Talk:Casualties of the Israel–Hamas war

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Casualties of the Israel–Hamas war article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 20 days

Controversy regarding the number of Palestinian casualties in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 26 January 2024 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Casualties of the Israel–Hamas war. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Death Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Disaster management Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Israel Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Project Israel To Do: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Assess : Rate the Unassessed Israel-related articles and Unknown-importance Israel-related articles. Cleanup : Cleanup listing for this project is available. See also the list by category and the tool's wiki page. Collaborate : Participate in WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration. Copyedit : Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in 2005 Deletion sorting : Participate in discussions at WikiProject Deletion sorting/Israel. Expand : Ayala Procaccia, Diamond industry in Israel, Edna Arbel, Levin Kipnis, Rami Kleinstein, Sephardic Haredim, Zman Tel Aviv, Nachum Heiman, Public Defence (Israel), Prisoner of Zion, Trial of Benjamin Netanyahu, Day to Mark the Departure and Expulsion of Jews from the Arab Countries and Iran, Pre-Modern Aliyah See also Articles needing translation from Hebrew Wikipedia. Geographical coordinates : Add geographic coordinates to Israel articles missing geocoordinate data. Infobox : Add infoboxes to Israel articles needing infoboxes. Maintain : See Israel articles needing attention. Map : See discussion at Module:Location map/data/Israel. Add maps to articles in Wikipedia requested maps in Israel. NPOV : Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries Photo : Add pictures to articles in Wikipedia requested photographs in Israel. Stubs : See Israel stubs. Update : Basic Law proposal: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People Other : Translate to Hebrew : David Bar-Hayim, Guy Bavli, and Guy Oseary. Israel Palestine Collaboration This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration, a collaborative, bipartisan effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. For guidelines and a participants list see the project page. See also {{Palestine-Israel enforcement}}, the ArbCom-authorized discretionary sanctions, the log of blocks and bans, and Working group on ethnic and cultural edit wars. You can discuss the project at its talk page.Israel Palestine CollaborationWikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine CollaborationTemplate:WikiProject Israel Palestine CollaborationIsrael Palestine Collaboration Lebanon Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lebanon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Lebanon-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LebanonWikipedia:WikiProject LebanonTemplate:WikiProject LebanonLebanon Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: Middle East / Post-Cold War 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 This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Middle Eastern military history task force Post-Cold War task force Palestine Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Wikipedia. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Syria Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Syria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Syria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SyriaWikipedia:WikiProject SyriaTemplate:WikiProject SyriaSyria Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Crime and Criminal Biography: Terrorism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Terrorism task force (assessed as Low-importance).

This article has been mentioned by a media organization: Aaron Bandler (May 23, 2024). "Seven Tactics Wikipedia Editors Used to Spread Anti-Israel Bias Since Oct. 7". The Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles. Retrieved May 24, 2024. But you can only find Wyner's piece in the lesser-trafficked "Gaza Health Ministry" article rather than the more heavily trafficked "Israel-Hamas war" and "Casualties of the Israel-Hamas war" articles.

Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. Parts of this article relate to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing the parts of the page related to the contentious topic: You must be logged-in to an extended confirmed account (granted automatically to accounts with 500 edits and an age of 30 days) You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on this article (except in limited circumstances) Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. If it is unclear which parts of the page are related to this contentious topic, the content in question should be marked within the wiki text by an invisible comment. If no comment is present, please ask an administrator for assistance. If in doubt it is better to assume that the content is covered.

