Talk:2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel

Edit Request: Change "Coordinated Armed Incursions" to "A Major Terrorist Attack"

Considering the consensus outcome of the RFC for classifying this event as a major terrorist attack, the language in the first sentence of the leading paragraph should be changed from "coordinated armed incursions", which is more appropriate for state-sponsored military actions, to "major terrorist attack", which is more appropriate for an event that included the capture of civillian hostages, random murder of civillians, and an array of non-state actors that are classified by many nations as terrorist organizations.

In short, I argue that affirming the outcome of the RFC by revising the blurb would improve the clarity and quality of the article. Noamthinks (talk) 09:02, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

While I agree with your approach which seeks to increase alignment, the contents of this article have no dependency on that RFC. It looks like the RFC had a well-defined narrow scope. This article falls outside of that scope. Consensus for something like this is local not global. Editors at this article don't need to affirm anything. They just need to comply with policy here, locally, in this article. Or at least that is my understanding of how things work. So, you may need a new RFC here, or at least consensus will need to form locally here. Sean.hoyland (talk) 09:37, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

And of course you don't need to pick one, it can be described as 2 things. Sean.hoyland (talk) 09:40, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

I'll also add that everything in your sentence from "which is more appropriate..." to the end of that sentence is not relevant to content decisions. Descriptions of things should be based on reliable sources that describe the things. Sean.hoyland (talk) 11:43, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

@Sean.hoyland Understood, my apologies for using reasoning instead of sources in advocating for this content decision.

However, as mentioned in the article and later on in the blurb, there are numerous reliable sources that describe this event as a terrorist attack. Whereas, on the reverse side, what exactly is the reliable source for the language of "coordinated armed incursion"? It appears to be placeholder language out of reluctance to use the label of "terror attack" rather than a reliably sourced terminology.

Who chose the language of "coordinate armed incursions" and why? Is this a better representation of how the event is portrayed by reputable secondary sources than "major terrorist attack"? Noamthinks (talk) 12:34, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

I haven't looked at how that text came into being. I'm trying to stay out of content related things as far as possible unless something catches my eye. I agree there is no doubt that a substantial proportion of coverage describe it as a terror attack and so the article can say that. But saying that it has been described as a terror attack is obviously different from Wikipedia's editorial voice stating it as if it is an objective fact. Editors might be applying MOS:TERRORIST because it is wiki-voice. But there are probably better formulations that more accurately capture the variations in the sources including major terrorist attack. Like I said, there is no requirement to pick only one. Describing the various descriptions that have WP:DUE weight might work. Sean.hoyland (talk) 13:43, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Noamthinks. Let's call a spade a spade and not fall back on obfuscatory language. Coretheapple (talk) 14:15, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

The issue is the sources that call it a shovel or don't use a pithy description (because absence of labeling also has weight). What one person sees as obfuscatory another might see as a compressed, neutralized combination of all the variations (I don't like this approach because it is a lossy compression). I think it might be better to just dispassionately treat things like this like an Eggplant - "Eggplant (US, CA, AU, NZ, PH), aubergine (UK, IE), brinjal (IN, SG, MY, ZA), or baigan (GY)" and provide the reader with a brief survey of various descriptions from the various parties like the common name process. Anyway, I have now exhausted my talking about content allowance for the day. Sean.hoyland (talk) 14:59, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

I understand your point on this, but we're not talking about vegetables, we're talking about a terrorist attack, and as you point out, a substantial proportion of coverage does indeed describe it as a terrorist attack. Coretheapple (talk) 15:20, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

It also is worth pointing out again that "coordinated armed incursion" is not some well validated alternative description or name, but rather something that seems to have been invented by an anonymous wikipedian. It strikes me like rewriting the 9/11 article to describe it as a "coordinated aerial attack", without reference to any use of that term or language in the secondary sources. Noamthinks (talk) 08:25, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

9/11 was exclusively an attack against civilians. With the october 7 attack, despite targeting civilians, alos had and was centred around a military objective which in this case was capturing all the border crossings and collapsing the forces at the gaza fence, as well as capturing military bases in the communities that were overrun. The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 14:52, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

