Talk:Gaza Strip famine

New UN FRC/IPC report ECR edit req

The latest IPC/FRC report is now partially released (its summary) and updates the # facing catastrophic hunger to 133,000. This should be changed from 495,000 in info box which was based on the same source (also "near-famine hunger" is not a thing - catastrophic hunger IS the term for "famine-level hunger" when it's measured by food insecurity surveys of individual families instead of population measures like malnutrition and mortality rates (which are substantially below famine thresholds)). Also this new report should probably be discussed when fully released but that's outside scope of this extended confirmed protect edit request. Please note the source also gives a projected number for catastrophic hunger in November - next April, but the IPC itself seems to now only give the current number on its website's mobile version. Also because its last 3 projections were off by multiple fold (e.g. 495,000 was June's projection for the current period of this report), combined with the current number being written first in all their communciations, I think the current number (133,000) is most appropriate for info box (or can give both but note the latter is projection).

The 41+ number in the info box should be left out, since it's misleading. The evidence points to a number several magnitudes larger, even if the exact number is not clear yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cdol12345 (talk • contribs) 22:38, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

@Cdol12345, I agree 41 by itself is very misleading. The options are to change it to something like "indeterminate" or give a very large range to show the uncertainty. But for the range we need a current number, with a citation, most I've seen are projections? I think it might be best to say "indeterminate" and explain in the text that 41 died in hospital? Industrial Metal Brain (talk) 20:28, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

https://www.ipcinfo.org/ipc-country-analysis/details-map/en/c/1157985/?iso3=PSE

https://www.ipcinfo.org/ipc-country-analysis/details-map/en/c/1157986/?iso3=PSE - for malnutrition statement but not necessary for edit. Scienceturtle1 (talk) 13:54, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

@Scienceturtle1 has that been updated now? Industrial Metal Brain (talk) 22:41, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Yup. If I may briefly add without overstepping on EC protext page, I would advise to write the article/info box in such a way that gives credibility to both high and lowest end estimates of starvation death, given that higher end estimates are possible but arent currently being cited in most RS articles, and recent IPC/FRC attempts to quantify non combat mortality acknowledged their inability to do so with any confidence (thus they left it out of their estimation procedure when calculating IPC stages which is confusingly then the method of the 63k death estimate although this is of course not a forum or place for OR). Scienceturtle1 (talk) 18:00, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Page should be renamed

There is starvation in the Gaza Strip but famine is highly contested. The reported death toll is inconsistent with famine and the Famine Review Committee said it was not reasonable to assess there was famine.

That doesn't mean there isn't a humanitarian disaster; there is. But it is short of famine, which has a technical meaning. TazmanianTurnip (talk) 23:21, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, the entire article continually uses "threat of famine" and "near famine", and quickly panning down you see these comments were being made over an entire year with no actual famine being declared. Definitely requires a rename, or a merge into some other article. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 13:19, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

The title does not have to reflect a technical meaning merely usage in sources (same as Gaza genocide). Selfstudier (talk) 13:46, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree, the current title is misleading and inaccurate. How about renaming to "Food insecurity in Gaza"? Stonkaments (talk) 23:50, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Actually, I think it would be more appropriate to merge into Gaza humanitarian crisis (2023–present). Reliable sources discuss the risk of a potential famine, but there has been no famine to date. As such, the subject of this article isn't notable and shouldn't be a standalone article. Stonkaments (talk) 00:00, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

If you believe that, feel free to submit AfD. Selfstudier (talk) 12:08, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

I see an attempt to do that, incorrectly tho, try again. Selfstudier (talk) 15:53, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

@Stonkaments The UN has declared that there is famine in Gaza, the "potential" famine stuff from recent RS is for the North specifically. But as @Selfstudier says, if you think this article shouldn't exist, please submit that AfD and we can discuss it there. Smallangryplanet (talk) 15:45, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

