Talk:List of military engagements during the Israel–Hamas war/Archive 2

“Starvation blockade” of the Gaza strip
It seems weird to say “starvation blockade” to me. The blockade is already mentioned and the language used seems pretty biased. “Starvation campaing” targeting “the entire population of Gaza” just seems really weird, especially since, as I said before, the blockade is already mentioned right above. I may be wrong but I don’t think starvation blockade is a military concept, and the link just leads to the article about the blockade in general. As it is redundant I think that part should be removed. 188.150.162.83 (talk) 16:20, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It's unclear to me why we have two entries; I see Irtapil added the second, but the edit summary doesn't seem to explain why we have two. I've gone and merged them together, pending a discussion. BilledMammal (talk) 16:35, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you :) I thought it was a bit odd too to have two entries for the same thing 188.150.162.83 (talk) 18:34, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I see you've it, with no edit summary. Can you explain why you are doing it this way? BilledMammal (talk) 18:47, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @BilledMammal
 * I typed out a detailed explanation before but I lost it when I switched windows to double check the edit history. I'll try just from memory. I'm fairly sure the edit when I merged it has an edit summary. You might be looking at the wrong edit.
 * There were 3 people editing the page at overlapping times. You, me, and another.
 * I had the page open for several hours, because I got interrupted. Then when I saved I accidentally over wrote someone else's changes.
 * one of their changes was to add the date that the restrictions slightly eased.
 * when I realised this I tried to restore their changes and merge them with mine before I did anything else, this edit has a summary.
 * I think the first time you merged it must have been while I was working on that. You probably changed the version where i had accidentally erased the date they added?
 * I got stressed because I couldn't work out how to reconcile all the versions without undoing someone else's edits. I decided to restore the date the restrictions changed, but that meant I had to unmerge the cells.
 * I might have saved several times in the process to avoid causing the same problem i had be leaving it open several hours the first time, if there is a missing edit summary look at the edits before or after.
 * Please undo the second merge and restore all the references that supported what that row said. I had already changed it to more neutral language. Which was not as well supported by the sources as such, but which seemed justified based on our practice of doing things like changing "terrorist" to "militant".
 * Irtapil (talk) 21:43, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @BilledMammal
 * Can it please explain what ON EARTH this reference has to do with the row you put it on?
 * And why it is more relevant that the reference that was there specifically describing the event in the row?
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_engagements_during_the_2023_Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war&diff=1195921771&oldid=1195921690&variant=en
 * That article focuses on an event two days previously, put it on that row if you really think it's important?
 * Or find another reference primarily about the blockade.
 * Please un do your second merge of the rows. I'm trying to leave it alone so it's less effort for you to do as a simple undo.
 * Irtapil (talk) 22:08, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @BilledMammal because it did stop being "total" but it doesn't stop. See other comment. Irtapil (talk) 22:51, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @188.150.162.83
 * I was trying to distinguish total from near total. But it was already "near total" in September. But people weren't starving in September, so that's the best way I could think of to describe it.
 * If you can think of a less emotive way to describe it i am open to suggestions?
 * September = near total and oppressive but nobody starving
 * Mid October = nightmarish total blockade
 * Current = not as bad as October but still life threatening to a large proportion of population
 * I can change it to "life threatening" but more sources say "starving".
 * Irtapil (talk) 22:50, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It’s a single event, with a single article; we should have a single entry that matches the title of the article - I see no justification to seperate it into two, and I am concerned that the phrasing you have chosen, given that it is in wiki voice, has NPOV issues. BilledMammal (talk) 20:17, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I've gone and merged them into a single row; there were too many NPOV issues, both involving the title and involving aspects like claiming, in Wikivoice, that the entire population of the strip had been captured. Please do not restore without first getting a consensus here. BilledMammal (talk) 20:39, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @BilledMammal
 * That was the size of the effected population.
 * That was the most suitable column for it.
 * If you like we can add another column for "starved or dehydrated"? But elsewhere you are complaining that we have to many columns!
 * You are constantly deleting stuff from this page while you contribute very little. Your pattern of editing is seeming both unhelpful and quite biased.
 * Before you delete anything else,  please contribute something constructive. Please, try to add some of the missing information. You can add the missing death counts for each Kibbutzim? Or try to build a table of Palestinian rocket attacks that's as detailed as the one we have for what Israeli airstrikes?
 * Numerous sources refer to Gaza an an "open air prison" but I've not found a place thar fits here. Because that has been the situation for nearly two decades. (Incidentally that is also the context for an infamous 2019 speech from a minor Hamas backbencher that is frequently quoted out of context.) Irtapil (talk) 21:09, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @BilledMammal
 * The reason what you've done now doesn't work is that there is
 * Now a huge comment on the last cell meaning that the row takes up half a page with blank space.
 * You also deleted all of the references I had with reputable sources supporting what I wrote.
 * It also means that the row can't be sorted to show where the change in conditions occurred relative to other events.
 * You've re-merged that twice now, and as far as I can tell it was less than 24 hours apart. On pages relating to this "contentious topic" there is supposed to be a rule of one "revert" per 24 hours WP:1RR
 * I would like you to undo that second merge please.
 * I have been meaning to post the background info to that on your talk page for ages, but you are very active on these pages, so surely you've seen it already by now?
 * I try to ignore borderline cases because being strict on the 1RR makes it impossible to edit. But that was fairly difinitive, unless I'm very mixed up about when you merged it the first time?
 * Irtapil (talk) 21:21, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @BilledMammal
 * I had already changed it to the most neutral possible way to communicate what was done. You could have added quotation marks around the footnote that said "starvation used as weapon of war" if you were worried about "wiki voice"? But that was also just a footnote, deleting ALL the details in that row was somewhat excessive collateral damage. Irtapil (talk) 21:49, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @188.150.162.83
 * I changed to to more neutral language, but then somebody deleted it.
 * The sources all say "famine" or "starvation" but I figured since we usually change "terrorist" to "militant" it was justified to changed it to "obstruction of food and water supply"?
 * But now it's all packed into a giant comment in the last cell that makes that row take up half the page.
 * Irtapil (talk) 20:58, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm going to reply to all your comments here, rather than trying to address them separately.
 * First, though, please stop pinging me. Nine pings to a single page over just a couple of hours is excessive, especially when I am already involved in the relevant discussions.
 * Second, the source says:
 * I think the relevance is obvious? There were far too many sources previously, and they were bizarrely all tangential to the topic; I think this is an improvement, although we could replace it with this as a more detailed source?
 * Third, claiming that the entire population of Gaza had been captured is a WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:OR violation. It's not only an NPOV violation, it's false - there is no justification for us making it in Wikivoice.
 * Fourth, the edits were more than 24 hours apart.
 * Fifth, your version was not neutral; it made several claims in Wikivoice that are not supported by the sources - in line with WP:ONUS, please don't restore it. BilledMammal (talk) 07:48, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Fifth, your version was not neutral; it made several claims in Wikivoice that are not supported by the sources - in line with WP:ONUS, please don't restore it. BilledMammal (talk) 07:48, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Tables unreadable
The tables in this article are effectively unreadable - they simultaneously include too much detail and not enough detail, and the detail that they do include are too spread out. For example, we should merge the "started" and "ended" columns together, to more concisely present the current information.

