Talk:Gaza genocide/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 August 2024

Clockwise from top left:

• Bombing campaign of the Gaza Strip
• A man carries the body of a Palestinian child killed by the shelling
• Dead infant in Kamal Adwan Hospital
• Bags filled with body parts of Palestinians killed by rocket strikes in Al-Tabaeen school
• Child dead due to starvation
• Palestinian body parts in plastic bags

Please replace the single image in the infobox by a Template:Multiple image

I think this single image undermines the reality of what's going on in Gaza considering that we got in Commons many precious pictures that illustrate the situation well and I think it would be a shame if they remained unused.

I'm not insisting on using the exact same pictures with the exact same captions in the example I provided, I'm just saying that such a subject needs definitely more than one picture to illustrate it while taking into consideration WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:GRATUITOUS — 🧀Cheesedealer ^!!!⚟ 02:43, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

@The Cheesedealer Thank you for your effort. I support updating the infobox, and I have no objections agains these images except for the assurances, if at all possible, that the childrens' families don't object to these photographs being posted on Wikipedia. Copyright is one thing, and right to privacy is quite another, and here I'd really would like to make sure that Wikipedia respects it and doesn't add to parents' trauma.

I'll also wait for other editors to opine on the matter. Cheers, — kashmīrī ^TALK 18:40, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Sadly I don't think it is possible to verify whether those children's families accept using the photographs in Wikipedia or not (I'd assume they don't).

Thank you for reminding me of this, I retract my request til at least better pictures are available — 🧀Cheesedealer ^!!!⚟ 18:50, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

@The Cheesedealer Thank you. I'm sure more suitable photographs will gradually become available. I'd be grateful if you could keep an eye on the Commons and come up with an updated collage in a while. — kashmīrī ^TALK 20:50, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

 Note: The edit request has been retracted. M.Bitton (talk) 23:37, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 7 September 2024

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

The result of the move request was: This is currently running 2 to 1 against, with most citing procedural issues so in the interest of not wasting everyone's time more than it has already been wasted, I'm closing this. While there is a consensus against a moratorium, respondents there noted that discussions that didn't bring anything new to the table should be handled through existing processes. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:52, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

---

Gaza genocide → Accusations of Gazan genocide in the Israel–Hamas war – Let me preface this by saying that, in my mind, there is little doubt that Israel is committing a genocide. I mention this not because my non-expert opinion should have any sort of weight in this debate, but as an assurance to you that this RM is being done in good faith. After reading the previous discussion, as well as the whole scholarly/expert opinion table on the talk page, I wholeheartedly believe that "Gaza genocide" is a premature title and does more harm than good, risking the erosion of public confidence in Wikipedia for a wide swath of the population. My reasoning :

The scholarly/expert opinion is more polarized that what has been claimed. A lot of the argumentation in favor of the "Gaza genocide" title centers around the fact that, while the mainstream opinion and media may be split on the genocide accusation, a wide majority of scholars and experts consider the massacre a genocide. Before anyone contributes to this discussion, I strongly encourage that you first read the "Scholarly and expert opinions" table that has been compiled on the talk page. It's huge, I read all of it, and I have to say I didn't come out of it with any impression of a consensus. Opinions range widely, from "It is one" to "It could be one" to "It isn't one", and no position is clearly dominant. One thing to take into account is that a lof of these sources, on both sides of the argument, are not actually specialized in the topic of genocide. If we really want to know if there's an academic/expert consensus, a useful exercise could be to improve the table and prioritize genocide/Holocaust scholars and international law experts, as well as separate them based on their stance and their level of confidence in said stance. While I would be happy to be proven wrong, I doubt such an exercise would show a consensus yet.

The title doesn't match the article. When I wrote that this title could erode confidence in the neutrality of Wikipedia, I was referring to this point. Someone who clicks on "Gaza genocide" will immediately be met with multiple clear contradictions, and a general appearance of dishonesty. First, the short description refers to an "alleged genocide", while the hatnote informs the reader that "[t]his article is about genocide accusations". Then, the first sentence describes accusations of genocide, just like the rest of the article. Some have pointed to other articles, such as Transgender genocide and Black genocide in the United States, as examples of articles titled "genocide" without a consensus/a legal ruling. However, these articles are about terms that are used to characterize systemic oppression and don't refer to a single historical event, like the Holocaust. We should be honest that "Gaza genocide" as a title evokes a historical event, not a characterization of an event. In any case, I think the titling of such an important article as "Gaza genocide" should be based on reasoning rather than on a precedent by two articles with relatively low readership.

Unambiguity is more important than concision, especially in a polarizing article. Until there is an academic/expert consensus on the genocide, this article is about a debate and we don't lose anything by titling it as such, except a bit of concision. Neutrality should be our priority when it comes to a crucial article like this one. As a reminder, readers won't read an article which they perceive as dishonest, and Wikipedia's great potential for de-polarization is then wasted.

The title I'm suggesting, "Accusations of Gazan genocide in the Israel-Hamas war", is the one I think is best. The "in the Israel–Hamas war" goes along with my call for unambiguity, as there have been multiple other accusations of a Gazan genocide in the past. However, I think it would be pertinent to first debate whether or not the article should be titled "Gaza genocide", and, in the case of a negative, adjust the title afterward. WikiFouf (talk) 15:23, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Polling (Requested move 7 September 2024)

• I think it is worth distilling all possible new names into to two choices. We need to make sure we end up with something representative of consensus. I think Gaza genocide accusations and/or Gaza genocide allegations are the best possible names on the NPOV side, and Gaza genocide as the current name on the contentious POV side. IntrepidContributor (talk) 17:06, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

  FYI, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#IntrepidContributor. Levivich (talk) 18:45, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

  While I happen to agree with you that the current name is in need of improvement and I do like your suggestions, unless you can find something significant that changed since the endorsed RM closure a weeks ago, I don't how this isn't just a waste of everyone's time. I would recommend a procedural close. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 20:45, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

  I don't know why editors keep on insisting on a procedural close when there are more than enough editors here supporting the motion. Shutting down discussion is a hallmark of POV pushing or stonewalling, and neither of those are legitimate means for conducting a a discussion according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. IntrepidContributor (talk) 08:01, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

  Because this isn’t some game where if you try try again and just get the numbers to turn out then you win. We had a discussion that resulted in consensus. That discussion was reviewed and the finding of consensus endorsed. If there had been no consensus then fine discussion further makes sense. But here, when there was consensus, it is tendentious, making people go through the same shit because some people are upset they didn’t get their way. nableezy - 11:16, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

  if you try try again and just get the numbers to turn out then you win This topic area as a whole seems ripe with this ideology (see the 5th banner down here). PhotogenicScientist (talk) 15:35, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

  People, especially people who don't edit the articles in question, starting snap-RMs (and RFCs) with no "before" discussion, and doing this multiple times in rapid succession, is a huge problem in this topic area. It's very disruptive, it makes talk pages almost unusable and causes widespread burn out. It's caused a giant mess at the main war page, and we need to figure out a way to not let this disruption continue. I tried to address this here and at AE (unsuccessfully), and when the AE closes I'm planning to bring it up at AN for a community discussion. Levivich (talk) 15:42, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

• Strong oppose nothing has changed since the last RM. M.Bitton (talk) 02:55, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
• Strong oppose and Bad RFC - Exactly nothing has changed. This is just WP:BATTLEGROUND and relitigation. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 02:58, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
• Strong oppose There was an RM closed on 3 July 2024, endorsed on 22 August 2024, nothing new has been presented and this appears as nothing more than disruptive WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Selfstudier (talk) 03:03, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
• Procedural close/Oppose. Absolutely nothing has changed since the last RM. Given that the last RM closed on 3 July 2024, was endorsed at a move review 22 August 2024 and that there have been three RMs on this article this year, the filling of another RM so soon after the last one was endorsed by a move review is entirely disruptive. Consensus can change, but filing an RM less than a month after the previous one was endorsed by a move review is taking the mickey. TarnishedPath^talk 03:09, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support move I will note a precedent for repeated move requests despite nothing really changing due to a POV title, 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight. I support some similar rename per WP:POVTITLE and similar article title Palestinian genocide accusation. First of all, I think it's not at all clear that there's an overwhelming consensus that such a name as the current one is accurate. I find this article by Donna Robinson Divine useful to understand how the distortion of terminology serves to inflame and imply that a war or policy of extermination is the official policy of Israel when it isn't. This article is a good overview of the legal basics of Hamas' war crimes and why the war is one of self-defense and an attempt to rescue the hostages. I also think what David Simon has written is relevant; director of the genocide studies program at Yale University, says that Israel has only explicitly said they want to exterminate Hamas, and has not directly stated intent to “destroy a religious, ethnic or racial group.” Ben Kiernan, the director of the Cambodian Genocide Program at Yale University, also agrees. Fareed Zakaria agrees: determine whether Israel’s government is committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza. I think the charge is invalid; there is no systematic effort to exterminate Gaza’s population. (If there were, given the vast disparity in power, Israel would surely have killed many more than 23,000 people, though that number is, of course, still staggeringly high. The death toll figure comes from the Hamas-run Health Ministry in Gaza.) Genocide is an incendiary accusation that should not be used loosely Habermas, et al: "Despite all the concern for the fate of the Palestinian population, however, the standards of judgement slip completely when genocidal intentions are attributed to Israel's actions." These distortions fuel misinformation. For example, misinterpretation of the ICJ and ICC rulings which did not find a "plausible" genocide. They will have to show Israeli intent. While the death of any innocent person is a tragedy, the killing of 2% of the Gazan population during a tough urban war isn't equivalent to such historical events like the Armenian genocide or the Holocaust and shouldn't be compared to them, and it's at least argued by some experts such as John Spencer that Israel is not intentionally killing civilians and shows restraint. I recognize these are unpopular opinions. While I note that the previous close addressed the potential counterfactual aspect of the title, I believe editors should nonetheless find a consensus to rename it. Andre🚐 03:30, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Nearly all these sources date back to the early months of the war, when the casualties and damage were, though high, risible compared to the situation from March onwards, where the scale of the devastation multiplied to a level of qualitative difference. Omer Bartov like the early commentators cited here (several with no credentials) was initially sceptical but changed his opinion in August for this reason.Nishidani (talk) 08:52, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

A genocide need not reach the level of the Holocaust to be a genocide, and pointing to the arguments of someone a believes a certain threshold of number dead be met to constitute genocide, is not just at odds with any of the frameworks employed by genocide scholars, but is also counter to the UN Convention on the matter. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 09:55, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

