Talk:List of military engagements during the Israel–Hamas war/Archive 1

Khan Yunis raid
We usually don't if the only source for such a statement is that side; do you have independent sources supporting this? BilledMammal (talk) 14:29, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Same question regarding the Tulkarm incursion. BilledMammal (talk) 14:32, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello! Israel has not made any claims about the raid, but the only sources available say that Hamas claimed it as a victory. Haskko (talk) 14:35, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * If Hamas is the only source then we can't put it in Wikivoice; we need to say "inconclusive" or similar. BilledMammal (talk) 14:38, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Alright! But just a question; no one ever said that the raid was inconclusive, so why would it be considered "inconclusive", isn't it more logical to go by the source we have, or just say it's still ongoing? Haskko (talk) 14:42, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * We don’t have a source telling us who won; we have an involved party claiming they won. And since the battle isn’t ongoing, it would be inaccurate to say that it is - perhaps "undetermined"? BilledMammal (talk) 15:24, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It technically isn’t “Hamas” being the “only” source. Al Jazeera is the source for the raid. Per WP:RSP, Al Jazeera is a reliable source. Al Jazeera reported that Hamas won the battle and “pushed” Israeli forces out, so we have a reliable source saying Hamas won. Therefore, we as Wikipedia editors can’t WP:SYNTH or disregard the fact that a reliable source says Hamas won. That simple. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 14:44, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Can you quote where the source says that? As far as I can tell, it only says that Hamas has claimed victory. BilledMammal (talk) 15:22, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It doesn’t matter if Hamas is the only one claiming victory. Al Jazeera, as confirmed in WP:RSP is a reliable secondary source of information. This situation has some similarities to the ideology of WP:VNT. A while ago, I wrote an essay on this ideology, WP:VNTIA, which showed how a community consensus upheld the ideology of verifiability not truth (VNT). We have a secondary reliable source saying Hamas won, so we have to go with the reliable source. Hope that helps. Cheers! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:17, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * But Al Jazeera isn't saying that Hamas won; they're only saying that Hamas claimed they won. If I am mistaken, please provide a quote. BilledMammal (talk) 22:21, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Al Jazeera, a WP:RS source stated and I quote, “Hamas, announced on its Telegram account that it had pushed Israeli forces back into Israel.” Therefore, we have a WP:RS saying Hamas won. It doesn’t matter whether or not they are reporting Hamas’ side/announcement, it is a reliable source directly saying it, i.e. a secondary source saying it (not the primary source). WP:VNT is still valid here. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:25, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * That isn't Al Jazeera saying that Hamas won; that's Al Jazeera saying Hamas says they won - it isn't in Al Jazeera's voice. Do you have any reliable source that says, in their own voice, that Hamas won? BilledMammal (talk) 22:28, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * This is a quote -- an attribution, *not* a statement of fact supported by AJ's editorial policy. The RS is making the claim that "Hamas said X", the RS is not making the claim "X is true." Both of the citations for the Erez and Hatzerim Airbase missile attacks also have this evidentiary issue, except they're just tweets. OJDrucker (talk) 22:40, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I have added a disputed claim tag to an Israeli victory as well, given the source says "IDF spokesperson said", which is identical to these. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:54, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I've added a source for that, which says Israeli soldiers from the elite Flotilla 13 unit have posted a video showing how they regained control of the Sufa military post near the Gaza fence on 7 October. That is in their voice (they're saying they reviewed the video, and it shows them regaining control of Sufa), so it should be sufficient to warrant removal of the tag. BilledMammal (talk) 23:24, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * That is still Israeli soldiers claiming it. If you don't want to accept Al Jazeera quoting Hamas, that does not work either. The source has to say they recaptured it, without quoting Israel. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 23:30, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * As I said, That is in their voice (they're saying they reviewed the video, and it shows them regaining control of Sufa). The primary source is allowed to be from the Israeli military, if the reliable secondary source then endorses that primary source - which is what has happened here. BilledMammal (talk) 23:32, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Israel Defence Forces post video showing recapture of military post from Hamas. The source, aka Yahoo, doesn't say Israel recaptured it. They are reporting that Israel claims (i.e. a video) to have recaptured it. No different than Al Jazeera reporting that Hamas claims to have won a battle. Also, the phrase "they're saying they reviewed the video" does not appear in the text of the Yahoo article. That shows nothing and is duplicate to the Hamas argument earlier, which you said does not work. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 23:39, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Here is those two situations spelled out: See the duplicate situation in reporting? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 23:41, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Khan Yunis raid -- Al Jazeera reports that Hamas reports that they won the battle.
 * Battle of Sufa -- Yahoo reports that IDF reports that they won the battle.
 * I actually do agree with you wrt IDF, though I think that there's other RS' in the main 2023 Israel-Hamas War talk page about whether or not all battles within Israel have resolved in favor of Israel pushing them back providing an RS for victory, though frankly "victory" is a pretty nebulous term -- both Israel and Hamas have declared 'victory' in past engagements because they have different standards for what constitutes a victory.
 * Frankly I think we're arguing about angels on a pinhead, I assume that after the conflict ends one way or another this article will be significantly redone as some of the engagements will be WP:UNDUE in comparison to all others. In the Ukrainian / Russia conflict we don't have different articles for every single engagement between small fire teams. OJDrucker (talk) 00:52, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

"Claims victory"
How should we list items where one side claims victory, but no reliable and independent sources have supported that claim and the other side hasn't commented?

At the moment, we attribute victory to the side who claimed victory, noting that it was only claimed in text, but I feel this is WP:UNDUE; I think unless we have reliable and independent sources supporting that position we should list the result as "undetermined" or similar. BilledMammal (talk) 10:03, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It seems alright to keep it at is it is, unless a reliable source disputes a claimed victory The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 10:12, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * That only works if we're certain we've seen all coverage of the event, and that we haven't missed an announcement from the IDF or Hamas claiming victory for an event. I think it's safer to wait for reliable sources to say who won, and only then put the result down. BilledMammal (talk) 10:16, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Battle of Sufa end date
Hello all, the end date for the Battle of Sufa listed here, "October 10," appears to be completely unsourced.

