Talk:October 7 attacks/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions about October 7 attacks. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

"Hamas and allies victory"

Hamas' goal was to completely destroy Israel and provoke a war on four fronts (Gaza, West Bank, Syria and Lebanon), which failed. Calling this a "Hamas victory" is a pathetic attempt to make the terrorist look good. The terrorist attack was repelled and most of the attackers were killed or captured. So no, it's not a hamas victory at all. AstroSaturn (talk) 20:42, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Well, that is your opinion. Per The Atlantic, which was confirmed by Wikipedia editor community consensus to be a secondary reliable source in 2022, reported that the Hamas attack was a pyrrhic victory. In short, your opinion that it is a "pathetic attempt to make the terrorist look good" is wrong and to me, feel more like a WP:IDONTLIKEIT/WP:OR comment. If you feel the result should not list it as a victory, you have two options. (1) Start a discussion to deprecate the use of The Atlantic related to the 2023 Hamas attack on Israel (i.e. the way to say a community consensus reliable source is not reliable for this article). (2) Find sources that counter the secondary reliable source (i.e. find sources directly stating this was a Hamas defeat/Israeli victory. Wikipedia has to be verifiable and not every has to agree with the sources/content, but reliable sources have to state the contents of the article. In this specific circumstance, there is a reliable source which states that it was a Hamas victory, so without counter-reliable sources, it needs to remain in the article. Hope this helps! Cheers! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:02, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

This hasn't to do anything with my personal opinion. Senior Hamas leaders said that the destruction of Israel was the main purpose of the attack. AstroSaturn (talk) 21:45, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Can you list a source for that? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:18, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

AstroSaturn (talk) 10:16, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

None of these sources say that this is Israeli victory/Hamas' defeat, even the sixth source says: immediately achieved a symbolic victory in the initial stages on October 7. Parham wiki (talk) 11:12, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Hamas was only "victorious" in

at the beginning of the surprise attack. The invasion

was repelled and almost all

terrorists were killed or captured.

Doesn't look like a Victory. AstroSaturn (talk) 15:50, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

@AstroSaturn, I get your point, but the best course of action for you would be to find reliable sources describing the outcome as *not* a victory for Hamas.

The fundamental difficulty here is that we're applying the terms and the infobox of a military operation, in which the goal is usually to hold territory, or to destroy enemy forces. But we should follow what sources say in any case. Alaexis_¿question? 23:05, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

A Pyrrhic victory is described by N.S. Gill as "a type of win that actually inflicts so much destruction on the victorious side that it is basically tantamount to defeat" and Encyclopædia Britannica online as "a success that brings such significant harm to the victor that it differs little from defeat". Since Pyrrhic victory is in The Atlantic's headline and the article's text it appears to support the outcome as not being a Hamas victory. Mcljlm (talk) 23:49, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Most sources call it a Pyrrhic victory, so calling it a victory is misleading Dovidroth (talk) 12:24, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

That is, to be blunt, not true. They say that the victory will turn pyrrhic. Not that it is. People continue to make things up about what the sources say, and that should not be allowed to continue unchecked. nableezy - 15:41, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

What the sources say is that they believe that Hamas' victory would prove to be pyrrhic. What The Atlantic actually says is But this Hamas victory might prove Pyrrhic. nableezy - 23:58, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

An additional source directly stating it was a Hamas victory is this article from Time: "Hamas’ stunning military success on October 7 will prove to be a pyrrhic victory." The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 01:52, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Saying might prove Pyrrhic suggests it's not necessarily a victory. Mcljlm (talk) 01:59, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

No it suggests that it might turn out to inflict more harm on their position than they had expected, not that it is not a victory in this specific event. nableezy - 02:11, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

A Pyrrhic victory is equivalent to defeat. IE, winning a battle but losing the war. Drsmoo (talk) 11:37, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Again what they say is they think this victory would prove pyrrhic. Not that it already is. Not sure why people keep ignoring it. nableezy - 15:47, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

@AstroSaturn, please read WP:AGF and refrain from personal attacks. I didn't write it to make terrorists look good. Parham wiki (talk) 22:42, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

as I said, this has nothing to do with my personal opinion. The goal of hamas is clear. AstroSaturn (talk) 10:19, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

The cited sources call it pyrrhic victory. As our page correctly explains, this is not a victory, but rather a defeat: this is "a victory that inflicts such a devastating toll on the victor that it is tantamount to defeat". More informally speaking, this depends on the goal(s) of the operation by Hamas, and there are only speculations about these goals. If the goal was to bring the world's attention to the Palestinian cause, then perhaps it was a victory: mission accomplished. If it was an operation to hold a part of the Israel territory (as it seems to be based on Hamas attempts to keep it), then it was a defeat. I would suggest to remove this as something very much questionable. My very best wishes (talk) 03:18, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
No they do not. nableezy - 15:48, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Another thing: that was not so much a military operation by Hamas as an operation to punish and terrorize the civilian population, as typical for terrorist operations and actions by organizations like Soviet NKVD (not military) or Waffen-SS. And as such it was very much successful, by hardly a military victory. My very best wishes (talk) 03:29, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Ive added Le Monde calling it a military success. That should settle that bit of misdirection too. nableezy - 15:59, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Do you have access to the full article? Drsmoo (talk) 18:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes. Provided below and again here. nableezy - 16:25, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

I am too lost in this conversation... I think for the moment it should be either undetermined or Pyrrhic victory [disputed] Homerethegreat (talk) 16:16, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Again, the sources do not say pyrrhic victory. They say the victory may or will turn pyrrhic. They are saying that this article was a Hamas victory, but that article will be an Israeli victory. I dont get what people are failing to understand in the sources. But there are several that say that this was a Hamas military success. nableezy - 16:25, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

