Jump to content

Talk:Gaza genocide

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by FunLater (talk | contribs) at 07:37, 25 June 2024 (→Three options: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Proposed Title Change to "Allegations of genocide by Israel in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war"

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not Moved - I can see no consensus for moving at this point, and the discussion has run long enough. The nom raises some quite valid points about accuracy in "war" versus "attack". The oppose !votes are making a point that is not obviously connected to the proposed change in title, or if it is it needed more explanation than they have provided. However, with only one support !vote the necessary consensus is also not really here. This close is without prejudice to opening a further discussion. (non-admin closure) FOARP (talk) 15:03, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza → Allegations of genocide by Israel in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war – See below.

Aside from the above discussion of merging this article with Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Hamas attack on Israel, the title of this article is just weird. Yes, I assume that some editor(s) with a particular viewpoint/POV chose to name this article as a parallel with that one. However, as many folks have invoked in the aforementioned discussion, that's just a false parallel. The common name for Israel's action is a "war" (Gaza War, Israel-Hamas War, whichever) rather than an "attack". Wikipedia refers to 7 Oct as the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel (and frankly, that genocide allegation Wikipedia article title should be amended to match this "Hamas-led" usage, to maintain consistent terminology across Wikipedia) while it refers to the events encompassing the Israeli response as the 2023 Israel–Hamas war. If this article ends up merged, the proper title would likely be "Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war" or, for accuracy and completeness, "Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel and Israel–Hamas war" (a bit long, but more precise and clear). For now, though, as a separate article, calling it the "Israeli attack on Gaza" is inconsistent with the terminology for this event in use elsewhere on Wikipedia and, more significantly, in widespread media coverage and public discourse. Jbbdude (talk) 02:36, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the 2nd paragraph on 2023 Israel–Hamas war. That may help. Natsuikomin (talk) 13:00, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, sorry for misunderstanding. Now I know what you meant to say, inconsistency of the naming. Natsuikomin (talk) 13:12, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jbbdude The current title is appropriate and consistent.
The Israeli attack on Gaza is an event within a broader war. The genocide claims are specific to that locality and that attack, e.g. Israel are not currently being accused of genocide in Lebanon or the West Bank. There have been attacks in both those areas, but on a different scale.
Likewise Hamas et al. are being accused of genocide on 7 October, but nobody is suggesting that their current attacks on IDF troops invading Gaza are a genocide (at least nobody even remotely credible) and that corresponding page has a similar narrow title.
Irtapil (talk) 06:23, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because attack and genocide are simply not the same thing? Natsuikomin (talk) 07:15, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jbbdude I re read the middle of what you said. But I stand by what I wrote originally. There is only one war; the "war" goes all the way from Lebanon to the Red Sea, but the genocide is in the Gaza strip.
An "attack" is an action within a war, the word "attack" possibly isn't ideal, but "war" isn't a good substitute, because the war is bigger. Do you have any other suggestions?
"Invasion" doesn't fit, because the first clearly genocidal act was cutting off the food and water nearly a month before the invasion. And the day before that there were bombings that some would class as the start.
Irtapil (talk) 06:31, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. "Israeli attack on Gaza" implies that this is a single unilataeral attack rather than an ongoing bilateral war. Furthermore, reliable source do not refer to it as the "2023 Israeli attack on Gaza". The article should be renamed to Allegations of genocide in the Israel-Hamas War Marokwitz (talk) 08:33, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We have Use of human shields by Hamas and Human shields in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and apparently we are missing Use of human shields by Israel to balance things up. Or perhaps we only need the middle one. This sort of titling is common atm, we have Palestinian genocide accusation too but not a Israeli genocide accusation except as a redirect to the former, Idk why. The current title seems already to refer to an allegation against Israel without the need to further alter it.Selfstudier (talk) 11:24, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose. The overwhelmingly vast majority of the victims in this conflict have been innocent Palestinian civilians. David A (talk) 07:38, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. As per @David A. Natsuikomin (talk) 08:32, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 29 February 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

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


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

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

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

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

Survey (Requested move 29 February 2024)

Would fully oppose. Super Ψ Dro 11:20, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support given the sheer amount of evidence. Salmoonlight (talk) 00:03, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support. Call a spade a spade. There are enough reliable resources that now refer to it as genocide. In the Rohingya genocide, about 25,000 people were killed. In the Palestinian genocide, over 30,000 people and counting have been confirmed killed, plus several thousand more missing people are most probably dead under the rubble.Crampcomes (talk) 00:05, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support. The evidence has been clear for a long time now, and it was further confirmed when the ICJ accepted the plausibility of "at least some of the rights claimed by South Africa" under the Genocide Convention in the case of Israeli genocide against Palestinians. Nori2001 (talk) 00:12, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mixed, overall support. I'd say it qualifies as a genocide, and has been recognized as such by multiple countries and organizations (including parts of the UN), and has been recognized as plausible by the ICJ.
    I do have some reservations.
    1. Reliable sources haven't referred to it as genocide yet. They will likely change their tune if the ICJ rules against Israel, but we have to wait.
    2. Neutrality. Until sources and the ICJ say so, especially since it's a sensitive subject, it's a bit hard and will likely be very controversial.
    3. The proposed name. If we're going to change it, go all in. "Attempted genocide" is stupid when sources either aren't saying it is, denying it, or saying it is. No one is saying it's attempted.
    However. There is some precedent for this kind of thing. In 2016/2017, even when sources were describing the Rohingya genocide as massacres and a crisis, and the ICC hadn't ruled on it yet, we still named it a genocide as multiple countries recognized it as such, and the UN said it was plausible. (1) Does this not meet the same criteria? I say it would. Interpretation matters. If a bunch of countries say it's genocide, and international orgs say it is/could be, then I think there's a realistic case for this.
    Summary: I generally support the change, but it's a touchy situation, and it may be better to wait it out until the ICJ ruling. There is however precedent of Wikipedia editor's handling of the Rohingya genocide, and as such, I support this. Personisinsterest (talk) 01:33, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would also like to say that Western sources may be bias. Reliable sources supporting the claim of genocide may be found internationally. Personisinsterest (talk) 01:41, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, while I find the arguments above compelling I am worried about WP:NPOV issues with the proposed title. I would like to see evidence that international sources generally treat what's going on as a conclusive genocide and not just accusations of genocide. A full ruling in South Africa v. Israel may also be relevent. Esolo5002 (talk) 01:37, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A full ruling is expected to take years, at least according to Reuters. But, I believe it's the best standard for this kind of case. – Howard🌽33 08:51, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NODEADLINE. We can wait if necessary. Super Ψ Dro 11:20, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support although if there is so much evidence that it is simply a genocide and not "attempted," I think it would be far more warranted to change it to something like Gaza genocide. GLORIOUSEXISTENCE (talk) 02:25, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - (commenting as editor who proposed the name change) I was wary to go all in with Gaza genocide at first, but as I can see other editors above agree that it is a more appropriate name, I’d like to formally change the proposed move to reflect this, as it would be more in line with similar articles. Would the best move be to wait out the debate to see how many people would also support Gaza genocide as the proposed name? It’s 2:51 am so I will most likely not reply until later in the morning, but if someone can formally change this, I would be appreciative, thanks. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 02:53, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with comment — I'm generally skeptical of putting qualifying verbiage into article titles when it's not justified, and I don't see it as justified here. The standard for accepting the notability of a phenomenon should, in my opinion, run through an accumulation of high-quality expert sources, and on this issue one can look to…
Reviewing these sources has reminded me that many such authoritative statements do have a conditional or future tense, so maybe the proposed title is correct, for now.--Carwil (talk) 05:30, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, the statements of leaders and actions of the military align with this. Albert Mond (talk) 07:41, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: What exactly is the Wikipedia policy on calling something a genocide? Do Wikipedia editors themselves have to review the facts of a case and evaluate if it meets the Genocide Convention, or do we call an event a genocide if and only if reliable sources call it as such? – Howard🌽33 08:52, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Secondly, this article is primarily concerned with covering accusations, allegations, and views of various organizations and people during this event. An RM discussion like this would be better for Gaza humanitarian crisis (2023–present), which primarily covers the facts of the case. – Howard🌽33 08:56, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: This is actually a good point. An article called something like Gaza genocide or Alleged Gaza genocide or Palestinian genocide (Gaza) etc. would detail the actual events that constitute the genocide. While articles called something like Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza, Accusations of genocide in the 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza, Attempted genocide by Israel in their 2023 attack on Gaza, Gaza genocide question, etc. would detail discourse about the proper characterization of the events (in scholarly sources, in news media, in international fora, etc.). So perhaps it would better to move Gaza humanitarian crisis (2023–present) to something like the proposed title, rather than this article.
    I'll also add that overall I support there being an article with a title similar to the proposed title (probably without "attempted"), given the prevalence of scholarly and international sources calling it a genocide, and given the Rohingya precedent cited by Personisinsterest. Dylanvt (talk) 22:39, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Howardcorn33 We can't deem anything genocide, terrorist, ourselves, that's banned as original research. We need high quality reliable sources. Doug Weller talk 09:47, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In that case, the entire argument for moving the article may fall apart. As it appears, Lofgren's (and several other's in this discussion) arguement is based on his judgement of the facts of the case and does not consider what reliable sources actually deem it. According to Carwil's comment, RS have deemed a potential for genocide to happen here, so perhaps we could instead rename the article to "Potential genocide in the 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza". – Howard🌽33 09:56, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    An argument for potential is a lot more reasonable, but alleged is better because of the wide range that potential can mean: I could potentially win the lottery next week, but no one is alleging that I will. FortunateSons (talk) 22:54, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose. The overly emotional and victimising Israeli-Palestinian conflict topic area strikes again. As usual arguments here are based on appeals to emotions and clearly personal points of view. As Wikipedians, we are not here to peddle Israeli narrative; Deliberately targeting civilians in this manner, with none of the "restraint" that they claim to be displaying, is a clear sign that they intend to kill every single person in Gaza.
One thing is claiming that evidently careless Israeli actions in Gaza have amounted to a genocide, which can be argued, and another is that their intention since the very start has been to erase the people of Gaza. What a ridiculous claim and I cannot believe it is actually being supported. Could someone explain to me what benefits does this proposed title carry? It has no additional informational value. To me it would appear that it only serves to fit a point of view. It also finds no consensus among reliable sources. The current title does and is perfectly neutral. To do something as inflammatory as referring to something as a "genocide" with appeals to emotion rather than objective arguments about what do reliable sources say is unbelievable. Have sources suddenly changed their narrative? I don't know, because this RM is not based on that. Super Ψ Dro 11:20, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it would be prudent to gather a list of RS and tally up which mention a genocide, a potential genocide, and not a potential genocide. – Howard🌽33 12:07, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This comment is, frankly, sickeningly apathetic. Dropping your phone is "careless", murdering over 30,000 people, 25,000+ of which are women and children (according to the United States) is NOT "careless".
... and another is that their intention since the very start has been to erase the people of Gaza. What a ridiculous claim and I cannot believe it is actually being supported. It is abundantly clear that this is the aim of Israel. Feel free to read through the database of over five hundred deplorable statements made by Israelis in positions of power here.
The current title is not neutral, and does not accurately reflect the current situation in Gaza. I think the sources provided by Carwil above give high-quality expert opinions on the matter, as Carwil states.
What is happening in Gaza is a genocide by definition of the word. We have expert opinion to back this up. Why should the title not reflect the truth? Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 13:15, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For context, 2 sources provided by Carwil, namely that from the UN and University of Notre Dame are at best raising concern of possible genocide in Gaza. While some high-profile politicians have straight out calling Israel guilty of genocide, they are not really expert on the topic. While an "allegation of genocide" is already a very serious issue, if we want the title to reflect more closely of what the experts are thinking, I think something like "Risk of genocide in Gaza" would be a more appealing option to a more editors. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 13:27, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said before, we need to conduct a proper survey of reliable sources to see if they deem it a "Genocide" or a "Possible Genocide". We are Wikipedia, not the World Court, so we shall follow what the reliable sources actually call it, not what we judge it to be. – Howard🌽33 13:35, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Howardcorn33 and Sameboat. Very heavy sourcing plus evidence that contrary views are minoritary/fringe will be needed to defend that there is indisputedly genocidal intent from the part of Israel as the proposed move suggests. The only source provided by Davidlofgren1996 in their reply to me is an apparent list of declarations that we Wikipedians cannot synthesize or use to take conclusions of. That would be the job of secondary sources. I am not opposed to "risk of genocide" if editors deem it appropriate. But I still don't get what's the problem with the current title. To me it perfectly reflects the article's contents, which I remind is legal and academic discussion of Israeli crimes in Gaza rather than the crimes themselves (an argument already raised up above by Howardcorn33). Super Ψ Dro 13:56, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Super Dromaeosaurus building a table of the sources from the article should have it posted here between 8 and 9 pm GMT. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 15:00, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  1. - Lula de Silva - Jacobin - Genocide
  2. - Omer Bartov - NYT - Genocidal intent, risk of genocide
  3. - 800 scholars in law, conflict studies, and genocide studies - Third World Approaches to International Law Review - Risk of genocide
  4. - Abdelwahab El-Affendi - Journal of Genocide Research - Genocide
  5. - 100+ Global Rights Groups - Common Dreams - Genocide
  6. - Mark Levene - Journal of Genocide Research - Genocide
  7. - Zoé Samudzi - Journal of Genocide Research - Genocide
  8. - Martin Shaw - Journal of Genocide Research - Genocide
  9. - Elyse Semerdjian - Journal of Genocide Research - Genocide
  10. - Raz Segal - Jewish Currents - Genocide
  11. - 100 Civil Society Organisations and Genocide Scholars - Al-Mezan Centre for Human Rights - Genocide
  12. - Palestinian UN Envoy - Reuters - Genocide
  13. - Human Rights Watch - Human Rights Watch - Failure to prevent and punish Genocide
  14. - Amnesty International - Amnesty International - Failure to prevent and punish Genocide
  15. - Michael Fakhri - The Guardian - Genocide
  16. - Ernesto Verdeja - TIME - gravitating towards a "genocidal campaign"
  17. - Center for Constitutional Rights - The Intercept - Genocide
  18. - 47 scholars in the fields of history, law, and criminology - International State Crime Initiative - Genocide
  19. - Israeli Public Figures represented by Human Rights Lawyer Michael Sfard - The Guardian - Ignoring incitement to genocide
  20. - Ben Kiernan - Time - Does not meet legal definition for genocide
  21. - Adam Jones - Vox - Causing Article 2, Clause C
  22. - Dov Waxman - Vox - Risk of genocide
  23. - Norman Finkelstein - GV Wire - Genocide
  24. - Eva Illouz - Le Monde - Not genocide
  25. - Eva Illouz - The Forward - Incitement to genocide
  26. - Organization of Islamic Countries, The Arab League, and 7 other countries supporting South Africa - Al Jazeera - Genocide
  27. - Venezuela - Mehr News - Genocide
  28. - Australia, Austria, Czechia, France, Germany, Guatemala, Hungary, Israel, Italy, Paraguay, USA, UK - Various prominent news outlets - Not genocide
  29. - Colombia - Associated Press - Genocide
  30. - Genocide Watch - Genocide Watch - Risk of genocide
  31. - Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention - Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention - Genocide
  32. - Norman J. W. Goda - Quillette - Not genocide
  33. - Jeffrey C. Herf - Quillette - Not genocide
  34. - Cuba - Al Jazeera - Genocide
On counting the statements from different countries in the total this puts it at:
  • 30 sources say it's genocide
  • 7 say it's a Risk, Maybe, or Partial
  • 16 say it is not (only counting Eva Illouz's initial statement saying it is not genocide)
-- Cdjp1 (talk) 21:39, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Personally I would see this as proof of there not being an universal or widely accepted interpretation. There are more calling it a genocide than I expected though. It might have increased over time, and might continue to do so. But in this case it would be appropriate to propose a title of this type only in some months next time. The current one is an appropriate middle ground for something with several main views. Super Ψ Dro 23:02, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would just point to take note that some of those sources in labelling this as genocide are counting dozens to hundreds of people in the relevant academic fields. Which is not present in the sources stating it is not. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 23:10, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for surveying the various media outlets. It appears that slightly more than 50% of the sources gathered directly acknowledge it as a genocide. However, seeing that there is still not unanimous agreement among RS, I recommend the following:
– Howard🌽33 23:02, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose this. We aren't obliged to follow other cases' standard practices. Because again I see no problem with the current title. Also I don't think a majority (over 50%) means there is academic consensus. We should be looking to get close to unanimity. We already follow values like these at Wikipedia, see WP:NOTAVOTE, a few strong arguments can override a majority of opposite ones. I recommend that we look into this in some months, or even later. There is no rush. The final veredict of the international investigation is probably going to be the most respected authority on this topic in the future. Not implying that things might not get clearer before that though. Super Ψ Dro 23:07, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd personally like to rename this article "Gaza genocide question" per WP:CONCISE. As for Gaza Humanitarian Crisis, I suppose it should stay as such (although I hardly think 2023-present is necessary) considering that there is not total unanimity. What exactly is the percentage of agreement that we should consider "unanimous" anyway? – Howard🌽33 23:22, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway I really would like the admins to close this discussion down so we can migrate to discuss this on Gaza humanitarian crisis. I'll put my vote here for now. – Howard🌽33 23:24, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What was the methodology behind building this list? BilledMammal (talk) 22:13, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BilledMammal: All sources currently used within this article that provide a decision on what is occurring in relation to it being a genocide, plus a couple of sources that declare it is not a genocide which were removed from the article due to being published in a GUNREL source, and pulling the states that opposed South Africa's case at the ICJ from the article on that matter. I can pull from more sources should people want, as I have a list of sources to work through adding to this article (both saying it is and is not a genocide), but as is the case here the majority of these as of yet not used sources do declare Israel's actions as genocidal or part of a genocide. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 17:57, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t think that’s a useful metric; there is no reason to believe that the sources in our article are representative - and given we have sources explicitly stating scholars are split on this question, I would suggest they are not and the fact they are not is an indication of NPOV issues with this article. BilledMammal (talk) 21:56, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The source of an article should determine the specific name of the article, if said name is under debate. If the event that is the subject of the article is referred to as a genocide by the source, the article should reflect that. Cortador (talk) 09:12, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: This article is not concerned with the humanitarian crisis in Gaza itself, it is concerned with covering the allegations, statements, and opinions of various organizations and people, including also academic discourse on the genocide question. I instead propose moving this article to Gaza genocide question, per WP:CONCISE. I am still waiting for an admin to close down this discussion and re-open it somewhere more appropriate such as Gaza humanitarian crisis. – Howard🌽33 23:36, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It is far too contentious to put in wikivoice that Israel is attempting genocide in Gaza, and it isn't supported by the majority sources. Users that are just opining "this is a genocide" without citing sources should be ignored. To move this title to the proposed one would clearly fail Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(events)#Maintaining_neutral_point_of_view. The closer should heed the guidance following passage mentioned in the Naming conventions (events) article: If there is no common name for the event and no generally accepted descriptive word, use a descriptive name that does not carry POV implications. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:26, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The majority of reliable sources, as shown in discussion above do call this a genocide. Across a variety of reliable source outlets, including thousands of relevant experts, plus leading figures in the field of genocide research. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 15:24, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Is a simple majority of sources enough to deem it a genocide? Or must it be a unanimity? – Howard🌽33 16:04, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no fixed amount. It should be an amount large enough to convince editors that this should be considered a genocide. This doesn't mean that all editors must agree either, but that consensus is achieved. I don't think there's currently consensus among sources to reach a new consensus here, and opposes by other editors would indicate this as well. Super Ψ Dro 16:28, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I acknowledge that the vast breadth and depth of those who have declared this genocide will not achieve consensus among editors, but just correcting the record for those who claim it "isn't supported by the majority". -- Cdjp1 (talk) 16:34, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The current title is the most neutral. Being accused of genocide is not the same thing as attempting genocide. Strongly oppose 'Gaza genocide' until the lead sentence can definitively state that "The State of Israel is committing (has committed) genocide..." Some1 (talk) 02:22, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. To call this "attempted genocide" or "genocide" in wikivoice we need a consensus among reliable sources that it is an attempted genocide or a genocide. No such consensus exists, and doing so in its absence would be a clear WP:NPOV violation. BilledMammal (talk) 02:30, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose no consensus of sources. This proposal is neither evidence-based nor policy-based, and most of the votes are devoid of the same. This CTOP has been experiencing things like this all too much lately. I also agree with Super Dromeosaurus and Hemiauchenia. JM (talk) 04:36, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Need to have that it is genocide from an authorative source like the ICJ or for lots of time to pass and it be agreed in scholarly sources. NadVolum (talk) 11:29, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The majority of reliable sources, as shown in discussion above do call this a genocide. Across a variety of reliable source outlets, including thousands of relevant experts, plus leading figures in the field of genocide research. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 15:25, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. It is a serious violation of NPOV to refer to these allegations as facts while the CIJ oredered Israel to take measures to prevent [future] acts that could be considered genocidal, and did not order Israel to suspend the military campaign. Had the "attempt" been so obvious, the court's decision would have state it and its orders to Israel would have been much more serious. פעמי-עליון (pʿmy-ʿlywn) - talk 12:48, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This not only fails in understanding how the ICJ has ruled in previous genocide cases, where they had meagre suggestions given, when subsequently multiple individuals and parties were convicted of the crimes of genocide, and ignores the entire scholarly side of examination, which provides the reasoning for most cases of genocide to be labelled as such. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 15:28, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support. Most of the world is outraged at the scale of Israeli atrocities in Gaza, which include the murder of thousands upon thousands of children; and "genocide" has become the common term for what is happening there. WP:IAR was written for occasions like this, when we should use common sense and not be dissuaded by a pedantic interpretation of the rules from calling something by what it is. There is nothing wrong with the article title Gaza genocide. NightHeron (talk) 17:32, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Per arguments of user Davidlofgren1996 in the nomination and list of 30+ sources given by Cdjp1 in the survey.
As of present, more than 30,320 Gazans have been killed, 7,800 are missing and more than 71,000 Gazans have been wounded. Out of more than 30,300 people killed; more than 12,600 are children. Approximately 1.9 million Palestinians are forcibly displaced. The ongoing military campaign appears to be genocidal.
Social media is full of anger and shock about the atrocities occuring in Gaza. When I googled "Gaza genocide", there are plenty of websites, journals and articles accusing Israel of perpetrating a genocide.
Some of the sources I read:

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

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


References

  1. ^ Francesca Albanese (26 March 2024), Anatomy of a Genocide – Report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967, Francesca Albanese (PDF), Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Wikidata Q125152282, archived (PDF) from the original on 25 March 2024
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

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

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

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

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

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

New ICJ order of 28 March 2024

Here[7] — kashmīrī TALK 17:50, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Damage, not accuracy"

@BilledMammal: I understand why the quote from the mayor of an Israeli city might be deemed irrelevant, but why was the "damage, not accuracy" quote removed? [8] David A (talk) 05:17, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Death toll

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

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

Requested move 3 May 2024

Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza → ? – I'm unsure what the new title should be, but I'm sure that this one has an issue. The Israeli attack on Gaza has gone past 2023 into 2024. So, we can't keep the "2023 Israeli attack on Gaza" part. Perhaps we could change it to "Allegations of genocide perpetrated by Israel in the Israel–Hamas war", "Allegations of genocide in Gaza in the Israel–Hamas war", or something different. Note that "2023 Israeli attack on Gaza" just redirects to Israel–Hamas war. Paul Vaurie (talk) 19:49, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How about Allegations of Israeli genocide in Gaza? Simonm223 (talk) 19:57, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unconvinced. Most frequently on Wikipedia, ethnonym + genocide refers to the victims: Armenian genocide, Tamil genocide, Rohingya genocide, Greek genocide, etc. The current title isn't most fortunate, but until and unless we have a consensus to move to Palestinian genocide (2023–2024) – which we're rather far from at the moment given that many editors simply rely on large Euro-American press titles, while court cases have not yet been concluded – I don't see an urgent need to move away from it. — kashmīrī TALK 20:33, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Was there a prior consensus against 'Palestinian genocide accusations'? entropyandvodka | talk 01:35, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's already a separate article! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 19:52, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, that is a bad title. In general this area is difficult to title clearly, because there is ambiguity with labeling the alleger, the alleged perpetrator, and the alleged victim. For this article, "Allegations of genocide perpetrated by Israel in the Israel–Hamas war" seems clear, since there’s no ambiguity (because an allegation has no perpetrator, in common parlance). ꧁Zanahary꧂ 22:22, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
“Palestinian genocide” would imply a larger extermination in all of the areas of Palestinians controlled by Israel (such as the West Bank). “Gaza genocide” suggests the atrocities are localised and against Palestinian civilians in the Gaza Strip The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 03:03, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Palestinian genocide" would falsely treat the accusations as proven.
Quoting from MOS:ALLEGED, "alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined". This is exactly the situation that the claim of genocide is in.
As such, while "2023" needs changing, the title should not be changed to anything that treats the accusations as true.
Maybe something like Gaza genocide accusations, which seems like the most concise option. Jerdle (talk) 01:05, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Accusation of genocide in Gaza - it's a clear accusation, now substantiated in court, not an allegation, which we should generally avoid per MOS:ALLEGE. There has only been one (plausible) genocide in Gaza, so all of these other clarifying words are just fluff (and in some ways confusing) and aren't necesssary, per WP:CONCISE. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:03, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Too ambiguous. Does not account for Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel. ―Howard • 🌽33 12:33, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what the page is about. That's not a renaming, but a re-scoping. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:36, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article (Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza) concerns accusations of genocide against Israel specifically. By merely stating "Accusation of genocide in Gaza", it is unclear who the accusation is being levied against. "Accusation of genocide in Gaza" could be an alternate name for "Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel", so we need to specify who is being accused. ―Howard • 🌽33 12:52, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No it couldn't. "Accusations of genocide in Gaza" clearly implies that the genocide in question occurred in Gaza. If you are saying it could be accusations of genocide made in Gaza, well, I believe that's the same topic in the context. Accusations of genocide in Israel could also be so termed. An even shorter proposed form could be Gazan genocide accusation, in line with Palestinian genocide accusation. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:17, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not mind either option. I just want stronger and more concise wording than currently. David A (talk) 12:04, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What's the intended subject matter? Violent acts, or the public discussion about them? For clarity, it's like the difference between lab research and literary study. — kashmīrī TALK 09:48, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I understand the analogy. The subject matter is accusations. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:35, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then the article needs to be fundamentally rewritten. For now, its largest sections focus on genocidal intent, genocidal actions, and legal proceeedings, i.e., on the alleged acts. If the article subject is to be allegations/accusations, then it should read more like a study of legal literature, focusing on describig sources, writing style, scope, data quality, authors' qualifications, etc. — kashmīrī TALK 11:18, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aren't there accusations of genocidal intent, accusations of genocidal actions, and accusations as part of the legal proceedings - all of this appear to be broadly bound up together. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:28, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How about "Allegations of genocide perpetrated by Israel in Gaza", "Allegations of genocide perpetrated by Israel against Palestinians", or "Allegations of genocide in the 2023 to 2024 Israeli attack on Gaza", with the word "perpetrated" potentially removed in any of the above options? Would any of these alternatives or a variation thereof work? David A (talk) 14:16, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support: 'Accusations of genocide in Gaza' or 'Gazan genocide accusations' seem to be the most accurate suggestions so far, given the current legal state of the matter. Regarding nitpicking on scope, I'd point out that most major war crimes articles inclusively contain both proven instances as well as allegations and accusations. I'd be fine with allegations or accusations. entropyandvodka | talk 22:02, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to amend that with stronger support for 'Accusations of Palestinian genocide in Gaza'. Not all Gazans are Palestinians, and the accusations pertain to the intent to destroy the Palestinian people in Gaza, in whole or in part, not all Gazans broadly. entropyandvodka | talk 02:00, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Gazan genocide accusations or Gaza genocide accusations or Accusations of genocide in Gaza; focus on the place where the alleged genocide happened/is happening ("Gazan" is fine too as that would inherently also define the scope as Gaza). All meet AT criteria equally well IMO. Levivich (talk) 01:10, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the phrasing "by Israel" should be included somewhere in the title, for the sake of specification, clarity, and ease of finding this page via Internet searches. Otherwise it will easily be hidden from those interested in the subject. Hence, "Accusations of genocide by Israel in Gaza", "Allegations of genocide by Israel in Gaza", "Accusations of genocide by Israel against Palestinians", or "Allegations of genocide by Israel against Palestinians" might work. David A (talk) 02:42, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The last two don't work because there is already a Palestinian genocide accusation article; this article is a sub-article of that one and has to stay focused on Gaza and not on all Palestinians.
As to mentioning "Israel," I think similar to the suggestion of mentioning "Palestinians," even though Israel is the perpetrator and Palestinians are the target of the alleged genocide, I don't think those two details are necessary for the title. It's not like we need to distinguish the Gaza genocide accusation from another alleged genocide that is allegedly perpetrated by someone other than Israel or that allegedly targets someone other than Palestinians. The alleged genocide of Palestinians in Gaza by Israel is the only alleged genocide in Gaza, and so the concision criteria of WP:AT wins out in my view, because we don't need to be any more precise or recognizable than saying "genocide" and "Gaza" ("alleged," "allegation" or "accusation" are needed for V/NPOV). Levivich (talk) 05:12, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as I mentioned above, unless we mention "by Israel" in the title, searches for relevant information by visitors will be hidden, which destroys much of the point of this article, so I strongly disagree. David A (talk) 02:53, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support for Gaza Genocide Accusations. It's clear enough about the scope of the article while allowing for some discussion of the root causes in a background section, and it's concise. Unbandito (talk) 01:29, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Discrimination, WikiProject Palestine, WikiProject Ethnic groups, WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, WikiProject Disaster management, WikiProject Death, WikiProject Israel, WikiProject Human rights, and WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration have been notified of this discussion. RodRabelo7 (talk) 09:47, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support changing "2023 Israeli attack" (obviously outdated), and replacing "Allegations" by "Accusations" (as they have formally been made in court). Agree with Kashmiri that we don't usually include the perpetrator (which is a bit obvious, since Gaza was always under Israeli or Palestinian control since the end of the Egyptian military occupation in 1967). Allegations of 2023–2024 genocide in Gaza is okay although a bit clumsy, but Allegations of genocide in Gaza (2023–2024) sounds like the timeframe refers to the allegations. Either way, I don't think there is a need to specify the date when talking about a Gaza-specific genocide (as opposed to Palestinian genocide accusation), so Accusations of genocide in Gaza (or any another permutation of these words, such as Gaza genocide accusation) is what I'm supporting. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 19:51, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Or Gaza genocide question – this has now moved being allegation, beyond accusation, beyond mere charge, and onto formally accepted case in the court of international law (as well as well-supported scholarly assertion). The big question remaining is yay or nay in the assessment of the court, though that could well be pre-empted by the rising chorus of genocide scholars making their own independent assessments, in addition to the hundreds that many months ago warned (unheeded) of the genocidal course of events. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:17, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would personally prefer just "Gaza genocide" or "Israel's Gaza genocide", but if "Gaza genocide question" is stronger worded language than what we use currently, I support it in lack of better options. David A (talk) 06:47, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That title would only be accurate if there is a genocide happening.
That has not been found. Jerdle (talk) 01:07, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well-documented deliberate starvation used as a weapon against an entire population and an equivalent of around 5 nuclear weapons dropped on them certainly seem to qualify combined with the completely dehumanising genocidally bigoted rhetorics used by the Israeli government and military. David A (talk) 06:10, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Gaza genocide question - The title has precedent with Holodomor genocide question. ―Howard • 🌽33 19:01, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is a very good point. I also support Gaza genocide question above the other available options here then.
@Paul Vaurie, Simonm223, Kashmiri, Entropyandvodka, Chaotic Enby, The Great Mule of Eupatoria, Jerdle, Esolo5002, CybJubal, Iskandar323, Levivich, Unbandito, RodRabelo7, Chaotic Enby, Hogo-2020, Selfstudier, PBZE, and Ïvana: Given the above new information, do you also find this alternative acceptable, so we can make some progress here, instead of going around in circles? David A (talk) 23:20, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Levivich (talk) 23:26, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@David A: Fine by me. Iskandar's reasoning makes sense and having a precedent never hurts. - Ïvana (talk) 23:37, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The reasoning makes sense and it is consistent with other articles of a similiar subject matter so that's fine by me. CybJubal (talk) 00:00, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think this alternative is better than the others.
Furthermore, the words "allegations" and "accusations" only communicate that the allegations exist, without communicating their prominence in the international politics surrounding this question. The allegations are prominently supported in international politics by multiple countries. It's primarily the U.S. and Israel that are defending Israel against them. The allegations and defenses have been heard by the International Court of Justice on equal footing. These realities are better communicated with the word "question". PBZE (talk) 00:23, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree with this. It has moved way beyond "allegations" now. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 00:25, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, summarises the points well, a good title, and feels less like a mouthful than the temporary title the article has The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 02:37, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not necessarily opposed to that title if others like it, but I worry that it could expand the scope of the article beyond what is currently covered. If the article is about accusations, it will largely be an accounting of the available evidence in favor of the thesis that a genocide is ongoing in Gaza. If the article is about the question of whether a genocide is occurring, that could open up the scope of the article to arguments that a genocide is not occurring. It could be challenging to balance these competing claims while keeping the article coherent and informative. But I don't intend to stand in the way of improving this article's title, even if the improvement isn't perfect. I approve of this title if the rest of the community decides that they like it. Unbandito (talk) 02:46, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, would “accusations” instead of “question” be an improvement to the title? I think that could work too The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 06:35, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I also agree this is a good alternative. Hogo-2020 (talk) 07:58, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If we are going to do it this way, I prefer Gaza genocide accusation in line with Palestinian genocide accusation. Selfstudier (talk) 10:59, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I find that option acceptable as well. I mainly want a stronger and more concise wording than currently. David A (talk) 12:04, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gaza genocide question is a tad better than the current title. However, when going through the multiple rename/delete discussions at Talk:Tamil genocide – an event that very few sources (and no countries or international bodies) consider a genocide – we see that editors there decided to keep the present title based on the fact that the term Tamil genocide is discussed in multiple reliable sources and, as such, is automatically a valid title of a Wikipedia article.
With this in mind, I am of the opinion that Gaza genocide – likewise, a term discussed in multiple reliable sources, incomparably more numerous than for Tamil genocide – should be the eventual title of the present article. (But also see my comment below about an alternative solution.) — kashmīrī TALK 13:50, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As usual, I agree with Kashmiri here. David A (talk) 19:10, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kashmiri: I think that you usually have a very good sense of judgement. What do you think seems like the best solution here? David A (talk) 07:38, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@David A Thank you for your kind words. I'm in two minds now, after the results of WP:Articles for deletion/Tamil genocide. On one hand, some editors argue that titles should reflect reality; they should be true to the fact. In parallel, there's also a strong argument that article titles can simply denote topics, concepts, and theories without judging their factual reality, and the only condition is that these topics etc. are attested in reliable sources. In Tamil genocide, the latter view prevailed.
So here, the question for me is whether we should have both these articles titled allegations of genocide, or it might be better for the reader – and Wikipedia is drafted for readers – to have a single article titled, say, Genocide in the Israel–Hamas war that would discuss the events, the accusations raised against both sides, and the academic debate on the applicability of the term. After that Tamil discussion, I'm inclined to take a closer view of this approach. — kashmīrī TALK 00:39, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Please keep us updated here regarding your conclusions. David A (talk) 06:07, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support for "Gaza genocide question" and other alternatives. "Allegations" is a misleading term because it's not just that journalists and whistleblowers are alleging genocide anymore. It's a question high-profile enough that it's being actively investigated by the ICJ and Israel is facing growing scrutiny for it on an international scale. This article's scope includes all of that scrutiny and investigation, and so is not limited to allegations anymore. PBZE (talk) 00:00, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support for "Accusations of genocide in Gaza" - more concise that other alternatives proposed. Allegations should be removed from the title. We're past the point of this being mere allegations, the accusations have been formally presented in court. - Ïvana (talk) 01:40, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At some point we will need to list all of the suggested titles above and ping all of the members who responded here in conjunction, in order to see which of the alternatives that each of us respectively find acceptable, after which we select the option with the most votes, as the voting is currently all over the place here. David A (talk) 04:14, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Work for the closer in the first instance. Selfstudier (talk) 09:43, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that we should have a re-vote with the ability to choose up to three or so acceptable options instead, as we really should move this page to use a stronger worded title. David A (talk) 13:21, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Something like accusations of genocide in Gaza or Accusations of genocide in Gaza by Israel The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 13:12, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your second option seems good to me. David A (talk) 14:33, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Three options

@Paul Vaurie, Simonm223, Kashmiri, Entropyandvodka, Chaotic Enby, The Great Mule of Eupatoria, Jerdle, Esolo5002, CybJubal, Iskandar323, Levivich, Unbandito, RodRabelo7, Chaotic Enby, Hogo-2020, Selfstudier, PBZE, Ïvana, and Howardcorn33: Going by the above discussion, it seems like we currently have three main options for an improved title for this page:

Option 1: Gaza genocide question, which has a precedent with Holodomor genocide question.

Option 2: Gaza genocide accusation, which has a precedent with Palestinian genocide accusation.

Option 3: Gaza genocide, which has a precedent with Tamil genocide, an event that very few sources, and no countries or international bodies, consider a genocide, meaning that there is likely much stronger support for classifying what the Israeli government is currently doing in this manner.

Which of the above alternatives do you prefer, and which ones do you find acceptable?

I personally prefer Option 3, but consider either of the other two options to at least be improvements to this page's current title. David A (talk) 05:58, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Option 3 whilst “accusation” makes sense as Israel is officially accused, this is putting it on the level of “Palestinian genocide accusation”, which is referring to a long, decades long struggle with elements that can be considered ‘genocide’, like the nakba or Gaza wars. Gaza genocide is the best fit here, because we are talking about an 8- month period where we have seen more Palestinians being systematically killed than in every conflict between Israel and Palestine in the past 76 years combined The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 06:32, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 3. Like kashmiri said, you will usually find ethnonym + genocide. I'm not gonna go through all of the sources that already mention or allude to a genocide occurring in Gaza, including the UN; anyone commenting here is, I assume, familiar with them. We're already past the point of this being a mere accusation or allegation amongst select groups. Walking through eggshells and using expressions like allegations/accusations/question etc contradicts the reality where this is being judged in an international court and there is a consensus amongst experts that this fits the definition of a genocide. The main subject of this article is the genocide occurring in Gaza right now, whether people believe that it's real or not. - Ïvana (talk) 06:58, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 3, as it's a term widely discussed in multiple reliable sources and thus merits a Wikipedia article. We need to keep in mind that article titles do not have to be uncontroversial, or even true, as long as they are WP:NOTABLE terms (examples: Extraterrestrial life, Homeopathy, Tamil genocide, etc.). Here, I have little doubt that "Gaza genocide" is a notable encyclopaedic term. — kashmīrī TALK 07:52, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 3 may in fact be reasonable at this stage. I think option 2 may have expired. We now have a stacked ICJ case, UN special rapporteur assessment of genocide, a UN investigative finding of "extermination", genocide scholars, US state department testimonies, AI genocide story, you name it! At this point, the sheer diversity of testimonies is meaningful. Option 1 would be my second option as a step back from option 3, but less misaligned than option 2 at this point, which may now be straying on the conservative side. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:17, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is a Palestinian genocide accusation, if that is "expired", then it needs to change title first. Selfstudier (talk) 08:34, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is a logical corollary. I think that title should now be at question - not least since the question is raised over a series of events where the assertion finds varying degrees of support. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:00, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1 or 2: I believe question would be more appropriate but a lot of people are favoring accusation, which I consider an acceptable word. If the Tamil genocide article actually has very few sources or recognition, then it should be renamed also, as was done with Uyghur genocide to Persecution of Uyghurs in China. In addition, this article specifically covers the academic, legal, and political discourse around the applicability of the word "genocide" to the IDF's actions in Gaza, similar to how Holodomor and Holodomor genocide question are separate articles. ―Howard • 🌽33 08:47, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Howardcorn33 Editors at Tamil genocide successfully argued that the article should not be renamed as "allegation" or "accusation", primarily because these are not terms being discussed in literature. — kashmīrī TALK 09:19, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 3 per all above, I don't have anything more to add than what has already been said. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 10:52, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Option 3. there is consensus amongst the international human rights legal community, many other legal and political experts, including many Holocaust scholars, that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza. Stephan rostie (talk) 13:06, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1 first choice. Open to changing my mind but I'm not seeing Option 3 yet. The UNHR report does not say there is a "consensus amongst the international human rights legal community, many other legal and political experts, including many Holocaust scholars, that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza." That line is written by Alene Bouranova, writer for BU Today -- the magazine of Boston University. With all due respect to Ms. Bouranova, I do not take her word as authoritative on this issue because she's not a scholar, her article isn't scholarship or even mainstream journalism, a university magazine is generally a pretty weak source for anything IMO, especially for such an WP:EXTRAORDINARY claim (and not independent of the report). The report itself says, in its own voice, that Israel is committing genocidal acts. I find that very reliable and persuasive. However, I would want to know that this one single report isn't the only scholarship of its kind or the first of its kind to state without qualification on behalf of a large group of scholars that genocide is happening. AFAIK it's the only one like it, with previous similar things being of the nature of "open letters" and the like, but not necessarily "hard scholarship," as it were. So that makes it "genocide question" in my mind, not just "genocide." If there are other reports like the UNHR report I'd be interested in reviewing them, if anyone wants to drop some links. Second choice: Option 3; Option 2 is third choice because I do think the world has moved past "accusation," just not necessarily all the way to "genocide" in wikivoice. Levivich (talk) 22:21, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here are some links to offical statements that you might find useful: [9] [10] [11] [12] [13]
However, I am uncertain about how useful the three ICJ links are. David A (talk) 11:16, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for sharing those. The ICJ sources reflect that there is a genocide prosecution, but the court has not issued a finding that Israel committed genocide, although they took the case (finding it's a plausible allegation). That the ICJ took the case but hasn't decided yet is, in my view, one reason to call it "question" and not "accusation" or just "genocide."
The UN report, on the other hand, rather clearly comes out saying it's genocide. Query: is the UN an RS? I'm honestly not sure. It's not scholarship, it's not journalism, but it's not exactly an advocacy group or think tank, either. Levivich (talk) 17:31, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to Israel, the UN, and pretty much everyone else that disagrees with it, is antisemitic, which likely means it is a reliable source or at least, it reflects what a majority of UN members think. Of course, the US exercises its veto in favor of Israel with alarming frequency so I guess they would not count it as a reliable source either. I tend to view it the same way as Amnesty, its reports need to be taken seriously and not just politically dismissed without reference to the detail. Selfstudier (talk) 18:01, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With the exception of courts, governments aren't RS, period end of story. Isn't the UN a government (whereas the ICJ is a court)? Levivich (talk) 18:20, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think one needs to distinguish between the various organs (UN, UNGA, UNHRC, etc), and resolutions and reports of them. I wouldn't pay much attention to a single country delegate for instance but I would pay some attention to a passed UNGA resolution and even more to one from the UNSC (who are the court's enforcers if you like, but still subject to political veto). Selfstudier (talk) 18:29, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah IMO neither the GA nor SC are WP:RS, but it's a good point that certain UN organs, and UNHRC would be one of them, could be. Or more specifically, that reports or other works authored or published by such organs might be. Which leads me to my next question: do we have any WP:USEBYOTHERS evidence for this UNHRC report? Levivich (talk) 00:20, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well it has been stated as having received broad support at the UN. And yes, it has already entered the ranks of journal-cited sources. This includes already being cited in the Journal of Genocide Research. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:23, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is AJ and a measured report from the BBC. I couldn't find any reports from US media. Selfstudier (talk) 09:07, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 3 first choice, option 1 second choice, option 2 third choice. Thank you to the editors who answered my questions and posted more sources above. I've come around after doing some more research and reading. The WP:BESTSOURCES for whether Israel's attack on Gaza is a genocide are going to be genocide studies scholars and journals, the more recent, the better. After perusing sources posted here and searching Google Scholar for works published in 2024, "it's a genocide" says Amos Goldberg [14] in an op-ed, Nahla Abdo in Studies in Political Economy [15], and in the Journal of Genocide Research: Martin Shaw [16], Raz Segal and Luigi Daniele [17], Mark Levene [18], Didier Fassin [19], Zoé Samudzi [20], Nimer Sultany [21], Uğur Ümit Üngör [22], Yoav Di-Capua [23], Abdelwahab El-Affendi [24], and Elyse Semerdjian [25]. Also the UNHR report and UNHRC report. "Maybe a genocide" says Omar McDoom [26] and Shmuel Lederman [27]. Within the field of genocide studies, in 2024, it seems there is in fact a consensus of scholars that this is genocide, with a few who say maybe, and nobody that I've found who says it's not. Levivich (talk) 05:50, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was Susan Akram, director of BU Law’s International Human Rights Clinic, who stated that: "there is consensus amongst the international human rights legal community, many other legal and political experts, including many Holocaust scholars, that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza." Rainsage (talk) 16:57, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What the executive summary of the primary source that she is referring to actually says is "This report documents its findings ["we conclude that Israel’s actions in and regarding Gaza since October 7, 2023, violate the Genocide Convention"] by drawing from a diverse range of credible sources, including reports by United Nations and aid agencies, investigations by human rights organizations, media reports, and public statements and testimonies." so she has put per own words to that, but it is not that different, when all is said and done. Selfstudier (talk) 17:08, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to clarify that it was actually one of the report's expert contributors who made that statement, since Levivich attributed it to the BU journalist. Rainsage (talk) 17:15, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing that out; you're right, I missed that this line was in the Q&A part, and is a quote from Akram. (You'd think the "#Susan Akram comments" section on this talk page would have tipped me off, but nope, went right over my head.) I've struck my incorrect statements above. Levivich (talk) 19:46, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1/2: While I consider this a genocide in line with the literature, frameworks, scholarship, and statements produced by the majority of relevant experts in this matter, as I detailed in the previous title change discussion, this article has built it's scope to be the discussion/argumentation around labelling Gaza as a genocide. Should Wikipedia move inline with the scholarship in time, a separate article being created would be the best option. This new article on the genocide would include information that currently exists across a range of articles currently covering varying aspects of the genocide.
As to the specificity of 1 or 2, as I read it, there are two ways this could be split. The first way is a Majority-Minority split on the popular opinion held. That is per the examples given, option 1 is a question as it’s questioning the majority popular opinion of the event (it is a genocide), where option 2 is the accusation of genocide when the popular opinion is that it is not.
The second way is a temporal split, where option 1 is used in events that are concluded so it's analysing retrospectively, whereas option 2 is an accusation as it covers ongoing events. Either of these ways in splitting it would suggest we title this article as Gaza genocide accusation. Though I hold no strong opinion as to the choice between 1 and 2. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 18:16, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 3 or Option 1, in that order, per the above. I would like to note that Black genocide in the United States and transgender genocide are also examples of article titles similar to option 3. PBZE (talk) 19:49, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These are very interesting parallel examples that echo the case of the Tamil genocide. I guess the point that these make is that there is a broadly consistent pattern of usage on Wikipedia: that if a suspected genocide is sufficiently discussed by scholars, it is a topic, and shouldn't be overbearingly couched in the trappings of "accusation". Iskandar323 (talk) 05:33, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1 or Option 2: As all of the people here know that there is no actual genocide (be honest with yourself) creating option 3 will be a blatant lie. It's ridicules how people can even suggest it. Israel warns about it's attacks and if terrorists of Hamas would not use human shields and would not count terrorists as regular people there would be much less victims. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 02:20, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Coolaid is strong stuff, for sure. But for anyone who has actually taken the latest UN report seriously, handwaving away the serious breaches of international law in this conflict is poor taste. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:41, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1 (first choice) or Option 2 (second choice). This is about the question or accusations of genocide. I don't see votes supporting Option 3 grounded enough to justify wikivoicing "genocide". Like Cdjp1 says, if scholarship eventually makes this a case of "genocide", then Wikipedia should move inline with that, but we are not there at the moment. Hogo-2020 (talk) 08:38, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1 Because of two main reasons:
The term "Gaza genocide question" better reflects the ongoing significant uncertainty and investigation by experts in various fields regarding whether the events in Gaza constitute genocide. This term allows the inclusion of diverse opinions and research within the article.
Using the term "Gaza genocide question" highlights Wikipedia's commitment to neutrality and objective discussion. This title avoids making definitive statements and allows readers to be exposed to all existing opinions and research.Eladkarmel (talk) 09:40, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1, these are mere claims, rejected by most of the world. Some here cite sources as proof there is genocide, but for every source given there are maybe x5 others that say it is a total invention. At this point this is unverified. I think the current title is fine, and if we change it, the only option that really follows WP:NPOV and WP:VOICE would be "Gaza genocide question". HaOfa (talk) 17:19, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 3 – I think this page should be moved to the title Gaza genocide. The current title and options 1 and 2 aren't for disambiguation, but for casting MOS:DOUBT. Also, the content of the article should largely remain the same if the topic was changed from 'alleged genocide' to 'genocide'. And regarding making separate articles for the genocide and its denial/acceptance (similar to Armenian genocide > Armenian genocide denial), I find that the two would likely have a lot of WP:Overlap—a reason to merge them. FunLater (talk) 00:25, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 3 per above. Gaza genocide is a notable term that is extensively discussed in reliable sources. Skitash (talk) 00:36, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 3 per above. MOS:DOUBT makes it clear that alleged is "appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined". In this case authorities the world over have determined this to be happening, and so Option 3 is the most appropriate choice. Smallangryplanet (talk) 17:10, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2 or 3 per all above. Question is not an appropriate usage here.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 00:03, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 1 or 2, per WP:POVTITLE. We shouldn't be taking a stance on this highly contentious question until the question is settled, and it is likely it won't be until the ICJ issues its final ruling. When it does, we can change the title, either to "Gaza Genocide" or to something that makes it clear a genocide didn't take place, depending on what the result is. BilledMammal (talk) 06:06, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Our article titling is not determined by what the ICJ does or doesn't rule, it is determined by what reliable sources are saying or not saying. Selfstudier (talk) 08:38, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1 (or 2), with a strongest possible opposition to Option 3. There is insufficient RS coverage for 3 as an affirmative title, and there is insufficient usage for such a POV title by reliable source. In addition, we should not change to this title prior to an IJC decision and it’s analysis by scholarship. FortunateSons (talk) 09:43, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
3 is indisputably a POV title, and as such would require a significant majority of sources to consider it a genocide, something neither reflected in reporting about the war or the ICJ case nor scholarship, which generally discusses it as controversial, not as clear. While there are other questionable titles, in that case, they are a) the overwhelmingly used name and b) appropriately qualified in the lead (ex.: Transgender genocide), something that isn’t the case here. Therefore, and in line with the scope of the article, which is focussed on the discussion of the question of genocide and not primarily on the actions committed, the title should reflect the content. FortunateSons (talk) 10:22, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're wrong about the scholarship. See the list in my vote above. Levivich (talk) 11:21, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is “just” expert RS and not scholarship (I’m away from home rn), but this is a renown professor of international law saying “not genocide” in a(centrist/center-left) German news paper of record [1]. Also 2 more from Switzerland.[2] FortunateSons (talk) 11:53, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I recall reading that Germany has outright literally illegalised calling the ongoing massacre a genocide, so if any professor of international law said anything else, wouldn't he or she, and the newspaper staff that allowed the statement to be published, be arrested? David A (talk) 11:59, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure about that? Because I’m 90% sure that you are wrong. FortunateSons (talk) 12:00, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I checked, and it seems like I likely misremembered. There seem to have been quite harsh crackdowns on people who express such sentiments, and at least one unsuccessful attempt to illegalise it though: [28] [29] [30] David A (talk) 12:20, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are some “crackdowns” based on pre-existing laws (loosely translated as “public incitement to hate” and “use of illegal symbols”), but that was focussed on specific slogans, not scientific debate. Those laws are regularly used against the far-right, and use against other groups considered extremist is in line with the purpose of the law. Of course, specific use cases are always controversial. The actual case of the slogan is more complicated than the article may have lead you to believe, but that’s off-topic. FortunateSons (talk) 12:50, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Germany's anti-Palestinianism and suppression of free speech in recent times would be comical if it weren't so sad and one trusts that the German courts will remedy these deficiencies in due course, as they have done in the past. Selfstudier (talk) 12:59, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Isn’t this [28]? And I wouldn’t bet on the courts on this one, I have talked to a few scholars who say that the higher courts may approve some of the new applications. But I guess we will see. FortunateSons (talk) 13:13, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The crime of genocide under international law (which has one specific definition) is not the same thing as genocide according to genocide studies (multiple definitions, some broader, some narrower). But even if we count those 3 scholars as saying "not genocide", it doesn't outweigh the dozen+ who say it is. You'd need a dozen+ just to show an even split of opinion. Levivich (talk) 12:16, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article is primarily concerned with the legal side, particularly the lead. I’m happy to look for more, but I think the question of scope (basically: what do we do if international law says it isn’t, but genocide studies say it is) may be a problem we should focus on before it becomes an urgency problem.
I might look for some more sources later, hoping that it won’t be closed too soon. FortunateSons (talk) 12:22, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is something under discussion in other genocide articles (mostly ones that deal with looking at genocide overall), and for most of those discussions so far, while there is push back, most of the editors in discussion are being supportive of accepting the opinion of relevant scholars to label events as genocide, when there is no legal ruling. As of yet we have no instance where a court has ruled something is not genocide and yet scholarship holds that it is, we only have cases where courts have not adjudicated on the matter. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 14:20, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, this is a specific issue when using a broader-than-legal view in a case where we will likely get an ICJ judgement, particularly if it were to favour Israel. From a meta-perspective, there is also the question of best use of editor time, considering that a judgement stating that it isn’t a genocide would require a major rework of the article to allow for the due weight RS and scholarship undoubtedly emerging from it.
Would you agree that in case of “ICJ says it’s not, genocide scholars say it is” due weight would likely be towards the legal view? FortunateSons (talk) 14:43, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would state that wikipedia would tend towards legalism on the matter, even if doing so is fundamentally wrong and flawed. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 14:58, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with it being wrong , but I believe that you are right about the outcome in this case. That would apply to the title as well, we would either remain at or change back to a hypothetical one? FortunateSons (talk) 15:02, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How does Mandy Rice-Davies apply to my view that an application of the ideology of legalism on this matter is wrong? -- Cdjp1 (talk) 17:29, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It applies to me, because my law background makes me trend towards a legal view of everything FortunateSons (talk) 17:35, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah ok. Yes, as Wikipedia is structured, and the make-up of contributors, (as I previously said) the article will tend to legalism on the matter. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 17:42, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense, legal analysis tends to be a bit more represented compared to other disciplines. FortunateSons (talk) 17:48, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I may be so bold to suggest, at this early stage (as we are unlikely to see a court decision on this within the next five years), should we come to a point that the courts rule that it is not genocide, while scholarship (especially from genocide studies) holds it is (at least in the majority published opinion, as is the current case), the court ruling should be mentioned in position "a" of the lede, followed immediately in position "b" a comment about the (stark) disagreement from specialist scholars. This should be amenable to most editors.
With this possibly being the first case of such a disagreement, it would probably be pertinent to seek a mass discussion from editors, including the top contributors from genocide articles, to hash out a guide for subsequent use. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 17:50, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think this split is a generally good idea, and the creation of a “future-proof” guideline is definitely useful.
I disagree with b being the overwhelming domain for genocide scholars. With all respect to the profession, the legal and political/historical analysis should (insofar as supported by RS) be about equally represented. FortunateSons (talk) 19:25, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, the opposite. If genocide scholars say it's genocide, Wikipedia says it's genocide. Doesn't matter what a court says. Levivich (talk) 15:11, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but the courts analysis will often be followed by scholars of international law and media RS, and those tend to be due. FortunateSons (talk) 15:16, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
More scholars saying no or unlikely:
Hartwig and Müller
Khan
Wiese (meh but counts IMO)
Platt
Kittel (from ‘23)
Feldmann (don’t love the source, but wanted to stick with the theme)
Scholars saying unclear/disputed/too close to call:
Pfeifer/Weipert-Fenner/Williams,
Goldmann
Schabas
This is only german language and only a quick search, but it’s decent coverage for no or disputed IMO. Does someone object to those?
This is of course just me pointing and waiving at some sources that I found in a cursory google search, but if we want to actually use a non-neutral title prior to an ICJ judgement, the burden is one those advocating for it to appropriately analyse and weigh the sources to show that it’s broadly considered a genocide and not a discussion about genocide by an overwhelming majority of scholars and RS. FortunateSons (talk) 13:46, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We are not actually trying to show that it is a genocide, which is indeed a matter for the ICJ in the final analysis, simply that it is a topic of discussion in scholarly circles, which in fact, your sourcing shows that to be the case, even in Germany. Just for my interest, am I right in assuming that you only looked for German language sources saying it was not/unlikely or is it that there are no German sources saying it is/likely? Selfstudier (talk) 14:10, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I looked for specific names I was familiar with (but I’m obviously biased for those, personally preferring specific political and legal views), and used “gaza genozid professor”, “ist gaza genozid professor” and “gaza kein genozid professor” as search terms, as far as I recall. However, I did indeed select sources that best made my point, which was to show that it was discussed as a potential or theoretical topic, not a clear genocide, as a counterpoint for Levivich’s search.
There are probably some that say that it clearly is (though no-one mainstream, as far as I’m aware). However, the media may be contributing to that. If you want, I’m happy to check what someone specific is saying? I can particularly look through Spiegel and similar left-leaning sites, we may have better luck there. FortunateSons (talk) 14:31, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still working through all the articles recently published in the Journal of Genocide Research (JGR), so would be great if you have the capacity to add these German sources to the article. Though, I also want to note, of the articles published so far in the JGR, there is almost unanimous opinion that this is a genocide. So while the dissent from other relevant specialists should be given due weight, we need to appropriately give weight to the articles published as part of the fora: Israel-Palestine: Atrocity Crimes and the Crisis of Holocaust and Genocide Studies and Gaza: International Humanitarian Law and Genocide. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 14:26, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, I might find some time, but I’m pretty swamped in my personal life, so I would of course not object to someone else adding more. I might look more throughly for legal views too, once I can actually get to my computer with access to Beck, Juris ans others. On a general note, we should be cautious with over-relying on any specific journal, particularly looking at the pages of the editor in chief and the journal in this case. FortunateSons (talk) 14:36, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While that is true, in the English language realm, the JGR is the pre-eminent journal for genocide scholarship. Other journals that specialise in genocide scholarship include:
  1. Genocide Studies and Prevention: An International Journal
  2. Holocaust and Genocide Studies
  3. Genocide Studies International
As said, my focus has been on JGR due to the fora they currently have on-going. Other eminent journals from other fields (history, law, conflict studies, international relations, medicine) should also be looked at, but to my knowledge, none have so far published articles, and such scholars are instead providing their short immediate thoughts to popular press. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 15:04, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification, some medical journals have published pieces from various medical professionals, but they have been more re-iterating things like UN warnings, and detailing the need for the medical profession to speak out against the mass death occurring. I have previously/already added a few of these to this article where they are appropriate. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 15:07, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Verfassungsblog may have something, they’re generally pretty quick. I will look into it and other German-language sources, probably after the move request, but this was “just” a search for the sake of the name, so that would probably take hours or days of actual work. FortunateSons (talk) 15:14, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
More:
”quite strong evidence” for incidement, but “difficult to prove” for genocide Herik (Dutch article linked)
Cohen and Shany (would count as no
Ambos (more just incitement)
Burke-White (too close to call/vague)
Walter
This should be more than were originally presented, but I may have lost count. FortunateSons (talk) 21:42, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For chronological ordering, ease of reference (as some of these are from as far back as October last year):
  • Kittel - October 2023
  • Ambos - December 2023
  • Wiese - January 2024
  • Platt - January 2024
  • Schabas - January 2024
  • Herik - January 2024
  • Cohen and Shany - January 2024
  • Walter - January 2024
  • Burke-White - February 2024
  • Feldmann - March 2024
  • Pfeifer/Weipert-Fenner/Williams - March 2024
  • Goldmann - April 2024
  • Hartwig and Müller - May 2024
  • Khan - June 2024
As a message to anyone reading this, if you can please add all of these into the article appropriately. I may eventually get round to it, but my focus is currently on English language journal articles. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 22:06, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much. From my comment above, there is also
Talmon - April 2024
Sassoli and Diggelmann - May 2024 FortunateSons (talk) 22:20, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I'm kicking myself a bit for not thinking to look for German language sources previously, considering how regularly my edits and research projects involve using German and other non-English sources. Oh well. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 22:50, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don’t, that way I got the opportunity to productively add to the article (once some take takes the time to actually source and cite them all) :)
Looking through German legal sources is also often difficult, I did the easy part first by using Google, having to actually use the digital libraries can be unpleasant. FortunateSons (talk) 22:58, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 3 This is in line with the Tamil Genocide. SKAG123 (talk) 18:03, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 3 I agree with Levivich. I was also initially skeptical and assumed there was a lot more dispute amongst scholars. But the expert scholarship and reports that I have read do seem to overwhelmingly consider this probable or actual genocide. Both of the 2 citations in this wikipedia article for the assertion that there is a dispute are more than 6 months old. Rainsage (talk) 18:48, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did you have a chance to look at the ones I cited? FortunateSons (talk) 19:15, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 3 as per others. Much less academically certain articles like Tamil genocide, Black genocide in the United States and Transgender genocide all do not have "accusation" or "question" in the title. MarkiPoli (talk) 07:47, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 3 I have nothing more to add than what has been said. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 21:12, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 1 slightly, then Option 2 The third is too strong for what is a fairly debateable question, and if anything, it's the Tamil article that should be toned down. Don't feel particularly strongly over 1 vs. 2, so whatever better helps form a hopefully enduring consensus is the one I prefer. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 21:35, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And, I should note, the very nature of the question itself is a big part of the article. I am not participating further; I only commented as I was pinged, and this is an area I regretfully find myself in. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 21:48, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 3 per concise common name, that of "Genocide in Gaza" or "Gaza genocide" as the topic. Whether it's officially recognised as such by every country/scholar or not seems irrelevant, as the topic is still discussed and referenced as such. CNC (talk) 22:39, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • ABSOLUTE, CATEGORICAL REJECTION of option 3 — this should NOT be called Gaza genocide. This is, at best, editors not understanding that only mere accusations of genocide have been brought up in the Israel–Hamas war, and at worst, editors wanting to push a pro-Palestine narrative by categorizing the atrocities as genocide. Although I trust people to take their bias out, I feel that some have let their hearts drive their decision making (and their argumentation) in this discussion. The truth, whether kind or not, is that it has not been established by any widely-respected international organization that this is an actual genocide. That's why Palestinian genocide accusation is an accusation, not called "Palestinian genocide". My original intent in the RM was changing the latter part of the title, "2023 Israeli attack on Gaza", to something else, since the attack had gone past 2023...
    So, I will support option 1 or 2 as above, as it is a matter of debate and discussion whether this is a genocide. I'm not saying it's not, just that there is too much debate for the few of us to come to a conclusion here, as we're not scholars. Paul Vaurie (talk) 22:57, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We discuss sources here, not other editors. The term "Gaza genocide" appears in a large number of reliable sources and is thus presumably a valid encyclopaedic term, one that a global encyclopaedia should certainly include. It's perfectly possible to write an article about the Gaza genocide without much bias – much like, say, Armenian genocide (even though some Turks still complain about it, naturally). Overall, I fail to understand why you berate other editors who simply refer to reliable sources. — kashmīrī TALK 23:04, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Kashmiri: Please ping. I agree that "Gaza genocide" is a presumably valid encyclopedic term. That does not mean it should be the title of the article. Because it's not the title doesn't mean it can't be discussed in the hypothetical "Gaza genocide question" article. I also agree that it's possible to write an article about the Gaza genocide question/accusations without much bias. However, the bias lies in calling it a genocide, when it's clearly not agreed that it is a genocide. Armenian genocide is not a fair comparison; virtually only the Turks (and a few others) exhibit Armenian genocide denial, and everyone else says it's a genocide. There are far more who are skeptical of an Israeli genocide against Gaza Palestinians than just Israel and its close allies. Respectfully, there are just as many reliable sources saying it's not been thoroughly established that it is a genocide as there are saying it is a genocide. We should wait further before categorizing the observed atrocities as genocide. Paul Vaurie (talk) 23:52, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Paul Vaurie: The issue is, the article isn't about any question; it is about the developments that a large number of sources term as Gaza genocide. Wikipedia also offers articles about hypotethical topics. As an example, we don't wait for academic consensus before naming an article Anti-gravity, or try to frame its subject as "Anti-gravity question". As long as a term is subject of multiple reliabe publications, it's an encyclopaedic topic. By the way, "Gaza genocide question" fails WP:COMMONNAME. — kashmīrī TALK 00:32, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    editors not understanding that only mere accusations of genocide have been brought up In my vote above, I linked to a dozen genocide studies scholars saying it's genocide (plus there's the BU report and the UNHRC report). as we're not scholars Some of us are (not me), as are many of the sources cited in this discussion. Levivich (talk) 23:13, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 3 As noted by others, the titling of this article without the words accusation or question will not preclude it from continuing to include sources arguing against the genocide classification. Given the international community's overwhelming recognition of the ongoing events as an active genocide, Options 1 and 2 unnecessarily set the article's tone toward doubt over the event, rather than allowing it to comprehensively cover its content. BluePenguin18 🐧 ( 💬 ) 02:51, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly oppose option 3, since it's a very clear WP:POVNAME and WP:POVNAMING violation. It's not for us to determine whether a genocide is occurring; really the only questions here are
  1. Whether genocide is a neutral term. There may be cases where a genocide is so obvious that there's no serious (non-fringe) disagreement about it; we're quite far from that. The article itself mentions opposing views from quite a few notable scholars, which I won't rehash here.
  2. Whether "Gaza genocide" is a clear WP:COMMONNAME, used by a significant majority of English-language sources (in their own voices), in which case non-neutral titles are sometimes acceptable. Note that User:Levivich's point about WP:BESTSOURCES doesn't apply here, since academic or legal authorities don't dictate WP:COMMONNAMEs.
Policy violations aside, I think it's telling that approximately zero mainstream news sources, which tend to have similar aspirations of neutrality, are using "Gaza genocide" in their own voice. That should give us serious pause here. — xDanielx T/C\R 04:50, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a mischaracterisation on both accounts. First, the terminology is actively disputed by almost imperceptibly few genocide scholars. Secondly, while "Gaza genocide" quite possibly is a common name, that isn't Levivich's principal assertion, which is instead that it is the consensus assessment and terminology in the relevant academic community – an assessment of consensus which WP:BESTSOURCES is very much applicable to. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:27, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could you clarify which part you don't agree with? Is your position that (1) "Gaza genocide" is neutral, (2) "Gaza genocide" is a WP:COMMONNAME (or effectively a proper name), or that there's some other reason WP:POVNAME and WP:POVNAMING wouldn't apply?
I'm not convinced that there's a consensus among scholars here, but my broader point is that that's not the question we should be asking, since the sources with the most academic or legal authority do not dictate common names. — xDanielx T/C\R 19:24, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When the topic is the assertion of genocide by genocide scholars, the name of said genocide is the neutral term. What descriptive alternatives do you believe exist to an event being termed a genocide by genocide scholars? The only alternatives would surely be euphemistic. If sources are not discussing the topic of genocide then they are not discussing the topic. If they are discussing the topic, they are presumably either in agreement with or denial of the validity of the terminology. And even denials count towards the currency of the terminology. Regardless of whether the topic enjoys an affirming consensus or disputation, the mere discussion of the topic affirms its terminological validity. Ditto for the Tamil genocide, Black genocide in the United States and Transgender genocide, as others have noted. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:47, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like an extraordinary claim to say that "genocide" is neutral. If there was a very strong consensus that the label was accurate, then perhaps a case can be made that no reasonable doubt exists, and the label is so obviously factual as to be neutral. I think we're extremely far from that, with plenty of notable scholars (a very significant minority) rejecting the genocide accusation. — xDanielx T/C\R 23:25, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The label is pretty obviously factual at this point. We have genocidal acts livestreamed to the world, perpetrated by leaders who have openly made genocidal statements, with assessments from genocide experts that it is a genocide. Since you suggest that you have drawn up your own source list, who are your "plenty of notable scholars" (expecting relevant ones in the field of genocide scholars) saying otherwise? Iskandar323 (talk) 04:37, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As well as with assessments from experts like Dov Waxman, Ben Kiernan and others that it is not a genocide. While they may be the minority, it's a significant minority containing quite a few respected scholars. In light of that, I really can't see how "genocide" could be considered neutral here. — xDanielx T/C\R 05:21, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Have either of those two commented on the matter since November? Iskandar323 (talk) 06:20, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You may be interested in the papers published in the Journal of Genocide Research as part of the fora:
  • Gaza: International Humanitarian Law and Genocide
  • Israel-Palestine: Atrocity Crimes and the Crisis of Holocaust and Genocide Studies
The majority of them are published as open access articles. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 22:19, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 3, because it's more concise and accurate. As shown by others in this thread, most genocide scholars – who are by far the most reliable sources on this topic – think Israel is committing genocide in Gaza. Therefore it's not really even a "question" any more, and it certainly is more than just an "accusation". Naturally there's a lot of politically motivated denialism from non-academic sources, but that applies to other genocides too, and shouldn't be given much weight. —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 07:14, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the future we'll probably need an article about Gaza genocide denial. —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 07:24, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A few sources on the denial itself have already emerged. [31] [32] Iskandar323 (talk) 07:33, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2, because its much more accurate than option 3, and much more natural sounding than option 1. TimeEngineer (talk) 07:28, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1 I was pinged above as someone who's taken part in other discussions of genocide coverage on Wikipedia. I feel while there is a lack of consensus in reliable sources, we should go with "question" over just "Gaza genocide". It is not for Wikipedia editors to make these judgements: we have to follow RS. There are several important RS calling this "genocide", but there is clearly also significant pushback on that. "Question" allows us to focus on presenting what RS say. There are other articles that are called "X genocide" where there is less evidence for a genocide, but WP:OTHERSTUFF applies. I don't like "accusation" as it implies, to me, that the accusation may be false. "Question" better summarises an ongoing debate. If the balance of RS shifts, we can re-assess. Bondegezou (talk) 10:11, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Projects Israel, Palestine and their collaboration has been re-notified, WP:Death has been notifiedFortunateSons (talk) 10:32, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. This is not a valid RfC. It must include keeping status quo title as one of options. Otherwise, this is a loaded question like "Did you kill your wife or your neigbor? Please choose!". I think the title, whatever it might be, should include a reference to the specific event, i.e. 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza, rather than just "Gaza". My very best wishes (talk) 16:34, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It must include keeping status quo title as one of options We're well past that. Selfstudier (talk) 16:40, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Past where? Do we have a properly closed RfC saying that the current title must be changed? If not, this is an improper RfC. My very best wishes (talk) 16:45, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's a reason you are the only one saying that. Selfstudier (talk) 16:54, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen this in several RfCs. Someone does not the like current version and therefore proposes several alternative versions, all of which fit his POV. Includiing the current (satus quo) version is always required. My very best wishes (talk) 21:48, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You do realize that this is an RM, right? That originally just asked the question what the title should be. Selfstudier (talk) 21:54, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The present title is a MOS:ALLEGED, WP:CONCISION-flouter. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:57, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 1 or 2 per BilledMammal; strongly oppose option 3, which is a very WP:POVNAME and makes it sound like the question is settled. I prefer option 1, because it focuses on the uncertainty, the question; rather than accusations. Cremastra (talk) 17:48, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have also pinged WP Human Rights as they explicitly mention genocides as part of their project remit. @FortunateSons: I've also formatted your messages to the other projects to provide a direct link for the mentioned "Three options" sub-section of discussion. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 18:19, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you FortunateSons (talk) 18:21, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 3 or 1 We shoudl be following high quality sources and there are plenty of academic and other expert publication that call this event a genocide. Curiously, i couldn't find many that explicitly deny that this event is a genocide likely because the scholarly debate of genocide in Palastine focuses on stuff that happend before october 7th in all of Palestine, not just whats going on in Gaza since october. That said i don't object to leaving this open by using option 1 while we wait for the ICJ rulling—blindlynx 19:56, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I should add that i'm weary of trying to apply the 1948 definition of genocide to news articles or other publications when high quality sources don't explicitly weigh in one way or the other, it's synthy at best and is why we changed the list criteria over at list of genocides—blindlynx 20:12, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging editors

I counted to 13 votes for option 3 as a preferred title above, which are almost twice as many votes as any other option here received. Is that a sufficiently decisive result to conclude this survey and apply the new title for this page? David A (talk) 09:35, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This does not have nearly enough participation for such a significant article to be moved to this title IMO. Would you consider adding it to the relevant wiki project again, who were notified weeks prior to this round? FortunateSons (talk) 09:45, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This RM has been open for way too long already. It's supposed to be a week and its over seven now. Someone should file a close request. Selfstudier (talk) 10:01, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. For a highly controversial change to 3 in a new structure, we should attract a higher number of participants. FortunateSons (talk) 10:11, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I counted correctly, we have had 21 Wikipedia accounts giving votes already. I think that seems sufficient. David A (talk) 11:50, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer more, and a proper notification, but won’t do so against consensus FortunateSons (talk) 11:54, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There seem to be 15 votes for option 3 now. David A (talk) 04:48, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So with 16 current votes for option 3 here, I think that this title change can likely be applied now, but how do we accomplish this in practice? Is there a specific page where somebody should request it? David A (talk) 13:38, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Closure requests Selfstudier (talk) 13:43, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Would you or somebody else here be willing to handle it please? David A (talk) 13:49, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given the 3 May RM is listed at WP:RME without a target, ideally it would be added by @Paul Vaurie who created it, as this discussion is a sub-section of that brainstorming that can be directly considered a part of it. Otherwise it will need a separate listing at CR, but probably the original RM will need closing first. Also bare in mind that while it's already been a week, which is enough time for a move to be implemented, the conversation is far from stale. CNC (talk) 22:22, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will add here, for the record, that Wikipedians declaring the "Gaza genocide" is totally without parallel in history of this encyclopedia and it goes far beyond shameful behavior. Activist Wikipedians in the months since Oct. 7th have pushed their views onto Wikipedia by consistently and deliberately rewriting articles and renaming them to support their narrative. We have seen this in their declartion of a Gaza Strip famine, attempt after fail attempt to completely delete or rename 2024 Nuseirat rescue operation and now this, declaration of "genocide" by a handful of editors. God help us all or more importantly the hundreds of millions of Wikipedia readers if this is all Putin, Xi and Islamists need to do to re-write Wikipedia. Monopoly31121993(2) (talk) 20:11, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTFORUM Selfstudier (talk) 20:15, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since this discussion began with a mass ping to editors I think another should be allowed to those who contributed to discussions on the 2024 Nuseirat rescue operation removal:
@Smyth, Kentucky Rain24, Alastriona.oH, FeralOink, M.Bitton, Roastedbeanz1, XDanielx, DaringDonna, CommunityNotesContributor, IOHANNVSVERVS, Lf8u2, Smallangryplanet, EpistemicKarma, RealKnockout, Lols314, Galamore, Vice regent, Chong Yi Lam, Skitash, Leaky.Solar, Alaexis, CoffeeCrumbs, FortunateSons, Schazjmd, Joe vom Titan, ItsRainingCatsAndDogsAndMen, Stephan rostie, Digitalcre8, David O. Johnson, Dylanvt, CharlesViBritannia, Ehud Amir, MaskedSinger, Fatimah91, TimeEngineer, JDiala, Antreprize, Pg 6475, Hila Livne, Personisinsterest, Dreameditsbrooklyn, TheAwesomeAtom, Another Believer, NativeForeigner, StrodoDoggins, Smasongarrison, Cannolis, Wafflefrites, and Jec93: Monopoly31121993(2) (talk) 20:51, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BATTLEGROUND Smallangryplanet (talk) 21:01, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will say that the list of people that Monopoly31121993(2) pinged in response is a wider net then the original poster's, and the list of people actually reflects a good variety of opinions/voting. Per WP:CANVASS "In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus." So Monopoly's intent does not seem to be to sway the discussion a particular way, but to increase the sample size of participants in the discussion to be more representative of the larger Wikipedia population and less skewed. Wafflefrites (talk) 03:20, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:APPNOTE, technically speaking, the audience for mass notification should either by WikiProjects or collaborations, or the talk pages of directly related pages. Mass pinging a group that an editor merely thinks is a suitable sample is in fact not appropriate. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:15, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With calling other editors for a better breadth of opinion, pinging editors who have been in recent active discussions in other Genocide articles.
@My very best wishes, Blindlynx, KetchupSalt, Brusquedandelion, IOHANNVSVERVS, Bondegezou, Bobfrombrockley, ARoseWolf, DaZyzzogetonsGotDaLastWord, M.Bitton, and AndyBloch: -- Cdjp1 (talk) 08:25, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection to the notification per se, but could you elaborate on how you selected these? FortunateSons (talk) 08:27, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@FortunateSons Talk:List of genocides, you'll see from my interactions with those pinged on that page, the list includes those I have disagreed and agreed with around various points. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 08:31, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That seems like appropriate selection criteria then, no complaints from me. Should we just re-tag the I, P, and I/P wiki project then, just for completeness? FortunateSons (talk) 08:33, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@FortunateSons Yes, I'd also include WP Death personally. As I'm currently on the mobile editor, it would be easier if someone else could ping the projects. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 08:37, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Im not familiar with them, but I trust that there is no partner project I have to also notify? FortunateSons (talk) 08:44, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@FortunateSons I do not believe so. I mention them as their project does list genocide as an explicit area of their coverage. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 08:49, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that it’s a valid choice then. Is there a way to link to the specific 3 options section? Or do I have to link to the discussion as a whole? FortunateSons (talk) 09:00, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notified, if anyone is able to make the link point to the right place, they should feel free to do so. FortunateSons (talk) 10:34, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to abstain from voting despite my pinging as my action on Talk:List of genocides goes as far as two edit requests to fix cite errors, and I do not know much about developments in the conflict other than what's common knowledge (there's a war) and what I've learned from reading this talk page (there's an international court case about the genocide). By the way, on neither of those edit requests did I interact with Cdjp1, despite his comment that you'll see from my interactions with those pinged on that page, the list includes those I have disagreed and agreed with (emphasis added). – Daℤyzzos (✉️ • 📤) 12:17, 24 June 2024 (UTC) Please ping me on reply.[reply]
@DaZyzzogetonsGotDaLastWord apologies on grabbing you in the list. The comment was a general showing that in the list I pinged individuals broadly to prevent claims of swaying the decision, it was not a declaration that everyone pinged I have interacted with. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 14:20, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cdjp1 Okay! :) – Daℤyzzos (✉️ • 📤) 19:38, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping, it's going to take a while to catch up on this discussion though—blindlynx 14:18, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Monopoly31121993(2): Please keep your aspersions of bad faith to yourself. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:08, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I only pinged all of the people who had responded to this discussion previously, and did not do anything remotely resembling the likely rule-violating extremely partisan insults rant and summon of many previously uninvolved people that Monopoly31121993(2) posted above. Anyway, despite their extremely disruptive behaviour here, we now have 20 votes in favour of option 3. David A (talk) 08:01, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, once this wave of engagement dies down, we likely have enough !votes (which should be evaluated by strength of arguments, not number). Making no statement on either action, I would like to note that RfCs should attract broad audience participation (that’s why we normally go by wikiproject), and not just re-mention those that participates before without taking other steps. FortunateSons (talk) 08:10, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. And which wikiproject would even be the most suitable for this task then? For the record, we are already almost drowning in editors here, so I think that it would likely only add to the chaos.
And should somebody file a rule-violation report against Monopoly31121993(2) for their "if this is all Putin, Xi and Islamists need to do to re-write Wikipedia" comment against editors who likely mostly simply believe in the sanctity of human life, especially children? David A (talk) 08:20, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would have personally re-tagged those that were notified in the original discussion, or just the generic I, P, I/P combination, but there probably isn’t a perfect answer, as it’s closer to art than science.
The second part is already done (at AE), but I’m interested based on your comment: are you editing here because you “simply believe in the sanctity of human life, especially children?” FortunateSons (talk) 08:34, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do believe in the unifying sanctity of all human life, especially children, regardless of that I personally have a half-Jewish ancestry, but do try my best to remain polite and rational despite this issue, if your intent is to try to kick me out of here to remove a potential obstacle. Also, would it have been better if I had believe in absolutely ruthless and empathy-deprived tribalism, which is the alternative option? Everybody has viewpoints, and mine partially stem from humanism. That is all. In a sane world that would not be perceived as a problem. David A (talk) 08:46, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate and share your commitment to humanist values, my concern was that you seemed to ascribe motives other than building an encyclopaedia to the editing of others (and maybe yourself?), noble as those may be. While I consider it better to ascribe humanism instead of some brand of political or nationalist goals, we should all strive to write with the goal of improving the encyclopaedia while being impacted as little as possible by any other extrinsic or intrinsic motives. The goal wasn’t to trap you in some AGF or NOTHERE violation, just to show that point without going straight to your talk page.
On an end-note, I think it’s best to re-notify a few projects now that the specific notifications are subject to AE scrutiny, feel free to join the discussion above if I missed one or more eligible ones. FortunateSons (talk) 08:55, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. My apologies for finding your seemingly leading question suspicious. I was in an annoyed state of mind by Monopoly's earlier rude partisan insults. For the record I strongly agree with you about that our most important task here is to provide accurate and reliable information in a properly encyclopaedic manner. David A (talk) 09:01, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No offence taken, don’t worry. I’m glad that it was just a misunderstanding, and apologise my part in it. FortunateSons (talk) 09:04, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leading ICJ Judge in Case: "[The court] didn't decide that the claim of genocide was plausible"

In the second paragraph, the wiki states "In an interim ruling, the International Court of Justice found Israel was operating under plausible intent to commit genocide," but this characterization is explicitly inaccurate according to Joan Donoghue, the president of the ICJ court which issued the ruling. https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-middle-east-68906919 She stated: “The court decided that the Palestinians had a plausible right to be protected from genocide and that South Africa had the right to present that claim in the court. It then looked at the facts as well. But it did not decide – and this is something where I’m correcting what’s often said in the media – it didn’t decide that the claim of genocide was plausible. It did emphasize in the order that there was a risk of irreparable harm to the Palestinian right to be protected from genocide. But the shorthand that often appears, which is that there’s a plausible case of genocide, isn’t what the court decided." The inaccurate characterization should be revised to say that "In an interim ruling, the International Court of Justice found Palestinians had a plausible right to be protected from genocide," etc. Y2K-96 (talk) 06:36, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Y2K-96 This is all legalese but, as I'm reading it, to claim a plausible right to be protected from genocide (which the court has determined to be the case) essentially means that it is plausible that these rights need to be protected here and now because the other party has an intent to violate them. In English, the words "it's plausible that X needs protection because Y might harm them" can be shortened, with no substantial semantical shift, to "Y can plausibly harm X".
In its judgement, contained in Section 78 onwards, The Court recalls that these acts [killing members of the group, etc.] fall within the scope of Article II of the Convention when they are committed with the intent to destroy in whole or in part a group as such. Ergo, the court has based this judgement on determining the existence of at least an intent to violate Palestinians' rights (sometimes called genocidal intent or an intent to commit genocide; the Court did not analyse the alleged genocidal acts in depth). I see no major problems with Wikipedia calling it a "plausible intent", especially when many sources do that. — kashmīrī TALK 10:28, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that Kashmiri makes sense here. David A (talk) 14:17, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Y2K; this interpretation has been rejected by the presiding judge. I’ve removed the sentence - I think the remaining context is sufficient to explain the case, and we can expand on it when we update the main article after a final ruling. BilledMammal (talk) 15:20, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
She's just the president who reads out the statement. She doesn't speak for the court or the other judges in any other context. For all we know she's been wheeled out politically to sow precisely the confusion that's been sown. But Kashmiri is right, in common speak there is no meaningful difference between "plausible genocide" and "plausible risk of infringement on the rights of people not to be genocided". Iskandar323 (talk) 16:49, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unless you have a source for that allegation then that’s a BLP violation; I suggest you retract it. BilledMammal (talk) 23:18, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a BLP, this is a Talk page. — kashmīrī TALK 00:49, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BLP rules apply to all pages on Wikipedia, including talk pages. BilledMammal (talk) 01:01, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BilledMammal: What allegation? Do you mean: "For all we know..." That's a hypothetical mate. Neither political interference in the courts (nor the BBC) are novel ideas. I know freedom of speech has been going out of vogue of late (what with it suddenly not dovetailing quite so nicely with neoconservative imperialism), but come one. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:52, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And aside from this being the obvious subtext that everyone with half a political brain will have taken away from that interview, the only one hypothetically impugned there is the someone doing the wheeling. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:54, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A negative hypothetical about a living person. And yes, it does impugn her - you are suggesting she's a puppet, and making false statements on behalf of others to sow confusion. We don't allow such speculation without sources, so unless you have one please remove it. BilledMammal (talk) 05:59, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Commentary around the politics is nevertheless swirling. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:19, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Interpreting court documents doesn't seem like a great idea, especially for non-extendedconfirmed users. Maybe the problem is that there hasn't been a sufficient survey of characterizations by secondary sources. If Y2K-96 is correct, there will presumably be some diversity in the characterizations. Sean.hoyland (talk) 15:56, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reuters, BBC, The New York Times, and AP News typically represent the gold standard for reliable sources on Wikipedia. Here are how each of them characterized the ruling:
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/world-court-rule-urgent-measures-gaza-genocide-case-2024-01-26/
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-68108260
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/26/world/middleeast/icj-israel-gaza-genocide.html
https://apnews.com/article/israel-gaza-genocide-court-south-africa-27cf84e16082cde798395a95e9143c06
All of them focused primarily on the ICJ's insistence that Israel prevent genocide, stated deeper in the article that the ICJ ruled there was a risk of genocide, and all of them made sure NOT to say that the ICJ ruled Israel was plausibly committing genocide or intending to commit genocide. In fact, most of them make clear that the ICJ did not issue any ruling on the merits of the genocide accusation. Y2K-96 (talk) 17:50, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
″ all of them made sure NOT to say that the ICJ ruled Israel was plausibly committing genocide or intending to commit genocide.″
I feel like many many people do not understand the proceedings of the ICJ, currently the trial is pending, this means that the case has been accepted as a legitimate concern that Israel is committing Genocide by bringing it to trial. The judges haven't made the declarations you're stating above because the trial has not yet ended, hence they can't make a guilty/not guilty verdict.
All of these sites are quite reliable however given the topic in question all of them are rather biased alongside their respective nations external politics, though of note the BBC page specifically states:
"The ICJ found it did have jurisdiction on the matter, and decided there was a plausible case under the 1948 Genocide Convention, and that the Palestinian population in Gaza was at real risk of irreparable damage."
Which pretty much undoes the argument you're making from what I can see.
The current observations and conclusions are available here particularly paragraph 74 and 44 make specific reference to the articles of genocide and usage of Intent. The wording in the second paragraph is fine as is and in no-way mischaracterises the events. Galdrack (talk) 15:43, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that this analysis seems very reasonable. David A (talk) 15:47, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll just add that in my reading, "X plausibly needs protection against Y" means precisely the same as "Y plausibly makes protection of X necessary". If Palestinians plausibly need to claim protection from genocide, then it follows that genocide is a plausible possibility for them, ergo Israel is plausibly committing it.
I'm not alone in this – the US District Court for the Northern District of California in its judgement in Defense for Children International-Palestine et al v. Biden et al stated: Similarly, the undisputed evidence before this Court comports with the finding of the ICJ and indicates that the current treatment of the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip by the Israeli military may plausibly constitute a genocide in violation of international law (p. 4[33]; bolding mine), and Yet, as the ICJ has found, it is plausible that Israel's conduct amounts to genocide (p. 8). — kashmīrī TALK 19:57, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And according to the presiding judge of the case, he too is wrong. Perhaps we should use the exact language from the ICJ ruling, to prevent any dispute - at least that will be indisputably accurate and neutral? BilledMammal (talk) 23:23, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you share your source where Donoghue comments on the judgement in Defense for Children International-Palestine et al v. Biden et al pls? — kashmīrī TALK 00:51, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence we are discussing is the ICJ ruling? BilledMammal (talk) 01:01, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We're discussing the ICJ ruling as described in reliable secondary sources. FYI, neither the judgement nor a TV interview with a judge is a secondary source for Wikipedia. — kashmīrī TALK 01:44, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You referenced a court ruling - primary source, a generally not a reliable one for anything other than what it’s ruling on.
Further, the keyword there is reliable. Specific articles that misinterpret the ICJ ruling aren’t reliable. BilledMammal (talk) 02:45, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Defense for Children International-Palestine et al v. Biden et al case is covered in plenty of secondary literature. But a TV interview is an innately primary source for a person's personal views. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:00, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Defense of Children ruling is a secondary source with regard to the ICJ ruling; and a high-quality source, too. It's only primary with regard to the Defense of Children case. — kashmīrī TALK 13:19, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a survey of the gold standard for reliable secondary sources.
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/world-court-rule-urgent-measures-gaza-genocide-case-2024-01-26/
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-68108260
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/26/world/middleeast/icj-israel-gaza-genocide.html
https://apnews.com/article/israel-gaza-genocide-court-south-africa-27cf84e16082cde798395a95e9143c06
None of them say that the ICJ ruled Israel was plausibly committing genocide or intending to commit genocide. They all instead interpret the ruling as the ICJ president explained, that there was a plausible risk that Palestinians right to protection against genocide would get violated. The current text is completely out of line with the predominance of secondary sources. Y2K-96 (talk) 17:53, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Y2K-96 Here is a couple of counter-examples from reliable secondary sources:
Hope it helps. — kashmīrī TALK 16:35, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kashmiri The ICJ president explicitly stated that this is an incorrect interpretation. That is why I made this post, because the ICJ said that the way you are reading it is wrong. The plausible right to be protected from genocide can NOT be written in a shorthand that there is plausible intent to commit genocide, and there is no ambiguity about this. The plausible right to be protected from genocide means that, even though the ICJ has not ruled on the intent or any of the factors of the case (other than that South Africa has legal standing to bring the case), they've seen enough to be concerned that acts of genocide may possibly occur against Palestinians in Gaza, even though they haven't established enough facts to say if this concern is ultimately valid. It is a temporary measure that means exactly what it says, that Palestinians have a plausible right to be protected from genocide - and nothing more.
I think that the ICJ president is very clear on this point, but even if you want to argue that there is some ambiguity, the wiki should not be stating something ambiguous as facts. We know that the ICJ ruled that Palestinians in Gaza have a plausible right to be protected from genocide. That is definitely a fact, and that is what the wiki should say. Y2K-96 (talk) 17:31, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Y2K-96 Joan Donoghue is a former president of the ICJ and hasn't been president in a few months even being referred to as "former" in the links you provided, stop referring to her as such. Galdrack (talk) 15:48, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Galdrack I referred to her as the president of the ICJ since she was the president of the ICJ at the time that this was ruling was issued and she presided over the ruling. So she is explaining her own ruling.
For the record, I am currently unsure if you or I are allowed to participated in an extended discussion on this topic in the talk page beyond an initial edit request post, since we are non-extended-confirmed users. I think we can, but Wikipedia's guidelines are not completely clear. This comment is not intended to participate in an extended back and forth discussion but just to clarify my initial edit request in response to your objection. Y2K-96 (talk) 17:15, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Y2K-96 "So she is explaining her own ruling." in the past tense yes, it's an important distinction as she no longer holds the office so her statements don't trump the source and it's current office holders. It's important to understand and relevant but it's equally as important to state her status correctly, "President at the time" wouldn't suit either as she wasn't President when she made that clarification but was when the ruling was published.
We're allowed to take part the same as anyone else, if anything it makes more sense as we don't have direct access to edit. Galdrack (talk) 18:05, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me that the appropriate reference is to our article on the legal case itself and anything that it says in the lead there.Selfstudier (talk) 12:38, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving it here: [34]. While the ICJ wording is ambiguous and prone to interpretations, I find the quote by the former UK Supreme Court justice Lord Sumption convincing: “I think it is being suggested [in the UKLFI letter] that all that the ICJ was doing was accepting, as a matter of abstract law, that the inhabitants of Gaza had a right not to be subjected to genocide. I have to say that I regard that proposition as barely arguable.” — kashmīrī TALK 13:17, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another source

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

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

Edit request for Infobox

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

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

Follow-up on Joan Donoghue

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

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

Ergo, no. This is not what 'plausibility' seems to mean in this case. The BBC published a piece on this a few days ago which I think straightens this confusion out.[35]

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

Another quote from the ICJ ruling:

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

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

Complicity - egypt

Should the Egyptian government be also included as a complicit party, as they barred gazawis from escaping through the border and only allowed those who were able to pay the border guards enough? The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 04:08, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are multiple reliable sources saying so? — kashmīrī TALK 02:57, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It’s not widely covered, just a suggestion really
I’m not sure if MEE is RS
https://www.middleeasteye.net/opinion/icj-rule-egypt-end-complicity-israel-starving-gaza-will The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 15:14, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's just someone's opinion. — kashmīrī TALK 00:42, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 June 2024

Change the name, allegations ? Have you not seen the massacre happening ? Children beheaded, a missle strike to a Camp. This is "alleged" massacre. This is real massacre and it's seen by all. Even if Social Media does a bad job of censorship Muhamedshammas (talk) 11:59, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:EDITXY is a useful guideline for ways to make edit requests that are likely to succeed. WP:TITLE explains Wikipedia's policy for article titles. Sean.hoyland (talk) 13:20, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Opening paragraph edit request

I do not have extended confirmed user access level, and therefore I cannot edit a misleading sentence in first paragraph of this article.

Currently, the 2nd sentence in the opening paragraph contains the following misleading statement:

"The international human rights legal community, many political and legal experts, and many Holocaust scholars say that Israel is committing genocide against Palestinians in the Gaza Strip."[22]

The above statement is misleading, as - based on one source - it creates a false impression of a consensus regarding the accusation of genocide, when in fact the accusation is highly contested among experts, as the following three sources clearly show:

(a) https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/10/opinion/israel-gaza-genocide-war.html 

(Quote: "As a historian of genocide, I believe that there is no proof that genocide is currently taking place in Gaza, although it is very likely that war crimes, and even crimes against humanity, are happening.")

(b) https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/genocide-gaza-debate-1.7042809 

(Headline: "Experts, advocates deeply divided on question of 'genocide' in Gaza")

(c) https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/experts-give-2-perspectives-on-accusations-israel-is-committing-genocide-in-gaza. 

(Headline: "Experts give 2 perspectives on accusations Israel is committing genocide in Gaza")


I propose the following sentence to replace it:

"Despite claims by supporters of the accusation to a consensus regarding its validity,[22] the accusation remains controversial among genocide scholars, legal experts, and journalists.(a)(b)(c)"

Thank you.


P.S. Regarding footnote (a), from The NY Times, please highlight the following quote in the footnote: “As a historian of genocide, I believe that there is no proof that genocide is currently taking place in Gaza, although it is very likely that war crimes, and even crimes against humanity, are happening.” James42DuPont (talk) 20:47, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The first issue is that all the sources you provide are from 6 to 8 months older than the source cited for the sentence, which means it misses dozens upon dozens of articles including in the leading journals for the study of genocide which call the the events genocide. They are also singular opinions from, while prominent and esteemed scholars for a couple of the opinions, just a handful of individuals, where we have a much, much larger list of relevant scholars who have signed their names declaring they view the events as a genocide (see the list of 800 scholars in TWAILR, as just one example).
You also seem to miss a key point in Bartov's piece, "My greatest concern watching the Israel-Gaza war unfold is that there is genocidal intent, which can easily tip into genocidal action." This shows that while he, at the time, did not think it was a case of genocide, he believed that the intent for genocide is there and saw the risk of it becoming a genocide. From his time of writing 8 months have occurred, which has seen the death toll rise from ~10,800 to over 36,600.
This is a quick list I did for a previous discussion in March on reliable sources and the reported judgements in them, and as I predicted back in March, since we have only seen a greater increase in realiable sources reporting on relevant scholars, specialists, and organisations coming to the conclusion that this is a genocide:
  1. - Lula de Silva - Jacobin - Genocide
  2. - Omer Bartov - NYT - Genocidal intent, risk of genocide
  3. - 800 scholars in law, conflict studies, and genocide studies - Third World Approaches to International Law Review - Risk of genocide
  4. - Abdelwahab El-Affendi - Journal of Genocide Research - Genocide
  5. - 100+ Global Rights Groups - Common Dreams - Genocide
  6. - Mark Levene - Journal of Genocide Research - Genocide
  7. - Zoé Samudzi - Journal of Genocide Research - Genocide
  8. - Martin Shaw - Journal of Genocide Research - Genocide
  9. - Elyse Semerdjian - Journal of Genocide Research - Genocide
  10. - Raz Segal - Jewish Currents - Genocide
  11. - 100 Civil Society Organisations and Genocide Scholars - Al-Mezan Centre for Human Rights - Genocide
  12. - Palestinian UN Envoy - Reuters - Genocide
  13. - Human Rights Watch - Human Rights Watch - Failure to prevent and punish Genocide
  14. - Amnesty International - Amnesty International - Failure to prevent and punish Genocide
  15. - Michael Fakhri - The Guardian - Genocide
  16. - Ernesto Verdeja - TIME - gravitating towards a "genocidal campaign"
  17. - Center for Constitutional Rights - The Intercept - Genocide
  18. - 47 scholars in the fields of history, law, and criminology - International State Crime Initiative - Genocide
  19. - Israeli Public Figures represented by Human Rights Lawyer Michael Sfard - The Guardian - Ignoring incitement to genocide
  20. - Ben Kiernan - Time - Does not meet legal definition for genocide
  21. - Adam Jones - Vox - Causing Article 2, Clause C
  22. - Dov Waxman - Vox - Risk of genocide
  23. - Norman Finkelstein - GV Wire - Genocide
  24. - Eva Illouz - Le Monde - Not genocide
  25. - Eva Illouz - The Forward - Incitement to genocide
  26. - Organization of Islamic Countries, The Arab League, and 7 other countries supporting South Africa - Al Jazeera - Genocide
  27. - Venezuela - Mehr News - Genocide
  28. - Australia, Austria, Czechia, France, Germany, Guatemala, Hungary, Israel, Italy, Paraguay, USA, UK - Various prominent news outlets - Not genocide
  29. - Colombia - Associated Press - Genocide
  30. - Genocide Watch - Genocide Watch - Risk of genocide
  31. - Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention - Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention - Genocide
  32. - Cuba - Al Jazeera - Genocide
On counting the statements from different countries in the total this puts it at:
  • 30 sources say it's genocide
  • 7 say it's a Risk, Maybe, or Partial
  • 14 say it is not (only counting Eva Illouz's initial statement saying it is not genocide)
-- Cdjp1 (talk) 22:41, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
More than half of sources you list as part of the 30 “it’s genocide” list, aren’t experts, but rather political pundits, activists, populist politicians, and one “Mehr News” - Iranian state-owned media (not Venezuelan, as you incorrectly claim).
With all due respect, if we are to take statements made by president Lula as evidence for facts about expert opinion, then we’d have to allow some fairly wild claims to pass for facts on Wikipedia.
When you trim the list down to people with recognized expertise on this matter, it’s fairly obvious that there is a highly contentious debate about the genocide allegation. Failing to mention this glaring fact in the opening of the article does a disservice to Wikipedia readers, regardless of how good it makes you feel to have your strong opinions vindicated. James42DuPont (talk) 23:35, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not an edit request, it's a discussion. If it continues like this it should either be hatted, archived or deleted. Non-extendedconfirmed users don't get to participate like this. They can make an edit request and extendedconfirmed editors decide what to do. That's it. Sean.hoyland (talk) 04:00, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The claim is not that Mehr News is Venezuelan, but that Venezuela, as a government and state recognises it as genocide, and Mehr News was the source for this, pulled from multiple wiki-articles that have that as the citation for Venezuela's stance on this matter. As to the 30, it's 30 sources, not 30 individuals. The list was just a small exemplar of opinions, as I stated, that I pulled together for a previous discussion. The overwhelming opinion, no matter how narrow we set the parameters, is that what is occurring is in fact genocide. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 15:36, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All your cited sources are from more than 7 months ago and miss a lot, they are virtually outdated by now, besides opinion section in western newspapers don’t outweighs academic institutions publications, which itself just report and state the consensus in the international human rights legal community regarding the genocide itself than state its own judgement. So i see no reason to apply your suggestion. Stephan rostie (talk) 13:20, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a far more recent dissenting source, opposing the Genocide label:
https://www.aei.org/op-eds/israel-is-not-committing-genocide-in-gaza/ ("Israel Is Not Committing “Genocide” in Gaza" - April 20, 2024.)
_
And here is another, from Prof. David Halahmy:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8K1J08UzmM ("What is blood libel, and why accusing Israel of genocide is a new example of it. Facts and Data.")
_
I could bring more, but I doubt there's a need for that. I think we can agree that it's perfectly reasonable to debate specific allegations, but what is disingenuous is to pretend like there is no debate about them, especially when there are clearly so many dissenting voices.
Also, the nature of the debate around such a dramatic allegation makes it inevitable that most dissenting voices will be less persistent, as the burden of proof isn't on them. One can't expect serious scholars to spend their precious time trying to prove a negative.
Finally, I kindly ask you to only address the points made, and avoid resorting to ad-hominem attacks regarding my extendedconfirmed status. The points speak for themselves.
Thank you. James42DuPont (talk) 16:02, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Journal of Genocide Research > American Enterprise Institute. When you come with some actual academic papers, you may have some weight to your argument. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 16:06, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And as to the youtube video, is that really the level of argument you think is good enough? Where Halahmy fails to even use the UN Convention's definition of genocide, and uses the fallacious argument of "number dead" as the defining metric for a genocide. And this is before we get into any of the other problems in his video, such as outright lies about the states of various affairs. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 16:11, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, no academic - let alone an academic journal - would bother publishing an article attempting to prove a negative. Scholars have better things to do with their time. The burden of proof that you are requiring in this case is completely unreasonable.
I've shared with you plenty of academic voices, including one of the world's leading genocide historians. The fact that they don't share an obsession for this specific allegation - and therefore don't spend their career tying to get academic papers published to disprove it (they're NOT David Irving, thankfully) - doesn't make their dissent less relevant to the average Wikipedia reader, who is trying to understand the nature of the allegations. James42DuPont (talk) 16:19, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All you have done is shown your sheer ignorance with the field of genocide studies. There are a few prominent scholars who disagree with the assessment and they have published their voices in reputable sources. These are all already present in the article, though many of these fall into the first criticism from you tiny selection, that is their age in a rapidly moving and developing situation. Then in response to this criticism, you present a political think tank, and a shamefully poor youtube video which using a laughably absurd metric and definition for its analysis that would be rightfully laughed out of the field. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 20:46, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done – proposed wording is not supported by the sources provided. — kashmīrī TALK 09:35, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which image should be used?

Below are two images with descriptions, that have been used in the section "Invocation of Amalek". I initially added the Davidster image, while @Personisinsterest: added the Phillip Medhurst image. I'm of the personal opinion that the first picture is better due to it being a genocide (specifically Holocaust) memorial at the Hague, that uses the phrase that Netanyahu invoked, showing multiple points of comparison and contrast to the events in Gaza, while also showing how the phrase has a history in usage in response to genocide. But if people hold the opinion that the Phillip Medhurst image showing a depiction of the battle between Joshua and Amalek, I won't seek to reinstate the previous image.

  • "Davidster" (Star of David) by Dick Stins is a Holocaust memorial in The Hague. The text at the side (in Dutch and Hebrew) is from Deuteronomy 25:17, 19 – "Remember what Amalek has done to you ... do not forget."[1]
    "Davidster" (Star of David) by Dick Stins is a Holocaust memorial in The Hague. The text at the side (in Dutch and Hebrew) is from Deuteronomy 25:17, 19 – "Remember what Amalek has done to you ... do not forget."[1]
  • Illustration from Phillip Medhurst Collection depicting Joshua fighting Amalek (Exodus 17).
    Illustration from Phillip Medhurst Collection depicting Joshua fighting Amalek (Exodus 17).

-- Cdjp1 (talk) 15:57, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference yrosenberg was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

Opening paragraph is unbalanced

The quote "The international human rights legal community, many political and legal experts, and many Holocaust scholars all have consensus that Israel is committing genocide against the Palestinian people in the Gaza Strip", by Susan Akram is a low quality article opener.

The referenced source does not say what this quote is based on, i.e. a quantifiable review of "many political and legal experts, and many holocaust scholars all have consensus...".

Counter quotes by respected professors are abundant as well, and the article description is not the place to pitch the former vs the latter, let alone to reflect only the former.

A more legitimate quote would be the ICJ's ruling, which is significantly more neutral than the aforementioned quote, and definitely comes from a source that is many times more relevant than Suzan Akram. 2A0D:6FC7:50E:1AF6:BCA1:8A53:28C2:407B (talk) 20:43, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. — kashmīrī TALK 20:53, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Susan Akram comments

I've removed Akram's comments from the lede; putting such a broad statement in Wikivoice in the lede based on a single opinion article is almost the definition of WP:UNDUE weight. BilledMammal (talk) 08:55, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those arent Akram's "comments", they are a review of sources by an eminently reliable source. Whereas you left "comments" by two politicians in the lead. That also appears to be gaming the 1RR. nableezy - 14:33, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BilledMammal you were informed in the revert summary that there had been already a talk regarding it and we (three users) reached a consensus for its inclusion vs 1 non-extended confirmed user, not counting the WP:EDITCONSENSUS, yet you chose to ignore all of us and proceed in edit warring, i will give you a chance in a WP:GOODFAITH assuming that you didn’t bother to read the edit summaries to revert yourself until you change the consensus with all of us Stephan rostie (talk) 15:47, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First, for something like this, three vs one isn’t a consensus.
Second, I see discussions about this source all over the page, and at least one other editor is sceptical of assigning this source so much weight - and if three vs one isn’t a consensus, three vs two definitely isn’t. BilledMammal (talk) 15:59, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First, for something like this, three vs one isn’t a consensus

BilledMammel, you are making up rules as you go. Two versus three isn't a warrant for reverting to your, so far, minority view and you have no replied to Nableezy's point about the incongruency of eliding Akram's expertise as inappropriate to the lead, while retaining two political views that are neither here nor there, and certainly 'weigh less' than a considered view by Akram.Nishidani (talk) 16:27, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Based on a single opinion article in a University paper, you are attempting to add to the lede a statement in Wikivoice that there is a consensus Israel is committing genocide. That isn't a standard edit that a couple of editors can quickly discuss on the talk page; that is an edit that almost certainly requires an RfC. Additionally, two versus three is certainly a warrant for reverting to the status quo.
If Nableezy wants to discuss his points he is welcome to come to my talk page; they aren't relevant to a content discussion. BilledMammal (talk) 17:21, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless, this is a reliable source providing a summary of other sources. That is both reliable and due. And it is no longer 3-1, it looks more like 5-1. nableezy - 18:55, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just saw this thread after having removed this redundant and poorly sourced little bit. Such academic projects and professors are ubiquitous, and this self-published piece fails our standard for controversial article content. SPECIFICO talk 20:00, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know what self-published means? And removing it from the body is outrageous and should be swiftly reverted. nableezy - 20:03, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To add my 2 cents to this discussion. I have not taken a strong stance on its inclusion in the lede, as while I very much agree with it (evidenced through my commentary and source lists in prior discussions here), I understand the lack of weight that the citation has in the opinions of other editors. What I vehemently disagree with though is the attempts to remove it in its entirety from the article body. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 18:23, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I second @Cdjp1 here. I didn't intervene for precisely the same reasons. — kashmīrī TALK 19:36, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with the Akram bit is that it is a self-published source that presents the work of a non-wiki-NOTABLE advocate/academic employed at a non-wiki-NOTABLE project (at BU, which published the study in a house organ). There are other sources that cover this issue, some of which are in the article and there are authoritative institutions involved in adjudicating it. This is not RS for contentious current events and it thus fails both V and NPOV. Among the dissent I see here is one snide personal remark and two votes that don't address the problems I've now repeated in this comment. Surely we can reach agreement on this if editors are prepared to engage on the substance of the policies that relate to this content and article text. SPECIFICO talk 21:16, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, do you know what self-published means? Can you also affirm that you’ve read WP:N and WP:RS, particular the part of N where it says These guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list. They do not limit the content of an article or list and the part of RS that says When taking information from opinion content, the identity of the author may help determine reliability. The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint. You can then peruse Akram's works so that you can establish for your own self her expertise. nableezy - 21:18, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As Nableezy so aptly points to, the policies do not support your argument on notability, and Akram is a scholar with at least 20 years of regular publication in reputable journals are legal topics focusing on the Middle East. I would point also to how we we cite papers and statements from a multitude of scholars who don't meet the notability criteria for their own articles, yet still publish high quality material in reputable journals and via reputable publishers, much like Akram. These are reasons why it is worth note of Akram's assessment in the article body, at least. My previous comment on "the lack of weight", is because where this assessment was published is not something like an academic journal, which I know would be more convincing to other editors for it's inclusion in the lede. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 02:48, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SPECIFICO Let me just point out that there's no requirement whatsoever that wikipedia sources and their authors be themselves "notable". Sources must be WP:RELIABLE rather than notable. A renowned academic who is an authority in their domain is likely a very reliable source for an encyclopaedia. Then, you really need to read more what "self-published" means on Wikipedia, as others have pointed out.
That said, I'm not convinced that the report is due in the lede. — kashmīrī TALK 06:10, 22 June 2024 (UTC
Yes. The reason I've mentioned "notable" is that - for a primary sourced contentious article content - we do not use PRIMARY (self-published) sources except sometimes when the source is a statement by an undisputedly notable authority on the subject. In this case, Akram, who is an advocate and an activist - not particularly distinguished as a "scholar" - does not fit the bill. Incidentally, the Google Scholar database includes all sorts of publications that WP does not consider good scholarly sources, e.g. working papers and various self-published non-peer-reviewed or non-scholarly materials. It strikes me as odd that editors would insist on this deficient source rather than strengthen the sourcing and content it supports. SPECIFICO talk 11:30, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RS includes opinion, even if neither notable nor expert. OK, we don't often use it in this topic area because it frequently gets objected to. But now there are even objections to well qualified opinion as well, this is just upending the whole idea of RS. Selfstudier (talk) 11:36, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That would be true if it were published by an independent RS. But this is a promotional interview in the BU house organ. And the way it is proposed for this article also elevates the opinion of Ms. Akram by touting the long important-sounding mantle of her institution name. Such projects with important-sounding titles are common in academia. Their work stands on its merits, and in this instance this work does not appear to have merited independent publication. SPECIFICO talk 11:47, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You’re just making things up. A university paper is a reliable source, and it isn’t self-published (which is why I asked if you know what that even means, but apparently not) and an academic expert is likewise a reliable source. If you remove what has clear consensus for inclusion in the body again I’ll be reporting you for disruptive editing. nableezy - 12:12, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As it says at the top of the BU report "The report comes from researchers at the University Network for Human Rights, a consortium of human right centers" and it is then straightforward to back up what is being said by referring to the actual primary source at https://www.humanrightsnetwork.org/genocide-in-gaza. Selfstudier (talk) 12:13, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right, but that is not the issue. The problem is that there is no evidence of the significance of the opinion or research contained in this self-published primary source. It's like one of hundreds of thousands of working papers self-published by groups of advocates and academics worldwide who get some funding, put a fancy title on their office, and are noted by affiliates, sponsors, and promoters of their efforts. WP doesn't use self-published working papers that are not demonstrated to be noteworthy or significant by RS publication or -- much less frequently -- by the indisputable notability of their authors, for example a statement by a Nobel Laureate on a current issue within their notable scientific expertise. It's no disrespect to Akram to note that she fails this high bar. And her organization is an advocacy group and undergrad enrichment project with a limited scope of work. Oddly, their website map shows a gas pipeline in Brooklyn, NY as a significant human rights concern while omitting the Russian kidnapping of Ukranian children, the well-documeneted Chinese abuses, and multiple ongoing crises on the African continent. SPECIFICO talk 15:32, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It isn’t self published sheesh. You keep saying the same thing but it doesn’t change it from being completely false no matter how many times you say it. nableezy - 17:29, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From the posts in the RfC below, I see that many editors understand the self-published issue. But the problem may be clearer for with respect to its being a WP:PRIMARY source. It is the self-stated opinion of Ms. Akram, whom the mainstream - from all search evidence - does not regard as a go-to expert qualified for us to republish as an NPOV or scholarly summary of world opinion. Her opinion, in this regard, is not noteworthy and in WP terms is UNDUE. SPECIFICO talk 15:58, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually nobody but you has said anything about it being self-published because it very obviously is not published by herself. If you want to use words in a way other than what they actually mean then it is entirely pointless trying to communicate with you. nableezy - 17:53, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per my comment above, I attempted to make it clearer for you -- WP:PRIMARY is not RS for a survey of world opinion by a not-particularly-notable attorney. SPECIFICO talk 18:32, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
She's a professor, an academic expert who has published widely and repeatedly in peer reviewed journals. She is a subject matter expert, and your attempt to wave that away by calling her a not-particularly-notable attorney is entirely without merit and will be given the attention it deserves. That being none. nableezy - 19:42, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have opened an RfC on this, as obviously this isn't going to be settled by talk page discussion. I would have preferred that one of the editors who wished to change the status quo had opened the RfC, but none of them appeared willing to do so and since Stephen Rostie has once again inserted the content without consensus I felt that it need to be opened now rather than let this devolve into an edit war. BilledMammal (talk) 03:02, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UN Human Rights Council investigations

The Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and Israel has been releasing the results of its investigations this month, with some damning statements on Israel's conduct. We will need to had these published reports into citations for this article. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 19:35, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on the inclusion on the BU Today article in the lede

How should the statements in this BU Today "Voices & Opinion" article be covered in the lede?

  1. The international human rights legal community, many political and legal experts, and many Holocaust scholars all have consensus that Israel is committing genocide against the Palestinian people in the Gaza Strip. (as seen in this edit)
  2. The international human rights legal community, several political and legal experts, and many Holocaust scholars have concluded that Israel is committing genocide against the Palestinian people in the Gaza Strip. (as seen in this edit)
  3. Do not include

02:56, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Survey

  • C This is an opinion article published in a university newspaper. For a topic as well covered as this, to include a statement like this in the first paragraph of the lede on the basis of a single such source is virtually the definition of WP:UNDUE. Further, the suggestion is to include the position expressed in the article in Wikivoice; the sourcing is clearly not strong enough to do this.
    It may be appropriate to include the claim in the body attributed in line, but it is clearly inappropriate to include it in the lede in Wikivoice. BilledMammal (talk) 02:56, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • B or similar, as the statement appears to capture the reality well. Only update the source to: "Israel's Genocide of Palestinians in Gaza". University Network for Human Rights. Retrieved 2024-06-22.. — kashmīrī TALK 06:18, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • C (generally per BM) the source is undue, and the claim should be made with attribution in the body. Both the BU piece (and the better actual scholarship) are not appropriate, least of all without attribution. FortunateSons (talk) 09:50, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, and particularly A goes beyond what the source states in their own voice IMO, so that’s not great. FortunateSons (talk) 09:52, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don’t have a strong opinion on if this specifically should be in the lead, though we do need a summary of the academic discourse section. It does however absolutely belong in the body, and the attempts to claim that an academic expert discussing topics in the area of her expertise is somehow unreliable or undue are straightforward examples of disruptive editing. But does this specifically need to be in the lead? It isn’t the worst thing, it’s an expert giving an overview of the views of other experts. Something needs to be in there about the views of scholars on this topic. This isn’t the worst thing but again no strong opinion on this being the specific source for that summary. nableezy - 12:32, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • B not because it is something that is only said in the source specifically named by OP but because that or something similar appears to be the prevailing view across relevant scholarship. See the sourcing given in the ongoing RM] that currently appears to have a consensus for amending the article title to Gaza genocide. As for removing the specific material from the body as was done, that is exceptionally difficult to comprehend. Selfstudier (talk) 12:50, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • B: I agree with Selfstudier's sentiments above. David A (talk) 13:13, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • C if this is the only source given (which is only a university newspaper, although nonetheless a secondary source summarizing the views of experts) per WP:DUE, but likely A or B if other sources are added to support it in the body, like Selfstudier mentioned. I don't see A as going beyond what the source says, with the words many and consensus being closer to what the source says:

    The opposition is political, as there is consensus amongst the international human rights legal community, many other legal and political experts, including many Holocaust scholars, that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza.

    Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:53, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It isn’t the only source, see here. nableezy - 01:54, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, this appears to be a solid source. While it might look like a primary source at first glance, it does in fact give an overview of previous findings in pages 9 to 11, which could be a good secondary source for the statement. I'd support B if that source is added. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 08:10, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either of B or A. Neither the source is "merely a random opinion" nor the cited piece of information it provides is source’s own claim or opinion but rather a citation of the consensus in the international human rights legal community. The source is a report published by Boston University and "comes from researchers at the University Network for Human Rights, a consortium of human right centers", therefore the source is indeed reliable for the information it provides, indeed much more than newspapers articles. And the source doesn’t say or give its own opinion regarding the quoted information like saying "we believe there is a genocide" but rather reflects/cites what the international human rights legal community "there is consensus amongst the international human rights legal community, many other legal and political experts, including many Holocaust scholars, that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza.", it is not the source’s own opinion or judgement. Beside the fact that this isn’t the only reliable source stating so as per @Selfstudier Stephan rostie (talk) 12:25, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But UNHR is neither independent of Akram's BU project nor is it a WP:RS publisher. Nor is it particularly esteemed, celebrated, discussed, or recognized in mainstream published discourse. SPECIFICO talk 21:42, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • C This is a WP:PRIMARY source, self-published by Akram's employer in a university newsletter. That publication is an appropriate place to inform BU stakeholders of matters relating to the school, but neither that publication nor the fancy-sournding name of Akram's advocacy/activism project can elevate her work to a significant NPOV assessment of the range of current thinking on the issue. We would need a WP:RS publisher, prefereably peer-reviewed, to make a strong statement of a matter of current controversy and pending adjudication. The self-published opinion of a non-NOTABLE individual, however fine her commitment and advocacy, is UNDUE for the lead and should be replaced in the article body with better more reliable sources on the question. She. personally, is certainly not a secondary RS to evaluate the opinions of other observers. That should be clear to any WP editor. We need secondary RS publishers for that.
Further, whoever closes this -- please note that several !votes seems to say that, because her views seem OK therefore we can use defectively sourced content. Not so. SPECIFICO talk 16:18, 23 June 2024 (UTC),[reply]
It is not self published and a second source has been provided and not a single vote says anything close to what you claim in your last couple of sentences. False on all counts actually. nableezy - 17:51, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The RFC question is "How should the statements in this BU Today "Voices & Opinion" article be covered in the lede?" and the answer is that it should be cited in support of a statement in Wikivoice (can as well be cited to https://www.humanrightsnetwork.org/genocide-in-gaza and not only to BU) along with multiple other supporting references saying a similar thing and about which bald assertions such as "self published" (it isn't) and "primary" (policy does not forbid primary source usage) play no part. Closer should refer to the RFCbefore discussion where it can be seen this editor and the RFC opener (who hasn't signed) both edited to suit a POV and when unable to persuade other editors, it led to this RFC. Selfstudier (talk) 18:45, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Except that there's no supporting evidence that humanrightsnetwork is a significant scholarly, juridical, or other expert organization. It's a student enrichment project and platform for advocacy and activism. All good, but it is not covered in the mainstream as an expert mainstream institution. This is all discussed in the thread prior to this RfC. SPECIFICO talk 20:39, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It’s a paper by 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. Never heard of any of those universities, are they any good? nableezy - 10:57, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Kindly demonstrate that UNHR is a noteworhty RS publisher and that its independent of the person whose opinions are being proposed for article content. Maybe this needs to go to RSN. Namechecking a few ivy insitutions does not address the sourcing and notability issue. Do you have anything to document that the mainstream takes this UNHR seriously or even knows of its existence? Academia is a vast ecosystem with all sorts of offices and projects within its realm. The significant ones produce peer-reviewed, independently-published scholarly research. This is nothing of the sort. SPECIFICO talk 15:05, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you are asking whether anyone could make a satisfactory WP article for it, sure, no problem. The thought occurs to me that you don't like this org because James Cavallaro. Selfstudier (talk) 17:09, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, I did not ask whether it's NOTABLE. We know that it is not. I simply stated the fundamental WP principal, presumably known to editors EC-eligible to here, that an independent RS publisher would be needed even for an attributed opinion. Instead we've seen ad hominiems, personal disparagement, namechecking everyone from Eli Yale to Cavallaro, and folks saying, screw the RS bit, they like what Akram says, (!!!) But nobody seems able to demonstrate that this content is published by RS or meets our V and NPOV policies for any inclusion anywhere on this page. BURDEN and ONUS are out the window on this page. SPECIFICO talk 18:45, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can make an article, that means its notable. And making such an article would be very easy, just search books, scholar, etc. In any case, it just says the same thing as many others so this is all a lot of unnecessary fuss over nothing. Selfstudier (talk) 18:50, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Love ya, SS, but you are not a RS either, so saying you think you could write an article doesn't advance the process. But my interest in this from the start has simply been from seeing this self-published opinion (we can call self-published PRIMARY to short-circuit further indignant deflections) being used as if it were an independent RS-published account of a survey of qualified world opinion and with no evidence that Akram is a scholar qualified to make such an assessment. I have no opinion as to the underlying issue and I have expressed none. I've consistently said that I expect that better, solid RS could be found to address this content. I don't anticipate what they might say, but it's a shame to see editors ignore core policy to grab a handy blurb out of a promotional university newsletter and elevate it with a word salad of recognizable institution names, and buzzwords. You appear to be knowledgeable in the field. Please find valid sourcing and notable qualified experts to address the question. SPECIFICO talk 19:04, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ive already shown you Akram's publications, the UNHR director is James Cavallaro, also a widely published expert in the field of international law, the Cornell program is led by Susan Babcock, who is, you guessed it, again a widely published expert in the field. You cant just say that the scholarship here isnt notable or noteworthy, what matters is that it is reliable, and it is reliable because of the people and institutions behind it. nableezy - 19:57, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

  • It may need clarifying that a mention of the Stanford report has already been included in the article, and what the RfC aims to achieve is a better wording. The current suboptimal wording will likely remain if there's no consensus. Editors are welcome to propose further wording options for this RfC. — kashmīrī TALK 13:20, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given it's an opinion, why is there no option for attribution per WP:RSOPINION? Ie, "According to the University Network for Human Rights", per the content in the body. Either way, have to agree with others that it doesn't seem due in the lead, unless covered by other reliable sources; the proposed sentences are just a regurgitation of of the body, not a summary of it. A lead summary would be something like "Certain scholars, A, B to C, consider it a genocide, due to..., disputed by X, Y and Z, because of...". As far as I can tell nothing in the "Academic and legal discourse" has been summarised in the lead, despite numerous paragraphs of content. It's better to work on summarising the content for the lead per MOS:INTRO, rather than trying to pick out one particular report. CNC (talk) 23:26, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    With better sourcing, I'd be willing to support. Or re-wording to satisfy a bundle of sources. CNC (talk) 23:42, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thus far, we have no evidence that "UNHR" is a significant organization or that its title should be used to elevate one person's primary-sourced opinion. SPECIFICO talk 08:36, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gaza_genocide&oldid=1230887257"