Talk:Casualties of the Israel–Hamas war/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Balance vs accuracy

The preamble, the second sentence of the article, currently reads "The majority of fatalities have occurred in the Gaza Strip or in Israeli communities near the strip, but casualties have also occurred in ". I can see absolutely why it was written that way but it is unfactual, it should be replaced with "The majority of fatalities have occurred in the Gaza Strip, but fatalities have also occurred in Israeli communities near the strip, in". The majority of fatalities have occurred in the Gaza Strip. The majority of fatalities have not occurred in Israeli communities near the strip. One could perhaps connect the two categories with "and", but definitely not with "or". It is possible that the words were true when written but they are definitely not true today. Fatalities in Israeli communities near the strip total around 3150 if you include everyone killed in that location. I dislike the wording of "in Israeli communities" since some will read that as "in the location", and others will read it it as "among that community", but I haven't changed it. I also dislike having written this edit but the wording of the preamble can't stay as it is. It may be an attempt at balance but it states a factual error. My figure here of "3150" contains the article's "1500" estimate, the present reported "200-250" hostages and the estimated 1400 Hamas invaders - I included them because if you disregard the 1400 then the original statement is even more inaccurate. You may take whatever sourced and reported estimate you like for the number killed in the Gaza Strip, the comparison as it currently stands in the preamble is still false. For reference here, I believe all sourced and reported estimates currently exceed 9000 but I'm happy to be corrected. I also note that the article's title uses "Casualties" while the preamble refers to fatalities. Casualties usually includes both dead and injured while fatalities means dead. The distinction should be observed scrupulously. JohnHarris (talk) 10:22, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Foreign deaths table

The table needs a total row too. I know the second two columns will be *unknown* in total. But deaths can be summed up to 249. So the total row will be "249, unknown, unknown". Aminabzz (talk) 23:13, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Israeli death toll needs updating

As per the sources below, Israel has now officially revised its death toll. It is no longer 1400 but 1200

Israel lowers its official Oct 7 death toll to 1,200 (deccanherald.com)

Israel revises down death toll in Hamas attack as deadly strikes hit Gaza hospitals, school (msn.com)

Israel revises down October 7 death toll to 1,200 | The Peninsula Qatar

Israel revises death toll from Oct. 7 Hamas attack to 'around 1,200' (msn.com) 185.2.245.26 (talk) 04:14, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

 Done ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 09:45, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

“Have been killed” or “died”?

The article needs revising in its wording: Israeli civilians “have been killed” while Palestinians “died” or “suffered heavy losses due to military actions”. The article is in dire need of using a common language to describe the same fact: human life loss. There is an inbalance in the length of the sections - hard to believe there is less to report on the vastly larger losses on Palestinian side. Last, the article calls out several “massacres” when referring to geographically isolated heavy civilian loss on one side, while just sums up number with no reference to location and using sanitised military language on the other side. 2A00:23EE:1960:62C3:35F9:709D:597E:BED1 (talk) 18:39, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

It's not sanitized. Gaza Health Ministry statistics at this time do not distinguish combatants and civilians, nor cause of death. The data on the Israeli losses is presently more specific. (As more data becomes available, would expect the section to be greatly enlarged and detailed.) Drsruli (talk) 04:06, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Masacre should be used everywhere or nowhere

If masacre is only used on Israeli victims and not on Palestinian the article will not be balanced. 185.183.147.78 (talk) 03:18, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Welcome to the wonderful world of WP:SYSTEMICBIAS on Wikipedia. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:42, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Comparison with civilian death toll in Ukraine

@GordonGlottal: I disagree with many points of your revert explanation. Not notable for you, at least; I think it's very notable to compare the collateral damage in two major wars that are happening at the same time and which overlap resources. no other foreign politicians quoted on this page well, I wouldn't really mind detaching that info from the person that brought it up; for me, what matters is to contextualize the casulty figures in this war. not accurate w/r/t Ukrainian death toll I'm open to clarifying the comparison, i.e. to say that the Ukrainian death toll is a minimum and that Gaza's figure does not distinguish between combatants. At least 10k killed in Mariupol alone wild and unverified Ukrainian claim, though as implied before, labeling the 9k figure as a minimum would help. UN counts only specific names IDed, which in Gaza would also be minimal not true; the UN estimate for casualties in Ukraine was based on many types of sources and most of those counted in Gaza's figure are actually identified (see this). Alexiscoutinho (talk) 22:12, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Hey friend. The comparison to Ukraine may be notable if notable sources say so, but a Qatari politician doesn't qualify. I said the quote wasn't notable, not that the comparison wasn't. Sorry if that wasn't clear. "Unverified Ukrainian claim" is exactly my point -- you're trying to compare a number that comes directly from the Gazan Health Ministry with one that the UN independently produced and vouched for after its own investigation, a much more conservative process. The Gazan number is comparable to the Ukrainian internal number, not to the UN Ukraine number. If the UN puts out its own list of Gazan casualties, comparable to its list of Ukrainian civilian casualties, it will certainly only include a small percentage of Gazan claims (note that the UN agencies have a very different relationship to Gaza and past casualty reports for which they vouched were not produced independently from the GMH). It is absolutely impossible for anybody to verify anything about the GMH reporting process other than that they have a color-coded spreadsheet which includes some names -- there is no Gazan census data to provide a baseline, i.e. to show that the ID numbers and names correspond to actual people. Gazan officials initially announced "500 killed or injured" after the hospital explosion. When this was misreported as "500 killed" they just went with it, took advantage, altered future statements instead of trying to correct. Unfortunately all governments in this desperate position cannot be trusted, entirely separate from the general character of their institutions. GordonGlottal (talk) 22:28, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

I also am extremely concerned with your edit summary, which reads "Restored to 'status quo' version (the one stable for weeks)" which is not true. The relevant section was added three days ago with the summary "adding expanded text from main war page 2023 Israel–Hamas war, see page for attribution." These claims/sources only survived a few hours on 2023 Israel-Hamas war and do not belong here either. GordonGlottal (talk) 22:34, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

which is not true It's at least partially true. The bulk/core of that citation stayed mostly unchanged in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war page since 27 October (ref access date). These claims/sources only survived a few hours on 2023 Israel-Hamas war I don't know what you are refering to. Alexiscoutinho (talk) 23:48, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

I said the quote wasn't notable, not that the comparison wasn't I see 👍. If the UN puts out its own list of Gazan casualties, comparable to its list of Ukrainian civilian casualties, it will certainly only include a small percentage of Gazan claims The Gazan figures have historically been close and comparable to the UN figures (the article I linked tells this I think). Furthermore, iirc, the UN or OHCHR themselves stated that they considered the Gazan numbers generally reliable, or maybe it was the Palestine authority that said this instead, noting that in the past the reliability of their data wasn't fundamentally contested. Therefore, both numbers share a comparable reliability. Alexiscoutinho (talk) 23:41, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

I will remove this page from my watchlist. Please {{ping}} me if someone wants to continue talking about this. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 00:55, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Biased or factually incorrect narrative.

When searching Israel hamas death toll on Google the summary result we get from Wikipedia is the following:

"On 7 October 2023 more than 1,200 Israelis and foreign nationals, mostly civilians were killed and approximately 240 taken hostage during the initial attack on Israel from the Gaza Strip."

It would be fair to switch the paragraph and instead start the article with the second paragraph:

"As of 21 November, over 15,000 Palestinians and Israelis en toto have been killed in the Israel–Hamas war, including 57 journalists (50 Palestinian, 4 Israeli and 3 Lebanese) and over 100 UNRWA aid workers. Over 14,500 Palestinians (the majority of whom were women and children) in the Gaza Strip have been killed according to the Gaza Health Ministry."

Thanks Taison95 (talk) 14:03, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

---

I agree with the point of switching the first two paragraphs, so that the first paragraph provides the general summary. This would be in keeping with the title of the article.

Also, the current first sentence is misleading. It says "On 7 October 2023, more than 1,200 Israelis and foreign nationals, _mostly_ civilians, were killed". Elsewhere, in the article, it says "including 395 IDF soldiers, 10 Shin Bet agents and 59 police officers," (for a total of 464 non-civilians). So, it was 736 civilians and 464 non-civilians. Clearly, the phrase "mostly civilians" is inaccurate. We should either say directly "around 736 civilians killed", or else change the word "mostly" to "a little over two-thirds".

Another inaccurate statement is in the section "Israel: Civilians and soldiers". It says: "As of 1 December, around 1,332 Israelis have been killed", and then it cites

"Israel revises Hamas attack death toll to 'around 1,200'". Reuters. 2023-11-10"

to document it. The citation says that 1,200 Israelis have been killed, and so the Wikipedia article should be updated to use the same number as the citation.

Also in the section "Israel: Civilians and soldiers", the second phrase of the first sentence says "including 395 IDF soldiers, 10 Shin Bet agents and 59 police officers," and then it cites:

"Fabian, Emanuel. "Authorities name 189 soldiers, 45 police officers killed in 2023 terror clashes". Times of Israel. [incorrect title of Wikipedia citation]

If you click on the link, the Times of Israel currently has a title:

"Authorities name 396 soldiers, 59 police officers killed in Gaza war"

The Wikipedia article is correct, here, but the citation should be updated with the current title of Times of Israel, which more or less agrees with the Wikipedia article.

Gene (talk) 18:05, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

All of these changes make sense, with the exception of avoiding "mostly". Strictly speaking, "most" would only have to be more than half. Two thirds is a notable majority. It's accurate to describe this portion as most of the total. Ertal72 (talk) 22:42, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 October 2023

"Since the war began, the number of dead had exceeded 7,700 people, including 3,000 children, and 19,000 injured." should include a reference to the primary source, which is the Hamas-controlled Gaza Health Ministry (which the current WP source makes clear).

They have a history of using false numbers for propaganda purposes, so presenting these numbers as facts is highly biased.

I suggest to adapt this as following:

"According to the Hamas-controlled Gaza Health Ministry, the number of dead has exceeded 7,700 people, including 3,000 children, and 19,000 injured since the war began."

