Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 23:22, 6 January 2025

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the October 7 Hamas-led attack on Israel article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Misplaced Pages is not censored. Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to some readers, to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to Misplaced Pages's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content and options for not seeing an image.

view · edit Frequently asked questions Q: Why is the attack not marked as a "Hamas victory" or "Israeli victory"? A: After a long discussion involving over 40 editors, it was decided that the result of the attack has no consensus. In the discussion, there was a split consensus for the attack being a "Hamas victory" and for the attack's result being "Inconclusive".

This article was nominated for deletion on 13 October 2023. The result of the discussion was keep.

Yakhini massacre was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 23 November 2023 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into October 7 Hamas-led attack on Israel. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

Ein HaShlosha massacre was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 10 December 2023 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into October 7 Hamas-led attack on Israel. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Crime and Criminal Biography: Serial, mass, and spree killers / Terrorism High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Serial Killer task force (assessed as High-importance). This article is supported by the Terrorism task force (assessed as High-importance). Death Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Islam: Islam and Controversy Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Islam and Controversy task force. Israel High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Project Israel To Do: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Assess : Rate the Unassessed Israel-related articles and Unknown-importance Israel-related articles. Cleanup : Cleanup listing for this project is available. See also the list by category and the tool's wiki page. Collaborate : Participate in WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration. Copyedit : Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in 2005 Deletion sorting : Participate in discussions at WikiProject Deletion sorting/Israel. Expand : Ayala Procaccia, Diamond industry in Israel, Edna Arbel, Levin Kipnis, Rami Kleinstein, Sephardic Haredim, Zman Tel Aviv, Nachum Heiman, Public Defence (Israel), Prisoner of Zion, Trial of Benjamin Netanyahu, Day to Mark the Departure and Expulsion of Jews from the Arab Countries and Iran, Pre-Modern Aliyah See also Articles needing translation from Hebrew Misplaced Pages. Geographical coordinates : Add geographic coordinates to Israel articles missing geocoordinate data. Infobox : Add infoboxes to Israel articles needing infoboxes. Maintain : See Israel articles needing attention. Map : See discussion at Module:Location map/data/Israel. Add maps to articles in Misplaced Pages requested maps in Israel. NPOV : Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries Photo : Add pictures to articles in Misplaced Pages requested photographs in Israel. Stubs : See Israel stubs. Update : Basic Law proposal: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People Other : Translate to Hebrew : David Bar-Hayim, Guy Bavli, and Guy Oseary. Israel Palestine Collaboration This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration, a collaborative, bipartisan effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. For guidelines and a participants list see the project page. See also {{Palestine-Israel enforcement}}, the ArbCom-authorized discretionary sanctions, the log of blocks and bans, and Working group on ethnic and cultural edit wars. You can discuss the project at its talk page.Israel Palestine CollaborationWikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine CollaborationTemplate:WikiProject Israel Palestine CollaborationIsrael Palestine Collaboration Jewish history Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish history on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Jewish historyWikipedia:WikiProject Jewish historyTemplate:WikiProject Jewish historyJewish history-related Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: Asian / Middle East / Post-Cold War This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Asian military history task force Middle Eastern military history task force Post-Cold War task force Palestine Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Misplaced Pages. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations: Steve Apfel (June 28, 2024). "A legend for Jewish advocacy fell into a hole it dug for itself". Israel National News. On its page for the October 7 attacks Wiki respects the removal from its charter of, "antisemitic language and shifting focus from Jews to Zionists." Benjamin Hart (December 2, 2024). "Jimmy Wales on Why Misplaced Pages Is Still So Good". Intelligencer. AI has gotten to be quite good at multiple languages, and what I did use it for is to compare pages in English, Hebrew, and Arabic about the October 7 Hamas attack. That was super-interesting, and I found it very useful. It basically said the English one is very, very neutral and the others tend to take one side or the other.

Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. Parts of this article relate to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing the parts of the page related to the contentious topic: You must be logged-in to an extended confirmed account (granted automatically to accounts with 500 edits and an age of 30 days) You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on this article (except in limited circumstances) Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. If it is unclear which parts of the page are related to this contentious topic, the content in question should be marked within the wiki text by an invisible comment. If no comment is present, please ask an administrator for assistance. If in doubt it is better to assume that the content is covered.

This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination. Discussions: Article redirected before RM was completed, 7 October 2023, from Operation Al-Aqsa Flood to October 2023 Gaza-Israel clashes, see discussion. Moved, 20 November 2023, from 2023 Hamas attack on Israel to 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel, see discussion. Not moved, 26 January 2024, from 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel to 7 October attacks, see discussion. Moved, 15 June 2024, from 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel to 7 October Hamas-led attack on Israel, see discussion. Not moved, 11 October 2024, to 7 October attacks, see discussion. Moved, 22 December 2024, from 7 October Hamas-led attack on Israel to October 7 Hamas-led attack on Israel, see discussion.

Section sizes Section size for October 7 Hamas-led attack on Israel (49 sections) Section name Byte count Section total (Top) 32,359 32,359 Name 6,804 6,804 Background 9,742 32,402 Warnings 1,545 1,545 Events leading to the attack 7,498 7,498 Operational planning 8,233 8,233 Israeli intelligence failure 5,384 5,384 Attacks 2,586 121,434 Participating and supporting organizations 4,201 4,201 Rocket fire 4,426 4,426 Incursions into southern Israel 60,875 98,866 Nova music festival 8,714 8,714 Kfar Aza 1,443 1,443 Be'eri 8,182 8,182 Yakhini 4,309 4,309 Ein HaShlosha 5,143 5,143 Psyduck music festival 1,183 1,183 Re'im military base 2,989 2,989 Nir Am 2,127 2,127 Ofakim 3,081 3,081 Rahat 820 820 Failed plans 1,411 1,411 Hostages taken 8,326 8,326 Varying Narratives about the attacks 1,618 1,618 Casualties 25,401 34,743 Identification of remains 2,553 2,553 Revision of casualty numbers 6,789 6,789 Reported atrocities 107 54,053 Sexual violence 20,457 20,457 Torture and mutilation 22,804 22,804 Unsubstantiated reports of beheaded babies and children 9,708 9,708 Use of hostages as human shields 977 977 Israeli counterattack 4,934 17,720 Friendly fire and use of the Hannibal Directive 12,786 12,786 Reactions 16 41,058 Allegations of genocide 3,278 3,278 Palestinian response 30 14,486 Hamas 6,653 6,653 Palestinian Authority 4,126 4,126 Palestinian public opinion 3,677 3,677 Israeli response 6,384 15,197 Capture and interrogation of militants 7,001 7,001 Arab Israelis 1,812 1,812 International 8,081 8,081 See also 299 299 Further reading 223 223 Notes 798 798 References 30 30 External links 1,292 1,292 Total 343,215 343,215

Reference ideas for October 7 Hamas-led attack on IsraelThe following references may be useful when improving this article in the future: "Detailed findings on attacks carried out on and after 7 October 2023 in Israel" (PDF). OHCHR Human Rights Council: Fifty-sixth session. United Nations. Retrieved 20 August 2024. Rubin, Shira; Dadouch, Sarah; Hendrix, Steve (October 16, 2023). "How Hamas's carefully planned Israel attack devolved into a chaotic rampage". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on October 16, 2023. Retrieved October 17, 2023. See #Hamas Document below. (but this is actually a statement from Abbas' PA) https://twitter.com/pmofa/status/1710630801379922370

Attribution of sexual violence in the lede

This edit misleads the reader into thinking that the claims of sexual violence come only from the Israeli side, specifically the Israeli police. This is definitely not the case, the latest UN report says that There are reasonable grounds to believe that conflict-related sexual violence — including rape and gang-rape — occurred across multiple locations of Israel and the Gaza periphery during the attacks on 7 October 2023 and that The team also found convincing information that sexual violence was committed against hostages, and has reasonable grounds to believe that such violence may still be ongoing against those in captivity. While there are reasonable grounds to believe that conflict-related sexual violence occurred in the Nova music festival site, Route 232, and kibbutz Re’im. The report doesn't mention the Israeli police at all.

The CNN article based on the report also says 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..

We should use these reports based on an independent investigation in the lede, rather than claims made by the Israeli police in the aftermath of the October 7 attack. Alaexis_¿question? 09:25, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

@Alaexis I mean, if you want to have this discussion, this edit misleads the reader into thinking that the claims of sexual violence have no particular source at all. I've added the CNN ref back to the article here, while not omitting the RS-backed information about the Israeli police. Smallangryplanet (talk) 09:49, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for adding it. There is an issue with the text you've added though.

