Talk:Gaza Strip famine/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

DYK

Anyone interested might consider making this a DYK proposal, to the credit of its creator and main editor. Nishidani (talk) 10:15, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

DUE concerns

Hi @טבעת-זרם, thanks for your recent edits to the page. I've moved some of the material you added, because I couldn't find any reliable or high quality sourcing that said that Hamas' actions played a major role in the creation of the famine. The sources you listed seemed to discuss a handful of incidents affecting several shipments on aid (neither the Ynet nor JPost article even mentions the word "famine"), whereas the famine itself seems to be a systematic issue affecting more than half a million people (much larger than several shipments of allegedly stolen goods). I'd be eager to see if there is any reliable sourcing from any major humanitarian organizations (B'tselem, UNOCHA, etc.) that includes Hamas' actions as a primary cause of the famine. Until then, though, placing those incidents in such a prominent position is a major WP:DUE concern. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 21:01, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Any familiarity with aid to famine-struck countries, or people who have worked in this area, will tell one that pilfering or taxing of aid shipments by warlords is part of the course, but is not a factor in the rise or continuation of a state of famine itself. To assert on the basis of some misappropriations that this is relevant to a famine on the scale of a place like Gaza is to purvey, absent any serious official report, propaganda and has no place here. Nishidani (talk) 00:20, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 March 2024

In the last line of "Before the War" section:

Change:

"Israel gunships reportedly fired on local fishermen even within these areas."

To:

"Israeli gunships reportedly fired on local fishermen even within these areas."

(poor grammar) Hermes Thrice Great (talk) 13:39, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done Jamedeus (talk) 17:59, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Lede

Old: "There is a catastrophic-level food crisis with increasing risk of famine..."

Suggested new: "There is a famine..."

[1] DenverCoder19 (talk) 00:10, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

More citations: [2]

I'm changing it. DenverCoder19 (talk) 21:54, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Has anyone said that the famine is not "man-made"?

The only sources I can find claiming that the famine is not "man-made" is from Israel, the alleged perpetrator of the crime. If all sources, including the UN secretary general claim that the famine is "man-made", and no one denies it except the perpetrator, I propose we add the phrase "man-made" to the lede. DenverCoder19 (talk) 17:32, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Idk, would it be a "quote"? Quotes are not that great in the lead. What you want is to say that this famine was caused by Israel, right? So maybe see if there are sources pinning it on them and go from there. Selfstudier (talk) 17:39, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

The lead of the famine Wikipedia article lists war as one of the causes of famine, and war is man-made. The words “man-made” though would need to be put in quotes and attributed. Wafflefrites (talk) 17:44, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Do we need to distinguish this famine from another, non man-made famine in Gaza Strip? If not, then I can't see why this qualifier would be needed in the title. — kashmīrī ^TALK 17:56, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

In use

Hi @DenverCoder19, can you remove the "in use" tag I just added as soon as you are over with your editing? This will help prevent edit conflicts. Cheers, — kashmīrī ^TALK 18:22, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 April 2024

After "On 1 April 2024, an Israeli drone fired three consecutive missiles at three cars belonging to the World Central Kitchen (WCK), killing seven aid workers who had been distributing food in the northern Gaza Strip, which has been pushed close to famine by Israel's siege and blockade during the Israel-Hamas war.", add "In response to the attack, both World Central Kitchen and Anera have paused their operations in Gaza." Tul10616 (talk) 00:10, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The existing AP source does not say operations were suspended. Jamedeus (talk) 00:27, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Hello! The sources come from Anera and WCK themselves:

https://www.anera.org/blog/anera-is-pausing-gaza-operations-amid-rising-threats-and-attack-on-wck/

https://www.worldcentralkitchen.org/news/gaza-team-update Tul10616 (talk) 03:55, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

I recall reading somewhere that Anera may have restarted but in any case, this material seems more appropriate at the article dealing with the strike where it says " The attack led the World Central Kitchen to pause its operations in the Gaza Strip, along with other humanitarian and aid organizations operating there. Selfstudier (talk) 12:14, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

References

Lede

@Unbandito in response to your recent revert, declaration of famine is not a matter of opinion. The two most prominently cited sources on the page affirm that a famine, while "imminent" or "looming" has not been declared, with one clearly stating that despite their strong opinion on the matter, they consider declaration to be the exclusive domain of global authorities.

CSIS 4/11/24: Global leaders have yet to issue a formal declaration of famine in Gaza, despite evidence that Palestinians in the North Gaza and Gaza Governorates are suffering from famine today.

ISP 3/18/24: "Famine is imminent as 1.1 million people, half of Gaza, experience catastrophic food insecurity."

WP:CRYSTALBALL is crystal clear in its policy: "impending", "imminent", and "looming" items are just that. If there is widespread declaration from global authorities on the declaration of famine, then the title and lede should reflect that. Despite the severity of the situation, it is very troubling that this page has become a collecting pond for general news on food insecurity in Gaza under the false guise of "The Gaza Strip Famine" that has neither been popularly named, acknowledged, or declared.

And replying to @CarmenEsparzaAmoux, you created this page on 1/16/24 with the declaration that "The Gaza Strip is experiencing a severe famine as a result of the 2023 Israel–Hamas war" with zero accompanying citations stating such a public declaration or consensus had been made or achieved at that juncture, with only one expert opinion (the Chief Economist at the WFP) using the phrase "famine or catastrophic hunger".

The article since (as stated above) became a collecting pond of general food insecurity items under the auspice of an undeclared famine, and as a result, as now rocketed to the top of google search results in what may be construed as an instance of WP:CITOGENESIS. You are correct: it is mostly likely to be the most googled search result, except it appears that it was titled with that in mind, and has now skewed the entire article instead of covering the evolving situation with patience and attention to the facts.

This is a serious WP:POVTITLE issue that now appears to have real world consequences and impact, and it is in our tasked responsibility as Wikipedia editors to keep cool, temper our suspicions, and stick to the facts as they are reported.

In this regard, pending the result of the RN, I am recommending the lede be re-written as follows:

Food insecurity in the Gaza Strip during the Israel-Hamas War has created the “highest number of people facing catastrophic hunger” ever recorded on the IPC scale, with a famine in all or part of the territory declared by some experts to be "imminent."

There is a widespread scarcity of essential supplies, resulting from Israeli airstrikes and the ongoing blockade of the Gaza Strip by Israel and Egypt, which includes restrictions on humanitarian aid. Airstrikes have destroyed food infrastructure, such as bakeries, mills, and food stores, and due to the blockade of aid, which has triggered a severe food crisis for more than half a million Gazans and is part of a broader humanitarian crisis in the Strip.

Update: per this conversation, the lede has been updated as follows:

As a result of Israeli airstrikes and the ongoing blockade of the Gaza Strip by Israel, which includes restrictions on humanitarian aid, Gazans are facing starvation and famine. Airstrikes have destroyed food infrastructure, such as bakeries, mills, and food stores, and there is a widespread scarcity of essential supplies due to the blockade of aid.[c] This has caused starvation for more than half a million Gazans and is part of a broader humanitarian crisis in the Strip. It is the “highest number of people facing catastrophic hunger” ever recorded on the IPC scale, and is widely expected to be the most intense man-made famine since the Second World War.

Some further adjustments to be made, but I consider the change to be sufficient per outlined concerns. Mistamystery (talk) 19:50, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

The World Food Programme has been warning that Gaza is on the "brink" of famine since November 2023; WFP head Cindy McCain stated on 26 November, "First of all, the — the bottom line here is that we need to get more aid in as — as has been said, we’re looking at … possibly being on the brink of famine in this region." By December 2023, the FAO stated, "79 percent of the population is in Emergency (IPC Phase 4) or Catastrophe (IPC Phase 5)." My point is that this has been a catastrophe unfolding in slow motion, with experts warning of its deterioration every day. Amongst humanitarian groups, it appears accepted that famine is now present in at least northern Gaza. Famine is a technical term with powerful connotations, but it is also a lagging indicator and requires humanitarian access to regions in the Strip that are currently inaccessible. I agree that we should "stay cool" and follow the reporting, while being cognizant of the limitations that humanitarian organizations are warning about regarding the declaration of technical classifications.

I'm also not sure that the article is so much a "collecting pond of general food insecurity items under the auspice of an undeclared famine" rather than an article explaining the various aspects of the food crisis (background, variation in impact based on geography, impacts on various groups, etc.) which together comprise the larger situation. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 20:30, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

USAID has confirmed the famine: [3] DenverCoder19 (talk) 22:30, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

I absolutely appreciate the need for active and detailed coverage on a devastating yet ever-evolving situation. But we are not here to influence the cycle, just summarize and report.

