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]


Historical Comparators: Hamburg, Dresden, London

[edit]

I have reviewed the edit history of the Article as well as that of the Talk Page, and have seen no discussion of the issue I raise here. Happy to be directed to it if I've missed it.

My focus is on the sentence: "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," which began, in the very first draft of the article with comparisons to Dresden and Tokyo.

The use of WWII bombardments as comparators here seems aimed at establishing the notability of this particular bombardment. Indeed, the conversation above suggests this as its basis. However, unless there is some additional goal in their mention, then it would seem requisite that we establish the (significant) limits of these comparisons, starting with the most oft quoted statistic of any bombardment: casualties. As one example, the bombing of Dresden which involved 3,900 tons of bombs, produced 25,000 deaths, a far more deadly outcome per ton of bombardment than in Gaza.[1] This is true as well for London and Hamburg.

My thought is not to omit historical comparators, but to be more accurate on the limitations of their usefulness. As presented today the article suggests to the reader far more similarity than actually exists. I would make the point as well, that the use of a different infobox template here, than for the three referenced bombardments, demonstrates that editors concur as to the generalized dissimilar nature of these events.Johnadams11 (talk) 19:41, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’d just like to add again that the figure by which these comparisons are made is not reliably sourced, see:
Talk:Israeli bombing of the Gaza Strip/Archive 1#70,000_tons?
Telecart (talk) 18:09, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply. I think it's pretty clear that no matter the merits of the argument, no one is going to engage with any idea proposed by anyone without EC status.Johnadams11 (talk) 21:31, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnadams11@Telecart there are a number of reliable sources making similar claims:
  • "Data analyzed by Scher and Van Den Hoek shows that by Dec. 5, the percentage of Gaza's buildings that had been damaged or destroyed already had surpassed the destruction in Cologne and Dresden, and was approaching the level of Hamburg. Israel Defence Forces (IDF) dropped around 1,000 bombs a day in the first week of the campaign and said that it had conducted more than 10,000 airstrikes on Gaza as of Dec. 10. The number of aircraft involved or bombs dropped on each mission is unknown, but Israel's main strike aircraft are capable of carrying six tons of bombs each. For context, London was hit with an estimated 19,000 tons of bombs during the eight months of the Blitz, and the atomic bomb that destroyed Hiroshima was equivalent to 15,000 tons of high explosive."[1]
  • "The level of destruction in northern Gaza has surpassed that of the German city of Dresden, which was firebombed by Allied forces in 1945 in one of the most controversial Allied acts of World War II. According to a US military study from 1954, quoted by the Financial Times, the bombing campaign at the end of World War II damaged 59 percent of Dresden's buildings."[2]
  • "By 29 January, the devastation across the whole of Gaza was approaching this level. [12] This is comparable to the Allied ‘carpet-bombing’ of the German cities of Dresden, Cologne and Hamburg during World War II in 1943 to 1945."[3]
  • "Robert Pape, a US military historian and author of Bombing to Win, a landmark survey of 20th century bombing campaigns. “Gaza will also go down as a place name denoting one of history’s heaviest conventional bombing campaigns.”"[4]
  • "By 2 November – 26 days into the bombardment – the Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor (EHRM) estimated that Israel had dropped 25,000 tonnes of bombs on 12,000 targets....Using the 10 November IAF data combined with other sources – which seems more consistent – the total weight of bombs could be up to 20,000 tonnes."[5] The article also notes that 15,000 tonnes was the size of the Hiroshima nuclear explosion.
VR (Please ping on reply) 01:49, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for the reply. I don't remotely disagree with anything you've detailed here. My point was entirely about casualties. The articles on Hamburg and Dresden mention the casualty count in the first two paragraphs. I can see no reasonable argument as to why the casualty count in this bombardment would not also be mentioned. As it is, the first reference to any casualties in the article is a citation related to undercounts. Consistent with WP:NPOV, this article cannot seem to advocate for the view that this bombardment is somehow "worse" than historical bombardments without also evaluating and comparing the number of casualties caused as a result.
In fact, the more one reads this article, the more one feels the heavy hand of non-neutrality. The word "surpassing" in the first paragraph is explicitly designed to illustrate that this bombardment is more significant, and by natural inference, more deadly, than comparative bombardments. This argument of course has merit on the dimension of tonnage dropped. It is far less persuasive when the relative size of the targets are considered, and loses most comparative interest when casualties per ton are considered. I am eager to hear an argument that the article should make the "surpassing" assertion based only on tonnage. Thanks again. @Vice Regent: Message text. Johnadams11 (talk) 03:11, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnadams11, thanks. To date I have come across only one source that attempts to tally the total casualties from bombing alone (and not gunfire etc), and that is this[6]. However, even that list is only about "explosive violence", which apparently includes "air strike* artillery* bomb* bombing* cluster bomb* cluster munitions* explosion* explosive* grenade* IED* mine* missile* mortar* rocket* shell.*"[7] And of course it would exclude Israeli helicopters or drones firing bullets on Palestinians, which I think we can reasonably conclude is not "bombing".VR (Please ping on reply) 04:07, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Vice regent: Thanks so much for the reply. I had hoped this is where the conversation would go.
The argument I've made holds even when one assumes that all of the currently reported 45,000 dead are attributable to the bombardment. The point is, that while it's true that the total bomb tonnage dropped on Gaza is greater than tonnage dropped in the other bombardments, it's also true that there have been far fewer casualties per ton. It's true as well that Hamburg, Dresden, and London are far smaller in geographic size than Gaza.
Please consider simply concluding the first paragraph with: "As of November '24, more than 45,000 people had been killed by Israeli attacks in Gaza." .[2]
This provides important context both for the bombing in general, and for the "surpassing" claim. Johnadams11 (talk) 06:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC) Johnadams11 (talk) 06:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It does appear that fatalities per tonne of explosives is much lower in Gaza than in Hiroshima or Dresden. For one, there doesn't appear to be a large firestorm, secondly Israeli bombardment happened across weeks, not across 2 days (in case of Dresden) nor across minutes (Hiroshima).
@Johnadams11 if you're ok with it, I'd rather say "As of December 2024, an estimated 24,530 civilians had been killed by Israeli explosive weapons; the total death toll (both civilians and combatants) from all Israeli attacks exceeds 45,000."[8] VR (Please ping on reply) 07:39, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Vice regent Thanks so much for collaboration. I think the article is improved by any mention of the casualty count in the first paragraph. That said, I am curious about the wish to include the estimate of civilian casualties because this only makes the comparisons with Dresden, Hamburg, and London even less persuasive. In those bombardments it is axiomatic that the vast majority, if not most all, casualties were civilian, as these were economic and terror targets chosen specifically for those purposes. So, when we bring up civilians, we undermine the notion of having made the comparison at all. Would add too that to my research, Hamas Health Ministry, has never distinguished between civilian and combatant deaths. [9]. Thanks again. Johnadams11 (talk) 14:38, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While the Gaza Health Ministry (its not exclusively a "Hamas Health Ministry", it includes members of Fatah too) doesn't give a civilian breakdown, we now have a large number of sources who do, see Casualties_of_the_Israel–Hamas_war#Civilian_to_combatant_ratio.
"makes the comparisons with Dresden, Hamburg, and London even less persuasive". Possibly, but isn't that a good thing? We should just give the reader the critical info and let them make their own decision. NPOV does require us to include contradicting information, if it is significant, and in this case I think the civilian casualties are.
Here's what I propose for the body, not the lead: As of December 2024, AOAV determined that 24,530 civilians had been killed by Israeli explosive weapons; AOAV does not determine the number of combatants killed by explosive weapons, nor does it determine the number of civilians killed by non-explosive weapons. The total death toll from all Israeli attacks during the entire war exceeds 45,000. BBC News says that AOAV's casualty estimates are lower than those from other sources, and AOAV acknowledges its data – based only what can be verified from reputable media sources – doesn't capture all harm.[10]
VR (Please ping on reply) 16:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Vice regent Thank you. We are largely aligned, and I'm sorry about my flub on “Hamas” health ministry. I very much agree with your point that “We should just give the reader the critical info and let them make their own decision.” Indeed, this idea is the very reason I started this conversation.
Right now, the article provides the information that the gross tonnage of bombs dropped on Gaza “surpasses” the tonnage of three WWII bombardments. The article rates this information as important enough to include in its first paragraph. Further, it is natural and unremarkable to expect that readers will make the inference that greater tonnage yields proportionally greater death.
If we have a wish to give readers critical information, what is the argument to not provide the information that the casualties per ton are in fact massively different? In the absence of this, an argument that the article is in fact misleading in this respect is very straightforward. Thanks again.
For reference:
Dresden: 3,900 tons; 25K deaths. 6.4 deaths per ton
Hamburg: 9,000 tons; 37K deaths. 4.1 deaths per ton
London: 12,000 tons; 30K deaths. 2.5 deaths per ton
Gaza: 70,000 tones; 45K deaths. .64 deaths per ton Johnadams11 (talk) 22:05, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 December 2024