This article is about the 7 October attack. There are no claims in the UN report or the CNN article that there was sexual violence against Palestinians during this attack. It happened later and is mentioned in many other articles but it clearly doesn't belong here. Alaexis_¿question? 09:59, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Sure, but the CNN article is describing the UN report, which was written after 7 October. Nothing we can do about that. Smallangryplanet (talk) 10:21, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

The article says clearly 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. The actions by Israel, described in the Sexual violence and inflammatory rhetoric paragraph did not happen during the initial attack but rather after the invasion of Gaza. Alaexis_¿question? 14:41, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Sure, but the next sentence is The commission had also reviewed rape testimonies collected by journalists and Israeli police but said it was unable to independently verify these due to lack of access to the victims or crime sites, and because Israel obstructed its investigations. I don't mind adding that (it's important information!) but it seems like a lot to introduce in the lead. Smallangryplanet (talk) 16:00, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

That's exactly the reason why I made this edit leaving only the information supported by independent sources in the lede. Alaexis_¿question? 21:51, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

I think that it's better to keep facts which are known with higher certainty in the lede. Things that could not be independently verified should be in the body of the article, with proper attribution.

Some claims made in the aftermath of the attack may not have lasting significance and we can remove them if we have more reliable data.

We should summarise the key points of the report related to the October 7 attack in the lede and we can discuss the details in the body of the article. Alaexis_¿question? 22:01, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Alaexis. Andre🚐 22:05, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

@Alaexis @AndreJustAndre okay, I've updated the lead to only refer to the parts of the report that discuss October 7. Smallangryplanet (talk) 09:29, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I've changed the wording a bit. The part about the inability to independently verify the allegations of rape refers to item 26 of the original report. The sentence about sexual violence is based on item 25 of the report in which they describe how they obtained and verified the evidence. As I said earlier, I think that we should only mention verified findings in the lede. Alaexis_¿question? 21:29, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

In that case we should remove any reference to this story at all, since the finding is not verified. (Which your edit implied was the case.) Instead, the commission writes However, the Commission documented cases indicative of sexual violence perpetrated against women and men..., but stops short of ever saying they were confirmed. My edit and description was accurate, matching both the body of this article and the text of the article specifically dedicated to the topic in question. Smallangryplanet (talk) 21:39, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree with @Smallangryplanet per the edit summary, and don't think it will be helpful to add more information to the lede on this to cover all the nuances that are already on the main page and in the body. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 21:44, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Looks like @Raskolnikov.Rev got to the revert first and for largely the same reasons. I'll also add that section 25 does say that one thing was verified - namely verified digital evidence concerning the restraining of women - but does not extend the same phrasing to the other pieces of evidence it describes. Smallangryplanet (talk) 21:46, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I have removed the reference to the Israeli police from the lead. Hopefully we can consider this matter closed? @Alaexis Smallangryplanet (talk) 22:15, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Sexual violence

This is what the report says (item 25)

The CNN summarised it as 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 which is a good summary. We should use a similar wording in the lede. Alaexis_¿question? 21:48, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

@Raskolnikov.Rev, this doesn't resolve the issue. If we're mentioning the claims made by the Israeli police, we should definitely mention the findings of the UN report. Alaexis_¿question? 21:36, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Rape

This is what the report says (item 26)

The CNN article says that The commission had also reviewed rape testimonies collected by journalists and Israeli police but said it was unable to independently verify these due to lack of access to the victims or crime sites, and because Israel obstructed its investigations which is also a fairly good summary. The level of certainly is much lower. Here they were unable to verify the evidence while in the previous item they explicitly write that they verified it. I'm fine with either omitting it from the lede or making clear that the evidence for this is weaker. Alaexis_¿question? 21:48, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Per my earlier response of avoiding having to add too much information to capture all these nuances (like the distinction between sexual violence and rape), I think it would be best to omit it, so I've gone ahead and done that. I also noted that my revert was for the footnote you added and not your edit, so that also fixes that. If @Smallangryplanet is also fine with that then it's resolved. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 21:56, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Just saw that you made two edits in between. I think this doesn't violate 1RR given that the prior was not a full revert and the one done just now was on consensus, but do let me know if a self-revert is in order, and you or @Smallangryplanet can get to it instead. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 22:01, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

@Raskolnikov.Rev, I didn't notice your second revert. Yes, it does count as a revert, so please self-revert. Alaexis_¿question? 21:31, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Works for me, thank you @Raskolnikov.Rev! Smallangryplanet (talk) 13:19, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Events outside of the scope of the article

This article is about the attack on Israel on October 7 and 8 in 2023. The report on human rights during the conflict published by the UN in July 2024 has a broader scope: it deals with violations and possible crimes committed between 7 October and 31 December 2023.

The report mentions "cases indicative of sexual violence" perpetrated by the Palestinian side on October 7 and 8 (see items 24 and 25). On the other hand, the sexual and gender-based violence committed by the Israeli side happened during ground operations in the Gaza Strip which did not start until mid-late October. We have a whole article about this topic, but it's clearly not in the scope of this article which is only about the Hamas attack. Alaexis_¿question? 20:45, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

@Alaexis the page may be about the October 7 led attack. But the UN report and the RS discussing it, aren't. We don't cherrypick information from it (as we should not), we present their conclusions per RS. The same is true of the Sexual and gender-based violence in the 7 October Hamas-led attack on Israel page. Also I don't know what the relevance of this is since we decided in the topic above to remove reference to the report? Smallangryplanet (talk) 23:55, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

That's not how it works. The scope of the report is different (7.10-31.12) and events that took place after October 8 should be described in other articles. Alaexis_¿question? 20:42, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

What edit would you like to make, @Alaexis? We cite the report several times in the body:

- https://en.wikipedia.org/7_October_Hamas-led_attack_on_Israel#cite_ref-OHCHR3_142-0

- https://en.wikipedia.org/7_October_Hamas-led_attack_on_Israel#cite_ref-OHCHR3_142-1

- https://en.wikipedia.org/7_October_Hamas-led_attack_on_Israel#cite_ref-OHCHR3_142-2

- https://en.wikipedia.org/7_October_Hamas-led_attack_on_Israel#cite_ref-OHCHR3_142-3

- https://en.wikipedia.org/7_October_Hamas-led_attack_on_Israel#cite_ref-OHCHR3_142-4

Do we remove all of that information (and anything else that is from a source that is also talking about other days)? I don't see how that's sustainable. Smallangryplanet (talk) 21:10, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

The same one I already made. The abuses described in items 65-69 took place during ground operations in conjunction with evacuations and arrests, so not on October 7 and 8. Alaexis_¿question? 21:22, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Why would we do that here, and not for any of the countless other places in the article where we describe things that happened after October 7 and 8? For example: this sentence A two-month New York Times investigation by Jeffrey Gettleman, Anat Schwartz, and Adam Sella, Screams Without Words, released in late December 2023, reported finding at least seven locations where sexual assaults and mutilations of Israeli women and girls were carried out. It concluded that these were not isolated events but part of a broader pattern of gender-based violence during the 7 October massacres. The probe was said to have been based on video footage, photographs, GPS data from mobile phones, and interviews with more than 150 people. is not about the attacks themselves, but about a movie article that discusses the attacks. Not to appeal to policy, but is there a wikipedia MOS or anything at all that disallows discussing things that happened on other days in policies about specific days? Smallangryplanet (talk) 21:30, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

This is also about the events that happened during the 7 October massacres. It doesn't matter when something was published, as long as it describes the events that happened during the attack. Alaexis_¿question? 20:38, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Okay, all five of the existing citations of the report refer to the events of October 7th. Is there anything else that needs to happen? Smallangryplanet (talk) 21:27, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Not sure I understand the question. We can use this report in this article to describe events that happened on October 7,8 and we can (and do) use it in other articles as a source for abuses that happened later. Alaexis_¿question? 20:55, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

What I've been trying to draw out here is that this feels like an arbitrary policy you've invented, that seems like WP:CHERRYPICKING to me. For example. You did not remove the information related to the hostages from the Patten report even though that is also a set of events that happened later:

• Some of the released hostages also shared testimonies of sexual violence during their time in Gaza. Israel accused international women's rights and human rights groups of downplaying the assaults.

or

• 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".

How do either of these sentences describe events that happened on October 7 and 8 (2023)?

You only removed the conclusion of the UN COI report saying Israel also committed sexual violence in the same time frame as the hostages. This by itself violates NPOV. I do not believe we should remove the accurate description of what the UN reports concluded simply because it is awkward.