Indeed, not a single reference from the article for the Battle of Sufa nor the Battle of Sufa outpost indicates that the battle continued after the first day of hostilities. Please let me know if I'm missing something. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 04:49, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Houthi Piracy
Did somebody remove the Houthi hijacking of the Galaxy Leader? Why? Or did I just not save my edit properly when I added it? (double checking this time so I don't get in trouble again for excessive reverts) Irtapil (talk) 10:52, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Do you have any objection to me adding Houthi piracy? Has anyone else given a reason that shouldn't be included? Irtapil (talk) 03:23, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

"See Also" vs "Further Info"


Is there a reason those can't all be "see also"? Irtapil (talk) 03:23, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Scope
I've removed all items that don't have an article; we need some way to limit the scope of this list, and "notability" seems to be an appropriate one. BilledMammal (talk) 08:24, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I see you've restored them; I previously opened a discussion here and would appreciate you input on why you believe they are relevant - if, for example, we start including events sourced only to twitter our article will quickly contain hundreds or even thousands of items. BilledMammal (talk) 14:31, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Named events are listed in the article. Limiting it to ones with articles removed events like the Standoff in Ofakim, which has a solid amount of RS supporting it being a named-event + it originally had an article. The article was merged, not because of notability reasons, but because a massacre article was the RS primary topic, not the stand-off. Each item on the list needs an individual discussion prior to removal, because just saying it isn’t notable goes against the consensus for some of them. Others, it may not, but some, it may. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 14:34, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Same with the stand-off in Be’eri. Technically, that also does not have an article, however, it is mentioned in the Be’eri massacre article, because RS specifically named that a military stand-off occurred. Would you think the Be’eri stand-off violates N reasons? If yes, then it may need to be removed not just from here, but also the massacre article. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 14:40, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
 * If they would warrant a standalone article but is instead covered in detail in another article then I have no issue with maintaining them on the list. However, most of the items I removed do not meet that standard; can you re-remove the ones that you would agree don't warrant a standalone article? BilledMammal (talk) 14:59, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I've removed them again. In line with WP:ONUS, please don't restore without an affirmative consensus. BilledMammal (talk) 08:31, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I disagree with this reasoning. Notability for inclusion is not established by "having a Wikipedia article". First, that would be circular reasoning! Second, I'm pretty sure the notability threshold is higher for a standalone article than for inclusion in an overarching one. –St.nerol (talk) 21:30, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Exactly. I kept a list from the original chart for all the actual engagements documented by WP:RS. Here is the list: User:WeatherWriter/Engagements chart. Glad I ain’t alone in seeing that this scope criteria isn’t valid. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 23:16, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I think we should re-add the Houthi piracy of the Galaxy Leader. That one even has it's own article, the wiki article about the ship but only exists because of the attack. But I won't re-add it until at least one other person agrees, because I'm scared of getting in trubs for unilateral reverts. (Though now I'm not sure if it used to be here?)
 * But we don't need to duplicate everything from the first table in the other tables.
 * Irtapil (talk) 22:31, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree some things should be included that don't have Wiki articles. This could be a good place to highlight the need for the creation of missing Wiki articles. The deciding factor should be that it was reported outside Wikipedia. But more than a sentence. We should include events that have a full article in more than one source, or a brief mention in numerous sources. Irtapil (talk) 03:11, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Battles.
If the battle does not have it's own article it shouldn't be linked here because the articles that they DO link do, mostly do not talk about the battles themselves in my opinion. Death Editor 2 (talk) 02:38, 3 November 2023 (UTC)


 * This same topic was already being discussed above in "scope". Irtapil (talk) 03:13, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Segmentation issues of within "Airstrikes and rocket attacks"
Maybe I don't know Wikipedia rules well enough yet, but it seems strange to me, that while major attacks within Gaza are segmented, the Palestinian Rocket Attacks are all shoved in one box. This may give the impression to some readers, that the rocket attacks conducted by different militant groups in Gaza have a homogenous target, before they examine the details.

Furthermore, I'd like to point out that the number of casualties is not listed there, where we know of at least dozen injured, and at least 6 killed (from the top of my head).

Maybe it would be better to segment it similarly, or to concentrate all Israel Airstrikes under one umbrealla page as well.

Again, if there is a logical explanation to it, I apologise. Nowhere of things (talk) 20:22, 15 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Are you addressing the material here or on that other page? This list simply aggregates other notable pages, so the individual content choices about events are a matter for the constituent pages. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:35, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Currently the air strikes and rocket attacked seem to be labeled by "what" but sorted by "who" did them, Israel, Hamas or allies, and "disputed". I think it might be more appropriate to change the labels to suit the current content? The 3 tables make sense as groups, just the labels aren't ideal.
 * But i would also be fine with combining all three into one. Maybe with some colour coding, on Israel vs Hamas et al. vs disputed.
 * Irtapil (talk) 03:21, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Change of subtitle
User:Irtapil changed the subtitle "Massacres" to "Targets of 7 October attacks" with the edit summary "trying to give it a title which also covers hostage taking". I reverted. The word "targets" is vague and removes explanation of the content of the section rather than adding to it. All the articles in the section have "massacre in their title" and the table reports deaths not hostages (although hostages are mentioned in the wording). A more comprehensive title which reflects the the section content would be "Massacres and hostage taking". Ayenaee (talk) 21:35, 14 November 2023 (UTC)


 * I have rearranged the sections to be more chronological. The current title of the equivalent section is "October 7". This is the most common term in Israeli and other western media, so I think that is more suitable than any attempt to describe the events. It has become iconic like 7-7 or September 11. I plan to add a hostages column to the table when I get time. I resorted to paying for a Haaretz subscription on the weekend, so i feel obliged to make that useful, they and Times of Israel both have detailed lists. Irtapil (talk) 11:08, 15 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Sounds good. Thanks. Ayenaee (talk) 11:49, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Someone seems to have turned it back to massacres? And "7 October" doesn't really fit, because some of the "major engagements" started on October 7. Irtapil (talk) 03:36, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 December 2023
Add the 2023 Shuja'iyya ambush to the engagement list since ambushes count as an engagement and since it has been confirmed by many reliable sources and the IDF itself BlueFreee (talk) 21:53, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Shadow311 (talk) 14:13, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

