Talk:Palestinian genocide accusation/Archive 2

Genocide Watch and Israeli Public Broadcasting Corporation
People seem to hold Genocide Watch in high regard, they released a statement almost immediately saying that the Israel-Hamas conflict was at a great risk of turning into a genocide. Surprised it's not already in the article, but the link is here for anyone who wants to add it.

Separately, the Israeli Public Broadcasting Corporation shared a video on twitter recently produced by The Civil Front, which should make it's way into more news sources in the coming days, but may be of interest for here as it is children singing a song calling for the annihilation of everyone in Gaza, for the land to then be occupied and used by Israeli citizens. Here is the Middle East Eye article currently. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 20:28, 20 November 2023 (UTC)


 * There are dozens of articles, reports, essays around that we hadn't included yet, but that's up to editors to get more proactive. ౪ Santa ౪  99°  23:48, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Important, perhaps
This page could be made to be more more like this one: Allegations of genocide of Ukrainians in the Russian invasion of Ukraine. An infobox could be added in the same style:

Thoughts? Scientelensia (talk) 12:16, 20 November 2023 (UTC)


 * I never say no to earnest hard work. The top of the page is definitely currently a bit of a bleak wall of text, and some colour and usefully summarized information wouldn't hurt. One part I wonder about is the date, and whether this actually helps or confuses. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:05, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * True. The section on the Nakba in the article however does indicate that the alleged event may start in 1948, and recent events and commentary on it this year suggests that the dates are appropriate in my opinion. Scientelensia (talk) 23:04, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of "attack type". It seems to conclude that genocide is proven. Likewise, motive. Plus the second picture - is that genocide? How do we know? The timeline also, confusing. Frankly, the only thing that would benefit the page in my opinion is the first picture.  starship .paint  (RUN) 14:10, 20 November 2023 (UTC)


 * I agree. (And for the same reasons, the infobox shouldn't be used on the Ukraine page either). Levivich (talk) 14:15, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Agree with others' doubts about "attack type" and "motive" - which seems WP:OR + note that location (if we are talking about 1948 + Lebanon + through to 2023) would not be State of Palestine. Pincrete (talk) 15:36, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * There is a section on motives already on page, and anti-Palestinianism hardly seems like a controversial attribute, others aside, but if a critical mass of information cannot be agreed upon then that doesn't bode well for the sustainability of the infobox. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:57, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Well I'm not sure about motive(s) … taking the most extreme religiously inspired zionism, if you feel that you have an ancient historic and god-given right to occupy and rule the entirety of a particular patch of land, then WHOEVER stands in your way, for WHATEVER reason, is an obstacle to be cleared, which will inherently be justifiable.
 * Antipathy to Palestinians/Arabs/Muslims, dislike of those who challenge ths zionist enterprise, racism in general and fear of what those groups would otherwise do to you + the long shadow of the holocaust all seem to play their part in Israeli actions between 1948 and now. From a WP point of view I'm not sure how we would cite 'motive'. Pincrete (talk) 16:31, 20 November 2023 (UTC)


 * I am huge fan of Infobox template everywhere, so, I would place one on every article. I am not sure why Levivich and User:Starship.paint think that Infobox changes article in sense that it makes it something more than it already is or it should be - as if placing Infobox gives article more credibility ("seems to conclude that genocide is proven") and/or more serious outlook and that without it readers are certain to be less inclined to take it seriously. It would really be absurd if this is the reason not to include Infobox, which does not serve to validate nor give any more credibility to an article than it already has.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  18:09, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Because people love to edit war and argue over infoboxes, I would also prefer not to have one here. Selfstudier (talk) 18:16, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but we edit for readers not to waste each other's time - readers love to just check few essentials, few most prominent info and move on. That's the intended purpose of Infobox, whose format is fortunately proscribed and there should not be too much disput over its content. ౪ Santa ౪  99°  18:22, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * And editors edit-war and argue over all content, period. ౪ Santa ౪  99°  18:30, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * People - including me sometimes - think infoboxes don't always adequately represent the nuances and uncertainties of a situation. They can sometimes reduce everything to two-dimensions. They don't inherently give more credibility, but the wording employed can easily give one or other PoV more credibility than apt. Pincrete (talk) 06:45, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I understand, but let's be clear, no doubt infobox should include only uncontroversial information already validated in text with a strong RS, and should under no circumstances include some new content with or without unique references which were not used in text. Numbers, places and names should be primer info included, not some rhetorical construct (especially not new one, which did not exist in text). Such infobox is always useful. ౪ Santa ౪  99°  06:57, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * No need for an infobox. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:06, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

US national security advisor, Kirby in the lead and citation needed tag for ' others argue that none of these have occurred.'
Homerethegreat two questions about your recent changes to the lead. Firstly, why is Kirby's opinion especially notable? At present no one else is named in the lead, merely the broad categories of belief are outlined. Not only is Kirby not noted for his expertise in the topic area, he's also part of the US administration - who are Israel's principal allies and supporters politically and militarily. He isn't even offering any justification for his belief, beyond effectively "Well Hamas is worse". I sympathise with your edit to the extent that text could be clearer that, not only Israelis, but others also reject the 'genocide' accusation, (which is endorsed by the body).

Kirby's statements obviously deserve to be in the body, though probably in 'Political discourse' section.

Secondly, is a citation in the lead needed for those who essentially say "Israel is not guilty of any of these " (ie not guilty of genocide, ethnic cleansing, politicide, spaciocide, cultural genocide or similar). It would be extremely unlikely that any source would list all the crimes which they think Israel isn't guilty of, but the article body endorses that there are some who hold that view. So why the need for a specific citation in the lead? Pincrete (talk) 13:19, 21 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Kirby opinions are not leadworthy in the slightest. Selfstudier (talk) 13:24, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, no, don't see how that's remotely due. I've removed it again. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:14, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * No individual's opinion is WP:DUE for the lead of this article; I agree with removing the Kirby quote from the lead. The US gov't position on the issue might be DUE for the "Responses" section of the body. I'm not sure if Kirby's statement is treated by secondary sources as a US govt response to the genocide accusation, or just an offhand remark by a govt official. I also don't think we need citations in the lead so long as the lead is summarizing the body, and the body is cited. Levivich (talk) 17:20, 21 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Any government endorsement of judicial and scientific consensus (even serious media research) that genocid did/did not happen is super-welcomed, but these individual opinions by politicians, based on daily politics and/or ideology should not take much space in any section of an article let alone in a lede.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  13:40, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Duplication in lead
Editors busily trying to stuff things into the lead while ignoring what is there already. Lead has: "The accusation has been rejected by the US, Israel and several organizations[who?]" and...."still others argue that none of these have occurred" so why do we need the last if we now have the first? Selfstudier (talk) 17:44, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * See section below,(edit conflict) but briefly the first refers to organisations whereas the second refers specifically to scholars. I agree that the coverage could be more succinct and comprehensive though.Pincrete (talk) 18:21, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Removal of deaths and displacement figures
The removal of deaths and displacement figures in an article about genocide accusations - which also documents 'auxiliary' accusations of ethnic cleansing seems perverse. IMO both are invaluable backgound info. The edit reason seems equally wrong headed "Remove WP:SYNTH. The sources do not say anything about genocide. The data could be seen as off-topic, it could be seen as an implied PoV, but it isn't SYNTH - which is explicitly defined as combining "material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source." or  combining "different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source". It is difficult to see what information is combined, or what novel conclusion reached. The section simply records UN supplied numbers, which of course don't mention 'genocide'. I think it should be restored. Pincrete (talk) 13:21, 5 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Obviously not synth, not entirely sure how relevant the figures are on their own, think it mighty be better if linked in genocide related sourcing that referred to them or the results of Israeli acts, as here. Selfstudier (talk) 13:33, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The numbers provide context. Scientelensia (talk) 07:32, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I've restored the section. Pincrete (talk) 08:46, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Some recent sources discussing genocidal intent and/or genocidal action in Gaza
For reference, here are some recent sources where scholars are raising concerns about genocidal intent and/or genocidal action in Gaza: As the Google Scholar links show, the last three of those have written the world's leading current textbooks on genocide. You also have Jason Stanley, a world expert on fascist propaganda at Yale University, raising the same concern. This TIME Magazine article lists a few more names. Andreas JN 466 16:22, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Raz Segal in Jewish Currents and the Los Angeles Times,
 * Omer Bartov in the New York Times,
 * William Schabas, widely considered the world's leading genocide scholar, as part of the Center for Constitutional Rights lawsuit against Joe Biden et al.,
 * Adam Jones, another leading genocide scholar, here and here,
 * Martin Shaw, another leading genocide scholar, here and here


 * I second this. ProgrammerinEZ (talk) 09:12, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

as many 3500 civilians at Sabra and Shatila
this violates the neutral stance as the main Wikipedia page places the death toll at around 460 to 3,500 civilians. The use of only the largest (and least official estimate) would appear to be in order to emphasise the author's point of view. Daddyoftwo (talk) 01:29, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It was actually done for reasons of brevity, in what is a 'background summary', but I don't object to using the 'range' figures. Pincrete (talk) 07:23, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * If it's an accusation then we should not show numbers that may accidentally misinform. Homerethegreat (talk) 09:41, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

2023 Palestinian death statistics were given from Hamas, that should be added for more information
2023 Palestinian death statistics were given from Hamas, that should be added for more information 2600:1017:B0C7:7A5C:75F3:7ED6:7135:8CD9 (talk) 22:28, 7 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Not done, discussed at other pages, and the Gaza MoH figures are considered reliable. See here or the latest report today from Reuters, Selfstudier (talk) 23:02, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * It's already made clear that the figures are from the Gaza MoH - who are generally considered reliable.Pincrete (talk) 16:30, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

5.6 million people have been expelled from Palestine and registered with UNRWA as refugees as of 2019
That's just factually untrue. "5.6 million people are *descended* from Palestinians expelled in (1948, 1967) and are registered etc" would be an accurate statement (though that would probably have to be attached to an earlier section rather than it's own misleading headline). 3:20, 27 November 2023 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.235.199.209 (talk)

The accusation has been rejected by …
Homerethegreat and others. While I would not wish to spend very long defending the prior summary in the lead of who rejects the 'genocide accusation', (The accusation has been rejected by a majority of Israelis and supporters of Israel) I'm not too sure that this] is much of an improvement, mainly because the summary, isn't comprehensive, isn't clear and isn't even well sourced IMO. The new text is: "The accusation has been rejected by the US, Israel and several organizations". I agree with you that the "majority of Israelis", while it may well be true, is probably not cited anywhere in the article.