This page is subject to the extended confirmed restriction related to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

After "A correspondence published in The Lancet estimated that that the total death toll arising from the conflict up to June could eventually reach 186,000 people when both direct and indirect deaths are accounted for" the following reservations should be added:

"Three days after the publication, one of the writers, Prof. Martin McKee, clarified that the 186,000 figure was “purely illustrative”.^[1][2] In addition, the Correspondence has been criticized by the Chair of Every Casualty Counts network Prof. Michael Spagat, who wrote that it "lacks a solid foundation and is implausible".^[3] " Zlmark (talk) 08:25, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The first reference seems to be based on I don't like it and the authors seem to be unqualified in the area so I'll not put it in. The second though seems fine and the author is well qualified so I'll stick it in. NadVolum (talk) 21:26, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The first two references quote one of the authors of the original Correspondence, and the first one appeared in "The Lancet" itself, exactly like the original Correspondence. Zlmark (talk) 22:14, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Lancet response does not have any real foundation that I can see and looks like it was just put in to show neutrality of some sort. I'm sorry no I'm not putting it in. NadVolum (talk) 21:54, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the Lancet response doesn't have much substance in and by itself - the only reason I suggested to use it is as a secondary source for the clarification issued by Prof. Martin McKee (one of the authors of the original Lancet correspondence).

I just got my EC permissions restored and could make the edit myself, but since we already have this discussion, I prefer to reach some consensus, before making any changes. DancingOwl (talk) 06:53, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

'Purely illustrative' conveys no clear meaning to me other than that they can't convey what they're up to in a coherent manner. I checked with Google and it gave dictionary menings 'something is used to help explain or prove something, but it is not meant to be taken as fact' and 'you use it to show that what you are saying is true or to make your meaning clearer'. Well it is neither clearer nor true and it did not explain or prove anything. I don't see putting in the mess helps with anything or improves the article. NadVolum (talk) 12:17, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The "it is not meant to be taken as fact" part of the definition you quoted is key here - the author himself basically admitted that the "186,000" figure should not be taken literally, but is only used to demonstrate their general point.

I believe adding this context is critical, if we choose to quote this number here. DancingOwl (talk) 12:43, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Critical for what? Purely illustrative of what? The other citation is perfectly good. I just see this citation as something that would waste a reader's time and so reduce the value and standard of the article. NadVolum (talk) 23:17, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Critical for understanding whether the number "186,000" should be taken seriously.

I wouldn't suggest adding this quote, if it was coming from yet another critic of the original Lancet letter, but since Prof. Martin McKee is one of the authors of that letter, and he himself basically says "the number we put out shouldn't be taken on face value", I think it's a very important part of the context. DancingOwl (talk) 04:48, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to infer whether the figure is too high or too low or by what based on those statements is WP:OR. They gave an argument for the figure - so exactly what are they saying was wrong with their reasoning? If they wanted to do something like that they would have written a follow up to the Lancet. If they don't say anything like that then they are not retracting the figure. The analysis by Spagat though does go into reasons for discounting the figure. NadVolum (talk) 12:11, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't suggest writing anything about what can be inferred from McKee's admission,so there's no WP:OR here.

As to the comment itself - McKee made it on X, following some clarifying questions people asked him about this letter. While not a formal follow up/retraction, it does add an important context about the way the author himself views his estimate,and I think both this fact and Spagat's critique are more informative together, than Spagat's analysis alone. DancingOwl (talk) 14:16, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And he later deleted it from X. Really I don't think this holds up at all. And as to all this blood libel business it looks pretty certain at least 100,000 have actually died including indirect deaths and it could easily be 120,000 already, is it the extra 50% or so that constitutes this blood libel in the Jerusalem Times and the follow on letter in the Lancet? Can you just drop all that stupidity and your own interpretation of what a deleted post and those things written after it supposedly mean? The Spagat one is a reasonable document that I have no problem with having on Wikipedis. NadVolum (talk) 15:41, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I'm trying to have a reasonable respectful conversation, so "all this stupidity" talk is really out of place, not to mention bringing up some made up figures with zero support from reliable sources, after preaching me about WP:OR.

