Jump to content

Talk:Gaza genocide/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

List of Supporting Countries

Please add a list of countries and organisations supporting South Africa's case at ICJ. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.70.80.51 (talk) 23:46, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Request to add Masha Gessen's comments

Masha Gessen, when asked if what is happening in Gaza is a genocide stated, "I think there are some fine distinctions between genocide and ethnic cleansing and I think that there are valid arguments for using both terms". When pressed further they stated, "it is at the very least ethnic cleansing". This was followed soon after controversy surrounding Gessen's receival of the Hannah Arendt Prize over remarks in a New Yorker Article critical of Israeli actions in the strip wherein Gessen compared them to an Eastern European Ghetto "being liquidated" by the Nazis. Nandofan (talk) 03:02, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Nandofan, added, though in the 'cultural discourse' section since she has no claim to being a legal or similar scholar. Pincrete (talk) 11:24, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
That makes sense. Thank you Nandofan (talk) 19:42, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
@Pincrete thanks, @Nandofan sorry, I should have checked other replies first. Irtapil (talk) 06:12, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
@Pincrete *they
Irtapil (talk) 06:13, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
@Nandofan If you're able to edit the article then I agree that's relevant and endorse you adding it, but it needs a reference.
If you're not able to edit the article, can you suggest where that fits and give a link to a citation we can use please?
Irtapil (talk) 06:10, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
Just saw someone already done. Irtapil (talk) 06:13, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

First sentence of background is awkward

First sentence of background reads very strangely, "Background - After Israel began the bombing of Gaza following the 7 October attacks, some Palestinians immediately expressed concern that this violence would be used to justify genocide against Palestinians by Israel."
But I'm stumped on how to fix it. Can a better writer than I am please have a go at turning it into something cohesive?
It looks like multiple people have added three opinionated words each? All of the points there probably should be included, but connected better and with a more even tone.
Irtapil (talk) 06:07, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
Flaws seem to be that it isn't only Palestinians, it isn't now only concerns about what would happen, it's about deeds rather than only about justification. Pincrete (talk) 07:20, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
I've tried to fix, I don't know whether this works for others. Pincrete (talk) 07:40, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

"Gaza genocide" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Gaza genocide has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 17 § Gaza genocide until a consensus is reached. The sum of all human knowledge (talk) 13:33, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

January 2024

I propose that we split this article into like 10 articles more. Clearly we haven't created enough content forks out of this war, how about we divide it by months or cities or something? I'm sure it will serve for, well, something probably.

This article is at least much, much more serious and realistic than Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Hamas attack on Israel. But we have Palestinian genocide accusation already. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 16:28, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

@Super Dromaeosaurus: Redirecting to Palestinian genocide accusation has already been tried by Parham wiki and was reverted by Vinegarymass911 with the comments that these two articles are "... not the same thing and this should not be merged without a discussion". Also, while article titles should be precise, advice also exists that precise language should not date quickly. Now it is January 2024, I also have to wonder at the wisdom of including the year in the article title. The current conflict in Gaza does not look like being over any time soon, so a change in title is probably warranted. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 00:06, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
I think we should merge this and the (currently somewhat shambolic) Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Hamas attack on Israel into a neutral Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war (or whatever the main article ends up getting moved to). Keeping two separate articles is a recipe for POV forking based on original research and synthesis, rather than a collaborative effort to summarize, with due weighting, what reliable sources say - which is what we're supposed to be doing here. PrimaPrime (talk) 10:15, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
I agree. To me the current situation just seems like a WP:FALSEBALANCE situation, editors creating certain articles and other editors creating their equivalent of the other side as a reaction. Though if it was up to me I'd completely delete the genocide by Hamas one and merge this one into the general one for a Palestinian genocide, which is an article in a much better shape and standing. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 11:46, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
I'm not sure if there is much in common between the two articles to merit a merger? VR talk 06:19, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
There is, quite obviously in my view, much in common between the two. They're the same article but about the opposite side in the same war. And both are alleged genocides. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 15:14, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Can you explain what is in common? In other words, wouldn't that article just consist of two sections: "allegations against Israel", and "allegations against Hamas". VR talk 20:46, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
At least that would provide some balance. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 20:55, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
WP:FALSEBALANCE. WillowCity(talk) 23:54, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
I also cannot see what is in common, nor what balance. Hamas is certainly accused of having genocidal intent towards Israel, but I have heard of no one who thinks that October 7 - however indiscriminate and bloody it was - was a realistic attempt to eliminate Israel or the Israeli people. Pincrete (talk) 10:47, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
International law references "genocidal acts" in discussions of genocide. Essentially, genocidal intent + violent action to pursue that intent = genocidal act. Hamas has absolutely been accused of genocidal acts re 7 October. It's why the genocide conventions say "in whole or in part". But that's hardly germane to this discussion. Jbbdude (talk) 02:28, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
It would only be false balance if the two sides were presented perfectly equally rather than in proportion to the weight they are given in reliable sources. I imagine we could have a shorter section about accusations of genocide against Hamas re: October 7, followed by a longer section about accusations of genocide against Israel in the ensuing war. PrimaPrime (talk) 07:28, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Civilian attack infobox

The article has acquired a civilian attack infobox. It is much less muddled, PoV and synthy than that of the related 'historic' article infobox. Still, is this apt for an article about accusations? Pincrete (talk) 06:51, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

I would say not. PrimaPrime (talk) 07:31, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Considering various other genocide accusation articles, including specifically in contexts of war, also use the same infobox for a brief summary, it would seem to be the best one we have until a specific one is created, and would be in line to how we treat other articles of a similar nature. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 13:45, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
This is less synthy than the related infobox, but how do you decide what are the motives for an allegation? Who says that the motives are Anti-Palestinianism or Settler colonialism? Finally, where in the article are these motives expounded?Pincrete (talk) 10:40, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
It may be better to leave that section blank until we have more comprehensive sources that state the alleged motives. Though for a the three motives listed, on the first that is easy to cite to the statements of Israeli officials on declaring war against Hamas and Gaza. The second you could cite to previous statements in recent years from government officials and politicians, such as declaring Palestine and Palestinians do not exist, alongside statements that declare the West Bank and Gaza as Israeli territory, and the dehumanising language used against Palestinians both before October 2023 and since. For the third point, you'd cite it to such papers as:
  • Wolfe, Patrick (21 December 2006). "Settler colonialism and the elimination of the native". Journal of Genocide Research. 8 (4): 387–409. doi:10.1080/14623520601056240.
  • Rashed, Haifa; Short, Damien (2012). "Genocide and settler colonialism: can a Lemkin-inspired genocide perspective aid our understanding of the Palestinian situation?". The International Journal of Human Rights. 16 (8): 1142–1169. doi:10.1080/13642987.2012.735494. S2CID 145422458.
  • Shaw, Martin (2013). "Palestine and Genocide: An International Historical Perspective Revisited". Holy Land Studies. 12 (1): 1–7. doi:10.3366/hls.2013.0056.
You could also cite it to any of the news pieces written which cover the treatment of Palestinians in the Palestinian territories by Israeli settlers. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 18:35, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

"We will eliminate everything"

This is a mistranslation and misinformation. The actual quote is Gaza will not return to what it was before. There will be no Hamas. We will eliminate it all. [1] --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:30, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

I've modified so as to report the initial quote - and its correction rather than simply linking to an article saying "the quote was wrong".Pincrete (talk) 10:35, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
That is NYT correction (ie they reviewed the thing again) of their initial report so they believe it to be "everything". Selfstudier (talk) 11:13, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Suggested edit: Main article link for Defense for Children International-Palestine et al v. Biden et al

After the heading === Center for Constitutional Rights lawsuit ===

I request that a link to the main article for this lawsuit be inserted on the line immediately following that heading.

Main article: Defense for Children International-Palestine et al v. Biden et al

Lovelano (talk) 07:43, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

 Done, thanks. — kashmīrī TALK 10:16, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Channel 14 is mentioned twice in the article. It is not clear what / who this channel is. It would be better to make the first reference a link to the Wikipedia article about Channel 14. 86.139.218.163 (talk) 13:42, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

 Done, thanks. — Pincrete (talk) 13:54, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Edit request 13 February 2024

Description of suggested change: Please add a wikilink for "Genocidal intent" to the phrase "intent to destroy" in the first paragraph, so that it reads [[Genocidal intent|intent to destroy]].

Diff:

−
ORIGINAL_TEXT
+
CHANGED_TEXT

188.176.174.30 (talk) 10:36, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

 Done — kashmīrī TALK 11:11, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
Thank you. 188.176.174.30 (talk) 11:40, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Rhetoric from politicians in the United States

What does this section have to do with anything? Ron DeSantis and other American wingnuts don't speak for the Israeli government, they aren't proof of genocidal intent. jftsang 13:03, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Well, to be fair, as far as I am aware, the Israeli government is extremely closely allied in major policy issues with the politicians of both the main U.S. parties. [2] [3] David A (talk) 14:49, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
It is, but then again people like RDS aren't actually in charge of American foreign or military affairs, so it's hard to see how that applies. If it were Biden, that'd be different. jftsang 10:41, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
I agree. We don't need to quote every nut who decides to comment about the Middle East situation, especially if it concerns legal aspects. Just because someone was shown on Fox News or CNN doesn't mean it must go into an encyclopaedia. — kashmīrī TALK 10:56, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
I've removed the section, as no reason was presented why the internal electoral rhetoric in the US should be given prominence in the section about legal aspects of Israeli actions. — kashmīrī TALK 11:05, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
Okay. Never mind then. David A (talk) 15:04, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
Should the information be moved to the following page instead? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_for_Israel_in_the_Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war David A (talk) 16:18, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
Indeed, looks like a good target. — kashmīrī TALK 16:30, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
Okay. Would you be willing to handle it, or should we wait for more confirmations first? David A (talk) 16:38, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
Maybe someone else could do it... I somehow don't find it rewarding to spend my time on DeSantis's speeches. Sorry! — kashmīrī TALK 17:25, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
The point is it was deemed prevalent and noteworthy enough to include in the article Palestinian genocide accusation, where the "Rhetoric" section is all bar 1 (small) paragraph is about the 2023-2024 conflict. As that article is meant to cover the broader and full history of the genocide accusation, the commentary on politicians complicity and also inciting genocide is better suited being in this article. And, a single day for a "discussion" to be decided, especially on hot articles like this seems a bit premature, to say the least. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 17:30, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
I do not personally mind if the section in question is returned, but what do you think about my suggestion above? David A (talk) 19:09, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
That could work, then reduce the text in the two genocide accusation pages done to a brief overview, while linking to the relevant section of United States support for Israel in the Israel–Hamas war. I do believe it's unwieldly for the genocide accusation articles in it's current state, and this is after I've already been through and condensed the text from it's previous even-more expansive state. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 21:35, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
@Kashmiri and Jftsang: Would that solution be acceptable for you? David A (talk) 06:20, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
It seems like the other, more on-topic, page organises such comments more concisely and in chronological order though, so that format likely needs to be adhered to there. David A (talk) 06:24, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Recent edits that detract from the point of this particular page

Hello.

These linked edits by a very recently approved extended confirmed rights editor seem to distort the context of this particular page into prioritising the crimes of Hamas over the statistically enormously greater crimes of the state of Israel, which are the entire point of this page, and the initial crimes of Hamas have already been more throroughly dealt with in the "Israel–Hamas war" page that was already linked to at the start of this page.

As such, I would much prefer if we revert this page to how it was organised previously. David A (talk) 09:01, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Very much agreed. I agree that they distortionary and essentially biased obfuscation. Even if others do not agree, the edits do remain entirely tangential at the very best and have no place in the lead. FJDEACKB (talk) 12:44, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
I think that it is probably fine to revert those edits then. David A (talk) 20:10, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
Totally agree. Pincrete (talk) 06:34, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
I added a redirect to this website from the Aaron Bushnell section of political self immolations. I think it provides readers with the most appropriate context and it's an abundant site ZeanIkLaurie (talk) 06:11, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Add United States to accused list

The United States and Joe Biden are frequently accused of complicitly or outright participation in the genocide and South Africa has considered opening a case against them. Should they be added to the accused list? Bill3602 (talk) 21:03, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Looking through the infoboxes for all the other genocides/accusations, there's not a perfect match for having those accused of complicity in the infobox. The closest is Allegations of genocide of Ukrainians in the Russian invasion of Ukraine with Belarus, but there Belarus is actively engaged in what can be labelled an act of genocide (forcible transfer of children), so while I have no problem personally adding the US to the accused, convincing others it fits in that section of the infobox may be more difficult. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 00:17, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
The inclusion of Belarus in the infobox there is sourced to a tweet. The body also mentions a Yale report, although the report doesn't make genocide claims. For now, my understanding is that children were transferred away from the battlefield as is the normal practice in such circumstances (see e.g. Evacuations of children in Germany during World War II, Evacuations of civilians in Britain during World War II, Evacuations of civilians in Japan during World War II). — kashmīrī TALK 15:33, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

The statistical support among the population of Israel for preventing all transfer of humanitarian aid to Gaza

The following public opinion poll by the Israel Democracy Institute reveals that 68% of the population of Israel supports preventing all international transfer of humanitarian aid to the population of Gaza. That information seems extremely noteworthy to include in this page.

https://en.idi.org.il/articles/52976

https://mondoweiss.net/2024/02/over-2-3-of-jewish-israelis-oppose-humanitarian-aid-to-palestinians-starving-in-gaza/

David A (talk) 17:51, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

There's also Human Rights Watch accusing Israel of blocking aid, as well as for about the past month Israeli civilians have been blocking aid from entering Gaza. While this can be evidence towards "Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part", we'd really need a source to link these opinions and actions to genocide for a solid citation. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 00:25, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
Well, the issue here as I perceive it is that if 68% of the population of Israel actively wants all of the 2.3 million Palestinians to starve to death, that also puts significant pressure on their government to act out that desire, and makes that part of the Israeli population at least partially complicit in the genocide that is currently occurring, so it seems important to mention somewhere in the Wikipedia pages covering this horrible situation. David A (talk) 04:42, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
57% maintain the bombing so far is not sufficient and has to be increased, another 35% think that the IDF's bombing volume is more or less adequate. The problem with these things, as with all polls, is that Israeli analysts of their country's war reportage conclude that very little of the realities on the ground in Gaza is covered. Complicity implies full awareness. Civilians rarely grasp in any depth the full scale of what their representatives do, ostensibly in their name. Of course in a digital age, all we see is accessible in Israel, but but ultimately the focus should be on those who plan, and execute these operations, otherwise one falls into the same error Israeli leaders themselves make, of confounding all people under Hamas rule as responsible for whatever has been done by Hamas. Collective guilt is a very dangerous concept.Nishidani (talk) 05:02, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
That is a good point. David A (talk) 06:15, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
With Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International's statements on the matter, I've added a section, also detailing the survey. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 18:32, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Rationale for name change

The absolutely abhorrent actions taken by the IDF, as well as the clear genocidal intent expressed by Israeli cabinet ministers, are CLEAR justification for the name change. To displace millions of people, to tell them to move to specific zones, only to then indiscriminately bombard those zones. To bomb hospitals, schools, areas known to only be home to civilians. To murder thousands of children. The news today of Israel murdering civilians who were gathering aid. There are hundreds, perhaps thousands, of stories which justify this name change.

We must, of course, not let emotion dictate edits on Wikipedia, but this entire genocidal campaign by Israel is beyond disgusting. Any person who still defends these actions is completely morally bankrupt, and it is astonishing to learn of how many deplorable people are amongst us in this world.

There is no other word for what Israel is doing besides genocide. Given other examples on the list of genocides, it is again astonishing that this "conflict" is not included.

I am sickened. Everyone should be sickened. We cannot continue to endorse Israeli lies on Wikipedia, and cannot continue to peddle the narrative that Israel hold some kind of moral superiority in this situation. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 18:27, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

@Davidlofgren1996: Look, I agree with you that what Israel is doing in Gaza right now likely amounts to genocide, but considering how contentious this topic is and the arbitration remedy associated with it, I really don't think it's a good idea to change the name without consensus. I'm not going to revert it because frankly I just don't feel like going through the motions to sort this out and get consensus one way or the other, but I would advise you notify relevant Wikiprojects and editors of articles relevant to this topic via the respective talk pages of the Wikiprojects and articles. Arctic Circle System (talk) 20:53, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
@Davidlofgren1996: I've reverted your move. C'mon now, use your head. Your move changes it from "allegations" to "attempted", a move that would obviously be controversial. We don't "be bold" for controversial moves, we start RM discussions (WP:PCM). Hey man im josh (talk) 21:02, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
It's not really controversial to anyone with eyes. But fine, RM it is, so we can be reminded of how many disgusting people exist on this website. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 21:05, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
@Davidlofgren1996: Stating that the nature of that move is not controversial makes me question whether you should be moving pages at all. Take the sensationalism and "feelings" aspect out of your comments when discussing contentious topics, it's a recipe for disaster and only serves to inflame the discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 21:11, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Is it really apposite to call other editors ‘disgusting’? Docentation (talk) 20:17, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
Just drop it. ―Howard • 🌽33 20:20, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
Please do not make such an obviously controversial decision without even bothering to consult other editors first. We must first build consensus before moving the article like this. Unilateral edits like these are only going to intensify the argument drastically, and I doubt it's going to stay up before an admin reverts it and blocks you from editing the page for a while. – Howard🌽33 21:08, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Read this before voting

This requested move has no reason being implemented in *this* article. This article is not primarily concerned with covering the ongoing humanitarian crisis in Gaza, which has been considered genocide by majority (but not unanimously) of RS. This article is for documenting the initial background, allegations, evidence, trials, academic, legal, and cultural discourse; and the positions of various organisations and people regarding the genocide designation. It would make no sense in either case to move this article to the proposed name. I am asking everyone to oppose the current proposal, but I am also asking for a move proposal to be re-opened in Humanitarian crisis in Gaza. That article has a better case for being renamed. If the proposal here does pass, it will inevitably be reverted after another long discussion. Let us all please avoid the hassle of that discussion and reject it here and now. – Howard🌽33 15:57, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Gaza genocide redirects to this page, and I think that it would likely be confusing with two different Wikipedia pages with almost the same titles covering similar subject matter, but I am not certain regarding the issue. David A (talk) 16:34, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
I'd personally prefer if Gaza genocide redirected to the article on the humanitarian crisis, but changing the redirect is impossible right now without starting a new discussion. – Howard🌽33 17:09, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
This current article should either be redirected to something like "Gaza genocide question" (if no consensus is reached on if it's a genocide) or "Recognition of the Gaza genocide" (if there is consensus). – Howard🌽33 17:14, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
I beg to disagree – to me, a humanitarian crisis is something fundamentally different from a genocide. The two phenomena may sometimes (!) coexist, but they belong to two different realms. Genocide is a legal term, and articles on genocides will focus on the perpetrator's actions insofar as they run afoul of the Genocide Convention. On the other hand, articles describing humanitarian crises will focus on the deprivation and violations of various rights under various international treaties, and frequently just on the suffering. They are two entirely different perspectives. Additionally, the other article sees almost no participation on Talk...
I encourage editors who are familiar with the nuances of genocide to !vote here. — kashmīrī TALK 00:18, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
Very good points. I agree. David A (talk) 06:09, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
Allegations of genocide and genocide are still two separate things. Also, a genocide is fundamentally a humanitarian crisis. One that is specifically perpetrated, and is recognised to be one under international law. We don't have two separate articles on The Holocaust and the Jewish humanitarian crisis. It makes no sense to have two separate articles documenting the history of the same thing. – Howard🌽33 06:46, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
It's because there was no "Jewish humanitarian crisis". There were Jewish ghettos in some countries which may or may not have suffered humanitarian crises. Yet, Holocaust extended beyond these ghettos, and killings included Jewish villages and towns that otherwise faced no other issues. Similarly, there's no humanitarian crisis in Xinjiang, yet many analysts talk about Uyghur genocide. Similarly, the Armenian genocide was not linked to a humanitarian crisis; it was an ordinary mass murder. See the difference? Here in Gaza, we have a humanitarian catastrophe AND we have genocide as the catastrophe is manmade and deliberate, and so we tackle these two aspects in separate articles. — kashmīrī TALK 10:17, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
what's your definition of humanitarian crisis exactly? don't all genocides count as humanitarian crises? – Howard🌽33 12:34, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
I don't think they do. See e.g. German atrocities committed against Soviet prisoners of war, which counts as genocide but was not linked to a humanitarian crisis. — kashmīrī TALK 13:46, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
What's your definition of humanitarian crisis? I'm struggling to understand how an event can be considered a genocide but not a humanitarian crisis. – Howard🌽33 14:00, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
The definition that's closest to my understanding is the one from UNICEF:

A humanitarian crisis is defined as any circumstance where humanitarian needs are sufficiently large and complex to require significant external assistance and resources, and where a multi-sectoral response is needed, with the engagement of a wide range of international humanitarian actors.[4]

Here, the humanitarian crisis is defined by the breadth and depth of population's needs.
I also like the Maltesers' definition, which is based on access to resources necessary for survival:

A humanitarian crisis is usually referred to when one or more events deprive the population or parts of the population of a country of basic subsistence conditions such as access to water, food, shelter, medical care and education, and threaten the long-term health and security of the population.[5]

It follows that, say, imprisoning members of an ethnic minority (as in Xinjiang) or banning their language, or trying to erase their ethnic identity through administrative measures (as in Sinicization of Tibet) even if falling under the Genocide Convention, will not in itself constitute a humanitarian crisis requiring an international multi-agency response – sufficient will be a local political will. Similarly, deportation of the Crimean Tatars, often considered a genocide, wasn't accompanies by a humanitarian crisis (even if certain humanitarian needs of the resettled population could be identified). I hope I was able to show the difference in my understanding of a genocide and a humanitarian crisis. — kashmīrī TALK 21:25, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
"sufficient will be a local political will"
If the perpetrator of the genocide is able to stop it, but repeatedly refuses to do so (possibly requiring an external humanitarian intervention), does that count as a humanitarian crisis? – Howard🌽33 21:38, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
External humanitarian intervention is not there to prevent genocide but to alleviate its effects. To prevent genocide, a political intervention is normally needed. — kashmīrī TALK 18:53, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Your reasoning does make sense, although the definitions you've provided me are a bit vague and could include genocide. Although, to be fair, I haven't actually seen "genocide" described as a form of humanitarian crisis in the sources I've read. Even if you are correct in this regard, it still doesn't justify the moving of this article. Perhaps we could create yet another article titled "Gaza genocide" which is separate from this article and the article on the humanitarian crisis, since all three seem to be covering different subjects. If you are determined to make that happen, perhaps go to WP:AFC and provide your reasoning there. ―Howard • 🌽33 19:08, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
What do you mean there was no Jewish humanitarian crisis? The Holocaust was the Jewish humanitarian crisis, just as the current Gaza genocide is the Gaza humanitarian crisis. Dylanvt (talk) 23:07, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
@Dylanvt WW2 abounded in humanitarian crises, but there was no single "Jewish humanitarian crisis". There were humanitarian crises in individual occupied countries, cities, ghettoes, etc., and they usually affected people irrespective of nationality or ethnicity (except for Germans of course). — kashmīrī TALK 05:43, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Disputed articles

I have seen confusion about certain New York Times articles being removed from this article due to them being disputed. Because the NYT is generally considered to be reliable, this may be confusing to editors. Therefore, it would be helpful to detail which articles are disputed along with the conversations establishing consensus on that fact.