My comment isn’t about what I think the result parameter should say. It’s to point out that Wikipedia policy clearly states how you should determine the value. If you follow policy then you can stop all the reverting and anger. Those of you inserting things like "Israel repelled Hamas attack" should stop doing that because the template being used only allows certain values for the parameter ‘result". You might not like what the guidelines say, but if you don’t follow them you shouldn’t edit. Wikipedia’s house, Wikipedia’s rules.
In terms of guidelines likeMOS:INFOBOX, MOS:MIL etc. and specifically Template: Infobox military conflict (the template used here for the Infobox) there are a limited number of values for the result parameter
There are only the following possibilities for this parameter (all of which require refs from reliable sources):
1. "Hamas and its allies victory" (if refs show they where victorious), or
2. "Israel victory" ((if refs show they where victorious), or
3. "Inconclusive" (if refs are ambiguous or conflicting), or
4. Link or note to section of the article where the result is discussed (e.g. Aftermath section). [I don’t see such a section in the article now], or
5. Leave the parameter out of the Infobox.
That’s it. Nothing else. This covers all scenarios and must be followed. if there are reliable sources showing that (1) is appropriate, the ONLY way to use one of the other options is to show there are refs showing (2) or refs showing ambiguity in the outcome.
Above is per the following from the infobox’s data sheet which says:

This parameter may use one of two standard terms: "X victory" or "Inconclusive". The term used is for the "immediate" outcome of the "subject" conflict and should reflect what the sources say.
In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link or note should be made to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the Aftermath section"). Such a note can also be used in conjunction with the standard terms but should not be used to conceal an ambiguity in the "immediate" result. Do not introduce non-standard terms like "decisive", "marginal" or "tactical", or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat".
Omit this parameter altogether rather than engage in speculation about which side won or by how much. Ayenaee (talk) 04:16, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree with you: Pyrrhic victory, as claimed by the sources, is not a standard outcome, hence leave it blank. But perhaps the problems have started earlier, from using infobox "military conflict" for this page. That was an attack mostly against civilians, i.e. one should use Template:Infobox civilian attack, just as for page September 11 attacks. My very best wishes (talk) 04:48, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
This is a WP:COMPETENCE issue, a Pyrrhic victory is akin to a defeat, the other source is a non RS right-wing think tank arguing that Israel should send ground forces as Hamas will consider their massacre a victory. Reverted Drsmoo (talk) 11:29, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Again the sources do not say this was a Pyrrhic victory. The sources say they think that this victory would prove to be pyrrhic. It is indeed a competence issue in being able to read the sources. I agree with that part. Reverting back. nableezy - 15:49, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
Two of the sources state that it will be a Pyrrhic victory. The third is unreadable without a subscription. There is a precedent for not using the victory/defeat paradigm for terror attacks and mass rape/murder campaigns. Drsmoo (talk) 18:11, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
To note, Wikipedia deeming it a terrorist attack means absolutely nothing for this discussion, since Wikipedia is an unreliable source. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 18:12, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

The sources here: Hamas’ stunning military success on October 7 will prove to be a pyrrhic victory (will prove to be is future tense for the people not able to comprehend the source); But this Hamas victory might prove Pyrrhic. might prove Pyrrhic is again a belief that future events will cause this victory to inflict much more damage, it is, once again, saying that this was a Hamas victory but that it may prove Pyrrhic. If you are unable to understand the sources you shouldnt be editing the page. nableezy - 15:54, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Further sourcing: Le Monde: The invasion, a military success, led to atrocities committed against civilians. ... After the military victory, the attack changed form. The carnage began. You can dislike that the sources call this a military victory for Hamas, but they do, and your dislike is immaterial. nableezy - 15:57, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

So, the militants "killed 859 Israeli civilians and at least 345 Israeli soldiers and policemen". They also took 250+ hostages. But at least some sources say it was a military victory, rather than merely a successful terrorist attack. OK. On the other hand, there are many other sources that claim it to be just a terrorist attack, which would require using a different "civilian conflict" template (see above). Given that, I think the field about the "victory" should remain blank. My very best wishes (talk) 17:51, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
Relevant here is the outcome of this RfC, i.e. there is currently a WP:Consensus that the 2023 Hamas attack on Israel should be regarded as a terrorist attack, rather than a military operation, as some people argued. My very best wishes (talk) 18:04, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

It isn’t relevant to this discussion as, per community consensus, Wikipedia is not a reliable source. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 18:13, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

I am talking about following WP:Consensus, not about using WP as a reference. My very best wishes (talk) 19:03, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Do you have any sources, any at all, that dispute that Hamas was victorious in this attack? Because there are now several reliable sources that say that they were. nableezy - 18:33, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

I am saying that we used wrong infobox here because it was a terrorist attack, rather than a military operation, as has been decided in the RfC linked above . Yes, that can be supported by many references that appear, for example in this diff . My very best wishes (talk) 19:03, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

That consensus was solely for the terrorist attack list, not related at all to this article. My point still applies that Wikipedia is not a reliable source. If Wikipedia’s community consensus deemed it a terrorist attack, that means absolutely nothing besides the terrorist attack list article, since, per a completely separate community consensus, Wikipedia isn’t reliable. Hope you can see that and understand that. You can’t use a Wikipedia consensus for a completely different article and WP:SYNTH that consensus into this article. In fact, all the references listed here (like TIME and The Atlantic) are more reliable than that Wikipedia consensus, per other Wikipedia consensus’, and TIME and The Atlantic say it was a military-related victory. In a weird SYNTH’ed argument using that consensus, I just provided two, reliable source saying it is military-related victory vs the unreliable source saying it was a terrorist attack. Already outnumbered 2-1 in that SYNTH argument. But again, it is not a valid argument in this article. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 19:15, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree that was a local consensus, but it is telling. Speaking about the terrorist attack, I do not have to repeat all sources (around 20) that have been already provided by another participant in response to you on another page. Here is the diff with all arguments and refs . My very best wishes (talk) 19:29, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Let’s do another RFC then Drsmoo (talk) 18:14, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I have no idea about the infobox used in the article, but your statement about the RfC is wrong.

