Talk:Gaza genocide/Archive 2

Proposed Title Change to "Allegations of genocide by Israel in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war"

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

The result of the move request was: Not Moved - I can see no consensus for moving at this point, and the discussion has run long enough. The nom raises some quite valid points about accuracy in "war" versus "attack". The oppose !votes are making a point that is not obviously connected to the proposed change in title, or if it is it needed more explanation than they have provided. However, with only one support !vote the necessary consensus is also not really here. This close is without prejudice to opening a further discussion. (non-admin closure)  FOARP (talk) 15:03, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza → Allegations of genocide by Israel in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war – See below.

Aside from the above discussion of merging this article with Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Hamas attack on Israel, the title of this article is just weird. Yes, I assume that some editor(s) with a particular viewpoint/POV chose to name this article as a parallel with that one. However, as many folks have invoked in the aforementioned discussion, that's just a false parallel. The common name for Israel's action is a "war" (Gaza War, Israel-Hamas War, whichever) rather than an "attack". Wikipedia refers to 7 Oct as the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel (and frankly, that genocide allegation Wikipedia article title should be amended to match this "Hamas-led" usage, to maintain consistent terminology across Wikipedia) while it refers to the events encompassing the Israeli response as the 2023 Israel–Hamas war. If this article ends up merged, the proper title would likely be "Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war" or, for accuracy and completeness, "Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel and Israel–Hamas war" (a bit long, but more precise and clear). For now, though, as a separate article, calling it the "Israeli attack on Gaza" is inconsistent with the terminology for this event in use elsewhere on Wikipedia and, more significantly, in widespread media coverage and public discourse. Jbbdude (talk) 02:36, 12 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Please read the 2nd paragraph on 2023 Israel–Hamas war. That may help. Natsuikomin (talk) 13:00, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay, sorry for misunderstanding. Now I know what you meant to say, inconsistency of the naming. Natsuikomin (talk) 13:12, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Jbbdude The current title is appropriate and consistent.
 * The Israeli attack on Gaza is an event within a broader war. The genocide claims are specific to that locality and that attack, e.g. Israel are not currently being accused of genocide in Lebanon or the West Bank. There have been attacks in both those areas, but on a different scale.
 * Likewise Hamas et al. are being accused of genocide on 7 October, but nobody is suggesting that their current attacks on IDF troops invading Gaza are a genocide (at least nobody even remotely credible) and that corresponding page has a similar narrow title.
 * Irtapil (talk) 06:23, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Because attack and genocide are simply not the same thing? Natsuikomin (talk) 07:15, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Jbbdude I re read the middle of what you said. But I stand by what I wrote originally. There is only one war; the "war" goes all the way from Lebanon to the Red Sea, but the genocide is in the Gaza strip.
 * An "attack" is an action within a war, the word "attack" possibly isn't ideal, but "war" isn't a good substitute, because the war is bigger. Do you have any other suggestions?
 * "Invasion" doesn't fit, because the first clearly genocidal act was cutting off the food and water nearly a month before the invasion. And the day before that there were bombings that some would class as the start.
 * Irtapil (talk) 06:31, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support. "Israeli attack on Gaza" implies that this is a single unilataeral attack rather than an ongoing bilateral war. Furthermore, reliable source do not refer to it as the "2023 Israeli attack on Gaza". The article should be renamed to Allegations of genocide in the Israel-Hamas War Marokwitz (talk) 08:33, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment We have Use of human shields by Hamas and Human shields in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and apparently we are missing Use of human shields by Israel to balance things up. Or perhaps we only need the middle one. This sort of titling is common atm, we have Palestinian genocide accusation too but not a Israeli genocide accusation except as a redirect to the former, Idk why. The current title seems already to refer to an allegation against Israel without the need to further alter it.Selfstudier (talk) 11:24, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose. The overwhelmingly vast majority of the victims in this conflict have been innocent Palestinian civilians. David A (talk) 07:38, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose. As per @David A. Natsuikomin (talk) 08:32, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Leading ICJ Judge in Case: "[The court] didn't decide that the claim of genocide was plausible"
In the second paragraph, the wiki states "In an interim ruling, the International Court of Justice found Israel was operating under plausible intent to commit genocide," but this characterization is explicitly inaccurate according to Joan Donoghue, the president of the ICJ court which issued the ruling. https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-middle-east-68906919 She stated: “The court decided that the Palestinians had a plausible right to be protected from genocide and that South Africa had the right to present that claim in the court. It then looked at the facts as well. But it did not decide – and this is something where I’m correcting what’s often said in the media – it didn’t decide that the claim of genocide was plausible. It did emphasize in the order that there was a risk of irreparable harm to the Palestinian right to be protected from genocide. But the shorthand that often appears, which is that there’s a plausible case of genocide, isn’t what the court decided." The inaccurate characterization should be revised to say that "In an interim ruling, the International Court of Justice found Palestinians had a plausible right to be protected from genocide," etc. Y2K-96 (talk) 06:36, 4 May 2024 (UTC)


 * @Y2K-96 This is all legalese but, as I'm reading it, to claim a plausible right to be protected from genocide (which the court has determined to be the case) essentially means that it is plausible that these rights need to be protected here and now because the other party has an intent to violate them. In English, the words "it's plausible that X needs protection because Y might harm them" can be shortened, with no substantial semantical shift, to "Y can plausibly harm X".
 * In its judgement, contained in Section 78 onwards, The Court recalls that these acts [killing members of the group, etc.] fall within the scope of Article II of the Convention when they are committed with the intent to destroy in whole or in part a group as such. Ergo, the court has based this judgement on determining the existence of at least an intent to violate Palestinians' rights (sometimes called genocidal intent or an intent to commit genocide; the Court did not analyse the alleged genocidal acts in depth). I see no major problems with Wikipedia calling it a "plausible intent", especially when many sources do that. — kashmīrī  TALK  10:28, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I think that Kashmiri makes sense here. David A (talk) 14:17, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with Y2K; this interpretation has been rejected by the presiding judge. I’ve removed the sentence - I think the remaining context is sufficient to explain the case, and we can expand on it when we update the main article after a final ruling. BilledMammal (talk) 15:20, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * She's just the president who reads out the statement. She doesn't speak for the court or the other judges in any other context. For all we know she's been wheeled out politically to sow precisely the confusion that's been sown. But Kashmiri is right, in common speak there is no meaningful difference between "plausible genocide" and "plausible risk of infringement on the rights of people not to be genocided". Iskandar323 (talk) 16:49, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Unless you have a source for that allegation then that’s a BLP violation; I suggest you retract it. BilledMammal (talk) 23:18, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * This is not a BLP, this is a Talk page. — kashmīrī  TALK  00:49, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * BLP rules apply to all pages on Wikipedia, including talk pages. BilledMammal (talk) 01:01, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @BilledMammal: What allegation? Do you mean: "For all we know..." That's a hypothetical mate. Neither political interference in the courts (nor the BBC) are novel ideas. I know freedom of speech has been going out of vogue of late (what with it suddenly not dovetailing quite so nicely with neoconservative imperialism), but come one. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:52, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * And aside from this being the obvious subtext that everyone with half a political brain will have taken away from that interview, the only one hypothetically impugned there is the someone doing the wheeling. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:54, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * A negative hypothetical about a living person. And yes, it does impugn her - you are suggesting she's a puppet, and making false statements on behalf of others to sow confusion. We don't allow such speculation without sources, so unless you have one please remove it. BilledMammal (talk) 05:59, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Ok. Commentary around the politics is nevertheless swirling. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:19, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Interpreting court documents doesn't seem like a great idea, especially for non-extendedconfirmed users. Maybe the problem is that there hasn't been a sufficient survey of characterizations by secondary sources. If Y2K-96 is correct, there will presumably be some diversity in the characterizations. Sean.hoyland (talk) 15:56, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Reuters, BBC, The New York Times, and AP News typically represent the gold standard for reliable sources on Wikipedia. Here are how each of them characterized the ruling:
 * https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/world-court-rule-urgent-measures-gaza-genocide-case-2024-01-26/
 * https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-68108260
 * https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/26/world/middleeast/icj-israel-gaza-genocide.html
 * https://apnews.com/article/israel-gaza-genocide-court-south-africa-27cf84e16082cde798395a95e9143c06
 * All of them focused primarily on the ICJ's insistence that Israel prevent genocide, stated deeper in the article that the ICJ ruled there was a risk of genocide, and all of them made sure NOT to say that the ICJ ruled Israel was plausibly committing genocide or intending to commit genocide. In fact, most of them make clear that the ICJ did not issue any ruling on the merits of the genocide accusation. Y2K-96 (talk) 17:50, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * ″ all of them made sure NOT to say that the ICJ ruled Israel was plausibly committing genocide or intending to commit genocide.″
 * I feel like many many people do not understand the proceedings of the ICJ, currently the trial is pending, this means that the case has been accepted as a legitimate concern that Israel is committing Genocide by bringing it to trial. The judges haven't made the declarations you're stating above because the trial has not yet ended, hence they can't make a guilty/not guilty verdict.
 * All of these sites are quite reliable however given the topic in question all of them are rather biased alongside their respective nations external politics, though of note the BBC page specifically states:
 * "The ICJ found it did have jurisdiction on the matter, and decided there was a plausible case under the 1948 Genocide Convention, and that the Palestinian population in Gaza was at real risk of irreparable damage."
 * Which pretty much undoes the argument you're making from what I can see.
 * The current observations and conclusions are available here particularly paragraph 74 and 44 make specific reference to the articles of genocide and usage of Intent. The wording in the second paragraph is fine as is and in no-way mischaracterises the events. Galdrack (talk) 15:43, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I think that this analysis seems very reasonable. David A (talk) 15:47, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I'll just add that in my reading, "X plausibly needs protection against Y" means precisely the same as "Y plausibly makes protection of X necessary". If Palestinians plausibly need to claim protection from genocide, then it follows that genocide is a plausible possibility for them, ergo Israel is plausibly committing it.
 * I'm not alone in this – the US District Court for the Northern District of California in its judgement in Defense for Children International-Palestine et al v. Biden et al stated: Similarly, the undisputed evidence before this Court comports with the finding of the ICJ and indicates that the current treatment of the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip by the Israeli military may plausibly constitute a genocide in violation of international law (p. 4; bolding mine), and Yet, as the ICJ has found, it is plausible that Israel's conduct amounts to genocide (p. 8). — kashmīrī  TALK  19:57, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * And according to the presiding judge of the case, he too is wrong. Perhaps we should use the exact language from the ICJ ruling, to prevent any dispute - at least that will be indisputably accurate and neutral? BilledMammal (talk) 23:23, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Can you share your source where Donoghue comments on the judgement in Defense for Children International-Palestine et al v. Biden et al pls? — kashmīrī  TALK  00:51, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The sentence we are discussing is the ICJ ruling? BilledMammal (talk) 01:01, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * We're discussing the ICJ ruling as described in reliable secondary sources. FYI, neither the judgement nor a TV interview with a judge is a secondary source for Wikipedia. — kashmīrī  TALK  01:44, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * You referenced a court ruling - primary source, a generally not a reliable one for anything other than what it’s ruling on.
 * Further, the keyword there is reliable. Specific articles that misinterpret the ICJ ruling aren’t reliable. BilledMammal (talk) 02:45, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The Defense for Children International-Palestine et al v. Biden et al case is covered in plenty of secondary literature. But a TV interview is an innately primary source for a person's personal views. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:00, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The Defense of Children ruling is a secondary source with regard to the ICJ ruling; and a high-quality source, too. It's only primary with regard to the Defense of Children case. — kashmīrī  TALK  13:19, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Here is a survey of the gold standard for reliable secondary sources.
 * https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/world-court-rule-urgent-measures-gaza-genocide-case-2024-01-26/
 * https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-68108260
 * https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/26/world/middleeast/icj-israel-gaza-genocide.html
 * https://apnews.com/article/israel-gaza-genocide-court-south-africa-27cf84e16082cde798395a95e9143c06
 * None of them say that the ICJ ruled Israel was plausibly committing genocide or intending to commit genocide. They all instead interpret the ruling as the ICJ president explained, that there was a plausible risk that Palestinians right to protection against genocide would get violated. The current text is completely out of line with the predominance of secondary sources. Y2K-96 (talk) 17:53, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Y2K-96 Here is a couple of counter-examples from reliable secondary sources:
 * https://www.npr.org/2024/01/26/1227078791/icj-israel-genocide-gaza-palestinians-south-africa
 * https://www.npr.org/2024/01/27/1227397107/icj-finds-genocide-case-against-israel-plausible-orders-it-to-stop-violations
 * https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/feb/01/genocide-gaza-israel-california-court
 * https://news.liverpool.ac.uk/2024/01/31/uns-top-court-orders-israel-to-prevent-genocide-in-gaza-but-fails-to-call-for-immediate-ceasefire/
 * https://global.upenn.edu/perryworldhouse/news/explaining-international-court-justices-ruling-israel-and-gaza
 * https://opiniojuris.org/2024/04/05/the-icjs-findings-on-plausible-genocide-in-gaza-and-its-implications-for-the-international-criminal-court/
 * https://www.abc.net.au/religion/australian-universities-icj-plausible-genocide-gaza/103620064
 * https://acij.org.au/media-release-australia-has-a-duty-to-prevent-genocide-in-gaza-and-act-to-implement-icj-ruling-that-israels-actions-in-gaza-are-a-plausible-genocide/
 * https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/01/11/what-is-genocide-definition-courts/
 * Hope it helps. — kashmīrī  TALK  16:35, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Kashmiri The ICJ president explicitly stated that this is an incorrect interpretation. That is why I made this post, because the ICJ said that the way you are reading it is wrong. The plausible right to be protected from genocide can NOT be written in a shorthand that there is plausible intent to commit genocide, and there is no ambiguity about this. The plausible right to be protected from genocide means that, even though the ICJ has not ruled on the intent or any of the factors of the case (other than that South Africa has legal standing to bring the case), they've seen enough to be concerned that acts of genocide may possibly occur against Palestinians in Gaza, even though they haven't established enough facts to say if this concern is ultimately valid. It is a temporary measure that means exactly what it says, that Palestinians have a plausible right to be protected from genocide - and nothing more.
 * I think that the ICJ president is very clear on this point, but even if you want to argue that there is some ambiguity, the wiki should not be stating something ambiguous as facts. We know that the ICJ ruled that Palestinians in Gaza have a plausible right to be protected from genocide. That is definitely a fact, and that is what the wiki should say. Y2K-96 (talk) 17:31, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Y2K-96 Joan Donoghue is a former president of the ICJ and hasn't been president in a few months even being referred to as "former" in the links you provided, stop referring to her as such. Galdrack (talk) 15:48, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Galdrack I referred to her as the president of the ICJ since she was the president of the ICJ at the time that this was ruling was issued and she presided over the ruling. So she is explaining her own ruling.
 * For the record, I am currently unsure if you or I are allowed to participated in an extended discussion on this topic in the talk page beyond an initial edit request post, since we are non-extended-confirmed users. I think we can, but Wikipedia's guidelines are not completely clear. This comment is not intended to participate in an extended back and forth discussion but just to clarify my initial edit request in response to your objection. Y2K-96 (talk) 17:15, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Y2K-96 "So she is explaining her own ruling." in the past tense yes, it's an important distinction as she no longer holds the office so her statements don't trump the source and it's current office holders. It's important to understand and relevant but it's equally as important to state her status correctly, "President at the time" wouldn't suit either as she wasn't President when she made that clarification but was when the ruling was published.
 * We're allowed to take part the same as anyone else, if anything it makes more sense as we don't have direct access to edit. Galdrack (talk) 18:05, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Seems to me that the appropriate reference is to our article on the legal case itself and anything that it says in the lead there.Selfstudier (talk) 12:38, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Leaving it here:. While the ICJ wording is ambiguous and prone to interpretations, I find the quote by the former UK Supreme Court justice Lord Sumption convincing: “I think it is being suggested [in the UKLFI letter] that all that the ICJ was doing was accepting, as a matter of abstract law, that the inhabitants of Gaza had a right not to be subjected to genocide. I have to say that I regard that proposition as barely arguable.” — kashmīrī  TALK  13:17, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Complicity - egypt
Should the Egyptian government be also included as a complicit party, as they barred gazawis from escaping through the border and only allowed those who were able to pay the border guards enough? The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 04:08, 23 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Are multiple reliable sources saying so? — kashmīrī  TALK  02:57, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It’s not widely covered, just a suggestion really
 * I’m not sure if MEE is RS
 * https://www.middleeasteye.net/opinion/icj-rule-egypt-end-complicity-israel-starving-gaza-will The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 15:14, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * That's just someone's opinion. — kashmīrī  TALK  00:42, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 June 2024
Change the name, allegations ? Have you not seen the massacre happening ? Children beheaded, a missle strike to a Camp. This is "alleged" massacre. This is real massacre and it's seen by all. Even if Social Media does a bad job of censorship Muhamedshammas (talk) 11:59, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:EDITXY is a useful guideline for ways to make edit requests that are likely to succeed. WP:TITLE explains Wikipedia's policy for article titles. Sean.hoyland (talk) 13:20, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Opening paragraph edit request
I do not have extended confirmed user access level, and therefore I cannot edit a misleading sentence in first paragraph of this article.

Currently, the 2nd sentence in the opening paragraph contains the following misleading statement:

"The international human rights legal community, many political and legal experts, and many Holocaust scholars say that Israel is committing genocide against Palestinians in the Gaza Strip."[22]

The above statement is misleading, as - based on one source - it creates a false impression of a consensus regarding the accusation of genocide, when in fact the accusation is highly contested among experts, as the following three sources clearly show: (a)	https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/10/opinion/israel-gaza-genocide-war.html (Quote: "As a historian of genocide, I believe that there is no proof that genocide is currently taking place in Gaza, although it is very likely that war crimes, and even crimes against humanity, are happening.")

(b)	https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/genocide-gaza-debate-1.7042809

(Headline: "Experts, advocates deeply divided on question of 'genocide' in Gaza")

(c)	https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/experts-give-2-perspectives-on-accusations-israel-is-committing-genocide-in-gaza.

(Headline: "Experts give 2 perspectives on accusations Israel is committing genocide in Gaza")

I propose the following sentence to replace it:

"Despite claims by supporters of the accusation to a consensus regarding its validity,[22] the accusation remains controversial among genocide scholars, legal experts, and journalists.(a)(b)(c)"

Thank you.

P.S. Regarding footnote (a), from The NY Times, please highlight the following quote in the footnote: “As a historian of genocide, I believe that there is no proof that genocide is currently taking place in Gaza, although it is very likely that war crimes, and even crimes against humanity, are happening.” James42DuPont (talk) 20:47, 15 June 2024 (UTC)


