Talk:Casualties of the Israel–Hamas war

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 April 2024. Adding sources proving manipulation of the casualty numbers from the Gaza Health Ministry to fix the long due lack of neutrality of this article.

CHANGE:

As of 8 April 2024, over 34,000 people (33,091 Palestinian[1] and 1,410 Israeli[9]) have been reported as killed in the Israel–Hamas war, including 95 journalists (90 Palestinian, 2 Israeli and 3 Lebanese)[10] and over 224 humanitarian aid workers, including 179 employees of UNRWA.[11]

The vast majority of casualties have been in the Gaza Strip: over 33,091 have been killed, 70% of them are women and minors.[12] In December 2023, Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor estimated 90% of the casualties were civilians,[13][14] while the IDF put the civilian ratio at 66% of those killed.[15] The death toll comes from the Gaza Health Ministry and the total death toll in Gaza is presumed to be higher than reported,[16][17] with thousands remaining unaccounted for, including those trapped under rubble.[12][18]

TO:

As of 8 April 2024, over 34,000 people (33,091 Palestinian[1] and 1,410 Israeli[9]) have been reported as killed in the Israel–Hamas war by the Gaza Health Ministry, including 95 journalists (90 Palestinian, 2 Israeli and 3 Lebanese)[10] and over 224 humanitarian aid workers, including 179 employees of UNRWA. The vast majority of reported casualties have been in the Gaza Strip. [11][12]. In December 2023, Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor estimated 90% of the casualties were civilians,[13][14] while the IDF put the civilian ratio at 66% of those killed.[15] The death toll comes from the Gaza Health Ministry and the total death toll in Gaza is presumed to be higher than reported,[16][17] with thousands remaining unaccounted for, including those trapped under rubble.[12][18]

These figures have been though repetitely challenged and found incoherent and untrustworthy by multiple sources, partly because of the control that Hamas has on the Gaza Health Ministry. The Washington Institute for Near East Policy released in Jan. 2024 an analysis of the data which stated, among other things, that the claim that 72% of the dead are women and children is false and the data were manipulated to exaggerate the proportion of civilian casualties. Professor Abraham Wyner published a statistical study on the anomalies of the provided figures from the Gaza Ministy of Health, underlining an excessively regular progression in the reported casualties and a lack of correlation between the number of women and children victims, concluding that "the numbers are not real". President Biden himself claimed that he has "no confidence in the number that the Palestinians are using."

ADD UNDER "Reactions and analysis" title:

The data offered by the Gaza Health Ministry have been often questioned by multiple sources and found incoherent.

The validity of the data reported by the Ministry of Health is firstly questioned because of its ties with Hamas, which makes it remarkably not neutral. Hamas appointed its own health minister after it took control of Gaza in 2007, separating the ministry from the Palestinian Health Ministry in the West Bank (which is controlled by the Palestinian Authority) and firing the doctors linked to Fatah. “After I was dismissed they threatened to kill me, to shoot me, if I entered the hospital again”, said Jomaa Alsaqqa, former deputy director of Shifa Hospital. "About 600 doctors were fired or pushed out of their jobs."

The Washington Institute for Near East Policy released a report at the end of January 2024 that attempted to show some of the discrepancies in the official fatality report's figures, and states that "The repeated claim that 72% of the dead are women and children is very likely incorrect" and that the data were manipulated "to downplay the number of militants killed and to exaggerate the proportion of noncombatants confirmed as dead". It also claims that the war has decreased in intensity.

In March 2024 Abraham Wyner, professor of statistics and data science of Wharton, published a piece on Tablet Magazine after analyzing the numbers of casualties reported by the Ministry of Health in Gaza and denounced an "extremely regular increase in casualties over the period" and the fact that "the daily number of children reported to have been killed is totally unrelated to the number of women reported", rather than closely tied as it happens in war scenarios. The analysis would suggests that "the numbers are not real" and were instead fabricated by the Palestinian Authority.

The Gaza Ministry of Health also admitted that the figures the media treat as authoritative rely in part on reporting from the media. The ministry says that the reported casualties include not only those counted in the hospitals but also those reported by "reliable media sources". In its March 31 report, the ministry attributes 15,070 of the dead, or 45.9%, to news reports of unspecified origin but that likely include the Hamas-controlled Al-Aqsa channel and Al-Jazeera, which has always mantained an hostile attitude toward Israel since the start of the war and denies the 07 Oct. massacre. Alves Stargazer (talk) 20:02, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Wyner's 'study' is badly manipulated statistics using his reputation for propaganda, that's why no reliable non-Israeli place uses them, see [1]. The The Washington Institute for Near East Policy is another of these endless Israeli propaganda sources in the US and the stuff in that is slanted and misses out a lot, it should at least be described as that rather than giving the impression it is independent. They Ministry do ask for details of all the deaths reported and try and get id numbers and names etc but there are very few people doing the statistics.

