Talk:Gaza Health Ministry/Archive 1

Archive 1

adding references to GHM death data

The summary and listed deaths data appears to be published in PDFs in the news feed - The news feed is here - https://www.moh.gov.ps/portal/category/%d8%a7%d9%84%d8%a3%d8%ae%d8%a8%d8%a7%d8%b1/%d8%a7%d9%84%d8%ae%d8%a8%d8%b1-%d8%a7%d9%84%d8%b1%d8%a6%d9%8a%d8%b3%d9%8a/ The data is (for example) in the PDF at the bottom here https://www.moh.gov.ps/portal/%d8%a7%d9%84%d8%b5%d8%ad%d8%a9-%d8%aa%d9%86%d8%b4%d8%b1-%d8%a3%d8%b3%d9%85%d8%a7%d8%a1-%d8%a7%d9%84%d8%b4%d9%87%d8%af%d8%a7%d8%a1-%d9%88%d8%aa%d9%86%d8%af%d8%af-%d8%a8%d8%aa%d8%a8%d9%86%d9%8a-%d8%a7/ Peterxyz (talk) 01:52, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Content dispute

@Mistamystery you seem to be reverting several users' edits (multiple reverts in the last couple of hours alone). Can you explain your reasoning for removing sourced content added by myself and nableezy? VR _talk 20:25, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

I did not revert anything Nableezy added, merely shifted content to appropriate paragraphs as the section evolved.

The other revert is technically a single revert (as explained in edit history, I hit post too soon, self-reverted, and then completed the original single edit in one revert as per the description).

All other edits or the revert are explained in detail in the edit history. Please let me know if there are any further questions and happy to talk further here. Mistamystery (talk) 20:32, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

And to be clear, you are not abiding by NPOV standards in your recent edits, and your most recent addition is another example:

You just inserted the provision that the Italian Foreign Minister made comment “without providing any evidence”

That is a fundamental mischaracterization of the article, which does not state the above as you inferred, but merely points out the minister did not “say what evidence his comments were based on”. It does not imply in any way that the Minister was not in possession of either evidence nor intelligence on the matter.

I recommend you self-revert this addition, and please show a bit more restraint, double checking, and ensuring neutral contribution in making further edits on this article. Mistamystery (talk) 20:39, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

But I never wrote that the minister was not in possession of any evidence, rather the minister simply did not provide it. Does the RS not say exactly that? VR _talk 20:54, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

There is nothing in the article relating to him even being asked to provide evidence. It is standard for Foreign Ministers to be making official comment in relation to intelligence briefings that are not automatically provided nor made public. The article is abundantly clear - he simply did not identify the evidence he was basing his assertions on. If anything, that makes the case that the journalist believed the Minister *was* basing his comments on evidence. Mistamystery (talk) 21:01, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Its not that he didn't make evidence public that he was basing his comments on, he didn't even mention it. Contrast this with when Biden said that Al-Ahli explosion was caused by a Palestinian rocket - Biden pointed to info from US intelligence, who then pointed to infrared imagery. The Italian minister provided nothing, it seems.VR _talk 21:08, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

It is up to the journalist to ask about the evidence, not for us to infer whether or not the evidence exists, or whether or not the official was withholding it (or didn’t have it)

That said, we have one paragraph for critics and one paragraph for supporters. Let’s just keep the arguments to the appropriate place and stop trying to chip away at sections from the inside

Mistamystery (talk) 21:10, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Would it be an acceptable compromise if we used the same wording as the source, like “without saying what evidence the comments were based on”.VR _talk 21:54, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes you reverted content Nableezy added[1] too. They added "the Washington Post, the figures provided by the ministry are considered reliable by many experts", which you removed entirely in this edit[2]. You removed HRW's explanations on why the statistics should be considered reliable[3].VR _talk 20:55, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

The above section you added is specific to the numerous agencies stating as to the reliability of the numbers. We cannot have two redundant sentences saying the exact same thing, so I moved the Washington Post citation up to the sentence re: US, UN, etc. As well, the HRW sentence said nothing but that it considered it to be reliable - again redundant.

