This RfC has two questions:

1. Are the below sources sufficient to say in Wikivoice there is consensus among genocide scholars there is genocide?
2. If so, is it WP:DUE to say this in the final sentence of the lead paragraph like proposed?

If 1. is voted true, we will be able to say there is scholarly consensus in Wikivoice with sourcing but without attribution across Wikipedia per WP:CONLEVEL (this will be considered the global consensus). Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 05:55, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The previous RfC closing note said if this goes though another RfC an alternative [to "experts"] that might be a better fit would be to define the experts as genocide scholars/other expert group. This is that alternative: do we say there is consensus among genocide scholars in the lead (distinct from consensus among experts)?

I have collected sources that fall into one of two categories:

• (A) A collection of scholars directly saying there is genocide.
• (B) A scholar (or collection of scholars) saying there is scholarly consensus there is genocide (or, earlier on, "growing" consensus).

After careful examination of each source, it is my best judgement scholars described in each source can reasonably be considered "genocide scholars," even if the specific term "genocide scholar" was not used in a given source.

Specific change proposal:

The genocide has been recognised by a United Nations special committee and commission of inquiry, the...

->

The genocide has been recognised by consensus among genocide scholars, a United Nations special committee and commission of inquiry, the...

And remove There is an increasing consensus among genocide and international legal scholars on the genocide assessment, though some academics challenge it from end of lead due to redundancy.

Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 05:55, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bad RfC: This proposal is in direct violation of WP:RS/AC i.e. "Editors should avoid original research especially with regard to making blanket statements based on novel syntheses of disparate material." You collected press releases from nine niche/biased sources that are rarely cited elsewhere by reliable sources. None of the sources you cited are major newspaper articles or academic papers with significant visibility or citations, therefore they do not meet the requirements under WP:UBO. And furthermore, multiple of these sources do not even argue the point you are attempting to make. The first source does not say there is a consensus among genocide scholars, it doesn't even say that genocide scholars believe there is a genocide, it just says that certain scholars believe there is the "possibility of genocide." The second source quotes literally one person who claims there is a consensus among an entire group of people, without presenting evidence, and therefore it is not WP:DUE. The third source claims also without evidence that there is a consensus; it makes this statement and does not at all back up the claim, and it's a very broad statement that there is a consensus among "international human rights legal community, many other legal and political experts, including many Holocaust scholars," so it never mentions the group "genocide scholars." The fourth source is hearsay just like the second, saying that "NRC spoke to seven renowned genocide researchers about Gaza" and those seven claim that all their colleagues agree with them. The fifth source actually cites specific scholars, so that's one source in your favor. The sixth source is again, literally one guy with hearsay of a consensus among everyone else. The seventh source is a minor and unreliable source and therefore its claims are not WP:DUE. The eight source is one individual who is not a well renowned scholar, and he just vaguely refers to a "consensus" but doesn't say among whom, so he provided nothing to back the claim. The ninth source is from a group of genocide scholars who mostly agree that Israel committed genocide, but they never claimed that there is a consensus among genocide scholars generally: they just polled within their own organization. Overall, this RfC is a blatant disregard for WP:RS/AC. Bill Williams 08:01, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well on your first sentence, I'll note doing original research in talk pages is fine per Wikipedia:What SYNTH is not#SYNTH is not directly applicable to talk pages and WP:OR saying This policy does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards. As for your criticism of all the sources, I don't think much will be gained if I respond to each of your points and I don't want to WP:BLUDGEON so I'm going to refrain from getting too involved at least for right now, especially with things looking like we're going toward reopening the RfC with different/added sources. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 10:41, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @Alexandraaaacs1989 you might want to change the phrasing of If 1. is voted true, as Wikipedia is not a vote. Wikieditor662 (talk) 18:06, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also argue that this is a bad RfC, but on the basis that any result will violate WP:IMPARTIAL, which mandates that Wikipedia describes disputes rather than engage in them. Find sources that explicitly verify "yes there is consensus among genocide scholars" or "not there is not consensus among genocide scholars". And if there are conflicting sources on this meta-argument, then attribute those as well. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 03:51, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Find sources that explicitly verify "yes there is consensus among genocide scholars" or "not there is not consensus among genocide scholars" In what way is this not what precisely what the sources presented accomplish? Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 07:14, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Because, as annoying as it is, we need to find verification for consensus among these sources. That's the "meta-argument". This doesn't usually come up because most topics aren't so complex and so massive that you need sources to determine consensus of the sources that determine consensus of the sources, but that's where we're at with PIA. And if those sources end up not existing in a way that we can use, then we don't make any definitive statement on the topic. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 19:33, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's conceivable that meta-analyses will be conducted not on the question of whether there is genocide, but on the question more specifically of whether there is consensus there is genocide. As someone formerly in academia this (a meta-meta-analysis) is a type of thing I have never seen. The IAGS vote is the closest thing we have to a meta-analysis, and it shows overwhelming consensus amongst hundreds of experts that there is genocide. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 21:10, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

1) Yes, there is more than ample evidence that among the smaller group of "genocide scholars" (I would even dare say there is evidence to include legal experts in that consensus too, but outside of the scope of this RfC) that there is a genocide occurring.

2) Meh. I don't think any mention of the consensus or recognition by any body should be in the first paragraph. I think that all of this material should be moved to another paragraph, as the long-term significance of this genocide will not be focused on whether or not particular groups or bodies recognize the genocide, but the acts of violence and extermination that occurred during it. Compare to just about any other genocide article, including ongoing ones, and you will see that recognition of the genocide is not included in the first paragraph. And while yes there is an increased public discourse over the politics of recognition in this instance, I would argue that placing that in the first paragraph is still improper. But insofar as we still retain the sentence about recognized by "a United Nations special committee and commission of inquiry", etc, no reason not to include this consensus among genocide scholars as well. Katzrockso (talk) 08:16, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your response.

You say: the long-term significance of this genocide will not be focused on whether or not particular groups or bodies recognize the genocide. Supporting your point, WP:CRYRECENTISM says we can and should consider how to cover recent events proportionately, which means putting them in the larger historical context rather than allowing them to dominate the article.

