Talk:7 October Hamas-led attack on Israel/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Result RFC

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

What should be in the infobox result section?

1. Israeli victory as in this version
2. Hamas and allied victory as in this version
3. Omitted as in this version
4. Some other version

Nableezy 17:31, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Survey

• 2 - Israeli victory is wholly unsourced, making it a non-starter. Hamas and allied victory however is very well sourced.
  1. Le Monde (Archive link): The invasion, a military success, led to atrocities committed against civilians. ... After the military victory, the attack changed form. The carnage began. It promised to be the most terrible in Israel's history. ... For the Islamist movement, the October 7 massacre will remain a military success and a leap into the unknown, into which it risks dragging all Gazans.
  2. Washington Post: It was, by both Palestinian and Israeli accounts, a staggering and unexpected Hamas victory and an indictment of Israel’s vaunted military and intelligence services.
  3. expert view in Time (Jon Alterman): Hamas’ stunning military success on October 7 will prove to be a pyrrhic victory.
  4. expert view in The Atlantic (Natan Sachs): But this Hamas victory might prove Pyrrhic.

Now, a note on those last two. Multiple users have repeatedly distorted their meaning to claim that they are saying this was a Pyrrhic victory for Hamas. And that a Pyrrhic victory is a loss. But that is not what they are saying, they are saying this victory will prove to be pyrrhic, that Hamas won the battle but will provoke such a response so as to lose the war. But this article is not the article on the war, that is a different article and when that eventually ends that will have its own sources to discuss its result. This article however is on the opening attack, an attack that yes by all accounts included atrocities and acts of terror on civilians, but also included a military assault, destroying surveillance and automated weapons on a militarized border, breaking through a border barrier, and attacking military bases, capturing military personnel and materiel. For the topic of this article, the sources that we have that discuss the result say it was a Hamas victory. So too should the article. nableezy - 17:31, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

@Nableezy: The Le Monde and the Time articles describe the initial assault on October 7 as a military victory, but this battle did not end on October 7. The Washington Post article mentions little about the fighting that took place other than the initial stun. The article in The Atlantic came out on October 7.
This article deals with the entire incursion into Israel, not just the initial breach. Of course Hamas had the upper end on October 7, but so did Germany on 22 June 1941. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 11:22, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Those sources were published long after the attack (which is what this article is about). If there was any doubt about the result, they would have mentioned it. M.Bitton (talk) 00:14, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Would they? They were focused on October 7. Unlike this article, which covers the entire Hamas invasion of Israel. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 18:22, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Of course they would since they are focused on the attack (I'm sure they know what that means). M.Bitton (talk) 18:25, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

"Of course they would" - and yet they didn't. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 21:45, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

That's right, they didn't mention anything other than the Hamas successful attack. M.Bitton (talk) 22:04, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

• Option 2 — (Based on Nableezy’s reasoning). That is what is looked for: Multiple secondary reliable sources indicating a result. In this instance, several reliable sources indicate it was a Hamas victory. A key component to note is in the discussion prior to the RfC, several editors are noting about a “pyrrhic victory”. That is not what the RS say. As explained in detailed by Nableezy, the sources say it was a Hamas victory which may prove pyrrhic, not that it is a pyrrhic victory. For that reasoning as well as the multiple secondary reliable sources directly stating it was a Hamas victory, I have to go with option 2. Also, in the discussion prior to the RfC, no sources were ever linked directly saying it wasn’t a Hamas victory. If someone finds a source directly stating it wasn’t a Hamas victory, linking it here is vital for anyone against inclusion of the result being a “Hamas victory”. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 17:52, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

  The Time source says “will”, not “may”. Drsmoo (talk) 01:56, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

  WP:CRYSTAL. And that is still discussing the wider war, which does not change that it calls this attack a "stunning military success". nableezy - 02:31, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

• 3 (weakly). A pyrrhic victory in the strict sense is one where a party is exhausted by a success. That does not apply to Hamas. The attack was like the raid on Pearl Harbor, which was a Japanese victory. If Hamas too awoke a sleeping giant, the victory still stands. The reason I lean very weakly to 3 over 2 is we're not sure how to measure success. Kill lots of Jews? Victory. Galvanize an immediate uprising by Hezbollah and West Bank Palestinians? No victory, more like Prigozhin's rebellion, which I notice also has an extended result field. So 3 weakly over 2, and definitely not 1. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 19:59, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
• 3 Remove. This was a massacre and mass rape/mass torture of civilians, which is not typically presented through a victory/defeat lens. It is also widely described as a terrorist attack, which are also rarely presented as a victories. The inclusion of attacks on military sites, amongst the mass slaughter and rape of unarmed civilians doesn’t preclude this from being a massacre/mass rape of unarmed civilians rather than a battle. Drsmoo (talk) 01:49, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
• 2. This was a military invasion during the course of which atrocities and war crimes undoubtedly took place. In that regard, it is analogous to (although on a much smaller scale), say, the Invasion of Poland, which is described clearly as a German victory. The war aims of the invading party were resoundingly accomplished. It is a Hamas victory, as queazy as that might make us feel. JDiala (talk) 10:59, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
• 2. The sources cited by Nableezy are enough to say that the attack was a Hamas victory, while no sources point to it as an Israeli victory. The settlements being cleared of Hamas members in the days after Oct 7 doesn't change this, as it is not thought that Hamas's aim was to stay in them. —M3ATH (Moazfargal · Talk) 12:33, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
• 2 as per sources that have been provided and cited in the infobox. EkoGraf (talk) 16:48, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
• 4; I think we can take example from events such as the Battle of Nanking and subsequent Rape of Nanking; we list it as a Japanese victory, but then as a dot point under that victory list the rape. It would seem appropriate to do the same here; list it as a Hamas victory, but then as dot points under that victory list the various massacres. Drsmoo, I think this would also address your concerns? BilledMammal (talk) 05:07, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

  @BilledMammal, Use of dot is prohibited according to WP:MILMOS#INFOBOX. See also WP:LOCALCONSENSUS and MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE Parham wiki (talk) 20:09, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

  @BilledMammal, there's been some back-and-forth editing regarding your !vote here. Can you restate whether you'd prefer Option 3 or Option 4? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:13, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Except it wasn't a Hamas victory at all. This article does not only cover October 7. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 08:29, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

We base our articles on reliable sources, not personal belief. nableezy - 14:14, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

• 3 - There is no clear result. Dovidroth (talk) 14:13, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
• 3 - Still undetermined, some cites point to a pyyrhic victory, but it's usually in a tone of maybe and not certain. Furthermore, IDF defeated Hamas forces in the end of the day and pushed Hamas out of Israel.Therefore, for now I believe option 3 is most reflective, should be left undetermined until the end of the war.homerethegreat (talk) 17:52, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
• 3 Describing it as a military victory is itself dependent upon a disputed categorization as a "military conflict" and not a "terrorist attack". Such a thorny thing is not very well served by a black-and-white either-or parameter.

Most sources linked to are paywalled, but I do wonder whether some commentators descriptions as a (phyrric) victory for Hamas or a defeat for Israel might be relative to expectations rather than as a matter of fact. Just the unexpectedness of it all might very well be described as a "defeat" for Israel. Just not in an outcome parameter of a military infobox. – St.nerol (talk) 23:21, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

• 2 or 4 per all above. Also according to WP:MILMOS#INFOBOX, phrases like "pyrrhic victory" should be avoided. I am not against or in favor of using Infobox civilian attack, but I strongly disagree with removing Result and using "pyrrhic victory". Battle of Chosin Reservoir, Battle of Bunker Hill and Battle of the Santa Cruz Islands were also pyrrhic victories. This field is only used for immediate results, not long term. Parham wiki (talk) 20:05, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
• 2 per the reliable sources already cited as well as others.[1][2] Regardless of what one thinks of Hamas, the military success of their attack is widely acknowledged as an undisputed fact. Even The Times of Israel describes it as such. M.Bitton (talk) 23:45, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
• 2 Ah, infoboxes, given the way those work, "The term used [Result] is for the "immediate" outcome of the "subject" conflict and should reflect what the sources say." I cannot for the life of me see how the attack itself, rather than what followed, can be described as anything but a negative for Israel, in consequence a plus for their opponents and this seems to be well borne out in sources.Selfstudier (talk) 16:47, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
• 3 or 4, for now. The sources provided all focus on the events on October 7, while this article covers the entire Hamas invasion of Israel. Every single inch of Israeli territory captured by Hamas was retaken. Unless we were to separate the Hamas offensive and the Israeli counteroffensive into two separate articles (an absurd idea), it is beyond fantastical to label this a Hamas victory. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 18:25, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

  The sources provided in the lead all focus on "the Hamas-led attack on Israel" (an attack that everyone is familiar with and whose result is undisputed). M.Bitton (talk) 18:32, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

They focus almost exclusively on October 7 (one of them came out on October 7, for crying out loud!), but that was not the whole battle. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 19:55, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

You are asking that we use your OR (eg Every single inch of Israeli territory captured by Hamas was retaken as opposed to having completed its objectives and having taken captive a number of hostages, they returned to Gaza with their captives) over the considered views of reliable sources. That is, simply put, not an acceptable option for Wikipedia. Do you have any sources that dispute a Hamas victory or Israeli defeat for this attack? Any at all? nableezy - 20:16, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Did Hamas complete its objectives? Evidence points to ambitions that went far beyond carrying massacres and abductions in border towns. [3] Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 21:42, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

