Talk:Gaza genocide/Archive 49

@Cambial Yellowing: Whether the number of deaths (186,000) mentioned in the letter to The Lancet (Khatib et al.) should be listed in the infobox. My arguments against including it: 1) because it's a non-peer-reviewed letter to The Lancet, 2) because it's a guess - it's a simple multiplication of then-known death toll by 5, not the result of any actual work involving Gaza of Gazans, 3) because estimates based on actual work involving Gaza of Gazans are now available, 4) because it includes expected future deaths. Periwinklewrinkles (talk) 13:02, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

You have breached the 1RR restriction on this page. You reverted this edit by IOHANNVSVERVS. . Please self-revert. As IOHANNVSVERVS points out, the sources that make use of it are peer-reviewed. In weighing the use of the source, the expertise of the authors and reviewers of those secondary sources is significant; your personal opinion is not. Cambial — foliar❧ 13:27, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Self-reverted my last edit. Going back to the topic: it is a fact, rather that personal opinion, that there are studies (Spagat et al. is one example) that are based on actual research performed in Gaza and are peer-reviewed. It is also a fact that the letter to The Lancet which, besides stressing the importance of getting an actual death count, also provided an estimate (186,000) for current and future deaths by multiplying then-known death toll by 5, was not peer-reviewed. Then, some peer-reviewed articles (secondary sources) quoted that 186,000 claim, but did they also state that their own research confirmed that claim? Periwinklewrinkles (talk) 14:07, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

That's not a useful test. What matters is whether those peer-reviewed sources considered the method by which that figure was arrived at to be sufficiently robust for inclusion in their work. They evidently did consider it so. Cambial — foliar❧ 14:17, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Talk:Gaza genocide/Archive 40#RfC about inclusion of 186,000 death toll estimate in infobox (17 January 2026) -- Cdjp1 (talk) 17:33, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

For those who don't want to follow that link, that RFC was closed as No consensus, defaulting to exclude. I also want to highlight this bit of text from the close: This decision applies until either (1) a reliable source with a more recent, less speculative death toll is published or (2) consensus changes. @IOHANNVSVERVS, you started that RFC, so I assume that you are aware of the outcome. Do you think consensus has changed on this? If it hasn't, then I don't think that figure should be in the infobox right now. Chess enjoyer (talk) 19:56, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

I agree with Chess enjoyer and would opine that we already have better sources to use other than that one Katzrockso (talk) 20:15, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

To be clear, that wasn't a comment on the actual merits of including it in the infobox. I just don't want the RFC's (lack of) consensus to be ignored. Chess enjoyer (talk) 20:21, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Which better sources are there for a total death estimate? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 20:39, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

The Spagat paper already postdates the Lancet letter and includes both violent and nonviolent deaths. Katzrockso (talk) 06:53, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

A few reasons why I re-added the estimate:

1. I added five more peer-reviewed sources that weren't presented in the last RfC.

2. One of the main editors reverting and objecting in the previous RfC was since topic banned for "persistent one-sided participation in centralized community discussions"

3. The closer themselves stated "It is the best available figure made by the best experts in the best available source", so I don't really understand how it would not be due for inclusion. The closer stated their reason to exclude from infobox was because "it's also an educated guess made in an information vacuum, so it needs more context than an infobox allows." But all the citations in the footnote have quotes which explain the context and nuance of the estimate.

Also people keep focusing on the merits of the Khatib et al 2024 source itself. But we have ten or so additional sources, most of them peer-reviewed, which also cite the estimate. I don't see how if we're following the sources we wouldn't include this estimate with attribution. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 20:30, 29 March 2026 (UTC) Edited 20:40, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

is there any more up to date this is really dated. Moxy🍁 20:50, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

There are peer-reviewed sources from 2026 citing this estimate. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 21:22, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

I re-removed this estimate. Editing against an existing consensus from a drawn-out RfC borders on tendentious. The fact that other sources cited the Khatlib estimate was considered in the RfC and there was still no consensus to include. Katzrockso (talk) 06:57, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

I agree with the removal. This article is about the genocide. There's no reason to stick in estimates of deaths which make practically no difference to the topic compared to what is well documented. NadVolum (talk) 11:02, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

I'm sorry but the quality and quantity of citations in support of the estimate are surely too many to not include it. There was never any "existing consensus" to exclude this, the previous RfC simply resulted in no consensus either way. I don't understand why the multiple new peer reviewed sources I added supporting this estimate are simply being ignored or waved away.