This article is a good overview of the legal basics of Hamas' war crimes and why the war is one of self-defense and an attempt to rescue the hostages. where the article is by an IDF colonel who's repertoire of research is all in support of Israel's military actions. Firstly, I would comment that a retaliatory war does not preclude then possibility of genocide in the UN convention. Secondly, I would highlight how this list of bullet points was published 16 October 2023, almost 11 months ago. Thirdly, I would point in counter to A. Dirk Moses' article "Replacing 'Genocide' with 'Permanent Security' via Genealogy" (which was actually published in a peer-reviewed journal by an expert in genocide studies), about how arguments of "security" and "defense" are used and wielded to justify and perpetrate genocide. Moses then expands this greatly in his book "The Problems of Genocide: Permanent Security and the Language of Transgression" (published by Cambridge University Press). Then specifically to Gaza currently, we have the following academic articles which discuss the argument of a "defensive war" as justification why this does not constitute genocide, and why such an argument doesn't work:

• ""We are Fighting Nazis": Genocidal Fashionings of Gaza(ns) After 7 October" by Zoé Samudzi
• "A World Without Civilians" by Elyse Semerdjian
• "Expert Commentary, the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, and the Question of Genocide: Prosemitic Bias within a Scholarly Community?" by Omar Shahabudin McDoom
• "A Threshold Crossed: On Genocidal Intent and the Duty to Prevent Genocide in Palestine" by Nimer Sultany
• "Genocide and Resistance in Palestine under Law's Shadow" by Maryam Jamshidi

All of these being full articles, published in the Journal of Genocide Research, and having been much more recently published than Baruch's list of bullet points. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 10:27, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Further to this, beyond all the issues with bullet points 1–7, which are all contentious claims in the scholarship of each point, I would like to focus on number 8. Bullet point 8 in Baruch's 8 bullet points focusses on the legality of a blockade, and how if there is a severe humanitarian shortage aid agencies can simply request for more aid to be allowed in. This is a perfect point to show the outdatedness of these bullet points, as has been shown from the ICJ's ruling in January, the IDF controlling the blockade (alongside a small section of civilians), restricted aid into Gaza even further, leading multiple international observers to report that Israel had failed to meet the requirements of the ICJ's ruling, further leading South Africa to request additional measures, and for various reliable sources to report on deaths due to starvation within Gaza. This is just one exemplary aspect show the stark difference in conditions in just 4–5 months, let alone the further 6 months since the ICJ rulings. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 13:41, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm aware of the existence of such essays, and certainly the article should discuss in a balanced and NPOV way, the various opinions with due weight, but there also many more sources which are not convinced, even recent ones. For example this Eli Rosenbaum Daily News piece, from last month Bruce J. Einhorn, Kathleen N. Coleman, Clarice R. Feldman, Joel K. Greenberg, Jeffrey N. Mausner, and Philip L. Sunshine — worked as U.S. federal prosecutors of perpetrators of Nazi genocide ...we have seen no evidence of Israeli commission of genocide, and there is much evidence that disproves that charge — including the recent report that, since October, Israel has facilitated the entry of more than 870 metric tons of food and other humanitarian aid to Gaza’s two million inhabitants. Meanwhile, Hamas attacks or plunders food shipments, and it has denied Gazan civilians access to vast storehouses of food and medicines that it secreted in its tunnels before Oct. 7...Israel has, in fact, done more than any other military has ever done to minimize civilian casualties during large-scale urban warfare, even sacrificing the lives of many of its own soldiers in the process. For example, Israeli forces drop warning leaflets, distribute maps, and place automated phone calls to civilians in Gaza to identify areas in which combat is planned, in order to enable civilians to evacuate in advance...Yet Hamas intentionally impedes efforts of Palestinian civilians to flee to safer areas, and then it uses the military plans provided by Israel to attack its troops, employing Palestinian civilians and hostages seized in Israel as human shields — undeniably a war crime..the deaths of thousands of people during a war is not alone indicative of genocidal intent...Israel too is waging a defensive war against ongoing aggression, war crimes and genocide, but it is taking far greater steps to protect civilian lives than Allied forces did Andre🚐 04:02, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

That's a tabloid press opinion piece by a prosecutor bigging up other prosecutors and repeating tired Israeli talking points, not a serious anything, and certainly no answer to the peer-reviewed academic papers in the Journal of Genocide Research noted above. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:35, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

It's a Pulitzer Prize winning publication and one of the major newspapers in the NY area, WP:GENREL on WP:RSP, with an op-ed by a legendary former director of the US DOJ and an expert in prosecuting war crimes, so absolutely reliable and germane. Andre🚐 05:42, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Still opinion. Still non-academic. And from a hardened political insider with a political perspective. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:40, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

870 metric tons of food and other humanitarian aid For the record in a population of 2 million over 11 months this amounts to 1.3 grams(!) per person per day. KetchupSalt (talk) 07:16, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

That isn't the only aid though, as other countries and NGOs have provided aid as well, not to mention charitable donations and aid provided by the private sector. Also, not literally every person needs the aid, though it may be more than half and as much as 80%. There's some statistical information released by the Israeli government that suggests that while most of the aid was public early on, more of it is private now.[1] That chart also isn't just food because it also shows the other types of humanitarian aid broken out such as shelter and medical supplies. Also, looking at that site, the number was supposed to be 870,000.Andre🚐 07:25, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

870,000 tons does bring a more reasonable number of 1.3 kg/(person*day). Indeed not everyone needs aid, so perhaps the amount per person in need is closer to double that. Raw mass isn't super useful however, since much of this could for example be water or cement. But this would enter the territory of quibbling, as compared to a difference of three orders of magnitude... KetchupSalt (talk) 07:43, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Oh and the sending of aid in no way absolves Israel of the crime of genocide. KetchupSalt (talk) 07:52, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Academic articles by experts in the field, in the leading journal for the field in question, should be considered of more weight than articles published in the popular press. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 08:54, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Strictly pertaining to the Eli Rosenbaum op-ed, it's a question of the author's expertise and not simply the publication. An expert article that is WP:SELFPUB or in a WP:RS that's less reputable may take on the reputation of the author. In this case, there's nothing wrong with the publication's reliability, but I'm mainly offering the author as an expert on the topic of war crimes and the prosecution thereof. Andre🚐 09:12, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

He isn’t that. nableezy - 12:14, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose - even if we completely ignore that there was an established consensus for this title and that consensus was reviewed and upheld at a review, the proposed title is terrible. Just independent of any process concern, "Accusations of Gazan genocide in the Israel–Hamas war" is a terrible title. It is overly long and confusing, is it genocide against Gazans or by Gazans? It is limited in scope, ignoring the sources that say this process started well before last year. It fails basically every criteria for article titles. And that’s ignoring the process here. nableezy - 03:36, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

  Agreed that the proposed title is awkward. A better proposal is simply Accusations of genocide in the ... SPECIFICO talk 10:39, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

  @Nableezy and @SPECIFICO there is a discussion below on proposed names if you would like to help select a better alternative. IntrepidContributor (talk) 11:16, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

• Strong oppose As M.Bitton noted, nothing has changed since the last requested move, and the claim that "unambiguity is more important than concision" is completely unsupported by WP:TITLE, which treats precision and concision as equally important characteristics in selecting article titles BluePenguin18 🐧 ( 💬 ) 04:44, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
• Strong oppose – Nothing has changed since the previous RM, no need to open yet another one for essentially the same thing. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 04:56, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose - At some point, obvious truths need to be recognized for what they are. There are prominent figures who continue to deny the Holocaust and the Armenian genocide, but their positions are rightly ignored by Wikipedia for the same reason that the positions of flat-earthers and climate change deniers, some quite prominent, are ignored here. Because the truth is obvious, and no amount of argument is going to change that. At some point, you have to stop wasting time entertaining those who are willfully ignorant of reality. Ferocious Flying Ferrets 05:10, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose We've had two votes on this now. Unless there is some groundbreaking evidence that miraculously exonerates Israel from everything, I am forced to consider any new vote an attempt, perhaps unintentional, to manufacture a weak or biased enough turnout to force a change, and then argue for retention at the new title based on the new precedent. I am also very unswayed by the notion we may offend people or cause a lack of trust. Wikipedia has gone against a dozen governments before, I scarcely think we should back down because this one wields scarier accusations of "isms" than the previous lot. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 05:44, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
• Strongest possible oppose and speedy close. Nothing has changed from earlier, and all of the massive amount of evidence in this page still remains. This is just battleground behaviour. David A (talk) 05:46, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support, per u:Andre's arguments. The two discussions (move discussion and closure review) were quite close (per the move review closer Overall, there's nothing in here to suggest one side is emphatically right or wrong on that question Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2024_July). Alaexis_¿question? 07:09, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
• Strong Support I opposed the move to Gaza Genocide from the very beginning because I think it does not reflect the uncertainty and ongoing investigation by experts in various fields regarding whether the events in Gaza truly constitute genocide. In the context of the current discussion, I believe that the suggested title "Accusations of Gaza genocide in the Israel-Hamas war" is more appropriate. The use of "accusations" clarifies that the term genocide is a subject of debate and (extreme) controversy, not a settled fact, while maintaining neutrality. The suggested title makes it clear that these are accusations, not a definitive statement in Wikipedia's voice.Eladkarmel (talk) 09:12, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
• Comment - Someone lit a fire. This will attract attention. Perhaps the talk page should be extended confirmed protected to reduce the cost of enforcing ARBECR compliance. Sean.hoyland (talk) 09:32, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

  You can request it at WP:RPP/I if you want, but I don't think you have much chance unless there is quite a bit of IP disruption. TarnishedPath^talk 10:11, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

You are probably right. Also, it takes some time for people to organize their Reddit, Discord etc. calls to arms/off-site canvassing efforts. There is normally a sizable delay between call and response. Sean.hoyland (talk) 10:55, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