The labeling of the article as a famine was incredibly premature and set into motion something we now must address reasonably. Again, to reinforce the argument as above, if there is consensus amongst authoritative sources that the threshold of famine has been reached, the name change should happen immediately. But we must take note at the language so many of these sources have deployed and respect the fine details...if a person saying "imminent" truly believed a famine was "underway", they would say so. But this language appears over and over for good reason, and we need to stay on top of as it develops, not call in advance.

Let's reset the goal posts to a more reasonable interim lede (as proposed above or something similar), and we can take it from there. Would appreciate any constructive thoughts, edits notes, otherwise would like move ahead and insert the revised lede shortly. Mistamystery (talk) 23:06, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Its actually called "Acute food insecurity" (officialese) and there are five grades of that ((1) Minimal/None, (2) Stressed, (3) Crisis, (4) Emergency, (5) Catastrophe/Famine), Gaza being currently at between 4 and/or 5 so calling it food insecurity is just hogwash. Selfstudier (talk) 22:55, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

It didn't receive a ton of coverage, but in its March 2024 interim ruling, the ICJ stated, "The court observes that Palestinians in Gaza are no longer facing only a risk of famine (...) but that famine is setting in." CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 23:23, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Still speculation, I think, but according to the ToI, "The first source said the major focus of the suspected ICC allegations will be that Israel "deliberately starved Palestinians in Gaza,". Selfstudier (talk) 16:57, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

References

Sources in the lede

Both sources in for the first sentence stating that there is a famine, caused by Israel, are opinion pieces in the Guardian. That's hardly sufficient for a statement of fact. I would suggest to either rephrase it as that being the opinion of some commentators, or find better sources for the claim. 158.174.186.54 (talk) 05:23, 2 April 2024 (UTC)Per WP:ARBECR, non EC editors may only file edit requests

Agreed. It seems most sources do not unequivocally declare there is a famine, but that various aid groups are warning of one if conditions don't improve. How have we handled this topic previously? PrimaPrime (talk) 23:24, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Opinion pieces are not reliable sources per Wikipedia so they can't be used as sources of fact. I will check this.Monopoly31121993(2) (talk) 18:26, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

This is a descriptive title rather than a commonname so I removed the bolding. According to a recent Guardian article, "The US comments add to a growing and powerful consensus that Israel’s military offensive in the Palestinian coastal territory has triggered a famine." Selfstudier (talk) 18:44, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Sources are unequivocal that there is famine in Northern Gaza. Since Northern Gaza is inside Gaza, this means that there is a famine inside Gaza. DenverCoder19 (talk) 00:32, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Article Title

I was always under the impression that Wikipedia did not make up facts but here we are with an article titled "Gaza Strip Famine" when the UN nor any of the other agencies charged with declaring famines has done so. Shouldn't the title therefore be "Food insecurity in the Gaza Strip" at least until an actual famine breaks out?Monopoly31121993(2) (talk) 18:58, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Even the US state department had noted the likelihood of famine, in addition to the UN report on the universal starvation. And "food security crisis" wouldn't be the next step down were a change merited – the ubiquitously reported phraseology of "man-made starvation" would be. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:06, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

As per section above and the ref provided, there is a "growing and powerful consensus" that a famine has been triggered. And that was before the US comments. Of course you may bring sources that dispute this, as usual. The question of who is charged with declaring a famine is a bit complicated but in any case declarations are in general after the event has already occurred. Selfstudier (talk) 20:12, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

The point is Wikipedia editors can't make up names for events themselves. When the UN declares a famine then this page should be called the "Gaza Strip famine" not when editors think a famine has begun. We are fact checkers who shouldn't declare a famine. That only serves to discredit Wikipedia as a non-biased media. Monopoly31121993(2) (talk) 20:27, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Who says the UN is the final arbiter? The UN is a very lagging indicator even by Wikipedia standards. The WHO said famine was imminent two weeks ago, before another two weeks of starvation. Now the second and third largest providers of meals have suspended operations, and sources are reporting famine conditions. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:37, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

It’s possible that editors may have made mistakes or misread/misinterpreted sources. I caught the mistake back in February in my edits here [4]. Situation has gotten worse since then which is probably why other editors changed the lead back to say famine. The first sentence in the current lead seems appropriate given different sources seem to classify it differently. Wafflefrites (talk) 20:18, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

US officials are privately warning the US Adminstration that famine conditions have set in. (Today's news). Iskandar323 (talk) 20:26, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Democracy Now? That's your source? Could you find a more far-Left pro-Palestinian biased Media outset. What does the UN say? Not a famine so the title of the page shouldn't be famine. Monopoly31121993(2) (talk) 20:29, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Discussions about sources should be held at WP:RSN. For now, Democracy Now is a reliable source. See also BBC at [5]. — kashmīrī ^TALK 20:36, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Direct quote from the New York Times article today:

“For me, what is important is to basically say that look, technically we haven’t met the conditions of a famine, and frankly we don’t want to meet those conditions,” said Arif Husain, the chief economist of the World Food Program.

I would say the chief economist of the World Food Program stating "we haven’t met the conditions of a famine" means we can't call this page "Gaza Strip Famine." That could change but it's not yet the reality. Monopoly31121993(2) (talk) 20:41, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Other than being a technical term defined by WFP for its own internal purposes, the English word famine also has a common, widely understood meaning, and that is of extreme scarcity of food[6]. That's the primary meaning, and we're perfectly within our policies to use the term as an article title here. At the same time, we may well decide to disregard certain media sources that might, for a variety of reasons, refer only to the WFP definition. — kashmīrī ^TALK 21:02, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

If you think they are misquoting US officials, please take it up at RSN. Otherwise, their political polarity is irrelevant. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:39, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

NYT as of 3 March "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."

A second IPC analysis was done according to which "the conditions necessary to prevent Famine have not been met" and "According to the most likely scenario, both North Gaza and Gaza Governorates are classified in IPC Phase 5 (Famine) with reasonable evidence" and anyway as is stated in a reliable source, the consensus is that a famine has been triggered regardless. Selfstudier (talk) 21:03, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Here is CBS yesterday "international aid agencies say over 1 million people — half of Gaza's population — are now in the midst of a famine." Add to this the reported deaths from hunger, then arguing that there is not a famine seems a little bit out of touch.Selfstudier (talk) 21:19, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Same article you cited from NYT states, "Since the I.P.C. was developed in 2004, it has been used to identify only two famines: in Somalia in 2011, and in South Sudan in 2017." That's pretty clear about who can declare a famine, The I.P.C. group. In this instance they have not therefore we Wikipedians should not either. This title should be changed to something less extreme but reflective of the gravity of the situation. I suggested "Food insecurity crisis in the Gaza Strip" which skandar323 reverted and claimed was euphemistic. I can understand that as a self described supporter of the Palestinian cause they might be passionate about this topic and feel that using famine in the title will create a sense of urgency but you could just as easily say it's sensationalizing the situation for a political purpose. Monopoly31121993(2) (talk) 21:23, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

@Monopoly31121993(2), are you saying that your edits are absolutely impartial? — kashmīrī ^TALK 21:27, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Kashmiri, I'm not out here promoting a narrative. I'm trying to get Wikipedia to keep to its roots which is about facts. In this discussion we have had what I would consider a fair discussion about whether we should be using the word famine IN THE TITLE of this article. I think it's clear that a famine has not yet been established as factual. That doesn't mean "famine like conditions" don't exist and that's reflected in the article but it just because some people die or hunger doesn't mean they died in a famine. Famine is a noun and Gaza strip famine is a proper noun for something that simply has not yet to come into wide spread use. That could change very very soon for all I know but Wikipedia should not be creating a narrative it should be stating facts. Monopoly31121993(2) (talk) 21:33, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

It's a lot more concise than Man-made starvation of the Gaza Strip. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:39, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

@Monopoly31121993(2), your today's attempt to remove an image from Wikipedia because you considered it highly offensive to most Jews who consider the genocide accusation as blood libel don't give an impression that you're only here to keep [Wikipedia] to its roots which is about facts. Or how should I construe it? — kashmīrī ^TALK 21:49, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

The recent sources are pretty clear about it and btw, the IPC does not declare a famine, that's just false. Selfstudier (talk) 21:56, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

The IPC is used to declare famine [7].

