Talk:Gaza Strip famine/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

"Independent study" in lede

A bit concerned by the JPost source included as the last sentence in the lede but wanted to see other's thoughts. The article currently states: An independent study by researchers from Columbia University found that "sufficient amounts of food are being supplied into Gaza", though, "it may not always be distributed to people due to other factors, such as war and Hamas control". At first glance, this doesn't seem too far outside the line of mainstream Israeli arguments.

When you read through the cited article, though, these two researchers also espouse some pretty fringe ideas. I was particularly surprised to read: They note that it is “a myth that Israel is responsible for famine in Gaza.” They argue that the International Criminal Court and UN have joined Hamas in blaming Israel for a “famine that never was, hoping to stop the war [in Gaza].” [1] This is way outside the norm of mainstream discourse and to me at least, puts the "independence" of these researchers into question.

Concerned this study is WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 19:26, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

From October 7 to February 23, when the IDF reported 14,000 trucks had entered Gaza with foodstuffs since the former date. The number of days is 139. 14,000 divided by 139 comes out roughly at 100 per diem. The acknowledge quantity of trucks required to feed the Gaza Strip, before the war (and it was a basic regimen) was 500. So the researchers, (note they are using the present tense are being at the time of writing) if they focused on that period, would be saying 100 truckloads of food would be sufficient whereas the UN calculates at least 500 are required. Namely 20% of the basic need is sufficient to avoid famine (if perfectly distributed in theory, according to them) So the research is an extraordinary claim, and we require independent secondary sources to corroborate it before we can use it. The last point is that their use of language is highly politicized. The ICC joined Hamas spins the fact that the view arrived at by the former independently, attributing the cause to Israel happens to coincide with Hamas's accusation means they join up with a terrorist organization. The use of the word myth regarding famine predictions (that is what most of them were, not assertions of fact) gives their game away. They are stepping out of their role as scientists and making political assertions. I assume that they do not call starvation, the stage below famine, as a myth. So no, it is not RS until it receives peer-review and comment.Nishidani (talk) 20:19, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

You're dead wrong—both OCHA and Israel report that the average for the first 9 months of 2023 was ~75/day. And no credible organization of which I'm aware has ever suggested that 500 food trucks— 670% of the prewar average—are needed daily to prevent famine. OCHA data confirm this: October 2023 was dismal, at 26/day. November was 58/day. By December 2023, food aid was back up to prewar levels, at 74/day. And for the first three months of 2024 (the only ones reported by OCHA thus far), the average was 97/day—compared to those same three months in 2023, which averaged only 78/day.

In other words: the Israelis are correct that, at least for all the three reported months of 2024, more trucks of food aid entered Gaza than before the war—a remarkable feat, considering the situation on the ground. And only in October and November of 2023 was the average below pre-war levels—for understandable reasons.

There are certainly caveats. Hypothetically speaking: local food sources in Gaza have almost certainty decreased due to the war—on the other hand, trucks are not the sole conveyance of food aid (airdrops and US-built pier, e.g.) and the caloric density of food aid may have increased since the war's start.

That said, I have no idea why the UN and others cite IPC reports that 150 food trucks were entering prior to 10/7. The IPC, from what I can tell, offers no data to back up this number. Others have noted this discrepancy.

In the meantime, what RS report your assertion that "the UN calculates at least 500 [truckloads of food] are required" to prevent famine? I suspect none, which seriously calls into question your grasp of this issue—as well as your claims of "fringe" views.

Thanks! Ekpyros (talk) 20:11, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

@CarmenEsparzaAmoux this sentence is properly framed in the context of views that differ from the one presented across multiple lede paragraphs (as indeed noted by the researchers themselves). The word "independent" is referring to the fact that these researchers are not part of

IPC or the aforementioned Israeli study. Perhaps a caveat could be added stating this research has not been peer reviewed. I still believe it is important as it came from credentialed academics in the field and was indeed reported in various news outlets. W. C. Minor (talk) 21:16, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't have an issue with the way the sentence is framed on WP, and I certainly don't have an issue with including a diversity of opinions when they are due and reliable. My concern here is that this study (as it's described in JPost) appears to fail WP:EVALFRINGE, and the fact that it's not peer-reviewed certainly does not help.

