Jump to content

Talk:October 7 Hamas-led attack on Israel

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

Revision of youngest and oldest casualties

[edit]

1) Add to the paragraph October_7_Hamas-led_attack_on_Israel#Casualties that the oldest person killed was Moshe Ridler, a 91 years old Holocaust survivor from kibbutz Holit.<ref name=":Civilian Casualties">{{Cite web |title=Swords of Iron: Civilian Casualties |url=https://www.gov.il/en/pages/swords-of-iron-civilian-casualties |website=Ministry of Foreign Affairs}}</ref>

2) The same paragraph states the youngest person killed was 10 months old, while in fact it was a 14 hours old baby named Naama Abu-Rashed, that her pregnant mother, who was an Israeli-Bedouin, was shot and killed by Hamas terrorists. Naama was delivered in an emergency procedure, but died 14 hours later.<ref name=":Civilian Casualties" /> YedidyaPopper (talk) 14:00, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Performed both edits. The baby's name was not in your source though, nor the mother's origin, so I just wrote information that was in the source. Lova Falk (talk) 15:49, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I added the baby's name on the basis of 7 October Parliamentary Commission Report and cited using VisualEditor manually.
Strangely, when I checked to see how the citation would appear what I saw was Source Editor form "{{Cite web|url=https://static1.squarespace.com/static/ ..." but when I clicked to publish it appeared normally. Mcljlm (talk) 01:33, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 11 March 2025

[edit]

