Talk:List of military engagements during the Gaza war/Archive 3

Hi. I'd been tracking the page since the beginning of the conflict, and now, since it obtained a plausible look, I've come up with some requests, which I can't do by myself, as I'm a couple edits short of breaching the block (and, perhaps, not even supposed to be here) :

1. Change YMD dates to MDY, the format used more frequently in Wikipedia pages (2023-10-07 → October 7, 2023)

2. Delete Ongoing in End date columns, as it's already listed in Result column. Also, Battle of Jabalia should be listed as Ongoing, date in Result of Siege of Khan Yunis should be removed (what does it mean actually?), MV Maersk Hangzhou's "repelled atacks" should be colored as if Israeli victory (it's obvious which side the US/UK and Houthis have taken), perhaps the years like "2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel", "Israel–Hezbollah conflict (2023–present)", "2024 Erbil attack" should be dropped until they obtain significance (e.g. when 2024 Hamas-led attack on Israel occurs) and North Gaza insurgency should be removed, as the article already features elements of its location and the fact of insurgency itself belongs more to the timeline page.

3. Perhaps we should consider rearranging the page in parts regarding the Hamas-led attack on Israel and the massacres. As there is no consensus on how to treat the attack and now it seems like there is basically no result of it at all, I would suggest moving the list of massacres (now a section called Raids into southern Israel from Gaza and also featuring two independent and misplaced Israeli engagements) to the top and introducing the initial attack outside the "campaigns" table, alongside the massacres.

4. Move the two events of Reported violence against unarmed people (from 9 October onwards) from the section about massacres perpetrated by Hamas to a new section, like "Other notable events" for the sake of consistency, not to mention some of the cells are either blank or provide insufficient information. Also, remove the Palestine map concerning these two events as it's consuming too much place and what it shows isn't worth it until there are only locations of murdered journalists (better use the map of Southern Lebanon and Gaza Strip on their own)

5. In "Massacres" (or Locations of raids into Southern Israel from Gaza) table, remove Civilian/Military deaths, Hostages and Date cells as uninformative. If the hostage topic is important to mention, better do it in written text. Also, instead of the top row better use bottom "Total", and merge the rows "Nahal Oz" and "kibbutz Nahal Oz" as they're the same thing.

6. Merge Operation Prosperity Guardian into Red Sea crisis in "Campaigns", as the former is the responce to the latter. Also, it would be more consistent if the missle strikes in Yemen would be moved to airstrikes table.

7. If possible, somehow divide series of airstrikes that are continious and happened multiple times (that are listed as "ongoing") and the singular ones (that have an exact date, one or two days) in Long distance attacks against Israel. Also, remove the quote marks and write "Projectiles" with a capital.

Eagowl | talk | 07:12, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

The militias have stopped attacking us bases and the Wikipedia page has given an end date to the Iraq Syria and Jordan attacks so please update Yousifali777 (talk) 16:45, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

This is specifcially for the northern axis of gaza. In December, when israel had just withdrawn from beit hanoun, i labelled the battle "inconclusive" as the withdrawal seemed voluntary with a weakened hamas in the town. However the palestinian militants seem rooted in their towns and have even attacked israeli forces stationed east of beit hanoun readily. In this case, would it not be a clear vicotry for the militants as israeli forces have failed to clear the towns? I will try to discuss before changing The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 14:43, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

this makes no sense ahahhahaha 76.69.250.194 (talk) 15:56, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

For the disputed discussion & contradictory statements and discussion see: Talk:Siege of Khan Yunis#Result Discussion - RFC. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 18:29, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

For example the siege of Khan Yunis is marked as a Palestinian victory despite that Hamas (according to the wiki article) lost over 3000 fighters whilst Israel lost 51. Its very misleading to simply use Calleastrom95 (talk) 22:09, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

• @Calleastrom95: Please see the ongoing Request for Comment discussion which is to determine what the consensus is about the result of the siege and battle. At the conclusion of that discussion, the result of that siege and battle will be decided. Also to note, the current list does not state it was a Palestinian victory. If it did earlier, then it was vandalized as the Siege of Khan Yunis current results section only say Israel withdrew and the list also says Israel withdrew. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 23:04, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

