Talk:Gaza genocide

This page is subject to the extended confirmed restriction related to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Begin–Sadat Center for Strategic Studies report

@Tioaeu8943 - While I'm not fundamentally opposed to including the report by Begin–Sadat Center for Strategic Studies, I'm unsure if their inclusion is WP:DUE as they are a think tank whose stated mission is "conducting policy-relevant research on Middle Eastern and global strategic affairs, particularly as they relate to the national security and foreign policy of Israel and regional peace and stability." & despite describing themselves as non-partisan, list among their advances "generat[ing] a debate about the problematic aspects of Palestinian statehood" & putting "The dangers of radical Islam; the myths of Palestinian demography; the abuse of international institutions in the attempt to delegitimize Israel" on the public agenda. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 00:26, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

I've clarified the positioning of the Center, that being an Israeli think-tank that supports military solutions to just about every issue they look at. It's inclusion this time is better than when a previous editor tried to dedicate a third of the article to the think tank. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 10:07, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

It shouldn't be a third of the article, that's not reasonable. I changed "piece" back to "report" so that the second sentence follows logically, and removed "two-state solution" (if they're opposed to statehood, they're necessarily opposed to the two-state solution), but I otherwise don't object to the context. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 13:26, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

i moved it to "other scholars" because, per TOI, the authors are mostly military historians. there are some actual legal experts that could be added to this section, most notably Stefan Talmon. Rainsage (talk) 16:33, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

An organization's mission does not appear to figure into policies described at WP:DUE. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 13:23, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

I don't see any problem to include to report as long as it described in WP:RS. In my opinion the addition regarding recognition of two state solution is irrelevant to the topic of the article as it not mentioned in the source that describe the report. --Shrike (talk) 19:31, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. Iljhgtn (talk) 20:10, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

I mean this is an explicitly partisan organization, so I don't think this belongs in the "scholarship" section. Or in the article at all because it offers zero enlightenment to our readers on the line of WP:MANDY. There are many Israeli institutions that aren't nakedly partisan. (t · c) buidhe 19:39, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Per NRC, one of the authors "teaches at the Israeli army's officer academy and is himself a reservist". So even ignoring the politics of the organization, this is a pretty clear cut case of WP:MANDY. EvansHallBear (talk) 04:04, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Not a fan of the WP:MANDY essay, but more importantly, its just an essay and not policy. Dismissing it merely because it is an "Israeli institution" is itself a nakedly partisan take. Iljhgtn (talk) 04:27, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Not merely because it is an "Israeli institution" but because it's authored by a member of the army committing the genocide. EvansHallBear (talk) 04:37, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Reserve service is compulsory in Israel, so millions of Israelis are designated reservists by law. Calling one of the authors "a member of the army committing the genocide" is a jaundiced take. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 11:40, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

I agree with EvansHallBear here per WP:SELFSOURCE. Whether military service being mandatory is morally exculpatory I think is a different question. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 13:12, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

The sources for the item are RSs per WP:RSPS. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 13:18, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not able to find mention of BESA in WP:RSPS. Could you point it out for me?

I'm also reading the BESA article lead sentence: The Begin–Sadat Center for Strategic Studies (BESA Center) is an Israeli think tank affiliated with Bar-Ilan University and supported by the NATO Mediterranean Initiative. So they are supported by a public university in Israel (which receives money from the Israeli government) and by NATO, which has obvious geopolitical motives to support Israel that creates a WP:COI. I agree this seems like a textbook case of WP:MANDY and I don't think this should be dismissed simply because it's not official policy. More, one of the reasons for using Gaza genocide in Wikivoice is because in previous RfCs it was argued by the winning side that we should discount sources allied with the government allegedly carrying out the genocide because they have a strong political or fear-of-prosecution interest which may lead them to make inaccurate claims. I think this logic is more than sound. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 13:33, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

The sources for the item are Times of Israel and The Jerusalem Post. And I'm now looking at the item and thinking that it would only be fair to attach three sentences of qualification regarding the objectivity and expertise of many of the other claimants in the article. If we're going to apply WP:MANDY here, let's apply it evenly. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 14:11, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

• The sources for the item are Times of Israel and The Jerusalem Post Gotcha, thanks. Well let's look at what WP:RSPS says about each source's limitations:
  • WP:JERUSALEMPOST: It should be used as a source for the Israeli–Palestinian conflict only to cite basic facts or if its reporting is validated by additional reporting from another source not similarly limited.
  • WP:TIMESOFISRAEL: In the 2024 RfC, there was consensus that The Times of Israel is generally reliable, although potentially biased in certain topics like the Israeli–Palestinian conflict.

Based on these descriptions, I think we can support the claim that the BESA study occurred but can not make any claims about the validity of the study itself based on these sources. Other WP:RS such as actual scholars [1] describe the BESA study as unreliable.

• it would only be fair to attach three sentences of qualification regarding the objectivity and expertise of many of the other claimants in the article. If we're going to apply WP:MANDY here, let's apply it evenly — This feels a little bit like a WP:POINT. I'm not necessarily saying you're violating the policy or even that you intend to, but I'm just advising caution based on the impression I'm getting from your comment, which is hopefully an inaccurate impression of what you're actually saying.

If you believe there are biased sources (like WP:ALJAZEERA) whose characterizations about reliability of certain claims are being deferred to as opposed to as opposed to merely using them to cite facts, then feel free to start a new discussion describing specific examples. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 14:50, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

The item says, in two sentences, that the study occurred and relates what it found, so I'm glad we agree that it's properly sourced. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 23:18, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Forgive me for losing the plot in my reply. Speaking on the question at hand, I think a WP:MANDY source is WP:UNDUE here and would instead be WP:DUE in the Gaza genocide denial article. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 23:40, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

My original point is that for anyone familiar with the think tanks ideological position, their opinion on the Gaza genocide is obvious so it doesn't add any information to the article. I have removed many statements from the opposite POV on similar grounds.

Putting a think tank alongside more respectable scholars and scholarly organizations is also not appropriate Imv. (t · c) buidhe 02:39, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

The report is mentioned by multipile sources and hence WP:DUE and itwas doneby academics so there is no reason to remove it. There is plenty of biased sources of questionable quality in this article like +972 that shouldn't be used maybe we should start with them --Shrike (talk) 09:14, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Just because a report is mentioned by multiple sources does not automatically mean it's WP:DUE.

There is plenty of biased sources of questionable quality in this article like +972 that shouldn't be used maybe we should start with them — This feels like a WP:POINT. If it's true that other sources used in this article are biased then please start a separate discussion so we can examine them on a case-by-case basis. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 10:03, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

No it does mentioned by multiple source and relevant to the article make it a nessaccary addition to the article per WP:NOTCENSORED --Shrike (talk) 10:34, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Well I advocated putting it on Gaza genocide denial instead, so I don't think that is censorship.

Your claim is that if something is mentioned by multiple sources it is automatically WP:DUE for inclusion? By this logic I could go on a featured neuroscience article and start adding extremely niche and technical information in the field that's yes, related, but doesn't belong on that article. There is a spectrum—some things cited by multiple sources don't always belong on an article that they could technically be included in, especially when there's thousands of better sources out there that are not literally sponsored and written by the government denying the genocide accusation against them. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 10:52, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Putting it in the denial article would probably (depending how it was written up) be highly POV unless the overwhelming majority of RSs mentioning it describe it as an example of denial. It belongs in this article. BobFromBrockley (talk) 02:32, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

I think WP:BLUE applies here. It is obvious genocide denial, and we don't need to cite that the sky is blue.

The rest of your comment doesn't respond to doubts that it's WP:DUE for inclusion. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 13:32, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

This is a claim which has opposing sides. No one contests that the WP:SKYISBLUE which is why it can be called as such. Plenty of people do not think what happened (especially now that it is past tense) in Israel was a genocide. That does not mean that they are right or wrong for that matter, but WP:BLUE is absolutely not applicable here. Other policies, sure, but not WP:BLUE. Iljhgtn (talk) 22:32, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

I think WP:BLUE is being invoked here in regards to the report denying that it's a genocide, not whether they are correct or not in that assessment. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 22:42, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Yup this is what I meant Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 03:09, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

This isn't a discussion where NOTCENSORED is applicable. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 13:33, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

I agree with Shrike here. Iljhgtn (talk) 16:31, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

The report was done by academics affiliated with a partisan organization and who have no expertise in genocide research. Numerous flaws in their arguments were pointed out in the NRC article I provided. Including this report alongside actual scholarship is false balance, no matter how many articles TOI and Jpost publish about it

References to +972 are completely irrelevant to this discussion. EvansHallBear (talk) 17:14, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

The Middle East Studies Association, mentioned in the prior paragraph, became so partisan against Israel that another organization spun off to do actual research. Its statement was authored by leadership who are also not genocide scholars, and doesn't even count as scholarship. Do you plan to qualify that statement as well? Tioaeu8943 (talk) 22:45, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Besides the unnecessary dismissal of MESA due to some members wanting to splinter off into their own group, there is still a substantial difference between the two here.

MESA's board member statement is placed in "Other scholars" & their position that Israel's actions amount to "cultural genocide" is within their board members area of expertise (Most being experts in culture &/or history in the Middle East)

BESA however is a think-tank with an explicit mission of advocacy & as they're trying to dispute another group's findings rather then simply state their position like MESA, they'll be under heavier scrutiny.

You originally placed their report in the "Legal and human rights experts" section despite the organization's focus being the security and foreign policy of Israel. Among the report's authors, only 1 of the 4's areas of expertise is at all relevant (Adv. Jonathan Braverman's LinkedIn says their education is in International Humanitarian Law), the others being either military historians or a biochemist.

On top of all that, despite the report being so recent, scholars in more relevant fields have already criticized it for inaccuracies & poor evidence.

Their is a gulf between the deserved weight given to these 2 groups, with BESA's report needing qualifications to be included at all. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 23:50, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

So being a partisan organization doesn't matter until it does, being a historian qualifies you to discuss genocide until it doesn't, and a four-paragraph statement has more weight than a 300-page report. Got it. Oh, I see we're up to four sentences of qualification! Sourced four times to two publications, one by Derk Walters, and another by Derk Walters and friends. Who is Derk Walters?A Dutch journalist who has been criticizing Israel for his entire career, neither a scholar of genocide nor anything else. You're right, there's a gulf here, between how this item is being treated and the rest of the page. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 01:15, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

It is true, Derk Walters should have his background qualified for the monomaniacal career slant, not scholarly. Iljhgtn (talk) 01:17, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

We aren't citing Derk Walters for his position on genocide nor interpretations, but for their reporting of the BESA author's credentials & corroboration of genocide researcher Iva Vukusic's analysis, so potential bias from a journalist is a non-factor in the citation's reliability.

A 4 paragraph statement by a learned society whose focus is on the culture & history of the Middle East, that finds this crisis amounts to a cultural genocide (cultural genocide refers to the destruction of historical landmarks & aspects of culture).

Vs.

A 300 page report by non-experts from a partisan think-take whose focus is on a different field, criticized by experts either for inaccuracies or for failing to materially dispute the IAGS' conclusion.

A military historian does not qualify you to meaningfully analyze genocides, nor to supersede the position of genocide experts, but being a cultural historian does qualify you to meaningfully analyze cultural genocides

To argue that BESA requires no qualifications is an are argument for a WP:FALSEBALANCE.

I've now made my point clear, so to avoid needles arguing/WP:BLUDGEONING on my end, I don't believe my continued discussion on the matter with you will be productive. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 02:11, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

[Being] "A military historian does not qualify you to meaningfully analyze genocides"? This is WP:JUST and nothing more. I'm going to edit the qualifications to an appropriate length. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 14:31, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Butterscotch Beluga is absolutely correct. Genocide scholars are authorities on genocide, not military historians. International law has little overlap with military history. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 14:37, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

In that case, I'll remove every claim on this page attached to anyone who is not expressly described as a genocide scholar. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 15:13, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Genocide scholars are authorities on whether a genocide is happening, which is the subject in dispute. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 15:59, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Also, I respectfully recommend you read WP:POINT. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 16:06, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

And now you're edit warring to keep your precious WP:JUST items on the page. Great. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 15:10, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Changing a sentence that points out the opinions of relevant experts to a sentence saying that the interviewer of those experts, is the one who disagrees with the report, needs a hell of a justification to show its not simply POV pushing. Feel free to present that justification here, as you didn't in your edit summary. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 15:21, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm not edit warring, that's not my revert.

Just because you don't agree with other's assessments of sources, doesn't mean it's WP:JUST behavior.

Your statement that you'll "remove every claim on this page attached to anyone who is not expressly described as a genocide scholar." is WP:POINTY & uncollaborative. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 15:24, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Tioaeu8943, your tone makes it feel like you are assuming bad faith. I'd recommend you take a step back for a little bit before returning to the discussion. I've been in your shoes too, I understand it's easy to feel like others have bad intentions for opposing changes you strongly believe in. But in order to maintain a collaborative atmosphere on Wikipedia, it's important that we are able to have calm and collected conversations about these important issues. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 16:04, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

I agree with Buidhe here. David A (talk) 09:22, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Me too. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 10:04, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

"We're not going to include this viewpoint because it's obvious that the people who have this viewpoint would have this viewpoint" is a circular claim that would considerably shorten this page if it were applied equitably. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 22:48, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Surely it would be better to include less obviously biased sources supporting the minority viewpoint that there is no genocide? Rainsage (talk) 16:30, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

This is what I was getting at. (t · c) buidhe 16:32, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Agreed Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 17:08, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Yeah begin-sadat center is definitely very undue with respect to other sources in the section. Stephan rostie (talk) 23:07, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

• It’s a thinktank and partisan, but the overwhelming majority of sources used in this article are partisan, perhaps inevitably given how emotive the subject is. Most of the key academics writing about this are also activists. If we consider academics involved in Palestine solidarity activism legitimate sources, we should also consider pro-Israeli academics legitimate. At least one editor above argues that the authors are supported by a public university in Israel (which receives money from the Israeli government) thus should be dismissed. If we followed that logic we’d have to remove Amos Goldberg too, and other Israeli scholars who write about genocide. Better to actually assess (a) the credibility of the authors, (b) evidence of due weight via secondary sources. Re (a) the first and main author Dr Danny Orbach is a military historian at Hebrew U, not an employee of a think tank. His publications include articles that are about Israeli army actions[2] and about legal responses to massacres.[3] He has written in peer reviewed genocide studies journals.[4] Jonathan Boxman, an independent scholar specialising in epidemiology and quantitative analysis,[5][6] seems less credible. The third, Henkin, is a military historian and seems sufficiently legit.[7] The fourth, Braverman, is identified as an IHL lawyer but I can’t see evidence of that in a quick search. Re (b) best source: https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2025-07-24/ty-article/.premium/the-israeli-strategy-of-denial-new-study-attempts-to-cast-doubt-on-gaza-genocide-claims/00000198-3cec-d5d4-a9fd-7eef19b90000 Some coverage: JNS,[8] INN,[9] The Australian,[10] NBC.[11]

Plus critiques (which also demonstrate noteworthiness: +972.[12] BobFromBrockley (talk) 04:36, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

@Bobfrombrockley you've posted the INN article link for The Australian. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 08:19, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Ah sorry. Here: https://www.theaustralian.com.au/world/israel-has-no-policy-of-genocide-or-starvation-bombshell-report-finds/news-story/d9003924c0b16a1768775dbb8de96a70 It’s quite breathless BobFromBrockley (talk) 18:20, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

The +972 article actually supports Alexandraaaacs1989's proposal to include this report in Gaza genocide denial although not necessarily to exclude from this article. EvansHallBear (talk) 17:35, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

It certainly describes it as such. Given the reportage has mainly come from pro-Israel outlets, the majority of secondary sources don’t describe it as that so we can’t call it that in our voice but if we’re careful it might be due in an article or section on denial. BobFromBrockley (talk) 19:03, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

This is why I said I wasn't entirely opposed to their inclusion. As you've shown, the report has received secondary coverage, but my issues were with the initial lack of qualifications & being listed under "Legal and human rights experts". With those issues now having been satisfied, I'm fine with their continued inclusion.

I'd still prefer, if available, a stronger academic report sharing its position to take its place in this article, with this one moved to Academic and legal responses to the Gaza genocide, but that's just a theoretical preference, so it's neither here nor there. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 18:02, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Template:Expert opinions in the Gaza genocide debate has a a variety of sources to choose from. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 19:07, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

I removed surplus information regarding the report per WP:DUE. What was once a one sentence line in the "Other Scholars" section about this report had become an entire paragraph with 2/3 of the paragraph dedicated to two critics of the report who had no hand in engaging in the official peer review of the report. Also, per WP:DUE, the claim that "none are genocide exerts" reads as editorial commentary rather than providing neutral context. If editors want to summarize the academic response, a potential alternative could be, "The report received criticism from some historians, including Utrecht University's Iva Vukusic and Tufts University's Alex de Waal, who disputed its methodology and conclusions. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 15:37, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Source notable, but not reliable

This source [13], "Debunking the Genocide Allegations: A Reexamination of the Israel-Hamas War from October 7, 2023 to June 1, 2025," is not a reliable source, and is notable only for its own opinion. As detailed in Haaretz [14], "The stated goal of authors" is to undermine the credibility of reports on the genocide by historian Lee Mordechai, the United Nations, international human rights organizations, other scholars, and the piece is riddled with absurd errors identified by Israeli academics, including:

• Failure to calculate the number of trucks delivering supplies to Gaza, based on the simple error of confusing the seven-day week with the five-day work week,

• The claim that half of Gaza's pre-war buildings have been demolished in the war by a single IDF division because the buildings were booby-trapped,

• Referring to the Rafah Crossing as separating Egypt from the West Bank,

The Palestinian reporter Hossam Shabat, killed by Israeli forces in March 2025. The Begin–Sadat Center for Strategic Studies piece claims that Shabat, Ismail al-Ghoul, and other Al-Jazeera journalists are agents of Hamas.

And more. The Haaretz analysis notes that the study erroneously accuses various sources of information from Gaza of being unreliable, for instance accusing an Al-Jazeera journalist Hossam Shabat of being a Hamas activist (Shabat was killed in a targeted strike by Israeli forces in March of this year). I've read portions of the report and it claims that many Palestinian journalists working for Al-Jazeera are agents. The Haaretz analysis further notes that some of the most explosive claims of the report, for instance denying the starvation in Gaza that has been extensively documented by newspapers, international organizations, and witnessed by the whole world including by editors here, have been walked back by one of the study's authors, Danny Orbach.

Appearing on the Begin–Sadat Center for Strategic Studies, it seems clear from its many errors and poor reception in academia that this piece is not peer-reviewed, and it could even be considered self-published. I've seen a couple editors complain that we are giving this piece greater scrutiny. But because its claims are truly WP:EXCEPTIONAL, mentions in the Israeli press or by Rupert Murdoch's The Australian confer no aspect of reliability. -Darouet (talk) 14:16, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

This so-called analysis is an opinion piece. It characterizes differences of judgment as indefensible errors, likens the BESA report authors to "anti-vaxxers or flat Earthers," and reaches this outrageous conclusion: "the four authors suggest we wait further before forming an opinion about what is happening in Gaza. In the meantime, they provide journalists and the Israeli public with a tranquilizer – there's no starvation, no massacres, everybody is lying, trust us, you can go on with your normal lives."

Concerning your other points:

• The report called Shabat a "an Al Jazeera journalist who was in fact a Hamas military activist." A more accurate term would have been "Beit Hanoun Battalion sniper." The IDF and Shin Bet said that he "cynically posed as an Al Jazeera journalist." The Committee to Protect Journalists and Reporters Without Borders chose to ignore that claim, but they're not going to be the ones who die if Shin Bet designates threats inaccurately.
• A half-dozen Al Jazeera reporters were identified as Hamas militants at one point, including Shabat, in 2024. Another was an Al Jazeera op-ed contributor who was holding three hostages and killed in the Nuseirat rescue.
• Danny Orbach did not walk anything back, that was Haaretz speaking for him. He was still challenging starvation reports a month ago and two months after this Haaretz opinion column.
• The "poor reception in academia" can be explained by the extremity of anti-Israel bias in academia.

None of the claims in the report rise to the level of WP:EXCEPTIONAL. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 19:18, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

This so-called analysis is an opinion piece, and yet labelled opinion pieces are valid to prove the extremity of anti-Israel bias in academia. "Standards for thee, but not for me" perhaps? -- Cdjp1 (talk) 19:36, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps it depends on what you compare it to. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 23:37, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

How does that relate to my comment? You have repeatedly linked to unrelated articles, edits, etc. across discussions on multiple Wikipedia articles. What is the point? Or is it just a competency issue? -- Cdjp1 (talk) 08:08, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

This item has been getting dogpiled since I introduced it. Editors have hit it with policy, non-policy like WP:MANDY, and ad hoc rules made up on the spot ("A military historian does not qualify you to meaningfully analyze genocides"). This level of scrutiny applied to the rest of the page would blank half of it. So it's rich to be accused of double standards, and now incompetence. I'm entirely competent to discuss and edit this material within an honest, fair, disinterested, good-faith framework. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 13:35, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Editors have criticized it with multiple reasons because there exist multiple reasons to criticize it, not due to double standards. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:31, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Greetings from the bottom of the dogpile. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 17:02, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

That doesn't answer the question. Why do you not want to answer the question? -- Cdjp1 (talk) 18:46, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

You asked three questions. I answered the third one, which I took to summarize the prior two. Let me know if you'd like to discuss the article. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 19:29, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

There were extensive WP:WEASEL words in this, someone may want to revisit that as it was recently reverted. Iljhgtn (talk) 03:44, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Not a single word you removed was WEASEL. Every single one was cited to RS. It will benefit you to actually read policies and guidelines before invoking them. Just because you don't like the fact someone is recognised as a genocide scholar, or that a think tank has a recognised political bias, just not justify removing such text. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 11:30, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

They need to actually be called that. Right back at you for reading policies and guidelines, would be a good place to start before further commenting. Iljhgtn (talk) 17:02, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

And yes, 60% of it was junk WEASEL words written as if by a total partisan hack. Iljhgtn (talk) 17:03, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

They did. I know not everyone can read Dutch or English, but there are plenty of people here who can if you need help. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 22:26, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

I used translators for the Dutch, and I can read English perfectly fluently thank you very much. Can you please point out exactly then where each the contested labels were in the text so I can cross check? Iljhgtn (talk) 17:59, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

It doesn't though. You claimed it isn't a competency issue, but you didn't respond to the questions which the cause for the final question. So again: How does that relate to my comment? You have repeatedly linked to unrelated articles, edits, etc. across discussions on multiple Wikipedia articles. What is the point? -- Cdjp1 (talk) 11:33, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

It's quite simple. You asked if I was indulging in double standards, I answered that it depends on what you compare it to, such as the double standards necessary to perpetrate the situation described at the link. Since your comment was about me and not the article supposedly under discussion, I don't see a pressing need to explain it further. If you have a problem with reply I've made on another article, feel free to address it at the other article. Per WP:NPA, "When in doubt, comment on the article's content without referring to its contributor at all." Tioaeu8943 (talk) 13:32, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

So it had nothing to do with the discussion. From what I've seen, you seem to be simply be on wikipedia to act as a nuisance if you are not going to actually engage in discussions across the project. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 22:28, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

It had as much to do with the discussion as the remark to which it was replying. I recommend a WP:WALK. Once again, let me know if you actually want to discuss the article. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 23:06, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Myself, and many others, have tried to engage with you in discussing articles and their content, but your cryptic replies, and linking to unrelated matters and content, shows there is little point in trying to engage with you. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 18:09, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

@Cdjp1 please remain WP:CIVIL even in disagreement, saying, "you seem to be simply be on wikipedia to act as a nuisance" is not WP:CIVIL and does border on a personal attack. Iljhgtn (talk) 18:00, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

I will follow your advice on policies and guidelines, when you have shown an ability to understand them, as your repeated invocation of WEASEL to remove explicit descriptions cited to RS, indicates a severe lack in understanding our policies and guidelines, to assume good faith in your actions. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 18:08, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Now you're just being straight up rude. Iljhgtn (talk) 18:10, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

My advice is not to use irrelevant policies to claim something be removed that matches and is cited to reliable sources. As I shall repeat for whatever time this is, assuming you misunderstand the sources and the policies and guidelines, is the AGF reading of such actions. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 18:26, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims include those that are supported purely by primary or self-published sources or those with an apparent conflict of interest. IDF claims that haven't been independently verified about journalists being militants clearly meets that definition. EvansHallBear (talk) 20:20, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

So much for all the sourcing on this page to the Gaza Ministry of Health. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 22:34, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

The American Enterprise Institute is not a reliable source. It's a lobby group and peddler of nonsense. The poor reception is because the report is dogshit. Cambial — foliar❧ 00:36, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Your opinion. Iljhgtn (talk) 04:40, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Nir Hasson’s analysis is not an opinion piece. It’s labelled news. He’s the former deputy ed of Haaretz, one of Israel’s most respected journalists, and a doctoral fellow at the Harry S. Truman Research Institute for the Advancement of Peace at Hebrew U. BobFromBrockley (talk) 18:59, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

• Comment — Tioaeu8943, you have cited "anti-Israel bias in academia", but the piece you are advocating for here specifically targets work by an Israeli scholar [15], and finds itself in direct conflict with Israeli human rights organizations, e.g. B'Tselem [16] or Physicians for Human Rights–Israel [17]. Regarding the Haaretz commentary on the piece, stating that it provides "journalists and the Israeli public with a tranquilizer – there's no starvation, no massacres, everybody is lying, trust us, you can go on with your normal lives," you counter that this is an "outrageous conclusion."

