstudier (talk) 19:04, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
It wouldn't be the first time the UN or Al Jazeera would be accused of being biased against Israel. [3] [4] Daniel Souza (talk) 05:49, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose rename. "Al-Aqsa Flood" is the name used in English language publications when this operation is given a proper name. Anadolu Agency, Turkish state media, uses Al-Aqsa Flood in English and the more literal translation Aksa Tufanı in Turkish. The Arabic spelling should be added to the introduction with a note that "flood" is a loose translation. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 19:10, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
    Maybe it will be more accurate to open a different page talking about the operation: How Hamas prepared etc. This page is not talking about the operation it is talking about the event, the event was a attack/massacre. Sheesheesh (talk) 19:34, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
STRONG Oppose. I concur in response to @WeatherWriter. "Operation al-Aqsa Flood" is the most appropriate title for the page. Codenamephoenix (talk) 20:13, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
@Alaexis:, the first link you posted is an editorial, and given the complexity of the situation, probably falls under the not-RS clause in WP:RSEDITORIAL, given the first sentence of the editorial is "This attack is inexcusable", meaning a non-neutral source. The second source by The Guardian is a good reason for the other name. That said, earlier, I mentioned 3 RS (Al Jazeera, Reuters, & The United Nations (UN)), which all referred to it by the Operation name. Given that, you need to provide a lot more sources which do not refer to the initial attack (7-8 October, not subsequent incidences) as an operation for your reasoning of common name to be utilized accurately, especially since the United Nations point blank said, "Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups launched Operation al-Aqsa Flood, a coordinated assault consisting of land and air attacks into multiple border areas of Israel". Cheers! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:10, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
Fair enough, probably we'd need to do some kind of google count. Still, given the uncertainty about the numbers, I'd go for the descriptive name. Alaexis¿question? 21:56, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
Oppose rename. Per WeatherWriter.–Yeagvr (talk) 01:26, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Strong support for rename: The most important focus with a contentious topic like this is to maintain neutrality, especially with respect to WP:5P2. We are currently having a similar dispute with the title of Operation Gideon (2020) where concerns about the policy WP:CODENAME were mentioned. Per WP:CODENAME, "Operational codenames generally make poor titles, as the codename gives no indication of when or where the action took place and only represents one side's planning (potentially leading writers to focus on that side's point of view). It is better to use an appropriate geographical name for the article, creating a redirect from the operational name". While this may currently be a popular name for the incident, using operational terminology does run the risk of "leading writers to focus on that side's point of view", which is a concern raised by WikiJunkie, Vice regent and Selfstudier. Though WeatherWriter mentions Operation Overlord, that operation was exceptionally notable, while the operational name of this recent event is merely in the news as of right now. The current title doesn't appear to be a common name either; many entities have and will provide various terms for this event. As Iskandar323 previously and correctly mentioned, WP:NCE is the most appropriate path forward in our effort to maintain both accuracy and neutrality. The next step would be determining an NCE title we can agree with; the current candidates appear to be "2023 Hamas attacks on Israel", "2023 incursion into Israel", "2023 Hamas offensive into Israel", with some suggesting the addition of "October" to the date. In my personal opinion, the most accurate and neutral title would be 2023 incursion into Israel as several sources use the term "incursion" and it differentiates between the various "attacks" (rockets and other weapons) occurring at the time and the "incursion" (boots on the ground in Israel), which is more precise and notable.--WMrapids (talk) 02:18, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
Do you have proof that it is not the common name? In the discussion, several sources, including the United Nations mentioned it as this operation name, saying, "Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups launched Operation al-Aqsa Flood, a coordinated assault consisting of land and air attacks into multiple border areas of Israel". The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 02:27, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
According to WP:COMMONNAME: "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources)". Just because the United Nations uses specific terminology doesn't mean that the variety of sources overall use such terms. For instance, Stanford University[7], the Wilson Center[8], the Atlantic Council[9], CNBC[10], The Daily Telegraph[11] and of course multiple governments plainly call the event a "terrorist attack" without any mention of the operational name. We don't want to go that direction either, so it would be most neutral to use a description in the title with less weight, such as "incursion." WMrapids (talk) 15:29, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Support rename. Would prefer something like "Hamas invasion of Israel", but would also support alternatives like "Invasion of Israel" etc. We generally avoid codenames per WP:CODENAMES as they are WP:POV violations; note that WP:POVNAMING recommends against using POV titles, even when the name is common, so long as a recognizable alternative can be found. In this case there are many of descriptive titles that are likely more recognizable than "Operation Al-Aqsa Flood". BilledMammal (talk) 03:03, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WeatherWriter and my reply to his comment. Kurtis (talk) 04:31, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Rename to something descriptive along the lines of 2023 Israeli ground operations in the Gaza Strip article, Selfstudier (talk) 11:24, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
    I am trying to understand the thought process in this discussion: Do we all agree that what has happened answers to the description Crime against humanity?
    "Crimes against humanity refer to specific crimes committed in the context of a large-scale attack targeting civilians, regardless of their nationality. These crimes include murder, torture, sexual violence, enslavement, persecution, enforced disappearance, etc." Trial Sheesheesh (talk) 11:30, 14 October 2023 (UTC) per WP:ARBECR
    Support: Operation Al-Aqsa Flood is the name of the militia groups for the entire war, and this name gives the false impression that it is only the name of the initial attacks. Parham wiki (talk) 11:44, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
    What are you supporting? Selfstudier (talk) 12:07, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
    @Parham wiki: Could you specify this comment? “Operation Al-Aqsa Flood”, aka this Wikipedia article, is in-fact just for the name of the initial invasion/attack on 7-8 October, as provided by the UN. Israel’s response isn’t in this article, hence why it is a sub-article of the parent 2023 Israel–Hamas war article. So, it isn’t a “false impression”, but rather the truth and exactly what this article is about. If you are still thinking the article needs to be renamed, then you should specify your “Support” comment with some reasons. If you think the issues from your initial comment were solves and you do not support a renaming, you should specify your comment as “Oppose”. Hope that helps! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 13:31, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
    @WeatherWriter: Operation Enduring Freedom is also used together with the United States invasion of Afghanistan, but it does not change the name of United States invasion of Afghanistan to Operation Enduring Freedom. Parham wiki (talk) 17:18, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
    @Parham wiki: That is true! Operation Overlord is another example of an Operation name being used in the title, but 99% of people would know it instead as the Allied invasion of France, rather than "Operation Overlord". If I may ask, I am guessing you are ok with this article being titled "Operation Al-Aqsa Flood" then, given the main/parent article 2023 Israel–Hamas war exists? I'm just trying to clarify what you fully mean by "Support"? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 18:18, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
