Jump to content

Talk:October 7 attacks

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Requested move 11 March 2025

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. It's been about two and a half months since this RM was opened and I don’t see any new material being brought forward. Using WP:COMMONNAME we note that the English language coverage now refers to this event as “the October 7 attacks”. BBC, NPR, the New York Times and Reuters all use this phrase without qualifiers when the context is clear. WP:COMMONNAME clearly states that “the name that is most commonly used … in a significant majority of independent, reliable, English-language sources.” Adding either “Hamas-led” or “on Israel” inserts wording that most sources do not carry in their standing headlines or datelines. As the name use has changed since the attack it’s in line with WP:POVNAME to use the proposed name over the current name. Dr vulpes (Talk) 23:05, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

October 7 Hamas-led attack on Israel → October 7 attacks – No need for additional disambiguation (Hamas-led, Israel) in the title, it just makes it longer without adding enough benefit. Going off Google hits, "October 7 attacks" is five times more common than "October 7 Hamas attack" and almost 50 times more common than the full title. "October 7 attack" is even more common, but as there was clearly more than one attack, so the plural form is the correct title. As it has been established that this is the primary topic for October 7 attacks, this is a pretty routine request, but as there have been prior RMs, this is here and not at RMTR. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 20:52, 11 March 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Valorrr (lets chat) 01:05, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Tentative oppose. Google search isn't a particularly good way to determine the common name, it would be better to analyse Google Books/Scholar. Also, we might be overestimating the recognizability of the proposed title. I think a lot of people would not necessarily remember what happened if you just told them "7 October attacks."
Alaexis¿question? 21:52, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lean oppose because RS tend to use the phrase "October 7 attacks" only when context makes it very clear what attacks they're talking about—and use a more descriptive phrase like the current title otherwise. In other words "October 7 attacks" doesn't seem to be a common name at this point. ByVarying | talk 05:09, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Also Lean oppose per above.VR (Please ping on reply) 21:28, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
QalasQalas (talk) 13:25, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No one calls it 10/7... NorthernWinds (talk) 13:16, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Staunch Oppose I agree with comments of User:Allthemilescombined1 Servite et contribuere (talk) 05:07, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose: in the first few pages of the search term "october 7 attack" I could find maybe 2-3 sources which do not include hamas in the name of the attack. However, I have found plenty who do add them to the name of the attack 123456789101112
Even al Jazeera includes them in the name of the attack in vast majority of articles I found 123456
The change of the name of the attack does not comply with WP:COMMONNAME NorthernWinds (talk) 15:00, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, in contrast to the above !vote, in my Google search I found loads that don't mention Hamas when having 7 October in their headlines BBC, NPR, Telegraph, Jerusalem Post, Australian gov., CNN, Sky (UK), France24, The I, even the IDF's own webpage. The above comment from NorthernWinds is misrepresenting sources, al-Jazeera don't include Hamas in their headlines nor prose when referring to the attack, and many of those other links directly contradict their point.
Kowal2701 (talk) 21:09, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Kowal2701 I misinterpreted this yesterday, I thought you said I cited all these sources.
Many don't refer to it as such in their titles but they all do in their article - as I said they do. We discussed Al Jazeera sources elsewhere on this page, they do include it in their body and I gave examples to the six sources that qualify here, and didn't pop up due to live updates. these links don't contradict my point, they strengthen it:
NPR "Hamas-led attack on Oct. 7, 2023"
CNN "The October 7, 2023, Hamas terror attacks"
Sky news "the attacks by Hamas on October 7 2023"
france24 "Hamas's October 7 attacks"
BBC "Hamas's 7 October 2023 attack"
Your only source supporting your claim is the Australian government. I have removed accidental entries of "massacre" articles. The list is accurate now, I have removed 3 sources referring to it as "October 7th massacre" - I left in those referring to it as "Hamas's oct7 massacre" or "oct7 massacre by hamas"
my main point was against removing Hamas from the title. it can be there one way or another, but not including it it not WP: COMMONNAME.