Among the broader academic community and within international organizations however, if there is outrage, it has been towards the mass killings themselves, and not — as in your case — opposition to them.

Lastly, you criticize the Gaza Ministry of Health as a source of information about death tolls. This is strange since the IDF itself "considers the Gaza health ministry toll reliable" [18], and actually rigorous methods of measuring mortality due to violence derive casualty counts that are far higher (as is the case in all wars) [19]. -Darouet (talk) 14:54, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

+1 Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 17:46, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

• Lest it get lost in all the discussion below, if the edit war related to this section kicks off again I'm going to start topic banning people. I note that there has been no further discussion about the content being edit warred over during the protection period. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:45, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

@Tioaeu8943: Like I said before, I'm open to discussing this with you here. But first, I can't tell from this section what the content looks like. If you wouldn't mind, can you please post here what the proposed edit looks like so that I don't have to try to dig through hundreds of diffs or piece it together through context clues? Thanks, QuicoleJR (talk) 16:06, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

See the blanked item here. Thanks for looking into it. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 19:52, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Length

I agree with Tioaeu8943 that the paragraph about this report is too long. Surely we don't need 5 sentences citing 6 different sources criticizing this report. Rainsage (talk) 00:45, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Thats the problem here. Everyone coatracks each other.

"a right-wing Israeli think tank" this is SYNTH. That article is from 2014.

This just needs one sentence stating it and maybe one sentence questioning it. All Haaretz has is a journalist claiming to refute some of their claims, and says "denial bad". 972 just makes a passing mention that it exists. Questioning figures and motivations isnt denial. And its perfectly reasonable to dispute something this contentious. Denial is saying something didnt happen, like is done with the Holocaust, Armenian genocide, Holodomor, etc. No one is denying a large quantity of Palestinians died, people are questioning whether war deaths constitute a genocide.

And finally, the Dutch article is cited three times when it could just be used once in one sentence. The two Vukusic cites are unnecessary because the Dutch article already titles her as a "genocide researcher".

Proposal:

The Begin–Sadat Center for Strategic Studies published a report in September 2025 that said Israel had not committed genocide in Gaza, and the allegations are based on faulty data and methodology. Genocide scholar Iva Vukusic said that the Israeli researchers are taking part in scientific discourse by "sow[ing] doubt and pok[ing] gaps in the consensus", but that the report doesn't refute the "overwhelming" evidence of genocide.

I originally included the de Waal quote, but it is probably UNDUE. He is talking about famine, this is about genocide. It would also be nice to add a non Israeli cite for the report with TOI of jpost. I dont understand why editors cant just work these issues out instead of warring over it. You can achieve a consensus to get everyone what they want. I dont think a topic ban is appropriate where a warning will suffice.

← Metallurgist (talk) 03:26, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

2009 "conservative", 2016 "hard-right", 2017 "right-leaning", 2021 "right-wing", 2023 "right-leaning", 2023 "right-wing", 2025 "right", 2025 "Pro-Israel" "Critics argue that its work too closely aligns with right-wing Israeli government policies", bar NPR in 2009, Haaretz is the most RS in my opinion of the batch, even though the others (including Times of Israel) are more recent. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 09:23, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

If people are going to criticize NGO Monitor, CAMERA, and Honest Reporting, then the latter of those ought to be considered similarly. However, I would be open to a broad inclusion of both sides such entities. That said, the articles citing support and criticism for the report dont use that appendation, nor does the Begin–Sadat Center for Strategic Studies article, so it is SYNTH. If you can find an article mentioning the report and that description, then we can consider it.

Aside, do you have any issues with the rest of this? If we can agree on this and then debate the one detail, thats a W. ← Metallurgist (talk) 19:46, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Overall, I still maintain the report is not due for a summary article. But if it's going to be kept then your language is a definite improvement as it focuses solely on the report itself. The "taking part in scientific discourse" part doesn't add anything though and should be removed. I also think de Waal's criticism of the report is still due but can be trimmed substantially. EvansHallBear (talk) 20:32, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

It may or may not. I take no position on that. The scientific discourse bit is her quote. I think she was acknowledging their right to dispute, but said they were wrong. I also have read down further on the article and the report author responded to her statements. That may merit inclusion, but we would probably need to slim things down to a gist again, and expand it more on their article perhaps? de Waals criticism is on the basis of the alleged famine, not the genocide. That would make sense on Gaza Strip famine, but I dont see it DUE here. ← Metallurgist (talk) 01:05, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Given that imposed starvation is one of the genocidal acts (see e.g. UNHRC Commission of Inquiry on Gaza genocide), de Waal's criticism of BESA's famine denial is clearly relevant. EvansHallBear (talk) 06:12, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Like Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 06:16, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

nor does the Begin–Sadat Center for Strategic Studies article, except it does, and has done for a while, I've made it more obvious so you don't accidentally miss it again. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 21:40, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

I see that now and you addition to the lede makes it more obvious, altho you might want to toss some cites on that before someone gripes about it. And you might want to tone down that attitude, as I have seen you personally attack people here at least once or twice, and this straddles the line. ← Metallurgist (talk) 01:00, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Lede follows body, as I'm sure someone with your editing experience knows, if not, we do have policies to guide you on the matter. And no describing people's self-admitted actions, and stating I will not consider them further for showing they are not engaging seriously here is not an attack. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 01:18, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

There is clearly no consensus established for the several sentences added about this report in a summary article. I have ensured all of the detail is in the main Academic responses article and trimmed it down to a due sentence. BobFromBrockley (talk) 06:08, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

There is no consensus established for mentioning the report at all. Leaving the report in the article while removing all WP:DUE criticism of it is exactly the type of edit warring that ScottishFinnishRadish warned about. EvansHallBear (talk) 06:21, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Like Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 06:28, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

I missed the warning from ScottishFinnishRadish, who makes the good point that there was no discussion while the page was locked. Trying to count in my head while going down this thread, I think we have roughly equal numbers (around 5 or 6 on each side?) for inclusion and against, so maybe it should be removed as no consensus.

However, I think that would be a mistake. All of the critical comments that have been loaded around the brief sentence reporting it (which I believe are all in the main Academic responses article) seem to me to clearly indicate that it is noteworthy. (Whether it is reliable is not important here when we mention the report rather than repeat its words in our voice.)

That we can only mention it if we also comment on the expertise of the authors is bizarre. Our one sentence on the IAGS rightly does not come with several sentences about all the faults that have been found with its membership system. We rightly don't stop to say whether Raz Segal supports a one state or two state solution. We rightly don't spend any sentences on whether MESA's leadership is anti-Zionist or not. We concisely and neutrally report them because they are noteworthy based on secondary sources, as we should with this report. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:22, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

There's a massive difference between a source just having a bias & a source lacking relevant expertise. The coverage they've received shows their report is most notable for being criticized by reliable secondary sources (including by subject matter experts) as inaccurate & of poor quality. To present it without such qualifications would improperly reflect the report's reception & create a WP:FALSEBALANCE.

I ask that you self-revert as this section has faced continued debate & edit-warring, with your WP:BOLD edit being a continuation of that. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 14:57, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Like Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 15:58, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Noting the request that I self-revert made since I was last here but it’s now redundant as I was long since reverted and now the whole passage has been removed. I think no mention might be better than surrounding a brief mention with a whole paragraph of denunciation, but it seems hard to imagine a NPOV article where those are the only two possibilities for a widely reported dissenting view. I don’t think it’s a high quality report at all, but we cite other noteworthy stuff making the opposite argument that’s low quality. BobFromBrockley (talk) 19:53, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

However, it is NOT edit warring to remove newly added sentences that clearly have no consensus. The onus for inclusion is always on those proposing it. So it was probably correct to remove the whole paragraph while this dispute is live, but improper to restore the deleted content (as in this edit) BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:45, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

One of the policies made up on the spot for the sake of this item is that anyone not literally described as a genocide expert is disqualified from making claims about whether the Gaza conflict should be characterized as a genocide. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 16:02, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

It is not a matter of people literally having to be described as genocide experts in order for a source to be credible. It is a matter of how one of the people who wrote the report literally trained IDF soldiers (see WP:MANDY). Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 16:25, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Someone who trains IDF soldiers may be deeply invested in lawful warfare. Your presumptions to the contrary are why MANDY is not and should not be policy. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 16:38, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

By your logic, let's start citing Hamas as genocide experts. Hypothetically, they could be deeply invested in lawful warfare. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 16:42, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

I am entirely in favor of citing Hamas as experts on genocide. Practice trumps theory every time. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 16:50, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM - Both of you knock it off. This particular line of discussion is unproductive, so please stay on topic. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 16:54, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

I made a reductio ad absurdum argument to demonstrate the importance of WP:MANDY as it applies to the BESA study. His response was unrelated to the argument I made but this does not render any of what I said irrelevant to the policy basis of his argument. I don't think it's fair to criticize the substance of what I said—if you had a problem with the way I articulated it as inviting a bad faith response I would understand this criticism much more. Regardless, I'll stop responding in this discussion as I've said what I wanted to say and clearly am not changing any minds. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 17:09, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

You've accused me of making up policies repeatedly on this talk page, but I'm not.

My reasoning is based on what I assumed common sense, that if you aren't an expert on a subject/don't have relevant subject matter experience in a topic, you shouldn't be considered as such. You've yet to demonstrate how being a military historian is a relevant credential to demonstrate expertise in the topic.

So I ask you to stop badgering me with nonsensical accusations of malfeasance & to instead either contribute constructively to consensus building here, or if you genuinely believe there to be an issue on my part, to file a report at WP:AE. Either way, this behavior is detracting from meaningful discussion. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 16:29, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

You're asking for a ridiculous demonstration. The supposed genocide is happening in the context of an active military conflict about which a military historian is entirely qualified to remark. And this is credentialism anyway; the claims in the report ought to be considered on their merits, not dismissed out of hand via genetic fallacy. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 16:44, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

They have been considered on their merits independent of their credentials, as I wrote above, their report is most notable for being criticized by reliable secondary sources (including by subject matter experts) as inaccurate & of poor quality. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 16:51, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

That criticism has been included in an appropriate manner and I am satisfied with the current state of the item. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 17:04, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

A military historian directly funded by the government committing the alleged genocide, for context.

WP:PARTISAN: When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as ... the level of independence from the topic the source is covering Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 16:54, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

You should see who wrote the criticism. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 18:13, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

The criticism was made by genocide scholar Iva Vukusic, famine expert Alex de Waal, and Holocaust historian Daniel Blatman. Do you have a point to make or are you just engaging in WP:TROLLING? EvansHallBear (talk) 18:53, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Aren’t you all blurring reliability and noteworthiness? We don’t need to assess the reliability of the report because we’re not citing it for facts. We report opinions based on the weight given them by reliable sources. We don’t repeat what the IAGS says in our voice; we report its opinion because we know it is noteworthy based on secondary sources.

The job of a balanced article is to report the controversy neutrally, which in this case would be showing that the majority of scholars are in agreement but that a significant minority disagree. BobFromBrockley (talk) 20:00, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Discontinuing further discussion on this by request. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 20:02, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

That was not a request to discontinue conversation but merely to keep conversation confined to the topic at hand. EvansHallBear (talk) 20:15, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Discontinuing anyway because the item in question just got blanked and I'm too disgusted with the process to WP:AGF. Taking a WP:WALK. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 20:24, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

A poorly-disguised PR exercise needs the context given in reliable sources. We need a consensus for whether such content is worthy of inclusion at all; the appropriate section for it (the organisation that published it is not a higher education institute, so placing it under academic discourse my not be appropriate); and how to contextualise it, before adding it to the article. Cambial — foliar❧ 19:08, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

This article is currently lacking content in the academic discourse section showing the Israeli POV that they are not committing genocide in Gaza, and this report seems like a pretty good summary of that POV + the reasoning behind it. e.g. Daniel Blatman called it: "The most prominent rebuttal to these [genocide] accusations to date" [20]. it is part of the "discourse" even if you think it is flawed. if not this report, then I think something else should be added to show the Israeli POV.

the organisation is affiliated with Bar-Ilan University, 2 of the 4 authors are professors, and 1 is a lawyer, so academic/legal discourse seems like the best place to put it.

what kind of context do you think needs to be added to this: [21] Rainsage (talk) 03:51, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Additionally this had been added to the "Academic and legal discourse" section and then at the bottom of the "Other scholars" sub-section! That is due in every possible way for such a section, and if not there, then somewhere else. This is blatant whitewashing if it simply is stated that it could not be added at all, with any wording, in any way, anywhere in the article. Iljhgtn (talk) 04:15, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

You blanked this item five days ago and have not yet answered any objections to its being removed. What makes this a "poorly-disguised PR exercise," especially relative to other items on the page? Under what conditions of context would you agree to putting it back in? Tioaeu8943 (talk) 14:34, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

There is no consensus in this talk section to include this poorly-disguised PR exercise, and there seems to be a consensus against including it without the relevant context, including that no-one with expertise in the topic is named as an author. Cambial — foliar❧ 16:21, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Again, what makes this a "poorly-disguised PR exercise"? And the claim that the authors lacked domain expertise was argued at length, inconclusively. To the question of "what conditions of context would you agree to putting it back in," is your answer "there are none"? Tioaeu8943 (talk) 16:34, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

inconclusively is the key word. per WP:ONUS, you need to show consensus for inclusion of the report. I'd object to over inclusion of the report and agree it is essentially highly POV-slanted PR. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 16:38, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Again, what makes this, and no other item on the page, "POV-slanted PR"? Tioaeu8943 (talk) 16:45, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

It dismisses well-documented facts by making claims without evidence. That is not a feature of scholarship, and is a clear indicator that something is not scholarship. It is a feature of public-relations texts. Cambial — foliar❧ 16:50, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Please indicate where it "dismisses well-documented facts by making claims without evidence." Asking you again, to the question of "what conditions of context would you agree to putting it back in," is your answer "there are none"? Tioaeu8943 (talk) 16:54, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Sure:

p. 157.

"...Hossam Shabat, an Al Jazeera journalist who was in fact a Hamas military activist". citation is a bare url youtube link to a documentary first aired on Al Jazeera. The documentary does not state Shabat was connected to Hamas. No evidence.

p. 216.

"as well as “journalists” identified as operatives, like Ismail Al-Ghul". cites a press release by the Israeli military. Despite the glaringly obvious conflict of interest the report takes the claim at face value and states it as fact. Scholarship does not do this. Shit public relations bumph does.

p. 216. "these removals aimed to preserve a narrative of Israel targeting journalists and medical personnel unrelated to Hamas". no citation. Argument relies entirely on previous acceptance of IDF claims as fact.

p. 248

"Another assumption is that eyewitnesses among the civilian population, especially professionals such as doctors, journalists, and academics, are trustworthy and free from political interests". No citation for this claim dismissing human rights NGOs because of a unevidenced assumption. No evidence.

p. 302

"They also required the IDF to refrain from handling physical evidence before presenting it to journalists, which is entirely unrealistic." No citation for this claim dismissing mainstream news organisations' reporting on IDF claims about Hamas links. No evidence.

The main requirement for inclusion, as already pointed out to you numerous times by others but has apparently not sunk in, is that there is a consensus here on talk to include, and a consensus for how to contextualise it. My view is that the context needs to include relevant observations reported in RS: the claim is from a think-tank; none of the authors are genocide scholars; one author teaches at the command college of the Israeli military; Iva Vukusic says it does not negate the evidence of genocide; the report dismisses well-documented facts by making claims without evidence; the report contains inaccurate claims about the Gaza Strip famine; Haaretz and +972 characterise it as part of the pattern of atrocity denial or genocide denial. Cambial — foliar❧ 18:30, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

So your assessment that the report was PR was WP:OR, thank you for clarifying. There was a consensus that including all this was too long; note the name of this section. It was obvious that attaching three times as much text qualifying the item as the item itself contained was ridiculous, disregarded NPOV, and held the item to standards not applied to any other on the page. Your colorful designation of this report as "Shit public relations bumph" is interesting, given that the article uncritically cites Hamas. So should we hold the rest of the page to the standards applied to this article, or shall we hold this item to the standards of the rest of the page, and put it back to the one-sentence claim with the one-sentence qualification like it we had it last week? Tioaeu8943 (talk) 19:34, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

An inappropriate section heading does not magically generate a consensus which does not exist in fact.

Yes, the observation that this garbage is a crap PR exercise is a. not something that has been proposed to be included in the article, but an assessment made on this talk page and b. perfectly reasonable to make, given the policy to which you link, either mistakenly or for reasons known only to you, makes clear in its opening summary that This policy does not apply to talk pages.

No, the qualifying text was appropriate. Trying to pass off poorly written schoolboy pap as scholarship is ridiculous. We're not talking about the rest of the article, we're talking about your inappropriate proposal. Cambial — foliar❧ 20:43, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you again for clarifying that you're applying standards to this item that you're not applying to the rest of the article. I've been pointing out the double standards for weeks, as other editors insisted that the process was consistent with the fairest application of policy and had produced an article as neutral as tap water. Truly, I prefer your candor to their gaslighting. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 21:08, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

I mean, you can keep lying about me if you want, and pretend to yourself that I'm applying standards to this item that [I'm] not applying to the rest of the article. I'm pretty thick-skinned and my regard for your opinion about me or any other person is zero. But it won't change reality, nor is anyone else going to pay it much attention. I haven't read the rest of the article, nor edited it. My only edits outside the dumb section you proposed is removing some line breaks and some minor copyedits to verb tense. If it makes you feel better or something, feel free to continue thinking up things I'm doing in your obviously fertile imagination. Cambial — foliar❧ 21:20, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

On the contrary, I'm commending you for telling the truth. I've suspected all along that editors were targeting this item with hostile scrutiny that they weren't applying to the rest of the article. It's validating to read it in so many words. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 21:35, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

You two, knock it off. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:37, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

"Consensus there is genocide" in lead

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Contentious topics such as the events happening in Gaza are important here on Wikipedia and the content in these articles have a higher bar when it comes to changing them. This means that when issues such as this one come up we need strong, clear, policy based consensus to move forward. As such we have an obligation to one another when working with these articles to maintain the five pillars of our community and as organizers of knowledge we have an obligation to strive to create the best encyclopedia possible.

Editors in this RfC were very divided which took some time to untangle everything so I could analyze and review the discussion. I want to thank everyone who participated in this RfC, I know that no matter how this closes people will be upset. You are more than welcome to leave feedback on my talk page if you want an explanation or reasoning. I may be a bit slow to respond as I’m still recovering from a car accident so don’t be offended if a response is a little slow or shorter than you would expect. Also there is a non-zero percent chance that it’ll get lost in the cracks, if that happens it’s ok to ping me.

After reviewing the discussion and evidence presented here and following WP:CONSENSUS I’m closing this as no consensus. For those who may be new to the project although there are more votes in favor of this change these votes only provide some context to the discussion, Wikipedia is not a democracy WP:NOTDEMOCRACY.

The issue of there being a consensus among scholars that the actions in Gaza are a genocide fell into a couple of issues. First, per WP:RSAC “A statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view". Cheesedealer did bring up some solid support for their position that there is consensus that this is a genocide. But the sources provided state that there is a genocide and not that academics agree on it. For example in Template:Expert_opinions_in_the_Gaza_genocide_debate the language around consensus among experts (with the exception of the Journal of Genocide Research) is not taken from academic sources, additionally when consensus is mentioned it is qualified (except for one source in the template). For example “"A growing consensus”, “There is a forming consensus among leading scholars”, and “there is an emerging consensus that”. This is just a commentary note from me but when dealing with sources that describe views of academics it should be preferred in general that those sources come from academic peer reviewed sources. The lack of this source has no bearing or influence on this closure. From the discussion Metallurgist noted that, "Less than 80% have that view … The dissent is quite strong unlike for pretty much every other genocide in history.". Per WP:DUE “Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources.”. As such we have a case where there are sources that are WP:RS and not supportive of this proposed change.

Originalcola raised a really interesting point here when they said "I think the sources don't imply any legal consensus but do for genocide scholars and/or historians(overlapping fields).”. There are different definitions of genocide and each field has a slightly different take on it. The language that was proposed uses the term “experts”, if this goes though another RfC an alternative that might be a better fit would be to define the experts as genocide scholars/other expert group.

Dr vulpes (Talk) 02:51, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

---

Please leave feedback, not many have responded so far and we need more opinions. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 13:28, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Proposed change:

The genocide has been recognised by a United Nations special committee and commission of inquiry, the...

->

The genocide has been recognised by consensus amongst experts, a United Nations special committee and commission of inquiry, the...

Regarding the claim of consensus, I propose we cite this bundle of sources (or some variation of this bundle): Template:Gaza genocide consensus citation bundle.

I defer to closing notes of this RfC to support that we can claim "consensus" in Wikivoice.

Please support, oppose, or support conditionally (e.g., support conditionally based on changes to the citation bundle).

Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 17:49, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

• I support it conditionally, I still would like to see the minority brought up disputing it. It is not insignificant. - FellowMellow (talk) 19:00, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your conditional support, but personally, I don't see the minority disputing it as relevant to establishing consensus. The way I see it, the presence of consensus is a true/false assertion which is assumed in the absence of evidence to be false, so in order to substantiate this assertion of truth to the consensus, we should only substantiate it with supporting evidence in favor of the consensus assertion being true. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 20:47, 10 October 2025 (UTC) I'm realizing your proposal is about including the minority separately from this consensus addition. I responded to another user who made the same proposal, feel free to reply there. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 20:56, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

• Conditional - no problem with this but I don't think it can be considered separately from the above question about the due weight for the significant (non-fringe) minority viewpoint in the lead. Because otherwise it's making this stronger which inherently makes the current weight (less than is due) even "weaker". But as long as it's considered along with that and both changes are made to consider each other, then I'm fine with this. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 20:19, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

I think the minority disputing the consensus assertion, being the minority, should be mentioned later in one of the lead paragraphs (like the final paragraph), but not in the first paragraph. Does that seem reasonable? Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 20:54, 10 October 2025 (UTC) Crossed out based on how this discussion is being had elsewhere. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 21:25, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

I am not set in stone about it being added at the end of the first paragraph. But I think the last four words in the lead is too far down (and too short/non-specific) so as to make people think (because it's barely mentioned) that it's a WP:FRINGE view when it's significantly larger/more widespread than a FRINGE view would be.