Firstly, some things we should remind ourselves of is that the lead is a summary of the body and as long as claims are properly sourced in the body, and the lead is an accurate summary of the body, no specific refs are required in the lead.

Secondly, the article is about the whole history of accusation from 1948-ish to the present day - not simply about 2023, nor any specific time within that period.

Thirdly neither the source for US rejection nor Israel rejection of the accusation actually supports such a general proposition. The source for the US covers a specific White House official in 2023: White House National Security Council spokesperson John Kirby appears to smack down allegations that Israel is committing “genocide” against the Palestinians in Gaza, while the source for Israel rejecting the accusation speaks of a group of "Jewish and Israeli human rights lawyers across the political spectrum use words like “ridiculous” and “baseless” to describe the accusation", specifically referring to 2021 accusations.

While I don't doubt at all that all, or almost all US administrations, all Israeli administrations (and many other Western governments), would have rejected the genocide accusation at all times since 1948, the sources not only don't support the rejection (Kirby is not America and a group of 2021 Jewish/Israeli lawyers don't speak for Israel). They also aren't a very comprehensive summary of who does reject the accusation.

Lastly, "and several organizations" is vague to the point of being almost meaningless, as someone has tagged it. The source is ADL, which technically only speaks for ADL itself, but presumably our wording is intended to cover "supporters of Israel", pro-Israeli groups, or some-such.

I'm not sure how we should approach this, but the 'who' (and 'why'??) of rejection doesn't seem to me to be well phrased, comprehensive, nor well sourced at present, nor an especially good summary of the body. Pincrete (talk) 18:17, 27 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Hey there, regarding several organizations. It was following the TOI source which pointed to several different groups. Regarding the rest I agree that the article seems misoriented and its unclear what the scope is and also where and what should be cited in lead. But I did not wish to strike down large sections. Thank you for bringing this up.
 * What would you suggest? Perhaps we need to focus article on 1948? Perhaps on 2023? Homerethegreat (talk) 18:25, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The sourcing in the lead doesn't greatly bother me, balanced summaries of relatively uncontroversial material shouldn't need independent sourcing in the lead IMO, but inadequate sources are worse than none also IMO. These don't really support the text they follow AFAI can see and we would be better trying to summarise the body. Pincrete (talk) 18:31, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The accusation has been rejected by the US... We should avoid using the term supporters if its not sourced. Homerethegreat (talk) 14:34, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The US having officially rejected it is certainly not sourced - a named spokesman apparently 'slapping down' the idea of genocide in the aftermath of Oct 2023 isn't official US rejection. I'm sure US would reject if asked, as it is the principal ally of Israel, but AFAIK it hasn't been officially. So would most of Israel's nominal allies, which is most of the EU and the West, so why single out the US? 'Supporters' is a generic term covering nation states and orgs and individuals and is justified as a summary of the body. I agree that the wording is imperfect, but are we going to list all those states, organisations etc that have nominally rejected the accusation. We were previously using a bunch of Jewish and Israeli HR lawyers responding to an earlier Gaza incursion to justify Israel having officially rejected the accusation. Pincrete (talk) 17:10, 3 December 2023 (UTC) signed retrospectively by Pincrete (talk) 09:59, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Sabra and Shatila
The Sabra&Shatila massacre was committed internally by Lebanese paramilitary group,and despite the disputes about Israeli responsibility on the area,it’s simply can not be part of the relevant allegations (or at least:clarify it). עמית לונן (talk) 15:32, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The text is very explicit that Israel is accused of complicity, not of having committed the massacres. How could that be further clarified? Pincrete (talk) 16:30, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Well,it did not. עמית לונן (talk) 17:15, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Did not what? Selfstudier (talk) 17:51, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Israel did not took part.
 * Those paramilitary groups were indeed backed in general by israel but israel did not sent them in any way to commit such a terrible massacre. עמית לונן (talk) 09:40, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The article does not say Israel took part. It says Israel is accused of complicity. Selfstudier (talk) 10:21, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Conceptions of Genocide
This entire article lacks neutrality and is agenda-driven.

The "conceptions of genocide" sub-header declares one man's opinion that "genocide" does not necessarily entail mass death. Interestingly, not only does the section not include any other "conception of genocide", but it omits the dictionary definition and, presumably, the definition accepted by the common man:

"the deliberate killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group" (Oxford Languages).

Finally, there is no mention anywhere in the article that the Palestinian population increased from 2,783,084 in 1997 to 5,227,193 in 2021, which would seem to serve as a nontrivial counter point to the allegation being "addressed" by this article. Chupster811 (talk) 02:54, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The definitions employed are not opinions - they are based on the legal and academic notions of genocide, as defined in about 1948. Those definitions are largely based on the notion of "intent to destroy in whole or in part" {. There is no requirement of "minimum kill number", nor that the "victim group's" population reduce in size. You are probably right about the "common man" definition, though even that definition would not preclude Israel being accused. That OED definition still focuses on intent to destroy, and doesn't say that population numbers must decrease or that there is any minimum 'kill' number. Srebrenica was legally declared to be genocide, despite the number killed being the (relatively) modest number of about 8-9000 in a specific locale. The ruling came about because the International court ruled that the intent was to destroy the wider ethnic group. Not a single person has been killed AFA we know in the Uyghur genocide, but various countries and scholars and lawyers (and WP?) have written about the intent behind Chinese policies.


 * To use a very crude - possibly cruel - analogy, the fact that the number of weeds in my garden has increased, has little bearing on whether I have been trying to eliminate them. Pincrete (talk) 10:12, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Israel has enacted plans to ensure the slow, quiet death of Palestinians as they are deprived of the resources they need to live (food, water, shelter, etc.) It is a systematic genocide, something that has been seen many times before in history, where a population is slowly killed by the incremental actions of an oppressor. A population growth does not cancel this out. Your failure to see Israel's genocidal intent does not mean that the article is biased. Salmoonlight (talk) 11:35, 28 December 2023 (UTC)


 * If Israel wanted to commit a genocide and level the entire Gaza Strip and West Bank, it could have done so at any point in the past 75 years; however, it chooses not to. One would also presume that Israel would begin a Palestinian genocide by wiping out the 20% of its citizenry that is Arab. One would also tend to think that, people being subjected to genocide would not feel close to the state committing an alleged genocide of their people . None of you have addressed my point of there being a "Conceptions of Genocide" section only containing one "conception". You are free to believe that Israel is a genocidal state, but at least recognize the need for other such "conceptions" to warrant the section's existence. Chupster811 (talk) 11:52, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * First, Israel would receive immediate condemnation from the world over if they did what you suggested. Second, you are ignoring how it is a systematic genocide that has been happening since 1948. Third, the conception is completely normal in genocide studies. The destruction of infrastructure, culture, resources and safety all serve as the incremental actions that make up a genocide. Salmoonlight (talk) 12:08, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh, and also, that excerpt was literally written by the man who coined the term genocide. Salmoonlight (talk) 12:16, 28 December 2023 (UTC)


 * None of you have addressed my point of there being a "Conceptions of Genocide" section only containing one "conception". You are free to believe that Israel is a genocidal state, but at least recognize the need for other such "conceptions" to warrant the section's existence. Chupster811 (talk) 12:17, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Actually answer what I said instead of just copying your last comment. Salmoonlight (talk) 12:19, 28 December 2023 (UTC)