Also note that the linked WP quote has different numbers (4,651 dead, 1,873 children). As these are propaganda numbers from a terrorist organization, they don't have any real meaning. But we should still reproduce the source correctly. Zukorrom (talk) 16:46, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

The idf is also notorious for lying, you should've been unbiased and requested change for both sides. 41.141.27.102 (talk) 13:08, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

The IDF isn’t making any specific claims about Gazan casualties yet. Drsruli (talk) 05:53, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Ever hear of "Pollywood"... you know the propaganda arm of HAM-ASS... well they shoot more Shiite than an arsehole... that's reality. 47.39.245.47 (talk) 21:04, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Seriously, are we really going to continue presenting Hamas numbers without qualification (& with a source that gives different numbers)? How is that in any way acceptable? Zukorrom (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 10:47, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

The Numbers by the Gaza Health Ministry have numerous times been confirmed by the UN and independent sources to be accurate. As the names of the dead are published as well this verification is possible and has been used as the official numbers by the UN as well as used as internal intelligence by the US. Jade.128 (talk) 16:07, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

https://edition.cnn.com/2023/11/07/world/gaza-death-toll-accuracy-unicef-intl-hnk/index.html

“UNICEF defends accuracy of Gaza death toll as horror unfolds in ravaged enclave” 176.203.89.130 (talk) 14:35, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Then add a source for the UN & US intel. Because as-is, this is just reproducing numbers by a terrorist organization without attribution. Zukorrom (talk)

 Already done by GreekParadise. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:43, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

WORK OF FICTION

Does anyone notice a glaring omission from this wiki entry? Clearly its creators wish us to believe that the IDF are the most incompetent army on the planet, because it seems that not a single Hamas fighter (or other 'militant' faction in the strip) has been killed. They provide us with 'unbelievably' detailed information on the number of women and children killed, but no combatants! What people of a certain persuasion on the Middle East like to remind us of is that the numbers coming out of the Health Authority in Gaza (i.e. Hamas) have been largely accurate in previous rounds of fighting (inflated, but within reasonable margins). BUT what they tend to ignore is that analysis carried out after these wars shows, despite the narrative while fighting is going on that it's civilians who are being killed, that Israel has one of the lowest civilian to combatant kill ratios of any army on the planet - somewhere between 1 and 3:1. Now, every civilian death in war is a tragedy, but seeing as the narrative of this (and all other wars in Gaza) is that Israel is targeting civilians, it's actually important to recognise that statistics which omit the number of combatants killed are at best pointless, and at worst propaganda, designed to drive a particular narrative. For example, if you knew that Hamas starts training children in school and welcomes kids from 14 onwards into its fighting ranks, then this puts a whole different perspective on the number of children killed in this conflict. Or if you consider that every Palestinian killed (by the hundreds of Hamas and IJ rockets that fall short in the strip, that are killed by Hamas for allegedly conspiring with Israel, or even who die from natural causes) are included in the figures put out by the Hamas run Health Authority in Gaza (the ONLY source of information cited by the UN, BBC, Sky and all media and charities around the world at this time). Then you may look at those figures differently. For a clear and simple example of this just look at the way news of the supposed Israeli bombing of the Al-Ahli hospital was reported. The Gaza Health Authority reported that 800+ civilians had been killed in the hospital by Israeli aerial bombing. As who was to blame and the number of dead came out within minutes of the explosion this should have raised suspicions, but it didn't. When it was proven to be an IJ rocket that had fallen short, the numbers of those killed were reduced to 100 to 150 in the car park. So, the reason this wiki entry is a work of fiction is that it supports a one-sided narrative by omitting the number of combatants killed, perpetuating Hamas propaganda that Israel targets civilian women and children. Oldfashionedethics (talk) 08:57, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

By a using a blatantly pro-IDF line-of-reasoning, is not the above comment breaking Wikipedia rules about the need to avoid using the site as a platform to push an agenda or make personal statements? (Updated) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.166.214 (talk) 18:23, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

61% of civilian victims is higher than the AVERAGE of conflicts

In the part describing the 61% civilian casualties analysis, the paragraph says that it is higher than all 20th century conflicts. It is actually higher than the average of conflicts, it was corrected in the source and needs to be corrected in the paragraph as well. 2A02:8440:B147:F745:B465:FCD5:BE21:26DE (talk) 15:45, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 December 2023

I intend to change the table portion of the article, particularly for the row of 'Philippines'. Kidnapped column states 'unknown', but as of November 29, 2023, the 2 people missing were actually kidnapped, and are now accounted for, as shown in this Filipino news article written in English.

Here are some salient quotes from the article: "President Marcos announced that all Filipinos affected by the ongoing war between Israeli forces and Hamas have now all been "accounted for" following the release of Noralyn Babadilla from Gaza on Nov. 29 (Manila time)." (paragraph 1) "On Nov. 25, President Marcos confirmed the release of Filipino national Gelienor “Jimmy” Pacheco, weeks after he was held hostage by the Palestinian militant group Hamas." (paragraph 9) 011wpda (talk) 17:17, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Shadow311 (talk) 17:55, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 December 2023

where is the proof that mostly civilians died on the attack of October 7th? This is propaganda! Because sources say that most deaths we're actually military. And Israel lowered their death toll from 1400 to 1200. Plus another article stating that the IDF killed their own people, because they couldn't differentiate between their people and Hamas fighters. Not to mention the 40 beheaded babies lie, and the rape lies that the MEDIA apologized for spreading because it was baseless. No proof of dead babies that day whatsoever. Only two babies died apparently, but the reason is unknown. Not to mention the release of Israeli hostages, they appear to be safe and well meanwhile the Palestinians are released without fingers, signs of rape, beatings and terror. Not to mention thee bombing of hospitals and UN schools, refugee camps, churches and mosques. SHIFA hospital had the most civilian deaths, and wee still have no proof whatsoever that hamas was there. No tunnels, no nothing! A calendar is all you have to show for killing hundreds of kids in a damn hospital??? A calendar with names of the week? Are you serious??? 212.239.221.240 (talk) 00:37, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Shadow311 (talk) 17:56, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 December 2023 (2)

Following the attack by Palestinian militias, the IDF repelled the aggression. In some cases, there are reports that the IDF, in attacking Palestinian militias, provoked so-called 'friendly fire', without being able to specify the number of casualties. https://electronicintifada.net/content/evidence-israel-killed-its-own-citizens-7-october/41156 81.9.192.168 (talk) 22:43, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

I don’t think electronic intifada is a realisable source. ABC quoting the IDF mentions 20 soldiers killed by friendly fire https://abcnews.go.com/amp/International/live-updates/israel-gaza-hamas-health-catastrophe/idf-says-13-soldiers-killed-by-friendly-fire-since-war-began-105575463?id=105538785 2A02:8440:B147:F745:B465:FCD5:BE21:26DE (talk) 15:50, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Shadow311 (talk) 17:57, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Friendly fire

more information is becoming available about friendly fire on Oct 7th. As the founding event of this war it is important to show at least that it is unknown how many civilian deaths are attributable to hamas forces and how many are attributable to IDF forces by means of infantry crossfire, tank shells and attack helicopters. https://www.ynetnews.com/article/rkjqoobip 2A02:C7C:5ED8:A800:44D0:FD9A:A1FC:F3B1 (talk) 21:22, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Inaccurate number of foreign casualties/hostages

Unfortunately, many of the casualties and hostages taken from foreign countries incurred during the earlier phases of this war are not listed in the pertinent section. Examples of this include:

Moldova - 1 citizen killed. Source: https://radiomoldova.md/p/22734/moldova-condemns-hamas-terrorist-attacks-mourns-loss-of-moldovan-citizen

The Netherlands - 1 citizen killed, 1 hostage taken. Source: https://www.dutchnews.nl/2023/10/dutch-woman-stranded-in-gaza-is-killed-in-bombing-raid/ , Source: https://nltimes.nl/2023/11/30/israeli-dutch-teen-released-hamas-50-days-hostage

The Republic of Georgia - 3 Citizens killed. Two in October, one in November. Sources: https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/georgia-woman-serving-as-israeli-cop-who-defended-country-against-october-7-hamas-attack-stabbed-to-death-by-teen-101699406687184.html , https://agenda.ge/en/news/2023/3757

Sweden - 3 citizens killed. Source: https://www.svt.se/nyheter/lokalt/vast/svenska-barn-uppges-ha-dott-i-bombning-av-gaza

Slovakia - 1 citizen killed. Source: https://bnnbreaking.com/breaking-news/israeli-slovak-woman-killed-amid-escalating-israel-hamas-conflict/

Greece - 1 citizen killed. Source: https://greekreporter.com/2023/10/12/girl-thessaloniki-greece-dead-israel/#:~:text=She%2C%20like%20other%20Supernova%20festival,she%20ran%20for%20her%20life.

Czech Republic - 1 killed. Source: https://praguemorning.cz/czech-citizen-among-victims-israel/

Norway - 1 killed. Source: https://bnn.network/breaking-news/war/gaza-conflict-claims-lives-of-norwegian-citizens-stirs-uproar-in-norway/

India - 3 killed. Source: https://www.wionews.com/world/20-year-old-indian-origin-israeli-solider-killed-during-war-with-hamas-654055 , https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/2-israeli-women-security-officers-of-indian-origin-killed-in-hamas-attack-4483654

Tanzania - 2 killed. Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/14/world/middleeast/israel-hamas-hostage-joshua-mollel.html . This is a recent development.

In addition to this, many foreign citizen fatality counts are incorrect. Peru lost 3, not 2, citizens, while the United Kingdom lost 12 rather than 7, for example. Germany lost less than 10, but (presumably) more than 1. Source: https://www.barrons.com/news/foreign-victims-of-deadly-hamas-attack-3ab899d7

Hungary - 3 hostages had been taken. Source: https://www.rferl.org/a/hamas-releases-russian-hostage-israel/32700465.html

Uruguay - 1 citizen taken hostage on Oct. 7. Source: https://en.mercopress.com/2023/10/26/uruguay-doing-its-best-to-help-hamas-held-hostage#google_vignette

Please revise the section as warranted. Goolong4567 (talk) 09:16, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Sources do not reliably distinguish between civilian and militant casualties in Gaza

This article should include a section informing the reader that the number of civilian casualties vs. militant casualties has not been confirmed by any reliable source and is currently contested. While the Palestinian Health Ministry may report, more-or-less, an accurate number of total casualties (although that also has been called into question), it is generally accepted that they do not distinguish between civilian and militant casualties. https://time.com/6328885/gaza-death-toll-explainer/ Likewise, Israel has acknowledged that it does not have reliable estimates about how many civilians vs. militants have been killed/wounded. https://news.yahoo.com/israeli-ambassador-says-military-t-173333704.html As written, this article reports, as fact, some numbers that are unknowable and may well be false. 160.2.168.216 (talk) 06:45, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

It could also be added that there are some news outlets (the Guardian and the Times of Israel were the ones I saw) that reported the IDF claiming to have killed "dozens" of Hamas leaders during the aerial bombardment, as of late October/early November. Here https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/nov/08/israeli-airstrikes-on-gaza-have-killed-dozens-of-hamas-commanders-says-idf , and here https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/idf-says-dozens-of-hamas-gunmen-killed-as-soldiers-continue-gaza-ground-op/ were the articles reporting that. Allan4014 (talk) 07:02, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

The Israeli civilian vs combattant casualties hasn't been confirmed by unbiased investigation either. The article use Israeli figures for those. 2A02:AA1:1048:571D:6882:8FF:FE41:FD87 (talk) 09:00, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

could someone add an archived version of the article (from the citation) at the 'Foreign and dual-national casualties' table at the 'Poland' row?

tvp world got shut down today so all of the tvp world articles are gone, however i am unable to add the archivized version of the article. could someone add it? Maksio3216 (talk) 19:03, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

"Footage of bodycam of Israeli elite unit clearing after the Re'im music festival massacre" is unnecessarily graphic and disturbing for an encyclopedic article

The bodycam footage is clearly graphic and potentially disturbing and offensive to many readers. Wikipedia's manual of style/images states:

"...a potentially offensive image—one that would be considered vulgar, horrifying, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers—should be included only if it is treated in an encyclopedic manner, i.e. only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Images#Offensive_images, "Offensive Images")

The omission of this footage would not, in my opinion, cause the article to be any less informative, relevant, or accurate in an encyclopedic sense. Furthermore, it is disrespectful to victims and their families for this footage to be publicly displayed. As such, I request that this footage be removed from the article. LRVSweet (talk) 16:24, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm not particularly concerned about the footage but a straightforward picture rather than a video is really what's needed at the start. I agree the video should be removed and something better put in instead. The other casualties of war articles typically show memorials to the dead rather than the actual war itself. This isn't actually in the lead but about the October 7 massacre, probably a picture of oone of the fields with pictures of the dead on sticks would be appropriate. NadVolum (talk) 17:09, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

What was it there to depict? The aftermath? Irtapil (talk) 03:00, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

It's not a war

Gaza is occupied by Israel. It seems very inappropriate to call a genocidal massacre of an occupied people a 'war'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A458:447B:1:E851:F52A:829A:7CD5 (talk) 21:30, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Fakestinians are the squatters and need to return to their country of origin... Egypt and Jordan. The founder of fakestine was an Egyptian... Yassar Arafat... piss upon him... 47.39.245.47 (talk) 21:02, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

We may personally question the nature of this conflict but as an encyclopedia it would be inappropriate to rely on independent deduction. Most reliable sources describe it as a war. A significant minority refer to it as a "conflict", and a small minority call it a genocide; we cannot offer them undue weight. Ertal72 (talk) 23:06, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. The antisemitism that is pouring out of this page is disgusting. 216.147.121.21 (talk) 06:57, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Genocides like this usually happen during war (by "like this" I mean in contrast to slower genocides like The Stolen Generation).

