Wikipedia

Talk:October 7 attacks/Archive 9

Archive 5←Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

RfC: Sexual violence and the scope of the article

Question. Should this article include allegations of sexual violence and torture that were documented in the broader conflict after the Hamas-led incursion?

Alaexis¿question? 11:33, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Survey

  • B. Yes, in aftermath As mentioned above inclusion is obviously desirable but needs to be limited. This covers it nicely…."Include them in a brief Aftermath section (the current § Israeli counterattack section or a new one) with links to more detailed coverage in other articles."Lukewarmbeer (talk) 17:36, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
  • C / B. I don't think that the atrocities section is limited to ones that occurred on October 7th specifically; it ought to include anything that is connected to it by reliable sources (ie. stuff from the aftermath section also goes there.) And if we're mentioning the UN report we ought to provide full context for it. That said, it needs to be tweaked to use secondary sources, eg. [1][2] - in particular, the fact that Israel may have extracted confessions under torture is vital context ([3]); we mention it in the next section but ought to mention it at least briefly here as well, since it is context that the sources emphasize. Mentioning the UN report without mentioning these aspects (which have attracted significant coverage) would be misusing it as a source. One thing I would suggest is to, rather than mention the accusations against Israel in a "lol both sides" sentence cited solely to primary sources, mention them instead in the sentence about how and why Israel refused to cooperate with the probe, which ought to be moved higher up and expanded. This is the context under which they are most often covered by secondary sources, especially in the context of the October 7 attacks. (If we're rewriting this we should avoid citing the probe as a primary source at all - this is sensitive enough that we really ought to use sources capable of interpretation and analysis.) --Aquillion (talk) 16:04, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
  • B, in summary only. It's relevant, but is not literally an "October 7" matter, so I disagree strongly with the immediately-above "B/C" !vote's tolerance for commingling the events together; that has too strong a potential for reader confusion.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:06, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
  • This RfC is improperly structured, as extensively explained by @Smallangryplanet and @Vice regent in their respective comments here and here. @Alaexis initiated this RfC with the objective of removing a sentence from the Sexual Violence section that references the UN report, which also documents instances of sexual violence against Palestinians on the day of the October 7 attack. Consequently, this RfC is not structured in a way that allows it to effectively serve its intended purpose. If either Option B or C is approved, the outcome will solely impact references to sexual violence against hostages in Gaza, as that is the only content in the section that pertains to allegations of sexual violence documented within the broader conflict rather than the attacks themselves. However, such a decision would likely face opposition and necessitate another RfC for clarification. Given these issues, this RfC is fundamentally flawed and should be closed. If @Alaexis intends to remove the relevant information from the UN report, a separate RfC specifically addressing that matter is required. However, it remains unclear what valid justification could be presented for such an action, as previously discussed. - Lf8u2 (talk) 18:16, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Malformed RfC, registering my !vote here as in my comment below. Smallangryplanet (talk) 13:05, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Discussion

Right now the article says that both Hamas and Israel had committed sexual violence and torture which violates our policies. Per WP:Article title, the title indicates what the article is about and distinguishes it from other articles. This article deals with the events of October 7-8, that is, the Hamas incursion and the immediate response to it. The article may include aftermath and subsequent events when they are directly related to the October 7-8 incursion, with their inclusion and prominence guided by reliable source coverage per WP:DUE. Per WP:SS, detailed coverage of events from the broader conflict belongs in parent articles, with this article maintaining focus on its specific scope.

The sources used in this article describe sexual violence committed by Hamas militants during the incursion (UN report, summary by CNN). Our sources clearly and unambiguously state that there were abuses committed by Hamas on October 7-8 (CNN: The commission said it had "documented evidence of sexual violence" carried out by Palestinian armed groups in several locations in southern Israel on October 7 and the UN report, p. 16: In relation to the attack of 7 October in Israel, the Commission concludes on reasonable grounds that members of the military wings of Hamas and [other groups], deliberately ... committed SGBV ... in many locations in southern Israel). On the other hand, neither the UN report nor secondary sources that discuss it state that sexual violence was committed by Israeli forces during the incursion. In the pre-RfC discussion only one specific incident from this period was referenced: two civilians urinating on dead Hamas fighters and using insults. This takes a rather expansive view of what constitutes sexual violence and cannot justify general statements about sexual violence during this period.

Including allegations from the broader conflict in this article's main content would blur the distinction between the October 7-8 events and the subsequent war, potentially confusing readers about the timing and context of these events. While there were allegations of further abuses during the ongoing war, committed against both Israeli hostages and Palestinian detainees, these belong in parent articles such as Israel-Hamas war or dedicated articles like Sexual and gender-based violence against Palestinians during the Israel–Hamas war.

Thus, the current text found in the § Reported atrocities section (both Hamas and Israel had committed sexual violence and torture) is not supported by reliable sources for the period this article covers and should be removed. Note that while similar text may be appropriate for articles about the broader conflict, this RfC is specifically about the scope of this article. Alaexis¿question? 11:34, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

