Talk:Environmental damage in the Gaza Strip caused by the Israel–Hamas war

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

Many more sources available[edit]

John Cummings (talk) 16:11, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination[edit]

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: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 talk 19:56, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
IDF Bulldozer clearing trees in Gaza in 2023
IDF Bulldozer clearing trees in Gaza in 2023
Created by John Cummings (talk).

Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 8 past nominations.

Post-promotion hook changes will be logged on the talk page; consider watching the nomination until the hook appears on the Main Page.

John Cummings (talk) 10:57, 9 April 2024 (UTC).[reply]

  • With four maintenance tags, this isn't going anywhere. Schwede66 00:04, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reopening per talk.--Launchballer 15:25, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again Launchballer, just FYI to whoever reviews this, I've addressed the maintainance tags and done a QPQ with Template:Did you know nominations/KDCD-TV. John Cummings (talk) 15:48, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Full review needed now that maintenance tags are addressed and QPQ has been submitted. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:32, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
thanks BlueMoonset, to the person reviewing it, please ping me with any questions :) John Cummings (talk) 16:18, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @John Cummings:, I started a review, but didn't get past the first section. I understand that this is a delicate subject, but the opening fails Wikipedia:NPOV. Can you rework the opening section so it a little less "pointy"? --evrik (talk) 21:40, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi evrik thank you for looking at the article, I realise it is an emotive subject. I believe the intro to be a fair summary of the events and have used the same descriptors for the events as the sources, especially the academic study to try to make the article as accurate as possible. However there are limited sources available given the blockade and ban on journalists entering. I can't find any sources which despute that the destruction has happened or who destroyed the farms and trees. There are some more sources to go through but they mainly focus on the health impacts of the destruction. I've included the only quote I can find from the Israeli government in the body of the article. Can you tell me which words/phrases specifically you think are not balanced and how you would go about changing it? John Cummings (talk) 21:52, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tone down the hyperbole in the opening. If you can do that, ping me and I'll start the review again. --evrik (talk) 22:00, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Evrik: (I appreciate I'm butting in, but the page is on my watchlist) I'm not seeing hyperbole in the article, grim as it is; some specifics would be helpful for progressing the article. Richard Nevell (talk) 20:57, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I edited two items in the article. It looks like the suggestions made here have been implemented and the article is as neutral as it can be. The article has the correct inline citations and it is both long enough and new enough to qualify for dyk. The hook is confirmed, in the article, and interesting. I prefer ALT0 as it introduces the word ecocide which is the subject of the article. The nominator has done a qpq. Regarding the stability of the article - it appears mostly -stable, just the nominator and myself have edited it today. Earwig has been down for me today so I have spot checked sources and did not find evidence of plagiarism. Bruxton (talk) 01:32, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bruxton thanks very much for assessing it and for your additions to the article. John Cummings (talk) 08:21, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the hook @Rjjiii: it works and it confirmed with the sources. Bruxton (talk) 04:54, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bruxton honestly I really dislike this solution, all the sources are very clear on the source of the vast vast majority of the destruction which is Israeli forces using bulldozers and bombs. It currently reads as passive voice with no information on who is doing the destruction. I understand the number of bombs has been taken issue with, my strong preference is:

... that Israel's systematic destruction of 38–48% of trees and farmland in Gaza using bulldozers and bombs has been described as an ecocide? Source: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/mar/29/gaza-israel-palestinian-war-ecocide-environmental-destruction-pollution-rome-statute-war-crimes-aoe

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 10:47, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As discussed at WT:DYK, that hook is not supported by the source. CMD (talk) 10:54, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in mind that WP:DYKHOOK says The hook should include a definite fact that is unlikely to change. Hooks that talk about a specific number of trees destroyed in an ongoing conflict can't possibly meet that requirement. RoySmith (talk) 12:44, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RoySmith thanks for explaining this, the fact Israeli forces destroyed them and that they have been accused of ecocide I think both meet that requirement. 13:40, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chipmunkdavis, to take each part of the sentence and quote from the source in "s:

  • that Israel's : " Israel’s onslaught on Gaza’s ecosystems has made the area unlivable" and "satellite data that Israeli military activity had destroyed more than 65 sq km, or 38% of that land"
  • systematic : "Samaneh Moafi, FA’s assistant director of research, describes the destruction as systematic." and "The effects of this systematic agricultural destruction"
  • destruction of 38–48% of trees and farmland in Gaza : " shows the destruction of about 38-48% of tree cover and farmland"
  • using bulldozers and bombs : "farmland destroyed by bombs and bulldozers"
  • has been described as an ecocide? : "led to calls for it to be regarded as “ecocide” and investigated as a possible war crime"

One related question, is it possible to use a second link in the hook to further provide sources? I feel like this is is sufficient but others also state facts to back up the statement as well.