 * The first issue is that all the sources you provide are from 6 to 8 months older than the source cited for the sentence, which means it misses dozens upon dozens of articles including in the leading journals for the study of genocide which call the the events genocide. They are also singular opinions from, while prominent and esteemed scholars for a couple of the opinions, just a handful of individuals, where we have a much, much larger list of relevant scholars who have signed their names declaring they view the events as a genocide (see the list of 800 scholars in TWAILR, as just one example).
 * You also seem to miss a key point in Bartov's piece, "My greatest concern watching the Israel-Gaza war unfold is that there is genocidal intent, which can easily tip into genocidal action." This shows that while he, at the time, did not think it was a case of genocide, he believed that the intent for genocide is there and saw the risk of it becoming a genocide. From his time of writing 8 months have occurred, which has seen the death toll rise from ~10,800 to over 36,600.
 * This is a quick list I did for a previous discussion in March on reliable sources and the reported judgements in them, and as I predicted back in March, since we have only seen a greater increase in realiable sources reporting on relevant scholars, specialists, and organisations coming to the conclusion that this is a genocide:
 * - Lula de Silva - Jacobin - Genocide
 * - Omer Bartov - NYT - Genocidal intent, risk of genocide
 * - 800 scholars in law, conflict studies, and genocide studies - Third World Approaches to International Law Review - Risk of genocide
 * - Abdelwahab El-Affendi - Journal of Genocide Research - Genocide
 * - 100+ Global Rights Groups - Common Dreams - Genocide
 * - Mark Levene - Journal of Genocide Research - Genocide
 * - Zoé Samudzi - Journal of Genocide Research - Genocide
 * - Martin Shaw - Journal of Genocide Research - Genocide
 * - Elyse Semerdjian - Journal of Genocide Research - Genocide
 * - Raz Segal - Jewish Currents - Genocide
 * - 100 Civil Society Organisations and Genocide Scholars - Al-Mezan Centre for Human Rights - Genocide
 * - Palestinian UN Envoy - Reuters - Genocide
 * - Human Rights Watch - Human Rights Watch - Failure to prevent and punish Genocide
 * - Amnesty International - Amnesty International - Failure to prevent and punish Genocide
 * - Michael Fakhri - The Guardian - Genocide
 * - Ernesto Verdeja - TIME - gravitating towards a "genocidal campaign"
 * - Center for Constitutional Rights - The Intercept - Genocide
 * - 47 scholars in the fields of history, law, and criminology - International State Crime Initiative - Genocide
 * - Israeli Public Figures represented by Human Rights Lawyer Michael Sfard - The Guardian - Ignoring incitement to genocide
 * - Ben Kiernan - Time - Does not meet legal definition for genocide
 * - Adam Jones - Vox - Causing Article 2, Clause C
 * - Dov Waxman - Vox - Risk of genocide
 * - Norman Finkelstein - GV Wire - Genocide
 * - Eva Illouz - Le Monde - Not genocide
 * - Eva Illouz - The Forward - Incitement to genocide
 * - Organization of Islamic Countries, The Arab League, and 7 other countries supporting South Africa - Al Jazeera - Genocide
 * - Venezuela - Mehr News - Genocide
 * - Australia, Austria, Czechia, France, Germany, Guatemala, Hungary, Israel, Italy, Paraguay, USA, UK - Various prominent news outlets - Not genocide
 * - Colombia - Associated Press - Genocide
 * - Genocide Watch - Genocide Watch - Risk of genocide
 * - Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention - Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention - Genocide
 * - Cuba - Al Jazeera - Genocide
 * On counting the statements from different countries in the total this puts it at:
 * 30 sources say it's genocide
 * 7 say it's a Risk, Maybe, or Partial
 * 14 say it is not (only counting Eva Illouz's initial statement saying it is not genocide)
 * -- Cdjp1 (talk) 22:41, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * More than half of sources you list as part of the 30 “it’s genocide” list, aren’t experts, but rather political pundits, activists, populist politicians, and one “Mehr News” - Iranian state-owned media (not Venezuelan, as you incorrectly claim).
 * With all due respect, if we are to take statements made by president Lula as evidence for facts about expert opinion, then we’d have to allow some fairly wild claims to pass for facts on Wikipedia.
 * When you trim the list down to people with recognized expertise on this matter, it’s fairly obvious that there is a highly contentious debate about the genocide allegation. Failing to mention this glaring fact in the opening of the article does a disservice to Wikipedia readers, regardless of how good it makes you feel to have your strong opinions vindicated. James42DuPont (talk) 23:35, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This is not an edit request, it's a discussion. If it continues like this it should either be hatted, archived or deleted. Non-extendedconfirmed users don't get to participate like this. They can make an edit request and extendedconfirmed editors decide what to do. That's it. Sean.hoyland (talk) 04:00, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The claim is not that Mehr News is Venezuelan, but that Venezuela, as a government and state recognises it as genocide, and Mehr News was the source for this, pulled from multiple wiki-articles that have that as the citation for Venezuela's stance on this matter. As to the 30, it's 30 sources, not 30 individuals. The list was just a small exemplar of opinions, as I stated, that I pulled together for a previous discussion. The overwhelming opinion, no matter how narrow we set the parameters, is that what is occurring is in fact genocide. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 15:36, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Haven't read all the articles mentioned (TLDR all), but right on item 2 we find that you are incorrect. Bartov doesn't say there that this is a genocide, but only a "risk" that it might become a genocide". Vegan416 (talk) 11:26, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * All your cited sources are from more than 7 months ago and miss a lot, they are virtually outdated by now, besides opinion section in western newspapers don’t outweighs academic institutions publications, which itself just report and state the consensus in the international human rights legal community regarding the genocide itself than state its own judgement. So i see no reason to apply your suggestion. Stephan rostie (talk) 13:20, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Here is a far more recent dissenting source, opposing the Genocide label:
 * https://www.aei.org/op-eds/israel-is-not-committing-genocide-in-gaza/ ("Israel Is Not Committing “Genocide” in Gaza" - April 20, 2024.)
 * _
 * And here is another, from Prof. David Halahmy:
 * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8K1J08UzmM ("What is blood libel, and why accusing Israel of genocide is a new example of it. Facts and Data.")
 * _
 * I could bring more, but I doubt there's a need for that. I think we can agree that it's perfectly reasonable to debate specific allegations, but what is disingenuous is to pretend like there is no debate about them, especially when there are clearly so many dissenting voices.
 * Also, the nature of the debate around such a dramatic allegation makes it inevitable that most dissenting voices will be less persistent, as the burden of proof isn't on them. One can't expect serious scholars to spend their precious time trying to prove a negative.
 * Finally, I kindly ask you to only address the points made, and avoid resorting to ad-hominem attacks regarding my extendedconfirmed status. The points speak for themselves.
 * Thank you. James42DuPont (talk) 16:02, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Journal of Genocide Research > American Enterprise Institute. When you come with some actual academic papers, you may have some weight to your argument. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 16:06, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * And as to the youtube video, is that really the level of argument you think is good enough? Where Halahmy fails to even use the UN Convention's definition of genocide, and uses the fallacious argument of "number dead" as the defining metric for a genocide. And this is before we get into any of the other problems in his video, such as outright lies about the states of various affairs. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 16:11, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Again, no academic - let alone an academic journal - would bother publishing an article attempting to prove a negative. Scholars have better things to do with their time. The burden of proof that you are requiring in this case is completely unreasonable.
 * I've shared with you plenty of academic voices, including one of the world's leading genocide historians. The fact that they don't share an obsession for this specific allegation - and therefore don't spend their career tying to get academic papers published to disprove it (they're NOT David Irving, thankfully) - doesn't make their dissent less relevant to the average Wikipedia reader, who is trying to understand the nature of the allegations. James42DuPont (talk) 16:19, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * All you have done is shown your sheer ignorance with the field of genocide studies. There are a few prominent scholars who disagree with the assessment and they have published their voices in reputable sources. These are all already present in the article, though many of these fall into the first criticism from you tiny selection, that is their age in a rapidly moving and developing situation. Then in response to this criticism, you present a political think tank, and a shamefully poor youtube video which using a laughably absurd metric and definition for its analysis that would be rightfully laughed out of the field. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 20:46, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

❌ – proposed wording is not supported by the sources provided. — kashmīrī  TALK  09:35, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Which image should be used?
Below are two images with descriptions, that have been used in the section "Invocation of Amalek". I initially added the Davidster image, while added the Phillip Medhurst image. I'm of the personal opinion that the first picture is better due to it being a genocide (specifically Holocaust) memorial at the Hague, that uses the phrase that Netanyahu invoked, showing multiple points of comparison and contrast to the events in Gaza, while also showing how the phrase has a history in usage in response to genocide. But if people hold the opinion that the Phillip Medhurst image showing a depiction of the battle between Joshua and Amalek, I won't seek to reinstate the previous image.

-- Cdjp1 (talk) 15:57, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Susan Akram comments
I've removed Akram's comments from the lede; putting such a broad statement in Wikivoice in the lede based on a single opinion article is almost the definition of WP:UNDUE weight. BilledMammal (talk) 08:55, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Those arent Akram's "comments", they are a review of sources by an eminently reliable source. Whereas you left "comments" by two politicians in the lead. That also appears to be gaming the 1RR.  nableezy  - 14:33, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @BilledMammal you were informed in the revert summary that there had been already a talk regarding it and we (three users) reached a consensus for its inclusion vs 1 non-extended confirmed user, not counting the WP:EDITCONSENSUS, yet you chose to ignore all of us and proceed in edit warring, i will give you a chance in a WP:GOODFAITH assuming that you didn’t bother to read the edit summaries to revert yourself until you change the consensus with all of us Stephan rostie (talk) 15:47, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * First, for something like this, three vs one isn’t a consensus.
 * Second, I see discussions about this source all over the page, and at least one other editor is sceptical of assigning this source so much weight - and if three vs one isn’t a consensus, three vs two definitely isn’t. BilledMammal (talk) 15:59, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * "First, for something like this, three vs one isn’t a consensus"
 * BilledMammel, you are making up rules as you go. Two versus three isn't a warrant for reverting to your, so far, minority view and you have no replied to Nableezy's point about the incongruency of eliding Akram's expertise as inappropriate to the lead, while retaining two political views that are neither here nor there, and certainly 'weigh less' than a considered view by Akram.Nishidani (talk) 16:27, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Based on a single opinion article in a University paper, you are attempting to add to the lede a statement in Wikivoice that there is a consensus Israel is committing genocide. That isn't a standard edit that a couple of editors can quickly discuss on the talk page; that is an edit that almost certainly requires an RfC. Additionally, two versus three is certainly a warrant for reverting to the status quo.
 * If Nableezy wants to discuss his points he is welcome to come to my talk page; they aren't relevant to a content discussion. BilledMammal (talk) 17:21, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Regardless, this is a reliable source providing a summary of other sources. That is both reliable and due. And it is no longer 3-1, it looks more like 5-1.  nableezy  - 18:55, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I just saw this thread after having removed this redundant and poorly sourced little bit. Such academic projects and professors are ubiquitous, and this self-published piece fails our standard for controversial article content. SPECIFICO talk 20:00, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Do you know what self-published means? And removing it from the body is outrageous and should be swiftly reverted.  nableezy  - 20:03, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * To add my 2 cents to this discussion. I have not taken a strong stance on its inclusion in the lede, as while I very much agree with it (evidenced through my commentary and source lists in prior discussions here), I understand the lack of weight that the citation has in the opinions of other editors. What I vehemently disagree with though is the attempts to remove it in its entirety from the article body. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 18:23, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I second @Cdjp1 here. I didn't intervene for precisely the same reasons. — kashmīrī  <sup style="color:#80f;font-family:'Candara';">TALK  19:36, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The problem with the Akram bit is that it is a self-published source that presents the work of a non-wiki-NOTABLE advocate/academic employed at a non-wiki-NOTABLE project (at BU, which published the study in a house organ). There are other sources that cover this issue, some of which are in the article and there are authoritative institutions involved in adjudicating it. This is not RS for contentious current events and it thus fails both V and NPOV. Among the dissent I see here is one snide personal remark and two votes that don't address the problems I've now repeated in this comment. Surely we can reach agreement on this if editors are prepared to engage on the substance of the policies that relate to this content and article text.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 21:16, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Again, do you know what self-published means? Can you also affirm that you’ve read WP:N and WP:RS, particular the part of N where it says These guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list. They do not limit the content of an article or list and the part of RS that says When taking information from opinion content, the identity of the author may help determine reliability. The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint. You can then peruse Akram's works so that you can establish for your own self her expertise.  nableezy  - 21:18, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * As Nableezy so aptly points to, the policies do not support your argument on notability, and Akram is a scholar with at least 20 years of regular publication in reputable journals are legal topics focusing on the Middle East. I would point also to how we we cite papers and statements from a multitude of scholars who don't meet the notability criteria for their own articles, yet still publish high quality material in reputable journals and via reputable publishers, much like Akram. These are reasons why it is worth note of Akram's assessment in the article body, at least. My previous comment on "the lack of weight", is because where this assessment was published is not something like an academic journal, which I know would be more convincing to other editors for it's inclusion in the lede. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 02:48, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @SPECIFICO Let me just point out that there's no requirement whatsoever that wikipedia sources and their authors be themselves "notable". Sources must be WP:RELIABLE rather than notable. A renowned academic who is an authority in their domain is likely a very reliable source for an encyclopaedia. Then, you really need to read more what "self-published" means on Wikipedia, as others have pointed out.
 * That said, I'm not convinced that the report is due in the lede. — kashmīrī  <sup style="color:#80f;font-family:'Candara';">TALK  06:10, 22 June 2024 (UTC
 * Yes. The reason I've mentioned "notable" is that - for a primary sourced contentious article content - we do not use PRIMARY (self-published) sources except sometimes when the source is a statement by an undisputedly notable authority on the subject. In this case, Akram, who is an advocate and an activist - not particularly distinguished as a "scholar" - does not fit the bill. Incidentally, the Google Scholar database includes all sorts of publications that WP does not consider good scholarly sources, e.g. working papers and various self-published non-peer-reviewed or non-scholarly materials. It strikes me as odd that editors would insist on this deficient source rather than strengthen the sourcing and content it supports.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 11:30, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:RS includes opinion, even if neither notable nor expert. OK, we don't often use it in this topic area because it frequently gets objected to. But now there are even objections to well qualified opinion as well, this is just upending the whole idea of RS. Selfstudier (talk) 11:36, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That would be true if it were published by an independent RS. But this is a promotional interview in the BU house organ. And the way it is proposed for this article also elevates the opinion of Ms. Akram by touting the long important-sounding mantle of her institution name. Such projects with important-sounding titles are common in academia. Their work stands on its merits, and in this instance this work does not appear to have merited independent publication.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 11:47, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You’re just making things up. A university paper is a reliable source, and it isn’t self-published (which is why I asked if you know what that even means, but apparently not) and an academic expert is likewise a reliable source. If you remove what has clear consensus for inclusion in the body again I’ll be reporting you for disruptive editing.  nableezy  - 12:12, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * As it says at the top of the BU report "The report comes from researchers at the University Network for Human Rights, a consortium of human right centers" and it is then straightforward to back up what is being said by referring to the actual primary source at https://www.humanrightsnetwork.org/genocide-in-gaza. Selfstudier (talk) 12:13, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Right, but that is not the issue. The problem is that there is no evidence of the significance of the opinion or research contained in this self-published primary source. It's like one of hundreds of thousands of working papers self-published by groups of advocates and academics worldwide who get some funding, put a fancy title on their office, and are noted by affiliates, sponsors, and promoters of their efforts. WP doesn't use self-published working papers that are not demonstrated to be noteworthy or significant by RS publication or -- much less frequently -- by the indisputable notability of their authors, for example a statement by a Nobel Laureate on a current issue within their notable scientific expertise. It's no disrespect to Akram to note that she fails this high bar. And her organization is an advocacy group and undergrad enrichment project with a limited scope of work. Oddly, their website map shows a gas pipeline in Brooklyn, NY as a significant human rights concern while omitting the Russian kidnapping of Ukranian children, the well-documeneted Chinese abuses, and multiple ongoing crises on the African continent.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 15:32, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It isn’t self published sheesh. You keep saying the same thing but it doesn’t change it from being completely false no matter how many times you say it.  nableezy  - 17:29, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * From the posts in the RfC below, I see that many editors understand the self-published issue. But the problem may be clearer for with respect to its being a WP:PRIMARY source. It is the self-stated opinion of Ms. Akram, whom the mainstream - from all search evidence - does not regard as a go-to expert qualified for us to republish as an NPOV or scholarly summary of world opinion. Her opinion, in this regard, is not noteworthy and in WP terms is UNDUE.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 15:58, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Actually nobody but you has said anything about it being self-published because it very obviously is not published by herself. If you want to use words in a way other than what they actually mean then it is entirely pointless trying to communicate with you.  nableezy  - 17:53, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Per my comment above, I attempted to make it clearer for you -- WP:PRIMARY is not RS for a survey of world opinion by a not-particularly-notable attorney.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 18:32, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * She's a professor, an academic expert who has published widely and repeatedly in peer reviewed journals. She is a subject matter expert, and your attempt to wave that away by calling her a not-particularly-notable attorney is entirely without merit and will be given the attention it deserves. That being none.  nableezy  - 19:42, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I have opened an RfC on this, as obviously this isn't going to be settled by talk page discussion. I would have preferred that one of the editors who wished to change the status quo had opened the RfC, but none of them appeared willing to do so and since Stephen Rostie has once again inserted the content without consensus I felt that it need to be opened now rather than let this devolve into an edit war. BilledMammal (talk) 03:02, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

UN Human Rights Council investigations
The Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and Israel has been releasing the results of its investigations this month, with some damning statements on Israel's conduct. We will need to had these published reports into citations for this article. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 19:35, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Battleground
Hello. I haven't looked at the ongoing dispute relating to the RFC but it seems to me there is an edit warring behavior by a user on the talk page that is very similar to the last incident, regardless of whether 1RR applies here. Pinging you before this escalates further. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:17, 26 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Already being discussed (assume you mean the RM). Selfstudier (talk) 11:23, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Already made it to my talk page. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:25, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * So literally everyone that closed, unclosed, and reclosed this is involved. How about no one else in any way involved touches it? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:29, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I was more specifically referring to the problematic act of reclosing twice by the same editor, contrary to your advice last time as this very same edit warring behavior had ended in their sanction for a week from an article in the topic area. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:42, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * , if you've expressed an opinion in an earlier discussion on the same topic you're too involved to close, especially on procedural grounds after many editors have participated. Please don't do this again.
 * you're all too involved to be reverting closes. WP:MR or WP:AN would have addressed this quickly and in a snowing fashion without unnecessarily raising the temperature.
 * , fucking really? You just went to AE complaining that someone involved closed and reclosed an RFC, but now you're reclosing an RM closed by an involved editor as an involved editor over the objections of other editors? If you believe the reverted close was a big issue go to WP:AN for some uninvolved opinions or WP:AE if you believe that there was a behavioral issue. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:33, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Understood. I've not been active in this topic area much recently, and I've closed the discussion on my talkpage acknowledging your statement that I am involved (which I do not think is unreasonable). Hemiauchenia (talk) 12:39, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I hadn’t realised Hemiauchenia was involved; I’d assumed if they were one of the editors disputing the close would have raised it at the start rather than objecting on grounds that they weren’t an admin and similar.
 * Of course, I never would have reverted the revert of the close if I had known - and given the comments on your talk page, even in cases were they are uninvolved I’ll merely raise the issue on your talk page rather than acting directly. BilledMammal (talk) 12:46, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Whether you knew Hemiauchenia was involved or not, you were yourself quite obviously involved, so you shouldn't have re-closed it either way over someone's objection. Chaotic Enby   (talk · contribs) 18:16, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I apologise. I am terrible at properly navigating bureaucratic procedures, but at least asked about instructions elsewhere. David A (talk) 12:51, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree and even though it was performed by an involved editor, I still wouldn't have reverted if it was a proper close, rather than just hatting an important section of the RM.
 * As an aside, I will note that is now giving UNDUE weight to their !vote, if not voting twice (first they !voted and commented further, and now they added a massive table at the end of the !vote section to support what they believe in). M.Bitton (talk) 13:25, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * A write up of my sources was specifically requested, and did not include a vote. It will likely also be added onto by others, including by adding sources that have a different view. I also didn't include any in-depth arguments, and it should only be a more detailed assessment of what was already cited. It's added in this version due to the pattern of opening and closing being what it is, and may be later modified with more sources adding diverging views. The invitation to add to the either this version or the version on my talk page (ideally maintaining the formatting) applies to you too. Considering this is transparent in both the discussion and my talk page, I'm unsure of what the issue is. FortunateSons (talk) 13:33, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, technically, the way I remember what happened, you had already listed contrarian German and Swiss sources, after which I requested that all of the far more fragmented instances of linked to or otherwise cited reliable sources in this talk page that do state that it is a genocide should be similarly listed in a single unit for better overview, not that you should list your own sources over and over in different ways. David A (talk) 13:38, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * In order to get anywhere here, we also likely need to check through the links provided by FortunateSons to see which ones that have any authority behind them, and which ones that are mere news articles with journalists parrotting standardised unreliable propaganda. was the specific task I was responding too. This is not the final version, just the final version with my sources, so they can actually be discussed by those not fluid in the german language. A more complete list will be done once everyone gets to it, but I'm guessing that will be a while, and the state of the MR is precarious as it is. FortunateSons (talk) 13:46, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Ah. That explains it. My mistake then. I apologise.
 * It seems very important to also collect all of the reliable sources in this page that state that this is a genocide into an easily overviewed list though. David A (talk) 18:10, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * No problem, it’s a long discussion, and things get lost quickly.
 * I think that’s already being done, but more help is always appreciated. FortunateSons (talk) 18:14, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I am unfortunately currently far too busy/overworked to be able to handle it myself, so I would appreciate if other members here who support option 3 are willing to do so instead. David A (talk) 18:21, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I've moved the sources you provided to it's own section and "uncollapsed" based on your original edit . Hopefully that's not controversial and is a fair compromise for concerns over so-called double voting or otherwise. Probably some other long-winded source-based discussions within the survey section should be moved to a discussion sections well, in order to maintain discussion balance within the survey. CNC (talk) 14:09, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you; would you be willing to move it above the discussion about pings (and perhaps retitle it, once the other sources are added?), I feel like it’s contextually closer to content than to procedural arguments?
 * Personally, I have no issue with the discussion being moved, but I’m unsure if it’s possible to untangle them at this stage without controversy. FortunateSons (talk) 14:19, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't care where it goes, but it is usual to collapse such tables. Selfstudier (talk) 14:26, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say that is the norm. Talk:Andy Ngo/Archive 15, for example, and other source analysis tables that pop up in AfDs are seldom collapsed. It isn't unusual to see them collapsed, but neither is it unusual to see them not collapsed. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:29, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * If it isn't collapsed, then I prefer it stay where it is, else it is just further clogging up an already clogged discussion. Selfstudier (talk) 14:35, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I think you're welcome to do so, that doesn't sound controversial to me. The section about pinging editors is more or less irrelevant to the actual discussion anyway. I only moved it below based on chronological order of discussions, not much else. In my opinion the compromise would be to move it above pinging editors, but collapse the table when doing, to avoid it cluttering the discussion further. CNC (talk) 14:37, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I moved things around a bit and collapsed the sources, thoughts? FortunateSons (talk) 14:45, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Probably unnecessary to collapse the pinging editors section, given it's now "out the way" already. But I never liked it anyway so no real complaints. The WP:NOTAFORUM collapsed discussion was never part of the survey however, it was posted into the pinging editors section so should return there diff. If the user wanted their !vote to count, they would have posted in the correct section. Ie it was a reply to the ping, not a reply to the discussion itself or engagement with the survey. CNC (talk) 14:54, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I see others already moved the order back to chronological, as well as NAF collapsed content back to correct section, so that makes sense. CNC (talk) 14:57, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that works too. FortunateSons (talk) 15:00, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Admin closures
Considering the multiple recent issues, I would propose the mandating of RFC and moves within ARBPIA to be strictly done by an admin only, in alignment with WP:BADNAC, which would avoid a lot of issues. What is the best WP venue to propose this? Makeandtoss (talk) 15:27, 26 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Maybe village pump? FortunateSons (talk) 15:27, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Not really convinced that a carveout just for Arbpia is a good thing, else why not AP as well, some others? Selfstudier (talk) 15:31, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * What is AP? And can you elaborate on your argument more? Makeandtoss (talk) 15:44, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * American Politics. I guess I'm just saying what makes AI/IP special compared to other CTs? Selfstudier (talk) 15:57, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Haven't really been into the AP topic area I think, but I would say the disruption in IP would justify it, at least in the current tense period. Makeandtoss (talk) 16:10, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Another likely objection, just reading around the place, is that there is something of a shortage of closers (-> backlog). Still, I wouldn't specifically argue against your idea myself, just trying to anticipate what the response might be. Selfstudier (talk) 16:15, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I think a longer close is a better situation than a disputed one, i.e. I would make the argument that waiting for two months for a more accurate consensus would be superior to a bad close done in three weeks. Makeandtoss (talk) 19:36, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:ARCA or WP:AN, depending on which route you want to go. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:31, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I guess AN first then ARCA which is considered a last resort? Or does AN not have that authority? Makeandtoss (talk) 15:43, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * ARCA if you want it to be part of the CTOP stuff covering the topic area, AN if you want it to be a community sanction on the topic. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:45, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Synthesis concern
regarding your revert, can you respond to the concern I raised about WP:SYNTH? In particular, the footnote seems to imply that the recent 37,700 figure is reliable by piecing together sources that don't discuss that figure. In fact they're much older than that figure, so they don't account for changes in GHM methodology since then, like the self-report Google form (see e.g. here). This seems like a good example of why we don't allow synthesis - it would require too much original thought to study the timeline and determine what bearing such changes have (if any) on the reliability of recent data. — xDanielx  T/C\R 19:10, 26 June 2024 (UTC)


