Talk:Gaza genocide#Comment leaderboard

I propose that the subsection Gaza_genocide#World_leaders_and_governments be split off into its own article. The article is growing bloated (it's lagging on my PC) and I believe this comprehensive table would be better suited in its own article. I am not sure of whichd name to give this new article, but I have suggestions:

• International positions on the Gaza genocide accusation
• International positions on the Gaza genocide
• Gaza genocide recognition (similar to Armenian genocide recognition) Withdrawn due to consensus for opposing

―Howard • 🌽³³ 19:05, 25 May 2025 (UTC) ; edited ―Howard • 🌽³³ 06:02, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

• It doesn’t seem that big— excluding the list. The list doesn’t add to the scroll length since it’s clipped or collapsed Cinaroot (talk) 02:51, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
• Per WP:SIZERULE, we are currently sat at over 16,000 words, so probably should look at splitting. The government reactions seems an appropriate target, but even if we were to split the whole "Statements by political organisations and governments" section, that's only ~3,000 words, and of course we'll still need a paragraph or two covering it at a few hundred to 1,000-ish words. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 10:35, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
• I support this proposal. I would also nominate the genocidal intent section as that has grown quite long but could also accommodate even more examples in its own article. EvansHallBear (talk) 19:49, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
• I support this, as it will help make the article less bloated. Opm581 ^{(talk | he/him)} 02:00, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
• I strongly oppose this suggestion, as this article is not particularly long to read in terms of main text without references alone, it helps for a much easier overview to have all of the information in one place, and the entire Gaza war humanitarian crisis is split into a sufficiently large number of articles already. David A (talk) 08:34, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

::I agree with this. We don't need to follow article Wikipedia:SIZERULE as per Wikipedia:Ignore all rules Cinaroot (talk) 08:40, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:::IAR applies only when ignoring a rule improves the encyclopedia. Making the page unloadable doesn't accomplish that. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:34, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Page unloadable? Really? Each section isn't that big—cutting content just to satisfy a policy is silly. And IAR can be used. Cinaroot (talk) 01:10, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Editing the references has gotten a bit slow for me but otherwise the page loads fine for me. EvansHallBear (talk) 02:04, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::Yes, there are no page loading problems whatsoever for me either. That argument does not seem valid. David A (talk) 08:31, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::So far, I have neither encountered nor heard of any kind of problems loading this article or any part of it. -The Gnome (talk) 16:29, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

• I Support moving it to Gaza genocide recognition, it will help focus this article on what is happening in Gaza and the new article can focus on the international response/recognition. Yung Doohickey (talk) 19:04, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

::Complicity through support is also highly relevant to the full context here, and comparatively speaking this is a quite brief Wikipedia page in terms of text to read. Splitting it would fracture the full context, render it incoherent, and open up both pages for being argued to be sufficiently irrelevant to be deleted in the future, which is not remotely desireable for the cause of universally applicable human rights. David A (talk) 08:31, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I think we can talk about complicity and support in this article, but for a more detailed an in-depth article about how each country feels about the ongoing genocide could be its own article imo. Yung Doohickey (talk) 19:50, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

• I Oppose splitting. There's no problem loading the page for me, and about half of the overall page length is just footnotes and sources. I don't see a problem with the article itself and I think that this change would be unnecessary. Albert Mond (talk) 23:32, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

::Yes - we do not count length of footnotes and references. Cinaroot (talk) 00:52, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

• I oppose the move, the article works as an all-encompassing one much like other similar genocide articles on the wiki. --Dynamo128 (talk) 11:23, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose splitting out the governments and world leaders section. If a split is absolutely necessary (I don't think it is at this time) I would prefer to split out the cultural discourse section. Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 00:22, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

• This seems like a good step and consistent to what has been done for other topics. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:09, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose. I see no issue with the length of this article as it stands, especially with the section under discussion. Moreover, that section fits perfectly into the overall organization and logical flow of the article such that moving it to another page would greatly undermine this article's integrity. Lastly, the proposed new article would, on its own, be arguably too short as a standalone article of its own. Abu Wan (talk) 12:30, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose splitting. Primo, it's too early, still - yes, despite the two years that have passed, the article concerns without a doubt a historical event. We best tread carefully. Secondo, the article is not too large; its size is quite reasonable, considering the controversial subject, similar to the size of articles on related subjects. Tertio, moving now sections of the article elsewhere would negatively affect its coherence. -The Gnome (talk) 16:29, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose splitting. AimanAbir18plus (talk) 09:52, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
• Comment: The way citations are deployed in the text is eating up space unnecessarily. Instead of having, for example, "Ritman 2003" cited multiple times, and having Ritman's cited work described separately, we can save a significant amount of space by bundling all references to "Ritman 2003" to the appropriate Ritman work, one single citation that will then be tagged trivially with "a, b, c, d, etc." -The Gnome (talk) 05:58, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

On many articles about Gaza war events, it says they are part of the Gaza genocide. This seems to imply that just like the event is a fact, the Gaza is a fact. The latter was rejected by the latest RFC. This is similar to saying how the Murder of George Floyd is part of Black genocide implies Black genocide is factual.

This article is about the characterization, and the events are about recent history, so I don't think it is appropriate.

@Cinaroot Closetside (talk) 04:13, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

:@Berchanhimez Closetside (talk) 04:15, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

:The RfC above was well attended, and opened for over 3 weeks. The consensus there should be respected on this article, any sub-articles, and any related articles until/unless a wider consensus is formed. A consensus of a few editors on the talk page of one of those other articles that are much less watched than this article cannot override this wider consensus. Anyone who feels it should be different is free to challenge the close or start a wider discussion on WP:VPP or another forum they feel is appropriate - but it will need to be advertised to WP:CENT and other forums to be legitimate.{{pb}}It is textbook tendentious and POV pushing to treat it as if this very wide consensus only applies to this page and sneak POV wikivoice into other pages. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 04:18, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

::Adding - see WP:CONLEVEL if anyone does not understand the level of consensus. A consensus of dozens of editors at a well watched talk page like this is significantly stronger than any consensus that could form on the talk page of a much less watched page like the ones I saw at least. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 04:20, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

:My position on this issue is this

:it’s inappropriate to remove links to the Gaza genocide article from the infoboxes of related articles. ( eg [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Israeli_bombing_of_the_Gaza_Strip&diff=prev&oldid=1292832900] ) Those articles are part of the broader topic referred to as the Gaza genocide, which is the actual name of the article. It’s not claiming the term as fact; it’s simply using the title agreed upon by the community. There is consensus for that name as well . [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:PermanentLink/1232356978#Requested_move_3_May_2024] Cinaroot (talk) 04:29, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

::The consensus for that name is because it is the shortest unambiguous name. It does not mean there is a consensus to call it that when linking. That's why piped links exist. I have no opinion right now as to whether it may be appropriate to include "part of the alleged genocide in Gaza" or similar in those infoboxes/articles. But it is not appropriate to not use a piped link to make clear it is alleged when there is a very wide consensus against calling it a genocide in wikivoice. The name of the article does not matter. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 04:31, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Well, @Closetside could have edited it to say "part of the alleged genocide in Gaza," but instead, they removed it entirely from a dozen pages. Because I dare to dispute that- Berchanhimez have relentlessly attacked me on both their and my talk pages over this. Cinaroot (talk) 05:17, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

::::I have not attacked you at all. I have pointed out that your edit warring is tendentious, and that you have attacked Closetside. It's not up to them to fix your edits. It's up to you to seek consensus or fix them before you readd them. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 05:32, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::And again, a baseless accusation of edit warring and pov pushing—I reverted 3-4 edits ( each on separate pages) due to unexplained content removal from a Wikipedia:Contentious topics article. I posted about this on their talk page to use edit summary. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Closetside&diff=prev&oldid=1292836144]

:::::Once I noticed they had done this to a dozen articles, I asked them to stop making further same edits while the dispute is ongoing which can be tendentious editing.

:::::Everything was going well on their talk page, but Berchanhimez came in and escalated the situation dramatically.

:::::My apologies to Closetside if i prematurely accused of tendentious editing did not satisfy Berchanhimez.

:::::I have nothing else to say to them. Cinaroot (talk) 05:56, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Links to Gaza genocide should probably be updated to say "alleged" or moved to the See also section with an a comment that they are allegations/characterizations unless there is an attributed POV.

:::However, accusing Cinaroot of POV pushing for linking to the Gaza genocide article without a piped link is uncharitable. And you are definitely overstating the consensus from the RfC above. EvansHallBear (talk) 19:24, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Definitely not in the infobox due to NPOV. What about the times where Israel says Hamas had a military complex (virtually every time), should we add alleged use of human shields by Hamas? (Adding both would make the infobox too clunky) Or should we add part of the alleged 7 October genocide to the Nova music festival massacre. I would say leave allegations elsewhere, perhaps see also. Closetside (talk) 21:49, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I don't think that "part of the alleged genocide in Gaza" is a good compromise for those articles, as it goes against the consensus that led to this article's current title. I also think that Closetside's equivocating Black genocide with Gaza genocide is misleading. While the rationale for naming that article might also apply as a minimum justification for naming this one, the case that there's a genocide going on in Gaza is far more targeted, substantiated and less polemical than the Black genocide historiographical framework. A key aspect of the consensus for this page's name was that the evidence for genocide goes beyond an allegation. I think that any presentation of this article on other pages should reflect what I understand to be both the formal and practical (as expressed by the accepted contents of this page) consensus, which is that a growing majority of qualified individuals, organizations and governments consider this to be a genocide (or at a minimum are concerned that it could be or could become one) but that this designation is hotly contested. I would propose "part of the Gaza war and Gaza genocide (contested)" as the best representation of this article when linked on other pages. It's not perfect, but I think it's a good compromise or at least a starting point for one. Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 21:56, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

::::I would support that compromise.

::::The result of the RfC was that we can't yet say that Israel is committing genocide in Wikivoice. That doesn't provide free rein to start removing any reference to the Gaza genocide article from infoboxes, templates, and see also sections. Mere reference is not equivalent to stating something in Wikivoice.

::::For example, we don't use Wikivoice to describe the Native American genocide in the United States but this doesn't prevent its use in the Indian removal infobox. There's also a whole :Category:Native American genocide. EvansHallBear (talk) 23:02, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::I don't support it there (it could be genocide, non-genocidal ethnic cleansing, or paternalism) and I don't support it here. Also if Gaza genocide (contested) should be in the part of, so should use of human shields by Hamas (contested) every time Israel claims militants used the target for militancy and so should October 7 attacks be part of the 7 October genocide (contested). It's too bulky - it is part of the Gaza war and characterizations about the war can be mentioned elsewhere.

:::::Also, the three editors in support voted yes in Gaza genocide as fact RFC, which the community came to consensus as no. From Berchanhimez, the status quo is not to mention it and a consensus to mention it should have a similar demographic as the Gaza genocide as fact RfC. With that, I rest my case. Closetside (talk) 00:05, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

::::I’d note that since the community affirmatively chose to name this article “Gaza genocide”, multiple attempts to rename it to include qualifiers like “alleged” or “claims of” have not succeeded. In my view, we are therefore fully within policy to use the article’s title — without added qualifiers — when linking to it in infoboxes, , templates, and See also sections.

