Jump to content

Talk:Casualties of the Israel–Hamas war

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.


GHM vs OHCHR demographic data

Stephan rostie, I don't agree with this edit. The OHCHR data is based only on 8,119 of the dead, all of whom meet the requirement of of their death being verified by at least three independent sources. While its a noble effort, it might introduce selection bias, which the report admits to: "a large proportion of the fatalities verified by OHCHR were killed in residential buildings or similar housing is also partly explained by OHCHR’s verification methodology". This selection bias could then impact the demographics of the counts. I prefer sticking to the GHM data that is more comprehensive. The GHM data shows the percentage of children killed is a lot lower (33%) than what the OHCHR has been able to verify in its study (44%). Ping to NadVolum.VR (Please ping on reply) 08:46, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I think there's good reasons to believe the number of children killed is being badly underreported to the GHM and the actual overall percentage is closer to that from the OHCHR. The most straightforward is we should expect about twice as many children killed than women from the overall demographics. The GHM figures are the ones we've got to use if only one figure is shown in summaries but I don't think we can just dismiss the OHCA figure otherwise. And a very large percentage of the dead are from residential buildings anyway. NadVolum (talk) 12:58, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@NadVolum Why would GHM underreport child fatalities? The only reason I can think is if somehow child fatalities are disproportionately high in the "buried under rubble" or "missing" category, as that is something the GHM admits its data excludes. GHM data also excludes people dying of otherwise treatable diseases, and in that case epidemiology data (both worldwide and in Gaza war) shows that children are more vulnerable than the general population, but those are indirect casualties.VR (Please ping on reply) 15:37, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty certain they are being badly unreported, as to why - perhaps they are just not considered so important in reports in the field since there are so many of them. Or when a whole family is killed only the parents are mentioned. There could be any number of reasons. Reports from other wars indicates that in explosions they are more likely to die than adults in the same circumstances and that's how most of the women would be killed. I don't know why they're unreported but I would be extremely surprised if it eventually turns out I'm wrong about that. I don't think being buried under the rubble nor dying of malnutrition or disease would explain much of the difference. NadVolum (talk) 16:54, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so if I understand you correctly, we should:
  • show both GHM-based demographic breakdown and OHCHR 3-source demographic breakdown in the body and in charts
  • if a table requires only a single value, let it be the GHM value as that's more widely accepted by sources
Also, what are OHCHA's 3 sources? GHM is likely one, what are the other 2? VR (Please ping on reply) 19:57, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I think if we're going to have one pie chart the GHM figures would be preferable. I don't know what sources the OHCHR used and 3 sources sounds to me like a way of making silly omissions but I guess they've probably got enough experience and know what they're doing. NadVolum (talk) 19:56, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The percentage of men killed compared to women should also be much higher and more in line with the GHM figure. This is probably much more affected by the residental buildings business you mentioned. NadVolum (talk) 15:34, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And why do you think that is? VR (Please ping on reply) 19:55, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Vice regent: I'm not sure what 'that' refers to, but the IDF have been targetting militants directly as well as dropping huge bombs on buildings. The figure of 30% men and 26% women implies a figure for militants of about 4% - some would be killed along with women in bombings but that has to balanced against the IDF preferentially killing men even if civilian. A 4% figure would mean only about 1,800 militants killed by now and I don't think even Hamas would try to defend that! NadVolum (talk) 00:36, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Vice regent: I had a read through the latest Lancet report [1] which has just been added. It remarks on women of every age from childhood to elderly having a very uniform death rate. This is as I expected and is why I said the number of childrens deaths should be about twice that of adult women. However I've not been able to figure out yet how they got to this as I expect all their sources to underreport childrens deaths. Their methodology works better than I thought if it captures that. NadVolum (talk) 22:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@NadVolum ok so this is what you're saying:
  • prior to the war, Gaza was 50% children, 25% adult men and 25% adult women, so if adult women as being killed as indiscriminately as children, then child death rate should be twice the adult female death rate
  • the lancet study says the child female, child male and adult female death rate are all similar, then it does mean both children and women are killed equally indiscriminately
  • GHM shows[2] out of 34,344 records, 33% (6419+4936) are children, 22% are women (6297+1137). That means children are only 1.5x female casualties, not 2x as expected.
  • OHCHR data shows children are 1.7x female casualties and hence is more likely to be consistent with the Lancet study.
Did I understand correctly? VR (Please ping on reply) 08:39, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Vice regent: Yes, exactly. NadVolum (talk) 09:50, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Should we mention a UN report that concluded 70% of casualties in Gaza were civilians?

