Talk:Barrel bomb

brown moses blogposts

[1] - jan 2013 , and the latest December 2013, guest post from Richard Lloyd syrias barrel bomb technology [2]Sayerslle (talk) 20:31, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Syrian helicopter video

The October 2012 syrian helicopter video that was leaked (first undeniable evidence of barrel bombs in use) has apparently been deleted from youtube, but Brown Moses post about it is still available at[3]. -- GreenC 17:01, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Found the YouTube video link. Also saved a copy local in case it disappears. -- GreenC 14:57, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

List length

I'm concerned with so many bombings the list will become unwieldy in length. Any thoughts how it might be condensed? Not necessarily loosing information. One idea is to have one line per month, plus the linked sources. For example there were 109 known deaths and a number of unreported deaths in at least 12 bombings incidents during February 2014. -- GreenC 15:47, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Agreed with Green Cardamom. It definitely needs to be shortened. Are we to list every barrel bomb that has been used in the conflict in the list? Étienne Dolet (talk) 23:28, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

It's not every one, just those that are reported. Considering how many deaths are involved with each one there is good rationale for reporting them. Any one of these in any other country would be a major historical event. They are being dropped on civilians mostly. I guess the question is how to best present the information. We should WP:PRESERVE the information but figure out some want to present it in a way that is more condensed and useful such as in a table format, perhaps one line per month with totals. User:Fotoriety do you have any thoughts? -- GreenC 16:16, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

It's a bit difficult to create a table with monthly casualties because i doubt those kind of statistics are available. Plus a simple table removes the noteworthiness of each attack that kills scores of people. The only solution i can think of (other than to continue the list in its present form) is to create a separate Wiki article called 'List of Syrian Civil War barrel bomb attacks'.Fotoriety (talk) 23:18, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

@Fotoriety: Well it wouldn't claim to be a comprehensive databases of every death since as you say such a thing doesn't exist. Rather it would it would simply re-arrange the existing data, which already exists in the article, nothing would be lost. I don't think the presentation of the data impacts the "noteworthiness" of the data - I mean why have one line per attack, why not one line per death, or a separate article for each attack (hypothetical to make the point, not a serious suggestion, unless there is enough coverage of an event to justify it) ... In the end you are right that spinning this off to a separate list of article is probably the solution, unless the attacks slow down or stop soon. -- GreenC 14:54, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I really can't see these attacks slowing down, so i think a separate article would be best. What do you think? Should it be created?Fotoriety (talk) 08:24, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes probably a good idea. -- GreenC 13:51, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Israel & Sudan Suggestion

Hi User:Green Cardamom. I noticed you added the use of bb by Sudan & Palestinian militants in the article. I personally abstained from adding this info from the news source because it just seemed (at present) too little detailed and a bit obscure for inclusion just yet. The info about Sudan's use of the bb doesn't mention who was being targeted and by how many such attacks. Nor does it mention much sources of the information. Meanwhile, the info about Israel appears quite confusing. It doesn't mention the nature of the 'bb' washing-up on Israeli shores. How were they launched, seeing as Palestinians don't have an air force? What do they look like? i.e. are they really bb or just modified typical rockets and mortars that Palestinians fire into Israel? And who launched them? I just think we need more detail before we add this to the page. What's your opinion? Thanks.Fotoriety (talk) 02:54, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

