Talk:Gaza genocide

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

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

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

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


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

RfC on the inclusion on the BU Today article in the lede
How should the statements in this BU Today "Voices & Opinion" article be covered in the lede? 1. The international human rights legal community, many political and legal experts, and many Holocaust scholars all have consensus that Israel is committing genocide against the Palestinian people in the Gaza Strip. (as seen in )

2. The international human rights legal community, several political and legal experts, and many Holocaust scholars have concluded that Israel is committing genocide against the Palestinian people in the Gaza Strip. (as seen in )

3. Do not include 02:56, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Survey

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


 * B or similar, as the statement appears to capture the reality well. Only update the source to: . — kashmīrī  TALK  06:18, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * C (generally per BM) the source is undue, and the claim should be made with attribution in the body. Both the BU piece (and the better actual scholarship) are not appropriate, least of all without attribution. FortunateSons (talk) 09:50, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh, and particularly A goes beyond what the source states in their own voice IMO, so that’s not great. FortunateSons (talk) 09:52, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I don’t have a strong opinion on if this specifically should be in the lead, though we do need a summary of the academic discourse section. It does however absolutely belong in the body, and the attempts to claim that an academic expert discussing topics in the area of her expertise is somehow unreliable or undue are straightforward examples of disruptive editing. But does this specifically need to be in the lead? It isn’t the worst thing, it’s an expert giving an overview of the views of other experts. Something needs to be in there about the views of scholars on this topic. This isn’t the worst thing but again no strong opinion on this being the specific source for that summary.  nableezy  - 12:32, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * B not because it is something that is only said in the source specifically named by OP but because that or something similar appears to be the prevailing view across relevant scholarship. See the sourcing given in the ongoing RM] that currently appears to have a consensus for amending the article title to Gaza genocide. As for removing the specific material from the body as was done, that is exceptionally difficult to comprehend. Selfstudier (talk) 12:50, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * A combination of A and B: I agree with "A Socialist Trans Girl" below. David A (talk) 10:21, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * C if this is the only source given (which is only a university newspaper, although nonetheless a secondary source summarizing the views of experts) per WP:DUE, but likely A or B if other sources are added to support it in the body, like Selfstudier mentioned. I don't see A as going beyond what the source says, with the words many and consensus being closer to what the source says: Chaotic Enby   (talk · contribs) 18:53, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It isn’t the only source, see here.  nableezy  - 01:54, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks, this appears to be a solid source. While it might look like a primary source at first glance, it does in fact give an overview of previous findings in pages 9 to 11, which could be a good secondary source for the statement. I'd support B if that source is added. Chaotic Enby   (talk · contribs) 08:10, 23 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Either of B or A. Neither the source is "merely a random opinion" nor the cited piece of information it provides is source’s own claim or opinion but rather a citation of the consensus in the international human rights legal community. The source is a report published by Boston University and "comes from researchers at the University Network for Human Rights, a consortium of human right centers", therefore the source is indeed reliable for the information it provides, indeed much more than newspapers articles. And the source doesn’t say or give its own opinion regarding the quoted information like saying "we believe there is a genocide" but rather reflects/cites what the international human rights legal community "there is consensus amongst the international human rights legal community, many other legal and political experts, including many Holocaust scholars, that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza.", it is not the source’s own opinion or judgement. Beside the fact that this isn’t the only reliable source stating so as per @Selfstudier Stephan rostie (talk) 12:25, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * But UNHR is neither independent of Akram's BU project nor is it a WP:RS publisher. Nor is it particularly esteemed, celebrated, discussed, or recognized in mainstream published discourse. SPECIFICO talk 21:42, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Are you seriously arguing that UNCHR is not a WP:RS ? Stephan rostie (talk) 14:19, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It's not UNCHR, UNHR. Selfstudier (talk) 14:24, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks, SS. It show the power of modern-day branding that a vaguely institutional-sounding name like UNHR so easily evokes parity with UNCHR AND miscast as a respected, WP;NOTABLE global institution. SPECIFICO talk 15:04, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Well it is kind of your mistake for making your own abbreviation and writing “UNHR” rather than “University Network
 * for Human Rights” Stephan rostie (talk) 19:43, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for elaboration Stephan rostie (talk) 19:41, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * C This is a WP:PRIMARY source, self-published by Akram's employer in a university newsletter. That publication is an appropriate place to inform BU stakeholders of matters relating to the school, but neither that publication nor the fancy-sournding name of Akram's advocacy/activism project can elevate her work to a significant NPOV assessment of the range of current thinking on the issue. We would need a WP:RS publisher, prefereably peer-reviewed, to make a strong statement of a matter of current controversy and pending adjudication. The self-published opinion of a non-NOTABLE individual, however fine her commitment and advocacy, is UNDUE for the lead and should be replaced in the article body with better more reliable sources on the question. She. personally, is certainly not a secondary RS to evaluate the opinions of other observers. That should be clear to any WP editor. We need secondary RS publishers for that.
 * Further, whoever closes this -- please note that several !votes seems to say that, because her views seem OK therefore we can use defectively sourced content. Not so. SPECIFICO talk 16:18, 23 June 2024 (UTC),
 * It is not self published and a second source has been provided and not a single vote says anything close to what you claim in your last couple of sentences. False on all counts actually.  nableezy  - 17:51, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The RFC question is "How should the statements in this BU Today "Voices & Opinion" article be covered in the lede?" and the answer is that it should be cited in support of a statement in Wikivoice (can as well be cited to https://www.humanrightsnetwork.org/genocide-in-gaza and not only to BU) along with multiple other supporting references saying a similar thing and about which bald assertions such as "self published" (it isn't) and "primary" (policy does not forbid primary source usage) play no part. Closer should refer to the RFCbefore discussion where it can be seen this editor and the RFC opener (who hasn't signed) both edited to suit a POV and when unable to persuade other editors, it led to this RFC. Selfstudier (talk) 18:45, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Except that there's no supporting evidence that humanrightsnetwork is a significant scholarly, juridical, or other expert organization. It's a student enrichment project and platform for advocacy and activism. All good, but it is not covered in the mainstream as an expert mainstream institution. This is all discussed in the thread prior to this RfC. SPECIFICO talk 20:39, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It’s a paper by the University Network for Human Rights, the International Human Rights Clinic at Boston University School of Law, the International Human Rights Clinic at Cornell Law School, the Centre for Human Rights at the University of Pretoria, and the Lowenstein Human Rights Project at Yale Law School. Never heard of any of those universities, are they any good?  nableezy  - 10:57, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Kindly demonstrate that UNHR is a noteworhty RS publisher and that its independent of the person whose opinions are being proposed for article content. Maybe this needs to go to RSN. Namechecking a few ivy insitutions does not address the sourcing and notability issue. Do you have anything to document that the mainstream takes this UNHR seriously or even knows of its existence? Academia is a vast ecosystem with all sorts of offices and projects within its realm. The significant ones produce peer-reviewed, independently-published scholarly research. This is nothing of the sort. SPECIFICO talk 15:05, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * If you are asking whether anyone could make a satisfactory WP article for it, sure, no problem. The thought occurs to me that you don't like this org because James Cavallaro. Selfstudier (talk) 17:09, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * No, I did not ask whether it's NOTABLE. We know that it is not. I simply stated the fundamental WP principal, presumably known to editors EC-eligible to here, that an independent RS publisher would be needed even for an attributed opinion. Instead we've seen ad hominiems, personal disparagement, namechecking everyone from Eli Yale to Cavallaro, and folks saying, screw the RS bit, they like what Akram says, (!!!) But nobody seems able to demonstrate that this content is published by RS or meets our V and NPOV policies for any inclusion anywhere on this page. BURDEN and ONUS are out the window on this page. SPECIFICO talk 18:45, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I can make an article, that means its notable. And making such an article would be very easy, just search books, scholar, etc. In any case, it just says the same thing as many others so this is all a lot of unnecessary fuss over nothing. Selfstudier (talk) 18:50, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Love ya, SS, but you are not a RS either, so saying you think you could write an article doesn't advance the process. But my interest in this from the start has simply been from seeing this self-published opinion (we can call self-published PRIMARY to short-circuit further indignant deflections) being used as if it were an independent RS-published account of a survey of qualified world opinion and with no evidence that Akram is a scholar qualified to make such an assessment. I have no opinion as to the underlying issue and I have expressed none. I've consistently said that I expect that better, solid RS could be found to address this content. I don't anticipate what they might say, but it's a shame to see editors ignore core policy to grab a handy blurb out of a promotional university newsletter and elevate it with a word salad of recognizable institution names, and buzzwords. You appear to be knowledgeable in the field. Please find valid sourcing and notable qualified experts to address the question. SPECIFICO talk 19:04, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Ive already shown you Akram's publications, the UNHR director is James Cavallaro, also a widely published expert in the field of international law, the Cornell program is led by Susan Babcock, who is, you guessed it, again a widely published expert in the field. You cant just say that the scholarship here isnt notable or noteworthy, what matters is that it is reliable, and it is reliable because of the people and institutions behind it.  nableezy  - 19:57, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This is, again, more equivocation, namedropping, and elevation of a non-notable author's self-published (PRIMARY) opinion, broadcast in a Univeristy house organ circulated to its stakeholders. There are many stronger sources and there are scholars whose views should be prioritized above those of an activist/advocate. Her worki stands on its own, but she is not a scholar and her opinions are not of such note that this encuclopedia should rebroadcast them when the mainstream media and peer reviewed publications or RS journals have not done so. That is our responsibility on this project. We don't simply publish the opinions of people whose work or opinions we may admire.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 17:04, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Susan Akram, as a simple Google search says, is a law professor and director of the rights clinic at Boston University School of Law teaching international human rights, and refugee and immigration law. That apart I have edited a bit in the article to make things clearer, there is literally no basis for objecting to the sources, neither her expert opinion nor the UHRU report itself.
 * No-one is really disputing that Akram alone should be in the lead so this entire RFC and this dialogue are just one oversized straw man designed to throw shade on the idea that Israel may be guilty of genocide.
 * What y'all need to do, instead of shooting the messengers, is accumulate a sufficient number of RS specifying that Israel is not committing a genocide in order to constitute a significant view in that regard as counterpoint to the already demonstrated significant view that Israel is committing a genocide. Selfstudier (talk) 17:24, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I have no opinion as to the allegation. Now, I see you've changed the article content before the resolution of this ongoing RfC. It's now quoting multiple self-published, primary sources, again highlighting non-NOTABLE Ms. Akram without independent RS indicating any WEIGHT for her conclusions. If your googling found mainstream RS citations to establish the NOTABILITY of Akram such as might justify these primary sourced opinions, pleaase provide them in lieu of the various ad hominem attacks and deflections. I am focused only on policy and sourcing and there's no basis for any claim that I am trying to do what various supporters of Ms. Akram have stated they're doing here - pushing article content because I wish to support a personal opinion.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 18:24, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Happy to discuss that at RSN anytime but since it is not going into the lead anyway, it has nothing to do with this RFC. I have changed the article content but I have not changed anything in the lead, which is what this RFC purports to be about. Selfstudier (talk) 18:38, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Even if it were self-published, which it is not, it would clearly pass WP:EXPERTSPS. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications.  nableezy  - 19:47, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Combination. I think it should be The international human rights legal community, many political and legal experts, and many Holocaust scholars all have concluded that Israel is committing genocide against the Palestinian people in the Gaza Strip.. I believe it should be many political and legal experts, as it's more accurate than 'several' and is consistent with how Wikipedia frames things; if it was not many enough to be many and merely several, then it'd probably be WP:UNDUE. And I think the concluded phrasing is better, as consensus implies they as a whole have consensus, not phrasing limited to the ones that do. I also support the phrasing of "The international human rights legal community, political and legal experts, and Holocaust scholars, all have consensus that Israel is committing genocide against the Palestinian people in the Gaza Strip.". There should be a comma before "all have consensus". A Socialist  Trans Girl  22:22, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * B Selfstudier's reasoning pretty much sums it up. M.Bitton (talk) 14:03, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * C or an attributed statement. Interpreting consensus on a highly contentious topic across multiple (academic, legal and political) communities is a messy and somewhat subjective matter. While Akram is an expert, there isn't enough clarity and objectivity here to take a single expert's interpretation of consensus as established fact, and repeat it in wikivoice. — xDanielx  T/C\R 22:36, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * B although I would prefer if a stronger source could be found to summarize opinion, it is a good summary of other sources that otherwise may be impossible to extract without WP:OR. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  03:39, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * B: This statement is already more than supported by the aggregation of sources on the page. The discussed source, alongside the UNHR, merely helps provide a more sourced basis for the summary wording, which is beneficial. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:28, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * C Do not include, or only as an attributed statement. As per BilledMammal, xDanielx and FortunateSons. I would also add that when a person, even an expert, claims that the consensus agrees with his view, as is the case with Susan Akram, it is a somewhat doubtful testimony as it is self-serving. It is different when a person admits that his view contradicts the consensus because then the testimony is not self-serving. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vegan416 (talk • contribs) 17:07, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I support these suggested modifications. David A (talk) 10:21, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The removal of the vague "many" and "several" would be no loss. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:25, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Good point. Agreed. David A (talk) 16:43, 2 July 2024 (UTC)