The report regrading Shadia Abu Ghazala School is not yet verified
Wikipedia is supposed to be about facts, not about personal opinion, Al Jazeera is the only source for this report and it was proven many times to be biased and fabricating facts in this matter. Same as the reports for the Al Ahli hospital was hit by a PLO rocket miss-fire, which was managed in an embarrassing conduct by the community here in Wikipedia. This report should be deleted and not added to the table of events until further investigation is made. 106.153.181.64 (talk) 17:09, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Deleting a battle from the Engagements table
In my opinion, Juhor ad-Dik ambush should be deleted from the table, all the battles in the table are battles over cities, not specific incidents or ambushes, and certainly not those that are controversial and cannot be verified. Aviadav (talk) 21:24, 18 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Seems like in Wikipedia history is written by the one that holds the highest account privileges, doesn't matter how absurd his actions are. 106.153.181.64 (talk) 14:53, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Is there not an asymmetry here?
There seem to be several asymmetries and evidence of bias. For example, the only items listed as "Massacres" are those inflicted on Israel. Those inflicted on Palestine are much greater in impact yet are not listed. (Some are called "Engagements". Others have other euphemisms.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.101.0.145 (talk) 17:09, 12 December 2023 (UTC)


 * We are working on fixing this. One limiting factor is references. If you find any reliable sources detailing massacres please link them here as soon as you can. Including sources in Arabic, Hebrew, or other languages.
 * For most of October the deaths caused by the IDF were in airstrikes, and that is a separate list. Is that clear enough in the current version?
 * The "engagements" section is supposed to be about mutual armed confrontations, is there anything in that list that you think doesn't belong there?
 * Originally that "massacres" section was about the initial cross border assault, but nobody could agree on what to call it, the title kept changing back to "massacres", so it has evolved into a section on massacres throughout the conflict.
 * If you are not able to edit the article, please help us add anything missing by commenting here, with references. We also need additional refs for any that are there already, so they can be expanded into their own pages.
 * Irtapil (talk) 08:40, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Israeli victory in the battle for the city of Sderot
I think, you need to turn back from "Inconclusive" to "Israel Victory" Лев шлосман (talk) 20:00, 15 October 2023 (UTC)


 * If this is still inaccurate please provide some sources to support changing it. 08:43, 22 December 2023 (UTC) Irtapil (talk) 08:43, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Biasim
Kinda biased to not call out Israel massacre’s as just ‘airstrikes’. Damn I thought we put ‘Hamas’ and Israel on the same level. We need to draw one line. Killing 5+ people in Nirim, is called a massacre but at the church 16+ are killed, but we called that just an ‘airstrike’. It’s a damn massacre. 2A02:A469:F536:1:692C:6108:2DB4:6340 (talk) 22:17, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Do you have secondary reliable sources (use the list at WP:RSP) saying an Israeli airstrike was a massacre? If yes, then you have a variable reason to challenge it. If not, then Wikipedia’s ideology of WP:VNT (verifiability not truth) and WP:RS must be upheld. Again, if you find a source from WP:RSP that says an Israeli airstrike was a massacre, link it here. Cheers! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:19, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2023/10/damning-evidence-of-war-crimes-as-israeli-attacks-wipe-out-entire-families-in-gaza/ 2A02:A469:F536:1:692C:6108:2DB4:6340 (talk) 22:55, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * (I'm presuming it's not useful to tag IPs?) "Airstrike" describes the type of attack, massacre would be uninformative. But to balance it, we should probably change the subheading "massacres" to something comparably descriptive, preferably something that includes the hostage taking. See below. Irtapil (talk) 21:56, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I think airstrikes belong in a separate category because they have different characteristics, the table needs different information. Can you think of any ways we could adapt the language to describe these two different types of attack in a more balanced way? There is currently a note at the top of the table that mass casualty events caused by airstrikes are elsewhere. Irtapil (talk) 08:52, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Battle "results"
These "battles" all have pointless "results". This is asymmetrical warfare. The objective wasn't to seize territory, but to wreak havoc and capture hostages, which was achieved. It is very hard for such a raid to be considered "lost". Better to say nothing. It's apples and oranges. Battle "results" are much more a conventional warfare format. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:13, 21 November 2023 (UTC)


 * I agree it seems a bit silly, although I'm not so sure exactly what Hamas' objectives were. –St.nerol (talk) 21:25, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Well the long term goal was to capture rather a lot of territory? but this goal seems kind of over ambitious? Part of why i ended up obsessively researching this was to try and work out wtf actually did happen, and why, and i stated editing here so that served some purpose other than just eroding my own mental health. Irtapil (talk) 01:18, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed that genocidal ambitions don’t amount to legitimate military goals. Otherwise we need to call every concentration camp a battle and Nazi victory. In general, this conflict is being divided up into too many articles of limited scope and independent importance. Paradox Seeker (talk) 13:35, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * For a lot of the targets you are probably right that the plan was to capture hostages and then leave, so should the outcome be "X hostages captured" instead of "IDF win"? But if that was the goal, why did a few of the locations have battles that lasted for a few days? Irtapil (talk) 01:24, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Maintaining control of or long-term disabling the surveillance points probably was a goal? But none of those are even on the list yet at all? Irtapil (talk) 01:24, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It's worth noting that it's not even a requirement to have a specified result within the infobox of a military conflict page itself, with the alternative that is advocated for being simply a link to a relevant "result" or "aftermath" section that can fully explain more ambiguous or confusing situations. Here, on a list, there is no real reason for presenting 'results' in the tables - this is a list of engagements and information that is ambiguous should just be ditched. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:49, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The current version seems slightly improved? Irtapil (talk) 07:13, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm going to try adding some of the surveillance outposts to the first table, but I'm not sure if some of the towns already listed might be including both a settlement and a military outpost? I also remember seeing something about a prison being targeted? But i can't find anything about that now, so i might be getting confused with an event from a couple of years ago? Irtapil (talk) 07:17, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