 * It's straightforward to fix, if it needs fixing at all, just date the IDF saying it was reliable as at such a date or just say previously deemed reliable. Selfstudier (talk) 19:17, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Hm, I think that would help to sort of qualify the implied conclusion, but isn't it still synthesis? Even if an implied conclusion was perfectly reasonable, with appropriate nuances etc, it still seems like synthesis if that conclusion doesn't stem from a reliable source. — xDanielx  T/C\R 19:55, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The WaPo article is not accessible to me. seems to have a workable solution, adding in a comment that "previously X found the numbers reliable", as to the journal article saying they are reliable, considering that was published December 2023, that should not be of the same concern. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 19:26, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * So, after re-reading the Vice article, they seem to be talking about Israeli intelligence accepting the numbers and using them in their briefings, during the assault up to the publishing of the article in January 2024. So this indicates the reporting from the Health Ministry has been deemed reliable up until then at least, and unless it is has been stated in reports that these agencies no longer consider it reliable, the citations seem worthy of keeping. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 19:44, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Although I don't think the methodology details are too important to the question of whether this is synthesis, here's the most relevant bit of the WaPo article if it's of interest: In January, the Health Ministry added a third methodology: self-reports, via a Google Form, from family members of those killed. The Health Ministry released the first tranche of that data in late March. As of May 3, hospitals and morgues accounted for roughly 60 percent of fatalities reported; media sources, 29 percent; and family member self-reports, 11 percent. — xDanielx  T/C\R 21:40, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Ok, I would personally prefer adding the WaPo and the change in reporting into the footnote, but if you still support just removing the Vice and Medical journal citations with the comment they support, I'll self-revert. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 21:48, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your agreeableness here. In the spirit of compromise, how about if we left some comment about GHM reliability (for now, pending other editors' input), but either removed or reworded the Israeli Intelligence has deemed reliable bit?
 * That bit feels the most unencyclopedic to me, not just due to (at least arguable) synthesis, but also since it seems like "spin" or clickbait by WP:VICE. The (less interesting) underlying fact seems to be that GHM figures were included in some briefings.
 * One way we could create an implication of reliability while sticking to more clear established facts would be language similar to the Gaza Health Ministry lede: Its numbers have historically been considered reliable by [a few well known organizations]. — xDanielx  T/C\R 05:03, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't agree that Israeli prior approval be removed, that is rather important, especially since Israel keeps complaining with no good reason, about the numbers. And GHM is in addition considered reliable by the majority of independent sources. Selfstudier (talk) 13:53, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I've updated the wording, citations have been kept. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 16:40, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Section for Other definitions of genocide
I have added a section for "Other definitions of genocide". The reason I added this was because some of the sources and content of this Wikipedia article are not limited to the legal definition of genocide. The "Cultural discourse" section covers the definition of genocide used by the general public and this OHCHR source that I found in one of the above RfCs, for example, is describing genocide within the international policy definition. This additional definitions section also covers the academic social science definition of genocide in case any of the sources in the RfC or used in the Wikipedia article are about that.

If this article was supposed to be limited to the legal definition of genocide, that was not clear based on the current article title or some of its sections. Furthermore, if it was based on the legal definition, it is not up to various academic scholars to determine the "Gaza genocide" based on law; it is up to the court. Wafflefrites (talk) 04:06, 2 July 2024 (UTC)


 * @Wafflefrites thank you. As a large amount of the commentators, and the papers being published in the Journal of Genocide Research use definitions and frameworks more appropriate than the Convention in their analyses, expanding this section was necessary. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 08:00, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * And see Genocide recognition politics. Selfstudier (talk) 08:19, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the academics' open letter of 15 October as a source
While looking into the question of sources alleging genocidal intent from particular statements I noticed that the 15 October open letter is actually cited in the text twice, once as published on Opinio Juris and once as published on the TWAILR website. For now I've reworded the first mention of it in the article to reflect that it was published in both places (and cited the TWAILR source there), but should these sources be consolidated into one, as they're essentially duplicates? Tagging in as y'all seem to be the main authors of the relevant sections here.  Kinsio  (talk ★ contribs ★ rights) 04:38, 2 July 2024 (UTC)


 * @Kinsio I found this yesterday, it should be consolidated, imo. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 07:51, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I've now consolidated all the references to that source, preferring the TWAILR source because it seems to be the more "canonical" one (has additional signatures, mentions date they were added). How do we feel about striking the published on Opinio Juris and the website of the Third World Approaches to International Law Review language entirely? Particularly interested in hearing from (Don't worry, I made sure to use no ping!) since you added the mention of Opinio Juris in the first place. (I'm also thinking it may make sense to eliminate the explicit mentions of TWAILR in the text as well, since where it was published online doesn't feel super important to mention, but I can see an argument for keeping it since that is where the reference goes.)  Kinsio  (talk ★ contribs ★ rights) 19:15, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

What is the Gaza genocide?
@Kashmiri Should Gaza genocide be a term that is used to describe Israel's actions or are we, in Wikivoice, confirming there is a genocide? Personisinsterest (talk) 16:55, 3 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Idk if you are making the same point as me in the next section, maybe? Selfstudier (talk) 17:02, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, that's going to be an interesting discussion. But the article is not about a term and so per MOS:REFERS (which in turn references Use–mention distinction) we should make it clear whether the article is about a term or about the phenomenon that the term denotes. I believe it's about the latter.
 * That said, it would be worth adding in the lead section that there's still a debate whether Israeli actions constitute genocide. — kashmīrī  <sup style="color:#80f;font-family:'Candara';">TALK  17:03, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Maybe we could just take out the first sentence and just add in that there's academic consensus of a genocide but it remains debated. Personisinsterest (talk) 17:05, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Please no. The opening sentence should introduce or define the subject in simple English, and not delve into academic debates on the term. — kashmīrī  <sup style="color:#80f;font-family:'Candara';">TALK  17:34, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I mean in a later parapraph Personisinsterest (talk) 18:17, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * We should not use genocide in our own voice, and it requires attribution. There is no broad academic consensus that it meets the legal definition of a genocide, and the claims about there being consensus for any of the non-legal definitions are rare. FortunateSons (talk) 17:40, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

The blockade link is wrong
I think the blockade link is wrong in the lead. The link should be to 2023 Israeli blockade of the Gaza Strip not Blockade of the Gaza Strip. The intensified 2023 blockade is the one that is occurring during the war. I will change it after 24 hours as I am on 1 RR if there are no objections. Wafflefrites (talk) 23:52, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ Anyone feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think you need to worry about 1RR for small uncontroversial style fixes like this, even though I suppose it could be considered a partial revert in the strictest possible reading of the definition (removing some amount of wikitext that someone, at some point in the past, added before you). WP:COMMONSENSE still applies. (But, as I said in my edit summary, I get being nervous given that this is a CT, so I went ahead and did it for you.)  Kinsio  (talk ★ contribs ★ rights) 00:57, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh yay! Thank you so much!!!!!! Wafflefrites (talk) 01:06, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not gonna lie though, I'm cracking up over here at the idea of someone taking an editor to WP:AE for correcting not one but two typos in the same day. Truly a high crime against civility on our great encyclopedia.  Kinsio  (talk ★ contribs ★ rights) 01:11, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Heh. Selfstudier (talk) 18:06, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

short description
current short description is bit weird `Genocide suggested to be ongoing in the Gaza Strip` Since we recently have consensus to change the article topic to Gaza genocide - i'm proposing short description to be changed to 2023-present genocide in gaza Gsgdd (talk) 02:16, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Please see the "Overdoing it" thread above. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:55, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * what about 2023-present alleged genocide in gaza ? the short description is only relevant in search suggestion ( i think ) - otherwise its not visible to users. Gsgdd (talk) 21:11, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It's not changing the WP:TOPIC, it's just the title. The title plus the initial sentence(s) define the WP:SCOPE. Selfstudier (talk) 18:05, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * i dont follow. im talking about short description which is only visible in search suggestions Gsgdd (talk) 21:12, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * SD is subject same policies as everything else. I say the same as I said before up above "Gaza genocide accusations". (accusations > allegations) Selfstudier (talk) 21:23, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 3 May 2024
<div class="boilerplate mw-archivedtalk" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;">
 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved to Gaza genocide.

This was a lengthy but actually quite straightforward discussion. There was a clear consensus from the beginning that the former title was not acceptable. From several suggestions, three plausible alternatives emerged:


 * Option 1 Gaza genocide question
 * Option 2 Gaza genocide accusation
 * Option 3 Gaza genocide

The discussion ran for several weeks and was well-attended after being centrally advertised to all editors. The rough headcount in favour of each option was 23 for Option 1, 26 for Option 2, and 32 for Option 3. Few editors in favour of option 1 were strongly opposed to option 2 and vice-versa; amongst those that indicated support for both, the preference was generally for option 2. A fair number of comments in favour of options 1 and 2, but generally not option 3, were not policy-based (i.e. along the lines of "there is no Gaza genocide") and the headcounts for those options should be down-weighted accordingly.

The main argument in favour of option 3 was that 'Gaza genocide' is reflective of the wording used by available reliable sources, and several editors presented detailed source analyses in support of this. This argument was contested but not convincingly rebutted. The main argument in favour of options 1 and 2 were that the unqualified use of the word 'genocide' in an article title, when the existence of a genocide is disputed, would violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view (NPOV) policy, and specifically the principle that titles should be non-judgmentally descriptive. Editors in favour of option 3 countered that the source analysis supported 'genocide' as a neutral descriptor (and conversely that 'accusation' is non-neutral), and/or that the presence of a statement in an article title does not imply that the statement is factual.

Considering that option 3 had the most support by a clear margin, that the arguments in favour of this title generally had a stronger grounding in reliable sources, and that neither side achieved a consensus on the question of which title is favoured by WP:POVTITLE, I see a rough consensus that the title of this article should be Gaza genocide. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 09:54, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza → ? – I'm unsure what the new title should be, but I'm sure that this one has an issue. The Israeli attack on Gaza has gone past 2023 into 2024. So, we can't keep the "2023 Israeli attack on Gaza" part. Perhaps we could change it to "Allegations of genocide perpetrated by Israel in the Israel–Hamas war", "Allegations of genocide in Gaza in the Israel–Hamas war", or something different. Note that "2023 Israeli attack on Gaza" just redirects to Israel–Hamas war. Paul Vaurie (talk) 19:49, 3 May 2024 (UTC)


 * How about Allegations of Israeli genocide in Gaza? Simonm223 (talk) 19:57, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Unconvinced. Most frequently on Wikipedia, ethnonym + genocide refers to the victims: Armenian genocide, Tamil genocide, Rohingya genocide, Greek genocide, etc. The current title isn't most fortunate, but until and unless we have a consensus to move to Palestinian genocide (2023–2024) – which we're rather far from at the moment given that many editors simply rely on large Euro-American press titles, while court cases have not yet been concluded – I don't see an urgent need to move away from it. — kashmīrī  <sup style="color:#80f;font-family:'Candara';">TALK  20:33, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Was there a prior consensus against 'Palestinian genocide accusations'? entropyandvodka  &#124;  talk  01:35, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It's already a separate article! Chaotic Enby   (talk · contribs) 19:52, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Wow, that is a bad title. In general this area is difficult to title clearly, because there is ambiguity with labeling the alleger, the alleged perpetrator, and the alleged victim. For this article, "Allegations of genocide perpetrated by Israel in the Israel–Hamas war" seems clear, since there’s no ambiguity (because an allegation has no perpetrator, in common parlance). ꧁ Zanahary ꧂ 22:22, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * “Palestinian genocide” would imply a larger extermination in all of the areas of Palestinians controlled by Israel (such as the West Bank). “Gaza genocide” suggests the atrocities are localised and against Palestinian civilians in the Gaza Strip The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 03:03, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * "Palestinian genocide" would falsely treat the accusations as proven.
 * Quoting from MOS:ALLEGED, "alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined". This is exactly the situation that the claim of genocide is in.
 * As such, while "2023" needs changing, the title should not be changed to anything that treats the accusations as true.
 * Maybe something like Gaza genocide accusations, which seems like the most concise option. Jerdle (talk) 01:05, 5 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I agree that the title needs a change because just 2023 is obviously outdated. I lean support Allegations of genocide perpetrated by Israel in the Israel–Hamas war because it makes it clear that this article talks about accusations against Israel. I do think that the title is a bit long. But Allegations of genocide in the 2023–24 Israeli attack on Gaza is probably fine as well. Esolo5002 (talk) 23:14, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * To be more concise, it should be Allegations of genocide against Israel in the Israel–Hamas war ― Howard • 🌽33 10:29, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Allegations of genocide against Israel in the Israel–Hamas war as listed above, though maybe it could be adjusted to Allegations of genocide by Israel in the Israel–Hamas war. CybJubal (talk) 23:52, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support: Accusation of genocide in Gaza - it's a clear accusation, now substantiated in court, not an allegation, which we should generally avoid per MOS:ALLEGE. There has only been one (plausible) genocide in Gaza, so all of these other clarifying words are just fluff (and in some ways confusing) and aren't necesssary, per WP:CONCISE. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:03, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Too ambiguous. Does not account for Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel. ― Howard • 🌽33 12:33, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * That's not what the page is about. That's not a renaming, but a re-scoping. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:36, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * This article (Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza) concerns accusations of genocide against Israel specifically. By merely stating "Accusation of genocide in Gaza", it is unclear who the accusation is being levied against. "Accusation of genocide in Gaza" could be an alternate name for "Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel", so we need to specify who is being accused. ― Howard • 🌽33 12:52, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * No it couldn't. "Accusations of genocide in Gaza" clearly implies that the genocide in question occurred in Gaza. If you are saying it could be accusations of genocide made  in Gaza, well, I believe that's the same topic in the context. Accusations of genocide in Israel could also be so termed. An even shorter proposed form could be Gazan genocide accusation, in line with Palestinian genocide accusation. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:17, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I do not mind either option. I just want stronger and more concise wording than currently. David A (talk) 12:04, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * What's the intended subject matter? Violent acts, or the public discussion about them? For clarity, it's like the difference between lab research and literary study. — kashmīrī  <sup style="color:#80f;font-family:'Candara';">TALK  09:48, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I understand the analogy. The subject matter is accusations. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:35, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Then the article needs to be fundamentally rewritten. For now, its largest sections focus on genocidal intent, genocidal actions, and legal proceeedings, i.e., on the alleged acts. If the article subject is to be allegations/accusations, then it should read more like a study of legal literature, focusing on describig sources, writing style, scope, data quality, authors' qualifications, etc. — kashmīrī  <sup style="color:#80f;font-family:'Candara';">TALK  11:18, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Aren't there accusations of genocidal intent, accusations of genocidal actions, and accusations as part of the legal proceedings - all of this appear to be broadly bound up together. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:28, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * How about "Allegations of genocide perpetrated by Israel in Gaza", "Allegations of genocide perpetrated by Israel against Palestinians", or "Allegations of genocide in the 2023 to 2024 Israeli attack on Gaza", with the word "perpetrated" potentially removed in any of the above options? Would any of these alternatives or a variation thereof work? David A (talk) 14:16, 5 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Support: 'Accusations of genocide in Gaza' or 'Gazan genocide accusations' seem to be the most accurate suggestions so far, given the current legal state of the matter. Regarding nitpicking on scope, I'd point out that most major war crimes articles inclusively contain both proven instances as well as allegations and accusations. I'd be fine with allegations or accusations. entropyandvodka  &#124;  talk  22:02, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I'd like to amend that with stronger support for 'Accusations of Palestinian genocide in Gaza'. Not all Gazans are Palestinians, and the accusations pertain to the intent to destroy the Palestinian people in Gaza, in whole or in part, not all Gazans broadly. entropyandvodka  &#124;  talk  02:00, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Gazan genocide accusations or Gaza genocide accusations or Accusations of genocide in Gaza; focus on the place where the alleged genocide happened/is happening ("Gazan" is fine too as that would inherently also define the scope as Gaza). All meet AT criteria equally well IMO. Levivich (talk) 01:10, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I think that the phrasing "by Israel" should be included somewhere in the title, for the sake of specification, clarity, and ease of finding this page via Internet searches. Otherwise it will easily be hidden from those interested in the subject. Hence, "Accusations of genocide by Israel in Gaza", "Allegations of genocide by Israel in Gaza", "Accusations of genocide by Israel against Palestinians", or "Allegations of genocide by Israel against Palestinians" might work. David A (talk) 02:42, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The last two don't work because there is already a Palestinian genocide accusation article; this article is a sub-article of that one and has to stay focused on Gaza and not on all Palestinians.
 * As to mentioning "Israel," I think similar to the suggestion of mentioning "Palestinians," even though Israel is the perpetrator and Palestinians are the target of the alleged genocide, I don't think those two details are necessary for the title. It's not like we need to distinguish the Gaza genocide accusation from another alleged genocide that is allegedly perpetrated by someone other than Israel or that allegedly targets someone other than Palestinians. The alleged genocide of Palestinians in Gaza by Israel is the only alleged genocide in Gaza, and so the concision criteria of WP:AT wins out in my view, because we don't need to be any more precise or recognizable than saying "genocide" and "Gaza" ("alleged," "allegation" or "accusation" are needed for V/NPOV). Levivich (talk) 05:12, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, as I mentioned above, unless we mention "by Israel" in the title, searches for relevant information by visitors will be hidden, which destroys much of the point of this article, so I strongly disagree. David A (talk) 02:53, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Support for Gaza Genocide Accusations. It's clear enough about the scope of the article while allowing for some discussion of the root causes in a background section, and it's concise. Unbandito (talk) 01:29, 16 May 2024 (UTC)


 * This article is distinct from Palestinian genocide accusation, as it focuses only on the 2023–2024 invasion, so any new title should not blur the distinction (granted, the two articles may be merged in a more distant future). I'd leave Israel out of the title, as we don't routinely include the perpetrator in genocide names. My favourites are Allegations of 2023–2024 genocide in Gaza and Allegations of genocide in Gaza (2023–2024); I'd fine with both accusations and allegations. — kashmīrī  <sup style="color:#80f;font-family:'Candara';">TALK  09:09, 10 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Note: WikiProject Discrimination, WikiProject Palestine, WikiProject Ethnic groups, WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, WikiProject Disaster management, WikiProject Death, WikiProject Israel, WikiProject Human rights, and WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration have been notified of this discussion. RodRabelo7 (talk) 09:47, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Support changing "2023 Israeli attack" (obviously outdated), and replacing "Allegations" by "Accusations" (as they have formally been made in court). Agree with Kashmiri that we don't usually include the perpetrator (which is a bit obvious, since Gaza was always under Israeli or Palestinian control since the end of the Egyptian military occupation in 1967). Allegations of 2023–2024 genocide in Gaza is okay although a bit clumsy, but Allegations of genocide in Gaza (2023–2024) sounds like the timeframe refers to the allegations. Either way, I don't think there is a need to specify the date when talking about a Gaza-specific genocide (as opposed to Palestinian genocide accusation), so Accusations of genocide in Gaza (or any another permutation of these words, such as Gaza genocide accusation) is what I'm supporting. Chaotic Enby   (talk · contribs) 19:51, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Or Gaza genocide question – this has now moved being allegation, beyond accusation, beyond mere charge, and onto formally accepted case in the court of international law (as well as well-supported scholarly assertion). The big question remaining is yay or nay in the assessment of the court, though that could well be pre-empted by the rising chorus of genocide scholars making their own independent assessments, in addition to the hundreds that many months ago warned (unheeded) of the genocidal course of events. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:17, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I would personally prefer just "Gaza genocide" or "Israel's Gaza genocide", but if "Gaza genocide question" is stronger worded language than what we use currently, I support it in lack of better options. David A (talk) 06:47, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That title would only be accurate if there is a genocide happening.
 * That has not been found. Jerdle (talk) 01:07, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Well-documented deliberate starvation used as a weapon against an entire population and an equivalent of around 5 nuclear weapons dropped on them certainly seem to qualify combined with the completely dehumanising genocidally bigoted rhetorics used by the Israeli government and military. David A (talk) 06:10, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Gaza genocide question - The title has precedent with Holodomor genocide question. ― Howard • 🌽33 19:01, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That is a very good point. I also support Gaza genocide question above the other available options here then.
 * Given the above new information, do you also find this alternative acceptable, so we can make some progress here, instead of going around in circles? David A (talk) 23:20, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes. Levivich (talk) 23:26, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Fine by me. Iskandar's reasoning makes sense and having a precedent never hurts. - Ïvana (talk) 23:37, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The reasoning makes sense and it is consistent with other articles of a similiar subject matter so that's fine by me. CybJubal (talk) 00:00, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think this alternative is better than the others.
 * Furthermore, the words "allegations" and "accusations" only communicate that the allegations exist, without communicating their prominence in the international politics surrounding this question. The allegations are prominently supported in international politics by multiple countries. It's primarily the U.S. and Israel that are defending Israel against them. The allegations and defenses have been heard by the International Court of Justice on equal footing. These realities are better communicated with the word "question". PBZE (talk) 00:23, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree with this. It has moved way beyond "allegations" now. Chaotic Enby   (talk · contribs) 00:25, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, summarises the points well, a good title, and feels less like a mouthful than the temporary title the article has The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 02:37, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not necessarily opposed to that title if others like it, but I worry that it could expand the scope of the article beyond what is currently covered. If the article is about accusations, it will largely be an accounting of the available evidence in favor of the thesis that a genocide is ongoing in Gaza. If the article is about the question of whether a genocide is occurring, that could open up the scope of the article to arguments that a genocide is not occurring. It could be challenging to balance these competing claims while keeping the article coherent and informative. But I don't intend to stand in the way of improving this article's title, even if the improvement isn't perfect. I approve of this title if the rest of the community decides that they like it. Unbandito (talk) 02:46, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * In this case, would “accusations” instead of “question” be an improvement to the title? I think that could work too The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 06:35, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, I also agree this is a good alternative. Hogo-2020 (talk) 07:58, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * If we are going to do it this way, I prefer Gaza genocide accusation in line with Palestinian genocide accusation. Selfstudier (talk) 10:59, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I find that option acceptable as well. I mainly want a stronger and more concise wording than currently. David A (talk) 12:04, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Gaza genocide question is a tad better than the current title. However, when going through the multiple rename/delete discussions at Talk:Tamil genocide – an event that very few sources (and no countries or international bodies) consider a genocide – we see that editors there decided to keep the present title based on the fact that the term Tamil genocide is discussed in multiple reliable sources and, as such, is automatically a valid title of a Wikipedia article.
 * With this in mind, I am of the opinion that Gaza genocide – likewise, a term discussed in multiple reliable sources, incomparably more numerous than for Tamil genocide – should be the eventual title of the present article. (But also see my comment below about an alternative solution.) — kashmīrī  <sup style="color:#80f;font-family:'Candara';">TALK  13:50, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * As usual, I agree with Kashmiri here. David A (talk) 19:10, 15 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Gaza genocide accusations is what I support here. It's much better than the current title. "Gaza genocide question" is what I support here. Hogo-2020 (talk) 07:05, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I think that you usually have a very good sense of judgement. What do you think seems like the best solution here? David A (talk) 07:38, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @David A Thank you for your kind words. I'm in two minds now, after the results of WP:Articles for deletion/Tamil genocide. On one hand, some editors argue that titles should reflect reality; they should be true to the fact. In parallel, there's also a strong argument that article titles can simply denote topics, concepts, and theories without judging their factual reality, and the only condition is that these topics etc. are attested in reliable sources. In Tamil genocide, the latter view prevailed.
 * So here, the question for me is whether we should have both these articles titled allegations of genocide, or it might be better for the reader – and Wikipedia is drafted for readers – to have a single article titled, say, Genocide in the Israel–Hamas war that would discuss the events, the accusations raised against both sides, and the academic debate on the applicability of the term. After that Tamil discussion, I'm inclined to take a closer view of this approach. — kashmīrī  <sup style="color:#80f;font-family:'Candara';">TALK  00:39, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay. Please keep us updated here regarding your conclusions. David A (talk) 06:07, 5 June 2024 (UTC)


