The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. Parts of this article relate to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing the parts of the page related to the contentious topic:
You must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days
You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on this article (except in limited circumstances)
If it is unclear which parts of the page are related to this contentious topic, the content in question should be marked within the wiki text by an invisible comment. If no comment is present, please ask an administrator for assistance. If in doubt it is better to assume that the content is covered.
Q: Why is the attack not marked as a "Hamas victory" or "Israeli victory"?
A: After a long discussion involving over 40 editors, it was decided that the result of the attack has no consensus. In the discussion, there was a split consensus for the attack being a "Hamas victory" and for the attack's result being "Inconclusive".
While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish history on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Jewish historyWikipedia:WikiProject Jewish historyTemplate:WikiProject Jewish historyJewish history-related articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Wikipedia. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Terrorism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles on terrorism, individual terrorists, incidents and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TerrorismWikipedia:WikiProject TerrorismTemplate:WikiProject TerrorismTerrorism articles
There is no consensus to make a change to the infobox. Proponents of labeling the operation a victory for Hamas argue that some reliable sources support this position. However, many say that the sources for this claim are currently insufficient to support the change. Qono (talk) 04:46, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion 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.
I would like to restart a previous RfC on calling the operation a Hamas victory in the infobox. In the interim, multiple other sources ([1], [2]) have supported this position. No consensus was reached in the past RfC however I think the decision then was erroneous. Most of the opponents had no compelling arguments except essentially appeals to emotion that the attacks were "terrorist" and that it would somehow be immoral to call "terrorists" winners. That RfC was further tainted by an e-mail canvassing situation. I believe that the closer erred in his judgement of no consensus.
The operation should be called a Hamas victory.
The operation should be called an Israeli victory.
a. Israeli government officials have said that the goal was to provide a response and clearly that happened. commie (talk) commie (talk) 11:19, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
c. No change. The dead were mostly noncombatants. To the extent the attacks were on civilians, they were outside of the concept of victory or defeat in a military operation infobox. The 9/11 Attacks infobox does not say "Al-Qaeda victory." Other than that, it was not an Israeli victory. The military part of the operation looks like a successful raid that didn't reach the stretch goal of reconnecting Gaza and the West Bank. In the previous discussion people observed that the infobox is not a place for nuance or qualification. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 12:34, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The dead are mainly non-combatants in the Gaza war too. Hamas was far more discriminate than Israel. The reality is that it was a legitimate military operation, and this is the position we take in the first sentence of the article (unlike 9/11 which is described as a terror attack). The bias against Hamas here is honestly insane. JDiala (talk) 19:49, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The dead of WWII's European theatre were mainly Jewish civilians. Do you think just that means it's a German victory?
this is the position we take in the first sentence of the article (unlike 9/11 which is described as a terror attack
That's because 911 did not involve an invasion!
Hamas was far more discriminate than Israel. The bias against Hamas here is honestly insane.
We duly report the facts and reactions as stated by reliable sources. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:18, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, you're perpetuating a myth. Top WW2 causalties in Europe were: (1) Soviet civilians, (2) Soviet military, (3) Polish civilians, (4) German military. Jews accounted for approx. 10% of all WW2 causalties, a bit less than any of the above. We have an article about that. — kashmīrīTALK 09:18, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
TIL. Still, if they were the most casualties and then D-Day, happens, would you call that a German victory? Aaron Liu (talk) 11:09, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is braindead. You're ignoring that success/failure depends on the goals held. Alexanderkowal (talk) 11:12, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but my point is that The dead were mostly noncombatants does not affect the outcome of something military-wise. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:26, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That point is redundant, it depends solely on the goals held Alexanderkowal (talk) 11:29, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are there reliable sources that think Hamas failed at its goals in its initial attack? Aaron Liu (talk) 12:45, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There probably are, I'm not familiar with the reporting on this sorry Alexanderkowal (talk) 13:11, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think we may have to wait for academic sources on this Alexanderkowal (talk) 13:14, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You’re comparing a Nazi regime that exterminated civilians to some guys wearing adidas retaliating against one of the most powerful countries in the world and inflicting the heaviest military casualties on an enemy since the Yom Kippur war. Hamas’s October 7 attack was by every definition a victory The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 04:04, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the difference. If anything, by this definition, the Nazis killed more, so they have even more of a victory. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:39, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not about killing. One is about commiting genocide against an infinitely weaker enemy, and the other is conducting a successful and unprecedented military operation against an infinitely stronger enemy. For example, this would be like the Somali invasion of Ogaden, which even though they were eventually forced out, they succeeded in the main operation The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 12:07, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How does the relative strength of the parties negate the outcome? If anything, since they had all the power to use to achieve the goal, they had even more of a success. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:12, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In a way maybe. But the main point of view here is you’re talking about the Nazis exterminating exclusively civilians, while the hamas attack was military and had several military targets The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 12:23, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Military casualties?? These were civilians. Alexanderkowal (talk) 11:53, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