See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1151245538

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1162376130 Parham wiki (talk) 19:32, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Comment. Speaking on the essence of this ... The "2023 Hamas attack on Israel" (described on this page) was a series of terrorist attacks, some of which are described on their own pages (e.g. Re'im music festival massacre) that use the "civilian ~~conflict~~ attack" Infobox. Same Infobox template should be used on this page. My very best wishes (talk) 19:42, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
Do you mean "civilian attack"? Parham wiki (talk) 19:47, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

This also included attacking military bases and capturing Israeli military personnel and assets. You all can pretend like there was no military aspect of this but the sources very clearly do think there is. nableezy - 20:43, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
I think the same. Parham wiki (talk) 20:48, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
September 11 attackers have targeted The Pentagon. It did not change the character of the attack - the page about September 11 still uses "Infobox civilian attack". Same with all sub-pages of this page. Moreover, the page about famous 1983 Beirut barracks bombings (a terrorist attack on military) also uses "Infobox civilian attack". My very best wishes (talk) 02:14, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
An attack on a military target is definitionally not terrorism, and that some other article uses a plainly bogus infobox doesn’t mean we should here. It went from claiming no there is no victory for Hamas and we should have it as an Israeli victory to now claiming we shouldn’t even use that infobox at all. The sources clearly consider there to be a military component to this attack, and given that it includes attacks on military posts that is very obviously true. But the sources here support a Hamas military victory for this attack. Not liking the sources is not now nor has it ever been a valid argument on Wikipedia. nableezy - 03:15, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
Oh no, the terrorist attacks on military bases, for example, are still regarded as terrorist attacks. I just gave you a couple of examples, the September 11 attacks on the Pentagon and 1983 Beirut barracks bombings. This is commonplace. See one of books on the subject, i.e. "Terrorist Threat To United States Military Bases" . A "military component" - yes, but it does not mean that Ein HaShlosha massacre, Re'im music festival massacre, Be'eri massacre (and so on, see Category:2023 Hamas attack on Israel), which are parts of this page, were not terrorist attacks. My very best wishes (talk) 04:04, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
Yes, this covers terror attacks as well as attacks on military targets, and includes the capture of soldiers and materiel. That the United States has the habit of claiming that any attack on it is terrorism (hey I know another place like that) isnt all that relevant. Regardless, I have provided now several sources saying that this had the result of a Hamas victory. Do you have any, literally any, source that disputes that? I really am not interested in personal views here, put up your sources and then we can discuss what the article should say. Right now, there are three solid sources for a Hamas victory. nableezy - 04:19, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
Is the Begin-Sadat center a reliable source now? If agenda-based think tanks are reliable sources it will fundamentally change this topic area. The only RS in that list to use victory or success is Le Monde. The others use Pyrrhic victory, which is the inverse of a typical victory. Drsmoo (talk) 11:40, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
That was not one of the sources I was referring to, no. The others do not use Pyrrhic victory, again I do not know why people are ignoring the sources. Saying might prove to be pyrrhic is not calling it pyrrhic. nableezy - 13:14, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Would you want to start an RFC? Drsmoo (talk) 08:50, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Many Isis massacres involved attacks on military bases in addition to the massacre, the same with Boko Haram. I haven’t seen any of them listed as a victory Drsmoo (talk) 09:48, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree with this. There is community consensus that this was a terrorist attack and the infobox should reflect this. Thmymerc (talk) 13:20, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
That isn’t true, there was community consensus to include this in list of terror attacks. There is no community consensus on not using this infobox here or including the well sourced bit on it being a Hamas victory. nableezy - 14:27, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
I wouldn’t consider multiple sources saying it might turn out to be a Pyrrhic victory to be well sourced. “The point of fighting the war is to get there. Even the most ferocious assault cannot alone lead to victory, and as Hamas will soon learn, the most ferocious assault can actually lead to defeat.” That is the main source being used to claim “victory”, which seems like a misrepresentation. I'm unable to read the Le Monde article due to the strict paywall. Drsmoo (talk) 10:07, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Yes, lead to defeat. And if it does, the article 2023 Israel–Hamas war will have in its infobox "Israeli victory". They are all saying Hamas "won the battle but it will lose the war". You can see the full text of Le Monde at an archive. nableezy - 18:14, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

The best analog are the articles we have on various Isis/Boko Haram massacres. Many of them involved attacks on soldiers as well.

For example: Camp Speicher massacre or Sinjar massacre or 2015 Baga massacre

None of these are understandably listed as victories, and one understandably does not see much support for calling October 7th a victory aside from the use of the term “pyrrhic victory” Drsmoo (talk) 09:32, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Another example My Lai massacre. Again, not classified as a "victory". Drsmoo (talk) 12:32, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
WP:OR. We have sources that say this. You are attempting to replace the sourced material with personal analysis. nableezy - 18:15, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
That’s interesting, I thought we were having a talk page discussion about improving the article. Drsmoo (talk) 18:23, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, and? We do that by bringing sources, not our personal views on what this should be compared to. nableezy - 18:28, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Reliable sources have compared the attack to Isis massacres. That’s why the discussion is being had. Drsmoo (talk) 19:14, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Reliable sources also state the military aspects of the attacks, which mean the military infobox is justified to be used. That basically negates sources saying it is a pure massacre. Heck, there are split-off articles like the Battle of Zikim related to military-base attacks and full on engagements between Hamas and Israel. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 19:18, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Reliable sources also state the military aspects of the attacks, which mean the military infobox is justified to be used.

The same is true for Isis and Boko Haram attacks, which involved military attacks as well, but are not called “victories”, even though their are RS that describe them as such. Drsmoo (talk) 19:46, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
That is a fault in those articles that has nothing to do with this one. I see no need to repeat the errors of other Wikipedia articles here. nableezy - 19:49, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Theyve also compared it Oct 6 1973. And the Tet Offensive. So what? nableezy - 19:20, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Only in the sense of the surprise, not the massacre itself. Ironically, The Yom Kippur War and Tet Offensive are classified as Israeli and American victories respectively. Drsmoo (talk) 19:39, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
This isnt the article on the war, thats over there, this one is closer to Operation Badr (1973). Trigger warning for those unable to fathom an Israeli defeat, the infobox says Egyptian victory. Again, this attack includes assaults on purely military targets and the capture of military personnel and materiel. You can keep pretending all we are discussing here is a massacre of civilians, but it is not. And sources treat this as including a military aspect that Hamas indeed won. You can dislike that all you want, but sources are what determine our article's content, not Drsmoo's personal analysis based on their feelings. nableezy - 19:48, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
The sources that describe the result as a likely Pyrrhic victory, or the sources that describe it as a terrorist attack? Drsmoo (talk) 20:28, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