October 7 Hamas-led attack on Israel → October 7 attacks – No need for additional disambiguation (Hamas-led, Israel) in the title, it just makes it longer without adding enough benefit. Going off Google hits, "October 7 attacks" is five times more common than "October 7 Hamas attack" and almost 50 times more common than the full title. "October 7 attack" is even more common, but as there was clearly more than one attack, so the plural form is the correct title. As it has been established that this is the primary topic for October 7 attacks, this is a pretty routine request, but as there have been prior RMs, this is here and not at RMTR. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 20:52, 11 March 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Valorrr (lets chat) 01:05, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Tentative oppose. Google search isn't a particularly good way to determine the common name, it would be better to analyse Google Books/Scholar. Also, we might be overestimating the recognizability of the proposed title. I think a lot of people would not necessarily remember what happened if you just told them "7 October attacks."
Alaexis¿question? 21:52, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lean oppose because RS tend to use the phrase "October 7 attacks" only when context makes it very clear what attacks they're talking about—and use a more descriptive phrase like the current title otherwise. In other words "October 7 attacks" doesn't seem to be a common name at this point. ByVarying | talk 05:09, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Also Lean oppose per above.VR (Please ping on reply) 21:28, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
QalasQalas (talk) 13:25, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Staunch Oppose I agree with comments of User:Allthemilescombined1 Servite et contribuere (talk) 05:07, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ARBECR violation
Support I would argue that unduly emphasizing Hamas' role in the attack, by including it in the title, itself violates NPOV ATOMICMOLOCH (talk) 08:46, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ATOMICMOLOCH Don't forget about Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. You might have never heard of it. Hamas is a designated terrorist organisation in the country I live in (Australia). I think it is crucial that Wikipedia stands with Israel Servite et contribuere (talk) 09:38, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia should neither 'stand with Israel' nor erase the role of Hamas in the attack. Either action would violate NPOV and WP:Advocacy. Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 09:54, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Allthemilescombined1 Hi, I agree with your talking points, but your language doesn't seem natural. Anyway Lililolol (talk) 20:00, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Servite et contribuere; This one also doesn't look neural, but okay. Lililolol (talk) 20:03, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support it is the WP:COMMONNAME now. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 08:53, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support: as well per WP:COMMONNAME Lililolol (talk) 19:59, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The October 7 attack sounds appropriate, but why not include "2023" in the title? Idk; it's not the only attack that happened in October, so... Lililolol (talk) 20:06, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there isn't another article titled "October 7 attack" that I'm aware of, but adding 2023 to the title would help reduce confusion for those who are unfamiliar with the attack Lililolol (talk) 20:12, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A shorter name would probably be nicer to read, however I fear to those unfamiliar with the topic the expression would make little sense, unlike 9/11 (which was mentioned) which is generally very well known.
Instead of comparing with 9/11, I think 7 July 2005 London bombings is a much better example for an attack referenced by the date. British people will probably be aware of what the 7 July (7/7) attacks were, but to others it wouldn't really mean anything unless you're already familiar with it. I think the same is seen with the "7 October attacks". I would therefore support if it is renamed to something along those lines (7 October 2023 attacks or 7 October 2023 Hamas-led attacks, whichever is more agreeable). notadev (talk) 19:55, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Personally, the title "7 October 2023 attacks" makes more sense. It's fairly "neutral," as it doesn’t favor either Israel or Hamas. Lililolol (talk) 19:23, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Per above. Proposed title "October 7 Attacks" does not at all imply that Israel is the aggressor; the current title, in fact, seems to be a misguided product of advocacy to explicitly establish the opposite, which is not something that needs to be established within the title as opposed to within the body, and obviously violates WP:COMMONNAME. At the very minimum something like "October 7 Hamas attacks" would be far more suited than the current mess of a title, although not my personal preference. Stavd3 (talk) 09:33, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Stavd3 I'm curious, what's your personal preference? Lililolol (talk) 19:14, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    1. October 7 attacks
    2. October 7 Hamas attacks
    (biiiiiiig gap)
    3. current article title Stavd3 (talk) 19:18, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That formatting didn't come out right at all, you get the picture though Stavd3 (talk) 19:19, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    At previous discussions, "October 7 attacks" were opposed by several topic-banned pro-Palestinian editors. [1] One fun quote from one of those editors was that the term "October 7 attacks" was part of a continuing effort (not just here) to turn October 7 into a brand a la 9/11 and that the date format the word "attacks" improperly implied terrorism.