The UN has not declared a famine in Gaza. "A WFP spokesman later told The Associated Press that one of the three benchmarks for a formal famine declaration has already been met in northern Gaza and another is nearly met." [1][2] Stonkaments (talk) 16:29, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Did you not read the first article you shared there? The UN says there’s ‘full-blown famine’ in northern Gaza is a fairly unambiguous title. They may not have made a formal declaration of famine, but it would be unbelievably POV to assume that means we can arbitrate whether or not a famine is in fact occurring, especially when many RS say that it is. Smallangryplanet (talk) 20:35, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Are you familiar with how titles can be click-baity? If you read the actual article, it explains that the head of the UN WFP said in a television interview that Northern Gaza had entered “full-blown famine”. That is a far cry from an authoritative statement from the UN, especially considering a WFP spokesman later clarified that only one of the three benchmarks for a formal famine declaration had been met. Stonkaments (talk) 00:04, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

I've created a discussion for proposed deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gaza Strip famine. Stonkaments (talk) 16:31, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

I found and corrected at least ten instances in the article of misrepresenting sources by characterizing the situation as "famine", when the sources in fact used wording such as "starvation" or "risk of famine". Stonkaments (talk) 18:27, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

@Stonkaments This article is under WP:ECP, which means amongst other things generally speaking you can only make one revert per 24 hour period. It has not been 24 hours since your last revert, so please adhere to WP:1RR. Disagreeing with the contents of an article does not mean the article itself is flawed. In the interests of avoiding an edit war I am going to leave some of your other changes alone, but have reset the short description because it accurately describes the content of the article. Smallangryplanet (talk) 20:20, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

It's not at matter of what you agree with; it's a question of what is verifiable in reliable sources. The article was rife with instances of using "famine" in wikivoice that were not supported by the cited sources.

More generally, a small minority of activists, observers, and political officials began calling the crisis a famine earlier this year. But the overwhelming majority of quality sources do not, nor have the relevant intergovernmental organizations officially declared a famine. Furthermore, none of the sources (as far as I've seen) give the alleged famine a proper title, the "Gaza Strip famine", as the article here does. Labeling this the "Gaza Strip famine" despite a complete lack of reliable sources that do so, is a clear violation of WP:NOTLEAD and WP:NPOV. Stonkaments (talk) 23:56, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Request update number of deaths in infobox

In the "Gaza Genocide" article, the infobox entry for deaths due to starvation has been updated to 62,000, supported by sources that are already referenced in the "Gaza Famine" article ([344][345][346]). I propose updating the famine-related death count in the infobox of this article to reflect the same figure for consistency. 2001:9E8:994:4500:B5D5:F759:E581:21D0 (talk) 11:50, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

It was already there in note [c], but has now been added in main infobox text. Wafflefrites (talk) 23:06, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

See my response to edit request immediately below as well. Selfstudier (talk) 12:07, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Request for removal of expected deaths in infobox

The estimation of 62.000 deaths by famine is not an estimation of actual deaths in Gaza but (according to its own source) is rather a calculation of expected deaths that would occur if certain conditions were met. This number is thousands of times higher than the official record and there isn't any other source supporting such discrepancy (that the Gaza health authorities or even Gazan journalists would not be reporting tens of thousands of deaths by famine is illogical). Other Wikipedia articles regarding wars, famines or genocides do not include in the infobox estimates of expected deaths that would hypothetically happen if the right conditions were met. Also, this 62.000 number also contradicts the very content of the article where it is not stated that a famine actually exists in Gaza. I request that this highly misleading number is removed from the infobox for all these reasons. Lumunus (talk) 11:02, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Not done. The article body says:

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.

On page 5 of the Appendix is a table showing how the 62,413 number is derived, "according to the IPC technical manual: in the catastrophe phase of food insecurity the crude death rate rises to at least 2 deaths per 10,000 people per day, and in the emergency phase the crude death rate rises to 1-2 deaths per 10,000 people per day".

It may be that the situation can be clarified somewhat (a matter for EC editors) but there does not appear to be any basis for contesting the calculation (the number does suffer from false accuracy but only because of the calculation method, it could be rounded up or down).

References

Selfstudier (talk) 12:06, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

I find OP's objection valid and convincing, and their argument should be presented in full:

"The authors of the article are just calculating the mortality rate through a generic rule (it can be summarized as this: for each IPC phase an X number of people are expected to die). On their article "Appendix to letter of October 2, 2024 re: American physicians observations from the Gaza Strip since October 7, 2023" we can verify how the calculation is made on the table of page 5: it states clearly that the presented numbers are the expected dead.