• Procedural close: While I still think it was inappropriate to change this article's title, the arguments I point to for a procedural close are the same as TarnishedPath above, with further details on the current sources, explained by myself in a discussion comment below. --Cdjp1 (talk) 10:02, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
• Strong oppose – Nothing has changed since the page was moved to Gaza genocide. Unless there's any new information that would justify moving this page to the long title mentioned above, this discussion should be closed. FunLater (talk) 10:43, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
• Strong oppose per above. Nothing has changed since the previous RM. Skitash (talk) 11:08, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support move this move would be an initial and crucial step in restoring Wikipedia's credibility and neutrality regarding ARBPIA topics. ABHammad (talk) 12:07, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
• Strong support. The current title claims that there actually is a genocide, namely that people are being killed intentionally because of their ancestry or other aspects correlated with ancestry (e.g skin color, culture). This is not the case. The target title makes zero claim on any actual genocide, only accusations of it. Animal lover |666| 12:44, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
• Strong oppose and procedural close per Selfstudier and TarnishedPath who echoed what I wanted to say. How many times are we going to do this? Sixth time's the charm? - Ïvana (talk) 13:04, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
• Strong oppose for the reasons mentioned by Bluethricecreamman, TarnishedPath, Iazyges, Cdjp1, BluePenguin18 and Selfstudier.
• Strong oppose per Tarnishedpath. Similarly, Allegations of Israeli apartheid was nominated no less than 10x for deletion (different situation here) and currently is moved to its current target Israeli apartheid. As a side note, English Wikipedia's reputation remains strong throughout, despite efforts by Israeli lobby groups to cast doubt. Perhaps if we renamed to Settlement of Gaza genocide people would stop trying to 'evict' it. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 13:47, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. Firstly, WP:SNOW means this is already over, especially considering the last move review was concluded less than 3 weeks ago on 22 August 2024. I would have supported a moratorium (for 3/6 months, not any longer), but that vote is already over, extremely convincingly choosing for no moratorium. But, I mean this debate is not going to go away. A month or two maximum after this is closed, there will be another RM. MarkiPoli (talk) 14:04, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
• Strong oppose for not bringing anything new to the table and only relitigating the previous, well-attended and confirmed move, but with an even worse and more convoluted title alternative than the original + with no substance or merit to the RM. A lack of a moratorium is not an invitation to raise fresh RMs without demonstrating a change of circumstances. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:04, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support, the topic is widely controversial and there are ferocious arguments about it in the real world. It is best for Wikipedia to be neutral and reflect an objective outlook on the issue. The title nominated better serves in protecting Wikipedia's neutrality. Galamore (talk) 15:10, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support. This is complicated. There is a war, and a lot of civilians are always killed in every war. Actually, the ratio of civilian:militant killed during this war is pretty low (1:1 according to Israeli sources). It was much higher in wars by US. Then, there could be war crimes, but they are not genocide. But even the war crimes are debatable because the Israeli forces did care to move civilians out of the areas of most intense operations and created some presumably safe zones in Gaza. Yes, a couple of Israeli officials (I would call them far-right idiots) did say on several occasions "let's kill them all". Nevertheless, this is not at all an official policy of the Jewish state, de juro or de facto. What we have are only allegations. They should be described as such, and indeed, they are described as such in the lead of this page (I did not read anything below the lead). The title of the page should simply be consistent with its content. My very best wishes (talk) 16:04, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

'Comment.

Actually, the ratio of civilian:militant killed during this war is pretty low (1:1 according to Israeli sources).

MVBW. You are citing one Israeli source, that ignored the evidence of Israeli officials themselves.

See Casualties of the Israel–Hamas war, where it cites a December 2023 estimation by the IDF that Israel was doing remarkably well in killing only two civilians for every combatant.

Official sources stated by April that it was acceptable to kill 30 civilians in exchange for taking out one lower-order Hamas commander.

It was The Times of Israel which trumpeted the claim you repeat almost verbatim, that the combatant vs civilian kill ratio was close to I:!, an historic achievement in protecting civilians.

But serious strategic analysts stated shortly afterwards the contrary that:

'Israeli military rules of engagement reportedly allow the killing of up to 20 civilians to take out a single junior Hamas fighter, 100 for a senior leader. By comparison, the United States put the ratio at 30-to-one for Saddam Hussein.(Daniel Byman, A War They Both Are Losing: Israel, Hamas and the Plight of Gaza International Institute for Strategic Studies 4 June 2024.

Given that oppose positions are grounded in prior discussion of a mass of first class RS, supporting a change requires serious new sourcing, not trumped up propaganda claims, duly dismissed, like the ToL piece.Nishidani (talk) 22:35, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't trust any estimations made over 5 years in the future...@Nishidani Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 22:39, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

CorrectedNishidani (talk) 22:44, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

• Myth #1: The conflict is too complex to possibly understand – The 11 biggest myths about Israel-Palestine ... thankfully there are genocide scholars for this topic, as reiterated quite redundantly at the last RM – so covered! Iskandar323 (talk) 16:33, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

I did not say the conflict is too complex to possibly understand, and I agree with the author of the linked article about the "myths". This is an interesting "fact checking" article. Please check Myth #10: Israel is explicitly seeking Palestinians’ total destruction. That is what I am saying. My very best wishes (talk) 16:50, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

That was written in 2015, years before Gaza genocide began in 2023. Levivich (talk) 17:01, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, of course. My very best wishes (talk) 17:06, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

I would point out the Vox article is almost ten years old, and in that time there has been an explicit move in the Knesset to the right, with Bibi agree to work with far-right parties who have explicit expulsionary and irredentist ideologies. This fact has been brought up multiple times in popular press, as well as explicitly in the work of genocide scholars, in published academic articles assessing the current situation as genocidal. Particularly Yoav Di-Capua's article "Genocidal Mirroring in Israel/Palestine", and Raz Segal and Luigi Daniele's article "Gaza as Twilight of Israel Exceptionalism: Holocaust and Genocide Studies from Unprecedented Crisis to Unprecedented Change". These three scholars highlight the increasing genocidal rhetoric in the Knesset over the past decade. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 17:10, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

"the increasing genocidal rhetoric in the Knesset". Yes, this seems to be true. Somehow I am not surprised given the ferocity and the endless nature of the conflict. I have no idea how they are going to resolve it. My very best wishes (talk) 17:23, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

"Safe zones" have been a tool of genocide before... it does not prove anything about the supposedly benign intentions of the Israeli state—and they are specifically argued to be tools of ethnic cleansing and genocide by multiple sources that have been cited here. Also Forensic Architecture found that "these measures, far from protecting Palestinian civilians, serve rather to support Israel’s genocidal campaign by systematically forcing civilians into unliveable areas". (t · c) buidhe 17:35, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it does appear that nowhere in Gaza is safe. As an outsider to this conflict, I would assume that all civilians should simply be allowed to evacuate from the war zone (as would be in any other war), which can be only to Egypt or other countries. But apparently that other countries do not allow the Palestinian refugees to enter, even when they want to go, and do not facilitate their immigration and transportation (I assume that the Israel would be only happy to help them out?). I am not trying to make any moral judgements, but simply thinking about the historical precedents of resolving such conflicts, only the recent Flight of Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians comes to my mind. Was it genocide of Armenians? That did not happen in Gaza, at least not yet. My very best wishes (talk) 18:48, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM. nableezy - 19:41, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

• Strong oppose/bad RM/WP:SNOW - Procedurally, two weeks after the last Move Review closed, with no new sources brought to the discussion, and no new arguments, is too soon to have another RM. It's a ridiculous waste of time to have a whole second RM simply because somebody on the internet disagrees with the first one. (Disclosure: I tried removing this RM when it was first posted and reported InterpidContributor to AE for restoring it twice.) We're going to end up having the same people make the same votes for the same reasons as last time. Substantively, I oppose this for the same reasons as last time. Levivich (talk) 17:05, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
• Strong support – As I said on the talk page I believe the current title is an NPOV violation and I do not feel a consensus was reached in the previous move request. —mountainhead / ? 17:27, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose relitigation of the last RM. Let's put a moratorium on it and discuss it in 1-2 years when the dust settles. Incidentally, the support arguments often rest on a misconception of the concept of genocide—for example one supporter arguing that Gazans are not "being killed intentionally because of their ancestry or other aspects correlated with ancestry (e.g skin color, culture)"—mass killing is not required for genocide, nor is "ancestry" and its correlates the only grounds on which genocide can be committed—even according to more restrictive definitions of genocide. (t · c) buidhe 17:35, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
• Strong oppose To be honest this RM seems like the continuation of the usual toxic battleground behaviour that dominates this topic area. A matter of weeks ago the previous RM closure was endorsed at WP:MRV. Fundamentally what has changed since the last time this was assessed? AusLondonder (talk) 19:07, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

  A few relevant experts have changed from "warning of potential genocide" to "this is genocidal", is the main difference in RS since the last move request. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 22:31, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support moving this article to something that is less POV pushing - but I'm not a fan of this particular proposed title. It's unwieldy. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 21:00, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support - Gaza genocide is a WP:POVNAME, and our policy is to use POV names only when they're so common as to effectively become a proper name, which clearly hasn't happened. There's no need to quantify how many genocide scholars subscribe to each view - the fact that there's a (non-fringe) controversy means that it's a POV name. We should take a cue from the mainstream media here, since they tend to have similar asperations of neutrality. Literally all MSM sources describe accusations of genocide, rather than calling it a genocide in their own voice. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 21:25, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

  Or maybe look to ask the scholarly papers already out in the Journal of Genocide Research et al. ... instead of, erm, the local newspapers. Iskandar323 (talk) 23:49, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

  Mainstream media has the unique feature of journalistic objectivity, making it a useful signal for assessing the neutrality of names. Of course this is an ideal; in reality no source is perfectly neutral. But when MSM sources are completely unanimous about a certain naming decision, that should be a wake-up call.

  Individual scholars have no such commitment to neutrality. Certain journals might impose some standard of neutrality, but not so much the Journal of Genocide Research, which has been accused of Holocaust Minimization, Anti-Israel Themes, and Antisemitism. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 04:16, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

  Ah, that article by Charny, where Charny considers any comparative analysis in genocide studies between any event and the Holocaust to be at least Holocaust minimisation if not denial. Oh, except for when Charny does the comparative analysis. And may we not forget Charny has had it out for the journal ever since it retracted a comment by him accusing another Jewish genocide scholar of Holocaust denial.

  And this is before we get into the laughable notion of "journalistic objectivity", where broadly sich a notion is ripped to shreds in research, and is even highlighted as an issue in regards to Israel-Palestine. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 09:03, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

  That's not a fair summary of Charny's critique, and anyway the important part of the paper is the data, where a majority of respondents felt the journal involved Holocaust minimization and so forth.

  Sure no news agency is perfectly neutral; that doesn't really matter given that they're completely unanimous on this matter. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 15:03, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

  @XDanielx the data is how respondents felt about selected quotes, taken from the context of their articles that Charny presented to them. How the respondents felt had they been presented the papers the small quotes were taken from could be very different, and must be considered when assessing Charny's paper here.

