Talk:Nova music festival massacre/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Discuss merge

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.

---

Discuss merge with Supernova Sukkot festival massacre here.

@Euor@Eladkarmel Bremps... 16:03, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

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

"Massacre"

RS describing the event as a "massacre" (so far):

• NBC
• Washington Post
• New Yorker
• Billboard
• Wall Street Journal
• The National News
• Daily Beast
• Guardian

Longhornsg (talk) 08:27, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

I support the use of the term "massacre" for now. See my comment under Talk:Re'im music festival massacre#Requested move 8 October 2023, I've largely linked sources that overlap with sources here. toobigtokale (talk) 16:46, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

BBC

Supernova festival: How massacre unfolded from verified video and social media

https://bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-67056741 — Preceding unsigned comment added by שמי (2023) (talk • contribs) 21:58, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Request to Fix Date of U2 Concert

Per the existing source, the U2 concert mentioned in the response section occurred on Sunday October 8th, not the 9th as currently stated. Please edit the article to correct this. NotoriousPNG (talk) 14:38, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Someone did it. Later the concert mention was deleted entirely. Nurg (talk) 03:58, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Tablet mag source

I'm wondering if the Tablet magazine article is being leant on too heavily as a source. It is not, to my knowledge, an outlet that frequently deals in breaking news, and it's the basis for quite a few independent claims here. I am struggling to find an alternate reliable source for the reports of sexual violence (obviously if someone has one, weigh in; but none of the WaPo, NYT, BBC, Reuters, ToI, ABC, Seattle Times have it), and whether we could say the motivation for this attack was simply "Islamism" seems like a discussion that will require more than the word of one article. AntiDionysius (talk) 21:43, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm also concerned by the fact that the article simply says the reporter "spent the last 12 hours speaking to Israelis who were at the Supernova music festival" and then makes a series of unattributed factual claims - not even referring to specific anonymous individuals. Obviously these are chaotic and tragic circumstances, but combined with the fact that the article is making claims that do not appear anywhere else, it's in my view enough not to use the article as the sole evidence for anything. AntiDionysius (talk) 21:54, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

The Times of Israel gives an account of apparent sexual violence at what's clearly this festival; (Two videos in particular have raised concerns of sexual assault against women, one of which shows a woman apparently bleeding into her shorts being taken out of a vehicle in Gaza; the woman is alive. The other video shows a woman stripped down to her underwear lying face down in a truck. ... The video of the woman stripped down to her underwear appears to be of Shani Louk, a German citizens [sic] who was identified by her mother, and who had been attending the music festival which was staged close to Kibbutz Re’im.)

That there was gruesome physical violence other than murder would not be surprising here, but the sort of breaking new reporting that we're presently seeing is very much primary reporting. We might want to hedge a bit (using something substantially akin to TOI's language of "raised concerns of sexual assault against women" or something similar) on specific claims until further reporting comes along. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 21:54, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Ah, somehow this article didn't appear in my search. That makes sense; I'll try write up some hedging language with addition of that TOI source. AntiDionysius (talk) 21:56, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

@Jurryaany AntiDionysius (talk) 22:48, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

@AntiDionysius Apologies, I wasn't aware of the discussion happening on the talk page. I think the way I added the information to the article is valid enough considering I refer to the origin being eye-witness accounts published in Tablet. I suppose an argument could be had over the edit I made to the infobox however, it's probably best to reserve that for when a more qualitative source is found. --Jurryaany (talk) 22:55, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

And my apologies in turn, as I've just now published an edit before I saw this comment. I did remove the bit in the infobox which, as you say, should probably wait for more coverage of this issue. I also slightly rephrased the addition in the body of the article, but it may be a bit awkward AntiDionysius (talk) 22:58, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

So if someone would like to rephrase it again, that's fair enough. I am about to go to bed and frankly I assume the media landscape will have shifted significantly by the time I check back in tomorrow anyway AntiDionysius (talk) 23:01, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

I share the concerns about relying on the Tablet article, informative though it is, at least in parts. The claims of rape seem unsubstantiated and not corroborated by other sources (yet). And where are the photos of "blood gushing from between their legs"? The Times of Israel article is somewhat more solid, but not without its faults too. I feel fairly sure the "woman apparently bleeding into her shorts" was actually the woman wearing long trackpants with blood on the seat of the pants. That does raise "concerns of sexual assault", but only speculatively. And, while Louk was clad only in underwear, her panties were not obviously disturbed, so again concerns of sexual assault are only speculative. More info will emerge in time. Relying on unsubstantiated and uncorroborated claims in the arguably partisan (conservative Jewish) Tablet is not wise. Nurg (talk) 09:48, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

The Times is also reporting People were shot at point-blank range, survivors tell of women being raped then killed. Seems to be reporting independently from the Tablet story, based off of witness interviews. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:15, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't have access to The Times. Does it say anything more about the rapes, or only what you've quoted? Nurg (talk) 04:55, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

It describes the scene as apocalyptic and also refers to social media video and snuff film from the event, but no, it doesn't go as in-depth as the Tablet source does. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:04, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

I’ll add when I can find it, but there is a pic of her in her festival kit and she appears to be wearing super short shorts or a more conservative pair of panties, which is what I believe we see in that photo. LegalResearcherSTL (talk) 11:17, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

I found the IG of Louk dancing before the attack. She was wearing the same “outfit” in the jeep. LegalResearcherSTL (talk) 12:25, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

I can try to find her IG influencer account where she is pictured (maybe at this festival) in very revealing clothing items. Although deceased, she appears to still be dressed in her “hippy” kit. I cannot find any sources that verify any sexual abuse took place. Below is the passage I’m referring to.

“Other footage of the attack, posted on a Telegram channel, included graphic depictions of murder and hostage-taking. Footage from the attack raised concerns about sexual abuse of women by the attackers; people who had attended the festival say that women were raped before being murdered.” LegalResearcherSTL (talk) 11:10, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Surprisingly (?), this source was removed from the Hamas page when an editor tried to claim the same thing. It’s triple hearsay and there is no proof it happened. I was surprised to see the source used in the same way on a different entry. LegalResearcherSTL (talk) 11:02, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Two Brazilian nationals have been declared dead

That’s it. 2804:14D:5C32:4673:5796:78FE:82B9:409A (talk) 2804:14D:5C32:4673:5796:78FE:82B9:409A (talk) 18:08, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

source? Longhornsg (talk) 18:12, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Source can not be verified, regarding rape

No other source confirms rape. The only source is Tablet Mag. How reliable are they? Is one source enough? Also inside the Tablet article, the rape claims are only based on an unconfirmed one-person source and did not provide other substantial evidence. As mentioned in the article, "people who had attended the festival say that women were raped before being murdered." One person, not people,like it is written inside the wiki article. The Tablet Mag link is also not available anymore.

The Atlantic also cited Tablet mag.