I also think it would be beneficial to remove the columns about who the participants in each battle were; they generally don't provide much information, but they take up far too much space. BilledMammal (talk) 20:45, 15 January 2024 (UTC)


 * @BilledMammal
 * I'M CURRENTLY TRYING TO FIX THAT.
 * Irtapil (talk) 20:54, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @BilledMammal
 * If you merge started and ended they don't sort by either. Separating means you can sort by either.
 * The participats in the battle is the most important column. What do you think the table is about? Please stop editing it if you don't understand the content.
 * Irtapil (talk) 22:12, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @BilledMammal
 * The details in all of the tables are primarily from the "info box" sections of the events on the linked pages.
 * Read those pages for an idea of what we are trying to communicate.
 * If you can find a "blockade" infobox template that would be helpful?
 * Try filling in some of the missing data in the empty cells please? I'm finding your habit of deleting things without contributing very frustrating.
 * Irtapil (talk) 22:37, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I think that's an acceptable tradeoff
 * Why? The participants are generally obvious; Israel on one side, Palestinian militants on the other. If the reader wants more details, they can go to the article - the only exception would be the campaigns table.
 * BilledMammal (talk) 07:52, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I've removed the attackers column from "Locations of raids into Southern Israel from Gaza" to improve readability particularly on smaller screens; it was almost unused, and even if it wasn't the specifics of who the attackers were is excessive detail - the generalities are already known, and readers can access the individual articles for the specifics. BilledMammal (talk) 02:33, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * This is a good example of how the article should work; it's clean, readable, and readers interested in additional details are directed to the relevant articles. BilledMammal (talk) 02:46, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * This conversation had one person disagreeing with you, and nobody agreeing with you. This does not authorize you to delete 20% of the page. Irtapil (talk) 04:22, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * There was no further discussion, and given that the columns were added recently I am permitted to revert them per WP:ONUS. I've asked a few times now; can you please by a little more specific in your objections? Currently, I'm struggling to understand why you object to the removal of these columns, most of which were empty or near-empty. BilledMammal (talk) 04:25, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Billed Mammal obtain CONSENSUS before removing material
@BilledMammal please obtain consensus before removing material! Irtapil (talk) 03:19, 19 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Can you specify which removals you're objecting to? What I've been trying to do is clean up the article and improve the readability of the tables; while I have removed a small amount of information, I haven't removed much - most of the columns I've outright removed have been empty or nearly empty. BilledMammal (talk) 03:33, 19 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Any of them! After your couple of dozen edits today the page has substantially shrunk.
 * You constantly delete things and contribute nothing worthwhile to this page. The only thing I've seen you add recently is a tangentially relevant reference that your added after removing three that were more relevant to the event!
 * Irtapil (talk) 03:38, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The goal is to write an article that is readable, not one that is large. Can you please expand on your objections; why you believe the article was better with large numbers of empty or near-empty columns? BilledMammal (talk) 03:41, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * So far today you have removed 20% of the page! Irtapil (talk) 03:43, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * By bytes, and possibly page space; it's not a useful metric. A more useful one is how much information I've removed, and I would estimate less than 1%; I think the loss of that 1%, which is still accessible in the linked articles, is worth the significant improvements in readability. BilledMammal (talk) 03:46, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You deleted columns I was in the process of building on. Ignoring the in use and deleting it as well.
 * You deleted columns for being empty, before I'd even finished building the columns.
 * You have made, as far as I can tell, zero effort towards helping filling in the missing data in those columns, you mostly delete things.
 * Irtapil (talk) 04:44, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The "in use" templates had been in the article for weeks; per the documentation for that template it was time to remove it:
 * The columns had been empty for extended periods, and I also question the benefit of them - why do we need so much detail, at the expense of readability? This is supposed to be an overview and a summary of the conflict.
 * Can you specify a few of the columns you want restored and explain why you believe they are necessary? BilledMammal (talk) 04:49, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You deleted columns I created this morning. Before filling the column i decided to split the casualties by belligerent. Irtapil (talk) 07:13, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Possibly I forgot to replace it with the under construction last time. BUT you are supposed to check the history of you see an in use, i'd been actively editing the section your deleted large chunks of. Irtapil (talk) 07:16, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You are the one wanting to change the page, explain why the columns you removed were not necessary? Irtapil (talk) 07:17, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Because they are too detailed for this article, and because they were empty.
 * Plus, WP:ONUS is on the editor who wishes to include the disputed content. BilledMammal (talk) 09:28, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm fairly sure that onus is not intended to refer to unilaterally deleting content from every section of a page in a way that is difficult to restore, without warning, and without a single other editor agreeing to the major overhaul of the page.
 * Some had been there for a long time undisputed; some I was actively in the process of creating as you deleted it.
 * Over the past few moths you have removed a massive amount of content from this page in a way that is arguably destructive.
 * Irtapil (talk) 18:33, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * and you were saying before that you weren't removing much information? that WP policy is about information. today you were mostly making structural changes, which would be particularly difficult to reverse if consensus wanted them back.
 * You can discuss what you want removed before removing it from now on.
 * You have unilaterally deleted FAR too much stuff from this page for one editor.
 * Irtapil (talk) 18:42, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * See section below re your revised hostage table. I don't know how your mortifications are set up. Irtapil (talk) 07:18, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * See section below re your revised hostage table. I don't know how your mortifications are set up. Irtapil (talk) 07:18, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

changes in results.
i think battle of sufa should be israeli victory (because hamas had occupied it till october 9?) and israeli defense forces had recaptured it, thus making israel victory over sufa. also khan yunis should be Hamas claimed Victory instead of inconclusive. HumilatedGoan (talk) 12:46, 26 October 2023 (UTC)