These are merely structure and formatting changes. There is no fundamental change in the assertions being made in the paragraph. You are not reviewing the edits being made in any consideration of good faith, and recommend you review all changes being made thoroughly before you respond or edit further. Mistamystery (talk) 20:59, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

I'll tag nableezy and let them determine if you partially reverted their addition or not.VR _talk 21:09, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Can you explain why you removed HRW's evidences on the reliability of GHM? VR _talk 21:21, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Very simply its redundant to have two sentences in a row with the word “realiable” or “reliability”. You added a more powerfully worded and cited sentence regarding potentialy reliability, so I folded the previous statements into the new sentence you had wrote. If anything, I beefed up your addition. Mistamystery (talk) 22:03, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

• Mistamystery, we seem to have a difference in approaches to the content. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems you prefer the following structure: <all the negative allegations against GHM>, followed by <all the positive counter-arguments about GHM>. But I don't agree with that approach. I think each "issue" regarding the GHM should be treated separately. One issue is whether Hamas allows any dissent in the GHM. Baker says it doesn't, but the ABC News quotes sources that say that in the GHM, Hamas employs its rivals and independents (possibly because Fatah funds part of the GHM). This info should be together in one paragraph. The next paragraph can contain historical accuracy of GHM. Then a paragraph of who considers GHM reliable and who doesn't. Etc.VR _talk 21:52, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

  I think there’s a very good point being made here so far as the historical reliability of the GHM is concerned. I don’t dispute that remotely.

  That said, given that reliability only came into question as a result of this conflict - and specifically the hospital incident - the question emerges as to where is the appropriate place in the section to point out that, outside of this moment, the GHM statistics have historically been considered reliable.

  I would say at the end of the section, and simply so because the initiating cause to question the reliability came about as a result of this recent incident.

  A fundamental issue here that is important to both preserve and distinguish, is that the doubts about the GHM’s reliability are explicitly as a result of this particular conflict. Just because the GHM has been considered to be reliable in the past has little bearing given this specific conflict, and that the Hamas government is in a position to be playing a numbers game. They did play - I don’t think anyone disputes this, and have now thrown the repute of the ministry into question. I don’t think we should be conflating the history of reliability of the ministry as having any impact as to how much the GHM is believed at this moment in time. It has already been thrown into doubt, and - very simply - is now up to independent observers to confirm numbers. There are currently no independent observers in Gaza, so (and this is somethign we must keep in mind) will have to wait until then to really crunch the numbers on which count to truly stand by.

  Mistamystery (talk) 22:01, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Thats a bunch of unsourced opinion. Also, please self-revert your 1RR violation. nableezy - 22:07, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Self reverted. That said - plenty of source to back these assertions up (if we are to expand the section to include opinions as to *why* there are reliability issues currently with the GHM). Historical reliability means very little in the face of a war of casualty counts (which has never been the case up until now).

There is no dispute that the GHM reported non-factual information to such an extent to the point that many critics have thrown its reliability into question. Mistamystery (talk) 22:19, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Restored reverted edits (per Nableezy request)

Just want to be clear as to why I reverted the assertions regarding the Ramallah based Health ministry. There is only *one* agency confirming and reporting fatalities out of Gaza at present: the GHM. They are providing information to the UN, HRW, EU, US, and - obviously - the Fatah-run Health Ministry in the West Bank. That the West Bank ministry was reported to in no way affects the central issue here: that there is no independent verification of the numbers the GHM is providing. Mistamystery (talk) 22:21, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

If you read what I wrote (and the sources[4]), then you can see that West Bank ministry has personnel on the ground in Gaza who verify the Gaza Ministry's counts. VR _talk 22:31, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

I did read the source. Merely affirming that there too are Ramallah-associated staff also isolated in Gaza does not account for the potential misreporting and potential political interference in this specific case. The statement by the former Reuters bureau chief cannot be so easily written off, if we are to merely entertain the notion that people are misreporting numbers under threat or duress.

And just to make a more personal observation: what are we to desire more here as the outcome? A larger number of confirmed dead, so it proves that the GHM was telling the truth. Or a lower casualty count, but confirms that the GHM was inflating numbers (or was forced to do - or rushed into premature reporting - so by the Hamas government?