The whole article is clearly not solely related to events that happened strictly on October 7-8, 2023, and absolutely no other time. There's an entire section, "Reactions", that's focused on events after that period, and there are many references to post-October 7 events throughout the article for what I hope is the obvious reason that things that are directly related to it are clearly WP:DUE for inclusion even if they did not strictly happen in that 24 or 48 hour timeframe. Smallangryplanet (talk) 22:09, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

I think that the two statements you've quoted also shouldn't be in this article. Alaexis_¿question? 21:22, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I've removed them as well. If there are indeed "many references to post-October 7 events throughout the article" then we should remove them too, unless we reach consensus regarding a new scope (and probably a new name too). Alaexis_¿question? 20:58, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

@Alaexis you need consensus to remove long-standing content that does not violate any wiki rules. I've reverted your change per WP:NOCON. I wish you the best of luck on the RfC I hope you'll make to obtain that consensus. Smallangryplanet (talk) 21:53, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:ONUS The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. It looks like the policies are in conflict. Alaexis_¿question? 08:56, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

This seems similar to the recent RfC at 1948 Arab-Israeli War. Both cases concern material with largely the same underlying origin as the topic of the article, but outside the specific scope of the article/without a direct line of causality from the article topic to the controversial material. In that RfC, your votes were;

Yes, per sources which make the connection clear and treat it as a consequence of the war, including Benny Morris (The war indirectly created a second, major refugee problem. Partly because of the clash of Jewish and Arab arms in Palestine, some five to six hundred thousand Jews who lived in the Arab world emigrated, were intimidated into flight, or were expelled from their native countries) and others, please see more in the discussion thread. It's certainly true that there were other reasons for the migration but the sources make it clear that the war was one of the major ones. Alaexis¿question? 3:14 pm, 29 October 2024, Tuesday (1 month, 23 days ago) (UTC−7)

No - per nableezy, makeandtoss, and others. We've already had this discussion and resolved not to do it. Obviously it was an important event on its own, but it's not a subtopic of the 1948 war. The Jewish exodus from the Muslim world does not make this suggestion (with the exception of an unsourced comment in the lead that I've gone ahead and removed), mostly citing the creation of Israel as motivation. As obnoxious as it is to pull up a fallacy, making this change would be a classic post hoc ergo propter hoc situation, where we assume that because the war happened before emigration happened, the two must be directly related. They are at best indirectly related, as you can see in many of the RS that have already been cited at length. Smallangryplanet (talk) 3:51 am, 27 November 2024, Wednesday (25 days ago) (UTC−8)

Safrolic (talk) 09:14, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

WP:ONUS is as far as I can tell about verifiability, what we're disagreeing about is not whether or not the information is true, just whether or not it is relevant for this article. But, hey, why not.

What I said on the 1948 Arab-Israeli War article is not relevant, because that was a case where people were trying to add an unrelated topic to the article; in this case the content is related but did not necessarily occur on 7-8 October 2023. Smallangryplanet (talk) 09:46, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Hamas Document

Again, I have to ask why the official Hamas document is not cited or referred to here? Is there room on this article for the actual Hamas statement on the attack - https://twitter.com/pmofa/status/1710630801379922370 - or do we continue with the established tradition of ignoring Palestinian voices? Mcdruid (talk) 03:27, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

See WP:EDITXY for how to write edit requests in a way that increases the chances that they will be accepted. If you include personal commentary like 'do we continue with the established tradition of ignoring Palestinian voices?', editors like me are much more likely to just delete the comment. Sean.hoyland (talk) 04:20, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

True Sean. This is the third time I have requested this information be included: as you know because you incorrectly deleted my first request for some reason or another. But just because you don't like this fact - or how I phrase it - does not mean it is not worthy of inclusion.

Nor is it a secret that much of Misplaced Pages is pro-Israel. In this very article, it starts off with "It maintains an uncompromising stance on the "complete liberation of Palestine", often using political violence to achieve its goals. Recent statements suggest a shift in focus toward ending the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories and establishing a Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders." Yet, in reality, Hamas has called for accepting Israel on the 1967 lines since 1996: nearly thirty years ago ("This is What We Struggle For" - Memorandum prepared by Hamas Politia Bureau in the late 1990s at the request of Western diplomats). Hardly "recent." Notably it also fails to mention that Israel officially rejected any Palestinian state in its “basic principles of Israel’s 37th government" just about a year before the attack.

At the least a simple statement is necessary:

"On the day of the attack, the Palestinian Ministry of Foreign Affairs published a document admonishing Israel: referring to the Israeli occupation, Israel’s failure to abide by International resolutions and the oppression of Palestinians."

Mcdruid (talk) 07:20, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

People sympathetic to one side of the conflict think Misplaced Pages is biased in favor of the other side, this is true for both sides. Industrial Metal Brain (talk) 13:35, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Many articles are provably pro-Israel: for example, it seems to be OK to use the IDF website as a source, but not the Palestinian government. Mcdruid (talk) 23:43, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

@Mcdruid it will help to have a link that isn't twitter? Industrial Metal Brain (talk) 04:52, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

You are right, it is actually the PA's response to the attack. https://www.mofa.pna.ps/en-us/mediaoffice/ministrynews/pr71012023.

I guess that explains why mention of it keeps getting rejected here. Mcdruid (talk) 05:17, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

That link is an improvement, but you will still need to write EDITXY, "add ___ in the section called ___" or "change ___ to ___" to get an edit request accepted. Industrial Metal Brain (talk) 13:45, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

And the government website is much better than twitter, but it will improve your chances if you find it quoted by a reliable source like the BBC, Al Jazeera, France 24, or another widely trusted news outlet. Industrial Metal Brain (talk) 13:51, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't see how anything is more canonical than an official statement on the government web site: particularly as every other reference is a secondary source and only summarizes the document, rather than posting the whole thing.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/abbas-stresses-palestinian-right-to-self-defense-amid-condemnation-of-hamas-assault/

https://www.indiatoday.in/world/story/israel-hamas-war-palestine-gaza-october-7-death-refugees-iran-hezbollah-lebanon-middle-east-crisis-conflict-anniversary-2612329-2024-10-07

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Palestinian-Authority/Presidency-of-Mahmoud-Abbas

https://thehill.com/policy/defense/4243396-palestine-defends-attack-on-israel/

Mcdruid (talk) 23:34, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Also, that is not Hamas, you've got the wrong government. Hamas is the Gaza City PNA, that twitter account is the Ramallah-based PNA, Ramallah PA is run by the Abbas faction of Fatah. Why did you think it's Hamas? The Ramallah government hates Hamas, they fought a civil war in 2007, and Abbas still keeps cutting off the tax revenue and electricity to the Strip. It definitely needs a better link, e.g. you need to find an archive on PA website. It is interesting, but too interesting to cite a tweet. Also, archive the tweet if you know how. Industrial Metal Brain (talk) 05:09, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Yep, I corrected that in my response to you. Thank you for pointing this out.

Mcdruid (talk) 07:22, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Add

"On the day of the attack, the Palestinian Ministry of Foreign Affairs published a document admonishing Israel and giving reasons for the attack: referring to the Israeli occupation, Israel’s failure to abide by International resolutions and the oppression of Palestinians."

To the section

Palestinian Attack/Palestinian Authority

Mcdruid (talk) 23:41, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Goals of Operation Al-Aqsa Flood

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

What is missing for me in this article is that there no clear statement on the goals of Hamas for Operation Al-Aqsa Flood. Could this be added to either the intro? Or maybe a simple as a section between Background and Attacks like the following: Goals of Operation Al-Aqsa Flood The goals of Hamas for Operation Al-Aqsa Flood were to a) capture hostages to exchange for Palestinians imprisoned in Israeli jails and b) end the blockade of Gaza. PJQ33 (talk) 04:39, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

 Not done, no reliable citations provided for this change. --Yamla (talk) 10:56, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Yamla. Thanks for your advice. How about adding a subsection like:

Goals of Operation Al-Aqsa Flood

The goals of Hamas for Operation Al-Aqsa Flood on October 7 were:

1) to arrest the enemy's (Israel's) soldiers for a prisoner exchange deal with Israel (see Our Narrative-Operation Al-Aqsa Flood-Web_compressed (1).pdf)

2) to encourage the international community and UN to investigate Israeli actions in Gaza and West Bank (see Our Narrative-Operation Al-Aqsa Flood-Web_compressed (1).pdf)

3) to end the daily provocations from the IDF into Gaza (see (11) State of Palestine - MFA 🇵🇸🇵🇸 on X: "https://t.co/Gp8gaR3OB4" / X)

4) to end the blockade of the Gaza Strip and the status quo of the West Bank (see https://politicstoday.org/significance-of-hamas-al-aqsa-flood-operation/)

5) to trigger a wider uprising in the West Bank (see https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20231009-haniyeh-outlines-context-and-objectives-of-hamas-operation-al-aqsa-flood/)

It is also likely that Operation Al-Aqsa Flood was intended to block progress with the Abraham Accords (see Why did Hamas attack, and why now? What does it hope to gain? | ANU College of ARTS & SOCIAL SCIENCES)

What do you think? PJQ33 (talk) 05:39, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

This is discussed in detail here, which is wikilinked in this article. Here we should have at most a short summary. We should strike the right balance between what Hamas itself said and what experts say. The declared goals are noteworthy but they are not the whole story. Alaexis_¿question? 20:49, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @Alaexis.

I can see Hamas' goals scattered in this article and the Background you referred to, but then the goals get blurred into the wider narrative of the Gaza/Israel/Hamas/etc.

The difference for me is that from Hamas' perspective October 7 was a military action against Israel and this article is about that specific action, not the days before or the days afterward. Despite all the info collected so far, it is hard to understand what Hamas hoped to achieve from Oct 7, which is different from Hamas' motives and different from expert speculation. Accordingly, I think it would be helpful to have a record of what Hamas at face value explicitly planned to achieve from Operation AlAqsa Flood.

