Jump to content

Talk:Environmental impact of the Israel–Hamas war

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Robertsky (talk | contribs) at 17:43, 16 June 2024 (Reopening discussion.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Many more sources available

John Cummings (talk) 16:11, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/interactive/2024/gaza-israel-agriculture-food-fisheries/ Levivich (talk) 05:35, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

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: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 talk 19:56, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
IDF Bulldozer clearing trees in Gaza in 2023
IDF Bulldozer clearing trees in Gaza in 2023
Created by John Cummings (talk).

Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 8 past nominations.

Post-promotion hook changes will be logged on the talk page; consider watching the nomination until the hook appears on the Main Page.

John Cummings (talk) 10:57, 9 April 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Reopening per talk.--Launchballer 15:25, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again Launchballer, just FYI to whoever reviews this, I've addressed the maintainance tags and done a QPQ with Template:Did you know nominations/KDCD-TV. John Cummings (talk) 15:48, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
thanks BlueMoonset, to the person reviewing it, please ping me with any questions :) John Cummings (talk) 16:18, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi evrik thank you for looking at the article, I realise it is an emotive subject. I believe the intro to be a fair summary of the events and have used the same descriptors for the events as the sources, especially the academic study to try to make the article as accurate as possible. However there are limited sources available given the blockade and ban on journalists entering. I can't find any sources which despute that the destruction has happened or who destroyed the farms and trees. There are some more sources to go through but they mainly focus on the health impacts of the destruction. I've included the only quote I can find from the Israeli government in the body of the article. Can you tell me which words/phrases specifically you think are not balanced and how you would go about changing it? John Cummings (talk) 21:52, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I edited two items in the article. It looks like the suggestions made here have been implemented and the article is as neutral as it can be. The article has the correct inline citations and it is both long enough and new enough to qualify for dyk. The hook is confirmed, in the article, and interesting. I prefer ALT0 as it introduces the word ecocide which is the subject of the article. The nominator has done a qpq. Regarding the stability of the article - it appears mostly -stable, just the nominator and myself have edited it today. Earwig has been down for me today so I have spot checked sources and did not find evidence of plagiarism. Bruxton (talk) 01:32, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bruxton thanks very much for assessing it and for your additions to the article. John Cummings (talk) 08:21, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the hook @Rjjiii: it works and it confirmed with the sources. Bruxton (talk) 04:54, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bruxton honestly I really dislike this solution, all the sources are very clear on the source of the vast vast majority of the destruction which is Israeli forces using bulldozers and bombs. It currently reads as passive voice with no information on who is doing the destruction. I understand the number of bombs has been taken issue with, my strong preference is:

... that Israel's systematic destruction of 38–48% of trees and farmland in Gaza using bulldozers and bombs has been described as an ecocide? Source: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/mar/29/gaza-israel-palestinian-war-ecocide-environmental-destruction-pollution-rome-statute-war-crimes-aoe

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 10:47, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As discussed at WT:DYK, that hook is not supported by the source. CMD (talk) 10:54, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in mind that WP:DYKHOOK says The hook should include a definite fact that is unlikely to change. Hooks that talk about a specific number of trees destroyed in an ongoing conflict can't possibly meet that requirement. RoySmith (talk) 12:44, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RoySmith thanks for explaining this, the fact Israeli forces destroyed them and that they have been accused of ecocide I think both meet that requirement. 13:40, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chipmunkdavis, to take each part of the sentence and quote from the source in "s:

  • that Israel's : " Israel’s onslaught on Gaza’s ecosystems has made the area unlivable" and "satellite data that Israeli military activity had destroyed more than 65 sq km, or 38% of that land"
  • systematic : "Samaneh Moafi, FA’s assistant director of research, describes the destruction as systematic." and "The effects of this systematic agricultural destruction"
  • destruction of 38–48% of trees and farmland in Gaza : " shows the destruction of about 38-48% of tree cover and farmland"
  • using bulldozers and bombs : "farmland destroyed by bombs and bulldozers"
  • has been described as an ecocide? : "led to calls for it to be regarded as “ecocide” and investigated as a possible war crime"

One related question, is it possible to use a second link in the hook to further provide sources? I feel like this is is sufficient but others also state facts to back up the statement as well.