 * You did not pose a question; there is nothing for me to "answer". I will reformulate my point in the form of a question to which you may directly respond if you so choose: Why is there a "Conceptions of Genocide" (with "conceptions" being in the plural) section only containing one "conception"? Chupster811 (talk) 12:23, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Why is the conception not sufficient enough for you? Why does there need to be multiple conceptions? Adding more interpretations would not make it any more "neutral" if that's what you want. Salmoonlight (talk) 12:26, 28 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Could I remind you both of WP:NOTFORUM, and WP:AGF, our own personal opinions on Israel's actions have little place here and the topic can be discussed civilly. Equally, there really is only one (legal) definition of genocide. Legal scholars, judges and others can/do interpret that definition variously, just as they might interpret any legal concept, but the definition remains the same. Lemkin - who coined the term - placed even less emphasis on the number killed and even more on 'intent' than the 1948/legal definition does. Pincrete (talk) 15:44, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Since you reiterate that your contention is with the title implying multiple conceptions, the title has been adjusted to refer to the conception of genocide. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 22:12, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Chupster811, and anyone else, I owe a slight apology. Rather foolishly I didn't check our text and (wrongly) assumed that the definition we were using in this article was the 1948 UN Genocide Convention one (the legal definition). In fact we are using Lemkin's description (possibly his 1944 one). It's reasonable to assume that any legal or academic scholar is working from the 1944 UN GC definition, so we should include it, even if we leave Lemkin in place. Lemkin & the UN GC don't differ substantially, but the latter is more precisely phrased/codified - legally. Pincrete (talk) 08:15, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I've added the UN GC definition. Pincrete (talk) 16:44, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you -- Cdjp1 (talk) 13:24, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The original text is from a 1945 article by Lemkin, which is quoted in the source we use. I've added this info to the text as a footnote. Pincrete (talk) 10:03, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

still others argue that none of these have occurred - citation needed tag.
"still others argue that none of these have occurred" is the final phrase of a para in which the preceding text says that some scholars have said not genocide, but rather "ethnic cleansing, politicide, spaciocide, cultural genocide or similar". The final phrase is summarising that some scholars reject ALL these -cide allegation against Israel. The text is a summary of the body of the article, but the likelihood of finding a source that rejects ALL these specific allegations is very slim IMO, but if we don't include we are implying tha Israel is generally thought to be guilty of at least one of these crimes. A cite, and the tag is not needed IMO for content that is expanded in the body. Pincrete (talk) 10:17, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

"Gaza holocaust" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gaza_holocaust&redirect=no Gaza holocaust] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. 𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊 🇮🇱🇮🇱🇮🇱 ☎️ 📄 14:21, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Relevance of Jewish expulsion from Arab lands
As per my edit, I encouraged discussion on talk page here prior to reversion, but here we are. If we are going to bring up the Nakba and create an entire section for discussing it, we have to present both sides, or else have a WP:NPOV violation. The argument that the Nabka was a form of genocide has been articulated and backed up with 3 sources. The argument against just says authors "do not consider it to be genocide" with no details, still calling it an ethnic cleaning. I have provided 2 sources that discuss the Nakba in the context of the Jewish expulsion from Arab lands and been reverted with the explanation: "off-topic and not contextually relevant, and only really of relevance in a related context to Nakba apologetics and denial". Louiedog (talk) 20:03, 2 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure how you both sides the basic facts of the creation of the State of Israel which resulted in the conditions resulting in the Nakba. The oppressed shouldn't have to justify their oppression, and both sides-ing it is a grave disservice to an already down-trodden people. Not sure why Jewish emigration to Israel needs to be included here? Detsom (talk) 20:15, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi, while it may not be your or my opinion that such a historical actually is balanced in moral tone, it is the policy of wikipedia to report it as such. I understand your feelings, but WP:ASSERT says that we cannot simply write what you're saying as a fact when it needs to be reported in wikipedia as an opinion about a fact:
 * "'assert facts, including facts about opinions, but don't assert opinions themselves.''"
 * Regardless of your or my feelings, many scholars, included the two sources I've included mention the Nakba in the context of Jewish expulsion from Arab lands. If you like, I can call in outside editors who in theory would be impartial to weigh on in this, but it is my understanding that the current article does not meet wikipedia WP:NPOV criteria. Louiedog (talk) 20:35, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Responses to accusation
One of the first sources listed in this section for "Some defenders of Israel say that characterising the conflict as a genocide against the Palestinians is antisemitic" is Dennis Prager. I'm not up to speed on Wikipedia sourcing here but it should at least be clear that Prager is a radio talk-show host and in not a Historian, or just remove his source as ther should be much more valid critique's. Galdrack (talk) 10:12, 3 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Addressed. إيان (talk) 14:47, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

January 2024
it's not the source that is UNDUE, it's the view of a politician that is UNDUE and cited out of context (it has nothing to do with the primary topic). Now, your turn, why should that irrelevant view be presented as an opposing view to the scholars'? We're talking about an American politician who is being criticized for hobnobbing with Far-Right Extremists while claiming that the Palestinians are not oppressed. M.Bitton (talk) M.Bitton (talk) 21:45, 2 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Okay, I'm sorry, I'll admit that I reverted without thinking. Your use of UNDUE simply reminded me of other users who have used UNDUE to try and remove valid content in this topic. I was also just confused as to how a source could be UNDUE when people aren't required to read it. I'm sorry for being impulsive. Salmoonlight (talk) 01:17, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * No worries. M.Bitton (talk) 14:18, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

first, you falsely claimed that the content is WP:SYNTH and now you are claiming that there is no mention of genocide when the content is about the death toll. Care to explain? M.Bitton (talk) 14:18, 3 January 2024 (UTC)


 * It wasn't a lie. The source must mention genocide, otherwise it is WP:SYNTH (The article is about the genocide, not the Palestinian casualties.). The second was a response to you saying how is that WP:SYNTH?. Also see WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:AFG Parham wiki (talk) 14:49, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:NPA,
 * I repeat, how is that SYNTH exactly? Please explain using the policy in question. Feel free to quote the relevant part from it. M.Bitton (talk) M.Bitton (talk) 15:02, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The second paragraph is original research because it expresses a Wikipedia editor's opinion that, given the Harvard manual's definition of plagiarism, Jones did not commit it. Making the second paragraph policy-compliant would require a reliable source specifically commenting on the Smith and Jones dispute and making the same point about the Harvard manual and plagiarism. In other words, that precise analysis must have been published by a reliable source concerning the topic before it can be published on Wikipedia. Genocide is not mentioned in the source.
 * This is not a personal attack. You wrote falsely claimed. Parham wiki (talk) 15:44, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You're still evading the question, which I will repeat one more time:
 * How is this (a statement that is attributed to a single RS) SYNTH? Please explain using the WP:SYNTH policy (feel free to quote the relevant part from it). M.Bitton (talk) 15:48, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I explained and quoted, the source should mention genocide (which it didn't), if it doesn't it is original research. Parham wiki (talk) 16:13, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * What you quoted is irrelevant as it doesn't explain how a statement that is properly attributed to a single RS is SYNTH (as you claimed).
 * The policy in question states: do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source.
 * What parts of that source have been combined to reach or imply a conclusion that is not explicitly stated by the source? M.Bitton (talk) 16:17, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, sorry I was wrong, but it's still true that it violates WP:OR. Parham wiki (talk) 16:59, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * No it does not as the source in question supports the statement. M.Bitton (talk) 17:03, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Do you mean this phrase? violation of international law and lack of accountability. Parham wiki (talk) 17:06, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm talking about this edit. M.Bitton (talk) 17:08, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I mean the same. You wrote: No it does not as the source in question supports the statement. Parham wiki (talk) 17:24, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * That's right and since the statement says: "According to data from the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, over 6,400 Palestinians had been killed from January 1, 2008 to September 2023", I have no idea why you're mentioning something that is not part of it. Please explain. M.Bitton (talk) 17:28, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I have no idea why you're mentioning something that is not part of it. Please explain. you said it is not WP:OR. This is mentioned in the source. Parham wiki (talk) 17:48, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * This is getting tiresome.
 * Do you mean this phrase? violation of international law and lack of accountability. what part of what I wrote and repeated so far (including the diffs) makes you think that I mean that phrase? M.Bitton (talk) 17:50, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * No it does not as the source in question supports the statement. Nevermind, I don't want to delete it anymore. Have a good night. Parham wiki (talk) 18:15, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

New additions suggested:
Scientelensia (talk) 15:34, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * A section called ‘Protests’ under the ‘Responses to accusation’ section. Details of protests all over the world could be included.
 * A section could also be added named ‘Repression’/‘Suppression of protests’. For example, Celtic fans in Scotland were banned from showing messages of support for Palestine during football matches. I’m sure there are many other similar occurrences.

