Talk:October 7 attacks

• Support, per MOS:FIRST:

The first sentence should introduce the topic, and tell the nonspecialist reader what or who the subject is, and often when or where.

Israel's blockade of the Gaza strip is a defining feature of this topic and necessary context for a nonspecialist reader. This is supported by WP:BESTSOURCES: from the beginning, Rashid Khalidi, the preeminent expert in modern Palestinian history, has repeatedly emphasized the oppressive conditions Israel has imposed on Palestinians through its decades-long blockade and occupation (and their history) as the necessary context. In other articles on similar instances of violence from an oppressed group at an oppressor group, such as Nat Turner's Rebellion or the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising the oppression and power dynamics are signaled in the first sentence; we must not create an exception to obfuscate through omission here.

Arguments presented in previous discussions to omit mention of the blockade from the first sentence as "Hamas justification" are obviously meritless. إيان (talk) 07:20, 11 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

The present wording of the RfC is leading to unnecessary confusion among editors. Can you please clarify that it is specifically about the wording currently in the article for the first sentence, which is: On October 7, 2023, a series of coordinated armed incursions from the blockaded Gaza Strip into the Gaza envelope of southern Israel were carried out by Hamas and several other Palestinian militant groups during the Jewish holiday of Simchat Torah.

This was the subject of the previous discussions. The present wording does not make any causal or motivational claims, it simply states that the attacks came from the blockaded Gaza Strip, which is relevant and undisputed factual context that is reflected in reliable-source descriptions.

I support retaining it for that reason.

EaglesFan37's argument about motivation addresses a separate question and not relevant here. Lf8u2 (talk) 03:54, 12 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

• Support because the fact that the Gaza Strip was blockaded is both an important fact about the motivation of the attackers and, even more importantly, important context for the logistics of the attacks. Loki (talk) 15:36, 11 September 2026 (UTC) (summoned by bot)Reply
• Weak oppose as this would make the first sentence too long. I propose mentioning the blockade in the first paragraph. Szxq (talk) 17:51, 11 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

Just to clarify that the current version already does this. It’s just one word. إيان (talk) 18:08, 11 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

I thought the RFC was about adding something like "attacked Israel due to its blockade of the Gaza Strip". I prefer the current version over no mention though Szxq (talk) 18:28, 11 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

• Oppose While the blockade is relevant to the overall context of the conflict, I don't believe it to be WP:DUE to include that Gaza is blockaded in the first sentence. On the day of the attacks, Mohammed Deif, one of the masterminds of the attack, gave a speech . The blockade is not mentioned (Al-Aqsa, Palestinian prisoners, and the West Bank occupation are mentioned). If Deif, the architect of the attack, didn't cite the blockade as a primary motivation, how is the fact that Gaza is blockaded merit mentioning in the first sentence as context? As for the rest, the first sentence of Nat Turner's Rebellion just says that it's a slave rebellion (because it was a slave rebellion). For the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, the first sentence states that the Uprising happened to oppose the transport of the rest of the ghetto to extermination camps. Opposition to including that Gaza was blockaded in the first sentence is not making Palestine the exception, since the blockade cannot be decisively said to be the primary motivation for the attack. And if the blockade is so crucial for context that it must be mentioned in the first line, then the fact that the attack occurred in explicitly Israeli territory under the internationally-recognized Green Line borders would be important to mention as context there as well. EaglesFan37 (talk) 19:59, 11 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

The next paragraph begins with The attacks began with a barrage of at least 4,300 rockets launched into Israel[29][30][31] and vehicle-transported and powered paraglider incursions into Israel.[32][33]. Don't you think that the fact that the Gaza Strip was blockaded is relevant to why the attacks began like that? Loki (talk) 20:06, 11 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

I don't think it's relevant enough to merit inclusion in the first sentence. First, we'd need WP:RS specifically stating that the methods of attack chosen by Hamas & Co. were directly in response to the blockade. Reporting on minutes of meetings/memos planning/providing directions during the attack do not mention the blockade. EaglesFan37 (talk) 21:31, 11 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

Of course it's relevant, but not enough so to warrant inclusion in the very first sentence. MOS:FIRST says [f]or topics notable for only one reason, this reason should usually be given in the first sentence. The blockade is not close to the only reason the October 7 attacks are notable. In solidarity, Brynn Who Likes Editing | talk w/ me! 09:49, 12 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

There seems to be conflation here between conditional and biconditional expressions.

The sentence you cited in MOS:FIRST is structured like a conditional statement, which we can express using propositional logic like so:

• If A, then B
• If the topic is notable for only one reason, then the reason should be given in the first sentence

From this premise, the proof goes something like this:

• P1: A => B
  • 2: Assume !B (conditional introduction)
    • 3: Assume A (reductio ad absurdum)
      • 4: P1 and 3 (A => B and A) entail B
      • 5: 2 and 4 (B and !B) are contradictory (due to the law of excluded middle) so they entail absurdity
    • Discharge 3 to !A per 6
  • Discharge 2 to !B => !A
• Conclusion: !B => !A

So it follows from this conditional statement that:

• If !B, then !A
• If the reason is not given in the first sentence, then the topic is not notable for only one reason

However, it does NOT follow that !A implies !B. It would only follow that !A implies !B if it were instead a biconditional statement (since "if" in natural English establishes a conditional relationship as opposed to a biconditional relationship between propositions):

• Iff A, then B (expanded:)
  • If A, then B
  • AND
  • If B, then A
• In English:
  • If the topic is notable for only one reason, then the reason should be given in the first sentence
  • AND
  • If the reason is given in the first sentence, then the topic is notable for only one reason.