"Kill as many people and take as many hostages as possible." Yeah, think so. Anyway, do you have any sources that dispute a Hamas victory or Israeli defeat for this attack? Any at all? Not really interested in debating evidence with you, we famously have rules against such things. nableezy - 21:49, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Your sources cover the initial assault on October 7, and we both know the battle didn't end on that day. I propose we leave a link to an aftermath chapter, and refrain from crowning any victor for now. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 22:05, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

No, they cover the Hamas attack (there is only one). We are not crowning anyone, all we're doing is repeating what the RS say (an undisputed fact). M.Bitton (talk) 22:07, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Did you read the articles? One of them came out on October 7! This article has a wider scope. If I could cough up an article from 22 June 1941 that states that Germany has great success at Stalingrad, would propose to alter the result in the infobox based on that? Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 22:21, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Of course I did. So what if one of them came out on the 7th? The others came out much later and they all talk about the same thing (The Hamas attack that they describe as a military success). You're welcome to change the other articles (based on what the Rs say about them), but for this one the result is clear and undisputed. This is similar to the Attack on Pearl Harbor (what happened afterwards is another matter). M.Bitton (talk) 22:25, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

We are going in circles, and I have said what I have to say. If other users accept your logic, I'll take note of that. (As for your Pearl Harbor comparison, the Japanese made no attempt to invade and occupy parts of Hawaii.) Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 22:42, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Actually, Hamas had neither the intention nor the means to occupy the territory. Those who describe it as a terrorists attack have to agree with this part. That said, let's see what the others think. M.Bitton (talk) 22:58, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

You could have just said no to my question. nableezy - 23:30, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

• Option 3: Three reasons, (1) This was a terrorist attack, hostage taking, massacre, and mass rape/mass torture of civilians, without clear consensus from RS, this is not something WP should present as a victory/defeat, any more than 9/11, the Iranian hostage crisis, or the ISIS or Boko Haram attacks should be characterized as a victory for the terrorists; (2) The meaning of "victory" is disputed and qualified in sources presented; and related (3) While Hamas believes it has achived their horrible objectives, there is no indications RS has a consensus what they did constitutes a victory.  // Timothy :: talk  17:13, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

  There are clear differences. There were intense gun battles between two military sides, one of who was 3,000 soldiers/militants strong. Did you see the RS above that call this both a "victory" and "military success" for Hamas? VR _talk 13:30, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

• Option 3 per Drsmoo. Cremastra (talk) 22:45, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
• Option 2. I'm really not seeing any reason for Option 3 here. There are clearly RS that consider this a Hamas victory. Hamas itself has claimed victory. At best we can add an attribution to the "Hamas military victory" here, but there are too many RS to ignore this entirely.VR _talk 13:47, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
• Option 2, although I wouldn't be upset at 3. The lack of nuance required by infoboxes like these is dumb and causes problems. That said, most coverage does present the attack as successful and as a victory for Hamas; the argument that it's phyrric doesn't really matter, since that would still mean the attack was a victory (as mentioned above, we describe the Attack on Pearl Harbor as a victory for Japan.) And even in terms of that, the sources are hardly unanimous - see eg. NYT articles like this one, which discuss not just the attack but its long-term implications in a way that clearly frame it as a success for Hamas. More generally, plenty of sources have been produced describing the attack as a Hamas victory; nobody has really presented any sources disagreeing with them. The argument that they failed to hold territory seems nonsensical since that wasn't their objective (it's like saying Pearl Harbor was a failure because it failed to capture Hawaii.) Likewise, the scope of the article is plainly the attack itself and not the entire conflict that followed, so the argument that they may eventually be defeated doesn't mean anything. The argument that Hamas' goals are not... sensical makes a bit more sense to me, in the sense that Hamas' main goal seems to have been to draw Israel into a conflict by killing a lot of civilians and that's obviously a goal of (at best!) more debatable military worth than eg. blowing up aircraft carriers, but ultimately we're not the ones who should be deciding that framing, and sources like the NYT one I linked (which clearly treat it as a victory in a coherent, if awful and dangerous, strategy) push me over into option 2. --Aquillion (talk) 07:55, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
• Comment: Some who have commented here seem to believe that this was a Pearl Harbor-style raid, where Hamas did not aim to capture and hold territory. This is clearly a misunderstanding. Hamas fighters in Sderot stood their ground until they were defeated on October 9 [4]. In the Battle of Sufa, Hamas captured an outpost and were subsequently dislodged by IDF reinforcements. I have mentioned this earlier, but the Washington Post reported that Hamas has planned a much deeper incursion than what ultimately transpired [5]. The "Hamas victory" would have been much more believable had the Hamas fighters simply accomplished their wicked goals and then withdrawn back to Gaza on their own terms, but that is not what happened. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 21:55, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
• Strongly opposed to options 1 or 2 I don't see how an attack like this can be a victory or a defeat for either side. It may have been a successful attack for Hamas and a failure of security for the IDF, but I don't see how that makes it a "victory" or a "defeat" for either. Omit the result parameter or describe the results in a different manner. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 20:33, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
• Support military success rather than the term victory, which is supported by RS. 7 October has been widely reported on as a massive Israeli intelligence and military defeat, and that's evident from the amount of casualties. Makeandtoss (talk) 20:52, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
• Option 3 There will be no winners in this war. No side, Israel or Hamas, will be victorious, regardless of any claims made by either party for the purpose of propaganda: The Palestinians in Gaza are suffereing what they call a second Naqba, where more than a million people were forced to evacuate their homes; about 18,000 Palestinians lost their lives and most Gaza is now rubbles. This is an utter catastrophe! Israel suffered a brutal terror attack, with about 1400 killed, most civilians. Israeli citizens were butchered, raped, burned to death, tortured, and bout 140 Israelis were kidnapped to Gaza. So speaking about a vicotry of either side is absurd. Omit the result parameter. GidiD (talk) 19:46, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

  But the Israeli attacks on the Palestinians are not within the scope of this article? VR _talk 20:05, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

• Option 3 Mainly per TimothyBlue. The attack can't be called a Hamas victory because the attackers were ultimately repulsed with heavy losses. But an Israeli victory doesn't seem right either, because they were taken by surprise and suffered extremely heavy casualties too. Rather than act as umpires and call this game for one side or another, that leaves 3. Coretheapple (talk) 20:22, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

  No-one is acting as an umpire. We're directly quoting RS.VR _talk 04:22, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

• Option 3 I can't imagine putting "victory" in this article under any circumstances. Sure, they did technically successfully carry out their goal of murdering and raping and burning through towns, but this is kind of like if you called 911 a "Victory for al-Qaeda". EytanMelech (talk) 17:55, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

  Option 3 as this was a terrorist attack and if it were a "battle", Hamas would have lost it by ending up repelled back to where they came from, which was well-described in RS. बिनोद थारू (talk) 01:15, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

  I got a question बिनोद थारू, do you have a source confirming that “Hamas would have lost”? Earlier in the discussion, it was mentioned/linked that there was several sources saying Hamas won, so a direct source saying they lost is needed to counteract those sources saying it was a Hamas victory. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 01:23, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

  Of course, [6], with Washington Post being listed in WP:RS/P. बिनोद थारू (talk) 01:26, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

  I should point out that source doesn’t say Hamas would have lost (“lost” or “defeat” isn’t in the article). That said, the article does say, “Hamas’s pronouncements welcoming a broader conflict evoke statements by al-Qaeda leaders in the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, noted Rita Katz, executive director of the SITE Intelligence Group, a private organization that studies the ideology and online communications of extremist groups… Even if its current leadership is effectively destroyed, she said, Hamas and its followers will continue to regard Oct. 7 as a victory. That’s partly because the group unquestionably succeeded in focusing the world’s attention on the Palestinian conflict, she said…‘It’s the first time I can remember that Hamas has become so prominent on a global scale,’”. Technically, that article provided a 5th source (4 others provided at the beginning of the survey section), which state Hamas victory. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 01:33, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

  I should point out that source doesn’t say Hamas would have lost (“lost” or “defeat” isn’t in the article).