Civil wars exist (the clash between Fatah and Hamas even gets described as a civil war sometimes), so not being a fully independent state doesn't mean it doesn't count as a war. But Israel being an occupying force is relevant to some details of international law.

I object to defining it as the "Israel-Hamas" war on Wikipedia, it is clearly much bigger than that and the "only at war with Hamas" slogan is very much Israeli propaganda, but currently I'm filing that under "choose your battles" unless until someone else brings up an alternative name idea.

Irtapil (talk) 03:42, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Gaza hasn’t been occupied by Israel since 2005. Drsruli (talk) 05:50, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Of course it has. Stop the Hasbara. 2A02:8106:203:6F00:1573:EEAF:EC17:AB29 (talk) 11:23, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

I thought they didn't get kicked out till 2006?

For Gaza it's really more of a "siege" or "blockade" BUT that is a thing that independent nations do to other independent nations?

The siege on Gaza is so long and intense that it functions like an occupation. Gaza isn't able to act like a normal independent country, and this is also complicated by it being only part of Palestine.

For example, the UN representative seems to be someone who doesn't fully represent Gaza as such, they seem to be more aligned with Fatah president or Pal. Authority? I thought for ages that there were two regional governments, but it seems there is a Fatah president and a Hamas parliament who are both SUPPOSED to be for all of Palestine, but de facto each only control one side?

Irtapil (talk) 04:23, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Hostages are not casualties

Casualties, by any definition, are people killed or injured in an accident or conflict. Within the context of the scope of this article, the hostages section could, however, be sub-ordinated under the subheading of "Missing persons", temporarily, since – to all intents and purposes – hostages are essentially a class of missing persons until they are A) released or found alive and well, or B) not. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:26, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

That is incorrect: "missing" and "captured" are indeed by definition casualties. See [1][2] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:21, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Wounded are usually described as "casualties" so why not hostages? I think being taken hostage counts as injurious. Irtapil (talk) 04:24, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Dutch victim in Gaza

One Dutch woman died in Gaza on October 21st, 2023. Reference: https://www.dutchnews.nl/2023/10/dutch-woman-stranded-in-gaza-is-killed-in-bombing-raid/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcel van b (talk • contribs) 11:49, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Where does that need to be included in the article? I can add that reference if you aren't able to edit the article, but I need you to be a bit more specific? Tag me with {{re|irtapil}} to make sure i get a notification if you reply. Irtapil (talk) 04:29, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Reference link about casualties is wrong

Cite note 33 to "Trickle of aid to Gaza not enough, U.N. says, as IDF plans more airstrikes" does not contain the information it is supposed to prove. Volganian (talk) 08:01, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Can you be more specific please, which information doesn't match? Irtapil (talk) 04:30, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

What is going on with the intro?

The first two paragraphs are inaccessible to edit? It makes sense to restrict that, but i can't even view source? What is going on? Irtapil (talk) 23:25, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

I was trying to add this key reference from the Lancet to where it lists the Gaza stats, if it has some esoteric edit protection, can somebody who is able to edit please add that.

I also just want to view the source of that section so I can copy more up to date info - with references - to the minor pages relating to the conflict.

Irtapil (talk) 02:58, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Censorship from the pro israeli users, delaying the news of 20000 dead palestinians for after christmas 26 December. Iennes (talk) 05:59, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

20000 dead 24 December. Why the fxxk can no one update the obsolete number of casualities in the lead and saying that 70% of the dead are children and women

This page is neatly highjacked. It is impossible to enter these informations in the lead basing on this BBC source.[3]. congrats. 20 December, was 5 days ago. You have to explain here how to edit / change this and WHY do you sabotage these informations. Censorship from the pro israeli users. Iennes (talk) 05:55, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

The start of the article is a template which is used for a number of articles {{2023 Israel–Hamas war casualties}}. I believe this is a wrong thing to do, that the text for articles should stand on their own despite the worry about contradictions and things not being updated in step. The infoboxes can be used for things like this. The text parts should be made easily accessible to editors who may not be expert in the intricacies of what can be done. Anybody else like to give their opinion especially on why this might be a good idea otherwise I feel I ought to just substitute it inline. NadVolum (talk) 21:29, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

About civilians, and sources

The voice should get a bit clarification on some points.

In the "civilians" paragraph, it should be noted that the Gaza MoH, lists all deaths as civilians. The voice should say it, since usually wars have 2 separates lists (for combatants and civilians) but Gaza reports civilians only, and this could be misleading.

Regarding the debate of whether the numbers given by the Gazan MoH are reliable or not, there is a problem using that article from The Lancet [[4]https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(23)02713-7/fulltext] as a source. The article uses as a source the numbers given from the Gaza MoH, which are the numbers they are trying to confirm or debunk.

The problem applies also for using Save the Children as a source: Save The Children also uses the numbers from Gaza MoH [5]. So this applies also to Philippe Lazzarini's speech.

Since those numbers are very contested and controversial, we need to be careful using them, always putting a disclaimer on them if we use them as a source, and certainly not use those numbers to debunk those same numbers. -- SBK00 (talk) 21:07, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Violence within Israel & the west bank

if settler violence in the west bank is counter as part of the casualties of this war, why are Hamas terror attacks within Israel not counted? Hamas has taken responsibility for the recent attack in west Jerusalem that killed multiple Israelis, so it seems undeniable that it is connected to the larger conflict here. 82.58.32.203 (talk) 00:17, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Pace of death

"While wartime death tolls will never be exact, experts say that even a conservative reading of the casualty figures reported from Gaza shows that the pace of death during Israel’s campaign has few precedents in this century. People are being killed in Gaza more quickly, they say, than in even the deadliest moments of U.S.-led attacks in Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan, which were themselves widely criticized by human rights groups." (The New York Times) It might be worth mentioning the almost unprecedented pace of death in the war. Mooonswimmer 15:21, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

I definitely agree. Are you able to edit the article to include that? If not, do you have any suggestions for where it would fit well? Irtapil (talk) 03:11, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

I also think wet need to include the Lancet article prominently. The connection is that what appears to be happening is that the pace of death has exceeded their ability to record and report it. The article itself only says there's no over reporting, we can't add my own suspicions about under reporting of course, I'm just saying why I think it's important to debunk the myth/lie that the death stats are any lower than reported. Irtapil (talk) 03:11, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

@Mooonswimmer Hold up. You're telling me they're killing people so fast they can't even keep track? For real!? 47.132.127.113 (talk) 05:37, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

The technical reason is that Israel killed one of the four statisticians at Shifa handling the data and abducted the other three, effectively destroying the Health Ministry's core research group's ability to keep track of the massacres.Nishidani (talk) 10:59, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Infobox casualties + figures are weird

Firstly: There is an infobox {{2023 Israel–Hamas war infobox}} which lists casualties in the main article about the war which editors of this article might be interested in.

Secondly: I've come to the conclusion there's something going badly wrong with the figures from Gaza. I'll copy the gist here of what I said in the talk for th infobox there as probably not very many see that.

The Palestinian authority according to what it says in [6] counts children as 18 and below and take up 47% of the population - and had about 9000 deaths and women had 6450 deaths. That means women would make about 26% of the population and for every one woman killed only 0.77 children are killed - which strikes me as too low, one would expect them to die at a slightly higher rate than women. However the Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor which classifies children the same in [7] estimates 11833 children and 6009 women. Its figure for women is lower than the recorded number even though it includes missing people. And that gives one woman killed for every 1.05 children which is much closer to what I'd expect! If anyone can resolve that I'd be very grateful! NadVolum (talk) 09:49, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

According to the UN (different agencies), on 22 November (newer analysis in specific breakdownwasn't easy for me to find), 14,000 Palestinians were killed, 67% of whom were women and children including 5,300 children which means an estimated 4,080 women were killed a ration of 1:1.2 for every child/woman. It is not our job to research the discrepancies, but to convey what secondary sources say. Previous consensus here is to generally use what Gaza Ministry of Health reports (which I believe is what UN mainly relies on, in addition to its own internal accounting of displacement/other aid specific statistics). ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 11:33, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

What goes into the encyclopaedia has to just be based on the reliable sources but it is most definitely not true that w#'re supposed to turn off our minds and accept stupid figures without checking up on them. Your figures are okay as far as they go but do not account for the relative number of women and children in the population and it is the probability a child will be killed compared to that of a woman that is of interest here. The main deaths of them are random and should affect both equally so the probability that each child or woman is killed should be about equal - or a bit higher for children for other reasons. Using the figure of 47% children and 26% women the rate is your 1.2 times 26/47 for children compared to women which is 0.66 which is pretty definitely wrong. Aren't you in the least interested in finding for instance if there is some reason for the discrepancy that can be documented in Wikipedia? Or are yiou happy the figures are rubbishy? NadVolum (talk) 14:00, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

If the casualties/attacks are 100% randomly distributed, than a random sample would make sense. Depending who you ask, the bombings are random or surgically targeted, which may lead to specific results. I myself simply and am certainly curious, but also humble enough to know when I lack enough information. If you have extraordinarily new information, I would recommend getting it published in a reputable journal or newspaper, since there are many more people interested in this. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 14:07, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

I can find only a little evidence of any surgical targetting in the figures, but then again I'd only considered mens deaths for that. I don't see that would make much difference to the child/woman ratio. I'm asking because someone might have an idea about a resolution of the problem because I currently can't and think I lack enough information to do so. NadVolum (talk) 14:21, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 January 2024

The portion citing EuroMed is an estimate and cannot be confirmed, it requires assumptions that then require us to make logical conclusions that we cannot make at this point in time. It should not be included in the page at all.