376 security forces were killed on October 7, and all of the border outposts and garrisons were captured. It very well is a military operation, even though more civilians were killed. The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 12:06, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Still, the comparison between ethnic-based massacre and genocide is valid. Hamas still has genocidal intent and if it had the upper hand it would be doing the same stuff Israel is doing Alexanderkowal (talk) 12:22, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A hypothetical doesn’t work here, especially since October 7 is a retaliatory attack to many provocations by Israel (many outlined by Mohammed deif if you saw the speech). Ethnic based massacre compared to a retaliatory that was mainly military in nature though did involve atrocities and targeting civilians, many of whom were overlooked such as capturing border outposts, eliminating garrisons, and occupying military bases. The only evidence of any “genocidal” intent is an outdated 30 year old charter that was written in response to Israel butchering 140 protestors The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 12:26, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Any massacre is mainly military in nature? Genocidal rhetoric is evidence of genocidal intent. You're apologetics are revolting. Alexanderkowal (talk) 12:34, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ehh, let's stop with the incivility. If you read the article, you'll see that the attack started as just military targets. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:48, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know this isn’t a general discussion forum, but I would like to drop in and point out that yes, the operation started mainly against military targets. Hamas got much deeper into Israeli territory than they anticipated. I believe there was recently an in-depth Al Jazeera analysis on this. (Israeli units being moved from the Gaza border to the West Bank also played a role, but that’s a whole different discussion). Professor Penguino (talk) 09:21, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When it involves the physical capture of several military installations and bases as well as pretty much wiping out an entire border guard then yes it does have a military goal that can’t be denied, even if civilians are killed The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 12:13, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The AP News source doesn't say anything about whether October 7 was a Hamas victory. The Haaretz piece is an opinion piece, and it asks "Has Hamas Won?" as a rhetorical question, not a strategic tactical question. Nothing significant has changed in sourcing. The outcome of the previous RfC should stand. CaptainEekEdits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:23, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion is futile until we can agree on the goals Hamas had for the invasion, and the goals Israel had (I think we can easily agree on the latter). Alexanderkowal (talk) 20:39, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, reliable sources need to do that, not us. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:14, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No change, per Vox Sciurorum and CaptainEek. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 23:39, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree that JDiala's sources are insufficient, reading Talk:2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel/Archive 5#Result RFC, all I see is sources that consider at least the initial attack a victory, though some imply that it failed in ceasing Israeli oppression over Hamas. Question: Does anyone have sources that say it's somewhere in the middle or even an Israeli victory? Aaron Liu (talk) 01:30, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As long as we don't know Hamas's military objective (and sources disagree on that), we cannot reasonably judge whether that objective has been met with any degree of success. I suggest to skip the outcome/result parameter altogether. — kashmīrīTALK 09:23, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No change until we can determine Hamas' goals with this operation. Alexanderkowal (talk) 11:13, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No change based on the information currently available, we would have to do OR to find out who won. Let's wait for scholarship. FortunateSons (talk) 12:59, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No change And when I see a question in a newspaper headline I find the answer is normally no. And it doesn't mean or imply the opposite is true either. It is just a two minute read. NadVolum (talk) 13:21, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No change. Wait for source consensus supporting this position before making any such changes. Hogo-2020 (talk) 06:27, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just that they failed one goal doesn't mean the entire thing was a fail. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:50, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hamas military success is better than victory and seems to be supported by most RS. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:55, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since no one has came forth with sources that think Hamas failed after three weeks, I'd say either change to A or Mat (Makeandtoss)'s position. @Hogo-2020 it sounds like you'd like to suggest something to the contrary? Aaron Liu (talk) 12:14, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm suggesting that the current available sources don't appear to be WP:DUE at the moment for this to be added. Hogo-2020 (talk) 06:54, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are no sources that state the opposite, so this is, in fact, due weight. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:37, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hamas military success. The sources are as they were the last RFC, they were and are just being ignored. Sources say that the attack on October 7th was a Hamas military success. See for example Le MondeThe invasion, a military success, led to atrocities committed against civilians. ... After the military victory, the attack changed form. And that is obvious to anybody who looks, Hamas broke through a militarized border, captured towns and military bases, captured soldiers and materiel. Yes, they also attacked civilians and killed scores of them, yes they committed acts of terror, but they also had military success against Israel. There is no OR here, that is a straightforward denial of the fact that sources say Hamas had a military victory on October 7. In addition to Le Monde, there is also Jon Alterman in Time: Hamas’ stunning military success on October 7 will prove to be a pyrrhic victory and Natan Sachs in The AtlanticBut this Hamas victory might prove Pyrrhic. In fact, Hamas itself might have been surprised by the extent of its initial success. That Hamas achieved a victory on October 7 is not in dispute, it is only disputed here because people dont like to see us state the obvious. In fact, some had put that this was an Israeli victory (!) in the infobox in the past, despite no sourcing and the fact that the whole world saw the shocking failure of the Israeli military for hours and hours that day. When reliable sources say X (eg, Hamas achieved a military success on October 7), and no reliable sources dispute X, then we are obligated to also say X. The failure to do so is simply a result of systemic bias. And any closer should ignore the arguments devoid of any sources. nableezy - 13:48, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some additional sourcing here:
Layth Aljouni and Hassan al-Hasan at the International Institute for Strategic Studies: the PLO is likely worried about Hamas’s initial military success and surge in popularity among Palestinians. ... Hamas’s military success may also inspire other Palestinian militant groups in the West Bank, including the Arīn al-ʾUsud, Islamic Jihad and the Jenin Brigades, to engage in hostilities against Israel. and Hamas’s unexpected early military success against the Middle East’s top military power, Israel, suggests Iran’s ability to project power through its armed non-state partners in the region has reached new heights..