about WP:HEADLINES: I think it should apply here, since "The headline writer has a job to attract attention, generate click-bait titles to juice the number of readers, and for search-engine optimization." - wikipedia (to the best of my knowledge) doesn't have policies requiring these, therefore using them as a guide for our titles doesn't make sense NorthernWinds (talk) 05:18, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Stop with the moves already. This move will require dozens of page moves, category moves, navigation template updates. All for little to no real gain. STOP WITH THE MOVES. Gonnym (talk) 17:25, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ARBECR violation
Support I would argue that unduly emphasizing Hamas' role in the attack, by including it in the title, itself violates NPOV ATOMICMOLOCH (talk) 08:46, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ATOMICMOLOCH Don't forget about Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. You might have never heard of it. Hamas is a designated terrorist organisation in the country I live in (Australia). I think it is crucial that Wikipedia stands with Israel Servite et contribuere (talk) 09:38, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia should neither 'stand with Israel' nor erase the role of Hamas in the attack. Either action would violate NPOV and WP:Advocacy. Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 09:54, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Allthemilescombined1 Hi, I agree with your talking points, but your language doesn't seem natural. Anyway Lililolol (talk) 20:00, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Servite et contribuere; This one also doesn't look neural, but okay. Lililolol (talk) 20:03, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support it is the WP:COMMONNAME now. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 08:53, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support: as well per WP:COMMONNAME Lililolol (talk) 19:59, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The October 7 attack sounds appropriate, but why not include "2023" in the title? Idk; it's not the only attack that happened in October, so... Lililolol (talk) 20:06, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there isn't another article titled "October 7 attack" that I'm aware of, but adding 2023 to the title would help reduce confusion for those who are unfamiliar with the attack Lililolol (talk) 20:12, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A shorter name would probably be nicer to read, however I fear to those unfamiliar with the topic the expression would make little sense, unlike 9/11 (which was mentioned) which is generally very well known.
Instead of comparing with 9/11, I think 7 July 2005 London bombings is a much better example for an attack referenced by the date. British people will probably be aware of what the 7 July (7/7) attacks were, but to others it wouldn't really mean anything unless you're already familiar with it. I think the same is seen with the "7 October attacks". I would therefore support if it is renamed to something along those lines (7 October 2023 attacks or 7 October 2023 Hamas-led attacks, whichever is more agreeable). notadev (talk) 19:55, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Personally, the title "7 October 2023 attacks" makes more sense. It's fairly "neutral," as it doesn’t favor either Israel or Hamas. Lililolol (talk) 19:23, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Per above. Proposed title "October 7 Attacks" does not at all imply that Israel is the aggressor; the current title, in fact, seems to be a misguided product of advocacy to explicitly establish the opposite, which is not something that needs to be established within the title as opposed to within the body, and obviously violates WP:COMMONNAME. At the very minimum something like "October 7 Hamas attacks" would be far more suited than the current mess of a title, although not my personal preference. Stavd3 (talk) 09:33, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Stavd3 I'm curious, what's your personal preference? Lililolol (talk) 19:14, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    1. October 7 attacks
    2. October 7 Hamas attacks
    (biiiiiiig gap)
    3. current article title Stavd3 (talk) 19:18, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That formatting didn't come out right at all, you get the picture though Stavd3 (talk) 19:19, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    At previous discussions, "October 7 attacks" were opposed by several topic-banned pro-Palestinian editors. [1] One fun quote from one of those editors was that the term "October 7 attacks" was part of a continuing effort (not just here) to turn October 7 into a brand a la 9/11 and that the date format the word "attacks" improperly implied terrorism.
    Honestly, you can effectively argue in circles that either title is pro-Israel/pro-Hamas, because "attack on Israel" + "Hamas-led" identify Hamas as being the aggressor against Israel, while "October 7 attacks" draws comparisons to 9/11 and implies this is similar to other widely reviled terrorist attacks against civilians.