The fact that an author characterizes his own result as "purely illustrative" and then deletes his post is not a marginal matter and definitely adds important context to this story, regardless of what you think the actual number of indirect deaths is. The controversy here is not around the question what this number is, but about the methodology of that Lancet letter, and McKee characterization is important in that context. DancingOwl (talk) 16:03, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can check the figure easily enough from the Israeli war infobox. And you are assigning your own meaning to something that the author deleted. The Spagat article goes on aboutb the methodology. The other stuff is a waste of peoples time including quite enough of mine so could you just stop. It has no value to Wikipedia and I see no reason for you to waste your time on it either. It would take away from rather than adding to the article. You have your response from me. Go and find a third party if you wish. NadVolum (talk) 16:28, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ok, thanks for your input. DancingOwl (talk) 16:34, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is requested that an edit be made to the extended-confirmed-protected article at Casualties of the Israel–Hamas war. (edit · history · last · links · protection log) This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y". The edit may be made by any extended confirmed user. Remember to change the |answered=no parameter to "yes" when the request has been accepted, rejected or on hold awaiting user input. This is so that inactive or completed requests don't needlessly fill up the edit requests category. You may also wish to use the {{EEp}} template in the response. To request that a page be protected or unprotected, make a protection request.

Request to change first paragraph:

From: As of 5 November 2024, over 45,000 people (43,391 Palestinian[1] and 1,706 Israeli)[19] have been reported killed in the Israel–Hamas war, including 134–146 journalists and media workers,[22] 120 academics,[23] and over 224 humanitarian aid workers, including 179 employees of UNRWA.[24] In Nov 2024, the UN published its analysis covering only victims verified from at least three independent sources over 6 months span between Nov 2023 and April 2024 found that 70% of Palestinian deaths in Gaza are women and children.[25]

To: As of 5 November 2024, over 45,000 people (43,391 Palestinian[1] and 1,706 Israeli)[19] have been reported killed in the Israel–Hamas war, including 134–146 journalists and media workers,[22] 120 academics,[23] and over 224 humanitarian aid workers, including 179 employees of UNRWA.[24] Current estimate place the number of internally displaced people at 1.9 million, or 90% of the population of Gaza. 80% of Gaza is under Israeli-issued evacuation orders.[1] In Nov 2024, the UN published its analysis covering only victims verified from at least three independent sources over 6 months span between Nov 2023 and April 2024 found that 70% of Palestinian deaths in Gaza are women and children.[25]

Additionally, requesting an edit of note 19.

From

Including: 915 civilians killed 828 on October 7[2][3][4][5][6] (including 258 foreign or dual national citizens and 14+ hostages in Gaza)[7] 33 additional hostages in Gaza thought dead[6] 27 on the Lebanese border[8][9] 3 in Alexandria, Egypt 14 in the West Bank and Israel by 11 August 2024 (per OCHA oPt)[10] not including 1 mistakenly killed by Israeli forces in Jerusalem[11] and 3 killed by militants (2 near Ofra[12] and 1 near Kedumim),[13] bringing the total to 18 conflict-related deaths for the period 1 in Rafah, Gaza Strip[14] 1 in Tel Aviv[15] 3 in Allenby Bridge[16]

To

Including: 898 civilians killed 815 on October 7[2] 37 hostages that died in Hamas captivity, 3 of which were killed by the IDF directly whilst surrendering, with as many as 10 Israelis killed during rescue efforts[6] 27 on the Lebanese border[8][9] 14 in the West Bank and Israel by 11 August 2024 (per OCHA oPt)[10] not including 1 mistakenly killed by Israeli forces in Jerusalem[11] and 3 killed by militants (2 near Ofra[12] and 1 near Kedumim),[13] bringing the total to 18 conflict-related deaths for the period 1 in Rafah, Gaza Strip[14] 1 in Tel Aviv[15] 3 in Allenby Bridge[16]

• 915 civilians figure amended to reflect changes (original also appears to have been calculated incorrectly, should reflect 910
• 828 on October 7 amended to reflect source 2, as none of the provided source makes reference to the 828 figure
• removed - (including 258 foreign or dual national citizens and 14+ hostages in Gaza)[7], the 258 figure is not reflected in sources - several only mention one duel citizen death, others have an updated number which is included below
• 33 additional hostages changed to 37 to correctly reflect source in addition to including information regarding the 3 hostages confirmed to have been mistakenly killed by Israeli forces, as well as the number of hostages alleged to have died during a rescue attempt.

