Talk:Gaza genocide#Requested move 3 May 2024

{{closed rfc top|result= I want to thank everyone who participated in this RfC. I know issues like this are not easy and the topic of genocide is not one that anyone should take lightly. It’s been 26 days since this RfC was started and as the topic has cooled WP:WHENCLOSE I'm closing this RfC. I have read all of the comments in the discussion and the polling. Below I will lay out my evaluation for the proposed change to this article. I will focus mostly on the issue of the first sentence as it is more tangible than going over the whole article to find examples.

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

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

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

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

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

{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1748732471}}

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

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

• No I think framing the genocide as the claim of many authoritative sources is better than flatly stating the "Gaza genocide" as fact in the opening sentence or elsewhere in the article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:40, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
• No These are allegations. WP:NPOV. Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 01:08, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
• No. Wikipedia is not here to right great wrongs in the world. While it is common for sources to refer to it as "genocid[e/al]", this is commonly similar to our article title - being done for concision. And even when it is referred to explicitly as a "genocide" as an intent to actually claim it is that, ultimately the organizations doing so don't have the authority to define the word genocide. That's the job of international law - via treaties, agreements, or international tribunals set up specifically to come to a definitive conclusion after examining all the evidence. All of the arguments in past discussions still hold true as well. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 01:19, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
• :We should not use this approach. If we can only use "genocide" when the inernational legal system has approved it, I don't think we would be able to call The Holocaust a genocide. I don't believe the ICJ has ever made a ruling about it? 20WattSphere (talk) 22:38, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
• Yes This article should start by introducing its subject per MOS:FIRST, not by describing how and by whom it has been described/established as existing- there is plenty of space for that in the rest of the lead and the body. Mason7512 (talk) 01:44, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
• Yes per result of previous discussion. EvansHallBear (talk) 01:49, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
• No there is no consensus among reliable sources that this constitutes a genocide, with many, including most Western countries as represented through their politicians, media, and scholarship, opposing or qualifying the characterization. For example, much of the leading German legal scholarship states that it’s either not a genocide, not proven to be one, or dependent on specific interpretations of the genocide convention. Per the longstanding consensus on this page, the article discusses the claim and makes no affirmative statement on whether or not it is one, and a significant change in RS coverage would be required to claim this affirmatively. For example, there is no consensus amount RS for {{tq|systematic destruction of the Palestinian people}} either, which would be required per WP:LEAD; if the article itself rightly describes the topic as disputed, so should the lead, per WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. FortunateSons (talk) 10:38, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
• Yes Per Mason and previous discussions. GrabUp - Talk 11:05, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
• Yes Article needs better first sentence. Happy with proposal as is or with my "refers to" suggestion below. //Lollipoplollipoplollipop::talk 15:58, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
• Sort of, per Lollipop’s proposal. Note the RM that moved this to "Gaza genocide" was predicated on the point that such a title doesn’t objectify its existence, like Big Bang etc. Our short description reads {{tq|Characterisation of Israeli mass killings in Gaza}}, that’s what the first sentence should be on. However, sourcing seems strong enough to say {{tq|The Gaza genocide refers to}} in wikivoice. The first paragraph needs to summarise opposing views in a sentence in order to adhere to WP:NPOV. Strong oppose saying {{tq|The Gaza genocide is}}. Kowal2701 (talk) 19:45, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
• :MOS:OPEN says {{tq|The first paragraph should define or identify the topic with a neutral point of view}}, my support's conditional on summarising opposing views somewhere in the first paragraph. Kowal2701 (talk) 21:04, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

• Yes I agree with User:JasonMacker as long as the new proposed opening sentence is followed by the existing opening sentence, it would satisfy MOS:OPEN. I do not think it violate NPOV. {{strikethrough | No I think word "Genocide” by itself usually refers to the act: the actual killing, destruction, or attempt to destroy a group. However it can also be used to refer to "crime of genocide" in casual conversations. So i do not see a problem with current opening sentence and should be left as is. Because the sentence begins with “According to [sources],” it correctly attributes the genocide, and i don't think it is stated as fact. }}Cinaroot (talk) 23:05, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

• No, per the arguments I've made previously at Talk:Gaza_genocide#RfC_about_changing_About_and_Short_description. In that discussion, consensus was found (by ~40 editors) against making a more definitive pronouncement of genocide in the About and SD, by changing the wording. Even the move request that resulted in the current title leaned heavily on the policy of WP:COMMMONNAME to use a phrase that appears commonly in RS to title the article - that leniency of using "Gaza genocide" as a phrase, rather than a pronouncement, is what led to the article's title being changed. The change proposed discussed above and in this RFC would plainly push this article closer toward making such a definitive pronouncement in Wikivoice; which, while there remains significant scholarly opposition and a lack of consensus, would be wrongly done. Shoehorning the bolded phrase Gaza genocide to the front of the article does nothing to improve readers' understanding of the article's scope; the first sentence already states that "...Isreal is committing genocide" according to several groups and scholars. That's the proper way to balance those pronouncements with opposition scholarship. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:04, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

• Yes, per previous section. There hasn't been a compelling argument as to why this article can't have a MOS:BOLDLEAD like Black genocide in the United States or Tamil genocide (two contentious classifications of genocide), despite having far more consensus from scholars per Template:Expert opinions in the Gaza genocide debate. But even if it didn't have such consensus, that doesn't negate Wikipedia's manual of style guidelines, which is to try to have a first sentence that introduces the topic of the article, by using the article's title, bolding it, and explaining what it is. The current first sentence of the article ("According to...") fails to explain what the article's subject is. --JasonMacker (talk) 18:25, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
• :{{tq|"Black genocide is a historiographical framework and rhetorical term"}} If you want to clarify that the article scope is about "Gaza genocide" the rhetorical phrase, I suppose that's something rather different than what's being proposed for the first sentence here. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 19:06, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::Yes, it is different, and that's the main problem with this RfC. The choices offered heavily suggest a false dilemma. It doesn't address the real issue (as I see it), which is that the article's first sentence currently fails MOS:FIRST. Imagine if this RfC instead offered as two choices "Does the article's current first sentence satisfy MOS:FIRST?" And then if Yes, the issue would be resolved to keep the status quo, and No would immediately begin a search/poll for a new first sentence, with/without MOS:BOLDLEAD, with/without stating "Gaza genocide is..." in Wikivoice. The vast majority of discussion happening in the discussion section of this RfC is whether or not reliable sources have enough consensus to state "Gaza genocide is..." in Wikivoice. That's an important conversation that needs to take place, but can we first figure out if we even want the status quo? Can we replace the current first sentence with something better? Take for example the article Persecution of Uyghurs in China (Whose previous name was "Uyghur genocide" but was changed in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Persecution_of_Uyghurs_in_China&oldid=1210656351#Alternative this discussion]) whose first sentence states in Wikivoice what has taken place, and then states in Wikivoice that it has been characterized as a genocide (without using any "according to..." wording). That sentence, despite not having a bold lead, nevertheless satisfies MOS:FIRST because it immediately introduces the topic of the article, which is persecution. I just wish that this article had something similar (i.e. introduce the topic by stating in Wikivoice that Israel is engaging in mass killings, just like in the short description). So something similar to the Persecution of Uyghurs in China article for this article would be "Since 2023, the government of Israel has carried out mass killings of Palestinians in Gaza which has often been characterized as ethnic cleansing or genocide." Would such a sentence be appropriate for this article? Is there a better worded sentence than this? What would be a good first sentence for this article? Unfortunately, this RfC isn't asking those questions, so once this RfC resolves to No consensus or No (status quo) (which seems likely, from what I'm seeing), the next step will be to figure out a good first sentence that has consensus. JasonMacker (talk) 21:07, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

::::"the government of Israel has carried out mass killings" Mass killings or massacres do not really fit the definition of a genocide. Raphael Lemkin's original definition of the term covered the intentional "disintegration of the political and social institutions, of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of national groups", while other genocide definitions emphasize that "the violence or other action taken should be deliberate, organized, sustained, and large-scale", atrocities are selective for a distinguishable group, and "the perpetrator takes steps to prevent the group from surviving or reproducing in a given territory". Dimadick (talk) 06:55, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

• No per Hemiauchenia. Though the overwhelming majority of advocacy groups, human rights groups, UN orgs, and third parties all agree, other significant parties including the US department of state disagree. The title is one thing, but the lede as is maintains the facts correctly and attributes correctly. For those who vote yes, stating as a fact would worsen this article. Stating as a citation by other orgs gives the article more credence. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 19:13, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
• :US govt denial of the Gaza genocide should be treated equivalently to Turkish (or Israeli) govt denial of the Armenian genocide. Per my response to FortunateSons, the views of Western governments are very much a minority viewpoint and should not be given WP:UNDUE weight.
• :If, as you say, "the overwhelming majority of advocacy groups, human rights groups, UN orgs, and third parties all agree" that a genocide is occurring, then the article needs to reflect that in order to not give WP:FALSEBALANCE. EvansHallBear (talk) 21:33, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::the article already reflects that and already shows (well deserved) near certainty around the gaza genocide. the US/western gov may be a minority voice here, but it is a very significant minority voice that cannot be dismissed.
• ::hemiauchenia is right that the article is weaker when a strong statement like that isn't attributed to the source. let the reader decide if they want to dismiss academia, UN orgs, etc. if they weren't gonna believe those orgs, they sure as heck won't believe wikivoice Bluethricecreamman (talk) 03:42, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
• :The US Department of State is a minor bug compared to "the overwhelming majority" (not to mention that, as Israel's ally, they're not an independent expert body on the matter).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:57, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

• Yes, what is currently taking place in Gaza is objectively genocide, and there appears to be scholarly consensus on the issue at this point. Israel has checked all the boxes for genocide per the genocide convention and the only parties that don't agree are the accused and its closest allies. Yung Doohickey (talk) 21:01, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
• :Would you like to base a vote in policy perhaps? Cremastra (u — c) 13:28, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::In that case my vote is still Yes given the scholarly consensus which is heavily implied per WP:RS. My vote is based on what reliable sources are saying, not unsupported and arguably fringe opinions from the minority of academics. As far as I'm aware, the vast majority of scholars, at least since January of this year, seem to favor the notion that there is an ongoing genocide in Gaza, which is supported by very compelling and high quality evidence (like the Amnesty International report), unlike much of those claiming there is no genocide. Thanks, Yung Doohickey (talk) 00:40, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
• Yes, the evidence, scholarly and institutional opinion is strong enough to support this change. We need a concise opening sentence. I am fine with the "refers to" suggestion made by Lollipop if that alternative has more support. Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 13:43, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
• Yes The proposed content of the 'No' option is a strong indicator that practically justifies the 'Yes' one. If all those authorities say it's a genocide, the only thing we can do is accept it (Note that we don't list all international organisations, governments and historians in the first sentence of Armenian genocide.).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:52, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
• Yes Google Scholar search for "Gaza genocide" shows that the scholarship on this topic is essentially unanimous. If the same standard some editors are using here were applied to other genocides, we would have to both-sides the Armenian genocide, Rohingya genocide, and most of those listed at list of genocides, as well. (t · c) buidhe 19:04, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
• Yes per WP:RS. ~ HAL333 22:24, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
• Yes, it is widely reported across the world and documented in academic books that the Israeli military is committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza. Also, the first sentence should briefly introduce the topic to the non-specialist reader with the page title as the subject. The current overloaded version is confusing to the readers. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 02:43, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
• :Which books? I am unaware of any from academic publishers that detail it as a genocide. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 08:04, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
• :: For example, the academic book "[https://irishpages.org/product/genocide-in-gaza/?v=8bcc25c96aa5 Genocide in Gaza: Israel’s Long War on Palestine]" (2025) documented that the Israeli state is committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza.