John Cummings (talk) 13:46, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Individual points may all be sourced, but they should not be synthed together to say something else. CMD (talk) 13:51, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Chipmunkdavis thanks, can I check that you agree that all the invidvidual facts are supported by the source now? Could you describe what you think is synthesised? And what is "something else"? I feel like this sentence is an accurate summary of the facts. Thanks again, John Cummings (talk) 14:01, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have put details in the discussion at WT:DYK which I would ask you to refer to, but in general if your hook is trying to connect five different points it is unlikely to be accurate. Another example, not covered by WT:DYK, is you are claiming all 38-48% (not a small range) of the destruction is due to systematic bulldozing and bombing, while in actuality that is the total destruction caused by all actors and actions in the war. CMD (talk) 14:17, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Chipmunkdavis thanks for your reply, its got a bit difficult to keep track of everything when its spread across two pages. Can you say which part you think is unaccurate taking these 5 facts from the source? I know that there is some wood taken for firewood, however this and the other sources are clear, the vast vast majority of the trees have been destroyed by Israeli military "satellite data that Israeli military activity had destroyed more than 65 sq km, or 38% of that land". Would you be happy if the phrase was changed to 'more than 38% of trees and farmland' rather than '38% - 48%'? This would make it a direct quote from the source. My understanding of the % range in the information is simply that no one is allowed to enter Gaza to measure the destruction so the researchers made their study through remote sensing and that the amount of trees used for firewood is negligable and includes trees already felled by Israeli military. John Cummings (talk) 14:44, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The synthing together of the five facts is the issue, not the individual facts. I suggest picking one in particular, and making a hook about that (although not the bombs and bulldozers one, that's mostly a dramatic turn of phrase, especially as we know they also used tanks). Looking at the article, 38% and 48% are actually separate points, 38% is from a study of farmland, 48% is specifically tree cover, two distinct albeit overlapping measurements. CMD (talk) 15:03, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chipmunkdavis, thanks for your reply, I'm unsure how I could use only one of the facts and make it a full sentence. Thanks for the suggestions about separating the tree destruction and farmland destruction and catching the use of tanks, I've integrated that into a new Alt. John Cummings (talk) 15:11, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@John Cummings: I am not approving any percentages in any hook. This is an ongoing war, and those figures will date, if they haven't already done so. I would also expect a prepbuilder to WP:DYKTRIM it anyway. If you're alright with the shortened ALT3a:
ALT3a: ... that Israel's systematic destruction of trees and farmland in Gaza has been described as an ecocide?
I will approve that.--Launchballer 21:43, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Launchballer I understand your concern about the percentages, can you tell me what you feel the issue is with the other part you removed 'using tanks, bulldozers and bombs'? I'm not aware of a rule that would suggest this should be excluded. Thanks again, John Cummings (talk) 23:44, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DYKTRIM, plus I don't see the word 'bulldozers' in the article. (I see the word 'bulldozed', but it doesn't have an end-of-sentence citation.--Launchballer 09:49, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Launchballer, thank you very much for the explanation and link. Honestly I think that the method of destruction is important conext for people to understand what is happening. I've fixed the article to explicitly say bulldozers, several new refs have become available in the last weeks. The sentence "that Israel's systematic destruction of trees and farmland in Gaza using tanks, bulldozers, bombs and herbicides has been described as an ecocide?" fits below the 150-160 recommended max. I'm ok with going with the shorter version if that is the only version that will be accepted but I think it misses really important context on the varied methods used to achieve the systematic destruction. Thanks again for your help, John Cummings (talk) 13:17, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mean it does now check out, so it's fine by me. I can tell you that WP:CLUMPs of references are discouraged, and one of them (the Famine section) would deserve {{clump}}. I also notice that that section is a single-sentence paragraph, which is discouraged per WP:PARAGRAPH.--Launchballer 13:38, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree about multiple references. The point of a reference is to let the user verify a statement. If you give one good source for that, it's easy for the reader to do that. If you give them a list of sources, all you do is make the reader's job harder because they have to go look in all of them until they find the one that supports the statement. RoySmith (talk) 13:51, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Launchballer thank you vey much, I've also suggested an image. John Cummings (talk) 14:15, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which checks out, however I can't approve an article deserving that template. Please remedy it before I can approve it.--Launchballer 14:20, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Launchballer, great :) I've been through and unclumped that section and other sections I can find with more than 2 refs for a statement. I hope this meets the rules now, sorry its been so much back and forth. John Cummings (talk) 14:45, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This should be fine.--Launchballer 14:48, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Offering 2 hooks based on [1] & [2]. @John Cummings: I think the front page hook is more appropriate with limited information "on who is doing the destruction". Readers can click into the article where context is available. If you disagree, I'll strike this and my previous suggestion. Regards, Rjjiii (talk) 16:30, 18 May 2024 (UTC) Crossed out hooks objected to by nominator. 05:13, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll assess them when I get back from shopping, but straight away, WP:ANADOLU Agency is in red for controversial topics at WP:RSP, and so I won't accept a hook based on that source.--Launchballer 16:38, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the heads up. I was unfamiliar with the source and saw it used in the article. I've removed "herbicide" from the proposed hook. WP:ANADOLU seems to be the only source for herbicide usage cited in the article right now. I'm not French, but the video cited near herbicide seems to be talking about bombing. Rjjiii (talk) 16:52, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Launchballer thanks very much for catching this source I missed. Rjjiii I appreciate your suggestions, my issue with reducing the hook is it misses out vital context, e.g '3b' misses out that multiple sources have called it an ecocide, also it misses out who is doing it and how. '3c' misses who is doing it and that it is so huge in scale it is being called an ecocide. John Cummings (talk) 19:42, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could WP:FORBESCON and WP:ANADOLU and their relevant passages be removed/recited? I'm very sorry I didn't spot them earlier.--Launchballer 10:44, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Launchballer yep, fixed, I just found better refs for the statements :) John Cummings (talk) 17:16, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, let's try this again. I do note that there is another "Israel did bad" hook in prep 3 and there's another one ahead of this at Approved, so perhaps this should wait until the next one's been queued.--Launchballer 17:55, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli/ IDF POV