So, I'll post the one I'm familiar with. Anyone else may add to this list. Additionally we may want to move this to the top of the Talk page so it doesn't get archived:

Mokadoshi (talk) 02:01, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't see any consensus in that discussion that the NYT (or even the article in question) is unreliable or "debunked". If it turns out to be sloppy journalism I expect we'll see a correction/retraction. Until such a consensus emerges, the NYT should be presumed reliable per its long-standing reputation for good reporting and editorial review, see WP:NYT. Irrespective of this, I don't see why that specific article (which focuses on allegations of rape, and doesn't mention genocide) would be relevant to this article (on alleged genocide). Jr8825 • Talk 04:34, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
Disagree. We have a guideline for that in WP:NEWSORG: Whether a specific news story is reliable for a fact or statement should be examined on a case-by-case basis. There are serious doubts regarding Schwartz's article, and I understand there's a consensus not to use that news piece. — kashmīrī TALK 10:21, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
@Jr8825 we have recently had editors who think it is relevant to detail extensively every crime Hamas commited on October 7 for the Background section of this article. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 11:09, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
I saw multiple comments suggesting that the article is problematic. I agree that the discussion was asking for NYT to be declared "unreliable" which is not appropriate here, but it is more than appropriate to make a case-by-case decision as multiple people recommended doing in that discussion. And there may very well be more discussions elsewhere about this article, I just don't have them handy.
I agree with you that this reference wouldn't be relevant to this article in the first place, but unfortunately people continually try to put it in there, and when those get reverted, they get upset because they believe it's impossible for their NYT reference to not be accepted. I'm only suggesting that, when reverting, we say "this doesn't belong here" and "please see this discussion about the source you used." Mokadoshi (talk) 22:35, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

6 March: South Africa files an urgent application to the ICJ for new provisional measures

See here:

Could someone with a good grasp of law summarise these developments? — kashmīrī TALK 11:38, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

We should probably just wait for more secondary sources; we should have more than enough in a few hours. BilledMammal (talk) 11:42, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
BilledMammal (talk) 11:51, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

More sources

Some more sources

-- Cdjp1 (talk) 18:47, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Would the following sources also be acceptable to add?

https://www.972mag.com/mass-assassination-factory-israel-calculated-bombing-gaza/

https://www.972mag.com/israel-police-repression-protests-gaza/

David A (talk) 08:37, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Typo in 'Alleged genocidal actions'

Paragraph 2: Raz Segal detailed in November 2023 three actions that the Israel Defense Forces were engaging in which were genocidal in anture

anture -> nature 2601:80:8600:1F90:50E0:CC8E:D223:D4CF (talk) 20:46, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done - thanks for spotting this. Jr8825 • Talk 22:51, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Damage vs. Destruction of buildings in the lead

To my reading of the sources, the number includes damaged homes, not only destroyed ones. Does someone disagree with this change? FortunateSons (talk) 11:59, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Background section is deliberating misleading due to erasure of any mention of Hamas' massacres of civilian, rapes or kidnappings on October 7

It is not necessary to detail every atrocity committed by Hamas on October 7 to correct the misleading Background section.


The addition of "massacre of civilians (at a music festival and in Kibbutizim), large scale rapes and kidnapping of over 200 people from Israel" with reliable sources and the appropriate Wikipedia links would improve the quality -- and neutrality -- of the article. (That's 21 additional words).

(The current phrase "resulting in deaths" does not specify who actually did what to whom, a vagueness that leaves the reader vulnerable to disinformation.) Eli185.2 (talk) 11:23, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

The actions that Israel stands accused of under the Genocide Convention are unrelated to its response (self-defence) on 7/10. Adding a discussion of 7/10 to an article focusing on a military operation that started much later would actually make the article less neutral, as that could be construed as providing a justification, in Wikipedia voice, for Israel's ongoing violations of the Convention. Countries signatories to the Convention are obliged to respect its provisions irrespective of any earlier incidents – the Convention is binding unconditionally. — kashmīrī TALK 11:30, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
You know when I added a brief background about the genocide in Gaza to self-immolation of Aaron Bushnell, it got swiftly reverted[6] because none of the sources cited has anything to do with Aaron Bushnell thus constituted WP:SYNTH. If that was the case, the same argument can be used here to remove a large chunk of the background info which cites sources solely about the Oct 7th attack, especially those published in October 2023 before the concern of genocide in Gaza has been ever raised. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 11:57, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
That is correct. Sources discussing 10/7 in relation to the accusation of genocide by Israel in Gaza may be cited. Zanahary (talk) 06:38, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
This controversy is not really about the right of Israel on self-defense; no one disputes this, but about the alleged violation of rules of war by Israel during their self-defense [7]. This needs to be made more clear on the page. Do we need to mention the attack by Hamas to make it more clear? Perhaps; this depends on specific wording/summary. My very best wishes (talk) 17:47, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
We are talking about Israel's offensive action that began on 27/10, not about its defensive actions on 7/10. The subsequent Israeli offensive was punitive in character, not defensive (vide eg methodical destruction of water sources[8]) – in the same way as the US invasion of Iraq or Afghanistan, or the Russian invasion of Ukraine were not defensive in character despite both countries claiming so. Let's describe things as they are presented in high-quality sources (e.g., academic articles) and not in propaganda mouthpieces rattling ad nauseam about "self-defence". — kashmīrī TALK 19:19, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
The current text looks reasonably decent to me: "On 7 October 2023, Hamas led an attack into Israel from Gaza, resulting in at least 1,139 deaths. Israel's response, including its invasion of the Gaza Strip, has led to concerns that..." This is important context but I don't see the need for more detail, other than to note that the majority of those killed were civilians, a point which is currently missing and provides context for the accusation that Israel's actions are a form of collective punishment. Other specifics of the 7 Oct attack (e.g. the music festival, claims regarding sexual violence) are out of scope of this article -- readers can follow the wikilink if they wish to learn more. Jr8825 • Talk 05:25, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
Israel's response to 7/10 consisted in getting its troops to the border and repelling the attack. The response was hugely successful from the military point of view, Hamas was forced to retreat within hours. The invasion that started three weeks later was not a "response" as such – simply, Israel grabbed the opportunity and decided to try to annex the Gaza Strip by force, rightly calculating that the world opinion will not object to it. (Going after hostages was an excuse – hostages are normally freed in negotiated hostage deals.) I'm not comfortable to present the 27/10 invasion as a "response", despite Israeli politicians claiming so; much like Russian invasion of Ukraine was not a "response to Nazism in Ukraine" or to a "genocide of Russians in Donetsk" despite Russian politicians consistently claiming so. Simply, the 27/10 invasion was a military campaign on its own that took advantage of a favourable opinion shift. — kashmīrī TALK 08:43, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
A personal opinion does not give a Wikipedia editor the right to systematically delete every reliable source that contradicts his personal vision. Eli185.2 (talk) 09:02, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
Personal opinions can be shared on talk pages in discussions, and as evidenced by Kashmiri's edits to the article, this opinion hasn't seemed to be the impetus for the edits you disagree with, as the article does discuss the assault on Gaza as a response to 7 October, and list that as one of the detailed reasons in the infobox citing reliable sources and specialists in the field of genocide studies, which Kashmiri has not tried to remove. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 19:53, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
@Eli185.2 Can you confirm that you are accusing me of systematically deleting every reliable source that contradicts [my] personal vision? — kashmīrī TALK 23:18, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
Not sure on the optimal sourcing and phrasing, but definitely in favour of inclusion. FortunateSons (talk) 09:57, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
You would still need to show the relevancy to the scope of the article. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 16:36, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
The war is generally described as the pretext to genocide, and the war is considered by RS to be caused by the Oct. 7 attack, example FortunateSons (talk) 17:22, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
We already detail this fact, using multiple sources in the infobox, and the background sections. So the prior question remains, how does expanding it to include a laundry list of events on October 7 fall within the scope of the article? -- Cdjp1 (talk) 22:46, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
“ Israel says its only means to defend itself is by eradicating Hamas, the Islamist group that rules Gaza, whose fighters stormed through Israeli communities on Oct. 7, killing 1,200 people and capturing 240 hostages. Israel blames Hamas for all subsequent harm to Palestinian civilians for operating among them, which the fighters deny.” Is at least an RS inclusion of hostages. FortunateSons (talk) 23:30, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Harbu Darbu

Should we mention here that the Harbu Darbu song that strongly encourages hate-fuelled genocidal actions has been extremely popular in Israel in conjunction with the currently perpetrated crimes against humanity? David A (talk) 06:25, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

I don’t think so, if you squint really hard you could potentially come to incitement, but no serious (legal) publication has referred to it as such, and even if it did, this would not really be a credible accusation against the state. Therefore, we should refrain from that based on both DUE ans SYNTH reasons. FortunateSons (talk) 23:50, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
Well, the song definitely enthusiastically encourages genocide, and if I recall correctly it has over 21 million views despite being in Hebrew, so it strongly indicates extreme popularity for its viewpoints. David A (talk) 05:22, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
Could you elaborate on how specifically it encourages the crime of genocide? Amalek is a normale figure of speech, the hostility towards perceived enemy appears to be regardless of ethnicity, and everything else could at best be war crimes/a callous disregard for civilian life, not genocide (doing things with intent to destroy in whole or in part). FortunateSons (talk) 09:31, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
I checked through the lyrics, and you appear to be correct.
There seem to have been other horrible songs regarding the genocidal campaign against civilians though. David A (talk) 11:35, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
That’s possible, but none of those are significant enough for inclusion in this article, as far as I know FortunateSons (talk) 11:55, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
If we were to include a song, this one has had quite a few articles written about it, and it comes from a civilian media agency who's role (in part) is producing media that supports the removal of Palestinians to be supplanted by settlers. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 20:54, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
That’s on opinion piece mostly not focused on the actual song, is there an RS that specifically focuses on it? FortunateSons (talk) 10:00, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Let me google that for you -- Cdjp1 (talk) 16:34, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
I’m not seeing broad RS coverage beyond saying that some people consider it genocidal, and not enough RS coverage for inclusion. FortunateSons (talk) 17:26, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 29 February 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. The support and oppose camps number roughly equally, with the opposition having a slight numerical advantage. On strength of arguments, though, this isn't close. Both supporters and opposers put forward some arguments mostly based on their perceptions of the article's subject (substituting their own analysis of events instead of what sources say); this was more prevalent in the support camp. These arguments were given little weight. On the policies in question (WP:NCENPOV, WP:NDESC, and by extension, WP:NPOV), the opposition presents the much stronger argument. Their assertion that there is no clear consensus of reliable sources for the title is strong, considering the sources that have been cited within the discussion.

On a side note, some in the discussion attempted to get the attention of any admin to fix the discussion's malformation: the tenor of the discussion, and the proposed move target, suggest that the discussion is being carried out on the wrong article. I'm not entirely sure that I agree that Gaza humanitarian crisis (2023–present) would be a better article to have this discussion on; I think that a hypothetical Gaza genocide article would probably have some distinctions from either of the existing titles. That said, in the absence of any convincing policy-based argument to move, this article title stays as is. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:45, 26 March 2024 (UTC)


Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza → Attempted genocide by Israel in their 2023 attack on Gaza – As above. The actions taken by Israel over the last few months amount to, at very least, an attempted genocide. The number of those killed by Israel is now over 30,000 - more than a few "confirmed" genocides on the list of genocides - and Israel shows no sign of stopping their genocidal campaign against the people of Gaza. The list of war crimes is only increasing, and if things continue the way they are, it will eventually amount to a total genocide of the Palestinian people.

As Wikipedians, we are not here to peddle Israeli narrative, and must show the facts for what they are. Israel has openly declared its intent to destroy Gaza, and by displacing millions of people, moving them further and further south, to then continue to bombard areas they declared as "safe" is nothing short of barbarianism. (1, 2, 3, 4, 5)

Deliberately targeting civilians in this manner, with none of the "restraint" that they claim to be displaying, is a clear sign that they intend to kill every single person in Gaza. This is not particularly refutable, hence I did not see the move as "controversial", as [edit: it fits the 1948 United Nations Genocide Convention definition of a genocide]; there is no other way to describe what is currently happening. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 21:23, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

If you didn't see that page move as controversial and likely to generate pushback then you shouldn't be moving pages, plain and simple. Hey man im josh (talk) 21:27, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
I do not believe that, given the nature of the actions that have been taken, and the clear intent shown by Israel, this specific move was controversial, as it meets the definition of (at very least) an attempted genocide. This, as mentioned in my rationale, is in line with other genocides on Wikipedia. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 21:30, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
To be clear then @Davidlofgren1996, do not invoke WP:BEBOLD to make moves like this in a contentious area without a RM discussion first. It's not helpful and it's likely to create a lot of drama and inflame discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 21:37, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
If it is within your powers as an admin, I request that you immediately close this discussion and re-open the move proposal under the same name at Gaza humanitarian crisis (2023–present). – Howard🌽33 15:43, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
Is it possible to move this RM discussion to the Talk page of Gaza humanitarian crisis? As I said below, this article primarily documents the allegations made by various organisations and people against the State of Israel, as well as academic and media discussion. For the actual event itself, it would make more sense to move Gaza humanitarian crisis to Gaza Genocide, if a consensus is reached that the event does indeed follow Wikipedia's guidelines for calling it a genocide. – Howard🌽33 14:35, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
May I add that we can have two separate articles even if we describe what is happening at Gaza as a genocide. See Holodomor and Holodomor genocide question. Academic and legal discussion would not end after a Wikipedia RM or shortly after. We will thus have to make sure we give this article an appropriate title that does not overlap with any other right now or in the future. Also I want to note I think the humanitarian crisis article should be moved based on a RM on its talk page and not here, just in case. Super Ψ Dro 15:10, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
If we will be keeping consistent with the Holodomor articles, we should then move this article to "Gazan genocide question". And if we do end it up describing it as such, then the article for "Gaza Humanitarian crisis" shall be moved to "Gazan genocide". I would, however, like someone else to create a move proposal, since I do not really understand how to start a move proposal. – Howard🌽33 15:18, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Survey (Requested move 29 February 2024)

Would fully oppose. Super Ψ Dro 11:20, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Strong support given the sheer amount of evidence. Salmoonlight (talk) 00:03, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Strong support. Call a spade a spade. There are enough reliable resources that now refer to it as genocide. In the Rohingya genocide, about 25,000 people were killed. In the Palestinian genocide, over 30,000 people and counting have been confirmed killed, plus several thousand more missing people are most probably dead under the rubble.Crampcomes (talk) 00:05, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Strong support. The evidence has been clear for a long time now, and it was further confirmed when the ICJ accepted the plausibility of "at least some of the rights claimed by South Africa" under the Genocide Convention in the case of Israeli genocide against Palestinians. Nori2001 (talk) 00:12, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Mixed, overall support. I'd say it qualifies as a genocide, and has been recognized as such by multiple countries and organizations (including parts of the UN), and has been recognized as plausible by the ICJ.
    I do have some reservations.
    1. Reliable sources haven't referred to it as genocide yet. They will likely change their tune if the ICJ rules against Israel, but we have to wait.
    2. Neutrality. Until sources and the ICJ say so, especially since it's a sensitive subject, it's a bit hard and will likely be very controversial.
    3. The proposed name. If we're going to change it, go all in. "Attempted genocide" is stupid when sources either aren't saying it is, denying it, or saying it is. No one is saying it's attempted.
    However. There is some precedent for this kind of thing. In 2016/2017, even when sources were describing the Rohingya genocide as massacres and a crisis, and the ICC hadn't ruled on it yet, we still named it a genocide as multiple countries recognized it as such, and the UN said it was plausible. (1) Does this not meet the same criteria? I say it would. Interpretation matters. If a bunch of countries say it's genocide, and international orgs say it is/could be, then I think there's a realistic case for this.
    Summary: I generally support the change, but it's a touchy situation, and it may be better to wait it out until the ICJ ruling. There is however precedent of Wikipedia editor's handling of the Rohingya genocide, and as such, I support this. Personisinsterest (talk) 01:33, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
    I would also like to say that Western sources may be bias. Reliable sources supporting the claim of genocide may be found internationally. Personisinsterest (talk) 01:41, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment, while I find the arguments above compelling I am worried about WP:NPOV issues with the proposed title. I would like to see evidence that international sources generally treat what's going on as a conclusive genocide and not just accusations of genocide. A full ruling in South Africa v. Israel may also be relevent. Esolo5002 (talk) 01:37, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
    A full ruling is expected to take years, at least according to Reuters. But, I believe it's the best standard for this kind of case. – Howard🌽33 08:51, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
WP:NODEADLINE. We can wait if necessary. Super Ψ Dro 11:20, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Strong support although if there is so much evidence that it is simply a genocide and not "attempted," I think it would be far more warranted to change it to something like Gaza genocide. GLORIOUSEXISTENCE (talk) 02:25, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment - (commenting as editor who proposed the name change) I was wary to go all in with Gaza genocide at first, but as I can see other editors above agree that it is a more appropriate name, I’d like to formally change the proposed move to reflect this, as it would be more in line with similar articles. Would the best move be to wait out the debate to see how many people would also support Gaza genocide as the proposed name? It’s 2:51 am so I will most likely not reply until later in the morning, but if someone can formally change this, I would be appreciative, thanks. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 02:53, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Support with comment — I'm generally skeptical of putting qualifying verbiage into article titles when it's not justified, and I don't see it as justified here. The standard for accepting the notability of a phenomenon should, in my opinion, run through an accumulation of high-quality expert sources, and on this issue one can look to…
Reviewing these sources has reminded me that many such authoritative statements do have a conditional or future tense, so maybe the proposed title is correct, for now.--Carwil (talk) 05:30, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
One thing is claiming that evidently careless Israeli actions in Gaza have amounted to a genocide, which can be argued, and another is that their intention since the very start has been to erase the people of Gaza. What a ridiculous claim and I cannot believe it is actually being supported. Could someone explain to me what benefits does this proposed title carry? It has no additional informational value. To me it would appear that it only serves to fit a point of view. It also finds no consensus among reliable sources. The current title does and is perfectly neutral. To do something as inflammatory as referring to something as a "genocide" with appeals to emotion rather than objective arguments about what do reliable sources say is unbelievable. Have sources suddenly changed their narrative? I don't know, because this RM is not based on that. Super Ψ Dro 11:20, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
I believe it would be prudent to gather a list of RS and tally up which mention a genocide, a potential genocide, and not a potential genocide. – Howard🌽33 12:07, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
This comment is, frankly, sickeningly apathetic. Dropping your phone is "careless", murdering over 30,000 people, 25,000+ of which are women and children (according to the United States) is NOT "careless".
... and another is that their intention since the very start has been to erase the people of Gaza. What a ridiculous claim and I cannot believe it is actually being supported. It is abundantly clear that this is the aim of Israel. Feel free to read through the database of over five hundred deplorable statements made by Israelis in positions of power here.
The current title is not neutral, and does not accurately reflect the current situation in Gaza. I think the sources provided by Carwil above give high-quality expert opinions on the matter, as Carwil states.
What is happening in Gaza is a genocide by definition of the word. We have expert opinion to back this up. Why should the title not reflect the truth? Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 13:15, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
For context, 2 sources provided by Carwil, namely that from the UN and University of Notre Dame are at best raising concern of possible genocide in Gaza. While some high-profile politicians have straight out calling Israel guilty of genocide, they are not really expert on the topic. While an "allegation of genocide" is already a very serious issue, if we want the title to reflect more closely of what the experts are thinking, I think something like "Risk of genocide in Gaza" would be a more appealing option to a more editors. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 13:27, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
Like I said before, we need to conduct a proper survey of reliable sources to see if they deem it a "Genocide" or a "Possible Genocide". We are Wikipedia, not the World Court, so we shall follow what the reliable sources actually call it, not what we judge it to be. – Howard🌽33 13:35, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
Agree with Howardcorn33 and Sameboat. Very heavy sourcing plus evidence that contrary views are minoritary/fringe will be needed to defend that there is indisputedly genocidal intent from the part of Israel as the proposed move suggests. The only source provided by Davidlofgren1996 in their reply to me is an apparent list of declarations that we Wikipedians cannot synthesize or use to take conclusions of. That would be the job of secondary sources. I am not opposed to "risk of genocide" if editors deem it appropriate. But I still don't get what's the problem with the current title. To me it perfectly reflects the article's contents, which I remind is legal and academic discussion of Israeli crimes in Gaza rather than the crimes themselves (an argument already raised up above by Howardcorn33). Super Ψ Dro 13:56, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
@Super Dromaeosaurus building a table of the sources from the article should have it posted here between 8 and 9 pm GMT. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 15:00, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
  1. - Lula de Silva - Jacobin - Genocide
  2. - Omer Bartov - NYT - Genocidal intent, risk of genocide
  3. - 800 scholars in law, conflict studies, and genocide studies - Third World Approaches to International Law Review - Risk of genocide
  4. - Abdelwahab El-Affendi - Journal of Genocide Research - Genocide
  5. - 100+ Global Rights Groups - Common Dreams - Genocide
  6. - Mark Levene - Journal of Genocide Research - Genocide
  7. - Zoé Samudzi - Journal of Genocide Research - Genocide
  8. - Martin Shaw - Journal of Genocide Research - Genocide
  9. - Elyse Semerdjian - Journal of Genocide Research - Genocide
  10. - Raz Segal - Jewish Currents - Genocide
  11. - 100 Civil Society Organisations and Genocide Scholars - Al-Mezan Centre for Human Rights - Genocide
  12. - Palestinian UN Envoy - Reuters - Genocide
  13. - Human Rights Watch - Human Rights Watch - Failure to prevent and punish Genocide
  14. - Amnesty International - Amnesty International - Failure to prevent and punish Genocide
  15. - Michael Fakhri - The Guardian - Genocide
  16. - Ernesto Verdeja - TIME - gravitating towards a "genocidal campaign"
  17. - Center for Constitutional Rights - The Intercept - Genocide
  18. - 47 scholars in the fields of history, law, and criminology - International State Crime Initiative - Genocide
  19. - Israeli Public Figures represented by Human Rights Lawyer Michael Sfard - The Guardian - Ignoring incitement to genocide
  20. - Ben Kiernan - Time - Does not meet legal definition for genocide
  21. - Adam Jones - Vox - Causing Article 2, Clause C
  22. - Dov Waxman - Vox - Risk of genocide
  23. - Norman Finkelstein - GV Wire - Genocide
  24. - Eva Illouz - Le Monde - Not genocide
  25. - Eva Illouz - The Forward - Incitement to genocide
  26. - Organization of Islamic Countries, The Arab League, and 7 other countries supporting South Africa - Al Jazeera - Genocide
  27. - Venezuela - Mehr News - Genocide
  28. - Australia, Austria, Czechia, France, Germany, Guatemala, Hungary, Israel, Italy, Paraguay, USA, UK - Various prominent news outlets - Not genocide
  29. - Colombia - Associated Press - Genocide
  30. - Genocide Watch - Genocide Watch - Risk of genocide
  31. - Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention - Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention - Genocide
  32. - Norman J. W. Goda - Quillette - Not genocide
  33. - Jeffrey C. Herf - Quillette - Not genocide
  34. - Cuba - Al Jazeera - Genocide
On counting the statements from different countries in the total this puts it at:
  • 30 sources say it's genocide
  • 7 say it's a Risk, Maybe, or Partial
  • 16 say it is not (only counting Eva Illouz's initial statement saying it is not genocide)
-- Cdjp1 (talk) 21:39, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
Thank you. Personally I would see this as proof of there not being an universal or widely accepted interpretation. There are more calling it a genocide than I expected though. It might have increased over time, and might continue to do so. But in this case it would be appropriate to propose a title of this type only in some months next time. The current one is an appropriate middle ground for something with several main views. Super Ψ Dro 23:02, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
I would just point to take note that some of those sources in labelling this as genocide are counting dozens to hundreds of people in the relevant academic fields. Which is not present in the sources stating it is not. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 23:10, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for surveying the various media outlets. It appears that slightly more than 50% of the sources gathered directly acknowledge it as a genocide. However, seeing that there is still not unanimous agreement among RS, I recommend the following:
– Howard🌽33 23:02, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
I oppose this. We aren't obliged to follow other cases' standard practices. Because again I see no problem with the current title. Also I don't think a majority (over 50%) means there is academic consensus. We should be looking to get close to unanimity. We already follow values like these at Wikipedia, see WP:NOTAVOTE, a few strong arguments can override a majority of opposite ones. I recommend that we look into this in some months, or even later. There is no rush. The final veredict of the international investigation is probably going to be the most respected authority on this topic in the future. Not implying that things might not get clearer before that though. Super Ψ Dro 23:07, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
I'd personally like to rename this article "Gaza genocide question" per WP:CONCISE. As for Gaza Humanitarian Crisis, I suppose it should stay as such (although I hardly think 2023-present is necessary) considering that there is not total unanimity. What exactly is the percentage of agreement that we should consider "unanimous" anyway? – Howard🌽33 23:22, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
Anyway I really would like the admins to close this discussion down so we can migrate to discuss this on Gaza humanitarian crisis. I'll put my vote here for now. – Howard🌽33 23:24, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
What was the methodology behind building this list? BilledMammal (talk) 22:13, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
@BilledMammal: All sources currently used within this article that provide a decision on what is occurring in relation to it being a genocide, plus a couple of sources that declare it is not a genocide which were removed from the article due to being published in a GUNREL source, and pulling the states that opposed South Africa's case at the ICJ from the article on that matter. I can pull from more sources should people want, as I have a list of sources to work through adding to this article (both saying it is and is not a genocide), but as is the case here the majority of these as of yet not used sources do declare Israel's actions as genocidal or part of a genocide. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 17:57, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
I don’t think that’s a useful metric; there is no reason to believe that the sources in our article are representative - and given we have sources explicitly stating scholars are split on this question, I would suggest they are not and the fact they are not is an indication of NPOV issues with this article. BilledMammal (talk) 21:56, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
The source of an article should determine the specific name of the article, if said name is under debate. If the event that is the subject of the article is referred to as a genocide by the source, the article should reflect that. Cortador (talk) 09:12, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose: This article is not concerned with the humanitarian crisis in Gaza itself, it is concerned with covering the allegations, statements, and opinions of various organizations and people, including also academic discourse on the genocide question. I instead propose moving this article to Gaza genocide question, per WP:CONCISE. I am still waiting for an admin to close down this discussion and re-open it somewhere more appropriate such as Gaza humanitarian crisis. – Howard🌽33 23:36, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose It is far too contentious to put in wikivoice that Israel is attempting genocide in Gaza, and it isn't supported by the majority sources. Users that are just opining "this is a genocide" without citing sources should be ignored. To move this title to the proposed one would clearly fail Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(events)#Maintaining_neutral_point_of_view. The closer should heed the guidance following passage mentioned in the Naming conventions (events) article: If there is no common name for the event and no generally accepted descriptive word, use a descriptive name that does not carry POV implications. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:26, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
    The majority of reliable sources, as shown in discussion above do call this a genocide. Across a variety of reliable source outlets, including thousands of relevant experts, plus leading figures in the field of genocide research. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 15:24, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
    Is a simple majority of sources enough to deem it a genocide? Or must it be a unanimity? – Howard🌽33 16:04, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
There is no fixed amount. It should be an amount large enough to convince editors that this should be considered a genocide. This doesn't mean that all editors must agree either, but that consensus is achieved. I don't think there's currently consensus among sources to reach a new consensus here, and opposes by other editors would indicate this as well. Super Ψ Dro 16:28, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
I acknowledge that the vast breadth and depth of those who have declared this genocide will not achieve consensus among editors, but just correcting the record for those who claim it "isn't supported by the majority". -- Cdjp1 (talk) 16:34, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose The current title is the most neutral. Being accused of genocide is not the same thing as attempting genocide. Strongly oppose 'Gaza genocide' until the lead sentence can definitively state that "The State of Israel is committing (has committed) genocide..." Some1 (talk) 02:22, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose. To call this "attempted genocide" or "genocide" in wikivoice we need a consensus among reliable sources that it is an attempted genocide or a genocide. No such consensus exists, and doing so in its absence would be a clear WP:NPOV violation. BilledMammal (talk) 02:30, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose no consensus of sources. This proposal is neither evidence-based nor policy-based, and most of the votes are devoid of the same. This CTOP has been experiencing things like this all too much lately. I also agree with Super Dromeosaurus and Hemiauchenia. JM (talk) 04:36, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Need to have that it is genocide from an authorative source like the ICJ or for lots of time to pass and it be agreed in scholarly sources. NadVolum (talk) 11:29, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
    The majority of reliable sources, as shown in discussion above do call this a genocide. Across a variety of reliable source outlets, including thousands of relevant experts, plus leading figures in the field of genocide research. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 15:25, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It is a serious violation of NPOV to refer to these allegations as facts while the CIJ oredered Israel to take measures to prevent [future] acts that could be considered genocidal, and did not order Israel to suspend the military campaign. Had the "attempt" been so obvious, the court's decision would have state it and its orders to Israel would have been much more serious. פעמי-עליון (pʿmy-ʿlywn) - talk 12:48, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
    This not only fails in understanding how the ICJ has ruled in previous genocide cases, where they had meagre suggestions given, when subsequently multiple individuals and parties were convicted of the crimes of genocide, and ignores the entire scholarly side of examination, which provides the reasoning for most cases of genocide to be labelled as such. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 15:28, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Strong support. Most of the world is outraged at the scale of Israeli atrocities in Gaza, which include the murder of thousands upon thousands of children; and "genocide" has become the common term for what is happening there. WP:IAR was written for occasions like this, when we should use common sense and not be dissuaded by a pedantic interpretation of the rules from calling something by what it is. There is nothing wrong with the article title Gaza genocide. NightHeron (talk) 17:32, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Support: Per arguments of user Davidlofgren1996 in the nomination and list of 30+ sources given by Cdjp1 in the survey.
As of present, more than 30,320 Gazans have been killed, 7,800 are missing and more than 71,000 Gazans have been wounded. Out of more than 30,300 people killed; more than 12,600 are children. Approximately 1.9 million Palestinians are forcibly displaced. The ongoing military campaign appears to be genocidal.
Social media is full of anger and shock about the atrocities occuring in Gaza. When I googled "Gaza genocide", there are plenty of websites, journals and articles accusing Israel of perpetrating a genocide.
Some of the sources I read:

  • "Israel is intentionally starving Palestinians and should be held accountable for war crimes – and genocide, according to the UN’s leading expert on the right to food."

    ("Israel is deliberately starving Palestinians, UN rights expert says", "The Guardian", 27 February 2024)
  • "A Textbook Case of Genocide", "Jewish currents.org", 13 October 2023
  • "The Limits of Accusing Israel of Genocide", "The New Yorker", 7 February 2024
Although if there are counter-arguments, I would want to read it and assess. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 20:05, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
Again, I don't think this is the correct article to move. – Howard🌽33 20:54, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
People are misunderstanding the purpose of this article. It is not to document the ongoing humanitarian crisis unfolding currently in Gaza, which has legitimate reason to be classified as a genocide. This article is about the accusations and discussion by various figures on if the crisis should be considered a genocide. Please stop adding votes here. Move this discussion to Gaza humanitarian crisis (2023–present).. – Howard🌽33 20:57, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose. It is considered doubtful, including by RS, judges at the ICJ, legal scholars, governments and many others that this is a genocide. Additionally, the word attempted implies that they couldn’t commit a genocide if they wanted to - a fact untrue about most modern militaries in the vast majority of conflicts in the last century, and definitely true about an alleged nuclear power. Lastly, this is simply not supported by RS: many still speak of accusations or charges, not of an (un-) successful attempt. If the ICJ (and preferably, the SC) agree with this in a few years, it is definitely worthy of debate, but otherwise such a title change is simply not supported by policy. FortunateSons (talk) 22:51, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
    There is also a practical problem with the (as far as I can tell, well made) list of sources: those that consider “not genocide” so obvious that discussing it is pointless, those in different languages and from different areas (like Israeli, German, etc.), those that make statements that provide limited value (saying that there are allegations and not taking a position) and things of limited relevance but high value, such as the statement by the German ICJ judge, which I didn’t find (but may have overlooked).
    Last but not least, IAR is highly inappropriate here: as long as a significant amount of people, governments and scholars (and many RS) are denying the existence of a genocide or making inconclusive statements, you can’t just skip important policies and discourse by using IAR. FortunateSons (talk) 23:04, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose: I second FortunateSons's point about the list of sources. Looking at a few RSes off the top of my head (nytimes, bbc, apnews, guardian), none of them refer to this as a genocide in their own voice. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 02:55, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I've looked at the list compiled by user Cdjp1. Some of them, like the opinion of Nicolas Maduro who is well known for respecting human rights, should be ignored. However this is not the only problem with the list. Looking at sources that explicitly say that there is no genocide produces a warped picture. There are hundreds of news articles which describe the events in Gaza without saying that there is a genocide going on, and this approach ignores them. Alaexis¿question? 14:07, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Strong support as per Lukt64's argument and Cdjp1's sources. If anything, this is a classic case of a state first explicitly attempting ethnic cleansing (per this and per Avi Dichter's "we're rolling out Gaza Nakra 2023" comment) and as it cannot accomplish it (Egypt not opening the border - yet) resorts to genocide. BubbleBabis (talk) 16:52, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Strongest support possible, including a possible move to 2023–2024 Palestinian genocide, given that the bar to terming something a genocide has consistently been low on Wikipedia – a small number of reliable sources was enough as evidenced by other events included in Template:Genocide navbox, incl. e.g. such questionable "genocides" as Transgender genocide. Kashmiri (talk) 15:27, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
    To clarify: transgender genocide is not included as a genocide in the Template:Genocide navbox, but is instead listed in the "Terms" section, which lists concepts, terms, and ideas, that are not necessarily part of genocides but are related and do fall under the remit of genocide studies. Better examples for @Kashmiri:'s point would be the inclusion of the Destruction of Carthage, the Asiatic Vespers, or the Gallic Wars, which are all listed as genocides in the navbox. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 18:06, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose as the new title would be a violation of WP:NPOV (i.e. WP:WIKIVOICE: we should not state contested assertions as facts in Wikipedia's voice). There is a range of views among experts on whether or not Israel's actions meet the legal definition of genocide -- for a singular example, see the nuanced mix of opinions expressed by experts in this TIME article. This is equally important for article titles, which should be neutral unless there is clearly a common name for the topic, which is not the case here. WP:NDESC therefore applies: "allegations" is appropriate as there is an accusation of illegality that has not been proven. Editors would do well to remember that no matter how clear they feel the evidence for genocide is, there is a legitimate dispute among experts in reliable sources over whether or not Israel is committing genocide, and therefore Wikipedia's rules on presenting the dispute neutrally apply: see this explanatory essay for more. Jr8825 • Talk 15:29, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
    • The majority of reliable sources, as shown in discussion above do call this a genocide. This includes a littany that have been published since the Time article, as well as considering the opinions of experts in the Time article. These opinions come from a variety of fields (international law, political science, holocaust studies, genocide studies, history, etc.) as well as from across a variety of reliable source outlets. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 15:24, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
      As another note while Israel has been accused with the crime of genocide, whether a criminal decision is provided by the courts does not actually affect whether a genocide has/is/will occur. This is a point that genocide scholars have written about ever since the adoption of the genocide convention in 1948, and is a point many scholars have brought up in relation to Palestine, and specifically Gaza in 23-24. This is reflected in how a vast swathe of wikipedia articles treat genocides, where many instances are called and labeled as genocide (in wikivoice) based on scholarly opinion without any legal decision having been made, or even legal proceedings having occurred. For examples see any of the dozens of examples at the article List of genocides or that are included in the Template:Genocide navbox -- Cdjp1 (talk) 17:52, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
      The full range and balance of academic views is uncertain as this is a current affairs issue, so expert views will continue to develop and become clearer over time. With that caveat aside, presuming your short list is an accurate reflection of the current opinions of experts, you've counted 30 sources that say Israel is committing genocide and 23 that say there are caveats to this claim, or it is not genocide. This is nowhere near the clear consensus required to state there is a genocide in wikivoice and the accurate way to describe this disagreement is "allegations". Jr8825 • Talk 18:02, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
      I did my best to steelman the not genocide position, including opinions on the matter I personally believe do not meet the standard we should be using. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 18:12, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
      I appreciated your integrity in doing so. I understand your position about inconsistency across Wikipedia's treatment of the term genocide – as a general comment, I think this is simply reflecting a broader inconsistency with the application of the term in media, discourse and politics, because of the weight it carries, where attention is paid, and who is listened to. For every example of where we describe an event as genocide, there is another topic such as Tigray War where the term genocide has been legitimately used by some experts to characterise atrocities, but for various reasons it has not gained widespread traction & we have not applied the term to our article. My position is that if there is significant disagreement about whether or not there is a genocide, we should cover the discussion in detail, but be particularly cautious about applying the term in wikivoice until there is a clear consensus/it becomes the accepted term. I don't think it's a moral failing on the part of editors to describe "allegations" of genocide rather than "genocide", even if events eventually come to be accepted as genocide, as we don't know whether this will happen. Documenting the events themselves, and the surrounding discussion and about whether or not they amount to genocide, is still serving our purpose of educating readers and reflecting the current state of knowledge/range of opinions. Jr8825 • Talk 18:27, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment I apologise for any confusion I've caused. The wording of the a-i alert seems confusing as it says "you must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days, and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on a page within this topic." without mentioning what you can't do without ECP, the decision is clearer, saying without ECP editors cannot make "edits relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict, to pages and discussions in all namespaces with the exception of userspace ("related content"). Thus I've removed an edit by someone without ECP/ Doug Weller talk 17:17, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Support (with caveats), as can be seen from my comments in replies to others here I do support labelling this as a genocide in wiki articles, based on the 3:1-ish ratio of reliable sources (ignoring how various sources that label it a genocide do so with the signing dozens to hundreds of relevant specialists, and a litany of other reliable sources that also call it a genocide which are currently not used in this article). Caveats: I am swayed by the argumentation that this article should remain with it's current title and scope, and that the Gaza humanitarian crisis (2023–present) should instead be renamed, so if it be under consideration that this discussion should be closed and moved to that article's talk page, I support that action over renaming this article. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 18:46, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
    Just to clarify, what do you propose Gaza humanitarian crisis should be renamed to? Jr8825 • Talk 19:11, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
    The argument as laid out by others is to rename the Gaza humanitarian crisis article to Gaza genocide, as that details more the conditions and actions that are brining about said genocide, where as this one only touches on them and focuses more on the academic and legal discourse. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 20:36, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
A note for the closer just in case, I really don't think discussion here should determine the title of that other article. I think we should start a new RM pinging everyone here instead on that article's talk page. The result of this RM should focus strictly on this article. Super Ψ Dro 22:56, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
It's a bit irritating how so many on both sides continue to misunderstand and misrepresent the purpose of this article. If we did move this article specifically, we would either have to move it back to its original name or rewrite the entire text to better align with the title. Either way is unnecessary hassle, so I expect an admin to step in and move the RM. – Howard🌽33 08:05, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Apologies. Is the following better?
STRONGLY OPPOSE -- Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza, Attempted genocide by Israel in their 2023 attack on Gaza and, especially, Genocide in Gaza, should be deleted. If Israel wanted to "kill everyone in Gaza" as at least one editor stated or quoted on this colloquy, they could do so far more efficiently. They are seeking out the Iranian funded tunnels built under civilian areas and hospitals. Does anyone refer to the Six Day War as "genocide" even though the Arab/Muslim intent was to destroy the State of Israel or the al-Assad attack on Homs as genocide or even the 1492 edict of Alhambra expelling non-Christians from Spain and marking the onset of the Inquisition and colonization of the Americas as genocide? Nirva20 (talk) 21:37, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
Genocide of Indigenous peoples ??? Salmoonlight (talk) 21:46, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
I think they are referring to the expulsion in Spain, not the aftermath. FortunateSons (talk) 21:49, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
I don't think you know how genocide works judging by that second sentence. Salmoonlight (talk) 21:51, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
Wouldn't Gazans' plight fit into Genocide of Indigenous peoples, then? Nirva20 (talk) 21:54, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
Well, that gets us into the question of Gazans are indigenous, an entirely to complex question for Wikipedia to decide as a precursor for inclusion. FortunateSons (talk) 21:56, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
I suggest reading "El-Affendi, Abdelwahab (18 January 2024). "The Futility of Genocide Studies After Gaza". Journal of Genocide Research: 1–7. doi:10.1080/14623528.2024.2305525.". A genocide need not be successful for it to be a genocide, under any definition of genocide accepted in law or scholarship. As to the other instances you list, you show you have no reading whatsoever on genocide scholarship, as many of them are debated and have been compared to and considered in regards to conceptions of genocide and genocidal actions. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 22:38, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
"If Israel wanted to "kill everyone in Gaza" as at least one editor stated or quoted on this colloquy, they could do so far more efficiently."
Are you implying that Israel isn't committing genocide in Gaza because they aren't killing Palestinians fast enough? HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 23:14, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
No. I am stating that Israel's goal is not to "kill everyone in Gaza" (which would be the most obvious definition of genocide) as some have claimed and that what has been happening since 8 October 2023 is not "genocide", a term some (including on Wikipedia) throw about far too carelessly. Mimicking the UN, which seats third world despots and tyrants on its human rights committees, doesn't convince me either. Nirva20 (talk) 01:00, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
@Nirva20 First read the definition of genocide before posting this sort of nonsense. It's not far. It's on Wikipedia even. — kashmīrī TALK 02:11, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
I am a supporter of the State of Israel and I will never accept that its conduct has ever been or is genocidal. Period. There have been many actual genocides throughout history. Why don't you check and see if each has its own proper Wikipedia article? Nirva20 (talk) 02:18, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
You are free to support whomever you wish, even Alpha Centauri. Publishing on Wikipedia requires adopting a neutral point of view. You may ask yourself whether you are able to respect that policy. — kashmīrī TALK 02:21, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
I would be genuinely fascinated to hear what you believe is currently happening in Gaza, especially considering Israel has admitted to murdering numerous hostages. When you have one of the most thorough intelligence agencies in the world, but still end up bombing your own people being held captive, I think it’s clear that you intend to indiscriminately murder everyone in Gaza. When you kill people who were waving a white flag, regardless of who you believe them to be, I think it’s clear that you intend to indiscriminately murder everyone in Gaza. When you are indiscriminately bombing civilians in Gaza, I think it’s clear that you intend to indiscriminately murder everyone in Gaza.
Do you need any more evidence? 1, 2, 3 We can even go back to before Oct 2023 (1, 2, 3) if you’d like, because Israel has made its intention to wipe out Palestinians from Gaza for a very, very long time now. Such is their dehumanisation of the Palestinians, Israeli companies “joke” about building holiday homes in the ruins of Gaza. As Israel been given carte blanche to continue with their genocide by the west, we will see thousands more die. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 06:16, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
While all of these are terrible cases, none of the sources you've just linked are useful to showing how is the academic and legal consensus currently. In fact most of them do not mention the word "genocide". You took these cases and defined what is happening in Gaza as a genocide based on them. That's not how it works. Super Ψ Dro 23:17, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
I have defined nothing. My basis for the claim that Israel is committing genocide is based on the Genocide Convention, which very clearly states that genocide is defined as any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such: (a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.. The point of the sources I included was to show that Israel is, and has been, deliberately committing at least two of these acts for a number of years, specifically targeting Palestinians. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 08:50, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
kill everyone in Gaza The UN definition does not require that literally everyone is killed, and neither does the more lax definition used in some academic circles. That would be an impossibly high bar to clear. KetchupSalt (talk) 21:16, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Was the intent of the Arab/Muslim states during the Six-Day War to destroy, in whole or in part, the people of Israel as a national, ethnic, or religious group? If not, then that would explain why people don't refer to it as a genocide. Arctic Circle System (talk) 04:52, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose - like most, I think the Israeli government actions in the last four months are abhorrent and massively disproportionate. But this isn't about what I think and we need to keep WP:WIKIVOICE and WP:NPOV in mind - I don't see a strong enough consensus in RS for this move. Too divisive in my mind. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:21, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose for linguistic reasons I agree with a move that openly declares what is happening in Gaza a genocide, but I don't believe the "attempted" part of the title is accurate. A state commits genocide or it doesn't. Very few genocides in human history have ever actually successfully destroyed an entire people, and nobody only calls events such as The Holocaust as an "attempted" genocide despite the existence of Holocaust survivors. I would prefer something like Genocide of Palestinians (2023-present) instead. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 23:09, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
    This seems reasonable to me. David A (talk) 16:22, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment: I'd much prefer Gaza genocide. Israel's declared intent was to destroy the Palestinian ethnic group in Gaza by making the area uninhabitable, killing off a proportion of the population, and terrorising the remainder into escaping to Egypt (vide Israeli requests to Egypt to open the border). It's a textbook case of genocide. — kashmīrī TALK 02:18, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
    Isn't that what Turkey and Pakistan did and have been doing since the 20th century to non-Muslims? Nirva20 (talk) 02:20, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
    @Nirva20 Another bullshit from you. Pakistan state has several privileges for non-Muslims, including a double quota in the Parliament, permission to drink alcohol, and so on. There's no systemic persecution of non-Muslims. Turkey is a largely secular state – arguably more secular than Israel. Why don't you learn about the world before editing an encyclopaedia? — kashmīrī TALK 02:25, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
    Turkey is flexing to recreate the Ottoman caliphate and Pakistan still has the death penalty for blasphemy. Tell Aasiya Noreen how privileged non-Muslims are there. Nirva20 (talk) 02:33, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
    Why don't you stop digging deeper? Pakistan is no angel in its treatment of minorities, but to-date not a single person has ever been executed for blasphemy in Pakistan, so the "genocide" label doesn't stick. By the way, blasphemy is also a criminal offence in a number of countries worldwide, including in Denmark, Ireland, and the Netherlands[9] – will you call them out for genocide? You are mixing up religious discrimination with genocide, likely because you have no understanding of legal concepts, no idea about what constitutes genocide, and no idea about other countries whose names you just fly people in the face hoping to, what, impress them? For the sake of my time, EOT. — kashmīrī TALK 10:24, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
    Let’s lower the heat on that response, please? FortunateSons (talk) 10:28, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
    This article is not about Turkey or Pakistan so I fail to see the relevance of this comment. But if that question matters, articles already exist on genocides perpetuated by these states or their predecessors (Greek genocide, Bangladesh genocide). InterDimensional14 (talk) 01:47, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
    WP:NOTAFORUM. Brusquedandelion (talk) 19:56, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
    I would also support the title Gaza genocide. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 03:01, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
    Yes. I also find that title preferable. David A (talk) 16:26, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
    I'd prefer Gazan genocide, as it's in line with other titles such as Rwandan genocide and Cambodian genocide. Arctic Circle System (talk) 04:58, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
    I've struck this comment as Kashmiri has previously given a bolded response (see the "Strongest support possible" post above). Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:52, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
    Thanks. Didn't notice a double vote as my signature failed there. I've converted my !vote into a comment. — kashmīrī TALK 23:49, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose for two reasons. First, word "attempted" is wrong and should not be used. If someone indeed "attempted" a genocide, this is already a genocide, plain and simple. Secondly, a lot of civilians will be killed in any significant military conflict and especially during urban warfare (as in this case). One question here if the reasonable and possible precautions were taken to minimize the civilian casualties. If not, this could be a war crime, but not necessarily a genocide. But even that is very much debatable because some precautions were taken, but critics say they were not sufficient. There is a much higher bar for calling something a genocide in WP voice, and it was not passed in this case, as best review sources say, i.e "Scholars are torn on whether the current conflict can be yet classified a genocide officially." [10]. My very best wishes (talk) 15:09, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
I would suggest to rename this page to Allegations of genocide in Israel-Hamas war. That would increase the scope of the page and make it more NPOV. My very best wishes (talk) 18:27, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
Merely calling it a war with Hamas is not NPOV at all, given the overwhelming amounts of evidence of an extreme focus on systematic slaughter of civilians rather than enemy combatants. David A (talk) 05:17, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
I think such title would be better because it would allow describing allegations by the both sides on the same page (i.e. to merge this page and Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Hamas attack on Israel). Right now we artificially divide the Israel-Hamas war into two parts, i.e. the attack by Hamas and the response by Israel. They could be treated on the same page, although keeping them separately is not a POV problem (I agree with this). My very best wishes (talk) 18:35, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
What benefit would merging "Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Hamas attack on Israel" with this one provide? The scope and events for each article are different, so it seems forcing two articles together for, based on your comment, "both sides"-ing the events the articles deal with. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 20:05, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
yes, better keep them separately. My very best wishes (talk) 21:44, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
  • However, deliberately denying food and water to a population or deliberately driving them away from a given geographic area are not war crimes; they are indicators of a genocidal intent. Compare with Holodomor where nobody was shot – people were just deliberately starved to death. — kashmīrī TALK 19:29, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
    • deliberately driving them away from a given geographic area is generally not considered genocide or proof of intent, even though it can be under some (exceptional) circumstances .
    • And using actions such as not providing food and water as anything but a weak indicator needs to be done with a high degree of care in any alleged genocide (particularly those that are also wars), as they can be fully covered as war crimes (or other unethical/illegal conduct) without amounting to any intent to exterminate in whole or in part (hypothetical example: we will give you food once you overthrow your government -> definitely unethical and illegal, but clearly not genocide, as you want them to be desperate and not dead)
    FortunateSons (talk) 19:45, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Yes, I agree this is a reasonable analogy. Deliberately denying food and water to a population and preventing them from leaving the affected area using military forces (that is what NKVD did during the Holodomor) may be a genocide. And indeed, the Israeli forces do not allow them to escape to Israel. But another place to leave is Egypt. Is not it Egypt who controls that border? If so, then Israel and Egypt could be responsible if these events will result in mass death of civilians from hunger (I assume that did not happen yet, but the events are definitely moving in this direction). But this is just my understanding. The RS say what they say (cited above). My very best wishes (talk) 19:57, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Egypt possibly, however from whatever I've read, Egypt's aim is actually to prevent the 2 million Palestinians being relocated to its territory. This, as I'm reading, apart from being a humanitarian catastrophe and rendering moot any talks of a two-state solution, would expose Egypt to a near-certain risk that its soil will be used for cross-border armed attacks against Israel, likely for generations. (It's assumed that Israel will never allow those people back). Egypt seems betting that the international pressure will stop Israel from invading Rafah; yet simultaneously it started constructing a gigantic enclosure where, it is said, it will try to settle Palestinians in case of an Israeli onslaught on the city.[11] Whether this means they are complicit in genocide, it's difficult to ascertain. As we are told, it's intent that matters, and it may be hard to prove that Egypt's intent was to destroy the Palestinian ethnic group in Gaza, — kashmīrī TALK 23:36, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Yes, indeed. But I just do not see how they can survive in no man's land in Gaza while IDF battle with Hamas for another year. My very best wishes (talk) 03:47, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