  Exactly, that's why Option 3 is the best. This was just a terrorist attack. They just spread terror to Israeli civilians and foreign nationals even though they were pushed back the same day (they lost militarily). They are saying in that article "al Quaeda won the 9/11 bombing" because they spread fear. So as the RS mention it, "won" is being taken out of context here. बिनोद थारू (talk) 01:40, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

  If you don’t mind me asking, since you say the sources are being taken out of context, could you go through and explain why the other four sources and that specific quote from WaPo is being taken out of context? That would help myself and others. The main reason for this is since you did just say the sources listed do state it was a victory (aka option 2), but if all 5 currently listed/linked are being taken out of context, an explanation for each would be beneficial. Fully up to you if you would like to spend the time to do that, but personally, I think it would be beneficial for the discussion. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 01:46, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

• Option 3 of course. This was the worst act of terror by... not sure how we want to call people who commit act of terror (pick one: peace fighters, militias, terrorists). Israel endured significant losses but successfully quelled this wave of terror. While it can be seen as a victory in terms of neutralizing the threat, characterizing it as a clear triumph is challenging. Importantly, the perpetrators gained nothing substantive from this act of terror, rendering it futile and destructive. The ultimate victory, often associated with the elimination of organizations like Hamas, remains for the State of Israel a goal for the future. Let's exercise caution in drawing immediate conclusions and strive for a more neutral perspective at this point. Hence option thee. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 03:03, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
• Option 3, per Drsmoo, Timothy and EytanMelech. One can "succeed" or "fail" at committing a terrorist attack, but never "win" it. More broadly, I agree with GidiD and Oleg that this terrible succession of events cannot be treated as a clear "victory" or "loss" for either side. François Robere (talk) 12:17, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
• Option 2 or 3. I'm on the fence, as while some reliable sources call it a Hamas victory, others call it a terrorist attack. If consensus goes towards it being a battle, then 2. If it ends up being a terrorist incident, then 3. DrowssapSMM 15:39, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
• Option 3 An "attack" (terrorist or otherwise) isn't a "victory", it's just an attack. While there were numerous intel failures, that doesn't mean it was a "victory". WP:NPOV applies in spades here. Buffs (talk) 21:09, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Buffs, actually, per WP:NPOV, option 2 must be used as NPOV states, All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. Above is 5 separate RS sources which clearly state it was a “Hamas victory”. No one has yet to provide a single source stating it was a “Hamas defeat” or “Israeli victory”. To actually keep NPOV, we have to follow what the RS says and not insert our own narrative by ignoring the RS. I’m glad you brought up NPOV in your !vote as I don’t think anyone else did. But yeah, per WP:NPOV, we have to go with option 2, otherwise we insert our own narrative by ignoring RS. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:17, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Few editors are claiming it was a "Hamas defeat" or "Israeli victory". Most are arguing that it was neither a victory nor a defeat for either side as it was not a conventional battle. I suspect the majority of RSs about this event do not refer to it as a victory for either side. Also, RSs describing the event as a victory for one side or the other are not necessarily wrong, but it doesn't mean the event should be encyclopedically categorized as a victory. See WP:NEWSSTYLE — "The encyclopedic and journalistic intent and audience are different." Also, WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE — "the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article (an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored [...]) The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 21:42, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

(Yes, this is a WP:TLDR reply (summary: remove the reuslt section for every article/engagement for this war otherwise option 2 is the only option) – I agree with most of that. That said, several sources do describe conventional battles like Battle of Re'im or Battle of Sderot or Battle of Zikim. Heck, during the battle of Zikim, IDF used the Eitan AFV for the first time. If the infobox result section is "ignored" (i.e. not filled or marked as inconclusive in like Option 3 is for), then when is it ever really used? We have clear RS stating it was a victory for Hamas and we have clear conventional battles/engagements which involved conventional fighting. Based on all of that, the infobox should state it was a Hamas victory. Ignoring it devalues the use of RS, which clearly use the words "Hamas victory" and basically mean the result section is 100% irrelevant and shouldn't even be used. In the war, we have the Battle of Beit Hanoun, which has two sources saying Israel claims victory. The infobox is marked as "Israel claims victory" with those two sources. In this instance we have not two but five sources indicating Hamas victory. It is clear there is only one option and that is option 2, given every other circumstance the result section has ever been used for. Option 3 would be used for when sources disagree with each other. That is no where near the case as there isn't a single source stating the result was inconclusive OR matter of fact anything besides Hamas victory. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:34, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Comment. All Battle of Re'im and Battle of Sderot and Battle of Zikim article say Israeli Victory and back with reliable sources. Therefore, ignoring option 3 for the moment, the article should say Israeli Victory instead. बिनोद थारू (talk) 01:13, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Wrong. Sources say Israeli victory for those. They do not say Israeli victory for this. They say Hamas victory. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 01:41, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Wrong. Sources say Israeli victory for those

So either option 1 or option 3? बिनोद थारू (talk) 02:09, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

See MOS:INFOBOXEXCEPTIONS Parham wiki (talk) 11:57, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

How does MOS:INFOBOXEXCEPTIONS, which reads "As with any guideline, there will be exceptions where a piece of key specialised information is difficult to integrate into the body text, but where that information may be placed in the infobox. Prominent examples include the ISO 639 and similar codes in Infobox language and most of the parameters in Chembox.", apply here?

IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 16:35, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

It was wrong, I mean WP:MILMOS#INFOBOX. Parham wiki (talk) 10:59, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Repeating your assertions ad nauseum doesn't make them any better or convincing. The majority of the people here disagree with your conclusions. 5 sources (I only see 4) may mention it, but at least one was written the same day, hardly enough time to fully comprehend the full actions of what happened. Likewise, all of those publications are politically left-of-center to left and do not represent the balance of available sources. If you want to state that "opinions were varied" and cite some of these, that would be appropriate. Summarizing everything into these opinions is not accurate nor does it satisfy WP:NPOV. YMMV...reasonable people can disagree on their conclusions based on the same facts. Buffs (talk) 00:30, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

I disagree that I was bludgeoning, given I replied specifically to two !votes, but I will refrain from further comments. I also recommend/suggest you do not comment further in this discussion since you are involved enough to call out potential bludgeoning. Cheers y’all! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 02:08, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Okaaaaaaaaay... your responses don't actually respond to any criticism. Buffs (talk) 07:06, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

• option 3 this is a terrorist attack, not a military operation. It doesn't have victors IMO. I got here via WP:AN. Hobit (talk) 01:22, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

  Why can't it be both? Plenty of military operations are conducted by groups categorized by some as terrorist. See List of wars and battles involving the Islamic State, a widely recognized terrorist group. VR _talk 02:30, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

  There are things that are both. But military operations have military goals. This doesn't appear to have. Or at least I can't see what it could be. Hobit (talk) 05:56, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

• Option 3 agree with Hobit. Andre🚐 00:37, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
• Option 3 or 4 - Even when non-state actors have struck purely military targets (see: Camp Speicher massacre), we've followed reliable sources describing them as terrorist attacks and used the appropriate infobox. And of course here most of the victims were civilians, so outlets like the NYT and CNN are indeed reporting it as terrorism. At the very least the result should be something more descriptive like "Attack repelled with heavy losses, beginning of 2023 Israel-Hamas war". A "pyrhhic victory" is by definition not an actual "victory" for Hamas. PrimaPrime (talk) 00:44, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

  Take a look at Northern Iraq offensive (June 2014), which was launched by ISIL, a universally condemned terrorist group. We describe that as ISIL victory. VR _talk 02:27, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

• Option 2 - October 7, unlike 9/11, was a military operation which included - but was not limited to - the use of terrorism. The tactical goals (breaching the barrier, overwhelming the Iron Dome), the operational goals (neutralizing the IDF's Gaza Division for a day or two, taking an unprecedented amount of hostages as a bargaining chip to be exchanged at a later date with Palestinian prisoners, killing as many possible IDF soldiers - reportedly 373, which makes 7 October 2023 the bloodiest single day by number of military deaths in Israel's history with the exception of 6 October 1973 - and sowing panic to the "enemy society" through terrorist massacres), and the strategic goals (resurrecting the Palestinian issue, bringing global attention to Hamas, and seriously throwing back - if not destroying - the Saudi-Israeli normalization process), goals described as such by either Hamas itself or by RS, had all succeeded by the evening of October 7. It can be argued that one RS-described strategic goal of Hamas was unsuccessful (causing a large-scale regional war by making Hezbollah or Iran enter the fight in full force), but even this strategic goal has not completely failed, as the war has transcended the Gaza Strip and the actions of such groups as Hezbollah or the Houthis in the last month show that Hamas isn't really isolated from its allies in the "Axis of Resistance" after 75 days of fighting. The argument that an attack cannot be a victory does not stand, as per this and this. The argument that the use of terrorism invalidates a military operation's victorious outcome also doesn't stand: this massacre is described as part of that offensive, and the offensive is described as a victory for the side that committed the massacre. And this massacre was part of that surprise attack, which is given as a victory for the attacking side. October 7 was not just a massacre, it was a complex military operation that partially resulted in a massacre. Of course, atrocities such as the Re'im music festival massacre should not be described as Hamas victories and are rightly not described as such in their respective articles. But this here is the article for the military operation, which was a success for Hamas in its objectives, and a failure for Israel, as described by officials of Israel, Hamas, and by numerous RS. As per the above, I'm for Option 2 ("Hamas victory" or "Hamas military victory"). Makeandtoss's option "Hamas military success" can also be discussed. BubbleBabis (talk) 02:53, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
• Option 2 per sources referenced above or Option 3 because this isn't finished and WP:RECENTISM is a consideration. There's no rush with these things. There will be time after this is finished and academics have written about it to reflect on it. TarnishedPath^talk 05:17, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Considering together @IOHANNVSVERVS observation above that "the purpose of an infobox [is] to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article" and that our article does not describe this as a victory for either side, this whole discussion seems moot. —St.Nerol (talk, contribs) 09:09, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

See MOS:INFOBOXEXCEPTIONS Parham wiki (talk) 11:58, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

9/11 is not described as a victory for Al Qaeda even though the terrorist organisation saw it as a war. By calling it a Hamas victory it is legitimatising a terrorist attack by saying it’s just a war. Salandarianflag (talk) 11:56, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