Not even the Palestinian ministry of health in Gaza is making such claims, and EuroMed also states within their information that they are making estimates on information that they cannot corroborate. This is negligent to include. Joeshmoe1864 (talk) 20:02, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. M.Bitton (talk) 23:26, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Hamas militants killed

Nothing that can be added to the article but it is pretty easy to put a limit to the number of Hamas fighters killed. We have statistics (some estimated)

                Percent of
          total deaths  population
Male > 14       35          30
Female >14      24          30
Children        34          37
Elderly >60      7           3

The elderly are obviously doing very badly there! Probably there are qute a few women and elderly fighting for Hamas but I'll ignore that here and just consider males above 14. Women and children get protected so they would stand much less chance of being killed than the average civilian man, however lets suppose that civilian men and women have the same chance of being killed. Then at the very most about (35-24)% of the deaths are Hamas fighters which comes to 11%. Personally I think it would be quite a bit less considering the way the Israeli's killed even their own hostages waving white flags but this gives a good upper limit I think. As I said nothing that can be added to the article but it is pretty obvious the Israeli's talking about a 2:1 civilian to militant rate is pure propaganda and they'd be well aware of that. NadVolum (talk) 12:12, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

There's a few extra factors that make a difference, two which might increase the number a bit and another which reduces it.

Firstly, 20000 to 25000, about 1%, of the population is in the Hamas militants. So with random bombing that gives a 1% minimum being militants.

Secondly, Many militants might not be counted because they were fighting and so in the front line and it is difficult to get to their bodies. This is the biggest unknown. Maybe 1% extra for this?

And lastly, The men to women civilian death rate is unknown but from other conflicts the minimum is about 1.3 and it can go very high. In fact it seems quite difficult to get definitive figures for different types of conflicts. Assuming 1.3 as a minimum that would put 1.3*24 = 31% of the male deaths as civilian and the other 4% militant. Make that 5% or bodies not recovered from areas of fighting. 95% civilian deaths is terrible.

So my best estimates of militant deaths in Gaza is absolute minimum 1%, my best estimate 5%, absolute maximum 12%. So with 20,000 deaths this gives 200, 1000, and 2400 militants. Plus the 1000 killed in the original terrorist attack that gives a total killed of between 1200 and 3400 with my estimate being 2000. NadVolum (talk)

I've added an estimate of militants killed as of December 30 2023 from an Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor estimate "Statistics on the Israeli Genocide in the Gaza Strip (07 October-30 December 2023)". Euro-Med Monitor. 2023-12-30. Retrieved 2024-01-01..

I believe they count children as 18 and below rather than 14 that the Gaza Health Ministry uses which would mean they are 47% of the populatin rather than 37%, and men and women would be 25% each othewise the reasoning above can be used. I think they're probably also not including the 1000 killed in Israel in the October 7 atrocity. Otherwise they may not be too far off. NadVolum (talk) 23:55, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

What is the source for the GHM classifying a child as 14 and below? I'm not trying to suggest that you're lying, I'm just a bit confused about whether the 9000+ children in the infobox of 2023 Israel–Hamas war include people 15 to 18 or not. That has important ramifications for estimates of the civilian-combatant casualty ratio (half of Gaza's male population is below 18, so it's hardly inconceivable that there are mid-late adolescents among the combatants) so I think it's important to clarify.

As far as I know, Hamas, being a socially conservative Islamist organisation, does not employ women as fighters (at least not very many), and 6,450+ of the dead are women. I also doubt that a significant number of Hamas fighters are below 14, they probably aren't above using child soldiers, but with 25,000-40,000 fighters being 1-2% of the population one can assume that conventional fighting age males are preferred for practical reasons. So, without even discounting the elderly (who presumably aren't fighters), some basic number crunching gives:

22,000 - 9,000 = 13,000

13,000 - 6450 = 6,550

6,550 "adult male" casualties, meaning that even if 100% of men killed in Gaza are combatants, a 2:1 ratio of civilians to militants is mathematically impossible. If, however, 9,000+ children includes those aged 15-17 then it goes from literally impossible to just highly unlikely. Djehuty98 (talk) 20:29, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry I should have got back to this. I unfortunately assumed that from the pie chart in this article and its reference [8]. I have searched further and have been unable to find anything about the age used by The Gaza Health Ministry. Gaza figures are now being issued via the Palestinian Ministry of Health and they use 18 as the age for children. However there are some strange things about the figures as I've said below in #Infobox casualties + figures are weird. In intense bombing campaigns as far as I can find out civilian men tend to be killed at a 1.3 times higher rate at least than women, presumably because of having to risk themselves more doing various jobs so that number of men killed is rather too low for some reason. Also one would expect a much larger number of children to be killed if they are 18 or below as that would be 47% of the population. Anyway I can't figure out what is happening and I guess the Euro-Med have good people doing their figures as they seem much more reasonable . NadVolum (talk) 23:07, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

@NadVolum If the GHM figures are 18 and below, then as of the rough figures from the start of the year, approximately 41% of the dead are children (a bit lower than the % of the population that is children, but possibly accounted for by the fact that children are the group most likely to be evacuated/protected in wartime).

If however any male over 14 is classed as a man, then assuming that the distribution of casualties is roughly the same as it was when the pie chart was made, the male to female casualty rate is 1.2:1. However that includes militants, so still quite low.

Something weird is going on. It may have something to do with the collapse of the health system and administrative in Gaza, or male casualties being slightly underreported. The IDF now occupies most of northern Gaza so I'd suspect that there has been a substantial breakdown of logistics for Hamas which would disrupt their communications and information channels. I imagine women and children would have been somewhat more likely to be evacuated south than men, so perhaps it is easier for the GHM to keep tabs on the casualties there than in Gaza city where the most intense combat is.

Whatever the cause of the oddities, probably best to avoid precise figures until a clearer picture emerges. Djehuty98 (talk) 00:18, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Some photos of Hamas surrendering include teens. Dr.Donna23 (talk) 22:07, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

I think we should reserve judgement about the Hamas part as the IDF is trying to classify as many people as possible as Hamas, but yes it is very likely that many older boys are in Hamas. The problem with this is that it should make the figures for childrens deaths higher whereas they seem very low for their percentage in the population except in the Euro-Med estimates which seem about right. NadVolum (talk) 00:58, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

@NadVolum I'm inclined to agree with this. If child soldiers were the cause of the discrepancy, you would expect official figures to list them as children. The common allegation that Hamas is lying about the number of casualties doesn't really square well with the number of child casualties being (relatively) low compared to the general population. Surely it's better for their optics if child soldiers are listed as children and not adults. Djehuty98 (talk) 01:08, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I wonder if people are just not reporting dead children as often as they do for adults. NadVolum (talk) 01:04, 9 January 2024 (UTC).

@NadVolum I think that Occam's razor suggests that the most likely reason for discrepancies in the official number of dead is irregularities in reporting/recording due to the collapse of administrative infrastructure, coupled with the immense number of missing people unaccounted for.

Trying to get figures that come from these conditions to make total sense is probably a blind alley. Djehuty98 (talk) 01:15, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Possibly, but it's a very large difference where I wouldn't expect the circumstances to be very different, if some good explanation could be found it might show something. Another possibility I'd also considered the possibility that a large percentage of the older children are in Hamas and they're not reporting Hamas casualties, but actually that doesn't work out at all. Straight underreporting of childrens deaths compared to women seems the most likely to me. I'd like to know the detailed basis for how Euro-Med comes to its estimates. NadVolum (talk) 11:06, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

@NadVolum I think it's also worth considering the fact that the figures given for women and children (at least that I can find anywhere on Wikipedia) are not precise just "10,000+" and "7,000+" which suggests that they don't actually know how many women and children (and by extension men) have died.

The problem with this is that the more work the + is doing there, the more unexpectedly low the proportion of adult male casualties becomes (it's already lower than the number of women).

Could it be that the oddly precise official number is just the confirmed deaths and the numbers for women and children are minimum estimates of a larger total? Figures are not given for adult male deaths, leaving us to extrapolate them from the total and the numbers of women and children, but I feel like the discrepancy might arise from the fact that we're comparing to different types of data. Djehuty98 (talk) 13:47, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

The numbers from the Palestinian Agency should be accurate numbers of recorded deaths, but won't include numbers buried under rubble or killed while in Israeli custody so are too low, I think it is probable they've also missed out quite a few, particularly children, who weren't under rubble but have been buried without informing them. The figures from Euro-Med are estimates of total Paelstinian deaths in Gaza based on various things. The estimate of dead militants from Euro-Med is I believe too low, I'd currently put it as between 4 and 5 thousand but that's just my estimate, but otherwise I think they should be about right. NadVolum (talk) 17:54, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 January 2024

The following line uses a Tweet as a source: "As of December 30, 2023 Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor estimated Gaza Strip deaths as 30,034 total and civilian deaths at 27,681 which would mean about 2,353 militant deaths.[128]"

The Tweet claims a death toll of 30,034 as of December 31, 2023, however Al Jazeera, as of January 4, 2023, states the death toll is estimated at 22,348. (Source: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/longform/2023/10/9/israel-hamas-war-in-maps-and-charts-live-tracker)

Please remove this line, as it is also misplaced under 'Militants' while it is mostly a civilian-focused statistic, and the source is unreliable.

Rudythebobudy (talk) 02:55, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Strongly agreed. Euro-Med, founded and run by Ramy Abdu, is anti-Israeli organization whose numbers cannot possibly be trusted. Citing a tweet headlined "THE ISRAELI GENOCIDE IN THE GAZA STRIP", with absolutely no sourcing within, is a shocking betrayal of WP:RS. Especially when Euro-Meds numbers are so radically different from those of credible organizations: the Committee to Protect Journalists lists [77 journalists killed, while somehow, Euro-Med has drummed up 104. While some will take issue with the fact that the IDF figure of 8,500 Hamas militants killed isn't independently verified, it's attributed to them and definitely the best we have—certainly far more trustworthy than any Hamas numbers, which are cited throughout the article.

Euro-Med is further cited in this article for discredited claims that Israel is harvesting organs from dead Palestinians. While it's true that a limited number of dead Israelis, Palestinians, and foreign workers had corneas and possibly other parts taken without familial permission by a pathologist at a Tel Aviv research laboratory in the 1990s, claims that Israel was killing people to harvest their organs, or that this happened again in 2009 were not backed up by any evidence, and to suggest organ harvesting is taking today in Gaza is sheer anti-Semitic nonsense, a modern-day blood libel, with absolutely zero evidence to support it. No encyclopedia should ever publish this kind of racist garbage. Ekpyros (talk) 04:23, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Disagree, keep both. The figures are different because the lower figure is for recorded deaths and the higher figure is for estimated deaths including most of the missin who may be buried under rubble. The IDF figure is rubbish - it would mean practically every man kiled was Hamas and one would expect civilian men to die at the same rate or more than women considering that less than 2% of the population are militants. The argument that a side has put out propaganda and therefore nothing they say should be use is true for both sides but it is just a reason to attribute figures. That's why the IDF figure is there even though it is rubbish and their claim of killing one militant for every two civilians is also rubbish. NadVolum (talk) 08:04, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

And by the way Israel could do a lot to defuse stories about organ theft by returning the bodies of those it kills rather than going out of its way to bury them without any access by their relatives. NadVolum (talk) 10:16, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

On the business of numbers of journalists killed the citation says "CPJ is also investigating numerous unconfirmed reports of other journalists being killed, missing, detained, hurt, or threatened, and of damage to media offices and journalists’ homes." The Palestinian Authority gave the figure of 101 journalists killed. Euro-Med estimated actual figures from the figures for deaths it is given. NadVolum (talk) 10:38, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

The range of 70-100 journalists is not even contradictory, but merely reflects either different research methodology/verification and or definitions of active/inactive journalists. The essay WP:CONFLICTING provides guidelines for addressing genuinely conflicting sources, as is expected in most armed conflicts. There, we can report claims for example on Hamas militants killed according to IDF, claims by NGO X, and so on. We don't need to provide an absolute/single number, but only neutrally summarize very non-neutral sources.

