Talk:Gaza genocide

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

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

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

02:56, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Survey

• C This is an opinion article published in a university newspaper. For a topic as well covered as this, to include a statement like this in the first paragraph of the lede on the basis of a single such source is virtually the definition of WP:UNDUE. Further, the suggestion is to include the position expressed in the article in Wikivoice; the sourcing is clearly not strong enough to do this.
  It may be appropriate to include the claim in the body attributed in line, but it is clearly inappropriate to include it in the lede in Wikivoice. BilledMammal (talk) 02:56, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

• B or similar, as the statement appears to capture the reality well. Only update the source to: "Israel's Genocide of Palestinians in Gaza". University Network for Human Rights. Retrieved 2024-06-22.. — kashmīrī ^TALK 06:18, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

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

• C (generally per BM) the source is undue, and the claim should be made with attribution in the body. Both the BU piece (and the better actual scholarship) are not appropriate, least of all without attribution. FortunateSons (talk) 09:50, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

  Oh, and particularly A goes beyond what the source states in their own voice IMO, so that’s not great. FortunateSons (talk) 09:52, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

• I don’t have a strong opinion on if this specifically should be in the lead, though we do need a summary of the academic discourse section. It does however absolutely belong in the body, and the attempts to claim that an academic expert discussing topics in the area of her expertise is somehow unreliable or undue are straightforward examples of disruptive editing. But does this specifically need to be in the lead? It isn’t the worst thing, it’s an expert giving an overview of the views of other experts. Something needs to be in there about the views of scholars on this topic. This isn’t the worst thing but again no strong opinion on this being the specific source for that summary. nableezy - 12:32, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
• B not because it is something that is only said in the source specifically named by OP but because that or something similar appears to be the prevailing view across relevant scholarship. See the sourcing given in the ongoing RM] that currently appears to have a consensus for amending the article title to Gaza genocide. As for removing the specific material from the body as was done, that is exceptionally difficult to comprehend. Selfstudier (talk) 12:50, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
• A combination of A and B: I agree with "A Socialist Trans Girl" below. David A (talk) 10:21, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
• C if this is the only source given (which is only a university newspaper, although nonetheless a secondary source summarizing the views of experts) per WP:DUE, but likely A or B if other sources are added to support it in the body, like Selfstudier mentioned. I don't see A as going beyond what the source says, with the words many and consensus being closer to what the source says:

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

  Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:53, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

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

  Thanks, this appears to be a solid source. While it might look like a primary source at first glance, it does in fact give an overview of previous findings in pages 9 to 11, which could be a good secondary source for the statement. I'd support B if that source is added. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 08:10, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

• Either of B or A. Neither the source is "merely a random opinion" nor the cited piece of information it provides is source’s own claim or opinion but rather a citation of the consensus in the international human rights legal community. The source is a report published by Boston University and "comes from researchers at the University Network for Human Rights, a consortium of human right centers", therefore the source is indeed reliable for the information it provides, indeed much more than newspapers articles. And the source doesn’t say or give its own opinion regarding the quoted information like saying "we believe there is a genocide" but rather reflects/cites what the international human rights legal community "there is consensus amongst the international human rights legal community, many other legal and political experts, including many Holocaust scholars, that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza.", it is not the source’s own opinion or judgement. Beside the fact that this isn’t the only reliable source stating so as per @Selfstudier Stephan rostie (talk) 12:25, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

  But UNHR is neither independent of Akram's BU project nor is it a WP:RS publisher. Nor is it particularly esteemed, celebrated, discussed, or recognized in mainstream published discourse. SPECIFICO talk 21:42, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

• C This is a WP:PRIMARY source, self-published by Akram's employer in a university newsletter. That publication is an appropriate place to inform BU stakeholders of matters relating to the school, but neither that publication nor the fancy-sournding name of Akram's advocacy/activism project can elevate her work to a significant NPOV assessment of the range of current thinking on the issue. We would need a WP:RS publisher, prefereably peer-reviewed, to make a strong statement of a matter of current controversy and pending adjudication. The self-published opinion of a non-NOTABLE individual, however fine her commitment and advocacy, is UNDUE for the lead and should be replaced in the article body with better more reliable sources on the question. She. personally, is certainly not a secondary RS to evaluate the opinions of other observers. That should be clear to any WP editor. We need secondary RS publishers for that.