source: https://aoav.org.uk/2024/aoav-response-to-un-findings-unacceptable-civilian-casualties-in-the-gaza-conflict-are-clearly-due-to-the-use-of-explosive-weapons-in-populated-areas/ "Over a six-month period, the UN has found that nearly 70% of those killed were non-combatants". A 70% civilian casualty ratio translates to a 2.3 civilian-to-combatant ratio. AOAV has raised concerns over sampling bias, suggesting that: "The high civilian percentage most likely reflects fatalities from specific airstrikes which disproportionally impact non-combatant demographics." Stone fridge (talk) 12:38, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The section Casualties of the Israel–Hamas war#Civilian to combatant ratio already has a study by them in October 28 which went into detail about their figures. I think you must have got that 70% by adding women and children, they estimated 84% assuming as many civilian men were killed as women. NadVolum (talk) 19:47, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Jackson Society inclusion violates WP:FRINGE, WP:EXTRAORDINARY

@BePrepared1907 has repeatedly added information to the page that has been challenged for violating WP:FRINGE and WP:EXTRAORDINARY: [3] [4][5][6]

The same information was added to another page, where it was also challenged and in the talk there is as of now consensus to not include it.

I see no point in having the same discussion that is ongoing there also here as it covers the same source, so I invite @BePrepared1907 to participate in that discussion, make their case for why they believe it should be included, and wait for consensus to be reached before they include it again.

I and other editors have listed our reasons for why we believe this source violates WP:FRINGE and WP:EXTRAORDINARY, and to repeat again here:

"The report in question is published by a highly partisan think tank and person (Andrew Fox) who are not RS, is non-peer reviewed, did not receive significant coverage in RS (aside from the Telegraph, only the Times of Israel covered it), and does not represent a significant (even minority) viewpoint.

The fact that a few RS covered it, does not mean that it is worthy of inclusion, as they do not transfer their reliability to the Henry Jackson Society and Andrew Fox. What's even worse is that the Telegraph piece is accompanied by a promotional text from the author of the report itself."