 * C and WP:UNDUE. Do not include. Hogo-2020 (talk) 06:06, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * C per SPECIFICO's reasonign. Given the sensitivity of the subject matter, our sources should be ironclad. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:49, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The sources are ironclad. SPECIFICO's reasoning makes a mockery of WP:RS which places established academic experts near the top of our reliability pyramid.  nableezy  - 15:22, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Nableezy, please review the WP:REPUTABLE section of our RS page to see your error explained more thoroughly. There are numerous PRIMARY and self-published sources, including blog opinions of grad students, where independent RS publications are required.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 16:45, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Can you please tell us what self-published means?  nableezy  - 17:46, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm aware of your continued opinion on this subject. That was mine. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 09:51, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * This whole RFC is completely academic after the rename, the lead will in effect explain how the title fits into the scope and the particular ref subject of this RFC is just one of several that will allow a statement in wikivoice. Selfstudier (talk) 11:17, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't know what this has to do with the price of tea in China. I expressed my opinion that I agreed with SPECIFICO's reasoning on this particular issue. The closer is free to take my opinion into consideration with the weight they feel is appropriate.
 * I do want to congratulate you and Nableezy on your apparent promotions to WP:INQUISITOR. For future reference, what is the proper procedure for me to follow when expressing future opinions? Do I have to ask for permission from one or both of you to express an opinion or do I need specific pre-clearance for the exact opinion that will be expressed? Thanks in advance. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 00:46, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Information icon4.svg Comment – I'm pretty sure that the comma before all is not grammatically correct.  Kinsio  (talk ★ contribs ★ rights) 15:01, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Kinsio I believe you are correct. Apologies. A Socialist   Trans Girl  02:55, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * A and B per A Socialist Trans Girl (and Iskandar's tweaks). Combining both sentences seems appropiate given the recent article name/scope change and it's a proper summary of other sources in the body. Disagree with the UNDUE arguments - experts opinions are absolutely due and as shown by nableezy this has also been covered by secondary sources. - Ïvana (talk) 01:52, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * We absolutely need some statement summarizing academic discourse, hence I strongly oppose option C as a violation of WP:LEAD. The article currently has an entire section on "Academic and legal discourse", "Cultural discourse" and academic opinions are throughout the article. Unless such academic opinions are being given UNDUE weight in the body (and there is no evidence of that), we need to summarize them somehow in the lead too.VR (Please ping on reply) 05:34, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

 * It may need clarifying that a mention of the Stanford report has already been included in the article, and what the RfC aims to achieve is a better wording. The current suboptimal wording will likely remain if there's no consensus. Editors are welcome to propose further wording options for this RfC. — kashmīrī  <sup style="color:#80f;font-family:'Candara';">TALK  13:20, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Given it's an opinion, why is there no option for attribution per WP:RSOPINION? Ie, "According to the University Network for Human Rights", per the content in the body. Either way, have to agree with others that it doesn't seem due in the lead, unless covered by other reliable sources; the proposed sentences are just a regurgitation of of the body, not a summary of it. A lead summary would be something like "Certain scholars, A, B to C, consider it a genocide, due to..., disputed by X, Y and Z, because of...". As far as I can tell nothing in the "Academic and legal discourse" has been summarised in the lead, despite numerous paragraphs of content. It's better to work on summarising the content for the lead per MOS:INTRO, rather than trying to pick out one particular report. CNC (talk) 23:26, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * With better sourcing, I'd be willing to support. Or re-wording to satisfy a bundle of sources. CNC (talk) 23:42, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thus far, we have no evidence that "UNHR" is a significant organization or that its title should be used to elevate one person's primary-sourced opinion.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 08:36, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the expansion of the "alleged genocidal intent" section to include "genocidal rhetoric"
I originally expanded the passage quoting Michael Sfard because it was clearly cherrypicked, but upon a more careful reading of the surrounding text, it actually seems outside of the scope of this article entirely. Besides clearly breaking the logical flow of the section it's in (interrupting a section talking specifically about cabinet ministers to make a point about genocidal rhetoric in Israeli society generally), there's not really any section that it feels like it belongs in, because the only rhetoric that's particularly relevant to this article is that of people in positions of power (for whom it could plausibly indicate intent, as the section title indicates). The expansion of the section title to include "genocidal rhetoric" also feels a bit redundant for that reason, and only seems to have been added to justify the passage's inclusion. I'd normally remove this myself but I'm pretty sure I'm tapped out on my 1RR for the time being. Tagging in as your edits inserted  and reinserted  the text in question, and  as  was the partial revert  was responding to.  Kinsio  (talk ★ contribs ★ rights) 14:29, 1 July 2024 (UTC)


 * @Kinsio My partial reversion was due to the comment seeming to be outside of scope. I have no advice for how to resolve. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 15:10, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * In my that I self-reverted because of my 1RR concerns I removed the whole passage, but honestly the way you handled it in your partial reversion was probably better. The part referring to the flood of statements now made by politicians, journalists and celebrities I can see being justified staying, but the rest of what Sfard said is definitely out of scope. (And I do feel like "genocidal rhetoric" in the section title is redundant because that's the main type of evidence being provided in the section for "alleged genocidal intent".)  Kinsio  (talk ★ contribs ★ rights) 15:58, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Kinsio Most of the sources that contain the quotes from officials do not even allege “genocidal intent”, but some do say the statements by various officials are examples of “genocidal rhetoric”, for example The New Arab. I expanded the section heading name to include “genocidal rhetoric”, otherwise the rest of the section seemed to me as being original research with editors documenting various statements as alleged genocidal intent when some of the sources like The New Arab do not even call it intent.
 * in regards to the comment on cherrypicking, ironically that is what I pointed out in my edit summary. Per our policy on NPOV and specifically the section on balancing aspects, “ An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject.” The New Arab published many examples it identified as genocidal rhetoric, but it also interviewed an Israeli human rights lawyer to provide context on these statements. So not including the quotes or paraphrasing of his statements would be WP:CHERRYPICKING.
 * It is not outside the scope, as it is in The New Arab’s article on genocide rhetoric. Wafflefrites (talk) 15:57, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Most of the sources that contain the quotes from officials do not even allege “genocidal intent”... I believe the allegation of the statements constituting genocidal intent can be found in South Africa's application in South Africa v. Israel, so I might see if I can find some explicit references to add in there. And as I stated above in my response to, the initial part of the statement does make sense to provide context for Israeli thinking, but I think it's fair to say that everything from We have become accustomed to genocidal rhetoric that comes from Hamas forward is out of scope. My concern about cherrypicking has to do with the extent of the source included in your edits, which makes it sound like Sfard's remark about Hamas was an independent point rather than a segue into talking about the proliferation of genocidal rhetoric in Israeli society (and even if it had been, whatever Hamas did or did not say is definitely outside the scope of a section about statements made by Israeli officials).  Kinsio  (talk ★ contribs ★ rights) 16:37, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It is not outside the scope of proliferation of genocidal rhetoric in Israeli society, and it provides political context for the Israeli statements, so it is due and within scope. The New Arab decided to include that quote for a reason, alongside its examples of genocidal rhetoric. My second edit where I paraphrased instead of directly quoting removed “ We have become accustomed to genocidal rhetoric that comes from Hamas”. Wafflefrites (talk) 16:55, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Unless we are trying to argue that Hamas rhetoric constitutes some kind of exculpatory explanation for alleged genocide by Israel, I don't see what Hamas alleged incitement has to do with this article. Selfstudier (talk) 17:14, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Please read Writing for the opponent: “it is possible to explain why certain individuals did terrible things, without either endorsing them or adding one's own proofs that they were evil or wrong.”
 * My intention was not to justify genocidal rhetoric but to provide additional context for why officials may have said what they said. It’s not justification but context, answering the why. But if the consensus is to exclude information, I am fine with that. Wafflefrites (talk) 17:16, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * If it were the case, then one could equally argue that Hamas actions are equally justified by prior Israeli war crimes. Of course they are not, in either case. Selfstudier (talk) 17:18, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * That’s why Hamas’ motivations are included in the Israel–Hamas war article. Wafflefrites (talk) 17:21, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * This article is not about genocidal rhetoric in Israeli society generally. That portion of Sfard's statement (and I'm intending to refer to the incorporation of its content into the article generally here, whether by direct quotation or by paraphrase, to be clear) is definitely out of scope of the section it's currently in (specifically discussing cabinet ministers), but there's not really any logical place to move it to either because it's too broad (Israeli society generally, vs. statements of officials, for whom it could be argued to constitute intent). The statements by officials are already referred to in the first portion (statements now made by politicians...).  Kinsio  (talk ★ contribs ★ rights) 17:14, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The source says “ While extremist rhetoric has existed throughout the state’s history, incendiary language has now become normalised across every level of Israeli society.”
 * Every level of society includes politicians. I added “genocidal rhetoric” to the section heading because some of the sources in the section are not talking about genocidal intent, but genocidal rhetoric. I think some other sources may also be talking about genocidal incitement (kind of like how Trump is sometimes accused of using language that incites violence, which is different from him intending violence). Since not all of the sources in the section were on the subject of intent, I expanded the heading so that the existing sources outside the scope of intent could be included. Otherwise, I would suggest removing the quotes and sources that are not on the topic of intent. Wafflefrites (talk) 21:34, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * You will also find a variety of the statements references in the articles published in the Journal of Genocide Research, saying such statements are evidence of genocidal intent. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 17:16, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I didn’t delete “genocidal intent”, I added “genocidal rhetoric”. Wafflefrites (talk) 17:20, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * You also said above I expanded the section heading name to include “genocidal rhetoric”, otherwise the rest of the section seemed to me as being original research with editors documenting various statements as alleged genocidal intent when some of the sources like The New Arab do not even call it intent. (Also, since seeing it in your comment when I pasted it in here reminded me, make sure you're aware of MOS:CURLY, I noticed that was one of the things fixed in the text you added as well.)  Kinsio  (talk ★ contribs ★ rights) 17:27, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * And some of them don’t like The New Arab and this NBC one that was used . I don’t mind removing all the sources that don’t allege genocidal intent but I think this would remove quite a few sentences/quotes from the section. I don’t think this AP news that was used contain the word “genocide” https://apnews.com/article/israel-palestinians-gaza-evacuation-history-nakba-a1bec1ee3477573e80b39b4044a48111. Wafflefrites (talk) 17:40, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Interestingly the NBC article also says, “ He noted that the right-wing ministers who made the comments are "not in the war cabinet," so their words can only have so much impact on Israeli policy.”
 * @Kinsio@Selfstudier@Cdjp1, Wondering if there are any objections if I add this under the Alleged genocidal intent section if we decide to keep the NBC source. Wafflefrites (talk) 17:56, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * When this war ends and the vast, vast, vast majority of Palestinians in both Gaza and the West Bank are still alive and negotiating begin about the future of their region and political administration etc., will this article be deleted, or will this remain as yet another blood libel against the Jewish people? KronosAlight (talk) 22:10, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTAFORUM Selfstudier (talk) 22:13, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