I worked out why the quotes don't match!
I was wondering why the quotes in media about threats to execute hostages are all slightly different when on 2023-10-09 Kataeb Al-Qassam released a written statement in English. I was looking for older statements in Hebrew and Arabic and finding nothing, but I've worked out out now and it should have been obvious. e.g. The Hill The original was an AUDIO statement in Arabic from their infamous spokesperson! Irtapil (talk) 00:25, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

is this in the wrong table?
Attacks on Palestinians evacuating Gaza City - it's in with the airstrikes and rockets, but story I heard was that they were being shot? I'm trying to edit something else currently, but i wanted to flag that as i noticed it. Irtapil (talk) 21:47, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Can we remove the unnecessary row numbering, please?
These tables really don't need numbers? It doesn't make much sense to number these events? If anyone else agrees about the numbering, please remove from the table header code. It looks like somebody copied a large chunk of code from another page to get the "sticky header" row and didn't even intend to add numbers? Irtapil (talk) 04:35, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Oct 7 outcome
Can someone explain the rationale for listing Oct 7 attack as Hamas victory? If the military objectives were only killings and kidnappings, then every terrorist attack in the world is a military victory. Mischaracterized? Paradox Seeker (talk) 13:30, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * , it is listed as a Hamas victory as sources indicate it was a Hamas victory. For example, here is an article from the Washington Post which says, “Hamas’s pronouncements welcoming a broader conflict evoke statements by al-Qaeda leaders in the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, noted Rita Katz, executive director of the SITE Intelligence Group, a private organization that studies the ideology and online communications of extremist groups… Even if its current leadership is effectively destroyed, she said, Hamas and its followers will continue to regard Oct. 7 as a victory. That’s partly because the group unquestionably succeeded in focusing the world’s attention on the Palestinian conflict, she said…‘It’s the first time I can remember that Hamas has become so prominent on a global scale.” There are other sources as well which are cited in that reference which directly state it was a Hamas victory. Since sources say it, Wikipedia has to say it, whether or not you believe it (WP:VNT). The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 14:56, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Victory in most contexts is metaphorical. In a wikipedia page about a conflict, readers will be inclined to take it literally. Calling attention to an issue is not normally seen as acheiving a tangible military objective. If such vague goals were to be accepted under the definition of victory, any number of defeats against superior forces could be described as victories, such as Thermopylae and the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising. Wikipedia should provide accurate descriptions without misleading connotations, not redefine common words to emphasize the sentiments of the participants. Paradox Seeker (talk) 15:21, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia must follow exactly what the reliable sources say. In this case, the sources say the words "Hamas victory". If we ignore them and describe them as "metaphorical", then we are adding original research into the mix. In order for the sources to be described as "metaphorical", you need a source saying they are metaphorical. Otherwise, there is no reason to assume the sources (like Washington Post) is saying it was a metaphorical Hamas victory. So, the next step is to locate a source saying it was a metaphorical Hamas victory OR that those sources (like Washington Post) is calling it a metaphorical Hamas victory. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 15:55, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. A better argument might be that outcomes should not be tabulated for events like this at all. It’s well documented that Hamas is a terrorist organization, and that Oct 7 was a terrorist attack. Terrorist attacks are not conventional battles and do not warrant engagement outcome judgments. Paradox Seeker (talk) 16:13, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * See bellow, but it seems like they had a few tangible goals, and achieved all of them? e.g. they got back to Gaza with a huge number of hostages. There is the vague/speculative goal of "revenge" or "provocation", but that wasn't the only aspect to it, and most typical battles have some nebulous goals that are hard to assess?
 * In the first day they achieved every goal they seemed, then by day 2 or 3 their plan started falling apart. Possibly "success" fits better than "victory"? "victory" seems to need take hostages AND negotiate to achieve some bigger goal? But then "successful… (what?)" is looks weird to just say "Hamas and allies success"? but maybe "Hamas and allies successful" works?
 * But do the cites support that? or do they say "victory"?
 * Irtapil (talk) 12:34, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
 * If the sources say that then yeah, keep that wording. Is it a good source? More than one? Irtapil (talk) 12:35, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I count at least 4 "tangible military objectives" achieved (see below). Whether you think these are legitimate military goals is another issue (e.g. taking civilians hostage is definitely a war crime) but they had 4 or 5 fairly unambiguous tangible goals, and they achieved them all.
 * The civilian overkill in the kibbutzim seems to have been massively harmful to their cause, but unless you have evidence that they  planned  to  minimize  civilian harm in the hostage taking? We can't call that a loss for that stage. They just "won the battle and lost the war"? Any goal for the civilian massacres was nebulous, but all the tangible goals were achieved.
 * I don't understand your Warsaw Ghetto Uprising comment? Currently - and maybe also during the 2018–2019 Gaza border protests - Gaza reminds me a lot of Lodz Ghetto Uprising in Lodz ghetto in April 1943 (which unfortunately seems to not have a page)? But maybe it only reminds me of that because I'm not very family with Warsaw Uprising? (and obviously 7 October itself resembles neither?) But, given the rest of what you have said, i think i might be wildly missing the point?
 * Irtapil (talk) 13:15, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
 * That paragraph is weird, to me the "attention seeking" aspect looks like it has gone very wrong. They attracted an apocalyptic responses from Israel, and pretty much zero military help from any neighbours, just Houthis and Hezbollah (why is that Romanization so weird?)
 * And if too much of Hamas get wiped out, their own values and goals risk being replaced by ISIS, like happened to the Ba'athist insurgency in post-regime-change Iraq. Being replaced the Salafists is something Hamas would definitely not see as a win.
 * I come to the same concluding word as the source, but it's weird that we get there by such opposite ways.
 * Do all of the sources frame it like that? Maybe I should try to find some that include the more tangible goals? I think there is already one cited in the introduction that is more on the lines of "hostages obtained" / "surveillance points destroyed" etc.
 * Irtapil (talk) 13:46, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Well one of the other sources in that reference, this article from The Atlantic states, "But this Hamas victory might prove Pyrrhic. In fact, Hamas itself might have been surprised by the extent of its initial success." I should also note this currently isn't really the place to debate the result in the chart, as that is dictated by the article, 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel. In this case, the article's result is in discussion at Talk:2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel. At this point, it is mostly split between a Hamas victory and "Inconclusive". Only a single person really voted (so far) for it to be an "Israeli victory", as sources clearly don't state it was an Israeli victory. That RfC is more to interpret what the sources say. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 13:51, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
 * How do you mean "dictated by"? Irtapil (talk) 08:24, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
 * And I agree with the word victory, I was more wondering what sources we should include to support it. I also just found it weird that I came to the same conclusion via a very different logic. To me it seems like they did very well in the technical bit, but then the messaging was a disaster. It is hard to read their minds to know what they were aiming for, but their current situation … is … not a relatable goal? The best they could do from this point forward seems to be back where they started, and even that seems unlikely. Thanks for drawing my attention to the RFC. Irtapil (talk) 08:31, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Because the main goals seem to have been:
 * - Destroy the fence.
 * - Destroy automated surveillance points.
 * - Massacre IDF personnel stationed at border.
 * - Take hostages and bring them back to the Gaza Strip alive.
 * - Launch enough rockets to saturate the Iron Dome and hit areas that are usually unreachable.
 * They succeeded in all of those? (and they might have intended to start a war, but that's unclear?) They didn't seem to have any supplies with them for staying long (allegedly not even water, but I haven't seen thar anywhere citable). So it looks like the intended mission was a cross boarder raid followed by a fairly prompt return to the Gaza Strip with hostages.
 * There is no sign of anything they were trying to do and failed at?
 * Until the next day, or possibly the day after. Because they got hostages very successfully, but they initially failed abysmally at negotiations about the hostages.
 * Irtapil (talk) 01:04, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Kataeb Al-Qassam's initial demand was for the IDF to not bomb homes "without warning" (see the topic below). But the IDF responded by "warning" the entirety of Gaza City to move south, including about dozen hospitals. That is not a warning, that is just a crazy excuse, But it left Hamas a bit stuck. So that was the first big failure of any of Hamas' plans? Irtapil (talk) 01:28, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