Three additional sources for this final line edit are: ^{[1] [2] [3]}

Removal of "3 in Alexandria, Egypt" - 2 Israelis were killed during the 2023 Alexandria shooting, which despite the perpetrator having been in custody for over a year, to date the attack has not been conclusively linked to the Israel–Hamas war.

Tried my best with formatting but please let me know if it requires any improvements before publishing.

All the best, KSanders1890 KSanders1890 (talk) 08:22, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The first change about displaced people seems undue to me for the lead as the article is about casualties. The other change I'll leave to somebody else to check. NadVolum (talk) 21:59, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi NadVolum, thanks for the feedback. I agree feels out of place, opening a new heading regarding Displacement in the Gaza Strip would a more organic means of expanding on this topic. That said I am only now noticing that the UN OCHA graphic utilized is slightly out of data, would it be possible to have this updated from Source 1, the OCHA report from Nov 5th? KSanders1890 (talk) 07:52, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think there might be some issues with the 70% figure referenced in the sentence "In Nov 2024, the UN published its analysis covering only victims verified from at least three independent sources over 6 months span between Nov 2023 and April 2024 found that 70% of Palestinian deaths in Gaza are women and children."

The report explicitly says that the 70% number is referring to people killed inside of residential buildings or similar structures (see paragraph 12 in the Killing of Civilians section).

Also, OCHA figures sourced from the MoH from the time say that only 52% of the fatalities were women and children. That should at least be mentioned alongside the UN report, if not replace it.

I think that the whole line should be removed and replaced with current figures from OCHA which says that women and children make up 50% of those killed over the course of the whole war (which makes more sense to include in the opening than a report only focused on half of the war).

What do you think? PotatoKugel (talk) 09:18, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The pie chart depiction of the UN data has a slight inaccuracy in its description. The text currently reads: "UN analysis over killed Palestinian victims verified only from at least three independent sources in six months between Nov 2023 and April 2024, with the most frequent age among the victims being 5-9 years old." However, when you read the actual report, you can see that these numbers are only discussing people killed in residential structures and the like (see paragraph 12 in the Killing of Civilians section). In addition, OCHA data from the time has the ratio at 40% men, 32% children, 20% women, and 8% elderly. As such, I think the chart as it currently is should be removed. PotatoKugel (talk) 09:53, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, especially given the fact that the UN analysis only included about 8k fatalities out of about 34k reported at the time, and the report itself acknowledged that their sample is not necessarily representative. DancingOwl (talk) 10:52, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This same mistake is in the opening paragraph, as well. PotatoKugel (talk) 05:58, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you think that there should be an edit, are you able to do it? I don't have enough contributions to edit this article. PotatoKugel (talk) 05:59, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These are verified deaths per OHCA rather than the Gaza Health Ministry - which again is only a subset of reported deaths. The Gaza Health Ministy figures are acknowledged by OHCA as probbly accurate - but it does not say its own figures are worse than the health ministry's. And there has been enough people casting aspersions on the GHM that I can't see how changing it because of the GHM can be justified. I suppose you could have a separate chart for the GHM verified deaths figures. NadVolum (talk) 10:22, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What about the fact that this ratio is only talking about deaths which occurred in residential structures? The article does not mention that this ratio only applies to deaths in residential structures.

Also what about the points brought up by DancingOwl? PotatoKugel (talk) 10:47, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My reading is like that of the BBC - that about 80% of the people they were talking about were killed in residential or suchlike buildings and the figures refer to them all. And as to it being an 8k, that's perfectly fine statistically and suffers from exactly the same problem of today's 43,000 or whatever verified figure from GHM now and the BBC article about the report did not see anything like that as important enough to note. NadVolum (talk) 15:18, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A few days ago Michael Spagat published an article, explaining why the sample is not representative of the whole:

https://aoav.org.uk/2024/the-ohchr-report-on-gaza-insights-flaws-and-the-wheres-daddy-programme/ DancingOwl (talk) 15:48, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good source, not the only thing it explains. Selfstudier (talk) 15:58, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have a lot to say about the "where's daddy part", but that would be wp:or, so I'll shut up :) DancingOwl (talk) 16:19, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that's a good source. I think Spagat should have twigged by now that the figure for minors is far too low - they should be about double that for women but it is only two thirds that. Oh well, that would also be WP:OR. NadVolum (talk) 01:01, 3 December 2024 (UTC).[reply]