I would support changing the title if it were December 2023 or even February 2024, but I am not so sure now since there are some sources saying that there might already be famine and also the second IPC report predicted famine in mid-March to mid-July. [8] It’s possible famine could be declared any day now, or even occurring. Most sources are saying “looming famine” or similar. Wafflefrites (talk) 22:42, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

"Authorities" make use of the IPC, but the IPC are not the ones who declare a famine, they provide technical input to the relevant authorities, who then make a declaration. The point I was making above is that there is no clear "authority" for Gaza to do the declaring but that the IPC in its latest review has said " "According to the most likely scenario, both North Gaza and Gaza Governorates are classified in IPC Phase 5 (Famine) with reasonable evidence". Together with the US commentary and other sources, although it does not constitute an "official" declaration, it is not wrong imo to say that there is already famine.

Here is Sky News today "According to the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification Initiative (IPC)'s latest report, North Gaza is already under famine conditions, with the rest of the territory risking the same fate by mid-July unless the situation changes dramatically." Selfstudier (talk) 14:44, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that is why I wrote in my comment: The IPC is used to declare famine. Wafflefrites (talk) 15:51, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Self-described where? Out of curiosity... Iskandar323 (talk) 21:35, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

This article has clear WP:FUTURE problems. It’s listed as if there *is* an established widespread famine across the territory, yet most authoritative sources are only saying that there is a looming threat. If there is famine in one part of the strip, the article title should be Famine in the Gaza Strip, otherwise it appears like we have a serious WP:NCEVENTS (if not potential WP:POVTITLE) issue if this was given a proper event title *before* it actually reached the threshold to be the widespread its being presented to be.Mistamystery (talk) 05:19, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Excuse me, what exactly is the difference between Gaza Strip famine and Famine in the Gaza Strip? They both say the same thing except that the first is succinct. At the main war article, the relevant section is titled Gaza famine.

Although I don't see many pressing for any change, if there is a problem with the title, then propose an RM. Selfstudier (talk) 12:08, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, that was a head-scratcher for me too. Updates: As of 22 April, there's a whole report from B'Tselem called "Manufacturing famine" AND an FP piece entitled: Why Aren’t We Talking More About the Famine in Gaza? Iskandar323 (talk) 14:56, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

The difference is "Famine in the Gaza Strip" refers to general phenomena of famine wherever it may occur - be it local or widespread during the conflict, whereas "Gaza Strip famine" (or "The Gaza Strip famine" as it is described in the lede), is a presumed established event with title...except its not. At most, famine may have occurred in the north, and otherwise, has been severely warned to be close everywhere else, but by all professional accounts, it has not happened yet...and something likely to happen (and obviously let us hope it doesn't happen) doesn't mean we get to pre-declare an event.

Otherwise, the way the article currently reads (as a laundry list of items connected to general food availability issues, regardless of proximity to famine) the title should frankly be "Food insecurity in Gaza during the Israel-Hamas war".

Will run a RM soon but who knows if anyone else has anything to chime in on this. Mistamystery (talk) 01:00, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

“ “Famine in the Gaza Strip" refers to general phenomena of famine wherever it may occur”

That actually makes sense! It does seem like an improvement and would be more accurate. A lot of sources also used “starvation” or “risk of starvation” early on. Wafflefrites (talk) 02:28, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Adding prepositions and declarative articles wouldn't fundamentally alter the meaning, but it would negatively impact concision. These elements are generally avoided where possible. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:33, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

It is better to be accurate and precise than concise. What Mistamystery said logically makes sense. The preposition makes it more descriptive, plus adding “in the” is only two very short words. “Candy in America” could refer to international brands such as Cadbury sold in American stores, while “American candy” would refer to brands like Hershey’s. Wafflefrites (talk) 05:11, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Sources are unequivocal that there is famine in Northern Gaza. Since Northern Gaza is inside Gaza, this means that there is a famine inside Gaza. DenverCoder19 (talk) 00:32, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Sources for "famine"

I'm collecting a list of sources that state that famine has begun and I would appreciate if you want to add more here.

• https://www.axios.com/2024/04/11/us-official-famine-northern-gaza
• https://www.ipcinfo.org/fileadmin/user_upload/ipcinfo/docs/IPC_Gaza_Strip_Acute_Food_Insecurity_Feb_July2024_Special_Brief.pdf

Per the IPC report, there is already famine in Northern Gaza, even according to the IPC definition. That is enough for an article that discusses famine(s) inside the Gaza Strip, under the title "Famine in the Gaza Strip" or "Gaza Strip Famine". If there is a famine in Kazakhstan but not in every province, it is still titled "Kazakh famine".

If that weren't enough, to quote and highlight a good comment by another editor:

Other than being a technical term defined by WFP for its own internal purposes, the English word famine also has a common, widely understood meaning, and that is of extreme scarcity of food. That's the primary meaning, and we're perfectly within our policies to use the term as an article title here.

Moreover, we shouldn't change the title, but if we did, the next step would be "man-made starvation in the Gaza Strip" DenverCoder19 (talk) 22:50, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

You can put that in the RM, but the phrase "man-made starvation in the Gaza Strip" in quotes returned 0 Google results. Also the entire Wikipedia article would then need to be rewritten so that it focuses on the man-made starvation aspect rather than the more general “Starvation in Gaza during the Israel-Hamas war”. Wafflefrites (talk) 22:57, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Officially it would be Emergency and/or Catastrophic/famine conditions in the Gaza Strip caused by Israel but Weaponization is so much more to the point. Selfstudier (talk) 23:03, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Weaponization, besides being fringe, is also vague and not very illustrative. The vast majority of sources do not use that verbiage and do not discuss the state of hunger in the Gaza strip in terms of an Israeli "weaponization". Zanahary (talk) 05:26, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Lots of sources, others call use as weapon of war, same thing. Selfstudier (talk) 10:42, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Sources are unequivocal that the famine results from Israeli destruction of Gaza, and from blocking aid. Moreover, there are are many reliable sources that this is part of a deliberate policy by Israel. DenverCoder19 (talk) 00:37, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 24 April 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/no consensus. I also find no consensus to move to any of the alternative suggested titles. Those can be figured out in a future discussion. Considering the sources provided by both sides of this argument, there is insufficient consensus and evidence to move this article away from its current title. As WP:CRYSTAL was a common argument invoked during this discussion. I would like to point out something mentioned by Kashmiri, an article about an impending event does not violate our policies if discussed in reliable sources, as this event has. Also, considering the note by L235 that this discussion was subject to mass email canvassing by Dizmonreau, that also weighs into the "no consensus" element of my close. I find no consensus to change the title of this article. (closed by non-admin page mover) v/r - Seawolf35 ^T--C 19:41, 2 May 2024 (UTC)(Edit: Fixed mentions. v/r - Seawolf35 ^T--C 19:46, 2 May 2024 (UTC))

---

Gaza Strip famine → Food insecurity in Gaza during the Israel-Hamas war – As per talk page discussion and sources provided in the article, while numerous warnings have been issued as to possible impending or "looming" famine, no formal declaration of famine has been made (either in North Gaza or elsewhere), let alone a WP:COMMONNAME achieved of "The Gaza Strip famine" as this article incorrectly and prematurely has attempted to declare. This is clear breach of WP:FUTURE and WP:NCEVENTS.

Taking the lead from the Center for Strategic and International Studies' most recent report, which believes there is Famine in North Gaza but otherwise affirms that there has yet to be "a formal declaration of famine in Gaza", the most neutral, general, categorical WP:DESCRIPTOR in use by CSIS and other expert bodies in such matters (that covers the full range of items discussed currently in the article) is "food insecurity".

This terminology covers related matters from famine all the way down the IPC scale, and given that the majority of the current article either covers food and nutrition matters all the way up to the standard threshold of famine, or speculates at the presence of famine prior to an official declaration, this article title should suffice until there is a change in official status.

I understand this is a sensitive topic, but our job here is to ensure neutral coverage of current events per WP:WACE. The most authoritative body that has chimed in thus far on the status of famine is the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification, whose most recent report declared famine "imminent", with a likely future projected range of occurrence dates, but that's as far as its gotten.

We obviously can revisit this if there is an official declaration (and let us hope there isn't)...but there hasn't been, and this clear WP:NCEVENTS and WP:FUTURE breach must be remedied immediately.