@Based guyy:, please do not change the result section in the table for the Siege of Khan Yunis until the ongoing Request for Comment discussion concludes. The result section, at this moment, matches the exact result section of the article. Please comment in that discussion and please do not try to self-impose the victor in the article as you have done several times already. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 23:59, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

On the result table, it shows the attacks on U.S. bases as ongoing. This is outdated. It should be updated. Probably a good conclusion would be "U.S. victory" or "Attacks halted". TimothyforGod (talk) 20:14, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

It's still 4 days and nothing has been done. Please let the table section under attacks on U.S. bases be updated. TimothyforGod (talk) 12:41, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

There have been three operations in the village of zeitoun in gaza . You should add Battle of Zeitoun or Zeitoun operations in the list dividing it in three phases. 2409:4089:AB0C:5877:441C:200:42D3:66F7 (talk) 12:24, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 19:17, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed that there are some boxes that should say "ongoing" but they don't say anything and I would like to be able to fill them in Paolo Gutarra (talk) 19:44, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Locations and dates are placed in the wrong categories in multiple areas, things out of order in some areas, looks more like an art collage than a neat list of documentation. I tried to fix some things but just gave up. Evaporation123 (talk) 20:06, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Disregard the above, I managed to fix the problems. Apologies for the frustrated tone haha. Evaporation123 (talk) 01:18, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

I think the section on the Battle of Jabalia should be changed to 'ongoing' with reference to this article: https://www.timesofisrael.com/idf-says-many-dozens-of-terror-operatives-killed-in-overnight-north-gaza-ambushes/ Bjorn.Hakansson (talk) 20:55, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

•  Not done This will not be done as the entire "results" column has been removed now. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:09, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

  Not just "withdraw", physically pushed out or killed. In numerous cases after failing to have overrun their objective. Whereas the IDF executed an orderly withdrawal after staying as long as it wanted to. RM (Be my friend) 00:29, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

  “Cleared areas” where militants continue sustained attacks, ambushes, and booby traps against their forces literally until the day they withdraw, only to prompt another re invasion after the IDF prematurely declares victory?

  October 7 wasn’t about capturing territory, Hamas’s goals were to capture POW’s and hostages to trade for “administratively detained” Palestinians while also breaching the security of the border, which collapsed. Israel’s stated goal was to destroy Hamas and rescue the remaining POW’s and hostages, which it has failed to do in all the cities it had invaded, that remain under Hamas control The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 05:13, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

  Is that why Hamas continued to attack Israeli forces in Jabalia, northern Gaza, and khan yunis up until the day the IDF withdrew after Israel’s “victory”? The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 06:11, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Here's a link to one of the mentions.

New readers/editors coming in: you aren't allowed to directly edit the page or discuss it here unless you have a month-old account with over 500 edits. (This applies to all articles related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.) If you do, it'll just be deleted. What you can do is make an edit request. These have to be simple and specific. Pick one event on the list and go find a reliable source saying who won that engagement. Some events which received a lot of attention may have many sources talking about them, which may say different things. Bringing more than one source to back up your request will make it more likely to succeed.

At the top of this page, there are links to policies and guidelines that you should check out. There's also links to archived discussions which may provide context to questions you have. Welcome to Wikipedia! Safrolic (talk) 20:49, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

What is the source for claiming that there is anything but one single battle, the battle of Gaza, parallel e.g. the Battle of Mosul (2016–2017) or Battle of Raqqa (2017) ? Isak Rubin (talk) 17:11, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

@Isak Rubin That would be in each every individul page for those battels Genabab (talk) 20:01, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Ok, so this will be a long one. But requests were made for why each result is what it is, so someone has to do it. @The Great Mule of Eupatoria, @WeatherWriter, @Toomuchcuriosity I am pinging you all because you seem to be the most involved in this edit dispute. I wanted to make this talk page section to give why I think each battle should have their results restored. Focusing primarily on the Invasion of Gaza section:

1. Beit Hanoun

2. Netzarim: says ongoing, uncontroversial

3. siege of Gaza: Ditto

4. Al-shifa siege: This one's tricky. I think we should make this one be "inconclusive" or 'Withdraw" Because Israel did withdraw, but it did also destroy the hospital. What we call this depends in part on the military value of Al-shifa, which is dubious to say the least as the lede makes very clear. saying Israeli victory would imply there is truth to Israel's claim tht al-shifa was used as a Hamas outpost. This should be discussed further

5. Tel al-Hawa: OK maybe this one should be removed? It doesn't even go to a page for the battle. Or we could keep it until someone makes a page for it.

