Talk:Israeli bombing of the Gaza Strip/Archive 1

Archive 1

Featured picture scheduled for POTD

Hello! This is to let editors know that File:Damage in Gaza Strip during the October 2023 - 29.jpg, a featured picture used in this article, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for March 16, 2024. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2024-03-16. For the greater benefit of readers, any potential improvements or maintenance that could benefit the quality of this article should be done before its scheduled appearance on the Main Page. If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you! Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 14:14, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

The bombing of Gaza is an ongoing aerial bombardment campaign on the Gaza Strip by the Israeli Air Force during the Israel–Hamas war. During the bombing, which began on 7 October 2023 after a Hamas-led attack on Israel, airstrikes have damaged Palestinian mosques, schools, hospitals, refugee camps, and civilian infrastructure. The campaign has been compared to other major historical bombing campaigns, including the bombings of Dresden and Tokyo during World War II. This photograph shows damage following an Israeli airstrike on the neighborhood of Rimal in Gaza City on 9 October 2023.

Photograph credit: Wafa / APAimages

Recently featured:

• Fushimi Inari-taisha
• White-cheeked honeyeater
• Ethel Reed

Hamas run casualties

There is an ongoing disagreement between editors about whether "Per Hamas:" should be included on the casualty count for this article.

• Yes – As the editor who added it. In similar-style of articles where one side directly involved in the conflict states the casualties, that said is also mentioned. Examples of this include Siege of Mariupol ("Per Russia" / "Per Ukraine"), Battle of Kherson ("Per Russia"), and even for this conflict with the Siege of Khan Yunis having "Per Israel" & "Per Hamas". This was removed by CarmenEsparzaAmoux with the reasoning, "discussed extensively on related talks". That is not a valid reason for removal as each article and topic must be discussed individually unless a Wikipedia-wide consensus for the conflict for it takes place. A large discussion has not taken place as far as I am aware, and other articles in this conflict have notes when one side of the conflict states the casualties. I !vote to restore this until a community consensus decides not to specifically either in relation to the Israel-Hamas war (affecting all articles under it) or it is removed from all war infoboxes (very unlikely). Do to CTOPS nature, I am not restoring it for at least 24 hours if no responses are given here. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 18:45, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

TL;DR – Support !vote for the Infobox format and layout as of this edit with an oppose !vote to the layout as of this edit, the current layout. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:19, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

• No – I don't have any issue with a note similar to the one used on the Israel–Hamas war infobox: "Per Gaza Health Ministry, the total number of deaths are 31,553" with a breakdown listed below. Just searching that page's talk archive for the term "Hamas-run" comes up with multiple discussions about using the phrase "Hamas-run" prior to the GHM: Updating language: The term "Hamas-run", RFC on infobox casualties, Why are we using Hamas casualty figures for civilians?, infobox attribution inline.
  This is all to say that although there is no Wiki-wide consensus, this exact topic has been discussed at length by many more editors on the main war page than are likely to contribute here. Neither the term "per Hamas" nor "per Hamas-run GHM" are included in the infobox there in regards to the GHM or total civilian casualty counts, so I would be strongly disinclined to introduce that language here. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 20:06, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

@CarmenEsparzaAmoux: — In that case, would you restore that part of the addition then? I do not want to as that is a reversion, but we both seem to be in agreement a “Per GHM” is acceptable. Note, I still believe “Per Hamas” is better and I will let others comment on that, but “Per GHM” should be added/restored. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 20:28, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

@WeatherWriter I actually never removed that part of the addition! Per GHM is included now as a footnote, similar to how the Israel-Hamas war infobox currently displays the information. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 20:42, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Ok then we still don't fully agree on the format then. The footnote is not actually the standard method. The Template:Israel–Hamas war infobox even shows that, where it says "Per Israel" or "Per Hamas" format outside of a footnote. As I stated in my "Yes" !vote earlier, that is used on tons of other articles like the Battle of Kherson or even Siege of Khan Yunis. The format which you removed should be like this:

Per the Gaza Health Ministry:

• 30,717+ people killed
• 72,156+ people injured
• 7,000+ missing

That is the standard format for casualty articles, which is also used in the Israel-Hamas war infobox. Basically, what I'm asking you to restore is the bolded "Per" format, removing the enf note, which is not the standard format. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 20:57, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

I think where there might be a little oversight here is that there's a slight but important distinction made in the format used based on casualty type. I'm not sure when the decision was made, but the bolding "Per" format is used for Palestinian militant casualty totals as provided by Hamas (you will see that in the article and template you posted above), while the footnote format is standard when discussing GHM casualty counts within the Gaza Strip. Since we're discussing GHM numbers from within Gaza in this article, I think using the latter format makes more sense. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 22:14, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

I guess we shall have to agree to disagree on that then. I will be keeping an eye on this discussion to see if and/or when other editors comment or !vote about this. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:16, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Sounds good. Overall, I think you're absolutely right that a consensus on standardization across articles is a great idea (even if we disagree on what that standardization should be!) CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 22:19, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

References

Oregon University?