In response, I think presence of scholarly consensus is relevant to the larger historical context of discourse about the genocide because arguably the most controversial part of the Gaza genocide in modern political discourse is whether it is, in fact, a genocide, and I therefore believe discussion over recognition of the genocide will be notable in the years to come. So I think it's WP:DUE that "scholarly consensus" be given an early mention in the article and that WP:RECENTISM does not apply in this case. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 20:35, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think whether or not the Gaza genocide is considered a genocide does play a larger role in contemporary discourse than other genocides, but I think we have amplified that significance because we have discussed/debated it so much on Wikipedia. If you go out and read media coverage on the genocide, sure there is lots of coverage over X country said this and Y country said that. But I think there's significantly more on more specific atrocities or the mass destruction/deaths that are occurring. I'm not saying remove it from the lead, but move it elsewhere not in the first paragraph. Personally I think frontloading the text with consensus & recognition paradoxically delegitimzes the genocide itself by reinforcing the hegemonic view that the violence should be interpreted in a legalistic lens. Relevant policy here is MOS:OPEN.

Just my 2c Katzrockso (talk) 22:15, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1) I do not believe there are enough sources. Especially given that it is disputed and the question is argued my many other independent sources. The sources conflict with each other. That alone should give concern to making a determination prior to a historical consensus.

2) See number one and this question is moot on my end.

Docmoates (talk) 21:00, 30 November 2025 (UTC) Docmoates (talk) 21:00, 30 November 2025 (UTC) — Docmoates (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Mmoates (talk · contribs). SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 01:12, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If in 2023 scholars say there's "growing consensus" and in 2025 they say there's "consensus", that makes sense. The consensus grew. The sources do not conflict with each other. If you actually believe they conflict with each other, please provide evidence. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 21:38, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And if you believe the presence of consensus is disputed, then again, please provide evidence. So far, I haven't seen any evidence presented for any of your claims. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 21:45, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I raised the issue of types of experts in the previous discussion and would like to raise 2 more. First, that if this is to be added to the first paragraph then the following should be removed from the lead due to redundancy: There is an increasing consensus among genocide and international legal scholars on the genocide assessment, though some academics challenge it. Second, since editors uninvolved in the last discussion raised this point(though I object) I'd like it to be clear if this discussion is meant to only apply to one sentence or the whole article with regard to the determination of levels of consensus.

As for my vote on the propositions: 1 - I was originally unsure and I'm 50-50 on this, I could reasonably support either way, but I'm leaning no for the same argument I made prior which can be found here: [1]. The article from the editor of the lead genocide studies journal I cited last time is the main cause of my uncertainty,^[1] and if a similar academic source from a respected scholar exists then I would agree there is a consensus amongst genocide scholars.

2 - For either a determination of "majority" or "consensus" I would support it, although that would mean deleting the pre-existing sentence. Originalcola (talk) 22:16, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Originalcola 1) Agreed we should remove the sentence you mentioned if this is passed. 2) I think it makes sense this decision would extrapolate across Wikipedia (outside the lead or the article), much like the previous Wikivoice RfC about saying there's genocide in Wikivoice. I updated the RfC with clarifications based on both your suggestions.

I think you are right to say your source is sound and anti-consensus (it's the only anti-consensus source I've actually seen anyone provide across all these discussions), but I (respectfully) think pro-consensus sourcing far outweighs your single source in volume (I provided many individual scholars saying there is consensus) and in weight (86% of IAGS vote is more notable than any individual scholar's claims on consensus).Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 15:37, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexandraaaacs1989 I appreciate that you've taken on board the points I've raised, but I was asking about application to this article not all of Wikipedia, I think that's probably way too expansive. Originalcola (talk) 03:50, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Here are my thoughts on this RFC:
  

(1) No opinion. I have changed my !vote because the question subsequently changed, and I already emphatically explained in response to the second question that we should make no statement in wikivoice about the matter before the ICJ.

• Strong oppose 1 as selection biased; and Oppose #2 as UNDUE - This selected only sources supporting the position, it is not a complete or systematic view so fails WP:NPOV. My understanding from surveys and general observation is that most are withholding any view with minor note that significant numbers of voiced opinions have not gone as far as 'genocide' and the definition of 'genocide' differs among different communities. It also did not mention nor address the contrary concerns or the conditions for support mentioned in that previous RfC. I think in large part folks are dancing around trying to find a label for some collection of the folks saying it that would also exclude most those saying it is not which seems a bit iffy since the source events did not neatly declare a self-label that would do so. (There really wasn't a field of scholarship labelled 'genocide scholars' with ready list of card-carrying members.) Oppose putting it in the lead per WP:LEAD as not a significant part of the article and it shouldn't be. It's all just PR word games, and coverage of that is tiny relative to coverage of the events themselves so it would be WP:UDUE to make it prominent by putting it in the lead. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:37, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  You say this collection of sources supporting the claim there is scholarly consensus is cherry picking and that we should instead do a complete and systematic collection of all opinions on genocide. But when we do exactly that in Template:Expert opinions in the Gaza genocide debate, you say that's also insufficient. So what precisely would it take to convince you there is scholarly consensus? Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 01:11, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  User:Alexandraaaacs1989 - Nope, I said the list above shows only sources supporting the position and is not a complete or systematic view so fails WP:NPOV, I did not call it "cherry-picking" nor say you should do anything. The template obviously is not complete either, but at least it does include other views. I suppose your explicitly describing that selection bias was used could be called 'systemic' though, and thank you for being forthright about that. In any event, the question was Are the below sources sufficient to say in Wikivoice there is consensus among genocide scholars there is genocide? and no they are not. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 08:13, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  You still have not in any way addressed my single question, which was what precisely would it take to convince you there is scholarly consensus. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 14:57, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  This is the area of a RFC survey, where I responded to the RFC question as phrased, and would provide explanation of that input when I am unclear. If you want other matters, it needs a separate thread or a discussion subsection away from survey input - whichever is most appropriate to the matter. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:21, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  This would be a perfectly appropriate place to answer Alexandraaaac1989's question. Do you have an answer? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 03:28, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  User: IOHANNVSVERVS I think my 'answer' is already at top, and similar in the mentioned prior time and other time (or times) wishing to use the word 'consensus' in Lead came up. 'Consensus' just isn't a good choice for word in this topic, and I described how and what evidence I think made me think that, plus WP guidelines I thought relevant on this particular proposal as shown.