Problem I run into is trying to fit it anywhere between "last sentence of 1st para" and "last four words of lead" just seems like it's being shoehorned in with the current flow of the lead. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 21:00, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

I agree with your second paragraph: as the lead is currently written, I don't think it makes sense to include anywhere other than the final paragraph given the scope of each lead paragraph, and I am hesitant to advocate reorganizing the lead paragraphs' orderings. If you have a concrete suggestion I am all ears, but fundamentally I think I just disagree that there's significance in including the minority view early on in the lead based on this comment's [22] reasoning. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 21:06, 10 October 2025 (UTC) Crossed out based on how this discussion is being had elsewhere. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 21:24, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

It's the opposite of WP:FALSEBALANCE - "false lack of balance". In other words, by having basically the entire first paragraph be about how much of a consensus there is, and then not discussing the dissent/disagreement until the last four words of the lead, it is falsely downplaying the significance of it. The last four words, if not being used to finish a thought, are where people would expect to see something that's barely above FRINGE (because if it was FRINGE it wouldn't be in the lead). But this isn't barely above FRINGE - it's a significant minority viewpoint 15-20% of people agree with.

If the only solution to this ends up being reorganizing/rewording at least part of the lead, then that may be the only solution. But I think a short sentence at the end of the first paragraph is sufficient. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 21:12, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

I am sorry for not bringing this up sooner, but I am realizing that Talk:Gaza genocide#Acknowledgement of disputing genocide is already having this exact debate regarding the minority view, so I think discussion around dispute of genocide is best kept in that section and should be separate from the question of whether to say there is consensus in the lead. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 21:20, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

• I support Alexandra's suggestion about mentioning a consensus. David A (talk) 21:34, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose - as discussed in earlier threads about OR above, poor V and seems off word choice. Citing three times coverage to the same IAGS resolution is bad V, not independent items. Likewise, citing three times to coverage about the NRC article is duplicative and in that case flawed third hand reporting. (One cite says “unanimous”, another says “almost unanimous”.). Maybe better V can be found, but I don’t think the word “consensus” is often used in genocide articles. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:04, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

  In a previous comment exchange [23], when I asked What would this source bundle have to be in order to substantiate the claim of consensus in your view?, you said said The norm seems simply not to use the term “consensus”, so as to imply that there is no scenario in which "consensus" should be used in genocide articles. But now you are arguing that these individual sources are problematic as a justification for not using "consensus" in the article.

  I guess I'm just a little thrown off because it seems like there is a bit of a moving goalpost argument here: even if we disprove your claim that these are bad citations, it seems likely you will simply say "consensus" should not be used in articles overall and we'll have to start all over. So I think when it comes to discussion of your criticisms, having clarity regarding your argument would be useful. Is your primary objection the content of the sources or the inclusion of "consensus" in a genocide article more broadly? Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 03:40, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

  • Simple observed fact that “consensus” is not normally a wording in the List of genocides. Seems just not usually talking some abstract “consensus”, perhaps because most others are years ago so have fact items like legal decisions or history books to talk about.
  • Triple citing about the same item is bad V, as said before.
  • I suggest you also reconsider the phrase asking “your view” - citing is V, “your view” sounds like asking for WP:OR. Note the earlier thread about OR.
  • Whether you use any of these is up to you. But when it went to a survey about using what I already had said was an odd word with citelist I already said was flawed and an ask that sounded OR, an “oppose” should not be a surprise.

  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 19:39, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose a pretty lofty claim, which would need even loftier evidence. Iljhgtn (talk) 04:38, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

  This lofty claim was the consensus of dozens of editors in a months-long RfC on this very talk page. If you disagree with their conclusion, then please appeal the RfC elsewhere. But until then, it is policy to defer to the WP:CONSENSUS of editors. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 12:13, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

• Conditional support Implication is not enough. Sources need to support information explicitly, see WP:OR note b. Only one source in your bundle supports a broad "expert consensus" (as opposed to "legal consensus" or consensus among "genocide scholars"/"researchers" specifically), which is Asi 2025. Scratch the bundle, use Asi 2025, and you have my support. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 21:32, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks for the conditional support! You are correct that only one source explicitly mentions broader consensus among experts than merely among legal experts/scholars. I'd like to politely push back a little though if that's alright:

  • Genocide scholars and IL legal experts are two types of "experts" in "expert consensus", and are arguably the main types of experts in the broad "expert consensus" claim
  • Therefore, if we include genocide scholar consensus and IL legal expert consensus in the bundle, it strengthens the claim that there is broad consensus amongst experts in the field, even if the Asi 2025 source is our main basis for making the explicit broad "expert consensus" claim

  Perhaps we could put the Asi source first and make this distinction clearer in the bundle by grouping sources into different sections?

  Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 22:05, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

No. To avoid synthesis, every single source, respectively and in isolation, must explicitly support the claim that there is a broad "expert consensus", as you have phrased it. We had a similar contention with the 70% figure in a different thread. There is no such thing as supplemental citations or whatever one may call it. Each respective source must support the claim explicitly and fully, by itself. That is not to say that the remaining sources in the bundle can't be used elsewhere in the article. They just can't be used to support this specific claim as you've phrased it. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 22:20, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

I think WP:NOTCOM applies to the WP:SYNTH concern, as it's common sense that genocide scholars and international law scholars are the experts in question on the topic of whether genocide in Gaza is happening. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 22:33, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

The example given in NOTCOM is the relative size of the sun and the moon, a fact that virtually every person on earth has learned by the age of 5... I wouldn't assume that it's immediately obvious to the average reader that international law and genocide scholars comprise an exhaustive group of "experts" as it relates to genocides. As far as the average reader is concerned, there might be experts in other relevant fields not covered by those two fields. It's also unnecessary since we already have a source that fully supports the claim. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 22:51, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Well clearly WP:NOTCOM can be extrapolated to examples beyond what people learned at the age of 5, or else it would be a rather useless rule.

It's also unnecessary since we already have a source that fully supports the claim. — I worry about using only one source to corroborate such a strong claim in the article lead as it's likely to be contested.

I wouldn't assume that it's immediately obvious to the average reader that international law and genocide scholars comprise an exhaustive group of "experts" — But this isn't what WP:NOTCOM says. It says: If something is obvious to anyone who reads and understands the sources that are supposed to support it, then it's not SYNTH. Anyone who understands the sources will understand that consensus amongst IL and genocide scholars that there is a genocide also supports the claim there is consensus amongst experts of there being genocide. I don't think it's conceivable that IL and genocide scholars would be in consensus there's genocide whereas some other secret group of experts out there that we can't even think of to use as an example are actually in dissent. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 23:10, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

That is what it says, and I disagree that it's common sense. There is of course always the option to replace "experts" with "genocide scholars", which is supported my multiple sources in your bundle. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 23:19, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

I disagree that it's common sense — It's not common sense that a consensus amongst genocide scholars there's a genocide is also a consensus amongst experts there's a genocide? If that's not common sense then it should be easy to give me an example of a single group that has more authority on whether a genocide is happening than genocide scholars. That's not an essay, and yes there is editor consensus that there's consensus amongst experts. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 23:35, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Then why not just call it what the sources call it themselves? That being a "consensus among genocide scholars". I don't understand the insistence on "experts", which is needlessly ambiguous and broad. The whole RfC "consensus that there's a consensus" argument was addressed by multiple editors in a different thread. That's all I really have to say. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 23:40, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

You removed your comment accusing me of "relying on an essay" retroactively. Please revert your change using strikeout format if you wish to change your statements after they have already been responded to. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 00:06, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

It makes me look like I'm bringing things up like "that's not an essay" and "yes there is editor consensus" out of nowhere, which is misleading to others who read this conversation. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 00:08, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

No need. I removed the sentence 11 minutes before you published your response. NOTCOM is an explanatory essay, a type of information page which, like essay pages, have a limited status, and can reflect varying levels of consensus and vetting. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 00:21, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

I removed the sentence 11 minutes before you published your response — Ah, I missed that. No worries then.

Anyway, I agree we should maybe step away from this conversation as we've both made our points. But before I go, I will say attacking WP:NOTCOM is, uh, a choice, but not one I agree with. And since you expressed being confused about why I insist on "experts", I'll just mention I like it better because A) it flows much better in the sentence than "genocide scholars" while still invoking the same level of authority, B) because genocide scholars are discussed later in the sentence and I don't want to reuse the term back-to-back, and C) because I don't want to restart this whole attempt at reaching a consensus. Backing away now though. (If you'd like you're welcome to leave one last response to this comment—I'm not trying to get the last word in and leave :) ) Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 00:37, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

I agree that it was "a choice", which is why I removed that sentence immediately in hopes that it wouldn't needlessly dilute the discussion. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 00:50, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose - The word "consensus" is a term of art on Wikipedia, with its own policy and background, with important differences from the use of the word in general. Readers could well be confused, simply because both these definitions/usages exist. With the recent RFC being cited in this proposal, this becomes a situation where we'd be conflating the two. (And of course Wikipedia itself can't be a source.) It might be a different thing if the proposal were to change the sentence to say a "consensus by Wikipedia standards," but that's not what's being proposed here. Coining (talk) 19:12, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

You're right to criticize deferring to Wikivoice as our basis for making the consensus claim, so I've struck that line out so that this discussion remains solely based around the veracity of the sources in the bundle. With that adjustment, would you support this consensus addition? Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 19:22, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, but no. I remain opposed because the confusion can exist in the mind of a reader of the article, regardless of whether a line is struck on the talk page (especially of a conversation that will eventually be archived anyway). Coining (talk) 22:46, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

• By my count, the article uses the word "among" 8 times and the word "amongst" 0 times in the voice of Wikipedia, as opposed to quotations of others. I recommend that if one of these words is to be used, it should be "among" to be consistent with the rest of the article. —Anomalocaris (talk) 05:47, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

The article has the {{Use British English|date=December 2024}} tag, meaning it uses British English and thus amongst over among. Any instances of among should be changed to amongst to be consistent with this formatting guideline in my view. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 13:27, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Doesn't work that way. Charles III has 2 "among" and 0 "amongst". Elizabeth II has 3 "among" and 0 "amongst". Liverpool has 10 "among" and 0 "amongst". House of Commons of the United Kingdom has 3 "among" and 0 "amongst". Again, I recommend that if one of these words is to be used, it should be "among" to be consistent with the rest of the article. Cheers! —Anomalocaris (talk) 01:40, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Fair enough—in that case I'll support your recommendation. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 03:13, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose, per arguments of Coining, MarkBassett and Throast. BobFromBrockley (talk) 05:15, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

  PS:

  • two comments on the bundle - (a) shouldn’t include to sources that refer only to IAGS, as that body clearly doesn’t represent anything other than itself, (b) many included sources say “growing” or “emerging” consensus or similar and if we’re serious about following these sources we should reflect that wording in ours.
  • if we do make this change, we have an even stronger need to add proper weight to the dissenting view.

  BobFromBrockley (talk) 05:23, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Cumulative evolution of the scholarly opinions regarding Gaza genocide per Template:Expert opinions in the Gaza genocide debate

Strong support, per the consensus in the previous RFC, that saw its result primarily because of the arguments that appeal to the academic consensus as illustrated by Template:Expert opinions in the Gaza genocide debate. I'd love to clarify also the difference between "consensus" and "unanimity", dissident voices forbid us from using the latter but not the former, that's why some sources have no trouble acknowledging it. I'd be fine with something like "Although this characterisation is rejected by some scholars, it is supported by a wide academic consensus", tho I believe that the mention of dissident voices isn't WP:DUE in the first paragraph. — 🧀Cheesedealer ^!!!⚟ 17:17, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

• Support, although I think maybe the phrasing could be finessed a little more. For example, "There is a consensus among experts that genocide is occurring, and the genocide has been recognised by a United Nations special committee and commission of inquiry, the..." or, "The consensus of experts, a United Nations special committee and commission of inquiry ... is that genocide is occurring in Gaza" or " ... is that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza." I think mention of dissent in the lead does not preclude us from acknowledging the existence of consensus, and vice versa. The outcome of the RFC supports the existence of academic consensus on this point: if the view of scholars was really so divided, presumably the RFC would not have resulted in recognition (in Wikivoice) that genocide is occurring. 14:55, 15 October 2025 (UTC)WillowCity^(talk)
• Weak support, given the sources at Template:Gaza genocide consensus citation bundle, it looks like WP:RSAC has been met (A statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view.), although it'd be ideal to have a proper literature review source. We can't use Template:Expert opinions in the Gaza genocide debate nor the conclusion of the prior RfC to support such a claim because that is original research by Wikipedians. Kowal2701 (talk) 17:30, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose, per arguments of Coining, MarkBassett, Throast and BobFromBrockley Michael Boutboul (talk) 08:39, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Strong support per previous RfC on consensus. Ahammed Saad (talk) 11:28, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

• Support this has been debated for a long time here and there was consensus for a similar wording. It is also amply supported by sources --Ita140188 (talk) 08:53, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Comment It appears to me that there's slight to moderate consensus in favor. What are thoughts on closing this up? Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 14:29, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

I don't think there is a consensus, or in any case what position there is a consensus for. Not that these things are done by counting votes (they are supposed to be done by the weight of the arguments), but there are, by my count 6 votes in support, 3 votes of conditional support, and 5 votes in opposition. Each position has a majority that does not back it, and usually that is a situation where, if closed, the result would be "no consensus". Are you saying that it is the "support" position or the "conditional support" position that is the subject of a slight to moderate consensus? There is no automatic reason to think that the editors in support agree with the conditional support outcome, and if this vote is setup in a way such that two options are essentially treated as one, that would be considered a biased question in the polling world.

More generally, one just has to look further down this talk page and see that there isn't consensus on the core element underlying this request.

In any case, it isn't for us involved editors to decide when a discussion should be closed. Coining (talk) 21:38, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

I agree it's not for us involved editors to decide when a discussion should be closed - I was mainly talking about procedural actions, e.g., starting an RfC, posting an official request to close, etc. That said, I do think that 6 support and 3 conditional support versus 5 opposed creates reasonable grounds to conclude consensus, especially considering the context of those who didn't voice explicit support (namely bringing a discussion that's already being discussed elsewhere in this discussion being a basis for conditional support rather than support, simply saying "there is no consensus" as a reason for opposition without making any real arguments beyond this, etc). Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 10:30, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Best to just send it to WP:CR for a close when there is doubt. CNC (talk) 13:24, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for linking that page—do you think we should open an RfC to hear a few more voices? I'm torn between that and putting in a close request. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 14:23, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

The discussion has died down so better closed than continued imo, partially due to recent discussions and the current atmosphere. CNC (talk) 14:54, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Gotcha - just opened a WP:CR request. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 16:20, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Consensus for which position, support or conditional support? It was probably a slanted request from the outset if the approach was to provide three options and then conflate the first two. A fairer approach would have been to provide either two options (support and oppose) or four options (support, oppose, conditional support, and something like conditional opposition) so that it was a balanced question and not framed so that the "middle" or seemingly "compromise" position was already slanted towards a favored outcome. My hope is that any administrator reviewing this will close the conversation as "no consensus" in recognition that the dispersal of views is not geared towards producing a true support vs. oppose analysis in light of how the question was framed.

And, for what it's worth, in response to the assertion that I didn't make any real arguments, my substantive reasons for opposition were outlined in my reply of 13 October above. This set of comments is focused on the procedural irregularities of the question presented in the proposed change. I suppose then that I should highlight it as a request for a procedural close. Coining (talk) 13:35, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I wasn't saying you didn't make any real arguments. I was alluding to this comment (the "lofty" comment) when I said that. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 14:22, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose There isnt a consensus among experts. Theres a majority view. Less than 80% have that view, and the assessment of the quality of the cited "experts" (Im not necessarily disputing that some or all are, just emphasizing that word) would likely reduce that further. The dissent is quite strong unlike for pretty much every other genocide in history. The fact that we even have to poll this indicates that it is much more contentious than the supporters make it out to be. As Ive stated elsewhere, numerous of these have a conflict of interest and a fulfillment of confirmation bias. That is to say, if in the first week or two someone deemed it a genocide, they simply arent qualified to give a reliable opinion. Same for those who say it began on October 7, unless they are referring to the October 7 attacks as a genocide, which would be correct. ← Metallurgist (talk) 19:41, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

There isnt a consensus among experts. Theres a majority view. That is not the conclusion of this RfC, which says the informed collective editorial judgment of the participants needs to be what decides whether the threshold of academic consensus has been met and implies editors have determined consensus has been found in the RfC. If you disagree, you're welcome to contest the results of that RfC, but otherwise we must defer to its judgement.

if in the first week or two someone deemed it a genocide, they simply arent qualified to give a reliable opinion But none of the sources are from the first two weeks. Like Aquillion pointed out of opposition arguments, you haven't interacted with any of the sources Aquillion cited or any of the sources in this template, which all are more recent and cite a broader and more recent expert consensus.

The fact that we even have to poll this indicates that it is much more contentious than the supporters make it out to be. If having a poll inherently implies the thing being polled is too contentious for consideration, then we may as well auto-reject every poll.

Same for those who say it began on October 7, unless they are referring to the October 7 attacks as a genocide, which would be correct This is just a red herring. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 03:13, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

• Support. The sourcing in the article (particularly the growing_agreement citation bundle at the end of the lead) overwhelmingly supports the idea that there is a consensus among experts. Note that this is not our assessment of the consensus (contrary to some of the assertions above); we rely on a huge number of scholarly publications by peer-reviewed experts and similar high-quality sources that themselves assess the consensus among experts and say that it now supports describing it as a genocide. Some editors, above, disagree with that conclusion; but that is WP:OR / WP:SYNTH on their part. The best available sources we have actually say that there is a consensus in as many words. Because they're so significant and clear-cut, I have reproduced them here:

Quotes from sources

• Sultany 2024, p. 4 : "Although legal scholars and commentators were slow to recognize the severity and urgency of the situation, this article sought to show that there is an emerging consensus that Israel's actions in Gaza are not another instance of armed conflict but instead amount to genocide"
• Swart 2025, p. 3: "South Africa's actions led to an ever-growing consensus in international legal circles that Israel is committing genocide"
• Shaw 2025b, p. 3: "By the end of 2024, when Amnesty International published a comprehensively evidenced and legally argued case, the consensus that Israel was committing genocide was becoming overwhelming".
• Gessen 2024: "Trachtenberg testified to a consensus opinion among historians of genocide that what is happening in Gaza can indeed be called a genocide, largely because the intent to cause death on a massive scale has been so clear in the statements of Israeli officials"
• Bouranova 2024: "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."

No one has presented any answer to these sources; mostly, the arguments in opposition, above, mostly seem to ignore them. --Aquillion (talk) 19:53, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

I feel like since many other editors have cited the argument given here, it would be of some use to discuss the sources a bit.

1 - From the conclusion:"This genocide is committed against an integral component of the Palestinian people, a protected group under the Genocide Convention. The preceding discussion shows that obstacles facing a legal determination of genocide (namely, assessing the credibility of military logic and the existence of genocidal intent) are not insurmountable. The emerging consensus described here may not be overwhelming and will have to face opposition and potential judicial disagreement. Yet an overwhelming body of evidence supports it and a consistency in the application of standards requires it."

This by itself is evidence for a consensus, but the fact that the assertion is tempered by the author is important.

2 - This article is an opinion published in a journal, which isn't quite the same as a normal article published in a journal as it undergoes less scrutiny from editors(and is obviously expressing an opinion). It is still evidence for a consensus, but is comparatively rather weak given this.

3 - This article was published in a series as part of an academic roundtable and refers to genocide scholarship. This by itself is quite strong evidence, and articles from this round table are often cited by editors. Lederman 2025(incl. in main article) corroborates this claim for genocide scholars.

However, I would like to point out that the introduction to the collection of articles included the following line: "There are various aspects to the debate that we cannot treat comprehensively here, but they are united by a single issue: the seeming impossibility of reaching consensus on the basic unit of analysis: genocide." Leaving out the context of the introduction implies a high level of consensus amongst experts in an interdisciplinary field that doesn't seem to be directly supported.

3.1 - The author also cites the opinion of the editor of Lawfare who denounces Israeli actions whilst also holding the opinion that was is going in is not genocide.

4 - This is strong evidence for the existence of a consensus amongst historians that there is a genocide in Gaza, given that is what he testified to.

5 - "Bouranova 2024" incorrectly attributes the claim to Alene Bouranova when the quote from an edited and condensed version of a quote from an interview of Susan Akram. This was an interview about a report written as part of an inter-uni undergraduate collaboration program for students, making it not even close to an authoratitive source.

In summary, we have multiple sources discussing consensus amongst different types of experts but no attempt is being made to distinguish between the different types of experts that are relevant in this debate. I think that the sources don't imply any legal consensus but do for genocide scholars and/or historians(overlapping fields); the issue certainly not "so significant and clear-cut" as Aquillion has suggested.

I think this is part of a deeper problem with how editors are approaching academic opinions. No attempt is being made to determine which sources should be weighted higher or to determine consensus in different fields. Some editors have even tried to determine consensus by looking at the volume of opinions of experts in a certain time period, without reference to any review literature(which is admittedly quite sparse). That is just original research, and sloppy research at that. Originalcola (talk) 01:46, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Again, please review Wikipedia:What SYNTH is not#SYNTH is not directly applicable to talk pages which applies to WP:OR. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 15:26, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

If I’m reading into this too much and you’ve just accidentally replied to the wrong person I’m sorry but I don’t think you’ve mentioned any synthesis policy in response to me prior to this. and I don’t think I referred to synthesis at all. If you were referring to “sloppy research”, I was trying to get at how trying to do a simple bean count of the volume of opinions and literature from an incomplete list supporting or opposing a viewpoint isn’t a valid way to determine consensus. Originalcola (talk) 16:38, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Sorry for not being clearer - I was referring to you saying how editors have even tried to determine consensus by looking at the volume of opinions of experts in a certain time period is WO:OR, and I was arguing Wikipedia:What_SYNTH_is_not#SYNTH_is_not_directly_applicable_to_talk_pages applies to your claim of WP:OR using common sense extrapolation of the rule, even though it doesn't directly mention WP:OR. And I think what you described is the best way out there of determining the presence or absence of consensus. We're essentially performing meta analysis using all sources we're capable of finding. All meta analyses run the risk of being incomplete but that's just a risk of an overall highly sound method. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 17:17, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Oh, thanks for the clarification. I think that meta analysis isn't needed given that there exists limited summaries of positions or review literature pertaining to this topic. The editor-in-chief of the Journal of Genocide Research ,who had wrote the introduction to the publication where the 3rd quote Aquillion had mentioned was found, mentioned a lack of consensus across different fields of the genocide debate which is why I mentioned earlier to distinguish from "experts" in general but instead by areas of expertise. Originalcola (talk) 18:27, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Conditional Oppose - Since this article is more concerned with genocide from the view of the social sciences as opposed to the strict legal defintion, I would oppose to using the phrase "experts" instead of "genocide scholars". This notwithstanding, to state that there is a consensus amongst "experts" is slightly misleading. This is as it suggests both a consensus amongst genocide scholars(which includes lawyers) that this constitutes a genocide and experts in international law that this would meet the high standard for genocide at the ICJ or in other relevant courts of law. The former is likely true and supported by the sources in the article, but it isn't clear if there is a consensus amongst legal experts

, and the present sourcing situation does not suggest it. Originalcola (talk) 22:21, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Since this article is more concerned with genocide from the view of the social sciences as opposed to the strict legal defintion, I would oppose to using the phrase "experts" instead of "genocide scholars" - But the definition of genocide from the view of the social sciences is based on the legal definition, no? Unless you can provide an alternate definition of genocide used by social scientists. Regardless, I don't know if it's true to begin with that this article is not concerned with the strict legal definition as many of the sources cited in the lede base their arguments on the strict legal definition (e.g., the 2025 UNHRC Commission of Inquiry report on Gaza genocide).

