Talk:Gaza Health Ministry

This page is subject to the extended confirmed restriction related to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

The editor @Shoogiboogi added this information and source regarding a Henry Jackson Society report on 17 December, which was removed by @Cdjp1, then re-added by @Alaexis, who quickly rushed to also add mention of it to the lede, then it was removed again by myself, and then @Alaexis re-added it again.

I thought it could be balanced out but after looking into it more, I'm convinced this is a blatant case of content in violation of WP:DUE,WP:FRINGE, WP:PARITY, WP:PREPRINT and WP:NEWSORG.

The report in question is published by a highly partisan think tank and person (Andrew Fox) who are not RS, is non-peer reviewed, did not receive significant coverage in RS (aside from the Telegraph, only the Times of Israel covered it), and does not represent a significant (even minority) viewpoint.

Per WP:PREPRINT and WP:NEWSORG:

"Research that has not been peer-reviewed is akin to a blog, as anybody can post it online. Their use is generally discouraged."

"reliability should be judged based on the original source."

The fact that two RS covered it, does not mean that it is worthy of inclusion, as they do not transfer their reliability to the Henry Jackson Society and Andrew Fox. What's even worse is that the Telegraph piece is accompanied by a promotional text from the author of the report itself.

Unless @Alaexis and @Shoogiboogi can make a case for why this is not a blatant content violation, it should be removed pending an RfC. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 13:56, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

yeah seems despite its original pov as a neoconservative/nonpartisan thinktank its currently condemned by its founder as an far right deeply islamaphobic group. [1]

would need significant coverage of report by other well reputed media orgs to suggest report is due Bluethricecreamman (talk) 14:11, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Many more than two media outlets have reported on this: The Telegraph, The Times of Israel, the National Post [2], Atlantico [3], Politiken.dk [4]. Alaexis_¿question? 17:00, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The National Post did not report it. That is a piece reposted from the Jewish News Syndicate, which is not RS, and highly questionable given its editorial position and funding sources. Atlantico is also not RS, and that is an opinion piece written as a blog, not journalistic reporting. Politken is also not listed as RS, though might pass as such.

So you're left with The Telegraph writing a piece on it accompanied by a promotional text from the report's author, the Times of Israel, and Danish daily broadsheet Politiken. This is hardly extensive RS coverage passing WP:DUE,WP:FRINGE, and WP:PARITY.

More importantly, it doesn't address its violation of WP:PREPRINT and WP:NEWSORG:

"Research that has not been peer-reviewed is akin to a blog, as anybody can post it online. Their use is generally discouraged."

"reliability should be judged based on the original source."

If you want to insist on its inclusion, we'll have to go to an RfC. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 17:26, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that in case of the National Post we should consider the original source per WP:NEWSORG, however it's just your opinion that the JNS isn't reliable.

What WP:NEWSORG certainly doesn't say is that we should evaluate the reliability of a secondary source (newspaper) that uses a primary source (report) based on our own understanding of the reliability of the primary source. This is clearly WP:OR and per WP:RS we should generally use secondary sources. Alaexis_¿question? 21:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OR applies to article content, not talk page discussions. We are allowed to do sleuthing all we want in the talk pages to determine whether a source warrants mention. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 21:25, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think Alaexis simply means it'd be OR to cite the primary source (in this case HJS), but we can report what a less reliable primary source says if a reliable secondary source considers it noteworthy. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:54, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the lack of coverage for this makes it very much undue for the lead and possibly undue, or at least only due the briefest of mentions, in the body. HJS is a hyper-partisan thinktank, and the authors of this study appear to have zero expertise, so their analysis doesn't count for much.

I don't however think PREPRINT applies here. That's referring to apparently academic research uploaded by individuals to platforms with no editorial control, i.e. is user-generated and akin to self-published. HJS's report should be treated as all research by advocacy organisations and thinktanks, i.e. its reliability is assessed by the extent to which the organisation and authors have a reputation for integrity or not. In this case, the reputation is not great, but that's not for reasons given in PREPRINT.