::::The RFC being cited by OP and Berchanhimez is being misconstrued. That RFC asked specifically "Should the article, including the opening sentence of the lead section, state the Gaza Genocide in wikivoice as fact" The consensus was against stating it as fact in this article’s narrative, not against referring to the article title elsewhere. Let’s avoid overextending the scope of that RFC beyond what was actually decided. Cinaroot (talk) 00:14, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Those are good points, and I agree that a direct link to the article is within policy. I wouldn't oppose the addition of a (contested) qualifier but I do oppose the use of alleged and the removal of the link in its entirety. Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 04:55, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Ah but you see, the rationale we've been given, in RfC after RfC, is that this title "isn't a statement of fact," usually accompanied by an appeal to WP:COMMONNAME. I don't think a single editor who's dissented in these RfCs ever believed that anyone defending the status quo was genuinely confused about what this title is communicating to a wider audience. It's not even subtle, and now you want to insert links to other genocides.

:::::I sense another title bout coming. It's bound to happen at some point, only a matter of when. Jonathan f1 (talk) 17:35, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::Another way of looking at it is that the wider audience is probably well aware of what Israelis are doing in Gaza, and the consequences, because it is widely reported. This article's title is not very important in the scheme of things. If there are editors who believe that 'Gaza genocide' is a statement of fact, their willingness to collaborate with 'pro-Israel' editors in a civilized manner is already a win for Wikipedia. Sean.hoyland (talk) 18:09, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::You're probably right. But until that time, we should respect the results of the previous RfCs that Gaza genocide is WP:COMMONNAME but that per WP:NPOV we can't state the Gaza genocide in Wikivoice as fact. Describing an event as part of the Gaza genocide complies with both decisions. EvansHallBear (talk) 18:23, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::It doesn't really, not in my opinion at least. Saying something is a "part of (other something)" is implying that the "other something" exists. For example, if I were to say American Airlines is part of the OneWorld Alliance, it implies that alliance exists. If I were to say Emirates is part of a United Alliance, that would not be appropriate. Because while they do have a partnership with United Airlines, it is not called an "alliance". A proper way to phrase that would be "Emirates is part of a partnership with United Airlines" or similar. Likewise here, "(event) is part of the alleged genocide in Gaza" may be appropriate - with either the last 3 or 4 words linked to the article. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 19:11, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::The way I understand the previous RfCs is that "Gaza genocide" is the WP:COMMONNAME for {{tq|large-scale killing, use of starvation as a weapon of war, destruction of civilian infrastructure, attacks on healthcare workers, and forced displacement}} during the Gaza war. That it, it's a catch-all term for events that happened or are happening. What the last RfC determined was that there is (for now) insufficient consensus that the crime of genocide is being committed. The scholarly debate largely revolves around questions of intent as opposed to denials that the above events occurred. This is similar to the usage of "Murder of X" instead of "Killing of X" per WP:DEATHS even when there hasn't been a conviction if that's the common name. EvansHallBear (talk) 19:49, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::That's correct -only the (critical) matter of intent remains unresolved, everything else seems crystal clear. I think only the most hardline pro-Israel types would try to deny that IDF members have committed war crimes (they're recording & uploading them on social media for f's sake!). Genocide is a top-down crime (ie a coordinated effort by people in power to eliminate a national/ethnic group) and not just spontaneous violence, and whether that's happening here is far from clear.

:::::::::I should say that I was one of the few editors who disputed that WP:COMMONNAME applies here in the last RfC, because a caveat to this policy is when you're dealing with a title or term that is controversial, like this one. Jonathan f1 (talk) 20:16, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::I wasn't around for the naming RfC but I agree that WP:COMMONNAME is a bad argument. Because outside the context of the article itself it becomes very difficult to distinguish whether the term is being used in the common or legal sense. Which is why I supported Monk's contested compromise above. EvansHallBear (talk) 20:29, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::COMMONNAME is about article titles. It's not about how it's referred to anywhere but the title of an article. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 00:26, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::Once an article title is chosen, that's what should generally be used across Wikipedia. EvansHallBear (talk) 00:46, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::Nope. That's why piped links exist. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 01:12, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::Piped links exist for when article titles don't fit in a sentence structure or to avoid disambiguation pages. What you're proposing directly contradicts WP:TRANSPARENCY. EvansHallBear (talk) 01:22, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::No it doesn't. That is about using piped links to create an "easter egg" where someone clicking on it is taken somewhere completely unexpected. Or where the piped link results in the destination not being displayed (ex: an armed conflict). It's not about whether additional clarifying words such as "alleged" can be added to an article title if necessary. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 00:14, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::In the non-narrative contexts we're discussing, it's not clarifying but obfuscating in an attempt to circumvent the consensus name chosen for the article. EvansHallBear (talk) 01:43, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::Nothing is being obfuscated. Furthermore, this is not a non-narrative context. If you say "part of the Gaza genocide", that is a claim in wikivoice. It does not matter what the article title is. The article title was chosen because it must be as concise as possible. We don't have to be concise when referring to it. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 01:45, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::Per the original move [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=1232356978#Requested_move_3_May_2024 RfC], {{tq|'Gaza genocide' is reflective of the wording used by available reliable sources, and several editors presented detailed source analyses in support of this.}} Additionally, {{tq|source analysis supported 'genocide' as a neutral descriptor (and conversely that 'accusation' is non-neutral), and/or that the presence of a statement in an article title does not imply that the statement is factual}} (emphasis mine). EvansHallBear (talk) 02:59, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::Below are examples of other articles, noting how they refer to the primary genocide article.

::::::::::Mariposa War, 1971 Dhaka University massacre, Srebrenica massacre, Armenian genocide denial ( in body ), Sinjar massacre, Bibliography of the Rwandan genocide, List of films about the Rwandan genocide, International response to the Rwandan genocide, Gikondo massacre

::::::::::It's perfectly acceptable and common practice across Wikipedia to link to another article using the article's name. Cinaroot (talk) 01:02, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::First, WP:OSE. Second, those are all genocides that are virtually universally accepted as genocides. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 01:13, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::Bangladesh genocide, California genocide, Armenian genocide are all universally accepted??? I can reference these articles to illustrate how established editorial standards are applied consistently across similar contexts. Wikipedia is not in the business of declaring truth but of summarizing notable views with appropriate attribution and balance. We do not require a topic to be universally accepted for its article title or to be used in links. If we did, large swaths of Wikipedia would break down.

::::::::::::If you wish to indicate that the term "Gaza genocide" is contested or alleged, please seek consensus and incorporate this into the lead or body of the article. I have no issue with that if the community agrees. Similarly, if you can have the article name changed to "Alleged Gaza Genocide," you are free to update all the links accordingly. Cinaroot (talk) 01:33, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::There's literally still a discussion on this page where there was a consensus to make clear that it is alleged, either by attributing who is alleging it or otherwise. It's still on this page. So you claiming there's not a discussion or consensus is, at best, incredibly blind. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 01:47, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

:Listed at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#WP:WIKIVOICE and article names

:@Berchanhimez @Closetside @EvansHallBear @Monk of Monk Hall @Sean.hoyland Cinaroot (talk) 07:01, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

::I appreciate the ping, I have commented there. Thank you for notifying us. Regards, -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 07:12, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

:Your reasoning makes sense, but I would advise against making all these changes, so as to avoid wasting time. We are waiting for the ruling of the ICJ, which will be the most definitive, but the weight of opinion among experts (academia, intergovernmental bodies, and NGOs) is that the genocide label is correct. There is almost no chance that expert opinion could suddenly reverse, especially as the atrocities continue on a daily basis with no end in sight. 20WattSphere (talk) 00:08, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

::to be clear: my view is no action needed. If the ICJ, or a literature review, comes to a surprising conclusion, then we can worry about re-framing all these references on WP. For now I feel pretty confident that expert opinion will continue to support the view that genocide is taking place in Gaza. 20WattSphere (talk) 11:54, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

:::While I agree, this is WP:CRYSTAL. EvansHallBear (talk) 13:46, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

::::I would argue WP:CRYSTAL is in agreement with my proposal. Specifically:

::::* Articles that present original research in the form of extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are inappropriate. Although scientific and cultural norms continually evolve, we must wait for this evolution to happen, rather than try to predict it.

::::It is speculation to say that experts will significantly change their view that Gaza is undergoing genocide. Thus, let's wait and see. 20WattSphere (talk) 21:01, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

{{cot|Collapsing WP:NOTFORUM EvansHallBear (talk) 18:02, 6 June 2025 (UTC)}}

:::::Several of the academics featured in this article have gone on record as saying they do not believe the legal criteria for genocide is sufficient, implying that even if ICJ rules against South Africa, they are unlikely to shift views. I suppose the real issue is whether it is even true that the "weight of opinion among academics is that the genocide label is correct." Is it? The academics cited in this article are involved in fields like Middle East studies (who overwhelmingly agree that it's genocide), Holocaust & Genocide studies (who are split, with most genocide scholars seemingly agreeing with the genocide label), and international legal scholars (whose views are very mixed). There is no consensus among legal academics, and nothing out of more traditional, mainstream disciplines like political science. Just the "x studies" crowd who tend to be very political.

:::::Given the nature of this conflict and the fact that many apolitical academics are reluctant to get involved in these disputes publicly, I do not believe we are anywhere near establishing a broad academic consensus. In fact, we have never even discussed which disciplines we'd like to hear from. International law is the obvious one, but surely there are other fields that investigate these matters other than genocide studies & Middle East studies. Jonathan f1 (talk) 02:06, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::If only we had a list of multiple scholars who come from a background in political science giving their opinion and assessment of the matter, wouldn't that be a great resource. Oh wait, we do have that, but since those who have opined, view it as genocide, you seem not consider them as valid academics from those fields. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 09:54, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::As to the note of {{tqq|Several of the academics featured in this article have gone on record as saying they do not believe the legal criteria for genocide is sufficient}}, those featured in this article who hold such an opinion, are in fact a fraction of academics who have for decades pointed out the shortcomings and failures of the legal apparatus that is the genocide convention. This isn't something unique to this instance, and the legal framework has been under criticism since before the convention was even adopted. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 09:58, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::I just don't believe that every academic discipline that has expertise in studying & assessing genocides has come to the conclusion on the weakest of circumstantial evidence that a genocide is occurring in Gaza. This can't be right. Jonathan f1 (talk) 17:35, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::{{tqq|weakest of circumstantial evidence}}{{citation needed|date=June 2025}}

:::::::::Beyond that, {{tqq|every academic discipline}} has not come the the conclusion you are arguing against. So your choice to so vociferously try to argue all these disciplines are fields of study are in this or that manner invalid, is a quest of tilting at windmills. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 17:46, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::{{url|https://theconversation.com/the-debate-over-genocide-claims-in-relation-to-gaza-intensifies-257847| This article}} from The Conversation, a scholarly journal/newspaper presents the charge neutrally, no consensus in either direction.

::::::::::A literature review is more complicated then you think. Proponents will use the term in every article they write about the war while opponents will only use the term in articles that criticize the charge and omit the term in all other content they write about the war.