There's a lot of IL experts considered in the RfC sources—just because the ICJ hasn't made determinations yet doesn't mean that there's not consensus among IL experts on genocide. and the present sourcing situation does not suggest it I would appreciate some evidence for this claim since when I scroll through here there appear to be a lot of IL scholars cited. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 22:46, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

I think the distinction between the viewpoints and the social sciences is fairly well known, although there are many alternate definitions of genocide that differ in some key ways from that in the Genocide Convention despite being based in large part on the legal definition(eg. inclusion of social and political classes, expansion of what crimes constitute as acts toward destruction). My point is that the social sciences often take a different approach from that of law when approaching genocide that less rigidly follows the definition laid out in the Genocide Convention, and are less concerned with meeting the legal standard as it is not always useful or necessary to do so. This whole difference is acknowledged implicitly through the separation of scholarly arguments from legal ones on this page, and in past RfCs the main focus was on the view of genocide scholars not the legal definition. I think I was wrong in stating this article was not concerned at all with the legal view, but it is predominantly concerned with the scholarly view.

From the list of sources there is mention of an "emerging consensus that Israel's actions in Gaza... amount to genocide" amongst lawyers which is tempered by stating that it is "may not be overwhelming and will have to face opposition and potential judicial disagreement". It's quite hard to navigate from the list of sources to figure out which are experts in what fields or to identify much, but it doesn't seem like there is an overwhelming majority of international lawyers specifically(at least from the list) that would suggest a consensus.

Finally I'd add that if I am wrong it would still be worthwhile to separate genocide scholars and legal experts. Originalcola (talk) 13:26, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Also to clarify "present souricng situation" refers to the sources included in this article. Originalcola (talk) 15:57, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

• Support per Aquillion's comments and provided quotes. TarnishedPath^talk 23:39, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
• Support. I wavered on this, mainly because certain major figures (Kiernan and a couple others) have been quiet on the topic (since a Time article two years ago). But as Aquillion points out, no sources have been brought here that contradict the several academic sources explicitly stating there is a consensus. Cambial — foliar❧ 13:36, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

  I wouldn't say no sources state this. The introduction to the volume of the Journal of Genocide Research where Shaw 2025b was published in cited starts with an introduction by the editor-in-chief of the journal that states: "There are various aspects to the debate that we cannot treat comprehensively here, but they are united by a single issue: the seeming impossibility of reaching consensus on the basic unit of analysis: genocide." Originalcola (talk) 23:46, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

  But that's only one source against around a dozen. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 00:19, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

  Something published in the leading peer-reviewed journal of genocide studies, written by its editor-in-chief (who like me holds the view that Israeli actions constitutes genocide) and published less than 2 months ago is as close to an absolutely authoritative source one can get on what the consensus is right now. There are similar news articles with expert opinions that give some comment a lack of consensus or general agreement, even when expressing the opinion that it constitutes a genocide.

  If this question were phrased as "The genocide has been recognised by a majority of genocide scholars and legal experts,..." I'd have voted for that instead. If there were a dozen high quality sources stating there was a consensus then there wouldn't even be a need for this discussion no? Originalcola (talk) 03:55, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

  Majority is a weaker claim than consensus yet editors have determined there is consensus, which is why I support consensus.

  The sources you cited are the following:

  • A New York Times opinion piece (WP:RSOPINION should thus be used per WP:NYT), which has a long history of pro-Israel messaging (WP:MANDY), including sending internal emails forbidding employees from calling it a genocide, which even still said The wider community of genocide scholars ... is now edging ever closer toward a consensus over describing events in Gaza as a genocide, which is not a far claim from simply stating there is consensus.
  • An Al Jazeera article written over 20 months ago
  • WP:TIMESOFISRAEL, which is noted as being generally reliable but potentially biased in certain topics like the Israeli–Palestinian conflict
  • The Guardian article from 10 months ago [24] (I fixed the link that you included which had an extra character at the end)... but The Guardian has since uploaded new articles [25] saying The UN’s commission now joins the wide consensus that Palestinians in Gaza have been experiencing genocide, so they have changed their stance to support the presence of consensus, not oppose it
  • Le Monde is the best source here, but the idea there is no consensus is an opinion by the journalist who wrote the article in an opinion piece rather than an expert opinion, so I don't think it carries much weight
  • The Jewish Currents article says at the bottom We’ve seen over and over how the mainstream media falters in telling stories on our beats—whether it’s antisemitism [or] Israel/Palestine in American politics and claims they're changing the conversation, and the article was written around 12 months ago by the editor in chief of this source which is not on WP:RSP, so I'm a little skeptical this meets WP:RS criteria.

  I don't think these sources come close to rebuking Aquillion's list of academic sources, which are much stronger. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 16:31, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

  What? The Guardian articles are op-eds written by different writers and are not the opinion of the Guardian itself. In addition, the writer is literally the "coordinator of the Palestinian legal team at the international criminal court (ICC)". He is an expert and qualified to talk, but his direct involvement in the legal case should obviously raise at least some concern surely? I feel like the other critiques are valid, but I have already written a response to Aquillion's list of academic sources, which you replied to without commenting on my response to the list. This is your right to do as I'm not entitled to a response from other editors, but this response was not meant as a rebuke of that list of academic sources and my response of the list above was not meant as a full rebuke; I find this came somewhat misleading. Originalcola (talk) 20:27, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

  Hi there - sorry if my response frustrated you. I don't want to WP:BLUDGEON so I will back off as I've said most of what I wanted to say and don't want to take up too much space. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 21:22, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Strongly Oppose sources should be weighted by reliability. Britannica describes it as such: Some opponents of the war lodged accusations of genocide against Israel as the war moved to the southern half of the Gaza Strip. This is properly encyclopedic and should not be dismissed as a "fringe" characterization, rather it should be given extra weight. Wikipedia should be encyclopedic and should not state opinions as facts. Scharb (talk) 15:39, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

You're right that sources ought to be weighted by reliability. Following that principle leads to the polar opposite conclusion to your expressed !vote. You refer to Encyclopædia Britannica, for which there is at present no consensus on reliability (see WP:BRITANNICA), and it thus remains marginal. The sources given greatest weight, being considered the most reliable, are academic sources, as per WP:SOURCETYPES and WP:SOURCE. The academic sources listed in the comment above indicate explicitly that a consensus of experts is now evident. Cambial — foliar❧ 17:05, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

• Support per RS provided by Aquillion. EvansHallBear (talk) 20:27, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Support as it makes it clear that its only a minority opinion that disagrees with the characterization. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 05:45, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Comment - It feels like it logically follows from the question asked that the core of whether or not the change should go through is whether or not academic and legal consensus exists. Most editors(including myself) have made arguments based on whether we view there is or isn't consensus, yet I can see multiple references to the previous RfC and comments that this is not the place to relitigate that issue. If that's the case, there isn't a need for any opinions since this proposed edit is just changing the lead to make reference to the stated consensus opinion of editors. Originalcola (talk) 12:48, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose. Many countries and individuals are refraining from opining about whether a genocide is (or has been) happening in Gaza, because it's the subject of ongoing litigation. See, e.g. Gaza genocide recognition which describes that various countries are waiting for an outcome of the case at the International Court of Justice. For the same reason, we should not be accusing Israel or its leaders of genocide in wikivoice, even if a large subset of reliable voices decide to drop every pretense of a presumption of innocence. Per WP:BLP, "A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations, arrests and charges do not amount to a conviction." Genocide is such a crime. It's true that that same BLP policy says "A harmful statement about a small group or organization comes closer to being a BLP problem than a similar statement about a larger group." But (1) Israel is a relatively small country, and (2) regardless of Israel's small size, arrest warrants have been and potentially will be issued for individual Israeli leaders for the crime of genocide. It is not enough for us to say that Israel denies the accusation; our wikivoice statements should be neutral about guilt or innocence. Furthermore, given that so many cautious or open-minded sources are refraining from declaring Israel or its leaders guilty/innocent of genocide before the litigation is through, we should not draw conclusions about any general "consensus" from those who have declared their opinions on that matter in the midst of ongoing criminal litigation. Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:49, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

• Strong support per arguments made by Aquillion and Cheesedealer.C.J. Griffin (talk) 18:15, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose, per arguments of MarkBassett, Coining, Throast and others here. Unfortunately I don't have the right state of mind to explain in depth.

EntropyReducingGuy(I talk, but can reply slowly)💧♾️➡❄️📚 20:02, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose per Scharb. _Dgw|Talk 20:59, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:OR. Achmad Rachmani (talk) 02:50, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

References

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.

Edit request: add subsection "Statements rejecting the genocide characterization"

Hello,

I request the addition of the following sourced subsection in the "Political discourse" section, placed immediately before the current subsection "World leaders and governments". This is to document official and high-level statements rejecting the characterization of the Gaza events as genocide. All sources below are independent, verifiable, and from governments or major outlets. This improves neutrality by presenting notable, reliably sourced opposing views to the genocide characterization.

Statements rejecting the genocide characterization

Several governments, officials, and commentators have stated that the situation in Gaza does not meet the legal definition of genocide, mainly on the ground that specific intent to destroy the Palestinian population has not been established.

• United States. On 20 May 2024 President Joe Biden said: "What's happening in Gaza is not genocide. We reject that." Bose, Nandita; Holland, Steve (20 May 2024). "Biden: What's happening in Gaza is not genocide". Reuters. National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan said on 13 May 2024 that "we do not believe what is happening in Gaza is a genocide." "Press Briefing by Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre and National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan". White House (archived). 13 May 2024. On 3 January 2024 State Department spokesperson Matthew Miller similarly said that the United States was "not seeing acts that constitute genocide." "U.S. does not see acts constituting genocide in Gaza - State Dept". Reuters. 3 Jan 2024.
• United Kingdom. In the House of Lords on 30 January 2024 the government said: "We do not believe that Israel's actions in Gaza can be described as a genocide." "Gaza - House of Lords Hansard (Oral questions)". UK Parliament. 30 Jan 2024. In a letter of 1 September 2025 to Sarah Champion MP, Foreign Secretary David Lammy wrote that "the Government has not concluded that Israel is acting with that intent [the 'intent to destroy' required by the Genocide Convention]." Lammy, David. "Letter to Sarah Champion MP on arms exports and the Genocide Convention". UK Parliament: International Development Committee.
• Germany. On 12 January 2024 government spokesman Steffen Hebestreit said there was "no basis whatsoever" for the accusation and that Germany "firmly and expressly rejects the accusation of genocide." "Live updates: Israel rejects genocide case as Mideast tensions rise after US-led strikes in Yemen". Associated Press. 12 Jan 2024.
• Canada. On 12 January 2024 Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said that "Canada does not accept the premise of South Africa's case." "Canada doesn't accept premise of S. Africa genocide motion - PM". Reuters. 12 Jan 2024. On the same day Foreign Minister Melanie Joly recalled that genocide requires the intent to destroy a people and that this "high threshold" requires compelling evidence. "Statement by Minister Joly on South Africa's case against Israel at the International Court of Justice". Global Affairs Canada. 12 Jan 2024.
• Italy. On 11 January 2024 Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani said "A Gaza non è genocidio" ("It is not genocide in Gaza"). "Tajani: 'Colpita la popolazione, ma a Gaza non è genocidio'". ANSA (in Italian). 11 Jan 2024.
• Portugal. On 13 May 2024 Foreign Minister Paulo Rangel said that genocide presupposes the will to eliminate a people and that it would be very unfair to say that Israel intends to eliminate the Palestinian people. "Paulo Rangel recusa ver genocídio na Faixa de Gaza". RTP (in Portuguese). 13 May 2024.
• Hungary. On 17 January 2024 Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto called accusing Israel of genocide "nonsense". "Szijjártó in Jerusalem: accusing Israel of genocide after the hellish attack it experienced is nonsense". Telex (English). 17 Jan 2024.
• Religious and media commentators. On 21 January 2024 the Chief Rabbi of the United Kingdom, Ephraim Mirvis, said: "Israel's actions in Gaza are not genocide", calling the use of the term a "disingenuous misappropriation". Topping, Alexandra (21 Jan 2024). "Israel's actions in Gaza are not genocide, says UK's chief rabbi". The Guardian. In July 2025 Bret Stephens argued that "Israel is manifestly not committing genocide." "The Situation: Not Genocide Is Not High Praise". Lawfare. 28 Jul 2025. On 16 September 2025 the American Jewish Committee published "5 Reasons Why the Events in Gaza Are Not 'Genocide'." "5 Reasons Why the Events in Gaza Are Not 'Genocide'". American Jewish Committee. 16 Sep 2025.

Rationale:

• high-level, notable, and recent statements from states directly concerned (US, UK, Germany, Canada) and several EU members (Italy, Portugal, Hungary);
• the article currently gives extensive space to claims that the Gaza campaign is a genocide, so per WP:NPOV it should also show the main official rejections with sources of at least comparable quality;
• the subsection is limited to governments and authoritative public figures and does not open the door to routine opinion pieces.

Thank you. Michael Boutboul (talk) 17:57, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

The average age of your sources is 493 days. If we exclude the two (2) sources from 2025, the average age is 620.5 days, or 1.6 years old.

Can you support the request from sources perhaps in the past 0-4 months? — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 18:03, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Is it your view, @Very Polite Person, that the existing article should also be limited to sources accepting the genocide characterisation from the past 0-4 months? If not, isn't that the sort of violation of WP:NPOV that @Jimbo Wales is countenancing against above? Coining (talk) 18:18, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Just to note, I've never participated on this article till today. My view is that for any ongoing scenario that we have an article on, the current lede and opening line especially must reflect the accurate consensus reality definition as of today, not based on historical and potentially outdated definitions. The war is three years or so long. Some of these sources here are a year and a half old. That's like us describing a part of World War II, if Wikipedia existed in 1945, under 1943 sources, in 1945.

I think it's normal and expected to base the lede on what the consensus is today, in November 2025, rather than what the consensus was in January 2024. This means weighing the more complicated extended timeline and the hard work that this takes, even if it's politically or harmfully inconvenient for anyone, including Wikipedia itself. If you're not willing to take a punch in the face for your ideals, they're not real ideals.

That's my entire position, the bolded part. Stand up for what you say you believe in, even if the outcome is unpleasant. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 18:31, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

I think it would of course be great to have newer sources, but unless there is some evidence that these sources have changed their mind, which of course might have happened, then someone having said something in 2024 doesn't disqualify it being relevant still in 2025. Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:01, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Absolutely, as long as everyone is deferential to and accepts the fact that consensus can change, and the article can't today reflect the consensus in the lede as of January 2024. It has to be the consensus of November 2025. Prior data of course fits into the article somewhere.

It's the same for any article, regardless of the subject matter. If you're looking at the article on a computer in November 2025, it should reflect consensus as of late 2025.

How may Allegations of genocide of Ukrainians in the Russo-Ukrainian war look if we favored January 2024-era over sources current as of November 2025? — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 20:07, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

This seems to just be an argument to re-include the former table that is now located at Gaza genocide recognition. We already start the World governments section with a list of governments who officially disagree with it being a case a genocide, covering near all the countries you have listed politicians from. So why should we include a list of various ministers, when we already include their governments' official positions that are in-line with the statements from the ministers? Beyond that you include political commentators known because they have opinion columns, and no relations to assessing the case, and then religious figures who, as I mentioned in another discussion, are most likely suited for inclusion in the Cultural discourse about the Gaza genocide article. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 18:06, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

That is also a very good point. David A (talk) 18:47, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

If we wanted to really, really button this down to the level of airtight, would a prudent step be to weigh whether individual states (countries) were all equal in their positioning of it as genocide? That simple question:

Are the positions of all nations equal, as far as Wikipedia is concerned?

That lets you weight the nations amongst themselves based on that concensus.

Then you ask: how do we rank states vs NGOs vs international bodies vs academics vs other social construct "levels".

Then you know, from those consensus, who IS authoritative, by our reading. Everything kind of flows downhill from that. Logically, based on the way the entire precedent of this is going, the "it is not genocide" side of the debate may not find that level of scrutiny to their advantage. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 18:51, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

I am perhaps misinterpreting what you're saying here so I'll just ask. Who do you mean by "the 'it is not genocide' side of the debate"? If you mean me, then I must object. My argument is not that it is not genocide, my argument is that it is not the job of Wikipedia to adjudicate the issue. We need to fairly report, with attribution, the state of the debate, and strenuously refuse to take a side in WikiVoice. Jimbo Wales (talk) 02:29, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

I simply mean that taking an exhaustive rigorous review of this again, to even deeper depth than the exhaustive September RFC, which was informed by news through September, would likely lead to an even more affirmative community finding of "Yes, it is genocide, and we should say it."

There is seemingly a faction of people who dispute any given genocide is, or was, a genocide. All we can do is our best, and eventually consensus of the public does reach a conclusion. Whether something is, or is not, historically seen as a genocide is not determined by nation-states or any government, or head of state. History decides.

We are not deferential here to authority figures. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 03:31, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

@Jimbo Wales: The Turkish government (and several other governments in the region) does not recognize the Armenian genocide. Should we attribute that genocide's existence as well, or can that one be stated in Wikivoice? If the second one, what is the difference? If the first one, where is the line drawn in terms of accepting the word of governments over academics? QuicoleJR (talk) 19:35, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

This seems like special pleading without substantiation. Wikipedia has never been about equally covering or treating the "sides" of a debate as equals, which is WP:FALSEBALANCE. That you refuse to explain the difference between this topic area and numerous others where Wikipedia does "adjudicate the issue" (that is: summarize the academic consensus on a particular topic) is concerning. Katzrockso (talk) 04:40, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

• This is already covered in a much more neutral fashion in the Academic and legal discourse, Political discourse, and Cultural discourse sections. Those sections could perhaps be expanded, but I would strenuously oppose spinning off a section intended solely for one position; it would have the same problems as a WP:POVFORK. Discourse should be divided up by qualifications, as it is now, not by what position people take; dividing it up by positions risks creating WP:FALSEBALANCE and turning the sections into dumping grounds or a WP:QUOTEFARM for random op-eds. We should aim to summarize the overarching discourse with appropriate balance, and that's best done using the current structure; creating sections devoted to particular is much more likely to become imbalanced. --Aquillion (talk) 18:10, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

  While I agree with you about the overall structure, I just wanted to note that the current article definitely fails to summarize the overarching discourse - it offers instead a one-sided polemic in which important views are omitted. Jimbo Wales (talk) 02:26, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

We summarize the discourse within the best available sources, not the evening news or the man on the street; and the current wording accurately summarizes the discourse among the best available experts. I can understand that you disagree with that approach and believe that the opinions of the involved nation-states, news columnists, and other lower-quality sources should be given more weight in the lead; but even with that in mind, relying on the highest-quality academic sources cannot realistically be called a polemic. The lead says: There is increasing scholarly consensus on the genocide assessment,[19] with few dissenting voices. That is true. It is an accurate summary of the best-available sources, and extensively-sourced; no one, during the massive RFC we held on the subject, was able to turn up any serious recent sources of comparable quality saying otherwise, despite the extremely controversial nature of the topic area and the extensive focus the RFC received. The current wording accurately acknowledges that dissenting views exist but that they are vanishingly-tiny minority among experts. And that defines the rest of the lead - the way we summarize such situations has always been (and should always be) to treat overwhelmingly prevailing academic views as fact. We are an encyclopedia, not a news channel or a gossip column; writing a neutral encyclopedia means sometimes flatly contradicting the positions taken by major world governments or media empires, at least when they say things that go against higher-quality sourcing. To weigh press secretaries and columnists - people who are often not WP:INDEPENDENT, who lack relevant expertise, or who lack a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy - equal to the most highly-cited and highly-respected academics speaking within their areas of expertise would actually be to take sides in the dispute. We do not take sides; and that isn't about the WP:FALSEBALANCE of never saying anything that anyone will find objectionable, or about throwing source quality to the winds and taking the average of what's on the evening news. It means we summarize the best available sources, even if the heavens fall - even if every government and news station and columnist in the world disagrees. --Aquillion (talk) 03:53, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

@Aquillion, I think the last sentence of the introduction (There is increasing scholarly consensus on the genocide assessment, with few dissenting voices) might be an example of the problem: Why are legal views, political views, religious views, etc. omitted? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:47, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Scholarly includes legal views, as was demonstrated through the litany of sources that regularly get re-assessed in every RFC here. Political views, ie. those from non-specialists but from functionaries of X, Y, or Z government or intergovernmental organisation should be considered as simply that, the opinion for the position of such orgnisations, and should not be weighted the same as specialists and experts who have a greater understanding of what is being discussed. As a note, in our scholarly sources that we, again, regularly go through in discussions here, we include multiple political scientists and political philosophers. Religious views I honestly don't think should carry much weight in discussion beyond "these are the views of A, B, or C group". Now, as a "fun fact" in all these groupings of views, labelling what is occurring as genocide is the majority opinion, its only the matter that as we drill down on to narrower groups of experts that the majority grows as a proportion. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 18:22, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

I don't think that most people think of "legal scholars" when they read a statement about scholars, and there are non-scholarly legal views (e.g., judges) that I assume will eventually matter significantly. The point isn't that political views should be "weighted the same" as scholarly sources, but that they maybe should be at least "worth a passing mention". After all, governments may not "have a greater understanding of" current scholarly discourse about genocide, but some of them probably do "have a greater understanding of" what's actually happening in Gaza and Israel. The governments may be making statements without understanding (or caring about) the scholarly concepts, but the scholars are making statements without access to classified military information.

We seem to be implying in the lead that only an abstract, generic "scholarly" viewpoint matters, and that all other ways of looking at this mess are so unimportant that we don't even think it worth acknowledging their existence, even if they agree with the "scholarly" view. For example: "Nearly all relevant scholars and most governments that have expressed a view agree that what is happening constitutes genocide". Or "There is a consensus among most legal experts, political scientists, and Arabic governments that Israel's actions in Gaza should be considered genocide". Statements like this suggest that more viewpoints than the ivory tower might exist. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:59, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

non-scholarly legal views (e.g., judges), which we include multiple of. worth a passing mention, we mention the positions of multiple governments and political organisations in this article, we have Israel's denouncement of the accusation, we also have an entire sub-article dedicated to political positions which covers even more, so we at least give a passing mention. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 08:57, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

...but not in the lead. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:45, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

As a medium-term project, it would be worth thinking about how to summarise in the lead everything Goldberg alludes to and wrote about here:

• Holocaust Memory in a Time of Genocide

I do agree that aspect – the societal controversy in the west, and within Holocaust memory culture – is underrepresented in the lead. Andreas JN466 09:17, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

How have you determined that these views are "important"? Cortador (talk) 08:39, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

• +1 (t · c) buidhe 02:34, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

• An indiscriminate list of quotations is definitely not the way to go. WP:IMPARTIAL says that we should Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial, formal tone. I don't remember if there's an essay going in more detail on this (someone please link if there is), but quotations are often just a POV loophole to get around not stating things in wikivoice. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 18:34, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

  I don't know of one covering political commentators or various ministers across the globe, but we do have some reporting in RS detailing the academic debate, such as Speri in The Guardian from December 2024. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 18:45, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

  I agree with you here that an indiscriminate list of quotations is definitely not the way to do. And from WP:IMPARTIAL : " A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone; otherwise, articles end up as partisan commentaries even while presenting all relevant points of view."