Issue with footnote 92 and 93 - depreciated source
Electronic intifada is depreciated per RFC: Electronic Intifada, but the author, though almost certainly affected significantly by WP:Biased, is often considered a subject-matter expert. Are there suggestions for an appropriate resolution? FortunateSons (talk) 22:13, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * These are probably now 93 & 94 and both are views expressed by Ilan Pappé. Both are supported by other sources (first by a Pappé book). He is clearly a RS for his own views and I don't see a problem with Electronic Intifada being the 'mouthpiece' for those views.Pincrete (talk) 06:25, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I don’t disagree with him being a ‚biased but reliable‘ source. While I still think a non-depreciated source (like his books) are preferable, I agree that they can stay until such a source is found. FortunateSons (talk) 10:17, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Major issue
Major problem can be seen in lede in which genocide accusations leveled against Israel for its role in the Nakba in 1948 or Sabra and Shatila in 1982 - along with their responses - are being conflated with the ongoing events. There needs to be an explicit delineation or we risk conflating modern and past events and arguments with modern ones. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:54, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * How/what is being conflated? These are simply a list of the major events around which accusations have been framed and sources are not going to agree about which are/aren't examples of genocide. Pincrete (talk) 17:44, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Of course sources are going to argue about which are or are not examples of genocide. If you have a refutation that relates to the Nakba in 1948, it can be in no way used to refute the genocide currently undergoing. Makeandtoss (talk) 18:28, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm still not sure what is being conflated in the lede. The genocide of the Palestinian people has been (and still is) an on-going, multi-generational event. The Nakba, among others, is critical to understanding how & why the genocide began. Just as October 7 did not occur in a vacuum, nor is the genocide of the Palestinians restricted to "ongoing events". Detsom (talk) 03:28, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * In fact there seems to be an article covering the genocide and ongoing events, Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza, so I consider the issue you've proposed is irrelevant to scope of this article. Detsom (talk) 03:31, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * That just proves my point.. Even if you consider that a genocide had occurred in a continuous manner, there are still specific points within that continuum that have a very specific context. Arguing that Israel had actually not committed genocide in 1948 but merely ethnic cleansing, cannot be used to respond to 2023 war arguments. This is pretty self-evident. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:37, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Arguing that Israel had actually not committed genocide in 1948 but merely ethnic cleansing, cannot be used to respond to 2023 war arguments. Of course, but the article doesn't do that. If I start an article with a list of allegations made against Donald Trump over the years, I'm not implying that if some of the accounting ones are true/false, then the sexual or political ones must also be true/false. All or some or none of the allegations might be held to be wholly or partially true - that's fairly sef-evident.
 * Also, even if a source thinks that 1948 wasn't genocide, it is still background to Isr-Pal relations. Pincrete (talk) 11:16, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Of course, it does just that: "While some scholars describe Palestinians as victims of genocide, others argue they are not victims of genocide, but rather of ethnic cleansing, politicide, spaciocide, cultural genocide or similar; still others argue that none of these have occurred. Critics of the accusation sometimes argue that the charge that Israel is committing genocide is an assertion commonly made by anti-Zionists with the aim of demonizing Israel." Anyone reading this paragraph will think this is related to the ongoing war, and not to the 1948 context. There is a clear need to separate the different accusations, and when separated to clearly attribute and give context. Otherwise, it would be blatant misinformation. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:32, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It means over time, not just two specific instances. Scientelensia (talk) 17:17, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily, and that is exactly the problem, using arguments which were made in the past to counter a more recent episode. Makeandtoss (talk) 18:14, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Makeandtoss, IMO it is almost impossible to put 'your' construction on it. The accusations (plural) relate to a series of events/episodes (plural) any one of which can separately be seen by any commentator/reader as demonstrating/not demonstrating any one of a series of 'crimes' (or none at all). Pincrete (talk) 17:39, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, and the key word here is separately. Saying that accusing Israel of genocide in its 1948 actions is meant to delegitimize the state is one thing, saying that about the current event is another. Should be clearly separated episodes and accusations, each with its own counterarguments and context. Otherwise, it will be a complete synth and original research. Makeandtoss (talk) 18:16, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * What kind of synth are you referring to? -- M h hossein   talk 17:48, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It doesn't say that Israel's actions delegitimise the state, either in 1948 nor at any time since. It says: "This accusation has been linked to the conceptualization of Israel as a settler colonial state. ie those who assert genocide often see Israel as 'settler colonialist'. I don't think there are any people who say that Israel was legitimate in 1948, but is not so now, nor vice versa. There are some who say it has lost its moral compass since 1948, but that is a separate matter. I still don't understand what is being conflated. Pincrete (talk) 17:50, 14 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I read the led but could not realize what was being "conflated". I just suggest adding separate inline citations after each instance of genocide in the first paragraph. -- M h hossein   talk 16:50, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Request to add Masha Gessen's comments under cultural discourse
Masha Gessen, when asked in late December 2023 if what is happening in Gaza is a genocide stated, "I think there are some fine distinctions between genocide and ethnic cleansing and I think that there are valid arguments for using both terms". When pressed further they stated, "it is at the very least ethnic cleansing". This was followed soon after controversy surrounding Gessen's receival of the Hannah Arendt Prize over remarks in a New Yorker Article critical of Israeli actions in the strip wherein Gessen compared them to an Eastern European Ghetto "being liquidated" by the Nazis. Nandofan (talk) 19:41, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Nandofan, added. Pincrete (talk) 07:15, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Infobox attack
The article has acquired an Infobox civilian attack. This, and much of the content, seems both inapt and fairly self-contradictory. Apparently the attack has been going on since 1948, but many figures relate either to post-2008, or even post-October 7th. It also appears to present as fact events/judgements/motives which are highly contested. Does the infobox serve any purpose? Pincrete (talk) 23:38, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The continuity claim certainly raises factual concerns about the statistics and figures included. There were too many changes in Israeli politics since Nakba. From the start, this article has presented this as an accusation of genocide that is based on a "conceptualization of Israel as a settler colonial state".


 * This has been one of my gripes with the article from the start. The worst mass deaths and atrocities of the Holocaust occured under conditions of food scarcity. I'm not able draw any equivalence between the millions of innocent people and children facing a deliberate and manmade famine with the founding of a Jewish National Home.


 * The political philosophy and sociology of "imagined communities" is always and perpetually contested, but he accusation of Islamophobia is usually not intended for communities living in the Middle EasT, and is remarkably absurd and ignorant. This and other absurdities in the infobox makes many of the problems with this article worse by presenting them as facts. Ben Azura (talk) 08:14, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Ben Azura, I actually removed the infobox this AM as nobody defended its presence.Pincrete (talk) 16:54, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * the article would benefit from an infobox of some kind just not the absurd one that is gone now. Ben Azura (talk) 17:13, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Pincrete: I defend it: it should remain to give people an overview of dates/potential motives/deaths immediately. The info box is not complete upon deaths, but before 2008 deaths are not well sourced/recorded which is why the deaths were split up into three adjacent periods. I don’t believe the motives are quite so controversial: almost all have happened in some context and the others have been planned/debated on.
 * There is nothing wrong with using Islamophobia as a motive. It can happen everywhere, including the Middle East (though it is of course almost nonexistent in Muslim nations) and is widespread in Israel. This is neither absurd nor ignorant. @Ben Azura – if you are offended by the fact that many Israelis have been called ‘Islamophobic and wish to remove information denoting this, then perhaps such a contested page is not for you. It’s difficult for us all.
 * Other articles about allegations of genocide have similar info boxes, such as Allegations of genocide of Ukrainians in the Russian invasion of Ukraine. This format is accepted.
 * The removal of the info box is neither useful nor correct. If you wish to change motives, do so instead of removing all the information. If you wish to alter the info box to change it for the better, simply do so! Seek to enact constructive edits. Scientelensia (talk) 17:49, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Who decides what the motives are for a series of unproven accusations? That's the most blatant WP:OR. AFAIK, Islamophobia isn't generally regarded as a motive here, since a significant segment of Palestinians are Christians (inc Edward Said, whose family were displaced in 1948 and other notable Palestinians), those Palestinians Christians were not anymore welcome/safe as full citizens in Israel after 1948 than were Muslims. You don't have to be a fan of Israel to recognise that the motives at various times have been more complex than not liking Muslims!
 * Death and displacement figures for when? For 1948? For following the 6-day war? For Sabra and Shatila massacre? For 2014? For 2023-4? There are those who make accusations against Israel for each of these events and for all of them. How do you summarise each/all of these events? How do you NOT imply that the genocide accusations are NOT contested?
 * This is not an apt infobox, nor do I see one that could be. I don't know about the Ukraine article, but one significant difference is that Isr-Pal conflict is a series of clashes/occupation and wars stretching over 75 years. Pincrete (talk) 21:05, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I can add references for the motives and re-upload it. That would solve it. I take your points though.
 * Of course there “have been more complex [motives] than not liking Muslims”: that much is obvious, but let’s not ignore what is obvious. I would likely be able to source this motive.
 * The death and displacement figures are chronological and aim to cover as much time as records allow. While the conflict is a “series”, it has undeniably been ongoing since 1947-8. Scientelensia (talk) 21:23, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The infobox isn't meant to be summarising the conflict, it's meant to be summarising the genocide accustations, which are related to separate events which occurred over 75+ years. What is the motive for an accusation? What is the motive for a series of discrete accusations? You're looking for motives for genocide, not for motives for accustations. Apart from anything else, this is like deciding why a person murdered another, before we are even certain the 2nd person is dead and before there has been a trial! It's speculation at best, if there is no genocide, there's no motive. Pincrete (talk) 21:37, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The accusation is overall not separate but has distinct points of interest. I’ll refer you to what I said above. Shall I find sources? Please read what I recently said. Scientelensia (talk) 22:43, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Another major factor is that the infobox is a summary of the main established facts in the article. Where in the article is ANY motive discussed? Let alone these specific motives, and are such motives broadly accepted as facts by most sources? Of course not, because about half of the sources contend that there is no genocide and the only motive for actions taken is self-defence. You are entitled to not accept that view or not, as are we all, but you aren't entitled to ignore it and find individual sources that endorse a particular PoV. Pincrete (talk) 06:55, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * So what do you say to a “potential motives” section? Scientelensia (talk) 21:55, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I say that we can all have our personal opinion as to why Israel has done the things that led to these accusations. But all the same objections arise whether you call them motives/ possible motives/ hypothetical motives. No agreement among sources, no coverage in the article body and no agreement on the pro-Israeli side of this argument that anything wrong has been done that actually needs a motive, other than self-defence. Pincrete (talk) 22:14, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza into Palestinian genocide accusation
no need for separate article (t &#183; c)  buidhe  02:25, 3 January 2024 (UTC)


