RFC about due weight for expert and activist views

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
This RfC was opened in good faith, and I think a lot of editors here understand the OP's concern about possible overinclusion of sources. However, as noted in the discussion, the impact of this RfC is unclear (which sources from the list are not OK in the article? which sources already in the article must go?), and if the proposal is carried, we may need to create more carve-outs to already bloated rules of Wikipedia, which the editors who expressed this concern oppose. This RfC is thus left with no action.

The OP may want to check the following policies and guidance:

(non-admin closure) Szmenderowiecki (talk) 10:22, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Generally speaking, when can views (by experts and "expert activists", such as human rights orgs) be included in the article, and not just in the list? Please vote for the minimal standard you consider due.

  1. Any reliable source
  2. expert or well-known expert activists, such as major rights organizations
  3. 2., but only if cited by RS, peer-reviewed, or comparable
  4. 2., but only if cited by major RS, peer-reviewed in a major journal that does not primarily publish about the I/P conflict, or comparable
  5. Experts cited by experts within an academic publication

I believe to have mentioned all significant views, but !voters can and should elaborate on destinctions I may have missed. FortunateSons (talk) 08:51, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Polling

  • Malformed RfC: What is this meant to change? Do you have any examples? This is hopelessly vague. RfCs should be for specific changes. Parabolist (talk) 09:43, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue is shown in the discussion linked below: there is no standard for inclusion, leading to repeated issues/discussions about due weight and an outcome where - for example - small activist organisations are included, but well-known professors are excluded. I believe that creating consistent minimal requirements (such as cutting off reliable but minor organisations and/or requiring experts to be cited or published by a news source/peer reviewed would cut down much of that noise without having to have a discussion on the merits of ~ 15 sources. Specific disputed cases are - for example - the German law professors, EMHRM, L4P etc. I would manually remove them, but this will inevitably be partially reverted, so a centralised discussion is probably preferable from the perspective of preserving editor time. FortunateSons (talk) 09:52, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • 3 for experts, 4 for expert activists at this point in time, we probably have hundreds (if not thousands) of statements that meet the general requirements for reliable sources, but only limited meta-analyis without (at best) strong bias, requiring editorial discretion. Nevertheless, the article is light on (particularly non-anglophone) scholarship, despite being at or over the desired total length. We should focus on improving the quality of arguments, by restricting ourselves to experts only as recognised by some external authority, and activists only as recognised by a very significant authority. While there was a place for press releases and 'any statement by any experts', this simply is no longer the case. With activists always receiving more attention by media, they are only due if they receive a lot more attention than comparable organisations, or if they are very major (such as Amnesty or HRW). FortunateSons (talk) 10:13, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • 4 - There are lots of places and contexts in which people want to lines like "The ADL says....." or "Amnesty International issued a report saying....". In general, I think the opinions or positions of organizations of that nature are only really notable and worth mentioning if they have been noted in reliable sources. NickCT (talk) 14:09, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Malformed RFC per my comment below. Any WP:RS can be included, but the inclusion of, and amount of text dedicated to, a specific perspective is based on whether it is WP:DUE; and whether we highlight or focus on individual scholars and commentators depends on whether they have something unique that needs to be added to the article per WP:BALASP. Obviously the sequence of increasing source-quality here lends a bit more weight to something a source says, but on a topic like this, where huge amounts of ink has been spilled, inclusion isn't really solely or even primarily about the quality of an individual source, it's about how things fit into the larger article and how well the article as a whole reflects the key points from the best available scholarship. --Aquillion (talk) 21:12, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Malformed RFC - I dont see this article as having deviated from broader wikipedia policy, and adding instruction creep here that won't necessarily apply to other articles in conflict areas seems wrong. Would rather see an RFC as part of broader proposal for rule changes, and even then I'd be skeptical about the need for such an RFC. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 22:32, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I tend to agree that this needs to be a "broader proposal for rule changes" as Bluethricecreamman put it, instead of trying to carve out special instruction-creep for one particular article. Toward that broader end, I would actually support the "3 for experts, 4 for expert activists" proposal of FortunateSons (and "4 for expert activists" specifically for NickCT's reasoning about them).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:37, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Malformed RfC in the sense that it attempts to impose a different standard on this article than the rest of en.wiki. Generally, we follow 1 or 2: we judge sources by their WP:reliability, which is a factor of things like published by a reputable institution, written by a recognized expert, amount of times that publication itself has been cited etc. 3/4/5 would constitute top-tier sources, and if there's an abundance of sources then of course we should favour 3/4/5. But we don't impose the 3/4/5 limit on most articles on en.wiki. The field of research on the Gaza genocide is not yet near the level of research on, say, The Holocaust, so the quality of sources we use here will likely be lower.VR (Please ping on reply) 21:22, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Malformed RfC As I mentioned in the discussion I don't have the first inkling what this RfC wants to actually do to the article other than possibly purge some otherwise reliable sources by creating novel source reliability criteria. The absence of an RfC before is a red flag along with the vagueness of the question. I would suggest the person who proposed this RfC should withdraw the RfC proposal and start a conversation regarding the reliability of whichever sources they think don't meet muster. Simonm223 (talk) 20:33, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • 4, and not a malformed RfC. This RfC should not be necessary, but that doesn't mean that it's malformed. This is not about reliability or not - it's about due weight. A source can be the pinnacle of reliability and not merit inclusion in a particular article per due weight. As an example, a source may be very reliable for factual information about the purported genocide, but the opinions of its authors may not be due weight to include. Some other considerations are to prevent this article (and any other) from becoming a list of a bunch of viewpoints that don't do anything to further the encyclopedic understanding of the content of the article. While including some expert and even activist opinions/statements is due for this article, they should be selected carefully to provide balance and neutrality rather than just including many people who have said things. Part of maintaining neutrality is preferring opinions of non-activist/neutral sources over activist sources. Option 4 comes closest to implementing those considerations. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 20:49, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Malformed RfC (per Bluethricecreamman and others) and no WP:RFCBEFORE. M.Bitton (talk) 21:50, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussions

I believe that there is some inconsistency regarding when and why views by experts and activists are included in this article, and believe that a consistent standard might be beneficial here. The last discussion can be found at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gaza_genocide/Archive_7#German_law_professor_opinions. FortunateSons (talk) 08:57, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pings (exluding one tbanned editor and one person who engaged for procedure only): @Cdjp1, @Bogazicili, @3Kingdoms, @David A FortunateSons (talk) 09:31, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Now, if my bias isn't already evident, I place weight on assessments, analyses, and opinions published in academic journals, and tend to lean more to the sociological and historical schools. So I believe we should be using such pieces in the article (see the articles from the Journal of Genocide Research). Beyond that, those individuals who are recognised as prominent individuals (who we can consider in this category we can hash out, but the example I have in mind is Omer Bartov, who I'd like to think we can all agree is someone worthy of mention) who publish their opinions etc. in non-academic reliable sources should be included due to their requisite expertise, even if not published in what I consider the ideal publications.
Since this RFC comes off of the discussion of the German legal scholars, I do want to see the opinions of those outside of the anglophone world to be included more than they currently are in the article, so we have a more global perspective on the matter.
One thing we now have that we didn't previously, is articles in popular RS and academic RS that are summarising, highlighting, and contrasting the different opinions etc. of individuals who should be listened to on the matter, this helps us in being able to select who should be included, with the caveat of biases being present in these pieces such as anglophonism (I am unaware at this point of any articles of this kind in other languages).
On an official "vote", I will hold off for now to see other opinions and arguments, but I see no "bad" options suggested. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 09:57, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The basic premise here misses how we're supposed to use such sources. Per WP:NPOV, our goal is representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. This means that being a WP:RS is sufficient for inclusion - but it doesn't mean we list every single position taken by a RS (or even an expert, or whatever) indiscriminately. Rather, the goal is to determine what broad views exist, and to cover each of them. If there are five or ten or fifty scholars saying basically the same thing, we don't list them all individually; instead, we weave them together into coverage of that broad position. The key thing is to avoid a situation where people on different sides of an intensely controversial dispute are trying to flood the page with people repeatedly saying the things they agree with. We don't determine due weight by nose-counting (at least, not mostly) or by which perspective has more snappy quotes. So whether a particular scholar's perspective gets emphasis should depend on whether it is a new perspective (that is, whether it adds something not already in the article) and whether adding it would risk unbalancing the article's focus. --Aquillion (talk) 21:12, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I broadly agree with all of that. Unfortunately, in practice, the issue described as a situation where people on different sides of an intensely controversial dispute are trying to flood the page with people repeatedly saying the things they agree with is - in my opinion - occurring, but there is no agreement about which (if any) are instances of such. I believe moving towards above-average scholarship or at least high-quality ‘expert activists’ (with exceptions, therefore ‘Generally’) is a good way to cut through the noise, but if you have an alternative proposal that doesn’t look like disputes about a plethora of sources (for example, see the section about German legal views above), I’m happy to support that instead.
    No hard feeling if not, but while your vote is obviously valid, I would appreciate a short explanation what the difference between your vote and a 1 vote would be? Is it your opinion that the RfC isn’t able to make that determination in a binding way, or that the question is poorly phrased? FortunateSons (talk) 22:12, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, my objection to 1 is that I fear people would use it as a rationale to cram even more random talking heads or one-off papers into the article, even if it's redundant with what's already there. Setting a threshold for the quality of sources is one way to try and keep that under control. At the same time, seeing talk of expert activists makes my skin crawl because in my experience that's not an easy line to draw. What ultimately matters is WP:DUE weight; a talking head with no expertise has little weight, but an established scholar with a weighty reputation does matter, even if editors feel that they're an expert activist. In that respect I guess I lean towards 2 but I feel the whole RFC is fundimentially the wrong way to think about structuring the article and deciding what to include - you want to start with high-quality secondary sources that survey the entire topic, then flesh out key aspects from there using the best available sources for each aspect. I'd also consider calling sources activists (especially scholars) to be emotive language, and in some cases even a potential WP:BLPTALK violation if they're not described that way in reliable sources, so I'd avoid focusing on that aspect - I've seen too many topic-areas devolve into people shouting at each other about how the sources they disagree with are all activists. A source having a perspective, even a very strong and strident perspective, does not make them an activist - otherwise we end up with nonsense like people dismissing all of mainstream climate science across academia as activism! (Which people do, in fact, try to do.) If you're talking solely about self-described activists that's different, but I get the sense that that's not what you mean ("expert activists" is a term that makes alarm bells go off in my head.) I'd also draw a clear distinction between things published as activism, and things published elsewhere - an academic can wear two hats; the fact that they might support activism in their private life does not render their peer-reviewed publications "expert activism", whatever that means. --Aquillion (talk) 15:46, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As an outside observer (no personal connection to either side of the conflict), it's hard to accept that most of these academics are acting objectively in their assessments. The section on genocidal intent is a good example (and the most critical) -they'll take vague and ambiguous comments from Israeli officials (like "exact a huge price from the enemy") and interpret them as part of a systematic attempt by the state to eliminate Gazan/Palestinian civilians "as such". And without any other evidence, I just don't see a solid connection here. Numerous examples of this too.
I also don't agree with the title of this article, but I won't re-open that can of worms again (I understand this has been RfC'd and litigated left and right). The vast majority of people outside of Wiki read this title and take it to mean not a generalized description of the subject matter, but a statement of fact, beyond a mere allegation. Which it most certainly is not. Jonathan f1 (talk) 17:52, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing any RfC before here which makes it a bit difficult to contextualize what the RfC is trying to resolve and why it's needed. Simonm223 (talk) 18:03, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The RFCbefore is the discussion about German academics (linked above), where this issue was discussed (at least that’s the last discussion I‘m aware of). FortunateSons (talk) 08:18, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