John Cummings, could you mention the Israeli/ IDF POV in the article, as the Guardian article does? I can't see any mention of it at present. The DYK reviewer will need to check that the article has a NPOV. TSventon (talk) 20:08, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TSventon, thanks, I added a sentence. John Cummings (talk) 21:38, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cost

In case it's useful, the World Bank has [3] that up to the end of January the conflict had caused more than US$400 million worth of damage to Gaza's environment. Richard Nevell (talk) 19:09, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested rename

I propose this be renamed to Environmental impact of the Israel–Hamas war. There's no need to say "in the Gaza Strip" in the title; that's where the war is, so it's obvious that's where the damage is. Also, this would be more in line with other existing titles such as

RoySmith (talk) 13:15, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree and I think there should be a WP:RM so we can attract more community input.VR (Please ping on reply) 04:42, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps an "RM BEFORE" source analysis is called for to see what scopes/titles are supported by RSes. Levivich (talk) 05:01, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Vice regent you are certainly welcome to open a RM discussion if you wish. RoySmith (talk) 13:12, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, this is a better title Zanahary (talk) 02:00, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

POV tag

The lede is misleading and biased to say the least. What Egyptian-Israeli blockade during the current war? Whose bombing is it? Israeli-cited study claiming there is too much food entering the Gaza Strip? Israel blaming Hamas for the famine despite international condemnation of its starvation policy? Why pollution of Israeli beaches rather than the destruction a third of the strip's green cover? Makeandtoss (talk) 10:12, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Makeandtoss much of the content you are concerned about was added here on 26 May. TSventon (talk) 10:33, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, explains, since it is impossible than no one challenged this framing before. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:37, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Un bias reporting

This article fails to state anything related to the attempt to destroy the only democracy in the Middle East, with the terrorist attacks of October 7th, the rfpe of Innocent Israelis and the abuse of bodies and the taking of hostages. 71.223.93.4 (talk) 03:30, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 31 May 2024