Yes, Federgruen and Kivetz are academics, but they represent a borderline fringe minority opinion on this specific topic. In particular, the inclusion of this study in the lead seems contrary to MOS:LEAD, which states "significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." The issue is their viewpoints are not widely shared and are thus not a significant topic of discussion in the body of the article. I can find one-off “credentialed academics” to support pretty much any argument you can possibly imagine. The issue is their claims are not widely supported, presented neutrally, or representative of a broader conversation within the academic literature. Such a discussion (as it exists) would need to be more fully fleshed out in the body before being raised in the lead, per policy.

As an aside, the points raised by Nishidani increase my concerns about this particular study. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 00:51, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

@CarmenEsparzaAmoux ok. I will add an extended paragraph in the body of the article about this study together with the Israeli study with similar findings. W. C. Minor (talk) 07:08, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

If you mean that you would retain that study in the lead and justify its violation there (leads summarize major sections) by creating or expanding a section on just that one article, then it won't do. The criterion of peer-review is fundamental for science, and particularly science papers which contest a general consensus in their discipline. As anyone can verify Israel has for 20 years kept Gaza on a minimalist diet (with noted effects of malnutrition and stunting of the juvenile population)-

To sustain that minimal diet, 500 trucks per diem was the norm.

The war effected a rapid drop in the transit of supplies, with an 80% drop, from 500 to 100 per diem for 4+ months. That is an average. On some days only 10 trucks were allowed transit.(Raphael S. Cohen, Trucks, Piers, and Parachutes Will Not Solve Gaza’s Crisis Foreign Policy 22 March 2024)

By March, this was upped to 150 trucks, a third of the prewar norm. (All of this primary data ignores numerous other complicating factorrs (a) the destruction of warhouses (b) the elimination of all institutional authorities like the police who usually protected convoys (c) the fragmentation of vast areas into battle zones from which civilian populations were asked to leave etc.etc.)

No one would challenge expansion of that report in the body of the article, but per WP:Undue, since any expansion would require significant secondary source response coverage, not just meme replication and commentary in various newspapers.

But until we have serious peer-reviewed analyses on the paper, it remains a fringe and Israeli (that context is important) item, and shouldn't be in the lead. In fact I will remove it, unless some serious discussion of the technical problems with its place there develops.Nishidani (talk) 08:11, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

I might add that technically, the whole of the lead needs trimming. Leads must summarize the main points succintly, not expand beyond the minimum necessary.Nishidani (talk) 08:23, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

@Nishidani I agree the lead needs trimming. Should be based on the most recent FRC report and include a sentence about Israel's response. W. C. Minor (talk) 09:21, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

It's hard to think of anything less WP:FRINGE than citing (i.e., not in Wikivoice) an RS which quotes two chaired professors at Columbia who are speaking in their area of expertise about their data and conclusions regarding food aid. Is there any RS which reports that the statements of the professors being cited in our article are WP:FRINGE? Their study has been the subject of numerous articles in RS—and the sentence in question easily conforms with our guidance on WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOTABILITY, and WP:DUE. Ekpyros (talk) 15:44, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Much of this article is flawed and should be rewritten

Given the findings here https://www.un.org/unispal/document/famine-review-committee-ipc-4jun24/ - this article needs to be completely revised and made significantly more balanced. At the moment, it's a very bad look for Wikipedia vis a vis Wikipedia:Five pillars MaskedSinger (talk) 19:37, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

enough said

https://www.jpost.com/israel-hamas-war/article-806739 MaskedSinger (talk) 18:14, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

What do you mean precisely? The IPC report essentially states that the organisation unable to confirm the famine status solely for lack of ground access, and that the status is irrelevant in any case to the "extreme human suffering" in Gaza that necessitates "cessation of hostilities". The JPost article doesn't pertain to the IPC report and instead reports on a private initiative by two US professors, none of whom has any background in nutrition (one being a mathematician and the other, an expert in marketing). — kashmīrī ^TALK 07:27, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me. There's certainly contention that there's a famine -

https://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-contests-un-backed-report-assessing-imminent-famine-in-gaza/

https://www.jns.org/the-gaza-famine-myth/

As such I don't believe the article is neutral or independent.

I wouldn't even know where to begin to try and make it more neutral and independent.

