www.fgks.org   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Talk:2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Nableezy (talk | contribs) at 19:49, 28 November 2023 (→‎"Hamas and allies victory": Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Requested move 20 November 2023

2023 Hamas attack on Israel → 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel – This current title of this page is a potential misnomer and needs an adjustment both for WP:PRECISION and WP:ACCURACY. The attack involved, at the current count, five groups, led by Hamas; the current title could be interpreted as pertaining solely to Hamas. This RM is, first and foremost, a matter of WP:COMMONSENSE, since the infobox on the page clearly lists five involved groups. From an WP:NCE perspective, it is more accurately descriptive, and it follows a road already travelled by pages such as US-led intervention in Iraq (2014–2021). In terms of sourcing, this more precise language is used by numerous WP:RSP, including the NYT, NPR, ABC, VOA, Al Jazeera and Washington Post, as well as the Times of Israel and HRW. Since this is a descriptively titled page, and "Hamas-led attack" is clearly supported, and more precise (where "Hamas attack" lends only ambiguity), it is the better option and would eliminate the current grey area with more precise, unambiguous terminology straight from the WP:RSP. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:46, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Your arguments were convincing. Parham wiki (talk) 11:34, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - For the sake of accuracy and precision. Looks to be used in enough sources that those two can be prioritized, even if later in the discussion it's proven to be less common. estar8806 (talk) ★ 18:43, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support as it accurately broadens the scope of the participants. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 19:20, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support, as what you say makes good sense, but it will be an interesting case of our title being better than what most of the "reliable sources" say. And what are the implications for "2023 Israel–Hamas war"? Moonraker (talk) 19:51, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For that one, I think it is best kept at Israel-Hamas, at least for now, as that's what sources seem to overwhelmingly use. In our case here, Hamas-led attack does feature in RS. Moazfargal (talk) 22:05, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Hamas-led attack is more accurate, and is used by a number of sources as demonstrated above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moazfargal (talk • contribs) 22:03, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - As per above BlackOrchidd (talk) 06:47, 21 November 2023 (UTC) Struck per WP:ARBECR and WP:PIA. — mw (talk) (contribs) 17:44, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This should be renamed 'Operation Al Aqsa Flood' in line with the sites naming policies. It was a military attack which primarily targeted military bases as we now know, calling it otherwise violates the rules of wikipedia https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2023/10/7/from-hubris-to-humiliation-the-10-hours-that-shocked-israel Odin818 (talk) 09:30, 21 November 2023 (UTC) Struck per WP:ARBECR and WP:PIA. — mw (talk) (contribs) 17:44, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I mention below, Al-Aqsa Flood seems to be the name Hamas uses for this entire war, not just the October 7 attack. Here is an address by the spokesman of the Hamas armed wing from a yesterday, in which he talks about "Day 45 of the Battle of Al-Aqsa Flood." Also, footage released by the Hamas armed wing of the fighting, even that in recent days, has "Battle of Al-Aqsa Flood" on it. Moazfargal (talk) 09:32, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And why would wikipedia want to call it what Hamas is calling it rather than what the wider range of free press is calling it? מאכן ארדענונג (talk) 18:20, 22 November 2023 (UTC) Struck per WP:ARBECR and WP:PIA. — mw (talk) (contribs) 17:44, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I never said that. Moazfargal (talk) 18:22, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This is indeed more accurate. פעמי-עליון (talk) 14:36, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - this is more accurate. Tomclarke (talk) Tomclarke (talk) 07:32, 22 November 2023 (UTC) Struck per WP:ARBECR and WP:PIA. — mw (talk) (contribs) 17:44, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:COMMON NAME. Google search retrieves 9 million hits for "Hamas attack on Israel" versus ~6 thousand hits for "Hamas-led attack on Israel". Yes, several groups took part in this attack, but the common name of the event is "Hamas attack". The comparison with "US-led intervention in Iraq" is irrelevant. Yes, it was a US-led [coalition of countries] intervention in Iraq. That was something very different. My very best wishes (talk) 17:22, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The comparison with "US-led intervention in Iraq" is irrelevant. Yes, it was a US-led [coalition of countries] intervention in Iraq. That was something very different.
    How is it different? Both are coalitions led by a member.
    Also, WP:COMMON NAME says the following: Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources. Moazfargal (talk) 21:00, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am happy we agree that "Hamas attack" is the most common name. The difference is that "US-led coalition [of countries]" is a common name, but "Hamas-led" is not. My very best wishes (talk) 20:02, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Even if "Hamas attack" is more common, "Hamas-led attack" is not uncommon, and you're ignoring the part of COMMONNAME that say that accuracy takes precedence over commonality. —M3ATH (Moazfargal · Talk) 20:05, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Number of hits listed with a Google search is not reliable. Those numbers are essentially meaningless. Results from Ngrams, Google Scholar, and Google Books are reliable, but not Google search hits. For example, I just googled the following: "russian teachers" prescriptivism
It said 457 results, but I scrolled to the bottom and counted every result; there were only 116. Anyway, the point is, this isn't a valid argument for commonness. Dylanvt (talk) 00:51, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Would “Hamas-led raid on Israel” be a better title in your opinion? The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 11:31, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, because it was not planned as a raid. The Hamas forces tried to keep the taken territory/villages, and it took an effort by IDF to free them. My very best wishes (talk) 19:52, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's just nonsense. Pockets of fighters just ended up holed up with hostages in various areas when they got pinned down by helicopter fire. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:49, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to October 7 attack . The current name 2023 Hamas attack on Israel is a commonly used name, but the article should be renamed to October 7 attack which has solidified as the most commonly used of the attack. Marokwitz (talk) 06:11, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If that's the case then it should be possible to evidence the solidification of the usage of that name. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:39, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This was an invasion which included many attacks/massacres. Hamas-led invasion of Israel would be a better title. X2023X (talk) 13:03, 26 November 2023 (UTC) Struck per WP:ARBECR and WP:PIA. — mw (talk) (contribs) 17:44, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

