Talk:Israel–Hamas war/Archive 46

Archive 40

←

Archive 44

Archive 45

Archive 46

Archive 47

17,000 militants killed

Why is it mentioned twice in the infobox and and in footnotes that 17,000 militants have been killed? And which editor has exclusively chosen this piece of info from footnotes to be shown on main infobox, why not rest and why the editor has not mentioned other estimates on militants' death toll given by US intelligence and Euromed?

Also the claim of 17,000 figure is disputed. Hu741f4 (talk) 02:16, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Are you objecting to footnote "L", which explicitly states "Per Israel:" before that figure?

We have plenty of citations to both Israeli and Palestinian officials, often attributed, throughout this article. That's the reality of fog of war - you often don't get any better reports than from those on the front lines. Biased/skewed/manipulated though they may possibly be. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 20:32, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Somebody had pulled out the 17,000 militant death toll figure given by the Israeli military, from the footnote, and put that on main infobox without mentioning other estimates. I reverted that but I fear the editor may undo my edit. Hu741f4 (talk) 22:03, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

I did; it is explained in Template talk:Israel–Hamas war infobox. Gabi S. (talk) 20:21, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

The 17,000 figure is entirely fabricated by Israel. This has nothing to do with "fog of war" and "bias", the number is randomly made up and no evidence at all has been provided for it (unlike for the Ministry of Health figures).

Many RS have reported this, and it should be reflected whenever the figure is cited by for example adding "media have reported that no evidence has been provided for this figure".

The fighting has also killed 329 Israeli soldiers. The Israeli military claims that over 17,000 Hamas fighters are among those killed in Gaza but has not provided evidence.[1] Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 17:26, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

On April 30th, when the death toll according to GHM was 34,622, the evidence they provided for the count was the full identifies of 22,961 of the dead. Associated Press independently assessed this evidence, and still reported the death toll as 34,622 "according to the Gaza Health Ministry."[2]

In August, Reuters reported on the death toll as 40,000 according to "Palestinian health authorities." In the report, they cite Israel as estimating the number of combatant deaths at 14,000, with the basis for that estimation being "a combination of counting bodies on the battlefield, intercepts of Hamas communications and intelligence assessments of personnel in targets that were destroyed."[3]

By August 15th, AP was reporting the death toll at 40,000, still attributing the figure to GHM. In the same report, AP notes that Israel claims 17,000 combatant deaths, "but has not provided evidence."[4]

So, while the Gaza Health Ministry numbers seem more solid, being a tally compared to the IDF's estimates, it seems like RS still continue to attribute the death toll statistics from where they come, be it the Gaza health ministry or the IDF. I don't see why we shouldn't do the same. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 21:49, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Because the other source has no evidence for it as RS explicitly note in its articles. If Russia claims they killed 200,000 Ukrainian troops but RS say that they have provided no evidence for it, that is not merely cited with the addition of "per Russia".

Your personal subjective belief that Israel is somehow reliable and its claims should be cited even when RS say they have provided no evidence for it, is fortunately irrelevant. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 22:03, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

We can include whatever is verifiable per RS. And I think RS' mention of militants killed, as attributed to Israel, is worth including. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 21:43, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, and verified RS says explicitly: The fighting has also killed 329 Israeli soldiers. The Israeli military claims that over 17,000 Hamas fighters are among those killed in Gaza but has not provided evidence.[13

You have a habit of repeating the same thing over and over again as if you're saying something new. If you keep doing that, I'll just keep repeating the same thing as well. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 21:58, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Because you're repeatedly failing to understand that the barrier to entry for including information in our articles is not that the information is TRUE, but that it is VERIFIABLE. All we do here is "summarize content that some editor(s) believe should belong in the Wikipedia article in the form of an encyclopedic summary that is verifiable from reliable sources."

Now, we can have a discussion on whether or not a verifiable piece of information is fit for inclusion. Which is kind of what we're doing now - you seem to think it's not worth including, and I do.

"Providing evidence" is a strange, arbitrary bar to set for an estimation of enemy casualties in a war. As I've already said, Israel didn't entirely fabricate this number from thin air - it's based on a combination of counting bodies on the battlefield, intercepts of Hamas communications and intelligence assessments of personnel in targets that were destroyed. Some RS report that the figure is achieved "without evidence" because Israel doesn't provide them with those military reports; which, in my opinion, seems like an unreasonable request to make of a party at war - to release sensitive military intelligence. Which is why I support citing the number, per Israel, and perhaps with an explanation of where Israel bases this report on, if you're insisting we tack on "without evidence." But, the number, per Israel, with a citation, would be the most concise way to present the information imo. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 13:36, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm pretty certain that they did entirely fabricate the figure or deceived themselves if they did actually try and calculate it. Or Netanyahu just though it looked good. Or they just think any man of military age is a miilitant. With the assumption that civilian men are killed at the same rate as women and all other men killed are militants with no errors we get that about a fifth of those killed are militants using the GHM figures. Which 50,000 killed that comes to about 10,000, plus those killed in the October 7 attack though I think they are already included. Eleven or twelve thousand is a big distance away from seventeen thousand. Their figure is implausible to me. Why should their assertion of checks being made be any more believable than the figure they give? NadVolum (talk) 18:45, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

That reasoning ignores their claim to be targeting militants. The numbers are staggering enough without assuming that the deaths are a random sample of the population. SPECIFICO talk 19:52, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

With the assumption that civilian men are killed at the same rate as women is a very poor assumption to make. What data do you have that 1 in 5 men of militant age are Hezbollah? If Israel were killing men indiscriminate of being Hezbollah or not, would that ratio not be closer to 1 in 58 (50000 Hezbollah versus ~2.9 million men)? Or, if Israel is precisely killing Hezbollah with each strike, how do you assume that each Hezbollah militant is surrounded by 5 non-Hezbollah men? PhotogenicScientist (talk) 20:32, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

The number of men and women are about equal. The assumption is that civilian men are killed at about the same rate as women because they are innocent bystanders. In actual fact they probably are killed at a greater rate than women but that would reduce the estimate of militants killed even further. There is no assumption that one in 5 men is Hezbollah! NadVolum (talk) 21:38, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

This looks like WP:OR. Plenty of RS have reported this figure with proper attribution (Al Arabiya, France24, The Washington Post). This is all that we need.

Once there are scholarly sources that assess the casualties we can remove the figures that turn out to be incorrect. Alaexis_¿question? 20:51, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Citing the figure of 17,000 presents significant issues, as reliable sources indicate that there is no evidence to support it. Furthermore, there was no established consensus regarding this number when it was recently added to the infobox. Therefore, it should be removed until a consensus is reached. I advocate for its exclusion as a primary option, and if it is to be included, it should be clearly stated that reliable sources say no evidence has been provided for it. Lf8u2 (talk) 21:04, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

I've no big objection to a range including it being given and the attributions given in the note. On its own though without the others it is so doubtful, in fact extraordinary, it really does need attribution inline where it is. NadVolum (talk) 21:45, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

@Gabi S.: In your edit, you stated, "Added number of militants killed, per talk page on the main article." However, there was no prior discussion or consensus on this change. Decisions like this should be made collaboratively, not unilaterally. Consensus should be achieved preemptively, not retroactively. It clearly hasn't been reached yet, judging by the two discussions currently ongoing with more than half a dozen editors, most of whom object to this inclusion in its current form. For this reason, I've restored the infobox to its original version without this contentious estimate from Israel while we decide how to proceed.

I don't see the value in highlighting a specific estimate when it's already mentioned in the notes. There's no solid evidence to support these numbers, and given the IDF's track record, they are likely inaccurate. If we highlight one estimate, we open the door to including every estimate from governments, agencies, journalists, etc. Where do we draw the line? The 17k figure is already noted, so I don't see a compelling reason to emphasize it. This is an WP:EXTRAORDINARY claim that lacks sufficient backing. - Ïvana (talk) 23:48, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for removing that! Hu741f4 (talk) 11:03, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

@Ïvana, only now I saw this discussion. (There is a similar discussion in Template talk:Israel–Hamas war infobox).

First of all, the claim that the IDF "has not provided evidence" is incorrect. Their estimate is based on intelligence, interrogations and examination of satellite photographs. This is quoted in some sources, for example [5] and [6]. Obviously you don't expect the IDF to publish intelligence reports, interrogation transcripts or military satellite photographs, but some war reports (that I mentioned in the parallel discussion) support the reliability of these estimates.

Additionally, the 17,000 estimate is not extraordinary. In December 2023 the IDF estimate of militants killed was 8,000. At that time, Reuters reported that a Hamas official had admitted 6,000 fighters had been killed in Gaza. To this figure you should add 1,600 armed militants that were killed inside Israel on the bloody October 7 massacre, and you can see that the IDF estimate makes sense. Since Hamas somehow acknowledged the IDF estimate, it cannot be labeled "extraordinary".

In May 2024 the estimate was 14,000 and currently 17,000. This is important information that should be part of the main infobox. It may appear twice (in the footnotes as well) as is done with other data which is also duplicated in this template. Gabi S. (talk) 09:20, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Those citations repeated the Israeli figures with attribution but did not in any way say or imply they were reliable, whereas they both said the Gaza Health Authority figures had been checked by others and were attested as reliable by outside bodies. Israel saying things about its own figures without evidence is not evidence. It is very likely there are a lot of injured or badly traumatised militants though so I certainly would not count the number of active militants as total militants minus killed militants, I'd find 17,000 militants or even more out of action for all reasons entirely believable but it is just not a credible figure for the number killed as I explained above. NadVolum (talk) 10:12, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm not mixing things up; the Gaza Health Authority figures belong to a different discussion. Your calculations are original research and wrong. You didn't find any RS with significanty different figures. Moreover, you keep saying that the IDF figures were not attested by outside bodies, while I gave above an example of Hamas officials acknowledging those figures. Gabi S. (talk) 10:33, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

@NadVolum is correct, the sources you cited do not verify the Israeli figures, they merely mention that that is what they have claimed. We have RS, including the same RS you cited, like the BBC saying that the figures cannot be verified:

BBC Verify has repeatedly asked the IDF for the detail of its methodology for counting Hamas fighter deaths but they have not responded.[7]

And this is the norm: This month, Israel’s military told the BBC that more than 15,000 terrorists had been killed during the war. International journalists, including the BBC, are blocked by Israel from entering Gaza independently, so are unable to verify figures from either side.[8]

And alongside that we have many RS that explicitly say Israel has provided no evidence for the 17,000 or any of the previous figures. That's a fact that you have not disputed. Instead you have gone on a bizarre WP:SYNTH argumentation line about how the IDF obviously can't reveal its hidden secret methods that violates what is explicitly stated in RS, namely again that no evidence has been provided for these figures.