P.S. As someone only casually familiar with this conflict, I would assume that all civilians must be allowed to voluntarily evacuate somewhere (probably to Egypt) during the hostilities, just as it would be during any other war (e.g. a lot of Ukrainian civilians were evacuated or just left the country after the invasion by Russian forces, etc.) But again, it only matters what the RS say on the subject.My very best wishes (talk) 20:15, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Let's be real. Little precautions were taken by Israel. Also I heavily disagree with diverting some attention to Egypt. A third country should not be coerced into taking any responsabilities because one country is committing crimes in another. I doubt many sources hold a stance like this. Super Ψ Dro 23:37, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
On one hand yes, on the other you'd try to avoid such situations as during the war in Abkhazia where 250,000+ people fled the fighting, only to never be allowed back; nor were they allowed to integrate into the host society as Georgia needed them remain refugees in order to maintain international pressure on Abkhazia.
Similar situation was with regard to Syrian refugees in Turkey and, prominently, in Lebanon.
Removing entire populations to other countries is not always the best solution long term. — kashmīrī TALK 23:43, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
The latest event of this nature was Flight of Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians. I agree such things amount to ethnic cleansing. My very best wishes (talk) 03:38, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
Yep, although in that last event, I wonder whether Armenian families were forced out (that would indeed be ethnic cleansing) or they just decided to leave "because everyone is leaving" or because they didn't see their future in Azerbaijan. I'm asking this because two years prior, millions of Ukrainians run away from Ukraine even though they were not being forced out (many later returned). Again, this would boil down to the actions of the invader. In Gaza, it's blatantly obvious: invading forces have publicly ordered the population to remove itself from the area. — kashmīrī TALK 11:49, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
  • But remember, there is a huge difference between this case and Holodomor. This whole thing was initiated by the attack of Hamas on Israel. This changes everything. One can say that it is Hamas who is responsible for genocide of their own people. Or as Israeli commenters say, Hamas is using their own people as human shields. Moreover, this is war. Holodomor was not. My very best wishes (talk) 14:41, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
    Just as a note, no someone committing crimes against you does not give you permission to conduct a genocide under international law. And should such a situation occur, then the culpability for genocide is still on those who conducted it, not those who committed crimes. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 15:10, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
Yes, of course. Committing a genocide (if there is one) can not be justified by anything. But is it a genocide? The Hamas-Israel war was initiated by the attack by Hamas. This is the reason for Israel to argue this is just a war, they have been attacked and acted in self-defense [12]. My very best wishes (talk) 15:32, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
Comment:An attack being committed by a group representing an ethnic, linguistic, national, or religious group does not itself preclude the response to that attack being a genocide. Attempting to destroy, in whole or in part, an ethnic group in response to an attack doesn't make that response not genocide. Arctic Circle System (talk) 03:14, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
Yes, of course. It is precisely the question if Israel comitted genocide while excersizing their right on self-defense. My very best wishes (talk) 18:13, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
No, Israel has not been exercising its right to self-defence other than on 7/10. What Israel started on 27/10 was a military offensive, not a defensive. It's undeducated to conflate defensive actions and offensive actions. — kashmīrī TALK 05:36, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
You are mistaken. Conducting an offensive operation can be exercizing the right on self-defense. Consider Ukrainian offensives. Yes, the right of Israel on self-defense in this case was disputed, but on different grounds [13]. My very best wishes (talk) 01:42, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
One can say that it is Hamas who is responsible for genocide of their own people. Just casually justifying genocide I see. Lovely. KetchupSalt (talk) 21:45, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
We have a big page, Use of human shields by Hamas. Is it genocide? No, this is more like a war crime. Is Hamas responsible for the war? Yes, sure, as the side that started the war. Does it justfy genocide by anyone? No, of course not. My very best wishes (talk) 18:13, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
This reasoning only leads to such nonsense as saying that Jews were responsible for part of the Holocaust because they started the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising. You're saying that the party that starts an uprising is responsible for all of the subsequent pacification, right? — kashmīrī TALK 05:39, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
That is completely irrelevant. Also as far as human shields go, the IDF regularly uses Palestinians as literal human shields. The Palestinian resistance is also completely justified in armed struggle against the occupation. KetchupSalt (talk) 23:27, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
If you are talking about the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel, then no, it was not "completely justified", and it was not something suggested in the UN documents you linked to. And yes, it was obviously an action that started the ongoing Israel-Hamas war. This is just a fact. I am not trying to justify anything or whitewash anyone. My very best wishes (talk) 18:39, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
  • The strongest support possible. What the nation of Israel is currently doing is far beyond absolutely heinous, and the sum total evidence I have seen both via Wikipedia and elsewhere has been overwhelmingly convincing. The International Court of Justice also ordered Israel to take all measures to prevent any acts that could be considered genocidal according to the 1948 Genocide Convention, and said that at least some of the South African allegations appear to fall under the provisions of the Genocide Convention. David A (talk) 15:51, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
    That is factually inaccurate: the standard that was currently met in the ICJ was plausible, which is significantly lower than beyond all reasonable doubt.
    Additionally, Wikipedia pages don’t „prove“, they simply explain the points of view of RS. FortunateSons (talk) 16:04, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
    I have seen lots of video evidence as well, so the sum total of all the evidence I have read or watched has still proven overwhelmingly convincing for me. David A (talk) 16:30, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
    I get that; would you mind striking the inaccurate claim(s) from your original comment? :) FortunateSons (talk) 16:36, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
    I have now modified my text above according to what Wikipedia currently says regarding the topic. David A (talk) 16:44, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
    Thank you! FortunateSons (talk) 16:49, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
    No problem. David A (talk) 17:01, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment: there is no "attempted" with genocide. It either is or it isn't a genocide. It may be too early to imply in WikiVoice that it is, even if the evidence is mounting. If "attempted" is removed, and if there's sufficient RS for it, then I would support renaming. KetchupSalt (talk) 21:23, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment: The tone and substance of this discussion has veered into original research and accusatory language. I'm not going to single anyone out here, so I've left a few messages on the talk pages of participants, just as a friendly reminder. To reiterate, accusations of dishonesty are not appropriate here, and editors should not be applying their own analysis on the definition of genocide when considering their !vote. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:59, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
I ask Thebiguglyalien not to try to play police and contribute to the discussion and the consensus-building process. They have decided to send some kind of warning to 14 editors that have participated in this discussion which I am pretty sure is the vast majority if not outright the totality of them. This includes cases of users who put one single perfectly neutral comment [14]. I am sure good faith was behind their comments but frankly I don't find them well-thought nor helpful. Super Ψ Dro 23:03, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
@Thebiguglyalien You might like to know that original research is welcome and indeed encouraged on Talk pages. More importantly, editors must feel free to express their views in any way they like within the constraints of the project's policies. It would be great if you let people share their comments about article subjects, even if they are not a copy-and-paste of press articles. — kashmīrī TALK 23:58, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
They're allowed to, and I didn't use any sort of warning template to imply otherwise. But they should be notified that these arguments on their own will not be considered in the close. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:05, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose as we should wait for what the ICJ rules (we already note in the article that they say it is plausible) or for numerous reliable sources to report it as such - I have yet to see a list and while I am knowledgable about the Western media's pro-Israel bias I haven't seen enough reliable non-Western/English sources refer to it as such. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 23:09, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
I second a call to wait. It all will be surely clearer in the future. We don't necessarily have to wait for the ICJ ruling but I am pretty sure it will be regarded as the most authoritative source for this for a long time once it comes out. Super Ψ Dro 23:17, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Third FortunateSons (talk) 07:09, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
  • I think that this is an excellent analysis, and agree with it. David A (talk) 06:11, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose as a WP:NPOV violation. The current title is much more neutral. Like Some1 said, being accused of genocide is not the same as doing genocide. There isn't source consensus that Israel is doing genocide. Hogo-2020 (talk) 07:33, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
    @Hogo-2020 what would satisfy this threshold, in your opinion 70.31.178.242 (talk) 08:03, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment - To any !Oppose votes, which definition of genocide are you using when determining a definition for Israel's actions? While it is not deniable that most, if not all, of us here have strong personal opinions on the subject, the fact is that there is an objective definition for genocide. Given that we have such definitions, specifically the Genocide Convention, why is it that we have to wait for a specific scholar (of number of scholars) or specific amount of RS describing this as a genocide (which is unlikely to happen while a lot of them are Israel-backed), when the situation meets the definition?
If there were opinion to be had on the subject, then yes, I can fully understand holding off renaming the article, but by the United Nations' definition, Israel is intending (see sources given above in this article by myself) to destroy a national group, Palestinians, by killing members of said group. It has also caused "serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group", and is guilty of "inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part". This is not opinion-based, this is not disputable, these are things that are objectively happening. It meets the conditions for the definition of genocide (including Wikipedia's own definition) it is genocide. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 09:05, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
If we need RS to confirm something that adheres to a definition, then I think we need to add “reportedly a” or “generally considered by a number of sources to be a” before each description on Wikipedia (i.e. “The European tree frog (Hyla arborea) is generally considered by a number of sources to be a small[1][2] tree frog.[3][4][5]” This, of course, would be ridiculous. But that is how ridiculous this discussion is; why do we have strict definitions if we are going to just ignore them to satisfy personal biases? Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 09:34, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
I would wait for the ICJ judgement, and potentially its reception (in either direction).
You can not kill anyone/very few people and still commit a genocide, or kill an entire ethnic group without committing genocide. There is a reason while dolus specialis is such a complicated and yet essential issue, and I agree with the assessment of the German judge (maybe on incitement, unlikely to be an actual genocide).
We (as in Wikipedians) cannot make our own assessment even when we have legal or other relevant backgrounds, and the ones that don’t definitely can’t. FortunateSons (talk) 11:27, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
Well, when looking at Template:Genocide navbox, it doesn't seem that an ICJ ruling is viewed as an inclusion criterion. Following the sources, Wikipedia have called certain events genocides even in absence of ICJ decisions. — kashmīrī TALK 11:55, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
@Kashmiri what seems to be the standard for Wikipedia, is detailed in the lede of the article List of genocides (though the list also seems to be more stringent than the navbox, likely due to need to provide explanation in article text and multiple sources for adding entries to the list), where a significant section of scholarship (not necessarily a majority) needs to label an event as a genocide according to the UN legal definition. So an ICJ ruling is not necessary. I believe this criteria has come about due to the vast amount of historical genocides that will never be seen in the ICJ. And this is then the crux of contention for more recent genocides, where labelling current or recent regimes as genocidal without a court ruling on Wikipedia seems defamatory, and how this consideration is deployed is of course highly politicised based on who the accused are. Cdjp1 (talk) 12:26, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
That is a good point, the standard for a historical genocide may be different from a contemporary genocide. For example, if the ICJ were to consider it not to be a genocide, that would be a strong indication, but could nevertheless be convincingly called genocide if 90% of scholarship disagrees. On the other hand, if the ICJ calls it a genocide and encounters 90% negative reactions from scholars, it should credibly remain as just accusations.
While the question of what to do in absence of a court ruling is complex in many cases, we are very likely to receive a ruling here, so we just have to wait; it really isn’t urgent. FortunateSons (talk) 12:56, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
Can you bring an example on that list in which we label an event as genocide even though a majority of scholars disagree? A majority of scholars agreeing at the very least would seem to me like a basic requirement. Super Ψ Dro 17:52, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
An ICJ ruling would be 100% cause for WP to consider it genocide imo, but it is not the only way it could (as Cdjp1 also points out). Since a final ruling is likely to take many years, in the interim an overwhelming majority of scholars considering it genocide according to the UN definition could suffice. KetchupSalt (talk) 15:37, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
We aren’t in a hurry, we can leave it as allegations until we get a judgement. FortunateSons (talk) 15:50, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
I agree there's no hurry. But we also don't have to wait for the ICJ. My main worry is WP:RECENTISM and also waiting for academia to catch up. An ICJ guilty verdict would just remove any doubt. KetchupSalt (talk) 21:48, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
I think the ICJ will only take 2-3 years, so we can wait for them + reception in my opinion. But yes, we definitely need clear academic consensus to remove accusations from the title, and that will probably take just as long, particularly considering the (personal opinion warning) poor quality of some of the pleading on special intent by SA, so someone would probably have to do significant amounts of research to get to a credible claim for that. FortunateSons (talk) 21:59, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
@FortunateSons: Any idea what the threshold for academic consensus is and how to evaluate it? Arctic Circle System (talk) 03:08, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
By searching Google Scholar and JSTOR and reviewing the sources found there. An academic consensus may develop more quickly than an ICJ case, but it still won't be instantaneous. It takes months for academic papers to go through the review process for publication in a journal. It's therefore difficult to write a paper discussing genocide in the context of Gaza if events are developing so rapidly that the conclusions will likely be outdated by in a few months' time -- I expect we'll see more scholarship when a new status quo emerges, for example if the Israeli military withdraws or the violence slows down. Jr8825 • Talk 05:51, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
Probably that. A lazier method, but decent when it comes to getting a picture, is looking what the main authors/universities/institutes are saying/have published. FortunateSons (talk) 07:17, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
As I reminded you on your talk page, coming to your own conclusion about the facts is inappropriate and may not be used to dictate what we do with the article. Interpreting the definition and whether something meets it yourself is original research. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:44, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
"which definition of genocide are you using when determining a definition for Israel's actions" - I'm not using any definition myself, because as an anonymous editor I don't have any authority to make an assessment and apply it in Wikipedia's voice (irrespective of my real life views on the matter or expertise) – the principle of no original research/views. All I'm doing is pointing out that currently there clearly isn't unanimous agreement among outside observers that what is happening is specifically a "genocide", as opposed to war crimes and human rights abuses. I read/listen/watch a range of high quality news sources daily, including the Guardian, the Financial Times, the Economist and Channel 4 News; none of these sources and their reporters and journalists directly refer to events as genocide – they sometimes interview/invite experts to discuss whether or not Israel's actions could be considered genocide, and even then, the topic is not the most prominent feature of their coverage of Gaza, and the word is often entirely absent from articles or episodes. An encyclopedia, which follows rather than leads sources, should not be labelling the overall situation a genocide unless there is a clearer shift in that direction among sources. Jr8825 • Talk 05:04, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
@Jr8825 you keep using the term unanimous, we do not require unanimous agreement for it, as that would be an impossible bar to ever clear. Depending on where we draw the boundaries, it would only require a majority or a consensus. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 11:25, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
@Cdjp1 I agree, and sorry for my unclear wording. What I meant there is that there's far from unanimous agreement currently, as in, there's no clear majority/consensus position. Jr8825 • Talk 14:29, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
@Jr8825 no worries, as long as we understand where we're at we can continue having constructive discussion. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 14:54, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Strongest Oppose possible horrifically biased. going from "accusations of genocide" to "attempted genocide" is unencyclopedic.
  • Oppose for three reasons.
  1. As others have mentioned, the word "attempted" is meaningless here. Either it's a genocide or it's not.
  2. The proposed title is not WP:CONCISE. A better title would be Gaza genocide.
  3. Most importantly, this article isn't even about the genocide. It's about discourse about the genocide. i.e. this is not the right article to move. As Howardcorn33 has pointed out repeatedly, this move should be proposed in the article Gaza humanitarian crisis, for which I believe sources support a move to Gaza genocide.
Thus this article, being about discourse about the events, rather than the events themselves, should be moved to the more concise title Gaza genocide question. So while I support the move in spirit, the proposed title is clunky and, most importantly, this is not the right article to move. Dylanvt (talk) 23:02, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Arguably the principal problem for this suggestion is the conceptual distinction between a genocide and debate about whether that genocide occurred. This article is about the latter. Therefore, the move request really really ought to concern Gaza humanitarian crisis (2023–present). This has been repeatedly raised.
As far as I can tell, no supporters of the move have responded to this concern. Nor do I see how any of the arguments made in support (some of which I respond to explicitly below, giving them in italicised form) of the move can be read as a response to that concern.
  1. It is simply obvious that Israel’s actions and intent are genocidal. First, that is for reliable sources to judge (as has been repeatedly raised), not editors. Second, this, again, would motivate moving Gaza humanitarian crisis (2023–present) rather than this article.
  2. Reliable sources call Israel’s actions genocidal. Again, that motivates moving other articles, not this one.
  3. Failing to rename the article amounts to peddling Israeli narratives. First, it doesn’t, any more than the title of Holodomor genocide question peddles Russian narratives. This is an argument for renaming, e.g., Gaza humanitarian crisis (2023–present). Second, to the extent reliable sources support the Israeli view, our coverage will have to reflect that.
  4. Failing to rename the article obscures the facts. Again, this appears to concern Gaza humanitarian crisis (2023–present) or similar, rather than this article, and ignores the conceptual distinction above.
  5. We should ignore all rules; adherence to them would be pedantic in view of the scale of the tragedy. Wikipedia covers lots of tragedies, and it does not seem that we should ignore rules about all of them; the rules should probably apply to e.g. The Holocaust in large part. Moreover, even if we should IAR in this case, why not, again, rename Gaza humanitarian crisis (2023–present)? That would surely respect the urgency of the matter.
  6. The bar for renaming articles genocide has been low. Why not then rename Gaza humanitarian crisis (2023–present)?
  7. Hesitance vis à vis calling Israeli actions genocidal is mostly diplomatic. I don’t think we are meant to read sources this way on Wikipedia, and, again, this ignores the conceptual distinction between the question of whether something amounts to a genocide and a genocide itself.
Docentation (talk) 20:16, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
I think where WP:IAR comes into play is with questions like what you've written above: to the extent reliable sources support the Israeli view, our coverage will have to reflect that. Cases like this are exactly where ignoring all rules becomes important, since maintaining neutrality, objectivity, and high quality are more important that repeating whatever the NYT says just because they're judged to be reliable. Otherwise, I agree with the broad conceptual distinction of your vote. Dylanvt (talk) 04:54, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose (update below) for the reasons stated just above by Docentation and in the section below by Howardcorn33. Debate about a genocide and the genocide itself are two distinct (though related) topics. The current name Gaza humanitarian crisis (2023–present) is currently a euphemism for what is either a crime against humanity or a genocide according to most scholars; the term "genocide" attracts more attention, but as for the War crimes in the Tigray War, a 10% genocide done within the two years from Nov 2020 to Nov 2022 (and still ongoing as a famine crime)), scholars see stopping the event as higher priority than deciding between a crime against humanity versus a genocide. Nevertheless, Wikipedia should choose a better name for Gaza humanitarian crisis (2023–present) while keeping this article with the current name (or change to "Debate about genocide ..."). Boud (talk) 13:11, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose: WP:NCENPOV is very clear on article title requirements for controversial topics. Per the policy, we should use 1) the common name for an event; 2) if not common name exists, a generally accepted word used when describing the event; or 3) if there is no generally accepted word, a descriptive title that avoids POV implications. The sources shared do not establish a common name, and the body of reliable sources that do not refer to these events as a genocide means that there is not a credible reason to hold that "genocide" is a generally-accepted word. There are serious significant, credible allegations of genocide; that is not in dispute, and those allegations should be the focus of this article and discussion. A number of editors have appealed to their interpretation of the facts on the ground, but that is not sufficient under WP:NOR and WP:VERIFY: Wikipedia's content is determined by previously published information rather than by the personal beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it. We are not a jury. Our role is not to be finders of fact; it is to reflect what sources reliably call an event or occurrence. --Delta1989 (talk) (contributions) 13:43, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose. If the current Gaza War is considered a genocide, then what about the Allied bombings of Japan and Germany (especially the Bombing of Dresden) which also claimed many lives on this scale? Or the Korean War when the Americans flattened Pyongyang and North Korea? Or the Vietnam War when US forces bombed Cambodia? Those are war crimes, yes, but a genocide? Also the proposed title is a bit odd, which seems to imply Israel is committing genocide but not successful. This article is more on various groups (NGOs, ICC, governments) accessing and alleging whether Israeli actions in Gaza amount to a genocide. The proposed title would have suited describing the existing humanitarian crisis in Gaza, not this page.--ZKang123 (talk) 05:20, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose - per WP:NPOV. The nomination makes absolutely no reference to policy and is a clearly a WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS proposal.--estar8806 (talk) ★ 23:42, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This is a fringe opinion, far from the mainstream view of reliable sources on this topic. Marokwitz (talk) 15:12, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Support either of Gazan genocide or Attempted genocide by Israel in their 2023 attack on Gaza. Converting the humanitarian crisis page into the "genocide itself" article versus this article as the "debate about the genocide" page doesn't look viable. An alternative could be to split this article into a "debate" article versus a "what happened article", but I think that much of "what happened" is already more or less covered in various sub- or overlapping articles, such as Gaza humanitarian crisis (2023–present), so there's no need for a split.
    United Nations Special Rapporteur on the occupied Palestinian territories Francesca Albanese's report was released today.[1] This is the most neutral and reliable source that we have apart from the ICJ proceedings. The claim that there is no ongoing genocide is now a fringe opinion. Both the actions and the intent are clear according to Francesca, and the IV Humanitarian camouflage – ... distortion of international humanitarian law articulated by Israel as a state policy in its official documents ... illustrates a clear pattern of conduct from which the requisite genocidal intent is the only reasonable inference to be drawn. The proposed new name is justified based on the sources. Boud (talk) 17:21, 26 March 2024 (UTC)


References

  1. ^ Francesca Albanese (26 March 2024), Anatomy of a Genocide – Report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967, Francesca Albanese (PDF), Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Wikidata Q125152282, archived (PDF) from the original on 25 March 2024
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.

