Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: 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]

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.[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."[2]
  • "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."[3]
  • "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."[4]
  • "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.”"[5]
  • "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."[6] 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[7]. 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.*"[8] 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."[9] 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. [10]. 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.[11]
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]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
@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)[reply]

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[12] 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)[reply]

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

@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)[reply]

References

  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.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

'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)[reply]

 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)[reply]

RfC: Adding Detail to WWII Comparisons

Given the importance of the bombings of Dresden, Hamburg, and London to the lede of this article, it has been proposed that the combined death toll (102,000) of those bombings be added as well.

See previous discussion here.

Options:

  1. No Change
  2. Add "The combined death toll in the WWII bombings of Dresden, Hamburg, and London was 102,000 [1][2][3]" (A Routine Calculation under WP:OR.)
  3. Remove comparisons with WWII bombings

Johnadams11 (talk) 15:57, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Option 3. I don't think a comparison to WWII bombings is necessary and it doesn't add anything to the article. The facts and figures speak for themselves, comparing them to bombings over 80 years ago is ponderous. After some discussion, I support a reformulation to something that mentions amount/density of explosives used, per VR's comment here. I think that comparing the explosive power of bombs dropped with other well-known bombing campaigns provides more context and information to readers than just the death toll. The amount of victims ends up being a number, if the number is big it becomes hard to visualise and understand, but everyone knows about the destruction of Vietnam because people have seen pictures and videos. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 15:21, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, as several RS make that comparison, as given in the sources above. My suggestion is to give a brief 1-2 sentence summary of this in the lead, with additional detail in the body of the article.VR (Please ping on reply) 16:27, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Generally, I think that the comparisons to other bombing campaigns belongs in the body of the article instead of the lead.
I wonder whether the specific comparisons, although they were chosen by reliable sources, have effects that make repeating them, and especially emphasizing them in the lead, be at odds with encyclopedic neutrality. I ask myself: What is the result of comparing a campaign against three cherry-picked cities? What is the effect of comparing 80-year-old technology against modern munitions? What is the effect, for example, of comparing it against one part of a war that started 86 years ago, instead of Vietnam War casualties or one of the bombing campaigns of the Vietnam War or even the Russian invasion of Ukraine, which is using comparable technology?
I think the answer to all of these questions is "pushes a particular POV". "Israel dropped more bomb tonnage than the famous carpet bombing of Dresden" sends a message that is very different from "For comparison, in 1968 alone, the US alone dropped more than 20 times as much bomb tonnage in Vietnam" or "Russia has killed far more Ukrainians than Israel has killed Gazans".
And because of that, I think that we should protect our neutrality by not emphasizing this cherry-picked comparison. Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion, and it definitely does not guarantee placement in the lead. I suggest looking for a variety of verifiable comparisons, and putting all of them in the body of the article (i.e., none of them in the lead). WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:34, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this assessment. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 10:27, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@WhatamIdoing It is common on wikipedia to state in the lead when something is more significant than something, but to omit it when it is less significant. For example:
  • Shanghai's lead says it is the 2nd largest city in the world. By contrast Chengdu's lead fails to mention that it is only 40th largest city in the world, instead the lead boasts it is the 4th largest city in China.
  • University of Oxford is described as the 2nd oldest university in the world. University of Copenhagen says nothing about it being the 29th oldest university in the world, instead boasts that it is the 2nd oldest university in Scandinavia.
I could keep going, but the point is that comparisons are deliberately made to state a topic's importance, not to state a topic's unimportance. This is not POV-pushing. In fact, a WP:LEAD should "establish significance" and contain "a summary of its most important contents". VR (Please ping on reply) 04:35, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's one pattern that we use, but it's also common to state where something falls in a range:
  • Japan women's national softball team says that "Japan is the second most successful national team (winning three medals), following the United States (four medals, three gold and a silver), and beating out Australia (also four medals out of which three were bronze and one silver) and China with one silver medal."