source for tactical details from 7 October attack?
This podcast has a few interesting details at the start, which might be good to include here. I'm not very familiar with the source, Modern War Institute, is anyone else? It feels like it's going down hill a bit towards the middle. I the issue is the guest has some interesting information and insights, but an attitude I personally find a bit objectionable. He sounds like he's from my country, and guys who sound like this guy are not people I feel constable around in person. I'll try to find a proper link, rather than the podcast platform. Irtapil (talk) 07:53, 29 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Better links for the interview =
 * The guest = Levi J West profile "Levi is a published academic and the course coordinator for the Masters of Terrorism and Security Studies at CSU's Graduate School of Policing and Security, and lectures on terrorism and national security matters." that course But Charles Sturt University (CSU) is pretty obscure
 * My personal reflections on him probably seen weird? but I think it's useful to think about how a source makes you feel to compensate for your own bias, in this case "is this guy wrong, or do I just not like him?" and I think it's mostly the second one. I'd likely disagree with him about how to respond to things, but his description of the events seems reasonable. At least for the bits relevant to this page. (His assessment of their views on democracy is the only bit I'd disagree with - "democracy" in Gaza is complicated - but that's more for other pages.)
 * It might be useful to fund some of his writings? that is more citable than audio interviews?
 * Irtapil (talk) 07:57, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Order of Battle
Typically when do the analysts and historians start churning these out? kencf0618 (talk) 14:41, 22 December 2023 (UTC)


 * What's an order of battle…
 * There's a European website with a tree of Palestinian militant groups? But not detailed, it only goes down to one or two units per political faction. Irtapil (talk) 00:29, 24 December 2023 (UTC) updated Irtapil (talk) 02:43, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I stumbled upon something on this, it's not very good, but might help you find something that is better? Are you familiar with this guy? He is sometimes interesting, but I think this one is about 75% garbage. My biggest complaint is he ignores PIJ, ironic given he starts by being opinionated about Al-Ahli. I can see why he'd ignore the little red teams, the alliance is politically interesting, but they are probably so small that they're militarily pretty trivial. But PIJ seems to be about a third to a quarter of the force in Gaza? Irtapil (talk) 07:26, 28 December 2023 (UTC) Irtapil (talk) 21:48, 28 December 2023 (UTC)


 * I think i saw some from Institute for the Study of War.
 * Irtapil (talk) 09:56, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Undiscussed move
whether the previous title was incorrect or not is irrelevant to the fact that the article has been moved without discussion. Could you please self-revert and start a move discussion so that others can weigh in? Thanks. M.Bitton (talk) 13:42, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Note, I support the current title of “List of engagements during the 2023 Israel–Hamas war”. Undiscussed or not, there is clearly 3 editors in support and you seem to be the only one opposed to it. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 14:22, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * You can support whatever you want, but if this list is no longer just about military engagements, then you can expect a lot more to be added to it. I'll await and see what the scope of this list is before deciding what to do next. M.Bitton (talk) 14:25, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I think the title including a specific war is preventing scope creep fairly well. Everything here seems to be relevant? Irtapil (talk) 10:07, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

So much for neutrality
Every single attack by Hamas on Oct 7 was classified as massacre. Every single attack by israel post-Oct 7 was classified as airstrike. Seems legit. -Bijak riyandi (talk) 19:25, 5 December 2023 (UTC)


 * I agree this is a problem.
 * But the airstrikes belong in a different table because the story of information we have about them is very different (e.g. No agreed upon data on civilian vs military deaths, no hostages taken, and much less precise data about population of the sites).
 * But I have added a link to that table above the massacres table, if you notice that's gone please re add it, and if you are not able to edit the page please write an "extended confirmed edit request" here on the talk page (there is a template you can copy from other requests here).
 * I also tried several times to change the massacres subheading to something comparable in tone to "airstrikes" but it kept getting changed back and I eventually gave up.
 * Irtapil (talk) 11:55, 3 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I thought I replied to this before? Did I reply to something similar? Did i forget to save? Or was my comment removed? Irtapil (talk) 11:55, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

