Talk:Gaza war/Archive 11

In the following sentence: "Israel again hits Rafah border crossing between Gaza and Egypt to prevent humanitarian aid from getting to civilians in Gaza as it is being sieged.^[1]" The referenced source does not claim that the purpose of the strike was "to prevent humanitarian aid from getting to civilians because [they are] being sieged." Dazzling4 (talk) 20:50, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Merged w/ previous sentence w/o the synth. – SJ + 21:25, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Forbes has a news section about Twitter's handling of misinformation about the war compared to other apps like Threads, which could be added on the misinformation section of this page (unless it's already been).
Roger, Dooley (12 October 2023). "X/Twitter Hides Legitimate News While Misinformation Flourishes". Forbes. Retrieved 12 October 2023.

Lazesusdasiru (talk) 22:12, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Egypt's involvement in this conflict should include the fact that it has rejected corridors for civilians to flee Gaza into the country.

"Egypt has discussed plans with the United States and others to provide humanitarian aid through its border with the Gaza Strip but rejects any move to set up safe corridors for refugees fleeing the enclave, according to Egyptian security sources."

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/10/12/egypt-says-israel-seeks-to-empty-gaza-rejects-corridors-for-civilians AstralNomad (talk) 22:37, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I think this is very important. Why there are no humanitarian corridors? My very best wishes (talk) 01:00, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

I've added it to Humanitarian impact section. Alaexis_¿question? 08:34, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Soon after the start of the war, former President Donald Trump and other Republicans tried to cast blame on Joe Biden because of the prisoner release deal with Iran; however, these funds under the supervision of the United States Department of the Treasury are used only for humanitarian purposes, and there is no evidence that they were used in the war.

This isn't very balanced. Reliable sources are reporting the US has froze this fund and Critics of the exchange deal contend that regardless of whether the $6bn – originally earned from oil sales to South Korea – is actually touched, the money is “fungible”, meaning Iran could still exploit it by re-allocating funds originally earmarked for other purposes. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/oct/12/biden-administration-stops-oil-money-iran-palestine-israel-hamas-attack Twentytwenty4 (talk) 22:45, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

I'd argue that this allegation from the former US president and members of the US GOP aren't relevant on this page to begin with. AstralNomad (talk) 23:04, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Isn't translating from one language to another original research and therefore not allowed on Wikipedia? There is absolutely 0 way of knowing if the translation is accurate. 2600:1700:1B00:15FF:5407:2785:C5C:D73D (talk) 22:48, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Non-english sources can still be used under certain guidelines. Check WP:TRANSLATE AstralNomad (talk) 23:07, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

No where does that WP:Translate discuss translating cited material. 2600:1700:1B00:15FF:5407:2785:C5C:D73D (talk) 04:05, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

It is not considered original research. The relevant policy page is WP:NONENG – Citations to non-English reliable sources are allowed on the English Wikipedia... If you quote a non-English reliable source (whether in the main text or in a footnote), a translation into English should accompany the quote. - Fuzheado | Talk 04:57, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Note however that English sources are preferred, if an equal one exists. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:35, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, all things being equal, English language sources are preferred. But the most important factor by far in evaluating the suitability of a source is its reliability, not the language that it is written in. Cullen328 (talk) 07:40, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is just a joke. People can make stuff up citing a different language and post it as fact while the English user can not actually check the citation. No wonder there is 0 credibility on this site. 2600:1700:1B00:15FF:5407:2785:C5C:D73D (talk) 16:34, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Human Rights Watch has determined based on verified video and witness accounts that Israeli forces used white phosphorus in military operations in Lebanon and Gaza on October 10 and 11, 2023, respectively. The videos show multiple airbursts of artillery-fired white phosphorus over the Gaza City port and two rural locations along the Israel-Lebanon border second video. The Gaza City port attack looks like a war crime to me because it's a crowded area where the effects of WP can wreak havoc upon civilians, but I'm not an expert on the subject. Accuratelibrarian (talk) 23:13, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

More sources: Human Rights Watch says Israel used white phosphorous in Gaza, Lebanon Reuters, Israel has used white phosphorus in Gaza, human rights group claims The Telegraph, Israel Unleashed White Phosphorus in Gaza, Human Rights Watch Finds Daily Beast, Israel uses white phosphorus in Gaza, video shows Washington Post, Videos show Israel's military used incendiary bombs in Gaza that can cause horrific burns Insider

मल्ल (talk) 02:27, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

It really doesn't matter what you think is a war crime. Get a reputable source that says it is a war crime and then it can be added. AtypicalPhantom (talk) 02:29, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

The article reads as if, thanks to the HRW report, we have 100% certainty that a banned form of white phosphorus was used. Wouldn't it be a better style to write "according to HRW findings"? 88.75.206.116 (talk) 12:41, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Given the reputable sources cited, I don't think it is in dispute that white phosphorus was used. I also like the suggestion that the phrase "according to Human Rights Watch..." in the article and including citation sources. Including that this "looks like a war crime" seems to be interjecting opinion and should simply be sourcing reliable news sources as opposed to us as contributors interjecting our own opinion. Jurisdicta (talk) 01:07, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Seems notable enough to be a stand alone article. Undescribed (talk) 02:29, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

I think it would make sense to have one eventually, but wouldn't it be a lot of the same information already in this article? Is there enough to differentiate it? --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 02:35, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

I mean assuming this escalates to a full blown war on terror, which unfortunately seems to be the case, I think that there is already enough information for at least a basic article for now, and it will certainly be expanded in the future. We already have multiple articles on the attacks related to this even such as the October 2023 Hezbollah strike, Re'im music festival massacre and Battle of Sderot, so why not have an article on the initial attack as well? Undescribed (talk) 02:50, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, split already. Clearly the initial attack is already an entity on its own vis-á-vis the new conflict. XavierItzm (talk) 12:08, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

I support splitting between the War and the Invasion / largest terror attack in Israel's history.

