Talk:October 7 attacks/Archive 10

@Smallangryplanet, where does this article say that "Israel's claims about the ... scale ... of sexual assaults did not stand up to scrutiny."?

The article says the following about the numbers

Note that this is attributed to Patten and not told in the newspaper's own voice, so we should attribute it accordingly like I've done in my edit. Alaexis_¿question? 13:11, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Questioning Israeli claims regarding the "systematic" nature of the sexual violence includes scope/scale/extent, the article repeatedly notes that claims regarding the scope/scale/extent by Israeli officials do not stand up to scrutiny, and this is not merely limited to Patten and her report (which was written by a team of experts), but also to other experts and their own independent investigations (see excerpts added below). The current, stable version accurately reflects the content of the detailed investigative report.

Smallangryplanet (talk) 16:06, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

But the current wording is not a fair summary of the excerpts. Only the penultimate one is about the scale/numbers. Alaexis_¿question? 21:07, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

All of them directly question Israeli government and police claims regarding scale/scope/extent/systemic nature and say they do not stand up to scrutiny. Smallangryplanet (talk) 21:18, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

I don't think this is accurate summary of a very nuanced article. (1) The "stand up to scrutiny" and "formally sanctioned" words are not used by the NYT in their own voice, but come from the WP:HEADLINE where it's put in a third party voice: The Israeli government insists that Hamas formally sanctioned sexual assault on October 7, 2023. But investigators say the evidence does not stand up to scrutiny. Catherine Philp and Gabrielle Weiniger report on eight months of claim and counter-claim. (2) "a detailed investigative report" is also misleading. Mostly the article carefully describes existing investigations (particularly Patten's) and so makes an excellent secondary source for covering them. The following passages are the only ones referring to new research:

• We hired a leading Israeli dark-web researcher to look for evidence of those images, including footage deleted from public sources. None could be found.
• After a number of freed hostages spoke about the abuse of others still held, some families urged them to be quiet, fearful it was now too easy to identify them. We are aware of several stories of the abuse of women and children that, if recounted, would rob the victims of their privacy.

And (3) in relation to "systematic" it repeatedly says that Patten's investigation (not theirs) was unable to confirm the systematic nature of the attacks. In short, none of what our sentence says is accurate. BobFromBrockley (talk) 23:24, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

I tend to disagree here. It reads like an accurate reflection of the content of the report to me. As regards the description of "detailed investigative report", the piece does not mostly describe existing investigations. That is only in the passages that were quoted by @Smallangryplanet. The rest of the article includes investigations of claims made by particular Israeli government affiliated officials, the Israeli legal system and prevalence of racism and how it interacts with conceptions of heightened sexual violence from Palestinians, the flawed work done by rescue organizations such as Zaka, and more. Calling it detailed is accurate.

"Stand up to scrutiny" and "formally sanctioned" do not have to be explicitly used in the text of the piece for them to be accurate descriptions of the content, which they are, and the fact that it is used in the sub-heading of the piece itself does not detract from that.

For instance, the piece states on multiple occasions that there is no evidence for the Israeli claim that rapes were ordered by Hamas. Saying that the piece thus questions Israeli claims of its formally sanctioned nature regarding that is plainly accurate separate from the use of that phrase in the sub-heading, which is not used as the source for it.

If however you insist on changing that to "ordered", and the "stand up to scrutiny" to "lacked credibility", that is fine by me.

As regards the question of scale, I don't see what the issue is here. The quotes provided show clearly that the piece questions Israeli claims regarding the scope and systematic nature of the sexual violence, not only via Patten and her report, but also in its own voice as in the case of the Israeli police and government claims regarding witnesses and evidence and footage, as well as the psychologist. However, I would be fine with adding clarification on the the broader range of sources for this.

In short, I would be fine with a rephrasing to something along these lines: "In June 2024, The Times published a detailed investigative report which includes interviews with experts such as Pramila Patten as well as its own analyses, and concludes that Israel's claims about the evidence, scale, systematic and ordered nature of sexual assaults lacked credibility." Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 23:51, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

That's still an improper synthesis. The words "lacked credibility" do not appear in the article at all. I don't think that @Bobfrombrockley suggested this change in his comment above.