    Honestly, you can effectively argue in circles that either title is pro-Israel/pro-Hamas, because "attack on Israel" + "Hamas-led" identify Hamas as being the aggressor against Israel, while "October 7 attacks" draws comparisons to 9/11 and implies this is similar to other widely reviled terrorist attacks against civilians.
    It is comical to see that "October 7 Hamas-led attack on Israel" is now pro-Israel for some reason, which is why we should get rid of it. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 02:14, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Chess It shouldn't be seen as either pro-Israel or pro-Palestinian. It should be neutral, without trying to insert any bias. The new title gives no bias, and according to multiple editors, it is also the common name nowadays so Lililolol (talk) 03:06, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Lililolol: That's my point. The framing surrounding this is absurd because last year the sides were reversed. It literally doesn't matter if either title is called a win for Palestine. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 03:14, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    And, don’t be surprised if the oppressed strikes back at the real aggressor, but anyways Lililolol (talk) 03:13, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NOTFORUM. You're igniting conflict as well. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 03:26, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Chess I am only referring to the arguments made in this move request for the continuing usage of this current title, which make, frankly, absurd assertions about how a change in this mangled title would violate NPOV, as if it's Wikipedia's job and moral duty to shoehorn in the aggressor-victim dynamic in the title, without regard for COMMONNAME. Maybe I overreached by assuming that the current title was also a product of that same rationale; if I did, I apologize. Regardless, it's bad, and the NPOV arguments made about it strike me, as I said before, as at best frivolous and at worst politically motivated; especially when I have not once come across an article title of a similar structure, nor a proposal for any terror-attack article to have one. And to be clear, I could not care less if an article title is a win for Palestine or not; you've misjudged me. But it should be the title everyone knows it by. It's common sense. Stavd3 (talk) 03:27, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support per OP. I think this has actually reached the level of recognition for "October 7 attacks" that is seen for 9/11 and 7/7. It's also WP:CONCISE. I think some of us would have supported this title earlier, in prior RMs, but wanted to make sure there wasn't an issue with WP:RECENCY or other events on the same date. It's now been almost 18 months, and I think it's pretty clear the name is here to stay. Lewisguile (talk) 14:54, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose. Besides the fact that the current name shows the party that led the attack which led to the war, it also indicates that Hamas were not the only party involved, as is the case. Hamas led, but Palestinian civilians and other terrorist groups joined in, as has been extensively documented. R1237h (talk) 17:19, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That doesn't mean we need to include it in the title. Once of our article title criteria is to be concise, which the current title is decidedly not. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 18:23, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe, but another criteria is Precision.
    R1237h (talk) 19:34, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @R1237h "terrorist groups"? And who determined that? Anyway, by making such a statement, you appear biased and non-neutral, violating Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. Please be more mindful of your language next time. Thanks. Lililolol (talk) 19:15, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The article that we are discussing states "Hamas and several other Palestinian militant groups launched coordinated armed incursions from the Gaza Strip into the Gaza envelope of southern Israel" and "6,000 Gazans breached the border in 119 locations into Israel, including 3,800 from the elite "Nukhba forces" and 2,200 civilians and other militants." How is referencing something that the article itself states make me appear biased and non-neutral? I was careful not to express any opinions I might have, and just went by what was in the article under discussion.
    R1237h (talk) 19:27, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    ""Unless you are referring to the word "terrorist" instead of "Militant"? If so, I stand corrected, and will be more careful in the future.
    R1237h (talk) 19:29, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - per nom/common name, I think we're well outside the NOTNEWS/RECENCY timeframe and whenever I hear these attacks referred to off-wiki, it is always as "October 7" or "7/10", not "October 7 Hamas..." etc., so honestly a long overdue change. (Not over DUE, just the right amount.) Also... it's worth pointing out that this has attracted (archive) some off-wiki attention, meaning we should be on the look out for unusual votes and contributions. Smallangryplanet (talk) 20:20, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support per norm and WP:COMMONNAME. Most international news media use the term October 7 attacks.