The suprise terror attack is a large scale invasion, and the War is a RESPONSE to it.

and it's still occuring. (We can regard the end of the invasion, when the last of the invaders be killed or escape into a safe area for him.)

Has somebody spit the article? I just don't know how, and I don't find another article. רם אבני (talk) 17:14, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

I'd support an article split, especially given October 2023 Israeli blockade of the Gaza Strip also exists. Operation Al-Aqsa Flood used to exist as a standalone article before being merged into here; it could easily be revived. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 13:49, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Wait , this is not yet the time to split of the article. Furthermore, you cannot disconnect the initial attack from the war. Homerethegreat (talk) 09:50, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Support. The initial 24-48 hour incursion into Israeli territory is particularly notable, as part of this larger unfolding war. Loksmythe (talk) 16:08, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Wait. We already have split this article into the initial attacks like Re'im music festival massacre, Battle of Sderot. Likewise, we already have articles on the Israeli response: Jabalia camp market airstrike. Is the proposal here to merge Re'im music festival massacre,Battle of Sderot etc into a single article? If so, I don't think that's a good idea either as these were individual events and different locations.VR _talk 18:30, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Taking a look at the Yom Kippur war, it seems like most of the material is in the main article with only a few notable events/battles having their own article. Like for that war we don't have a separate article called Israeli response to Egyptian offensive. Likewise, for 2006 Lebanon war we have a separate article for the 2006 Hezbollah cross-border raid but we don't really have an article for the Israeli response to that, the response is covered at the main article.VR _talk 18:37, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't use Yom Kippur war that page as a model. It's disastrously overlength and such a Gordian Knot that no editor can basically bring themselves to attempt to address the problem. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:13, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

I imagine the solution would be to have a parent for those smaller articles that sits as a child of this article, such that this page would become the grandparent of those smaller discrete pages. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:15, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Support. News sources call the initial attack unprecedented due to the surprise, scale, coordination, and invasion of territory. I think readers would be interested in learning about these details but it would not fit in this article on the broader war. Merlin^sorca 12:19, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Support. It is a very notable event, now found under "Timeline" and then spread out over half a dozen different "attacks" and "massacres". There should be one main article for the Hamas attack, not seven. -St.nerol (talk) 14:41, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose Far too early for this, the current article is not even stable. Selfstudier (talk) 15:21, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Support Based on the abundance of reliable sources and substantial content available, it's clear that the subject merits its own entry. Furthermore, there's a reasonable expectation that additional, high-quality scholarly works may emerge in the future. Infinity Knight (talk) 00:39, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Support. I agree with Loksmythe and Merlinsorca. In addition, I've had some discussions on Talk:List of battles and other violent events by death toll and Talk:List of major terrorist incidents, and one of the problems that were raised - and not without reason - is that linking from a list of terror attacks to an article that's about the entire war is out of place. The relationship between the two subjects is similar to that which exists between the September 11 attacks and the War on terror, and we should treat it as such. François Robere (talk) 17:57, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Comment There seems to be enough consensus so I'll go about separating Operation Al-Aqsa Flood back into its own separate article. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 18:48, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done 2023 Hamas attacks on Israel. Needs some work but that's a start. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 19:19, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Hold on. We have 5 support, 2 waits, 1 oppose, and some voiced concerns. This does not sound like consensus to consider it done. - Fuzheado | Talk 19:32, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

The discussion had been open for 3 days, and there was also the Talk:2023 Israel–Hamas war#Proposal: There should be a page specifically for the 2023 South Israel Attacks, the initial terrorist attack that sparked this war, separate from the war page itself section by someone independently also supporting this, making 6 "support"s. It's an active enough talk page that had there been more opposition to a split, I think it would have been raised by now. If you think it needs even more consensus than this there's always the option of RfC, but I don't think that's necessary? Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 19:43, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Keep it split. On reconsideration, a lot of the sentiments were to support the split, even though they were not bolded or made clear. I think it's an inevitability given how big this current article is growing, so go forth and edit. Thanks. - Fuzheado | Talk 19:45, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

@Chessrat @Fuzheado I have moved this topic back onto the talk page, as I believe there are some issues with the split that haven't been taken into account.

Importantly, a separate article for the initial attacks already existed until 7 October, when consensus was reached to move it here. I'm not sure it is entirely appropriate to override that consensus short of overwhelming support, which I do not believe has yet been achieved.

The creation has been achieved by severing the redirects which formerly pointed to this page. I believe this has the potential to cause severe confusion. Indeed, it is apparent that some of commenters on Talk:Operation Al-Aqsa Flood are not aware that this article exists, and are raising many of the same arguments resolved on this page in the past few days.

I am not exconf, so I cannot vote on a consensus directly, but I believe it is in order to at least point out a couple of issues that seem to have been missed. Thanks. Riposte97 (talk) 23:52, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

@Riposte97 Which redirects in particular do you think are confusing, and also which commenters on Talk:Operation Al-Aqsa Flood are you referring to as the only recent discussion I can see on there is the current RM in which everyone seems aware of the subject of the article? Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 00:13, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Saliently the redirect 2023 Hamas attacks on Israel.

The confusion seems evident at Talk:Operation Al-Aqsa Flood#Contested deletion, Talk:Operation Al-Aqsa Flood#Is this the start of a new antifada ?, Talk:Operation Al-Aqsa Flood#this is a war, Talk:Operation Al-Aqsa Flood#Low importance?, potentially at Talk:Operation Al-Aqsa Flood#The location of this conflict being listed as "Gaza strip" is misleading at minimum, and in several of the replies at Talk:Operation Al-Aqsa Flood#Requested move 7 October 2023. You're right that there aren't new examples since the article was restored a few hours ago.