Having said all this, I recognise I am a Misplaced Pages newbie critiquing one of the most controversial events of 2023. If this suggestion is not useful for this article, so be it. Thanks for your patience. PJQ33 (talk) 02:13, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 22 December 2024

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. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 15:35, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

7 October Hamas-led attack on Israel → October 7 Hamas-led attack on Israel – "October 7" is the order used by virtually every source from every perspective on the subject. No other RM has covered this specific ordering issue. Al Jazeera Times of Israel Mondoweiss CNN Haaretz Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 01:19, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Survey (RM 22 December 2024)

• Support MOS:VAR says, When either of two styles is acceptable it is generally considered inappropriate for a Misplaced Pages editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change. MOS:DATETIES says Articles on topics with strong ties to a particular English-speaking country should generally use the date format most commonly used in that nation. For the United States this is (for example) July 4, 1976; for most other English-speaking countries it is 4 July 1976. This article clearly has the strong ties to Israel, specifically. While Israel isn't legally an English-speaking country, English is widely used, it does produce a significant amount of English-language coverage, and I think DATETIES shows that it's Israeli English coverage and usage which most defines the common name. The previous RM in June included a comment that had several examples of coverage from Israeli English-language media, all of which used October 7th- matching what you say about virtually all sources referring to the attacks this way. Matching common usage in the country with strong ties to the article is a substantial reason for change. Many editors in that discussion who supported a move also explicitly referred to it as October 7, or clarified their support was for either format. Note that MOS calls for format consistency throughout an article, so if the name changes, someone will need to go through finding and replacing. Safrolic (talk) 03:23, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

  To summarize the sources at that RfC, October 7 included Al Jazeera (Arab), Bloomberg, CBC, CNN, France24, Institute for the Study of War, NPR, New York Times, Reuters, Times of Israel (Israeli), The Conversation, Washington Post, Associated Press, CBS News, Council on Foreign Relations, Jerusalem Post (Israeli), ITV, La Croix International, and Jewish Chronicle.

  7 October included Euractiv, Middle East Eye, the United Nations, International Institute for Strategic Studies, Sky News, and the BBC.

  So, both Arab and Israeli English-language sources primarily use "October 7". So do most international outlets. The exceptions are primarily British. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 07:21, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

@Safrolic Which RfC does that summarize? I.M.B. (talk) 09:45, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

There's a link to the June RM. Click on the word 'comment'. It's also linked at the top of the page, second-to-last infobox. Safrolic (talk) 10:01, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

@Safrolic Thanks. I.M.B. (talk) 12:20, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

• Support seems slightly more common. Andre🚐 07:04, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
• Support: *October 7* version appears to be about 1.5 times more frequent than *7 October* version based on an unbiased search. Methodology: one single OR'd search that matches either title exactly, excludes social media, and requests 100 results (this query). Do search-on-page (Ctrl+F) for each title, de-dupe for any search result snippets (abstracts) that have the phrase in it twice, or have the phrase in both the title and the snippet, so each documents tallies one point if it has the term, no matter how many times. Results: out of 100 results, 59 for October 7, and 40 for 7 October. (Note: this method does not determine if there is a possible third title that is more frequent than either of them. Your search results and tallies may be different depending on your search history, cache, IP location, and other factors.) Mathglot (talk) 07:50, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
• Support: WP:COFAQ#ENGLISH says we should at least be consistent, and this would make us consistent with most sources, so I say go for it. Smallangryplanet (talk) 10:21, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
• Support. The discussion of date formats above misses the point that the customary day-month order can depend on whether the year is included. Thus, one can find "7 October 2023" alongside "October 7". At Scholar, "October 7 attack" is about 4 times more common than "7 October attack". Zero 11:28, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

  @Zero0000: That's because "October 7" is the name of the event but "7 October 2023" is the most common format for a date, e.g. "October 7" the headline but the date published is "7 October 2024" from SABC from South Africa. I.M.B. (talk) 23:10, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose: Those linked searches include October 7 and use it in these names for the event: "October 7, 2023" AJ TOI Haaretz "October 7 terror attacks" CNN "October 7 atrocities" TOI "October 7 massacre" Haaretz "October 7 attack" Haaretz AJ TOI Mondo CNN "October 7 attacks" Mondo CNN and "Oct 7 attack" TOI But none of the linked searches the proposing editor provided include October 7, Hamas-led attack on Israel (the proposal), whereas all of the event names I listed would be a unique name for this page on Misplaced Pages. We only need to distinguish from two pages about the date itself and one other event: October 7, Eastern Orthodox liturgics, and Kreuznach Conference (October 7, 1917). The others pages with titles containing October 7 are about this event, or redirects that include a full date with a very different event name. October 7 (disambiguation) includes the 7 October Movement, which is named after a riot on 7 October, but Misplaced Pages has no page for the riot, and no reliable sources call October 7 a "riot". I.M.B. (talk) 11:39, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

  In a previous discussion someone found "October 7 Hamas-led attack on Israel" and "Oct. 7 Hamas-led attack on Israel" a few times each in older stories from some of those sources, but that editor said: Many sources simply say "7 October" or "October 7 attacks" instead of spelling out the full name. The current proposed name change doesn't meet WP: common name. I.M.B. (talk) 12:28, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

  Added results from the Haaretz search link. I.M.B. (talk) 15:17, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Discussion (RM 22 December 2024)

Re "If the name changes, someone will need to go through finding and replacing": Changing the date format throughout an article is easy for those of us who have Misplaced Pages:MOSNUMscript installed. If needed, the closer can ping me to do it. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 06:50, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

It is even easier than that. Just place {{use dmy dates}} or {{use mdy dates}} at the top of the article, and a bot should come by and take care of the whole thing. Mathglot (talk) 07:16, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Changing every date in every article is unnecessary. Most pages already don't use the full name in the text, they use piped links or redirects to make it fit the sentence. There is no need to change those to match the name if it changes. Changing every date in every page would also be inappropriate to because both Israel and Palestine use dmy and use English as a second or third language. e.g. Israel National library of Israel Israeli government "Since the war broke out on 7 October 2023" Palestine: palinfo PABS The month-day order is specific to "October 7", it was named that because it resembled "September 11". It's not the local date convention, it is a name for a specific event, and it is named after a foreign event. Industrial Metal Brain (talk) 17:41, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't think I've ever seen a bot do that on its own, and I'm pretty sure I've seen articles that had such tags for a long time without being made consistent within the article. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 19:32, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

In an Ngram search (which covers only the period before this attack), "7 October attack" doesn't show up at all. But the strange thing is that there seems to have been a significant number of uses of "October 7 attack" before 2023. What were they referring to? Were those referring to Operation Badr (1973)? —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 18:56, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

If there's no data before 2023, we don't really have an indication of whether that's just noise. If you look at "September 11 attacks" from 1950-2000, there's a big spike in the 70s and 80s right before another spike in the late 90s. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 19:12, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

There was the 11 September 1973 Chilean coup d'état, it's somewhat known as "the other October 7" now. The PFLP hijacked 4 planes that week in 1970, per September 11, but the 11th was a day near the end of a week-long hostage situation, not really an "attack". Industrial Metal Brain (talk) 20:54, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

"Search for "October 7 attack" yielded only one result." I think it is just noise? Industrial Metal Brain (talk) 20:41, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, probably. I didn't notice that message. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 23:32, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

RfC: Can we include information about events that did not happen on 7-8 Oct 2023?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There has been some debate between @Alaexis and myself over whether or not it is acceptable to include information in this article about events that did not happen on 7-8 October 2023. The events and text in question generally revolve around references to a summer 2024 UN report (note that this is a link to a .docx file which your browser may immediately download) that deals with violations and possible crimes committed between 7 October and 31 December 2023. Some non-exhaustive examples of information that is being considered for removal/inclusion:

Some of the released hostages also shared testimonies of sexual violence during their time in Gaza. Israel accused international women's rights and human rights groups of downplaying the assaults.

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".

Possible options:

1. Leave the article as is, containing references to the report and the information that includes references to non-7-8-October-2023-events.
2. Remove this information entirely and strike any references to anything that happened before or after those two days.
3. Remove information about anything that happened after 7-8 October 2023.
4. Retain the content, but find reliable sources that specifically only deal with the events of 7-8 October 2023.

Other options...?

Smallangryplanet (talk) 10:05, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Discussion (information about events that did not happen on 7-8 Oct 2023)

I don't believe 'events that did not happen on the 7-8th' is an accurate framing of the discussion between you and Alaexis. Plenty of content in the article is about things that happened after the 8th. Your discussion was originally about whether to include content about violence in Gaza in the article about the attacks on Israel, specifically saying that a UN report found "both Hamas and Israel had committed sexual violence and torture, along with intentional attacks on civilians." (By the way, the way this content is written implies that Israel participated in torture and sexual violence during the Oct 7 attacks/against Israeli civilians.) I also didn't see Alaexis try anywhere to remove the source report itself; in fact, they said "We can use this report in this article to describe events that happened on October 7,8 and we can (and do) use it in other articles as a source for abuses that happened later."