The proof looks something like this:

• P1: A <=> B
• 2: A <=> B entails A => B and B => A
• 3: Per our previous proof, B => A entails !A => !B

So it follows from this biconditional statement that:

• If !A, then !B
• If the topic is not notable for only one reason, then the reason is not (or should not be) given in the first sentence

This seems to be the crux of the confusion - the above does not follow because the MOS:FIRST sentence cited is a conditional rather than a biconditional.

Put differently, it is necessary but not sufficient for one reason to be in the first sentence for the topic to be notable for only one reason. I.E. if only one reason is included for why the attacks occurred, this in no way contravenes the statement in MOS:FIRST [f]or topics notable for only one reason, this reason should usually be given in the first sentence, because it can be the case that one reason is included in the first sentence despite not being the sole reason why the topic is notable. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 05:28, 30 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for pointing out the flaw in my argument. In solidarity, Brynn Who Likes Editing | talk w/ me! 11:52, 30 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

Support - In accordance with arguments in the nomination and voiced by LokiTheLiar, I agree the blockade of the Gaza strip is important political context for the October 7 attacks. The attacks would likely not have happened were the strip not blockaded, as expressed by RS, so we would be doing a disservice to the reader by not mentioning it. The idea doing so takes up too much space (when it's a single word being added) seems a bit silly. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 04:52, 30 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

The fact that Hamas runs the Gaza Strip is also an important political context, and the attacks would likely not have happened were the strip not run by Hamas. So a complete context-relevant sentence would be “terrorists from the blockaded Hamas-run Gaza Strip attacked Jewish communities and IDF bases in Israel.” Gabi S. (talk) 05:11, 30 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

If you think that detail should be added, you're welcome to start your own RfC and make a case for it there. But here we are talking about whether to add Israeli blockading of the Gaza strip to the lede. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 06:25, 30 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

• Oppose The editor above added the word “blockaded” to the first sentence, an addition that most editors in the previous discussion opposed to. The word is charged, biased and redundant. By the same logic, the first sentence should have been “terrorists from the blockaded Hamas-run Gaza Strip attacked Jewish communities and IDF bases in Israel.”

The fact that the Gaza strip was blockaded is already mentioned in the opening paragraph as one of Hamas motives for the attack, and is unnecessary in the first sentence. Yes, there are some sources that use that phrase; they are biased while Wikipedia's tone is formal, objective, and strictly neutral. Gabi S. (talk) 04:56, 12 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

Important note: User إيان added the word "blockaded" in the first sentence a few months ago, and it hadn't been part of the stable version of the article before that. Almost all other editors in previous discussions agree that the addition violates Wikipedia’s neutrality requirements, and this position should be regarded as a consensus. Gabi S. (talk) 05:27, 13 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

• Oppose The lead section talks adequately about the blockade already. MOS:FIRST says to provide something that puts the article in context for the nonspecialist, and the argument that Gaza being blockaded provides "context" for a terrorist attack is problematic in my opinion. A majority of editors actually opposed the use of the word "blockaded" in the first sentence. I do not want to assume any bad faith to any editors here, but this RfC is not a valid escalation in my opinion since there is already a decently clear consensus to not include the word. (P.S. I am a supporter of Palestine, so please do not make any assumptions about my worldview.) In solidarity, Brynn Who Likes Editing | talk w/ me! 09:44, 12 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

Also, I think this comment is a good backer for my points. In solidarity, Brynn Who Likes Editing | talk w/ me! 09:54, 12 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

That comment complains on the grounds of procedure, not substance. Please explain why you believe the argument that Gaza being blockaded provides "context" for a terrorist attack is problematic in my opinion though. إيان (talk) 19:39, 13 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

It's clear from Hamas's prior speeches and acts on the day (e.g. raping people and pillaging a music festival) that they aren't a legitimate rebellion against the blockade. Hamas said they did it as retaliation against the blockade, but that's their statement and not prominent enough to be ubiquitous enough first-sentence level context. But that's my opinion, and I said that because you asked, and I'm skirting Wikipedia:Not a forum so I will stop. However I will say that we're meant to do stuff on the grounds of procedure and not substance, we should base our arguments on Wikipedia policy. In solidarity, Brynn Who Likes Editing | talk w/ me! 19:53, 13 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

we're meant to do stuff on the grounds of procedure and not substance, we should base our arguments on Wikipedia policy - I think there's a misunderstanding, User:إيان was never saying we should ignore or go against Wiki policy. I think the point was that your comments weren't particularly focused on the discussion about the matter at hand (whether to include the word "blockade").

I'm curious - can you please explain why you believe Hamas has to be a legitimate rebellion in order for us to include the blockade in the lede? As I see things, you can think whatever you'd like about the morality or legitimacy of Hamas and the blockade would still be relevant to the attack - am I making sense here? Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 14:51, 30 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

My original comment was focused on the discussion at hand, the argument that Gaza being blockaded provides "context" for a terrorist attack is problematic in my opinion was just one sentence I made. User:إيان asked me why I believed in such an opinion, and I responded with that—my opinion. I wouldn't have done that had they not asked. In solidarity, Brynn Who Likes Editing | talk w/ me! 15:09, 30 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

The blockade is already mentioned elsewhere in the lead. I don't think the blockade is WP:DUE for inclusion in the first sentence. It wasn't even mentioned by Deif as a motivation on the day of the attacks .

Also, in relation to what @Brynn Who Likes Editing initially wrote, it can't be ignored that argument for its inclusion was partially reasoned by the following: In other articles on similar instances of violence from an oppressed group at an oppressor group, such as Nat Turner's Rebellion or the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising the oppression and power dynamics are signaled in the first sentence; we must not create an exception to obfuscate through omission here.

