Talk:Gaza Strip famine

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 June 2024

Link "Project HOPE" mention to existing Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_HOPE Cridgway007 (talk) 19:40, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

 Done Charliehdb (talk) 12:26, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Much of this article is flawed and should be rewritten

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

enough said

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I did some more research and just found

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dodgy sources are in the eye of the beholder ;)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Israeli sources

@W. C. Minor: I would like you to discuss and look for better sources before adding those citations from Israeli government, institutes, and lobby groups back to the article. These are technically primary sources, and their reports are at risk of a conflict of interest on this matter. I also would appreciate it if you can avoid using acronyms in the citation template website/work/publisher entry, so readers can more easily identify the sources. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 07:34, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

I believe a primary source is valid when referring to Israeli claims. At your request changed the refs to non primary sources W. C. Minor (talk) 08:10, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Fox News is not a reliable source on science or politics. Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) is a lobby group which is not a reliable source especially on the Israel-Palestine conflict topic. You manually restored the FDD citation within 24 hours since your last edit, albeit to a different section of this article. I would like someone to comment if this has violated the 1RR rule. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 08:20, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Primary sources do not establish weight. That a party has made an assertion does not make that assertion due for mention (and even less so when it's a source that lacks independence). Iskandar323 (talk) 20:59, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

When these assertions come from official organizations such as the government of Israel or Israeli academia this has weight. Lack of independence is inherent to the matter at hand thus not relevant. WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD W. C. Minor (talk) 06:19, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

No, it doesn't have weight. Government assertions have no intrinsic value or credibility, are biased, politically motivated, and, by virtue of coming straight from a government, are not just primary, but single-sourced. This material is the opposite of content supported by multiple, independent, reliable secondary sources as due mention. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:39, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

How are the Israeli claims to be mentioned if you don't allow quoting their actual response or any news outlet that mentions them? I am not debating the facts of famine itself, rather the facts of what Israel claims. In any case, I changed the sources to other news sites. W. C. Minor

Requested move 24 June 2024

Gaza Strip famine → Starvation of Palestinians during the Israel-Hamas war – No source is saying this is a famine. They say near-famine, starvation, or famine-like conditions. Contrary to some claims, there is not one source in this article that declares a famine. The FRC said there wasn't enough evidence to declare a famine, and other sources agreed. But pretty much all reliable sources say there is starvation. In every report, most of the population is in some form of starvation, and sources have gladly accepted this term. Additionally, starvation has been confirmed by pretty much all humanitarian orgs, the UN, ICC, and ICJ. Also, there is no common name. I want to see evidence there's a widely used name. The name doesn't have to be this, but it should revolve around starvation in Gaza. Personisinsterest (talk) 01:23, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Support per nom. The current title is essentially a statement in wikivoice that a famine is definitively occurring. Few sources say that in a definitively manner. Even if that were the prevailing majority view, it's still a matter of controversy, so as a non-neutral title this runs afoul of WP:POVNAME WP:POVNAMING. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 05:31, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Support based on @XDanielx comments, though wouldn't use the term "palestinians" as they also live outside the gaza strip. Perhaps: "Starvation in the Gaza Strip during the Israel-Hamas war" W. C. Minor (talk) 06:08, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

@W. C. Minor: what about "Starvation during the Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip". The parent article is more WP:PRECISE-ly Israeli invasion of Gaza Strip (2023-present), as the starvation didn't happen during the October 7 attacks etc.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 01:22, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

@Vice regent I still think the proper context is the ongoing war between Israel and Hamas. for example, the Israeli blockade started before the invasion. W. C. Minor (talk) 11:35, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

As per the discussion here, the "invasion" article encompasses the entire "Operation Swords of Iron", which started on October 7.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 16:13, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm opposed to a move but if the consensus is in favor of one, this is my preferred title. Unbandito (talk) 22:45, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Support for the broader scope and in line with the sourcing generally provided by RS, which is not sufficient for a non-neutral title like famine. However, I think Hunger in Gaza during the Israel-Hamas war may be another potential title, in line with Hunger in the United States and Hunger in Syria. FortunateSons (talk) 12:03, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Agreed O.maximov (talk) 12:08, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

No. There is no starvation in Syria and America. There is hunger. And starvation is widely recognized by sources and international courts. And they mostly attribute it to Israel. See [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15] Personisinsterest (talk) 12:36, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

I would strongly oppose "Hunger in..." as a euphemism.

@FortunateSons:, do you understand that Starvation (crime) is a war crime, and thus you are supporting changing the title to something that accuses Israel of deliberately starving Palestinians during the war? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 16:09, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

There is Starvation (crime) and Starvation, but Hunger is wider and covers things that are not (yet) starvation and is therefore the superior title IMO, for example allowing us to include less significant malnutrition.

On a general note, while I believe that the RS coverage does not currently support Starvation (crime), this can change in the future, and so would my vote, if there is a consensus among (in this case academic) RS. FortunateSons (talk) 16:23, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

I mean, the ICC, UN, and multiple other organizations say this Personisinsterest (talk) 20:24, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

I would support a change to Alleged starvation of... it is better in my opinion.