I don't know what the policy is re overriding a move request on another page, and I am not permitted to engage in such debates anyway, so I leave determining the best course in your capable hands. Riposte97 (talk) 00:32, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

All of those discussions you point to are from a couple hours after Hamas first attacked, when there wasn't enough info for separate articles, but in the hurry about four different articles on the clashes had been created in error before they were all merged together. I see no reason to think such confusion would happen now. As for the move request on that page, I don't see any harm in letting it carry out its natural course until consensus is gathered- I'm really not seeing what the problem is here. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 00:49, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with @Chessrat reasoning here. What I find odd is that the page was moved to a new title unilaterally with no discussion. Special:Diff/1179835940/1179840874 . - Fuzheado | Talk 04:49, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

The person who moved it asked me before doing so– their rationale was that given the fact that the previous article before it was redirected was located at Operation Al-Aqsa Flood and I had chosen a different title when creating a new article on the same topic (albeit without any content directly taken from the article 5 days ago), that in the event of dispute the previous title should stand until an RM occurs (which is ongoing at the moment). I don't know what if anything Wikipedia policy suggests in such a scenario so I thought it simplest to leave it be and let the RM take its course. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 13:47, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough. What I find worrying is that there are many "requested move" discussions that are seemingly unaware of 1) previous move discussions and 2) relevant policy around article names. There are so many personal musings, novel ideas, and lack of consultation of WP:RS that it seems like folks are talking past each other. - Fuzheado | Talk 14:15, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

• Post-split support now that the conflict has extended beyond the initial attacks. From a practical perspective, a child article may also help alleviate too much bloat in this article. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:49, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
• Comment This ought not to have been split without a fuller discussion imo. Selfstudier (talk) 14:23, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support the split. As a notice of order, anyone can nominate the new page for deletion, but it will not be deleted because it describes a separate and highly notable event. My very best wishes (talk) 16:13, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Should we add this topic? Accuratelibrarian (talk) 23:48, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

I say no, since I think it's a bit unnecessary. Ulysses Grant Official (talk) 01:00, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. There are a lot of things being said about this subject – but most of them don't qualify to be part of the central understanding of the topic at hand. This is a statement by a person who isn't a head of state and isn't representing anything, on a different continent. The few statements which are relevant to include are typically included because the people behind them represent their countries or other political entities, rather than themselves as individuals. Had Trump been president, he'd have – in a way – spoken for the US. Now he isn't, and doesn't. /Julle (talk) 02:10, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

This edit request to 2023 Israel–Hamas war has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

the war began when militants invaded Israel from the Gaza Strip on 7 October 2023,the war began when terror group invaded Israel HAMAS IS A TERRORIST ORGANIZATION AND NOT MILITANT GROUP 2600:1700:4A90:2090:9841:5BA4:26AF:EDC (talk) 02:03, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: See MOS:LABEL. Yue🌙 02:18, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

The two histograms are disproportionately scaled yet placed side to side. It gives off the inaccurate visual impression that more Israelis have been killed in the past years prior to the war. Can someone modify the images so that the heights of both are the same? For example, setting the size of the shortest bar (statistics in 2020) in both histograms to be the same will make more sense. Deskfn (talk) 02:33, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Why is there Pakistan? Borgenland (talk) 02:54, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

My bad. Typo fixed. Deskfn (talk) 02:57, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

I see the same issue: simply rescaling the graphs isn't a good option, as it would make the Israel graph unreadably thin (its tallest bar is around the height of the shortest bars on the Palestinian graph). I suggest that the best thing to do would be to make a new chart showing both sets of casualties on the same axis: in the meantime, I would suggest removing the two as more misleading than helpful. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:28, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree. It's misleading in the current scale. I'm not sure of the viability of an editor rescaling it manually, however. It may be better to remove it. entropyandvodka | talk 02:12, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Please help expand the three line section at Nir Oz#2023 Israel–Hamas war and make it into a full article about the Nir Oz massacre: "according to one report, 240 of the community's 400 residents were either missing or confirmed dead." Thank you, IZAK (talk) 03:16, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Looks like a dedicated page was created about fifteen minutes after your comment. Riposte97 (talk) 05:14, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Should the infobox indicate that Israel and Hamas are (respectively) supported militarily by the United States and Iran? 2001:569:57B2:4D00:241B:BEAA:C39C:1DD (talk) 03:44, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

I think the US should be added, given the statement provided by Netanyahu which he clearly indicated on October 12, during Blinken visit, that Israel is reinforced by the US military. Talalnablus (talk) 04:00, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done "Supported by" is deprecated, per the Template:Infobox military conflict. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 04:05, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Subsection #Opinion in Western world is currently filed under #International reactions. I'd like to propose moving in into the #Analysis section. Also, the text is bordering on WP:POV, as it seems to be trying to make some sweeping generalizations, starting with the section title and the whole left-wing stance on the broader Israeli-Palestinian conflict. fgnievinski (talk) 05:13, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

This edit request to 2023 Israel–Hamas war has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change the word "revival" to "rival" here:

According to Eado Hech, polling has indicated that the majority of Gazans support the agenda of Hamas, with its only significant political REVIVAL now being the Palestinian Islamic Jihad organization.