The infobox must contain the confirmed dead or the estimated dead based on at least some evidence on the ground. I reiterate that other Wikipedia articles regarding wars, famines or genocides do not include in the infobox estimates of deaths that would hypothetically happen according to some generic rules. I request again for Wikipedia editors to review this situation." Stonkaments (talk) 17:38, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

As far as I can see, you are free to edit the article yourself. Admittedly editors might revert, then again they might not. Selfstudier (talk) 17:49, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

It seems some people really are claiming unconditionally that starvation has killed about 62,413+; the underlying letter says In total it is likely that 62,413 people have died. However, it's quite the extraordinary claim since it's more than 1500x more than the actual number of starvations recorded in hospitals or morgues. I think we should at least wait for some expert analysis of the methodology before putting anything in the infobox. So far all we have is the original letter (non-independent), and a paper from an anthropologist (not the most relevant background) which mentions the figure but doesn't analyze the methodology. The latter also probably fails WP:SCHOLARSHIP, since it's primary research, it wasn't reputably published, it has no citations, and there's limited evidence of vetting. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 22:03, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 27 November 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. When I initially relisted this, I didn't realize that the previous relist did not result in any new participation. Participants have now also expressed a lack of interest in continuing the discussion on a potential alternative option, so I am reverting my relist to close as no consensus. (closed by non-admin page mover) Toadspike [Talk] 15:28, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

---

Gaza Strip famine → Famine in the Gaza Strip – Feedback from the recent AfD was that the article definitely needs to stay, but it could make sense to change the title. The vast majority of this article discusses the ongoing crisis and the imminent threat of potential famine in Gaza, but not an actual famine that has occurred. No official organization has declared a famine, and the few claims of actual famine that have been made at various times have generally been individuals expressing their personal opinions in informal statements such as television interviews. Reliable sources overwhelmingly do not characterize the situation in Gaza as a famine, nor do they use the phrase "the Gaza Strip famine"; this is strong evidence that "Gaza Strip famine" is not the appropriate common name for this topic.

Many reliable sources use some variation of "famine in the Gaza Strip"[3][4][5] (in the context of the risk of impending famine). This wording is much more appropriate for the WP:SCOPE of the article, which focuses on the current conditions, people's reactions, and the imminent threat of famine. There is also precedent across Wikipedia, in other instances of ongoing food security crises that haven't been officially declared famines, to use the title "Famine in...", such as Famine in northern Ethiopia (2020–present) and Famine in Yemen (2016–present). I propose we follow that format here as well and rename the article Famine in the Gaza Strip. Stonkaments (talk) 05:00, 27 November 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Feeglgeef (talk) 17:35, 9 December 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Toadspike [Talk] 09:04, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Support per nom DeadlyRampage26 (talk) 02:02, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• Support yes finally. Mostly due to Mistamystery’s reasoning in past talk page discussions where she said, “If there is famine in one part of the strip, the article title should be Famine in the Gaza Strip.”

Wafflefrites (talk) 17:26, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose Distinction without a difference, existing covers the situation pithily. Selfstudier (talk) 17:40, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose: The proposed title, Famine in the Gaza Strip reads to me as covering various famines throughout the Gaza Strip's history, rather then a single famine. I'd actually prefer if the articles listed for means of comparison (Northern Ethiopia & Yemen) were changed to be more in line with this article's current title.

We do however have other articles that serve as a precedent for the current title, such as the Dutch famine of 1944–1945, Swedish famine of 1867–1869, Finnish famine of 1866–1868, & the various Irish famines (Irish Famine (1740–1741), Irish Famine (1861), & Irish Famine (1879)). As such, I think the current title is more appropriate. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 23:14, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

That is a good point. I noticed all the titles have years in them as well. Maybe we should follow their formats and put in the year too. @Stonkaments @Butterscotch Beluga, what year do you suggest putting in the title? Wafflefrites (talk) 00:34, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Maybe (2023-present)? Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 00:56, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

I am looking at the 2024 Sudan famine article. That article puts 2024 in the title I think because that was the year the IPC confirmed Stage 5 in north Dafur. The Sudan infobox says the start is April 2023 though. For Gaza, Francesca Albanese and some others did “declare” famine back in July 2024.[6] So maybe we can do something similar and put 2024 in the title and October 2023 in the infobox? Wafflefrites (talk) 01:58, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

