Jump to content

Talk:Israeli bombing of the Gaza Strip

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

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by reviewer, closed by Narutolovehinata5 talk 11:33, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
Collapse of Palestine Tower in October 2023
Collapse of Palestine Tower in October 2023

Created by CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk). Self-nominated at 07:41, 22 February 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Bombing of Gaza; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

  • General eligibility:
  • New enough: Yes
  • Long enough: No - Not met, per WP:DYKSPLIT
  • Other problems: No - Splits from non-new articles are ineligible, but if the copied text does not exceed one-fifth of the total prose size, the article can be considered eligible as a fivefold expansion of the copied text.

Policy compliance:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Unfortunately, this article is currently ineligible for DYK as the majority of its content has been sourced from other Wikipedia articles, and as far as I can tell the 5x expansion requirement for this kind of DYK has not been met. My recommendation is to nominate the article at GA as this would mean the article would meet the third newness clause: promoted to good article status; Seddon talk 22:53, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Request

[edit]

In the infobox change the number of deaths to the current number as reported by the source and change it from civilians to civilians and militants. The source itself has a caveat that "casualties are reported as civilians with the caveat that combatants may be included in the toll." Saying it is just civilians is misleading at best and factually incorrect at worst. Fyukfy5 (talk) 15:05, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done - Updated the number of deaths to the most recent available from the source (2023-09-23). Did not change from civilians to civilians and militants because the source is careful to specify that combatants "may" be included, which does not seem like enough evidence to change it on this page. Edit to add: switching this to done, because the infobox already carries an "unknown number of militants" tag which should be more than enough to avoid being misleading/wrong. Smallangryplanet (talk) 15:23, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The "unknown no. of militants" tag makes it seem as though it is additional to the civilian no. and not included in it. We know for a fact that certain high level militants were killed in airstrikes e.g.
https://nypost.com/2023/10/17/two-top-hamas-leaders-killed-in-israeli-airstrikes-on-gaza/
The fact that that particular source decides to use the word civilians despite our knowing that Hamas militants unequivocally have been killed in airstrikes is not a good reason to use the same rhetoric. Fyukfy5 (talk) 15:36, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Another point, the AOAV source describes all explosive weaponry and not solely Israeli airstrikes which is the subject of the article. This could include Israel's use of bombs to dismantle Hamas tunnels, Hamas booby traps, and for all we know even grenades. No where on that source does it say they only count casualties from airstrikes. Fyukfy5 (talk) 15:45, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do agree the source has a weak wording when it comes to the fact that of how many militants are included in the count. However since the source does not present any form of insight into how the number is procured, and includes not just deaths from bombs, the same can be said that the source is a weak source that should not be cited, in the infobox, for deaths related to Israels bombing campaign.
Since neither the Gazan Health Ministry nor OCHA separately reports explosive deaths, would it not be more accurate to state that the amount of deaths from the bombing campaign is unknown and instead include a section of the infobox for how many tons of ammunition that has been dropped? Jjoonnii (talk) 21:06, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Fyukfy5 @Jjoonnii I think at this point it's kind of a pointless distinction, it's not wikipedia's role to conduct detailed forensic analysis, we can only base our pages on RS. In this case, RS reports a certain number of deaths and does not supply information about who was what, and WP:NYPOST is not considered an RS anyway, so I'm comfortable with the way this information is related at present. Smallangryplanet (talk) 19:10, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was just using that as an example to it being an indisputable fact that Hamas militants have died in airstrikes. The war it's currently worded makes it seem as though 19000+ civilians have died AS WELL AS an unknown number of civilians. I'm just suggesting that it be changed to 19000+ civilians and militants (combined). Fyukfy5 (talk) 19:15, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sort of defacto if they are civilians then they are not militants, and again, I don't think we can make that determination. Smallangryplanet (talk) 19:20, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not talking about how some of the civilians are militants and vice versa, I'm talking about how the source itself states that a specific breakdown of how many civilians and how many militants have been killed doesn't exist so they just use the word civilians. Either way 19000+ is the total number, not just the civilian number. Fyukfy5 (talk) 19:28, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've updated it with the latest figures and included the AOAV's methodology, so now it just says the total number as of December 5. Smallangryplanet (talk) 19:45, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's an asterisk next to the number, if you scroll down to the italicized paragraph you'll see what I'm referring to. I just want the article to be as clear as possible. Fyukfy5 (talk) 19:50, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that text has now been added as a quote. If you mouse over the reference you'll see it. Smallangryplanet (talk) 19:52, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the best solution is to just have the number without specifying civilians and militants because we clearly don't exactly know how many of each group were killed seeing as the Gaza health ministry doesn't release that information. Fyukfy5 (talk) 19:56, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The source says citizens. I think if we remove it we're taking a NPOV stance. If we keep "citizens" and explain why we use it, then at least we're accurately relating what the source is telling us. Smallangryplanet (talk) 20:47, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It feels like we're going around in circles. I think we both understand the other point bust simply disagree. I've sent an email to AOAV to see if I can get some clarity one way or the other. Fyukfy5 (talk) 21:15, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think given the RS this is the best solution. Another solution could be to drop the word Civilian and use Gazans instead and keep the footnote you added however this could look abit forced. Jjoonnii (talk) 21:48, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Request