Environmental damage caused by the Israel–Hamas war → Environmental impact of the Israel–Hamas war – As noted in #Suggested rename above, there is well-established precedent for naming these types of articles Environmental impact of .... This is a more neutral description than Environmental damage of ..., as required by WP:NDESC. @Vice regent @Amakuru @Launchballer @Bruxton @Schwede66 @Lightburst @SafariScribe all of whom were involved in previous discussons of this topic. RoySmith (talk) 16:15, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support as article titles should be neutral.
Schwede66 16:20, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing non-neutral about using the word "damage".VR (Please ping on reply) 19:02, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support more definitive. Per move rationale. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 16:26, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I checked our article. I see that 8 of the 21 sources in our article say mention that Israel caused the environmental damage in their titles. The others say things in their text like: "Due to the Israeli occupation, all aspects of life and the environment in Gaza have been heavily damaged".
  1. "No Traces of Life, Israel's Ecocide", "Israeli attacks have decimated 70 percent of northern Gaza's water wells"
  2. "Ecocide in Gaza: The environmental impact of Israel's war"
  3. "Report: Deliberate Ecocide a Key Element of Israel's Genocidal Campaign in Gaza"
  4. "The staggering carbon footprint of Israel's war in Gaza"
  5. "'Ecocide in Gaza': does scale of environmental destruction amount to a war crime?".
  6. "Ecocide in Gaza: Who will hear and heal its dying environment?"
  7. "Widespread destruction in Gaza puts concept of 'domicide' in focus". (Domicide is the deliberate and systematic destruction of a living environment)
  8. "Gaza : Israël accusée de commettre un écocide environnemental"
I note that we have no issue with saying Russia caused environmental damage in these articles,
  1. Environmental impact of the Russian occupation of Crimea
  2. Environmental impact of the Russian invasion of Ukraine
But we are more cautious with a title about causation involving the United States
  1. Environmental impact of the Vietnam War
  2. Environmental impact of the Gulf wars.
So after saying all of that, the suggested title change works if we want to mirror the way we treat the United States in our article titles about the impact of their actions. Lightburst (talk) 18:50, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Lightburst: based on the above, would you be ok with the "Gaza ecocide" as a title? All the sources you cited above have "ecocide" (or "domicide") in their title.VR (Please ping on reply) 23:38, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Vice regent I see it as an editorial choice and it feels like charged language. I think we should call out who destroyed the environment in Gaza the same way we do with the Russia hooks. Something like Environmental impact of the Israeli invasion of the Gaza strip. Lightburst (talk) 23:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Or to Levivich's point Environmental damage caused by the Israeli invasion of the Gaza strip is probably more accurate. Lightburst (talk) 00:00, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose in favor of Gaza ecocide, which is what I think this is called by RS. Levivich (talk) 18:58, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also think "impact" is less neutral than "damage." "Impact" strikes me as whitewashing... an "impact" can be positive, but this is definitely not positive. The impact on the environment is that the environment is damaged. Also, in other wars, say WWI or WWII, the environmental damage is caused by both sides in the war. Here, not so. So "caused by the Israel-Hamas war" or "of the Israel-Hamas war" again strikes me as whitewashing. Further, in other wars, the environmental damage caused by a belligerent is typically a side-effect of, e.g. bombing stuff. But here, not so: in this case, we're talking about a belligerent doing things like bringing in bulldozers to bulldoze agriculture. This isn't just damage caused by bombs, it's the intentional destruction of agriculture/ecosystem/environment. In other words, it's ecocide. Finally, all the environmental damage, AFAIK, is in Gaza, not in Israel, not anywhere else. So, "Gaza ecocide." In addition to being WP:CONCISE, it's also the most WP:PRECISE title even if it weren't the WP:COMMONNAME (although I think a source analysis would reveal it's the common name). Levivich (talk) 19:14, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose in favor of Gaza ecocide. Other acceptable alternatives are Environmental impact/damage of the Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip or Environmental impact/damage on the Gaza Strip of the Israel–Hamas war. The current article exclusively discusses the environmental impact on the Gaza Strip, and not the environmental impact anywhere else. Naming the article what its content is not about is a violation of WP:COATRACK. The topic of environmental impact in Gaza is a topic that is notable alone in its own right, so there's no reason it needs to be lumped with other topics.VR (Please ping on reply) 19:02, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose
  1. Passive voice: using the word 'damage' is putting the description into the passive voice, which is a common problem with many sources in the conflict and misleading. I'd suggest the other articles which use this word suffer from this same passive voice issue, also I'd note that passive voice and being neutral are not the same thing.
  2. Alternatives: I suggest the current title isn't great because it doesn't say where the damage is happening making it confusing for the reader. I would agree with Lightburst and others above that Environmental damage caused by the Israeli invasion of the Gaza strip would be most accurate, I'd also suggest Environmental destruction caused by the Israeli invasion of the Gaza strip since the damage is so severe, it describes the what, where and why of the situation.
  3. Ecocide: I understand the idea behind the use of the word ecocide (being the person who wrote most of the ecocide article), however I want to point out that ecocide is mostly legal definition, e.g the International Criminal Court has a crime specifically for ecocide during war, also the EU, Ukraine and a few others have it as a national crime. I would also suggest using a technical term like ecocide will make the article harder to find but I appreciate the editor who made the redirect for it.
Thanks, John Cummings (talk) 00:18, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support for consistency and neutrality, with impact allowing for changes which are not unambiguously damaging to be included. Strongest possible opposition to any use of Gaza Ecocide as a highly NPOV title not sufficiently supported by RS. FortunateSons (talk) 17:21, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, "impact" is a broader concept than "damage", which is again broader than "ecocide". It makes sense given this is a developing real-world topic as well as a developing short article to keep this as a broad topic, and to spin out new items when and if that will aid the understanding of the reader. CMD (talk) 10:34, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Environmental impact of the Israel–Hamas war – this is the title in the format of other similar articles. --Gruznov (talk) 22:35, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as a more standard, definitive, concise and not-unnecessarily-scope-limiting title. Zanahary (talk) 02:01, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Environmental_impact_of_the_Israel–Hamas_war&oldid=1229414657"