So a no from me for a straight insertion. Yes the Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor estimate of 90% is almost certainly too high. The IDF figure of 66% is total rubbish. The only guesstimate I've seen from any actual reliable source so far is as much as perhaps 80% but really nobody knows. And I'm pretty certain the Health Ministry is recording less than two thirds of the actual deaths even with its web forms. NadVolum (talk) 21:46, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Lior Patcher from [2] only contests the first plot in Wyner's study, the regular progression; he finds no fault nor explanation to the others analyzed anomalies (no correlation between women and children deaths, negative correlation between men and women, resurrections among men), as himself clarified in the comments.

The Washington Institute for Near East Policy may be indeed not neutral but this whole page is not neutral as of now. Every figure used in this page, even those reported by prestigious newspapers as the NYT, can be traced back to the Gaza Health Ministry, which is not just Hamas-Controlled and therefore partial (see [3][4]) but also admitted of using media reports as sources for half of the reported deaths, likely anti-Israelian media [5]. So either we add some contradictory or we need to erase the whole page and wait ten years before making a chronicle out of it because at this point it's misinformation.

Also, what does it mean that "the IDF figure of 66% is total rubbish"? Was that your personal opinion? If Israel and the IDF offer their numbers (which btw include the deceased terrorists, which should be added at a certain point in this page) we should just report them specifying the source.

That said, what do you think it should be edited to make it a suitable insertion? Alves Stargazer (talk) 11:17, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Other people contributed to the Lior Patcher thread. He was very dismissive of Wyner's study. If you read further on a probable explanation of the anti-correlation you talk about is that they batched the checking so they did children, men and women separately rather than trying to deal with each as they came in and it took about two days for a turnaround. It says there were only four people checking the data from the various sources. As to the 66% please see [6], the 66% is probably a rounded version of 61% from an Israeli University study which counted all adult men as possible combatants - a fairly common thing in these studies but unfortunately one which is easy to misunderstand. Since men form nearly a quaer of the population and Hamas is a small minority one should add another third to that to get 81% civilians. That could vary as many militants aren't counted as they are buried under rubble, on the other hand civilian men are killed disproporionately in wars. Anyway I hope you can see the 66% is total rubbish. Of course Wikipedia will cite total rubbish especially in an article like this where there are no well determined and solid facts so possibly some of what you say could go in but if you are believing that the deaths are lower than what the Health Ministry says or the figure is 2:1 civilians to militants and this is a marvellous achievement you are sadly mistaken. NadVolum (talk) 13:13, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

I am less interested in believing and more in keeping the article neutral, since at this point it's mostly Hamas propaganda. Every Israelian-related source is specified, yet every Hamas tie is omitted from Hamas-tied sources and expressed as objective truth. The lack of transparency is going to led people unwilling to dig through link chains to believe that these numbers are factual, rather than coming from not-neutral sources. Generally speaking, though, I'm not really prone to give a lot of credibility to an internationally recognized terrorist organization.

At the very least I'd start changing the first paragraph with something more transparent. Let's say, we could replace: "The vast majority of casualties have been in the Gaza Strip: over 33,091 have been killed, 70% of them are women and minors. In December 2023, Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor estimated 90% of the casualties were civilians, while the IDF put the civilian ratio at 66% of those killed."

with: "The vast majority of casualties have been in the Gaza Strip: according to the Hamas-controlled[7] Gaza Health Ministry, over 33,091 Palestinians have been killed and 70% of them are women and minors, with no distinction between fighters and civilians. In December 2023, the Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor, which was listed by Israel among Hamas' main operatives and institutions in 2013[8], estimated 90% of the casualties were civilians, while the IDF put the civilian ratio at 66% of those killed. In March 2024, the IDF announced a total esteem of 13,000 Hamas members killed, in addition to the thousand already killed on 7th October. [9]"

I believe this should give a more balanced outlook on the situation. Alves Stargazer (talk) 18:06, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not engage in WP:FALSEBALANCE. The IDF figures it gives to the public are all over the place [10]. Internally they use the figures from the Gaza Health Ministry [11]. That the state is terrorist or democratic has very little relation to whether data like this is reliable. NadVolum (talk) 19:20, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Mekomit [12] that you linked is part of the +972 Magazine which opposes Israelian occupation of Palestine and it's fringe activism journalism, no where near to claim that Israel uses the Health Ministry figures internally. IDF figures, Wyner's studies and the Washington Institute were all reported by large US newspapers and they are therefore relevant as per Wikipedia:BESTSOURCES. You just can't consider it a fringe theory if WSJ and Washington Post report it, especially since there is no difference with the Hamas-controlled Health Ministry figures that were reported in the already linked NBC, CNN and NYT articles;

Lyor Patcher's objections and even worse the comments below the blog, instead, come from an unknown blog which is frankly impossible to consider reliable, as per Wikipedia:Reliable sources and undue weight. Which brings us back to the point that this page gives undue weight to Hamas and pro-Palestinian sources with no balance altogether.