[edit]

The sentence “By late April 2024 it was estimated that Israel had dropped…” should add by whom it was estimated. Telecart (talk) 18:17, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: This is mentioned in various sources and it's not clear where it was originally estimated. The figure is still reliable because of those sources though Ultraodan (talk) 06:29, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If there is a source that validates the claim, then the citation for this assertion should be updated.Johnadams11 (talk) 20:16, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 January 2025

[edit]

The assertion that there are a "large number of civilian casualties" is unsupported by the present citation. The citation is an Amnesty International article describing incidents in which civilians were killed. It makes no assertion regarding the proportion of civilians killed versus combatants. This issue, that of "proportionality," is the foundational element of the international humanitarian law which guides this question: [11]https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/api-1977/article-51. In the absence of evidence that the proportion of civilians versus combatants is unusually high, the notion of "large" is not supported.

Therefore we should make the following edit:

"Israel has faced accusations of war crimes due to the large number of civilian casualties and the large percentage of civilian infrastructure destroyed."

Should change to:

"Israel has faced accusations of war crimes due to civilian casualties and the large percentage of civilian infrastructure destroyed." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnadams11 (talk • contribs) 18:56, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ "Review: Dresden by Frederick Taylor | By genre | guardian.co.uk Books". web.archive.org. 2008-06-06. Retrieved 2024-12-28.
  2. ^ "AlJazeera". AlJazeera News. 2025-01-08. Retrieved 2025-01-08.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Israeli_bombing_of_the_Gaza_Strip&oldid=1268256330"