I've already refuted this line of reasoning earlier with the following: The first sentence of Nat Turner's Rebellion just says that it's a slave rebellion (because it was a slave rebellion). For the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, the first sentence states that the Uprising happened to oppose the transport of the rest of the ghetto to extermination camps. Opposition to including that Gaza was blockaded in the first sentence is not making Palestine the exception, since the blockade cannot be decisively said to be the primary motivation for the attack nor the immediate motivator. Adding onto that, without trying to delve too far into politics or WP:FORUM, it's also hard to not view that argument as providing a contextualization under an oppressed-oppressor framework for the killing and abduction of hundreds of civilians (including around 90 foreign agricultural workers (which I don't really see any argument about how they could even be construed as oppressors), around 70 children, and around 150 senior citizens, all of which occurred explicitly Israeli territory under the internationally-recognized Green Line borders). EaglesFan37 (talk) 16:56, 30 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

Opposition to including that Gaza was blockaded in the first sentence is not making Palestine the exception, since the blockade cannot be decisively said to be the primary motivation for the attack nor the immediate motivator. What is your basis for making this claim? Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 09:20, 1 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

See this comment: EaglesFan37 (talk) 13:05, 1 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

it's also hard to not view that argument as providing a contextualization under an oppressed-oppressor framework for the killing and abduction of hundreds of civilians I'll state plainly I think this is a fair characterization of what I am advocating, provided emphasis is placed on the word contextualization (not to be misconstrued with justification). The oppressor-oppressed framework seems entirely relevant in a settler-colonial context, especially considering the asymmetric power dynamics and asymmetric casualties preceding the attack. But I agree this is getting a bit WP:FORUM so let's just leave things here. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 13:42, 22 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

• Support. This is about keeping the single word "blockaded" in the opening sentence: "On October 7, 2023, a series of coordinated armed incursions from the blockaded Gaza Strip into the Gaza envelope of southern Israel were carried out by Hamas and several other Palestinian militant groups...". As I said in the prior talk discussion, this is how major RS reported on the attack in their coverage.

• AP: "Hamas militants stormed from the blockaded Gaza Strip into nearby Israeli towns".
• The Guardian: "launched a large aerial and ground operation from the blockaded Gaza Strip".
• NPR: "launched a large-scale surprise attack from the blockaded Gaza Strip".
• AFP: "infiltrated by air, sea and land from the blockaded Gaza Strip".

That is essential context for understanding the nature of the attack and why it was notable to have it happen in the way and manner it did. It has nothing to do with attributing motivation or justifying terrorism unless you believe all these and many more RS are guilty of the same by using the accurate and relevant factual description of the attack coming from the blockaded Gaza Strip. R3YBOl (🌲) 11:55, 12 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

There is no doubt that the blockade is notable and covered by reliable sources as a major influence for the attacks, but the question at hand is neither. It's the first sentence guideline and neutrality. In solidarity, Brynn Who Likes Editing You've made a point saying it's neutral because some RS use that wording, but sometimes RS can use charged words. | talk w/ me! 12:08, 12 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

I don't think there is any reason to believe that editors can reliably measure the "charge" of a word. Sources choose the words. If editors sensibly sample and summarize them, that produces Wikipedia's version of neutrality. Sean.hoyland (talk) 14:49, 12 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

Fair point. I was just trying to point out what the discussion is hinging on. In solidarity, Brynn Who Likes Editing | talk w/ me! 16:00, 12 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

Sean is right, and also it isn't saying the blockade caused or motivated anything. It's one word saying where the incursions came from. The first sentence guideline says it should introduce the topic to the average reader and asks for "what or who the subject is, and often when or where". "From the blockaded Gaza Strip" is the where. Neutrality means following the sources. AP, NPR, The Guardian and many more all described the attacks as coming from the blockaded Gaza Strip. Using that phrasing is entirely consistent with NPOV. Removing it needs a policy or source-based justification, and I have not seen any offered. R3YBOl (🌲) 21:29, 13 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

The Guardian and many other sources include additional details, which might also introduce the topic to the average reader. By that logic, the first sentence should have been “terrorists from the blockaded Hamas-run Gaza Strip attacked Jewish communities and IDF bases in Israel.” Gabi S. (talk) 06:09, 14 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

""From the blockaded Gaza Strip" is the where." No, the Gaza Strip is the where. "Blockaded" is a contextual element, it's not simply or even primarily a where word. I understand that RS use the blockaded Gaza Strip as an opening phrase, but Wikipedia recognizes that sometimes RS can be advocated or biased, all sources have some form of bias.

"Removing it needs a policy or source-based justification, and I have not seen any offered." Here's an oppose argument arguing WP:UNDUE, a comment looking at sources, my argument about MOS:FIRST and WP:CON, my other comment, another oppose argument that links the sources itself, etc. In solidarity, Brynn Who Likes Editing | talk w/ me! 11:21, 14 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

• Oppose. There are many adjectives that can describe the Gaza strip. The blockade is mentioned in the lede already. The RS we use mostly don't treat the blockade as the first-sentence-worthy. I've checked the sources cited in the Incursions into southern Israel and most of them (revision link) do not mention the blockade or mention it far from the beginning of the article giving it limited weight (, , , , , ). On the other hand, only the AP and the Guardian mention it in the first sentence. Alaexis_¿question? 09:16, 13 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

  Oppose for the same reasons ꧁Mangroves꧂ 22:07, 2 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

  What other adjectives can be used to describe the Gaza Strip that are directly relevant to the October 7 attacks and are actually used by RS when reporting on them? I don't understand the standard being applied here. WP:DUE does not say that a description is due only if it appears in the first sentence of every source, nor do we determine weight by looking only at whichever sources happen to be cited in one subsection of a WP article. Those references were selected to support particular operational details, not as a representative survey of how RS characterize the attacks. The BBC link is listed twice, the France 24 link is an "In pictures" gallery, and the Modern War Institute link is a November specialist podcast cited for a narrow operational claim about the Sderot police station. The other sources cited do not support the conclusion being drawn from them. CNN discusses the ongoing siege of Gaza and explains that Gaza was sealed off and heavily monitored, while AJ says in its opening coverage that rockets came from the besieged territory and later calls Gaza a blockaded enclave. Modern War Institute itself describes the attacks as beginning with rocket fire from inside Gaza, so its podcast's omission of the word "blockaded" tells us nothing about the weight of that description.