 * @HumilatedGoan, could you share where you learned that Hamas had occupied Sufa until October 9? Thank you SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 04:46, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * What happened to user:HumilatedGoan? Irtapil (talk) 22:00, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @Irtapil: An indefinite block. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 07:24, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Battle of Zikim
Like the other attacked kibbutzim, control over Zikim has not been contested for quite some time. However, a lack of sources for a clear day of victory has resulted in the rather absurd label "ongoing battle". See the discussion here. The controversy seems to draw upon the philosophy of this essay. However, to call the time-dependent label "ongoing" verifiable seems disputable.

The last day that Hamas militants were killed in Zikim was October 11, subsequent events have been infiltration attempts from the sea or coastline. October 11 is also given as the end date of the battle in the Hebrew language version of the page Battle of Zikim. Thus, I'm editing this into the table, for now without a proper source, since its better than the alternative. –St.nerol (talk) 17:10, 21 November 2023 (UTC)


 * But what counts as control? most of those places are still evacuated and under fire from rockets? raised the point below that maybe the way things are being categories isn't suitable for this war. Irtapil (talk) 01:27, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Ongoing seems to have been an old edit forgotten about. Looking through sources it seems the last engagement between any militants and Israeli forces was in November 4, 3 weeks ago so it’s definitely no longer ongoing The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 11:44, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * what was "the alternative"? Irtapil (talk) 11:52, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Irtapil The alternative was retaining the "ongoing" status indefinitely. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 09:34, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Useful category
The category this bot mentionds might be useful to find some of the many missing events from this page? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_engagements_during_the_2023_Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war&diff=1197323382&oldid=1197318542&variant=en Irtapil (talk) 05:15, 20 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I found the Psyduck music festival massacre, which should probably be added, in that category.
 * For ease of access, the category in question is Category:Massacres during the 2023 Israel–Hamas war.
 * SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 09:41, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Battle of Rafah Beach
You just added this battle to the list, but the article you linked doesn't mention it, and the source is from the Anadolu Agency, a generally unreliable source for these sorts of topics. More problematically, you've put Hamas' claims in Wikivoice; you say "Palestinian victory", but even this unreliable source doesn't go that far.

I think it should be removed, unless and until there is enough content from reliable sources to establish notability. BilledMammal (talk) 08:54, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, I put “battle of rafah beach.” There do seem to be more sources on an attempt at an amphibious landing in rafah beach. Do you think the edit can be saved if it states “hamas claims victory?” The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 09:48, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Not unless there are reliable sources reporting on this; a single source considered "generally unreliable" isn't sufficient for inclusion on the list. BilledMammal (talk) 10:01, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * There is this by the cradle, though uk uncertain if it’s considered reliable by the Wikipedia
 * https://new.thecradle.co/articles/hamas-confronts-israeli-sea-incursion-into-south-gaza The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 10:11, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't know if it is reliable (the only discussion at WP:RSN says "No idea if The Cradle is WP:RS or not."), but that source suggests that Israel also claimed victory; I suggest that if we are to keep it (and I'm not convinced it is sufficiently notable to keep) we say that the result is disputed or undetermined. BilledMammal (talk) 10:14, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @The Great Mule of Eupatoria
 * If there a clear list somewhere of depreciated sources? It seems you can only secrecy the archive? Irtapil (talk) 11:15, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Irtapil The Cradle was deprecated sometime in the past few weeks, somebody was going around removing it from all the articles. See WP:THECRADLE. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 11:56, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @The Great Mule of Eupatoria
 * What date was this battle? Irtapil (talk) 13:52, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * According to the source it was on October 27th, same day as the Israeli invasion The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 13:55, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * That's the same day that Gaza MOH death stats started looking like an under count, which makes a depressing amount of sensut.the The table on here says that started on 2 Nov? @The Great Mule of Eupatoria Can you check what's going on there please? :Irtapil (talk) 05:22, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @The Great Mule of Eupatoria More on topic, what's supposed to have happened in the battle, it sounds like Al-Qassam invading Egypt … but that makes no sense, so I'm lost. Who was amphibious and why? Irtapil (talk) 05:22, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * according to the source it was a sea-based incursion by Israel near rafah and was repelled The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 05:01, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Hostages Timeline
Based on the new version of the hostages timeline, are we completely abandoning the pseudo-consensus on "must be liked"? 07:11, 19 January 2024 (UTC) Irtapil (talk) 07:11, 19 January 2024 (UTC)