-

Alternate option: Gaza food crisis - per comments made below, this title is the most widely searched (6x higher) in relation to the food and nutrition situation in Gaza during the conflict and may more aptly convey the severity of the current situation. Mistamystery (talk) 05:02, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Uninvolved administrator note: this discussion was subject to mass email canvassing by Dizmonreau, based on information available to ArbCom and checkuser evidence. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 15:23, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

• Move per nom and page discussions. Also consider Gaza food crisis and Acute food insecurity in Gaza during the Israel-Hamas war to be acceptable.Mistamystery (talk) 15:59, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

• You are the nom, per nom is meaningless and your nomination is your vote. nableezy - 18:06, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

  Noted. Did this based on other editors on this page doing the same on other recent RM so thought it was acceptable/standard formatting. Mistamystery (talk) 18:14, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

  @Mistamystery: It's normal for an RFC, where you make a neutral statement and then state your vote, but not so much in an RM, when the opening statement is typically persuasive. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:57, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

• Move. Some reliable sources predict that famine in Gaza is imminent, but Wikipedia is not a WP:CRYSTALBALL. Marokwitz (talk) 07:33, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Move, per Nom, as the article is not exclusively concerned with famines (which does not (yet) exist, but with food insecurity as a whole. Therefore, another title may be appropriate, though I have no strong preference regarding which; personally, I like the noms suggestion. FortunateSons (talk) 08:47, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Move per nom Zanahary (talk) 17:15, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Move per nom מתיאל (talk) 19:42, 1 May 2024 (UTC)מתיאל

Strong oppose: The following article is a good explanation as to how debates over the word "famine" miss the point: In the coming weeks, there will still be continued debate about whether the term “famine” accurately describes the situation in Gaza. And as the long history of famine suggests, the hand-wringing over the use of the word misses the point. This distinction between “widespread hunger” and “famine”—and whether famine is “imminent” or already underway—tells us little about the reality on the ground and what should be done about it... Three points can help make sense of the conversation. The first is that the threshold for declaring famine is arbitrary. There is no clear line between when famine is imminent and when it begins. The second point is that famine is best understood not as an event, but as a process with mass mortality as its culmination. The third point is that declarations of famine are always contested. Furthermore, I think that Gaza Strip famine is much more likely to be the most common search query for those interested in this topic, as opposed to the proposed title. Lastly, I think the fact that USAID has indicated that there are already famine conditions in northern Gaza negates CRYSTAL and effectively warrants keeping the current title. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 17:26, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

There is no clear line between when famine is imminent and when it begins.
This is absolutely not an argument for this article's title referring to a famine. Zanahary (talk) 18:53, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Oppose - The argument in favor of moving this article misses one key point and another major development. First, the IPC report in question projects that famine will begin between mid-March and May, meaning according to the projections in question the famine has already begun. Notably, the continued validity of these projections in light of events since they were announced has been confirmed by Samantha Power, the head of USAID, in a congressional hearing at the beginning of the month. A source for this has been in the article for almost a month. Perhaps this article was named prematurely when it was first written, but the evidence that famine has begun and will continue is strong enough at this point that it doesn't make sense to move the article for a month or even a few days or weeks while we wait on further, indisputable evidence of famine to emerge. Moreover, whether a famine is ongoing or not, the overwhelming majority of coverage of the "food crisis" in Gaza uses the language of famine, whether ongoing, imminent or otherwise. Famine is the issue in question here, not mere food insecurity or some other euphemism. We can continue to go back and forth about whether the famine is ongoing or imminent, but you'd be hard pressed to find many sources discussing hunger in Gaza that do not employ the word famine in some capacity. Unbandito (talk) 17:55, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Move, Per WP:CRYSTALBALL, from the reliable sources I've read, it seems they're reporting on an imminent risk of famine, rather than an ongoing famine. We can reconsider in the future, but at the moment, stating in WP:VOICE that there is a famine may be a bit too soon. Mariamnei (talk) 18:42, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Comment: What about Famine in the Gaza Strip? In a prior talk page discussion, Mistamystery pointed out that “If there is famine in one part of the strip, the article title should be Famine in the Gaza Strip.” Another alternative could be Gaza food crisis.

Maybe we could change the title to something like “Famine in the Gaza Strip” until “Gaza Strip Famine” becomes WP:COMMONNAME. The WFP is saying Gaza could reach famine in 6 weeks[9] , other sources are still reporting “famine risk”, while the CSIS source that Mistamystery provided is titled “Famine in Gaza” and says that “famine thresholds have been passed or are likely to be passed imminently in the North Gaza and Gaza Governorates of the Gaza Strip”.

Per CarmenEsparzaAmoux, I don’t think “Gaza food insecurity” results in many search hits (2.4 mil for me on Google). “Gaza food crisis” returns 80.8 million hits, while “Gaza famine” returns 14.4 million for me. Wafflefrites (talk) 19:07, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Maybe Gaza food crisis is a good alternative for now until famine is officially declared and it is still returning the most search terms for me. Wafflefrites (talk) 19:15, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Gaza food crisis is acceptable to me. I changed my mind on my previous suggestion of Famine in the Gaza Strip once I reviewed all the sources and saw the overabundance of "looming", "impending", "soon", "near" langauge, and lack of formal declarations by global bodies. Mistamystery (talk) 19:55, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Oppose - very obviously the most common term used for this topic, and "food insecurity" is downplaying it so much it would be funny if not for the topic of the article. nableezy - 19:59, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Move to Gaza food crisis until famine is officially declared. It could be declared as soon as 6 weeks. In the meantime, I think Wikipedia should try to be as accurate as possible. I think the CRYSTALBALL arguments make sense.

Also, I am still not sure about the “Gaza Strip famine” title format because looking at other Wikipedia titles, they seem to be “Famine in”, for example Famine in India, Famine in northern Ethiopia (2020–present), Famine in Yemen (2016–present). Maybe if “Gaza Strip famine” becomes the COMMONNAME, we can use it, but it seems “Famine in” is how it is commonly presented in the Wikipedia article titles. Wafflefrites (talk) 20:07, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Never mind about the “Famine in” comment. there are also articles titled Kazakh famine of 1919–1922 and a Kazakh famine of 1930–1933 Wafflefrites (talk) 20:31, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

The problem here is that there isn't an official body that declares a famine right when it happens. Not even the IPC, whose analysis is fundamental to this article, declares a famine in real time. Other international bodies are and media outlets are waiting for someone else to be the first to say what everyone knows is true. This makes for a tricky issue for wikipedia editors. We can't be the ones to declare a famine, but we also have a responsibility to keep wikipedia reliable and up to date. There is an easy way around this issue however, if we can agree that the prevailing discussion, which centers not on whether or not the food crisis in Gaza amounts to a famine, but rather how long until it will constitute one, is reason enough to use the term famine in the title. I think it clearly is. We wouldn't remove or rename the page for the 2024 United States presidential election because we can't be sure if it will happen yet. Experts agree it is a near certainty and are discussing it as if it's an inevitability. The same is true here. Unbandito (talk) 05:27, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Comment Serious consideration should be given to Israeli weaponization of food in Gaza per sources Israel’s weaponisation of food in Gaza and Gaza: weaponisation of food has been used in conflicts for centuries – but it hasn’t always resulted in victory, plenty of sources using this or similar formulation, "weapon of war", a war crime. Food insecurity is an obnoxious euphemism for what is occurring, namely the systematic creation of a famine for political ends. Selfstudier (talk) 20:18, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Strong oppose to this proposal. This is a fringe wording, not the common name for anything, not particularly illustrative, not strongly sourced. Zanahary (talk) 20:37, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Plenty of sources. Selfstudier (talk) 20:43, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree that “food insecurity” is too euphemistic. I proposed “Gaza food crisis” as a temporary name change.