6. Battle of Jabalia: Palestinian Victory: Institute for the study of war reported on May that "...Hamas and other Palestinian militias remain combat effective in and around Jabalia..." saying that, as the info-section for the Battle of Jabalia states, militants retained control over the city. Another source, Palestine Chronicle, also reffered to the battle as an Israeli defeat (https://www.palestinechronicle.com/israels-defeat-in-jabaliya-resistance-roundup-day-238/)

7.2nd Battle of Jabalia: Ongoing, uncontroversial

8. Battle of shuja'iyya: Israeli Withdrawal. The info-section for this battle states Israeli Withdrawal. Furthermore, the source that was used for the page previously was from al-Jazeera https://www.aljazeeramubasher.net/amp/news/politics/2023/12/26/%D9%85%D8%B1%D8%A8%D8%B9%D8%A7%D8%AA-%D8%B3%D9%83%D9%86%D9%8A%D8%A9-%D9%85%D8%AF%D9%85%D8%B1%D8%A9-%D8%A8%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%83%D8%A7%D9%85%D9%84-%D8%B5%D9%88%D8%B1-%D8%AA%D8%B1%D8%B5%D8%AF which features images of Palestinian militants continuing to occupy the city after the IDF had withdrawn.

9. shuja'iyya ambush: Palestinian victory. This is what the info-section on the ambush itself states, and there's no reason I can think of why a successfull ambush attck shouldn't be called that. Do feel free to discuss however.

10. 2nd shuja'iyya: One of Israeli withdrawal to Palestinian victory. As the info-section for the 2nd shuja'iyya states, Palestinian militants retained control over the city following the battle: https://www.aljazeera.net/news/2024/7/11/%d8%b4%d8%a7%d9%87%d8%af-%d9%85%d8%b9%d8%a7%d8%b1%d9%83-%d9%85%d9%84%d8%ad%d9%85%d9%8a%d8%a9-%d9%84%d9%84%d9%82%d8%b3%d8%a7%d9%85-%d8%a8%d8%a7%d9%84%d8%b4%d8%ac%d8%a7%d8%b9%d9%8a%d8%a9. similar points were made in the previous cited source here, https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/videos/international/israeli-army-withdraws-from-gaza-citys-shejaiya-neighbourhood-after-weeks-of-fighting-watch/videoshow/111648358.cms

11. siege of Khan Yunis: Withdrawal to Palestinian victory. The page for the siege does say withdrawl, but also does say that Hamas remained combat effective in Khan Yunis, which indicates an Israeli failure. The other sieges of Khan Yunis should just say Israeli withdrawal for similar reasons.

12: Zana Ambush: same reasoning as shuja'iyya ambush

13. siege of Al-Qarara: Palestinian Victory. This is what the page refers to the siege as. Calls it a Palestinian victory, that Israel was forced to retreat, and that it failed to meet its objectives in the city.

14. Tal al-sultan: same reasoning as shuja'iyya ambush

15: Rafah: Ongoing, uncontroversial

sorry again for being so long. but you have to be thorough when sorting this type of debate out Genabab (talk) 20:48, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Why are the ambushes broken out of the battles they're part of? E.g. the Shuja'iyya ambush (December 13, 10 IDF deaths to 0 Hamas/PIJ deaths) is listed separately from the Battle of Shuja'iyya (Dec 4-Dec 26, 16 IDF deaths to >900 Hamas/PIJ deaths). And why are "Israeli withdrawals" colored as Hamas/Palestinian victories, when Israel doesn't go into these battles with a stated goal of holding the territory indefinitely or completely/permanently eradicating Hamas from the area of operation? It seems as though the criteria, not just for results, but even inclusion in the table itself are designed to produce orange boxes.