They do not describe it as a likely pyrhhic victory, they say it is a victory that may prove pyrhhic. You can keep misrepresenting the sources here, I cant seem to stop you from doing that, but anybody reading should know that is a just not true. Ive read them, I cited them, and they support a Hamas victory. You have no sources, just personal opinion. Sorry, but that does not trump the sources. You are free to write a blog if youd like to share more of your personal feelings, but unless you have any sources disputing that this was a Hamas victory I see no reason to continue pandering to editors unwilling to abide by core Wikipedia policy like WP:V. nableezy - 21:24, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

“They do not describe it as a likely pyrhhic victory, they say it is a victory that may prove pyrhhic.”

https://time.com/6322825/war-in-gaza-israel-hamas-essay/ - “Hamas’ stunning military success on October 7 will prove to be a pyrrhic victory… Even the most ferocious assault cannot alone lead to victory, and as Hamas will soon learn, the most ferocious assault can actually lead to defeat. Drsmoo (talk) 03:40, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

You understand what the word will means right? You understand it says that it had a stunning military success right? And that it is saying that, future tense, that victory will turn pyrrhic. You understand that right? Because what you are underlining is saying the author believes what will happen, while also saying what has happened (that being a Hamas victory). nableezy - 01:13, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

To note, if one wanted to take an invalid WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument (i.e. the basic counter arguments right now), then I direct your attention to the Battle of Chancellorsville infobox, which marks the pyrrhic victory (even one on the list of pyrrhic victories in the pyrrhic victory article) as a Confederate victory. Despite being a pyrrhic victory, Wikipedia still called it a victory. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:07, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

WeatherWriter can you remove the begin-sadat center? That isnt a reliable source and either way it does not support the material. nableezy - 16:45, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Done. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:46, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

@Dovidroth: – Please participate in this discussion before editing more on Wikipedia, as you removed the text being disputed without participating in this discussion whatsoever. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 07:44, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Ive started an RFC below. nableezy - 17:36, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Any hostages taken during this attack later found or confirmed dead should be counted as part of the death toll

As them being taken hostage occured during the attack and it's proximate cause 2604:3D09:1F80:CA00:CCFD:3EF8:F3E8:2CE (talk) 19:30, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 1 December 2023

This edit request to 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In the infobox result section, there is a disputed in-line. Please add “#Result RFC” after “talk=talk:2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel”. It should read: “talk=talk:2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel#Result RFC”. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 17:55, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Done * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:53, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

P.A. Response

Although Abbas didn't condemn Hamas directly, he condemned violence against civilians on both sides. It would be worth including in the Palestinian Authority section. Personisinsterest (talk) 02:21, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Military causualties

according to a list published by Israeli state X-account about 700 soldiers and officers where among the killed.

Google -israeli X-account list of dead- and it's easy to find.

Shouldn't that be included since it is from an official Israeli source? 2A02:AA1:1621:DBC0:E8AE:B7FF:FE0E:FAA4 (talk) 20:52, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

That's not true, there were much fewer soldiers, see here 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. Alaexis_¿question? 22:05, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

https://archive.is/a11s2 has unrestricted access to the Haaretz article (and a link to a related article). Mcljlm (talk) 05:36, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Injured

Why dont you write the number of injured? Only in hebrew? Is it an agenda to hide the numbers? 5.28.185.160 (talk) 06:16, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Source? Parham wiki (talk) 15:49, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

militant group

Hamas and the Islamic Jihad are TERROR GROUPS not militants. 93.173.86.214 (talk) 09:41, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Not recognised as terror group by UN and many other countries. Only by some western countries.

~সাজিদ (আলাপ) 17:12, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Hamas is recodnised as a terrorist organization by almost all non Islamic countries. It's pretty clear that they aren't angels. AstroSaturn (talk) 15:52, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

no, not by almost all non-islamic countries.

they are not designated by Japan, Russia, Norway, Switzerland, China, Brazil, South Africa etc.

Also, many countries like New-Zealand have only declared military wing of Hamas (Al-Qassam brigades) as terrorist not the political wing. Sam6897 (talk) 01:23, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

More that half of the countries here recodnise hamas as a terrorist organization. Also, it really dosen't matter which countries do. It's all a matter of politics. FACTS say that Hamas is a terrorist organization. AstroSaturn (talk) 15:10, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

If we’re using the definition of the word then it’s only fair we also consider the IDF a terrorist organisation The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 13:35, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

By that logic every standing army in the history of the human kind was/is a terrorist organization. AstroSaturn (talk) 21:19, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Which is why it’s illogical to selectively apply the word “terrorist” on a group and not on another group that does tenfold. Israel labels any Palestinian they kill a “terrorist”, it doesn’t mean they are The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 02:35, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

That what ur saying is a typical Anti-Israel comeback. Defending a obv terrorist group won't make it true. And I don't have to mention that every single "Palestinian" attack was against civilians. History and facts show us clearly who the terrorists are. AstroSaturn (talk) 15:26, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 3 December 2023

This edit request to 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:00, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Reports of atrocities

A new report by Haaretz found no evidence to substantiate some of the most iconic horror stories from the day, including: 40 decapitated babies. Link is below:

https://www.haaretz.co.il/news/politics/2023-12-03/ty-article-magazine/.premium/0000018c-2036-d21c-abae-76be08fe0000?utm_source=App_Share&utm_medium=Android_Native&utm_campaign=Share

It would be useful if whoever posted the above added his/her signature.

The article's original URL, without additions: https://www.haaretz.co.il/news/politics/2023-12-03/ty-article-magazine/.premium/0000018c-2036-d21c-abae-76be08fe0000 and archived - unrestricted access - version of the article. Mcljlm (talk) 16:21, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Kindly google translate the new investigative report and add info here in Reports of atrocities sections Sam6897 (talk) 12:21, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Reset protection level

The article page protection level should be reset to extended confirmed protection. It currently has pending changes only because full protection has expired. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 14:30, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Change Shin-Bet logo

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/5/5f/Israel_Security_Agency.svg/280px-Israel_Security_Agency.svg.png Meathook3 (talk) 11:36, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

I support this edit. OrF8 (talk) 14:59, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Casualty number on Palestinian side

The listing of 15,000+ civilian casualties is attributed to an Al Jazeera article that counts the death toll from Oct 7 through Dec 3. As this page is specifically about the October 7-9 attack, that number should not be used. Yoweiner (talk) 20:02, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

correct, fixing. nableezy - 20:03, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Missing category: "Hamass terrorist massacres"

I have opened the discussion here: List of massacres in Israel: "7 Oct 2023: one single MASSACRE", but it can be moved over to this talk-page if you prefer.

