Jump to content

Talk:2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Title

I believe a more fitting title for this article would be "The October 7th Attack" being that it's much more rememberable and easy to say. JamesCook1728 (talk) 01:45, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I am able to move the page. I will not until there is consensus. NesserWiki (talk) 03:10, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should use the name that Hamas gave it since it is the only “operation name”, which is the “operation Al aqsa flood” The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 06:23, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
More neutral sources seem to avoid adopting that name. I'm not sure exactly why, but I assume it has to do with not wanting to legitimize the attack, or create an appearance of alignment with Hamas. — xDanielx T/C\R 22:33, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 26 May 2024

2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel7 October attack – The obvious common name here is the 7 October/October 7 attacks. On Google, there are 117,000 results for "Hamas-led attack on Israel" (even less if you include the year), 252,000 for "7 October attacks" and 1,600,000 for "October 7 attack". October 7 and 7 October even are used by themselves as shorthands for the attack. Ex: "What Really Happened on October 7?" (1), "How Changes in the Israeli Military Led to the Failure of October 7" (2), "October 7th: Through Their Eyes" (3).

It is clear that the name involves "October 7" or some variation + "attack". Of course, October 7th has a higher search rate because of the American date format, but in my opinion, we shouldn't name it that.The attack happened in Israel, and in Israel the format is dmy. An example of this is the 7 July 2005 London bombings. In American media, the attack was referred to as the July 7 bombings. Ex: "July 7 2005 London Bombings Fast Facts" (1), "London Marks the 10th Anniversary of the July 7 Terrorist Attacks" (2). But the article name is 7 July, because that's what the format is in the U.K. I think the same principle should be applied here. Personisinsterest (talk) 23:39, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Already been discussed. Do you have any new arguments? JDiala (talk) 01:59, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think this may be viable at this point in time. As some time has passed since the last request, a somewhat clearer picture of sourcing has emerged IMO. FortunateSons (talk) 17:32, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Separating hostages from POW

If the number is known, would it be better to separate them in the casualties infobox? I am suggesting something like

Number soldiers captured or POW’s

Number civilians taken hostage The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 06:25, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Probably, yes, if we usually make that distinction. Albert Mond (talk) 09:36, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request - minor correction needed for totals in article and infobox

In the last month, 2 Israeli civilians that were believed to have been taken hostage on Oct. 7 were later declared dead after their remains were identified in Israel.[1] [2] Therefore, the total number of Israelis killed on Oct. 7 needs to be updated to 1,145 and the total number of those taken hostage needs to be reduced to 251. Nathan1223 (talk) 03:17, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Auto-archiving period: 2 days

Please consider extending this. Drsruli (talk) 23:27, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article title

So, very willing to have Wiki rules thrown at me on this;

Why are we still describing this as an “attack”? By the vast and overwhelming sources already cited in this article, it’s very clear that, where “attack” might imply some sort of targeted assault by one armed group against other, this is not what happened.

Given that this historical parallel doesn’t work, the closest I can think of is the roaming Einsatzgruppen, whose methods of murder were utterly terrible but also less terrible than the Palestinians responsible in this article.

“Attack” suggests that this was some sort of properly co-ordinated military operation. We know from every article sub-linked here that this was not the acse. it was from the start intended to be a massacre of civilians. There was no point anywhere in the planning of it in which anyone said that “this should not be a massacre of civilians.” And why would they? The whole point was to murder, rape and kidnap as many civilians as possible. KronosAlight (talk) 21:10, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would you suggest something with "massacre" in the title? I think there's probably a reasonable case that "massacre" is accurate (despite that some military bases were also targeted), but it seems very clear that the broader term "attack" is accurate, so why not stick with it?
In terms of policy, WP:POVNAMING and WP:NPOVNAME encourage "neutral" names, though with exceptions when there's a very clear WP:COMMONNAME (which I don't think there is here).
See also Talk:Tel al-Sultan massacre#Requested move 27 May 2024, a somewhat related (different scale of course) discussion where I also argue for "attack" over "massacre". — xDanielx T/C\R 02:32, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]