This is why I stand on waiting for independent confirmation. Doubt has been introduced, and no one should be operating - on either side - as if casualty numbers are hard facts for the time being until there is third party, independent verification. I am not trying to win a numbers war ultimately, so I don’t see a problem with it.Mistamystery (talk) 22:40, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Look, all we do is report competing information and structure it in a coherent manner. Then we let the reader decide. I suggest this: "Former Reuters regional bureau chief Luke Baker said that the Ministry’s death tolls are no longer trustworthy and “any health official stepping out of line and not giving the death tolls that Hamas wants reported to journalists risks serious consequences.”[7] Yet, other sources argue that Gaza's Health Ministry also includes officials from the secular Fatah party and independents." How would you modify it? VR _talk 03:04, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

List of ministers of health - sourcing issues

I was able to find an acceptable source for Mufiz al-Makhalalati's appointment, but struggle to find one for Medhat Abbas. I'd appreciate some aid in this regard. I'd also like to question the reliability and validity of the source used for Basem Naim's appointment, Oman Tribune. There's barely any information about this newspaper online and the Wikipedia article for it has three sources total, all now broken links, one of which being Oman Tribune's now-defunct website and the other two belonging to a study listing newspapers in the Middle East and a description of it by "HotNewspapers.Com" respectively. It doesn't help that two sources also weren't archived, so two out of the three already broken links aren't viewable anymore. Cadenrock1 (talk) Cadenrock1 (talk) 22:18, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Great find on the second Health minister appointment.

How do you feel about the sources listed on the Basem Naim main article? Mistamystery (talk) 01:38, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

I think they're generally acceptable. This one in particular, published in the NIH, seems more reliable and valid. It also confirms Basem Naim's appointment, although falls short of providing a specific date.

This source provides a more thorough description of his appointment and provides the year of his appointment, yet the site itself seems shoddy. A quick search returns more favorable results for using this source, I personally wouldn't mind either way and would love to see other editors thoughts on it. A good source with a precise date is always preferred. Cadenrock1 (talk) 13:49, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Biased edit

This recent edit stating in the lead that "there were concerns raised regarding the accuracy of the death toll reports provided by the ministry", should be reverted. The sources cited only discuss/analyze the reliability of the GHM, simply saying that some doubt the reliability and that others consider them reliable. In the sources, only US President Joe Biden, the state of Israel itself, and former Reuters journalist Luke Baker are cited as doubting the reliabilty of GHM—definitely not WP:DUE.

IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 01:17, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

The updated version special:MobileDiff/1185199963 still doesn't belong in the lead. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 05:38, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

At this point I suspect it would qualify as a prominent controversy. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:46, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

I still don't agree that it belongs in the lead, but thank you for the improvements you have made. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 06:13, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Bias

This page currently has issues with bias, in that it seems to promote the discrediting of the casualty reports of the ministry. From weasel words in the lead, "concerns have been raised" (by who?), to saying "The US [...] has doubted its reiability", when in fact only Joe Biden expressed that doubt. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 15:29, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

errant Palestinian rocket strikes being considered to be due to "Israeli aggression".

There is not a single citation supporting this, yet the moderators are claiming this garbage is a “well-sourced claim”. That is like saying “it isn’t taking into account people who had a heart attack before the airstrike hit them” an edit like this serves no purpose other than a pathetic attempt to downplay the disgusting war of revenge against civilians, and has no place on a Wikipedia page of all places The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 10:26, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

How about check the source cited in the article, which says exactly that? AP --Orgullomoore (talk) 11:51, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

I was not aware of the citation The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 12:18, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

How is the political party of Gaza Health Ministry officials helpful or relevant?

There has only been one party in charge of the Gaza Health Ministry, and it's made clear in the lede. It's redundant to list each minister's party affiliation when the agency and region itself is ruled by a single party. Cadenrock1 (talk) 17:38, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Technically, the Ministry is still a constituent agency of the Palestinian Authority. In spite of the single party rule of Gaza, neither the agency nor the territory are declared independent to the point that removing the party affiliation would be appropriate. Mistamystery (talk) 18:52, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Casualty reports controversy in lead

I removed from the lead: "The GHM's affiliation with Hamas, which is designated as a terrorist group by Israel and most of the Western world, has led to controversy and disputes surrounding the Palestinian death tolls that it has reported, particularly during the 2014 Gaza War and the 2023–2024 Israel–Hamas war."

Though I'm not sure if this information belongs or not.

This ideally should be discussed.