WP:OTHERCONTENT; That article does not use the infobox military conflict". However, I have no problem using Infobox civilian attack. Parham wiki (talk) 11:04, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

I think that would be the best course of action. Salandarianflag (talk) 11:50, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Since the civilians have been the prime target during the 2023 Israel–Hamas war (regardless of whether the attackers admit it or not), why should this part be different from the rest? Are some civilians more civilians than the others? M.Bitton (talk) 11:59, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

@Parham wiki: There are always exceptions. How are the exceptions to MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE relevant to this particular issue? —St.Nerol (talk, contribs) 14:56, 26 December 2023 (UTC) —St.Nerol (talk, contribs) 14:56, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

It was wrong, I mean WP:MILMOS#INFOBOX. Parham wiki (talk) 14:58, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Right. Were you thinking about any particular advice therein? I note the part that says that the result parameter may be contentious since the infobox "does not have the scope to reflect nuances", and that the parameter therefore may be omitted. —St.Nerol (talk, contribs) 17:16, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Nothing is written about terrorist attacks and unwritten deleted RS's statements. Parham wiki (talk) 18:41, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

There is no reason for the article (and in the Infobox) not to describe it as a victory (given that the RS do). M.Bitton (talk) 11:56, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

• Option 4 Neither of the options seem optimal, but it is anything but a Hamas victory IMO. Something like Hamas strategic failure (based on how Operation Barbarossa is written, which had immediate gains for Germany, but doomed them on the long term) would be fitting imo. Best to wait until the war ends, as that can change the outcome of attack. However, on the current track, Israel is poised to seize Gaza and depose Hamas. Ecrusized (talk) 20:19, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

  Comment. There were no gains at all for Hamas. They were repelled at the end of this battle. बिनोद थारू (talk) 20:33, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

• Option 3. 'Victory' lacks a clear definition, especially in the context of an attack that has been repelled at great costs to the attackers. The example of 9/11 given by Salandarianflag is also persuasive in this case. Marokwitz (talk) 11:45, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

  No one is asking you to determine whether this was a victory, we follow what RS say. VR _talk 02:27, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

• Option 3. The attacks were the commencement of a larger war still underway, and I agree with Marokwitz that "victory" is difficult to define for either at this stage one way or the other. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 13:30, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
• For anyone saying "attacks by terrorist groups can't have victory/defeat", please see this very long list: List of wars and battles involving the Islamic State. ISIS is a very clearly recognized terrorist group. Their dozens of military undertakings have been characterized "victory", "defeat", "indecisive". Likewise, the 2006 Hezbollah cross-border raid and Ansariya ambush are listed as a "Hezbollah victory" even though Israel regards Hezbollah as terrorist.VR _talk 02:36, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

  Then why not just fix those other articles you mentioned, for the same reason as Option 3? बिनोद थारू (talk) 02:39, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

  You're saying that dozens - possibly hundreds - of wikipedia articles should be changed to be made consistent with your preferred option of 3? Alternatively, you can admit that groups designated as terrorist have the capability of entering into battles with state actors and potentially even "win" (as RS put it) those battles. VR _talk 15:35, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

• Option 4. It's a terrorist attack, albeit Hamas was driven out, it's preposterous to claim who was victorious. Even the source doesn't state it was a Hamas victory. Put it simple: Hamas fighters driven out of Israel, led to the 2023 Israel–Hamas war. Sgnpkd (talk) 19:00, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2: That event in isolation was a Hamas victory, it was another event of the ongoing Israel-Palestinian conflict and this in isolation was a Hamas victory. Ecpiandy (talk) 22:41, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
• Option 4 per Makeandtoss or Sgnpkd. I came here to close the RfC, but I ultimately couldn't decide between no consensus (default to option 3) or come-from-behind consensus for option 2. The arguments presented by option 3 supporters are awfully weak, though they are the majority; they mostly hinge on the practical consideration of designating this a terrorist attack rather than a military incursion, but present basically no reliable sources to bolster that claim. Supporters of option 2 brought some reliable sources, but they mostly focus on whether Hamas was defeated or did the defeating rather than whether the question makes sense at all. There's a survivorship bias question at play in that the RSes that would designate this as a terrorist attack don't have strong inclination to speak to the exact question this infobox question is asking. Also, the RSes aren't fantastic: they're contemporaneous news sources from reputable publishers. Not academic, but good*. Ultimately, I think the RSes used here support something shy of "victory"; I'm good with "military success" or taking a longer-term view of impact. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:09, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  The RS survivorship bias issue is a good point. But couldn't the question on exactly what to include in the infobox be just as much about editorial judgment as about RS? The infobox is supposed to be a helpful summary; it's not the main thing, and there's no rule that everything better be there? —St.Nerol (talk, contribs) 18:06, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

• Just noting there has been email canvassing by AndresHerutJaim asking people to vote option 3 here, with the email saying "Also please vote in this important RFC (for option 3 if you ask me). It's like if in the article of 911 attacks the infobox said "al-Qaeda victory": https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2023_Hamas-led_attack_on_Israel#Result_RFC" nableezy - 17:08, 18 December 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.

Requested move 12 January 2024

2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel → October 7 attack – Titling guidelines state that Wikipedia "generally prefers the name that is most commonly used as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable, English-language sources" when titling pages (WP:COMMONNAME). In this case, the vast majority of sources refer to the event as the October 7 attack or some variant thereof rather than "the 2023 Hamas-led attack". 5.61.122.219 (talk) 14:11, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Nominator is an IP, which does not have the right to propose such a move. Furthermore, no evidence has been put forward that this is the most commonly used name, and a quick google search disproves this claim. Makeandtoss (talk) 16:43, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

A quick google search of "October 7 attacks" does not disprove this claim.

A quick google search of "October 7th" returns hundreds of millions of results, nearly all referring to the events of October 7th in Israel directly.

A quick google search of "2023 Hamas-led" or "2023 Hamas" returns a few million results involving Hamas and the year 2023, not the events of the Hamas attack on October 7th directly.

This article is about the October 7th Hamas-led attack, not some other Hamas attack that took place in 2023 or during the war that erupted following the attack.

The most commonly used name for the event this article is about in the English speaking world is "The October 7th..." and is commonly used in media, by Politicians and others.

Thewildshoe (talk) 15:54, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 January 2024

I wish you to change the number of people killed by Hamas terroists: Nova 359 people Be’eri 125 Kfar Aza 78 2A06:C701:4917:A300:EC91:C964:40AD:231B (talk) 21:12, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 21:19, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 January 2024 (2)

Change: "On 7 October 2023, the paramilitary wings of Hamas, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, the PRC, PFLP, and the DFLP launched a series of coordinated armed incursions into the Gaza envelope of neighboring Israeli territory, the first invasion of Israel since the 1948 Arab–Israeli War. "

To: "On 7 October 2023, the paramilitary wings of Hamas, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, the PRC, PFLP, and the DFLP launched a series of coordinated armed incursions into the Gaza envelope of neighboring Israeli territory, attacking military outposts and committing massacres on the civilians of the envelope, the first invasion of Israel since the 1948 Arab–Israeli War. "

Sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Re%27im_music_festival_massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Be%27eri_massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nir_Oz_massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kfar_Aza_massacre https://www.nytimes.com/video/world/middleeast/100000009131432/israel-hamas-kibbutz-massacre-survivors.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/10/10/israel-hamas-attack-war-death/ Thewildshoe (talk) 23:06, 21 January 2024 (UTC) Thewildshoe (talk) 23:06, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

 Done Coretheapple (talk) 17:41, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

The terminology used regarding the October 7th attacks

Along side the military campaign of Hamas to breach the security wall and take out several IDF outposts, the Hamas led attack included a massacre of 695 Israeli and foreign civilians, as stated in the article. They were not collateral damage, they were targeted explicitly during the attack with an overabundance of evidence and documentation verified by the majority of independent medias and news sources. The absence of the word "massacre" diverges from the Wikipedia standard regarding other similar violent attacks with mass civilian casualties. Either we remove the word "massacre" from articles about other similar attacks, like the Bucha massacre, or we insert it here to be consistent with a uniform standard. The word should be included in the title and/or the intro and when referring to the 695 civilian casualties resulting from the Hamas led attack. The term "massacre" is very commonly used by various independent English speaking medias and news channels. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/12/22/world/europe/beeri-massacre.html Thewildshoe (talk) 15:38, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

According to Ynet there was "immense and complex quantity" of friendly-fire incidents' which the IDF said it would not be morally sound to investigate. It looks like this 'friendly-fire' was in many instances deliberate as they didn't want any hostages taken back to Gaza. I think saying that particular number were massacred by the militants is starting to tread on thin ground. I think describing them as casualties of the Hamas attack is accurate though it covers this up somewhat. NadVolum (talk) 11:27, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

There are roughly 20 verified cases (the "immense and complex quantity" described by Ynet) of friendly fire deaths of both civilians and soldiers. There is no credible evidence to suggest intentional friendly fire. The theories running around this online revolve around misinformation like a false definition or interpretation of the IDF's "Hannibal Protocol" and sensationalist claims with no proof.

The massacre of hundreds of civilians in their homes, door to door, as well as the music festivel goers, is well documented including by Hamas member's GoPro cams and has also been independently verified by various international media investigations.