Problem is that there's a preponderance of sources saying there is a famine and a scarcity saying that there isn't. Somewhat ironic I guess. MaskedSinger (talk) 13:07, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

I did some more research and just found

https://www.foxnews.com/world/study-says-food-aid-meets-quality-quantity-gazans-un-icc-say-israel-starving-civilians

https://www.wsj.com/articles/plenty-of-food-aid-is-getting-to-gaza-7da988cd MaskedSinger (talk) 13:19, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

I give you the benefit of the doubt that you don't know Fox News is not considered a reliable source on science by English Wikipedia. (WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS) WSJ is a reliable source, but the piece you cited is an opinion piece, which would never be used as a counter-argument spoken in Wikivoice. (WP:RSOPINION) And the piece by JNS, a hawkish Israeli outlet, a column? -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 14:09, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the benefit of the doubt! MaskedSinger (talk) 14:19, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't need your gratitude when you repeatedly provide overtly pro-Israel pieces which cite experts of unrelated field or Israeli institutes. Someone has already added the revised analysis by the Famine Review Committee into the lede. As the UN itself is a generally reliable source, we don't need to cite those dodgy opinion pieces which try to downplay the food crisis in Gaza by misrepresenting the FRC May analysis. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 15:04, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

What's wrong with gratitude? Now you're turning down WP:CIVILITY?

Nothing seems to make you happy unless it's <redacted>! MaskedSinger (talk) 16:33, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

WP:CPUSH. Just being polite doesn't make certain behavior tolerable. Again I give you the benefit of the doubt that you didn't know about the concept of civil POV pushing and I assume you were not doing that out of bad faith. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 21:16, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Doing what out of bad faith? I literally have no idea what you're talking about. You most definitely need to WP:AGF. MaskedSinger (talk) 04:18, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

This is not your first time to provide very dodgy sources on talk page, such as this one on WP talk:RSP with Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI). Same pattern. You pasted the link and claimed that the article agree with your POV. If you are already commenting on Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, I pressume you would use RSP sources section to check the reliability of specific sources instead of posting them outright on the talk page. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 05:01, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Dodgy sources are in the eye of the beholder ;)

I have to let you know that I don't appreciate your tone and feel that you're going close to crossing the line on WP:BULLY WP:HOUND.

Just because we might have different opinions on things doesn't mean we dispense with being civil with each other at all times. Please bear this in mind. Thank you in advance. MaskedSinger (talk) 06:06, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

The dodginess of Fox news on politics is not on the eye of the beholder. It is established consensus. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:02, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, this isn't even on political grounds. Fox News is well known to be an extremely dodgy source, and even more dodgy on the topic of Gaza. Tul10616 (talk) 16:59, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

I think you should read wp:stop linking policy pages Personisinsterest (talk) 19:23, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Your summary of two chaired Columbia Business School professors as simply "a mathematician" and "an expert in marketing" is so dismissive as to be patently misleading.

The professor you refer to as simply a "mathematician" is in fact "a world renowned expert in the development and implementation of planning models for supply chain management and logistical systems, in particular in the areas of production, inventory and distribution planning for supply chain management, and the design and analysis of operations strategies for service systems," who specializes in rationing [and] supply-chain crises." Even more relevant, he "served as a principal consultant for the Israeli Air Force in the area of logistics and procurement policies". It's hard to think of anyone more qualified for the instant subject. His coauthor, whom you dismiss as nothing but a marketing expert, instead produces some of the top scholarship regarding the intersection between economics and political science—again, ideally suited for this task.

The idea that they should need a "background in nutrition" to evaluate factual falsehoods and utterly unsupported assertions beggars belief. Would being nutritionists qualify—personal trainers, perhaps? Would you argue that one needs a "background in" Chinese political systems to accurately evaluate the scientific credibility of COVID-19 zoonosis-origin claims—or a longstanding expertise in virology to weigh in on ChiCom totalitarianism and vicious repression of dissent?

This is a tendentious hatchet job—which conspicuously fails to refute or even call into question a single one of the paper's theses or conclusions. Ekpyros (talk) 08:45, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

It seems "a principal consultant for the Israeli Air Force" is a pretty textbook example of a source that lacks independence on the subject of whether said military is starving a population and committing war crimes. Since it doesn't state "unpaid consultant", we're going to have assume that there's at the very least the possibility of a direct financial conflict of interest involved here. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:26, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I do think some balancing and a change of the article name is needed. Not even the IPC has said there is a famine, only that it was imminent. Other descriptions include “starvation”, “famine-like conditions”, or “nearing famine”. Pretty much all sources agree that there is starvation happening. That could be a name.