Let's further add that the Gaza Health Ministry numbers were only considered accurate for the period from Oct. 7 to 26, as per [13], which is the same source on the relative wiki page, and the mention that the WHO considered it relieble in [14] needs to be dated to the initial phase of the war. This does not keep into account the collapse of the Ministry of Health in November 2023 nor the fact that since then they admitted taking half of their figures from the media, not even the echo chamber among all the Hamas-influenced media.

I'd also like to point out that you had no issue when someone edited the article adding obviously all-over-the-place data, like the 90% from the Hamas-controlled Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor, yet it suddenly became an issue for you the moment the added data attacked Hamas. I therefore have to ask to please stop gatekeeping; the data I intend to add has no lower quality of what is already included in the article. Alves Stargazer (talk) 17:41, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

I didn't object to the IDF figure of 66% being stuck in the lead either. It was reported by reliable sources and like the Euro-Med figure of 90% it is attributed to them. What I do object to is bad sources being used in such a blatant manner to discredit the Ministry of Health in the lead. All the Washington Institute shows is that the figures have some problems and errors, they do not show anything like what you state. One would need to ignore all the missing under the rubble and count nearly all the men as being Hamas militants to get anywhere like what you said or start saying the figures reported in the hospitals are much too high even though only three are still operating to some extent. Professor Wyner's article is rubbish and it is propaganda, there just is no two ways around it. Anyone with an ounce of training in statistics or even maths can figure that out. And it hasn't been reported in a reliable source. I am happy for it to be stuck somewhere lower down with the rest of the propaganda trying to push figures but putting it in the lead is just wrong. As to going on about an Israeli media group being anti-Israel and making thing up about the IDF I am put in mind of the Anti-Defamation League calling Jews antisemitic. NadVolum (talk) 17:58, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Apologies, but apparently someone vandalized this talk page removing my answer. So:

The Ministry of Health and the Euro-Med are still not reported as Hamas-controlled, which makes those data really opaque on the side they're on. This needs to change ASAP. And the Euro-Med monitor should have never been mentioned at all, since it's an echo chamber for the radical Islamic world which is conceptually speaking as bad as a fallacious statistical study; and since Wyner's had an entire article from the Washington Post talking about it they are really on the same degree of relevance.

In general terms the figures from the Ministry look fishy as hell. Last week Al-Jazeera reported two Israelian bombings with 22 and 20 dead, with 18 and 17 children dead respectively (the rest women) which makes just no sense unless the IDF is purposedly targeting kindergartens; which again makes no sense for a democratic country and they're likely made up. Since the Ministry admitted they've been using media data in their figures, just imagine how many of these fake reports have puffed the civilian casualties; but we don't don't have to imagine because that's exactly what the Washington Institute is talking about - they're making up women and children casualties to influence international opinion.

The idea that most dead men are Hamas makes actually sense, because if the IDF strikes somewhere it's likely an Hamas base and the involved civilians are going to be the wives and children of said members, which are known to live around their husbands/fathers so they can be martyrs together. The IDF has also de-escalated the war since December, the idea of them still making thousands of random dead is absurd. About the +972 Magazine it is what it is, even the wiki page calls them left-winged and pro-Palestine; and since they leave complete freedom to their writers it really doesn't take much to write anti-Israelian articles, especially with two Palestinian journalist in their rooster. I am in no condition to evaluate what they say because I can't read Hebrew but I can recognize they're politically aligned in this.

Anyway, I'd like to get to some point with this argument. Can we agree on some sources and edits or should I just ask to flag the page as non-neutral? Alves Stargazer (talk) 01:46, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

References

Minor edit request - Regarding airstrikes and food infrastructure

"Airstrikes have destroyed food infrastructure, such as bakeries, mills, and food stores, and there is a widespread scarcity of essential supplies due to the blockade of aid." I believe that while airstrikes have been the main source of bombardment, the on the ground fighting has involved "battlefield shaping" where buildings are demolished, and specialized bulldozers during combat. I checked the sources and they didn't attribute to airstrikes the cause of the devastation, if someone could find a source for the claim that airstrikes were the cause that would be much appreciated. I suspect this claim relates to devastation of food infrastructure in inhabited areas, if one cannot be found can this be tagged with citation needed? or if that's too inflammatory for some reason otherwise noted that the sources don't vindicate this claim.

