Talk:2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel

(Redirected from Talk:Operation Al-Aqsa Flood)
Latest comment: 2 days ago by Alexysun in topic Requested move 15 June 2024

Requested move 15 June 2024

edit

2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel7 October Hamas-led attack on Israel – I believe that enough time has passed since the last RM (which proposed the simpler "7 October attacks" name and closed with consensus to retain the current title) to re-propose a title change for this article. I believe that "7 October Hamas-led attack on Israel" is the WP:COMMONNAME for this event, as seen in sources such as:

  • Al Jazeera: "... counter the October 7 Hamas-led attack on Israel, which saw ..."
  • Bloomberg: "... trapped in Gaza since the Oct. 7 Hamas-led attack on Israel, which prompted ..."
  • CBC: "... around the world since the Hamas-led attacks on Israel of Oct. 7 but are now ..."
  • CNN: "... from the October 7 Hamas-led attack on Israel being held ..."
  • Euracitiv: "... triggered by the 7 October Hamas-led attack on Israel in which ..."
  • France24: "Before the October 7 Hamas-led attack on Israel that triggered ..."
  • ISW: "... spokesperson claimed that the October 7 Hamas-led attack on Israel was retaliation ..."
  • Middle East Eye: "Following the 7 October Hamas-led attack on Israel and subsequent ..."
  • NPR: "... Palestinian armed groups since the Oct. 7 Hamas-led attack on Israel that set off the war ..."
  • NYTimes: "... including some who participated in the Oct. 7 Hamas-led attack on Israel, and that ..."
  • Reuters: "... were involved in the Oct. 7 Hamas-led attack on Israel that precipitated ..."
  • Times of Israel: "... during and after the October 7 Hamas-led attack on Israel."
  • The Conversation: "... participated in the October 7 Hamas-led attack on Israel, which resulted ... "
  • WaPo: "Since the Oct. 7 Hamas-led attack on Israel, restrictions have ..."