Oh no, Selfstudier, not “Weaponization of food.” That is a catachresis, which is misuse of words for rhetorical effect. Wafflefrites (talk) 20:47, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Sourced. Selfstudier (talk) 22:40, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

I don’t know what that means but “Weaponization of food” doesn’t seem right, although I have read “starvation as a weapon of war” which I believe is a simile. Wafflefrites (talk) 22:43, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Lots of things get weaponized, the word is normalized in the language nowadays. Selfstudier (talk) 22:45, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

EU official accuses Israel of weaponizing hunger as report warns Gaza famine imminent Selfstudier (talk) 22:46, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

You may have a point because the second dictionary definition of a weapon on Webster’s is “a means of contending against another” [10]. I am still not a fan of overuse of metaphors, similes and especially catachresis though per WP:TONE Wafflefrites (talk) 22:50, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Road to Famine: Israeli Law Prof. Neve Gordon on Israel’s History of Weaponizing Food Access in Gaza Selfstudier (talk) 23:07, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Just because something is normalized doesn’t make it right. It still appears to be catachresis. Anyways, the “Weaponization” discussion is probably more useful over at Weaponization of antisemitism, which I haven’t decided to join yet. Wafflefrites (talk) 23:28, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Like I said, its well sourced, we do that on WP, go by sources. Strange that we wouldn't identify the guilty party here, the only thing that would result in there being no famine is if substantial amounts of aid get into Gaza pronto, something that could have been done long ago but Israel won't cooperate with UNRWA so.... Selfstudier (talk) 23:37, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Oppose Many reliable sources describe the event as a "starvation event". We can change it to Gaza Strip Starvation. In common parlance, famine and starvation both mean when many people die because they lack food. DenverCoder19 (talk) 22:24, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

EDIT: USAID has in fact declared a famine. [11] DenverCoder19 (talk) 22:28, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

The source says “in parts of northern Gaza”, which is why we had previous discussions on the talk page about prepositions and splitting hairs. Wafflefrites (talk) 22:47, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Not a declaration. Official statement remains unchanged, and as per your source provided, White House has affirmed only that it considers famine "imminent" as per the original report. Mistamystery (talk) 23:18, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

What the WH thinks is irrelevant. They also think that Israel has not breached humanitarian law. Selfstudier (talk) 23:25, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Oppose Its actually called "Acute food insecurity" (officialese) and there are five grades of that ((1) Minimal/None, (2) Stressed, (3) Crisis, (4) Emergency, (5) Catastrophe/Famine), Gaza being currently at between 4 and/or 5 so calling it food insecurity is just euphemistic POV hogwash. Selfstudier (talk) 22:55, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

To me this just proves that the term "food security" should be here in the title, and not "famine". Galamore (talk) 05:19, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Not all famines reach phase 5 - please see my comment at Talk:Gaza_Strip_famine#IPC_phase below for two major examples. HenryMP02 (talk) 17:12, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

• Move, famine is way too premature. There were concerns it may develop into famine, peaking a month ago, but since then the supply has improved [12][13], and while there is still some risk it is much lower now than a month ago. It never got to an actual famine. ---Lilach5 (לילך5) discuss 04:23, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

  Whatever other editors think of this conversation as a whole, this is not a good reason to move the article. None of the literature says that the risk of famine is subsiding; absent a major change in the trajectory of the war such as a lasting ceasefire, sources agree that it's only a matter of time before famine sets in, if it hasn't already. Unbandito (talk) 05:16, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

  Confused by the statement while there is still some risk it is much lower now than a month ago. There is absolutely no evidence to support that claim. David M. Satterfield, the U.S. envoy for humanitarian issues, said on 23 April 2024 that despite Israeli efforts to increase aid, The risk of famine throughout war-devastated Gaza, especially in the north, is "very high". CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 14:34, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

• Move, famine is WP:CRYSTAL, since sources say it is imminent, not ongoing. we should replace it with another term, and and the term "food security", judging from the IPC definition, makes much more sense. Galamore (talk) 05:19, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

• If the page is moved, how about food emergency or food crisis? I believe "food insecurity" is far too weak a term. Take a look at the titles in the source list: I see "starvation", "deadly" "struggle", "famine", "catastrophe", "disaster", "intense", "brink of implosion", "hunger crisis", "desperate", "clamour".

It's about connotation. When I read "food insecurity", I might think "people are hungry from time to time due to shortages". When I read "food crisis", I will understand "there is a major hunger problem". From what I have read, the second is accurate: it's "extreme suffering and mortality".

It's also about aligning with sources. "Insecurity" does not actually appear to be the WP:COMMONNAME. Most sources talk about it as a crisis or emergency. Also, the IPC source which was used by the requester to show famine has not been formally declared shows Gaza in Phase 4 (Emergency). HenryMP02 (talk) 15:16, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

That is also as of March, the situation worsened since then according to all accounts, we should look at the projection (pending an official update) which shows Northern Gaza in Phase 5. Selfstudier (talk) 15:40, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

A projection in absence of an affirmative claim and consensus about the current situation is not an acceptable source for an article’s title. Zanahary (talk) 16:28, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Sure it is, it's explained in a reliable source (want more?), which is more than can be said for "food insecurity". Selfstudier (talk) 16:29, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

It’s predicted in a reliable source. We can’t make articles about events today that were predicted yesterday and are as yet not confirmed. Zanahary (talk) 19:55, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

We can, read the article. Selfstudier (talk) 20:21, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

To clarify, I oppose the move. The IPC source showed 30% of Gaza's population in famine (phase 5) in the old 15 period (Feb - 15 March), and projects 50% of the population in famine in the current period (16 March - 15 July). No formal declaration of famine has been made is actually misleading. HenryMP02 (talk) 17:53, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose Other organizations such as the Center for Strategic and International Studies are calling it a famine [14]. There is, however, the problem of a lack of reporting from inside Gaza to document the situation there. Hires an editor (talk) 00:32, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose for the reasons stated above. The situation in Gaza is far worse from typical "food insecurity," such as the article about food insecurity. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 18:01, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

  In line with concerns raised above re: lack of broad declaration of famine, what say you re: alternate title proposal Gaza food crisis? Mistamystery (talk) 18:19, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose: too euphemistic and per discussion below: #IPC phase which illustrates that Phase 5 is not required to have an article on the topic. Alternatively, move to Famine in the Gaza Strip, in line with Famine in Yemen (2016–present), for example. --K.e.coffman (talk) 18:47, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
• Move. Per nominator. The sources like IPC and CSIS talk about "imminent famine" or the "risk of famine." The chief economist at the United Nations World Food Programme acknowledged increased food deliveries and said that "it is too early to say that looming famine is no longer a risk" so it may no longer be looming, fortunately [15]. A possible alternative could be Food crisis in the Gaza Strip. Alaexis_¿question? 09:12, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Oppose as a gross WP:EUPHEMISM – "food insecurity" is what you might call a shortage of fresh vegetables, or a sharp inflation in the price of wheat: here, for a man-made starvation event, it would just be white-washing and entirely imprecise. Also oppose on concision grounds (obviously), since the proposed title is gargantuan and the furthest possible imagining from concise. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:05, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

• Move, yes, famine is WP:CRYSTAL. This should have been done weeks ago. I get that the situation is horrific and upsetting. That is true. But... that does mean Wikipedia can POV push. This conflict has shown how vulnerable Wikipedia is to bias and having this page exist with this title for over a month as one of the few English language sources declaring the "Gaza Strip Famine" is a shame for Wikipedia as an institution. I write that as someone with tens of thousands of edits who cares deeply about Wikipedia and has contributed countless hours toward making it better.Monopoly31121993(2) (talk) 17:56, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

  @Monopoly31121993(2): It may have been too concurrently timed with your own post, but HenryMP02 has actually linked the live IPC data showing that more than 50% of the Gaza Strip is in famine, so it's not crystal. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:06, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

  "Famine is imminent." That's what the page says. Monopoly31121993(2) (talk) 18:13, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

  @Monopoly31121993(2): Which means? Don't ask me how the IPC goes about it's final, ponderously deliberate declaration phase. But as you can see from the data, 50% are in phase 5, which is famine, by the IPC's own metrics. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:26, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

  The article doesn't say it's a famine. It says clearly, "Famine is imminent" which means the current title "Gaza Strip Famine" is WP:CRYSTAL. Monopoly31121993(2) (talk) 18:40, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

  Only if a formal IPC declaration were the only consideration. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:59, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

  It's your source! You provided it as your evidence that famine was taking place. I'm simply quoting your source which DOESN'T SAY what you claim it does. In fact it states, "Famine is imminent." Monopoly31121993(2) (talk) 18:54, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

  It is evidence, we are currently in the forecast period where they say there is famine, they may declare it officially when they get around to doing a new report but we need not wait for it here. Selfstudier (talk) 18:57, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

  If famine is imminent, it sounds like the page should be called Gaza Strip famine. If the risk of famine were subsiding, this line of thinking would make sense, but experts agree it is very much not subsiding. Unbandito (talk) 13:24, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

  If famine is imminent, then this article should not NOW be titled "Gaza Strip famine". It can be changed to Gaza Strip famine when the meaning of the word imminent changes to mean is already happening. Monopoly31121993(2) (talk) 18:51, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

  Famine is imminent theoretically, in the sense that no-one has officially declared one, but an official declaration is not needed for us to make a title like Gaza Strip famine if sources are speaking about famine. Selfstudier (talk) 18:56, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

