Talk:Gaza genocide

This talk page is currently under extended-confirmed protection due to edits that violated the extended-confirmed restrictions. If you cannot edit this page and want to request a specific edit, make an edit request instead.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Gaza genocide article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives (index): 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43Auto-archiving period: 7 days

show You are an administrator, so you may disregard the message below Stop: You may only use this page to create an edit request This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is subject to the extended-confirmed restriction. You are not an extended-confirmed user, so you must not edit or discuss this topic anywhere on Wikipedia except to make an edit request. (Additional details are in the message box just below this one.) Submit an edit request

Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article relates to the Arab–Israeli conflict, a contentious topic. The following restrictions apply to everyone editing this article: You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive) You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours (except in limited circumstances) All participants in formal discussions (RfCs, RMs, etc) within the area of conflict are urged to keep their comments concise, and are limited to 1,000 words per discussion. Citations and quotations (whether from sources, Wikipedia articles, Wikipedia discussions, or elsewhere) do not count toward the word limit. Changes challenged by reversion may not be reinstated without affirmative consensus on the talk page Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator.

This page is subject to the extended confirmed restriction related to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

hide  view · edit Frequently asked questions show Q1: Why does this article state that Israel has committed genocide in Gaza, even though this is heavily contested and neither the ICJ nor the ICC have issued a final judgment?

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Article milestones Date Process Result December 29, 2023 Proposed deletion Kept
	A news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on September 22, 2025.

showThis article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

show          Other talk page banners

This discussion has been disrupted by block evasion, ban evasion, or sockpuppetry from the following user: Nehushtani (talk · contribs · block log · spi) Comments from this user should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

This RfC has two questions:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Specific change proposal:

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

->

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi, thanks for your response.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

• Here are my thoughts on this RFC:
  

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

(2) Emphatically no, such a statement would be undue. There is currently a case ongoing at the Internation Court of Justice (ICJ) as to whether Israeli officials are guilty of genocide, which is a crime. Therefore, many nations and scholars are reserving judgment on this question, due to the presumption of innocence (which is also required by WP:BLPCRIME), and this article should be explaining that important fact, instead of merely relying only upon those scholars and diplomats who have decided to ignore the presumption of innocence.

Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:33, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• 1. No, as selection biased.

2. No, as WP:UNDUE.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    • Journal of Genocide Research:

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

    • Journal of Genocide Research:

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

    • The New Yorker:

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

    • Boston University:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Erm, I think this was an invalid close per WP:NAC since it is a contentious topic. VidanaliK (talk to me)

• As an administrator, I endorse this close, which removes the concern. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:48, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I looked again at the article and, as I said last year, I don't believe it follows Wikipedia's standards for NPOV. Here are some reasons for my position:

The first full statement in the article that admits that the Israelis do deny that it is a genocide, after all, and that they have any supporters at all is this: "Israel and its supporters maintain that its actions do not constitute genocide." This does not occur until the last paragraph of the lede. In a neutral article about a hot war, even if one side is strongly favored according to Wikipedia's selected reliable sources, the position of the disfavored side must be expressed in the opening paragraph. Surely it matters that the opening paragraph does not summarize the existence of any sustained opposition to the genocide characterization—opposition that the article itself later documents.

Unlike the Palestinian side, whose supporters are widely named, the supporters of the Israelis are rarely named. Take, for example, named scholars. Near as I can tell, the first is named a third of the way through the article—a West Point professor. Surely there are other scholars. Insofar as the opinion of scholars on this issue to be specially counted, perhaps we should see not only more names, but also their reasoning? This might even include Israeli scholars; even if some editors might regard them as institutionally interested, they nevertheless represent an identifiable scholarly and national perspective that is relevant to the dispute. Should not the views of Israel's scholarly defenders be fully represented?

Moreover, we read much about, e.g., "genocide scholars" and "scholars specialized in Middle East studies," but the article provides little contextual information about the composition or internal diversity of these scholarly communities as they relate to Israel. I am not casting aspersions on their views, which are valuable, or their psychology or moral probity, which we should accept as sound. I am simply saying that it matters, especially in the context of a hot war involving the least popular country in the Middle East, whether such scholars were antecedently anti-Israeli—which, I hardly need to point out, it is possible for scholars to be. Surely Wikipedia is allowed to provide readers with sufficient descriptive context to understand how representative these expert citations are. I make this point by way of asking for more descriptive completeness.

