Jump to content

Talk:Destruction of cultural heritage during the Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Possible sources

[edit]

John Cummings (talk) 10:20, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 April 2024

[edit]

Change "The medieval Qasr al-Basha (also known as Pasha's Palace) was left in ruined after Israeli bombardment.[35][34]" to "The medieval Qasr al-Basha (also known as Pasha's Palace) was left in ruins after Israeli bombardment.[35][34]" Thegkz (talk) 12:12, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Jamedeus (talk) 17:01, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Thegkz for spotting that and Thegkz for fixing the typo. Richard Nevell (talk) 17:22, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading edit summary

[edit]

@BilledMammal: Your edit summary ["Sources generally refuse to attribute blame for the general destruction, though specific instances are attributed"] is factually incorrect as sources that are reliable according to Wikipedia, i.e. Al Jazeera, Middle East Eye, Jacobin and The Nation to cite a few examples, have explicitly cited Israel as the perpetrator as a whole, and not in specific instances. [1], [2], [3], [4]. Adding also EuroMed monitor [5]. Not only that but they have called it a cultural genocide. Waiting for your self-revert of the move given the factually incorrect edit summary. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:09, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You've listed sources that there is also generally a consensus are biased. Less biased sources, such as the Heritage for Peace, decline to attribute general blame. We should keep the title neutral, and provide the detail in the article where appropriate context can be given.
Further, per WP:PCM, The discussion process is used for potentially controversial moves. It was inappropriate for you to boldly move this article - you should have been aware that such a move would be controversial. BilledMammal (talk) 12:16, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The sources provided above are all reliable sources according to Wikipedia and neutrality does not mean censorship of what reliable sources are saying. I took the bold move in alignment with RS per BRD, which is within my right, and your revert, which despite also being within your right, was made contrary to RS. There is no need for this to be controversial as RS are clear, and I would expect better good faith editing here. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:26, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 1 May 2024

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. to Destruction of cultural heritage during the 2023 Israeli invasion of Gaza. (non-admin closure) ToadetteEdit! 11:40, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Destruction of cultural heritage during the Israel–Hamas war → Israeli destruction of cultural heritage during the Israeli invasion of Gaza – RS are clear in not only attributing the destruction of Gaza's cultural heritage, which is obvious as Israel is the party destroying Gaza, but also in calling this destruction deliberate and systematic. The current title is misleading and implies the destruction occurred as a result of fighting in the war, rather than as a result of deliberate and systematic Israeli campaign, as demonstrated by RS: Al Jazeera, Middle East Eye, Jacobin and The Nation to cite a few examples, which called it even a cultural genocide. [6], [7], [8], [9] Also we have a similar article Destruction of cultural heritage by the Islamic State. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:31, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. Per Human Rights Watch, Isreal is the primary cause for this destruction - but thus not the only cause, and thus the proposed title would both be inaccurate and an WP:NPOV violation. Further, the sources presented by the nominator in support tend to be biased; for example, There is a consensus that Jacobin is a generally reliable but biased source. Neutral and reliable sources tend to either attribute the claim that Israel is responsible for all the destruction , or decline to make any claim, attributed or not, about who is responsible. (For example; The Guardian, Heritage for Peace, and the BBC)
See also this HRW report, which says between 10 and 20 percent of rockets launched fall short and hit Gaza, making it difficult or even impossible at times to determine who is responsible for a specific incident. BilledMammal (talk) 13:37, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for providing an extra reliable source that shows that Israel has been primarily destroying cultural heritage. I will add that to the reliable sources cited above that have said that such efforts by Israel are systematic and deliberate. As for the original research and synthesis made, I won’t be taking it into consideration. Makeandtoss (talk) 16:06, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's some interesting theory. Basically God of the gaps stuff – really testing the limits of the language of that HRW report. Even if we go along with that errant missiles logic, it's well known that Gazan militants missiles are pretty poxy things that don't do any damage, let alone have the ability to do much destruction. So ... do you have any source directly stating that an errant militant missile even hit, let alone destroyed a piece of cultural heritage? And if not, please can you leave your OR at the door. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:55, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as this article focuses on all destruction of cultural heritage, not just the destruction Israel is responsible for (even though they are responsible for most of it). Adding "Israeli" to the article title would be a harmful re-scoping; we shouldn't need to make sure destruction was caused by Israel to include it in this article. Elli (talk | contribs) 03:02, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Please fix typo