Similarly, the NEWSORG quote here doesn't seem relevant. That's about news aggregators, where the content is reliable if it's aggregated from somewhere reliable, which seems irrelevant to the matter at hand here. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bobfrombrockley, I agree that it's not the best of sources and I didn't plan to mention it in the lede. We have another thread about how to properly summarise various issues with the GHM data in the lede. Alaexis_¿question? 22:52, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's also been reported by Corriere della Serra, so now we have 4 sources. This should be enough for a brief mention. Alaexis_¿question? 23:08, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not. You have failed to gain any support, let alone consensus, for adding this fringe source to the page.

Yet despite this you have ignored the ongoing discussion and have added it again. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 23:20, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone know the quality of this source? https://aoav.org.uk/2024/flawed-critique-how-andrew-foxs-report-for-the-henry-jackson-society-on-gaza-death-toll-lacks-evidence-for-key-claims/ This article addresses/criticizes the Henry Jackson Society report. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 23:26, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should include both HJS's major claims, as well as their criticisms.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 17:22, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One of the authors in Michael Spagat who is already mentioned in the article, so it seems legit. I would support that. Alaexis_¿question? 22:16, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I didn't mention this particular study in the lede. I wrote Other analyses have found irregularities in the numbers published by the ministry. which is a fair summary of the article which includes the criticism by Michael Spagat, AP and HJS. Alaexis_¿question? 17:02, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why the Telegraph has gone in for so much misinformation about this war. NadVolum (talk) 17:06, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if I'm not fully familiar with all the rules. My intention was to contribute relevant information, not to violate WP:DUE or WP:FRINGE (or any of the many other guidelines I haven't yet had a chance to read).Shoogiboogi (talk) 19:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with @Raskolnikov.Rev, @Bluethricecreamman and @NadVolum in asserting that this "report" by the Henry Jackson Society, if it can indeed be referred to as such, is fringe and inappropriate for inclusion. The group and its authors are not recognized experts on the topic and are notably fringe and partisan. Furthermore, coverage of the report in a handful of center-right to right-leaning outlets, which read as commentary rather than news reporting, provides insufficient grounds for its inclusion, particularly in light of the extreme claims made within the report not substantiated by credible sources. Additionally, @Shoogiboogi was banned for sockpuppetry, so their support for inclusion ought to be disregarded. Lf8u2 (talk) 01:54, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These are not policy-based arguments. The political leanings of these outlets don't matter, these are established reliable sources, certainly not worse than Hurriyet, Vice, The Intercept etc which are used in the article. Alaexis_¿question? 22:19, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe the sentence "Some researchers believe that the ministry's estimates over- or under-estimate the true casualties." is due for the lead. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 02:17, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It also does not accurately reflect what is in the cited source, which only refers to one "independent researcher" in Israel who makes the case for the overcount, and even he says it is merely "probable". It should be removed from the lede and the added content in the body should be altered to accurately reflect the added source. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 02:23, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Raskolnikov.Rev, IOHANNVSVERVS, Alaexis, Bluethricecreamman, BobFromBrockley and others, isn't this more relevant at Casualties of the Israel–Hamas war? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 17:24, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Alaexis: Your long-term edits to the article have been quite problematic, as it has been inaccurately reflecting reliable sources:

Please reflect sources accurately, without omitting crucial context that fully changes the meaning of the content in the reliable sources. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:48, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1. We can replace "thus" by "suggesting that".
2. Not sure I understand what's wrong with the text that I've added. The trend in reported data (October-April) contradicts their announcements.
3. Per WP:CALC routine calculations are allowed and do not constitute improper sync. But feel free to replace it with the full breakdown
4. This is exactly what the article says: the data coming from the hospital system is of higher quality. Alaexis_¿question? 20:35, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

   1. Please do so and reflect nuances more accurately in the future.

   2. The RS says "during April" while your edits made it seem as if it was generally speaking; I had already addressed this months ago.

   3. I disagree that this calculation meaningfully reflected the sources since it lumped several subcategories together.

   4. There was only one researcher who criticized the results, which was followed up by a conclusion: "overall, they are good." So adding this brief negated criticism to the lede is completely undue, and should be removed. Makeandtoss (talk) 07:30, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

   It looks like the only real disagreement is regarding #4.