  There's actually an excellent example of failing to do that in the article: "Both the Biden and Trump administrations have denied genocide in Gaza; Biden's support of Israel earned him the nickname "Genocide Joe"." So rather than expand upon and explain the reasons given by the US government in a neutral way, we instead dismiss it with a cute but fringe allegation that this is now his nickname. Jimbo Wales (talk) 02:37, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:56, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish - worth a moment of reflection. The template shown to people who do not have extended confirmed rights tells them that they are only allowed to post an edit protected request, and further that they are not permitted to discuss the issue anywhere in Wikipedia. But then when the edit is rejected, they are told to please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. How are they meant to work to establish consensus and engage in rational exploration of compromise positions if they aren't even allowed to discuss it. There seems to be a procedural issue here. Am I mistaken? Jimbo Wales (talk) 02:13, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Michael Boutboul is extendedconfirmed so that response works in this case. The options are at Template:EEp. It's true that people occasionally use the wrong code when responding to non-EC editors, but I think in most cases more appropriate options are used e.g. |xy or |rs. Sean.hoyland (talk) 02:30, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Normally non-EC editors are given an explanation in the edit request response and something like {{welcome-arbpia}} on their talk page. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:19, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

@Jimbo Wales, non-EC editors should not being making edit requests, in this topic area, if those requests are likely to meet any opposition. They should not concern themselves with anything beyond straight forward copy-edit requests. TarnishedPath^talk 04:09, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Statements from heads of state and parliamentarians of countries that are complicit in this genocide, that stand to benefit from it, can hardly be said to be WP:RS. Notably the USA, the UK and Germany. As has been pointed out by others further up, these are clear cases of WP:MANDY. KetchupSalt (talk) 01:30, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

This argument is not persuasive at all, as it assumes the conclusion. Let me spell it out more clearly. Saying "X is not reliable because X denies the crime" assumes the crime, which is the very thing in question.

This argument is circular and commits the genetic fallacy. It first assumes ‘complicity,’ then excludes any source that denies it. Jimbo Wales (talk) 02:24, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

This is an inaccurate reading of their argument. They aren't saying "X is not reliable because X denies the crime", rather they are saying "X is not reliable because X has a vested interest in the outcome" i.e. WP:COI.

You are asking to give WP:UNDUE weight to the positions of governments, who both hold no expertise in the matter & inherently have a COI due to the topic's political nature. You continue to cite WP:NPOV despite several editors having already explained to you your misunderstanding of the current policy.

You've also falsely accused @KetchupSalt of assuming the conclusion in their argument, while you yourself seem to've already come to your own conclusions before commenting here. Those conclusions seemingly having been based on nothing at the moment as you still haven't cited a single source to support your assertions, let alone sources strong enough to overturn current consensus. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 03:02, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

I do not even understand why we have to spell it out in front of you, the founder. The state leaders who are politically tied to the accused state of carrying out the alleged crimes are not the reliable agents to comment on the validity of the allegations. Their words do carry some weight especially in the (geo)political context, but the other more critical point is that most of them are not qualified experts in the field of genocide or ethnic cleansing. That makes their positions inherently carry much less weight than the actual experts of those fields. Politics matter here, but it is secondary in this article. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 06:24, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Per Wales' comments in his topic previously on this talk page, academics are not the only parties in the debate, nor arguably the most important parties, so ministers giving personal opinions, or reflecting the stance of their government should apparently be weighted as the same as experts in the field of genocide studies who have published in peer-reviewed academic journals. I have asked for clarification if this is in fact what Wales was suggesting, but he has yet to respond. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 09:21, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

The "qualified experts" are not entirely reliable agents either. It's self-evidently obvious to anyone who has seen this in depth that these is a huge amount of bias against Israel in academia and among NGOs. Some of these arguments stating that this war is a genocide basically state outright that the legal definition is too narrow, which in my mind automatically discredits them. We cannot assume that these are totally neutral and impartial studies. We of course can't dismiss them but neither should they have the final say. We should defer any decision on this at least until the ICJ makes its ruling. RM (Be my friend) 11:44, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Provide citations for your claims, as if it is the same lie that is repeatedly peddled in the case of Gaza and a particular report, you are simply repeating the lie ignoring the actual statements made in the report. Otherwise, if you are gesturing at what would be a more defensible position, it is a ridiculous argument as it lifts the statement from it's historical and academic context that has existed since prior to 1948. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 11:54, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm not saying the USA etc are unreliable because they deny the crime, I'm saying they are unreliable because they are directly involved and stand to benefit from denying any wrongdoing. We already have plenty of academic literature on this issue, and as far as I understand WP prefers academic sources, and it always prefers secondary sources over primary ones. If you have a substantial body of academic works that take the opposite view, namely that a genocide is not being carried out, then please present them. If you will not do that, then please explain why we should prefer primary sources, with clear conflicts of interest, in this specific instance and not any other. Keep in mind that pages like List of genocides do not even require academic consensus for an event to be listed, something that I have personally raised a stink about (as @Cdjp1 can attest). The current compromise there was to format the list in a "prose form". I still don't like that because it still makes it seem like WP is saying "these things are genocides (despite lack of academic consensus)". For Gaza the academic case is far far stronger than many entries on that list. KetchupSalt (talk) 16:34, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

As I was pinged, yes KetchupSalt has expressed themself extensively on List of Genocides, before and since, the community came to a decision for criteria for list inclusion that didn't involve OR (as was previously the case). -- Cdjp1 (talk) 16:45, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

• Yes, the issue, in policy terms, is that nation-states involved in the conflict are not WP:INDEPENDENT. (They are also generally not WP:RSes in the first place; they lack a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.) They are, at best, primary sources for their own attributed opinions; it would be inappropriate to take such non-independent sources and weigh them equally to highly-cited peer-reviewed scholars speaking in their area of expertise. If I understand right, implication of Wales' argument is that we can never describe anything about a large and powerful nation or organization as fact in the article voice if they deny it, no matter how high-quality and clear the sourcing is among scholars, because he believes the simple fact that a nation denies something renders it contested opinion rather than fact. That's not how you write an encyclopedia. One thing I'll note is that the backlash to Wales' arguments on this page actually seems, in my rough assessment, to be more one-sided and full-throated than the RFC was, and involves objections from many editors who were previously uninvolved. Editors might reasonably disagree over what it takes for the scholarship to qualify as fact in the article voice, or over the finer details of what the best available sources are; and an argument based on that might have gone further (though it was still rejected in the RFC.) But the argument that the simple existence of nations that dispute the scholarship is enough to render it controversial is utterly unworkable and would effectively make it impossible for us to write neutral encyclopedic articles across a wide range of topics. --Aquillion (talk) 02:15, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

• Frankly, I don't understand why we would include any statements from politicians of any stripe in constructing the phrasing in this particular article. Politicians are only RS for what they say -- not even actually believe. Perhaps in a related article. Yes, if there is some question about any specific included source that may have some relevant background, attribution is needed. Having reread the previous RfC, it is difficult to believe that a new RfC would have a different close. Indeed, as the years go by, the evidence as provided by RS continues to pile on. O3000, Ret. (talk) 03:37, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

  Disagreeing with the consensus that there is a genocide means the source is not reliable, meaning it can't be included in the consensus; therefore, there is a consensus among RS that there is a genocide (because sources that disagree were intentionally excluded as "not reliable"), meaning sources that disagree are not reliable, etc. This is just a circular argument, as it basically says "There is a consensus among reliable sources; therefore, there is a consensus among reliable sources." That kind of argument makes no sense. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 20:52, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Courteous pinging: Very Polite Person, Coining, Jimbo Wales, Cdjp1, David A, QuicoleJR, Katzrockso, Aquillion, WhatamIdoing, Cortador, Buidhe, Thebiguglyalien, ScottishFinnishRadish, Sean.hoyland, TarnishedPath, KetchupSalt, Butterscotch Beluga, Sameboat, Reenem, Objective3000, PhotogenicScientist, SuperPianoMan9167

Thanks for the thoughtful feedback on my earlier draft. I have incorporated several of your remarks. This revised proposal uses only sources from the last 6 months, prioritizes jurists and academics, and includes a recent peer-reviewed law journal article. By the way, I am an EC, but I'd prefer to seek consensus here rather than start an edit war on the article.

• Criticism of the genocide characterization

A number of legal scholars, historians, and officials have cautioned against or rejected describing Israel's conduct in Gaza as genocide, chiefly because the specific intent element is difficult to establish to the relevant standard. In a newspaper debate, international criminal law scholar Kai Ambos states that genocidal intent must be the "only reasonable conclusion" from the evidence, while international law professor Stefan Talmon answers the question "Genocide in Gaza?" with "a clear no". Historian Vincent Duclert argues that focusing the public debate on the genocide label is counterproductive.

Peer-reviewed legal scholarship has also questioned expansive readings of the Genocide Convention in related ICJ proceedings. Public law scholar Monika Polzin argues that the Court's Gaza provisional orders are "highly problematic from a legal perspective" and appear to go "beyond the scope of the Genocide Convention and the judicial authority of the ICJ".

Several jurists emphasize that the public record does not yet demonstrate genocidal intent to the requisite standard. In a curated survey of expert opinions, invited assistant professor Miguel Manero de Lemos concludes there is "not enough publicly available evidence to reach that conclusion", while associate professor Patrycja Grzebyk cautions that "forced transfers should be classified as crimes against humanity rather than genocide". At policy level, the United Kingdom stated on 9 September 2025 that it "has not concluded" Israel is acting with the specific intent required by the Genocide Convention.

Commentators at established research institutions have also opposed the genocide characterization in recent op-eds. Robert Satloff of the Washington Institute argued that the IAGS genocide resolution was "less a serious inquiry than a parade of previously debunked claims and disgraced 'experts'." Analysts at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies likewise reject the genocide label, describing such accusations as an "inversion" and asserting there is "no Israeli-engineered famine in Gaza, much less a genocide."

Michael Boutboul (talk) 08:41, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

@Boutboul where do you suggest inserting this?

Per guidance on "criticism" sections, I would argue it is better to add these into the relevant pre-existing sections, such as legal scholars, other academics, and political discourse. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 09:42, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

I would have preferred a separate section, but let's see how the discussion goes. Michael Boutboul (talk) 11:33, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

I have no issue with experts who argue about the procedural issues of proving genocidal intent, but I am concerned about including any think tank comments which are dismissive or non-evidentiary. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 12:52, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

This would be clearly undue weight to the criticism. Based on the proportion of reliable sources, the criticism from scholars should be no more than 10 percent of the total included scholarly positions. (t · c) buidhe 16:37, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

some of these sources are a joke. Fdd is basically an extension of the US government position, imv, and any government sources are not rs except for their own views. (t · c) buidhe 16:39, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

It looks like there may be some OR going on as forced displacement is only one aspect of what's happening in Gaza.

In short the proposed text looks like it's not a helpful addition to the article. (t · c) buidhe 16:49, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

The article relies heavily on Al Jazeera, which is state-funded and controled by Qatar. Meanwhile, an FDD statement would be declined because it was said to be linked to the U.S. government. This feels inconsistent. Thank you for your consideration. Michael Boutboul (talk) 09:17, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

In addition to the contrast in approaches to source inclusion, there is a broader point that the numerous references to Al Jazeera in the article seem to run afoul of WP:ALJAZEERA, which says Most editors seem to agree that Al Jazeera English and especially Al Jazeera Arabic are biased sources on the Arab–Israeli conflict and on topics for which the Qatari government has a conflict of interest.. This is both a WP:RS concern and a WP:NPOV concern. Coining (talk) 03:16, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Clearly UNDUE. Aquillion summarised it very well. M.Bitton (talk) 16:52, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

I looked at the Cambridge paper. It doesn't really argue that Israel isn't committing genocide, but rather technicalities like the ICJ not considering the question of genocidal intent in its preliminary orders. This isn't so surprising since the ICJ hasn't gotten to the "meat" of the case yet, as I understand. It also tries to argue that the ICJ doesn't have the authority that it has, or that it claims to have. This also doesn't pertain to the question at hand, which is whether Israel is committing genocide, not whether the ICJ is right to do what it has done so far. TL;DR: this paper lacks relevance here. KetchupSalt (talk) 17:31, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

• This is both wildly undue and a totally inappropriate way to structure this per the above. We already have sections for Academic and legal discourse, political discourse, and cultural discourse; if you feel these views aren't given enough depth in one of those sections, there's some room for expansion, but creating a section dedicated purely to criticism risks giving it undue weight by implying that it must be weighted equally to other sections. And this bloated example shows why that's a problem - look at the existing sections I mentioned and the things in them; weigh the sources you cited, in terms of significance and expertise, with the weight given to other things already in those sections. The comparison shows that the amount of undue weight you're giving these sources is clearly absurd. The current political discourse section is a single small paragraph, yet you devote more than that text to individual opinions purely because they're critical and therefore fit in your proposed new section. You devote several times the weight to a single news article than anything else in the academic section; and you devote an entire paragraph to think tanks with no reputation for fact-checking and accuracy at all. I'm particularly shocked that you attempted to describe the The Washington Institute for Near East Policy and the Foundation for Defense of Democracies as an "established research institution" (and then devoted an entire paragraph to them) - these are lobbying groups and clearly not WP:RSes, and should not be cited directly in the article in any context or any form whatsoever. As I implied above, this would be like citing an ad company hired by Pepsi to make statements about Pepsi's great taste - think tanks of that nature say whatever the people paying them want them to say; they don't have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. --Aquillion (talk) 14:22, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

References

Another regular edit request amidst the chaos

At first glance to an uninformed reader, the sentence below makes it appear that B'Tselem and "some scholars who support genocide" are co-defendants alongside Israel in the South African court case. I had to read it three times before I understood what was being said.

The South African case against Israel, B'Tselem, and some scholars who support the genocide argument cite 7 October as its beginning.

I suggest rewording this sentence to remove the ambiguity, something like this:

B'Tselem, the South African case against Israel, and some scholars who support the genocide argument cite 7 October as its beginning.

Cheers, and thank you to all of you who have been willing to wade into a situation as messy as this one to try to produce a quality article. -- LWG ^talk 17:55, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Support Should be an uncontroversial improvement Placeholderer (talk) 18:12, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Support As well. Reading it does seem to suggest that South African is also making a case B'Tselem and scholars. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 18:22, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Support I initially read it the wrong way as well. --Super Goku V (talk) 19:11, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Support as an uncontroversial edit that merely improves clarity of reading and removes ambiguity Katzrockso (talk) 19:18, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Support 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 19:25, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

• Support. I am not sure "Support" is the right vote. It is once again incredibly unclear exactly what the vote is about. Nevertheless, to the best of my knowledge of English, if "Support" means, leave the sentence as is, without the quote from some unqualified Dutch journalist who claims there is such a thing as a "genocide expert," then I support. What the "F" is a "genocide expert"? What a ridiculous designation. How many years of study, and what exactly does one study, to become a "genocide expert?" Simply put, there is a new definition of genocide; basically it has become another word for "war." Is there a war going on in Gaza? Yes. Is it a genocide, meaning, is one side trying, on purpose, to destroy a nation as a whole? No. Accusing Israel of genocide is the ultimate blood libel, and even two lousy sentences about some Israeli think-tank's opinion needs to be castrated on Wikipedia by some inane Dutch journalist. This article should not be locked, it should be deleted.DaringDonna (talk) 19:59, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

  Support here simply refers to whether or not you support the proposed change in the body of the article Gaza genocide. Katzrockso (talk) 20:04, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

  Also, I think you might have intended to reply to the section above rather than this one :). -- LWG ^talk 20:26, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Support, seems like there's pretty good consensus. The original reading is indeed confusing. Cadenrock1 (talk) 20:50, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

 Done -- Cdjp1 (talk) 21:50, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Less confusing wording, but this really represents the absurdity of the entire claim. An unprovoked massacre resulted in an immediate genocide? These sources cannot be considered reliable, but Ill save that for another discussion. ← Metallurgist (talk) 03:56, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Gaza war:

• Following the surprise attack, the Israeli Air Force conducted airstrikes that they said targeted Hamas targets, employing its artificial intelligence Habsora ("The Gospel") software. These airstrikes killed, on average, 350 persons per day during the first 20 days, totaling over 7,000 deaths during that time.
• As a part of the order, the IDF outlined a six-hour window on 13 October for refugees to flee south along specified routes. An explosion along one of the safe routes killed 70 Palestinians.
• On 17 October, Israel bombed areas of southern Gaza. Late in the evening, an explosion occurred in the parking lot of the Al-Ahli Arabi Baptist Hospital in the center of Gaza City, killing hundreds. The ongoing conflict prevented independent on-site analysis. Palestinian statements that it was an Israeli airstrike were denied by the IDF, which stated that the explosion resulted from a failed rocket launch by Palestinian Islamic Jihad, who denied any involvement.
• The following day, the IDF struck Jabalia refugee camp, killing 50 and wounding 150 Palestinians. Israel said the attack killed a senior Hamas commander, whose presence Hamas denied, and dozens of militants.
• On 31 October, Israel bombed a six-story apartment building in central Gaza, killing at least 106 civilians including 54 children in what Human Rights Watch called an "apparent war crime".

There are justifications and denials in there, but the IDF did conduct strikes in Gaza as soon as possible. While they might be incorrect, the claim does not appear to be absurd. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:38, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

@LWG Yes.so it is strange that October 7 doesn't rate a mention right at the beginning of the article. We need to provide context. Roundtheworld (talk) 08:01, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Well, I tried

I tried reorganizing the lead in this edit but it immediately got reverted. Do we really have to do yet another RfC to change this? Isn't Wikipedia not supposed to be a bureaucracy? SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 22:32, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

That is a very disingenous way of dismissing established community consensus. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 22:35, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Just because Jimbo has entered the discussion doesn’t mean we can disregard the existing consensus. Editors have invested countless hours and sweat to reach it. Cinaroot (talk) 22:49, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Respectfully, the idea that we should regard the consensus as sacrosanct because of the work that went into it is missing the point. The intended goal of the consensus process is a neutral article, and we don't have one. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 11:02, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

There's a discussion above regarding whether we even need to open a new RfC. Could you lay out (there or here) why you think we should hold a new RfC so soon after the conclusion of the last one? WillowCity^(talk) 22:57, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

1. Civil POV pushing
2. Righting great wrongs mentality
3. Voluntary response bias in the RfC because of the above two items
4. Community consensus is overriding the principles of WP:NPOV which is undesirable
5. What Berchanhimez said: Because we've seen those trying to RGW shove through a name change by repeatedly making move requests until one finally stuck. We've seen the lead get changed by just holding RfCs until one had the outcome that some wanted. Basically the civil POV pushers held RfCs over and over again until the opposing editors just gave up trying.

SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 23:05, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

You are quite literally engaging in civil POV pushing, and also to reject what reliable academic sources say is also not WP:NPOV. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 23:20, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

How is adding attribution the same thing as "rejecting what reliable academic sources say"? SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 23:28, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Ironically, your insistence that you are right where the community is wrong, based only on your personal perspective & understanding of policy is closer to WP:RGW & WP:POVPUSHING then editors who are maintaining established community consensus.

Be aware that if you revert back to your preferred version tomorrow as you implied below, you may face sanctions. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 23:23, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

I won't revert back. How did I imply that? Am I not allowed to say I think the community consensus is flawed? SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 23:26, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

I was referring to your comment "I know; that (and the WP:1RR restriction) is why I haven't reverted back.". If I misinterpreted your comment, then I apologize & my warning moot. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 23:30, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

@Butterscotch Beluga: they started a discussion here. That's a pretty clear indication that they won't be reverting back more. To make a comment that adds literally nothing to the discussion they started other than threating sanctions is a good example of the type of comment that causes problems in this and other contentious topic areas.

I respectfully ask that you please consider not commenting at all on a discussion/thread if this is the only type of comment you can make. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 23:30, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

As I responded above, I may have misinterpreted their comment below "I know; that (and the WP:1RR restriction) is why I haven't reverted back.".

It was not my intention to threaten them as I genuinely wanted to warn them to be cautious based on my initial reading of that comment & to potentially take a step back. If my reading was inaccurate though, I apologized as the warning would be moot. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 23:37, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

You can call me a "he", I don't mind :) SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 23:39, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

I personally feel that attempts to "warn" others like this are best done on talkpages or through email (if you're comfortable doing email). Especially in a contentious topic like this, from what I've seen, doing it during the discussion itself is at best neutral, but often "raises the heat" so to speak - not necessarily of either you or the person you're trying to give advice to, but also from others who see this type of warning/advice and are more worked up when they end up replying.

But this is all just my personal opinion, not based on any specific policy/guideline, so take this how you will - to avoid any risk of me (further) extending this I'll leave it be at this - normally I would put this sort of thing on your talkpage but since I originally replied here (which, to be fair, I probably should've done on your talkpage originally, per my first paragraph) I'll include this apology here as well. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 00:21, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Responding to the one point because I was pinged - not sure I will be able to keep doing so since I'm on a plane right now to another work site so may not be able to reply (or review alternative links, Apple, please fix your iPads to use PC tabbing for web browsers, but I digress). I just want to say to be clear that I actually think (now) the name change was appropriate - mostly per WP:CONCISE. The name isn't the place we have to be strictly NPOV in entirety - otherwise we'd have article titles along the lines of Deaths that have occurred as part of Israel's attempt to eradicate Hamas which are considered by many to be a genocide or something similar. And heck, I doubt even then would the title be considered truly NPOV by many people - that's why we have CONCISE which, in my view, is in favor of the current title even if other changes are made.

Further, it's not civil POV pushing to attempt to enforce NPOV. Period. Accusations of POV pushing with zero evidence are not appropriate and should result in sanctions. IMO, they should result in faster and more severe sanctions in a topic area like this. But not only have such actions not resulted in faster/more severe sanctions here, they haven't resulted in any sanctions. That is the argument I'm making on this page. And bluntly (but still in good faith, to be clear), User:LegalSmeagolian, your reply to this adds nothing to this discussion and makes an accusation without evidence against another user. That is the type of comment that I feel derails many discussions on this topic - and should be penalized if it is repeated. If you don't have anything to add that's actually constructive, just don't reply - we should all abide by that, and I'm sure that even I myself have gone afoul of that - but when I'm called out on it, I try to take a step back and re-evaluate. I encourage everyone else to do the same much more often than many people seem to be doing here. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 23:28, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Please explain how what I said is at all different from your comments in your essay "Re: non-academic sources and 'significant minority viewpoint' versus FRINGE" that:

"I (and others) have long said that there is a clear attempt to push a POV by many editors in the topic area of Israel/Palestine - including at least one administrator and dozens of established editors. To be clear, this is not one sided - though there is a significantly higher number and veracity of them on one side."

That too adds nothing to the discussion. The current title and content of the article is NPOV, it reflects what reliable academic sources say on the topic. Just because those sources do not say what you want them to say does not mean they are not neutral. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 23:52, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

I don't want the article to say anything. I want the article to comply with NPOV which requires we cover all viewpoints that are not WP:FRINGE. The view that a genocide is not occurring is not FRINGE - it is a significant minority viewpoint. But it is currently being treated in the article (especially the lead) as if it is FRINGE. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 00:23, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

So would you support the addition of "Israel, the United States, and multiple other countries deny that a genocide is occurring." at the end of the first paragraph? Or do you have non-biased academic sources that state a genocide is not occuring? LegalSmeagolian (talk) 00:33, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

I don't want to state a final opinion on it until it's fully fleshed out, but my first thought on such a proposal is that it would be a significant step in the right direction (if not wholly resolving the NPOV issues of the lead). I would be willing to say that it almost fully resolves what is probably my biggest issue with the lead of this article - that the contrary opinion (which in my (and others') view is a significant minority opinion, not FRINGE) is "demoted" to a few words (not even a full sentence) at the very end of the lead. And even if it doesn't fully resolve it, it'd probably (again, not stating a final opinion until a full proposal) be close enough to not merit further changes.

By elevating the significant minority opinion to at least be stated at the end of the first paragraph, it would be much closer to due weight than treating it as virtually FRINGE in a few words at the end of the lead. There has also been at least one proposal recently to add a new second paragraph (i.e. after the first, which correctly reports the majority view, but before the "details" start getting into) that covers the minority view in a sentence and has a couple other sentences that deal with the reactions/politics/etc (i.e. not being dedicated to the contrary opinion, but making it a full paragraph rather than one sentence). I would probably prefer such a solution (a new second paragraph) rather than one sentence at the end of the first paragraph - but it's so fuzzy right now that I can't say for sure and would obviously depend on what exactly the whole paragraph was doing and saying.