That's not getting into the sources themselves, which include the Palestinian Chronicle's "Resistance Round-Up" and Arabic-language Al Jazeera, and which in other cases don't match the content. This is the source for a "Palestinian victory". The Battle of Beit Hanoun's Palestinian victory result (for an operation listed as ending in May) is sourced to two ISW links from January and March, both of which only mention Hamas reconstituting their forces in an area after Israel cleared it and left. This isn't an exhaustive search, these are the first sources I looked at just now. Some editor, I haven't gone back through the history to see exactly who, seems to have been doing some serious misrepresentation and POV pushing in here. Safrolic (talk) 21:49, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Given the disagreements here, I am currently opposed to re-adding the results section to the battles. Likewise, the sources need to clearly state (not explain) X (Israel or Hamas/Palestinian = “X”) victory. An additional note, per WP:ALJAZEERA, while it is a reliable source, it is also RFC consensus to be extremely biased. As such, any X victories listed by only an Al Jazeera article are ones I do not back adding. For any X victory with an Al Jazeera source, I would only support those listed if and only if there was another source (listed at WP:RSP) saying the same thing.

All of that to say, (1) no, at the present moment, I am completely opposed to re-adding it and (2) too many Al Jazeera references here and borderline original research thoughts. Find me a handful of sources directly saying one sides “lost” or was “defeated” OR that one sides “won” or was “victory”. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:53, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

@Safrolic You'd have to ask whoever made the ambush pages. I didn't. I only included them because they were already there. Perhaps we could snap off another section for just ambushes?

> when Israel doesn't go into these battles with a stated goal of holding the territory indefinitely or completely/permanently eradicating Hamas from the area of operation?

Is there a source for that?

> which include the Palestinian Chronicle's "Resistance Round-Up"

Could be biased. But bias isn't per se a reason to not cite something (I was surprised to find out this is wikipedia policy after RFA was listed as a reliable source for this reason). I don't believe Palestinian Chronicle is considered a deprecated source either, so that doesn't seem to be an issue. Genabab (talk) 22:34, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Off the top of my head, no, I don't have a source to prove a negative. You would have to look at the several sources already within this article which feature, immediately before "is now withdrawing", "Israel says it has completed its military objectives and".

Regarding source bias and its impact on reliability, I quote the complete PC article (besides three included press statements from Hamas, PIJ and Hezbollah):

The Israeli army has finally left Jabaliya, in fact, the entirety of northern Gaza. Not only did Israel fail to find any military victory in the mostly destroyed area, they were squarely defeated at the hands of the revitalized and powerful Palestinian Resistance. Israel’s military course of action remains unclear, though most likely, the Israeli army’s focus will remain situated in Rafah, in southern Gaza. Below are the latest statements by the two main Resistance forces in Gaza, and the Lebanese Resistance Movement Hezbollah. The statements were communicated via their Telegram channels and are published here in their original form.

Would you like to change the result box to "revitalized and powerful Palestinian victory?" Safrolic (talk) 22:51, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

> I don't have a source to prove a negative

Then where did you get "Israel doesn't go into these battles with a stated goal of holding the territory indefinitely or completely/permanently eradicating Hamas from the area of operation" from? It's a very specific statement. so it should have some evidence behind it.

> You would have to look at the several sources already within this article which feature, immediately before "is now withdrawing", "Israel says it has completed its military objectives and".

Issue is:

1. These sources are only saying "Israel said this" and not that it actually did it.

2. In many of these battles, the sources then list cases of Hamas or other members of the JOR continuing to be active in the city, which directly contradicts whatever the IDF has to say on the matter.

> Would you like to change the result box to "revitalized and powerful Palestinian victory?

This is meant to say its unreliable, how? Genabab (talk) 23:29, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for contributing! These conclusions, however, are still WP:SYNTH at the very least and may be not be neutral since they clearly favor one side without much evidence. We need secondary sources that explicitly say "victory" or "defeat" in order to include that phrasing, otherwise it is WP:SYNTH since they're conclusions not explicitly stated in any of the sources that are not at all obvious. _{too_much} curiosity (talk) 16:45, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

In light of the "alleged massacres" list you included on this page, "Hamas-led <attack> on Israel" should also be changed into the "October 7 Massacre". There's plenty footage to prove that is more accurate (I'd be happy to provide links of the massacre of civilians Hamas filmed if necessary). אטלס (talk) 15:11, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Not done - This is based off the name of the article itself, which was recently moved and is currently at October 7 Hamas-led attack on Israel. That article was at one point titled '2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel', but has never been titled as a massacre. Individual massacres during the Oct 7th attacks are listed according to their article titles further down the page. I will change the listed name to match the new article title, though. Safrolic (talk) 19:01, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Many of the sources list factual descriptions "Israeli military withdrew after X" or "experts believe that not all tunnels cannot be destroyed" rather than actual determinations of a Hamas or Israeli victory. Some of these determinations are unsourced or are misleading to readers. Right now, I believe the best solution is to remove the "results" section from the tables or replace it with actual information from the sources instead of the "victory"/"loss" binary. _{too_much} curiosity (talk) 16:51, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