In short: there is plenty of encyclopedic rationale for presenting the as yet missing category of "Hamas terrorist massacres" as one item:

intentionality
unitary, generalised character
scale
significance (ideology, wider repercussions)
accordance with legal definitions.

Do the right thing. Arminden (talk) 15:17, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

WP:RGW. Such a category would be a pretty blatant violation of WP:CATPOV. I get you feel strongly about this, but our feelings are not supposed to be a deciding factor in our content decisions. nableezy - 15:48, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

No, arguing that acts such as sexual violence against women, burning babies, and other atrocities are justified forms of resistance to occupation would be expressing a subjective viewpoint. 213.195.102.109 (talk) 23:00, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

who argued that? nableezy - 23:15, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Right, I would not oppose the introduction of the category "Hamas terrorist massacres" 213.195.102.109 (talk) 06:03, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

You don’t get a vote on that sorry. nableezy - 12:26, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel

Hamas is a terrorist group not militant group

Defining this attack as anything but a terrorist attacks puts Wikipedia in a biased light, as similar attacks in the west were described as terrorist attacks. Al Qaeda were defined as terrorist. This puts Wikipedia at risk of looking biased and antisemitic. 85.250.114.222 (talk) 05:49, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia only consider those groups terrorists that are designated by United nation's security council. Sam6897 (talk) 10:01, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

82 countries consider them a terrorist organization. And the UN is in bed with Hamas. 47.208.150.227 (talk) 03:43, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

100+ countries do not consider them a terrorists group, most importantly United Nations does not. Sam6897 (talk) 21:29, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

@Sam6897: It is not true. See al-Qaeda, MOS:TERRORIST and Osama bin Laden Parham wiki (talk) 19:37, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Al-Qaeda is designated by United Nation's Security council while Hamas is not so there is clearly a difference.

Hamas delegation even visited Russia, a UN security council member nation officially recently.

https://www.reuters.com/world/hamas-delegation-is-visiting-moscow-russian-foreign-ministry-2023-10-26/ Sam6897 (talk) 21:28, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

@Sam6897, You misunderstood what I meant, just like Hamas, Al-Qaeda is not identified as a terrorist organization by Wikipedia! Parham wiki (talk) 21:53, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Can you link this policy from Wikipedia? It seems strange as the UN security council obviously represents a fairly small group of countries with fairly large biases rooted in their geopolitical interests. Noamthinks (talk) 15:00, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

85.250.114.222, the current reliable sources we have on Hamas do not really say it is a terrorist organization. Wikipedia is supposed to be written from a neutral and unbiased point of view, no matter what your opinions on Israel and Palestine may be. If we called Hamas terrorists, the article would be biased. — Davest3r08 >:) ^(talk) 16:50, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I agree.

Hamas/Taliban case is different than Al-Qaeda/ISIS who are designated by United Nations. Sam6897 (talk) 21:31, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Ok.

But what about the "militants" that stormed into Osrael and performed atrocious acts on civilians? Shouldn't they be called terrorists? I think that they should! OrF8 (talk) 14:58, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, and our task as contributors is to offer due weight to reliable sources. Personal logic, deductions, opinions, and beliefs are not appropriate justification for edits. Ertal72 (talk) 05:37, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

OK. So what is sufficient information in order to call them terrorists? OrF8 (talk) 10:47, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Another contributor linked this above, but there's a brief guide for contentious labels here. A significant number of important sources describe the October 7th attack as an act of terrorism, which is mentioned in the lede. A significant number of important sources do not, also mentioned. The status of Hamas as a terrorist organization may have more weight in the lede if there was a major consensus among reliable sources.

The article presents facts supported by reliable sources. Readers can decide how they feel these actions represent the organization. Ertal72 (talk) 18:21, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Not calling hamas a terror organization after the Oct 7 massacare is just shameful. Shame on you. 85.130.187.166 (talk) 19:01, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

At the very least, Wikipedia should be able to label the attacks and massacres on October 7th as terrorist attacks instead of as "a series of coordinated armed incursions", as it currently does in the leading sentence of the article, even if for reasons of neutrality, Hamas can't be labeled as a terrorist group, it seems clear that the actions it took on October 7 were certainly acts of terror.

As it stands, the first line of the article seems severely biased to minimize the near genocidal nature of the actions taken on October 7, in which Hamas members indiscriminately killed and kidnapped every person they could. Typically, military incursions do not include the kidnapping of babies and massacres at music festivals.

I argue that it is important that the first line be changed to "a series of terrrorist attacks". Noamthinks (talk) 15:16, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Logic and deduction are not suitable reasoning for edits, nor can we seek to WP:RGW. Wikipedia compiles information from reliable sources. There is no current consensus from these sources on whether this was an act of terrorism, so this is not a feasible addition. Ertal72 (talk) 04:55, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Further revised figures

Too long

Deaths caused by friendly fire

There are several sources indicating that a significant number of Israelis were killed by friendly fire on October 7–9:

One-fifth of troop fatalities in Gaza due to friendly fire or accidents, IDF reports, Ynetnews.com: Quote (my emphasis): Casualties fell as a result of friendly fire on October 7, but the IDF believes that beyond the operational investigations of the events, it would not be morally sound to investigate these incidents due to the immense and complex quantity of them that took place in the kibbutzim and southern Israeli communities due to the challenging situations the soldiers were in at the time.
If Israel Used a Controversial Procedure Against Its Citizens, We Need to Talk About It Now, Haaretz: According to a report on Channel 12 News over the weekend about the Be'eri hostage situation, after several hours of firefights between Israeli troops and Hamas terrorists, which saw the use of light anti-tank weapons, a terrorist exited the building with hostage Yasmin Porat and released her. She said she was then questioned by Police Special Anti-Terror and told them that there were about 40 terrorists and 14 civilian hostages in the house. Eventually, Brig. Gen. Barak Hiram arrived to take command of the area. When one of the soldiers remarked about the fighting, "Barak, it's a disgrace," he replied, "I know." Afterward, a tank positioned near the house fired two shells – one at the ground, the other at the roof. Of the 14 hostages still inside, two of them children, only Hadas Dagan survived. Porat's first public account of the incident appeared two days later and was later verified by Dagan.
Jonathan Cook: Israel-Palestine war: Why is the media ignoring evidence of Israel’s own actions on 7 October?, Middle East Eye: Unknown to most western audiences, there has been a steady trickle of evidence from Israeli sources over the past two months implicating Israel’s own military in at least some of the killings attributed to Hamas.