  And to clarify, my previous comment is a summary of how Charny has conducted himself across multiple critiques, not this specific paper. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 15:48, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

• Procedural closeit's been a few weeks since we closed the last RM, i don't see any new evidence presented etc etc ... —blindlynx 22:00, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support; was pinged here since I participated in the previous RM, and my position remains the same. Mainstream media and news outlets don't refer to what's happening in Gaza as a "genocide" in their own 'voice', so neither should Wikipedia. Some1 (talk) 22:26, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support move The current title is a clear POV title. The previous close illustrates one of the flaws of our close review process. We have what can very reasonably be seen as a bad close (clear consensus for some move but no obvious consensus between the choices with a near 50/50 split). However, once the move was made with basically no majority, it now takes a supermajority to say the close was bad since the 50% that liked the move can simply claim "the move was good" and secure a "no consensus". I agree with the concerns that this makes Wikipedia look very biased and overall hurts the credibility of Wikipedia via the bad look. I didn't participate in any of the previous topic discussions. Springee (talk) 22:48, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support move. Current title is clearly POV, there may not be any new arguments but hopefully there will be an actual assessment of consensus in this discussion. The last RM ended in a supervote based on a fractured discussion that intentionally split editors up between two different "qualifier" words in order to make it seem like the current title had the most support. There is no academic consensus at all that this is a genocide, even if there is consensus that there have been significant civilian casualties. Those claiming there is some academic consensus have repeatedly cherrypicked sources to support their view. This entire topic has been the subject of POV pushing and it damages Wikipedia's reputation to allow a title like this that states as a fact what is still in active, significant debate. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 03:27, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per the previous discussion. As for "The title doesn't match the article", we should bring the article in line with the emerging consensus and the reality of the situation. Also it seems there is no title you can pick that won't be seen as POV. Take "Gaza genocide accusations" for example. This would seem to suggest that these are mere accusations without any substance to them. Such a suggestion would require completely ignoring the words and actions of Israeli officials and IDF soldiers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KetchupSalt (talk • contribs) 07:56, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
• Strong oppose/bad RM/WP:SNOW/Procedural close This is getting absurd at this point. The topic was closed just recently after having gone through several rounds already, and it was decided convincingly. No new arguments have been presented to restart it, nothing has changed in terms of the underlying facts. This is an abuse of the system and we shouldn't entertain it.Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 08:56, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. Almost nothing has been said in this discussion that wasn't said in the last two. If the consensus (or lack thereof) ends up any different, it'd be because everyone is exhausted and may not argue as effectively as they did before. We should propose a moratorium after this to avoid yet another rehash and save everyone's time and energy. PBZE (talk) 17:12, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose Such a move would further the article from a neutral point of view, and as mentioned above this issue has been handily and repeatedly settled. entropyandvodka | talk 17:30, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
• Strong oppose per logic of the RFC which brought the article to Gaza Genocide in the first place. 🌸wasianpower🌸 (talk • contribs) 17:38, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Discussion (Requested move 7 September 2024)

Pinging @Paul Vaurie, @Simonm223, @Kashmiri, @Entropyandvodka, @Chaotic Enby, @Zanahary, @The Great Mule of Eupatoria, @Jerdle, @Esolo5002, @Howardcorn33, @CybJubal, @Iskandar323, @David A, @Levivich, @Unbandito, @Ïvana, @PBZE, @Hogo-2020, @My very best wishes and @Stephan rostie as editors involved in the prior RM. Part 1 of 4. TarnishedPath^talk 03:56, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
Pinging @Rainsage, @Cdjp1, @Oleg Yunakov, @Eladkarmel, @האופה, @FunLater, @Skitash, @Smallangryplanet, @Vinegarymass911, @BilledMammal, @FortunateSons, @Nishidani, @SKAG123, @MarkiPoli, @Metropolitan90, @Dreameditsbrooklyn, @CoffeeCrumbs, @CommunityNotesContributor, @BluePenguin18 and @XDanielx as editors involved in the prior RM discussion. Part 2 of 4. TarnishedPath^talk 03:58, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
Pinging @Trilletrollet, @TimeEngineer, @Bondegezou, @Cremastra, @Blindlynx, @Vice regent, @Crossroads, @FunLater, @KetchupSalt, @Vegan416, @Cremastra, @Brusquedandelion, @AndyBloch, @Alaexis, @Czello, @Me Da Wikipedian, @Animal lover 666, @Kinsio, @NoonIcarus and @Personisinsterest as editors involved in the prior RM discussion. Part 3 of 4. TarnishedPath^talk 04:01, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
Pinging @Some1, @Kowal2701, @Let'srun, @Alalch E., @Iazyges, @Huldra, @SPECIFICO and @DaZyzzogetonsGotDaLastWord as editors involved in the prior RM. Part 4 of 4. Appologies if I've missed anyone or doubled up pinging anyone. It was a lot of editors. TarnishedPath^talk 04:03, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject International relations, WikiProject Discrimination, WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, WikiProject Human rights, WikiProject Israel, WikiProject Death, WikiProject Ethnic groups, WikiProject Palestine, WikiProject Disaster management, and WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration have been notified of this discussion. TarnishedPath^talk 04:04, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: In response to scholarly/expert opinion is more polarized that what has been claimed, it is very dependent on how we draw the boundaries. Template:Expert opinions in the Gaza genocide debate aimed to gather all opinions, and there are a couple of trends of note that should be pointed out:

1. As time has gone on we have seen more people come to the conclusion that this is genocide, a couple of prominent opinions of note that have come out since the last move request are Omer Bartov in August 2024 where he has moved from warning of a potential for genocide to this being genocide, and Amos Goldberg in July 2024.
2. If we look at specifically genocide scholars, there is a clear majority of those who have expressed their opinion, or provided their analysis that this is a genocide. It is also (so far) only genocide scholars who have published their analysis in peer-reviewed academic journals.
3. Most of the experts who argue this is not genocide are legal scholars, applying the UN framework, that is, they argue there is not currently evidence of dolus specialis. The UN framework is considered generally lacking and not fit for determining what is or is not genocide among genocide scholars (even among the few genocide scholars who are currently choosing to use the framework to argue that Gaza is not a genocide). While we should include their opinions in the article, the UN framework is not the metric we use, we use what reliable sources use, so we privilege academic literature first-and-foremost, balanced with the other published opinions of relevant specialists and experts.

So I would argue, since there hasn't been any massive change in such sources (though it could be argued a slight move in support of labelling this a genocide), there is not currently grounds to reargue the move of the article. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 08:53, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

• Comment I’d like to see evidence of academic polarization before I decide. Personisinsterest (talk) 10:59, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Let's not forget @HaOfa, @Oleg Y, @Rockstone35, @Thisasia, @Guise, @Zohariko1234 and @mountainhead. IntrepidContributor (talk) 14:08, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

@IntrepidContributor, HaOfa's and Oleg Y's usernames are different to their signatures. I already included them. I can't see that Rockstone35, Thisasia, Guise or mountainhead participated in the RM at Talk:Gaza_genocide/Archive_2#Requested_move_3_May_2024. Can you please advise where you are getting those editors from? TarnishedPath^talk 02:36, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I participated in the move review, but I did not participate in the May 3rd proposal. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 03:42, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I ping those two users from the list of names in the move review. The other three are from page move related discussions above. IntrepidContributor (talk) 07:11, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

@IntrepidContributor have you pinged selected editors from the move review? TarnishedPath^talk 04:05, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

@TarnishedPath i do participated in the move from the achieved talk Thisasia  ^(Talk) 08:00, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

From talk page discussions above: [2] [3] [4]. IntrepidContributor (talk) 08:19, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

@IntrepidContributor, it's apparent to me that you didn't ping all editors from those discussions. That's WP:CANVASSING. I suggest you rectify that by pinging ALL editors who were involved in those discussions excluding ones that I've already pinged above. TarnishedPath^talk 09:23, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I suggest you AGF. If you notice any editors missing from my post, who you didn't ping already in your post, you may do so now. IntrepidContributor (talk) 11:06, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

@Chuckstablers, Sameboat, Hemiauchenia, and Redxiv: you were missing from overly-long ping lists. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:49, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

• Comment - there are two questions here, one procedural (whether it's too early for another RM) and one substantive (which title is most appropriate). It might be too late now, but it would have been cleaner if procedural objections had been made in a separate section. If this ends up not being closed for procedural reasons, then it goes to substance, where the closer may have a hard time discerning whether each procedural oppose is also a substantive oppose, and if so, how much weight to assign such !votes which don't get into substantive arguments. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 16:32, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Proposed alternative names

• Name #1: Gaza genocide allegation is more in line with the current content of the article.
• Name #2: Gaza genocide accusation is a second favourite often proposed in some form, like the one above.
• Name #3: Allegations of genocide in the Israel-Hamas war propoped above, inserting here. The others still concatenate Gaza and genocide. SPECIFICO talk 15:11, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Both these names are shorter and more concise than the Accusations of Gazan genocide in the Israel–Hamas war and some of the longer names proposed in earlier discussions. IntrepidContributor (talk) 18:07, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Why u wanna change the name if it's confirmed most victims are civilians 50% women and children. Says it's confirmed in article, change name and it's all of a sudden biased bruh HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 22:28, 9 September 2024 (UTC) struck WP:ECR violation Left guide (talk) 05:38, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

The relationship between genocide status and casualty ratios is a matter for genocide scholars to discuss; this isn't the place for it. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 22:45, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

• Either Name 1 or Name 2 works in my opinion. Let'srun (talk) 00:13, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
• Name 2 would match Palestinian genocide accusation nicely, though WP:CONSISTENT is a minor consideration; any of the proposed names seem okay. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 02:58, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
• Either 1 or 2 is fine, I have a slight preference for name 2 for consistency as XDanielx points out. I will caution those commenting on this topic however that the last RM was derailed by the splitting of editors between these alternative names, and that is the reason the closer claimed to find a consensus for the current POV name. If editors are arguing against one or more of these alternative names (rather than just expressing a slight preference for one but acceptability of them all), it would be prudent to be extremely clear in your reasoning to avoid your opinion being seen as a !vote for the current title. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 03:29, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

  The purpose of this discussion is to decide on the right alternative name. I so happen to believe that the closer of the last discussion should have been able to count the !votes and group them by names, and decide on one of them, or as a noconsensus. IntrepidContributor (talk) 07:13, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

• Either one is fine, with a slight preference for 2 per xDanielx. FortunateSons (talk) 07:19, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

New name for RM

Based on the discussion immediately above, I would like to propose Gaza genocide accusation as the new RM name in place of Gazan genocide in the Israel–Hamas war as proposed above by OP @WikiFouf. IntrepidContributor (talk) 08:54, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support as nominator. IntrepidContributor (talk) 08:55, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support this or the other name. Andre🚐 08:57, 10 September 2024 (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.

