RFC on Articles' Scope

There have been several discussions opened in the past regarding this article's content and overall scope. Several wars have a list of military engagements and battles. Examples include: World War I ("Military engagements"), World War II ("Battles"), Russian invasion of Ukraine ("Military engagements"), Sudanese civil war ("Engagements").

The Israel–Hamas war is no different with this article. However, unlike all the other list of military engagement articles, this article has a ton of clean-up templates including lack of sourcing, MOS, and scope issues.

So, with all that background, let's have a discussion on what the scope of this article should include, or more specifically, what is a "military engagement" during the Israel-Hamas war? Are "Battle of ...." engagements? Are airstrikes engagements? Should the article's scope be redefined away from "military engagements" to just "engagements"? Ect... The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 17:45, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

  • I honestly do not have a clear clue on what is a "military engagement" during the war. In my view, any article that is titled "battle of ...." is a clear engagement for the scope. However, something like the Flour massacre is not a true "military engagement" and should not be in the article or under the current scope in my opinion. Under the current scope of "military engagement", I support the removal of any event where the two sides, Israel and Hamas/Palestinian did not actually shoot at each other, as those are not true "military engagements", definition wise. I may support a scope change to include the current non-military engagements listed in the article, but unless the community decides for a scope change, I would support the removal of any non-military engagement listed here. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 17:45, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
RFC is to get the communities input. There is no options as this is specifically to get widespread input. RFCBefore is covered by the tons of discussions that were started in the past on this article and subsequent parent article (Israel-Hamas war talk page itself). The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 18:10, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of a RfC is to settle a content dispute that has been thoroughly discussed. Being time consuming, RfCs cannot be used simply to attract input to a WP:RFCBEFORE. M.Bitton (talk) 14:23, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure. I couldn't find a similar list elsewhere, so I don't think it should be removed without putting it somewhere else. Not sure whether expanding the scope or splitting is better, but I'll likely change my comment after seeing what others have to say. I imagine having a separate page such as "List of massacres in the Israel-Hamas war" would make it easier for readers find the info they're looking for.
  •  Comment. It is important to see history of this list. After it has been merged with a list of massacres early in the war, it has been speedily renamed to 'List of engagements' with 'military' omitted. After it has been significantly modified by now-blockd Irtapil, with a lot of misleading info and stub entries added to the list (all the 'Alleged massacres', 'Long distance attacks against Israel' etc, many of those were then removed), it almost stopped getting updates. Another speedy RM, where major contributors to the topic barely participated, resulted in returning the word 'military', and then it entered its current condition. Here is where I'm getting at. Unless the airstrikes, massacres, assassinations, etc. are included in this list, it will perhaps comply with other articles of the kind, but it will not represent the scope of the conflict accurately. The battles here generally revolve around Israel striking cities to eliminate Hamas forces and achieve their 'goals', and then retreats. With a tremendous media bias (the reason for RMs on the main page) it may not be defined whether Israel achieves those or not. However, other aspects of the conflict may make a better understanding of how it goes. I tried to restructure this page in my sandbox, but before I continue with other elements, we need to decide whether we should return the points that are not directly concerning this part of the war. There is also a completely abandoned List of military engagements during the Israel–Hezbollah conflict (2023–present) which should be merged here, IMO. Then we could consider renaming it to "... during the Middle Eastern crisis", but now it's important to focus on the battle articles as well. Lots of them stopped getting updates in January-March 2024, so updatingthem should bring better clarity of what should we reach here.Eagowl | talk | 10:00, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I doubt the article should exist; all of these events should instead be mentioned within the context of one of the articles describing the overall conflict William M. Connolley (talk) 15:06, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would change the scope of this article to something like "List of violent events in..." or "List of attacks in..." VR (Please ping on reply) 05:05, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 January 2025


  • What I think should be changed:

Please remove the entry of "Battle of Tel al-Hawa" from the Major Battles section.

−
Battle of Tel al-Hawa
+
  • Why it should be changed:

This is not a major battle (or a battle at all). It lacks a separate Wikipedia page, and the section about the battle in "Tel al-Hawa" reflects a series of attacks rather than a major battle. It might be more appropriate to place it under the "Attacks" section or remove it from this list altogether.

