Jump to content
Wikipedia The Free Encyclopedia

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Destruction of cultural heritage during the Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip/1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Richard Nevell (talk | contribs) at 23:01, 13 February 2025 (→Background SYNTH/PEACCOCK/FLOWERY: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision .Revision as of 23:01, 13 February 2025 by Richard Nevell (talk | contribs) (→Background SYNTH/PEACCOCK/FLOWERY: Reply)
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result pending

Looks like it was rubber-stamped by an inexperienced reviewer. It seems good at a glance, but given that it documents a contentious, ongoing issue, I think a full review would be needed to verify that it is (or ever was) eligible for GA. — Anonymous 01:50, 5 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Sorry if I was bad at the review, it was my first time Personisinsterest (talk) 01:53, 5 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
@Personisinsterest, no worries. I was similarly unfamiliar with the system at GA when I attempted my first review. Generally, there are at least a few issues that can be found in even the best looking articles, so it's helpful to look carefully for them, even if they aren't huge. For a topic as contentious as this, I'd say that goes double. — Anonymous 02:13, 5 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

An anonymous username, not my real name - The first requirement for raising a GAR states, "your rationale must specify how you believe the article does not meet the good article criteria". I don't think that a vague sense of an article being "rubber-stamped by an inexperienced reviewer" meets that requirement. You've not given the nominator, or indeed the reviewer, anything to respond to. On my initial read through, I'm not seeing any of the criteria which aren't being met. KJP1 (talk) 09:19, 5 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

@KJP1, my intention was to treat this like a fresh GA review, with the goal of finding someone who would be interested in reviewing it in more detail. If you would like a more specific critique, I see no evidence that a spot check was ever done in the original review. — Anonymous 13:07, 5 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
Why, beyond your feeling the initial review was inadequate? That is itself inadequate. You need to set out your rationale for why you believe the criteria are not met. KJP1 (talk) 14:35, 5 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
@KJP1, I've read through the article more carefully, and I have the following specific concerns (in approximate order of significance):
  • The timeline of events does not go past July 2024. That means it's missing information on close to a third of the war.
  • The summary of destruction (which feels out of place at the start of the events section) is dated to January and February of last year. That means more than half of the war has since passed.
  • On various points about being up-to-date, the bulk of coverage dates from early 2024. Heritage for Peace's November 2023 report is still their most recent. Librarian's and Archivists with Palestine's February report is their most up-to-date (unless I've missed something). These maps from the BBC indicates that the greatest impact was early in the war. By Jan 2024, more than half of the buildings in the Gaza Strip were damaged and by Jan 2025 this had increased to "almost 60% of buildings across the Gaza Strip". It's not straightforward, but this indicates the majority of the damage was in the first few months and after that there were fewer undamaged cultural heritage sites remaining. ICOMOS looks to have some more recent publications which I'll look over. Richard Nevell (talk) 21:25, 9 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
  • Follow up: The December 2024 UNOSAT assessment is that 69% of buildings in the Gaza Strip destroyed or damaged. Presumably this the the source the BBC piece referred to, and is closer to the recent statement in this BBC piece which says "About two-thirds of Gaza's buildings have been damaged or destroyed by Israel's attacks, the UN says". Richard Nevell (talk)
  • The international reactions section has a single sentence dated to this year but nothing else past early 2024. Seems like another case of not fully updated information.
  • The background section contains a lot of MOS:FLOWERY content about why cultural heritage is important and why destroying it is bad, but it doesn't really explain if/how Israel has negatively impacted such heritage before this war. The only part specifically mentioning Israeli violence in previous wars is The United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict into the Gaza War (2008–2009) concluded that the "disproportionate destruction and violence against civilians were part of a deliberate policy", but this isn't specifically about cultural sites, making it somewhat random and out of places.
  • Cultural heritage embodies the collective and history of the people, who live in the region. This lead sentence is grammatically incoherent plus MOS:PEACOCK.
  • Plenty of small prose tweaks I would make, but I think what I've outlined is sufficient to seriously call into question whether the article is close to GA criteria in its existing state.
— Anonymous 17:07, 5 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
Thank you. For future reference, I’d suggest a careful read through before initiating a GAR. But you have now provided a rationale which others can engage with. KJP1 (talk) 17:24, 5 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Right then, let's crack on. Though the steps to opening a reassessment seem to have got a little muddled, I'm firmly of the belief that having more editors involved in the article will improve its quality. Anonymous, I'll wait until you've finalised a list of comments before replying and implementing changes. Richard Nevell (talk) 19:18, 5 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