I don't get his assumption that there are an equal number of male and female civilians. I think there is some truth in it, but it depends on the situation. For example, if Israel kills a Hamas militant, his wife, and three children on average for x amount of families, the ratio will be 20% men, 20% women, and 60% children. According to Dr. Spagat's estimate, we should assume that none of the men were members of Hamas. Yet, the scenario I am describing does not sound unreasonable to me at all, especially considering the fact that the report centers on deaths in residential housing (meaning, where it is perhaps more likely for there to be an equal number adult males and females, regardless of whether those males are part of Hamas of not). This is obviously wp:or, but I am curious to hear your thoughts. PotatoKugel (talk) 04:42, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, to clarify, are you saying that 80% of the recorded deaths occurred in buildings and residential structures, but the percentage breakdowns (30% men, 70% combined women and children) were talking about all of the recorded deaths, not just the ones from inside buildings and residential structures? PotatoKugel (talk) 03:38, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What the report says is not obvious to me but that is what the BBC seems to say. The assumption that there are equal numbers of male and female civilians amongst the dead is a fairly conservative way of estimating the number of militants - it assumes that besides militants everyone else is killed randomly. A count on the ground has indicated it is more like 65% of the dead men are civilians which would mean many more civilian men are killed than women. Your reasoning I think is that if the where's daddy programme is a major cause of death then there should be less civilian men killed than women. As far as I can make out though the where's daddy programme has only been able to track a fraction of militants - and often just Hamas civil servants and police rather than actual militants. In fact reading about how the Israeli's checked their Lavender system if I'm reading it right, and I very much hope they were not doing this but that's what it says, they wanted 90% accuracy in identifying a militant. That seems like a fundamental statistical mistake to me considering that the militants are such a small minority, the 10% error would identify maybe five or ten times as many people who were not militants as militants as it identified actual militants. NadVolum (talk) 11:53, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have been told by Selfstudier and Sean.hoyland that I need to be extended-confirmed to be allowed to have this discussion, so I will have to bow out here.

Thank you for your time and have a great day! PotatoKugel (talk) 15:07, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to give specific edit requests here.

I would say that the caption on the pie chart which currently reads: "UN analysis over killed Palestinian victims verified only from at least three independent sources in six months between Nov 2023 and April 2024, with the most frequent age among the victims being 5-9 years old." Should be changed to "UN analysis over killed Palestinian victims in residential buildings or homes, verified only from at least three independent sources in six months between Nov 2023 and April 2024, with the most frequent age among the victims being 5-9 years old."

I would also like to change the opening paragraph from "In Nov 2024, the UN published its analysis covering only victims verified from at least three independent sources over 6 months span between Nov 2023 and April 2024 found that 70% of Palestinian deaths in Gaza are women and children." to "In Nov 2024, the UN published its analysis covering only victims verified from at least three independent sources over 6 months span between Nov 2023 and April 2024 found that 70% of Palestinian deaths in residential buildings or homes in Gaza are women and children." PotatoKugel (talk) 03:33, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I checked with the figures before the report talked about residential buildings and the only change was 25% women rather than 26% women so nothing appreciable that I can see. Both the current references talk about the figures as they are - they may be mistaken in how they got there but it doesn't seem to make any difference so I'll leave it. I'll add a reference to the report as a primary source so peple can go to it if they want. NadVolum (talk) 13:19, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New edit request: Perhaps the Gaza Health Ministry data from the time should be added to the first paragraph as well, which says that 52% of those killed were women and children. Also, perhaps, a second pie chart should be added reflecting the GMH data, or perhaps it should be removed entirely. PotatoKugel (talk) 14:30, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that the following sentence found in the article is lacking some context from the sources: "BBC Verify attempted to count militant deaths by compiling all announcements of militant deaths on the IDF's official telegram channel; it found the IDF had made 160 such announcements, summing up to 714 total militant deaths in the Gaza Strip (as of 29 February)." The sentence is sourced from articles from BBC and Lorient Today.