We have reliable sources reporting Sudan and Israel I think it should be reported even though the exact details are not yet known there is still general info. I'll try to find more info. Unfortunately this article looks like its going to expand globally as unstable nations start employing them based on the "success" in Syria. -- GreenC 03:13, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks.Fotoriety (talk) 04:08, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Looks like the term "barrel bomb" goes way back to sometime in the 20th century in Sudan, picture and caption in this book War and Faith in Sudan (2000), pg. 117-118. Guardian article from 2004 mentions barrel bombs in Sudan. Looks like an interesting puzzle to track down the source and early uses of barrel bombs. -- GreenC 03:24, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Interesting & unfortunate at the same time.Fotoriety (talk) 04:08, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi again User:Green Cardamom. Thanks for elaborating on your previous edits. I just have one issue: I think we shouldn't be adding every instance of explosives put into a barrel as being a bb just because a news source has labelled it such. Specifically, my objections are with 2 cases you have added; Israel, and their use by Syrian rebels. My understanding of a bb is that it is a barrel (or container) filled with explosives and dropped from a plane/helicopter. To me, launching explosive filled barrels into the sea is more akin to launching a sea-mine. Also, exploding barrels under Syrian regime positions is more akin to any generic triggered explosion. I'm pretty sure any large explosion by land forces, on land, will be triggered by explosives placed inside some form of container. I just think we should be more wary of extending the term where it becomes too general & diluted. Thanks.Fotoriety (talk) 10:07, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

The media is reporting them as "barrel bombs", there's no strict or official definition. Though 'airborne IED' seems to be the common understanding. I'm willing to remove those examples since they are outliers about a single incident, if the term catches on and used more often in that context (sea-borne or tunnel-borne) we might need to re-add. -- GreenC 12:47, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Definitely agree if more info on these types of explosives is added as bb then we will have to reassess. Thanks for your understanding.Fotoriety (talk) 13:55, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

There was no south sudan in the 1990s so I changed it to southern sudan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.24.100.170 (talk) 23:35, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Cost comparison with US bombs

The cost comparison with US munitions is misleading. Barrel bombs are not equivalent to standard bombs. Although both are dropped from planes and explode on hitting the ground that is where the similarity ends. Standard bombs are designed to work with on-board electronics to allow for precision release (not as precise as smart weapons, but they are precise weapons). The computer takes into account the noted target, speed and direction of plane etc.. and then releases the weapon at the right time. It requires the plane to fly at a lower altitude where it is vulnerable to ground to air counter fire (missiles, flak etc). All of this is very different from a barrel bombs which is imprecise and released at a high altitude. The cost comparison between the two makes it look like a cheaper way to do the same thing - bomb targets - but they are not the same thing, this is the core criticism of barrel bombs. -- GreenC 20:52, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Proto-barrel bombs

I think we can find a lot of examples from history where military forces dropped "dumb bombs" which is to say a big container filled with explosives. However a barrel bomb is called a "barrel bomb" and has a set of physical and cultural meanings behind it. If it wasn't called a barrel bomb, it's probably not really a barrel bomb. Barrel bombs for example are usually dropped out of planes that otherwise are not designed to go on bombing runs, such as helicopters or transport planes. They are usually made from re-purposed materials (such as barrels) and not purpose built in mass quantities. They often have crude ignition mechanisms, such as lit fuses. All these things are counter to the British High Capacity bomb which is a professional bomb made by a professional military for a special purpose. -- GreenC 13:17, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

biased reporting

All of the cites here report from one side of the conflicts, the Sunni-Western. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.241.26.8 (talk) 03:32, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Barrel Bomb vs Boiler Bomb

I think we should be careful about being too literal what the bomb is made out of. "Barrel bomb" is an English idiom, usually referring to a very large improvised dumb-bomb, not a professional weapon, and usually dropped from cargo planes or helicopters not normally made for bombing. It doesn't mean the bomb is made from a barrel. The bombs in Syria appear to be purpose-built metal containers and not made out of barrels, except in the sense they are barrel-shaped metal tubes.[4] Brown Moses also says some are made from empty fuel tanks. So we are dealing with a concept not literal barrels. As a concept, it may have other names in other countries or time periods, such as the "boiler bomb" of Croatia. In fact the Croatian boiler bombs are more akin to the idea of a purely improvised weapon than the Syria bombs, which look more mass produced and purpose built, though they are still called barrel bombs due to the concept. -- GreenC 01:34, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Green. Fair enough, but would it be possible to find a better source? I'm thinking of a textual reference. Perhaps the wikilink about the battle may have something to that effect. -- Fotoriety (talk) 09:01, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

• A picture of one on Commons [5] from the Technical Museum Zagreb, but nothing about it on the website.
• Human Rights Watch, pg. 20 (last paragraph). Describes usage of boiler bomb in land combat.
• Another picture
• Here are two sources in Croatian that look reliable: hrvatski-vojnik.hr and glas-slavonije.hr (towards the bottom). Mentions usage dropped from air.