    It is comical to see that "October 7 Hamas-led attack on Israel" is now pro-Israel for some reason, which is why we should get rid of it. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 02:14, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Chess It shouldn't be seen as either pro-Israel or pro-Palestinian. It should be neutral, without trying to insert any bias. The new title gives no bias, and according to multiple editors, it is also the common name nowadays so Lililolol (talk) 03:06, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Lililolol: That's my point. The framing surrounding this is absurd because last year the sides were reversed. It literally doesn't matter if either title is called a win for Palestine. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 03:14, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    And, don’t be surprised if the oppressed strikes back at the real aggressor, but anyways Lililolol (talk) 03:13, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NOTFORUM. You're igniting conflict as well. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 03:26, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Chess I am only referring to the arguments made in this move request for the continuing usage of this current title, which make, frankly, absurd assertions about how a change in this mangled title would violate NPOV, as if it's Wikipedia's job and moral duty to shoehorn in the aggressor-victim dynamic in the title, without regard for COMMONNAME. Maybe I overreached by assuming that the current title was also a product of that same rationale; if I did, I apologize. Regardless, it's bad, and the NPOV arguments made about it strike me, as I said before, as at best frivolous and at worst politically motivated; especially when I have not once come across an article title of a similar structure, nor a proposal for any terror-attack article to have one. And to be clear, I could not care less if an article title is a win for Palestine or not; you've misjudged me. But it should be the title everyone knows it by. It's common sense. Stavd3 (talk) 03:27, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support per OP. I think this has actually reached the level of recognition for "October 7 attacks" that is seen for 9/11 and 7/7. It's also WP:CONCISE. I think some of us would have supported this title earlier, in prior RMs, but wanted to make sure there wasn't an issue with WP:RECENCY or other events on the same date. It's now been almost 18 months, and I think it's pretty clear the name is here to stay. Lewisguile (talk) 14:54, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose. Besides the fact that the current name shows the party that led the attack which led to the war, it also indicates that Hamas were not the only party involved, as is the case. Hamas led, but Palestinian civilians and other terrorist groups joined in, as has been extensively documented. R1237h (talk) 17:19, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That doesn't mean we need to include it in the title. Once of our article title criteria is to be concise, which the current title is decidedly not. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 18:23, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe, but another criteria is Precision.
    R1237h (talk) 19:34, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @R1237h "terrorist groups"? And who determined that? Anyway, by making such a statement, you appear biased and non-neutral, violating Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. Please be more mindful of your language next time. Thanks. Lililolol (talk) 19:15, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The article that we are discussing states "Hamas and several other Palestinian militant groups launched coordinated armed incursions from the Gaza Strip into the Gaza envelope of southern Israel" and "6,000 Gazans breached the border in 119 locations into Israel, including 3,800 from the elite "Nukhba forces" and 2,200 civilians and other militants." How is referencing something that the article itself states make me appear biased and non-neutral? I was careful not to express any opinions I might have, and just went by what was in the article under discussion.
    R1237h (talk) 19:27, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    ""Unless you are referring to the word "terrorist" instead of "Militant"? If so, I stand corrected, and will be more careful in the future.
    R1237h (talk) 19:29, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - per nom/common name, I think we're well outside the NOTNEWS/RECENCY timeframe and whenever I hear these attacks referred to off-wiki, it is always as "October 7" or "7/10", not "October 7 Hamas..." etc., so honestly a long overdue change. (Not over DUE, just the right amount.) Also... it's worth pointing out that this has attracted (archive) some off-wiki attention, meaning we should be on the look out for unusual votes and contributions. Smallangryplanet (talk) 20:20, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support per norm and WP:COMMONNAME. Most international news media use the term October 7 attacks.
    AimanAbir18plus (talk) 06:02, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support, based on WP:COMMONNAME as shown in Google results. This simple date-based name is also used by the New York Times and NPR. Shortening the name is also WP:CONCISE, but that's secondary. The shorter name increases the chances people will find this article and learn about it, especially people who are just being introduced to the topic. The article itself makes clear that the attacks were Hamas-led, so mentioning the perpetrator directly in the title when similar articles do not (see September 11 attacks or Attack on Pearl Harbor) is possibly motivated by a desire to slightly violate NPOV. If Wikipedia's style were to always mention perpetrators even when the date or location is unambiguous, then we would have the article "Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor". I see no valid arguments for the current name. Fluoborate (talk) 10:06, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