    AimanAbir18plus (talk) 06:02, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support, based on WP:COMMONNAME as shown in Google results. This simple date-based name is also used by the New York Times and NPR. Shortening the name is also WP:CONCISE, but that's secondary. The shorter name increases the chances people will find this article and learn about it, especially people who are just being introduced to the topic. The article itself makes clear that the attacks were Hamas-led, so mentioning the perpetrator directly in the title when similar articles do not (see September 11 attacks or Attack on Pearl Harbor) is possibly motivated by a desire to slightly violate NPOV. If Wikipedia's style were to always mention perpetrators even when the date or location is unambiguous, then we would have the article "Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor". I see no valid arguments for the current name. Fluoborate (talk) 10:06, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
support pr commonname, Huldra (talk) 20:51, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support as it is the WP:COMMONNAME 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 13:07, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nor and commonname rule, "October 7 attacks" would unambiguously refer to these such attacks given the near-universal awareness of that date. The fact it was Hamas-led is no longer necessary to distinguish it or to give context to those unaware of the date. We wouldn't refer to 9/11 as the "al-Qaeda-led attacks on 9/11" and shouldn't call this attack when merely the date alone is sufficient for the vast majority of people to identify it. Yeahnamate (talk) 13:57, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support
Cognsci (talk) 18:18, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly oppose. The proposed title erases critical factual context: that this was a Hamas-led attack on Israel initiating a major war. Per WP:PRECISE and WP:RECOGNIZABLE, the current title accurately identifies who carried out the attacks and against whom. “October 7 attacks” is vague, context-dependent, and fails the precision needed for a defining historical event. WP:COMMONNAME does not override the need for clarity when multiple interpretations or uses of a name exist; I also don't see how WP:COMMONNAME even applies as current reporting and media more often use "October 7 Attacks on Israel" or some such wording -- not the standalone "October 7th Attacks". For the brevity argument I might support "October 7 Hamas Attacks" (though this is misleading as they were indeed Hamas-led) or "October 7 Attacks on Israel", but the proposed change throws the baby out with the bathwater. Henry.Jones.03021955 (talk) 04:35, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"context dependent", i agree it would be a shame if people confused this event for all the other well known attacks that happened on October 7th that were also named after the date they occurred Cognsci (talk) 09:39, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
RS don't use just "Oct 7" in their titles, they always contextualize with 'Israel' and/or 'Hamas'. If RS don't use the then it clearly isn't the common name. Henry.Jones.03021955 (talk) 18:14, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, but with caveat - "October 7 attacks" does appear to be the WP:COMMONNAME. However, there may need to be a hatnote linking to United States invasion of Afghanistan because that was also a very notable "October 7 attack" that took place within living memory. The current title makes such a disambiguation unnecessary. But if the article is moved to simply October 7 attacks (which is looking likely), I would prefer a disambiguation hatnote similar to the one on the Sept 11 attacks article. That article's hatnote links to September 11 attacks (disambiguation), which is a page that focuses on multiple events that were also "Sept 11 attacks". Based on a review of the October 7 article, it looks like candidates for listing on an October 7 attacks (disambiguation) page would be:
These two previous October 7 attacks were also very notable (which is why they have Wikipedia articles) and should have a disambiguation hatnote. However, I'm not yet convinced as to that needing to be a separate article rather than just having both October 7 attacks hatnote'd at the top of this article's page. JasonMacker (talk) 20:10, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The notability of the two previous October 7 attacks, compared to the October 7 Hamas-led attacks on Israel, is on a profoundly different scale. Orders of magnitude different. Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 10:06, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While this is true, I still fail to see any convincing arguments that simply 'October 7 Attacks' is the WP:COMMONNAME for this event. RS do not use 'October 7 Attacks' in isolation; they almost always specify 'on Israel.' Henry.Jones.03021955 (talk) 18:45, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Both titles are concise. The search results above are not accurate. Anytime you enter only part of a title in quotes you will get more results!
Articles September 11 attacks and January 6 United States Capitol attack changed after approx 2 years. This has only been 6 months and is not yet :recognizable to many people. A good title would be October 7 attack on Israel IP75 (talk) 10:32, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It has been 1 year and 6 months since 7 October 2023. JasonMacker (talk) 18:57, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Chicdat has shown that October 7 attacks is the dominant name. Opposes founded on Allthemilescombined1's criticism that this minimizes Hamas' role in initiating the ongoing Gaza war is irrelevant per Howardcorn33's point that September 11 attacks does not clumsily include the aggressor in the title to inform readers on which side "initiated" the war on terror. To Lililolol's comment, "October 7 attacks" is more common in media coverage than variations that include the year, and we already have a October 7, 2023 attack redirect to this article. Similarly, readers unsure of the attack's date can continue to rely on the Hamas attack on Israel redirect to get here. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 15:29, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A question