New reports have said that previous reports were probably wrong. Read new report that came out today by the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC) organization, the ICJ has previously cited their report in March when they told Israel to increase humanitarian aid. [16][17]. O.maximov (talk) 12:07, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Title offered is better than the wikivoice famine title as explained by xDanielx O.maximov (talk) 12:10, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

It is not alleged. It is absolutely confirmed. There is no debate on that. The report you gave still says there is heavy hunger in Gaza, and starvation has been confirmed by many sources. Personisinsterest (talk) 12:23, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Let's add the options: Alleged starvation of Palestinians during the Israel-Hamas war, Hunger in Gaza during the Israel-Hamas war. O.maximov (talk) 12:09, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

False dichotomy, you're trying to eliminate any possibility of actual starvation Personisinsterest (talk) 12:40, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

We can have more options. Perhaps others will prefer it. O.maximov (talk) 13:24, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Strongly disagree per MOS:ALLEGED and per WP:WHITEWASH. Starvation is absolutely confirmed, not "alleged". — kashmīrī ^TALK 18:18, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Oppose:
1. We have several RS either suggesting or directly stating there is famine in northern Gaza:

• Samantha Power stated it was credible there was famine in parts of Gaza in April 2024.[18].
• The World Food Programme head stated there was "full-blown famine" in northern Gaza in early-May 2024.[19].

2. We have mainstream humanitarian organizations warning of worsening conditions in southern Gaza:

• In early-June 2024, Save the Children said, "Back in March, the UN warned of famine. And we have not – as humanitarian organisations – been given the access to stave off that famine and so we expect the situation to get worse. And in the south, we fear that the famine-like conditions that we saw in northern Gaza earlier this year are making their way, and may already be present, in southern Gaza."[20].
• In mid-June 2024, UNICEF stated 3,000 children with acute malnutrition in southern Gaza were at risk of death.[21]

3. We have seen USAID warnings about the "inevitability" of famine in Gaza, regardless of policy changes:

• In April 2024, USAID warned famine in Gaza was inevitable and that "changes [in Israeli policy] could reduce but not stop widespread civilian deaths."[22]

4. Yet, the volume of food and humanitarian aid deliveries has actually decreased...

• In the last 1.5 months, from the start of the Rafah offensive in early-May to mid-June 2024, humanitarian aid deliveries decreased by 67 percent, per WHO.[23].

In sum, there are no sign food conditions are improving, and seem worse since the last RM in April. We don't yet have the formal declaration of famine, but per the last RM's closer: an article about an impending event does not violate our policies if discussed in reliable sources, as this event has. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 12:37, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

1. 4 is independent research and doesn't matter here. #1 is a good point, but most sources just attribute the famine claim to them whereas they freely say it's starvation themselves. #2 second point isn't relevant unless someone drew that conclusion to the famine threat. The first point doesn't even confirm famine, just says famine-like conditions. #3 also doesn't say it's a famine.

Personisinsterest (talk) 12:44, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

As for the thing about an impending event: What is this article about? Is this article about the impending famine, or is it about starvation in Gaza during the war generally? Personisinsterest (talk) 12:45, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

1. This is not independent research. It is an article by the Associated Press quoting the World Health Organization: "The organization says that since Israel launched its ground operation into Rafah, aid delivery had declined by 67%, with over 50 WHO trucks stuck on the Egyptian side of the crossing into the southern city. Meanwhile, just three trucks were allowed into Gaza through the Kerem Shalom crossing."
2. We likely will not see sources say there's famine in their own voice until there is a formal declaration. Until then, USAID and WFP are some of the most reliable sources we could possibly have.
3. It is relevant. During the last RM, the primary cause for concern was the risk of famine in northern Gaza. The fact that we are now discussing famine-like conditions in southern Gaza is a very clear indicator the food situation is deteriorating.
4. I'm not sure what you mean by saying the "first point doesn't even confirm famine". Not sure how "full-blown famine" suggests anything but that. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 12:54, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

All in all, there are only two sources that have actually said there's a famine. And this article is about hunger in the war generally. Personisinsterest (talk) 13:06, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Also, this is just factually false. The article you cited about full blown famine was immediately challenged by AP. And someone trying to find an Wikipedia article about starvation in Gaza would be under the false impression that there's consensus that there's famine. Personisinsterest (talk) 13:11, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

McCain's comments were made during an NBC News interview and were covered widely by multiple RS, including ABC News, PBS, and the AP. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 13:21, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Coverage is cool, confirmation is better. And sources have confirmed there's starvation, see above. Personisinsterest (talk) 13:26, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

There is a policy of deliberate starvation by Israel. Twisting it from “famine” to “starvation” is nothing more than propaganda to suit one sides narrative. Famine is all encompassing of these actions of these policies. Lf8u2 (talk) 07:15, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Strong oppose RS have said at one point that there was a famine in at least some parts of Gaza over the past eight months, [24] and there continues to be warnings of a risk of impending famine [25]. The proposed article title would be misleading and contrary to RS. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:15, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

RS didn't say that. They reported what others said. And this name now is way more misleading! It confirms a famine when there isn't one Personisinsterest (talk) 13:25, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Oppose - largely per Carmen. "Famine" is the word that is most often used in reliable sources. Senior UN officials have said northern Gaza has, for over a month now, been experiencing "full-blown famine" (see here). And finally, no the title does not presuppose that famine exists everywhere in Gaza. The title means that the topic of this article is famine in the Gaza Strip, both where it already occurring, where there is risk of it beginning, what has or may caused it and so on. The claim that No source is saying this is a famine. is patently false. And the basis for the move request falls on that weight. nableezy - 13:43, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

That is the UN. Is that a source? No. That is an organization, and the media reported on it. They didn't confirm it. The media has confirmed starvation. And if you want to use the one statement that says there's a famine vs every source saying there's starvation, sure.Personisinsterest (talk) 13:51, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Of course the UN is a source, the news media is not the only sources we may use. And a simply search of gaza famine will demonstrate how often the term is used, which, as I already said, does not mean that the topic is confirmed to have occurred, only that this is the topic they are discussing. Finally, please read and internalize WP:BLUDGEON, I am well aware of your thoughts on this topic and would prefer to not have to keep seeing them repeated. nableezy - 13:54, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Wait until there is more data or move to Famine in the Gaza Strip. The latest IPC report did say that the situation had improved in northern Gaza, but the war is still ongoing and the situation could change (Both CarmenEsparzaAmoux and Personisinterest have mentioned the Rafah offensive and increased hunger there now).