Not only should it not be cited in the infobox, this should also be clarified where it is currently cited in the notes, with an addition of something like: "No evidence has been provided for IDF estimates of Hamas militants killed per the AP/media sources." Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 11:03, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

That figure of 6000 said to be from Hamas was in February about when Israel claimed 10,000. And there's no reason to suppose Hamas would exclude the ones killed inside Israel from the figure. It might have excluded other militant groups but that would not get the figure up to 10,000. I included all militants in my estimate.. NadVolum (talk) 11:37, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

At that time Israel claimed 8,000, not 10,000. And your assumption that Hamas took into account the militants killed inside Israel needs verification. Gabi S. (talk) 06:10, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

In February IDF says 12,000 Hamas fighters killed in Gaza war, double the terror group’s claim. NadVolum (talk) 13:12, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree with @NadVolum@Raskolnikov.Rev @Ïvana and especially @Lf8u2. Furthermore, I checked both of your sources- [9] and [10]. None of your sources say anything about this 17,000 figure. Therefore, reports from the BBC, the Guardian, APN, ABC, and others, stating that Israel has not provided any evidence for the claim of a 17,000 figure, are reliable Hu741f4 (talk) 14:12, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

This reminds me of the Mohammed Deif situation, where his page had to be protected because editors were constantly asserting he's dead as a matter of fact, despite Israel not providing any proof. Obviously rules differ for BLPs, but this article's infobox still includes a note next to his name stating that the IDF's claim has not been confirmed by independent sources. A reliable source reporting on an unverified claim does not make that claim true unless the source conducts its own independent analysis. In this case, the RS provided are merely relaying what the IDF has said, specifically that a certain number of casualties are militants. And some are explicitly saying how the IDF has not provided any evidence. The source cited in the infobox is an Israeli think tank led by IDF soldiers, which quotes the IDF but offers no independent verification. The claim should remain in the notes where it currently is, but with a clarification similar to Deif's, making it clear that the numbers have not been corroborated. - Ïvana (talk) 16:38, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

@Ïvana Yes! This is exactly what I did few days ago. I put a footnote clarifying that IDF hasn't provided any evidence for this claim, but my edit was reverted by Gabi.S https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Israel–Hamas_war_infobox&diff=prev&oldid=1246577960 Hu741f4 (talk) 01:09, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

But do you have a source claiming different numbers? "Cannot be verified" does not mean it's incorrect. Gabi S. (talk) 19:43, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

The burden of proof lies with them, not us. While unverified does not mean incorrect, including their claims without noting their unverified status can create the misleading impression that they are true. They might be true, or they might not; without verification, we cannot assert their accuracy. Their claims should be presented since they are a key part of this conflict, but we need to clarify that no independent investigation has confirmed them (as multiple RS have noted), just as we are doing with Deif's living status. - Ïvana (talk) 20:54, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

And don't you think that this figure, attributed, should be included in the "Casualties and losses" section of the infobox? (Not only as a remote footnote.)

Regarding the burden of proof, I've shown above the the December 2023 IDF estimate was acknowledged by a Hamas official, and later IDF estimates correspond to independent US estimates. Gabi S. (talk) 06:06, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

No! It shouldn't be there. It should be in the footnotes like rest of the figures. Neither of your sources say anything about this August figure which is contested. Hu741f4 (talk) 06:13, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

You showed neither of those things. The possible Hamas figure was from February and much lower than the IDF figure from December and you made the unwarranted assumtion that it did not include the number killed in Israel. As for February IDF says 12,000 Hamas fighters killed in Gaza war, double the terror group’s claim I'm not sure how on earth you get a correspondence with the rather confused US report which is interpreted to say 6,000-12,000 in June - if that is what you mean as you didn't refer to any US report that I can see. NadVolum (talk) 10:24, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

No, I don't think an unverified claim that multiple RS identify as such should be highlighted. It's fine for it to stay where it is, and a note should be added stating that it hasn't been corroborated, same as it was done with Deif. NadVolum already explained why your assertion about the veracity of the estimates is wrong. - Ïvana (talk) 12:30, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I think it's an important figure. The "Casualties and losses" section of the infobox is skewed without it. The Israel section describes how many civilians were killed, and how many security forces were killed, separately, while the Gaza Strip section shows just the number of people killed, with the reader not knowing how much of them were armed militants. Actually, omitting the number of militants killed distorts the reality, hinting that only civilians were killed in Gaza. That's quite far from NPOV. Gabi S. (talk) 15:22, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

"...distorts the reality, hinting that only civilians were killed in Gaza."

No, It doesn't!

The Palestines' section says "41,698+ killed" not "41,698+ civillians killed". It is the other way round- Mentioning "17,000 militants" distorts reality, because all RS say that Israel hasn't provided any evidence for this claim. So this will give a false impression and perception to readers. Hence, you are drawing false equivalence. If the number of militants killed has to be added because Israel's section shows so, then by that same token the number of civilians should also be shown in Palestine's section. However, this isn't the case.

Hu741f4 (talk) 18:35, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Just because lots of people would like to know doesn't mean we should present the Israeli figure in Wiki voice and not show other estimates. We don't have reasonable estimates in reliable sources - and as it goes "You can't always get what you want". Wikipedia tries to be a free reliable encyclopaedia - see the introduction to WP:POLICY. NadVolum (talk) 19:04, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, you're right, Israel's section does mention both civilians and security forces, and the source for both of these claims is Israel. We're not quoting Hamas to say how many IDF soldiers were killed. So if you think adding an estimate is necessary, then following the same logic of relying on primary sources, we should highlight whatever Hamas reported (so around 6,000 as of February per NadVolum - I honestly haven't checked if there's a more recent estimate). And I still think we need to add the note to the 17k figure. You can argue that they are using intelligence data and they cannot disclose that etc etc, the end result is the same - it is an unverified claim and has been reported as such, so we should reflect what RS say. - Ïvana (talk) 21:17, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

@Lf8u2 Reuters has an article, which they just updated yesterday. It says that "Israel periodically gives estimates of how many Hamas fighters it believes have been killed," that the most recent estimate is "17,000-18,000," and that the estimation is based on "a combination of counting bodies on the battlefield, intercepts of Hamas communications and intelligence assessments of personnel in targets that were destroyed."

IMO the phrasing "without evidence" strongly suggests that a claim is untrustworthy. If a claim is in doubt, but is being reported by RS, one way to deal with this is to make obvious this is an assertion or claim by Israel. A better way to phrase this would be that "17,000-18,000" is an estimate, per Israel. There has been no independent verification of this number, since Israel hasn't released the military intelligence on which it's basing its assessment; but it's one of few estimates for militant casualties we have, and it's reliably sourced, so it's worth including. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 20:38, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Exactly. Also @Ïvana above agrees that, if properly attributed, adding an estimate is necessary. Gabi S. (talk) 07:56, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

You should take account of what else they say as well. Besides the figure being as big as all adult men killed extrapolated to include those under the rubble so they're saying there were no civilian men killed, there is also the business of how many militants were there anyway - one would expect at least as many or more out of action due to being wounded as killed and then there're would also be ones suffering from shell shock or deserting - so who is currently being fought? If the figure is put in it on its own it needs to be very carefully marked as not in Wiki voice and from Israel without any evidence like the reliable sources say. NadVolum (talk) 08:41, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

You keep saying "Wiki voice" but there's no such thing. The figure should simply be part of the "Casualties and losses" section of the infobox, attributed to the IDF. It's important data. Gabi S. (talk) 11:07, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

It means following WP:WIKIVOICE. It is not right to state stuff that is obviously seriously contested as if it is a fact. NadVolum (talk) 12:04, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Agree with Alaexis above - this is unnecessary OR. All your considerations regarding the veracity of the claim can be neatly summed up with "per Israel." Any person familiar with conflict, particularly this conflict, will know what to make of an estimate coming from one of the belligerents. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 13:22, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

@PhotogenicScientist @Gabi S. This is not pertinent, as it merely repeats Israeli assertions regarding the origin of their figure without providing verification. An article from the Associated Press published today again emphasizes that Israel has not substantiated its claim:  The Israeli military says it has killed over 17,000 militants, without providing evidence.

Furthermore, the aforementioned Reuters article references a letter published in The Lancet, indicating that the death toll in Gaza may be several times higher than official estimates and could exceed 186,000. However, I have not seen you advocate for incorporating this into the infobox and assume both of you would oppose it. This violates WP:Cherrypicking. Lf8u2 (talk) 08:57, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

The Lancet reference was not peer reviewed and I've identified some flaws in it. It's a separate discussion. Regarding the number of militants killed - you can't expect the IDF to publish intelligence reports, interrogation transcripts or military satellite photographs to support these figures, but they seem reasonable. Gabi S. (talk) 11:03, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree that Lancet letter has problems. But if you're able to identify problems with that letter what is stopping you from identifying any problem in the very straightforward and much much shorter arguments I've said to support that the Israeli claim is WP:EXTRAORDINARY? Or do you just not care that they are a load of codswallop? NadVolum (talk) 12:04, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Your calculation in Template talk:Israel–Hamas war infobox/Archive 2#Number of militants killed is original research and flawed (I replied there), and even as such it is not far from the IDF estimate. Interesting, in Template talk:Israel–Hamas war infobox you agreed that the IDF estimate should be included in the infobox, has something changed? Is there any reason to omit this figure? Gabi S. (talk) 14:38, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Original research applies to what we write. On talk pages it is the basis for WP:EXTRAORDINARY and why we have RfC's on noticeboards like RSN for instance. The arguments given there are all original research. We are allowed to take stories like only two civilians or even less is killed per militant with a pinch of salt when we also have for instance today's [11]. And no you provided no argument at the template talk except that it was original research and that Israel said it had researched the figures, and provided figures you said showed it was reasonable but got the dates and numbers wrong. Yes I agreed to the figure provided it was clear Wikipedia disassociated itself from the figure and it was inline attributed to Israel like the papers have done. I was going to make sure the link pointed to one saying Israel provided no evidence but someeone else removed it from the top line and just left it in the notes. NadVolum (talk) 16:31, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't get it. Do you think that having this figure in the remote footnotes is enough? Yes or no? Gabi S. (talk) 17:14, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes the remote footnote is fine by me. I try to cater for other peoples wishes but you just seem to be going on and on about how reliable it is and arguing against any qualification, and it just isn't. NadVolum (talk) 22:05, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Still there are no other estimates that claim otherwise. Gabi S. (talk) 08:10, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

There absolutely are, NadVolum has showed multiple times how Hamas estimates not only exist but are drastically different from whatever the IDF says. I'm not sure what the point of this line of argument is. Let's suppose you're right and we only have the 17k figure. Does that change the fact that it is not verified, as multiple RS regularly note? No. Again, if you wanna have estimates, we can use the Hamas one since they are a primary source, so we would have IDF casualties attributed to the IDF, and Hamas casualties attributed to Hamas. You still haven't said anything regarding that suggestion. - Ïvana (talk) 15:22, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

I think it would be better to give a range, attributed to sources. The most recent number of Hamas casualties attributed to Hamas is from April [12], which says 6,000 (per Hamas), and the most recent estimate from IDF is 17,000-18,000 (per IDF) (source, updated in October 1).

Both numbers are not verified, so attributing the figures to their proper sources makes clear who claims what. Gabi S. (talk) 16:36, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

@Ïvana, please comment on the suggestion above. Thanks, Gabi S. (talk) 11:25, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't like the idea of combining multiple estimates by different sources at different points in time. Makes no sense. My position is still the same: add a note to the Israeli estimates saying the numbers are unverified, as RS regularly note. I don't think having an estimate of militant deaths in the visible infobox is necessary, but if multiple people feel that it is, then we should use the Hamas one since we're going by primary sources. - Ïvana (talk) 13:36, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

I completely disagree. Hamas cannot be considered a primary source. Note the following:

• A Hamas spokesperson, Izzat al-Rishq, said in a statement Thursday that “confirming or denying” the death of any of the group’s leaders “is a matter for the leadership” of Hamas’s military wing, the Izzedine al-Qassam Brigades. “It is not possible to confirm any of the published news,” he said. [13]

On the other hand, Israel says that its estimates are based on intelligence, interrogations and examination of satellite photographs. (Sources quoted above.) Yes, they are unverified, but saying that they are "fabricated" is an exaggeration.

Having an estimate of militant deaths in the visible infobox is necessary, because it's highly important data for the readers. The IDF estimate, which is widely reported, should be used and attributed. Gabi S. (talk) 10:40, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

The Hamas source said the truth, he couldn't say anything about that without permission. What's the problem with that? As for Israel Shamir famously said it was permitted to lie for the sake of Israel. Really all that is irrelevant. NadVolum (talk) 11:28, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I think you meant another Shamir... Anyway, Hamas cannot be considered a primary source simply because they don't publish any estimate. Their policy is neither confirming or denying, while IDF has solid estimates. Again, deploying bizarre logic to justify omitting the number of militants killed in Gaza is not NPOV. Gabi S. (talk) 17:22, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I meant the Prime Minister one, see for instance Landau, David (1 July 2012). "Yitzhak Shamir: An Honest Liar, One We Can Be Proud Of". Haaretz. "For Eretz Yisrael it is permissible to lie". NadVolum (talk) 22:20, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't think you're grasping what a primary source is. It doesn't imply anything about it being reliable or not, it simply means that it is a source close to an event. We are using AP to quote Hamas, and that is a secondary source. The main point is that the data itself comes from Hamas. You keep going on and on about how the IDF numbers are supposedly reliable (IDF has solid estimates - according to whom??) because they are based on whatever they said they are. We have no way of knowing if that's true. You're free to consider them reliable but we are under no obligation to do so. RS make sure to establish how they are unverified, so thats what we should do, and I think we have a rough consensus for that. I checked the source again and a top Hamas official said they lost no more than 20% of their fighters; AP assumes that equals 6k based on Israeli data, so again, unreliable. If we quote them we should say ≤ 20% like the notes already do.