As long as these standards also apply to Israel’s indiscriminate bombardment of Gaza and their dahiya doctrine The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 05:59, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

It isn't clear to me how your comment is relevant to the edit request or what you are in fact suggesting. It seems fairly unhelpful and counterproductive for the purpose of resolving this specific issue. Noamthinks (talk) 08:21, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

This isn't a battlefield in which we air our grievances, but attempt to improve the article before us. Coretheapple (talk) 14:18, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Of course. We look at language use, and the bias exists. In Operation Cast Lead, Israel struck multiple targets in the Gaza Strip from 11.30 am onwards, wiping out 40 cadets (ignoring the larger no. of bystander casualties) as they stood in their graduating ceremony, 9 schoolchildren in central Gaza waiting for a bus, and numerous other civilian targets (police are civilian forces). In any man's terms, the beginning of that war, after the endemic tit-for-tat between Israel and Hamas, began by an assault that included in its targets large numbers of civilians. That was the opening step in what became the 2008 Gaza War, and no one reported it, as a 'massacre'. While I agree that 7 October constitutes a massacre - self-evident, similar initiating events in the past, when Israel has suddenly resorted to an invasive military campaign, are never described. That is our systemic bias. To Israel anyone in Hamas's employ is a 'terrorist' and we should be careful in mimicking this usage.Nishidani (talk) 16:34, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

• “Coordinated Armed Incursions” is a better terminology for what occurred, since several non-civilian targets were captured (military bases and outposts). Terrorist attacks occurred, but the attack as a whole was not a full terrorist attack, but rather an attack which involved paramilitary to military (actual warfare) & paramilitary to civilian (terrorist attack massacres). So I do not support a rewording. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:40, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

A P.S. note, the full original reasoning for this edit request (the RFC) uses a Wikipedia-consensus “generally unreliable” source for the reasoning. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:42, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

By this logic, 9/11 was not a terrorist attack, since a major military installation got bombed and 55 military personnel were killed during the attack on the Pentagon. Vhstef (talk) 19:50, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

By this logic, 9/11 was not a terrorist attack, since a major military installation got bombed and 55 military personnel were killed during the attack on the Pentagon. Vhstef (talk) 19:51, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

@Vhstef:, 9/11 did not involve the physical capture and occupation of territory and military bases/outposts, this did. This event is more like a military invasion (like the Invasion of Poland), which had no formal declaration of war. During the invasion, Germany directly attacked and killed civilians and also attacked and captured military outposts/bases. By definition, the overall attacks would not be a terrorist attack, but rather terrorist attacks occurred amid the larger attack. The Washington Post even sort of stated this idea with "It was, by both Palestinian and Israeli accounts, a staggering and unexpected Hamas victory and an indictment of Israel’s vaunted military and intelligence services." The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 20:24, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure why the "physical" component of the attack matters for it to not be described as terrorism. A similar example of a more physical attack, though obviously with a lower death toll, would be the 2008 Mumbai attacks, which itself were described as "12 coordinated shooting and bombing attacks" in the Wikipedia article. And yet, the terrorist component of the attack is clearly highlighted. All in all, it's perfectly legitimate to describe this as an invasion, as it clearly parallels what happened 50 years before in '73. But to downplay the terrorist nature of the attacks by simply putting it in the last paragraph nd only referring to what 44 countries say, is also inaccurate.

Something like "On 7 October 2023, Hamas and several other Palestinian militant groups launched a series of coordinated terrorist attacks, during the first invasion of Israeli territory since 1948." Perhaps not perfect, but the terrorist nature should be clearly spelt out in the lead. Vhstef (talk) 10:45, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

The Mumbai attacks were terror attacks. 7 October was a resistance operation against an illegal occupation. It is important to be clear in our terminology. JDiala (talk) 10:05, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Can you provide sources for this POV? Is this the consensus of secondary sources? I can find numerous sources that describe the event as the "October 7 terror attacks" or "October 7 attack". I suspect this language represents a supermajority of sources, but am unsure how to go about proving that other than compiling a massive list of sources for that language, which seems to me redundant, since nobody is disputing that this language is used widely by prominent sources.