~20 civilians dead by friendly fire doesn't negate the fact that the remaining 675 civilians were massacred that day. Even if new evidence shows up that the number of friendly fire casualties doubles or triples. Even if 300 civilians died to friendly fire, that still leaves 395 civilians that were massacred by Hamas.

A massacre is a massacre. Wikipedia must have a consistent, objective use of definitions.

From a Haaretz article, following an official IDF statement: "The IDF estimates that 13 soldiers killed in the fighting in the Gaza Strip were shot after they were mistakenly identified as Hamas members", this is from December 12th, including soldiers that died from friendly fire after the October 7th attack during the ground incursion.

https://www.haaretz.co.il/news/politics/2023-12-12/ty-article/.premium/0000018c-5d0f-db23-ad9f-7ddf31a70000

Regarding civilian friendly fire deaths, which is the part that is relevant here, the known events are a tank shell killing 4 civilians being held hostage in one of the houses:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/12/22/world/europe/beeri-massacre.html

Only a handful of other individual cases are known, none of them show any intent to kill civilians or imply they were killed "deliberately" as you suggested.

If you want to claim that 695 civilians weren't massacred in their homes and in the music festival, or that the number of civilians that died by friendly fire is significantly higher or was deliberate, please provide credible sources to support this claim.

Thewildshoe (talk) 16:25, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

You just gave evidnce for 20 of them, are you saying the IDF massacred those? And the number might be 'immense' whatever that means except the IDF won't even estimate the number. Or do you want to rephrase a bit? NadVolum (talk) 19:42, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

I didn't give evidence for 20 of them, I gave evidence for 4 civilians killed unintentionally by the IDF, and up to 13 soldiers killed unintentionally by friendly fire.

This is a fact based discussion and there's no room for political biases. If you claim anything regarding "intentional" friendly fire, claims of masses of civilians killed by friendly fire or claims about the validity of the term massacre, provide credible sources for your claims. This isn't a place for political activism.

Thewildshoe (talk) 22:06, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Please confine your contributions on talk pages of "extended confirm" articles to Edit Requests, as editors with under 500 edits are not allowed to commence talk page discussions such as this in articles for which those restrictions exist. While a year ago you received a notice indicating that such discussions are allowed, the rules have been tightened and that is no longer the case. Coretheapple (talk) 22:19, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, "massacre" is correct and the text should reflect that. The claim that Israel committed deliberate slaughter of its own people on 10/7 is at best a WP:FRINGE claim that has no bearing on this discussion.  Coretheapple (talk) 20:04, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Those familiar with this material will know that the nature of events on this day is murky at best, and while some individual events have been characterized as "massacres" in RS – rightly or wrongly, since the authorities in question appear to be averse to the transparent investigation of the truth – the events as a whole cannot be generalized with this presumptive terminology. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:20, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Exactly. The preponderance of reliable sources indicate it was a massacre. Coretheapple (talk) 20:23, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

No. The preponderance of sources discuss lots of little isolated parts of events on that day, because the events of that day were not one event. It wasn't "a/an" anything. It was a day filled with different events that cannot readily be generalized about and which certainly should not be generalized about in POV or lopsided terms. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:32, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

"Isolated parts of events"? Please. If you start with the Re'im music festival massacre which claimed 364 lives, and add on the other civilian massacres, some of which indeed have "massacre" articles here, you have the components of an organice whole, which is a massacre. I believe the sources reflect that the attacks on civilians indeed were a massacre. Much as we say "the Holocaust" and it had individual components. Not "isolated" components but components. Coretheapple (talk) 20:43, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

The titles of many of the poorly developed child article are themselves contentious. Add I have said, and will happily say again as oft as is necessary, the last thing this article needs is the imprint of generalization. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:47, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

This Washington Post op-ed addresses the concerns raised by this new editor. We ignore them at our peril. Coretheapple (talk) 21:22, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Surely we pay too much heed to op-eds at our peril? Iskandar323 (talk) 21:38, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

As an editor with few to no edits outside of talk, you would be wise to familiarise yourself with Wikipedia and its approach to content and sources before diving into suggestions in contentious topic areas. On pages such as this, as conveyed on your talk, your edits should be limited to constructive comments or edit requests, i.e. not advocating for a certain tone based on a selective reading of the information from sources. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:13, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Please focus on the content of this editor's comments and not your opinion of his experience on the project. This editor cannot make article edits but has every right to comment in a substantive way on the talk pages. Coretheapple (talk) 20:27, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Actually no. Since WP:ARBECR was amended in 11 November, non-EC users are only permitted to make properly formatted (X to Y) edit requests on restricted pages. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:39, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

(Had to double check and clarify the revised rules for myself, but that's the update.) Edit requests and nothing else. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:40, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Yep, you're right. I stand corrected. I'm going to strike out my comment. Coretheapple (talk) 20:46, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Doug Weller's talk page post to this editor said that 'constructive comments" are indeed permitted, but apparently they are not. This needs to be sorted out. Coretheapple (talk) 20:52, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Hmm, I guess the old ways are engrained in many, and not everyone will necessarily have picked up on the subtle changes in the ARBECR update yet. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:55, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

It is possible that a template message needs to be revised. I've asked Doug Weller about it. Now, as far as this particular discussion is concerned, typically we would hat a new user's comments if they go beyond what is allowed but I will leave it alone for now as it has gone on for a while. And frankly, in my opinion, his point is constructive. Coretheapple (talk) 21:02, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

My request to use the term massacre is an edit request.

Wikipedia's standard and current status-quo for the use of the word "Massacre", the qualifications for what constitutes a "massacre" is inconsistent in this article.

If you disagree, feel free to provide actual evidence to assert your claims. You made several statements:

"nature of events on this day is murky at best" according to who? How is this relevant? Are other massacres details less murky? How so?

"since the authorities in question appear to be averse to the transparent investigation of the truth" According to who? What examples of said aversion do you have? How is this aversion denying the use of the term "massacre"? How did the authorities in other massacres act differently?

"the events as a whole cannot be generalized with this presumptive terminology." Why? How many casualties need to be "massacred" out of the total casualties so that it can be labeled a "massacre"? Weren't other massacres also part of a bigger conflict raising the same challenges to generalize it as a massacre?

What makes using the term "massacre" regarding this event "selective reading"?

It is clearly Wikipedia's status quo that none of the arguments you raised prevent the characterization of the event as a "massacre".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacres_of_Albanians_in_the_Balkan_Wars

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_at_Hu%E1%BA%BF

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bucha_massacre

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamidian_massacres

I've made a specific edit request using the proper form, but it is important to talk this issue over and address it, as well as the phenomenon of denialism of the attack as i've seen in another topic.

If this article fails to acknowledge the massacre that took place during this event, it makes this article a tool for the denial of an atrocity, spreading misleading information to Wikipedia's readers. Clearly against Wikipedia's standards and purpose.

Thewildshoe (talk) 17:30, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Just noticed your properly formatted edit request. I think your argument is persuasive and it has been  Done. Going forward I suggest that you use the "requested edit" format. It's easier. Coretheapple (talk) 17:43, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

The changes you made duplicated the detail that currently appears in the second paragraph in the first paragraph. That's a technical matter - possibly this was overlooked. On a consensus level, I remain unconvinced by the merits of generalising in this context. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:50, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

• I hatted this discussion a day or so ago on the grounds that it is not strictly speaking an "edit request," but I changed my mind per discussion below concerning an IP editor doing much the same thing. Am unhatting this discussion. This non-EC editor did make an edit request, after all, even though it was not using the correct form. We mustn't be rigid. Coretheapple (talk) 22:49, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 January 2024

Change: "According to a poll conducted by The Washington Institute for Near East Policy between 14 November and 6 December 2023, 95% of Saudis did not believe that Hamas had killed civilians in its attack on Israel."

To: Move to a new paragraph: "According to a poll conducted by The Washington Institute for Near East Policy between 14 November and 6 December 2023, 95% of Saudis did not believe that Hamas had killed civilians in its attack on Israel. Denial of the intentional mass killing of civilians in the Hamas-led attack has been common throughout the world, with concerns among Western countries about the spread of this phenomenon. Queen Rania of Jordan said in an interview, in reference to reports of Israeli children found butchered in an Israeli kibbutz, that those reports haven't been "independently verified". Known Israel critic, Roger Waters, alleged the October 7th attack was a "false flag operation" and expressed doubts about the events that reportedly unfolded that day, a sentiment that is prevalent in social media along with other misinformation in the Israel–Hamas war revolving around the denial or minimizing of the atrocities that took place on that day. Thewildshoe (talk) 19:10, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

26,000 Palestinians killed 2603:9001:2306:5645:1B7:1F8:8E28:CF94 (talk) 04:56, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

That denialism is happening and is widespread but the 95% in Saudi Arabia sounds very fishy and far too high to me. I think I'd much prefer to see more about how the poll was conducted before thinking that has any relation to reality. There's too much propaganda going round the rounds to just accept something like that rather unbelievable level of denial without quesioning it. NadVolum (talk) 14:12, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

References

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:14, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

TNYT article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Violation of WP:NOTFORUM by user:Drsruli. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 23:48, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

---

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/28/world/middleeast/oct-7-attacks-hamas-israel-sexual-violence.html Drsruli (talk) 03:08, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