About

Im proposing we drop allegation in "This article is about accusations against Israel during the Gaza war." because its no longer allegation as per UN and various human rights organization. Even the opening statement says it.there is number of articles in google scholar that also concludes the same Astropulse (talk) 04:53, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You would need to start a formal RFC, and I would suggest pinging those involved in previous RFCs on this article for their input in the discussion. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 13:33, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When an RFC is created, I'll be voting Support, especially now given what a certain newly-inaugurated official has openly stated about what he wants to do to the region. B3251(talk) 13:42, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is an allegation about a crime and for the top ranks involved it would come under WP:BLP. We can't stop saying it is alleged until the court rules on it or else a very long time afterwards with academic sources agreeing. NadVolum (talk) 13:56, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLP does not apply to large groups (like entire nations.) See WP:BLPGROUP. --Aquillion (talk) 14:05, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It does apply though to the leaders who are accused of instigating it. Intent is necessary for genocide.and even for a company the only time we'd say one has committed fraud is if they've been found guilty of it or they were a fly by night and have disappeared. NadVolum (talk) 19:53, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, absolutely not - only if they're mentioned by name. Otherwise WP:BLP could be applied to every company and every nation by arguing that any description of their activities has BLP implications for the people who run them. To be clear, saying that eg. a company committed fraud or a nation committed genocide does not have even the smallest sliver of a BLP consideration. Given the severity such a misinterpretation of BLP could have, I'm going to start a WP:BLPN discussion immediately. --Aquillion (talk) 17:44, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RfC about changing About and Short description

Proposed changes

About : This article is about Israel’s genocide in Gaza.

SD : Israel’s genocide in Gaza during the Gaza War.

--Update--

Alternate shorter SD proposal after discussion Israel’s genocide in Gaza (2023–present)

Yes/No. Feel free to suggest alternative wording, Astropulse (talk) 17:39, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Polling (RfC about changing About and Short description)

  • Reason: According to the UN and several international organizations, it has been concluded that Israel has committed genocide in Gaza. This is reflected in the opening statement. Numerous Google Scholar articles also support this conclusion. The article title was changed from “alleged” to “Gaza genocide” a few months ago, reflecting a consensus among editors and reliable sources. Given this consensus, I recommend that we name it appropriately. it’s time for Wikipedia to acknowledge this as genocide without downplaying it. Astropulse (talk) 17:39, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wiki is not characterizing anything. mostly reporting facts. so id oppose characterization Astropulse (talk) 20:28, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wiki is reporting on a characterization. This article is about a characterization, not a genocide. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 23:31, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just noting that the current introductory comment is a bit difficult to follow. I would recommend rephrasing to just say Should the {{About}} and short description be changed to [proposed text] and moving the motivation to the discussion section. This will make it easier to follow what people are !voting on. Also, what's done is done, but if possible we should avoid pinging editors blocked for sockpuppetry from the mass-ping notification.signed, Rosguill talk 20:20, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    how can i tell an editor is blocked for sockpuppetry? Astropulse (talk) 20:30, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If you go to settings->preferences you can enable 'Strike out usernames that have been blocked'. Sean.hoyland (talk) 03:16, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft Support. Linking to the evidence referenced in nom for ease of discussion: UN Report, Amnesty Interanational, Human Rights Watch, Doctors Without Borders. As far as I can tell, there are no third party human rights organizations remaining who are specifically against the designation of this conflict as a genocide — the main argument against this characterization seems to come from Israel itself, the United States, and a limited number of other NATO countries. There also seems to be an increasing consensus amongst academics in favor of the genocide characterization, and I would be in favor of us following their lead. My one hangup with this direction for the article is how to characterize opposition to the "genocide" label — it doesn't seem to be to be WP:DUE to characterize it as "genocide denial" yet, and I don't know if it would make sense to describe it any other way if the article is directly calling it a genocide. That said, I'm still in favor of following the lead of neutral academics and organizations here. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 20:54, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bad RfC, the wording is not neutral as required by WP:RFCOPEN. I hope it'll be changed and the RfC restarted. Note that RS still talk about the accusations of genocide and quote experts that don't use this term [16]. Alaexis¿question? 21:15, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    See WP:POVNAMING For example, the widely used names "Boston Massacre", "Teapot Dome scandal", and "Jack the Ripper" are legitimate ways of referring to the subjects in question despite appearing to pass judgment. Thus, if a name is widely used in reliable sources (particularly those written in English) and is therefore likely to be well recognized by readers, it may be used even though some could regard it as biased. So id argue this applies to short description and about as well. As its based on article title. Astropulse (talk) 21:22, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem isn't what you're proposing, it's how you've proposed it. Per WP:RFCNEUTRAL you shouldn't have made a case for one side or the other in the RFC itself. You can then make your argument below that. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 21:45, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    i see. can i change it after posting it? Astropulse (talk) 21:53, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    the link you gave is an opinion. also news article usually should use "accusation" so that they dont get sued. we are really looking for determination of international bodies rather than a person, media or country. Astropulse (talk) 22:02, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, the RFC question is neither neutral or brief and that has left me confused about what exactly is being proposed. @Astropulse is this a proposal to change the short description? TarnishedPathtalk 03:29, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    About and short description. whats confusing about it? i mean everyone else seems to get the rfc Astropulse (talk) 03:34, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose The ICJ, who have been delegated to finding out if Israel actions in Gaza have constituted genocide, have not formally published a statement saying that Israel is committing genocide. Also, many of the most prominent editors to this article have overt Pro-Palestinian biases, and many were topic banned by the recent ArbCom decision. Let's try to keep at least a kernel of truth in this article. Pyramids09 (talk) 21:41, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You're mixing up the ICC and ICJ. (t · c) buidhe 22:14, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Pyramids09, please don't WP:GRAVEDANCE. TarnishedPathtalk 03:30, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You are wrong on your claims about who contributed to this article, of the top 20 editors to this article, only 1 received a topic ban from PIA5. So I would suggest striking your aspersions of that nature, alongside aspersions of motivations from your comment. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 12:12, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    +1 TarnishedPathtalk 01:45, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose Genocide needs to be decided by the ICJ. Or else when the business is a long time in the past and there is an academic consensus about it. The third case for companies where we can say they committed fraud with no criminal case is if they suddenly disappear as they are a fly by night operation - but that's not going to happen with Israel. As to the leaders, intent needs to be shown so it is a BLP issue for them. I'm pretty sure Netanyahu and many of his cronies are scumbags and have encouraged genocide and lots of other people believe that too but that is not enough to say they actually committed genocide as it is defined. Only the law can do that, not mob rule. NadVolum (talk) 22:02, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia follows a policy of verifiability and relies on reliable secondary sources rather than legal rulings. If reputable historians, scholars, governments, or international organizations widely recognize an event as genocide, Wikipedia editors may use the term, even if the ICJ has not made a formal ruling. Astropulse (talk) 22:15, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Please be aware of WP:BLUDGEONING, @Astropulse. It's not appropriate to respond/argue with everyone who comments here. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 23:01, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Just because an event was more recent, does not mean there is no academic consensus about it. I think relying on the ICJ is flawed because the ICJ has not ruled on most incidents of genocide in recent history. Many perpetrators of contemporary genocides like those against Rohingya and Yazidi people are still alive, and the ICJ has not ruled on either case. So does BLP require us to retitle those articles? (t · c) buidhe 22:16, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    One fairly significant way in which this situation differs from that of the Rohingya and Yadizi is the severity of recognition the UN has given. From the UN Human Rights office:
    • For the Yadizi, as early as June 2016, the UN HRO stated definitively "The so-called Islamic State of Iraq and Al-Sham (ISIS) is committing genocide against Yazidis...", following it up with language like "Genocide has occurred and is ongoing" and "“ISIS has made no secret of its intent to destroy the Yazidis of Sinjar, and that is one of the elements that allowed us to conclude their actions amount to genocide"[17]
    • For the Rohingya, I'm not sure when the UN HRO first made their determination - but as of 2024, the actions are called ""genocidal attacks against the Rohingya in Myanmar" and specifically calls it "the 2017 Rohingya genocide"[18]
    • The most up-to-date pronouncement we have on Gaza, as far as I could find, was from 3 months ago - the language is notably softer, finding instead that Israel's "warfare in Gaza is consistent with the characteristics of genocide", including "mass civilian casualties and life-threatening conditions intentionally imposed on Palestinians there". The rest of the report goes on to detail the crimes of Israel (which have been covered extensively in RS, and documented extensively in this article) but makes no further mention of genocide.[19]
    The ICC's judgments on genocide carry a lot of weight - even if they haven't given rulings on many genocides. But the UN itself also carries very nearly as much weight in my opinion. That said, official reports from the UN still use soft language like this, to refer to the possibility of/similarity to/plausible occurrence of genocide, without specifically pronouncing Israel guilty of genocide, as they have for other genocides recently. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 20:04, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