support pr commonname, Huldra (talk) 20:51, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support as it is the WP:COMMONNAME 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 13:07, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nor and commonname rule, "October 7 attacks" would unambiguously refer to these such attacks given the near-universal awareness of that date. The fact it was Hamas-led is no longer necessary to distinguish it or to give context to those unaware of the date. We wouldn't refer to 9/11 as the "al-Qaeda-led attacks on 9/11" and shouldn't call this attack when merely the date alone is sufficient for the vast majority of people to identify it. Yeahnamate (talk) 13:57, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support
Cognsci (talk) 18:18, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly oppose. The proposed title erases critical factual context: that this was a Hamas-led attack on Israel initiating a major war. Per WP:PRECISE and WP:RECOGNIZABLE, the current title accurately identifies who carried out the attacks and against whom. “October 7 attacks” is vague, context-dependent, and fails the precision needed for a defining historical event. WP:COMMONNAME does not override the need for clarity when multiple interpretations or uses of a name exist; I also don't see how WP:COMMONNAME even applies as current reporting and media more often use "October 7 Attacks on Israel" or some such wording -- not the standalone "October 7th Attacks". For the brevity argument I might support "October 7 Hamas Attacks" (though this is misleading as they were indeed Hamas-led) or "October 7 Attacks on Israel", but the proposed change throws the baby out with the bathwater. Henry.Jones.03021955 (talk) 04:35, 24 April 2025 (UTC) sockstrike 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 09:10, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"context dependent", i agree it would be a shame if people confused this event for all the other well known attacks that happened on October 7th that were also named after the date they occurred Cognsci (talk) 09:39, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
RS don't use just "Oct 7" in their titles, they always contextualize with 'Israel' and/or 'Hamas'. If RS don't use the then it clearly isn't the common name. Henry.Jones.03021955 (talk) 18:14, 26 April 2025 (UTC) sockstrike 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 09:10, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, but with caveat - "October 7 attacks" does appear to be the WP:COMMONNAME. However, there may need to be a hatnote linking to United States invasion of Afghanistan because that was also a very notable "October 7 attack" that took place within living memory. The current title makes such a disambiguation unnecessary. But if the article is moved to simply October 7 attacks (which is looking likely), I would prefer a disambiguation hatnote similar to the one on the Sept 11 attacks article. That article's hatnote links to September 11 attacks (disambiguation), which is a page that focuses on multiple events that were also "Sept 11 attacks". Based on a review of the October 7 article, it looks like candidates for listing on an October 7 attacks (disambiguation) page would be:
These two previous October 7 attacks were also very notable (which is why they have Wikipedia articles) and should have a disambiguation hatnote. However, I'm not yet convinced as to that needing to be a separate article rather than just having both October 7 attacks hatnote'd at the top of this article's page. JasonMacker (talk) 20:10, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The notability of the two previous October 7 attacks, compared to the October 7 Hamas-led attacks on Israel, is on a profoundly different scale. Orders of magnitude different. Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 10:06, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While this is true, I still fail to see any convincing arguments that simply 'October 7 Attacks' is the WP:COMMONNAME for this event. RS do not use 'October 7 Attacks' in isolation; they almost always specify 'on Israel.' Henry.Jones.03021955 (talk) 18:45, 27 April 2025 (UTC) sockstrike 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 09:10, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Both titles are concise. The search results above are not accurate. Anytime you enter only part of a title in quotes you will get more results!