• Move: the clear majority of reliable sources are not (yet) unequivocally applying the word "famine" to this situation, instead using phrases like "imminent" or "near-famine" or accusing Israel of intending to cause a "famine". Since the clear majority of reliable sources aren't unequivocally calling it a "famine", Wikipedia should not be calling it that in an article title either. Arguments below about "IPC phase", "Food supplies data", etc, are digging into the substantive definition of "famine", when the real question for Wikipedia is not how it is defined substantively, it is how the majority of reliable sources describe it (as of the time of writing). If in the future the situation worsens (let us hope not), and reliable sources begin to describe it as a "famine" unequivocally, then the article can always be moved back to the current title SomethingForDeletion (talk) 23:29, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

  Majority of sources when and in what time frame? Here's the CSIS outlining how the conditions of famine are in place, but there is not necessarily any immediate prospect of famine declaration, for administrative and bureaucratic reasons: "In the case of Gaza, despite evidence that famine is present today, leaders may be waiting for a future IPC assessment, presumably concluding that famine conditions have been in place for a period of time, before making an official declaration of famine." Famine in Gaza. It's unclear why Wikipedia should specifically ignore the sources that say the conditions of famine exist in favour of the sources that simply remain undecided, unsure or reluctant (maybe politically) to use the language short of a formal declaration. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:56, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

• Comment Sources are unequivocal that there was a famine in Gaza, specifically, in Northern Gaza, which is in Gaza:

• https://www.axios.com/2024/04/11/us-official-famine-northern-gaza

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

Strong oppose there is an ongoing famine in the northern part of the Gaza Strip and a looming famine elsewhere. This requested move into a euphemism goes against all RS which are explicitly mentioned the word "famine." I would support Famine in the Gaza Strip as a more accurate name. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:10, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Comment - 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) 13:36, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

+1 Selfstudier (talk) 13:53, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

None of these selections say that an article’s title may refer to that which is not reliably confirmed to have occurred yet. Zanahary (talk) 14:49, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

What is confirmation in your mind? Numerous sources have already called it a famine; just not all sources, and not yet the IPC. What else is there to confirm? What is the metric? Is there a particular number of starved humans that we're expecting to see evidenced? What are the goalposts here exactly? Iskandar323 (talk) 17:09, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Famine in Gaza

"Global leaders have yet to issue a formal declaration of famine in Gaza, despite evidence that Palestinians in the North Gaza and Gaza Governorates are suffering from famine today"

The only question remaining is whether sufficient aid will reach the affected in Gaza in time to prevent many more deaths. Selfstudier (talk) 17:22, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Consensus would suffice. The designation is controversial; Wikipedia should not pick a side in absence of settled consensus. Zanahary (talk) 18:28, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that's what we're doing here, albeit with some canvassing going on. It's not a designation, it's just a title, one could equally entitle it Weaponization of food by Israel in Gaza or Starvation in Gaza caused by Israeli restrictions on aid and the sourcing for either is plentiful. Selfstudier (talk) 18:32, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Oppose - The guardian (19 March 2024) writes: "Palestinians are dying from hunger. (...) The question is no longer whether (...) but how many will do so [= starve to death]". How do we bring humanity to its senses (= Israel, USA, European Union, the rest of the world seems much less crazy in this affair), if we shrink from calling a duck a duck? --Corriebertus (talk) 05:50, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Oppose - under the WP:CRITERIA of naturalness, recognizability and concision. naturalness + recognizability: While we would technically be justified in renaming this to Gaza Strip acute food insecurity event, readers familiar with but non-expert in the subject, and readers searching for the topic, are more likely to look for "famine" than "acute food insecurity", and Gaza Strip acute food insecurity event would sound bureaucratic and euphemistic. concision: We don't need to distinguish this article from another epoch of food insecurity in Gaza that was formally declared as a famine by the IPC, so there's no ambiguity risk in the title. Boud (talk) 08:47, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Strong oppose per WP:COMMONNAME attested in multiple sources. I'd also be fine with the alternative version Famine in the Gaza Strip.  Comment: Those evoking WP:CRYSTAL seem to misunderstand what that policy is about. Wikipedia routinely includes concepts publicly discussed in reliable sources even if they are still hypothetical – e.g., Frexit, Hungarian withdrawal from the European Union, Danish withdrawal from the European Union, Korean reunification, and countless others. An article about an impending famine certainly does not violate our policies, even when titled "famine". — kashmīrī ^TALK 11:34, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

IPC phase

• I would just like to a comment about the IPC phase classification. I don't think Phase 5 is the be-all-end-all for describing something as a famine in an article title. For example, the Famine in Yemen (2016–present) is Phase 4. The same goes for the Famine in northern Ethiopia (2020–present). Neither reached Phase 5. Check out their sourcing. I think you will see similarities. HenryMP02 (talk) 16:59, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

  Exactly, walks like a duck, looks like a duck, it is a duck. Selfstudier (talk) 17:02, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

  There’s a whole class of sources, from NGOs to governments to editorial bodies, who have the job of identifying ducks, in this case. Wikipedia is not one of them. Zanahary (talk) 19:53, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

  Maybe that’s why those are titled “Famine in…”. None of those places have been issued a formal declaration of famine yet. The only one in recent years to have a formal declaration is the 2017 South Sudan famine. I think the 2017 South Sudan article is a good model to use for this article when/if the famine is officially declared. The Sudan article has a background section explaining the IPC ratings and the famine declaration.Wafflefrites (talk) 17:43, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

  I don't object to Famine in the Gaza Strip, to me it means the same thing. Selfstudier (talk) 17:57, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

  I also like how Mistamystery put “during the Israel-Hamas war” in her title. Because “Famine in the Gaza Strip” could also mean all the historical cases of famine in Gaza, which is a very ancient place. Wafflefrites (talk) 18:00, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

  If only Hamas members were starving that would be fine. Selfstudier (talk) 18:05, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

  Agree Zanahary (talk) 19:52, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

  Also, according even to the old IPC evaluation, 30% of Gaza's population were in famine (phase 5). Look at the legend at the bottom. [16]. The projection for the current period shows 50% of the population in famine. HenryMP02 (talk) 17:46, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Food supplies data

I'd like introduce another data source which can be helpful even if it by itself cannot tell us whether there is famine. Here you can find the daily numbers of trucks with food that entered Gaza. According to Al-Jazeera (not known for its sympathy to Israel) at least 100 trucks are needed daily to cover urgent needs [17]. In April 2024 (1-27) 190 trucks entered Gaza every day, on average, of which the majority brought food supplies. Fortunately, the numbers are trending upwards, the April numbers are higher than the March ones, which are higher than those in the beginning of the conflict. Alaexis_¿question? 09:05, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Straightforward to find current (not last December, the situation is much worse now) sources saying it is not enough, even at 400 a day.NYT yesterday "Aid Flows to Gaza Are Rising, U.N. Says, but More Is Needed" And trucks entering is only part of the problem, the aid needs to be distributed, preferably without the distributors getting killed in the process. Selfstudier (talk) 10:24, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

And that's the best spin the NYT can put on it as the US' (most?) "sophisticated ideological weapon".[18] Iskandar323 (talk) 11:48, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Except for this article doesn't say that more than 400 are needed to avert famine. Alaexis_¿question? 12:36, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

True, Israel might be lying about the number, shocker. Selfstudier (talk) 13:17, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

500 trucks entered Gaza pre-war and that flow was already an intentionally reduced number to impose a calorie-restricted regime on Gaza, so no, obviously even 500 trucks of combined food/aid would not be enough to reverse famine when combined with the logistical nightmare and destruction of agricultural infrastructure. This has been said time and time again by people like Michael Fakhri, the UN special rapporteur.[19] All meaningless rambling to the contrary is counterfactual propaganda. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:45, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Agree with Selfstudier and Iskandar. The December AJ article cited here does not reflect the current reality or humanitarian aid needs on the ground. As the World Food Program deputy executive director stated on 25 April 2024: "We are still heading toward famine. We haven't seen the paradigm shift that is needed to avert a famine." CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 16:52, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

I used the AJ article only as the source for the claim that 100 trucks daily are needed to cover daily needs. The deliveries data come from the UNRWA report. Alaexis_¿question? 12:39, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

• Could you share your source for the "of which the majority brought food supplies" part?

Taking a look at the December Al Jazeera article you linked, it references a World Food Programme paper that said

Since the beginning of the crisis, 3,099 trucks, of which 1,249 carrying food assistance have reached Gaza. However, to provide food assistance to the affected population of Gaza, 100 trucks with food would be required to pass every day.

Given that only about 40% of the trucks at that time had carried food, the breakdown between food and non-food trucks is important to consider.

Also, please note that the WFP report was from 6 December 2023. It has been 144 days since then, and agriculture has been disrupted.