Restoring my improperly removed comment

We don't just open an RM for no obvious reason, out of the blue, just after a recent RM that also went through MR and was endorsed, without a prior discussion. Specifically, one should elaborate on what has changed since the previous discussion, that would warrant opening a new RM? Selfstudier (talk) 17:32, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Please do not remove a RM just because you don't agree on the timing. We can use this post to discuss whatever needs to be discussed for a new RM discussion and close. You could well have replied in the move request section above instead of deleting it and creating this new discussion. IntrepidContributor (talk) 17:41, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

I created this discussion before you disruptively (re)posted the above RM and you improperly moved it, causing further disruption. Selfstudier (talk) 18:00, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

No, first you removed the above editor's post [5], and then a full seven minutes later you made this post [6]. Please do not delete other editors contributions to talk page as per WP:TPO. IntrepidContributor (talk) 18:03, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

That can be dealt with at AE. Selfstudier (talk) 18:35, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps if the article were renamed 'Not the Capital' it might help reduce the number of people trying to storm it to Stop the Steal. Sean.hoyland (talk) 10:35, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

That kind of conjecture is really not what these talk pages are for. IntrepidContributor (talk) 17:44, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

I know. They are also not for people to waste volunteer time by engaging them in a death spiral of RM requests until the 'correct' outcome is obtained. That would quite a foolish thing to do, the kind of foolishness I see a lot in the PIA topic area. It is so easy to have patience in this life. Sean.hoyland (talk) 07:28, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Supposed Romanian complicity in genocide

I already know well this topic area is eager to emotional and exaggerated claims. But I was actually baffled to see the claim in the infobox that Romania is allegedly complicit in a genocide in the Gaza Strip. Is there any academic consensus or discussion regarding this? Currently this Gaza genocide#Romanian complicity section only features claims from three pro-Palestine groups that Romania is somehow involved. Only the reasoning of one of the three is explained and it is uniquely that Romanian weapon sales to Israel have continued after the war started. I am not an expert by any means but I seriously doubt this condition meets the criteria for genocide anyhow. Is there even a definition for complicity in genocide in international law?

I think many of you need to reconsider what are you writing over here. This is just biased propaganda at this point. Pointing fingers at random countries online is a ridiculous thing to do. I think the section should be removed. Or, if there's actual academic and expert debate on this, the section needs some heavy working and sourcing so that the claim does not look WP:EXCEPTIONAL. Currently the only sources in the section are three newspapers reporting about pro-Palestine protests. Super Ψ Dro 22:36, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

uniquely that Romanian weapon sales to Israel have continued after the war started not unique, as that is the argument that has lead to the accusations of complicity and legal actions around such in all countries listed as "complicit". -- Cdjp1 (talk) 22:43, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Cdjp1, is there any source other than pro-Palestinian protestors that Romania is complicit in genocide in the Gaza Strip? Nothing in Google Scholar [7], I can't find much in Google either. Erdoğan is well-known for being an international leader who has harshly protested against the Israeli actions in Gaza; he said nothing about any of this when he met some months ago with Romanian PM Marcel Ciolacu, whose cabinet was supposedly complicit in genocide [8]. Several other EU countries sell weapons to Israel, and they do not have their own sections acussing them of genocide complicity [9]. From what I can see, this claim is non-existent in reliable sources.

I have just seen that this section was first added by an editor who was known in the Romanian topic area for his sloppy edits. He was indefinitely blocked last month. I really don't see much weight for keeping this section in the article. I really find it ashaming that this section has been kept for three months and nobody has said anything about this propaganda despite the many views that this article receives. Super Ψ Dro 22:56, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Those included here use the logic of legal cases brought against them for complicity. As there is a legal case brought against Romania by citizens of Romania, using my 1 revert in this 24 hour period to add it back there's nothing about this in the article, and I'd be surprised to find out that such a legal case wouldn't be considered undue when acussing a country of complicity in genocide in Wikipedia. Super Ψ Dro 23:07, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

@Super Dromaeosaurus apologies I seem to have misremembered the sources for Romania. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 08:29, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree it should be removed if proper sourcing can't be found. Proper sourcing should be scholars saying "Romania," "complicit," "Gaza genocide." (I did a quick Google Scholar search and was unable to find anything.) Simply saying Romania supplies arms to Israel shouldn't be enough for Wikipedia to characterize it as complicity in Gaza genocide. Levivich (talk) 23:21, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

absolutely agree, that'd be classic WP:SYNTH Andre🚐 00:17, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I've removed Romania. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 09:41, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. Super Ψ Dro 10:28, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

ICJ case delay sought by South Africa

South Africa is attempting to extend the deadline for presenting evidence against Israel at the International Court of Justice in The Hague because it is unable to prove its allegations of genocide, Kan News reported on Tuesday. WP:BLPCRIME should protect specific allegations of guilt of the crime of genocide for specific Israelis or other living individuals from being unequivocally stated, as the case is ongoing. I'm not sure that the current text does. Andre🚐 02:23, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Why are you linking JNS instead of KAN? Bluethricecreamman (talk) 02:38, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

The KAN article is in Hebrew. Here's another source from JPost. [10] Andre🚐 02:41, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Google Translate exists. Please post Kan News link, I can't find it in the article. JNS is apparently fairly right-wing. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 02:43, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't find a permalink to a KAN report itself right now. It may have been part of a radio or TV report that hasn't been transcribed or a live article that isn't categorized under the same place as their other news pieces about the ICJ stuff. I found a 3rd source from Arutz Sheva but I don't suppose we need that one for anything. If I find the actual KAN link, I'll let you know. Andre🚐 02:59, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

JPost seems fine actually. i think its a fair bit less biased. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 02:45, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

This is a matter for the South Africa's genocide case against Israel article. Selfstudier (talk) 02:51, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

WP:BLPCRIME applies on all articles. Andre🚐 02:56, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

What is it in this article that is specifically of concern? Selfstudier (talk) 03:10, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

This article contains extensive text accusing various individuals such as Israeli cabinet members or even U.S. President Biden of complicity with crimes. Andre🚐 03:17, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

In Wikivoice? Selfstudier (talk) 03:23, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Not as such, but WP:BLPSTYLE warns about contentious labels ("Genocide Joe") and a slanted POV tone that lacks balance (WP:BLPBALANCE). Arguably, many of these sources are also WP:PRIMARY sources (see WP:BLPPRIMARY). Yes, they are WP:PUBLICFIGUREs which affords some leeway. However, I think some of the stuff about complicity, for example mentioning several German politicians, goes a bit too far. Andre🚐 03:33, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Still don't see what it has to do with the JP article. Selfstudier (talk) 03:24, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Well, you'd think from some of the discussions that the ICJ is not nuanced and is unequivocal, but as that article shows, the case is ongoing and South Africa is asking for a delay, possibly due to being unable to prove their allegations to the legal standard needed. Andre🚐 03:34, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

It's not unusual for there to be delays in court proceedings, the case is expected to last for years. Anyway, those issues are for the specific article about the case. Selfstudier (talk) 03:39, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this absolutely has to do with this article. If claims of genocide cannot be substantiated by evidence, this article needs to be evaluated (not just the title but its content). Trying to shoehorn discussion into a separate article is an example of trying to make a POVFORK. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 03:44, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

We just report what reliable sources say. The title has been dealt with. Don't really understand the shoehorning point? Selfstudier (talk) 03:49, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Your claim was that discussion shouldn't go here because there's a subarticle. That is attempting to shoehorn it away from this article because you want this article (the primary article in summary style, which is appropriate, obviously) because it would not fit your POV to contain more information about the veracity of the claims here.

The title has not been dealt with and still violates NPOV. After the upcoming Arbitration Committee intervention, people will be able to actually decide on a NPOV title without being disrupted. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 05:46, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Although it is not impossible that the inability to find evidence could be the reason for South Africa to request a deadline extension, it is totally impossible that South Africa would cite that as the reason. We are not required to believe in fairies. I am not even convinced yet that such a request exists. I can't find anything on the ICJ site and I can't find anything in South African sources. For example, this South African news story about the case published only 7 hours ago doesn't mention it even though it mentions the Oct 28 deadline. Zero^talk 04:04, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

In this South African news report from yesterday the SA president is cited as saying that SA will file a memorial next month. Here is the official statement. Of course the matter won't be definitively put to bed until there is either an official denial or a request for an extension appears on the ICJ website. Zero^talk 04:18, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

technically aa isn't reliable, and we shouldn't use government press releases. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 04:28, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

RS does not constrain discussion, it only constrains what is allowed in articles. If you know of an actual confirmation (more than just a repeat) of Kan's claim, please tell us. Zero^talk 05:01, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

I tend to agree with this. It is too soon to consider this until there is something more official. But I do believe bringing up the reports in at this point multiple sources (at least some of which are reliable) that the request is forthcoming. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 05:53, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

The Kan report, a google translation here, not sure if "the "Kalman Lieberman" program here on Network B" is some sort of attribution. Might be a part of this (updated to include the SA government confirmation that they will file as planned). Selfstudier (talk) 09:34, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Having read the article, it appears that the claim there isn't enough evidence is the assessment by article authors deducing this must be the reason due to South Africa requesting an extension on the evidence deadline. The article does not say the South Africa team stated they did not have enough evidence. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 09:59, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Kalman-Lieberman (קלמן ליברמן) is a radio show hosted by Kalman Liebskind and Asaf Lieberman (אסף ליברמן); whereas Reshet Bet (רשת ב') is a radio station that operated under that name 1952-2017, afterwhich it became KAN B (כאן ב), but the old name is still used often. (Sorry, couldn't be bothered to ill the links.) El_C 16:54, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Circles are not square, the moon is not made of strawberry jam, and nations bringing cases to the ICJ don't admit they can't find enough evidence. Yet it's amazing how many "news" sites have uncritically repeated Kan's claim. Searching again today, I found no independent confirmation, but I did find a denial. I can only see the headline "No delay in Israel ICJ case, says SA after Israeli 'not enough evidence' report" and one sentence "South Africa says it will file evidence of genocide in Gaza in October as scheduled, despite claims out of Israel it is seeking a delay.", but that seems clear enough. Note that this is a South African news site, not the Indian one of the same name. Zero^talk 02:23, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Given the lack of global MSM coverage, I don't think these events are a significant WP:ASPECT of the topic of this article. Levivich (talk) 04:05, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Isn't the 'Moon made of green cheese' is more popular phrase?84.54.73.17 (talk) 05:27, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but that one's true so it didn't suit. Zero^talk 07:35, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Now the JP says the ICJ has refused the request for a delay, treating it as fact that there was such a request. Selfstudier (talk) 13:14, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

