Talk:Gaza Strip famine/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

"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].” [1] 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)

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)

Requested move 24 June 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved.

For background, many arguments here were similar to that of the recent move discussion at Gaza genocide, particularly on neutrality and wikivoice. The discussion here ran for 3 weeks and was well-attended. The main arguments were on commonname and neutrality. Some comments were not policy-based e.g. did not provide reliable sources, and the headcounts for those were down-weighted accordingly.

One of the main arguments in favour of moving was editors did not believe a famine was occuring, or it had not been proved. Others stated a famine is reflective of the wording used by reliable sources, and editors presented source analysis in support of this. I weighed heavily commonname analysis showing famine is currently more common than starvation. A key argument by editors in favour of moving, was that unqualified use of the word 'famine' in a title, when the existence of a famine is disputed, would violate our neutral point of view (NPOV) policy, and specifically that titles should be non-judgmentally descriptive. Editors opposed to the move countered that source analysis supported 'famine', and that the presence of a statement in a title does not imply the statement is factual.

Considering the lack of consensus to move, and that common name analysis shows the existing title currently has a stronger grounding in reliable sources, the title remains at Gaza Strip Famine, (non-admin closure) Tom B (talk) 10:08, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

---

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 [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16] 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. [17][18]. 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.[19].
• The World Food Programme head stated there was "full-blown famine" in northern Gaza in early-May 2024.[20].

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."[21].
• In mid-June 2024, UNICEF stated 3,000 children with acute malnutrition in southern Gaza were at risk of death.[22]

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."[23]

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.[24].

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, [25] and there continues to be warnings of a risk of impending famine [26]. 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.[27][28] 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 [29] [30]. 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 [31] 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. [32] 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)

Oppose per Unbandito, CarmenEsparzaAmoux, and Iskandar323. "Famine in Yemen" wikipedia article exists even though it states that IPC Stage 5 was averted. Also, this was released today: UN experts declare famine has spread throughout Gaza strip Rainsage (talk) 17:22, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Needs to be included in the article, here are the secondaries to go with that, (CBS) U.N. experts say Gaza children dying in Israeli "targeted starvation campaign", (CNN) Famine has spread throughout Gaza, say UN experts, (AJ) UN experts say Israel carrying out ‘targeted starvation campaign’ in Gaza. Israel has denied it, Israel rejects accusations by UN rights experts that it weaponized starvation in Gaza, Selfstudier (talk) 11:42, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I added it to the Famine section. Not sure where to add it in the lead Rainsage (talk) 21:31, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, a famine has now been declared by UN experts. The doubt is over. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:45, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Believe this renders moot every single support vote. nableezy - 18:02, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. per above — 48JCL 15:29, 15 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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request for Discussion: Including UN expert opinion in the lead

I would like to add the July 9 opinion of UN experts that famine has spread throughout the Gaza Strip to the lead.

I believe this is an accurate and concise summary of the 5 reliable sources cited but others may disagree. In the interest of avoiding edit warring, I am starting this discussion here:

On July 9, 2024, a group of UN experts released a statement that Israel's "targeted starvation campaign" had caused the death of children in Gaza and that famine had spread from the North to the rest of Gaza. In response, the Israeli mission to the UN said that the UN was “supporting Hamas propaganda" and "spreading disinformation".

Rainsage (talk) 15:48, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I reverted the 1R so the discussion can take place. Selfstudier (talk) 16:07, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @Selfstudier, my bad. As I explained in my edit summary, in contrast to the other sources we mention in the lede, this panel of experts explicitly defines "famine" as one-or-more-death-from-malnutrition. If we imagine two types of reader, one who knows this and one who doesn't, the first will read that they say "famine had spread" and learn nothing new, because our readers have already been told that at least one child died, and the other will read it and be misled, imagining that "famine" must imply something beyond "the death of children in Gaza". Considering that no reader benefits from its inclusion, but some will be misled, I removed the clause about "famine" spreading. GordonGlottal (talk) 17:43, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Well, now we seem to have become entangled in whether BRD "applies". BRD is optional, not compulsory and one reason for that is to protect against vexatious reverts (such as ignoring sources). Even if it did apply, both broke it, so academic. Anyway, back to more usual editing now, hopefully. Selfstudier (talk) 19:43, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

ok now I'm extra confused. So if someone violates 1RR they don't have to self-revert because of BRD? Rainsage (talk) 00:13, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I fear my quick edit summary may have introduced some confusion. When I mentioned BRD, I did not mean the way it is sometimes mentioned as part of the conditions of a DS editing requirement, but in the general sense we usually use it, and that is it always applies whenever there is an editing disagreement. We default to it to avoid edit wars. The point of my revert was to restore the article to its status quo state before the introduction of new content. That's usually what we do until a consensus has formed to accept or reject the new content. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 05:34, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

yes they appear to define famine as 1 child's death from malnutrition and dehydration, but they mention 34 deaths (including adults) in total from malnutrition in their statement. additionally "famine" is mentioned explicitly in all 5 sources, so I think it should be included in the wiki article. what do you think about the following:

On July 9, 2024, a group of UN experts released a statement that Israel's "targeted starvation campaign" had caused the death of children in Gaza leading them to declare that "famine" had spread throughout Gaza. However, the UN has not officially declared a famine in Gaza.

Rainsage (talk) 00:29, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

The UN doesn't "declare famines". Different organisations have their own criteria that they follow. WFP is the main UN agency that has to deal with food security, and they often announce specific regions as experiencing famine. They haven't used that term for Gaza lately (their last Gaza update was 2 months ago). But IPC – a non-UN expert network – has informed 6 weeks ago that 22% of the Gaza population face "catastrophic food insecurity" (IPC level 5) – famine while further 33% experience food emergency (IPC level 4). Since IPC updates are chronologically later than WFP's, and IPC seems to be better placed than WFP to analyse the situation, I don't see why we shouldn't mention IPC in the lead. — kashmīrī ^TALK 05:57, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I apologise I didn't check here before making my edits, and I didn't see this discussion. Indeed, the report uses different criteria, and if you feel like it should not be in the lead, then feel free to remove it. It would still be good to replace it with a similarly well sourced statement underlining the actual situation in Gaza re. food and nutrition (as opposed to cautious political statements). — kashmīrī ^TALK 20:49, 1 August 2024 (UTC)