Talk:Casualties of the Israel–Hamas war/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Combatant casualties

This article is missing any discussion of combatant casualties in the Gaza strip. Please rectify this 93.173.53.240 (talk) 08:37, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Your request does not appear to be related to this article. Perhaps try the read aloud option in your web browser. Sean.hoyland (talk) 10:45, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

The recently added table at the top of Casualties of the Israel–Hamas war#Civilian to military ratio may answer their query. Until recently it has been hard to find any reliable source for this. We still don't have accurate figures but this at least gives a reasonable range of estimates. NadVolum (talk) 10:59, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

@NadVolum any feedback on that? I don't think we should all multiple IDF claims to that table as that would be undue. We should take the latest Israeli claim as representative of their position, so the June entry should be enough.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 17:35, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me. Actually they came out with a claim of 17,000 in August. [1]. NadVolum (talk) 20:00, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Note that that source is considered unreliable about WP:PIA topics, so I would recommend finding a different one. Smallangryplanet (talk) 15:48, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

I thought the cite was relible enough for the IDF claim but I've changed it to Associated Press instead. NadVolum (talk) 23:59, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

@Sean.hoyland Please be civil, that was rude and dismissive. --Scharb (talk) 19:25, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Scharb, "Your request does not appear to be related to this article." was an objectively true statement given the mismatch between the statement and the article contents. The rest is a joke, but it's also good practical advice nowadays given the dramatic increase in error rates in comprehension since the introduction of smartphones. You are free to consider it rude or dismissive but don't expect me to agree or care. Next time, if something similar happens, I will suggest the party tries using NotebookLM to interact with the article. Sean.hoyland (talk) 03:20, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Most "Casualties of X War" articles on Wikipedia do list combatant casualty estimates/claims if available.

In many wars, those estimates and claims are debatable or come from one side or the other. Each side's estimates are presented neutrally.

This article does not meet Wikipedia standards. Scharb (talk) 15:44, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

That is a useless statement. NadVolum (talk) 16:39, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Read what the IP wrote, "This article is missing any discussion of combatant casualties in the Gaza strip." Look at the state of the article when they wrote it here at 2024-10-09T03:24:13. Observe the 'Civilian to military ratio' section present at the time. Then look at the article now and review your comments to see whether they make sense. Sean.hoyland (talk) 16:52, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

"Casualties"

The entire article really needs to reworked to account for the word "casualty" so often being used (in the West at least) to mean "fatality" when the actual definition of casualty includes both deaths and injuries (as well as missing, captured, and desertions in a military context). For example, the oft-cited "UN 9:1 civilian to combatant ratio" includes injuries as well as deaths in the actual report, but the sentences directly preceding this citation in the wiki article is talking exclusively about those *killed* by direct military violence. JudithButlerianJihad (talk) 01:02, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 November 2024

I suggest replacing the following paragraph :

According to a letter sent to President Joseph R. Biden, Vice President Kamala D. Harris, and others on October 2, 2024 by 99 American healthcare workers who have served in the Gaza Strip since October 7, 2023, and cited in a study from the Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs at Brown University, based on starvation standards by the United States-funded Integrated Food Security Phase Classification, according to the most conservative estimate that they could calculate based on the available data, at least 62,413 people in Gaza have thus far died from starvation, most of them young children, as well as at least 5,000 estimated deaths from lack of access to care for chronic diseases.[31][32][33]

by the following :

According to a letter sent to President Joseph R. Biden, Vice President Kamala D. Harris, and others on October 2, 2024 by 99 American healthcare workers who have served in the Gaza Strip since October 7, 2023, based on starvation standards by the United States-funded Integrated Food Security Phase Classification and cited in a study from the Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs at Brown University, the most conservative estimate that they could calculate based on the available data was at least 62,413 deaths in Gaza from starvation (most of them young children) and at least 5,000 deaths from lack of access to care for chronic diseases.[31][32][33]

to avoid any repetition and to shorten the overall length of this complex and very long sentence. Even as an advanced English speaker (although non native) I had a hard time making it to the end of the paragraph unconfused. 46.218.138.102 (talk) 12:46, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Not done for now: please make your request at Template talk:Israel–Hamas war casualties. Bowler the Carmine | talk 18:48, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

The change does affect the template but it appears here and I think the change is reasonable so I'll do it to the template. By the way Euro Med had earlier estimated 51,000 indirect deaths from their links inside Gaza, they attributed most to lack of healthcare and rampant dsease instead of famine but said that the lack of food was a major factor in people not recovering from injury or disease. This report just stuck in a ? for deaths from lack of healthcare which makes rather a mess of it. I rather get the feeling they wanted to attribute the deaths more to famine as that is covered by international agreements which Biden might take notice of. Though he has taken precious little notice of what has happened to the people in Gaza so far so I wouldn't bet on it. NadVolum (talk) 19:02, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

This makes no sense and is misleading.

I'm not sure if the numbers for the occupied West Bank are accurate, but by "other parts of Israel" is it referring to occupied Gaza, and if so, why not have the total killed there?

"The 7 October attacks on Israel killed 1,195 people, including 815 civilians. A further 479 Palestinians, including 116 children, and 9 Israelis have been killed in the occupied West Bank (including East Jerusalem). Casualties have also occurred in other parts of Israel, as well as in southern Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, and Iran." Deshaar (talk) 16:01, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

No it is not referring to Gaza. There is a lot of Israel that is not occupied West Bamk! NadVolum (talk) 21:18, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 November 2024

Request to change first paragraph:

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

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

Additionally, requesting an edit of note 19.

From

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

To

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

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

Three additional sources for this final line edit are:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 November 2024

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

Incomplete Citation of Source

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

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

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

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

Okay great

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