Inside the Tablet article, it mentioned that the murdered girl in the truck was wearing her shorts, unlike on the wiki page, where it says she was in her underwear,implying that she was rapped. This is a sensitive topic; framing and word choice need to be specific so as not to fall into racist tropes. Raelity (talk) 16:17, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Did you read the reporting from The Times (the U.K.'s paper of record), which also explicitly mentions rape, and is presently included in the article as a citation for that sentence? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 16:38, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

The Times being behind a paywall is certainly hindering this (I also do not have access nor wish to pay for it myself), and a more accessible source would be ideal. But from what I can see of the extracts viewable via Google search, this article seems to attribute this to "survivors", plural. Benjitheijneb (talk) 16:50, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Okay, the link works now. It did not work when I clicked on the link earlier. It would be good to find more substantial sources on this before adding it on a Wiki article.

What about the the the unorrwear vs shorts? The Tablet Mag article doesn't mention it anymore. I guess the article was being edited (WayTime machine) when I clicked on it earlier. Raelity (talk) 17:18, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

The Tablet article states In photographs released online, you can see several paraded through the city’s streets, blood gushing from between their legs. This is the same phrasing as was in the wayback link—I don't know what the unorrwear vs shorts is referring to if it's meant to refer to the Tablet piece. Perhaps you're referring to the TOI piece, which specifically mentions "underwear"? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 18:57, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

The article currently mentions that she was "clad only in her underwear" but she was actually wearing shorts that she wore in the festival. Implying she was in her underwear might be misleading. There's no concrete evidence of a sexual assault, and such claims are based on hearsay. On a positive note, Shani Louk is alive and receiving treatment in a Gaza hospital, as confirmed by her mother." Raelity (talk) 21:03, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

I would concur that I think it's a bit too early to conclusively include the claims of rape. At most we have off-handed hearsay mentioned briefly in a few RS's, which tends to imply that the editors and journalists are hedging the matter given a lack of concrete evidence. The back and forth on Shani Louk's status in particular should serve as a reminder for caution when presenting such details. Paragon Deku (talk) 23:35, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Also re: The Tablet Mag link is also not available anymore, it's very much available here, which is the exact same link that's in the article's citation. Are you possible having issues with your internet? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 16:41, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Just noting here that the LA Times has said that reports of sexual violence have "not been substantiated". I am personally unsure how to weigh that, but thought I'd contribute it to the discussion anyway. AntiDionysius (talk) 01:34, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

I wrote the words "clad only in her underwear", so I can speak to this. I wrote it in this edit. I provided a source, which was the Times of Israel article that User:Red-tailed hawk mentioned above. It says, The other video shows a woman stripped down to her underwear lying face down in a truck. and The video of the woman stripped down to her underwear appears to be of Shani Louk, a German-Israeli citizen who was identified by her mother, and who had been attending the music festival which was staged close to Kibbutz Re’im. The phrase "clad only in her underwear" replaced the statement that she was "naked". It is clear in the video that she wore a garment on her hips and another on her upper body, and boots. I removed the reference to a Telegraph article that falsely stated she was naked. Saying that she was in her underwear does not imply that she was raped (I see no evidence that she was raped). As for her "wearing shorts that she wore in the festival" – I'm open to being convinced, but what is the source for that? Nurg (talk) 01:17, 11 October 2023 (UTC) There is no reliable source that confirm rape. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 04:01, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Dedicated to peace

@Oleg Yunakov added information that the festival was allegedly "dedicated to peace". I believe this information is wrong: 1) there is nothing like this on the official page of the festival, just usual music festival; 2) out of 5 RS provided, two (Newsweek and Business Insider) are deemed generally unreliable in WP:RSP, and the other three can not be found there.

The information is quite outstanding and, would it be true, it should be found in many really reliable sources. I search for it and did not found any sources known for quality factchecking that mention it, and I believe it to be just an error or a propaganda piece, republished by low quality newspapers (cf. WP:RSBREAKING). I propose to delete it from the article. Wikisaurus (talk) 23:50, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

• The Jewish Press and The Jewish Chronicle should be considered reliable here. This is also not an "outstanding" piece of information. It's a just a pedestrian claim about a typical sort of theme for an electronic dance music festival. Jweiss11 (talk) 00:12, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
• Hello. Not sure why you are trying to repost it here as well as I have already proved to you that such information was mentioned by other RS such as The Jewish Press, Hindustan Times, The Jewish Chronicle, MSN, BBC, The Economic Times and more (1, 2, 3 etc.). If you are trying to say that The Jewish Press, Hindustan Times, The Jewish Chronicle (marked as reliable here: WP:RSP), MSN (marked as reliable here: WP:RSP), BBC (marked as reliable here: WP:RSP), The Economic Times are not "really reliable sources" you will need first to have them defined as unreliable on WP:RSP. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 00:20, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't care one way or the other about how it's written (since it's already written like a Hamas propaganda piece [not surprising considering who's financially behind wikipedia]), but the word "peace" appear once on the website, refers to inner peace not national or world peace, and citing other's interpretations of one's words is not an accurate measure or the intent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.10.163.44 (talk) 05:20, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

WP:MISSION may also matter too. Plenty of things are nominally dedicated to plenty of goals. What's more, probably 99.9% of civilian institutions want peace in general. Feels like an emotional appeal if we fixate on the stated goal. toobigtokale (talk) 16:41, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Well the people at goa raves are about as peaceful as you can possibly find.

I quote from the official page: "A space that will create a safe envelope for finding inner calm, peace, harmony, mental balance, releasing tension or unnecessary worries, rest or just relaxing in fun with special people and enriching yourself in a new and refreshing way 🙏🏼"

I mean it's not a Gush Shalom rally or anything, but it's not semantically incorrect. Synotia (moan) 20:49, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

The Jewish Chronicle article does not claim that the festival was “dedicated to peace”, only that it was a "peace music festival". There is no "dedication" at the BBC either, just a phrase "kidnapped from a peace festival". I think that the sources imply the general orientation of the festival, as noted above, and not that it was somehow specifically “dedicated to peace” this time.--Nicoljaus (talk) 21:32, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Shouldn’t there be a website or something for the event? One of my South American friends knew all about this; I’ll ask him if he can give me some info. LegalResearcherSTL (talk) 11:20, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Here is the event announcement: [2] --Nicoljaus (talk) 09:20, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Requests for changes due to extended-protection of the original article

″[...] the video shows gunmen chanting "Allahu Akbar", one draping his leg over her waist, another grabbing her hair, and a man in the crowd spitting on her body″

→

″[...] the video shows gunmen chanting "Allahu Akbar", one draping his leg over her waist, another grabbing her hair, and multiple men in the crowd, including a boy, spitting on her body″ Chosybaby (talk) 04:09, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

What source? Nurg (talk) 09:52, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Source is the video itself.

[3]https://nypost.com/2023/10/07/horrifying-videos-show-hamas-terrorist-invasion-of-israel/ Chosybaby (talk) 12:36, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Not good enough. Sources vary. CNN, for example, says "one man". Nurg (talk) 04:49, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

If you look at the video itself you can clearly see a youngster. German speaking media also cites this.