First Subheading
I agree that a "what" subheading - currently "Massacres" - works better than the previous "when" - previously "Octobed 7" - but I think something like "casualty counts" would be better for the not-too-emotive "encyclopedic" tone we are supposed to be aiming for in Wikipedia, style and tone  "should always remain formal, impersonal, and dispassionate". It would also be good to include the numbers of hostages taken in that section. Would it be ok to change it to something like "Hostages and casualties in the initial attacks"? But that phrasing isn't ideal, so I'm open to other ideas? Irtapil (talk) 07:54, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

brainstorming ideas for first subtitle Irtapil (talk) 10:58, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * "Hostages and casualties in the initial attacks"
 * "Initiation of operation Tufan Al Aqsa"
 * "Ground Assault Targets"
 * "Targets of initial surprise attacks"


 * Part of why it kept getting changed back to massacres was a lack of an alternative we can get a wp:consensus on. As you can see, my attempts didn't get any response.
 * I think the time sensitive names probably don't fit anymore, it would exclude massacres committed by the other side.
 * "Civilian targets" doesn't fit because that excludes the soldiers being taken hostage, and the deaths in the hospitals when the hospitals were attacked, because the attackers alleged the hospitals were military targets.
 * Irtapil (talk) 12:14, 3 January 2024 (UTC) updated Irtapil (talk) 12:36, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

As-Siafa
Hello all, the 2023 Capture of As-Siafa listed here appears to be some sort of artificially invented engagement.

None of its associated references in the list explicitly mention a place called As-Siafa or any sort of "capture" of said place.

Jerusalem Post and a Twitter account report on the installation of an Israeli flag on a building of Gaza, but do not specify the location.

ISW reports an on Israeli military incursion into the Strip but makes no mention of As-Siafa.

It seems to me that there is some sort of extrapolation / synthesis going on involving unreferenced sources. How else does one explain the appearance of the "phantom" placename As-Siafa?

Suggest speedy deletion.

Pinging @WeatherWriter, who added the item to the list with the aforementioned references. User also created the 2023 Capture of As-Siafa page which redirects to the 2023 Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip, where unsourced information regarding this "event" was removed.

SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 05:06, 4 November 2023 (UTC)


 * @SaintPaulOfTarsus But who would invent it and why?
 * Who? Do you mean a wiki editor or news media or one side in the conflict?
 * 'What do you think it is?
 * a distortion of a real event that shouldn't be described as a military engagement, like a one sided massacre?
 * An exaggeration of a very small win?
 * Or a total fiction?
 * Double check the place.
 * aS-Siafa is likely to be an alternate transliteration of al-Siafa or Saifa. See Sun and moon letters.  (Come to think of it, "Al-Shifa Hospital" is weird? But Palestinian uses "El" and "esh-Shifa" sounds weird, so it might be right?) 
 * Also, the Al-Quds Post might be using a Hebrew name for the same place? e.g. Jerusalem vs Al-Quds (not sure what the Hebrew is for Jerusalem but it's not אל קודס.)
 * If it redirects to the main page it would have been merged?
 * Irtapil (talk)


 * Dear @Irtapil.
 * In late October, one of the first incursions by the IDF into the Gaza Strip took place on the Mediterranean coast, south of the infamous Zikim. A video of Israeli soldiers was geolocated by social media users about three kilometers down the coastline.
 * Said video can be found at this Tweet. It is also the subject of this Jerusalem Post article.
 * If you go back to a version of this article prior to November 4th, the two links above were the sources referencing the "Capture of As-Siafa," in addition to this ISW/Critical Threats report.
 * "As-Siafa" is apparently the name of a settlement near the coast a few hundred meters from the Israel-Gaza border. While no Wikipedia article exists, I can see it on Google Maps. I cannot speak for other editors, but presumably, the idea is that the Israeli soldiers that had been located further south would have bypassed point A on their way to get to point B.
 * Though the idea that this place was captured by the IDF may be logical from a geographic point of view, as editors, it is not our place to invent a "capture of As-Siafa" if such a "capture" is not covered by reliable sources in the first place. If you peruse the sources I provided above, you'll notice that neither "As-Siafa," nor any other geographic placename, nor the "capture" of any location is mentioned. Hence, I referred to it as "artificially invented," and I meant by the editor I mentioned in the original comment.
 * SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 05:20, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Institute for the Study of War
I've begun citing this think-tank on Timeline of the 2023 Israel–Hamas war for its detailed reportage and its own citations. https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/iran-update-october-15-2023 kencf0618 (talk) 00:43, 17 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Are they reliable? What is their usual bias? Do they have a wiki page? Irtapil (talk) 08:45, 22 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Yes, neoconservative and hawkish, and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_for_the_Study_of_War. kencf0618 (talk) 14:08, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Your description makes Institute for the Study of War sound very biased. But I suppose they could be factually accurate even if they have terrible opinions on what to do about that factual situation? (The USA made a terrible mess of COVID, but they produced some of the world's most accurate data describing just how much they messed it up. Compared to India and Russia who screwed up AND lied about it. But in that case it was different groups of people screwing up and publishing the data.) I'll have a closer look. Irtapil (talk) 06:11, 28 December 2023 (UTC)


 * I think this is the group I saw with some documents on the Order of Battle things you were asking about? I have them in some of my several trillion open tabs, but if you're familiar with the think tank, you can probably find them much quicker than I can.
 * The tactical stuff is a long way from my expertise, my usual interests are more in politics and propaganda aspects, but in this story combines them. I kinda wish wiki just used transliterated Arabic, shorter words, easier to remember.
 * Irtapil (talk) 10:01, 3 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I have several sources on hand, and each has an editorial line/ideology. I'm much interested so much wHAt iT aLl rEALly MEans, I'm just here to wikisift the journalism. As for Arabic, is "Al Jasrah" The Revolution, The Revolt, The Bridge, or The Cortex? Who can tell‽ kencf0618 (talk) 14:00, 3 January 2024 (UTC)


