Talk:Gaza war/Archive 38

I just created an article for the recently released Transatlantic Civil Servants' Statement on Gaza. Thriley (talk) 22:23, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Not sure why you deemed that letter in particular as notable enough for its own article. It could easily be added to International reactions to the Israel–Hamas war. There is no reason to keep a subsequent redirect either, unless we want to set a precedent for creating a redirect for all the thousands of reactions and letters penned about the war. Yue🌙 06:48, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

That was my feeling too at first blush. Coretheapple (talk) 15:14, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Same sort of thing as the missives penned by US state employees, interesting but not notable enough for their own article. Selfstudier (talk) 15:55, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

I guess the unprecedented nature of the letter made me think a separate article would be justified. Also thought the article would be due if the list of signatories included prominent names. I’ll wait a week or so and then redirect if nothing comes of it. Thriley (talk) 17:40, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes I note that the letter is anonymous. Coretheapple (talk) 17:55, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

I doubt names will be disclosed anytime soon. And I agree that the leter, even though currently publicised by some media, is just one of a multitude of public reactions to the Gaza War and likely won't have an independent, lasting notability any more than every other reaction. — kashmīrī ^TALK 01:50, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Giving precise figures for casualty counts in the infobox, prose, and elsewhere, is false precision. 25,295 might be the most recent number reported in the media, but of course we do not actually know if it was 25,295 or 25,294 or 25,296 or some other number. False precision not only gives the reader a likely-incorrect number, but it gives the reader a false sense of confidence in that number, as if we know down to the person how many were killed. In actuality, the casualty figure is constantly changing, minute-by-minute, and giving an exact number obfuscates that fact and presents the casualty count as if it's a fixed, known quantity, when it's actually a constantly-changing estimate.

To avoid this false precision, I propose saying "25,000+" (in the infobox) or "more than 25,000" (in the prose) and then updating that by the thousand ("more than 26,000," etc.), and doing the same with all casualty figures (e.g. "more than 1,400" Israeli casualties, etc.) throughout the article (and Wikipedia, really). (In the case of hostages, the precision isn't false, so exact numbers can be used, but that doesn't apply to casualty counts.) Levivich (talk) 20:30, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

But the figures are backed by the cited sources anyway. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:00, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, and I would also like to address the inclusion of casualty breakdowns by occupation on one side. Journalists have been killed in Israel too but that's not lede-worthy. PrimaPrime (talk) 06:30, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

The figures from the Gaza Health Ministry are believed to be accurate, they are registered deaths. They also have estimated numbers of dead missing as 7000+, however I think that is a gross underestimate despite their experience from previous bombing. The Euro-Med figures are estimates of actual deaths, it still has problems though and can be debatable. We should indicate better how figures are got at. NadVolum (talk) 08:10, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

This article has Israeli sources confirming that Israel also believes the GHM stats to be reliable, fwiw. Selfstudier (talk) 12:04, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

If the number is based on registered deaths, it's a lagging indicator, so it will systematically be an undercount. That looks like an average of about 120 deaths per day. If we're getting daily updates, we should probably round to the nearest 100. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:59, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Strong agree. Actually, this is something I feel so strongly about I'd be willing to consider starting an RfC if this discussion goes nowhere. The Gazan Health authorities have admitted that they're unable to keep track of the ever increasing death toll. To be clear, this has nothing to do with their reliability or authenticity, but rather it is due to the rapid pace of the war and extremely large number of casualties, as well as damage to civil/medical infrastructure, which makes keeping track difficult, in addition to the large number of people missing likely dead under rubble. We should avoid a precise number but rather an estimate like "25,000-30,000" or something of that form as is done in the Ukraine War article. JDiala (talk) 06:23, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

The only thing we should do is say 'registered deaths'rather than 'deaths' for the Gaza Health Ministry, and that is an exact number. The actual number of deaths is quite a bit higher. The IDF figures for militants killed is all adult males of military age if they are going by the standards of the Israeli Open University report of 61% civilians killed. NadVolum (talk) 12:13, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

