Talk:Battle of Beit Hanoun
![]() | Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. Parts of this article relate to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing the parts of the page related to the contentious topic:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. If it is unclear which parts of the page are related to this contentious topic, the content in question should be marked within the wiki text by an invisible comment. If no comment is present, please ask an administrator for assistance. If in doubt it is better to assume that the content is covered. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The Battle of Beit Hanoun is a battle taking place in Beit Hanoun
[edit]Is it necessary to say in the lede that "The Battle of Beit Hanoun is an ongoing battle ... taking place in Beit Hanoun"? It seems a bit repetitive to me, is there a better way of phrasing this or is it Wiki standard to phrase it this way? SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 04:53, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
Neutrality contested
[edit]Arguing with a non-EC editor. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:08, 25 April 2024 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I think the neutrality of this article is heavily contested. Actually it is more like a piece of Al Jazeera propaganda machine website. It says Israelis are withdrawn from beit hanoun, which is certainly wrong and also it says Beit hanoun become depopulated, then says people returns to the town, paradox. The fact is that 252nd infantry division which is the combat division, evacuated the city after fully Israeli victory and hand over the city to the Gaza Division of IDF. The city now under Israeli control and the result of battle is certainly Israeli victory. Also on map description it says "claimed" Israeli advance, but this "claimed" is not exist for Hamas' side. Somebody should correct this. AmSiDeAth (talk) 12:00, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
|
Outcome
[edit]This is specifcially for the northern axis of gaza. In December, when israel had just withdrawn from beit hanoun, i labelled the battle "inconclusive" as the withdrawal seemed voluntary with a weakened hamas in the town. However the palestinian militants seem rooted in their towns and have even attacked israeli forces stationed east of beit hanoun readily. In this case, would it not be a clear vicotry for the militants as israeli forces have failed to clear the towns? I will try to discuss before changing The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 14:43, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 April 2024
[edit]![]() | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I would like reword the article and change the words Hamas says, to Hamas claims. I believe Hamas says (albeit true as they are "saying") paints the wrong picture as if these claims are facts. Nowhere have we seen destroyed Merkava tanks. I believe the article would be better worded as "Hamas claims." As these are in fact claims.
claims 1. state or assert that something is the case, typically without providing evidence or proof.
^Evidence provided above. IdontreadonlyLEAD (talk) 23:56, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone may add them for you. —Sirdog (talk) 05:09, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
- Awesome. Is there a way to close this request window? Or should I not worry? IdontreadonlyLEAD (talk) 09:20, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 April 2024
[edit]![]() | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
"In spite of this, clashes continued in the town with Israeli forces retreating on the 24th of December"
^ 4th line of the first paragraph. I am proposing a change of "retreating" to "withdrawing."
Britannica Dictionary definition of RETREAT 1
- movement by soldiers away from an enemy because the enemy is winning or has won a battle.
Britannica Dictionary definition of WITHDRAWAL 1 [count] a : an act of moving something away or taking something away The general authorized the withdrawal of troops from the fields. a withdrawal of support b : an act of ending your involvement in something He announced his withdrawal from the campaign. [=announced that he would no longer be involved in the campaign]
It is evidently a IDF withdrawal. The editor who wrote that knows what narrative they are attempting to construct with the use of retreat. The use of the word retreat here is used as a connotation, in an attempt to construct the narrative that the IDF have suffered a military defeat.
Total lack of neutrality and a clear bias shown. Egregious wording in an attempt to construct a narrative in which the IDF have been handed a military defeat at the hands of Hamas. IdontreadonlyLEAD (talk) 08:35, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the
{{Edit extended-protected}}
template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:05, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 April 2024 (2)
[edit]![]() | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
"On 15 November, Hamas announced that it destroyed four Israeli vehicles with Yasin 105 rocket propelled grenades in Beit Hanoun."
I am proposing that announced be changed into claims.
Claims; to say that something is true or is a fact, although you cannot prove it and other people might not believe it:
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/claim
Announced has the connotation of that which is being announced, is factual information. IdontreadonlyLEAD (talk) 08:41, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the
{{Edit extended-protected}}
template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:05, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 April 2024 (3)
[edit]![]() | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The IDF claimed to have advanced beyond the city on or prior to 12 November, and it released a video showing the IDF Harel Brigade operating south of Beit Hanoun.
I am proposing a change from "claimed" to "announced".
Claims; to say that something is true or is a fact, although you cannot prove it and other people might not believe it:
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/claim
Evidence was produced of the IDF Harel Brigade operating south of Beit Hanoun. Evidently they have advanced beyond the city.