We should add a mention of this. Regards, --Andreas JN 466 16:12, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

@Jayen466: can you propose wording to add to the article? VR _talk 02:36, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Beheadings, burned bodies, music festival

Great detail is put into this article based on initial accounts and fabrications that have since been proved false or at least been unverified. 12/04/23 the Israeli newspaper of note, Haaretz, published a story detailing how the “40 babies beheaded” claim has been completely unverified, the burnt bodies were from Israeli army strikes, not Hamas immolations, and several survivors and Israeli officials and journalists have also claimed many music festival attendees were mistakenly killed by Israeli military helicopters, while many kibbutz members also were killed by Israeli tanks and gunfire 100.34.210.178 (talk) 03:35, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Lots of claims, but not a lot of sourcing.... What's your proof? Noamthinks (talk) 15:04, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Haaretz list of untrue stories, some still in this article

Another story published in Haaretz yesterday:

Hamas Committed Documented Atrocities. But a Few False Stories Feed the Deniers

This concerns a number of points in the present article, in particular:

The number of babies and children killed. According to Haaretz, who cite "Israel's National Insurance Institute, kibbutz leaders and the police, on October 7 one baby was murdered, 10-month-old Mila Cohen. She was killed with her father, Ohad, on Kibbutz Be'eri." (Mila Cohen was shot.)
- We are still quoting the "40 babies" story, without comment.
Haaretz on groups of children being burnt: "There is no evidence that children from several families were murdered together, rendering inaccurate Netanyahu’s remark to U.S. President Joe Biden that Hamas terrorists “took dozens of children, tied them up, burned them and executed them.”"
- We are still saying "Groups of children were reportedly found tied up and burned alive."

I suggest we go through the Haaretz report with a fine-toothed comb and weed out or add comments to the relevant content. --Andreas JN 466 08:45, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

I added a bit, but didnt remove the earlier reporting. Welcome to do that. nableezy - 18:46, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Also relevant is the denial of atrocities section, which largely focuses on the since proven to be bullshit claim of 40 beheaded babies. That isnt "denialism", that is accuracy. nableezy - 18:49, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

@Nableezy While Haaretz doesn't name Yossi Landau, it seems clear to me that he is the Zaka volunteer the article makes repeated references to. Haaretz includes an embedded video to illustrate their article. This has Landau speaking about the pregnant woman who had her belly cut open – the account which according to Haaretz was one of several false reports made by "the same Zaka member".

Some weeks ago, Antony Blinken told the U.S. Senate in moving terms of an Israeli family having been tortured and killed. A Business Insider article says that Blinken's description echoed an account by Landau. The article has an embedded video of Landau describing the scene. It is clearly from the same press conference: Andreas JN 466 12:40, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Also, if the assertions in the Haaretz article are correct, then the photo of the burned baby circulated by Israeli officials showed something other than what was claimed. Andreas JN 466 12:46, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

yeah i think we need to go through the earlier material and the bits on denialism to make clear some of this has proven to be false or just remove it entirely from the narrative and only discuss it as false allegations spread early on. nableezy - 17:18, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

well somebody keeps adding the same bogus discredited stuff back in as though denying what didnt happen is "denial". Worth taking a hatchet to that section imo. nableezy - 02:45, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

I removed everything recently added to the denials section because it was all added by a single editor who gamed the ECP restrictions - see here. While most of that was without prejudice, I should point out that some things (the ones cited to a radio channel via YouTube) were obviously BLP sensitive and cited solely to primary sources - I feel that that sort of "quote-mining" in primary sources for quotes that could potentially cast the speaker in a negative light is a BLP violation, so those definitely shouldn't be restored without a secondary source. Also, I left the Haaretz article because it was added by someone else, but it could possibly be moved to another section (ie. the one about the beheadings.) Haaretz is a RS and it's not really reasonable to refer to what they publish as denial, just as coverage.--Aquillion (talk) 08:45, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
I added Haaretz because it showed the forty babies thing to be untrue while we kept including people denying what isn’t true as so called denial. nableezy - 10:39, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

@Iskandar323 Could you substantiate the removal of the immolation section? Drsmoo (talk) 17:21, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Aside from being WP:ECREE and needing better sourcing than whatever the "media line" is, what the edit summary said - it consisted largely of strung together exceptional claims, many of which have now been partially or wholly debunked as disinformation, without any critical assessment of the same. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:51, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Ok, you said it was “established misinformation”, but no site has called it misinformation. Haaretz called some things misinformation, but not this. The Haaretz article says Hamas committed documented atrocities, of which this is one. As far as I’ve seen, no one has said it didn’t happen.Drsmoo (talk) 23:10, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

“consisted largely of strung together exceptional claims, many of which have now been partially or wholly debunked as disinformation”

Please provide examples Drsmoo (talk) 23:19, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

How about we establish what, if anything, is due based on what's mentioned in multiple reliable sources and not contradicted by the later analysis separating fact from fiction? Iskandar323 (talk) 16:26, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Please explain where the descriptions of immolations you removed were described as misinformation, per your edit summary. Drsmoo (talk) 17:37, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

I’ve restored the section with additional sources Drsmoo (talk) 17:59, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Denial by Hamas

Minor suggestion re: "Hamas led"

Mefalsim and Sderot videos

This article has videos of Hamas killing Israelis in Mefalsim and Sderot. The caption states that the victims were "civilians." Has this been substantiated by a WP:RS source? It is theoretically possible (although admittedly unlikely) that the victims were military. JDiala (talk) 19:31, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

That is speculation. All the victims in the attack were civilians that is what RS have written. Do you have any RS to the contrary? Andre🚐 19:46, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

RS state that a mixture of soldiers and civilians died in the attack. What is speculation is the assertion that those particular victims (in videos) were civilians, when we have no basis to conclude that. JDiala (talk) 00:25, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

There aren't just armed soldiers milling around in kibbuztim. Andre🚐 00:26, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