And here is another South African source saying that SA doesn't want an extension. Zero^talk 22:45, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

I have a conjecture about this. On essentially the same day that SA was alleged to have sought an extension, Russia sought an extension to a deadline for submitting a counter-memorial regarding Ukraine. The request and ruling is here. My conjecture is that this Russian request about a case with a very similar name and some sloppy journalism led to a conclusion that South Africa sought an extension. This example also shows that requests and rulings on them are public and published even when it is the president of the court rather than the full court which makes the decision. If no such ruling regarding South Africa appears on the ICJ web site soon, we can reasonably conclude that there was no request.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Zero0000 (talk • contribs)

MOS comments regarding the lead

I'm not interested in making a whole RfC out of this if there's no consensus, but the lead could use some improvements regarding MOS. First, having the first word of the lead be "experts" comes across as WP:WEASELy. While use of "experts" in the topic sentence is allowed per that guideline, it would be an improvement in this case to remove it or replace it with something more precise. "Legal scholars", "genocide scholars", and "Middle East scholars" appear later in the article, and while still not perfect, these or some variation would benefit the lead. I suggest something like Governments, United Nations agencies, non-governmental organisations, and legal scholars have accused...

Second, the lead seems disorganized, like it's in the wrong order. The paragraphs currently go:

• Nature of accusations, then death statistics
• Health statistics, blockade, then cultural destruction
• Intent to destroy
• ICJ

While there's no "perfect" order, I'm generally adverse to front-loading leads with statistics, and when reviewing articles, I've found that leads read better when general facts are above specific ones. The statistics portions are also smaller than the other aspects individually and could fit in one paragraph. I suggest moving a few sentences around so it goes:

• Nature of accusations, then intent to destroy
• Death statistics, then cultural destruction
• Health statistics, then blockade
• ICJ

The lead would then look like this:

Governments, United Nations agencies, non-governmental organisations, and legal experts have accused Israel of carrying out a genocide against the Palestinian people during its invasion and bombing of the Gaza Strip in the ongoing Israel–Hamas war. Various observers, including United Nations Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese, cited statements by senior Israeli officials that may indicate an "intent to destroy" (in whole or in part) Gaza's population, a necessary condition for the legal threshold of genocide to be met. A majority of mostly US-based Middle East scholars believed Israel's actions in Gaza were intended to make it uninhabitable for Palestinians, and 75% of them say Israel's actions in Gaza constitute either "major war crimes akin to genocide" or "genocide".

By mid-August 2024, after nine months of attacks, Israeli military action had resulted in over 40,000 confirmed Palestinian deaths—1 out of every 59 people in Gaza—averaging 148 deaths per day. Most of the victims are civilians, of whom at least 50% are women and children, and more than 100 journalists. Thousands more dead bodies are thought to be under the rubble of destroyed buildings. Israel has also destroyed numerous culturally significant buildings, including 13 libraries housing thousands of books, all of Gaza's 12 universities and 80% of its schools, dozens of mosques, three churches, and two museums.

By June 2024, over 500 healthcare workers in Gaza had been killed. As of August 2024, only 17 of Gaza's 36 hospitals were partially functional; 84% of health centers in the region have been destroyed or suffered damage. An enforced Israeli blockade heavily contributed to starvation and the threat of famine in the Gaza Strip, while Israeli forces prevented humanitarian supplies from reaching the Palestinian population, blocking or attacking humanitarian convoys. Early in the conflict, Israel cut off water and electricity supply from the Gaza Strip.

The government of South Africa has instituted proceedings, South Africa v. Israel, against Israel at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), alleging a violation of the Genocide Convention. In an initial ruling, the ICJ held that South Africa was entitled to bring its case against Israel, while Palestinians were recognised to have "a plausible right to be protected from genocide" that faced a real risk of irreparable damage. The court ordered Israel to observe its obligations under the Genocide Convention by taking all measures within its power to prevent the commission of acts of genocide, to prevent and punish incitement to genocide, and to allow basic humanitarian services into Gaza. The court also later ordered Israel to increase humanitarian aid into Gaza and to prevent genocidal acts during the Rafah offensive. The Israeli government rejected South Africa's allegations, and accused the court of being antisemitic.

I believe this flows much better, but I'm interested in hearing other thoughts. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:44, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

I think your reordering and reasoning is good. I would support changing the lead to what you've suggested. As you brought it up, I reflected on the opening sentence for a few minutes. If you don't mind a discussion on just the first sentence here:

I think "non-governmental organisations" is vague. Especially considering the line also includes governments. Governments and non-governments accuse X of Y? What groups exactly are being referred to? NGOs can be political, partisan, or advocacy groups. I wonder if this should be changed to "human rights organisations", or similar. Bitspectator ⛩️ 22:30, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

I reordered it because that makes sense. Can do further editing as needed from there? Selfstudier (talk) 09:28, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

I also think that this makes sense and makes this article more properly structured and encyclopaedic. Thank you for helping out. David A (talk) 20:16, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Something of interest to add to this page

To quote:

"Since the October 7 attack, Israel's right-wing Channel 14 has broadcast over 50 statements by presenters, panelists, and guests advocating or defending genocide against Palestinians in Gaza and more than 150 calls for war crimes and crimes against humanity, according to a report published Tuesday by an Israeli newspaper.

Haaretz reported that the Israeli human rights groups—Zulat for Equality and Human Rights, Hatzlacha: Movement for the Promotion of a Fair Society, and the Democratic Bloc—have compiled a list of genocidal statements and incitements to war crimes made by individuals appearing on Channel 14 since October 7."

https://www.commondreams.org/news/channel-14-israel

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2024-09-24/ty-article-magazine/.premium/israels-channel-14-has-repeatedly-called-for-genocide-against-palestinians-in-gaza/00000192-1f2e-d515-a1fa-5f3e99550000

David A (talk) 12:10, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Common Dreams is RS? I had no idea. And who are these presenters, panelists and guests? I'm seeing a TV presenter, a "former lawmaker" and a singer...nobody involved in policymaking or representing the government or IDF. And it is interesting that no one in mainstream Western media has said a word about this genocide. Jonathan f1 (talk) 00:29, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

The point is that this tv channel has been proven to systematically incite the Israeli population with genocidal rhetoric. David A (talk) 05:19, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Looking at the case of Hassan Ngeze, it is possible for those outside the government to be convicted of incitement to genocide. So, if the article has a section on incitement, and RS are conducting investigations and analyses of potential incitement, then such analyses could be added. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 07:59, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

@David A Thanks. Haaretz is an excellent source. The matter would warrant a mention either in the context of incitement or in the context of media coverage. Andreas JN466 11:03, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Added: [11] Andreas JN466 12:23, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for helping out. David A (talk) 15:52, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Well, that settles it. Jonathan f1 (talk) 19:45, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Attack type

Incorrect capitalization: Attack type: Rape -> Attack type: rape

I also think the word "others" should be removed from Attack type. It's unclear what it means and other articles on genocides (Holocaust, Armenian, Cambodian, Rwandan, Greek, Bosnian) don't use it. Bitspectator (talk) 19:55, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

 Partly done: capitalization done, please get another opinion for the others word. Bunnypranav (talk) 06:27, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I will second the issue. I don't see the reason we are using the word. It reads to me as an "etc." without clarity if there is more or if it is just a catch-all in case something isn't listed. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:34, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

I have remove it since there doesn't seem to be an objection to doing so. @Bunnypranav: Let me know if you disagree. --Super Goku V (talk) 10:16, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

@Super Goku V I agree with your opinion and reason, feel free to remove it as there is no objection. Bunnypranav (talk) 17:34, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Organize the Actions section

The Actions section looks to be all over the place. I propose creating some sections and then organizing the material accordingly:

• Direct killings
• Crime of starvation
• Urbicide (or, "Deliberate destruction of civilian infrastructure")
• Attacks on healthcare

Also, Israeli public reactions should be either moved to the section on intent, or the section on cultural discourse.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 15:26, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Last few editors on this page, @David A, Selfstudier, Super Goku V, Bitspectator and Thebiguglyalien any thoughts? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 00:05, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

I need to look more thoroughly when I get to a computer, but yeah, I think that section could benefit a lot by being organized by category. It is really all over the place. Those categories you suggest make sense. I'm surprised there isn't content on the destruction of cultural heritage. I'm pretty sure there would be RS linking that to the concept of Gaza genocide.Bitspectator ⛩️ 00:14, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Do RS support a strong link between genocide, as defined in the 1948 convention, and destruction of cultural heritage? Please link me some sources.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 03:04, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm wrong. It's a small part of the South African ICJ application though: https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/192/192-20231228-app-01-00-en.pdf (91.) Bitspectator ⛩️ 03:34, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Beyond the obvious link between the destruction of cultural heritage and cultural genocide, there are a variety of sources (both popular RS and academic RS) that link the destruction of cultural heritage with genocide, some include:

1. Targeting culture: The destruction of cultural heritage in conflict - House of Lords Library
2. Cultural Heritage under Attack: Learning from History - Hermann Parzinger at Getty
3. Cultural Heritage, Genocide, and Normative Agency - Davidavičiūtė, Journal of Applied Philosophy
4. Intentional Destruction of Cultural Heritage, Crimes Against Humanity and Genocide: Towards an Evolutionary Interpretation of International Criminal Law - Lenzerini, europa ethnica

In relation to Palestine two that immediately come to mind are:

1. Nakba Memoricide: Genocide Studies and the Zionist/Israeli Genocide of Palestine - Rashed & Short, Holy Land Studies
2. Settler-Colonialism, Memoricide and Indigenous Toponymic Memory: The Appropriation of Palestinian Place Names by the Israeli State - Masalha, Holy Land and Palestine Studies

So, scholars believe these things can be linked. Now for us, of course, we need a source to link these in the context of Gaza post-2023. Articles from the Forum: Israel-Palestine: Atrocity Crimes and the Crisis of Holocaust and Genocide Studies by the Journal of Genocide Research may provide such citation, none jump out from memory though, I'll have a look if I have some time later. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 10:42, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Only looked at five of the forum papers so far:

1. Levene - No mention
2. El-Affendi - No mention
3. Semerdjian - "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."
4. Sultany - "Yet, a proper consideration of "the general context, the perpetration of other culpable acts systematically directed against the same group, the scale of atrocities committed, the systematic targeting of victims on account of their membership of a particular group, or the repetition of destructive and discriminatory acts" can reveal the genocidal nature of starvation in Gaza. In fact, the combination between starvation and the systematic destruction of hospitals, schools, and universities – and the killing of doctors, nurses, teachers, and academics who can provide health and education – can indicate the targeting of the three pillars of social existence and reproduction (subsistence, health, education)."
5. Üngör - "Fifth, targeted attacks on cultural heritage such as the Gaza local archives, public and university libraries, bookshops, manuscript collections, ancient mosques, tombs, temples, bathhouses, museums, monasteries, churches, castles, cemeteries, and many archaeological sites erase the memory of Palestinian culture."