 * wikisift??
 * Irtapil (talk) 13:55, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * And yeah, i think sometimes biased sources still have useful info. e.g. I think "Chinese state media" is under rated, it's not the WHOLE truth, but if often contains some interesting angles that most English language headline news is missing. A few times I've laughed out lous at something the seemed crazy, then dug into the weeds and fine print of Westen sources and found it's simmering real, just something usually ignore.
 * I have said am deeply disconcerted that the world is watching two different wars.
 * Irtapil (talk) 14:03, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * But the much more on topic thing I came to this thread to ask is, why is all their Palestine stuff labelled "Iran Update"? That seems shonky? It's not even the same language, they'd need a different team? But maybe it fits into some labeling system they have for reports on given regions? and Arabic is probably useful for Iran team to have already given most of their allies. Irtapil (talk) 14:14, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Separation between "Notable non-battle attacks" and "Battles"
I'm not convinced that dividing the article in this way is the best way to do it; it doesn't seem to reflect a division in the sources, and in general the assessment of "only one party in the conflict utilized military troops or weapons" is problematic.

Even the massacres saw weapons used by the Israeli civilians, while the airstrikes were nominally targeting Hamas forces and weapons. BilledMammal (talk) 11:10, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I've restructured the list; now split into "Battles", "Massacres", and "Airstrikes and rocket attacks". BilledMammal (talk) 04:30, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I’m fine with that. I originally structured the article based on the Russia-Ukraine article, List of military engagements during the Russian invasion of Ukraine. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 04:42, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I think your merge was a good choice too; I was leaning towards doing it, but I was hesitant to do so boldly, particularly as we will need to rename this article.
 * However, I would probably merge the sections Ein HaShlosha, Nirim, Yakhini, and Nir Yizhak into the massacres list, and order the lists chronologically - ie, the order I had them in before. BilledMammal (talk) 04:50, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I'll let someone else do that. The merge was a straight copy/paste of the article, so that is why those sections were there. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 04:54, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I can't, at least not today - I think it will technically constitute a revert, and since I believe that implementing this restructure was technically a revert I would be in breach of 1RR. BilledMammal (talk) 04:56, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Top table should be things that include multiple things from the bottom table. e.g. first line of top table is Hamas led attacks on Israel, which covers the top 4 or 5 runs of the secund table. But possibly the two should be linked better to make that clear? Irtapil (talk) 14:19, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 October 2023

 * Removal Request for: "Erez Airstrike" and "Hatzerim Airbase airstrike" from the the list of airstrikes and rocket attacks.
 * Reasons:
 * 1. No RS supports these happening, the only source are AJ quoting press releases by a belligerent's armed branches. I waited about 24 hours since I noticed these on this article and checked news sources numerous times; nobody outside of PressTV is reporting the second one, and there's absolutely no press on the first one.
 * 2. These strikes are not mentioned on either the main 2023 Israel-Hamas War page or Timeline of the 2023 Israel–Hamas war. Regardless of whether or not they even happened, which we do not have evidence that they did, no media attention and the lack of any discussion about it makes it WP:UNDUE relative to notable airstrikes and attacks which have killed people and generated significant news coverage, like the church bombing. EDIT 1 / 2: Formatting OJDrucker (talk) 19:04, 24 October 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to do this (not marking as not done though) because your first part of point 1 was No RS supports these happening. However, per WP:RSP, Al Jazeera is classified a reliable source for information. So that is wrong. For your second point, 2023 Erez airstrike, at least at the time of writing this, is an article and the Hatzerim Airbase airstrike should probably be added to the timeline to be honest. I think you identified problems that need fixed, but not problems that require removal from the list. Others are free to chime in though. Cheers! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 05:08, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I'll see if they were ever followed up. There was a strike on Sderot military base that wasn't confirmed until months later (it looked like a fluke, and it just hit a patch of grass in the middle, but was still reported by dozens of sources). I'm a bit confused about which place thaw was, I think I'm mixing it up with something with a similar name.
 * Hatzerim Airbase sounds specific enough.
 * But "Erez Airstrike" is a bit weirder. Erez crossing is a checkpoint, is that what "Erez Airstrike" refered to? Hamas et al. targeted all of those, and that was in several major USA news publications, but not many listed specific individual targets. An "airstrike" doesn't sound like something you can do from a hanglider? But they might have meant a done?
 * Irtapil (talk) 11:16, 3 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I've removed both; Al Jazeera isn't saying they happened, Al Jazeera is saying that Hamas claimed they happened. I think we need better sourcing than that to include on this page. BilledMammal (talk) 03:23, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @BilledMammal Wasn't it you complaining elsewhere that we have so much more detail for Israeli air strikes? This is why. If you want to have more balanced coverage on this, you need to put in the effort yourself to find good sources, not just instantly delete things if nobody else has done that yet. Irtapil (talk) 05:33, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * No? And I tried to find better sources for these; they don't exist. BilledMammal (talk) 05:36, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @BilledMammal @WeatherWriter Is there a draft space we can use to keep a list of unconfined events pending better reference? I use my userspace for my own notes, but I'd prefer somewhere more neutral for collaboration. Irtapil (talk) 05:33, 9 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I'll follow it up, Al-Qassam are prone to hyperbolic boasting, but occasionally some of it resembles reality. Irtapil (talk) 11:16, 3 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Thank you. AJ is a RS but it is not making the claim that this article is; they are reporting a statement of a belligerent, not a statement of fact, and so it doesn't warrant wikivoice in proclaiming that it occurred. OJDrucker (talk) 15:27, 26 October 2023 (UTC)


 * is there a specific wiki policy I can refer to for not putting a "statement of a belligerent" in wp:wikivoice? I've seen a few removals of who said things on other pages, turning one sided reports into statements of fact. It would be good to know what to refer to when I re-add "(one side) reported that…"? Irtapil (talk) 11:16, 3 January 2024 (UTC)


 * @WeatherWriter @OJDrucker I can't find an airstrike yet. But there was a substantial ground assault on Erez Crossing starting on 7 October, and it's completely missing from this page. I have not found a good citation for that either yet, but I've found a combination of stuff from both sides that looks like it definitely happened, and was a substantial event. Least-bad reference I've got so far is an opinion piece from Times of Israel, their news coverage is good, but the opinion section is less good. I'll keep looking, but help would be much appreciated?
 * Irtapil (talk) 05:33, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

How long were they in Southern Israel?