[edit]

Why does the article use MDY and not DMY? I can see it as appropriate for an article covering something American-related, but I don't understand the rationale for using MDY here. On List of date formats by country Israel is listed under DMY. I know above I saw a reference to a RM to October 7 from 7 October from a few months ago but I can't find it in the archives. Evaporation123 (talk) 05:48, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're referring to this RM which decided that RS commonly use MDY to name the attack. Yeshivish613 (talk) 21:43, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Evaporation123 (talk) 17:05, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Captagon

[edit]

The article currently says:

According to news reports, Hamas militants were taking Captagon—a highly addictive stimulant made in Syria and reportedly used by terrorist organization throughout the Middle East—during the attacks.[1][2][3][4][5]

References

  1. ^ "Moskowitz, Mills Lead Legislation Calling on U.S. Government to Ramp up Efforts to Dismantle Illicit Drug Used by Hamas and Other Terrorist Organizations". Jared Moskowitz. Archived from the original on July 6, 2024. Retrieved July 3, 2024. I was horrified to learn that captagon pills were found on the bodies of dead Hamas terrorists... the legislation would... [c]ondemn the use of captagon... on October 7th, 2023.
  2. ^ Makin, Shira (November 21, 2023). "High on Captagon and Antisemitism: Everything About 'The ISIS Drug' Used by Hamas". Haaretz. Archived from the original on November 22, 2023. Retrieved November 22, 2023. Shortly after Hamas murdered over 1,200 Israelis in Gaza border communities on October 7, reports began surfacing that the terrorists had been given the drug captagon... It is highly likely that, post-October 7, the bodies found to contain captagon were not only terrorists but also ordinary Gazans and criminals
  3. ^ Weinreb, Gali (December 12, 2023). "The drug that stimulates, and finances, terrorists". Globes. Archived from the original on November 22, 2023. Retrieved November 22, 2023. Captagon was found in large amounts on Hamas terrorists killed in the October 7 attack.
  4. ^ Solomon, Jay (November 1, 2023). "Some Hamas killers were high on amphetamine, officials say". Semafor. Archived from the original on November 22, 2023. Retrieved November 22, 2023. Some of the Hamas militants who attacked southern Israel on October 7 were fueled by a synthetic amphetamine called Captagon ... U.S. and Israeli officials... confirmed... that Israel Defense Forces soldiers found Captagon pills... on the bodies of dead and captured Hamas militants.
  5. ^ Meyer, Josh; Hjelmgaard, Kim (2 November 2023). "Was Hamas drug crazed from Captagon during Oct. 7 attacks?". USA Today. Retrieved 14 March 2025. Two Israeli security officials with direct knowledge of the matter confirmed to USA TODAY that [Captagon] was found on at least some Hamas members killed during or after the stunning raids on Israel

Only the last source, Meyer & Hjelmgaard (2023) (which I added), provides any details, and the details it provides have been found highly unlikely by a scholar on Captagon here:

The only sources for these news articles are anonymous Israeli officials. I'm inclined to remove the quoted sentence entirely. It may be true, but it seems unremarkable, akin to a claim like, "Some US soldiers involved in scandal have been known to drink alcohol." The fact that some militants used a drug common in the region is unremarkable. All sources seem to take pains to emphasize that it doesn't substantially explain the event or the behavior of the militants, to which might be added:

If a claim is unremarkable, the sources are emphatic that even if true that it doesn't explain much of anything, and we don't even have strong sources to verify that it's true, then why mention it? It seems more likely to give readers a mistaken impression than aid their understanding of this topic. Daask (talk) 23:03, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would remove the statement if is not used to explain militants' behavior on October 7. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 14:30, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"with the stated goal to force Israel to exchange them for imprisoned Palestinians, including women and children"

[edit]

This line is in the third paragraph and it gives four references following this line, but the Jerusalem Post article reference does not support this statement. Neither does the Guardian article that is referenced. There is nothing that claims these hostages were taken for any desire to trade in either of these two articles, and the other two references are an Al Jazeera article, and a Middle East Eye article, and both of these sources are too biased against Israel to be credible. Were the hostages not simply taken as part of the effort to start a large scale war, and not for some noble purpose of trading them later for women and children. 70.80.72.64 (talk) 04:43, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is only concerned over whether or not a source is reliable, we don't judge their "bias". Al Jazeera in general is considered reliable, see WP:ALJAZEERA (the other, I'm not sure). That said, the current sentence is not supported by any of the sources. Al-Jazeera reported that Hamas believed they could exchange "all prisoners" for "captured soldiers". They did not report that the statement mentioned women or children, specifically. They also don't report Hamas saying that a prisoner exchange was the primary or only goal for the hostage-taking (there could have been additional goals, for example). Al-Jazeera also reports that Israeli detainees include women and minors - however, that is clearly additional information that isn't part of the Hamas statement. Therefore I think the sentence should be reworked - from the current sources, we can only say that a) there were hostages taken b) Hamas expressed they could exchange those for Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails. Averell (talk) 09:17, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would also add, if you take a snapshot of any prison system in the world, you will always see a number of women prisoners in addition to male prisoners, with the male prisoners vastly outnumbering the women, and you will also see a number of children incarcerated for their crimes. The same is true for the Palestinian prisoners. The phrase "with the stated goal to force Israel to exchange them for imprisoned Palestinians, including women and children" is a clear attempt to bias the narrative.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:October_7_Hamas-led_attack_on_Israel&oldid=1287879792"