Also, let's keep this focused on the scale of sexual violence. Alaexis_¿question? 21:04, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

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

Description of suggested change:

Diff: Warning Unnamed parameter |1= set to default value. Please change it. Failure to use {{Text diff}} to specify your requested text changes, if not adequately described above, may lead to your request being denied.
Pedsermd (talk) 15:44, 7 December 2025 (UTC) The article uses the word "militant" assigned to the Hamas individuals in photographs. It should be "terrorists". Using the word "militant" is euphemistic at best, and erroneous and biased. Is this an example of the reports that Wikipedia has become biased in its pages about current events, such as social issues and politics?

1. This edit request does not follow the WP:EDITXY guidelines.

2. The statement 'It should be "terrorists"' is a personal opinion. This is not useful for edit requests. There is a guideline. See WP:TERRORIST.

3. Regarding Is this an example of the reports that Wikipedia has become biased in its pages about current events, such as social issues and politics?, that is observer dependent. People are free to see whatever patterns they want. Objectively, it is an example of the alignment of content with Wikipedia's content rules. Neutrality is a mandatory policy. Sean.hoyland (talk) 16:14, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: Not done per above Babysharkb☩ss2 I am Thou, Thou art I 19:02, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

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

• Palestinian invasion of Israel (Operation Al-Aqsa Flood, map, Oct 7, 2023).svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:52, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

There are four points of contention I have with the "Friendly fire and use of the Hannibal Directive" section of this article.

1. WP: SYNTH in the First Paragraph: 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. WP: SYNTH in the Second Paragraph: 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 is not discussing 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. ABC News Paragraph Is a Duplication of Haaretz Material

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). 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) 20:04, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Yes, it makes sense to clarify which parts discuss the friendly fire in general and which parts refer to the Hannibal directive. Currently it's all mixed up and the reader gets the impression that most of the friendly fire deaths were due to the Hannibal directive which is not supported by RS. To be specific, the first source doesn't mention the Hannibal directive at all and also the incidents it does describe are of a different nature.

In the second paragraph I checked an additional source and it also doesn't mention the Hannibal directive. This is a good source for the friendly fire but it shouldn't be placed after a long paragraph about the Hannibal directive which makes it seem like these were further examples of it.

This sentence violates several rules simultaneously "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." First, it says nothing about friendly fire or the Hannibal directive and thus inappropriate WP:SYNTH. Second, the source says that this was a suggestion and I have no idea whether this was carried out. Alaexis_¿question? 21:06, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

@Alaexis After the second paragraph, a lot of the information repeats. The whole section could likely be reasonably condensed into 2-3 paragraphs. EaglesFan37 (talk) 22:15, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

This edit request to October 7 attacks 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)

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)

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)

This edit request to October 7 attacks has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The use of Al Jazeera English is unreliable according to the perennial source list as this is about the Arab–Israeli conflict. ~2026-21859-16 (talk) 17:16, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please detail the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cadddr (talk) 17:27, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Your summary of the AJ entry at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources is inconsistent with the actual statement by the way. To clarify, AJ is viewed as a biased source in the Arab–Israeli conflict context, just like several Israeli sources that are used extensively in articles in the topic area. Sean.hoyland (talk) 18:30, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Sometimes, reliable sources, like Al Jazeera, aren't required to remain neutral or act unbiased, as what this guideline states. Only the text in Wikipedia articles are required to be neutral/unbiased, as I'm presuming it's the case in this specific article. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 18:45, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

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

Description of suggested change:

There is disagreement between this page and the page on sexual violence during oct 7 as to how many fatalities occurred. the sexual violence page puts it at 1,139, where this page puts it at 1,195

Diff: Warning Unnamed parameter |1= set to default value. Please change it. Failure to use {{Text diff}} to specify your requested text changes, if not adequately described above, may lead to your request being denied.
~2026-35945-09 (talk) 05:47, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

 Not done You did not suggest a specific change. --Yamla (talk) 10:12, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

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

'Description of suggested change: Multiple investigations by the United Nations, human rights organizations, and an independent civil commission have concluded that rapes and other forms of sexual violence occurred on October 7, 2023, during the Hamas-led attacks in southern Israel. They are not alleged. Diff: Warning Unnamed parameter |1= set to default value. Please change it. Failure to use {{Text diff}} to specify your requested text changes, if not adequately described above, may lead to your request being denied.
~2026-41184-11 (talk) 00:48, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please detail the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Note that the lead section of the article says that cases of rape and sexual assault "reportedly occurred" and does not use the word "alleged" to characterize them. Day Creature (talk) 04:24, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Why doesn't this article use DDMMYYYY? Why does it use MMDDYYYY? Haskeymorrison (talk) 17:58, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