Then, farther down, we finally get the admission that "Several Western governments (notably the United States, United Kingdom, and Germany) reject calling Israel's actions in Gaza a genocide." Surely this deserves to be in the lede, not buried over 10,000 words into an article that is well over 30,000 words?

In the coverage of the ICJ case, the statements of the Israeli spokesman are quoted in the briefest way possible, while the sole dissenting judge, Julia Sebutinde, is quoted at the end of the section with a partial sentence. While proportional, what this quotation does not do is clearly or fairly represent her views, which a mere partial sentence can hardly do. But this is just another example.

More generally, for an article of well over 30,000 words, it is remarkable how often it is that the (scant) pro-Israeli statements are made without a detailed rationale. This is of limited value for a reader who is trying to weigh both sides in an attempt to make up his or her own mind. A genuinely neutral article, whatever else is true of it, would certainly have to contain, in the lede and probably in its own dedicated section(s), a detailed explanation of the rationale offered by the Israelis for (a) the great destructive power wielded against the Palestinians and (b) why they maintain that this is not, in fact, genocide. Similarly, there are relatively few rebuttals by Israelis (or their other defenders) to the accusations made against them—often, none at all. A reader might well ask, "Is this lack of response because no one can defend them at all, and has nothing to say?"

Finally, a clarifying question is what WP:UNDUE actually requires in this case. What is probative? Just the views of (one class of) academics? International orgs? How should editors evaluate due weight when some categories of sources overwhelmingly reflect one side of an ongoing dispute? Does it not matter that it is a hot war, and that there is, after all, a long, ugly tradition of antisemitism to contend with, and that some of the most important nations in the international community officially deny that Israel has engaged in a genocide? If public opinion data are included at all, it would seem relevant to present them in a way that reflects disagreement rather than implying unanimity. The article says that half of U.S. voters believe Israel is committing genocide in Gaza; what about the other half? On a military issue in which their taxpayer dollars help pay for one side, are their views worthless for purposes of determining "due weight"?

One might say much more, but I thought that, in a discourse that is so fraught with so much bare assertion on both sides, it would help to lay out why one might think that the article needs to be brought more in line with NPOV. Larry Sanger (talk) 19:31, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Have you found a rebuttal you think is halfway decent?, if so I'm sure it can find a place in the aricle. Something more than that the US UK and German governments side with Israel. NadVolum (talk) 20:12, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean. Are you perhaps expressing skepticism that there are any extended and reasoned defenses of the general idea that Israel hasn't engaged in a genocide? Larry Sanger (talk) 03:46, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Citation needed. NadVolum (talk) 07:44, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, several opinions in Template:Expert opinions in the Gaza genocide debate are well-thought-out arguments actively refuting the claim that Israel is committing genocide. One of them even is from last October. VidanaliK (talk to me) 20:32, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point to one you think has a well thought out argument thanks. About that October one where they say the IDF is good because they used roof-knocking etc to warn residents to move out of buildings may I point out that practice was used before October 2023 but mostly dropped after then. NadVolum (talk) 00:12, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

[7]. The argument here is that intent to destroy the people is required, and that is not demonstrated. VidanaliK (talk to me) 00:23, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately it is paywalled but I am surprised by her saying that. She's no fan of Netanyahu and she has said the Chinese are committing genocide against the Uyghurs, but Netanyahu and his associates have many times made genocidal remarks whereas all the Chinese talk about is 'reeducation' and stopping unrest. NadVolum (talk) 01:19, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It is possible to criticize Netanyahu without saying that Israel is committing gencoide. As an example I agree that the current Israeli government is terrible, and so are a lot of the things Netanyahu has been saying, but that does not directly translate to Israel's actions constituting genocidal intent and therefore genocide. Using his comments to "prove" that Israel and the IDF have genocidal intent is a simplified argument that lacks the inherent nuance in the debate.