That's WP:OR and speculation. JDiala (talk) 08:44, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

You're the one speculating. Show me one source that says one of the victims in the kibbutzim were military. per Reuters, he kibbutz, by contrast, is a largely secular, left-wing community, established in 1946 with the ideal of creating a collective, egalitarian farming community.... Nirit had been lying there for two hours when she heard soldiers speaking Hebrew. It was around 4 p.m. “I’m a civilian,” she yelled.... . AP A grisly montage of video and photographs of Hamas’s massacre of hundreds of civilians across southern Israel last week highlights the savagery of the attack and the ease with which the militant group appeared to operate inside Israel. The footage that the Israeli military showed foreign correspondents Monday included a photo of a burnt baby. It showed gunmen shooting the dead bodies of civilians in cars, Andre🚐 08:46, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm not speculating. I am merely asserting that we do not know, and therefore we should avoid using terminology which indicates that we do know. We can reliably assert that the majority of Israelis killed in the Kibbutzim were civilians, but not make such assertions for individual cases, as in the video of the man being shot. No reliable source asserts that every Israeli who died in the Kibbutzim was a civilian. There is evidence that some of those who died in these Kibbutzim were soldiers serving in "security squads" for the Kibbutz see e.g., this. Therefore, it would be more accurate to use a neutral word like "Israeli", which does not make assumptions. JDiala (talk) 02:55, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Are the videos really necessary?

RfC of interest

FRINGE content reinstated without consensus

An editor has reinstated UNDUE and FRINGE ruminations of conspiracy theorist Piers Corbyn after I challenged it by reversion. @Salmoonlight: please undo your reinstatement of that content and make your case here for inclusion, if believe there is any policy-based case to be made. Per WP:ONUS WP:FRINGE and WP:NPOV, this content should not remain in the article until any such consensus is achieved. SPECIFICO talk 16:14, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Why you wouldn't want this content to be included is odd to me, since it includes an anti-Israeli viewpoint only espoused by a conspiracy theorist. It clearly presents his views as abnormal (at least to pro-Israelis) and is not to be taken seriously. Salmoonlight (talk) 16:23, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

It violates our policies and guidelines with respect to WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE to feature such content prominently in this short section. Please remove it while this discussion determines whether it is to be in the article. SPECIFICO talk 17:13, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

If you are referring to this edit there is no question it is a fringe theory and has no place in the article. Coretheapple (talk) 18:42, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Oops. Forgot the link. reinstated here. SPECIFICO talk 18:47, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

He's not a public figure, it's the brother of a former Labour party leader. It does nothing good for the article, exclude. Andre🚐 19:30, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

WP:ONEWAY: Mention the shape of the Earth in articles about flat-earthers, but do not mention flat-earthers in articles about the Earth. Do not unnecessarily give the crackpots a megaphone. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:06, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

This ^ Andre🚐 20:10, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

There are an awfully large number of separate articles/forks and so on stemming from the Gaza conflict. I imagine there may be justification for Conspiracy theories surrounding the 2023 Israel-Hamas war if it does not already exist in some form Then Corbyn's and other fringe theories can be explored there. If there is no such article, then not. Coretheapple (talk) 20:15, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Good idea, but can I request that we allow requisite time and space to see which conspiracy theories will stand the test of time and which are flashes in the pan? Andre🚐 20:17, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, my concern is that if we tried to make it now, it would be flooded with random quotes like these, often with only a single source highlighting them (or none at all.) "List of dumb shit people said according to a single source" doesn't seem article-worthy. And previous versions of this section had more serious BLP issues in that they relied on WP:PRIMARY sources (though I'm not even happy with this version in that regard.) --Aquillion (talk) 20:18, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Andrevan: Agreed , certainly not at this time. Coretheapple (talk) 20:52, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Chiming in in agreement; WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. Mathglot (talk) 08:11, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Including it in order to portray him as a conspiracy theorist is even worse. Pier Corbyn isn't a WP:PUBLICFIGURE; and even if he were, things like that are supposed to rely on a multitude of reliable published sources, whereas you're relying solely on the Jerusalem post. We should have more than just that to imply that someone is a conspiracy theorist. For a non-public figure, we're supposed to include only material relevant to the person's notability; this is not what makes Pier Corbyn notable. A random aside essentially saying "hey this person is nutto, eh, eh, eh?" requires more than just one source that takes that perspective. --Aquillion (talk) 20:18, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

I added Piers Corbyn's words a while ago together with Hamas denials. As I wrote in the summary I'm fine with removing them. Alaexis_¿question? 20:11, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Given that, I think we have a very clear consensus to exclude this material. CCC of course, but I hope we can let this rest. Anyone objects, please speak now. Andre🚐 20:13, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE applies to the Hamas denials too. If we can find sources directly refuting those denials, they should be added. --Hob Gadling (talk) 21:42, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

This discussion was basically over before I saw the notification for it. The views of Piers Corbyn are almost never going to be due, he's a conspiracy theorist who claims to e able to predict earthquakes. He is to put it mildly a crank who is best ignored. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:24, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
There is absolutely no justification to include any of Piers Corbyn's fringe views and conspiracy theories here (or in any other article, for that mater). @ActivelyDisinterested: He actually claims to be able to predict earthquakes? Heck, I've missed that "piece of wisdom" somehow... — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 09:23, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Hamas victory?

TNYT article

Early reports

Bogus claims of "significant friendly fire casualties" on Israel's part during the October 7th massacre.

Hamas casualties and losses

I doubt exactly 1000 militants were killed and 200 captured. Enough time has passed since then to come up with accurate and verified figures. Has there been any such updated figures? NadVolum (talk) 10:48, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

That will require someone find a better source, but at the very least, even the current sources don't say that those are precise figures, so I've tweaked the wording to make that clear. --Aquillion (talk) 22:23, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I would currently rate this as unknowable. If we try to communicate it we should give more than one figure or a very strongly worded "one side says".

Last I heard the IDF claims 8000, which is nearly every adult male killed in Gaza. It is implausible all the Vivian's

Hamas et al. release combat martyr obituaries which add up to about the same as the IDF's 150, I've not counted, but it's dozens power group, maybe hundreds, not thousands. But I don't run they've released any totals? And if they did, I'd trust them just as little as the IDF's.