Further, whoever closes this -- please note that several !votes seems to say that, because her views seem OK therefore we can use defectively sourced content. Not so. SPECIFICO talk 16:18, 23 June 2024 (UTC),

It is not self published and a second source has been provided and not a single vote says anything close to what you claim in your last couple of sentences. False on all counts actually. nableezy - 17:51, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

The RFC question is "How should the statements in this BU Today "Voices & Opinion" article be covered in the lede?" and the answer is that it should be cited in support of a statement in Wikivoice (can as well be cited to https://www.humanrightsnetwork.org/genocide-in-gaza and not only to BU) along with multiple other supporting references saying a similar thing and about which bald assertions such as "self published" (it isn't) and "primary" (policy does not forbid primary source usage) play no part. Closer should refer to the RFCbefore discussion where it can be seen this editor and the RFC opener (who hasn't signed) both edited to suit a POV and when unable to persuade other editors, it led to this RFC. Selfstudier (talk) 18:45, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Except that there's no supporting evidence that humanrightsnetwork is a significant scholarly, juridical, or other expert organization. It's a student enrichment project and platform for advocacy and activism. All good, but it is not covered in the mainstream as an expert mainstream institution. This is all discussed in the thread prior to this RfC. SPECIFICO talk 20:39, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

It’s a paper by the University Network for Human Rights, the International Human Rights Clinic at Boston University School of Law, the International Human Rights Clinic at Cornell Law School, the Centre for Human Rights at the University of Pretoria, and the Lowenstein Human Rights Project at Yale Law School. Never heard of any of those universities, are they any good? nableezy - 10:57, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Kindly demonstrate that UNHR is a noteworhty RS publisher and that its independent of the person whose opinions are being proposed for article content. Maybe this needs to go to RSN. Namechecking a few ivy insitutions does not address the sourcing and notability issue. Do you have anything to document that the mainstream takes this UNHR seriously or even knows of its existence? Academia is a vast ecosystem with all sorts of offices and projects within its realm. The significant ones produce peer-reviewed, independently-published scholarly research. This is nothing of the sort. SPECIFICO talk 15:05, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

If you are asking whether anyone could make a satisfactory WP article for it, sure, no problem. The thought occurs to me that you don't like this org because James Cavallaro. Selfstudier (talk) 17:09, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

No, I did not ask whether it's NOTABLE. We know that it is not. I simply stated the fundamental WP principal, presumably known to editors EC-eligible to here, that an independent RS publisher would be needed even for an attributed opinion. Instead we've seen ad hominiems, personal disparagement, namechecking everyone from Eli Yale to Cavallaro, and folks saying, screw the RS bit, they like what Akram says, (!!!) But nobody seems able to demonstrate that this content is published by RS or meets our V and NPOV policies for any inclusion anywhere on this page. BURDEN and ONUS are out the window on this page. SPECIFICO talk 18:45, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

I can make an article, that means its notable. And making such an article would be very easy, just search books, scholar, etc. In any case, it just says the same thing as many others so this is all a lot of unnecessary fuss over nothing. Selfstudier (talk) 18:50, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Love ya, SS, but you are not a RS either, so saying you think you could write an article doesn't advance the process. But my interest in this from the start has simply been from seeing this self-published opinion (we can call self-published PRIMARY to short-circuit further indignant deflections) being used as if it were an independent RS-published account of a survey of qualified world opinion and with no evidence that Akram is a scholar qualified to make such an assessment. I have no opinion as to the underlying issue and I have expressed none. I've consistently said that I expect that better, solid RS could be found to address this content. I don't anticipate what they might say, but it's a shame to see editors ignore core policy to grab a handy blurb out of a promotional university newsletter and elevate it with a word salad of recognizable institution names, and buzzwords. You appear to be knowledgeable in the field. Please find valid sourcing and notable qualified experts to address the question. SPECIFICO talk 19:04, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Ive already shown you Akram's publications, the UNHR director is James Cavallaro, also a widely published expert in the field of international law, the Cornell program is led by Susan Babcock, who is, you guessed it, again a widely published expert in the field. You cant just say that the scholarship here isnt notable or noteworthy, what matters is that it is reliable, and it is reliable because of the people and institutions behind it. nableezy - 19:57, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion

• It may need clarifying that a mention of the Stanford report has already been included in the article, and what the RfC aims to achieve is a better wording. The current suboptimal wording will likely remain if there's no consensus. Editors are welcome to propose further wording options for this RfC. — kashmīrī ^TALK 13:20, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
• Given it's an opinion, why is there no option for attribution per WP:RSOPINION? Ie, "According to the University Network for Human Rights", per the content in the body. Either way, have to agree with others that it doesn't seem due in the lead, unless covered by other reliable sources; the proposed sentences are just a regurgitation of of the body, not a summary of it. A lead summary would be something like "Certain scholars, A, B to C, consider it a genocide, due to..., disputed by X, Y and Z, because of...". As far as I can tell nothing in the "Academic and legal discourse" has been summarised in the lead, despite numerous paragraphs of content. It's better to work on summarising the content for the lead per MOS:INTRO, rather than trying to pick out one particular report. CNC (talk) 23:26, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

  With better sourcing, I'd be willing to support. Or re-wording to satisfy a bundle of sources. CNC (talk) 23:42, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

  Thus far, we have no evidence that "UNHR" is a significant organization or that its title should be used to elevate one person's primary-sourced opinion. SPECIFICO talk 08:36, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

RfC on page move moratorium

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

B, I'm not seeing the need for this, honestly. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 04:21, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Move review

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

This is still ongoing in case anyone is interested in participating. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:26, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

As in going nowhere? Selfstudier (talk) 17:28, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I mean, I would consider "no consensus" to be somewhere. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:30, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Potential RfC on move to Gaza war crimes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Relevancy of Walberg's comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

What's up with the title?