I would support changing the title to Starvation in Gaza once the war is over and if the data or report shows that the Israelis were able to turn the situation around with their efforts and continued coordination with the UN, commercial aid, and with the Israelis continued protection and delivery of aid trucks amid a war and lawlessness in Gaza.[26][27] Wafflefrites (talk) 13:47, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Why is there a double standard here? Why do we have to wait until data comes out to name it starvation - which is already confirmed - and not for famine, which is only confirmed by a UN official once Personisinsterest (talk) 13:53, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Much as I would like to not call it a famine when most sources do not label it as a famine and are instead warning of famine risk, WP:TITLECON speaks on consistency in title naming and we have Famine in northern Ethiopia (2020–present) and Famine in Yemen (2016–present).

I think if all our “Famine in” articles were renamed to “Starvation in”, I would support the move decision now. Wafflefrites (talk) 14:02, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

I think here WP:POVNAME should trump title consistency, which tends to be viewed as a nice-to-have property that, as WP:TITLECON says, generally falls below several other considerations. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 15:33, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

The claim this is a POV name is wholly unsubstantiated. nableezy - 16:31, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

For "famine" to be neutral (and thus avoid WP:POVNAME), there would have to be no serious controversy about whether a famine is occurring. I think it's clear that's not the case. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 17:28, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

No, the title does not imply a famine is ongoing, only that this article is about the topic of famine in Gaza. nableezy - 20:04, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

While it's not an explicit statement, I think a title of "Gaza Strip famine" strongly implies that a famine definitively is occurring or has occurred, just as "X massacre" or "X genocide" strongly implies definitive occurrence of a massacre or genocide. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 21:52, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

American exceptionalism is a belief, not a fact that America is exceptional. The title is the topic, and the sources in this article, and in the world, are overwhelmingly about the topic of famine in Gaza. When it might set in, or where it already has, what are the causes, what can be done to arrest its progress. Famine is the word that sources use, overwhelmingly so. Not starvation. nableezy - 22:14, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

"American exceptionalism" is the name of a viewpoint; it definitively exists in the same sense that utilitarianism definitively exists (regardless of how much merit the viewpoint may or may not have).

"Gaza Strip famine", on the other hand, is much closer to the "X massacre" or "X genocide" examples. It isn't likely to be interpreted as a reference to a viewpoint; it's likely be interpreted as an implied statement that a famine is definitively occurring. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 22:55, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't want to weigh in too much but I will say that sources did refer to these events as famines directly. Personisinsterest (talk) 17:27, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Support. I think many titles could work here from "potential famine" to "hunger crisis". One title that definitely does not work is the current one so long as the UN's IPC process itself states that: "The available evidence does not indicate that famine is occurring." PrimaPrime (talk) 18:13, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm seeing that quote quite a bit, but citing that without the full context is somewhat misleading. The paragraph following that one sentence reads: "However, the situation in Gaza remains catastrophic and there is a high and sustained risk of Famine across the whole Gaza Strip. It is important to note that the probable improvement in nutrition status noted in April and May should not allow room for complacency about the risk of Famine in the coming weeks and months. The prolonged nature of the crisis means that this risk remains at least as high as at any time during the past few months." CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 18:30, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

The extra context is helpful, but still, their position is that a famine is not presently occurring. Doesn't the title strongly imply that there definitively is or was a famine, not just a risk of a potential future famine? — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 19:01, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

We have strong indications and statements that northern Gaza has indeed been in famine, again citing WFP and USAID [28] [29]. Aside from that, we should also consider WP:CRITERIA, which recommends naturalness, recognizability and concision. The vast majority of readers will be looking for the article in relation to famine in the Gaza Strip, as our sources are almost all speaking about starvation, malnutrition, and food access in direct relation to famine. I also briefly caught up on secondary sources regarding this latest IPC report, and their analysis seems to differ very widely from how some editors are using it here. According to CNN: The report projects that 96% of the population of Gaza – more than 2 million people – will face crisis, emergency, or catastrophic levels of food insecurity through at least the end of September. Nearly half a million are projected to face catastrophic levels, the most severe level on the IPC scale [30] and per Washington Post: Palestinians throughout the Strip face a “plausible” risk of famine in the coming months, according to the latest Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC) analysis. [31] CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 19:56, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