How many can secondary sources you find that call it a "coordinated armed incursion"? Per WP:UNDUE, if this is a minority view, it should be easy to find prominent adherents, especially considering the high degree to which this event has been covered in the media. I understand that there are alternative ways of viewing the attack, but I don't think "coordinated armed incursion" represents them, but rather seems to be a random and ill-defined placeholder. Noamthinks (talk) 00:33, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

The attacks are regularly described as an "invasion" or "attack" generically without the terrorist descriptor. One example is e.g., Reuters: A surprise attack by Hamas on Israel, which combined gunmen breaching security barriers with a barrage of rockets fired from Gaza, was launched at dawn on Saturday during the Jewish high holiday of Simchat Torah. Note the phrase "coordinated armed incursion" isn't explicitly used, but our writing on Wikipedia need not be verbatim identical to that of reliable sources provided it captures the spirit. An "armed incursion" is effectively synonymous to a "breach by gunmen." JDiala (talk) 10:00, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: There is no consensus to make the change, which is not a simple one, so the non-EC edit request is answered as not done. If EC editors think this should be continued elsewhere as a consensus forming discussing, I would suggest that they start a new talk thread. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:02, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

• I strongly object to this edit and to the labelling of the 7 October operation as a "terror" attack in the lead. It is an egregious violation of WP:NPOV and not really reflective of the views of WP:RS. I've given more specific rationales in elsewhere in this thread and the thread below. JDiala (talk) 10:03, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

About change "Coordinated Armed Incursions" to "A Major Terrorist Attack"

I agree the overall attack should be defined at the opening on both aspects. Its known, sourced and most of the (differing even) comments here point to a deliberate targeting of civilian towns and-separately from military bases; while the later was also a surprise attack and against previous peaceful-negotiation desicions. "Coordinated armed incursions" encapsulate deliberate targeting of different types of locations but needs to be spelled out clearly, as part of the definition. + as the request's opening statement - an RFC which determines this under the "list of major terrorist attacks" (adding this article's "See also"), makes impact and logicality to describe also as terror in the lead. If "coordinated armed incursions" isn't established by sources from comments above, I would still support finding another sourced definition alongside terrorist attack.

I can also suggest and support that the lead's 2nd para also describes "massacred civilians and attacked military bases" which can be placed as the opening definition (while the 2nd para sentence which includes details of which civilian communities, can be rearranged in its opening). Also, this is reinforced by the different angles of coined terms at lead's 1st para (named "Operations Al Aqza", "Simchat Torah Massacre"). Started this while sitting down to read the previous comments and thinking of views and options, when clocking to post ran into an edit conflict, and the asking for this to continue on a new thread. אומנות (talk) 21:14, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

There is a wide consensus over many years of using the word "terrorism" at most sparingly for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It's a violation of WP:NPOV as many consider Palestinian resistance to be legitimate in light of the Israeli occupation, and the word "terrorism" in reference to Palestinian actions generally is only used by pro-Israel sources. Notice for instance our article title for Palestinian political violence. While the name might be awkward, it's a good compromise to ensure neutrality. For 7 October in particular, the attack had a substantial military component with numerous military bases overrun. There were separate attacks on civilian communities, but these are better thought of as alleged war crimes within the context of a military operation rather than pure terrorism per se. Furthermore, for the 7 October attack, the most reliable sources namely Reuters, AP and BBC avoid the word "terrorism." JDiala (talk) 00:32, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Couple this with the fact israel refers to any armed resistance by the palestinians as "terrorism". This includes a palestinian in the west bank who is to target a soldier occupying the land, and paints this distorted "we are fighting terrorists" narrative The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 16:24, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Non-EC input and associated responses