That's all I can find in an immediate search. The current source is not bad since it's a broadcast news show, although a transcript would be good at least we can see them being used to verify they existed as claimed. -- GreenC 14:12, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Legal status

Green Cardamom: I do not agree that a reference to the laws of war is original research (synthesis). The laws of war principles apply regardless of if the bombs are improvised or not. Erlbaeko (talk) 14:41, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

The source doesn't mention barrel bombs. It's original research synthesis to apply the laws in this way to this weapon universally to every country. Furthermore a Guardian article is hardly a reliable source to make far reaching and definitive legal conclusion about barrel bombs. This question is highly political as the Assad regime may face war crime charges and given the recent setbacks they may be seeking a way out of the current predicament so it's really not surprising to see the legality of barrel bombs become a topic of interest on Wikipedia. Until you have a source that says something about the legal status of barrel bombs please refrain from making your own conclusions based on your own interpretations. Every country is different based on treaties and agreements, every weapon is different based on treaties and agreements. Furthermore the United Nations ruled on this issue, banning them - they are illegal in Syria (according to UN resolution). If Assad want's to dispute it he can take it to the UN or world court and see how they rule, but that is unlikely to happen. -- GreenC 23:35, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

No, the source doesn't mention "barrel bombs". Nor does it mention "hell cannons" or any other quasi-terms. It deals with the legal use of force in an armed conflict and especially the concept of proportionality. The UN resolution you are referring to (Resolution 2139 (2014), I believe (the ref. you provided doesn't work)) uses the term "aerial bombardment" about barrel bombs, and that is a term used in international law. Ref. the Red Cross. Erlbaeko (talk) 09:24, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

There is something valid in what you're saying. However it's tricky due to the controversy surrounding Assad's use of BBs since there are people gunning to take him to court on crimes against humanity (or something) and Assad's denial that he uses BBs. Legal principals are well and good but I'm not comfortable discussing legal principal given the political controversy unless a source specifically mentions barrel bombs. -- GreenC 15:20, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, I believe we are on safe ground if we include some text from the lead of the main aritcle, and use the Red Cross article as a source. Regarding Assad's so called barrel bomb denial; that is nothing more than a twist of his words. In the answer to question 15 in the full text of the interview, he confirms that his forces use bombs, and when asked specially about "large barrels full of explosives and projectiles which are dropped from helicopters" he replays "they are called bombs". Thus, he confirmed that his forces use barrel bombs. According to the United States Naval Academy, "Bomb-type ammunition is characterized by a large high-explosive charge-to-weight ratio. Examples are aircraft bombs", ref., and in the military, the term "bomb" typically refers to airdropped, unpowered explosive weapons. Ref. Bombs. Erlbaeko (talk) 19:10, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Proto-barrel bombs

The following were never called "barrel bombs" but had characteristics similar to the modern barrel bomb phenomenon." As we say that they were "never called "barrel bombs"" including them in this article is OR, unless a reliable source has joined the dots, rather than one of our editors. Has one? --Dweller (talk) 16:59, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

They are made from barrels. They are bombs. Reliable sources call them "barrel bombs". There is nothing "proto". Moved to the main section. -- GreenC 19:31, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Green Cardamom. I agree with the IP, who reverted this, except maybe the last sentence. Do you have any online sources to back it up? (Yes, I know off-line sources are perfectly legal). Erlbaeko (talk) 07:48, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Back what up? It is sourced. If you're unable to read the sources then request help from the Resource Exchange. -- GreenC 13:29, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