When a very known source of information like Wikipedia uses the description of “attack” on a specific event that most of its victims were innocent individuals such as elderly people, pregnant women, children etc , people do not see the event as it really was. Calling it an attack when children were killed is very ignorant and unfair for its victims during the 7th of October massacre. The so called soldiers described in the article are terrorists and should be titled as such. ~2026-44996-40 (talk) 08:23, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

See WP:EDITXY for how to write an edit request that is likely to result in a change to article content. Also, you might be interested in looking at the articles linked in Template:Campaignbox Gaza war. It is one way to test whether you are internally consistent in the way you think about these kinds of issues. Sean.hoyland (talk) 10:08, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

This event involved the murder of 1,200 Israelis and the kidnapping of 200 more, almost all of whom were civilians or non-combatants. This should be rightfully regarded as a massacre and should redirect as "October 7th massacre" or "October 7th massacres". — Preceding unsigned comment added by MagyarNavy1918 (talk • contribs) 20:14, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

See WP:NOR. Please provide a reliable source indicating the common use of the term, "massacre", specifically to refer to this event. --Yamla (talk) 20:16, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Hello, it's been a long time since I've edited any pages, much less talk pages, so I apologize for any formatting issues in advance. There appears to be reliable-source usage for this wording or close variants, so I believe a redirect is reasonable. I'm not suggesting moving the article or replacing the current article title, but rather only in the context of a navigational redirect for a term readers may plausibly search.

• USC Shoah Foundation uses the phrase “October 7 massacres in Israel”: https://sfi.usc.edu/october7testimonies
• UMass Amherst’s Institute for Holocaust, Genocide, and Memory Studies uses “October 7th massacres”: https://www.umass.edu/holocaust-genocide-memory/events/october-7th-hostages-conversation-jonathan-dekel-chen
• TIME uses “The Oct. 7 Massacre” in the headline and “Oct. 7 massacre” in the article text: https://time.com/6330005/the-oct-7-massacre-revealed-a-new-hamas-social-media-strategy/
• Reuters quotes Israel’s Foreign Ministry using “October 7 massacre”: https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israel-revises-death-toll-oct-7-hamas-attack-around-1200-2023-11-10/
• Stanford Report references an event titled “One Year After the October 7th Massacre: Memory, Mourning, and Consequences”: https://news.stanford.edu/stories/2024/10/remembering-oct-7-and-learning-about-israel-gaza-and-the-middle-east

Given those sources, I do not believe this would be original research. The term is attested in reliable sources, including academic/institutional sources and mainstream journalism. Since redirects are for navigation/search, and since non-neutral but verifiable redirects can point to neutrally titled articles, per WP:RNEUTRAL, I would support creating the redirect from "October 7th massacres" to this article. To reiterate, I am not arguing that this should be the article title; only that it is a sourced and plausible search term. I'm interested in your thoughts, especially if there is a redirect-policy reason these sources would still be insufficient. jlcoving (talk)

The original request appeared to be original research (WP:NOR) but what you list here shows there's at least a decent basis for such a redirect. --Yamla (talk) 22:25, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

October 7 massacre and October 7th massacre are redirects to this page. Both were created in 2024. Looks good to me. I don't think we need plural versions ("massacres") of these redirects. — Chrisahn (talk) 20:58, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

The first sentence currently reads:

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.

I see no reason to mention the holiday in the first sentence. The fact that it was a holiday is not mentioned in the article. Simchat Torah is only mentioned in October 7 attacks § Names. The first sentence reads like "blockaded" is meant to provide some justification for the attack, while "Jewish holiday" is meant to arouse more empathy with the victims. Both are unencyclopedic and non-neutral. — Chrisahn (talk) 18:32, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

I don't think that the two terms should be linked. The word "blockaded" should be removed for the reasons listed above. Asides, the term "Jewish holiday" is not meant to arouse empathy with the victims, as you suggest, but to emphasize that it was a rest day, in which most people stay at home, and many army soldiers are on vacation, thus making the attacks more effective. The date was chosen by Hamas not due to its religious significance, but for this reason, and as such it has to me mentioned in the first sentence. Gabi S. (talk) 18:50, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

The fact that many soldiers were on leave is an operational detail that is not relevant enough for the first sentence.