Many sources simply say "7 October" or "October 7 attacks" instead of spelling out the full name, but I believe that while "7 October attacks" could be a more COMMON name, I think that it fails WP:AT#Precision in favor of "7 October Hamas-led attack on Israel." DecafPotato (talk) 00:43, 15 June 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:09, 9 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I have a different suggestion: why not title the article just "October 7th attacks." It seems rather pointless to mention that Hamas carried out the attack. The 9/11 oage isn't title "September 11th Al-Qaeda attacks", after all. So, why should the standard on this page be any different? NesserWiki (talk) 11:44, 12 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • attacks and *page
NesserWiki (talk) 11:45, 12 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • Support, virtually all the major RS use the date "October 7" when describing Hamas' attacks, it's pretty weird we are the only ones we don't. Galamore (talk) 18:40, 20 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • Support. The quotes and sources provided above confirm what I thought was true for a long time: the words 'October 7' must appear in this article title. I can add to this list a recent report from Human Rights Watch which uses also use it "October 7 assault".[3]
I'd also support a move to October 7 attacks, which is more concise so better in my opinion, but 'October 7 Hamas-led attack on Israel' is okay too. HaOfa (talk) 07:01, 21 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose - Same reasons as those already mentioned. The attack was not just for one day, and it is unclear whether it will receive the same status as September 11 in popular usage as time goes on. Also there has been repeated consensus not to move for this very reason, and nothing has changed since then. Lf8u2 (talk) 18:13, 25 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Come on, obviously it has the same status as September 11th. Proof: Look up "October 7th" and see what comes up Personisinsterest (talk) 11:04, 31 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Go out on the street (assuming you are not Israeli) and ask random people what they think about October 7 (or 7 October), see what happens. Selfstudier (talk) 11:08, 31 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Where I live, it would work, but I’m German, so… FortunateSons (talk) 11:20, 31 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I just checked in with two friends, they say that their other European countries would work too. I’m not sure about other continents, but I’m guessing the odds that October 7 would have comparable or better recognition compared to „2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel“ in North America, large parts of Europe, and large parts of the English-speaking world are pretty good. FortunateSons (talk) 11:32, 31 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
    More than 20 years after 9/11, the corresponding article gets 5 times the number of page views as this article ([4]). There is no way "October 7 attacks" is recognisable in the same way "September 11 attacks" is. To the average reader October 7 is just a date like any other. Vpab15 (talk) 12:18, 31 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Yes, but „not as recognisable as one of the most recognisable dates ever“ isn’t the measure we use here. Here are a few other singular date uses that exist, with metrics: Link FortunateSons (talk) 12:37, 31 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
    The way I know that "October 7" is recognizable by readers is that it's used so often in the headlines/titles of sources. I posted 30 examples of this below. Levivich (talk) 16:37, 1 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    https://www.britannica.com/on-this-day/October-7 Don't see it there yet.
    World Architecture Day, National Inner Beauty Day, World Habitat Day, Team Margot Stem Cell and Bone Marrow Awareness Day, National LED Light Day etcetera. Selfstudier (talk) 16:49, 1 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    WP:BRITANNICA is not an RS :-P I'm not sure that they have any 2023 events in "on this day" -- and I can't tell when was the last time it was updated. I checked and they do have the 2022 invasion of Ukraine [5], but they also have Mueller's 2019 Russian interference report [6], which I think we can all agree is way, way less important than Oct 7, 2023. The only thing that the absence of Oct 7 on Britannica's OTD tells me is that Britannica hasn't updated its OTD yet. Levivich (talk) 16:54, 1 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Neither are headlines RS WP:HEADLINES Half the population doesn't even read the press anymore. Seriously, average joe a) doesn't know and b) doesn't care. Selfstudier (talk) 16:59, 1 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    WP:HEADLINES refers specifically to news headlines, not to the titles of academic works (which is what my 30 examples are). News headlines may not be WP:RS in terms of using them as sources for the content of articles, but the titles of academic works are very good examples to look at when determining WP:RECOGNIZABILITY, WP:COMMONNAME, WP:NATURAL, WP:PRECISION... basically our article titles should follow our sources' titles. Levivich (talk) 17:04, 1 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Don't get me wrong here, I am not objecting to the date inclusion per se, I think the year needs to be there and the rest that was always there, the Hamas led attack on Israel (people will recognize that more than the date), Selfstudier (talk) 17:29, 1 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    This would literally work, I live in Brooklyn Personisinsterest (talk) 11:22, 31 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • Support to October 7 Attacks only. Including "Hamas" in the title is already questionable as many sources point to it being a joint operation and one that has received meticulous planning by the wide range of resistance organizations in the Gaza Strip. "Israel" is unnecessary as there's only one attack widely known to have happened on October 7. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 18:50, 25 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • @Kashmiri It is definitely the common name, but just 7 October, not the proposed title. I agree with you about consistency, we should do common name OR consistent description, not mix them, the proposed title is a bit of a mess that isn't common or consistent. We can't just call it 7 October but as @DecafPotato points out, adding just "attacks" to be 7 October attacks would be consistent with others. But I very strongly support 7 October not October 7, the others were in the USA, this wasn't, The month first thing is used more often in sources with POV problems (e.g. Eylon Levi), day first is common in a wider range of sources and is more readable to most of the world. MWQs (talk) 20:02, 16 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Struck input of banned sockpuppet.