About the paywall you can bypass that by going into Safari if you have an Apple device and turning on reader view. If you don't have an Apple device a short section is quoted in Template:Expert opinions in the Gaza genocide debate. VidanaliK (talk to me) 01:40, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You can also use the Wikipedia Library to get copies of paywalled articles. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 03:04, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see it there. VidanaliK (talk to me) 03:14, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunate :( SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 03:31, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wait! Internet Archive (Wayback Machine) also removes paywalls. [8] Finally! VidanaliK (talk to me) 23:36, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Also "reeducation" is very suspicious because it seems to imply making the Uyghurs Chinese instead of Uyghur, which would constitute destruction of a culture. Also it's possible that the Chinese are simply more secretive to avoid being under scrunity by the international community. But that's besides the point, this is about Gaza not China. VidanaliK (talk to me) 01:45, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick analysis of Template:Expert opinions in the Gaza genocide debate shows that of the 759 "expert opinions" presented there

528 say, yes Israel has committed genocide

171 no

41 maybe

19 likely

8 incitement to genocide

31 unclear

Are you suggesting that none of those 171 opinions are at least halfway decent? Lumdeloo (talk) 13:21, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I would have liked it if they had indicated one they thought was good rather than just a paywalled one where someone just straight denied there was intent but was behind a paywall so I couldn't see how they justified that. And it does need justifying with all the things the Israeli government has said and the things they've done, see [9] for instance. NadVolum (talk) 15:57, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

OK, [10] is one that isn't paywalled. Its more concrete argument is that genocide is a legal term, and the appropriate body to issue that ruling (the ICJ) has not done so. It also says that using the legal term without basis degrades from the seriousness of the term. VidanaliK (talk to me) 16:07, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That link 404'd. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 16:13, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@SuperPianoMan9167: Here you go: Response to ‘An open letter: In solidarity with all children suffering in wars; to all who hold or share a concern for the wellbeing of children’

The original link above has |here appended onto it, which is why it wasn't working before. --Super Goku V (talk) 10:13, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

OK, [11] is one that isn't paywalled. Its more concrete argument is that genocide is a legal term, and the appropriate body to issue that ruling (the ICJ) has not done so. It also says that using the legal term without basis degrades from the seriousness of the term. VidanaliK (talk to me) 16:25, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Genocide is also a scholarly term. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:31, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

OK, [12] is another one using it as a scholarly term, using the argument that Israel's main fight is against Hamas, and the deaths are a result of Hamas putting command centers in civilian infrastructure, and that if Israel wanted to commit genocide it would make no sense to have several aid infrastructure in Gaza. VidanaliK (talk to me) 16:37, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@VidanaliK -- you're not quite spacing out your links correctly. You mean to link to https://journals.co.za/doi/full/10.10520/ejc-m_samj_v115_n5_a4 , but "%7Chere" is being added to the links when you publish them because the demarcation between web link and text isn't quite right. That's why the 404 errors are being produced by the above links. Coining (talk) 16:32, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You can read about him and various criticisms of what he has said at John Spencer (military officer). NadVolum (talk) 16:54, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia is not a reliable source as you know
• there is no source because all sources saying it is not a genocide are discredited by Wikipedia community.

Michael Boutboul (talk) 17:14, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree that sources saying there is not a genocide are not given enough due weight in the article, 114 of them are in Template:Expert opinions in the Gaza genocide debate, so they are not fully discredited. VidanaliK (talk to me) 17:17, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps so, but "On 1 June 2024, professor of international law Daniel-Erasmus Khan [de] said there was no clear evidence of a special intent among Israeli leadership. ... In an August 2024 op-ed, Eli Rosenbaum, a lawyer and former director of the United States Department of Justice's Office of Special Investigations, wrote that Israel's actions in Gaza were not genocidal since it was aiming to "prevent genocide" by Hamas." slunk through into the article text anyway. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:57, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That requires actively searching for that phrase, or reading through the article cover to cover which nobody does with an article of that size. What Sanger and Boutboul are saying is that it should be placed earlier in the article and with more prominence than currently. VidanaliK (talk to me) 18:03, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"people don't read articles" is not a good argument. As a note to more concrete argument, Strous makes no real argument but instead simply states the sentence you identified. The rest of the 5 paragraphs are statements outside of discussion of the crime of genocide. We have multiple much better articles available, many that are not paywalled that you could point to that actually do present arguments along this line. Choosing you use this as your evidence does sets it up to be a very weak argument. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 19:24, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