The other challenge is discerning what is a weighted pov. Israeli military claims are weighted, whereas random junk-blog claiming XYZ is not weighted. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 11:39, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Well Euro-Med is not a random junk blog. A thing I though particularly worrying I saw when investigating the above is that Israel no longer allows the Red Cross access to prisoners. Germany did not allow the Red Cross access to the concentration camps and they haven't been able to access the hostages in Gaza so we won't allow them access to prisoners here does not seeem a very good argument to me. NadVolum (talk) 12:06, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

 Note: Procedurally marking edit request as answered as edits which are under discussion / have been contested are ineligible for this process. This does not impede further discussion of this edit or implementation of an edit by consensus. —Sirdog (talk) 03:41, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

No mention Hamas provides the casualty numbers

Hamas provides the casualty rates. This important fact was omitted from the first paragraph.

After 9/11, experts took a week of working round the clock to locate, excavate, count, and identify casualties. After an attack, Hamas produces a number within an hour or so. Names of casualties are not given, so the number given can't be verified.

(Why can't civilians take shelter in the 300 miles of Hamas' tunnels? Thousands could have been saved.) Dr.Donna23 (talk) 22:01, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

They produced ids and names which can be verified by Israel since they control the id system in Gaza. Are you complaining that it doesn't say 'Hamas run health ministry' instead of 'Gaza Health Ministry'? NadVolum (talk) 14:54, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

This is actually a fair critique from the original comment - it isn't necessarily a problem the number that they are releasing, but Hamas does not differentiate between combatants and civilians within their death reports. Also, every military expert will tell you that counting the dead that quick is not possible. Another issue that can be seen is after the Al Ahli hospital was hit mid-October Hamas immediately claimed 500+ were killed, that was facutally incorrect undermining their ability to be trusted. Joeshmoe1864 (talk) 05:15, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

They don't count them that quick. The 500+ figure in the papers was not issued by the health ministry, they did issue some figures later which are disputed, there's an article about it. The casualty figures the health ministry are issuing via the Palestinian Administration are known to be gross underestimates because of people buried under rubble, by Euro-Med's estimate their figures are probably only about three quarters of the true figures. NadVolum (talk) 09:28, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

As to distinguishing civilian and military, if military casualty numbers are to be issued that should be by the Hamas military command not the health ministry. NadVolum (talk) 09:38, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

There is a lot personal speculation here when we should be reporting what reliable sources say about the reliability of Gaza Ministry of Health instead of providing own theories. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 10:32, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

It's the Gaza Ministry of Health, and there is no evidence of inflated mortality reporting, according to the Lancet, a WP:MEDRS-level source. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:23, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 December 2023

(Right after footnotes 35 and 35, when discussing the death toll there is a claim that needs a citation: "The Hamas-run Gaza Health Ministry does not distinguish between combatant and civilian casualties in its reports, nor between different cause of death, though when examined the death toll of women, children, and elderly lies at about 11,000.[citation needed]"

The Israelis have released an estimate that between 5,300 and 6,000 of the deaths include combatants. If this is true and the death toll that is being used in the article is 15,000 it means that the death toll of women, children, and the elderly cannot be at about 11,000. For the sake of accuracy it would mean that about 60% of those killed are civilian casualties and 40% are combatants.

Further, the death toll between the first month and second month of the war has allegedly seen a decrease in civilian casualties from 66% of casualties being civilian to 50% being civilian from October to November.(source: https://breakingdefense.com/2023/12/55-days-of-war-the-israel-gaza-conflict-by-the-numbers/?amp=1)

Text should likely read: "The Hamas-run Gaza Health Ministry does not distinguish between civilians and combatants, however current Israeli estimates place combatants at 40% of the death toll and civilians at 60%.[][]"

Context for this is lacking in the current written form of the article. Joeshmoe1864 (talk) 01:19, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template.  Spintendo  05:08, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

This information that I had provided is now outdated, but would be objectively accurate with updated information. With nearly 25,000 people reported killed in Gaza, Israel has also reported 9,000 combatants. This would make the death toll 36% combatants as it stands right now and 64% civilian.

Note: the total death toll updates daily while combatant death toll does not, so we must go off of the number most recently published (9,000) when the overall death toll was 24,000. It is now 1,000 higher at 25,000 total. Joeshmoe1864 (talk) 00:59, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Doesn't say Hamas casualties

The numbers of casualties in Gaza doesn't say how many of them are Hamas militants and how many are civilians. I think there's a huge difference as you'd usually separate the count of soldier death and civilian death 93.172.206.197 (talk) 23:24, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately no single source seems to provide this breakdown. Gaza authorities - which is to say Hamas - provides numbers on total Palestinian deaths. The IDF provides the number of Hamas militant deaths. These are both documented in different parts of the article, which seems to me reasonable. I may see about updating the Hamas deaths number, as the IDF recently released an updated number. Warren Dew (talk) 21:42, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

This should actually be updated to provide accurate information to readers with the caveat that these are reported by Israel and the other reported by Hamas, etc. Joeshmoe1864 (talk) 01:01, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 January 2024

The following sentence is factually incorrect: "Even the conservative figure of 61 percent is higher than the average civilian death rate in all world conflicts "from the Second World War to the 1990s." (Citation #54)

The average death rate in an urban war is 90% civilian compared to 10% combatant.

Select sources for information (more included in proposed sentence):

"Urban warfare has a catastrophic impact on civilian populations and poses serious legal and operational challenges. In cities — where 55 percent of the world’s population currently resides — civilians account for 90 percent of the casualties during war."

"With civilians accounting for nearly 90 per cent of war-time casualties"

"Between 2011 and 2019 we have seen one fundamental reality – that, when explosive weapons were used in populated areas, 90% were civilians."

In the proposed rewritten sentence, I have included more citations to this information and statistics from academic, NGO, or international agency sources - none of which are "pro-Israel" or "pro-Palestine." I believe this is contentious information and must remain objective and accurate in this article.

The sentence should be changed to reflect this and can be objectively stated as: "Per the Center for Civilians in Conflict, United Nations, and other experts, it is estimated that the average civilian casualty rate in similar warfare is 90% compared to 10% combatant." Joeshmoe1864 (talk) 04:58, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

That's around where I estimate it actually is if you ignore the number of militants killed in the original atrocity, so I can't argue with that. It may even be a bit of an underestimate of the percentage killed who are civilians. NadVolum (talk) 11:23, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

The article now explains what a 'conservative' estimate is. It is one where all adult males are considered as possible militants so 61% or 68% in another study means women and children and the elderly. Daft I know but there you are. NadVolum (talk) 21:38, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

References

 Not done for now: Page is archived, marking request as answered. Shadow311 (talk) 16:55, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Organ stealing accusations

These are unverified, and in general are a complete antisemitic blood libel for ages now. The only organization to claim that is lead by a person, Abdou, that celebrated 7/10 and is pro-Hamas. Should be removed unless you want to spread antisemitism. 141.226.15.6 (talk) 14:30, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

There are a few independent groups who have made the allegations, the one in the article has asked for an inquiry into the allegations. Israel only has itself to blame for this by holding prisoners incommunicado and burying dead ones secretly given [9]. See WP:NOTCENSORED. NadVolum (talk) 22:36, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

This article is not neutral in the slightest

How can such a pro-Hamas propaganda article even be accepted on Wikipedia is beyond my understanding. All of the linked sources I followed go back to the same three sources, UNRWA, the PA or Al-Jazeera; the first two are Hamas-controlled and the third one is known to support Hamas and spread anti-semitic propaganda. Hamas deaths are counted inside the Palestinians, as if they were civilians, the families of Hamas members that chose to not evacuate to be willing hostages are counted among the regular civilians rather than be labeled as collaborationists, and the numbers don't even make sense: how can a war that killed 26k Palestinians, 10k of which being Hamas, have killed mostly women and children? Has the IAF child-seeker missiles in their drones?

I request this article to be immediatly labeled as non-neutral because at the moment it's a disgusting read. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alves Stargazer (talk • contribs) 18:37, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

As to your request please see WP:5P about Wikipedia following reliable sources. You would need to show evidence those sources are unreliable - WP:RSN is thataway. Or you could point to a few specific parts of this article and say what you see as wrong and point to sources agreeing with you. Or if there is just one part that can be dealt wit without any tags. NadVolum (talk) 20:53, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed) 188.54.103.50 (talk) 11:06, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

1,500 Militants killed inside Israel

I added this to Template talk:2023 Israel–Hamas war infobox but I notice that template isn't used here.

The following have been pointed out in the talk page about the war.. The Israeli said 1,500 militants killed a few days after they said 1,000: [10], [11], [12], [13], [14]. NadVolum (talk) 11:32, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

I was wrong, 1000 is about right. WOuld be good if the Israeli gave details about them but they have a policy of not doing so and burying such people in their cemeteries of numbers. NadVolum (talk) 21:42, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

I would be good if the number of militants killed in Israel would have a seperate heading in the article, collecting the information available on the topic. The revision of the number of israeli casualties by about 200 due to misidentification is in line with a total number of 1500 reported in the references above. There is little information available and it is hard to find it in the public domain. Wolftrans (talk) 16:05, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

See necroviolence under Necropolitics. Giving out precise figures like that is against Israeli policy. NadVolum (talk) 18:21, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Manipulative information and strongly biassed

more than 11k were terrorists, more than 350 Israelies kidnapped from israel, Israelies civilians do not participent in any military operation. 2A06:C701:4790:D800:A58F:1C98:6B4E:2DA (talk) 07:00, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Proposed changes should be clearly described. Any revisions that change the substance of the article would require citations to reliable sources, which you can attach to this talk page entry. Significant and robust sources are necessary because of the contentious nature of the subject. Ertal72 (talk) 07:12, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Primary sources/Important information regarding methodology missing

Primary sources The real primary sources for this death/injury figures are the Palestinian Ministry of Health/Gaza (MOH) and the Government Media Office (GMO) (from the Gaza-based Ministry of Information) -- OCHA, UNRWA, al-Jazeera, and others only relay (often imperfectly) these figures. The most consistent updates from the MOH and GMO are on Telegram, and their websites have been down effectively since mid-October. Much more robust data can be found from posts and reports in those chats than in newswires, which are only running with headline numbers. The PA MOH (Ramallah) also published reports through mid-November, but usually based on the OCHA numbers.