  To speculate what alternate word/subgroup/future-events may cause the word to become appropriate seems a different topic needing subsection or different thread. If you think otherwise, go ahead and suggest potential things in your RFC response area.

  I will offer a further guidance correction: First, asking for what would make me WP:OR isn't useable in WP, look to WP guidance on what it takes to say consensus which is in WP:RSAC. Second, the prior closer said to be specific what subgroup - the RFC 'genocide scholars' is a potential subgroup, but 'scholarly consensus' is no better than 'expert consensus'. Cheers

  Markbassett (talk) 11:03, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose as malformed I would prefer to first see a formally procedurally determined consensus that the genocide studies scholarly community (see the article on it last I read, lol) is the primary or sole source of authority on the matter as implied in the question. I would strongly contest that assumption in favor of a broad interdisciplinary sample from all relevant fields, in addition to raising the issue wrt genocide studies of where to draw the line between reliable empirical scholarship and activism.

In terms of said approaches, my understanding based on months of general reading is that a majority of public health experts have at least voiced concerns of a genocide or ethnic cleansing (the two terms are far from synonymous, but the Internet doesn’t like technical nuance), while a sizable portion of LoW experts (I use that term in preference to IHL because the former is more closely associated with state practice dos and don’ts and the latter is nowadays more associated with activism) are skeptical, along with nearly all technical experts in lethality surveys. I can’t speak for the other relevant fields. Also worth noting the likely massive self-selection bias going on between activist academics and quiescent subject-matter devotees (if anyone has seen wuantitative work on this lmk). RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 00:13, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We're not saying that the scholarly community is the sole source of authority on the matter, and I don't think this is implied. We're not making any claims about whether they're the primary authority either. There is already a sentence about who recognizes the genocide in the lead, and this is adding "genocide scholars" to that sentence. That is all.

You repeatedly accuse academics of being "activists" without evidence. So I think it's safe to say this allegation can be safely dismissed unless you actually provide evidence for your claims. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 15:16, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The conflation there rather illustrates my main thrust above, as does the lack of any substance besides contradiction. Re:sourcing evidence, if this discussion is still open mid Thurs (UT) I should be in a somewhat more informed position to comprehensively provide as I’m going to be discussing various broadly germane topics IRL on Wed. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 10:48, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment on sources: can I suggest that if this RfC proceeds we remove those sources that don’t mention genocide scholars? Specifically: “48 scholars report ongoing genocide (Jan 2024”: this is a list of criminologists who aren’t genocide scholars; “Professor who wrote textbook on genocide reports growing consensus (Oct 2024)”: the quote is one genocide scholar talking about a consensus with Israeli public opinion for policies he calls genocidal not a consensus among scholars! However, the article does say that whereas in October 2023 the majority of genocide scholars interviewed hesitated to say genocide several had now changed their minds, so article could work with a different quote; “Public health and foreign policy scholar reports expert consensus (Aug 2025)”: public health and foreign policy scholar aren’t genocide scholars. BobFromBrockley (talk) 03:42, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  "You don't need to be a weatherman to say which way the wind is blowing." Activist (talk) 14:12, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for your suggestions. I will reappropriate the Vox article per your suggestion. As for the criminology concern ("criminologists aren't genocide scholars"), I don't think this part is quite true (genocide is a crime, and criminology is the study of crime after all), but I'll add a note in the overview bold section that they are criminologists. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 15:05, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  There may be criminologists who specialise in war crimes and IHR violations but from the list of signatories it’s clear these are not such. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:50, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree with addition of scholars in lead. Wikipedia is supposed to follow academic sources rather than law though in some cases it defers to law like in BLPCRIME - but that applies to living people not governments. As to the ICJ neither Israel nor the US are bound by its conclusions and I don't expect the US to treat the ICJ better than it has the ICC in decisions about Israel. So I don't see that we should treat the ICJ as an overriding authority as far as this is concerned about Israel. NadVolum (talk) 20:28, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Strongly object to (1) and object to (2). I didn't feel compelled weigh in on this RfC, but I will now because of the editing of the RfC in the middle of the process ([2] and [3]) to add the language about what happens If 1. is voted true. It is less a clarification of this RfC than it is a significant expansion. I do not believe that it is a proper application of WP:CONLEVEL to apply a discussion on one article without notice to other articles to all of Wikipedia. Substantively, my views on (2) align with those expressed by @Anythingyouwant, though the editor may want to amend their "no opinion" on question (1) given the mid-process expansion of the RfC. Coining (talk) 23:37, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The edit was to prevent future headaches about consensus scope issues, and people so far have all opposed 1. except Anythingyouwant meaning the only situation in which this edit is problematic is if this would shift Anything from no opinion to oppose. There's no need to have a panic attack. This was a small clarification early on in the process. That said, I agree you are right that it would be great to hear whether this changes Anything's view from neutral to oppose. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 06:56, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Admittedly I'm realizing this a bit late, but @Anythingyouwant did change their !vote on question 1 from "No opinion" to "No" because of the change made to the RfC question. The edit to the RfC doesn't prevent future headaches about consensus scope issues; it improperly asserts what impact of this RfC would be. In any case, I hope this RfC is closed as rejecting both questions 1 and 2. Coining (talk) 16:59, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• 1. No, as selection biased.