    WeatherWriter and Selfstudier I don't know what the most appropriate name is, but I support any name change to disambiguate the 2023 Israel–Hamas war. Parham wiki (talk) 22:28, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
  • 'Support rename' to avoid the Codename as title. "Operation Al-Aqsa Flood" should stay as a relink and be mentioned, since media uses it, as was displayed in the discussion. It could be named "2023 Hamas attacks in Israel" or "2023 Hamas incursion into Israel". I advise against using the name "invasion" (don't think it fits here) and against adding "surprise" (attacks are often a surprise and the extent of the surprise might be open for a debate, so it's not such a unique element that it should be added to the title). --Casra (talk) 12:39, 14 October 2023 (UTC) Struck per WP:ARBECR and WP:PIA. — MaterialWorks 20:49, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
I should point out that Codename titles are perfectly allowed on Wikipedia. Operation Overlord is a codename title almost no one knows by its codename…aka the Allied invasion of France/D-Day in WWII. The Codename was used even by the UN (mentioned and quoted multiple times in the discussion already), along with other reliable secondary sources. Because codename titles are allowed to use & the international community is ok using it (including the UN), Wikipedia should use it as well. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 13:22, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
Hi, that's a valid reason, but imo this case is different. We can't (or not without further reason) change a historical established name. Even in cases where the name is just wrong we use it, e.g. Spanish flu (that's probably controversial though). But on current topics, we don't know yet what the historical established name will be. So we have the chance to avoid the potential framing problems of a Codename and use a description instead. If the future shows another established name, us or our children will change it. Casra (talk) 14:20, 14 October 2023 (UTC) Struck per WP:ARBECR and WP:PIA. — MaterialWorks 20:49, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
That argument falls under WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, which isn’t a valid argument in discussions. Every article has to be independently assessed. Actually, in terms of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, this argument wouldn’t work anyway, given Allied invasion of France redirects to Operation Overlord, but anyway, naming consistency isn’t a topic that needs discussed here. Cheers! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 13:11, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
When there are two names that could be used potentially and it's not obvious which one is dominant, the consistency argument is perfectly legitimate, it has nothing to do with OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Alaexis¿question? 20:18, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
There isn't an official operation name for the Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip as of yet. AmericanBaath (talk) 15:00, 14 October 2023 (UTC) Struck per WP:ARBECR and WP:PIA. — MaterialWorks 20:49, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
Strongly oppose: It is conventional for Wikipedia to use operation names as opposed to description names (Operation Barbarossa as opposed "1941 German invasion of the Soviet Union"; Operation Downfall as opposed to "Proposed United States invasion of Japan"; Operation Overlord as opposed to "1944 Allied invasion of Normandy"; Operation Mongoose as opposed to "CIA terrorism in Cuba"; Operation Northwoods as opposed to "Proposed CIA domestic terrorism against American nationals"). AmericanBaath (talk) 14:59, 14 October 2023 (UTC) Struck per WP:ARBECR and WP:PIA. — MaterialWorks 20:49, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
Not in this topic area; following a 2019 multi-move RM we changed almost all titles from codenames to descriptive titles. I don't think this should be an exception. BilledMammal (talk) 15:49, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
Again, per WP:CODENAME, codenames should only be used for "the most well-known operations (such as Operation Barbarossa), or for military actions that were never carried out (such as Operation Green)." You include multiple codename articles that meet the criteria for WP:CODENAME, Operation Barbarossa (very notable and listed example), Operation Overlord (very notable), Operation Downfall (never carried out) and Operation Northwoods (never carried out). Also, the other stuff exists argument can boomerang the other way; just because unclear operational names are used as titles in other articles does not mean the same thing should be used for this article. In this instance, Alaexis is not making an "other stuff exists" argument but rather a consistency argument. Also, Casra advises that we should avoid recentism while titling this article. WMrapids (talk) 15:51, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
WP:CODENAME is relevant yet irrelevant I think here. Relevant on the aspect that "Operation Al-Aqsa Flood" is a code name title, but completely irrelevent since 99.99% of people do not know "Operation Overlord" as "Operation Overlord". You ask anyone what was "Operation Overlord", they will say I don't know. You say do you know about D-Day/the Allied invasion of France? They say yes. So the phrase "Most well-known operations" in WP:CODENAME is irrelevent in this case, since almost every operation code-name (including things like Operation Dragoon - i.e. Allied invasion of Southern France) are not known to anyone except military/war historians. To me, if WP:CODENAME is the only reasoning to change the name, then that is a weak-reason to even invalid reason in the discussion, given the complete CODENAME titles that Wikipedia already has where no one but historians know them. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 18:11, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
You seem to erroneously conflate the Operation Overlord article and the Normandy landings article, with the latter being described as part of Operation Overlord. And if you think "WP:CODENAME is the only reasoning to change the name", then you are ignoring not only my reasoning to support a title with a neutral point of view and typical naming conventions for events, you are also ignoring the reasons provided by others as well. One shouldn't make arguments while ignoring the reasoning of others. WMrapids (talk) 19:29, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
Strong oppose this article is about the Palestinian operation and not the Israeli counteroffensive Abo Yemen✉ 16:54, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
Support moving to 2023 Hamas attack on Israel per WP:CODENAMES and WP:NPOV. Wikisaurus (talk) 17:05, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
the day should preferably be written before the month on this article Multiverse Union (talk) 19:05, 14 October 2023 (UTC) Struck per WP:ARBECR and WP:PIA. — MaterialWorks 20:49, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
Support move to anything any suitable title other than codename. Most people know this simply by Hamas attack/incursion into Israel territory. Whether other articles are named after codename is irrelevant. Still too soon whether the codename will be well known like other article named after codename. Hddty (talk) 01:20, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Support rename to 2023 Hamas attack on Israel. Andre🚐 04:10, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Support Rename to 2023 Hamas attack on Israel per WP:CODENAMES and WP:POVNAME. Deerove (talk) 04:53, 15 October 2023 (UTC) Struck per WP:ARBECR and WP:PIA. — MaterialWorks 20:49, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Support naming 2023 Hamas attack on Israel. That is a neutral description of the events. A3811 (talk) 07:42, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose: The current name is an exceptionally strong common name, which is absolutely permitted under WP:POVNAME. Most of the proposed descriptive alternatives are inaccurate, containing "Hamas", while the incursion into Israel was undertaken by multiple militant groups, including, among others, the PIJ. I pointed this out earlier in the discussion, and incidentally noted that "Hamas-led" would be more suitable, or simply "2023 incursion into Israel", but to no avail. Just "Hamas" however, would be lending credence to the simplistic and mildly propagandistic characterization of all Gazans as "Hamas" - an issue that is not just one of inaccuracy, and so imprecision (per WP:CRITERIA), but all other kinds of wrong from an WP:NPOV perspective, especially given how this same mischaracterization is actively being used in the public relations behind the bombing of Gaza as a means to blur the distinction between Hamas and Gaza and valid/invalid targets. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:53, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