*:::This is outright false. Among other UN bodies and offices, as little as two weeks, the office of the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food has clearly described [20] the situation as "Israel's genocide in Gaza," which is a clear and specific phrasing. Eelipe (talk) 21:46, 26 February 2025 (UTC) blocked sock. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 15:17, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Surely you understand the distinction between words from "Mr. Michael Fakhri, UN Special Rapporteur" and words from "the Third Committee of the General Assembly," the UN office to which he issued his report? And that the article you linked is a summary of the opinion of the former, and not the latter?
    Also, the distinction between said GA committee and the Human Rights Office? The latter of which put out an official statement, which I linked? PhotogenicScientist (talk) 22:39, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    And wouldn't you know it - it turns out the Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food is a position underneath the Human Rights Office.[21] So, if we are to try to discern the position of "the UN" (multifaceted body that it is) on the matter, I believe official communications from the office trump individual "unofficial summaries" from employees. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 22:47, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:BLP applies to talk pages too, @NadVolum, so you may want to strike and/or rephrase some of your comment here. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 23:41, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lean support I think we are seeing an increasing consensus about what happened. If there was a significant debate, I feel you would easily be able to find scholarly sources arguing against the genocide argument on Google Scholar or other databases. However, that's not the case. (t · c) buidhe 22:24, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I scrolled through 10 pages of Google Scholar results so that you don't have to. In all those results, there were only a couple sources arguing against the genocide argument. To me, that makes an academic consensus on the matter pretty clear. I think it is hard to argue anything else, regardless of what the ICJ rules if the scholarship is >95% on the same side of the argument. (t · c) buidhe 22:47, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Your search through Google scholar is one metric. Our compiled table on scholarly sources is another - where ~57% of the listed scholars and organization say "yes genocide", ~27% say "no genocide", and ~14% say "maybe genocide." That's enough to say there's a scholarly consensus forming on the matter - but not nearly a convincing enough majority to pronounce, in wikivoice, that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza, via the short description. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 20:13, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was pinged here and don't have a strong opinion either way, but if reliable sources are indeed saying that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza during the Gaza War, then both the short description and the hatnote should be changed to reflect that. Some1 (talk) 22:37, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lean Support per wasianpower and the resources they provided. There are multiple scholars that have come to this conclusion who study topics like genocide studies (including Israeli voices like Raz Segal) and a genocide can be recognized by such individuals as well as reliable human rights organizations and councils, international bodies, etc. without the international court's decision. It has already been an established consensus that this is considered a genocide by scholars who are far more qualified to speak on this topic given that they are professionals in these fields, as well as human rights organizations. Genocide wasn't recognized as a crime under international law until a few years after WWII ended (see Genocide Convention) [22], though we still call a genocide that occurred before that a genocide even if there wasn't a legal framework revolving the act of genocide. It would be foolish to argue that an event that has been recognized by consensus as a genocide isn't one because there wasn't an international body to consider it as such at the time and because "the crime of genocide" didn't exist under a legal framework at the time. There are genocides that haven't been and/or didn't fit into the timeframe for it to be legally considered a genocide yet still considered a genocide as per consensus by scholars and human rights orgs.
Generally speaking, recognizing and addressing genocide by international bodies (like the ICJ) has historically been sloppy and we shouldn't be so reliant on them. Germany refused to recognize the fact that they committed genocide against African ethnic groups in modern-day Namibia until 2021[23]. The second word in the article "International response to the Rwandan genocide" sums up the international response to the Rwandan genocide: "failure". It doesn't make much sense as to why we need to rely on a historically flawed international body to make a decision before we can label something with strong consensus as being a genocide, a genocide. B3251(talk) 23:33, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose The article has been crafted at the same time as large off-wiki POV-pushing operation.[1] Since we can't identify which editors participated in this operation, the only way to restore a semblance of NPOV is to do a careful analysis of editor behavior (such as battleground editing) along with rollback for topic-banned editors, bring in new voices, and start the discussion on level ground. The wording should be 'genocide accusations'. Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 23:44, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The current version of the lead correctly says: "According to ...". This is just a claim, not a fact. My very best wishes (talk) 01:13, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Even the sources are hedging their words carefully for the most part. The only ones that aren't are activist organizations like Amnesty International's report. Note that while being an activist organization does not necessarily mean they are unreliable, it does mean that their opinions on the matter should be taken with a grain of salt. As others have stated, claims are just that - claims, and Wikipedia is not here to right the "wrong" of genocide even if it is occurring. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 01:21, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support/yes. Our policies require we give more WP:WEIGHT to scholarly sources, so lets examine those. At Template:Expert opinions in the Gaza genocide debate, 102 sources say genocide has been committed in Gaza, 48 say no, 20 say maybe. Of those that support the existence of genocide, two entries actually have been endorsed by 100s of scholars:
    • April 2024: A letter by law experts in the UK wrote "there are reasonable grounds to believe that the threshold indicating Israel’s commission of genocide is met". This was signed 59 professors of law and 105 lecturers of law (1,001 lawyers in total).
    • May-June 2024: A survey by Middle East Scholar Barometer of 750 of Middle Eastern Studies scholars found: 75% defined Israel's actions as either major war crimes akin to genocide, or genocide, vs 24% who don't.
  • If we focus on peer-reviewed scholarly publications, then existence of Gaza genocide is supported by Semerdjian (Journal of Genocide Research); Green (State Crime Journal); McAlister (Canadian Foreign Policy Journal); Ak (Journal of Humanity, Peace and Justice); Di-Capua (Journal of Genocide Research); Jamshidi (Journal of Genocide Research); Sultany (Journal of Genocide Research) etc. VR (Please ping on reply) 02:27, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "there are reasonable grounds to believe that the threshold indicating Israel’s commission of genocide is met" This is the most wishy-washy way to say it that could possibly be. And trying to equate that to "Israel committed genocide" is reading into the source what they didn't say. Furthermore, the phrase "akin to genocide" does not mean "genocide". Ask yourself this - if the group had a consensus to call it genocide, why did they not do so? They didn't do so directly because they did not have that consensus. So trying to push these sources as supporting a solid determination of genocide is reading into the source what they intentionally did not say. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 02:33, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: there are 25 genocides post-1949 at List of genocides. But the ICJ has never convicted a state for genocide. Even in the Bosnian genocide case, it recognized genocide occurred while simultaneously ruling that "Serbia has not committed genocide". In fact, the ICJ has been criticized for its "reluctance to find states guilty of genocide even in light of significant evidence"[24] VR (Please ping on reply) 02:44, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

