Talk:Israel–Hamas war/Archive 34

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

The lead mentions "The total includes an unknown, but significant number of deaths from friendly fire". I believe two of the three citations listed aren't sufficient and should probably be removed.

Citation 57 does not mention friendly fire once. The only mention I could find of anything resembling that is "The Bituah Leumi data does not distinguish between those killed by Hamas and civilians killed by Israeli forces in the fighting to retake control of southern Israel, an operation in which the army used shells and rockets on inhabited areas, according to testimonies collected by AFP and Israeli media". But this doesn't make any claim at all - at least not a claim that a *significant* number of people died to friendly fire in the initial attack in Israel proper.

Citation 59, meanwhile, doesn't appear to be fit for Wikipedia. Putting aside the fact that this is an opinion piece, not news, the author by his own admission constructs an alternative to the "official story" (common phrasing for conspiracy theorists) and spends much of the article postulating a conspiracy theory that the Re'im music festival massacre was caused by Israeli troops because there is no possible way Hamas could want to kill civilians. It's worth noting this author has a track record of denying or shifting the blame for other atrocities; he has used Russian propaganda to justify the invasion of Ukraine, describing the initial invasion as being as "light a touch as possible". I don't think this citation is of much value here, and it should probably be removed in favor of the more reliable Ynetnews source. Toa Nidhiki05 14:40, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Your concern re the sourcing is well-taken, and in fact all the footnoted sources should be checked for whether they correctly represent what is in the sources, as I have found at least two instances in which the article text seriously misrepresents sources. The overarching issue is whether it belongs in the lead at all. I would say it most definitely does not. Every war has friendly fire incidents. Inclusion of this in the lead skews the POV of the lead, as well as breaching

WP:LEAD by failing to summarize the text within the body of the article in proportion to its significance within the article. Friendly fire incidents receive only scattered attention within the article and clearly are not significant enough in the article to warrant inclusion in the lead. Coretheapple (talk

) 15:43, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

To your point, Coretheapple, here's another issue I've found - the claim that this is the "deadliest war for children in modern times" is not backed up by either source listed. Neither source listed mentions this claim at all or lists actual numbers. This claim is not only vague, it seems inaccurate on the fact of it. I'm guessing the original source came from this article, but the statistics don't back it up - the wars in Syria and Afghanistan both appear to be deadlier at minimum. Pretty much every other war listed in the piece notes the actual totals are likely "far higher" due to uncertainty. This claim should probably be removed or heavily reworked Toa Nidhiki05 17:45, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

That's right. This article is shot through with POV, over-emphasis, under-emphasis, the whole "nine yards." Coretheapple (talk) 17:53, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

@Coretheapple: In which direction? Or do you mean there's a mix? I'd say it has a moderate pro-Israel skew. Starting with it being framed as Israel vs Hamas. I've seen Al Jazeera call it "Israel Hamas war" at least once in English, but I think clicking the link that said that went straight to "Israel Gaza War". Irtapil (talk) 01:54, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

These are all quite ghastly calculations, to be honest. AJ is probably right that if we measure children killed per day this conflict would be worse than the other major conflicts in the last 10 years. However this begs the question why we use this particular definition. In Yemen, according to the same organization (Save the Children) 85,000 children under the age of five starved to death in 2015-2018 which is one order of magnitude more that the current Gaza war. Alaexis_¿question? 19:47, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Its also 3 years to 9 weeks. nableezy - 19:51, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

That's right. I hope it ends much sooner...

My point was that it's always possible to craft a definition according to which a given conflict would be the worst - one can choose the time frame, the subgroup of victims, geographical area, etc. The casualty numbers are already displayed very prominently in the lede and in the infobox. Alaexis_¿question? 07:20, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

The point on the 10x more killed in a conflict that is a. widely acknowledged to among the most brutal targeting of a civilian population in modern times, while b. being 17x times longer is not the point I think youre making. That Israel has killed kids at nearly 2x the rate that Syria did is not really proving your point here. nableezy - 21:09, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, people keep saying "but you ignored Yemen" as if ignoring Yemen was fine. I'm not sure why that got so ignored? Saudi absolute monarchy seems like a lost cause on human rights? Palestine does get more attention than a lot of others, but the problem is the others we ignore, not Palestine getting too much outcry. Irtapil (talk) 01:59, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Because Yemen was going for about 8 years, the thing about Gaza is the SPEED of Death (a search "speed of death" might get some sources). People take 3 months to starve to death Yoav Gallant cut off Gaza's for supply about and a half months ago, that bit hasn't started yet, it's looming. In terms of kids killed it's been 200 October 7s in under 100 days. Irtapil (talk) 23:19, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Its worth noting that that sentence was removed per this edit request but had to be self-reverted due to an AE report. Justanotherguy54 (talk) 17:54, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree, this sentence should be removed, per the rationale in that request and these comments. Andre🚐 21:26, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

That's not an unreliable citation? That's a misquoted citation? Irtapil (talk) 15:35, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

In the section about Hamas motivations it has a bit with an unreliable source tag. I don't think it is an unreliable source but it does not actually fully support what is said. It quotes

I've added another source which explicitly says that the long-term goal is the liberation of the whole Palestine. Alaexis_¿question? 21:08, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

One of the most notable aspects of this topic is the relative "scale of the destruction", which now seems to rank alongside some of the most destructive encounters in the last hundred years of warfare. This is now being reported by all major quality RS, including the Washington Post, Wall Street Journal and CBC, to name a few. They quote some interesting analysis and facts. However, this article does not yet have a section on the unique "scale of destruction", and is silent about it in the lede. Aszx5000 (talk) 01:16, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree Parham wiki (talk) 05:30, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree This is Dresden/Hiroshima-tier destruction and warrants extensive discussion in the article. This is not just your typical old Middle East war. JDiala (talk) 05:55, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

I think this should be added to the Humanitarian impact section. Alaexis_¿question? 08:45, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

I think this might need a section of its own, as it is (sadly) becoming the most notable aspect of this conflict, and this aspect will likely be revisited many times in the future (as it was in the Bombing of Dresden). Aszx5000 (talk) 12:35, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

According to this Financial Times analysis, the damage to Northern Gaza already exceeded the damage wrought on Dresden during WWII by December 5, and was approaching the level of destruction seen in Hamburg. Almost a month later, I can't even begin to imagine what it's like. WillowCity^(talk) 15:22, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Sadly this issue will become the most notable aspect of this conflict (by some margin). I think we need to start creating a proper section on it, and include it in the lede. Even Scientific American has done a piece on the technology being used to estimate the scale of destruction, and The Guardian have expanded it into the academic concept of 'domocide'. It is grim stuff, but I suspect will be the most important aspect of this article in the years to come. Aszx5000 (talk) 17:03, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

I've added

a subsection under "humanitarian impact" based on the sources above. Obviously I'd welcome revisions and additions; perhaps this could warrant its own section, since, as noted, this is a particularly exceptional feature of this conflict. WillowCity^(talk)

22:59, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

The literal interpretation of the word impact is giving trauma. Suggest cost, and offer to expand to the literal there as well, as Rosemarie Esber might begin. No Falasteen editor means Falasteen diaspora exposition. Unless I'm missing some friend I haven't met yet. Thank you for your hard work. ClaudeReigns (talk) 22:48, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

That is a good section. I have updated the lede for this, as I think the record breaking scale of destruction is agreeably becoming the most notable aspect of this conflict. Aszx5000 (talk) 12:28, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

(1)The 40,000 has been bandied about for three months. The Reuters source used for it is extremely dated and reflects a guess that clearly overstated the figures for militants (the figure nowhere clarifies whether by militant we are to understand (a) someone on Hamas's payroll in the service sectors or people who are party members for any number of reasons, from (b) soldiers (they are soldiers, like it or not) whose primary function is within Hamas's military structures. Daniel Byman gives us a figure for (b) of approximately 25,000, and this comes from a major analyst of the area after extensive consultations with senior Israeli security experts as part of an investigation undertaken by the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

Israel seeks to destroy Hamas, killing its leaders and much of its military rank and file. Of the roughly 25,000-strong Hamas force that existed before Israel invaded Gaza, Israel claims to have killed around 7,000 cadres as of mid-December, including many key operational leaders.Daniel Byman, A Future Look Back at Israel’s War on Hamas Foreign Policy 26 December 2023

Those who prefer the exaggerated upper figure because second-rate mainstream sources endlessly repeat it should at least add 25,000 as the lower in deference to what informed scholarship and detached experts in Israel consider to be the more realistic figure. I'd do it myself but, strangely, the infobox appears locked in and untouchable Nishidani (talk) 00:30, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

A shame. I don't share consensus for it. There's no tactical basis for it. There's no accounting. Nameless numbers. Even the Gaza Health Ministry can do better. Psychologically we can't process more than about 10 meaningful deaths so there's at least one reason we shouldn't have one beyond no consensus. It is better, more user-accessible and succinct to describe it visually. Let's demonstrate we know how stuff works. ClaudeReigns (talk) 02:44, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

 Done. Alaexis_¿question? 22:17, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

(2)The displaced Israelis figure goes back to just after the first week in October. The number of Israelis displaced as of mid-late December is around 250,000 (based on Israeli statistics) as Byman again notes.