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

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


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

Thank you. — kashmīrī  <sup style="color:#80f;font-family:'Candara';">TALK  12:51, 3 July 2024 (UTC)


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


 * A-12: Unlikely that the situation on the ground will warrant a rename anytime sooner, while a moratorium will certainly save everyone's time. — kashmīrī  <sup style="color:#80f;font-family:'Candara';">TALK  13:22, 3 July 2024 (UTC)


 * A-24: Given the sheer massive amounts of controversy and conflict that this topic has generated, I do not think that we should revisit it any time soon. David A (talk) 14:43, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * B – WP:NO-PREEMPT. It's best we discuss this only if there are disruptive requests to move the article again. I think it's pretty common to close requests right away if there is no new information that would change the result anyway. FunLater (talk) 15:08, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * B considering that the RfC was relatively close after a very recent RfC with the opposite results, a variety of real-world factors and events could rapidly change in a way that would lead to a justified move. If someone proposes a bad move, we can deal with it through existing policy. Particularly opposed to A-24, as it could theoretically (despite the low risk) interfere with the time frame of ICJ or ICC decisions with significant impact on RS coverage. FortunateSons (talk) 15:21, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * B – I think this is more an argument for involved editors being more thoughtful and moving extensive discussions on topics that are getting away from strict relevance to the question under discussion to a different section of the talk page (or to user talk pages, as the case may be) than for foreclosing on certain types of discussions entirely because they're too "risky". Let's trust editors to be responsible and respond accordingly if they fail to do so, rather than tying their hands.  Kinsio  (talk ★ contribs ★ rights) 19:29, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * B – No reason to treat this differently from any other contentious topic. Vegan416 (talk) 19:44, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * B. No moratorium is necessary, and I think it is generally a bad idea to push for one when the original move itself was extremely contentious. This is an article covering a situation that is ongoing and potentially still fast-moving, the title should be able to reflect that and we should not seek to tie our own hands. Domeditrix (talk) 14:14, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Overdoing it
Gaza genocide is the systematic destruction of Palestinian people being carried out by Israel in the Gaza Strip during the ongoing Israel–Hamas war and a short description Ongoing mass murder in the Gaza Strip is imo way ott.

I don't think the title should be bolded because it is not a common name it is simply a short form descriptive title representing the consensus of a subject of debate. I kinda liked it the way it was to start with, perhaps adding some words about the consensus. Selfstudier (talk) 16:59, 3 July 2024 (UTC)


 * I didn't like it, really. I tried to put myself in the shoes of a random reader who's heard the term "genocide in Gaza" somewhere and would like to learn what's that. The earlier wording offered very little to such a person – the first sentence contained just too many details. It was more an attempt to explain ignotum per ignotius: the reader was not told what Gaza genocide in simple English is but instead was taken through a debate on the term and various related concepts/events. So I tried to offer a simple definition, closely paraphrasing the opening sentence and short description at Armenian genocide. Will this do the job? Possibly. Will everyone like it? Unlikely. — kashmīrī  <sup style="color:#80f;font-family:'Candara';">TALK  17:29, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The move request was only about the title. Stating affirmatively "there is a genocide" in wikivoice would require a RfC. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:35, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * That would be pointless. We don't do RfCs on what sources say. At best, we can attribute statements and opinions. — kashmīrī  <sup style="color:#80f;font-family:'Candara';">TALK  17:37, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with Hemiauchenia; we've gone beyond what the RM supported. BilledMammal (talk) 02:29, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, and there is also the issue with using the word Murder, which generally refers to unlawful killings, for which there is no broad consensus for the overwhelming majority of cases covered as part of the article. FortunateSons (talk) 17:37, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Agree. "Ongoing atrocities in the Gaza Strip"? — kashmīrī  <sup style="color:#80f;font-family:'Candara';">TALK  17:40, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I think the Modeling on Armenian genocide is part of the problem, as that one has a greater degree of RS acceptance and therefore allows for clearer language, while we should not refer to this case as a genocide in Wikivoice. The murder issue can probably simply resolved by referring to killings (or deaths, if you want to include casualties only indirectly attributable to Israel)? FortunateSons (talk) 17:45, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The scope of the article is the title plus the first sentence. So what is the article about? Selfstudier (talk) 17:51, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * In line with how the article is written, the first sentence should be clear that it’s discussing controversial allegations (or accusations, though English not being my first language may mean that some of the nuance between those two might be lost on me). I’m not sure what the issues with the original version was, as I recall, it seemed fine to me? FortunateSons (talk) 17:58, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Since it's in court as well as debated, accusations. It seems more or less OK now after Hemiauchenia edit. Short description can follow. Selfstudier (talk) 18:03, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Would there be any issue with going back to the stable version prior to this ? FortunateSons (talk) 18:09, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * If it was me, I'd put Gaza genocide accusations. Selfstudier (talk) 18:12, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Well no. The article doesn't discuss accusations, ie., a certain narrative, story, or opinions flying around. It focuses – or should focus – on the acts of the Israeli military, their impact and their legal qualification. Accusations are not the topic; atrocities are. —  kashmīrī  <sup style="color:#80f;font-family:'Candara';">TALK  18:17, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Hmm. The "acts" are (likely) war crimes or crimes against humanity. At some point, the sum total of all these acts plus incitement/intent can turn it into the third (Atrocity crime). However, altho the acts are obviously an element in the debate, the article it seems to me is more about "is it/isn't it"? Selfstudier (talk) 18:23, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * As written now (IMO, rightly), it’s closer to discussing how it is perceived or evaluated by RS, so allegations/accusations works best for me FortunateSons (talk) 18:24, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * "Killings" is a bit too narrow IMO, given that we also have starvation, have deprivation of water ("imposing conditions of life...", etc.), deliberate destruction of housing, targetting of schools, forced displacement, etc. — kashmīrī  <sup style="color:#80f;font-family:'Candara';">TALK  18:21, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, Killings (and deaths/murders) all have that scope issue FortunateSons (talk) 18:23, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. The definition of the crime of genocide includes all manner of crimes and atrocities that contribute to the degradation of the conditions that support life or impinge on the sociocultural integrity of a people. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:25, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Uh huh, except that the article is not only a discussion of the crime, that's South Africa's genocide case against Israel, but academic, legal and other opinion on the matter of it being "genocidal", let's say. Selfstudier (talk) 18:31, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The cultural genocide,, etc. is also all quite well covered. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:54, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I just want to add that this generally goes both ways. We should neither be using the word "murder" here, nor in an of the articles relating to 2023 October 7 attacks. The neutral term is "killing(s)". VR (Please ping on reply) 02:08, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * That is true, and a good point. However, this is a primary concern in cases where RS don’t use it, and there are concerns concerns about it being legal ( wikipedia is not an RS, but “the unlawful killing of another human without justification or valid excuse committed with the necessary intention as defined by the law in a specific jurisdiction.”) might be less problematic with Oct 7. Do you happen to know what the sourcing looks like about using the words? FortunateSons (talk) 07:09, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Based on a quick search, almost all use cases in the article seem unproblematic, either because they are quotes/paraphrasing or obvious cases. Are there any specific ones you are concerned about? FortunateSons (talk) 07:13, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Eg this correction I made. Unless there is a conviction, we can't call something murder, and even in cases of conviction one has to consider if significant players have raised questions about how fair the process is.
 * Undoubtedly both the IDF and Hamas have been accused of deliberate by lots of very reliable sources, but we should prefer "killing".VR (Please ping on reply) 19:09, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I haven’t looked into if murder can be uniformly used here (in line with RS), and therefore withhold my judgement. However, as the attack itself was likely not legal, and the civilians were specifically targeted without apparent legal reason, it’s likely that we either have or will have enough RS coverage for the murder label being unproblematic. This may be more of an issue for soldiers, but those are not counted here afaik. Regarding kidnapped, it seems to be the term used by at least some cited RS, so this would require further explanation from you? FortunateSons (talk) 19:21, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Other contributors to imminent famine conditions
@M.Bitton Here are the other contributors copied from the Gaza famine article:

In February 2024, The Wall Street Journal reported that lawlessness in Gaza was hindering aid efforts. Axios reported that armed gangs have been attacking and looting aid trucks since Hamas police have quit due to Israeli attacks. A Palestine Red Crescent Society spokesman stated that the civil disorder "contributed to around a 50 percent decrease in the total number of aid trucks entering Gaza in February" and an Egyptian aid truck driver described people climbing and smashing aid trucks. Palestinian officials and Hamas sources said in March that masked and armed Palestinian clans and factions were beginning to provide protection for aid convoys. They said that efforts by Israel to cooperate with clans for security were being resisted, but that Hamas was able to rally the clans. A spokesperson for UNRWA said she had no knowledge of masked men protecting convoys, and an UN Humanitarian Coordinator for the Occupied Palestinian Territory said the UN was not in cooperation with clans.

In June, The New York Times reported that relief groups had stopped delivering aid to southern Gaza due to looting and attacks from armed gangs, with aid trucks being peppered by bullet holes on supply routes. Both commercial and aid agencies decided that they could not risk employees’ lives. One aid worker described the daily attacks from armed criminal gangs in the Israel-Gaza border area as being coordinated and organized. The worker said that sometimes the aid truck drivers were beaten. AP News spoke with an UN official who described thousands of aid trucks piled up, armed groups regularly obstructing convoys, and drivers being held at gunpoint. A worker at a Palestinian trucking company said that aid was spoiling in the hot weather. To try to make up for the aid deficiency, Israel allowed more commercial trucks into Gaza from Israel and the occupied West Bank, which unlike UN convoys, usually travel with armed protection. One Gazan businessman said that in the past he paid thousands of dollars to other Gazans to protect his trucks. An associate professor of political science at Al-Azhar University said the lawlessness is a result of increasing desperation and the power vacuum left from Hamas' decreasing power over Gaza. He said, "After Hamas came to power, one of the things that they brought under their control was the lawlessness of the so-called big clans" and "Now, that's left for the Palestinians on their own to deal with it. So once again, we are seeing shootings between families, there are thefts, all the bad things are happening."

In late June, the UN warned that it would suspend aid operations in Gaza unless Israel increased efforts to protect humanitarian workers. A State Department spokesman said that in June, looting and other criminal attacks were the largest barriers to delivering aid, rather than Israeli strikes or Hamas’ commandeering of aid convoys. Wafflefrites (talk) 19:49, 3 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Furthermore, it was not “widespread famine” but imminent famine or high risk of famine. Also from the Gaza famine article:
 * On 4 June, an updated Famine Review Committee (FRC) report for the IPC from May 2024 regarding April 2024 and projection through July 2024 said that it was unknown whether famine thresholds had been passed in April. It found that it could not endorse a Phase 5 (Famine) classification under the Famine Early Warning system, principally due to "the lack of essential up to date data on human well-being in Northern Gaza, and Gaza at large." On 30 June 2024, the IPC Global Famine Review Committee released a report that said it could not find evidence of famine in Gaza during its report period based on its surveys of households. It said that conditions in Gaza had slightly improved during this period, due to increased aid and sanitation efforts, but warned that civilians still faced extreme suffering, high famine risk, and needed sustainable aid, saying that the report's findings "should not allow room for complacency about the risk of Famine in the coming weeks and months," and that "The prolonged nature of the crisis means that this risk remains at least as high as at any time during the past few months." Wafflefrites (talk) 19:54, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Also, if you look at p. 53 (p. 55 of the pdf of the 30 June updated IPC report), Fig 17 and Table 20 show that COGAT facilitated the most number of deliveries and facilitated the most aid in metric tonnes to northern and southern Gaza out of all groups including UNRWA in the months of March through May. Probably because COGAT is armed and UNRWA relied on Gazan police to protect the aid trucks. Wafflefrites (talk) 19:58, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The new IPC report stated that: “the FRC would like to highlight that the very fact that we are unable to endorse (or not) FEWS NET’s analysis is driven by the lack of essential up to date data on human well-being in Northern Gaza”. Mainly due to the lack of access to substantial recent on-field data from Gaza for which they urgently urged for on-field surveys to be collected.
 * lastly, israeli politicians and government (such as COGAT are not really reliable sources, at all actually. The most one can do is to say “israel claims …” Stephan rostie (talk) 21:20, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I think that is from the June 4 report, which is why they said it was not known if famine thresholds had been passed in April. However they did conduct new surveys later, and have concluded, if you read the 30 June report, that there is currently no famine in Gaza in whatever analysis period they were studying Wafflefrites (talk) 21:27, 3 July 2024 (UTC)