 * The relevant main article is Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip (2023–present) (RM in progress to remove the dates) rather than 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza, support a change to Allegations of genocide in the Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip or Genocide accusations in the Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip Selfstudier (talk) 09:11, 5 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Support for "Gaza genocide question" and other alternatives. "Allegations" is a misleading term because it's not just that journalists and whistleblowers are alleging genocide anymore. It's a question high-profile enough that it's being actively investigated by the ICJ and Israel is facing growing scrutiny for it on an international scale. This article's scope includes all of that scrutiny and investigation, and so is not limited to allegations anymore. PBZE (talk) 00:00, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support for "Accusations of genocide in Gaza" - more concise that other alternatives proposed. Allegations should be removed from the title. We're past the point of this being mere allegations, the accusations have been formally presented in court. - Ïvana (talk) 01:40, 8 June 2024 (UTC)


 * At some point we will need to list all of the suggested titles above and ping all of the members who responded here in conjunction, in order to see which of the alternatives that each of us respectively find acceptable, after which we select the option with the most votes, as the voting is currently all over the place here. David A (talk) 04:14, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Work for the closer in the first instance. Selfstudier (talk) 09:43, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I think that we should have a re-vote with the ability to choose up to three or so acceptable options instead, as we really should move this page to use a stronger worded title. David A (talk) 13:21, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Something like accusations of genocide in Gaza or Accusations of genocide in Gaza by Israel The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 13:12, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Your second option seems good to me. David A (talk) 14:33, 12 June 2024 (UTC)


 * No specific options for the title was suggested when the RfC was started. Which makes it neally impossibbe to judge the consensus by looking at different titles. I would think that just keeping status quo would be the best. My very best wishes (talk) 16:51, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Uh huh, but below you have said 1 or 2 if you have to choose. Selfstudier (talk) 21:56, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Three options
Going by the above discussion, it seems like we currently have three main options for an improved title for this page:

Option 1: Gaza genocide question, which has a precedent with Holodomor genocide question.

Option 2: Gaza genocide accusation, which has a precedent with Palestinian genocide accusation.

Option 3: Gaza genocide, which has a precedent with Tamil genocide, an event that very few sources, and no countries or international bodies, consider a genocide, meaning that there is likely much stronger support for classifying what the Israeli government is currently doing in this manner.

Which of the above alternatives do you prefer, and which ones do you find acceptable?

I personally prefer Option 3, but consider either of the other two options to at least be improvements to this page's current title. David A (talk) 05:58, 16 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Option 3 whilst “accusation” makes sense as Israel is officially accused, this is putting it on the level of “Palestinian genocide accusation”, which is referring to a long, decades long struggle with elements that can be considered ‘genocide’, like the nakba or Gaza wars. Gaza genocide is the best fit here, because we are talking about an 8- month period where we have seen more Palestinians being systematically killed than in every conflict between Israel and Palestine in the past 76 years combined The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 06:32, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Option 3. Like kashmiri said, you will usually find ethnonym + genocide. I'm not gonna go through all of the sources that already mention or allude to a genocide occurring in Gaza, including the UN; anyone commenting here is, I assume, familiar with them. We're already past the point of this being a mere accusation or allegation amongst select groups. Walking through eggshells and using expressions like allegations/accusations/question etc contradicts the reality where this is being judged in an international court and there is a consensus amongst experts that this fits the definition of a genocide. The main subject of this article is the genocide occurring in Gaza right now, whether people believe that it's real or not. - Ïvana (talk) 06:58, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Option 3, as it's a term widely discussed in multiple reliable sources and thus merits a Wikipedia article. We need to keep in mind that article titles do not have to be uncontroversial, or even true, as long as they are WP:NOTABLE terms (examples: Extraterrestrial life, Homeopathy, Tamil genocide, etc.). Here, I have little doubt that "Gaza genocide" is a notable encyclopaedic term. — kashmīrī  <sup style="color:#80f;font-family:'Candara';">TALK  07:52, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Option 3 may in fact be reasonable at this stage. I think option 2 may have expired. We now have a stacked ICJ case, UN special rapporteur assessment of genocide, a UN investigative finding of "extermination", genocide scholars, US state department testimonies, AI genocide story, you name it! At this point, the sheer diversity of testimonies is meaningful. Option 1 would be my second option as a step back from option 3, but less misaligned than option 2 at this point, which may now be straying on the conservative side. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:17, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * There is a Palestinian genocide accusation, if that is "expired", then it needs to change title first. Selfstudier (talk) 08:34, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is a logical corollary. I think that title should now be at question - not least since the question is raised over a series of events where the assertion finds varying degrees of support. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:00, 16 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Option 1 or 2: I believe question would be more appropriate but a lot of people are favoring accusation, which I consider an acceptable word. If the Tamil genocide article actually has very few sources or recognition, then it should be renamed also, as was done with Uyghur genocide to Persecution of Uyghurs in China. In addition, this article specifically covers the academic, legal, and political discourse around the applicability of the word "genocide" to the IDF's actions in Gaza, similar to how Holodomor and Holodomor genocide question are separate articles. ― Howard • 🌽33 08:47, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Howardcorn33 Editors at Tamil genocide successfully argued that the article should not be renamed as "allegation" or "accusation", primarily because these are not terms being discussed in literature. —  kashmīrī  <sup style="color:#80f;font-family:'Candara';">TALK  09:19, 16 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Option 3 per all above, I don't have anything more to add than what has already been said. Chaotic Enby   (talk · contribs) 10:52, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Option 3. 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. Stephan rostie (talk) 13:06, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Option 1 first choice. Open to changing my mind but I'm not seeing Option 3 yet. The UNHR report does not say there is a "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." That line is written by Alene Bouranova, writer for BU Today -- the magazine of Boston University. With all due respect to Ms. Bouranova, I do not take her word as authoritative on this issue because she's not a scholar, her article isn't scholarship or even mainstream journalism, a university magazine is generally a pretty weak source for anything IMO, especially for such an WP:EXTRAORDINARY claim (and not independent of the report). The report itself says, in its own voice, that Israel is committing genocidal acts. I find that very reliable and persuasive. However, I would want to know that this one single report isn't the only scholarship of its kind or the first of its kind to state without qualification on behalf of a large group of scholars that genocide is happening. AFAIK it's the only one like it, with previous similar things being of the nature of "open letters" and the like, but not necessarily "hard scholarship," as it were. So that makes it "genocide question" in my mind, not just "genocide." If there are other reports like the UNHR report I'd be interested in reviewing them, if anyone wants to drop some links. Second choice: Option 3; Option 2 is third choice because I do think the world has moved past "accusation," just not necessarily all the way to "genocide" in wikivoice. Levivich (talk) 22:21, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Here are some links to offical statements that you might find useful:
 * However, I am uncertain about how useful the three ICJ links are. David A (talk) 11:16, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for sharing those. The ICJ sources reflect that there is a genocide prosecution, but the court has not issued a finding that Israel committed genocide, although they took the case (finding it's a plausible allegation). That the ICJ took the case but hasn't decided yet is, in my view, one reason to call it "question" and not "accusation" or just "genocide."
 * The UN report, on the other hand, rather clearly comes out saying it's genocide. Query: is the UN an RS? I'm honestly not sure. It's not scholarship, it's not journalism, but it's not exactly an advocacy group or think tank, either. Levivich (talk) 17:31, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * According to Israel, the UN, and pretty much everyone else that disagrees with it, is antisemitic, which likely means it is a reliable source or at least, it reflects what a majority of UN members think. Of course, the US exercises its veto in favor of Israel with alarming frequency so I guess they would not count it as a reliable source either. I tend to view it the same way as Amnesty, its reports need to be taken seriously and not just politically dismissed without reference to the detail. Selfstudier (talk) 18:01, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * With the exception of courts, governments aren't RS, period end of story. Isn't the UN a government (whereas the ICJ is a court)? Levivich (talk) 18:20, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I think one needs to distinguish between the various organs (UN, UNGA, UNHRC, etc), and resolutions and reports of them. I wouldn't pay much attention to a single country delegate for instance but I would pay some attention to a passed UNGA resolution and even more to one from the UNSC (who are the court's enforcers if you like, but still subject to political veto). Selfstudier (talk) 18:29, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah IMO neither the GA nor SC are WP:RS, but it's a good point that certain UN organs, and UNHRC would be one of them, could be. Or more specifically, that reports or other works authored or published by such organs might be. Which leads me to my next question: do we have any WP:USEBYOTHERS evidence for this UNHRC report? Levivich (talk) 00:20, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Well it has been stated as having received broad support at the UN. And yes, it has already entered the ranks of journal-cited sources. This includes already being cited in the Journal of Genocide Research. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:23, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * There is AJ and a measured report from the BBC. I couldn't find any reports from US media. Selfstudier (talk) 09:07, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Option 3 first choice, option 1 second choice, option 2 third choice. Thank you to the editors who answered my questions and posted more sources above. I've come around after doing some more research and reading. The WP:BESTSOURCES for whether Israel's attack on Gaza is a genocide are going to be genocide studies scholars and journals, the more recent, the better. After perusing sources posted here and searching Google Scholar for works published in 2024, "it's a genocide" says Amos Goldberg in an op-ed, Nahla Abdo in Studies in Political Economy, and in the Journal of Genocide Research: Martin Shaw , Raz Segal and Luigi Daniele , Mark Levene , Didier Fassin , Zoé Samudzi , Nimer Sultany , Uğur Ümit Üngör , Yoav Di-Capua , Abdelwahab El-Affendi , and Elyse Semerdjian . Also the UNHR report and UNHRC report. "Maybe a genocide" says Omar McDoom  and Shmuel Lederman . Within the field of genocide studies, in 2024, it seems there is in fact a consensus of scholars that this is genocide, with a few who say maybe, and nobody that I've found who says it's not. Levivich (talk) 05:50, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It was Susan Akram, director of BU Law’s International Human Rights Clinic, who stated that: "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." Rainsage (talk) 16:57, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * What the executive summary of the primary source that she is referring to actually says is "This report documents its findings ["we conclude that Israel’s actions in and regarding Gaza since October 7, 2023, violate the Genocide Convention"] by drawing from a diverse range of credible sources, including reports by United Nations and aid agencies, investigations by human rights organizations, media reports, and public statements and testimonies." so she has put per own words to that, but it is not that different, when all is said and done. Selfstudier (talk) 17:08, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Just wanted to clarify that it was actually one of the report's expert contributors who made that statement, since Levivich attributed it to the BU journalist. Rainsage (talk) 17:15, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing that out; you're right, I missed that this line was in the Q&A part, and is a quote from Akram. (You'd think the "" section on this talk page would have tipped me off, but nope, went right over my head.) I've struck my incorrect statements above. Levivich (talk) 19:46, 23 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Option 1/2: While I consider this a genocide in line with the literature, frameworks, scholarship, and statements produced by the majority of relevant experts in this matter, as I detailed in the previous title change discussion, this article has built it's scope to be the discussion/argumentation around labelling Gaza as a genocide. Should Wikipedia move inline with the scholarship in time, a separate article being created would be the best option. This new article on the genocide would include information that currently exists across a range of articles currently covering varying aspects of the genocide.
 * As to the specificity of 1 or 2, as I read it, there are two ways this could be split. The first way is a Majority-Minority split on the popular opinion held. That is per the examples given, option 1 is a question as it’s questioning the majority popular opinion of the event (it is a genocide), where option 2 is the accusation of genocide when the popular opinion is that it is not.
 * The second way is a temporal split, where option 1 is used in events that are concluded so it's analysing retrospectively, whereas option 2 is an accusation as it covers ongoing events. Either of these ways in splitting it would suggest we title this article as Gaza genocide accusation. Though I hold no strong opinion as to the choice between 1 and 2. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 18:16, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The second way is a temporal split, where option 1 is used in events that are concluded so it's analysing retrospectively, whereas option 2 is an accusation as it covers ongoing events. Either of these ways in splitting it would suggest we title this article as Gaza genocide accusation. Though I hold no strong opinion as to the choice between 1 and 2. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 18:16, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The second way is a temporal split, where option 1 is used in events that are concluded so it's analysing retrospectively, whereas option 2 is an accusation as it covers ongoing events. Either of these ways in splitting it would suggest we title this article as Gaza genocide accusation. Though I hold no strong opinion as to the choice between 1 and 2. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 18:16, 17 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Option 3 or Option 1, in that order, per the above. I would like to note that Black genocide in the United States and transgender genocide are also examples of article titles similar to option 3. PBZE (talk) 19:49, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * These are very interesting parallel examples that echo the case of the Tamil genocide. I guess the point that these make is that there is a broadly consistent pattern of usage on Wikipedia: that if a suspected genocide is sufficiently discussed by scholars, it is a topic, and shouldn't be overbearingly couched in the trappings of "accusation". Iskandar323 (talk) 05:33, 18 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Option 1 or Option 2: As all of the people here know that there is no actual genocide (be honest with yourself) creating option 3 will be a blatant lie. It's ridicules how people can even suggest it. Israel warns about it's attacks and if terrorists of Hamas would not use human shields and would not count terrorists as regular people there would be much less victims. With regards, Oleg Y.  (talk) 02:20, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Coolaid is strong stuff, for sure. But for anyone who has actually taken the latest UN report seriously, handwaving away the serious breaches of international law in this conflict is poor taste. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:41, 18 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Option 1 (first choice) or Option 2 (second choice). This is about the question or accusations of genocide. I don't see votes supporting Option 3 grounded enough to justify wikivoicing "genocide". Like Cdjp1 says, if scholarship eventually makes this a case of "genocide", then Wikipedia should move inline with that, but we are not there at the moment. Hogo-2020 (talk) 08:38, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Option 1 Because of two main reasons:
 * The term "Gaza genocide question" better reflects the ongoing significant uncertainty and investigation by experts in various fields regarding whether the events in Gaza constitute genocide. This term allows the inclusion of diverse opinions and research within the article.
 * Using the term "Gaza genocide question" highlights Wikipedia's commitment to neutrality and objective discussion. This title avoids making definitive statements and allows readers to be exposed to all existing opinions and research.Eladkarmel (talk) 09:40, 18 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Option 1, these are mere claims, rejected by most of the world. Some here cite sources as proof there is genocide, but for every source given there are maybe x5 others that say it is a total invention. At this point this is unverified. I think the current title is fine, and if we change it, the only option that really follows WP:NPOV and WP:VOICE would be "Gaza genocide question". HaOfa (talk) 17:19, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Option 3 – I think this page should be moved to the title Gaza genocide. The current title and options 1 and 2 aren't for disambiguation, but for casting MOS:DOUBT. Also, the content of the article should largely remain the same if the topic was changed from 'alleged genocide' to 'genocide'. And regarding making separate articles for the genocide and its denial/acceptance (similar to Armenian genocide > Armenian genocide denial), I find that the two would likely have a lot of WP:Overlap—a reason to merge them. FunLater (talk) 00:25, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Option 3 per above. Gaza genocide is a notable term that is extensively discussed in reliable sources. Skitash (talk) 00:36, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Option 3 per above. MOS:DOUBT makes it clear that alleged is "appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined". In this case authorities the world over have determined this to be happening, and so Option 3 is the most appropriate choice. Smallangryplanet (talk) 17:10, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Option 2 or 3 per all above. Question is not an appropriate usage here.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 00:03, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Option 1 or 2, per WP:POVTITLE. We shouldn't be taking a stance on this highly contentious question until the question is settled, and it is likely it won't be until the ICJ issues its final ruling. When it does, we can change the title, either to "Gaza Genocide" or to something that makes it clear a genocide didn't take place, depending on what the result is. BilledMammal (talk) 06:06, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Our article titling is not determined by what the ICJ does or doesn't rule, it is determined by what reliable sources are saying or not saying. Selfstudier (talk) 08:38, 22 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Option 1 (or 2), with a strongest possible opposition to Option 3. There is insufficient RS coverage for 3 as an affirmative title, and there is insufficient usage for such a POV title by reliable source. In addition, we should not change to this title prior to an IJC decision and it’s analysis by scholarship. FortunateSons (talk) 09:43, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * 3 is indisputably a POV title, and as such would require a significant majority of sources to consider it a genocide, something neither reflected in reporting about the war or the ICJ case nor scholarship, which generally discusses it as controversial, not as clear. While there are other questionable titles, in that case, they are a) the overwhelmingly used name and b) appropriately qualified in the lead (ex.: Transgender genocide), something that isn’t the case here. Therefore, and in line with the scope of the article, which is focussed on the discussion of the question of genocide and not primarily on the actions committed, the title should reflect the content. FortunateSons (talk) 10:22, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I think you're wrong about the scholarship. See the list in my vote above. Levivich (talk) 11:21, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This is “just” expert RS and not scholarship (I’m away from home rn), but this is a renown professor of international law saying “not genocide” in a(centrist/center-left) German news paper of record [1 ]. Also 2 more from Switzerland.[2 ] FortunateSons (talk) 11:53, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I recall reading that Germany has outright literally illegalised calling the ongoing massacre a genocide, so if any professor of international law said anything else, wouldn't he or she, and the newspaper staff that allowed the statement to be published, be arrested? David A (talk) 11:59, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Are you sure about that? Because I’m 90% sure that you are wrong. FortunateSons (talk) 12:00, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I checked, and it seems like I likely misremembered. There seem to have been quite harsh crackdowns on people who express such sentiments, and at least one unsuccessful attempt to illegalise it though:   David A (talk) 12:20, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * There are some “crackdowns” based on pre-existing laws (loosely translated as “public incitement to hate” and “use of illegal symbols”), but that was focussed on specific slogans, not scientific debate. Those laws are regularly used against the far-right, and use against other groups considered extremist is in line with the purpose of the law. Of course, specific use cases are always controversial. The actual case of the slogan is more complicated than the article may have lead you to believe, but that’s off-topic. FortunateSons (talk) 12:50, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Germany's anti-Palestinianism and suppression of free speech in recent times would be comical if it weren't so sad and one trusts that the German courts will remedy these deficiencies in due course, as they have done in the past. Selfstudier (talk) 12:59, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Isn’t this [28]? And I wouldn’t bet on the courts on this one, I have talked to a few scholars who say that the higher courts may approve some of the new applications. But I guess we will see. FortunateSons (talk) 13:13, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The crime of genocide under international law (which has one specific definition) is not the same thing as genocide according to genocide studies (multiple definitions, some broader, some narrower). But even if we count those 3 scholars as saying "not genocide", it doesn't outweigh the dozen+ who say it is. You'd need a dozen+ just to show an even split of opinion. Levivich (talk) 12:16, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This article is primarily concerned with the legal side, particularly the lead. I’m happy to look for more, but I think the question of scope (basically: what do we do if international law says it isn’t, but genocide studies say it is) may be a problem we should focus on before it becomes an urgency problem.
 * I might look for some more sources later, hoping that it won’t be closed too soon. FortunateSons (talk) 12:22, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This is something under discussion in other genocide articles (mostly ones that deal with looking at genocide overall), and for most of those discussions so far, while there is push back, most of the editors in discussion are being supportive of accepting the opinion of relevant scholars to label events as genocide, when there is no legal ruling. As of yet we have no instance where a court has ruled something is not genocide and yet scholarship holds that it is, we only have cases where courts have not adjudicated on the matter. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 14:20, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Of course, this is a specific issue when using a broader-than-legal view in a case where we will likely get an ICJ judgement, particularly if it were to favour Israel. From a meta-perspective, there is also the question of best use of editor time, considering that a judgement stating that it isn’t a genocide would require a major rework of the article to allow for the due weight RS and scholarship undoubtedly emerging from it.
 * Would you agree that in case of “ICJ says it’s not, genocide scholars say it is” due weight would likely be towards the legal view? FortunateSons (talk) 14:43, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I would state that wikipedia would tend towards legalism on the matter, even if doing so is fundamentally wrong and flawed. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 14:58, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I disagree with it being wrong, but I believe that you are right about the outcome in this case. That would apply to the title as well, we would either remain at or change back to a hypothetical one? FortunateSons (talk) 15:02, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * How does Mandy Rice-Davies apply to my view that an application of the ideology of legalism on this matter is wrong? -- Cdjp1 (talk) 17:29, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It applies to me, because my law background makes me trend towards a legal view of everything FortunateSons (talk) 17:35, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Ah ok. Yes, as Wikipedia is structured, and the make-up of contributors, (as I previously said) the article will tend to legalism on the matter. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 17:42, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Makes sense, legal analysis tends to be a bit more represented compared to other disciplines. FortunateSons (talk) 17:48, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * If I may be so bold to suggest, at this early stage (as we are unlikely to see a court decision on this within the next five years), should we come to a point that the courts rule that it is not genocide, while scholarship (especially from genocide studies) holds it is (at least in the majority published opinion, as is the current case), the court ruling should be mentioned in position "a" of the lede, followed immediately in position "b" a comment about the (stark) disagreement from specialist scholars. This should be amenable to most editors.
 * With this possibly being the first case of such a disagreement, it would probably be pertinent to seek a mass discussion from editors, including the top contributors from genocide articles, to hash out a guide for subsequent use. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 17:50, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I think this split is a generally good idea, and the creation of a “future-proof” guideline is definitely useful.
 * I disagree with b being the overwhelming domain for genocide scholars. With all respect to the profession, the legal and political/historical analysis should (insofar as supported by RS) be about equally represented. FortunateSons (talk) 19:25, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * No, the opposite. If genocide scholars say it's genocide, Wikipedia says it's genocide. Doesn't matter what a court says. Levivich (talk) 15:11, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, but the courts analysis will often be followed by scholars of international law and media RS, and those tend to be due. FortunateSons (talk) 15:16, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * More scholars saying no or unlikely:
 * Hartwig and Müller
 * Khan
 * Wiese (meh but counts IMO)
 * Platt
 * Kittel (from ‘23)
 * Feldmann (don’t love the source, but wanted to stick with the theme)
 * Scholars saying unclear/disputed/too close to call:
 * Pfeifer/Weipert-Fenner/Williams,
 * Goldmann
 * Schabas
 * This is only german language and only a quick search, but it’s decent coverage for no or disputed IMO. Does someone object to those?
 * This is of course just me pointing and waiving at some sources that I found in a cursory google search, but if we want to actually use a non-neutral title prior to an ICJ judgement, the burden is one those advocating for it to appropriately analyse and weigh the sources to show that it’s broadly considered a genocide and not a discussion about genocide by an overwhelming majority of scholars and RS. FortunateSons (talk) 13:46, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Too quick a search. I only read the last one because I'm already familiar with William Schabas's views. Firstly, the comment goes back to December, and is specifically related to South Africa's genocide case against Israel. He does state that the SA presentation was very plausible (Um mit dem Antrag erfolgreich zu sein, muss Südafrika alleinig nachweisen, dass seine Argumentation plausibel ist. Und das hat es meiner Meinung nach sehr effektiv getan.). Schabas is reserved about using genocide (he doesn't exclude it) but he is quite clear that a Israel 'threat of genocide' existed already at that time, and that the US was obliged under international law to step in and endeavour to pretent that occurring. I would not be surprised if other examples showed similar problems, but I must catch Italy being thrashed by Switzerland. It remains true that scholars of the historical phenomen of genocide (who don't evaluate these things in terms of thestrict reading of available international law but include other considerations) are agreed by a large majority that what is happening is genocide, in a more general sense.Nishidani (talk) 18:01, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The sourcing discussion below may be of interest to you. After the game, I would be curious if you consider me placing him in the (informal) category of  unclear/disputed/too close to call is something you would consider improper? He’s not clearly saying yes, but the methodology is somewhat flawed, which is why it was done away with and replaced with translated quotes in the collapsed section.
 * I think you unintentionally changed the structure, if it’s not just my mobile device, I would appreciate if you restored my signature FortunateSons (talk) 18:08, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This is of course just me pointing and waiving at some sources that I found in a cursory google search, but if we want to actually use a non-neutral title prior to an ICJ judgement, the burden is one those advocating for it to appropriately analyse and weigh the sources to show that it’s broadly considered a genocide and not a discussion about genocide by an overwhelming majority of scholars and RS. FortunateSons (talk) 13:46, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * We are not actually trying to show that it is a genocide, which is indeed a matter for the ICJ in the final analysis, simply that it is a topic of discussion in scholarly circles, which in fact, your sourcing shows that to be the case, even in Germany. Just for my interest, am I right in assuming that you only looked for German language sources saying it was not/unlikely or is it that there are no German sources saying it is/likely? Selfstudier (talk) 14:10, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I looked for specific names I was familiar with (but I’m obviously biased for those, personally preferring specific political and legal views), and used “gaza genozid professor”, “ist gaza genozid professor” and “gaza kein genozid professor” as search terms, as far as I recall. However, I did indeed select sources that best made my point, which was to show that it was discussed as a potential or theoretical topic, not a clear genocide, as a counterpoint for Levivich’s search.
 * There are probably some that say that it clearly is (though no-one mainstream, as far as I’m aware). However, the media may be contributing to that. If you want, I’m happy to check what someone specific is saying? I can particularly look through Spiegel and similar left-leaning sites, we may have better luck there. FortunateSons (talk) 14:31, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm still working through all the articles recently published in the Journal of Genocide Research (JGR), so would be great if you have the capacity to add these German sources to the article. Though, I also want to note, of the articles published so far in the JGR, there is almost unanimous opinion that this is a genocide. So while the dissent from other relevant specialists should be given due weight, we need to appropriately give weight to the articles published as part of the fora: Israel-Palestine: Atrocity Crimes and the Crisis of Holocaust and Genocide Studies and Gaza: International Humanitarian Law and Genocide. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 14:26, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Of course, I might find some time, but I’m pretty swamped in my personal life, so I would of course not object to someone else adding more. I might look more throughly for legal views too, once I can actually get to my computer with access to Beck, Juris ans others. On a general note, we should be cautious with over-relying on any specific journal, particularly looking at the pages of the editor in chief and the journal in this case. FortunateSons (talk) 14:36, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * While that is true, in the English language realm, the JGR is the pre-eminent journal for genocide scholarship. Other journals that specialise in genocide scholarship include:
 * Genocide Studies and Prevention: An International Journal
 * Holocaust and Genocide Studies
 * Genocide Studies International
 * As said, my focus has been on JGR due to the fora they currently have on-going. Other eminent journals from other fields (history, law, conflict studies, international relations, medicine) should also be looked at, but to my knowledge, none have so far published articles, and such scholars are instead providing their short immediate thoughts to popular press. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 15:04, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Clarification, some medical journals have published pieces from various medical professionals, but they have been more re-iterating things like UN warnings, and detailing the need for the medical profession to speak out against the mass death occurring. I have previously/already added a few of these to this article where they are appropriate. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 15:07, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Verfassungsblog may have something, they’re generally pretty quick. I will look into it and other German-language sources, probably after the move request, but this was “just” a search for the sake of the name, so that would probably take hours or days of actual work. FortunateSons (talk) 15:14, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * More:
 * ”quite strong evidence” for incidement, but “difficult to prove” for genocide Herik (Dutch article linked)
 * Cohen and Shany (would count as no
 * Ambos (more just incitement)
 * Burke-White (too close to call/vague)
 * Walter
 * This should be more than were originally presented, but I may have lost count. FortunateSons (talk) 21:42, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * For chronological ordering, ease of reference (as some of these are from as far back as October last year):
 * Kittel - October 2023
 * Ambos - December 2023
 * Wiese - January 2024
 * Platt - January 2024
 * Schabas - January 2024
 * Herik - January 2024
 * Cohen and Shany - January 2024
 * Walter - January 2024
 * Burke-White - February 2024
 * Feldmann - March 2024
 * Pfeifer/Weipert-Fenner/Williams - March 2024
 * Goldmann - April 2024
 * Hartwig and Müller - May 2024
 * Khan - June 2024
 * As a message to anyone reading this, if you can please add all of these into the article appropriately. I may eventually get round to it, but my focus is currently on English language journal articles. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 22:06, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much. From my comment above, there is also
 * Talmon - April 2024
 * Sassoli and Diggelmann - May 2024 FortunateSons (talk) 22:20, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * No problem. I'm kicking myself a bit for not thinking to look for German language sources previously, considering how regularly my edits and research projects involve using German and other non-English sources. Oh well. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 22:50, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Don’t, that way I got the opportunity to productively add to the article (once some take takes the time to actually source and cite them all) :)
 * Looking through German legal sources is also often difficult, I did the easy part first by using Google, having to actually use the digital libraries can be unpleasant. FortunateSons (talk) 22:58, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Also fine with new option 4, or closure due to recency of the last discussion. FortunateSons (talk) 18:20, 27 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Option 3 This is in line with the Tamil Genocide. SKAG123 (talk) 18:03, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Option 3 I agree with Levivich. I was also initially skeptical and assumed there was a lot more dispute amongst scholars. But the expert scholarship and reports that I have read do seem to overwhelmingly consider this probable or actual genocide. Both of the 2 citations in this wikipedia article for the assertion that there is a dispute are more than 6 months old. Rainsage (talk) 18:48, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Did you have a chance to look at the ones I cited? FortunateSons (talk) 19:15, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