    Isn't it the opposite? Not all Gazans is a member of Hamas, so we use "Hamas"? However I have no opinion on whether it should be "Hamas" or "Hamas-led". Hddty (talk) 14:42, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
    I haven't suggested using "Gazan"; just that "Hamas" is imprecise. My point was that other Gazan groups, such as the PIJ (and possibly others) were involved, so not "Hamas" alone. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:07, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Support naming 2023 Hamas attack on Israel, may consider perhaps even more concise 2023 Hamas terror attack on Southern Israel or October 2023 Hamas terror attack on Israel. The main reason to rename is that in English Wikipedia the Al-Aqsa Flood is not descriptive outside of the specialist discussion on radical Islam and the Middle East conflicts, though we can definately retain it in the lead paragraph as the naming given to this Jihadist massacre by Hamas and its allies.GreyShark (dibra) 14:27, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
    You said "more concise" and then proposed longer names. Concise means shorter. SuperSardus (talk) 17:16, 15 October 2023 (UTC) Struck per WP:ARBECR and WP:PIA. — MaterialWorks 20:49, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
  • strongly oppose Operation Al-Aqsa Flood is the formal name of the event and it is so widespread. أحمد ناجي (talk) 15:04, 15 October 2023 (UTC) Struck per WP:ARBECR and WP:PIA. — MaterialWorks 20:49, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose: The current title is widely reported as common name all across media outlets. "Operation Al-Aqsa Flood" or "Operation Al-Aqsa Storm" is also the formal name of the ongoing military campaign launched by Hamas. Additionally, the formal name has become popular in public usage.
Proposed alternative titles in the nomination are lengthier as well as obscure, lack accuracy and arent concise. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 15:25, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
Support rename to 2023 Hamas attack on Israel. We don't use the Japanese codename for the Pearl Harbor attacks, or the Al Qaeda codename for the 9/11 attacks. SuperSardus (talk) 17:14, 15 October 2023 (UTC) Struck per WP:ARBECR and WP:PIA. — MaterialWorks 20:49, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
SuperSardus, so you are saying only the winner codenames are used? Isn’t that a little POV’ed and technically a wrong assumption. Operation Silver Fox was a German/Finish military operation against the USSR, which resulted in an allied (USSR assisted by the UK) victory. Military operation names are used all the time for Wikipedia article titles, and even ones no one would recognized. Operation Dragoon is a good example. You know what that is? Probably not. 99% of people would recognize it as the Allied invasion of Southern France during WWII, not Operation Dragoon. Wikipedia still uses it. This operation name was cited by the United Nations, who said “On Saturday 7 October…Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups launched Operation al-Aqsa Flood, a coordinated assault consisting of land and air attacks into multiple border areas of Israel”. Do you have another reason to not use the codename? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 17:32, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
(Partial joke comment — That’s a funny oxymoron, saying the title violates Wikipedia’s neutrality policy (WP:NPOV), then say we shouldn’t give any credit to one side’s naming scheme in the conflict, which also violates WP:NPOV. So to fix WP:NPOV we need to break WP:NPOV. Would WP:IAR solve this issue? If we ignore all rules for NPOV, we can prevent one sides problem. But then open the loophole into why a title violates NPOV…Maybe WP:IAR solves the NPOV title problem. It is infinity! We just created a mathematical problem whose answer is infinity! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 05:40, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
There is obviously zero neutrality, when the name of the article reflects the narrative of just one side in the conflict. It should be as neutral as possible, which the current name most surely isn't. — Sundostund mppria (talk / contribs) 05:45, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
This article is about the Hamas operation. A separate article for the Israeli counter operation should be made Abo Yemen✉ 05:49, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
(edit conflict) — @Sundostund: Operation Overlord, Operation Dragoon, Operation Condor are examples of code-names being used as Wikipedia article titles. If you think a codename is not-neutral, then you really need to re-read WP:CODENAMES. Heck, the United Nations mentioned this as “Operation Al-Aqsa Flood” twice. Fact Sheet (Ref 8 in the wiki article) & Situation Report (Ref 9 in the wiki article). So…you basically just called the UN, who mentioned the Hamas operation name, for being non-neutral in favor of Hamas? Really? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 05:51, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
With all due respect, you really need to re-read WP:CODENAMES yourself, IMHO. There is a difference between the most well-known operations (some of which you mentioned), and the other ones, far less notable and known. — Sundostund mppria (talk / contribs) 05:59, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
Less notable and known? The UN mentioned the Hamas operation name and you're calling it less notable? Abo Yemen✉ 06:04, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
Yes. In historical terms, this won't be as notable and known as Operation Barbarossa and Operation Overlord. — Sundostund mppria (talk / contribs) 06:08, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
@Sundostund: —(edit conflict) — Operation Niki (10 refs total) & Operation Faustschlag (20 refs total) are examples of “one-sided names” for military operations, lesser known than this one, which again, was mentioned twice by the UN and by several secondary reliable sources. You need another reason besides what you already listed. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 06:11, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
Support - to Hamas surprise attack on Israel. The current name is the name decided by Hamas which causes one to fear that the title can be used to support certain ideologies and therefore breaches neutrality. I suggest Hamas surprise attack on Israel since it seems to describe in the most neutral manner the events that unfolded. The attack surprised the Israeli chain of command according to intelligence sources as well as Israel and the USA. The actions that followed by Hezbollah were not a surprise to the Israeli millitary. Furthermore international media including the Guardian, the Wall Street Journal, CNN, the New York Times and others use some variant of 'Hamas attack on Israel'.
In conclusion, there is a serious concern of breach of neutrality and therefore I support the change of title. Homerethegreat (talk) 16:37, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
Homerethegreat, look at the comments directly above yours. Several operation names, including ones like Operation Overlord, Operation Niki and Operation Downfall are extremely POV sounding operation titles…Yet they have Wikipedia articles. The United Nations called this operation by name twice. I encourage you to read the longer set of exchanges directly above your reply as it is basically an exact reason as to why “Operation Al-Aqsa Flood” is not a POV violation at all (especially since we have Operation Niki, a Greek military operation named after a Greek goddess, would would be 10x more POV than this one). So please, read the message exchanges directly above this one. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:47, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
Please refer to the rest of the Support message, specifically the term used by international media. Thank you for your time Homerethegreat (talk) 16:51, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
Homerethegreat, thank you for your reply. While you are right that some international media do not mention it by name, others do. Al Jazeera “The Israeli authorities seem to have been caught off-guard by Hamas’s Operation Al-Aqsa Flood on Saturday.” & Reuters & Vox & CNBC are international media that also mention the operation by name. Your comment was based on 2 parts: POV and international media not mentioning it. I just explained why the POV aspect isn’t an issue and I also just provided international media using the term. Do you have any other reasons as to why the Operation name shouldn’t be the title of the article? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:57, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
Support rename to 2023 Hamas atrocities in Israel or 2023 Hamas massacres in Southern Israel. "Attack" somehow implies a military attack event similar to the Pearl Harbor attacks. This isn't the case here. This event involved contemptible atrocities and crimes against humanity reminiscent of the Holocaust and pogroms. Daffd2222 (talk) 17:46, 16 October 2023 (UTC) Per WP:ARBECR.