This is good reasoning based on policy. Many of the current sources do use the word “famine” even if it is a risk of famine which is why I want to wait to rename. In retrospect, after the IPC conducts new data surveys, we will better to be able to tell in the future whether famine in Gaza has been averted or not. Famine in Yemen was averted in 2019 due to humanitarian efforts. Wafflefrites (talk) 21:34, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose (unless the alternative title were 'Starvation) per Carmen's carefully reasoning, and the point Nableezy made, that 'famine' is endemic in sources. My original allowance for a change of title was based on the highly technical distinction made by the authorities between starvation and famine. This technical assessment will be impossible until conditions permit an empirical survey of the population, i.e., never. At the same time, in common usage, which is what newspapers reflect, no tight distinction exists between starvation and famine, except in the sense that, unlike famine, starvation refers to what individuals experience. 'Famine' in our usage, refers to a state of chronic starvation afflicting a whole area or population. And the evidence is overwhelming that in this sense, famine qua a generalized extreme hunger is endemic has been endemic in the strip. Finally, as Nableezy points out, most of our mainstream articles speak about forecasts of imminent famine in the Strip, not of starvation, so the focus is on famine, in either sense. Starvation, on reconsideration, is a policy. When historians write of the 'starvation of Jews' in the Warsaw ghetto, or in concentration camps generally, they are using the term not of the situation tout court, but, since it becomes an 'agentive noun' it refers to a situation resulting from and deliberately implemented by their enemies. Starvation in that sense loses its distinction, as something different from famine. Nishidani (talk) 20:18, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

  @Nishidani: can you explain what you mean by "unless the alternative title were 'Starvation)"? What title with the word "starvation" are you open to? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 16:07, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Support - as others have said, unless there is a famine declared, this current title is biased. The distinction matters in international law. Edenaviv5 (talk) 00:07, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

That isnt true? nableezy - 02:50, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Oppose The scope of the article is the title and opening sentence, which reads "The population of the Gaza Strip is facing starvation and famine.." so there is no implication that can be taken directly from the article title, which only means that it is the subject of discussion in sources, which it is, a lot. Selfstudier (talk) 09:39, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

• Support - The IPC, who published the new report claiming that there was insufficient evidence to declare famine in the Gaza Strip in April (and that even today it *probably* doesn't meet that threshold), are the EXACT SAME organization which declared that a famine was occurring in the Gaza Strip in April. The new report is largely a review of their previous work, and finding that the data they collected was too unreliable to confidently declare whether the food crisis reached a level of famine or not. If you look at the articles and reports cited by people opposed to the name change in this thread, all of them--without a single exception--fall into one of two categories. Category A) Articles which say that there is a RISK of famine, but do not say that one is already unfolding. B) Articles which cite the outdated IPC report, or another source which itself cites the outdated IPC report. If the IPC is trustworthy enough for this article to have the name 'Gaza Strip Famine' soon after they published that first report, surely it is trustworthy enough for the article's name to be changed to reflect the IPC's latest report. This is not to say that famine isn't occurring in the Gaza Strip--it very well may be--but Wikipedia should not be making a definitive statement one way or the other, and this article ought to be titled based on how reliable sources describe the present situation per WP:NDESC and WP:CRYSTAL. I think it's important to keep in mind the scholarly sources on the subject (thank you VR!) as well; look at the articles linked in Google Scholar and JSTOR which include "gaza" and "famine", and you'll find that the vast majority of them discuss the possibility of near-future famine, rather than saying that there is one already ongoing. There is not even remotely close to a consensus as to whether famine is ongoing, and Wikipedia should not title their article in a manner suggesting that there is.

Thereppy (talk) 16:21, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Oppose largely per @CarmenEsparzaAmoux and per my own reasoning around WP:CRYSTAL in the last RM.

The RM this time around seems much more focused on the inability of famine researchers to confirm their projections due to a lack of access to Gaza, and the reluctance of international bodies to formally declare a famine. This is not compelling evidence that famine conditions aren't occurring or have subsided, and RS are clear on that. From the NYT two days ago: The December I.P.C. analysis relied on publicly available data from international and local aid groups in Gaza that the group said met its methodology standards. But I.P.C. analysts said they lacked recent data on the prevalence of acute malnutrition. Getting that data is very difficult in a war zone and poses a burden on already overwhelmed health care workers, the group added. The organization’s criteria were originally designed to address weather-related famine, not wartime crises like the one in Gaza. and It is unclear exactly what authority could declare a famine in Gaza. The I.P.C. group said the process typically involves the government in a country and its top U.N. official. Determining who that authority would be in Gaza was beyond the organization’s scope, it said. No informed person or source is suggesting that conditions in Gaza are reversing or are improved. The only people and sources making those claims, from what I have seen, are apologists for Israel's actions who have a clear interest in finding any reason, including a number of misleading ones, to deny or minimize the harm that the blockade is causing to Gazan civilians.

I find the inability of international institutions to respond comprehensively to this crisis to be a fascinating and extremely relevant aspect of the issue at hand. I would suggest that editors concerned about this article's title making it misleading work on improving the body of the article to make the nuance of the famine declaration issue more clear.

Unbandito (talk) 22:23, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

My comment from April

Just wanted to share some selections from WP:CRYSTAL that are relevant to the topic at hand. "All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred. It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced." This is what the article is currently doing. "It is not appropriate for editors to insert their own opinions or analyses." The article hasn't had this issue. "Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included," This is what the current article is doing. "though editors should be aware of creating undue bias to any specific point-of-view." If the article has done this, it warrants better editing, not a name change. I think that many of the editors invoking WP:CRYSTAL in this discussion need to read it more carefully. The discussion among experts about the food crisis in Gaza is a discussion about famine. WP:CRYSTAL says this article's title has merit. Unbandito (talk) 22:23, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Oppose as Israel are implementing a starvation policy through increased blockades. Furthermore, they have attacked humanitarian organisations which has created additional problems such as the withdrawal and restrictions of the services by aid organisation working on the ground. The consequences of all these starvation policies are what leads to a famine. Lf8u2 (talk) 06:46, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Oppose: per the sources analysis below by VR, which clearly shows that the language in general currency is not in favour of the proposed title. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:27, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. Per Carmen and also WP:COMMONNAME in most scholarship sources as provided by VR. Even if the title was to be changed, a change that i oppose to in the mean time, it is far more appropriate to be called just: Gaza starvation