[edit]

Get rid of "war crimes" in the infobox under "Attack types". A war crime isn't a type of attack, it a broad term used to describe crimes committed during war. Fyukfy5 (talk) 15:46, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done - disagree, imo. If you look at other pages using the same infobox the "type" field appears to be pretty flexible. You could probably ask on the template's talk page for clearer guidance of what goes in the type field, I guess. Smallangryplanet (talk) 19:14, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ive looked at other similar articles such as Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Bombardment of Tartar, and, Bombing of Dresden amongst others and none have "war crime" as a type of attack besides this page. I don't see why this page specifically should be different. Fyukfy5 (talk) 19:38, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My Lai massacre, 2002 Mombasa attacks, Armenian genocide, on the other hand, do have multiple items, some of them not, under the strictest of definitions, an "attack type". I think it is fine to use war crimes here because it accurately describes the contents of the article. Smallangryplanet (talk) 19:48, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Removing dresden from the lead

[edit]

I think Dresden should be removed from the last sentence of the first paragraph of the lead. The Dresden campaign lasted for two days whereas Israels bombing campaign has lasted for well above that. The length in time makes comparing the two like comparing apples and oranges.

If we want to keep the list to three bombing campaigns Dresden could be changed for Operation Allied Forces. that campaign lasted over 2 months which makes it more comparable. Jjoonnii (talk) 21:18, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: I would agree if it only mentioned Dresden, but in context I think it makes sense, no? By late April 2024 it was estimated that Israel had dropped over 70,000 tons of bombs over Gaza, surpassing the bombing of Dresden, Hamburg, and London combined during World War II. I can see that it's a little ambiguous especially since the other two cities link to war-long bombing campaigns. What if I changed it to "surpassing the number of bombs dropped on..." ? Smallangryplanet (talk) 19:19, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think using the wording surpassing the number of bombs dropped on would be misleading. Given the increase in size of bombs since world war 2 i don't think we can equate more tonnage of bombs = more bombs. Therefore the current wording I think the current wording is better.
I disagree that it makes sense in this context. The bombing campaign in this article is a multi month long bombing campaign, same as London and Hamburg. Dresden happened in such a smaller time frame and therefore is not really comparable the same way the atomic bombings wouldn't be comparable or Operation Barrel Roll, a campaign that lasted for 9 years.
Given the wide array of bombing campaigns we have in history I think we should include the best and closest comparisons. Jjoonnii (talk) 21:42, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My assumption is we're using it because RS are also using it, even if it's a bit of a category error, so I guess I wonder if there's another comparison that is being made in RS instead of Dresden? Smallangryplanet (talk) 21:59, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.sgr.org.uk/resources/gaza-one-most-intense-bombardments-history I believe this RS might be better. It does include a small reference to the Allied bombings, see after fotnote 12, it is only a passing one. Later there is a table which compares the current bombing campaign to previous bombing campaigns in Gaza, Roughly the same amount of amunitions dropped in the first 35 days as the previous, 2008-2021, bombing campaigns combined.
With that comparision the same geographical are is used, mostly the same type of munitions and delivery methods and it would be a better example of how this campaign differes from previous campaigns in the area. Jjoonnii (talk) 09:47, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.eso.workers.dev/w/index.php?title=Talk:Israeli_bombing_of_the_Gaza_Strip&oldid=1263381256"