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

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

Jihad and Allahu Akbar

Rosenberg in The Atlantic compares the verses on Amalek with Allahu Akbar. But "Allahu Akbar" simply means "God is Great" - there is nothing violent in its meaning. I'm all in favor of comparative religion, but there is no comparison here at all.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 18:40, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

"Allahu Akbar" did not mean "God is Great" . It means "God is greatest." BlackOrchidd (talk) 12:04, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

It’s not our place to decide that. From what I’ve read, Amalek is often invoked in Jewish culture in the much the same way Allahu Akbar is in Islamic culture. BilledMammal (talk) 12:11, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

You would need to provide some pretty strong sources to make such an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim. I highly doubt Jews say the name of Amalek before every action they do. I highly doubt synangoues broadcast the name of Amalek >100 times a day, the way mosques broadcast Allahu Akbar.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 20:18, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Death toll

The sources used for the death toll in the article aren't all specifically about the Gaza genocide; some are about the war and don't even contain the word "genocide." I think we should base casualty counts on sources that are about the Gaza genocide specifically. Or in other words: in the WP:RSes that say it's a genocide, what do they say is the death toll of the genocide? Here are some sources in the article, mostly from JGR, and what they say about it (bold added):

Sources/quotes

Elyse Semerdjian [2] (17 Jul 2024) [3] in Journal of Genocide Research (JGR): Israel’s offensive in Gaza has claimed at least 37,000 lives; many thousands still lie uncounted under the rubble. In the aftermath of the 7 October attack, the complete blockade of Gaza sent the territory into a state of war-induced famine at unprecedented speed. The UN estimates that one million Palestinians are expected to face catastrophic famine by mid-July. The blockade, coupled with the destruction of 70 per cent of Gaza’s housing stock, all its universities, and most of its hospitals, markets, and schools, removed life-sustaining infrastructure from the strip. After bombing its schools and hospitals, and killing more UN personnel than in any other conflict since its creation, a pending Israeli bill has declared UNRWA (United Nations Relief and Works Agency) – the primary agency supporting Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank –a terrorist organization. This disastrous legislation, if passed, will criminalize the most effective aid distributor in the Occupied Territories, removing a Palestinian lifeline. Gazification set the stage for genocide by attrition by mobilizing checkpoints, surveillance, and security to limit the physical mobility of Palestinians, denying access to land and resources that make life livable. Amos Goldberg (11 Jul 2024) [4] in Jacobin: As a historian, if you look at the overall picture, you have all the elements of genocide. There is clear intent: the president, the prime minister, the minister of defense, and many high-ranking military officers have expressed that very openly. We have seen countless incitements to turn Gaza into rubble, claims that there are no innocent people there, etc. Popular calls for the destruction of Gaza are heard from all quarters of society and the political leadership. A radical atmosphere of dehumanization of the Palestinians prevails in Israeli society to an extent that I can’t remember in my fifty-eight years of living here. The outcome is as would be expected: tens of thousands of innocent children, women, and men killed or injured, the almost-total destruction of infrastructure, intentional starvation and the blocking of humanitarian aid, mass graves of which we still don’t know the full extent, mass displacement, etc. There is also reliable testimony of summary executions, not to mention the numerous bombings of civilians in so-called “safe zones.” Gaza as we knew it does not exist anymore. Thus, the outcome fits perfectly with the intentions. To understand the full scale of this destruction and cruelty, I recommend reading Dr Lee Mordechai’s report, which is the most comprehensive and updated record of what has been happening in Gaza since October 7. For mass killings to be considered genocide it does not have to be a total annihilation ... Nimer Sultany (9 May 2024) [5] in JGR: When these considerations are applied to the case of Israel’s actions in Gaza, it is difficult to see how any of these six western states can deny the existence of a genocide given Israel’s pattern of conduct. On 13 October 2023, the World Health Organization urged Israel to rescind its mass evacuation orders and warned ... Despite these warnings, as of 22 April 2024, Israel killed 34,151 Palestinians in Gaza, including 14,685 children. With thousands more estimated to be buried under the rubble, these numbers are expected to be even more horrific when final numbers become available. Crucially, the deliberate nature of the targeting is clear in that, by 22 January, forty two per cent of the victims in Gaza were killed in Southern areas that Israel had declared as “safe.” Already on 29 October 2023 Save the Children declared that the “number of children reported killed in just three weeks in Gaza is more than the number killed in armed conflict globally – across more than 20 countries – over the course of a whole year, for the last three years.” On 10 November, the World Health Organization stated that a “child is killed on average every 10 min in the Gaza Strip.” Witnesses and doctors revealed that Israeli snipers and quadcopter drones targeted Palestinian children, with gunshots in the head. In addition to direct killing, the “serious bodily harm” that Israel inflicted on Gaza’s children is evident in the unprecedented numbers of amputations. The “serious mental harm” that Israel inflicted on Palestinian children was evident already in October 2023, and became even more evident in April 2024. In February 2024 UNICEF estimated that at least 17,000 children were left orphaned or separated from their parents. Finally, the destructive conditions that Israel inflicted are clear in the effect of starvation on children. This is illustrated not only in the 27 children who died by mid-April 2024, but also in the fact that “for many more, it may be too late to reverse the excruciating toll that starvation takes on small, growing bodies.” In light of these facts, it is unsurprising that UN officials have repeated for months that this is a “war on children” and on childhood, and that Gaza has become a “graveyard for children.” It follows that if these six western states were to deny that Israel has committed a genocide, they would exhibit double standards ... Maryam Jamshidi [6] (6 May 2024) [7] in JGR: The horror taking place in the Gaza Strip – which experienced aid officials have described as unlike anything they have ever witnessed – is unprecedented in the contemporary era. In a little over six months, Israel has killed well over 34,000 Palestinians based on conservative estimates, with thousands more under the rubble and unaccounted for. The daily death toll in Gaza is so high that Oxfam has described it as surpassing that of any major conflict in the twenty-first century. Gaza’s child population has been particularly impacted by Israel’s violence, with Save the Children reporting that children in Gaza have been killed and maimed at an “unprecedented” rate. Thanks to Israel’s total siege of the territory, mass starvation has already arrived and led to more death. Indeed, in its 28 March provisional measures order, the Court noted that “‘Palestinians in Gaza are enduring horrifying levels of hunger and suffering’” and that “[t]his is the highest number of people facing catastrophic hunger ever recorded by the Integrated Food Security Classification system – anywhere, any time.”} Taken together, these facts may be decisive in persuading the Court to do what it largely failed to do in the Bosnia and Croatia cases – conclude that widespread acts of genocide have occurred. Raz Segal and Luigi Daniele (5 Mar 2024) [8] in JGR: This marginalization and disavowal of Israeli mass violence against Palestinian civilians by Holocaust scholars before 7 October morphed thereafter in some cases into outright justification, even as Israel’s attack on Gaza killed Palestinians at an average rate that exceeds, according to Oxfam, the daily death toll of any other case of mass violence in the twenty-first century. Palestinian causalities so far include almost 28,000 fatalities – more than 12,500 children and youth among them – over 67,500 injured, and around 7,000 missing under the rubble and presumed dead. Scholars working, more broadly, in Holocaust and Genocide Studies took a different stance after 7 October, focusing on Israel’s extremely violent attack on Gaza, including the possibility of genocide.