This statement: "'On January 7, 1947, members of the militant Zionist group Irgun stole a police van from which they rolled a barrel bomb into a large group of civilians who were waiting for a bus by the Jaffa Gate, killing around 16. The bomb was described as "two fifty-gallon oil drums packed tight with old nails, bits of scrap iron, hinges, rusty metal filings. At their center was a core of TNT..."." I didn't say that it wasn't sourced; I asked if you are aware of any online sources. Erlbaeko (talk) 14:44, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I added one which has preview mode on Google Books. The other is The Scotsman which will likely be available in commercial databases which people at Resource Exchange will have access to to verify. The third book is also on Google Books but the portion needed is not available (snippet mode). -- GreenC 15:29, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I look into it later. Erlbaeko (talk) 18:25, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Barrel bomb from van

User:Green Cardamom. There is no notability in the attacks attributed to Militant Zionist groups. These attacks do not include "Barrel bombs" as defined in this article - they are neither improvised nor thrown from aircrafts. If there is a claim that these attacks are notable for some reason I'd like it to be explicit in the text. If you want to include all kinds of barrel-shaped exploding devices I'm sure there are much more notable examples. This paragraph needs to be deleted from this article. Kotz (talk) 20:07, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

You're not the first person to raise the concern about it not being airplane delivered. Nevertheless the source says it's a barrel bomb and our article says "typically" by airplane (ie. doesn't have to be). For me, they are characterized by a large single-container explosive device (maybe barrel shaped maybe not), meant to terrorize civilians, improvised in manufacture, not a stationary mine or artillery shell but actively projected onto a target. I'm not suggesting to use that definition in the article, but it seems to fit all cases that are called barrel bombs. -- GreenC 21:43, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

GreenC, this and this can be called barrel bombs too, but it is not what the article is about. Is it? The term is not defined in ammunition terminology. It is a quasi-term that may or may not have been used about something of this sort earlier. Imo, it should be deleted if the article is about improvised unguided bombs dropped from a helicopter or an airplane. Erlbaeko (talk) 22:34, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

But those are not called barrel bombs as a class of weapon. I've researched barrel bombs, seeking the origin of how the term come to be associated with the phenomenon. The Zionists are the earliest example I could find where a class of weapon is intentionally named a "barrel bomb". More sources. It is suggestive of an origin since they sometimes say "tar-barrel bomb" and other times "barrel bomb", like a shortened version. And they are actual barrels unlike most examples in this article. I don't know if it is the origin and don't assert so, but it might be. I can find no earlier example (that isn't obscure). And the Zionist tar (oil) barrel bombs fit the modern in a number of ways: improvised, used to kill civilians, projected onto targets (one source says they were "sent crashing into Arab houses", exactly what barrel bombs do in Syria today). I don't think we should try to make the article fit our modern conception of a barrel bomb while ignoring historical cases. -- GreenC 02:12, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

1. Is the article about "things ever called barrel bombs" or about "the thing now known as barrel bomb"? That's an imporant distinction. The former might be interesting for a dictionary or as a part of a lingustic discussion.
2. The article should be complete and consistent. You may think barrel bombs are "improvised, used to kill civilians, projected onto target" but this is not reflected in the article (and rightly so). Examples in the article should relate to that definition and not to some author's nonexplicit definitions, which are NPOV.
3. Why is this not a barrel bomb? [6]
4. Your example does not say those bombs were improvised.
5. "Throwing bombs at Arab houses" is not the same as "meant to terrorize civilians". This is again NPOV.
6. This paragraph should be deleted from the article.