 * First of all, you don't name a section after an editor (I renamed it for you). Second, once your bold edit has been reverted, you're supposed to respect the BRD process (this is especially important when editing a contentious topic that is under 1R restrictions). Are you going to self-revert? M.Bitton (talk) 20:16, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I didn’t realize you were not supposed to name a section with an editor’s name. To me “Revert by M.Bitton” seemed more specific than “July 2024”. I will go ahead and self revert BRD, although I don’t think my edit was particularly bold. I will probably rename this section too to something more specific. Wafflefrites (talk) 20:43, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Actually, your second revert violated 1RR. M.Bitton (talk) 20:45, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * So I am I supposed to revert my revert in the article? Or do you mean I should change the Talk page section back to July 2024. Wafflefrites (talk) 20:47, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * No, self-reverting was the right thing to do. I was referring to your revert of my revert (that was your second revert in less than 24 hours). M.Bitton (talk) 20:50, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Ohh, I always appreciate when other editors warn me about that because most times I am not keeping track. Wafflefrites (talk) 20:54, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Anyways I think it best that if you want to say the blockade has caused a widespread famine and that Israel is blocking aid (which is a true but also misleading way to put it), you need a reliable source that says all this and links the components together.
 * It is true that Israel blocks certain types of aid, but they screen and control all aid that goes into Gaza and they are allowing more aid in than blocking it so the way the sentence is phrased doesn’t sound precisely accurate but I did not know how to fix it, so I just slightly modified the wording. Wafflefrites (talk) 21:00, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I added a citation needed tag for widespread famine. If I have violated 1 RR again please let me know since I wasn’t sure if adding a tag was reverting things. Wafflefrites (talk) 21:10, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Adding things is never reverting. You can consult WP:REVERT for an explanation of what exactly constitutes reverting.  Kinsio  (talk ★ contribs ★ rights) 22:47, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The thing you are missing is that israel targeting of Gaza local police and government authorities, which it collectively label as “hamas”, is the main reason for this lawlessness (washington post, 2024), all of which which are direct consequences of israel mass bombing and intentional destruction of Gaza’s infrastructure and effort to paralyze and destroy the order and government authorities from ministeries to hospitals, local police, doctors and ambulance drivers whom israel collectively call “hamas”
 * this is all result of intentional israel campaign in Gaza. Your argument is as saying “people died in the indian famine because of hunger, not britain” Stephan rostie (talk) 21:03, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I just went with the sources which say “ A Palestine Red Crescent Society spokesman stated that the civil disorder "contributed to around a 50 percent decrease in the total number of aid trucks entering Gaza in February" and the source that says  a State Department spokesman said that in June, looting and other criminal attacks were the largest barriers to delivering aid, rather than Israeli strikes or Hamas’ commandeering of aid convoys.
 * The lead includes Israel blocking of aid and attacking of convoys, but the sources I provided attributed the decrease in the amount of aid going into Gaza directly to the crime, and I didn’t even add this to the lead I just slightly modified the wording. Wafflefrites (talk) 21:18, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * You still don’t get it, this lack of order is itself because of (part of) israel intentional bombing and targeting of Gaza infrastructure, police and all government and government related authorities which it collectively call “hamas”. In other words, the main cause of this orderlessness is itself part of israel’s own campaign against Gaza. This orderlessness didn’t happen on its own.
 * the indian famine (and orderlessness too btw) didn’t happen because indians reached that on their own, but because of britain’s policies and campaign in india.


 * Details as how israel magnified the famine by targeting police and government authorities which caused lawlessness belong to the body as all other details, not the lead Stephan rostie (talk) 21:32, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * If we take your explanation at face value, the current text still seems misleading. The current text strongly implies that there's essentially only one reason for famine (or food insecurity), namely the enforced blockade, or Israel blocking or attacking humanitarian convoys. It doesn't mention things like disruption of police services, or even hint that there are other factors at play. — xDanielx  T/C\R 21:40, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Respectfully, Mr Rostie,, according to an associate professor of political science at Al-Azhar University, he said the lawlessness is a result of increasing desperation and the power vacuum left from Hamas' decreasing power over Gaza.
 * The professor didn’t mention the other stuff that you mentioned. I can see how the argument on how they would contribute but we need more sources on that. Wafflefrites (talk) 21:43, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Was there famine before the Israeli blockade, bombardment and total destruction of Gaza? M.Bitton (talk) 21:44, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * my edit was to change “caused” to “contributed”. There are other factors that have contributed to the food insecurity and emergency. Wafflefrites (talk) 21:48, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * And famine was averted in Yemen in 2019 due to aid efforts even though they were at war. So a big reason for the emergency situation is due to the availability of aid trucks coming in. Wafflefrites (talk) 21:52, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I know what your edit changed, but the fact that you didn't the answer the question also means that you know that there's something terribly wrong with what you're suggesting. M.Bitton (talk) 21:52, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The question was a poor one because according to the organization that studies famine, it is unknown if there was famine and they acknowledged in their report that conditions had improved. Wafflefrites (talk) 21:57, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * If you truly believed that was the case, you wouldn't suggest replacing "caused" by "contributed". M.Bitton (talk) 22:00, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I actually think the entire sentence should go since it is not sourced. Also looking at the Alleged genocidal actions section, I am wondering how many of them contain the word genocide. Probably needs checking for original research.
 * I don’t think a blockade causes famine, which is what the sentence currently states. After all, Gaza has been under at least partial blockade since 2005. I think a blockade contributes to famine. I think a war causes a famine, and a blockade is part of a war. Wafflefrites (talk) 22:05, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Per WP:OR, “ To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article and directly support the material being presented.” And “ Do not combine material from multiple sources to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. If one reliable source says A and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C not mentioned by either of the sources.” Wafflefrites (talk) 22:10, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It's covered in the article's body (with a link to a dedicated article about it), therefore, it doesn't need to be sourced in the lead. I'm done here. M.Bitton (talk) 22:13, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Which is why rather than deleting, I modified the wording to be more accurate. Even the Gaza famine article that is linked doesn’t say there is famine in wiki voice. Wafflefrites (talk) 22:17, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I just checked your cited sources, two of which are just talking about flour massacre in which israeli forces opened fire on dozens of Gazans.
 * one states that “Palestinian clans and factions step in to protect Gaza aid”, others
 * from all the sources, only US spokesperson state claim that the famine is happening because civil disorder. In fact, source [8] that you are citing literally say “The ultimatum is the latest in a series of U.N. steps demanding Israel do more to safeguard aid operations from strikes by its forces and to curb growing lawlessness hindering humanitarian workers.”
 * your argument isn’t what your cited sources even say, and apparently is WP:UNDUE Stephan rostie (talk) 22:24, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * “and to curb growing lawlessness hindering humanitarian workers.” If you actually read the clans protecting aid article rather than the headline you will see disputes from UN aid workers about masked men and clans working with them. I also did include Hamas and Palestinian officials statements that they were protecting aid trucks. The Flour massacre occurred when Israel was coordinating and providing security into northern Gaza as northern Gaza was incredibly food insecure at that time in February, and aid had been hindered by lawlessness per Palestinian Red Crescent. Wafflefrites (talk) 22:27, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Also my edit in this article was not to include the info on lawlessness, it was to change “caused” to “contribute” and “widespread” to “imminent” . The reason I provided all the info on lawlessness, and there are more sources in June with the UN directly saying this is why they have stopped aid, was because I was asked to provide what other reasons are contributing to the famine risk.Wafflefrites (talk) 22:37, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * You are arguing that sources say that the israeli-induced civil disorder is the main reason or a main reason of the famine in Gaza, thats not what the source is saying
 * While it is true that the israeli-induced civil disorder is disturbing aid distribution,all sources agree that israel attacks on aid convoys and staff and prevention of aid entry to Gaza are the main reason. It is what caused this mass-starvation in the first place.


 * btw this disorder is induced by israel to the extent that it targeted even the Palestinian clans and clan leaders that stepped in to protect aid convoys and help maintain order. Stephan rostie (talk) 22:47, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * No I am not arguing that at all. I am saying the crime is a contributing factor, not a root cause or the biggest factor. Which is why I didn’t add to the lead of the Gaza famine article.
 * I believe your statement about air strikes is accurate pre June, maybe from March to June, but per NYT, in June commercial and aid groups were stopping deliveries to Gaza. So in June it was a big problem but UN has been negotiating with Israel about protective gear and additional monitoring and coordination as the trucks get to warehouses so maybe they will start moving things along in July Wafflefrites (talk) 22:57, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I would like to point out that this is not the only reason for the starvation. The other two main reasons cited are Israel’s limitation of aid and destruction of infrastructure. Personisinsterest (talk) 23:16, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree it is not the only reason. I was asked to provide another reason other than the blockade because I had changed “caused” to “contributed”, and this was in issue in February and June. But I see you have edited the lead to clear up the widespread famine confusion, so thank you, and I am fine with the wording now. Wafflefrites (talk) 23:25, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Death of NPOV
This article signals the death of WP:NPOV and Wikipedia is the much poorer for it.

That a core tenet of the five pillars can be disregarded and bulldozed in order to accomodate a certain narrative is a very sad day.

We're not allowed to say things because of WP:AGF and WP:CIVILITY but then not only something like this happens, it's ok. The RFC system currently in place may be ok when something more trivial is being discussed - not the way it's been used since October 7.

We can find the Professor of Anywhere who says that the sky is green and this is covered in whatever Journal. Doesn't make it true. And that people are saying a lot of things about Israel - doesn't make them true. Doesn't make them Wikipedia worthy.

Given the contention, we should collectively uphold WP:NPOV to an even higher level in order to create an encyclopedia everyone can be proud of. But what's happened instead doesn't reflect well on this incredible site. MaskedSinger (talk) 20:28, 4 July 2024 (UTC)


 * the death of WP:NPOV What? Have they burned all the RS? I would have heard, surely?
 * However, what has any of this to do with improving the article (what this talk page is for). Selfstudier (talk) 20:31, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Looking at the sourcing that has been marshalled in this article, to merely dismiss the argument for genocide with the sentence We can find the Professor of Anywhere who says that the sky is green and this is covered in whatever Journal. Doesn't make it true doesn't even come close to rebutting it. For anything related to the Israel-Palestine conflict, you're never going to be able to write an article that everybody would consider "neutral" or "unbiased" due to the heavily polarization of the topic area. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:39, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTFORUM. We're not allowed to say things because of WP:AGF and WP:CIVILITY... Oh no, the horror of having to treat other people like human beings worthy of respect (?). If there's something you want to say, by all means, say it. You're on this article talk page and clearly very upset about the article; give us specifics about what's wrong with the article and bring some reliable sources along with you to help us fix it. Otherwise you're just being disruptive.  Kinsio  (talk ★ contribs ★ rights) 21:49, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter what you think. And by the way, it isn't "Professor of Anywhere" saying this is a genocide, its hundreds of academics and UN officials. Personisinsterest (talk) 23:14, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Completely agree, this and other blatantly NPOV articles such as Nakba and Nuseirat refugee camp massacre are laying waste to any claim Wikipedia is a neutral, impartial source, at least when it comes to the conflict. This is the latest in blatant POV-pushing. It's another double article, when some editors are unsatisfied by the neutral tone of one article they apparently just make a new one that could read like something out of Electronic Intifada. 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight wasn't satisfactory so the Nakba article was born, 2024 Nuseirat rescue operation was apparently too neutral so the Nuseirat refugee camp massacre article was born, now since Palestinian genocide accusation wasn't good enough this disgrace of an article was created.--RM (Be my friend) 19:14, 13 July 2024 (UTC)