I believe the word was meant to be "rival" as "revival" does not make sense in this context TheGlowingEmber (talk) 05:22, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

The word has been fixed. Thanks. David O. Johnson (talk) 05:29, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

More than 1 million children and infants in Gaza don't have access to water. Iphone 97 (talk) 07:00, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Please provide a link to a reliable source that verifies this claim. Why should the availability of potable water depend on the person's age? All people need water to survive. Cullen328 (talk) 07:47, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Commenting on the age of the Palestinian people as a whole serves no purpose but to stoke anger agaisnt the Israeli blockade. All people need water to survive. Also, the claim seems to be false. Icrin7 (talk) 00:33, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

I removed the current event tag but it was put back in this edit. There is an element of Captain Obvious in saying that this is a current event, and since this is likely to be an ongoing conflict like the Russo-Ukrainian War (which doesn't have the tag), there is little need to have it. ♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:05, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

I think it's good as a reminder to the general reader. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:32, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

The current event tag is used when an article is heavily edited, which applies to this page. WWGB (talk) 07:35, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

The tag stayed on Russian invasion of Ukraine until March 17, almost a month after the invasion. No issue keeping it for that long. DFlhb (talk) 07:39, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Please keep the current event tag on this page. The article is in constant flux given the rapid series of news events so we should always prefer to give the best situational wiki-awareness for the reader. Additionally, it's not analagous to compare the fog of the first week of this war to a decade-long conflict like the Russo-Ukrainian War. – Fuzheado | Talk 14:11, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

This edit introduced a similar debate in the 2014 as described in the source utilized, in relation to the ongoing event.

There was a similar debate in the 2014 conflict with Gaza, which also saw a ground invasion by Israel and cost more Israeli lives than in 2009, with pressure on the government to retake Gaza or parts of it. The military briefed the security cabinet then on the likely consequences. The predictions were many hundreds of dead soldiers and close to 10,000 dead Palestinians, said Udi Segal

. Your feedback is welcomed for consideration, Infinity Knight (talk) 07:42, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

@Nishidani, I think the article makes it clear the brief was about the 2014 conflict (The military briefed the security cabinet then on the likely consequences.) Alaexis_¿question? 08:17, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply. Infinity Knight is quite correct. I misinterpreted, in late night haste - no excuse. The reason for that was that Lorenzo Cremonesi, an Italian journalist with Israeli nationality and 26 years in that country, mentioned the 10,000 figure (in a programme yesterday) as the likely death toll for Gazans in the event of an Israeli invasion. He is turn drew, apparently, on Udi Segal writing for an Israeli paper who was recalling the 2014 military estimate. In the NYTs piece, Segal is now quoted as saying:"I think the price today will be heavier than what was estimated then." That is just his considered, if logical view, deduced from the secret 2014 cabinet deliberations. So I will remove it (if it hasn't already been removed). But since the NYTs does make the analogy, the point, rephrased, would still be relevant. I.e. 'Udi Segal, who revealed the military estimates for the number of Palestinian deaths (10,000) that would probably follow an invasion in 2014, has suggested that the price today would be higher.' But I will leave that to other editors to consider Nishidani (talk) 11:11, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! Alaexis_¿question? 20:34, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

This edit request to 2023 Israel–Hamas war has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In timeline, Outside Israel and the Gaza Strip, 11 October, change: "In the West Bank, Israeli settlers attacked the village of Qusra, killing four Palestinians" to: Three Palestinians were killed during armed clashes in Qusra between Palestinian villagers and Israeli settlers. sources: https://www.jpost.com/breaking-news/article-767739 https://www.timesofisrael.com/three-palestinians-said-killed-in-clashes-with-settlers-in-west-bank/ 2A06:C701:4FDD:E400:420:872A:D713:CFFB (talk) 09:46, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Given as four by AFP and OCHA ^[1][2]

This edit request to 2023 Israel–Hamas war has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Lithuanian casualties - 1 Martynas Kuzmickas

Skaitykite daugiau: https://www.lrytas.lt/lietuvosdiena/aktualijos/2023/10/08/news/izraelyje-zuvo-lietuvis-28649797 83.171.35.132 (talk) 10:33, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done. gobonobo ^{+ c} 03:29, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

In Britain, Israel-Hamas war reignites old tensions between communities

"Pro-Palestine activists say they are accused of being anti-Semitic while criticising Israel, as Jewish groups fear attacks". Al Jazeera

In a counter to all the pro-Israeli commments - both on-line and in MSMedia - this Al Jazeera report highlights the way that the Israeli Lobby undermines support for the Palestinians. Given this, could mention of the report be made within this article?

This edit request to 2023 Israel–Hamas war has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please change "de-escelate" to "de-escalate". Avessa (talk) 12:50, 13 October 2023 (UTC) Avessa (talk) 12:50, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done BilledMammal (talk) 12:53, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

@Borgenland: I don't think it was appropriate to change "militants" to "combatants". There is a dispute in reliable sources about how to refer to them, but the two options are between "militants" and "terrorists". We shouldn't be making up our own, third option; we should be using one of those, and I believe the current consensus is to use "militants". BilledMammal (talk) 12:52, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Sorry about that, just came back from errands before checking the talk page. Borgenland (talk) 12:54, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

The active component of the IDF is 169.500 soldiers. The mobilisation brings 360.000 more. That's a total of 529.500. Here's a link to one out of the many press releases. " Israel's reservists drop everything and rush home | Reuters " 46.97.168.45 (talk) 12:53, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

@46.97.168.45: Added. Ecrusized (talk) 19:26, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

hey guys please includde this somewhere as i think this info is relevant as well as critical as it directly implies hamas dosent really care about fellow palestenian's life:

Mosques broadcast messages telling Gaza Strip residents to stay put on Friday, in defiance of an Israeli military call for more than a million civilians to move south within 24 hours in the build-up to its expected ground offensive. Leaders of the enclave's governing militant group Hamas also urged Palestinians to ignore the call, and by Friday afternoon there were no signs of any mass exodus from the north of the enclave..The Israeli military told the civilians of Gaza City to "evacuate south for your own safety and the safety of your families and distance yourself from Hamas terrorists who are using you as human shields."