As a side comment, this discussion has become too fragmented and difficult to read, even if you're subscribed to it and check every comment individually. I think I'll try to summarize the main points in a different section when I have more time. - Ïvana (talk) 19:27, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Summarizing would be excellent. You didn't address the claim that omitting important information, even if it might be inaccurate, is not NPOV. Gabi S. (talk) 19:51, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

We are not omitting anything. The information is already in the infobox notes. There's no discussion regarding the removal of anything, on the contrary. I'll create a separate section with the main points later today, cause I think everyone is losing focus. - Ïvana (talk) 20:08, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Qualification is fine. I think it's important data and must be included in the casualties section of the infobox, one way or another. Gabi S. (talk) 08:12, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Firstly, Cherrypicking is an essay, not a policy or guideline, so any "violation" is not particularly relevant. Second, you're misinterpreting the purpose of cherrypicking - I see no mention of any Lancet letter or figure of 186,000 as a qualifier of the Israeli figure; citing Reuters for this single figure is not "misrepresenting" anything about their article. We're not forced to cite or summarize an entire article when using a source, and this is vanishingly uncommon in practice.

Moreover, I see no mention of a Lancet letter or the figure of 186,000 anywhere in the Reuters article... so I'm not sure where you're getting that from. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 13:45, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I think the Lancet letter did serve a useful purpose even if a bit flawed. Currently there are somewhere around ninety or a hundred thousand excess deaths overall and it could have been far worse if food deliveries had continued being stopped. But yes it has very little to do with this topic that I can see. NadVolum (talk) 14:01, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

@Gabi S.: I would appreciate it if you didn't misrepresent what I say. I don't think highlighting an estimate is necessary at all, but if YOU feel it is, then we should add the losses that Hamas claims, since they are a primary source and we are already using that logic with the Israel section. I haven't seen your opinion about that approach.

@PhotogenicScientist: Are we supposed to moderate our language to make Israel look good? If RS frequently say that the estimate has not been verified, then we should do the same. It doesn't matter if it gives the impression that the claim is untrustworthy (which, by all means, it is). You and Gabi have argued how Israel is not pulling those numbers out of thin air (to put it mildly), yet that is also an assumption we are expected to accept blindly. You can argue that the numbers "seem reasonable" (by whom? based on what?) or that they are based on top-secret intelligence etc etc - this does not change the fact that, as I've said a couple of times already, this is an extraordinary claim that needs to be validated separately. They can claim anything they want, and we need to report it, but there's no reason to not mention how the numbers are not verified. Especially considering that this is frequently and explicitly mentioned in RS, it is not OR or SYNTH on our part. Here are a couple of examples, only from the last couple of weeks:

• ABC (Sept 17)
• EuroNews (Sept 20)
• Guardian (Oct 2)
• Guardian (Sept 17)
• LeMonde (Sept 21)
• AP (Sept 17)
• AZ (Sept 21)
• PBS (Sept 23)
• NPR (Sept 23)
• AP (Oct 2) - Ïvana (talk) 20:39, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

@PhotogenicScientist I reviewed an archived version of the Reuters article, as the current version is paywalled. It remains available as a separate article and contains the identical language regarding the Israeli assertion about its estimation of Hamas militants killed that you cited. It appears you are opposed to citing this source for The Lancet estimate, despite it being of the same quality to the source you wish to reference for the Israeli figures, which are unverified and merely reiterate official Israeli statements.

Moreover, numerous other sources clearly indicate that Israel has failed to provide any evidence supporting its figure, as noted by @Ïvana. Identifying a source that merely restates Israeli claims does not fulfill the criteria for inclusion on the page. Therefore, I must reiterate my position: complete exclusion from both the infobox and the main page as the primary option. Should it be deemed necessary to include it in the notes, it is essential that it be explicitly stated that reputable sources assert that no evidence has been provided.

This approach is consistent with how the information is currently presented on this page, per @NadVolum Lf8u2 (talk) 19:01, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Alright, I still don't think this number is that surprising, considering the total death toll is more than twice that, and when it was ~34,000, ~14,000 of these were fighting-age men. But, I can't deny this is a apparently important claim covered by multiple RS, and the multitude of RS presented here point out the lack of supplied evidence. I suppose we can too. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 22:07, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Well I'm sure the women and children and elderly would love to know how the civilian men manage to lead such charmed lives avoiding being killed. If they could do it too there wouldn't be all this fuss about civilian deaths. But yes that would be fine by me thanks. NadVolum (talk) 22:20, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

There's a simple explanation. Israel attacks are intended to kill armed militants, based on intelligence. Armed militants are mostly males. Some times the attacked target is a semi-military compound, with only a few civilians around, and sometimes they are surrounded by civilians ("human shield"). The outcome is that most of the civilians killed are not adult men. Gabi S. (talk) 05:27, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

The militants surround themselves with civilians but ensure there are no males among the civilians, and the Israeli attacks are always well aimed, is that your marvellous theory? NadVolum (talk) 07:15, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

More or less yes, regardless of your phrasing. Most Israeli attacks are aimed at specific targets, and human shields tend to have a higher percentage of women and children than non-combatant adult males. Gabi S. (talk) 08:09, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Please see Use of human shields by Hamas, there's no evidence of it from past conflicts. There have been cases of both sides coercing members the other side to act as human shields but that is not a major cause of death. Also there were a couple of cases early on where people from a tower block went onto the roof in the hope Israel wouldn't blow it up after Israel delivered a warning. They don't do that now and they weren't protecting militants who were able to leave just as easily as any resident. Now the stories seem to be of shelters not admitting men if they are carrying weapons - so it doesn't sound like they want to be around Hamas! There simply is no evidence of Hamas coercing people in Gaza to act as a human shield and really I don't think it would be easy to stop such stories getting out. The only real use of the term is to describe the militants as being in areas where there are civilians around - and the damage from bombs is so extensive I really don't see how the gaps between are where all the civilian men are for some strange reason - I really think the women and children would have tweaked by now that their best bet was to stay near a civilian man. Do you have any evidence for your theory? NadVolum (talk) 14:09, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Please clarify. coercing members of the opposite side to act as human shields -- Are you referring to the Oct 7 hostages, or is this something else? SPECIFICO talk 14:27, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes there were cases during that massacre where I think that would be an appropriate description. If Hamas used the hostages in Gaza as human shields there would be a bigger row about killing one than there is about killing a thousand Palestinians, but they don't. NadVolum (talk) 18:00, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources of information. Let's look to a reliable source for a definition of the practice: "a method of warfare prohibited by IHL where the presence of civilians or the movement of the civilian population, whether voluntary or involuntary, is used in order to shield military objectives from attack, or to shield, favor or impede military operations." Hamas' operating in and among civilian structures (extensively covered - here is but one example) is absolutely using the civillians therein, whether with their knowledge or without, as shields. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 15:23, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Can we please stay in topic and not delve into WP:NOTAFORUM territory? Whatever we personally think about the IDF or Hamas is not relevant to the main discussion. - Ïvana (talk) 15:28, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Ivana, please review our talk page guidsnce. That wasn't a FORUM post. SPECIFICO talk 16:56, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

How is the discussion about whether the IDF and/or Hamas are using human shields relevant to the question of including a note that the figure of militants killed, as provided by the IDF, is unverified? I'd love to hear your thoughts. - Ïvana (talk) 17:05, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

See the bit above about "Most Israeli attacks are aimed at specific targets, and human shields tend to have a higher percentage of women and children than non-combatant adult males." A very low percentage of civilian men compared to civilian women in human shields could be an explanation the figure of 17,000 militants killed. There is no evidence or reason for such a supposition that I know of especially when there is no evidence of a voluntary or coerced shield but simply that Hamas operate in urban areas. NadVolum (talk) 18:00, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

https://theintercept.com/2024/10/04/israel-human-shields-hypocrisy/ GeoffreyA (talk) 18:57, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Intercept opinions are mostly quite porous. Please find some solid reporting we can consider. SPECIFICO talk 02:24, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

On the Israeli side, I find:

[14][15][16][17][18] GeoffreyA (talk) 09:09, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Strongly alleging that the enemy is doing something that one is doing far worse oneself is called Psychological projection. It's incredibly common. NadVolum (talk) 11:23, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Apparently, that statement of your concern is too broad to be instrumental in advancing any resolution. Each time that a specific response has been raised, it's become clear that your more general issue has not been resolved. We need to work from a complete and specific statement of the objective. I disagree that this long thread has been orderly or productive, so I was hoping for a definitive agenda from you. Obviously, we cannot resolve the disparity between the views of the world's wealthy, powerful establishment and those of the less entitled human majority. So the mere observation that Hamas and Israel are treated differently in most RS, as defined, is not our problem. It's actually to our obligation to follow that, agnostically. SPECIFICO talk 10:21, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: I think maybe you've added that to the wrong discussion? NadVolum (talk) 11:09, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

I think it was a reply to Makeandtoss in the Lede discussion and whether to split it. GeoffreyA (talk) 12:30, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Casualties_of_the_Israel–Hamas_war#Civilian_to_military_ratio has just had a table added to the top which is very relevant to this. I'm glad to see a Professor Adam Gaffney made the same argument as I did above and Professor Michael Spagat came in to about the same figure so I think we have a basis for some sort of range of estimates at the infobox. And the arguments about OR above can go away :-) NadVolum (talk) 10:28, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

I think that artificially lowering the number of Palestinian militant killed to its smallest possible value is a big lie, but I can't handle it by myself. I hope it gets fixed some day. Gabi S. (talk) 12:00, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

I think you consider we're "lowering" the number because you're taking the IDF estimate at face value. As multiple people have pointed out, there's no proof they're remotely real. The table also points out that the IDF provided no evidence and the figure has been "Widely criticized as inaccurate" and the article goes into detail about this so I won't repeat it.

I haven't had time to condense this discussion into the main points yet - I'll see if I can do it today. - Ïvana (talk) 12:30, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Jeez. I was trying to make the number as big as possible! Don't you realize yet Netanyahu is Israel's equivalent to America's Trump or Russia's Putin or any of a load of other 'Big men' leaders round the world? He tells lies. Whoppers, and lots of them. NadVolum (talk) 14:14, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

'October 17' section

Since this material has been challenged: How does anyone else feel about the reliability of this article from ArtNet. Personally, I think that an "online resource for the international art market, and the destination to buy, sell, and research art online" isn't a great source for news or analysis of the Israel-Palestine conflict. Besides, the investigation it's being cited to describe is already covered by The New Yorker.

Also, I don't think we should copy wholesale information from the article on the Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion. That article is better suited for detailed coverage of this event; this article should mention it in summary in the context of the broader war. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 16:25, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Keeping the New Yorker source and leaving out the ArtNet is fine, but what is your argument for removing Forensic Architecture's February investigation? In your removal summary, you said it was a "primary source", and can't be used as RS without a secondary back-up. So I added the NY piece as a secondary back up of it, and you still removed the FA investigation summary from the page.

Not only is it directly referenced by the NY piece, but the FA investigation itself is a RS secondary source, not a primary source, per WP:SECONDARY: A secondary source provides thought and reflection based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. Secondary sources are not necessarily independent sources. They rely on primary sources for their material, making analytic or evaluative claims about them. For example, a review article that analyzes research papers in a field is a secondary source for the research. Whether a source is primary or secondary depends on context. A book by a military historian about the Second World War might be a secondary source about the war, but where it includes details of the author's own war experiences, it would be a primary source about those experiences. A book review too can be an opinion, summary, or scholarly review.