 * WP:NOTAFORUM Selfstudier (talk) 19:26, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The articles follow the sources; NPOV doesn't mean "not taking sides in a conflict," it means faithfully following the sources: stating mainstream views in wikivoice while also summarizing significant minority views. The 1948 expulsion and flight was just one part of the Nakba, according to the sources, that's why there are two articles. Just as the Nuseirat massacre was just one part of the Nuseirat raid. Just as the Gaza genocide is just one part of the overall Palestinian genocide accusation. Far from being the death of NPOV, it's because of NPOV that these articles are split from each other: so that one sub-topic does not gain WP:UNDUE prominence in a parent article. This is not Wikipedia dying, it's Wikipedia working as normal. If you think two articles should be merged, feel free to follow the instructions at WP:MERGE. Levivich (talk) 19:39, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * You can find a source that says virtually anything. For example, putting the "ongoing Nakba" into Wikivoice is clear POV-pushing, the idea that the Nakba can extend beyond 1948 should be put as an accusation in the original article. Likewise, we don't know how many of the dead in Nuseirat were civilians, calling it a massacre itself in Wikivoice is rather POV. And of course whether there is a genocide or not is one of the most hotly debated subjects between the two camps about this war. To state in Wikivoice that there is a genocide is basically answering the question of "Palestinian genocide accusation." RM (Be my friend) 19:52, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It's not hotly debated at all. A lot of experts have come out affirming it. Many more are simply sitting on the fence, presumably either out of fear or genuine professional ambivalence. And there's a formal court case pending. In the meantime, it's a widely discussed and notable topic. There are politicians and media pundits making noises about it, but their voices do not constitute any form of expert-fed debate. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:24, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Some experts have but I can easily find others claimimg there is no genocide. "Sittimg on the fence" doesn't count, you can't claim there is in fact a large army of people who agree with you but are keeping silent in the absence of hard evidence. Also the cpurt case is, as you said, pending. It has not made a ruling. RM (Be my friend) 20:41, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Not some, an apparent 75% academic area expert majority, whereas only 4% find Israel's current actions legitimate in comparison, and the UN member countries officially for and against the current ongoing atrocities are similarly uneven, if I remember correctly. David A (talk) 21:14, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Look, there is a consensus, it can be challenged at Move Review, go for it, meantime this blather is just disruption. Selfstudier (talk) 20:52, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * This "blather" is actually meant to establish whether there's a consensus on Wikipedia to allow this article to remain or not. RM (Be my friend) 21:03, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * That consensus has already been established and while some may want to complain about that, doing it here is just disruptive. If you want to challenge the consensus, move review, not bludgeoning this talk page, thanks. Selfstudier (talk) 21:11, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Maybe you can find a source that says virtually anything, but you cannot find a reliable source that says virtually anything. We do not state in Wikivoice that there is a genocide in Gaza. Levivich (talk) 04:02, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Again, genocide or accused
@Ecpiandy, I see you put the needs update tag because we haven't moved "accused" to "committed" and such. But I don't think the move changes anything; Gaza genocide is a common name to refer to Israel's actions, even used as a shorthand by mainstream media to denote the accusations. But it would not be neutral to fully say it is a genocide. Personisinsterest (talk) 23:20, 4 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Yea, people are assuming the title = fact, which of course, it doesn't. Selfstudier (talk) 23:35, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The consensus on a name change means the supplementary sources present the idea it is a genocide; in reflection of this, an article needs to match its name otherwise there is little logic for the name change to begin with. Primary and secondary sources tell us it is a genocide, thus the wording of the article should reflect that. I don't search for State of Palestine and expect an article on Israel's military occupation, I expect an article on the logistics of the Palestinian state; I'd assume similar logic applies here. Ecpiandy (talk) 23:41, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * There are two parts to this, see the closer comments. One is the amount of sourcing on the question, which makes it a worthwhile title by itself. Then there is the prevalence of views that it is compared to a minority that it isn't, which deals with the POVTITLE objection, although closer classed this aspect as nocon. There is nothing contradictory in all this. Selfstudier (talk) 23:49, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Let's see what other people say here first. Ecpiandy (talk) 02:02, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Indeed, per the (very long) sourcing discussion, there is not nearly sufficient consensus by RS to call this a genocide in our own voice, and if it will ever exist, it’s likely to take years to manifest. If I had to guess, it won’t be before an ICJ/ICC decision. FortunateSons (talk) 23:20, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree, and for what I have read in the change name discussion, there was no consensus, but a vote, in disregard of WP:POLL. The problem with voting is that it is possible by a very militant faction to organize support. That is why WP:POLL should be applied with particular attention to political issues. Furthermore the new actual article title is a sentence of condemnation. Should innocence until proven guilty not apply ? The point is that three genocides that have been recognized under the 1948 legal definition concern two cases in which about 25% of population was killed (Cambodia and Ruanda) and one case in which in which there was a mass execution of defenseless prisoners (Srebrenica). I don't see something like that happening now in Gaza. --Robertiki (talk) 12:00, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * We are not redoing the RM in this discussion, right? That's done and dusted. Selfstudier (talk) 12:04, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * No sarcasm please and refrain from posting intimidating instructions on my talk page on how to behave on controversial topics. I have 15 years of experience editing Wikipedia, especially on controversial topics. Quantity isn't everything. And I didn't edit in the main space anyway, so what? I was just now aware of the name change, and was disappointed that such a controversial topic was decided by a vote instead by consenus. The move should not had been made. Is it to late, to state that, not having partecipated to the discussion ?--Robertiki (talk) 22:09, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is, you are explicitly arguing against a recently established consensus. And casting aspersions on the close to the effect that is was a vote rather than a consensus of !votes. As an editor with 15 years of experience editing Wikipedia, especially on controversial topics, I would have though that this is an obvious no-no. The awareness notice is standard for all persons taking an interest in this topic area, nothing personal. Selfstudier (talk) 08:06, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Selfstudier: Unless there's a formal moratorium, any editor can challenge the title and start a move request. That's how it works. — kashmīrī  <sup style="color:#80f;font-family:'Candara';">TALK  14:17, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * If something has changed, what has changed? And if someone wants to contest the RM, then there is MR, right? That's how it works. Selfstudier (talk) 14:20, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Doesn't matter what you think, the RM was decided because the majority of people chose option 3, it was the option most heavily grounded and supported by reliable sources, and "[a] fair number" of people who chose options 1 and 2 were doing so on political grounds. Personisinsterest (talk) 16:55, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is no democracy and a majority should not decide without consenus. And more, Wikipedia is not a newspaper and we should have waited until full assessment from the judges and international community, possibily at war end. As noted, now Wikipedia is used as a political weapon (talk about page access doubled). --Robertiki (talk) 22:19, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It's not that the majority decided, it's that the majority had a better argument. Personisinsterest (talk) 22:27, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It's not a better argument if it hasn't convinced those who disagree. I'm afraid you have no idea what consenus means. "Consensus is the community resolution when opposing parties set aside their differences and agree on a statement that is agreeable to all, even if only barely." . Please read WP:WCON. Thanks. --Robertiki (talk) 23:08, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It is impossible for 100% of the people involved to reach an agreement if the side with opposing arguments is largely far too ideologically and politically invested in a tribalist perspective. The people here who argued for the current title were deemed to have better arguments, much stronger facts and expertice on their side, and considerably more votes, in combination.
 * However, I do agree with Kashmiri about that we should put an official stop to any further continuous naming discussions, given all of the largely deliberate derailing hostility and spamming done in the preceding one. David A (talk) 04:19, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * That is not factually correct. I just counted 60 editors who voted, and 32 votes for option 3. What may have caused confusion here is that quite a lot of editors voted for two options. David A (talk) 06:37, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @FortunateSons: A title isn't wikivoice. A title is a title, which is normally a common term, and sometimes an explicitly POV term. A title does not establish the truth or veracity of the words that it contains. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:53, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, and while I believe that the title is not ideal in this case, my point was primarily a response to:  The consensus on a name change means the supplementary sources present the idea it is a genocide; in reflection of this, an article needs to match its name otherwise there is little logic for the name change to begin with. Primary and secondary sources tell us it is a genocide, thus the wording of the article should reflect that. Looking back, it seems I was less than clear. FortunateSons (talk) 07:07, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, but the contrast is strange. You have "Gaza genocide" and yet
 * Allegations of genocide of Ukrainians in the Russo-Ukrainian War
 * Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel
 * The former of the two is also being reviewed at the ICJ. Why is there a difference? Amayorov (talk) 18:39, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Ukraine v. Russian Federation (2022) is a quite different case and not directly comparable. Selfstudier (talk) 18:50, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Why are they different? The court also found that Ukraine had "a plausible right not to be subjected to military operations by the Russian Federation for the purpose of preventing and punishing an alleged genocide" in its territory" – similar to the only relevant decisions to date, published by the ICJ.  Amayorov (talk) 15:33, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * If you think they are the same, then go to the other article and get it changed? What has it to do with this article? WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an argument. Selfstudier (talk) 15:36, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * There's also WP:TITLECON:
 * Wikipedia:Article titles states as its fifth naming criterion, after recognizability, naturalness, precision, and conciseness: Consistency – The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles.
 * In determining the appropriate title for that article, editors should consult the topic-specific conventions that are relevant to a particular article.
 * Amayorov (talk) 15:48, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * If you want to dispute the current article title, which has consensus, Move Review is the place, where I note no-one has to date contested the recent move. Selfstudier (talk) 15:58, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

I am not saying it's either a good or a bad title, but for now, I think the decision to change the title was made too soon. There simply is no clear consensus if this is genocide or not, at least not yet. The ICJ case is still ongoing, the ICC prosecutor requested "only" arrest warrants for crimes against humanity. The Request to move the title was concluded too fast, it should have been left a few months longer for people to discuss it. I was unaware of this even being brought up on the talk page until now. It was initiated on 3 May, and closed just two months later. This gives too little time to gather a broader consensus. I would suggest to re-open the Requested move and leave it open for two more months before closing it.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 13:18, 13 July 2024 (UTC)


 * An RM lasts for 7 days usually. Selfstudier (talk) 13:57, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Obviously such a contentious topic and not yet definitive term needs more time than just 7 days to reach a broad consensus.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 09:33, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

After recent title change daily page view jumped from 15 to over a 1000
This tells me why it is important to title article correctly - now this wiki is top in google search for searches related to `Gaza genocide` Gsgdd (talk) 06:52, 5 July 2024 (UTC)


 * This also shows why it is important to start correcting the massive violations of NPOV in this article. Something that I'll put my mind to next week after finishing some other thing that I committed to. Vegan416 (talk) 07:09, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It has not jumped from 15. The article was averaging around 700 views per day before this: 15 is what "Gaza genocide" was getting when it was a redirect, rather than the main title of the page. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:56, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Ah i see. So its from 700 to 1500. still that's 100% increase Gsgdd (talk) 16:01, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The previous title was particularly awful and long-winded, so ... Iskandar323 (talk) 06:49, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Why was it awful, as opposed to simply consistent? You have "Gaza genocide" and yet
 * Allegations of genocide of Ukrainians in the Russo-Ukrainian War
 * Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel
 * The former of the two is also being reviewed at the ICJ. Why is there a difference? Would you suggest to change the other two too? Amayorov (talk) 18:52, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * You wrote that in the previous section already and I replied to it there. Two different cases. Read the actual cases and judgements. Selfstudier (talk) 20:42, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I've replied to you in the section above Amayorov (talk) 15:33, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * And not replied to the point below. It doesn't matter anyway, all this arguing against consensus is really pointless. Selfstudier (talk) 16:01, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Apart from that the reactions of scholars and experts also completely different. Stop trying to compare apples and oranges.Selfstudier (talk) 20:44, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