  • Torrontés says of the varietals that "Torrontés Riojano is the most aromatic of the three, with aromas reminiscent of Muscat and Gewürtztraminer wines. The least aromatic, and least widely planted, is Torrontés Mendocino with the aromatics and plantings of Torrontés Sanjuanino falling in between."
  • Climate of Wales says that "Sunshine totals throughout the year are more than that of Scotland and Northern Ireland, but less than that of neighbouring England."
I, too, could keep going, but the point is that comparisons are deliberately made to place facts in encyclopedic context, and that sometimes means saying both more and less than. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:49, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@WhatamIdoing Sure. But those examples show that such comparisons are often made in the lead to highlight a topic's significance. There appear to be some comparison between Vietnam in RS:
  • "the density of Israel’s first month of bombardment in Gaza had “not been seen since Vietnam.”...“You’d have to go back to the Vietnam war to make a comparison,” said Garlasco. “Even in both Iraq wars it was never that dense.”"CNN
  • "To find a similar density of high explosives used in a small populated area, we might have to go back to the Vietnam war for a comparable example - like the 1972 Christmas bombing, when some 20,000 tons of bombs were dropped on Hanoi during Operation Linebacker II."BBC News
  • Comparison between Agent Orange use in Vietnam and the Gaza ecocide resulting from Israeli bombing. Al Jazeera
  • Comparison of Israeli bombing of Gaza to both Vietnam and WWII bombings. The Nation.
  • That Israel is dropping similar/same types of bombs on Gaza that the US dropped on Vietnam[13]
I think there are ample comparisons. The question should not be whether to remove all this but rather how can we propose a wording that is WP:DUE.VR (Please ping on reply) 18:52, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Vice regent I was against including the comparison as presented in option 2 of the RfC, because I thought comparing the death toll with others is arbitrary.
However, the angle you present (density/amount of explosives used in an area) is informative and aids in understanding by providing context and comparisons with other well-known bombing campaigns. I'd support a formulation that includes that comparison. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 19:02, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and this is why I think we need to be looking for a variety of verifiable comparisons, and putting all of them in the body of the article (i.e., none of them in the lead). We should not single out a single comparison, but we should include multiple comparisons. It should be compared to WWII and to Vietnam and to the Iraq wars. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:40, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but they should be given weight in accordance with what the sources give (WP:DUE) and significant discussions about a topic in the body should also be summarized briefly in the lead.VR (Please ping on reply) 19:53, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 3: I concur with @WhatamIdoing. I was wondering for several days how to word my concerns following the bot ping, and don't think I can do so better than she already has. Although the source is authoritative, and the comparison is given enough space in § Analysis that MOS:LEADREL is satisfied, it still feels like unnecessary editorialisation. The essay WP:EDITDISC comes to mind. I support retention of the comparison in the article body, but not in the lead. As a tentative suggestion of what could replace it, the use of the term domicide by scholars to describe the bombing campaign is not currently mentioned in the lead. Jr8825 • Talk 02:21, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1: The comparison between the bombings of Gaza and the bombings of Dresden, Hamburg, and London has been extensively covered by RS, including the UN, and is often made by figures such as the UK's Defense Secretary, Israeli diplomats, historians, etc. This comparison is not meant to push a particular POV but rather to highlight the similarities in the nature of the destruction, particularly the disproportionate impact on civilian areas within a short period of time. Comparisons to more modern conflicts such as the Russia-Ukraine war have also been made, and researchers usually point out that the level of destruction in Gaza, in such a brief time, is unlike anything seen in other recent conflicts. This makes the WW2 comparisons particularly relevant in understanding the severity of the situation. Also, Option 2 makes no sense to me, since the content in the article and the cited sources refers to the level of destruction of the WW2 bombings, not their casualties. We follow what the sources say, and that information is not relevant to include. Smallangryplanet (talk) 09:38, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 3: When we compare bombings based only on tonnage and destruction but not casualties, the comparison gives the obvious but misleading impression that casualties were similarly higher, when in fact they are meaningfully lower. This omission deliberately distorts reader understanding by presenting only the dimensions that support the comparison while excluding the one that weakens it.
For those who argue it is not “we” who are making the comparison, it is others who are (most importantly, Robert Pape), I say yes, that’s why we’re having the conversation. However we retain the responsibility of using our judgement to conform with WP guidance, and to determine what attention is due. Would add too that this coverage is sometimes over-stated. Of the five links for example, provided by the editor above, only two make the comparison the Article does.
Of not insignificant interest, the heaviest bombardment in history (by an order of magnitude), is the American bombardment of North Vietnam. However that WP article, fittingly, only makes this point, in summary at the very end of article, because of the vastly different strategic contexts, and the dubious historical usefulness of such comparisons.