So, I will support option 1 or 2 as above, as it is a matter of debate and discussion whether this is a genocide. I'm not saying it's not, just that there is too much debate for the few of us to come to a conclusion here, as we're not scholars. Paul Vaurie (talk) 22:57, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Option 3 as per others. Much less academically certain articles like Tamil genocide, Black genocide in the United States and Transgender genocide all do not have "accusation" or "question" in the title. MarkiPoli (talk) 07:47, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Option 2, followed by Option 1 as a second choice, as we should not imply by the title of the article that Wikipedia considers there to be a genocide going on in Gaza. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:33, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Option 3 I have nothing more to add than what has been said. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 21:12, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Option 1 slightly, then Option 2 The third is too strong for what is a fairly debateable question, and if anything, it's the Tamil article that should be toned down. Don't feel particularly strongly over 1 vs. 2, so whatever better helps form a hopefully enduring consensus is the one I prefer. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 21:35, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * And, I should note, the very nature of the question itself is a big part of the article. I am not participating further; I only commented as I was pinged, and this is an area I regretfully find myself in. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 21:48, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Option 3 per concise common name, that of "Genocide in Gaza" or "Gaza genocide" as the topic. Whether it's officially recognised as such by every country/scholar or not seems irrelevant, as the topic is still discussed and referenced as such. CNC (talk) 22:39, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * ABSOLUTE, CATEGORICAL REJECTION of option 3 — this should NOT be called Gaza genocide. This is, at best, editors not understanding that only mere accusations of genocide have been brought up in the Israel–Hamas war, and at worst, editors wanting to push a pro-Palestine narrative by categorizing the atrocities as genocide. Although I trust people to take their bias out, I feel that some have let their hearts drive their decision making (and their argumentation) in this discussion. The truth, whether kind or not, is that it has not been established by any widely-respected international organization that this is an actual genocide. That's why Palestinian genocide accusation is an accusation, not called "Palestinian genocide". My original intent in the RM was changing the latter part of the title, "2023 Israeli attack on Gaza", to something else, since the attack had gone past 2023...
 * We discuss sources here, not other editors. The term "Gaza genocide" appears in a large number of reliable sources and is thus presumably a valid encyclopaedic term, one that a global encyclopaedia should certainly include. It's perfectly possible to write an article about the Gaza genocide without much bias – much like, say, Armenian genocide (even though some Turks still complain about it, naturally). Overall, I fail to understand why you berate other editors who simply refer to reliable sources. — kashmīrī  <sup style="color:#80f;font-family:'Candara';">TALK  23:04, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Please ping. I agree that "Gaza genocide" is a presumably valid encyclopedic term. That does not mean it should be the title of the article. Because it's not the title doesn't mean it can't be discussed in the hypothetical "Gaza genocide question" article. I also agree that it's possible to write an article about the Gaza genocide question/accusations without much bias. However, the bias lies in calling it a genocide, when it's clearly not agreed that it is a genocide. Armenian genocide is not a fair comparison; virtually only the Turks (and a few others) exhibit Armenian genocide denial, and everyone else says it's a genocide. There are far more who are skeptical of an Israeli genocide against Gaza Palestinians than just Israel and its close allies. Respectfully, there are just as many reliable sources saying it's not been thoroughly established that it is a genocide as there are saying it is a genocide. We should wait further before categorizing the observed atrocities as genocide. Paul Vaurie (talk) 23:52, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The issue is, the article isn't about any question; it is about the developments that a large number of sources term as Gaza genocide. Wikipedia also offers articles about hypotethical topics. As an example, we don't wait for academic consensus before naming an article Anti-gravity, or try to frame its subject as "Anti-gravity question". As long as a term is subject of multiple reliabe publications, it's an encyclopaedic topic. By the way, "Gaza genocide question" fails WP:COMMONNAME. — kashmīrī  <sup style="color:#80f;font-family:'Candara';">TALK  00:32, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * In my vote above, I linked to a dozen genocide studies scholars saying it's genocide (plus there's the BU report and the UNHRC report). Some of us are (not me), as are many of the sources cited in this discussion. Levivich (talk) 23:13, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Option 3 As noted by others, the titling of this article without the words accusation or question will not preclude it from continuing to include sources arguing against the genocide classification. Given the international community's overwhelming recognition of the ongoing events as an active genocide, Options 1 and 2 unnecessarily set the article's tone toward doubt over the event, rather than allowing it to comprehensively cover its content. BluePenguin18 🐧  ( 💬 ) 02:51, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Strongly oppose option 3, since it's a very clear WP:POVNAME and WP:POVNAMING violation. It's not for us to determine whether a genocide is occurring; really the only questions here are
 * Whether genocide is a neutral term. There may be cases where a genocide is so obvious that there's no serious (non-fringe) disagreement about it; we're quite far from that. The article itself mentions opposing views from quite a few notable scholars, which I won't rehash here.
 * Whether "Gaza genocide" is a clear WP:COMMONNAME, used by a significant majority of English-language sources (in their own voices), in which case non-neutral titles are sometimes acceptable. Note that User:Levivich's point about WP:BESTSOURCES doesn't apply here, since academic or legal authorities don't dictate WP:COMMONNAMEs.
 * Policy violations aside, I think it's telling that approximately zero mainstream news sources, which tend to have similar aspirations of neutrality, are using "Gaza genocide" in their own voice. That should give us serious pause here. — xDanielx  T/C\R 04:50, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This is a mischaracterisation on both accounts. First, the terminology is actively disputed by almost imperceptibly few genocide scholars. Secondly, while "Gaza genocide" quite possibly is a common name, that isn't Levivich's principal assertion, which is instead that it is the consensus assessment and terminology in the relevant academic community – an assessment of consensus which WP:BESTSOURCES is very much applicable to. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:27, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Could you clarify which part you don't agree with? Is your position that (1) "Gaza genocide" is neutral, (2) "Gaza genocide" is a WP:COMMONNAME (or effectively a proper name), or that there's some other reason WP:POVNAME and WP:POVNAMING wouldn't apply?
 * I'm not convinced that there's a consensus among scholars here, but my broader point is that that's not the question we should be asking, since the sources with the most academic or legal authority do not dictate common names. — xDanielx  T/C\R 19:24, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * When the topic is the assertion of genocide by genocide scholars, the name of said genocide is the neutral term. What descriptive alternatives do you believe exist to an event being termed a genocide by genocide scholars? The only alternatives would surely be euphemistic. If sources are not discussing the topic of genocide then they are not discussing the topic. If they are discussing the topic, they are presumably either in agreement with or denial of the validity of the terminology. And even denials count towards the currency of the terminology. Regardless of whether the topic enjoys an affirming consensus or disputation, the mere discussion of the topic affirms its terminological validity. Ditto for the Tamil genocide, Black genocide in the United States and Transgender genocide, as others have noted. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:47, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It seems like an extraordinary claim to say that "genocide" is neutral. If there was a very strong consensus that the label was accurate, then perhaps a case can be made that no reasonable doubt exists, and the label is so obviously factual as to be neutral. I think we're extremely far from that, with plenty of notable scholars (a very significant minority) rejecting the genocide accusation. — xDanielx  T/C\R 23:25, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The label is pretty obviously factual at this point. We have genocidal acts livestreamed to the world, perpetrated by leaders who have openly made genocidal statements, with assessments from genocide experts that it is a genocide. Since you suggest that you have drawn up your own source list, who are your "plenty of notable scholars" (expecting relevant ones in the field of genocide scholars) saying otherwise? Iskandar323 (talk) 04:37, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * As well as with assessments from experts like Dov Waxman, Ben Kiernan and others that it is not a genocide. While they may be the minority, it's a significant minority containing quite a few respected scholars. In light of that, I really can't see how "genocide" could be considered neutral here. — xDanielx  T/C\R 05:21, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Have either of those two commented on the matter since November? Iskandar323 (talk) 06:20, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You may be interested in the papers published in the Journal of Genocide Research as part of the fora:
 * Gaza: International Humanitarian Law and Genocide
 * Israel-Palestine: Atrocity Crimes and the Crisis of Holocaust and Genocide Studies
 * The majority of them are published as open access articles. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 22:19, 24 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Option 3, because it's more concise and accurate. As shown by others in this thread, most genocide scholars – who are by far the most reliable sources on this topic – think Israel is committing genocide in Gaza. Therefore it's not really even a "question" any more, and it certainly is more than just an "accusation". Naturally there's a lot of politically motivated denialism from non-academic sources, but that applies to other genocides too, and shouldn't be given much weight. —  Trilletrollet  [ Talk &#124; Contribs ] 07:14, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * In the future we'll probably need an article about Gaza genocide denial. —  Trilletrollet  [ Talk &#124; Contribs ] 07:24, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * A few sources on the denial itself have already emerged.  Iskandar323 (talk) 07:33, 24 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Option 2, because its much more accurate than option 3, and much more natural sounding than option 1. TimeEngineer (talk) 07:28, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Option 1 I was pinged above as someone who's taken part in other discussions of genocide coverage on Wikipedia. I feel while there is a lack of consensus in reliable sources, we should go with "question" over just "Gaza genocide". It is not for Wikipedia editors to make these judgements: we have to follow RS. There are several important RS calling this "genocide", but there is clearly also significant pushback on that. "Question" allows us to focus on presenting what RS say. There are other articles that are called "X genocide" where there is less evidence for a genocide, but WP:OTHERSTUFF applies. I don't like "accusation" as it implies, to me, that the accusation may be false. "Question" better summarises an ongoing debate. If the balance of RS shifts, we can re-assess. Bondegezou (talk) 10:11, 24 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Projects Israel, Palestine and their collaboration has been re-notified, WP:Death has been notifiedFortunateSons (talk) 10:32, 24 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Option 3 per Ïvana, Iskandar323 and others who said it all. M.Bitton (talk) 14:19, 24 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment. This is not a valid RfC. It must include keeping status quo title as one of options. Otherwise, this is a loaded question like "Did you kill your wife or your neigbor? Please choose!". I think the title, whatever it might be, should include a reference to the specific event, i.e. 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza, rather than just "Gaza". My very best wishes (talk) 16:34, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It must include keeping status quo title as one of options We're well past that. Selfstudier (talk) 16:40, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Past where? Do we have a properly closed RfC saying that the current title must be changed? If not, this is an improper RfC. My very best wishes (talk) 16:45, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * There's a reason you are the only one saying that. Selfstudier (talk) 16:54, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I have seen this in several RfCs. Someone does not the like current version and therefore proposes several alternative versions, all of which fit his POV. Includiing the current (satus quo) version is always required. My very best wishes (talk) 21:48, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You do realize that this is an RM, right? That originally just asked the question what the title should be. Selfstudier (talk) 21:54, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The present title is a MOS:ALLEGED, WP:CONCISION-flouter. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:57, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Option 1 or 2 if one have to chose. My very best wishes (talk) 21:51, 24 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Option 1 or 2 per BilledMammal; strongly oppose option 3, which is a very WP:POVNAME and makes it sound like the question is settled. I prefer option 1, because it focuses on the uncertainty, the question; rather than accusations. Cremastra (talk) 17:48, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I have also pinged WP Human Rights as they explicitly mention genocides as part of their project remit. I've also formatted your messages to the other projects to provide a direct link for the mentioned "Three options" sub-section of discussion. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 18:19, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you FortunateSons (talk) 18:21, 24 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Option 3 or 1 We shoudl be following high quality sources and there are plenty of academic and other expert publication that call this event a genocide. Curiously, i couldn't find many that explicitly deny that this event is a genocide likely because the scholarly debate of genocide in Palastine focuses on stuff that happend before october 7th in all of Palestine, not just whats going on in Gaza since october. That said i don't object to leaving this open by using option 1 while we wait for the ICJ rulling—blindlynx 19:56, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I should add that i'm weary of trying to apply the 1948 definition of genocide to news articles or other publications when high quality sources don't explicitly weigh in one way or the other, it's synthy at best and is why we changed the list criteria over at list of genocides—blindlynx 20:12, 24 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Option 3 per sourcing provided by Levivich. Happy to change by !vote if enough sourcing to the contrary is provided.VR (Please ping on reply) 21:17, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Per this comment by . The German sources you seem to have presented as news sources, which are decidedly less reliable than articles published in peer-reviewed academic journals. WP:SOURCETYPES says "When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources." We need to be mindful of WP:FALSEBALANCE - we can't equate less reliable sources to more reliable ones.
 * While drafting an article that I'm working on, I came across yet another scholarly source that treats the Gaza genocide as a matter of fact.VR (Please ping on reply) 19:20, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for reviewing them. Of course, news papers (excluding Verfassungsblog, which does have some review policy) are often worse sources than peer-reviewed content. In this case, (particularly for the sources outside of the big mainstream newspapers) it’s less about the news orgs and more about the professors they cite. FortunateSons (talk) 19:37, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Jamshidi is on my list, it WILL be added to the article. I've just finished up my latest university module, and I am reading through the literature I've got for this as fast as I can, but I do also work full time, so unfortunately I'm not as fast as I would like.
 * As to 's sources, from the quick look I did on some of the articles, while they aren't publish in academic journals (which I'd really like), they are reputable sites, and we have statements and quotes from other scholars from similar quality sources already in the article. I have agreed to look at them in more detail tomorrow to provide a second opinion on them.
 * As a note, for now, we can have more detail from scholars et al. from such sources, but as time progresses and the academic literature increases in size, we would reduce the detail, and likely keep the citations for contextualisation of the development of the discussion. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 22:40, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Option 1 or 2 per WP:POVNAMING; other articles named in the format "X genocide" that are not widely recognized to definitely be genocides should be renamed too. Crossroads -talk- 00:59, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * According to the policy you referenced: "if a name is widely used in reliable sources (particularly those written in English) and is therefore likely to be well recognized by readers, it may be used even though some could regard it as biased. For example, the widely used names 'Boston Massacre', 'Teapot Dome scandal', and 'Jack the Ripper' are legitimate ways of referring to the subjects in question despite appearing to pass judgment." FunLater (talk) 07:37, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Option 3. Unlike Holodomor genocide question, given the ICJ case, it is not a question if the actions Israel is standing trial for constitutes a genocide or not, so option 1 is right out. Option 2 is a strong contender, but it isn't as if Israeli officials, soldiers etc haven't been extremely open and callous with their intentions. It is not an "accusation" to quote what someone has said openly. Finally, option 3 is shorter. KetchupSalt (talk) 09:33, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * To elaborate on option 2 some more, I think it would border on POV to insist that these are mere accusations. KetchupSalt (talk) 10:02, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @KetchupSalt Given that the ICJ has not yet ruled, it is still in question. Cremastra (talk) 18:20, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Whether it's a question or not should be stated in the lead, not after the common name. FunLater (talk) 18:36, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That's not the common name of the event. The common name is "Israel-Hamas war" or "Israeli attack on Gaza" and their variations. Vegan416 (talk) 18:41, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * We're already discussing this below. No need to discuss the same thing in two places. FunLater (talk) 18:44, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * But you are doing it in 2 places... Vegan416 (talk) 18:46, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The ICJ isn't the only RS that we should keep in mind. So far the ICJ hasn't said that it isn't a genocide. KetchupSalt (talk) 23:16, 25 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Option 1 (or 2), with the strongest possible opposition to Option 3. There is absolutely no consensus anywhere that there is a genocide here. Option 3 would be an extreme violation of NPOV. Vegan416 (talk) 11:13, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * We don't usually need to have evidence or consensus to have articles about supposed or speculative subjects. There's no evidence of anti-gravity, yet we have an article titled Anti-gravity, right? — kashmīrī  <sup style="color:#80f;font-family:'Candara';">TALK  15:41, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Then why for example the article Atrocities in the Congo Free State is not called Congo genocide? After all many people regard it as such. Or why the article Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is not called the Hiroshima and Nagasaki genocide? There are people who think it was a genocide. And as you know I could being more examples like this. Vegan416 (talk) 17:13, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Other articles should follow relevant article policies (such as COMMONNAME). If they don't, then they should be renamed. FunLater (talk) 17:21, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This article should follow these policies too. The common name of the subject at hand is the Israeli-Hamas war, or variations thereof. Vegan416 (talk) 17:25, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Er no, the subject at hand is the significant view that Israel is committing a genocide. Selfstudier (talk) 17:38, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * If the subject at hand is the view that Israel is committing a genocide. Then the proper name should be "Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza", and there is no need to change anything. Vegan416 (talk) 18:09, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I used the words "significant view" for a reason. If a significant view to the contrary can be demonstrated rather than mish mash comments of no account, I would be happy to look at that. Selfstudier (talk) 18:16, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I saw quite a few sources to the contrary brought here in the discussion. e.g. by FortunateSons and others. Vegan416 (talk) 18:22, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I saw some urls, no idea what they say, they are in German, let me know when you have translated them. Plus German views only is hardly a significant view, is it? Selfstudier (talk) 18:32, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Look again. People brought sources in English as well. They are scattered all over this long discussion. Plus the German ones are easily readable. Don't you have an auto-translator install in your Chrome? When I have more time I'll try to collect all the sources here into one list and also add other sources from my own findings. But now I have to go to sleep. Had a long day in real life. Vegan416 (talk) 18:48, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It’s German and Swiss, and I would say this is definitely enough to be significant. I could also look for Israeli once if you want linguistic diversity, but my Hebrew is nothing to call home about. FortunateSons (talk) 18:50, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh, this is the subsection on FortunateSon's sources. As I've said above:
 * The sources, from the quick look I did on some of the articles, while they aren't publish in academic journals (which I'd really like), they are reputable sites, and we have statements and quotes from other scholars from similar quality sources already in the article. I have agreed to look at them in more detail tomorrow to provide a second opinion on them.
 * As a note, for now, we can have more detail from scholars et al. from such sources, but as time progresses and the academic literature increases in size, we would reduce the detail, and likely keep the citations for contextualisation of the development of the discussion. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 22:51, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Armenian genocide and World War I are two articles. They cover different topics and don't have enough OVERLAP to justify a merge, similar to Israel–Hamas war and Gaza genocide. FunLater (talk) 17:42, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * No. The Armenian genocide was a small part of WW1 (to the extent it was connected at all to it). The speculative "Gaza genocide" in Gaza is not al all separable from the "Israeli-Hamas war". These are just two different views on the very same thing. It is similar to Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and Hiroshima and Nagasaki genocide. Vegan416 (talk) 18:13, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * More mish mash irrelevancies. Selfstudier (talk) 18:17, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * What a well reasoned argument... Vegan416 (talk) 18:21, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Gaza genocide is only a part of Israel–Hamas war. Israel–Hamas war is about the conflict in general, including conflict in the West Bank, Lebanon, Yemen and the Red Sea, Iraq, Syria, and Iran.
 * OVERLAP would be a reason to merge. But there isn't enough overlap, and the Israel–Hamas war article would be too big if they were merged. FunLater (talk) 18:26, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Not al all. The name Israel-Hamas war is about the war between Israel and Hamas, not about the war between Israel and Hezbollah or Iran. Furthermore, even if you think otherwise than clearly there is a complete overlap between "Gaza genocide" and "Israeli attack on Gaza" or variations thereof, which are the more common name for this event. Vegan416 (talk) 18:35, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * We have an article about the Ottoman Empire in World War I, which has a rather significant overlap with the Armenian, Assyrian and Greek genocides. —  Trilletrollet  [ Talk &#124; Contribs ] 18:40, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It perhaps should be the "Congo/ Congolese genocide". An estimated 10 million people died. "It was indeed a holocaust before Hitler's Holocaust ..." And certainly one of the great crimes of the 20th century. That a page title exists does not imply it is well chosen. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:13, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * "Then why for example the article Atrocities in the Congo Free State is not called Congo genocide?"