New source for Gaza deaths
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(24)01169-3/fulltext Vanisherman (talk) 03:25, 8 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Thank you. This is a good source. Levivich (talk) 04:10, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I made some related comments about this here. TLDR: it's not part of the peer-reviewed journal, but a sort of "letter to the editor", and it's unclear how the authors came up with this estimate of future deaths, since there seems to be some mistake with their citation. It might be okay to include, but we should use caution here. — xDanielx  T/C\R 04:34, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * True, although we require peer-reviewed articles for biomedical claims only. For other claims, like death count, it's enough that material is published in a high-quality source that has good editorial oversight, which the Lancet doubtlessly is. I'd be all for including the estimates with attribution ("According to Rasha Khatib, Martin McKee, and Salim Yusuf writing in The Lancet...). — kashmīrī  <sup style="color:#80f;font-family:'Candara';">TALK  08:17, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The author essentially seems to have made a guess based on prior statistics regarding "direct" and "indirect" deaths (without actually arguing that the Gaza Ministry of Health's numbers were "direct" deaths). The author literally says "it is not implausible to estimate" regarding the primary conclusion herein. The wiki article does address this issue with the Lancet article, but it strikes me as ridiculous to give such an obviously flawed article any credence at all. Daniel J. Hakimi (talk) 02:14, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I also think that this information should be included, given that only the identifiable bodies directly killed by assaults from Israeli forces have been included in the listed statistics here thus far, not the ones hidden under the rubble of collapsed buildings or killed by starvation or diseases as a result from this conflict. David A (talk) 04:56, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * That is factually incorrect. The deaths figure reported by the MoH includes missing persons assumed dead, deaths from starvation, disease, etc. It is an aggregate of data directly from hospitals, morgues, and public submissions via online forms (which don't necessarily require a body to be counted). This is also not the same as the headline deaths figure from the GMO, which includes reports from media sources. Depending on the assumptions made about the data, a substantial portion of indirect deaths may already be accounted for. It would probably be less misleading to find actual studies on potential indirect deaths rather than guesstimates from non-experts writing a correspondence. Sir Charms a Lot (talk) 14:46, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Also, it was clearly stated that the 4x number was a conservative estimate. The maximum was 15x, which would mean over 570,000 total deaths of mainly innocent women and children. Should that be mentioned as well? David A (talk) 05:34, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * We could use this, along with other sources such as Euro-Med Monitor's estimates, to cite a sentence saying other estimates place the death toll higher than the officially reported number, but giving the specific estimates from such peripheral persons would be granting too much weight. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 07:47, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It's a number based on make believe future deaths. It would be irresponsible to even consider using that number, or any number that isn't verifiable. Sviscusi (talk) 08:53, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * As far as I understood, it is a number based on current deaths according to standard outcome patterning and methodology. David A (talk) 17:55, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Main discussion is at Talk:Israel–Hamas_war Selfstudier (talk) 15:05, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes. It seems better to continue there. David A (talk) 17:56, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I've also opened a discussion at RSN: Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 02:39, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

I have been told elsewhere that the 186,000 deaths number was intended to refer to projected sum total future deaths from this humanitarian catastrophe, not everybody who have already died, with more indirect causes such as starvation or diseases included. If this is accurate, for the sake of academic reliability, I think that we should modify the phrasing used in this article accordingly. David A (talk) 08:55, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 July 2024
The report mentioned in the beginning of "Victims" section is misattributed to EuroMed Rights, whereas it was produced by a different organization with a similar name - Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor, also known as Euro-Med Monitor - as can also be seen in the link.

Suggested change:

EuroMed Rights -> Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor Zlmark (talk) 15:52, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Done, Selfstudier (talk) 16:22, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 July 2024 (2)
One of the authors of the "Lancet" article mentioned at the end of the "Victims" section issued the following clarification:

"And as our piece has been greatly misquoted and misinterpreted, can we clarify that all we are saying is that the Gaza figures are credible & indirect toll will, in time, likely be much higher. The figure we give is purely illustrative" https://x.com/martinmckee/status/1810251590520950808

Given this clarification, it's best to remove the reference to this estimate entirely, as the author himself describes it as "purely illustrative". Zlmark (talk) 18:08, 8 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Not sure what this request is, are you requesting that all reference to the Lancet piece be removed?
 * Also see Talk:Israel%E2%80%93Hamas war Selfstudier (talk) 18:17, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, I request to remove the reference to the Lancet, because its only added value was the specific estimate, but now one of the authors clarified that it's "purely illustrative", as far as he's concerned.
 * This, along with the facts mentioned by other contributors - lack of peer-review, future projections mistakenly framed as current estimates and questionable methodology based on comparison to other conflicts with different dynamics - justifies a removal of this reference, in my view. Zlmark (talk) 18:28, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Very well, EC editors will discuss that and decide what to do. Thanks for your input. Selfstudier (talk) 18:31, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * And Talk:Palestinian genocide accusation Selfstudier (talk) 18:19, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * These various discussions should probably be consolidated in one place? Maybe the main war article talk page? Levivich (talk) 18:38, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a plan, what to do, copy paste? Selfstudier (talk) 18:41, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Done, copy pasted both to Talk:Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war, can continue there. Selfstudier (talk) 19:03, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Citation style
I'm a bit dissatisfied with the current citation style of the article. I've been working on what I consider a "fix" in a personal sandbox for a bit but after mentioning it to a couple of people I've realized I should probably seek some input on this before trying to unilaterally implement it.

So there are two sections that contain citations, "References" and "Works cited". "References" is a mix of full citations and short citations, and "Works cited" contains the full citations referred to by the short citations in "References". I feel it would be cleaner and more consistent, if we're going to have both of these sections, to consistently use both: to have inline citations be short footnote citations that go into "References", which point to full citations in "Works cited" (which would then actually contain, as the name suggests, all the works cited, instead of just some of them as it does currently).

Implementing this would mostly just be a matter of copying and pasting the existing inline full citations down into the "Works cited" section and replacing the deleted inline citations with short citations. What do y'all think? Tagging in major contributors.  Kinsio  (talk ★ contribs ★ rights) 18:22, 10 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Fully support, it is my preferred style, but I tend to avoid trying to convert pages whole-sale to it, as other editors have shown to have strong opinions on this matter. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 19:01, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Agree. I see no reason not to follow a single and widespread standard. Rkieferbaum (talk) 13:02, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Source reliability
I've opened a discussion at RSN on the reliability of the source "Counting the dead in Gaza: difficult but essential", which cited in this article: Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 02:41, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Off wiki
Just putting this here for everyone’s notice: Makeandtoss (talk) 21:46, 13 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Uh huh, I was noticing stuff, that explains it, at least in part, probably other things going on too. Selfstudier (talk) 22:03, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * A quick browse of the comments shows a lot of "issues" pointed to are things that have been changed from weeks ago to months ago, so prior to the name change change that kicked off the thread yesterday. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 10:21, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Pretty blatant invitation to visit this page, tho. Selfstudier (talk) 10:24, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Numbers?
"By March 2024, after five months of attacks, Israeli military action had resulted in the deaths of over 31,500 Palestinians – 1 out of every 75 people in Gaza – averaging 195 killings a day, and nearly 40,000 confirmed deaths by July."

Even if we assume that Hamas' own numbers are broadly correct (which we shouldn't, because it don't distinguish between civilian and combatant casualties, and have been repeatedly proven be largely just invented), that doesn’t seem to even come close to genocide. Why are we even indulging this ludicrous nonsense? There’s 2 million Palestinians in Gaza, about 40,000 of whom are members of Hamas, many more being members of other groups like Palestinian Islamic Jihad and other Jihadi groups.

The Allies forces killed more than 300,000 German civilians in the Second World War. Was that a genocide? Or, as I and most people believe, an unfortunate but acceptable price to pay for the destruction of the Nazi regime? KronosAlight (talk) 22:08, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * And Israel has killed more people in such a short timeframe than in the entire Bosnian genocide. It has killed more people than the bombings of Dresden and London combined. The amount of deaths is not particularly relevant, it is based on the scholarly perspectives avaliable to us that revolve around the idea of "intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group", which is not what the Allies were doing in World War II. But rather than us have a personal debate, for the sake of an encyclopedia, we go on reliable sources and the perspectives/information they provide. As it stands, they are presenting the same arguments articulated in the article. We have already had numerous debates on this on the talk page if you scroll further back. Ecpiandy (talk) 00:46, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * As per previous rulings on the Genocide Convention, and better frameworks used by genocide scholars, combatants can, and have, been counted as victims of genocide. So, if this is a genocide, the combatant-civilian distinction is not one to be considered. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 10:23, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Violation of WP:NPOV on recent edits
In order to prevent a WP:EDITWAR, I feel it is best to discuss the issue here before engaging in any further edits. The recent changes do not attempt to provide a neutral perspective at all, it is just an attempted pro-Israeli framing of arguments. Similar to the arguments on Talk:Nuseirat_refugee_camp_massacre, please gain consensus and talk through it here before making such changes. Ecpiandy (talk) 00:42, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Sources almost without exception attribute the number of casualties; we can't put them in wikivoice
 * Sources consider the fact that Hamas controls the GHM important information, and every RfC we have had on this topic, as far as I know, has found a consensus to include clarification, although the exact wording may vary
 * Whether there is a famine or not is relevant, particularly since recent reporting found that the situation was not as dire as previously thought
 * A clarification of the ICJ ruling by the person who was the head of the ICJ at the time it was issued is highly relevant.
 * I previously overlooked "Some sources have hypothesised that there may be" and have no objection to removing it. Similarly, "though it is not known who was responsible" overstates things, and while we need to acknowledge that hundreds to thousands have died by friendly fire, the vast majority have been killed by Israeli fire. BilledMammal (talk) 00:53, 14 July 2024 (UTC)


 * 1st issue: "Hamas-run Health ministry" is typically used in pro-Israeli sources to de-legitimise the reliability of what are traditionally seen as reliable statistics by NGOs and the United Nations in relation to historic Palestinian deaths. Similarly, we do not typically cite the organisation in control when considering deaths in other conflicts. You would not say the "Conservative-run Ministry of Health said x civilians died" in relation to the Falklands War. Yes, Hamas is an abhorrent organisation but it is very loaded language to use on a WP:NPOV article. This similar logic can be used against the "Like in all wars, " argument too. I see an overarching consensus did not seem to be reached in the previous discussion on this either. Would like more opinions on this from others. Ecpiandy (talk) 01:17, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * While pro-Israeli sources do use that language, and pro-Palestinian sources do not, it is widely used by less partisan sources, such as the BBC, al Monitor, Le Monde, France24, Haaretz, Sky News, WION, Bloomberg, Arab News, and many others.
 * Why the sources do this isn't relevant to us, but I believe it's because its not self-evident that the Health Ministry is controlled by Hamas, while in other conflicts it usually is self-evident that, for example, the British Ministry of Health is controlled by the British government. BilledMammal (talk) 01:27, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * is the incorrect comparison, as that would be comparable to the Gaza Ministry of Health is controlled by the Government of Gaza, whereas is equivalent to Tory-run Ministry of Health. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 20:23, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * In terms of the other issues, I will come back to it later when I have more time. Ecpiandy (talk) 01:18, 14 July 2024 (UTC)