  • References supporting the possible change:

None. Guy Haddad 1 (talk) 14:58, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. If you want it moved then just provide a few sources and ping me. Dr vulpes (Talk) 09:13, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I'm confused does WP:ONUS not place the burden on existing article content to justify itself and if controversial that controversy should be minimised.
Apologies if I have misunderstood.
Regardless;
Tal Al Hawa Tough Battle For Israel| Countercurrents
> In his military analysis, Al-Duwairi doubted what the Israeli media was saying  about the transfer of three soldiers wounded in the Gaza battles. He said the Israeli army admitted it was subjected to four difficult security incidents  in Tal al-Hawa.
> The expert who is a military analyst on Al Jazeera believes these difficult events resulted in the killing of more Israeli soldiers, basing his view also on the Information provided by  Al-Qassam Brigades and Saraya Al-Quds, the military wings of Hamas and Islamic Jihad.
and elsewhere
> Based on this, Al-Duwairi predicted the Israeli casualties ranged from 6 to 8 on average, some serious, in addition to deaths because of the hard nature of the incidents while ruling out the total of only three casualties, as claimed by the Israeli media.
That is the only source I could find
But that combined with the text of the article itself; everything that is discussed relates only to very small numbers of people 4 killed, one person found under a car, 40 wounded. This sounds very much like a small unit operation and not a major battle so I have to say I agree with @Guy Haddad 1
@Dr vulpes LeChatiliers Pupper (talk) 01:30, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and added some sources to the article, since this edit request has been reopened someone else can come and make the edits for you. Dr vulpes (Talk) 03:46, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Done In a major re-ordering of the page by User: Eagowl, with the “Major Battles” section being split up into different sections, “Battle of Tel al-Hawa” was also removed from the article. Closing as done. ApexParagon (talk) 02:31, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge

Merge proposal closed, no discussion or consesnsus established. Eagowl. 09:31, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

There are currently two pages that need major reworking and updating: this one and the List of military engagements during the Israel-Hezbollah conflict (2023-present), and both of them are limited in scope. Until the end of November, this page included information on all spillover conflicts, all a part of the Middle Eastern crisis, and the current page layout was created to contain it (example). After it was split, the pages suffered from additional consistency and structural issues. Merging and moving them to List of engagements during the Middle Eastern crisis (with dates) could benefit them. I would omit "military", since there are not necessarily military events (assassinations, massacres), also bearing in mind an PM early on. Eagowl | talk | 00:01, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Oppose Makes no sense Yesyesmrcool (talk) 22:13, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why so? It actually makes sense, for both readers and editors. These two separate articles used to be one, and the current structure only looks weird and incomplete (and it does) because a lot of content was removed. By returning the content, and expanding the scope to include other confrontations, it is possible to restore quality and clear tags without completely rearranging the current page. It makes the page more comprehensive, connecting the interrelated events of the same conflict, and it gets rid of a stub article nobody cares about. I understand that, given the condition of both pages now, this merge might look ridiculous, but it's actually not. Eagowl | talk | 10:36, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is two separate fronts possibly even conflicts. It shouldn't be all bunched together especially with the recent escalation. Yesyesmrcool (talk) 16:12, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Most lists of battles (e.g. Civil War, American Revolution, Spanish-American War) have battles and events happening within one conflict, even in different areas, in one article. The crisis is one huge conflict involving different countries, and this page souldn't have been split in the first place. This article rarely attracts any discussion, so perhaps you would suggest another way of reworking it? Eagowl | talk | 05:56, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Mass killings

Mass killings mean massacres here but three of four just aren't.