I would also in this light strongly support renaming the article to "October 7th attacks" or "October 7 attacks". These are what the attacks are referred to in the vast majority of media sources: from the pro-Israel Jerusalem Post to the anti-Israel al-Jazeera, amidst all the other international media sources like CNN, The Guardian, The Telegraph etc. So this is not a POV issue of "trying to 9/11 rebrand it" as was suggested above (aside from all those little similarities such as it being an unprecedented Islamic terrorist attack on a Western country). Last i checked, no one ever calls the 9/11 attacks the "2001 Al-Qaeda-led attack on the United States", or the "2008 LeT-led attack on Mumbai" or the "2015 Islamic State-led attack on Paris" And the notion that because the attacks had a military component/objective, that it should not be regarded as a terrorist attack is flat-out wrong. Camp Speicher massacre done by ISIS in 2014 is regarded as a terrorist attack, even in the Wikipedia article and the second-deadliest one at that. And that, despite it having a military component as part of the Northern Iraq offensive; it is clearly stated that it was a terrorist attack according to the Wikipedia article, and other Wikipedia pages as well. Vhstef (talk) 15:38, 7 April 2024 (UTC) Bad analogy. That was called a massacre because it involved the killing of unnarmed cadets. Hamas, in its operation, broke through one of the most sophisticated and heavily militarized border fences in the world, taking down defences that cost tens of millions to build, and overwhelmed much-better equipped defenders by catching them off-guard. Hence why it has been portrayed as Israel's greatest military and intelligence failing to date. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:17, 7 April 2024 (UTC) The question of it being a terrorist attack has nothing to do with how strong the opposing force is. The fact that they had to get through Israeli military bases in order to go and kill hundreds of innocent Israelis doesn't mean it is not a terrorist attack, it simply makes it a well-executed terrorist attack (like 9/11 was). Like I said. It's all well and good to specify the "invasion" part of it, since it was the first time Israeli territory was invaded since 1948. But not specifiying that it was terrorism in the lead is highly misleading at best. Vhstef (talk) 10:26, 8 April 2024 (UTC) An "invasion" is a military event, and the use of that terminology confirms the irrefutable military component of the operation. Much of what is being held up as "terrorist" is partly incidental, including the killing of civilians at the festival, which there is no indication that Palestinian fighters were even aware of prior to bumping into it. In the communities, what was intended a hostage snatch-and-grab operation devolved into chaos due to a lack of command and control and the unexpected success of the military operation to punch through the Israeli defences. Subsequent analysis has indicated that the Palestinian command had failed to anticipate such a resounding success, and so had failed to adequately plan for the penetration of their forces so deep into hostile territory. The attempts to dress up these events in the simplistic garb of a "terrorist attack" are at odds with the self-apparent and subsequently reported sequence of events, and also obviously a POV framing using the most salacious and emotive terminology to justify the subsequent genocidal onslaught. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:47, 8 April 2024 (UTC) Neither Hamas nor Gaza are states. Hamas is an internationally recognized terrorist organisation, which happens to be the governing authority in a given area, and has state-like components. Such criteria are equally valid for the Islamic State. But that doesn't mean that the Speicher massacre wasn't terrorist, or the 2015 Paris attacks, or the 2016 Brussels attacks. October 7th was an attack by a terrorist organisation that killed hundreds of innocent civilians: how not to call it a terrorist attack? Also, Bucha 2022 -- which bears similarities to what happened on Oct. 7 -- while absolutely horrible, is not talked of as being a terrorist attack, because Russia is not a terrorist organisation, but a state. Also, the idea that they didn't expect success in the military bases is not true, considering that Hamas literally had a blueprint of how such an attack should take place. It was the Israelis who didn't expect that such an attack would succeed. The justification of "they didn't mean to kill all those civilians, so it wasn't terrorism" (which is not true, this was deliberate killing of civilians) is as laughable as saying that because bin Laden only meant to cause the upper floors of the Twin Towers to collapse makes 9/11 not terrorism, and is therefore obviously POV. Also, it's funny to refer to October 7th being a terrorist attack as "POV framing" and "salacious and emotive terminology", yet in the same breath referring to the military response to the attack (which had a clear casus belli given that it was a direct response to that armed attack -- whether invasion or terrorist) as being a "genocidal onslaught". Last I checked, Wikipedia articles are not supposed to put Hamas in the best light possible, and Israel in the worst. Vhstef (talk) 12:03, 8 April 2024 (UTC) Comparisons between Hamas and Islamic are straight out of the Israel PR manual and aren't worth discussing. More importantly, I've belatedly noticed you're not extended confirmed. You are not permitted to edit or be active on the talk pages of IP topics outside of making formal edit requests. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:28, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Resistance group