Exclusion of at least the number credibly to be believed to be combatants from death toll

Most claims of genocide refer to the civilian population, so we should exclude the (lowest reasonable estimate of) combatants from the casualty number in the lead or at least offer a range from lowest to highest estimate of civilian deaths. FortunateSons (talk) 21:00, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Well, if I have understood correctly, the official numbers are just the people who have been possible to identify, not any corpses trapped under the rubble of collapsed buildings, for example. Including highest estimates might work though. David A (talk) 12:04, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, which is the issue with the number: includes Hamas, excludes a number of potential civilian victims. FortunateSons (talk) 12:10, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
@FortunateSons As you say "most" not all, and we have prominent examples of military personnel being killed where the actions are considered and labelled as genocidal, such as the Soviet forces and their treatment by the Nazis. There are then plenty of examples in indigenous genocides where the warriors/fighters/soldiers are included in the numbers of victims.
A second issue is that not every Hamas member killed is a combatant. I'd be willing to exclude combatants from the numbers, when we have independent reliable sources detailing estimates. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 10:35, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
Of course, there are exceptions to any rule. That being said, considering the optimal legal arguments (made by South Africa) have a high degree of focus on Israel’s alleged failure to make distinctions between civilians and combatants, and the killing of combatants is both generally and in this case lawful , I think we can safely exclude everyone who is a clear combatant death, which as of now is probably in the mid thousands or higher, based on the estimates I have seen. FortunateSons (talk) 10:47, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
You are assuming that most of the Gazan combat dead are included in the Gazan Health Ministry total, but that would only be true if they were admitted to hospital or otherwise tallied. If they died in a tunnel or in ambiguous circumstances where it is not clear if they died in combat, were imprisoned or simply lost contact with command, who knows if they were added to any tally? Where do you think you can derive the data on "clear combat deaths" from? And how do you plan on triangulating this with health ministry data? Are you going to go through the list one by one? Iskandar323 (talk) 11:09, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
I’m assuming there will be an investigation, either after the war during a prolonged ceasefire. Everyone has an interest to figure the number out, so someone will try FortunateSons (talk) 12:12, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
There isn't a way of performing this exercise without engaging in intensive OR. More pertinent in fact to mention that the death toll is broadly assumed to be a significant underestimate. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:57, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
That’s probably true, most of the reporting I can find is over a month old, and there is not way to guarantee that we will be able to keep them current. Would you be opposed to inclusion post war when the casualties are properly counted? FortunateSons (talk) 11:05, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
When there's new information there's new information. Although, given how many murdered civilians are now buried under rubble, I suspect it will be a very long time indeed before we have a final tally for this war-cum-genocide. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:44, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Help in Draft:Allegations of ethnic cleansing in the Israeli attack on Gaza

Hello, I'm making a counterpart article Draft:Allegations of ethnic cleansing in the Israeli attack on Gaza, and I would appreciate it if I could have some help. Personisinsterest (talk) 15:24, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Ethnic cleansing is different than genocide because it is not a legally recognized term. I think it might still be fine to have such an article, but it's important to be clear that there will always be a certain level of ambiguity about these allegations since it is a contested term that is not legally defined. Wikipedia currently defines ethnic cleansing as "the systematic forced removal of ethnic, racial, or religious groups from a given area, with the intent of making a region ethnically homogeneous." In other words, to meet this definition, an action or proposed action needs to meet all of the following five criteria: Removal of a group from an area; the removal needs to be forced; the group needs to be an ethnic, racial, or religious group; the removal needs to be systematic; the intention of the removal needs to be to make the region ethnically homogenous. The current draft of your article states in the second sentence "Multiple Israeli officials and settlers have outright or implicitly expressed support [for] such actions, some also calling for Israeli resettlement in Gaza." There aren't any clear statements I can find for proposals that meet all five of these criteria so this sort of declarative certainty is not justified. Also, you have an entire section on Israeli resettlement in Gaza, and it is not immediately clear why this is necessarily related to ethnic cleansing as defined above. You can include this section but you need to start the section by citing sources which logically tie together Israeli resettlement and ethnic cleansing. Y2K-96 (talk) 21:31, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

New ICJ order of 28 March 2024

Here[15] — kashmīrī TALK 17:50, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

"Damage, not accuracy"

@BilledMammal: I understand why the quote from the mayor of an Israeli city might be deemed irrelevant, but why was the "damage, not accuracy" quote removed? [16] David A (talk) 05:17, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

It turned out to be based on a mistranslation; see this Guardian article. BilledMammal (talk) 05:49, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
Okay. That seems good then. David A (talk) 06:22, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Death toll

I've removed the death toll, as it isn't supported by sources in this context as far as I can tell, and because it includes all casualties - not just civilians. BilledMammal (talk) 05:54, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

I think that your edit seems like a sweepingly clunky very extreme measure that hides extremely relevant information, so I will undo that edit until the issue has been sorted out between multiple editors here in this talk section. David A (talk) 06:25, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
@David A: Can you clarify why you consider the information relevant to this article, and what sources you have to support that belief? BilledMammal (talk) 07:51, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
The death toll of an alleged genocide being listed alongside other scale of destruction data seems self-evidently relevant to an article about this very topic. David A (talk) 08:32, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
Actually the burden lies on Billed Mammal to justify his having removed that material, with little more than a subjective edit summary, since numerous sources that raise the issue of genocide, in doing so, cite the overall numbers.Nishidani (talk) 08:55, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
@Nishidani: Given that there is no citation, the burden rests on those who wish to include the disputed material, per WP:BURDEN. At the moment, there is no source attached to claim, and looking for likely sources through the article I cannot find any that say that every death in Gaza falls under this allegation. BilledMammal (talk) 10:25, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
@BilledMammal as has been shown multiple times through both academic literature and court proceedings, military personnel (or as militants) can be victims of genocide. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 10:11, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
In different contexts, such as where the personnel are POW's, easily. In this context, where there are two forces actively engaged in combat, it would be exceptional, and we would need a source to support the claim. BilledMammal (talk) 10:25, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
It would have taken you 3 seconds to have found a source which, in the context of allegations of genocide the figure of 33,000 people killed was mentioned. Everyone who reads up on this topic knows that. Rather than supply the easy ref your idiosyncratic scruple suggests must be given, you just erase the figure, and throw the burden onto everyone else. What you appear to be doing is to insinuate that the figure of 33,000 refers to all fatalities, and therefore includes Hamas deaths, and this, you find, is inappropriate because genocide apparently for you must refer only to the programmatic killing of the innocent/civilians. These are your own particular assumptions, which you bring to bear on the article, and you expect someone to follow you in those assumptions. They don't need to.Nishidani (talk) 11:59, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
I found sources that mentioned the figure - but none that said that this many were the victims. I'm asking for the latter, as that is what we need to include this claim in the article. Do you have a source that says this? BilledMammal (talk) 12:34, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
This is pettifopgging equivocation. What you removed was a figure for the fatalities overall, and they were not listed as 'victims' but as 'deaths'. Another assumption you are trying to introduce here. In short, you are consistently inventing pretexts, having removed the text, and saying 'you can keep the figure' if you satisfy my assumptions by finding RS that back them. That is patently ridiculous. Nishidani (talk) 12:40, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
The infobox we are using is Template:Infobox civilian attack. The fatalities figure refers to Number of people killed during attack(s) - in this case, the number of people killed in the alleged genocide. Further, readers will obviously interpret it that way - they're not going to interpret it as an unrelated figure that includes individuals who aren't victims. BilledMammal (talk) 12:46, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
Again, where in that info box is it explicitly mentioned that what follows are details of a civilian attack? The header is 'Allegations of Israeli genocide in Gaza' not the title of the infobox template. This is arid technical formalismNishidani (talk) 13:00, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
Who, exactly, is the group of people killed who you would exclude? I found this from a noticeboard request but I find the terms of the dispute a bit unclear to say the least. Simonm223 (talk) 12:55, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
@Simonm223: Combatants; it's an exceptional claim to say that they are included among the alleged victims, and as far as I can tell from this discussion we don't have any sources supporting that claim. BilledMammal (talk) 13:07, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
As everyone know, Israel will not come clean, despite repeated requests, to clarify who it considers combatants, except by claiming anyone in Hamas, from janitors and schoolteachers to militants, is a legitimate target (together with their families). The issue is explained here (Merlyn Thomas, Jake Horton & Benedict Garman, Israel Gaza: Checking Israel's claim to have killed 10,000 Hamas fighters BBC 29 February 2024) That article appropriately cites Andreas Krieg, a senior lecturer in security studies at Kings College London, who stated: "Israel takes a very broad approach to 'Hamas membership', which includes any affiliation with the organisation, including civil servants or administrators."
So what you are doing is making an impossible demand by setting conditions for a distinction neither Israel nor sources can state, and state with accuracy, to the end of removing the universally accepted figure itself. This, in my view, is POV gaming.Nishidani (talk) 13:14, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
OK that's absurd. We cannot use Israel's claims about who is or is not a member of Hamas as a basis for excluding victims. Simonm223 (talk) 13:20, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
If sources can't say how many victims there have been then nor can we. That's not POV pushing, that's complying with our core policies of WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:NPOV.
At the moment, our sources say:
  1. At least 33,091 Palestinians have been killed and 75,750 wounded in Israeli attacks on Gaza since October 7, its Health Ministry says.
  2. More than 33,000 have been killed in Israel's offensive in Gaza, the Hamas-run health ministry there says, the majority of them civilians.
Neither of these tell us how many genocide victims are alleged, and we need a reliable source that provides a figure to include that here. BilledMammal (talk) 13:23, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
You can't just handwave "combatants" as not being subject to the definition of genocide. Simonm223 (talk) 13:35, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
All I'm saying is that this isn't a WP:BLUE situation - it's possible they are included, but we can't assume that - we need sources that tell us how many victims are alleged, which may or may not include combatants. At the moment, we don't have those sources. BilledMammal (talk) 13:47, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
Whether they include "combatants" is irrelevant. Simonm223 (talk) 13:49, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
Because people being genocided tend to fight back. Simonm223 (talk) 13:50, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
I might be missing something, but the law concerning genocide has no dependency on combatant vs non-combatant status does it? That is covered by other laws. It deals with "national, ethnical, racial or religious" groups. Maybe if there were a substantial number of foreign fighters from other national, ethnical, racial or religious groups it might make a difference I suppose. Sean.hoyland (talk) 13:51, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
No definition of genocide I'm aware of makes a distinction between combatants and non-combatants. Considering the history of Jewish resistance during the holocaust, such a distinction would be alarmingly revisionist to say the least. Simonm223 (talk) 13:54, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
The UN says In contrast to genocide and crimes against humanity, war crimes can be committed against a diversity of victims, either combatants or non-combatants, depending on the type of crime.
Beyond that, genocide is a crime of intent. The intent that might be there when targeting non-combatants might not be there when targeting combatants. For example, those who died in the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising are victims of genocide, because the genocidal intent was still there - but Red Army soldiers who were killed in combat during the Battle of Kursk are generally not considered victims of genocide, even though there was a genocide against the Slavic peoples. It's a complicated topic, and none of us are qualified to express opinions on it - all we can do is rely on the sources, which is why I am asking for sources. BilledMammal (talk) 14:54, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
No. There is a reliable source. You just WP:IDONTLIKEIT.Simonm223 (talk) 14:56, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
And yet in legal cases around genocide adjudicated by the UN (see in particular the Nazis, and Former Yugoslavia), combatants have been included in victim numbers of genocides. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 18:49, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
Considering the relevant reports of casualties at the time of record or publication have been used in the ICJ case, as well as in multiple papers from the round table hosted by the Journal of Genocide Research, and they choose to use the numbers reported by the Gaza Health Ministry, this should be more than enough RS usage to use the ministry's numbers for the infobox. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 18:53, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
This removal was improper. Genocide often takes place in the context of war, and combatants can be considered victims of genocide, especially in asymmetrical or unbalanced warfare where one side has a decisive advantage. See Herero and Nama genocide for a relevant example of a genocide perpetrated against an anticolonial rebellion where both civilians and combatants are regarded as victims. Unbandito (talk) 14:42, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
The claim that combatants should be excluded from casualty totals for genocides is entirely novel and appears to constitute WP:OR - agreed. Simonm223 (talk) 14:44, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
The euro med monitor does make the distinction, and the number of civilians killed according to their estimate is higher than the overall Gaza health ministry death toll. It is reasonable to assume most, if not all the deaths reported by the Gaza Health Ministry at this point are civilians The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 12:20, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Another source

This just-published article by an associate professor of law could be useful. Zerotalk 10:42, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

A good one, as it's published in a respectable peer-reviewed academic journal. Thanks. — kashmīrī TALK 13:22, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Edit request for Infobox

Change "Sunak administratrion" to Sunak ministry. No one in the UK uses the term "administration" to refer to a premiership and the ministry article covers his govt same as Scholz cabinet does for Scholz Dhantegge (talk) 23:28, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

 Done, thanks. — kashmīrī TALK 00:32, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Follow-up on Joan Donoghue

I don't think the ICJ ruling is 'ambiguous' at all; rather, I think some editors are interpreting the language out of context. One editor wrote:

" "X plausibly needs protection against Y" means precisely the same as "Y plausibly makes protection of X necessary". If Palestinians plausibly need to claim protection from genocide, then it follows that genocide is a plausible possibility for them, ergo Israel is plausibly committing it."

Ergo, no. This is not what 'plausibility' seems to mean in this case. The BBC published a piece on this a few days ago which I think straightens this confusion out.[17]

Here's how this whole thing unfolded: the ICJ deals with disputes between countries over international law, in this case the Geneva Convention. At one point Israeli attorneys raised the question of whether or not the Palestinians were even protected under the Geneva Convention, and it is this context in which the term "plausibility" is understood. If Palestinians do not have GC rights, then South Africa's case is legally implausible. What the ICJ ruled is that the Palestinians do have plausible rights to GC protection (or at least 'some' rights claimed by South Africa), no more or less (see link).

Another quote from the ICJ ruling:

“At this stage of the proceedings, the Court is not called upon to determine definitively whether the rights which South Africa wishes to see protected exist,” Jonathan f1 (talk) 21:04, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

The last quote is a nonsense. Rights exist irrespective of the ICJ. Each nation has a right not to be genocided – a right reaffirmed (not: conferred!) by the Genocide Convention. The ICJ is not there to determine, as some commentators argue, whether nations have a right to protection; the ICJ has been instituted to ensure that nations are effectively protected against genocide, through such methods as provisional measures etc. — kashmīrī TALK 16:25, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Agreed, but we are talking about the way the ICJ ruling is interpreted in the body of this article, no more or less. Of course it is possible to get away with genocide in a legal sense. Jonathan f1 (talk) 02:40, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

“Genocide”

Seems like this page is only made because of Palestine genocide accusations and how pro Palestinian people didn’t get their way no difference between these pages but the title John Bois (talk) 03:24, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

The article aims to present the topic of the Gaza genocide as covered by reliable sources, in line with Wikipedia's neutrality policy. The title and content reflect the specific focus of this article, which is distinct from broader coverage of the Israel-Hamas war. If you have specific suggestions for improving the article's balance or accuracy, please feel free to propose them here, ideally with references to reliable sources. We should focus on improving the article's content rather than debating the underlying political issues and we should use clear, direct language when appropriate. ViolanteMD (talk) 03:37, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
I’m not debating anything i am just asking a question on what’s the purpose of this article and Palestine genocide accusations This article jumbs the gun and says it is a genocide while the other says it’s just a accusation one needs to be deleted John Bois (talk) 07:39, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
This is not to mention “ethnic cleansing” as well barely any reliable sources have called it that this article is extremely biased towards Gaza
there are many many things I can point out that’s biased towards Palestine John Bois (talk) 07:43, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
From the lead: “Experts, governments, United Nations agencies, and non-governmental organisations have accused Israel of carrying out a genocide against the Palestinian people” see the problem? In the lead it says accused (which is correct) but the title claims it to be a confirmed genocide John Bois (talk) 07:46, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
This article covers the currently ongoing atrocities, whereas the other one covers a far longer period of time for historical context. Also, it is not about being "pro-Palestinian", but rather about being pro-human rights and anti-supremacist tribalism in general. David A (talk) 08:20, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
Please don't engage with non EC editors, archiving this. Selfstudier (talk) 08:26, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Surrender

What about surrender? Usually, a group affected by genocide cannot end the genocide itself by surrendering. In this case, an unconditional surrender by Hamas would be enough to stop the brutal destruction and war immediately. (At least, a continuation of fighting by the Israeli side after this would definitely be genocide.) According to the standards discussed here, one would otherwise have to consider a genocide against the Germans by the Allies in World War II (for example, area bombing of cities). 2A00:20:600D:2A5B:85B5:EAAD:A0BF:1972 (talk) 21:21, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

not actionable bordering on WP:FORUM. You need to find a WP:reliable source that says that, else its WP:OR and you can't include it on the article. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 21:35, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
Per WP:ARBECR, better not to engage with non EC editors, archiving this. Selfstudier (talk) 22:10, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

WP:SNOW closure in Talk:Gaza_genocide#Requested_move_6_December_2024

Moved from User talk:Abo Yemen § WP:SNOW closure in Talk:Gaza genocide#Requested move 6 December 2024
 – Abo Yemen✉ 15:11, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello. I kinda agree that SNOW may apply here. But I am involved. Also, because this is a very controversial topic, I'd prefer an administrator doing the SNOW closure.

Would you consider undoing your edit [18]? If in a few days, SNOW would still seem to apply, we can request closure in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard? Bogazicili (talk) 15:01, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Yeah sure np Abo Yemen✉ 15:10, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
 Done Abo Yemen✉ 15:10, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
pinging admin for opinion. personal opinion, would snow close after much more time if there was no dissent, original move wasnt open for long enough to call it a snow @ScottishFinnishRadish Bluethricecreamman (talk) 15:23, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
Great thanks, I want to respond first though in above discussion. Bogazicili (talk) 15:26, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
I dissent. Should read Gaza genocide accusations. Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 01:26, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
We do not base our stance on someone's feelings. You did not provide a reason for that name. Neither RS nor the consensus here agrees with calling it "accusations." Simply because killing over 40,000 civilians is not an accusation of genocide; it is genocide. Abo Yemen✉ 04:49, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
“Genocide” refers to the physical destruction of a group that has been targeted on the basis of its identity. Immense suffering and civilian toll in Gaza have resulted from the war started by Hamas, and from specific actions by Hamas that put Gazan civilians in harm’s way. Hamas does not separate fighters from civilians in its Gaza health ministry numbers. Hamas does not specify whether they died because of attacks carried out by the IDF or because of intentional or unintentional actions by Hamas or other Palestinian armed groups; for example, the explosion at Al-Ahli Arab Hospital in Gaza City was caused by a failed rocket fired by Palestinian Islamic Jihad.[1]
Israel’s goal is to destroy Hamas, not the Palestinian people or the Palestinian population of Gaza. When Israeli officials have made statements reflecting callous disregard for Palestinian civilian lives, they have been disciplined.[2]
The goal of Hamas is to wipe Israel and Jews off the map, an example of genocidal intent. Israel directs its force at legitimate military targets, which Hamas has intentionally placed under and within civilians’ homes, hospitals, mosques, and schools.
The Israeli military sends Arabic-language warnings to Gazans prior to its airstrikes on military targets, and indicates routes for Palestinian civilians to relocate. Hamas has repeatedly called on Palestinian civilians to ignore Israel’s warnings about impending strikes and reportedly forced civilians to remain in the vicinity of military objectives, using them, like its hostages from Israel, as human shields.
Hamas has continued to launch missiles into Israel, not from military bases, as international law dictates, but from civilian areas in Gaza. International law allows legitimate military targets to be attacked when the anticipated military advantage from the attack exceeds the expected civilian harm. Hamas has inflated the number of civilian casualties. Harm to Gazan civilians is a horrible outcome of war, but it is not genocide. Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 13:39, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
The RM has been snow closed so archiving this section now. Selfstudier (talk) 13:52, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Edit request from WP:Requests for page protection/Edit

My suggestion is to leave out the following 2 sentences in the "German complicity" paragraph as they seem to be based on misunderstandings:

"She also highlighted police suppression of pro-Palestine protests throughout Germany[509] as evidence of state complicity.[508] Karen Wells et al. highlight how Germany has entrenched its complicity in Israel's actions by banning use of the word "genocide" in reference to Israel.[471][better source needed]"

1. In general violent protests are not allowed in Germany. As some of the first pro-Palestine protests were violent, they were sometimes forbidden by courts, if they were expected to turn violent. But that is common policy in Gemany with all subjects and not special for pro-Palestine protests.

Meanwhile, there even is a calendar concerning pro-Palestinian protests[19] with daily up to 20 protests all over Germany. Thus, there is no general police suppression of pro-Palestine protests as is suggested by the current wording.

2. The word “genocide” is not banned in reference to Israel in Germany - maybe that was a misunderstanding: What is not allowed in Germany is to call for genocide against Jews. The slogan “From the river to the sea” is seen as such call and banned. Gilbert04 (talk) 15:34, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

@FortunateSons: A quick browse shows at least for the first part support for removal, can you add any additional incite? -- Cdjp1 (talk) 12:38, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
I can confirm that both statements are broadly true. IMO, the best resource for this discussion (in the contemporary context) is probably Steinberg: Versammlungsfreiheit nach dem 7. Oktober - NVwZ 2024, 302. Direct citation: “Die Subsumtion unter diesen Tatbestand bereitet aber auch sonst Probleme. Die Stadt Frankfurt a. M. hatte dem Anmelder einer Versammlung „Frieden in Nahost" am 2.12.2023 untersagt, während der Versammlung zur Vernichtung Israels aufzurufen, dem Staat Israel das Existenzrecht abzusprechen, sowie die Aussagen „Israel Kindermörder", „Juden Kindermörder", „Israel bringt Kinder um" sowie „From the river to the sea" zu tätigen. Diese Beschränkungen hob das VG Frankfurt vollständig auf. Auf die Beschwerde der Stadt differenzierte der VGH Kassel Aufrufe zur Vernichtung Israels verstießen - wie gesagt - gegen § 111 StGB und die Aussage „Juden Kindermörder" erfülle den Tatbestand der Volksverhetzung (§ 130 StGB). Demgegenüber wurden andere Außerungen wie „Kindermörder Israel" oder die Bezeichnung der israelischen Militäroperationen in Gaza als „Genozid" nicht beanstandet und die Entscheidung des VG insoweit aufrechterhalten. Es sei davon auszugehen, dass bei den militärischen Verteidigungshandlungen Israels auch Kinder zu Schaden kämen. Eine solche laienhafte Zuspitzung sei im Rahmen der Meinungsfreiheit hinzunehmen. Anders hatte der VGH Mannheim am 21.10.2023 ein Verbot der Parole „Israel Kindermörder" und „Israel bringt Kinder um" durch die Versammlungsbehörde trotz bestehender Zweifel über deren Strafbarkeit aufrechterhalten; im Verfahren des vorläufigen Rechtsschutzes sei nur eine summarische Prüfung möglich; eine einmal getätigte Äußerung könne nicht rückgängig gemacht werden. Die Unterscheidung zwischen antisemitisch und antiisraelisch stellt sicherlich eine Gratwanderung dar, die hier im Einzelnen nicht beschrieben werden kann“autotranslated: “However, the subsumption under this offense also causes other problems. On December 2, 2023, the city of Frankfurt am Main had prohibited the person registering a meeting "Peace in the Middle East" from calling for the destruction of Israel during the meeting, from denying the State of Israel the right to exist, and from making the statements "Israel, child murderer," "Jews, child murderer," "Israel kills children" and "From the river to the sea." The Administrative Court of Frankfurt completely lifted these restrictions. In response to the city's complaint, the Administrative Court of Kassel differentiated that calls for the destruction of Israel violated - as mentioned - Section 111 of the Criminal Code and that the statement "Jews, child murderer" constituted incitement to hatred (Section 130 of the Criminal Code). In contrast, other statements such as "Israel, child murderer" or the description of Israeli military operations in Gaza as "genocide" were not objected to and the Administrative Court's decision was upheld in this respect. It can be assumed that children would also be harmed in Israel's military defense actions. Such a lay exaggeration must be accepted within the framework of freedom of expression. On October 21, 2023, the Mannheim Higher Administrative Court upheld a ban on the slogans "Israel, child murderer" and "Israel kills children" by the assembly authority despite existing doubts about their criminal liability; in the interim legal protection procedure, only a summary examination is possible; a statement once made cannot be reversed. The distinction between anti-Semitic and anti-Israeli is certainly a balancing act that cannot be described in detail here.” There is no broad ban on pro-Palestinian protests either, and they were even allowed to happen on Oct. 7 of this year (in some cases). While there are legal disputes on specifics for both, I’m pretty confident that no reasonable person would disagree with “broadly permitted” regarding both claims. FortunateSons (talk) 16:54, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
Bonus: there can be cases where something isn’t criminal, but can be restricted in other ways, for example due to different burdens of proof or social pressures. FortunateSons (talk) 17:11, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
I've removed #2. But there does seem to be evidence that pro-Palestine protests have been banned in parts of Germany at times.[20][21][22].VR (Please ping on reply) 14:55, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
Thank you. Maybe the following article gives a bit more clarity.[[23]] Gilbert04 (talk) 18:10, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
Unfortunately that source seems incomplete. Germany has indeed suppressed peaceful criticism of Israel.[24] And Washington Post says "A planned photo exhibit in southwestern Germany was canceled as a result of social media posts by its curator, including one describing “genocide” in Gaza."[25] VR (Please ping on reply) 22:32, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
Well, I do not think that any source will ever be complete. Let me add two more.[[26]][[27]] Gilbert04 (talk) 20:44, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
Makes sense. Can an admin please check this out!!! Avishai11 (talk) 19:05, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

This appears to have been dealt with? Selfstudier (talk) 16:13, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Second edit request from WP:Requests for page protection/Edit

Consider changing "The Israeli government rejected South Africa's allegations, and accused the court of being antisemitic, which it often does when criticised" to "The Israeli government has been accused of consistently weaponizing antisemitism against it's critics, including in the ICJ ruling." Ecco2kstan (talk) 23:12, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

The Weaponization of antisemitism page hyperlinked over "often done" has many sources to draw from regarding the accusations' consistency and nature.
My main concern with the original text is that it's voiced as if it's an observation made by a Wikipedian. The benefit here is that the weaponization of antisemitism has a clearer consistency grounded outside of Wikipedia. Perhaps other ways to word this out include adding a time scale (increasingly accused since Oct. 7th) or specifying the critique (against critiques of their actions since Oct 7th).
If a lead paragraph change is necessary, there may be reason to outline Israeli motives and conditions for the genocide, including Zionism and anti-Arab racism. Ecco2kstan (talk) 23:25, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
@Ecco2kstan, how about: "The Israeli government rejected South Africa's allegations. Supporters of Israel say that accusing Israel of genocide is both antisemitic[28][29] and a form of Holocaust erasure[30], but others argue antisemitism shouldn't be exploited to shield Israel from such allegations.[31][32][33][34]".VR (Please ping on reply) 00:12, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
I'm not as familiar with the Holocaust erasure claims, but I'm happy with that reworking! If that weaponization of Holocaust denial detail isn't on the weaponization of antisemitism page already, it might be a worthwhile phenomenon incorporate if there's more citations you can find. I might look into it myself. Thanks! Ecco2kstan (talk) 03:10, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
That does sound quite balanced. +1 from me. Neutral Editor 645 (talk) 18:02, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
@Vice regent: Would you please make this change, so we can close this request? ~Anachronist (talk) 21:28, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
The text I originally wanted modified was changed to "Israel's supporters say that accusing Israel of genocide is antisemitic, but others argue antisemitism should not be exploited to shield Israel from such allegations" after other discussions on the talk page. I almost like it better, but by saying "Israel's supporters" it relieves some of the responsibility from the Israeli government in the accusations that was, to an extent, duly credited in the original modification. Maybe now, it should just say "The Israeli government and their supporters say that accusing the state for genocide antisemitic..." or something similar. Ecco2kstan (talk) 17:39, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

This one, too? Selfstudier (talk) 16:15, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Edit request from WP:Requests for page protection/Edit - the 186,000 indirect deaths estimate

In the "Indirect" section, the following sentence should be added after "186,000 or even more deaths could be attributable to the current conflict in Gaza":

Three days after the publication, one of the writers, Professor Martin McKee, clarified that the 186,000 figure was “purely illustrative”[3] and stated that “our piece has been greatly misquoted and misinterpreted.”[4]

References

  1. ^ "Gaza: Findings on October 17 al-Ahli Hospital Explosion". Human Rights Watch. 2023-11-26. Retrieved 2024-12-08.
  2. ^ Williams, Dan (2023-11-05). "Netanyahu suspends Israeli minister over Gaza nuclear comment". Reuters. Retrieved 2024-12-08.
  3. ^ "Concerns regarding Gaza mortality estimates". The Lancet. November 4, 2024.
  4. ^ "'186,000 Gazans dead': Lancet magazine publishes new blood libel". The Jerusalem Post. July 9, 2024.