@TheDoodbly, as you reintroduced this to the lead. I say reintroduced as the page previously contained that information before I removed it here: [5]

- IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 01:37, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Recent change to lead

Is this recent addition due/appropriate for the lead? "GHM's casualty reports are considered credible by several scientific studies." -IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 18:15, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 May 2024

Permalink Michael Spagat Charley.exe (talk) 02:59, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

 Done Jamedeus (talk) 04:45, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Casualty Count Revisions

The casualty count revisions specified here are not corroborated by the Telegram links provided.

”The Ministry further clarified in reports made on April 1st and April 4th that it had “incomplete data” for 12,263 (later reduced 11,371) of its 33,091 reported fatalities.”

The Telegram citation for April 1, for example, makes no such claim. Should this be removed? Farazy (talk) 04:31, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes they do. Please refer to translations requested and provided at Talk:Casualties of the Israel–Hamas war#Translation requested. Mistamystery (talk) 19:17, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

@Farazy: did you read the Arabic and were able to translate it? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 04:22, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 May 2024

Change sub-heading: Scientific studies

to

Casualty figure accuracy

Following the below paragraphs:

"The London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine conducted several analyses on the data and concluded it was "implausible" that GHM engaged in data fabrication.[21] The study found that GHM's reported crude mortality rate in the age bracket of 20-59 years was broadly similar to the mortality rate of UNRWA employees and the mortality rate of Gaza's health-care workers (reported by the World Health Organization).[21] The study also found that the number of buildings reported damaged by the Hamas-run Gaza Ministry of Public Works was consistent with satellite imagery-based estimates conducted by Sky News (both arrived at the figure of 7%).[21] The study looked at 7,028 reported deaths (Oct 7 to Oct 26), and found only one case of a duplicated identification number and one case of implausible age.[21]

Pennsylvania professor Abraham Wyner wrote in Tablet that the GHM casualty figures were "faked";[22] to which Columbia professor Les Roberts responded that GHM numbers were accurate and probably even an underestimate.[19] Wyner's main argument was that from Oct. 26 - Nov. 10, the number of deaths per day is 270 with "strikingly little variation".[22] CalTech statistician Lior Pachter responded that Wyner had cherrypicked a particular period, outside of which the variance was higher; even within Wyner's picked window the daily deaths had a standard deviation of 42.25 and variance of 1,785.[23] Wyner also argued that data showed lack of temporal correlation between total deaths, and those of women and children. In response, Marine Corps professor James Joyner quoted an opinion that GHM updates total deaths immediately, but there is a lag in updating the proportion of women and children, making time correlations "meaningless".[24]"

Add:

"An analysis of the data by the Telegraph found that the UNRWA figures showed a higher male casualty rate despite UNRWA consisting of primarily female staff, whereas the GHM casualty breakdown showed females constituting a higher casualty rate in the general population. They further noted that a third of the total UNRWA casualties occurred in the 7 days since October 7th whereas the casualty rate in the general population remained relatively consistent from October to January. The location of the deaths of UNRWA personnel was found to be largely equal between the North and the South of Gaza despite the IDF's focus being towards the North of Gaza.

The Washington Institute for Near East Policy found that there were statistical inconsistencies in the GHM, OCHA and Gaza Media Office (GMO) fatality reports. There were 4 instances where the GHM reported adult male fatality figure was lower than the previous figure(s), and 3 instances where the reported adult female figure was lower than the previous figure(s).

On the 8th May, the GHM and GMO reduced the reported adult female fatality figure from 9,500 to 4,959 and the children's fatality figure from 14,500 to 7,797 with the previously unreported adult male figure being reported to be 10,006." Aaronathers (talk) 00:32, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

The stuff from Abraham Wyner is here because he has some credentials even though it is not quoted in reliable sources because it is trash statistics used for propaganda. The rest is nitpicking by people with no qualification and in unreliable sources, for instance Israel cut the number of civilians killed in the October 7 attack down by a few hundred, that is called checking the data and sometimes the Gaza health ministry makes mistakes like duplicating a batch once. We don't have bits saying that Israel cook their statistics or resurrect the dead because of that. NadVolum (talk) 09:49, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

And by the way the death tolls were not reduced, what happened is hat the UN OCHR started reporting the number of fully identified casualties in the different categories and only giving the total figure for reported deaths. And even reported deaths is an underestimate of the total deaths because of those missing under the rubble. NadVolum (talk) 10:02, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

References

 Not done: per above. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 03:10, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Wyner summary

@NadVolum: I strongly disagree with this removal. Without that, we're really misrepresenting the Wyner piece.