And the article in the NYT that quotes Lipstadt is not a good one to point to either as the entirety of the "argument" presented is "But is it genocide?" she said. "It doesn't fit the definition of genocide," she added. "I mean, there's got to be an intent to wipe out a culture or people.", a simple statement that the intent does not exist. Multiple legal scholars are present in the Opinions template, where they actually discuss some of the items that others have argued show intent, where they provide arguments as to why they don't show such intent. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 19:29, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence I identified is a "real argument". VidanaliK (talk to me) 19:39, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it's more like a paragraph. VidanaliK (talk to me) 17:04, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@NadVolum But seriously, the existence of 171 opinions found in reliable sources that argue against the genocide accusation (otherwise they would not have been included in the article in the first place) against 528 opinions that argue in favor of it, already gives a big clue that there isn't consensus, or at least not an consensus that is overwhelming enough to start using wikivoice. Depending on how you count the "likely" and "maybe" opinions it amounts to around 20 or almost 25% of the listed opinions. Wouldn't you agree? And if not, why exactly not?

Lumdeloo (talk) 10:47, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No I don't agree. Wikipedia is not a democracy, consensus depends on the strength of the arguments as well as the numbers. That is why I wanted to see some arguments that people though were good for it not being a genocide. I am not surprised that a lot of people do not wish to think that they are associated with genocide. Look at what Lipstadt above said for instance "I mean, there's got to be an intent to wipe out a culture or people." It requires a bit more explanation rather than just that straight denial after all the things that have been said by Israel's politicians and army and in their media. NadVolum (talk) 15:04, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus depends on the strength of the arguments only when talking about Wikipedia editors. Per WP:SERIOUSLYCONTESTED (this isn't my crazy number proposal, it's a shortcut to a part in WP:NPOV) if reliable sources disagree on a claim, it should not be presented as fact. The thing that makes a claim fringe is that it is only perpetrated by nonreliable sources. VidanaliK (talk to me) 17:03, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That's the big problem. Just denying something is not to seriously contest it. NadVolum (talk) 18:48, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've given you two ones that make specific arguments, the legal term one, and the one about all the aid centers in Gaza and the Hamas command centers in civilian infrastructure. I think both are decent arguments. Just because you aren't personally convinced by the argument does not mean they do not seriously contest the statement that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza. And from WP:SERIOUSLYCONTESTED, If different sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these as opinions rather than as facts. (emphasis added). There does not need to be an essay-long argument that convinces everyone who reads it, it just needs to have an assertion that conflicts with the other view, and must be a reliable source, which all of the sources I presented are. VidanaliK (talk to me) 19:08, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

But you are not reacting to the point VidanaliK is making here. He makes clear that neither you nor we are the judge of the strength of the arguments made in reliable sources. We have to reflect the different positions taken in those reliable sources. Not to erase one of the positions by describing the other position in wikivoice. Lumdeloo (talk) 23:06, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There's also WP:FALSEBALANCE to consider. We have to consider if the arguments have some sort of legitimacy. The legal one for instance - scholars can come to a consensus there has been a genocide without needing the ICJ. And anyway what kind of objection is it when Israel and the US don't recognize the jurisdiction of the ICJ and ignore what it says? As to the 'aid' US-Israeli backed Gaza aid group must be shut down, say 170 charities - that directly contradicted what the ICJ said about allowing aid in freely. NadVolum (talk) 23:49, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

False balance is not about strength of arguments. You're confusing the criteria for scholarly consensus with Wikipedia consensus. VidanaliK (talk to me) 23:53, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Also, what some charities say about the aid groups does not contradict the ICJ's ruling. this gets back into that you don't have to be personally convinced by the argument for it to have weight on Wikipedia VidanaliK (talk to me) 23:56, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Lumdeloo when one position is mainstream among relevant experts, and the other position is held by non-experts (and perhaps a tiny proportion of experts), we are indeed obligated to describe the former position in wikivoice while mentioning the other position framed by relevant contextual information - if at all. Newimpartial (talk) 00:19, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The other position is held by plenty of experts, as Template:Expert opinions in the Gaza genocide debate shows. Because several reliable sources and experts contest the statement, it is seriously contested and should not be stated in wikivoice. VidanaliK (talk to me) 01:11, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@VidanaliK you seem to think that the entries in the template are confined to opinions of relevant experts. I don't think there is consensus on this point, however. I think most editors are of the view that some of those opinions are more expert (or relevant) than others. Newimpartial (talk) 13:06, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The template, along with the link to the opinion and the position, also gives the occupation of each scholar, such as war or genocide scholar, that explicitly states why they are experts. VidanaliK (talk to me) 17:39, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@VidanaliK and most of those stating that there isn't a genocide going on appear to be historians without relevant expertise. Newimpartial (talk) 18:29, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just going to look through that and give a few examples randomly:

David Crane - international law scholar, definitely relevant expertise

Kai Ambos - Head of the department of Foreign and International Criminal law - Very relevant

Marcello Flores - Genocide scholar Even more relevant

Eugene Kontorovich - Lawyer specialising in international law Also incredibly relevant

Meanwhile, those that say it is a genocide are:

Victoria Sanford - anthropologist not relevant

Ryoichi Kono - professor of global studies

John Mearscheimer - international relations scholar more relevant

Ghassan Hage - professor of anthropology wow there are a lot of anthropologists here.