  As I noted in my !vote below, this extends well beyond breaking news reporting. Its significance as a descriptor is established by its repeated use across RS, in both immediate and long-term coverage. To go into more detail: AP, The Guardian, NPR and AFP all described the attacks as coming from the "blockaded Gaza Strip" or equivalent wording; CBS described missiles being launched from the small, blockaded Palestinian territory while fighters broke through the fortified border; The New York Times described Gaza as blockaded in its contemporaneous coverage while documenting militants crossing into southern Israel, and its later investigation begins with gunmen from Gaza crossing into Israel; the Washington Post discussed the existing blockade in its immediate coverage, and its later year-long investigation into Hamas's preparations treats Gaza's isolation and the blockade as directly relevant to how Hamas prepared the force that carried out the attacks. Even The Guardian's reconstruction a week after the events describes the forces breaching the fence surrounding Gaza and immediately identifies Gaza as a strip blockaded by land, sea and air. Paprikaiser (talk) 22:02, 6 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

• Oppose I simply don't accept the premise that this is defining at such a level as to need to be in the opening sentence and the addition makes that sentence clumsy IMO. Opening sentences of such articles typically confine themselves to the most essential facts, what happened, where it happened, when it happened. The question of why it happened, in the sense of motivation or background is addressed later in the lead.Pincrete (talk) 16:55, 13 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

How could it be that the lone adjective 'blockaded' is causing the sentence to be clunky when there are seven words appended to the sentence to state that it happened "during the Jewish holiday of Simchat Torah"? إيان (talk) 19:35, 13 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

Measuring clunkiness through a simple word count is kind of superficial, though. The word blockaded may read to be clunky, because in the article, you can see it's a noun phrase where both the adjective and proper noun have separate wikilinks. The "during the Jewish holiday of Simchat Torah" reads more eloquently to me because it doesn't rely on multiple stuffy wikilinks and also it's its own clause, which allows it to breathe more. This isn't a big issue to me, I'm just pointing it out. In solidarity, Brynn Who Likes Editing | talk w/ me! 20:07, 13 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

I said clumsy, not clunky, though the meaning is similar. IMO it clumsily intrudes an adjective about the 'status' of Gaza and is completely unnecessary to establishing where the attack came from. There is no geographic difference between blockaded Gaza Strip" and 'Gaza Strip".

Regarding source-based arguments, this story was covered extensively by virtually every news source on the planet. The key facts were in virtually all of those, where the attack came from, what/who was attacked by whom, hostages etc. Many of those sources would have added descriptive adjectives, broadly dependent on their sympathies and styles. You have found a handful that describe Gaza as 'blockaded' in their coverage of the basic facts. Were this key information, worthy of the lead sentence, we would expect virtually every news source to have included it.

The political 'background', including the blockade, is clearly relevant, simply not core to the what where when who.

The RfC isn't asking about whether to include the religious festival in the lead sentence, so that's academic, but FWIW, my reaction to the 'Jewish holiday' info is that it's also relatively incidental, but at least less obtrusively positioned. So, on balance, I'd be neutral about moving it. Pincrete (talk) 06:13, 14 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

It's unclear how the single adjective "blockaded" could be seen as less necessary than the several other details currently present, like Simchat Torah, which is delivered in many more words and has not been demonstrated to be as prominent in RS coverage. إيان (talk) 05:04, 30 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

Please read the last paragraph of Pincrete's comment. In solidarity, Brynn Who Likes Editing | talk w/ me! 17:58, 30 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

There is no geographic difference between blockaded Gaza Strip" and 'Gaza Strip". Why would the difference introduced by this word have to be geographic? Most words in the first sentence are not geographic. The political 'background', including the blockade, is clearly relevant, simply not core to the what where when who. Gaza has not always been blockaded throughout its history - the conditions preceding the attack are very important to the "what". You have found a handful [of sources] that describe Gaza as 'blockaded' in their coverage of the basic facts. Were this key information, worthy of the lead sentence, we would expect virtually every news source to have included it. We're allowed to use editorial discretion on Wikipedia rather than being bound to copy news article summary styles. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 07:35, 30 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

This is not the kind of situation where editorial discretion is appropriate. In a case like this, we use sources and policy to back our arguments. In solidarity, Brynn Who Likes Editing | talk w/ me! 16:45, 17 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Editorial discretion is not only appropriate - it is logically necessary in all Wikipedia writing. You cannot write original content on Wikipedia without engaging in editorial discretion. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 13:12, 22 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Understood, but when I said "editorial discretion" I meant a narrower definition about how we frame things, what to include in the very beginning, which tone, etc. Not every single word choice in a 12k word page. In solidarity, Brynn Who Likes Editing | talk w/ me! 13:15, 22 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

• Oppose as the additional word is a change to previously-worded lead, and it doesn't add anything notable or relevant that isn't already stated in due course. WP:AINTBROKE Pistongrinder (talk) 20:56, 18 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

• Support. The word "blockaded" gives the reader the condition of the place the attacks came from, and essential contextual point in a concise and accurate manner. R3YBOl provides some very good RS that support this wording. Dualpendel (talk) 15:36, 26 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

• Oppose. As discussed, the word suggests justification. Further -- to the unedified reader it may well connote the most extreme version of what "blockade" might mean -- like the complete stoppage of all food and supply into a territory. JerryGraf (talk) 21:57, 29 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

  As discussed, the word suggests justification—where? I have not seen the claim convincingly laid out anywhere that the lone word "blockaded" suggests justification. It's literally just basic introductory description entirely appropriate for MOS:FIRST.

  to the unedified reader it may well connote the most extreme version of what "blockade" might mean—it's a link to Blockade of the Gaza Strip so an unedified reader can learn exactly what it means. إيان (talk) 04:59, 30 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

  I considered that, and noted that the Blockade article describes it as a "complete blockade on the movement of goods and people in and out of the Gaza Strip."