  • Comment Imo, the difficulty here arises by virtue of an artificial division between the Hamas attack (on the 7th and 8th? <- Not in article title so should be excluded??) and the Israeli response, also starting on the 7th and ongoing, as described in the Israel-Hamas war article, which also reproduces large parts of the content covered in this article. Were the two articles to be merged, the problem would just go away and maybe that's what should be done. There is a related discussion of such overlap problems at Talk:Israel–Hamas war#Elimination of this as a standalone article. Selfstudier (talk) 12:20, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
    Every classification or periodisation involves simplification. I think that this article reflects the way RS treat this conflict. However I don't want to go discuss it here as I don't think that it's likely that such a merge would happen. Alaexis¿question? 21:58, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
    OK, then it seems that per the comment below and in the RFCbefore, if this RFC is actually about specific material then why not just say so? Selfstudier (talk) 10:31, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
We're entering very subjective territory with statements like "urinating on dead Hamas fighters and using insults. This takes a rather expansive view of what constitutes sexual violence". In addition, is not some of the content at Sexual and gender-based violence against Palestinians during the Israel–Hamas war relating to sexual violence against Palestinians captured on Oct 7-8[4]? VR (Please ping on reply) 07:55, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Comment: This RfC is malformed, as it does not address what Alaexis wants to use it for. Their goal is to remove a sentence about sexual violence against Palestinians on 7-8 October 2023, and the RfC does not refer to same. So if option A or B passes, there's no justification for removing that sentence. If Alaexis wants to remove it for whatever reason, and it can't be because of scope, the RfC has to be specifically about that, or we'd have to have yet another one.

The cited report is clear and unambiguous regarding sexual violence and torture against Palestinians are about events from 7 October to 31 December, including cases on 7-8 October The findings in this legal analysis are based primarily on events from 7 October to 31 December 2023 ... The Commission documented cases of sexual violence directed at Palestinian men by Israeli civilians. The Commission collected and verified digital footage of civilian men desecrating the bodies of two Palestinian men in Israel. A video and photograph were published on Telegram on 8 October 2023, showing the dead bodies of two Palestinian men who had been stripped naked, with their heads covered with fabric and what appear to be their military uniforms lying next to them...The digital footage shows two men in civilian clothes urinating on the bodies, one of them kicking one of the bodies repeatedly in the stomach, and a third man kicking the body in the head ... The men are speaking in Hebrew while abusing the bodies, encouraging each other to urinate on the bodies which they claim belong to Hamas militants, while also using gendered and sexualized insults, such as “slut” and “sharmuta” ..., So Alaexis' claim ...neither the UN report nor secondary sources that discuss it state that sexual violence was committed by Israeli forces during the incursion... is not true.

The RfC also does not include reference to the article's mention of the Patten report & its reference to the hostages, which actually does refer to these incidents in the 'broader conflict.' Patten also reported receiving "clear and convincing information" that some of the hostages held by Hamas had suffered rape and sexualized torture and that there were "reasonable grounds" to believe such abuses were "ongoing". I have done my best to WP:AGF throughout this conversation but now that we see the RfC and Alaexis' statement for what they want to use it for, this feels like an attempt to backdoor a particular POV via an RfC, rather than an attempt to resolve the question that's central to the RfC itself. I have offered a simple compromise to resolve the debate without creating a new rule for specifically this article – remove the Patten report reference as its outside the scope of October 7-8 per Alaexis' reasoning - but this was rejected. Smallangryplanet (talk) 12:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

current version

Alaexis, just a heads-up about a possible WP:RELTIME issue regarding the word current in two places in the Rfc question: hopefully no one will change those portions of the article addressed by the Rfc while the Rfc is underway, but if that does occur, there might be some confusion around the use of the word current that could alter !votes, unless you specify which version you mean. I wouldn't change anything now, but maybe you could monitor article changes just to make sure that the question wording remains accurate as the Rfc progresses. If an adjustment becomes necessary, you could specify the version explicitly using a permaink. Mathglot (talk) 20:50, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Changing the content that is subject to an RfC is generally discouraged. But I agree, adding a permalink could be a good idea. Alaexis¿question? 22:07, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Why write an unnecessary subheading in the middle of a discussion for a minor non issue? Seems like shouting. Selfstudier (talk) 10:19, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
It's a standard move in refactoring to promote discussion flow (and wasn't in the middle) but it certainly does not belong as part of the Survey section, so I've moved it to its own subsection below the Discussion. Hope this meets with your approval, and that discussion, and especially !voting, may now resume. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 10:40, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
It wasn't in the survey section, it was just a floating subheading introduced by your self that disturbed the flow of discussion. Anyway, I don't want to enter into a discussion about your non discussion, do try and stay on topic. Selfstudier (talk) 10:45, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Revision of youngest and oldest casualties

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)

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)
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)

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

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)

A question

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)

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)
Thank you Evaporation123 (talk) 17:05, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
Also see Talk:October 7 Hamas-led attack on Israel/Archive 8#MDY date format. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 01:36, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for showing Evaporation123 (talk) 04:22, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Edit request: “Dozens of cases of rape and sexual assault reportedly occurred”

Having to post my edit request a second time because it was unduly removed the first time: I request changing the sentence in the article that says: “Dozens of cases of rape and sexual assault reportedly occurred, but Hamas officials denied the involvement of their fighters.” According to the sources given and to the page Sexual and gender-based violence in the October 7 Hamas-led attack on Israel, “Initially said to be "dozens" by Israeli authorities, they later clarified they could not provide a number”, and it also says that Hamas “has called for an impartial international investigation into the accusations.” Therefore, I ask that this sentence should read “Israeli sources have reported a number of cases of rape and sexual assault, but Hamas officials denied the involvement of their fighters, and has called for an impartial international investigation into the accusations.” Sources are in Sexual and gender-based violence in the October 7 Hamas-led attack on Israel. 2804:214:8824:396B:46E:CE3E:708:1158 (talk) 00:44, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

It's not just Israeli sources, a UN report also found "a pattern indicative of sexual violence" and there are other non-Israeli sources in the article you've linked. Alaexis¿question? 21:00, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Captagon

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)

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)
it doesn't explain anything, it's only there to be misleading and create propaganda. it has to be removed. 2800:810:46C:92E1:C57A:BF79:8105:9F33 (talk) 04:07, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Requested move 11 March 2025