I don't think there is any rush.

Thank you 163.53.144.63 (talk) 13:15, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Most of the destruction of buildings has been by bombs, you can't just drive a bulldozer into a building without worry. A number of buildings like universities and suchlike have been specially targetted by sappers but that is only a small portion of the total. See for example [15], it talks about the bombing/ Where the bulldozers have been used to cause damage is in the fields outside as described in [16]. I'm not sure if that answers your question as I'm not exactly sure what the question is or what the shaping is supposed to be about. NadVolum (talk) 14:03, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Potentially Misleading Chart?

There are a number of reasons to believe that the freeze in Gazan casualty figures stems from the following:

- A collapse of the health system; hospitals submit their casualty figures to a central database, however less than twelve out of the thirty-six hospitals are still operating, and even that is at partial functionality: https://www.rescue.org/article/collapse-gazas-health-system

- The siege upon two of Gaza's biggest hospitals (Al-Shifa and Nasser), which were critical nodes in aggregating Gazan casualties, has rendered both inoperable: https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/destruction-gazas-shifa-hospital-rips-heart-out-health-system-who-says-2024-04-02/

- Rolling blackouts prevent the updating of Gazan casualties to a central database: https://www.npr.org/2024/03/03/1229402063/gaza-communications-cell-phone-internet-service-blackouts-paltel

- Rescue services, which unearthed the injured & corpses from rubble and transported them to hospitals for aid/counting have largely been dismantled by the destruction: https://www.npr.org/2024/02/29/1234159514/gaza-death-toll-30000-palestinians-israel-hamas-war

In light of this, I personally feel that the chart which shows a diminishing rate of casualties paints a false image of the war becoming less severe, when the likely reality is that we simply are not getting new figures on casualties.

My proposal would be to convert the graph to a dotted line from March onwards (as the second assault on Al-Shifa and the assault on Nasser both occurred that month, and the casualty reporting visibly retarded going forward from those events) with an annotation below noting that the central hospitals which aggregated casualties were destroyed. Neurolimal (talk) 16:14, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

On the other hand they are now getting more people to report injuries and deaths. And there is definitely no freeze, it is just going up less steeply than before. More importantly you have to provide definite evidence or peferably a citation saying it rather than conjecture. You may be right but what you have above is definitely WP:OR. NadVolum (talk) 17:18, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

• Support I agree with changing the chart as User:Nuerolimal suggests above. The war has reduced the medical infrastructure within the Gaza Strip to such a degree that the "deaths" count represented in this manner is misleading and possibly suggestive of a reduced casualty count or "lighter" war – when that is not the case. Detsom (talk) 06:10, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi User:NadVolum Wondering if you could you clarify "they are now getting more people to report injuries and deaths"? I'm not quite sure what you mean. Also I don't see WP:OR as you are claiming, so wondering if you could clarify that was well. They provided WP:RS and newer news certainly bolsters the suggestion from User:Nerolimal.

It's fairly well known that the Gaza Health Ministry was only recording casualties that arrived to hospitals or morgues. A quote from Associated Press:

"Hospital administrators say they keep records of every wounded person occupying a bed and every dead body arriving at a morgue. They enter this data into a computerized system shared with al-Qidra and colleagues. According to screenshots hospital directors sent to AP, the system looks like a color-coded spreadsheet divided into categories: name, ID number, date of hospital entry, type of injury, condition."

Additionally, here's an article published 8 days ago from a newspaper of record, The Wall Street Journal, titled In Gaza, Authorities Lose Count of the Dead. This article clearly demonstrates the collapse of the Gaza Health Ministry, and supports User:Neurolimal's recommendation of changing the chart to better reflect the situation on the ground. Here's a quote from WSJ:

"Gaza’s Palestinian health authorities say they can no longer count all their dead. Hospitals, emergency services and communications are barely functioning. Extracting bodies from the vast number of collapsed buildings is a gargantuan task and not a priority while the war continues." Detsom (talk) 06:34, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

For a while now they have included numbers of dead from journalists and first reponders plus forms and web link from people to identify people to put in details of people they know are dead. I read that those identified by a form are taken away from the count of unidentified ones, I guess to err on the low side but the whole business must be a mess. And yes thousands would be lost under rubble and there wouldn't even be much of a media count from the north. There's a big article about all this in [17] and I might have got bits wrong. NadVolum (talk) 14:22, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

“Disputed”

The death toll is not disputed. Foreign agencies don’t doubt it, the Israeli government doesn’t doubt it, US government government officials say its higher and in reality the death toll is a massive undercount.