That depends on how we are using the word famine. Are we using the more "casual/colloquial" terminology i.e. mass starvation or do we mean the more "processional/clinical" terminology i.e. specifically & officially classified as a famine? Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 02:16, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

On the English Wikipedia, we are supposed to go by sources so are the English language sources using Gaza famine casually/colloquially or are they referring to the classified wording/attributing declarations to “experts”? Wafflefrites (talk) 02:41, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

It's both, which is why I was asking. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 02:49, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Can you share which sources colloquially call it a famine in their own voice and then we can look at the publication date? Wafflefrites (talk) 07:07, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Comment - Looking at past RoM discussions and deletion discussions, it seems like there is a consensus to refer to this as a famine. This currently seems like an issue of semantics, but could break consistency with other articles depending on the central of whether a famine is currently taking place or not. At present, the article itself in the lead and throughout the article details a high risk of famine, as OP has pointed out. However, there doesn't seem to be a clear consensus in the AfD or RoM discussions about whether there is an ongoing famine in Gaza, either in a particular region or the whole strip. I don't mind one way or the other but without clarity on this there probably will never be a name change. Originalcola (talk) 21:05, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Palestine, WikiProject Human rights, WikiProject International relations, WikiProject Israel, and WikiProject International law have been notified of this discussion. Feeglgeef (talk) 17:35, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Several alternative titles have been proposed but not thoroughly discussed, I would like to avoid a no consensus close if possible. Toadspike [Talk] 09:04, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

@Selfstudier@Stonkaments What do you think of Waffle and Beluga's suggestion to put a year after the title? Toadspike [Talk] 09:05, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

The simplest method to decide this is via an RM, those seeking a change should present one. Selfstudier (talk) 09:43, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Erm...this is an RM, although "those seeking a change" seem to have kind of given up on picking a specific year. @Butterscotch Beluga@Wafflefrites, do you still think adding a year to this page title is necessary? If so, could you please say which year(s) you'd like to add? Toadspike [Talk] 09:56, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I know this is an RM, about a different title change, since it isn't going anywhere, maybe close it? Selfstudier (talk) 10:00, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't think adding a year/timespan is that important & am indifferent to its addition. I was only discussing options for if others thought a time was necessary. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 14:14, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested restore of estimated deaths

It's already in the genocide page, why not here? Abdullah Ali 4z5 (talk) 15:15, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

See above discussion. It probably should be removed on that page instead of added here. Originalcola (talk) 00:35, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Has been readded with https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2024/10/us-israel-funding-gaza-palestine-deaths-october-100000-17-billion/ as secondary RS. This info seems pertinent to me. Selfstudier (talk) 13:08, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

The article is restating the report and letter cited with regard to total death toll without any analysis. Directly using the letter as a source is questionable, and the report does not seem reliable given that the author seems to not be an expert in the field of the article and seems to have a whole host of issues as pointed out by another editor. I will also add that the report includes the death estimation in the letter in a note in passing as well. Originalcola (talk) 03:25, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

EC Edit request: Add additional death estimates to info box

There is fundamental difficulty in estimating deaths from famine in wartorn countries with rapidly changing estimates of hunger. The infobox currently cites a single number in wikivoice(62.4K) which is NOT cited by a majority of major trusted sources talking about famine (some do, but most don't, see e.g. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/17/world/middleeast/gaza-malnourished-famine-warnings.html or https://www.csis.org/analysis/gaza-impacts-famine-will-last-generations). It is also attributed to 3 sources as if they're independent reports, which masks the fact that the number's source in all cases is a single (1) letter sent by health professionals making a layman's synthesis of IPC reporting (despite the fact that IPC made its hunger classifications based on surveys of hunger and not mortality which is often a lagging indicator of an IPC category, see e.g. https://www.ipcinfo.org/fileadmin/user_upload/ipcinfo/docs/IPC_Famine_Review_Committee_Report_Gaza_June2024.pdf. In fact, on page 19 of this report, they explain that they attempted to measure non-trauma mortalities from phone surveys and this was complicated by the fact that most mortalities were trauma-related at that time in that survey, which at the very least challenges the idea that there's more starvation than war-related deaths. It more importantly rules out the idea that the 62k number can be considered a conclusion of IPC rather than a conclusion of the letter writers (and thus given more weight as a well-reviewed data publication. It also should be noted that even the IPC mortality bounds refer to all non-trauma mortality estimate and not starvation). Thus, the 62K number is (1) based on a single non-peer-reviewed source and has not been embraced by MOST (with exceptions) mainstream media, and (2) Other well-reviewed sources of data at least challenge (but don't necessarily conflict with) the given number.