Also, putting all those elements in at once (7 October + Hamas + attack on Israel) sounds like the introduction to an Eylon Levy speech (he tended to pile in 3 different slogans before he got to a verb). To me "Hamas" sounds weird, because the attacks were the Qassam Brigades, Hamas is more the name for the political party, it's like saying Sinn Fein did a bombing spree instead of attributing that to the IRA. We can justify "7 October" OR "Hamas" being included as the common name in English, but both sounds like Eylon Levy. MWQs (talk) 20:32, 16 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • @DecafPotato I just noticed you did find cases where people had written that combination of words, the Eylon effect is just the effect of saying it out loud. But I agree with @Kashmiri that "7 October Hamas-led attack on Israel" won't be said in the 2030s, because by 8 October 2024 anybody adding that much detail will add the year. But there is a precedent for 7 October attacks by itself persisting as a common name, but not your proposal. MWQs (talk) 22:01, 16 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
I prefer "7 October attacks" over the current title, for what it's worth. In the initial comment I conceded that it's likely a more common name than my proposed title but made an argument about WP:PRECISION in favor of including "Hamas-led" and "on Israel." But if editors disagree with that argument my position is very amendable to "7 October attacks." DecafPotato (talk) 18:15, 17 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Also, I was have been considering suggesting a chang from "Hamas-led" to "Hamas-initiated" because some of it was planned but "go that way and do some violence" describes their leadership for about 2/3 of it. Changing it to just 7 October attacks solves the led vs initiated problem as well. MWQs (talk) 20:46, 16 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose per Kashmiri, this attempt to include the 7 October date has already failed a couple times in favor of formulations like the current title. This date is not meaningful to the average English speaking reader or if it is now, it will not be by this time next year.Selfstudier (talk) 17:49, 17 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose for now. "October 7" is the natural way to refer to the most recent October 7. If the yearless form lasts beyond its anniversary like "September 11" did, then it may be time to rename. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 16:41, 18 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • I do believe that October 7 is the common name and that it is more recognizable than "2023". I reject the consistency argument and also reject that This date is not meaningful to the average English speaking reader. Especially when "Hamas-led attack on Israel" remains in the title, there should be no concern that readers won't know what we're talking about. However, I am not sure whether the move target should be 7 October or October 7. The local date format is, in fact, "7 October", but the English-language sources provided by the nom above show that reliable sources lean towards "October 7". Toadspike [Talk] 11:02, 19 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose on conciseness and long-term significance grounds. "7 October" is noticeably longer than "2023", and the possibility of Hamas launching another attack on another October 7 cannot be ruled out as the Gaza war is a current event. NasssaNser 14:43, 19 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
    The second part of your comment is not only WP:CRYSTALBALL but also contradicts itself — how does the possibility that Hamas attacks Israel on the next October 7 mean that the title is too imprecise when Hamas attacked Israel many times over the course of 2023? DecafPotato (talk) 05:03, 22 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • Support October 7 (or 7 October) is generally the most commonly used term by national and international newspapers, to the degree that it would even meet the requirements for a non-neutral title. But it’s not, and therefore the requirements are more than met. It’s also the way the term is colloquially used in political discussions and sometimes on wiki, which is a decent indication that it will remain the commonly used term at least in the near future. While we can’t know the actual future (and therefore any arguments that there might be a different name in the future hold limited weight), one could also argue that events commemorating this attack will likely use the same language that is utilised by Israel and other western countries, which is generally Oct. 7.
FortunateSons (talk) 07:20, 20 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • Support The vast majority of international media refers to the attack as the 7th October attack (or some variation of the date), therefore, it would appear that this is the WP:CommonName. A lot of weight is given to the date (7th October) when referring to the attack. I don't think I've ever seen anyone described the attack as the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel; the current title is certainly not the WP:CommonName. IJA (talk) 13:58, 21 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • Support but prefer October 7 attack on Israel or simply October 7 attack for brevity. Not sure why the title was changed back. October 7 attack seems the common name to me and seems uncontroversial and entirely free of POV concerns. My only concern would be what further specification is needed to differentiate it from other events internationally, and I think "on Israel" suffices. Unbandito (talk) 18:20, 9 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Original close, overturned to "relist" at move review
The result of the move request was: Moved to 7 October attacks. There was clear consensus to move away from the current title as the date was found to be an important part of the WP:COMMONNAME. The arguments opposing the move largely relied on the idea of another attack on 7 October 2024 which was demmed WP:CRYSTALBALL by the discussion. No prejudice against another discussion between the original proposoed title and 7 October attacks. (non-admin closure) >>> Extorc.talk 14:29, 22 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