Zlmark (talk) 16:26, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Not done, no appetite for this. Archiving. Selfstudier (talk) 13:55, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: @Selfstudier: please remember to close edit requests when archiving, thanks! '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 14:04, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Fourth edit request from WP:Requests for page protection/Edit

The article references a Brookings poll[1] in its body under: Academic and legal discourse->Middle Eastern studies. The lead appears to misrepresent the information presented in the body.

In the lead, please change:

−
A majority of mostly US-based Middle East scholars believe Israel's actions in Gaza were intended to make it uninhabitable for Palestinians, and 75% of them say Israel's actions in Gaza constitute either genocide or "major war crimes akin to genocide".
+
According to a recent Middle East Scholar Barometer poll of 758 mostly US-based Middle East scholars, a majority of those respondents believe Israel's actions in Gaza were intended to make it uninhabitable for Palestinians, and 75% of them say Israel's actions in Gaza constitute either genocide or "major war crimes akin to genocide".

The wording found in the article body: "A Brookings 23 May to 6 June 2024 survey asked 758 Middle East scholars and experts who study the issue, most in the United States: "How would you define Israel's current military actions in Gaza?" The responses were: "major war crimes akin to genocide", 41%; "genocide", 34%; "major war crimes but not akin to genocide", 16%; "unjustified actions but not major war crimes", 4%; "justified actions under the right to self-defense", 4%; and "I don't know", 2%."

One single poll is almost certainly undue for the lead of any article, but if it will stand, it should accurately reflect the source. Mikewem (talk) 21:27, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Done by @Originalcola: here. Archiving. Selfstudier (talk) 11:50, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.brookings.edu/articles/gloom-about-the-day-after-the-gaza-war-pervasive-among-mideast-scholars/

Second request from WP:RFED

Add info about 35 year reduction in life expectancy according to UPenn study http://www.thedp.com/article/2025/01/penn-study-gaza-life-expectancy-drop Seahumidity (talk) 10:53, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

@Seahumidity:  Done. I've summarised and cited the study as published in The Lancet. Jr8825 • Talk 00:57, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

RfC: Genocide in wikivoice/opening sentence

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
I want to thank everyone who participated in this RfC. I know issues like this are not easy and the topic of genocide is not one that anyone should take lightly. It’s been 26 days since this RfC was started and as the topic has cooled WP:WHENCLOSE I'm closing this RfC. I have read all of the comments in the discussion and the polling. Below I will lay out my evaluation for the proposed change to this article. I will focus mostly on the issue of the first sentence as it is more tangible than going over the whole article to find examples.

I am human, I make mistakes, I don’t get everything right. If you have reason to believe I’ve made an error, I welcome comments/criticism/praise on my talk page. As a personal aside this topic is heavy, there is no way around that. When I finished my write up I found myself feeling emotionally drained trying to read policy, weigh arguments and having the macabre nature of this topic looming over me. So please know that I understand the severity of this, I tried my best, and am honestly feeling it as I finish this up.

The question at hand is “Should the article, including the opening sentence of the lead section, state the Gaza Genocide in wikivoice as fact?”. After reviewing the arguments and cited policies there appears to be a rough consensus against this proposal. This is not an easy RfC to close and I want to take a moment to again thank everyone who cited policies and made rational/clear arguments for both sides. For a topic covered under WP:PIA the discussion was more civil than I expected and for that I am grateful as it makes closing this RfC much easier.

Our Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy requires articles to present viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias. What this means in practice is that contested opinions should not be stated as facts in wikivoice WP:VOICE. The claim of genocide is by its nature contentious and reliable sources do not unanimously agree that the actions of Israel in Gaza rise to the level of genocide. As such Wikipedia can not assert this position as a plain fact. Instead this claim needs to be attributed to reputable sources. When reviewing the proposed change of “The Gaza genocide is the ongoing systematic destruction of the Palestinian people in Gaza by Israel during the Gaza war.” we note that the phrasing states outright, in wikivoice, that there is a genocide and it is occurring. Such an approach violates WP:NPOV as it is presenting a debated position as a fact. Further this runs into the undue weight problem. Per WP:WEIGHT articles should not give one interpretation prominence over another if there are significant sources to dispute it. By declaring “the Gaza genocide” as a fact it gives undue prominence over other views. @FortunateSons brought up a good point that endorsed this “there is no consensus among reliable sources that this constitutes a genocide, with many…opposing or qualifying the characterization” as such this fails the neutrality test as it elevates one POV to wikivoice which stands contrary to WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. MOS:BOLDTITLE was mentioned and this option would appear to be in line with that, but the second half of the sentence raises neutrality concerns which means it would also then fail MOS:OPEN. When reviewing the other option in the RfC “According to a United Nations special committee, Amnesty International, and other experts and human rights organizations, Israel has committed genocide against the Palestinian people during its ongoing invasion and bombing of the Gaza Strip as part of the Gaza war.” we note that it attributes the genocide to specific sources rather than stating it as a fact. Such an approach adheres to NPOV. As the sentence uses the structure of “According to Group X…” this option makes clear that it is a viewpoint provided by a group and not an unsettled fact.

Neither of these two sentences presented fully complies with all policies or MOS guidelines. But with the arguments presented it would appear that the previous stable version of the sentence would be the most compliant as it has an attribution of sources and is more in line with WP:NPOV. Moving forward the best use case here would be to use Gaza genocide as a characterization or allegation that is supported by reliable sources rather than a undisputed fact. A proposed rewrite that would be more complaint would be something along the lines of “Gaza genocide refers to the characterization of Israel’s military campaign in Gaza as a genocide against the Palestinian people, according to a UN special committee, Amnesty International, and other human rights experts”. This rewrite best conforms to the previously mentioned content policies and style guidelines. By defining the term in neutral language and attributing the genocide designation to reliable sources instead of an established fact or from Wikipedia itself.

Dr vulpes (Talk) 06:32, 23 May 2025 (UTC)


Should the article, including the opening sentence of the lead section, state the Gaza Genocide in wikivoice as fact?:

  • Yes Example opening sentence: The Gaza genocide is the ongoing systematic destruction of the Palestinian people in Gaza by Israel during the Gaza war. or equivalent (new proposed version)
  • No Example opening sentence: According to a United Nations special committee, Amnesty International, and other experts and human rights organisations, Israel has committed genocide against the Palestinian people during its ongoing invasion and bombing of the Gaza Strip as part of the Gaza war. (previous stable version) Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:17, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Responses (polling)

  • No I think framing the genocide as the claim of many authoritative sources is better than flatly stating the "Gaza genocide" as fact in the opening sentence or elsewhere in the article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:40, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
  • No These are allegations. WP:NPOV. Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 01:08, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
  • No. Wikipedia is not here to right great wrongs in the world. While it is common for sources to refer to it as "genocid[e/al]", this is commonly similar to our article title - being done for concision. And even when it is referred to explicitly as a "genocide" as an intent to actually claim it is that, ultimately the organizations doing so don't have the authority to define the word genocide. That's the job of international law - via treaties, agreements, or international tribunals set up specifically to come to a definitive conclusion after examining all the evidence. All of the arguments in past discussions still hold true as well. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 01:19, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
    We should not use this approach. If we can only use "genocide" when the inernational legal system has approved it, I don't think we would be able to call The Holocaust a genocide. I don't believe the ICJ has ever made a ruling about it? 20WattSphere (talk) 22:38, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Yes This article should start by introducing its subject per MOS:FIRST, not by describing how and by whom it has been described/established as existing- there is plenty of space for that in the rest of the lead and the body. Mason7512 (talk) 01:44, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Yes per result of previous discussion. EvansHallBear (talk) 01:49, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
  • No there is no consensus among reliable sources that this constitutes a genocide, with many, including most Western countries as represented through their politicians, media, and scholarship, opposing or qualifying the characterization. For example, much of the leading German legal scholarship states that it’s either not a genocide, not proven to be one, or dependent on specific interpretations of the genocide convention. Per the longstanding consensus on this page, the article discusses the claim and makes no affirmative statement on whether or not it is one, and a significant change in RS coverage would be required to claim this affirmatively. For example, there is no consensus amount RS for systematic destruction of the Palestinian people either, which would be required per WP:LEAD; if the article itself rightly describes the topic as disputed, so should the lead, per WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. FortunateSons (talk) 10:38, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Yes Per Mason and previous discussions. GrabUp - Talk 11:05, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Yes Article needs better first sentence. Happy with proposal as is or with my "refers to" suggestion below. //Lollipoplollipoplollipop::talk 15:58, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Sort of, per Lollipop’s proposal. Note the RM that moved this to "Gaza genocide" was predicated on the point that such a title doesn’t objectify its existence, like Big Bang etc. Our short description reads Characterisation of Israeli mass killings in Gaza, that’s what the first sentence should be on. However, sourcing seems strong enough to say The Gaza genocide refers to in wikivoice. The first paragraph needs to summarise opposing views in a sentence in order to adhere to WP:NPOV. Strong oppose saying The Gaza genocide is. Kowal2701 (talk) 19:45, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
    MOS:OPEN says The first paragraph should define or identify the topic with a neutral point of view, my support's conditional on summarising opposing views somewhere in the first paragraph. Kowal2701 (talk) 21:04, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Yes I agree with User:JasonMacker as long as the new proposed opening sentence is followed by the existing opening sentence, it would satisfy MOS:OPEN. I do not think it violate NPOV. No I think word "Genocide” by itself usually refers to the act: the actual killing, destruction, or attempt to destroy a group. However it can also be used to refer to "crime of genocide" in casual conversations. So i do not see a problem with current opening sentence and should be left as is. Because the sentence begins with “According to [sources],” it correctly attributes the genocide, and i don't think it is stated as fact. Cinaroot (talk) 23:05, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
  • No, per the arguments I've made previously at Talk:Gaza_genocide#RfC_about_changing_About_and_Short_description. In that discussion, consensus was found (by ~40 editors) against making a more definitive pronouncement of genocide in the About and SD, by changing the wording. Even the move request that resulted in the current title leaned heavily on the policy of WP:COMMMONNAME to use a phrase that appears commonly in RS to title the article - that leniency of using "Gaza genocide" as a phrase, rather than a pronouncement, is what led to the article's title being changed. The change proposed discussed above and in this RFC would plainly push this article closer toward making such a definitive pronouncement in Wikivoice; which, while there remains significant scholarly opposition and a lack of consensus, would be wrongly done. Shoehorning the bolded phrase Gaza genocide to the front of the article does nothing to improve readers' understanding of the article's scope; the first sentence already states that "...Isreal is committing genocide" according to several groups and scholars. That's the proper way to balance those pronouncements with opposition scholarship. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:04, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Yes, per previous section. There hasn't been a compelling argument as to why this article can't have a MOS:BOLDLEAD like Black genocide in the United States or Tamil genocide (two contentious classifications of genocide), despite having far more consensus from scholars per Template:Expert opinions in the Gaza genocide debate. But even if it didn't have such consensus, that doesn't negate Wikipedia's manual of style guidelines, which is to try to have a first sentence that introduces the topic of the article, by using the article's title, bolding it, and explaining what it is. The current first sentence of the article ("According to...") fails to explain what the article's subject is. --JasonMacker (talk) 18:25, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
    "Black genocide is a historiographical framework and rhetorical term" If you want to clarify that the article scope is about "Gaza genocide" the rhetorical phrase, I suppose that's something rather different than what's being proposed for the first sentence here. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 19:06, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
    Yes, it is different, and that's the main problem with this RfC. The choices offered heavily suggest a false dilemma. It doesn't address the real issue (as I see it), which is that the article's first sentence currently fails MOS:FIRST. Imagine if this RfC instead offered as two choices "Does the article's current first sentence satisfy MOS:FIRST?" And then if Yes, the issue would be resolved to keep the status quo, and No would immediately begin a search/poll for a new first sentence, with/without MOS:BOLDLEAD, with/without stating "Gaza genocide is..." in Wikivoice. The vast majority of discussion happening in the discussion section of this RfC is whether or not reliable sources have enough consensus to state "Gaza genocide is..." in Wikivoice. That's an important conversation that needs to take place, but can we first figure out if we even want the status quo? Can we replace the current first sentence with something better? Take for example the article Persecution of Uyghurs in China (Whose previous name was "Uyghur genocide" but was changed in this discussion) whose first sentence states in Wikivoice what has taken place, and then states in Wikivoice that it has been characterized as a genocide (without using any "according to..." wording). That sentence, despite not having a bold lead, nevertheless satisfies MOS:FIRST because it immediately introduces the topic of the article, which is persecution. I just wish that this article had something similar (i.e. introduce the topic by stating in Wikivoice that Israel is engaging in mass killings, just like in the short description). So something similar to the Persecution of Uyghurs in China article for this article would be "Since 2023, the government of Israel has carried out mass killings of Palestinians in Gaza which has often been characterized as ethnic cleansing or genocide." Would such a sentence be appropriate for this article? Is there a better worded sentence than this? What would be a good first sentence for this article? Unfortunately, this RfC isn't asking those questions, so once this RfC resolves to No consensus or No (status quo) (which seems likely, from what I'm seeing), the next step will be to figure out a good first sentence that has consensus. JasonMacker (talk) 21:07, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
"the government of Israel has carried out mass killings" Mass killings or massacres do not really fit the definition of a genocide. Raphael Lemkin's original definition of the term covered the intentional "disintegration of the political and social institutions, of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of national groups", while other genocide definitions emphasize that "the violence or other action taken should be deliberate, organized, sustained, and large-scale", atrocities are selective for a distinguishable group, and "the perpetrator takes steps to prevent the group from surviving or reproducing in a given territory". Dimadick (talk) 06:55, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
  • No per Hemiauchenia. Though the overwhelming majority of advocacy groups, human rights groups, UN orgs, and third parties all agree, other significant parties including the US department of state disagree. The title is one thing, but the lede as is maintains the facts correctly and attributes correctly. For those who vote yes, stating as a fact would worsen this article. Stating as a citation by other orgs gives the article more credence. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 19:13, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
    US govt denial of the Gaza genocide should be treated equivalently to Turkish (or Israeli) govt denial of the Armenian genocide. Per my response to FortunateSons, the views of Western governments are very much a minority viewpoint and should not be given WP:UNDUE weight.
    If, as you say, "the overwhelming majority of advocacy groups, human rights groups, UN orgs, and third parties all agree" that a genocide is occurring, then the article needs to reflect that in order to not give WP:FALSEBALANCE. EvansHallBear (talk) 21:33, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
    the article already reflects that and already shows (well deserved) near certainty around the gaza genocide. the US/western gov may be a minority voice here, but it is a very significant minority voice that cannot be dismissed.
    hemiauchenia is right that the article is weaker when a strong statement like that isn't attributed to the source. let the reader decide if they want to dismiss academia, UN orgs, etc. if they weren't gonna believe those orgs, they sure as heck won't believe wikivoice Bluethricecreamman (talk) 03:42, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
    The US Department of State is a minor bug compared to "the overwhelming majority" (not to mention that, as Israel's ally, they're not an independent expert body on the matter).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:57, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Yes, what is currently taking place in Gaza is objectively genocide, and there appears to be scholarly consensus on the issue at this point. Israel has checked all the boxes for genocide per the genocide convention and the only parties that don't agree are the accused and its closest allies. Yung Doohickey (talk) 21:01, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
    Would you like to base a vote in policy perhaps? Cremastra (u — c) 13:28, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
    In that case my vote is still Yes given the scholarly consensus which is heavily implied per WP:RS. My vote is based on what reliable sources are saying, not unsupported and arguably fringe opinions from the minority of academics. As far as I'm aware, the vast majority of scholars, at least since January of this year, seem to favor the notion that there is an ongoing genocide in Gaza, which is supported by very compelling and high quality evidence (like the Amnesty International report), unlike much of those claiming there is no genocide. Thanks, Yung Doohickey (talk) 00:40, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Yes, the evidence, scholarly and institutional opinion is strong enough to support this change. We need a concise opening sentence. I am fine with the "refers to" suggestion made by Lollipop if that alternative has more support. Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 13:43, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Yes The proposed content of the 'No' option is a strong indicator that practically justifies the 'Yes' one. If all those authorities say it's a genocide, the only thing we can do is accept it (Note that we don't list all international organisations, governments and historians in the first sentence of Armenian genocide.).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:52, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Yes Google Scholar search for "Gaza genocide" shows that the scholarship on this topic is essentially unanimous. If the same standard some editors are using here were applied to other genocides, we would have to both-sides the Armenian genocide, Rohingya genocide, and most of those listed at list of genocides, as well. (t · c) buidhe 19:04, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Yes per WP:RS. ~ HAL333 22:24, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Yes, it is widely reported across the world and documented in academic books that the Israeli military is committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza. Also, the first sentence should briefly introduce the topic to the non-specialist reader with the page title as the subject. The current overloaded version is confusing to the readers. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 02:43, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
    Which books? I am unaware of any from academic publishers that detail it as a genocide. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 08:04, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
    For example, the academic book "Genocide in Gaza: Israel’s Long War on Palestine" (2025) documented that the Israeli state is committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza.
The book's publisher is "The Irish Pages Press".
Its author, Avi Shlaim, is a British-Israeli historian and professor at the University of Oxford. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 12:43, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
I was aware of the book, but was not familiar with Irish Pages as an academic publisher, fair enough. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 08:03, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
  • No per WP:NPOV. Citing sources is more appropriate. Coining (talk) 23:23, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
  • No - I'd say give emphasis to objective facts, avoid WP:SENSATIONAL outcries of WP:LABEL that have no specific meaning or weight using WP:WIKIVOICE to proclaim something. That just gives an impression of falsehood or advocacy that does not have facts because otherwise facts would be prominent. Stating the history, records, when and which authority said what - those are documented facts that should be present, have more WP:WEIGHT than any WP opinionating, are informative, and should be impressive to the reader as indicating the shape of recognition. Just say the facts, skip the editorialising, and include per NPOV all positions in WP:DUE prominence so that readers value the content as comprehensive. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:06, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
    Genocide is not a WP:LABEL with no specific meaning, but a crime with a specific definition under international law. The allegations (at least as contained in this article) are largely coming from human rights organizations/academics/governments and not WP:SENSATIONAL news sources. The open question is whether there is sufficient consensus to use the term genocide in WP:WIKIVOICE, not the validity of the term itself. In instances where there is consensus (e.g. The Holocaust), calling something a genocide is not "editorialising". EvansHallBear (talk) 06:35, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
  • User:EvansHallBear Factually, and particularly as phrased in the proposal, it appears to be just a Wikivoice pronouncement or emotional outcry, and again I say give emphasis to objective facts not make sensational outcries of labels that have no specific meaning or weight using wikivoice to proclaim something.
I also suggest WP:LABEL applies unless you think "genocide" is not a value-laden label, and note the article itself mentions disputation about using the word *as* a label. If you wish to view the word as referring crime, fine, then that should be shown *factually* with an actual decision by ICJ and lead with that being phrased as the ICJ result - not a wikivoice opinionating. Otherwise the lead should remain as now, stating allegations from the various authorities which are objective facts. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:11, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
@Markbassett I wasn't around for the discussions, but this argument has been addressed numerous times before. It's extremely rare for a judicial body to declare a genocide. To impose this standard here is inconsistent with the usage of the term "genocide" across the rest of Wikipedia. EvansHallBear (talk) 23:46, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
User:EvansHallBear - Give emphasis to objective facts, avoid sensationalist outcries of labels. When the proposed phrasing can be viewed as just a sensationalist outcry with no specific meaning or weight, that should kill it right there. It could also be viewed as referring to the term as WP:COMMONNAME or as the position of some (but obviously not all) RS. So long as it is unclear exactly which if any of these is meant or that it has any obvious connection to objective facts, I say again that it remains without a specific meaning or weight. And my view on handling criminal accusations differs from yours -- I tend to think that statements of crime should look at WP:BLPCRIME plus WP:VOICE and stick to only state the objective facts of allegations and filings, but do not in wikivoice state it in a way that may misleadingly be read that a determination had been issued. As I said before - give emphasis to objective facts, avoid sensationalist outcries of labels. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:55, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
@Markbassett This argument seems blatantly absurd to me. Is calling the Holocaust a genocide a WP:LABEL? EvansHallBear (talk) 16:17, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
On a general note, no, because the term genocide was so strongly influenced by the Holocaust; in the same way that referring to Apartheid for the actual historical event isn’t a POV term. For other genocides, yes, absolutely, for the same reason that calling ISIS or Hezbollah terrorists is a WP:LABEL. FortunateSons (talk) 16:30, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
Apartheid is a WP:COMMONNAME so that's a different case. If we were debating whether to call this article the "Gaza Holocaust" then yes that would be sensationalist in this case but not in the case of The Holocaust.
The historical link between the term genocide and the Holocaust doesn't impact whether it's a sensationalist WP:LABEL or not. (For the avoidance of any doubt, the Holocaust was absolutely a genocide). EvansHallBear (talk) 16:38, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
Thats not the point I’m making. The term genocide (particularly the legal variety) was so heavily influenced by the holocaust that it cannot be a label for it. However, basically any other use of genocide is disputed, and should be attributed except in obvious cases (such as those with an overwhelming consensus in all relevant areas of scholarship). FortunateSons (talk) 17:15, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
@FortunateSons That's not the point Markbassett was making though, which is that genocide is a sensationalist label with no specific meaning. EvansHallBear (talk) 17:43, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
Outside the legal sphere*, there is no one specific meaning of genocide. Respected scholars and organisations use different standards, and reach different outcomes.
*It’s also disputed within the legal sphere, but that’s a different problem, and less significant IMO. FortunateSons (talk) 17:49, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
Which would affect all uses of the term on Wikipedia. I guess in the case of The Holocaust the lack of specificity doesn't matter since it de facto meets all definitions of genocide. But that still leaves every other use of the term on Wikipedia in question. I appreciate that you would have an internally consistent response to this (albeit one that's not generally in line with the otherwise loose usage of the term here). But it feels that others making these arguments are just POV pushing. EvansHallBear (talk) 18:07, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
I mean, Transgender genocide, Black genocide in the United States and many others on the List of genocides do qualify the description in some way, so it’s not just me. Rohingya genocide, a conflict where I personally believe the bar for genocide is met and where RS coverage is significantly clearer than for Gaza, IMO also goes further than sources would objectively support, despite less than a 10 uses in Wikivoice within the article, which contains 8745 words. FortunateSons (talk) 19:11, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
Agreed that it's not universal and some articles qualify more than others. But there are also several counterexamples e.g. Greek genocide, California genocide. East Timor genocide seems like a good example for this article to follow. EvansHallBear (talk) 19:42, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
I‘m not familiar enough with Timor to be certain, but based on some very aggressive OR + the article, it moreso seems that we should remove the one instance of Wikivoice (and slightly alter the lead to match the body), but it’s pretty harmless, as there seems to be scholarly consensus, which is lacking here. To me, this looks like one of the rare cases of an unambiguous failure of the legal genocide definition, per Lisson, but we can’t change the definition merely because we dislike the outcome. FortunateSons (talk) 20:09, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
User:EvansHallBear Look, my input on *this* article proposal is 'No - give emphasis to objective facts and avoid sensationalist outcries of labels.' Of *course* an emotional word is always an emotional word, per MOS:LABEL "Value-laden labels" are something that evokes emotional response, and *this* article proposal to metaphorically evoke The Holocaust is a label. In this article the word also fits the LABEL guidance of "may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution." So phrasing in wikivoice as shown is not good for that reason also. See MOS:LABEL and WP:VOICE. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 17:36, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
  • No - Since the question of whether these actions constitute genocide is still debated by some scholars, it is best to emphasize who exactly has come to that conclusion.Sonicsuns (talk) 03:27, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
  • No – there remains significant ongoing debate on the matter of terminology. It is not the job of Wikipedia editors to evaluate evidence one way or another. I am inclined to agree with other editors here who have cited WP:NPOV and WP:LABEL. WMSR (talk) 22:01, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Yes to Lollipop's proposal, no otherwise. It's acceptable to say "Gaza genocide" refers to the events in Gaza. I agree that this is similar to Black genocide and the Tamil genocide (The Tamil genocide refers to the framing of various systematic acts of physical violence and cultural destruction), which both discuss the term in WikiVoice without endorsing the term itself. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 23:14, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Yes, although I acknowledge this is a difficult case, a) due to basic vagueness of WP:VOICE on what it means for a proposition to be "seriously" contested; b) the precedent for the interpretation of that term set by the existing genocide articles; c) the existence of multiple definitions of genocide, which widely vary in their scope; d) the fact that some scholars have changed their views over time, or expressed their views much earlier in the conflict. The public, expert dissenters from the genocide characterisation amongst non-legal academics are basically: Benny Morris, Goda, Herf, and the late Israel Charny. They have a status which, ignoring their record of aggressive, partisan defence of Israel, would lead one to think of them as serious. Should we ignore that record? Well, the Armenian genocide article implies that we shouldn't - Turkish-partisan sources denying that it's a genocide don't blunt or mitigate the first sentence of that article. None of them (Morris, Goda, Herf, etc.) address the problem in what I'd think of in a serious way: they assert flatly that it isn't a genocide, usually assert that none of the elements are met, and/or accuse their opponents of indulging in antisemitic prejudice. It's not so much of an issue for me that they don't write in academic journals, but for some that's important. I asked Consensus, the academic generative AI search engine about this. It said: "No academic claims were identified in the provided abstracts from the past year that argue Israel is not committing genocide in Gaza. All abstracts either support the genocide claim or discuss the situation as potentially meeting the criteria for genocide." Would modify my view if a case can be made that the claim is serious contested (by serious people making serious arguments), even in the Lemkin or Martin Shaw definitions, but right now I don't see it. I don't personally think the "refers to" addition is necessary, but would support adopting it if it reflects a stronger consensus than the unmodified version. Sonnyvalentino (talk) 20:50, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
    If you don’t mind: isn’t what you’re looking for basically Template:Expert opinions in the Gaza genocide debate? I’m counting at least 10 dissenting experts (many, but not all of them, legal) since May 2024, excluding those claiming likely but uncertain outcomes. I’m not one of the main contributors these days, but I would venture to guess that our output is significantly more reliable than AI, which seems to have missed Reingewertz, for instance. FortunateSons (talk) 21:28, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
  • No – do we start by describing Al-Qaeda as a "terrorist group" in the first sentence? No. Many scholars debate as to whether Israel's actions in Gaza constitute a genocide; we should not be taking sides. This is not a clear-cut case such as the Holocaust or the Rwandan genocide, where all reputable scholars and organizations agree – rather, this is a much-debated topic without a clear scholarly consensus. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 19:29, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
  • No per WP:NPOV.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:48, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Yes per Kiril Simeonovski ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 02:39, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
  • No This is far too strong for Wikipedia voice given the weakness of the consensus and our historical usage of these types of labels. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 04:11, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
  • No per WP:NPOV. Far too strong a statement to put in the first sentence, and gratuitously controversial. The subject of the article is not a genocide, but plausible accusations of a genocide. (I still think "Gaza genocide" is a terrible title for this article.) The POV-pushers on both sides claiming this is a settled matter need to stop.
    I seek in no way to downplay the horrible things that have happened, and am certainly not in the "Israel can do nothing wrong" camp. (In my opinion Netanyahu is certainly speeding towards genocide, if he hasn't arrived there already). I just think we need to to take this issue more slowly, instead of yelling at each other. Choosing these gratuitously strident and controversial titles and putting such things in the lead sentence is serving to extend debate on the topic and annoy the "other side" of the debate. The goal here is to get a consensus, not to annoy those darn pro-Israeli/pro-Palestinian editors. Cremastra (u — c) 13:28, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
  • No, because it is a violation of WP:NPOV policy to assert as fact a statement only supported by opinion: even the opinions of the most credible sources. And also no, because I very much doubt our readers particularly want to hear Wikipedia's voice on the matter. Not when they can read what those better qualified have to say on the matter. Let the facts speak for themselves. Tell the readers what the opinions of those who matter are, and leave the soapbox at home. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:21, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
  • No. I do not see a consensus of reliable sources treating the genocide as an established fact rather than a contested claim. For better or worse, Wikipedia follows sources and doesn't get ahead of them. My preferred sources in this area remain mainstream, Western media outlets which still use language like "For human rights campaigners and international watchdogs, attacks on medical facilities have fueled accusations that Israel is conducting a genocide against Palestinians in Gaza, in part by wrecking their health system." New York Times, May 14, 2025. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:39, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
    Why do you prefer western media outlets? I do not believe Wikipedia has any policy which holds them above others as it relates to consensus in reporting/coverage/public opinion, including in English language wiki in particular. Mainstream makes sense, but only considering western sources seems to naturally introduce a bias, no? Mason7512 (talk) 00:05, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
    The NYT's coverage of I/P is also notoriously biased. See List of The New York Times controversies#Coverage of Israel and Palestine as a starting point. Also this article [35] which details the imbalance in coverage during the current war. EvansHallBear (talk) 01:10, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
    There's no policy in English Wikipedia (or any Wikipedia quite frankly) that states that English-language sources are to be placed with higher precedent than others. You can make the argument that more RS tend to be in English (which might be true) but it's clear that reliable sources in foreign languages are to be treated equally. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 00:48, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
    I personally read mostly English sources since I have limited facility in other languages and essentially none in Arabic or Hebrew, but my comment should not be read as putting greater emphasis on English language rather than other sources. If there is a consensus of non-English language media we should report on that divide, but probably still reflect it as a divide given the global status of English. The question of 'Western' media is more fraught, I read it because it's my culture that I am comfortable with, but my experience has shown that high quality, factual, reporting with an explicit, honest attempt to be objective and free from government censorship is rare enough anywhere and quite hard to find beyond the EU and the Anglo-sphere. Most governments don't really like it, and there is limited demand for it. The most popular news channels are far from the best. As for the NYT, I chose it as an example because it's easy for me to search, not because it's the best. Though to be honest, I am an American with a conservative background; my view of reasonable sources includes more outlets more pro-Isreal than the NYT than those more pro-Palestinian than they are. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:55, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Yes, although I doubt this will end in consensus. We determine what is and isn't a genocide based off RS generally agreeing that a genocide is occurring, e.g. The Holocaust. Sure, there are fringe sources that argue that there isn't one, as well as Israel itself, but the majority of RS are clear that one is occuring. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 00:48, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
  • No per the arguments raised by Hemiauchenia, Berchanhimez, and Chicdat. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 01:47, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
  • No. Per Andy, Chicdat et al. In political articles, all prominent views should be presented, but when no view has supermajority in reliable and relevant sources, no opinion should be presented as fact. ---Sluzzelin talk 02:16, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
  • No. Describe disputes, don't engage in them. Such a claim should be the overwhelming consensus among sources, similar to the Holocaust or the Armenian Genocide. That's simply something that cannot be decided until we're looking at the situation in retrospect years after the conflict ends. We went through the same thing with Persecution of Uyghurs in China and came to a reasonable if imperfect compromise. Also, if you'll forgive some speculation, I suspect that many of the people most invested in this dispute are ones who are locked pretty firmly in a media bubble that's telling them it obviously is or is not genocide and are getting a warped perspective of the overall consensus of the sources. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 20:56, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Yes per the above votes. Probably best to include the title as a part of the opening sentence, and then the second statement follow. ToadetteEdit (7M articles) 21:08, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
  • No per WP:NPOV. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:24, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Yes. I believe both proposed openings have the same POV. The current revision of the lead does not describe it as contested except for the sentence "The Israeli government has denied South Africa's allegations". If it makes the lead read better, go for it. RoseCherry64 (talk) 19:50, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
  • yes per user:Bluethricecreamman, despite voting against, pointing out the vast majority of actually reliable sources call it genocide. The US will never go against Israel on anything, let alone something like this. Dronebogus (talk) 20:30, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
  • No This is good example of how badly ongoing conflicts are covered at this project. Nemov (talk) 13:44, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
    Would you care to expound on this? EvansHallBear (talk) 20:53, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
  • No We would need a supermajority of reliable sources saying that it is a genocide in order to state it in WP:WIKIVOICE. Personally, I the United Nations and Amnesty International have been increasingly partisan in the past 25 years, but that is not a valid argument for this RFC. The Knowledge Pirate (talk) 03:06, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
    partisan according to who? — 🧀Cheesedealer !!!⚟ 06:46, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
No, this not been established as fact and should not be presented as such. It's not the place of Wikipedia to unilaterally come to conclusions about contentious issues of international law. אקעגן (talk) 00:56, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Discussion