   What I've added to the lede is directly supported by the article Some researchers think it is an underestimate, owing to the difficulties of trying to count dead people during conflicts. Other sources say it is an overestimate. Alaexis_¿question? 21:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

   @Alaexis, as you know since you have participated in discussions on the relevant page, the Al-Ahli hospital bombing is not solely blamed on Israel by the Health Ministry, but also RS like Channel 4, Al Jazeera and Forensic Architecture. In fact, the latest and most extensive reports by the latter have that position. So your adding of the bombing as an example of the Health Ministry presenting false information is wildly inappropriate. If you want to include it, gain consensus for it first. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 21:53, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The figures for April were changed to only include identified casualties. Women and children seem to have not been identified so frequently - I think children have even been badly underreported for the overall figures. The situation has been correcting itself slowly as people fill in forms about those killed - but even then men are probably overrepresented a bit as their wives need a death certificate to get benefits. Identifying a person as dead typically only increases the total deaths if a court agrees that they are probably buried under the rubble rather than being one of the unidentified deaths already reported.

Anyway using the April figures is very iffy. And I'd be very careful about using WP:CALC on a page as figures can be from different times or even different people at the same time or might not be updated when another figure is updated. It's very messy and I'd only do it myself on a talk page to get a feel if something is reasonable. If you really must attempt it and are confident the figures are comparable you still have to be very wary of any subtracts or divisions as that can make the result unstable - vary widely if a source figure changes a little. NadVolum (talk) 16:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I referenced WP:CALC to justify the aggregation of various discrepancies in IDs (#3). The numbers come from the same source. But again, I'm fine with disaggregating them. Alaexis_¿question? 21:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, the current wording in the article does mention April and so there is no disagreement right now. Alaexis_¿question? 21:44, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Gaza Health Ministry figures as quoted by the UN only includes 'martyrs' by which they mean ones that have been killed by bombs or bullets or otherwise directly as a result of the war. Do they keep or issue figures for indirect deaths or natural deaths? Euro-Med said in June that figures from the ground indicted the 'natural' death rate had gone up by more than six times to about 51,000 and others have estimated much higher figures. NadVolum (talk) 21:34, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The recently-added part to the lede of "Some researchers believe that the ministry's estimates over- or under-estimate the true casualties" is undue. The "overestimate" bit is based on a single opinion in the Nature Explainer [10] article (accessible through WP library), by some Mark Zlochin who is described as "independent researcher" and self-described as a "Business trainer and organizational consultant"[11]. Clearly, this is completely undue, and does not even reflect the article accurately, since his opinion is counteracted in the article by a "Overall, the ministry’s records are “pretty good."

Also, this random opinion by a random "expert" against overall consensus completely contradicts the (yesterday) published Lancet peer-reviewed study, which estimated that there are 64,260 deaths, meaning an underreporting by 41 percent. This peer-reviewed scholarly study has been extensively covered by RS, unlike the non-peer reviewed Nature Explainer news article one. [12] [13] Makeandtoss (talk) 10:53, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be absolutely amazed if the figures were totally accurate! It's a ridiculous snippet to quote, it just doesn't stand alone as saying anything of interest. NadVolum (talk) 15:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Nature Explainer article says Some researchers think it is an underestimate, owing to the difficulties of trying to count dead people during conflicts. Other sources say it is an overestimate. Alaexis_¿question? 21:53, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and then it goes on to only cite one person claiming it is "probably" an overestimate, an "independent Israeli researcher" who is not a subject-matter expert. And he presents no facts, only speculation. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 21:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it does say that. Doesn't mean it's due for the lede of this article. Are you going to selfrevert @Alaexis?, since it seems you are the only one who supports your addition while myself, @Makeandtoss, @NadVolum, and @Raskolnikov.Rev all have voiced objection to it. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 00:59, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Local consensus cannot override WP:NPOV.