 * The instances of "Hamas" are not style guide consistent, flags add some use, but repeat blue links is just WP:overlinking.
 * Irtapil (talk) 07:23, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not actually convinced we should have a "hostages timeline" here. It makes more sense in the hostages article, in my opinion.
 * I agree about the repeated links to Hamas; I got some of them, but there are some additional that I need to remove - I'll do that now. BilledMammal (talk) 09:27, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * My method for creating a compromise version is explained below.
 * I did my best to keep everything you added.
 * Did I miss anything?
 * Irtapil (talk) 18:13, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * If you don't think a hostages time line belongs here, why did you make one?
 * and why did you keep trying to turn other things into a "hostages time line"?
 * and why did you get so angry at me when I changed even one word of the "hostages time line" subheading?
 * Irtapil (talk) 18:23, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * To clarify; I don't think that timeline or any related timeline belongs in this article. I believe you added it originally with a slightly broader scope; can you explain what your reasoning was - and would you object to moving it to the hostages article? BilledMammal (talk) 20:18, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

restored deleted content
Irtapil (talk) 18:11, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Today I restored a large amount content that was recently deleted, I put in a lot of effort to avoid an aggressive roll back.
 * I reconstructed page here User:Irtapil/List of engagements REPAIR
 * based on pre-deletion version https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_engagements_during_the_2023_Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war&oldid=1197003387
 * restored deleted content from that user space version User:Irtapil/List of engagements REPAIR
 * I kept the new version of the hostage timeline
 * I did my best to re-integrate any content that was added between deletions
 * I added a little bit of the missing data as I went
 * I deleted or merged a couple of the columns I had added myself to try and get the "readability" improved a bit, which seemed to be what the deletions were aimed at.
 * Now I'm tidying up the flags on the page.


 * If anyone notices anything I inadvertently deleted in the process of restoring other deleted material, please re add those things. Irtapil (talk) 01:00, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Article's title should be updated to: List of engagements during the Israel–Hamas war
So as to fit the main article. NesserWiki (talk) 17:06, 20 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Hang on, the ''m
 * main'' article has no date noThis started in 1948, but 2006 ish is good enough for me. Irtapil (talk) 23:35, 20 January 2024 (UTC)w?
 * ✅ InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:12, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Adding the Siege of Gaza as a military engagement
There was an Israeli official who said that they ordered a full siege of Gaza, as such it would be appropriate to add it as a military engagement 137.205.73.44 (talk) 18:15, 12 October 2023 (UTC)


 * That was Yoav Gallant Currently this is listed under both engagements and massacres, unless it has been recently removed? Irtapil (talk) 08:42, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * He's the defence minister
 * And the announcement wasn't the engagement itself, that was just announcing the start.
 * Irtapil (talk) 08:32, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Proposed page move
A few hours ago, 2023 Israel–Hamas war became, simply, Israel–Hamas war. This page should follow suit and become List of engagements during the Israel–Hamas war. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 07:25, 20 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Does this means I get to go all the way back to Operation Bringing Hone the Goods and before? Or I think that end up at the 1990s? Irtapil (talk) 10:58, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry i should have coffee befor attention humour.
 * WTF did i spell wrong in that…
 * Irtapil (talk) 11:00, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * No, the scope remains the same, it's the same article. This also gives me the opportunity to ask about the inclusion of a row for "Israeli settler violence" which ended on 6 October. Seems out of scope? SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 11:02, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Kind of everything
 * Palestinian politics
 * Israeli politics
 * A bit of context is useful and it's hard to argue that things happening as recently as the day before aren't relevant.
 * international politics
 * The UN condemnation is interesting given the controversy that followed about who would condemn what when.
 * and most relevant for that table the strategic aspect of where the IDF and Israeli police had most of their forces deployed.
 * The Gaza border region was reported was under staffed because they were all busy defending and / or annexing (depending on your perspective) the West Bank.
 * The linked article is maybe not the best match for the story? Replace it with something else if you can find something suitable? Or
 * in the West Bank,
 * you can think of a more relevant name for the context then feel free to add it as a more relevant name
 * It is very widely reported thaa big reason t Hamas et al. had the upper hand got a few days
 * 1.
 * 2. It's Irtapil (talk) 00:50, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * it's hard to argue that things happening as recently as the day before aren't relevant Well, the start date of what we're now calling "Israel–Hamas war" is strictly defined as 7 October, so I'm not convinced this event belongs here regardless how it affected IDF deployment and its consequences, but I'll await your updated comment. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 11:54, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry. Posted the above unfinished before my phone mangled it completely. Fixing it now. Irtapil (talk) 00:51, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:12, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Hostages timeline → prisoner exchanges timeline
You the section titled Hostages timeline to prisoner exchanges timeline; why? This seems to be an WP:NPOV violation, with reliable sources consistently describing those taken by Hamas as hostages, not prisoners. BilledMammal (talk) 07:58, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * On a related topic; When copying you are required to attribute. Further, the Arabic Wiki has some issues with neutrality on this topic; copying from it is a very bad idea and is likely to introduce neutrality issues here. BilledMammal (talk) 08:08, 16 January 2024 (UTC)