*Support, although I was initially leaning oppose. A lot of the con arguments argue that genocide needs to be decided by the ICJ; however, per some interesting research by @Vice regent, ICJ genocide convictions have not been required to establish genocide-responsible states and genocide victims in WP precedent. And within academia and the international human rights civil society space, there is a consensus over the status of this particularly matter that justifies the proposed change. Eelipe (talk) 03:39, 23 February 2025 (UTC)blocked sock. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 15:17, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support per Eelipe; a host of experts have referred to it as a genocide (hence the name change), and I don't really see why the ICJ should be considered the be-all-end-all for it. Vice regent's comments that the ICJ is reticent to issue an opinion seals it for me. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 03:48, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support (responding to ping). The argument that the ICJ hasn't ruled it to be genocide is irrelevant as there is not a single policy or guideline anywhere which states that our content must follow the rulings of the ICJ. What we do follow is what reliable sources say and as noted by others there are academics and human rights organisations which state that what occurred/is occurring in Gaza is genocide. TarnishedPathtalk 07:03, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Not really. There's sources that dance around calling it genocide, without doing so explicitly - for good reason. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 07:17, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The UNHR report, released in mid-May, concludes: “Israel has committed genocidal acts, namely killing, seriously harming, and inflicting conditions of life calculated, and intended to, bring about the physical destruction of Palestinians in Gaza,” says Susan Akram, a LAW clinical professor of law and director of LAW’s International Human Rights Clinic, who contributed to the report.[2]
    Amnesty International’s research has found sufficient basis to conclude that Israel has committed and is continuing to commit genocide against Palestinians in the occupied Gaza Strip, the organization said in a landmark new report published today.[3]
    In recent months, ECCHR has been conducting independent research and analysis on the topic of genocide, and analyzing this against the available information and evidence relating to Israel’s actions in Gaza. This process has led us to the conclusion that there is a legally sound argument that Israel is committing genocide against the Palestinians in Gaza.[4]
    Aconsensus is building. On 5 December, Amnesty International concluded after an investigation that “Israel has committed and is continuing to commit genocide against Palestinians in the occupied Gaza Strip”. A few days later, the European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights (ECCHR) stated that after research and analysis, it concluded that “there is a legally sound argument that Israel is committing genocide against the Palestinians in Gaza”.[5]
    Israeli authorities are responsible for the crime against humanity of extermination and for acts of genocide.[6]
    What is happening in Gaza cannot be fully described in words. This brief Correspondence is a plea to every human being to help stop this genocide right now—we cannot live like this; the world should not be silent about the killing of civilians in the thousands.[7]
    The administrations of both Joe Biden and now Donald Trump have vociferously denounced a growing international legal consensus that Israel has been violating the Genocide Convention. This follows a decades-long pattern of the U.S. government denying, minimizing, downplaying and rationalizing genocide and related crimes against humanity by American allies. Regardless of whether the tenuous ceasefire agreement reached on Jan. 15 holds, investigations will likely reveal more details of Israeli war crimes and more questions about U.S. culpability.[8]
    By the time I travelled to Israel, I had become convinced that at least since the attack by the IDF on Rafah on 6 May 2024, it was no longer possible to deny that Israel was engaged in systematic war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocidal actions. It was not just that this attack against the last concentration of Gazans – most of them displaced already several times by the IDF, which now once again pushed them to a so-called safe zone – demonstrated a total disregard of any humanitarian standards. It also clearly indicated that the ultimate goal of this entire undertaking from the very beginning had been to make the entire Gaza Strip uninhabitable, and to debilitate its population to such a degree that it would either die out or seek all possible options to flee the territory. In other words, the rhetoric spouted by Israeli leaders since 7 October was now being translated into reality – namely, as the 1948 UN Genocide Convention puts it, that Israel was acting “with intent to destroy, in whole or in part”, the Palestinian population in Gaza, “as such, by killing, causing serious harm, or inflicting conditions of life meant to bring about the group’s destruction”.[9]
    Doctors Against Genocide (DAG) gathered Wednesday in Washington, DC to urge the Senate to take action to end the genocide in the Gaza Strip, Anadolu news agency reported.[10]
    Faced with the potential of a reckoning over their own complicity, political leaders and media outlets have sought to portray the opponents of Israel’s genocide as dangerous extremists.[11]
    Working through the ongoing genocidal violence carried out by Israel in Gaza.[12]
    Israel’s continuous war on Gaza turns out to be one of the deadliest genocides in modern world history.[13]
    Just two months after this special issue was finalized Israel launched its catastrophic, genocidal assault on Gaza.[14]
    The last three of these sources are from academic journals. I can provide more if needed. TarnishedPathtalk 08:18, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What we do follow is what reliable sources say and as noted by others there are academics and human rights organisations which state that what occurred/is occurring in Gaza is genocide
    And what do you have to say for the other reliable sources of academics and organizations which state what is occurring in Gaza is not genocide, or else have not made a definitive announcement on the matter? Which comprise ~39% of our compiled list? PhotogenicScientist (talk) 20:18, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose, we should wait for the ICJ (or more precisely, the reaction of scholarship to the ICJ). There is significant opposition within scholarship, particularly legal scholarship, to referring to the events in Gaza as a genocide. For example, within the German-speaking legal world (Switzerland, Austria, and Germany), arguably one of the most significant areas for scholarship of international law, there is a consensus against this assertion, with dissenting voices being respected, but in effect minority views (as included in the article). The same applies to Israel, and I’m guessing to multiple other areas whose languages I do not speak. This article in effect discusses the possibility that the events in Gaza constitute genocide but rightly - based on the best available sources - stops short of asserting that it is, and the short description, which is intended to “complement and clarify the page title”, should not be used to assert content that diverges from the article to this degree. It is also important to note the following: many of the sources claiming that it is a genocide either qualify or restrict their position, whether implicitly or explicitly: be it that they are made by people without the relevant expertise (or expertise limited to adjacent fields, such as Middle East Studies), doubts about the extend or certainty (“increasing number of experts” by MSF, “there is a legally sound argument” by ECCHR, “war crimes akin to genocide”) or restrictions to the parts of the definition, such as doubts about genocidal intent, or the extend of it (HRW, MIGS, etc.) Lastly, and I know that this position is unlikely to make me any friends here: in practice, when the ICJ is likely to decide, particularly where there is such a strong dispute regarding facts, any genocide definition going significantly beyond the legal standard is unlikely to receive traction, as most states, courts, and international organizations either primarily or exclusively use the legal definition, for both practical and scholarly reasons. While the other definitions are interesting from an academic perspective, a negative (or broadly negative, with only limited exceptions) determination of genocide by the ICJ (likely to be followed by large swaths of the legal scholarship). Therefore, it is best to wait for the ICJ to decide and the scholarship to settle, followed by rewriting the article based on the new state of scholarship, followed by changing the short description if - and only if - there is consensus based on all relevant standards, including the legal definition. Any other change, except perhaps the suggestion by @IOHANNVSVERVS, puts the cart before the horse. FortunateSons (talk) 10:44, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

*:Regarding the ICJ point, please refer to past findings that an ICJ ruling is *not* a prerequisite or a precedented step for recognizing the genocide title on WP. From @Vice regent: "there are 25 genocides post-1949 at List of genocides. But the ICJ has never convicted a state for genocide." Eelipe (talk) 12:05, 23 February 2025 (UTC)blocked sock. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 15:17, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Some of the incidents in the list aren’t titled genocides, and are instead - rightly - discussed as potential or likely genocides. But even if they weren’t: the ICJ ruling, which is likely to become available within a relatively short timeframe, is the relevant authoritative decision here, and assuming nothing goes horribly wrong, we will have a decision here. I agree with arguments that it’s not required in cases where a decision is overwhelmingly unlikely (for example, Transgender genocide), but if we will have an ongoing case, we shouldn't be needlessly hasty. If I were to create a general rule: an ICJ (and/or ICC) judgement is strongly indicative in either direction if currently or likely available, and irrelevant if it’s not. Let me ask the question another way: assuming the ICJ finds no (or no significant, referring only to local/limited incidents, such a incitement or only a handful of acts), would you support the current description? FortunateSons (talk) 13:20, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The ICJ doesn't move fast. The rohingya genocide case has been ongoing for six years with no end in sight. Should we change that article too? Besides, there is no basis in policy to regard the court as the sole determiner if there is a genocide,especially given that there are a variety of definitions of genocide used in academic research. (t · c) buidhe 15:49, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I’m not claiming that it’s the sole determiner of genocide, my only claim is that it’s the most authoritative source, which is likely true, unless you want to refer to some sort of Security Council Standard, which would be impractical. With regard to everything else, there is no deadline, and as long as there isn’t a consensus in the scientific sense (which there isn’t for the legal definition at the very least), we shouldn’t rush the decision for the sake of having one now. FortunateSons (talk) 19:29, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think the ICJ should be considered the most authoritative source for a determination of whether this is a genocide. As VR pointed out, the ICJ has not ruled on the majority of post-WW2 genocides and its rulings have been strongly criticized for failing to hold states accountable for genocides in the past. Add to this fact that Israel and the United States have put significant pressure on other international bodies like the ICC and UNRWA, penalizing them for ruling or providing evidence against Israel, even when they equivocated (for example with the ICC's warrants issued against both sides). It should be clear that the ICJ's ruling will be influenced by factors beyond just the facts on the ground. I think there's a strong case to be made that even if the ICJ ruling is inconclusive or unfavorable to the genocide case, the changes proposed in this RFC would be supported so long as the rest of the scholarly and international community maintains their position, and especially if there is significant and compelling criticism of an ICJ ruling favorable to Israel. Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 20:08, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What alternative body would you consider to be more authoritative, assuming there is an ICJ ruling? The SC?
    International courts have their weaknesses, and I’m definitely not in favour of following them uncritically (see my disclaimer about scholarship reactions), but the same applies to international orgs (which broadly lean left, for example), or scholars, which are also subject to significant social, political or economic pressure. No matter what one thinks of the courts, it’s a fact that politics, media and the public at large consider them closer to a De minimis standard for legal cases, with even their affirmative decisions being (at best) accepted hesitantly in many cases. Minor note: I would hesitate to compare the ICC with the ICJ (with the former lacking acceptance by both Israel and the US), and I would be very careful to compare it to UNRWA, which is considered to be unfit for purpose - among other things - for its mandate alone, something that definitely can’t be said about the ICJ, though under Trump, who knows what will happen. FortunateSons (talk) 20:24, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think any one organization would be more authoritative than the ICJ, but I also don't think the ICJ's position should be considered significant enough to override the bulk of the other credible organizations on this page. Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 22:12, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That’s true, it couldn’t override an otherwise unambiguous consensus, but it is enough to create an even clearer picture of “no clear consensus” than already exists, as shown in the article. FortunateSons (talk) 11:01, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It's already an issue that the article title is biased by implying genocide in fact vs a disputed accusation of genocide. That closing shouldn't have been allowed to stand. Here again, we have a POV push to claim something that more a POV than a proven fact. Springee (talk) 15:10, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As was brought up in every previous discussion of the matter, near every single instance of genocide that is widely recognised as such, is in fact mere "accusations", and that merely three have been found to constitute genocide legally (before we get into the silliness of some of those decisions, as has been a pain to lawyers and legal scholars since). -- Cdjp1 (talk) 17:13, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Short descriptions should use "universally accepted facts". While the IDF's killing of Palestinians exceeded Islamic State's killing of Yazidis, a description like "Israel’s genocide in Gaza" is clearly not a universally accepted statement of fact, so it is not a suitable choice. Sean.hoyland (talk) 17:59, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment and alternate proposal - I'm the one who wrote the current short description (See here). First, many users are arguing that the ICC/ICJ/whoever hasn't made a final judgment, so Wikipedia can't use the word genocide. That's flatly untrue. Wikipedia policy clearly states that Wikipedia relies on reliable sources, and there is a huge list of scholarly and expert reliable sources listed in the "Scholarly and expert opinions on the Gaza genocide" template (see here) at the top of this page. This is not a forum for discussing our personal opinions as to whether it's a genocide or not. Second, as I have pointed out in the discussion below, there isn't a necessity in using the word genocide in the short description of an article about genocide. But one thing present in the short descriptions is a date or time period. For that reason, I propose to change the short description to Ongoing Israeli mass killings in Gaza. And, if there is ever a conclusive year for the end of this genocide, I'd propose changing it to 2023-202x Israeli mass killings in Gaza. As for the "about" part, I think it should follow the same wording and be "This article is about Israeli mass killings in Gaza". --JasonMacker (talk) 18:51, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I would support this proposal. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 21:47, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Support. This makes the most sense considering the purpose of the short description and about. Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 22:16, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Also Support this alternative. B3251(talk) 01:47, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No objections to this alternative. TarnishedPathtalk 01:51, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    i'm okay with this sd. but i think about should say "this article is about genocide in gaza". Astropulse (talk) 02:43, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    no objections to this alternative User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 03:03, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    A good alternative; equally support this and the main proposal. (t · c) buidhe 03:42, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Buidhe there is some (albeit very limited) discussion in RS that Israel may be preventing births of Palestinians in Gaza[25][26]. That would mean the scope of this article is beyond just mass killing Palestinians.VR (Please ping on reply) 05:06, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it's an oversimplification for sure. Just like the Armenian genocide one is definitely an oversimplification. However, many SDs have this issue due to the extreme concision. (t · c) buidhe 05:11, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