2. No, as WP:UNDUE.

Achmad Rachmani (talk) 16:17, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Confused and doubtful. I’m open to persuasion that it’s verifiable and due. However, (a) that sentence also says “recognised by… numerous genocide studies and international law scholars” with two footnotes — are we proposing to remove that? If not it’ll be a bizarrely repetitive sentence; if so you’ve lost the international law scholars. (b) deleting the last sentence of the lead doesn’t follow from agreeing that this additional is verifiable and due - specifically it loses the crucial caveat “though some academics challenge it” which is the only concession to trying to make the article NPOV by acknowledging the significant minority who dissent from the consensus, who are amply evidenced in the source template and currently underserved by a single footnote to Dirk Moses (a rather unlikely source for his claim!)BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:00, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I was the person who added that version of the sentence and I was the one who requested an amendment to this RFC to remove it. It'd probably make sense to continue to mention the caveat of it being challenged(either in a similar way or in a note). I also think the evidence supporting international law scholars is quite a bit weaker in this case. Originalcola (talk) 22:58, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks. That makes sense. I’d lean more support if there was a clear statement about the minority view. We could drop the repetitions and lawyers and just have a final sentence of the lead about the minority. BobFromBrockley (talk) 23:17, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak oppose 1 Strong oppose 2. The question is if the list of sources in this RFC is enough to say there is a consensus and it is not as the list is incomplete and is selection bias but given alot of scholars do say a genocide is happening it is a weak oppose. I strongly oppose 2 because it would be WP:UNDUE to include a sentence on this in the lead. GothicGolem29 (Talk) 18:37, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 1 — oppose, the section itself cites the dispute among scholars, and I don't see any clearly visible consensus among scholars as cited in the article
  Option 2 — also oppose, per WP:UNDUE, it should be removed from the first paragraph of the lead, the sentence in the final paragraph is enough, and can be modified if necessary Ahammed Saad (talk) 18:50, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Bad RfC
  • Lower quality sources are used. For example, why was a source from Oct 2023 used? It says possibility of genocide being perpetrated by Israeli forces against Palestinians in the Gaza Strip. That source does not support the claim "recognised by consensus among genocide scholars"
  • Confusing wording. First question is Are the below sources sufficient .... I am not sure about that specific set of sources. Are you asking us only about your specific set of sources, or if we can say something like there is growing agreement or consensus with different sources?
  • Here are better sources:
  • • Journal of Genocide Research:

      Although legal scholars and commentators were slow to recognize the severity and urgency of the situation, this article sought to show that there is an emerging consensus that Israel's actions in Gaza are not another instance of armed conflict but instead amount to genocide

    • The Round Table: The Commonwealth Journal of International Affairs and Policy Studies:

      South Africa's actions led to an ever-growing consensus in international legal circles that Israel is committing genocide

    • Journal of Genocide Research:

      Roughly since mid-2024, there seems to have emerged a broad agreement among genocide scholars—at least those who have expressed their views on the matter—that this is indeed the case ... What followed seems to be a similar broad agreement emerging among legal scholars that this is indeed a genocide, and even those who are still hesitating find the genocide charges much more convincing.

    • Journal of Genocide Research:

      By the end of 2024, when Amnesty International published a comprehensively evidenced and legally argued case,17 the consensus that Israel was committing genocide was becoming overwhelming

    • The New Yorker:

      Trachtenberg testified to a consensus opinion among historians of genocide that what is happening in Gaza can indeed be called a genocide, largely because the intent to cause death on a massive scale has been so clear in the statements of Israeli officials

    • Boston University:

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

  • The lower quality sources in this RfC shouldn't affect the current sentence in the article: here is an increasing consensus among genocide and international legal scholars on the genocide assessment,[21] though some academics challenge it. Alternatively, a separate RfC on that sentence could be made, with a more clear RfC question.
  • Some scholars oppose genocide assessment [4]. I think this is fine to say in the lead if and until this becomes a WP:Fringe position. As such I am against replacing the current sentence. The current sentence may be moved to the first paragraph though.
  • RfC says this will be considered the global consensus. I don't think an RfC here can set a "global consensus". This is not WP:VP or something like that Bogazicili (talk) 17:46, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  You're right about the "global consensus" thing, but I know that Alexandraaaacs1989 is aware of the "better sources"; they were discussing these sources in the previous RfC and they are directly cited in the article in a part that is a direct focus of this RfC. I don't think it was their intent to include only the sources they listed, as I think the lower quality of those sources somewhat undermines his argument when compared to these sources. Originalcola (talk) 19:03, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I am concerned about these RfC's or topics such as Talk:Gaza_genocide/Archive_31#"Consensus_there_is_genocide"_in_lead with lower quality sources affecting content with higher quality sources. This was also discussed above: Talk:Gaza_genocide#Result_of_the_previous_RfC Bogazicili (talk) 20:08, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Fair enough, it feels like the citation bundle proposed in the archived discussion was also really poor and I tried to avoid basing my opinion primarily off it and focused on the "better sources". The conversation shifted in that discussion after Aquillion brought them up, but I guess this is the issue with malformed RfCs. Originalcola (talk) 21:05, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  First and foremost, thank you @Bogazicili for taking the time to collect these sources. I didn't see them previously.

  The closer Beland of the genocide Wikivoice RfC seemed [5] [6] to support the notion of extrapolating that RfC as global consensus on genocide use in Wikivoice. So I think attempting to form global consensus on scholarly consensus on genocide in Wikivoice in an RfC in this talkspace is sound and that we should continue making the "global consensus" claim on future RfCs on this talkpage, unless I'm misreading things, in which case please correct me.

  As for mentioning there is some consensus in dissent, I'm fine with keeping a "though some disagree" somewhere, but still think having two overlapping sentences would be less-than-ideal so would like to reduce redundancy in some way.