If you want estimates use the Euro-Mediterranean ones, which are based on the Gaza Health Ministry but then try to account for the missing presumed dead. My own estimates indicate they are still underestimating by quite a bit but that's OR on my part. NadVolum (talk) 12:23, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

With respect, I think you're missing the point. This is about avoiding false precision and precision bias, it's got nothing to do with the reliability of casualty counts or the source. False precision is false precision regardless of the source. Levivich (talk) 16:02, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Putting zeroes at the end achieves nothing - the figures for deaths from the Gaza Health Ministry are many thousands too small for actual deaths. Putting zeroes at the end might give people it is estimated actual deaths when it is not. They are accurate registered deaths. It should say registered deaths for those ones. The Euro-Med ones are where zeroes could be stuck at the end though then it starts being OR how many to stick in, basically one would then be second guessing them. NadVolum (talk) 23:52, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Registered deaths aren't all death, though. What putting zeroes at the end achieves is avoiding false precision. Is it that you don't believe false precision is a problem to be avoided? Levivich (talk) 23:57, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Putting zeroes at the end would achieves the opposite of what you say. They should be described as registered deaths. The problem is not false precision but the wrong description. If you put zeroes at the end people like you might actually have just skippd over it thinking it was anywhere near a correct figure because it is an estimate of actual deaths. It is not an estimate of all actual deaths. It is actual deaths but those which have been registered rather than all deaths. They should be described as registered deaths. Just sticking zeroes in fixes nothing - it makes things worse. NadVolum (talk) 00:13, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm pretty certain more than fifteen thousand children have been killed so far. What is the point of changing 12,345+ children killed into 12,000 or 13000 children killed? But saying 12,345 registered deaths of children makes some sense and is supported by sources. NadVolum (talk) 00:34, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly where we're miscommunicating. The point of changing 12,345 registered deaths of children to 12,000+ deaths of children is to avoid false precision. If you're asking what is the purpose of avoiding false precision, I'd say that's answered by the article false precision, but among other things it's to avoid precision bias. As I said in my OP, "False precision not only gives the reader a likely-incorrect number, but it gives the reader a false sense of confidence in that number, as if we know down to the person how many were killed. In actuality, the casualty figure is constantly changing, minute-by-minute, and giving an exact number obfuscates that fact and presents the casualty count as if it's a fixed, known quantity, when it's actually a constantly-changing estimate." I'm not trying to be a jerk about this, I just honestly don't know how else to explain "What is the point of changing 12,345+ children killed into 12,000." Levivich (talk) 00:51, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

How about reading those articles yourself. This is not a problem of false precision or precision bias. You are misunderstanding what they are about. What is happening here is that a figure is being misunderstood and being used for something it is not. If a bus full of passangers falls into the river and by SUnday 11 bodies are recovered the number killed is not 11 and it is not 10+. What we can say is the number of bodies recovered is 11. The actual number might be elenen or twelve or it might be twenty or thirty. In this case we know the figures are out by many thousands. There is no point putting the figures out fuzzed a bit as if they are estimates of all actual deaths. When we quote the registered death figures we should just give them as they are and say what they are which is registered deaths and separately give their estimate of missing dead qhich could be out by thousands - but we shoudl say that is an estimate and say by whom. Basically just follow the sources which we are not doing at the moment. NadVolum (talk) 01:16, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Basically just follow the sources - I couldn't agree more. I just went and looked at recent stories from five sources:

• BBC:

  Since the start of the war, more than 26,750 Palestinians have been killed and at least 65,000 injured, according to health officials in the Gaza Strip, which has been governed by Hamas and blockaded by Israel and Egypt since 2007.

  Israeli officials say that 9,000 of those killed were Hamas militants but have not provided evidence for the figure. More than 1,200 people were killed in Israel during the Hamas attacks of October 7th, and a further 100 died of their injuries according to Israeli officials. More than 250 people were taken as hostages into Gaza.