There appears to be edit warring. My view is that Hamas is a 'resistance' group and Hamas is a 'terrorist' organization. It can have multiple labels because, in RS-world, it has multiple labels. What I don't understand is why people would edit war over it. No label use is always an alternative. Sean.hoyland (talk) 16:43, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Edit-warring is too strong language, although my single reverts of a few edits were likely mistakes, mainly due to likely being overly suspicious and finding the new formatting of references to be very clunky compared to previously. I personally agree with your sentiments above. David A (talk) 16:53, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

To clarify, I'm referring to the dynamics rather than individuals. And it's based on the premise that it's edit warring when WP:BRD isn't followed. I agree that the formatting doesn't help. What is causing that, do you know? Maybe Wikipedia:VisualEditor? Edits in the topic area need to be small bite size chunks or else someone usually calls in an airstrike. Sean.hoyland (talk) 04:08, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

I think that it were likely indiscriminate reverts to considerably older versions of the two pages, or copy-pastes from them, which I then found suspicious and reverted in turn. David A (talk) 05:10, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Or maybe the opposite of indiscriminate. The discriminant factor seemed to be that the editors have a personal aversion to the term "resistance" being used to describe Hamas. If that is the case, they should follow the advice in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel_articles#Editors_counselled. Sean.hoyland (talk) 05:33, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Well, there is also the connected possibly suspicious issue that I mentioned here. David A (talk) 05:42, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Also, what I meant with indiscriminate is that the edits were sweepingly clunky in changing a lot of other content as well, mainly reference structures, rather than specific and easy to overview. David A (talk) 05:45, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Given that these are the detected sockpuppets for just one of the many "pro-Israel" editors (although I would dispute that label) willing to use deception to evade their bans, I'm not sure it's possible to be "overly suspicious" in this topic area. Sean.hoyland (talk) 06:05, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Given my various mental disabilities and rather bad memory, I am not good at navigating or arguing for bureaucratic procedures in Wikipedia. Would you be willing to ask for investigations of the two new pro-Israel accounts in question, or is it a bad idea? David A (talk) 06:16, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't think there is sufficient evidence to submit a case right now. Sean.hoyland (talk) 06:33, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Well, they signed up on the same day, knew exactly how to get extremely speedy extended edit confirmation rights, and have collaborated with each other at least a few times. David A (talk) 06:47, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

True, but 4714 accounts registered on that day. Sean.hoyland (talk) 08:05, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Well, it is the combination of the full context of what you and I mentioned above that make the issue seem worthy of investigation. David A (talk) 08:34, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Defeat

Interesting the attacks have been called a "bruising defeat" by AP. [1] Makeandtoss (talk) 13:39, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

It really should be described as a Hamas victory. We had an RfC about this a while ago, unfortunately no consensus was reached. JDiala (talk) 13:10, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

We should wait until the dust settles and more resources come ao that a better case can be made. Wikipedia is very hesitant to admit israel has been defeated anything The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 16:19, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

RfC: Hamas victory

I would like to restart a previous RfC on calling the operation a Hamas victory in the infobox. In the interim, multiple other sources ([1], [2]) have supported this position. No consensus was reached in the past RfC however I think the decision then was erroneous. Most of the opponents had no compelling arguments except essentially appeals to emotion that the attacks were "terrorist" and that it would somehow be immoral to call "terrorists" winners. That RfC was further tainted by an e-mail canvassing situation. I believe that the closer erred in his judgement of no consensus.