As I said a few minutes ago before you started this RfC, both this and the recent Jewish exodus RfC at 1948 Arab-Israeli War concern material with largely the same underlying origin as the topic of the article, but outside the specific scope of the article/without a direct line of causality from the article topic to the controversial material. Earlier here, your argument was that the scope of the source, the report, outweighed the scope of the article in considering what content from it to include. You cited WP:CHERRYPICK, which is described as selecting information without including contradictory or significant qualifying information from the same source, but I'm not sure how Israeli crimes in the subsequent invasion of Gaza, later on, contradict or significantly qualify the Hamas crimes in Israel that this article is about. I'm reposting both your votes here from that RfC again, as I believe they both are indeed relevant.

Yes, per sources which make the connection clear and treat it as a consequence of the war, including Benny Morris (The war indirectly created a second, major refugee problem. Partly because of the clash of Jewish and Arab arms in Palestine, some five to six hundred thousand Jews who lived in the Arab world emigrated, were intimidated into flight, or were expelled from their native countries) and others, please see more in the discussion thread. It's certainly true that there were other reasons for the migration but the sources make it clear that the war was one of the major ones. Alaexis¿question? 3:14 pm, 29 October 2024, Tuesday (1 month, 23 days ago) (UTC−7)

No - per nableezy, makeandtoss, and others. We've already had this discussion and resolved not to do it. Obviously it was an important event on its own, but it's not a subtopic of the 1948 war. The Jewish exodus from the Muslim world does not make this suggestion (with the exception of an unsourced comment in the lead that I've gone ahead and removed), mostly citing the creation of Israel as motivation. As obnoxious as it is to pull up a fallacy, making this change would be a classic post hoc ergo propter hoc situation, where we assume that because the war happened before emigration happened, the two must be directly related. They are at best indirectly related, as you can see in many of the RS that have already been cited at length. Smallangryplanet (talk) 3:51 am, 27 November 2024, Wednesday (25 days ago) (UTC−8)

The specific diffs involved in this RfC are here and then expanded here. (I chose the removals, but there are identical re-adds.) Safrolic (talk) 11:11, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Don't forget the new rule about word limits in formal discussions. Selfstudier (talk) 11:25, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Please don't refactor an RfC after participation has begun. I chose to comment at the top, not under all future votes (I support discussion above survey for this reason). If you feel a need, ask an admin and I'll move this to a !Comment - Bad RfC. I'm at approx. 650/1000 words including this reply and the quotes, and comfortable. Safrolic (talk) 11:42, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Who is refactoring the RfC? I don't want to exceed my word limit here so I'll just say that I disagree with your interpretation of the conversation - I think the 1948 one was about whether or not unsubstantiated information could be included, while this is about substantiated information that refers to events after October 7th can be included. I get where you're coming from but I think this is a small but significant difference. Smallangryplanet (talk) 12:22, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Okay. I think you should withdraw this RfC and draft a new one (or allow Alaexis/an admin to) which accurately represents the point of contention and the specific controversial content, and with accurately- and neutrally-framed options. It's not about whether or not to use the report or mention things that happened after the 8th. Look at 7_October_Hamas-led_attack_on_Israel#Revision_of_casualty_numbers. Safrolic (talk) 13:05, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Alaexis asked me to submit my own RfC. The RfC as written is not about whether or not to use the report as a reference (we've already agreed that's fine), the question is whether or not we can cite even portions that involve, yes, things that happened after the 8th. That being said, if @Alaexis is willing to craft their own RfC, I'll happily withdraw this one. Smallangryplanet (talk) 14:09, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Is that precisely what they said? Regarding the question, I repeat my first 3 sentences above. Safrolic (talk) 14:46, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

I would like to include the content in question, so I took it as meaning that I should do so. If I've misinterpreted that request, I repeat my last sentence above. Smallangryplanet (talk) 18:29, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

@Safrolic, thanks for your feedback, it's really helpful to get outside view in this topic area. I'll try to come up with a different wording for the RfC question and options. Or maybe you'd like to do it yourself? Alaexis_¿question? 19:09, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Comment The article should concentrate on the events of the day in question. It is appropriate to briefly survey later developments in order to situate these events in history, but we should eschew tit-for-tatting and blow-by-blowing. It seems to me there is a meaningful sense in which prolonged captivity effectively extends the scope of the day for our purposes: the events of the hostage-taking and captivity should be covered by the same article. The entire crime belongs to the class of actions we are discussing; it begins with a hostage-taking on October 7, contains subsequent acts of violence committed during the captivity, and concludes with the death, rescue, or release of the hostage. Some other discrete act of violence beginning after the date in question does not belong to the category. Regulov (talk) 13:57, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Survey (information about events that did not happen on 7-8 Oct 2023)

• Support (Strong) for Option 1: I think this information passes the tests described in WP:RELEVANCE and to remove it would be WP:CHERRYPICKING at best, NPOV at worst. We do not (as far as I know) have a rule anywhere else on Misplaced Pages where we reject a source if it includes information about events that happened after an event that is the subject of an article, and we continually include contextualising information about historical events for most other historical events we describe, even if the additional context is from a different date. We have cited RS that is both WP:DUE and relevant, and the information described should be accurately presented on the page. Smallangryplanet (talk) 10:10, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1 I can't really see any issues with the way it is. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 16:13, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
• Bad RfC. The options 2, 3 and 4 are not mutually exclusive. As u:Smallangryplanet suggested, I'll propose a different RfC wording. Alaexis_¿question? 19:05, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Edit Request

The article Allegations of genocide in the 7 October Hamas-led attack on Israel should be linked somewhere in this article. Ideally at the end of the lede where accusations of genocidal massacre are mentioned or at least in the Response section where direct allegations of genocide are mentioned. Fyukfy5 (talk) 14:48, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

It is linked, here's the section on it: 7_October_Hamas-led_attack_on_Israel#Allegations_of_genocide Safrolic (talk) 14:53, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

My bad, I must've glanced over it Fyukfy5 (talk) 14:57, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Proposed RfC

I'd like to initiate an RfC after a discussion in which @Smallangryplanet and I weren't able to reach consensus. This thread is about the wording of the RfC.

Question 1: Which post-attack events should be included in this article? (open-ended question in order to come up with a general principle)

Question 2: Should this article include allegations of sexual violence and torture that were documented in the broader conflict after the Hamas-led incursion?

• No - The article should focus only on events during the attack itself
• Yes - The article should include later-documented allegations

I've tried to be as concise as possible but lmk if you think that more context would be helpful.

I'm pinging @Smallangryplanet, @Lukewarmbeer, @Safrolic and @Regulov who have commented or voted in the first iteration of this RfC. Alaexis_¿question? 10:05, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

• None of the above – First of all, I appreciate that you are willing to discuss what wording to use for a forthcoming Rfc; that is praiseworthy, and I wish more Rfc's began that way. In response to this particular case: by limiting the options to those two choices, you avoid what might be better ones. Imho, per title policy, the "title indicates what the article is about and distinguishes it from other articles", so that is basic. But articles often have "Background" or "Introduction" sections, which describe the context and events leading up to those corresponding to the article title, that occurred before the titular events; likewise, it may have a section at the end, on the "Impact", "Legacy", "Aftereffects", or other summary of what happened after the titular events, again to provide historical context, and to link it to other articles that cover later periods. But a simple 'yes' or 'no' here is inadequate, imho, to reach the best outcome for this article. Mathglot (talk) 10:33, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

  +1. Indeed, the main war article Israel–Hamas war includes a summary of this article at the second para of its lead and a section Israel–Hamas war#7 October Hamas-led attack on Israel as well as a background section and then other sections detailing ongoing effects, war crimes, diplomacy and so on.

  For me, this then does not actually need an RFC, it is more a question of whether secondary material has a logical before/after connection to the primary material.

  The first sentence of the UN HRC report mentioned above says "This report summarises the Commission’s factual and legal findings on attackscarried out on 7 October 2023 on civilian targets and military outposts in Israel including rocket and mortar attacks." so that part is obviously connected.

  The second sentence says "It also summarises factual and legal findings on Israeli military operations and attacks in the OPT, principally the Gaza Strip, focusing on the period from 7 October to 31 December 2023, examining the imposition of a total siege,

  evacuation and displacement of civilians and attacks on residential buildings and refugee camps." which is less obviously connected but is nevertheless a direct consequence.

  It should not be beyond the wit of editors to decide what is and is not due for the article. Selfstudier (talk) 11:24, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

  I don't agree that the fact that a single source deals with both the Hamas attack and the Israeli retaliatory campaign makes it due. By the same logic, we'd need to describe the 7 October atrocities in the Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip because they are mentioned in the same source and obviously connected to the invasion.

  Considering that we have differing views in this thread, I think we do need an RfC, unless someone can propose a last-minute compromise. Alaexis_¿question? 21:33, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

  @Mathglot, how would you formulate the RfC then? Right now the content under dispute is not in a separate Legacy section but rather in the Reported atrocities section which describes the abuses and crimes committed during the attack. Perhaps we could add an additional option?