  • Strong support for rename to something descriptive. The long and short is, this isn't a WP:COMMON NAME. While many major news outlets have mentioned the name at some point, most do not use it to refer to the event. WP:CODENAME was already mentioned as well - a descriptive name will be understood by all readers, while the codename is understood only by readers familiar with it. That it is more neutral is a nice bonus on top, to be honest. Averell (talk) 06:46, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
    Note There seem to be some who assume that the current nameis a common name. I replied to that below. And, as a relevant example I wanted to mention the 2014 Gaza War article, which is titled that and not a biased Operation Protective Edge, which is the name only used by one side.
    Averell (talk) 16:36, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Support rename to 2023 Hamas attack on Israel, per 2019 RM. Not a common name, not descriptive. This particular operation name also chosen to make an ideological point. – SJ + 16:05, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
Just curious, do you have a source saying that it was chosen to make an ideological point? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:07, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
How a title makes everybody feel matters.
There is the view that this was a military operation, and using the operational name legitimizes it as such. There is the view that this was an act of barbarism, a heinous crime that doesn't deserve to be called warfare, and using a title containing "terror attacks" or "war crimes" is the legitimization of that view. In either case, we leave people who take the opposite view angry. So let's keep it simple: Was it an attack? Yes. When did it take place? 2023. Who attacked whom? Hamas attacked Israel. Titles that go beyond that inevitably support a narrative. All the arguments about what sources used what designation in what context miss the point, which is this: Wikipedia should not be supporting any narratives to the extent humanly possible, and this is a guideline that is firmly established in the guidelines and history of the institution. Rhombus (talk) 19:43, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
The title can be "2023 Hamas Offensive in Israel". 49.32.183.216 (talk) 20:05, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
Hey @Moncrief:. The votes above yours were crossed out due to WP:ARBECR as only 30/500 accounts are allowed to participate in formal discussions on ARBCOM active articles. Also, if you don't mind me asking, why do you find it bizarre to use the codename of the attackers? Several codenames from the attackers are used in articles. Famously we have Operation Overlord and Operation Barbarossa. On the less-famous/well-known aspect we have Operation Niki & Operation Silver Fox as examples. One might be thinking code-names are used if the attacker wins, however, Operation Silver Fox is a perfect example of that not being the case, with Operation Silver Fox being a German/Finnish operation against the Soviet Union during WW2. The Soviet Union (supported by the UK) defeated the German/Finns in the campaign. That said, the attacker codename is almost always used for an operations codename. So, do you still find it bizarre? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 20:33, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
Yes, I still do find it bizarre, per a reading of WP:CODENAME. Also, when !votes are crossed out, I suggest that "Per WP:ARBECR" be added after the crossing-out, as was done above for other crossed-out !votes. This would be helpful for readers not imbued in the arcana of Wikipedia procedures, and will give readers a better sense of why those !votes were devalued. Moncrief (talk) 21:13, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree. Also, that's pretty much the bulk of this discussion: Whether or not there is enough WP:RS sources that use the operation name to satisfy WP:CODENAME. Personally, I say yes, which is why I voted oppose earlier with several RS sources, including the UN. Others, like yourself, say no there isn't. But that is more or less what the discussion boils down to. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:21, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
@WeatherWriter given that your repetitive comments currently make up more than a third of this discussion, I am inclined to think that you are BADGERING. Please stop. KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 23:04, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose per WeatherWriter and Toptanazikov arguments. --2x2leax (talk) 01:04, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Support name change to 2023 Hamas attack on Israel per Greyshark09. Loksmythe (talk) 03:47, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose - commonly used name ("Operation Al-Aqsa Flood" gets 243.000 hits on Google, despite claims made by some editors, it is the most commonly used name), and not any more pov than any other "Operation X" name already used on Wikipedia. Applodion (talk) 14:51, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
    The number of Google hits does not make a common name. Frankly, when I Google the term I get a lot of results, but most are from relatively obscure sites. I still have seen nothing that this is consistently used as a name in the mainstream. Also the reliable sources do usually report on the name, and not adopt it (e.g. the Reuters piece quote above merely states "Hamas calls it that").
    Frankly, I follow quite some media on the topic, and have it seen used rarely. For example, when I search the Guardian's reporting for "Al-Aqsa Flood" (and they are hardly Israel-biased), I get exactly get 6 result (out of a constant stream of reporting). Only 2 of them actually use the term descriptively, the others qualify it in ways like "The attack called 'Al-Aqsa Floos' by Hamas". Results for Al Jazeera show a similar picture Averell (talk) 16:32, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose - per Applodion and WP:COMMONNAME. I also note that this article is about a specific attack amidst an ongoing cycle of attacks - and so, the name needs to reflect that degree of specificity. "2023 [Israel/Hamas] Attack on [Israel/Hamas]" is not sufficiently descriptive - what attack? When? There are ongoing attacks, and are likely to be more, that's the cyclical nature of the conflict. If we had to change it, it would need to be "October 7 Hamas Attacks" or something along those lines. I prefer that to something less narrow in specificity if we do change it. FlipandFlopped ツ 16:13, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Support a name change per WP:COMMONNAME, news sources use terms such as 'assault', 'attack', 'incursion', etc. by Hamas rather than spelling out the entire operation name.Yeoutie (talk) 16:30, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Hard to remain unaffected by these awful events but per User:WeatherWriter above, the common practice in Wikipedia is for even POV-sounding "operational names" to be used as the title (without adding dates or other words). Aszx5000 (talk) 19:31, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Strong support a name change (my pick would be 2023 Hamas incursion of Israel)... I absolutely concur with what Rhombus wrote above. Those on the "other team" seem a tad too zealous about maintaining the current title... 'Nuff said. KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 21:57, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Strongly Support Rename. "Operation Al-Aqsa Flood" is a bias non-neutral name, since this is not a "military operation", but a terrorist attack committed by a terrorist group mostly against unarmed civilians in cities, development towns and kibbutzim. יוניון ג'ק (talk) 21:58, 20 October 2023 (UTC) Struck per WP:ARBECR and WP:PIA.--WMrapids (talk) 05:09, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose. per WP:POVNAME.Mr.User200 (talk) 20:23, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Strong Support Current name is not common and not descriptive. Something like “2023 Hamas infiltration and massacre” would be preferable Drsmoo (talk) 02:55, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Support rename back to 2023 Hamas attack on (Southern?) Israel. It is descriptive, neutral and concise. I fail to see how the operational name is PoV, since most of us have no idea what it means or why it was chosen, but I'm not convinced that the majotity of sources are so far using the operation name and even to the extent that some have done so, while many major news outlets have mentioned the name at some point, most do not use it to refer to the event. It isn't anywhere near being the WP:COMMON NAME and it's CRYSTALBALL to assume that it will become so. Pincrete (talk) 05:38, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Number of hostsges held by hamas