 * No, no and no. We don't normally say: "Democrat-run health ministry", "Labour-run Department of Health", etc., unless with an intent of denigrating these institutions. Sure, the Gaza government is currently under political influence of the Hamas party. However, Gaza Government is not Hamas, just like His Majesty's Government ≠ UK Labour Party. Parties come and go, civil servants stay. Besides, it's been repeated ad nauseam that Gaza MoH reporting is widely considered reliable. To present them as guilty by association is an appalling manipulation technique worthy of propaganda outlets, not of encyclopaedias. — kashmīrī  <sup style="color:#80f;font-family:'Candara';">TALK  02:33, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * In Gaza? I don't think a lot of Fatah civil servants stayed to serve in the Hamas administration; I think they got executed. Maybe I'm wrong about that. Anyway, we don't say "Democrat-run health ministry" or "Labour-run Department of Health" because the sources don't say that; if they did, we would, too. The only relevant question is whether the balance of sources do or do not include "Hamas-run" before "health ministry" (or similar). BBC does, CNN doesn't, I have no idea which approach is currently more common. It's easy to string together a list of 5 or 10 sources that do, or do not; much harder is putting together a comprehensive survey of the top media sources to see if there is a clear majority practice or not. Not that anybody needs to convince me, but what would convince me, is a table showing the whole alphabet soup plus newspapers of record from a number of different countries. That's kind of a lot of work and I'm not sure if it's worth it. But the answer is in usage by sources; it doesn't matter if it's fair, or if MoH is reliable, or if we do it for other countries; it only matters if the RS do it or not. Levivich (talk) 04:14, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Manual of Style/Words to watch stipulates that any contentious label such as association with a terrorist group should be avoided or else attributed to the source. In this case, Hamas being designated as a terrorist group by several countries, including the US, is a contentious label and should be avoided unless a reliable source explicitly states that the "Gaza Health Ministry is acting as a propaganda agency to advance Hamas' terrorism," which is clearly not the case. Additionally, sources designated as "generally reliable" do not have permanent immunity for every statement they make, which should be judged on a case by case basis. At least Mondoweiss opinionated that "Hamas-run Gaza Health Ministry" serves to " ". (And Mondoweiss is neither reliable nor unreliable per our recent RfC.) -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 06:52, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * No, it does not say that, it says nothing about "association with". "Hamas" is not a contentious label. Levivich (talk) 12:44, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think a lot of Fatah civil servants stayed to serve in the Hamas administration; I think they got executed. Gaza Strip administration counts around 82,000 civil servants. Can you kindly point me to a source describing 82,000 executions? Or even 82 executions? — kashmīrī  <sup style="color:#80f;font-family:'Candara';">TALK  12:13, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Are you really not aware that Hamas executes political dissenters/opponents, and that Hamas and Fatah fought a war? (Battle of Gaza (2007)) Hamas is not a political party like the ones in the US and UK. Hamas oppresses Gazans with violence, this is not news or a controversial statement. And the Gaza govt isn't "currently under the influence of" Hamas, the Gaza govt is Hamas. (Hamas government in the Gaza Strip) Here is what happens to people in Gaza who speak out against Hamas: an example from last week. Hamas is not like the Democrats or Labour. It's not a multi-party system in Gaza with professional civil servants working for different parties like in the West. I don't even think they've had a second election yet. Levivich (talk) 13:02, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 'Hamas-run' is undoubtedly the default qualifier of any institution in the Gaza Strip in Western mainstream sources. There it functions as a reminded that everything in Gaza is run by terrorists, since 'Hamas= (nothing but) terrorists' is by now a standard implication. That Hamas has executed its opponents is true (2007 however is a far more complex situation than your ref to it allows). Israel has historically executed by targeted assassinations numerous (Palestinian) opponents, and treated those thousands it holds in administrative detention, without trial, with the extreme violence we associate with non-democratic countries, ( Bassam Aramin, who for 7 years was, despite his quietism, along with many other detainees regularly summoned for a thorough thrashing by prison guards (Apeirogon), something that is ongoing at places like Sde Teiman) or as in the case with several Palestinian exponents of Gandhian non-violence, expulsion from the West Bank as terrorists'(Mubarak Awad etc.) By the analogy I am not putting them on a par. Every state, whatever the parallels, is unique.
 * Hamas is certainly not anything like a Western political party, agreed. But what that kind of pointy qualification does is elide any awareness that it remains a movement with a long history of political negotiations (on this, some familiarity with Menachem Klein's studies is necessary, e.g., at least here, here and here) with its adversary, and has long experience also administering Gaza, policing it, distributing resources, running hospitals, schools and civil development projects, as every governing body does. 'Hamas-run' is tautologously pointy, as much as the U.S.-run Veterans Health Administration would be. All governing parties run the (state) institutions their election appoints them to administer. I state that with zero-sympathy for the movement, as opposed to an attempt to try and grasp how it developed the way it did, which should be approached unhysterically, in the most neutral terms possible, something that is far more difficult to do than just accepting the standard memes circulating in many if not RS. By the way, your 'here's an example from last week' (fopr which thanks, I didn't catch that) is effortlessly parallelable with this. Both are repulsive in their different ways. Nishidani (talk) 13:48, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I very much agree that Hamas does not have a monopoly on, nor is it even particularly unique in its use of, political violence. All kinds of governments do that, including Israel and Western governments, including my own (USA), which has plenty of examples in recent history of prisoner abuse, torture, extra-judicial assassination (a euphemism we use for "execution"), and such.
 * Two points I would add: first, a terrorist organization is perfectly capable of accurately counting the dead. Second, non-terrorist governments are perfectly capable of inflating or deflating casualty counts to suit their political or propaganda goals. So "Hamas-run" doesn't mean "unreliable" to me (though I recognize that it probably does mean that to many members of the public, and that some who use that phrase are counting on this inference being drawn), nor do I have any reason to believe Israel's (or America's) casualty counts any more than Hamas's or Hezbollah's or anyone else (though I recognize I'm probably in the minority on that view).
 * However, I'm not so sure that "Hamas-run" is still the default qualifier in Western mainstream media. I've never done the full analysis, but my impression just as an ordinary news junkie is that this has changed over the course of the war. I looked today at three recent articles from some MSM, and CNN , NBC   , AP   , Reuters   , and CBC    do not say "Hamas-run" before "Gaza Health Ministry" (or similar), they just say "according to the territory's Health Ministry" or "according to Gaza health officials," or something like that. BBC   , ABC   (can't find a third recent article under their own byline), and CBS    still use "Hamas-run" or similar ("Hamas-aligned," "Hamas-controlled"). I think if we did this analysis for more MSM, we could figure out what the prevailing usage is. Levivich (talk) 19:04, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I bow to your superior googling skills, but it always strikes me as the default term whenever Ynet and The Times of israel mention it. In any case, I've no problem with accepting that Hamas has engaged in terror. That is just registering the obvious. I do have one when it is defined as a 'terrorist organization'. That primary definition is very much a political determination by Israel and its Western allies, the most prominent of which engaged in massive terror (the war on Iraq). State actors, particularly those with an imperial cast (U.S.Russia, China) define 'terrorism' as a characteristic of the non-state actors who challenge their interests, and Israel not only imitated this but worked intensely to have this designation adopted in the E.U. and the Anglophone axis of the U.S. Canada and Australia, thus placing Hamas (and Hezbollah) outside the pale of legitimate negotiating parties. Menachem Klein goes a long way towards telling us how relentlessly consistent a few interested states have been in sabotaging Hamas's attempts at political negotiations. It's no secret that Netanyahu's endless disruption of negotiations rides publicly on an avowed refusal to negotiate with terrorists, even if the probable reason there is that he must string things along until Nov.4. Sorry for this screed. It's probably off-topic since I'm not editing the page.Nishidani (talk) 21:25, 14 July 2024 (UTC)


 * You pretty much explained youself why "Hamas-run" is a contentious label for GHM. How can you compile data under active treat of a terrorist group while your figures being accepted as uncompromised/unbiased/undercount by other reliabled sources, except for Israel and its political allies? -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 13:10, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Hamas-run is not a "contentious label" (a Wikipedia term) because it's not contentious. Nobody disputes that MoH is Hamas-run. People do dispute whether Hamas is a "terrorist" organization. That's why "terrorist" is contentious (it is contended) but "Hamas-run" is not. (Also, it's not a label.) The argument here is about NPOV -- whether "Hamas-run" is due and neutral (as Wikipedia defines those terms) -- not about WTW. Levivich (talk) 13:15, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Give me a reliable source which actually opposes Hamas' terrorist designation by the US and Israel. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 13:32, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * So there's this website called Wikipedia that has an article about Hamas that has sources about this stuff. Levivich (talk) 13:41, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * How about we stop spinning our wheels duplicating the same discussion on a different talk page yet again and throw together an RFC for NPOVN? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:46, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I am not going to entertain your sarcasm, but I have found no reliable source challenging Hamas' terrorist designation, not even Al Jazeera: they simply states the plain truth about the designation. I think I have to emphasize one point: countries don't designate Hamas as a terrorist doesn't mean they oppose the designation by other countries. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 13:50, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Can we have a formal RfC to determine the application of "Hamas-run" label for GHM to settle this dispute? -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 07:00, 14 July 2024 (UTC)


 * I'm all for it. — kashmīrī  <sup style="color:#80f;font-family:'Candara';">TALK  12:14, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. Altho we have had umpteen discussions already about GHM reliability and always conclude that GHM is reliable. Plus we have RS demonstrating that this addition is simply Israeli propaganda at work, see Talk:Israel%E2%80%93Hamas war/Archive 44 Merely because some RS use this label does not mean that WP needs to, it's purpose seems clear, to cast doubt on GHM reliability. Selfstudier (talk) 12:29, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * If the intent is to have this cover a wide array of articles I'd suggest it take place at WP:NPOVN and be widely advertised. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:31, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Good idea, I think Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 418 was a recent noticeboard go round. Selfstudier (talk) 12:36, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * And see Talk:Gaza Health Ministry. Selfstudier (talk) 12:42, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * In all those discussions, there hasn't yet been an RfC? Yes, absolutely, there should be one. Levivich (talk) 12:56, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Should the RFC be at the Gaza Health Ministry talk page? Selfstudier (talk) 15:54, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Then the question could be
 * "Should the lead include the phrase "Hamas-run" at any point?"
 * And of course, advertise this all over the shop including NPOVN, projects, centralized, etc. Selfstudier (talk) 17:03, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * , WP:NPOVN. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:48, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I did look there but everything there seems to assume some article as the subject of discussion, rather than many articles? Why don't you do it, if you think it's possible. Selfstudier (talk) 17:53, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Mostly because I'm on my phone and I'm going to butcher a duck when I finish my mai tai. I'll get to it later if no one else does. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:56, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * May I suggest this will not be productive until/unless someone who wishes to make the case that Wikipedia should/shouldn't put "Hamas-run" before "Gaza Health Ministry" (or similar) gathers the sources to show that including/excluding the phrase is what RS does. Otherwise, it's just going to be a bunch of argumentation without sourcing. There is no way around doing the research to answer the question, in my view. Levivich (talk) 18:00, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The RFC will run for at least 30 days, so there's plenty of time for sourcing analysis. I'd rather do something than let this continue to be an issue across a pile of articles. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:04, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * If you'd rather do something, feel free to flip through some news sources and see if they use the phrase. I've already checked CNN, ABC, NBC and CBS (and will post links here shortly), so those can be skipped. The 30 days of RFC will be productively spent if they begin with a source analysis, not if the source analysis happens part-way through. Before there are sources to examine, there is nothing to discuss. Levivich (talk) 18:10, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Well we know AP does it "not always" (lol). Selfstudier (talk) 18:17, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Think the Beeb uses it pretty much all the time, have to check tho. Selfstudier (talk) 18:23, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Guardian doesn't, latest report on the Deif strike thing "the health ministry in the Hamas-administered territory", "Gaza’s health ministry said.." Selfstudier (talk) 18:51, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Beeb def still does (see links in my reply to Nish above). So maybe the thing to do is to put together a list somewhere (here? the GHM article?) and then launch an RFC at NPOVN? I think NPOVN is the right place for multi-article issues like this. We'll have to advertise it on the talk pages of all the articles (and probably the WikiProjects for good measure). Levivich (talk) 19:04, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * SFR is gonna do it (post duck and mai tai). Selfstudier (talk) 19:08, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * This is true, otoh, one can argue that the ONUS is on those wishing to add the qualifier, it's not there on the GHM article, for instance. But then, it keeps being added here or there regardless of ONUS and back to square one. Also does it solely depend on what the majority RS are doing? If there are sources showing that this is motivated by propaganda efforts, that's a part of it, too, isn't it? Selfstudier (talk) 18:06, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * What exactly it depends on is subject to community consensus and how the closer reads the discussion. At least when it's done we'll have a community's consensus to work from rather than local consensus across dozens of articles. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:08, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Personally I don't think it matters if it's motivated by propaganda efforts, or by racism, or by journalistic integrity... what matters is whether "Hamas-run" it's a significant WP:ASPECT of the GMH casualty figures. Just my opinion on it, but I see it as a very binary question: if almost all sources put "Hamas-run" before "health ministry," then we should. If almost all sources don't, then we don't. If it's like a 50/50 split, then we have a difficult decision to make. And maybe in that instance, come to think of it, other considerations -- like propaganda -- would be relevant. (But I don't think it's a 50/50 split.) Levivich (talk) 18:13, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It is very 50/50, and from an encyclopaedic point of view, it is very much against WP:NOV to put "Hamas-run". Keep it as it is. Ecpiandy (talk) 02:26, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I know we cannot use personal opinions, but we all know it is a genocide. Everyone reading this knows it. Keep it as it is. Ecpiandy (talk) 02:28, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * we all know it is a genocide We don't know that because not all sources say that, let's keep things on an even keel here. Selfstudier (talk) 08:40, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Inconsistent language
Hopefully I'm not the only person noticing this. The lead for Rohingya genocide reads: "The Rohingya genocide is a series of ontoing persecutions and killings of the Muslim Rohingya people by the military of Myanmar". The lead for this article reads: "Israel has been accused by experts, governments, UN agencies and non-governmental organizations of carrying out a genocide against the Palestinian population during its invasion and bombing of the Gaza strip".