Two of the three (the last two on the list) are not called massacres in their articles. The other is about to be retargeted from massacre (that is Shadia Abu Ghazala School massacre). Pinging @Raskolnikov.Rev who reverted my change. Closetside (talk) 06:28, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are mistaken. The Flour Massacre is referred to as such on the page with RS. The Israeli attacks on Al-Maghazi refugee camp is also referred to as such by RS on the page. The Shadia Abu Ghazala School massacre is also referred to as such by RS, and for it to be "retargeted" you need to obtain consensus as I have pointed out on the talk page. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 07:24, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We refer to the Israeli attacks on Al-Maghazi refugee camp and the Al-Awda school attack as attacks not massacres, so consensus is against the massacre label - look at the darned stand-alone articles. The Shadia Abu Ghazala School massacre is being currently discussed and I will support codifying its result. We can get a 3O. I am not disputing the flour massacre right now. Closetside (talk) 07:40, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct about the Al-Awda school attack not being referred to as a massacre, and although there is RS referring to the Israeli attacks on Al-Maghazi refugee camp as a massacre, it is currently used for the redirect and not the page name, so I am fine with renaming that too. I have gone ahead and restored those edits of yours. We need an RfC to resolve the Shadia Abu Ghazala School massacre question, per the talk there. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 19:48, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We agree on the Al-Awda school attack from the list; please remove it (I can't do it due to 1RR right now). The page for Al-Maghazi calls it an attack not a massacre - if you disagree litigate it there and remove it from the list in the interim (please remove it from the list nonetheless). You are correct that Shadia Abu Ghazala is currently in RfC mode. Closetside (talk) 20:05, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I believe there is a misunderstanding. You are correct that the pages are not named massacres, and I have changed that accordingly. But the list ought not only include pages with massacre in the title. It should include pages with mass killings described as massacres in RS (the category is titled "Mass Killings"). We should not ourselves determine what counts as a "mass killing", so I believe following RS descriptions of them as "massacres" is the best way to distinguish between that, and those listed in the "Israeli Attacks". There are currently several pages that include RS references to them as massacres which should be in the Mass Killings category too, whereas the Al-Awda school attack should only be in Attacks.
For now I have moved Al-Awda to Attacks and the ones I saw described as massacres in RS to Mass Killings. When I have more time I will take a closer look and also fix the other outstanding issues.
However, if you disagree and believe only pages with "massacre" in the title should be in the "Mass Killing" category, we need an RfC for that too. In that case, I propose waiting to see if consensus can be formed through discussion with others. If not, we can proceed to the RfC. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 21:02, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nice try. Your analysis does not override community consensus. Please remove Israeli attacks on Al-Maghazi refugee camp and Tel al-Sultan attack to Israeli attacks as the consensus label for them is attack, not massacre. You may litigate on those pages if you don’t like it but you must honour community consensus in the interim. Closetside (talk) 21:43, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I am aware there is no consensus that the category of "Mass Killing" on this page only should include pages that have the term "massacre" in the title. Unless you can point me to such a consensus, you will have to establish it here. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 00:20, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It was only events labelled massacres before we found it. Check the history. I will change it accordingly. Closetside (talk) 05:32, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Evidence: w.wiki/DK3m The status quo ante bellum was that it referred to events labelled as massacres, so that was the consensus, which you attempted to ignore. Closetside (talk) 05:41, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