So some of the articles do mention the destruction of aspects of cultural heritage (this includes universities and other such educational institutes), with some specifically linking the destruction of cultural heritage to destruction of the group. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 18:01, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

I think that improved organisation seems to be a good idea, yes. Thank you for helping out. David A (talk) 05:38, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

It seems like it is organized in a loose chronological order. That said, reorganization might make it clearer to read while improving flow. I would say that sub-section is a good plan. As for the reactions, I currently don't have an opinion on where the public reactions should be moved to. --Super Goku V (talk) 10:06, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Alright I've gone ahead and re-organized the section. I created an "other" section to put in all Israeli activities that seem to be not directly related to genocide, for example mass detainment of Palestinians or torturing them in prison. I'll wait a few days, but if evidence can't be provided to connect these actions to genocide, I'll delete this content.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 00:37, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Genocide denial

I think an important topic that is currently missing in this article is the denial of the genocide. Many other articles that discuss a particular genocide mention the fact that genocide denial exists for their subject matter (See Holocaust & Armenian genocide). My position is that this article should mention genocide denial. While Holocaust and Armenian genocide mention their respective genocide denials, they don't have specific sections devoted to denial. In contrast, an article such as Persecution_of_Uyghurs_in_China#Denial_of_abuses does have a specific section on denial. I'm looking to collaborate on what would be the best option for this article. Should we have a section specifically on denial, or should the genocide denial be weaved into the already existing sections? Beyond this question, should we have an entirely separate article on denial? The two genocides I mentioned, the Holocaust and the Armenian genocide, both have separate articles discussing denial specifically (Holocaust denial and Armenian genocide denial). Should we have the same for this genocide too? After all, we do have a separate Denial of the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel. Why not have an article on Gaza genocide denial too? JasonMacker (talk) 03:08, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

As of 2024, that term "Gaza genocide denial" only gets about 60 Google results, so it's borderline synthetic. Part of the reason we don't have it is WP:NOTNEWS / WP:RECENTISM, part of it is the fact that not all experts agree that it is a genocide or ethnic cleansing, and this article title was quite a contentious move with plenty of grist for the mill. I would suggest 1, that any article on this is not merited for a WP:SPLIT but should be handled as part of the discourse of this article, and 2, the usage of the specific phrase or idea of "Gaza genocide denial" isn't at the level of Holocaust denial or similar. Maybe that will change in the future - or alternately, if the various ICJ/ICC cases do not find that Israel is legally committing genocide (or that there is sufficient evidence thereof), particularly with the intent component, the discussion will likely take on a different tone; WP:CRYSTAL of course, but I think premature either way, IMHO. Andre🚐 03:32, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

On Google Scholar, "Gaza genocide" itself only gets about 423 results. I agree that we still have to wait for more reliable sources to discuss the idea of genocide denial as it relates to the Gaza genocide. I thought that there would be more, but you're right. It's premature for now. JasonMacker (talk) 03:44, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

If there is something missing from the article that is present in reliable sources you can add it to this article in any way you see fit. You don't need anyone's permission or agreement to do that. Sean.hoyland (talk) 03:47, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

What you're saying is true, but I wanted community input on structural changes to the article and not simply a matter of adding more WP:RS. JasonMacker (talk) 03:40, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

And let's not forget: Template:Genocide denial. --Timeshifter (talk) 13:00, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Broken source link

Both PDFs for source 83, here are broken and no longer work.

The first one, which claims to be archived, is almost a joke as it leads only to a screenshot. The original pdf no longer loads.

I did some searching and found what I assume is the original PDF on another site, but by the same author and looks to be exactly the same, over here.

Could somebody with edit rights please fix this? And even if the page with only a screenshot DOES provide some way to access the PDF (if it can, I can't see how), surely it would be easier to use the link I have provided instead? Taiyaki Schizo (talk) 18:01, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, wrong page. I meant to write this on the Gaza genocide wikipedia page. Please ignore. Taiyaki Schizo (talk) 18:04, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Also, could someone who DOES have edit rights please bring this issue up over there, because apparently I can't even bring up this mistake since I don't have the editing rights yet. Taiyaki Schizo (talk) 18:05, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

(moved here by request) Selfstudier (talk) 18:16, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

@Taiyaki Schizo:  Done. I kept the original archive link since Internet Archive is currently down and archive.today seems to only save screenshots, so I cannot replace it at the moment. Thanks! - Ïvana (talk) 21:26, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Excluding accused party's denial from genocide statements table

I think that the genocide statements table is intended to capture the international response to the events, and therefore, it should only reflect international recognitions or denials of genocide by other countries and organizations. Including Israel’s own denial of the charges distorts this purpose, as it is inappropriate for the accused party to "vote" on its own actions in a space dedicated to international views and reactions. Israel's rebuttal and perspective are already addressed in other appropriate areas of the article. I recommend removing Israel’s entry from this table. StarkReport (talk) 14:38, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Genocide template

Last month, in the talk for the List of genocides article, an RFC for inclusion of the Gaza genocide was closed with the decision to include this genocide on their list. With that in mind, I checked what templates other articles in the list use:

• 1.Rohingya Genocide: Genocide template
• 2.Iraqi Turkmen genocide: Genocide template
• 3.Yazidi genocide: Genocide template
• 4.Darfur genocide: Genocide of indigenous peoples template
• 5.Effacer le tableau (the genocide of the Bambuti pygmies): Genocide template
• 6.Massacres of Hutus during the First Congo War: Genocide template
• 7.Rwandan genocide: instead of the above two templates, it instead has its own Rwandan genocide template
• 8.Bosnian genocide: Genocide template
• 9.Isaaq genocide: Genocide template
• 10.Anfal campaign: No genocide-related template similar to the above articles, but it does have the Genocide navbox template at the bottom of the article (which has Anfal campaign in its list)
• 11.Gukurahundi (mass killings in Zimbabwe): Genocide template
• 12.Sabra and Shatila massacre: No genocide templates at all
• 13.Cambodian genocide: Genocide template
• 14.East Timor genocide: Genocide template
• 15.Genocide of Acholi and Lango people: Not a separate Wikipedia article
• 16.Ikiza (mass killings of Hutu in Burundi): Genocide template
• 17.Bangladesh genocide: Genocide template
• 18.Zanzibar genocide: Redirect to Massacre of Arabs during the Zanzibar Revolution which has no genocide templates
• 19.Maya genocide: Genocide template
• 20.Deportation of the Chechens and Ingush: No Genocide Template, but it has a topic-specific "Forced population transfer in the Soviet Union" template, with a Genocide navbox template at the bottom of the article
• 21.Deportation of the Crimean Tatars: Same as the previous
• 22.The Holocaust: It has its own topic-specific templates at the bottom of the article.

Basically, of the entries in the list of genocides article that have taken place since the Holocaust, the majority of them have the Genocide template, with the exceptions of:

• 1. This article (Gaza Genocide)
• 2. Rwandan genocide (which has its own topic-specific template)
• 3. Anfal campaign
• 4. Sabra and Shatila massacre
• 5. Genocide of Acholi and Lango people (which isn't even an article)
• 6. Zanzibar genocide (which is a redirect to an article that doesn't have "genocide" in its title)
• 7. Deportations of the Chechens and Ingush
• 8. Deportation of the Crimean Tatars
• 9. The Holocaust

I think that this article is more similar to the majority of articles that use the Genocide template, and should also have it. I don't think this topic currently warrants its own special templates like the Rwandan genocide.

Based on the reasoning above, I call for incorporating Template:Genocide into this article. JasonMacker (talk) 18:38, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

The reasoning makes sense to me, but would this result in any visual changes to the infobox? Bitspectator ⛩️ 19:59, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Here's what it looks like, and there's no need to change anything on it. In terms of where it can be placed, I think between the infobox and the campaign box would work:

JasonMacker (talk) 20:35, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I misunderstood. I thought you meant changing the infobox currently in the article. I have no objections other than the possibility of it causing clutter. Bitspectator ⛩️ 20:39, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

By the way, I remember a suggestion in August 2024 to add more images to the infobox. I think this is a good idea as our current image is from Oct 2023 — a lot has happened since then. I took a look at Wikimedia Commons but didn't see many new relevant images. If someone is aware of CC images that would work for this article, please let me know. Bitspectator ⛩️ 20:54, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Sidebars should only be included in articles, where the article appears as a link in the sidebar. All the genocides listed above (including Gaza), used to appear in the sidebar, but due to synth concerns, all links to specific genocides were removed from the sidebar. The sidebar should thus be removed from the listed genocide articles. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 22:25, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Australia is not sending weapons to Israel. This Wiki accuses them of doing so.

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/article/2024/jun/09/fact-check-is-australia-exporting-weapons-to-israel NesserWiki (talk) 09:59, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Health care related reverts

Recent couple of reports removing material on grounds of lack of connection to article subject, blah. In principle, it should be straightforward to connect both the killing of health workers and destruction of hospitals to genocide as, for example, in this source or this So if anyone wants to do that before I get around to it, please do. Selfstudier (talk) 10:55, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

UNHR as a primary source?