1. The operation should be called a Hamas victory.
2. The operation should be called an Israeli victory.
3. No change
4. Other

JDiala (talk) 10:35, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

@JDiala

a. Israeli government officials have said that the goal was to provide a response and clearly that happened. commie (talk) commie (talk) 11:19, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

c. No change. The dead were mostly noncombatants. To the extent the attacks were on civilians, they were outside of the concept of victory or defeat in a military operation infobox. The 9/11 Attacks infobox does not say "Al-Qaeda victory." Other than that, it was not an Israeli victory. The military part of the operation looks like a successful raid that didn't reach the stretch goal of reconnecting Gaza and the West Bank. In the previous discussion people observed that the infobox is not a place for nuance or qualification. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 12:34, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

The dead are mainly non-combatants in the Gaza war too. Hamas was far more discriminate than Israel. The reality is that it was a legitimate military operation, and this is the position we take in the first sentence of the article (unlike 9/11 which is described as a terror attack). The bias against Hamas here is honestly insane. JDiala (talk) 19:49, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

The dead of WWII's European theatre were mainly Jewish civilians. Do you think just that means it's a German victory?

this is the position we take in the first sentence of the article (unlike 9/11 which is described as a terror attack

That's because 911 did not involve an invasion!

Hamas was far more discriminate than Israel. The bias against Hamas here is honestly insane.

We duly report the facts and reactions as stated by reliable sources. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:18, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

No, you're perpetuating a myth. Top WW2 causalties in Europe were: (1) Soviet civilians, (2) Soviet military, (3) Polish civilians, (4) German military. Jews accounted for approx. 10% of all WW2 causalties, a bit less than any of the above. We have an article about that. — kashmīrī ^TALK 09:18, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

TIL. Still, if they were the most casualties and then D-Day, happens, would you call that a German victory? Aaron Liu (talk) 11:09, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

This is braindead. You're ignoring that success/failure depends on the goals held. Alexanderkowal (talk) 11:12, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but my point is that The dead were mostly noncombatants does not affect the outcome of something military-wise. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:26, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

That point is redundant, it depends solely on the goals held Alexanderkowal (talk) 11:29, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Are there reliable sources that think Hamas failed at its goals in its initial attack? Aaron Liu (talk) 12:45, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

There probably are, I'm not familiar with the reporting on this sorry Alexanderkowal (talk) 13:11, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

I think we may have to wait for academic sources on this Alexanderkowal (talk) 13:14, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

• The AP News source doesn't say anything about whether October 7 was a Hamas victory. The Haaretz piece is an opinion piece, and it asks "Has Hamas Won?" as a rhetorical question, not a strategic tactical question. Nothing significant has changed in sourcing. The outcome of the previous RfC should stand. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:23, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
• This discussion is futile until we can agree on the goals Hamas had for the invasion, and the goals Israel had (I think we can easily agree on the latter). Alexanderkowal (talk) 20:39, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

  No, reliable sources need to do that, not us. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:14, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

• No change, per Vox Sciurorum and CaptainEek.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:39, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
• While I agree that JDiala's sources are insufficient, reading Talk:2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel/Archive 5#Result RFC, all I see is sources that consider at least the initial attack a victory, though some imply that it failed in ceasing Israeli oppression over Hamas. Question: Does anyone have sources that say it's somewhere in the middle or even an Israeli victory? Aaron Liu (talk) 01:30, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
•  Comment: As long as we don't know Hamas's military objective (and sources disagree on that), we cannot reasonably judge whether that objective has been met with any degree of success. I suggest to skip the outcome/result parameter altogether. — kashmīrī ^TALK 09:23, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
• No change until we can determine Hamas' goals with this operation. Alexanderkowal (talk) 11:13, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
• No change based on the information currently available, we would have to do OR to find out who won. Let's wait for scholarship. FortunateSons (talk) 12:59, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
• No change And when I see a question in a newspaper headline I find the answer is normally no. And it doesn't mean or imply the opposite is true either. It is just a two minute read. NadVolum (talk) 13:21, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
• No change. Wait for source consensus supporting this position before making any such changes. Hogo-2020 (talk) 06:27, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
• Change. According to https://www.jpost.com/israel-hamas-war/article-793710 Hamas planned to get to Tel Aviv and Dimona. That didn't happen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcljlm (talk • contribs) 09:19, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  Just that they failed one goal doesn't mean the entire thing was a fail. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:50, 19 April 2024 (UTC)