*:Support. This is a sensible alternate proposal that could serve in place of the original idea; since this has gained some level of consensus and there appear to be no objections, I would be amenable to changing the current short description @JasonMacker in the interim as the wider proposal continues to be discussed. Eelipe (talk) 20:23, 24 February 2025 (UTC)blocked sock. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 15:17, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't think short descriptions should try to sidestep the central idea of an article. I would prefer one of the first two:
    • "Israel’s genocide in Gaza during the Gaza War" (preferred)
    • "accusations of genocide against Israel during the Gaza war" (fine but less preferred)
    • "Israeli mass killings during the Gaza War" (oppose this alternative)
    VR (Please ping on reply) 20:28, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with this. The article is about all the allegations being made - not just mass killings. The about and short description should reflect that - not try and shoehorn in a different term to avoid saying that they are accusations or claims. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 22:41, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    For full clarity, I object to this alternative, as it does not accurately represent the scope of this article. It is an attempt to try to use a different term that is only one part of the article to avoid having to frame them as allegations or claims. That is a blatant NPOV violation. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 03:07, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a good proposal (certainly better than the initial RFC proposal)... but it still misses the mark. This article covers much more than the direct mass killings - there are entire sections on indirect deaths, starvation, destruction of civilian infrastructure, detention, torture and sexual violence, and attacks on healthcare. "Charges of genocide committed by Israel in Gaza" more holistically encompasses what this article covers. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 16:01, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft support per Wasianpower, berchanhimez. support alt by jasonMacker reading oppose args, i mostly see arbitrary lines proposed as tests of genocide, and when those lines are crossed, new lines made up. There is unlikely to be universal agreement from all motivated parties that there is/was genocide in gaza, just as in any contemporaneous genocide (see how entire governments deny Armenian genocide, Bangladesh genocide, etc.). I see however, there is no real pushback against assertion that multiple human rights orgs, large portions of academia, and large portions of the legal community all agreeing we are either seeing genocide, genocidal statements, or genocidal actions. both current wording and proposed wording seem to reflect this consensus from experts, but i'm leaning towards proposed changes; should not be hard to call a spade a spade. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 19:24, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Bluethricecreamman Do you consider the definition in the 1948 Genocide convention one of those "arbitrary tests" of genocide? This is the test that I - following the statements of approximately 41% of the scholarly sources on this list - base my opposition on. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 22:12, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to check that list again, as you keep stating it's a list of "scholarly sources" which it is in fact not. Only a subsection of the overall list is scholarly sources. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 22:46, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And, as I said yesterday, that subsection is in fact very much of the opinion this constitutes a case of genocide. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 22:47, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm quite aware of the limitations of boiling down scholarly opinions to mere numbers. But among those listed as having "no genocide" or "likely genocide" opinions are the likes of:
These hardly seem like un-qualified individuals. As do many of the 68 other entries on that list with "no" or "likely" categorizations. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 23:18, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't change anything about what I said. And I said nothing of boiling down scholarly opinions to mere numbers. So again, the numbers when dealing with scholarly sources are not what you claim, which includes a vast swathe of non-scholarly sources. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 00:10, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Care to identify any, since I identified 5? Or would you prefer to keep taking unsubstatiated pot shots about the inclusions on the list of "scholarly and expert opinions". PhotogenicScientist (talk) 00:56, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
scholarly and expert opinions =/= everything in said list being a scholarly sources. Basic set inclusion/exclusion criteria. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 02:31, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Uh-huh. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 05:00, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose Israel did not ask Hamas to do the October 7 Hamas-led attack on Israel. Israel agreed to move huge sums of money to Hamas, which used this money to destroy Israel instead of developing Gaza. Gaza could be a great place to live in, but Hamas wanted only to destroy the Israeli nation and wipe it off, as it was described here. No genocide in Gaza has been done. Hamas did all its best to do genocide in Israel, but was stopped. Dgw|Talk 03:11, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    None of this is relevant to this discussion. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 03:32, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    are you feeling alright ? Astropulse (talk) 03:36, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    To Dgwl, the current wording of your response likely will get your vote discarded by an uninvolved closer.
    You need to either cite policy, or just say you agree with the interpretation of policy from someone else. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 03:43, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support for speedy close. The About and Short Description sections defy the community consensus established on May 3rd, 2024, affirmed on July 3rd, 2024, affirmed again on August 22nd, 2024, affirmed a third time on September 7th, 2024, and affirmed a fourth time on December 6th, 2024. A sixth discussion was opened on December 6th, and immediately closed. It seems the About and SD sections were simply overlooked when the article was moved in May. It's a genocide. We have to call it a genocide. We cannot call it an "alleged genocide" or an "accusation of a genocide." The About and SD sections must be edited to conform to the community consensus. We should not have opened an RfC for this. Unfortunately, some editors have taken it as an invitation to resurrect that debate from the grave. All of the comments in opposition – from the appeals to wait for an ICJ ruling, to the arguments that the word "genocide" breaks NPOV – are just regurgitating talking points from those closed discussions (in most cases by the same editors). These comments should be discarded. We've been through this five times now, and we are well beyond the point where attempts to re-litigate have become disruptive. I encourage @Astropulse: to withdraw the RfC and just make the edits. I am fine with both the original proposal or any of JasonMacker's proposals for the SD. Combefere ★ Talk 04:16, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    A consensus about an article title is not a consensus about the content of the article, including the short description. An article title should be as concise as possible, and does not imply that it is an accepted truth. Your opinion that It's a genocide is akin to saying that it should be so just because you believe it's so. There's a reason the short description was not changed when the article title was changed - because the short description is able to be longer than the title and is intended to further explain the article's subject. Furthermore, your suggestion to withdraw the RfC against significant opposition is an encouragement for someone else to make edits while a discussion in place, and is disruptive. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 04:20, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @JasonMacker please read the rfc. this proposal is to change the sd and about to reflect its genocide. i'm not asking it to call it alleged genocide, but the opposite? id ask you to support the rfc. clearly you are against calling it alleged genocide Astropulse (talk) 04:23, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I've already made my stance clear in my own comment. But to reiterate: We don't need to use the word "genocide" in the short description. For one, it makes the short description recursive with respect to the article's title. As stated at WP:SDPURPOSE, the description is supposed to be a short descriptive annotation to the title. The article's title is already using the word genocide. The short description stating "mass killings" makes it clear what this article is exactly about. This article is about Israeli mass killings in Gaza, which have been characterized by experts and scholars as genocide. That's why I wrote the current short description. However, after reviewing other short descriptions for articles involving genocide, I've concluded that we should include a time frame by including the word "ongoing" in the short description. A few users using this place as a WP:SOAPBOX and talking about "alleged" anything should have their opinions discarded for not following Wikipedia policy. That's irrelevant. In any case, I'm going to be WP:BOLD and change the short description to Ongoing Israeli mass killings in Gaza. If anyone objects, feel free to discuss in the new section I'll be making below. JasonMacker (talk) 15:57, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Astropulse must have pinged you by mistake. Their reply was clearly meant for Combefere. M.Bitton (talk) 16:37, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    correct. lol Astropulse (talk) 16:46, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    yes - i got your position. its a step forward in the right direction. im okay with your proposed short description. but about should still say - this is about Israel genocide in Gaza, because that's what the article is about. not mass killings. mass killing is how they achieve it. Astropulse (talk) 16:49, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I again bring up the issue of recursion. The title of the article is already Gaza genocide. The question is "What is the article Gaza genocide about?" The answer should not be "The article Gaza genocide is about genocide" because it's recursive. It should be "The article Gaza genocide is about Israeli mass killings in Gaza." As WP:SDJARGON points out, we should "use simple, readily comprehensible terms that do not require pre-existing detailed knowledge of the subject" in a short description. "Genocide" is an academic term that is complicated. That's why we have an entire Wikipedia article on Genocide definitions. In contrast, "mass killings" is simpler, more readily understood words for the lay audience. And again, per the previous short description, the fact of the matter is that there have been mass killings in Gaza, with the death toll in the tens of thousands. This is undisputed, even by the small minority of experts that disagree with the "genocide" label. JasonMacker (talk) 17:33, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure that would be accurate considering that many of the claims of genocide have to do with forced relocation, stateless subjects and collective punishment in addition to the aforementioned mass killings. Simonm223 (talk) 19:06, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    not to mention starvation, destruction of hospitals, killing medical staffs, etc.. so its not about just mass killings. This is about genocide is gaza is most appropriate. not mass killings. Astropulse (talk) 19:10, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, I point to WP:SDJARGON. The short description is supposed to be short. It's not meant to be a complete description. In fact, my initial proposal was to have the short description state "mass killings and destruction" in Gaza, but I decided to cut the "and destruction" to keep it short. I agree that there have been other issues relevant to the issue of genocide, but the main concern is the killing, which is why I think it's appropriate to specifically highlight the mass killing in the short description. Specifically in regards to the things you have mentioned: (1) starvation: that's literally killing, (2) destruction of hospitals: yeah, that's how some people are being killed, through the bombing of hospitals, (3) killing medical staffs: this is just killing. All events in history that scholars have labeled a "genocide" have involved mass killing. Hence, that's what should be mentioned in the short description. As for User:Simonm223's points, again, I agree that other events that don't involve direct killing are relevant to this article. However, the primary issue for genocide is the mass killing. In fact, the short description of the Genocide article is that genocide is "Intentional destruction of a people" so, killing. For that reason, that's what the short description should highlight. And yet again, I've pointed out how other articles on other genocides have similar short descriptions to what I've proposed. JasonMacker (talk) 21:00, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Astropulse: I understood your meaning. I support your suggested revisions. My point was that you should not have made an RfC, you should have just made the revisions. There are five recent discussions affirming the consensus to call this a genocide, not an "alleged genocide" or an "accusation of genocide." A sixth discussion was opened and immediately closed because we did not need to have a sixth discussion about this. I know that you're just trying to be cautious and establish a consensus before you make any controversial edits, but there is no need to re-open a discussion that has been closed six times. We do not need a seventh discussion. A consensus has already been established and your suggested revisions are supported by the consensus. That's your cue to be bold. Please do us all a favor – withdraw the RfC and go ahead with the edits that you suggested. Combefere ★ Talk 07:07, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You assume an order of events which is not the case. Astropulse was bold, the change reverted, and a RFC suggested based on the fact that that is how the current SD came about. So no, the SD will not be changed unless a new consensus is come to. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 10:15, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Sean.hoyland (WP:SDAVOID), but support alternate proposal by JasonMacker. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 20:07, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, considering the flat contradiction with the guidance in WP:SDAVOID to "use universally accepted facts that will not be subject to rapid change, avoiding anything that could be understood as controversial, judgemental, or promotional." It's well-demonstrated that the charge of genocide is not universally-accepted among scholarly reliable sources.
Part of the problem here is that "genocide" is a legal term that refers to a specific crime, best defined by the UN in the 1948 Genocide convention. Part of that definition requires that acts be committed "with the intent to destroy an ethnic, national, racial or religious group." The intent, as ever, remains the problem with this case. And the proof of intent, or lack thereof, is why there are still plenty of scholarly sources (see above) that contend that genocide has not happened.
We don't have any policies tailored to how to deal with the nebulous and often-unenforced concept of international crimes. But we do have some policies and guidelines that deal with crime that we can look to. These don't apply exactly to the case of Israel, but in the absence of policies that do apply exactly, these provide a useful reference:
  • WP:BLPCRIME: A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations, arrests and charges do not amount to a conviction... If different judicial proceedings result in seemingly contradictory outcomes that do not overrule each other,[f] include sufficient explanatory information. Simply labeling this "genocide" when we have conflicting scholarly (if no judicial) opinions is not sufficiently explanatory.
  • WP:CRIME: Reiterates that a living person accused of a crime is presumed not guilty unless and until the contrary is decided by a court of law, and directs that editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator when no conviction is yet secured.
  • MOS:CRIMINAL: Labels such as "criminal", "convicted felon", "fraudster", and "convicted sex offender" are imprecise and could be construed as name-calling or a moral judgement. It is better to describe the specific crime itself. The description and its placement should not give undue weight to the crime.[d] Again, urging more description/explanation when crime is considered.
At this juncture, applying the label of genocide in wiki-voice would be against the spirit of the cited policies, and seems to me a violation of WP:OR. Much better would be to use explanatory phrases like "a growing consensus of scholarly sources describe the situation as a genocide" or similar.
Regarding arguments to other genocides, their definition and prosecution, and our articles on them - they are all older than this ongoing war, and thus tend to have collected more definitive judgements. That's simply the nature of genocide scholarship. There is WP:NODEADLINE for us to use such a label in this most recent case. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 15:52, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
1. WP:SDAVOID and “universally accepted facts”
You mentioned that the short description (SD) should stick to “universally accepted facts” and avoid controversial statements. While WP:SDAVOID does recommend caution with promotional or judgmental wording, it doesn’t forbid describing an event with strong RS (reliable source) support—even if some parties dispute it.
Other genocide articles (e.g., Rwandan genocide) also have short descriptions containing “genocide.” Wikipedia’s stance is to follow the weight of reliable and significant coverage. No “universally accepted” label exists for any genocide at the time of its occurrence, but a sufficient preponderance of reputable sources can still justify the use of that term.
2. Genocide as a legal term & requiring proof of intent
You’re correct that genocide is a legally precise concept, tied to intent. But Wikipedia’s do not wait for a judicial verdict before reflecting what scholars, human rights organizations, and other reliable secondary sources are saying. For example, the articles on the Rohingya genocide or Bangladesh genocide use the term “genocide” despite no conclusive ICJ ruling. It is standard on Wikipedia to follow academic consensus and prominent, verifiable sources, rather than legal convictions alone.
3. WP:BLPCRIME
These policies primarily address naming specific individuals as criminals before a conviction or describing personal wrongdoing without reliable sources. Here, we’re describing alleged state actions supported by multiple scholarly and NGO statements. WP:BLP is designed to safeguard living individuals against unwarranted defamation; it doesn’t prohibit calling large-scale violence “genocide” if reliable sources support that characterization.
4. Lack of “universal” academic consensus
Wikipedia does not require unanimity before describing something as genocide—only substantial RS usage or academic consensus. Most large-scale atrocities that Wikipedia calls genocide—such as the Armenian Genocide—have critics or denialists. We weigh significant mainstream sources (genocide scholars, peer-reviewed articles, and recognized human rights organizations) in proportion to their prominence. The existence of a dissenting minority does not bar the term’s use, as long as the majority of high-quality sources justify it.
5. “We can wait for the ICJ (or ICC)”
While international courts are influential, Wikipedia’s policies don’t say we must wait for a formal legal verdict. If a sizable bloc of reputable genocide scholars and human rights organizations already applies the genocide label, it is accurate to reflect that in the article, possibly with due mention of disagreements.
6. WP:NPOV or MOS:CRIMINAL concerns
Labeling something “genocide,” based on robust sources, does not automatically violate WP:NPOV. NPOV requires representing all significant viewpoints in proportion to their coverage by reliable sources. If the “genocide” position is significantly represented by major academic, legal, and NGO voices, we can include it—even in the short description—provided the article itself explains that viewpoint and any notable opposition.
7. Precedent on Wikipedia
Plenty of Wiki articles covering atrocities or large‑scale killings do use “genocide” in the short description, even though not every observer or government agrees. Rwandan genocide is one example: at the time, certain governments downplayed or contested “genocide” language, but reliable sources recognized it as such. Astropulse (talk) 03:40, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You've not meaningfully engaged with the actual text of WP:SDAVOID. Instead, you appear to be saying it doesn't apply in this case. Which, considering it's our only documentation on short descriptions, I have to say it does.
Wikipedia does wait for official rulings (reported by RS) before labeling somebody a criminal. For example, killings aren't called "murder" - and killers aren't called murderers - until there is a conviction in some court of law. (see WP:MURDER and WP:MURDEROF). PhotogenicScientist (talk) 15:02, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As to BLPCRIME, special intent is a requirement of genocide. It is not a corporate crime where all that is needed is for the corporation to be shown to have broken the law. That does not automatically mean anyone is guilty of anything. For genocide it is not enough that lots of poeople be killed or expelled from their land or destroyed as a group. Special intent needs to be demonstrated which needs people to be named and evidence given of them wanting and inciting it. NadVolum (talk) 16:49, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Which is why there is so much disagreement in scholarly sources - nearly 39% of the sources on our compiled list don't make a definitive pronouncement on the matter. The 57% who do think that the evidence supplied is enough to demonstrate intent. But the fact that there is a sizable minority who don't, coupled with the fact that there is no formal ruling yet, means it would be irresponsible of us to label this war in wikivoice as a genocide. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 17:07, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is not consistent with the standards currently in place on Wikipedia. In Darfur, the International Commission of Inquiry on Darfur determined that it could not prove genocidal intent and therefore could not rule that genocide had occurred from an International Law perspective. Yet there is still a Darfur genocide page. This is the correct approach imo as it acknowledges that international law is extremely flawed and has basically failed to prevent genocide in the postwar era. Wikipedia is right to prioritize general scholarly opinion and public sentiment over IL proceedings. To the extent that there is more disagreement among scholars in the Gaza genocide than in others, this is 1. highly reliant on the strictest legal standard of genocide and therefore fails to engage with genocide as an act rather than a crime, and 2. due more to the fact that Israel is geopolitically well connected than any factual difference between Gaza and other genocides. Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 18:07, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So let's use your example. At Darfur genocide, the short description is 2003–2005 violence against Darfuris in Sudan. So if anything, your comment shows that there is no standard that if the title of the article is "genocide" it must be called that every single time it's referred to. The title should be as concise as possible, which does not mean that we have to be misleading when referring to it in the short description. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 19:19, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I support User:JasonMacker's version which is similar to the one used on Darfur. Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 20:49, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In Darfur, the International Commission of Inquiry on Darfur determined that it could not prove genocidal intent Sure, in 2005. That report said that the government of Sudan likely had not committed genocide, citing lack of provable intent.
Subsequently, the security council referred the matter to the ICC.[27]
And subsequently to that, the ICC issued an indictment (and later an arrest warrant) against Sudanese president Omar al-Bashir for "five counts of crimes against humanity, two counts of war, and three counts of genocide."[28][29] Contrast that to this war, where the ICC has issued warrants of arrest for Netanyahu and Gallant for "the war crime of starvation as a method of warfare; and the crimes against humanity of murder, persecution, and other inhumane acts"[30], but not genocide. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 19:43, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment implies that the difference in the ICC's handling of Darfur and Gaza is due to a difference in facts, but there is substantial evidence that this is not the case. Israel surveilled the ICC and intimidated its leaders for a decade, and now the US, the world's foremost hegemonic power, has sanctioned it. Both have attacked its legitimacy and jurisdiction repeatedly. This is a far cry from the security council referring Darfur to the ICC and letting them investigate unconstrained. And that's precisely why we shouldn't override scholarly opinion based on flawed and constrained international courts. Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 20:55, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of your personal feelings on the strength or validity of the court today or 20 years ago, the fact remains that it IS the most authoritative body on the topic of genocide. It's not the ONLY body to consider - as I've said above, I consider official proclamations from the UN to be in a similar league terms of weight. But we can't discard its handling of the matter today by saying "it's not the same body it used to be."
You offered the comparison to the genocide in Darfur. I feel the ICC's handling of that issue and this one are indeed comparable - if somewhat different. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 21:18, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