With evidence produced it is no longer a "claim"
Claim is used here by the editor in another attempt to paint a false narrative of a Hamas military victory.
Once again, egregious editing on this page. A clear bias is shown with repeated attempts to minimize IDF successes. There are repeated attempts on this page to use "claims" for the IDF, whereas it is the opposite for Hamas alleged successes.
Evidence of bias;
The Al-Qassam Brigades said that it detonated an anti-personnel improvised explosive device (IED) targeting IDF forces sheltering in a house in Beit Hanoun.
Al-Qassam brigade "said" IdontreadonlyLEAD (talk) 08:56, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the
{{Edit extended-protected}}
template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:05, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 April 2024 (4)
[edit]![]() | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
On 31 October, Israeli forces claimed to have advanced into the outskirts of Beit Hanoun to conduct clearing operations, in an attempt to besiege Gaza City.[14]
This sentence needs to be reworded.
This is my proposed change, remove the words "claimed to have advanced"
"On 31 October, Israeli forces advanced into the outskirts of Beit Hanoun to conduct clearing operations, in an attempt to besiege Gaza City.[14]"
This sentence is cited with this article, https://www.euronews.com/2023/11/01/israel-hamas-war-in-maps-israeli-forces-advance-in-to-beit-hanoun.
Excerpt from said article;
"as of 31 October, Israeli forces advanced into Beit Hanoun in the northeastern Gaza Strip to conduct clearing operations and extended their positions along the coastal line in the northwestern Gaza Strip."
It is not a claim that they advanced.
Claims; to say that something is true or is a fact, although you cannot prove it and other people might not believe it:
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/claim
More evidence of IDF advance;
"A second point at which Israeli forces appear to have entered Gaza is from the northeastern corner of the Strip near the town of Beit Hanoun, according to footage and satellite imagery. Video distributed by the Israeli army and geolocated by CNN shows dozens of soldiers advancing on foot across sandy terrain and, in a different clip, a bulldozer pushing through sandy soil to create a lane free from IEDs (improvised explosive devices)."
https://edition.cnn.com/middleeast/live-news/israel-hamas-war-gaza-news-10-31-23/index.html IdontreadonlyLEAD (talk) 09:04, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Comment: Please stop creating duplicate requests.
'''[[User:CanonNi]]'''
(talk|contribs) 09:12, 8 April 2024 (UTC)- None of these are duplicate requests. They are all for different sentences throughout the page. It is not my problem that there are similar mistakes throughout. Not a good look for you, evidently you have not read my proposed changes before you commented. IdontreadonlyLEAD (talk) 09:19, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
- You have submitted 6 separate requests on this talk page, most of which seem to be pro-Israel and requests for wording changes. Please slow down and stop submitting requests every half-hour. Thank you.
'''[[User:CanonNi]]'''
(talk|contribs) 09:27, 8 April 2024 (UTC)- All for different issues. Pot calling the kettle black, on the 8th of April you made 10 contributions in less than one hour. With all my edits I have provided citations and reasoning. Why do you not rebuff my arguments. Instead you attack me for making 6 edits, in a time deemed by you to be too fast. If I am breaking a rule, then show me what rule I am breaking. If you do not like my proposed changes then go ahead, rebuff them. All you seem to be doing is accusing me of being pro-Israel and telling me to "slow down."
- What kind of rebuttal is that "slow down."
- This is a literal Ad hominem attack.
- You are a Journeyman Level 3 editor engaging in an Ad Hominem attack. IdontreadonlyLEAD (talk) 09:46, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
- Woah... perhaps we should get a more experienced editor to look into this issue.
'''[[User:CanonNi]]'''
(talk|contribs) 09:49, 8 April 2024 (UTC)- I agree. Invite them along please.
- To the more experienced editor, If the problem is the multiple edits on the same page. I was under the impression that different edits for different sections/sentences would have to have their own separate edit request. If the problem is the multiple edits, next time ill collate them all into one edit request instead of 6 separate requests.
- Thank you, IdontreadonlyLEAD (talk) 09:56, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
- I've asked for help of other editors at WP:ANI. In addition, yes, there is a guideline on making multiple requests, at WP:MAKINGEREQ, "Make requests as short, well formatted, and simple as possible. If you want several different edits, then the best thing to do may be making one edit request for each one—after the previous one you make gets resolved."