::::::::::Regardless, this article is about the charge. We have the precedent of Black genocide and Transgender genocide, two fringe charges. You can start a requested move if you want, but I doubt it will succeed. Closetside (talk) 17:56, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::Calling the Gaza genocide a "fringe charge" is factually incorrect. It's the finding of the majority of leading genocide scholars. EvansHallBear (talk) 18:11, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::That was meant as an a fortiori argument, not to say the charge is fringe. Closetside (talk) 18:14, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::_{"Proponents will use the term in every article they write about the war while opponents will only use the term in articles that criticize the charge and omit the term in all other content they write about the war."}

:::::::::::Exactly what I told several editors in the last RfC about the title. They were trying to search Google scholar for "Gaza genocide" vs "allegations of genocide in Gaza," only to arrive at the predictable conclusion that "Gaza genocide" is most common. I showed them that there's a contingent of "x studies" scholars who've spent decades accusing Israel of genocide, long before this conflict started. I suspect these same scholars also dispute the legal criteria for genocide. Jonathan f1 (talk) 19:28, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::Your argument that "these scholars warned of the pre-conditions of genocide being present in Israel-Palestine" should now be ignored when they argue they believe it has now crossed the threshold into genocide, remains as ridiculous today as when you last made it. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 17:41, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::There is no evidence of some silent majority of scholars that don't think it's genocide but just aren't saying it. EvansHallBear (talk) 20:26, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::How about a silent majority that's just silent because they don't believe there's conclusive evidence? I bet if I started looking up the names of faculty in the relevant departments at all the major universities I'd find a large number of scholars who have not said anything publicly about this. Your last attempt to show a consensus in some cross-disciplinary area of Middle East scholarship stated only 34% were a hard yes on genocide. Jonathan f1 (talk) 20:50, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::That was one survey from over a year ago. Even back then only 24% said not genocide. So again, there's no evidence of some silent majority that believes this isn't genocide. The point of linking to it though was to refute your argument that the "x studies" crowd was not representative of scholars as a whole. EvansHallBear (talk) 21:00, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::I wouldn't expect a silent majority that thinks it's not a genocide, but I would expect a silent majority that's just silent because the evidence isn't conclusive.

::::::::::::::Speaking of attempts to change the legal definition, this Wash Post article by two scholars, one Holocaust and the other a historian, was published yesterday and addresses this issue (quoting an excerpt):

::::::::::::::_{"There have been efforts to stretch the definition since the 1960s. In 1967, the Russell Tribunal, an unofficial court of intellectuals and activists, found the United States guilty of genocide for its war in Vietnam. Among other acts, the movement of Vietnamese civilians to strategic hamlets was said to have constituted genocide, because it disrupted social and cultural structures. Today’s academic theory of settler colonialism redefines genocide further as a structural process that destroys indigenous peoples either through resettlement or assimilation. It is the centerpiece of many genocide accusations, including that by the U.N. Special Rapporteur for Palestine, Francesca Albanese, who thinks that litigating this argument against Israel will bring freedom for indigenous people everywhere. But this is activism, not law."}[https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2025/06/03/israel-gaza-genocide-allegations/] Jonathan f1 (talk) 22:51, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::We can't possibly hope to represent the views of people who haven't said anything in this article. I don't see the point of this line of reasoning. Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 00:51, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::I'm not suggesting that -I'm only saying it's premature to declare an academic consensus. There are too many unknowns and no way to verify most of these claims. As the article I linked mentions, even the civilian casualty figures are disputed. Jonathan f1 (talk) 13:43, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::As can be clearly seen within the article, there does in fact seem to exist a large consensus among both scholars and human rights organisations that this is in fact a genocide. A consensus does not require that some, likely usually heavily partisan, voices cannot occasionally object to it. David A (talk) 13:57, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::Heavily partisan...like declaring a genocide in a territory no one's been allowed in to investigate, using casualty data that's widely disputed, and establishing intent based on conflicting statements made by officials who in many cases are not even in charge of any policy, and who contradict themselves in other statements. I'm sorry if some of us are a little skeptical of this totally non-partisan consensus. Jonathan f1 (talk) 15:19, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::::The casualty numbers are not "widely disputed" and stating "civilian casualty figures are disputed" as pointing against a genocide consensus is deceptive. There has been legitimate studies, reports, organizations, etc. proposing different numbers, but none (that I know of) have placed the numbers lower than the official numbers. Most organizations and studies have stated that they are likely undercounts, not over counts, due to the collapse of the health care system and civil governance. The reliability of Gaza Health Ministry death numbers are discussed in this article and others: the UN and Israel have both publicly deemed/admitted them to be historically reliable, considering the limitations (which cause undercounts). Mason7512 (talk) 16:35, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::::"Recently, several media reports have raised questions about the reliability of the statistics by highlighting anomalies between the August and October 2024 and March 2025 lists of fatalities. The reports focus on how some 3,000 names of people originally identified as fatalities were removed from later revised lists....International journalists, including the BBC, are blocked by Israel from entering Gaza independently, so are unable to verify figures from either side."[https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cx25x35476yo]

::::::::::::::::::::A lot of assumptions are being made about how many civilians have been killed and the ratio to Hamas fighters. I have no doubt the actual number's higher than current estimates, but the ratio to combatants is unknown and thus impossible to compare to other conflicts. Jonathan f1 (talk) 17:34, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::The point of the argument is to make any justification to not cover the actual scholarship being published on the matter. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 17:43, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::Ah yes Goda and Herf, I wish they hadn't chosen to make their arguments initially in an outlet that is known for the publishing of race science bullshit as that really does stain your work. And I would also like to note how they ignore the history of the formation of the convention, with the multitude of political factors that sought to limit it's ability to target specifically those who were conducting genocidal actions in their empires, the fruits of which we see whenever we try to name any of the imperial genocides as such. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 17:37, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::Probably true, but as the authors mention, this is activism, not law. Jonathan f1 (talk) 17:42, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::Not probably, known to be true, as has been explored, detailed, and evidenced by the academic field you continually argue has no merit. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 17:49, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::Amazing, you make an argument against me for something I have not stated. Also The Conversation is not a "scholarly journal". -- Cdjp1 (talk) 17:30, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::I need a verifiable source do I? Where is the evidence that has moved whole academic fields to consensus, anyway? This article quotes statements from Israeli politicians -eg, Netanyahu invoking Amalek -that were made because they play well to a certain base. This is not evidence of a policy. The IDF takes orders from a cabinet and those orders have to be approved by lawyers before they go into effect, same as the US military. They do not take orders from politicians making statements on TV. Just imagine if everyone thought Trump's TV comments (like when he flirted with using nukes on countries) were indicative of changes in official US military policy. It's absurd to think about, but that's where we are here. There are people trying to tie what appears to be highly disorganized and spontaneous incidences of violence against Gazan civilians into a coordinated genocide policy, but there's nothing linking all of it together.

::::::::::Worse yet, when Israeli officials state publicly that they're only targeting Hamas, that's "PR," but when they make public statements about Amalek or "human animals," it's "evidence of genocidal intent." I just don't believe there's an academic consensus here, or that there will be until the proverbial smoke clears. There are enough raging ideologues involved in disputes over this conflict that manufacturing the facade of an academic consensus isn't that difficult. Jonathan f1 (talk) 19:09, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::[https://docs.un.org/en/S/2025/130 Here] is South Africa's dossier of publicly available evidence of genocide. Hardly "circumstantial". EvansHallBear (talk) 19:41, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::Care to cite the page and verse? I don't have time to read through dozens of pages of statements made on TV and social media. These are not military directives. Jonathan f1 (talk) 19:52, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::Annex II (pgs 124-179) contains genocidal intent and incitement by military officials.

:::::::::::::To your point that these are just statements made for PR reasons, I'll point you to pg. 57:{{tq|And as the Patterns of genocidal acts in Section V show, time and again genocidal words and deeds have moved in lock-step. Bartov has since acknowledged that the genocidal speech has been followed by genocidal acts}}. EvansHallBear (talk) 20:07, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::I wasn't trying to say those statements are made for PR purposes -I meant that the people accusing Israel of genocide cherry pick statements. When Israeli officials say they're targeting Hamas (and not civilians), that's dismissed as PR (so, not military policy), but all these other statements are taken at face value. Biblical references like Amalek are frequently used by Israeli politicians to amp up their base (usually a right-wing base) when speaking about their enemies (Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas), but are not meant literally and not evidence of an actual policy. The pages in Annex II you referred me to are similarly a collection of statements but no evidence of an actual genocide policy. Jonathan f1 (talk) 20:41, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::The statements are taken at face value because they directly correspond to genocidal actions including mass killing, collective punishment, starvation as a weapon of war, ethnic cleansing, deliberate destruction of civilian infrastructure, etc. It's impossible to take the "hunt for Hamas" argument seriously given the level of devastation inflicted on Gaza. EvansHallBear (talk) 20:54, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::This is pretty much a violation of WP:FORUM. Guys. Closetside (talk) 20:57, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::Yes, we've drifted pretty far from the original discussion on academic consensus but I don't think either of us had bad intentions here. EvansHallBear (talk) 21:09, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::You need to learn to read what others write, as I did not state at any point that {{tqq|whole academic fields}} had any consensus in this topic. I in fact, pointed to the opposite in the comment you replied to. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 17:46, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::Per the [https://web.archive.org/web/20240626215734/https://www.brookings.edu/articles/gloom-about-the-day-after-the-gaza-war-pervasive-among-mideast-scholars/ Brookings survey]: {{tq|Notably, we found few significant differences between MESA members and those who are not, and between political scientists and other scholars, suggesting that the scholars’ views are not on the whole dependent on their academic discipline or their organizational membership.}} EvansHallBear (talk) 18:00, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::But where were these scholars selected from? The source states 34% said it was genocide; 16% said not a genocide; and the largest group believes that there have been war crimes "akin to genocide" (41%). I don't know what "similar to genocide" is supposed to mean, but it's not genocide. Velveeta is "similar to American cheese," but it's not American cheese, and is not very relevant to the subject of American cheese. Jonathan f1 (talk) 20:06, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

{{cob}}

I will add that current consensus is to avoid presenting disputed info in infoboxes per Template:Infobox military conflict. And because we can't present the Gaza genocide as fact per the consensus, presenting an event as part of the Gaza genocide would be presenting disputed info, a violation of the template guideline. Closetside (talk) 21:49, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

:You removed it from Template:Infobox civilian attack - We are simply referring to the article via its name. People can click and read. It does not violate NPOV policies Cinaroot (talk) 01:14, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

::I agree with Cinaroot. David A (talk) 08:03, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

See the topic by {{u|John Cummings}} in Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Palestine#Photos_available_from_UNRWA. Some of those images could be used in this article. Bogazicili (talk) 18:52, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

:I have integrated them on this article. Please let me know if there's anything else you’d like to adjust. Cinaroot (talk) 06:57, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

We currently have around three estimates: 186,000, 335,500, and 400,000 or more. The first of these three was provided much earlier in the war. With three figures from WP:RS, they should probably be mentioned as total estimates as I have done in the infobox: {{tq|Total: up to 186,000–400,000+}} as it was before being reverted by @Cdjp1. All of these estimates are in a similar ball park considering the points in the conflict they refer to. I don't see a reason to exclude them from the infobox. Those are my thoughts. Thanks, Yung Doohickey (talk) 23:23, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