Kotz (talk) 07:51, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree to delete it. So do user 2607:fb90:cc1:af83:ad79:ad8a:7cba:16a3, ref diff, but regarding your question in #3; that may actually be included in a section called "History of barrel bombs". It is equal to Rocket#History of rockets, and that scenario is not that unlikely either. Ref. The Atlantic. Are you aware of any other source that describes the use of a catapult to throw a homemade grenade/bomb? Erlbaeko (talk) 09:44, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't think there's any importance to bombs being barrel-shaped or being thrown away ballisticly. That's the only way to deliver firearms far away and has been done for millenias. (See Cannons). I think the notability of contemporary barrel bombs, as described in the article, are (1) being improvised / handmade; and (2) delivered from aircraft. In this it's a new combination of old+new technologies; costs reduced to a degree which change the economics of using that weapon. So the examples you provided do not in my opinion signify "the history of barrel bombs"; rather the history of Bombs. Kotz (talk) 10:11, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Kotz, even being improvised.handmade isn't accurate as the Syrian regime has bomb making factories that churn out thousands of these so-called "barrel bombs" - and they are not even barrels, just barrel-shaped like any other bomb. They have tail fins and impact fuses, just like any other bomb. But they are still called barrel bomb because.. that's what people call them mainly as a political tool. So really what is a barrel bomb? It's whatever people call it. For whatever reason. And it's different all the time. There is no single consistent definition. We can't even agree here how to define it.

As for historical examples, you are finding things that could be called barrel bombs because they are bombs in barrels, but that's a strawman because those things are not and never were called barrel bombs. Have you researched this? I have. There are only a couple things in history called "barrel bombs" as a consistent class of weapon. It's not an indiscriminate term. Furthermore, there are more than enough sources to create a standalone article for the Zionist barrel bomb. And it will have to be linked from this article one way or another, probably as a top hat because they are both called "barrel bomb" and it becomes a disambiguation problem. And once this article is created, I would not be surprised if down the road another editor makes a case for merger, because why do you have two separate articles called barrel bomb? I'm not sure what you guys are trying to achieve, but if your seeking to delete mention of Zionist barrel bombs from Wikipedia that can't happen. -- GreenC 13:41, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Green Cardamom. If you think English Wikipedia needs an article discussing 'things in history called "barrel bombs"', then I wish you luck in creating such an article. I think it would not stand because there seem not to be much to connect all these objects. The current article "Barrel bomb" is patently not discussing 'things in history called "barrel bombs"', but a contemporary weapon with notability and explicit characteristics. I don't know what is the "Zionist barrel bomb" and if it bears any notability (for example - was it any different than weapons used the same time in other conflicts? Did it change conflict outcome in any meaningful way?). I'm not arguing either way, just that the current article mentions that device in complete non-accordance to the rest of the article. That paragraph needs to be deleted from the article. Kotz (talk) 13:55, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Actually the article is discussing things in history called barrel bombs. Again you are making a logical fallacy that there are tons of things in history called barrel bombs. That is not true. Those things were never called barrel bombs, they are not barrel bombs. Something is a barrel bomb when someone calls it that. There are only a few examples from history. There is no hard definition of barrel bomb other then what we summarize from sources, based on how people use the term. And one of the uses of barrel bombs is from Palestine in the 1940s, which BTW has many characteristics of the other barrel bombs. -- GreenC 15:49, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