The Gaza article should omit these comparisons entirely, but if we must retain, we must remove the comparison from the lead, place it in a subordinate section, and critically, add the casualty comparison. Johnadams11 (talk) 16:09, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 3: The article is about the Israeli bombardment of Gaza and the lead should focus on that specific event. The comparison creates a false equivalence between the strategic bombing of large cities during total war (World War II) and a conflict involving targeted air strikes in densely populated and contested areas. The context, the objectives, the scale of engagement, the weapons, even the legal framework are completely different, so any comparison would be WP: UNDUE, unencyclopaedic ("editorialising") and essentially misleading. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:41, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain how it is UNDUE? Certainly it is commonly mentioned in RS. This topic is given WP:SIGCOV by Philadelphia Inquirer[14], France24[15], Al-Ahram[16], The Hill[17], Middle East Monitor[18], Arab News[19], CBC News[20], Foreign Affairs (magazine)[21]. The comparison can also be found in peer-reviewed academic publications[4][5].VR (Please ping on reply) 04:46, 25 February 2025 (UTC) VR (Please ping on reply) 04:46, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, once someone has calculated/estimated such a number, then everyone else is going to copy it, because it doesn't require any significant effort and helps them make their editorial point (which is absolutely fine for sources to do, because sources are not required to be neutral!).
If the authors had easier access to comparative numbers, then we might see more variety in the comparisons. I've requested a couple of lists at MILHIST. I assume that they'll know whether there are sources to support such lists. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:01, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Vice regent, WP:VNOT and WP:NOTEVERYTHING, just because something is mentioned in WP:RS doesn't mean it should be included in Wikipedia. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 10:20, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1 per Smallangryplanet. This seems pretty clear-cut to me. RS uses this comparative analysis and we follow what RS says. And these aren't just any RS, but high quality ones, including detailed studies from reputable researchers using empirical data (satellite imagery), and a leading academic expert on warfare and specifically the use of air power and bombing campaigns. Robert Pape has published the classic book on the subject in the field: Bombing to Win: Air Power and Coercion in War, which includes a detailed analysis of the WW2 bombings being referenced. And he is the one who makes the comparison. This is clearly important and relevant information to include in both the body and lede.
Moreover, this connection is not only derived from one RS making it at the same time, but multiple high quality RS making it across time, from December 2023, February 2024 and June 2024.
And those are not the only ones. Here is a longer list of separate RS that explicitly draw this connection:
December 2023: https://www.ft.com/content/7b407c2e-8149-4d83-be01-72dcae8aee7b
December 2023: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/12/23/israel-gaza-war-wwii-palestine
January 2024: https://apnews.com/article/israel-gaza-bombs-destruction-death-toll-scope-419488c511f83c85baea22458472a796
May 2024: https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20240507-unlike-anything-we-have-studied-gaza-s-destruction-in-numbers
July 2024: https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/un-says-it-will-take-15-years-clear-rubble-israels-bombardment-gaza
October 2024: https://www.aljazeera.com/gallery/2024/10/8/the-gaza-time-bomb
It has also already been noted in multiple books (you can use the search function for the specific passages):
Chomsky and Robinson, The Myth of American Idealism.
Moorcraft, Israel's Forever War.
Ruthven, Unholy Kingdom
So leaving this out of the page and the lede seems grossly distortive of what the purpose of Wikipedia is, to follow what RS say per WP:DUE. Moreover, there is only a reference to the level of destruction of buildings caused, not casualties, which is clarified separately by RS right after the reference to the bombing destruction comparison, so there is no possibility of any confusion around that. And there is no RS that counters the RS that explicitly makes the comparison of the WW2 bombings with the Israeli bombing of the Gaza strip, so adding casualty numbers from that violates WP:RELEVANCE. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 11:14, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 3
Concur with @Johnadams11 all the sources other cite to show its not undue is cherry picking
I can equally generate;
Other ww2 comparisons
The Civilian Deaths in Gaza by Israel Were Inevitable Foreign policy
Proportionality Doesn’t Mean What You Think It Means In Gaza Forbes
Conflicts in Proportion | Israel War Portal warinisrael.org
Why ‘proportionality’ claims are flawed - Aristotle Foundation Aristotle foundation
And of course to only include the perspective of the sources I link here would be equally cherry picking, really the article needs to either not make comparisons and simply present the facts.