considering the “um actually health ministry is khamas” argument then a better word to use would be “controversial”. The only numbers that have come up instead of GHM was those stating it was higher, and the IDF estimating that 20,000 were killed, back when the Gaza health ministry death toll was at 10,000 The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 07:22, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

In every war you'll get people arguing about everything and can believe two impossible things before breakfast. Probably some of the same people who taught their children the Israeli Friendship Song 2023 will be arguing that the IDF are the most moral army in the world and go to extreme lengths to protect civilians. I'd say not to worry too much about it and just follow Wikipedia's policies. NadVolum (talk) 11:32, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Two proposed changes -- header and death toll section

70% Women/Children Claim

This sentence of the header -- "The vast majority of casualties have been in the Gaza Strip: over 34,262 have been killed, 70% of them are women and minors" should be revised in light of the available information.

The Gaza Health Ministry no longer makes the claim that 70% of those killed are women in children in its Health Sector Emergency reports, and has not since March 23. [1] Only the Government Media Office (GMO) continues to make that claim, and the Health Ministry has not offered an explanation of the discrepancy [2] and declined to defend the GMO figures in response to queries from Sky News in early April. [3]

Moreover, the available Health Ministry data has not supported the 70% claim at any point since they first began publishing Health Sector Emergency reports on December 11. [4] Moreover, an MOH report on 5/2 (covering data up to 4/30) indicated that the death toll included 10,006 adult men, 4,959 adult women, 7,797 children, and 1,924 elderly, along with 9,936 reported fatalities coming from media reports (which the Health Ministry renamed as incomplete entries at the start of April, but which Health Sector reports still identify as media reports). 40.5% of fatalities for which there is information are adult men (18-59), 20.1% are adult women (18-59), 31.6% are children (0-17), and 7.8% are elderly, meaning that the maximum percentage of women and children (if it is assumed that all elderly deaths are women), is 59.5%, more likely between 55% and 56% assuming an even split between elderly men and women. [5] UN-OCHA, as of May 8, has listed these figures in their Reported Impact statements as well. [6]

These figures demonstrate that the GMO claims about the number of women and children killed are impossible. On May 8, the GMO claimed that out of 34,844 total deaths, 15,002 were children and 9,892 were women (combined, this would be 71.4% of the total). [7] That would imply a maximum of 9,949 men killed, 57 fewer than the number of men (18-59) the Health Ministry reported alone, not considering any deaths attributed to media reports.

It is worth pointing out that multiple analysts have published work indicating the 70% figure was implausible since early this year, based on the available data. [8]

Given that the Health Ministry does not make the 70% claim anymore and its own data indicates that it is impossible, this sentence should be changed to reflect that fact. A proposed revision would read (changing casualties specifically to "identified dead" because casualties means both those killed and injured, and a majority of those reported injured are adult men, according to the Health Ministry, and because we do not know the demographic breakdown of the fatalities attributed to media reports):

"The vast majority of casualties have been in the Gaza Strip: over 34,262 have been killed, according to the Gaza Health Ministry, a majority of the identified dead are women and minors."

It would be worth updating the sidebar pie chart from Prof. Spagat and Silverman's November analysis with the new Health Ministry figures, citing them directly -- as it stands, the chart is 6 months out of date.

Mistaken Attribution of GMO figures

A separate issue apparent throughout the article: figures are attributed to the Health Ministry which come from the GMO. This applies to the following sentences:

1. "As of 29 February, the Gaza Health Ministry reports that at least 30,000 Palestinians (including over 10,000 minors) have been killed, over 70,000 injured, and 10,000 are missing under rubble, totaling over 110,000 casualties since the war began, which is about 5% of Gaza's 2.3 million population." The way this sentence is currently written attributes all figures to the Health Ministry, which is incorrect for the number of minors killed and number missing or under the rubble. It should be rewritten to accurately convey who is claiming what.
2. "The casualties and damages of the conflict in Gaza up to the 175th day are outlined as follows: Women and children make up 73% of the total victims of the war. There have been 14,350 child casualties. Additionally, 9,460 women have lost their lives." This both cites the GMO figures and does it from a state-run Iranian news agency -- it should be replaced with the updated MOH figures, and the article should group the demographic breakdown of the death toll into one place and keep it consistent.
3. "On 29 February 2024, Gaza's Ministry of Health reported that 44% (i.e. over 13,000) of the fatalities were children." The Ministry of Health did not claim this on February 29, nor does the cited NPR article indicate that. The relevant sentences: "Gaza's health ministry says 70% of those killed in the territory are women and children. Its most recent breakdown of casualties recorded in hospitals shows women and children make up 58% of those deaths. Al-Qudra could not explain the discrepancy." [2] The GMO, however, did claim on February 29 that 13,230 children had been killed. [9] This should either be properly cited/attributed to the GMO, preferably using the primary source, or it should be deleted given the demonstrated unreliability of GMO figures.