Stephan rostie (talk) 12:32, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Oppose per the comparison downthread which shows "famine" is used more frequently. WP:COMMONNAME and directness of title means the existing title is preferred. Lewisguile (talk) 10:07, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Oppose per Carmen and nableezy. Current title clearly covers the scope of this article, and proposed euphemisms which border in denialism ("alleged starvation") seem POVish. Multiple RS use famine, and considering how the situation in Gaza is not improving, will continue to use the term. - Ïvana (talk) 02:11, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

• Neutral While I believe it is accurate to call the situation a famine, I also think this wording could be misleading as it suggests naturally occurring lack of food, rather than deliberately induced starvation by means of blockade, disruption of aid delivery, destruction of agriculture, etc. (t · c) buidhe 19:09, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Analysis of sources

"Famine" vs "starvation" used in scholarly sources (since 2023)

Search engine	"gaza" "famine"	"gaza" "starvation"
Google scholar	1,490	1,050
JSTOR	109	61
Taylor and Francis	92	45

VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 01:49, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

References

Evidence FRC declared famine not imminent?

In the introduction it says they said this in June. But the citation given is a different report in May. Abdullah Ali 4z5 (talk) 12:55, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

“not imminent” is not what the source says also that was the draft report. The full report is linked in the IPC Famine Review section below. The full 50+ page report says it is unknown whether it not famine thresholds had been passed in April, that the evidence does not indicate that there is currently a famine in Gaza based on surveys of hundreds of households, and that the risk of famine is still high and sustained throughout all of Gaza. The situation improved because of increased in aid deliveries and humanitarian/sanitation efforts.

“ However, the situation in Gaza remains catastrophic and there is a high and sustained risk of Famine across the whole Gaza Strip. It is important to note that the probable improvement in nutrition status noted in April and May should not allow room for complacency about the risk of Famine in the coming weeks and months. The prolonged nature of the crisis means that this risk remains at least as high as at any time during the past few months.”

I will change the sentence to better reflect/summarize the source. Wafflefrites (talk) 21:09, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

That's what the Nay report said. We are talking about the June one, which has not been linked. Abdullah Ali 4z5 (talk) 06:50, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

@Abdullah Ali 4z5 [32] Wafflefrites (talk) 13:19, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

The situation in late June most likely has gotten worse again. I think the data they collected was up to June 4th. Wafflefrites (talk) 13:24, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

The IPC's projected imminent condition June-September is described as emergency level hunger (level 4) and not famine (level 5)[60]. Scienceturtle1 (talk) 22:28, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

IPC Famine Review

New review from the IPC https://www.ipcinfo.org/fileadmin/user_upload/ipcinfo/docs/IPC_Famine_Review_Committee_Report_Gaza_June2024.pdf It says the available evidence does not indicate that Famine is currently occurring.

So the name change is good.

Saying this, this shows what happens when something as basic as WP:NOTNEWS is ignored. Articles are not meant to be live blog, daily journals of what's going on.

There is a distinct lack of WP:NPOV, neutrality and independence on this article. Are people in Gaza starving? Yes Is there a lack of food? Yes But that doesn't provide the license for it to become a free for all. And there is so much content on this article that has nothing to do with a supposed famine. Articles in this state, only diminish the standing and credbility of Wikipedia and this should be everyone's primary concern. MaskedSinger (talk) 18:18, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

On p. 53 (p. 55 of the pdf), Fig 17 and Table 20 show that COGAT made the most deliveries and delivered the most aid in metric tonnes to northern and southern Gaza out of all groups including UNRWA in the months of March through May. Wafflefrites (talk) 20:36, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

MaskedSinger opened a very similar thread on this talk page 8 days ago, so I don't see the point to create another new thread. No, I have no interest in debating the reasons or purposes behind this new thread and I suggest most users ignore this thread. If you really want to discuss about this issue, use the slightly older, but not-yet-archived thread. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 21:23, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

I love you too even though you engage in WP:BATTLE. MaskedSinger (talk) 06:28, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Rewrite lede to reflect current assessments

The present lede of the article is not up to date. I will quote the relevant parts:

"It is the "highest number of people facing catastrophic hunger" recorded on the IPC scale since its inception in 2004, and according to experts, may be the most intense man-made famine since the Second World War." In the updated report 343,000 people are facing catastrophic hunger; this is less than for example Ethiopia in 2011 (https://www.ipcinfo.org/fileadmin/user_upload/ipcinfo/docs/IPC_Ethiopia_Acute_Food_Insecurity_2021MaySept_national.pdf). It is also not (as of yet) remotely comparable to the worst famines since WW2. However, this sentence is somehow still the end of the first paragraph, even 21 days after FRC/IPC responded to the FEWS-net assessment on June 4 and rejected the plausibility of current high mortality from famine (they claimed in their lead that they didn't have evidence to respond in either direction, but their actual text towards the end explicitly rejects the assumptions made by FEWS-net in concluding a high mortality rate. https://www.ipcinfo.org/fileadmin/user_upload/ipcinfo/docs/documents/IPC_Famine_Review_Committee_Report_FEWS_NET_Gaza_4June2024.pdf. Regardless of whether this is too technical to discuss in the article, should have been enough to remove this leading sentence, but now that the IPC/FRC report of June 25 is even more explicit, this sentence needs to be removed).