Take a look at this slide deck from Feb 7 by the UN Food and Agriculture Organization [20]. Slide 5 shows major damage to cropland throughout the area. Also please consider the seasonality of crops and interruption of farm labor due to displacement. The point is, the people's needs today are likely greater than they were 144 days ago, so I don't think you could make a strong argument just from saying there are more than 100 trucks today. HenryMP02 (talk) 17:39, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Could you share your source for the "of which the majority brought food supplies" part?

This is from the UNRWA report [21], Trucks per group chart. Alaexis_¿question? 12:28, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Strong oppose: to anything that removes the word famine, using words like insecurity or crisis downplay the severity of what is happening. John Cummings (talk) 19:25, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

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.

Accuracy tag

Adding tag, pending resolution of above RM and lede conversations. Mistamystery (talk) 16:19, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Accuracy has nothing to do with title discussions. This looks like another "I'm not getting my way so I'm going to tag" affairs. According to that tag the entire article has factual accuracy problems, kindly identify which sections in the body have the alleged factual problems and tag those only. Then explain precisely what the alleged factual accuracy problems are.Selfstudier (talk) 16:25, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

As outlined above ("RM and lede conversations") this is not merely a title dispute but a general accuracy matter as the entire article has been shaped under unclear assertions for months that a famine has been established to the point of common naming, when there is no reliable consensus on the matter, nor common name.

Also, humbly requesting the personally directed aspersion above be stricken from the conversation. Mistamystery (talk) 16:31, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Titles are dealt with by RMs not by accuracy tags, why am I having to repeat this? Waiting for specifics on the accuracy otherwise the tag will be removed. Selfstudier (talk) 16:33, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Here you go:

"The Gaza Strip famine is an ongoing famine in the Gaza Strip amid the Israel-Hamas War." - no such declared famine, nor commonly known by that name, by any consensus of RS. Mistamystery (talk) 16:40, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

That it? Selfstudier (talk) 16:41, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

It's the headline for the entire article. I think the "it" of it is more than sufficient.

Also - will you please strike your "I'm not getting my way comment". It is not true, and I find it the aspersion uncivil. Mistamystery (talk) 16:52, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Ok, fixed, remove tag, please. (and that comment is not addressed to you personally) Selfstudier (talk) 16:56, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Your edit in the lede is both expert and appreciated. I will remove the tag.

And re: comment - it's our second such "debate" over tag placements in as many days, so while I will take you at your word, please note the proximity of events and why I would interpret it this way. Mistamystery (talk) 17:02, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

I couldn't disagree more and this is tendentious editing.

Sources are unequivocal that there is famine in Northern Gaza. Northern Gaza is in Gaza. Therefore, there is a famine inside Gaza. DenverCoder19 (talk) 00:35, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

@DenverCoder19 Sorry, I reverted your recent edits [22] back to the previous version. This isn't out of antagonism toward the content; I think there is a strong case to be made for using "famine" in the lead, especially for Northern Gaza (check out the discussion regarding the page move above). However, you essentially went against the provisional consensus of these two editors (Mistamystery and Selfstudier). The debate needs to happen in the talk page. Check out Wikipedia:Accuracy dispute. You can't just re-add the disputed content unilaterally, but you can try to establish a different consensus. HenryMP02 (talk) 04:36, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Given the 4th May statetement of the head of the WFP, added by Iskandar323 [23], I suggest restoring the first sentence of the article along the lines proposed by DenverCoder19 and thus providing a proper definition of the title term. — kashmīrī ^TALK 23:48, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

The wording can certainly be tweaked to reflect USAID and Wfp statements, I would still be wary of assuming that we can "define" the title, tho, and it is not in fact necessary to do so, as it stands on its own as a description, without such a definition. Selfstudier (talk) 09:03, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Famine or starvation?

This is not a formal RfC but I'd like to hear other editors' views on a rename of this article from Gaza Strip famine to Gaza Strip starvation. The reasons are twofold. Firstly, linguistically, the term famine refers to a natural phenomenon, at best facilitated by shortsighted administrative decisions. However, intentional deprivation of food, carried out as a deliberate policy, is invariably called starvation (please do read the linked article). And so it is starvation, not famine that's discussed in international human rights treaties: [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] etc. etc.

Secondly, and consequently, while both terms are used in the mass media, the sources that closely respect legal terminology will use starvation when referring to the Gaza situation: International Criminal Court, Human Rights Watch, International Federation for Human Rights, Oxfam, Lawyers for Palestinian Human Rights, International Centre of Justice for Palestinians, B'Tselem, and many many others. Thus, starvation rather than famine appears to be WP:COMMONNAME.

To ensure that Wikipedia titles are as precise as it gets, and that they are broadly aligned with sources, I'd like to discuss a potential move to Starvation of Gaza Strip or Gaza Strip starvation. — kashmīrī ^TALK 17:16, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

I edited up a section at War crimes in the Israel–Hamas war#Restriction of aid a little while ago, seems to have got lost in the wash. One thing is the result and the other is the cause. Now that Khan has made that statement, I wouldn't be averse to making an article out of the cause. Selfstudier (talk) 17:25, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Why was my suggestion to add a relevant quote to the article deleted?

The following discussion 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.

---

Why was my suggestion to add relevant information to the article, including a source, deleted? 2A0D:6FC7:527:2EFD:6C89:619D:791A:57FB (talk) 17:27, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Read the notice in the header. Unregistered editors and some accounts are not allowed to edit this page, other than make a formal edit request. Yours was not an edit request and this one isn't either, so I'll close this discussion next. Please do not respond. If you'd like to propose any changes to the article, use the appropriate edit request template. — kashmīrī ^TALK 17:29, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

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.

Edit request to reflect recent US official approval of humanitarian aid being diverted by Hamas

• What I think should be changed (format using {{textdiff}}): The quote of the US official saying "the Israeli government has not brought to the attention of the US government… any specific evidence of Hamas theft or diversion of assistance provided via the U.N. and its agencies. Full stop." should be removed and the accompanying context edited
• Why it should be changed: It dates from January 2024, and along with recent US official statements, is outdated.
• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):

2A0D:6FC7:527:2EFD:6C89:619D:791A:57FB (talk) 17:46, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Anonymous editor: Contrary to your assertions, the quote does not mention any aid theft. It simply mentions one instance of short-lasting cargo diversion. The incident had zero impact on the famine. — kashmīrī ^TALK 18:16, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Note done. You haven't said what edit is to be made? Also, the cited reference..."QUESTION: Has this been a widespread issue, Matt? (Inaudible) MR MILLER: No, it has not." Selfstudier (talk) 17:52, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

References

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. M.Bitton (talk) 17:51, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

@M.Bitton Please don't tell non-EC editors to "establish consensus". They can't. Edit requests are virtually the only thing they can post here. — kashmīrī ^TALK 18:09, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

@Kashmiri: It's meant for them and others too (those who might feel like taking this further). The edit requires consensus, that's what they need to know (the fact that non-EC editors can't establish it themselves is another matter). M.Bitton (talk) 18:27, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Okay, but I insist that telling unregistered editors to establish consensus before making edit request when we simultaneously don't allow them to do it defies the very idea of allowing edit requests, and also is not the best welcome to Wikipedia editing. There's another option in the template: "Not done for now", which can be appended with free text explanation about the need of having a consensus first. I politely suggest to consider using it instead. — kashmīrī ^TALK 18:43, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

"Not done for now" followed by "having a consensus first" amounts to the same thing. M.Bitton (talk) 18:50, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

clarification needed in lede, IPC as an organization?

The lede talks about an IPC scale, which is wikilinked to the article Integrated Food Security Phase Classification. But it also says, "The IPC itself does not issue declarations of famine." This makes it sound like there is an organization called the IPC. But if there is such an organization, the article doesn't make that clear. There does not appear to be a wikipedia article for such an organization. The article on the IPC scale names other organizations, not named IPC, that created it. Is this just a mistake in the lede, or is there really an organization called the IPC.--Penflange (talk) 12:32, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

"Experts warned that the famine in the Gaza Strip was the worst instance of man-made starvation in nearly 100 years"

The source quotes one person (Alex de Waal): "“The rigor, scale and speed of the destruction of the structures necessary for survival, and enforcement of the siege, surpasses any other case of man-made famine in the last 75 years” . This is not to belittle the gravity of the situation in Gaza, but the sentence needs to be more accurate, otherwise it sounds like hyperbole, given for example the number of people affected by the Famine in Yemen (2016–present) or 2017 South Sudan famine. Kershatz (talk) 09:43, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Especially considering the current death count stands at 32, as compared to over 90,000 in Yemen 128.195.97.30 (talk) 06:38, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

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.