Some are kind of outdated now, I'm not sure how recent they should be. Anyone else have any sources that should be added to this list, or think any of these should not be used a sources? Levivich (talk) 22:10, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Unless I’m missing some context, all of those are saying that this many people have died in the war - not that all are victims of genocide.

As sources need to directly support the claim made these sources are insufficient to support the claim currently in the article, that all casualties are victims of genocide.

As a general note, this means we are saying that indisputably legitimate military targets like Dief, a militant leader who planned the massacres on October 7, are victims of genocide. This is an WP:EXTRAORDINARY claim, and needs considerable evidence to support it - and such evidence appears to be unavailable. BilledMammal (talk) 22:27, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

"Genocide" is a legal term that has been increasingly used to describe what Israel is doing in Gaza as it kills more people, a figure nearing 40,000 and so on.

I think that's straightforward to do, it's not even necessary to specify a figure, all we need is the sources that say that what Israel is doing is a genocide (or genocidal) and there is a surfeit of those, that's why the title was changed. In fact every time Israel kills some more innocents (like today and every other day), that's just adding to it, the number doesn't matter, in fact I don't even care about the number, just the facts of what is being done will do perfectly well, and 10,000 will do as well as 40,000, the figure only needs to be "substantial". As for which ones of whatever number were legitimate targets, the court will have to figure that out at the end and I suspect it will actually make no difference in the final analysis.

As for the Deif distraction, it's not an extraordinary claim that 90 people were killed in the attempt. That seems indiscriminate to me. But I don't think Deif has anything to do with this. Selfstudier (talk) 22:46, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

That source also doesn’t say that they were all victims of genocide.

We need sources that directly support this claim - that say all casualties were victims - and these sources don’t appear to exist. BilledMammal (talk) 22:48, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Hey, I'm agreeing with you, the reality is much worse than 40,000 (or the figure yesterday or the figure tomorrow, it's the actions that are genocidal, the death toll is already genocidal). Experts were saying it was a genocide when the death toll was much less. Selfstudier (talk) 22:50, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I misunderstood.