@NadVolum, it's standard practice to include death toll estimates in infoboxes for genocides and similar articles. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 19:23, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

The 186,000 is an estimate of how many will have died, not how many have actually died so far. The number who have died is probably more of the order of maybe 110,000 but we don't have a good peer reviewed figure. The 186,000 figure should not be used here, it should be based on well established facts since it basically says Israel and its backers have committed heinous crimes. NadVolum (talk) 09:25, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

See this is what I mean about "I don't understand why the multiple new peer reviewed sources I added supporting this estimate are simply being ignored or waved away." We're supposed to be following the sources, not dismissing them based on original research like your statement of "The number who have died is probably more of the order of maybe 110,000".

I have included no less than ten citations in support of this estimate, most of them peer reviewed. I don't really see how there's anything to debate here. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 13:56, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

Where are those 10 citations? Do you mind posting them here; sorry if you already have and I'm being blind Chattenoir (talk) 14:21, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

'The 186,000 is an estimate of how many will have died' This isn't what the source says. Chattenoir (talk) 15:09, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

@Chattenoir, here is the text and its citations that were removed:

186,000 deaths estimated by Khatib et al. 2024^[1]

-IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 14:40, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

1st source: From the first source listed here (The Lancet) it is not implausible to estimate that up to 186 000 or even more deaths could be attributable to the current conflict in Gaza.

2nd source: cites the first source in their first citation ([1]), Lancet with an estimated 186,0001 lives lost directly or indirectly amid widespread violence and destruction.[1]

3rd source: cites the first source, Lancet The Lancet medical journal estimated that this conflict could cause the deaths of 186,000

4th source: cites the first source, Lancet may be conservatively estimated at 186,000 (including 148,000 indirect deaths), according to The Lancet

The other sources I do not have access to.

It seems the first four cite Lancet, which is a peer reviewed journal. I see that source 9 and 10, within their title, quote the Lancet also.

The question logically comes to whether there are peer reviewed journals which differ to the Lancet in their estimate. Chattenoir (talk) 14:52, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

There is a good source here which affirms that the Lancet estimate is credible https://www.france24.com/en/middle-east/20240711-more-than-186-000-dead-in-gaza-how-credible-are-the-estimates-published-on-the-lancet Chattenoir (talk) 15:03, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

Considering this primary source is widely covered by secondary sources, many of which academic, I don't see why it wouldn't be included. It is already included in Casualties_of_the_Gaza_war#Reactions_and_analysis.

If included it would not replace any content in the infobox, but supplement it. Chattenoir (talk) 15:05, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

And her is a review by Spagat that says it is not clear if the figure was supposed to be for those already dead or a projection, and that it isn't credible as a figure for thoise killed. We also know from current figures that the in direct deaths are far lower than what was estimated in the paper. I'm happy with the paper being used in the casualties article, that article is specifically about estimates like that even if they are wrong. It just shoud not be used in this article. NadVolum (talk) 15:30, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

Spagat is one person (a professor of economics), where as there are several secondary sources, both academic journals and mainstream news such as the france24 source I posted below, that conclude the estimate is reasonably plausible.

You said: We also know from current figures that the in direct deaths are far lower than what was estimated in the paper.

Lancet says for direct deaths: 58 260 deaths (without an epidemic or escalation) and 85 750 deaths (if both occurred) by Aug 6, 2024[10] - citing https://aoav.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/gaza_projections_report.pdf alternate link: https://reliefweb.int/report/occupied-palestinian-territory/crisis-gaza-scenario-based-health-impact-projections-report-one-7-february-6-august-2024I

I will quote from this John Hopkins University source: Over the next six months we project that, in the absence of epidemics, 6,550 excess deaths would occur under the ceasefire scenario, climbing to 58,260 under the status quo scenario and 74,290 under the escalation scenario.

Was this direct death estimate inaccurate? It seems to align closely with what this article says. I believe they meant the total number would climb to that right?

I would say you should probably either provide more secondary sources which conclude it is implausible, or a differing estimate that is well supported. Chattenoir (talk) 15:49, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

So now we have one source saying the estimate is implausible and eleven sources saying it is plausible. Is excluding this estimate really reasonable in such a case? We're attributing the estimate to its authors, we're not acting like it is definitive.

Also it's not unreasonable that one or two sources will disagree with the estimate. As one of the sources cited above says "death toll estimates vary[] widely across different sources and methodological approaches".