Ignoring all the criticism of the ministry figures in the lede is a violation of NPOV and MOS:LEDE. Alaexis_¿question? 07:45, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, which criticism are you referring to? There is no NPOV issue because there is no equivalency between a news piece quote, and a scholarly peer-reviewed study. Makeandtoss (talk) 08:46, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're confused. Local consensus determines NPOV, only to potentially be superceded by a community consensus. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:27, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Local consensus doesn't determine the project-wide NPOV policy and guideline and principle. Local consensus may determine whether something is NPOV on a specific article to settle a dispute, but it should do so in accordance with the project-wide consensus norms. It also can be good to solicit wider community involvement a la RFC or noticeboard or what-have-you, though I don't know if that would be so helpful here. Andre🚐 11:40, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV is a policy. Local consensus determines how it is applied and what constitutes NPOV in a given context with a given set of sources. What norms do you think are at risk here? Iskandar323 (talk) 11:42, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This Zlochin guy has a PhD from Technion and was affiliated with Weizman Institute as a Postdoc and IBM as a researcher, and he is quoted in Nature, the publication, not "the Nature Explainer," in an article by Smriti Mallapaty, who is a senior reporter there. The Lancet study is interesting, and very new. It has a novel methodology where they examined social media and online posts and compared those to hospital lists to determine the numbers. I think it's fair to include both the Nature article and the Lancet study. Andre🚐 08:09, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So he's a not a subject-matter expert but a random guy speculating about it "probably" being an overestimate without any evidence. Perusing his social media it's also evident he's not merely a random guy, but a deeply partisan actor. This is the opposite of the subject-matter experts like Michael Spagat cited in the piece who, providing evidence, say it is an underestimate. So no, that is not on par with the Lancet study by subject-matter experts backed with extensive empirical data, it is currently inaccurately presented in the body, and it is certainly not lede-worthy. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 08:37, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Based on what is he a partisan actor or a random guy? Nature, a reliable source, calls him a researcher. At any rate, WP:SOURCESDIFFER. Andre🚐 10:01, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOURCESDIFFER: "Tiny-minority views need not be included, except in articles devoted to them."

WP:BESTSOURCES: "When writing about a topic, basing content on the best respected and most authoritative reliable sources helps to prevent bias, undue weight, and other NPOV disagreements." Makeandtoss (talk) 10:16, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's also the article by "Abraham Wyner is Professor of Statistics and Data Science at The Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania and Faculty Co-Director of the Wharton Sports Analytics and Business Initiative." [14][15] and Graeme Wood[16] a reputable journalist and lecturer in political science at Yale, and the pickup that the British think tank report[17] got in The Telegraph[18] and JNS [19]. There were also the Lancet estimates that had it as high as 186,000 earlier, so 64,000 at least is getting closer to the GHM number. I don't think this is a tiny minority (i.e. fringe), several reputable people questioned the GHM numbers. Andre🚐 10:35, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Non peer-reviewed "studies" that date back to March 2024. Also, I don't think comparing a publication by neocon think tank with a peer-reviewed scientific study can be taken as a serious argument. The current best source is the Lancet study, and this is evidence by the extensive RS coverage it has received. These studies can be mentioned in the body with minimum text to avoid giving them false balance; as for the lede, they do not belong there. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:42, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Lancet article is a good source. It's also very recent, as it has a publication date of approximately less than 2 days ago. In order to understand its impact on the field, we'll have to see how the study is received, whether it is responded to, and if it is cited approvingly by other works of similar quality. It's true that the study has gotten picked up by the mainstream news media, which is a good sign. But I don't think anyone's saying that study is unreliable. Simply that NPOV should keep in mind the minority POV. Andre🚐 11:07, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think Make's key point here is that stacking non-peer- reviewed material against peer-reviewed material isn't NPOV. Also, Wyner's shoddy analysis was specifically savaged when it was published. And of course, also, WP:AGEMATTERS. Analysis from March is moribund. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:36, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The new Lancet article is indeed peer-reviewed. However the two other articles that are mentioned in the lede are letters and apparently are not peer-reviewed. Or am I missing something? Alaexis_¿question? 20:44, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This individual clearly exhibits a strong partisan stance based on his social media activity where he openly expresses his unwavering support for Israel's actions in Gaza, continuously defending the government's role in the conflict. While he is entirely within his right to do so, claiming he isn't a deeply partisan figure is simply inaccurate. If we were to imagine an "independent Palestinian researcher" who defends Hamas on their social media, it would be hard to avoid calling that individual partisan as well. He's a random guy because he is not a subject-matter expert unlike Michael Spagat, and the Nature piece makes that clear by saying he's an "independent researcher". For some reason you waved around his non-relevant credentials as if that matters.