In that case, can we remove the death toll, and instead say that more than 40,000 have died in the war? BilledMammal (talk) 22:59, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Sure, what I'm saying is there needs to be less focus on a moving casualty figure and more on the actual facts supporting a genocide (the numbers already do). Selfstudier (talk) 23:03, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree - the exact number of victims isn’t overly relevant to whether it is a genocide. BilledMammal (talk) 00:45, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

This doesn't work this way. Genocide means destruction of a race or ethnic group (genus) – it does not mean the killing of defenceless people only. Yes, fighters and military people can also be victims of genocide. — kashmīrī ^TALK 23:49, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Historically, it depends on the circumstances. The resistance fighters in the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising were victims of genocide, the Soviet soldiers at the Battle of the Seelow Heights were not, despite the genocide of millions of Slavs under Generalplan Ost. The difference is in why they were targeted; in the uprising they were targeted because they were Jews, at Seelow Heights they were targeted because they were soldiers.

This isn’t something we as editors can work out, so we need to defer to reliable sources - and reliable sources don’t appear to say that all casualties in Gaza are victims of genocide. BilledMammal (talk) 00:29, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

In my view, it would never be the job of editors to decide which deaths were or weren't part of a genocide - this responsibility always falls to ereliable sources. Newimpartial (talk) 23:15, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

• Another source[9] (full text): "Specifically, Israel has committed genocidal acts of killing, causing serious harm to, and inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about the physical destruction of Palestinians in Gaza, a protected group that forms a substantial part of the Palestinian people. Between October 7, 2023, and May 1, 2024, Israel has killed at least 34,568 Palestinians and injured 77,765 other Palestinians in Gaza. These figures in total comprise more than 5 percent of Gaza’s population,4 with over 2 percent of Gaza’s children killed or injured..." VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 06:56, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

This is the third time this relevant topic has been brought up, I can only hope user:Levivich won't interrupt it again. I can only repeat my questions and remarks which were ignored and dodged. Bosnian genocide also lists only civilians in the infobox (33,071), and not soldiers who died in battles (for example, Battle of Vozuća or Operation Tiger (1994)). We also don't consider Greek soldiers who died in the Greek invasion of Western Anatolia as part of the Greek genocide. There is a distinction between armed combatants fighting in a battle and unarmed civilians (or captured soldiers "hors de combat") who were targeted by deliberate killings. The most reasonable solution would be to narrow the scope only to civilians killed. When we have one controversial claim and one conservative, we should go with the conservative until reliable sources directly confirm the opposite. I cannot imagine how someone can seriously try to claim that Hamas militants who kidnapped Israeli civilians and kept them as hostages in basements cannot be subject to military engagement or they would be victims of genocide. That is unserious, and tantamount to claiming that Islamic State, Al-Qaeda and Boko Haram are victims of genocide because government military engaged them.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 16:23, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Is it accurate to say that your proposal is that Wikipedia editors should decide how to count victims of genocide based on a decision procedure that seems reasonable to you? Sean.hoyland (talk) 16:48, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

That’s what we’re currently doing, by deciding that every casualty is a victim. BilledMammal (talk) 03:36, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't know whether that is the case or whether it's based on the law itself not distinguishing between combatants and non-combatants or whether there are source related reasons because I haven't looked in detail. And I'm not planning to look. I'm trying to understand 3E1I5S8B9RF7's argument and why they keep making it when it seems inconsistent with how content decisions should be made. Wikipedia editors obviously can't decide how to count victims of genocide based on local non-policy based rules and that is true regardless of combatant status. It's not really clear to me why there needs to be a number. Surely in terms of victimhood, a number can range from zero (not a genocide) to the total population (everyone is a victim of genocide including the survivors). Sean.hoyland (talk) 05:19, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

The law distinguishes by intent, but it’s not our place to interpret the law.

I think they keep making that argument because the same argument in the opposite direction also keeps being made - I don’t think it’s helpful to focus on just one "side".

Instead, I agree that I don’t think a number is necessary at the current time. BilledMammal (talk) 08:05, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

The total number killed in the war is relevant, regardless of how many of them are "victims of genocide". It is obvious that the casualty count includes some significant number of protected persons within it and that is all that need concern us here. Selfstudier (talk) 08:47, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

To be clear, I mean a number of victims. The number killed in the war should be mentioned in the article.