 * In fact that article did once refer to it as a genocide, but a certain Wikipedian whose Belgian great(-great?)-grandpa (or some such ancestor) served in the Belgian Army in the Congo insisted that there was no way his sweet old great grandpa would ever do a genocide, and because that page has so few eyes on it he was able to get away with impressing his very non-neutral POV on the article. That is almost certainly akin to what is happening here, actually, with certain (but not all) individuals voting for option 1. Brusquedandelion (talk) 21:57, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Please AGF, and either self-revert or strike this. FortunateSons (talk) 22:00, 27 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Option 2, then option 1. This is expressly an article about an accusation of genocide, not about a genocide itself (if this is one). AndyBloch (talk) 22:27, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I think you forgot Option 4: Allegations of genocide of Gazans during the Israel-Hamas war, which has a precedent with Allegations of genocide of Ukrainians in the Russo-Ukrainian War
 * Of the three options that were provided, I would go with #2 since the article is about accusations. Wafflefrites (talk) 23:46, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The article doesn't discuss allegations. It's not a literature study. It discusses acts of the Israeli military. — kashmīrī  <sup style="color:#80f;font-family:'Candara';">TALK  18:12, 27 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Option 2 or 3 2 because there is already a Palestinian genocide accusation that has not as yet changed its title, and 3 because there is a significant view in sources that Israel is committing a genocide and I have not as yet seen a sufficiency of sources saying that Israel is not committing a genocide. Selfstudier (talk) 17:48, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Option 1 or 2: There are muliple sources that dispute this characterisation (see the lists by u:FortunateSons above) so per WP:NPOV we should avoid giving the article a name that makes the reader think that there is no debate about it. It's certainly not a common name, if needed I can produce dozens of articles describing the conflict without calling it a genocide. The argument that some other article is called "X genocide" should be ignored, as NPOV, as one of the main policies, trumps consistency. Alaexis¿question? 19:56, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * We're not describing the conflict, we're describing the systematic killing of, harming of, and deprivation of the conditions necessary to support the life of Palestinians in Gaza. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:17, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * And "lists" don't do it for me. Plus apparently they are newspapers or some such, nobody seems to know. Selfstudier (talk) 20:31, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * For the sake of convenience and improved argumentation to convince people on the fence here, is somebody here please willing to create a complete list of all the reliable academic and official sources which state that this is a genocide that editors here have collectively found and listed above, both the ones with and without direct links provided?
 * In order to get anywhere here, we also likely need to check through the links provided by FortunateSons to see which ones that have any authority behind them, and which ones that are mere news articles with journalists parrotting standardised unreliable propaganda. David A (talk) 22:22, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I’m working on the second part on my talk page. Anyone speaking German is welcome to join, and I permit additions to the table by anyone who feels they have the required knowledge (but it’s my talk page, so the usual rules apply). FortunateSons (talk) 22:27, 25 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Option 2 per Cremastra. I could feasibly agree to option 1, but I fear it has an unfortunate parallel. I fear option 3 implies too much the question is settled (and I don't think other articles having the same flaw in their title justifies it happening here). — <i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i> (<i style="color:#8000FF">music</i>) 12:42, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * As it's been mentioned above, I would also advocate option 4. — <i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i> (<i style="color:#8000FF">music</i>) 16:26, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment Would the closer please also ~take into account as part of this RM the sources and associated commentary in the section of 15 June, which took place while this RM was in progress. Or editor  might be persuaded to copy that material to this RM in a collapsed box? Selfstudier (talk) 18:29, 26 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Option 2. It is the clearest. I think the raised examples like transgender genocide should also include clear qualifiers in their titles that define the article's scope as a notion or debate, not an event in history. ꧁ Zanahary ꧂ 05:19, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Option 4 then Option 2 and then Option 1. Option 4 is best because it's completely neutral and states clearly exactly what it is. Option 2 then because is the only of the 3 options given above thats actually neutral and not taking a side in highly debated dispute. Option 1 isn't amazing because it makes it sound like (as does the example) that for certain a genocide occured, but the question is intent, which is not neutral either. Option 3 is completely not neutral whatsoever. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 13:47, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support options 2 and 4, extremely strong oppose to option 3: Israel has not been committing genocide (the intentional causing of death of people due to their ancestry, or to some physical characteristic which is correlated with ancestry) in ghe Gaza Strip. Israel has been attacking terrorists who use innocent civilians as human shields, and are frequently ambushed by groups of terrorists shooting from populated buildings. Israel is also trying to destroy and/or confiscate weapons intended by terrorists to use against its civilians and its soldiers, which are frequently hidden in civilian buildings. Options 2 and 4 represent the unfortunate fact that some significant individuals and groups are accusing Israel of genocide, without giving anh claim to the validity of these accusations. Option 1 suggests that there may possibly be some validity fo the accusations, while option 3 endorses these accusations. Animal lover &#124;666&#124; 18:18, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This is WP:OR, genocide minimalization, and victim blaming. Brusquedandelion (talk) 21:53, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * How is this OR. There are a lot of people who would agree with both of your positions. While I do feel like this vote is partly based on opinion, ultimately many of these arguements are valid. 2 and 4 do support that "some significant individuals and groups are accusing Israel of genocide" and indeed avoid the issue of assigning validity to 1 opinion over another (which would non be neutral). Option 1 does indeed suggest there may be some validity and 3 does endorse those accusations (and therefore is not neutral). Genocide minimalization and victim blaming are you're own opinions. @Brusquedandelion Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 18:04, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:OR is a content policy; it doesn't apply to talk page arguments like this, since they're not content, and not proposing any content. — xDanielx  T/C\R 05:05, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Still, arguments in move discussions need to be based either on policy or on sources, and not on "because I say so". — kashmīrī  <sup style="color:#80f;font-family:'Candara';">TALK  07:01, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The OR talk page exception doesn't mean that you can avoid policy/sourcing questions, just that one can engage in some limited OR to back up legitimate argument. Selfstudier (talk) 08:46, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm aware of everything you said. Yet everything I said is true. Something can be original research without running afoul of any Wikipedia policy. Brusquedandelion (talk) 10:58, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Brusquedandelion, you are begging the question. There is a heated debate if this is indeed a genocide. Vegan416 (talk) 07:05, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * There is, which in fact supports option 3. In addition, we have sources stating that there is a legal academic and international consensus on the matter. Selfstudier (talk) 08:45, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The debate of course negates option 3 as I have shown in parallel recent articles. And we also have sources that state there is no consensus. Which means by definition there is no consensus Vegan416 (talk) 09:02, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Nope, lots of usage, by whatever side, supports Option 3 as a topic. Multiple sources state that there is a consensus among the academic, legal and international community so I don't know who is saying otherwise, other than yourself of course. Selfstudier (talk) 09:16, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Some of the sources you brought yourself are saying there is no consensus. E.g. McDoom and El-Affendi and CBC. As I have shown you before. Vegan416 (talk) 09:57, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Saying that there is disagreement or division is not the same as saying there is not a consensus. There is a consensus, we have sources saying so. Are there individual sources disagreeing, yes there are, but they are a minority view, not the majority. Selfstudier (talk) 11:05, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. The sources which you yourself brought do not describe this is a minor disagreement by a neligent minority. They describe it as a major rift that threatens in their view the very existence of the field of genocide studies. Vegan416 (talk) 11:34, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The debate exists because there is sufficient evidence of genocidal crimes and sufficient demonstration of genocidal intent that more genocide scholars than not and more Middle East scholars than not, alongside other relevant organisations and groupings, have come out in favour of determining that there is a genocide. I don't see many (or any) sources suggesting that there have been no acts committed with the obvious tint of genocidal intent. There is really no other way to describe the wholesale destruction of mosques, schools, universities, hospitals and all the other mainstays of civic society, in addition to the unabashed use of starvation as a weapon of war. The only real "debate" is on the extent of the genocide, and where military actions end and the genocidal acts begin. The Bosnian genocide was ultimately only prosecuted in the courts of law on the basis of the Srebrenica massacre – a single genocidal act. In Gaza, the are already legion. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:56, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * There are many sources that say the opposite of what you said. Look at the list of the sources. And more are coming soon. Vegan416 (talk) 09:59, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Genocide denial is the hallmark of every genocide. No one with vested interests in a certain political system wants to admit that the political system they support is responsible for genocide. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:30, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, people with strong genuine senses of ethics tend to do so, but please carry on. My apologies for interrupting. David A (talk) 10:39, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You are begging the question. You cannot accuse the academics who do not agree that there is genocide in "genocide denial" when there is no consensus that there is genocide. You know, I could answer you that Antisemitism is the hallmark of every accusation against the Jews from the times of the classis blood libels till the Gaza genocide blood libel. Some scholars have talked in such language, But that would not lead us anywhere. So please stop the inflammatory language of "genocide denial". Vegan416 (talk) 10:37, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Speaking as somebody with a half-Jewish heritage, no member of any group, including Jews, should have the special right to do whatever they want to innocent people, and then accuse anybody who points it out of being a bigot. David A (talk) 10:46, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Of course. And yet there are indications that much of what is behind the genocide accusation is related to antisemitism. Anyway this is off-topic as I explained. I just showed Iskandar that inflammatory language can be used on both sides, so he should avoid it. Vegan416 (talk) 10:50, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * "Genocide denial" with respect to Gaza has been quite well discussed in various sources, not least in the last 24 hours with the US Congress move to forbid the state department from mentioning the Gaza death toll. "Blood libel" as a topic has only been brought up in the context of the illiterate defence made by Israel's legal team in attempting to block the South African genocide case – so a puerile assertion from the mouth of the genocider that has already been dismissed in court. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:05, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @David A Maybe you '' be interested in reading this scholar in here Vegan416 (talk) 11:43, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It would be helpful if you provided articles that can be read. And Illouz is of the opinion there is at least incitement to genocide. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 12:33, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Vegan416: Can you please stop going in circles? You've been explained time and again that subjects of encyclopaedic articles are not limited to topics for which there is "global academic consensus". Encyclopaedias, including Wikipedia, contain topics that are debatable, controversial, uncertain, or non-mainstream as long as they are widely discussed in reliable sources. No, we do not and will not wait for a "global consensus" before adding it to Wikipedia. Sorry if that's a disappointment. — kashmīrī  <sup style="color:#80f;font-family:'Candara';">TALK  10:52, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You seem to confused. This is not an AfD about whether the article should stay. This is a discussion about changing the title. And have shown that your claim is not true with regard to what is accepted in Wikipedia regarding recent (and sometimes even old) undecided and debated claims for genocide, where the titles don't use the format "X genocide". Such as: Allegations of genocide of Ukrainians in the Russo-Ukrainian War, Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel, Atrocities in the Congo Free State. So, according to Consistency in article titles we should leave the title here as it is now. Vegan416 (talk) 11:32, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Consistency does not really apply when you are talking about only a small clutch of only potentially correctly named pages. I certainly have no problem calling the Congelese genocide what it is, and as I understand from someone else's explanation somewhere on this page, that current title is the result of a Belgian editor looking to lessen the crimes of his grandfather. That leaves the Ukraine case that I have little knowledge of, and the Hamas-led attack one that was presumably created in mimicry of the Ukraine one. This page was presumably named in mimicry again. That leaves us with a single example followed by two copy-paste formats – not something to presumptively imitate. On the contrary, there are far more pages named simply as "X genocide", making that a far more widespread and consistent format. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:31, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Vegan416 The titles you quoted are a perfect illustration of the fact that Wikipedia article titles don't have to enjoy academic consensus. — kashmīrī  <sup style="color:#80f;font-family:'Candara';">TALK  11:16, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Many of the sources that state it is not a genocide, are using the UN Convention, which is not the only metric for declaring something a genocide. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 12:29, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * People not agreeing on something does not make it false. This is elementary. Brusquedandelion (talk) 10:56, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Option 3, i.e. Support a move, with Gaza genocide as the new title (it does seem like the "support" part just became assumed at some point, but considering that this section has had the vast majority of the activity in this discussion, and I've only noticed a couple of comments complaining about this, I think it's safe to say that a quite broad consensus has been established that there should be some kind of renaming, at least). I don't really have anything new to add that hasn't already been said, but I would like to highlight that and  made what is in my opinion the most compelling argument in favor of Option 3: that as far as the title is concerned, the question of whether there truly is a scholarly consensus in favor of designating Israel's actions genocide is in an important sense irrelevant. As  put it, if a suspected genocide is sufficiently discussed by scholars, it is a topic, and shouldn't be overbearingly couched in the trappings of "accusation", and as  said, [w]hether it's officially recognised as such by every country/scholar or not seems irrelevant, as the topic is still discussed and referenced as such. For this reason I don't think the discussion of the scholarly consensus question, as important as it is to the content of the article, should at all delay closing the discussion on the name of the article. Most, if not all, of the arguments I've seen in favor of the other options seem to be premised on the idea that the name Gaza genocide somehow inherently endorses the claim of genocide, rather than simply concisely identifying the topic under discussion. I find this incredibly unconvincing and I'm inclined to agree with  that [t]he current title and options 1 [Gaza genocide question, for clarity] and 2 [Gaza genocide accusation] aren't for disambiguation, but for casting MOS:DOUBT. Though for what it's worth, even if "consensus" is a high bar, I think the information that has been shared here on how experts are leaning is strong enough to suggest that the argument that one or more of the other new title options are simply the proper WP:NPOV is WP:FALSEBALANCE.  Kinsio  ( talk  ★  contribs ) 20:20, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * So, therefore, anything discussed by a bunch of scholars (a lot of things, including obviously untrue ones) should be treated (at least in the title) as undisputed fact? That is in no way neutral. Gaza genocide says (quite clearly) that there is, indeed, a genocide, in a place called Gaza. Does it not? @Kinsio Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 20:34, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Titles don't contain facts, and are not truth claims. They are merely titles that identify the topic and comply with WP: CRITERIA. As has already been raised here as an example, anti-gravity is a title despite it describing a hypothetical phenomena because the base term is sufficient to identify the subject: adding "theory" or what not would be unnecessary disambiguation that would not add precision in terms of topic identification, but would detract from concision. The base term is amply natural and recognisable by itself. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:42, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * "Titles don't contain facts" - Yes, because they also should pretend something is a fact. For example a title with "Hitler was fake" - May identify the topic (people thinking he was fake) but does also make it seem like were claiming that he was, in fact, fake. @Iskandar323 Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 20:50, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * "Hitler is fake" is a complete sentence. "Gaza genocide" is not. Suppose someone were to say, "There is no Gaza genocide." (Thus doing the exact opposite of saying that it is a fact.) What would you say is the topic addressed by that sentence, keeping in mind MOS:DOUBT and WP:CONCISE?  Kinsio  ( talk  ★  contribs ) 20:58, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The topic of people saying there is not, in fact, a genocide in Gaza. Fine, maybe that wasn't a great example. What if an article title was "America genocide". Identifies the topic (people thinking theres a genocide in/of america/americans), and theres probably some scholar at some point who agreed with that, but that still makes it seems as though virtually everyone agress that a genocide exist in america @Kinsio Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 21:02, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I respectfully disagree that that would [make] it seem as though virtually everyone agrees that a genocide exists. A title like American genocide allegations or American genocide accusation, on the other hand, certainly seems to imply a claim made with "little or no proof" and so should be avoided in a descriptive title per WP:NDESC.  Kinsio  ( talk  ★  contribs ) 21:38, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * No, allegations and accusations imply that some people have said X, but a bunch of people disagreee with X. Also, the quote is for non-criminal cases, which genocide it not. @Kinsio Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 22:50, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * "Epstein didn't kill himself" is an article title that states a controversial fact, but still follows the title policies, including those regarding using the common name. FunLater (talk) 09:40, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It's literally not a fact, and it's a title here not in any way in relation to its veracity, but purely in relation to it being the recognizable meme name. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:24, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I think that was just some unfortunate wording on 's part. Their point is substantially the same if you replace controversial fact with something like controversial assertion.  Kinsio  ( talk  ★  contribs ) 14:49, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Ah. Maybe. That would make more sense. I might have picked up the wrong end of the stick given that it came after other talk of facts. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:54, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Upon thought, this is a surprisingly good example, actually. The fundamental error that I feel is being made by many here (which becomes much more salient in the case of an article title that actually is a complete sentence) is insufficient appreciation for the use–mention distinction.  Kinsio  ( talk  ★  contribs ) 14:44, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * No, because that's an article about the meme. The meme is "Epstein didn't kill himself". However, if the article was about conspiracy theroies about Epstein death, (as this is closer to) than that title would be inappropriate. The meme is more referring to the theories than it is a theory itself @Kinsio@Iskandar323@FunLater Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 15:08, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This seems like an unusual case which falls under an exception to WP:POVNAME, namely that if the fact that a given description has effectively become a proper name, then using the "effectively proper" name isn't likely to be interpreted as validation of the associated point of view.
 * A more similar example would be something like Joe Biden sexual assault allegation. Can we agree that renaming that to Joe Biden sexual assaults would be problematic? Titles are not explicit statements, but they often imply things, and those implications can run afoul of NPOV. — xDanielx  T/C\R 05:28, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This is apples and oranges, a debate across academic, legal and international scholarship cannot be compared with some two bit scandal. Selfstudier (talk) 08:49, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * At the level of individual crimes, the potential for BLP violations emerge as the principle concern. There is a strict requirement for crimes to be successfully prosecuted in court before they can described as such here. For crimes at the country level, only a minority every make it to court due to the complexity of prosecution, the number of moving parts, the difficulty of evidence gathering, and political obfuscation and interference. I believe only two genocides have ever reached courts. Most determinations of war crimes and crimes against humanity are ultimately made by academic and legal communities in the forums of appropriate scholarship. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:08, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Granted there are some differences, but the similarity is that both (hypothetical) titles, Gaza genocide and Joe Biden sexual assaults, imply a non-neutral statement, namely that there is (or was) a genocide in Gaza, and Joe Biden committed sexual assaults. The latter would still be problematic even if we had no BLP policy.
 * This is in contrast to certain other titles, like Epstein didn't kill himself, Anti-gravity, or say Nihilism. Since those are all essentially names of a viewpoint (or effectively [...] proper names), readers aren't likely to interpret them as implying anything about the validity of the viewpoint. — xDanielx  T/C\R 21:22, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Option 3, i.e. Support a move to Gaza genocide, per David A, The Great Mule of Eupatoria, Ïvana, Kashmiri, Iskandar323, and others. It simply high time to call a spade a spade! Brusquedandelion (talk) 21:52, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Option 1 or 2, per WP:WEIGHT. If there's an investigation by the ICC, the ICJ or another ruling by an international body, Option 3 can be reconsidered. --NoonIcarus (talk) 17:21, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think WP:WEIGHT makes sense in reference to a page title. International law is also not the only relevant sense of the term genocide here.  Kinsio  ( talk  ★  contribs ) 17:54, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:WEIGHT does make sense, a lot of it. Gaza genocide agrees with the claim that there is a genocide happening in the area called Gaza. It does give undue weight to this claim over the other claim of there is not a genocide happening in the are called Gaza. This is why we need something like question, allegation, or accusation. The only way (I think) to avoid giving undue weight with the reasonable size of a title is to have it just mention that some people think something and in the body go into detail on who thinks what thing. Some people think something neither agrees with or disagrees with the thing they think. @Kinsio Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 17:59, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Given that MOS:DOUBT exists, the cause for expressing doubt needs to be pretty overwhelming to lead the title down the presumptive doubt route. And how many genocide scholars do we have actively doubting the assertion (and not just saying it may be tricky to determine in court for ... reasons)? Iskandar323 (talk) 21:12, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * MOS:DOUBT doesn't use language like "overwhelming" that would suggest a high bar for justifying expressions of doubt. To the contrary, it says alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined, such as with people awaiting or undergoing a criminal trial. — xDanielx  T/C\R 05:37, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * To be fair, there does seem to exist a 75% academic consensus that this is a genocide among scholars that are experts in the area, and there have also been official statements from the ICC, the UN, and various relief and human rights organisations. I do not think that we should wait for years well after the fact to apply this title merely because the ICJ is dragging out its final judgement regarding the issue. David A (talk) 06:32, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * We don't know that there is 75% academic consensus. Neither did the ICC make any decision on this. And the ICJ seems to think this is not a genocide. It didn't order Israel to sop the war despite SA repeated requests. Plus see here Vegan416 (talk) 06:44, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * See here please. Also, as I said above, we should not be dependent on waiting on a final judgement from the ICJ alone, when so many other reliable organisations and experts have made affirmative statements. David A (talk) 07:06, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * And there many other reliable experts that object to these "affirmative statements". Anyway, nothing will happen if we wait till ICJ ruling. We are not in a hurry. There is no deadline Vegan416 (talk) 07:15, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Only 4% of all expert scholars seem to agree with you that the government and military of Israel is justified in its current actions, regardless how much propagandistic media focuses mainly on quoting this minority. Also, all of the tens of thousands of civilian children that are systematically being slaughtered by them are definitely in a hurry, and the ICJ is still not the only globally relevant authority regarding the issue. You are engaging in semantics rather than substance here. David A (talk) 07:24, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. We have already explained elsewhere the probable bias of the poll you mentioned. Plus it only surveyed Middle Eastern scholars which are just one of the many scholarly fields relevant to the discussion (genocide studies, international law, military experts etc.), and I would argue probably the least qualified among them to judge about the question of genocide. Even so, only a third of them chose the option "genocide" when given the choice...
 * As for your claim: "The tens of thousands of civilian children that are systematically being slaughtered by them are definitely in a hurry". You do realize that whatever changes we make to the title of this article will have 0 immediate effect on the situation on the ground, and won't help these children in any way? But anyway this sentence of yours exposed that your motivation for changing the title is purely political and not scholarly, in violation of WP:NPOV. Vegan416 (talk) 07:37, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I haven't seen any valid refutation of that poll's reliability, nor do I agree that Middle East scholars are less qualified to evaluate this topic. Also, everybody here, including you, have a personal viewpoint/"bias", and mine happens to be humanitarian/empathy- and conscience-driven. That doesn't remotely mean that I am not attempting to find the most reliable academic sources to help us properly evaluate this issue, especially given my autistic obsession with statistics, and if you or others here find any reliable surveys that also list the average viewpoints of, for example, genocide scholars, feel free to add them to the section below that I linked to here. David A (talk) 07:56, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The ICJ did very expressly tell Israel to stop perpetrating acts of harm using the exact same language as the genocide convention, so to stop perpetrating genocidal acts, as well as to stop destroying the evidence of its genocidal acts, and to punish those guilty of making genocidal statements. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:13, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That's an invalid argument for an article title. The only question is whether an article title is derived from reliable sources, clearly Option 2 is because Palestinian genocide question exists (Gaza is a current subset). Option 1 is hardly represented in sourcing at all while Gaza genocide is clearly sourced both within the article and in this discussion as well. Selfstudier (talk) 18:08, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * There is plenty of people/sources that don't believe there is a genocide in gaza. The point is that there is significant sourcing. Would you find it unreasonable to rename it to "Not A Genocide in Gaza"? Yes (I would too). Because it does the same thing as Option 3. It picks on side and gives undue weight to it in the title. @Selfstudier Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 18:13, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Second time of asking, kindly stop pinging me. Selfstudier (talk) 18:15, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I forgot. Used to pinging people (almost did it again) Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 18:16, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Different things are different. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 18:24, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * What? Really! My point was that this is a similar example, just with a bias toward the other side. @Cdjp1 Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 18:26, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Different things are different. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 18:33, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Persistently restating the obvious is not an arguement @Cdjp1 Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 18:45, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * How true. Selfstudier (talk) 18:47, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It is a valid argument if we're considering WP:COMMONTERM, the title should be the less controversial one. However, if the community decides otherwise, that's alright. --NoonIcarus (talk) 18:35, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @NoonIcarus: There is an investigation by these two bodies. Will you consider Option 3 now? — kashmīrī  <sup style="color:#80f;font-family:'Candara';">TALK  13:03, 29 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Option 3: There is academic consensus, plus non-Western and progressive-Western sources of there being a genocide. But also, sources widely refer to the accusations of genocide, mostly in terms of the ICJ case, as the "Gaza genocide" case.
 * See:
 * Palestinians seek to join Gaza genocide case at World Court, Reuters
 * Spain says to join South Africa’s Gaza genocide case against Israel at ICJ, Aljazeera
 * ICJ’s Gaza genocide case – big win, but with what effect?, ISS Africa
 * The top UN court has ruled on Gaza genocide case. Here’s what happens now, CNBC
 * The San Fransisco chronicle also called a domestic case against Biden the "Gaza genocide case", again showing that accusations are usually called Gaza genocide.
 * The Times of Israel used Gaza genocide as a shorthand for the accusations as well. "US says ‘no evidence’ of Gaza genocide, but wants Israel to deliver on aid long-term"
 * Personisinsterest (talk) 19:37, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Except there is NO academic consensus that there is a genocide, as had been shown here extensively. Plus there is no non-Western consensus on that either. Vegan416 (talk) 19:49, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * There's no academic consensus? Anyway, here's some non-Western sources that use the term "Gaza genocide":
 * , Morocco World News
 * , Aljazeera
 * , Clarion India
 * , Arab Times Kuwait
 * , The Friday Times
 * , Free Press Kashmir
 * , Samaa
 * , Radio Havana Cuba
 * , Venezuelanalysis
 * , Daily News Egypt
 * , The New Arab
 * Personisinsterest (talk) 23:44, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I would like to clarify that the term "Gaza genocide" was used by others who believe it is a genocide and as such the media has used it as a shorthand for the actions they describe. "US says no evidence of Gaza genocide" implies that Gaza genocide is a common term for the actions committed by Israel. Personisinsterest (talk) 20:53, 30 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Option 2. Option 1 sounds unnatural. Strongly oppose Option 3 for now per the other comments above and WP:POVNAME/WP:POVNAMING. I would prefer to see widespread use of the term 'Gaza genocide' (or 'genocide in Gaza', etc.)—without attribution and in their own 'voice'—by reliable, mainstream news outlets (e.g. AP, BBC, CNN, NYT, NPR) first before I can support Option 3. Some1 (talk) 20:04, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Option 3 Per Levivich and Selfstudier's citation of the Brookings Institute poll. There are two aspects of genocide arguments, the legal and the historiographical. There is no reason why the restricted legal question should form the only benchmark, given the existence of two evaluations, juridical and scholarly, that have different premises. This should be made quite clear in the lead if we choose the option of "Genocide in Gaza".Genocide in Gaza in the legal sense is not proven, thought the threat of it occurring is significantly recognized by many legal scholars. One reason scholars of genocide disagree is that they are not bound by the Lemkinesque terms that underwrite the (arguably inadequate) international framework of the convention on what constitutes genocide. Its inadequacy for historically minded scholars is that the legal use was enacted and supported by states, which are not neutral and have what they perceive as security interests to defend.(*note below) As one of the foremost scholars of the topic states, 'Throughout the five-hundred-year history of Western empires, the security of European colonizers has trumped the security and independence of the colonized.'( A. Dirk Moses, More than Genocide:The law occludes the abhorrent violence routinely perpetrated by states in the name of self-defense, Boston Review 14 November 2023) which all here should read if they haven't already. In choosing option 3, I am persuaded that historians are better judges of the long comparative evidence across the globe, than the involved states which have customarily resorted to forms of 'civilized' attrition, and protected its implementation behind a restrictive legal framework which supports their ongoing violence.Nishidani (talk) 20:54, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * (note> 'I have described at length the processes by which “genocide” was redefined during the drafting process of the UN Genocide Convention between 1946 and 1948. As I have explained elsewhere, the US delegation’s attempt to split the concept of genocide into two different concepts – cultural genocide and physical genocide – was an elaborate ploy to remove from the definition of genocide aspects of Lemkin’s ideas that the US delegation found objectionable. Indeed, the US delegation, along with the Soviet Union and the UK, did not want to enshrine a treaty into international law that criminalized the destruction of human groups as sociological entities. Lemkin began using this term “cultural genocide,” but always in the sense that attacking a culture was a way of committing genocide, and not a different type of genocide. But, as I have argued previously, the fact that Lemkin began using the term “cultural genocide” lent legitimacy to the notion that there was such a thing as two kinds of genocide, the physical and the non-physical. Douglas Irvin-Erickson, 'Raphaël Lemkin: Culture and cultural genocide,' in Jeffrey S. Bachman (ed.), Cultural Genocide: Law, Politics, and Global Manifestations,  Routledge  2019  ISBN 978-1-351-21410-0  pp.21-44, 21-22.Nishidani (talk) 21:29, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Option 2 then 3. 1 would be a misrepresentation of RSs. Putting my personal impression aside, it remains a question until sources explicitly agree or the ICJ rules Kowal2701 (talk) 20:15, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Ultimately too many sources describe it without using the word genocide Kowal2701 (talk) 20:18, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Difficult to discuss it at all without using the word, even if one disagrees with it. Selfstudier (talk) 08:51, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Kowal2701: Do you indeed mean that "many sources" discuss the allegations of genocide (i.e., the current subject of this article) without using the term "genocide"? Could you clarify please? — kashmīrī  <sup style="color:#80f;font-family:'Candara';">TALK  09:05, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I based that off of the sources table below, I’m not intimate with the literature Kowal2701 (talk) 09:08, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I meant that too many sources don’t explicitly term it a genocide Kowal2701 (talk) 09:13, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Agree that there is a significant minority view that it is not a genocide, if that's what you mean. There are clear sources saying there is a consensus in scholarly and international communities. Selfstudier (talk) 09:19, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * From a reader POV, I think having the title as a question, and then the article answering that question is more valuable. Because the big news media is generally in that minority, a reader might sense strong bias and be less than charitable to the content of the article Kowal2701 (talk) 09:28, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The "big news media" generally avoid taking any positions one way or the other and do what we do, presenting both sides of the argument and it is right that they should do that. The WP:SCOPE is the title plus the first sentence(s) usually, a title by itself carries no implication, as I think someone said having an article Antigravity does not mean that it exists and if you look at the scope, the first sentence reads "Anti-gravity (also known as non-gravitational field) is a hypothetical phenomenon..." Selfstudier (talk) 09:36, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * In that case I support option 3 provided this continues to adhere to NPOV Kowal2701 (talk) 09:39, 30 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Option 2 (first choice) or Option 1 (second choice) Per WP:POVTITLE, we should not be taking sides regarding the events of the conflict and should rather be making it clear that it is a debate between competing sources. Let&#39;srun (talk) 14:44, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Option 2 (option 1 is okay too). As long as the article prose says:, and , we can not permit the title to be "Gaza genocide" because that would constitute a POV-fork relative the article content as such a title would not match the topic as described in the prose. These sentences should be worded something like: "The State of Israel has committed genocide against Palestinians during its invasion and bombing of the Gaza Strip", and "Most scholars agree that Israel's actions constitute a genocide against the Palestinians" for the title "Gaza genocide" to match the content of the article and be consistent with WP:NDESC. If there is a consensus of scholars, say it in the article, then change the name. I am willing to revise this comment if the article changes, and I might change it myself (less likely).—Alalch E. 15:05, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Option 3 seems the only appropriate title, given ICJ and other investigations. Additionally, I would consider it a COMMONNAME, in colloquial terms at least. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  22:00, 1 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment: Another special rapporteur has joined the chorus. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:30, 2 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Option 3, sadly. The words of Israel leaders and nearly countless massacres gives no other option. Huldra (talk) 23:45, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Pinging editors
I counted to 13 votes for option 3 as a preferred title above, which are almost twice as many votes as any other option here received. Is that a sufficiently decisive result to conclude this survey and apply the new title for this page? David A (talk) 09:35, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This does not have nearly enough participation for such a significant article to be moved to this title IMO. Would you consider adding it to the relevant wiki project again, who were notified weeks prior to this round? FortunateSons (talk) 09:45, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This RM has been open for way too long already. It's supposed to be a week and its over seven now. Someone should file a close request. Selfstudier (talk) 10:01, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I disagree. For a highly controversial change to 3 in a new structure, we should attract a higher number of participants. FortunateSons (talk) 10:11, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * If I counted correctly, we have had 21 Wikipedia accounts giving votes already. I think that seems sufficient. David A (talk) 11:50, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I would prefer more, and a proper notification, but won’t do so against consensus FortunateSons (talk) 11:54, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * There seem to be 15 votes for option 3 now. David A (talk) 04:48, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * So with 16 current votes for option 3 here, I think that this title change can likely be applied now, but how do we accomplish this in practice? Is there a specific page where somebody should request it? David A (talk) 13:38, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Closure requests Selfstudier (talk) 13:43, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Would you or somebody else here be willing to handle it please? David A (talk) 13:49, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Given the 3 May RM is listed at WP:RME without a target, ideally it would be added by @Paul Vaurie who created it, as this discussion is a sub-section of that brainstorming that can be directly considered a part of it. Otherwise it will need a separate listing at CR, but probably the original RM will need closing first. Also bare in mind that while it's already been a week, which is enough time for a move to be implemented, the conversation is far from stale. CNC (talk) 22:22, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I will add here, for the record, that Wikipedians declaring the "Gaza genocide" is totally without parallel in history of this encyclopedia and it goes far beyond shameful behavior. Activist Wikipedians in the months since Oct. 7th have pushed their views onto Wikipedia by consistently and deliberately rewriting articles and renaming them to support their narrative. We have seen this in their declartion of a Gaza Strip famine, attempt after fail attempt to completely delete or rename 2024 Nuseirat rescue operation and now this, declaration of "genocide" by a handful of editors. God help us all or more importantly the hundreds of millions of Wikipedia readers if this is all Putin, Xi and Islamists need to do to re-write Wikipedia. Monopoly31121993(2) (talk) 20:11, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTFORUM Selfstudier (talk) 20:15, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Since this discussion began with a mass ping to editors I think another should be allowed to those who contributed to discussions on the 2024 Nuseirat rescue operation removal:
 * Monopoly31121993(2) (talk) 20:51, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:BATTLEGROUND Smallangryplanet (talk) 21:01, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I will say that the list of people that Monopoly31121993(2) pinged in response is a wider net then the original poster's, and the list of people actually reflects a good variety of opinions/voting. Per WP:CANVASS "In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus." So Monopoly's intent does not seem to be to sway the discussion a particular way, but to increase the sample size of participants in the discussion to be more representative of the larger Wikipedia population and less skewed. Wafflefrites (talk) 03:20, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Per WP:APPNOTE, technically speaking, the audience for mass notification should either by WikiProjects or collaborations, or the talk pages of directly related pages. Mass pinging a group that an editor merely thinks is a suitable sample is in fact not appropriate. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:15, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * With calling other editors for a better breadth of opinion, pinging editors who have been in recent active discussions in other Genocide articles.
 * -- Cdjp1 (talk) 08:25, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I have no objection to the notification per se, but could you elaborate on how you selected these? FortunateSons (talk) 08:27, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @FortunateSons Talk:List of genocides, you'll see from my interactions with those pinged on that page, the list includes those I have disagreed and agreed with around various points. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 08:31, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That seems like appropriate selection criteria then, no complaints from me. Should we just re-tag the I, P, and I/P wiki project then, just for completeness? FortunateSons (talk) 08:33, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @FortunateSons Yes, I'd also include WP Death personally. As I'm currently on the mobile editor, it would be easier if someone else could ping the projects. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 08:37, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Im not familiar with them, but I trust that there is no partner project I have to also notify? FortunateSons (talk) 08:44, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @FortunateSons I do not believe so. I mention them as their project does list genocide as an explicit area of their coverage. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 08:49, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I would say that it’s a valid choice then. Is there a way to link to the specific 3 options section? Or do I have to link to the discussion as a whole? FortunateSons (talk) 09:00, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Notified, if anyone is able to make the link point to the right place, they should feel free to do so. FortunateSons (talk) 10:34, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm going to abstain from voting despite my pinging as my action on Talk:List of genocides goes as far as two edit requests to fix cite errors, and I do not know much about developments in the conflict other than what's common knowledge (there's a war) and what I've learned from reading this talk page (there's an international court case about the genocide). By the way, on neither of those edit requests did I interact with Cdjp1, despite his comment that you'll see from my interactions with those pinged on that page, the list includes those I have disagreed and agreed with (emphasis added). – Daℤyzzos (✉️ • 📤) 12:17, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @DaZyzzogetonsGotDaLastWord apologies on grabbing you in the list. The comment was a general showing that in the list I pinged individuals broadly to prevent claims of swaying the decision, it was not a declaration that everyone pinged I have interacted with. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 14:20, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Cdjp1 Okay! :) – Daℤyzzos (✉️ • 📤) 19:38, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping, it's going to take a while to catch up on this discussion though—blindlynx 14:18, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the ping. This also brings into question whether we should rename Palestinian genocide accusation to Palestinian genocide. KetchupSalt (talk) 09:36, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Monopoly31121993(2): Please keep your aspersions of bad faith to yourself. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:08, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