sources: https://www.thestatesman.com/world/israel-hamas-war-hamas-asks-gazans-not-to-respond-to-israels-evacuation-order-1503231037.html

https://www.bbc.com/news/live/world-middle-east-67096916?ns_mchannel=social&ns_source=twitter&ns_campaign=bbc_live&ns_linkname=652908448ae7803bb6843071%26IDF%3A%20We%20know%20evacuation%20of%20Gazans%20will%20take%20time%262023-10-13T09%3A12%3A22.605Z&ns_fee=0&pinned_post_locator=urn:asset:4170859a-4979-4e98-aa87-b24dc318c43f&pinned_post_asset_id=652908448ae7803bb6843071&pinned_post_type=share

https://www.businesstoday.in/latest/world/story/distance-yourself-from-hamas-israeli-military-tells-gazans-hamas-asks-to-ignore-evacuation-order-401927-2023-10-13

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/liveblog/2023/10/13/israel-hamas-live-iran-says-new-fronts-may-open-if-gaza-bombing-continues

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/hamas-tells-gaza-residents-stay-home-israel-ground-offensive-looms-2023-10-13/ Codenamephoenix (talk) 17:36, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Already done by another editor. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 17:59, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi @AquilaFasciata i cannot see any mention of hamas and/or gaza mosques asking gazans not to leave for south ignoring the call of idf.it is a well sourced and critical information. nor do i see any information in the article regarding idf spokesperson comment about warning gazans.please keep the article balancerd.if both of these informations are well articulated in the article and i missed it then apologies in advance. Codenamephoenix (talk) 18:44, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

In this section it states The Hamas Authority for Refugee Affairs responded by telling residents in northern Gaza to "remain steadfast in your homes and to stand firm in the face of this disgusting psychological war waged by the occupation." - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 19:03, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

ok thank you.found it :) Codenamephoenix (talk) 19:07, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

directly implies hamas dosent really care about fellow palestenian's life. We don't infer things here. It could be argued that Israel doesn't care about life by ordering 1.1 million people, including injured, to evacuate in 24 hours over rubble-strewn streets while continuing missile strikes and cutting off fuel, electricity, and food in one of the most densely populated places on Earth. But it's not our job to infer or imply other folks' motivations. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:59, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

I mean, sir/ma'am, at least Israel is warning them again and again to leave and even acknowledges that it will take time. 'This is a war zone, we are trying to provide them the time, and we are making a lot of effort, and we understand it won't take 24 hours,' said IDF spokesperson Daniel Hagari. If anything, this showcases that Israel cares much more about fellow humans than Hamas, who are asking their own people to die for their cause by using them as human shields. Although, after what Hamas has done to the Israeli people, Israel is not obliged to provide any warning to anyone, especially Gaza, which chose Hamas as its representative and voice. But I agree that we should only use language from reliable sources and should not infer things on our own.thank you for your input Codenamephoenix (talk) 18:16, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Please do not make assumptions about motivations here. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:35, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Hamas is just one military faction of Gaza, what Netanyahu and the Israeli government have declared is a war against is Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad.

Multiple Gazan factions took part in Operation al-Aqsa Flood as well as in the front line battles along the settlements of the outskirts of Gaza Strip as well as along the border. And they have also shot rockets and fired shells into Israel.

Thus, I think it's more appropriate to rename this to 2023 Israel-Gaza war since Israel is fighting multiple organisations, not one specifically, even if it forms the strongest/biggest faction. RamHez (talk) 16:11, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

At this point, Israel-Hamas war is correct as per WP:COMMONNAME. That may not be true in the end. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:01, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Agreed with O3000 Andre🚐 17:07, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Comment: Please see the very top of this talk page where the last two move requests have discussed these issues at length. Search for "This article has previously been nominated to be moved." - Fuzheado | Talk 18:15, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

This article should be changed to the 2023 Israeli–Palestinian war or 2023 Israel–Gaza war (BBC), (The Times of Israel). Not everyone that Israel fights takes orders from Hamas. This title is largely consistent with the Israeli narrative, and this is a grave mistake made by Wikipedia. Dl.thinker (talk) 16:54, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Actually you have it backwards. Israel it at war with Hamas, not all Palestinians. Andre🚐 17:07, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

There is no sovereign Palestinian state yet. What is happening is that all of Gaza is being targeted, not just Hamas.--Dl.thinker (talk) 17:33, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

There are Palestinians in the West Bank. Israel's not at war with Fatah or the PLO. They're at war with Hamas. Yes, Gaza is now being invaded, but the name of the article has to be based on WP:COMMONNAME not synthetic logic. I do think that "Israel-Gaza conflict" or "Israel's invasion of Gaza" are also relatively common in the sources, but "Israel-Hamas war" seems more frequent (and "Hamas' invasion of/attack on Israel") Andre🚐 17:43, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

I am aware of this policy, but we must also be aware that the media seeks Wikipedia to convey its reports. Calling it a war between Israel and Hamas gives you the impression that Hamas has power equal to Israel or that it is a heavily armed army. Dl.thinker (talk) 18:20, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

No, it doesn't imply that. Asynchronous war is still war. Andre🚐 18:33, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

DI.thinker, I tend to agree the title will turn out to be a misnomer. But COMMONNAME ties our hands. One of the reasons I favor the WP:RECENTISM essay. A new name may evolve in RS. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:45, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Comment: Please see the very top of this talk page where the last two move requests have discussed these issues at length. Search for "This article has previously been nominated to be moved." - Fuzheado | Talk 18:14, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Israeli politics has has historically been 64.39.156.254 (talk) 19:44, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Fixed. Thank you 64.39.156.254! The Night Watch (talk) 19:47, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

What's the verb in the first sentence? – Sca (talk) 19:49, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

began Paragon Deku (talk) 20:13, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

This erroneously titled subsection is an inaccurate opinion piece about how the political left (not the west) has supposedly repudiated their allegedly extremist position of not being pro-Israel. It cites one opinion piece from one author as the basis of this paragraph, and then goes on to list a whole lot of parties that were already known to be pro-Israel like the Democratic Party in the United States or the Labour Party (present-day, post-Corbyn) in the United Kingdom, arguing that them putting out statements condemning the Hamas attacks demonstrates a radical shift in policy. It concludes by citing Fox News, something that is absolutely not a reliable source for politics.