"Jugendliche Passanten spucken den reglosen Körper unter Beschimpfungen an."

"Young passers-by spit at the motionless body and insulted him."

[4]https://www.nzz.ch/international/die-hamas-verschleppt-eine-deutsche-was-wir-wissen-und-was-unklar-ist-ld.1759873

"Ein Junge spuckt auf ihren Körper."

"A boy spits on her body."

[5]https://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/ausland/nach-gaza-verschleppte-deutsche-shani-louk-offenbar-am-leben-19234383.html Chosybaby (talk) 10:35, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Does not adequately capture the extent of the event

Amendment/addition should be made- One of the deadliest acts of terror ever recorded in modern history in a given country against civilians of that country. Taking into account the number of citizens of Israel compared to US citizens during 9/11, this event is x12 the number of casualties of 9/11. 188.79.140.85 (talk) 12:27, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Agree 85.64.129.124 (talk) 12:32, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Simchat Torah, not Sukkot!

Mistake in name, festiwal not in time of Sukkot, but Simchat Torah! E.g. The Simchat Torah War. KKE 31.178.92.218 (talk) 12:25, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

There's no mistake, the festival is called Supernova Sukkot Gathering. "Sukkot" is part of the proper name.—Alalch E. 13:37, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Captured or kidnapped

All of the resources used in the article refer to the abductions as kidnapping and not "capturing", this is not capture the flag, those are civil hostages the term for that is kidnapping. דוב (talk) 12:16, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree that none of the victims should be described as having been captured. They were unarmed civilians. Jim 2 Michael (talk) 13:19, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree, should use kidnapped terminology, not abducted.

They were kidnapped to be held in captivity and demand a ransom, noone questions this fact Alexbashan (talk) 13:45, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 October 2023

1. change "victims = 200+" to "victims = 260+"

2. change "came under attack from Hamas fighters" to "came under attack from militants of the Hamas terrorist group" Ksebail (talk) 18:59, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

I can't find either of these in the article. What section are they in? Nurg (talk) 04:41, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

References

 Already done Victim count has been updated. Second request is no longer in the article. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 14:35, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Dueness of U2 mention

Minor thing, but let's hash it out in a maximally respectful and focused way: @Abductive and LUC995: Abductive removed the U2 mention citing WP:UNDUE, and LUC995 readded it, effectively reverting the removal of this content point. In my view, Abductive was right on policy: Do we need to transmit the viewpoint of a single music group? What's, literally, the dueness? To me, this is like the issue of dueness epitomized. Is everything that U2 does a priori due ... because they're popular?—Alalch E. 16:51, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

• removal diff—Alalch E. 17:06, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

It's not as if U2 is a high school band. Not every event of this severity gets to have its own song of sorts. I would support its restoration but under an Aftermath section. Borgenland (talk) 17:09, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Okay, there are other elements of the aftermath. The aftermath is what happened afterward. The German investigation happened afterwards, as well as Hamas's response. What heading should we assign to Bono and U2? —Alalch E. 17:15, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

I was thinking of either Tribute, Commemorations or In Popular Culture. Borgenland (talk) 17:18, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Or just remove entirely until a later date? —Alalch E. 17:20, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

That info? Well I would oppose since it is not offensive material. Borgenland (talk) 17:22, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree that the material is not offensive. I don't have any further thoughts on this at the moment.—Alalch E. 17:23, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

WP:Undue has nothing to do with the offensiveness of content, just whether it is weighted correctly or not. I have removed it until the discussion here is complete. Abductive (reasoning) 17:27, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

For record keeping, I am noting that I am in Support of retaining the info. Borgenland (talk) 17:48, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

rape

There is a section in the article saying that some newspaper said the rape reports are not substantial. This must be removed, as there are plenty of reports already in the article, with testimonies of rape-murder. I am shocked to say that a family member of a good friend of mine has been seen raped three times. This is no reliable source but a call to delve into the sources and remove all contradictions. Bolter21 (talk to me) 17:40, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Arno Rosenfeld of The Forward has now delved into the sources comprehensively, and his published findings have been summarised in the article. Nurg (talk) 03:51, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

The same magazine yesterday published a report of first hand accounts of survivors (with names) of the massacre which includes reports of rape: https://forward.com/news/564309/we-heard-booms-everywhere-the-massacre-at-the-israeli-rave-in-survivors-words

I don't think that the current phrasing in the wikipedia article accurately reflects this reality (I would say the same goes for Rosenfeld's summarization vis a vis the reports mentioned in his own article). Factually speaking, there are reports (i.e. testimonial evidence) of rape from first hand sources (named survivors of the massacre), but these reports have still to be investigated by the authorities. 93.35.146.108 (talk) 08:34, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

In the interest of precision, and English not being my first language, in what I wrote above the "testimonial" bit has a technical meaning (I think) such that the witness would have to repeat the report in court. By the same token (I think), "evidence" (of any kind) has a legal meaning of "proof being presented at a trial". "Report" or "account" in my phrasing "first hand account of survivors (with names)" are maybe less ambiguous phrasing. 93.35.146.108 (talk) 09:32, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Thoughts

Not to shade anyone, but it seems a lot of editors have been making WP:OTHER-related arguments. Borgenland (talk) 13:15, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

You are right. However, WP:OTHER clearly states it can be valid (or invalid) to use the argument. In my own reading, pointing to other cases where groups widely labelled as terrorist groups committed terrorist attacks and WP describe them as terrorist attacks would seem a rather valid argument. Jeppiz (talk) 15:25, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Target: Civilians.

The target was civilians. Period. The infobox needs to remove the part about "Hamas claims they were soldiers." Wikipedia is no place to humor propaganda. I frankly don't care if this is against wikipedia guidelines because the source is valid, anybody with a half functioning brain can call that out as a steaming pile. 2601:40:C481:A940:E908:2F8E:C8E4:99D6 (talk) 06:16, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

It’s worth mentioning if Hamas views them as combatants based on settler status, access to arms, and mandatory conscription into the IDF. Paragon Deku (talk) 06:18, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

They aren't settlers though. This is BLATANT propaganda. 2601:40:C481:A940:E908:2F8E:C8E4:99D6 (talk) 09:50, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree. 2A06:C701:45F1:1300:C9C2:A877:AE61:ABAA (talk) 11:04, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Most of them are not even from the area, and even if they are, we don't use hamas' definition of who is a settler Ultrapro011 (talk) 20:05, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

It is not worth mentioning. They are not "settlers" regardless of what Hamas defines a settler to be. AstralNomad (talk) 22:55, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

No photos of bodies

The reference at the end of the statement "Photographs from the aftermath of the attack show dozens of bodies at the festival grounds, including a badly burned body bound by cable ties" does not show any photos of bodies of any kind. It should be replaced or removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2F09:3614:9600:470D:835D:3354:53AF (talk) 23:43, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Are Hamas soldiers terrorists?