John Cummings (talk) 13:46, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Individual points may all be sourced, but they should not be synthed together to say something else. CMD (talk) 13:51, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Chipmunkdavis thanks, can I check that you agree that all the invidvidual facts are supported by the source now? Could you describe what you think is synthesised? And what is "something else"? I feel like this sentence is an accurate summary of the facts. Thanks again, John Cummings (talk) 14:01, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have put details in the discussion at WT:DYK which I would ask you to refer to, but in general if your hook is trying to connect five different points it is unlikely to be accurate. Another example, not covered by WT:DYK, is you are claiming all 38-48% (not a small range) of the destruction is due to systematic bulldozing and bombing, while in actuality that is the total destruction caused by all actors and actions in the war. CMD (talk) 14:17, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Chipmunkdavis thanks for your reply, its got a bit difficult to keep track of everything when its spread across two pages. Can you say which part you think is unaccurate taking these 5 facts from the source? I know that there is some wood taken for firewood, however this and the other sources are clear, the vast vast majority of the trees have been destroyed by Israeli military "satellite data that Israeli military activity had destroyed more than 65 sq km, or 38% of that land". Would you be happy if the phrase was changed to 'more than 38% of trees and farmland' rather than '38% - 48%'? This would make it a direct quote from the source. My understanding of the % range in the information is simply that no one is allowed to enter Gaza to measure the destruction so the researchers made their study through remote sensing and that the amount of trees used for firewood is negligable and includes trees already felled by Israeli military. John Cummings (talk) 14:44, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The synthing together of the five facts is the issue, not the individual facts. I suggest picking one in particular, and making a hook about that (although not the bombs and bulldozers one, that's mostly a dramatic turn of phrase, especially as we know they also used tanks). Looking at the article, 38% and 48% are actually separate points, 38% is from a study of farmland, 48% is specifically tree cover, two distinct albeit overlapping measurements. CMD (talk) 15:03, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chipmunkdavis, thanks for your reply, I'm unsure how I could use only one of the facts and make it a full sentence. Thanks for the suggestions about separating the tree destruction and farmland destruction and catching the use of tanks, I've integrated that into a new Alt. John Cummings (talk) 15:11, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@John Cummings: I am not approving any percentages in any hook. This is an ongoing war, and those figures will date, if they haven't already done so. I would also expect a prepbuilder to WP:DYKTRIM it anyway. If you're alright with the shortened ALT3a:
ALT3a: ... that Israel's systematic destruction of trees and farmland in Gaza has been described as an ecocide?
I will approve that.--Launchballer 21:43, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Launchballer I understand your concern about the percentages, can you tell me what you feel the issue is with the other part you removed 'using tanks, bulldozers and bombs'? I'm not aware of a rule that would suggest this should be excluded. Thanks again, John Cummings (talk) 23:44, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DYKTRIM, plus I don't see the word 'bulldozers' in the article. (I see the word 'bulldozed', but it doesn't have an end-of-sentence citation.--Launchballer 09:49, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Launchballer, thank you very much for the explanation and link. Honestly I think that the method of destruction is important conext for people to understand what is happening. I've fixed the article to explicitly say bulldozers, several new refs have become available in the last weeks. The sentence "that Israel's systematic destruction of trees and farmland in Gaza using tanks, bulldozers, bombs and herbicides has been described as an ecocide?" fits below the 150-160 recommended max. I'm ok with going with the shorter version if that is the only version that will be accepted but I think it misses really important context on the varied methods used to achieve the systematic destruction. Thanks again for your help, John Cummings (talk) 13:17, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mean it does now check out, so it's fine by me. I can tell you that WP:CLUMPs of references are discouraged, and one of them (the Famine section) would deserve {{clump}}. I also notice that that section is a single-sentence paragraph, which is discouraged per WP:PARAGRAPH.--Launchballer 13:38, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree about multiple references. The point of a reference is to let the user verify a statement. If you give one good source for that, it's easy for the reader to do that. If you give them a list of sources, all you do is make the reader's job harder because they have to go look in all of them until they find the one that supports the statement. RoySmith (talk) 13:51, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Launchballer thank you vey much, I've also suggested an image. John Cummings (talk) 14:15, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which checks out, however I can't approve an article deserving that template. Please remedy it before I can approve it.--Launchballer 14:20, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Launchballer, great :) I've been through and unclumped that section and other sections I can find with more than 2 refs for a statement. I hope this meets the rules now, sorry its been so much back and forth. John Cummings (talk) 14:45, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This should be fine.--Launchballer 14:48, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Offering 2 hooks based on [1] & [2]. @John Cummings: I think the front page hook is more appropriate with limited information "on who is doing the destruction". Readers can click into the article where context is available. If you disagree, I'll strike this and my previous suggestion. Regards, Rjjiii (talk) 16:30, 18 May 2024 (UTC) Crossed out hooks objected to by nominator. 05:13, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll assess them when I get back from shopping, but straight away, WP:ANADOLU Agency is in red for controversial topics at WP:RSP, and so I won't accept a hook based on that source.--Launchballer 16:38, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the heads up. I was unfamiliar with the source and saw it used in the article. I've removed "herbicide" from the proposed hook. WP:ANADOLU seems to be the only source for herbicide usage cited in the article right now. I'm not French, but the video cited near herbicide seems to be talking about bombing. Rjjiii (talk) 16:52, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Launchballer thanks very much for catching this source I missed. Rjjiii I appreciate your suggestions, my issue with reducing the hook is it misses out vital context, e.g '3b' misses out that multiple sources have called it an ecocide, also it misses out who is doing it and how. '3c' misses who is doing it and that it is so huge in scale it is being called an ecocide. John Cummings (talk) 19:42, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could WP:FORBESCON and WP:ANADOLU and their relevant passages be removed/recited? I'm very sorry I didn't spot them earlier.--Launchballer 10:44, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Launchballer yep, fixed, I just found better refs for the statements :) John Cummings (talk) 17:16, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, let's try this again. I do note that there is another "Israel did bad" hook in prep 3 and there's another one ahead of this at Approved, so perhaps this should wait until the next one's been queued.--Launchballer 17:55, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV[edit]

John Cummings, could you mention the Israeli/ IDF POV in the article, as the Guardian article does? I can't see any mention of it at present. The DYK reviewer will need to check that the article has a NPOV. TSventon (talk) 20:08, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TSventon, thanks, I added a sentence. John Cummings (talk) 21:38, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cost[edit]

In case it's useful, the World Bank has [3] that up to the end of January the conflict had caused more than US$400 million worth of damage to Gaza's environment. Richard Nevell (talk) 19:09, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Environmental_damage_in_the_Gaza_Strip_caused_by_the_Israel–Hamas_war&oldid=1221697571"