Talk:October 7 attacks

Does the "Friendly fire and use of the Hannibal Directive" portion of this article necessitate revision due to noncompliance with WP:SYNTH and WP:UNDUE?

1. Does the first paragraph constitute WP:SYNTH?
2. Does the second paragraph constitute WP:SYNTH?
3. Does the article's wording of the UN Commission findings overstate it's findings?
4. Does the ABC News Paragraph consist of a duplication of previous cited material, resulting in WP:UNDUE? EaglesFan37 (talk) 21:14, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

This is my viewpoint on the four questions above:

1. The first paragraph begins by citing an "immense and complex quantity of friendly-fire incidents", followed by a citation of the IDF applying the Hannibal Directive in practice. However, the remainder of the article discusses the alleged application of the Hannibal Directive, but does not mention any incidents that resulted in casualties from the cited examples, seemingly leading to WP:SYNTH due to the implication that the Hannibal Directive was the source of "friendly fire". Additionally, the paragraph ends by stating that "It is unclear how many hostages were killed by friendly fire," before citing that "around 70 burnt-out vehicles on roads leading to Gaza had been fired on by helicopters or tanks, killing all occupants in at least some cases." This seems to be WP:SYNTH due to the implication that those 70 vehicles that were sourced to have been fired upon had contained/caused the deaths of Israelis, when that claim itself is not specifically noted.

2. The second paragraph of the section says that there was originally heavy helicopter fire before more careful selection was chosen, then an alleged Israeli report of helicopter fire at the Nova Festival killing Israelis, which was denied by the Israeli Police. However, the paragraph then states "In the aftermath of the attack, Israel buried hundreds of burned cars that were at the scene of the attacks 'To preserve the sanctity of those murdered by Hamas'." This is taken from an article that does not discuss claims of friendly fire/Hannibal Directive and seems to be WP:SYNTH due to the implication that the cars were buried due to friendly fire incidents, which is not supported by the source. Then, the article says "Subsequent investigation has determined that militants had been instructed not to run so that the air force would think they were Israelis. This deception worked for some time, but pilots began to realize the problem and ignore their restrictions. By around 9 a.m., amid the chaos, some helicopters started laying down fire without prior authorization." In conjunction with the rest of the paragraph, there is an implication that this helicopter fire killed Israelis, whereas the article the quotes come from do not mention either friendly fire or a Hannibal Directive. This also seems to be WP:SYNTH.

3. Wording of UN Commission findings The UN Commission report uses terminology such as “strong indications” and “likely killed” to discuss the Hannibal directive, while the article’s wording presents these findings more definitively, using the phrasing "A report by a UN Commission published in June 2024 found that the Israeli security forces used the Hannibal Directive in several instances on October 7." In the article cited, only one exampled was stated to be "confirmed".

4. The ABC News paragraph is based on a source that is discussing the allegations presented in the Haaretz article (which already has a few paragraphs of coverage). Many of the allegations in the ABC paragraph are reports on the allegations that are previously discussed in the wikipedia article when discussing the Haaretz report, resulting in duplication of claims based on the same report, creating WP:UNDUE emphasis. EaglesFan37 (talk) 21:19, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

@EaglesFan37, I suggest you move everything after the words "This is my viewpoint" (including this comment) to a separate Discussion subsection at the end to conform with RFCNEUTRAL.

Personally I also see problems with this section but I think that it makes sense to pause this RfC. There were no responses to your "Points of contention" post so you can try to achieve consensus by editing. If no one objects to your edits, or if there is a healthy discussion leading to consensus then there would be no need for an RfC. Only if you see that you can't resolve a disagreement this way an RfC would be necessary. Alaexis_¿question? 21:13, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

@Alaexis The "this is my viewpoint" part was the beginning of a separate comment.

