Talk:October 7 attacks

This page is subject to the extended confirmed restriction related to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Allow for redirect for "October 7th massacres"

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)

Results random changes

Some users keep changing the results and adding contentious terms as "Gaza genocide". I just want remember that per this Rfc the results section should be blanked https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:October_7_attacks/Archive_5#Result_RFC Shadow4dark (talk) 18:55, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Ah, didn't notice my bad. Iwantashawarma (talk) 14:22, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

The word "blockaded" in the first sentence

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)

need citations from historians for "the first large-scale invasion of Israeli territory since the 1948 Arab–Israeli War"

Are there historians saying that this is "the first large-scale invasion of Israeli territory since the 1948 Arab–Israeli War"? This appears to be an ahistorical POV. The territory of what had been Mandatory Palestine through 11:59 pm on May 14, 1948 was in dispute throughout the 1948 Palestine war. Although David Ben-Gurion and the Va'ad Leumi announced the establishment of the State of Israel earlier in the day on May 14, nothing close to internationally recognized borders were established until the 1949 Armistice Agreements the following year. Therefore the participation of Arab regular armies in the 1948 war, starting the morning of May 15, in what had been Mandatory Palestine hours before can't be said to be a "large-scale invasion of Israeli territory" if no such territory had yet been formally established. إيان (talk) 21:16, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

We could change this to "the first large-scale invasion of Israeli territory since the establishment of Israel in 1948". — Chrisahn (talk) 21:42, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

Are there historians saying this? In 1948 there was the declaration but no internationally recognized borders and therefore no such "Israeli territory" to speak of until at least 1949. إيان (talk) 21:45, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

My intention was: If we change this to something like "since ... 1948", it doesn't matter much when the Israeli borders were established. But maybe it would be even more precise to say "since the end of the 1948 Arab–Israeli War" or "since the 1949 Armistice Agreements" instead, because that's roughly when Israel actually established its borders. (See International recognition of Israel for more details.) The main point is: There was no significant invasion of Israeli territory between 1949 and the October 7 attacks. But I agree that it would be better to have a source, preferably by historians, that mentions this fact. Otherwise, that claim is a bit WP:SYNTHy. — Chrisahn (talk) 22:05, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

"Invasion" seems to be the wrong choice of word as well. I would dispute that a single (granted, large-scale) terrorist attack constitutes an "invasion". ~2026-49006-22 (talk) 06:56, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

"Invasion" seems to be the wrong choice of word Agree . Cambridge dictionary gives as the first meaning "an occasion when an army or country uses force to enter and take control of another country" force and enter are obviously correct, but every indication is that the intention was to attac, do as much damage as possible, then withdraw before Israeli forces responded (which indeed happened only hours after the initial attacks), not to take control or hold territory. I cannot think of a single example of use of the term 'invasion' where the clear intent was not to take control. Attack, raid, incursion all seem to fit this event better than 'invasion'. Pincrete (talk) 16:15, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

removal of Category:Attacks on occupying military forces

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)

"Jewish holiday" in the first sentence

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)

Placement of Hannibal Directive in lead

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)

RfC: mention of blockade in first sentence

Should the first sentence mention and link to the Blockade of the Gaza Strip? (Noting per Lf8u2 that it currently does as of 12 September with the single word 'blockade' linking to Blockade of the Gaza Strip and that this RfC is not about any addition to the first sentence.)إيان (talk) 07:19, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Survey

• 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)

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)

• 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)
• 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)

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

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

""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)

• 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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)