It is false that "the article is discussing things in history called barrel bombs". Maybe you should read it again. I am not making the logical fallacy you suggest I am. The paragraph in question needs to be delete. I think there is a consensus. Kotz (talk) 17:44, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Do you have a source to support that barrel bombs are only air dropped weapons? I have many sources to support barrel bombs are delivered by multiple methods -- not just air drop. -- GreenC 23:04, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Green Cardamom, the scope of an article is an editorial choice determined by consensus. See Wikipedia:Scope. Erlbaeko (talk) 11:50, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Well that is true, that is a valid argument. But we also have a policy of WP:PRESERVE. As I said above, these weapons present a disambiguation problem as they are all called "barrel bomb". And the Zionist bombs are quite notable, probably enough sources for a standalone article. So somehow it has to be mentioned, probably as a top hat dab link. Another solution is to move the nonaerial bomb to a different section with a sentence reading "These bombs were not air dropped but otherwise share many characteristics of and were called barrel bombs". That's how it was originally under a section called "Proto Barrel Bomb" but someone complained that the source didn't say "proto", so I guess the sub-section could be called "Nonaerial barrel bombs". There are two examples, zionist and an incident in Croatia. And if that still causes problems then we can create an article called Barrel bomb (nonaerial) but it would has so much in common with this one, repeating a lot of the same material, it would probably end up being a merge anyway. -- GreenC 13:33, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Green Cardamom: Yes, I know we have an editing policy. That policy say we should fix problems if we can, and flag or remove them if we can't. We aslo have a consensus policy which is Wikipedia's fundamental model for editorial decision-making. That policy says that in discussions of proposals to add material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the bold edit. You added the material less that a month ago, ref. diff, and it have been challenged from day one. I believe it is time for you to realize that you don't have consensus to add it. Regarding the scope, imo the scope of this article is improviced unguided bomb, also known as a free-fall bombs, and I believe that is what this article should be about. Erlbaeko (talk) 17:24, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

That position leaves no option but to PRESERVE the content by creating a new article and greatly expanding on it, as sourcing allows. It will also necessitate a dab link on this page since they are both called barrel bombs, but this one would remain primary topic. Also, if or when a source is ever published that ties Zionist barrel bombs with the rest it will change the picture and a merge would need to be considered. -- GreenC 18:27, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

No, that position leaves no option, but to REMOVE the content. If you believe it is a notable topic, that has gained sufficiently significant attention over a period of time, then you may create a new article for it. Erlbaeko (talk) 18:49, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

That is a move which is PRESERVE ie. WP:PRESERVE (sorry I was not yelling). -- GreenC 19:47, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Ok. No worries. Erlbaeko (talk) 20:10, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Kotz (talk) 22:25, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Barrel bomb as propaganda

This section has a number of problems. For one the sourcing is weak,

• [7] This is a blog. Self-published.
• [8] This is a self-published essay. consortiumnews.com is edited by Parry, it's his site.
• [9] This is a non-profit. Not sure what their reliability status is on Wikipedia.

The first two sources fail according to WP:RS. The other problem is WP:WEIGHT. This section is very long and gives a huge amount of article real-estate to two minority views in obscure sources whose reliability is questionable. I certainly understand this POV, but we need to find a different way to go about it. Likely it could be condensed into a single paragraph, rolled into another section, but first it needs better/more sourcing to show these POVs have some notability. -- GreenC 13:14, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Please stop vandalising this section there is no justification to simply remove the whole section as has been done. The Craig Murray quiote is from his blog, that doesn't mean he didn't say it and it doesn't mean he wasn't the UK ambassador to Uzbekistan. A blog is simply a way of someone stating something, if they are significant person I don't see what the offence is here in quoting it. the same point applies to Parry who undeniably is an award winning journalism, of some repute. The last point is meaningless, what difference does it make as to whether an publication is non profit. The quote is from a professor at the University of Sydney. Again it does not matter where he made the quote anyway.--Dbdb (talk) 17:47, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Actually there is justifiable reason as explained above. Two of the three sources are self-published and there is an over WEIGHT problem giving these minority views so much attention. Simply reverting and saying there is no problem is contrary to what two other editors are saying so clearly there is no consensus for how it is. I've offered a suggestion on how it might be improved. -- GreenC 17:54, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

you don;'t seem to understand the point I made, it doesn't matter if an award winning journalist, a Doctor and university professor and an ex ambassador self poublish or not, they have made the statements and I have correctly sourced both their identity them and their statements. Your judgement that the view is over WEIGHT seems to be political, like some of your other edits in wikipedia I notice--Dbdb (talk) 18:00, 25 September 2016 (UTC).