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

The result of the move request was: moved. It's been about two and a half months since this RM was opened and I don’t see any new material being brought forward. Using WP:COMMONNAME we note that the English language coverage now refers to this event as “the October 7 attacks”. BBC, NPR, the New York Times and Reuters all use this phrase without qualifiers when the context is clear. WP:COMMONNAME clearly states that “the name that is most commonly used … in a significant majority of independent, reliable, English-language sources.” Adding either “Hamas-led” or “on Israel” inserts wording that most sources do not carry in their standing headlines or datelines. As the name use has changed since the attack it’s in line with WP:POVNAME to use the proposed name over the current name. Dr vulpes (Talk) 23:05, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

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)

  • 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)
  • 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)
    Also Lean oppose per above.VR (Please ping on reply) 21:28, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
QalasQalas (talk) 13:25, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
No one calls it 10/7... NorthernWinds (talk) 13:16, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
Staunch Oppose I agree with comments of User:Allthemilescombined1 Servite et contribuere (talk) 05:07, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose: in the first few pages of the search term "october 7 attack" I could find maybe 2-3 sources which do not include hamas in the name of the attack. However, I have found plenty who do add them to the name of the attack 123456789101112
Even al Jazeera includes them in the name of the attack in vast majority of articles I found 123456
The change of the name of the attack does not comply with WP:COMMONNAME NorthernWinds (talk) 15:00, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Support, in contrast to the above !vote, in my Google search I found loads that don't mention Hamas when having 7 October in their headlines BBC, NPR, Telegraph, Jerusalem Post, Australian gov., CNN, Sky (UK), France24, The I, even the IDF's own webpage. The above comment from NorthernWinds is misrepresenting sources, al-Jazeera don't include Hamas in their headlines nor prose when referring to the attack, and many of those other links directly contradict their point.
Kowal2701 (talk) 21:09, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
@Kowal2701 I misinterpreted this yesterday, I thought you said I cited all these sources.
Many don't refer to it as such in their titles but they all do in their article - as I said they do. We discussed Al Jazeera sources elsewhere on this page, they do include it in their body and I gave examples to the six sources that qualify here, and didn't pop up due to live updates. these links don't contradict my point, they strengthen it:
NPR "Hamas-led attack on Oct. 7, 2023"
CNN "The October 7, 2023, Hamas terror attacks"
Sky news "the attacks by Hamas on October 7 2023"
france24 "Hamas's October 7 attacks"
BBC "Hamas's 7 October 2023 attack"
Your only source supporting your claim is the Australian government. I have removed accidental entries of "massacre" articles. The list is accurate now, I have removed 3 sources referring to it as "October 7th massacre" - I left in those referring to it as "Hamas's oct7 massacre" or "oct7 massacre by hamas"
my main point was against removing Hamas from the title. it can be there one way or another, but not including it it not WP: COMMONNAME.
about WP:HEADLINES: I think it should apply here, since "The headline writer has a job to attract attention, generate click-bait titles to juice the number of readers, and for search-engine optimization." - wikipedia (to the best of my knowledge) doesn't have policies requiring these, therefore using them as a guide for our titles doesn't make sense NorthernWinds (talk) 05:18, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
Oppose. Stop with the moves already. This move will require dozens of page moves, category moves, navigation template updates. All for little to no real gain. STOP WITH THE MOVES. Gonnym (talk) 17:25, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
Support it is the WP:COMMONNAME now. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 08:53, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
Support: as well per WP:COMMONNAME Lililolol (talk) 19:59, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
  • 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)
    @Stavd3 I'm curious, what's your personal preference? Lililolol (talk) 19:14, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
    1. October 7 attacks
    2. October 7 Hamas attacks
    (biiiiiiig gap)
    3. current article title Stavd3 (talk) 19:18, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
    That formatting didn't come out right at all, you get the picture though Stavd3 (talk) 19:19, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
    At previous discussions, "October 7 attacks" were opposed by several topic-banned pro-Palestinian editors. [5] 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)
    @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)
    @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)
    And, don’t be surprised if the oppressed strikes back at the real aggressor, but anyways Lililolol (talk) 03:13, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
    WP:NOTFORUM. You're igniting conflict as well. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 03:26, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
    @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)
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)
  • 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)
    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)
    Maybe, but another criteria is Precision.
    R1237h (talk) 19:34, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
    @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)
    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)
    ""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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
support pr commonname, Huldra (talk) 20:51, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
Support as it is the WP:COMMONNAME 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 13:07, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
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)
  • Support
Cognsci (talk) 18:18, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
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) sockstrike 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 09:10, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
"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)
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) sockstrike 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 09:10, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
  • 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)
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)
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) sockstrike 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 09:10, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
  • 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)
It has been 1 year and 6 months since 7 October 2023. JasonMacker (talk) 18:57, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
  • 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)
    Chicdat uses Google trends comparisons to make claims about WP:COMMONNAME, which is contrary the guidelines of using reliable sources as our standard (which overwhelmingly specify 'on Israel' or similar in titles).
    Also, the argument is unconvincing because search engines by design encourage people to use abbreviated terms. By CHicdat's logic we should also rename Ice hockey to just "hockey", Allies of World War II to just 'the Allies,' and many others (I saw this analogy elsewhere but it was deleted). Henry.Jones.03021955 (talk) 07:38, 30 April 2025 (UTC) sockstrike 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 09:10, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Support October 7 attacks is the clear COMMONNAME per Chicdat et. al. Closetside (talk) 19:43, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
    do you have sources calling the attack as a whole "october 7 attack" without adding "hamas-led" "hamas's" to the name? NorthernWinds (talk) 20:02, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
    @NorthernWinds No way! Tell me you're joking? Lililolol (talk) 20:12, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
    @Lililolol look above at my vote, you'll find info there NorthernWinds (talk) 20:16, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