I would not necessarily be opposed to removing it. I do see a lot of the “victories” (both sides) are listed as failed verifications. How about changing any of the fail verification “victories” to be the N/A template (“—“)? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 17:01, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

The “Israeli withdrawal” isnt really a result for battle policy. If Wikipedia cannot really agree if it’s X victory or Y victory I think it’s best to remove it until further discussion or better analysis is available The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 17:15, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

I also think the template itself will just lead to unproductive debate and WP:SYNTH and should be removed until at least majority of list items are verifiable. Also, because it's a list to other pages, I imagine readers can find whatever information they're looking for on the hyperlinked pages, so I don't believe removing it would hurt readers. _{too_much} curiosity (talk) 17:48, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn’t be too opposed to that, especially given the non-conventional nature of these battles. Maybe compare them to the Iraqi insurgency analysis perhaps? The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 17:16, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

I made this change since I thought this was an OK scenario to be WP:BOLD, but please feel free to revert if you want to have some more discussion! _{too_much} curiosity (talk) 20:25, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

I suggest you wait until those who added the content had their say. You can ping them if you wish. M.Bitton (talk) 20:36, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

• I have removed the "Results" section. There was way too many failed verification claims for both Israeli victories and Palestinian/Hamas victories. It seems clear a results section is not needed at this time per this discussion here. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:06, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

  Don't be surprised if your bold edit is reverted. M.Bitton (talk) 21:10, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

  Why did you remove my constructive post to this talk page just providing a literal quote from a linked source and arguing that the source did not support the article text LeChatiliers Pupper (talk) 02:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

The End Date column got mixed up for the Battle of Netzarim and Siege of Gaza City צחי (talk) 17:34, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

agreed DancingOwl (talk) 07:34, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

The "attack" section makes no sense, and I think it is just an artefact at this point of how the page was originally structured. Most of all the engagements in the other sections involve some sort of "attack". Of the two "long-range attacks", one is the rocket barrage on 7 October and should be hosted in the related section, and the other is just an aggregation of engagements, not a single engagement. The "Israeli attacks" are meanwhile just a continuation of the pattern of civilian massacres and mass killings, and should simply be grouped with the four mass killings already dubbed massacres since, regardless of the descriptive language, there is little to no qualitative difference between most of these attacks. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

The whole article needs reworking. Before it surfaced on the Twitter pages it was already obscure and recieving few edits The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 06:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

@Vbbanaz05 I have re-added the small part you removed and I wanted to clarify why here. Basically, though there is controversy over the main battles section, there is no such controversy for the first part. This is ecause it either says ongoing (which is uncontroversil obviously). Furthermore, the section saying Hamas won Oct.7th is:

1. Is supported by the provided reliable source

2. Was the result (iirc) of a big RFC a few months back, and as such should be respected unless further discussion decides otherwise. For the time, we should treat this separately. Genabab (talk) 20:13, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

I think it is worth revisiting the discussion from the RFC. As it stands, this phrasing is irresponsible and unfair to readers. First of all, the Washington Post source only discusses the attack on one place Be'eri, but it is used to make a claim about the whole of the 10/07 attacks—so it is incorrectly applied to the whole of the attacks. Also, the supplied source does not say "victory" or "defeat" either which makes this claim a synthesized one. (As an aside, the source must straightforwardly make this claim—admitting a military failure does not straightforwardly imply that the other belligerents "won", e.g., a pyrrhic victory can still be the result of a military failure). As it stands, this claim of a Hamas victory is patently misleading to readers. Can you please supply verifiable sources supporting this claim of a Hamas "victory"? _{too_much} curiosity (talk) 18:45, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Just looked and the result of an RFC last year was to omit and it is currently (1-1-2025) listed as "Israeli defensive failure" on the October 7 Hamas-led attack on Israel page. We can change this to say "Israeli defensive failure" and be in line with others if you'd like, but I don't see a reason to include a results section since this information can be obtained from the relevant page, but I'm going to remove the column. _{too_much} curiosity (talk) 02:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