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.

---

Should we designate Hamas as terrorists? Technically they are resistance forces aganist Israely agression. 103.145.135.17 (talk) 19:42, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't know what you've been smoking, but anyone that guns down civilians in cold blood can't be called anything other than a terrorist, or a common murderer. At least Al Capone had the pretext of a financial interest to his crimes. Hamas donesn't even have that (also Capone didn't massacre unarmed civilians, only opposition gang members). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.10.163.44 (talk) 05:11, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

We can call them militants. Their actions speak for themselves, I don't think that the label is important here. Alaexis_¿question? 19:46, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

The broader semantic debate is irrelevant, since we abide by MOS:TERRORIST. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:48, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

USA, United Kingdom, European Union, Canada, Australia, Japan & many more, identify Hamas as a terror organisation.

Why isn’t this written here? if you’d like to see actual facts, read “Hamas” on Wikipedia and you can tell most of the world identify Hamas as a terror organisation. It would be amazing if you could correct yourself, this is misleading information. Thank you. 2A06:C701:45F1:1300:F1A1:90D4:DAF:AF69 (talk) 23:31, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

This has been discussed already, if you scroll up slightly. There is also a Wikipedia policy on it. AntiDionysius (talk) 23:34, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that there was a discussion about that, but the only claim written is that “the label doesn’t important here”. And that’s what closed the discussion.

how is this not relevant? How?

it makes the whole massacre look justified in the eyes of some, because they are “militants” fighting for a cause and not brutal terrorist

well so let’s just say that 9/11 attacks was Arab militants as well, they were also fighting for a cause, weren’t they?

so why when you open up 9/11 wiki page on English you see that militant groups were called Terrorist?? What’s the difference ?

That one event talks about innocent Americans and one talks about innocent Israelis & many other nationalities all over the world?

I’m sorry, but this need to be discussed and have a better reasoning for you to stick up with this decision. 2A06:C701:45F1:1300:F1A1:90D4:DAF:AF69 (talk) 23:46, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Did you read the policy linked as well? AntiDionysius (talk) 23:48, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes I had.

and did you, read 9/11 attacks page on wiki in the English language?

In the 2 first paragraphs it says it was a terror attack. Can you explain to me what’s the difference? Why’s there the policy seems to be OK with the word framing?

I would like to have a reasonable explanation before people close discussion because it’s “irrelevant”. Irrelevant to who?

I bet to the American nation and many others, framing this militants from 9/11 as terrorist is crucial. I know for a fact nobody will write in a wiki discussion that the fact the people behind 9/11 were terrorist is “irrelevant”.

And to Israelis & Jews worldwide, this fact is very crucial. Saying those are “militants” is misleading information causing very much damage to the Israeli side. Many people who are not into details may think this attack has a specific reason which in fact, in this situation, nobody of the innocent people were involved.

therefore those actions on *this* specific act is acts of terror.

those are terrorist.

and also the second comment on the last discussion about it talked in advance and justify this wording. Can you give me an answer for why the militants from 9/11 considered terrorist and in Nova massacre, they are not? Even tho the organisations behind 9/11 are recognised worldwide as terror organisations, as well as Hamas, which most of the world except super anti democratic states such as Russia and some Arab nations, recognise as a terror attack. All of the world condemned Hamas. Why this wiki page doesn’t? You shouldn’t close discussions like this without having a good reasoning. 2A06:C701:45F1:1300:F1A1:90D4:DAF:AF69 (talk) 00:38, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Correcting my last paragraphs-

“…which most of the world except super anti democratic state such as Russia and some Arab states, recognise as a *terror organisation.” 2A06:C701:45F1:1300:F1A1:90D4:DAF:AF69 (talk) 00:41, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Adding to my last comments-

Re’eim massacre wasn’t just an “attack”. It was a terror attack. From Wikipedia- terrorism is a word usually, and improperly, reserved for jihadist extremists, due in part to the political proclivities of the moment and the statutory definition of terrorism, which is for the most part restricted to specifically designated foreign-terrorist organisations. Please correct this. This could look like a justification to Hamas actions for those who don’t know a lot about the conflict and make them look like a “legitimate freedom fighter” which in fact in this horrible case this is not true.

in the eyes of people who are not educated on the conflict.

Violent attack against Americans in 9/11- a TERROR attack by Wikipedia. Violent attack against innocent raving young Israelis in 7/10/23, Also a TERROR attack.

thank you. 2A06:C701:45F1:1300:F1A1:90D4:DAF:AF69 (talk) 00:51, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

@2A06:C701:45F1:1300:F1A1:90D4:DAF:AF69 The point of Wikipedia articles is not to inform people that Hamas is bad. It's also not to inform them that Hamas is good. It's just to describe events. Readers can make normative judgements of their own. Thus we neither call Hamas (and other organisations which use violence for political ends) a terrorist group nor a freedom fighter group. AntiDionysius (talk) 00:55, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Also, frankly, this idea that we're going to (by ommission) accidentally mislead someone about the nature of Hamas is just not realistic. If someone has absolutely no idea who Hamas are, they're going to click on the link the article about Hamas, which is full of descriptions about the various states and inter-state bodies which have classed Hamas as a terrorist group.

The people who consider Hamas to be freedom fighters do not do so because they're ignorant about Hamas being classed as a terrorist group. They know that, they just don't care about it.

This article is also one about Hamas massacring large numbers of people. Using the word "terrorist" is not adding any additional context, and not using it isn't concealing anything. AntiDionysius (talk) 01:18, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't see a better alternative to "militants" at this time. Terrorist is best used sparingly, so it doesn't lose its meaning. It is inescapably a statement that some types of violence is more moral than other acts of violence. In times like this the discussion becomes divided between people who feel a need to make this type of moral statement and people who absolutely do not want to make this type of moral statement. Both sides claim they are honoring the interests of the victims. It goes on an on. It has become impossible to use the word terrorist without having it flung back at us. We only use the term for those who are not able to control the political and intellectual discourse in our societies. So we can't use it too often. We can't possibly use it everytime we mention Hamas. It would ruin the article in an absurd fashion. However, I don't think there is anything preventing us with using the term in an appropriate way and using it at least once might improve the current text. Ben Azura (talk) 14:10, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

@2A06:C701:45F1:1300:F1A1:90D4:DAF:AF69 Yes, as you have correctly identified, the issue is one that is contested. Some states disagree with the position of Western governments, there are not-insignificant numbers of people within western states who disagree with their governments' identification of various Palestinian militant groups including Hamas as terrorist groups, and there are Wikipedia users who object to it.

There has not, to my knowledge, been significant contention over the language used on pages referring to Al Qaeda; there are not a lot of people inclined to support Al Qaeda publicly, in contrast with Palestinian militant groups. If there was, I would personally be fine with enforcing the policy as written, meaning that "terrorist" should only be used with in-text attribution.