Hokayem, Emile (November 2, 2023). "The Gaza War and the Region". Survival. 65 (6): 57–66. doi:10.1080/00396338.2023.2285603. ISSN0039-6338. The Islamist Palestinian militant group Hamas's 7 October attack on southern Israel from Gaza, in which roughly 1,200 Israeli civilians and security personnel were killed, often gruesomely, and more than 200 hostages were taken, was a generation-defining event that has left Israel deeply traumatised, Palestine in even greater distress, and the region itself dangerously close to all-out war. The assault was as much a Hamas military success as it was a comprehensive Israeli failure.
John Mearsheimerspeaking at the Centre for Independent Studies, saying, at 12:35 in the video: What happens on October 7th is Hamas attacks in to Israel, and, I think it is fair to say, achieves a spectacular success. I think the evidence is Hamas was surprised by how successful they were.
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.
Title
I believe a more fitting title for this article would be "The October 7th Attack" being that it's much more rememberable and easy to say. JamesCook1728 (talk) 01:45, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Add Nat Turner Rebellion in "see also"?
How do people feel about putting the Nat Turner Rebellion in the "See Also" section? Norman Finkelstein for instance is a proponent of this comparison. JDiala (talk) 12:58, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a close enough connection to add a link. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 15:08, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
*Hanan Yablonka, Michel Nisenbaum, and Orion Hernandez were killed on Oct. 7 at the Mefalsim Intersection and their bodies were taken into Gaza, the Israel Defense Forces said in a statement Friday morning, citing intelligence." Zenon.Lach (talk) 21:14, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Should we add this? (reported on 24 May 2024)
Hanan Yablonka, Michel Nisenbaum, and Orion Hernandez were killed on Oct. 7 at the Mefalsim Intersection and their bodies were taken into Gaza, the Israel Defense Forces said in a statement Friday morning, citing intelligence." ([1]) Zenon.Lach (talk) 21:15, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Requested move 26 May 2024
2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel → 7 October attack – The obvious common name here is the 7 October/October 7 attacks. On Google, there are 117,000 results for "Hamas-led attack on Israel" (even less if you include the year), 252,000 for "7 October attacks" and 1,600,000 for "October 7 attack". October 7 and 7 October even are used by themselves as shorthands for the attack. Ex: "What Really Happened on October 7?" (1), "How Changes in the Israeli Military Led to the Failure of October 7" (2), "October 7th: Through Their Eyes" (3).
It is clear that the name involves "October 7" or some variation + "attack". Of course, October 7th has a higher search rate because of the American date format, but in my opinion, we shouldn't name it that.The attack happened in Israel, and in Israel the format is dmy. An example of this is the 7 July 2005 London bombings. In American media, the attack was referred to as the July 7 bombings. Ex: "July 7 2005 London Bombings Fast Facts" (1), "London Marks the 10th Anniversary of the July 7 Terrorist Attacks" (2). But the article name is 7 July, because that's what the format is in the U.K. I think the same principle should be applied here. Personisinsterest (talk) 23:39, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
.svg){kind=small}
Comment: As long as we don't know Hamas's military objective (and sources disagree on that), we cannot reasonably judge whether that objective has been met with any degree of success. I suggest to skip the outcome/result parameter altogether. — kashmīrī TALK 09:23, 18 April 2024 (UTC)