  If you want to end this RfC as malformed and use these sources instead, then you will have my full support. That said, I spent quite a bit of time assembling the collection of sources in this RfC and think many of them would belong, in addition to the sources you provided, on a reformed RfC. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 22:36, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Really good points Bogazicili BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:50, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if it's necessary to wait until the ICJ judgement, although I would say whichever way it goes in the court would be the opinion I'd support and would affect whether or not this article should be Gaza Genocide. Originalcola (talk) 03:30, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong oppose for both 1. and 2. per Markbassett. The sources do not show a consensus amongst "genocide scholars" that there is genocide. And furthermore, it's irrelevant to the lead; reliable sources rarely mention the opinions of genocide scholars on the Israel-Hamas War, and reliable sources have almost never claimed that genocide scholars agree there is a genocide. This is WP:OR to manufacture some consensus via an agglomeration of niche sources, whereas reliable sources that synthesized these niche sources do not claim there is consensus of a genocide. Not a single source mentioned in the RfC is a newspaper article or academic paper. The sources are niche because they're all press statements from little-referenced organizations or websites. Hence inclusion of the supposed consensus among genocide scholars violates the core tenants of WP:RELIABLE. Bill Williams 07:34, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support 1 and 2, but oppose the specific removal of increasing consensus without something to replace it. The sources obviously support the statement that there's a consensus among genocide scholars; we have huge numbers of sources saying so in as many words, and essentially none disputing the fact that that consensus exists (in context, most of the sources talking about scholars are unambiguously talking about genocide scholars specifically.) The arguments otherwise above are unconvincing - the simple fact that some individual scholars exist who disagree isn't enough to change the consensus when it is repeatedly and clearly summarized by secondary sources, and I feel the current version's ...though some academics challenge it in the lead already gives too much weight to a marginal perspective. We don't use that sort of wording on comparable places where there's a clear academic consensus - you can find some academic who disagrees with almost everything, that's why we ideally rely on broad summaries in secondary sources for statements like these. Given the massive number of sources stating that there's a consensus now, editors who feel that that's not the case should be able to produce at least a few sources of comparable quality bluntly responding to that and saying "no, there's not a consensus"; they have, as far as I can tell, failed to do so. However, in terms of the specific proposed change, while the additions are fine, I'm reluctant to remove the verbage about a increasing consensus without some coverage in the lead, because the fact that that consensus took time to form is in fact extremely important and is an aspect that many sources touch on. It doesn't need to be in the first paragraph, necessarily, but it ought to be in the lead somewhere, in some form. --Aquillion (talk) 03:02, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Support with conditions. Changes 1 & 2 seem to be supported by the sources, including the better sources supplied by Bogazicili. But we should keep "increasing consensus" (or similar) because that's in most of the sources.

  Also not sure that an article talk page Rfc can set a global consensus, so maybe it would be better to restart with a clearer set of actions and sources? twilsonb (talk) 22:05, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose*** per arguments by u:MarkBassett and u:Bill Williams. The last source is much weaker than it sounds as only 28% of the members of the association took part in the survey. Alaexis_¿question? 20:46, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm replying here because I have no clue how to directly reply to an RfC.

  Strongly oppose both because it is still highly contentious with several sources opposing the claim of genocide. VidanaliK (talk to me) 21:50, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  To directly reply, press edit source at the top of this discussion, and follow the format of the other messages. Wikieditor662 (talk) 23:49, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  How is it relevant that 28% took part in the survey? Hundreds of experts voted and 86% said there is genocide. Those who chose not to vote probably decided they were not well enough informed to vote. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 00:16, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  It is relevant due to the possibility of voluntary response bias: some of those who chose not to vote likely held the opposing view ("not a genocide"). SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 00:27, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  some of those who chose not to vote likely held the opposing view ("not a genocide") Why? Wikieditor662 (talk) 00:41, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  That's not guaranteed, but it proves that the actual range of opinions cannot be precisely determined. Maybe the rest of people agree with the 86%, maybe they didn't have an opinion, or maybe it was opposite. The point is that because the actual result among all of the members is nearly impossible to determine, it should not be used. VidanaliK (talk to me) 00:45, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  That's absurd. We are not here to determine the efficacy of poll takers or experts in their methodology. There are university degrees in such programs. [[WPOR]] Basically, you are saying we should not allowing a branch of statistics. O3000, Ret. (talk) O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:55, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  There are other possible reasons that some of those who chose not to vote held the opposing view, like if they were worried of being shunned for having an opposing view. My point is that we have absolutely no clue what the 72% would have voted had they done so, and so that is not a good source. VidanaliK (talk to me) 00:58, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  And you think you know this and experts in polling do not? You think that these experts have ignored something that you have personally discovered? We use reliable sources -- not our own opinions. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:02, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  +1 Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 08:38, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:OR says This policy does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards. So it does not apply. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 08:32, 3 January 2026 (UTC) Take back comment Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 09:01, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  It does if you want to amend or edit an article based on that same OR, but it's a confusing line to tread. Blue Sonnet (talk) 09:22, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  That's a good point, I take back what I said. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 01:16, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  1) yes obviously, especially as aquillion spells it out.