@Toomuchcuriosity Would you object if I re-added it as Israeli Defensive Failure? Genabab (talk) 11:47, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

I still think it's best to omit the column since I don't think it adds much, but I won't object to that compromise, so feel free to add it :)

But, I do object to the color coding since it would still effectively categorize it as a Hamas victory. _{too_much} curiosity (talk) 15:39, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

@Toomuchcuriosity I wont add it with Hamas Victorry but wouldnt you say that an Israeli defeat implies a PJOR victory? Genabab (talk) 17:27, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

"Israeli defensive failure" is not a defeat and certainly does not imply a PJOR victory. "Israeli defensive failure" is a relative term--it means that the state did not live up to its expectations when it comes to defending its population and fending off combatants.

I think we need to omit any similar claims of victory/defeat given past RFCs. My issue with defining it as a PJOR victory is that no verifiable sources have been provided that define the event as a PJOR victory. Calling it a PJOR victory is WP:SYNTH consensus emerges among experts that it was a PJOR victory. _{too_much} curiosity (talk) 22:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

@Toomuchcuriosity there are sources that call it a Hamas victory, or at least tactical victory:

https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/article-772919

https://foreignpolicy.com/2023/12/18/hamas-success-israel-gaza-war-achievements-cost/

"On Oct. 7, Hamas militants surprised Israel and slaughtered 1,200 people while taking more than 200 as prisoners. It was an impressive tactical success for the group.... Israelis whom Hamas captured on Oct. 7—a clear victory for Hamas..."

https://www.wpr.org/news/israel-fights-destroy-hamas-groups-popularity-surges-among-palestinians

"To many Palestinians, that deal represented another victory for Hamas, another sign of strength." the usage of the term "another" suggests that October 7th is considered a victory.

https://www.algemeiner.com/2024/05/14/the-horrible-unspoken-truth-about-october-7-terrorism-works/

"...the actions of Hamas on October 7th worked.... Further, it is clear that there is now more pressure on Israel from the US and the international community for a two-state solution than there has been for decades. This would also qualify as a major victory for Hamas, were it not for the fact that Hamas opposes a two-state solution. Still, if history is a guide, the pressure will all be directed at Israel to make concessions, not at the Palestinians, so in that sense, it very much is a Hamas victory..."

https://www.habtoorresearch.com/programmes/a-year-of-war-on-gaza/

"Additionally, Hamas has succeeded, at least temporarily, in halting the normalisation of regional relations with Israel. Tactically, Hamas achieved notable success, resulting in heavy Israeli civilian and military casualties and the capture of numerous hostages"

https://qpol.qub.ac.uk/hamas-the-efficacy-of-terrorism/

"In terms of tactical-operational success, the 7 October atrocity represented a surprise attack which did succeed in inflicting death and damage upon enemies."

I think this justifies calling it a tactical victory for the PJOR Genabab (talk) 14:29, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

furthermore, other academic sources call it a victory for Hama too. I'm looking for more but I already found one such passage in the book "Deluge : Gaza and Israel from Crisis to Cataclysm" namely in the chapter "Nothing Fails Like Success: Hamas and the Gaza Explosion" which calls Oct.7th a 'short term success' Genabab (talk) 14:39, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Nice work on collecting these sources. In that case, I'm ok with the phrasing "Disputed or Hamas tactical victory". That would be in line with the previous RFC but also closely follow the phrasing in these sources. (I'd prefer Hamas to PJOR since that's what's verifiable from the references). _{too_much} curiosity (talk) 03:29, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Does anyone seriously believe that Hamas has won every battle since the invasion? Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 03:41, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

This very dedicated and hardworking sockmaster might. Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_NormalguyfromUK Sean.hoyland (talk) 17:21, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Maybe if you know the difference between defeating an enemy on the battlefield and massacring/taking revenge on civilians to pretend to have some military victory The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 17:17, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