Your edits really are inappropriate for Wikipedia. The sourcing is bad, the amount of text is overweight, the writing is biased. You still don't have consensus for inclusion. -- GreenC 18:56, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

That is your political view. My writing is clearly not biased I present the views of other people of note including one with his own wikipedia entry. This topic is clearly of interest in the subject of barrel bombs. Suggest amendments or improvements rather than vandalising a section--Dbdb (talk) 21:41, 25 September 2016 (UTC).

My involvement to now in this section has just been the removal of a direct quote that was incorrectly sourced to Tim Anderson's bio page, but I agree that the sources for the other material removed were not reliable sources. Meters (talk) 23:51, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Meters for correcting a rather blatant vandalism by Fotoriety (taking out my quote and replacing it with the exact political opposite) but you do miss my point - the reliability of the sources are not relevant UNLESS you are saying they made up the quotes. It is the original authors who you need to show are unreliable and my links clearly show they are they are not and that they are who they say they are (ex-ambassador, Dr & professor and award winning journalist)--Dbdb (talk) 01:31, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Of course it is relevant if the sources are reliable. Blogs and user generated sources are aonly acceptable under very limited conditions and this material does not qualify. The edit is contested, there's no consensus to include the material so it shoud stay out until there is consensus. You are at 5RR today on this material. Leave it alone until consensus is established. Meters (talk) 01:57, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

I am totally against the edits by Dbdb. As i stated in my edit summary, these blogs/websites are totally unreliable. Fotoriety (talk) 09:56, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Fotoriety, I see from your edits that you were happy to have this section except that you reversed the political angle 180 degrees. I have restored the section so that you can amend it again but please be more accurate with you references and perhaps not 180 degrees this time. Perhaps you would also respect that the original author may have positive input but is currently blocked. Everyone, I would like to see specific criticisms of the section discussed not the hot headed removal, edit warring and blocking that all sides, including the original poster, have shown so far--86.187.160.242 (talk) 23:06, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

The appropriate action is to discuss the validity of the material and the sources here, not to restore the material without a consensus to do so. Please address the issues that have been raised. Meters (talk) 23:10, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Well I think we have some consensus on the sources since Fotoriety actually cited the same source as Dbdb--86.187.164.179 (talk) 23:17, 26 September 2016 (UTC).

What consensus? I removed Fotoriety's version since there was no source for the direct quote he or she used. Meters (talk) 23:19, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

US Barrel bomb quote misattributed

The article currently contains the following quote 'Army crews kicked the incendiary drums out of Chinook helicopters onto suspected enemy camps. They strapped white phosphorus smoke grenades to the cylinders to set them alight.'. This is attributed to the Washington Post, with this link given [10]. However, when I check the link, this is simply the Washington Times quoting the blog 'War is Boring', at [11]. The quote should be attributed to the 'War is Boring' blog, not the Washington Times. - Remedial Reading Assistant (talk) 05:20, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure how this works because 'War is Boring' blog is probably not reliable but it is quoted in the Washington Post which is reliable. The Post even asserts its reliability by saying "A smart post on the War Is Boring blog". I'll leave an inline comment to that effect. -- GreenC 14:13, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Barrel bomb. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130425044944/http://www.icrc.org/eng/resources/documents/misc/57jpcl.htm to http://www.icrc.org/eng/resources/documents/misc/57jpcl.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:40, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Removed ridiculously exaggerated comparison to 7.6 magnitude earthquake that was reported by CNN.

I've just deleted the following ridiculous comparison between a barrel bomb and a 7.6 magnitude earthquake:

According to the White Helmets' James LeMesurier, barrel bomb strikes can produce the seismological equivalent of a 7.6 magnitude earthquake.