I will not quote the entire second paragraph, but it is entirely either quoting or quoting people who are quoting the March/April IPC report, which is now superceded. Its assumptions about a lack of increased aid were directly proven to be incorrect as they discuss themselves in the June report, and their March's projected hunger levels are also rejected directly by the June report. Thus, continuing to cite the report or people citing the report is problematic. It is also incorrect to say that the June 25 IPC/FRC report concluded "it was unknown whether famine thresholds had been passed in April." This would be fair based on the IPC June 4 report, but the June 25 report explicitly concludes that there is no evidence of famine (as in fact noted in the next part of the Wikipedia sentence). "No evidence of famine" is not science-speak for "we can't come to a conclusion," given that they in fact rated their confidence as medium to high (R1+), not low. Further, they explicitly discuss in the report how they evaluated mortality thresholds based on WFP phone surveys and found even all-cause mortality (which would vastly overestimate starvation-fatalities in this case) was 4x lower than what would characterize a famine. So, whether or not IPC/FRC report introduces qualifications on not being sure of their conclusion, it is simply improper to characterize the report as being unable to reach any conclusion at all.

Again, the next paragraph continues "Although there is evidence that Gazans, particularly in the northern governates of Gaza, are experiencing famine today, global leaders have not yet issued a formal declaration of famine," and cites an academic journal article. I do not need to explain that this is inconsistent with Wikipedia's style for an editor to insert their opinion with an academic citation in a style that implies they are right and world leaders are just being slow. In the lede in particular. Then, after again citing the June 4 IPC/FRC instead of June 25 (reasonable in the past but needs to be updated) we get "In May 2024, the head of the World Food Programme stated there was "full-blown famine" in northern Gaza. In June 2024, the director of humanitarian policy for Save the Children stated that famine-like conditions "may already be present" in southern Gaza." It is important to note that these people respectively are Cindy Mccain, a political appointee, and an NGO consultant-turned-administrator. Due to their positions, their statements should be given some degree of weight, but neither of them cited or implied that they were citing actual data beyond the March IPC/FRC report; their opinions did not necessarily ever belong in the lede and certainly do not now that the report is superceded.

The last paragraph includes " COGAT, the Israeli agency responsible for allowing aid into Gaza, has stated Israel was not putting limits into the amount of aid entering Gaza. COGAT's claim has been challenged by multiple entities, including the European Union, United Nations, Oxfam, and United Kingdom. Israel has accused Gaza's government of "aid theft"; however, US officials said they do not have evidence to support Israel's claims." It is notable that all other opinions of the lede are included without rebuttal despite their projections being refuted by the June IPC/FRC report (although their assumptions may have been reasonable at the time, they were clearly not the only reasonable assumptions). However, it is now well-acknowledged that looting has become a (the?) major impediment to aid distribution (https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/19/world/middleeast/gaza-aid-chaos.html), and this should probably be acknowledged in the lede. Balance in deciding which claims are presented with and without rebuttal would improve the neutrality of this article. Certainly, COGAT's claim that there is no limit to aid should include the counterpoint. However, as written, it is the only rebuttaled point, and is entirely embedded in the accusation and then the rebuttal of COGAT's defense (which is not described beyond a citation, unlike the starvation claims), again impeding balance. Even though Wikipedia does not and should not create false equivalence between claims of one government and the full international community, it also should not entirely bury the arguments of one (substantial) side of a legal case in its rebuttals.

An editor should clean up the lede to better reflect the present reality. 72.78.207.135 (talk) 23:20, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

A further note is that the gray summary box in the upper right corner of the lede states "495,000 facing near-famine hunger"; this is the projection (which may be correct but may also be incorrect; they admit their projections were incorrect about April). The number in the report is 343,000 facing catastrophic hunger (famine-level would be a group classification and not a measure of individual hunger); please be cautious when citing an Al Jazeera blog and not checking its source https://www.ipcinfo.org/ipc-country-analysis/details-map/en/c/1157065/?iso3=PSE. Scienceturtle1 (talk) 00:17, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Edit request 2024-06-26 1

• What I think should be changed (format using {{textdiff}}): Remove "It is the "highest number of people facing catastrophic hunger" recorded on the IPC scale since its inception in 2004,[9][10] and according to experts, may be the most intense man-made famine since the Second World War.[11][12][13]. "
• Why it should be changed:

Overall this sentence is both unnecessary and incorrect in presenting the gravity of current starvation in the Gaza strip, especially in light of recent data.

The latest IPC/FRC report no longer reflects that Gaza has the highest number of people facing catastrophic hunger since its inception. The current report is 343,000, which has been exceeded (I did not check for more but my first check, the Ethiopia famine in 2011, for example, reports a larger number of people facing catastrophic hunger on the IPC scale). Thus, the first clause is incorrect.

