Talk:Gaza genocide#rfc 4B9D749

{{closed rfc top|Per our policies and guidelines, the determination of WP:CON is WP:NOTAVOTE. There is less than unanimity in this discussion. When this is the case, our policies and guidelines require the closer to close based on whichever argument is supported by {{xt|"the predominant number of responsible Wikipedians"}} after first discarding arguments {{Xt|"that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, and those that show no understanding of the matter of issue"}} (see: WP:NHC).

A preliminary pulse check reveals that, in broad strokes, 14 editors support the RfC, 20 editors oppose the RfC, one wants the RfC aborted as improper, and three or four other editors presented outsider or (in a couple cases) indecipherable opinions. (In addition, midway through the RfC, an alternative proposal was made, which will be addressed later.)

• To determine the view of "responsible" Wikipedians I first conducted a census of which Wikipedians in this discussion were "responsible". To apply this term, I eliminated any Wikipedian topic banned on this subject, as well as obvious WP:SPAs and sockpuppets, and those who overtly admitted to having been canvassed to the discussion. The post-census standing of opinions with these adjustments is: 12 editors support, 20 editors oppose, one wants RfC aborted, and a few indecipherable opinions.
• I, next, began the process of discarding !votes that are "based on personal opinion only" by eliminating all WP:VAGUEWAVEs, as well as any !votes invoking wording or phrases indicative of personal preference, or which made no attempt to invoke even a glancing reference to our policies or guidelines. The resulted in these adjustments: 12 editors support, 19 editors oppose, one wants RfC aborted, and a few indecipherable opinions.
• Next, I began the process of discarding !votes that were based on such an obvious misunderstanding of policies and guidelines that no one would reasonably expect an editor to even bother arguing against it. This process resulted in no adjustment to the totals.

To address the low-hanging fruit first, there was not a consensus to abort the RfC as a bad RfC.

Moving on ... the Oppose side made a ridiculously unconvincing argument that the ICJ had not made a formal declaration of genocide, therefore, it went, WP should not use the term. Because this made an attempt, albeit a feeble attempt, to link it to WP:RS I did not eliminate it among the group described above. In any case, it was succinctly rebutted by TarnishedPath (and others) who more-or-less noted that Wikipedia is not bound by the organizing statute of the ICJ and has not incorporated it into its policies and guidelines. However, in a sort-of oblique surrebuttal WP:SDNOTDEF -- which operationalizes some of our policies and guidelines -- was used to redeem the original assertion of some Oppose !voters by explaining that while we may not depend on the ICJ to define any specific article on WP we should (and I'm contributing a lot of inference here) consider it among a basket of sources used to meet the criterion of "universality" described by SDNOTDEF. The "support side" adeptly countered this and that went back and forth for awhile with neither side seeming to convince the other.

All the usual arguments one would expect in an RfC of this type (WP:BIAS, WP:POV, etc.) were also brought-up but I'm not going to go through them one by one except to say they were ably argued both in point and counterpoint by the two sides involved.

At the end of the day, when we limit this discussion to only "responsible" Wikipedians and eliminate personal opinions and vague waves, 63% still oppose the implementation of the RfC. The strength of arguments on both sides were barely, but approximately, equally valid. The closing standard does not involve a headcount but is a qualitative assessment of which side has {{xt|"the predominant number of responsible Wikipedians" [making logical, policy-based arguments])}}. This is a discussion aimed at satisfying our objective standards by imperfectly reading a reality that is socially constructed, as opposed to a vote; but, it achieves that by divining the sense of the responsible segment of the community -- as opposed to the closer judging which side is "right" or "wrong" -- on occasions when that sense is broadly evident, as it is here.

Per our well-regarded essay WP:NOTUNANIMITY, {{xt|"Consensus is not the same as unanimity ... [and] after a good faith discussion, sometimes the dissenting party must consent to move forward even if they disagree with the specific course of action ...}} There is a consensus against adopting the RfC as originally presented.

Midway through the discussion, an alternate phrasing was presented by JasonMacker ("the JasonMacker Alternative"). Unfortunately, it suffered from the fact that not every early !voter paid attention to it and, frankly, not even every later !voter did. However, of those who did take heed to it there seemed to be a general sense of acceptance, and this acceptance came from both the "support" and "oppose" camps. Nonetheless, the sense of the community to the JasonMacker Alternative is inscrutable due to the aforementioned issues. I believe there is neither a consensus for nor a consensus against the JasonMacker Alternative. It would not be inappropriate if the JasonMacker Alternative were separately discussed and, if the discussion doesn't produce an obvious consensus, it would not be inappropriate to even very quickly open a new RfC to address it. Chetsford (talk) 21:22, 5 April 2025 (UTC)}}

Proposed changes

About : This article is about Israel’s genocide in Gaza.

SD : Israel’s genocide in Gaza during the Gaza War.

--Update--

Alternate shorter SD proposal after discussion Israel’s genocide in Gaza (2023–present)

Yes/No. Feel free to suggest alternative wording, Astropulse (talk) 17:39, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

• Reason: According to the UN and several international organizations, it has been concluded that Israel has committed genocide in Gaza. This is reflected in the opening statement. Numerous Google Scholar articles also support this conclusion. The article title was changed from “alleged” to “Gaza genocide” a few months ago, reflecting a consensus among editors and reliable sources. Given this consensus, I recommend that we name it appropriately. {{strikethrough| it’s time for Wikipedia to acknowledge this as genocide without downplaying it}}. Astropulse (talk) 17:39, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

• Yes per the reasoning provided. Not sure on the best wording, will wait to see if others have good suggestions. Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 20:12, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
• Comment Perhaps something like "This article is about the characterization of Israel's war in Gaza as genocide". IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 20:18, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

::Wiki is not characterizing anything. mostly reporting facts. so id oppose characterization Astropulse (talk) 20:28, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

:::Wiki is reporting on a characterization. This article is about a characterization, not a genocide. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 23:31, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

• Just noting that the current introductory comment is a bit difficult to follow. I would recommend rephrasing to just say {{tq|Should the {{t|About}} and short description be changed to [proposed text]}} and moving the motivation to the discussion section. This will make it easier to follow what people are !voting on. Also, what's done is done, but if possible we should avoid pinging editors blocked for sockpuppetry from the mass-ping notification._signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:20, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
• :how can i tell an editor is blocked for sockpuppetry? Astropulse (talk) 20:30, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
• ::If you go to settings->preferences you can enable 'Strike out usernames that have been blocked'. Sean.hoyland (talk) 03:16, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
• Soft Support. Linking to the evidence referenced in nom for ease of discussion: [https://documents.un.org/doc/undoc/gen/g24/046/11/pdf/g2404611.pdf UN Report], [https://amnesty.ca/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/Amnesty-International-Gaza-Genocide-Report-December-4-2024.pdf Amnesty Interanational], [https://www.hrw.org/report/2024/12/19/extermination-and-acts-genocide/israel-deliberately-depriving-palestinians-gaza Human Rights Watch], [https://www.msf.org/sites/default/files/2024-12/20241229_REPORT_Gaza%20Life%20in%20a%20death%20trap%20Report_FINAL.pdf Doctors Without Borders]. As far as I can tell, there are no third party human rights organizations remaining who are specifically against the designation of this conflict as a genocide — the main argument against this characterization seems to come from Israel itself, the United States, and a limited number of other NATO countries. There also seems to be an increasing consensus amongst academics in favor of the genocide characterization, and I would be in favor of us following their lead. My one hangup with this direction for the article is how to characterize opposition to the "genocide" label — it doesn't seem to be to be WP:DUE to characterize it as "genocide denial" yet, and I don't know if it would make sense to describe it any other way if the article is directly calling it a genocide. That said, I'm still in favor of following the lead of neutral academics and organizations here. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 20:54, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
• Bad RfC, the wording is not neutral as required by WP:RFCOPEN. I hope it'll be changed and the RfC restarted. Note that RS still talk about the accusations of genocide and quote experts that don't use this term [https://www.lemonde.fr/en/opinion/article/2024/10/29/israel-hamas-war-gaza-genocide-accusation-constitutes-unprecedented-test-for-international-justice_6730880_23.html]. Alaexis_¿question? 21:15, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
• :See WP:POVNAMING For example, the widely used names "Boston Massacre", "Teapot Dome scandal", and "Jack the Ripper" are legitimate ways of referring to the subjects in question despite appearing to pass judgment. Thus, if a name is widely used in reliable sources (particularly those written in English) and is therefore likely to be well recognized by readers, it may be used even though some could regard it as biased. So id argue this applies to short description and about as well. As its based on article title. Astropulse (talk) 21:22, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
• ::The problem isn't what you're proposing, it's how you've proposed it. Per WP:RFCNEUTRAL you shouldn't have made a case for one side or the other in the RFC itself. You can then make your argument below that. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 21:45, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
• :::i see. can i change it after posting it? Astropulse (talk) 21:53, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
• ::the link you gave is an opinion. also news article usually should use "accusation" so that they dont get sued. we are really looking for determination of international bodies rather than a person, media or country. Astropulse (talk) 22:02, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
• :I agree, the RFC question is neither neutral or brief and that has left me confused about what exactly is being proposed. @Astropulse is this a proposal to change the short description? TarnishedPath^talk 03:29, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
• ::About and short description. whats confusing about it? i mean everyone else seems to get the rfc Astropulse (talk) 03:34, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
• Strong oppose The ICJ, who have been delegated to finding out if Israel actions in Gaza have constituted genocide, have not formally published a statement saying that Israel is committing genocide. Also, many of the most prominent editors to this article have overt Pro-Palestinian biases, and many were topic banned by the recent ArbCom decision. Let's try to keep at least a kernel of truth in this article. Pyramids09 (talk) 21:41, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
• :You're mixing up the ICC and ICJ. (t · c) buidhe 22:14, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
• :@Pyramids09, please don't WP:GRAVEDANCE. TarnishedPath^talk 03:30, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
• :You are wrong on your claims about who contributed to this article, of the top 20 editors to this article, only 1 received a topic ban from PIA5. So I would suggest striking your aspersions of that nature, alongside aspersions of motivations from your comment. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 12:12, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
• ::{{+1}} TarnishedPath^talk 01:45, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
• Strong oppose Genocide needs to be decided by the ICJ. Or else when the business is a long time in the past and there is an academic consensus about it. The third case for companies where we can say they committed fraud with no criminal case is if they suddenly disappear as they are a fly by night operation - but that's not going to happen with Israel. As to the leaders, intent needs to be shown so it is a BLP issue for them. I'm pretty sure Netanyahu and many of his cronies are scumbags and have encouraged genocide and lots of other people believe that too but that is not enough to say they actually committed genocide as it is defined. Only the law can do that, not mob rule. NadVolum (talk) 22:02, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
• :Wikipedia follows a policy of verifiability and relies on reliable secondary sources rather than legal rulings. If reputable historians, scholars, governments, or international organizations widely recognize an event as genocide, Wikipedia editors may use the term, even if the ICJ has not made a formal ruling. Astropulse (talk) 22:15, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
• ::Please be aware of WP:BLUDGEONING, @Astropulse. It's not appropriate to respond/argue with everyone who comments here. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 23:01, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
• :Just because an event was more recent, does not mean there is no academic consensus about it. I think relying on the ICJ is flawed because the ICJ has not ruled on most incidents of genocide in recent history. Many perpetrators of contemporary genocides like those against Rohingya and Yazidi people are still alive, and the ICJ has not ruled on either case. So does BLP require us to retitle those articles? (t · c) buidhe 22:16, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
• ::One fairly significant way in which this situation differs from that of the Rohingya and Yadizi is the severity of recognition the UN has given. From the UN Human Rights office:
• ::* For the Yadizi, as early as June 2016, the UN HRO stated definitively "The so-called Islamic State of Iraq and Al-Sham (ISIS) is committing genocide against Yazidis...", following it up with language like "Genocide has occurred and is ongoing" and "“ISIS has made no secret of its intent to destroy the Yazidis of Sinjar, and that is one of the elements that allowed us to conclude their actions amount to genocide"[https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2016/06/un-commission-inquiry-syria-isis-committing-genocide-against-yazidis]
• ::* For the Rohingya, I'm not sure when the UN HRO first made their determination - but as of 2024, the actions are called ""genocidal attacks against the Rohingya in Myanmar" and specifically calls it "the 2017 Rohingya genocide"[https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2024/08/seven-years-after-genocidal-attacks-world-must-act-stop-new-atrocities]
• ::* The most up-to-date pronouncement we have on Gaza, as far as I could find, was from 3 months ago - the language is notably softer, finding instead that Israel's "warfare in Gaza is consistent with the characteristics of genocide", including "mass civilian casualties and life-threatening conditions intentionally imposed on Palestinians there". The rest of the report goes on to detail the crimes of Israel (which have been covered extensively in RS, and documented extensively in this article) but makes no further mention of genocide.[https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2024/11/un-special-committee-finds-israels-warfare-methods-gaza-consistent-genocide]
• ::The ICC's judgments on genocide carry a lot of weight - even if they haven't given rulings on many genocides. But the UN itself also carries very nearly as much weight in my opinion. That said, official reports from the UN still use soft language like this, to refer to the possibility of/similarity to/plausible occurrence of genocide, without specifically pronouncing Israel guilty of genocide, as they have for other genocides recently. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 20:04, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

{{s|*:::This is outright false. Among other UN bodies and offices, as little as two weeks, the office of the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food has clearly described [https://www.un.org/unispal/document/special-rapporteur-on-the-right-to-food-briefing-5feb2025/] the situation as "Israel's genocide in Gaza," which is a clear and specific phrasing. Eelipe (talk) 21:46, 26 February 2025 (UTC)}} blocked sock. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 15:17, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

• ::::Surely you understand the distinction between words from "Mr. Michael Fakhri, UN Special Rapporteur" and words from "the Third Committee of the General Assembly," the UN office to which he issued his report? And that the article you linked is a summary of the opinion of the former, and not the latter?
• ::::Also, the distinction between said GA committee and the Human Rights Office? The latter of which put out an official statement, which I linked? PhotogenicScientist (talk) 22:39, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
• :::::And wouldn't you know it - it turns out the Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food is a position underneath the Human Rights Office.[https://www.ohchr.org/en/special-procedures/sr-food] So, if we are to try to discern the position of "the UN" (multifaceted body that it is) on the matter, I believe official communications from the office trump individual "unofficial summaries" from employees. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 22:47, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
• :WP:BLP applies to talk pages too, @NadVolum, so you may want to strike and/or rephrase some of your comment here. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 23:41, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
• Lean support I think we are seeing an increasing consensus about what happened. If there was a significant debate, I feel you would easily be able to find scholarly sources arguing against the genocide argument on Google Scholar or other databases. However, that's not the case. (t · c) buidhe 22:24, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
• :I scrolled through 10 pages of Google Scholar results so that you don't have to. In all those results, there were only a couple sources arguing against the genocide argument. To me, that makes an academic consensus on the matter pretty clear. I think it is hard to argue anything else, regardless of what the ICJ rules if the scholarship is >95% on the same side of the argument. (t · c) buidhe 22:47, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
• ::Your search through Google scholar is one metric. Our compiled table on scholarly sources is another - where ~57% of the listed scholars and organization say "yes genocide", ~27% say "no genocide", and ~14% say "maybe genocide." That's enough to say there's a scholarly consensus forming on the matter - but not nearly a convincing enough majority to pronounce, in wikivoice, that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza, via the short description. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 20:13, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
• Was pinged here and don't have a strong opinion either way, but if reliable sources are indeed saying that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza during the Gaza War, then both the short description and the hatnote should be changed to reflect that. Some1 (talk) 22:37, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

• Lean Support per wasianpower and the resources they provided. There are multiple scholars that have come to this conclusion who study topics like genocide studies (including Israeli voices like Raz Segal) and a genocide can be recognized by such individuals as well as reliable human rights organizations and councils, international bodies, etc. without the international court's decision. It has already been an established consensus that this is considered a genocide by scholars who are far more qualified to speak on this topic given that they are professionals in these fields, as well as human rights organizations. Genocide wasn't recognized as a crime under international law until a few years after WWII ended (see Genocide Convention) [https://www.facinghistory.org/resource-library/raphael-lemkin-genocide-convention], though we still call a genocide that occurred before that a genocide even if there wasn't a legal framework revolving the act of genocide. It would be foolish to argue that an event that has been recognized by consensus as a genocide isn't one because there wasn't an international body to consider it as such at the time and because "the crime of genocide" didn't exist under a legal framework at the time. There are genocides that haven't been and/or didn't fit into the timeframe for it to be legally considered a genocide yet still considered a genocide as per consensus by scholars and human rights orgs.

:Generally speaking, recognizing and addressing genocide by international bodies (like the ICJ) has historically been sloppy and we shouldn't be so reliant on them. Germany refused to recognize the fact that they committed genocide against African ethnic groups in modern-day Namibia until 2021[https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2021/05/28/germany-namibia-genocide/]. The second word in the article "International response to the Rwandan genocide" sums up the international response to the Rwandan genocide: "failure". It doesn't make much sense as to why we need to rely on a historically flawed international body to make a decision before we can label something with strong consensus as being a genocide, a genocide. B3251_(talk) 23:33, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

• Strong oppose The article has been crafted at the same time as large off-wiki POV-pushing operation.{{cite web | last=Merlin | first=Ohad | title=Wikipedia suspends pro-Palestine editors coordinating efforts behind the scenes | website= The Jerusalem Post | date=2024-12-12 | url=https://www.jpost.com/business-and-innovation/article-833180 | access-date=2025-02-22}} Since we can't identify which editors participated in this operation, the only way to restore a semblance of NPOV is to do a careful analysis of editor behavior (such as battleground editing) along with rollback for topic-banned editors, bring in new voices, and start the discussion on level ground. The wording should be 'genocide accusations'. Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 23:44, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose. The current version of the lead correctly says: "According to ...". This is just a claim, not a fact. My very best wishes (talk) 01:13, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose. Even the sources are hedging their words carefully for the most part. The only ones that aren't are activist organizations like Amnesty International's report. Note that while being an activist organization does not necessarily mean they are unreliable, it does mean that their opinions on the matter should be taken with a grain of salt. As others have stated, claims are just that - claims, and Wikipedia is not here to right the "wrong" of genocide even if it is occurring. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 01:21, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
• Support/yes. Our policies require we give more WP:WEIGHT to scholarly sources, so lets examine those. At :Template:Expert opinions in the Gaza genocide debate, 102 sources say genocide has been committed in Gaza, 48 say no, 20 say maybe. Of those that support the existence of genocide, two entries actually have been endorsed by 100s of scholars:
• April 2024: A letter by law experts in the UK [https://lawyersletter.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Gaza-letter-FIN-3-April.pdf wrote] "there are reasonable grounds to believe that the threshold indicating Israel’s commission of genocide is met". This was [https://lawyersletter.uk/#signatories signed] 59 professors of law and 105 lecturers of law (1,001 lawyers in total).
• May-June 2024: A survey by [https://criticalissues.umd.edu/middle-east-scholar-barometer Middle East Scholar Barometer] of 750 of Middle Eastern Studies scholars [https://www.brookings.edu/articles/gloom-about-the-day-after-the-gaza-war-pervasive-among-mideast-scholars/ found]: 75% defined Israel's actions as either major war crimes akin to genocide, or genocide, vs 24% who don't.
• If we focus on peer-reviewed scholarly publications, then existence of Gaza genocide is supported by Semerdjian (Journal of Genocide Research); Green (State Crime Journal); McAlister (Canadian Foreign Policy Journal); Ak (Journal of Humanity, Peace and Justice); Di-Capua (Journal of Genocide Research); Jamshidi (Journal of Genocide Research); Sultany (Journal of Genocide Research) etc. VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 02:27, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
• :"there are reasonable grounds to believe that the threshold indicating Israel’s commission of genocide is met" This is the most wishy-washy way to say it that could possibly be. And trying to equate that to "Israel committed genocide" is reading into the source what they didn't say. Furthermore, the phrase "akin to genocide" does not mean "genocide". Ask yourself this - if the group had a consensus to call it genocide, why did they not do so? They didn't do so directly because they did not have that consensus. So trying to push these sources as supporting a solid determination of genocide is reading into the source what they intentionally did not say. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 02:33, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
• Comment: there are 25 genocides post-1949 at List of genocides. But the ICJ has never convicted a state for genocide. Even in the Bosnian genocide case, it recognized genocide occurred while simultaneously ruling that "Serbia has not committed genocide". In fact, the ICJ has been criticized for its "reluctance to find states guilty of genocide even in light of significant evidence"[https://www.fordhamilj.org/iljonline/k73pddfmra65ecd-fxc5k-bdazp-npp5j-l8be9-kbndm-tlwlf-2pnhz-hpjc3-2bxkm-9egc4] VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 02:44, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
• :{{Ping|Vice regent}} {{+1}}. JacktheBrown (talk) 03:53, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

{{s|*Support, although I was initially leaning oppose. A lot of the con arguments argue that genocide needs to be decided by the ICJ; however, per some interesting research by @Vice regent, ICJ genocide convictions have not been required to establish genocide-responsible states and genocide victims in WP precedent. And within academia and the international human rights civil society space, there is a consensus over the status of this particularly matter that justifies the proposed change. Eelipe (talk) 03:39, 23 February 2025 (UTC)}}blocked sock. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 15:17, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

• Support per Eelipe; a host of experts have referred to it as a genocide (hence the name change), and I don't really see why the ICJ should be considered the be-all-end-all for it. Vice regent's comments that the ICJ is reticent to issue an opinion seals it for me. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 03:48, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
• Support (responding to ping). The argument that the ICJ hasn't ruled it to be genocide is irrelevant as there is not a single policy or guideline anywhere which states that our content must follow the rulings of the ICJ. What we do follow is what reliable sources say and as noted by others there are academics and human rights organisations which state that what occurred/is occurring in Gaza is genocide. TarnishedPath^talk 07:03, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
• :Not really. There's sources that dance around calling it genocide, without doing so explicitly - for good reason. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 07:17, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
• ::{{Tq|The UNHR report, released in mid-May, concludes: “Israel has committed genocidal acts, namely killing, seriously harming, and inflicting conditions of life calculated, and intended to, bring about the physical destruction of Palestinians in Gaza,” says Susan Akram, a LAW clinical professor of law and director of LAW’s International Human Rights Clinic, who contributed to the report.}}{{Cite web |last=Bouranova |first=Alene |date=2024-06-06 |title=Is Israel Committing Genocide in Gaza? New Report from BU School of Law’s International Human Rights Clinic Lays Out Case |url=https://www.bu.edu/articles/2024/is-israel-committing-genocide-in-gaza/ |access-date=2025-02-23 |website=Boston University |language=en}}
• ::{{Tq|Amnesty International’s research has found sufficient basis to conclude that Israel has committed and is continuing to commit genocide against Palestinians in the occupied Gaza Strip, the organization said in a landmark new report published today.}}{{Cite web |date=2024-12-05 |title=Amnesty International concludes Israel is committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza |url=https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2024/12/amnesty-international-concludes-israel-is-committing-genocide-against-palestinians-in-gaza/ |access-date=2025-02-23 |website=Amnesty International |language=en}}
• ::{{Tq|In recent months, ECCHR has been conducting independent research and analysis on the topic of genocide, and analyzing this against the available information and evidence relating to Israel’s actions in Gaza. This process has led us to the conclusion that there is a legally sound argument that Israel is committing genocide against the Palestinians in Gaza.}}{{Cite web |title=Gaza and the matter of genocide |url=https://www.ecchr.eu/en/press-release/gaza-and-the-matter-of-genocide/ |access-date=2025-02-23 |website=www.ecchr.eu |language=en}}
• ::{{Tq|Aconsensus is building. On 5 December, Amnesty International concluded after an investigation that “Israel has committed and is continuing to commit genocide against Palestinians in the occupied Gaza Strip”. A few days later, the European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights (ECCHR) stated that after research and analysis, it concluded that “there is a legally sound argument that Israel is committing genocide against the Palestinians in Gaza”.}}{{Cite news |last=Malik |first=Nesrine |date=2024-12-23 |title=A consensus is emerging: Israel is committing genocide in Gaza. Where is the action? |url=https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/dec/23/israel-gaza-war-genocide-where-is-the-action |access-date=2025-02-23 |work=The Guardian |language=en-GB |issn=0261-3077}}
• ::{{Tq|Israeli authorities are responsible for the crime against humanity of extermination and for acts of genocide.}}{{Cite web |date=2024-12-19 |title=Israel’s Crime of Extermination, Acts of Genocide in Gaza {{!}} Human Rights Watch |url=https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/12/19/israels-crime-extermination-acts-genocide-gaza |access-date=2025-02-23 |language=en}}
• ::{{Tq|What is happening in Gaza cannot be fully described in words. This brief Correspondence is a plea to every human being to help stop this genocide right now—we cannot live like this; the world should not be silent about the killing of civilians in the thousands.}}{{Cite journal |last=Salmiya |first=Muhammad Abu |date=2024 |title=Stop the Gaza genocide immediately |url=https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(24)00135-1/fulltext |journal=The Lancet |language=English |volume=403 |issue=10441 |pages=2286–2287 |doi=10.1016/S0140-6736(24)00135-1 |issn=0140-6736 |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20240715200215/https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(24)00135-1/fulltext |archive-date=2024-07-15}}
• ::{{Tq|The administrations of both Joe Biden and now Donald Trump have vociferously denounced a growing international legal consensus that Israel has been violating the Genocide Convention. This follows a decades-long pattern of the U.S. government denying, minimizing, downplaying and rationalizing genocide and related crimes against humanity by American allies. Regardless of whether the tenuous ceasefire agreement reached on Jan. 15 holds, investigations will likely reveal more details of Israeli war crimes and more questions about U.S. culpability.}}{{Cite web |last=Zunes |first=Stephen |date=2025-02-14 |title=By Rejecting Evidence of Genocide in Gaza, the US Is Following a Familiar Pattern |url=https://newlinesmag.com/essays/by-rejecting-evidence-of-genocide-in-gaza-the-us-is-following-a-familiar-pattern/ |access-date=2025-02-23 |website=New Lines Magazine |language=en}}
• ::{{Tq|By the time I travelled to Israel, I had become convinced that at least since the attack by the IDF on Rafah on 6 May 2024, it was no longer possible to deny that Israel was engaged in systematic war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocidal actions. It was not just that this attack against the last concentration of Gazans – most of them displaced already several times by the IDF, which now once again pushed them to a so-called safe zone – demonstrated a total disregard of any humanitarian standards. It also clearly indicated that the ultimate goal of this entire undertaking from the very beginning had been to make the entire Gaza Strip uninhabitable, and to debilitate its population to such a degree that it would either die out or seek all possible options to flee the territory. In other words, the rhetoric spouted by Israeli leaders since 7 October was now being translated into reality – namely, as the 1948 UN Genocide Convention puts it, that Israel was acting “with intent to destroy, in whole or in part”, the Palestinian population in Gaza, “as such, by killing, causing serious harm, or inflicting conditions of life meant to bring about the group’s destruction”.}}{{Cite news |last=Bartov |first=Omer |date=2024-08-13 |title=As a former IDF soldier and historian of genocide, I was deeply disturbed by my recent visit to Israel |url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/aug/13/israel-gaza-historian-omer-bartov |access-date=2025-02-23 |work=The Guardian |language=en-GB |issn=0261-3077}}
• ::{{Tq|Doctors Against Genocide (DAG) gathered Wednesday in Washington, DC to urge the Senate to take action to end the genocide in the Gaza Strip, Anadolu news agency reported.}}{{Cite web |date=2025-02-19 |title=Doctors Against Genocide urges US Senate to take action on ending Gaza genocide |url=https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20250219-doctors-against-genocide-urges-us-senate-to-take-action-on-ending-gaza-genocide/ |access-date=2025-02-23 |website=Middle East Monitor}}
• ::{{Tq|Faced with the potential of a reckoning over their own complicity, political leaders and media outlets have sought to portray the opponents of Israel’s genocide as dangerous extremists.}}{{Cite news |last=Jones |first=Owen |date=2025-01-23 |title=Israel’s leaders committed genocide in Gaza and must pay for it. Their political and media allies must too |url=https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/jan/23/israel-leaders-genocide-gaza-political-media-power |access-date=2025-02-23 |work=The Guardian |language=en-GB |issn=0261-3077}}
• ::{{Tq|Working through the ongoing genocidal violence carried out by Israel in Gaza}}.{{Cite journal |last=Dutta |first=Mohan J. |date=2024-04-02 |title=Resisting an unfolding genocide: reflections from radical struggles in the Global South |url=https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00335630.2024.2328588 |journal=Quarterly Journal of Speech |volume=110 |issue=2 |pages=294–304 |doi=10.1080/00335630.2024.2328588 |issn=0033-5630}}
• ::{{Tq|Israel’s continuous war on Gaza turns out to be one of the deadliest genocides in modern world history.}}{{Cite journal |last=Mustafa |first=Faed |date=2024 |title=The Palestinian People’s Righteous Struggle in Light of the War of Aggression against the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/48778413 |journal=Insight Turkey |volume=26 |issue=2 |pages=13–20 |issn=1302-177X}}
• ::{{Tq|Just two months after this special issue was finalized Israel launched its catastrophic, genocidal assault on Gaza.}}{{Cite journal |last=Green |first=Penny |date=2023 |title=PREFACE: Israel’s Genocide of the Palestinian People |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/48774398 |journal=State Crime Journal |volume=12 |issue=2 |pages=123–125 |issn=2046-6056}}
• ::The last three of these sources are from academic journals. I can provide more if needed. TarnishedPath^talk 08:18, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
• :{{tq|What we do follow is what reliable sources say and as noted by others there are academics and human rights organisations which state that what occurred/is occurring in Gaza is genocide}}
• :And what do you have to say for the other reliable sources of academics and organizations which state what is occurring in Gaza is not genocide, or else have not made a definitive announcement on the matter? Which comprise ~39% of our compiled list? PhotogenicScientist (talk) 20:18, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose, we should wait for the ICJ (or more precisely, the reaction of scholarship to the ICJ). There is significant opposition within scholarship, particularly legal scholarship, to referring to the events in Gaza as a genocide. For example, within the German-speaking legal world (Switzerland, Austria, and Germany), arguably one of the most significant areas for scholarship of international law, there is a consensus against this assertion, with dissenting voices being respected, but in effect minority views (as included in the article). The same applies to Israel, and I’m guessing to multiple other areas whose languages I do not speak. This article in effect discusses the possibility that the events in Gaza constitute genocide but rightly - based on the best available sources - stops short of asserting that it is, and the short description, which is intended to “complement and clarify the page title”, should not be used to assert content that diverges from the article to this degree. It is also important to note the following: many of the sources claiming that it is a genocide either qualify or restrict their position, whether implicitly or explicitly: be it that they are made by people without the relevant expertise (or expertise limited to adjacent fields, such as Middle East Studies), doubts about the extend or certainty (“increasing number of experts” by MSF, “there is a legally sound argument” by ECCHR, “war crimes akin to genocide”) or restrictions to the parts of the definition, such as doubts about genocidal intent, or the extend of it (HRW, MIGS, etc.) Lastly, and I know that this position is unlikely to make me any friends here: in practice, when the ICJ is likely to decide, particularly where there is such a strong dispute regarding facts, any genocide definition going significantly beyond the legal standard is unlikely to receive traction, as most states, courts, and international organizations either primarily or exclusively use the legal definition, for both practical and scholarly reasons. While the other definitions are interesting from an academic perspective, a negative (or broadly negative, with only limited exceptions) determination of genocide by the ICJ (likely to be followed by large swaths of the legal scholarship). Therefore, it is best to wait for the ICJ to decide and the scholarship to settle, followed by rewriting the article based on the new state of scholarship, followed by changing the short description if - and only if - there is consensus based on all relevant standards, including the legal definition. Any other change, except perhaps the suggestion by @IOHANNVSVERVS, puts the cart before the horse. FortunateSons (talk) 10:44, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

{{s|*:Regarding the ICJ point, please refer to past findings that an ICJ ruling is *not* a prerequisite or a precedented step for recognizing the genocide title on WP. From @Vice regent: "there are 25 genocides post-1949 at List of genocides. But the ICJ has never convicted a state for genocide." Eelipe (talk) 12:05, 23 February 2025 (UTC)}}blocked sock. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 15:17, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

• ::Some of the incidents in the list aren’t titled genocides, and are instead - rightly - discussed as potential or likely genocides. But even if they weren’t: the ICJ ruling, which is likely to become available within a relatively short timeframe, is the relevant authoritative decision here, and assuming nothing goes horribly wrong, we will have a decision here. I agree with arguments that it’s not required in cases where a decision is overwhelmingly unlikely (for example, Transgender genocide), but if we will have an ongoing case, we shouldn't be needlessly hasty. If I were to create a general rule: an ICJ (and/or ICC) judgement is strongly indicative in either direction if currently or likely available, and irrelevant if it’s not. Let me ask the question another way: assuming the ICJ finds no (or no significant, referring only to local/limited incidents, such a incitement or only a handful of acts), would you support the current description? FortunateSons (talk) 13:20, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
• :::The ICJ doesn't move fast. The rohingya genocide case has been ongoing for six years with no end in sight. Should we change that article too? Besides, there is no basis in policy to regard the court as the sole determiner if there is a genocide,especially given that there are a variety of definitions of genocide used in academic research. (t · c) buidhe 15:49, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
• ::::I’m not claiming that it’s the sole determiner of genocide, my only claim is that it’s the most authoritative source, which is likely true, unless you want to refer to some sort of Security Council Standard, which would be impractical. With regard to everything else, there is no deadline, and as long as there isn’t a consensus in the scientific sense (which there isn’t for the legal definition at the very least), we shouldn’t rush the decision for the sake of having one now. FortunateSons (talk) 19:29, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
• :::::I don't think the ICJ should be considered the most authoritative source for a determination of whether this is a genocide. As VR pointed out, the ICJ has not ruled on the majority of post-WW2 genocides and its rulings have been strongly criticized for failing to hold states accountable for genocides in the past. Add to this fact that Israel and the United States have put significant pressure on other international bodies like the ICC and UNRWA, penalizing them for ruling or providing evidence against Israel, even when they equivocated (for example with the ICC's warrants issued against both sides). It should be clear that the ICJ's ruling will be influenced by factors beyond just the facts on the ground. I think there's a strong case to be made that even if the ICJ ruling is inconclusive or unfavorable to the genocide case, the changes proposed in this RFC would be supported so long as the rest of the scholarly and international community maintains their position, and especially if there is significant and compelling criticism of an ICJ ruling favorable to Israel. Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 20:08, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::What alternative body would you consider to be more authoritative, assuming there is an ICJ ruling? The SC?
• ::::::International courts have their weaknesses, and I’m definitely not in favour of following them uncritically (see my disclaimer about scholarship reactions), but the same applies to international orgs (which broadly lean left, for example), or scholars, which are also subject to significant social, political or economic pressure. No matter what one thinks of the courts, it’s a fact that politics, media and the public at large consider them closer to a De minimis standard for legal cases, with even their affirmative decisions being (at best) accepted hesitantly in many cases. Minor note: I would hesitate to compare the ICC with the ICJ (with the former lacking acceptance by both Israel and the US), and I would be very careful to compare it to UNRWA, which is considered to be unfit for purpose - among other things - for its mandate alone, something that definitely can’t be said about the ICJ, though under Trump, who knows what will happen. FortunateSons (talk) 20:24, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::I don't think any one organization would be more authoritative than the ICJ, but I also don't think the ICJ's position should be considered significant enough to override the bulk of the other credible organizations on this page. Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 22:12, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::That’s true, it couldn’t override an otherwise unambiguous consensus, but it is enough to create an even clearer picture of “no clear consensus” than already exists, as shown in the article. FortunateSons (talk) 11:01, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose It's already an issue that the article title is biased by implying genocide in fact vs a disputed accusation of genocide. That closing shouldn't have been allowed to stand. Here again, we have a POV push to claim something that more a POV than a proven fact. Springee (talk) 15:10, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
• :As was brought up in every previous discussion of the matter, near every single instance of genocide that is widely recognised as such, is in fact mere "accusations", and that merely three have been found to constitute genocide legally (before we get into the silliness of some of those decisions, as has been a pain to lawyers and legal scholars since). -- Cdjp1 (talk) 17:13, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose - Short descriptions should use "universally accepted facts". While the IDF's killing of Palestinians exceeded Islamic State's killing of Yazidis, a description like "Israel’s genocide in Gaza" is clearly not a universally accepted statement of fact, so it is not a suitable choice. Sean.hoyland (talk) 17:59, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
• Comment and alternate proposal - I'm the one who wrote the current short description (See here). First, many users are arguing that the ICC/ICJ/whoever hasn't made a final judgment, so Wikipedia can't use the word genocide. That's flatly untrue. Wikipedia policy clearly states that Wikipedia relies on reliable sources, and there is a huge list of scholarly and expert reliable sources listed in the "Scholarly and expert opinions on the Gaza genocide" template (see here) at the top of this page. This is not a forum for discussing our personal opinions as to whether it's a genocide or not. Second, as I have pointed out in the discussion below, there isn't a necessity in using the word genocide in the short description of an article about genocide. But one thing present in the short descriptions is a date or time period. For that reason, I propose to change the short description to Ongoing Israeli mass killings in Gaza. And, if there is ever a conclusive year for the end of this genocide, I'd propose changing it to 2023-202x Israeli mass killings in Gaza. As for the "about" part, I think it should follow the same wording and be "This article is about Israeli mass killings in Gaza". --JasonMacker (talk) 18:51, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
• :I would support this proposal. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 21:47, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
• :Support. This makes the most sense considering the purpose of the short description and about. Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 22:16, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
• :Also Support this alternative. B3251_(talk) 01:47, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
• :No objections to this alternative. TarnishedPath^talk 01:51, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
• :{{strikethrough|i'm okay with this sd. but i think about should say "this article is about genocide in gaza".}} Astropulse (talk) 02:43, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
• :no objections to this alternative User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 03:03, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
• : A good alternative; equally support this and the main proposal. (t · c) buidhe 03:42, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
• ::@Buidhe there is some (albeit very limited) discussion in RS that Israel may be preventing births of Palestinians in Gaza[https://bristoluniversitypressdigital.com/view/journals/ejpg/aop/article-10.1332-25151088Y2024D000000061/article-10.1332-25151088Y2024D000000061.xml][http://opiniojuris.org/2024/02/01/reproductive-violence-in-palestine-the-need-for-a-feminist-approach-to-justice/]. That would mean the scope of this article is beyond just mass killing Palestinians.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 05:06, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
• :::Yes, it's an oversimplification for sure. Just like the Armenian genocide one is definitely an oversimplification. However, many SDs have this issue due to the extreme concision. (t · c) buidhe 05:11, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

{{s|*:Support. This is a sensible alternate proposal that could serve in place of the original idea; since this has gained some level of consensus and there appear to be no objections, I would be amenable to changing the current short description @JasonMacker in the interim as the wider proposal continues to be discussed. Eelipe (talk) 20:23, 24 February 2025 (UTC)}}blocked sock. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 15:17, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

• :I don't think short descriptions should try to sidestep the central idea of an article. I would prefer one of the first two:
• :*"Israel’s genocide in Gaza during the Gaza War" (preferred)
• :*"accusations of genocide against Israel during the Gaza war" (fine but less preferred)
• :*"Israeli mass killings during the Gaza War" (oppose this alternative)
• :VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 20:28, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
• ::I agree with this. The article is about all the allegations being made - not just mass killings. The about and short description should reflect that - not try and shoehorn in a different term to avoid saying that they are accusations or claims. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 22:41, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
• :For full clarity, I object to this alternative, as it does not accurately represent the scope of this article. It is an attempt to try to use a different term that is only one part of the article to avoid having to frame them as allegations or claims. That is a blatant NPOV violation. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 03:07, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
• :This is a good proposal (certainly better than the initial RFC proposal)... but it still misses the mark. This article covers much more than the direct mass killings - there are entire sections on indirect deaths, starvation, destruction of civilian infrastructure, detention, torture and sexual violence, and attacks on healthcare. "Charges of genocide committed by Israel in Gaza" more holistically encompasses what this article covers. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 16:01, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
• Soft support per Wasianpower, berchanhimez. support alt by jasonMacker reading oppose args, i mostly see arbitrary lines proposed as tests of genocide, and when those lines are crossed, new lines made up. There is unlikely to be universal agreement from all motivated parties that there is/was genocide in gaza, just as in any contemporaneous genocide (see how entire governments deny Armenian genocide, Bangladesh genocide, etc.). I see however, there is no real pushback against assertion that multiple human rights orgs, large portions of academia, and large portions of the legal community all agreeing we are either seeing genocide, genocidal statements, or genocidal actions. both current wording and proposed wording seem to reflect this consensus from experts, but i'm leaning towards proposed changes; should not be hard to call a spade a spade. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 19:24, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

:* Saw JasonMacker's argumen ts and agree. We should not be doing recursive definitions, I think title is enough. Description needs to provide useful info. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 18:47, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

::@Bluethricecreamman Do you consider the definition in the 1948 Genocide convention one of those "arbitrary tests" of genocide? This is the test that I - following the statements of approximately 41% of the scholarly sources on this list - base my opposition on. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 22:12, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

:::You may want to check that list again, as you keep stating it's a list of "scholarly sources" which it is in fact not. Only a subsection of the overall list is scholarly sources. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 22:46, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

::::And, as I said yesterday, that subsection is in fact very much of the opinion this constitutes a case of genocide. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 22:47, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

::::I'm quite aware of the limitations of boiling down scholarly opinions to mere numbers. But among those listed as having "no genocide" or "likely genocide" opinions are the likes of:

::::* Ben Kiernan, director of the Genocide Studies Program at Yale

::::* [https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jo%C3%ABl_Kotek Joel Kotek], a genocide-focused historian

::::* Kai Ambos, the Chair for International Criminal Law at the University of Göttingen

::::* Norman J. W. Goda, a Holocaust-focused historian

::::* Michael Berenbaum, a Holocaust scholar

::::These hardly seem like un-qualified individuals. As do many of the 68 other entries on that list with "no" or "likely" categorizations. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 23:18, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::That doesn't change anything about what I said. And I said nothing of {{tqq|boiling down scholarly opinions to mere numbers}}. So again, the numbers when dealing with {{tqq|scholarly sources}} are not what you claim, which includes a vast swathe of non-scholarly sources. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 00:10, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::Care to identify any, since I identified 5? Or would you prefer to keep taking unsubstatiated pot shots about the inclusions on the list of "scholarly and expert opinions". PhotogenicScientist (talk) 00:56, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::{{tqq|scholarly and expert opinions}} =/= everything in said list being a {{tqq|scholarly sources}}. Basic set inclusion/exclusion criteria. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 02:31, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Uh-huh. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 05:00, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

• Strong oppose Israel did not ask Hamas to do the October 7 Hamas-led attack on Israel. Israel agreed to move huge sums of money to Hamas, which used this money to destroy Israel instead of developing Gaza. Gaza could be a great place to live in, but Hamas wanted only to destroy the Israeli nation and wipe it off, as it was described here. No genocide in Gaza has been done. Hamas did all its best to do genocide in Israel, but was stopped. _Dgw|Talk 03:11, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
• :None of this is relevant to this discussion. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 03:32, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
• :are you feeling alright ? Astropulse (talk) 03:36, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
• ::To Dgwl, the current wording of your response likely will get your vote discarded by an uninvolved closer.
• ::You need to either cite policy, or just say you agree with the interpretation of policy from someone else. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 03:43, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
• Strong support for speedy close. The About and Short Description sections defy the community consensus established on May 3rd, 2024, affirmed on July 3rd, 2024, affirmed again on August 22nd, 2024, affirmed a third time on September 7th, 2024, and affirmed a fourth time on December 6th, 2024. A sixth discussion was opened on December 6th, and immediately closed. It seems the About and SD sections were simply overlooked when the article was moved in May. It's a genocide. We have to call it a genocide. We cannot call it an "alleged genocide" or an "accusation of a genocide." The About and SD sections must be edited to conform to the community consensus. We should not have opened an RfC for this. Unfortunately, some editors have taken it as an invitation to resurrect that debate from the grave. All of the comments in opposition – from the appeals to wait for an ICJ ruling, to the arguments that the word "genocide" breaks NPOV – are just regurgitating talking points from those closed discussions (in most cases by the same editors). These comments should be discarded. We've been through this five times now, and we are well beyond the point where attempts to re-litigate have become disruptive. I encourage {{Ping|Astropulse}} to withdraw the RfC and just make the edits. I am fine with both the original proposal or any of JasonMacker's proposals for the SD. Combefere ★ Talk 04:16, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
• :A consensus about an article title is not a consensus about the content of the article, including the short description. An article title should be as concise as possible, and does not imply that it is an accepted truth. Your opinion that {{tq|It's a genocide}} is akin to saying that it should be so just because you believe it's so. There's a reason the short description was not changed when the article title was changed - because the short description is able to be longer than the title and is intended to further explain the article's subject. Furthermore, your suggestion to withdraw the RfC against significant opposition is an encouragement for someone else to make edits while a discussion in place, and is disruptive. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 04:20, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
• :@JasonMacker please read the rfc. this proposal is to change the sd and about to reflect its genocide. i'm not asking it to call it alleged genocide, but the opposite? id ask you to support the rfc. clearly you are against calling it alleged genocide Astropulse (talk) 04:23, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
• ::I've already made my stance clear in my own comment. But to reiterate: We don't need to use the word "genocide" in the short description. For one, it makes the short description recursive with respect to the article's title. As stated at WP:SDPURPOSE, the description is supposed to be a short descriptive annotation to the title. The article's title is already using the word genocide. The short description stating "mass killings" makes it clear what this article is exactly about. This article is about Israeli mass killings in Gaza, which have been characterized by experts and scholars as genocide. That's why I wrote the current short description. However, after reviewing other short descriptions for articles involving genocide, I've concluded that we should include a time frame by including the word "ongoing" in the short description. A few users using this place as a WP:SOAPBOX and talking about "alleged" anything should have their opinions discarded for not following Wikipedia policy. That's irrelevant. In any case, I'm going to be WP:BOLD and change the short description to Ongoing Israeli mass killings in Gaza. If anyone objects, feel free to discuss in the new section I'll be making below. JasonMacker (talk) 15:57, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
• :::Astropulse must have pinged you by mistake. Their reply was clearly meant for {{u|Combefere}}. M.Bitton (talk) 16:37, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
• ::::correct. lol Astropulse (talk) 16:46, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
• :::yes - i got your position. its a step forward in the right direction. im okay with your proposed short description. but about should still say - this is about Israel genocide in Gaza, because that's what the article is about. not mass killings. mass killing is how they achieve it. Astropulse (talk) 16:49, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
• ::::I again bring up the issue of recursion. The title of the article is already Gaza genocide. The question is "What is the article Gaza genocide about?" The answer should not be "The article Gaza genocide is about genocide" because it's recursive. It should be "The article Gaza genocide is about Israeli mass killings in Gaza." As WP:SDJARGON points out, we should "use simple, readily comprehensible terms that do not require pre-existing detailed knowledge of the subject" in a short description. "Genocide" is an academic term that is complicated. That's why we have an entire Wikipedia article on Genocide definitions. In contrast, "mass killings" is simpler, more readily understood words for the lay audience. And again, per the previous short description, the fact of the matter is that there have been mass killings in Gaza, with the death toll in the tens of thousands. This is undisputed, even by the small minority of experts that disagree with the "genocide" label. JasonMacker (talk) 17:33, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
• :::::I'm not sure that would be accurate considering that many of the claims of genocide have to do with forced relocation, stateless subjects and collective punishment in addition to the aforementioned mass killings. Simonm223 (talk) 19:06, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::not to mention starvation, destruction of hospitals, killing medical staffs, etc.. so its not about just mass killings. This is about genocide is gaza is most appropriate. not mass killings. Astropulse (talk) 19:10, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::Again, I point to WP:SDJARGON. The short description is supposed to be short. It's not meant to be a complete description. In fact, my initial proposal was to have the short description state "mass killings and destruction" in Gaza, but I decided to cut the "and destruction" to keep it short. I agree that there have been other issues relevant to the issue of genocide, but the main concern is the killing, which is why I think it's appropriate to specifically highlight the mass killing in the short description. Specifically in regards to the things you have mentioned: (1) starvation: that's literally killing, (2) destruction of hospitals: yeah, that's how some people are being killed, through the bombing of hospitals, (3) killing medical staffs: this is just killing. All events in history that scholars have labeled a "genocide" have involved mass killing. Hence, that's what should be mentioned in the short description. As for User:Simonm223's points, again, I agree that other events that don't involve direct killing are relevant to this article. However, the primary issue for genocide is the mass killing. In fact, the short description of the Genocide article is that genocide is "Intentional destruction of a people" so, killing. For that reason, that's what the short description should highlight. And yet again, I've pointed out how other articles on other genocides have similar short descriptions to what I've proposed. JasonMacker (talk) 21:00, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
• ::{{ping|Astropulse}} I understood your meaning. I support your suggested revisions. My point was that you should not have made an RfC, you should have just made the revisions. There are five recent discussions affirming the consensus to call this a genocide, not an "alleged genocide" or an "accusation of genocide." A sixth discussion was opened and immediately closed because we did not need to have a sixth discussion about this. I know that you're just trying to be cautious and establish a consensus before you make any controversial edits, but there is no need to re-open a discussion that has been closed six times. We do not need a seventh discussion. A consensus has already been established and your suggested revisions are supported by the consensus. That's your cue to be bold. Please do us all a favor – withdraw the RfC and go ahead with the edits that you suggested. Combefere ★ Talk 07:07, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
• :::You assume an order of events which is not the case. Astropulse was bold, the change reverted, and a RFC suggested based on the fact that that is how the current SD came about. So no, the SD will not be changed unless a new consensus is come to. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 10:15, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose per Sean.hoyland (WP:SDAVOID), but support alternate proposal by JasonMacker. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 20:07, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose, considering the flat contradiction with the guidance in WP:SDAVOID to "use universally accepted facts that will not be subject to rapid change, avoiding anything that could be understood as controversial, judgemental, or promotional." It's well-demonstrated that the charge of genocide is not universally-accepted among scholarly reliable sources.

:Part of the problem here is that "genocide" is a legal term that refers to a specific crime, best defined by the UN in the 1948 Genocide convention. Part of that definition requires that acts be committed "with the intent to destroy an ethnic, national, racial or religious group." The intent, as ever, remains the problem with this case. And the proof of intent, or lack thereof, is why there are still plenty of scholarly sources (see above) that contend that genocide has not happened.

:We don't have any policies tailored to how to deal with the nebulous and often-unenforced concept of international crimes. But we do have some policies and guidelines that deal with crime that we can look to. These don't apply exactly to the case of Israel, but in the absence of policies that do apply exactly, these provide a useful reference:

:*WP:BLPCRIME: {{tq|A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations, arrests and charges do not amount to a conviction... If different judicial proceedings result in seemingly contradictory outcomes that do not overrule each other,[f] include sufficient explanatory information.}} Simply labeling this "genocide" when we have conflicting scholarly (if no judicial) opinions is not sufficiently explanatory.

:*WP:CRIME: Reiterates that {{tq|a living person accused of a crime is presumed not guilty unless and until the contrary is decided by a court of law}}, and directs that {{tq|editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator when no conviction is yet secured.}}

:*MOS:CRIMINAL: {{tq|Labels such as "criminal", "convicted felon", "fraudster", and "convicted sex offender" are imprecise and could be construed as name-calling or a moral judgement. It is better to describe the specific crime itself. The description and its placement should not give undue weight to the crime.[d]}} Again, urging more description/explanation when crime is considered.

:At this juncture, applying the label of genocide in wiki-voice would be against the spirit of the cited policies, and seems to me a violation of WP:OR. Much better would be to use explanatory phrases like "a growing consensus of scholarly sources describe the situation as a genocide" or similar.

:Regarding arguments to other genocides, their definition and prosecution, and our articles on them - they are all older than this ongoing war, and thus tend to have collected more definitive judgements. That's simply the nature of genocide scholarship. There is WP:NODEADLINE for us to use such a label in this most recent case. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 15:52, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

::1. WP:SDAVOID and “universally accepted facts”

::You mentioned that the short description (SD) should stick to “universally accepted facts” and avoid controversial statements. While WP:SDAVOID does recommend caution with promotional or judgmental wording, it doesn’t forbid describing an event with strong RS (reliable source) support—even if some parties dispute it.

::Other genocide articles (e.g., Rwandan genocide) also have short descriptions containing “genocide.” Wikipedia’s stance is to follow the weight of reliable and significant coverage. No “universally accepted” label exists for any genocide at the time of its occurrence, but a sufficient preponderance of reputable sources can still justify the use of that term.

::2. Genocide as a legal term & requiring proof of intent

::You’re correct that genocide is a legally precise concept, tied to intent. But Wikipedia’s do not wait for a judicial verdict before reflecting what scholars, human rights organizations, and other reliable secondary sources are saying. For example, the articles on the Rohingya genocide or Bangladesh genocide use the term “genocide” despite no conclusive ICJ ruling. It is standard on Wikipedia to follow academic consensus and prominent, verifiable sources, rather than legal convictions alone.

::3. WP:BLPCRIME

::These policies primarily address naming specific individuals as criminals before a conviction or describing personal wrongdoing without reliable sources. Here, we’re describing alleged state actions supported by multiple scholarly and NGO statements. WP:BLP is designed to safeguard living individuals against unwarranted defamation; it doesn’t prohibit calling large-scale violence “genocide” if reliable sources support that characterization.

::4. Lack of “universal” academic consensus

::Wikipedia does not require unanimity before describing something as genocide—only substantial RS usage or academic consensus. Most large-scale atrocities that Wikipedia calls genocide—such as the Armenian Genocide—have critics or denialists. We weigh significant mainstream sources (genocide scholars, peer-reviewed articles, and recognized human rights organizations) in proportion to their prominence. The existence of a dissenting minority does not bar the term’s use, as long as the majority of high-quality sources justify it.

::5. “We can wait for the ICJ (or ICC)”

::While international courts are influential, Wikipedia’s policies don’t say we must wait for a formal legal verdict. If a sizable bloc of reputable genocide scholars and human rights organizations already applies the genocide label, it is accurate to reflect that in the article, possibly with due mention of disagreements.

::6. WP:NPOV or MOS:CRIMINAL concerns

::Labeling something “genocide,” based on robust sources, does not automatically violate WP:NPOV. NPOV requires representing all significant viewpoints in proportion to their coverage by reliable sources. If the “genocide” position is significantly represented by major academic, legal, and NGO voices, we can include it—even in the short description—provided the article itself explains that viewpoint and any notable opposition.

::7. Precedent on Wikipedia

::Plenty of Wiki articles covering atrocities or large‑scale killings do use “genocide” in the short description, even though not every observer or government agrees. Rwandan genocide is one example: at the time, certain governments downplayed or contested “genocide” language, but reliable sources recognized it as such. Astropulse (talk) 03:40, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

:::You've not meaningfully engaged with the actual text of WP:SDAVOID. Instead, you appear to be saying it doesn't apply in this case. Which, considering it's our only documentation on short descriptions, I have to say it does.

:::Wikipedia does wait for official rulings (reported by RS) before labeling somebody a criminal. For example, killings aren't called "murder" - and killers aren't called murderers - until there is a conviction in some court of law. (see WP:MURDER and WP:MURDEROF). PhotogenicScientist (talk) 15:02, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

:::As to BLPCRIME, special intent is a requirement of genocide. It is not a corporate crime where all that is needed is for the corporation to be shown to have broken the law. That does not automatically mean anyone is guilty of anything. For genocide it is not enough that lots of poeople be killed or expelled from their land or destroyed as a group. Special intent needs to be demonstrated which needs people to be named and evidence given of them wanting and inciting it. NadVolum (talk) 16:49, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

::::Exactly. Which is why there is so much disagreement in scholarly sources - nearly 39% of the sources on our compiled list don't make a definitive pronouncement on the matter. The 57% who do think that the evidence supplied is enough to demonstrate intent. But the fact that there is a sizable minority who don't, coupled with the fact that there is no formal ruling yet, means it would be irresponsible of us to label this war in wikivoice as a genocide. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 17:07, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::This is not consistent with the standards currently in place on Wikipedia. In Darfur, the International Commission of Inquiry on Darfur determined that it could not prove genocidal intent and therefore could not rule that genocide had occurred from an International Law perspective. Yet there is still a Darfur genocide page. This is the correct approach imo as it acknowledges that international law is extremely flawed and has basically failed to prevent genocide in the postwar era. Wikipedia is right to prioritize general scholarly opinion and public sentiment over IL proceedings. To the extent that there is more disagreement among scholars in the Gaza genocide than in others, this is 1. highly reliant on the strictest legal standard of genocide and therefore fails to engage with genocide as an act rather than a crime, and 2. due more to the fact that Israel is geopolitically well connected than any factual difference between Gaza and other genocides. Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 18:07, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::So let's use your example. At Darfur genocide, the short description is {{tq|2003–2005 violence against Darfuris in Sudan}}. So if anything, your comment shows that there is no standard that if the title of the article is "genocide" it must be called that every single time it's referred to. The title should be as concise as possible, which does not mean that we have to be misleading when referring to it in the short description. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 19:19, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Yes, I support User:JasonMacker's version which is similar to the one used on Darfur. Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 20:49, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::{{tq|In Darfur, the International Commission of Inquiry on Darfur determined that it could not prove genocidal intent}} Sure, in 2005. That report said that the government of Sudan likely had not committed genocide, citing lack of provable intent.

::::::Subsequently, the security council referred the matter to the ICC.[https://press.un.org/en/2005/sc8351.doc.htm]

::::::And subsequently to that, the ICC issued an indictment (and later an arrest warrant) against Sudanese president Omar al-Bashir for "five counts of crimes against humanity, two counts of war, and three counts of genocide."[https://archive.org/details/comingrevolution0000phar/page/268/mode/2up][https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/CaseInformationSheets/AlBashirEng.pdf] Contrast that to this war, where the ICC has issued warrants of arrest for Netanyahu and Gallant for "the war crime of starvation as a method of warfare; and the crimes against humanity of murder, persecution, and other inhumane acts"[https://news.un.org/en/story/2024/11/1157286], but not genocide. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 19:43, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Your comment implies that the difference in the ICC's handling of Darfur and Gaza is due to a difference in facts, but there is substantial evidence that this is not the case. Israel surveilled the ICC and intimidated its leaders for a decade, and now the US, the world's foremost hegemonic power, has sanctioned it. Both have attacked its legitimacy and jurisdiction repeatedly. This is a far cry from the security council referring Darfur to the ICC and letting them investigate unconstrained. And that's precisely why we shouldn't override scholarly opinion based on flawed and constrained international courts. Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 20:55, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Regardless of your personal feelings on the strength or validity of the court today or 20 years ago, the fact remains that it IS the most authoritative body on the topic of genocide. It's not the ONLY body to consider - as I've said above, I consider official proclamations from the UN to be in a similar league terms of weight. But we can't discard its handling of the matter today by saying "it's not the same body it used to be."

::::::::You offered the comparison to the genocide in Darfur. I feel the ICC's handling of that issue and this one are indeed comparable - if somewhat different. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 21:18, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

{{s|:::::::::This comes off as a confusing and, frankly, disjointed stance. Do you also believe Darfur genocide SD should be turned into an explainer on 'allegations' because ICC hasn't established intent? How about the Armenian genocide, where the ICJ never issued a retrospective ruling at all? Or the Rohingya genocide, which is subject to active ICJ litigation like Gaza but still referred to as a genocide? And the Bosnian genocide case, where the court never determined intent? It's incoherent to push for selective application of a non-existent standard as the baseline for genocide, especially when a consensus of scholarly reliable sources already have made their call. Eelipe (talk) 01:19, 28 February 2025 (UTC)}}blocked sock. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 15:17, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::Focusing too much on other wikipedia articles is wrongheaded, imo. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:OTHERCONTENT sum that up pretty well. We can and absolutely should compare the actual, real-world facts of similar cases for reference, though. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 20:08, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

::{{tqq|universally-accepted among scholarly reliable sources}} - as is the case for near all cases of genocides, including ones which are popularly or legally accepted as genocides. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 12:19, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

:::I don't see a lot of responsible scholarship waffling on the label of "genocide" for the Rohingya genocide. Or for the Holocaust. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:39, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

::::Which in fact is the case with Gaza as well, or are all the prominent scholars in the field who have actually published scholarship on this matter in fact not worthy of consideration in this case for some occultic reason? Or in the case of Gaza, are you including those who have written less rigorous comments in popular outlets in your analysis as having the same weight {{strikethrough|and}} as published scholarly journals? -- Cdjp1 (talk) 21:39, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::Additionally, I suppose I should highlight the move from {{tqq|universally-accepted}} to {{tqq|I don't see a lot}}. This different things are in fact different things. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 21:41, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::It'd be super cool if you could actually read my comment in its entirety before responding. You'd see our compilation of scholarly opinions in the Gaza genocide debate linked, in which ~39% of the entries either say "genocide is not happening" or only "genocide is possible/plausible/likely", versus the ~59% saying "genocide is happening." That's a far cry from universal acceptance of the label. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 22:03, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::Oh wow, does it? I wonder who collated the sources for that list? My comment stands as a factual description of the state of affairs, so I suggest you actually read through all of the pieces collated into that list before coming at me with it. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 22:46, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Verifiability, not "truth" and no original research. It doesn't matter what you think is a "factual description". It matters what the consensus of reliable sources says (or dances around saying, as is the case with about half of sources). -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 22:55, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Oh look, my statement is in fact in line with the list, as is verified. It's not what I think is the case, it is what is the case per the sources in that list. So, I suggest you stop casting aspersions of original research. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 23:06, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::The "list, as is verified", shows that there is still significant dissent within academic circles whether it is a genocide or not. You claimed the following: {{tq|Which in fact is the case with Gaza as well, or are all the prominent scholars in the field who have actually published scholarship on this matter in fact not worthy of consideration in this case for some occultic reason}}. The list shows that, even when you consider "all" the prominent scholars, there is significant dissent and disagreement, including weasel words to get out of calling it a genocide in many cases. Furthermore, it's actually you who is casting aspersions - {{tq|I wonder who collated the sources for that list}}. My comment, on the other hand, is based on your statement here that {{tq|My comment stands as a factual description of the state of affairs}} when you are ignoring the sources you don't like - cherry picking only sources that agree with you. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 23:11, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::{{tqq|Or in the case of Gaza, are you including those who have written less rigorous comments in popular outlets in your analysis as having the same weight and as published scholarly journals?}} may be pertinent as we were talking {{tqq|scholarship}}. And I shall repeat, I wonder who collated the sources for that list, as the rhetorical device it was, as I know who collected together most of those sources, but I can't comment as to the quality of the work for what should be an obvious reason. So it shall have to be up to other editors to determine the worth of that list. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 23:15, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::So you admit you don't think it's your responsibility to evaluate those sources since they disagree with your desired outcome? That seems to come very close to disruptive editing. If you think there are sources that should be on that list but aren't, the proper response is to work to add them to that list. Not to make some vague claim that the list doesn't matter because the overall list doesn't agree with what you think it should. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 23:20, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::There's a saying about making assumptions. You may want to do a modicum of digging on contributions. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 23:23, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::You can't identify any actual issue with the list other than you don't like the result since it includes sources you personally disagree with. That's not appropriate. Given your repeated aspersions here and attempts to just ignore sources you disagree with, I trust that the closer of this discussion will give your comments the weight they deserve - which is virtually none, since you're blatantly ignoring sources and casting aspersions on people you disagree with. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 23:36, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::I can only point you to my previous comment. And I hope my opinion to the RFC is given no weight, as I have not provided my opinion for what action should be taken. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 23:40, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::You've certainly shown your opinion, even if you didn't explicitly state it. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 23:45, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::Please, do tell me how I've shown I think Astropulse's suggested change is wrong and that the short description should stay as it currently is until we have a greater pool of reliable sources stating this is in fact a genocide, or alternatively a relevant court handing down a decision that this is a case of genocide in the legal sense. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 23:48, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose. Sean.hoyland's argument that this directly contravenes WP:SDAVOID is very convincing. 'Genocide' in Palestine right now is certainly not a universally accepted fact, and it certainly does not avoid anything that could be understood as controversial or judgemental. Wikipedia should not deign to pass judgement, but reflect. Domeditrix (talk) 10:45, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose. The proposed change would render a contentious statement in wikivoice, whereas the article itself attributes the claim and uses language like "alleged". Short descriptions should not be used to smuggle a POV into an article where the article does not grant that POV a monopoly on viewpoints. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 08:18, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
• Strong oppose I see the same sort of reasoning that informed the page move is happening here again. This is not an article about a genocide, it is an article about a characterization and disputes surrounding it. The proposed SD would be inaccurate. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 23:32, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose per Sean.hoyland. And what exactly is the urgency? This is a topic where greater consensus will form over time. WP is not a newspaper. The present article does a reasonable job reflecting the present state of understanding. The proposed edits steer towards certainty similar to that we have for the shape of the earth. Johnadams11 (talk) 01:36, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
• Support, per Vice regent. JacktheBrown (talk) 03:53, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
• Strong oppose an article by The Guardian, a neutral RS, describes a deeply divided scholarly community, not a community that has a consensus that Israel’s actions constitute a genocide. Because there is no such consensus, about should have accusations of geocentric and so should the short description. Closetside (talk) 05:35, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
• :Which article are you referring to? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 06:06, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::{{url|https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/dec/20/genocide-definition-mass-violence-scholars-gaza}} Closetside (talk) 15:18, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 02:36, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
• Support both the original and the alternate per original nomination and per Vice regent – I've been trying to follow this discussion for a while and perhaps ironically it was the [https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/dec/20/genocide-definition-mass-violence-scholars-gaza Guardian article linked above] that clinched it for me - while many scholars discuss the existence of a controversy, many if not all of the experts interviewed say that even if they didn't originally, they've come to see this as a genocide. It is time for this page to follow suit. Smallangryplanet (talk) 14:08, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
• :{{tq|many if not all of the experts interviewed say that even if they didn't originally, they've come to see this as a genocide}} is an incorrect summation of the linked article. I see a grand total of one scholar mentioned in the article whose opinion has thus coalesced:
• :* Omer Bartov, an Israeli American professor of Holocaust and genocide studies at Brown University: "...early in the war urging the world “to stop Israel from letting its actions become a genocide” and has since argued that the threshold of genocide has been met"
• :Whereas, the article also includes tibits such as:
• :* Norman Goda, a professor of Holocaust studies at the University of Florida: "...has rejected accusations Israel is committing genocide..."
• :* Jeffrey Herf, a retired historian of the Holocaust at the University of Maryland: "...Herf fundamentally rejects. Herf maintains that it is Hamas that is genocidal and that the claims Israel is committing genocide ignore what he says is a history of “Islamist and Arab collaboration” with Nazis."
• :Moreover, the Guardian writer themselves state: "Since 7 October, the chorus of voices calling Israel’s actions “genocide” has grown alongside the death toll and destruction in Gaza. In January, the international court of justice found a “credible risk” of genocide. A US lawsuit accusing the Biden administration of complicity in genocide was dismissed earlier this year, but the judge in the case stressed that claims of genocide were “plausible”... Still, there is no clear consensus." PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:23, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::There's also {{tq|Schabas noted that he had been “cautious” about calling Israel’s actions in Gaza a genocide early on, but that he now thinks there is a “strong case” for it.}} And the line about no clear consensus is not about the academics, which you can see from the next line in the article: {{tq|But as courts and rights groups tackle the question head on, only some scholars of genocide have done so publicly, with many keeping to the sidelines.}} Anyway for me, the people who've changed their minds to the affirmative helped me decide how to vote here. Smallangryplanet (talk) 14:48, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::So, you base your vote wholly on the minds of two changed scholars, apparently ignoring two other scholars from the same article whose minds haven't changed, and apparently ignoring the ~41% of scholars on our compiled list who have expressed opposition to the categorization? PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:56, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::::No, I said {{tq|Anyway for me, the people who've changed their minds to the affirmative helped me decide how to vote here.}}, and in my original vote: {{tq| Support both the original and the alternate per original nomination and per Vice regent}}. Plus the abundance of evidence in the Wikipedia article itself and elsewhere. I just thought it was worth mentioning the Guardian article, because I think it's a good example of how opinions are shifting. Smallangryplanet (talk) 15:02, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::::Your view selectively considering the WP:RS you personally wish to give weight to is noted. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 15:12, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::I have considered the other views on the matter and found the 59% who support this categorisation more convincing. Your insistence on casting aspersions is not relevant to this RfC and will certainly not change my mind. Smallangryplanet (talk) 19:25, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::Note that both dissenting scholars you cite here are experts of the Holocaust, not of genocides in general nor the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 15:41, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::With the implicit assertion that scholars of the Holocaust are not sufficiently educated on, and therefore reliable sources for, opinions on genocide? PhotogenicScientist (talk) 15:46, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::::If the topic is the Gaza genocide why are we going by the opinions of scholars/experts of the Holocaust?
• ::::If the topic is x, the best sources will be experts of x.
• ::::So if we're looking at whether or not what's happening in Gaza is genocide, we should be relying on experts who specialise in what's happening in Gaza, and experts who specialize in genocide generally. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 16:13, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::::Ideally, with all things being equal, scholars with a focus on genocide generally would be more reliable sources than scholars with a focus on the Holocaust. But Holocaust scholars are definitely still reliable sources for the topic of genocide, considering the Holocaust was, well, a genocide. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 17:34, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::::Considering you have previously indicated that opinions published in the likes of Vox and CBC are to be considered the same weight as articles published in peer-reviewed academic journals, I am not hopeful for assessing the minutiae of the specialisms of different scholars and experts. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 21:54, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::::{{tq|Beyond that, those individuals who are recognised as prominent individuals (who we can consider in this category we can hash out, but the example I have in mind is Omer Bartov, who I'd like to think we can all agree is someone worthy of mention) who publish their opinions etc. in non-academic reliable sources should be included due to their requisite expertise, even if not published in what I consider the ideal publications.}} This you? PhotogenicScientist (talk) 13:49, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::This is getting off topic, @PhotogenicScientist, @Cdjp1. You can have such conversations on your talk pages. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 14:00, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::The contexts for the discussions is different. I have also continually advocated for the inclusion of the general German cohort of opinions in the main article when others have argued against their inclusion. I just understand the difference between popular media like news sites and peer reviewed academic journals. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 14:14, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::{{tq|The contexts for the discussions is different.}} Yet this isn't a consideration you afforded me in bringing up my past statements? PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:17, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose. The expert opinions shown at Template:Expert opinions in the Gaza genocide debate demonstrate that there is not expert consensus on whether or not there has been a genocide in Gaza. Thus any such statements in wikivoice must be balanced, including About and Short description. Also:

:* Any claim that {{tq|The article title was changed from "alleged" to "Gaza genocide" a few months ago, reflecting a consensus among editors and reliable sources}} is false, as shown by some of the statements made back then to persuade those who did not believe there had been a genocide, such as {{tq|[t]he subject matter is accusations}} and {{tq|titles can simply denote topics, concepts, and theories without judging their factual reality}}. Other factors such as the titles of other articles on similar subjects were taken into account.

:* Statements mentioning genocide are too often blindly accepted as conclusions of genocide.

::* For example: this article's first referenced source, on "Israel's warfare methods" states that such actions are "consistent with genocide", but doesn't clarify that almost *any* urban warfare would match that description. Both war with genocide and war without genocide involve civilian death, just as hot glass looks exactly like cold glass. Without addressing the question of genocidal intent, "consistent with genocide" doesn't mean much—you have no way to discern the temperature of the glass.

::* Second example: after the January 2024 ICJ preliminary ruling, many laypeople and experts thought there had been a determination of "plausible genocide", when the ruling said no such thing.

::* Third example: many have jumped to conclusions about Israeli army policy based on heated words spoken by Israeli officials that hold no sway over the country's armed forces.

:* Summary: We should not rush to a presumption of consensus when: (a) there clearly is none—neither among Wikipedia editors, nor among experts, and (b) discourse about the Gaza War is rife with logical blunders both inside and outside Wikipedia, creating an unfortunate WP:BIAS toward genocide that we should temper with patient analysis.

:Dotyoyo (talk) 12:47, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 02:36, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
• :WP:NOTAVOTE. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 02:42, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
• :@Quaerens-veritatem, please give a rationale for your vote. Thanks, ꧁Zanahary꧂ 03:00, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::Thanks {{u|Zanahary}}. There is no consensus by experts on the Gaza genocide question. In fact, many legal and academic scholars oppose Israel being termed genocidal. We must follow Rule 9. Write neutrally and with due weight. Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 03:17, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
• :@Quaerens-veritatem, you've !voted twice in this subsection. TarnishedPath^talk 03:31, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
• Support per @Vice regent's well written argument 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 11:13, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
• STRONG OPPOSE Amnesty International is the _only_ notable group to say Israel is committing the crime of genocide. Only a single UN official Francesca Albanese has said there is "reasonable grounds to believe" that Israel is committing genocide which is short of definitely saying it's true. Genocide under International Law requires both _acts_ and _intent_. Both Human Rights Watch and a UN special group have state that Israel is engaged in acts which correspond with genocide, but have NOT declared there is proof that there is the intent which is also required for the crime of genocide.

: Even the current text in the lead says that intent is required and these groups don't think that it necessarily exists -- "... statements by senior Israeli officials that may indicate an "intent to destroy" ... a necessary condition for the legal threshold of genocide "" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bob drobbs (talk • contribs) 23:55, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

• Strong oppose as it must have "alleged" in it, as that is all this is, allegations. ~ Mathmo ^Talk 02:42, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

:Pinging users who have previously discussed the short description on this talk page:

:{{strikethrough|Daran755, Pyramids09, IOHANNVSVERVS, JasonMacker, Florian Blaschke, BilledMammal, Hemiauchenia, FortunateSons, Kashmiri, Iskandar323, Selfstudier, Vice_regent, Gsgdd, WikiFouf, IntrepidContributor, Me Da Wikipedian, nableezy, Levivich, PhotogenicScientist, M.Bitton, Bluethricecreamman, TarnishedPath, Nishidani, AndreJustAndre, KetchupSalt, SPECIFICO, BluePenguin18, Chaotic Enby, Vuerqex, Iazyges, David_A, Alaexis, Eladkarmel, Sean.hoyland, FunLater, Skitash, ABHammad, Ïvana, Animal lover 666, Shushugah, MarkiPoli, Galamore, My very best wishes, Buidhe, AusLondonder, Rockstone35, XDanielx, blindlynx, Some1, Springee, Raskolnikov.Rev, PBZE, Berchanhimez, Entropyandvodka, Wasianpower, Personisinsterest}}. I think that's everyone. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 18:21, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

::{{replyto|Cdjp1}} You have attempted to notify more than fifty people. I suspect that it failed, and no notifications were sent. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:32, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

:::Oh, I was unaware of a limit. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 20:00, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

::::Repinging (- User banned at varying levels):

::::{{ping|Daran755}}, {{ping|Pyramids09}}, {{ping|IOHANNVSVERVS}}, {{ping|JasonMacker}}, {{ping|Florian Blaschke}}, {{ping|Hemiauchenia}}, {{ping|FortunateSons}}, {{ping|Vice_regent}}, {{ping|Gsgdd}}, {{ping|WikiFouf}}. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 20:07, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::Part 2:

:::::{{ping|IntrepidContributor}}, {{ping|Me Da Wikipedian}}, {{ping|PhotogenicScientist}}, {{ping|M.Bitton}}{{ping|Bluethricecreamman}}, {{ping|TarnishedPath}}, {{ping|KetchupSalt}}, {{ping|SPECIFICO}}, {{ping|BluePenguin18}}. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 20:08, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::Part 3:

:::::{{ping|Chaotic Enby}}, {{ping|Vuerqex}}, {{ping|Iazyges}}, {{ping|David_A}}, {{ping|Alaexis}}, {{ping|Eladkarmel}}, {{ping|Sean.hoyland}}, {{ping|FunLater}}, {{ping|Skitash}}, {{ping|Animal lover 666}}, {{ping|Shushugah}}. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 20:08, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::Part 4:

:::::{{ping|MarkiPoli}}, {{ping|Galamore}}, {{ping|My very best wishes}}, {{ping|Buidhe}}, {{ping|AusLondonder}}, {{ping|Rockstone35}}, {{ping|XDanielx}}, {{ping|blindlynx}}. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 20:09, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::Part 5:

:::::{{ping|Some1}}, {{ping|Springee}}, {{ping|Raskolnikov.Rev}}, {{ping|PBZE}}, {{ping|Berchanhimez}}, {{ping|Entropyandvodka}}, {{ping|Wasianpower}}, {{ping|Personisinsterest}}. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 20:09, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

::also see WP:PIA5 but many of these longtime editors got tbanned from arbpia.

::maybe post to wikiproject palestine, israel etc. and post to npovn? User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 19:45, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

:::Notification posted to the project talk pages of WP Israel, WP Palestine, WP Israel Palestine Collaboration, WP Human Rights, and to the NPOV Noticeboard. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 20:15, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

:::omg.iv seen some of these editors edits. wonder why they were not banned long time ago. Astropulse (talk) 03:38, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

::::Some of them might think that of you raising this RfC. NadVolum (talk) 17:23, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

For comparison, here is a sample of short descriptions for other genocides:

• Armenian genocide: "1915–1917 mass murder in the Ottoman Empire"
• Rohingya genocide: "Ongoing ethnic cleansing in Myanmar"
• Darfur genocide: "2003–2005 violence against Darfuris in Sudan"
• Rwanda genocide: "1994 genocide of Tutsis in Rwanda"

I would be okay with changing the short description to be in line with these.--JasonMacker (talk) 18:06, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

• While I personally agree with the change proposed I also agree that the RfC was not neutrally framed. I would suggest either a procedural close with a more neutrally phrased RfC opened to supplant it or, if doing so has consent from those who have already !voted, a revision to the question to give it a more neutral framing. Simonm223 (talk) 13:39, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
• :many editors has participated - to be respectful of everyone's time - i recommend against a procedural close and opening another rfc. Astropulse (talk) 04:28, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
• ::I think that this RFC has had too many !votes for a procedural close. TarnishedPath^talk 07:26, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
• Use something like "Claimed [or alleged, or whatever] ongoing genocide by Israel against Palestinians in Gaza", to be accurate about the scope, and more informative in line with the immediately-above examples, and to encapsulate that views on the matter are divided.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:04, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
• :The problem with this kind of proposal is that (1) it's too long, (2) it's recursive (using the word "genocide" when the article name already uses the word), and (3) using the words "claimed" or "alleged" would contradict the consensus of scholars and experts (AKA reliable sources) on this issue. JasonMacker (talk) 16:42, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
• These articles are about genocides. This article is about the designation of an event as such. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:29, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
• :+1. And the designation is controversial. Closetside (talk) 17:45, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

If anyone has concerns, please reply here. JasonMacker (talk) 15:59, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

:This SD makes it seem like this article is describing the actions of Israel in Gaza as genocide, contrary to the article's subject being allegations. Pyramids09 (talk) 22:16, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

::This article's subject is not purely about allegations, as has been determined in past RfCs. Palestinian genocide accusation is about allegations, whereas this is about an occurrence. No RSs deny that Israel has orchestrated mass killings in Gaza over the course of the Gaza war—it doesn't get more NPOV than this. Eelipe (talk) 02:44, 25 February 2025 (UTC) blocked sock FortunateSons (talk) 10:33, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

::In case you missed it, my argument in the previous section was to avoid the term "genocide" in the short description because it's jargon. The only thing stated in the short description is that the topic "Gaza genocide" refers to Israeli mass killings in Gaza. The fact that Israel has engaged in mass killings in Gaza is not an "allegation" but a statement of fact, so I don't understand your objection. JasonMacker (talk) 16:06, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

:::I'd want something like this, but less vague, where the subject and perpetrator of the action ae clearer, such as "Ongoing Israeli mass killings of Gazans" or "Mass killings of Gazans by Israeli security forces". entropyandvodka | talk 17:53, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

:That's about as close to NPOV as "Israel's defensive war in response to the October 7 attacks". Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 22:56, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

::or rather "Israel's defensive war in response to the October 7 Hamas-led genocidal attacks on Israel". Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 11:44, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

::Can you explain what exactly violates NPOV in the short description of "Ongoing Israeli mass killings in Gaza"? Are you disputing the factual accuracy of Israel engaging in mass killings? Are you disputing that "Gaza genocide" refers to Israeli mass killings? "Israel's defensive war", is not a WP:SHORT description of the content of this article, whose WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is Israeli mass killings in Gaza. There is a separate Gaza war article that discusses the war broadly. This article is discussing a specific aspect of the war, namely, the mass killings (destruction of property, forced displacement, etc.) and other war crimes that scholars have collectively identified as meeting the criteria for "genocide". JasonMacker (talk) 16:13, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

:::Removing the 'mass killings' from their context implies that Israel attacks innocent civilians because of racist, genocidal intentions. This is false. Military assets have been deliberately and cynically embedded by Hamas and other terrorist organizations within the Gazan civilian population. Israel's borders were overrun in a brutal attack by Hamas's army, which consisted of numerous battalions, along with other attackers. To restore its security, Israel targeted those battalions. Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 22:28, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

::::While it may be true that Hamas embedded military assets within civilian areas, international law requires all parties to distinguish between military targets and civilians. The repeated, significant civilian casualties and the substantial destruction of civilian infrastructure in Gaza reported by numerous reliable sources suggest actions beyond mere military operations.

::::It’s also essential to address that self-defense does not justify all means of warfare. Even in self-defense, actions must adhere to the principles of proportionality and necessity. The characterization of these incidents as “mass killings” arises from the scale and pattern of the casualties and destruction, which numerous international observers and human rights organizations have reported. Thus, describing these as “ongoing Israeli mass killings in Gaza” aligns with the documented impacts of the military actions taken, without presupposing intent of genocide, but recognizing the severe consequences of the military strategy employed.

::::And your proposed SD, No way that is happening. I'm not even going to bother explaining why. Astropulse (talk) 03:27, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

::::I think you should read this article and the sources provided within the article. The whole point of this article is that a large number of scholars are in fact attributing Israel's attacks to racist, genocidal intentions. You're saying "this is false" as though the position is just some trivial factual inaccuracy, when in fact a huge number of academic scholars and human rights organizations are accusing Israel of racist, genocidal intent. Look at this huge list: Template:Expert_opinions_in_the_Gaza_genocide_debate. Simply dismissing all of that by saying oh actually, "this is false" is silly. But also, more importantly, your personal assessment isn't even relevant here, because Wikipedia does not rely on original research. JasonMacker (talk) 15:37, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::Strong oppose per the Guardian article I cited above. Support allegations or accusations. For reference {{url|www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/dec/20/genocide-definition-mass-violence-scholars-gaza}}. Closetside (talk) 23:38, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::How is this article relevant to the proposal to change the short description to "Ongoing Israeli mass killings in Gaza"? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 01:16, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::The short description implies a genocide consensus, when there isn't one. Closetside (talk) 01:18, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Right, which is why you cited it in your opposition to the short description being "Israel’s genocide in Gaza during the Gaza War".

::::::::But you haven't explained how this article supports your strong opposition to the short description being "Ongoing Israeli mass killings in Gaza". IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 03:12, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::This article is about the genocide accusation, not the actual Palestinian casualties. Hence why I believe allegations or accusations of genocide is more accurate. Closetside (talk) 04:18, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::Strong oppose. Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 02:36, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is about the short description. It should not be changed pending the outcome of that discussion, and this duplicate discussion should not run in parallel to that one. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 03:02, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

• If we could change the short description to "Ongoing Israeli mass killings and forced relocations of Gazans" then it would satisfy my concern that "genocide" is not simply mass-killing. Simonm223 (talk) 12:21, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
• :The main concern with this is WP:SDLENGTH which states that short descriptions should be short. Your proposed short description is 62 characters, which would place it in the top 3% of short descriptions in terms of length. Consider "Ongoing Israeli mass killings, destruction, and displacement in Gaza", which would be 68 characters, but also mention destruction and displacement in addition to the mass killings. But again, that would be a long short description, which is what we're trying to avoid. Remember, there is also a technical issue where if a short description is longer than 40 characters, it may be truncated on mobile apps. Borrowing from the Genocide article, whose short description is "Intentional destruction of a people", we could formulate something similar by saying "Ongoing intentional destruction of Gazans" which would be 41 characters. For comparison, "Ongoing Israeli mass killings in Gaza" (what I changed it to) is 37 characters, which fits with the mobile character length restrictions. And, as is made very clear in this article, the "genocide" description is not solely about mass killings, but about intention and other things which, taken in sum, leads to the scholarly conclusion of genocide. Notice that intention, which is an important part of the legal definition of genocide, is missing in your example. But, that's okay, because the point of a short description is not to provide a definition (Wikipedia:SDNOTDEF), but rather to be an annotation to the article's title. If someone can come up with a really good short description that is short AND covers more than just mass killing, please do! JasonMacker (talk) 16:38, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
• ::Rwandan genocide SD is 1994 genocide of Tutsis in Rwanda
• ::So i still think the best option is Israel’s genocide in Gaza (2023–present)
• ::I cannot get behind your recursive definition argument. Its not a problem, really. But if this rfc fails - your proposal is the best we got and id support it Astropulse (talk) 03:39, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
• :::I second @Astropulse that Israel’s genocide in Gaza (2023–present) is the most fitting, clear option of all, although I still back the mass killings proposal over the previous SD. 'Genocide' is not jargon, its a fairly widely understood term (which, per past RfCs, is applicable here), and therefore complies with WP:SDJARGON. This SD proposal fits every WP:SDESC policy guideline, and as previously mentioned, it corresponds with precedent of other articles having similar SDs as well. Eelipe (talk) 03:48, 26 February 2025 (UTC) blocked sock FortunateSons (talk) 10:33, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::::Even though I don't like the idea of being recursive here, I'm not fundamentally opposed to it. So, I'd support Israel’s genocide in Gaza (2023–present) as an alternative, and I'd prefer it over "Israel’s genocide in Gaza during the Gaza War." JasonMacker (talk) 15:44, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

:As others have pointed out, the RFC had procedural issues and wasn't necessary. Nevertheless, I still participated in that discussion, and immediately received a bunch of replies saying that they supported my proposal, so I did a WP:BOLD and changed it, asking people to respond here, since that discussion above wasn't going anywhere. JasonMacker (talk) 16:45, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

::The RfC has not been closed, and just because you think there’s procedural issues with it does not justify splintering discussion out into a new section. Editors should not have to look or comment in a different section to ensure they’re “heard” while an RfC on the same topic is ongoing that has not been closed yet. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 17:01, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

:::I agree with you that it didn't need to be an entirely different section. I'll change it into a subheading to make it clear that this is part of the rfc discussion. Thank you for raising this point. JasonMacker (talk) 17:20, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

{{reftalk}}

{{closed rfc bottom}}

The lead makes a claim saying that a number of groups have said that "Israel has committed genocide". But in the case of HRW and the UN I don't believe that's true.

Im the first paragraph of the lead there's the discussion of the UN's position, and it has a critically important word "may":

"...the United Nations Special Rapporteur, have cited statements by senior Israeli officials that MAY indicate an "intent to destroy" Gaza's population in whole or in part, a necessary condition for the legal threshold of genocide to be met"

Similarly, the report from HRW says that Israel's action "may" indicate such intent:

" The crime of genocide requires acts of genocide to be committed with genocidal intent. The ICJ has said that to infer such intent from a pattern of conduct by the state, it needs to be “the only reasonable inference to be drawn” from the acts in question.[130] The pattern of conduct set out in this report together with statements suggesting some Israeli officials wished to destroy the Palestinians in Gaza MAY indicate such intent."[https://web.archive.org/web/20250209092600/https://www.hrw.org/report/2024/12/19/extermination-and-acts-genocide/israel-deliberately-depriving-palestinians-gaza]

"May be true" is not synonymous with fact. If neither the UN or HRW have said factually that Israel has committed genocide, then this needs to be cleaned up. I know that Amnesty has, but I think they may be alone in that among international NGOs. Bob drobbs (talk) 04:10, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

:To add to this, the AP article which is referenced later in this article clearly spell out HRW's position:

:"The rights group said that the “pattern of conduct” outlined in its report and statements from Israeli officials “may indicate” genocidal intent, but it did not come down definitively on one side. Under international law, proving intent is key in concluding whether the crime of genocide has been committed."[https://web.archive.org/web/20241220100513/https://apnews.com/article/israel-palestinians-hamas-gaza-genocide-human-rights-watch-0cae5c250415975ebbfcfdab6808abc4] Bob drobbs (talk) 04:59, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

:https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/12/19/israels-crime-extermination-acts-genocide-gaza

:[https://www.hrw.org/middle-east/north-africa/israel/palestine Israeli] authorities have intentionally deprived Palestinian civilians in Gaza of adequate access to water since October 2023, most likely resulting in thousands of deaths and thus committing the crime against humanity of extermination and acts of genocide, Human Rights Watch said in a report released today. Cinaroot (talk) 05:09, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

::"Acts of genocide" includes everything including "murder". It is different from the crime of genocide. If you look at both the UN and HRW, you'll see that both of them clearly say that INTENT is required to be guilty of genocide.

::And the same report HRW report you are quoting says this:

::The crime of genocide in international law involves the specific intent ... The pattern of conduct ... may indicate such intent Bob drobbs (talk) 05:21, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

:::https://news.un.org/en/story/2024/03/1147976 in here it says There are reasonable grounds to believe that the threshold indicating the commission of the crime of genocide…has been met.

:::But i think you may be right about HWR - uses acts of genocide. Cinaroot (talk) 05:34, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

::::@Cinaroot Based on your comment reverting my "citation neededs" I went back and searched the chat archive for prior consensus.

::::Look at [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gaza_genocide/Archive_7 Archive 7] The discussion within "Remove ICC from article?" seems exactly in line with what I'm saying. Amnesty is the first and only major NGO to accuse Israel of genocide. HRW (plus the UN) have been much more measured and say that there have been genocidal acts (like starvation), but not necessarily the intent which is required for the crime of genocide. Bob drobbs (talk) 05:44, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::Yes - Amnesty and many rights expects have said Israel has committed crime of genocide. HRW and UN have taken more measured approach. Lets wait for other's opinions. Cinaroot (talk) 05:50, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2024/11/un-special-committee-finds-israels-warfare-methods-gaza-consistent-genocide

:::::here title says "UN Special Committee finds Israel’s warfare methods in Gaza consistent with genocide" - however actual report - warfare in Gaza is consistent with the characteristics of genocide.

:::::It may be difficult to distinguish all terminologies in lede. So that may be the reason - it simply says Israel has committed genocide ( so the word genocide here can be interpreted as acts of genocide as well as crimes of genocide ) Cinaroot (talk) 05:57, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::If we're going to make the claim of "many rights experts has said is has commited the crime of genocide", then can we be specific about who they are and add those citations to the lead along with the claim?

::::::As for a "reasonable grounds to believe", this is a step below "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" or even "preponderance of evidence". "Reasonable grounds to believe" is synonymous with "may". It does not merit a claim that a UN official has said Israel is guilty of genocide.

::::::And for terminology it is indeed confusing, but here's my understanding. The definition of genocide consists of two parts:

::::::* ACTS: "including killing, causing harm, preventing births, and forcibly transferring children"

::::::* INTENT: "intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group"

::::::A group can engaged in acts and methods which are consistent with genocide like "killing" and that's what the UN and HRW are speaking about when they say things like this "warfare methods in Gaza consistent with genocide" or "genocidal acts".

::::::But the crime of genocide does not exist unless both of these elements are met: Actions + Intent. And neither the UN nor HRW has said Israel is guilty of the crime of genocide. Bob drobbs (talk) 06:12, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::From that same HRW article:

:::::::>Israeli authorities are responsible for the crime against humanity of extermination and for acts of genocide. The pattern of conduct, coupled with statements suggesting that some Israeli officials wished to destroy Palestinians in Gaza, may amount to the crime of genocide.

:::::::>"The crime of genocide requires committing acts of genocide with genocidal intent. The ICJ has said that to infer such intent from a pattern of conduct by the state, it needs to be “the only reasonable inference to be drawn” from the acts in question. Human Rights Watch’s findings, and statements from Israeli officials suggesting that they wished to destroy the Palestinians in Gaza, may indicate such intent.

:::::::>Human Rights Watch also found that some statements from senior Israeli officials calling for cutting water, fuel, and aid, in tandem with their actions, have amounted to direct and public incitement to genocide."

:::::::So taken in sum, HRW is saying that Israel is committing acts of genocide, while also stating that Israeli officials have made statements that may indicate genocidal intent. So yes, it is appropriate to elucidate on this nuance in the introductory sentence.

:::::::However, the UN report does call Israel's actions genocide: "Israel has committed three acts of genocide with the requisite intent" and "the genocide in Gaza..."

:::::::I'll rewrite the sentence to make it clear that Human Rights Watch is specifically referring to "acts of genocide."--JasonMacker (talk) 15:44, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gaza_genocide&diff=1283614612&oldid=1283583506 here's my edit]. Basically, I added "or acts of genocide" to the main text to be inclusive of HRW, and also added a footnote that offers the Genocide Convention's definition of genocide, listing out the five acts of genocide. Let me know if you have any concerns. JasonMacker (talk) 16:10, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::I think that's much better than it was. However, some editors seem confused by the complex legal nuances, so I'm sure many readers will be confused too.

::::::::: I added a brief explanation of the law at the top of the article.

:::::::::: Under International Law, the crime of genocide requires both genocidal acts and genocidal intent

:::::::::I think this ties in very neatly with the rest of lead which discusses both acts and intent, and the body of the article which already has sections for "genocidal acts" and "genocidal intent". Bob drobbs (talk) 17:19, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Not be argumentative @JasonMacker, but the footnote you've added does not actually fix the problem that Bob drobbs raised. It provides a general definition of the term "genocide", but it does not explain what the difference between "genocide" and "acts of genocide" is. If anything it is now more confusing to the average reader who does not understand the legal nuances involved, as it states that committing a genocidal act is not the same as committing genocide without explaining why this is. TRCRF22 (talk) 17:50, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::Jason reverted the change I mentioned above. I think we all agree that this issue is complex and confusing. And I think our goals should be accuracy and making things clear for the readers, right?

::::::::::Even if the issues TRCRF22 raised are solved, I'm not sure what any advantage there is at all to hiding an explanation critical for understanding in a footnote where a reader is less likely to see it vs putting a concise explanation at the start.

::::::::::And again, the language I chose ties directly into the body which already has separate sections for "genocidal acts" and "genocidal intent". Bob drobbs (talk) 18:03, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::The footnote links to Genocide_Convention#Definition_of_genocide for further details. At some point, there needs to be a cutoff regarding the amount of explanation and detail. Yes, the average reader doesn't understand the nuances. That's fine. We're talking about the introductory paragraph of the article that is supposed to summarize the content of the article. So what you're asking for is to basically reproduce the article itself in the summary in order to provide enough details. That's just not going to work. JasonMacker (talk) 18:04, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::The problem with your edit was not so much its content, but rather its placement as the first sentence of the article. See MOS:FIRST, which explains that "The first sentence should introduce the topic, and tell the nonspecialist reader what or who the subject is, and often when or where. It should be in plain English." Based on this, discussing the precise definition of genocide as opposed to acts of genocide is inappropriate for the first sentence of this article, which is about the Gaza genocide. JasonMacker (talk) 18:07, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::At some point things have to get cut off. But the article has a section on "genocidial intent", a section on "genocidal acts" and a sub-section on "genocide definition". It absolutely seems WP:DUE to include in brief sentence in this lead which ties these three existing sections together.

::::::::::::If with just 14 words we can help many readers gain a better understanding of the topic, then that seems like a huge plus.

::::::::::::I think you make a valid point with MOS:FIRST, but the counter-argument is that the lead immediate starts talking about "genocidal acts" and genocidal intent without first clarifying what those things mean.

::::::::::::I'd be willing to try to work on a compromise which accomplishes two things:

::::::::::::1) Begins the article with a description of this topic.

::::::::::::2) Clearly and briefly shares the legal definition of genocide which requires both genocidal acts and genocidal intent before these terms are used.

::::::::::::And that compromise might be starting with something similar to the short definition of the article ("This article is about ongoing Israeli mass killings in Gaza"), then the legal definition of genocide, then various group's thoughts on the topic... Bob drobbs (talk) 18:24, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::I've reworded the first two sentences to avoid attributing "genocide" to HRW. Instead, I put them in the second sentence, where HRW does say that the speech of Israeli leaders may indicate genocidal intent. As for your suggestions, here's what the first two sentences now say (references omitted):

:::::::::::*According to a United Nations special committee, Amnesty International, and many other experts and rights organisations,[34] Israel has committed genocide[f] against the Palestinian people during its ongoing invasion and bombing of the Gaza Strip as part of the Gaza war.[36][37][38] Various observers, including the UN Special Committee to investigate Israeli practices, the United Nations Special Rapporteur,[39] and Human Rights Watch have cited statements by senior Israeli officials that may indicate an "intent to destroy" Gaza's population in whole or in part, a necessary condition for the legal threshold of genocide to be met.[40][41][42]

:::::::::::So, it does have that clause at the end of the second sentence stating that intent is a necessary part of the crime of genocide. However, it doesn't use the phrase "genocidal acts." I added the footnote for the legal definition of genocide. But as I said, your way of interrogating the first paragraph of this article seems arbitrary. After all, the first paragraph also doesn't describe what the "United Nations" is, what "Israel" is, what the "Palestinian people" are, or what "Gaza" is. My point is that leaving those things unexplained in the introductory paragraph is fine because we are providing wikilinks to those words/phrases that detail them. "Genocide" is also treated the same way. JasonMacker (talk) 18:44, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::I think this is okay. Looking at other genocide articles - we do not need to distinguish it as genocide acts or crime of genocide. the word genocide refers to both genocide acts and crime of genocide. people often say “genocide” when referring to specific actions that are genocidal, even if there hasn’t been a legal ruling.

::::::::::::@Bob drobbs if you are not happy with it - can you propose the change? and we can see if it can be incorporated. A rfc might be needed - but i prefer to avoid it we can reach consensus. Cinaroot (talk) 23:58, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::@Cinaroot The subject of this article is "ongoing Israeli mass killings in Gaza". Revisiting the idea of MOS:FIRST, the first sentence of this article needs to be about those mass killings, not various groups statements regarding the nature of them.

:::::::::::::So to resolve this, we already have an entire section about mass killings. My suggestion is that we move the section about mass killings to the top of the article, and reorder the paragraphs this way:

:::::::::::::* Killings (start with the sentence 'By mid-August 2024')

:::::::::::::* Displacement

:::::::::::::* Accusations of genocide or acts of genocide

:::::::::::::* South Africa's genocide case

:::::::::::::And as Jason has already indicated that my short definition was okay, it was just misplaced at the top. Post re-order, it would now would fit very nicely at the start of the 3rd paragraph. We can define "genocide", "genocidal acts", and genocidal intent before these things are used. Bob drobbs (talk) 15:08, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

:HRW is explicitly clear that Israeli regime is committing a genocide in Gaza. [Source: "[https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/12/19/israels-crime-extermination-acts-genocide-gaza Israel’s Crime of Extermination, Acts of Genocide in Gaza]" (19 December 2024) ]

:UN has also clearly stated that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza. [Source: "[https://www.un.org/unispal/document/anatomy-of-a-genocide-report-of-the-special-rapporteur-on-the-situation-of-human-rights-in-the-palestinian-territory-occupied-since-1967-to-human-rights-council-advance-unedited-version-a-hrc-55/ Anatomy of a Genocide]" (24 March 2024)] Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 00:55, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

::"Acts of genocide" are not synonymous with "Crime of Genocide". See the detailed explanation of this above.

::Also the opinions of a single appointed UN official is not synonymous with the UN as a whole. Any reports written by or statements made by Francesca Albanese should be attributed to her. Bob drobbs (talk) 03:01, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

:::- It's not the opinion of a "single, appoioted UN official", but the conclusion of a UN appointed committe. Plus, other UN bodies have also described Israeli massacres as a genocide.

:::- Also, HRW is not a judicial body, nor is this article dealing with the definition of genocide in the UN law codes. If any non-Western government was doing the same murderous campaign as the Israeli regime, and HRW attributed "acts of genocide" to that government, I dont think there would be any place for an editor critical of the genocide attribution in this encyclopaedia. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 03:45, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Here's what the HRW report directly says: "Human Rights Watch concluded that Israeli authorities have intentionally created conditions of life calculated to bring about the physical destruction of Palestinians in Gaza in whole or in part. This policy, inflicted as part of a mass killing of Palestinian civilians in Gaza, means Israeli authorities have committed the crime against humanity of extermination, which is ongoing. This policy also amounts to one of the five “acts of genocide” under the Genocide Convention of 1948. Genocidal intent may also be inferred from this policy, coupled with statements suggesting some Israeli officials wished to destroy Palestinians in Gaza, and therefore the policy may amount to the crime of genocide." (bolding is mine)

::::HRW is being deliberately careful in its wording here. They definitively conclude that Israel is guilty of crime against humanity of extermination. Separately, they also conclude that Israeli policy amounts to an act of genocide. Then, they say that "genocidal intent" MAY be inferred from Israeli policy and statements by Israeli officials expressing genocidal intent. Thus, they conclude that Israel MAY be guilty of the crime of genocide. Compare this with [https://amnesty.ca/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/Amnesty-International-Gaza-Genocide-Report-December-4-2024.pdf Amnesty International's wording], which straightforwardly states that "[This report] assesses allegations of violations and crimes under international law by Israel in Gaza within the framework of genocide under international law, concluding that there is sufficient evidence to believe that Israel’s conduct in Gaza following 7 October 2023 amounts to genocide." (bolding is mine)

::::Notice the difference? Yes, it is nuanced, but as editors, we should write this article and represent these sources in a nuanced way. JasonMacker (talk) 03:56, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::The same nuance is important when talking about the UN.

:::::* The UN as a whole has made no determination of guilty of anything

:::::* A Special Committee found Israel's "warfare methods consistent with genocide". [https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2024/11/un-special-committee-finds-israels-warfare-methods-gaza-consistent-genocide] This is the same position HRW took and they did not say Israel is guilty of genocide.

:::::* Then there's Francesca Albanese. She's the one notable figure along with Amnesty International who said Israel is guilty of the crime of genocide. However... many sources use the language "Reasonable grounds to believe"[https://news.un.org/en/story/2024/03/1147976]. Shouldn't we be using that qualification too?

:::::Bob drobbs (talk) 15:19, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::P.S. Just noticed that Jason said very similar things regarding the UN below. I just missed it with the new indent level. Bob drobbs (talk) 17:10, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

::Why are you ignoring the discussion above? As we have pointed out, HRW is taking a nuanced view, separating "acts of genocide" from "genocide" itself. The article you linked states as such:

::In doing so, Israeli authorities are responsible for the crime against humanity of extermination and for acts of genocide. The pattern of conduct, coupled with statements suggesting that some Israeli officials wished to destroy Palestinians in Gaza, may amount to the crime of genocide.

::This is directly from the HRW article you linked. It's saying that Israel is responsible for acts of genocide. In addition, the statements of some Israeli officials express "intent to destroy" which may amount to the crime of genocide. Can you explain your reasoning here?

::As for the UN, as Bob says, it's Francesca Albanese, "the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territories" who says that Israel is committing genocide. That was from [https://news.un.org/en/story/2024/03/1147976 March 2024]. Separately, the "UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and Israel" in [https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2025/03/more-human-can-bear-israels-systematic-use-sexual-reproductive-and-other March 2025] concluded that Israel is carrying out "genocidal acts." It's our responsibility as editors to portray the statements of the reliable sources as accurately as we can. JasonMacker (talk) 03:46, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

:::I agree with @Shadowwarrior8. There is ample RS that says Israel has committed genocide, including cited in the lede:

:::https://news.un.org/en/story/2024/03/1147976

:::http://web.archive.org/web/20250215113630/https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2024/11/un-special-committee-finds-israels-warfare-methods-gaza-consistent-genocide?__cf_chl_rt_tk=j6uL5Vv.MlLo9UfjqgszP3mwppoJ07KJPmjxLoFE_EI-1739619390-1.0.1.1-ufO1R.Q0nlOefSLMMMqgTOVhcFVCKapIBIdwplv5sTU

:::https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_genocide#CITEREFAmnesty_International_report2024

:::The current version of the lede is therefore accurate and reflects what RS say.

:::@Bob drobbs, you do not have consensus for this edit. Please obtain it before you make such a substantive edit to the page. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 22:35, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

::::@Raskolnikov.Rev 1) The first article says a single UN official "finds ‘reasonable grounds’ genocide". Reasonable grounds to believe in not synonymous with a solid proof.

::::2) The second link says "warfare methods consistent with genocide" which again is not synonymous with the crime of genocide. See the long discussion above.

::::3) Yes, we all agree that Amnesty has said Israel committed genocide. They're the only notable group to have done so.

::::You not only deleted my addition of "acts consisting with genocide" and there was support in making that differentiation here, and is also supported by the sources you provide here. You also deleted the definition from genocide from the article which only had a single objection that it not be at the start of the article, and you deleted Jason's footnote also sharing details of the definition of genocide.

::::Did you have any support to make these changes? And can you explain your motivation for removing he definition genocide? Bob drobbs (talk) 22:46, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::The entire distinction between committing "acts of genocide" or "genocide" is artificial. The former does not contradict or stand in conflict with the latter. RS use both interchangeably, as committing acts of genocide means committing genocide.

:::::Here are more RS that say explicitly that Israel has committed genocide and use the two interchangeably:

:::::https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2024/12/amnesty-international-concludes-israel-is-committing-genocide-against-palestinians-in-gaza/

:::::https://www.bu.edu/articles/2024/is-israel-committing-genocide-in-gaza/

:::::https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/dec/23/israel-gaza-war-genocide-where-is-the-action

:::::https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/12/6/who-accuses-israel-of-committing-genocide-in-gaza

:::::https://news.un.org/en/story/2024/03/1147976

:::::https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2024/11/un-special-committee-finds-israels-warfare-methods-gaza-consistent-genocide

:::::https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/aug/13/israel-gaza-historian-omer-bartov

:::::https://jewishcurrents.org/a-textbook-case-of-genocide

:::::So even if we were to add "genocide or acts of genocide", this would be superfluous. Let alone your edit that makes it appear as if the two are in tension when RS says they are not.

:::::Regarding the footnote and the definition of genocide, what is the purpose of adding this to a page that is not about the definition of genocide at the top of the lede, when we link to the genocide page when it is mentioned in the first sentence and that already provides people with detailed information on that? I have seen no persuasive argument presented for why this must be included in the lede anywhere, let alone at the top. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 23:00, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::The legal definition of genocide requires both acts and intent:

::::::"Genocide means ANY OF THE FOLLOWING ACTS committed WITH INTENT TO to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:[https://www.un.org/en/genocide-prevention/definition]

::::::Are you disagreeing with that?

::::::And in this AP article regarding HRW, they speak explicitly about how HRW accused Israel of acts of genocide, but did not accuse Israel of the crime of genocide:

::::::"Human Rights Watch on Thursday accused Israel of causing the deaths of thousands of Palestinians by systematically restricting and targeting Gaza’s water supply in A CAMPAIGN THAT AMOUNTED TO ACTS OF GENOCIDE. ... The rights group said that the “pattern of conduct” outlined in its report and statements from Israeli officials “may indicate” genocidal intent, BUT IT DID NOT COME DOWN DEFINITIVELY on one side. Under international law, proving intent is key in concluding WHETHER THE CRIME OF GENOCIDE HAS BEEN COMMITTED". [https://web.archive.org/web/20241220100513/https://apnews.com/article/israel-palestinians-hamas-gaza-genocide-human-rights-watch-0cae5c250415975ebbfcfdab6808abc4]

::::::This shows there is clear and specific difference between "acts of genocide" and the "crime of genocide" which is more than semantic and this is supported by sources. Bob drobbs (talk) 23:17, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::The footnote is my addition. In this article, genocide is a technical term that, per MOS:FIRST, the "nonspecialist reader" may not understand. The point of the footnote is to offer an immediate clarification, for those who seek it, on what exactly "UN special committee, Amnesty International, and many other experts and rights organisations" mean when they say that Israel is committing genocide. The article currently does not have a first sentence in the format of an article like Armenian genocide that explains the meaning intended by "genocide." The Armenian genocide article immediately explains that it was "the systematic destruction of the Armenian people and identity in the Ottoman Empire during World War I". However, the current lead sentence of the Gaza genocide article does not offer an immediate explanation of genocide. The footnote would provide that, and then the Gaza_genocide#Definitions_of_genocide_and_legal_challenges section can provide more detail.

:::::::As it currently stands, the first sentence of this article simply says that various individuals and organizations are accusing Israel of committing genocide in Gaza without also explaining what they mean by that. The rest of the article provides more details on that. But for the very first sentence, a footnote that provides the genocide convention definition would be helpful. Especially when the term "genocide" as used by the "UN special committee, Amnesty International, and many other experts and rights organizations" is specifically referring to the legal definition of genocide in international law. JasonMacker (talk) 00:15, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::I am not sure why you are citing MOS:FIRST, which states the subject of the article, in this case Gaza genocide, must be explained such that it is understandable to the non-specialist reader. And that is exactly what the lede now does, for after the first sentence linking to the genocide article with a full description of it, it goes on to detail the sources that make the specific charges, including elaborating on the legal requirements for it. That is the first sentence of the subsequent paragraph.

::::::::Adding the Genocide Convention definition there in a footnote seems superfluous, particularly as it is also not the norm on other pages as @Shadowwarrior8 has noted. You cite the Armenian Genocide page as providing a specific definition of it in the first paragraph (in the case of this page it is done in the second paragraph), but there are others where that is not the case, such as:

::::::::https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masalit_massacres_(2023%E2%80%93present)

::::::::https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_genocide_of_Ukrainians_in_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War

::::::::In no other page I have seen is there a footnote with the Genocide Convention definition after the term genocide is first used in the lede.

::::::::Why should this be an exception to that norm? Surely it can't be that all the other articles are in violation of MOS:FIRST. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 23:43, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Regarding the legal definition of genocide requiring both acts and intent, that is already prominently included in the lede. It is the first sentence of the second paragraph, and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gaza_genocide&diff=prev&oldid=1283789243 your addition] right before it needlessly repeated what was already there.

:::::::But this is separate from your claim that "genocidal acts" is somehow in conflict with "genocide". This is simply not the case. The two are used interchangeably in the cited RS as they refer to the same thing. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 23:45, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::> And that is exactly what the lede now does, for after the first sentence linking to the genocide article with a full description of it

::::::::Reading MOS:FIRST, you'll see that it says "The first sentence should introduce the topic, and tell the nonspecialist reader what or who the subject is, and often when or where." So this is a question of the scope of the article. Is this article going to be about accusations made by experts and organizations about Israeli actions in Gaza, or is the article going to be about Israeli actions in Gaza? In other words, is the topic of this article the fact that accusations of genocide are being made against Israel, or is the topic going to be the genocide itself? As I wrote to Bob below, personally I am in favor of this article's topic being Gaza genocide with the discussion of who in particular is accusing Israel of genocide being given less prominence compared to the facts of what Israel is doing in Gaza. That's my entire reasoning behind why, in the current iteration of this article's first sentence and lead in general, I don't think enough prominence is being given to Israel's actions and so an explanation of what exactly the accusation of genocide is describing. So I would be in favor of the first sentence of the article describing Israel's actions in Gaza (systematic mass killing and destruction of civilian infrastructure) rather than the current situation, where the first sentence is saying that various people and groups accuse Israel of genocide. The Masalit massacres article format is what I would support for this article. That article directly says that the Masalit massacres are an ongoing series of massacres. This article should follow that format. Meaning that this article should have its first sentence be a description of what the Gaza genocide is. And it should not be, as it currently is, presenting readers with the fact that Israel is being accused of genocide. So, as I've suggested, I would prefer a first sentence akin to:

::::::::* The Gaza genocide is the ongoing systematic destruction of Palestinians and civilian infrastructure in Gaza by Israel during the Gaza war. (as I wrote below)

::::::::> In no other page I have seen is there a footnote with the Genocide Convention definition after the term genocide is first used in the lede.

::::::::Ok? Can you provide a Wikipedia policy reason as to why it would be wrong to do so? Just because other articles don't do something, does not mean that it should also not be done here. But in the case of the "Allegations of genocide of Ukrainians in the Russo-Ukrainian war," I think that article's scope is different from this one, and it goes back to my question above. Is this article going to be focus on the facts of genocide in Gaza, or is it going to focus on allegations of genocide in Gaza? I'm not too familiar with the subject matter of claims that Russia is committing genocide in Ukraine, but a cursory skim appears that there is much less consensus for that claim compared to the claim that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza. That article mentions that AI and HRW have recorded numerous examples of Russian war crimes, but neither AI nor HRW, as far as I can tell, have accused Russia of genocide or genocidal acts (in contrast with what they've stated about Gaza). JasonMacker (talk) 02:21, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

:::{{od}}There is no footnote of the 1951 genocide convention's criteria in other pages. Why does the Israeli state, which is currently run by a far-right Zionist regime, has a very high bar to meet your threshold of "genocide", whereas other states (excluding USA/UK) have a very low bar?

:::The UN report clearly asserts that the Israeli military forces are perpetrating genocide.
["[https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2024/11/un-special-committee-finds-israels-warfare-methods-gaza-consistent-genocide UN Special Committee finds Israel’s warfare methods in Gaza consistent with genocide, including use of starvation as weapon of war]", (14 November 2024)]

:::Furthermore, wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. None of the articles regarding genocides in wikipedia have a pre-requisite criteria that its perpetrators are prosecuted for genocide in the UN. (which the US/UK controls through veto) The term genocide primarily has a linguistic meaning.

:::There are several genocidal extermination campaigns which are not legally regarded as "genocide" in the UN because of its political bias. The neo-colonial structure of the UN also reflects its biased POV.

:::Israeli military's mass-murder in Gaza is widely viewed as genocide in the academia, UN reports, NGOs, press reports, as well as in popular perception. This is enough to describe this as a genocide in this encyclopaedia. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 06:18, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

::::> has a very high bar to meet your threshold of "genocide"

::::This isn't my bar. But we cannot claim or imply various groups are saying Israel is guilty of the crime of genocide if they have not done so.

::::> The UN report clearly asserts that the Israeli military forces are perpetrating genocide

::::Here you are putting words in their mouth. What this UN group actually said was "warfare methods consistent with genocide"

::::They did not say "perpetrating genocide". And I've shown before with the AP source, there is a very definite difference between "acts of genocide" and the "crime of genocide"

::::> This is enough to describe this as a genocide in this encyclopaedia

::::There is no consensus on this at all. The agreed upon topic of this article is the "mass killings of Palestinians" not "Israel is committing genocide".

::::We have an obligation to accurately report on what the sources are saying not exaggerating their claims, we have an obligation to make things clear to the reader not hiding definitions of words because some find them inconvenient. And with MOS:FIRST, as the topic is the "killings of Palestinians" that's what needs to go at the very top of the article. Various people's statements regarding those killings belong further down. Bob drobbs (talk) 16:07, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::>There is no footnote of the 1951 genocide convention's criteria in other pages.

:::::Please reread my comment where I directly explain the difference between Armenian genocide's first sentence and Gaza genocide's first sentence. This isn't a quirk of the Armenian genocide article either. You can check List of genocides and see many other examples (Rohingya genocide, Iraqi Turkmen genocide, etc.) where the genocide is directly described in the first sentence. I would be supportive of rewriting the first sentence of this article into something like

:::::*The Gaza genocide is the ongoing systematic destruction of Palestinians and civilian infrastructure in Gaza by Israel during the Gaza war.

:::::If the first sentence of this article became this, then there would be no need for a footnote. However, with the current first sentence that simply uses the term genocide without description, the footnote would be helpful to readers too clarify a term that may not be understood by nonspecialists.

:::::>Why does the Israeli state, which is currently run by a far-right Zionist regime, has a very high bar to meet your threshold of "genocide"

:::::I don't know what you're referring to here. The discussion in this section is about what reliable sources are saying. My personal views are irrelevant here. The question here is how can we accurately portray what reliable sources are saying. As I pointed out, Amnesty International and Francesca Albanese are directly referring to the Israeli mass killings and civilian infrastructure destruction as genocide. So are various other experts and human rights organizations. However, for whatever reason, HRW is hesitating on directly implicating Israel with genocide, choosing instead to use phrases like "acts of genocide" and saying that statements by Israeli officials MAY be understood as genocidal intent. Whether we personally agree or disagree with HRW is irrelevant. It's our job as editors to portray their views as accurately as we can.

:::::>The UN report clearly asserts that the Israeli military forces are perpetrating genocide.

:::::That's somewhat true, but is a bit inaccurate because the UN report refers to "Israel" rather than Israeli military forces specifically. From what I understand, reliable sources are stating that a combination of government officials, military forces, and Israeli civilians is carrying out the genocide. That should be reported in this article. Specifically, the [https://docs.un.org/en/A/79/363 UN Report] directly states that "[t]he developments in this report lead the Special Committee to conclude that the

:::::policies and practices of Israel during the reporting period are consistent with the characteristics of genocide."

:::::>None of the articles regarding genocides in wikipedia have a pre-requisite criteria that its perpetrators are prosecuted for genocide

:::::I agree with this sentiment, and this perennial incorrect view (that a mass killing should only be described as genocide after a court's successful conviction) should addressed in a FAQ to be displayed at the top of this talk page.

:::::>There are several genocidal extermination campaigns which are not legally regarded as "genocide" in the UN because of its political bias.

:::::If there are reliable sources stating this and relate this to Gaza genocide denial, they can be mentioned in this article.

:::::>This is enough to describe this as a genocide in this encyclopaedia.

:::::This discussion already happened on this talk page, which is why the article was retitled to Gaza genocide. JasonMacker (talk) 16:19, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::@JasonMacker I support a common language definition of the "Gaza Genocide" in wikivoice, but it needs to clearly refer to the killings of Palestinians which is the subject of this article. Maybe:

::::::* The Gaza Genocide refers to the the large scale killings of Palestinians during the ongoing Gaza War.

::::::But then I don't see any reason why this should not be immediately followed by a description of these killings and the destruction of Gaza (aka the topic of the article). This text already exists in the lead, but for some reason has been pushed down away from the top. Do you see any reason not to make that change?

::::::Below the description of all of the killing and destruction, we can include various groups statements about the nature of the killing as these are only secondary to the topic. And yes, 100% we have to accurately represent what they're saying. Bob drobbs (talk) 19:18, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

::{{od}}@JasonMacker @Bob drobbs

::I am favourable to inserting this text as the first sentence: "{{tq|Gaza genocide is the large-scale killing of Palestinians and systematic destruction of civilian infrastructure in Gaza during the ongoing Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip.}}" Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 10:42, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I wouldn't object to that, because your example offers a description of genocide: "large scale killings of Palestinians." My point is that the current first sentence of this article doesn't provide any immediate description of genocide, only that various people and organizations are accusing Israel of genocide. It's in that context that I would support a footnote describing genocide as defined by the genocide convention. Basically, I don't want "genocide" to be used in the first sentence without any description alongside it. JasonMacker (talk) 20:35, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::How do you feel about my other suggestion to move all of the opinions regarding the killing down toward the bottom of the lead?

::::::::Looking at other genocides after WWII, it looks like NGO's thoughts on the nature of the killing are either the bottom or not included at all:

::::::::* Rwandan genocide

::::::::* Rohingya genocide

::::::::It seems this is the way that it should be, as their statements are only secondary to the actual topic. Bob drobbs (talk) 22:38, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Let's look at the two examples you gave. Rwandan genocide doesn't offer an explanation for genocide in the first sentence. However, the second sentence offers an explanation: "...members of the Tutsi ethnic group, as well as some moderate Hutu and Twa, were systematically killed by Hutu militias." So the explanation of genocide is provided through the systematic killing reference. I would be okay with that for this article. The Rohingya genocide article uses the phrase "ongoing persecutions and killings" to describe the genocide in the first sentence.

:::::::::However, I note that currently in this article, the first sentence discusses experts and organizations saying that Israel is doing genocide, and then the second sentence discusses "intent to destroy" and how that's related to genocide. But it doesn't mention what the Gaza genocide is about, which is Israeli mass killings of Palestinians in Gaza. That's my issue with the current situation in this article. So yes, if the first or second sentence mentioned what the "genocide" is referring to (mass killings & mass destruction of civilian infrastructure), that would be fine. But, if we are going to keep the current lead where we first have the UN, Amnesty International, and experts saying that Israel is doing genocide, then the footnote explaining what the genocide is would be helpful.

:::::::::I agree with you that, like the Rohingya genocide article, "various UN agencies, ICC officials, human rights groups, and governments" can be mentioned at the end of the lead section. The first sentence and subsequent sentences should be talking about the things listed in the "Attack Type" section of the infobox, such as mass killing, forced displacement, bombardment, starvation, and torture. This will remove the necessity of having the genocide convention footnote that would explain what the genocide is referring to. JasonMacker (talk) 23:17, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::I think this discussion is becoming unwieldy. Clearly there is disagreement here on your proposed edits, both by you and @Bob drobbs. Two editors agree, two disagree, and it does not seem likely we can agree to a consensus. I simply do not agree that we should add a lengthy Genocide Convention definition in a footnote, or a repetition of it separately on the question of intent. The pertinent part of that is already in the first line of the second paragraph, it is linked when we use the "genocide", and we do not do that for any other genocide page we have. It is also clear to me based on the RS that "genocidal acts" and "genocide" are referring to identical things, and are therefore used interchangeably. So artificially adding a tension where there is none between those should be avoided.

::::::::::So I recommend making an RfC with your proposed changes and the option to keep the section as is (neutrally presented of course), link to this discussion, and then we can see if that can build consensus around one of the options. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 23:51, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::> It is also clear to me based on the RS that "genocidal acts" and "genocide" are referring to identical things, and are therefore used interchangeably

:::::::::::@Raskolnikov.Rev I'm sincerely a bit confused.  Are you claiming that "genocide", "acts of genocide", and the "crime of genocide" are all identical things to be used interchangeably? 

:::::::::::Or just that "genocide" and "acts of genocide" are interchangeable, but the "crime of genocide" is something different?  

:::::::::::And if you haven't done so already please take a look at this article from AP News:

:::::::::::"Human Rights Watch on Thursday accused Israel of ... a campaign that amounted to acts of genocide....  but it did not come down definitively ... whether the crime of genocide has been committed."[https://apnews.com/article/israel-palestinians-hamas-gaza-genocide-human-rights-watch-0cae5c250415975ebbfcfdab6808abc4]

:::::::::::They're extremely specific that HRW sees a difference between "acts of genocide" and the "crime of genocide".  They're equally specific that HRW is speaking about the legal definition of genocide not some vague, ill defined, concept of a "genocide".

:::::::::::> I recommend making an RfC

:::::::::::There's already an RFC trying to falsely change the short description to falsely claim that all of these groups have said Israel is "committing genocide" and it doesn't seem to have support. Bob drobbs (talk) 01:24, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::I haven't made any specific proposed edits. In the discussion, I noted that I made edits to reflect Bob's (correct) view that HRW is taking a nuanced stance on accusing Israel of genocide. In terms of proposals in general, I have expressed a preference for a straightforward first sentence that discusses the topic of this article. But, such a thing would also require a rewrite of the lead and not a mere change to the first sentence. For that reason, I haven't made any specific proposals to how I would rewrite the lead of the article. For that, I'd probably first come up with a draft and then make a proposal in a new section here. Bob's initial objection is currently moot because the article has already been edited by me to correctly place HRW's stance on this issue.

::::::::::::> I simply do not agree that we should add a lengthy Genocide Convention definition in a footnote

::::::::::::You haven't actually provided any policy reason for why you are against the inclusion of such a thing. Merely stating that "Article y doesn't mention this, so article x shouldn't either" is not enough.

::::::::::::> RS that "genocidal acts" and "genocide" are referring to identical things

::::::::::::Please read [https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/12/19/israels-crime-extermination-acts-genocide-gaza the HRW report]. I've brought this point up numerous times in this discussion. Please respond to it. The report states that "In doing so, Israeli authorities are responsible for the crime against humanity of extermination and for acts of genocide. The pattern of conduct, coupled with statements suggesting that some Israeli officials wished to destroy Palestinians in Gaza, may amount to the crime of genocide." Here, HRW is clearly making a distinction between acts of genocide and the crime of genocide. They say authoritatively that "Israeli authorities are responsible" for acts of genocide. However, the second sentence, however, ends with may amount to the crime of genocide. How do you explain this? Why would, according to you, HRW say that Israeli authorities are responsible for genocide (given your view that "acts of genocide" = "genocide"), and then in the immediate next sentence state that Israeli conduct, when coupled with Israeli statements of intent, MAY amount to the crime of genocide? JasonMacker (talk) 02:39, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::I would say because {{tqq|genocide}} and {{tqq|the crime of genocide}} are two related yet distinct things, as has had liters of ink spent discussing the differences, limitations, and shortcomings when analysing the UN convention, from scholars from a variety of fields including law. A point that may elucidate this is in some of the rulings from the ICTY, which found people had been {{tqq|victims of genocide}} while also finding the suggested genocide they were "victims" of, had not occurred. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 17:11, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::Different interpretations of "genocide" vs "acts of genocide" are exactly the kind of thing we should avoid to not engage in original research. We can just present HRW how they have themselves described it. HRW says that Israel is guilty of the crime against humanity of extermination, and has also done genocidal acts. They have also said that Israeli officials have made statements that may indicate genocidal intent. We can report exactly that in the article, rather than engaging in original research and deciding for ourselves what HRW actually meant by their words. We can also use secondary sources and describe how they have interpreted HRW's statements. JasonMacker (talk) 22:00, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

:::That looks good to me. But this deserves its own section on the talk page. JasonMacker (talk) 19:13, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

I agree the lead makes too definitive a statement on the claim of genocide. It should start first that Israel has been accused of genocide during the course of the war, then the groups and individuals who say it has committed genocide, before then citing groups/ individuals who reject the claim. The current wording violates NPOV, seems unfinished, and fails to accurately convey the discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 3Kingdoms (talk • contribs) 14:54, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

: {{ping|3Kingdoms}} you should be signing your comments. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 17:05, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

:As we've seen in the last move request, the majority here believe Israel's committing a genocide, and they are editing the article from that slant. Jonathan f1 (talk) 16:02, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

::@Cdjp1 My bad posted on mobile and it did not let me sign. The question is not if the editors believe a genocide is happening, but if reliable sources say so. Such sources like the Associated Press, New York Times, and Washington Post have not said it in the affirmative. Other RS have said so and other RS have said not. Thus, I do not agree with the current lead. 3Kingdoms (talk) 20:17, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Ah, mobile edits, I know the pain. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 20:20, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Big time. Thanks for understanding. :) 3Kingdoms (talk) 20:25, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

:I disagree with this, and agree with the points raised by @Shadowwarrior8 and @Raskolnikov.Rev, including w/r/t not unnecessarily adding a detailed description of the Genocide Convention. We should follow what the sources say, and more specifically what the consensus of relevant RS say. Amnesty, the UN and numerous reputable rights organisations have concluded there is a genocide, meaning genocidal acts with intent, and HRW have said there are genocidal acts and also likely intent. Bear with me while I will provide examples/quotes from our own article and the RS in question:

:We already add the qualifier at the beginning that the accusation is being made by these specific entities: {{tq|According to a United Nations special committee, Amnesty International, and many other experts and rights organisations}}

:This is a recent shift, as before we only had the ICJ case and then it was appropriate to add the qualifier that Israel has been accused, reflecting that reality. Now we have gone from accusation to it being established in detailed reports by relevant reputable RS.

:On the question of "genocidal acts" and "genocide", the sources we cite use both terms but the former is subsumed under the latter through having established intent. Genocidal acts thus become the crime of genocide, as we say: {{tq|According to a United Nations special committee, Amnesty International, and many other experts and rights organisations}}:

:Amnesty [https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2024/12/amnesty-international-concludes-israel-is-committing-genocide-against-palestinians-in-gaza/ link1]: {{tq|Amnesty International’s research has found sufficient basis to conclude that Israel has committed and is continuing to commit genocide against Palestinians in the occupied Gaza Strip, the organization said in a landmark new report published today. Amnesty International’s report demonstrates that Israel has carried out acts prohibited under the Genocide Convention, with the specific intent to destroy Palestinians in Gaza. These acts include killings, causing serious bodily or mental harm and deliberately inflicting on Palestinians in Gaza conditions of life calculated to bring about their physical destruction. Month after month, Israel has treated Palestinians in Gaza as a subhuman group unworthy of human rights and dignity, demonstrating its intent to physically destroy them,” said Agnès Callamard, Secretary General of Amnesty International.}}

:We can cite several different items from the UN, but here is the most recent from their report in March 2024 [https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/hrbodies/hrcouncil/sessions-regular/session58/a-hrc-58-crp-6.pdf link2]: {{tq|The Commission finds that the ISF intentionally attacked and destroyed the Basma IVF clinic which was the main fertility centre in Gaza. The ISF destroyed all of the reproductive material that was stored for the future conception of Palestinians. The Commission did not find any evidence that this IVF clinic was a legitimate military target at the time that it was attacked by the ISF. The Commission concludes that the destruction of the Basma IVF clinic was a measure intended to prevent births among Palestinians in Gaza, which is a genocidal act under the Rome Statute and Genocide Convention. The Commission also concludes that this was done with the intent to destroy the Palestinians in Gaza as a group, in whole or in part, and that this is the only inference that could reasonably be drawn from the acts in question.}}

:The executive summary [https://www.humanrightsnetwork.org/publications/genocide-in-gaza link3] of the University Network for Human Rights, the International Human Rights Clinic at Boston University School of Law, the International Human Rights Clinic at Cornell Law School, the Centre for Human Rights at the University of Pretoria, and the Lowenstein Human Rights Project at Yale Law School, says the following: {{tq|After reviewing the facts established by independent human rights monitors, journalists, and United Nations agencies, we conclude that Israel’s actions in and regarding Gaza since October 7, 2023, violate the Genocide Convention. Specifically, Israel has committed genocidal acts of killing, causing serious harm to, and inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about the physical destruction of Palestinians in Gaza, a protected group that forms a substantial part of the Palestinian people ... Israel’s genocidal acts in Gaza have been motivated by the requisite genocidal intent, as evidenced in this report by the statements of Israeli leaders, the character of the State and its military forces’ conduct against and relating to Palestinians in Gaza, and the direct nexus between them. As this report details, officials at all levels of Israeli government, up to and including the Prime Minister, have made remarks that not only express blatant and unequivocal dehumanization and cruelty against Palestinians in Gaza and elsewhere, but also explicitly reflect intentions to destroy and exterminate Palestinians as such. The patterns of conduct of Israeli military forces in Gaza further reinforce the finding of Israel’s genocidal intent. ... Additionally, our report draws on Gaza’s history leading to the present, in recognition that genocide rarely occurs as a single moment but is rather an unfolding result of processes and practices over time. Israel’s violations of the international legal prohibition of genocide amount to grave breaches of peremptory norms of international law that must cease immediately.}}

:So, tl;dr, we are currently accurately describing the cited RS in the lead.

:If we want to add further clarity on this point from RS, I would suggest the following:

:{{tq|According to a United Nations special committee, Amnesty International, and many other experts and rights organisations, Israel has committed genocidal acts with intent and thus the crime of genocide against the Palestinian people during its ongoing invasion and bombing of the Gaza Strip as part of the Gaza war.}}

:The HRW report ([https://www.hrw.org/report/2024/12/19/extermination-and-acts-genocide/israel-deliberately-depriving-palestinians-gaza link4]) (and that is what we should be looking to, not the summary alone) is also more clear on this than is being portrayed, as it says the act of genocide they established likely includes the crime of genocide and then cites the intent. But in any case this is not relevant as we already separately and accurately describe its findings in the lead: {{tq|Human Rights Watch have cited statements by senior Israeli officials that may indicate an "intent to destroy":}}

:{{tq|Human Rights Watch concludes that Israeli authorities have over the past year intentionally inflicted on the Palestinian population in Gaza “conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.” This policy, inflicted as part of a mass killing of Palestinian civilians in Gaza means Israeli authorities have committed the crime against humanity of extermination, which is ongoing. This policy also amounts to an “act of genocide” under the Genocide Convention of 1948.}}

:{{tq|The crime of genocide requires acts of genocide to be committed with genocidal intent. The ICJ has said that to infer such intent from a pattern of conduct by the state, it needs to be “the only reasonable inference to be drawn” from the acts in question.[130] The pattern of conduct set out in this report together with statements suggesting some Israeli officials wished to destroy the Palestinians in Gaza may indicate such intent.}}

:{{tq|Direct and public incitement to genocide is also prohibited under article 3(c) of the Genocide Convention.[131] The combination of certain public statements, including from persons in authority in Israel at the time they made the statements, calling for action that would target access to water and other conditions of life of Palestinians in Gaza; the action that followed the statements, by Israeli authorities in creating the conditions of life that have likely killed thousands of Palestinians; and the ICJ ruling on incitement,]indicate that some of the statements have amounted to direct and public incitement to genocide. Israeli authorities are under a duty, as the ICJ ruled, to take all measures to prevent and punish such incitement.}}

:Hopefully this makes sense, what with all these quotes! Smallangryplanet (talk) 16:44, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

::agree with smallangryplanet. current lede correctly attributes to the relevant groups and puts appropriate due weight on the statements Bluethricecreamman (talk) 18:14, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

:::@Smallangryplanet

:::> Amnesty link

:::Everyone here agrees that Amnesty has said that Israel committed genocide. This is not in dispute, so no need to flood this discussion with long quotes from them.

:::> We should follow what the sources say

:::I 100% agree with this. The issue here is that the article is falsely claiming that groups said Israel has committed genocide, when they say things like "methods consistent with genocide" or "acts of genocide" or "Israel MAY be committed genocide"

:::> We can cite several different items from the UN, but here is the most recent from their report in March 2024...

:::I read through the conclusions from this report. Nowhere in the do they day "Israel committed genocide" or "Israel is guilty of the crime of genocide". The sole mention is

:::"...one of the categories of genocidal acts in the Rome Statute and the Genocide Convention."

:::So why are you putting words in their mouth?

:::> The HRW report (link4) (and that is what we should be looking to,

:::From the full report that you chose to share, HRW is explicitly clear that they aren't sure there exists the intent which is necessary for the crime of genocide?

:::"The crime of genocide requires acts of genocide to be committed with genocidal intent. The ICJ has said that to infer such intent from a pattern of conduct by the state, it needs to be “the only reasonable inference to be drawn” from the acts in question.[130] The pattern of conduct set out in this report together with statements suggesting some Israeli officials wished to destroy the Palestinians in Gaza MAY indicate such intent"

:::We both agree that it's important to accurately represent sources, so why are you now standing in the way of fixing the article to correctly represent these sources?

:::* Amnesty said guilty of genocide

:::* Francesca Albanese said there are "reasonable grounds to believe" Israel is guilty of the crime of genocide

:::* The UN Human Rights Council said "acts of genocide"

:::* HRW said "acts of genocide" and MAYBE the intent required for it to be the crime of genocide

:::Bob drobbs (talk) 20:16, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

::::@Bob drobbs I share the same sentiments. Also, regarding one of the UN reports it would seem best to quote from this AP article [https://apnews.com/article/gaza-israel-palestinians-sexual-abuse-human-rights-9cb6955b34a86631b30225fe23d5567f] on the report. I am not prepared to answer yes or no about the question of "Is the UN is biased against Israel" which will likely be used against the report, so I think it's best to simply us the AP to avoid this. 3Kingdoms (talk) 20:23, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::@3Kingdoms Your AP article makes it explicitly clear that the UN HRC is not accusing Israel of genocide:

:::::"[UN HRC] Commission member Sidoti said the report “also concludes that Israel has carried out genocidal acts through the systematic destruction of sexual and reproductive health care facilities. The commission stopped short of accusing Israel of genocide"

:::::I want to assume good faith, but it's hard to believe that people can read reliable sources like this and still try to pretend that the UN HRC has said "Israel is committing genocide." Bob drobbs (talk) 20:45, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::A lot going on here, let's take it from the top:

::::::@3Kingdoms, we rely on what the relevant RS say. The New York Times, AP and other media outlets do not adjudicate or determine whether a genocide takes place, that is the role of human rights organisations, the UN, and genocide scholars and experts. The NYT, AP and other media outlets have accurately reported that these organisations and individuals have determined that Israel is committing genocide.

::::::@Bob drobbs, you are mistaken. It is not only Amnesty that concluded that Israel is committing genocidal acts with intent, meaning the crime of genocide. I cited some of the various human rights organisations – such as the University Network for Human Rights, the International Human Rights Clinic at Boston University School of Law, the International Human Rights Clinic at Cornell Law School, the Centre for Human Rights at the University of Pretoria, and the Lowenstein Human Rights Project at Yale Law School – extensively in my [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gaza_genocide#c-Smallangryplanet-20250407164400-3Kingdoms-20250405145400 previous reply], and will spare everyone doing it again.

::::::To be clear: I am not putting words in their mouth(s). I cited the latest UNHRC report saying explicitly that Israel is guilty of genocidal acts with intent, which is the crime of genocide: {{tq|The Commission concludes that the destruction of the Basma IVF clinic was a measure intended to prevent births among Palestinians in Gaza, which is a genocidal act under the Rome Statute and Genocide Convention. The Commission also concludes that this was done with the intent to destroy the Palestinians in Gaza as a group, in whole or in part, and that this is the only inference that could reasonably be drawn from the acts in question.}}

::::::The AP misreported this. The [https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/clyr154314vo BBC] (which we cite in the lead alongside the report itself) accurately reports the conclusions about the destruction of the IVF clinic being a genocidal act with intent (so the point about WP:PRIMARY is moot). But it doesn't matter in any case as we don't say the UNHRC concluded this in the lead, we say that the UN special committee and special rapporteur have come to this conclusion. We do cite the latest UNHCR report and the BBC report on same and their contents match, so it is accurate as is already, and with my suggested amendment it would be even more clear since we would be making explicit the genocidal acts with intent language.

::::::Finally, your reading of the HRW report is – as I've said already – misunderstanding the way the HRW are wording it and in any case has no bearing here as we already separately and accurately detail the HRW's opinion. Smallangryplanet (talk) 14:48, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::@Smallangryplanet > To be clear: I am not putting words in their mouth(s). I cited the latest UNHRC report saying explicitly that Israel is guilty of genocidal acts with intent, which is the crime of genocide

:::::::It's WP:OR to look at their document and connect the dots to come to a conclusion: A mention of "acts of genocide" a mention of "intent" elsewhere, therefore it's gotta be the "crime of genocide", eh? Yes, you are putting words in their mouth.

:::::::Can you point to any location where the UN HRC, or a secondary source describing their report, says "Israel is committing the crime of genocide"? Yes or no.

:::::::And why are you rejecting what reliable secondary sources like AP News are saying?

:::::::""[UN HRC] Commission member Sidoti said the report “also concludes that Israel has carried out genocidal acts through the systematic destruction of sexual and reproductive health care facilities. The commission stopped short of accusing Israel of genocide""[https://apnews.com/article/gaza-israel-palestinians-sexual-abuse-human-rights-9cb6955b34a86631b30225fe23d5567f]

:::::::Regarding Amnesty and HRW, it does seem we're getting closer to agreement. Amnesty has said Israel is committing the crime of genocide. When I started this conversation HRW was falsely listing as saying Israel is committing genocide. That has now been fixed. Seems we just need to get agreement on the UN HRC.

:::::::-- Bob drobbs (talk) 15:01, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::@Bob drobbs We're going around in circles so I'll keep it short: I quoted the UNHRC report itself, linking what it says is the genocidal act to the intent. I did not cut and paste the two parts together. Just as with the HRW report it is superfluous anyway because, again, we don't say the UNHRC concluded this in the lead, we say that the UN special committee and special rapporteur have come to this conclusion. Smallangryplanet (talk) 09:47, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::@Smallangryplanet > we don't say the UNHRC concluded this in the lead, we say that the UN special committee and special rapporteur have come to this conclusion

:::::::::The very first sentence of the lead:

::::::::::"According to a United Nations special committee, Amnesty International, and many other experts and rights organisations, Israel has committed genocide"

:::::::::1) Which "United Nations special committee"? Why not say which one instead of leaving it vague?

:::::::::2) If it's the UN HRC, then yet again they did NOT say "Israel is committing genocide" and this needs to be fixed. Bob drobbs (talk) 14:43, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::@Bob drobbs It's in the cited source: "Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Palestinian People and Other Arabs of the Occupied Territories". And that should tell you why we don't specify it; it's a lengthy title to include in the lead and it's already cited in the source. Smallangryplanet (talk) 14:57, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::@Smallangryplanet

:::::::::::1) We need to be clear about who is saying these things. Though if you feel there name is too long, I'm not sure why the opinions of a group which almost no one has ever heard of needs to go into the very first sentence of the lead.

:::::::::::2) Here's what's currently in the body of the article regarding this report:

:::::::::::: " UN's "Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Palestinian People and Other Arabs of the Occupied Territories" wrote, "The developments in this report lead the Special Committee to conclude that the policies and practices of Israel during the reporting period are consistent with the characteristics of genocide."

::::::::::: How the heck did that get rewritten in the lead to a claim that this committee said Israel "has committed genocide". Bob drobbs (talk) 15:42, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::1) Sure, I've added that to the wikilink [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gaza_genocide&diff=prev&oldid=1284765866 here].

::::::::::::2) No idea, but now the lead and body match. Smallangryplanet (talk) 16:02, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::@Smallangryplanet

:::::::::::::1) Thank you. I do think that's a big improvement.

:::::::::::::2) No, they still don't match:

:::::::::::::The lead: "Israel has committed genocide"

:::::::::::::The body": "Are consistent with the characteristics of genocide"

:::::::::::::Can we now update the lead to match the body in accurately capturing what this UN special committee said? Bob drobbs (talk) 16:13, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::2) I quoted this all at length down [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gaza_genocide#c-Smallangryplanet-20250409094500-PhotogenicScientist-20250408135200 here] but the head of the committee did say this, that the report establishes that a genocide is being committed. For maximum clarity I have now updated the lead and body to cite the head of the committee as well. Smallangryplanet (talk) 16:54, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::> the head of the committee did say...

:::::::::::::::If you're going to refer to the words of an individual, in this case, Mohan Peiris, then we must say that we're referring to an individual's opinion.

:::::::::::::::

:::::::::::::::But if you want to refer to the report then we need to use it's actual words as is done in the body of the article. Bob drobbs (talk) 17:40, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::First: we are already citing him, including his direct quote, in the footnote, and this is already a complex lead, so imo it would be superfluous to also add it in-text.

::::::::::::::::Second: Mohan Peiris is not just some individual providing his personal subjective outsider opinion, he is the head of the cited Committee that wrote and issued the report, and he is relaying the report's findings in his official capacity at the UN General Assembly. When he does so he says in no uncertain terms that his Committee's report found there to be a genocide. So no, in this case we do not have to separately quote the head of the Committee saying that about his own Commission's findings. Smallangryplanet (talk) 10:18, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::Let's say the US Supreme Court issues a ruling. The Chief Justice then gives a statement about the ruling that use different wording than the actual ruling.

:::::::::::::::::* Do we quote the Chief Justice as-if his words were the opinion?

:::::::::::::::::* Or do we attribute any statements by the Chief Justice to him?

:::::::::::::::::The same rationale applies here. We have what the report says. And we have what the chair says.

:::::::::::::::::The fact that the lead for an article about mass killings has gotten complex seems mostly due to a POV push to try and force every accusation of genocide into the top of it. It's not an excuse to get sloppy and not be precise in how we attribute sources.

:::::::::::::::::There is an entire other article for Palestinian genocide accusation that seems more appropriate for this focus. Bob drobbs (talk) 15:56, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::The US Supreme Court is not an appropriate analogy, as Justices each have their own opinions on rulings because they represent themselves as individual justices. What we're discussing is a situation in which the head of the UN commission who wrote the report presented the findings of the report in his official capacity at the official event for that purpose at the UN General Assembly, and we quote him doing so in the footnote.

::::::::::::::::::I'm really trying to WP:AGF, but this feels like a classic WP:DONTLIKEIT situation. If this were a WP:POVPUSH scenario, I think we'd see substantially less attribution in the lead. But we are accurately reporting and attributing what RS have said, regardless of how any of us feel about the topic at hand. Smallangryplanet (talk) 14:54, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

::::@Bob drobbs I think there is a misunderstanding. I am not citing the article to say the UN HRC is accusing Israel, I am saying that it should be used instead of the report itself, because some might argue the report is a primary source (Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources) and should not be used. The AP article summarizes the reports claim along with providing the Israeli response rejecting the report. I agree that the report does not say Israel is committing a genocide. Hope that clears it up. 3Kingdoms (talk) 21:59, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

@Smallangryplanet please provide even a single WP:RS that backs up the claim as stated in the lead that "the UN Special Committee to investigate Israeli practices... cited statements by senior Israeli officials that may indicate an "intent to destroy" Gaza's population in whole or in part." The [https://docs.un.org/en/A/79/363 citation recently added containing the full report] still does not verify this claim. The only mention of Israeli officials in in the capacity of "publicly supporting policies depriving civilians of food, water, and fuel, indicating their intent to instrumentalize the provision of basic necessities for political and military objectives". No mention of genocidal intent, or an intent to destroy. Linking this phrase to the conclusion as written in the lead is original research on our part.

Also, your citation of the part of the report that says "The developments in this report lead the Special Committee to conclude that the policies and practices of Israel during the reporting period are consistent with the characteristics of genocide" is insufficient for supporting the assertion of intent, as it's currently written in the lead.

If you can't do this, please self-revert the edit where you said such a claim is in fact verifiable. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 13:52, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

:IX. Conclusions is the only place I can really see statements on incitement from Israeli officials. Where it talks of "inciting violence", alongside "dehumanising language", which, while they could be cases of genocidal rhetoric and incitement, is not explicitly stated in the source. So, shouldn't be used to source the statement it's currently used for in the lede. It can be used for other UN organs/bodies/persons who it reports have concluded genocide/warned of genocide. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 17:12, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

:@PhotogenicScientist / @Cdjp1: The UN special committee report concludes that Israel's policy in Gaza is consistent with the characteristics of genocide, deliberately carried out, as reported by – among others – [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/nov/14/united-nations-special-committee-israel-gaza-genocide The Guardian] and [https://edition.cnn.com/2024/11/15/middleeast/israel-gaza-genocide-un-special-committee-intl-latam/index.html CNN] (which specifically flags the intentional acts of Israeli officials such as the starvation policy), and so on.

:Additionally, when presenting the report at the UN General Assembly, the head of the special committee in question explicitly says their report concluded that "a genocide is unfolding before our eyes" ([https://www.un.org/unispal/document/un-special-committee-press-release-19nov24/ source]):

:{{tq|Our report leaves no room for ambiguity.}}

:{{tq|A genocide is unfolding before our eyes. Failing to act now—failing to put an end to this atrocity crime— will tear apart the very foundation of the international rule of law we have collectively built to protect peace, security, and the well-being of all. Our inaction today is setting a perilous precedent for tomorrow. Think about it.}}

:In terms of the report itself, we can see this laid out in multiple sections, including where it quotes Israeli politicians intentionally engaged in the acts that the report concludes are consistent with the characteristics of genocide:

:{{tq|...In the light of the extensive information reviewed during the reporting period, the Committee is particularly concerned about the life-threatening conditions and severe physical and mental harm deliberately inflicted on the Palestinian people, through Israel’s means and methods of warfare in Gaza and policies and practices in the occupied West Bank, including East Jerusalem...}}

:{{tq|...The developments in this report lead the Special Committee to conclude that the policies and practices of Israel during the reporting period are consistent with the characteristics of genocide...Senior Israeli government and military officials must be held accountable, including for using dehumanizing language and inciting violence...}}

:{{tq|Since the escalation of the conflict, Israeli officials have publicly supported policies depriving civilians of food, water, and fuel, indicating their intent to instrumentalize the provision of basic necessities for political and military objectives and retribution ... On 9 October, the Minister of Defence of Israel announced a “complete siege” of the Strip with no electricity, no food, no fuel and removed every restriction on Israeli forces so they could “eliminate everything” ... On 10, 12 and 13 October, the then Minister of Energy and Infrastructure reiterated that Gaza would not receive a drop of water or a single battery until they leave the world, adding that this is how we will do to a nation of murderers and butchers and that what was will not be ... Other officials, such as the Minister of National Security, emphasized that humanitarian aid to Gaza would be contingent upon the release of hostages. ... On 10 October, the Israel Defense Forces’ spokesperson reaffirmed that the army’s focus was on causing “maximum damage” ... and on 18 October, the Prime Minister reiterated that they would not allow humanitarian assistance in the form of food and medicines ... A retired Major General, former head of the National Security Council, and advisor to the Minister of Defence, opined: “the way to win the war faster and at a lower cost for us requires the collapse of systems on the other side and not just the killing of more Hamas fighters. The international community is warning us of a humanitarian disaster in Gaza and of severe epidemics. We must not shy away from this […] After all, severe epidemics […] will bring victory closer.”}}

:The committee's report, which again "leaves no room for ambiguity" that "A genocide is unfolding before our eyes", cites Israeli politicians' statements to this effect extensively to provide evidence for that intent. Therefore the current phrasing we have in the lead accurately reflects the sources, though one can argue it's overly weak as it merely states that these statements "may amount to" genocide when the report concluded the statements combined with the acts did amount to genocide. Smallangryplanet (talk) 09:45, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

::The report does not state that {{tqq|statements by senior Israeli officials that may indicate an "intent to destroy" Gaza's population in whole or in part}}, which is the contention (if I understand it correctly), it would be simpler to state that the report concludes it is a case of genocide. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 10:09, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Yeah, that should resolve this, and in any case it is repetitive anyway as we refer to the report/committee already in the sentence before. We also don't cite it in that part so I think maybe the person who added it originally confused it for the UN experts source, who did make the point about the genocidal incitement and are cited as such. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gaza_genocide&diff=prev&oldid=1284737556 Should be all in order now]. Smallangryplanet (talk) 12:10, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

:::In fact, in all the RS reporting I found of the report, the phrase "consistent with the characteristics of genocide" are used. Which, as has been debated to death on this page, can mean committing any of the acts of genocide, with or without proven intent.

:::The lynchpin here though, which was not previously cited, is the committee chair's speech to the general assembly regarding the report. He's quite unequivocal: "Our report leaves no room for ambiguity. A genocide is unfolding before our eyes. Failing to act now—failing to put an end to this atrocity crime..." He's quite clearly saying a genocide is occurring, and as the chair of the committee, he's authorized to make such a summation of the report.

:::Ironically enough, the report clearly does leave room for ambiguity, since RS reporting seem to have universally adopted "characteristics of genocide" as the summation of the report, and not "genocide is occurring"... PhotogenicScientist (talk) 21:02, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Per the discussions above, I propose adding a sentence at the start of the article to serve the purposes of MOS:FIRST. The "According to a United Nations Special Committee..." sentence will remain but be modified to avoid duplicate wikilinks and information.--JasonMacker (talk) 00:27, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

My goal is for editors here to discuss adding a first sentence that introduces the topic, with my motivation being the discussion in the Talk:Gaza_genocide#Unsubstaniated_claims_in_the_lead section above. This isn't a formal RFC, but rather an informal discussion about how other editors here feel about the first sentence of this article. Let's build a consensus. Just a reminder that this section is not about the title of the article or the content of the article. Instead, it's about writing a first sentence in light of the already-existing article's title and content.--JasonMacker (talk) 00:27, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

As I mentioned in the previous discussion section, the article begins with an accusation that various organizations and experts have referred to Israeli mass killings and destruction as genocide. The next sentence discusses genocidal intent. As MOS:FIRST states, the first sentence should have an introduction to the topic (Gaza genocide), which is currently missing. The first sentence should describe the Gaza genocide directly, mentioning the killings and destruction that are being characterized as genocide. We should also include the page title as the subject of the first sentence. My proposed first sentence (and Shadowwarrior8's) would directly add a sentence containing Gaza genocide as the subject and also describe the genocide using non-specialist terms, satisfying MOS:FIRST.

At the same time, I want to be mindful of WP:VOICE. That's why the article's first sentence should explain what exactly is meant by "genocide" when discussing the topic of Gaza genocide. Readers should be informed of the facts, namely that Israel has killed a large number of Palestinians and has destroyed a large amount of civilian infrastructure in Gaza. These two uncontested, uncontroversial factual assertions (to use WP:VOICE's terminology) are not in dispute by reliable sources, including those who don't characterize them as genocidal acts. In other words, this article needs to make it clear, in the first sentence, and using Wikivoice, that there are actual mass killings and mass destruction events that are happening. The dispute by a minority of scholars is about whether to call those events genocide. To avoid WP:UNDUE, this minority view should not be in the first sentence and instead should be expressed in the article, as it currently is. However, the events themselves are happening, and scholars are referring to those events as the Gaza genocide.--JasonMacker (talk) 00:27, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

• A. JasonMacker's proposal - The Gaza genocide is the ongoing systematic destruction of Palestinians and civilian infrastructure in Gaza by Israel during the Gaza war. According to a United Nations special committee, Amnesty International, and many other experts and rights organisations, Israel has committed genocide during its invasion and bombing of Gaza. (Here is how it would look.)

:* A1, A2, A3, etc.: Any slight modification to this option, such as changing the wikilinks or a few words.

• B. Shadowwarrior8's proposal - The Gaza genocide is the large-scale killing of Palestinians and systematic destruction of civilian infrastructure in Gaza during the ongoing Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip. (Shadowwarrior8's proposal in the Talk:Gaza_genocide#Unsubstaniated_claims_in_the_lead section above, with relevant Wikilinks added.)

:* B1 Bob drobbs tweaks - The Gaza genocide is the large-scale killing of Palestinians and systematic destruction of infrastructure in Gaza during the ongoing Gaza War.

:* B2, B3, etc.: I'm unsure of how to reword the "According to..." sentence to accommodate this first sentence. If someone prefers this option, please also provide a rewording of the "According to..." sentence.

• C. Other first sentence - Some other first sentence substantially different from A or B, but would still immediately precede the "According to..." sentence.

:* C1, C2, C3, etc.: Please also provide a rewording of the "According to..." sentence.

• D. Some other change to the lead - Any proposed change to the lead that wouldn't involve simply adding a sentence and modifying the "According to..." sentence.

:* D1 EvansHallBear proposal – Add initial sentence per JasonMacker's proposal, change tense of second sentence, and put genocidal acts and intent in a second paragraph:

:::The Gaza genocide is the ongoing systematic destruction of the Palestinian people in Gaza by Israel during the Gaza war. According to a United Nations special committee, Amnesty International, and many other experts and rights organisations, Israel is committing genocide during its invasion and bombing of Gaza.

:::Alleged genocidal acts include large scale killing, use of starvation as a weapon of war, destruction of civilian infrastructure, attacks on healthcare, and forced displacement. Various observers, including UN experts, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the occupied Palestinian territories Francesca Albanese, and Human Rights Watch have cited statements by senior Israeli officials that may indicate an "intent to destroy" Gaza's population in whole or in part, a necessary condition for the legal threshold of genocide to be met.

:* D2, D3, etc.

• E. Some other option I've missed - Just to make this exhaustive, this is for any other option that for some reason isn't included in the above options.

:* E1, E2, E3, etc.

• F. Status quo - The article is left unchanged and begins with the "According to..." sentence.

--JasonMacker (talk) 00:27, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

• Support Option A, per nomination.--JasonMacker (talk) 00:27, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
• Support Options B1, B, then A My updates to B were that "civilian" infrastructure is unnccessary. We're talking about the destruction of civilian, military, and mixed-use infrastrucure. And the Gaza Genocide presumably includes bombing before the invasion, so it should be "Gaza War" not "invasion of Gaza". -- Bob drobbs (talk) 00:43, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
• :I would also support your B1 proposal.JasonMacker (talk) 03:21, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
• Support Option A, with the addition of "ongoing" preceding "invasion and bombing" (like it currently is). per nom. But not opposed to Option B nor Option D1. Mason7512 (talk) 20:46, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
• Support Option A, not opposed to B1. Agree there's a need for an opening sentence of this sort. Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 16:44, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
• Propose Option D1 above. Edit: Should state my rationale. Genocidal acts include more than just large scale killing and destruction of civilian infrastructure, but I didn't want to put a laundry list in the first sentence. Discussing acts and intent together in a second paragraph feels cleaner to me. I included "alleged" in the second paragraph, but would be fine removing if there's a consensus. EvansHallBear (talk) 18:14, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
• :: Strongly Oppose D1: Per the existing "about" which has consensus this article is about the killings. The topic is not about the accusations, and there's an entirely separate article about that:

::: {{tq|"This article is about ongoing Israeli mass killings in Gaza. For accusations throughout the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, see Palestinian genocide accusation"}}

::: Also if the views of this UN Special Committee are so important that they must be included in the first sentence, then we also must clearly say who they are which is the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Palestinian People -- Bob drobbs (talk) 18:32, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

::::I think you are confused, when the hatnote says "for accusations throughout the I.-P. conflict" they are distinguishing the articles by time it covers, as in the article Palestinian genocide accusation concerns all actions of alleged genocide against Palestinians, including those before 2023. This article is more of a subset of the other article. Mason7512 (talk) 18:40, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

::::My proposal is restricted to the current Gaza war and not the ongoing I-P conflict. All of my listed acts are discussed at length in the article, so I don't understand the objection. EvansHallBear (talk) 18:48, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

::::: Striking out my comment above. I was confused in a different way in that EvensHallBears proposal for the first sentence didn't mention the accusations at all. They were just appended as a follow-up sentence like version A but not B or B1. My mistake. I apologize. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 18:57, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::I added my explanation after you responded. Apologies for the confusion. EvansHallBear (talk) 19:26, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

::Although I prefer my proposal, I would also support Option A. EvansHallBear (talk) 03:54, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

• Support Option A or F There will always be debate over this. Impossible to please everyone. So keep it as is if consensus cannot be reached Cinaroot (talk) 04:01, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
• Support D, then A or B as an improvement on the current version. You can tell by the parts of the article that cite experts in that those with the anti-"it's a genocide" viewpoint tend to be from news interviews while those who have published their work in academic outlets are almost entirely found on the pro side; also per my literature search that I mentioned in my last comment on the page. (t · c) buidhe 09:36, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
• Support Option C Allegations of crimes against humanity have been made against Hamas for its attacks on Israel on October 7, 2023 and against Israel for its responses to those attacks. Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 21:38, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
• :It seems very illogical to start this article introducing something other than the subject. This isn't Allegations of genocide in the October 7 Hamas-led attack on Israel. Mason7512 (talk) 21:42, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::The article should begin with the context in which the events occurred. Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 23:15, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::Should Rwandan genocide begin with an explanation of the Assassination of Juvénal Habyarimana? Should Allegations of genocide in the October 7 Hamas-led attack on Israel / October 7 Hamas-led attack on Israel begin with an explanation of the Blockade of the Gaza Strip and Israeli apartheid? No, that's for their background sections. LEADS are for summarizing the subject of an article. This is pretty clear, and doing anything different in this article would be deviating from general practice and defeat the purpose of having a lead. Mason7512 (talk) 01:38, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
• :Strongly Oppose: There is already a link to Allegations of genocide in the October 7 Hamas-led attack on Israel at the top of the article. That this genocide is ostensibly occurring in response to the October 7th attack is discussed in the background section. But this article otherwise has nothing to do with the allegations of genocide against Hamas and so it should not be in the lead. Furthermore, this framing creates a WP:FALSEBALANCE between the two sets of allegations. EvansHallBear (talk) 23:38, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::The current wording suggests that Israel initiated the aggressions. Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 23:43, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::I don't believe it does. The current wording merely says that the genocide has occurred in the context of the Gaza war. It doesn't suggest one party started the current war or discuss the broader context of the Israel-Palestine conflict. EvansHallBear (talk) 23:56, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::::Indeed, it needs to begin with context. Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 23:58, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::::Please note prior summary of sources: Template:Expert opinions in the Gaza genocide debate [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gaza_genocide#c-PhotogenicScientist-20250311142300-Smallangryplanet-20250311140800] Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 00:35, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::This doesn't address your attempt to shoehorn the Allegations of genocide in the October 7 Hamas-led attack on Israel into the lead at all. EvansHallBear (talk) 21:02, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::If we really want to talk about the "context" in which these events occurred, why not discuss the history of actions in the Israel-Palestine conflict since the turn of the 21st century? Or going back to 1948? Or hell, we can be very thorough and go back to the start of Zionist settlement in Ottoman Palestine in the 1800s, as these are all brought up in the peer reviewed academic papers that have been published in academic journals discussing the case of the Gaza Genocide. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 09:29, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
• :MOS:FIRST states that "The first sentence should introduce the topic, and tell the nonspecialist reader what or who the subject is, and often when or where." Can you explain what you think the topic of this article is, and how your sentence introduces it? Based on your first sentence, I think a reader will understand that the topic of this article is about both allegations against Hamas and Israel jointly. However, the article is very clearly not about that. Providing "context" is appropriate for the background section of an article, not the very first sentence. You also mention that "the current wording suggests that Israel initiated the aggressions." Ok, why does that matter that the current wording suggests that? What do reliable sources say? JasonMacker (talk) 20:36, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::Many say that Israel is not committing genocide. Israel's intent is to take out military positions, in a defensive war started on October 7 by Hamas and other attackers. As I mentioned, this has been discussed previously: Template:Expert opinions in the Gaza genocide debate [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gaza_genocide#c-PhotogenicScientist-20250311142300-Smallangryplanet-20250311140800] Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 20:46, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::The article addresses both Israel's genocidal intent and those who disagree with the assessment of genocide. The background section also provides the necessary context starting from the Nakba instead of pretending that the conflict started on 7 October 2023. None of this information belongs in the lead. EvansHallBear (talk) 21:07, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::None of what you said is fact nor is it a consensus among the expert opinions listed on the page you cite. I don't know why you linked to a comment in a previous page discussion, but none of this address MOS:FIRST. I think you have a clear opinion which you believe is fact, but that should not dictate how an article is written. Mason7512 (talk) 21:21, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::::Accusations of genocide against Palestinians by Israel have been described as a form of "blood libel"{{cite book |last1=Nelson |first1=Cary |title=Israel Denial: Anti-Zionism, Anti-Semitism, & The Faculty Campaign Against the Jewish State |date=2009 |publisher=Indiana University Press |isbn=978-0253045089}}{{Cite news |last=Fandos |first=Nicholas |date=11 November 2023 |title=Two Young Democratic Stars Collide Over Israel and Their Party's Future |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/11/nyregion/aoc-torres-israel-gaza.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231118155151/https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/11/nyregion/aoc-torres-israel-gaza.html |archive-date=18 November 2023 |access-date=11 November 2023 |work=The New York Times |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331}}{{cite web |last=Merlin |first=Ohad |date=2024-05-16 |title=Blood Libels of today's generation |url=https://www.jpost.com/israel-hamas-war/article-801408 |access-date=2025-04-18 |website=The Jerusalem Post}}{{cite web |last=Jahjouh |first=Mohammad |last2=Shurafa |first2=Wafaa |last3=Press |first3=Associated |date=2024-12-05 |title=Amnesty International says Israel is committing genocide in Gaza. Israel rejects the allegations |url=https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/amnesty-international-says-israel-is-committing-genocide-in-gaza-israel-rejects-the-allegations |access-date=2025-04-18 |website=PBS News}}{{cite web |last=Lidor |first=Canaan |date=2024-12-19 |title=Israel calls HRW ‘genocide' report a ‘blood libel' |url=https://www.jns.org/israel-calls-hrw-genocide-report-a-blood-libel/ |access-date=2025-04-18 |website=JNS.org}} including by President Isaac Herzog,{{cite web |last=Magid |first=Jacob |date=2024-01-28 |title=‘A blood libel’: Herzog says ICJ ‘twisted my words’ to support ‘unfounded’ contention |url=https://www.timesofisrael.com/a-blood-libel-herzog-says-icj-twisted-my-words-to-support-unfounded-contention/ |access-date=2025-04-18 |website=The Times of Israel}} journalists Marcus Gee,{{cite web |last=Gee |first=Marcus |date=2024-01-05 |title=The genocide libel against Israel |url=https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/toronto/article-the-genocide-libel-against-israel/ |access-date=2025-04-18 |website=The Globe and Mail}} Howard Jacobson,{{cite web |last=Chotiner |first=Isaac |date=2024-10-14 |title=Rationalizing the Horrors of Israel’s War in Gaza |url=https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/rationalizing-the-horrors-of-israels-war-in-gaza |access-date=2025-04-18 |website=The New Yorker}} Clifford May,{{cite web |last=May |first=Clifford D. |date=2024-01-17 |title=The blood libel at The Hague |url=https://www.fdd.org/analysis/op_eds/2024/01/17/the-blood-libel-at-the-hague/ |access-date=2025-04-18 |website=FDD}} analyst Frida Ghitis,{{cite web |date=2024-05-07 |title=Opinion: The antisemitic lie at the heart of too many campus protests |url=https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/07/opinions/columbia-university-israel-campus-protests-antisemitism-ghitis/index.html |access-date=2025-04-18 |website=CNN}} historian Norman Goda,{{cite web |last=Goda |first=Norman JW |date=2023-10-07 |title=The Genocide Libel |url=https://isca.indiana.edu/publication-research/research-paper-series/norman-jw-goda-research-paper.html |access-date=2025-04-18 |website=Institute for the Study of Contemporary Antisemitism}} Eylon Levy,{{cite web |last=Berg |first=Raffi |date=2024-01-02 |title=Israel to fight South Africa's Gaza genocide claim in court |url=https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-67866342 |access-date=2025-04-18 |website=BBC Home}} and others. Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 21:45, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::::Besides Goda, none of those people are experts. EvansHallBear (talk) 21:49, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::And the accusation of blood libel has been countered by both Jewish and Israeli scholars who specialise in the field of genocide studies as being a cynical tool wielded by the state to shut down any discussion of not just genocide but any crimes that the state is committing against people. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 09:32, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::And I am well aware that many individuals who exist among the milieu of people that Allthemilescombined1 brought up have determined that those who counter the accusation of blood libel (or criticise the State of Israel in any way) are merely "self-hating antisemitic Jews", and so should not be listened to in these discussions. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 09:38, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::I asked multiple questions. You didn't answer a single one. Please engage in constructive discussion and answer my questions.
• :::1. In your view, what is the topic of this article?
• :::2. How does your sentence introduce the topic of this article?
• :::3. Why does "the current wording suggests that Israel initiated the aggressions" matter?
• :::4. Why should what you mention in your proposed first sentence be the first sentence of this Gaza genocide article? JasonMacker (talk) 22:05, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::::1. Baseless allegations against Israel.
• ::::2. Brings article closer to NPOV.
• ::::3. Current wording is non-neutral.
• ::::4. To bring article closer to NPOV. Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 22:57, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::::1. Incorrect. That would be a separate article, titled International Jewish conspiracy. This article is about a characterization of Israeli mass killings, namely the Gaza genocide. That's why the article is titled that. Reliable sources, including the ones that disagree with the genocide characterization, all agree that there has been mass killing and mass destruction in Gaza perpetrated by Israel.
• :::::2,3 4. You didn't answer the questions in a constructive way. You've stated multiple times that you think it's non-neutral. By this point, I think every editor active on this page is familiar with your assertions. Stop simply repeating that. Instead, explain how it's non-neutral. JasonMacker (talk) 04:35, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::Well, the article isn't neutral, but as this talk's history shows, it's futile trying to litigate this here. But let's see... it presents unpaid, independent volunteers like Albanese as representatives of the UN[https://news.un.org/en/story/2024/02/1146587], elevates the South African government above the US and most other major Western governments (that dispute or outright reject the genocide allegation), and places "middle east studies" on equal academic footing with scholars of international law. The international law section shows much more pushback against genocide claims than you find in middle east studies, the latter being symptomatic of the profound lack of pov diversity throughout this piece. It's debatable as to whether 'middle east studies' scholars are even qualified to assess genocide (I suspect some are, but many are not).
• ::::::Take 'Starvation' as another example. This section contains endless accusations that Israel is engineering a famine, but no talk of Hamas and other groups hoarding food, water, fuel and other supplies [https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/27/world/middleeast/palestine-gazans-hamas-food.html]. Or the fact that the Israeli government has arrested Israelis for trying to prevent humanitarian aid from entering Gaza[https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/us-calls-out-israel-hamas-after-gaza-aid-shipment-attacked-diverted-2024-05-02/], which is quite odd if we're to take the genocide via famine narrative seriously.
• ::::::Sliding this stuff into an already heavily slanted article wouldn't be enough. I've long been of the opinion this article needs to be rewritten from scratch, but at this point even some minor balance would be a significant improvement. Jonathan f1 (talk) 16:12, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::Just a reminder that this section is not about the title of the article or the content of the article. Instead, it's about writing a first sentence in light of the already-existing article's title and content. If you have concerns regarding the actual content of the article, this isn't the place for it. You're more than welcome to start your own section on this talk page and address issues of neutrality. This space is for editors to come up with a first sentence that introduces the topic of the article. In light of this, I don't understand how your view that the article's content is non-neutral is constructive to coming up with a first sentence for this article. Discussing the content and the scope of this article is exactly what I was trying to avoid with this section, because my view is that the currently existing article does not have an adequate first sentence. Even if we were to, as you have just stated, downplay Albanese's role at the UN, prioritize the POV of western governments over South Africa, remove the Middle East scholars section, prominently discuss how Hamas is actually starving the Palestinian people, etc. etc... This article would still need a first sentence that introduces the topic. That's the main issue here. Allthemilescombined1's proposal could be a wonderful lead sentence for a different article, but not this one. Why? Because it doesn't introduce the topic of this article. His proposed first sentence is beginning with allegations against Hamas. There is already an entirely separate article for that! Nothing you have written here helps with choosing a good first sentence for this article. I wasn't talking about NPOV about the article broadly. Did you read the questions I asked? They are asking about the first sentence of the article. You can't NPOV an entire article by tweaking the first sentence, so the whole effort to try to "bring article closer to NPOV" by mentioning Hamas in the lead sentence is fruitless.
• :::::::So again, either you or allthemilescombined1, focus on the proposed first sentence of the article and answer the question for this section: given the article's title and content, what would be an appropriate first sentence? Answer that question, and explain WHY it would be an appropriate first sentence. And for extra credit, you can assess the proposals that have already been made thus far. JasonMacker (talk) 17:19, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::Considering how you have argued previously that you believe area specialists with no expertise in the fields of things like famine or genocide studies are able to declare genocide emphatically had not occurred, in contrast to scholars who specialise in famines and genocide studies, it seems you are picking and choosing based on other criteria beyond specialism as to where you declare which specialists should be considered in assessing events. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 20:31, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::::If you don't know what "introducing the topic" means - which is apparent from the way you answered the question - then you're clearly lacking WP:COMPETENCE — 🧀Cheesedealer ^!!!⚟ 11:47, 20 April 2025 (UTC)