  On the other, The justification is implicit as the word seems to answer the question of "why." JerryGraf (talk) 06:53, 30 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

  Are you saying the information at Blockade of the Gaza Strip is incorrect? It should be fixed then.

  the word seems to answer the question of "why"—no such claim is made. The adjective does however provide basic, fundamental information about the who, the what, the where, and the when—as prescribed by MOS:FIRST—as well as the how. إيان (talk) 07:11, 30 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

• Oppose including the term (support removing it). It seems to me to be fairly obviously included as a justification for the attacks, or more accurately to imply what the authors believe are the attackers' justification (when looking at the sources which use the term). The main argument in favor seems to be that it is vitally important to tell people that Gaza is blockaded, and in fact, that to fail to do so would be to fail to fully explain the attacks. إيان's comment says as much: the blockade is a "defining feature" of the attacks and is "necessary context". I believe that both of these statements are entirely incorrect. The attacks, which of course happened in Israel, were not in Gaza and thus were not "defin[ed]" by the blockade. I also don't think that the blockade is "necessary context" to the attacks. Even if the blockade was the actual motivation, it is only relevant in that limited context; to lead with the mention of the blockade is to agree with the attackers that the existence of the blockade justified the attacks. I can't say I know too much about Khalidi's credentials, but a quick overview of his Wikipedia page shows me that he is not a neutral observer whose opinion is deserving of total trust on our part. Perhaps he is important enough that his views deserve mention in this article; but his views are not so important that our article should be based on them. On a procedural note, while I do agree with other editors that the "stable version" was the one without the term, I think that later discussions which have failed to remove the term have solidified its position. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 15:45, 3 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
• Oppose - Mover's justifications (comparing what all RS agree involved significant war crimes, to revolts by victims of chattel slavery or industrialized extermination) smack of NPOV editorialization. PrimaPrime (talk) 16:49, 3 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

  Agree with you, but what do you mean by Mover's? There doesn't seem to be a move, I'd like to know what you mean. In solidarity, Brynn Who Likes Editing | talk w/ me! 16:51, 3 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

• Oppose - The blockade can be mentioned further down in the historical context. Mentioning it at the beginning strikes me as POV-pushing in an attempt to provide de facto justification for the attack in wikivoice. The OP isn't helping their case here by labeling a single historian with a particular worldview as the "preeminent expert" as well as making comparisons to the Holocaust and slavery that are debatable in the Gaza context, to say the least.--RM (Be my friend) 19:00, 3 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Comment: Just flagging that this RfC has been picked up in an October 2 piece by the Jerusalem News Syndicate (JNS), which cites someone from the Zionist Combat Antisemitism Movement as if some kind of expert and even attempts to denigrate and delegitimize the scholarship of Rashid Khalidi with the familiar and tired talking point about the PLO. This RfC has also been targeted and advertised by offline Zionist vigilantism with blatant intimidation and libelous incitement against me on October 3.

It will be especially incumbent upon the eventual closer not to succumb to baseless external Zionist pressure: to evaluate the quality of sourcing and validity of argumentation per policy presented in this RfC, rather than simply tallying !votes that may or may not have been compelled by offline WP:Canvassing. إيان (talk) 21:28, 5 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

It will be especially incumbent upon the eventual closer not to succumb to baseless external Zionist pressure: to evaluate the quality of sourcing and validity of argumentation per policy presented in this RfC, rather than simply tallying !votes that may or may not have been compelled by offline WP:Canvassing. - +1 Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 13:10, 6 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

It's been two weeks since these two articles were published, and we've seen no evidence of any canvassing or other consequences. Thus, the entire comment should simply be ignored. Gabi S. (talk) 06:15, 17 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Also, my comment over here breaks down why I believe there is no canvassing as of now. In solidarity, Brynn Who Likes Editing | talk w/ me! 07:07, 17 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Support and in light of the canvassing highlighted by asilvering and إيان above, I trust the closer will weigh the discussion by the strength of policy arguments and evidence from RS rather than relying on a raw !vote count, discounting !votes that lack policy rationale per WP:VOTE. I will note that at least six participants (including a new EC account) have no prior edit history on this article.

The single factual descriptor "blockaded" in incursions from the blockaded Gaza Strip does not discuss causation; it describes where the incursions came from and supplies relevant context for an attack involving militants breaking out of a heavily restricted, fortified, blockaded territory. Alongside the already cited examples by R3YBOl, this description is not confined to breaking-news coverage. Major RS repeatedly describe Gaza as "blockaded", a "blockaded enclave/territory/strip", or explicitly identify the longstanding blockade as relevant context in reporting on the attacks published days, months and over a year later. This is a non-exhaustive list:

• AP: 7 October 2023, 9 October 2023, 20 October 2023, 25 October 2023
• BBC: 7 October 2023, 1 November 2023, 14 October 2025
• NYT: 7 October 2023, 9 October 2023, 25 October 2023, 26 November 2023
• Reuters: 8 October 2023, 11 October 2023, 23 February 2024, 7 June 2024
• Washington Post: 8 October 2023, 11 October 2023, 2 November 2023, 7 April 2024
• CNN: 7 October 2023, 28 October 2023, 1 March 2024
• The Guardian: 7 October 2023, 13 October 2023, 23 October 2023, 7 November 2023, 26 January 2024, 10 September 2024
• NPR: 7 October 2023, 8 October 2023, 12 October 2023, 8 February 2024, 6 October 2024, 10 October 2024, 17 October 2024
• AFP (syndicated AFP reports): 7 October 2023, 10 October 2023, 16 October 2023, 16 October 2023, 23 October 2023
• CBS News: 8 October 2023, 12 October 2023, 12 October 2023, 16 October 2023, 23 October 2023, 10 June 2025
• France 24: 8 October 2023, 12 October 2023, 16 October 2023, 31 October 2023, 6 October 2024
• AJ: 7 October 2023, 9 October 2023, 12 October 2023, 1 November 2023, 27 November 2024
• Los Angeles Times: 7 October 2023, 18 October 2023, 25 October 2023, 26 October 2023, 1 March 2024
• ABC News: 17 October 2023, 6 February 2024, 20 February 2024
• NBC News: 9 October 2023, 10 October 2023, 4 April 2024, 7 October 2024
• PBS: 7 October 2023, 9 October 2023, 10 October 2023, 11 October 2023, 13 October 2023, 25 October 2023

The same appears in human rights reports and scholarly work, such as Human Rights Watch and the UN Commission of Inquiry. Erik Skare's 2025 Road to October 7 opens by stating that When the Palestinian militants breached the wall on October 7, 2023, Gaza had been under blockade for sixteen years (p. 1), directly placing the blockade in the description of the attack itself. Beverley Milton-Edwards and Stephen Farrell's 2024 Hamas: The Quest for Power opens its account of October 7 by describing the incoming rockets from Gaza and the 2.3 million Palestinians trapped behind Israel's fortified border that seals off the Gaza Strip from the outside world, immediately before describing militants breaching those fortifications and entering Israel (p. 1). It separately discusses Hamas's stated objection to Israel's unjust blockade on the Gaza Strip when examining the reasons given for the attack (p. 7). Trey Yingst's 2024 Black Saturday introduces Gaza immediately before its October 7 narrative as a Palestinian territory blockaded by Israel and governed by Hamas (p. 3). Tarek Hamoud's Understanding October 7 through Hamas's Adaptability and Leadership Structure describes Gaza as a besieged enclave and Israel's ongoing siege and blockade of it before stating that These realities are critical to understanding October 7 (pp. 90–91).

My point is that "blockaded" as a descriptor was not only used in the initial hours of 7 October by a handful of outlets, but recurs across a broad range of major RS over an extended period of coverage as part of the geographical and operational context of the attacks. Adopting this wording is entirely consistent with WP:NPOV. Length is also not a valid objection when we devote 7 words in the first sentence to a holiday mentioned nowhere else in the article. Paprikaiser (talk) 21:23, 6 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Paprikaiser's link list conclusively demonstrates that RS commonly mention the blockade in their coverage of Gaza. I hope no one disputes this. And of course our 10/7 article mentions the blockade as well (9 times by my count).

The RfC question we’re addressing here is whether the word blockade belongs in the first reference to Gaza.

Of the 74 linked news articles above, only 12 mention the blockade (or besieged or similar) in the first reference to Gaza. Two of those articles are features about the blockade itself rather than about 10/7 (and four are links R3YBOl already posted). This leaves 10 articles that are both about the 10/7 attacks and use blockade in the first reference.

That is a small number indeed given the list was assembled in an exercise looking specifically for this very treatment.

I would argue that the remaining 64 articles therefore are actually very convincing evidence that RS in fact rarely treat the blockade as a defining element the first time they mention Gaza in their coverage of 10/7. The Wikipedia article must conform to this standard.

(I’ve not bothered listing the links here because anyone seeking to verify me is going to have to check them all anyway.) JerryGraf (talk) 22:35, 7 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Why are you treating placement at a source's first mention of Gaza as a standard Wikipedia must conform to? Neither WP:DUE nor MOS:FIRST imposes that requirement. MOS:FIRST calls for an introduction explaining what or who the subject is, and often when or where. My list demonstrates sustained use across reliable coverage, supporting the descriptor's weight and relevance as introductory context. Please identify the policy supporting your proposed rule.

If this were a general requirement, opening sentences across WP would have to satisfy it, adding a placement threshold currently absent from WP:DUE and MOS:FIRST. Here, it would also require removing Simchat Torah, Gaza envelope, and the participation of other Palestinian militant groups unless they meet the same threshold. Have you checked those, or is this requirement solely being applied to "blockaded"? Paprikaiser (talk) 22:02, 8 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

With or without the word Blockade, the first sentence tells us "where" the subject is, and so therefore is in compliance with MOS:FIRST.

The Blockade is covered elsewhere in the lead section of this article. I assume we both agree that mentioning the blockade there is WP:DUE.

What's being debated here is whether the "Blockade" is so definitional to "Gaza" that it must be mentioned in the very first reference to Gaza. There's no specific policy that directly answers this question, so as always, we look to RS for the answer. Happily, they answer the question rather definitively.

(Separately, I'm happy to consider the removal of the other items you mention should those come up under a different RfC. The blockade debate is quite sufficient for today!) JerryGraf (talk) 13:02, 9 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Here, it would also require removing Simchat Torah, Gaza envelope, and the participation of other Palestinian militant groups unless they meet the same threshold. Have you checked those, or is this requirement solely being applied to "blockaded"?

I've removed Simchat Torah so we can agree on that. Your other examples are obviously meant to be included per MOS:FIRST, The first sentence should introduce the topic, and tell the nonspecialist reader what or who the subject is, and often when or where. The Gaza envelope is where the attacks happened. It's obvious that the inclusion of this term or some equivalent signifier is necessary. As for the participation of other Palestinian groups - to define the October 7th attacks as carried out by Hamas alone would exclude part of "what or who the subject is". Technically, Simchat Torah is when the attacks occurred, but as I say I agree with you on its omission.