2) maybe wording needs work like aquillion says it. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 04:02, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Strongly object to (1) and object to (2) per Coining and others that have pointed out that this is a Bad RfC which did not establish the pre-work needed to first ensure that this could or should move forward. Scrap it, though others that establish first the prequal should be discussed of course. Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 05:56, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongly support 1 and 2, for reasons noted by filer and particularly what Aquillion noted here. There is scholarly consensus which should be reflected in wikivoice. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 21:56, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Support (1) and (2). Taken together, the sources (particularly the peer-reviewed and synthesis-level ones) are enough for WP to make a statement that a consensus exists amongst genocide scholars. This is consistent with WP:RS and WP:DUE. Including this with the UN recognition in the lead improves clarity, while removing the "increasing consensus" is required since we will state "a consensus exists" at the start. Dualpendel (talk) 13:06, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support for 1 and 2: There is a strong consensus among scholars, so it seems self-evident to mention this clearly. David A (talk) 15:32, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose for both 1. and 2. The subject is still strongly debated so using wikivoice is premature. Same with removing the line about dissenting scholars. That's a line we should keep, because it reflects the current debate. Lumdeloo (talk) 16:53, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose for 1 and 2. There is no consensus among scholars. Nehushtani (talk) 08:52, 11 January 2026 (UTC) Striking comment made by a sock Iseult ^Δx talk to me 05:51, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Ok, then provide an argument, provide your own sources, engage with my sources, or provide any form of elaboration. The point of this entire discussion is to debate whether scholarly consensus is established by the above sources, so simply saying No will not be considered in the RfC consensus per WP:NOTAVOTE. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 09:01, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  It has been pointed out above that the sources presented do not indicate a consensus. Nehushtani (talk) 09:14, 11 January 2026 (UTC) Striking comment made by a sock Iseult ^Δx talk to me 05:51, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  That is incredibly vague and does not add any value to the discussion. All you are effectively saying is "someone else holds the same view as me which is why I hold this view". Okay, who did you agree with? Did you read the discussion first before commenting? Let me remind you WP:READFIRST says to familiarize yourself with a discussion before participating. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 11:36, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Support both The sourcing clearly supports saying there is a consensus among genocide scholars, especially when relying on higher quality academic summaries rather than individual opinions. This isn’t OR so long as we’re reflecting what reliable secondary sources say in simple terms. Since the lead already references recognition by institutions, I believe including scholarly consensus there is appropriate, and the existing “increasing consensus” line is redundant and can be removed.Tashmetu (talk) 11:33, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose 1 as selection biased and because it is improper to impose an RfC result across articles without proper notification. Oppose 2 as WP:UNDUE. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 15:29, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Support 1 and Support 2: As multiple editors have pointed out there's ample RS describing a consensus amongst experts here, and including this alongside the recognition by UN bodies I think it's actually a fairly straightforward change in line with the usual policies (NPOV, DUE, etc). I do agree with Aquillion's point about retaining somewhere somehow the "increasing consensus" phrasing. Smallangryplanet (talk) 12:32, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I attempted to close the RfC, which was contested, so I undid this close. If someone who is not involved could close this RfC and voice support or opposition to the below RfC with improved sourcing, that would be greatly appreciated. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 20:32, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Regardless of how this is closed, it probably isn't the best idea to open a new RFC about the same thing straight away. TarnishedPath^talk 21:54, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  The closing of the RfC was not contested; the reason you closed it (comments were sparse) is completely valid. What was contested was immediately opening another RfC. VidanaliK (talk to me) 22:01, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  No it was contested. See User talk:Alexandraaaacs1989/Archive 1#Talk:Gaza_genocide#RfC: "Scholarly consensus there is genocide" Wikivoice_in_lead. TarnishedPath^talk 14:00, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Still, now I think it should be closed, now that comments have been sparse for weeks since the reopening. VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 17:27, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  By someone else, I mean. VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 17:27, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Why not make a formal request it be closed in the RfC closure request page? Wikieditor662 (talk) 18:38, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  It's already there, @Wikieditor662. Chess enjoyer (talk) 18:43, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Alright, thanks for your help. Wikieditor662 (talk) 18:49, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  That one was discarded as it was reopened. VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 18:54, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• 1. No. The (overlapping) fields of Holocaust studies and Genocide studies are basically divided on a "pro/anti"-Israel orientation, as extensively pointed out in this Journal of Genocide Research article by Shira Klein. The closest Klein says is "Instances of individual Holocaust scholars defending Israel persisted throughout 2024, although their frequency ebbed somewhat" and that "the Israel-critical camp has grown considerably louder in the last year". A somewhat ebbing frequency in one direction and increasing volume in the other is miles away from a consensus. Klein also points out, that some pro-Israel scholars have for years prior to the outbreak of the Gaza war viewed the Journal for Genocide Research as a hostile platform, which is important context for many of the sources that have been identified. Now this article is 1 year old, but I am unaware of any Damascene moments among the scholars it cites as defending Israel since then, such turnarounds would have to be sourced. Moreover, when we have some sources asserting a consensus, and other another source stipulating a "rift" and giving examples of both sides of the disagreement, the latter is obviously more convincing.

Moreover, Klein points out that the opposing sides of the pro/anti-Israel rift are engaged in a struggle for influence over both the future of their discipline and that they are aware of the impact of their statements on public opinion. Assertions in sources that there is a consensus one way or the other therefore need to be assessed with an eye to the extent to which the source is WP:INDEPENDENT.

As a sidenote, genocide studies and holocaust studies are overlapping and related fields. Numerous of the scholars discussed in the opening sources are described as both holocaust and genocide scholars.

No to 2 as a moot point given the response to 1.

No to the global consensus idea - I'm not sure why the RfC proposer thought WP:CONLEVEL could be circumvented in this way. These decisions should be made in context. Samuelshraga (talk) 18:43, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Several editors, myself included, have raised concerns in the past few months about the use of wikivoice to state as fact that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza. However, the last formal RfC was nearly half a year ago, and the discussion started by Larry Sanger has since been archived, so I think now it is time to revisit this discussion.

Should it be stated in Wikipedia's own voice (WP:WIKIVOICE) that "Israel is committing genocide in Gaza", or should that claim be attributed?

The relevant issues here are WP:SERIOUSLYCONTESTED, namely, is the claim that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza seriously contested by reliable sources? Also, WP:WIKIVOICE states that Wikipedia describes disputes but does not engage in them. Does this issue qualify as a dispute that would require attribution?