Articles September 11 attacks and January 6 United States Capitol attack changed after approx 2 years. This has only been 6 months and is not yet :recognizable to many people. A good title would be October 7 attack on Israel IP75 (talk) 10:32, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It has been 1 year and 6 months since 7 October 2023. JasonMacker (talk) 18:57, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Chicdat has shown that October 7 attacks is the dominant name. Opposes founded on Allthemilescombined1's criticism that this minimizes Hamas' role in initiating the ongoing Gaza war is irrelevant per Howardcorn33's point that September 11 attacks does not clumsily include the aggressor in the title to inform readers on which side "initiated" the war on terror. To Lililolol's comment, "October 7 attacks" is more common in media coverage than variations that include the year, and we already have a October 7, 2023 attack redirect to this article. Similarly, readers unsure of the attack's date can continue to rely on the Hamas attack on Israel redirect to get here. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 15:29, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Chicdat uses Google trends comparisons to make claims about WP:COMMONNAME, which is contrary the guidelines of using reliable sources as our standard (which overwhelmingly specify 'on Israel' or similar in titles).
    Also, the argument is unconvincing because search engines by design encourage people to use abbreviated terms. By CHicdat's logic we should also rename Ice hockey to just "hockey", Allies of World War II to just 'the Allies,' and many others (I saw this analogy elsewhere but it was deleted). Henry.Jones.03021955 (talk) 07:38, 30 April 2025 (UTC) sockstrike 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 09:10, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support October 7 attacks is the clear COMMONNAME per Chicdat et. al. Closetside (talk) 19:43, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    do you have sources calling the attack as a whole "october 7 attack" without adding "hamas-led" "hamas's" to the name? NorthernWinds (talk) 20:02, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @NorthernWinds No way! Tell me you're joking? Lililolol (talk) 20:12, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Lililolol look above at my vote, you'll find info there NorthernWinds (talk) 20:16, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Your sources don't support your point, many of them directly contradict it. Kowal2701 (talk) 21:10, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No they don't NorthernWinds (talk) 16:33, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Some of the al-Jazeera ones don't even mention "October"! Did you just hope no-one would check? Kowal2701 (talk) 21:18, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey,
    first of all I do not appreciate your tone, please be mindful and follow WP:GOODFAITH. I used al jazeera's search, which probably included live updates that are... live and dissapeared since. I just went through all of them, the only articles that were there and weren't what I said they were are the ones with the live updates. it's late and I have a problem editing my message. I will fix everything tomorrow, unless you want to do it first, which I would appreciate. the following links are live links that should not be cited: 1234
    so 4 out of the 10 al jazeera links I have provided.
    ps. if you look at this page's history you can look at a response I gave you and have deleted due to editor issues and problem with editing this stuff. I will rewrite it tomorrow properly and fix the rest of the round edges of my initial message.
    Thanks NorthernWinds (talk) 22:41, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    But the other al-Jazeera ones don’t say “Hamas-led attack” or its equivalent either, and there were others you linked to that didn’t mention Hamas in their headline. The evidence was regarding whether to include Hamas in the title or not Kowal2701 (talk) 22:51, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    does WP:HEADLINES apply here? NorthernWinds (talk) 22:52, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure, but headlines are often used in RMs Kowal2701 (talk) 22:54, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I will be honest, I am not sure what you refer to as RMs. This matter of WP:HEADLINES should be discussed and decided upon. Tomorrow, after go I over and fix my list, there should still be a substantial amount of sources supporting the case.
    Tomorrow I will give a fully-fledged response, adressing all sources in your reply to my original vote (and all sources you didn’t mention)
    Thanks for catching my mistakes, I highly appreciate it NorthernWinds (talk) 23:21, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The rest of the al jazeera articles do it in the article itself:
    1 "october 7 hamas attack"
    2 "hamas-led oct 7"
    3 " Hamas attack on October 7"
    4 "attack led by the Palestinian group Hamas on October 7, 2023"
    5 "October 7 attack by Hamas"
    6"Hamas's October 7 attacks" NorthernWinds (talk) 23:01, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Bruh sorry thanks for the alert. I worded things terribly. It's fixed now. It should make sense now after I fixed it NorthernWinds (talk) 20:22, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm confused why Chicdat's google hits argument is convincing to you (and others). People abbreviate things on Google, and from my read, while concision is a title guideline it certainly isn't dominant to supercede specificity where RS tend to be more specific. Otherwise the title of every article would be the shortest possible (combination of) keyword(s) describing the subject, because that's what people google.