I suspect (and correctly so, given that it's going to be controversial) that any sort of change/addition like this would require an RFC however. Hence why I'm not willing to say for sure whether I would support it and whether it would suffice since it will depend on the exact wording (and any other changes in the meantime).

And in any case, thank you for discussing this constructively to try and find a solution rather than just fighting. I don't think we thank each other enough on this site (especially in contentious topics) when constructive comments occur, especially after the heat that has happened on this talkpage in the recent days. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 00:51, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

I agree with LegalSmeagolian and -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez, and apologize SuperPianoMan9167 personally as a sole Wikipedian. Clarifying: I think it is appropriate to add the statement that states oppose the article title. _Dgw|Talk 04:41, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

I do appreciate attempts here to let people know they've stopped assuming good faith and are engaging in personal attacks. I've done that myself above when things have gotten especially nasty, but given people some grace in venting about abuse of power and lack of respect for the RFC process and people just going ahead and relitigating the RFC. Some people debating this and other topics they care about can indeed be too quick to reach for "you have an agenda and are evil" instead of focusing on the merits of content. If you see something that rises to the level of needing an admin to sanction someone, however, I believe the place to report it is WP:AN/I. Uninvolved admins (I'm now an involved one) seldom patrol talk pages looking for civility violations, and with this topic there's a lot to read through and a lot of angry people ready to attack anyone for not very good reasons. -- Beland (talk) 08:30, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

I haven't seen any concrete evidence of civil POV pushing, at least not in the direction I suspect you're alleging. I think reasonable people can disagree about what NPOV requires, what is due and undue weight... that is why we have consensus processes like RfCs, to hear different arguments and get to the bottom of how most editors feel the policy should be applied in a given case. That happened here. Community consensus did not override NPOV, editors made arguments about what the NPOV policy means in the context of this article and what scholars and other reputable sources are saying. Those arguments led to the current language, after the RfC was closed and the arguments weighed.

As for RGW, I do not agree that that mentality is prevalent. To quote from that policy:

"So, if you want to: ...

Explain what you are sure is the truth of a current ... political... or moral issue ...

...you'll have to wait until it's been reported by reliable sources or published in books from reputable publishing houses."

That is exactly what happened here; it was not just reported, but a consensus formed among scholarship. This is not a case of a fringe WP:OR theory being pushed, it's editors coming to a conclusion that the scholarship is sufficiently unequivocal on this point to state in Wikivoice what is occurring.

As for point 5, I do not believe that the solution to "too many RfCs to get the outcome someone wants" is to hold a new RfC to get the outcome someone else wants. WillowCity^(talk) 00:06, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Which is why I tried to solve this without an RfC, but my edit was short-lived as I was immediately reverted with the edit summary "per RfC". SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 13:30, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

RE: #5

did i miss some move requests or RFCs? i see 4 relevant Move Requests; the 2 most recent proposed changing the title to something other than "Gaza genocide". i see 2 RFCs about saying there's a genocide in gaza in wikivoice in the lede.

Move requests:

• Not moved, 29 February 2024, from Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza to Attempted genocide by Israel in their 2023 attack on Gaza, see discussion.
• Moved, 3 May 2024, from Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza to Gaza genocide, see discussion.
• Not moved, 6 December 2024, from Gaza genocide to Gaza genocide allegations, see discussion.
• Not moved, 28 March 2025, from Gaza genocide to Gaza genocide accusation, see discussion.

RFCs about saying gaza genocide in wikivoice in the lede:

• Rough Consensus against, May 2025- Talk:Gaza genocide/Archive 9#RfC: Genocide in wikivoice/opening sentence
• Consensus in support, Sep 2025- Talk:Gaza genocide/RfC on first sentence, 21 September 2025

Rainsage (talk) 00:34, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

I would also comment that the move was then subject to a MR. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 08:59, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

We already had a months long RFC where the consensus was clear that attribution was not needed. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 22:59, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

WP:BOLD

Do not feel upset if your bold edits get reverted. [emphasis in the original]

Cambial — foliar❧ 23:02, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

I know; that (and the WP:1RR restriction) is why I haven't reverted back. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 23:10, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

I think it would be prudent for anyone planning a change that is likely to be contentious to propose it here first, and obtain consensus. ← Metallurgist (talk) 04:01, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

I don't think it was necessarily wrong to be bold, but I agree that there should be consensus for changes. In fact, I was about to ask the admin who recently full protected the article to extend it given the ongoing discussions on the talkpage here. But I hoped that it'd be okay to let it expire - which it seems to be. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 04:19, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

I dont think it was wrong, but this is a WP:READTHEROOM (does that exist?) situation. ← Metallurgist (talk) 18:20, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Would it make sense to move up the recognitions of genocide in the paragraph? This wouldn't diminish the Wikivoice from the RfC. (If the other changes I add here with "encompasses" and "deliberate" are unexpectedly controversial they can be tossed).

−

The Gaza genocide is the ongoing, intentional, and systematic destruction of the Palestinian people in the Gaza Strip carried out by Israel during the Gaza war. The genocidal acts include mass killings, starvation, infliction of serious bodily and mental harm, and preventing births. Other acts include blockading, destroying civilian infrastructure, destroying healthcare facilities, killing healthcare workers and aid-seekers, causing mass forced displacement, committing sexual violence, and destroying educational, religious, and cultural sites. The genocide has been recognised by a United Nations special committee and commission of inquiry, the International Association of Genocide Scholars, multiple human rights groups, numerous genocide studies and international law scholars, and other experts.

+

The Gaza genocide is the ongoing, intentional, and systematic destruction of the Palestinian people in the Gaza Strip carried out by Israel during the Gaza war, as recognised by a United Nations special committee and commission of inquiry, the International Association of Genocide Scholars, multiple human rights groups, numerous genocide studies and international law scholars, and other experts. It encompasses mass killings, deliberate starvation, infliction of serious bodily and mental harm, and preventing births. Other acts include blockading, destroying civilian infrastructure, destroying healthcare facilities, killing healthcare workers and aid-seekers, causing mass forced displacement, committing sexual violence, and destroying educational, religious, and cultural sites.

Pardon me if this idea has already been discussed elsewhere Placeholderer (talk) 09:18, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

IMO it does diminish Wikivoice from my read of it, but I'm open to others' takes on the proposed revision. CherrySoda (talk) 09:30, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

I've boldly implemented this, with adjustment so it does not alter the first sentence as per the result of the RFC. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 12:57, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

"Do we need another RfC to overturn the outcome of a past RfC?"

Yes, we do. Cortador (talk) 10:49, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

• User:SuperPianoMan9167 - I think even discussing any change to the lead line is going to need a RFC - just too much contention here for BRD to be usable. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:36, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

  Yup. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 01:56, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

RfC concerning the mention of the Gaza genocide in the Israel article

Israel has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Chess enjoyer (talk) 01:52, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

I don't think enough editors have seen this. M.Bitton (talk) 18:43, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Are we allowed to update the title as "Israel has an RfC: Whether to state that Israel has committed genocide against Palestinians" Cinaroot (talk) 00:00, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

That's presupposition, so no. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 00:11, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

I think that would be helpful. EvansHallBear (talk) 00:44, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Is that what that RfC is about? If that's the case, then there is a problem. M.Bitton (talk) 00:47, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

It's about the same thing as the RfC on this article: using attribution vs. wikivoice. The article does (and definitely should) state, in some form or another, that Israel's actions in the Gaza strip have been described as genocide by a significant number of reliable sources and scholarly assessments. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 00:53, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

You're confusing your persistent attempts to circumvent the consensus (regarding the genocide in wiki voice) with what the RfC is about. M.Bitton (talk) 01:29, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

The RFC is about if it should be included in wikivoice in the Israel article that is literally what both new proposals are and the status quo is to use the current wording which is attribution(indeed many !votes on that page state if they are for or against including it in wikivoice on that page.) GothicGolem29 (Talk) 03:00, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Of course, though I'd change it to to something along the lines of RfC concerning the mention of the Gaza genocide in the Israel article. M.Bitton (talk) 01:50, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes to Cinaroot’s question and wording of it. Very sensible. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:51, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

For the record, I'm okay with the title change, as the new one makes the relation of the RfC to this article clear. Chess enjoyer (talk) 09:12, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Scholars for Truth about Genocide letter

I can't see a mention in the article of the "Scholars for Truth About Genocide" letter (link 682 in the current expert opinions template, date: 7 September 2025), although we do mention the IAGS statement the letter was responding to. The letter did attract some quality press, so I was surprised to find it was missing here. Example:

• Hundreds of Scholars Call on Genocide Scholars Group to Retract Declaration of Genocide in Gaza, Haaretz, 7 Sep. 2025

Now, I understand that there were problems with this letter. For example, a good many names among the signatories were not genocide scholars, but scholars of completely different fields (or no scholars at all ...), some names were nonsense names, others were included without the person knowing, etc. However, similar complaints were made about the IAGS declaration – the IAGS has an open-door policy, and not all IAGS members are scholars (and as with the Scholars letter, some people registered silly names as IAGS members after the declaration was published). Was there a conscious decision not to include the Scholars letter, or any of the controversy about the IAGS declaration? I couldn't find a related discussion in the archives. Andreas JN466 16:55, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

The IAGS is notable and its statement was covered in hundreds of RS. Would you say the same about this letter? M.Bitton (talk) 17:05, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Times Higher Education said it was covered widely in Israeli media. See:

• Academics say names added to Israel-Gaza letter ‘without consent’, Times Higher Education, 9 September 2025 (also mirrored by Inside Higher Ed)

Incidentally, this THE/IHE article should be added as a reference to the expert opinions template, because it has better information. Note that it says the letter was authored not by UK Lawyers for Israel, but by "Elliot Malin, founder and president of Alpine Strategies", and published by the "Academic Engagement Network".

There was also some international coverage. Probably not hundreds, but I see mentions in India, South Africa, France, Germany. Will look around later. Andreas JN466 18:10, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Until the letter removes the last of the fake names on it, I oppose inclusion. I detailed previously the cavalcade of fun that was watching the list balloon and then be hastily cut down repeatedly over the multiple days since they first published in a previous discussions here. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 21:25, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

The Inside Higher Ed/Times Higher Education article is available to provide context. It is from a highly regarded publication. They say, for example:

• While many of the signatories on the list profess to be scholars of genocide and Holocaust studies, other signatories include pianists, technology workers and playwrights, and not all appear to be academics or teachers, despite the group’s name. ... AEN did not respond to a request for comment on how it has sought to verify the legitimacy of the remaining signatories.

I understand the idea of ignoring it, but mentioning and critiquing something like this can also be useful info – especially as more people will have seen the letter than the critique. YMMV. Cheers, Andreas JN466 23:16, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

My statement that it currently includes, not people that may not be relevant to assessment, but are entirely fabricated individuals that do not exist, stands. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 07:48, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

I’m looking for the actual letter online and struggling. “Signatories include Eli Rosenbaum, former US Department of Justice war crimes prosecutor; Jeffrey Mausner, former Nazi war crimes prosecutor with the US Department of Justice; Alan Dershowitz, prominent civil rights attorney; Norman J.W. Goda, Braman Professor of Holocaust Studies at the University of Florida and an AEN faculty member; The Honorable, Professor Irwin Cotler, former Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada and Canada’s first Special Envoy on Combatting Antisemitism and Preserving Holocaust Remembrance...” seems highly noteworthy to me even if there are also fake signatures. BobFromBrockley (talk) 02:21, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Presumably we'd need a source or sources independently confirming that those people also actually signed this letter, explaining how they came to that conclusion. -- Beland (talk) 03:47, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

We are not citing an unvetted petition as notable, let alone as a reliable source.

The IAGS's notability & reliability has repeatedly been discussed on this page & the Scholars for Truth About Genocide has no such reputation. They aren't even a formal organization, instead being an assorted list of people who signed a website, most without relevant credentials. Further discrepancies included people listed against their will, Cary Nelson being listed twice, & the inclusion of Holocaust educator Sheila Stein despite having died in 2013.

(I actually started going through & checking the credentials of the people listed, but stopped at 350 as it seemed to've stopped being relevant. If needed, I could try putting it in the sandbox) Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 18:58, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Per Butterscotch Beluga and Cdjp1, we're not citing that nonsense. CNC (talk) 21:31, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Aren’t you all blurring reliability and noteworthiness? We don’t need to assess the reliability of the letter because we’re not citing it for facts. We report opinions based on the weight given them by reliable sources. We don’t repeat what the IAGS says in our voice; we report its opinion because we know it is noteworthy based on secondary sources.

The job of a balanced article is to report the controversy neutrally, which in this case would be showing that the majority of scholars are in agreement but that a significant minority disagree. BobFromBrockley (talk) 23:31, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Sure, I can understand referencing it in the Academic and legal responses to the Gaza genocide article under Other scholars section as a mini-controversy based on sourcing, but not towards any serious contribution towards summarising content over here. I can see with the added context the relevance now though. CNC (talk) 23:53, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

I concur with this, that seems like the right place to discuss it. Discussing a minor letter that garnered limited media attention is WP:UNDUE in the larger article. Katzrockso (talk) 23:59, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

I was actually just looking at the Academic and legal responses to the Gaza genocide article as an alternate placement for it & I think that's a more appropriate place for this source, if it's going to be in article space.

I remain adamant though that it shouldn't be included here on the main page as it is a minor source more notable for its controversies & poor quality, rather then its actual substance. This page is already quite long, so it's best to keep it concise where possible with only the most notable sources being presented here & wider coverage explored in separate, sub-articles. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 00:25, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Since when do we cite any opinion (regardless of reliability)? The only source that has been presented tells us that the letter is full of garbage (adding scholars' names without their consent is a new low, even for unreliable sources). M.Bitton (talk) 23:55, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

We cite a lot of opinion in the article. For example we say: Multiple genocide scholars argue that settler colonialism is an important motive to Israel's actions. Raz Segal highlights the increasing idea of Jewish supremacy in Israeli politics. Amos Goldberg highlights the project of Greater Israel. Other scholars say the Gaza genocide is merely the latest stage of a "slow-motion genocide" of Palestinians. the historian Raz Segal said Israel was committing a "textbook case of genocide"; he was one of the first scholars to do so. Others argue that the war was initially legitimate and the genocide started later, in 2024 or 2025. Nimer Sultany argues that anti-Palestinianism is also a motive. Navi Pillay compared the statements of Israeli politicians to the genocidal incitement during the Rwandan genocide. The International Association of Genocide Scholars (IAGS) passed a resolution saying that Israel has committed genocide in Gaza. I’m sure most of that is noteworthy, but these are all opinions which we rightly report with attribution. Why can’t we use the same encyclopaedic approach to noteworthy opinions going the other way? BobFromBrockley (talk) 05:57, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

It seems like a major problem here is that even the attribution here is unreliable; the expression of these opinions was to some degree a hoax. I would look to other sources which make similar criticisms of the original declaration. -- Beland (talk) 23:29, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Fabricating information to mislead the public about people's views on potential violations of the Genocide Convention (or more fuzzy definitions of the term 'genocide') seems noteworthy. Did RS cover that aspect of it? Sean.hoyland (talk) 04:44, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Curious whether Thammasat University Faculty of Law alumni Nuon Chea signed it, despite the slight inconvenience of being dead. Sean.hoyland (talk) 05:40, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

 Added by Jayen466 to Academic and legal responses to the Gaza genocide. [26] For reference this letter was already covered in that article with the Haaretz source, now the concerns with it have been added. CNC (talk) 14:05, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Slow-mo edit war over the POV template?

Added, removed, added, removed, added, removed

Come on now. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 02:30, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

no reason to add, there will always be someone enraged at this article by nature of the article.
but consensus seems not to have changed, as per Talk:Gaza_genocide#How_to_proceed?, we don't do permanent tags on articles. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 02:58, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Gaza_genocide#How_to_proceed? is about the RfC on the first sentence; the RfC wasn't about and doesn't preclude NPOV concerns expressed about the rest of the article.

In any case, for the reasons I've mentioned earlier on this talk page, the criteria for adding the tag outlined at WP:NPOVD were met, and the specific admonition in the tag is that it shouldn't be removed until other criteria are satisfied, and they have not been.

Anyway, I'm too close to this debate, as I'm one of the editors who restored the tag (and sought to expand on the reasons it was included), and I'm a bit tired of folks citing rules not contained in Wikipedia policy (such as that this tag can't be used on contentious topics) to justify removing the tag. Coining (talk) 03:17, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

@Coining: If you want the tag on the article, you must specify the specific issues you want fixed. A hand-wavy "there's a dispute" isn't good enough. QuicoleJR (talk) 12:37, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

But that's very much not what I did. (And I'm not even sure why "there's a dispute" is put in quotation marks -- I didn't use that phrase.) Take a look at the text of the tag I restored and expanded upon, the explanation of that edit ("Restoring NPOV tag removed yesterday despite active discussion on the talk page. The prior editor's explanation for including it had been made on the talk page, so it should not have been removed, per Template:POV. In any case, I have listed a series of talk page discussions raising NPOV issues. This is far from a drive-by." Even more straightforwardly, immediately after restoring and expanding the tag, I posted on this talk page an explanation of specific issues and specific sections of this talk page that warranted the tag. It's really not that hard to search for my username on this talk page before accusing me of tagging the article with no explanation or just a hand wave. Coining (talk) 13:36, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Let's go through your list of discussions and see how they stack up against the WP:NPOVD criteria of specific issues that are actionable within the content policies:

• Talk:Gaza_genocide#Statement_from_Jimbo_Wales: Closed discussion so clearly not actionable.
• Talk:Gaza_genocide#NPOV_Dispute_Template: No specific issues identified with mostly meta-discussion about the usage of the NPOV template. Some references to above statement from Jimbo as well as talk page discussion more broadly.
• Talk:Gaza_genocide#Edit_request:_add_subsection_"Statements_rejecting_the_genocide_characterization": The request was rejected on a procedural basis and most of the discussion objected to the inclusion of an arbitrary list of opinions already covered at Gaza genocide recognition. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say that there may be something actionable here regarding how to best incorporate dissenting opinions in the article.
• Talk:Gaza_genocide#Question: Request to overturn the RfC consensus to state genocide in Wikivoice. Not actionable.
• Talk:Gaza_genocide#Re:_non-academic_sources_and_"significant_minority_viewpoint"_versus_FRINGE: Worthwhile discussion topic but nothing specific or actionable.
• Talk:Gaza_genocide#A_regular_edit_request_amidst_the_chaos: The only discussion that is truly specific and actionable. However, this does not warrant an NPOV tag on the entire page but instead in the specific section discussing the BESA report.
• Talk:Gaza_genocide#Well,_I_tried: User upset that their attempt to unilaterally overturn the RfC consensus to state genocide in Wikivoice was reverted. Not actionable.

Based on this, it's very difficult to see how your restoration of the NPOV tag was actually meant to constructively improve the article. EvansHallBear (talk) 22:31, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

I could technically open another RfC to overturn the most recent RfC but that seems like a really bad idea for reasons that have already been explained. The best course of action I can take is to stop editing in this topic area, and I will (attempt to) do that. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 22:37, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this is how the Gaza genocide article got to its current state. Editors like @SuperPianoMan9167 make insightful comments, but then enough editors of the opposite point of view engage in sealioning and/or threatening with sanctions, and the editor with the less popular view then withdraws. But I do get it, and I appreciate your contributions. No matter what you decide to do going forward, I wish you all the best. Coining (talk) 00:53, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

If it was very difficult, how about asking me, instead of casting aspersions.

First, you've misstated the WP:NPOVD criteria. As I pointed out near the top of Talk:Gaza_genocide#NPOV_Dispute_Template, WP:NPOVD says that specificity is needed "If you add this template to an article in which there is no relevant discussion underway," and all those pre-existing talk discussions are at least relevant to the NPOV debate -- I identified them by searching for the term "NPOV" on this talk page. The explicit admonition on WP:NPOVD and the tag itself is to not remove the template prematurely, and yet that's exactly what has been done, multiple times.

But as to specifics:

• On Talk:Gaza_genocide#Statement_from_Jimbo_Wales - Why are NPOV concerns in a closed discussion not actionable? Just open up the discussion, read the relevant parts, and act on them if you (or any other editor) would like. But also, as I noted previously, that talk section was closed by a (2-time) participant in the very discussion that was closed, which is not, as I understand it, how conversations should get closed. Of course it's very convenient to use the improper closing to not only stop that discussion from continuing, but now also act as though the hundreds of comments in it from @Jimbo Wales and other editors can now be wholesale ignored without any analysis of whether they raise legitimate NPOV concerns.
• On Talk:Gaza_genocide#NPOV_Dispute_Template - Though you write "No specific issues identified", even a search for the word "specific" would have found in that section:

For example (and this is just one example), an editor could believe that even with the first sentence as is, a reader shouldn’t have to wait until the fifth paragraph to get any information about the minority view (and even then about only Israel's position, as if no one else outside Israel thinks that the genocide conclusion is unwarranted). Specifics like this have already been mentioned on this talk page (the above one by @SuperPianoMan9167), so the NPOV Dispute Template is appropriately placed in the article.

No wonder @SuperPianoMan9167 is now considering stopping editing in this topic area, when his suggestions are simply ignored.

• On Talk:Gaza_genocide#Edit_request:_add_subsection_"Statements_rejecting_the_genocide_characterization" - This edit request raises the NPOV issue of whether the article fully enough presents the range of entities/organisations that do not accept the genocide conclusion. @Boutboul provides a series of examples that aren't in the article, provides reliable sources, and the article's existing "Political discourse" section contains references to, for example, countries in support of the genocide characterization that are not more noteworthy than the examples in this edit request. That is an actionable NPOV concern.
• On Talk:Gaza_genocide#Question - This is the section where @SuperPianoMan9167 first raised the fifth paragraph concern mentioned above, and more generally it raises the concern of whether the noted RfC precludes compliance with WP:NPOV. For reasons @Jimbo Wales raised in his statement, it's not even clear that an RfC can override one of the WP:FIVEPILLARS. Even if one views the RfC as sacrosanct (although consensus can change), the RfC was about the first sentence (literally titled "RfC on first sentence"), so there are ways to address the substantive NPOV concerns raised in this section by making edits past the first sentence. The comment from @Larry Sanger in this section is itself essentially conveying an WP:NPOV concern (among other concerns). Anyway, it's a long discussion section that shouldn't just be summarily dismissed with Request to overturn the RfC consensus to state genocide in Wikivoice. Not actionable.
• On Talk:Gaza_genocide#Re:_non-academic_sources_and_"significant_minority_viewpoint"_versus_FRINGE - the implications of this conversation go directly to WP:NPOV issues, as if the opposition to the genocide conclusion is a minority viewpoint, rather than a WP:FRINGE theory, then WP:NPOV requires the minority viewpoint be given its WP:DUE. When you say that there is nothing specific or actionable here, are you saying that editors like @Berchanhimez who wrote extensively in this section agree that none of what he's writing would imply any changes to the Gaza genocide article? I highly doubt that. If you can't find relevant article changes to make yourself, the action item would be to ask editors like @Berchanhimez, whom I suspect would happily oblige you with a set of specific action items.
• On Talk:Gaza_genocide#A_regular_edit_request_amidst_the_chaos - You say that this is The only discussion that is truly specific and actionable. However, this does not warrant an NPOV tag on the entire page but instead in the specific section discussing the BESA report. So, I'll accept that, if this were the the only NPOV issue in the article. In any case, the questioned material has been removed from the article, so it is now a moot point (which it wasn't at the time of my earlier comment).
• On Talk:Gaza_genocide#Well,_I_tried - You write User upset that their attempt to unilaterally overturn the RfC consensus to state genocide in Wikivoice was reverted. Not actionable., but the attempted (and then reverted edit from @SuperPianoMan9167 affected more material than just the first sentence that is, seemingly, locked in by the RfC. So, again, you could take the action of inquiring with that editor whether there is a way to modify their edit in light of both that restriction and subsequent edits to address WP:NPOV concerns.