 * @BilledMammal No, I am NOT copying from an Arabic article! I used an Arabic word as a working title because I every English word I add gets changed by you. You seem to have very strong feelings on this and I couldn't work out a term you would not object to for Palestinian prisoners in Israel?
 * Irtapil (talk) 03:26, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * (removed tag) Billed Mammal,
 * Can you please justify your assertion "the Arabic wiki has some issues with neutrality on this topic"?
 * Why do you believe that it would be worse than English Wikipedia? Do you have any evidence other than your own bias?
 * I wasn't copying from Arabic wiki, this article doesn't exist on that version of wiki. But I actually think this article, and a lot of articles on here, could benefit a lot from collaboration with Arabic wiki. To get a much more balanced and realistic view of the war.
 * I expect / deduce that most editors of English Wikipedia mostly come from North America, Europe, India, and Australia? all places that have big problems with Islamophobia and/or anti-Arab racism. Modi (and "baba bulldozer" in UP) are extremely worrying, and you are probably already very aware of the others, e.g. the Christchurch Shooter was Aussie. Obviously, not everyone in those countries feels that way (e.g. India is the second largest Muslim nation by total numbers, and Islam has been in Australia longer than Christianity has) but on average the cohort of English speakers globally, and thus the people editing here, is likely to have a fairly severe bias against one side in this conflict.
 * More input from Arabic speakers would help fix the bias problem here.
 * Irtapil (talk) 02:18, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Please tell me that article isn't filled under his name? anyway, you know who I mean, you seem to be from Aotearoa? Irtapil (talk) 02:19, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * But I'm just guessing. Irtapil (talk) 02:24, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @BilledMammal i changed that title because you strongly objected to including Palestinian prisoners in Israel  under hostages? that table is supposed to be about hostages bring releases, and most were exchanged for Palestinian prisoners in Israel.
 * I changed it back when you accused me of multiple reverts, even though, as far as i can tell, it is not a revert, because I'm paranoid about that silly rule. The other three were definitely not reverts.
 * Irtapil (talk) 03:29, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * How many time do I need to ask you to please, stop pinging me to discussions that you have either already pinged me to or that I am already participating in?
 * As to your response, it doesn't make sense. was the only edit I had made since December to the article prior to the relevant edit, and it is unrelated to header columns. Plus, even if it did made sense, WP:UE applies. BilledMammal (talk) 03:30, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I have been noticing your edits long before this month. Irtapil (talk) 04:20, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @BilledMammal
 * You didn't want to describe Palestinian prisoners in Israel as hostages? The key word was "exchange". The exchanges were an extremely important event in the war.
 * The Netenyahu et al. refusal of numerous offers of exchanges is too. The families of the hostages have repeatedly demanded that the Israeli government agree to the exchange offers to get their loved ones home alive.
 * So it wasn't just describing the hostages, it was describing a much larger group who you have consistently and persistently tried to erase from this article, Palestinian prisoners in Israel.
 * I left out "hostages" because I was trying to avoid "reverting" it to the exact same title as before.
 * But you pointed out it was still too similar, so I changed it back to your title as soon as I understood what you were referring to. The edit where you deleted every mention of Palestinian prisoners in Israel from that table was huge, and I think restoring just one word is a stretch of the concept of a revert, but i changed it back anyway, at your request, as soon as you pointed it out what you were objecting to.
 * I suppose in my attempted new title hoped you'd object less to calling both groups prisoners than you objected to calling both groups hostages? There are laws against "wrongful imprisonment" in many countries that refer to kidnapping, so it seemed like it might work as a title? Being "prisoners" doesn't necessarily mean they are detained justifiably. But again, I changed it back at your request as soon as you explained what you wanted.
 * Irtapil (talk) 02:56, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that tag was automatically added by the reply button. Irtapil (talk) 02:57, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

You can't have a one sided prisoner exchange!
Why did someone delete half the story from the hostage timeline?

A hostage exchange timeline that mentions only one side's prisoners makes no sense! You can't tell the story of the prisoner exchanges without mentioning that both sides have prisoners.

e.g. Ahmad Saadat is relevant because they were very likely to ask for him in an exchange, and they did last week, but I'd not managed to add it yet because there are too many developments to keep up with.

Irtapil (talk) 08:19, 31 December 2023 (UTC) updated Irtapil (talk) 11:51, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I overlooked this previously; I assume it was in regards to changing Hostages and prisoners timeline to Hostages timeline?
 * With that said, I do think my edit summary explained my reasoning well enough: Move Killing of Alon Shamriz, Yotam Haim, and Samer Talalka to timeline; neither a hostage taking nor a massacre. Remove arrest and imprisonment of Palestinians by Israel; reliable sources do not consider that to be sufficiently similar to hostage taking to warrant us associating them so closely, and us doing so introduces WP:NPOV problems.
 * Emphasis added here.
 * On a related note, and expressed elsewhere; I'm not sure that this section is appropriate in this article; this is a list of engagements, and a timeline like this appears out of scope. I think we should move it 2023 Israel–Hamas war hostage crisis? BilledMammal (talk) 13:53, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * (deleted tag)
 * I addressed other aspects of this in the other thread.
 * I know from above that you wanted the massacres committed on October 7 to have their own article? But that was decided against, by consensus. You can't now try to turn this whole article into an article about the massacres by deleting everything else!
 * The hostages crisis is an key part of the war, it connects to the other parts, such as the ceasefire, the bombing of civilian housing, the "warning" issued to Gaza City, and it was one of the main 3 objectives of the October 7 attack.
 * You persistently trying to erase every Palestinian from this page makes sense as a bias, but removing the non-Palestinian hostages as well is just getting weird.
 * Irtapil (talk) 03:12, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Disputed strikes?
putting a few things I have partial info for on talk while finding more info

This looks highly implausible


List of engagements during the Israel–Hamas war

It would have been very nice if there was a Christmas cease fire that was still going, but I think the news would have mentioned it?

Irtapil (talk) 03:23, 23 January 2024 (UTC)