POV

"Hamas meticulously planned for a massacre of Israeli civilians with the goal of provoking Israel to invade Gaza."

Huh? this is someones opinion not a fact. And Hamas has; from before, during, and after the october 7 attacks denied any intention of attacking civilians. Please do not include IDF propaganda in an article which is supposed to be unbiased!!! 100.15.174.53 (talk) 12:19, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the victims were in kibbutzim & at a music festival; they were obviously civilians. X2023X (talk) 23:03, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The vast majority of Israeli citizens over the age of 18 serve in the IDF. This would make the majority of recorded “civilian” victims, in fact, military victims. 74.71.68.81 (talk) 23:33, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The large majority of the victims weren't in the military at the time. Having previously been, or able to be in the future, didn't make them combatants. Many countries have conscription. X2023X (talk) 13:03, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Many of the victims were elderly men and women well past military age, if they'd ever been in the army; others were young children. Mcljlm (talk) 19:12, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely agree. This article reads like an IDF propaganda article! It even cites sources which have been verified to blindly publish IDF propaganda as objective reports! 2A01:CB09:D02F:F894:0:2A:AB74:9001 (talk) 13:47, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"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 terrorists in israel killed. So no, it's not a hamas victory at all. AstroSaturn (talk) 20:42, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Can you list a source for that? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:18, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
AstroSaturn (talk) 10:16, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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"[1] and Encyclopædia Britannica online as "a success that brings such significant harm to the victor that it differs little from defeat".[2] 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Saying might prove Pyrrhic suggests it's not necessarily a victory. Mcljlm (talk) 01:59, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
A Pyrrhic victory is equivalent to defeat. IE, winning a battle but losing the war. Drsmoo (talk) 11:37, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    No they do not. nableezy - 15:48, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Ive added Le Monde calling it a military success. That should settle that bit of misdirection too. nableezy - 15:59, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have access to the full article? Drsmoo (talk) 18:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, call resistance to occupation terrorists! This discussion is a pathetic attempt to reinforce settler colonial ideas! 2A01:CB09:D02F:F894:0:2A:AB74:9001 (talk) 13:48, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 [1]. Yes, that can be supported by many references that appear, for example in this diff [2]. My very best wishes (talk) 19:03, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 [3]. My very best wishes (talk) 19:29, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Let’s do another RFC then Drsmoo (talk) 18:14, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    Do you mean "civilian attack"? Parham wiki (talk) 19:47, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    I think the same. Parham wiki (talk) 20:48, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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" [4]. 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Would you want to start an RFC? Drsmoo (talk) 08:50, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Another example My Lai massacre. Again, not classified as a "victory". Drsmoo (talk) 12:32, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    That’s interesting, I thought we were having a talk page discussion about improving the article. Drsmoo (talk) 18:23, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Theyve also compared it Oct 6 1973. And the Tet Offensive. So what? nableezy - 19:20, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

militant group

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

Not recognised as terror group by UN and many other countries. Only by some western countries.
~সাজিদ (আলাপ) 17:12, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gazan victims

I think a section on Gazan victims is needed. Much has been written on Israeli victims but even the numbers of Gazans killed and taken prisoner seem to be unknown 81.101.0.145 (talk) 13:53, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Only if they were killed during the initial Hamas attack on Israel, which is the subject of this page (everything after that is covered on other pages). Indeed, there were reports of Gazan civilians who crossed to the Israel territory during the attack to plunder. Anything about them would be relevant. My very best wishes (talk) 17:33, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Epidemic of alt names

We don't need four alt names in the lead. What is the most common name in Israel? Is it "Black Saturday", "Simchat Torah Massacre" or "7 October attacks". Black Saturday is hard to assess because there are dozens of events by this name, but "Simchat Torah Massacre" throws up only 62 hits in an English language news search, meaning that presumably, if it is prevalent in Israel, it is prevalent in Hebrew, not English. Per WP:OTHERNAMES: If there are three or more alternative names – including alternative spellings, longer or shorter forms, historic names, and significant names in other languages – or there is something notable about the names themselves, a separate name section is recommended. As it stands, we need to either to trim these alt names down or hive them off into a section. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:59, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Iskandar323, write in a separate section or in a note (such as the September 11 attacks and the Tet Offensive). Parham wiki (talk) 10:16, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ https://www.thoughtco.com/pyrrhic-victory-120452
  2. ^ https://www.britannica.com/topic/scalping
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2023_Hamas-led_attack_on_Israel&oldid=1187361666"