  Question 2: Should this article include allegations of sexual violence and torture that were documented in the broader conflict after the Hamas-led incursion?

  • A. No: The article should focus only on events during the attack itself
  • B. Yes, in a separate section describing the consequences/aftermath/legacy
  • C. Yes, in the Reported atrocities section (as in the current version of the article). Alaexis_¿question? 12:29, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

• Just a thought The issue really seems to me that we either focus specifically on the subject of the artice or we start to connect the events of the 7 Octobe attack with the history that led to it and the aftermath and consequences if it. I think we must limit the scope otherwise we will end up with a copy of the'main article' and strike a ballance in giving some context. So I am still broadly in favour of the status quo as we do that. However - the article is too long in many places. Do we really need 758 words to deal with the "Unsubstantiated reports of beheaded babies and children". Any thoughts? Lukewarmbeer (talk) 13:23, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

  This is precisely my concern. If we discuss the abuses perpetrated against Israeli hostages and Palestinian detainees during the whole war in this article, it would end up as a duplicate of Israel-Hamas War. Alaexis_¿question? 14:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

My opinion on question 1 is that the article should focus on the events during the attack itself. Extra information should be included only if it helps the reader understand the attack itself. As an example, the attack started the ongoing Israel-Hamas war. The reader gains understanding that the attack is part of a larger war. The details on the Israel–Hamas war hostage crisis benefit the article because the purpose of the October 7 attacks was to acquire hostages, and the attacks worked at achieving those goals.

Details about the abuse of hostages in captivity are less helpful, because they don't help me understand the attacks themselves. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 21:43, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

It looks like we won't get more feedback regarding the RfC wording. If there are no new comments, I'll initiate an RfC tomorrow. Alaexis_¿question? 21:27, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Alaexis, you of course have the right, but would you like to state here the wording of the Rfc question you plan to use? The last thing we need now, is one that is a misfire for some reason, or one whose question is interpreted differently by others than what you meant to ask. Is it your Q2 from 12:29, 23 Dec. ? Mathglot (talk) 23:15, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

@Mathglot, sorry, I meant to write about it but somehow forgot. I plan to ask Question 1 the way it's worded in the first comment of this thread since there were no specific suggestions on how it can be improved and I think that we should start with general principles.

Regarding the second question, I plan to use the variant with 3 answers that I suggested in response to your earlier comment. Please let me know if it addresses your concerns or you can think of something else. Alaexis_¿question? 23:20, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Not sure when your "tomorrow" starts, but can you give me 24 hours or so? I have the germ of an idea, but need to think how to say it. Mathglot (talk) 23:27, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Sure, no hurry. Alaexis_¿question? 09:20, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Alaexis, couldn't do it in a few words, so spun it off below. Sorry for the length! Mathglot (talk) 09:51, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Can I suggest adding something like B below

Question 2

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

• A. No: The article should focus only on events during the attack itself
• B. Yes but limited only in the very immediate aftermath and when directly related (as a consequence of??) to the incursion.
• C. Yes, in a separate section describing the consequences/aftermath/legacy
• D. Yes, in the Reported atrocities section (as in the current version of the article).

Lukewarmbeer (talk) 23:29, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the option B that you added, I think it makes sense as a general rule, but it won't necessarily help us resolve the current dispute. Some editors believe that the abuses committed by the Israeli forces during the invasion of the Gaza strip are "directly related" while others, like myself, think that they aren't. So we may both vote for B but would mean different things. Alaexis_¿question? 09:34, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

I think "abuses committed by the Israeli forces during the invasion of the Gaza strip" could be mentioned very briefly and users could be directed to the correct article to read more.

I understand why some editors would want to draw those abuses in (and they should be dealt with in the appropriate article)- but that isn't the subject of this article.

If we can get some consensus on this, and add direction to that (those) appropriate place(s) and can caution editors that a consensus was reached so not to add. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 13:48, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

They are already mentioned very briefly. There are two short sentences summarising what the reports in question said - that @Alaexis wants removed. We're not talking about an extensive discussion of off-topic materials, it's a brief and accurate summary of the conclusions of the reports per the cited RS, and the conclusions are directly relevant and WP:DUE to the section and page topic as I have detailed here and here (amongst other places). I continue to not be convinced of the notion that only things that happened in a specific 24 hour timeframe can be mentioned at all, and there are no wiki standards or rules that disallow a brief, accurate, relevant, due summary of a report that is already cited. Smallangryplanet (talk) 14:16, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

To me the Option B sounds like an answer to the first question of the RfC ("Which post-attack events should be included in this article?") Alaexis_¿question? 09:35, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

This entire RfC is malformed. There is nothing in the Summary Style guidelines that requires removing directly relevant RS summarising content – as in, accurately relaying what UN reports concluded – because it arbitrarily violates one person's 24 hour rule, and the way you phrased it implies there was some detailed discussion of unrelated sexual violence and torture when the content in question is simply referring to two short references summarising the conclusions of UN reports (initially you sought to only remove the one referring to Israeli sexual violence against Palestinians).

This RfC is also arbitrarily restricted to sexual violence/torture for no reason at all. If you want to impose a new rule that only material directly and solely related to what happened in the 24 hour period between 7-8 October 2023 should be on the page, then that should be what the RfC should be for, not only for this one section because you want to have these two sentences removed. You said this is the rule that should be established.

If we don't clarify this as a general rule to be applied to this article, we'll have endless RfCs on each specific possible piece of text that violates it. So it should be resolved whether such a rule is desirable to impose at all. I definitely believe it isn't. I propose yet another alternative (simpler and clearer) RfC:

Question. Should this article include any directly relevant information (broadly scoped) concerning events that were documented in the broader conflict after the Hamas-led incursion, or solely contain information that occurred within the 24 hour period of 7-8 October 2023?

A. No, this should only be covered in parent articles and in dedicated articles

B. Yes, in the main content where directly relevant to the sections in question per the cited RS

C. Yes, but only in a brief aftermath section

I would be fine with this. Smallangryplanet (talk) 14:49, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Agree with @Smallangryplanet and @Lukewarmbeer that the two short sentences that summarize the conclusions of the cited reports in the relevant section are obviously WP:DUE for inclusion. And I also find it quite telling that @Alaexis initially argued only for the removal of the reference to Israeli sexual violence against Palestinians, and only when it was pointed out that their 24 hour rule also applies to the Israeli hostages, did it suddenly become both. In fact, both are directly relevant to the topic of that section, namely sexual violence in relation to the October 7 attacks and the conclusions of the two UN reports that investigated it. Without the attacks, there would be no hostages or prisoners to also be subject to sexual violence. A very brief summary of that when the reports' conclusions are cited is perfectly legitimate, and in fact if it's not included it deprives the reader of important relevant information for no justifiable reason at all. Why should be reader who goes to the sexual violence section and then reads about the UN reports on it, be deprived of what its conclusions were and instead get a false representation of it due to arbitrary cherry-picking?

Also, as has been pointed out, there are many parts of the page that include references to relevant information outside of the strict 24 hour scope, and the reason they were included in the first place and weren't challenged and removed is exactly because it was deemed to be so. That's how it's done on every page, and I see no reason to suspend that for this one just because @Alaexis wants to remove a short accurate UN report conclusion on Israeli sexual violence against Palestinians.

Length concerns are a separate matter and won't be properly addressed by imposing a general rule on only including 24 hour information. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 13:34, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

@Smallangryplanet, asking this questions would fail to resolve the problem we are having.

I'd vote B and you would vote B too I suppose, so there is no disagreement here. My point is rather that the abuses that took place long after the attack are not directly relevant to the sections in question. That's why I suggested to ask specifically about the disputed content. Please take a look at the latest draft below. Alaexis_¿question? 21:54, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Thinking about options using an Aftermath section, summary style, and a pyramid analogy

Rather than simply conceiving of options starting from a what-to-include, what-to-exclude mindset where the horizon is limited to this article, I have been looking at this issue with a different lens, formed by our WP:Summary style guideline, and the standard division of historical articles into a rough tripartite division mentioned earlier (i.e., Background of X, X itself, Aftermath of X). As a TL;DR, I think some things could work in an Aftermath section, that might not be appropriate for the main part of the narrative pertaining to the topic itself. I would like to suggest the options be based on using a combination of the tripartite structure in combination with lateral links from one article to another at the same level of a typical SS structure. To explain what I mean requires some explanation and an example. Sorry I am unable to do this briefly, so please bear with me (or, just skip it, and do it your way).

I assume you are familiar with the WP:SS guideline, or at least with the way articles on broad topics are like the top of a pyramid of articles that link to several child articles at the next level down, each of which covers some major subtopic in more detail, the way that World War II, say, breaks down into European theatre of *, Eastern Front, Pacific War, and so on, and then how the major subtopics break down further into other children, sometime through multiple levels for very large topics, until you end up at the "leaves" at the end of the tree (oops, "blocks at the base of the pyramid") that each treat one highly specific topic that cannot be broken down any further, like, say, the Sigmaringen enclave (a rump government-in-exile of Vichy France that fled to Germany and pretended to be the French government until the war was over) is a basic block way down the WW II pyramid.