In order to not distract from my main argument, I've struck out that part.VR (Please ping on reply) 02:55, 10 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Also, incitement is not leadership, so "Hamas-led" is not very accurate (nb - this as a criticism of them, not an excuse), but the date and the target are indisputable. MWQs (talk) 05:52, 10 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Levivich (talk) 01:18, 25 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Levivich agree with you on having "October 7" in the title. But given the sources that you present that have the year in them, shouldn't you oppose removing the year from the title? Likewise, some of the sources you present actually include "Hamas" in the title ([48]) or "Gaza" ([49]) or "Israel" ([50]). Some of the publications are Israel-focused (Israel Studies) where the meaning is obvious. The fact that some of the sources you cite refer to the event as only "October 7" ([51]) – a title we must absolutely reject – should indicate that the lack of qualifiers in a source does not imply we must similarly discard them.VR (Please ping on reply) 04:18, 25 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
@VR: 18 sources I posted don't have the year in the titles, 10 do (unless I miscounted). I wouldn't oppose a title that had the year in it ("October 7, 2023 attack") but I think we can omit the year as an unnecessary disambiguator, in the name of WP:CONCISE. While the sources use the words "October 7" in a variety of different forms ("October 7 attacks," "10/7," "7 October massacre", etc. etc.), I think when we apply WP:AT to this set of slightly different titles, some variation of "October 7 attacks" is the one that fits WP:AT criteria best. It includes a necessary disambiguator (e.g. "attacks") but omits unnecessary ones (e.g. "2023," "Israel," "Hamas," "Gaza," all of which are used by some sources but none of which are so predominant so as to become part of the common name). It's precise enough, as evidenced by the sources using the same level of precision (month and day) and as concise as possible (can't drop the third word) while still being recognizable (as evidenced by its usage in many sources), natural ("[date] attack"), and consistent (at least with September 11 attacks). Levivich (talk) 05:22, 25 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Levivich, see my !vote above. In the early days sources referred to the event as "Saturday's" or "last week's" attacks. Then it became "last month". Sources don't use the year now because the event is less a year old. I expect the number of sources using year will only go up, esp after October 7, 2024.VR (Please ping on reply) 19:07, 29 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • Support a title with "October 7" and no year, per Hameltion and Levivich's common name analysis, with preference to "October 7 attack" (no additional qualifiers). Very clearly the common name. Used by sources no matter where you look. The Britannica article, a tertiary source like Wikipedia, uses just "October 7 attack", for instance. C F A 💬 04:26, 25 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
    You say it's "Very clearly the common name" but where is the evidence for this claim? IJA (talk) 04:46, 26 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Above. I have seen no evidence as to why "2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel" is the common name here. As far as I can tell, it was a name invented by Wikipedia editors. C F A 💬 15:42, 26 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
    The current name is a descriptive title, not a commonname. It was "invented" because immediately after the Hamas attack, that component was split off from the main war article and at the time, everyone was just referring to that part as the Hamas attack. In the future, no-one (outside of Israel) will remember the year unless we include it. Selfstudier (talk) 15:52, 26 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
    You stated that the proposed title is "Very clearly the common name". I asked you to provide evidence for this claim and you have avoided doing so. Now please answer the question, where is your evidence that the proposed title is the common name? This shouldn't be difficult for you, as you have claimed that this is "very clearly" the case. So far, you have vaguely listed "sources" and "Britannica". This is hardly sufficient evidence to support your claim. As to your point, I don't think that the current title is the common name, nor have I claimed that it is. I don't think that there is currently a common name for the attack at present. I think that the current title is a descriptive NPOV title for the attack. If someone can provide evidence of a common name, I'll happily support changing the name of the article to that common name. But so far, that has not happened. IJA (talk) 09:39, 28 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
    per Hameltion and Levivich's common name analysis Levivich (talk) 13:13, 28 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • Support. Given the overwhelming use of 'October 7 attack' in reliable sources, it makes sense to adopt the same term on Wikipedia for consistency and clarity. Waqar💬 19:00, 30 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • Support. As supported by the sources, 7 October is as much a concept as 11 September. It's the COMMONNAME. Even more than 11 September, since no alternation with the number dates. This discussion addresses the FAILURE that the date currently isn't included in the title. 7 October attack or similar would even be better as it is the PRIMARYTOPIC. The rest is not really needed. Yet supporting the proposed also as is, as a real improvement over the current name. gidonb (talk) 16:15, 1 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • Heavy Support. This is a notable event in the Near East conflicts/Israel and Palestine conflicts. This might be a bad example, but just like the Six Day War, the Suez Crisis, and the Yom Kippur War don't have the year in their names, this attack doesn't either. Colloquially no one will say the "2023 attack", people just say "October 7th attack" and people know what it is, but this could be because it is a recent event. Either way, I still support. Alexysun (talk) 22:57, 1 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 June 2024