For the record, I only pinged all of the people who had responded to this discussion previously, and did not do anything remotely resembling the likely rule-violating extremely partisan insults rant and summon of many previously uninvolved people that Monopoly31121993(2) posted above. Anyway, despite their extremely disruptive behaviour here, we now have 20 votes in favour of option 3. David A (talk) 08:01, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, once this wave of engagement dies down, we likely have enough !votes (which should be evaluated by strength of arguments, not number). Making no statement on either action, I would like to note that RfCs should attract broad audience participation (that’s why we normally go by wikiproject), and not just re-mention those that participates before without taking other steps. FortunateSons (talk) 08:10, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay. And which wikiproject would even be the most suitable for this task then? For the record, we are already almost drowning in editors here, so I think that it would likely only add to the chaos.
 * And should somebody file a rule-violation report against Monopoly31121993(2) for their "if this is all Putin, Xi and Islamists need to do to re-write Wikipedia" comment against editors who likely mostly simply believe in the sanctity of human life, especially children? David A (talk) 08:20, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I would have personally re-tagged those that were notified in the original discussion, or just the generic I, P, I/P combination, but there probably isn’t a perfect answer, as it’s closer to art than science.
 * The second part is already done (at AE), but I’m interested based on your comment: are you editing here because you “simply believe in the sanctity of human life, especially children?” FortunateSons (talk) 08:34, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I do believe in the unifying sanctity of all human life, especially children, regardless of that I personally have a half-Jewish ancestry, but do try my best to remain polite and rational despite this issue, if your intent is to try to kick me out of here to remove a potential obstacle. Also, would it have been better if I had believe in absolutely ruthless and empathy-deprived tribalism, which is the alternative option? Everybody has viewpoints, and mine partially stem from humanism. That is all. In a sane world that would not be perceived as a problem. David A (talk) 08:46, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I appreciate and share your commitment to humanist values, my concern was that you seemed to ascribe motives other than building an encyclopaedia to the editing of others (and maybe yourself?), noble as those may be. While I consider it better to ascribe humanism instead of some brand of political or nationalist goals, we should all strive to write with the goal of improving the encyclopaedia while being impacted as little as possible by any other extrinsic or intrinsic motives. The goal wasn’t to trap you in some AGF or NOTHERE violation, just to show that point without going straight to your talk page.
 * On an end-note, I think it’s best to re-notify a few projects now that the specific notifications are subject to AE scrutiny, feel free to join the discussion above if I missed one or more eligible ones. FortunateSons (talk) 08:55, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay. My apologies for finding your seemingly leading question suspicious. I was in an annoyed state of mind by Monopoly's earlier rude partisan insults. For the record I strongly agree with you about that our most important task here is to provide accurate and reliable information in a properly encyclopaedic manner. David A (talk) 09:01, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * No offence taken, don’t worry. I’m glad that it was just a misunderstanding, and apologise my part in it. FortunateSons (talk) 09:04, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

I have now counted and re-counted the following result:
 * 19 votes for option 3.
 * 1 vote for option 3 as a first choice and option 1 as a second choice.
 * 1 vote for option 3 as a first choice, option 1 as a second choice, and option 2 as a third choice.
 * 1 ambivalent vote for option 2 or 3.
 * 1 ambivalent vote for option 3 or 1.
 * 8 ambivalent votes for option 1 or 2.
 * 3 votes for option 1 as a first choice, and option 2 as a second choice.
 * 3 votes for option 1.
 * 2 votes for option 2.
 * 1 vote against option 3.