Lastly, your reply (the one I'm replying to now) was to a comment in which I suggested to search for my username on this talk page for other specifics. Here, for example, are some specific concerns I mentioned about the infobox at the top of the article. @Michaelas10 may be putting together a further list. Coining (talk) 03:46, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

The fifth paragraph thing has since been fixed by CommunityNotesContributor in Special:Diff/1320592290. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 04:15, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

I added more coverage of the opposing views to the first paragraph in Special:Diff/1321025448. What do you think? SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 04:42, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

@M.Bitton: May I ask why you reverted my edits to the lead? You said in the edit summary, "Not without consensus", but that's not a valid reason to revert. The RfC consensus only applies to the wording of the first sentence, so why can't I make bold changes to the other parts of the first paragraph? SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 04:58, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

1) Comparing some cherry picked/irrelevant countries to scholars is the definition of WP:FALSEBALANCE. 2) if we ever need to mention the countries (certainly not in the lead), then we'll name all the countries that describe it is as genocide.

Contrary to what you seem to think while seeking support from a specific editor (below), Your so-called "bold change" (to the lead section of all places) was reverted for a valid reason. M.Bitton (talk) 05:20, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Ok, but when you revert my edits, can you please include a more detailed edit summary than "Not without consensus"? SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 05:26, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

It doesn't seem like this is at all settled -- see here from just a short time ago, for instance. I'd rather keep lists comprehensive rather than assuming that some temporary version of the article has solved an issue for all time.

Also, the location of the minority view (5th paragraph vs. 1st paragraph) is just one of the points. It's also the limited framing of that minority view that is at issue. Indeed, the existing article still relegates the explanation of the not-a-genocide position to the 5th paragraph, and in the 1st paragraph links to Gaza genocide denial, which is not a neutral attempt to present the minority view, but rather an attempt to discredit it. Coining (talk) 16:00, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

I removed that link per both NPOV and MOS:EGG. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:09, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. Coining (talk) 16:14, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

And already, @QuicoleJR's well-reasoned small change has been reversed. Coining (talk) 02:21, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

I started a new talk page section about that below. QuicoleJR (talk) 03:01, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

@Coining: Not only are my suggestions being ignored, I am also being threatened with sanctions, warned I might be taken to AE, accused of civil POV pushing, accused of tag team edit warring, chastised for attempting to "unilaterally overturn the RfC consensus", and reverted with little explanation other than "no consensus". SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 05:13, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

It’s not one enraged person. It’s a whole, very active talk page of editors arguing over neutrality. The fact it’s an emotive topic doesn’t make that less true. BobFromBrockley (talk) 06:01, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

the tag may not be used as a badge of shame. It's hardly necessary to draw more eyes to the article and there is no consensus that major POV issues exist, so I do not see any benefit to having it even if I agreed with the rationale. (t · c) buidhe 07:16, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Theres always gonna be folks talking about how its nonneutral forever.

but tags are not supposed to be permanent, and this article has been the subject of countless RFCs and discussions. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 13:43, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

There is a large space between permanent and editors not even allowing the tag (backed by specific, active discussions on this talk page) to be up for more than a few hours. If the NPOV tag referenced archived discussions, perhaps that would be an attempt at permanent tagging, but that's not at all what's been put forth. Coining (talk) 14:03, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

There have been move discussions and RFCs on this. Consensus is crystal clear. Anyone adding the tag is going against consensus and can be taken to WP:AE at any time. Consider this a general warning as all of the persons adding have previously been advised that this is a contentious topic area. TarnishedPath^talk 11:48, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Threatening sanctions is not conducive to discussion. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 12:03, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Participating in tag team edit warring against established consensus is a behavioural issue. TarnishedPath^talk 12:52, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

I have neither added nor removed the tag from the article. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 13:30, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Who are you accusing of co-ordinating with whom? On second thoughts: Probably best not to answer here but at a noticeboard that deals with such behaviour, as quite a strong accusation. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:00, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

It is when some people don't get it — 🧀Cheesedealer ^!!!⚟ 12:54, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

+1 M.Bitton (talk) 13:00, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Whatever consensus is "crystal clear" is limited to the first sentence; it was literally titled "RfC on first sentence." As I've written on this talk page previously, it doesn't stand for the proposition that the entire article isn't the subject of an NPOV dispute. Threatening sanctions for "going against consensus" when the scope of that consensus is being misrepresented is not appropriate. Also, per WP:TAGTEAM, "Unsubstantiated accusations of tag teaming are uncivil." Coining (talk) 13:21, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

As others have said, the reason for the tag is issues throughout the entry rather than the first sentence - there has been no RfC about these issues in general. While I support adding the tag, it needs to be justified by an organized list of major issues alongside sources showing either clear omissions of contradictory information or misrepresentations of cited information. Then there needs to be an agreement that the issues are indeed real and will require significant work to address. Has anyone compiled such a list before? If not, I can give it a shot. I already pointed out a few specific issues in discussions above, and fixed some of them (the water blockade claim and 83% civilian casualties interpretation). Michaelas10 (talk) 15:38, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

A possible starting place could be based on going through the list of sections of this talk page that I noted above which explicitly mention NPOV concerns, an edit which also includes the particular item about the lead not mentioning anything about a minority viewpoint until its fifth paragraph.

There are lots of issues if you'd rather start going through the article itself. For instance, the infobox asserts that the genocide started on "7 October 2023", instead of simply saying "October 2023", despite noting "This start date is the beginning of the war. Sources disagree on when the genocide started..." (So, if we know there is a disagreement, why is the infobox taking one side of that disagreement?) In addition, one of the infobox's notes says, "Per the Gaza Health Ministry and Government Information Office, which has previously been deemed reliable by prominent and independent organisations", even though a neutral approach would recognize that some reliable sources deem the ministry reliable and some do not.

Thank you for anything you can do help compile a list of issues that need to be addressed. Coining (talk) 21:51, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

The article is currently featured in the ITN section on the Main Page, so adding the tag is highly inappropriate. Doing so undermines both the established consensus and the editorial process that was properly followed. Cinaroot (talk) 05:10, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

The consensus and editorial process concerned the first sentence, not NPOV throughout the article. "The article is currently featured in the ITN section on the Main Page, so adding the tag is highly inappropriate." Is there any policy which suggests this? I would actually argue the opposite - the high publicity gives even more of an impetus to put scrutiny on the article (including about POV issues) and improve it. Michaelas10 (talk) 11:13, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

NOOOOOOOO....... I clearly recall that Arbitration Committee member HJ Mitchell once removed an NPOV tag from a featured article (not an ITN item) for a similar reason—because featured articles represent the best of Wikipedia, and such tags are not appropriate for them. Editors are expected to resolve disputes on the talk page instead.

ITN items, likewise, are only selected if they meet a high standard of quality. See WP:ITN. Cinaroot (talk) 15:06, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Here is the ref. edit Cinaroot (talk) 15:10, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

That precedent clearly does not apply here. It is on ITN simply because it is a current event, not because it was deemed by the community to represent the best of Wikipedia. Michaelas10 (talk) 15:14, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Attention everyone, I started a draft of a list of major neutrality issues which - when completed - will form the backbone of a future RfC on this topic. Feel free to add or edit. Thanks! Michaelas10 (talk) 12:51, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Per the section title RfC: NPOV tag, is this an RfC over applying an NPOV tag? CNC (talk) 14:23, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Not yet. Once I (and maybe others) complete the list, and determine that the issues indeed cannot be straightforwardly addressed, then it will become an RfC. Michaelas10 (talk) 14:49, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

An RfC to have an NPOV tag added or to make changes though? CNC (talk) 15:37, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

It is about whether a temporary tag is warranted while we work through the specific unwarranted weight/omission issues that I will raise. It is not an omnibus proposal for content changes; those will be handled in separate, focused threads. Michaelas10 (talk) 17:56, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

So you're suggesting a one-month long RfC on whether to include this tag? Is that correct? CNC (talk) 18:23, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Please stop trying to box @Michaelas10 in. All that has been done is the creation of a sandbox page, and @Michaelas10 has been kind enough to post about it in this public discussion. There is no need to prejudge that effort, or get @Michaelas10 or any other editor to decide in advance what exactly \the sandbox page will be used for. The page created conforms with the intentionally loose rules of WP:ABOUTSAND. I recommend caring more about the POV issues with the main article, rather than what @Michaelas10 might eventually decide to do with the sandbox page. Coining (talk) 18:34, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Huh? What part of me asking questions is prejudging, would you like to strike that now? I'm trying to understand what the RfC proposal actually is as it remains unclear. I've already patrolled the sandbox, so I'm not suggesting there is any issue with it...? CNC (talk) 18:46, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

There is no RfC proposal so long as it stays on the sandbox page. There is no need to get clarification on it now, because anything on that page is still a work in progress. Coining (talk) 23:57, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Correct, but the intent is not to run a month by default; it’s simply to get a clear consensus on the tag while we address specific issues in parallel. If there’s quick consensus either way, I’m fine with an early close. If folks prefer to avoid an RfC entirely, I’m also willing to take this to NPOV Noticeboard for outside input instead. Michaelas10 (talk) 18:44, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

I think an entire RFC on whether the tag can be placed temporarily on the article is unnecessary. Personally, I would support the tag's inclusion on the condition that it will be removed again once all of the threads you plan to open conclude, to make sure that it is truly temporary. Would you consider that acceptable? QuicoleJR (talk) 19:09, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

That sounds good, but based on the above it seems others will disagree. What do folks think? One motivation for wanting to make this into an RfC is simply to get everyone on the same page. Michaelas10 (talk) 19:24, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Address them one by one. If you put a rfc for everything - i will oppose it. There are so many discussions here i cannot keep track off. Cinaroot (talk) 14:59, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I’m happy to address specific issues one by one. However, I will argue that in this case there is an article-wide balance issue (undue weight/omissions) that merits proposing a POV tag while we work through these issues. Per WP:TAGGING and the NPOV docs, tags are appropriate when there are real, actionable concerns, and when they are linked to a talk section summarizing the issues (i.e., not an omnibus tag). This will allow everyone to be on board with the requested changes and their underlying justification. Michaelas10 (talk) 15:11, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

I understand your point, but it’s important to see the broader picture. Having a POV tag on a high-visibility article featured on the main page reflects poorly on Wikipedia. This is one of the most actively discussed talk pages, with significant attention from many editors, so there’s already ample oversight. A POV tag isn’t necessary in this context. Cinaroot (talk) 15:23, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

(I haven't read this full thread, but) I don't see why it should reflect poorly. It's an indicator that there's active discussion Placeholderer (talk) 15:41, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

But some editors' ideas are immediately shot down by the same handful of people. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 16:04, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Your first so-called idea was disruptive beyond the pale, and your second was reverted for a good reason. If you still believe that they shouldn't have been reverted, then instead of throwing accusations around, you should take you concerns to AE. M.Bitton (talk) 16:19, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

It's having an article with significant NPOV issues that reflects poorly on Wikipedia, not the tag itself. And it's not a matter of whether a POV tag is necessary; the question is whether it is allowed (which it is), and whether removal of the tag is allowed at this time (which it isn't per WP:NPOVD and the instructions in the tag itself). Coining (talk) 16:10, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Getting everyone on the same page

So, me and Michaelas10 have come to an agreement earlier in this section, to add the POV tag while Michael posts his threads for making the article more neutral, and to immediately remove it once all of those threads conclude. Does everyone else accept this? Thanks, QuicoleJR (talk) 19:28, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Pinging all participants in the above thread (sorry if I miss you): @SuperPianoMan9167, Bluethricecreamman, Coining, EvansHallBear, M.Bitton, BobFromBrockley, Buidhe, TarnishedPath, The Cheesedealer, Cinaroot, CommunityNotesContributor, and Placeholderer: thoughts on the above? QuicoleJR (talk) 19:33, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

No. I explained above why the POV tag will not contribute to improving the article. (t · c) buidhe 19:42, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Strong NO. Explained many times Cinaroot (talk) 19:52, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes, please. The issues need to be addressed. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 19:55, 8 November 2025 (UTC) Putting the NPOV tag on the article is not necessary, but addressing the issues is. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 23:04, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm unaware of any other article where such a process has been necessary. I'm not sure what there is in terms of broad structural NPOV problems—i.e beyond an aggregation of little violations that, sure, are maybe policed a bit more diligently in one flavor than another. (Contrast that with, e.g, some of the war timelines which reference Al Jazeera hundreds and hundreds of times). I guess I can only wish good luck on the NPOV page—maybe there are such bigger problems—but it might risk becoming an unactionable laundry list encouraging semi-permanent placement of the NPOV template at best or providing a megaphone for POV-pushing at worst. I think what we can expect is that it somewhat substitute the talk page in the role of calling attention to problems.

I just feel like the template shouldn't be so complicated. This page is full of active discussions that can be taken as NPOV issues, since any issue at all here can be construed as NPOV noncompliance. I want to say that means we should just go ahead and use the template. Will there always be such active discussion here? Maybe? But Talk:Israel at least is far less discussion-"vibrant" right now, so it's not some guaranteed feature of the CTOP. My feeling is that yes, we should have the NPOV template up for now, since there's a lot of productive work happening that touches on that and I naively think that issues will be resolved over time. But I'm also not entirely sure what boost it provides, given that everyone on this page is thinking NPOV thoughts already. (But is the tag—albeit a maintenance tag—really only meant for editors?)

TLDR: I guess I support that the tag will be added. I feel weird about the new page Placeholderer (talk) 20:20, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Could someone refer me to where there's an existing consensus against the tag? @TarnishedPath said There have been move discussions and RFCs on this. Consensus is crystal clear, but I've only been at this page since Nov 2 and if the relevant RfCs and RMs were since then I must've missed them Placeholderer (talk) 23:24, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Update: consider my "I guess I support" to be a proper "support". At the very least, until someone points me to the previous NPOV-tag RFCs Placeholderer (talk) 15:36, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

The previous RFCs do exist, right? Placeholderer (talk) 15:21, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

NO, this has been explained. WP:DROPTHESTICK. TarnishedPath^talk 22:30, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

@TarnishedPath: I wasn't even one of the people pushing for the tag's inclusion, and I don't have a strong opinion on inclusion or exclusion. I was simply trying to work towards a compromise between the two camps and figure out where the consensus lies. If this discussion decides to omit the tag, I won't have a problem with it. I've only even made three or four comments in this thread, so I'd appreciate it if you could retract your accusation. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:40, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

My comment was meant to be generalised towards those pushing for the tag, not you specifically. Apologies if it case across that way. TarnishedPath^talk 22:44, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

I appreciate the clarification. I agree that some of the people pushing for the tag really should drop it, and a large part of the reason I started this subsection is so that we could get a final consensus one way or the other, so that we can finally move on to something more productive. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:54, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

We don't really need the tag on the article to address NPOV issues; we can still address them without putting a tag on the article. The drawback would be that other editors won't know that there are NPOV issues being addressed unless they check the talk page. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 23:03, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

POV tag should be added - I'm honestly a bit frustrated that this discussion has been framed in this way. WP:NPOV is policy. The text of the POV template is clear on the conditions that must be met for it to be removed. Editors who have added the tag have upheld policy; those who have removed it have asserted that there are no specific NPOV concerns on this talk page, and then are repeatedly shown examples. And yet that doesn't seem to make a difference. There is no equivalence between these approaches. It's one thing to have everyone agree that there should be an intense, one-month period of review of the article to lay out the range of specific NPOV issues, and allow editors in good faith to digest and respond to them. However, adding an NPOV tag while those many issues remain in the next month is proper regardless of whether this conversation specifically authorizes it. This conversation seems more likely to merely give those who improperly remove the tag yet another specious argument to do so if it concludes that the tag isn't warranted, and that's neither how WP:NPOV nor the tag's procedures work. I'd be happy to focus on the NPOV issues instead of the POV tag, if I saw enough instances of those issues not being summarily dismissed on this page. Coining (talk) 00:13, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

See WP:ITNUPDATE

Articles that are subject to serious issues, as indicated by 'orange'- or 'red'-level tags at either the article level or within any section, may not be accepted for an emboldened link.

This article is currently featured in the In the News (ITN) section. Such maintenance tags should not be added, as articles with these tags would not have been eligible for inclusion in ITN. Cinaroot (talk) 00:40, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

That's backwards. If it has the tag, it shouldn't be at ITN. Being at ITN shouldn't block the tag.

Though that is helpful context re: significance of the tag Placeholderer (talk) 00:45, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes, it does. It looks very bad on Wikipedia. Editors should use talk to resolve issues. You should not place such tags for articles featured on the main page. ArbCom members have reverted these tags when editors placed them on FA. Cinaroot (talk) 00:52, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

I just don't understand this point, as I commented previously. And per Michaelas10 regarding FAs Placeholderer (talk) 00:55, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

I understand his point—that the precedent applies only to Featured Articles. However, the point I’m trying to make is that this is a high-visibility article linked from Wikipedia’s main page, and placing such a tag on it reflects poorly on the project. It gives the impression that editors cannot maintain neutrality or resolve disputes through discussion, which undermines confidence in the article and in Wikipedia as a whole. Cinaroot (talk) 01:02, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Thats all i have to say about this. :( Cinaroot (talk) 01:03, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

I guess we just fundamentally interpret the meaning of maintenance tags differently. I think they show we're self-aware and working to improve. It's not the diagnosis that's bad; it's the condition.

Agree to disagree :| Placeholderer (talk) 01:07, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

No. per the above discussion. M.Bitton (talk) 00:45, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

A different tack

For the folks who oppose the above proposal, I would like to understand why a bit better. I have already written critiques about the neutrality of two of this article's sections based on high-quality sources, and expect to finish going over the whole article by a few weeks from now. As far as I can tell, most of my criticisms there are new and have not been discussed before (including in previous RfCs). Since it's a lot of work, I want to make sure I am not wasting my time here. Please indicate if you disagree because:

Option A: I need to present a convincing case first (as decided by consensus) before we put up the POV tag.

Option B: While it is worthwhile to present justified criticisms, even if I do so you still think a POV tag will not be conducive to the article's quality (please explain why if possible, or link to an earlier explanation).

Option C: The article is clearly balanced as it is, and you do not see any way that my analysis could possibly convince you it is not.

Thanks, Michaelas10 (talk) 01:03, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

I lean towards B. Your critiques will be very helpful and I, for one, will appreciate them. However, it doesn't seem like a tag will do the article much good. The main purpose of maintenance tags on Wikipedia AFAICT is for editors who are passing by to see them and help fix the issue, which this article doesn't need. We have enough people working on the issue right now and the fact that this article has issues right now is pretty well-known at the moment, so the tag is unnecessary. QuicoleJR (talk) 01:13, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

My reasoning is that placing a POV tag on a high-visibility article undermines confidence not only in the article itself but in Wikipedia as a whole. If you have neutrality concerns, the right approach is to open a discussion here and invite broader input—such as from the NPOV noticeboard, or by notifying relevant WikiProjects like Israel, Palestine, and others. There are many ways to bring in neutral editors and achieve balance. W Cinaroot (talk) 01:40, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Gotcha. I will do so. Thanks! Michaelas10 (talk) 22:46, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Edit Request (copied from RFPP/E)

Change with a UN report from December 2023 stating a case in which it happened in front of their families. to with a UN report from December 2023 stating that they allegedly shot civilians in front of their families. The source does not state this level of info about the report, only references it in its footnote. The report in question (un.org/unispal/document/unlawful-killings-in-gaza-city-ohchr-press-release/) repeatedly says "allegedly" and "still under verification". ~2025-31297-29 (talk) 18:28, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

(This request was copied over from WP:Requests for page protection/Edit to fulfill, in whole or in part, an edit request. I have no position on any claims in the request nor the merits of the request itself.) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 15:27, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Comment: Israeli military forces have shot civilians in front of their families" is a direct quote from the 2024 report, confirmed by other eyewitness testimony [27]. Katzrockso (talk) 05:17, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

•  Not done There is no consensus for this change and in general non-extended confirmed editors should confine themselves to non-controversial edit requests. TarnishedPath^talk 08:55, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

So then let's discuss whether or not the change is worth doing. The system where non-ECP editors can only contribute via edit requests, but all edit requests must have affirmative consensus before existing, is kafkaesque. The editor has a point Placeholderer (talk) 12:30, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Re: The sentence in question: the UNHR report currently cited says Israeli military forces have shot civilians in front of their families (emphasis added), and does not mention summary killing. The OHCHR release, which the UNHR report cites in the passage, says that those killed were unarmed Palestinian men, not that they were civilians—it says civilians were sheltering in the building at the time of the killings—but it does say they were summarily killed. So at the very least saying the incident was a summary killing of civilians is WP:SYNTH given the current sourcing (when taking the OHCHR release to be part of our sourcing, though it's not actually cited now), since neither source says both things. The Al Jazeera report provided by Katzrockso gives more details on witnesses' accounts of the event in question. If we keep this killing in the passage we might want to describe witness accounts—though we probably shouldn't get lost in describing individual events, since this section is more along the lines of They have killed civilians waving white flags than it is "In instances reported X/X/X and X/X/X they killed civilians waving white flags, and here's what witnesses said about it" Placeholderer (talk) 13:18, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

The OHCHR release doesn't explicitly call them civilians or reject that possibility, but I think it's clear that the implication is that the people shot are at least suspected to be civilians. The UNHR report calls them civilians based of off the information in the release, and the Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor, which was mentioned as a source in the release, calls them civilians. .

Since the judgement of the source cited is that this was a killing of civilians, so I don't think it should be removed off the grounds of being inaccurate. WP:SYNTH also just doesn't matter here since the UNHR report makes the conclusion that they were civilians that were executed, so no extra conclusion outside the sources has been drawn by any editors. WP:SYNTH isn't a valid critique of the conclusions of a source itself since the issue is that synthesis of sources constitutes original research by an editor, whilst practically all secondary sources, news articles and reports do this by definition. Originalcola (talk) 21:37, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

The problem is that, by the same token we have "summary execution of civilians", we could have "shooting of unarmed Palestinian men". It's more appropriate to pick one of the sources than to amalgamate their word choice. I'm not objecting to UNHR concluding they were civilians; I'm objecting to putting the words "summarily executed" in their mouth. Heck, why not directly quote the report as it says Israeli military forces have shot civilians in front of their families, shot civilians waving white flags, and opened fire into crowds gathered around aid trucks desperately seeking food, leading to the death of at least 112 in one incident, since 2/3 of the sentence overlaps with the passage in the article anyways? Placeholderer (talk) 21:58, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

But we didn't write the report? If you have a problem with the source take it up with the UN, a Wikipedia talk page isn't the place to litigate that. I think that since the OHCHR report describes them as unlawful killings of unarmed men whilst referring to past allegations of the killing of civilians, and that since the accounts they cite describe them as civilians and since the UNHR report calls them civilians based of the OHCHR report, we should describe them as civilians. Originalcola (talk) 16:35, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Also I just realised I'm blind because the OHCHR press release also calls them "civilians sheltering there". Originalcola (talk) 16:36, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

we didn't write the report? If you have a problem with the source take it up with the UN What the hell? The problem is that we're not following what either report says. Neither report states that civilians were summarily executed. The two sources are even written at different levels of confidence—the UNHR report does say in its voice that Israeli military forces have shot civilians in front of their families, but the OHCHR release, as brought up by the IP/TA (how to refer to such?), describes a specific incident information alleging summary execution. UNHR says Israeli military forces have shot civilians in front of their families. OHCHR, whence we take summarily killed for splicing into a statement of fact, describes the whole incident as per information alleging. OHCHR explicitly ends the release with OHCHR has confirmed the killings at Al Awdabuilding, although the details and circumstances of the killings are still under verification. IDF has not released any information on the incident (emphasis added).