As for the FRC report: It does still say there is extreme suffering and a need for aid. It does also say conditions have improved in north Gaza. The media has largely picked up on this. The other sources cited here aren’t super reliable, and the points they make aren’t very reported. The report itself simply says that there isn’t enough evidence to declare a famine, not that there isn’t one or that there won’t be one. And this is just for north Gaza also. A recent NYT article showed that more aid was going to north Gaza but less to Rafah because of the offensive. This isn’t the only part of Gaza that has starvation. Personisinsterest (talk) 15:28, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

I would support a name-change to starvation, with a large subsection on extrapolations concerning the strong possibility of imminent famine. The problem is that Israel's control of the territory, and the extremely chaotic nature of the distribution outlets for qwhat little does get it, do not allow any external authority to gather the data necessary to make that technical determination. What we have certainly is numerous pictures of mothers and fathers by the beds of skeletal children (The distinction 'starvation' (general condition) and 'famine' is labile, and also depends also on the zones). An extremely high proportion of people are lucky to get more than some bread once a day, which is tantamount, nutritionally, to a state of starvation/famine. The technical definition of famine requires very close data collection and surveys of a population with a medical diagnosis of the health states according to the following criteria:-

An area is considered to be in famine when three things occur: 20% of households have an extreme lack of food, or are essentially starving; at least 30% of the children suffer from acute malnutrition or wasting, meaning they’re too thin for their height; and two adults or four children per every 10,000 people are dying daily of hunger and its complications.

(a) we cannot class the shifting refugees as households anylonger (b) stunted ('too thin') growth has been a characteristic of children in Gaza since it was first reported in 1995, worsening as the tightening of access to food increased its severity since that date (c) how do you determine if death comes from some ancillary complication from longterm hunger? Hunchwork based on a very large volume of data collected over the past 25 years is all that the experts have to go on in their predictions, which are fairly reasonable, nonetheless.

That requirement, to be applied here, presupposes a substantial presence of experts and doctors which, as the war continues, and as Israel makes extensive access to what is occurring all over the Strip almost impossible.Nishidani (talk) 16:35, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Exactly. Personisinsterest (talk) 00:28, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Are all these statements simply your personal opinions? Such as this train-wreck of a sentence:

• An extremely high proportion of people are lucky to get more than some bread once a day, which is tantamount, nutritionally, to a state of starvation/famine.

For example: if every Gazan ate 2,500-calorie breakfasts, lunches, and dinners at The Cheesecake Factory, 365 days a year, wouldn't that make true your statement that "an extremely high proportion of [Gazans] are lucky to get more than some bread once a day", thus being spared a diet (or is the antecedent of "which" instead the "high proportion of people"?) that you claim is "tantamount, nutritionally, to a state [sic] of starvation/famine"?

• [W]e [sic] cannot class the shifting [sic] refugees as households anylonger [sic].
• [S]tunted ('too thin') [sic] growth has been a characteristic of children in Gaza since it was first reported in 1995, worsening as the tightening of access to food increased its severity since that date.

Are you suggesting we should mark this Gazan "famine" as beginning in 1995? Or are you suggesting famine is indeterminable, given your question:

• [H]ow do you [sic] determine if death comes from some ancillary complication from longterm hunger?

But all the rest combined pale in comparison to this spectacular display of logorrhea:

• Hunchwork based on a very large volume of data collected over the past 25 years is all that the experts have to go on in their predictions, which are fairly reasonable, nonetheless.

Perhaps it's time to introduce a little discipline—not to mention factual accuracy—to these ramblings, no?

Ekpyros (talk) 09:08, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

The IPC isn't the be-all and-end-all, but even if it were, they've simply said they can't assess it due to a lack of information within the confines of their narrowly define methodology. That leaves the matter to assessments by experts that aren't hindered by the same methodological restraints. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:15, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

And they haven't said there's a famine here either. They've said famine is imminent or there is widespread starvation. Personisinsterest (talk) 00:25, 25 June 2024 (UTC)