I can only quote @Sameboat: this NYT report has been accused of potential testimony manipulation.[7] — kashmīrī ^TALK 18:10, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

https://apnews.com/article/sexual-assault-hamas-oct-7-attack-rape-bb06b950bb6794affb8d468cd283bc51 Drsruli (talk) 21:21, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Talk pages are for discussing improvements to articles, not for pasting bare links. You've been pasting bare links to multiple talk pages – please stop and read WP:TPG. — kashmīrī ^TALK 22:16, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Denialism

If it merits mention in the lede, then let it have a specifically demarcated section in the article. Drsruli (talk) 21:51, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

It's natural that some people won't believe in media reports on certain events, but I don't think we should routinely include such views unless reported in mainstream media so prominently that inclusion would satisfy WP:DUE. — kashmīrī ^TALK 22:20, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

However, we actually reference the phenomenon in the article lede. Anything in the opening paragraphs presumes expansion within the main article. (If it's not important, then it shouldn't be in the lede.) Drsruli (talk) 03:04, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Well, an article on the denial of the 7 October attacks has just been created... ObserveOwl (chit-chat • my doings) 11:29, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks. Drsruli (talk) 03:27, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Zikim

I know the operation ended in every other area after the 8th, but the Zikim attack continued until October 16. Should this be included? Personisinsterest (talk) 12:57, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

References

Civilian fatalities by Israel

Why doesn't this article also cover the confirmed civilian deaths - both Israeli and Gazan - by Israel? Apeholder (talk) 14:21, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 February 2024

The number of hamas casualties in the first invasion are closer to 1500 based of recent data, and not 1000 as written 2A0D:6FC7:342:70C2:278:5634:1232:5476 (talk) 18:46, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. M.Bitton (talk) 22:56, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Removal of reliably sourced information from the lead

@Kashmiri, you quickly reverted my edit with the summary "As much as they were awful crimes, the sources don't use "widespread" or "systematic" in their own voice; it's a quote in one of the sources." That isn't accurate.

https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2024/jan/18/evidence-points-to-systematic-use-of-rape-by-hamas-in-7-october-attacks - "Evidence points to systematic use of rape and sexual violence by Hamas in 7 October attacks" "The chaos meant there were significant failings in preserving evidence of gender-based violence and what is coming to be seen as the systematic use of rape as a weapon of war by Hamas." They then go into the details: "By cross-referencing testimonies given to police, published interviews with witnesses, and photo and video footage taken by survivors and first responders, the Guardian is aware of at least six sexual assaults for which multiple corroborating pieces of evidence exist. Two of those victims, who were murdered, were aged under 18. At least seven women who were killed were also raped in the attack, according to Prof Ruth Halperin-Kaddari, a legal scholar and international women’s rights advocate, from her examination of evidence so far. The New York Times and NBC have both identified more than 30 killed women and girls whose bodies bear signs of abuse, such as bloodied genitals and missing clothes, and according to the Israeli welfare ministry, five women and one man have come forward seeking help for sexual abuse over the past few months."

https://apnews.com/article/sexual-assault-hamas-oct-7-attack-rape-bb06b950bb6794affb8d468cd283bc51 "Such accounts given to The Associated Press, along with first assessments by an Israeli rights group, show that sexual assault was part of an atrocities-filled rampage by Hamas and other Gaza militants who killed about 1,200 people, most of them civilians, and took more than 240 hostages that day." "The group Physicians for Human Rights Israel, which has a record of advocating for Palestinian civilians in Gaza suffering under Israel’s longtime blockade of the territory, published an initial assessment in November. “What we know for sure is that it was more than just one case and it was widespread, in that this happened in more than one location and more than a handful of times,” Hadas Ziv, policy and ethics director for the organization, said Tuesday." Do you have and reasoning why Physicians for Human Rights Israel wouldn't also be a reliable source?

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/28/world/middleeast/oct-7-attacks-hamas-israel-sexual-violence.html "A two-month investigation by The Times uncovered painful new details, establishing that the attacks against women were not isolated events but part of a broader pattern of gender-based violence on Oct. 7." Drsmoo (talk) 18:40, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

So, "widespread" is indeed part of a quote, and "systematic" is mentioned in the context of "coming to be seen as", not "is confirmed as" – so, as it is, it currently remains as a postulated, extraordinary claim whose language is not supported by multiple reliable sources. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:23, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

We can use “coming to be seen as” and attribute widespread to physicians for human rights Israel. We can also include “ establishing that the attacks against women were not isolated events but part of a broader pattern of gender-based violence” and “ sexual assault was part of an atrocities-filled rampage by Hamas and other Gaza militants”. Your argument about an “extraordinary claim” doesn’t hold up. Multiple reliable sources have attested to the breadth of the sexual assaults. Arguing that they used different words to do so is semantics. Drsmoo (talk) 19:33, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

You'll need much better sourcing if wanting to make a serious allegation of systematic sexual violence in that conflict. — kashmīrī ^TALK 19:40, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree the sourcing is insufficient for the same reasons as others said above. Levivich (talk) 22:46, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

In what the sources are not enough?

You have more than one reliable source that show that there were systemically sexual abuse. That should end the discussion as Wikipedia is following what the sources say. ArmorredKnight (talk) 11:49, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I’ve added attribution and restored the reliable sources that were removed.

@Drsmoo The term widespread occurs only in a quote from a person interviewed by a journalist, whereas your edit tries to make an impression that it is commonly used by the media to describe the events. Which is unsubstantiated, diplomatically speaking. The term systematic also occurs only once, and again not as a foregone conclusion. Then, you have been pointed out twice that the NYT investigation itself is controversial and potentially unreliable.

Making thinly substantiated statements aimed to malign a political adversary is actually a core feature of propaganda. — kashmīrī ^TALK 19:36, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

If you’re going to dismiss the Associated Press, NY Times, Guardian, Physicians for Human Rights Israel by calling them propaganda and/or weak sourcing then I’m not sure how best to continue. But here goes, do you have any reliable source(s) calling them propaganda? Drsmoo (talk) 20:18, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

And for the sake of clarity. Your argument is that The New York Times, The Guardian, The Associated Press, are all “propaganda”? Drsmoo (talk) 20:26, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

EOT. — kashmīrī ^TALK 23:03, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

No, claiming The NY Times, Associated Press, Guardian and Physicians for Human Rights Israel are “propaganda” isn’t going to fly. Drsmoo (talk) 01:23, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

The added quotations may be more suitable for inclusion under the relevant body section. The article lead is already bloated, and these reports don't seem to substantially change the content. Ertal72 (talk) 02:09, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Agree. Attributed statements are virtually never due for inclusion in the lead. It's also overcited and "was described as" is WP:WEASEL, and frankly I just kind of object to the wishy-washiness of two attributed statements characterizing it. Was it widespread? Was it systematic? If so then the article should just say so, if the sourcing backs it up. If it's one group or one media outlet who says it, then who cares? If many say it, then say it in wikivoice. Levivich (talk) 02:27, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I'll remove attribution and restore it as it was. The sourcing backs it up. Claiming that the NYTimes, Guardian, BBC, Washington Post, Physicians for Human Rights Israel, Haaretz, Associated Press are "weak sourcing" or propaganda, is frankly quite odd. Drsmoo (talk) 02:33, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

OK enough straw manning already, nobody is biting on any of the rhetorical games. Levivich (talk) 02:39, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Seriously, what is the rhetorical game? Please elaborate how any of these highly notable sources are "weak"? And dismissing reliable sources as "propaganda" is simply unacceptable. It is a complete non-argument. Drsmoo (talk) 02:42, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

^-- that right there is the rhetorical game, the strawmanning. That is not an accurate summary of the concerns about the edit, and you know it. Seriously, give it a rest. Respond to people's arguments if you want to, or just stop posting, but don't straw man. Levivich (talk) 03:25, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately that is exactly the position that was articulated. Specifically on the talk page for "Denial of the 7 October attacks".

"I'm sorry that you can't tell facts from propaganda."