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The number has rose to 212 https://www.ynet.co.il/news/article/r17c5000w6?utm_source=ynet.app.android&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=whatsapp&utm_term=r17c5000w6&utm_content=Header Idodidoking (talk) 23:15, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

"7 October 2023" Redirect for discussion no feedback for a week

Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion

This discussion has had no feedback for a week now, so can an admin close it out? Not sure why it was even added as an RFD in the first place, this is clearly the major event for the day. Undescribed (talk) 07:19, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

RFDs get closed when they get closed. Primefac (talk) 12:00, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
According to Redirects for discussion "Items usually stay listed for a week or so, after which they are deleted, kept, or retargeted." Since there has been no disagreements for a week now I see no reason not to close it out? Undescribed (talk) 14:14, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

"Slaughtering" civilians

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Do not use the word "slaughtering" as it is emotional/unencyclopedic. Used "killing" or "killed" 2001:569:57B2:4D00:F82B:215F:F802:AD06 (talk) 07:45, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Done. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:52, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Israeli foreknowledge of attack

Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments3 people in discussion

The line currently reads "The attack, which coincided with Shabbat and the Jewish holiday of Simchat Torah, appeared to have been a complete surprise to the Israelis." This was the initial belief, but it is now out-of-date.

Reporting since the initial assessments indicates that the military leadership was alerted to the imminent possibility of an attack in the hours before, and held a meeting. At this meeting, they collectively decided to take a "wait-and-see" approach. There was specific intelligence indicating that Hamas may intend to break through the walls, and may intend to kidnap Israelis. This decision at this meeting to do nothing was a catastrophic failure, and will likely be the source of inquiry in the months ahead. Sources: https://www.mako.co.il/news-military/6361323ddea5a810/Article-5ce074dd01e4b81026.htm (Describes the meeting, and indicates they discussed the possibility of breaches and kidnappings) https://themessenger.com/news/israel-security-services-knew-hamas-attack-shin-bet (This summarizes the previous story in English) https://www.axios.com/2023/10/12/hamas-attack-israel-intelligence-failure-high-alert-shen-bet (Different story, also in english, lists explicitly the people who attended the meeting) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EbvqT4xsmOc (Israeli official Tzachi Hanegbi acknowledging that the meeting took place hours before the attack) OhYesMa'am (talk) 11:53, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

What wording do you propose? I think the current one is not incorrect as it *was* a complete surprise for Israeli forces and civilians near Gaza. Alaexis¿question? 19:43, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
Are any of the sources reliable? On the other hand, both Egyptian and American officials have confirmed that Egypt warned Israel of the attack but they dismissed the warning.
We can word it like "Israeli officials did not take warnings of the attack seriously, and thus the attack came as a surprise." VR talk 00:49, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
The source in this case is "three Israeli officials" so I think we should emphasise that this is still not 100% confirmed. Maybe The attack came as a surprise even though senior Israeli officials were reported to have received intelligence regarding a possible incursion.
A lot of these leaks serve internal Israeli political purposes. If it's Netanyahu who ignored Egyptian warnings, then it's his fault, if it's the top security officials who didn't act on the intel, then it's their fault. It may well be possible that all of them failed, I just want us to be careful here and not state things in Wikivoice unless we're sure about them. Alaexis¿question? 12:57, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Typo

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Third sentence of first paragraph under "Casualties" should read "On 19 October 2023, Israeli officials reported an additional 100 to 200 missing." 2607:FEA8:591B:9D00:8575:333F:6003:9FE2 (talk) 19:48, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Still not corrected as of 10/24/2023 174.67.107.229 (talk) 13:39, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Add context about the attack

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

According to UN Secretary-General António Guterres and we all know it, attacks by Hamas did not happen in a vacuum.The Palestinian people have been subjected to 56 years of suffocating occupation.

They have seen their land steadily devoured by settlements and plagued by violence; their economy stifled; their people displaced and their homes demolished. Their hopes for a political solution to their plight have been vanishing.

https://www.un.org/sg/en/content/sg/statement/2023-10-24/secretary-generals-remarks-the-security-council-the-middle-east-delivered

We need to add this. right now i feel this is very biased article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gsgdd (talk • contribs) 04:00, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Palestinian Civilian Casualties Removed

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This is indisputably biased when the Israeli civilian deaths are still listed. Not that the solution would be to remove any mention of civilian deaths, but the deaths of Palestinian civilians ought to be counted since the IDF's bombing campaign has been deliberately targeted towards civilians. Wikipedia ought to be an unbiased source of factual information, not a disseminator of pro-Western propaganda. The lives of those Palestinians who were killed matter. A Palestinian life matters just as much as any other, to not count them is beyond disrespectful, it is explicitly racist. Palestinian lives matter. 128.250.0.138 (talk) 07:34, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

This article is about the incursion of October 7. Most of the casualties in Gaza happened afterwards and are covered in the main article about the war (2023 Israel–Hamas war). Alaexis¿question? 10:54, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Lead wording