With that said, protected persons are not necessarily victims of genocide - or even the victims of a war crime (at least not Israel’s war crime - possibly Hamas, for operating from civilian areas) BilledMammal (talk) 09:12, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

protected persons are not necessarily victims of genocide That will be determined eventually, that is merely an aspect of the South African case (and the ICC cases will further inform the situation). I don't see what Hamas has to do with this, crimes against humanity by another party are not an excuse for their commission. Selfstudier (talk) 09:28, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

@BilledMammal did you see this source that gives the genocide death toll? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 19:49, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

There are several comical inconsistencies with this whole article and the way some users refuse to answer many questions in this topic which reveal contradictions. Wikipedia decided to call this "Gaza genocide" and it must thus now decide and extrapolate everything that goes along with this baggage. For instance, are Hamas militants a "protected group"? If fallen Hamas militants are included in the total death toll, would this be the first ever case in history where terrorists were victims of a genocide? Were Hamas perpetrators of Re'im music festival massacre that were killed by IDF forces also victims of genocide? And should we now make an article akin to "United States complicity in Gaza genocide" or "Australian complicity in Gaza genocide"? All these are questions that will face Wikipedia users sooner or later.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 17:44, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM (again). Find sources, answer ur own questions, and then comment on the basis of those sources. Selfstudier (talk) 17:52, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Some experts are arguing that Israel's stated goal to "destroy Hamas includ[ing] both the extermination of its political and administrative leadership and the annihilation of its civilian police force and military wing" is the essential core of the genocide, because "one way to prove this second element of genocidal intent is through evidence that the protected group’s civilian leadership, as well as its military and law enforcement, have been targeted for elimination" (see the linked article for details—noting that the targeting of civilian organizations controlled by Hamas is illegal under international law) (t · c) buidhe 04:49, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

As A. Dirk Moses writes, "This ethnic definition of genocide is compounded by its conceptualization as an irrational hate crime: innocent, blameless victims are attacked for racial rather than political reasons–for who they are, not for what they (or members of their group) have done."[10] But this is a stereotype/popular view that is not reflected in the law—there is no legal requirement that the victims of genocide are "innocent, blameless", or even civilians. (t · c) buidhe 06:02, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

@3E1I5S8B9RF7, I hope buidhe's above reference answers your question "are Hamas militants a "protected group"".VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 11:55, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Hamas is attacked for what they have done on October 7, and thus by buidhe's own definition, they should not be regarded as victims of genocide.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 12:56, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

It's a misconception that genocide must be committed for no reason. National security is the motivating factor (not just an excuse) for most or all genocides, which are committed for an identifiable reason based on real actions of some people in the victim group, although usually exaggerated by the perpetrators. For example, you have written extensively about Stalinist deportations considered genocide by some. These deportations had an obvious instrumental motive of protecting the Soviet borders from further "treason" by people from these ethnic groups. Yet the collaboration of some/many Soviet Germans, Chechens, Meskhetian turks, Crimean tatars etc. is undeniable. Today few people outside from tankies would excuse these crimes on the basis that some of its victims were Nazi collaborators. The fact that Israeli leadership perceives its actions in Gaza to improve security and believes that the "elimination" (not merely defeat) of Hamas is "necessary" has no real bearing on the validity of the genocide charge, or arguably supports it. Especially considering that the entire Palestinian demographics is considered a "demographic threat" by many in Israel. (so were Armenians) (t · c) buidhe 14:17, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

@3E1I5S8B9RF7 most Hamas members didn't have prior knowledge nor partook in October 7. The ones that did were mostly killed on Israeli soil and not counted in GHM casualty lists.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 16:35, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

That’s a bizarre article - it conflates the leadership of Hamas with the Palestinian leadership generally.

However, unless I’ve overlooked something, it isn’t relevant to this discussion, as it doesn’t say that all casualties are victims. If I have missed something can you quote it? BilledMammal (talk) 14:24, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't know how you get that interpretation from the article—it says clearly that the attempted destruction of Hamas' military and civilian organizations is a key part of the genocide. (t · c) buidhe 14:31, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

It says

According to some legal experts, one way to prove this second element of genocidal intent is through evidence that the protected group’s civilian leadership, as well as its military and law enforcement, have been targeted for elimination.

It then says that this means targeting Hamas is evidence of intent. However, this requires conflating Hamas, a non-protected group, with Palestinians, a protected group.

However, this is off topic, unless I did miss something and that article says that all casualties are victims? BilledMammal (talk) 14:38, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I do not consider that your interpretation is plausible. Hamas is not a protected group, but Hamas members are Palestinians so they are part of a protected group. (t · c) buidhe 15:59, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

@BilledMammal you yourself have conflated Hamas with governance of Gaza and its various ministries, including the Health Ministry. The article says For instance, in a recent court filing, the Israeli government stated that its war goals in Gaza include not just “eradicating” Hamas’s military capacity but also its non-military, civilian institutions, which include the “Ministry of Health, Ministry of Economy, the Ministry of Welfare, the Ministry of the Interior, the Ministry of Agriculture and the Government Information Office”. It likewise connects Israel's destruction of Hamas' police to looting of aid convoys, and thus causing Gaza Strip famine.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 16:40, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

That's right, it is the totality of Israeli acts that will decide the matter in the end and in this respect Israel is not only doing badly but digging a deeper hole daily:

Reflecting on Genocidal Intent in the ICJ Case "The desire to exterminate Hamas—in all its aspects—is part and parcel of Israel’s attempt to eradicate the Palestinian people, both as a factual and legal matter. Indeed, Israeli officials have long viewed the destruction of the Palestinian people’s political and military leadership as key to destroying the Palestinian people as a national group. (Kimmerling 10). Grappling with these realities head on cannot and should not be avoided by those seeking to hold Israel accountable for its genocide in Gaza."

and

We Charge Genocide: Redux "Germany, the United Kingdom, Canada, Denmark, France, and the Netherlands intervened in the Myanmar case before the ICJ to advance a broad definition and lower threshold for determining genocide. They contended that since declarations of intent to commit genocide are rare, the Court should not solely focus on explicit statements or numbers killed, but reasonable inferences drawn from a pattern of conduct and factual evidence. Additionally, they maintained that genocidal actions can also include forced displacement from homes, deprivation of medical services, and the imposition of subsistence diets, if systematic. Yet, thus far, they have not sought to extend this reasoning to apply to Israel’s conduct in Palestine, and to intervene to support South Africa’s case at the ICJ." Selfstudier (talk) 17:01, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

BM, I can see why you want to hat this, but please don't bother, it is directly relevant both to the discussion and the article. Selfstudier (talk) 17:12, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

How is it relevant to the discussion? None of the sources provided discuss the number of victims? BilledMammal (talk) 17:36, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

We are discussing protected groups. The first source addresses that directly and is as well relevant to the article as it is yet another source stipulating that the events in Gaza are a genocide. And the second source says why only killings are not the end of it, which he have already discussed earlier. Selfstudier (talk) 17:45, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

We’re discussing the death toll. How are these sources relevant to determining the number of victims we should say there are? BilledMammal (talk) 17:50, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Asked and answered. Selfstudier (talk) 17:55, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 August 2024

“On 7 October 2023, Hamas led an attack into Israel from Gaza,[46][47][48] resulting in at least 1,139[49][50][c] deaths, most of whom were civilians.[55]”

Should be changed to the below based on the same citation the original author/exitor used [55]

“On 7 October 2023, Hamas led an attack into Israel from Gaza,[46][47][48] The final death toll from the attack is now thought to be 695 Israeli civilians, including 36 children, as well as 373 security forces and 71 foreigners, giving a total of 1,139. [49][50][c] deaths,.[55] “ Acura12345 (talk) 18:39, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Due to lack of other qualified contributors' input, it's fair to say that this request is pretty much  Denied. This is not an article about the 10/7 attack, so we don't need to dive into the fine details. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 10:29, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Complicity: inconsistent formatting?

In the infobox, the title Complicity is centered and has a colon, where the other titles do not. Change to match the rest of the infobox?

Also, American/British/German/Romanian complicity all have sections under International complicity, but Australia does not. I think the paragraph titled Australian legal proceedings should go under International complicity and be called Australian complicity (in the same order that it appears in the infobox).

Also, I think it could be a good idea to have the country links in the Complicity section in the infobox link to the respective section under International complicity in the article.

Bitspectator (talk) 20:00, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I partially completed this edit request except for moving the "Australian legal proceedings" section under the "International complicity" section because I am not sure if it would be better to write a new subsection for Australian complicity. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 03:46, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Flagrant NPOV violation

It’s shocking to me that this move (which I did not even realise had been proposed) was approved. Wikipedia is seriously risking its credibility here. We as a community should not take a side either way and calling the article “Gaza genocide” is very clearly taking a side when that accusation is obviously disputed. Neither my personal opinion nor that of any editor should matter here—we need to find a neutral middle ground and this is not it. —mountainhead / ? 20:52, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Only about 40% of people voted for it, see [[11]], but the move was endorsed at move review as being at the closers's discretion. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:35, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:Wikipedia is not a democracy. Whether the move is approved or not is based on valid arguments instead of number of votes on either side. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 02:06, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

My point is that if you had asked a dozen different admins to give their close of the discussion, I reckon a considerable number would have given a very different result from the current close. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:49, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

An admin can overturn a consensus if they see the previous conclusion is severely flawed. Unless you can give a sound argument to support overturning the previous consensus, admin shopping is much discouraged. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 03:23, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

It's highly unlikely you'll find another admin to overturn this[12]. If you think all these scholars are biased that very well may be so, but you have to bring something more to the table than a hunch. Jonathan f1 (talk) 22:37, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not asking for it to be overturned. My point is that the discussion could have reasonably been closed multiple ways. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:22, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure why anyone would be shocked by anything, but if there is something to be shocked about, I think it is better to be shocked by "I did not even realise had been proposed". Increasing engagement in RFCs, RMs etc. about contentious issues should be solvable problem. Sean.hoyland (talk) 03:29, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Every genocide in history has been disputed. — Red XIV ^(talk) 16:02, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Edit request

Moved from WP:RFED Left guide (talk) 07:14, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Remove "the Israeli government has historically interpreted any criticism of its actions as antisemitism" from the last sentence of the last paragraph of the opening section.