    Your sources don't support your point, many of them directly contradict it. Kowal2701 (talk) 21:10, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
    No they don't NorthernWinds (talk) 16:33, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
    Some of the al-Jazeera ones don't even mention "October"! Did you just hope no-one would check? Kowal2701 (talk) 21:18, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
    Hey,
    first of all I do not appreciate your tone, please be mindful and follow WP:GOODFAITH. I used al jazeera's search, which probably included live updates that are... live and dissapeared since. I just went through all of them, the only articles that were there and weren't what I said they were are the ones with the live updates. it's late and I have a problem editing my message. I will fix everything tomorrow, unless you want to do it first, which I would appreciate. the following links are live links that should not be cited: 1234
    so 4 out of the 10 al jazeera links I have provided.
    ps. if you look at this page's history you can look at a response I gave you and have deleted due to editor issues and problem with editing this stuff. I will rewrite it tomorrow properly and fix the rest of the round edges of my initial message.
    Thanks NorthernWinds (talk) 22:41, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
    But the other al-Jazeera ones don’t say “Hamas-led attack” or its equivalent either, and there were others you linked to that didn’t mention Hamas in their headline. The evidence was regarding whether to include Hamas in the title or not Kowal2701 (talk) 22:51, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
    does WP:HEADLINES apply here? NorthernWinds (talk) 22:52, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
    Not sure, but headlines are often used in RMs Kowal2701 (talk) 22:54, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
    I will be honest, I am not sure what you refer to as RMs. This matter of WP:HEADLINES should be discussed and decided upon. Tomorrow, after go I over and fix my list, there should still be a substantial amount of sources supporting the case.
    Tomorrow I will give a fully-fledged response, adressing all sources in your reply to my original vote (and all sources you didn’t mention)
    Thanks for catching my mistakes, I highly appreciate it NorthernWinds (talk) 23:21, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
    The rest of the al jazeera articles do it in the article itself:
    1 "october 7 hamas attack"
    2 "hamas-led oct 7"
    3 " Hamas attack on October 7"
    4 "attack led by the Palestinian group Hamas on October 7, 2023"
    5 "October 7 attack by Hamas"
    6"Hamas's October 7 attacks" NorthernWinds (talk) 23:01, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
    Bruh sorry thanks for the alert. I worded things terribly. It's fixed now. It should make sense now after I fixed it NorthernWinds (talk) 20:22, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
    I'm confused why Chicdat's google hits argument is convincing to you (and others). People abbreviate things on Google, and from my read, while concision is a title guideline it certainly isn't dominant to supercede specificity where RS tend to be more specific. Otherwise the title of every article would be the shortest possible (combination of) keyword(s) describing the subject, because that's what people google.
    I've done a fairly thorough skim of sources on this article and the ones who don't have "Hamas attack", "on Israel" or similar a/pre-pended to "Oct 7 attacks" seem to fall firmly in the minority. NorthernWinds compiled these above. I am firmly in oppose camp for these reasons too. Henry.Jones.03021955 (talk) 07:46, 30 April 2025 (UTC) sockstrike 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 09:10, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
    Came across this Reuters article in my Reddit feed today and had to check the verbiage. Usage was "The law, which was approved by parliament last December and came in the wake of Hamas' attack on Israel on October 7, 2023, gives Swiss authorities..."
    An excellent example of how the attacks are referred to in tangentially-related sources. If "October 7 Attack" was the common name we'd see 9/11 style "the law, which came in the wake of the October 7 attacks, gives Swiss authorities..." Henry.Jones.03021955 (talk) 20:58, 2 May 2025 (UTC) sockstrike 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 09:10, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Strong support as per reasons mentioned above DonBeroni (talk) 21:07, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Support. Proposed title is unambiguous, recognisable, neutral with regard to POV, and common. Ticks all the boxes. The existing title is imprecise but will of course remain as a redirect. Andrewa (talk) 01:51, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Strong Support: Per above reasoning (Most notably WP:COMMONNAME and the reasoning of User:Howardcorn33). I would also say breaking out of the naming convention (eg September 11 attacks) shows a political motivation in the naming of this article. Edit: Put my response to the bottom, I dont know why it was placed somewhere in the middle :O:222emilia222 (talk) 11:54, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Support: Anecdotally, I hear it referred to as simply "October 7th" far more than anything else. Wikipedia does not work on anecdotes, but it has been sufficiently demonstrated that "October 7 attacks" is the WP:COMMONNAME. This title is neutral; September 11 attacks still carries the weight of what happened on 9/11, as does the proposed title to this article. Drawing additional parallels to the 9/11 article, it has been mentioned that there have been other notable attacks on September 11 of other years, but a disambiguation has done the job. Both 9/11 and October 7th are known widely by their dates, both could technically be referencing other far less notable attacks, and both fit the proposed naming convention. I think it is also important to note to any readers that most attempts to support the requirement of "Hamas" in the title have come from a user who is now topic-banned from this article. violetwtf (talk) 23:00, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Strong Support per WP:COMMONNAME. The date itself has now become associated in common parlance and in media with this attack, so no additional qualifier is necessary. The current title is awkward and highly unlikely to be what the reader types in when searching for the article. Consistency is also important - we have an article called September 11 attacks as opposed to “September 11 Al Qaeda-led attack on the United States”, there’s no reason to deviate here. FlipandFlopped ㋡ 18:33, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:COMMONNAME. إيان (talk) 09:00, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Oppose While I don't necessarily support the current title either, there have been plenty of valid sources that distinguish this particular October 7th attack by its association with Hamas and/or Israel. As such, I don't see a clear WP:COMMONNAME argument for just the October 7th title. We also have to be mindful of WP:RECENTISM. While there have been comparisons to the 9/11 attacks, I don't think it's likely that this attack will ever be historically referred to as just the 10/7 attack, October 7th attack, etc. When taking future readers into consideration, it's going to be a much easier to distinguish which attacks are being referenced if the perpetrator (Hamas), place (Israel), or both are mentioned. If it's a suitable compromise for anyone, I'd suggest something like October 7 attacks on Israel. Garsh (talk) 19:41, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. I think the current title is good enough and doesn't need anything, and Gonnym's opinion from almost a month ago (as of writing) makes clear that we probably should stop with the moves for a bit. I do see the arguments for both sides, and I think that if I saw a much more overwhelming consensus in RS's that October 7 alone without Hamas-led or Hamas in the name of the attack, I'd likely change my opinion, but in cases like 9/11 or January 6, October 7 hasn't cut it to the same degree yet. A small part of me thinks that there is a political motivation as well, but I'm not as strictly convinced on that as some other editors. Regardless, given that this is involving the crown jewel of contentious topics, including Hamas since they undeniably were the leading force behind it and furthermore seen as the leaders by some of the other sources mentioned here, even if they aren't in the absolute majority of sources, it's still a sizable minority enough. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 15:26, 25 May 2025 (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.