Also, it's fine to leave out direct needlessly excessive information from the main al-Ahli page, but you removed a paragraph that contains important relevant NPOV information backed by RS that, combined with the FA paragraph, has the same length as the other side of the argument, and you have presented no reason for why that should not be included here.

It should be, and I will re-add a shortened version of it, with altered language, to again ensure NPOV and match both perspectives from the main al-Ahli page. If you disagree regarding its inclusion, seek consensus before removing it, and the same goes for the FA source. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 16:54, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

You are leaving only material that supports one contested view and completely expunging the other investigations that challenge that view. That is a straightforward NPOV violation. FA is also a secondary source, not a primary one, and their findings have been covered widely in other reliable sources. nableezy - 16:57, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Surprise surprise, an editor with no involvement in the talk page is tag teaming with a 1RR violation to push a disputed pov as though it were uncontested. I’m flabbergasted. nableezy - 17:40, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

To resolve the issue:

I do think @PhotogenicScientist is right that neither side should be over-represented, but both should be included to represent both sides of the topic, ensuring NPOV.

So I suggest adding just the following condensed paragraph:

Channel 4 News investigations contested Israeli claims of a misfired Hamas rocket being responsible for the blast.The New York Times, Bloomberg News, BBC News, and El País cited Forensic Architecture on October 20 disputing Israel's account that the blast was caused by a rocket from Gaza, concluding instead that it was the result of a missile fired from the direction of Israel. In its February 2024 investigation, Forensic Architecture concluded that the IDF’s claim that it was a Palestinian rocket that struck al-Ahli hospital was false, and had been erroneously repeated by news outlets, adding that while what happened at al-Ahli remains inconclusive the Israeli military launched an aggressive disinformation campaign in its aftermath and that it "has yet to provide any conclusive visual evidence to support the claim that the source of the deadly blast at al-Ahli hospital was a Hamas or PIJ rocket."

Hopefully this resolves the issue. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 17:57, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Hey, new secondary sources to look at. Neat.

• BBC: Cites FA for the claim that the blast came from an artillery shell, not a rocket. Article corrected in January to reflect that FA retracted this claim, and said the projectile was probably a rocket.
• NYT: I found no mention of FA in the cited source; furthermore, I couldn't find any relevant mention of FA from NYT in the past 2 years.
• Bloomberg: Only a brief mention of the FA report as a counterweight to claims of rocket from Gaza. No significant coverage, and no dedicated reporting on the findings.
• El Pais: Finally, a weighty mention of the FA report. Though, this publication clearly doesn't have the weight of reputation as the other 3 sources for English reporting. May or may not be worth including. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 20:13, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Whether or not one considers the FA analysis a primary source seems like an open question to me at the moment. If FA is considered WP:SCHOLARSHIP as an organization, publications making novel assertions based on observations (i.e. research papers) are considered primary sources; publications that review other publications and draw conclusions (i.e review/overview papers) are considered secondary sources. And if it's considered a WP:NEWSORG, "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (invited op-eds and letters to the editor from notable figures) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." But, their publication does seem to meet the hallmarks described in WP:SECONDARY.

I've seen firsthand evaluations and investigations of events get removed by others citing WP:PRIMARY all over the topic areas of AP2 and PIA - but I'm no longer quite so confident that doing so is correct...

In any case, this source can stand next the the New Yorker one. I'd put it in myself, but it seems my citation to the New Yorker was already nuked by SPECIFICO, and it seems I've used my one revert for the day... PhotogenicScientist (talk) 20:03, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

It is not an open question, and FA was found to be worth citing at the child article in an RFC. Only presenting one side of a contested viewpoint when the other side is a widely covered significant view is a NPOV violation. nableezy - 00:25, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

their findings have been covered widely in other reliable sources This was not the case in the article when I removed them initially. And I'm open to restoring the citation after double-checking the New Yorker article. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 20:16, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

You again, as with the New Yorker source, failed to properly read the NYT source. It says explicitly: Forensic Architecture, a London-based visual investigation group, disputed the Israeli account, saying that the munition had been fired from the direction of Israel. You just need an account to read the full live updates. It is also mentioned again here.

The BBC source does have a correction on the FA reference, but the correction matches exactly what I wrote, namely that it was a rocket (instead of artillery shell), and the direction it came from: On 14 November, Forensic Architecture removed a tweet and changed its analysis to say the projectile was probably a rocket although the group stood by its conclusion on the direction it had come from.

So yes, it should be included, as it matches exactly what is said in the text, only the specific date of October 20 in my suggested text should be removed as it references multiple FA analyses.

For Bloomberg you again made up an entirely arbitrary standard of "it has to be a weighty reference with dedicated coverage". That's not Wiki standard for a RS that matches the description of the text. Bloomberg referenced it, and that is matched exactly by the source. Whether you think it was sufficiently referenced and analyzed is wholly irrelevant.

Channel 4 and El Pais are both RS. Your subjective interpretations of the latter's "weight of interpretation" is again wholly irrelevant. Both should be included.

FA is definitionally a secondary source per WP:SECONDARY, and it is in any case backed up by multiple other RS secondary sources.

So I suggest the text will be as follows then, with the associated sources:

Channel 4 News investigations contested Israeli claims of a misfired Hamas rocket being responsible for the blast.The New York Times, Bloomberg News, BBC News, and El País referenced Forensic Architecture disputing Israel's account that the blast was caused by a rocket from Gaza, concluding instead that it was the result of a missile fired from the direction of Israel. In its February 2024 investigation, Forensic Architecture concluded that the IDF’s claim that it was a Palestinian rocket that struck al-Ahli hospital was false, and had been erroneously repeated by news outlets, adding that while what happened at al-Ahli remains inconclusive the Israeli military launched an aggressive disinformation campaign in its aftermath and that it "has yet to provide any conclusive visual evidence to support the claim that the source of the deadly blast at al-Ahli hospital was a Hamas or PIJ rocket."

Will that be fine with you, or is there any specific thing you insist on having altered that violates Wiki rules?

Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 21:44, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

NYT: failed to properly read and "not having subscription access" are two rather different things, I think. Material behind a paywall cannot be verified easily. You're right that the source isn't disqualified based on this - but I and many others will not be able to verify the citation.

BBC: Personally, I still find this an inappropriate citation for the sentence as proposed. At time of publishing, the BBC accepted the FA report as a source for the information "the blast was more likely from an artillery shell than a rocket." The only mentions BBC makes of the strike "likely being from a rocket, in a direction other than that specified by the IDF" is in the correction notes, where they note FA's new position. When your only citation is to a correction/retraction note, that's pretty thin sauce.

Bloomberg: I could've sworn there was a policy somewhere about not taking a small snippet out of a large article as proof of a claim... and I believe I was thinking of WP:SIGCOV which mentions not using citations for "trivial mentions." But that's in regards to notability, and a test for whether a topic deserves its own article, and so isn't so applicable here. Bloomberg is a fine citation.

And El Pais remains a weak, if acceptable, RS. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 22:01, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

NYT is notoriously difficult to access if you don't have an account. Archives don't always work. Btw, you were wrong in your assertion that NYT hasn't mentioned FA in years. The correct Google search shows this is not true.

I think your interpretation of the BBC article is wrong. The proposed sentence reads: The New York Times, Bloomberg News, BBC News, and El País cited Forensic Architecture on October 20 disputing Israel's account that the blast was caused by a rocket from Gaza, concluding instead that it was the result of a missile fired from the direction of Israel (strike added by me, I think we can leave that out). It just says that a) there was no conclusive proof the blast was caused by a rocket and b) it came from Israel (as far as I'm aware, "missile" is pretty vague/neutral, but we could also use something like "source of the blast" or similar). BBC only cited the report, it didn't accept it as indisputable truth. This is just a standard secondary source. Regarding The only mentions BBC makes of the strike "likely being from a rocket, in a direction other than that specified by the IDF" is in the correction notes we're not using BBC or FA to assert the projectile definitely was, or wasn't, a rocket so that's irrelevant. The direction is mentioned in the article. The correction as reported by the BBC also seems wrong. FA never said that what caused the explosion was "probably a rocket"; they issued a correction regarding a picture of an impact in Ukraine saying that the image was most likely showing an impact from a rocket, instead of an artillery shell like they had previously suggested. They still maintained at that point in time, and reinforced it in their February report, both that the source of the hospital explosion was uncertain and that the direction showed it came from Israel. Which is what the proposed paragraph says. So, in short, I don't think the BBC article is being misrepresented.

I have no comments regarding Blomberg and El País - both are RS. - Ïvana (talk) 00:46, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

@Ïvana Regarding NYT, this is why I said any relevant mention - they've not cited FA in any published articles on this conflict. I was trying to find a more concrete citation for this claim than an archive link (which, by the way, I still have not been able to verify - the archive links to their live blog are a mess of html, and any mention of FA is not easily findable).

Regarding the BBC, I see they do attribute the whole claim to FA in the initial publication, including the direction from where the strike came.

Also, how can you justify this sentence by saying a) there was no conclusive proof the blast was caused by a rocket when the sentence as proposed says concluding instead that it was the result of a missile...? PhotogenicScientist (talk) 15:15, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

The search I shared showed how FA were mentioned a couple of times since the war started (they were also mentioned before that); and like you said, NYT live blogs are a mess and archives are usually not good, so they were probably referenced more times than that. I don't have a paid subscription so I wouldn't know. It is also not a requirement for NYT to do that, they just need to report on what FA said regarding this specific event, which is exactly what they did and why we use them.

I don't see the contradiction in the two highlighted sentences. there was no conclusive proof the blast was caused by a rocket talks about the source of the blast while concluding instead that it was the result of a missile fired from the direction of Israel (full sentence) addresses the direction from which the source of the blast originated. The term missile should be neutral (I'm not an expert) but if it causes confusion it could be revised. - Ïvana (talk) 21:51, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

And yet, it still says concluding instead that it was the result of a missile. The two options here being artillery shell (asserted exclusively by FA to come from Israel) or rocket/missile. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 13:21, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

I have said multiple times (this one is the third and hopefully the last) that we don't need to use the term "missile". NYT says Forensic Architecture [...] disputed the Israeli account, saying that the munition had been fired from the direction of Israel.. According to Google artillery shells, rockets, and missiles are all types of projectiles, differing mainly in their propulsion and guidance systems. Rocket and missile are not synonymous but they do share some characteristics, same with artillery shell. And that discussion is irrelevant. The focus should be that FA does not know the cause of the explosion but was able to identify its origin. That's what we need to report. I already made a suggestion on how to word that sentence ("source of the blast" instead of missile, we could also use projectile or munition like NYT). If you don't like any of these you can go ahead and propose something else. - Ïvana (talk) 20:08, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

A missile is an airborne ranged weapon capable of self-propelled flight aided usually by a propellant, jet engine or rocket motor... Historically, 'missile' referred to any projectile that is thrown, shot or propelled towards a target... Today, there is little if any practical difference between what is called a missile or a rocket. Also, per the BBC, Forensic Architecture removed a tweet and said they had been wrong to say the projectile was an artillery shell, instead conceding it was probably a rocket. So, yes, FA does believe the cause of the explosion was a rocket.

"Projectile" would be woefully vague, considering FA's initial assertion as to the type of projectile (artillery shell) was incorrect, and it now seems everyone agrees on the more specific term "rocket" or "missile." PhotogenicScientist (talk) 20:51, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

I already explained almost a week ago why the BBC's framing seems off so I'm not gonna repeat myself. The latest FA report from February concludes that a) they don't know what caused the explosion and b) the source came from Israel. I'm not sure why you're focusing on whether something is or isn't a missile when we don't have to use that term. Raskolnikov.Rev likely suggested it because they thought it was neutral. For the average person these terms don't carry much meaning. NYT uses "munition" so we could consider that as well. It would be helpful if you could suggest an alternative term instead of focusing on why "missile" is inappropriate, especially since I'm not insisting on its use. - Ïvana (talk) 21:21, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Look, either BBC is a reliable source for comment on this event, or they aren't. If we don't think they're giving an accurate summation of FA's report, then they're not a good citation to use.