Andrevan just reverted my edit saying the UNHR is a WP:PRIMARY source. That's news to me. WP:PRIMARY says that such sources are "close to an event" and "accounts written by people who are directly involved". But this report was "researched and written by UNHR members from LAW’s International Human Rights Clinic, ​​the International Human Rights Clinic at Cornell Law School, the Centre for Human Rights at the University of Pretoria in South Africa, and the Lowenstein Human Rights Project at Yale Law School."[12] None of these institutions are located in Gaza or have any connection to the Gaza genocide. Indeed the report contains very little original research itself, instead almost entire depends on data and facts from secondary sources (which are all cited), and is probably akin to a WP:TERTIARY source.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 00:53, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I'd treat it more as an advocacy think tank report, the University Network for Human Rights isn't a journal or a book publisher, and the report is written by students. The release of the report is an event, and then secondary sources will comment on the report and interpret it. One clue is that there's no byline. Also, it's close to the event, as in time, doesn't necessarily have to be directly involved though that'd be a giveaway, but this report coming out in the midst of everything is an indicator that it's not sufficiently removed from the event itself, and actually it's kind of already out of date since it came out in May. TERTIARY would be more like an encyclopedia. Andre🚐 00:58, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

A source released in May 2024 is "not out of date" and practically every source on this topic "is close to the event, as in time". You appear to misunderstand policy.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 01:23, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't see how that can be used for analysis. It's a report that doesn't even have an author. Inasmuch as its release is commented on by secondary sources, it can be used, but only if that interpretation is used. You're trying to use it for expert analysis. It was written by students. Andre🚐 01:28, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

What part of that statement do you disagree with? M.Bitton (talk) 01:30, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I more object to the placement and arrangement of the content. As written it seems to imply some legal analysis and makes a comparison to precedent. A legal expert with proper credentials should be used for that kind of thing, who might analyze the data in this report. Andre🚐 01:33, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

It is an analysis of what has been published in reliable sources (all cited in the report). M.Bitton (talk) 01:51, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

The full report includes authors:

• International Human Rights Clinic of Boston University School of Law
• INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS CLINIC of Cornell Law School
• CENTRE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS from University of Pretoria
• LOWENSTEIN HUMAN RIGHTS PROJECT from Yale Law School

It is a fairly comprehensive document, and other sources call the document:

• a report from "a consortium of human right centers"[13]
• "a report by U.S. human rights experts" [14]
• "most thorough legal analysis yet" [15]

I see citations to the source by other reputable journal articles in:

• [16]
• [17]

It seems like at the very least we should be able to use it with attribution and arguably without it Bluethricecreamman (talk) 01:36, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Attribution would be better, but those are still students writing at those law schools. And the 3 cites above are not independent or reliable here (CAIR, BU, CommonDreams) but the ScienceDirect and UChicago journal are exactly the kind of sources we should use. Andre🚐 01:37, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Do you reckon it's better if we used the reliable sources that they are citing, such as "Final Report of the Commission of Experts established pursuant to Security Council Resolution 780 (1992), etc"? M.Bitton (talk) 01:40, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

That'd be even more of a primary source. Andre🚐 01:53, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

We can't cite those sources directly because that would be WP:SYNTH. They are applying the learnings from previous genocide to this one. I think the source is perfectly reliable to make this synthesis.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 01:54, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

That would be using a primary source (not more, just primary). The reason I asked is because I was baffled by your claim that the report is a primary source. M.Bitton (talk) 01:56, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

An original research report without a single named author, put out by essentially a law review, I would consider that a primary source, and I'd want to see those journal articles distilling and contextualizing raw research in a review. Andre🚐 01:58, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

staff and advisory seem to indicate a wide range of highly reputable academic supervision from a few fields indicating some normal aspect of scholarship and citations by other reputable works indicates it should count by WP:SCHOLARSHIP. 2 citations (at least, i didnt do a good count) about about 4 months after publication is fairly alright for an article. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 01:42, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I see no issue with using it (without attribution). M.Bitton (talk) 01:45, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

a paper reviewing existing research, a review article, monograph, or textbook is often better than a primary research paper Andre🚐 01:54, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

There is nothing primary about it since all its statements are attributed to other reliable sources, making the report a good secondary source. M.Bitton (talk) 01:58, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Most of the footnotes appear to be to legal memoranda and trials and judgments. Andre🚐 01:59, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

What do you expect them to be? M.Bitton (talk) 02:00, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm saying it's a raw research report compiled of primary source research, and it should be further contextualized by a secondary source like a reliably published academic book or journal article, or a reliable news outlet, that can remove us from the raw research. Andre🚐 02:03, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Basically, you're looking for a tertiary source (because the report is a secondary source). The question is, is that needed for the inclusion of material that isn't even disputed? M.Bitton (talk) 02:06, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

it cant be both a collection of cited primary sources (by definition a secondary source) and itself a primary source Bluethricecreamman (talk) 02:17, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I'll withdraw my objection on this basis, because I think our policy doesn't explain that a primary source, like a think tank report, can cite other sources that are also primary, like court precedent. I don't want to be WP:1AM on this, but I still don't think that this is the best source. Andre🚐 02:26, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

There is no policy against using primary sources anyway. This is a wikimyth. Zero^talk 08:32, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Not against using them at all but they aren't the best source, should be used with care, and have issues with weight and interpretation: WP:PRIMARY: Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. While a primary source is generally the best source for its own contents, even over a summary of the primary source elsewhere, do not put undue weight on its contents.... Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. .. Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them Andre🚐 18:37, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

UNHR is student engagement organization. Its opinions are UNDUE. There will always be better, expert commentary on relevant issues. SPECIFICO talk 15:58, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

consisting of law students from prestigious schools with significant supervision from various tenured professors, creating documents that are cited in other scholarly journals, providing a report with direct citations to previous legal precedents. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 16:19, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

In addition to the two journal articles that @Bluethricecreamman found here are more references to it:

• Ecocide as Genocide: A Human Security Approach to "Utter Annihilation" in Gaza by professor Laurent Lambert
• WHYY-TV cites it as an example of scholarly opinion on gaza genocide[18]
• An article published by the American Chemical Society[19]

VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 16:30, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Those are not RS publicateions. Laurent, e.g. is a working paper. SPECIFICO talk 19:35, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Agree with SPECIFICO. Andre🚐 22:36, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

• At the very least we should try and find additional sources for the "minimum number of victims" section; it is perhaps undue to devote so much to a single source. But also, just... zooming out, what is this section saying? Why are we highlighting these particular bits from that massive report? Is there actually a dispute about the minimum number of victims? It reads like this is a part of an ongoing argument pulled out and dropped in without context, like someone was saying "this can't be a genocide, it doesn't meet the minimum number of victims!" but if so, we left that out, making it meaningless, so - why does the lack of a required minimum number of victims matter here? Either there's some context missing, or the section should be removed as tangential and giving undue weight to something that was just mentioned in passing in a single source and which isn't important to the topic as a whole. Finding more sources that connect all this to this topic in particular would also address this problem, in that it would at least establish that it does matter here even if the reason isn't obvious, but with just one source (and one that doesn't seem to spend a lot of time on it itself, relative to its length), I'm unclear why we're devoting a decently-sized paragraph and an entire subsection to this aspect. Note that we already say Applicable law does not require a minimum number of victims in the definition of genocide section - honestly I'm unsure why we even include that much, but that seems more proportional, at least, and more than sufficient. Do we really need this section on top of that? --Aquillion (talk) 19:33, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

  Agreed Andre🚐 19:41, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

  Great question. I'll leave this section to focus on whether UNHR is RS, while starting a new discussion below on minimum number of casualties.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 14:41, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Relevance of number of casualties

Thanks Aquillion for bringing this up. ""this can't be a genocide, it doesn't meet the minimum number of victims!" is exactly a POV I've read, and the original version of the section said that. Here are some sources that discuss the relevance of number of casualties to support or deny the existence of genocide, or argue that its not relevant.

• "There is no evidence that they have engaged in a deliberate campaign to “destroy, in whole or in part,” the Palestinian people — which is what “genocide” means in international law. Awful as the civilian deaths in Gaza have been, they still constitute less than 1 percent of the territory’s population. If Israel, with all the firepower at its disposal, had been trying to commit mass murder, the death toll would have been higher by orders of magnitude."[20] Max Boot, historian
• "The brutal fact is that if Netanyahu and Gallant were the bloodthirsty genocidaires that their critics claim them to be, the death toll in Gaza would be orders of magnitude higher than what we see today. The Rwandan genocide, for example, was perpetrated over several weeks and resulted in 800,000 deaths, often at the hands of mobs equipped with machetes and gardening tools."[21] Raphael Cohen, professor at Pardee RAND
• "Though some have pointed out that Israel could have killed even more people in Gaza if it really wanted to do so [quoting Dov Waxman, UCLA professor of Israel Studies], it does not necessarily have to unleash its full arsenal to commit genocide. “It’s quite plausible that the state uses some of its firepower and nevertheless is carrying out the attacks in the context of the destruction of the target group,” Verdeja said." Ernesto Verdeja is a University of Notre Dame professor in peace studies.
• "No minimum number of victims is necessary to establish genocide, but the loss must be severe enough that it “will impact the group as a whole”. Since close to 50 families have already and horrifically been exterminated, and we’re only just past the first week of this carnage, what other word should we choose?" Moustafa Bayoumi
• "Attacks on [Gaza] now alarmingly resemble those of genocidal campaigns in recent decades, such as in the 1982 genocide of Mayan people in Guatemala, the 1994 Rwandan genocide of Tutsis, the 1995 genocide of Bosnian Muslims, the 2003-2005 genocide in Darfur, the 2014 genocide against Yazidis in Iraq, and the 2016-17 genocide against Rohingyan Muslims. We emphasize that although the death tolls in these genocides vary considerably, they are considered genocides on account of the clear “intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group”." [22] Declaration by John Cox (professor of Holocaust, Genocide & Human Rights Studies at UNC Charlotte), Victoria Sanford (professor with many peer-reviewed publications on genocide) and Barry Trachtenberg (professor of Jewish history at Wake Forest University).
• "Israel’s peak monthly killing rate of civilians in Gaza [10000 per month] is roughly equivalent to that in Darfur, and higher than in the other two recent cases, all of which our government labeled “genocide”."[23] Alan J Kuperman, professor at the University of Texas at Austin, where his research focuses on the causes and prevention of genocide.
• "Official U.N. figures from early September note that Russian attacks killed slightly fewer than 10,000 civilians since February 2022, and injured just above 17,500. Israel has so far killed more than 11,000 Palestinians, wounding nearly 30,000. It is important that Biden described Russia’s attack on Ukraine as “genocide” on April 12, 2022"[24]. Raz Segal, professor of Holocaust and Genocide Studies at Stockton University.

So some mention of this discussion is WP:DUE.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 14:40, 15 October 2024 (UTC)