Mis-dated developments

Additionally, the dates given for several developments in the "Death Toll" section are incorrect. The Health Ministry began using media reports in early November, while the article as it stands implies this happened at the end of February. At least one analyst believes the practice began as early as November 3. [10] In any case, the Health Ministry reported over 4,000 deaths from media reports by December 11, so the practice at least began before then.

The Google Form is listed as having started in March 2024. However, it was first published on January 6 and circulated on official government channels. [11] This should be corrected.

[1] Compare the language in the 3/23 and 3/27 MOH reports (page 2) -- shifts from claiming over 70% to claiming a simple majority. By the 4/1 report, there are no claims about overall demographic breakdowns at all. See Telegram (https://t.me/MOHMediaGaza/5224 (3/23) https://t.me/MOHMediaGaza/5237 (3/27), and https://t.me/MOHMediaGaza/5258 (4/1)) or this archive: https://archive.org/details/moh-gaza-health-sector-emergency-reports/.

[2] https://www.npr.org/2024/02/29/1234159514/gaza-death-toll-30000-palestinians-israel-hamas-war

[3] "Until recently, however, the ministry had been reporting a figure of 72%. Mr al Wahaidi told Sky News that this was a "media estimate". He was not able to explain the basis for this estimate or who had produced it. Since speaking to Sky News, he has stopped using this figure in his reports for the health ministry. It continues to be used by the government media office, a separate branch of Gaza's government." https://news.sky.com/story/amp/israel-hamas-war-health-system-collapse-in-gaza-leaves-authorities-struggling-to-count-the-dead-13107279

[4] Per the 12/11 report, adult men made up 39.1% (5,577/14,269) of deaths recorded in the hospital system. No demographic breakdown was given, or has been given at any point, of the reported fatalities attributed to media sources. https://t.me/MOHMediaGaza/4576.

[5] Report here: https://t.me/MOHMediaGaza/5397. Later infographic here: https://t.me/MOHMediaGaza/5419.

[6] https://www.ochaopt.org/content/hostilities-gaza-strip-and-israel-reported-impact-day-215.

[7] https://t.me/mediagovps/2854.

[8] See Prof. Michael Spagat: https://aoav.org.uk/2024/analysis-of-new-death-data-from-gazas-health-ministry-reveals-several-concerns/. There are also two reports from the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (I understand this is not a preferred source for many, but they are clear about only utilizing MOH data for these analyses and dovetail with Spagat's analysis on the 70% point): https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/how-hamas-manipulates-gaza-fatality-numbers-examining-male-undercount-and-other and https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/gaza-fatality-data-has-become-completely-unreliable.

[9] https://t.me/mediagovps/2442.

[10] https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/gaza-fatality-data-has-become-completely-unreliable

[11] https://t.me/MOHMediaGaza/4718. ExVivoExSitu (talk) 17:26, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

THis article comes under WP:ARBECR and this is your first edit to Wikipedia. The essay above is not in a form I can construe as anything like two straightforward edits. NadVolum (talk) 18:15, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Why do wikipedia editors here seem to prirortize some sort of kafkesque bureaucracy over correcting the misinformation in this article and seeking the facts? 2A02:14F:17A:47BE:6961:A0F1:27A6:8A12 (talk) 19:14, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

See WP:Contentious topics and WP:Contentious topics/Arab–Israeli conflict, this is considered a contentious area and the restrictions are to stop the talk pages being turned into shouting matches of random people who have no experience editing Wikipedia. I have already been told off by an admin for responding to a query like this one. NadVolum (talk) 23:42, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

False claim about ICJ ruling in article

The President of the ICJ clarified that the court found Gazans had a "plausible right to be protected from Genocide," and did not rule on the plausibility that genocide is occurring. https://www.timesofisrael.com/plausibility-in-the-south-african-genocide-case-against-israel-is-not-what-it-seemed/ 47.208.110.136 (talk) 18:22, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Well I tried to put that in but as convoluted judgespeak who knows, I could have easily got it wrong! NadVolum (talk) 19:05, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Revised casualties

The UN citing the Gaza Ministry of Health has revised casualties. 1 2. The page will have to changed accordingly. - UtoD 04:43, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