Please keep discussions here rather than in the voting section. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:17, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

As opposed to what? People who are unaware of what was previously here or what changes are to be made need more information. Moxy🍁 00:02, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
Please see the above thread: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gaza_genocide#c-JasonMacker-20250414002700-Additional_sentence_in_the_lead_to_be_the_first_sentence_-_suggestions_&_opinion Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:17, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
when you 'say' voting section, are you referring to your "Responses" subsection or the "Additional sentence in the lead to be the first sentence - suggestions & opinions wanted" subsection "Polling and discussion"? Mason7512 (talk) 00:09, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
Meta-discussion on the RfC itself; collapsed for easier navigation and discussion of the topic at hand
The above section was open for over a week and involved at least a dozen editors. As I stated in my revert of your removal of the edit of the first paragraph, we already established consensus for the change to the lead. Your claim that This is contentious enough and has been subject to such long running dispute on the talkpage is simply untrue. The last time that the first sentence was discussed on this talk page (before the above section and the section that precipitated it) was in August 2024, which was a discussion involving seven editors, and hasn't been discussed since then. So it hasn't been a "long-running dispute." But even if it were the case that it was a long-running dispute, that wouldn't override the consensus that was just established above. Talk, don't revert. Don't overturn the consensus that was reached after a discussion that lasted over 10 days and involved a dozen editors. You're more than welcome to engage in discussion on this talk page and discuss how to improve the article and specifically the article's lead section.
As for your RFC's question, it's currently moot, because the lead section of the article is already changed, based on the consensus reached in the above discussion. Just a minor tweak, removing the words "changed to," would be sufficient to remove its mootness. And with that minor tweak, I would say yes, it should be the opening sentence of the lead section of the article, for the reasons that I presented in the previous section. JasonMacker (talk) 00:16, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
Edit warring your proposal into the article doesn't mean there is consensus. What currently exists is a weak WP:LOCALCON that needs affirmative approval from the wider community, which is exactly what an RfC is for. RfC's are supposed to run for a month, so claiming victory after a week is frankly premature. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:31, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
There is no "edit war" here. You unilaterally, without any prior contribution to this article or its talk page, reverted an edit that was established by consensus. Read WP:CONSENSUS. The whole point of an RfC is to to solicit opinions "[w]hen talk page discussions fail". And as is quite clear in the above section, there was no failure in the discussion. Almost every editor who commented agreed with the construction of a new first sentence, and many editors, myself included, expressed approval of several of the proposals simultaneously. After over a week of discussion, given what the majority of the editors wanted, I formulated a first paragraph that synthesized the proposals of multiple editors, to reflect how editors preferred aspects of each proposal. As editors of this article, we can't anticipate the objections of uninvolved editors who don't contribute to the discussion and randomly show up immediately after a consensus was reached. So, if you objected to the consensus reached above, you could have first reached out to any of the involved editors and stated your views on the article's content. I think this RfC can be fruitful, but you didn't attempt any dispute resolution whatsoever and immediately (1) reverted a consensus edit and (2) proposed a request for comment before contributing to any discussion on this talk page. As for your language of "claiming victory after a week", that is not a helpful characterization of the above section. As I stated in the synthesis section, This edit should not be seen as a definitive and conclusive edit, and I welcome the participants of this discussion to edit the first paragraph of the article as needed. And that's what actually happened since I made the edit. JasonMacker (talk) 00:54, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
The people who participated in the above discussion is a small fraction of the number of people who turned up to the previous move requests regarding this article, which have often been treated as a proxy over whether the Gaza Genocide should be treated as fact in wikivoice, that's my point. Many people supporting the move request made the argument that by making the title "Gaza Genocide", this was only for conciseness, and not an endorsement of the claim in wikivoice, while many people opposing the move (and many newspapers covering it after the fact) saw retitling the article as an implicit endorsement of the claim. What I am saying is, we need a robust consensus, and the best way to get that is with an RfC Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:08, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
Also the claim that I have [no] prior contribution to this article or its talk page is laughably wrong on both counts : [36] [37]. Maybe you should check before boldly making easily falsifiable claims like that. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:42, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
I did check... the past five months. I apologize that my search wasn't exhaustive enough. Regardless, the fact that your last contribution to this talk page is recorded in the third most recent archive doesn't weaken my point is that you did not attempt to engage with current active editors on this talk page. Why? Why was your immediate response to revert without any discussion, ignore the above section, and immediately begin an RfC? JasonMacker (talk) 03:48, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
Because, as I've said below, the past discussions and consensus are so strong that an informal discussion such as yours above should not override that past consensus. You need a wide-reaching consensus to override the prior wide-reaching consensus. So people aren't going to waste their time commenting to your informal discussion above when there should be a RfC or other wide-reaching discussion before any significant changes are made. Silence is not acquiescing on Wikipedia. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 04:00, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
>The people who participated in the above discussion is a small fraction of the number of people who turned up to the previous move requests regarding this article, which have often been treated as a proxy over whether the Gaza Genocide should be treated as fact in wikivoice, that's my point.
Again, why is your unilateral imposition of your interpretation just treated as fact? Your interpretation that a discussion regarding the title of an article also counts as a discussion of the first sentence is an interesting one, but that's just an opinion. I obviously disagree with it, and you aren't citing any Wikipedia policy, so I'm not sure why your interpretation should be favored over mine.
To reiterate, the above section was never closed. You could have contributed to that conversation in some capacity before deciding to begin an RFC in a subject that you didnt even bother consulting with other active editors on.--JasonMacker (talk) 03:26, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
You can hardly call Hemi's interpretation "unilateral" where I also have aspoused a similar interpretation (without having been called to here - I noticed your discussion and Hemi's discussion because I have this page on my watchlist, even though I failed to comment until recently). You point out a good fact - the above section was never closed. For potentially contentious decisions made after discussions, people who started/participated in them should not purport to assess the discussion at all, unless it is virtually unanimous including historical discussions. A consensus that arose from multiple RMs/RfCs cannot be overridden by an informal "consensus" that arose from an unclosed discussion of 10 people. You are free to request an uninvolved closure of your discussion above if you think that it can be closed. But you should not be assessing "consensus" on your own having contributed to that discussion greatly. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 03:45, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
>I noticed your discussion and Hemi's discussion because I have this page on my watchlist
So, why didn't you notice the above discussion that had been ongoing for over a week if you had this article watchlisted? Your last contribution on this talk page was back in February.
>people who started/participated in them should not purport to assess the discussion at all, unless it is virtually unanimous including historical discussions.
Read the discussion carefully. I was surprised by how not a single editor unconditionally supported the status quo. If you disagree with my assessment of what occurred in the discussion above, fine, but you could at least have the courtesy of stating that first. You and Hemiauchenia could have contributed to the above discussion and engaged with other editors and made suggestions/comments. Instead, Hemiauchenia has COMPLETELY ignored the above discussion and decides to start a RfC without even bothering to contribute to the already existing discussion. WP:NEGOTIATE is very clear that the very first step is to engage in discussion. And then, "if discussion stalemates, editors may seek outside input to help resolve the dispute."
>A consensus that arose from multiple RMs/RfCs
Again, that's your interpretation. My understanding was that the "multiple RMs/RfCs" were about the title of the article or other issues, and not the first sentence. I encourage you to look through the archives to see evidence of this. Here are all of the Requested Moves and RfCs from most recent to least recent: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 (You could also consider the RFC above too, though it doesn't change my point). This is every single Request Move or RfC I could find in all of the archives of this talk page (except for one, which I'll discuss below). None of them cite WP:LEAD or MOS:FIRST or link to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, as far as I could tell. In other words, these RMs and RfCs were not about the first sentence of the article. So I'm confused as to why you and Hemiauchenia are citing that as some kind of precedent or consensus regarding the lead sentence of the article. Now, there were three sections in the archives that discussed the lead specifically:
  • 1: not an RM or an RfC, involving 4 editors
  • 2: An RfC about the inclusion of a particular source and an accompanying sentence in the lead, AKA not a discussion of the first sentence of the article
  • 3: Not an RM or an RfC, involving 7 editors
In other words, the discussion I began above, which had about 12 editors, was the most extensive discussion that has ever been had in the history of this article with respect to the lead sentence (with the sole exception being the discussion preceding it that precipitated the discussion). Again, if your interpretation is that no, actually, all of those discussions regarding the title of the article that don't mention or reference Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section were building a specific consensus regarding the first sentence of the article, wonderful! I'm not sure how you can reach that conclusion, but I would have loved to hear about it in the ongoing discussion above. My interpretation is that clearly, the lead sentence of the article was being discussed separately from the RMs and RfCs, and was given a low priority, given the low number of editors involved in them (Up until Bob drobbs made the "Unsubstantiated claims in the lead" section).
>A consensus that arose from multiple RMs/RfCs
I would love for you to explain what exactly the consensus was/is that arose from those "multiple RMs/RfCs" because I can't figure it out. This would have been nice to have been pointed out in the above discussion.
>closure of your discussion above if you think that it can be closed.
The whole point is that it was/is an ongoing discussion! Why would I want to "close" it? The title has in it suggestions & opinions wanted. It was still ongoing, which is why I'm confused as to why an editor that hasn't been involved in this article or its talk page for around 5 months would just completely ignore that discussion and create an RfC discussing the same topic. Why? Does WP:NEGOTIATE somehow not apply here? It says: If you wish at any time to request a third opinion (3O) or request for comment, use the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard (DRN), or open a request for arbitration, you will be expected to show there has been talk page discussion of the dispute. There has been no talk page discussion of a "dispute" prior to this RfC, because, again, nobody in the previous section unconditionally opposed a rewrite of the first sentence/paragraph of the article. JasonMacker (talk) 05:14, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
There are dozens of prior discussions on this topic that have had significantly more than 10 editors each. As Hemiauchenia pointed out, a local consensus of 10 people at one discussion can not override multiple past discussions that each had significantly more than 10 people each. What you are doing right now is akin to bludgeoning. You're unhappy with the clear result of multiple past discussions, so you said "maybe if I start yet another discussion it'll go my way". That's not how it works. People (myself included) are tired of having to watch this talk page every day and spend hours and hours each week commenting on whatever the "discussion of the week" is. So many people, myself included, wait for the RfC that is necessary to ensure that we don't have to repeat ourselves over and over again in whatever the discussion is that week. In other words, silence in "lesser" (i.e. more informal/non-RfC) discussions does not override clear and repeated prior consensus from RfCs that were much more widely attended.
JasonMacker, I strongly encourage you to revert your edit to the article and to incorporate your proposed wording into this RfC where people will actually comment on it. Please remember that this article (like all Israel/Palestine articles) is subject to contentious topic restrictions and if you continue to force your desire into the article in whatever way you can, you are highly likely to find yourself subject to restrictions under that procedure. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 01:14, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
I have notified Wikipedia:WikiProject Death, Wikipedia:WikiProject Discrimination, Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups, Wikipedia:WikiProject Human rights, Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel, Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration, Wikipedia:WikiProject Palestine, and Wikipedia:WikiProject International relations of this discussion. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 12:39, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
Pinging editors from the previous (above) discussion on this matter who haven't yet contributed. @Bob drobbs:, @Monk of Monk Hall:, @Cinaroot:, @Buidhe:, @David A:, @Bluethricecreamman:, @Jonathan f1:. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 12:43, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
Don't think I saw this discussed above, but any thoughts on using "refers to" as opposed to "is" in the suggestion? The Gaza genocide is refers to the ongoing systematic destruction of the Palestinian people in Gaza by Israel during the Gaza war. //Lollipoplollipoplollipop::talk 13:33, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
I am not opposed to this. Mason7512 (talk) 13:49, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
I would support this as well. I would also support something to the effect of Israel has been accused of genocide for its ongoing systematic destruction of the Palestinian people in Gaza during the Gaza war. EvansHallBear (talk) 21:46, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
While there isn't universal consensus amongst all people (obviously), I think there is broad consensus among experts on human rights and genocide studies at this point that this is a genocide. Could Wikivoice be implemented with a footnote that explains some potential caveats, per WP:WEIGHT? Spookyaki (talk) 14:51, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
As an example, you can look at Israeli apartheid, which states directly in Wikivoice that "Israeli apartheid is a system of institutionalized segregation and discrimination" and doesn't reference denial until the last two sentences of the lead (Paragraph 4 of 4). That seems appropriate for this article too. And if the answer is no, we cannot yet have Wikipedia state Gaza genocide in Wikivoice, then when? What criteria need to be satisfied for Wikivoice usage? At this point, the latest scholarly articles discussing the Gaza genocide don't really discuss the merits of whether it is a genocide, and instead simply refer to it as such. JasonMacker (talk) 03:29, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
At this point, the latest scholarly articles discussing the Gaza genocide... searching Google scholar for the exact phrase "Gaza genocide" and asserting that the found articles represent all current scholarship? Holy WP:CHERRYPICKING, Batman. As a minor rebuttal, here's a publication from 2 months ago that more fully grapples with the charge of "genocide," with insights such as "This means distinguishing genocide from ethnic cleansing, from domicide, and from extermination. These are all crimes against humanity, but only genocide seeks deliberately to destroy an ethnic group for itself..." with the author themselves remarking on the complexity of trying to term this conflict a genocide.
As for the reference to Israeli apartheid as to what to do with this article, WP:OTHERCONTENT remains, as ever, a poor argument. Other topics have different sourcing, and different editors and editing history which has collated that sourcing. The present state of any given wikipedia article is a poor foundation on which to decide contentious content matters for other articles. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:35, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
And as the author of the article states it is possible that genocide is occurring. As to cherrypicking, need we re-hash how you consider singular comments in popular magazines and news outlets to count as comparable in scholarly weight to full articles published in reputable journals? -- Cdjp1 (talk) 17:05, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
Equal in weight? Probably not. Comparable in weight? Certainly. It depends entirely on the context (reputability of said news outlet, reputability of the speaker, etc.) PhotogenicScientist (talk) 19:08, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
You kept arguing that such popular non-scholarly publications were scholarship. So, employing sarcasm and an analogy, nice to know we can use the Time magazine article of the de-extinction of dire wolves as scholarship alongside research on the matter published by Nature and Science. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 21:07, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
>Holy WP:CHERRYPICKING, Batman.
I "cherrypicked" by linking to Google Scholar search without specifying any article in particular? My point is that when people use the phrase "Gaza genocide" in scholarly articles, they are discussing the material reality of what is happening in Gaza. In other words, "Gaza genocide" refers to Israel's systematic mass killing and destruction in Gaza (among other things). The article you cited does not doubt the material reality of Israel unleashing mass death and destruction in Gaza, commonly called the "Gaza genocide." The fact that some scholarship exists regarding how to classify Israel's systematic destruction of Palestinians in Gaza, in a sea of overwhelming scholarship suggesting that the material reality should be classified as genocide, is my entire point. "Gaza genocide" refers to that material reality. "The Gaza genocide is the ongoing systematic destruction of the Palestinian people in Gaza by Israel during the Gaza war." Is that statement true or false? It is true, and accepted even among scholars who don't consider Israel's "ongoing systematic destruction of the Palestinian people" to be a genocide. Per the article you cited, "In summary, it is possible that genocide is occurring in Gaza." What this statement implies is that there is some consensus of what is happening in Gaza, namely, mass killing and death and destruction in Gaza, which the majority of scholars are referring to as the "Gaza genocide." (Speaking of cherrypicking, the article quotes Omer Bartov's quote from November 2023 without any acknowledgement that Omer Bartov "no longer believes" in that statement.)
>As for the reference to Israeli apartheid as to what to do with this article, WP:OTHERCONTENT remains, as ever, a poor argument.
I'm not making a mere WP:OTHERCONTENT argument. I am saying that, at some point, the Israeli apartheid article decided to change the wording of their first sentence, defining Israeli apartheid using a Wikivoice is statement. And the question I asked (which you didn't bother responding to) is what criteria, currently unfulfilled according to you, will result in this article reaching that point, if ever? JasonMacker (talk) 17:06, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
there is some consensus of what is happening in Gaza, namely, mass killing and death and destruction in Gaza You repeat this a lot, and you're right - there's consensus not only among scholarship, but also among the wikipedian editors here, that these atrocities are happening. The contention remains, as ever, exactly in the terming of it "genocide." The opinion of "it is possible that genocide is occurring in Gaza", held by many still, remains distinct from "Israel is committing genocide against the Palestinian people".
Why you and other editors seem intent on applying this label - when respected scholars such as Mr. Bartov recognize that confronting the "material reality" and preventing it from happening is of much more import ("it is crucial to warn of the potential for genocide before it occurs, rather than belatedly condemn it after it has taken place") - is beyond me. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 19:28, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
(You still didn't respond to my pertinent questions) I'm actually not intent on applying that label. My focus is more on this article having a MOS:BOLDLEAD. I would be okay with lollipop's proposal or some other proposal if that's what this article needs to reach the consensus for a BOLDLEAD. I was the one who wrote the current short description in the article, "characterization of Israeli mass killings in Gaza," and if the first sentence was a reflection of that ("Gaza genocide refers to a characterization...") I would be okay with that. My main contention is that the current first sentence of the article fails MOS:FIRST. JasonMacker (talk) 20:04, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
WP:BOLDLEAD is confusingly written... the example used for the 2nd case is actually an example of the 1st case - "display [the title] in bold as early as possible in the first sentence." I would argue that the lead as-written already complies with BOLDLEAD, by "including the title if it can be accommodated in a natural way." ("Israel is committing genocide... as part of the Gaza war.") This formation already introduces the reader to the topic, and the less-natural way of using the phrase "Gaza genocide" in option 1 doesn't add any benefit to reader comprehension of the article - which is the purpose of the first sentence ("The first sentence should introduce the topic, and tell the nonspecialist reader what or who the subject is"). PhotogenicScientist (talk) 13:43, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
I agree about BOLDLEAD. My main issue with the current first sentence is MOS:LEADCLUTTER due to the long parenthetical at that start, which buries the lede. Even moving the "according to..." to the end of the sentence would be a substantial improvement. EvansHallBear (talk) 14:49, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
LEADCLUTTER is about trying to pack too much information about the topic into the first sentence - which isn't the case here. The first sentence has essentially two parts: 1) Accusation of genocide by Israel, and 2) broadly, who is making the accusation. All the other details - including individual organizations' and individuals' claims, details of Israel's actions, relevancy to the charge of genocide, etc. - are covered in the rest of the lead.
I don't find the lead is buried at all - the charges against Israel remain in the first sentence, not "far down in the article". PhotogenicScientist (talk) 16:32, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
Part 1 (the accusation) is more important than part 2 (the accusers), yet the current opening leads with part 2. Obviously not as egregious as putting the accusation after the first sentence, but reordering would still be an improvement. EvansHallBear (talk) 16:44, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
So just swapping the two around should resolve that as an easy* fix, possibly like "Israel has been accused of conducting genocide in the Gaza War by [accusers]".
* Subject to half a dozen RfCs. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 16:51, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
You mean something exactly like the article was ~3 months ago?. That would be fine by me. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 16:59, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
My proposal above was Israel has been accused of genocide for its ongoing systematic destruction of the Palestinian people in Gaza during the Gaza war. I don't think the accusers are as important as why Israel is being accused in the first place, so I would propose moving that to the second sentence. Adding the list of genocidal acts to the first paragraph is an improvement over the old article you linked, which didn't even say why they were being accused in the opening. But I think the fact that Israel is systematically destroying Gaza is really the heart of the issue and so it belongs in the first sentence. EvansHallBear (talk) 03:26, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
I disagree about it being an improvement. Starting off the article with "Israel is committing genocide..." pushes this article much closer to making that pronouncement in Wikivoice. When in fact that pronouncement comes from the organizations and individuals cited. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 16:52, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
I guess I'll just ask it again directly, since you've dodged it a few times: What do you think is missing that prevents us from writing "The Gaza genocide is..." in Wikivoice? JasonMacker (talk) 00:33, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
I'll refer you to my comment in the Polling section above, wherein I refer you to the comments I made in this discussion. Tl;dr there remains enough significant opposition from a variety of reliable sources as to the pronouncement of what is happening a genocide that we should refrain from making such a pronouncement in wikivoice. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 18:29, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
Okay, I see now. The problem I have with your view is that it gives older pronouncements as to whether it is a genocide equal weight to newer pronouncements, and it also gives equal weight to individuals compared to the entire organizations (like Amnesty International or HRW, which only count as 2 entries). As I pointed out above, scholars such as Bartov initially suggested that it's not a genocide, but then changed their minds in light of new facts and said that it is a genocide. That's the trend (as pointed out in the Vox article). I haven't heard of any scholar who initially thought it was genocide but has now changed their mind and said that it's no longer a genocide. Just looking at the template, to find a scholar that says No, you have to go back to October 2024 (5 months ago). Of the 24 expert opinions that have been added since then, the tally is 16 YES (66%), 5 LIKELY (21%), 3 MAYBE (12.5%), and 0 NO (0%). And of those expert opinions, they include 7 organizations, including multiple UN organizations, HRW, and Amnesty International. Not a single one of these orgs says NO. Of course, the list is not exhaustive, so I did my own search for this year and the most recent article I can find that says NO is Morris's January 2025 Haaretz article, where he says "Israel Is Not Committing Genocide in Gaza. But It May Be on the Way There." Adding that to my previous count, we would have 96% YES, LIKELY, or MAYBE, and 4% NO. I've also added Morris to the template just now. If you have more NO experts for 2025, please provide them. JasonMacker (talk) 21:12, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
I believe for the purposes of using the term "genocide" in wikivoice, the more relevant breakdown of the sources you've referenced would be 64% YES, and 36% LIKELY, MAYBE, or NO. Since 36% of such sources hedge with language like "consistent with acts of genocide" or "plausible case of genocide," so too should we.
Genocide isn't simply a concept or an action - it is a CRIME. And our guidance on crime (WP:BLPCRIME, WP:CRIME, WP:CRIMINAL) while not exact fits in this case, urge caution in the pronouncement of crimes committed, and calling of people "criminals" - typically until there is an authoritative ruling on the matter.
I tend to agree with scholarship that defers to international judgements (e.g. the ICJ) to term what's happening a genocide ([38] "at the time of writing the charge of genocide in Gaza remains, at least for me, still to be proven") ([39] "The possibility of genocide is being probed at the time of writing... there is a reasonable possibility that genocide will be confirmed by the ICJ"); or with scholarship that focuses on the material reality of the conflict without striving to make the pronouncement themselves ([40] " I am uninterested in scholastic disputation over whether Israel’s policies include genocide, though much of what has transpired is eminently consistent with genocide through direct killing and “deliberately inflicting on the [victim] group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part,” as the 1948 UN Genocide Convention defines it") ([41] section on "Negative duty violations and cases of mass atrocities") PhotogenicScientist (talk) 20:24, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
As of 5 May, the break down is:
  • Yes - 59.3%
  • Likely - 2.7%
  • Maybe - 11.3%
  • No - 24.9%
  • No position - 1.8%
-- Cdjp1 (talk) 22:28, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
I find the "wait until ICJ/ICC rules" extremely unconvincing. Using that as a standard would be extremely high and is not applied to other insistences of genocide (and would also mean that genocides prior to 1951/2002 would be subject to different standards: as in, a pre-1951/2002 genocide could be named as such based on majority consensus/common name, while a post 1951/2002 genocide with the same majority consensus/common name level would not be named as such). Pages which use wiki voice for modern genocides in the first sentence but have not had a conviction (ICC) nor ruling (ICJ) on genocide with the (words used) include:
Post Jul 2002/ICC jurisdiction: Rohingya genocide (is), Yazidi genocide (was), Iraqi Turkmen genocide (refers), Darfur genocide (was)
Pre Jul 2002/ICC jurisdiction: East Timor genocide (refers), Isaaq genocide (was)
I think the Rohingya genocide is the most similar in terms of circumstances (ongoing, debates, pending ICC/J cases)
Also, both WP:CRIME and WP:CRIMINAL redirect to notability guidelines, which, although they mention other guidelines from BLPCRIME, are not relevant here. On WP:BLPCRIME, using wiki voice for genocide does not contradict the rule of "presum[ing] innocen[ce] until convicted by a court of law". No assertion is being made that a particular person committed a crime. As far as I know, there is no rule on Wikipedia which states a conviction is needed to call an event a crime nor one which specifically "urge[s] caution in the pronouncement of crimes committed" (which, as you mentioned, is only one of the meanings/implications of the word genocide). Mason7512 (talk) 00:14, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
WP:BLPCRIME applies only to "living persons". Israel is not a "living person", thus WP:BLPCRIME does not apply. Other policies and guidelines apply, but not BLPCRIME. JasonMacker (talk) 16:38, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
Like I said, it's not an exact fit - but I believe the guiding principle behind it applies. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 19:48, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
If MOS:FIRST is a concern, to satisfy I'd be open to saying The Gaza genocide is the ongoing systematic killing of the Palestinian people in Gaza by Israel during the Gaza war. According to a United Nations special committee, Amnesty International, and other experts and human rights organisations, Israel is committing genocide........ Cinaroot (talk) 23:09, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Note: this comment was originally a response to FortunateSons vote in the responses section, but I've moved it here in order to avoid cluttering that section. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:46, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