Additionally, I don’t understand why you continue to overlook the fact that this individual has stated they are only speculating about why they think the figures are "probably" an underestimate, without providing any supporting data.

Regarding the other two sources you cite, which again is far from establishing that it is no a fringe position, the Wyner is from March which has become updated by the GHM and resolved exactly those issues it mentioned to argue not only that there was an overestimate, but that the figures were possibly entirely "faked". This is per Spagat and others. This is the outer fringe of the fringe, as not even Zlochin went there. In fact Zlochin in the Nature piece argues against the Wyner claim about the data being possibly "faked", yet you are citing it as being the non-fringe back-up for Zlochin's speculations without evidence of a "probable" overestimate.

Moreover the Wyner claim was widely criticized and shown to be based on flawed assumptions and misrepresented data, again per Spagat, Michael Mann, Lior Pachter and other subject-matter and statistics experts. Mann also clarifies that Wyner is not a subject-matter expert, as his title you listed appears to suggest. Wyner is also a climate-change denier and conspiracist, and his claim was published in a non-reputable fringe partisan online magazine and was only picked up by other partisan outlets like the Jerusalem Post. This is all in stark contrast to the Lancet piece.

There were debates at the time the Wyner article was first released, and it was ultimately decided that his claims did not meet the standards for inclusion. Yet, for some reason, you're resurrecting it now as though it’s a reliable source, which I strongly disagree with for the reasons already mentioned.

The second source you reference is from May last year, prior to the GHM's updated data, and it comes from a political commentator who is also not a subject-matter expert, making it irrelevant as well. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 22:45, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You make some good points which are well-argued. However, I'm not trying to say Wyner should be held up as true or trying to change the treatment of Wyner, I'm just pointing out that this is a minority POV. Whether it's fringe per se is a matter to be determined. I would argue that the climate denial stuff is indeed fringe, but the question here is whether the GHM numbers being inaccurate and if inaccurate, over- or under- estimate, isn't a fringe minority POV but a question with several comments on the matter. To ignore that would be to ignore a specific well-attested minority POV. In fact, the very fact that you are able to bring to the table a number of good sources which specifically comment on Wyner is a good example that this is a minority POV and not a fringe POV. All the article would have to do to give due space to the POV would be to roughly summarize exactly what you said - Wyner wrote a thing, and Spagat, Mann, and Pachter agree he was full of crap. Similarly, the article in Nature treatment could just say "In a blahblah2024 Nature article, this and that was written." It's not a false parity per se because this isn't an exclusively scientific topic and we're not limited to only scientific papers. We can give them the most weight, and also mention some of the other reliable sourcing on the topic with lesser weight. That's a middle ground between false balance and exclusion where we should be shooting to land in. True balance in proportion. You mostly attacked Wyner in your last message. Yet the Nature piece is reliable and the WP:BIASEDSOURCES argument is an argument to WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, not exclude altogether. Andre🚐 22:56, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to go over the word limit so I'll respond briefly: The problem with the Wyner is not only or primarily that he is not a subject-matter expert and his claims were published in a non-peer reviewed non-RS partisan online magazine and received no significant coverage in RS, it is that he claimed that the GHM's figures could be entirely "faked", and that other experts on statistics pointed out that he had made basic statistical errors in his piece. All this combined makes for it being clearly fringe in my view. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 23:32, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Wyner piece is simply not notable. It's basically an opinion in a source that isn't highly rated in the first place. It's methodology is non-scientific, as has been pointed out by its critics, and it is not the first issue on which Wyner has been non-scientific. If we were to mention it, it would only be to say, this nonsense popped up in March, but I'm not sure we even have three quality RS for that. Meanwhile, the general conjecture that the GHM figures are an overestimate IS fringe. At the start of the conflict it was universally known that the GHM numbers were highly reliable. As the conflict has gone on, it has been clear that for obvious reasons the record-keeping has deteriorated. Many sources now suggest that the GHM numbers are likely a significant underestimate for this reason, and as per the Lancet study. The attack line that the GHM numbers are perennially unreliable and overestimating the casualties in Gaza is part of an apologist case that is basically grasping at straws to try to minimize the mass killing in Gaza, in which the number of dead is by almost all accounts considerably higher than the GHM figures, and, by steadily strengthening academic and NGO consensus, constitutes a genocide. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:37, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, sorry, it is unequivocally clear that there is no remote equivalency between a drive-by quote in a news explainer that no one discussed, and a peer-reviewed academic study that was extensively covered by RS. Makeandtoss (talk) 08:44, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