"Blockaded" is none of "what", "who", "when" or "where". What some people read it as is an implied description of "why", but even if it's not serving that purpose, there is no evidence that it is definitional of our subject or even uniquely informative about its context to merit first sentence inclusion. Samuelshraga (talk) 13:20, 9 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

there is no evidence that it is definitional of our subject or even uniquely informative about its context to merit first sentence inclusion The evidence can be seen throughout 74 sources in the same thread, which respectfully, it appears you did not bother to respond to.

"Blockaded" is none of "what", "who", "when" or "where". What some people read it as is an implied description of "why", but even if it's not serving that purpose What evidence do you have it is not relevant to the "why"? Do you have 74 RS that characterize the blockade as unimportant to the attack? Because so far I have seen no RS on the other side that establish this question is WP:SERIOUSLYCONTESTED, as opposed to the word "blockaded" simply being overwhelmingly supported by RS as DUE in the first sentence. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 21:11, 9 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Your response completely misinterprets what I said, with the effect of setting up a strawman. I did not say that the blockade is unimportant. Saying that something is not uniquely the most important piece of information is not equivalent to saying that it's irrelevant.

What evidence do you have it is not relevant to the "why"? I didn't say that it's irrelevant to why. However, I agree with analysis above that it is not the primary motivation cited by Hamas for the attack at the time, nor is it the primary motivation ascribed to Hamas by most (any?) secondary analysis (e.g. ) If you want it in there as "why" (which is anyway not one of the things mentioned for inclusion in MOS:FIRST), you should at least be able to show a consensus of sources treat it as the main answer.

Do you have 74 RS that characterize the blockade as unimportant to the attack? I certainly didn't say that it's unimportant to the attack. I said it's due for inclusion in the lede as contextual information about the status quo ante. There are lots of important things about the attack mentioned by basically all sources (that many people were killed and that hostages were taken, for example) that are not in the first sentence but are in the lede.

On the 74 sources: only a handful mention the blockade as part of Hamas' motivation, all of these do so along with other motivations like freeing Palestinian prisoners, destroying Israel, Israeli actions in the West Bank, Jerusalem and Al-Aqsa etc. Others in the 74 mention motivation without including the blockade in that. We should bear this (and other sources) in mind when discussing their motivation in general, and it is a good reason not to include the blockade as "why" in the first sentence, if we include a why at all. Samuelshraga (talk) 20:07, 10 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Again, I'm just not understanding why the blockade would have to be dubbed "the primary motivation for the attack" in order to be relevant in the first sentence (or why this would disallow us from discussing some of the most important political context in the first sentence pertaining to the preconditions of the attacks). This expectation is not applied elsewhere on the site, nor does MOS:LEAD appear to substantiate it. This seems like a motte-and-bailey argument that conflates the defensible position, that it wasn't dubbed "the primary motivation for the attacks", with the less defensible position, that therefore we shouldn't include it in the first sentence. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 13:19, 22 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

It's interesting you mention motte-and-bailey argument. My oppose !vote below says it's WP:DUE for inclusion, including in the lede, and two comments above I wrote The Blockade is covered elsewhere in the lead section of this article. I assume we both agree that mentioning the blockade there is WP:DUE.. The comment you're directly responding to compares the blockade to other issues that are not in the first sentence but are in the lede. Your argument summarised my claim as saying we shouldn't include it in the lede. I now see you've edited the last word "lede" to "first sentence" in your comment. I'm not convinced that this "patch" fixes the logic here.

I've explained with specific quotes what in MOS:FIRST I'm referring to, both in the comment you're responding to and below. To reiterate for you one last time: the blockade is important context for the topic of the article but not so uniquely important as to be in the first sentence. Nothing in the sourcing suggests it is. MOS:FIRST says that the first sentence should give a concise definition, what or who the subject is, and often when or where. The blockade is not that. I won't repeat myself further, you can see my argument already. Samuelshraga (talk) 14:27, 22 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

"in light of the canvassing highlighted by asilvering and إيان above" There's no evidence of canvassing. What I see is partisan coverage from offwiki sites that condemn a party of the RfC, but aren't trying to influence the outcome. The sites covering the RfC are not telling people to join it. Wikipedia:Canvassing defines canvassing as "notification done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way."

"I will note that at least six participants (including a new EC account) have no prior edit history on this article." That's because any editor from this or the other RfC feed can see the RfC and discuss it. Having a prior edit history on the article isn't a prerequisite or even a good thing when it comes to joining an RfC. Uninvolved editors are encouraged to join RfCs. In solidarity, Brynn Who Likes Editing | talk w/ me! 06:38, 9 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

• Oppose. I'll preface by saying that it's obviously true that the Gaza strip was under blockade at the time, that RS report this and it's WP:DUE for inclusion, including in the lede, so these are not the locus of the dispute. The first argument for inclusion cited: MOS:FIRST: The first sentence should introduce the topic, and tell the nonspecialist reader what or who the subject is, and often when or where. It continues later: Do not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject.