:Correction: per talk on List of genocides the 400,000+ figure comes from a dubious source. So I suggest an infobox figure of {{tq|Total: up to 186,000–335,500}}. Yung Doohickey (talk) 23:43, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

::No objection for the suggestion you present excluding the source that provided the number of 400,000. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 00:03, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

:::In that case, I'll reinstate the total deaths with the corrected figures, until anybody objects. Thanks, Yung Doohickey (talk) 00:33, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Speculation about undiscovered bodies (one of the sources relied on) is not proof sufficient to add to the lower bound of deaths (per WP:SPECULATION). Plus, it is not appropriate to include combatant deaths in the tally of a genocide, and no attempt has been made here to remove the deaths of Hamas militants from the total. Further, per WP:RSEDITORIAL, an editorial (one of the other sources relied upon) is "rarely reliable for statements of fact". In any case, we don't have to settle it here, but if the assertion is that the figures are appropriate to include so long as no one objects, I object. Coining (talk) 01:52, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::WP:SPECULATION states "Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included," which would apply to estimates from the Lancet. I understand your concern about the inclusion of combatant deaths, but we're already including Gaza Health Ministry figures, which don't distinguish between combatant or civilian casualties either, so that's not a valid reason to exclude the total figures. Your final point holds water, but only for the exclusion of the 335,500 figure. Would {{tq|Total: up to 186,000+ (by July 2024)}} be sufficient? Let me know what you think. Yung Doohickey (talk) 02:09, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::My point on WP:SPECULATION was originally more directed at the article titled "10,000 people feared buried under the rubble in Gaza" than the correspondence published in the Lancet, though I understand why you also think that article has aspects of WP:SPECULATION. The quote above of WP:SPECULATION is a bit cut off. More fully, it states, "Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included, though editors should be aware of creating undue bias to any specific point of view," and it goes on to say, "Articles that present original research in the form of extrapolation, speculation, and 'future history' are inappropriate. ... we must wait for this evolution to happen, rather than try to predict it." In other words, when a source says that its assertions are based on things that "could take up to three years" to establish (as the cited article does), it is making a prediction about the future that isn't appropriate for this encyclopedia.

::::::A similar point does apply to the correspondence published in the Lancet. Its one reference to 186,000 deaths reads as follows: "Applying a conservative estimate of four indirect deaths per one direct death to the 37,396 deaths reported, it is not implausible to estimate that up to 186 000 or even more deaths could be attributable to the current conflict in Gaza." This is very specifically an incident of an "article that present[s] original research in the form of extrapolation," which is what the Wikipedia policy countenances against.

::::::Of even greater importance for present purposes is that the Lancet correspondence makes clear that the estimate of indirect deaths is an estimate about deaths in the future. Quoting the correspondence, "Even if the conflict ends immediately, there will continue to be many indirect deaths in the coming months and years from causes such as reproductive, communicable, and non-communicable diseases."

::::::The infobox is simply not an appropriate place to place speculative figures as facts. And if you were to ask "Well, why then are the other bullet points about these death figures in the infobox?," I'd agree that that's a good question to ask.

::::::As for the point about Hamas combatant deaths, as this article is titled "Gaza genocide" rather than "Deaths in Gaza" or "Deaths in the Gaza war," it's important to not just tally deaths, but also determine which deaths would potentially be part of a genocide. A military forces' fatalities in a war are a different category than civilian deaths -- even if the Gaza Health Ministry doesn't make that distinction, this article is attempting to make a point where that distinction is of significant importance. It is asserted below that, "There is no legal basis, nor scholarly basis for demanding the exclusion of so called combatants from the victim count of a potential genocide." Leaving aside the assertion ("so called combatants") that somehow Hamas fighters might not be engaged in combat (the Gaza war article's infobox acknowledges that Hamas are indeed "belligerents," and Hamas presumably views itself as engaged in combat), given that the [https://www.un.org/en/genocide-prevention/definition| definition of genocide] involves the specific "intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such," there is a straightforward basis for distinguishing between the members of Hamas and others. Quoting again from that UN page on the Genocide Convention, "Importantly, the victims of genocide are deliberately targeted - not randomly – because of their real or perceived membership of one of the four groups protected under the Convention (which excludes political groups, for example)" (emphasis added). So, even if one took the view that Hamas is just a political group, so long as Israel intends to target members of Hamas for being members of Hamas, at a very least there is a strong argument that the resulting Hamas deaths wouldn't fall under the Genocide Convention. Coining (talk) 12:53, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::{{tqq|so long as Israel intends to target members of Hamas for being members of Hamas}}, you mean the supposed logic they employ for all deaths that have occurred in the war?{{efn|(see previous military doctrine of the IDF of who should be considered a "combatant", and the recent rhetoric from politicians and orders in IDF command for considering those existing within the strip has being part of the military apparatus of Hamas)}} So, your argument is that the number of deaths that the various experts actually look to and state are the number they consider in their analysis as this being genocide, should instead be disregarded and should be set to 0, because of the purported logic of the accused? This is ridiculous and flies in the face of how we treat other cases of genocide/potential genocide on Wikipedia, as there are plenty of examples where the accused have and do argue that they were/are not targeting groups as protected under the convention, but are instead targeted/targeting groups that are specifically excluded from the convention. And yet, instead, we include the number killed in the purported genocides as being potential/victims of the genocide. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 15:01, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::These "experts" are using Hamas..err sorry "Gaza Health Ministry" numbers while ignoring Israeli statistics. GHM does not distinguish between civilians and combatants (in many cases, they probably can't), so journalists have had to use women/children as proxies for civilians, which is problematic for several reasons. The first and perhaps most obvious is that not every male killed is a combatant. Another issue that's not often acknowledged is that not every woman and child killed is a civilian[https://www.amnesty.org/en/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/mde150352004en.pdf]. This is actually a unique situation where one party to a conflict doesn't necessarily perceive its losses as actual losses (in some cases, it's good PR), so it's not a zero-sum game Hamas is playing. There's no way of knowing how many Palestinians were killed in combat, killed unintentionally (either in the line of fire, or coming upon unexploded munitions), killed by Hamas or by gangs of marauding bandits. Some of these combat situations are between Hamas units and looters[https://www.arabnews.com/node/2579946/amp], and now that Israel is arming oppositional groups, there will be an increase in combat scenarios that do not directly involve the IDF. Jonathan f1 (talk) 16:16, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::And I treat your contribution with the respect it deserves, that is, it gets placed in the pile to be disregarded. You have shown nothing but partisan argumentation, making ill informed arguments on incorrect information, and when we consider the view you hold on this matter in line with prior comments you've made regarding one of the populations in the war, it can do nothing but colour how we must view your screeds in discussions in this area. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 18:36, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::That you and others here are making wild speculations about those killed (eg "80% are civilians" etc) isn't partisan anything, it's a fact. Jonathan f1 (talk) 18:40, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::And you once again to show your inability here, by making the claim I have stated something in this discussion, that I have never said. It is very much a pattern that you are unable to actually argue against what people say, and instead argue against what you imagine they have said. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 18:50, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::WP:SPECULATION does not apply to the Lancet estimate. The estimate is not predicting the "future" as it clearly states 186,000 is the death toll that could be attributed to the current conflict in Gaza. It might say that this number may be verified in the future, but that's irrelevant because that's the nature of all estimated figures (it could take years or decades to verify, or maybe they never get verified). The Lancet is not original research, it is WP:RS. WP:OR is when Wikipedia editors draw their own conclusions and write things that aren't supported by sources. Also, @Cdjp1 is right about the inclusion of combatant casualties (which are negligible, since ~80% of those killed are civilians). The only issue I have with the Lancet estimate is that it's from nearly a year ago and the 335,500 estimate is probably more accurate to the current death toll if the Lancet methods are sound. Yung Doohickey (talk) 18:22, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::The approach of the estimate published in the Lancet is to take the current conflict reports of deaths and extrapolate from there to calculate resulting "indirect deaths in the coming months and years" from things like the impact of the warzone's destroyed infrastructure. So, the [https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(24)01169-3/fulltext| correspondence], which I keep quoting from, is making a prediction about the future impact of the war. It is not saying that 186,000 people have already been killed, which what putting this number in the infobox would convey. Absent being able to show where the correspondence says that, this is indeed an instance of WP:SPECULATION. There is no need to guess at what the correspondence says (e.g. {{tqq|It might say that this number may be verified in the future}}); the correspondence is only a handful of pages long. A Wikipedia editor citing someone else who is predicting the future doesn't cleanse the speculative element. (Note also that it is not an estimate by the Lancet, but rather a piece of correspondence published in the Lancet, so it should not be referred to as a "Lancet estimate" the same way that, say, a news article published by the New York Times could contain a "New York Times estimate" based on not just the reporter(s) who wrote the article (who are employed by the New York Times), but also the role played by the New York Times' editors and fact-checkers. That's also the problem with saying that the Lancet is WP:RS because here the Lancet isn't really the source of the information; it's the publisher.)

::::::::What I am trying to do is look directly at the sources and understand what they say on their own terms. Likewise, I am aiming to use the genocide definition of the Genocide Convention and I've cited the United Nations above. I don't think it is appropriate for @Cdjp1 to then ignore that and simply say that I'm making an argument equivalent to saying there have been 0 deaths in Gaza. Seriously, the choice isn't between 186,000 and 0. Coining (talk) 21:53, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::I see what you're saying and I apologize for my erroneous remarks. It does appear that the figure was referring to the total deaths resulting from the conflict if the fighting ended in June 19, 2024. You're probably right and the estimate is both old and referring to future events months after the publication assuming the war ended then. We should wait for better figures to be published. Yung Doohickey (talk) 01:08, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::I chose not to comment on your argument regarding the Lancet, as there was no issue on that. I chose to point out what the conclusion of your argument would be regarding the logic that is employed by the Israeli administration that you highlight as a reason to exclude potential victims. So, if you do not agree with the logic that majority of the Palestinian victims of the war are legitimate military targets, and near all (if not all) the remainder are incidental casualties, per the administration's logic, I would suggest not employing the logic in arguments. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 11:55, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::I'm not sure what "logic" you think I am applying, but if you are saying that on a discussion of genocide that editors should not look at the Genocide convention or the [https://www.un.org/en/genocide-prevention/definition United Nations' website] containing the definition of genocide, then we'll just have to agree to disagree. I continue to find those sources useful and will continue to cite them when relevant. You might wish that the Genocide convention didn't exclude "political groups" (indeed, there is a useful history of the Conventions' decision to explicitly remove "political groups" from the definition of genocide in the Wikipedia article on the Genocide convention), but I would suggest not discouraging other editors from citing the official definition of genocide even if you don't like the implications of that "logic." Coining (talk) 19:23, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::{{tqq|that editors should not look at the Genocide convention or the United Nations' website}} no where near close to what I suggested. If you cared to read my first comment responding to you, I explicitly detail what logic I refer to, and the error in taking said logic as a fact. If you are unable to read the arguments people present, you may not be qualified to engage in discussions here. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 21:57, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::In response to your assertion that "There is no legal basis [for excluding] so called combatants from the victim count of a potential genocide," I cited the actual law, the Genocide convention and the UN's webpage on the definition of genocide. You took issue with that, and you yourself brought Israel's arguments into this discussion. That's on you; it's really not my responsibility if you believe that arguments based on the Genocide convention are equivalent to arguments coming from Israel. In fact, I can imagine someone in Israel looking at this discussion and thinking that you are making some sort of reverse psychology effort to convince people that Israel's arguments must have merit if they align with the Genocide convention. Coining (talk) 01:20, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::Well, according to the two surveys I have seen and Cdjp1's sum total assembly list, a clear majority of the expert genocide scholars in this world seem to consider what the Israeli government is currently doing a genocide, and they likely understand the definitions far better than you do. Also, according to the available statistics, 94% of the Israeli population support what the Israeli government is doing or want even more extreme actions, 68% support withholding all humanitarian aid, including food and water from the Palestinians, which would naturally quickly starve all of them to death, and 47% support actively killing them all through direct violence. As such, this is a very clear situation for the entire world to discern, including the population of Israel, and we should not engage in semantics regarding it.