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

In the lead, we currently have:

The attacks, referred to as Operation Al-Aqsa Flood (or Deluge) (Arabic: عملية طوفان الأقصى, romanized: ʿamaliyyat ṭūfān al-ʾAqṣā) by Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups and Black Saturday in Israel…

That wording needs to be altered, as we have sources from the UN ([12]) using “Operation Al-Aqsa Flood”. The current wording makes it appear only Hamas and other Palestinian groups use the term, which is factually incorrect. I have previously attempted to correct this wording with the wording being reverted back to the current state, which makes it appear the UN is a Palestinian armed group. Can someone change the wording on that? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 19:09, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello, your message doesn't clearly reference the reverted revision, making it unclear what you're actually proposing. Infinity Knight (talk) 04:25, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Gaza Tunnels

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments1 person in discussion

The tunnel network, known as the "Gaza metro," serves Hamas for storage, movement, and command. Hamas used hardwired phone lines within the tunnels for covert communication over two years, evading Israeli intelligence. This allowed a successful surprise attack on Israel, with specific plans disclosed shortly before the operation, catching intelligence agencies off guard. [1]

Israel has targeted tunnels used by Hamas in its campaign against the group in various locations, including Beit Hanoun, Gaza City, and Rafah, where they were used for smuggling. Cross-border tunnels have been used in high-profile operations. The construction of these tunnels was a significant, multi-year effort involving Palestinian workers. [2]

Bedouin clans built early smuggling tunnels on the Egypt-Gaza border in 1981. In 2001, Hamas began a vast underground network initially for smuggling, later serving multiple functions. The tunnels aimed to shift battles underground. In 2014, Hamas employed 900 for tunnel construction, each taking three months and costing an average of $100,000. Funding came from commercial schemes via Gaza's mosques, with contributions from Iran and North Korea.[3]

Where do those bits belong? Infinity Knight (talk) 18:09, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Honestly, it's kinda unclear where it fits in the article, so I'm gonna go ahead and put it up there as a top level section. Infinity Knight (talk) 05:11, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

casualties

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

"At least 400 casualties were reported in Ashkelon, while 280 others were reported in Beer Sheva, 60 of which were in a serious condition" -- this is incorrect. the number of 400 is the number of wounded patients treated in Ashkelon, not a number reflecting casualties in Ashkelon. The other numbers don't appear in the referenced articles, also probably reflecting people treated in hospitals in beersheba. the attackers did not reach ashkelon and beersheba, which are major cities.--Exjerusalemite (talk) 15:39, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Names

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

South Israel Massacre and October 7th Massacre come up a lot 2604:3D09:1F80:CA00:107B:773D:369E:2E63 (talk) 18:44, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 October 2023

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Please include Palestinian civilian casualties under summary table.

Sources: New York Times - 6000+ casualties

UN news - 5000+ casualties

CNN - 6000+ casualties Mali195 (talk) 17:35, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

  Not done: I think you mean to be on 2023 Israel–Hamas war. Cannolis (talk) 17:45, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Not a single mention of rape?

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

why would you ignore the methodical use of rape during the massacres, as evident in reports of first responders, in videos published by Hamas, and in the investigation of captured Hamas men? 141.226.8.48 (talk) 04:51, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

40 Israeli children were killed and 3000+ Palestinians children killed

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There are no sources that need to be proven Hagar1017 (talk) 06:39, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

The article is biased

Latest comment: 1 year ago7 comments6 people in discussion

The article is very biased and the number of civilian deaths in Gaza is not mentioned Hagar1017 (talk) 06:41, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello,Hagar1017. There are currently no reliable sources that report on civilian deaths in Gaza. Hamas controlled sources, (and Israeli affiliated sources for that matter) are not at all reliable for accurate casualty counts, in the midst of a war. Cullen328 (talk) 06:49, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
Like Gaza's health ministry? That's an "unreliable source". Govent the US president will read and accept it seems you're just ignoring it because of the bias mentioned originally. 86.28.156.66 (talk) 08:33, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
You can put it and mention that according to the Hamas Ministry of Health, and also as I mentioned, you are missing many sources, such as the killing of 40 Israeli children. Hagar1017 (talk) 09:57, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
The problem with this article is not bias, but a lack of reliable sources from the Palestinian side. The Gaza Health Ministry, fully controlled by the Hamas, certainly can't be considered as a reliable source. — Sundostund mppria (talk / contribs) 14:58, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
There has historically been no problem with data provided by the Gaza Health Ministry, and Human Rights Watch have said that the tolls they've put forward are consistent with other information (e.g. the number of confirmed air strikes, videos and photos from within Gaza). They've also supplied a full list of names. Furthermore, although the Gaza Health Ministry is controlled/overseen by the civilian/political wing of Hamas, its workers have a variety of affiliations, many/most being independent health workers and civil servants.
It would be inconsistent to assume that the Israeli figures are definitely accurate/trustworthy and that the Gazan figures are definitely not accurate/trustworthy. The term 'Hamas-run health ministry' is being thrown around a lot and needs to be approached critically. Llangrannog (talk) 15:28, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
Again, this was mentioned before. This article is about the Oct. 7 incursions/attacks. Most civilian casualties in Gaza happened afterwards and can and should be covered in the main article: 2023 Israel–Hamas war.
Also, Wikipedia does not decide if a some number is "trustworthy". Simply put, if a reliable source (e.g. a major news outlet) reports on the numbers from the Gaza Health Ministry, we can cite that. If a reliable source reports someone doubts the numbers, or trusts the number, we can cite that.
But again, this article is about the initial attacks, not the entire war.
Averell (talk) 17:39, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

40 Israeli children were killed

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There are no confirmed sources Hagar1017 (talk) 16:34, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

This article almost exclusively cites pro Israel sources

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This article in no way follows the Wikipedia code of neutrality. Instead it acts as a mouthpiece to American geopolitical interests AliceF (talk) 17:17, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Vague complaints are useless, AliceF. You need to bring forth reliable sources that you think are missing from the article, and propose specific language summarizing those sources. Cullen328 (talk) 17:23, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Biased

Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments4 people in discussion

All sources are Israeli sources, all casualty figured are as per Israel. The decapitated baby story was debunked and no major newspaper carried it. Any Google search would give a totally different view. A shame that wikipedia locked it for edits and allowed only Zionist Trolls to edit the page. Xmenww (talk) 20:42, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