Furthermore, readers won't understand the operational relevance of the holiday because it's not explained anywhere in the article. We should change that. Here are some sources:

• "Hamas planned the attack to take Israeli troops by surprise. October 7, 2023 was a public holiday in Israel, so many soldiers and officers were on leave that day [...]"
• "The attack took place on Shemini Atzeret, a Jewish holiday [...] Many Israel Defense Forces (IDF) soldiers were on leave [...]"

Regarding "arouse empathy": Of course that's subjective, but that's how I initially read the sentence.

— Chrisahn (talk) 19:39, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

Agree this should be added to the body. No strong opinion on whether it should stay in lead. BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:10, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

The fact that it's a holiday should definitely be mentioned in the article. I lean towards mentioning it in the lead as well (it is an extremely prominent detail) but not in the first sentence. Blockaded also doesn't need to be in the first sentence. Samuelshraga (talk) 14:49, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

Chrisahn, regarding your removal of Category:Attacks on occupying military forces, in which you wrote Please discuss this first, what would you like to discuss? Do you think the topic was not an attack on occupying military forces? إيان (talk) 21:40, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

No, it was a terrorist attack that targeted mostly civilians and some security forces in Israel. — Chrisahn (talk) 21:45, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

Is your argument that what you are calling "security forces in Israel" are not occupying military forces? Are you not aware that Israel, in its enforcing of illegal blockades on the Gaza Strip, is considered an occupying power? إيان (talk) 21:49, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

Security forces in Israel are in Israel. They are not in the Gaza strip. Israel is not occupied. And again: Hamas mostly targeted civilians in this terrorist attack. — Chrisahn (talk) 22:14, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

forces in Israel are in Israel—which is responsible for the illegal blockade of the Gaza Strip and is therefore legally considered an occupying power.

See, for example:

• https://academic.oup.com/jcsl/article/30/1/103/7943620
• https://www.icrc.org/en/document/ihl-occupying-power-responsibilities-occupied-palestinian-territories
• https://www.un.org/unispal/history/

إيان (talk) 22:29, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

Such general sources are irrelevant. If you want to add this category, you'll have to provide sources that show that the October 7 terrorist attacks are generally considered attacks on occupying military forces. Otherwise, the category is WP:OR or at best WP:SYNTH. — Chrisahn (talk) 22:45, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

Such general sources are irrelevant. Could you clarify how a peer-reviewed legal study of the continuous, belligerent Israeli occupation of Gaza published in the Journal of Conflict and Security Law could possibly be construed as "general" or "irrelevant"? Thanks. إيان (talk) 23:19, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

If you want to add this category, you'll have to provide sources that show that the October 7 terrorist attacks are generally considered attacks on occupying military forces. Otherwise, the category is WP:OR or at best WP:SYNTH. — Chrisahn (talk) 23:33, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

You didn’t answer my question, and it feels like you’re asking me to bring you a rock. إيان (talk) 00:10, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

You ignored what I said. I'll say it again: If you want to add this category, you'll have to provide sources that show that the October 7 terrorist attacks are generally considered attacks on occupying military forces. Otherwise, the category is WP:OR or at best WP:SYNTH. — Chrisahn (talk) 00:22, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

I have already provided 3 reliable sources: one peer-reviewed, one from the United Nations, and one from the Red Cross. You have rejected all of them claiming that they are "general" or "irrelevant". I asked you twice to substantiate your claim that a peer-reviewed legal study of the continuous, belligerent Israeli occupation of Gaza published in the Journal of Conflict and Security Law is to be disregarded as "general" or "irrelevant", and you have refused to answer the question. As for your argument regarding WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, these policies apply to body text; the policies governing categorization can be found at WP:CATEGORY. As I have already proven in this discussion, the fact that the topic constitutes an attack on occupying military forces is verified per the sources cited above and others. At this point, it seems clear that we need broader community engagement in this discussion—either a post at a noticeboard or an RfC. إيان (talk) 02:53, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for finally addressing what I said hours ago. Since you mentioned WP:CATEGORY: Read it. In particular the parts that explain that each category added to an article must be verifiable, neutral and defining. Verifiability is related to WP:OR. The criteria for article content and categories are very similar. — Chrisahn (talk) 03:04, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

P.S. I never refused to answer your question. The answer was already in my comment from 22:45, you just chose to ignore it until now. Anyway, let's move on. To meet the criteria of WP:CATEGORY, you have to show that the category you want to add is verifiably a defining characteristic. In other words, you'll have to provide sources that show that the October 7 terrorist attacks are generally considered attacks on occupying military forces. — Chrisahn (talk) 03:10, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

