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)

No reliable sources for the 70000 tons bombing claim

Having recently heard about the claim that Israel used more than 70000 tons of bombs on Gaza since october 2023 I wanted to check the information and came to this wikipedia article, however there seem to be no reliable source for the claim as only a statement from Euromedmonitor (a NGO whose founder supported the 7 october attacks) without any supporting data. As the page is protected I cannot tag the sources as insufficient but I hope that an experienced user will be able to do so Sorontur (talk) 09:29, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

I would also like this to be corrected. This 70000 tonnes claim has no reliable source to support it. Euromed says on their website that “it is estimated” but estimated by who exactly? They do not say. 46.254.249.30 (talk) 22:57, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 October 2024

• What I think should be changed:

−

15,797+ civilians (estimated 25% men, 25% women, 50% children)

+

15,797+ civilians

• Why it should be changed:

The estimated breakdown is referenced to 1, but no such breakdown is given in that article.

• References supporting the possible change:

The article itself Guy Haddad 1 (talk) 10:49, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

 Done The source included some statistics, but it was not complete data and was improperly extrapolated. Thank you for catching this! Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:41, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

References

Edit Request

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)

 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)

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)

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)

Edit Request

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)

 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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Removing dresden from the lead

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)

 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)

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)

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)

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)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 December 2024

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)

 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)

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)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 January 2025

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: [5]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)

@Johnadams11, generally it is agreed that the total death toll in Gaza, from all attacks, is 80% civilian Casualties_of_the_Israel–Hamas_war#Civilian_to_combatant_ratio. But the real issue is the indiscriminate nature of the bombing. As per article 51 (4c), a 2,000lb bomb dropped in a densely populated civilian neighbourhood is a weapon "the effects of which cannot be limited as required" (eg see this author's opinion).VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 07:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

@Vice regent Thanks VR. I wasn't really taking issue with the thesis. I was advising that the citation does not support the thesis. Please check this yourself. If there is a citation that supports the thesis, then the language can remain the same, but then the citation should change. Right now the assertion is unsupported (unless you can show me where I missed it of course). Johnadams11 (talk) 01:40, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Infobox Template

The template used in this article is Civilian Attack. I searched for but have been unable to find, any discussion of the appropriateness of this template versus the far more often used Military Conflict (19K vs. 3K) template. I assume there is s substantial argument for the use of the present template considering Hamburg, Dresen, and London are heavily emphasized comparators in this article, yet each of those articles use the Military Conflict template. Would be appreciative if someone could resolve this logical flaw. Thx. Johnadams11 (talk) 01:32, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be much of a military conflict here. Palestine doesn't have an airforce, nor any form of air defense (unlike the infobox at Bombing of Dresden, that lists Germany's air defense capabilities in Dresden at the time). So civilian attack might be more appropriate. However, that template does use loaded language, which it shouldn't. There was discussion about that here.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 16:44, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

@Vice regent Thanks for the reply. I believe our goal should be to have a durable rule that allows editors to sensibly decide which template is most appropriate. Independent of any evaluation of the particular military strength of either side here, I think a key definitional aspect is whether the article's subject occurred during an ongoing war. This should solve for most of these, but not all. As one example, the massacre at Nanjing.. A second consideration, independent of on-going war, is the presence or absence of armed combatants, a fairly binary measure not subject to much subjective analysis. This is an especially challenging one in this case, because the un-uniform, militia style combat engaged in by Hamas is designed to camoflauge inside the enclave. In any event, I do think this is a subject that would be well suited to RFC to seek consensus. My own view is that too often, Hamas is given no agency in these discussions. However, from a military perspective, this is a state military that has steadfastly refused to surrender despite 14 months of the bombardment described in this article. Johnadams11 (talk) 01:32, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Surrender is more relevant to articles on invasions (eg Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip) than a bombing, after all, one can't exactly surrender to a bomb. Even then, we have Infobox Civilian attack used at Nova music festival massacre. But my bigger point is that we should have a single template, agnostic of POV, for both military and civilian attacks, that uses non-loaded language. VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 02:58, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