MOH: [15]https://t.me/MOHMediaGaza

GMO: [16]https://t.me/mediagovps

Report covering up until early January collating all 4 sources in an annex: [17]https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/how-hamas-manipulates-gaza-fatality-numbers-examining-male-undercount-and-other

Methodological information Footnote 98 ("Every death registered in Gaza is the result of a verified change in the population registry approved by the Government of Israel") is incorrect as it stands. On November 10, the MOH reported it could no longer report casualty figures for the northern two governorates (North Gaza and Gaza City) due to the "collapse of services and communications at hospitals in the north". [18]https://www.ochaopt.org/content/hostilities-gaza-strip-and-israel-flash-update-36

After this, they began to use two methodologies: 1) the central collection system; and 2) a new method relying on media reports (see the December 11 public health emergency report from the MOH here).

[19]https://t.me/MOHMediaGaza/4576

The media reports method accounts for 61% of deaths reported between November 10 and December 31.

[20]https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/how-hamas-manipulates-gaza-fatality-numbers-examining-male-undercount-and-other

Additionally, beginning on January 6 the MOH published a Google Form asking the relatives or neighbors of the dead or missing to submit their names and other information to the MOH -- a further indication that the whole system has collapsed outside of parts of southern Gaza.

[21]https://t.me/MOHMediaGaza/4718

Since the October 26 report which listed the names of the dead, neither the MOH or GMO have published a list of names of those killed, and there is no reason to believe that the population registry is being updated for the deaths being counted via media reports, which rarely relay much information beyond the number allegedly killed or injured.

There are other statistical inconsistencies outlined in this report from late January.

[22]https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/how-hamas-manipulates-gaza-fatality-numbers-examining-male-undercount-and-other 38.104.28.58 (talk) 23:54, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Six problems with "the majority of whom were women and minors"

The lead as it stands includes this text:

"Since then, over 27,708 Palestinians (the majority of whom were women and minors) in the Gaza Strip have been killed according to the Gaza Health Ministry."

This statement, seen here and there in official and news sources, is problematic for at least six reasons:

• Reason 1: It is doubtful that the Gaza Health Ministry itself used this exact wording (or an equivalent in Arabic), but that's the impression we get here. It matters, partly because of the next five reasons (it would be unfair to impute such faulty reporting to the Gaza Health Ministry).
• Reason 2: The literal meaning of "the majority [...] were women and minors" is that each member of the relevant majority was both a woman and a minor! Now, that's possible at an extreme stretch of credulity; we'd have to assume that the majority mentioned here comprises persons each of whom was a young woman under 18 (given the typical definition of minor). This is not what is meant of course, so the wording should be "the majority of whom were women or minors".
• Reason 3: Granted that we adopt the corrected wording given just now under Reason 2, it is at least as verifiably true to say this: "Since then, over 27,708 Palestinians (the majority of whom were men or minors) [... have been killed ...]"! Why? Well, more men than women have been killed, so the number killed who were men or minors is greater than the number who were women or minors. Yes? Why, then, do we want to speak of "the majority" being women or minors?
• Reason 4: Continuing from the point of Reason 3, it is wrong to speak in this case of "the majority". We mislead far less, and are on far safer ground ethically and informationally, if we speak of "a majority" instead.
• Reason 5: There is a gratuitous and ideologically loaded conflation of two distinct categories: women, and minors (or children, which several sources use as an alternative to minors in the formulaic expression women and children). To see this more sharply, consider the oddity of saying "a [or worse, the] majority of whom were men or minors". Why would we say that? Equally though, why would we say "a majority of whom were women or minors"? This may be seen as entrenching the vicious view that women are scarcely to be distinguished from children. Or perhaps that women are inevitably mothers anyway, welded to their offspring; so we might as well just speak of undifferentiated women-and-children: entities lacking full agency, and differing from fully agential, capable, grown-up men in that regard.
• Reason 6: Ideological, rhetorical, and logical considerations aside, the default slogan or formulation concerning "women and/or children" is just informationally inept. Why not just give the basic neutral facts, if the demographics of death must be delivered in the lead (a really good idea, given the topic of this article)? Present the raw figures right there at the start (rather than a questionable breakdown of the total that serves no good purpose):

"Since then, over 27,708 Palestinians have been killed in the Gaza Strip: X,000 men, Y,000 women, and Z,000 minors (persons under 18)."

Establish the figures as accurately as can be managed, and give the best reference that can be found to back them up. To avoid inadvertently suppressing the fact that a randomly chosen man is more likely to die in this conflict than a randomly chosen woman or a randomly chosen minor, follow up with the demographics of the Gaza population: in which there is a far greater percentage of minors, by the way, than in most parts of our conflict-riddled world. Suppressing these demographic facts gives licence to such misstatements as this: "Women and children are disproportionately killed in Gaza." Well, no. In fact men are disproportionately killed in the Gaza conflict (as in most wars of course), which the figures will show if they are lucidly and dispassionately presented. ♥ 49.190.53.153 (talk) 08:35, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

All points very well argued. Tony (talk) 10:32, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

We have to go by the sources and there's far worse things wrong with the various figures being bandied around. As to men being killed disproportionatly - that's only if everyone is killed at random and compared to other conflicts they seem to be being killed at a much lower rate proportionately. That figure you have is known to be rather widely out as it doesn't include thousands of people dead under the rubble or just buried without notifying the authorities. People are interested in how many militants have been killed but the Gaza figures don't say anything about that. Women, children and the elderly are commonly viewed as protected groups and the 'conservative figures' used by some sources for civilians only includes them - every male between 18 and 60 is considered a potential militant and excluded from the civilians figure which is silly as they are only just over 1% of the population. We can't do original research so we just have to reproduce the figures and say what sources say about them. NadVolum (talk) 11:58, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

One struggles to find anything relevant in your response, NadVolum. Point by point:

• "We have to go by the sources ..."
  But no reliable source is given in the lead (nor the article as a whole) for "the majority of whom were women and minors". As I have cogently argued, that wording is defective, misleading, and low on information; so even if some trusted source uses that precise wording it would be substandard for Wikipedia text.
• "[T]here's far worse things wrong with the various figures being bandied around."
  Perhaps that's true, but it detracts not at all from the facts I have put forward for discussion. There being one issue does not entail that there are no others.
• "As to men being killed disproportionatly - that's only if everyone is killed at random and compared to other conflicts they seem to be being killed at a much lower rate proportionately."
  You have missed the point. In this context, being killed "disproportionately" is a matter of comparisons between three groups making up the total of those residents of the Gaza Strip that were killed, with reference also to the demographic makeup of the Gaza Strip. Women are mentioned, minors are mentioned, and the remainder are men. Yes? Women would be disproportionately killed if, on average, a woman is more likely to have been killed than a non-woman (which is not the case). Similarly for minors versus non-minors (again, that appears not to be the case). Similarly for men versus those who are not men: and this is the case. By figures that can with some difficulty be extracted from sources – and from this very article, and demographic data – men have been killed disproportionately. That is, from the mere fact of X being a man in Gaza (combatant or non-combatant) we can rationally infer that X is more likely to be killed than a non-man (than someone known to be either a woman or a child, that is).
• "That figure you have is known to be rather widely out as it doesn't include thousands of people dead under the rubble or just buried without notifying the authorities."
  "That figure" is from this very article. An underestimate? Dismally, that's probably true. But not relevant to the topic in this section of the talkpage.
• "People are interested in how many militants have been killed but the Gaza figures don't say anything about that."
  People are interested in all sorts of things! Otherwise this article could be a tenth of its present length. Don't presume that everyone is tightly focused only on what interests you.
• "Women, children and the elderly are commonly viewed as protected groups and the 'conservative figures' used by some sources for civilians only includes them ..."
  Indeed they are so viewed. But that's irrelevant to the issue of accurate, complete, and fair reporting of the available facts in this article.
• "We can't do original research so we just have to reproduce the figures and say what sources say about them."
  No original research is required. Just select sources that are not obscuring the plain statistics under a film of rhetoric, suppressing facts that are available (despite the inevitable fog of war). There is no obligation to report (without attribution, by the way) using faulty and deceptive wording just because it is used by others. Tell it like it is, and let readers draw their own conclusions from the raw statistics. Don't buy into the business of forming people's opinions for them.

♥ 49.190.53.153 (talk) 22:20, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Well spoken, I agree. If numbers regarding civilians are not available, then just giving the demorgaphics straight up would suffice. This many adult women killed, that many adult men killed and this many children (below 18 years of age) 85.230.74.248 (talk) 19:15, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it's terrible. The first sentences of this article are just planted there as a template. Anyone can edit? Only if they know how to detect that template, navigate to it, and then edit it (with sufficient rights and know-how). Those responsible for this abuse should be taken to task. Where is the clear and understandable notification on this talkpage? Where is adequate and clear documentation, in the sourcecode for this article? Where is preliminary discussion of the misleading wording that we find embedded in the template and therefore across several Wikipedia articles? It's not here, it's not in the template talk, and it's not anywhere as far I can see. 49.184.184.213 (talk) 07:59, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

An archive link is needed at the top; and the topic needs vastly better treatment

An earlier version of this talkpage shows extensive discussion relevant to the issue I raised here (Six problems with "the majority of whom were women and minors"). Information is presented in low-class journalistic style, not encyclopedically. A simple search on "women" in that version of the talkpage reveals serious concerns about the breakdown of death-toll statistics. Get the raw figures (even if they're questioned, here and there), show them clearly at the start – without preconceptions of any kind.

All aspects of this article's stated topic are of interest across the globe. Every day there are thousands of pageviews. So fix it! Wikipedia has a responsibility here.

49.190.53.153 (talk) 22:49, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

The discussions were archived to [Talk:Casualties of the Israel–Hamas war/Archive 1], I don't know why there isn't an archive link here, I'll set one up in a couple of hour when I come back from something.

As to your six points - Wikipedia follows sources, it doesn't engage in original research. See WP:5P2. Find a source that says somethig like what you say first. And to be blunt I'm probably one of the people who would show most interest in proper expression of the figures and I have very little of interest in what you said. NadVolum (talk) 09:33, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the archive link NadVolum, which is now active and very useful for tracking discussion.

Who's advocating inclusion of original research? Not me, that's for sure. I repeat yet again: what the article needs at the very top is the best available uninterpreted breakdown of the Palestinian death toll from the Israeli invasion. If this has to be constructed by calculation from available data, that is specifically not original research on Wikipedia (see WP:CALC).

You may not care about the six points I raised; you may judge yourself "one of the people who would show most interest in proper expression of the figures". Those considerations completely fail as evidence here. Specialists in military ethics like Prof Jessica Wolfendale insist on the moral equality of all lives:

"Importantly, naming the impact of Israel’s actions as genocidal would not in any way diminish the moral atrocity of Hamas’s attack, nor would it justify anti-Semitism. Instead, it would reinforce the moral equality of all people and the special value of communities that is at the heart of the condemnation of genocide in all its forms."

Don't you agree? Don't we all? And if we do agree, we are rationally compelled to report the numbers killed for men, women, and children. The most reliable numbers available, that is – without filtering so that we aggregate the figures for non-men only. As if men mattered less.