 * To clarify, I think there is scope for a separate article on the court case, but not the general allegations. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  02:26, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ Parham wiki (talk) 08:39, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I would oppose for now. The "2023 attack" article is fairly new, and I suspect that with some work it will reach a length and scope that would be disproportionate for this article, which is intended to cover at least 75 years of history. The volume and tenor of allegations in recent months is particularly notable; I think it goes beyond the ICJ case (which is significant in and of itself) and extends to academic, legal, political, and popular discourse in a way that likely warrants a full article's worth of coverage. WillowCity  (talk)  17:39, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Agree with WillowCity for now. Pincrete (talk) 06:29, 10 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Strong support. This is almost like laughing at the face of readers. Most of the infobox of this article deals with the 2023-2024 war. Editors better not come here arguing why we should keep separate the two articles they've written when they've put virtually the same information on them. I think the allegations of the recent war can be dealt with here and at South Africa v. Israel (Genocide Convention). Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 13:20, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I've raised below whether this article and the '2023' one has an apt infobox. The infobox is a muddle of current and historic info and states motive etc in WP:VOICE IMO inaptly for an article about accusations. Pincrete (talk) 15:21, 15 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose: Per notability guideline, both meet the criteria for separate articles; one for accusations prior to the current war or including it; and one for the current war. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:31, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Most of this article is about the current war. See Palestinian genocide accusation, half of the section is about the current war. See #Discourse, entire subsections deal mostly (#Genocide Convention, #Legal discourse, #Cultural discourse) or completely (#Political discourse) with the current war. Three full sections of this article, #Rhetoric, #Victims and #Alleged American complicity, are sections 100% about the current war. #Responses to the accusation is the only of the six sections of this article which doesn't depend on six months of this 75-year-long conflict. Purest example of WP:RECENTISM possible.
 * Looking at Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza, on top of all of the above, both have largely the same sections as well. Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza and Palestinian genocide accusation (and #Conceptions of genocide) are the same, sections #Academic and legal discourse, #Statements by NGOs and intergovernmental organizations, #Legal proceedings and #Cultural discourse of Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza are all the same as #Discourse here. Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza is very similar to #Rhetoric here.
 * Come on, what notability? They're in essence the same article in contents and structure, and de facto scope as well (just look at the infoboxes of the two). Has anybody bothered in taking one look at the articles in the first place? How can we argue both articles are different? How can we argue we should keep the 2023-2024 article separate from this one when that's what this article is mostly talking about? Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 13:59, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Important to note that I am talking in theory and not in practice. They interlap and they are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Both topics are notable in their own right: whether the 1948 allegations, or continuously throughout Sabra and Shatila; or just the current events. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:56, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * In theory the notability of the two separate articles hasn't been proven. They overlap in a majority of their contents. That cannot be a good indicator of notability. I see no evidence that we have such a large pool of information to draw from that we can properly and encyclopedically treat (instead of for example mashing up the opinions of every scholar with a blue link in Wikipedia into a text without coherence and point ) that splitting is our only option left. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 15:12, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Per your detailing of the repetition here Super Dromaeosaurus, instead of merge I would suggest moving much of the content giving the back-and-forth over accusations in the current conflict, from any and every commentator, to Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza, while keeping an overview, using more stringent/reputable sources, in the article Palestinian genocide accusation. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 23:48, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Let's not overwhelm this article with what is objectively a sub-topic (not an overlapping topic). The scholarly genocide accusations started before this war and mostly concern events that precede this war. The consensus for genocide is stronger for pre-war events than for the current war (at least for now; obviously more academics have had time to weigh in on pre-war events); so to make this article consist mostly of the current war would have detrimental effects both in terms of POV and in terms of more fundamental aspects of article quality (i.e. providing a good overview of a topic). So oppose a merge; the coverage there is too detailed for much of it to be due here, so a merge would equal a deletion of a large amount of sourced content. Looking at WP:MERGEREASONs, none are met, including #2 ("overlap") as claimed above. When one article's topic is a strict subset of the other's topic, the scopes don't overlap, by definition; if there is excessive information here about the current war, a merge isn't the solution. DFlhb (talk) 09:04, 19 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose because We have Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Hamas attack on Israel.
 * For that matter, we have Use of human shields by Hamas and Human shields in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict so it seems we are missing Use of human shields by Israel? (sarcasm).
 * As long as every article "needs" a counter/response article this game will continue. Unfortunate but there you are.Selfstudier (talk) 13:50, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Someone wrote Palestinian genocide accusation, so as a response someone wrote Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Hamas attack on Israel, and as a result someone wrote Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza, and I presume next will be Israeli genocide accusation (which for some reason is a redirect, please nobody write that as a serious article). Instead of engaging into this WP:FALSEBALANCE tit-for-tat game I incite editors to delete everything we don't need and organize this disastrous topic area, rather than accepting it as you seem to do with your comment Unfortunate but there you are.
 * And Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Hamas attack on Israel should be deleted as a POV-pushing SYNTH mess. Likely Use of human shields by Hamas should also be merged but that's not my focus today. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 14:06, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose also, I agree. The other article has so much content that merging it into this one would overshadow the other historical content in this article (e.g. the Nakba etc). Scientelensia (talk) 19:51, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 1. The 2023-2024 war already covers most of this article. The Nakba has been dedicated a few paragraphs. 2. Most of the info in both articles is repeated as I've shown above. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 20:18, 15 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Support per Super Dromaeosaurus. BilledMammal (talk) 19:54, 15 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Neutral, leaning don't merge Editors in the discussion have already noted that both articles are currently experiencing some issues related to the addition of non-essential quotes. Without an article to accomodate the unavoidable tendency to turn Wikipedia into a news aggregator in these fast paced articles, merging too soon could be detrimental to this article. Ben Azura (talk) 06:18, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I came into this initially leaning towards support but after reading the arguments, this is a good fork as including it in the other article would cause undue weight, and information would need to be lost to make it due, which would lead to this article being recreated as a split for that purpose. To avoid that, this article should stand.
 * DarmaniLink (talk) 01:18, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

An example
As pointed out by Super Dromaeosaurus, large sections of the article are almost exclusively about the current war, my suggestion is to trim this article so that covers the full historical scope of the accusations, while having the litany of writing and commentary available for the specific allegation in regards to the current war in it's own article. So, below is an example for cutting down the Palestinian genocide accusation section, where currently half of the section is about the current war. Thoughts and opinions are appreciated.

Following the bombing of Gaza by Israel in, in response to Hamas attacks, concerns have arisen among Palestinians and international legal scholars about the potential genocide of Palestinians by Israeli forces. According to Time, there is currently disagreement among scholars as to whether Israel's actions can be described as a genocide against the Palestinians. On 15 October, TWAILR published a statement signed by over 800 legal scholars, alarmed by this possibility, urged UN, including the UN Office on Genocide Prevention and the Responsibility to Protect, as well as the Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court to intervene and protect the Palestinian population. Additionally, 100 civil society organizations and six genocide scholars petitioned Karim Khan, Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, to investigate new crimes in Palestinian territories and issue arrest warrants against Israeli officials. These actions were underscored by statements from lawyers and groups like the Center for Constitutional Rights and Defence for Children International, accusing the United States of complicity in these alleged crimes.

United Nations experts, academics, and human rights organizations have further amplified these concerns. UN rapporteurs warned of the grave risk of genocide to Palestinians, and several Palestinian rights groups filed a lawsuit with the ICC, urging the body to investigate Israel for "apartheid" as well as "genocide" and issue arrest warrants for Israeli leaders. Ernesto Verdeja, a professor at the University of Notre Dame, told Time on 14 November, that Israel's actions in Gaza were gravitating towards a "genocidal campaign", noting that "the response when you have a security crisis…can be one of ceasefire, negotiation, or it can be genocide." Victoria Sanford, professor of City University of New York, compared events in Gaza to the 1960–1996 killing and disappearance of 200,000 Mayans in Guatemala, today known as the Guatemalan genocide. David Simon, director for genocide studies at Yale University, stated that it was possible that a court could find the IDF guilty of committing an act of genocide, but added that "it's certainly not textbook in that connecting the intent to destroy ethnic group as such is difficult." Yale's Ben Kiernan opined that events did "not meet the very high threshold that is required to meet the legal definition of genocide." The Jewish Voice for Peace and FIDH have openly condemned the actions as genocidal. South Africa, supported by several countries, filed a case against Israel at the International Court of Justice, labeling Israel's conduct as genocide and requesting provisional measures to halt the military campaign in Gaza. This move was met with strong criticism from the Israeli government, but found support from some Israeli politicians, including Ofer Cassif.

-- Cdjp1 (talk) 16:30, 20 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Yeah, condense those then point to the "main" article DarmaniLink (talk) 12:06, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Lede image caption about West Bank and JDL
The lede image has a caption that currently says: "Israeli settler graffiti in Hebron, in the Israeli-occupied West Bank, calling for the gassing of Arabs, above a tag for the right-wing group the Jewish Defense League".

An image caption is not a pathway to insert unverifiable contentious insinuations into controversial articles. The image description from Commons by an editor who uploaded the photo is not enough for it to stay in the lede.