Wyner's arguments essentially fall into two categories, first that the data appeared too regular in some ways, and second that it appeared too irregular in other ways. After your change, we're mentioning the former (calling it the "main argument"), but not the latter. The latter frankly contains stronger arguments, and is the main focus on the piece.

You mention a counterargument about "batching", which seems like a rather unsubstantiated idea from a blog comment. Even if there was a more substantiated counterargument from a reliable source, it doesn't seem like a reason to remove the Wyner argument that it attempts to refute. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 17:14, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

His main argument was that the increase was too regular and so must be made up - that affects the overall casualty figures which is what people are interested in. If his argument on that is patently false why bother with any of the rest of what he says since any professional statistician wouldn't make a mistake like that. There's no need for gish gallop. Do you actually believe Professor Wyner wrote some actual good statistics rather than writing a propaganda piece for Israel that any beginner in statistics can see through? It is a personal opinion piece which has not been peer reviewed and reliable sources didn't follow up on it. People can follow the link and read the whole sorry business up and be convinced by it if they are that way inclined. NadVolum (talk) 20:48, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Including two short sentences about Wyner's arguments in order to provide a reasonable (still very abbreviated) summary is very far from a "gish gallop".

It would be a major NPOV violation to misrepresent the piece, cherry picking a single point for which a reasonable refutation exists, in order to make it appear as if the entire piece has been refuted.

It doesn't matter whether you or I personally judge Wyner's arguments to be "convincing", "patently false", or whatever else. It's not our role as editors to make a determination about the merits of the argument.

Why do you bring up peer review? It's not a requirement even for primary sources (there are plenty of options for secondary sources here too), and certainly not a justification for misrepresenting a source. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 03:31, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

As to the second point it would have been a good idea for him to ask them why the anticorrelation happened, why didn't he? The batching by the type whether women men children or elderly as they checked them seems a very reasonable idea to me. NadVolum (talk) 21:12, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

It's not our role as editors to speculate about Wyner's motivations. If this is an effort to poke new holes in Wyner's piece, that would be WP:OR. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 03:37, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

So you accept his main argument has problems. And he is a professional statistician who should check what he says before casting aspertions. And yet for some reason you think his second argument is better and you wish to put it in? Do you think you are a better qualified than him? Putting in a number of bad arguments in the hope that the quantity bamboozles people is the essence of Gish gallop and as noted there one should deal with the first argument first. The business about batching deals perfectly well with his second argument and there is no point going on to his third argument about bodies being resurrected. And then his fourth argument about the reported male deaths being suspiciously low. The title of that section says scientific. Only one real contradiction is needed to upset a scientific theory. There is no need for us to go through the lot. The piece has not had any peer review and is an obvious propaganda piece. we don't give a large amount of space to non-peer reviewed work saying peer reviewed work has got it wrong. NadVolum (talk) 13:47, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't have an opinion regarding the removal in question, but I wouldn't say that it's an "obvious propaganda piece". Several RS have mentioned it [6] [7]. Alaexis_¿question? 19:56, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

It seems rather uncharitable to ignore stronger points in the piece because a single point was questionable. In this case the other points didn't depend on the questionable one, so there's no broader theory that was upset.

But in any case, I don't think it's our role to scrutinize the content of an essay which clearly merits inclusion based on relevance, significance and the author's credentials. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 04:05, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

It simply isn't WP:DUE as it has very little weight. Editors don't have to into detail about every bit of rubbish that comes out. He gets paid in court cases as an expert witness on statistics, those egregious errors in his analysis are deliberate. NadVolum (talk) 12:35, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

This material shouldn't appear under the subhead of "scientific studies" at all - an academic bypassing the peer review process by writing a methodologically suspect opinion piece in a highly partisan rag is not a scientific study; it is just about the opposite of one. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:42, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

It's perfectly normal for analyses of recent events to not seek publication in peer-reviewed journals, a process which can take a year or more depending on the field and the preferred journals. Many respected economists self-publish analysis of recent events, for example.