But the content of those other pages is, frankly, not very important. We are dealing with this page. The policy says that we should avoid using the word, except with attribution; if the policy really is being breached in other places, that is not an argument for breaching it here. Feel free to suggest changes to 9/11 and Al Qaeda related pages, if you would like. AntiDionysius (talk) 00:52, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Man, I respect you replying me,

but honestly I still don’t understand your answer at all.

of course not all countries in the whole wide world think those terror organisation are terror organisations, because some minority of countries support terror themselves. also El-Qaeda is supported & not recognised as terror organisation by some arab nations& other nations, still in an English Wiki page it is written it is a terror attack.

you don’t want to use the word “terrorist” because it’s “overbearing” and “already understandable by context?” Your suggesting that if people will click the articles and data, they will understand themselves?

well let me tell you, you are the first information in English that pops up. And there’s not even one mention of the word “terror” on any form here, meanwhile in other many languages there is.

so you should at least write it was a terror attack.

and no matter what is your next, I’m sorry for the language, excuse for not doing so, while other nationalities get other treatment, only for not being Jews- honestly I see that as a violation, and if this discussion will be closed again without it being talked and voted on

I will be here the next day, opening another discussion about it.

this is just unfair & injustice.

this is a democratic site, it should be brought into debate and voted on. 2A06:C701:45F1:1300:6DBA:A8D6:4D87:1B63 (talk) 02:27, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Respectfully, you’ve answered your own questions several times.

1. “of course not all countries in the whole wide world think those terror organisation are terror organisations, because some minority of countries support terror themselves.” It isn’t a minority, the majority of countries do not classify Hamas as a terrorist group. And you have your own assumptions that countries who are free to make classification decisions could ONLY come to their conclusions because they too support terror themselves.

2. “how is this not relevant? How? it makes the whole massacre look justified in the eyes of some, because they are “militants” fighting for a cause” Yes, that’s the very point. The massacre IS JUSTIFIED in the eyes of some, they believe themselves to be militants fighting for a cause. LegalResearcherSTL (talk) 11:57, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

If you want to discuss a policy change, discuss it here here or propose it here Yr Enw (talk) 13:20, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

If so, why not change September 11 attacks? It is also justified by some, and by the same means can't be labeled as a "terror attack". It's just an attack by a militant group. דוב (talk) 17:54, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Sure, we could do that. AntiDionysius (talk) 17:55, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Personally, I would remove it from all articles, but I'm not in charge of what's going on in every wiki article. As @AntiDionysiussays, we could do that. If you want to propose that in the Village Pump, do it. This talk page isn't the place to propose it. Yr Enw (talk) 18:44, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. Borgenland (talk) 10:02, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

I don’t know if this has been written about yet. The decision to designate Hamas as an “international terrorist organization” could be, and is in a few occasions, examples of extraordinary bias. We could have an entire new article discussing this. If you want to include the entities who consider Hamas a terrorist group, we should also list the names of countries who DO NOT classify them as. LegalResearcherSTL (talk) 11:30, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

I think this is something that needs to be up to a debate & voted , at least.

Answering your response- also El Qaeda is not worldly- agreed Terrorist Organization.

If you look up on Hamas, Same as El- Qaeda, most of the western world and human rights organizations classify Hamas as a terror organization. 2A06:C701:45F1:1300:54D2:3773:C054:6E8C (talk) 16:39, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

While discussion is valuable and encouraged, things are decided via consensus, rather than voting on Wikipedia. AntiDionysius (talk) 16:43, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Not recognizing Hamas as a terror organization, in contrast to over 82 countries(!), is a disgrace to the reliabilty of Wikipedia. What kind of sources do you need more than 82 countries who called this massacare a terror attack? Did Wikipedia stopped being credible information site and became pro-palestinian propaganda page? This is a terror attack, any second that this page doesn't classify it as such is not only disinformation from the first scale, but it's straight up pro-terrorism. 2A0D:6FC2:4B23:1E00:5471:C57A:8C8A:7A55 (talk) 17:25, 10 October 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by דוב (talk • contribs)

And now deleting replies on a talk page, with the excuse of "not constructive"? Why do we have a talk page AntiDionysius? Maybe just delete everyone's "unsconstrutive" replies and edit whatever you want however you like. דוב (talk) 17:51, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Accusing other users of being "pro-terrorism" is a plain violation of Wikipedia policy, both the general WP:AGF/WP:CIVIL policies, and the specific contentious topics regulations governing this discussion. Removing entries from a talk page of course shouldn't be done lightly, but may be warranted for such egregious policy violations. AntiDionysius (talk) 17:54, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

@AntiDionysius On what ground could a group be considered as a terrorist organization in your opinion? בן-ציוןממ (talk) 18:00, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

This seems to be straying into WP:NOTAFORUM territory; we should try to keep this discussion related specifically to this article. In Wikipedia terms I'm in favour of upholding the policy as laid out in MOS:TERRORIST. In terms of personal opinion, I don't think the word "terrorist" is ever an especially useful one and don't tend to use it. Its definition is so ludicrously broad that it's basically meaningless. AntiDionysius (talk) 18:04, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Well, so please tell what is it? You're calling a terror organization, which is recognized as such by most of the western world, a a militant group. How else would you describe it rather than "pro-terrorism"? Maybe AntiDionysius understands better than the UN 1? Better than 82 countries who classified it as a terror attack? This is not even a vote material, from what it looks like you're using censorship in Wikipedia of your own personal bias. Deleting replies is a new level of bias in wikipedia. Hamas is recognized as a terror organizatian, together with ISIS and al qaeda. The opinion of editors here is irrelevant, what's is the opinion of countries and goverments, and currently most the world consider it as a terror attack. besides Wikipedia. דוב (talk) 18:05, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

This has, frankly, nothing to do with the substantive issue of whether or not the word "terrorist" should be used in the article. Discussion about that is ongoing, and people have various different opinions on it; fair enough. The issue here is that one user called other editors "pro-terrorist", which is, as I explained a moment ago, with links, a violation of several Wikipedia policies. AntiDionysius (talk) 18:09, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

If September 11 attacks, would suddenly delete the word "terror" from the opening paragraph it would promote terror in the same way. Disinformation, censoring and deleting important information is something that belong to the soviet union and north korea. Not to to Wikipedia, this is against the core base of "free information". There is no place for censorship. Right now the article disinforms anyone who reads it and showing a false image about the massacre. And yes, deleting the word terror, does give a huge legitimation to a massacare, rape and kidnapping of innocent civilans. Classifying simply as "military attack" is not only a lie, it's a crime against humanity. What's next? Changing the holocaust article and describing it as "reform" instead of genocide? דוב (talk) 18:16, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

So you're concurring with the above user and accusing dozens of other editors of being pro-terrorism? AntiDionysius (talk) 18:23, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Giving legitimacy to a terror attack is pro-terrorism. It doesn't matter if you're directly saying that you support rape and beheading 40 babies and children or saying you're just saying it may be "legitimate", in both of the cases it is straight up messed up. Yes, I am calling every single editor who says that Hamas is a legitimate organization a pro-terrorist.