I also have a question for @BePrepared1907: How did you come to find this particular information in this exact phrasing, and why did you decide to add it to this page? Were you aware that the editor who originally added it to the GHM page was identified as a sock-puppet and banned? Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 08:19, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that it was widely reported by The Telegraph and Times of Israel, two reliable mainstream secondary sources, makes the content NOT fringe, specially when attributed to an organization with its own article in Wikipedia. I'm not sure if this is appropriate for the article on the Gaza Ministry of Health, but it's definitely due in a section dealing with criticism of reported casualties in the war. In any case, it's just one opinion out of many on this issue, explained in a sentence or two. No reason to censor. BePrepared1907 (talk) 13:41, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Widely reported" and then only citing two outlets, one of which was accompanied by a promotional text from the author of the report, does not establish it as not being WP:FRINGE and WP:EXTRAORDINARY, it does the opposite, per the explicit text of those rules:
"The notability of a fringe theory must be judged by statements from verifiable and reliable sources, not the proclamations of its adherents. Additionally, the topic must satisfy general notability guidelines: the topic must receive significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject...Even reputable news outlets have been known to publish credulous profiles of fringe theories and their proponents, and there continue to be many completely unreliable sources masquerading as legitimate."
You have also ignored that the source itself is fringe, produced by non-subject matter experts, and make claims that were debunked by subject-matter experts.
Do not add it again before you have obtained consensus for it. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 13:59, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it is undue. And if it is eventually included it should also have a bit by Spagat [7] about why it is rubbish. In fact I think the Misinformation in the Israel–Hamas war is more suitable. I'll remove it, the one sticking it in doesn't seem to be bothering defending their reinclusion on this talk page. NadVolum (talk) 15:17, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I see they did say something above. That Daily Telegraph - it is getting as bad as Fox News. NadVolum (talk) 15:21, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
None of what you said makes the source WP:FRINGE, specially given the context of section in article which deals with criticism or challenges to reported casualties. Also I'm not aware of any study debunking the claims, please provide a source for that statement. BePrepared1907 (talk) 15:29, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
[8]. Spagat and AOAV are reputable. NadVolum (talk) 15:47, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it should be added to this article along with criticism from Spagat. Even fringe claims can have a place on wikipedia, so if not here, then it can always be added to misinformation in the Israel-Hamas war, but it should not be removed from wikipedia. VR (Please ping on reply) 18:02, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, the misinformation in the Israel-Hamas war is the appropriate place for it, and there is already a section where it belong (the WP:FRINGE and debunked Wyner claim was already there).
I have added it there along with the AOAV Spagat response. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 07:07, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea. Why don't we add BOTH Henry Jackson society and its rebuttal by Spagat in this article? (I didn't know about the latter, by the way). After all, this article deals with challenges to reported casualties, whether we agree with them or not. As far as I understand, Spagat suggested that both militant and civilian casualties are far higher than reported, plus they also criticize the 70% figure of women and children reported by GMH. However, for the sake of compromise, I would prefer if Vice regent or someone else adds this content first (both Fox and Spagat at the same time). If not, I'll write it myself. Thanks. BePrepared1907 (talk) 13:18, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Because per Wikipedia rules, the Henry Jackson Society claim is a clear violation of WP:FRINGE and WP:EXTRAORDINARY. Since you decided to completely ignore my message pointing this out, I will repeat it again:
"The report in question is published by a highly partisan think tank and person (Andrew Fox) who are not RS, is non-peer reviewed, did not receive significant coverage in RS (aside from the Telegraph, only the Times of Israel covered it), and does not represent a significant (even minority) viewpoint.
The fact that a few RS covered it, does not mean that it is worthy of inclusion, as they do not transfer their reliability to the Henry Jackson Society and Andrew Fox. What's even worse is that the Telegraph piece is accompanied by a promotional text from the author of the report itself."
""The notability of a fringe theory must be judged by statements from verifiable and reliable sources, not the proclamations of its adherents. Additionally, the topic must satisfy general notability guidelines: the topic must receive significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject...Even reputable news outlets have been known to publish credulous profiles of fringe theories and their proponents, and there continue to be many completely unreliable sources masquerading as legitimate."
If you add this content to the page again without having obtained consensus for it, you will be in violation of WP:EDITWAR. This has been told to you multiple times now. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 13:24, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Raskolnikov.Rev, are there other academics who have also rejected HJS? If not, I wouldn't call it fringe yet. I agree it should be given less weight, but I'd include about 3 sentences in this article:

The right wing Henry Jackson Society alleged the GHM data was "inflated", pointing to examples where casualties were misgendered or some of the casualties were known to be cancer patients. Michael Spagat responds these constitute only a tiny fraction of deaths, and their distribution is random. For example, only 0.5% of casualties are misgendered and even among them while 67 men are misclassified as women and 49 women are also misclassified as men, making this a case of random error than of manipulation.