The link to the gas chambers article and Israeli settlers worsens the pov balance by emphasizing controversial points that have already been the subject of multiple discussions on this talk page. There is very little sourced content in the article about the West Bank to justify this lede image, and not one sourced word about JDL. , you restored the image, so it falls upon you to explain to us why you think the image should be in the article and find the RS for it. Ben Azura (talk) 11:35, 21 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I've removed the 'Israeli settler' claim, since we have no way of knowing who painted this. I'm neutral about its use beyond that. Pincrete (talk) 13:23, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The previous image "Free Palestine rally" had the advantage of being a bit more colourful/cheerful! Pincrete (talk) 13:29, 21 January 2024 (UTC)


 * https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Gas-the-Arabs-painted-on-the-gate-outside-a-Palestinian-home-in-Hebron-by-Israeli_fig4_374363567 Makeandtoss (talk) 13:48, 21 January 2024 (UTC)


 * The image has been on Wikipedia since 2008 and the article being presented as verification is from 2023. Ben Azura (talk) 15:37, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Multiple articles attribute the JDL when related to anti-Arab and anti-Palestinian graffiti to the Jewish Defense League.
 * Same graffiti but a different photo of it with Jerry Levin stood next to it, on Flickr, taken 2005, uploaded 2020.
 * Same graffiti but a third different photo of it in Mother Jones, 2015.
 * Article 1 and Article 2 both use a photo from Ryan Rodrick Beiler, which has graffiti expressing the same message on a different street in Hebron, in +972 Magazine, taken 2012, articles both from 2014.
 * Different graffiti with a similar message from The Islamic Workplace, 2008.
 * No photo but article describing graffiti near a Palestinian girls school in Hebron and attributing it to the Jewish Defense League, in Common Dreams, 2014.
 * There are then also articles such as this one which describe how such statements as "Gas the Arabs" have been used by the Jewish Defense League. So, these should give enough credence from sources external of Wikipedia to state that the JDL tag is likely the Jewish Defense League. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 16:23, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Some of Common Dreams' sources describe: 'racist graffiti' some say 'sign attributed to the Jewish Defense League'. None AFAI can see says 'Israeli settlers', possibly because it is almost impossible to know who graffitied something. The researchgate link posted by Makeandtoss verifies nothing except what the poster of the image on researchgate assumed was its provenance.


 * Various of the photos have a remarkably similar 'hand' and style. Painting a slogan in English in an Arab area, using the tag of a mainly US org, seems an odd thing to do, but that's, but that's academic and WP:OR. of course. Pincrete (talk) 05:57, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * We don't have time for this hairsplitting. The researchgate link's caption clearly and explicitly states that settlers drew it. Makeandtoss (talk) 08:59, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * All the press uses avoid saying any such thing! How on earth would an academic in the US know who painted a piece of graffiti in Hebron! Neighbours generally don't know unless they witness the act itself! This isn't 'hairsplitting' it's relying on best sources. Pincrete (talk) 09:13, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Too bad, WP reflects RS, we are not in a position to judge how RS made their judgements. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:36, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * WP reflects the balance of best RS - not WP:CHERRYPICKING one's favourite! Pincrete (talk) 09:49, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Cherrypicking means choosing sources that say something, while ignoring others that say an opposite thing. Please provide an RS that says they were not drawn by settlers. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:45, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Is Wikipedia even a RS? anything that was copied from Wikipedia can't be more RS than what it was copied from. Ben Azura (talk) 18:20, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * No proof it was copied from WP. Makeandtoss (talk) 21:13, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Is the image in the researchgate article the same as the image from commons? Ben Azura (talk) 06:44, 23 January 2024 (UTC) The discussion below has confirmed citogenesis and implemented changes relevant to this discussion. Ben Azura (talk) 06:50, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The researchgate article is a chapter in a book, page viii credits the image to commons. Levivich (talk) 06:54, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Credits the image, not the caption. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:31, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes the source got the image from one location and a description of what the image was from somewhere else entirely! Pincrete (talk) 09:43, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Even if true, the RS saw no reason to doubt the authenticity of the caption. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:04, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * What existing text in the article would that illustrate? would adding this content without a clear source about a genocide accusation gain consensus on the talk page? If it does gain consensus the photo is fine, with some modifications to the caption, like Pincrete's last change that was reverted. Ben Azura (talk) 18:11, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * My only argument is for keeping the description of the image. It is probably more suited for a section later in the article talking of incitement, such as the quote from Matan Vilnai threatening a "Shoah" against Palestinians. The image is descriptive in showing how the use of holocaust imagery is used in incitement against Palestinians. Cdjp1 (talk) 19:43, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The march might be somewhat more indicative of the actual accusation/charge than the Hebron image, which is more of an example of incitement. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:22, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I find Cdjp1's sources above adequate to verify the photograph and also that it's by JDL. I would change the caption to and include a citation to the MJ and 972 articles.  must be removed as unsourced; the only source that says that is WP:CITOGENESIS (the 2023 book, p. viii, sources the photo to Wikipedia); all other sources presented here do not say anything about it being by settlers. I agree with Isk and others that this picture should be moved to where the article talks about incitement. Levivich (talk) 18:37, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * As Levivich and Pincrete have laid out, I also support the removal of stating that the graffiti is from settlers. I also reiterate my suggestion, in support of Iskandar23 and Pincrete, of (until a new/better image is suggested) replacing the graffiti image with the Helsinki rally, moving the graffiti to a section which mentions incitement. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 19:13, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I've implemented--though not exactly as was discussed here, see my recent edits/edit summaries for details. If anyone disagrees, of course feel free to change or revert. Levivich (talk) 20:00, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 January 2024
Remove this paragraph:

Stuart N. Brotman, American government policymaker; tenured university professor; and lawyer, suggested that when genocide is mentioned, the qualification should follow. "There is no current basis under international law to validate the claim that Israel’s response to the October 7 attack is ‘genocide.’ Rather, if genocide has occurred here, international law indicates that it should be attributed instead to Hamas."

Reason:

Mr Brotman is not an expert in the field and the article in which the quote appears is not well-reasoned nor, indeed, reasonable. Wikimastername (talk) 13:44, 25 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Their article seems a bit (a lot?) puffed up, although a lawyer, at first glance, he does not appear to be qualified to give an expert opinion on this subject. But I will leave this open for others to also comment. Selfstudier (talk) 16:39, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Agree with both editors, Brotman is Professor of Journalism and Electronic Media and has no legal/historical expertise. His argument, inso far as there is one, has been better made by other included legal/historical experts IMO.Pincrete (talk) 17:00, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ M.Bitton (talk) 17:47, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Why is the (redacted) here but not the (redacted)?
And can someone explain in plain English why a whole thread about this page got redacted from Talk:List of genocides? Irtapil (talk) 15:53, 30 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Ask at that page. Selfstudier (talk) 16:08, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Important information to include in edit summaries for "self reverts"
This is a page where this seems to be a lot more likely than average to happen.

If somebody asks you to do a "self revert" to correct an alleged violation of WP:1RR, please make sure you explain this clearly in this edit summary. If you use the "undo" button, leave what is there automatically and just add (for example, if I asked you to do a "self revert") "self revert requested by user:irtapil" to the start.
 * mention it is a self revert or mention its about WP:1RR
 * specify who asked you to do it
 * specify which edit you are reverting (time stamp or version number)

Probably a good idea to tag who asked for it in any edit that involved someone else, e.g. "as user:____ suggested on the talk page (link to discussion section)" instead of just "as agreed on talk page" like I've seen a few times on various pages.

Irtapil (talk) 15:54, 30 January 2024 (UTC)


 * No need to leave these reminders, editors are or should be aware of the Arbpia/ECR/CT/1R restrictions. Selfstudier (talk) 16:09, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

"We will eliminate everything"
This is a mistranslation and misinformation. The actual quote is Gaza will not return to what it was before. There will be no Hamas. We will eliminate it all. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:30, 23 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Um, what's the difference between "We will eliminate it all" and we "We will eliminate everything"? Selfstudier (talk) 19:37, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I think the difference is intended to be between destroying everything in Gaza and destroying all of Hamas, but it's fairly academic whether Gallant was correctly translated on that one phrase. What we say is: "Defense minister Yoav Gallant called for a “complete siege” on Gaza and stated that “we are fighting human animals, and we are acting accordingly.” Along with the other things Gallant said, this was "called out as expressing genocidal intent". We can't decide that sources mis-translated and the criticism of him doesn't hinge on that one phrase anyway AFAI can see.Pincrete (talk) 18:09, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It is not academic. The difference is that the fake quote has him say he plans to destroy Gaza, and the correct quote, which includes the "There will be no Hamas" senctence, says he plans to destroy Hamas. Hamas is a terrorist organization, not a people. Destroying a terrorist organization is not genocide.
 * Do you really think there is no difference between destroying Hamas and destroying Gaza? --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:23, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It's academic since we don't use either text - except within the ref itself, where we obviously have to rely on sources checking its translation, not deciding who can or can't competently translate. It's also a bit academic since Gadling spoke of 'human animals' to whom Israel will 'act accordingly". Pincrete (talk) 20:49, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You mean Gallant. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:40, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * This individual was mentioned specifically at the ICJ genocide case for comments amounting to incitement. I read the statement as referring to both Hamas and Gaza, which seems to be what is actually happening as well, so I agree with Pincrete. Selfstudier (talk) 10:07, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
 * In the correct quote, Hamas and Gaza are both mentioned, so you can interpret it that way: I read the statement as referring to both Hamas and Gaza.
 * In the fake quote quote, only Gaza is mentioned, so, if we use the fake quote, we are taking away that interpretation and the reader is forced to read it as referring to Gaza.
 * If you support the fake quote over the correct one, that means you want to frame the quote in a way that makes people believe the genocide story more than the original quote justifies.
 * That is the choice you have: between honesty and dishonesty, between NPOV and your POV which seems to be what is actually happening. Which do you choose? --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:45, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I go by sources. Selfstudier (talk) 18:47, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Unless the source is an Israeli?
 * I repeat the two versions:
 * Correct: "Gaza will not return to what it was before. There will be no Hamas. We will eliminate it all."
 * Fake:   "Gaza will not return to what it was before. We will eliminate everything."
 * You seriously want the article to omit the Hamas part? When it comes to Israel, some even usually reliable sources go Alex Jones and distort facts. Read the Atlantic link above. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:56, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Depends which Israeli source it is. I understand that Israel would like to emphasize the Hamas part and not the Gaza part if that's what you mean. Let me go over the sources myself and see if I can locate any others. Selfstudier (talk) 19:08, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
 * NYT correction to "Gaza won’t return to what it was before. There will be no Hamas. We will eliminate everything." I am OK with that and I personally read "everything" as referring to both Gaza and Hamas because otherwise the simplest thing to say would be "We will eliminate Hamas". Selfstudier (talk) 19:19, 28 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I will ignore the WP:FORUM part about your anti-Israel POV and just be happy that you finally came around. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:25, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
 * And I will ignore your ill founded assertions about my POV. Selfstudier (talk) 19:26, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

