Talk:Gaza humanitarian crisis (2023–present)/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
Title
Per the standard WP:NCE descriptive title component arrangement, and as illustrated by this usage by Reuters, a more succinct and preposition free format is "Gaza humanitarian crisis". Iskandar323 (talk) 14:16, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
On Al-Shifa raid
Regarding this addition:
- This is third-hand reporting through a Bangladeshi newspaper, which should've been sourced directly to Al Jazeera.
- A quick Google search of the reporters mentioned by the source (Jihab Abu Sheib and Jihad Abu Shanab) returns very few results, almost exclusively in relation to this report.
Per WP:EXTRAORDINARY, I'm removing the statement pending better sourcing. François Robere (talk) 12:15, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
- It's repeated here. Not sure how this is particularly extraordinary. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:02, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
- The phrase "a nightmare that cannot be imagined" is pretty extraordinary, and your source also attributes it to the AJ interview. Please revert. François Robere (talk) 16:26, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
Use of Civilian infrastructure
@François Robere Bonjour François, regarding [1] edit:
A long and extended series of quotations on claims about human shields, tunnels, and military infrastructure adds nothing to a page about the humanitarian crisis in Gaza at this point in time. If you would like to add this text to War crimes in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war or Palestinian tunnel warfare in the Gaza Strip, those would much more appropriate targets. As it stands, I would actually recommend a full revert back to the previous version.
To me, this seems to be a pretty basic WP:NPOV, as it seems to serve few other purposes on elaborating on the humanitarian crisis other than to provide a military justification for the crisis. It is now an entire subsection 95% full of quotes from Israeli allies, providing no evidence, backing up the IDF's military claims. This edit severely deteriorates the quality of the overall page. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 13:11, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
- Agreed. This isn't encyclopedic prose; just a WP:QUOTEFARM, and the word "humanitarian" isn't even mentioned once in the entire section, let alone "humanitarian crisis" - it contributes nothing. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:05, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
- Throughout this article I count 13 paragraphs that contains a single quote, nine that have two quotes, five that have 3-4 quotes, one that has no less than five quotes, and two that have six; and many of these seem to serve little purpose other than to add "shock value". Evidence of the use of civilian facilities and "human shields" by Hamas, which is the cause of much of what this article covers, is mentioned in just two sentences, and is followed by yet another quote that contradicts it. I don't think that having a dedicated section to the problem, where we unpack some of the 15 sources that we already have here - the majority of which are from well-respected international media, not from "Israeli allies" - is a bad idea. That said, Use of human shields by Hamas, which Iskandar323 submitted for deletion, seems like the best place for those, so I'll move them there. François Robere (talk) 17:06, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 January 2024
 | This edit request to 2023–2024 Gaza humanitarian crisis has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the Disease section, please fix the sentence
On 29 December, WHO chief Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus reported 180,000 people cases of upper respiratory infections
by deleting the word "people". AmbitiousAmphibian (talk) 21:31, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Statistical information from highly reliable sources
Hello.
Would official statistical information from The United Nations, UNICEF, the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), and Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC) regarding the full scope of the humanitarian impact of the Gaza war (and the international opposition against it) be acceptable to add to this page, and if so, is somebody here willing to properly integrate it please?
https://press.un.org/en/2023/ga12575.doc.htm
David A (talk) 10:08, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
- @CarmenEsparzaAmoux: Would you be willing to handle this please? David A (talk) 04:36, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
- @CarmenEsparzaAmoux: Other highly relevant articles, if you have not seen them already:
- https://www.jewishpress.com/news/eye-on-palestine/gaza/poll-83-of-israelis-support-voluntary-emigration-from-gaza/2023/12/24/ David A (talk) 07:14, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for putting these here, David. I'll do my best to start incorporating them. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 00:57, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
Nuclear bombs
@David A: I removed it for a number of reasons.
First, it’s not in the body of the article, which the lede is supposed to summarise.
Second, it’s a meaningless number; “a nuclear bomb” isn’t a unit of measurement. Is it two Tsar Bombas? Two Davy Crocketts?
Third, it’s hyperbolic; nuclear weapons are extremely powerful and indiscriminate devices, and while arguments can be made Israel is being indiscriminate we should specify those arguments, rather that using hyperbolic language. BilledMammal (talk) 21:13, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
- Well, then the information should be moved into the main article instead of removed entirely, and the point here is that it in fact is not hyperbolic but factual information, which I think is highly relevant in order to help visitors understand a sense of scale regarding what is happening. David A (talk) 21:17, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
- Part of the issue is that it isn’t really factual information; as I said above, “a nuclear bomb” isn’t a unit of measurement. I see the article says 25,000 tons of bombs have been dropped; if we can find an appropriate place for that information in the body would you be ok using that more precise number instead of the vague “two nuclear bombs”? BilledMammal (talk) 21:21, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, that seems acceptable.
- I also remember seeing another article some time ago which mentioned two Hiroshimas. Perhaps we can also compare the 25 kilotons data with the information available about that tragedy? David A (talk) 21:24, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
- I found something here: https://www.dailysabah.com/world/mid-east/israel-hit-gaza-with-3-times-more-firepower-than-hiroshima-nuke David A (talk) 21:26, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
- And here as well: https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-m&sca_esv=596413328&tbm=nws&sxsrf=AM9HkKlBt5c0Ci9HCaODTN0Uim5ioPkyoQ%3A1704662696332&q=gaza+65000&oq=gaza+65000&aqs=heirloom-srp..