A total of 250,000 Israelis are now living away from home, either in hotels paid for by the government or with family.

Statistics should not be historical relics but uptodate.Nishidani (talk) 00:38, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

@Nishidani I think the Kibbutzim moved back. There was a video of Nir Oz getting shelled on times of Israel website. Unless that was years old? But the north seems to have cleared out? If that including Haifa? Irtapil (talk) 01:11, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Kibbutzim don't move, kibbutzniks do. Nishidani (talk) 01:50, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

The question is whether we should include the maximum number of evacuees or the latest number. Both approaches are legitimate. Alaexis_¿question? 22:19, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

I already answered that. An estimated 500,000 moved in the first week. Thereafter the figure is stabilized at 250,000. There were no evacuees in Gaza at the outset, and the number has skyrocketed to almost 90% of the population. 65,000 Gazan homes have been obliterated, that is about 13,000 more in three months than Israel demolished after it began the occupation (1967-2023), on the grounds that Palestinian homes don't have an Israeli building permit (which are almost never given, on application), some 4,000 have been scheduled for bulldozing at the owners' expense in the West Bank since October. How many Israeli homes have been razed, in these 3 months or in the last 56 years? A handful. Nishidani (talk) 00:25, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

I would suggest the maximal; it wouldn’t give readers a useful long-term view of this war if once everything is over an people have rebuilt we say 0 people were displaced on either side.

As a side note, should we include the Israel’s who have fled overseas as externally displaced? BilledMammal (talk) 02:51, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

I've assumed 40000 as an upper limit for all militants as there seemed to be other forces working with Hamas. I agree 25000 for Hamas seems to be as reliable as we'll get. Not sure what Israel counts in their figures, it looks like they consider the whole civil administration as Hamas militants. NadVolum (talk) 11:58, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

The 40,000 figure is always with the understanding that this includes all militant groups (Islamic Jihad etc), not just Hamas. (And of course, this is as of 10/6, and no longer accurate, obviously.) Drsruli (talk) 17:05, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

"The Associated Press wrote that Palestinians are "in despair over a never-ending occupation in the West Bank and suffocating blockade of Gaza." Several human rights organizations, including Amnesty International, B'Tselem and Human Rights Watch have likened the Israeli occupation to apartheid, although supporters of Israel dispute this characterization. The UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) reported roughly 6,400 Palestinians and 300 Israelis were killed in the wider Israeli–Palestinian conflict from 2008 through September 2023 before the start of this war."

Should this not shift to Humanitarian Crisis and not under the Israeli Policy section? Chavmen (talk) 12:15, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

I think it should be left as is. The paragraph has to do with the background to the war (i.e., the broader historical context), not the humanitarian impact as a consequence of the war. So it is appropriate for the background section. Since the occupation and the apartheid are Israeli policies, the this would be most appropriate for the Israeli policy heading. JDiala (talk) 12:31, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

@Chavmen

Is there somewhere else it would fit better? Irtapil (talk) 16:16, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

@Chavmen Sorry I didn't see the other bit of the message. It doesn't belong in humanitarian crisis because that's the current situation. That's more about the situation before the conflict escalated. Irtapil (talk) 16:19, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Okay thanks. I see what you are saying. It just isn't "technically" Israeli policy so seems out of place. It definitely needs to be in background but wanted to see if others thought somewhere more appropriate in this section. Chavmen (talk) 22:20, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Hey, I just noticed it has been moved up to be the first paragraph under Israeli policy - and this now definitely doesn't suit. Would be more fitting in the "escalation" section.

The paragraph is commentary and not specific to Israeli policy. Even in the first sentence:

"Numerous commentators have identified the broader context of Israeli occupation as a cause of the war." It then goes on to an AP article and various human rights organisations weighing in on occupation and apartheid.

It isn't specific to Israeli policy per se and we should be differentiating between policy and commentary. Chavmen (talk) 22:30, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

After reading the background several times now, the 1st paragraph under Israeli policy would be more suitable as the last paragraph (or integrated into the last paragraph) of the Background section. It does not belong under Israeli policy. Happy to do this if @JDiala and @Irtapil agree. Chavmen (talk) 01:01, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

The occupation is clearly Israeli policy. I'm not sure I follow the distinction you're trying to make. JDiala (talk) 06:19, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Well, it technically may be but Israeli officials deny occupation and deny illegality and condemn the UN and other organisations for saying so.

So this is my point - Israeli officials do not admit this being policy per se and this section is titled "Israeli policy". Hence, the paragraph needs to be moved either up to the background section or down to the escalation section.

I think the background section is more suitable.

[1][2][3] Chavmen (talk) 09:11, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Also here [4] Chavmen (talk) 09:16, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure the fact that Israelis deny it is particularly relevant. We go by what

WP:RS say in determining what Israeli policy actually is, not what the Israeli government says which is obviously biased. JDiala (talk

) 13:00, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Got to agree with that. We can refer to what Israel say as "Israel's declared policy". NadVolum (talk)

Next step: Adding "genocide" to the "Israeli Policy" section?

You cannot just add something to a section just because you think it

WP:CLEARLY belongs there, based on your own opinions. You need sources that call it policy. --Hob Gadling (talk

) 20:01, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Sources abound below as to the disposition of Israeli officials and how it is seen internationally. ClaudeReigns (talk) 23:27, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Do those unnamed sources explicitly call it "policy"? --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:44, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

@JDiala, you also moved the paragraph in question to the top of the Israeli policy section without consensus here in Talk. At the very least we should start with declared Israeli policy. This would then follow the format of Hamas motivations - starting with Hamas stated motivations then commentary. Chavmen (talk) 21:53, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

@Chavmen Sure, I can accept your argument regarding the paragraph placement. The edit has since been reverted. JDiala (talk) 22:06, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Awesome! Chavmen (talk) 23:12, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

The giant footnote in the belligerents says "Jenin Battalion" are Al-Aqsa Martyrs, but the only "Jenin Battalionn I have ever heard of are PIJ, a division of Saraya Al-Quds (Al-Quds Brigades). But it is plausible that both groups have a battalion in Jenin or that it is a combined group, so I wanted to check before changing it? Irtapil (talk) 09:50, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Lions' Den (militant group) is another possibility which is linked but not exclusively PIJ. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 12:10, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

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

I saw this request recently posted at RPP Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#2023 Israel–Hamas war by @22090912l: and decided I should be reposted here for a response.

"In the "Casualties" section, change:

"The Financial Times reported that how Palestinian families would have multiple generations living in a single multistory building has had the effect of those families being nearly completely wiped out by airstrikes."

to

"The Financial Times reported that multiple Palestinian families have been nearly completely wiped out by airstrikes as a result of those families living closely packed together in multistory buildings."

because this version is easier to understand."

I placed the brs and indents above, but the text is from the original request.

I am not expressing an opinion on the edit, just posting it here for discussion.  // Timothy :: talk  22:51, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

 Not done. The grammar in the sentence needs improving (from "that how" to just "how"), but the suggestion is not an improvement as it omits the "multiple generations" part which is the most notable aspect. Aszx5000 (talk) 19:21, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

The war is clearly not concluded: should the page now be renamed 2023-2024 Israel–Hamas war? Dsp13 (talk) 16:09, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

@

Talk:2023_Israel–Hamas_war#Close_this_RM_and_create_a_new_section ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk

) 17:16, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

"As of 3 December 2023, according to the Gaza Health Ministry, more than 15,500 Palestinians, including over 6,000 children as of 23 November 2023, have been killed, making this the deadliest wars for children in modern times." Gaza Health Ministry is run Hamas, and these numbers are likely greatly exaggerated, and were disputed by the United States.[5] Describing this war as "deadliest wars for children in modern times" in the lede with unreliable Hamas source goes against neutrality. Crampcomes (talk) 20:01, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

If "Hamas source goes against neutrality" then we should go through and delete every claim made by the IDF or Israeli government? Obviously that would be somewhat nuts, but we should be equally skeptical of both sides (not sure if that's supposed to have a K, the Latin alphabet is my nemesis). Irtapil (talk) 04:08, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

That is very old news from Fox, the US has since essentially admitted the numbers provided by the MoH are likely accurate or an undercount. This has been repeatedly discussed, and the bit on deadliest war for children comes from the UN, not any Gazan agency. nableezy - 20:06, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Current figure according to Hamas: 20000 killed, while according to Israel only 10000 civilians killed.[6] Since the total number of casualties is disputed, we can't make such strong statements such as "deadliest wars for children in modern times" in the lede with unreliable Hamas source which were copy/pasted by UN. Crampcomes (talk) 20:22, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