The introduction mentions an article published by the Guardian and conducted by researchers at CUNY and Oregon State University. Can someone with admin privileges please change the hyperlink text from "Oregon University" to "Oregon State University"? Thank you! Wschreyer (talk) 04:12, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

 Implemented CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 15:06, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Casualties only from the bombing

To date I have not come across any list of casualties that are only from the bombing and not from other Israeli operations. The exception here is this report considers casualties only from "explosive weapon use". Its conclusion is that there have been 15,797 civilian casualties. It doesn't have the complete demographic breakdown, but the partial demographic breakdown it has suggests the civilian casualties are: 25% men, 25% women and 50% children. VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 08:20, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Strela etc

I'm not sure why Strela, Igla etc are mentioned in the infobox. MANPADs are incapable of shooting down high flying aircraft, certainly not F-35s. I don't recall any such incident either. I'm removing this.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 08:28, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

IDF figures

@W. C. Minor: By a non-independent source, I was not referring to Ynet news, but to the IDF as an involved party. Clearly, the IDF figures belong to an alternative reality, which independent sources disagree with. Including IDF figures without their refutation would be misleading to say the least. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:31, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

70,000 tons?

That number is sourced from a report from “Euro Med Monitor”, and then another article from a Turkish news outlet which is also quoting that report. I don’t know who Euro Med Monitor is, but their report does not read like a neutral, objective, or rigorous finding. The only part in the report addressing this figure is this sentence:

“It is estimated that Israel has dropped more than 70,000 tons of explosives on the Gaza Strip"

There is no methodology and it’s not even clear who is doing this estimation.

I’m not familiar with this Turkish news outlet, but I could not RS quoting this figure from this NGO. It seems rather unlikely, and not a number Wikipedia should be suggesting is a fact. Telecart (talk) 17:09, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Exact my thoughts. This should be changed in the article immediately. Half volley dropshot (talk) 22:09, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Third citation is from a Robert Pape article in Foreign Affairs. Relevant quote is "Israel has... dropped at least 70,000 tons of bombs on the territory (surpassing the combined weight of bombs dropped on London, Dresden, and Hamburg in all of World War II)". CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 21:34, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for adding a third source but I don’t think it helps; the reference to Dresden etc. suggests to me he’s referencing this article in Wikipedia rather than having any independently validated RS for this reference. Certainly there’s nothing in the article to suggest any methodology that Pape researched this figure himself. Telecart (talk) 12:43, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 June 2024

Remove the sentence about 70,000 tons dropped; it is not reliably sourced. See discussion above in talk page. Telecart (talk) 12:46, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

• Please get consensus for changes before making an edit request. (t · c) buidhe 14:03, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

secondary sources

i could not find any secondary reliable source for the claim "In its defense, Israel has claimed only 16% of Gaza buildings were destroyed" does anyone have it? @Kentucky Rain24 i added ^{[better source needed]} which was reverted. also TOI is not in reliable sources list https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources Gsgdd (talk) 00:34, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Many sources that are reliable do not appear in Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources which, as its name says, is only a list of sources that come up repeatedly, and includes many sources that are categorically NOT reliable. ToI is a mainstream online news source. You can take your concerns about it to WP:RSN. But since your search skills leave much to be desired, here are addiotnal RSes saying the same thing: [1],[2] Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 00:40, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

according to UN, in march it is 35% building damaged https://www.unitar.org/about/news-stories/press/35-buildings-affected-gaza-strip

why are we quoting researchers at Oregon State University and the City University of New York instead? Gsgdd (talk) 01:03, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

According to the UN is X, and Israel says it is Y, and that's what we write, based on reliable sources. Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 02:26, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 July 2024

Fix spelling of "unkown number of militants" by correcting it to "unknown" 2601:645:D00:E1B0:C043:32E1:65EF:8D21 (talk) 16:44, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