::: The book's publisher is "The Irish Pages Press".

::: Its author, Avi Shlaim, is a British-Israeli historian and [https://www.politics.ox.ac.uk/person/avi-shlaim professor] at the University of Oxford. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 12:43, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

::::I was aware of the book, but was not familiar with Irish Pages as an academic publisher, fair enough. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 08:03, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

• No per WP:NPOV. Citing sources is more appropriate. Coining (talk) 23:23, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
• No - I'd say give emphasis to objective facts, avoid WP:SENSATIONAL outcries of WP:LABEL that have no specific meaning or weight using WP:WIKIVOICE to proclaim something. That just gives an impression of falsehood or advocacy that does not have facts because otherwise facts would be prominent. Stating the history, records, when and which authority said what - those are documented facts that should be present, have more WP:WEIGHT than any WP opinionating, are informative, and should be impressive to the reader as indicating the shape of recognition. Just say the facts, skip the editorialising, and include per NPOV all positions in WP:DUE prominence so that readers value the content as comprehensive. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:06, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
• :Genocide is not a WP:LABEL with no specific meaning, but a crime with a specific definition under international law. The allegations (at least as contained in this article) are largely coming from human rights organizations/academics/governments and not WP:SENSATIONAL news sources. The open question is whether there is sufficient consensus to use the term genocide in WP:WIKIVOICE, not the validity of the term itself. In instances where there is consensus (e.g. The Holocaust), calling something a genocide is not "editorialising". EvansHallBear (talk) 06:35, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

::*User:EvansHallBear Factually, and particularly as phrased in the proposal, it appears to be just a Wikivoice pronouncement or emotional outcry, and again I say give emphasis to objective facts not make sensational outcries of labels that have no specific meaning or weight using wikivoice to proclaim something.

:::I also suggest WP:LABEL applies unless you think "genocide" is not a value-laden label, and note the article itself mentions disputation about using the word *as* a label. If you wish to view the word as referring crime, fine, then that should be shown *factually* with an actual decision by ICJ and lead with that being phrased as the ICJ result - not a wikivoice opinionating. Otherwise the lead should remain as now, stating allegations from the various authorities which are objective facts. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:11, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

::::@Markbassett I wasn't around for the discussions, but this argument has been addressed numerous times before. It's extremely rare for a judicial body to declare a genocide. To impose this standard here is inconsistent with the usage of the term "genocide" across the rest of Wikipedia. EvansHallBear (talk) 23:46, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

::::User:EvansHallBear - Give emphasis to objective facts, avoid sensationalist outcries of labels. When the proposed phrasing can be viewed as just a sensationalist outcry with no specific meaning or weight, that should kill it right there. It could also be viewed as referring to the term as WP:COMMONNAME or as the position of some (but obviously not all) RS. So long as it is unclear exactly which if any of these is meant or that it has any obvious connection to objective facts, I say again that it remains without a specific meaning or weight. And my view on handling criminal accusations differs from yours -- I tend to think that statements of crime should look at WP:BLPCRIME plus WP:VOICE and stick to only state the objective facts of allegations and filings, but do not in wikivoice state it in a way that may misleadingly be read that a determination had been issued. As I said before - give emphasis to objective facts, avoid sensationalist outcries of labels. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:55, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::@Markbassett This argument seems blatantly absurd to me. Is calling the Holocaust a genocide a WP:LABEL? EvansHallBear (talk) 16:17, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::On a general note, no, because the term genocide was so strongly influenced by the Holocaust; in the same way that referring to Apartheid for the actual historical event isn’t a POV term. For other genocides, yes, absolutely, for the same reason that calling ISIS or Hezbollah terrorists is a WP:LABEL. FortunateSons (talk) 16:30, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Apartheid is a WP:COMMONNAME so that's a different case. If we were debating whether to call this article the "Gaza Holocaust" then yes that would be sensationalist in this case but not in the case of The Holocaust.

:::::::The historical link between the term genocide and the Holocaust doesn't impact whether it's a sensationalist WP:LABEL or not. (For the avoidance of any doubt, the Holocaust was absolutely a genocide). EvansHallBear (talk) 16:38, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Thats not the point I’m making. The term genocide (particularly the legal variety) was so heavily influenced by the holocaust that it cannot be a label for it. However, basically any other use of genocide is disputed, and should be attributed except in obvious cases (such as those with an overwhelming consensus in all relevant areas of scholarship). FortunateSons (talk) 17:15, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::@FortunateSons That's not the point Markbassett was making though, which is that genocide is a sensationalist label with no specific meaning. EvansHallBear (talk) 17:43, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::Outside the legal sphere*, there is no one specific meaning of genocide. Respected scholars and organisations use different standards, and reach different outcomes.

::::::::::*It’s also disputed within the legal sphere, but that’s a different problem, and less significant IMO. FortunateSons (talk) 17:49, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::Which would affect all uses of the term on Wikipedia. I guess in the case of The Holocaust the lack of specificity doesn't matter since it de facto meets all definitions of genocide. But that still leaves every other use of the term on Wikipedia in question. I appreciate that you would have an internally consistent response to this (albeit one that's not generally in line with the otherwise loose usage of the term here). But it feels that others making these arguments are just POV pushing. EvansHallBear (talk) 18:07, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::I mean, Transgender genocide, Black genocide in the United States and many others on the List of genocides do qualify the description in some way, so it’s not just me. Rohingya genocide, a conflict where I personally believe the bar for genocide is met and where RS coverage is significantly clearer than for Gaza, IMO also goes further than sources would objectively support, despite less than a 10 uses in Wikivoice within the article, which contains 8745 words. FortunateSons (talk) 19:11, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::Agreed that it's not universal and some articles qualify more than others. But there are also several counterexamples e.g. Greek genocide, California genocide. East Timor genocide seems like a good example for this article to follow. EvansHallBear (talk) 19:42, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::I‘m not familiar enough with Timor to be certain, but based on some very aggressive OR + the article, it moreso seems that we should remove the one instance of Wikivoice (and slightly alter the lead to match the body), but it’s pretty harmless, as there seems to be scholarly consensus, which is lacking here. To me, this looks like one of the rare cases of an unambiguous failure of the legal genocide definition, per Lisson, but we can’t change the definition merely because we dislike the outcome. FortunateSons (talk) 20:09, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::User:EvansHallBear Look, my input on *this* article proposal is 'No - give emphasis to objective facts and avoid sensationalist outcries of labels.' Of *course* an emotional word is always an emotional word, per MOS:LABEL "Value-laden labels" are something that evokes emotional response, and *this* article proposal to metaphorically evoke The Holocaust is a label. In this article the word also fits the LABEL guidance of "may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution." So phrasing in wikivoice as shown is not good for that reason also. See MOS:LABEL and WP:VOICE. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 17:36, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