On this basis, by Wikipedia rules for evidence, it's reasonable to report the estimate given that some media has given it weight, but putting it as the only estimate in the infobox in wikivoice (with 3 circuitous citations) on it as if it's a consensus-based number should really violate what a consensus of us editors believe is proper Wikivoice usage. A reasonable alternative would be to give multiple estimates of the starvation mortality similar to other wikipedia pages estimating war casualties, or to just give the government-backed numbers (something clearly conservative like 41+ deaths I think - this would be a reversion to a prior version of the infobox). If multiple numbers were given, could definitely give the 41+ estimate and then give the 62.4k estimate as an estimate cited to the lead author of the letter so that it's attributed instead of wikivoice. So the edit request in that case would be to add 41+ to the infobox as number of confirmed deaths and to say that like "Physician letter: Estimates 62.4k deaths" and cite the letter. The text in the body explains the 62.4k estimate adequately. Scienceturtle1 (talk) 17:27, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Late response, but it seems like this has already been done on this page. Originalcola (talk) 05:29, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Infobox estimated death count, and proposal

@Originalcola recently removed the 62,413 estimation published by the Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs from the infobox, can you explain the rationale behind the removale of (to my knowledge) the first estimation in this matter published by a highly reputable academic institution ?

Just to make somethings clear: the 41 figure comes Wafa which is neither a nearly reliable source nor a source from Gaza in the first place.

And the other put the number at 20 citing Gaza health ministry spokesman, but that was in march, while the Watson institute published paper and the primary sources it is citing are from 7-8 months later. There is 3/4th 2/3rds of a year gap in which a continuous siege on Gaza (especially the north) was present between the two figures.

I propose that at very least the two figures accompanied by their dates to be included in the infobox (not merely note tag) for the sake of reaching a greater consensus or until this matter is settled.

while I am personally certainly in favor of completely updating this outdated figure and removing it from the infobox. Stephan rostie (talk) 12:43, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't see any reason why we cannot follow the style used in the Gaza genocide infobox? Selfstudier (talk) 12:47, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Neither do i Stephan rostie (talk) 13:15, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

I took a quick look in the talk page and it seemed like it had already been discussed and an editor had removed the study. An editor re-added the disputed content whilst adding another source that restated what had been said in the article without any analysis whilst justifying it as an update, so I reverted it. I did give a reason above in this talk page already, and I also found @XDanielx's previous commentary to be quite persuasive. I also pointed out that the number is from the original letter that is mentioned offhandedly in a note, certainly not the most relevant citation. Originalcola (talk) 19:02, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Motherjones is secondary RS confirming the primary so that objection is not valid. Selfstudier (talk) 19:04, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

This is WP:SCHOLARSHIP territory though. Layperson magazines like Motherjones are reliable for the fact that the estimate was made, but not for the estimate itself. Putting the estimate in wikivoice would require a reliable source for the estimate itself, which means we would need sources which pass WP:SCHOLARSHIP. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 05:49, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

I also pointed out that the number is from the original letter that is mentioned offhandedly in a note

you are talking about the primary source, we are not citing the primary source here, but the secondary sources that published its data, which is Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs, which is the first estimation to be published by an academic highly reliable source. Stephan rostie (talk) 20:07, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

As I said above, that secondary source probably fails WP:SCHOLARSHIP since it wasn't reputably published, it has no citations, and there's limited evidence of vetting. It also merely mentions the estimate; it doesn't actually corroborate the soundness of the methodology behind it. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 05:53, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Can you please define “reputably published” here ?

is there “reputably published” and “non-reputably published” sources for the same reputable well-regarded academic publisher ?

WP:SCHOLARSHIP says: Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses.

do you have any problem with Watson Institute for International and Public Affair (the publisher) ?