The second paragraph isn't really a paragraph, it's just a few short sentences, and it's an opinion essay about how it makes no sense for the political left to sympathize with Palestinians because Hamas is a religious group, and cites one guy who writes Substack articles and proudly embraces the label of "neoliberal."

There is nothing of encyclopedic value here. It's a mishmash of inaccurate statements and unreliable sources that reads more as someone's personal essay claiming incorrectly that this is the Western left's come-to-Jesus moment where they wake up and realize that they shouldn't be pro-Palestine or something. I am going to boldly delete this. Feel free to comment below if you object.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 20:54, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

I think you're right. I had an idea I expressed in an earlier section to salvage it, which would have broadened its scope to shifts in political stance by major parties internationally (and not just the West). But unless there's coverage of such a shift really going on (outside of opinion articles), it's not much use.

I do think we could have such a section for observed changes in public opinion, and that again it shouldn't be limited to polls conducted in Western countries. I would also contend that Fox polling data is more reliable than Fox's usual political coverage (would be interesting to see an RSN discussion of it). Regardless I expect other polls on the matter to be released soon, if they haven't already been. If it's currently just Fox's poll, that doesn't really warrant its own section for the time being, reliable or not. Too slim. VintageVernacular (talk) 21:12, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Besides, it’s hardly just the political left that has its own internal divisions over Israel/Palestine. The GOP are currently divided as well, because Donald Trump’s response (in which he blamed Netanyahu for the attacks and called Hezbollah “smart”) outraged DeSantis, Haley, and many more traditional Republican officials. Moreover, there is also the more marginal phenomenon of Groypers, who are quite blatantly anti-Israel (if not necessarily pro-Palestine, although some certainly are). Quite a few elected Republican politicians have Groyper ties, so it’s not easy to discount as an entirely fringe phenomenon.

It dovetails quite closely with a recent shift on the right, where GOP voters have become increasingly accepting of the idea that political violence can be justified if it is to overthrow governments viewed as illegitimate (see: January 6). An increasingly violence-friendly right wing will have a harder time condemning Hamas solely for being violent. For that reason, and because of Trump’s comments, I expect that the American right will probably become _less_ uniformly supportive of Israel as a result of these events, the opposite of the case for Democrats. 2600:1014:B012:CBE2:F038:B99C:E4FC:41F5 (talk) 23:47, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

A whole bunch of foreign officials has been visiting Israel since the war. Need help to find a way how to consolidate such info in the International reactions section. Borgenland (talk) 15:40, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

• Let's please not overdo the usual "Reactions" business. Drmies (talk) 23:02, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

  I was meaning to put the full list in the international reactions article. I'm just trying to find a summarized sentence for it here. Borgenland (talk) 13:13, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

FYI, this category in Commons now contains 59 photos for the damage that happened in Gaza Strip, which can help in this article. Batoul84 (talk) 17:54, 12 October 2023 (UTC)‏‏‏‏

The images look great, but are we sure they're under the right license?

I only looked at one photo, but it's being sold as a stock photo here: FunLater (talk) 18:12, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello FunLater, all of this image given to Wiki Palestine (Q117834684) directly through Wafa (Palestinian News & Information Agency; the official governmental agency). APAimages company (local company in Gaza strip) is in direct contract with Wafa. That is, the photos are exclusive to Wafa. But the photo may have spread after Wafa published it, and someone transferred it to a stock photo. All images uploaded contains full Exif metadata. Also, there's another image from Al Araby, and they sent to WikiPalestine several original videos to upload them to Wikimedia Commons (ofc with full Exif metadata). Thanks on advance (If needed they can sent email to VRT) Batoul84 (talk) 18:25, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

@Batoul84 that’s incredible! Thank you very much 2804:14D:5C32:4673:BDE3:7671:1DD0:87C2 (talk) 01:23, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you so much. FunLater (talk) 13:42, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Just saw this thread now, but I've been monitoring that category and adding photos here and there for a few days. The photos from Wiki Palestine were pretty useful. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 19:23, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

There is mention of increased settler violence, however I think there should be specific reference made to the Huwara rampage as this was the largest and best documented example. Can someone with edit clearance please add this explicit link to the Background section? Wschreyer (talk) 19:34, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Do reliable sources make this link? Unfortunately there were many instances of settler violence, as well as anti-settler violence. Alaexis_¿question? 08:28, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Shouldn't this article make use of the Twitter name rather than the X name to refer to the social network, since it's the more common one and also the one used on its page? I'm asking because the also recent 2023 Herat earthquakes page uses Twitter rather than the rebranded name. Lazesusdasiru (talk) 21:27, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

We should use both. Either the combination Twitter and "X" in brackets or the other way around.

AKA:

" Twitter (X)"

" X (Twitter)" Poles Ragge (talk) 21:50, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Since the article is titled Twitter, that should be the name used in my opinion. But I like your idea too. Lazesusdasiru (talk) 21:58, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:NAMECHANGES, because Twitter is now referred to as X due to its branding change, and reliable sources recognize this change, we should be using "X" instead of "Twitter."