Besides the 40 bodies of kids and babies who where brutally murdered and beheaded. There were reports kids tortured, civilans kidnapped and tortured. All of those are acts of straight up terrorism. And if you support it you're pro-terrorist. דוב (talk) 18:30, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Okay, but people here aren't calling Hamas a legitimate organisation or supporting it, they're just not using the specific word "terrorist" in the article, because the Wikipedia manual of style says it is a word best avoided outside direct attribution. That was the grounds on which the above user called others "pro-terrorist" AntiDionysius (talk) 18:34, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

If so, Why is it used in September 11 attacks. דוב (talk) 18:36, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm not totally sure. AntiDionysius (talk) 18:42, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Excelent, so go change it, because it against policy isn't it? Go fight over changing it, like you fight over keeping this attack as a legitimate militant operation. Or is not a terror attack just when it is targeted against jews? Cause currently, that's exactly the way you represent it. דוב (talk) 18:49, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

I think it is against policy as written, and would be in favour of changing it. AntiDionysius (talk) 18:54, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

It was debated here [6]. But this is irrelevant on this talk page. Take it to the village pump or elsewhere. Yr Enw (talk) 18:54, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

If it was debated there, on the talk page and in the end the decision was made there, on the talk page. Why is there a different policy regarding this terror attack? Which by the way, all of the relevant sources that this article uses, are also refering to this attack as a terror attack.

Why is there a different policies towards an attack in the US and an attack in Israel? Just tell me, how in your own POV this is not biased? דוב (talk) 19:01, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Honestly it is a debate to handle here, because right now 2 of us think otherwise than you and 2 of you think other than us. Do you consider Wikipedia a place where all can contribute and is equal in their opinions? If so we have a tie. If we’ll ignore many other conversations about this matter opened up here from different users. 2A06:C701:45F1:1300:B9A6:983D:9EFA:A5DA (talk) 19:10, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

The same discussion is also happening over at the main talk page of the conflict AntiDionysius (talk) 19:12, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

That's not what I mean. Policy discussion takes place on the relevant page here or you can propose an alternative/change here. Yr Enw (talk) 19:13, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

There isn't a different policy. There's one policy, which appears to be being breached in another place; it's my view, that's bad. It's not an argument for breaching it here, nor is it grounds on which to accuse other editors of being "pro-terrorism", which is what this thread of discussion was about. AntiDionysius (talk) 19:03, 10 October 2023 (UTC

Hamas should be labeled terrorists, not militants or "political violence"

Any organization or group that attacks and murders women and babies in cold blooded massacre are terrorists, it's very simple. 76.135.0.11 (talk) 18:38, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

@76.135.0.11 this is being discussed above already. AntiDionysius (talk) 18:39, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

And still you don’t have any understandable explanation. 2A06:C701:45F1:1300:B9A6:983D:9EFA:A5DA (talk) 19:03, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

OK. I have explained to the best of my ability, but if you still don't find it understandable then that's unfortunate but here we are. AntiDionysius (talk) 19:10, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

The only understandable explanation here, is that there is a huge bias in the English Wikipedia. Istead of being a credible and reliable source of information for people who want to be informed about the massacre that happened some editors here support a censorship policy and prefer to disinform readers than calling the attack exactly what it is. And somehow also claim that it is "not relevant". דוב (talk) 19:13, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Using a value-laden, contentious term is not a good way of establish credibility or reliability. We have invited you elsewhere to engage in the consensus-based wikipedia discussion, so kindly do so or desist from bogging down Talk pages with repetition. Yr Enw (talk) 19:17, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

The same discussion has been resolved before in a talk page. So please explain to me, why doesn't it happen also in this talk page? I never called anything "good" or "bad", maybe some people will consider terrorism as "good". Terrorism has a pretty definitive definition, and this attack, just as the sources of this articles refers to it, is a terror attack.

In the past, this as been resolved in a talk page. You still didn't give me a single explanation about why it can't resolved in this talk page, like it as been in the past. Besides of course, that it's just against your opinion. 19:22, 10 October 2023 (UTC) דוב (talk) 19:22, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Talk pages are about the topic, not Wikipedia policies. But seeing as we're already here, please note how the manual of style states: "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply", so it's entirely possible different articles reach different consensus on the issue, not least when that discussion is from 20 years ago and this one is today. Applying the label to Hamas is also, in the real world, likely to encounter more opposition to applying it to 9/11. That's just reality. You have to try and detach the value judgement from the label, because it feels like perhaps you're equating someone's opinion with someone's use of the word. But, unless you're not familiar with basic logic, the former doesn't follow from the latter. Yr Enw (talk) 19:28, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Just because your personal opinion is against it doesn't mean it isn't an "Ocassional exception". I can't even believe this discussion takes place. Maybe also delete next the word "genocide" from the article Armenian genocide, and change it with "the attack on the armenian people". This has to be open for discussion and furthermore, in my opinion the general opinion of editors here is irrelevant. This is not a an opinion based discussion, those are facts, if all the leaders of the western world and most the world in general considered it as a terror attack the opinion of editors doesn't matter here. There are sources, there is a *global* consensus, which is much more important than your personal opinion. This is exactly how you create bias, ignore facts, ignore sources, ignore everything and rewrite history from your POV. דוב (talk) 19:34, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

This is the last time I try and explain it to you, because we're not improving the article by simply going round the same points. On Wiki, we are not the arbiters of what constitutes terrorism. We report what reliable sources say, aiming to reflect the general consensus in media and scholarship as best as possible. So, you could say "X says Y is terrorism" but you generally shouldn't interpret the acts as terrorism in your narrative yourself. For what it's worth, I would caveat every mention of the word on every article with "described as" but that doesn't mean I condone any of the actions, and neither can I reasonably be expected to edit every article on this site.

So yes, if all the leaders of the western world and most the world in general considered it as a terror attack, that should be mentioned in the article. I agree. Above, I was just explaining why the term isn't thrown about haphazardly in all these articles as has been suggested. Yr Enw (talk) 19:51, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm glad we reached an agreement, so according to you the article should be edited and the attack should be classified a terror attack backing it up with relevant sources? דוב (talk) 19:58, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

No, if a source says that someone views it as a terrorist attack, then you can ad that as an opinion from that person or country, but you cant write as a fact from Wikipedia that "it was a terrorist attack" . --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:03, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

It should be edited to say something like "the massacre was condemned as terrorism by X, Y, Z" Yr Enw (talk) 20:02, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, this part has never been in contention. The relevant Wikipedia policy says that in-text attribution ('described as "terrorism" by [source]') is fine. This discussion has revolved around some users wanting us to write definitively that it is terrorism, and/or to use the noun "terrorist" to refer to the perpetrators AntiDionysius (talk) 20:04, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