Suggestion: Revert changes made by האופה

Sorry if I am doing this incorrectly, it is my first time.

I noticed, "A May 2024 study found that each person in Gaza received 3164 Kcal per person per day on average between January and April 2024, 40% higher than the 2100 Kcal standard per the Sphere humanitarian organization." Following the citation I found an article citing a study performed by members of numerous Israeli organizations.

Seems misleading and biased. I suggest either reverting the changes entirely or rewording to, "An Israeli funded May 2024 study found..." Infectedfreckle (talk) 02:16, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

I removed the section as UNDUE, its a non-peer reviewed study, and it is directly contradicted by sources such as OXFAM which found northern Gazans are living on as few as 245 calories a day. nableezy - 02:22, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

I've reverted to the original text. If you'd like to explore alternative wording that could include other perspectives, please do, but I don't see any logical reason for removing it all. ABHammad (talk) 13:12, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

As nableezy said, the source is unreliable. Furthermore, the source violates the article rule, "Neutral point of view" as the study was performed by parties that are directly in conflict with the subjects of the study. Infectedfreckle (talk) 13:26, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

The data given in that abstract states that 124 trucks per diem entered from January to April, whereas the usual figure to cater for an economy for 2.2 million people there was 500 trucks a day /and that when Gaza pre 7 Oct. could call on its own internal agricultural market, now largely bulldozed). How one gets to an obese diet with a cut of 80% of food supplies is unclear, while the total neglect in the abstract of an analysis of the core problem - the systematic Israeli dismantlement of the internal distribution system (which requires Gazan police who have been likewise systematically targeted) - begs a large question. In an area where the Israeli military shift and quarantine into areas that are cut off from each other large parts of the population, averaging consumption throughout the Strip is methodologically meaningless. In other words, that paper can only be used after severe peer-review and secondary source assessments, since on the face of it it constitutes an exceptional claim.Nishidani (talk) 13:57, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

@ABHammad: Please see WP:ONUS, disputed content stays out absent a consensus. nableezy - 18:13, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

WP:PREPRINT suggests that non peer reviewed preprints should be treated similar to self-published sources, which "may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications".

It seems like the authors here do have the credentials to meet this bar. Frankly a preprint by credible authors seems much more reliable than, say, the Al Jazeera Live Blog (short-form updates with no listed authors), which the article cites extensively. Let's not apply an extreme standard for reliability here that we wouldn't apply elsewhere.

Outright deletion creates a WP:BALANCE concern, unless one were to argue this a fringe theory. In the spirit of letting the reader draw their own conclusions, how about just changing the language, like "preprint" instead of "study"? Or we could even add "non peer reviewed" if editors feel a stronger disclaimer is necessary. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 14:47, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Our WP:MEDRS guideline expressly prohibits the use of primary research to make biomedical claims. Calory intake is undoubtedly biomedical information. This is not about "balance", this is about following the project's guidelines. — kashmīrī ^TALK 17:53, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

The content already included a secondary source though. Maybe my comment focused too much on the underlying primary source (since some concerns had been raised about it); the secondary source seem more relevant in the context of policies and guidelines like WP:MEDRS. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 20:07, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Times of Israel is not MEDRS-compliant, sorry. Biomedical information requires sources from the field of medicine. MEDRS-compliant secondary sources include e.g. systematic reviews. For now, given the ovewhelming evidence to the contrary, I'd be inclined to classify that unpublished paper as WP:FRINGE. — kashmīrī ^TALK 20:19, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

This seems like a stretch. Estimating calories based on truckloads doesn't really seem like biomedical information to me, at least not the more technical, medicine related sort of biomedical information that the MEDRS guideline was written for.

WP:MEDPOP also uses the word "generally", there isn't a strict prohibition of such secondary sources. If there was, wouldn't Oxfam also be in violation, since it uses Yahoo! News as a secondary source? — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 05:14, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

The authors, among them an Israeli government ministry, are advancing a position that is at odds with the overwhelming majority of sources discussing the amount of food available in Gaza. And yes, I am arguing this is fringe level. You have highly respected international NGOs, that is groups without a vested interest in advancing an idea that supports one of the combatants in the war, saying that northern Gaza is getting 245 calories a day. Then you have a group associated with one of the parties of the war saying they get 10x as much. You have the World Food Program saying that there is full blown famine, and then you have this group saying people should be getting fat off the aid delivered. While NPR reports that people are being forced to eat grass and animal feed to survive. As far as I can see, no serious sources are taking the claim that there are over 3k calories per day available per person in Gaza seriously. nableezy - 20:18, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

The two sources don't really contradict, at least not in an obvious or direct way. The Oxfam claim is about northern Gaza during a brief time period from 7 January to 20 February; the new preprint gives different numbers for different months.

Perhaps more importantly, Oxfam is talking about food delivered to people, while the new preprint talks about food entering Gaza. "Our results suggest that if there is famine in Gaza, it is not due to Israel’s deliberately limiting the food supply entering the Gaza Strip. Rather, the threat may be related to how food aid is distributed and made available to the population once it reaches Gaza."

"Highly respected international NGOs" is debatable, given Oxfam's anti-Israel biases. Neither source should be assumed to be impartial. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 14:51, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

One source should be considered more likely to engage in propaganda on behalf of a government that has repeatedly engaged in propaganda, given it is a product of that government. I dont plan on engaging in the "anti-Israel biases" claim as it is something Israel accuses every group critical of its actions, from Amnesty to Oxfam to the UN. Being biased against human rights violations isnt a bad thing, and if human rights abusers are free to dismiss any criticism of their human rights abuses as biased then this entire topic is pointless. The claims in this paper have not been treated seriously by sources, as opposed to say the World Food Program head saying there is outright famine in Gaza already. And Israel's actions in limiting the food supply in Gaza have been well established, to the point that its strongest ally has resorted to air drops of aid and constructing a pier to allow for seaborne aid to reach to bypass the restrictions by Israel. This paper is UNDUE in pushing a fringe level viewpoint, and until it gets some actual traction among sources I oppose its inclusion. nableezy - 15:11, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

These aren't some vague unsubstantiated accusations of bias, these are specific verifiable acts, such as the sale Protocols of the Elders of Zion on Oxfam's website.

Oxfam also has no pretense of being some kind of neutral fact finder. Even the relevant press release with the 245 calories claim contains very clear political advocacy.

To reiterate, claims of famine do not contradict claims that sufficient food enters Gaza, both can be true. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 19:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

The dodgy source is clearly contradicted by more reliable sources, and long-term studies on calorific aid delivery into Gaza. It's ridiculous that this discussion has gone on for so long. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:36, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

'specific verifiable acts, such as the sale Protocols of the Elders of Zion on Oxfam's website'. I.e some moronic volunteer put an expensive copy of the Protocols on Oxfam's website, and as soon as this was noticed, the books were destroyed in 2020 with due apologies to the Israeli ambassador, and we have now xDaniels citing this incident as proof of Oxfam's unreliability, while pressing for an extraordinary claim in a pre-peered review paper that famished people are swimming in a succulent plethora of food. Nishidani (talk) 16:49, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Contradicted by what? Are you referring to the Oxfam claim (which doesn't really contradict per my points above), or something else? — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 19:49, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

You appear not to have read what I wrote, nor taken into account the considerable literature which your source challenges, and which 'contradicts' it. And it is rather unfortunate to refer to two persons (Iskander, myself) as though they were one, which is the proper weay to construe your use of the word 'you'.Nishidani (talk) 19:59, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

I was replying to Iskandar323's comment, not to yours, as the indentation indicates. I'd love to discuss Oxfam's biases in more depth with you, but this doesn't seem like the appropriate place. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 03:08, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Pretty much all of the known knowns about the aid needed, the aid getting in, and the famine, from all of the sources. Standing against that we have COGAT, which is basically the coordinator of aid-related propaganda for Israel. It's the furthest possible thing from an independent source. It's an arm of the besieging government. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:02, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

That goes both ways though. Oxfam's data comes from UNRWA, which certainly can't be considered impartial either. Ultimately most information originates from Israeli or Gazans, and people whose countries are at war tend to have biases. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 03:18, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

UNRWA is a UN agency that Israel has failed to discredit, despite trying pretty hard. It's about as impartial as you can get in the conflict. It's a third party body run by an international UN staff. There is no reason to doubt the veracity of its count of aid entering Gaza. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

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)

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

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 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 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 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

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)

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 [29] 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)

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