No comment on the utility of the category itself, but I don't think the issue is إيان lacking awareness of categorization procedures. You seem to be using a novel interpretation of the term occupying forces as if it is somehow a function of spatial location of a specific component of those forces rather than a function of the component being part of the military forces of the occupying power regardless of location. I don't think this is consistent with sources talk about these matters. The Israeli military is the occupying military force, and Oct 7 attacks did include attacks on those forces. The Russian military is the occupying military force for Ukraine and attacks on those forces in Ukraine and outside of Ukraine are attacks on the occupying military forces. I don't think the statement "you'll have to provide sources that show that the October 7 terrorist attacks are generally considered attacks on occupying military forces." is a true statement because of the "generally considered" part. The event, as is usually the case, has multiple features that are not mutually exclusive. I think it is always worth remembering that categories are primarily functional - "The primary purpose of the categorization system on Wikipedia is to provide navigational links within a structured, tree-like hierarchy of categories." Sean.hoyland (talk) 03:42, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

So Sean would you add this category to the bombing of Dresden say? Although mostly civilians were bombed, some military targets were also hit, and although it happened in Germany the Germans were at the time occupying other places? Would you for that matter include the German bombing of Coventry around the same time? Again mostly civilians targeted but some military targets hit and the Britain were occupying other places at the time? I guess the British were occupying Northern Ireland, according to some sources, during the Brighton bombing, so should that incident be in this category too? Because that’s the logic of what you’re saying here. BobFromBrockley (talk) 06:15, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

You quoted "The primary purpose of the categorization system on Wikipedia is to provide navigational links within a structured, tree-like hierarchy of categories" from WP:CAT, but the next sentence says "By grouping pages according to their essential, defining characteristics", and that's specified further in WP:CATDEF: "In general, categories of articles must be [...] Defining [...] A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently refer to in describing the topic". I used "generally considered" instead of "commonly and consistently refer", but it's pretty much the same criterion. — Chrisahn (talk) 18:21, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

It’s a slightly odd category that at the moment is only used in a fraction of articles or could be used in. The articles it is used in are overwhelmingly about attacks on military targets in occupied territories. As October 7 mainly aimed at civilian targets and not in occupied territories it is highly anomalous. This is simply not how the preponderance of RSs describe October 7, so I support the removal of the category. BobFromBrockley (talk) 06:10, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

There is a slight mix-up between occupying forces and occupied territories, and most of the articles in the category refer to attacks on military targets in occupied territories. The October 7 attacks occurred undisputedly in non-occupied territories, so they don't belong in that category. Gabi S. (talk) 08:00, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

They did not occur "undisputedly in non-occupied territories." The military buffer zone inside Gaza but controlled by Israel was subject to attack during the October 7 attacks. That's how Hamas was able to breach the border from the Gaza side, which was previously unapproachable due to Israeli military/security presence. As an example, look at this, where Israelis even prior to October 7th, 2023 had built and manned a security structure on the Gaza side. Google Maps even censors parts of the Gaza Strip occupied by Israel (look immediately south of where I placed the pin). JasonMacker (talk) 14:29, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

The word "blockaded" in the first sentence seems apologetic and not written from a neutral point of view. It was discussed a few months back (Talk:October 7 attacks/Archive_10#First sentence) but there were too few participants in the discussion.

The fact that the attack took place on the Jewish holiday of Simchat Torah is neutral and significant, while the blockade of the Gaza Strip is irrelevant to the first sentence, unneutral, and already mentioned a few lines below as one of Hamas motives. It should be removed from the opening sentence. Gabi S. (talk) 10:24, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

There are 399 page watchers and no one has objected so far. I will remove it shortly. Gabi S. (talk) 16:28, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

Absolutely inappropriate to remove mention of the Blockade of the Gaza Strip, a fundamental detail to be included per MOS:FIRST, from the first sentence. إيان (talk) 17:39, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

MOS:FIRST says that for topics notable for only one reason, this reason should usually be given in the first sentence. The blockade does not meet this requirement. It is mentioned a few lines below, where it belongs, and actually seems inappropriate in the first sentence. Gabi S. (talk) 19:04, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

It says:

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

Some reference to the fact that the Gaza Strip has been subject to various forms of Israeli domination for decades is definitive of the topic and fundamental to understanding the subject within its historical and political context. Removing mention of the blockade decontextualizes the subject and presents it to the reader as if it came out of nowhere, which is a particular POV and not the consensus view among experts. إيان (talk) 20:27, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