And I've articulated other concerns about this proposed paragraph elsewhere in this section, if you're interested in pursuing further changes. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 21:30, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

The latest FA report concludes that a) they don't know what caused the explosion and b) the source came from Israel. Which is what should be reflected in the article. You've been arguing about what is or isn't a missile for days when I frankly don't care. We can use another word. The conclusions of the FA report remain the same. - Ïvana (talk) 21:37, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Sounds like you think we shouldn't cite the BBC, then. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 21:38, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Not sure where you got that from. Seems like you are hell-bent on derailing the conversation and at this point I don't feel like entertaining that anymore. If you have a problem with the term being used, propose something else. The conclusions of the report haven't changed for the past week since we started discussing this. - Ïvana (talk) 22:10, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

PhotogenicScientist, since you are the one who challenged and removed the initial addition, leading to the current compromise per my prior reply that you agree with and has consensus, can you add it to the page?

That would be appreciated. We can also avoid any further 1RR violation issues as the matter has been resolved. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 20:50, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

current compromise per my prior reply that you agree with and has consensus is a strange thing to say, considering I've so far only opined on the quality of the 4 citations to the 2nd sentence in the proposed paragraph.

The Channel 4 mention is a fine start - but I have some concerns of WP:DUE by putting this citation up against the likes of CNN, The Guardian, and Al Jazeera reporting findings from intelligence officials from the US, UK, Canada, and France. A single sentence mention seems fine for now.

The rest of the paragraph is unnecessary. Forensic Architecture is entitled to their conclusion, and when reliably sourced we can include it. But we shouldn't give them coverage on the order of 3-4 sentences when we have the findings of the 4 government agencies I mentioned above condensed into 1 sentence. That's pretty obviously unbalanced. And any more detail in this article isn't needed, since we have the dedicated article. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 15:07, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

The section as it stands now is not neutral. It is leaning heavily on one side by mentioning in detail multiple reports and sources of the controversy at some length. The other side is left to one sentence and source despite the availability of multiple very credible reliable sources. And citing the findings of intelligence officials from countries aligned with one side of the conflict as having greater weight is dubious. Stacking references to them is the same that was done with Forensic Architecture's analyses that you objected to.

The other side of the controversy should  be represented in summary to the same extent to ensure neutrality. The paragraph proposed by @Raskolnikov.Rev accomplishes this. Tashmetu (talk) 17:49, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

WP:FALSEBALANCE, as ever, is relevant. Governmental intelligence agencies have more weight than independent, largely-unknown investigative bodies like Forensic Architecture. Al Jazeera is a more reputable source of news than Channel 4. We represent all sources in WP:DUE proportion to their prominence. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 18:10, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

FA is not in any way "largely-unknown". nableezy - 18:12, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

In your opinion, perhaps. I had never heard of them before this report. The point remains that they are in all likelihood less-reputable than any of the governmental intelligence agencies cited here. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 18:27, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

That you have not heard of them does not mean they are either unknown or "in all likelihood less-reputable than any of the governmental intelligence agencies". Quoting myself from a prior discussion, Their report on Israeli usage of white phosphorous, commissioned by Yesh Gvul, was cited by Human Rights Watch. Architect Magazine reported on their presenting findings related to that report to a UN panel in 2012. They reported with Amnesty International on Israeli attacks on Rafah in 2014. They have expertise not just in the wider field, but in reporting on Gaza and Israel. They are absolutely not unknown, and they absolutely are reputable. That may be an opinion, but it isnt mine, it is the view of things like the Peabody Awards. nableezy - 20:41, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

I didn't question their status as a reliable source, nor did I say they were not reputable. But you can't seriously disagree that they have less reputation than the United States Department of Defense, which has existed in some form since 1789 as is arguably the foremost intelligence agency on the planet, or other national intelligence agencies.

That comparison being why I brought WP:FALSEBALANCE to begin with.PhotogenicScientist (talk) 20:38, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Absolutely I can, Israel’s foremost ally and backer claiming something isn’t anywhere near as reputable as an actual third party uninvolved source. nableezy - 21:26, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Alas, perceived bias from a source doesn't detract from their reputability; and sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject.

Unless you'd go so far as to assert that the US DoD categorically publishes falsehoods about the Israel-Palestine conflict, in a way that damages their credibility on the subject matter. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 21:38, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

No, a political establishment is not a reliable source for facts, they are only reliable for their own views. What they release for public consumption is not anything other than what the US Department of Defense says at that time. It is absolutely wild to me that anybody would claim that an encyclopedia would take a government's view as anything other than that government's view. nableezy - 21:59, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

The US Department of Defense gives unlimited resources to Israel and consistently refrains from holding them accountable for civilian casualties, including those involving American citizens, stating that they will allow Israel to investigate itself. Their stance should be reflected but it is a political one rather than an objective assessment. An uninvolved third party does carry more credibility. - Ïvana (talk) 22:12, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

a political establishment is not a reliable source for facts That's an awfully broad brush you're painting with there. Does it mean the CDC can't be trusted to report on the adverse health effects of alcohol consumption? Since governmental = unreliable?

they are only reliable for their own views As is FA reliable for their own. And The New Yorker is reliable enough to cite FA on their views. But these views must all be balanced and presented "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in [reliable] sources." PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:16, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

The CDC is a scientific organization, not a political one. A nation's miltary's propaganda produced for public consumption is not that. I dont really find this discussion to have much of a point, but FA is an independent reliable source and it is widely cited and such it should be included here. nableezy - 15:16, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

To say that the CDC is purely about science and insulated from politics despite being a government-led entity, but that the DoD is subject to politics and can't be trusted for intelligence because they're a government-led entity is a heck of a double standard. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 19:53, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

If you’d like to peruse the various RSN threads on government sources feel free. You will find that they are consistently treated as reliable only for their opinions not statements of fact. nableezy - 21:29, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Made the changes as per the consensus.

@PhotogenicScientist, it has been a wild ride going through the conversation chain. Here's a summary of your actions so we're on the same page:

1. You argued that Forensic Architecture is a primary source and, despite the content also being covered by reliable secondary sources, removed the content unilaterally
2. You did not read the sources cited and claimed the sources said the opposite of what they actually said. You did this on multiple occasions and despite multiple corrections by other editors.
3. Conjured up rules about weight of reference that do not exist (maybe you meant WP:DUE but that policy sure as hell isn't what you were trying to make it say)
4. Appointed yourself a gatekeeper despite an RS paywalled source backing up the content, violating WP:PAYWALL. You said I and many others will not be able to verify the citation.
5. Went on a nitpicky tangent about rocket/missle/artillery shell
6. Argued (incorrectly) that Forensic Architecture is largely unknown even though that is not relevant given appropriate coverage in secondary sources + FA being an RS secondary source itself
7. Incorrectly cited WP:FALSEBALANCE (I guess this can't be helped if you can't do the bare amount of research to understand why Forensic Architecture is not fringe)
8. Suggested actively violating WP:DUE by ranking governmental intelligence agencies (best known for being the perpetrators of disinformation campaigns) ahead of RS news outlets and investigative journalists

I'm really glad I came across this thread, since it gave me a great opportunity to practice my WP:GOODFAITH skills. CoolAndUniqueUsername (talk) 05:24, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

It strikes me as UNDUE and RECENTISM to go into greater detail and conclusion about the scores of horrors on the top level page about a war. What's D7E for journalism and periodicals, especially with incomplete facts, is not necessarily NPOV for an encyclopedia. SPECIFICO talk 01:34, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

That would be an argument for removing the topic entirely, not for presenting only one of two significant views. nableezy - 02:54, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

The adjusted condensed paragraph I suggested as a compromise does not "go into greater detail", it succinctly summarizes the other side of the case in the same amount as the paragraph that was already on the page by itself, in violation of NPOV as it did not contain this side. The main page does. Also, the editor who made the original revert agrees with the inclusion of that, though there is still some disagreement on one particular reference.

So it does not violate UNDUE at all, and RECENTISM is clearly also not violated as the page is filled with recent updates much less significant than this topic which as the RS show received substantive and extensive coverage. At best your argument is one for removing all reference to the event entirely, which makes no sense in a section devoted specifically to a chronological overview of significant events as determined by RS coverage. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 07:45, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Recentism is not cured by addition of more recentism. This is a widespread problem on Wikipedia. Have a look, e.g. at Taylor Swift. SPECIFICO talk 10:49, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

The al-Ahli bombing clearly does not meet Wikipedia:Recentism, it has its own page devoted to it with substantive and extensive RS coverage spanning many months. And if it did meet that standard, that entire section has to be removed, not only the added RS NPOV part. It's difficult to escape the conclusion that you're flailing because you helped a 1RR violator restore their reverts for whatever bizarre reason and are now grasping at straws to justify it. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 10:55, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

No, UNDUE is cured by reducing the WEIGHT, not necessarily eliminating mention of a notable event. SPECIFICO talk 12:35, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

---

There is a problem with this content. The Forensic Architecture analysis now has the same weight as all other investigations mentioned in the previous paragraph (Human Rights Watch, CNN, multiple intelligence services). This clearly violates WP:DUE. Alaexis_¿question? 21:13, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

@Alaexis I agreed with your assessment of the section at the time of the diff; now we have users @Ïvana and @Raskolnikov.Rev even further down-weighting the upper section, about assessments that conclude the missile is Palestinian in origin [19] [20] [21]. I find this especially surprising, considering the article on the Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion more evenly summarizes the event, noting that on the side of "errant rocket from Gaza" we have the likes of Associated Press, CNN, The Economist, The Guardian, The Wall Street Journal, and Human Rights Watch, and the intelligence agencies of United States, France, the United Kingdom, and Canada; and on the side of "possibly not from Gaza/from Israel" we have Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Channel 4 News, and Forensic Architecture.

The weight of sources analyzing this event is staggeringly on the side of "rocket from Gaza", yet the current version of this article doesn't reflect that in the slightest. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 00:41, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Nice try pretending it's just two editors who disagreed with you and agreed with the current consensus, when it's actually the majority of editors and you are on the minority side that lost because you bizarrely believe that Intel agencies from the West are inherently unbiased and more trustworthy, and highly reputable and credible sources like Forensic Architecture are meaningless and should not even be mentioned.

Consensus has been established as of now that both sides have to be equally represented in this section because both have highly credible RS on their side. If you add more references to pad your side that lost consensus, by detailing the entire names of the intel and defense agencies and adding references to other media outlets, you're trying to revert the paragraph to where it was before consensus was established to ensure NPOV.

That is a violation of consensus, and you have to stop doing it. You already violated 1RR once over this section, and you keep pushing it over and over again. I now agree with nabeelzy that you should be brought to arbitration for your 1RR violation because it is getting absurd now.Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 00:48, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Please stop removing references. I agree with @Raskolnikov.Rev, @Ïvana, @Nableezy, @CoolAndUniqueUsername and others. @Alaexis and @PhotogenicScientist if you disagree with the existing consensus, rather than unilaterally removing agreed-upon content from articles, please follow WP:CCC and seek a new consensus.

That said, "proposing to change a recently established consensus can be disruptive," and since Forensic Architecture is a RS, including their conclusions is essential for maintaining NPOV, especially given what you say about there being a lack of consensus in other RS. We have overwhelming agreement on FA's use here. Smallangryplanet (talk) 09:29, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Agree that disruptive edits on this section by those who lost consensus has to stop. If you want to make a contentious edit going against established consensus, you need to discuss it in talk first and gain consensus for it.

Having said that, I looked at the edit by @Alaexis and they make a good point that it unnecessarily repeated the FA investigation twice, so I merged them and it's fine now. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 10:34, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

If you're going to enter a discussion a month late, please check up on what's going on currently. It's as easy as reading my comment after the outdent - I'm not removing any references, just objecting to the removal of wikilinks and further down-weighting of reliable sources opposed to the POV being promoted. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 13:23, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I was referencing Alaexis' edit, please read more carefully. :) Smallangryplanet (talk) 13:38, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Terribly sorry, I must've been confused by your @me ping. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 13:40, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Stop maliciously re-litigating this section @PhotogenicScientist. You again re-added more padded sources after consensus was already established that we wouldn't cite separately all the RS that cited the FA and instead put them in the footnotes. We're not going to do the entire El Pais, NYT, BBC discussion again because you keep insisting on violating consensus.