@Vice regent I'm afraid I have to disagree with the implication of your view that "one can't exactly surrender to a bomb." While (obviously) one cannot surrender to any inanimate weapon, the strategic bombing of Japan is one clear and obvious example of surrender forced by aerial bombardment. The Nova massacre is not an obvious comparator, as this was plainly a purely civilian target. I certainly don't want to go down the rabbit hole of the nature of Hamas tactics, but obviously, there is corps level strength military in Gaza. In any event, when I am able, I plan to post this subject for RFC. In order to defeat my point, one would have to find important dissimilarity between this attack, and those on Dresden, Hamburg, and London -- and this of course, would be contrary to the basic conceit of the lead. I hope to hear your thoughts! But again, I do think the larger project is to create a set of good objective guidelines for each template. And of course I agree that we should never employ loaded language. Johnadams11 (talk) 18:10, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Edit Request

In the second paragraph of the read the following sentence can be found.

The death toll from all Israeli attacks – both bombing and non-bombing – exceeds 45,000. Of this total, AOAV estimates that more than 25,000 civilians (and an unknown number of combatants) were killed by explosive weapons in the deadliest 3,921 bombings.

The source source doesn't use the word 'deadliest' and the number 3,921 refers to all events involving explosives. I therefore believe that the following wording would be more appropriate given the the source.

The death toll from all Israeli attacks – both bombing and non-bombing – exceeds 45,000. Of this total, AOAV estimates that more than 25,000 civilians (and an unknown number of combatants) were killed by explosive weapons in 3,921 bombings. Jjoonnii (talk) 20:26, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

@Jjoonnii I have changed the structure so as not to require this idea at all. Johnadams11 (talk) 17:28, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

'killed thousands of civilians and militants'

I object to this phrasing because it seems like there were as many civilians as militants that were killed, and that would mean this bombing is somehow justified because 'but we killed thousands of militants!' feeding into the Israeli like that they were after Hamas and the civilians were just unintended collateral damage, whereas what Israel did- as had been proven in a court of law, namely the ICC- is to commit (it's still ongoing, now the focus had only shifted to the West Bank) GENOCIDE. Thus, the civilians were the actual targets, Israel only tried to maintain the myth of 'self defense' and 'battling terrorism' whereas the actual terrorists are the Israeli government and the Israeli 'defense' Forces themselves. 2A02:A468:29EF:1:BC5B:F8C1:1335:7920 (talk) 05:31, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Smallangryplanet (talk) 18:26, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Historical Comparators: Hamburg, Dresden, London

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. 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)

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)

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)

@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."[6]
• "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."[7]
• "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."[8]
• "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.”"[9]
• "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."[10] 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)

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)

@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[11]. 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.*"[12] 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)

@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." .

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)

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."[13] VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 07:39, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

@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. [14]. Thanks again. Johnadams11 (talk) 14:38, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

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.[15]

VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 16:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

@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)

A few points:

• Are there any sources that discuss deaths per tonnage aspect? If not, it does appear somewhat WP:OR, but I'm happy to discuss.
• Are we counting the weight of just the explosive or the entire bomb? I know for the 70,000 lb figure Euro-Med appears to count the entire bomb, not just the explosive part. For example, a 2,000lb Mark 84 bomb only contains about 900lb of explosives.
• Are there more detailed studies for the 70,000 tonnes figure? For example, Euro-Med claimed 25,000 tonnes on Nov 2. This source criticized the Euro-Med figure, instead giving 20,000 tonnes by Nov 10, which appears similar but is 20% less than Euro-Med's figure.

Like I said I'm ok to include casualty figures, I just want to do it in an accurate way. The 45,000 figure overestimates the number killed by bombing so I don't want to give the reader the impression we're exaggerating. VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 01:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

@Vice regent Thanks again. I’m enjoying the dialogue. As you must observe, I’m relatively inexperienced on Wikipedia. However I do have some experience in academic writing. Here, I'm a bit surprised at the shifting arguments. When to make my point, I allow the largest estimates of casualties, you argue to minimize and question the casualty numbers. When I use the bomb tonnage emphasized in this article, you seek to question those numbers as well.

I myself am not terribly interested in deconstructing bomb components, but if you are, I assume you’ll work to adjust the 70K figure in this article (and perhaps others). But for the purpose of continuing the conversation, I hope we can agree that all bomb numbers are today based on the gross drop-weight of the ordnance.