[edit]

On 7 October 2023, Hamas attacked Israel, killing more than a thousand people including nearly 700 civilians (of which 36 were children). Some 259 hostages we're also taken. we're -> were WeInTheUSA (talk) 18:35, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Richard Nevell (talk) 21:03, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 31 July 2024

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (non-admin closure) RodRabelo7 (talk) 10:26, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Destruction of cultural heritage during the 2023–2024 Israeli invasion of Gaza → Destruction of cultural heritage during the Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip – The parent article is Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip. A RM found that the 2023 invasion is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the term "Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip".VR (Please ping on reply) 02:12, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • oppose unless we expand scope (but I would support the change with expanded scope) - "Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip" has happened on more than one occasion. Most notably in 1967, but also possibly during the Suez Crisis? There might have also been some ground assaults between 2005 and 2023? FourPi (talk) 09:13, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But it looks like I'm too late for the primary topic? so "support with expanded scope", if we can find anything relevant. I don't feel strongly enough about it to re-open debate on the main topic. FourPi (talk) 09:52, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Destruction of cultural heritage during the Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Richard Nevell (talk · contribs)

Reviewer: Personisinsterest (talk · contribs) 11:51, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just want to say, this is my first GA review. Anyway, the article seems fine, and it's about an important topic. Will review soon. Personisinsterest (talk) 11:51, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments, suggestions

[edit]

I made a few minor edits: Took away a redlink, added some commas, and corrected some numbers from October 7th. (Not anyone's fault, new data came out). I also moved a statement from one section to another because I thought it fit better there, but I removed it once I saw it was already there. Kept it removed from the other section because it was in the other. Doesn't matter. Sorry.

Anyway, I would suggest linking Gaza genocide in sentences about the ICJ case. I would say to make a Background section and put "Cultural heritage in Gaza" and "Destruction of cultural heritage" in it, with the exception of the second paragraph of the latter which can go to events. And finish refs 4 and 5. Doesn't matter for the review, just a suggestion.

Review

[edit]

1) Well-written

1a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct
1b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation - Cultural genocide is a value-laden term.

2) Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check

2a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline
2b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose)
2c) it contains no original research
2d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism (32.4% on Earwig, only significant thing is a quote.)

3) Broad in its coverage

3a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic - Yes, except for the lead. The first paragraph is fine, but the lead, which is supposed to address the main aspects of the topic, doesn't here. It dedicates a paragraph to the genocide accusations (which do have a place, just not as a paragraph) which are only mentioned once in the body. I feel the last paragraph should hold the genocide accusations, to tie it into the systemic cultural destruction. Anyway, there should be a paragraph in the middle that talks about some specific cultural destruction, as that is the main part of the article.
3b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)

4) Neutral:

4) Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each - Only thing is that it should be worded "The destruction has been characterized by some as cultural genocide" in the lead. Without this, it gives the false impression that this is a mainstream conclusion, and not just something that many but only some analysts say.

5) Stable:

5) Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute

6) Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio

6a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content
6b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions

Overall: - Great article, just fix lead. pass @Richard Nevell

Thank you for the helpful feedback, Personisinsterest. Good point about the lead so I'll get onto that. I saw a recent new story about the Great Omari Mosque which may need to be integrated into the article, so I'll look into that at the same time. I should be able to get to that this week. Hopefully sooner rather than later but it's shaping up to be a busy one. Richard Nevell (talk) 20:47, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, and thanks for bringing this issue to light. Personisinsterest (talk) 06:24, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Personisinsterest Here is the additional information I've added, and this diff shows the changes addressing the points raised in the review, primarily adding more detail to the lead and adding qualification around cultural genocide as suggested. Let me know if further changes are needed to fully address your points. Richard Nevell (talk) 22:53, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have done all the needed changes, and with the article passing the other criteria, it passes. Personisinsterest (talk) 01:23, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The destruction of cultural heritage in Gaza is a really important part of what’s happening right now, and it’s kind of overlooked. I’m glad people are doing this. Personisinsterest (talk) 01:25, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Destruction_of_cultural_heritage_during_the_Israeli_invasion_of_the_Gaza_Strip&oldid=1243022743"