 * @Irtapil:
 * I've located air/drone strikes dated 18 December, 21 December, 22 December, 22 December, 23 December, 24 December, 25 December, 28 December, 29 December, 3 January, 4 January, 5 January, 9 January, 13 January, 19 January, and 20 January on this article alone: Refugee camp airstrikes in the Israel–Hamas war.
 * Sadly these events are far too common to be independently notable in and of themselves, so I'd caution against adding anything to the list that hasn't received particularly significant coverage.
 * SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 08:42, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @SaintPaulOfTarsus
 * Potentially a comprehensive list belongs elsewhere? And all the stuff that's been removed from here purely on notablelity grounds should be restored there instead of here?
 * I'd be fine with the gaps if we could main a full list.
 * Currently this list is deceptive, the lack of anything there implies nothing actually happened. To us that's obviously not the case, but not to someone coming here for the 101 about a thing they know little about, i.e. The average Wikipedia visitor.
 * I need to find some of the very impressive articles about past comflict to share, there was an impressively comprehensive airstrike list for a prior exacerbation in Yemen. (Did the war there ever actually stop, or did it just slow?)
 * I was looking at similar articles for other conflicts, and the biggest difference is they all put airstrikes in a separate page. Irtapil (talk) 17:13, 24 January 2024 (UTC) edited Irtapil (talk) 17:21, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I really need to stop trying to use the reply button on mobile. Irtapil (talk) 17:21, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @SaintPaulOfTarsus
 * … anything to the list that hasn't received particularly significant coverage
 * The stuff currently on this page is only the stuff that's received coverage in sources that are in English and haven't got depreciated by marauding monotremes.
 * Help me build a list of things that are important but ignored? Tħis problem is solvable…
 * Irtapil (talk) 17:42, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Inclusion of the Shuweika attack
Since BilledMammal wants to do this the long way (i.e. discussions for each engagement), let’s start with this one. On October 31, an engagement took place in Shuweika, West Bank (Note, this was originally listed on the chart and was removed today by BilledMammel). The Institute for the Study of War (ISW) stated directly, “The al Quds Brigades and the Tulkarm Battalion of the al Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigades conducted a combined small arms attack on Israeli forces in Shuweika near Tulkarm, indicating growing coordination between the two groups. This was the first combined attack between the al Quds Brigades and al Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigades in the West Bank since October 19.” They did not quote someone nor did they say one side claimed victory. They directly stated an engagement (which had some significance per the 2nd sentence) occurred. ISW cited The Times of Israel, Al-Manar for these statements as well as individual statements from Hamas/Palestine spokespersons. This engagement was originally listed (before being removed) on the chart as occurring with a result of “Inconclusive” saying “Source does not indicate who won, just that an attack occurred”, with the source cited being ISW. Thoughts on re-inclusion? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 15:12, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It doesn't appear to be a notable event; to keep the list a reasonable length we should not include items unless notable. BilledMammal (talk) 15:17, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * What is your reason for it not being a notable event? I think I just explained why it was a notable event, at least notable enough for inclusion on the engagements list. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 15:19, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * By notable, I mean notable in the wikipedia-sense; WP:N. As far as I can tell it lacks sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG, and it certainly lacks the sustained coverage needed to meet WP:SUSTAINED. BilledMammal (talk) 15:21, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Per WP:GNG: “If a topic does not meet these criteria but still has some verifiable facts, it might be useful to discuss it within another article.” Sustained coverage sure, you are right there. Coverage from reliable sources? Yep, it got that with TOI/Al-Manar/ISW. I still believe it should be included. Just because one part of GNG isn’t passed doesn’t mean we have to WP:BURO up and decline it. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 15:27, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * We should decline it because it isn't notable, and because if we include every non-notable event this article will become useless. Further, the article that Shuweika attack redirects to contains no mention of the attack. BilledMammal (talk) 07:05, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Your interpretation of notability seems different than mine. When I see ISW say something is done for the first time (in a fast-changing war) for nearly 2 weeks, that seems to say notable to me. The quote from ISW above basically says it is notable. I personally, am not sure how you can say that isn’t notable for inclusion on the list, when the sources for it are TOI/Al-Manar/ISW. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 07:16, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * User:WeatherWriter, are you arguing that this event ought to be included in the article simply because it marks the first instance of collaboration between two relatively minor belligerents in a secondary theatre of the conflict (that is, the first instance after an apparent lull of ten days)? SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 16:35, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @WeatherWriter
 * Is TOI times of Israel? Full article in there I think = notable enough.
 * Al Manar is iffy, but arguably no more biased than ISW … hard to argue for one side of that. Unless you mean a different Al Manar? I mean the Lebanese Satalite TV channel.
 * Anything those two agree on is unlikely to be bias / inaccurate?
 * Irtapil (talk) 03:25, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @WeatherWriter Al-Manar is hezbolah? But there's heaps of secular or even certified WP:RS places to try.
 * Al Jazeera Arabic (possibbly AJ English, but surely you tried there already?)
 * Al Araby (TV channel) (also Arabic)
 * that "AA" Turkish news network that I've fit-forgotten the name of again @SaintPaulOfTarsus?
 * The New Arab
 * TRT (Turkish state media, not as good as the BBC, but way better than RT)
 * or the UN often have brief statements.
 * gah comment being mangled by phone.
 * I suspect (possibly AJ) and Al Araby TV will have the story. So will that "AA" Turkish news network that @SaintPaulOfTarsus trimme Irtapil (talk) 19:14, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * BilledMammal (untagged),
 * I suspect that your ultimate goal here is to thwart the consensus about the merge you disagreed with, by turning this into an article that disproportionately focuses on the subject of the the massacres list?
 * You seem to be devising whatever criteria will lead to focusing on those events, and deleting as much as possible of everything else?
 * You are creating a page that presents an extremely distorted and biased picture of this war.
 * Irtapil (talk) 03:46, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It's becoming like a WWI page where the first third is about the assassination of Franz Ferdinand. Irtapil (talk) 03:53, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * (tagged because I want this to stand out amongst the others, I hope that is OK?) @ BilledMammal
 * If you are very interested in the early events, one thing that would be enough fit a whole page is "List of Victims of the October 7 attacks".
 * I have been wondering for a while whether this would be appropriate? It seems a bit weird given most were not public figures before? But there is a list about the September 11 victims, a very similar circumstance.
 * It should probably be combined with hostages, mostly because the militants also seem to have taken several dead bodies to Gaza, possibly trying to make it look like they had more hostages.
 * A good starting point would be the list in Haaretz.
 * https://www.haaretz.com/haaretz-explains/2023-10-19/ty-article-magazine/israels-dead-the-names-of-those-killed-in-hamas-massacres-and-the-israel-hamas-war/0000018b-325c-d450-a3af-7b5cf0210000
 * https://www.haaretz.com/haaretz-explains/2023-11-23/ty-article-magazine/.premium/how-haaretz-is-counting-israels-dead-from-the-october-7-hamas-attack/0000018b-d42c-d423-affb-f7afe1a70000
 * https://www.haaretz.com/haaretz-explains/2023-10-22/ty-article-magazine/hostages-held-by-hamas-the-names-of-those-abducted-from-israel/0000018b-55f8-d5d2-afef-d5fdd04e0000
 * https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-11-30/ty-article/these-are-the-israeli-hostages-freed-from-hamas-captivity-on-thursday/0000018c-2038-dc03-a9ec-3c7bc95b0001
 * The background article is paywalled, but I can share a gift link if you like?
 * I think the actual lists are public? That might not be all of them. The BBC also has some partial lists.
 * Irtapil (talk) 04:18, 22 January 2024 (UTC)


 * e.g.