revert 4 June 2025

Chicdat, what is your issue with these changes? Why are they controversial? إيان (talk) 12:31, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict) They should probably be discussed first, is the only reason why. Sure, we can go through them:
  • The image, I support. There aren't that many images in the article, and that one is a little easier on the eye than all the blood and gore later on.
  • broke out from the blockade of the Gaza Strip. I'm not positive, but I don't believe sources generally emphasise this portion of the attacks (the breakout). You compared that to the Simchat Torah reference – that is covered in many sources. The word "blockaded" linked to the article, allows readers interested in that aspect of the attacks to do so.
  • the first invasion of Israeli territory since the 1948 Arab–Israeli War. Yes it is true that from a strictly technical standpoint that there was no Israeli territory until the 1949 armistice agreements, but Israel de facto became a country the day of their Declaration of Independence (upon which the League immediately invaded). Palestine is not de jure a country, not being a UN member state, but we would still describe the Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip as an invasion of Palestinian territory. This fact is mentioned in many sources.
Feel free to re-add the image as we continue discussing the rest. Chicdat (talk) 12:48, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for this good outline for discussion and for your go-ahead for the image. For the other two points:
  • broke out from the blockade of the Gaza Strip. This is prominent in sources with sympathy for the Palestinians. Early on, for example, authoritative scholars Rashid Khalidi and Joseph Massad, as well as the prominent Palestinian journalist Mariam Barghouti, have emphasized the surprising aspect of the 'jailbreak' from Gaza. There is also broader coverage (popular and academic) addressing the massive Israeli military and intelligence failure to contain/stop Hamas and prevent the October 7 attacks out of Gaza. The Simhat Torah detail is prominent in pro-Israel sources. I mentioned that detail in the lead to clarify the need for balance per NPOV.
  • the first invasion of Israeli territory since the 1948 Arab–Israeli War. As the claim is (technically) incorrect, it should not appear in the first paragraph, completely devoid of context. The matter should be treated with nuance in the body where the technicalities and de facto and de jure circumstances can be dutifully and responsibly elaborated. Otherwise it is deceptive and misleading.
إيان (talk) 21:16, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
If there is significant sourcing discussing the blockade in reference to the attacks, it could be discussed in more depth somewhere in the article (currently it is briefly mentioned, but only in a position attributed to Hamas.) However, adding it straight to the first sentence of the lead seems like a stretch. See MOS:FIRST - the first sentence should have the most basic dry summary of the subject necessary to orient nonspecialist readers who may not know eg. what the attack is at all; its purpose isn't to present all the various perspectives on the subject. We also do have to be wary of WP:FALSEBALANCE - the fact that sources with sympathy for the Palestinians say something doesn't make it due; what matters is how much coverage it gets overall. What I would suggest doing is expanding on it in the body first with the best available source (possibly using one of the places where it is briefly mentioned already as a starting point for expansion.) Then, based on what you find source-wise and can justify in the body, we could revisit whether this requires more prominent treatment in the lead (and especially whether it should be more than just something attributed to Hamas.) Regarding the first invasion of Israeli territory since the 1948 Arab–Israeli War, I don't think that wording is actually wrong (it is true regardless of whether the war was an invasion of Israeli territory), but if people are concerned about the possible implication we could just reword it to something like the first invasion of Israeli territory since the founding of Israel, which is basically saying the same thing in every important respect but avoids the implication because clearly the reader will understand that Israel could not be invaded before it was founded. (Though, we might want to avoid that wikilink because it redirects to the declaration of independence, which re-introduces the problem.) I think that some phrasing of that point belongs in the first paragraph of the lead, since it captures an important part of the subject's notability. --Aquillion (talk) 21:30, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 June 2025

Remove "Less than two months before the attacks, King Abdullah II of Jordan lamented that Palestinians had "no civil rights; no freedom of mobility"." from the warnings section, as this seems to be a more general statement rather than a warning. EightAndNine (talk) 21:20, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

 Done Cannolis (talk) 03:45, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Edit request 23 June 2025

Dead Hamas belligerent commanders aren't marked with  † symbols. Or at least it doesn't show that they're dead and didn't command parts of the war anymore.