edit

Have a look at the first sentence in the "Events leading to the attack" section:

Over the course of 2023, before the attack, increased settler attacks had displaced hundreds of Palestinians, and there were clashes around the Al-Aqsa Mosque, a contested holy site in Jerusalem.[1]

1. Displaced whom exactly? Is there a citation for this?

2. "Settler attacks"? Are we going to completely ignore the numerous attacks by Palestinians throughout 2023? Just to name a few:

  • May 12th - Hundreds of rockets launched towards Israel.

https://apnews.com/article/israel-gaza-palestinians-strikes-jihad-0d9d56b5c4fc2e8999105b05c8d30a2f

  • January 27th - Palestinian gunman killed 7, including 70 year old woman.

https://apnews.com/article/politics-israel-government-palestinian-territories-benjamin-netanyahu-fb2251b5b6c8ef73a21f87620d20090c#:~:text=JERUSALEM%20(AP)%20%E2%80%94%20A%20Palestinian,killed%20by%20police%2C%20officials%20said.

  • February 10th - Palestinian driver killed 2 Israelis (including a 6-year-old boy) and injured 5 others.

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-02-10/ty-article/.premium/several-injured-in-suspected-ramming-attack-in-jerusalem/00000186-3b1c-dfa7-afee-ff7fc3e00000

  • April 7th - shooting attack in Tel Aviv, Italian tourist killed, several others wounded.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog-april-7-2023/

  • June 20th - Palestinians opened fire on a group of Israelis, killing 4 and injuring 4 others.

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-06-20/ty-article/at-least-1-israeli-wounded-in-suspected-west-bank-shooting/00000188-d8fb-d5fc-ab9d-dbfb7e9e0000

  • August 1st - Palestinian shot and wounded 6 Israelis.

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-08-01/ty-article/man-shot-after-suspected-shooting-attack-in-west-bank-settlement-near-jerusalem/00000189-b124-ddac-a3cd-b575ba010000

  • August 5th - Palestinian killed an Israeli.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/05/world/middleeast/palestinian-shooting-israel-tel-aviv.html

  • August 19th - Palestinian killed 2 Israelis.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/8/19/two-israelis-killed-by-suspected-palestinian-gunman 3. Maybe explain why there were clashes near Temple Mount?

Here is my proposal:

In the months leading up to the attack, Palestinian violence against Israelis escalated significantly, including hundreds of rockets fired from Gaza towards Israeli cities, as well as numerous shooting and car-ramming attacks that resulted in multiple Israeli fatalities.

Citations:

2A0D:6FC2:4000:400:97EC:26:BBEC:F991 (talk) 12:06, 29 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Have you read WP:SYNTH? A reliable source that directly supports the proposed wording is required. Do any of your sources do that? In other words, we can't conclude, based on individual samples, that a pattern or trend exists and write things like "In the months leading up to the attack..." etc. A reliable source has to do that. Then we can cite it. We are not reliable sources. Sean.hoyland (talk) 12:21, 29 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
1. I agree with you. Can we conclude, based on 0 samples or citations, that "Over the course of 2023, before the attack, increased settler attacks had displaced hundreds of Palestinians"?
2. If we're going to include the Temple Mount clashes, and we want a complete background, then we should also include the "numerous shooting and car-ramming attacks that resulted in multiple Israeli fatalities" that my sources support, as well as the May 2023 war launched by the Palestinian Islamic Jihad. 2A0D:6FC2:4000:400:97EC:26:BBEC:F991 (talk) 12:27, 29 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
The current text is supported by the AP article. You'll need to find a source that discussed the attacks by Palestinians in 2023 prior to the start of the war. Alaexis¿question? 17:21, 29 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

References

  1. ^ "Israel declares war, goes after Hamas fighters and bombards Gaza". Associated Press. 7 October 2023. Archived from the original on 8 October 2023. Retrieved 7 October 2023.

Result

edit

We cannot have the result say 'inconclusive or Hamas victory'; that is in direct violation of the rules regarding a military info-box. I’m not even trying to be political, but it does not make sense to say, 'well, you see, Hamas either won or didn’t win, we don’t know.' I keep saying this: an info-box can only say X Victory, Y Victory, or inconclusive. LuxembourgLover (talk) 17:50, 5 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I think such instructions in infobox docs can be ignored when there's a good reason, but in this case I'd support just removing the field, since the result is a matter of perspective and we can't fit any meaningful assessment in a few words. — xDanielx T/C\R 18:12, 5 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
I think we need a new infobox - "Infobox mass atrocity". I don't really like the binary choice between "civilian attack" and "military conflict", as they don't capture the spectrum of incidents (for instance, the term "civilian" can be ambiguous – in a huge number of contexts we'd prefer combatant vs non-combatant). — kashmīrī TALK 19:44, 20 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Update, the new resulte is no better. LuxembourgLover (talk) 14:37, 21 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hamas' own words

edit

Is there room on this article for the actual Hamas statement on the attack - https://twitter.com/pmofa/status/1710630801379922370 - or do we continue with the established tradition of ignoring Palestinian voices? Specifically the sentence: "Hamas said its attack was in response to the continued Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories, the blockade of the Gaza Strip, the expansion of illegal Israeli settlements, rising Israeli settler violence, and recent escalations." This should, at the very least, have a link to their own Press Release. Mcdruid (talk) 08:58, 22 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

the war crimes and atrocities section should be updated following 2 reports from HRW

edit

https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/07/17/october-7-crimes-against-humanity-war-crimes-hamas-led-groups https://www.hrw.org/report/2024/07/17/i-cant-erase-all-blood-my-mind/palestinian-armed-groups-october-7-assault-israel Monochromemelo1 (talk) 23:13, 22 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. — kashmīrī TALK 17:06, 1 August 2024 (UTC)Reply