:::::::::::::Also, Cdjp1, please be careful to not take any potential rage- or frustration-baits. I know that it is difficult when arguing on the pro-universal human rights side about this particular topic, but otherwise you make yourself into an easy target to get conveniently banned, and that would be a big loss for our encyclopaedia. David A (talk) 06:40, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::I’m pretty sure a clear majority (and hopefully more) of genocide scholars would agree that the Genocide Convention and [https://www.un.org/en/genocide-prevention/definition the definition of genocide on the UN website] are appropriate sources to cite in a discussion on genocide. Coining (talk) 17:31, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::I shall clarify what was implied by the statement to aid your understanding. There is no legal basis for excluding combatants from the potential victim group based on their being solely combatants. You them brought up the combatants being selected due to their supposed membership of the political groups Hamas, which I point out is the logic that the Israeli administration uses, which will be in part because by employing the logic it is an argument for them not committing genocide as I already stated. So, I shall repeat again, please read the arguments others make, so you can contribute constructively on this talk page. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 12:23, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::I’m glad you finally agree that Hamas fighters are combatants, instead of “so called combatants,” as you referred to them earlier. What I then proceeded to do was explain that even if not combatants, they are members of a political group and political groups are not covered by the Genocide Convention (and that is true whether or not you or I would want them to be). As much as you urge me to read the arguments others make, I’d ask you to read the [https://www.un.org/en/genocide-prevention/definition Genocide Convention] before saying that there is "no legal basis for excluding combatants." Coining (talk) 17:28, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::You're misrepresenting what the Genocide Convention says about political groups. Targeting only members of a political group isn't genocide. That is very different from saying we can subtract members of political groups killed in a genocide carried out against groups covered under the Genocide Convention. If Israel is intending to destroy Palestinians in Gaza (which most scholars believe is the case), that some of those killed also belong to political groups is irrelevant. EvansHallBear (talk) 04:03, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::Respectfully, I think you're misrepresenting the core point of what I'm getting at. Contrary to the claim that there is "no" legal argument for excluding the deaths of combatants, the history and text of the Genocide Convention provide an important legal argument that there are situations in which it is appropriate to do so. This argument might not be one you agree with, but that doesn't make it not a proper legal argument (which is what "no legal basis for excluding combatants," the language of another editor, is attempting to say). If, even though you leave this out, one of the intentions of Israel is to destroy Hamas, then given that Hamas is a political (and militant and terrorist) group not protected by the Genocide Convention, there is a good faith argument to exclude this figure from at least the infobox of this "Gaza genocide" article, which is how this discussion began. Coining (talk) 16:53, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::I don't think I'm misrepresenting you at all. The Genocide convention makes no claim that combatants be excluded from a genocide. It says if the target is only members of a political group, then it's not a genocide in the first place. So, destroying Hamas would have to be Israel's sole intention. They have of course made that argument on occasion, but scholars have entirely rejected that claim. EvansHallBear (talk) 17:10, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::Readers of this thread can decide who is making the misrepresentation, and I say that without intending any animosity -- you're the one who first used the word (probably not a great approach -- see WP:LIAR). One thing I do know is that I keep linking to the Genocide Convention, both the Wikipedia page, especially its discussion of the definition of genocide and the [https://www.un.org/en/genocide-prevention/definition/ United Nations website's discussion of the definition of genocide] (the phrase "which excludes political groups, for example" is theirs, not mine). Readers can also look at the [https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/documents/atrocity-crimes/Doc.1_Convention%20on%20the%20Prevention%20and%20Punishment%20of%20the%20Crime%20of%20Genocide.pdf full text] of the Convention itself, which has always been available from the UN page I keep citing. I repeatedly link to these things, whereas you don't, and so when you write that the Genocide Convention {{tq| says if the target is only members of a political group, then it's not a genocide in the first place}} and you even put "only" in italics, implying that special emphasis is appropriate because the source specifies it, you aren't exactly providing the reader an easy way to check on what you've written. Hopefully, readers will come to understand that a reason no link is being provided to the Genocide Convention is that it doesn't even use the word "only" (and, at least from my perspective, doesn't even say that supposed point). Coining (talk) 18:31, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::::Per your link to the UN website, {{tq|Importantly, the victims of genocide are deliberately targeted - not randomly – because of their real or perceived membership of one of the four groups protected under the Convention (which excludes political groups, for example)}}. Palestinians in Gaza in aggregate are a protected group while political groups are not. That a subset of the protected group also belongs to a political group does not override that protection.

:::::::::::::::::::Also, I wasn't intending to call you a liar. I just think you are misinterpreting the sources you are citing. Apologies if I came off harsher than intended.EvansHallBear (talk) 18:40, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::::I get that your approach is to assert that there is only one intended target (all Palestinians) and proceed from there. Israel's perspective, seemingly, is that their only intended target is Hamas, and that the non-Hamas deaths are unintended (or something similar). I haven't made that argument in this thread -- I've even argued against using "0" as the number of deaths in the infobox. The point I'm making is that it's possible to have multiple intentions, and that at the very least going after Hamas is one of Israel's intentions (I really don't think that's a stretch -- and I find it odd that some editors don't concede this point, but, to be clear, you're not alone in not conceding it). So, just as you assert {{tq|That a subset of the protected group also belongs to a political group does not override that protection}}, it's also the case that an unprotected (e.g political group) doesn't automatically get included in a protected group just because the individuals are members of both groups. It depends on the intention. I think it's pretty clear, for example, that Mohammed Sinwar was killed because he was the leader of Hamas, and not simply because he was a Palestinian. Coining (talk) 19:00, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::::::The question of intention is largely why we can't say a genocide is occurring in Wikivoice. Thus this article is careful to call the Gaza genocide a characterization. But within that characterization (i.e. if there is a genocide), all victims would be counted. EvansHallBear (talk) 19:13, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::::::I don't think that conclusion follows at all. It only follows in a world where there are only two options (the first two approaches in my last response), but in a world where there is a third option (perhaps characterized as "intention to go after Hamas" may be just a partial defense, not a full defense), then we need not be in an all-or-nothing characterization of things. Coining (talk) 19:34, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::::::::I get where you are coming from. It's certainly possible (maybe even most likely) that courts only rule certain parts of the war as genocidal, similar what happened with the Srebrenica massacre. In which case, the victim count would only reflect those killed in the specific incidents found to be genocides. But this article is treating the entire war as a potential genocide, so the death count should be consistent with that framing. EvansHallBear (talk) 20:08, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::::::::I appreciate the acknowledgement that the higher (all-encompassing) number might not reflect the actual determination that matters (much more than this talk page) as to what constitutes a genocide. I thought accuracy was a goal of Wikipedia, but if this article is based on some other principle, it perhaps should have a discussion at the top of the assumptions applicable to the article that override this usual principle of encyclopedias. Coining (talk) 01:39, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::::::::::The full death count (yes, even including Sinwar) is the most accurate number based on the genocide definition you provided as they are all members of the protected group. Choosing to exclude combatants based on legal rulings that have yet to happen is WP:CRYSTAL. EvansHallBear (talk) 07:08, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::::::::::Choosing to include Hamas members, including Sinwar, is also WP:CRYSTAL, even more so because the general rule in any allegation of violation of law is that the burden of proof is on the prosecutor. In any case, please find us one WP:RS that explicitly says Mohammed Sinwar should be included in the charge of genocide against Israel (any statement that just broadly asserts a total number of deaths, without grappling with the Hamas, and especially Hamas leadership, distinction is not one that grapples with this point, which I know you and other editors disagree with - but if it's so obvious that Mohammed Sinwar's death should be included, you'd think at least one WP:RS would be cited by editors to back up that view.) Coining (talk) 15:34, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::[https://web.archive.org/web/20250515114020/https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2025/05/14/zeven-gerenommeerde-wetenschappers-vrijwel-eensgezind-israel-pleegt-in-gaza-genocide-a4893293 Seven renowned scientists almost unanimous: Israel is committing genocide in Gaza]: {{tq|the Israeli violence in Gaza does support a theory that has been dormant in the research field for some time: the absolute distinction between military and genocidal objectives is sometimes untenable... According to Dirk Moses, the field is in crisis as long as it does not challenge the artificial distinction between genocidal and military objectives. Then it enables the mass murder of Palestinians in the name of self-defense against Hamas, he says.}} EvansHallBear (talk) 16:46, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::Ok. So, someone has a "dormant" "theory," and doesn't at all mention Sinwar. Almost sounds as if the source is conceding that the majority of experts in the research field (the non-dormant theorists) would not consider Sinwar's death to be part of a genocide (likely because the intent to kill him was because he was the head of Hamas rather than because he was a Palestinian). Coining (talk) 21:37, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::You know you don't need to wikilink to the Genocide Convention every time you mention it, right? -- Cdjp1 (talk) 21:26, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::I do that to remind people that there actually is a document that defines "genocide". While I more than understand that people naturally have views (on both sides of any debate) as to what should (or should not) qualify as a genocide, it is best practice to adhere to the internationally established rule. Coining (talk) 23:48, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::::Please stop spamming. This is not a forum, it is very tiresome to deal with, and you have already received more than enough responses to your arguments. David A (talk) 15:36, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::@Coining but the genocide convention does not offer an argument for excluding "bad people" ("combattants", "terrorists", members of a "political group") when counting victims of a genocide. When a genocide is taking place, it is the totality of actions that matters. Newimpartial (talk) 18:45, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::It actually does -- that's one of the implications of political groups not being one of the protected categories under the Genocide Convention. (And, I get it, some people for very principled reasons think that political groups should be protected by the international rules against genocide, or perhaps people desire to count Mohammed Sinwar as a victim of genocide rather as a dead combatant, terrorist, or, at best, leader of a political group, but that desire doesn't make it so.) Still, I don't think it's especially valuable to repeat myself -- I refer you to the discussion above with @EvansHallBear -- except to again point out that the [https://www.un.org/en/genocide-prevention/definition/ United Nations website on the definition of genocide] itself refers to "excluding political groups, for example." (A separate point could be made that if "totality" is the right approach to "totality of actions," than Israel will gladly make use of that argument to say that "totality of intentions" is the right form of analysis. It's hard to use "totality" for one element of the crime of genocide (actions) and not use it for another essential element of the same crime of genocide (intent)). Coining (talk) 19:56, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::@Coining You are quoting the UN website out of context. The passage you are selectively quoting actually says, {{tq|Importantly, the victims of genocide are deliberately targeted - not randomly – because of their real or perceived membership of one of the four groups protected under the Convention (which excludes political groups, for example). This means that the target of destruction must be the group, as such, and not its members as individuals.}}

:::::::::::::::The UN is quite clearly discussing what constitutes genocide - deliberate targeting of a group protected under the convention - and not defining how many of the deaths among that group ought to be counted as part of a genocide (on which question the UN website offers no opinion).