It also merely mentions the estimate

with all due respect is totally untrue, there is an entire table taking up an entire half-page (page 4) listing multiple estimations of indirect deaths - including deaths by starvation - all of which citing only this same primary source. This is far from “merely mentions”. you are not just rejecting the primary source (which itself has no inherent problem and made by experts), but also the secondary reliable source citing and using its figures in its publishings, which itself is more up-to-date than the number in the current infobox by 2/3rds of a year, and is the first and -so far- only academically published estimate for deaths by starvation in academia that was published 1.5 month ago. This is entirely not the context citations count is about in WP:SCHOLARSHIP Stephan rostie (talk) 15:04, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't think Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs would be considered an academic press, it's just a research group. In any case there's no indication of peer review or other rigorous vetting. Having their brand on the paper indicates affiliation, but doesn't seem to mean much beyond that.

Yes the mention of the 62,413 figure was in a table; I don't see how that helps? There's still no actual discussion of the methodology underlying that figure. I.e. there's no corroboration of the veracity of the 62,413 figure, it's just taken as an assumption without explanation. Perhaps that's because the author is an anthropologist and not a public health expert.

If this is the only available estimate, then we shouldn't include any estimate (at least in the infobox or in wikivoice); the desire to include some estimate isn't a good reason to bend rules like WP:SCHOLARSHIP.

The citation count does seem relevant, as an indicator of whether the work has entered mainstream academic discourse. AFAIK the Watson paper has zero citations. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 21:07, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Wow, that was a fast response. I'm confused by what you mean by the objection is not valid. Originalcola (talk) 19:09, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

I am referring to mentioned offhandedly in a note, certainly not the most relevant citation, now confirmed by secondary source. Selfstudier (talk) 19:12, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Oh, ok I think I understand your objection to my point. It is a secondary source yes, but its content isn't helpful in this case. The MJ article/report is based entirely on the 2 twin papers and is merely descriptive, not adding any form of substantial analysis or commentary in regards to this estimate. You could say functionally that it's part primary and part secondary source. It's also not particularly authoritative in this case, which is especially important given what the claim is. Originalcola (talk) 19:22, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Secondary confirms primary, that is more than is required because there is nothing intrinsically wrong with the use of a primary source. Your objections are without merit. Selfstudier (talk) 19:24, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

But there's also nothing intrinsically good about secondary sources, especially since it doesn't offer additional commentary. It's still included as a note in the infobox.

Also for reference, this is the passage being cited in the MJ article:

To estimate the human cost of Israel’s war on Gaza, researcher Sophia Stamatopoulou-Robbins started with the Gaza Ministry of Health’s count of confirmed deaths, which has now surpassed 41,615.

"Beyond that, an estimated 10,000 people are buried under rubble. Over the past year, 60 percent of buildings and nearly all road-systems in Gaza have been destroyed, making the retrieval of dead and injured people near-impossible. Adding an estimate of those who have died by starvation—about 62,413 people—brings the total estimated death toll to 114,000, or about 5 percent of Gaza’s population. Those likely death-by-starvation numbers come from a letter 99 physicians who served in Gaza sent President Joe Biden last week.

“With only marginal exceptions, every single person in Gaza is sick, injured, or both,” the physicians wrote to Biden. “We worry that unknown thousands have already died from the lethal combination of malnutrition and disease, and that tens of thousands more will die in the coming months, especially with the onset of the winter rains in Gaza. Most of them will be young children.” Originalcola (talk) 19:30, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

died by starvation—about 62,413 people, just as it currently says at Gaza genocide (without Motherjones). Anything else? Selfstudier (talk) 19:35, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

I never said that it didn't say that. I'm sorry if I've inadvertently offended you in some way, but I wasn't the one who initially removed that estimate or proposed removing it. I've explained myself twice and since the original edit that started this discussion didn't include a reasoning at all, I think I've said enough. It's still included in the info box as a note and could be elaborated on outside the info box. Originalcola (talk) 20:55, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

I dont think we are supposed to criticize secondary reliable sources or the sources they are citing here on wikipedia, like the way you are criticizing an academic source for citing a specific source(s) or supposedly over-citing them. Thats not how it works to my knowledge. WP:OR Stephan rostie (talk) 20:16, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

The article is explicitly a report that summarizes the 2 papers without adding extra analysis. The academic source mentions it in passing. Originalcola (talk) 20:50, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Idk what are you talking about but the paper published by watson institute cites 118 sources, not just this specific source. But anyway you do agree they did lend their reliability to the content they are publishing from the cited primary source without even criticizing it negatively, what is your problem then ?