El Pais incidentally did the reverse math right. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article cites reliable sources that found various discrepancies in the GHM data. The lede should summarise the article per MOS:LEDE. I thought that a quote from the Nature would solve this - it's brief and doesn't give undue weight to the criticism, considered that the rest of the lede's content is positive. You may disagree with that but in any case the lede cannot ignore the issues with the data. How would you suggest to mention them differently? Alaexis_¿question? 20:50, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article cites no RS saying there is an overestimate, as there is no such RS. The only RS cited and not misrepresented, which again your inclusion of the Nature piece is and I shall correct, is the AP piece from the middle of last year concerning the percentage of women and children among the deaths. This is also now outdated and should be corrected. I shall get to that as well. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 22:52, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Both the Nature article, and now the paraphrasing that has been inserted on this, is vague. "Some" doesn't tell us anything. It establishes nothing. It informs the reader of nothing. It could be two. It could be two hundred. It's classic MOS:WEASEL. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:43, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If it were to accurately reflect the source now also accurately reflected in the body and avoid weasel-words, it would say "Some researchers believe that the ministry underestimates the casualties, while one independent Israeli researcher speculates that it probably overestimates them." I don't believe that can be a serious proposal. Also @Alaexis misrepresents MOS:LEDE, which clearly states: "the lead section is an introduction article and a summary of its most important contents." This is a two short paragraph lede, and one sentence referencing one independent Israeli researcher's speculations is not part of its "most important contents".

Again, it should be removed until consensus is reached for its inclusion. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 05:09, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just one Israeli researcher. The GHM numbers have been criticised by multiple RS

• Michael Spagat: ID discrepancies
• AP: discrepancy between the published data and announcements
• Nature Explainer: "Some researchers think it is an underestimate, owing to the difficulties of trying to count dead people during conflicts. Other sources say it is an overestimate." Note the plural in the last sentence. It's not just Zlochin.
• HRW: The Ministry of Health in Gaza reported that 471 people were killed and 342 injured. Human Rights Watch was unable to corroborate the count, which is significantly higher than other estimates, displays an unusually high killed-to-injured ratio, and appears out of proportion with the damage visible on site. [20]
• NYT: evidence suggests that the GHM "deliberately told the world a false story" blaming Israel for the Al-Ahli explosion [21]. Yes, there is a minority of sources that disagree with this, but per WP:BALANCE we should present differing views according to the weight in RS.

How would you summarise all of that? Alaexis_¿question? 09:07, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

State that there's a minority position that the GHM is systematically overcounting, because it is exactly that. That's actually being quite generous, since the actual case is that it is an extreme minority, if not fringe position. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:47, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1- ID discrepancies have nothing to do with the numbers being overestimated

2- The discrepancy mentioned by AP related exclusively to April 2024 figures and this has already been discussed and I don't see a reason why this is being brought up again.

3- News article tangentially citing an irrelevant individual with a PhD in computer science that we found a better source to counteract: a peer-reviewed academic study that is fully focused on the topic.

4- This article relates to Ahli hospital incident in October 2023 and has nothing to do with GHM's overall numbers.

5- Clearly, this has nothing to do with casualty figures.

There is nothing to summarize because these points do not relate exactly to the accuracy of GHM's overall numbers; and when they do, such as in the example of the Nature explainer, they are a tangentially mentioned position that is contradicted by a peer-reviewed academic study. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:49, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the GHM in general and not just about their overall casualty figures, so 1,4 and 5 are pertinent.

I've re-written the sentence in the lede to make it less vague and clarify that the some of the issues had to do with their incident reports rather than overall casualty counts. Alaexis_¿question? 09:58, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We have a peer reviewed study now in the Lancet with a well tested methodology which says the GHM has probably missed about 41% of the casualties, so we should probably put that in there to corroborate about 'Discrepancies and methodological concerns'. NadVolum (talk) 10:41, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and that adds to the case for an underestimate by the GHM, although they said repeatedly that the official count did not include many who were for example under the rubble. Saying "discrepancies were identified" in the lede as @Alaexis did without clarifying the latest Lancet report refers to a significant undercount by the GMH is grossly misleading, alongside not reflecting the content of the cited Nature source.