Agreed "scientific study" probably isn't the right label for it, but commentary doesn't seem quite fitting in my opinion for a somewhat technical analysis by a statistician. Let's just call it "analysis", it's how most sources refer to it. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 16:51, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Hatchet job? It is fairly elementary thankfully, he wasn't trying to fool experts. NadVolum (talk) 20:21, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Wyner

@XDanielx: Can you elaborate on this edit? [8] I don't think some Wyner writing in a random magazine is due for any controversial claim. Also a weasel word has been introduced, and in WP voice, "apparent". Makeandtoss (talk) 14:44, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Hm I don't quite follow what you mean about due for any controversial claim?

I agree the article'S inclusion In Tablet doesn't add much to its credibility, though At worst that means we should treat it like an WP:EXPERTSPS, which "may Be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert".

My reasoning for the edit was mainly that it doesn't seem accurate to say the two Lancet articles refute Wyner'S article. They both predate Wyner'S article, so of course they don't mention Wyner, and they don't really look At the same things.

In particular, Wyner'S article was largely about temporal trends. The LSHTM article doesn't look At temporal data, but evaluates other aspects of the data. The JHU article looks At temporal data specifically for GHM vs UNRWA, but not At other correlations such As men vs women. Even if there was a contradiction among the articles, we'd need an RS to establish that without SYNTH.

To Be fair, Pachter'S blog does refute one of Wyner'S arguments (or At least aims to), but that'S all we seem to have; No RSs seem to engage Wyner'S separate points about irregularities.

So I don't think we can frame Wyner'S arguments about irregularities As something that'S been refuted, though some kind of mild MOS:DOUBT language may Be appropriate, like "apparent" or "purported"? — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 20:00, 2 June 2024(UTC)

@XDanielx: This would Be WP:Fringe As this is a minority position In a magazine, refuted by findings of scientific journals and most of the concerned international organizations. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:53, 3 June 2024(UTC)

I've split the sentence into two to avoid the improper synthesis. The irregularities found by Spagat aren't disproved and do not disprove the conclusions of the Lancet articles. Both are RS so we simply report what they say. Alaexis_¿question? 12:39, 3 June 2024(UTC)

Not In the lede As that would give undue weight. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:20, 3 June 2024(UTC)

Please see my points above, e.g. on why the Lancet articles were not refuting Wyner'S. No RS has disputed Wyner'S points about irregularities. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 15:05, 3 June 2024(UTC)

I removed the WP:UNDUE bit In the lead. It was stated In Wiki voice and pitted against a peer reviewed source. NadVolum (talk) 17:15, 3 June 2024(UTC)

They'Re not arguing against one another though, they make largely unrelated claims which can both Be true, As I discussed above.

It'S like if one article said that New York has nice food and culture, while another said that the weather is poor. In some sense they'Re supporting different narratives, but they'Re not contradicting one another, and the credibility of one article wouldn't imply anything about the other.

It seems like a major NPOV issue to devote the entire second paragraph to the narrative that the data is reliable, while removing the one and only mention of concerns about the quality of the data. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 17:51, 3 June 2024(UTC)

The point is that it is not peer reviewed and it is saying there are problems when a peer reviewed one has said it is okay. It does not matter that you have this idea that it is reliable, it is simply WP:UNDUE given WP:SCHOLARSHIP. The article has about his saying there are problems with the correlation between men and women but He simply should not be in the lead at all. That's like saying in the lead about a drug that a study showed no problems but somebody wrote there might be some problems with it. Especiallly when that somebody didn't do any checking with the people who wrote the study or anyone independent. That is pretty standard on X or TikTok but it is not what Wikipedia does. NadVolum (talk) 19:34, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

This is not a policy-based argument. Michael Spagat is a well-known researcher of wartime casualties and his work is reliable and notable even if it's not published in a scholarly journal. Alaexis_¿question? 20:22, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

The lead was referring to Wyner's article which is trash. But yes Michael Spagat's stuff should also not be in the lead till it is checked by somebody. Please read WP:SCHOLARSHIP about the relative merits of works that are peer reviewed compared to those that aren't. NadVolum (talk) 20:32, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

There is no rule that the lede should contain only information found in peer-reviewed studies (it doesn't). There is a rule that the lede should summarise the article. The article mentions several alleged inconsistencies, and we should briefly summarise them in the lede. Alaexis_¿question? 21:22, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