This specific text should be removed, as it makes a poorly founded and sweeping statement via the wording of "any criticism", hence hurting the neutrality and quality of the page. None of the cited sources prove that the Israeli government claims "any criticism" of Israel is antisemitism.

Aside from the problematic wording of "any criticism", the text also links to another article on "Weaponization of antisemitism", which itself is a deeply contested and controversial discussion. The IHRA working definition of antisemitism has been widely adopted by numerous governments, academic institutions and NGOs and specifies instances where unfair criticisms of Israel, under certain circumstances, may be considered as antisemitic. The text in the article serves to directly dispute/discredit the IHRA working definition of antisemitism, which is inappropriate and biased for a Wikipedia article, particularly on such a contentious topic.

The text should instead mention the Israeli government's claims of antisemitism, while not claiming that it labels all criticisms as such. It is in fact incorrect to claim so, as numerous figures within the Israeli government itself, as well as prominent figures from Israeli society, are openly critical of Israel's current policies. Neutral Editor 645 (talk) 20:17, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

 Done: the reason is simply that both cited sources from the NBC News and the Guardian do not mention anything close to the history of Israel's weaponization of antisemitism. I am open to other editors to revert my removal as long as they can get another qualified source to back the claim. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 07:29, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Haaretz propaganda

The following discussion 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.

---

Just fyi that Haaretz just dropped some propaganda about this article claiming that since its name change it "was regularly getting 55,000 views per day," which is a demonstrably false claim. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:23, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, that is strange, I'm not sure where they could have deduced that number from. The rest of the article is the even handed reporting one would expect from Haaretz, so it's just a weird aberration in an otherwise good article. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 15:22, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm guessing they misread 55k in the past 30 days (which is what the system would have reported a couple of days ago) to mean 55k per day in the past 30 days, as opposed to 55k total. Seems like a pretty innocent error; I think calling it "propaganda" is a stretch. Levivich (talk) 16:13, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Apart from dropping a couple of gratuitous "Hamas-run"s in there. And misreporting that WP editors decided genocide was a fact. But OK, journalists. Selfstudier (talk) 17:30, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Half of MSM throws "Hamas-run"s in; a greater portion misreports what happens on WP. Journalism about any subject is mostly wrong. It's not propaganda, it's the Gell-Mann amnesia effect [13]. (And it's why I think it's so important to source articles to scholarship instead of journalism whenever possible.) Levivich (talk) 19:51, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

The article contains a graph attributed to "analyst Gil Feldman". A blue line, tagged "Gaza_genocide", rises up to 55,000. None of the legends says what timescale the figures represent. As you suggested, it's probably showing monthly page views. Misha Wolf (talk) 18:31, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

It looks to be the wmcloud tool for page views, and the x axis indicates what Levivich postulated, that in the previous month there were ~55k views for the article in total, and this was misread by the author of the article as meaning 55k per day. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 21:52, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Far-fetched to correctly read the view statistics of the former name and misread it for the new name; which is the central claim in that article that the name change amassed multitudes more page views; incompetent journalism at best, propagandistic one at worse. Either way, WP:NOTAFORUM, I only cited this here to bring attention to it. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:30, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

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

Moved from WP:RFED Left guide (talk) 21:39, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I would like to request that under the ‘Victims’ subheading Mike Spagat is properly introduced with relevant qualifications. His name is brought up in the 3rd paragraph, 3rd sentence beginning with “Spagat analysed…” as a source but he has not been introduced (i am assuming he was introduced in a previous paragraph or sentence that has since been deleted). Chanticlaire701 (talk) 19:11, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

 Done: Done. Reason: Obvious correction per standard styles. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 21:53, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

CITEREF error for "Jamshili2024"

Please provide a source for this shortened footnote in the "Works Cited" section of the article. The sfn template may get removed due to failure for verifiability of the source. Thank you, Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 05:34, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Typo for Jamshidi (t · c) buidhe 06:10, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

 Thank you very much! Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 06:12, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Article bloating

We should not try to quote every single op-ed from someone with an academic position who expresses an opinion on this question. For example, Eva Illouz' work seems to have nothing to do with Israel, Palestine, or genocide. An entire paragraph with her incorrect assumptions about a subject she evidently does not know so much about is manifestly WP:UNDUE. (The Genocide Convention does not contain any exception, excuse, or mitigating circumstance so it is irrelevant who is at fault for the war). We should also be giving less weight to stuff published several months ago while the situation on the ground and legal developments continue to change. (t · c) buidhe 22:18, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

• Cdjp1 I'm referring to this edit. (t · c) buidhe 22:19, 10 August 2024 (UTC)