  • I see 7 countries listed as rejecting that this is a genocide, which is hardly the majority of Western countries. And Western countries are still a minority of the world and should not be given undue weight. I see ~40 countries agreeing that Israel is committing genocide plus the African Union. This far outweighs those 7 countries. Wiki should reflect a NPOV and not a western POV.
    German legal scholarship is definitely a minority opinion and should be treated as such, especially as Germany is accused of complicity in the genocide. The International Law Scholars section has an outsized number of links to German Wikipedia at the moment, which is given undue weight. EvansHallBear (talk) 16:50, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
    Agreed. In the name of "removing clutter," this is reducing the readability of the discussion. Which FortunateSons comment, where, and saying what? None of this is easily accessible, as it would be if this were left as a reply right under the comment. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 16:25, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
    I wouldn't say German legal scholars are a minority opinion, but (from what I've seen from Germany) they seem to be more internally unanimous on the position than legal scholars in other countries. This would be an interesting point to bring into the article (compare-contrast), but we need outside RS to really do the leg work on that. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 16:54, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
    Of the 18 scholars in the "International law scholars" section, we have:
    • 6 US American (Schabas lives and works in Canada though)
    • 5 German
    • 2 Jewish Israeli
    • 2 Swiss
    • 1 Austrian
    • 1 Palestinian Israeli
    • 1 Argentinian
    So, while we do have a few Germans (who link out to their profiles on deWiki), they're not "overrepresented" in my opinion. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 17:05, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
    Not a single British international law scholar referenced? Looking quickly at Template:Expert opinions in the Gaza genocide debate, I see Lord Sumption, Perugini/Gordon, Grietje Baars, Conor Gearty, Michael Mansfield, and Menon as potentially worthy of inclusion.
    I would imagine there are also French, Spanish, etc. opinions worthy of inclusion but don't have the language skills to look for them myself. EvansHallBear (talk) 04:08, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
    Nothing stopping you from adding the British law scholars. I'll look to add them later if they haven't been added already. As my push for the inclusion of the Germans was to internationalise the perspectives on the matter, I will dig for Spanish and French law scholars. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 08:52, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
    @FortunateSons: tagging you incase you by some chance have any suggestion to specific journals/law websites in French or Spanish we could look into? -- Cdjp1 (talk) 09:15, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
    @Cdjp1, I would welcome the addtion of British (and any other) relevant law scholars. While I'm sorry to say that my French legal education is minimal and my awareness of Spanish law borders on non-existence, I do believe that a quick request on WP:Law might summon someone more familiar with this topic? Anecdotally speaking, my French lecturers also wrote in Verfassungsblog, Just Security, Lawfare, or similar avenues, but most of them were pretty young, so I doubt that this is representative of those at the peak of their respective fields. FortunateSons (talk) 09:43, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
    Gearty, Perugini/Gordon, and Mansfield added in. The additions will need c/e. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 17:42, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
    Among those listed, Ireland (and arguably Spain) claim this is a genocide, some refer to the ICJ (thereby not making an affirmative claim, and, ironically enough, follow my position on what the article should do), and the rest of the Western countries say no. The so-called West represents more than a third of the worlds global economic power as defined by GDP (and even more based on some other metrics), an arguably even higher precentage of military power, about 15% of the global population, most leading academic institutions., 3 permanent SC seats, etc. Even a rough consensus in the West would contravene the academic supermajority required to move this from a contentious claim to fact unless there is a significant divergence between scholarship/media and the positions of the governments.
    German scholarship, perhaps jointly with Spanish and French, is only clearly exceeded by English in recognition and relevance, and ought to be represented as such, arguably even more than it is now once the other languages catch up; while some German law scholars claim that this could be a genocide, they are largely excluded from the article because they are insignificant or because adding them would constitute a violation of policy for me. If someone has the relevant skills, adding some more Israeli and Arab scholars would also be desirable. Personally, I believe that legal scholarship is generally underrepresented compared to non-legal studies in this article, but opening this can of worms is likely to make me incredibly unpopular. FortunateSons (talk) 10:16, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
    Something something Gramsci and Foucault on knowledge and power. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 10:56, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
    If you go a Google Scholar search it is clear that there is a huge divergence between published scholarship and the position of Western governments. Here at Wikipedia we should follow the scholarship not politics. (t · c) buidhe 14:24, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
    To some degree within scholarship, but largely not within the media: which western newspaper of record regularly uses the term in their own voice?
    In some cases, this divergence often becomes significantly smaller once you look at the actual high-level scholarship (read: law professors at reputable universities). FortunateSons (talk) 14:58, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
    Study of genocide isn't exclusive to lawyers. It would be biased to elevate legal perspectives over history, sociology, etc. And at least in my opinion published scholarship is virtually always a better source than news articles—I think most RSN contributors would agree. (t · c) buidhe 15:06, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
    For news, I have tried to implement exactly this standard for this article and have failed. Not that it matters here, of course, because the sort of RS consensus necessary for using a controversial term in our own voice could be prevented by newspapers of records, but still.
    For the other disciplines, I largely disagree, but doubt that I’ll find consensus for that particular viewpoint. But when the question comes to determining consensus, I believe one thing is pretty indisputable either way: legal consensus is, at the very least, conditio sine qua non for using a legal term in our own voice. FortunateSons (talk) 15:16, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
    I used to share this perspective, but later on I realized that adhering to the legal definition or treating it as a veto point is Wikipedia elevating one definition of genocide over the many others, which fails NPOV. Thus I believe consensus should be evaluated by looking at all scholarship as a whole, not just those that are legally focused. (t · c) buidhe 16:01, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
    Just to be clear, in this case, this has nothing to do with the supremacy of legal analysis: if there was no consensus within genocide studies and a consensus within internal law (which, to be fair, is highly unlikely), that would lead to the same outcome.
    Having said that, this view ignores the actual implications in this case: the practical differences between “no genocide” and “a consensus of genocide according to genocide studies only” are minute in comparison the difference between those two on one side and “genocide according to a consensus of international law sources and the ICJ” on the other. The first two cause complaints in an academic forum or a “Café in a [insert metropolitan area here]”, the latter are international condemnations, sanctions, the cutting of diplomatic ties, or even a SC response. FortunateSons (talk) 16:33, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
    But let us never forget the wisdom of the UN courts in determining people can be victims of a genocide that did not happen, per the courts' rulings. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 17:18, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
    And democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time. I‘m by no means a the-UN-is-always-right type of person, but what else is there? FortunateSons (talk) 17:25, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
    As I said in an interaction of ours many months ago, I believe research published from specialists in relevant disciplines are a better assessment for genocide than relying on the determination of the crime by the system of law. But I mainly point to the ICTY judgements as it is a ridiculous and fascinating factoid.
    Wherever we end up at though in this, much observed, corner of the internet, nobody will be completely happy, but it will hopefully be a minimal amount of "good enough". -- Cdjp1 (talk) 17:50, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
    I don’t believe we’re likely to ever fully agree on that first part, but I - as always- appreciate your nuanced and reasonable view. I wish I shared your optimism on the second part, but we’ll see how that turns out. FortunateSons (talk) 18:15, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
    Oh, I have no optimism whatsoever 😂 -- Cdjp1 (talk) 19:03, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
    I don't put much weight into the pronouncements of governments and would agree that we should emphasize the scholarship (which should be largely though not exclusively legal). But if we are going to take the statements of governments into account, I don't think any special weighting should be applied whether that's by GDP, population, military expenditures, or Olympics success. Governments speak for themselves out of political considerations and don't represent the viewpoints of their citizens, businesses, academics, etc.
    While I don't doubt that German legal scholarship is generally highly regarded, a perusal of the arguments linked in the article is quite unconvincing. There's a lot of hand-waving at the statements of genocidal intent from Israeli leaders. Swoboda trots out the evidence-free assertion of a Hamas command center under a hospital. Ambos seems way more concerned about "From the river to the sea" than Gallant's "human animals" comment. Walter speaks of Israel's right to self-defense without addressing the issue of belligerent occupation. The Khan article provides no specifics. The strongest argument seems to me that there are other plausible motives for Israel's actions. When applied to specific genocidal acts though, I'm not sure it holds up. For example, I'm struggling to think of such a motive for destroying an IVF center. Perhaps these issues are addressed in more depth elsewhere. EvansHallBear (talk) 07:54, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
    I strongly disagree with pretty much all of that. I'm partial to "all countries are equal" type of views myself, there is a reason why the Island nations statement by Finkelstein is used the way it is. Liechtenstein has amazing cultural and historical significance, but it (and probably about 100) countries would have to collaborate in order to shift global consensus the same way China and the US can together. Democratic governments largely represent the will of their electorate, except occasionally overrepresenting the "elites", both academic and financial, which is pretty much exactly what we are looking for when it comes to non-academic sourcing. I think a reasonable argument can be made for not caring about governments at all, but if we do, we should do so properly, and considering all countries as equal is not aligned with reality.
    This would be the wrong place to discuss German scholarship in depth, but in my opinion, the German arguments are standard high-quality scholarship. To address a specific point, Ambos discusses the relevant criteria for both terms, in the context of multiple possible interpretations, which seems appropriate. What do you consider the issue to be? Just to pre-empt the obvious arguments, due weight within scholarship is almost entirely up to the scholars, and Kai Ambos is not really considered to be a friend of Israel. FortunateSons (talk) 08:23, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
    As I said, I don't think government opinions matter at all. I never proposed an all governments are equal standard either. I think a qualitative over quantitative approach makes the most sense. And I don't agree that democratic governments represent the will of the people. But even if they do how should we handle non-democratic governments?
    I agree with Ambos on ICC jurisdiction and not much else. Specific objections:
    #His argument on hospitals potentially being legitimate targets flips the standard of proof entirely on its head. It is incumbent on Israel to prove that attacks on hospitals were directed at military objectives and that they were proportionate in nature. By saying we need to be "on the ground", he is giving Israel carte blanche to claim military objectives without evidence and to determine what is proportionate.
    #Bartov now claims genocide is happening, so the hedge no longer applies
    #Per Roth, it's absolutely clear from context that Gallant was referring to all of Gaza and not just Hamas.
    #The slogan "from the river to the sea..." by itself is not an expression of genocidal intent. No nuance necessary.
    #I find his objection to criminalizing the slogan as merely ineffective and not anti-democratic troubling.
    #There is not "certainly" evidence of rapes on October 7.
    #There is no evidence of widespread usage of human shields by Hamas (although there is by Israel).
    #Israel has no "right to exist within the pre-1967 borders".
    #The most profound criticism of Israeli policy comes not from Israel itself but from its victims: Palestinians. To not see that speaks very clearly to his perception of Palestinians.
    EvansHallBear (talk) 09:23, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
    Apologies if this falls into WP:SOAPBOX or WP:NOTFORUM territory. I can strike if necessary. EvansHallBear (talk) 09:36, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
    It's optional IMO, but probably not a bad idea. I responded here. FortunateSons (talk) 10:23, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
Given that consensus is determined based on quality of arguments over a simple poll result, why have you moved comments out of the responses section? EvansHallBear (talk) 14:58, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Note: this comment was originally a response to berchanhimez vote in the responses section, but I've moved it here in order to avoid cluttering that section. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:46, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

  • This is a much higher standard than is used elsewhere on Wikipedia for genocides. By that standard, essentially no genocide can be referred to as such on Wikipedia. Especially since the term genocide wasn't coined until the 1940s, we wouldn't be able to call any event prior to that a genocide. EvansHallBear (talk) 16:44, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

This comment was originally a response to Mason7512 in the voting section. It has been moved to reduce clutter: Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:48, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

  • If the article title is merely descriptive—such as Electrical characteristics of dynamic loudspeakers—the title does not need to appear verbatim in the main text. This qualifies as a "descriptive title" - it is only as short as "Gaza genocide" because there is no need to make the title longer. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 01:56, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
As for the suggestion to circumvent this problem with a "refers to" construction, I would like to remind everyone of MOS:REFERS. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:42, 18 May 2025 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gaza_genocide/Archive_1&oldid=1295949874"