    I've done a fairly thorough skim of sources on this article and the ones who don't have "Hamas attack", "on Israel" or similar a/pre-pended to "Oct 7 attacks" seem to fall firmly in the minority. NorthernWinds compiled these above. I am firmly in oppose camp for these reasons too. Henry.Jones.03021955 (talk) 07:46, 30 April 2025 (UTC) sockstrike 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 09:10, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Came across this Reuters article in my Reddit feed today and had to check the verbiage. Usage was "The law, which was approved by parliament last December and came in the wake of Hamas' attack on Israel on October 7, 2023, gives Swiss authorities..."
    An excellent example of how the attacks are referred to in tangentially-related sources. If "October 7 Attack" was the common name we'd see 9/11 style "the law, which came in the wake of the October 7 attacks, gives Swiss authorities..." Henry.Jones.03021955 (talk) 20:58, 2 May 2025 (UTC) sockstrike 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 09:10, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support as per reasons mentioned above DonBeroni (talk) 21:07, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Proposed title is unambiguous, recognisable, neutral with regard to POV, and common. Ticks all the boxes. The existing title is imprecise but will of course remain as a redirect. Andrewa (talk) 01:51, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support: Per above reasoning (Most notably WP:COMMONNAME and the reasoning of User:Howardcorn33). I would also say breaking out of the naming convention (eg September 11 attacks) shows a political motivation in the naming of this article. Edit: Put my response to the bottom, I dont know why it was placed somewhere in the middle :O:222emilia222 (talk) 11:54, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Anecdotally, I hear it referred to as simply "October 7th" far more than anything else. Wikipedia does not work on anecdotes, but it has been sufficiently demonstrated that "October 7 attacks" is the WP:COMMONNAME. This title is neutral; September 11 attacks still carries the weight of what happened on 9/11, as does the proposed title to this article. Drawing additional parallels to the 9/11 article, it has been mentioned that there have been other notable attacks on September 11 of other years, but a disambiguation has done the job. Both 9/11 and October 7th are known widely by their dates, both could technically be referencing other far less notable attacks, and both fit the proposed naming convention. I think it is also important to note to any readers that most attempts to support the requirement of "Hamas" in the title have come from a user who is now topic-banned from this article. violetwtf (talk) 23:00, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support per WP:COMMONNAME. The date itself has now become associated in common parlance and in media with this attack, so no additional qualifier is necessary. The current title is awkward and highly unlikely to be what the reader types in when searching for the article. Consistency is also important - we have an article called September 11 attacks as opposed to “September 11 Al Qaeda-led attack on the United States”, there’s no reason to deviate here. FlipandFlopped ㋡ 18:33, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:COMMONNAME. إيان (talk) 09:00, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose While I don't necessarily support the current title either, there have been plenty of valid sources that distinguish this particular October 7th attack by its association with Hamas and/or Israel. As such, I don't see a clear WP:COMMONNAME argument for just the October 7th title. We also have to be mindful of WP:RECENTISM. While there have been comparisons to the 9/11 attacks, I don't think it's likely that this attack will ever be historically referred to as just the 10/7 attack, October 7th attack, etc. When taking future readers into consideration, it's going to be a much easier to distinguish which attacks are being referenced if the perpetrator (Hamas), place (Israel), or both are mentioned. If it's a suitable compromise for anyone, I'd suggest something like October 7 attacks on Israel. Garsh (talk) 19:41, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose. I think the current title is good enough and doesn't need anything, and Gonnym's opinion from almost a month ago (as of writing) makes clear that we probably should stop with the moves for a bit. I do see the arguments for both sides, and I think that if I saw a much more overwhelming consensus in RS's that October 7 alone without Hamas-led or Hamas in the name of the attack, I'd likely change my opinion, but in cases like 9/11 or January 6, October 7 hasn't cut it to the same degree yet. A small part of me thinks that there is a political motivation as well, but I'm not as strictly convinced on that as some other editors. Regardless, given that this is involving the crown jewel of contentious topics, including Hamas since they undeniably were the leading force behind it and furthermore seen as the leaders by some of the other sources mentioned here, even if they aren't in the absolute majority of sources, it's still a sizable minority enough. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 15:26, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