• AP:

  Since Israel’s offensive began, more than 27,000 Palestinians have been killed and 66,000 wounded, according to Gaza’s Health Ministry.

• Reuters:

  Gaza health authorities, who do not differentiate between militants and civilians in their tallies, say more than 27,000 Palestinians have been confirmed killed since the start of the war, 107 of them in the past 24 hours, with thousands more feared lost amid the ruins.

• CNN:

  Israel’s subsequent assault on Gaza has so far led to the death of more than 27,000 Palestinians in the territory.

• NBC:

  The U.S. strikes are the latest salvo in the simmering, Middle East-wide unrest that has threatened to boil over since Hamas’ Oct. 7 attack on Israel, in which some 1,200 people were killed, and Israel’s subsequent war in Gaza, which has so far killed more than 27,000 people.

See, they all avoid false precision; they're all saying "more than" and except for the BBC, rounding down to the nearest thousand (BBC to the nearest 50). This war is not at all like your bus accident example. In a bus accident, it can be known how many people were on the bus and exactly how many died. In a war, it cannot be known exactly how many people died. That's what makes war casualties susceptible to false precision, while auto accident casualties are capable of real precision. Levivich (talk) 01:32, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Please see for example about how the figues are calculated. The more than is more than the recorded figure. We should just take the figure fromthe best source and say more than if we're going to follow sources. However I think it is far better to give some indication of what type figure it is. I do wish you would give up on your 'false precision' when referring to the figures from the Gaza Health Ministry. They are not an estimate of all deaths and if you had any concepton of what the term means you'd know it is inapplicable here. The sources are right in saying the deaths are more than the recorded deaths but the figures they give are not accurate to within a few thousand which is what using thousands normally means. They are just dumbing down for their public or following some agenda to like the 'Hamas run health ministry' business. The meaning behind figures is important and registered would explain everything even if some people just want things dumbed down. For instance the two civilians to one militant business from the IDF is almost certainly based on the sort of stuff in , and if you read that it doesn't once mention the basis of that figure. That figure is from a 'conservative' estimate of civilians which is got by eliminating all adult men between 18 and 60, see . The newspaper has copied it without giving any indication of what it meant. Is that a right thing to do? We can't do much about the 2:1 or 9000 militants here because they don't say how they get the figures but we do have source informtion for the figures you want to bowdlerize. NadVolum (talk) 11:48, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

So much for following the sources. Levivich (talk) 15:06, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. We have to follow sources for citations but we don't have to copy news style. The provenance of the figures is well documented in numerous sites, there is no good reason to ignore that and good reasons to say what they are. NadVolum (talk) 15:45, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Hahaha

"follow the sources"

*shows sources*

"we don't have to follow the sources" Levivich (talk) 16:12, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

As for the Israeli figures, there are multiple reliable sources saying Israeli authorities came up with a final count, e.g. The Guardian, 8 January 2024, "Israel’s final count for Hamas’s 7 October massacre is 1,139". That figure came from AFP and is quite widely quoted (sometimes phrased as "about 1,140").

Having said that, AFP has come up with another figure in just the last couple of days, 1,163. See e.g. . However, that figure is not yet widely quoted. I am also not sure whether it really measures the same thing. Apparently, it "includes those taken hostage on October 7, whose deaths have since been confirmed." Andreas JN466 13:19, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes the figures killed later are unknown yet, the news is at least sixty have been killed by bombs which strikes me as a bit high but very possible as they would have been hard to move. At they have described what the number means which is all I'm arguing for rather than rounding a figure and trying to imply it means or is a reasonable estimate of something quite different. NadVolum (talk) 14:32, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

By the way they still haven't come up with a final figure for the number of militants killed or captured in Israel during the October 7 attack which they should have an accurate number for after this amount of time. NadVolum (talk) 15:51, 4 February 2024 (UTC)