Your OR point is interesting to me. On what basis does one expect the deaths per ton numbers to be challenged? Each of 8 inputs is heavily sourced (as you must know), and I can’t believe one would suggest that simple arithmetic division is controversial. If there is a challenge, what on earth would it be?

In the event it might help, I think the matter is entirely solved by removing the comparative (and in my opinion, sensational) language entirely.

The new sentence would be: “By late April 2024 it was estimated that Israel had dropped over 70,000 tons of bombs over Gaza, destroying or damaging as many as 62% of the buildings, and killing more than 20K civilians."

Simple, unambiguous, highly sourced, and plainly encyclopedic in tone.Johnadams11 (talk) 04:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

None of those sources except the rando Euro-Med org come up with 70,000 tonne number. There is no proper discussion of methodology in the Euro Med piece, and indeed the source given above rips those estimates to shreds with actual rigor. Euro Med, whoever they are, appear to have made it up out of whole cloth as far as I can tell, and should not be considered a reliable source for this article. Telecart (talk) 15:11, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

@Telecart Yes. I see your point. Can you point me to where the Euro Med piece is disputed? Johnadams11 (talk) 04:12, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

@Johnadams11 I apologize I was told not to participate in these talk pages but I hope it’s okay just to point to https://www.sgr.org.uk/resources/gaza-one-most-intense-bombardments-history Telecart (talk) 23:50, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

I don't have any agenda, and I'm no professional. So the "shifting arguments" is mainly due to my own lack of knowledge and going back and questioning things. I'll briefly explain OR: it contains something called WP:SYNTH. For us to say that Gaza bombing caused less fatalities per tonnage than Dresden would be a violation of WP:SYNTH as no source makes even remotely similar claims. We can, however, claim that Gaza bombing caused more % of buildings destroyed and used higher tonnage than Dresden as sources above make both claims. What about this as the second paragraph of the lead:

By October 2024, Israel admitted to bombing 40,000 locations[16] in the Gaza Strip (which is 360 km2). By one estimate, that amounted to a bomb tonnage of more than 70,000, surpassing the bomb tonnage dropped on Dresden, Hamburg, and London, combined, in World War II. Satellite imagery showed 62% of all buildings were damaged or destroyed, which also meets or exceeds the scale of destruction in Cologne, Dresden and Hamburg during World War II. The death toll from all Israeli attacks – both bombing and non-bombing – exceeds 45,000. Of this total, AOAV estimates that more than 25,000 civilians (and an unknown number of combatants) were killed by explosive weapons.

The last paragraph can be about allegations of war crimes.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 07:44, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

@Vice regent Hi VR. I've been reading and re-reading the edit you made (10/1) based on this conversation. I continue to believe that this edit improved the article considerably. Now, as we move towards additional refinement, I believe we have to consider another addition. And that is, the casualty count total of Dresden, Hamburg, and London. As it is now, there is simply no getting around the fact that the article is exceptionally concerned with the comparison of these bombardments. There are two unique and consecutive sentences which provide a detailed quantitative side-by-side. The fact that the casualty count is not similarly compared is a very conspicuous omission which even makes the article feel incomplete. I would propose leaving the second paragraph as is, but adding this as the last sentence: "The total death toll in the WWII bombings of Dresden, Hamburg, and London was 92,000." Please let me know your thoughts. Johnadams11 (talk) 20:18, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Do you have sources that make comparisons between casualties? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 04:47, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

@Vice regent. Thanks for the reply. I'm not sure I'm understanding. Are you suggesting that sources which identify the casualty counts, but do not explicitly compare the casualty counts to Gaza are not sufficient. Why would that be? The sentence I proposed makes no mention of Gaza. Thx. Johnadams11 (talk) 15:26, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Is the sentence related to the topic of this article ("Israeli bombing of the Gaza Strip")? If so, we need to provide a source for that. If not, then it shouldn't be in the lead of this article. We may mention it in the body if we think its necessary context.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 16:43, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

@Vice regent Hi VR. The sentence is directly related to the three sentences that precede it. This article is hyper interested in comparisons with WWII bombardments. It is counterintuitive IMO to include comparisons of tonnage dropped and buildings destroyed, but exclude the most notable metric of any bombardment: casualties. There is nothing in the proposed sentence that touches anything in WP:OR, and indeed, the section on "Routine Calculations" suggests that the deaths per ton previously discussed, may also be added here. I would argue that the exclusion of the casualty metric is directly at odds with WP:NPOV. What specifically is the argument to exclude it? Johnadams11 (talk) 21:29, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

I agree with @Vice regent, and @Johnadams11 please refrain from re-adding this content that has been contested and for which you have not obtained consensus.