• No to 1 and 2 (which have been discussed to death). Nothing has changed since the last RfC, and I don't see anything in this non-neutral RfC that suggests otherwise. M.Bitton (talk) 00:10, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  How is this non-neutral? It's at least much better than the last one. VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 00:11, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  The last one being RfC:Wikivoice/NPOV in lede. VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 00:12, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I suggest you read WP:RFCNEUTRAL. I also suggest a procedural close. M.Bitton (talk) 00:14, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes to 1 and 2, and Option B, as nom VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 00:50, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• No to 1 and 2. And the RfC is very badly set up. Reliable sources are required for DUE and looking at the case for the minority that does dispute genocide seem WP:MANDY and lacking halfway decent arguments which I would have thought would be needed for 'seriously' in seriously contested. The propoer should have said what they were thinking of under 'dispute' so I have to just reject 2. In fact it would have helped if they had said exactly what 'seriously contested' meant to them. NadVolum (talk) 01:18, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  About the WP:MANDY claim: being Israeli or Jewish does not necessitate the refutation of the claim; there are several organisations in Israel and in Judaism that support the claim (this was also explained here. And several non-Israeli scholars refute the claim. So MANDY does not apply here. VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 01:47, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• No to both and moratorium. This seems like basically the only question that ever comes up on this page. I think we should not revisit this conclusion until someone can produce some kind of source that was not mentioned in any of the previous discussions. A moratorium like this worked very well at preventing this sort of pointless raising of the same question over at Imane Khelif. Loki (talk) 01:26, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  See my reply in Discussion below. There has even been a source from 2026! VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 01:55, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  A moratorium was recently considered and rejected with the expectation that attempts to relitigate prior discussion without significant new evidence would be closed. EvansHallBear (talk) 21:27, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• (Summoned by bot) No to both. I don't think much has changed since the last RfC by my reading. Additionally, I'm not sure what the sources presented are supposed to change. Obviously you can find sources that say it's not a genocide. But it's a minority opinion, and should be treated as such under WP:NPOV and not as "seriously contested". As mentioned earlier, I would expect more (and higher quality) sources disputing the genocide for it to qualify under both of the questions presented in the nomination statement. We already have mention of Israel and their supporters disputing it being called a genocide in the lede as well, which makes me even more confused why we need to change anything. SmittenGalaxy | talk! 02:21, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Minority opinions can stil be under seriously contested; the issue here is Wikivoice and whether it is a debate. If there is a debate it cannot be presented in wikivoice per WP:INVOLVE. "Debate" does not necessarily mean 50-50. VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 02:24, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:INVOLVE does not mean what you think it means. It links to Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. I assume you just mean the paragraph above WP:SERIOUSLYCONTESTED, which is WP:VOICE. Either way, it's not a dispute nor is this claim seriously contested by reliable sources. What sources you have presented doesn't change this fact in my opinion. SmittenGalaxy | talk! 03:00, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh! I meant the lead part of WP:WIKIVOICE, which does say that. Also, how is it not a dispute? Wiktionary defines "dispute" as "an argument or disagreement, a faliure to agree." And given that several experts have been more recently coming out about their position that it is not a genocide, I don't think this can be called a settled debate. Even with the scholarly consensus rfc, it was closed as consensus against (before being reopened, but it is still consensus against because only one person has posted a new opinion and that is against). VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 14:56, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• No to 1 and 2 The handful of non-expert opinions presented here are completely insufficient to overturn the previous RfC. Please WP:DROPTHESTICK. EvansHallBear (talk) 09:41, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• bad RfC. this does not need to be relitigated for the millionth time. scholarly consensus hasn't changed just because of a handful of news articles denying the genocide. this is ridiculous. as others have said, drop the stick ... sawyer * any/all * talk 13:34, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• No to all. The sources in the article are multiple high-quality academic sources, most of them peer-reviewed, which state unequivocally and at length that there's a broad consensus among genocide scholars. The sources presented here to try and argue against that are genuinely embarrassingly bad by comparison - a collection of op-eds, opinionated news articles from non-experts, and sources that intermingle opinion and fact. A consensus among scholars does not require absolute unanimity, so the existence of a few academic sources that disagree wouldn't contradict it; but even beyond that, if you want to contradict so many sources saying unambiguously that there's a consensus among academics, you would need other secondary sources of comparable weight saying "no there isn't an agreement" - even beyond the low quality of these sources, most of these are just "this talking head disagrees, though!" By that standard we wouldn't be able to state the academic consensus on global warming, or the effectiveness of vaccines, or who won the 2020 US election, or numerous other things where the academic consensus is clear but where talking heads exist who will try to argue against it. "Seriously contested" does not mean "some talking head or hired gun who is paid to hold a particular opinion argues against it"; it means that there is disagreement among sources of comparable weight. For easy reference, here's the citation bundle from the article that currently supports the statement being challenged; you would need up-to-date sources similar to these, saying things that directly dispute the parts that are quoted, in order to challenge it:

Note that these are not simply higher-quality sources, they also clearly summarize expert opinion from other high-quality sources. That's the level of quality and breadth necessary for a statement like this; but when it's present, something of comparable weight is needed to render it contested. --Aquillion (talk) 13:58, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

5 out of the 6 are just talking about "consensus", not any actual factors causing a genocide. The 5th does talk about "mass killing means there is genocide", and to refute that, the 15th source (American enterprise institute) below says: Israel did not begin this war; Hamas did, with the mass murder, rape, and kidnapping of more than 1,200 civilians on October 7, 2023. The war’s objective was immediately clear: to dismantle a terrorist army and to free the hostages it took. The fighting ended as soon as those hostages were returned. If the aim were extermination, the killing would have continued. The logic of the war itself refutes the charge. A genocidal state does not drop leaflets warning civilians to evacuate. It does not open humanitarian corridors or pause operations for aid and prisoner exchanges. It does not call on its enemy to surrender in order to save lives. These are not the acts of a nation seeking to destroy a people, but of one struggling—however imperfectly—to uphold its humanity its humanity while defending its existence. I think that serves as a refutation of the claim "largely because the intent to cause death on a massive scale has been so clear in the statements of Israeli officials". The others don't directly relate to the issue of Wikivoice because they talk about the conflict in a meta-way, sometimes not even using wikivoice themselves! (I know the term wikivoice only applies to Wikipedia, but I use it to mean describing something as fact). Just because most RS refuting the claim don't talk about the meta-conflict and terms like "conensus" since they are really fuzzy doesn't mean they don't adequately provide strong arguments against the ones you gave.