:::::::::This comes off as a confusing and, frankly, disjointed stance. Do you also believe Darfur genocide SD should be turned into an explainer on 'allegations' because ICC hasn't established intent? How about the Armenian genocide, where the ICJ never issued a retrospective ruling at all? Or the Rohingya genocide, which is subject to active ICJ litigation like Gaza but still referred to as a genocide? And the Bosnian genocide case, where the court never determined intent? It's incoherent to push for selective application of a non-existent standard as the baseline for genocide, especially when a consensus of scholarly reliable sources already have made their call. Eelipe (talk) 01:19, 28 February 2025 (UTC)blocked sock. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 15:17, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Focusing too much on other wikipedia articles is wrongheaded, imo. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:OTHERCONTENT sum that up pretty well. We can and absolutely should compare the actual, real-world facts of similar cases for reference, though. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 20:08, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
universally-accepted among scholarly reliable sources - as is the case for near all cases of genocides, including ones which are popularly or legally accepted as genocides. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 12:19, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a lot of responsible scholarship waffling on the label of "genocide" for the Rohingya genocide. Or for the Holocaust. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:39, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Which in fact is the case with Gaza as well, or are all the prominent scholars in the field who have actually published scholarship on this matter in fact not worthy of consideration in this case for some occultic reason? Or in the case of Gaza, are you including those who have written less rigorous comments in popular outlets in your analysis as having the same weight and as published scholarly journals? -- Cdjp1 (talk) 21:39, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, I suppose I should highlight the move from universally-accepted to I don't see a lot. This different things are in fact different things. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 21:41, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It'd be super cool if you could actually read my comment in its entirety before responding. You'd see our compilation of scholarly opinions in the Gaza genocide debate linked, in which ~39% of the entries either say "genocide is not happening" or only "genocide is possible/plausible/likely", versus the ~59% saying "genocide is happening." That's a far cry from universal acceptance of the label. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 22:03, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh wow, does it? I wonder who collated the sources for that list? My comment stands as a factual description of the state of affairs, so I suggest you actually read through all of the pieces collated into that list before coming at me with it. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 22:46, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Verifiability, not "truth" and no original research. It doesn't matter what you think is a "factual description". It matters what the consensus of reliable sources says (or dances around saying, as is the case with about half of sources). -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 22:55, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh look, my statement is in fact in line with the list, as is verified. It's not what I think is the case, it is what is the case per the sources in that list. So, I suggest you stop casting aspersions of original research. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 23:06, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The "list, as is verified", shows that there is still significant dissent within academic circles whether it is a genocide or not. You claimed the following: Which in fact is the case with Gaza as well, or are all the prominent scholars in the field who have actually published scholarship on this matter in fact not worthy of consideration in this case for some occultic reason. The list shows that, even when you consider "all" the prominent scholars, there is significant dissent and disagreement, including weasel words to get out of calling it a genocide in many cases. Furthermore, it's actually you who is casting aspersions - I wonder who collated the sources for that list. My comment, on the other hand, is based on your statement here that My comment stands as a factual description of the state of affairs when you are ignoring the sources you don't like - cherry picking only sources that agree with you. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 23:11, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Or in the case of Gaza, are you including those who have written less rigorous comments in popular outlets in your analysis as having the same weight and as published scholarly journals? may be pertinent as we were talking scholarship. And I shall repeat, I wonder who collated the sources for that list, as the rhetorical device it was, as I know who collected together most of those sources, but I can't comment as to the quality of the work for what should be an obvious reason. So it shall have to be up to other editors to determine the worth of that list. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 23:15, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So you admit you don't think it's your responsibility to evaluate those sources since they disagree with your desired outcome? That seems to come very close to disruptive editing. If you think there are sources that should be on that list but aren't, the proper response is to work to add them to that list. Not to make some vague claim that the list doesn't matter because the overall list doesn't agree with what you think it should. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 23:20, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's a saying about making assumptions. You may want to do a modicum of digging on contributions. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 23:23, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You can't identify any actual issue with the list other than you don't like the result since it includes sources you personally disagree with. That's not appropriate. Given your repeated aspersions here and attempts to just ignore sources you disagree with, I trust that the closer of this discussion will give your comments the weight they deserve - which is virtually none, since you're blatantly ignoring sources and casting aspersions on people you disagree with. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 23:36, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can only point you to my previous comment. And I hope my opinion to the RFC is given no weight, as I have not provided my opinion for what action should be taken. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 23:40, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You've certainly shown your opinion, even if you didn't explicitly state it. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 23:45, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please, do tell me how I've shown I think Astropulse's suggested change is wrong and that the short description should stay as it currently is until we have a greater pool of reliable sources stating this is in fact a genocide, or alternatively a relevant court handing down a decision that this is a case of genocide in the legal sense. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 23:48, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Sean.hoyland's argument that this directly contravenes WP:SDAVOID is very convincing. 'Genocide' in Palestine right now is certainly not a universally accepted fact, and it certainly does not avoid anything that could be understood as controversial or judgemental. Wikipedia should not deign to pass judgement, but reflect. Domeditrix (talk) 10:45, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The proposed change would render a contentious statement in wikivoice, whereas the article itself attributes the claim and uses language like "alleged". Short descriptions should not be used to smuggle a POV into an article where the article does not grant that POV a monopoly on viewpoints. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 08:18, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose I see the same sort of reasoning that informed the page move is happening here again. This is not an article about a genocide, it is an article about a characterization and disputes surrounding it. The proposed SD would be inaccurate. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 23:32, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Sean.hoyland. And what exactly is the urgency? This is a topic where greater consensus will form over time. WP is not a newspaper. The present article does a reasonable job reflecting the present state of understanding. The proposed edits steer towards certainty similar to that we have for the shape of the earth. Johnadams11 (talk) 01:36, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion (RfC about changing About and Short description)