Saying "X (formerly Twitter)" could work as well. AstralNomad (talk) 22:25, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

I second "X (formerly Twitter)" as this is how many reliable news sources cite to X. Jurisdicta (talk) 01:04, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

"Israeli Defense Forces report they have retaken and fully control all communities around the Gaza Strip on 9 October"

But on the map right above it, there is a continuing change of borders of regions with a presence of Palestinian fighters. While initially, they may have retaken some land, it doesn't look as if it's still the case to say "all of it" is retaken. Genabab (talk) 06:22, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

The map is entirely based on original research and conflicts with reliable sources that are readily available. For example, there is no historical evidence to support the claim that Nir Am was ever captured. I intend to delete the map, and I kindly request that it not be reinstated unless a reliable source is presented to substantiate its accuracy. Infinity Knight (talk) 06:41, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

@Infinity Knight: "map is entirely based on original research" This is a false statement. Sources are provided at the commons page for every single locality which has reported clashes or arrests of militants in the past 24 hours, here is the source for Nir Am. Ecrusized (talk) 08:22, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Could someone who's good at maps fix it, so we can bring it back? DFlhb (talk) 07:53, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Easier said than done with all the confusion and conflicting information regarding the frontlines The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 08:01, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

For sure. DFlhb (talk) 08:06, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Rather than trying to show frontlines, perhaps we should show:

1. The evacuated region
2. The location of major airstrikes
3. The location of major rocket attacks
4. The location of towns invaded by militants
5. The location of massacres

This is all information that is verifiable, and is highly relevant to understanding the article. BilledMammal (talk) 10:04, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

It's clear that there are going to be people who think the IDF are targeting civilians. The IDF have released this statement three hours ago at the time of writing. The Times of Israel writes the following:

I think the hashed red/yellow color for "areas of Gaza ordered by Israel to be evacuated" is confusing, because normally doesn't that signify physically occupied/contested areas on war maps? Also the legend in the infobox does not include this info. Exobiotic 💬 ✒️ 12:20, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

@Exobiotic: A solid color could be applied to show the evacuation order in Gaza, if this is what users prefer. Ecrusized (talk) 12:39, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

I think a dashed border, like the "maximum Hamas extent" may make more sense? Not sure. Exobiotic 💬 ✒️ 12:42, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

The file has been modified, let me know if this is better, other changes can also be applied. You can also edit the file using Inkscape or other vector editors. Ecrusized (talk) 12:56, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Heavily blurred versions can be seen here; should we be including some of the originals in the article?

My belief is that we should; they are horrific, but Wikipedia is not censored and they are indisputably relevant and important to help the reader understand the full extent of the horrors that were perpetrated. There is a question of license, though given they are being widely published (for example, the Daily Telegraph is publishing them tomorrow) I suspect they are under a compatible license - and even if they aren't, a low quality version would certainly fall under fair use. BilledMammal (talk) 23:34, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

I see no reason for their inclusion. We don't need to include gore just for the sake of it. I do think we need to get rid of any amiguity if it exists regarding the slaughter of babies. We now have evidence that it did happen. AtypicalPhantom (talk) 00:20, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

The reason is the same reason we include horrific images at Bergen-Belsen concentration camp and similar articles; because words alone cannot fully explain the atrocities committed. BilledMammal (talk) 00:51, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

They are not in the public domain, for God’s sake! Furthermore, their authenticity is yet to be confirmed by reliable sources. 2804:14D:5C32:4673:BDE3:7671:1DD0:87C2 (talk) 01:18, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

We can still use them under fair use; given comments elsewhere in this discussion doubting the atrocities, I think we need to. Eisenhower said about the Holocaust that people would claim it was mere propaganda; we are already seeing that here, and to provide encyclopedic coverage of the topic that readers will understand and accept we need to include incontrovertible proof. BilledMammal (talk) 15:41, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Please stop referring to the Holocaust. It belittles what happened during the actual Holocaust. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:52, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

All efforts now should be on publishing an NPOV mainstream narrative of events. SPECIFICO talk 16:05, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

See here. François Robere (talk) 14:40, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

https://nltimes.nl/2023/10/13/jewish-schools-amsterdam-closed-today-hamas-protest-call 69.249.102.223 (talk) 17:21, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Similar thing in NY, but it probably belongs in the "international response" article Andre🚐 17:23, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Just found article on same thing in UK, too: https://news.sky.com/story/two-uk-jewish-schools-close-in-interests-of-the-safety-of-our-precious-children-12983327 69.249.102.223 (talk) 17:37, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

See . I don't know which section I should put it in BlackShadowG (talk) 11:33, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

No connection is shown to this war. O3000, Ret. (talk) 11:38, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

https://americanmilitarynews.com/2023/10/report-hamas-calls-for-global-jihad-invasion-of-israel-attack-jews-worldwide-on-oct-13/ that's enough for me 69.249.102.223 (talk) 14:19, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Please note there's already a topic for this above: #Israeli Diplomat Attacked in Beijing Exobiotic 💬 ✒️ 12:05, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Should Lebanon (citing cross-border clashes) be included in the Foreign Casualties table or is it reserved for the Hamas attacks? Borgenland (talk) 18:09, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

The listed above person had voiced radical remarks against Israel while teaching and supplying gazans with paragliders. As explained on Forbes' yesterday article:https://forbes.co.il/e/watch-eu-envoy-demonstrates-gazans-to-paraglide/ 2A01:73C0:502:45F5:0:0:1B6:B12D (talk) 20:33, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

That's remarkable, but unless it can be proven that he smuggled equipment into Gaza or taught paragliding there, it doesn't belong to this article. Alaexis_¿question? 20:40, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

• "US move of aircraft carrier closer to Israel will lead to Gaza massacre - Erdogan" Middle East Monitor
• "Erdogan claims US aircraft carrier’s arrival could lead to massacres" Times of Israel
• "Turkey's Erdogan says US move of aircraft carrier closer to Israel will lead to Gaza massacre" Reuters
• The primary source, if you want to check out the full speech (in Turkish, no subtitles).