This is clearly a notable and due estimate to include. Do we really need to have another RfC on this @NadVolum and @Katzrockso? Or can I readd this estimate with attribution and now eleven sources showing it's due for inclusion. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 16:09, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

It will require another RfC to overturn the consensus at the previous RfC. I still strongly object to the inclusion of this low-quality estimate, even if a number of sources cite it in passing. Recall per WP:RSCONTEXT that Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source or information that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable; editors should cite sources focused on the topic at hand where possible. The best sources in question would be ones that directly focus on estimating death tolls in Gaza, and of those that directly examine the Gaza genocide, all of them criticize the Lancet commentary (Jamaluddine, Spagat).

I don't know why we are insisting on including estimates from several years ago (WP:AGEMATTERS), that were manifestly projections and not estimates (which it is not standard practice to include projections in infoboxes), and that have received significant criticism by the WP:BESTSOURCES (which is peer-reviewed academic demographic estimates).

The infobox in question being used is Template:Infobox civilian attack. The parameter in question is fatalities, which is described in the documentation as Number of people killed during the attack(s). This does not use the future tense to describe potential or even likely future deaths. That sort of nuanced commentary is best left to the body, per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. For what it's worth, I support inclusion of the Lancet letter in the body of the article, where it can be properly contextualized and explained. I strenuously oppose inclusion in the infobox, which would violate our existing policies and guidelines. Katzrockso (talk) 16:25, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

It's a fair point about the lack of mainstream news citing the Lancet report. I think you're exaggerating when you say "several years", it was 2024.

This does not use the future tense to describe potential or even likely future deaths Are we talking about future deaths? The lancet report did not use the 186k number in reference to future deaths. It said it is not implausible to estimate that up to 186 000 or even more deaths could be attributable to the current conflict in Gaza..

There is no mention of this number in regard to projected future deaths. Chattenoir (talk) 17:20, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

Well, thinking about it I suppose it can be interpreted as meaning that, it's not very clear. Chattenoir (talk) 17:22, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

The authors of the original commentary received a few critical letters in response when it was originally published. They replied in this letter , making it clear that their estimate was about a projected future death toll We recognised in our Correspondence that there have been other estimates but, given the scale of damage in Gaza, including to hospitals, homes, and water supplies, and given the outbreaks of infectious diseases, it is clear that the eventual death toll will be very high. We agree that the future toll of indirect deaths could be reduced with a ceasefire and reconstruction, albeit on an extraordinary scale

The second author of the article also posted on Twitter making it clear this is an estimate of future indirect deaths . The Lancet wrote a response to Jewish News as well; The authors also note that many of these indirect deaths may not have yet occurred. Katzrockso (talk) 01:34, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

I don't know how you are arguing this is a "low quality estimate". Is that your own original research that considers it low quality? Because we have a number of peer reviewed sources which do not consider it to be "low quality".

The idea that multiple peer reviewed sources should be rejected because they only "cite in passing" seems illogical. They cite the estimate - and so should we.

Jamaluddine doesn't really "criticize" or reject the estimate, they consider it worth mentioning and only caveat that its methodology "might be inappropriate due to obvious differences in the pre-war burden of disease". No one's arguing this estimate is perfect, but it's the few attempted estimates of the total death toll.

As for age matters, we have peer reviewed sources from 2026 citing this estimate. This again seems like original research, arguing that the estimate is bad and the sources that cite it in 2026 shouldn't be citing it.

What "significant criticism" by "peer-reviewed academic demographic estimates" are you talking about?

I find it suspicious when people make many different arguments for something. My point is simply that many high quality sources cite this estimate, and so we should cite this estimate also. We are supposed to be following the sources, not arguing against them based on our own assessments. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 22:33, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

You seem to be under the misapprehension that the Wikipedia:No original research policy applies to talk pages, when it manifestly does not. Please read the ultimate paragraph of the preamble to the policy; This policy does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards.

The Jamaluddine paper cites dozens of different figures about Gaza, including their own recent research - just because they consider something worth mentioning in an academic overview does not mean it should be included in an infobox as a key fact. They correctly note that the Khatib commentary

applied multiplication factors from other conflicts (Burundi, 1993–2003; Timor-Leste, 1974–99) to estimate indirect deaths in the Gaza Strip, which might be inappropriate due to obvious differences in the pre-war burden of disease (compared with Burundi and Timor-Leste, the Gaza Strip featured a high burden of non-communicable disease and a very low burden of undernutrition and infectious disease, although infections have become an increasing challenge since October, 2023).