Update, I realised AEI is a conservative think tank so here's another quote from Philosopher's Magazine:

VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 15:16, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Not to 1 and 2, why are we relitigating this again? I don't see new sources that drastically change anything. Laura240406 (talk) 18:58, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  also, please WP:DROPTHESTICK Laura240406 (talk) 19:00, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• No to both - Evidence of a drastic shift among reliable sources would be necessary to justify the community relitigating this issue. As no such change among sources has been demonstrated, there is no reason to believe consensus here will change either. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 21:40, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• No to both and procedural close you have already opened discussions on this in December and January, followed by another RfC in January that also did not succeed and was procedurally closed. We are now relitigating the same issue yet again. I find it ironic that the most recent moratorium failed when this situation once more demonstrates why it was needed. This repeated reopening of the same dispute is highly disruptive and a waste of editors time. There is nothing to suggest any meaningful shift in RS that would justify revisiting the issue now. I would strongly advise you to WP:DROPTHESTICK and stop beating a dead horse. Paprikaiser (talk) 22:07, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  A moratorium is not necessary to close discussions that do not bring new evidence. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 22:39, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  And in this case, there are a few new sources that I have given, especially that postdate the last RfC. VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 23:36, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Please read WP:BLUDGEON. M.Bitton (talk) 23:39, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah. @VidanaliK, keep in mind that you are limited to 1000 words. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 23:51, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Can my discussion with Kowal2701 not be counted as part of that since it wasn't actually about the proposal or sources? VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 23:58, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Quotes don't count towards the limit, and a lot of the text of your comments there was quotes. I think you're OK. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 00:00, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural close. I dont see what is new BobFromBrockley (talk) 06:08, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural close as nothing new here, sourcing is as weak as a kitten. CNC (talk) 08:50, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• No to changing the status quo, and support procedural or WP:SNOW close. WillowCity^(talk) 00:20, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a couple other souces that I don't think have been mentioned:

• I am a war scholar - there is no genocide in Gaza
• Israel-Gaza genocide claims debunked, study finds
• No, Israel is not committing genocide in Gaza (New York Times)
• This source is actually from 2026!
• This source also postdates the last RfC on the topic
• [7]
• [8]
• [9]
• This source does not completely reject the claim, but it does prove that Reuters frames it as a debate rather than a settled fact

VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 01:39, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Few of those are reliable sources for this claim. Katzrockso (talk) 14:16, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be willing to explain why? These sources present legitimate opinions. You can disagree with their opinions and say that the authors are biased toward Israel or are non-experts, but they still hold valid opinions. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 23:56, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If these authors are not experts, their opinions carry no more weight than mine. Paprikaiser (talk) 20:21, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

op.eds < academic studies/orgs.
JPost is biased for israel-gaza and would have to be attributed.
reason.com is an oped site
aei is a conservative think tank that publishes opeds
the reuters source does not frame it as a debate among academics. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 03:18, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

you've added three new sources to the list, none of which are useful to your argument. the TPM article is by Russell Blackford, who is not a scholar of genocide studies, Israel-Palestine, international law, or anything else relevant. the American Enterprise Institute is a right-wing think tank and therefore an extremely poor source for this - Samuel J. Abrams is a scholar, but of politics and social science, not the relevant fields here. the LTO source is legit, but it doesn't support your argument - the scholars consulted overwhelmingly support the genocide categorization, with only a few of them saying "maybe", "it depends", or "not sufficient evidence". ... sawyer * any/all * talk 15:26, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

LTO source still supports the argument because it frames it as an ongoing debate, not a settled fact. There's also this Reuters source which also presents it as an accusation (if Reuters agreed with the characterisation of it as genocide it would have talked about the UK not concluding that it's genocide as the UK denying genocide). VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 16:33, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a solid and explicit methodological criticism to treat AEI differently than the likes of Brookings? They are generally considered reliable in RUSUKR and while I have voiced criticisms on wiki of the methodology of those reports, they were mainly directed at the lead coauthor ISW.

RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 20:53, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

we are assessing scholarly consensus among experts in the relevant fields on the genocide question. the AEI source may be useful for other purposes, but not for this. ... sawyer * any/all * talk 11:07, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

none of these sources are reliable and support your claim

in the LTO source, only one says "no", and I've googled that guy and only found articles he published and even he seems to indirectly accuse Netanyahu of the crime of genocide in one of his articles. Laura240406 (talk) 19:10, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Only one says "no" completely but another one (Patrycja Grzebryk, I probably spelled that wrong) says no in terms of state responsibility (blankly stating that "Israel" is committing genocide), but that some top Israeli officials (I assume she's talking about the likes of Itamar Ben-Gvir, Benjamin Netanyahu, etc.) demonstrated genocidal intent. This is also a position that hasn't been mentioned too much in the article. VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 19:26, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

These are weak sources that add nothing new. BobFromBrockley (talk) 06:06, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thoroughly unimpressed with this sourcing. CNC (talk) 08:48, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Problematic RfC: these discussions are brought up over and over again, and yet nothing changes about this. As such, I propose an indefinite moratorium that says in order to bring up discussions of this again, BOTH NEW AND SIGNIFICANT evidence must arise, hopefully that could save everyone some time. Wikieditor662 (talk) 18:31, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

These sources are not adequate.

• John Spencer is already reflected in Template:Expert opinions in the Gaza genocide debate, so this adds nothing new. In my view, he should not be included there in the first place, and we certainly should not be double-counting his position.
• Jacob Laznik is a former IDF soldier writing for WP:JERUSALEMPOST. That outlet is not appropriate for this topic unless its claims are validated by independent RSs, and Laznik himself has no recognized authority in this area.
• Bret Stephens is an opinion columnist, not a subject-matter expert.
• Simon Schama is already included in the expert opinions table.
• David Bernstein is likewise already included in the table.
• Russell Blackford is also already included, though he should not be. He is a philosopher, which is at best tangentially relevant to a legal determination of genocide.
• This is a right-wing think tank, a really poor source as has been already pointed out.
• Even within this small sample of eleven quoted individuals, only two (Patrycja Grzebyk and Miguel Manero de Lemos) express doubts or state that there is insufficient information to determine whether genocide is occurring. The remaining sources describe the situation as genocide or likely genocide. So even here, more than 80% of this group aligns with the genocide characterization.
• The positions of governments, particularly those that are actively arming one of the parties and therefore have a clear incentive to deny that a genocide is occurring, are not determinative and are certainly not more authoritative than the assessments of independent experts.

Even if we momentarily assume that all of these sources are top-tier, valid, and uniformly assert that the situation is not genocide, I don't see how the views of a small group of individuals would meaningfully alter the broader scholarly and institutional consensus regarding this. Paprikaiser (talk) 20:17, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The ones that are already included still postdate the last RfC, and were quietly added without discussion on whether those sources, and the general continuing presence of a valid dissenting minority, exist and show that the dispute is still ongoing. VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 01:24, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]