"Yor unfaltering belief in "facts established by reliable sources", in the midst of a war propaganda, is amusing." Drsmoo (talk) 03:40, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Neither of those is claiming that NYT is propaganda or weak. Look, I can read English, you can read English, we both know what the objections raised in this thread are. As our colleague said, EOT. Levivich (talk) 03:58, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

It's broader than NYT, unsubstantiated accusations of "propaganda", along with personal attacks "you can't tell facts...", "your unfaltering belief", "your edit tries to make an impression", "ones like you". and accusations of bad faith are not acceptable. If one is going to dispute multiple reliable sources, than show alternate reliable sources that assert the opposite. Ideally ones that aren't flagged here as biased or unreliable. Drsmoo (talk) 05:05, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Please just revert non-ECR editors and leave them a {{welcome-arbpia}} and {{alert/first}}. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:54, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
we have more than one reliable source that show systematic use of rape. that should end the discussion as Wikipedia should follow sources. We are not going to vote if the earth is flat and everything that related to fact Wikipedia should just stick to the sources. we have reliable sources that mention systematic use of rape so we should mention as it is. ArmorredKnight (talk) 11:51, 5 February 2024 (UTC) @Kashmiri, what you are doing here is editing wikipedia against what the sources say. This is not for voting. Voting can not decide what is correct. If there it is insist of removing this part then I think it should be taken up to moderator. ArmorredKnight (talk) 11:55, 5 February 2024 (UTC) @ArmorredKnight This is not how Wikipedia works. There are no moderators on Wikipedia, and discussions are precisely there to work out editors' consensus. — kashmīrī TALK 12:45, 5 February 2024 (UTC) @Kashmiri discussion can not claim that the earth is flat despite of what the sources say. You may not like the sources, but the sources verify that there were systematically sexual abuse. Wikipedia works by sticking to the sources. you are going against Wikipedia rules and philosophy when you deny all the reliable sources. The fact that you don't like what the source says doesn't give you the right to remove it. ArmorredKnight (talk) 12:51, 5 February 2024 (UTC) @ArmorredKnight: I think you misunderstand an encyclopaedia. An encyclopaedia is not a collection of press clippings. Editors are required to judge, for instance, the reliability of a particular source, relevance for the article topic, or whether the claim is confirmed by other sources. Also, exceptional claims require exceptional evidence. A claim that an organisation has resorted to systemic and widespread criminal activity requires really strong evidence; much stronger than what was presented here. If you believe – as it seems to me – that whatever has been published can be copied to Wikipedia, then I ask you to read this policy. — kashmīrī TALK 12:59, 5 February 2024 (UTC) Systematical sexual assault and sexual assault in general are relevant to the article. This is really absurd to claim otherwise. I mean we describing the attack and if the attack included sexual assault then it should be mention. not only here but generally in any article about any attack, provided that there are sources. The sources are considered reliable by Wikipedia standard and there are more than once. There are several reliable sources. "much stronger than what was presented here" - the sources are very strong and are more than enough than what we usually use in order to include a fact in Wikipedia. But feel free to say what exactly will be enough for you and then we can judge if your demand fit to the Wikipedia standard or it is just your own standard because you may no like mentioning the fact. please say exactly what is the minimum that you demand to be in the sources and then we can see if your demand match Wikipedia. As ArmorredKnight (talk) 14:28, 5 February 2024 (UTC) by the way Systematical sexual assault and sexual assault are not exceptional claims. It is not something that contradict anything that we know about the world. It is just denied by Hamas, but that doesn't make it an exceptional claim. ArmorredKnight (talk) 14:33, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 26 January 2024

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

The result of the move request was: Not moved. There seems to be a majority against the move (also known as option E), with a rationale that the current descriptive title is fine.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:24, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

---

2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel → 7 October attacks – The most common name for the event. Irtapil (talk) 08:45, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

• A - 7 October attacks
• B - 7 October attack
• C - 7 October Hamas-led attack on Israel
• D - 7 October 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel
• E - (no change) 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel

The current title is a very good description, but nobody actually calls it that? The extremes of both sides, and everyone in between, all refer to the event as 7 October.

The page "7 October" already exists as a page about that date in history (in a series including every day of the year), so calling it 7 October attack (which is already a redirect here) or 7 October attacks is the best available option to fit WP: common name.

If we add any extra elements we should keep the whole thing "Hamas-led attack on Israel" to match prior consensus, and thus avoid re-litigating every word.

Irtapil (talk) 08:45, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

• I support this move. It took a while for a common name to settle, but '7 October attacks' seems to be it. Riposte97 (talk) 11:27, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
• I support the rename ArmorredKnight (talk) 18:36, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose not everyone knows the date. Leave as is. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:26, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Not everyone knows most things, but I've not seen it called anything else? Irtapil (talk) 01:39, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

• E - no reason to change. Coretheapple (talk) 18:16, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
• E - those alternatives look worse, just leave it alone. They've too much assumed context like that it is 2023 or people remember the date. How could one assume '7 October attack' is better for distinguishing it from others! NadVolum (talk) 20:11, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose E - current name meets WP:COMMON and is more WP:PRECISE than any alternative.  // Timothy :: talk  21:25, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Precise I agree with, but it's definitely not common. It works as an intro sentence or article description more than a title. Irtapil (talk) 01:39, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

• I fail to see how it meets WP:COMMONNAME, which states explicitly that titles should be based on the most commonly used name in major English-language media outlets (among other types of source). In this case, the majority of sources refer to the 7 October/October 7 attack(s) rather than using the current phrasing. TRCRF22 (talk) 19:13, 28 January 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TRCRF22 (talk • contribs)

• E - It’s fine, no good reason to change. Drsruli (talk) 03:03, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

  WP:common name nobody ever calls it "2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel" Irtapil (talk) 23:07, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

  That rule does not universally apply. Plenty of encyclopedia entries will have proper titles that differ from colloquial use, especially where the titles have descriptive advantages, or are even merely adequate. (Or in some cases, older names may be preserved.) The current title is unambiguous and complete. Additionally, as others have stated, "too soon". Drsruli (talk) 03:11, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

• YA - 7 October attacks would be appropriate since it is now mentioned in most news websites by that title. Whenever someone says October 7, what pops first into your head?--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 13:00, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
• E — Too soon. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 15:15, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support A — When was the last time anybody outside of this site referred to the event as "the 2023 Hamas-led attack"? By contrast, how many times has it been referred to as "the 7 October attack" or just as "October 7"? Even searching up the current title yields mainly results that call it the October 7 attack. WP:COMMONNAME applies. User:TRCRF22 (talk)
• A per WP:AT. This title best meets all 5 criteria for article titles. It is recognizable, natural, precise, concise, and consistent. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:38, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
• E. Keep as is. In many social circles (including my own), October 7 is unambiguously referring to the events above, but we are a global Encyclopedia and must be unambiguous in all contexts. Option D is appealing too, but even longer than current title. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 18:47, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

"Global" was the reason for "7 October" only the USA puts the month fist, and a few global news services aimed at the USA maybe. I really don't know where it isn't called October 7 or 7 October? It covers the whole spectrum. Irtapil (talk) 01:09, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

• C – The use of the phrase "7 October" is in line with the WP:COMMONNAME, however it seems WP:TOOSOON and too ambiguous to just call the event the "7 October attack(s)"; replacing "2023" in the current title with "7 October" seems to be the best option, in line with articles like January 6 United States Capitol attack. DecafPotato (talk) 19:07, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
• E per WP:AIN'TBROKE. The current descriptive title is without issue, and wants for nothing in terms of precision, unlike options A and B, and is more concise than C or D. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:42, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
• A or B. In recent weeks, the international media has begun referring to the events of October 7 in this manner. For instance, see:

• The Times: hasn’t cut funding to UN agency accused of role in October 7 attacks
• The Guardian: agency investigates staff suspected of role in 7 October attack on Israel
• The Telegraph: suspends funding for UN aid agency implicated in Oct 7 attack
• France24: says October 7 attacks 'necessary step', admits 'faults'.
• Financial Times: agency dismisses ‘several’ staff over alleged role in October 7 attack.
• CNN: agency fires staff members allegedly involved in October 7 attacks
• VOA News: UN Agency Staff Fired for Alleged Ties to October 7 Attack on Israel
• Jerusalem Post: Hamas kept October 7 attack on Israel secret – report
• Al Jazeera: says October 7 attack was a ‘necessary step’, admits to ‘some faults’

ManOnTheMoon92 (talk) 08:31, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

• A- just like the article about September 11 attacks is called September 11 attacks and NOT 2001 Al Qaeda led attack. what make this case different?ArmorredKnight (talk) 13:25, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

in any case, whatever we decide we will need to have a new election in the future to change the name from historic perspective. Especially if the rule WP:TOOSOON is used ArmorredKnight (talk) 13:27, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

I think 7 October is probably going to stick., I don't see it being likely to change? I weirdly keep forgetting which year September 11 happened in, but it's definitely called September 11. Irtapil (talk) 00:31, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

• 7 October 2023 attacks in Israel. It may be premature to skip the year today (might be possible in the future, but 7/10 is nowhere near 9/11 in most of the world). We shouldn't mention the leader in title per @ArmorredKnight:. And the attack location usefully narrows down the search term for the reader. — kashmīrī ^TALK 18:15, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

  if we just call it 7 October attacks we avoid that.

  Irtapil (talk) 00:27, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

D: I’m against A and B because they’re the most ambiguous. E’s not really a good name, cause someone can see the name and say:

Well, which Hamas-led attack is it?

— The average Wikipedia reader

It’s also not a good idea to remove the year, but based on the context of the attacks, I’m fine with C. Brachy08 _(Talk) 01:36, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

P.S. (I read up on the tl;dr thing, which according to Wikipedia policies, E’s the best choice). I don’t really care about conscision, I just care if people find it not ambig. Brachy08 _(Talk) 01:38, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

• E: WP:Article Title doesn’t only have one criteria (i.e. COMMONNAME) it has 5 (2 with 3 sub-criteria, so actually 9). I‘ve detailed these in the hatted section below and analyzed the options by them (not deep maths, just a baseline for decision). I’ve assumed that 7 October is the COMMONNAME, although I think it’s TOOSOON to determine. I believe most readers will look for "Hamas" and "Israel" not 7 October. The rest of my thinking is in the hat.

