Talk:Mark 84 bomb

Military history: Aviation / Technology / Weaponry / North America / United States

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military aviation task force
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	Weaponry task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force

Filling weight is wrong

The article claims that the Filling weight is 945 lb (429 kg).In fact, a pound is 0.454 kilo. The filling weight is wrong.Agre22 (talk) 22:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC)agre22[reply]

Wars?

Under wars it claims that it was used by the Israelis in 2006 on "civil refugees". Not only is this claim doubtful, biased and unsourced, it fails to list the numerous other wars in which it was used. The list of wars needs to be revised. 68.99.182.222 (talk) 22:44, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's clearly defacement. Joseph N Hall (talk) 03:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where are Hornets??

Lack of F-18 in "Current equipment of the United States Air Force" table at the end of article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.165.7.38 (talk) 08:22, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Second most common use claim

The opening paragraph is worded extremely poorly. At one point it appears to claim that the Mark 84 was the second most commonly used bomb after the blu-114 daisy cutter. Given that only 225 daisy cutters were produced, I think that claim is highly suspect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.121.166.148 (talk) 16:25, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mark 84 bomb. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120420095306/http://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-100127-159.pdf to http://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-100127-159.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:00, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Use in bombing of Gaza in 2023

can someone please add that this bomb has been used extensively by Israel in the Gaza strip? I dont seem to have ability to edit this page right now. Thanks. See the reference here: https://www.cnn.com/gaza-israel-big-bombs/index.html Gregsmith14 (talk) 15:24, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article referenced only mentions 2000 pound bombs, not this specific bomb. And it is unconfirmed. --VViking_TalkEdits 15:28, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vviking, thanks for the quick reply. It does mention the MK-84 specifically. It goes in to some detail about the differences between guided and unguided variants. Maybe you didnt read the whole article? It is now confirmed by The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/21/world/middleeast/israel-gaza-bomb-investigation.html?unlocked_article_code=1.H00.DkyY.tLf6R8Fylful&smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare.

Is that sufficient references for you to update the article? Gregsmith14 (talk) 16:33, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ICE77 Hi Ice77. Im trying to tag you on this discussion to see you can help update this article. Let me know what you think when you are back to editing. Thanks Greg S Gregsmith14 (talk) 17:07, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A little antisemitic here, ya think?

“Israel-Gaza genocide” that’s an absurdly antisemitic blood libel. Wikipedia shouldn’t be used to spew such garbage. 2600:1017:B836:6EE6:C021:E751:5507:DFD (talk) 01:34, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Calling it a genocide definitely does not maintain a neutral tone. Perhaps it could be changed to “conflict”. 24.166.25.176 (talk) 03:45, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is absolutely an abuse of editing. An accusation of “blood libel” is not enough to revert an edit haphazardly. The International Court of Justice by a clear majority ruled in favour of calling Israel’s disproportionate attack on Gaza as a genocide of the Palestinian people, not to ignore decades of UN resolutions/findings and international NGO reports that call Israel an Apartheid state and that the Palestinian people’s rights are limited if not conditional. An administrator should sanction this account if it continues to revert edits. Ilovethedajjal (talk) 15:28, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]