No, we don't need such background (and Hamas justification) in the first sentence. It's not required by MOS:FIRST. — Chrisahn (talk) 20:32, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

That describing the subject according to its most defining feature would amount to Hamas justification is absurd and normalizes the illegal blockade by eliding mention of the circumstances under which the topic occurred. إيان (talk) 20:54, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

I don't see a good reason to mention "blockaded" in the the first sentence. Hamas and its supporters could cite many reasons, causes or justifications for the attack, but the first sentence is not the place for that. I also don't see a good reason to mention the holiday in the first sentence. To put it bluntly: "blockaded" could be interpreted as "see, the poor people of Gaza were oppressed, that's why Hamas did this"; "Jewish holiday" could be interpreted as "see how evil Hamas is, they chose a religious holiday for their massacre". Both details are mentioned later in the text, and that's where they belong. — Chrisahn (talk) 19:45, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

What an editor thinks Hamas might say has no bearing on the content of this article. We defer to the WP:BESTSOURCES. إيان (talk) 20:28, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

I don't see what WP:BESTSOURCES has to do with it. The first sentence is not the place for background information and other details, especially not for stuff that might be interpreted as violating WP:NPOV. Neither "blockaded" nor "Jewish holiday" belong in the first sentence. — Chrisahn (talk) 20:36, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

For comparison, I looked at a few articles about terrorist attacks: Beslan school siege, USS Cole bombing, Westgate shopping mall attack, 2008 Mumbai attacks. None of them mention any political or historical background or justification in the first sentence. The first sentence simply describes what happened in a neutral way. Details are explained later. That's how it should be, because that's what MOS:FIRST requires. There's no reason to make an exception for this article. — Chrisahn (talk) 20:50, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

Not that Wikipedia is a WP:reliable source, but see the first sentence in Warsaw Ghetto Uprising:

The Warsaw Ghetto Uprising was an uprising by the Jewish resistance in the Warsaw Ghetto in German-occupied Poland during World War II to oppose Nazi Germany's final effort to transport the remaining ghetto population to the gas chambers of the Majdanek and Treblinka extermination camps in 1943.

إيان (talk) 20:55, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

Of course, unlike the October 7 attacks, the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising wasn't a terrorist attack targeting mostly civilians, and of course the conditions in the Warsaw Ghetto were far worse than at any time in the Gaza strip. But that's not really important here. More importantly: I'd say that the first sentence of that article is a bit long, it should probably end after "during World War II". But anyway - OK, you found one article where some background is mentioned in the first sentence, but that's pretty rare. The general rule is that we don't do that. Just look at the articles in List of major terrorist incidents. I looked at a more or less random selection of major attacks from the last 20 years or so and didn't find any that mentioned details similar to "blockaded" or "Jewish holiday" in the first sentence.

• Moscow theater hostage crisis mentions the terrorists' goals in the third sentence
• 2004 Madrid train bombings mentions the terrorists' justification in the last sentence of the first paragraph
• Kobanî massacre doesn't mention the terrorists' justifications or goals in the lead at all
• 2016 Karrada bombing ditto
• 14 October 2017 Mogadishu bombings ditto
• 2019 Sri Lanka Easter bombings ditto
• 2023 Peshawar mosque bombing mentions the terrorists' justification in the second paragraph of the lead

And so on. We could look at many other examples. The first sentence in all of these articles basically explains where and when the attack happened and how many people were killed and injured. That's all. It's very rare that further details are explained in the first sentence, because that's neither required nor encouraged by MOS:FIRST. We should follow this general rule here as well. — Chrisahn (talk) 21:29, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

The above comment contains a lot of what appears to be an editor's personal opinions and evaluations. I don't feel the need to respond to everything, but I would encourage anyone still using the word "terrorist" sincerely in 2026 to read Judith Butler's Precarious Life or scholarly work that cites it to understand how words such as "terrorist" are hideously laden linguistic tools used to divide those who are to be grieved from those who are not to be grieved (often with racialized connotations), ultimately delegitimizing violence committed by non-state actors and simultaneously legitimizing the violence committed by state actors, like constant structural violence or say a genocide that has killed a whole lot more civilians. إيان (talk) 22:16, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