However, when you read the actual articles, the very next sentence in the BBC article is "But there were also 247 references which used terms such as "several", "dozens" or "hundreds" killed, making a meaningful overall tally impossible." And in the Lorient Today article, it says "On the same channel there were also around 247 references that used terms such as “several,” “dozens,” or “hundreds” in referring to the number of fighters killed, “making a meaningful overall tally impossible,” the team concluded."

I think that is rather important context. PotatoKugel (talk) 06:57, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seems reasonable, I'll put that in. By the way don't put in a bar | in the links of the form [link description], it coorrupts the link. They use up to the first space as the link so any spaces in a link need to use %20 instead or suchlike - but your browser would normally use that anyway if you coy the link. NadVolum (talk) 10:01, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay great

Thanks for letting me know! PotatoKugel (talk) 10:48, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In paragraph three of the reactions and analysis subheading, I think the last sentence should be amended due to stylistic and explanatory inconsistency. It currently reads "The Lancet correspondence has been criticized by the Chair of Every Casualty Counts network Prof. Michael Spagat, who wrote that it "lacks a solid foundation and is implausible"." This is an important line, but it lacks context as to his professional background and the mathematical and statistical nature of the organisation. The 'Every Casualty Counts' organisation has no immediate link for the reader, and therefore does not immediately explain that his role as chair is as a mathematics and economics of war researcher, that unlike the previously mentioned doctors does not have his professional credentials mentioned, only his titles. Examples of this type of useful further clarification in the same paragraph that have already been added, include the "British medical journal The Lancet" in sentence one, and "Jean-François Corty, a humanitarian doctor and president of the NGO Doctors of the World," in sentence two.

To amend this styilstic and explanatory inconsistency I suggest the final sentence be amended to the following:

"The Lancet correspondence has been criticized by the Chair of the casualty recording organisation Every Casualty Counts Prof. Michael Spagat, a war statistics researcher who has argued that it "lacks a solid foundation and is implausible"."

I believe it more accurately reflects the fact that the Lancet is being criticised from a statistical analysis point of view, not a medical negligence point of view (which the Lancet is stating the GHM missed)- with it currently (I believe) reading more as a medical criticism of the Lancet (a medical journal) instead of a statistical one.

Please feel free to leave a comment to discuss further and I will reply as soon as able, many thanks. Flarehayr (talk) 22:18, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Has this already been discussed here? If so, apologies. If not, I think it’s wrong to include as the third para of the lead a tendentious estimate from a letter by an ill-defined group that has only two secondary sources, Mother Jones and an inaccurate summary in a piece by an anthropology assistant professor from the dubious Costs of War project. This should go in the body, but isn’t due in the lead unless it gets other more solid reporting. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:30, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Gaza genocide#RfC about starvation estimate Note that the estimate is not "tendentious", the group is not "ill-defined" and the Costs of War project is not "dubious", that's just made up.

Having said that, probably best not to include for time being. Selfstudier (talk) 17:44, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So an overwhelming no to including in infobox there. I think same arguments apply to lead here. No objection at all to inclusion in the body. Happy to argue over my choice of words but don't think it's helpful. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:37, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Number of deaths in Gaza are not reliable as they are provided by Hamas Sofia Cohen (talk) 20:04, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not done. The UN and most other reliable sources think they are reliable see BBC News: Israeli strikes kill 50 in Gaza, Hamas-run health ministry says. And as to the Israeli estimate in that of militants killed see the section in the article on Civilian to combatant ratio. NadVolum (talk) 23:21, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]