BTW, this National Post/Jewish News Syndicate article is terrible. It says "The figure, which does not distinguish between civilians and the 17,000 terrorists Israel says it has killed in Gaza, also includes about 5,000 people who die of natural causes each year, states the report." Nowhere does the HJS report say that all 5,000 natural deaths are presumed to be included in the GHM list. VR (Please ping on reply) 14:29, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can stomach the HJS being in together with its repudiation provided it is made clear the status of each. There is no reason or evidence to show that there was any scholarship applied by the major who wrote the HJS paper and we have a reliable scholarly source saying it is rubbish. How many scholars need to waste their time to combat each bit of stupid misinformation by one of these think tanks? NadVolum (talk) 18:01, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with @Raskolnikov.Rev and @NadVolum, and oppose the inclusion of it on the page. To reiterate my contribution in the discussion on this content on the Gaza Health Ministry article: this "report" by the Henry Jackson Society, if it can indeed be referred to as such, is fringe and inappropriate for inclusion. The group and its authors are not recognized experts on the topic and are notably fringe and partisan. Furthermore, coverage of the report in a handful of center-right to right-leaning outlets, which read as commentary rather than news reporting, provides insufficient grounds for its inclusion, particularly in light of the extreme claims made within the report not substantiated by credible sources.
I should emphasize that the fringe assertion of intentional manipulation of data by the Gaza Health Ministry has been thoroughly discredited not only by the work of Professor Michael Spagat but also by a recently published study in The Lancet, which received widespread coverage in reputable sources. The study refutes allegations of the Ministry inflating casualty figures, concluding instead its underestimation by 40%.
Given this, the inclusion of it in the Misinformation in the Israel-Hamas War article is appropriate and sufficient. Lf8u2 (talk) 20:13, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"The total civilian death toll would surpass Ukraine's total of 9,614, as of 10 September 2023..."

How could it have surpassed it in September 2023, when the Israel-Hamas War didn't start all until October 7, 2023?--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 11:59, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The date referred to the war in Ukraine. The deaths in Gaza exceeded that Ukranian figure after a few weeks. NadVolum (talk) 15:09, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And by the way the Gaza Health Ministry figures which are quoted by the UN are generally regarded as being an undercount and a peer reviewed study in the Lancet estimates the number directly killed is probably more than 70,000. Also and I know it can be annoying but one should avoid doing one's own comparisons like you did in a note rather than quoting a reliable source, see WP:Original research NadVolum (talk) 15:24, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The claim in the sentence is "...as of 10 September 2023...". The Russo-Ukrainian War didn't stop on 10 September 2023, so I don't understand why the author chose this specific date. As of January 2025, the UN verified 12,456 killed civilians in Ukraine [1] Neither is it clear when the Gaza civilians death toll allegedly surpassed that of Ukraine. It obviously didn't happen in September 2023 (when the Israel-hamas War didn't even begin yet), meaning that it's a badly written and confusing sentence that requires a clarification. If it really did happen, then it is the burden of the original author to pinpoint the exact month when it happened, and provide a source. Currently, only the source for Ukraine's civilian death toll from September 2023 is in the sentence. Another problem is that the UN didn't provide a civilian death toll in Gaza based on the Gaza Health Ministry. At best, the UN verified the number of killed women, children under the age of 16 and elderly, which are probable civilians. --3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 08:06, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Remove references to Ukranian war?

I don't feel comparisons to the Ukranian war adds anything to the article. They seem just crufty, why not the Afghan war or the Gulf war or any of a whole lot else wars?, it just looks like something reporters wrote to fill column inches. Is there some point in the references and is it actually relevant in any way? Or should it just be removed? NadVolum (talk) 15:39, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is somewhat problematic since Ukraine isn't in the Middle East nor Asia, but in Europe, where armed conflicts are much more rare. I don't necessarily oppose using Ukraine as a comparison, but then it must be supported by a source.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 08:09, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ "New year sees uptick and expansion of fighting on Ukraine's frontlines". UN News. 16 January 2025.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Casualties_of_the_Israel–Hamas_war&oldid=1272130008"