If that is not done and comparisons must be made then surely the comparison should consider all relevant POVs that means including both tonnage and casualty numbers - and whatever other metrics RS with includable POVs also have. LeChatiliers Pupper (talk) 22:02, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 3 - I believe this comparison adds nothing to the lead except for an attempt to discredit Israel based on an incomplete and inaccurate analogy. The number of casualties during the bombings of World War II was twice as high as the number of casualties in the Gaza war. Omitting this figure makes the comparison misleading, and it seems to be done deliberately. Even without this statistic, the comparison in the lead is still misleading, as the historical contexts and consequences of each case are entirely different. Such a comparison requires careful, detailed, and nuanced analysis - far too complex for the lead. Simply including the weight of the explosives appears, in my view, to be an attempt to mislead the reader and take a stance, which violates the principle of NPOV. Rafi Chazon (talk) 14:39, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"an attempt to discredit Israel"
Israel is doing that on their own, facts speak for themselves. This is about whether the information aids in understanding and increases knowledge, in other words if it improves the article. Scale and intensity of attacks are hard for readers to comprehend, it helps to have comparisons or context. I objected to the addition because I think comparing death tolls is arbitrary, but I am not against comparison if it is appropriate. What do you think would be a good way to help readers understand the impact? TurboSuperA+ (☏) 15:13, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that the death tolls are not arbitrary but rather inherent to the comparison, and without it, the comparison does not contribute to understanding but instead undermines the objectivity of the analysis. The death tolls indicate that Israel uses its explosives in a calculated manner and strives to minimize civilian casualties. When compared to World War II, it becomes evident that a significantly lower amount of explosives resulted in a much higher number of deaths, what bring this distinction to be necessary. Therefore, if the comparison to World War II is retained, the death tolls must be included, as this is what truly provides the most accurate, neutral, and properly contextualized perspective. To fully grasp the context, all relevant aspects must be presented, which is why I suggested placing this comparison within the body of the article rather than in the lead. Rafi Chazon (talk) 16:10, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1 – I concur with @Smallangryplanet, @Vice regent, and @Raskolnikov.Rev. The comparison in question is not one arbitrarily introduced by us but rather one established by reliable sources. As has been noted, this comparison to World War II bombings is not merely a rhetorical flourish made by a single RS but is supported by empirical studies conducted by researchers and scholars. Furthermore, this comparison has been made independently by multiple RS over time. Given this, its inclusion in both the body and lead of the article is clearly warranted under WP:DUE.
The primary objections to its inclusion appear to stem from discomfort with the comparison rather than substantive counterarguments. Additionally, some sources cited in opposition, such as those presented by @LeChatiliers Pupper, do not meet the standards of RS and therefore fail to satisfy WP:DUE. These include an unsourced chart from WarinIsrael.org, an opinion piece in Foreign Policy and Forbes that seeks to justify the bombing and casualties without addressing the specific comparative statement at issue in the RfC, and a piece from the notoriously unreliable Epoch Times (referenced as the "Aristotle Foundation" source). Such sources do not constitute valid counterpoints to well-regarded publications like The Financial Times, Associated Press, France 24, and Al Jazeera, nor to scholars such as Robert Pape.
Accordingly, the article should remain unchanged. Lf8u2 (talk) 16:47, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Lf8u2. Hello. Given that you raised the topic of opinion pieces, it may be of interest that the Pape piece, the foundational source for most of these comparisons, and one which you yourself reference, is entitled "Hamas is Winning," is of course an opinion piece. Johnadams11 (talk) 17:27, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These are pieces written by academics "By Barry R. Posen, the Ford international professor of political science of the Security Studies Program at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology." Jill Goldenziel is similarly an academic having taught at the USMC in respect international law.
If you want a comparison Posen contextualises military operation in Gaza in terms of similar urban battles Mosul and Raffa, while your "reliable sources"
U.S. Orders Al Jazeera Affiliate to Register as Foreign Agent - The New York Times
Again you are just POV picking, finding media outlets who say what you want to justify only limited aspects of a favourable comparison to one side.
The AP, FT etc I've had a look they are similarly just reporting on what an academic said.
Well there we go an other academic's have written in other equally well regarded publications Forbes and FP
Similar unsourced material in this article is rife, the 70,000 ton figure for ordinance dropped is an unexplained estimate from a biased group with no disenable military technical expertise. LeChatiliers Pupper (talk) 17:52, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Dresden (2025-02-07). "Dresden historical commission publishes final report". www.dresden.de. Retrieved 2025-02-08.
  2. ^ Blakemore, Erin (22 July 2021). "The bombing of Hamburg foreshadowed the horrors of Hiroshima". National Geographic. Archived from the original on 22 July 2021.
  3. ^ Richards, Denis. *Royal Air Force 1939–1945: The Fight at Odds*, vol. I, London: HMSO, 1974 (orig. 1953), p. 217. [1]
  4. ^ Samudzi, Zoé (18 January 2024). ""We are Fighting Nazis": Genocidal Fashionings of Gaza(ns) After 7 October". Journal of Genocide Research: 1–9. doi:10.1080/14623528.2024.2305524.
  5. ^ Boisen, Camilla (26 September 2024). "Israel's Punitive War on Palestinians in Gaza". Journal of Genocide Research: 1–22. doi:10.1080/14623528.2024.2406098.

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Yeah, I'm fine with leaving it out of the body as well, it seems superfluous. Smallangryplanet (talk) 13:58, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Israeli_bombing_of_the_Gaza_Strip
No tags for this post.