They have defeated hamas on the battlefield, and severely weakaned them. Also what you are saying is disputed by Israel and therefore should habe no effect on the article EJS14 (talk) 04:14, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Israel on several occasions has labelled civilians as militants, their claims of “defeating” Hamas when they have not even fought Hamas in their main stronghold in any meaningful way (the tunnels) should be treated at the very least as questionable The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 06:59, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Israel has destroyed 80% of Gaza's tunnels, and what strongholdd has Israel not fought Hamas in? They have fought them almost everywhere. EJS14 (talk) 03:36, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Could you tell me more about the “80% of the tunnels destroyed”. Israel has not entered the tunnels beyond a few surface ones The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 04:07, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Thats not true. Every major news outlet has said that Israel hestroyed many of Hamas tunnels, and by 80%, I meant the Rafah tunnels my fault. EJS14 (talk) 21:39, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

"Hamas tactical victory" should be changed to "ongoing" or the whole column should be removed.

Sad that this must be stated N.HqWV3M7cWcv6 (talk) 19:44, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Similar pages do not include this table column

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_engagements_of_the_Second_Sino-Japanese_War N.HqWV3M7cWcv6 (talk) 20:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I'm concerned Wikipedia seems to be the primary source of identifying and naming military engagements in this conflict. For example, just in the major battles section of the article, just looking at the Gaza engagements, we're told about the "Battle of Hamad", the "Siege of Al-Qarara", the "second/third battle of Khan Yunis", the "second battle of shujaiyya", the "battle of tel al-hawa", and the "battle of netzarim". Notably, I COULD NOT FIND A SINGLE WIKIPEDIA-TRUSTED SOURCES USING ANY ONE OF THESE NAMES.

These names lack a date, and describe an engagement as the "Battle of X" with no date or identify a conflict as a "siege" in the case of Al-Qarara despite no secondary-source backing. Battles would be given proper-noun titles like these if a Wikipedia-reliable secondary source (e.g. nytimes.com, or even Al-Jazeera isn't using these names) or a combat think-tank source (like ISW/CTP - https://www.understandingwar.org/). This is the standard in every other list of engagements on Wikipedia and for good reason. I understand I can't make an EC edit request to change the names of other wikipedia articles, but they can be named differently in this table at the very least and still hyperlink to the poorly titled wikipedia articles to which they refer. Appropriate replacement names would be e.g. 2024 Battle in Hamad or 2024 Israeli Incursion into Hamad as opposed to "Battle of Hamad". I believe the editor making the change can repeat this format for each of the battles listed above to complete this edit request.

There's also a massive problem of listing tiny engagements as "major battles" exclusively when they lead to the death of Israeli soldiers. This would include in that same section the listing of "Zana ambush", Shuja’iyya ambush", and "Tal Al-sultan ambush". These are not major battles. Reliable media has reported ambushes on both sides of the conflict. If ambushes are included they should be moved to a separate section and be included based on reporting coverage across several media sources. Wikipedia is a collation of facts from well-trusted secondary sources, not a repost of Pro-Palestine (or Pro-Israel) corners of social media. It is really absurd that we are now proper-naming battles of a conflict in real time with no reliable backing and listing small ambushes of Israeli soldiers as the war's major battles. Removing these ambushes from major battles and giving engagements more humble titles as described precisely in the former paragraph would help pull this page back into reality. Scienceturtle1 (talk) 20:38, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Especially with the second/third battles. There are events that are undeniably battles, such as Beit Hanoun, or the sieges of khan yunis and Gaza city, however as for the rest you are right. I’ve renamed some (battle of Hamad for example to Hamad incursion), maybe the second third battles should be renamed as raids? Especially because they were nowhere near the scale of their predecessor battles The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 10:47, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, and I fully agree about those battles which have been referred to by these names in major media - that's why I didn't list them in my comment. Sounds good. There's many ways to resolve it but just my advice would be it doesn't matted so much whether to call them raids or battles or engagements or incursions in the title (these are all a bit ambiguous in common english) as long as the title sounds descriptive of the event rather than "the name" of it. For example, if you say "May 2024 second battle in Khan Yunis" vs "May 2024 Khan Yunis incursion", the word choice of battle vs incursion vs raid isn't as vital - either way these titles sound appropriately descriptive. It's only when we call engagements things like "Second Battle of X" (a combo of all of: saying "battle OF", no descriptive year, enumeration of battles of a place by saying second) that the title is clearly more than descriptive - as long as it's better than that I think there's some discretion in how it's fixed Scienceturtle1 (talk) 12:06, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I have brought it up on the talk page of second battle of Khan Yunis. If it gets traction, I will also do the same for the other articles and hopefully rename them appropriately

this also solves the other question of the result. A rid by default will end in a withdrawal, and we only have the major, true battles and sieges to discuss the outcome of. The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 13:26, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I appreciate your efforts and see the "Second battle of Khan Yunis" title changed! I would love to see these consensus changes reflected in this article though. Scienceturtle1 (talk) 05:33, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