That's silly. Yes, all such words are "hideously laden linguistic tools": "terrorism", "genocide", and so on. But these words also have a meaning. Of course the October 7 attacks were terrorist attacks. That's what reliable sources say, and that's why they are included in List of major terrorist incidents, List of terrorist incidents in 2023, etc. When you talk about "an editor's personal opinions and evaluations", maybe also take a look in the mirror... :-) — Chrisahn (talk) 22:54, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

I share Chrisahn’s interpretation of our first sentence policy. BobFromBrockley (talk) 21:03, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

At Warsaw Ghetto Uprising too or just for this? إيان (talk) 21:06, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

I posted that before your Warsaw post. I’ll have to think about it a little because the Warsaw first sentence seems a little excessive but I see that it does need some of equivalent context so I’m not so sure about my statement any more. BobFromBrockley (talk) 21:13, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

Glad you are reconsidering. إيان (talk) 21:17, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

On reflection, I think that blockade is fine. I think that the first sentence should strive to be as uncontroversial as possible, and so objections on POV grounds mean that we don’t have an ideal first sentence, but I think that single word summarising the context is not excessive. BobFromBrockley (talk) 06:22, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

I think it is. The first sentence also says "[The attacks] were carried out by Hamas" so if summarising context is so important to you, it should say "were carried out by terrorist group Hamas". I strive for neutrality, and the word "blockaded" inserts bias. Gabi S. (talk) 08:03, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is quite relevant but "terrorist" is not in the first sentence or short description for Hamas but appears in the fourth para of the lead with attribution rather than our voice, and "blockaded" is not the first sentence or short description of Gaza Strip but appears in the third paragraph of the lead in our voice. Whereas "terrorist" seems to be contested, "blockaded" seems to be an uncontested fact. So I don't think they're equivalent.

However, I do think that Warsaw Ghetto Uprising is not the best comparison for this article. 2008 Mumbai attacks, 2002 Bali bombings, November 2015 Paris attacks or 2004 Madrid train bombings would be the sorts of articles we should be aligning with. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:12, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

Based on what? Because Muslims? Why not Philippeville massacre? إيان (talk) 20:03, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

The word "blockaded" doesn't actually provide any useful background. A reader who doesn't know the history of the conflict in general and the blockade in particular is left to wonder what meaningful information the word "blockaded" (and the link to Blockade of the Gaza Strip) is supposed to add. Was the blockade the main cause of the attack? Was the blockade Hamas' main justification for the attack? Or was the word added simply to inform the reader about the military / operational conditions of the attack, namely that the blockade made it a bit harder (not much, obviously) for Hamas to invade Israeli territory?

I hope we can agree that the Israel-Palestine conflict is complex. The October 7 attackers had many reasons, justifications, motivations, goals, etc. Picking one of them ("blockaded") is too simplistic. We should omit it from the first sentence and explain the details in the rest of the lead / the article. That's how we do it in the vast majority of similar articles. See examples above. (And as I said before, the word is not in line with WP:NPOV, since it seems to justify the attack.)

— Chrisahn (talk) 18:56, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

Best advice I can give is to start with the WP:BESTSOURCES—which would be highly cited peer-reviewed academic literature from reputable historians or other relevant experts—and go from there. إيان (talk) 19:21, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

That "advice" is meaningless and basically ignores what I wrote. — Chrisahn (talk) 19:48, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

Have you cited a single RS in support of your views? إيان (talk) 19:50, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

Again, you ignore what I wrote. I explained why the word "blockaded" doesn't actually provide our readers with any useful background. Your responses are useless. — Chrisahn (talk) 20:12, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

Maybe you misunderstood the questions in my comment above. These are not questions I have, they are questions that will go through the mind of a reader who stumbles upon the word "blockaded". Of course, we can't point our readers to WP:BESTSOURCES. There's not enough space in the first sentence to explain what meaningful information the word "blockaded" is supposed to provide. We can't cram the various reasons and justifications for the attacks into the first sentence, we have to limit ourselves to the most relevant facts. That's what MOS:FIRST requires, and that's how it's done in the vast majority of similar articles. — Chrisahn (talk) 20:37, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello @Bobfrombrockley - if you agree to delete the word "blockaded" we will have a near-consensus situation, and will be able to slightly move towards neutrality. Thank you, Gabi S. (talk) 18:25, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

Removing 'blockaded' from the first sentence would require consensus established through wider community participation, likely through an RfC. إيان (talk) 15:44, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