One issue is calling this "7 October attack" to be consistent (a criteria) with "9 September attack". Consistency has 3 sub-criteria — When? Where? and What?. The current name is consistent with other names giving all 3 — When: "2003", Where: "Israel", What: "Hamas-led attack". You can drop any of these 3 if it’s so well known that the subject is identifiable by the others. So 9/11 attack is so well known by the date that we could drop Where and What and just call it "9 September". IMHO the same isn’t (yet?) true of this attack, and all 3 elements are needed.

TLDR, see !vote

You’re welcome to call me a nerd or something similar - no offense will be taken. WP:Article Title criteria Recognizability – by someone familiar with subject but not necessarily an expert Naturalness – Readers will naturally search Editors will naturally link Usually what it’s commonly called in English. Precision – unambiguously identifies subject Concision – no longer than necessary to identify Consistency – consistent with the pattern of similar articles When Where What Analysis of article names Key: 1 = complies (or doesn’t need to comply), ½ = partially complies, 0 = doesn’t comply Options Total Recognise Natuaral Precise Concise Consistent Readers Editors Common When Where What A - 7 October attacks 61% ½ readers less recognise ½ readers less search 1 Editors more link 1 AGF it’s common ½ ambiguous for some ½ 2nd most concise 1 7 October 0 requires "Israel" ½ attack, no "Hamas-led" B - 7 October attack 67% ½ ½ 1 1 ½ 1 most concise 1 0 ½ C - 7 October Hamas-led attack on Israel 72% 1 Hamas, attack, Israel 1 Hamas, attack, Israel ½ editors used to E) 0 AGF not common 1 unambiguous 0 4th most concise 1 7 October 1 Israel 1 Hamas-led attack D - 7 October 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel 72% 1 +2023 1 +2023 ½ 0 1 0 least concise 1 +2023 1 1 E - (no change) 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel 83% 1 1 1 editors already use) 0 1 ½ 3rd most concise 1 1 1 E&OE

Ayenaee (talk) 22:07, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

then why not using 7 October 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel?ArmorredKnight (talk) 22:17, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi ArmorredKnight, I know it wasn’t your intention, and no harm done, but it’s not generally permitted to comment within other editors’ comments, and in this case it hides you query, so I’ve moved it out of the hat so I can answer. You asked your question under my comment on being nerdy, which was my acknowledgement that I’d maybe gone to far in putting a "model" together for this !vote. My attempts at humour often fail :). But the nerdiness confirmed my feeling (to me at least) that if you look at all the WP:Article Title criteria rather than focusing on only COMMONNAME, the. The answer to which title to use sometimes isn’t the common one. JDalia’s !vote below this says why I chose E much more succinctly than I have. Ayenaee (talk) 21:37, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

• E: WP:Article Title "generally" prefers the most common name but this is by no means an absolute rule. The article on the September 11 Attacks is perhaps the best example of this: "9/11" is by far the most common name for the event but there is widespread consensus against its use for a variety of reasons. For this article, there are a number of crucial issues at play here which disincline me to a name change. First, WP:AIN'TBROKE. Second, I believe we should consider longevity. Most sources refer to this attack right now as the 7 October attack (or some variant thereof). But this is in part due to the fact that it was recent, so when we say "7 October" there is no ambiguity that we refer to the year 2023. In the long run, most similar terrorist attack article titles do end up including the year (again 9/11 is the main exception). Option D also includes the year but it is neither natural nor concise. JDiala (talk) 20:58, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

 Comment: There's a significant difference between attacks "on Israel" and "in Israel". As far as I know, the 7/10 attacks took place in Israel, but they were not specifically targetted against the entire state and its institutions – targetted were mostly random civilians present near the border. Compare: the 2003 US attack was on Iraq, not "in Iraq", as the US selectively targetted state military infrastructure. However, the Bataclan attack was in France, not really on France. While war propaganda will often try to build a community spirit by presenting major attacks as being "on us", "on our state", we should always keep in mind this semantic quirk. — kashmīrī ^TALK 22:53, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

@Kashmiri

Iraq 2003 seems like a very weird example, that claimed to be aimed at the Ba'ath party but killed half a million civilians, in terms of "targeted at military" that's the second-worst example after the nuclear attacks on Japan. Or do you mean just very early in the war?

The target of Al-Aqsa Flood was definitely the state of Israel, but being a small irregular not-quite-a-military they were limited in how much they could reach. There actually were several military and security targets, and there were fewer survivors at those locations, like Nahal Oz lookout. But they're not covered very well in the current version of this Wiki page. The lookout is the only one even mentioned? But there were several others. They also destroyed a lot of automated watch towers on the Gaza barrier.

And if it wasn't an attack on Israel, what on Earth was it?

The dubious spin is "Hamas are ISIS" - a narrative some Israeli sources are trying to push that Hamas are somehow a global threat, when really their target is very specifically Israel.

00:26, 30 January 2024 (UTC) Irtapil (talk) 00:26, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

@Irtapil Yes, re. Iraq I indeed meant the invasion phase that lasted 4–5 weeks; not the occupation phase. Civilians were killed mostly in later stages – 2003 invasion of Iraq mentions that only a relatively small percentage (10–20%) of deaths during the invasion phase were civilians. We didn't see that with Hamas's attack – its appears they targeted whomever they came across, although naturally they also paid attention to neutralising major threats on their way (military outposts, etc.).

I'm wary of claims often made my politicians who deplore untoward developments under their watch as "attacks against the country". It's not just actual military attacks – these days, even a minor terrorist incident is termed as an attack "against our country".[8] See that? Three criminals murder 8 people on a London street, and this is instantly termed by propaganda as an attack on an entire country (243,000 sqare km and 67 million people).

It's not my intention to play down the impact of the Hamas attack. My argument is that it was rather a savage attack carried out by frustrated people who simply intended to take out revenge on the Israeli population, whoever came across, more than a well-executed military attack against the state. — kashmīrī ^TALK 12:17, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

@Kashmiri

If you meant the first 5 weeks that makes a lot more sense.

After reading to the end I see your point now, I think it's somewhere in between what you meant by nation vs a few civilians. They would quite like to defeat Israel, but their ability to actually DO that is kind of minimal and really doesn't warrant the current IDF response? Is that what you're getting at?

The problem with "the nation" vs "a few civilians" in this specific case though, is "our enemy is the state of Israel, and not the Jewish people" is the way the Palestinian militants frequently frame their side of the story (partly because Israeli sources quite frequently accuse them of wanting to massacre the entire Jewish diaspora) and by "the state" they mean the military, police, Netenyahu, etc. not Israeli civilians.

Irtapil (talk) 20:23, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

I wrote this following bit responding to the first half. But it is still somewhat relevant.

On October 7 things seem to have kinda descended into a mess. Like the Iraq war maybe, but in a day and a half, instead of a decade.

There's two almost non overlapping versions of the event that focus on different parts.

• first they destroyed the wall and checkpoints (that's what anyone celebrating on 7 October saw)
• then they attacked military bases and massacred soldiers (a few people celebrating on October 7 maybe saw that bit) but they only managed to take a few as hostages.
• then the Kibbutzim (their version seens to be they only killed the armed neighbourhood defence teams who they regard as military, which is definitely not the whole truth, but then "40 beheaded babies" and many more stories like that go equally far in the other direction)
• and the music festival wasn't part of the plan so seems to have been complete chaos
• then the military from other locations showed up and caught them back into Gaza.

There were a lot of Western outlets that covered the whole thing, but often kind of briefly. A single article or 10 minute video about the early stages. There's Israeli Newspapers that have reports on the attacks on Erez border crossing and Nahal Oz lookout base, I've not looked for the others yet.

But international press focused mainly on the Kibbutzim and festival.

There's not even much about the "faught them back into Gaza" bit except in Israeli sources and sources very focused on military topics? I can't even work out if that lasted half a day or a week? the conclusion seems to be that it might have been sporadic, there were a few follow up raids that didn't get far or something.

Irtapil (talk) 20:20, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

• E Part of a continuing effort (not just here) to turn October 7 into a brand a la 9/11. Bah. Selfstudier (talk) 19:03, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
• E: Opposing any change no one in this discussion has yet demonstrated how this naming is supposedly the most common naming. Citing a few articles does not make this the most common naming. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:35, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
• E. Any robbery that occurred on 3 February will be referred to by newspapers as "the 3 February robbery," that doesn't mean we should call the article on it "3 February robbery." IMO the threshold for a demonstration that a "date-name" is the WP:COMMONNAME is very high: not every calendar date can be like "September 11 attacks," I'd have to see that the "date-name" is by far the single most common name used to refer to the event by reliable sources, a la "September 11 attacks." If it were shown to be such an indisputable singular common name, I'd support it, but absent such a showing, I'm convinced (after discussion at Selfstudier's user talk page) that (1) the date may not be recognizable to all readers, and (2) a "date-name" may improperly imply terrorism to some readers. So, I think the proposed names aren't shown to be WP:COMMONNAMEs and the current name is a better match under WP:AT criteria (equally natural, but more recognizable and neutral outweighs less concise and precise IMO). Levivich (talk) 19:55, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
• A. This article's topic about what happened October 7, 2023. Currently, many news outlets refer to the attacks as "October 7th attacks" but, globally, 7 October should be used. We still call the terrorist attack on September 11th, 2001 the September 11 attacks, and that was 23 years ago. UserMemer (chat) Tribs 12:53, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.