 Done Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 17:02, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Israeli disinformation

@XDanielx: Ynet is not an independent source, it is making an exceptional claim, and explicitly says that the 16% figure was only shown to Ynet. Why did you remove the better source tag? Clearly there are numerous problems with this piece of disinformation refuted by independent RS. Makeandtoss (talk) 16:24, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Ynet is a mainstream newspaper, and is independent. It is not making any exceptional claim just reprotign what the IDF says. The 16% figure was quoted by Ynet, Times of Israel, JNS and many others. Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 16:30, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

@Kentucky Rain24: All the sources you mentioned are not independent. WP defines independence as "An independent source is a source that has no vested interest in a given Wikipedia topic and therefore is commonly expected to cover the topic from a disinterested perspective." WP:IIS

They are indeed exceptional claims that have been refuted by independent RS which cite at least 50% of housing has been damaged. Makeandtoss (talk) 16:39, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

You can take this nonsense to WP:RSN and see how much support you get for the notion that a mainstream newspaper, with a known editorial board and a reputation for fact checking is not independent just because it is based in a country that is involved in a conflict, or because its editors are Jewish. Good luck. Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 16:46, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

@Kentucky Rain24: Nobody said anything about editorial independence. WP defines independence as having no vested interest, which is clearly not the case here. I am not taking anything anywhere, the onus of achieving consensus lies on the inserter, and that is yourself. As for the "nonsense" and the veiled implicit accusation of antisemitism, this is battleground behavior and assumption of bad faith, both of which are not lightly taken in this topic area, so I request you to retract these comments now before taking this further. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:19, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Vested interest is defined at WP:IIS as "when the source (the author, the publisher, etc.) develops any financial or legal relationship to the topic." None of the sources I listed (Ynet, ToI, JNS) has any such financial or legal relationship to the war in Gaza. Enough of this nonsense, please. Take this to WP:RS where others will set you straight. Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 15:48, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Gladly, SPI set you straight. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:14, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

The claim is attributed to Israel, so I don't really understand the reasoning for this unusually heavy scrutiny of the source. But in any case, Ynet News is clearly reliable. It's a child entity of Yedioth Ahronoth, Israel's largest newspaper. A quick search of RSN shows many mentions of Ynet, and very few concerns about its reliability.

It seems like your argument is that there's some bias which violates independence. I don't think's how WP:IIS is meant to be interpreted - it says A source can be biased without compromising its independence. Besides, Ynet is probably one of the least biased sources in this article, which relies heavily on Al Jazeera. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 16:47, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

@XDanielx: Yedioth Ahronoth is notorious for being a Netanyahu mouthpiece though: "In January 2017, secret recordings were released of conversations between Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Mozes discussing a potential deal in which the newspaper would provide better coverage of Netanyahu in exchange for the government limiting the circulation of competitor Israel Hayom." from its own article. That just proves my point about the lack of independence.. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:15, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Article title

Does anyone besides me think that the title "Bombing of the Gaza Strip" implies that this is the first or only time Gaza Strip was bombed? Should it be something more specific, like "Bombing of the Gaza Strip (2023-present)"? Or should the scope of the article (under the current title) be expanded to include all bombings of the Gaza Strip? In which case the lead should say that the current bombing is the worst but not the first. Or is it fine the way it is? Levivich (talk) 04:02, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I think this entire article is redundant- the bombing is part of the current war, for which there is already more than one article - Israel–Hamas war, Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip (2023–present) Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 11:11, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, a time context should be added. Completely disagree on the claim that this article is redundant since it has received significant coverage in RS and fulfills the WP:Notability guideline. Makeandtoss (talk) 16:17, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

It received coverage as part of the coverage of the war. Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 16:38, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

@Kentucky Rain24: I understand you think this article shouldn't exist, but do you oppose a move to Bombing of the Gaza Strip (2023-present)? Levivich (talk) 02:23, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

no, though I think "-present" is problematic, as eventually, the bombing will stop. Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 05:59, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Moved to Bombing of the Gaza Strip (2023–present). Levivich (talk) 16:31, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I disagree with the move. We eventually dropped the time disambiguator from both Israel-Hamas war and Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip, owing to their overwhelming significance. Sure Israel has bombed Gaza before, but nothing before this has approached the level of destruction.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 02:41, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