I could try counting combat martyr obituaries? But that's probably too "original research"? And almost certainly a fairly meaningless massive under count.

But it's not implausible that both sides have comparable numbers of military deaths? Not likely but implausible?

Irtapil (talk) 10:54, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

@NadVolum and Aquillion:

A crude proxy for military vs civilian is % adult male / adult female / children. We can know that much more confidently and it means we can show equivalent data for both sides, that is good for balance?

Someone was saying Euro Med has it? But it duasagreed with Gaza?

And / or if we find a not too disreputable source who is counting combat Martyr obituaries? There might be someone doing this, if we are lucky maybe a moderately reputable academic. Is juxtaposition of the vastly conflicting claims too "synth"? I'm not sure if I understand that conscript really.

Irtapil (talk) 11:06, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I meant for the Hamas attack in Israel this article is about, not overall. That was three months ago and they should know the figures for that as the dead militia wouldn't have got back to Gaza and they Israelis should know how many they captured! That 8000 was just some Israeli made up figure about ones killed in the war in Gaza and I'm pretty certain has no relation to reality. NadVolum (talk) 14:25, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Related RFC - Redirect location for Operation Al-Aqsa Flood

Operation Operation al-Aqsa Flood’s redirect

There is a disagreement between editors on whether Operation al-Aqsa Flood should redirect to this article or 2023 Israel–Hamas war.

Redirect to 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel — For historical accuracy + consistency in Wikipedia as the article was previously named “Operation al-Aqsa Flood” until a move discussion involving 71 editors moved it to “2023 Hamas attack on Israel”: Talk:2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel/Archive 2#Requested move 12 October 2023. The disagreement reasoning was based on a single talk page comment in November 2023, which had 0 replies. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:54, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Just move it back - the RM provides clear consensus for the prior redirect target that one talk page comment doesn't alter. Iskandar323 (talk) 01:02, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

@Iskandar323

What is RM?

Irtapil (talk) 20:46, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Probably WP:RM. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:37, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I think it should definitely redirect to here - Operation al-Aqsa Flood is clearly an alternative name for the initial attack and not the entire ensuing war. --Aquillion (talk) 22:27, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- I have seen Hamas videos from the past month with the Arabic name for Al-Aqsa Flood, but nothing in English sources which is what we should use for the name at English Wikipedia. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 18:11, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
  @Vox Sciurorum
  
  I think I've seen it used frequently in English. Mostly by sources we'd consider too biased to link. At the risk of sounding patronising, have you tried googling it? I might be over estimating the frequency in English from having seen it in a lot of machine translated stuff.
  
  I think I tried it on google trends for the renaming the war debate on the 2023 Israel-Hamas war talk page. It was much less frequent than anything else being discused, but it regisered on the same scale, and only English speakers would search using the translation of "flood". I suspect it might beat "operation swords of iron", but I didn't compare that.
  
  I've also seen a couple of transliterations frequently Toofan Al-Aqsa and Tufan Al-Aqsa but I'm less confident about those being English. I think I've only seen those two on social media, and the ambiguity in language is that it was things where there were a lot of short comments in a variety of languages. I think they were more Urdu or Turkish or Malay.
  
  Irtapil (talk) 19:29, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
  - I saw it a lot at the start of the war, but not in English recently. I just searched Al Jazeera, which is more likely than the average news source to write from the Palestinian point of view, and they aren't calling the ongoing fighting Al-Aqsa Flood. Of course it could still be out there in places I don't look. Anadolu Agency uses Aksa Tufanı which is a straightforward translation of the Arabic into Turkish. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 21:23, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
    @Vox Sciurorum
    
    Is 14 hours ago recent enough for you? "Breaking news and analysis on day 89 of Gaza's Al-Aqsa Flood" is the title of today's podcast from The Electronic Intifada on YouTube. It stemmed just 14 hours ago and already has 36K views, so it's certainly not obscure. I'm not linking it, because I have no idea what that episode contains, but it's fairly likely to be controversial. I just did a search for Al Aqsa Flood narrowed to the past week.
    
    Al Jazeera English tends to play to a fairly broad moderate audience. It aims to appeal to the world's average well educated English speaker. Someone who has "World News" as one of their podcast categories.
    
    The term Al-Aqsa flood is only really used by the sorts of sources that aren't aiming for a broad audience, I really don't know how to describe it in a way that's not terribly offensive to them or their opponents or both.
    
    Irtapil (talk) 08:21, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
    
    @Vox Sciurorum
    
    Actually maybe I misunderstood?
    
    I thought you wanted to scrap the link comletely?
    
    But if you mean it shouldn't direct to the whole war then I agree, it's a distinctly one-sided term like Operation Swords of Iron (or Israel-Hamas War, but that's another story).
    
    And the current usage in English is mostly just Al-Aqsa Flood, the more formal Operation Al-Aqsa Flood tends to be about the planning.
    
    And Al-Aqsa Fllood tends to refer to the actions of just one side, not the whole war. I don't think they'd say an Israeli airstrike was "part of Al-Aqsa Fllood" - they'd only use it to refer to the retaliation. They tend to use it to describe the actions of only their own side or their allies.
    
    I my defence, I listen to a very broad range of stuff (it's been too upsetting to listen to my former favourite Israeli news podcast for most of the last 3 months, but I still read the Israeli newspapers a bit). I'm that guy with a big "world news" section in my podcasts.
    
    Irtapil (talk) 10:44, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
@Aquillion

I would describe the usage as being for the Hamas et al. side of the war. Kind of the mirror image to Operation Swords of Iron .

This is probably the most logical place for it to direct, if they wanted the whole war they can really find it from here.

Irtapil (talk) 08:50, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

@WeatherWriter

Why wouldn't it redirect here? What is the alternative?

That name is used very commonly (in biased or informal sources, but commonly), and i can't think of a better place for it to redirect?

Irtapil (talk) 19:14, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

@Irtapil: It seems my thinking aligns with most other editors. I had changed the redirect to be back to this article on Dec 28th. However, on Jan 1, it was changed back to redirect to the 2023 Israel–Hamas war. That was why this discussion was opened to see what the community thought. And from the look of it, it seems the majority think it should redirect to this article and no the overall war article. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 19:18, 3 January 2024 (UTC)