And Israel has previously said 20k dead in Gaza (and that was back in early November). Israel's propaganda can be noted, but sources treat the numbers from the MoH as reliable, and the UN statement on deadliest for children is independent. And previously discussed here for that matter. And oh by the way, the number from the MoH is 15,889 from your own source. The 20k includes the people that haven't been rescued from collapsed buildings. nableezy - 20:26, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

What you cited is an unreliable blog post. Israeli official estimate is reliable because it's a government source, while Hamas is a terrorist genocidal organization that recently committed mass crimes per many sources. Nonetheless since the number is disputed, for the sake of neutrality, we can't make such strong statements in the lede until it's fully verified. Crampcomes (talk) 20:39, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

The Israeli government and the Hamas government are BOTH government sources (though one was about a decade over due for an election). One is currently committing a genocide, the other has speculated possible genocidal aspirations (the one currently committing genocide is the one who cut off the food supply to over 2 million people). We should not take either side at face value, but there are at least two reports in the Lancet that say the Gaza MOH data is not fabricated OS exaggerated. Irtapil (talk) 04:08, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Uh, thats Ynet, one of Israel's leading news sources. Cool story on your personal analysis, but this isnt your blog so it doesnt really count for anything here. And the material in the lead has been verified, you just think that means something that it does not. But it is a verifiable statement that the MoH in Gaza has given that as its count of dead. nableezy - 20:44, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Even Ynet is very "tabloid" - I will consider taking your claim seriously if you can support it with Haaretz or Times of Israel? But there's two Lancet papers that back up Gaza stats. Irtapil (talk) 04:08, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

That blog post basically quoted a "security guard," not an official government statement. Crampcomes (talk) 20:49, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

it isnt a blog, and it quotes a senior security official, not a security guard. Not sure why you are just making things up for no apparent reason but cool I guess. nableezy - 21:07, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Israeli official estimate is reliable because it's a government source, Sorry, but that is one strange statement. Gov't sources are not reliable in a war. Look at the gross exaggerations by the US gov't during the Vietnam War. Governments and militaries lie. Militaries even lie to their own governments. OTOH, the Gaza Health Ministry is a civil service group and generally considered reliable. You should self-revert your Hamas-run change. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:13, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Any Al-Qassam stats I regard as fiction until proven otherwise. Though they do this weird "not lying" thing of making deliberately ambiguous claims. Irtapil (talk) 04:51, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

BBC clearly says "Hamas-run Gaza health ministry" [7] as do many other reliable sources[8][9] Crampcomes (talk) 21:23, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Hamas are a political party and the de facto government of Gaza. Hamas's militant wing is the Al-Qassam Battalion. I do not trust Al-Qassam stats, or IDF stats, those are fiction until proven otherwise. But both health systems are the most reliable sources available for those populations, they're not perfect, but they're better than any other. (There's a messy schism within Palestine. Hamas won the parliamentary election for the whole country, but somehow the Fatah president ended up controlling the West Bank, and I'm not sure who decided the Pal Authority should be running anything? The Pal Authority seem to be Israel's idea? which does not seem very legitimate? but on a good day they seem to function as a peacekeeping force, like when they arrested the October 17 assassins in 2001?) But - whatever the explanation is for Hamas not being the government of the West Bank - their ministry of health isn't just pulling numbers out of thin air, they are providing the names and identity details of >20,000 real people. And independent people who have looked at it say it looks like real data, including those two papers I read in The Lancet, and family members of the real people who have died, including family and friends overseas. Irtapil (talk) 04:51, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Do you mean to question the UN comment on the deadliest war for the children by this? --Mhhossein ^talk 21:32, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with any UN comment. Crampcomes (talk) 21:35, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Reverted. This has been discussed to death already here and on other pages. Gaza MoH is considered reliable. Selfstudier (talk) 23:02, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Gaza Health Ministry is considered reliable by whom? It is known to be run by Hamas which is considered a terrorist organization in the West. Homerethegreat (talk) 12:07, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

By multiple RS, follow the link. Was also discussed at other pages. Do keep up, to help, here are some sources:

WAPO OC 24: "Why news outlets and the U.N. rely on Gaza’s Health Ministry for death tolls" "Many experts consider figures provided by the ministry reliable, given its access, sources and accuracy in past statements."

Reuters 27 Oct "Despite Biden's doubts, humanitarian agencies consider Gaza toll reliable

AP 26 Oct "EXPLAINER: What is Gaza's Ministry of Health and how does it calculate the war's death toll?" "The United Nations and other international institutions and experts, as well as Palestinian authorities in the West Bank — rivals of Hamas — say the Gaza ministry has long made a good-faith effort to account for the dead under the most difficult conditions."The numbers may not be perfectly accurate on a minute-to-minute basis," said Michael Ryan, of the World Health Organization’s Health Emergencies Program. "But they largely reflect the level of death and injury." In previous wars, the ministry’s counts have held up to U.N. scrutiny, independent investigations and even Israel’s tallies."

Time 26 Oct"News outlets and international organizations and agencies have long relied on Israeli and Palestinian government sources for casualty figures. While they do so partly because they are unable to independently verify these figures themselves, it’s also because these statistics have proven accurate in the past."

Gdn 27 Oct "Can we trust casualty figures from the Hamas-run Gaza health ministry? "Israel and Joe Biden have shown scepticism about accuracy of rising death toll but others point to historical reliability of data"

Can we trust casualty figures from the Hamas-run Gaza health ministry? discusses the MoH methodology and goes into more details than others (e.g., immediately reported numbers are less reliable)

BBC: World Health Organization (WHO) regional emergency director Richard Brennan, based in Cairo, said last week he believed the figures provided by the health ministry were trustworthy. "We're confident that the information management systems that the ministry of health has put in place over the years stand up to analysis," he said, adding "the data over the years has been quite solid".

Die Zeit: English translation: The World Health Organization, like many other organizations, trusts the figures. "We have had good experiences with the Ministry of Health in the past, for example with vaccination campaigns. We see no reason to fundamentally doubt the numbers of wounded, dead and sick. And the question for all of us is: would we have a different discussion if there were 100 or 200 fewer deaths? I don't think so," says Lindmeier.

WSJ, 11/10: U.S. Officials Have Growing Confidence in Death Toll Reports From Gaza

Selfstudier (talk) 12:48, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

@Selfstudier:

Some of those should possibly be added to the tl|{{}} Irtapil (talk) 21:26, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

But the fact remains that more children died in the Syrian Civil war... I honestly do not think its appropriate to start comparing deadliness in the tragedy of war. But we must remain encyclopedic. (By mid-March 2022, opposition activist group the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR) reported the number of children killed in the conflict had risen to 25,546, and that 15,437 women had also been killed) [10] Homerethegreat (talk) 10:24, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

You're right it is disputed. And I'm pretty sure the Syrian Civil War has been deadlier, also according to the Al Jazeera source the Syrian Civil war had more casualties. Although I do not like the notion of starting to compare the deadliness of war we should not have in the page info that is unsourced. Homerethegreat (talk) 12:06, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Guterres "graveyard for children" was removed on the thesis that a quote was inappropriate in the lead so it was replaced with RS prose instead. Sourcing such statements is not difficult, for example

NYT "In less than two months, more than twice as many women and children have been reported killed in Gaza than in Ukraine after two years of war." or "experts say that even a conservative reading of the casualty figures reported from Gaza show that the pace of death during Israel’s campaign has few precedents in this century."

The rate of killing in this conflict is notable and commented on in many sources. Selfstudier (talk) 12:27, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

"has few precedents in this century" - you can write, one of the deadliest. But you cannot write the deadliest since it is not fact. In the Syrian Civil war more children died. I do not like this notion of comparing the deadliness of war but we must remain encyclopedic and act according to sources. Homerethegreat (talk) 10:25, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

My dude, I have seen the satellite maps. We definitely have a basis not only to assess the tactical situation but also the reliability of sources. ClaudeReigns (talk) 08:29, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't trust the people who killed them. I trust both health systems and neither military.