Pinging users who have previously discussed the short description on this talk page:
Daran755, Pyramids09, IOHANNVSVERVS, JasonMacker, Florian Blaschke, BilledMammal, Hemiauchenia, FortunateSons, Kashmiri, Iskandar323, Selfstudier, Vice_regent, Gsgdd, WikiFouf, IntrepidContributor, Me Da Wikipedian, nableezy, Levivich, PhotogenicScientist, M.Bitton, Bluethricecreamman, TarnishedPath, Nishidani, AndreJustAndre, KetchupSalt, SPECIFICO, BluePenguin18, Chaotic Enby, Vuerqex, Iazyges, David_A, Alaexis, Eladkarmel, Sean.hoyland, FunLater, Skitash, ABHammad, Ïvana, Animal lover 666, Shushugah, MarkiPoli, Galamore, My very best wishes, Buidhe, AusLondonder, Rockstone35, XDanielx, blindlynx, Some1, Springee, Raskolnikov.Rev, PBZE, Berchanhimez, Entropyandvodka, Wasianpower, Personisinsterest. I think that's everyone. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 18:21, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Cdjp1: You have attempted to notify more than fifty people. I suspect that it failed, and no notifications were sent. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:32, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I was unaware of a limit. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 20:00, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Repinging (- User banned at varying levels):
@Daran755:, @Pyramids09:, @IOHANNVSVERVS:, @JasonMacker:, @Florian Blaschke:, @Hemiauchenia:, @FortunateSons:, @Vice regent:, @Gsgdd:, @WikiFouf:. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 20:07, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Part 2:
@IntrepidContributor:, @Me Da Wikipedian:, @PhotogenicScientist:, @M.Bitton:@Bluethricecreamman:, @TarnishedPath:, @KetchupSalt:, @SPECIFICO:, @BluePenguin18:. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 20:08, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Part 3:
@Chaotic Enby:, @Vuerqex:, @Iazyges:, @David A:, @Alaexis:, @Eladkarmel:, @Sean.hoyland:, @FunLater:, @Skitash:, @Animal lover 666:, @Shushugah:. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 20:08, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Part 4:
@MarkiPoli:, @Galamore:, @My very best wishes:, @Buidhe:, @AusLondonder:, @Rockstone35:, @XDanielx:, @Blindlynx:. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 20:09, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Part 5:
@Some1:, @Springee:, @Raskolnikov.Rev:, @PBZE:, @Berchanhimez:, @Entropyandvodka:, @Wasianpower:, @Personisinsterest:. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 20:09, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
also see WP:PIA5 but many of these longtime editors got tbanned from arbpia.
maybe post to wikiproject palestine, israel etc. and post to npovn? User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 19:45, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Notification posted to the project talk pages of WP Israel, WP Palestine, WP Israel Palestine Collaboration, WP Human Rights, and to the NPOV Noticeboard. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 20:15, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
omg.iv seen some of these editors edits. wonder why they were not banned long time ago. Astropulse (talk) 03:38, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Some of them might think that of you raising this RfC. NadVolum (talk) 17:23, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For comparison, here is a sample of short descriptions for other genocides:

I would be okay with changing the short description to be in line with these.--JasonMacker (talk) 18:06, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • While I personally agree with the change proposed I also agree that the RfC was not neutrally framed. I would suggest either a procedural close with a more neutrally phrased RfC opened to supplant it or, if doing so has consent from those who have already !voted, a revision to the question to give it a more neutral framing. Simonm223 (talk) 13:39, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    many editors has participated - to be respectful of everyone's time - i recommend against a procedural close and opening another rfc. Astropulse (talk) 04:28, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that this RFC has had too many !votes for a procedural close. TarnishedPathtalk 07:26, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use something like "Claimed [or alleged, or whatever] ongoing genocide by Israel against Palestinians in Gaza", to be accurate about the scope, and more informative in line with the immediately-above examples, and to encapsulate that views on the matter are divided.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:04, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem with this kind of proposal is that (1) it's too long, (2) it's recursive (using the word "genocide" when the article name already uses the word), and (3) using the words "claimed" or "alleged" would contradict the consensus of scholars and experts (AKA reliable sources) on this issue. JasonMacker (talk) 16:42, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Change of Short description to "Ongoing Israeli mass killings in Gaza."