The civilians sheltering there line is, in full, According to witness accounts circulated by media sources and EuroMed Human Rights Monitor, while in control of the building and the civilians sheltering there, the IDF allegedly separated the men from the women and children, and then shot and killed at least 11 of the men, mostly aged in their late 20’s and early 30’s, in front of their family members. The plainest reading of this is that where were civilians sheltering in the building, not an assertion that everyone in the building was a civilian. And—again—OHCHR doesn't claim to have verified the details and circumstances of the killings Placeholderer (talk) 18:30, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Neither report even gives as a statement of fact, in its own voice, that this specific incident was summary killing. To take one report on unverified information and plop that source-unverified information into a statement of fact from another source is clearly not appropriate Placeholderer (talk) 18:35, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

No you're right, it doesn't mention summary execution. The edit request didn't have the full sentence included, so I didn't realise that was the core issue and was just talking past you. Apologies, I'll add the edit request. Originalcola (talk) 23:36, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

I disagree that it is SYNTH to describe two aspects of one event using information from different sources. Katzrockso (talk) 21:56, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

The clearer problem might actually be putting words in the mouth of the OHCHR report. The article currently says Israeli soldiers have summarily executed Palestinian civilians, with a UN report from December 2023 stating a case in which it happened in front of their families (emphasis added); the December OHCHR report didn't say whether the people killed were civilians, but said that they were in a building where civilians were sheltering and the killings were in the wake of earlier allegations concerning the deliberate targeting and killing of civilians. This isn't combining sources for a full description of an event; it's misrepresenting the word choice of a specific report Placeholderer (talk) 22:33, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

References

Israel's denial of genocide in lede

This edit by @Cinaroot mostly tossed a change for which there was clear consensus, or at least no opposition (with a tweak to implementation made, with an explanation, by @CommunityNotesContributor). Cinaroot's explanation was this does not need to be in first para. refactoring. BOLD edit. I'm reverting this BOLD edit a la BRD (including moving scholarly consensus sentence to the other paragraph so the paragraph isn't an isolated "Israel says this") Placeholderer (talk) 11:04, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Also, this edit, undoing a change which came out of this mini-discussion. I guess I'll put it up for discussion under this section too cause separate sections would be weird, but not undoing it immediately Placeholderer (talk) 11:37, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Agree that the reorg by Cdjp1 per that discussion was an improvement. It's documenting the how & why the topic exists, so is pertinent to the opening paragraph per "supplying the set of circumstances or facts that surround it". I'm aware that we shouldn't be attributing facts as opinions, but ultimately it is the due context for notability of the subject, as much if not more so than the genocidal acts themselves imo which are part of "establish the boundaries of the topic", thus should therefore come later. I also realise you could apply this argument the other way round, but I think given the current state of the average readers opinion, it's more helpful providing the explanation as to why it's a genocide before the details of it, simply because it's likely more useful to maintain the readers interest per "define or identify the topic". For example in 10 years time, if there were convictions and so fourth, this info would likely be less relevant earlier on if that makes sense? Pinging Cinaroot who reverted that change per referenced edit. CNC (talk) 13:58, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

To elbaroate on my edit, that appears to have stuck for now as the best fit for now, it's because Israel's denial is due in the MOS:OPEN per providing context for topic notability. I don't see the rejection from other countries, those that supports Israel militarily, as being due for inclusion (their denial is to be expected). That said, we do have a very limited summary of the section "Responsibility of third states and other entities" in the lead overall, so that could be expanded in the 4th paragraph alongside ICJ summary, ie a brief summary on UK, US, Europe, Egypt, and Italy, which all have sections in this article. In my opinion either that content isn't due in a higher level summary article and should be split off and summarised here, or it should be summarised into the lead per WP:SUMMARY. CNC (talk) 13:40, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

The Israeli government maintains that its military actions...

Israel and its supporters deny that its actions constitute genocide...

Stating that Israel denies committing genocide in the first paragraph is unnecessary and premature—such denial is self-evident and not what readers are immediately seeking. This line belongs after the ICJ case discussion, where Israel’s response is presented in context. Positioning it there maintains a logical and chronological flow: first describing the acts, then the resulting ICJ proceedings, and finally Israel’s justification and denial. This structure preserves neutrality and clarity, presenting the genocide, adjudication, and rebuttal in a balanced sequence while avoiding disruption of the earlier factual and legal narrative. Cinaroot (talk) 14:53, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

I figure it would help to lay out some principles that are guiding my responses on this page. Firstly, I don't think it's undue to include a statement that Israel and its supporters (or some of its supporters) deny the genocide. I agree that this raises WP:MRDA, but I think the hysterical tenor of Israel's genocide denial is definitely relevant to understanding the genocide and surrounding discourse.

Building on this principle, I think it would be totally undue to discuss the specific reasons for their genocide denial (as in this diff): these claims are discussed in points (2), (4), (7) and (8) of the genocide denial article and we don't need to get into them in the lead of this article.

Principle 3: I think it's important to distinguish legitimate academic disagreement from outright genocide denial. Disagreement about the type of evidence that can be considered to determine mens rea is disagreement; falsely claiming that Israel attempts to avoid civilian casualties is just genocide denial. So, I think a single clause in one sentence at the end of the lead noting that there continues to be a bit of scholarly dissent is not undue. But it would absolutely be undue to get into Israel's argument that it was responding to October 7 or trying to free the hostages (see points 2, 7, and 8 of the genocide denial article). WillowCity^(talk) 16:15, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

To clarify, do you think the given reason for denial is inappropriate for just the opening paragraph or for the whole introduction? Placeholderer (talk) 16:22, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Concrete Proposals

I think this discussion would benefit from A/B/C voting format since this is quickly becoming verbose. I've done my best to create voting options based on existing points made. Feel free to edit options within reason if you disagree with my interpretation of points made so far.

     Issue (1): Extent to which Israel's denial of genocide should be included in first paragraph

Option (1A): Israel and others deny the genocide should be in first paragraph

    (You should specify which "others" to include if you vote for this option, e.g., the US, Israel's supporters, some academics, etc)

Option (1B): Israel denies genocide should be in first paragraph

Option (1C): No mention of denial of genocide should be in first paragraph

     Issue (2): Extent to which genocide denial arguments should be included in first paragraph

Option (2A): Israel maintains it's responding to October 7th should be in first paragraph

Option (2B): Another genocide denial argument should be in first paragraph (specify if voted for)

Option (2C): No mention of genocide denial arguments should be in first paragraph

     Issue (3): "Consensus there is genocide" claim in first paragraph

There is a parallel discussion on this issue here. Let's quickly close up discussion there to keep things organized.

Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 16:35, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Support (1B): Seems WP:DUE per MOS:SUMMARY but (1A) does not. Updated to Support (1C) based on buidhe's reasoning. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 17:17, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Support (2C): Don't feel like genocide denial arguments are WP:DUE per MOS:SUMMARY in the first paragraph given scholarly consensus these arguments are invalid in the RfC.

Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 16:39, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

I thought the RfC only determined the wording of the first sentence. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 16:52, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

The reasoning for the first sentence was in that the RfC found there was a scholarly consensus Placeholderer (talk) 16:56, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

+1 Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 17:14, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Support 1B If non-Israel national positions are to be included in the intro, whether supporting or rejecting the genocide label, that probably shouldn't be in the first paragraph. Including country supporters of Israel in the first paragraph without country "opponents" of Israel would be imbalanced.

Support 2C But I think it should be elsewhere in the introduction (i.e the last paragraph) Placeholderer (talk) 16:52, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Support 1C/2C. Fits perfectly fine in other paragraphs, governmental opinions are not WP:DUE in first paragraph. I haven't seen any other articles on genocide that mention particular government positions in the first paragraph, not even for events that aren't considered genocide in wikivoice. Katzrockso (talk) 22:45, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

1A and 2A. The fact that the US and UK and others say that there is no genocide needs to appear prominantly. Nehushtani (talk) 07:25, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Weak support for 1A and 2C, but should read along the lines of "Israel and a number of other states deny that a genocide is occurring." LegalSmeagolian (talk) 02:22, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Support Option 1A and 2C - There should be due weight in the lead so it would be appropriate to also state "numerous genocide studies and international law scholars, and other experts"(I don't think any major human rights groups have stated there isn't a genocide) and cite them in the same way as the line before. I don't like how the current genocide recognition is structured(I think it should be shortened and opinions included in a note) but this probably isn't the right place to litigate that. I don't think nation states should be mentioned other than Israel but if they are those that take the stance that there is a genocide should also be mentioned. I feel like mentioning genocide denial arguments would be undue and add extra bloat to the lead paragraph. There also aren't arguments in favour of it in the paragraph either, which I think would have to be included for balance if it were to be included. Originalcola (talk) 11:15, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Strong support for 1C & 2C. Per @Buidhe. This article is about the genocide, not denialism. Ahammed Saad (talk) 17:27, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

• Support 1C/2C the article is about what's happening in Gaza, not about what people (and governments) are saying about it. (t · c) buidhe 17:13, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

  Under your argument, the article shouldn't use the word "genocide" at all as that falls under "what people are saying about it". That version of the article would just describe the events (X people have been killed, etc.) without any mention of scholarly, legal, or governmental opinions. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 17:58, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

• Support 1A (status quo), meets DUE. Support 2C (status quo), not due per Buidhe. Oppose 3, there is already a lengthy discussion above on this which shouldn't be relitigated here per WP:MULTI Kowal2701 (talk) 17:30, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
• Weak support for 1A (status quo) if this would definitively resolve the NPOV dispute. No real preference, though, and Support 1C, as I am advised that my position is not a viable compromise, and due to my view that any reference to denial would be undue without a link to the denial article. Support 2C, and would go further to oppose mention of specific denial arguments in the lead. Defer to the outcome of the above discussion for Issue (3). EDITED to change my position. WillowCity^(talk) 22:17, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
• Support 1A: this is basically what I did in Special:Diff/1321025448 and satisfies giving appropriate due weight to the significant minority (and I would prefer mentions of specific countries as in that edit). I think linking the article Gaza genocide recognition instead of Gaza genocide denial in the lead better meets NPOV. Support 2C: giving a specific denial reason is likely not necessary in the first paragraph, since Mandy Rice-Davies applies. However, I still think the denial should be included; like Placeholderer said, it should be elsewhere in the lead. Defer for issue three due to the duplicate discussions. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 22:29, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

  I also think the sentence explaining the scholarly consensus and the statement of the opposing views should come before the description of Israel's actions. If we can't directly attribute the statement of genocidal intent in the same sentence due to the RfC, we can at least put it as close as possible to the wikivoice statement, which is a form of attribution that probably flows better than direct attribution (beginning the article with "According to..." doesn't seem very intuitive now that I think about it). SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 22:37, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

• Support 1C/2C - however i support mentioning below statement in first para

There is scholarly consensus on the genocide assessment, with few notable dissenting voices.

Above has has a more disinterested and encyclopedic tone. Cinaroot (talk) 23:11, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

• Support 1C/2C based on Buidhe's arguments above, but I think that it should be mentioned that the government of Israel and some other countries, along with a small minority of experts, oppose the genocide description, just not in the first paragraph. However, it should be mentioned somewhere near the beginning of the page. David A (talk) 06:54, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
• Support 1C/2C per Buidhe and WillowCity 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 17:22, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Discussion

SuperPianoMan9167, Regarding your proposal above, would that be something along these lines?

−

The Gaza genocide is the ongoing, intentional, and systematic destruction of the Palestinian people in the Gaza Strip carried out by Israel during the Gaza war. It encompasses mass killings, deliberate starvation, infliction of serious bodily and mental harm, and preventing births. Other acts include blockading, destroying civilian infrastructure, destroying healthcare facilities, killing healthcare workers and aid-seekers, causing mass forced displacement, committing sexual violence, and destroying educational, religious, and cultural sites. The genocide has been recognised by a United Nations special committee and commission of inquiry, the International Association of Genocide Scholars, multiple human rights groups, numerous genocide studies and international law scholars, and other experts. Israel and its supporters deny that its actions constitute genocide.

+

The Gaza genocide is the ongoing, intentional, and systematic destruction of the Palestinian people in the Gaza Strip carried out by Israel during the Gaza war. The genocide has been recognised by a United Nations special committee and commission of inquiry, the International Association of Genocide Scholars, multiple human rights groups, numerous genocide studies and international law scholars, and other experts. It encompasses mass killings, deliberate starvation, infliction of serious bodily and mental harm, and preventing births. Other acts include blockading, destroying civilian infrastructure, destroying healthcare facilities, killing healthcare workers and aid-seekers, causing mass forced displacement, committing sexual violence, and destroying educational, religious, and cultural sites. [Statement about denial/recognition: inclusion/text TBD]

[EDIT: moved to a discussion section to keep things tidy]. WillowCity^(talk) 22:41, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes, see Special:PermaLink/1321026380. My only comment is that the sentences could be condensed a little bit more, but that's otherwise what I was going for. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 22:46, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

I believe all information about recognition of/denial should be removed from the first paragraph and put into a separate paragraph, perhaps closer to the end of the lead (where there already is discussion of this), and weighted there. The first paragraph should describe the genocide itself. Overall the lead places undue weight on discussions of consensus, when the genocidal acts should be discussed more, as this is what significantly more of the body covers. WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY.Katzrockso (talk) 23:13, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

I see the point, but there still needs to be some indication of the scholarly consensus and the minority opposing opinions in the first paragraph so that the reader does not assume Wikipedia has directly made the determination of genocide.

Would putting a footnote that states the consensus in the first paragraph work? How about something like A majority of expert opinions and scholarly analyses have concluded Israel's actions constitute genocide. This is disputed by Israel and several other countries. inside an {{efn}} at the end of the first sentence? SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 23:52, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

No, we're not going to give UNDUE weight to the views of the "I don't like it" minority, much less some cherry picked countries. M.Bitton (talk) 03:03, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

A footnote doesn't make sense, and "other countries" shouldn't be cited in the opening paragraph if countries supporting the designation aren't, but given the salience in real life of the denial—which there isn't with e.g the Armenian genocide—the briefest possible statement of fact (Israel denies that its actions constitute genocide) is clearly could be appropriate in detailing the context in which the topic is being considered by supplying the set of circumstances or facts that surround it Placeholderer (talk) 11:37, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

You know what, I've been looking around at other introductions, and I think inclusion of denial the first paragraph isn't clear. Denials aren't the context in which the topic is being considered in this article. But mentioning elsewhere in the lead does make sense along the mentioned lines Placeholderer (talk) 12:16, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Link to Gaza genocide denial in the first paragraph

@WillowCity: I don't think my small edit needed to be reversed because Cinaroot tried to get rid of the broader paragraph. That link arguably had neutrality issues, but more importantly and less refutably, violated MOS:EGG. As such, I'd appreciate it if you would self-revert and re-remove the link. If you have any further objections to the link's removal, please let me know. Thanks, QuicoleJR (talk) 02:55, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

@QuicoleJR: I appreciate your points, however, I feel my edit is consistent with WP:BRD. I recognize that this strategy is optional. Another editor may wish to revert me. I do want to be clear that my intention was to avert, rather than engage in, an edit war. If other editors feel I've overstepped, I'll self-RV. Respectfully, I disagree that this is a violation of MOS:EGG, since, if you are on a page about a genocide, and there is a link where it says the perpetrator denies the genocide, it is not surprising that that link takes you to an article on denial of the genocide. That is intuitive in my view.

As I see the current lay of the land, there seems to be a split between those who want to note Israel's arguments prominently in the lead, and those who oppose such inclusion per WP:DUE. I thought my proposal could be a viable compromise (include the denial, but frame it as such). Perhaps not! WillowCity^(talk) 03:09, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

The problem is that the article linked to, Gaza genocide denial, is not so much about who has denied there is a genocide and what reasons they put forth for taking that position, as it is an effort to frame as WP:FRINGE that viewpoint, even more so than the way that climate change denial conveys how wrongheaded denial of climate change is. Coining (talk) 03:33, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

I would consider it non-neutral, as the placement of the link seeks to frame Israel's objections as a FRINGE view with no meaningful support. I also believe it is a violation of EGG because when I clicked the link, I expected to see content on Israel's arguments, not an article on genocide denial. Because of these two reasons, I would not want to include the link. I also don't think it makes a good compromise, since anyone who wants Israel's objections to be placed so prominently in the article probably doesn't want them linked to genocide denial and described as trivializing genocide (which is how the lead of Gaza genocide denial starts). Thanks, QuicoleJR (talk) 13:50, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

I come from a law background, where an effective compromise leaves no one happy; maybe not applicable to resolving NPOV issues. Before I self-RV, I would still prefer to hear from someone on the other side of this debate, since I disagree that the denial article is non-neutral (and I question the extent to which that's a reason to avoid linking to a relevant article, rather than simply addressing perceived neutrality issues on the linked article). And, to be fair, the denial article does provide content on Israel's arguments: it lists 10 tactics employed by deniers of the genocide, which (on my review) are usually the backbone of Israel's arguments. WillowCity^(talk) 15:34, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

The fact that the article refers to “tactics” or “techniques” of denial instead of “reasons” is a quintessential example of why it is non-neutral. Coining (talk) 02:17, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Per WP:MANDY, it seems redundant to include a denial in the first paragraph. This should probably be mentioned and linked in the "Political discourse" section in the body. If there is a desire to link this in the lead, it should probably be in last paragraph of the lead following the very last sentence about the consensus among academics where it fits better thematically with the paragraph's focus. BootsED (talk) 16:54, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Unjustified source removal

@Coining: what did you mean by followed WP:ALJAZEERA (see diff)? M.Bitton (talk) 03:25, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

It was an attempt to follow the admonition of WP:ALJAZEERA that "Most editors seem to agree that Al Jazeera English and especially Al Jazeera Arabic are biased sources on the Arab–Israeli conflict and on topics for which the Qatari government has a conflict of interest." I see that the subsequent restoration of the source is based on AFP/Reuters, which is fine. I originally wasn't able to see that underlying source because the archive-url used in the link doesn't work, so that threw me off. Coining (talk) 03:41, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Regardless of the AFP/Reuters issue, WP:ALJAZEERA does not say that Al Jazeera can't be used, only that caution should be used regarding potentially biased claims. Per WP:BIASED: However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. and Although a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context. Note that there are similar cautions on WP:TIMESOFISRAEL, WP:HAARETZ EvansHallBear (talk) 04:34, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

That doesn't mean al Jazeera can't be cited in this article. Hu741f4 (talk) 02:55, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

I think @EvansHallBear explained it well. I was under the misimpression, perhaps from reading some of the other discussions on this talk page, that biased sources shouldn't be included, but I now understand the view that bias is allowed. At least in this specific context, I recognize that the news article citation was appropriate. Coining (talk) 03:34, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Neutrality concerns - Infobox

Although the list of concerns is still incomplete, I would like to begin posting them for the following reasons: (1) A previous discussion yielded no consensus (mostly opposition) to the idea of placing a POV tag on the article. Hence, there is no need for the list of concerns to be complete. At the same time, responders suggested that opening a discussion and inviting broader input would be helpful. (2) As the goal is to improve the article, this can be done more manageably by posting the concerns in parts rather than dumping them all at once. (3) Some of these concerns appear to have already been addressed (these have been stricken through on the sandbox for the record, and are not included in the below), so might as well allow this work to continue. (4) Following the spirit of Jimbo's suggestions - be bold and strive to improve as soon as possible.

Here's how I imagine this will work: please add your thoughts below each suggestion. Ideally this will be a discussion rather than a vote. Also, feel free to add any further concerns in the appropriate section. Keep in mind most of these concerns do not come with specific prescriptions about how to address them, so if there is consensus or at least no disagreement feel free to make changes as you see fit once reasonable time has passed. In the worst case, these changes will be reverted and you can bring them to discussion separately (i.e., agreement about the concerns does not necessarily mean agreement about any specific changes).

Lastly, please note that addressing whether this article has NPOV issues does not contradict the discussions in the previous RfC, which concerned the central framing and particularly the first sentence. This point was raised by Coining in a recent discussion on this talk page.

So, without farther ado, let's begin with concerns about the infobox: Michaelas10 (talk) 01:45, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

• The infobox asserts that the genocide started on "7 October 2023", instead of simply saying "October 2023", despite noting "This start date is the beginning of the war. Sources disagree on when the genocide started..." (If we know there is a disagreement, why is the infobox taking one side of that disagreement in contravention of WP:NPOV?) At the very least the date should be changed to "October 2023," although even this assumes that a genocide by Israel began at the same time as Israel's invasion into Gaza, which isn't inherently the case based on reliable sources differing as to when the genocide began. That last point is noted for completeness, a change to simply "October 2023" would be fairer than the current text of the article. Coining (talk) 04:08, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
• One of the infobox's notes says, "Per the Gaza Health Ministry and Government Information Office, which has previously been deemed reliable by prominent and independent organisations", even though a neutral approach would recognize that some reliable sources deem the ministry reliable and some do not. Coining (talk) 04:08, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

  If prominent and independent organisations have deemed it reliable, we are not required to give equal weight to minority views that dispute that reliability, per WP:FALSEBALANCE. The note’s purpose is to inform readers of the prevailing assessment in reliable sources. The change you are proposing is to introduce doubt - this is not neutral or due. Cinaroot (talk) 02:26, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

  I don't think it has been established that the Hamas-run agency is deemed reliable, at least in the context of figures during the war. For example, the Lancet reference used in the article in support of this is a piece of correspondence that is not a reliable source per WP:NEWSOPED. Coining (talk) 03:20, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

• The deaths and injured statistics in the infobox previously conveyed that these amounts were unknown before citing specific numbers, but this uncertainty has been removed, so that it is now presented as fact that all of these deaths/injuries are part of the Gaza genocide. Even assuming that the statistics are accurate (and any concerns on those fronts can be raised in the "Genocidal acts" sections below), it's still the case that included in these numbers are deaths and injuries either (a) not caused by Israel -- e.g. caused by Hamas or other militants, such as Hamas executions of opponents, or the errant rocket aimed at Israel, but that landed in a hospital car park, a set of deaths/injuries that was erroneously blamed on Israel, or (b) deaths of combatants, including Hamas fighters. Editors have argued that even deaths of Hamas members are not excluded from the potential case for genocide, but by the same token, neither are they automatically included. By presenting all-inclusive death/injury numbers in the infobox, none of these points are fairly presented. A range could be presented, or perhaps say "Unknown amount; up to _____"). Phrases like "at least," though perhaps appropriate if this were the infobox for Gaza war are not appropriate here, given that it should not be assumed that the Gaza war and Gaza genocide are identical in scope. The current approach takes sides in violation of WP:NPOV not just on the question of whether there is/was a genocide, but on the unsettled question of to what extent non-civilian and non-Israel caused deaths should be included in the genocide. Coining (talk) 04:08, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
• The separate listing (as of 12 November 2025) of 10,000 famine deaths is presumably a subset of the 186,000, and yet it is listed here as if it is an additional set of deaths. Coining (talk) 02:52, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
• The main source for indirect deaths (the 186,000 figure) is a projection ("...or would occur in the coming months and years"). It shouldn't be the case that such a calculation is independent on whether the Gaza war continued or ended. The advent of a ceasefire (that might become permanent, but at the very least has slowed down depravation in the Gaza Strip) in mid-October 2025 should be relevant to Wikipedia's inclusion of this study. It would seem odd for a projection of deaths to be independent of the end of active combat. Nowhere does this section grapple with this point, or caveat the conclusions of the report, instead it presents it uncritically. This is a violation of WP:NPOV in that it improperly relies on a prediction of the future at the time made, violating WP:CRYSTAL, without any attempt to recognize that circumstances have changed. Coining (talk) 02:37, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

While it’s helpful to document concerns, raising a large number of issues simultaneously can make it harder for editors to focus the discussion and reach consensus. When many points are introduced at once—it can overwhelm the page and lead to fragmented or parallel discussions rather than a single, coherent consensus-building process. Breaking issues into smaller, clearly scoped threads may make it easier for editors to engage meaningfully and for any consensus to emerge. Cinaroot (talk) 02:08, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the note and discussion - I was indeed worried even that was too much. Michaelas10 (talk) 04:50, 17 November 2025 (UTC)