I have added the latest Lancet analysis to the body and also a summary of it in the lede. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 20:12, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's still undue relating to one specific incident out of thousands, or a specific month out of 15 months now. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:06, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Alaexis you have now made several versions of this sentence in the lede that inaccurately describe what is in the cited source. And instead of waiting to get consensus, you keep re-adding it. Please make a concrete proposal for which sentence you want to add to the lede, then gain consensus for it through an RfC.

Your latest version was this: "Discrepancies and methodological concerns were identified in certain casualty counts and incident reports."

This is a much worse case of WP:WEASEL, and casts doubt on the entire GHM figures even though the cited source and the entire body of the page say the exact opposite. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 18:56, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RfCs is not the only way to reaching consensus. In fact, the most common way of reaching it is through editing WP:EDITCON.

Having one sentence about various issues in the lede certainly doesn't give them undue weight, considering the rest of it. On the other hand, failing to mention them entirely violates WP:NPOV. I've suggested a couple of options but I'm open to other suggestions.

The latest Lancet study is not incompatible with the issues that other sources identified. It can be that the overall casualties are higher than the GHM estimate, but at the same time some of their data is unreliable. Alaexis_¿question? 22:50, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Alaexis some of the criticisms have since been addressed. For example, in July 2024 he criticized[22] the GHM's data for its quality, but by September 2024[23] he firmly ruled out that GHM's data might be an overestimate.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 17:30, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I haven't seen this article. Yeah, I think we can add it to the article that the quality of the GHM data improved again in the second half of 2024. Alaexis_¿question? 22:13, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note, the methodology used in the Lancet article is not new as someone said above, see Mark and recapture. It started off in 1896 being used to estimate populations of species especially rare ones, but as it mentions in that article has been refined in various ways and been used in epidemiology and various social studies. What's new here I believe is its use in estimating war casualties. NadVolum (talk) 23:23, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Please change "It operates under the jurisdiction of the territory's Hamas government, which is independent of the Palestinian National Authority, and was headquartered in Gaza City before the outbreak of the Israel–Hamas war in October 2023." to "It operates under the jurisdiction of the territory's Hamas government, which is independent of the Palestinian National Authority, and was headquartered in Gaza City before the outbreak of the Israeli–Hamas war in October 2023. Nonetheless, the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank retains power over health and education services in Gaza, even though it's based in the occupied West Bank. The health minister in Ramallah oversees the parallel ministries in Gaza and West Bank, which receive the same data from hospitals in the Gaza Strip. Palestinian Prime Minister Mohammad Shtayyeh of the West Bank echoed this during an October 2023 interview with Al Jazeera when he expressed frustration over attempts by others to question Gaza casualty figures, noting, "There are certain leaders who don’t want to see reality. They only want to see what is happening on the Israeli side; they don't want to see what is happening on the Palestinian side. So, therefore, the numbers are correct. They are our numbers. These numbers are fed to us from the hospitals of Gaza every single day that are received by our Ministry of Health."

The Ramallah Health Ministry still provides medical equipment to Gaza, pays Health Ministry salaries, and handles patient transfers from the blockaded enclave to Israeli hospitals, and the health minister's deputy is based in Gaza. Henceforth, the Gaza Health Ministry is a mix of recent Hamas hires and older civil servants affiliated with the secular nationalist Fatah party. Ahmed al-Kahlot, director of Kamal Adwan Hospital in northern Gaza, put it this way: “Hamas is one of the factions. Some of us are aligned with Fatah, some are independent. More than anything, we are medical professionals." " Lamin Muh G (talk) 16:34, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We don't know how much *power* they have, so let's stick to what sources say. I've added some information to the lede. Shtayyeh's comments regarding the casualty count should be in the Casualty reports subsection. Alaexis_¿question? 21:04, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The phrasing "concluded the GHM underestimated deaths" reads more as a criticism of GHM, rather than an endorsement of its reliability at the minimum number of casualties, and an emphasis that extra numbers are due to reporting challenges because of the war. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:39, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]