So do we also need to edit The Holocaust to "the massacre was condemned as genocide by X, Y, Z"? Can you give me a single reliable and credible source that doesn't classify Hamas as a terrorist organization? The following countries has used the term 'terror' to describe this massacare: andora, argentina, cambodia, canada, costa rica, croatia, estonia, finland, france, greece, india, italy, kenya, kosovo, netherlands, new zealand, north macedonia, singapore, spain, taiwan, ukraine, US, urugway OH and the entire European Union. I would like to see contradicting sources. דוב (talk) 20:32, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

That's of course just a small percentage of the organizations, countries and of course the international law, who consider this not less than an act of terrorism. But who knows, maybe some editors here know better. דוב (talk) 20:35, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

No, because there isn't a Wikipedia policy saying we should avoid using the word "genocide". AntiDionysius (talk) 20:37, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Can you please refer to the rest of my reply, including the sources? Or are tons of reliable and credible sources not enough to change a narrative of biased editing in Wikipedia? דוב (talk) 20:44, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

The sources correctly identify that those countries consider Hamas to be a terrorist group. The Wikipedia policy says, therefore, that we may use in-text attribution to describe it as such, but should not say so in Wikispeak. AntiDionysius (talk) 20:50, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

100% correct, it was a terrorist attack similar to 9/11 Hila Livne (talk) 11:15, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Totally agree, if 9/11 militant pilots of al Qaeda are simply called terrorists, that should be the exact case for a human being that shoots, rapes or kidnaps unarmed civilian just because he belongs to another group of political interests. Alexbashan (talk) 13:20, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Many do not view Palestinian militants as "terrorist", some view them as freedom fighters. It is therefore a npov violation to take side. "Militant", follows Wikipedia guideline: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch#Contentious_labels --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:56, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Like I said in the discussion above, relevant sources and the general consensous across the world, alongside with official general responses to the attack that classify it as a terror attack are more important than personal narratives of editors. דוב (talk) 20:00, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

I have to agree with the user above me, who gave so many sources pointing out that this was a terror attack that occurred by a terror organization, supported by crushing majority of International countries. 2A06:C701:45F1:1300:54D2:3773:C054:6E8C (talk) 20:59, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

can you contradict “דוב” sources?

can you give us one single reliable and credible source that doesn't classify Hamas as a terrorist organization?

if not so, this page is BIASD WRITING and should be changed.

your not even answering our claims, and until then this word framing here needs to be changed to “Palestinian Terrorists”.

because they are, and the world recognise this. This is outrageous.

People keep deleting our corrections, while not even giving us damn answers to our claims.

your blind support for Hamas no matter how solid our sources & data we brought here has reached to the point it’s concerning me.

Should I see both of you guys as a supports as Hamas? Because right now it’s seems like it. You’re literally acting blind. 2A06:C701:45F1:1300:F539:6737:4E5F:45AF (talk) 00:44, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

@2A06:C701:45F1:1300:F539:6737:4E5F:45AF No one here is "supporting" Hamas. Please do not throw out such accusations. The argument is not that Hamas are worthy of support, or that Hamas is not widely considered to be a terrorist group. The point is that Wikipedia policy, as laid out at, WP:TERRORIST says that even if there are significant reliable sources calling a group terrorists, that just means we can refer to them as "classed as terrorists by xyz". This has been explained at least half a dozen times and is laid out very clearly, if you read the policy. So please, again, refrain from casting aspersions on other users. AntiDionysius (talk) 00:52, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

The reason for this, as the policy notes, is that "terrorist" is a fundamentally value-based designation. The definition of "terrorism" (using violence, often against civilians, for political means) is so wide that it can strictly speaking be applied to almost anyone, including the militaries and police forces of every state in the world, and every non-state armed group. Obviously that's not useful, and no one is arguing we use the word "terrorist" that loosely. But if the definition is very wide, and we're not applying it to everyone who might technically fall under it, then the application of the word "terrorist" is an expression of opinion. It's a normative statement. It's a condemnation. It's saying "those people are bad", doing the bad kind of violence.

So showing that dozens of states have classed Hamas as a terrorist group doesn't mean Hamas are objectively a terrorist group (because since we've established "terrorist" is a normative designation, there can't be an objective terrorist group), it just means those states consider Hamas to be a terrorist group. Which is why I'm saying we should say that in the article.

Do I think Hamas are bad? Absolutely. Do I think Wikipedia should say Hamas are bad? No I do not. Wikipedia is not for telling people what's good and bad. I trust readers do not need it explained to them when they read about mass murder.

This is an explanation of the reasoning. But, to be clear, the reasoning isn't primarily important. What's important is that it is a very clearly laid out Wikipedia policy. AntiDionysius (talk) 01:05, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

82 out of 193 UN member states comes nowhere near a crushing majority. Borgenland (talk) 07:58, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Then there wouldn't be any problem with me changing the ISIS page to remove the mention of the word "terrorists" because there are many people who don't view them as terrorists? Snir102 (talk) 15:14, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Many do not view Al Qaeda or the Islamic State as terrorists,

So what? If most countries do, it means they are. Those people just plainly support terrorism.

It's like saying some people don't bue the holocaust as a genocide, they view it as a "horrendous act to kill the enemy of the nazis" but not genocide. Who cares what they think? They're just justifying horrific acts against humanity and against every international and local law, and against every basic moral system Elichai2 (talk) 23:10, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 October 2023

change "Gaza fighters" to "Hamas terrorists" Salojon (talk) 13:17, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Changed to Hamas militants. Jim 2 Michael (talk) 14:41, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

This is still misleading.

most of the countries in the western world identify Hamas as a Terror organisation. Please change because this is not a correct representation of the truth.

they slaughtered, raped, kidnapped and tortured young innocent woman, men and babies. This isn’t the history written right here. It’s just misleading. Read for yourself and see that most of the world (other than the most of the Arab states & Russia) declare this is a terror organisation. 2A06:C701:45F1:1300:F1A1:90D4:DAF:AF69 (talk) 23:35, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

These were Hamas terrorists! That raped and murdered children! Not militants! Shame on you! Creating false narratives Chenhar (talk) 17:33, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

This is wrong, Hamas is defined as terrorist organisation. Hence, its members are terrorists.

militants are soldiers like, and this is dishonourable to call them “soldiers like” as they slaughtered babies in their beds (among other terrorists acts). It is shameful to call hamas terrorists militants. Please fix in honour of the victims Schmichael1985 (talk) 22:47, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

According this list

Hamas is recognized as a terrorist organization by the following entities:

European Union, Andorra, Argentina, Australia, Cambodia, Canada, Costa Rica, Croatia, Estonia, Finland, France, Israel, India, Italy, Kenya, Kosovo, Japan, Paraguay, United Kingdom, United States, Organization of American States

I think this obviously satisfies the conditions of MOS:TERRORIST Elichai2 (talk) 23:01, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Terrorist attack