The IDF are also under reporting t own wounded, Israeli hospitals report at least triple.

own Irtapil (talk) 03:50, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

@nableezy, if the numbers have been independently assessed as accurate by a third party, then that source should be cited within the article. The sources as the stand (CBS News and Aljazeera) don't actually provide the source/references for the information within their reporting other than "according to the Ministry of Health in Gaza". It is not sure where or whom from the MoH in Gaza provided that number nor whether it is reliable. We need to use better sources or change the wording to be definitive. Aeonx (talk) 19:55, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

No, there are sources saying the MOH numbers are reliable but no source is independently assessing each update. The sources saying the MOH are reliable are enough for us to treat them as such. nableezy - 21:46, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Heh? You claimed "the US has since essentially admitted the numbers provided by the MoH are likely accurate or an undercount." from that comment I can only assume there has been some sort of secondary assessment, either by the US or another 3rd party, as to the Gaza MoH numbers. All I'm asking you to do is reference your comment using a suitable source in the article. At present the article references merely references news reporting which claims to reference Gaza MoH but doesn't actually provide a Gaza MoH source or reference. Whether you think/believe the Gaza MoH is reliable or not is irrelevant because it is NOT the cited source in the article. Let's get it fixed. Aeonx (talk) 10:45, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes they said that the MOH numbers are accurate but they are not under signing every update. It isn’t about what I think, it’s about what the sources think and they say the numbers are accurate. nableezy - 12:45, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

@

Disputed until such time there are reliable sources to verify the numbers given are indeed from reliable MoH sources or are otherwise assessed as reliable - both incrementally, and in terms of a detailed breakdown. There is no cited source I can see in the article that does that. At present we have neither reliable cited sources as needed, and I can only agree with @. Crampcomes on this one. There are also locally-based assessments which dispute the numbers, for example: JCPA . Aeonx (talk

) 06:17, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

@Aeonx: This article by PBS, a reputed source, has pretty much answered your doubt with the Gazan Ministry of Health. The United Nations and other international institutions and experts, as well as Palestinian authorities in the West Bank — rivals of Hamas — say the Gaza ministry has long made a good-faith effort to account for the dead under the most difficult conditions. You're not convincing us with a neo-conservative think tank/pro-Israel advocacy group source like the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs (JCPA). -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 07:03, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

You seem to be suggesting a source is unreliable because it's opined to be Israeli neo-conservative. That reeks of bias. As for the PBS claim, it's not referenced in the article nor does it provide an assessment of the incremental numbers. Or the breakdown of civilians/militants. So no, it doesn't answer my doubt. The Wikipedia article is quoting numbers as reliable fact that for all we, the UN agencies, and PBS actually know could simply be Hamas propaganda numbers. The Wikipedia article should at least state that the numbers are claimed, not verified. Aeonx (talk) 18:20, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

That isn’t what the sources say and you cannot use your opinion in place of the sources. And here is The Lancet saying that the MOH numbers are reliable. Here are the Israelis saying the numbers are accurate. That you don’t believe the numbers is your own problem, one that this article need not take seriously. nableezy - 18:36, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Again, NONE of the sources you provide ascertain that the breakdown of deaths in terms of Hamas reporting of civilian deaths vs militant deaths are accurate. None. Zilch. Nada.

The issue isn't the total number of deaths but the breakdown. Hamas claims they are civilian deaths, Israel claims they are Terrorists/Militants.

Where is the reliable source that verifies they are civilian deaths and not militant deaths? Aeonx (talk) 09:04, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

The ministry of health has claimed no such thing, that objection appears to be entirely made up. They have reported women and children but have not claimed any civilian vs militant breakdown. And neither does the article. That little goalpost shifting attempt now is interesting but has nothing to do with what the article or the sources say. Think we’re done here now. nableezy - 12:48, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Are you trying to tell me women and children can not be militants / terrorists? It's well known that Hamas recruits children to fight, unsurprising given Gaza has one of the youngest populations in the world. Aeonx (talk) 09:56, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

According to past discussions on

WP:RSP[11], JCPA is generally unreliable. If you think JCPA's credibility or claims can rival those of UN or Lancet, please gain acceptance on WP:RSP first, which is almost a guaranteed failure. Other than that, there is not much can be said, so please drop the stick and move on. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.

) 23:54, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Cool story, but you missed the point. I'm not disputing the TOTAL numbers are inaccurate. I'm merely stating there appears to dispute publically over whether the civilian death numbers are accurate as civilian deaths instead of militant / terrorist deaths. This isn't an argument for me to claim one source is better than another, just an argument over what sources ACTUALLY say, and how they sources are presented within the article. Aeonx (talk) 09:07, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Your argument concerning civilian/militant casualties has little to no relevance to the credibility of Gaza MoH. According to the Associated Press, Gaza MoH never distinguishes between civilians and combatants.[12] Wikipedia relies on information from credible sources, and in this instance, the UN backs Gaza MoH as impartial and non-propagandist. If you cannot present another reliable source regarding the civilian-to-terrorist casualty ratio, this debate is essentially concluded. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 10:25, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

I support this argument. Numbers, if the only source is Gaza Health, should disclose that. But the preference should be for the assessments of actual news organizations and first hand reporters. MatthewDalhousie (talk) 06:31, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

The Lancet Irtapil (talk) 04:55, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

There is more to that. There are Casualties numbers in Infobox and they are not attributed. There should be an attribution at who is the source for the number is. Manyareasexpert (talk) 00:36, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

they're sourced directly, aren't they? EvergreenFir (talk) 00:49, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

They are sourced and they also should be attributed. Manyareasexpert (talk) 01:04, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

why?

WP:YESPOV EvergreenFir (talk)

01:16, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

As a reader, I want to know which side reports the number. Manyareasexpert (talk) 01:24, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

There are links. You can't expect all this detail in an infobox. Not its purpose. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:41, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Let's take one. "Number of UN staff killed in the Gaza Strip rises to 79". What side is this? Attribution is one of basics of WP:NPOV. I don't want all the details. "Source: Israel" or "Source: HAMAS" or "Source: UN" would be enough. Manyareasexpert (talk) 01:47, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at [13] O3000, Ret. (talk) 02:10, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

That's exactly why when you click the citation it takes you to the reference list for you to see who said it EvergreenFir (talk) 03:07, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

There are very good recent reports I've seen in

Times of Israel and France 24 with detailed stats for Israeli side, they're in some of my 3000 open tabs… someone else will probably be able to find them before i do. Irtapil (talk

) 00:37, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

According to the NYTimes, Israeli sources estimate ~15,000 dead in Gaza, with at least 5,000 of them being combatants. Its not an official attribution, but if its more widely reported can put a stop to this conversation. [1] TimeEngineer (talk) 13:48, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

They said more than that, they said that the Gazan MoH numbers are roughly accurate according to Israel too. On Monday, a senior Israeli military official, speaking on condition of anonymity under army rules, told reporters that the Gazan ministry’s estimate of 15,000 total deaths was roughly accurate but that at least 5,000 people killed in Gaza were combatants, rather than civilians. nableezy - 13:53, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Reuters today latest on this, confirms historical reliability of Palestinian figures as well as the likelihood that the actual death toll is actually higher than reported. Selfstudier (talk) 13:16, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Hamas is supposedly concurrently running a campaign of misinformation since this war started, see this report by the Center for Strategic and International Studies: Social Media Platforms Were Not Ready for Hamas Misinformation. According to some reports, Hamas's misinformation has been parroted by some media, see these for example: Media are still promoting Hamas’ cynical lies, and Why Hamas is an Unreliable Source and How Many Reporters Fail to Disclose This Crampcomes (talk) 21:59, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

That stuff can go in

Misinformation in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war Selfstudier (talk

) 11:09, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

I ask for reliability evaluation of the 3 sources provided by Crampcomes, namely "Center for Strategic and International Studies", "The Jewish Star" and " InvestigativeProject.org". -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 11:32, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

InvestigativeProject is an anti-Muslim hate site and not a usable source. The Jewish Star article is a partisan opinion piece in a minor newspaper, not very valuable. CSIS is a US think tank (meaning, an undisclosed lobbying organisation for U.S. weapons manufacturers) but their article appears factual. DFlhb (talk) 12:03, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

The CSIS paper also has nothing to do with casualty figures or the ministry of Health. nableezy - 16:18, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Can you guys join my talk section “ Subject on moving first paragraph lead sentence to second paragraph” as there is no one joining in Bobisland (talk) 11:29, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

CSIS is a USA think tank with links to the USA military. If you don't trust "Hamas run MOH" you sure as heck shouldn't trust that, that's more like an "Al-Qassam Brigades funded Think Tank". I think the CSIS does some interesting work, but I try to view it a bit sceptically. Irtapil (talk) 22:01, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

I believe the 15,000 but the 5,000 seems unlikely. I wouldn't trust it unless the numbers of male and female adult civilians are comparable.

The IDF are claiming 8000 but in the stats I've seen, the excess of men vs women is only about 2000.

Which pro Palestinian biased sources attribute to large numbers of men and boys doing the very dangerous job of digging people out of the rubble by hand. News footage confirms the job is pretty much 100% men and boys, but i think plausibly a lot of the excess is combatants.

So, That still leaves 6000 that one of the the military sides is lying about, either

.

1 the IDF lying about 6000 civilian men, or 2. Gazan militant groups are hiding most of their dead.

I think #2 is much more plausible than Gaza faking 15,000+ civilian deaths (of real people with names and relatives, including an usually large number of relatives in foreign countries).

But if anyone is lying about thousands of deaths, it's the most likely to be IDF lying about thousands of civilian men and teenage boys who they have killed. The USA tries the "military age male" lie contently.