Many historical articles are roughly broken down into Background / History / Aftermath, and World War II is an example of that. It is the "top level" article sitting at the apex of its pyramid. In its § Background section, it looks to the past, and refers to other major articles at the same level such as World War I, or one level down, such as Causes of World War II, Spanish Civil War, the Weimar Republic and rise of Adolph Hitler. In its § Aftermath section, it looks to the future and links such articles as Aftermath of World War II, United Nations, and Cold War, all quite major topics in their own right.

So, getting back to 7 October Hamas-led attack on Israel, I would call this topic one of the basic "blocks" at the foundation of the pyramid that cannot be further broken down (or maybe it can:Planning for 7 Oct, Drone usage in 7 Oct, and so on maybe?), so what would be the apex of the pyramid it is part of? I would say it would be the Arab–Israeli conflict; would you agree? But this article is several levels down from the tip, starting at Arab–Israeli conflict, to Israeli–Palestinian conflict, to Gaza–Israel conflict, then Israel–Hamas war, and finally, the 7 October attack. So, maybe level five or so, very roughly like Sigmaringen enclave is a block multiple levels down the World War II pyramid.

The point of all this, is that the 'Background' and 'Aftermath/Impact' section of a good historical articles roughly contains links to other articles at the same level or one down, so that the World War II § Aftermath section wouldn't link directly to the French municipal elections of 1945 because even though that is part of the aftermath, it is way down the pyramid, but Liberation of France § Aftermath does link to it, because it is further down the World War II pyramid and the next level up. And conversely in the other direction: articles on very detailed sub-subtopics like Sigmaringen enclave don't link to Cold war as an aftermath, because that is a much higher level aftermath of the main WW II topic.

The article title of the 7 October attacks article tells us what to include in the middle (main topic) section of the 3-way split, and if you accept this analysis, then given that the 7 October attack topic is way down the pyramid, probably a basic foundation block, this provides us a framework for deciding what to include in the Background and Aftermath. For example, the article is too far down to include a major article like Balfour declaration in the Background section, and we don't yet have the historical perspective to go very far in determining what goes in the Aftermath, but one of the clear links is and should be the Israeli bombing of the Gaza Strip as a pretty much immediate consequence and possibly the one-higher level article Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip should be included.

So, if you are still with me, when we talk about "Should this article include X", I think without a view of the structure of the article, and where we are considering including X, we have to know about the scope of the article (defined in principle by the title), and whether we are talking about the Background section (clearly not in this case), the main content of the article, or the Aftermath section? I can imagine certain things could be handled in a summary Aftermath section as future events that the main topic led to, that would not be appropriate in greater detail in the main part of the article. Does any of this make any sense to you?

If it does, if you ponder this and refine the options to mention where you would like to include something, and at what level of depth, it might help. Maybe options to include X and/or Y in the main body content, another option to include them, but only briefly in the Aftermath section, with links to another article at the same level (or one level up) which treats that topic in greater detail? This was the best I could do, and if it doesn't resonate with you, then just forget it and do it your way. I hope it will be helpful to you in some way. Mathglot (talk) 09:51, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree with the principles you describe and I think that is the way to go. It would be beyond me to structure that but I'd be happy to look at concrete proposals from the more able. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 13:52, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

The pyramid style does not have anything to do with chronological order or content restrictions. Quote: The idea is to summarize and distribute information across related articles in a way that can serve readers who want varying amounts of details. Sections in the body cite sources that contain relevant information to that section, and in turn the general page can and will include information outside an arbitrary scope decided by a single editor. The best example for our purposes is the reports in the sexual violence section of this page, which have conclusions that span beyond the page and should be accurately included per section topic.

Also, @Mathglot, your contributions have run up against the 1000 word limit for this topic, so please reduce them to below 1000 and refrain from additional contributions before doing so. Smallangryplanet (talk) 14:43, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

The word limit applies to formal discussions, which this isn't yet.

Btw, the Sexual violence section is longer than the lead of its supposed main article. Selfstudier (talk) 15:12, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

"Proposed RfC" is a sort of grey area, I think it makes sense to adhere to the word count limits here as well. And I'm not sure what the length of the leads in other articles has to do with the length of the sections in this one. It'd be weird indeed if the section was longer than the corresponding main article, but I think this is fine - there are other sections (, , ) that are longer than the leads of their corresponding articles (, , ) – plus, removing two short sentences won't make an appreciable difference to the sexual violence section. Smallangryplanet (talk) 15:38, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Well, the lead of the child is supposed to be a summary of the article, then it makes sense for that summary to be here in the parent. Selfstudier (talk) 16:26, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that certainly is one possibility, but the summary here could also be a shorter version, or different, if consensus favored it. One issue though is that whereas the child lead does not have to be cited, copied here as a summary it is subject to the requirements of verifiability, in particular, in-line citations. Mathglot (talk) 20:46, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @Mathglot, it's a great idea to take a step back and look at this issue more systematically. Maybe we can rephrase the second question as follows. I believe that we don't need the first question anymore, it looks like the disagreement is about the implementation of general principles rather than about the principles themselves.

Question. Per Summary Style guidelines, should this article include allegations of sexual violence and torture that were documented in the broader conflict after the Hamas-led incursion?

• A. No - These should be covered in parent articles (e.g., Israel-Hamas war) and in dedicated articles (e.g., Sexual and gender-based violence against Palestinians during the Israel–Hamas war)
• B. Yes, in aftermath - Include them in a brief aftermath section (the current Israeli counterattack section or a new one) with links to more detailed coverage in parent articles.
• C1. Yes, in main content - Include coverage in this article's Reported Atrocities section as in the current version of the article.
• C2. Yes, in main content - Include coverage in this article's main sections but in a different way from the current version.

I suggest we go with this version unless you or other editors believe that the previous one was better. @Lukewarmbeer, I've added C2 as I understood that this is what you've suggested. Alaexis_¿question? 22:01, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

I think you are close, but just briefly:

• re: B: a parent article has broader coverage, but less detail, not more, than a child article does on the subtopic;
• re: C2: can you clarify the but-clause? In a different way is vague, and could mean, "five times more", "five times less", or any number of different things left to the imagination. If you want to leave some wiggle room for different approaches by responders, that's fine; you can invite that with "different blah blah (specify)", but to the extent you can tighten it up at least a little, I think that would be an improvement. Since this was apparently Luke's idea, maybe they can help word this one.

A relatively minor point: it's a feature of multiple-choice tests that good guessers can do well by finding the alternatives that are grouped closely together with only nuances between them, and reject the outliers. To the extent that we have C1, C2, ... would that be a tilt towards picking one of them? I don't know the answer, but I'll let you think about this. There may not be a good solution to that, and as I said, it is minor. Mathglot (talk) 02:52, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Re C2, I agree about adding "please specify". I don't think that editors generally view RfC as having the "right" answer. But maybe we can split it off into another question, perhaps it will be clearer.

Question 2. If the answer to Q1 is C, how should it be mentioned?

• Include coverage in this article's Reported Atrocities section as in the current version of the article.
• Include coverage in this article's main sections but in a different way from the current version. Alaexis_¿question? 14:48, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

In the spirit of briefer is better (as long as it gets the meaning across) would it be possible to collapse Q2 back into C somehow? What about something like,

C. Yes, in main content, either: 1. as in current version (see § Reported atrocities), or 2. elsewhere (please specify).

Trying to keep it simple, but still clear about the options needed, or do you think that is too short, or isn't clear? Mathglot (talk) 23:09, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

@Mathglot, I think it's fine. Probably other options can also be shortened:

Question. Per Summary Style guidelines, should this article include allegations of sexual violence and torture that were documented in the broader conflict after the Hamas-led incursion?

• A. No - These should be covered in parent articles (e.g., Israel-Hamas war) and in dedicated articles (e.g., Sexual and gender-based violence against Palestinians during the Israel–Hamas war)
• B. Yes, in aftermath - 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.
• C. Yes, in main content, either: 1. as in current version (see § Reported atrocities), or 2. elsewhere (please specify).

Alaexis_¿question? 22:36, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

By George, I think you've got it! (but capitalize the 'A' in aftermath, and either link it with {{section link}} or stick a § symbol in front of it). And it is also very neutral; not a clue where your own sympathies lie from that Rfc question. Good luck with the Rfc! Mathglot (talk) 04:10, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I still believe this is a malformed RfC. At the very least you should remove the reference to Per Summary Style guidelines as it implies something that isn't there. I also worry the question as written/posed invites endless future RfCs about removing information for not having occurred between 7-8 October 2023, per a new rule you've made up. That rule should be the subject of the RfC, imo.