If anyone has concerns, please reply here. JasonMacker (talk) 15:59, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This SD makes it seem like this article is describing the actions of Israel in Gaza as genocide, contrary to the article's subject being allegations. Pyramids09 (talk) 22:16, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article's subject is not purely about allegations, as has been determined in past RfCs. Palestinian genocide accusation is about allegations, whereas this is about an occurrence. No RSs deny that Israel has orchestrated mass killings in Gaza over the course of the Gaza war—it doesn't get more NPOV than this. Eelipe (talk) 02:44, 25 February 2025 (UTC) blocked sock FortunateSons (talk) 10:33, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In case you missed it, my argument in the previous section was to avoid the term "genocide" in the short description because it's jargon. The only thing stated in the short description is that the topic "Gaza genocide" refers to Israeli mass killings in Gaza. The fact that Israel has engaged in mass killings in Gaza is not an "allegation" but a statement of fact, so I don't understand your objection. JasonMacker (talk) 16:06, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's about as close to NPOV as "Israel's defensive war in response to the October 7 attacks". Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 22:56, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
or rather "Israel's defensive war in response to the October 7 Hamas-led genocidal attacks on Israel". Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 11:44, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain what exactly violates NPOV in the short description of "Ongoing Israeli mass killings in Gaza"? Are you disputing the factual accuracy of Israel engaging in mass killings? Are you disputing that "Gaza genocide" refers to Israeli mass killings? "Israel's defensive war", is not a WP:SHORT description of the content of this article, whose WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is Israeli mass killings in Gaza. There is a separate Gaza war article that discusses the war broadly. This article is discussing a specific aspect of the war, namely, the mass killings (destruction of property, forced displacement, etc.) and other war crimes that scholars have collectively identified as meeting the criteria for "genocide". JasonMacker (talk) 16:13, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Removing the 'mass killings' from their context implies that Israel attacks innocent civilians because of racist, genocidal intentions. This is false. Military assets have been deliberately and cynically embedded by Hamas and other terrorist organizations within the Gazan civilian population. Israel's borders were overrun in a brutal attack by Hamas's army, which consisted of numerous battalions, along with other attackers. To restore its security, Israel targeted those battalions. Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 22:28, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While it may be true that Hamas embedded military assets within civilian areas, international law requires all parties to distinguish between military targets and civilians. The repeated, significant civilian casualties and the substantial destruction of civilian infrastructure in Gaza reported by numerous reliable sources suggest actions beyond mere military operations.
It’s also essential to address that self-defense does not justify all means of warfare. Even in self-defense, actions must adhere to the principles of proportionality and necessity. The characterization of these incidents as “mass killings” arises from the scale and pattern of the casualties and destruction, which numerous international observers and human rights organizations have reported. Thus, describing these as “ongoing Israeli mass killings in Gaza” aligns with the documented impacts of the military actions taken, without presupposing intent of genocide, but recognizing the severe consequences of the military strategy employed.
And your proposed SD, No way that is happening. I'm not even going to bother explaining why. Astropulse (talk) 03:27, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should read this article and the sources provided within the article. The whole point of this article is that a large number of scholars are in fact attributing Israel's attacks to racist, genocidal intentions. You're saying "this is false" as though the position is just some trivial factual inaccuracy, when in fact a huge number of academic scholars and human rights organizations are accusing Israel of racist, genocidal intent. Look at this huge list: Template:Expert_opinions_in_the_Gaza_genocide_debate. Simply dismissing all of that by saying oh actually, "this is false" is silly. But also, more importantly, your personal assessment isn't even relevant here, because Wikipedia does not rely on original research. JasonMacker (talk) 15:37, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is about the short description. It should not be changed pending the outcome of that discussion, and this duplicate discussion should not run in parallel to that one. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 03:02, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • If we could change the short description to "Ongoing Israeli mass killings and forced relocations of Gazans" then it would satisfy my concern that "genocide" is not simply mass-killing. Simonm223 (talk) 12:21, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The main concern with this is WP:SDLENGTH which states that short descriptions should be short. Your proposed short description is 62 characters, which would place it in the top 3% of short descriptions in terms of length. Consider "Ongoing Israeli mass killings, destruction, and displacement in Gaza", which would be 68 characters, but also mention destruction and displacement in addition to the mass killings. But again, that would be a long short description, which is what we're trying to avoid. Remember, there is also a technical issue where if a short description is longer than 40 characters, it may be truncated on mobile apps. Borrowing from the Genocide article, whose short description is "Intentional destruction of a people", we could formulate something similar by saying "Ongoing intentional destruction of Gazans" which would be 41 characters. For comparison, "Ongoing Israeli mass killings in Gaza" (what I changed it to) is 37 characters, which fits with the mobile character length restrictions. And, as is made very clear in this article, the "genocide" description is not solely about mass killings, but about intention and other things which, taken in sum, leads to the scholarly conclusion of genocide. Notice that intention, which is an important part of the legal definition of genocide, is missing in your example. But, that's okay, because the point of a short description is not to provide a definition (Wikipedia:SDNOTDEF), but rather to be an annotation to the article's title. If someone can come up with a really good short description that is short AND covers more than just mass killing, please do! JasonMacker (talk) 16:38, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Rwandan genocide SD is 1994 genocide of Tutsis in Rwanda
    So i still think the best option is Israel’s genocide in Gaza (2023–present)
    I cannot get behind your recursive definition argument. Its not a problem, really. But if this rfc fails - your proposal is the best we got and id support it Astropulse (talk) 03:39, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I second @Astropulse that Israel’s genocide in Gaza (2023–present) is the most fitting, clear option of all, although I still back the mass killings proposal over the previous SD. 'Genocide' is not jargon, its a fairly widely understood term (which, per past RfCs, is applicable here), and therefore complies with WP:SDJARGON. This SD proposal fits every WP:SDESC policy guideline, and as previously mentioned, it corresponds with precedent of other articles having similar SDs as well. Eelipe (talk) 03:48, 26 February 2025 (UTC) blocked sock FortunateSons (talk) 10:33, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Even though I don't like the idea of being recursive here, I'm not fundamentally opposed to it. So, I'd support Israel’s genocide in Gaza (2023–present) as an alternative, and I'd prefer it over "Israel’s genocide in Gaza during the Gaza War." JasonMacker (talk) 15:44, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As others have pointed out, the RFC had procedural issues and wasn't necessary. Nevertheless, I still participated in that discussion, and immediately received a bunch of replies saying that they supported my proposal, so I did a WP:BOLD and changed it, asking people to respond here, since that discussion above wasn't going anywhere. JasonMacker (talk) 16:45, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The RfC has not been closed, and just because you think there’s procedural issues with it does not justify splintering discussion out into a new section. Editors should not have to look or comment in a different section to ensure they’re “heard” while an RfC on the same topic is ongoing that has not been closed yet. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 17:01, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you that it didn't need to be an entirely different section. I'll change it into a subheading to make it clear that this is part of the rfc discussion. Thank you for raising this point. JasonMacker (talk) 17:20, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Merlin, Ohad (2024-12-12). "Wikipedia suspends pro-Palestine editors coordinating efforts behind the scenes". The Jerusalem Post. Retrieved 2025-02-22.
  2. ^ Bouranova, Alene (2024-06-06). "Is Israel Committing Genocide in Gaza? New Report from BU School of Law's International Human Rights Clinic Lays Out Case". Boston University. Retrieved 2025-02-23.
  3. ^ "Amnesty International concludes Israel is committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza". Amnesty International. 2024-12-05. Retrieved 2025-02-23.
  4. ^ "Gaza and the matter of genocide". www.ecchr.eu. Retrieved 2025-02-23.
  5. ^ Malik, Nesrine (2024-12-23). "A consensus is emerging: Israel is committing genocide in Gaza. Where is the action?". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 2025-02-23.
  6. ^ "Israel's Crime of Extermination, Acts of Genocide in Gaza | Human Rights Watch". 2024-12-19. Retrieved 2025-02-23.
  7. ^ Salmiya, Muhammad Abu (2024). "Stop the Gaza genocide immediately". The Lancet. 403 (10441): 2286–2287. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(24)00135-1. ISSN 0140-6736. Archived from the original on 2024-07-15.
  8. ^ Zunes, Stephen (2025-02-14). "By Rejecting Evidence of Genocide in Gaza, the US Is Following a Familiar Pattern". New Lines Magazine. Retrieved 2025-02-23.
  9. ^ Bartov, Omer (2024-08-13). "As a former IDF soldier and historian of genocide, I was deeply disturbed by my recent visit to Israel". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 2025-02-23.
  10. ^ "Doctors Against Genocide urges US Senate to take action on ending Gaza genocide". Middle East Monitor. 2025-02-19. Retrieved 2025-02-23.
  11. ^ Jones, Owen (2025-01-23). "Israel's leaders committed genocide in Gaza and must pay for it. Their political and media allies must too". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 2025-02-23.
  12. ^ Dutta, Mohan J. (2024-04-02). "Resisting an unfolding genocide: reflections from radical struggles in the Global South". Quarterly Journal of Speech. 110 (2): 294–304. doi:10.1080/00335630.2024.2328588. ISSN 0033-5630.
  13. ^ Mustafa, Faed (2024). "The Palestinian People's Righteous Struggle in Light of the War of Aggression against the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip". Insight Turkey. 26 (2): 13–20. ISSN 1302-177X.
  14. ^ Green, Penny (2023). "PREFACE: Israel's Genocide of the Palestinian People". State Crime Journal. 12 (2): 123–125. ISSN 2046-6056.

A related article is being considered for deletion

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States complicity in Israeli war crimes in the Gaza war

Specifically, that article is related to the United States support section of this article. Input would be appreciated, as if that article is deleted, content that was transferred from this article to that article may have to be restored here. JasonMacker (talk) 18:33, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gaza_genocide
No tags for this post.