Most of what circulates in this argument is an assertion with no numbers attached, or a number with no source attached. Everything below is the opposite: the raw data behind this site's original research, free to download, reuse and republish, including by people who want to prove us wrong.
These are not collections of other people's statistics. They are original comparative work that exists nowhere else: a conflict-by-conflict comparison built to a single consistent measure, and an article-by-article audit of how one encyclopedia frames one subject.
Licence: CC BY 4.0. Use it commercially, modify it, build on it. The only condition is attribution. If a dataset here changes your conclusion, publish that too.
Comparative figures for the Gaza war set against other conflicts of the same era, across five measures: total dead, dead per year, dead within a matching time window, UN Human Rights Council condemnations, and elapsed time before an international court acted. Each row names the perpetrator. Where a state obstructed counting, a documented floor and a higher estimate are both recorded.
An audit of English Wikipedia's Israel-related coverage, cataloguing 100 articles against 15 recurring framing techniques, alongside 133 articles checked and found clean. Each finding quotes the live article wording and links to it so any reader can verify it independently. Checked 2026-06.
60 circulated claims, each with a verdict, a sourced summary, and a permanent URL. Ratings use a 1 to 5 scale where higher is closer to true: 1 false, 2 misleading, 3 contested. Every entry carries schema.org ClaimReview markup on its own page.
Every correction made to this site: what it said, what it says now, why it changed, and whether the error was reported or found in an internal audit.
Any of these forms is fine. The point is that a reader can get from your citation back to the row.
Shoresh (ilRoot). "Wikipedia bias audit: Israel-related articles." ilroot.com/data. CC BY 4.0.
Stated plainly, because a dataset whose method you cannot inspect is just an assertion in a spreadsheet.
The conflict comparison uses each conflict's most widely accepted total, and where a state obstructed counting it records both the documented floor and the higher estimate rather than splitting the difference. For Gaza it uses the Hamas-run health ministry's own maximum figure, unadjusted, so the comparison survives being handed the other side's best number. Rates are simple arithmetic: total divided by elapsed years, which flatters no one and is easy to check.
The Wikipedia audit quotes the live article wording on the date checked and links to it. Wikipedia changes, so an entry is a claim about a specific article at a specific time, which is why the check date travels with the data and why the set includes articles examined and found clean. A finding is not "this article is biased"; it is "this specific sentence does this specific thing", and you can open the link and disagree.
What none of this is: a random sample. These articles and conflicts were selected because they bear on one argument. That is a real limitation and it is the reason the controls are published alongside the findings rather than quietly dropped.
Publishing the raw data is the part most advocacy never does, because raw data is the thing that can be turned against you. That is exactly why it is here. A claim you cannot audit is worth nothing, and we ask readers to audit everyone else.
If you find an error in any of it, report it. It goes in the public log with the old value, the new value, and who caught it.