When was the "everything" part "agreed upon"? This is not, as the article says now, "The actual quote", it is how NYT translates it now. Calling it "the actual quote" is not NPOV. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:40, 30 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I agreed to the NYT correction version, look up above. As for actual quote, I believe that trend may have begun with yourself, see the first line of this section. Selfstudier (talk) 13:42, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You agreed. What was agreed in talk suggests agreement among a group, which was not the case. But Cdjp1 has deleted the "actual quote" part, so the question is moot. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:56, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, if you can produce more equally reliable versions, then we can make a note or something to the effect that there is disagreement over the translation, it just seemed to me that if NYT had looked at it twice, once originally and then for a correction, that ought to be good. Selfstudier (talk) 13:59, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I already said it is moot. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:40, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry, thought you just meant the actual quote bit. Selfstudier (talk) 14:44, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Unless it is added into the actual text of the article, better to have a note if you have a comment to make on the translation than have it placed within a reference, keeping in style with the article. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 21:46, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * IMO, the mis-translation and correction are now part of the narrative (there will still be those quoting the original). However rendered, (possibly even with the original in a footnote), briefly both should be included IMO. Pincrete (talk) 06:08, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Infobox
There is an infobox on this page: Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel. Why can’t there be one here. There was one, but it was removed, It could be restored with any necessary changes. Scientelensia (talk) 11:17, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Oh dear
The Bias Against Israel on Wikipedia p-11. Ho hum. Selfstudier (talk) 19:23, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, it seems like the problem isn't that 2.3 million Palestinians will soon have all been gleefully, enthusiastically, sadistically, and maliciously starved to death. The problem was that anybody reported truthfully about that it ever happened. I suppose that warrants lots of lobbying for censorship against the Wikimedia Foundation. David A (talk) 21:40, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Any coverage of the Israel-Palestine conflict, no matter how neutral it tries to be, will always be considered "biased" by some party to the conflict, due to the opposing sides wildly diverging perspectives on the conflict. I don't think there's much reason to pay attention to this critique as the World Jewish Congress is hardly an impartial observer here. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:05, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I do not think that we should underestimate the enormous lobbying power of AIPAC or the extreme willingness of United States politicians to act according to their wishes, possibly including passing legislation to systematically censor Wikipedia. David A (talk) 08:02, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Some recent work by the author of that missive. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/378467937_Beauty_work_or_beauty_care_Women's_perceptions_of_appearance_in_the_second_half_of_life Selfstudier (talk) 09:16, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The author mentions Comparisons between Israel and Nazi Germany in an interview in response to the question "What has been the most biased Wikipedia entry you have seen?". Said article was created by the one who shall not be named. Selfstudier (talk) 18:04, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * That article was created as "holocaust inversion" and has since been renamed and rather significantly edited. IMO it's more NPOV now than it was when it was created.
 * I wish the author would create an account here and really get into the detailed process of challenging NPOV, because either there are sources we're missing that should be incorporated into these articles, or there aren't, but AFAICS neither the paper nor the interviews get into that inconvenient level of detail. Levivich (talk) 18:10, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Agreed, the paper cites no sources, no scholarship that could be used here. The piece is basically a polemic with no references that illustrate the bias in this article. If this article is unfairly biased, it's because the reliable sources are intellectually compromised, and there's nothing any editor can do about that. Jonathan f1 (talk) 04:06, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Valuable image removed?
User:Monopoly31121993(2) removed a long-standing photo of Jewish people protesting against the Palestinian genocide in London Bristol, initially without a rationale, then (when reverted) with an edit summary stating that there was not enough room for two images removed the less relevant image which is also highly offensive to most Jews who consider the genocide accusation as blood libel This edit and comment seemed to censor the fact that Israeli policies also face opposition by some Jews. Combined with the fact that Monopoly31121993(2) today tried to brand all those bringing up the accusations of genocide as Hamas supporters, I'm apprehensive that this removal may not be to the benefit of Wikipedia.

I wonder how the community views the issue. BTW, I've exhausted my revert quota for today. — kashmīrī  TALK  21:43, 3 April 2024 (UTC)


 * What a bunch of blatant lies. Total mischaracterization of an image, it's not from London, there is nothing in the source that says this is a protest by jews. Also, you claim that I accused someone of being a Hamas supporter simply because I added a link to an article about decades of Palestinian claims against Israel? Kashmiri, you seem to be blatantly pushing your pro-Palestinian bias. Please refrain from editing pages related to this topic.Monopoly31121993(2) (talk) 08:45, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * And btw, the image that you claim (inaccurately) shows Jews in London was replaced with a relevant image of a protester claiming "genocide" was being carried out in Palestine on Oct. 9th immediately after the war began which clearly shows that the "genocide" accusation has been around even before the Israeli invasion. The explanation that I provided was that the replacement image was not relevant to section that it had been posted in previously but was relevant to the section where I had moved it. There was however only space for one image in that section.Monopoly31121993(2) (talk) 08:51, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Monopoly31121993(2) couple of questions, what religions wear a kippah? Is 9 after 7 in a chronological sequence? -- Cdjp1 (talk) 09:10, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Since when is a picture with 1 person wearing a kippah in Bistol translatable into "Jewish people protesting against the Palestinian genocide in London."? This is Wikipedia, we can't decide what we think we are seeing. We have to use the captions that are provided by the reliable source.
 * As for your other snide comment, "Is 9 after 7 in a chronological sequence?". I have no idea what you are referring to so I can't respond.
 * I would appreciate it if you kept things civil. Monopoly31121993(2) (talk) 09:23, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Monopoly31121993(2) you seem to be mistaking the comment from Kashmiri describing the image in this discussion with the description provided in the article. So your complaints about a description that does not exist in the article are null and void. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 10:42, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The question on chronology is in reference to you statement saying that a protest on the 9th is evidence of genocide accusations prior to the 7th, when saying this would make the image better to show in the section discussing the Israeli assault on Gaza after October 7th. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 10:45, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Combatting recency bias
As Super Dromaeosaurus highlights in a previous discussion on this talk page there is a prominent recency bias in the article due to the ongoing 2023 Israel-Hamas War and this bringing new prominence to the discussion of genocide of the Palestinians.

I've gone through some searches to pull the following news and opinion articles which comment on a genocide of the Palestinians (supportive of the allegation or against it) that have been published prior to 2023.


 * 2000–2010


 * 2010–2015




 * 2015–2020


 * 2020–2023

I plan to gather a better list of academic pieces that have currently not been used in the article over the next week. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 23:48, 18 January 2024 (UTC)


 * As stated here is a list of academic articles, books, and such that we don't use in the article, most of which occur from before the Israel-Hamas war.
 * 1950–2000
 * 2000–2010
 * – First edition, 2001
 * 2010–2015
 * 2015–2020
 * 2020–September 2023
 * October 2023–Present
 * -- Cdjp1 (talk) 19:29, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * – First edition, 2001
 * 2010–2015
 * 2015–2020
 * 2020–September 2023
 * October 2023–Present
 * -- Cdjp1 (talk) 19:29, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * – First edition, 2001
 * 2010–2015
 * 2015–2020
 * 2020–September 2023
 * October 2023–Present
 * -- Cdjp1 (talk) 19:29, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * – First edition, 2001
 * 2010–2015
 * 2015–2020
 * 2020–September 2023
 * October 2023–Present
 * -- Cdjp1 (talk) 19:29, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 2015–2020
 * 2020–September 2023
 * October 2023–Present
 * -- Cdjp1 (talk) 19:29, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 2015–2020
 * 2020–September 2023
 * October 2023–Present
 * -- Cdjp1 (talk) 19:29, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 2015–2020
 * 2020–September 2023
 * October 2023–Present
 * -- Cdjp1 (talk) 19:29, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 2020–September 2023
 * October 2023–Present
 * -- Cdjp1 (talk) 19:29, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 2020–September 2023
 * October 2023–Present
 * -- Cdjp1 (talk) 19:29, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 2020–September 2023
 * October 2023–Present
 * -- Cdjp1 (talk) 19:29, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * October 2023–Present
 * -- Cdjp1 (talk) 19:29, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * October 2023–Present
 * -- Cdjp1 (talk) 19:29, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * October 2023–Present
 * -- Cdjp1 (talk) 19:29, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * -- Cdjp1 (talk) 19:29, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * -- Cdjp1 (talk) 19:29, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * -- Cdjp1 (talk) 19:29, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * -- Cdjp1 (talk) 19:29, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * -- Cdjp1 (talk) 19:29, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * -- Cdjp1 (talk) 19:29, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't think recency bias is unreasonable here considering the current accusation (in this war) is by far the most significant. JDiala (talk) 08:08, 26 February 2024 (UTC)