I oppose its inclusion because it is not in the body and hence should not be in the lede MOS:LEADNOTUNIQUE, and it is non-relevant information that is not WP:DUE. The reference to these bombings is clearly designated as being in regard to tonnage and level of destruction, as reflected in the cited RS which say this in reference to the Gaza bombing. None of the cited RS, nor do we on the page, say anything with regard to casualties. Adding the casualties of these bombings – none of the sources for which reference the bombing campaign in Gaza at all – is clearly not due for inclusion, and seems like some kind of WP:SYNTH point. Smallangryplanet (talk) 18:21, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

@Smallangryplanet Thanks for identifying your reasons for having deleted my edit, which I made per WP:BOLD, after a month long conversation attracted exactly one participant. Glad to have you join.

To my read, the lead of this article borders on tabloid sensational. The weighting given to reports of the tonnage is undue exactly because of the meaningful differences in casualties per ton. It is a natural and unremarkable inference that casualties would also be similarly higher.

Further, the language is not presented in a "disinterested tone" per WP:NPOV. It plainly seeks to suggest that this bombardment is "worse" than those mentioned. My own view, despite my reservations was to leave all that alone (for now), and simply add the clarification that the single most important metric of any bombardment -- casualties, was not similarly higher.

In any event, thanks again for joining the discussion. I'll determine the dispute resolution path and you'll see this come up again soon. Johnadams11 (talk) 20:57, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

@Vice regent and Smallangryplanet: Thank you for your previous input. I have started an rfc here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnadams11 (talk • contribs) 15:58, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

References

Total Casualty Count

I believe the 70,000 figure recently added here has to change to conform with the primary, and more updated source on this matter: Casualties of the Gaza War. Otherwise, that article needs to change. I myself don't wish to engage on the litigation of this matter, but WP cannot have different answers to the same question in highly correlated articles. Johnadams11 (talk) 00:57, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

@Johnadams11 thanks for highlighting this. I have looked into the sources used to support the 70,000 figure on this page. They do not support the figure. The first source has a figure of 39,115 (which is lower than the Gaza Ministry of Health's estimate published by OCHA) and the second source, reporting on an academic study in respected journal The Lancet (direct link to source) estimates a toll of 64,260 up to June 2024, which by extension implies a death toll likely higher than 70,000: "assuming that the level of under-reporting of 41% continued from July to October, 2024, it is plausible that the true figure now exceeds 70 000". Our casualties article also misrepresents the same study in its lead, currently describing it as "estimat[ing] over 70,000 deaths from traumatic injuries as of October 2024". I will now try to correct both. Jr8825 • Talk 03:02, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

How about the following wording: "The total death toll from all Israeli attacks, both bombing and non-bombing, stands at 48,000 according to the Gaza Health Ministry. However, a January 2025 analysis in The Lancet concluded that the real death was likely 40% higher, estimating more than 70,000 dead. This figure does not include indirect deaths caused by Israeli attacks." ? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 12:54, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

@Vice regent: I made a slight change just now that conforms with this but I think your proposed version is better, though I will note that the percentage is 41. I don't think it is necessary to include both the 64,260 and 70,000 figures in the lead, best to put that in the body, which now (curiously) has the trimmed version with only 70,000. So I suggest adding the time periods and both 64,260 and 70,000 figures there instead. Smallangryplanet (talk) 13:11, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

I don't think its necessary to include both 64,260 and 70,000 in the body either and both figures are estimates anyway (unlike the GHM figure, which is a count). We should just use the later figure of 70,000. And yes 40% should be 41%.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 13:45, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm fine with leaving it out of the body as well, it seems superfluous. Smallangryplanet (talk) 13:58, 21 February 2025 (UTC)