That the Gaza Strip was blockaded is simply not part of the definition of our subject, nor does it provide context so essential that the reader needs to see it in the first sentence, before indeed learning who the perpetrators were. There are many adjectives that could be added in the first sentence, that are notable and important context for our subject. I see no reason why this bit of context is the most essential one that needs to be in the first sentence, and for that to change I would need to see sources that make that point explicitly - that they say these attacks were essentially linked to the blockade, more than any other context - or at the very least implicitly, by a consensus of RS not just mentioning the blockade but by mentioning it most prominently out of all other context provided. Looking at a subset of the links to RS provided in this discussion (and echoing Alaexis above) we don't meet this standard. For the avoidance of doubt, I think Simchat Torah could also be removed from the first sentence and I'll look to doing that as well. Samuelshraga (talk) 07:38, 8 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Comment: Noting that the Anti-Defamation League (see WP:ADLPIA and related WP:Perennial sources discussions), with its recent report, has now joined previously mentioned pro-Israel actors agitating with regard to this discussion, including publishing libelous characterizations of myself and other editors freeing knowledge they appear to find inconvenient. إيان (talk) 20:35, 21 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Well congratulations on your mission to free inconvenient knowledge having such an impact I guess. I was curious what they had to say, thought I'd double-check it and - ADLPIA notwithstanding - indeed they were correct that you had reframed the October 7th attacks as a "breakout" in the first sentence of the article, with the edit summary "ce". Samuelshraga (talk) 12:44, 22 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Well I don't think that was a particularly good edit, nor do I consider "ce" to be a useful edit note, especially for such a bold edit. That said, this is starting to feel very WP:BATTLEGROUND. إيان has conducted themselves in a consistently civil manner from what I've seen, and I believe they're WP:HERE to write an encyclopedia. Let's leave the battlegrounding to the news media/advocacy groups and not legitimize the demonization of any in this discussion by echoing their personal attacks. Wikipedia cannot exist as a reflection of the polarized environment we live in. If you have behavioral issues with this editor, you'd in my view need to make a strong case beyond what you cited, which I just haven't seen. Noting that news articles/advocacy groups are talking about this discussion is relevant (of course), since it does carry very real implications pertaining to this discussion and warrants a greater degree of caution. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 13:04, 22 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

This is getting off topic, but I'll respond: it was indeed one sloppy, insufficient edit summary out of my 18,000+ edits—if one were interested in understanding it, however, they would of course have to look at it in context, and they would see that in the preceding edit, in which I actually introduced mention of the Blockade of the Gaza Strip, I state in the edit summary: If the fact that the attack occurred on Simhat Torah is due for the introductory paragraph, so is the fact that Gaza had been under blockade. That seems entirely fair to me.

If the objective is to attempt to delegitimize and invalidate my contributions and paint me as an antisemite as we all know the ADL is wont to do, then considering context in indeed burdensome and inconvenient and, for their purposes, I understand why they shirked that consideration. إيان (talk) 13:39, 22 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

• Oppose. Per MOS:FIRST, the opening sentence should be a concise definition of what occurred rather than overloading it with background context. While the blockade is relevant to the broader conflict, it is already covered elsewhere in the lead and article body. Inserting it into the very first sentence is WP:UNDUE. —Biosketch (talk) 17:46, 22 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
• Support – looking at the numerous reliable sources provided by Paprikaiser and others which establish that Gaza being described as "blockaded" is not unusual or editorializing. It is a factual description, with important context for understanding the nature of incursions and how they unfolded, particularly the heavily restricted and fortified boundary and how they were crossed. A lot of the opposition seems focused on whether the blockade was a motivation for the attacks, but that is not what the wording claims. It does not need to be established for the description to be relevant under MOS:FIRST. Even if motivation was the central question, there isn't a WP:NPOV violation in stating a fact that is both widely reported by RSs and undisputed by other RSs. Describing the territory as blockaded does not imply justification, any more than the sources themselves using precisely such descriptions are justifying them. I haven't seen any convincing policy- or source-based arguments for excluding this context from the opening sentence.Tashmetu (talk) 12:40, 24 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

  [That it's motivation] does not need to be established for the description to be relevant under MOS:FIRST. Agreed, but do you have any comment on what does need to be established for inclusion under MOS:FIRST, and how "blockaded" meets that? We can agree on what's not the standard, but the question is what is the standard. Samuelshraga (talk) 16:57, 24 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

• oppose. Per MOS:LEAD the blockade is the background and not the subject and is already mentioned in the lead and fully covered in the article. As to my understanding the way of doing things in this encyclopedia on controversial topics is by reaching well debated WP:CON, and since this version was not agreed upon it should be restored to the previous stable agreed version.Happypenguins82 (talk) 16:15, 26 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Given the extensive coverage of the attacks, BESTSOURCES are detailed with a historical perspective. An encyclopedia article on the topic should not be using contemporary sources to determine weight in the lede of an article when it's been three years since. --Hipal (talk) 22:06, 7 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Indeed, the word “blockaded” was shown to be used in this context in several news articles, which employed non-neutral language for some reason. Academic books and articles, which undergo peer review and tend to use more balanced and precise language, do not use this word, and neither should we.

Ian (إيان), the editor who added the word “blockaded” in the first place, pointed out that a few pro-Israeli organizations perceive this addition as a justification of Hamas. This does not mean that they are wrong; rather, they are drawing attention to this biased language. It is rather interesting that no pro-Palestinian organizations complained about bias in this Wikipedia article. This rather proves that the word “blockaded” is indeed non-neutral and should be removed from the opening sentence. The rest of the article needs to be handled similarly, and the first sentence is a good place to start. Gabi S. (talk) 05:52, 24 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Erm... no that's not how neutrality works. And I agree with you about not including "blockaded" in the first sentence, but we aren't going to edit the article every time "one side" has a complaint about it and the other doesn't. Hilariously absurd ways to make each sentence offensive to both pro-Israeli and pro-Palestinian sensibilities come to mind, none of them seem like a good way to write an encyclopedia. Samuelshraga (talk) 16:53, 24 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

I agree. I just meant that there are some other instances of non-neutral language throughout the article. Gabi S. (talk) 17:37, 24 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

As a side note, the word “blockaded” was not part of the opening sentence until it was added in February, and it immediately sparked opposition from some editors on the talk page. For some reason it was not deleted, even though there was no consensus about it and it was not part of the stable version. If this RfC is closed without a consensus, the opening sentence should be restored to its pre-February version, which does not include that word. Gabi S. (talk) 18:39, 24 October 2026 (UTC)Reply