• No - Since the question of whether these actions constitute genocide is still debated by some scholars, it is best to emphasize who exactly has come to that conclusion.Sonicsuns (talk) 03:27, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
• No – there remains significant ongoing debate on the matter of terminology. It is not the job of Wikipedia editors to evaluate evidence one way or another. I am inclined to agree with other editors here who have cited WP:NPOV and WP:LABEL. WMSR (talk) 22:01, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
• Yes to Lollipop's proposal, no otherwise. It's acceptable to say "Gaza genocide" refers to the events in Gaza. I agree that this is similar to Black genocide and the Tamil genocide ({{tq|The Tamil genocide refers to the framing of various systematic acts of physical violence and cultural destruction}}), which both discuss the term in WikiVoice without endorsing the term itself. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 23:14, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
• Yes, although I acknowledge this is a difficult case, a) due to basic vagueness of WP:VOICE on what it means for a proposition to be "seriously" contested; b) the precedent for the interpretation of that term set by the existing genocide articles; c) the existence of multiple definitions of genocide, which widely vary in their scope; d) the fact that some scholars have changed their views over time, or expressed their views much earlier in the conflict. The public, expert dissenters from the genocide characterisation amongst non-legal academics are basically: Benny Morris, Goda, Herf, and the late Israel Charny. They have a status which, ignoring their record of aggressive, partisan defence of Israel, would lead one to think of them as serious. Should we ignore that record? Well, the Armenian genocide article implies that we shouldn't - Turkish-partisan sources denying that it's a genocide don't blunt or mitigate the first sentence of that article. None of them (Morris, Goda, Herf, etc.) address the problem in what I'd think of in a serious way: they assert flatly that it isn't a genocide, usually assert that none of the elements are met, and/or accuse their opponents of indulging in antisemitic prejudice. It's not so much of an issue for me that they don't write in academic journals, but for some that's important. I asked Consensus, the academic generative AI search engine about this. It said: "No academic claims were identified in the provided abstracts from the past year that argue Israel is not committing genocide in Gaza. All abstracts either support the genocide claim or discuss the situation as potentially meeting the criteria for genocide." Would modify my view if a case can be made that the claim is serious contested (by serious people making serious arguments), even in the Lemkin or Martin Shaw definitions, but right now I don't see it. I don't personally think the "refers to" addition is necessary, but would support adopting it if it reflects a stronger consensus than the unmodified version. Sonnyvalentino (talk) 20:50, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
• :If you don’t mind: isn’t what you’re looking for basically Template:Expert opinions in the Gaza genocide debate? I’m counting at least 10 dissenting experts (many, but not all of them, legal) since May 2024, excluding those claiming likely but uncertain outcomes. I’m not one of the main contributors these days, but I would venture to guess that our output is significantly more reliable than AI, which seems to have missed Reingewertz, for instance. FortunateSons (talk) 21:28, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
• No – do we start by describing Al-Qaeda as a "terrorist group" in the first sentence? No. Many scholars debate as to whether Israel's actions in Gaza constitute a genocide; we should not be taking sides. This is not a clear-cut case such as the Holocaust or the Rwandan genocide, where all reputable scholars and organizations agree – rather, this is a much-debated topic without a clear scholarly consensus. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 19:29, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
• No per WP:NPOV.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:48, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
• Yes per {{u|Kiril Simeonovski}} ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 02:39, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
• No This is far too strong for Wikipedia voice given the weakness of the consensus and our historical usage of these types of labels. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 04:11, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
• No per WP:NPOV. Far too strong a statement to put in the first sentence, and gratuitously controversial. The subject of the article is not a genocide, but plausible accusations of a genocide. ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gaza_genocide/Archive_2#c-Cremastra-20240624174800-David_A-20240616055800 I still think "Gaza genocide" is a terrible title for this article].) The POV-pushers on both sides claiming this is a settled matter need to stop.
  I seek in no way to downplay the horrible things that have happened, and am certainly not in the "Israel can do nothing wrong" camp. (In my opinion Netanyahu is certainly speeding towards genocide, if he hasn't arrived there already). I just think we need to to take this issue more slowly, instead of yelling at each other. Choosing these gratuitously strident and controversial titles and putting such things in the lead sentence is serving to extend debate on the topic and annoy the "other side" of the debate. The goal here is to get a consensus, not to annoy those darn pro-Israeli/pro-Palestinian editors. Cremastra (u — c) 13:28, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
• No, because it is a violation of WP:NPOV policy to assert as fact a statement only supported by opinion: even the opinions of the most credible sources. And also no, because I very much doubt our readers particularly want to hear Wikipedia's voice on the matter. Not when they can read what those better qualified have to say on the matter. Let the facts speak for themselves. Tell the readers what the opinions of those who matter are, and leave the soapbox at home. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:21, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
• No. I do not see a consensus of reliable sources treating the genocide as an established fact rather than a contested claim. For better or worse, Wikipedia follows sources and doesn't get ahead of them. My preferred sources in this area remain mainstream, Western media outlets which still use language like "For human rights campaigners and international watchdogs, attacks on medical facilities have fueled accusations that Israel is conducting a genocide against Palestinians in Gaza, in part by wrecking their health system." [https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/14/world/middleeast/israel-medical-facility-strikes-gaza-hamas.html New York Times, May 14, 2025]. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:39, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
• :Why do you prefer western media outlets? I do not believe Wikipedia has any policy which holds them above others as it relates to consensus in reporting/coverage/public opinion, including in English language wiki in particular. Mainstream makes sense, but only considering western sources seems to naturally introduce a bias, no? Mason7512 (talk) 00:05, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::The NYT's coverage of I/P is also notoriously biased. See List of The New York Times controversies#Coverage of Israel and Palestine as a starting point. Also this article [https://theintercept.com/2024/01/09/newspapers-israel-palestine-bias-new-york-times/] which details the imbalance in coverage during the current war. EvansHallBear (talk) 01:10, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
• : There's no policy in English Wikipedia (or any Wikipedia quite frankly) that states that English-language sources are to be placed with higher precedent than others. You can make the argument that more RS tend to be in English (which might be true) but it's clear that reliable sources in foreign languages are to be treated equally. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 00:48, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::I personally read mostly English sources since I have limited facility in other languages and essentially none in Arabic or Hebrew, but my comment should not be read as putting greater emphasis on English language rather than other sources. If there is a consensus of non-English language media we should report on that divide, but probably still reflect it as a divide given the global status of English. The question of 'Western' media is more fraught, I read it because it's my culture that I am comfortable with, but my experience has shown that high quality, factual, reporting with an explicit, honest attempt to be objective and free from government censorship is rare enough anywhere and quite hard to find beyond the EU and the Anglo-sphere. Most governments don't really like it, and there is limited demand for it. The most popular news channels are far from the best. As for the NYT, I chose it as an example because it's easy for me to search, not because it's the best. Though to be honest, I am an American with a conservative background; my view of reasonable sources includes more outlets more pro-Isreal than the NYT than those more pro-Palestinian than they are. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:55, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
• Yes, although I doubt this will end in consensus. We determine what is and isn't a genocide based off RS generally agreeing that a genocide is occurring, e.g. The Holocaust. Sure, there are fringe sources that argue that there isn't one, as well as Israel itself, but the majority of RS are clear that one is occuring. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 00:48, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
• No per the arguments raised by Hemiauchenia, Berchanhimez, and Chicdat. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 01:47, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
• No. Per Andy, Chicdat et al. In political articles, all prominent views should be presented, but when no view has supermajority in reliable and relevant sources, no opinion should be presented as fact. ---Sluzzelin talk 02:16, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
• No. Describe disputes, don't engage in them. Such a claim should be the overwhelming consensus among sources, similar to the Holocaust or the Armenian Genocide. That's simply something that cannot be decided until we're looking at the situation in retrospect years after the conflict ends. We went through the same thing with Persecution of Uyghurs in China and came to a reasonable if imperfect compromise. Also, if you'll forgive some speculation, I suspect that many of the people most invested in this dispute are ones who are locked pretty firmly in a media bubble that's telling them it obviously is or is not genocide and are getting a warped perspective of the overall consensus of the sources. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 20:56, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
• Yes per the above votes. Probably best to include the title as a part of the opening sentence, and then the second statement follow. ToadetteEdit (7M articles) 21:08, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
• No per WP:NPOV. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:24, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
• Yes. I believe both proposed openings have the same POV. The current revision of the lead does not describe it as contested except for the sentence "The Israeli government has denied South Africa's allegations". If it makes the lead read better, go for it. RoseCherry64 (talk) 19:50, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
• yes per user:Bluethricecreamman, despite voting against, pointing out the vast majority of actually reliable sources call it genocide. The US will never go against Israel on anything, let alone something like this. Dronebogus (talk) 20:30, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
• No This is good example of how badly ongoing conflicts are covered at this project. Nemov (talk) 13:44, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
• :Would you care to expound on this? EvansHallBear (talk) 20:53, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
• No We would need a supermajority of reliable sources saying that it is a genocide in order to state it in WP:WIKIVOICE. Personally, I the United Nations and Amnesty International have been increasingly partisan in the past 25 years, but that is not a valid argument for this RFC. The Knowledge Pirate (talk) 03:06, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
• :partisan according to who? — 🧀Cheesedealer ^!!!⚟ 06:46, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

:No, this not been established as fact and should not be presented as such. It's not the place of Wikipedia to unilaterally come to conclusions about contentious issues of international law. אקעגן (talk) 00:56, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

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

:As opposed to what? People who are unaware of what was previously here or what changes are to be made need more information. Moxy🍁 00:02, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

::Please see the above thread: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gaza_genocide#c-JasonMacker-20250414002700-Additional_sentence_in_the_lead_to_be_the_first_sentence_-_suggestions_&_opinion Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:17, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

:when you 'say' voting section, are you referring to your "Responses" subsection or the "Additional sentence in the lead to be the first sentence - suggestions & opinions wanted" subsection "Polling and discussion"? Mason7512 (talk) 00:09, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

{{collapse top|title= Meta-discussion on the RfC itself; collapsed for easier navigation and discussion of the topic at hand}}

:The above section was open for over a week and involved at least a dozen editors. As I stated in my revert of your removal of the edit of the first paragraph, we already established consensus for the change to the lead. Your claim that This is contentious enough and has been subject to such long running dispute on the talkpage is simply untrue. The last time that the first sentence was discussed on this talk page (before the above section and the section that precipitated it) was in August 2024, which was a discussion involving seven editors, and hasn't been discussed since then. So it hasn't been a "long-running dispute." But even if it were the case that it was a long-running dispute, that wouldn't override the consensus that was just established above. Talk, don't revert. Don't overturn the consensus that was reached after a discussion that lasted over 10 days and involved a dozen editors. You're more than welcome to engage in discussion on this talk page and discuss how to improve the article and specifically the article's lead section.

:As for your RFC's question, it's currently moot, because the lead section of the article is already changed, based on the consensus reached in the above discussion. Just a minor tweak, removing the words "changed to," would be sufficient to remove its mootness. And with that minor tweak, I would say yes, it should be the opening sentence of the lead section of the article, for the reasons that I presented in the previous section. JasonMacker (talk) 00:16, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

::Edit warring your proposal into the article doesn't mean there is consensus. What currently exists is a weak WP:LOCALCON that needs affirmative approval from the wider community, which is exactly what an RfC is for. RfC's are supposed to run for a month, so claiming victory after a week is frankly premature. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:31, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

:::There is no "edit war" here. You unilaterally, without any prior contribution to this article or its talk page, reverted an edit that was established by consensus. Read WP:CONSENSUS. The whole point of an RfC is to to solicit opinions "[w]hen talk page discussions fail". And as is quite clear in the above section, there was no failure in the discussion. Almost every editor who commented agreed with the construction of a new first sentence, and many editors, myself included, expressed approval of several of the proposals simultaneously. After over a week of discussion, given what the majority of the editors wanted, I formulated a first paragraph that synthesized the proposals of multiple editors, to reflect how editors preferred aspects of each proposal. As editors of this article, we can't anticipate the objections of uninvolved editors who don't contribute to the discussion and randomly show up immediately after a consensus was reached. So, if you objected to the consensus reached above, you could have first reached out to any of the involved editors and stated your views on the article's content. I think this RfC can be fruitful, but you didn't attempt any dispute resolution whatsoever and immediately (1) reverted a consensus edit and (2) proposed a request for comment before contributing to any discussion on this talk page. As for your language of "claiming victory after a week", that is not a helpful characterization of the above section. As I stated in the synthesis section, This edit should not be seen as a definitive and conclusive edit, and I welcome the participants of this discussion to edit the first paragraph of the article as needed. And that's what actually happened since I made the edit. JasonMacker (talk) 00:54, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

::::The people who participated in the above discussion is a small fraction of the number of people who turned up to the previous move requests regarding this article, which have often been treated as a proxy over whether the Gaza Genocide should be treated as fact in wikivoice, that's my point. Many people supporting the move request made the argument that by making the title "Gaza Genocide", this was only for conciseness, and not an endorsement of the claim in wikivoice, while many people opposing the move (and many newspapers covering it after the fact) saw retitling the article as an implicit endorsement of the claim. What I am saying is, we need a robust consensus, and the best way to get that is with an RfC Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:08, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::Also the claim that I have {{tq|[no] prior contribution to this article or its talk page}} is laughably wrong on both counts : [https://sigma.toolforge.org/usersearch.py?name=Hemiauchenia&page=Gaza+genocide&max=500&server=enwiki] [https://sigma.toolforge.org/usersearch.py?name=Hemiauchenia&page=Talk%3AGaza+genocide&server=enwiki&max=]. Maybe you should check before boldly making easily falsifiable claims like that. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:42, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::I did check... the past five months. I apologize that my search wasn't exhaustive enough. Regardless, the fact that your last contribution to this talk page is recorded in the third most recent archive doesn't weaken my point is that you did not attempt to engage with current active editors on this talk page. Why? Why was your immediate response to revert without any discussion, ignore the above section, and immediately begin an RfC? JasonMacker (talk) 03:48, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Because, as I've said below, the past discussions and consensus are so strong that an informal discussion such as yours above should not override that past consensus. You need a wide-reaching consensus to override the prior wide-reaching consensus. So people aren't going to waste their time commenting to your informal discussion above when there should be a RfC or other wide-reaching discussion before any significant changes are made. Silence is not acquiescing on Wikipedia. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 04:00, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::>The people who participated in the above discussion is a small fraction of the number of people who turned up to the previous move requests regarding this article, which have often been treated as a proxy over whether the Gaza Genocide should be treated as fact in wikivoice, that's my point.

:::::Again, why is your unilateral imposition of your interpretation just treated as fact? Your interpretation that a discussion regarding the title of an article also counts as a discussion of the first sentence is an interesting one, but that's just an opinion. I obviously disagree with it, and you aren't citing any Wikipedia policy, so I'm not sure why your interpretation should be favored over mine.

:::::To reiterate, the above section was never closed. You could have contributed to that conversation in some capacity before deciding to begin an RFC in a subject that you didnt even bother consulting with other active editors on.--JasonMacker (talk) 03:26, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::You can hardly call Hemi's interpretation "unilateral" where I also have aspoused a similar interpretation (without having been called to here - I noticed your discussion and Hemi's discussion because I have this page on my watchlist, even though I failed to comment until recently). You point out a good fact - the above section was never closed. For potentially contentious decisions made after discussions, people who started/participated in them should not purport to assess the discussion at all, unless it is virtually unanimous including historical discussions. A consensus that arose from multiple RMs/RfCs cannot be overridden by an informal "consensus" that arose from an unclosed discussion of 10 people. You are free to request an uninvolved closure of your discussion above if you think that it can be closed. But you should not be assessing "consensus" on your own having contributed to that discussion greatly. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 03:45, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::>I noticed your discussion and Hemi's discussion because I have this page on my watchlist

:::::::So, why didn't you notice the above discussion that had been ongoing for over a week if you had this article watchlisted? Your last contribution on this talk page was back in February.

:::::::>people who started/participated in them should not purport to assess the discussion at all, unless it is virtually unanimous including historical discussions.

:::::::Read the discussion carefully. I was surprised by how not a single editor unconditionally supported the status quo. If you disagree with my assessment of what occurred in the discussion above, fine, but you could at least have the courtesy of stating that first. You and Hemiauchenia could have contributed to the above discussion and engaged with other editors and made suggestions/comments. Instead, Hemiauchenia has COMPLETELY ignored the above discussion and decides to start a RfC without even bothering to contribute to the already existing discussion. WP:NEGOTIATE is very clear that the very first step is to engage in discussion. And then, "if discussion stalemates, editors may seek outside input to help resolve the dispute."

:::::::>A consensus that arose from multiple RMs/RfCs

:::::::Again, that's your interpretation. My understanding was that the "multiple RMs/RfCs" were about the title of the article or other issues, and not the first sentence. I encourage you to look through the archives to see evidence of this. Here are all of the Requested Moves and RfCs from most recent to least recent: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 (You could also consider the RFC above too, though it doesn't change my point). This is every single Request Move or RfC I could find in all of the archives of this talk page (except for one, which I'll discuss below). None of them cite WP:LEAD or MOS:FIRST or link to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, as far as I could tell. In other words, these RMs and RfCs were not about the first sentence of the article. So I'm confused as to why you and Hemiauchenia are citing that as some kind of precedent or consensus regarding the lead sentence of the article. Now, there were three sections in the archives that discussed the lead specifically:

:::::::* 1: not an RM or an RfC, involving 4 editors

:::::::* 2: An RfC about the inclusion of a particular source and an accompanying sentence in the lead, AKA not a discussion of the first sentence of the article

:::::::* 3: Not an RM or an RfC, involving 7 editors

:::::::In other words, the discussion I began above, which had about 12 editors, was the most extensive discussion that has ever been had in the history of this article with respect to the lead sentence (with the sole exception being the discussion preceding it that precipitated the discussion). Again, if your interpretation is that no, actually, all of those discussions regarding the title of the article that don't mention or reference Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section were building a specific consensus regarding the first sentence of the article, wonderful! I'm not sure how you can reach that conclusion, but I would have loved to hear about it in the ongoing discussion above. My interpretation is that clearly, the lead sentence of the article was being discussed separately from the RMs and RfCs, and was given a low priority, given the low number of editors involved in them (Up until Bob drobbs made the "Unsubstantiated claims in the lead" section).

:::::::>A consensus that arose from multiple RMs/RfCs

:::::::I would love for you to explain what exactly the consensus was/is that arose from those "multiple RMs/RfCs" because I can't figure it out. This would have been nice to have been pointed out in the above discussion.

:::::::>closure of your discussion above if you think that it can be closed.

:::::::The whole point is that it was/is an ongoing discussion! Why would I want to "close" it? The title has in it suggestions & opinions wanted. It was still ongoing, which is why I'm confused as to why an editor that hasn't been involved in this article or its talk page for around 5 months would just completely ignore that discussion and create an RfC discussing the same topic. Why? Does WP:NEGOTIATE somehow not apply here? It says: If you wish at any time to request a third opinion (3O) or request for comment, use the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard (DRN), or open a request for arbitration, you will be expected to show there has been talk page discussion of the dispute. There has been no talk page discussion of a "dispute" prior to this RfC, because, again, nobody in the previous section unconditionally opposed a rewrite of the first sentence/paragraph of the article. JasonMacker (talk) 05:14, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

::::There are dozens of prior discussions on this topic that have had significantly more than 10 editors each. As Hemiauchenia pointed out, a local consensus of 10 people at one discussion can not override multiple past discussions that each had significantly more than 10 people each. What you are doing right now is akin to bludgeoning. You're unhappy with the clear result of multiple past discussions, so you said "maybe if I start yet another discussion it'll go my way". That's not how it works. People (myself included) are tired of having to watch this talk page every day and spend hours and hours each week commenting on whatever the "discussion of the week" is. So many people, myself included, wait for the RfC that is necessary to ensure that we don't have to repeat ourselves over and over again in whatever the discussion is that week. In other words, silence in "lesser" (i.e. more informal/non-RfC) discussions does not override clear and repeated prior consensus from RfCs that were much more widely attended.{{pb}}JasonMacker, I strongly encourage you to revert your edit to the article and to incorporate your proposed wording into this RfC where people will actually comment on it. Please remember that this article (like all Israel/Palestine articles) is subject to contentious topic restrictions and if you continue to force your desire into the article in whatever way you can, you are highly likely to find yourself subject to restrictions under that procedure. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 01:14, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

{{collapse bottom}}

:I have notified Wikipedia:WikiProject Death, Wikipedia:WikiProject Discrimination, Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups, Wikipedia:WikiProject Human rights, Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel, Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration, Wikipedia:WikiProject Palestine, and Wikipedia:WikiProject International relations of this discussion. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 12:39, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

::Pinging editors from the previous (above) discussion on this matter who haven't yet contributed. {{Ping|Bob drobbs}}, {{ping|Monk of Monk Hall}}, {{ping|Cinaroot}}, {{ping|buidhe}}, {{ping|David A}}, {{ping|Bluethricecreamman}}, {{ping|Jonathan f1}}. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 12:43, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

:Don't think I saw this discussed above, but any thoughts on using "refers to" as opposed to "is" in the suggestion? {{tq|The Gaza genocide is refers to the ongoing systematic destruction of the Palestinian people in Gaza by Israel during the Gaza war.}} //Lollipoplollipoplollipop::talk 13:33, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

::I am not opposed to this. Mason7512 (talk) 13:49, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

::I would support this as well. I would also support something to the effect of {{tq|Israel has been accused of genocide for its ongoing systematic destruction of the Palestinian people in Gaza during the Gaza war.}} EvansHallBear (talk) 21:46, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

:While there isn't universal consensus amongst all people (obviously), I think there is broad consensus among experts on human rights and genocide studies at this point that this is a genocide. Could Wikivoice be implemented with a footnote that explains some potential caveats, per WP:WEIGHT? Spookyaki (talk) 14:51, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

::As an example, you can look at Israeli apartheid, which states directly in Wikivoice that "Israeli apartheid is a system of institutionalized segregation and discrimination" and doesn't reference denial until the last two sentences of the lead (Paragraph 4 of 4). That seems appropriate for this article too. And if the answer is no, we cannot yet have Wikipedia state Gaza genocide in Wikivoice, then when? What criteria need to be satisfied for Wikivoice usage? At this point, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_ylo=2025&q=%22Gaza+genocide%22&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5 the latest scholarly articles] discussing the Gaza genocide don't really discuss the merits of whether it is a genocide, and instead simply refer to it as such. JasonMacker (talk) 03:29, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

:::{{tq|At this point, the latest scholarly articles discussing the Gaza genocide...}} searching Google scholar for the exact phrase "Gaza genocide" and asserting that the found articles represent all current scholarship? Holy WP:CHERRYPICKING, Batman. As a minor rebuttal, here's [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11673-024-10411-6 a publication from 2 months ago] that more fully grapples with the charge of "genocide," with insights such as "This means distinguishing genocide from ethnic cleansing, from domicide, and from extermination. These are all crimes against humanity, but only genocide seeks deliberately to destroy an ethnic group for itself..." with the author themselves remarking on the complexity of trying to term this conflict a genocide.

:::As for the reference to Israeli apartheid as to what to do with this article, WP:OTHERCONTENT remains, as ever, a poor argument. Other topics have different sourcing, and different editors and editing history which has collated that sourcing. The present state of any given wikipedia article is a poor foundation on which to decide contentious content matters for other articles. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:35, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

::::And as the author of the article states it is {{tqq|possible}} that genocide is occurring. As to cherrypicking, need we re-hash how you consider singular comments in popular magazines and news outlets to count as comparable in scholarly weight to full articles published in reputable journals? -- Cdjp1 (talk) 17:05, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::Equal in weight? Probably not. Comparable in weight? Certainly. It depends entirely on the context (reputability of said news outlet, reputability of the speaker, etc.) PhotogenicScientist (talk) 19:08, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::You kept arguing that such popular non-scholarly publications were {{tqq|scholarship}}. So, employing sarcasm and an analogy, nice to know we can use the Time magazine article of the de-extinction of dire wolves as scholarship alongside research on the matter published by Nature and Science. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 21:07, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

::::>Holy WP:CHERRYPICKING, Batman.

::::I "cherrypicked" by linking to Google Scholar search without specifying any article in particular? My point is that when people use the phrase "Gaza genocide" in scholarly articles, they are discussing the material reality of what is happening in Gaza. In other words, "Gaza genocide" refers to Israel's systematic mass killing and destruction in Gaza (among other things). The article you cited does not doubt the material reality of Israel unleashing mass death and destruction in Gaza, commonly called the "Gaza genocide." The fact that some scholarship exists regarding how to classify Israel's systematic destruction of Palestinians in Gaza, in a sea of overwhelming scholarship suggesting that the material reality should be classified as genocide, is my entire point. "Gaza genocide" refers to that material reality. "The Gaza genocide is the ongoing systematic destruction of the Palestinian people in Gaza by Israel during the Gaza war." Is that statement true or false? It is true, and accepted even among scholars who don't consider Israel's "ongoing systematic destruction of the Palestinian people" to be a genocide. Per the article you cited, "In summary, it is possible that genocide is occurring in Gaza." What this statement implies is that there is some consensus of what is happening in Gaza, namely, mass killing and death and destruction in Gaza, which the majority of scholars are referring to as the "Gaza genocide." (Speaking of cherrypicking, the article quotes Omer Bartov's quote from November 2023 without any acknowledgement that Omer Bartov [https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/aug/13/israel-gaza-historian-omer-bartov "no longer believes"] in that statement.)

::::>As for the reference to Israeli apartheid as to what to do with this article, WP:OTHERCONTENT remains, as ever, a poor argument.

::::I'm not making a mere WP:OTHERCONTENT argument. I am saying that, at some point, the Israeli apartheid article decided to change the wording of their first sentence, defining Israeli apartheid using a Wikivoice is statement. And the question I asked (which you didn't bother responding to) is what criteria, currently unfulfilled according to you, will result in this article reaching that point, if ever? JasonMacker (talk) 17:06, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::{{tq|there is some consensus of what is happening in Gaza, namely, mass killing and death and destruction in Gaza}} You repeat this a lot, and you're right - there's consensus not only among scholarship, but also among the wikipedian editors here, that these atrocities are happening. The contention remains, as ever, exactly in the terming of it "genocide." The opinion of "{{tq|it is possible that genocide is occurring in Gaza}}", held by many still, remains distinct from "{{tq|Israel is committing genocide against the Palestinian people}}".

:::::Why you and other editors seem intent on applying this label - when respected scholars such as Mr. Bartov recognize that confronting the "material reality" and preventing it from happening is of much more import ("it is crucial to warn of the potential for genocide before it occurs, rather than belatedly condemn it after it has taken place") - is beyond me. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 19:28, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::(You still didn't respond to my pertinent questions) I'm actually not intent on applying that label. My focus is more on this article having a MOS:BOLDLEAD. I would be okay with lollipop's proposal or some other proposal if that's what this article needs to reach the consensus for a BOLDLEAD. I was the one who wrote the current short description in the article, "characterization of Israeli mass killings in Gaza," and if the first sentence was a reflection of that ("Gaza genocide refers to a characterization...") I would be okay with that. My main contention is that the current first sentence of the article fails MOS:FIRST. JasonMacker (talk) 20:04, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::WP:BOLDLEAD is confusingly written... the example used for the 2nd case is actually an example of the 1st case - "display [the title] in bold as early as possible in the first sentence." I would argue that the lead as-written already complies with BOLDLEAD, by "including the title if it can be accommodated in a natural way." ("Israel is committing genocide... as part of the Gaza war.") This formation already introduces the reader to the topic, and the less-natural way of using the phrase "Gaza genocide" in option 1 doesn't add any benefit to reader comprehension of the article - which is the purpose of the first sentence ("The first sentence should introduce the topic, and tell the nonspecialist reader what or who the subject is"). PhotogenicScientist (talk) 13:43, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::I agree about BOLDLEAD. My main issue with the current first sentence is MOS:LEADCLUTTER due to the long parenthetical at that start, which buries the lede. Even moving the "according to..." to the end of the sentence would be a substantial improvement. EvansHallBear (talk) 14:49, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::LEADCLUTTER is about trying to pack too much information about the topic into the first sentence - which isn't the case here. The first sentence has essentially two parts: 1) Accusation of genocide by Israel, and 2) broadly, who is making the accusation. All the other details - including individual organizations' and individuals' claims, details of Israel's actions, relevancy to the charge of genocide, etc. - are covered in the rest of the lead.

:::::::::I don't find the lead is buried at all - the charges against Israel remain in the first sentence, not [https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/bury-the-lede "far down in the article"]. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 16:32, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::Part 1 (the accusation) is more important than part 2 (the accusers), yet the current opening leads with part 2. Obviously not as egregious as putting the accusation after the first sentence, but reordering would still be an improvement. EvansHallBear (talk) 16:44, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::So just swapping the two around should resolve that as an easy* fix, possibly like "Israel has been accused of conducting genocide in the Gaza War by [accusers]".

:::::::::::* Subject to half a dozen RfCs. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 16:51, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::You mean something exactly like the article was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gaza_genocide&oldid=1273963368 ~3 months ago?]. That would be fine by me. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 16:59, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::My proposal above was {{tq|Israel has been accused of genocide for its ongoing systematic destruction of the Palestinian people in Gaza during the Gaza war.}} I don't think the accusers are as important as why Israel is being accused in the first place, so I would propose moving that to the second sentence. Adding the list of genocidal acts to the first paragraph is an improvement over the old article you linked, which didn't even say why they were being accused in the opening. But I think the fact that Israel is systematically destroying Gaza is really the heart of the issue and so it belongs in the first sentence. EvansHallBear (talk) 03:26, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::I disagree about it being an improvement. Starting off the article with "Israel is committing genocide..." pushes this article much closer to making that pronouncement in Wikivoice. When in fact that pronouncement comes from the organizations and individuals cited. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 16:52, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::I guess I'll just ask it again directly, since you've dodged it a few times: What do you think is missing that prevents us from writing "The Gaza genocide is..." in Wikivoice? JasonMacker (talk) 00:33, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::I'll refer you to my comment in the Polling section above, wherein I refer you to the comments I made in this discussion. Tl;dr there remains enough significant opposition from a variety of reliable sources as to the pronouncement of what is happening a genocide that we should refrain from making such a pronouncement in wikivoice. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 18:29, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::Okay, I see now. The problem I have with your view is that it gives older pronouncements as to whether it is a genocide equal weight to newer pronouncements, and it also gives equal weight to individuals compared to the entire organizations (like Amnesty International or HRW, which only count as 2 entries). As I pointed out above, scholars such as Bartov initially suggested that it's not a genocide, but then changed their minds in light of new facts and said that it is a genocide. That's the trend (as pointed out in the [https://www.vox.com/politics/378913/israel-gaza-genocide-icj Vox article]). I haven't heard of any scholar who initially thought it was genocide but has now changed their mind and said that it's no longer a genocide. Just looking at the template, to find a scholar that says No, you have to go back to October 2024 (5 months ago). Of the 24 expert opinions that have been added since then, the tally is 16 YES (66%), 5 LIKELY (21%), 3 MAYBE (12.5%), and 0 NO (0%). And of those expert opinions, they include 7 organizations, including multiple UN organizations, HRW, and Amnesty International. Not a single one of these orgs says NO. Of course, the list is not exhaustive, so I did my own search for this year and the most recent article I can find that says NO is Morris's January 2025 [https://www.haaretz.com/opinion/2025-01-30/ty-article-opinion/.premium/its-either-two-states-or-genocide/00000194-b831-d5a7-ab9d-ffb9b2450000 Haaretz article], where he says "Israel Is Not Committing Genocide in Gaza. But It May Be on the Way There." Adding that to my previous count, we would have 96% YES, LIKELY, or MAYBE, and 4% NO. I've also added Morris to the template just now. If you have more NO experts for 2025, please provide them. JasonMacker (talk) 21:12, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::I believe for the purposes of using the term "genocide" in wikivoice, the more relevant breakdown of the sources you've referenced would be 64% YES, and 36% LIKELY, MAYBE, or NO. Since 36% of such sources hedge with language like "consistent with acts of genocide" or "plausible case of genocide," so too should we.

:::::::::::::::Genocide isn't simply a concept or an action - it is a CRIME. And our guidance on crime (WP:BLPCRIME, WP:CRIME, WP:CRIMINAL) while not exact fits in this case, urge caution in the pronouncement of crimes committed, and calling of people "criminals" - typically until there is an authoritative ruling on the matter.

:::::::::::::::I tend to agree with scholarship that defers to international judgements (e.g. the ICJ) to term what's happening a genocide ([https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11673-024-10411-6] "at the time of writing the charge of genocide in Gaza remains, at least for me, still to be proven") ([https://link-springer-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/chapter/10.1007/978-981-97-4868-6_10] "The possibility of genocide is being probed at the time of writing... there is a reasonable possibility that genocide will be confirmed by the ICJ"); or with scholarship that focuses on the material reality of the conflict without striving to make the pronouncement themselves ([https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14623528.2025.2483546#d1e123] " I am uninterested in scholastic disputation over whether Israel’s policies include genocide, though much of what has transpired is eminently consistent with genocide through direct killing and “deliberately inflicting on the [victim] group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part,” as the 1948 UN Genocide Convention defines it") ([https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/00108367251321440] section on "Negative duty violations and cases of mass atrocities") PhotogenicScientist (talk) 20:24, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::As of [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Expert_opinions_in_the_Gaza_genocide_debate&oldid=1289002364 5 May], the break down is:

::::::::::::::::* Yes - 59.3%

::::::::::::::::* Likely - 2.7%

::::::::::::::::* Maybe - 11.3%

::::::::::::::::* No - 24.9%

::::::::::::::::* No position - 1.8%

::::::::::::::::-- Cdjp1 (talk) 22:28, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::I find the "wait until ICJ/ICC rules" extremely unconvincing. Using that as a standard would be extremely high and is not applied to other insistences of genocide (and would also mean that genocides prior to 1951/2002 would be subject to different standards: as in, a pre-1951/2002 genocide could be named as such based on majority consensus/common name, while a post 1951/2002 genocide with the same majority consensus/common name level would not be named as such). Pages which use wiki voice for modern genocides in the first sentence but have not had a conviction (ICC) nor ruling (ICJ) on genocide with the (words used) include:

::::::::::::::::Post Jul 2002/ICC jurisdiction: Rohingya genocide (is), Yazidi genocide (was), Iraqi Turkmen genocide (refers), Darfur genocide (was)

::::::::::::::::Pre Jul 2002/ICC jurisdiction: East Timor genocide (refers), Isaaq genocide (was)

::::::::::::::::I think the Rohingya genocide is the most similar in terms of circumstances (ongoing, debates, pending ICC/J cases)

::::::::::::::::Also, both WP:CRIME and WP:CRIMINAL redirect to notability guidelines, which, although they mention other guidelines from BLPCRIME, are not relevant here. On WP:BLPCRIME, using wiki voice for genocide does not contradict the rule of "presum[ing] innocen[ce] until convicted by a court of law". No assertion is being made that a particular person committed a crime. As far as I know, there is no rule on Wikipedia which states a conviction is needed to call an event a crime nor one which specifically "urge[s] caution in the pronouncement of crimes committed" (which, as you mentioned, is only one of the meanings/implications of the word genocide). Mason7512 (talk) 00:14, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::WP:BLPCRIME applies only to "living persons". Israel is not a "living person", thus WP:BLPCRIME does not apply. Other policies and guidelines apply, but not BLPCRIME. JasonMacker (talk) 16:38, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::Like I said, it's not an exact fit - but I believe the guiding principle behind it applies. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 19:48, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:If MOS:FIRST is a concern, to satisfy I'd be open to saying {{tq|The Gaza genocide is the ongoing systematic killing of the Palestinian people in Gaza by Israel during the Gaza war. According to a United Nations special committee, Amnesty International, and other experts and human rights organisations, Israel is committing genocide........}} Cinaroot (talk) 23:09, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

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

• :I see 7 countries listed as rejecting that this is a genocide, which is hardly the majority of Western countries. And Western countries are still a minority of the world and should not be given undue weight. I see ~40 countries agreeing that Israel is committing genocide plus the African Union. This far outweighs those 7 countries. Wiki should reflect a NPOV and not a western POV.
• :German legal scholarship is definitely a minority opinion and should be treated as such, especially as Germany is accused of complicity in the genocide. The International Law Scholars section has an outsized number of links to German Wikipedia at the moment, which is given undue weight. EvansHallBear (talk) 16:50, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::Agreed. In the name of "removing clutter," this is reducing the readability of the discussion. Which FortunateSons comment, where, and saying what? None of this is easily accessible, as it would be if this were left as a reply right under the comment. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 16:25, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::I wouldn't say German legal scholars are a {{tqq|minority}} opinion, but (from what I've seen from Germany) they seem to be more internally unanimous on the position than legal scholars in other countries. This would be an interesting point to bring into the article (compare-contrast), but we need outside RS to really do the leg work on that. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 16:54, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::Of the 18 scholars in the "International law scholars" section, we have:
• :::* 6 US American (Schabas lives and works in Canada though)
• :::* 5 German
• :::* 2 Jewish Israeli
• :::* 2 Swiss
• :::* 1 Austrian
• :::* 1 Palestinian Israeli
• :::* 1 Argentinian
• :::So, while we do have a few Germans (who link out to their profiles on deWiki), they're not "overrepresented" in my opinion. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 17:05, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::::Not a single British international law scholar referenced? Looking quickly at Template:Expert opinions in the Gaza genocide debate, I see Lord Sumption, Perugini/Gordon, Grietje Baars, Conor Gearty, Michael Mansfield, and Menon as potentially worthy of inclusion.
• ::::I would imagine there are also French, Spanish, etc. opinions worthy of inclusion but don't have the language skills to look for them myself. EvansHallBear (talk) 04:08, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::::Nothing stopping you from adding the British law scholars. I'll look to add them later if they haven't been added already. As my push for the inclusion of the Germans was to internationalise the perspectives on the matter, I will dig for Spanish and French law scholars. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 08:52, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::{{ping|FortunateSons}} tagging you incase you by some chance have any suggestion to specific journals/law websites in French or Spanish we could look into? -- Cdjp1 (talk) 09:15, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::::@Cdjp1, I would welcome the addtion of British (and any other) relevant law scholars. While I'm sorry to say that my French legal education is minimal and my awareness of Spanish law borders on non-existence, I do believe that a quick request on WP:Law might summon someone more familiar with this topic? Anecdotally speaking, my French lecturers also wrote in Verfassungsblog, Just Security, Lawfare, or similar avenues, but most of them were pretty young, so I doubt that this is representative of those at the peak of their respective fields. FortunateSons (talk) 09:43, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::Gearty, Perugini/Gordon, and Mansfield added in. The additions will need c/e. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 17:42, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::Among those listed, Ireland (and arguably Spain) claim this is a genocide, some refer to the ICJ (thereby not making an affirmative claim, and, ironically enough, follow my position on what the article should do), and the rest of the Western countries say no. The so-called West represents more than a third of the worlds global economic power as defined by GDP (and even more [https://www.weforum.org/stories/2019/09/fifteen-countries-represent-three-quarters-total-gdp/ based on some other metrics]), an arguably even higher precentage of military power, about 15% of the global population, [https://www.timeshighereducation.com/world-university-rankings/latest/world-ranking most leading academic institutions.], 3 permanent SC seats, etc. Even a rough consensus in the West would contravene the academic supermajority required to move this from a contentious claim to fact unless there is a significant divergence between scholarship/media and the positions of the governments.
• ::German scholarship, perhaps jointly with Spanish and French, is only clearly exceeded by English in recognition and relevance, and ought to be represented as such, arguably even more than it is now once the other languages catch up; while some German law scholars claim that this could be a genocide, they are largely excluded from the article because they are insignificant or because adding them would constitute a violation of policy for me. If someone has the relevant skills, adding some more Israeli and Arab scholars would also be desirable. Personally, I believe that legal scholarship is generally underrepresented compared to non-legal studies in this article, but opening this can of worms is likely to make me incredibly unpopular. FortunateSons (talk) 10:16, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::Something something Gramsci and Foucault on knowledge and power. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 10:56, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::If you go a Google Scholar search it is clear that there is a huge divergence between published scholarship and the position of Western governments. Here at Wikipedia we should follow the scholarship not politics. (t · c) buidhe 14:24, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::::To some degree within scholarship, but largely not within the media: which western newspaper of record regularly uses the term in their own voice?
• ::::In some cases, this divergence often becomes significantly smaller once you look at the actual high-level scholarship (read: law professors at reputable universities). FortunateSons (talk) 14:58, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::::Study of genocide isn't exclusive to lawyers. It would be biased to elevate legal perspectives over history, sociology, etc. And at least in my opinion published scholarship is virtually always a better source than news articles—I think most RSN contributors would agree. (t · c) buidhe 15:06, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::For news, I have tried to implement exactly this standard for this article and have failed. Not that it matters here, of course, because the sort of RS consensus necessary for using a controversial term in our own voice could be prevented by newspapers of records, but still.
• ::::::For the other disciplines, I largely disagree, but doubt that I’ll find consensus for that particular viewpoint. But when the question comes to determining consensus, I believe one thing is pretty indisputable either way: legal consensus is, at the very least, conditio sine qua non for using a legal term in our own voice. FortunateSons (talk) 15:16, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::I used to share this perspective, but later on I realized that adhering to the legal definition or treating it as a veto point is Wikipedia elevating one definition of genocide over the many others, which fails NPOV. Thus I believe consensus should be evaluated by looking at all scholarship as a whole, not just those that are legally focused. (t · c) buidhe 16:01, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::Just to be clear, in this case, this has nothing to do with the supremacy of legal analysis: if there was no consensus within genocide studies and a consensus within internal law (which, to be fair, is highly unlikely), that would lead to the same outcome.
• ::::::::Having said that, this view ignores the actual implications in this case: the practical differences between “no genocide” and “a consensus of genocide according to genocide studies only” are minute in comparison the difference between those two on one side and “genocide according to a consensus of international law sources and the ICJ” on the other. The first two cause complaints in an academic forum or a “Café in a [insert metropolitan area here]”, the latter are international condemnations, sanctions, the cutting of diplomatic ties, or even a SC response. FortunateSons (talk) 16:33, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::::But let us never forget the wisdom of the UN courts in determining people can be victims of a genocide that did not happen, per the courts' rulings. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 17:18, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::::And democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time. I‘m by no means a the-UN-is-always-right type of person, but what else is there? FortunateSons (talk) 17:25, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::::::As I said in an interaction of ours many months ago, I believe research published from specialists in relevant disciplines are a better assessment for genocide than relying on the determination of the crime by the system of law. But I mainly point to the ICTY judgements as it is a ridiculous and fascinating factoid.
• :::::::::::Wherever we end up at though in this, much observed, corner of the internet, nobody will be completely happy, but it will hopefully be a minimal amount of "good enough". -- Cdjp1 (talk) 17:50, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::::::I don’t believe we’re likely to ever fully agree on that first part, but I - as always- appreciate your nuanced and reasonable view. I wish I shared your optimism on the second part, but we’ll see how that turns out. FortunateSons (talk) 18:15, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::::::::Oh, I have no optimism whatsoever 😂 -- Cdjp1 (talk) 19:03, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::I don't put much weight into the pronouncements of governments and would agree that we should emphasize the scholarship (which should be largely though not exclusively legal). But if we are going to take the statements of governments into account, I don't think any special weighting should be applied whether that's by GDP, population, military expenditures, or Olympics success. Governments speak for themselves out of political considerations and don't represent the viewpoints of their citizens, businesses, academics, etc.
• :::While I don't doubt that German legal scholarship is generally highly regarded, a perusal of the arguments linked in the article is quite unconvincing. There's a lot of hand-waving at the statements of genocidal intent from Israeli leaders. Swoboda trots out the evidence-free assertion of a Hamas command center under a hospital. Ambos seems way more concerned about "From the river to the sea" than Gallant's "human animals" comment. Walter speaks of Israel's right to self-defense without addressing the issue of belligerent occupation. The Khan article provides no specifics. The strongest argument seems to me that there are other plausible motives for Israel's actions. When applied to specific genocidal acts though, I'm not sure it holds up. For example, I'm struggling to think of such a motive for destroying an IVF center. Perhaps these issues are addressed in more depth elsewhere. EvansHallBear (talk) 07:54, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::I strongly disagree with pretty much all of that. I'm partial to "all countries are equal" type of views myself, there is a reason why the [https://arabamericannews.com/2009/03/28/Finkelstein-doesnt-mince-words-at-Arab-student-banquet/ Island nations] statement by Finkelstein is used the way it is. Liechtenstein has amazing cultural and historical significance, but it (and probably about 100) countries would have to collaborate in order to shift global consensus the same way China and the US can together. Democratic governments largely represent the will of their electorate, except occasionally overrepresenting the "elites", both academic and financial, which is pretty much exactly what we are looking for when it comes to non-academic sourcing. I think a reasonable argument can be made for not caring about governments at all, but if we do, we should do so properly, and considering all countries as equal is not aligned with reality.
• ::::This would be the wrong place to discuss German scholarship in depth, but in my opinion, the German arguments are standard high-quality scholarship. To address a specific point, Ambos discusses the relevant criteria for both terms, in the context of multiple possible interpretations, which seems appropriate. What do you consider the issue to be? Just to pre-empt the obvious arguments, due weight within scholarship is almost entirely up to the scholars, and Kai Ambos is [https://www.israelnetz.com/auf-der-suche-nach-apartheid-in-palaestina/ not really considered to be a friend of Israel.] FortunateSons (talk) 08:23, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::::As I said, I don't think government opinions matter at all. I never proposed an all governments are equal standard either. I think a qualitative over quantitative approach makes the most sense. And I don't agree that democratic governments represent the will of the people. But even if they do how should we handle non-democratic governments?
• :::::I agree with Ambos on ICC jurisdiction and not much else. Specific objections:
• :::::#His argument on hospitals potentially being legitimate targets flips the standard of proof entirely on its head. It is incumbent on Israel to prove that attacks on hospitals were directed at military objectives and that they were proportionate in nature. By saying we need to be "on the ground", he is giving Israel carte blanche to claim military objectives without evidence and to determine what is proportionate.
• :::::#Bartov now claims genocide is happening, so the hedge no longer applies
• :::::#Per Roth, it's absolutely clear from context that Gallant was referring to all of Gaza and not just Hamas.
• :::::#The slogan "from the river to the sea..." by itself is not an expression of genocidal intent. No nuance necessary.
• :::::#I find his objection to criminalizing the slogan as merely ineffective and not anti-democratic troubling.
• :::::#There is not "certainly" evidence of rapes on October 7.
• :::::#There is no evidence of widespread usage of human shields by Hamas (although there is by Israel).
• :::::#Israel has no "right to exist within the pre-1967 borders".
• :::::#The most profound criticism of Israeli policy comes not from Israel itself but from its victims: Palestinians. To not see that speaks very clearly to his perception of Palestinians.
• :::::EvansHallBear (talk) 09:23, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::Apologies if this falls into WP:SOAPBOX or WP:NOTFORUM territory. I can strike if necessary. EvansHallBear (talk) 09:36, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::It's optional IMO, but probably not a bad idea. I responded [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:EvansHallBear#Decluttering_the_discussion here]. FortunateSons (talk) 10:23, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

:Given that consensus is determined based on quality of arguments over a simple poll result, why have you moved comments out of the responses section? EvansHallBear (talk) 14:58, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

• :{{Tq|If the article title is merely descriptive—such as Electrical characteristics of dynamic loudspeakers—the title does not need to appear verbatim in the main text.}} This qualifies as a "descriptive title" - it is only as short as "Gaza genocide" because there is no need to make the title longer. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 01:56, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

:As for the suggestion to circumvent this problem with a "refers to" construction, I would like to remind everyone of MOS:REFERS. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:42, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

{{closed rfc bottom}}

The Incommunicado_detention,_torture_and_sexual_violence and other subsections of the Genocidal acts" section could use some cleanup. The subsections reference several things:

The final sentence of this subsection that mentions the destruction of women's health facilities is redundant with the attacks on healthcare subsection and should be merged there.--JasonMacker (talk) 22:58, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

The reference to attacks on hospitals is redundant, as there is already a subsection on attacks on healthcare. The references to attacks on hospitals should be moved out of the "other" subsection" and merged into the "attacks on healthcare" subsection.--JasonMacker (talk) 22:58, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Attacks on schools are mentioned in [https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2024/12/amnesty-international-concludes-israel-is-committing-genocide-against-palestinians-in-gaza/ Amnesty's genocide report] and [https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/jun/08/israel-destroying-schools-scholasticide#:~:text=Through%20the%20physical%20destruction%20of,a%20key%20feature%20of%20genocide this Guardian article] that states:

Through the physical destruction of educational and cultural infrastructure, scholasticide obliterates the means through which a group, in this instance Palestinians, can sustain and transmit their culture, knowledge, history, memory, identity and values across time and space. It is a key feature of genocide.

There are two options that I can think of on what to do with the attacks on schools:

• Merging the attacks on schools into the "Destruction of cultural and religious sites" subsection, which already discusses the destruction of universities.
• Creating a new "Destruction of schools" or "Scholasticide" subsection.

The issue here is that the "Destruction of cultural and religious sites" subsection is entirely reliant on the Amnesty report, which discusses the destruction of religious sites, educational sites, and cultural sites together. Also, the attacks on schools and mosques can happen together in Gaza because schools can have mosques within their complex (see [https://www.alhaq.org/FAI-Unit/23717.html 1]). I would be okay with either option, but the subsection should be renamed to "Destruction of educational, cultural, and religious sites" if it's going to be the part of the article describing school destruction. The last sentence of the "other" subsection also mentions attacks on schools, so it also should be merged.--JasonMacker (talk) 22:58, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Besides these, the "other" subsection mentions theft. [https://web.archive.org/web/20240202165606/https://www.wral.com/story/gaza-workers-expelled-from-israel-accuse-israeli-authorities-of-abuse-including-beatings/21135682/ This article] is cited, which primarily discusses torture. The article doesn't use the word theft, but it does mention that money and property were taken from people who were sent to detention. The source doesn't link this Israeli action to genocidal acts in Gaza. However, South Africa's letter to the UN Security Council does discuss "looting" as part of genocidal acts (See [https://docs.un.org/en/S/2025/130 p35, para 65] saying that destruction of Gaza's economy through theft and looting qualifies as a genocidal act). --JasonMacker (talk) 22:58, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

The "other" subsection also mentions "cruel and unnecessary desecration and mutilation of deceased Palestinians." But the source is talking about these war crimes being conducted on hospital grounds, so this could go in the "attacks on healthcare" subsection. Separately, there are sources describing the desecration and mutilation of deceased Palestinians outside of hospital grounds (see [https://truthout.org/articles/report-idf-uses-us-made-bulldozers-to-hide-bodies-of-dead-palestinians-in-gaza/ 1] and [https://imemc.org/article/report-israeli-troops-execute-palestinians-mutilate-corpses/ 2]). These are not currently in the article. South Africa's letter mentions desecration of cemeteries (p49, para 90). It also mentions desecration of corpses when discussing dehumanization and genocidal intent in Annex II (pp134-5, Para 8). With that in mind, maybe this should go into the Genocidal Intent section of the article.--JasonMacker (talk) 22:58, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

South Africa's letter to the UNSC references child amputees (p21, para42). It eventually concludes that Israel's conduct that has resulted in all of these wounded children shows that "...Israel’s intention is to destroy the group of Palestinians in Gaza..." I think a mention of child amputees in the genocidal acts section should have an attribution that directly connects the child amputees with genocidal acts (like South Africa does).--JasonMacker (talk) 22:58, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Tell me what you guys think of these issues. I was also thinking of adding a new subsection to the "Genocidal acts" section titled "Serious bodily or mental harm" (or something similar). It can cover what's mentioned in the "Incommunicado detention, torture and sexual violence" subsection, but also include wounded people, child amputees, maiming, and other relevant genocidal acts.--JasonMacker (talk) 22:58, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

:I think other section should be deleted - and its content should be moved to other sections. Cinaroot (talk) 00:14, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

::What do you think of a proposed "Serious bodily or mental harm" section that focuses on child amputees, WCNSF (wounded child, no surviving family), orphans, torture, sexual violence, and other war crimes that cause bodily or mental harm? It seems like there's not enough coverage of that in this article, even though the number of people wounded is many times greater than the number of people killed. So something like:

::"As of January 2025, at least 110,000 people have been injured in Gaza, or 5% of the entire pre-war population.([https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/1/15/the-human-toll-of-israels-war-on-gaza-by-the-numbers this ref])" And then some sentences using sources from the articles Torture during the Gaza war, Effect of the Gaza war on children in the Gaza Strip, and Women in the Gaza war. JasonMacker (talk) 00:01, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Good idea. [https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/documents/atrocity-crimes/Doc.1_Convention%20on%20the%20Prevention%20and%20Punishment%20of%20the%20Crime%20of%20Genocide.pdf] serious bodily or mental harm is genocidal act. torture, rape, sexual violence, trauma, psychological harm can all go into that section. Cinaroot (talk) 01:11, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Okay, it's looking better already, but there can be more included in that new serious bodily or mental harm section. I can't work on it now, but maybe in a few days. JasonMacker (talk) 02:21, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

:"Destruction of cultural and religious sites" can be changed to "Destruction of cultural heritage" and then schools and cemeteries can be discussed in this section. This also aligns with the existing Destruction of cultural heritage during the Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip article.

:The reference to white phosphorous in the "Other" section should probably be moved to "Direct killings". The cited source says, "Israel’s deployment of non-conventional weapons like white phosphorus has no military use but only serves to massacre and terrorize civilians." EvansHallBear (talk) 05:59, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi, so I didn't see this mentioned in another topic, sorry if I missed it:

Seems that the sentence "Various observers, including UN experts,^[41] the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the occupied Palestinian territories Francesca Albanese,^[42]" should be (addition underlined): "Various observers, including UN experts,^[41] among them the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the occupied Palestinian territories Francesca Albanese,^[42]..." because Albanese is a UN expert. Paul Duffill (talk) 13:31, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

:Technically, Francesca Albanese is not a UN expert, but rather an independent expert whose expertise is being contracted by the UN, aka a United Nations special rapporteur. The current wording reflects that.--JasonMacker (talk) 15:32, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

::yes- she is not even getting paid by UN Cinaroot (talk) 00:09, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

I created a new article List of companies involved in the Gaza genocide in line with similar List of companies involved in the Holocaust - Feel free to contribute

I think it can have similar section like The Holocaust#Perpetrators and beneficiaries in this article Cinaroot (talk) 18:56, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:Note: the new article is now titled List of companies involved in the Gaza war. Jruderman (talk) 05:06, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2025/05/14/volgens-wetenschappers-is-israel-in-gaza-een-genocide-aan-het-plegen-a4893293

The article just recently came out today, with significant conclusions (translated into English):

• NRC spoke to seven renowned genocide researchers about Gaza. They are not nearly as divided as public opinion: without exception, they qualify the Israeli actions as 'genocidal'. And according to them, almost all their colleagues agree with that."

• the majority and all eight academics from the field of genocide studies see genocide or at least genocidal violence in Gaza.

• the majority of genocide scholars agree, say those interviewed: in Gaza, Israel is committing genocide.

This article came out today and I am about to go to bed so I don't have time to add it to the template or the article. Other editors, feel free to include this in the article and/or the expert opinions template. JasonMacker (talk) 05:34, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:Thanks for bringing this here, I'll have a look at working through it at some point this week. Most of those spoken to in the article we already have in the list stating it is genocide, but a couple of new voices who's work I've not come across before, always a nice surprise. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 12:06, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:Interesting...The Guardian article, published ~5 months ago, claims the GS field is deeply divided, with both sides accusing the other of political bias. This NRC article claims exactly the opposite. A few possibilities..either Guardian is wrong, NRC is wrong, or something happened in the last few months to consolidate the field.

:Reading that article, there doesn't seem to be anything new under the sun. It's the same bit about "statements from Israeli officials" (and still no evidence connecting these statements to official policy) and the same accusation that the Israelis are engineering a famine (despite evidence complicating this narrative[https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/27/world/middleeast/palestine-gazans-hamas-food.html]). I was hoping to see some new names in this piece, but instead I found the inevitable Raz Segal, who waited maybe 5 days after Oct 7 to accuse Israel of genocide. Same could be said of Martin Shaw, who "was one of the first genocide scholars to describe [Oct 7] as genocidal massacres and Israel's response as threatening a full-scale genocide." (see bio)

:I'm also going to assume this NRC article uses a very European definition of "science" (ie a system of knowledge) and is not using the term as most English-speaking people understand it. Certainly genocide studies isn't a science, and in fact it isn't completely clear what this field is, which is part of the problem. Jonathan f1 (talk) 15:23, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::Let me guess, you just used Google translate on the article right? -- Cdjp1 (talk) 16:00, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:::What am I supposed to do if I don't speak Dutch? Guess what each word means? Jonathan f1 (talk) 16:06, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::::If you can't competently work with the language don't use it. "Wetenschappers" isn't a direct translation to the English "scientist", so your pontificating about fields of studies due to your ignorance of the Dutch language is a moot point. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 16:10, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Yet that's how the page was translated. And big surprise -an English-language editor doesn't speak or read Dutch. My other points are still valid unless "Raz Segal" also means something else in Dutch. Jonathan f1 (talk) 16:14, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::To your point of "the inevitable Raz Segal", it really isn't a suprise to see him brought into an article discussing genocide, it is on the same same grounds as 'the inevitable Bartov', 'the inevitable Moses', or say in an article on evolutionary biology 'the inevitable Dawkins'. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 16:22, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Right, but the point is that there's nothing new in that article. Those who are committed to the genocide pov will forever cite the Raz Segals of that field. Jonathan f1 (talk) 16:39, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::{{tqq|nothing new}}, and I take it you came to this conclusion thanks to your intimate understanding of the Dutch language. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 17:27, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Here's what Segal said (and pardon me if my Google-translated Dutch is a little rusty):

:::::::::"Can I name someone whose work I respect who does not think it is genocide? No, there is no counterargument that takes into account all the evidence,"

:::::::::It's not clear what "whose work I respect" means or what it means to "take into account all the evidence." Here's Segal in January of this year discussing "genocide denial in Holocaust studies"[https://jacobin.com/2025/01/gaza-genocide-holocaust-studies-germany]. I suppose the work coming out of Holocaust studies is not the kind he respects, though they are presented as experts in this article. Segal published that piece right around the time this academic paper[https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14623528.2024.2448061] was published discussing the "rift" between Holocaust scholars over this very issue.

:::::::::A separate but related point, this recent Guardian article (2 days ago) cites British government lawyers as saying "no evidence of genocide in Gaza"[https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/may/13/no-evidence-of-genocide-in-gaza-uk-lawyers-say-in-arms-export-case]. Jonathan f1 (talk) 20:07, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::Yes, Government lawyers, sans any context whatsoever. Huh, look at this cool article Well he would, wouldn't he?. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 20:33, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::In this context, per [https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/wetenschapper#Dutch the Wiktionary entry], the translation "scholar" is more appropriate, as "scientist" is primarily used in English to refer to scholars of fields that either have "science" (Political science) in the name or an "-ology" (Sociology) suffix. The term scientist is usually not used for scholars of an "X studies" (Holocaust and genocide studies) field. JasonMacker (talk) 03:06, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::{{tq|Interesting...The Guardian article, published ~5 months ago, claims the GS field is deeply divided, with both sides accusing the other of political bias.}}

::Note that the Guardian also published an article in December 2024 that suggested a consensus was emerging: [https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/dec/23/israel-gaza-war-genocide-where-is-the-action A consensus is emerging: Israel is committing genocide in Gaza. Where is the action?] Bogazicili (talk) 16:19, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Actually this Guardian article is not even cited in the article. Bogazicili (talk) 16:20, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Well, that author writes about a consensus, but seems to be referring to agreement among human rights NGOs (Amnesty, HRW), not the academics the other two articles focus on. Jonathan f1 (talk) 16:37, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Vox had also reported most scholars they contacted thought a genocide was happening [https://www.vox.com/politics/378913/israel-gaza-genocide-icj]. Bogazicili (talk) 16:45, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::Yes I saw that piece too, but if you notice the date on it, it predates The Guardian article by a couple of months. So you've got two publications, both reputable, making opposite claims, and the left-leaning one, the Guardian, presents a more discordant environment in this field (and in Holocaust studies too). My personal opinion is that no one really knows what's going on in Gaza, in large part because Israel isn't letting many in (which is bad optics for Israel, although I get that it's a warzone). There's enough chaos and destruction over there that one could easily fit the outcome to a desired narrative. Those who look for a genocide in mass starvation and growing civilian causalities will find a genocide, and those who see Hamas behind these results will have plenty of evidence for that too. I would just continue to advocate for caution when scrutinizing these sources, and try to make a better effort to prevent the article from tipping too far to one side. Jonathan f1 (talk) 17:10, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I think you're pinning too much on this Guardian article and too little on a fair examination of the evidence. IMO, academics stating their views to a publication or just holding these views is not as relevant as the views that are defended in academic research with the required rigor to publish in an actual journal. And there is really no debate there[https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C48&q=Gaza+genocide&btnG=] (t · c) buidhe 03:40, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::I think it matters that an independent source has conducted what's essentially a survey of these fields, and in fact the only thing more powerful than that would be an academic work of the same kind. You will note that many of the sources in your search predate this current conflict, with one going all the way back to 2009[https://www.jstor.org/stable/42950316?seq=1] (I could probably find earlier ones if I kept looking). This is all part of that "settler colonialism" discourse in which a contingent of these scholars only ever write about one thing, and view everything through the narrow prism of colonialism & erasure. It might even be an eye-opener for some to type in "Gaza + colonialism + erasure" into Google scholar and behold the treasure trove of studies this type of search yields, dating back decades[https://scholar.google.com/scholar?start=0&q=Gaza+colonialism+erasure&hl=en&as_sdt=0,48]. This is why many of these scholars waited maybe a week after Oct 7 to declare a genocide in Gaza.

::::::::To suggest that these activist-academics represent the mainstream of political science, history, international law, sociology, cultural anthropology or international relations is fanciful, and one should be required to explain why we are conferring any weight to these fields in the first place. As The Guardian article shows, the pro-genocide contingent within Genocide/Holocaust studies might not even be representative of the tiny academic bubble in which they operate -and that's not an insignificant point. Jonathan f1 (talk) 15:40, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::{{tqq|activist-academics}} what a wonderful label for those you don't like as you disagree with their conclusions. 'See, because people warned something may be a pre-cursor to genocide, it is only right that we ignore others when they say a genocide is now occurring', is such a glorious example of a very serious and rigorous argument that is worthy of legitimate consideration in discussion [sarcasm]. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 20:43, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::Unlike most people active in this space and particularly this article, I have not formed an opinion on this genocide business. My remark about "activist academics" has to do with the fact that the scholars involved in genocide studies and slew of other "x studies" are actively engaged in both academic research as well as advocacy of foreign policy in the region. And as a quick search on Google scholar shows, many of them have been pushing a narrative of a "slow-moving genocide" in the Palestinian territories for many decades, long before the current conflict erupted. There are legitimate questions as to whether this type of research reflects mainstream opinion (and methodology) in more traditional disciplines that study the region. Jonathan f1 (talk) 20:02, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

<- Probably a good time to note that WP:NOTFORUM and WP:NOTADVOCATE are policy. Sean.hoyland (talk) 15:51, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:In short, if nrc.nl is a reliable source, I think it can be added with a sentence. Bogazicili (talk) 15:57, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::You can read about NRC (newspaper) in the article we have about them. It's a newspaper of record ("A newspaper of record is a major national newspaper with large circulation whose editorial and news-gathering functions are considered authoritative and independent; they are thus "newspapers of record by reputation" and include some of the oldest and most widely respected newspapers in the world.") for the Netherlands. That makes it one of the most reliable sources in the Dutch language that we can use. The fact that such a major national newspaper publishes such an article is itself newsworthy. JasonMacker (talk) 16:27, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:Saying what? They cite a handful of scholars, most of whom are already mentioned in the article. Their big claim that these scholars represent a unanimous consensus within genocide studies is disputed. Jonathan f1 (talk) 16:24, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::How can NRC's claims presented in their article be "disputed" when they came out just a few days ago? Disputed by whom? Unless counter-articles are denying the specific claims made in the NRC article, it's not disputed yet. JasonMacker (talk) 16:33, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:::5 months ago The Guardian published a piece saying the field of genocide studies is divided, and 5 months later NRC comes along claiming a unanimous or near-unanimous consensus in favor of the genocide pov. They cite a handful of scholars and no new arguments we haven't heard for the past year or more. Jonathan f1 (talk) 17:22, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::::{{tqq|no new arguments}}, oh did you learn Dutch in the 23 hours since you explained how you had to rely on google translate, which led to you soapboxing due to an inappropriately translated word? -- Cdjp1 (talk) 20:49, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::I don't see why you'd expect the average English-language editor to be fluent in Dutch. Yes, I used a Google tool to translate the page so I could read it. Other than the "science" issue, which was simply a one-word translation error, not sure what new arguments I may have missed in that piece. They discuss remarks made by Israeli officials (already mentioned in the article), civilian/infrastructure casualty data (already mentioned), and the claim that the Israelis are manufacturing a famine (also discussed). What's missing here, as always, is evidence establishing a genocide-based motive for these outcomes. It is not enough to say civilians are being killed and people are starving -you have to show that this is not only happening by design, but that it's the policy of the Israeli government & IDF to produce these life-threatening conditions to destroy "in whole or in part" an ethnic/national/religous/racial group "as such." This critical piece of evidence isn't in the NRC article, it's not in the Amnesty report, nor any other published report that I've seen.

:::::For example, when Israel's Energy Minister says "Humanitarian aid to Gaza? No electrical switch will be turned on, no water tap will be opened and no fuel truck will enter until the Israeli abductees are returned home," how can we be sure there's a genocidal motive at play? While this was the stated policy at the time, the situation has evolved and there may have been changes since the initial reports. Even assuming no change in policy, it is unclear what the actual motive is. Seems like the objective was to return the hostages, and that they are/were willing to commit war crimes to that end. It is not clear that the 'real' objective was to destroy the Palestinians, with or without the hostages. This is something these scholars speculate about based on their own preconceived notions of this conflict. Jonathan f1 (talk) 19:38, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::The point was that you already showed that you were tripped up by a tool that you, in this instance, seem to have to rely on to engage with the material, which does not imbue hope in your reading of the rest of the piece. And with those comment you show you stumble in the same manner most do in these discussions, even wen lauding the legal definition of genocide, believing that intent and motive are synonymous notions in law. {{tqq|these scholars speculate about based on their own preconceived notions}}, in other words, they present their arguments and evidence that they believe support their arguments in the academic literature, as is the standard academic process of the matter. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 22:49, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

::::An article from 5 months ago cannot "dispute" claims made in an article a few days ago, because articles can't dispute with other articles in the future. That's not how time works.

::::[https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dispute Dispute] is a verb that requires an agent to carry out an argument. That's very clearly not what is happening here. Unless you're saying that the authors of the Guardian article are disputing the findings of the authors of the NRC article. In which case, provide the source stating that. JasonMacker (talk) 06:47, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::No I'm not saying that The Guardian article disputed the content in the NRC piece 5 months before the latter was published. I'm saying that the articles contradict each other, and was not using 'dispute' in a literal sense (although in common parlance, 'disputed' often refers to any claim that's not universally accepted). It's very simple: The Guardian claims genocide studies is a "deeply divided" field, while NRC states that GS is united around this issue. Either one of them is wrong, or something changed in 5 months. What I've been trying to ask here, with no luck, is what, if anything, changed over the last few months in terms of new evidence/findings that would cause this kind of shift. Jonathan f1 (talk) 07:00, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::{{tqq|The Guardian claims genocide studies is a "deeply divided" field}}, isn't actually what that article claims, the article holds the fields of Holocaust studies and Genocide studies together as {{tqq|Holocaust and genocide studies}}, and throughout the article that very specifically repeatedly state they are talking about the combined fields of {{tqq|Holocaust and genocide studies}}. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 12:26, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::The article refers to 'the academic field' and 'the discipline' of Holocaust & Genocide studies. Is it one field or two? Jonathan f1 (talk) 22:00, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

{{od}} No need to get sidetracked here.

Someone who understands Dutch, please add it with in text attribution ("According to NRC...") in WP:SUMMARY. Just because it is disputed does not invalidate the source per WP:NPOV. Just like we used Guardian article which says the field is deeply divided, we can also use this source. Bogazicili (talk) 16:40, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:I was just about to, but now there's a separate issue of the article being paywalled and no longer accessible to me. Can someone make an archive of the article so that it can be accessed indefinitely? JasonMacker (talk) 16:52, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::[https://archive.ph/rdQcS already done] the day the article was published. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 20:50, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

::Not sure why this got dropped, but I've added the article with WP:INTEXT attribution. EvansHallBear (talk) 23:32, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Right now, the article doesn't have a specific section devoted to scholars of religion who discuss the religious dimensions of the Gaza genocide. We have the "Invocations of Amalek" subsection in the genocidal intent section, and in the "Academic and legal discourse" section, we don't have a specific section for scholars of religion. I recently came across the articles Judaism and violence and Judaism and peace, which discuss what I think could be added to the article, but the references in those articles are old and don't directly provide commentary on what is taking place in Gaza. Right now, only 1 expert has directly discussed this issue (discussing Torah passages and the statements of Israeli leaders) but she is an Islamic philosophy scholar, and it would be WP:UNDUE to give her a sentence right now. Does anyone here know what is being discussed in philosophy of religion, religious studies, or theology journals that can be added to this article? JasonMacker (talk) 15:44, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

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 which 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)

―Howard • 🌽³³ 19:05, 25 May 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)

: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 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)

@Jevansen whats the issue linking to List of companies involved in the Gaza war in Gaza genocide#Private sector involvement via see also template

Wikipedia:SEEALSO -> One purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics; however, articles linked should be related to the topic of the article or be in the same defining category.

List of companies involved in the Gaza war intro is rewritten to remove genocide implications.

Linking to the renamed page respects that outcome; it’s not “re-litigating” the AfD. Cinaroot (talk) 03:09, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:It's a subsection of an article on the Gaza genocide about companies "accused of profiting from the Gaza genocide". By linking to the article you're making that implication. The article is already, quite appropriately, listed at Gaza war#See also. Jevansen (talk) 03:21, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

::This is no different than any of the other "Country X support for Israel" links in this section. They are links to clearly and closely related articles but make no implications beyond what's currently in this article. EvansHallBear (talk) 06:58, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:::good point. if Jevansen don't have objection- ill add it back Cinaroot (talk) 01:01, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Seems premature. This may be too much to ask for in this topic area, but I'd prefer to hear feedback beyond a single user with a "I support Palestine" user box if possible. German support for Israel in the Gaza war is an expansion of the topic briefly summarised in the sub section. The list being discussed is "clearly and closely related" to the Gaza war, not the Gaza genocide. Jevansen (talk) 03:11, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::I agree that it would be nice to hear from a few more voices. Although we shouldn't need to hold a referendum any time someone makes a minor edit to the page. However, I don't appreciate the ad hominem attack - my user box says I support the independence of Palestine, which should be uncontroversial. How dare I say that Palestinian people should have freedom!

:::::To your actual argument, Gaza war and Gaza genocide are completely intertwined. It's right there in the lead of this article. So it's impossible for the list to be related to one article and not the other. EvansHallBear (talk) 03:29, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::If I misconstrued the user box, and you're completely neutral and not emotionally attached to this topic, than I certainly apologise. Jevansen (talk) 04:00, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::@Jevansen Please avoid personal jabs. Cinaroot (talk) 03:40, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::The reality is that a good portion of the international outrage and advocacy around private sector involvement and divestment from the Gaza war is being advanced by people who are saying that complicity in a genocide is the reason why private sector involvement is the problem. Just because the community decided it wasn't appropriate to state in the title of the article that these companies are complicit in genocide, doesn't mean it's not appropriate to link an article about complicity in the war to the page on genocide. In fact, it's necessary to do so in order to fairly depict the viewpoint that private economic involvement in the Gaza war has enabled a genocide. This is ultimately the same rationale for including the entire responsibility of third parties section. Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 04:04, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Template:Infobox event has displaced, inquiries, reported property damage, reported deaths, casualties1 which we can use. Cinaroot (talk) 03:06, 28 May 2025 (UTC)