I'm sightly proud that in Australia we seem to chase our own war criminals before anyone else dies, but that's another story.<

Irtapil (talk) 22:21, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Honnestly, the Gaza MOH statsl look much more like an UNDER count.

The under counting started on 27 October. You can see it "hit a ceiling" at the same time that the deaths per thousand state for UN workers overtakes it (in a Lancet paper that i need to make some sort of reference template for).

And additional to that, on the REMOTE possibility that the IDF isn't lying about 8000 dead militants, that's at least an additional 6000 that Al-Qassam are either hiding from Gaza MOH or pressuring Gaza MOH not to report.

Because the 8000 figure would be every adult male in the Gaza MOH stats, when only 40,000 of the half a million men in Gaza are Hamas Militants.

The IDF somehow managing to kill 16,000 women and children, but ZERO adult male civilians is more nonsensical than Russia's COVID death statistics (equal max of 799 deaths per day 4 times in the same month).

The most likely explanation is that the IDF has decided there's suddenly 10 times more blokes in Hamas's military than there were a few months ago? And, while the IDF are currently doing their best to boost Al-Qassam recruitment ("the IDF killed my family" is the most common reason to join) I really don't think they've managed 100% do you?

So, either

1. 1 the IDF is reporting almost all of the >6000 civilian men they've killed as a militants
2. 2 Al-Qassam are hiding 6000 militant deaths
3. 3 or IDF bombs have a magic ability to avoid civilians, but only if they're adult men?

I think it's probably 1, but i wouldn't rule out 2. War deaths are far easier to hide than fabricate.

The Gaza MOH aren't just pulling numbers out of the air.

The 20,000 deaths are real people with names, dates of birth, and Israeli ID numbers, they have relatives and friends. If you tried to fake the deaths of 20,000 real people, somebody would notice very soon.

Irtapil (talk) 21:55, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

The UN estimates have often squared up with IDF estimates, in the medium term. This Associated Press article shows that, with regards to the war in this region ten years ago, Israel’s Foreign Ministry reported 2,125 Palestinians killed, the same as the UN reported, and only a bit lower than Gaza's ministry of health estimated it to be, at 2,310. The vast disagreement is over how many of those people were legitimate combatants. I recommend we go off the UN numbers. And are open about the dispute whether all or some or most of those people were considered combatants.

MatthewDalhousie (talk) 22:16, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Most developed nations have a national health care system. We wouldn't call the Israel national health care system "IDF-run" or "Likud-run." If anything, the Gaza Health Ministry is less run by Hamas than Israel's is run by the government because Gaza's healthcare system isn't very well developed due to the occupation. Catboy69 (talk) 15:51, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

I have moved the casualty figures of Gaza Strip from

I'm afraid their total figure is altogether possible though I think their number for women killed is probably much too low and their number for children is probably a bit high. The real problem though is the figures from the Gaza Health Ministry are well documented though much too low now, whereas these figures don't have anywhere such a solid basis. Perhaps we could give both figures? NadVolum (talk) 17:10, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

I believe E-MHRM is including the missing as killed, the GHM had said that 70% of the missing were women or children, so the figures are fairly close to one another. Ecrusized (talk) 17:46, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

That actually sounds right, pessimistic, but probably close to true. Where are you getting this though, can you give an exact link?

I've been wondering for a while

Irtapil (talk) 05:30, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Then I would list Gaza MOH, and give it as a minium? Specify it includes only identified dead and there are periods where reporting was interrupted.

Also including both the Lancet articles that show the data is not an over estimate "No evidence of inflation…" and the identification details being provided appear to be real data "No evidence of fabrication…" I think I've already linked them? But I misspoke and said they were October when at least one was more recent. Sorry, I'm having a lot of trouble following the conversations on a small screen.

The UN is sort of authoritative, but I think they just pass on national stats? (e.g. The WHO is still reporting so covid deaths in DPRK and Turkmenistan.)

Irtapil (talk) 03:47, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

But why would they be higher? Where could they be getting date? Are they an extrapolating an estimated real number, rather than Gaza listing identicalied individuals as a minimum? Irtapil (talk) 05:27, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I would highly dispute the characterization of Euromed Monitor as more reliable than the Gazan health authorities. How has it arrived at a supposedly exact number of civilians killed when Hamas and its health ministry have been almost totally silent on the issue?

The press release doesn't say, and reliable media sources don't seem to be quoting the group - which given its liberal use of the word "genocide", is very clearly a Palestinian activist NGO and thus hardly more neutral than the health ministry, which at least has the benefit of being actually in charge of whatever is left of the hospital and morgue system.

Certainly for an infobox, whenever such an "official" figure is available we should probably tilt toward that over the claims of an NGO which can be included in the article text if appropriate.

Nevertheless if you presume the 7,000 "missing" announced by the health ministry are dead, maybe add in the 1,000 Israel says it killed on Oct. 7, then the topline figure of around 29,000 is plausible. Thus the main problem I see at the moment is the lack of reliable sources to support the exact civilian/militant breakdown, which could arguably violate NPOV. PrimaPrime (talk) 19:36, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

If EMHRM is indeed a Palestinian NGO, I had assumed that it would be more neutral than the Hamas run Gaza health ministry. A problem with the GHM tolls is that there were certain periods in the war, where they stopped updating their tally, and explained in their reports that due to the deteriorating health situation in Gaza, the toll could not be counted. Another positive the EMHRM has is that it gives an official account on the number of civilians killed, which allows the article the separate the civilian and combatant death toll. Ecrusized (talk) 19:58, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Their claimed number of civilians killed is of course anything but "official". Have you found any reliable news sources citing the claim? PrimaPrime (talk) 20:10, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

My point is, when you compare it to Hamas figures, it is probably more reliable. I don't know how reliable that monitor is, but I saw it being cited by UN OCHA. What I would like to do in the infobox is separate civilian and military tolls, because it is really unusual to count them together. Perhaps the figure of killed militants from the EMHRM could be cited as pro-Palestinian, and then we could place a the Israeli claim about the number of militants killed. Similar to the infobox of 2006 Lebanon War. Ecrusized (talk) 20:18, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it would indeed be vastly preferable to go by civilians and combatants as opposed to age, gender and especially occupation as at present. I'm sure butchers, bakers and candlestick makers have also been killed - on both sides - but that has no bearing on whether they were, at time of death, a combatant or a civilian.

There's a reason we don't list the number of Israeli women killed, and it's not just because the IDF helpfully claims all its female casualties. It's because we need to follow NPOV. PrimaPrime (talk) 20:38, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't think that EMHRM is much more reliable than Gaza Health Ministry. The head of EMHRM Ramy Abdo used to lead an organisation described as a Belgian non-profit organisation that lobbies on behalf of the Hamas-led Gaza Government. Another senior member Muhammed Shehada seems to know some Hamas leaders quite well. Alaexis_¿question? 22:50, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

@Ecrusized also, there are two separate Lancet articles saying Gaza MOH is a reliable minimum. One shows "no sign of inflation" the other "no sign of fabrication". I'll find them when I turn on my PC. Irtapil (talk) 01:15, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Don't you mean verifiability instead of NPOV? There shouldn't be a neutrality issue here. Also, I would support adding Israeli casualty details in the in line note, whether they are women or elders etc.

Would you support an infobox, similar to this? Ecrusized (talk) 20:46, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Still not sure how I feel about moving all the civilian casualties on both sides down into casualties3 at this point but this is a start. PrimaPrime (talk) 21:04, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

One way to deal with it is by adding two separate accounts divided by a long dash, with the in line note stating which account is reported by which source. I have added this on my sandbox, User:Ecrusized/sandbox. If you like it you can copy paste the entire code into the template and save. Ecrusized (talk) 21:24, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

The main problems I see there are OR/SYNTH - for example we can't list the undifferentiated Gaza health ministry total as a low "civilian" estimate. PrimaPrime (talk) 22:57, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. It does raise certain synth issues. I suppose it's best to group civilian and military tolls together for the time being then. Ecrusized (talk) 09:37, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Although, I remember the GHM tolls being cited as only including civilians, I cannot find the said source right now. This should be accurate since GHM says the 70% of all casualties are women and children. One way to deal with it would be to add the GHM toll as civilian casualties, without listing EM monitor. But then again, all of this combined creates a mess of verifiability and synthesis. Ecrusized (talk) 09:47, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

We should group them in one topline figure (from GHM) and then put the Euro-Med and IDF estimates of militant casualties in the hatnote, clearly attributed.

The focus on women, journalists etc. is problematic from a POV standpoint as it heavily implies these are civilian casualties without actually verifiable sourcing. The family of any IDF reservist with a blog could call her an independent journalist, but of course neither that fact nor her gender would make her death a civilian casualty. PrimaPrime (talk) 11:38, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

There is no verifiability dispute in writing what the Palestinian side reports as its civilians since the Israeli self reporting is also included. (And trickled down to minors, etc.) Ecrusized (talk) 14:50, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

The Palestinian side hasn't reported any count of civilians - if they did we would obviously be using it. Instead we have counts of other categories people presume to be civilians but which can include some amount of combatants, and unofficial civilian/militant casualty estimates from one of their NGOs on the high end (naturally) and the IDF on the lower end (naturally).