:::::::::::::::What you describe as an {{tq|implication}} is, in fact, a complete non sequitur. When the UN office states that genocide "excludes political groups", it means that targeting people on the basis of political affiliation is not itself genocide; it doesn't meant that members of a political group can be excluded when considering genocide of a larger national or ethnic or religious group of which they are a part.

:::::::::::::::Political affiliation is strictly parallel to gender in this respect. Gender is another characteristic that is not protected under the Convention. But if genocidal actions in a particular time and place are directed at men of the target group, or at women of the target group, it would be completely irrational to exclude the women or men killed in that time and place as part of a broader genocide because they were also speficially targeted due to gender. That's just not what "excluded" means in this context. Newimpartial (talk) 22:24, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::I didn't selectively quote it -- your reply just doesn't acknowledge that I quoted that sentence in full 5 days ago. In your counter-analogy, there is no allegation or evidence that there is an intent to target women as women, whereas there very much is an argument that members of Hamas are being targeted precisely because they are members of Hamas.

::::::::::::::::I await anyone providing a reliable source that explicitly says Mohammed Sinwar's death should be counted as part of the Gaza genocide in this article, as that's what going with the non-deducted number is doing. Coining (talk) 01:19, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::@Coining this final argument is really pretty much irrelevant. If Wikipedia's sources characterize the genocide in a certain way, and include a certain number of deaths as part of the event, it is not the job of Wikipedia editors to exclude one or a percentage of deaths based on our own reservations. That is simply WP:OR; editors are not allowed to do that - not at all.

:::::::::::::::::As far as my gender comparison goes, Coining does not seem to have understood my argument. First, I am observing that gender, like political affiliation, is "excluded" from being itself grounds for genocide. That's what the UN passage is about.

:::::::::::::::::Second, let's take an example where genocide intersects with gender. During the Bosnian Wars, the Srebrenica massacre targeted men and boys. Genocidal rape during that same war targeted women. Yet both events are indisuputably considered part of the Bosnian genocide; neither is subject to Coining's (supposed) "exclusion clause". There is no difference relevant to the UN definition between political affiliation and gender - both are excluded from the definition of genocide, but neither implies that targeting an intersectional sub-group means that those deaths should be "excluded" or subtracted from estimates of the casualties of that genocide. Newimpartial (talk) 16:15, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::I've asked repeatedly for even a single source that says Sinwar's death should be included in the genocide. No one in this talk thread has provided one. I'm not asking for original research. The phrase {{tq|If Wikipedia's sources characterize the genocide in a certain way...}} is putting a lot of weight on the word "if".

::::::::::::::::::And to clarify, if clarification is needed, I'm not saying that the non-protected categories under the Genocide Convention are automatically excluded from the count of victims of a genocide; I'm referencing the fact that political groups (which, unlike categories like gender, was explicitly considered and removed from earlier versions of the Genocide Convention) need to be analyzed for whether the specific intention to go after them is distinguishable from a intention to go after a broader group. You've cited an example above, in Bosnia, where targeting men and boys and targeting women could straightforwardly be framed as two parts of the same genocide (unless you're saying that there are some people who only wanted to attack males and didn't desire to harm females, or vice-versa). The point about Hamas is that the intent to go after Hamas and any intent to go after civilians are not coterminous (and it doesn't take original research to understand that Mohammed Sinwar was targeted because he was the leader of Hamas and not because he was Palestinian). Coining (talk) 17:15, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::::@Coining if you have sources saying that counts for the Gaza genocide need to exclude some proportion of Hamas members, please provide them. (For this purpose, sources saying that no genocide is talking place in Gaza would not count.)

:::::::::::::::::::You are still, in a quite tiresome way, misconstruing what the UN is saying, as illustrated by my gender example (and the fact that politics is mentioned explicitly and gender isn't has no bearing whatsoever; I don't know why you mentioned that). Both the killing targeted at men and boys and the systematic genocidal rapes count by the UN definition (count as genocide and count in numbers), and each would count in isolation of the other. There is no requirement that all sub-groups be targeted to result in genocide, and the UN goes out ot its way to point this out.

:::::::::::::::::::Briefly, the UN text you point to could be used to make the argument that no genocide is taking place in Gaza because what is happening there is the systematic killing of a political group and not an ethno-national group. I don't think there's much support for that argument among sources, but it is a valid type of argument to make based on the UN statement. But the argument that the count of victims is exaggerated because it includes people who were members of a political organization - that argument represents a straightforward misreading of the UN text and, to the best of my knowledge, it has no support whatsoever among reliable sources. That's why I am referring to it as original. Newimpartial (talk) 19:30, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::::I'm not the one who put total death figures in the Infobox or the rest of the article, so why is the burden on me to provide a source beyond the ones I've already referenced, which you don't accept? What I've pointed out in this thread is that {{tq|as this article is titled "Gaza genocide" rather than "Deaths in Gaza" or "Deaths in the Gaza war," it's important to not just tally deaths, but also determine which deaths would potentially be part of a genocide}}. There are a lot of citations in the article that count total deaths, but that's not the same as saying each of those deaths is part of the genocide discussed in this article. I appreciate @Sean.hoyland's admonition to not make this thread a forum. I've tried citing sources in my contributions to the conversation, and I've asked for sources from others. Let's try to start from first principles: which, if any, of the sources currently cited in the article not only tally the number of deaths in Gaza but say what specific number of deaths in Gaza is part of a genocide? Coining (talk) 20:30, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::::::It's not really intended as an admonition. It's more about what works and what doesn't work when trying to resolve content questions like this one in the topic area. Following NOTFORUM does seem to work better (although it's probably much less interesting for editors). Sean.hoyland (talk) 03:33, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::I hope everyone is aware that WP:NOTFORUM is policy and that editors do not get to decide who is or is not included in death counts. Most of this discussion does not appear very productive to me because it is not about what the reliable sources say about the total deaths for what they regard as a genocide. There is no utility for Wikipedia in editors voicing their personal opinions on the matter. Editors are not sources. NOTFORUM-like comments can be hatted or removed. Sean.hoyland (talk) 17:45, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::But didn't you know, if an editor dislikes what experts say on matter, we should engage in OR to cut the numbers in a way that the editor finds politically pleasing. Why should we care what is citable to reputable sources? Oh because that is the practice and policy of the editing community, maybe we should do that then. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 21:30, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::::For what it's worth, it is two days and counting without response to my inquiry about which sources currently cited in the article not only tally the number of deaths in Gaza but say what specific number of deaths in Gaza is part of a genocide. Without that, it doesn't seem appropriate to simply assert {{tq|"what experts say on matter"}}. Coining (talk) 23:57, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::::You can find them easily in the article, because you are capable of reading the article. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 20:04, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Combatants should not necessarily be excluded from the casualty count of a genocide. In the Herero and Nama genocide, Herero rebels are regarded as both combatants and victims of the genocide. If attacks on combatants are a part of an attack on a larger group, for example through starvation and asymmetric warfare, the distinction between civilians and combatants does not seem to be considered relevant to determining the question of genocide. Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 17:55, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Nor should combatants automatically be included in the casualty count of a genocide. It depends in significant part on intent, and related to that is how appropriate it is to distinguish the militant group from the broader population. (Presumably, that the Herero rebels have the same basic name as the Herero people is different from the situation in Palestine -- where not only does Hamas have its own name, but also we're appropriately told that it's not appropriate to blame all Palestinians (or Gazans) for the actions of Hamas.) It would be good if editors seriously considered the implications of arguments that implicitly or explicitly support the view that Hamas and the broader Palestinian population are indistinguishable. Coining (talk) 22:08, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::I think that one significant issue here is the seemingly indiscriminate large scale slaughter and devastation targeted against the civilian population as a whole, along with health care workers, aid relief volunteers, and journalists, not the much lower number of killed opposing side combatants. David A (talk) 22:28, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::No one has implied the Palestinian resistance is indistinguishable from the general population. Israel has made it abundantly clear that they don't make such distinctions ("no innocent civilians" etc). If the IDF makes no attempt to distinguish civilians from combatants (even go as far as killing their own hostages), why would we make that distinction here? EvansHallBear (talk) 01:14, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::I can't really help you if you think Israel intended to kill the three Israelis that were held hostage by Hamas. But at least now I understand why you're having a hard time with the intent element of the crime of genocide -- you seem to see intent everywhere. Coining (talk) 02:48, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::Of course that wasn't the intention, but it's a natural consequence of the IDF not caring if the people they kill are civilians or not. EvansHallBear (talk) 03:06, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::Unfortunately for your argument, "not caring" and intention are not the same thing. Coining (talk) 12:49, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::Given all of the sum total evidence listed here in Wikipedia, the intention of systematically targeting civilians, health care workers, aid relief workers, and journalists certainly seems to be present. Rhetorics are not a good replacement for factual evidence, or at least they shouldn't be. David A (talk) 13:21, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::That's of course a different argument. The point being made earlier was that intention can be inferred from Israel tragically killing three hostages held by Hamas, as it showed "not caring" about civilians, but even on its face "not caring" is not the same as intention. Coining (talk) 16:46, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::There is no legal basis, nor scholarly basis for demanding the exclusion of so called combatants from the victim count of a potential genocide. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 09:34, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

:::I agree with Cdjp1's last statement above. David A (talk) 08:26, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

{{notelist}}

ArbCom banned many of the editors in the last non-procedurally closed WP:RM in May 2024.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=1232356978#Requested_move_3_May_2024] That includes Ivana, who was permanently banned for offwiki canvassing to that very requested move, so it's possible that there are even more editors that were canvassed but not caught.

Additionally, there's agreement in #RfC: Genocide in wikivoice/opening sentence not to describe the claim of "genocide" in WikiVoice, due to its lack of acceptance among reliable sources. That goes against WP:NCENPOV, which clearly states {{tq|If there is no common name for the event, and there is a generally accepted word used when identifying the event, the title should include the word even if it is a strong one such as "massacre" or "genocide" or "war crime".}} Looking at the last requested move, nobody discussed the "generally accepted" requirement for contentious words in page titles. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 21:38, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

:* the rfc for the opening statement is different than the rfc for the article title.

:* the close from may 2024 indicates that npov was considered and debated heavily by all supporters of either options

:* about half the folks banned were on each side of the conflict.

:* there is no meaningful outside evidence that has changed and there isnt any policy on wikipedia that changed that would require such community effort

:Bluethricecreamman (talk) 22:27, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

:We can't just rerun move requests over and over again because some people are not happy with the result. It's an enormous involvement of community time and effort to discuss the request and then for someone to assess the consensus and close it, a burden that people who argue for move requests do not bear. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:05, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

::I strongly agree with Bluethricecreamman's and Hemiauchenia's arguments above. David A (talk) 09:55, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

:As much of a headache as this is for coming up every couple of months, the reasoning Chess provides is persuading. However, as the last RM ended in July, and was then endorsed at Move Review on 22nd August, I would argue waiting until we hit a year on that before attempting another RM.