Yes, indeed, CNN seems to have been stupid enough to make this remark (supposedly quoting the White Helmets' James LeMesurier), but repeating this exaggeration here only makes Wikipedia look idiotic in turn.

A barrel bomb is, of course, a horribly destructive weapon up close: up to a ton of high explosive will cause a hell of a lot of local damage, not to mention the metal fragments the bomb may have been packed with. But any conventional bomb is so far beneath the energy of a 7.6 magnitude earthquake as to be laughable. Such an earthquake releases the energy equivalent of hundreds of kilotons of high explosive, which is squarely in nuclear weapons territory. It's enough to wreck thousands of buildings and devastate a city. Look at the damage caused by the 1995 Kobe earthquake in Japan, and remember that was only a 6.9 magnitude earthquake, making it several times less energetic than the earthquake equivalent that CNN claimed. --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 02:50, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Disparaging and emotive term

Barrel bombs are basic bombs. Non-barrel bombs are luxury bombs made by rich countries. Both perform the same function of killing people. Neither are nice. Western media, following an anti-President Assad narrative, use this term to depict Assad as a monster deliberately choosing a nasty weapon. The truth may be that he cannot afford luxury bombs as his country is on its knees in the middle of a civil war. Thus he uses whatever he can manufacture, he has no other choice if he wishes to continue hostilities on a small budget. USA-made smart bombs cost hundreds of thousands of dollars each, not an option for Assad. Barrel bomb is a disparaging and emotive term.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 14:21, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

That is the argument Assad has made and it's POV. Barrel bombs are a real thing, as our article clearly describes. They also existed long before the Syrian war or Assad was born. This is a general article about Barrel Bombs, not about Syria. -- GreenC 14:37, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

First use of barrel bomb

The article is inconsistent in when this type of bomb was first used. Intro states it was used in 1948 by Israel, but "Barrel bombs by country" states it wasn't. Needs cleanup. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.208.147.107 (talk) 09:37, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Chinook Helicopter Image

he alleged loading diagram for a Chinook is BS. Chinook carrying capacity is 19,500 lbs (10 tons) -- and it was less in Vietnam era. https://www.military.com/equipment/ch-47d-chinook Those barrels are 1 ton each and I count 30 of them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:C7C7:3D00:7D72:A0F2:4E57:7DB9 (talk) 09:48, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

It depends entirely on what was in the barrels. The source that the image comes from refers to barrels of fuel oil, so that's only about 300 pounds per barrel. Meters (talk) 10:02, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

"earliest use"

How is it different from let's say Blockbuster bomb. Gendalv (talk) 02:49, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

The block buster was barrel shaped, yet not improvised like a barrel bomb 93.87.150.250 (talk) 21:12, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

First barrel bomb

Israel 1948 is the first known usage of the term barrel bomb, the emphasis on "known". There could be earlier cases. And there are earlier bombs from WWI and WWII that look like barrel bombs. So the claim it was created/invented in 1948 is a stretch sources don't really support. It looks to me like the first modern idea of what we think of when the term barrel bomb comes up, and it probably popularized the term. But even that is impossible to source. So I think we need to be careful about inventing an overly confident story about the invention of the barrel bomb at a certain time and place by a single person. It reminds me of the debates over the invention of the High five, a gesture which was coined and became popular in the 1970s, but evidence exists of humans slapping hands up-high for a very long time before.

Also, I researched and wrote the Wikipedia article Barrel bombs in Israel and Palestine in 2015. I spent weeks on it and know this arcane morbid history probably better than anyone. This reference to Terrorist Histories (2017) probably was influenced by Wikipedia since the idea of an innovation was buried deep in an old contemporary news story, not in any books, it was a discovery when I found it and basically released it to wider world via Wikipedia. To be clear it's not OR, the sources were insinuating it was a novel idea and term, but only in the context of Palestine can we say for sure. They were newspaper journalists not academics or historians.

References

-- GreenC 06:41, 17 December 2023 (UTC)