Providing a range with the latter two counts, as you first suggested, is most in line with WP policies and practice. It is very problematic to imply that possible non-civilians are civilians and vice versa. PrimaPrime (talk) 20:15, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

I think we are having some miscommunication here. When I said earlier that I would support adding the breakdown of Israeli civilians into children, paramedics, journalists etc. I did not mean to remove the children/women toll from the inline note of Palestinian casualties. As doing so would not be neutral (since Israeli civilian/servicemembers are separated in the inline note --- but also, the abducted Israeli children are listed in the note under captured Israeli's).

So to sum it up, and make it clear, I would support the current version. I would also support separating the military and civilian casualties for both sides, I have added an example that could be applied into to the template in my sandbox User:Ecrusized/sandbox. However, I was under the notion earlier that you did not support this because of synthesis and verifiability issues. Ecrusized (talk) 22:24, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

I must say I agree with PrimaPrime. Citing the figures given to us by the 'officals' in the war is better than citing numbers from an NGO that as far as I'm aware isn't on the ground in Gaza or Israel. Furthermore, the NGO stats leave out the 'missing' toll.

I don't think it's up to us if the number cited is 'high enough' or 'low enough', it's just to cite the number given to the public until enough reliable sources can counter or support that information.

I think it'd be best if we were to leave the infobox as it was showing just the Gaza Health Ministry toll (as it's 'official') or both and leave specifying the casualties until we have more sources when the war has ended. It's way to early to be citing NGOs and differentiating overall deaths, especially since the recording organisation is currently under siege and being carpet bombed.ThePaganUK (talk) 19:52, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

In fact Euromed itself says on its website that its count includes those classified as missing by the health ministry. PrimaPrime (talk) 20:08, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Note The E-MHRM has given a figure of total number of Gazan civilians killed, which is 26,706. With that figure, it might be better to stick with the common infobox format, where casualties1 and 2 are reserved for combatants, and casualties3 lists civilians. Only thing is, both Israeli and Palestinian injuries are including military and civilians. I'm not sure how that could be applied if civilian and military casualties are to be separated. Ecrusized (talk) 17:46, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Have added both Gaza Health Ministry toll and Euro-Med toll. Feel free to change the format of how they're laid out I admit it doesn't look the best. However I think we should have both in the infobox, especially until we can differentiate between military and civilian casualties, which will probably take a while.ThePaganUK (talk) 19:28, 28 December 2023 (UTC) (Nevermind someone edited the infobox before publishing). I still think both tolls should be in the infobox.ThePaganUK (talk) 19:30, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Where did the value of 2418 for Palestinian militants killed in that box above come from? That's not too far off the number I calculated. NadVolum (talk) 23:25, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Calculated based on what?

The number is from Euro-Med Monitor, subtracting their civilian count from their total count. PrimaPrime (talk) 00:22, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Based primarily on the number of men compared to women killed and the statistics of men killed in bombing compared to women. The composition of the population of Gaza is about 30% men, 30% women 37% children 14 or under, and 3% 60 or over and a total population of 2.2 million. The number of militants is perhaps 40 thousand including those not in Hamas, nearly all men.The first 8000 deaths when the health ministry was still operating properly were 35.3% men, 24.1% women, 33.8% children and 6.8% elderley [14]. The percentage of men who are militants would be 40/(22000*0.30) or 6%. The extra men killed to women is 11.2%, adding 6% of 30% for militants killed purely by chance this gives an absolute maximum of 13% of the casualties are militants or in 29000 that gives 3770 killed. However this does not account for women being protected better than men and in bombing type attacks civilian men are killed at least 1.3 times more often than women so we should really expect a base rate of 31.3% deaths amongst men which leads to 3% militants, perhaps with another 1.8% for pure luck that gives 1392. With and extra 1000 for the raid on 7th October that gives about 2400 total. The only way to really bump the figure up higher is to assume that a large proportion of the dead under the rubble are militants but basically I can see no way of approaching the Israeli figures. NadVolum (talk) 12:27, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

@PrimaPrime: I have a new idea on how to separate civilian/military casualties in the infobox, I have saved this on my sandbox: User:Ecrusized/sandbox. Basically, the infobox will list Palestinian and Israeli claims on the number of militants killed, and the casualties3 section will list how many Palestinians have been killed in total. Should we apply this? Ecrusized (talk) 14:24, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

The only ones doing that are the Israelis. Their figures aren't just bad estimates, they're propaganda with little relation to reality. The Palestinian figureis not in the reference cited and they don't even give what they say i the figure for civilians. I guess they can go in the text but please keep them out of an infobox. NadVolum (talk) 15:50, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm having problems with the Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor figures. Are they taking children as 18 and below rather than 14 and below like the Gaza Health Ministry does? In which case they're assuming only 25% of the population are men and 25% are women and all the 7 thousand missing would have to be men whereas others have said they're mostly women and children. It's a horrible mess and they just don't say how they arrived at them. NadVolum (talk) 16:46, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Euro-Med's figures really strain credulity. Today they increased their estimated death toll by 910 and yet somehow the number of non-civilians went down 65.

I think the current infobox with attributed claims is as good as we're going to get for a while - attempting to totally sever civilian/military casualties on the Palestinian side is a minefield of POV, verifiability and OR/SYNTH issues. PrimaPrime (talk) 21:03, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

@PrimaPrime: Where do you find their updated figures and deaths of non-civilians please? The rate of deaths for children should only be a bit higher than that for women. If by children they mean 14 and below like the Gaza Health figures then they're being killed at the rate of 1.6 to 1 compared to women according to the EMHRM figures which just can't be right. I can only make sense of them if they are counting children as 18 and below which would make them 47% of the population and women 25% of the population - which would require them to be doing some major massaging of the Gaza Health Ministry figures. NadVolum (talk) 00:11, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

[15] PrimaPrime (talk) 01:48, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Damn X, can't they find a better channel or stick it on their website. Anyway yes I'll assume children there means 18 or lower. The figure for militants from that is I think probably a bit low but at most by 2000, that could also easily be civilian men missing due to being captured or summarily killed. Anyway the figures don't seem too unbelievable though there's probably a lot of guesswork. NadVolum (talk) 11:50, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

The lead states "the Israeli military retaliated by conducting an extensive aerial bombardment campaign on Hamas targets, followed by a large-scale ground invasion of Gaza." This assumes however the Israeli narrative that only Hamas targets are being attacked (not civilian) and is thus (in my view) a

There is significant independent evidence suggesting Israel is deliberately bombing civilians. See e.g., [16] and [17].

I suggest replacing "on Hamas targets" with the more simple (and more neutral) "on Gaza." JDiala (talk) 15:54, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

 Done Parham wiki (talk) 16:13, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

The sources you presented are considered biased from what I know. +972 is known for being biased [18][19], and there is a lot of literature on bias [20],[21]. Homerethegreat (talk) 15:07, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Come on. This is ridiculous. There's a stark distinction between providing material and logistic support and being actively engaged in hostilities. JDiala (talk) 12:59, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

What exactly are you referring to? NadVolum (talk) 13:17, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

The infobox. JDiala (talk) 13:18, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

I've removed it, in line with the lack of consensus at

Talk:2023 Israel–Hamas_war#RfC - Infobox Adding Belligerents. BilledMammal (talk

) 13:22, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree that the US should not be listed as a belligerent (in the same way that the US, UK, and Europe are not listed in the Russian invasion of Ukraine), however, I think there is a reasonable amount of RS now in US special forces in Gaza looking for hostages (Times of Israel, New York Times), which might be worth mentioning in the body text (not lede) to clarify things for readers. Aszx5000 (talk) 18:53, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Various artists collaborated for the Palestinian Children's Relief Fund, with 25 recording artists in all contributing to the 8:31 anthem "Rajieen"(GQ Middle East)(Institute for Palestine Studies)(Ahram):

"Seeing Her Through My Eyes" by photojournalist Motaz Azaiza was one of TIME's Top 10 Photos of 2023.(Time) He was GQ Middle East's Man of the Year.(GQ Middle East)

Elana Shap of ISRAEL21c observed every Israeli war had a theme song and felt the song which best fit the bill for this war is "Molodet" (Homeland) by Hanan Ben Ari “You will always be my homeland, even on the edge of the abyss" (ISRAEL21c)

The Washington Post noted the Brian Cox reading of Refaat Alareer's "If I Must Die", composed some days before the poet was killed in an Israeli air strike.(WaPo)(Literary Hub)(Time)(The National)(AJ obit)

Rogers Waters fringe something something ClaudeReigns (talk) 06:55, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