The second clause is a "may be" claim from March, with the sources projecting imminently (i.e. March/April/May) that Gaza would be the most intense famine since WW2. Among many other "man-made" starvation events, we can consider the Northern Ethiopia famine (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Famine_in_northern_Ethiopia_(2020%E2%80%93present) where it's generally believed that starvation alone caused more than 2 deaths/10,000 person-days (i.e. most scholars consider it to have crossed the official famine mortality threshold), and overall has resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands. Given that all-cause (with MUCH more conflict than starvation) mortality is estimated by WFP to be around 0.55 deaths/10,000 person days, and there are 27-50 recorded starvation deaths in Gaza, and that FRC/IPC thinks it is not plausible to extrapolate that there are a large number of missed deaths, the hyperbolic "may be" from a subject-matter scholar in March should no longer be relevant to the lead in the presence of relevant data as of June. This correction is especially important because it risks minimizing for readers the expected death tolls from historic famines.

• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):

https://www.ipcinfo.org/fileadmin/user_upload/ipcinfo/docs/IPC_Ethiopia_Acute_Food_Insecurity_2021MaySept_national.pdf  https://www.ipcinfo.org/fileadmin/user_upload/ipcinfo/docs/documents/IPC_Famine_Review_Committee_Report_FEWS_NET_Gaza_4June2024.pdf https://www.ipcinfo.org/fileadmin/user_upload/ipcinfo/docs/IPC_Famine_Review_Committee_Report_Gaza_June2024.pdf https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Famine_in_northern_Ethiopia_(2020%E2%80%93present)

Scienceturtle1 (talk) 02:15, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I will let other editors jump in as to whether or not those sentences should be deleted as I am not the original writer of those sentences. But for now I will attribute the second statement per MOS:QUOTEPOV. The three sources provided for "according to experts" is actually one expert: Alex de Waal, who was interviewed 3 times. Wafflefrites (talk) 02:36, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Sounds good! It may be relevant since it's all Alex de Waal that he is presently describing Sudan as the worst famine crisis in the world, so it is unlikely that even this original source still believes that in the period imminently after March, Gaza was the worst famine since WW2.

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/sudan/sudans-manmade-famine?check_logged_in=1&utm_medium=promo_email&utm_source=lo_flows&utm_campaign=article_link&utm_term=article_email&utm_content=20240625 Scienceturtle1 (talk) 02:57, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

References

Edit request 2024-06-26 2

• What I think should be changed (format using {{textdiff}}):

(in gray box in upper right corner of the lead) Change 495,000 facing near-famine hunger TO 343,000 facing catastrophic hunger.

Also, the reference should be changed, e.g. to the FRC/IPC report.

• Why it should be changed:

It is unclear whether it makes sense to keep a running tally in the "consequence box" of how many people are facing catastrophic hunger as it is not obvious what this means and is constantly changing. However, if it is kept, the FRC/IPC says 343,000, with 495,000 being the projection. Although the projection is reasonable to include, it should be noted that they disavowed their own projections for March/April in the same report; the projections are based on reasonable assumptions which may turn out wrong. The current estimate is 343,000. Further, the term is "catastrophic hunger"; the IPC/FRC criteria clearly state that famine is a group-level classification; a person is not "near-famine". The difference between phase 5 famine and phase 5 catastrophe is not a difference in the hunger level; "near-famine hunger" is not an appropriate phrase. The reference should also be changed as (1) I can no longer find that quote in the Al Jazeera blog linked although I do remember it at one point, and (2) the blog is a reference to an AP report of a leaked version of an IPC report. Citing the Al Jazeera blog is thus inappropriate. The report itself, and/or a reputable article on the report itself, which gives the relevant number, should be linked instead.

• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):

https://www.ipcinfo.org/ipc-country-analysis/details-map/en/c/1157065/?iso3=PSE Scienceturtle1 (talk) 02:31, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

References

Edit request 2024-06-26 3

• What I think should be changed (format using {{textdiff}}):

Three related close edits: Change in the second paragraph of the lead 1. "According to the latest projections valid from mid-March through July of 2024," TO "In March, there were projections through July of 2024 that...".

2. Change "As of early-March 2024," TO "In early March, 2024,"

3. Remove "The State Department has said that a famine likely began in late March, [20] and USAID Administrator Samantha Power called the assessment that a famine is ongoing "credible" during a congressional hearing on 10 April.[21] A USAID report leaked to Devex on 26 April called famine in Gaza "inevitable" and said in its title that "changes [in Israeli policy] could reduce but not stop widespread civilian deaths."[22]"

• Why it should be changed:

(1) is because these are no longer the latest projections, and given that the latest IPC report explains why their assumptions did not end up holding, it should be quoted in the past tense (it is irrelevant here whether other organizations (FEWSnet) still believe famine occurred; the organization does not stand by their assumptions and does not think it's plausible to claim that their projections came true).

(2) The statement held in March when the survey was done; the IPC/FRC asserts with medium confidence that current malnutrition rates are SUBSTANTIALLY below the threshold for famine, so it should certainly not be implied that the second threshold for famine is still occurring.

(3) These are all projections without any clear data source and so likely relying on the March IPC report. The State Department claim is actually incorrect; the Guardian article link simply cites an anonymous state department source as having this belief. Despite the Guardian editor's headline choice, there is no evidence that this is or ever was the position of the US State Department. The other projections may have been relevant in March/April/May when there were only projections to use, even if they did not explain the reason behind their assessment. However, now that actual data rejects that famine thresholds are met (which is different from whether the term "famine" is appropriate in common usage), it is inappropriate to maintain incorrect famine threshold projections in the article lead when they aren't relevant to actual data or March data (the March IPC report is appropriate in this context).

• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):

https://www.ipcinfo.org/fileadmin/user_upload/ipcinfo/docs/IPC_Famine_Review_Committee_Report_Gaza_June2024.pdf

https://www.ipcinfo.org/fileadmin/user_upload/ipcinfo/docs/documents/IPC_Famine_Review_Committee_Report_FEWS_NET_Gaza_4June2024.pdf

https://www.ipcinfo.org/fileadmin/user_upload/ipcinfo/docs/IPC_Gaza_Strip_Acute_Food_Insecurity_Feb_July2024_Special_Brief.pdf

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/mar/29/famine-gaza-us-state-department-israel-food-aid Scienceturtle1 (talk) 02:49, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I fixed the first two. For #3, I didn't want to delete the sentences since I am not the one who originally wrote them, but I did fix them so that they more clearly align with the what their sources say. Wafflefrites (talk) 03:17, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Sounds good for now, one I think 100% unobjectionable thing though is that the Guardian article content does not represent a stance of the US State Department; it is a quote from an anonymous State Department employee based on his original quoting in Reuters here (https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/famine-is-quite-possibly-some-areas-northern-gaza-us-official-says-2024-03-29/). Reuters would thus be the proper citation, but in fact the actual anonymous Reuters source said "While we can say with confidence that famine is a significant risk in the south and centre but not present, in the north, it is both a risk and quite possibly is present in at least some areas." This is a really far cry from the US State Department endorsing a likely famine. The Wikipedia inclusion was likely in good faith based on the Guardian headline, but it ought to be updated to reflect the actual content of the quote. Actually it should probably be removed from the lead since it was a random official's incorrect prediction from March, but at a minimum for now it should be enough to say it was a US state department official and they said famine was possible, not likely. Scienceturtle1 (talk) 03:37, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

References

"Independent study" in lede

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

When you read through the cited article, though, these two researchers also espouse some pretty fringe ideas. I was particularly surprised to read: They note that it is “a myth that Israel is responsible for famine in Gaza.” They argue that the International Criminal Court and UN have joined Hamas in blaming Israel for a “famine that never was, hoping to stop the war [in Gaza].” [33] This is way outside the norm of mainstream discourse and to me at least, puts the "independence" of these researchers into question.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edit request 2024-07-02

• What I think should be changed (format using {{textdiff}}): Remove "it was unknown whether famine thresholds had been passed in April and" in the line starting "In June 2024, the IPC Global Famine Review..." Alternatively, it can be merged into the prior sentence while referencing the June 4 report as opposed to June 25.

• Why it should be changed:

The cited June 25 report does not say this. I think the editor must be referring to the report's summary of its June 4 finding (discussed in the prior Wikipedia sentence) on page 2 of the report. None of the claims made in the June 25 report refer to April; the June 25 report conclusions start on May 1, where it describes emergency hunger levels with medium level evidence. If editor wishes to further emphasize that there may have been famine in April, they should continue to reference the June 4 report as in the prior sentence, and not attribute it to the June 25 report which does not reference these claims except in summarizing its past work (which it does not explicitly endorse).

Scienceturtle1 (talk) 17:10, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

I interpreted the summary on page 2 as the review committee saying it was unknown if there was famine in April since they used words like “uncertainty” and “unable to make a determination” which resulted in them being “unable to endorse”. Page 2 does talk about thresholds in April. The preceding sentence is using a draft report, so I think the full report is a stronger source than the draft report. Wafflefrites (talk) 21:21, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Could you clarify why you think they aren't just summarizing their June 4 report? To my understanding, the only time they use use those phrases (which I agree indicate that they are not able to disprove April famine as I said in my comment) is in one paragraph which begins "In May, FEWS NET conducted an IPC-Compatible analysis of the food security situation and found that it is possible famine was ongoing in northern Gaza during April. In line with IPC protocols, the FRC reviewed this analysis and concluded..." and ends citing the June 4 report by superscript.

I believe our misunderstanding is that the June 4 paper isn't a draft report, it's just a different kind of report. The first three paragraphs of the June 25 report summary started by summarizing their first report (December), then second (March), then third (June 4). Given that they explicitly don't endorse projections of their March report about the situation in May, I don't think that summarizing their June 4 report is intended to add to its credibility; it stands on its own. Thus it is apparent (and there's no secondary sources that indicate otherwise), "it was unknown whether famine thresholds had been passed in April" is a finding from the June 4 report, not the June 25 report. To my understanding, how it's currently written is exactly equivalent to attributing the IPC March findings to the June 25 report just because it's summarized there (one paragraph before it summarizes the June 4 report). Scienceturtle1 (talk) 00:03, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I didn't realize it was a different kind of report. The 53 page June 2024 report says on p2, "it was unable to make a determination as to whether or not famine thresholds have been passed during April" which I had paraphrased as "it was unknown whether famine thresholds had been passed in April". I have not completed this edit request as the information is correctly sourced on p. 2. Wafflefrites (talk) 01:10, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi Wafflefrites, I think we're talking past each other a bit as I've said in all my comments that I agree you've accurately paraphrased content on page 2 of the report but you keep bringing it up. My point (straightforward from text and consistent with all secondary sources) is that (1) the relevant paragraph page 2 of the June 25 report is summarizing past FRC work, not reporting the findings of the June 25 report, and (2) it is false that the June 4 report is a draft of the June 25 report. Clearly I'm being insufficiently clear so perhaps someone else can clarify. Scienceturtle1 (talk) 14:48, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Got it, it took a while. I was really tired that day and I don’t think my brain was completely braining. Will shift/slightly rework the sentences. Wafflefrites (talk) 13:03, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

References