2D Is Better Than 3D (talk) 12:26, 23 June 2025 (UTC)--2D Is Better Than 3D (talk) 12:26, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: The dagger symbol is intended to denote that someone was killed in action during the October 7 attacks, not later on like the Hamas commanders were. Day Creature (talk) 17:27, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Infobox edit request, July 2, 2025

Currently the Infobox lists the “Result” of the October 7 attacks as a “tactical victory”; this is a misrepresentation of the source cited, which characterized the attacks merely as a “tactical success.” In American English, the word “victory” most commonly carries a connotation of a decisive victory in a battle or war, which the October 7 attacks were not in any traditionally understood sense of the word; the October 7 attacks were terrorist attacks against unarmed civilians, not a proper “battle” or “war” between military or even paramilitary combatants. Request changing the “Result” from the current misleading wording (“Hamas tactical victory”) to a more objective, more neutral-POV “1195 Israelis and foreign nationals killed; start of the Gaza War”  —Arrandale Westmere (talk) 03:06, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. The October 7 attacks were to a significant extent a military confrontation between Hamas fighters and the IDF, in addition to the attacks on civilians that took place. The terminology used is plainly appropriate. Day Creature (talk) 06:33, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Edit request 05 July 2025

In the introduction, it is said that "Dozens of cases of rape and sexual assault reportedly occurred, but Hamas officials denied the involvement of their fighters." but the sources given use very different language: “Initially said to be "dozens" by Israeli authorities, they later clarified they could not provide a number” (...) “Hamas has called for an impartial international investigation into the accusations.” - therefore, I propose the following change:

Diff:

−
Dozens of cases of rape and sexual assault reportedly occurred, but Hamas officials denied the involvement of their fighters.
+
Israeli authorities have reported cases of rape and sexual assault – initially said to be "dozens" by Israeli authorities, who later clarified they could not provide a number – but Hamas officials denied the involvement of their fighters, and have called for an impartial international investigation into the accusations.” The militants involved in the attack are accused of having committed acts of [[Gender-related violence|gender-based violence]], war crimes, and [[crimes against humanity]]. Hamas has denied that its fighters committed any sexual assaults, and has called for an impartial international investigation into the accusations.

2804:214:8191:FA03:585A:B5F2:146:E514 (talk) 20:23, 5 July 2025 (UTC) 2804:214:8191:FA03:585A:B5F2:146:E514 (talk) 20:23, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

References

  1. ^
    • Gettleman, Sella & Schwartz 2023: "Meni Binyamin, the head of the International Crime Investigations Unit of the Israeli police, has said that "dozens" of women and some men were raped by Hamas militants on Oct. 7."
    • McKernan 2024a: "Israel's top police investigations unit, Lahav 433...says it is unable to put a number on how many women and girls suffered gender-based violence."
  2. ^
  3. ^ Williamson, Lucy (5 December 2023). "Israel Gaza: Hamas raped and mutilated women on 7 October, BBC hears". BBC News. Retrieved 7 December 2023.
  4. ^ Rubin 2023.
  5. ^ Lubell, Mayan (5 December 2023). "Israeli accounts of sexual violence by Hamas rise but justice is remote". Reuters. Retrieved 14December 2023. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |access-date= (help)
  6. ^ Fossum, Jack; Fossum, Sam (10 December 2023). "Blinken calls sexual violence inflicted by Hamas 'beyond anything I've seen'". CNN. Archived from the original on 14 December 2023. Retrieved 14 December 2023.
 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. SI09 (talk) 10:21, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Edit request 10 July 2025

Description of suggested change:

In the 'Attacks' subsection, I refute the terminology used here; "6,000 Palestinian militants and civilians infiltrated Israel from Gaza breaching the border in 119 places.". Frankly, anyone that enters a country with the intention of violence, cannot be described as a civilian in any capacity. I recommend amending this article to retain Wikipedia's position of unbiased description of events.

Sincerely,

An individual directly affected by the 07/10/23 attacks.

Diff:

−
ORIGINAL_TEXT
+
CHANGED_TEXT

2A0A:EF40:D2D:7301:9EC:C6F0:91D1:8DD3 (talk) 06:11, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. Dahawk04 (talk) 12:44, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:36, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Edit request

In the summary, the article states "At least 14 Israelis were killed by the Hannibal directive" however the subsequent articles describes a much higher confirmed number, stemming from multiple incidents. This seems internally contradictory. 209.227.145.83 (talk) 14:18, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

 Not done This is not a specific change. Please review WP:EDITREQ. --Yamla (talk) 17:32, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

All Hamas leaders listed are dead

The killed in action and assassinated symbols should be added next to the names of the hamas leaders in the info box, considering they’ve all been killed or assassinated since october 7th 70.59.78.148 (talk) 21:04, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

 Done Good point, thanks! Lova Falk (talk) 14:35, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
PS I chose KIA for Yahya Sinwar but I am very unsure about this. Maybe assassinated is more accurate? Lova Falk (talk) 14:39, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
Yes, but confirmed per sources. Absolutiva 21:40, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
My understanding is the infobox is supposed to indicate who died in the battle. The Hamas leaders were killed later in the war, not during the October 7 attacks. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 16:14, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
All of them were actually assassinated, most likely because of their role in this attack. But I won't revert your undoing. Lova Falk (talk) 06:52, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

This Wikipedia article quotes a figure of 36 children killed, but the reference given says 38.