It is CRYSTAL CLEAR that this massacre is a terrorist attack. Murder of hundreds of unarmed civilians; hostage crisis; Kidnapping and taking captive of dozens of innocent people; Sexual abuse and humiliation of bodies, the display in the streets of Gaza and on Telegram.This is exactly the definition of terrorism. No less than Nine-Eleven. All they want is to sow fear in the hearts of the citizens. If it is not terrorism, there is simply no such thing as terrorism. ℬ𝒜ℛ (talk) 22:40, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

This is not a particularly helpful comment. Is there an issue with the wording of the article you take umbrage with in particular? Paragon Deku (talk) 23:34, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

/This is a terror attack, like the terror attack in Bombai, in 9/11 and in Kenya Hila Livne (talk) 11:18, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

It is unclear from the text whether this attack initiated the war. Should we also refer to Hamas terrorists as 'militants'? Would it be consistent to change the 'nine-eleven' page to 'al-Qaida militants'? My suggestion for a fix: On 7 October 2023, the "Re'im music festival massacre" served as the catalyst for the 2023 Israel–Hamas war, as Hamas terrorists entering Israel from the Gaza Strip perpetrated an attack on civilians at the festival near the Re'im secular kibbutz. 171.240.107.84 (talk) 03:25, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

A militant organisation killing 260 civilians at a party, torturing, raping, and kidnapping people. Can you please explain how this does not fit the definition of a terror attack? 171.240.107.84 (talk) 03:33, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

This is discussed above, according to Wikipedia policy, its neutral to say militant. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 04:02, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

The BBC is using "militant" and resisting the government's pressure to use "terrorist". Interesting as it's Director General is a Tory and until this year its Chair. Doug Weller talk 10:19, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

What is terrorism by Wikipedia and the rest of the world?

"Terrorism, in its broadest sense, is the use of intentional violence and fear to achieve political or ideological aims. The term is used in this regard primarily to refer to intentional violence during peacetime or in the context of war against non-combatants (mostly civilians and neutral military" Quote from Wikipedia I didn't say it, the real truth says it. What happened in Israel in the last few days is beyond terrorism, It's appalling at the levels of Nazism. Massacre and war crimes of innocent people, I recommend reading articles with evidence to verify my words. Look for what happened in the kibbutz near Gaza. Entire families lost their lives. Families, who did nothing but exist, like in the Holocaust. Shiraz amar (talk) 08:42, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

agreed Hila Livne (talk) 11:16, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Should be classified as a Terror attack

It doesn't matter if Hamas is labeled as a terrorist group or as a resistance movement, This specific massacre was a Terror attack as it targeted innocent civilians and not soldiers. In addition, videos and images of the massacre were published by the Hamas, in order to terrorize the Israeli population. 84.110.120.34 (talk) 11:47, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

The mechanisms of massacres around there were in the perspective of the neo nazis ideas against the jews 85.64.129.124 (talk) 12:32, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Gunmen should be rephrased to Armed terrorists

Every reference to "Gunmen" in the article should be changed with "Hamas Armed terrorists"

soldiers to not shoot unarmed people, gunmen do not rape innocent women under the threat of a gun

No one kidnaps peace festival participants to hostile territories. This is the sheer meaning of terrorists. Change it! 46.210.25.191 (talk) 16:02, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Correct 37.228.207.1 (talk) 08:56, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Terrorists

I'm sorry but the semantic consideration is relevant here. Referring people that murder children and elders and rape women, while evoiding the army it fights against, as "militants", is a way of delivering false information. It's supportsing ignorance. Wikipedia is supposed to make ignnorance lesser rather than greater. If Hamas's murderers are "melitants" rather then terrorists, then also El Qaeda's forces in 9/11 are "melitants" since there is no difference between military resistance and massecare that is aimed to harm and terror innocent citizens Shachar738 (talk) 20:06, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Terror definition

burned children,women and eldery -all civilians. If it is not terrorism what is terrorism? Maybe when a jewish civilian is beheaded it is not a terror and when other people from other religions or nations are beheaded is terror? This is terror attack, wake up. Gilack (talk) 20:07, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

The US and EU defined Hamas as terrorists organisation. See link attached. Wiki should reflect this, hence it should be referred as such and it‘s members are to be referred as terrorists and not militants

What Is Hamas? | Council on Foreign Relations https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/what-hamas Schmichael1985 (talk) 22:26, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Every reference to "Hamas militants" or militants should be changed to "Hamas Terrorists"

There are numerous images and testimonials of children, as young as few months old, murdered handcuffed, decapitated, burnt.

If this is not terrorism, than your definition is wrong. If this is not terrorism, your definition of what is humane and what is not is wrong.

Hamas is ISIS, they are not militants not freedom fighters, they are evil terrorists. 46.210.25.191 (talk) 07:45, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

What is more, countless reliable sources describe them as such. I cannot agree more. LUC995 (talk) 07:53, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. 9/11 Al Qaeda described as terrorists, Paris 2015 ISIS described as terrorists, 2005 London bombings described as terrorists. Why not Hamas? T E R O R I S T S ! 77.137.75.93 (talk) 12:35, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 October 2023

Change Hamas militants to terrorists the way they behaved, raped woman, killed children, innocent people thought us that they are terrorists.

Moreover, the president of united state and the Senate defined them as terrorists 93.173.42.218 (talk) 16:19, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

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

This issue is under discussion in several places already. --16:21, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 October 2023

change militants to terrorists. supply evidence: Many Western countries and their allies have designated Hamas as a terrorist organization, citing the militants' usage of human shields; methods of hostage-taking of civilians; and history of violence against non-combatants, including massacres of civilian populations, suicide bombings, and indiscriminate rocket attacks on Israeli population centres. Orityishai (talk) 15:28, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

If you provide references i'll happily edit it for you. Thanks, Wikieditor019 (Talk to me) 19:53, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Hamas is a terror group

This is not just a matter of semantics. It’s a matter of stating the facts.

Isis and Al-Qaeda texts were found amongst Hamas terrorists.

They attacked and beheaded innocent civilians. 2601:8D:8702:ECF0:544C:3B0:7D6E:C1A7 (talk) 02:07, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

But even if he wasn't - what would you call the cowards who massacred more than 250 people celebrating at a music festival other than terrorists? You don't have to support the evil side...

Hamas are terrorists.

Hamas is recognised as a terror organisation by many countries the US and EU included

To call them anything but terrorists is extremely shameful and misleading.

Change any mention of "Hamas Militants" to "Hamas Terrorists" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snir102 (talk • contribs) 13:24, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

I find it amusing how this article contradicts itself

In the same paragraph it says "Hamas militants" then says "The incident was the biggest terror attack in the history of Israel"

So how are they still not described as terrorists when the incident is directly called a terror attack? This entire talk page is fuming with bias. Maybe we should change the ISIS page to "Islamist militants" as well

Despicable. Snir102 (talk) 15:11, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

I concur with you about the utter depravity of Hamas and stark moral imbalance between them and Israel, but some militants are also terrorists. In other words, "terrorists" is a subcategory of "militants". Jweiss11 (talk) 16:05, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

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