- The current number seems to be 65 kilotons. David A (talk) 21:29, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
- We might have a problem finding a reliable source for it; I think this obscure paper probably is reliable, but the rest have issues - and this one attributes the claim to Hamas. This source has some problems (state owned by Abu Dhabi, functions as their mouth piece) but it should be sufficiently reliable for this and it also attributes. Perhaps if rather than using tonnage we use the number of bombs, which both those sources put in their own voice - 45,000? BilledMammal (talk) 21:44, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
- I think that seems like a very reasonable suggestion. David A (talk) 22:39, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
- @CarmenEsparzaAmoux: The Israeli government dropping the equivalent of more than three Hiroshima-class nuclear warheads on the Palestinians seems warranted to include in this page. David A (talk) 08:55, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
- There is also this extremely worrying development: https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/shadow-unthinkable-looms-middle-east-nuclear-war David A (talk) 09:06, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
- I think that seems like a very reasonable suggestion. David A (talk) 22:39, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
- We might have a problem finding a reliable source for it; I think this obscure paper probably is reliable, but the rest have issues - and this one attributes the claim to Hamas. This source has some problems (state owned by Abu Dhabi, functions as their mouth piece) but it should be sufficiently reliable for this and it also attributes. Perhaps if rather than using tonnage we use the number of bombs, which both those sources put in their own voice - 45,000? BilledMammal (talk) 21:44, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
- Part of the issue is that it isn’t really factual information; as I said above, “a nuclear bomb” isn’t a unit of measurement. I see the article says 25,000 tons of bombs have been dropped; if we can find an appropriate place for that information in the body would you be ok using that more precise number instead of the vague “two nuclear bombs”? BilledMammal (talk) 21:21, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
Social media aspect of the war
I, and a lot of other people have seen widespread support for Gaza in the war. I was wondering if maybe there could be a section added in the reactions section about this? I'm sure there are multiple sources which could be cited for this, such as this: https://www.politico.eu/newsletter/digital-bridge/does-social-media-favor-palestine-over-israel/ Corgimations (talk) 22:17, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
Possible name change after close of RM on the allegations page
Depending on the result of the move request (title debate) at the "allegations" article, the main point made at Talk:Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza#Read this before voting is that a move request at this article would make more sense. But better wait until the debate over there is closed, since having rival requested moves generally leads to confused decision-making. Boud (talk) 13:27, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- That would require reducing the article significantly to things credibly covered under the genocide convention, which is difficult to argue while maintaining NPOV considering the fact that we have partial disagreement from ICJ judges regarding plausibility (a lower bar than what would be required by Wikipedia to IAR the title to what you suggested). FortunateSons (talk) 14:43, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- @FortunateSons: There's not just the genocide convention, but more specifically relevant here is the Rome Statute, since the International Criminal Court investigation in Palestine is ongoing. I don't see where any material would have to be removed. For example, starvation (crime) is criminalised in the Rome Statute, although whether it's a war crime, crime against humanity or genocide seems to be open to debate, depending on the particular event - see the current state of the article starvation (crime). However, that would require a title something like attempted 2023/2024 war crimes/crimes against humanity/genocide of the Gazans if no material is to be removed, which would be much too cumbersome. Moreover, the standard Wikipedia style would require a significant reorganisation of the material into what is the attempted genocide versus what are the "reactions", e.g. subsections like Deliveries to southern Gaza, Issues with delivery, Delivery during temporary ceasefire are not the genocide itself, but rather attempts to weaken or partially prevent parts of the genocide.In principle, a major rewrite of the article could be done, but I'm not volunteering to do it; it would risk wasting the work done in making and maintaining the article coherently with its current scope; and unless someone can sketch a viable restructuring, convince others that s/he would really do it, and gain rough consensus for it, which overall seems unlikely, I tend to agree that a rename proposal would be rejected. Boud (talk) 16:46, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
676 refs
This is a lot. It makes maintenance more difficult, verification difficult, tools bog down, page load times increase, etc.. many sentences have 3 or 4 refs. Only 1 is needed to verify, maybe two. Suggest removing or combining sources where possible. -- GreenC 03:47, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- Not surprised at all. Editors in this topic area don't know the meaning of "excess". The same bit of information must be mentioned in 30 different articles (often almost identical to each other) and supported by 10 sources to show how correct it is. There is little interest in writing an actual article. A whole reference is cited for the following information:
UNGA president Dennis Francis asked, "How much is enough?"
. This has zero encyclopedic value. Some of this article are statements from politicians saying the same while using different words to describe the situation in Gaza. It's ridiculous. - A whole section is dedicated to "Airstrikes", and it lists and describes some airstrikes individually. Who could have possibly thought this would be a good idea? There are several airstrikes daily, they all should be discussed and analysed from a general point of view. This is unfortunately such a war that
The following day, 26 people were killed in an airstrike of a residential building in southern Gaza.
is just more of the bunch, with dozens if not over a hundred of very similar events that could likewise have been arbitrarily selected. - There is never something good to be expected from the Israeli–Palestinian conflict topic area. Super Ψ Dro 21:35, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Hi! I would appreciate if somebody could add this new information to the article:)
The UAE's Ministry of Defence announced the arrival of aid convoy to northern Gaza as part of Operation "Chivalrous Knight 3," delivering 17 trucks of relief aid. marking a total of 2,102 tonnes provided during Ramadan under directives from President Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan to support Palestinians.
This convoy is the first from any country to enter the northern Gaza Strip via the Rafah Border Crossing and then through the Karam Abu Salem border crossing to provide aid to Palestinians.[1] Indipedian1991 (talk) 07:55, 10 April 2024 (UTC)