So, if my counting is accurate, that either makes 23 votes in sum total for option 3 as a primary choice, 15 votes for option 1 as a primary choice, 12 votes for option 2 as a primary choice, and 1 protest vote, or, if entirely ambivalent votes should be split in half to give 0.5 vote to each option, 22 votes for option 3, 10.5 votes for option 1, 6.5 votes for option 2, and 1 protest vote. David A (talk) 08:37, 25 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I think we do not need a rolling count, that should anyway be left to the closer to determine. Selfstudier (talk) 08:44, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with Selfstudier, and ignoring whether or not 1/2 votes should be counted like that, the secondary question in this case would be the actual content of the votes: acknowledging that they are !votes and the number is therefore not directly relevant, how many of the votes are against Option 3? Because based on my quick check, that’s pretty close to the majority too. FortunateSons (talk) 08:48, 25 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Okay. My apologies. I was trying to be helpful, but am not familiar with how this procedure should be properly handled. David A (talk) 08:49, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTAVOTE and WP:!VOTE covers this, in summary it's based on strength of argument. CNC (talk) 10:09, 25 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I was called here by Monopoly31121993(2) who seems to be one of the last remaining sane editors at Wikipedia. To entertain the notion that Israeli soldiers are guilty of genocide, when they are defending their country and contrymen from a murderous enemy who started this horrible war is a blood libel beyond belief. And just because Jew-hating organizations and individuals, including world courts, the United Nations, politicians and newspapers want to level those allegations does not mean they bear any resemblance to reality. We all know that the world does not care one iota if Jews live or die. I am against any article that has the word genocide in it when describing Jewish behavior. I refuse to be sucked into this joke of a discussion. So I pick option 0.DaringDonna (talk) 15:22, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Is there any policy based arguments you'd like to add, or is this based on WP:RGW and WP:TRUTH? CNC (talk) 15:40, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTFORUM (again). Selfstudier (talk) 15:44, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Also, 68% of Israelis support blocking all humanitarian aid to the Palestinian civilians under any circumstances, despite very well-documented ongoing starvation, and 94% believe that the Israeli military are using appropriate or not enough force, so the editors here are not the people who seem to have comparative empathy problems. David A (talk) 18:18, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * When all the hostages are released and Hamas unconditionally surrenders, the war will be over and Gazan citizens will have all the aid they need (and the genocide will suddenly end- imagine that). It is Hamas that is causing all the horrible suffering. Their continuation of this war shows they do not care about their brethren. The more Gazans that die, the better it is for Hamas, as the useful idiots around the world have proven consistently. DaringDonna (talk) 19:25, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Glad to hear you agree it's a genocide, even if this still isn't a forum. CNC (talk) 19:28, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * How about everyone stops with the Forum? FortunateSons (talk) 19:32, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

An attempt and a plea to help bring some structure to this conversation
In order for us to hopefully get anywhere and move away from all of the enormous amounts of derailing spamming (initially via severely insulting partisan rants, and excessive pinging of uninvolved editors, and more recently via repeated obnoxious "lol" comments, pointless extensive repetitive poorly spelled arguing about semantics, and continuous pinging against the wishes of other members), that systematically prevents us from moving forward, or indeed anywhere, in a coherent manner, and causes all discussion here to descend into complete chaos, let us attempt to bring some measure of structure by mainly focusing on the most relevant concrete facts of this discussion, initially by reposting a part of the official specialised academic consensus, rather than focusing on the far less relevant views of single/individual academics that support our own personal viewpoints.

Here is a May/June sampling of 758 Middle East scholars/experts who study the issue via Brookings, most of whom are located in the United States, asking the question "How would you define Israel's current military actions in Gaza?"

The responses were:

"Major war crimes akin to genocide": 41%

"Genocide": 34%

"Major war crimes but not akin to genocide": 16%

"Unjustified actions but not major war crimes": 4%

"Justified actions under the right to self-defense": 4%

"I don't know": 2%

Meaning that a large majority of 75% would likely support option 3 here.

In addition, there have been official statements regarding the issue by:

The International Criminal Court.

The United Nations Human Rights Council.

And perhaps less relevantly, the International Court of Justice, as the court usually requires years to reach a definitive conclusion:

Is somebody here willing to also list links to official statements by relief and human rights organisations, and other relevant well-informed authorities below please? They should be available across the main Wikipedia articles regarding this topic, including this one.

No derailing, obnoxious provocations, or otherwise meaningless comments below please, just a collection of substantial official information, in order to help us discern whether the international academic consensus is strong enough for a "Gaza genocide" title, rather than the more ambivalent "Gaza genocide accusation". Thank you. David A (talk) 19:56, 28 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Let's keep in mind that most of the Middle East is very opposed to Israel in general and has been at war with it many times. The Middle East is hardly "impartial". Many government indoctornate anti-Israel sentiments from the time they are toddlers, and it is illegal to voice support of Israel.
 * The US, for one says there's no genocide. These sources indicate people are pretty divided.     Some other places (in refs, not listing everything out here to not make it too long).   I could keep going.
 * I would like to emphasize "No derailing, obnoxious provocations, or otherwise meaningless comments below please" and remind everyone that it applies to the whole article. All comments should be for the purpose of arriving at consensus through civil and relevant discussion of facts. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 20:38, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The Middle East is hardly impartial and neither are Western countries like the US. Discrediting the opinions of the Middle East and putting the US by default on an impartial moral pedestal is an atrocious double standard. Of course the US would say there is no genocide, as they are deemed complicit in the allegation, and could be held legally accountable. CNC (talk) 21:17, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The US, for one says there's no genocide.The United States government is not an independent source here.These sources indicate people are pretty divided.The sources you linked refer to the opinions of the general public in the United States; the people whose opinions are of interest to us here are those with relevant expertise on the subject. We also don't need sources demonstrating that there are some people saying that it's not a genocide; no one would reasonably dispute that, and again, it's irrelevant, because any number of people say any number of things. What is of interest to us is what reliable sources are saying.  Kinsio  ( talk  ★  contribs ) 21:21, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, no actually both are of interest. What people think is important for commonname as well as the fact that stating only 1 side (at least in the title) would reasonably require that that side is the majority opinion. The majority opinion is pretty dependent on what people think, as scholars are not everyone.
 * "any number of people say any number of things" - is exactly the point. Plenty of people say they agree with each side, which is why this would be taking a side on who is right. When trying to figure out if people have enough general agreement that it would not be giving undue weight or taking a side, what said people actually think is the main important thing. @Konsio Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 21:33, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Me Da Wikipedian, perhaps you meant "@Kinsio" – Daℤyzzos (✉️ • 📤) 21:42, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You are doing it again, expressing your personal opinion as if it were a fact, without any sources. Which "people" are you talking about and what are your sources? Selfstudier (talk) 21:55, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I showed sources earlier (nearly 10 of them) indicating that people are quite divided on the issue. And by people I mean the public, human beings, Homo Sapiens, however you want to describe it. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 23:31, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * If you mean the bare urls below, that's meaningless without quotes and you still have not explained "more or less equal". Says who? Selfstudier (talk) 00:18, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The polls says so. Many are within 1% of equal yes vs. no Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 00:20, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Which polls? Sources please. Selfstudier (talk) 00:22, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The sources I gave. Look at them please Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 00:31, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The ONUS is on you to prove your claims, you say ""more or less equal". Prove it. Selfstudier (talk) 00:32, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You don't even say who is saying that, when they said it, nothing. Selfstudier (talk) 00:34, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Are you confusing Middle East scholars, a.k.a. scholars of the Middle East, with scholars from the Middle East? Because those are very much not the same thing. Iskandar323 (talk) 22:01, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * These sources are not scholarship. Levivich (talk) 15:57, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * To actually start off answering your request, I'd like to incorporate by reference here the table of sources above.  Kinsio  ( talk  ★  contribs ) 02:07, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

A note that I was requesting sources regarding average academic consensus statistics, and from reliable well-informed organisations, not United States public opinion polls (from the country in the world that is most biased in favour of Israel's policies no matter what it does), directly involved parties, the expressed viewpoints of propagandistic individual journalists, or a list of individual academics that agree with a personal viewpoint. The latter options are comparatively irrelevant for our purposes here. David A (talk) 03:22, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Also, in order to clarify a severe misrepresentation of information above, the opinion poll that I initially cited above was made with 758 mostly U.S.-based Middle East scholars who study this issue, not people who live in the Middle East. David A (talk) 03:29, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Starting to look for good sources to put here, will add anything useful-looking I find into this comment.It is the consensus of our scientific community that we are currently witnessing these risks and tendencies taking place in a particularly intensive form in Gaza, Jerusalem and the occupied West Bank. Palestinians within the 1948 boundaries (now Israel) are also experiencing high levels of threat.Cumulatively the evidence firmly indicates that in a disproportionate response to the Hamas killings of October 7 the Israeli state is employing its extensive and advanced military capacity to inflict violence on Palestinian peoples on such a scale that it is accurate to frame it as the annihilation phase of genocide.The characterisation of Israeli actions in Gaza as genocide by UN experts and international legal scholars should mark a turning point, Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor said today, in a call for Israel to be held accountable for its crimes."As scholars and practitioners of international law, conflict studies, and genocide studies, we are compelled to sound the alarm about the possibility of the crime of genocide being perpetrated by Israeli forces against Palestinians in the Gaza Strip," reads the public statement signed by 880 scholars on 15 October. The statement was released one week after the Israeli aggression on Gaza began, with less than 20% of the current tally of deaths and destruction.The public statement highlighted the overwhelming evidence that Israel had carried out genocide against civilians in the Gaza Strip, including disproportionate attacks and indiscriminate bombing, the destruction of residential neighbourhoods, the use of starvation as a weapon, and the complete cutoff of humanitarian supplies.  Kinsio  ( talk  ★  contribs ) 04:12, 29 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Thank you for helping out. Here are the sections of this Wikipedia page that seems to contain the most relevant academic references to collect and list here:


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_genocide_in_the_2023_Israeli_attack_on_Gaza#Academic_and_legal_discourse


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_genocide_in_the_2023_Israeli_attack_on_Gaza#NGOs_and_intergovernmental_organisations


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_genocide_in_the_2023_Israeli_attack_on_Gaza#Legal_proceedings


 * David A (talk) 04:40, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Kinsio: This page is under discretionary extended confirmed restrictions and accounts that don't have at least 500 edits can't comment here. I'm sorry. — kashmīrī  <sup style="color:#80f;font-family:'Candara';">TALK  07:14, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Kinsio is EC. Selfstudier (talk) 08:36, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Ah, ok, didn't notice at first that she has old accounts. No probs then. — kashmīrī  <sup style="color:#80f;font-family:'Candara';">TALK  09:50, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You can still help out here if you wish. David A (talk) 10:14, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Honestly I'm really starting to feel like energy I could expend adding here would be more productively directed toward the article itself (and I don't want to be responsible for heaping even more work onto the poor closer), which is why I kinda dropped out of all this.  Kinsio  (talk ★ contribs ★ rights) 19:36, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I found old news from October 18, 2023, according to which more than 800 scholars of international law and genocide signed a public statement arguing that the Israeli military may be committing genocidal acts against Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, and that was obviously long before the present level of much greater devastation had occurred. David A (talk) 08:49, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Comment leaderboard
Based on comments throughout the main section and sub-sections (excluding pinging editors that is collapsed), as of of 10:52, 30 June 2024 (diff):


 * Selfstudier - 77
 * Vegan416 - 51
 * Iskandar323 - 37
 * FortunateSons - 37
 * David A - 35
 * Me Da Wikipedian - 28
 * Cdjp1 - 20
 * kashmīrī - 18
 * Levivich - 18
 * xDanielx - 11

It's "only" been 2 weeks since the Three options survey began and as has been pointed in out in a recent contentious RfC:

"Id suggest if you dont feel youve gotten your point across after 20 comments that comments 21-10000 will not be helpful, and at a certain point dominating a discussion like this is straightforward bludgeoning [...]."

I'm not necessarily suggesting any of you stop commenting, only that repeating the same arguments over and over is no longer helpful and is only bludgeoning !voters and the process at this point, whereas working on the source table could be considered valuable still. The fact that four of you have made it to the top of a comment leaderboard again has been noted. Editors listed 7-10 have only been added as a reference point to show the disparity between those who have commented the most and other editors. If I missed anyone, let me know. CNC (talk) 11:43, 30 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure how you count the comments, but many of my comments actually were updates to the Sources table. I don't think that adding sources to this table or correcting them should be counted as bludgeoning. In fact I suggest to add this table to a separate section. Maybe even stick it at the top if there's a way to do that, since it will probably be useful way beyond this particular RM. Vegan416 (talk) 12:01, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The comment counting is based on counting replies, avoiding pings or referencing users, which is easily achieved using a search function "User (talk)" within that section. To clarify, I never suggested updating/expanding the source table was bludgeoning, this was in reference to replying to voters (in the survey). Granted most of your comments have been in the sources section, but otherwise 24 have been in the survey section, so you've still commented considerably more than most !voters here regardless.
 * Also let's not pretend that most of the comments in that section are about updating or improving the table, most are arguing with each other over the validity of the sources, which is very much part of the discussion over moving the page. This is exactly why I included these comments as part of the count, as it includes regurgitating the same arguments. CNC (talk) 12:18, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Idk, comment leaderboards get skewed when there are more socks posting misinformation than editors who've read the sources and can correct it. Levivich (talk) 12:27, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Sure, I'm not claiming it's exact science and I've seen relevant arguments from pretty much all editors on that list. I've also seen a lot of repetitive arguments from many people on this list. This is just food for thought, take it or leave it. CNC (talk) 15:01, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * These are good points. However didn't most of these comments occurr after Vegan416 and Me da Wikipedian began to excessively post here a few days ago, which provoked responses from other editors?
 * Regardless, I would personally much prefer if we all strictly focus on attempting to assemble a good list of reliable academic consensus statistics and official statements from reliable institutions, and then clearly present it for public inspection and evaluation, as I stated in this talk page section above. David A (talk) 15:14, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Your observation is correct:
 * 11:13 June 25 - Total length of RM: 365 lines
 * FortunateSons - 37
 * David A - 30
 * Selfstudier - 20
 * Iskandar323 - 19
 * Cdjp1 - 18
 * Levivich - 13
 * kashmīrī - 10
 * xDanielx - 4
 * Vegan416 - 1
 * Me Da Wikipedian - 0
 * 13:47 June 27 - Total length of RM: 735 lines
 * Selfstudier - 55
 * FortunateSons - 45
 * Vegan416 - 40
 * David A - 35
 * Iskandar323 - 28
 * Cdjp1 - 22
 * Levivich - 14
 * kashmīrī - 11
 * xDanielx - 5
 * Me Da Wikipedian - 1
 * 15:14 June 30 - Total length of RM: 835 lines
 * Selfstudier - 83
 * Vegan416 - 55
 * FortunateSons - 51
 * David A - 48
 * Iskandar323 - 41
 * Me Da Wikipedian - 31
 * Cdjp1 - 28
 * Levivich - 20
 * kashmīrī - 18
 * xDanielx - 11
 * Levivich (talk) 17:42, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Would it be to possible to create a version (maybe only of the last one) that excludes all content-unrelated (procedural and conduct) discussions from this count? It might be statistically significant for David and me. FortunateSons (talk) 17:51, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Sure it's possible, just needs someone to go through the comments and sort them into categories :-) The list above is a count of signatures appearing in this RM, irrespective of the nature of the comment preceding the signature.
 * I'm not at all surprised that you (FortunateSons) and David A appear at the top of the June 25 list. In any given discussion, especially a "big" one like this, there will usually be two editors who have posted more comments than everyone else, and they're usually on opposite sides of the discussion. They become like the leading editors of the pro/anti viewpoints. In this case, David voted "3" and began the subsection, while FS voted "1 (or 2)" and started the  subsection. These are (or were) the two leading editors of the pro/anti viewpoints in this discussion. And if you look at the June 25 leaderboard, it's pretty compressed: top 4 are 37, 30, 20, 19 --- not a huge disparity between them, and not an overwhelming amount of comments for any of them (for a discussion of this nature, given the amount of RS available to examine).
 * What happened here is this:
 * On June 23, David pointed out that "3" had 16 votes (out of 23 votes total at that point)
 * Within a few hours, Monopoly31121993(2) joined the discussion, swinging and pinging
 * By June 25, it was clear that tactic was ineffectual:
 * Monopoly had been taken to AE, and on 06:18 June 25 and 07:55 June 25, two admins supported a TBAN at AE, bringing the total vote there 3-0, making it clear a TBAN would happen (and it since has)
 * 08:37 June 25, David pointed out that it was now up to 23-15-12 for Option 3-Option 1-Option 2
 * Within a few hours of that, on 11:13 June 25, Vegan started bludgeoning this thread (not the first time:   )
 * That also didn't really work. By June 27, Vegan had made 40 comments in two days -- more than anyone else had made up to the point when Vegan joined. Vegan couldn't continue at this rate, obviously; they made "only" 15 more comments after June 27.
 * So on June 27, Me Da Wikipedian joined and made another 31 comments.
 * This has been an attempt to bludgeon this discussion into a no-consensus (which would maintain the status-quo title). But such tactics don't work in the end, because meanwhile, everyone else has been gathering and discussing sources, and eventually we will land on some consensus. Levivich (talk) 18:52, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Levivich, I must ask you to take back these baseless accusations that I attempted "to bludgeon this discussion into a no-consensus". The only reason that I joined the discussion only on 11:13 June 25 was because I was unaware of it before then. I only learned of this RM after Selstudier mentioned it on 09:44, 25 June in Talk:Genocide of Indigenous peoples, where I had previous discussions with him. So it had nothing to do with whatever David pointed to on that day. Also your line "everyone else has been gathering and discussing sources" is funny since in the days since I joined the discussion I actually gathered, discussed and added more sources to the sources table than you did. Vegan416 (talk) 19:13, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The toolforge links don’t work on mobile (or my mobile), but making no statement on any of the claims made, it is a rather interesting picture, and at least your explanation for the first third does makes sense to me.
 * I’m too lazy to count for everyone, but a quick count for David (vibes based, no strict methodology) lead to about ~15-20 not being content arguments, but discussions about conduct (like the debate about the appropriate treatment of others), procedural (pings, clarifying questions) or requests made to other editors (like requesting source collection). I’m guessing that the picture for some of the others may look pretty similar, likely including me.
 * That of course doesn’t mean that all or any of those comments are good or bad, but it likely means that this is more an issue of inter-editor discussions than it is a problem with content being bludgeoned. FortunateSons (talk) 19:47, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * "In any given discussion, especially a "big" one like this, there will usually be two editors who have posted more comments than everyone else, and they're usually on opposite sides of the discussion. They become like the leading editors of the pro/anti viewpoints." (emphasis added). Thanks for the insight, this adequately represents the issue; the idea that certain editors become "representatives" of the discussion. This is exactly the problem when the discussion is supposed to be representative of all ECR editors. CNC (talk) 20:48, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

<div style="padding-left: 1.6em; font-style: italic; border-top: 1px solid #a2a9b1; margin: 0.5em 0; padding-top: 0.5em">The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.