 * I also think that it seems reasonable to expand on this article with the reliable sources that you have found. David A (talk) 08:16, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Throw this one in as well, Yes, it is genocide, April 2024 opinion from Amos Goldberg. Selfstudier (talk) 11:13, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Simon Sebag Montefiore
I'm not sure about this removal of Simon Sebag Montefiore's opinion. Yes, he writes pop history. But: So I think he counts as a historian, like a legit historian. Not on the level of Said or Morris, but enough of a historian to make his opinion WP:DUE for inclusion. He's not a genocide scholar, but is that where we draw the line for this article? Levivich (talk) 17:33, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * He has a PhD in history from Cambridge University
 * He was a visiting professor (of humanities) at University of Buckingham
 * He is a fellow of the Royal Society of Literature (which admittedly isn't a history credential)
 * On this topic specifically, he has a 2011 book, Jerusalem: The Biography, which:
 * Received enough reviews to be wiki-notable
 * Was a Sunday Times bestseller
 * Won Jewish Book of the Year from the Jewish Book Council
 * Won the Wenjin Book Prize from the National Library of China
 * Has 238 Google scholar cites, including--from my quick check--scholarly citations such as
 * Also in the history category, his 2022 book The World: A Family History of Humanity, which:
 * Was a NYT bestseller
 * Was History Book of the Year by The Times (UK)
 * Was Best History Book of the Year by Smithsonian Magazine
 * Was one of the Best Books of the Year by The New Yorker
 * Was one of the Best Books of the Year by The Economist
 * Has "only" 5 Google Scholar cites (not a ton but not nothing considering it's a little over a year old), and all 5 seem like legit scholarship based on a very quick glance:


 * On the latter point – ideally, probably? I hear you that his credentials extend a little further than your average pop historian, but he is honestly known as a TV historian, and this really isn't even close to his area of expertise. The quote in question was also somewhat off-topic – this possibly being partially a result of him being a non-expert on the topic. He was saying apartheid yes, but genocide no, but in a generic context without any real specificity to any particular time period or event. This made the statement vague at best in any case. He was saying apartheid yes, but genocide no about violence in the West Bank in 2022 and 2023, which appears to be a bit of an out-of-the-blue and pointless affirmation of a negative, since does anyone even assert that violence in the West Bank in 2022 and 2023 is genocide? (Genuine question. Not sure. Does anyone say it's a slow genocide? Otherwise, it's just knocking down a bizarrely specific strawman.) Iskandar323 (talk) 17:47, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I'd be inclined to inclusion for this one, personally. Selfstudier (talk) 17:49, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * It is not out of the question that the WB events, taken not in isolation but in toto, add to the genocide narrative.
 * Israel is Committing Genocide across Palestine:Active Genocide Alert Condemning Ongoing Violence in the West Bank Selfstudier (talk) 17:59, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah I get it. As a starting point, I'm not too fond of the "parade of opinions" approach in this or any article (lots of articles do this). But if we're going to list "X said genocide/not genocide," there ought to be some kind of standard for who gets included. Maybe that standard should be "historians," maybe it should be "historians of the I/P conflict," maybe it should be "genocide scholars." Then there's the other issue, do we include the opinions that all of it is/is not genocide, or some specific acts were/were not genocide, and does it have to be "genocide" or does "genocidal" count, etc. etc. I'm not sure what the best inclusion criteria would be, and don't really have a strongly-held opinion on where to draw the line, other than that there ought to be some objective standard for inclusion, and right now I look at the article and I think, well, on what basis do we exclude Montefiore but include, e.g., Michael Sfard and Stephen Sedley? Levivich (talk) 18:05, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * If there's a quorum for inclusion, I don't really mind. But yeah, it struck me as an oddly less expert voice amid much more esteemed ones. A bit meh. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:10, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I guess if I were to try and formulate inclusion criteria, it would be "notable scholars of I/P conflict" and "notable scholars of genocide", which would exclude all three people I've mentioned. Levivich (talk) 18:13, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Very much agree on this point, it should be notable academics and scholars, that is those who specialise in the subject who are presented for highlight. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 17:13, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Drawing the line is tricky, not sure about Sfard, for example, he seems well versed in the IP conflict. Selfstudier (talk) 17:19, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Sfard would be most easily resolved by moving him to the legal discourse, imo. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 17:25, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Another way to skin this cat is to go with the only-opinions-reported-in-secondary-sources rule, i.e., we don't cite X for "X said genocide/not genocide", we only cite Y for "X said genocide/not genocide", and so long as Y is an RS, it doesn't matter who X is. In other words: significant opinions are any opinions reported in RS. IMO it would work better if the rule was that you have to have 2 or even 3 Y's for every X. In other words: significant opinions are any opinions reported by multiple RS. And then to go further, we could say the Y has to be a scholar, or an I/P scholar or genocide scholar, or whatever criteria. I'm still not sure where exactly to draw the line but that's another approach to line-drawing. Levivich (talk) 17:26, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * We would need a cut out for publications in relevant journals, as the most extensive and thought out argumentation is likely to be journal articles where the scholars detail their analysis, and these are nearly never covered in secondary RS. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 17:31, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I haven't like analyzed it to actually know one way or the other, but I would guess that these opinions/analyses are covered in secondary RS, specifically when scholars respond to each other. It would create a delay -- people are publishing now responding to things that were published six months or a year ago -- and that delay is a disadvantage when it comes to covering post-Oct 7 stuff. We could have one rule for new stuff (too new to be responded to) and a separate rule for old stuff (old enough to have been responded to by now if it were significant). Levivich (talk) 17:36, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I think material gets temporally sorted by default. Single-sourced opinions and quotes tend to get steadily trimmed down with time, much as weathered limestone. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:08, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Indeed, it's the normal development of an article, e.g. from current events sources to newspapers, to a historical event article sourced to history books. Levivich (talk) 18:19, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree its tricky, but one way or another, presumably genocide scholars would get a free pass with just one source - they are the most pertinent voices after all. Sfard, as noted above, is probably indeed more pertinent to the legal discourse section. Same for Stephen Sedley. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:13, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * So: experts in I/P, experts in genocide, and experts in human rights law/law of war (I don't think opinions of just any lawyers would be WP:DUE)? I could get on board with that. That would exclude Montefiore but include Sfard. However, I think it would exclude Sedley, who I think is not an expert in human rights/war/international law? Levivich (talk) 18:46, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The Sedley material is also almost criminally anecdotal. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:48, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Both Montefiore and Sedney are excellent sources (Sedley by the way is an expert on human rights)Nishidani (talk) 20:08, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I'll confess to ignorantly not voyaging beyond the WP page of Sedley for details, so my appraisal is only as partial as that shakey substance, but it appears his expertise is generally of the more domestic legal variety. Montefiore is also a perfectly adequate voice generally speaking; I'm just not sure genocide rulings are really his forte. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:42, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * From memory Sedley sat on the European Commission of Human Rights. To my mind he has always been one of the sanest occasional commentators in this area. His anecdote reflects direct observation. Montefiore, like Simon Schama, is a marvellously gifted historian, and someone with expertise on the long story of Jerusalem will not be unfamiliar with genocidal realities, since core events in Jerusalem's history revolve round extreme ethnic violence. While I am often perplexed when both he and Schama comment on recent decades of I/P conflicts - one cannot be scrupulous in documenting Jewish travails over time and then careless in applying the same sensitivity to the tragedies and traumas of Palestinians without dropping one's historical guard against partisanship in a decidedly embarrassing way- my reservations over such lapses in no way permit me to call into question their authority to comment.  Nishidani (talk) 07:49, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Recent content: "actions [...] identified"
a few concerns about the content you added,


 * "Conceptions of genocide" doesn't feel like the right section for these conflict-specific details, although this leads to broader questions of organization.
 * There's a ton of content inside some s. The quotes are useful, but why so many separate sources, can't we pick strongest couple sources for each claim? Also, I'm not too familiar with best practices here but I would think large quotations should probably get their own ?
 * It seems like some of this content is veering off from the topic of genocide claims, or at least there may be WP:OR or WP:SYNTH required to connect some of these points to genocide claims. For example, at first glance I don't see any of the sources connect rape claims back to genocide claims, although I could have missed something since the references are so large.

I think it would be ideal if we could clean up this article before major additions, since there are severe organization and redundancy issues which get harder to fix as it grows. XDanielx (talk) 19:37, 23 May 2024 (UTC)


 * These are fair concerns; let’s work on it. Thanks for bringing it to my attentions. As for the s, they are largely taken from other pages and I was simply trying to make sure that these actions were obviously true, not disputed. Scientelensia (talk) 20:16, 23 May 2024 (UTC)