'''[[User:CanonNi]]'''
(talk|contribs) 10:22, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
- I've asked for help of other editors at WP:ANI. In addition, yes, there is a guideline on making multiple requests, at WP:MAKINGEREQ, "Make requests as short, well formatted, and simple as possible. If you want several different edits, then the best thing to do may be making one edit request for each one—after the previous one you make gets resolved."
- Woah... perhaps we should get a more experienced editor to look into this issue.
- You have submitted 6 separate requests on this talk page, most of which seem to be pro-Israel and requests for wording changes. Please slow down and stop submitting requests every half-hour. Thank you.
- None of these are duplicate requests. They are all for different sentences throughout the page. It is not my problem that there are similar mistakes throughout. Not a good look for you, evidently you have not read my proposed changes before you commented. IdontreadonlyLEAD (talk) 09:19, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
- Just to note, I came here via my watchlist and not AN/I. I will take a look at the article and the edit requests later today. I haven’t looked through all the them besides a quick skim so far, so I cannot say if they should be done, not done, or discussed before being done yet. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 11:47, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the
{{Edit extended-protected}}
template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:04, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
Why is the status "Palestinian victory"?
[edit]Arguing with non-EC editors. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:12, 25 April 2024 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I just keep seeing people make biased edits in all these pages of this war. The IDF took over Beit Hanoun and disbanded the local battalion from fighting like an orderly battalion. However, they withdrew since everything was destroyed. Then, later it was reported that PIJ launched a rocket from there. I think it should be in status of ongoing on the main battle. רונלד15 (talk) 14:11, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
|
Status in infobox
[edit]The status previously read: Main Battle: Palestinian victory[1][2] Incursions: ongoing
. I edited this here to Ongoing
. My edit summary reads: Failed verification. Sources do not mention Beit Hanoun let alone "victory". Please don't try to write the article in the infobox
- ie the claim is not supported by the refs cited nor is it supported by the body of the article.
This was reverted by The Great Mule of Eupatoria withe the edit summary: I have literally put sources both verifying Israeli withdrawal and the continued control of militants, how is that not a victory? Do I really need to drag the sources from the battle section
, then two additional references were added with the edit summary: Me when I’m in a “admit Israel lost a battle” and my opponent is a Wikipedia editor
so that it now reads as follows:
Aljazeera mentions ... withdrawal of the 13th battalion of the Golani Brigade ...
but does not mention Beit Hanoun. Roya News reports: the Israeli occupation army withdrew from Beit Hanoun in the northern Gaza Strip.
Neither mention defeat, victory or that the withdrawal was forced by Hamas. What we do know is that the IDF came, it wreaked death and destruction, it left the city and took up positions outside the city, some Hamas came back and fighting has continued. Withdrawal and retreat are not synonymous. While a retreat or forced withdrawal might be construed as defeat, the sources are not telling us this. Labeling this as a Palestinian victory on the basis that the IDF chose to withdraw and some Hamas came back is an editor's conclusion or opinion. It is not what sources are telling us. It is WP:SYNTH and/or WP:OR. Furthermore, we don't usually declare a victor at half-time (ie while the battle is still ongoing). We wait until the sources tell us the fighting is over and, if there is a result where one side has been called the victor in a consensus of WP:RSs, then we should write the body of the article to reflect this and then populate the result parameter. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:44, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
- Also both those sources, Al-Jazeera and Royanews use the term occupation army. I struggle to believe these articles have any neutrality what so ever. IdontreadonlyLEAD (talk) 09:14, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
- Israel is objectively an occupation army, and wether people like it or not AJ is a reliable source. It is also the sole news agency to operate independently of the IDF in gaza, so in many cases it is the only source The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 10:13, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
- Might not be reliable in some situations, such as the Arab-Israeli conflict, but it has been decided a generally reliable source, see WP:ALJAZEERA.
'''[[User:CanonNi]]'''
(talk|contribs) 10:17, 10 April 2024 (UTC)- There is no denying that there is a bias, however in cases like this war it is the only source, especially with the on-the-ground situation in gaza which is inacessible to most news agencies The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 10:25, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
- I agree. When there is no other coverage, biased is better than none.
'''[[User:CanonNi]]'''
(talk|contribs) 10:27, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
- I agree. When there is no other coverage, biased is better than none.
- There is no denying that there is a bias, however in cases like this war it is the only source, especially with the on-the-ground situation in gaza which is inacessible to most news agencies The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 10:25, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
- Israel declared full control.[7]
'''[[User:CanonNi]]'''
(talk|contribs) 10:38, 10 April 2024 (UTC)- The IDF claimed to have achieved their operational aims. However, sources also say that the declaration was premature. We do not have independent RSs calling this a victory for the IDF (or a defeat). Cinderella157 (talk) 11:37, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
- Therefore, I agree with changing the status to ongoing until a victory of either side is confirmed by independent sources. In addition, a sentence like "Both sides have declared victory, however, no independent coverage has confirmed either claim." could be added.