I can't see where that would go though it does contribute to the idea of it being genocide. That "Friendship Song 2023" is quite horrific. NadVolum (talk) 13:10, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Culture context for events usually goes at the bottom.ClaudeReigns (talk) 10:04, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

+1 yes, at the bottom. These are often better done after the conflict when the full "cultural" impact of the conflict is understood, and the most material items can be chronicled. Aszx5000 (talk) 00:36, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

On Dec 29 2023, South Africa followed other signatories of the Geneva Convention (sources above) in not only statements condemning a perceived Israeli genocide on Gaza but also launching a case at the International Court of Justice.^[1][2][3]

In its appeal to the court, South Africa claimed that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza^{[4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23]}

and that Israel is not acting to punish those inciting to genocide.^{[1][2][3][24]}

Those named in South Africa's International Justice Court filing as inciting to genocide are:

• Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu^[1](Sharon, Jeremy. TOI)(RCP)(Times of India)(NPR)(Awaul, Mohammed. The Daily Star)(Bartov, Omer. NYT)(Financial World ZA)(AJ 23-11-9)(Vox 23-11-13)(gov.il)(various self-pub tweets)
• President Isaac Herzog^[1](Guardian)(ITV)(AJ 23-11-9)
• Defense Minister Yoav Gallant^[1](Sharon, Jeremy. TOI)(TOI 9-Oct-23)(Guardian)(AJ 23-11-9)(Kipa)(self-pub tweets)
• Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir^[1](Sharon, Jeremy. TOI)(MEE)(Arutz Shiva)(ABC News)(Channel 12)
• Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich^[1](Sharon, Jeremy. TOI)(NBC)(TOI 8-Oct-23)(MEM)
• Energy Minister Israel Katz^[1](8-Oct-23 OI)(self-pub tweets)
• Heritage Minister Amihai Eliyahu,^[1](Kan)(TOI Nov-23)(Yedioth Aronoth)(FB self-pub)
• Ag Minister Avi Dichter^[1](Hauenstein, Hanno. Channel 12)
• Deputy Speaker Nissim Vaturi^[1](Opinio Juris)(self-pub tweet)
• COGAT Maj Gen Ghassan Alian^[1](TOI 10-Oct-23)(Bartov, Omer. NYT)(youtube self-pub)
• reservist Maj Gen Giora Eiland,^[1](Bartov, Omer. NYT)(Fathom)(Mako)(Globe)(TOI 6-Nov-23)(Yedioth Aronoth x2)(youtube self-pub)
• reservist Ezra Yachin,^[1](Bazz)(MEE)
• Lt Col [Gilad Kinan],^[1](IDF)
• Prof. [Yair Ben David]^[1](MEE)(MEM)(twitter self-pub)
• Col [Yogev BarSheshet],^[1](Now. Channel 14)
• and Col [Erez Eshel].^[1](Now. Channel 14)

“The acts and omissions by Israel complained of by South Africa are genocidal in character because they are intended to bring about the destruction of a substantial part of the Palestinian national, racial and ethnical group,” (Vox)^[1]

Israel has rejected South Africa's allegations, accusing it of collaborating with terrorists,(DW) and plans to answer the charges.(PBS)(VOA)

Vox notes South Africa's long-term identification and engagement with Palestine. (Vox. Walsh, Berkley, Foreign Policy Research Institute, 2023)(Mandela 1990)

Likewise the International Criminal Court ruled in 2020 that it has jurisdiction over grave crimes committed in occupied Palestinian territories, and has accepted a suit by Gilles Devers on behalf of the victims' families.(AJ) ClaudeReigns (talk) 00:02, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

And here's what two of those ministers at the Knesset just said^[25]. Other representatives there denounced it as like Nazism. NadVolum (talk) 00:36, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

OK Good. Will you add that, please? ClaudeReigns (talk) 05:38, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

I think I'll leave it to stew or someone else to do but the only opposing voice there was from a Arab-Israeli which I think is quite horrific. NadVolum (talk) 09:57, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

I can't disagree. Some democracies, geez. Let's not get incited I mean excited. it's ZA v IL not Tibi v Bibi. ClaudeReigns (talk) 20:15, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

"On 29 December, South Africa filed a case against Israel at the International Court of Justice, alleging that Israel's conduct amounted to genocide. South Africa asked the ICJ to issue provisional measures, including ordering Israel to halt its military campaign in Gaza." - What is currently in the article and appropriate to include per NPOV.

Your draft, if added, would be in my opinion a violation of our NPOV policy and would almost certainly be reverted. Particulary it violates this portion of the NPOV policy:

"An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject... This is a concern especially for recent events that may be in the news."

One filing by one country against Israel in the ICJ does not warrant 500 words. That's a short essay. That is clearly not proportional to it's representation and prominence in the sources. I've listed other policy and best practice violations I'm seeing in your draft below.

1.)

WP:RS

supporting that sentence, otherwise it can't be included.

2.) Excessive citations: Even if those sources did support your assertion that "South Africa has claimed a consensus of nations agree that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza", you wouldn't cite a dozen sources for one sentence.

3.) "Those named in South Africa's International Justice Court filing as inciting to genocide are:", you then proceed to list every single person named in the ICJ filing. This is an unnecessary level of detail, and goes against WP:TMI. If our readers want to know more details about the filing, they can look at the source. This is not an article about a single filing by South Africa accusing Israel of incitement to genocide. Chuckstablers (talk) 20:17, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

1) It gets worse when it's strictly factual. It is a riot act of nations and there is a lot to say about it.

2) This is seen as soon as those sources are expanded. Factual: ZA together with other filing nations(source) followed nation(source with quote)(source), nation (source with quote)(source)..., in not only statements condemning Israel's genocide(Russia footnote: "extermination") on Gaza but further, instituting proceedings within the ICJ as signatories of the Geneva Convention.

3) All of those named as inciting to genocide are notable in their own right, and all of them have an accompanying RS reporting the charged incitement as well as the primary source if different. Source with quote also applies. This didn't happen in a bubble. The filing itself is notable. It is noted in full.(Courtroom News Reporter) Thus they are all belligerents now notable in multiple ways for statements perceived as inciting genocide. The filing pertains to the war and a paragraph is not a whole article, rather, characterizes--in a legal, academic, and received way--the nature of the article subject as it has been understood.

A whole article can of course be generated, but we must acknowledge this position in some way, though it is less fun than illustrations demonstrating the dispersal patterns of a 2000 lb bomb or a practical discussion of "weaponizing food". When we have a representative least-size-statement which establishes this view, it will be good to make sure those things are addressed. As it stands, your request requires additional information gladly given. When a counterargument more substantive than 'did not you terrorist-sympathizers' comes to light, it will help balance. As it stands, this is the normal weight of verbiage, no need for Bisan Owda to chime in. Bring sources to match the weight of sources given. It will be impossible to suppress this view. Much easier to address this view.ClaudeReigns (talk) 22:09, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Claude; I'm not going to engage with further with you here as you haven't really addressed any of my policy based concerns. For 1.); I told you that you needed a source to support that statement. What you said is nice, but didn't address the fact you're missing a source for that statement. For 2.); There are no sources to expand because you haven't provided links to any of them, or dates, or anything for most of them other than a headline or quote maybe from the source. For 3.) They're named in one document. You've found other sources reporting on that one source. That one source isn't sufficient per NPOV to justify including all sixteen people listed in the complaint; it is WP:TMI.

I also think there's a language barrier here as I struggle to understand much of what you write out and much of what you've said earlier (no disrespect meant). Nobody's trying to "suppress" anything (i'm going to choose to not read that as a personal attack mind you). I just want

WP:NPOV

to be followed and for policy to be followed.

In any case; at this point I've expressed my concerns here. I'll let other editors take over if they choose to engage with this. Chuckstablers (talk) 03:37, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Genocide charges are exceedingly rare – there were just a handful of genocides in the last 100 years. If a state decides to formally file genocide charges against another state before an international court, then for god's sake it's a development that warrants more than 500 words in an encyclopaedia! I agree that the wording proposed by OP is a tad clumsy. — kashmīrī ^TALK 08:28, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

"Genocide charges are exceedingly rare – there were just a handful of genocides in the last 100 years."

"it's a development that warrants more than 500 words in an encyclopaedia!"

The first quote is your assessment of the notability of the genocide charges. For us to give it the prominence in an article about the war as a whole as you think it deserves, we would need lots of reliable sources discussing it and giving it prominence as well,

WP:NPOV

.

It is a noteworthy development. It is not sufficiently noteworthy in the context of the war as a whole to justify giving it 500+ words in this article given that all the sources actually talk about at this point is that South Africa filed something with the ICJ and Israel will defend itself in court. That's all we have at this point.