I see why I an rfc may not have been neccessary, I just would have preferred to have consensus before making a large edit in PIA. EaglesFan37 (talk) 22:53, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

I understand but it may still trigger "bad RfC" !votes which will hamper receiving real feedback. Alaexis_¿question? 07:32, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

• Procedural close 1) There is no WP:RFCBEFORE. 2) The RfC statement is not neutrally worded. M.Bitton (talk) 00:11, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

  @M.Bitton. I left a message asking about the points of discussion 9 days before I made an rFc to try to get more community consensus. I'll strikethrough the non-neutral part of the rFc EaglesFan37 (talk) 02:15, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

It is rather large bit at the start of the RfC, it should be moved to a discussion section and just a one liner left saying it has been moved. I agree with Alexis about not really seeing why you need the RfC. It is good to warn people about potential large or contentionus changes but if they don't respond then just go ahead and then people will object if they really want to! Only if a straightforward discussion after that fails do you need to start an RfC. The problem with RfCs is that they inhibit proper discussion which might be more productive, they are more for finally ending when a straightforward consensus is difficult. They should not be used early on. I agree with procedural close. NadVolum (talk) 19:17, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

• Procedural close I agree with @M.Bitton and @NadVolum that we need prior discussion for this RfC. If people don't respond to a question, you can follow WP:BRD and make the change and people will revert/comment as needed. But remember, we're volunteers here - you might not get instant responses to questions on here, or even relatively quickly. Smallangryplanet (talk) 09:39, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change "One person, peace activist Bilha Inon" to "One person, Bilha Inon" (Located in Casualties > Revision of casualty numbers).

No source indicates this specific person was a peace activist. Doraboragg (talk) 10:59, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

 Not done. The already provided citation states, "The couple’s children have emphasized in interviews about the October 7 atrocities that their parents were lifelong peace activists". --Yamla (talk) 11:05, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

The first map seems to be less accurate. The source for tentacle #9 is this article that says that a Hamas terrorist who had been hiding in Rahat since October 7 was caught in November 2023. I don't think that this qualifies as a military incursion, so maybe we should use the second map from the Gaza War article? Alaexis_¿question? 09:16, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Pachu Kannan, regarding this edit, why do you believe that mention of the Blockade of the Gaza Strip should be removed from the first sentence? Particularly when then first sentence already mentions a detail such as Simchat Torah? إيان (talk) 22:15, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi إيان. It is already mentioned in the fourth paragraph one of the reasons cited by Hamas for the attacks was the blockade of the Gaza Strip. I think mentioning it in the first sentence should meet the requirements of WP:VOICE. Pachu Kannan (talk) 05:01, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Why do you think it doesn’t while Simchat Torah does? إيان (talk) 07:47, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Simchat Torah is mentioned because these attacks were carried out during that Jewish holiday. If you think it is not notable enough to be mentioned in the first sentence, you can seek consensus with other users and remove it. Pachu Kannan (talk) 09:52, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

You did not address the question. إيان (talk) 15:26, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Sorry for not addressing the question. I think Simchat Torah is mentioned because it meet the requirements of WP:WIKIVOICE. I have no objection in mentioning blockade of the Gaza Strip in the first sentence after consensus with other users. I think it cannot be mentioned after consensus between two of us. Pachu Kannan (talk) 16:45, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Since the disagreement with the edit seems to be procedural rather than substantive, (with no elucidation of why exactly the blockade might not meet the requirements of WP:VOICE), I will reinstate the edit and if another editor challenges it, we can discuss further to establish what the consensus is. إيان (talk) 07:18, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

I think mention of blockade in the first sentence is fine. BobFromBrockley (talk) 05:01, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Why does there need to be a hatnote linking to Operation Badr, especially since that operation began on October 6th, not 7th? Instead, the hatnote should instead offer disambiguation with respect to the other most notable October 7th attack of the 21st century, which is the United States invasion of Afghanistan. I'm going to change the hatnote accordingly. JasonMacker (talk) 19:43, 27 February 2026 (UTC)