I am not part of this discussion, but correction please. The article only discusses one allegation of falsified casualty numbers via a Tablet article by Abraham Wyner, rather than several alleged inconsistencies – hence why I clarified that in the lede earlier. It should also be further clarified that the Tablet article suggests that the data is largely inaccurate/fake, not just there being "some irregularities observed," as there is a large difference between stating that there are some irregularities in a piece of data, and suggesting that it is either largely inaccurate, outright fake, or both. B3251 (talk) 01:09, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

The Tablet stuff is straight prpaganda with twisted statistics by professor Wyner. Professor Michael Spagat wrote https://aoav.org.uk/2024/analysis-of-new-death-data-from-gazas-health-ministry-reveals-several-concerns/ which points out some problems but he seems honest and is an expert on this sort of matter. We shouldn't be putting what they wrote into the lead alongside peer reviewed work. It can be checked fairly quickly by somebody like the peer reviewed stuff was and can wait till then. That it is later does not mean it overrides peer reviewed work. NadVolum (talk) 07:12, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

You're entitled to your opinion about Wyner, though these don't seem like an objective concerns backed by reliable sources.

Neither overrides the other since they look at completely separate aspects of the data. The Lancet studies are also rather old now; only one looked at the time period that Wyner's concerns were about, and neither looked at the time period Spagat's concerns were about. They're still relevant, but in no way do they contradict Wyner's or Spagat's concerns. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 18:04, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

That's your opinion. The OCHA says it is happy about the figures and as I said before those other sources are undue in the lead when there are peer reviewed sources. If you want to start an RfC then do so, otherwise we should follow policy about this. NadVolum (talk) 18:13, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

I also don't agree with putting any of the Wyner, Pachter, Roberts or Spagat stuff in the lead. I find the lead, at the time of writing this comment, a sufficient summary of the body. — hako9 (talk) 18:33, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

• @XDanielx: I'm very disappointed by this edit. You want to include Wyner but want to suppress criticism of Wyner? Either we include both or remove this altogether (I prefer including).VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 22:00, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

  Surely that can't be considered a reliable source - it's a comment on a blog written by "Ken M". Besides that it just seems like unsubstantiated speculation. There's no quote from the GHM or anyone with knowledge of GHM's processes, just an assumption by "Ken M" about what those processes might look like.

  I'm normally all for covering all sides of an argument, but just don't see how this one could be included without a blatant WP:V and WP:RS violation. Hopefully a better source will turn up. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 17:12, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

  Wyner is in practically the same boat. They are both professors. Abraham Wyner has no particular expertise in war or casualties, James Joyner is not an expert in statistics. What they have published is just their own opinions. Either both statements should go or both stay. You may think it is unsubstantiated speculation - but Wyner should have checked and he didn't. He just invented spurious arguments. NadVolum (talk) 18:30, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

  James Joyner might be a reliable source, but he merely compiled a list of quotes from anonymous internet users, without really endorsing or even commenting on them. The argument isn't coming from him at all, so whatever credibility he might have seems irrelevant. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 00:21, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

  You said 'It's not our role as editors to make a determination about the merits of the argument.' And yet you think this is more credible than Wyner's main argument and so want to put it in. As to Joyner he assessed the argument and said "Additionally, commenter Ken M adds this insight", that isn't just compiling a list, it is an assessment of the argument. NadVolum (talk) 13:51, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

  A few points here,

  • I wouldn't call Wyner's point about minimal variation his "main argument". It's only two paragraphs, framed as "the first place to look". Wyner's article follows a sort of narrative arc, starting with slightly suspicious things and building up to more clearly problematic things, like the men vs women anticorrelation.
  • Pachter only "refutes" the visual anyway, not the introductory argument itself. Pachter's concern was solely about looking at cumulative data. The actual text of Wyner's argument talks about "variation day to day" or "the daily reported casualty count", not about its cumulative sum.
  • Where did Joyner "assess" the argument by Ken M? I guess using the word "insight" counts for something, but a one-word label with no further discussion isn't much of an assessment.

  — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 17:01, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

  This is the twenty first century, not the eighteenth where they liked long arguments as one of their entertainments. This is the century of the gnatlike attention span and flick left or right. He has jobs as an expert witness and knows that. I think citation needed for the 'story-arc' idea. And yes I think saying insght and quoting something does count. Far more than the assessment of someone on Wikipedia. And his finishing comments are not exactly supportive of Wyner's article either. NadVolum (talk) 18:24, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

  But you removed the counterpoint for the (alleged) men vs women anti-correlation too. If that's his main point, why shield him from criticism on it? And Joyner quoting an opinion does give us the necessary sourcing for inclusion.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 22:58, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

  James Joyner is Professor and Department Head of Security Studies at Marine Corps University's Command and Staff College. He's a former Army officer and Desert Storm veteran. I think he is reliable enough to respond to Wyner. VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 16:10, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

• I think Wyner is given way too much weight for a paper in a partisan barely reliable source, and his past statements about global warming being debunked, along with his avowed partisanship in this topic, make him considerably less useful. When we have peer-reviewed scholarship we dont "balance" it with partisan talking points that have not been reviewed by anybody. nableezy - 18:27, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

The Lancet articles not peer reviewed?

The two The Lancet articles being peer reviewed has been mentioned 17 times here, and frequently cited as a reason for elevating them above sources that question GHM's reliability.

They don't appear to be peer reviewed though, and "scientific studies" might be a somewhat misleading label. The Telegraph says of one article,

Because the work was published as correspondence rather than a formal study, it was not peer reviewed [...]

The other article is also under "correspondence". The Lancet describes "correspondence" as (emphasis theirs)

Our readers’ reflections on content published in the Lancet journals or on other topics of general interest to our readers. These letters are not normally externally peer reviewed.

— xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 18:21, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Sorry didn't check. Lancet is still considered a stellar source on Wikipedia and it has a strong editorial policy. If you really want to put Wyner in the lead to go against those then go to WP:RSN or set up a WP:RfC here as it simply won't stick there otherwise. NadVolum (talk) 19:36, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't think non-biomedical claims and stories/analysis of news/current events are peer-reviewed very often. Lancet says their editorials are also not externally peer reviewed. So for instance, [9] isn't peer-reviewed. So is it worse than "The Tablet"? lol. — hako9 (talk) 20:47, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Maybe let's do a RfC: how should the lede summarise the "Scientific studies" and "Other analysis" sections with the options

• Only mention the Lancet studies (current version)
• Write that "some irregularities were observed in the data related to the Israel-Hamas war" ([10])
• Summarise it in a different way.

Alaexis_¿question? 11:38, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

"Some irregularities" is weasel wording. Wyner has been debunked. But of course there have been other concerns like lack of identification numbers.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 23:00, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

New AP article with good info that could help the article

https://apnews.com/article/israel-palestinians-hamas-war-casualties-toll-65e18f3362674245356c539e4bc0b67a 57.140.28.26 (talk) 22:35, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Two interesting things I observed. The analysis says "Only unique, fully identified deaths are counted." It admits that it has not included 29% of deaths because some bodies are "not claimed by families, decomposed beyond recognition or whose records were lost in Israeli raids on hospitals." The second is that, for the first time, we are given Hamas-reported figure of how many militants have been killed. It estimates the number to be 6,000.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 16:23, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

There's a bit of a problem with that in that the hospitals used to identify all the deaths but now many are done using forms filled in by the pubic since only a fraction of the hospitals still do that. A problem with that is that widows need to fill in details of their husbands to get state assistance but there is far less incentive to identify other deaths. The business about drones and the IDF killing instea dof using bombs probably is true to an extent - but exactly to what extent compared to it being an artifact of the reporting is anybody's guess. On the other hand in the past possibly fewer men were identified as their bodies would be less likely to be accessible. NadVolum (talk) 16:52, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

The 6,000 figure has been around for a while but has nothing to do with the Gaza Health Ministry. See Casualties of the Israel–Hamas war#Civilian to military ratio. In fact probably all that AP article has more to do with that other Wikipedia article. NadVolum (talk) 16:59, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

@NadVolum: yes, but the date matters. Here Hamas is giving the figure at a time when the toll is much higher. The earlier 6,000, given months ago, was officially denied by the group.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 23:04, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Well I'll try adding it to the casualties article in the section about militants and see how that goes. NadVolum (talk) 18:47, 14 June 2024 (UTC)