In addition to what is already listed, I have some further commentary (again, in rough order of significance):
  • The events section follows an unclear organisation scheme. It opens with an overall (outdated) summary, then provides smaller summaries of specific forms of cultural destruction, then for about the second half is in chronological order. The logical style choice for an events section seems to be strictly chronological. Alternatively, perhaps a summary (an updated one) could be presented at the start, followed by a chronological "timeline" subsection.
  • Al Jazeera is cited several times. As I'm sure most editors are aware, its use as a source for Israel-Palestine conflict articles is controversial. I think it can be agreed that its claims should at least be attributed (which they are not currently).
  • Four Al Jazeera publications are used as references. They cover:
  • The article "A 'cultural genocide': Which of Gaza's heritage sites have been destroyed?" which is used to as a reference to support the statement that some have characterised the destruction as a cultural genocide, and to note the damage to Anthedon, the Ard-al-Moharbeen necropolis, and the Sayed al-Hashim Mosque. The damage to Anthedon and Ard-al-Moharbeen was also supported by other sources, and I have added an additional reference for the Sayed al-Hashim Mosque. The accusation of cultural genocide is controversial, but it is suggested by other sources as well, and there are additional references. Mentioning just Al Jazeera would be disproportionate without mentioning the others, and I'm not sure a list is necessary.
  • The airstrike on the Church of Saint Porphyrius. It is one of three sources (the others are Amnesty International and The Art Newspaper).
  • The destruction of the Israa University main building. This event was widely covered, and an additional reference to the NYT has been added.
  • Reports of IDF soldiers burning a Quran in a Gaza mosque.
  • Where additional sources are available, I don't think it is necessary to mention Al Jazeera in the article text. The one instance where I couldn't find an additional source was the report on the burning of the Quran (a previous incident in May had prompted an IDF investigation) so I have clarified that it was Al Jazeera who reported the incident. Richard Nevell (talk) 22:34, 11 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
  • Middle East Eye is cited twice. It isn't listed at WP:RS/P, but it isn't exactly known for its neutrality (being possibly funded by Qatar). Its two uses are both backed by better sources anyway, so I think it could just be removed.
  • A source can have a political bias and still present factual information, and since other references confirm the information that does not appear to be an issue here. In which case what is to be gained from removing the references? Richard Nevell (talk) 20:40, 10 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
I suppose it's fine to keep, then. — Anonymous 22:32, 10 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
  • There is no consistent usage of US/UK spelling. I see characterized (twice), neighbourhood, defence, defense, and digitise. I also see the expression "First World War", which, while not a spelling per se, is generally more associated with Commonwealth English. Rather shockingly, our article on the Gaza Strip also does not follow a consistent spelling scheme (I had checked in hope that there might be precedence for a particular one).
  • The article now consistently uses UK spelling simply because that's what I default to, but I don't have a strong opinion about which should be used. 'Defense' is used in the context of 'Israel Defense Forces' since that is the organisation's official name. Richard Nevell (talk) 20:17, 12 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
  • The international response section could be expanded significantly. I have found the following sources, all of which specifically reference cultural destruction (while some are obviously non-neutral, they still represent the reactions of specific groups): [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10].
  • Speaking about cultural heritage broadly, the archaeologist Cornelius Holtorf remarked "If heritage is said to contribute to people's identities, the loss of heritage can contribute to people's identities even more." Blatant WP:SYNTH; no connection to Gaza or the Israel-Palestine conflict.
  • An investigation by CNN using satellite imagery identified sixteen cemeteries in Gaza that had been damaged as a result of the conflict. The Israel Defence Force used bulldozers to level cemeteries and dig up bodies. In some cases, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) had set up fortified positions on top of burial grounds. I highly suspect that this chunk originally consisted of only the first and third sentences, with the second inserted later, as it does not link to the Israel Defense Forces (it also misnames it) or provide the abbreviation IDF, both of which are done in the next sentence (which also gets the name right). While technically supported by the source, the wording of the second sentence is needlessly shocking and without context.
  • I have merged sentences two and three as they are the ways in which the cemeteries were damaged – 'desecration' is the term used by the source and perhaps should be used here rather than 'damaged' which I what I used initially in the article. I do not agree that including the information is needlessly shocking, since the context is the sentence that immediately precedes the information. Richard Nevell (talk) 20:56, 12 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
  • In 2025 the World Monuments Fund included Gaza' historic fabric in their list of 25 historic places under threat. Insufficient information and context here. It should be mentioned that this is the World Monument Fund's official biennial Watch List and that it is specifically Gaza's "historic urban fabric" under threat. (Also I somehow fully missed the obvious grammatical error until rereading my assessment.)

I also found a source discussing the connection between cultural destruction and "urbicide" ([11]) and another with very recent summaries of destruction post-ceasefire ([12]). Both seem valuable, particularly the second. Anyway, I would say that is essentially my complete assessment for the time being. — Anonymous 22:12, 6 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Thank you for taking the time to read through the article, and for pointing to additional sources. Responses are likely to be on one issue at a time.
One thought at this stage is with the organisation of the 'Events' section chronological would be my first preference, but in some cases the date at which destruction happened is not documented. We may have a case of a report being made likely some weeks or months after the event. In some instances where the chronology has been unclear I have grouped similar sites, eg. libraries. This may not be the best way of going about it, so I'll reconsider the structure of that section. Richard Nevell (talk) 12:05, 8 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Background SYNTH/PEACCOCK/FLOWERY

@Anonymous: I think this falls within the typical remit of a background section: providing information to help the reader understand the topic. The challenge is in what constitutes sufficient context. I agree that Holtorf's statement was not about Gaza's heritage specifically, so I have moved it from the section 'Cultural heritage in Gaza to the following section, 'Destruction of cultural heritage'. I appreciate that is unlikely to address your core concern but the location of the content is significant.

The background section begins with an explanation of what cultural heritage includes. The source does not mention the 2023-25 war in Gaza as it was published in 2014 and does not mention Gaza, Palestine, or war. That should not be a problem because it provides useful context. The reader may have some understanding of cultural heritage, but we should not assume that and they may bring their own assumptions about what heritage is which could exclude some aspects.

Then follows a summary of some types of heritage in Gaza. The third paragraph links this to identity; this is not synthesis as multiple sources used elsewhere in the article make the link between heritage and identity.[13] [14] [15] [16]

With the subsection on destruction, the why and legal framework are relevant and link to points later in the article. The Hague Convention is mentioned by UNESCO in the context of the conflict as obligations of state parties not to endanger heritage sites. Richard Nevell (talk) 22:59, 13 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

@An anonymous username, not my real name: The ping in my last post definitely failed, so here's this post. Richard Nevell (talk) 23:01, 13 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

AltStyle によって変換されたページ (->オリジナル) /