I haven't seen any explaination of this, so I'm going to presume it was an error and change the child death toll from 36 to 38 to match the figure in the reference (38 children were killed, 20 orphaned on Oct. 7: 'The state did not pass the test of protecting them' | The Times of Israel - 'According to data released by Israel National Council for the Child, 38 children were killed in Israel on October 7 during the Hamas-led terrorist onslaught.' - Times of Israel). If the actual child death toll is in fact 36, and not 38, please change it back and provide a reference to support the 36 figure. MathewMunro (talk) 04:59, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:52, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Edit request 2 September 2025 Change charges of "genocide" to "possible genocide"

The citations for the genocide claim all say "possible genocide"

Change "According to several international law and genocide studies experts, Hamas' assault amounted to genocide.[58][59][60]"

to

"According to several international law and genocide studies experts, Hamas' assault possibly amounted to genocide.[59][60]" Remove source 58 as that source covers both Gaza and the Israeli response.


Diff:

−
"According to several international law and genocide studies experts, Hamas' assault amounted to genocide.[58][59][60]"
+
"According to several international law and genocide studies experts, Hamas' assault possibly amounted to genocide.[59][60]"

Mcdruid (talk) 23:25, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. A potentially controversial change of this nature will require consensus first. I will note that the sources do not say "possible genocide": the letter the sources are reporting on refers to the attacks as "most probably constitut[ing] an international crime of genocide." Day Creature (talk) 12:23, 3 September 2025 (UTC)
At best, it should be "probable genocide" then. Note that ref 58 does not support that at all, and refs 59 and 60 refer to the same report. Mcdruid (talk) 21:08, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
Source 58 literally says: "The massacres by Hamas constituted acts of genocide." - not probable genocide. Lova Falk (talk) 14:51, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 September 2025

Background section: Israel unilaterally withdrew from the Gaza Strip in 2005. While they control the borders and airspace, they are not actively occupying Gaza. Sources: https://www.britannica.com/event/Israels-disengagement-from-Gaza, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_disengagement_from_the_Gaza_Strip, https://www.un.org/unispal/history/ GallopingSheep9 (talk) 18:35, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

 Not done Quoting the template, "the request must be of the form "please change X to Y"." --Yamla (talk) 19:49, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 October 2025

Change "per Israel" to "per Israeli" in the section about the strength of the relative sides. Ranger08 (talk) 23:27, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: In the infobox? that doesn't make sense. Cannolis (talk) 03:16, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Edit Request for the casualty count on the Israeli side

The 1195 figure, when followed up via the source, shows 815 civilian deaths and 379 security forces. These numbers cannot produce 1195 when added, since two odd numbers must add up to an even number. I propose that either the number be edited to the correct sum, or be replaced by two separate entries, or the linked source be edited 129.97.60.173 (talk) 01:04, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 October 2025

Gaza was not occupied after 2005, when Israel withdrew its forces and forcibly evacuated its citizens. Zindrinker (talk) 22:33, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

 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. Day Creature (talk) 22:37, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Important new investigation

For review: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/11/world/middleeast/israel-hamas-plans.html BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:29, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Edit request 16 October 2025

Description of suggested change:

Redundant and obsolete, there is already an entire section on the hostages.

Diff:

−
The details of the hostages' whereabouts and conditions are not publicly known.
+

StainlessSteelScorpion (talk) 18:51, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

 Done Day Creature (talk) 21:09, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Nova music festival Edit needed

Change

The attacks began with a barrage of at least 4,300 rockets launched into Israel and vehicle-transported and powered paraglider incursions into Israel,


Change to

The attacks began with a barrage of at least 4,300 rockets launched into Israel and vehicle-transported and powered paraglider incursions into Israel, landing militants into the Nova Music Festival where the attack commenced. The event was attended by citizens of over 45 different countries.

https://news.sky.com/story/terror-cannot-beat-us-nova-music-festival-founders-on-surviving-october-7-and-their-hopes-for-peace-13448416 79.152.119.161 (talk) 06:39, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Edit Request

Please change 'invasion of Israeli territory since the 1948 Arab–Israeli War, initiated the ongoing Gaza war.' To 'invasion of Israeli territory since the 1948 Arab–Israeli War, escalated the ongoing Gaza war.' 62.49.254.93 (talk) 12:36, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

 Not done The specific Gaza war in question is the one that started on October 7, 2023. You seem to be talking about the broader Gaza–Israel conflict. --Yamla (talk) 12:45, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
Gaza was still considered occupied by the United Nations and international courts. Transforming it from a fascist-colonial apartheid ethnic ghetto into a concentration camp is not liberation. There's no clearer example of why it was considered under occupation than the murderous interception of the aid flotillas. MathewMunro (talk) 06:20, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Edit the section "Commanders"

Please, edit the section "Commanders & leaders" in the article: Sinwar, Daif and others mentioned there are dead, so their names should be marked by the cross symbol as it is in the case of deceased Israeli officers and colonels mentioned. Not providing this might be misleading to the readers and biased. Thank you! 46.135.10.144 (talk) 06:50, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

I have done just that (quite a while ago) and was immediately reverted by an editor who said that they were not killed during the attacks and therefore there should not be cross symbols. I am happy to do this again, because I agree it is good information that all of them are dead, but only if there is consensus about this. Lova Falk (talk) 08:20, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
you mean symbol for `killed in action` ? killed in action is when they are killed in active combat or military engagement. but killing of a specific individual, often for political or symbolic reasons is assassination Cinaroot (talk) 05:22, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Cinaroot Wouldn't killed in action suggest that they were killed during the October 7 attacks (which they were not)? (Raised here purely as a question, without taking a position.) Lova Falk (talk) 12:44, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Proposed removal of possible propaganda site

I propose to remove the link to saturday-october-seven.com on the bottom of the page as it seems to be part of a propaganda campaign by Netanyahu.