'''[[User:CanonNi]]'''
(talk|contribs) 11:43, 10 April 2024 (UTC)- As I don't see a source saying that Palestinians have claimed victory, I think ongoing is the best course at the moment, though it could also be left unpopulated. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:57, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
- Therefore, I agree with changing the status to ongoing until a victory of either side is confirmed by independent sources. In addition, a sentence like "Both sides have declared victory, however, no independent coverage has confirmed either claim." could be added.
- The IDF claimed to have achieved their operational aims. However, sources also say that the declaration was premature. We do not have independent RSs calling this a victory for the IDF (or a defeat). Cinderella157 (talk) 11:37, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
- Might not be reliable in some situations, such as the Arab-Israeli conflict, but it has been decided a generally reliable source, see WP:ALJAZEERA.
- Israel is objectively an occupation army, and wether people like it or not AJ is a reliable source. It is also the sole news agency to operate independently of the IDF in gaza, so in many cases it is the only source The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 10:13, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
- It was premature, but they claimed to have de dented hamas there on December 18
- https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/idf-signals-full-control-over-beit-hanoun-in-north-gaza/
- https://www.timesofisrael.com/idf-solidifies-hold-in-northern-gaza-as-israel-allows-expanded-aid-into-strip/amp/
- https://www.criticalthreats.org/analysis/iran-update-december-18-2023 The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 10:41, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
I want to make this crystal clear, the next editor who edit wars over this is getting blocked. Start an RFC, discuss it thoroughly, do whatever, but don't touch it without consensus. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:03, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
References
- ^ "Iran Update, january 16". ISW.
- ^ Palestinians inspect their demolished homes as Israel withdraws from northern Gaza, 2 February 2024
- ^ "صحفيون في شمال قطاع غزة: جيش الاحتلال انسحب من بيت حانون". royanews.
- ^ "اللواء الدويري: إسرائيل مضطربة وجحر الديك صورة لما تواجهه قواتها بغزة". Aljazeera.
- ^ "Iran Update, january 16". ISW.
- ^ Palestinians inspect their demolished homes as Israel withdraws from northern Gaza, 2 February 2024
- ^ EMANUEL FABIAN. "IDF signals full control over Beit Hanoun in north Gaza".
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 August 2024
[edit]![]() | It is requested that an edit be made to the extended-confirmed-protected article at Battle of Beit Hanoun. (edit · history · last · links · protection log)
This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y".
The edit may be made by any extended confirmed user. Remember to change the |
- What I think should be changed:
According to analyses from the American Enterprise Institute's Critical Threats Project (CTP), the Institute for the Study of War (ISW), and CNN, Hamas's Beit Hanoun battalion is considered combat ineffective, meaning it was destroyed by the Israeli military.
This information could be added to the status in the info-box or included in a new section titled 'Aftermath' or 'Analysis.'
- Why it should be changed:
The analysis will provide more information about the results of this battle. Additionally, this wiki-page contains numerous claims from both Hamas and Israel, and this addition will offer an in-depth analysis from a reliable third party.
- References supporting the possible change:
Guy Haddad 1 (talk) 08:49, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- I think this is a good suggestion. What do you see as possible content for an analysis entry? The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 09:01, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- Not necessarily under analysis, as there is not much to say, but I would suggest something like::
- "As of July 1, Hamas's Beit Hanoun battalion was combat ineffective, meaning it was destroyed by the Israeli military, according to assessments by CTP and ISW.[Ref]"
- I would just add that the CNN analysis contains a lot of information about the military situation in Gaza, but it focuses about the overall situation, not about specific battalions. There is probably more to discuss in the analysis sections of Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip and Insurgency in the North Gaza Strip. Guy Haddad 1 (talk) 16:31, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
References
- Start-Class Israel-related articles
- Unknown-importance Israel-related articles
- WikiProject Israel articles
- WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration articles
- Start-Class military history articles
- Start-Class Middle Eastern military history articles
- Middle Eastern military history task force articles
- Start-Class Post-Cold War articles
- Post-Cold War task force articles
- Start-Class Palestine-related articles
- Unknown-importance Palestine-related articles
- WikiProject Palestine articles
- Wikipedia extended-confirmed-protected edit requests