The Arabic Wikipedia publishes facts and has good sources. The English Wikipedia has poor or largely non-existent sources, and most of them are just allegations. I hope that the administration will review all the sources. Hagar1017 (talk) 16:27, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
That’s the exact opposite of what happens. Hagar1017, You should probably check out Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration#Inter-wiki WP:NPOV needed on the October 2023 Tulkarm incursion & Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration#Extreme Bias on Arabic Wikipedia needs fixed ASAP. Also, this is not the place to discuss other Wikipedias. Thank you. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:46, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
Your exact opposite claim is based on your opinion, which has no more weight than Hagar1017's.
What's really worrying though is that you tell them that this is not the place to discuss other Wikipedias and then go on to link to two discussions that you started about other Wikipedias and in which you're clearly recruiting editors from this project in order to impose your POV on another. Is this the standard of conduct that you want others to follow? M.Bitton (talk) 17:29, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Animal killings

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I was just reading the article and was absolutely stunned to see the sentence about how family pets were killed, at the end of a long paragraph discussing civilian massacres. The sentence has absolutely no place in this context, it reads very weirdly, because relative to the human deaths it is not worth mentioning at all. I understand the video of a dog being shot went viral on social media, but in context of a discussion about the terrible massacre, it does not deserve a mention and reads strangely. Maybe its just me, but if others agree, I suggest removing this strange sentence. 174.251.66.62 (talk) 19:28, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Targeted killings as opposed to incidental killings

Latest comment: 1 year ago26 comments6 people in discussion

M.Bitton, saw your revert here. What particular issues do you have with saying that Hamas was specifically targeting civilians for killing (as opposed to the ambiguity of just killing them)? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 21:51, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

I already commented on your edit summary by saying that "collateral" is just a BS word that is used to justify the killing of civilians. What "ambiguity" are you referring to? M.Bitton (talk) 22:00, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
The edit inserted the word targeting, to indicate that Hamas was specifically trying to kill civilians, rather than the ambiguity of just saying they killed them, which could imply that they weren't specifically targeting civilians for the express purpose of killing them. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 22:06, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
What's the difference between killing civilians the way they did and killing them by dropping thousand of bombs on a densely populated area? M.Bitton (talk) 22:09, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
I'm asking what your editing objection is to using the word "targeting", to indicate that Hamas was specifically targeting civilians for killing. What is the specific issue with adding that descriptive word? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 22:24, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
I already explained, if you're prepared to add that "descriptive" word to the indiscriminate bombing of civilians, then we'll have a different discussion. M.Bitton (talk) 22:30, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
This article doesn't contain any information about "indiscriminate bombing of civilians". Why are you bringing that into the discussion? AzureCitizen (talk) 22:33, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
That's not an issue, we can still discuss how to apply that "descriptive" word to all of the related articles. I'm sure that human life is as important to you as it is to any decent human being and that the last you want is some kind of double standard. M.Bitton (talk) 22:36, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
Of course human life is important to me, and no, I am not creating a double standard. On Wikipedia, we edit an article at one location (that article's space), and discuss improvements to the article on it's corresponding talk page. You can freely edit related articles and make (or suggest) improvements to them at their corresponding talk pages, including the "indiscriminate bombing of civilians" that you've brought up. Here on this particular article, in the body of the article, it discusses how civilians were deliberately targeted. What is the specific problem therefore in being unambiguous in this article's lead, and state they were targeting civilians? AzureCitizen (talk) 22:47, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
They were killed. After all, the militants were not there to attack building, were they? M.Bitton (talk) 22:50, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
That's ambiguous, whereas saying they targeted them for killing is supported by the article content and is clearly unambiguous. AzureCitizen (talk) 22:57, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
A quick question: Is Israel is targetting civilians? M.Bitton (talk) 22:58, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
If you want to have that discussion, we can have it the applicable article, probably 2023 Israel–Hamas war. AzureCitizen (talk) 23:04, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
It's a simple question, to which a simple yes or no will do. Thanks. M.Bitton (talk) 23:06, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
It's clearly a diversion away from the issue of whether or not Hamas specifically targeted civilians to kill them for the sake of killing them, which is the reverted edit in question here on this article. What is the continued objection to adding the word "targeted" to the lead of this article based on the content therein? AzureCitizen (talk) 23:14, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
The fact that you're finding it so hard to answer a simple question says a lot. Anyway, I will await more input so that I'll know what to add to the reaction section (or maybe create an aftermath, but I don't have to decide that right now). M.Bitton (talk) 23:19, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
The fact that you won't stick to settling the issue at hand says even more, doesn't it? Why won't you explain exactly what the problem is with adding the descriptive word "targeting" to this article? AzureCitizen (talk) 23:26, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
Everything that needed to be said, has been said. Time to let the others share their views. I'm done here. M.Bitton (talk) 23:29, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
WP:NOTFORUM. Revert the change. François Robere (talk) 23:29, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
What a surprise. Suggesting that I'm using this as some kind of forum is pure BS. Care to answer the question that I asked them? M.Bitton (talk) 23:30, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
I do not. If sources state that Hamas had targeted civilians, and they do, then so do we. Everything else is irrelevant. François Robere (talk) 23:33, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
You really should have on your mind that this is not a forum, and that reliable sources do count. Please think about reverting your change. — Sundostund mppria (talk / contribs) 23:36, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
Please stop banging on about the so-called "forum" to hide the fact that you're incapable of answering a simple question. I explained my edit and I certainly won't revert it. If you want to do so, be my guest, but don't insult my intelligence. M.Bitton (talk) 23:40, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
So your point is that the revert is retaliatory vandalism for an issue you have with another article? XeCyranium (talk) 00:34, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, support Azure's wording. Spurious revert with no coherent justification. Arkon (talk) 23:49, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

For all concerned, thank you for the content inputs; the word "targeting" is back in the lead now. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 23:55, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The top of this talk-page should probably mention the previous move discussion: Talk:2023 Hamas attack on Israel/Archive 2#Requested move 12 October 2023 Kammerer55 (talk) 18:09, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Tannels of hamas

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

https://mobile.mako.co.il/news-world/2023_q4/Article-13cc6fdc7358b81026.htm?sCh=31750a2610f26110&pId=173113802_509235

https://twitter.com/MEMRIReports/status/1718973338486260097?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1718973338486260097%7Ctwgr%5Ece481e0b08c4ddd88cb6e91f5ed86473b9f81b25%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.mako.co.il%2Fnews-world%2F2023_q4%2FArticle-13cc6fdc7358b81026.htm

"Since you built 500 kilometers of tunnels, why didn't you build missile-proof shelters where the civilians could hide?", the interviewer asked Abu Marzouk. The answer of the Hamas official revealed the true purpose of the tunnels, which were intended to protect the terrorists from assassinations. "We built them because we have no other way to protect ourselves from becoming targets and being killed. These tunnels are to protect us from the planes, we fight from inside." 2.55.191.174 (talk) 20:08, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

REQUEST: Rename/move page to "October 7th attack on Israel"

Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments2 people in discussion

A more commonly used name for this attack is the "October 7th attack", for example: [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19]

Given the unprecedented scale of the attack in Israel's history, and comparisons which have been made to 9/11, it seems a given that this attack will continue to be remembered as the "October 7th" attack rather than the "2023 attack". Thus, I request to rename this page to October 7th attack, and leave "2023 Hamas attack on Israel" as a redirect.