@Levivich @Makeandtoss what do you think? Alternatively we can rename to Bombing in the Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip. Hoping we can reach consensus.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 15:30, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Israeli Bombing of the Gaza Strip seems more concise. Makeandtoss (talk) 08:16, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

No objection from me if anyone wants to move it to a new title and/or open an RM. Levivich (talk) 14:17, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I suppose its similar to NATO bombing of Yugoslavia. I'll move.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 04:07, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 August 2024

Please correct the number of bombs dropped Isreal had dropped nore than 70,000 bombs In general those are up to 2,000 pounds each

But this is not over 70,000 Megatons worth of bombs

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/11/us/israel-gaza-bombs.html 155.93.219.72 (talk) 03:57, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: no idea where you got "Megatons" from. M.Bitton (talk) 18:04, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 August 2024

The Iseaeli bombing campaign has used mostly American type bombs.

Correct typo, 'Israeli' 103.44.24.77 (talk) 08:09, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

 Done Shadow311 (talk) 16:34, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Hamas's use of civilian infrastructure for military purposes

Hamas and the rest of the terrorist organizations in the Gaza Strip are using civilian infrastructure such as schools, hospitals, humanitarian zones, etc, for military purposes. The terrorist organization Hamas even released a video of one of their terrorists using the civilian area in Rafah as a launch site [3].

Ignoring the fact that the civilian infrastructure in the Gaza Strip is used for military purposes is painting a wrong picture of reality, which for starters de-legitimizes Israel's right to defend itself against the ones trying to kill its civilians, and also is extremely harmful for the civilians of Gaza who are being used as human shields by those terrorist organizations. ORJK (talk) 20:17, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 June 2024

Change Israel's bombing campaign of the Gaza Strip began within hours of Hamas militants and their allies entering into Israel. The citation (10) does not match/support the statement.

It should read: Oct. 7, 2023: Air raid sirens begin sounding in Jerusalem around 6:30 a.m. local time, warning citizens of the attack in progress and to immediately take cover. An estimated 2,200 rockets were fired toward southern and central Israel, including Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, by the Hamas militants. Armed Hamas terrorists and citizens of Gaza, many on motorcycles, storm blockaded areas, shooting at and slaughtering people in kibbutzim and small towns. Video footage surfaces of Hamas militants taking people -- including mothers, small children, and the elderly -- hostage and carrying them across the Gaza border. Over 1,200 people were murdered in Israel, citizens and non-citizens alike, and over 200 people were taken hostage

Israel's air raid response began on Oct. 17. Ewereallythinkthat (talk) 09:23, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

 Not done Citation does support statement. Relevant quotation from the 7 October 2023 New York Times article reads: "Hamas fired thousands of rockets toward Israeli cities, and Palestinian militants crossed into southern Israel, killing civilians and holding Israelis hostage.
Israel retaliated with major strikes across the blockaded Gaza Strip, leveling multistory buildings, including a residential building with approximately 100 units."[4] CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 21:30, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

It seems like a fair point that within hours doesn't appear to be backed up by the NYT article, though, no? — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 22:35, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

That's actually a really good point. The Times didn't give a timeline of the day. I'll edit that. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 23:56, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

References

Bumping thread. Left guide (talk) 21:19, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 September 2024

There needs to be clarification on the 70,000tons of bombs dropped in Gaza, the media currently is using this to falsely claim that 70,000 tons of bombs has been dropped since October 7 massacre, which is false. 70,000 tons may have been dropped in Gaza since the strip was vacated by Israel in 2005 but all sources say 20-25,000 tons of bombs have been dropped in Gaza since October 7. Please remedy this fallacy before it becomes accepted as fact. Clarity is paramount, preventing the spread of misinformation is as well. 71.17.181.34 (talk) 04:25, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

There are no sources in your request. Add one or more reliable sources if you want something to change. Sean.hoyland (talk) 07:47, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Charliehdb (talk) 10:47, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Misleading Information: "The UN reports that 86% of the Gaza Strip is under Israeli evacuation orders"

I followed the source, and found the actual statement reported by the UN which differs from the text in the page (the source linked was from a secondary Al Jazeera source). The actual UN source claims "In total, 314 square kilometres (86 per cent) of the Gaza Strip have come under evacuation orders since 7 October." I cannot edit since the page is extended-protected.

It's very different to say that 86% of Gaza is under evacuation compared to the true statement that 86% of Gaza have come under evacuation orders since 7 October. RyanCG123 (talk) 12:30, 8 October 2024 (UTC)