 * Hamas claim they were in southern Israel for a week - I'm listening to an old radio interview with Osama Hamdan - but everything here ends by the 8th October. Radio isn't citable, and even if radio interview was feasible to cite, a lot don't find them credible, but it's just "one side said" no worse than the IDF.
 * But even without that… I was thinking while looking at this earlier today that things looked like they were over a lot quicker than previously reported.
 *  End dates maybe need checking against whatever we can find. 
 * Irtapil (talk) 22:13, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Not sure if this is useful?
Anyone else familiar with that site? I found it trying to see if we had anything missing. The event listed seems to be just based an alQassam video title. Irtapil (talk) 15:57, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * https://israelpalestine.liveuamap.com/en/2023/7-october-alqassam-brigades-seized-a-kibbutz-and-the-kerem

major engagements vs military engagements
Who changed that subheading and why? Irtapil (talk) 22:24, 15 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Never mind I was mixed up.
 * Irtapil (talk) 22:27, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 26 October 2023

 * 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. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Material  Works  10:46, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

List of military engagements during the 2023 Israel–Hamas war → List of engagements during the 2023 Israel–Hamas war – List of massacres during the 2023 Israel–Hamas war was recently merged here; as this list now includes non-military engagements the name of the list needs to change. Alternatively, this merge needs to be reversed. BilledMammal (talk) 03:16, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support – I support the renaming. Several editors supported the renaming previously, but it was undone due to the merge not occurring from a formal discussion. Now that we have a formal discussion in place, I still support renaming. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 04:08, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * which part is the non-military engagement? Without the "military" part, would the settlers' attacks on civilians be included? M.Bitton (talk) 12:44, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, they would be. BilledMammal (talk) 15:29, 26 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Support - I support either the merge getting reversed (my preference) or a change in the title of this list to reflect that it now includes non-military engagements. The massacres were not a "military engagement". In addition, many reliable sources said multiple countries considered the Oct. 7th massacres a terrorist attack, and as far as I understand terrorist attacks are different from military engagements. Israel didn't declare war on Hamas until the day after the attacks. JJMM (talk) 07:59, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Just noting that the massacre list got merged due to a scope/POV issue that was addressed when merged to this article. Basically, not enough info was in the massacre list article to be a stand-alone article. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 18:06, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Discussion
Regardless of the result of this move, we will not create some criteria for the article; at the moment all of the thousands of rocket launches from Gaza and air sorties from Israel could be included, but that would be excessive; perhaps limit the list to those notable enough for their own article? BilledMammal (talk) 15:30, 26 October 2023 (UTC)


 * @BilledMammal
 * For most conflicts, the equivalent page is a place to provide more detail than is available on individual pages. Look at some for Yemen.
 * If any of the tables get too big (e.g. airstrikes) they could be split off into their own article. A lot of them already are, but the articles linked tend to provide different information, they often link to text articles.
 * Irtapil (talk) 22:52, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

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.

structure and prose
Can you exclain those recent edits a bit better please? You seem to have removed a lot of material? and the notes in the history don't really explain sufficiently what you were doing? Irtapil (talk) 13:32, 15 November 2023 (UTC)


 * I didn't remove any listed items. The main change was to restructure the page into 7 October events and events from 8 October onwards. As it was, the page was bouncing between the two, when clearly at least half of the page covers the events of 7 October (with some events overlapping beyond), and the other half covering events from 8 October onwards, roughly equivalent to when these events switched from a defensive reaction to the 7 October attack to an offensive operation in Gaza, with the contents therein divided into major engagements and other attack types. The material that I altered more thoroughly was the prose, which was sitting half way down the page, and which I converted into a more complete summary at the top with material copied from 2023 Israel–Hamas war, though maybe it's not needed at all. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2023 (UTC)


 * I was referring mostly to the prose, it looked like a you removed unique content and replaced it with something duplicated from elsewhere? It is more useful to keep the unique comment rather than duplicate between articles. Was there something in particular wrong with the old version or better about the replacement? Irtapil (talk) 14:01, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
 * A list shouldn't really have unique prose: it should be a list. I copied material in from elsewhere because the existing prose just came copied in from one of the early pages on the 7 October, but contained little to no information on subsequent events. This pages covers a whole war, so needs to reflect that. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:10, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
 * As I said, I'm actually more than happy to delete all of the prose and just leave the brief intro as a brief intro - a list should be a list, and excessive prose intros are a distraction. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:12, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

I think it works better to keep the major engagements table together in the next section? (see recent edits by Iskandar323) Including for the ongoing from initial attacks, they would include different information for each table.Irtapil (talk) 14:07, 15 November 2023 (UTC)


 * This material has clear phases: the 2023 Hamas attack on Israel and the immediate responsive fighting on that day; and the events from the 8 October onwards, after Israel formally declared war. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:32, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Needs a better title though? "massacres" doesn't describe the first phase very well, it's one component of a much bigger phrase. Irtapil (talk) 03:32, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @Iskandar323
 * I wrote this a coupe of weeks ago but it didn't save…
 * I tried to keep the phases approach … but the title kept getting reverted to "massacres" … so I gave up on phases and tried making it a more comprehensive list of massacres and imprisonments. That actually worked very well as a place to list some important recent events that really didn't fit anywhere else. But, despite no longer being labelled in phases of time, almost anything after 8 October seems to disappear?
 * Cutting off the food supply disappeared
 * Hospitals being ordered to evacuate with no alternative provided disappeared
 * Men and boys being loaded into trucks like cattle disappeared
 * Now one of the only two events after October 8 is Attacks on Palestinians evacuating Gaza City
 * Irtapil (talk) 03:20, 19 January 2024 (UTC)