There have been several discussions opened in the past regarding this article's content and overall scope. Several wars have a list of military engagements and battles. Examples include: World War I ("Military engagements"), World War II ("Battles"), Russian invasion of Ukraine ("Military engagements"), Sudanese civil war ("Engagements").

The Israel–Hamas war is no different with this article. However, unlike all the other list of military engagement articles, this article has a ton of clean-up templates including lack of sourcing, MOS, and scope issues.

So, with all that background, let's have a discussion on what the scope of this article should include, or more specifically, what is a "military engagement" during the Israel-Hamas war? Are "Battle of ...." engagements? Are airstrikes engagements? Should the article's scope be redefined away from "military engagements" to just "engagements"? Ect... The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 17:45, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

• I honestly do not have a clear clue on what is a "military engagement" during the war. In my view, any article that is titled "battle of ...." is a clear engagement for the scope. However, something like the Flour massacre is not a true "military engagement" and should not be in the article or under the current scope in my opinion. Under the current scope of "military engagement", I support the removal of any event where the two sides, Israel and Hamas/Palestinian did not actually shoot at each other, as those are not true "military engagements", definition wise. I may support a scope change to include the current non-military engagements listed in the article, but unless the community decides for a scope change, I would support the removal of any non-military engagement listed here. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 17:45, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

•  Question: Is this a RfC or a RFCBEFORE? M.Bitton (talk) 17:54, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

RFC is to get the communities input. There is no options as this is specifically to get widespread input. RFCBefore is covered by the tons of discussions that were started in the past on this article and subsequent parent article (Israel-Hamas war talk page itself). The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 18:10, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

The purpose of a RfC is to settle a content dispute that has been thoroughly discussed. Being time consuming, RfCs cannot be used simply to attract input to a WP:RFCBEFORE. M.Bitton (talk) 14:23, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

• Not sure. I couldn't find a similar list elsewhere, so I don't think it should be removed without putting it somewhere else. Not sure whether expanding the scope or splitting is better, but I'll likely change my comment after seeing what others have to say. I imagine having a separate page such as "List of massacres in the Israel-Hamas war" would make it easier for readers find the info they're looking for.
•  Comment. It is important to see history of this list. After it has been merged with a list of massacres early in the war, it has been speedily renamed to 'List of engagements' with 'military' omitted. After it has been significantly modified by now-blockd Irtapil, with a lot of misleading info and stub entries added to the list (all the 'Alleged massacres', 'Long distance attacks against Israel' etc, many of those were then removed), it almost stopped getting updates. Another speedy RM, where major contributors to the topic barely participated, resulted in returning the word 'military', and then it entered its current condition. Here is where I'm getting at. Unless the airstrikes, massacres, assassinations, etc. are included in this list, it will perhaps comply with other articles of the kind, but it will not represent the scope of the conflict accurately. The battles here generally revolve around Israel striking cities to eliminate Hamas forces and achieve their 'goals', and then retreats. With a tremendous media bias (the reason for RMs on the main page) it may not be defined whether Israel achieves those or not. However, other aspects of the conflict may make a better understanding of how it goes. I tried to restructure this page in my sandbox, but before I continue with other elements, we need to decide whether we should return the points that are not directly concerning this part of the war. There is also a completely abandoned List of military engagements during the Israel–Hezbollah conflict (2023–present) which should be merged here, IMO. Then we could consider renaming it to "... during the Middle Eastern crisis", but now it's important to focus on the battle articles as well. Lots of them stopped getting updates in January-March 2024, so updatingthem should bring better clarity of what should we reach here.Eagowl | talk | 10:00, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
• I doubt the article should exist; all of these events should instead be mentioned within the context of one of the articles describing the overall conflict William M. Connolley (talk) 15:06, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
• I would change the scope of this article to something like "List of violent events in..." or "List of attacks in..." VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 05:05, 18 January 2025 (UTC)