It does state that 24,000 are identified. In the count it only includes the stats for the identified, while listing the total death toll including unidentified bodies (34,000). The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 07:04, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Fake news!!! Un has revised women and children deaths down 50pct 69.117.245.25 (talk) 18:53, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Those lower figures are the ones that have been fully identified. Which is a bit silly as they can't verify the figures and that's not what they'd use if they could verify them. A lot of men are identified on forms because the women need support if their husbands are killed. I think only three hospitals are able to do identification now. The Gaza Health Ministry is very conservative with its figures and the actual number of deaths will be much higher. NadVolum (talk) 00:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Added non factual tag until corrections are made.Patrick.N.L (talk) 23:49, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Any mention of casualty numbers provided by Hamas should be removed as non factual until confirmation by credible source. Moreover, hyperbolism about casualties should be avoided, and the use of new numbers should be done with prudence considering the amount of false information that has seeped into most major news outlet. https://www.yahoo.com/news/united-nations-cuts-estimates-women-170941270.html Patrick.N.L (talk) 23:48, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

The total figure remains unchanged. This is probably the fullest report so far on the update in how UN reports: https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/13/middleeast/death-toll-gaza-fatalities-un-intl-latam/index.html BobFromBrockley (talk) 03:32, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

I disagree with many of the edits by Patrick NL over the last hours: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Casualties_of_the_Israel–Hamas_war&diff=1223766173&oldid=1223751319 Several of the removed intances have not been refuted and are properly sourced, with claims attributed. I agree we shouldn’t use rolling news blogs and to be careful about attribution but these sweeping edits are excessive. BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:58, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

I am hopping over from the discussion section on the infobox page from the Israel-Hamas War article. This is meant as a helpful reply to everyone in this discussion post. There have been over 35,000 recorded Palestinian fatalities in the war so far. 24,686 of these have been identified and registered by hospitals and the Ministry of Health. The remaining are unregistered deaths from local media reports and fatalities with incomplete identification data. These are the facts. What numbers we use for the breakdown of each category of fatalities (men, women, children, elderly, etc.) is the question. The total numbers of fatalities for women (9,500) and children (14,500) the Gaza Ministry of Health uses would imply that all of those that are currently in the unidentified category are women and children if you do the math, which would be statistically highly unlikely, as The Times Of Israel and other sources and users like @ExVivoExSitu have pointed out. If we are striving for accuracy, I think the most sensical thing is to include the most reliable data which are the identified fatality numbers for each category OR include both sets of fatality figures and make the distinction in the wiki article. Nathan1223 (talk) 10:38, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Ive reverted again, several highly tendentious additions were made, such as claiming false figures and that the estimates were cut in half. nableezy - 19:34, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Unclear what "tactics" refers to

In the Civilians section: "The high number of casualties is due to Israeli tactics and large-scale bombing, which in some cases has left entire towns completely destroyed and uninhabitable."

What are the "tactics" that, in addition to the large-scale bombing, have caused the high number of casualties? I am not disputing the validity of the sentence, I'm simply asking for clarity. - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/him] 12:50, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Good question. The citations don't seem to support it. How about The Guardian's https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/feb/08/israeli-soldiers-idf-gaza-fighting-disaster-area ? NadVolum (talk) 15:33, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

This NYT piece also has a lot: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/25/world/middleeast/israel-gaza-death-toll.html BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:38, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Age of adults

I’ve seen pro-Israel social media accounts claiming the Gaza MoH and UN figures for “adults” and “children” designate 19 year olds children (thus making some child fatalities plausible combatants). This seems unlikely to me, but is there a source confirming age counted as “child” and “adult” in that data that we can add to article? BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:29, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

They consider 19 year olds are adults and 18 year old are children. This is specified in both the Palestinian and UN sources. Just stick 'palestinian age of children' into Google and see for yourself. The Fourth Geneva Convention has special clauses for children under fifteen and eighteen years old. However Israel considers Palestinian and Israeli children differently, Israeli children are those under 18 and Palestinian children are those under 16, see Convention on the Rights of the Child. NadVolum (talk) 16:41, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

The Gaza MOH classes children as 0-18, based on their publications. It can be unclear, since they have often put out infographics which say "under 18" for children and "above 18" for adults (see [1] as a representative example from October), which doesn't clarify where they class 18-year-olds. However, in lists of names they released for children [2] and women [3] covering 10/7-4/30, you can see that the list for children includes 18-year olds while the list for women doesn't have anyone below 19.

Because the UN is only republishing MOH figures, they are also classifying 0-18 as children and 19+ as adults. That differs from the Convention on the Rights of the Child (where children are under 18 or lower, depending on age of majority in State Party), but since the UN is only republishing MOH figures and not doing their own recategorization/analysis, it tracks to me.

When talking about child combatants, children in their mid-teens could of course be combatants. Child soldiers in other conflicts have been under 10 in some cases (like DRC). But that's irrelevant to the fact that they are children, and the MOH does not distinguish civilians and combatants anyway.