Stop making malicious edits without consensus in talk. This is now the third time you have been warned to stop doing this. You will be brought to an arbitration case. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 13:47, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

What's the substantive issue with closely mirroring the lead of the article on the Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion, in talking about why the sources of the blast is contested?

And the difference between citing (El Pais/NYT/BBC/Bloomberg) for the FA investigation, and citing Associated Press, CNN, The Economist, The Guardian, and The Wall Street Journal is that all these RS conducted their own independent investigations, all of which are linked to in the Intelligencer article. The FA investigation is 1 source that those 4 sources reference; the other sources amount to 5 investigations. Should we not WP:BALANCE the weight of reliable sourcing? PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:53, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

We are not going to relitigate a discussion on which there is already consensus. If you insist on adding the other sources to pad it with the excuse that it's in the lede of the other article (which incidentally does not reference the intel and defense agencies by name, so by that logic your previous desperate attempt at padding it by adding those was unwarranted), then per established consensus that you lost because no one bought your increasingly absurd arguments that FA is a primary source, not reliable, and BBC, El Pais, Bloomberg and others citing them is actually irrelevant, those references will have to be re-added to the page. And they will be.

I know you think you're being very clever by desperately trying to find ways to pad the side you believe is superior to the other to violate NPOV, but that's not going to happen. You lost consensus, and that will be reflected on the page.

I will also proceed with my arbitration case against you for violating 1RR and malicious editing in violation of consensus and NPOV. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 15:01, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

There has been no discussion here, and thus no consensus, on the inclusion of the Intelligencer article, and the investigations it references. There was also no consensus per discussion to down-weight the upper section of this paragraph. If you don't want to discuss these things, nobody is going to force you to participate. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 15:09, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

We have consensus established on the inclusion of the Bloomberg, El Pais, BBC, and other references to the FA analysis on the page, which was decided to be put in the footnote instead to avoid NPOV issues on the other side. However, that consensus will be implemented now that you decided to pad a side of the controversy that you believe is inherently superior because Western intel and defense agencies can never be wrong and are inherently superior in whatever they claim.

If you want to challenge its inclusion again after a long discussion in which you failed to obtain consensus on it with increasingly absurd argumentation, be my guest, though I will add to my arbitration case against you, per "proposing to change a recently established consensus can be disruptive" as mentioned by @Smallangryplanet. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 15:15, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

We have consensus established on the inclusion of the Bloomberg, El Pais, BBC, and other references to the FA analysis on the page, which was decided to be put in the footnote instead to avoid NPOV issues on the other side. You're right, we've got some rough consensus here on that. Which is why I am not challenging its inclusion, despite your assertion. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 15:22, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm ok with PhotogenicScientist's latest addition. Paraphrasing the lead of the main page also resolves the issue of how to include the intelligence agencies, since the lead is also using a condensed version instead of spelling everything out (btw, I might be nitpicking, but both the lead and the source use UK instead of British, so I'll update the mention here to match that). I think the only thing left to do is to re-add the outlets that Raskolnikov.Rev mentioned since we already had established consensus for that.

This was a long discussion and I think everyone made concessions along the way, so the end result should be satisfactory for all involved. I think we can consider this resolved. - Ïvana (talk) 16:27, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, it looks good. Thanks @PhotogenicScientist and everyone else! Alaexis_¿question? 19:32, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

@Ïvana I appreciate the support for the compromise. The section as it now looks is certainly better than it's looked in a while.

My only remaining comment is that I think the presentation of material sourced to FA was better in this revision of the article. The New York Times, Bloomberg News, BBC News, and El País aren't biased sources as far as I'm concerned, so attributing our article text to them inline seems unnecessary; typically, we'll just write something closer to what's in this linked version of the article - that FA reports something, cited to those 4 RS. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 20:15, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I want to establish for the record that @PhotogenicScientist said here that they would not remove this because they acknowledged it was established through consensus:

You're right, we've got some rough consensus here on that. Which is why I am not challenging its inclusion, despite your assertion.

And still they moved ahead with removing consensus content from the main page. This will be included in my report about their repeated pattern of disruptive behavior. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 14:37, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Oh, come on.... references to these sources wasn't removed at all. In my edit, we still include Bloomberg, El Pais, BBC, and other references to the FA analysis on the page, in a bundled citation which you yourself agreed to when you said we had decided to be put in the footnote instead. What is your deal with that now? PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:54, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I want to also establish for the record that @PhotogenicScientist quotes people out of context to make it appear they said something they did not say to maliciously edit pages in violation of consensus and NPOV.

This is what I said, as everyone can read:

We have consensus established on the inclusion of the Bloomberg, El Pais, BBC, and other references to the FA analysis on the page, which was decided to be put in the footnote instead to avoid NPOV issues on the other side. However, that consensus will be implemented now that you decided to pad a side of the controversy that you believe is inherently superior because Western intel and defense agencies can never be wrong and are inherently superior in whatever they claim.

Incidentally, the same in-page references are on the main Al-Ahli page, long-established, which is where I originally got the text from to put in my draft proposal that also became consensus here.

They then agreed with this, and vowed not to remove in-page citations established through consensus: You're right, we've got some rough consensus here on that. Which is why I am not challenging its inclusion, despite your assertion.

And suddenly they have switched to "actually it's still on the page! It's just in the citation so technically still on the page!"

Again, all of this will be put in my report about their repeated pattern of disruptive editing in clear violation of Wiki rules. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 15:02, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

The publications must not be recited in the article text. That would be OR. The sources need to be cited as inline references. We are not referencing a tertiary source that lists those other sources. SPECIFICO talk 13:34, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

No part of that is true. nableezy - 15:18, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Agree with nableezy, I'm genuinely not seeing how naming the publications would be OR. We are mirroring the main article, which presents the sources in a similar way, so why wouldn't we do the same? Consensus was established for that approach and I see no reason to deviate from it. - Ïvana (talk) 19:41, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

@Ïvana although the argument to OR is pretty thin... I mentioned above that this type of in-text attribution to reliable sources isn't usually done. The typical way to use a source for information is to summarize the information they report on, then add a citation to the source. In-text attribution to unbiased, reliable sources just isn't how we tend to write articles. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 15:32, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

For a related example, take the sentence "Several sources considered that an errant rocket from Gaza was the likeliest explanation a week after the incident based on the evidence gathered in investigations conducted by the Associated Press, CNN, The Economist, The Guardian, and The Wall Street Journal", cited to Intelligencer. This one article actually does mention each of those sources by name, and provides links to their reports in their article. As a way of summarizing Intelligencer's article, each source's investigation gets a mention.

Another way of doing it would be to have sentences for each source, summarizing their articles, citing their articles. Yet another way to do it would be to try and combine it into one sentence where each article is linked immediately after mentioning the news agency the report came from. But typically, and especially in contentious articles, we don't like to say things like "Several sources say..." or "Most sources say..." or "A minority of sources say..." in wikivoice; it's always best to find a secondary source that makes that sort of quantitative/qualitative claim themselves. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 15:39, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

The attribution is taken from the main article, where it has been presented for nearly a year, reflecting a long-standing, established consensus. We are simply mirroring the main article. The importance of the attribution lies in the fact that, for highly contentious topics as this one, merely mentioning FA might give the impression that it lacks sufficient weight or qualifications. In past discussions, some users (and at this point I don't remember names so apologies if it sounds shady, not my intention) have claimed that FA is either a primary source, not relevant enough, failing NPOV, etc etc. These arguments are undermined when we highlight that multiple RS, some not included here like Al Jazeera, consider it credible enough for their articles. This eliminates any doubts about its inclusion. If we leave it as a standalone mention I know it will be removed, because it already happened before. Being quoted by reliable sources gives FA weight, and making that explicit removes future challenges to its validity. - Ïvana (talk) 21:26, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Agreed on the second half of what you said - I myself removed FA when it was the only citation for their claim, but its mention in multiple RS makes it much less prone to questioning.

However, citations to these RS are sufficient. The fact that WP:OTHERSTUFF has been allowed in that article body for a while isn't a great reason to replicate that here. I think it was done wrongly over there, for the exact reason I've given here. In any case, the lead of that article doesn't make the same mistake, and the lead serves as a useful summary of article content. Which is exactly what we should be doing here, on the main page for the war at large. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 21:54, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

I disagree but at this point it is impossible to move forward without everyone making another compromise. We could remove the in-text attributions from the FA line, but I think the last sentence you added should be trimmed/improved. "Several sources" sounds vague, and we do not need to name every single publication, even if the cited source does. We can limit that to a couple. After all, what matters are the conclusions of the investigations, and that is already being mentioned. The resulting paragraph would look balanced, which was the main concern, while still keeping the same core material. So I propose something like this:

The cause of the explosion at Al-Ahli Arab Hospital is contested. In the days after the blast, US, Canadian, French and UK defense and intelligence services concluded it was caused by an errant Palestinian rocket.[273] Investigations conducted one week after the incident by various media outlets, including the Associated Press and CNN, stated that, based on available evidence at the time, an errant rocket from Gaza was the likeliest explanation.[274] In late November, an analysis by Human Rights Watch indicated the evidence pointed to a misfired Palestinian rocket as the cause, but stated that further investigation was required.[275] Channel 4 News investigations contested Israeli claims of a misfired Hamas rocket being responsible for the blast.[276][277] Forensic Architecture's investigation disputed Israel's account, concluding instead that the blast was the result of a munition fired from the direction of Israel.[278] In April 2024 The New Yorker, citing investigations from Earshot and Forensic Architecture, highlighted doubts about a Palestinian rocket involvement and noted the IDF's role in fostering uncertainty through misinformation.

Thoughts? - Ïvana (talk) 13:15, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Was just in the middle of typing a reply when you added this...The discussion upthread got a little bit away from me so apologies if I'm off-base, but I'm not sure how this is WP:OTHERSTUFF, other than loosely because we're mirroring the main article - the important part is the reflecting a long-standing, established consensus bit. It's not just that FA is used there, full stop, it's that there is an established consensus that it ought to be...one that is implicitly shared by all the RS that also cite FA. I think @Ïvana's suggestion here works, and could help prevent us from circling around this argument forever and am in favour of it. Smallangryplanet (talk) 13:26, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

No, we can't just say it's contested. It is not widely contested. In WP terms, it's FRINGE. We also cannot say multiple sources covered FA unless we can cite a tertiary source that stated it. SPECIFICO talk 16:49, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Again, no part of that is true. nableezy - 18:16, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Your argument effectively renders a prohibition on in-text attribution which is, in fact, often mandatory. You do not require a tertiary source to provide in-text attribution when citing a secondary source or sources directly. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:35, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

No, we attribute to FA in-text, but the cited secondary sources go in a superscript reference footnote. SPECIFICO talk 17:28, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Disagree with the proposed compromise. We have established consensus for the inclusion of the citations both on the main page as well as here. Either the entire in-page reference to the various media outlets is removed and moved to the footnote for both sides, or both stay. That's the only way to ensure NPOV, again per established consensus.

I should add that there are more RS casting doubt on the Israeli account on the main page that are not cited here but very well could be if the other side decided to pad it as well, like the investigation by Al Jazeera. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 16:36, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

@Smallangryplanet @Ïvana @Raskolnikov.Rev Long-standing, established consesnsus would be great to mirror here - except the post being quoted refers to a single sentence in the body of an article on a previously-current event that only saw a meaningful level of editing for ~2 weeks. But lo and behold - there's already been a discussion about how that source should be presented in the lead. @XDanielx noted there exactly what I did here - that in-text attribution of unbiased sources is incredibly atypical. And the result of that discussion was that the lead does not attribute simple mentions of the FA report in-text, instead leaving them as citations.