Your background and research interests (whatever they are) may predispose and equip you to pursue the matter of civilian versus combatant deaths. My own background and research interests (whatever they are!) incline me to care about that, but also about equal treatment of all civilians: both in military action and in the reporting of military action. The importance of one issue does not exclude the importance of another issue.

♥ 49.190.53.153 (talk) 22:54, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Please see WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Get sources about the casualties in this war that do something like what you are talking about then perhaps something can be done. Otherwise you are not following WP:5P. Also there are other articles which deal with the genocide accusations or antisemitism. This article does not mention either of those and there is no need for it to. The aim of Wikipedia is to produce a free reliable encyclopaedia, and pushing a point of view no matter how laudible is contrary to its aims and would contribute to making it less reliable. NadVolum (talk) 11:26, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

NadVolum, you write:

"Get sources about the casualties in this war that do something like what you are talking about then perhaps something can be done."

If it wasn't clear before, it's abundantly clear now. There is zero evidence that you've understood even one sentence of mine concerning the article, above. The article is explicitly about casualties in this conflict. I have asked only that the figures (uncertain as they are) be presented plainly, at the outset. Without interpretation or omissions, working in accord with WP:CALC as needed. That's all! That's the "something like what you are talking about", to which you make the vaguest possible reference. If you think I'm requesting something beyond that, show me where I request it. Ah, but that would mean actually reading what I wrote. Good luck!

49.190.53.153 (talk) 17:26, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Well that is much shorter than your six points, thanks for summarizing what you meant to an easily digestible size.

There are however problems with providing what you say using CALC. First of all that 'deaths' figure from the Gaza Health Ministry is really recorded deaths, actual deaths is far higher. Worse than that there are obvious problems with the figures. They in effect lost control last November because of the damage to infrastructure. And those are the most reliable figures. As of 13 February they said there were 28775 killed including 12345+ children 8000+ women and 1049 elderly and 7800+ missing. Now add those children women and elderly up and you get 21394+ and taking that from 28775 you get 7381- men killed including militants. Which is extremely improbable. Lets suppose the number for women is correct and none of them is under the rubble - which is another extremely unlikely assumtion - then the number of children killed should be over 15600+ given the demographics as they would be mostly with the women. Also the number of civilian men killed should be about the same as that of the women at least and judging from other figures for carpet bombing they should be killed in a ratio of at least 1.3 men to every woman because they tend to be in essential infrastructure jobs and those get bombed more. Lets assume it is just 1 to 1 though - that would give 8000 civilian men killed rather than the 10400 one would reasonably expect. Summing up women, children, civiian men and elderly then would give 32649+. The killed plus missing would be 36575 so with the very conservative estimate that everyone missing who can't be a civilian is a militant and assuming no civilian men were at extra risk in infrastructure jobs the number of militants would be 3926-, which is below the Israeli lowest estimate. Add to all this the problem that the IDF is rounding up loads of people from Gaza and burying the bodies of anyone they suspect of being a militant in their cemeteries of number or storing them in freezers. Plus I think the number of missing under the rubble is badly underestimated... Well I hope you can see that it would require WP:Original research to come up with any reasonable figures. The best we can do is just copy the reliable sources and not try and do WP:CALC because it just isn't a CALC problem. NadVolum (talk) 20:46, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

You still don't get it. Once again: "I have asked only that the figures (uncertain as they are) be presented plainly, at the outset." So present what can be presented, with a range for the total Palestinian deaths in the Gaza Strip since 7 October: from lowest estimate to highest estimate, according to the figures in sources. That requires a bit of clear thinking, and arithmetic permitted by WP:CALC. Then if a neutral breakdown of those deaths is wanted, give figures from the most reliable sources available (as ranges, if necessary). That's what you'd do first, to avoid non-encyclopedic mush.

Next, don't interpret. Don't interpret in a way that serves the propaganda needs of one side or another. It is an un-Wikipedian interpretation to say "the majority ... were women and minors". Even if it's true, it is a constructed and selective truth out of the basic raw statistics, which in this case serves the propaganda needs of the Hamas side in the conflict. From the same raw statistics one could construct this equally slanted truth: "the majority ... were men and minors". Couldn't we? Choosing to present the first artificially constructed aggregation, concerning "women and minors" as the majority, makes a political point. More than one in fact. It also sends the dog-whistle message deaths of men are not explicitly mentioned because they don't matter, and the coded implication that women are pretty much the same as children anyway. See?

All that said, it's clear to anyone examining and understanding the editable source text for this article that its lead cannot be edited here. The entire lead, including the wording I deplored just now, has been smuggled in without discussion using a template, with this non-consensual undiscussed edit by User:Shushugah. Shushugah's edit summary, completely cryptic to all but seasoned Wikipedia editors adept at technicalities and forensic snooping: (Move (sub) article to proper template at Israel–Hamas war casualties).

The lead text of this article has been hijacked. Neither in the complete record of edits for this article, nor in the complete record of edits for that template, is any part of the politically charged wording "women and minors" mentioned in any edit summary (not using the word women, nor children, nor minors).

So I am reminded yet again of the worst of the Wikipedia-editing experience, and why I don't edit systematically under a username, in recent years. So many power-grabs, campaigns of deception, and mindless spreading of pernicious memes – as if hot war in the real world were not enough. Sheesh!

♥ 49.190.53.153 (talk) 23:05, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Can I point you to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS again. What's there reflects what the sources say. And as I have hown you puting out figures that are not in the sources would not be covered by WP:CALC in this case. Ithink I shall just abandon this discussion at this stage as I get the feeling you're just going to go on about me not getting it again. Perhaps I don't but that's life. NadVolum (talk) 00:22, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I think you don't get it. And yes, that is life! Frustrating for everyone, when entrenched preconceptions about subtly biased wording get in the way of crucial insights. (I think you might get it soon, after some further thought.)

It is not obligatory, nor desirable, for Wikipedia to choose the stupidest and most careless sources, some of which unwittingly propagate politically coloured memes like the automatic grouping of "women-and-children". As if there were barely any distinction between the two. There are many, many sources for the Israel–Hamas War: all over the web. Choose the most impartial, and don't blindly imitate inferior presentation of facts.

Nor should we emulate those who twist in this way intentionally, for propaganda ("Look at Israel! It mostly kills women-and-children!"). I have explained at length, and in summary form for those with less patience, how it is completely unnecessary and undesirable to sink to lowest-common-denominator wording that perpetuates demeaning stereotypes. This one is as deceptive and surreptitious as "All stock up to 75% off!!" (true, but only three of the 9000 items are 75% off and the rest are 2% off).

☺☺ 49.190.53.153 (talk) 02:43, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Issues with several footnotes and broader holes

FN 13 sources the Gaza Health Ministry in the text but Euromed Human Rights Monitor in the footnote, while using numerical claims from the Government Media Office

Gaza Health Ministry Tally (1/13/24): https://t.me/MOHMediaGaza/4774 -- only the headline number of 23,843

GMO Tally (1/13/24): https://t.me/mediagovps/2222 -- headline number (23,843) and disaggregated (10,400 children, 7,100 women, implying 6,343 men)

Euromed Human Rights Monitor (1/13/24): https://euromedmonitor.org/en/article/6093 -- claim of 31,497 killed

If this sentence is referencing the Gaza Health Ministry, which has not released subtotals for men/women/children since November 10, it should use only the headline number. If it is citing the GMO, it should do so directly using the link above. Euromed Human Rights Monitor's counts are consistently divergent from the Ministry of Health, and they appear to at minimum be counting all those reported missing as dead.

FN 100 (OCHA "clearly sourced" quote) is misleading

On 26 October, the United Nations humanitarian office added they use the Gaza Ministry of Health's death totals because they are "clearly sourced". [100]

The full quote from the article in question (https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/10/26/appalling-why-has-biden-cast-doubt-on-the-palestinian-death-count): “The United Nations relies on the Health Ministry in Gaza as a source for casualties figures in that area,” the spokesperson said in an email. “We continue to include their data in our reporting and it is clearly sourced. It is nearly impossible at the moment to provide any UN verification on a day-to-day basis.”

The clearest read of this sentence is that the OCHA spokesperson is saying that OCHA is marking the fatality/injury data as sourced from the Gaza Health Ministry in their daily reports (Flash Updates and Reported Impact Statements), not that they use it because it is clearly sourced (indeed, data from a single source is definitionally clearly sourced, which would make the sentence nonsensical).

Broader holes in the article

The sub-section on the death toll does not address developments after mid-November, when critical changes took place in the casualty-reporting methodology that cast serious doubt on its accuracy. Nor does it utilize any of the six public health emergency reports put out by the Gaza Ministry of Health between December 11 and February 13. This sharply limits the accuracy or usefulness of the section, as it primarily deals with the air campaign (10/7-10/27).

There is no serious description of the Health Ministry's methodology (both originally and as it has evolved, nor is there any discussion of the unknown methodology used by the GMO and Euromed Human Rights Monitor (the former of which the UN stopped using after admitting it did not know how its figures were calculated).

Moreover, it is not noted anywhere in the article that OCHA has said since almost the start of the war that it cannot and is not attempting to verify any casualty figures, as it did in real-time during previous Israel-Hamas conflicts. The UN Protection Cluster, a network of NGOs and UN agencies spearheaded by OCHA, has not done so this time either. For the boilerplate UN language, see this recent Reported Impact statement from OCHA:

"Disclaimer: The UN has so far not been able to produce independent, comprehensive, and verified casualty figures; the current numbers have been provided by the Ministry of Health or the Government Media Office in Gaza and the Israeli authorities and await further verification. Other yet-to-be verified figures are also sourced."

[23]https://www.ochaopt.org/content/hostilities-gaza-strip-and-israel-reported-impact-day-142 2601:152:4C83:D60:7554:AF72:39E3:1D27 (talk) 07:21, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

The figures from the Gaza Health Ministry are deaths that have been recorded by them. So much is broken down now that the figure is pretty certainly a gross underestimate of actual deaths. The Euro-Med figures are an estimate by them of actual deaths including the estimate of those missing presumed dead by the heath ministry and their own corrections which as you said are not transparent. In that they are like most of the other numbers there except the Israeli figures for their own dead. Yes there's lots of problems with the figures but what exactly is your point? Wikipedia can't go about generating its own figures from thin air, so is there somethng about this you think can be done? NadVolum (talk) 16:46, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

There is a lot that can be done to improve the article using publicly available primary-source material from the Ministry of Health and reports by the Government Media Office. The article as it stands right now does not sufficiently explain the the regular process [1] or the changes it has undergone during the war. [2]

The Gaza Health Ministry is operating differently in this war than previous ones. It has employed a dual methodology since early November: 1) the central collection system (hospitals, morgues, etc.), which has been used in the past and performed relatively well in prior conflicts; and 2) an undefined "media reports" methodology which makes up just over 61% of reported deaths since November 2. [3] This is distinct from previous conflicts, where they only used the central collection system. The Health Ministry has yet to explain how the media reports methodology works or provide any detail on the deaths reported in this manner, or to reconcile its assertion that 70% of the dead are women and children when its central collection system data shows that they are 58%. [4] Combining distinct methods complicates error estimates, especially if the methodology is opaque -- it is not clear what media sources are being used, if there is a database comparable to the central collection system for media reports, if there is any coding or filtering of collected reports, or anything else. There are also sharp qualitative differences in the breakdown between men, women, and children between the two methodologies.