:Additionally, as has been the case with every move discussion that has occurred regarding this page, there will be canvassing efforts from at least off-site actors, regardless of how many on-site actors have been banned for canvassing in the past year. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 12:24, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

::At this point, given all of their massive past media attention for this page, much of the Israeli and extremely far-right western press, along with many extremely far-right Twitter and YouTube pundits, will almost inevitably canvass their readers, viewers, and/or listeners by writing or talking about the renaming vote, so they will come here to vote for renaming this page into "The extremely restrained, benevolent, and humanitarian completely justified self-defence by the democratic government of Israel against the Islamic forces of tyrannical evil" or something thematically similar, after which this page will be completely rewritten to match the new title, and as such turn meaningless as intended.

::So, given this, combined with that a strong majority of expert scholars already consider this as a genocide, and more of them continuously begin to support this view along with a very large number of human rights organisations; and that quite a lot of prominent Israeli politicians, and either 47% or 68% of the population of Israel, have even openly admitted that they very seriously actively want absolutely all Palestinians dead, I think that any further voting processes will inevitably turn extremely contaminated and unreliable and that we should simply follow the consensus of the experts and indefinitely keep the current title until the situation as a whole and the expert scholar consensus very significantly change to become far less dire. David A (talk) 10:39, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Would you come off this 'far-right' stuff please; it isn't far-right to believe the genocide accusation against Israel is groundless, and it's unfortunate that respected NGOs like Amnesty have jumped on this bandwagon. I find it impossible for anyone to read I-P conflict articles on here and come to the conclusion that there is anything approaching a far-right problem in this topic space. If anything the bias is coming from the other direction. Jonathan f1 (talk) 01:54, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

::::I think both of you (User:Jonathan f1 and User:David A) have shown why I think moderated discussion would be good on this page.{{pb}}David, I didn't initially intend to reply to you - but I tend to agree with Jonathan that your comments are significantly more inflammatory than helpful to discussion here. This is a discussion about whether moderated discussion would benefit this page. Not a discussion about your personal opinions on the topic. For the record, I saw maybe a dozen or so words total in your long comment here that are actually helpful - the rest of it was either an inflammatory "analogy" or your personal opinion with no sources linked to back it up.{{pb}}At the same time, Jonathan, for comments like this, it's better to just ignore them. We trust our administrators or other long-term editors who close discussions to ignore comments like this that are based primarily on personal opinions and/or personal feelings. This is especially true for comments that do not reference any PAG (policy/guideline) and/or don't include reliable sources linked to back them up. So it's best to just ignore this type of comment that doesn't add anything to the discussion, since the closer is likely to ignore it anyway.{{pb}}At this point, I'm convinced that a "moderated discussion" is ideal for this page for any RfC - not just a future RM. If we can come to a consensus on how this would work and where it's to be required, that would be a good idea. I implore everyone to please limit discussion here to whether a "moderated discussion" requirement should be implemented on this talkpage for future discussions, and if so, to what categories of discussions it should apply. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 02:07, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::I apologise if I was being rude above or misunderstood the intended topic here, but I think that my points in themselves are perfectly valid and logical. There genuinely has been a massive amount of past attention to this page from extremely far right biased media sources, including a retweet of such an article in front of 54 million people by Elon Musk himself, which heavily indicates that canvassing on a massive scale seems inevitable, and our available surveys of expert scholars, along with Cdjp1's assembly list of their opinions, genuinely do show that a clear majority seem to support that a genocide is taking place. [https://web.archive.org/web/20240626215735/https://criticalissues.umd.edu/middle-east-scholar-barometer] [https://archive.ph/Ugc2l] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Expert_opinions_in_the_Gaza_genocide_debate] David A (talk) 06:42, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::I'm not saying your points are invalid or anything. But this discussion in this subsection I started is about whether to require moderated discussion for RMs, or more broadly, for any RfC on this page. So your points, while valid, are not relevant to whether moderated discussions are merited on this page. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 07:50, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Yes, I seem to have weered off-track due to that this was a sub-section to a page-moving topic. My apologies for that. David A (talk) 07:58, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::No harm no foul. I myself have veered off topic before in discussions on talk pages, even at least once (that I remember vividly) in a contentious topic. That's why I proposed neutral moderators for discussions on this talk page, because I think having neutral third parties who neither intend to contribute to discussions here nor edit in this area would be good. :) -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 08:06, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Thank you greatly for your understanding. By the way, since I accidentally placed my initial comment here in the wrong section, should we move this comment-chain upwards one step to the topic right above, so it is placed in the right location? David A (talk) 04:59, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::{{ping|berchanhimez}} The comment chain stemming from from my wrongly placed initial comment that is. David A (talk) 19:43, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::And at the same time, there is also some evidence that 'far-left' activists (or whatever you'd call Hamas sympathizers) are coordinating on and probably off Wiki[https://www.adl.org/resources/report/editing-hate-how-anti-israel-and-anti-jewish-bias-undermines-wikipedias-neutrality]. I know the ADL has been practically topic-banned from I/P articles, but this itself is part of the problem. Far-right canvassing hasn't made so much as a dent in any of these articles. Jonathan f1 (talk) 14:27, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Out of interest, would you be willing to say why you find the evidence of on-wiki coordination credible? Sean.hoyland (talk) 16:25, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::If by credible you mean convincing, I'm not so sure about that, but it's believable. They cite data showing a group of 30 editors they deem 'bad-faith editors' engaging in atypical behavior much more often than the reference groups (which included another group of editors active on the Hamas-Israel war article). Bad-faith editors were more likely to edit in tandem, use biased sources, they voted with each other 90% of the time (much higher than the other groups), and were engaging in group communication much more frequently than other highly active editors. Wikipedia administrators/arbitrators don't have the tools to do this type of analysis, and even if they did it's extremely time-consuming for a volunteer. I also don't particularly find the claim very surprising anyway. Jonathan f1 (talk) 17:08, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Thanks. Sean.hoyland (talk) 17:26, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Just a note that people concerned about the human rights of massacred or starved to death civilians, especially children, are usually not "Hamas-sympathisers". David A (talk) 04:20, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

:Nobody needed to discuss it because it was not at contention in that RFC per @Bluethricecreamman's comment. The page title is fine, especially when the subline is "characterization of Israeli war crimes during the Gaza War" which to me also seems POV because it indicates that a genocide is not occurring despite consensus from international organizations. This is a non-issue. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 01:04, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

:Why are we still discussing this, when could just move on, edit Wikipedia productively, and come back in a year when experts have solidified a consensus about the genocide. 20WattSphere (talk) 04:44, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

:Chess, I don't buy this argument. I don't think it works although I sympathize with the objective. We know the topic area has a large number of people violating one policy or another (e.g. SOCK) all the time. It is a permanent state of affairs. Every process seems to be illegitimate to some extent. Content too. I think the Palestinian suicide attacks article is still about 70% the product of ban evasion. Sean.hoyland (talk) 05:04, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

:Comment Is there publicly available evidence that WP:FALSECON was achieved in the previous RM due to WP:CANVASSING? From what I can tell all of the evidence against Ivana was private (although discoverable at the time with some digging). EvansHallBear (talk) 17:31, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

::Even if somebody on the pro-human rights "side" actually did any canvassing, I would be extremely surprised if Mossad and the CIA did not do the same thing on the "side" supporting the current actions of the Israeli government, and with enormously greater resources, media influences, and abilities to hide their activities, especially given the revelation within the official discussion that banned several editors regarding that the Israeli government has now invested enormous amounts of money on education programs for how to edit Wikipedia, in order to reshape the content of this encyclopaedia in its image.

::It is worth taking into account that, outside of Israel and the United States, a very small part of the world population supports the Israeli government's current actions, and yet this very disproportionate support was not displayed when we originally decided the title for this page. David A (talk) 17:45, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

:::I'm sure that's true. However, we can only base our decisions on what we know and not just what we suspect. In this case, I think that points to not re-running the RM based on the suspicion that the original was impacted by T4P canvassing. I'd like to see if there's anything I'm missing regarding the editor bans though. EvansHallBear (talk) 18:06, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Yes, but I find the sum total circumstances extremely suspicious. First BilledMammal catalogued the exact edit type counts and proportions for almost all editors who have edited this topic area in a manner that I think only is possible for customised artificial intelligence supercomputer scripts, then journalists quickly start spreading that list across the extremely far right information bubble, then Elon Musk himself retweets that article in front of 54 million followers while attacking Wikipedia, then somebody used sufficiently advanced computer surveillance to find a specific private Telegram channel where Ivana was supposedly talking about this topic with a few other Wikipedia editors, likely just in the capacity of private citizens, and then I was told that the Israeli government is spending, if I remember correctly, but the exact numbers likely differ, around 150 Million USD on education for Israeli students in order to rewrite much of Wikipedia according to their (in my view completely falsified) narrative.

::::Didn't anybody find the fact that the pro-Israeli government "side" was able to use advanced surveillance against Ivana far more suspicious than that she was apparently discussing her edits with some online acquaintances, especially in combination with everything else that I mentioned? David A (talk) 18:24, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::{{tq|possible for customised artificial intelligence supercomputer scripts}} is false. I'm assuming you're talking about User:BilledMammal/ARBPIA activity statistics complete. As far as I can tell, all his data came from a database query ({{quarry|85655}}), which runs on WP:Wikimedia Cloud Services (no custom AI supercomputer needed) and matches the data currently in the table. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 22:35, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::Okay. Thank you for the information. I think that the rest of what I mentioned remains highly suspicious though. David A (talk) 06:49, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::From what I saw of the matter, Ivana's case did not require, what I believe you suggest to be, state-backed surveillance, and could be done by much anybody with the will for it. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 21:37, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

:About "last non-procedurally closed WP:RM": {{ping|Chess}} What do you mean when you say {{tqq|last non-procedurally closed WP:RM}}? The last RM was in March/April 2025 and was not procedurally closed: Special:Permalink/1284273911#Requested move 28 March 2025.—Alalch E. 03:00, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

:I oppose another move discussion. Even if these procedural justifications are valid, and I'm not sure they are per some of the other comments here, any proposed name change would lack evidential grounds. Genocide is a highly contentious topic and overwhelming consensus in the sources may never be achieved due to the consequential implications of the concept. The oldest and worst genocides in modern history still have their fervent deniers. The events in Gaza are even more contentious because of their implications for the international order and the balance of world power today. We have to understand the gravity and challenge of what we're attempting to do in writing this page in order to not get bogged down in semantics and policy-lawyering. The facts, the sources, and the bulk of relevant analysis support the way this page is presented now, and saying that plainly should not be as controversial as it is. Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 04:55, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