 * Irtapil (talk) 07:23, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Yep, no problem pinging if I haven't been active in a thread for a while. The only reason I took issue is because you were overdoing the pings; five to a single discussion, without any responses from me in between, was excessive.
 * Probably not; WP:NOTMEMORIAL would apply - I think we've since deleted the list of 9/11 victims? BilledMammal (talk) 00:38, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I haven't looked for 9/11 recently.
 * I think I agree with you, I was unsure if it was appropriate.
 * I was thinking hostages might be more relevant, but as I add writing it out in slightly more detail I realised it world be a nightmare? It would be "biography of living persons" times about 240? And worse than that because Israel and Gaza disagree about whether a few dozen are already dead, which must be very stressful for the families.
 * Probably best to keep hostages to just numbers, demographics, and locations? except for confirmed dead or confirmed free in newsworthy circumstances (e.g. the 3 who got shot).
 * Irtapil (talk) 22:07, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I've removed the following:
 * Qabatiya and Tammun raids
 * Khan Yunis raid
 * Battle of Rafah Beach
 * Shuweika attack
 * Battle of Al-Shati
 * Due to them not even being mentioned in the linked articles; we need some standards for inclusion, and while notability is a common one, I hope we can at least agree that if we don't have any discussion of the battles their inclusion is not warranted. BilledMammal (talk) 14:37, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Why can’t u create a page for them especially when khan yunis raid had it own page but got removed it’s just more info to add them at least just the results to be more specific we have to show every recorded battle even by only saying results Sajjjjr (talk) 16:28, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Sajjjjr If you could create a page that would be good? Then there's no reason to not include it? Irtapil (talk) 03:20, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Sajjjjr Maybe what we need is a to do list of missing wiki pages? On the talk page?
 * @WeatherWriter can you link some similar pages from other wars? Particularly the same kind of messy wars with semi recognised states etc.
 * I've seen a few and none of the other articles like this one seem to have the "must have it's own page" noteability rule, a lot of them have events with just a couple of sources, they're lists of things that are mostly not big enough to have their own page.
 * Other pages will also help me work out if an Arabic article exists for this page, which could help us fill a lot of gaps.
 * Irtapil (talk) 03:40, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @BilledMammal, this is a very reasonable standard for inclusion. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 02:20, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I dint think anybody so far had agreed with you thar already having a wiki page is a good measure of notability? Irtapil (talk) 03:16, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Maybe one, but so far it seems to be 2 for needs wiki article and at least 2 against. Irtapil (talk) 03:28, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Actually I might have misinterpreted who they were agreeing with.
 * Irtapil (talk) 03:29, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

The incongruous flag the IDF claimed they found
I was considering trying to include it in the tables, but on reflection, that is a terrible idea? Even adding "disputed" gives it too much credibility? And even sources leaning towards the IDF don't seem to think it means much? Irtapil (talk) 11:07, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

It's has been sitting there as a commented out maybe section for ages "I'm not sure if the following would help or just add more confusion?" but nobody's seemed to notice except @SaintPaulOfTarsus, who mentioned it elsewhere. I think St. Paul maybe misinterpreted what I meant?

What I had in mind for that is something like… But it gets very messy, because it conflates two possibilities
 * ISIS (claimed by IDF, disputed)
 * plus sources of the claim being made
 * 1) Hamas resemble ISIS as is frequently claimed by the IDF and Israeli diplomats, or the extreme version of this claim is that Hamas (a group of conservative ultra-nationalists), literally ARE the radical heretical cult who want a global Caliphate. In my opinion, and as supported by those sources, that is total nonsense. But i don't know what other meaning "Hamas is ISIS" can have? and I hear "Hamas is ISIS" a lot.
 * 2) Actual ISIS sympathizers (mutual enemies of Hamas) were also there.

So, in conclusion, yes, definitely just adds more confusion, since it looks like it even confused @SaintPaulOfTarsus, who seems to be fairly well read on the topic of the war.

So, scraping that idea, but wanted to explain myself in case anyone else saw it and thought it was bizarre.

Irtapil (talk) 12:09, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

7 October missing Erez Crossing, Ofakim, and others


Missing
 * Ofakim it's covered by all the early battle maps from ISW Iran updates
 * Erez Crossing attack has more than enough sources for a Wiki page, there are two full articles in Times of Israel and many
 * 2 other border crossings - but i believe they were defunked? so that might have just been vandalism?
 * Magen, Israel - seems to be a Kibbutz, could be an early mix up? or could be genuinely missing from our lists.

source https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/10/07/israel-gaza-timeline-videos-maps/

the map in that showing these, and others, refers to multiple other very reliable sources in the caption, they might have more info.

How on earth is so much of of 7 October missing!? Irtapil (talk) 16:15, 27 January 2024 (UTC)


 * @SaintPaulOfTarsus
 * This definitely seems to be significant. There should possibly be a whole page on it, but there's one line in the Erez Crossing page, and i think i wrote that one line. Unless there is already a whole page and I've just missed it? Irtapil (talk) 17:35, 24 January 2024 (UTC) moved Irtapil (talk) 09:08, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Important information to include in edit summaries for "self reverts" and 1RR issues
If somebody asks you to do a "self revert" to correct an alleged violation of the WP:1RR make sure you explain this clearly in this edit summary. This will make it easier to resolve any future disputes. Key info: If you use the "undo" button, leave what is there automatically and just add (for example, if I asked you to do or) "self revert requested by user:irtapil" to the start. Irtapil (talk) 05:34, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * say it is a self revert
 * say who asked you to do it
 * say which edit you are reverting (time stamp or version number)