revert 4 June 2025

[edit]

Chicdat, what is your issue with these changes? Why are they controversial? إيان (talk) 12:31, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) They should probably be discussed first, is the only reason why. Sure, we can go through them:
  • The image, I support. There aren't that many images in the article, and that one is a little easier on the eye than all the blood and gore later on.
  • broke out from the blockade of the Gaza Strip. I'm not positive, but I don't believe sources generally emphasise this portion of the attacks (the breakout). You compared that to the Simchat Torah reference – that is covered in many sources. The word "blockaded" linked to the article, allows readers interested in that aspect of the attacks to do so.
  • the first invasion of Israeli territory since the 1948 Arab–Israeli War. Yes it is true that from a strictly technical standpoint that there was no Israeli territory until the 1949 armistice agreements, but Israel de facto became a country the day of their Declaration of Independence (upon which the League immediately invaded). Palestine is not de jure a country, not being a UN member state, but we would still describe the Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip as an invasion of Palestinian territory. This fact is mentioned in many sources.
Feel free to re-add the image as we continue discussing the rest. Chicdat (talk) 12:48, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this good outline for discussion and for your go-ahead for the image. For the other two points:
  • broke out from the blockade of the Gaza Strip. This is prominent in sources with sympathy for the Palestinians. Early on, for example, authoritative scholars Rashid Khalidi and Joseph Massad, as well as the prominent Palestinian journalist Mariam Barghouti, have emphasized the surprising aspect of the 'jailbreak' from Gaza. There is also broader coverage (popular and academic) addressing the massive Israeli military and intelligence failure to contain/stop Hamas and prevent the October 7 attacks out of Gaza. The Simhat Torah detail is prominent in pro-Israel sources. I mentioned that detail in the lead to clarify the need for balance per NPOV.
  • the first invasion of Israeli territory since the 1948 Arab–Israeli War. As the claim is (technically) incorrect, it should not appear in the first paragraph, completely devoid of context. The matter should be treated with nuance in the body where the technicalities and de facto and de jure circumstances can be dutifully and responsibly elaborated. Otherwise it is deceptive and misleading.
إيان (talk) 21:16, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If there is significant sourcing discussing the blockade in reference to the attacks, it could be discussed in more depth somewhere in the article (currently it is briefly mentioned, but only in a position attributed to Hamas.) However, adding it straight to the first sentence of the lead seems like a stretch. See MOS:FIRST - the first sentence should have the most basic dry summary of the subject necessary to orient nonspecialist readers who may not know eg. what the attack is at all; its purpose isn't to present all the various perspectives on the subject. We also do have to be wary of WP:FALSEBALANCE - the fact that sources with sympathy for the Palestinians say something doesn't make it due; what matters is how much coverage it gets overall. What I would suggest doing is expanding on it in the body first with the best available source (possibly using one of the places where it is briefly mentioned already as a starting point for expansion.) Then, based on what you find source-wise and can justify in the body, we could revisit whether this requires more prominent treatment in the lead (and especially whether it should be more than just something attributed to Hamas.) Regarding the first invasion of Israeli territory since the 1948 Arab–Israeli War, I don't think that wording is actually wrong (it is true regardless of whether the war was an invasion of Israeli territory), but if people are concerned about the possible implication we could just reword it to something like the first invasion of Israeli territory since the founding of Israel, which is basically saying the same thing in every important respect but avoids the implication because clearly the reader will understand that Israel could not be invaded before it was founded. (Though, we might want to avoid that wikilink because it redirects to the declaration of independence, which re-introduces the problem.) I think that some phrasing of that point belongs in the first paragraph of the lead, since it captures an important part of the subject's notability. --Aquillion (talk) 21:30, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 June 2025

[edit]

Remove "Less than two months before the attacks, King Abdullah II of Jordan lamented that Palestinians had "no civil rights; no freedom of mobility"." from the warnings section, as this seems to be a more general statement rather than a warning. EightAndNine (talk) 21:20, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Cannolis (talk) 03:45, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request 23 June 2025

[edit]

Dead Hamas belligerent commanders aren't marked with  † symbols. Or at least it doesn't show that they're dead and didn't command parts of the war anymore.

2D Is Better Than 3D (talk) 12:26, 23 June 2025 (UTC)--2D Is Better Than 3D (talk) 12:26, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: The dagger symbol is intended to denote that someone was killed in action during the October 7 attacks, not later on like the Hamas commanders were. Day Creature (talk) 17:27, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox edit request, July 2, 2025

[edit]

Currently the Infobox lists the “Result” of the October 7 attacks as a “tactical victory”; this is a misrepresentation of the source cited, which characterized the attacks merely as a “tactical success.” In American English, the word “victory” most commonly carries a connotation of a decisive victory in a battle or war, which the October 7 attacks were not in any traditionally understood sense of the word; the October 7 attacks were terrorist attacks against unarmed civilians, not a proper “battle” or “war” between military or even paramilitary combatants. Request changing the “Result” from the current misleading wording (“Hamas tactical victory”) to a more objective, more neutral-POV “1195 Israelis and foreign nationals killed; start of the Gaza War”  —Arrandale Westmere (talk) 03:06, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. The October 7 attacks were to a significant extent a military confrontation between Hamas fighters and the IDF, in addition to the attacks on civilians that took place. The terminology used is plainly appropriate. Day Creature (talk) 06:33, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:October_7_attacks&oldid=1298658021"