The Health Ministry has published 11 Arabic-language Health Sector Emergency reports on its Telegram channel between December 11 and March 3, each of which contains a breakdown of the number of deaths and injuries recorded in the central collection system and a headline number for the number of casualties sourced from media reports (these are not disaggregated). [5]

The OCHA disclaimer is important, since this also diverges from previous Israel-Hamas conflicts in which OCHA and international/local NGOs it coordinated with through the UN Protection Cluster engaged in real-time attempts to verify casualty figures and disposition (including distinguishing between civilians and combatants). It is noteworthy that they have not done so in this war.

My broader point is that being precise about who is claiming what and using which methodology over which timeframe is critical. It outlines the limits of the available information from all sources. This can be done with existing primary and secondary sources.

[1] “What Is Gaza’s Ministry of Health and How Does It Calculate the War’s Death Toll,” NewsHour, PBS, November 7,

2023, https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/what-is-gazas-ministry-of-health-and-how-does-it-calculate-thewars-death-toll.

[2] Batrawy and Baba, "Gaza's death toll now exceeds 30,000. Here's why it's an incomplete count," NPR, February 29, 2024, https://www.npr.org/2024/02/29/1234159514/gaza-death-toll-30000-palestinians-israel-hamas-war.

[3] See a Health Ministry Health Sector Emergency Report from 12/11 [Arabic], the first of a series of 11 so far, which is the first notice of this change: https://t.me/MOHMediaGaza/4576. The remaining series can be easily found in the Telegram channel by sorting by files.

[4] Batrawy and Baba.

[5] See, for example, the March 3 report: https://t.me/MOHMediaGaza/5122 38.104.28.58 (talk) 21:51, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

The npr citation [2] looks fine for use here and in the Gaza Health Ministry article. I think the 58% in it was from when they just gave the figures for women and children rounded to a thousand and had not updated them, i got very close to the figure that way. Now they're giving out figures for each again the latest percentage including the elderly works out as 72%.

The pbs cite [1] should be [24]. \\\I don't think it says anything more worth putting in than is already at the Gaza Health Ministry article and this one. NadVolum (talk) 00:21, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

The 58% combined figure for women and children is the central collection system data for 10/7-3/3, shown in pages 8-9 of the Health Sector Emergency Report accessible here (chart at the top of page 9 shows precisely this): https://t.me/MOHMediaGaza/5122

It does not represent rounded figures and reflects updates to the central collection system up to 3/3. The Ministry of Health's most recent claim about overall figures, made on page 1 in the 3/3 report, is that 70% of those killed are women and children. As the NPR article states, the MOH spokesperson was not able to account for the discrepancy between the central collection system figures and their overall 70% claim.

The Government Media Office's most recent claim (posted on 3/4 regarding data as of 3/3, so covering the same period as the 3/3 MOH report above) is that 73.1% of those killed are women or children (of 30,534 total: 13,430 children, 8,900 women -- subtracting these from the total yields a maximum figure of 8,204 men). See here for the post: https://t.me/mediagovps/2459

Neither the MOH nor the GMO are providing figures for the elderly in their postings or reports. I do not see any publication or post from either body which claims 72% of the dead are women, children, and the elderly. Euromed Human Rights Monitor's most recent claims on 3/5 (https://twitter.com/EuroMedHR/status/1765230242946285956) seem to be saying only 60% of the dead are women and children, but I believe that's because they are not breaking down the demographics of the missing. 38.104.28.58 (talk) 01:16, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I can see what has happened - one would expect the number of children who died to be almost double that of women in line with their demographics and staying with women - but the figures for their deaths in the hospitals is slightly less than that for women. The figures from outside have brought that up considerably but less than I would expect. Perhaps their parents avoid taking them to hospital becauese they're being attacked - it would need someone there to give a definitive reason. In fact if you subtract the hospital figures from the totals you get more than double the number of children than women killed reported from outside - I would expect that includes some who weren't taken to a hospital when a man or woman would be. NadVolum (talk) 14:05, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

That's a speculatory explanation, but I don't see any evidence backing it. According to the same 3/3 MOH report, children make up 23% of the injured in the central collection system, much lower than their population proportion. This argument doesn't hold there -- injured people need treatment, and hospitals are the only place capable of providing that, even if there is a certain risk associated with it (likely still lower than being outside). There isn't strong reason to expect deaths to automatically track with demographic proportion.

The hospitals are not capable of very much at the moment. A child can be cared for by their parents but an adult may not be able to get support while ill or injured very easily.. The risk of death for children should be about the same or even higher than that for women - it is just ridiculous to blithly say there's no reason they should be linked, and even less to assume that they should be killed at a rate of less than half that of women when they are mainly in the same circumstances. It's bombs that are mainly kiling them, not snipers picking off women preferentially. You really need to ask what good reason would there be for the deaths of children and women not to be linked to their demographics. NadVolum (talk) 19:05, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Again, that is speculation and a number of stacked assumptions. I'm not making any assumptions about what the proportions should be, but looking at the available data on what they are, based on the central collection system's known methodology. If the point of the article is to relay accurate information regarding the claims of different actors, it's very important to get their actual claims right. 38.104.28.58 (talk) 19:33, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

The central system is what's been understood in the past to be broadly reliable, whereas there is no information regarding the details of the media reporting methodology. Given that, there is little point in trying to reconcile the results of the two methods. They may not be measuring the same thing, and the media reports methodology could be a good-faith effort, a total guess, or, more cynically, active manipulation. Untangling exactly which one (or combination) of the three is going on requires greater transparency from the MOH, which so far is not forthcoming. 38.104.28.58 (talk) 18:03, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

The obvious method of informing the GMH is to give the dead persons identity number to them as well as anything else they know. Many are relying on their identity card for identification if killed, and it is reasonable to assume that is what is asked for in the first instance about any death. Unidentified deaths would be something they'd try hard to avoid. I was not trying to reconcile the two systems and there's no need to. There is no reason to assume manipulation, the identity numbers are what are used to validate the system and they'll be checked. NadVolum (talk) 19:05, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

These are additional assumptions about the nature of the media reports methodology -- we do not have any information about it. Using news/media reports to count deaths is very error-prone and tough to do at high speed: it requires the sort of very careful, long-term work done by groups like Airwars to ferret out errors, double-reporting, and other issues.

It is not likely identity numbers are provided for those deaths coming from media reports (which could range from Telegram posts to reports by journalists, and that sort of information could not be acquired by scraping news reports -- it would have to be direct reporting to an MOH portal, and would require those reporting to actually have that information on hand). And the ID numbers are apparently not always sufficient for full ID. In the central collection system (based on a tranche of data release on 1/7 that covers 10/7-11/2 in the south and 10/7-1/5 in the north), between 5-10% of the dead were not fully identified (by age -- all but 3 were identified by sex), even with ID numbers for all.

There is a separate track, which is a Google form first published on 1/6 to get the family members of the missing and dead to report them as such. It's not clear how this has been integrated into MOH reporting, or how many submissions there have been via this portal (they would need to be checked against the central system to avoid double-counting) -- no category has been added to the health sector emergency reports. 38.104.28.58 (talk) 19:27, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

I got a figure for elderly I'm pretty sure on Wikipedia yesterday, but today I can't find it! The Palestinian Authority get the identities of the dead from Gaza and can analyse them separately and I believe the figure was from them but I just used today's figures without that today. The war makes a complete mess. NadVolum (talk) 14:36, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I see the 72% claim today from the MOH, but it is only for women and children. [1] I don't see any evidence that the PA is receiving the casualty data from media reports, just that of the central collection system. The central system accounted for only about 20% of reported deaths in February, so they would be unable to check most reported deaths.

The Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics maintains its own dynamic tracker, but it is totally unclear how they get to their numbers. [2] The page cites the Ministry of Health (unclear if this is Gaza or Ramallah -- the latter has not published anything on the death toll since early December) and OCHA (who has not published any disaggregated figures since December 11). The subtotals for women and children (8,900 and 13,430 respectively) currently match the 3/4 GMO claims, indicating that PCBS is actually using the GMO as a source as well.[3]

However, none of the GMO, either MOH, or OCHA report a figure for the elderly, so there's no source for it.

[1] https://t.me/MOHMediaGaza/5140

[2] https://www.pcbs.gov.ps/site/lang__en/1405/Default.aspx

[3] https://t.me/mediagovps/2459 38.104.28.58 (talk) 17:52, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Have a look at the first figure in the second line of the pcbs figures. I'm not altogether certain they are not also included elsewhere but I think they would be trying to conform to the UN standards in which case the figures for them would be separate. Also my understanding is that the health ministry in Gaza passes all information about individual deaths to the corresponding Palestinian one. NadVolum (talk) 19:05, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

That's what I'm talking about -- the number for the elderly there is not reflected in any actual source (the PCBS has no involvement in the process, so they are not generating it on their own). If the Gaza MOH has the figure, why would they not publish it in any of the detailed reports or daily updates? A back-of-the-napkin check also raises some questions: since the last reported number for elderly by the MOH was 678 on 11/10, this would reflect an increase of roughly 55%, against increases (going by GMO claims, since this is what the PCBS looks to be citing) of close to 300% for women and children over the same period. [1]

Throughout October and early November, the PA MOH figures lagged behind those from the Gaza MOH (possibly attributable to data being transferred to them at a different time of day and publication delays on their parts). They have not published reports since 12/10, and before that consistent uploads stopped by mid-November, so it is hard to know what they are getting from the Gaza MOH.

[1] https://t.me/MOHMediaGaza/4422 38.104.28.58 (talk) 19:48, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

The health ministries have always worked closely together and Gaza has always tried to pass over as much of its raw data as possible for use in statistics. Ramallah also has full details about the identity cards. What are you trying to say, that Ramallah is making up numbers from thin air for numbers of elderly killed? What on earth would be the point of that? Yes I would have expected the number of deaths in the elderly to be up to double that - but it is very possible that they are being underreported compared to the rest of the population. It is not at all like the case of childrens deaths compared to women. And it may be they don't count those where they're not fairly sure it is due to the war as elderly people are quite liable to die anyway compared to the rest of the population. NadVolum (talk) 20:40, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

By the way I only used Telegraph to check the hospital figures about children and have now got rid of it again. I'm not a fan of its policies. NadVolum (talk) 19:18, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

As to the Euro-Med figures they're trying to estimate total deaths. The Gaza Health Ministry figures are pretty definite, and a Hamas one has said 6,000 Hamas killed, and then you have to take into account the demographics and assume all civilians are killed at the same rate - which is untrue especially for men but it's hard enough fitting the figures together - and then it looks like they take the 10,000 under the rubble as given too. The only thing they can ignore to an extent is the 70% estimat by the health ministry of women and children buried under the rubble and assume the militants are mostly included in that. Personally I think the number of missing dead may be much higher NadVolum (talk) 14:54, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the whole point of this discussion is. The Gaza Health Ministry has always tried to do its best to provide accurate figures. Have you any indication it is doing otherwise? If anything my personal calculations indicte to me the number of deaths could easily be twenty thousand higher than they say. NadVolum (talk) 20:51, 8 March 2024 (UTC)