A few example links of comparisons to 9/11: [20] [21] [22][23]

Additional variations include:

October 7th Attack

October 7th Hamas Attack on Israel

For the sake of the edit being concise, I am requesting the first, "October 7th Attack on Israel". In the event that this starts an Article for Discussion, I mention these alternate options. Xland44 (talk) 18:25, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Referring to the date of the attack in current reporting is not the same thing as it being called or named that. We would have to wait a while to see if some name did indeed become commonplace. Selfstudier (talk) 18:34, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
It needs an RM (not an editreq) to change the title and it needs a qualified editor to open that (500 edits). Selfstudier (talk) 18:38, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
"It needs an RM (not an editreq) to change the title" - Thank you, wasn't aware of that Xland44 (talk) 21:28, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Sohaib Abu Amr

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Sohaib Abu Amr, a Palestinian bus driver, stayed in the "Nova" party area near Ra'im, where Hamas terrorists roamed around looking to murder innocent civilians. Sohaib Abu Amr was murdered. [[24]] --שמי (2023) (talk) 21:59, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Lead sentence

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

"A series of coordinated attacks, conducted by the Palestinian Islamist militant group Hamas" downplays the pivotal role that smaller Palestinian militant groups (e.g., IJ) played. 2001:569:57B2:4D00:800B:C2B0:B831:564F (talk) 08:02, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

The cause of the Al-Aqsa Flood

Latest comment: 1 year ago7 comments5 people in discussion

Please add the reason for the Al-Aqsa flood launched by the Al-Qassam Brigades Hagar1017 (talk) 06:46, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

And what exactly is the reason, in your opinion? — Sundostund mppria (talk / contribs) 15:04, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
Well, we can't go inside the heads of Al-Qassam commanders and uncover what they were really thinking. But it would probably be useful to add to the article "this is what Al-Qassam says the reason was" and "this is what Israel says the reason was". Llangrannog (talk) 15:30, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
+1 and full justification, with specifics. 157.131.161.71 (talk) 08:31, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
Although perhaps one is expected to read the rest of the articles about the conflict. Even so. There should ideally be an easily accessible list of grievances from both sides that can be linked instead. One that is completely impartial and does not take evidence proven to be AI generated into account 157.131.161.71 (talk) 08:36, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
The article on the entire war has a list of reasons given by Hamas. That means the information about this particular operation is in multiple places even though it has its own page, and they are not in sync, that's likely not desired Eatbooksgetknowledge (talk) 09:03, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
In response to ongoing Israeli violations Hagar1017 (talk) 16:26, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Gaza blockade and Houthis

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The blockade on Gaza isn't something new, it has been going on for over a decade. Also the Houthis have gotten involved launching missiles at Israel. Mauzer's random BS (talk) 22:58, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Move or Remove references to 40 babies being killed

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

All citations refer to "beheaded babies", but this has been found to be misinformation. At a minimum, it should be removed from torture section, as they should be considered casualties, but no substantiated claims of beheadings. https://www.factcheck.org/2023/10/what-we-know-about-three-widespread-israel-hamas-war-claims/ mooP (talk) 22:57, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

number of casualties

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

the number 1033 civilians is not updated - the page in Hebrew already talks about 1400 civilians. Dan.naor (talk) 00:48, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Talk:List of Islamist terrorist attacks#Should Operation Al-Aqsa Flood by Hamas included in the list of Islamist Terrorist attacks?

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

An editor has started an RfC asking "Should Operation Al-Aqsa Flood by Hamas be included in the List of Islamist terrorist attacks?" at Talk:List of Islamist terrorist attacks#Should Operation Al-Aqsa Flood by Hamas included in the list of Islamist Terrorist attacks?. Interested editors are invited to participate. TarnishedPathtalk 03:45, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Units involved

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Remove armed israeli civillians from units.its not a unit nor are they fighting in the war. 2409:40E3:101D:23E9:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 16:11, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

hamas attackers

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Discussion not related to improving the article

'We will repeat October 7 again and again' - Hamas official https://www.jpost.com/arab-israeli-conflict/article-771199 — Preceding unsigned comment added by שמי (2023) (talk • contribs) 21:58, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Resisting the occupier is permitted and protected in international law. Eb9ara7a (talk) 08:04, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Changes

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The article says " Evidence, including photos or medical records of the forensic results, was not provided to journalists". This is out of date as video footage was shown . In addition it has been established there is violation of International law 147.236.117.73 (talk) 21:01, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 November 2023

Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments3 people in discussion

US president spokesperson says comments were based on news reports and claims of Israeli officials. The White House has walked back President Joe Biden's claim that he saw pictures of beheaded children following Hamas's deadly attack on Israel.

Unverified reports of ‘40 babies beheaded’ in Israel-Hamas war inflame social media No photo evidence had been made public as of Thursday morning corroborating claims that babies had been beheaded. Israel has published photos of dead infants after the terror attack. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna119902 Eb9ara7a (talk) 08:47, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Second this: "Israeli forces in Kfar Aza and Be'eri reported that they found bodies of victims mutilated. One IDF commander told a reporter from i24 News that 40 babies had been killed, out of what one estimate described as at least 100 civilian victims." This statement needs to be removed or revised. El-Baba (talk) 09:36, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Already covered in the main article.Selfstudier (talk) 14:36, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

  1. ^ "Hamas operatives used phone lines installed in tunnels under Gaza to plan Israel attack over 2 years, sources familiar with intelligence say". CNN.
  2. ^ "Map: Tunnels Under Gaza Made by Hamas, Identified by Israel". WSJ.
  3. ^ "Hamas tunnels under Gaza will be a key battlefield for Israel". Economist.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:7_October_Hamas-led_attack_on_Israel/Archive_2&oldid=1250492740"