You got both a reliable primary source and a highly reliable secondary source using and citing its content in its publishing without making any negative comment about it.

i also think having a table filling up half an entire page is hardly a “mention in passing” tbh. Stephan rostie (talk) 21:30, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

This is pretty much the same thing I said above to SelfStudier, but I never said that the Watson Institute didn't cite sources. It states directly: "Note: There were 62,413 additional deaths from starvation, according to the October 2, 2024, “Appendix to letter of October 2, 2024 re: American physicians observations from the Gaza Strip since October 7, 2023.” For estimates of indirect deaths, see Figure 2, below" meaning that it had a singular source for the death toll, the letter addressed to Biden. The academic paper hasn't been cited by other academics and looking at the paper and where it was published there was little indication of editorial oversight or peer review, which means that less, if any weight, should be put into it. There's more helpful information on using academic sources at WP:SCHOLARSHIP.

With regard to this whole MJ secondary sources issue, you are missing the point. When dealing with news reports on academic topics, if the secondary source that only uncritically restates a primary source with no extra analysis is not a particularly useful secondary source. It's not a question of lending their reliability to content they are publishing.

I'm not going to further elaborate on my points because I feel like I keep repeating myself, I gave an explanation for reverting on the talk page before I reverted and have written too much on a trivial edit (again). Originalcola (talk) 00:24, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Nevertheless, the material exists in WP on one page and has been reverted without due cause on this page even though it had better sourcing. That's a problem. Seems as if we are being forced into an RFC to resolve this. Selfstudier (talk) 10:23, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

I think what we need to do here is assemble all the available evidence wrt indirect deaths, that would include the Lancet material for instance "Indirect Palestinian deaths are expected to be much higher due to the intensity of the conflict, destruction of healthcare infrastructure, lack of food, water, shelter, and safe places for civilians to flee to, and reduction in UNRWA funding, with one Lancet study stating that the death toll in Gaza, including future deaths indirectly caused by the war, might exceed 186,000.

I am not impressed with the attempt to label Brown Uni's Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs as unreliable or somewhow not scholarship nor denigrate the author Sophia Stamatopoulou-Robbins who on the face of it would seem to qualify as some sort of expert in her own right, never mind being published by the Institute.

I am even less impressed with dismissal of a valid RS secondary source in support of what appear to me to be Idontlikeit arguments.

There is no doubt that material on excess deaths taken all together is relevant for this article and the genocide article as well. I haven't read the Amnesty report as yet, off to see if they have picked up on this or not. Selfstudier (talk) 19:20, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

It's not unreliable per se. It's like having a "faculty publications" list on some university department's website - some of the papers might have been rigorously vetted, but affiliation with the group isn't evidence of vetting by itself. We would need separate evidence of vetting, like a separate submission to a peer-reviewed publication.

To reiterate, the claim that actual starvations are ~1500x higher than what hospitals and morgues recorded is quite extraordinary. So I think it's appropriate to enforce our sourcing standards very stringently before putting the claim in anything resembling wikivoice. There may be cases where it's reasonable to bend the rules a bit, but not this one. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 01:08, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

the claim that actual starvations are ~1500x higher That's not the claim. Nor is it WP:EXTRAORDINARY if the claim exists in multiple RS.

Furthermore, the Israeli leadership has warrants out for their arrest for the crime of using starvation as a method of war, and there are multiple reports attesting to the effects of this policy.

I see that you also reverted this at the genocide article with excuse not scholarship, however it has been restored as part of an inclusive overall actual and projected death toll, a restoration that I agree with. Selfstudier (talk) 10:29, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

~1500x is the implication of the claim. Coverage in some layperson media doesn't imply much about the extraordinariness of a scientific claim.

I don't see how the ICC case is relevant here, there's no link to the 62,413 figure. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 15:24, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

I see that Originalcola has opened Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Death estimation. Selfstudier (talk) 16:39, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

RFC on Talk:Gaza genocide#RfC about starvation estimate

Inviting interested editors to comment on issue. Originalcola (talk) 21:42, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

New IPC report (December 2024

https://fscluster.org/fr/state-of-palestine/document/ipc-global-initiative-special-brief-gaza

Please update articlr Abdullah Ali 4z5 (talk) 07:48, 21 December 2024 (UTC)