See these articles for context:

Laura240406 (talk) 18:49, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

 Done M.Bitton (talk) 19:09, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
Nothing here indicates that it is a propaganda site, just that Netanyahu is encouraging people to open the link and see the atrocities. The link has been there for a year a half and it should be restored. Nehushtani (talk) 06:06, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
The Jerusalem Post article I linked clearly states: The QR code is part of a broader Israeli public-diplomacy push in New York this week. Dozens of billboard trucks and digital screens near the UN headquarters.
Also, the site is also just a gore site that hosts material that is very likely a copyright violation as it hosts videos produced by Hamas fighters on October 7th.
The New York times article I linked states: Some of the images and videos on the website appear to have been taken by attackers during the Oct. 7 assault.
WP:COPYVIOEL states: If there is reason to believe that a website has a copy of a work in violation of its copyright, do not link to it
Linking to the site would be along the lines of linking to an "October 7th" category on LiveLeak. Laura240406 (talk) 07:06, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
Does this also apply to the few links in the External links section that feature similar footage? Paprikaiser (talk) 21:53, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
I don't know what's in the films or anything about these websites, but looking it up... anything taken by Hamas is not under copyright I don't think... it says at Berne Convention that Palestine is not a signatory. See List of parties to international treaties protecting rights related to copyright... Fair or not, Palestine is apparently not a member of the World Trade Organization so I don't think they are signatories to any of the copyright conventions. If "Hamas" is a separate entity from "Palestine" they also are not a signatory I would assume. If the camera operators were operating as part of an army, the copyright devolves to the army in all cases I have heard of or can imagine. However, Hamas fighters were arguably irregulars and/or Hamas might simply not have a written protocol covering this, or the camera operators were independent freelancers (seems unlikely), so maybe not, but then the copyright would presumably devolve to the actual camera operator, who is presumably kept anonymous on purpose and I mean "© by Anonymous" is not a thing.
If the camera operators were working for a separate news organization, that might be different, but we'd want to see a copyright notice "copyright by [news organization]" where they were first posted. Is there such a thing? (Also, the films were made on Israeli territory, so they might not be copyrightable under some Israeli law such as no freedom of panorama or whatever). All in all, the burden of proof would be on a person wanting to make the pretty unlikely (IMO) claim that they're under a valid copyright, and absent that I think we're safe to assume they're not. My 2c. Herostratus (talk) 22:56, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Type of infobox?

Currently the article uses Template:Infobox military conflict. Shouldn't it use Template:Infobox civilian attack? Has this been discussed previously? Placeholderer (talk) 11:16, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

They attacked military and civilian targets so I'm not sure it matters much, unless one infobox is technically better than the other in terms of attributes. Sean.hoyland (talk) 11:36, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
The attack targeted security forces (Police + military). Police stations and military bases were overrun and taken over. To use the "civilian attack" infobox would be misleading (are military bases going to be counted as part of this "civilian" attack?). JasonMacker (talk) 14:32, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
I guess there was "battle" involved, which is mentioned in the documentation for Template:Infobox military conflict. So that is a good reason to keep it the current way Placeholderer (talk) 16:24, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Random article about Syria under "see also"

What it says on the tin. Without explanation, the "see also" section links to a random article about the Syrian Civil War, which should probably just be deleted. JamieRagins (talk) 08:21, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

minus Removed. Yep, good point, I don't know what that's doing there. I've also removed September 11 attacks from See also. Other than being carried out by Islamic people and both of them being attacks that took place on a date, there's no real link.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:31, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

"Oct 7th" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Oct 7th has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 November 22 § Oct 7th until a consensus is reached. Thepharoah17 (talk) 10:08, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

"Oct 7th." listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Oct 7th. has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 November 22 § Oct 7th. until a consensus is reached. ArthananWarcraft (talk) 10:37, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Relevance of Simchat Torah

The article's introduction mentions that it coincided with Simchat Torah. I would argue that this should either be moved elsewhere in the article or deleted entirely as a) I have seen no real evidence that this timing was deliberate and b) other Jews may disagree, but at least from my secular American Jewish perspective Simchat Torah is not a major holiday. The way things stand it reads a bit to me like if an article about an attack on a majority-Catholic state opened by stating that it occurred on a minor saint's day in order to make it appear religiously motivated. JamieRagins (talk) 09:59, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

It should remain as is. Simchat Torah is a major holiday, many Israeli Jews were not on their phones, and it's hard to imagine that it was not a factor in trying to delay the response. Nehushtani (talk) 10:04, 24 November 2025 (UTC)
Any WP:RS you'd like to cite? إيان (talk) 11:05, 24 November 2025 (UTC)
See here (determined to be RS in this discussion), here and here (RS per this discussion). There was also significant discussion about how to celebrate the holiday the next year, see here and here. Nehushtani (talk) 11:19, 24 November 2025 (UTC)
None of this provides any material evidence that the timing was deliberate. JamieRagins (talk) 19:04, 24 November 2025 (UTC)
The article doesn't claim it was deliberate. The question is whether the day should be in the lead. I'd say yes, because (as we mention in the body, with sources) the Simchat Torah massacre is a quite common name for the events in Jewish sources. BobFromBrockley (talk) 23:04, 24 November 2025 (UTC)
That type of discussion belongs under the "Name" section, not in the very first sentence of the article. JamieRagins (talk) 23:13, 24 November 2025 (UTC)
Agreed. I believe it is pertinent information in understanding the event from an Israeli perspective and should remain as is. Nehushtani (talk) 06:47, 25 November 2025 (UTC)