@NadVolum I don't see any reservation to that effect on Israel's treaty page with OHCHR, where their signatory/ratification status with human rights instruments are listed. The only reservations are on the CRC Optional Protocol on children in armed conflict, and they have to do with Israelis 17-18 registering for the military and what they are/aren't allowed to do. Where do you see a stipulation about Palestinians 16-17 being considered adults in the documentation?

[1] https://t.me/MOHMediaGaza/4096

[2] https://t.me/MOHMediaGaza/5407

[3] https://t.me/MOHMediaGaza/5409 ExVivoExSitu (talk) 22:21, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Sorry yes, protected persons under the conventions include children of 0..17 years old, referred to as under 18 with majority to adults when they become 18. From those references it is obvious Hamas are also including 18 year olds as children, maybe they misunderstood what was required? Anyway 19 year olds are adults according to any definition which is what the post was about. Thankfully they don't use the Korean system for ages!

I had a quick look again at the business of childrens ages as far as Israel is concerned and the complaints about that I found were twelve years old or older with nothing since which is long enough ago that I'm happy to presume they have chosen to fix that business. NadVolum (talk) 23:41, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

October 7th Israeli deaths revised number and citation

The article sat 1,139 deaths with no citation. That source appears to be https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20231215-israel-social-security-data-reveals-true-picture-of-oct-7-deaths

However in February AFP revised this to 1,163 - see this Barron's article attributed to AFP: https://www.barrons.com/news/new-tally-puts-october-7-attack-dead-in-israel-at-1-163-78182279 Moschops42 (talk) 17:57, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Error within Gaza Strip - Civilians Section

The last paragraph of this section states that "As of June 13, the UN reported that..." The article being referred to was released of May 13th, not June 13th. This is simply a minor error that can be quickly corrected. 174.198.7.192 (talk) 14:27, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Pie chart errors

The pie chart incorrectly labels the categories as children under 15, men and boys above 14, women and girls above 14, and elderly. As discussed elsewhere on this talk page, the proper categories in accordance with MOH policy are children (0-18), adult men (19-59), adult women (19-59), and elderly (60+). The labels of the chart should be updated to reflect the correct categories.

The date for the data also needs to be set to April 30, 2024 -- if it makes everything gel better, a direct link to the OCHA report on May 8 might be better than the Reuters wire report. https://www.ochaopt.org/content/hostilities-gaza-strip-and-israel-reported-impact-day-215 ExVivoExSitu (talk) 22:59, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

"killed" vs "died"

As far as I can tell, the ubiquitous Ministry of Health numbers are reported to count all deaths recorded in Gazan hospitals, regardless of cause of death. If that's true, I don't think the word "killed" is appropriate when citing those numbers. On the other hand, sources tend to use that word uncritically. Probably because the MoH uses it? If some other body creates estimates based on those numbers, "killed" might be appropriate. Ornilnas (talk) 21:53, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

On the other other hand, when people die, something, the cause, killed them. That something might by a bomb or sepsis or dehydration etc., but in any case, it killed them. This kind of argument doesn't only apply to MoH data, it applies to any instance of the word 'killed' in the article doesn't it, and there are almost 200 instances surrounded by a wide variety of words that hopefully reflect the language of the sources sampled. Sean.hoyland (talk) 03:31, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

In most instances, it's worded as something like "killed by the war". If it's worded "killed during the war", I guess you could argue it's technically correct, but super weird and misleading wording. Ornilnas (talk) 06:31, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Another way of looking at it is that in order to be misleading something needs to be leading. The word killed is not intrinsically leading, it's just a statement of fact. Thinking something is 'misleading' may also indicate that a person has added information to a set of words by 'reading between the lines' and making assumptions about implied cause/blame etc., despite there being nothing between the lines. The thing that concerns me in situation like this is that assessments like sources 'tend to use that word uncritically' can be premised on the notion that editors can do better than sources when there is incomplete information. I hope, but have no idea whether it is the case, that those 200ish instances reflect the language of the sources, more or less, including the presence or absence of information about cause. Sean.hoyland (talk) 07:27, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

I think we're talking past each other. I'm saying the word "died" would be much more accurate than "killed", if my understanding of the number collection is correct. I agree that most sources use the word "killed", which limits our options. But it both degrades the quality of the article, and causes contradictions within it. Preferably, we would get a good and reliable source which clearly describes what the numbers actually mean, which we could then use to update the language in the article. Or, if we had separate estimates (based on the MoH numbers or not), we could use those instead. Ornilnas (talk) 07:47, 21 May 2024 (UTC)