No, we don't an RfC or anything like that. We just need to decide whether that one word is relevant enough for the first sentence. No big deal really. — Chrisahn (talk) 18:16, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

Are you new to WP:CT/PIA? This is a significant removal being proposed. إيان (talk) 18:28, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

No, it's not a significant removal. As far as I can tell, you're the only person who believes that this word was a significant addition. The article has existed for almost three years, you added the word six months ago without discussing it first, and there was very little discussion about your change later. If there had been an RfC deciding that the word should be added, I'd agree that we'd need another RfC to revert that decision, but there wasn't. Rather the opposite. — Chrisahn (talk) 18:52, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

I believe I'm also the only one who has cited anything other than WP in this discussion and the other. If decontextualizing by removing 'blockade' from the first sentence were to make it a better article, an RfC should support that position. إيان (talk) 19:20, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

Like several times before, you basically ignore everything I said and go off on a new tangent. The main points are: 1. You are the only person who ever thought this word was a significant addition. 2. No, we don't need an RfC. — Chrisahn (talk) 19:26, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

Such assumptions about being "new to WP:CT/PIA" are not going to help anyone, please don't do that. In solidarity, Brynn Who Likes Editing | talk w/ me! 09:52, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

The word "blockaded" does look weird there. There are lots of adjectives we could use ("Hamas-run", "densely populated", etc.). To use this specific one we need evidence that RS mention it in the first sentence when characterising the incursions. The default option is no adjective. We have plenty of space to provide context elsewhere in the article. Alaexis_¿question? 19:34, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

I think it should stay as is because it is essential to understand the nature of the attack and why it was notable to have it occur in the way and manner that it did. It is also how major RS characterized the attack in their opening 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". R3YBOl (🌲) 13:21, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

  The motives for the attack are detailed a few lines below. The word "blockaded" in the first sentence indeed seems like a Hamas justification. Most participants in this discussion agree that it should be removed, except for the editor that added it and one more supporter. Since it's almost a consensus, I will remove it soon. Gabi S. (talk) 19:16, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

  Consensus is not a tally. Those editors wishing to purge mention of the blockade from the first sentence have still not cited any RS in support of their views. إيان (talk) 19:40, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

  There is no need to. There is widespread agreement that the word "blockaded" violates wikipedia neutrality. Gabi S. (talk) 07:09, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

  There is indeed a need to because !votes without proof do not carry weight. إيان (talk) 13:27, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

  It's not about sources (plenty of sources are given a few lines below, along with Hamas motives, detailing the blockade) but about neutral language. We don't need any RS to support the claim that the word "blockaded" in the first sentence is biased and should be removed. There is a consensus about it, almost all the editors here agree that it looks like a Hamas justification and is non-neutral. Your opinion doesn't count, of course, since you are the one that added that non-neutral word. Gabi S. (talk) 15:46, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

  almost all the editors here agree that it looks like a Hamas justification and is non-neutral There have been no reliable sources cited in support of this view. Per WP:NPOV, neutrality means dutifully representing the WP:BESTSOURCES. Multiple sources have been cited in support of the blockade having been a defining feature of the attack. They have neither been invalidated nor balanced with high quality sources that don’t treat the blockade as a defining feature. إيان (talk) 17:17, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

  I'm sorry, it's not going to work. You purposely added a charged word and found some sources that used it, but trying to find sources that do not use it is futile. You try to subvert the discussion from neutral language to relevant sources, but almost all the editors here think otherwise, so I'll just remove that word and conclude the discussion. Gabi S. (talk) 18:24, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

  I have started an RfC, in which consensus will be assessed by an uninvolved closer and in which other editors might hopefully discuss with some RS verification in support of their views. إيان (talk) 07:38, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

The lead currently has At least 14 Israeli civilians were killed by the IDF's use of the Hannibal Directive. ahead of mentions of the 251 hostages abducted and the dozens of reported rapes/assaults. The rest of the lead is structured in numerical order except for the Hannibal Directive part (1,195 killed, 364 killed at Nova, 14 killed by Hannibal Directive, 251 hostages, dozens of reported rapes and assaults). Additionally, the hostages and reported instances of sexual violence were all discussed in the article before Hannibal Directive/Allegations of friendly fire. The 14 killed by Hannibal Directive part should be moved to the end of the paragraph. EaglesFan37 (talk) 10:28, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

I agree and have implemented the proposed change. ꧁Mangroves꧂ 12:03, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

Agree BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:42, 13 September 2026 (UTC)