Make it make sense. This kind of language in a lead reads as if we have to walk on eggshells when trying to even call it a genocide. It is clearly different from the language used for other ongoing genocides. This is just one of many examples. —  Snoteleks  ( talk ) 21:53, 14 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Agreed, while the move to Gaza genocide has been made with the Tamil genocide in mind, it hasn't quite followed through in the spirit of that article. --NFSreloaded (talk) 08:20, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an argument. The title by itself does not mean that Israel is carrying out a genocide as a fact, it means, in this particular case, that lots of people are saying it is and there is a court case at the ICJ making that accusation. The title here means that the "Gaza genocide" is a topic of discussion, the WP:SCOPE of the article is the title plus the first sentence(s). Selfstudier (talk) 08:37, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Selfstudier How do you explain that calling the "Gaza genocide" a genocide is up for discussion even after explicitly referencing all the organizations that unanimously agree it is a genocide? How do you explain that any other genocide doesn't get the same treatment of being questioned as a genocide? —  Snoteleks  ( talk ) 13:46, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean, I am going by the sourcing that is in the article and the recent RM, "neither side achieved a consensus on the question of which title is favoured by WP:POVTITLE". Nor do I care what the position is with other genocide articles (other than the "parent" article Palestinian genocide accusation), I am only interested in this article right here. Selfstudier (talk) 14:03, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * One can refer to Genocides in history (21st century), the Israel/Palestine entry there starts off "Israel has been accused of inciting or carrying out genocide against the Palestinians." just like the article here.
 * Of course it is possible that as time passes, what is occurring in Gaza may come to be recognized as a genocide even without the benefit of an ICJ ruling, I don't think that is the position right now tho. Selfstudier (talk) 14:10, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Selfstudier What is occurring in Gaza is already being recognized as a genocide by all accounts, the lead of the article says so itself. Consensus has been reached, debate has ended. —  Snoteleks  ( talk ) 19:34, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The lead says it is an accusation, it does not state that it is a genocide, nor should it. I find it quite odd that advocates for either side are arguing that the title means it is a genocide, it doesn't. Selfstudier (talk) 20:30, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Selfstudier "Nor should it" how so? Do we now have to disclose that Taiwan is being "accused" of being a country? What reasons do you have to be against it being stated as exactly what it is? —  Snoteleks  ( talk ) 21:35, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * With respect, apparently you would like to add material to the article asserting in WP voice that the events in Gaza amount to a genocide. Well go ahead and add that. And I don't care about Taiwan, either. Selfstudier (talk) 21:54, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Um, "But was it a genocide?" is probably the most common question asked in the entire field of genocide studies. Levivich (talk) 15:20, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I don’t think the Rohingya and Gaza articles are similar. There is currently a discussion to merge the Rohingya article with Persecution of Muslims in Myanmar. Also the Persecution of Uyghurs in China article used to be called Uyghur genocide (the Chinese government considered the Uyghur political violence in Xinjiang to be terrorism and implemented controversial policies), but the Uyghur article title was changed to persecution. Wafflefrites (talk) 15:13, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * You raise an interesting point there I am almost certain I could justify an article on persecution as a fact, that's one of the ICC charges on the pending warrants. Persecution is a virtual slam dunk compared to the bar for legally proving genocide. Selfstudier (talk) 15:18, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Wafflefrites Are you saying that the government that's allegedly persecuting Uyghurs is the reason why the article title changed from genocide to persecution? —  Snoteleks  ( talk ) 19:40, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Snoteleks No, Wikipedia editors decide on articles titles, not governments. You were comparing the Rohingya genocide article to this one. I was pointing out that there is a merge discussion on that article into an article on persecution. I then gave another example where another Wikipedia article title was changed from “genocide” to “persecution”. My point, was that I think the articles are different and therefore I don’t think the language should be the same, unless you want to add persecution to the Gaza genocide article. Wafflefrites (talk) 20:26, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Snoteleks Also, in regards to the “alleged persecution”, I am curious what category or language you would use to describe forced sterilization and “reeducation camps”? Wafflefrites (talk) 20:36, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Wafflefrites If you find a problem with the use of the term "alleged", you should also find a problem with the use of the term "accused of", since both very evidently make the statement subjective and therefore not encyclopedic, despite there being an objective consensus. I would use genocide in both instances, by the way. —  Snoteleks  ( talk ) 21:38, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Snoteleks There are actually MOS guidelines for this, see MOS:ALLEGED and WP:WIKIVOICE. I need to edit the Uyghur article, as I just noticed alleged is in the lead of that article. Wafflefrites (talk) 21:56, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Wafflefrites Excellent, so the manual of style supports us not using such language. Therefore we should change this article's lead as well. —  Snoteleks  ( talk ) 23:18, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Snoteleks "Accused" and "alleged" are words to watch that can introduce bias and doubt, but I think you need to use critical thinking/judgment and look at the context. For the Uyghur article, "alleged" was used twice in the lead, but I only removed the first instance. In that article, I changed "The alleged abuses" to "There have been reports of", but I kept "the crimes alleged appeared to have been". I did that because according to the Manual of Style, "alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined". So in some cases, "alleged/accused" can be used. The multiple independent reports of abuses from past victims seemed to be well documented so they did not seem to be undetermined, but I kept "alleged" in regards to crimes because I think crime is different from abuse.
 * MOS:ACCUSED is a guideline, but WP:WIKIVOICE is a policy, so we should try to follow the policy more than the guideline. WP:WIKIVOICE says to avoid stating opinion as facts. In some articles I have read, experts have "warned" of genocide which I think is different from saying there is genocide. In this Vox article, some of the words used are "warned", "risk of", "sound the alarm about the possibility." . This article says "scholars are torn", "risk of", "do not meet the very high threshold that is required to meet the legal definition of genocide” which leads me to consider WP:SOURCESDIFFER: if there are some experts warning of the possibility/risk of genocide, and other experts saying there is genocide, that's different. Therefore, I think the easiest way to re-write the first sentence if you want to avoid using the word "accused" and following policy and guideline is: "A number of experts, governments, UN agencies and non-governmental organisations have said that Israel is or may be carrying out a genocide against the Palestinian population during its invasion and bombing of the Gaza Strip during the ongoing Israel–Hamas war." Wafflefrites (talk) 00:50, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I disagree, the article Palestinian genocide accusation exists and it's first sentence is "The State of Israel has been accused of carrying out or inciting genocide against Palestinians during the Israeli–Palestinian conflict." Together, the title and that sentence constitute the WP:SCOPE and it is clear that the word accusation is not a problem there at all. Nor is it here, especially since there is an ongoing court case, where using accusation is more common. Selfstudier (talk) 08:51, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes that works too. I was giving an example of how you could rewrite the sentence if you don’t want to use “accused” Wafflefrites (talk) 15:54, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

RFC of interest
Please see Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:54, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Scholarly articles on Gaza in the Journal of Genocide Research
The Journal of Genocide Research has published a considerable number of articles on Gaza this year. See an overview of recent articles here. The following are Wikipedia Library links:

Some of these might make useful sources for the present article. --Andreas JN 466 13:53, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Inescapably Genocidal, Martin Shaw, 3 Jan 2024
 * “We are Fighting Nazis”: Genocidal Fashionings of Gaza(ns) After 7 October, Zoé Samudzi, 18 Jan 2024
 * The Futility of Genocide Studies After Gaza, Abdelwahab El-Affendi, 18 Jan 2024
 * Gaza 2023: Words Matter, Lives Matter More, Mark Levene, 21 Jan 2024
 * Screaming, Silence, and Mass Violence in Israel/Palestine, Uğur Ümit Üngör, 26 Jan 2024
 * Gaza as a Laboratory 2.0, Shmuel Lederman, 29 Jan 2024
 * The Rhetoric of Denial: Contribution to an Archive of the Debate about Mass Violence in Gaza, Didier Fassin, 5 Feb 2024
 * Gaza as Twilight of Israel Exceptionalism: Holocaust and Genocide Studies from Unprecedented Crisis to Unprecedented Change, Raz Segal & Luigi Daniele, 5 Mar 2024
 * A “Tragic Humanitarian Crisis”: Israel’s Weaponization of Starvation and the Question of Intent, Jessica Whyte, 17 Apr 2024
 * Expert Commentary, the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, and the Question of Genocide: Prosemitic Bias within a Scholarly Community?, Omar Shahabudin McDoom, 25 Apr 2024
 * Genocide and Resistance in Palestine under Law's Shadow, Maryam Jamshidi, 6 May 2024
 * A Threshold Crossed: On Genocidal Intent and the Duty to Prevent Genocide in Palestine, Nimer Sultany, 9 May 2024
 * Understanding Sexual Violence Debates Since 7 October: Weaponization and Denial, Anwar Mhajne, 30 May 2024
 * Genocidal Mirroring in Israel/Palestine, Yoav Di-Capua, 5 Jun 2024


 * I've been working through them since their first publications:
 * In article
 * In article
 * In article
 * In article
 * In article
 * In article
 * In article
 * In article
 * Not in article
 * Not in article
 * Not in article
 * Not in article
 * Not in article
 * Not in article
 * -- Cdjp1 (talk) 18:53, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Cdjp1 Thanks for the listing, good to know! Andreas JN 466 12:01, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 July 2024
The 1st source doesn't actually accuse Israel of committing (or more precisely, 'having committed') a genocide, the 'experts' (more like 'UN officials' (incl. Fransesca Albanese and her ilk)) simply say they 'fear a genocide could happen' (if other entities don't intervene). The 3rd source is relying on the Lancet report which as this talk page discussion has established, is talking about a projected genocide. All in all, the sources show a small amount of 'entities' accusing Israel of committing, or having committed, a genocide and the lead should reflect that.

Emdosis (talk) 00:42, 19 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Not done. There is a majority of sourcing making the accusation at the very least, which is what the material says. Also one could argue equally that it is "some" governments, "some" UN agencies etcetera but the fact is that there is a consensus in expert sourcing. Selfstudier (talk) 09:53, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Death toll
The death toll moves over time and slowly becomes outdated, especially as the Gaza Health Ministry is unable to count deaths as well as it did early in the conflict due to most hospitals (where deaths are counted by them) being damaged, overwhelmed, or destroyed entirely. According to a recent study, the current deaths could be 186,000 now.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(24)01169-3/fulltext

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/7/8/gaza-toll-could-exceed-186000-lancet-study-says ReiPeixe (talk) 11:53, 19 July 2024 (UTC)


 * This is already subject of discussions. Selfstudier (talk) 12:20, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Possible influx of new editors
Just over an hour ago on the Israel discussion board of the Reddit website, someone has, in a post targeting the, calls on people to , as  starship  .paint  (RUN) 06:53, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Q.E.D. in two minutes?  starship .paint  (RUN) 07:00, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * This one too, a question that can be answered by simply counting the number of times the word 'genocide' appears in the articles - Gaza genocide (482) vs Casualties of the Israel–Hamas war (8). Perhaps a win-win solution where all parties benefit could be to redirect canvassed editors to work on expanding Manipulation_(psychology). Sean.hoyland (talk) 09:12, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Given the high risk of a massive influx of spamming extremist troll accounts, would it be possible to partially edit-lock this talk page, so only extended edit-confirmed accounts can comment here? David A (talk) 09:24, 20 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Yep. Although I wouldn't block the page until we see actual disruption and it becomes hard to handle. — kashmīrī  <sup style="color:#80f;font:small-caps 0.8em 'Candara';">TALK  15:21, 21 July 2024 (UTC)