<- For clarity Closetside, could you please try to describe the "community consensus" you are using in your argument. I imagine a person turning up here might find this discussion quite hard to follow. I mean, a reasonable person might expect a section titled mass killings to contain things that labeled as mass killings or something similar in a sort of hand-waving way. Is the decision procedure you appear to be using documented somewhere? I found this, which doesn't help much. Sean.hoyland (talk) 09:50, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not after an explicit consensus, but that is the status quo ante bellum the page should be until we get a consensus. In the past (as seen in the history) that section was for events labelled massacres in standalone articles. If @Raskolnikov.Rev wants to change this, it therefore requires discussion/ Closetside (talk) 13:47, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So you do not have any consensus that the category in question should only refer to pages that have the term "massacre" in the title. You simply inferred it, and did so mistakenly as there were multiple pages with massacre in the title that were not in the category, and pages that were misnamed as massacres that were.
There is no reason for the section on "Mass Killings" to simply be restricted to pages that have the term "massacre" in the title. I have restored it based on the usage of attacks as massacres in RS which I believe is a good standard for distinguishing it from the later "Attacks" category. If you disagree with this, we shall have an RfC to settle it if consensus cannot be obtained otherwise. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 00:55, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was about to go on wikibreak but this deserves a response.
1) A massacre label was the standard before our dispute. If you don't believe me, check the history. That was the status quo ante bellum - changing that standard requires consensus.
2) Your standard is problematic. The consensus for those two incidents is that they should not be labelled massacres. Your analysis does not trump community consensus and your analysis should definitely not serve as a yardstick for this.
Your analysis is very problematic as it violates WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. "Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in the Wikipedia article." Providing testimony without refuting it may be construed as indirect support, but definitely not direct support - the source must either verify the testimony or repeat its elements in its voice. Therefore, I will revert your change. Closetside (talk) 02:29, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you revert without consensus, as there are two editors who disagree with your arbitrary designation for what should be included in the "Mass Killing" category, you will be engaging in WP:EDITWARRING. Kindly refrain from doing that, and seek consensus for what you believe the standard for inclusion in that category should be, either through discussion or an RfC. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 02:42, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The pot calling the kettle black! "My standard overrides community consensus" - enough. And from the post on the Shadia Abu Ghazala School massacre RM, your standard of "non-opposition is direct support" is preposterous. If I had the patience, I'd start a whole RfC but I don't so I'll leave it now. Closetside (talk) 03:04, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Community consensus says that massacre is an inappropriate title for either event. Finding one (or even a large minority of) RS which uses the term is a dubious standard. For example, if that was the standard, the October 7 Hamas-led attack on Israel would be replaced to the October 7 massacre, per the Jerusalem Post, an RS (see /www.jpost.com/tags/the-october-7-massacre).
Even you think inclusion in that section is based on whether an attack is a massacre, so I will rename the section to massacres in Gaza. Closetside (talk) 01:29, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You do not get to arbitrarily rename categories and then retroactively remove events from it even though they were appropriately placed there per its stable version description of "Mass Killings", unless you gain consensus for it. You have not. Two editors have challenged you to produce any argument for why events that clearly mass killings and are even described as massacres in RS should not be included in a category titled "Mass Killings". You have failed to provide any except that there is a vague "community consensus" which turns out to have been made up.
So I repeat again, either gain consensus through discussion, or go ahead with an RfC on your desired edits. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 01:41, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A quote from you:

I have restored it based on the usage of attacks as massacres in RS which I believe is a good standard for distinguishing it from the later "Attacks" category.

Even you acknowledged that what qualifies an event to be in that list is that it was labelled a massacre by at least one RS. This standard is incredibly problematic because the community does not label the Tel al-Sultan attack or the Al-Maghazi attack as a massacre. Please explain how your standard somehow overrides the community determination and how the October 7 attack fits into it.
:Why is your standard against community consensus? You say the RS label the attacks massacres, but the community disputes it by labelling those two events attacks, once explicitly through an RFC and one through implicit consensus. If your standard is one RS, this goes against the standard of weighted consensus of RS. Either litigate why those attacks should be massacres in those pages, or concede. Closetside (talk) 02:16, 9 March 2025 (UTC) Updated 04:59, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will get a WP:3O. Closetside (talk) 02:21, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Raskolnikov.Rev my standard for inclusion in the list is very simple - does Wikipedia label the event as a massacre? Yours is "do RS consider the event a massacre", which is unclear. Please, using your standard, show your work to explain why the Tel al-Sultan attack and the 2024 al-Maghazi attack should be included and why the al-Sardi school attack shouldn't according to your standard. Lastly, show your work to determine whether the October 7 attack is massacre per your standard and bear in mind the Jerusalem Post, an RS (see /www.jpost.com/tags/the-october-7-massacre) which labels it as a massacre. If it is, this articles should label the Hamas attack as a massacre as well. Closetside (talk) 15:14, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Response to third opinion request:
Never use another Wikipedia article as a source, to avoid circularity. We always follow what's in the external reliable sources, nothing more and nothing less. See WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:V. If there is a discrepancy between one reliable source and another, then you describe both sides of the dispute, giving more weight to the better quality sources. In this case, you could put an explanatory note in that describes the dispute (say one source calls a particular event a "mass killing" and another source contests this) since it's a list. What's contained in a Wikipedia article is by no means determinative of what should be written in another article. There isn't a requirement that the articles be consistent. It's all a work in progress. If anything, the articles about the particular engagements should be updated to reflect the concepts and usage published in the best quality sources. Manuductive (talk) 04:08, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Outcomes

Hello,

I recall this page having the "outcomes" of major battles listed such as having Israeli withdrawals from places like Jabalia. Why is that no longer present or was it moved to another page? It is no longer clear what the outcome of the battles are by this aspect of the table that outlines them being removed. Louis Lerouge (talk) 22:14, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Allikas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_military_engagements_during_the_Gaza_war
No tags for this post.