There is another and more significant problem: You are factually wrong about the UN's CoI report. You say the sexual violence they documented in relation to Palestinians took place long after the attack, but in fact it concerns sexual and gender based violence (SGBV) from 7 October until December 2023, and even before it, as the report concludes that SGBV constitutes a major element in the ill-treatment of Palestinians, intended to humiliate the community at large. This violence is intrinsically linked to the wider context of inequality and prolonged occupation, which have provided the conditions and the rationale for gender-based crimes, to further accentuate the subordination of the occupied people. It also directly refers to cases of sexual violence in the time-period of the attack, so 7-8 October, such as: 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. One of the men also poses in a photograph while standing simultaneously on the heads of the two men lying on the ground. 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”, and racist and possibly religious slurs referring to the bodies as “Mohammed”.

However, the Patten report's reference to sexual violence against hostages does refer to it as happening after 7-8 October, when they were in captivity. So your rule, if applied and passed by an RfC, would only lead to the removal of that sentence from the section, not the one concerning the UN CoI report's conclusion. I oppose that because it accurately and briefly summarises the conclusions of the Patten report. Were it not for the 7 October attacks, there would have been no hostages, so it is directly relevant. So the RfC is solely about removing this sentence from the section: 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".

If you still would like to proceed with the RfC, please at least amend it to remove the reference to the Summary Style guidelines, and clarify that it's specifically about that one sentence. If you insist on it being solely about implementing your new rule for the sexual violence section, I still believe it's malformed, but I'll raise it once the RfC has been posted. Smallangryplanet (talk) 12:26, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Surely it's the last A B C option from Alaexis as a general principle rather than about one sentence?? Lukewarmbeer (talk) 18:06, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Summary style guidelines are what they are, there is no need to refer to them in an RFC question unless there is some doubt about their meaning, in which case, asking at one of the boards would be a better bet.

Maybe I'm missing something, but isn't the question just "Should this article include allegations of sexual violence and torture that were documented in the broader conflict after the Hamas-led incursion?" and then editors answer that question as they like. Selfstudier (talk) 18:22, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

As suggested by @Selfstudier and @Smallangryplanet I'll remove the reference to the WP:Summary Style guidelines, it doesn't have to be in the question. Alaexis_¿question? 21:17, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

@Alaexis Thank you for doing that, but I think that there's an even easier solution. Since we've established that the UN CoI report's conclusions on sexual violence go back to October 7 itself (and so the RfC doesn't apply), only the sentence referencing the Patten report's conclusion w/r/t the Israeli hostages in captivity remains. However, if you insist on removing that, even though I do continue to believe it's best to keep it, I'm fine with not taking it to an RfC and having it removed. Since this initially arose from our disagreement, I think we can then consider this resolved, unless someone else objects. Smallangryplanet (talk) 21:42, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Since I had also objected, I am fine with this compromise to avoid a needless RfC. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 14:03, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

This is far from being a compromise. You can't use one case from Patten report to claim that the findings of another report apply to October 7-8. This is improper synthesis. If you think that this particular incident should be mentioned in the article, it's a separate issue.

The words "took place long after the attack" do not appear in the RfC. Alaexis_¿question? 20:55, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are talking about. @Smallangryplanet showed that the other report explicitly refers to cases of sexual violence against Palestinians on October 7-8, so its conclusions falls within your own designated timeframe. When will you remove the reference from the Patten report for not falling in that period? Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 21:02, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

I actually thought about mentioning dropping the allusion to WP:SS as not needed as well, but it seemed minor, and it felt like you were so close to done and I didn't want to make this discussion even longer by pointing out ever tinier and more insignificant points which might just delay it. But now, it has gone on longer, and I might as well be on the record as agreeing that you don't need the SS mention. That said, the worry about:

invit endless future RfCs about removing information for not having occurred between 7-8 October 2023, per a new rule you've made up

is not a worry at all, and there is no new rule. The rule, not made up, is WP:Article title policy, which states:

• The title indicates what the article is about and distinguishes it from other articles.

The content of all articles must correspond to the topic identified by the title of the article. If the content and the title do not match, then either the content should be modified to correspond to the title, or the title should be modified to correspond to the content. In theory, if you wanted to include detailed information about what happened after October 7–8, you could accommodate that by renaming the article to remove the "7–8" from the title, and then everything in October would be germane; that is one solution that is policy-compliant. But that would simply invite someone else to create a new article restricted to the October 7–8 timeframe, which is clearly a notable topic on its own. But as we already have that article, and are about one hair away from starting an Rfc about it, so why complicate things now by going down that path?

So I think the worry about endless Rfc's is not necessary. It feels like we are very close to an Rfc statement, and either we should go that route, or if there remains only a minor dispute which is solvable by the compromise proposed by Smallangryplanet above and the Rfc is no longer needed, then by all means follow that path; it would be a savings of editor time generally. Mathglot (talk) 01:00, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

While it's just an essay, the WP:SCOPE of an article often includes the opening sentence(s) as well as the title. I don't think we should be too categoric in saying that only the title determines the scope, however desirable that might be. Selfstudier (talk) 10:38, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

As you say, it's just an essay. Otoh, WP:AT is policy, and is clear about what the title means wrt content:

Usually, titles should unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but should be no more precise than that.

Tilting towards an essay over policy is not going to fly, but if you disagree with the policy, that's fine, but this is the wrong venue to take that up; try Misplaced Pages talk:Article titles. Mathglot (talk) 10:58, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

If you believe that only events that took place on 7 October can be in the article, I can't prevent you from believing that, obviously not the case tho. Selfstudier (talk) 11:29, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Speculating about what I do or do not believe is pointless, and gets us no closer to either development of an Rfc question on the one hand, or a consensus to abandon it and take another path on the other. As I have never stated my belief on the proposed Rfc question, neither you nor anybody else has any idea how I might vote on it. (I'm not even sure I do.) Sticking to policy and guidelines is the way to go, when figuring out the best way forward. Mathglot (talk) 07:29, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Have the last word. Selfstudier (talk) 10:27, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

"But as we already have that article, and are about one hair away from starting an Rfc about it, so why complicate things now by going down that path?"

Totally! Lukewarmbeer (talk) 17:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Article in Haaretz April 18 2024 copy paste exact words:

"However, at Shura Base, to which most of the bodies were taken for purposes of identification, there were five forensic pathologists at work. In that capacity, they also examined bodies that arrived completely or partially naked in order to examine the possibility of rape. According to a source knowledgeable about the details, there were no signs on any of those bodies attesting to sexual relations having taken place or of mutilation of genitalia.

At the same time, because there were only five forensic pathologists at work, they managed to oversee the examination of a quarter of the bodies at most. In other words, about 75 percent of the bodies were buried without having undergone a professional examination. The bodies that were in the worst physical condition, and that could not be identified at Shura were transferred to the Institute of Forensic Medicine, in Tel Aviv, for that purpose. In these cases, the bodies' conditions afforded no possibility of determining what the victims had undergone before their death. The UN report noted that there were at least 100 such cases." ~~~~ Mcorrlo (talk) 18:51, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Your edit inaccurately puts in quotes what is not in the quoted sentence. It also inaccurately refers to "In many instances" as if it refers to the total when in fact it only refers to the 100 cases. The prior version accurately reflects what is in the source in a clear and concise way. So please revert yourself. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 18:57, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

@Mcorrlo's additions seem pertinent. What exactly is not supported by the source? Alaexis_¿question? 20:17, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Do you want me to repeat what I already said? Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 20:26, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

RfC: Sexual violence and the scope of the article

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list: History and geography When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

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

• A. No - These should be covered in parent articles (e.g., Israel-Hamas war) and in dedicated articles (e.g., Sexual and gender-based violence against Palestinians during the Israel–Hamas war)
• B. Yes, in aftermath - 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.
• C. Yes, in main content, either: 1. as in current version (see § Reported atrocities), or 2. elsewhere (please specify).

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

Survey

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 , 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)

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)

The Abu Ali Mustafa Brigades

Remove the claim that the Abu Ali Mustafa Brigades were militarily involved from the "units involved" list and "belligerents" section. AethyrX (talk) 21:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages objectionable content
• B-Class Crime-related articles
• High-importance Crime-related articles
• B-Class Serial killer-related articles
• High-importance Serial killer-related articles
• Serial Killer task force
• B-Class Terrorism articles
• High-importance Terrorism articles
• Terrorism task force articles
• WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography articles
• B-Class Death articles
• Mid-importance Death articles
• B-Class Islam-related articles
• Low-importance Islam-related articles
• WikiProject Islam articles
• B-Class Israel-related articles
• High-importance Israel-related articles
• WikiProject Israel articles
• WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration articles
• B-Class Jewish history-related articles
• Mid-importance Jewish history-related articles
• WikiProject Jewish history articles
• B-Class military history articles
• B-Class Asian military history articles
• Asian military history task force articles
• B-Class Middle Eastern military history articles
• Middle Eastern military history task force articles
• B-Class Post-Cold War articles
• Post-Cold War task force articles
• B-Class Palestine-related articles
• Mid-importance Palestine-related articles
• WikiProject Palestine articles
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment