Talk:Gaza genocide

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)

• 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)

  B, but would be improved by using the source given by @Kashmiri above. Lewisguile (talk) 07:02, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

• 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)

  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)

• 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)
• 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)
• A combination of A and B: I agree with "A Socialist Trans Girl" below. David A (talk) 10:21, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
• 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)

  It isn’t the only source, see here. nableezy - 01:54, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

  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)

• 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)

  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)

  Are you seriously arguing that UNCHR is not a WP:RS ? Stephan rostie (talk) 14:19, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

  It's not UNCHR, UNHR. Selfstudier (talk) 14:24, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks, SS. It show the power of modern-day branding that a vaguely institutional-sounding name like UNHR so easily evokes parity with UNCHR AND miscast as a respected, WP;NOTABLE global institution. SPECIFICO talk 15:04, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

  Well it is kind of your mistake for making your own abbreviation and writing “UNHR” rather than “University Network

  for Human Rights” Stephan rostie (talk) 19:43, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks for elaboration Stephan rostie (talk) 19:41, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

• 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),

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

This is, again, more equivocation, namedropping, and elevation of a non-notable author's self-published (PRIMARY) opinion, broadcast in a Univeristy house organ circulated to its stakeholders. There are many stronger sources and there are scholars whose views should be prioritized above those of an activist/advocate. Her worki stands on its own, but she is not a scholar and her opinions are not of such note that this encuclopedia should rebroadcast them when the mainstream media and peer reviewed publications or RS journals have not done so. That is our responsibility on this project. We don't simply publish the opinions of people whose work or opinions we may admire. SPECIFICO talk 17:04, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Susan Akram, as a simple Google search says, is a law professor and director of the rights clinic at Boston University School of Law teaching international human rights, and refugee and immigration law. That apart I have edited a bit in the article to make things clearer, there is literally no basis for objecting to the sources, neither her expert opinion nor the UHRU report itself.

No-one is really disputing that Akram alone should be in the lead so this entire RFC and this dialogue are just one oversized straw man designed to throw shade on the idea that Israel may be guilty of genocide.

What y'all need to do, instead of shooting the messengers, is accumulate a sufficient number of RS specifying that Israel is not committing a genocide in order to constitute a significant view in that regard as counterpoint to the already demonstrated significant view that Israel is committing a genocide. Selfstudier (talk) 17:24, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

I have no opinion as to the allegation. Now, I see you've changed the article content before the resolution of this ongoing RfC. It's now quoting multiple self-published, primary sources, again highlighting non-NOTABLE Ms. Akram without independent RS indicating any WEIGHT for her conclusions. If your googling found mainstream RS citations to establish the NOTABILITY of Akram such as might justify these primary sourced opinions, pleaase provide them in lieu of the various ad hominem attacks and deflections. I am focused only on policy and sourcing and there's no basis for any claim that I am trying to do what various supporters of Ms. Akram have stated they're doing here - pushing article content because I wish to support a personal opinion. SPECIFICO talk 18:24, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Happy to discuss that at RSN anytime but since it is not going into the lead anyway, it has nothing to do with this RFC. I have changed the article content but I have not changed anything in the lead, which is what this RFC purports to be about. Selfstudier (talk) 18:38, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Even if it were self-published, which it is not, it would clearly pass WP:EXPERTSPS. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. nableezy - 19:47, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

• B Selfstudier's reasoning pretty much sums it up. M.Bitton (talk) 14:03, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
• C or an attributed statement. Interpreting consensus on a highly contentious topic across multiple (academic, legal and political) communities is a messy and somewhat subjective matter. While Akram is an expert, there isn't enough clarity and objectivity here to take a single expert's interpretation of consensus as established fact, and repeat it in wikivoice. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 22:36, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
• B although I would prefer if a stronger source could be found to summarize opinion, it is a good summary of other sources that otherwise may be impossible to extract without WP:OR. (t · c) buidhe 03:39, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
• B: This statement is already more than supported by the aggregation of sources on the page. The discussed source, alongside the UNHR, merely helps provide a more sourced basis for the summary wording, which is beneficial. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:28, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
• C Do not include, or only as an attributed statement. As per BilledMammal, xDanielx and FortunateSons. I would also add that when a person, even an expert, claims that the consensus agrees with his view, as is the case with Susan Akram, it is a somewhat doubtful testimony as it is self-serving. It is different when a person admits that his view contradicts the consensus because then the testimony is not self-serving. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vegan416 (talk • contribs) 17:07, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Combination. I think it should be The international human rights legal community, many political and legal experts, and many Holocaust scholars all have concluded that Israel is committing genocide against the Palestinian people in the Gaza Strip.. I believe it should be many political and legal experts, as it's more accurate than 'several' and is consistent with how Wikipedia frames things; if it was not many enough to be many and merely several, then it'd probably be WP:UNDUE. And I think the concluded phrasing is better, as consensus implies they as a whole have consensus, not phrasing limited to the ones that do. I also support the phrasing of "The international human rights legal community, political and legal experts, and Holocaust scholars, all have consensus that Israel is committing genocide against the Palestinian people in the Gaza Strip.". There should be a comma before "all have consensus". A Socialist Trans Girl 22:22, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

I support these suggested modifications. David A (talk) 10:21, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

The removal of the vague "many" and "several" would be no loss. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:25, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Good point. Agreed. David A (talk) 16:43, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

• C and WP:UNDUE. Do not include. Hogo-2020 (talk) 06:06, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
• C per SPECIFICO's reasonign. Given the sensitivity of the subject matter, our sources should be ironclad. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:49, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

  The sources are ironclad. SPECIFICO's reasoning makes a mockery of WP:RS which places established academic experts near the top of our reliability pyramid. nableezy - 15:22, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

  Nableezy, please review the WP:REPUTABLE section of our RS page to see your error explained more thoroughly. There are numerous PRIMARY and self-published sources, including blog opinions of grad students, where independent RS publications are required. SPECIFICO talk 16:45, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

  Can you please tell us what self-published means? nableezy - 17:46, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

  I'm aware of your continued opinion on this subject. That was mine. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 09:51, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

  This whole RFC is completely academic after the rename, the lead will in effect explain how the title fits into the scope and the particular ref subject of this RFC is just one of several that will allow a statement in wikivoice. Selfstudier (talk) 11:17, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

  I don't know what this has to do with the price of tea in China. I expressed my opinion that I agreed with SPECIFICO's reasoning on this particular issue. The closer is free to take my opinion into consideration with the weight they feel is appropriate.

  I do want to congratulate you and Nableezy on your apparent promotions to WP:INQUISITOR. For future reference, what is the proper procedure for me to follow when expressing future opinions? Do I have to ask for permission from one or both of you to express an opinion or do I need specific pre-clearance for the exact opinion that will be expressed? Thanks in advance. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 00:46, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

• Comment – @A Socialist Trans Girl: I'm pretty sure that the comma before all is not grammatically correct. Kinsio (talk ★ contribs ★ rights) 15:01, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

  @Kinsio I believe you are correct. Apologies. A Socialist Trans Girl 02:55, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

• A and B per A Socialist Trans Girl (and Iskandar's tweaks). Combining both sentences seems appropiate given the recent article name/scope change and it's a proper summary of other sources in the body. Disagree with the UNDUE arguments - experts opinions are absolutely due and as shown by nableezy this has also been covered by secondary sources. - Ïvana (talk) 01:52, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
• We absolutely need some statement summarizing academic discourse, hence I strongly oppose option C as a violation of WP:LEAD. The article currently has an entire section on "Academic and legal discourse", "Cultural discourse" and academic opinions are throughout the article. Unless such academic opinions are being given UNDUE weight in the body (and there is no evidence of that), we need to summarize them somehow in the lead too.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 05:34, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
• B (or A): I think B is worded better but A is similar enough I'd take either of them. I do think that there's very much sufficient sourcing for this statement, though of course it should also be present in the body. Loki (talk) 21:39, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

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)
• 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)

  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)

  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)

RfC on page move moratorium

Megabytes of text have been written on this Talk in the last 30 days, with 87 distinct editors making a total of 917 edits. Arguments were traded, insults flew. Most of it was a discussion about the page title. I'm glad that Joe Roe has now skilfully closed the heated debate with an excellent summary.

As the new title needs to "settle in", I'd like to propose a temporary moratorium on further rename discussions. Please kindly indicate your preferences from among:

• A-6 – A six-month moratorium on page move requests
• A-12 – A 12-month moratorium on page move requests
• A-24 – A 24-month moratorium on page move requests
• B – No page move moratorium

Thank you. — kashmīrī ^TALK 12:51, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

B Unnecessary. Selfstudier (talk) 13:11, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

A-12: Unlikely that the situation on the ground will warrant a rename anytime sooner, while a moratorium will certainly save everyone's time. — kashmīrī ^TALK 13:22, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

A-24: Given the sheer massive amounts of controversy and conflict that this topic has generated, I do not think that we should revisit it any time soon. David A (talk) 14:43, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

B – WP:NO-PREEMPT. It's best we discuss this only if there are disruptive requests to move the article again. I think it's pretty common to close requests right away if there is no new information that would change the result anyway. FunLater (talk) 15:08, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

B considering that the RfC was relatively close after a very recent RfC with the opposite results, a variety of real-world factors and events could rapidly change in a way that would lead to a justified move. If someone proposes a bad move, we can deal with it through existing policy. Particularly opposed to A-24, as it could theoretically (despite the low risk) interfere with the time frame of ICJ or ICC decisions with significant impact on RS coverage. FortunateSons (talk) 15:21, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

B – I think this is more an argument for involved editors being more thoughtful and moving extensive discussions on topics that are getting away from strict relevance to the question under discussion to a different section of the talk page (or to user talk pages, as the case may be) than for foreclosing on certain types of discussions entirely because they're too "risky". Let's trust editors to be responsible and respond accordingly if they fail to do so, rather than tying their hands. Kinsio (talk ★ contribs ★ rights) 19:29, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

B – No reason to treat this differently from any other contentious topic. Vegan416 (talk) 19:44, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

B. No moratorium is necessary, and I think it is generally a bad idea to push for one when the original move itself was extremely contentious. This is an article covering a situation that is ongoing and potentially still fast-moving, the title should be able to reflect that and we should not seek to tie our own hands. Domeditrix (talk) 14:14, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

A-24 per David A. Snokalok (talk) 16:54, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

B – Since this is still (slowly) occurring, as per the arguments of FunLater and Kinsio. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 20:42, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

B, per some editors above: why should we tie our own hands? We have strong policy that's carried us through the past ~20 years, no reason here to put all that on hold. Move requests can be handled normally. AviationFreak💬 13:44, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

B, extremely unnecessary to put a moratorium on moving a page's article. Auror Andrachome (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:30, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 July 2024

Why does this article belong to Biden administration controversies category? Joe Biden has nothing to do with the situation in Gaza 2A01:5A8:303:C65E:8D29:511B:37CF:6813 (talk) 12:41, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

 Done. Removed not per your remark that "Joe Biden has nothing to do with the situation in Gaza", but as a WP:NONDEFINING category. Not what defines this topic.—Alalch E. 13:29, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Genocide or alleged genocide

This article needs to be renamed to alleged genocide. The article lead itself is stating that the genocide is an allegation by some: Israel has been accused by experts, governments, United Nations agencies and non-governmental organisations of carrying out a genocide. I see in previous discussions that the COMMON name is raised as an argument, however this common name is used only by those who allege the genocide. The term alleged thus can't be removed from the term genocide. We should wait for ICJ ruling as that is the only court that can rule over the breach of the Genocide Convention. Trimpops2 (talk) 01:29, 25 July 2024 (UTC)Non EC editors may only make edit requests

Otherwise we can name virtually any war crime article to be genocide as often some are making genocide allegations. Trimpops2 (talk) 01:32, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Not "some". Roughly 75% of experts even within the United States, and only 4% finding the actions of the Israeli government justified, with the vast majority of the rest of this world presumably far less supportive than that. David A (talk) 06:35, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Please delete comments from non EC users that are not edit requests, thanks.Selfstudier (talk) 11:59, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Move review

Since the actual discussion is archived, watchers of this page might have missed the notice, but: Talk:Gaza genocide/Archive 2#Requested move 3 May 2024 was listed at Wikipedia:Move review on 22 July 2024. – Joe (talk) 12:14, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Potential RfC on move to Gaza war crimes

Is it worth having an RfC on a move to Gaza war crimes?

[1] is akin to a summary of reliable sources, and is therefore used several times, including in the lead. It says 64% of scholars don't think a genocide is happening, but 91% think major war crimes are happening, including 41% that think they are akin to genocide. It can't be a coincidence articles such as Israeli war crimes, War crimes in the Israel–Hamas war, War crimes in the 2006 Lebanon War exist. COMMONNAME is the main criteria at title policy, there is also PRECISION and consistency.

In the presence of several commonnames, war crimes is more precise and consistent. Would it improve, worsen on simply change scope? Is it worth having an RfC? Tom B (talk) 20:05, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

The topic is "genocide" not "war crimes". Given that Israeli war crimes in the Israel–Hamas war already exists, your suggestion would largely make this topic redundant and completely change the scope of the article. CNC (talk) 20:14, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

thanks would it make sense to merge them? Tom B (talk) 20:26, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Based on a combined article size of 24,000 words, absolutely not. CNC (talk) 20:30, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

But it could be trimmed to 15,000 by using summary style? Tom B (talk) 20:36, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Genocide, along with war crimes and the crime of aggression, are a crime against humanity, the aggression article is currently missing but following the recent ICJ ruling, I expect it will appear in due course, for the hat trick. Selfstudier (talk) 20:40, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Gaza and Hamas aren't the same thing? Tom B (talk) 20:37, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, what? Selfstudier (talk) 20:42, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm not going to bother arguing here as to me it seems a waste of time. There is no need for an RfC on this, there was recently a requested move to the current title, and there is currently a move review. Of course Gaza and Hamas aren't the same thing, but the scope of content regarding war crimes in Gaza and the broader war would quite obviously overlap enormously. CNC (talk) 20:43, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

This would completely change the scope of the article. This article focuses on the accusation of genocide, so the title should reflect the focus on genocide in some manner. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 20:45, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Why does the Infobox say the purported "Genocide" began the same day Israel was attacked?

BurnerAcountOneThousandAndOne (talk) 01:19, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

 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 21:00, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

this is a good point, a reliable source on the start date should be provided. misterdan (talk) 00:20, 2 August 2024 (UTC) WP:ARBECR

They started the multi-generational killing of entire families on day 1. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:32, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Relevancy of Walberg's comments

This concerns the comments from U.S. politician Walberg in Gaza genocide § Rhetoric from U.S. politicians. Why are those included in this article? According to the text at the top of the article, This article is about genocide accusations against Israel. The comments don't mention Israel at all. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:21, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

GOP Rep. Tim Walberg suggests Gaza should be handled 'like Nagasaki and Hiroshima'

"In a statement, Walberg said he "used a metaphor to convey the need for both Israel and Ukraine to win their wars as swiftly as possible, without putting American troops in harm's way." Isn't genocidal incitement from representatives of Israel's principal ally relevant? Selfstudier (talk) 17:32, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

First of all, that context is absent from the article. Second, I think the question stands: is this article about U.S. politicians, or is it about genocide accusations against Israel? ☆ Bri (talk) 17:39, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

If a high-ranking politician within the country that continuously enables all of the atrocities performed by the Israeli government actively and enthusiastically encourages the use of nuclear weapons against civilian Palestinians, that certainly seems relevant in an article about an ongoing genocide, yes. David A (talk) 17:46, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Strong agree. Dhantegge (talk) 06:36, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

NPOV tag

What's that about? Selfstudier (talk) 16:40, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Given that it's always fire season here, rewarding firestarters doesn't seem like a sensible strategy. Sean.hoyland (talk) 16:53, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Imprison the arsonists! Selfstudier (talk) 16:55, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

That's why they named WP:CTOP after {{ctop}}. Levivich (talk) 20:00, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

<- I've put that dumpster fire out again. There's nothing stopping any editor from presenting the argument, whatever it is, with specific reference to content and policy, and without deliberately violating WP:TALKNO in a seemingly calculated and provocative way. It's completely unnecessary and avoidable. In my view, it's clearly better for there to be a disincentive rather than an incentive for this kind of talk page behavior in PIA. And it is easy to dissociate the NPOV tag from that discussion by "pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies". Sean.hoyland (talk) 03:00, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not even sure what that argument could possibly be. That we should change the death toll to 39,999+? Levivich (talk) 06:15, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Should Hamas fighters be included in the genocide death count?

The current infobox gives a figure of 40,000 dead, both civilians and militants. Should every Hamas fighter and militant be included as a victim of genocide? In my opinion, only civilians should be included, meaning a figure of around 16,000 civilians according to Israel or more according to some other sources.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 05:27, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

This has been discussed before, see earlier talk page archives. ArkHyena (talk) 06:20, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Where was it discussed? What was the conclusion?--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 07:39, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Archives 1 and 3 should have relevant past discussions, if I remember correctly. The discussions appeared to lean on no change. ArkHyena (talk) 19:55, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Even if we were to just go by previous international court decisions using the Genocide Convention, yes fighters can be victims of genocide, as decided in ICTY. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 10:14, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

1) The ICTY included soldiers of the Army of Bosnia and Herzegovina as victims of genocide in Srebrenica, but it did not specifically mention anything about terrorists or their status in such a scenario. 2) The Srebrenica massacre included soldiers being captured, held in detention centers, unarmed, handcuffed and then shot point blank "hors de combat" in hundreds, ultimately dumped in mass graves. Can you refer to any such case in the Israel-Hamas War?--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 13:18, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Your opinion doesn't matter, nor does mine. This article only covers what it says in reliable sources. (t · c) buidhe 00:43, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Reliable sources don’t appear to give the number currently in the article as the total number of victims - from the discussion that was inappropriately and prematurely archived, only one sources does so, and it’s a hyper-partisan advocacy organisation. BilledMammal (talk) 02:09, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Where was it discussed? What was the conclusion? a very similar discussion (that you started yesterday) was archived (for a reason). M.Bitton (talk) 13:25, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

So what was the conclusion? Yes, there wasn't any, since the discussion was interrupted. All the sources for the death toll mention a total number of dead for the "Israel-Hamas War", not for the "Gaza genocide". Even the ICTY narrowed the genocide only to Srebrenica massacre, and considered other atrocities as crimes against humanity. We should deduct the terrorists from the genocide toll and include only civilians. Including them makes no sense, no was any reason given to justify this broad decision.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 06:11, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

What's up with the title?

If this article concerns a genocide allegation or accusation (which it explicitly does), wouldn't the correct title be "Gaza genocide allegation" or "Gaza genocide accusation"? The current title is misleading, it doesn't accurately represent the actual content of the article. Zohariko1234 (talk) 06:16, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Decided in an RM, see archive. Selfstudier (talk) 09:05, 4 August 2024 (UTC)