The lead of this article provides a useful summary of the event, which is exactly what we should be doing here in this section in the article on the war. And we have prior consensus through discussion on how this FA report should be summarized. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:05, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

@PhotogenicScientist The lead very literally does attribute the FA report in text: Forensic Architecture concluded the blast was the result of a munition fired from Israel,[14] and cast doubt on the errant rocket launch theory in a visual investigation published on 15 February 2024, saying that "what happened at al-Ahli remains inconclusive".[15][16] Smallangryplanet (talk) 14:11, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

And what the lead does not do is start that sentence off with "The New York Times, Bloomberg News, BBC News, and El País cited Forensic Architecture...", which is exactly what is being discussed here - the in-text attribution of reporting to those 4 sources. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:19, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Ah, apologies, I misunderstood your comment. 🙇🏻‍♂️ I agree with @Raskolnikov.Rev that categories are not just copy pastes of leads, and that we already have a recently established consensus on the matter. Smallangryplanet (talk) 16:56, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

The only consensus we established here is that the FA report should be mentioned, and that those 4 sources are fine citations for the matter. We did not find consensus to cite those sources in-line, in contravention of WP:INTEXT - in fact, there was rough consensus for them to simply be citations. That was until that consensus was "pulled off the table" after discussion of other content in the same section.

In any case, there is recently-established consensus also at the talk page of Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion to not cite those 4 sources inline. And despite the ever-increasing length of this thread, I've yet to see a substantive argument for doing so here. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 23:18, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

I just want to make it known for the record that @PhotogenicScientist does not care about what the lede on the main page says, as they went ahead with adding additions to the section here paddings the details of the intelligence agencies even though that is not on the other page's lede.

So this is merely a grasping at straws attempt to keep the padded references to the various media outlets that back what they believe to be the only legitimate side of the controversy because Western intelligence agencies are imbued with superior reliability and honesty to any other RS.

The facts are that categories here are not merely reflections of ledes from main pages, as we can see from the other categories that link to main pages and contain information not only from the ledes but also the bodies of those pages.

Moreover, as @PhotogenicScientist admitted, consensus has been established here regarding this particular section (more recent than the brief discussion on the other page) to include the RS references to the FA report in-line. However, I and others were willing to leave that out as a compromise, before they decided to violate established NPOV consensus by padding the other side of the controversy, first with the aforementioned intelligence agencies, and when that failed to gain any traction, with the media outlets.

And as pointed out by @Nableezy and others, the arguments brought forward for this have been absurd on their face. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 14:34, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

This was quite a ride to read through, but I have to agree with @Smallangryplanet, @Raskolnikov.Rev, @Ïvana, @Nableezy and @CoolAndUniqueUsername

A consensus was established to ensure neutrality in this section, which included the in-line citation of the same material present on the main Al-Ahli page, where consensus was also achieved. I find the arguments against its inclusion to be unconvincing, particularly considering that the consensus side did not proceed with its in-line inclusion until the principle of neutrality was violated by having a list of media outlets for one perspective, necessitating the same to happen for the other.

Therefore, I support the inclusion of in-line citations in accordance with the established consensus. However, should both references be placed in the footnotes, this would also fulfill the requirements for neutrality. Lf8u2 (talk) 16:11, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

References

Adding Yemeni casualties to infobox

I'm not a regular here and have no intention of becoming one, but I do monitor Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Edit, which gets edit requests for this article because this talk page is protected. Once in a while a valid point is made.

An anonymous editor wants to add Yemeni casualties to the infobox, and cites two contradictory sources for these casualties. I agree it should be added, but I don't know how reliable the sources are. See the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Edit#Israel–Hamas_war. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:14, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Hamas' chariots

I removed this report[22] released two days ago, that Hamas had fantastical plans of invading Israel with three-wheeled horse drawn chariots. Whether or not this is true, this report is WP:UNDUE in this article at this time, though it can be covered in Background to the Israel-Hamas war.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 19:47, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Casualties in Gaza

In Infobox: Casualties and losses, we have "Gaza Strip: 42,126+ killed[j][45] "

and below we have "Since the start of the Israeli invasion, over 40,000 Palestinians in Gaza have been killed".

The 40,000  and 42,126 numbers are misleading. I would propose that a more realistic number be used.

The 40,000 number is from the Gaza Ministry of Health and the method that number is produced is rigorous: "The Ministry of Health is committed to registering only those who reach its hospitals or other emergency medical care facilities in the Gaza Strip. Consequently, the number of martyrs announced by the ministry does not necessarily represent the total number of casualties but only those that have been officially documented." [source interview with MoH in https://www.dropsitenews.com/p/how-gaza-health-ministry-counts-dead]

The methodology means that each recorded death has the associated ID number and name recorded and can be independently verified. However this also means that due to the widespread destruction of MoH infrastructure the unrecorded deaths will be high, as admitted in the above interview.

The Lancet letter uses an estimate for the number of  indirect deaths.

"In recent conflicts, such indirect deaths range from three to 15 times the number of direct deaths. Applying a conservative estimate of four indirect deaths per one direct death[9] to the 37 396 deaths reported , it is not implausible to estimate that up to 186 000 or even more deaths could be attributable to the current conflict in Gaza. " [source peer reviewed journal https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(24)01169-3/fulltext ]

Note that this estimate of 186,000 total deaths is dated June 19, 2024.

In The Guardian  on Thu 5 Sep 2024, Devi Sridhar (Professor of public health at the University of Edinburgh) uses the Lancet number to project total deaths at 23,000 deaths a month giving a total death of 355,000 at the end of 2024.  [source  https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/sep/05/scientists-death-disease-gaza-polio-vaccinations-israel ]

This gives 278,000 for 2024-10-19 and I propose that this number be used as the estimate for deaths in October 2024 in Gaza.

For context, the same author makes another estimate using a different method, also in the Guardian, that produces a figure of 500,000 by end of 2024  [

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/dec/29/health-organisations-disease-gaza-population-outbreaks-conflict  ]

Isoceles-sai (talk) 06:14, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

While the deaths are likely to be higher than the official number, it is best, and policy, to stick to that number, rather than speculative ones or estimates. Also, for us to calculate an estimate based on the referenced methods would be original research. The lead section's rounded-to-a-thousand figure is more of a longer-term summary, since each day, the deaths increase. GeoffreyA (talk) 09:14, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

The calculation should be covered by WP:CALC Isoceles-sai (talk) 11:15, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

No. WP:CALC is for "routine calculations," usually simple arithmetic. It also says explicitly to "not compare statistics from sources that use different methodologies," of which you're using a few. I don't see any source using the figure of 278,000 - best I can figure, you're doing some sort of weighted average to arrive at it. Which is absolutely not a CALC. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 16:14, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

First of all a reliable source is needed, the figures are all over the place. We can't just make up our own numbers. Secondly the best I can see is that about 100,000 have died in Gaza in the last year with about half being direct casualties and half due to 'natural' causes and seven or eight thousand would have died anyway. The higher figure of 186,000 was if they'd continued blockading food and it had gone into full scale famine. NadVolum (talk) 11:56, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Do you have a source for the 100,000 figure? Gabi S. (talk) 12:13, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

The Gaza Health Ministry five the figures for bombs etc and the Palestinians give an estimate that 'natural' deaths were more than six times up. That gives the figure given the death rate was 3.85 per thousand just before the war. However they didn't give an actual figure. By the way it seems that the business of blocking food aid is ramping up again - as far as I can make out it had been eased off considerably after the military confronted the government and refused to implement its policy. +1 for the IDF if so I think. But they may have just delayed the famine. NadVolum (talk) 12:23, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't see a source for that data. Gabi S. (talk) 15:51, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

That's because I didn't put it in as I saw no point wasting my time. But if you're interested here's a source Palestinian Government Report: Number of Natural Deaths in Gaza Increased by More Than Six times Due to Israeli Aggression. NadVolum (talk) 17:20, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

All the numbers are from cited Reliable Sources, except for 278,000 which is produced using arithmetic using the 23,000 per month deaths referenced by Prof Devi Sridhar in The Guardian article. I have not made up any numbers.

The figure of 186,000 is deaths upto June 2024, and is from the Lancet letter. Isoceles-sai (talk) 13:38, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

And as I said a famine looked like it was starting at the time. The figure is disputed - and for good reasons too. NadVolum (talk) 13:53, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

All figures are disputed. I would like the best number to be used. Isoceles-sai (talk) 14:10, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

This isn't a routine calculation, it isn't an accurate calculation, and it doesn't meaningfully reflect the intent of specifically the authors of the Lancet article. The 186,000 figure is not how many people have died as of 19 June 2024. As the authors explain before providing their estimate, [e]ven if the conflict ends immediately, there will continue to be many indirect deaths in the coming months and years from causes such as reproductive, communicable, and non-communicable diseases (emphasis added). The figure is a projection of total deaths well after a cessation to the hostilities that could be attributed to it. So to write that there have been an estimated 278,000 deaths as of October 2024 from that is plain wrong.

Sridhar's estimate has its own limitations. It's an opinion piece in the Guardian and so WP:RSOPINION would apply. It would not belong in the infobox or lede, and especially not in wikivoice. She bases her estimate on a different Lancet source, but misrepresents it when she writes that [e]xperts analysing previous refugee displacements estimate in the Lancet that crude mortality rates (that is deaths per 1,000 people) were more than 60 times higher than when each conflict began, on average (emphasis added). The Lancet article does not support this claim. Connolly and Heymann write that [d]uring conflict, populations are often suddenly displaced and relocated to temporary settlements or camps. Crude mortality rates over 60 times higher than baseline rates have been recorded after such displacement. This is not an average, nor is it being presented as an average. The estimate arrived at by applying a 60 times increased crude mortality rate thus lacks basis in the facts. It is an opinion, and not a well substantiated one.

In brief, the figures currently present in the infobox and lede from the MoH in Gaza are vastly superior to the proposed replacement. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:16, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

60 times? The estimate from there has been that deaths other than direct casualties had gone up by a factor of more than 6. Nobody there has talked about anything as high as 60! 12 if you include the bombs etc. NadVolum (talk) 14:23, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Sridhar's other estimate (the half-a-million one) is derived from a separate Lancet article that isn't discussing the war in Gaza. Sorry, I should have linked it: here. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:34, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Well I can't dispute that if Israel does what many of them want to do then that sort of death toll is altogether possible. I really don't see how it fits into the article though. It can go into Casualties of the Israel–Hamas war easily enough, but how would such a speculation fit here? NadVolum (talk) 14:57, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

To quote from the Lancet letter cited above, "In recent conflicts, such indirect deaths range from three to 15 times the number of direct deaths. Applying a conservative estimate of four indirect deaths per one direct death9 to the 37 396 deaths reported, it is not implausible to estimate that up to 186 000 or even more deaths could be attributable to the current conflict in Gaza"

186,000 is the estimate of how many people have died upto June 2024, and the basis of the estimate is the MoH cumulative deaths data point for 2024-06-19 which is 37,396 deaths recorded; 37396 x 5 = 186980. Rounding that off gives us 186,000 deaths for June 2024.

I have cross checked the 2024-06-19 datapoint in the MoH data and the 37,396 number is there. Isoceles-sai (talk) 15:23, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

186,000 is the estimate of how many people have died upto June 2024 - No, it isn't. Read the full Lancet article, not just that paragraph in isolation. Here's a couple of reliable sources that have previously been discussed on this talk page that discuss the Lancet article, such as Haaretz and Al Jazeera, which also discussed the 186,000 figure specifically: [t]he accumulative effects of Israel’s war on Gaza could mean the true death toll could reach more than 186,000 people, according to a study published in the journal Lancet. They are estimating the total deaths as a result of the war, including those that occur well into the future. The Lancet article authors explicitly say so with, and I quote it again, [e]ven if the conflict ends immediately, there will continue to be many indirect deaths in the coming months and years from causes such as reproductive, communicable, and non-communicable diseases (emphasis added). That 186,000 figure includes those post-war deaths. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:42, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes I agree that the letter (and the 2 RS articles your link to) say indirect deaths will continue into the future.

My interpretation of the paragraph I quoted from the Lancet letter is that the cumulative indirect deaths in June 2024 are 186,000. Your quoted paragraph says that indirect deaths will continue.