We gave 278 words to the Russian Invasion of Ukraine article with far more to actually talk about. There was the whole "arrest warrant issued for the leader of one of the UN security council members for the first time in history thing". There there was a brief discussion of the international reaction, then there was a discussion of further war crime charges about forced deportations. All of them backed up with sources. Chuckstablers (talk) 21:39, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Hamas' motive includes a desire to sacrifice civilians to build international support. For example, Time says "Hamas' willingness to sacrifice civilian Palestinians for the larger cause of building anti-Israel sentiment worldwide has succeeded beyond measure", Times of Israel reports that Hamas "is not responsible for protecting the Strip’s civilians", and the New York Times reports that Hamas officials have called Palestine a "nation of martyrs" and that they are "proud to sacrifice martyrs".

I've added this to the body of the article but I feel it warrants mention in the lede too, as it provides important context to the civilian toll. BilledMammal (talk) 13:59, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

@Makeandtoss: You removed the addition to the body saying this is not related to the background, but the section is in regards to Hamas' motivations.

You also removed a sentnece where an Hamas official stated that their goal is the annihilation of Israel; again, I fail to see how this is not related to Hamas' motivations. BilledMammal (talk) 14:28, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it belongs elsewhere not in the background. Background means: situation or conditions prevailing at a certain time; i.e. just up to October 7. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:31, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I would suggest that Hamas' motivations and goals for the October 7 attacks, including both those publicized before and after, belong in such a section. For example, the lead sentence of that section says Hamas officials said their attack was a response to the Israeli occupation, blockade of the Gaza Strip, Israeli settler violence against Palestinians, restrictions on the movement of Palestinians, and imprisonment of thousands of Palestinians. BilledMammal (talk) 14:36, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

But the motivation section lies under the background, so this is still part of the background and its time frame is defined up until the war's breakout, as with all other WP articles. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:39, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

These are part of their motivations for starting the war; it is relevant to the time frame even if the information was released after the war begun. It is also aligned with the other content in the section; for example, the line I quoted is based on information released after the war begun. BilledMammal (talk) 14:43, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Information being released after the war =!= information being relevant to before the start of the war. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:47, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

But it can be relevant - and I don't see why coverage of Hamas' motivations for starting the war is not relevant. Can you explain why you believe it is? BilledMammal (talk) 14:49, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

The motivations is already in the background section. This is not part of the background however and is relevant in a different section. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:50, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

These are the motivations, though? I'm struggling to understand why you believe these motivations for starting the war aren't relevant to the background to how and why the war began. BilledMammal (talk) 14:55, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Concept of martyrdom and whether Hamas has responsibility are not related to the background: the conditions prevailing at a certain time. These are statements made after the war's outbreak. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:59, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

But Hamas' willingness to sacrifice martyrs is. And the content I added was not only related to martyrs; it also included:

1. Hamas aiming for the annihilation of Israel and the belief that Israel's existence was "illogical"
2. Hamas being willing sacrifice civilians to gain international support

BilledMammal (talk) 15:11, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Does context to the motives of Hamas not warrant to be in the background? I think it should be explained, this is due information to be presented. Homerethegreat (talk) 14:47, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

No. Every bloody nation when attacked keeps repeating that it's ready to fight the invader until death, "until the last soldier", etc. This worldwide phenomenon is completely unrelated to the political background in the region. — kashmīrī ^TALK 20:07, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

The NYT reporting that Hamas said Palestinians are a "nation of martyrs" does not at all mean they are willing to sacrifice Palestinians. As Kashmiri points out, a lot of it just war rhetoric. VR _talk 05:11, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

The sentence that has recently been restored is inaccurate and not suitable for the lede in my opinion: The war has led to a severe

The first part is not controversial. The war has indeed led to a severe humanitarian crisis. However the second part is misleading as "cutting off" implies that no food, water, or 'anything which is necessary for any sort of life' has been delivered to Gaza ever since the war started. This is untrue: the food deliveries commenced on October 21 and every day 100-200 trucks enter Gaza [22], the water started flowing before October 29 [23], while the fuel was delivered to Gaza starting from November 15 [24]. I believe that the previous wording (low and irregular flow of food and other humanitarian supplies, per UNRWA) is much more accurate. Alaexis_¿question? 09:35, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. BilledMammal (talk) 10:20, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi, the quoted phrase is from this article [25] attributed to Christian Lindmeier, World Health Organization spokesperson.

The next paragraph also says the below but we haven't included that in the lede as far as I can see:

"Israel maintains that it is doing its best to focus its fire only on legitimate Hamas targets but that the group has deliberately placed its military and administrative assets amid the civilian population, effectively using the people as human shields." Chavmen (talk) 10:22, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

It also says this:

"The WHO spokesman noted that people were receiving less than two liters of water per day instead of the seven liters per person per day needed to fulfill their basic needs."

So picking one phrase from the entire article isn't doing any justice to accuracy. I would say a re-phrase is necessary.

I also am not familiar with VOAnews as a source. Chavmen (talk) 10:25, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I suggest restoring the previous version (The war has led to a severe

humanitarian crisis in Gaza

due to low and irregular flow of food and other humanitarian supplies). It mentions the general crisis and some specifics without making the impression that Gaza Strip has been completely cut off.

@Chavmen, this is the Voice of America. As a US government-funded source it has its biases, but in this case they are simply quoting UNRWA. It wasn't I who added this source to the article btw, if needed we can find other sources reporting on this. Alaexis_¿question? 12:26, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification @Alaexis. I agree restoring the version you mention. Chavmen (talk) 13:21, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree,

I think the full context regarding the flow of humintarian supplies should be presented if we go into specifics since it does not present the full context, videos of food stolen from civilians in the strip by Hamas etc [26] [27] Homerethegreat (talk) 14:57, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I think attributing that this low and irregular aid is caused by Israel is important. By all accounts, Egypt and the international community has been very much in favor of bringing lots of food into Gaza Strip (with trucks lined up waiting to get in[28]). HRW says "Israeli forces are deliberately blocking the delivery of water, food, and fuel, while willfully impeding humanitarian assistance". Likewise CNN reports "Israel’s complete siege and restrictions on aid entering Gaza have diminished drug supplies." AP says Israel " blocked food, water and other supplies except for a trickle of aid from Egypt that aid workers say falls far short of what’s needed." Israel is being accused of

man made famine (The Atlantic, Tufts University professor whose written a book on famines) VR _talk

05:42, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Definitely extremely important.

Another important bit is water, last i heard, they had bate minimum drinking water ration and none at all to wash?

Is the mechanism currently being used that they are "inspecting" all of the aid and that is slowing it down? That is my own guess from the gaps in their side of the story, but I've not had time to look at it in detail.

Or are they only letting it in at all via Egypt and it's not getting to the whole strip?

They claim they are "not limiting" it, but it seems to be blocked, but i might be on the song track by assuming they're not just flat out lying?

Irtapil (talk) 21:57, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

It is less restricted than before, but unless there has been a huge change very recently, the is still a huge risk of starvation. The thing i worry about most is sanitation. The 3L water ration is not enough for healthy people, and there being no waster to wash makes staying healthy impossible. If the lack of water to wash leads to GI diseases spreading, that causes dehydration, 3L of water in that situation is a death sentence, you die of dehydration very quickly, particularly kids. If there is not access to enough clear water very soon, there's going to be hundreds of thousands of people dying in horribly. Irtapil (talk) 21:40, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

There is an over reliance on Israeli-related media in the article, while the article mostly discusses the situation in Gaza. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:40, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

How do you define "Israeli related"? Irtapil (talk) 10:30, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Pictures of Israeli soldiers, politicians, and incidents take up a majority of the media disproportionate with body coverage. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:42, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

@

Times of Israel

were a lot more willing to criticize the Israeli government early on, or possibly more able to by having a better view of what was going on. But it seems to have switched now and even those previously good papers are saying some weird things. I was going to go through a couple of the main pages and actually count, but I haven't got around to doing it yet.

Irtapil (talk) 10:19, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

I forget which page that was on (see screenshot), but it seems wrong to claim an unspecified "consensus" based on that collection? I didn't save that effort, but i took a screenshot to discuss.

Irtapil (talk) 10:27, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

2023 Israel–Hamas war be renamed and moved somewhere else, with the name being decided below. The discussion has been closed, and the result will be found in the closer's comment. Move logs: source title · target title This is template {{subst:Requested move/end}}

Variants of "Israel–Hamas war":

• A:
  Israel–Hamas war (2023–present)
  or
• B:
  2023 Israel–Hamas war → Israel–Hamas war
  or
• E:
  2023 Israel–Hamas war
  (no change)
• I:
  2023–2024 Israel–Hamas war
  or
• L:
  2023–24 Israel–Hamas war
  or
• N:
  2023–present Israel–Hamas war
  or
• O:
  Israel–Hamas war (2023–2024)
  or
• P:
  Israel–Hamas war (2023–24)
  or

(You can add other name suggestions if you think that it is appropriate)
With almost a week left for this year to end, I think it is about time we start the discussion for renaming this article (Admins please don't move the article before 1/1/2024)
Abo Yemen✉ 07:23, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

First discussion