Hedikupa Parepvigi (talk) 23:35, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Erdogan may well have a point and it is of concern. But this is in WP:CRYSTALBALL territory from one person. Besides, a carrier isn't actually necessary to create a massacre. O3000, Ret. (talk) 23:54, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree, but my question wasn't whether his prediction is correct but whether it is notable enough for a mention. <IP removed> 00:05, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

We try to avoid looking at the future. Encyclopedias document the past. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:10, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Israeli toll reaches 1,300; NATO ministers shown uncensored video of Hamas atrocities | The Times of Israel

Does this mean we can say that Daesh are involved in this war or would that still be perceived as speulation? שי 08:49, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Hamas Terrorists Hung An ISIS Flag While Attacking A Kibbutz In Israel - I24NEWS confirmed by i24 news שי 08:53, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

officialy not really. Those Hamas terrorists who had a flag either were affialitaed with Daesh (or isis or isil or is) or brangt it as a symbolic object. Daesh (or isis or isil or is) and Hamas ideologies are similare. Both want to destroy israel and destroy the jewish religion. Daesh (or isis or isil or is) is a bit more radical.

There could be Hamas terrorists who are even more into the ideology of Daesh (or isis or isil or is).

Officially it's just a flag of Daesh (or isis or isil or is). Those who had it are probably now dead. We can't really find it out anymore UNLESS Daesh (or isis or isil or is) publicly announces it support of Hamas and their role, like they did in their lone wolves terror attacks in brussels and paris. Poles Ragge (talk) 08:57, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

The same Daesh that Hamas spent resources and man power fighting since 2007? What kind of IDF Salary are you being payed to spread this? If you’re really going to believe one sagacious tweet by an entity then I have reason to believe that Hamas are controlling Beersheeba (despite clashes being heard there and Dimona) A.H.T Videomapping (talk) 14:14, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

There are small salafist/ISIS type cells in the strip, they don't usually get along with Hamas but it's possible one took part in the attack. The Israeli claim can be contextualized as such. PrimaPrime (talk) 15:13, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Israeli death toll is 1,400

https://t.me/Eng_ahed/48552 77.248.247.89 (talk) 20:43, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Still speculative imo, as ISIL hasn't claimed invlvement. Further, even if a handful of the thousands who took part in the incursion were part of an ISIL cell, might still be WP:UNDUE. Riposte97 (talk) 00:15, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Videos have also shown ISIS flags being flown in Sydney, Australia at a Pro-Palestinian Freedom Rally. The association between ISIS and Hamas exists outside this incident and maybe should be mentioned in the article. Icrin7 (talk) 00:21, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Decades ago I attended many protests. There are always some people you would rather not be there. That's life. Why do unknown people carrying flags 9,000 miles from Gaza belong here? O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:30, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

I wonder whether this article should discuss conspiracy theories about the attacks (which are already becoming quite prominent online) or whether it’s better to create a separate article for them. To cite just one example, Nick Fuentes claimed the Israeli government knew about the attack beforehand but let it happen because it stood to gain from it. Others have straight up called it a Mossad false flag. Conspiracy theories about other countries secretly being behind the attacks could fit too. 2604:2D80:6984:3800:0:0:0:77FB (talk) 03:27, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

No. Nick Fuentes as about as WP:UNDUE as you can get. 2001:569:57B2:4D00:241B:BEAA:C39C:1DD (talk) 03:53, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

You are right, but I think that commenting on mainstream allegations of falseflag attacks and bombings is pertient to the article. Icrin7 (talk) 00:35, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

If reliable sources say "so and so far right personality pushed a conspiracy theory", maybe, but AFAIK that's not the case yet. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 00:56, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/liveblog/2023/10/13/israel-hamas-live-dozens-killed-while-fleeing-to-southern-gaza 41.42.158.128 (talk) 00:18, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Id give it more time to settle so more news cover it before adding. There is already video and the testimony of those who were bombed The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 02:13, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

So I understand that for some people it might be October 14th but rn for me it's October 13th so I'm just asking if anyone should change the length of the war from 1 week to 6 days? SupersaurYT (talk) 02:28, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

The operation started around October 7 6:40 UTC+ 3, which is in about 2 hours from its first week. Don’t think it’s necessary now The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 02:33, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

This is an equivocation that should be removed ASAP per WP:SAID, WP:AMBIGUOUS.

WP:SAID: In order to avoid the twin pitfalls of biased wording and tedious repetition of "he said ... she said ...", consider rewriting the prose to remove the need for such verbs in the first place; it is often repeated information, rather than the repetition of specific words, that creates a sense of repetition in prose. 2A02:14F:175:7688:0:0:B482:EFF (talk) 08:04, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

On the contrary, I believe this accords with WP:SAID. It is necessary attribution, and has been a hot topic on this talk page for days. Riposte97 (talk) 00:11, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Video has emerged showing the physical damage of the rapes on hostages. It should remain in the article. Icrin7 (talk) 00:23, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

@Icrin7 please familiarise yourself with the reliable sources policy. Riposte97 (talk) 04:24, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

The timeline format is going to quickly become unsustainable over the following days and weeks as developments continue to occur. We might consider shunting the details out to Timeline of the 2023 Israel–Hamas war and other child articles so we can start formatting this article around WP:SUMMARY style instead of a timeline style. Getting the structure correct now will make long term maintenance much easier.

I also suggest limiting how much content is written under "reactions" and "analysis". Otherwise they're going to keep adding up anytime anyone says anything. Basically, if it's the individual opinion of one person who isn't involved in the conflict, it's probably undue. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:22, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Support limiting the timeline section, given the spin off Timeline article. fgnievinski (talk) 04:33, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Support both suggestions. Riposte97 (talk) 04:55, 14 October 2023 (UTC)