It makes no sense to forcast a specific number like 186,000 for an undefined future. Is it 1 year from now, 10 years from now? Isoceles-sai (talk) 16:40, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

One of the technical reasons why figures beyond the 42,000 (killed)+ and 98,000 (wounded) remain in the area of hypothesis is that the registration centres were hospitals. Gaza, it is said, has roughly 17 functional hospitals of the original 34, but this was a misnomer, since most of these are private clinics and not involved in assessments used by the GMH. I believe only 4 hospitals have sufficient means, when their activities are not suspended, to ascertain deaths and feed the data into the GMH system, and they cannot cover the Strip-wide deaths. So I would suggest caution.Nishidani (talk) 17:01, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Believe me, you are not alone in that interpretation and it has been a point of much confusion on this talk page and even in reliable sources since the article was published. So much so that one of the authors, Martin McKee, has responded about it repeatedly on X (formerly Twitter). I don't use social media, but some of our editors have previously posted McKee's public responses. You can find them here. Reproducing some of the material: And as our piece has been greatly misquoted and misinterpreted, can we clarify that all we are saying is that the Gaza figures are credible & indirect toll will, in time, likely be much higher. The figure we give is purely illustrative1 and The letter is clear. It is an illustrative example of possible scale of direct and indirect deaths resulting from conflict so far, some already happened and some of which it is not implausible to expect in the future. The point (as in the title) is need for better data.2 I cannot tell if he has since deleted those as when I open the links I receive an error, but that could also be because I don't have an account.

The goal of the authors, as I understand it, is: to determine the absolute loss of life attributable to this war assuming it were to end immediately (i.e. end on 19 June 2024). If so, then they need to account for people who have already died and who will die from causes such as starvation and malnutrition (or famine if triggered), lack of access to sanitation and clean drinking water, epidemic diseases such as cholera, lack of access to reproductive health services and medical services due to the destruction of health infrastructure, among others. It's the case that people will continue to die from these issues long after the guns have fallen silent.

Why an undefined future? They're using a ratio of direct to indirect deaths, and settling on 1:4. However many people have been killed by bomb or bullet, four more will be killed by indirect causes. In that regard, does it matter whether the date of the last death is June 19, 2025 or June 19, 2034? The death toll from the war in Gaza is to be 186,000 regardless (again assuming that it ended on 19 June 2024). Mr rnddude (talk) 17:20, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

"The death toll from the war in Gaza is to be 186,000 regardless (again assuming that it ended on 19 June 2024)"

I agree with that statement ! Maybe not in exactly the way that you mean it, but yes. So let us use that number where it gives people a better idea of the the death toll, rather than having 40,000 as the headline number?

My purpose in starting this talk was to improve on the numbers being used now. I am open to any suggestion that you may have. Isoceles-sai (talk) 09:44, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

See WP:CRYSTAL. The most one can write up from the Lancet article is. 'One estimation, based on comparative evidence, has conjectured that at least 186,000 deaths will result, if one includes the future collateral effects of the Gaza war.' Nothing more.Nishidani (talk) 11:59, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Lede structure

@Personisinsterest: I disagree with this edit [23]. Clearly, the second lede paragraph talks about events in the lead up to the war, while the third lede paragraph talks about the events of the war. Israel's assassinations of Hamas leaders belongs to the events of the war, not the lead up. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:33, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

To me, the second paragraph talks about the war and the third talks about the humanitarian crisis. I dunno. I don’t mind if you put it back Personisinsterest (talk) 10:38, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I will move it back down then given the non-objection. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:10, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Total deaths

The following study from the Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs at Brown University establishes that, in addition to the officially reported deaths, over 10,000 people in Gaza are dead under the rubble and at least 67,413 have been killed from starvation and diseases, due to lack of access to healthcare, based on reliable data, making the total number of estimated Palestinian deaths over 120,000.

https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/papers/2024/IndirectDeathsGaza

https://www.thenationalnews.com/news/mena/2024/10/08/israel-gaza-war-death-toll-exceeds-120000-if-indirect-causes-are-included-study-finds/

https://www.msn.com/en-ae/news/middleeast/israel-gaza-war-death-toll-exceeds-120-000-if-indirect-causes-are-included-study-finds/ar-AA1rQIOg

I think that these numbers should be reported within this article.

David A (talk) 06:39, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

As far as I can make out the Palestinian estimate of indirect deaths so far [24] from September 12 is about 6.5 times that before the war meaning about 55,000 deaths where normally it would be about 8,500. This is about 12,000 less that the estimate in the citations above but given the circumstances the figure is credible enough I think. NadVolum (talk) 08:15, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Has the US actually given $22 billion away or will Israel repay that? That's a large amount. It is about $18 million for each person killed on October 7 or $180,000 per dead Palestinian at a ratio of 100 Palestinians per Israeli. NadVolum (talk) 08:34, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for helping out.

I think that the United States government has given away 17.9 Billion USD of taxpayer money to Israel in return for AIPAC support to government election campaigns for both Republicans and Democrats, but I noticed that this information had already been added to this and other pages, so I removed that part of my text above earlier. David A (talk) 10:20, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't think 'documented' is appropriate, total estimated deaths would be better. THe Gaza Health Ministry identified or recorded figures for deaths are not the same as the extimated number of direct Gazan casualties. NadVolum (talk) 16:10, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

If I remember and understood correctly, this was based on quite specific numbers that were sent to the United States government, but please read the pdf file yourself if you wish.

https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/files/cow/imce/papers/2023/2024/Costs%20of%20War_Human%20Toll%20Since%20Oct%207.pdf

David A (talk) 17:20, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Some of the figures are of documented deaths but theres also estimates like > and a entry with on a question mark in it. And by the way the Palestinians counted most of the deaths as due to disease from the lack of drinking water, sanitation and medicine. The very high death rate probably is caused by acute malnutrition but actual starvation as a cause of death has not been the major factor so far. The overall figures are estimates. NadVolum (talk) 18:04, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

I checked again, and you are correct about that these deaths are estimated rather than confirmed, even though 62,413 sounded very specific. However, that number was specifically from actual starvation, and seems to come from a highly reliable source, so I still think that it is very valid to add to this page. David A (talk) 18:24, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Permit me a small snort about Estimated Deaths from Starvation 62,413, but I'm definitely not objecting to you sticking it in the article. NadVolum (talk) 22:02, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I will attempt to do so in a proper manner then. Help with improvements in that regard would obviously be appreciated. David A (talk) 07:44, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

I have now done my best to properly do so: [25] [26] [27] [28]

Help with improving the quality of my edits is obviously still greatly appreciated. David A (talk) 08:26, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

The Mother Jones article [29] would be better as a sources as it is green at WP:RSP. The National (Abu Dhabi) doesn't appear there, it's not terrible - it's main bias lies in strongly avoiding anything the UAE doesn't like - but that is a strong bias and it is not a major source. NadVolum (talk) 13:47, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for helping out. I have added it. David A (talk) 15:19, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Support Came onto the talk page to ask the exact same question. I think the number should be cited in the infobox, but with brakets as an estimate or even as a conservative estimate (the numbers are probably way higher), at least for the time being. I've already edited the numbers into the Gaza Strip famine infobox and think they should be shown here in a similar format.ThePaganUK (talk) 20:21, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it belongs in any infobox, at least until their methodology has been supported by experts in secondary sources. It's an extraordinary claim, considering that there have been only 38 recorded deaths in hospitals (per HRW) from malnutrition and dehydration. Not everyone gets treated in a hospital, but it's hard to see how 99.94% of starvations could have occrred outside of a hospital.

No objection to mentioning it somewhere with appropriate attribution, but putting it in the infobox (even with "estimate" or similar language) implies a certain level of authoritativeness. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 21:07, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

I can go both ways on this, that's why I think it should be liable for a discussion amongst editors. I agree it should make an appearance in the article at the very least.ThePaganUK (talk) 21:23, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks and agreed, at the moment there are a few small discussions, it might make sense to close most of them with a link to one main discussion. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 21:26, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Well, there is the systematic assault on healthcare facilities in Gaza to consider. The argument that most starvation deaths should show up in hospital records doesn't hold up in this specific context. Unbandito (talk) 22:37, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Very strongly agreed. David A (talk) 23:46, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

The problem here is that the report put in famine as the reason for deaths in its table whereas it is clear from reading it that the deaths they describe were due to people not recovering from illness or injury because of extreme malnutrition. Technically that is not the same thing as famine, which is something the UN can declare and has real world consequences. It looks to me like the report used the word because Biden might respond to it, but not if they are described as natural deaths like Euro-Med and other reports in the area do. I don't see what can be done except with an agreement that the word is just inappropriate. NadVolum (talk) 15:36, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

By the way I would suppose the figures are in the right ballpark rather than "the real figures being way higher". The last figure I've seen was from Euro-Med with about 51,000 at the end of June. NadVolum (talk) 15:50, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately after reading the Brown University report again I have come to the conclusion that they very likely have their figure swrong - that they did mean direct starvation and have a ? for the huge number that have died of disease and injuries they did not recover from because hey were starving. The 51,000 by June from Euro-Med for total deaths other than direct casualties is probably closer to the truth. NadVolum (talk) 22:54, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Well, it has been several months of killing, mutilation, starvation, and diseases since then. It does not seem unreasonable at all that the number of dead not stemming from direct violence would increase from roughly 51,000 to 67,000 during that time period. David A (talk) 10:25, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

@David A I'm not yet convinced by the BU report's methodology. It claims 62,413 starvation deaths, and for that it cites the analysis in Appendix to letter of October 2, 2024. That letter's analysis synthesizes (on page 5) the well known IPC scale with the classification of Gaza's population in accordance with that scale (I've added that data here). In fact, the appendix claims "in the catastrophe phase of food insecurity the crude death rate rises to at least 2 deaths per 10,000 people per day, and in the emergency phase the crude death rate rises to 1-2 deaths per 10,000 people per day". But the IPC report instead states "It is likely that these extreme levels of malnutrition have not yet translated into 2/10,000/day Crude Death Rate" (page 27). And a later report (page 19) attempted to measure the crude death rate, but it came out to be 0.55 deaths 10,000 per day. Now certainly FEWS NET cautions (page 12) that this data is not very transparent (methods weren't published, data wasn't disaggregated by governorate) nor will gathering such data from a constantly displaced population be reliable.

I think all of these sources should be presented at Gaza famine, where this material will be more WP:DUE.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 01:30, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

@Selfstudier, Cdjp1, Levivich, and Kashmiri: I am likely unqualified to properly evaluate this information. What do you think should be done here? David A (talk) 15:29, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I think for purposes of this article, there have been a number of RSes publishing estimates of indirect deaths, and these should be summarized in the body, probably expressed as a range (between X and Y indirect deaths) or possibly a multiple (3x or 6x direct deaths or whatever is supported by the RS), and the summaries included in the lead and maybe the infobox here, with more detailed discussions (individually cataloguing the estimates, with attribution) in sub-articles (like the famine one). Alternatively, maybe we should attribute specific estimates in the body of this article and summarize in the lead. But these seem to me to be the reasonable options for proceeding. Levivich (talk) 17:23, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

As per other editors, I also believe the numbers, to some degree, warrant mention in the article (the question is whether there is the weight to attribute specific estimates and methods, or whether we provide a broader "there are likely to be many more dead currently uncounted" statement cited to the multiple studies). While I would like mention in the infobox, about the best we could hope for is an "efn"-style note with a full paragraph explainer in it, due to the current weight these studies have. And even that is likely to face immense push back from other editors.

As Levivich and VR suggested, more detailed discussion of the estimates and analyses of this and the other studies will be more appropriate for relevant related sub-articles. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 18:08, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Also as a note Kashmiri was blocked. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 18:12, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your replies. I also think that Levivich seems to have made a good suggestion above.

Also, it is very unfortunate that Kashmiri was blocked. From what I could notice, I thought that he was a constructive and knowledgeable editor. David A (talk) 20:44, 23 October 2024 (UTC)