South Africa v. Israel (Genocide Convention)
I've removed this from List of engagements during the Israel–Hamas war. Just because something is notable within the context of the war doesn't mean it belongs here; this article is for notable engagements, and the court case is not an engagement - and it certainly isn't a military engagement. BilledMammal (talk) 16:50, 27 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I thought it was you who originally wanted "military" removed from that article title?
 * And "engagement" is a strange word, but taking somebody to court seems to fit it better than an airstrike? (the airstrikes possibly belong as a stand alone article, but that's another issue).
 * The ruling could potentially have had a massive impact on military activity, but unfortunately (and predicatably) it seems to have been a bit of a symbolic victory for South Africa? And a Military victory, of sorts, for Israel? As in they have not been ordered to stop their military campaign.
 * Most of the orders from the court looked too vague to make much difference at all? but I've only read the summary so far.
 * Irtapil (talk) 00:32, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Engagement means "a fight or battle between armed forces". After massacres were merged in, it was better to remove the qualifier "military". Either way, a court case doesn't come close to that definition.
 * Further, your assessment "ICJ ruled in favour of South Africa" is unsupported by sources.
 * Please self-revert your reinstatement ; there is no justification for it being included in this article, and there is no justification to include it as a "campaign". BilledMammal (talk) 05:04, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
 * But "a fight or battle between armed forces" ddoesn't describe an airstrike or the attacks on Kibbutzim.
 * When you removed the word military, the armed forces bit isn't part of the intrinsic definition of engagement. You can have a "social engagement" etc.
 * I think the current campaign box works well. It is a comprehensive summary of all relevant locations (Israel, Gaza, West Bank, Lebanon, Red Sea, and the Hague) and all major international involvement.
 * It is weird to end up at the Hague between battles, but it's not the weirdest thing about this war.
 * I am willing to change what I have listed as an outcome, I agree the court didn't fully rule in South Africa's favour. I expressed my disappointment about that myself above.
 * There is a very comprehensive table in the linked page that you can use to write an improved outcome statement. I also attached a pdf of the full verdict, it's from the Washington Post, but the original would be better.
 * Irtapil (talk) 08:59, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
 * An engagement doesn't require active combat from both sides; one side is sufficient. That's why the airstrikes and the attacks on the Kibbutzim are appropriate for this article - but a legal case, which involves no combat, is not.
 * "Social engagement" uses a different definition of "engagement"; an arrangement to do something or go somewhere at a fixed time. This article doesn't use that definition of the word. BilledMammal (talk) 14:46, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
 * So does "military engagement" but without an adjective the term is general. Irtapil (talk) 18:11, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * without the adjective nothing about "engagements during" is specific to either.
 * find an actual definition that includes massacre and airsttike but excludes legal proceedings?
 * Irtapil (talk) 18:14, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The entire article needs a major cleanup and restructuring job. Perhaps once that is done there will be a more sensible place to fit in the South Africa case. We could also use color coding to signify the different types of events. However we should be careful with what we include in List of engagements during the Israel-Hamas war or it will become redundant with Timeline of the Israel–Hamas war Dazzling4 (talk) 20:03, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I've removed the court case; it belongs in the timeline but it doesn't belong here. BilledMammal (talk) 03:05, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Expanded edit summary for 2 February edit
- as requested by TheWeatherWriter


 * Fix inappropriate line breaks
 * There were a number of line breaks before CitationNeeded templates or references; [[WP:CITEFOOT|such notes should be directly next to the material they are supporting, with no space or line break between them.}}
 * Remove under construction templates
 * There were a number of "under construction" templates scattered around the article. They've been there for over a month now, and I felt they should be removed to present a cleaner article, and because the article hasn't been under heavy development for a while
 * Remove hidden comments by topic-banned editor
 * A now-topic banned editor left a number of hidden comments through the article. This made the Wikitext harder to read, and seemed to be personal notes for them. I removed them, as they are no longer useful for that editor, and to make it easier for other editors to read the Wikitext.
 * Remove off-topic map
 * There was a map that showed the demographics of the region of Israel around Gaza. It seemed off topic; no explanation for its relevance was provided and I couldn't see any.
 * Remove some broken, redundant, or unneeded "see also"
 * There were a number of "see also" templates at the top of various subsections. I removed many of these because they were redundant, linking to an article that was already linked in the subsequent table (for example, 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel), because they were broken (for example, List of engagements during the Israel–Hamas war), or because they were unneeded due either to not being relevant to that section or because they were repeated many times (for example, Attacks on health facilities during the 2023 Israel–Hamas war was linked in five places; I removed four of them).
 * Consolidate columns including removing empty or near-empty columns
 * There were a number of empty or near-empty columns in the article that left it cluttered and harder for readers to comprehend. For example, there was a "Named or Notable Casualties" column in List of engagements during the Israel–Hamas war that was empty; I removed it both because it was empty, and because it seemed to be excessive detail for a summary article. Similarly, I removed the three "Militants from Gaza" columns (Number", "Deaths", and "POWs") from List of engagements during the Israel–Hamas war; only one row was filled, and given the other are unlikely to ever be filled I felt it best to remove it to improve the usability of the table.
 * Remove non-notable events per criteria
 * I removed a number of events without coverage in other articles, as this should be a summary rather than a place to introduce new information.
 * Remove excessive details about specific units (summarize by organization/country)
 * Previously, we listed not just the country/organization involved but also the specific military units. For a summary page this was too detailed, and made the article hard to read through. I summarized these just as the country; if the reader wants more details they can go to the linked article.
 * Move hostages timeline to Israel–Hamas war hostage crisis
 * The hostage timeline isn't an engagement; it is better suited to that article, particularly because many of the rows there had minimal coverage in other articles.
 * Remove unexplained globalize template
 * No explanation was provided for the template, and I couldn't see any issues with the article that would warrant that template, so I removed it.

There were also a few edits that I forgot to mention in the provided summary:
 * Column merger
 * I merged the location subcolumns of List of engagements during the Israel–Hamas war (Type, "Name", and "Pop"); I felt that level of detail was excessive for a summary article, and made it difficult for readers to get a quick overview of the situation.
 * Note explaining lack of result for the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel
 * It linked to an internal discussion; after thinking on it more I decided that I didn't feel it was appropriate to link to internal discussions from article pages, though I'm happy to discuss further.
 * Removal of "Merchant ships" as belligerents
 * Neutral shipping isn't a belligerent; we shouldn't be listing it as such.

BilledMammal (talk) 03:36, 3 February 2024 (UTC)