{{strike|The arguments Chess provides are quite persuasive that another discussion with (hopefully) less canvassing and off topic discussion would be ideal - if only to confirm that the consensus in that discussion that this is the correct name was not due to those issues but because there was actually a consensus.}} Would everyone here at least agree that if/when a new RM {{tq|(or substantial RfC)}} is begun (which I agree should be next month at the earliest {{tq|for RM at least}}), it would perhaps be a good idea to find people willing to moderate the discussion ahead of time? These people would be tasked with removing (not just striking, since striking still takes up space) comments that are from editors who are not extended-confirmed (at least), and also to end discussions that get off topic either by collapsing them or simply removing them.{{pb}}They would have discretion to act on any comment or not, and should ideally be two or three editors (not necessarily administrators) who do not regularly edit in this topic area, do not have a strong feeling (either policy-wise or in real life) on the topic, and who do not intend to contribute to the RM discussion beyond their moderating role, including in closing it eventually. Or maybe they can be allowed to close it too and be selected in advance to both moderate during the discussion and close it, since the eventual closer(s) would likely be the best people to decide whether any individual comment, thread of discussion, or !vote are constructive and helpful.{{pb}}This has been done for various discussions in the past - I don't know if it has ever been done for a discussion on one article talk page, but it may help. Otherwise we would have to rely on editors who are watching this page to remove/strike comments that are from ineligible editors, and to try to police each other on staying on topic/constructive - which will raise claims that they're being biased in who they try to police based on their viewpoint, making it significantly less likely for good moderation to happen. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 01:23, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

:I am skeptical that someone with no knowledge of this topic or opinion on this matter (which is so consequential that I can't see why any intelligent person would truly have no or a neutral opinion on it) could effectively or fairly moderate the talk page. Some kind of group effort would have its own flaws, but I think it would be better than appointing a moderator. In any event, I don't see new evidence to support a move, just a desire by some to see different editors determine the outcome of the process. This is in my view precisely the problem with the way this page is being handled: The evidence as clearly supports a genocide as in many other cases, but unlike in those other cases a number of vocal editors disagree that this page should reflect the evidence. Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 13:17, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

::I agree with Monk's arguments here. David A (talk) 14:18, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

::To your parenthetical, that is the way things ought to be but I know plenty of intelligent people that "stay out of it." I fully agree with your last sentence though – this genocide gets held to very different standards here than most other genocides. EvansHallBear (talk) 14:27, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

{{small|I struck my initial comment about the RM proposal from Chess, because I would like this to be a discussion about whether moderated discussions (RfC, RM, or otherwise) would be beneficial for this page. Apologies for my initial comment not being solely related to that point. I also added a bit of clarification to my initial comment, these are identified by the {{tl|tq}} template which should show the clarifications in green text.}} -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 07:53, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

::It won't be necessary to remove comments from non-EC users as the page is already under indefinite EC protection. I agree that it might be a good idea to have moderators collapse or remove off-topic discussions if another RM happens (which I kind of doubt, as most people above are against another one happening anytime soon.) Opm581 ^{(talk | he/him)} 02:50, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Oop, I missed that getting applied. That said, I think it would still be a good idea for the moderators to review accounts that are "barely" EC to confirm if it was gamed to participate in this (hypothetical) discussion. With this talkpage being protected, I wouldn't be surprised if canvassing or meatpuppetry has already taken place off wiki to get accounts to extended confirmed status now so they can be used when a high-profile discussion happens later (i.e. sleepers). But I'm not too miffed on that, because that's also quite a bit of work to look through the edits of the accounts that comment in the discussion. It would also likely require at least one administrator to be a "moderator", because only administrators can remove the EC user-right, and if it's not removed from the account but their comment is deleted, they would just be able to revert and/or keep disrupting the discussion. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 03:01, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

::::I agree that it would likely be necessary to make sure that accounts didn't game the system in order to become EC. Opm581 ^{(talk | he/him)} 03:18, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

::Having moderation seems like a good idea, though I do feel sorry for whoever decides to take on the task. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 08:52, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

::There should not be any requested move for at least 6-12 months bare minimum. This non-issue has been discussed ad nauseam, and until scholarly works suggest otherwise, the consensus amongst NGOs and genocide scholars, who are the most reliable sources on the topic, state that a genocide is occurring. The title reflects that consensus. We do not need to shoehorn yet another requested move discussion on this issue.

::To the extent a moderator is needed for these discussions, maybe, but no one is going to tackle that job, at least no one who is nonbiased. I would be highly skeptical of the motives of anyone who wants to take on that role. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 02:28, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

:::The English Wikipedia is a wide-reaching site. There's probably tens of thousands of active editors who don't intend to edit within the Arab-Israeli conflict area, but who would be happy to help moderate discussions here to help those who eventually close them. I encourage you to make your comments re: whether a RM is appropriate so soon/in the near future above, but please try to keep this discussion "on topic" as to whether we should attempt to require moderated discussions on this page for RMs/other contentious RfCs. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 02:31, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

::::You fielded this discussion under the topic "Rerunning the requested move" - discussing whether or not even having a requested move, moderated or not, is "on topic." LegalSmeagolian (talk) 03:05, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::I created a subheader/subtopic because this is a wider discussion. Trying to justify this off topic discussion being provided here is, at best, wikilawyering. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 03:08, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::But I addressed your comments as to whether we need to have a moderator, and also addressed you stating "arguments Chess provides are quite persuasive that another discussion with (hopefully) less canvassing and off topic discussion". I don't find them persuasive, per my first comment. This is all on topic. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 03:12, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

:::If the NGOs and genocide studies are the 'most reliable sources on the topic,' then you've got yourself a consensus now and forever. As far as I'm concerned, NGOs like Amnesty are at this point no more or less reliable than a think tank or other advocacy group. Same goes for genocide studies -a relatively new (interdisciplinary) field where the involvement of activists in both research & advocacy can (and usually does) lead to a politicized environment. Research on genocide studies has described the role of these academics as "scholar-activists,"[https://digitalcommons.usf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1059&context=gsp#:~:text=Historians%20and%20international%20lawyers%20prefer,scholar%2D%20ship%20must%20be%20clarified.] which would explain why they all have the same ideological profiles.

:::That the term 'genocide' is being used politically to frame this conflict and advance specific agendas is why these move requests happen so often and why some feel this is a rigged consensus. The problem with these sources, the NGOs and genocide studies, is that they share all the same traits with think tanks that are generally regarded as unreliable on Wikipedia. Jonathan f1 (talk) 16:08, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Not to go too far off topic per bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez, but what is your suggestion? Would declaration that it is a genocide by Western media sources need to occur before the title of the page can reflect the topic of the page? That is one of the problems cited by the paper you cite researching genocide studies specifically notes how Eurocentrism is a prevalent problem in the field (pp. 249-250). I do not believe it is good policy to declare an entire academic field "unreliable" because one doesn't agree with their expert conclusions. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 17:44, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::Jonathan's suggestion is to disregard any and all sources that say this is or may be genocide. Nothing more, nothing less. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 21:41, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

::::This is a bit ridiculous. There isn't anyone more authoritative than the relevant academic field for the topic. We may as well declare climate science an "activist" field and rename Climate change to Allegations of climate change.

::::Who is reliable if not academia? 20WattSphere (talk) 09:41, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::*The relevant academic field for the topic is international law -so, lawyers who've prosecuted war crimes/genocide cases & legal academics would be the highest quality RSes. Say what you want about Western governments, but at this point they have access to more intelligence, more evidence, than any academic and do not have to rely merely on news reports and the ambiguity of public statements. Israel is fundamentally being accused of a crime that's got an exceptionally high legal bar for demonstrating specific intent, even when mass violence is evident.

:::::*This is nothing at all like declaring climate science an 'activist field'. The way this analogy works is that the international legal scholars are the climate scientists while the "NGOs" and scholar-activists are akin to environmentalist groups like the Sierra Club. There's a reason why Wikipedia prohibits the use of lobbying/advocacy groups & think tanks as sources, and that should logically extend to any organizations or novel 'academic' fields that function exactly like these groups, falling well short of what we expect of objective, independent, refereed scholarship.

:::::*Also, I didn't declare any field anything. I looked up research on genocide studies and quoted what academics have said about it. They call them "scholar-activists," said they are engaged in activism as much as research, and are all of one ideological mindset (tell me their stance on the war in Gaza, and I'll tell you what they think about colonialism, capitalism, inequality, immigration etc.) Critics of interdisciplinary "studies" fields all pretty much say the same thing -that they are politically ideological, lack academic rigor & the established methodologies of traditional disciplines[https://www.insidehighered.com/opinion/columns/higher-ed-gamma/2024/02/13/critical-studies-revolution#:~:text=Serious%20critics%20argue%20that%20critical,cultures%20that%20the%20marginalized%20create.]. Personally I think it's high time Wikipedia called a moratorium on the use of these sources, but that's beyond the scope of this talk page. Jonathan f1 (talk) 15:36, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Agree. 20WattSphere (talk) 09:36, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

::I would support this proposal. I would go even further and say that this talk page would benefit from full-time moderation. EvansHallBear (talk) 18:45, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

This is a very controversial topic in a Wikipedia:Contentious topics area.

Please be careful when removing sources from the lead or the infobox.

MOS:LEADCITE: {{tq2|The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none.}}

This is not a non-controversial article such as Armadillo shoe that can get away with no sources in the lead.

Parts of the lead and infobox were challenged before. Sources should be maintained for article stability. Even many WP:FA

such as Climate change maintains citations in the lead.

If there are concerns for WP:OVERCITE, we can also use WP:CITEBUNDLE. Bogazicili (talk) 16:30, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

:Note that some of the supporting citations are there because they are WP:Secondary

:For example, [https://academic.oup.com/jpubhealth/article/42/3/e287/5672679] is a review article and a high-quality WP:Secondary. Also see: WP:MEDRS

:[https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14623528.2025.2483546 This article] is also a secondary source in Wikipedia terms, but a public health review article is still quite different.

:Specifically, WP:RSCONTEXT. A public health statement should have a reliable public health source. The author of this article [https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14623528.2025.2483546] is not a public health expert. Bogazicili (talk) 16:55, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

I agree this seems excessive and do we have sources that define these entities as defenders in this context? I was about to restore deletion of this field which was done by AirshipJungleman29, but the bot started editing. I don't know if 1RR applies here. Bogazicili (talk) 17:05, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

:I will go ahead and remove the change. I don't think "Defenders" is an appropriate field for this infobox. The work these organizations is doing is good and they are trying their best to stop it but they aren't taking up arms to defend Palestinians, that is outside the scope of their humanitarian relief. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 00:35, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Isn't Sisi's regime involved in the continuation of these crimes? As a neighboring country, Egypt bears a responsibility that no other country does. Silence means acceptance. Many criticize Egypt's role, and this should be stated clearly. ([https://jacobin.com/2024/06/egypt-palestine-gaza-genocide-al-sisi], [https://www.newarab.com/news/we-charge-you-genocide-sisi-faces-oslo-protest-over-gaza], [https://www.middleeasteye.net/opinion/arab-autocrats-israel-gaza-genocide-enabled-how], [https://www.cage.ngo/articles/african-commission-urged-to-refer-egypt-to-court-for-complicity-in-gaza-blockade]) Hauskasic (talk) 12:20, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

:I would support the addition of an Egypt subsection to "Responsibility of Third States". This could include the sources you provided above as well as the obstruction of the Global March to Gaza. I think the bar for adding them to the infobox is higher and might not be met yet. Maybe the CAGE accusation is sufficient? EvansHallBear (talk) 22:11, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

:I concur with EvansHallBear's response; some coverage of Egypt in the "Responsibility of Third States" section would be good. I'm also not sure if they should be added to the infobox yet. Opm581 ^{(talk | he/him)} 07:14, 20 June 2025 (UTC)