This is precisely the same argument that Spagat makes. The Jamaluddine paper goes on to state However, accurately measuring indirect mortality during an ongoing war is fraught with challenges and limitations. Although a ground survey could yield robust estimates, the highly unsafe conditions for humanitarian and health workers inside Gaza and access constraints currently make it unfeasible. A ground survey is precisely what Spagat et al. conducted and it confirms that the Gaza health system was luckily more robust than those in other genocides, so it was able to better withstand the brutal Israeli assault. Katzrockso (talk) 01:22, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that the 72,200 direct death figures is only reported deaths, bodies under the rubble that have not yet been reported may mean this figure is lower than the actual number of direct deaths. Source: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/feb/19/gaza-death-toll-higher-than-reported-lancet-study Chattenoir (talk) 16:22, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

Yes, this is why we report estimates by demographers and other researchers that estimate the death toll using other sources. The Spagat paper uses a population survey to estimate deaths, while the Jamaluddine paper uses capture-recapture methods to align deaths reported by three different sources.

If we want to use a more updated estimate, I would suggest using the Max Planck Institute's estimate that by 6 October 2025, the death toll had surpassed 100,000 . Katzrockso (talk) 16:29, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

My view is that multiple estimates should be included. This max planck report seems credible but I cannot find many secondary sources quoting it, only https://www.aa.com.tr/en/europe/over-100-000-people-died-in-gaza-war-top-german-research-institute-reports/3752993 and https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/more-100000-palestinians-killed-gaza-leading-german-institute-says .

If more secondary sources can be found that quote this, such as mainstream news. Then perhaps it can be included in the infobox also. Chattenoir (talk) 17:14, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

I strongly disagree that we should bloat the infobox more than it already is. The amount of text in an infobox is inversely proportional to its efficacy; The less information that an infobox contains, the more effectively it serves its purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE.

An infobox is unsuitable for nuance or detail and should generally avoid prose or prose-like statements. If information cannot be simply stated in an infobox without explanation or qualification, it probably doesn't belong in the infobox. is very clear. Presenting this estimate would require explanation, qualification and nuance that is not fit for an infobox. Once again, I have no issue with citing this in the body of the text (as we already do). The issue is in the infobox. Katzrockso (talk) 01:25, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

In the Gaza war article, it says "indirect" deaths may be many times higher in the infobox. How would you feel about this in the infobox of this article, with this https://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/Crime-statistics/Global-Burden-of-Armed-Violence-full-report.pdf being the in-line source. Chattenoir (talk) 15:17, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

I ctrl+f'd "Gaza" in that pdf and got 0 results. I would remove that as ^{[failed verification]}. Katzrockso (talk) 16:32, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

That was the citation given in the Gaza war article, to be honest I haven't read it and assumed it would be a better alternative to suggest the Spagat paper. I see it was published 2008 also. Oh no..

The other citation given is not something I have access to. Chattenoir (talk) 16:48, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

I agree with Chattenour that we can (and should) include multiple estimates. The Max Plank estimate is reasonable to include but notably is only for violent direct deaths, whereas Khatib et al 2024 is an estimate of total deaths. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 22:18, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

Unless you want to start another RfC, please abide by the result of the RfC which stated This decision applies until either (1) a reliable source with a more recent, less speculative death toll is published or (2) consensus changes. Consensus can change, but this is not an invitation to start more RfCs about this matter in the short term. Remember that volunteer time is Wikipedia's limiting resource. Calling an RfC is expensive in that resource, and is not to be done lightly, please. Katzrockso (talk) 01:38, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

I agree with Katzrockso in that, and in fact with everything else they just added to this discussion. And wish there had been no need for them. I don't know why there even is this discussion and why it has gone on so long. NadVolum (talk) 10:39, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

Hello.

As you can see in the following sentence in this page, the term "direct deaths" appears twice there. Should the second instance say "indirect deaths" instead?

"75,200 direct deaths by 5 January 2025 (estimate) and 14,168 direct deaths since March 2025 (recorded figure)"

David A (talk) 10:49, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

No they're different time periods. I really wish people wouldn't stick things like that into an infobox. The article Casualties of the Gaza war is the place for that sort of thing about the actual numbers. The difference in the figures makes very little difference to the business of genocide. I think that point should be removed from the infobox. In fact I will as the article doesn't mention any figure for the deaths and it is supposed to be a quick summary - I'll leave the main one as people will want to see something. NadVolum (talk) 23:35, 28 April 2026 (UTC)