There are a few people stating there isn't a genocide that are more general, like historians, and plenty of lawyers stating that there isn't genocide, but also a lot of people saying there is a genocide are anthropologists and general lawyers for some reason. That's about as relevant as general history. Before making a claim to discredit the "there isn't a genocide" camp for not having relevant expertise, it would help to also look at the expertise of those saying it is a genocide (including some that may have inherent bias, like a lawyer for Palestine Legal), as well as whether they come from reliable sources in general. Making an assessment of whether people are experts is less helpful than whether the sources are reliable sources, which is the actual criteria for a seriously contested assertion. VidanaliK (talk to me) 18:46, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@VidanaliK it seems to me that it would be more efficient to look at those with the most relevant expertise, and see what the distribution of their views is. My sense is that the consensus among those who have the most relevant expertise, studying this invasion in relation to the genocide claim, is strongly in favor of the claim (though not unanimous). Newimpartial (talk) 20:33, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That I agree with. So genocide scholars, war scholars, and international law scholars would count? VidanaliK (talk to me) 20:38, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@VidanaliK ones who have examined this invasion specifically. Newimpartial (talk) 21:05, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? Everyone in the template issued a statement about this invasion. VidanaliK (talk to me) 21:07, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@VidanaliK to answer your question, I mean that BALANCE in this case should not take all such statements at the same value: those who have studied this invasion at length in relation to the genocide accusation should receive greater WEIGHT than passing comments (e.g., by political philosophers or by experts in other genocides). Newimpartial (talk) 21:20, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so basically saying "Israel isn't committing genocide because of X, Y and Z" versus saying "Israel isn't committing genocide" blankly. Am I understanding that correctly? VidanaliK (talk to me) 22:03, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@VidanaliK well, that is certainly part of it. But also active scholarly engagement with the invasion, as part of their actual specialty, rather than commenting on it in an incidental, "editorial" way (especially just because a media outlet asked for their opinion). Newimpartial (talk) 23:16, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that makes sense now. So basically, their specialty directly involves genocide and studying this invasion, or they made a statement and explanation on their own, without a media outlet asking for their opinion. VidanaliK (talk to me) 23:24, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@VidanaliK that would be a good first cut, yes. Newimpartial (talk) 23:31, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, OK. How do we deal with the "Maybe" responses in this analysis? VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 17:52, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You claim that Victoria Sanford is not relevant as she is an anthropologist by education and practice, but you seem to miss that her work specialises in human rights and genocide, and that she has produced extensive research into other genocides. So she is in fact at least relevant.

As to randomly, considering you selected examples that are all "relevant" for "not genocide" in your opinion, and all examples that are "not relevant" for "genocide" in your opinion, is a very lucky roll of the dice on "random".

I would also like to know how you came to the conclusion of a lot of general lawyers, when near all those identified in the field of law and legal studies who state it is a genocide have the areas they specialise in listed (as is the case for near all entries regardless of position), with the majority being in international law, some in humanitarian and human rights law, and yet other who specialise in war and armed conflict. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 11:17, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

About Sanford; that would have been good to note besides just putting "anthropologist". Also, there was one in the there is a genocide that was more relevant. And also, I chose 8 total sources, so the chance of that particular configuration is 1/256 (which is actually pretty high for something to realistically be able to happen), but then again, so is the chance of any other configuration. VidanaliK (talk to me) 19:10, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

that would have been good to note besides just putting "anthropologist", her description has been Anthropologist specialising in Human Rights and Genocide in the list since the creation of the template, so I don't know where you are choosing to look as opposed to the list you said you pulled her from. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 21:23, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oddly enough, one of your randomly chosen examples of scholars saying "not genocide" later wrote: [13] While it was relatively easy to dismiss (as indeed done by one of the authors here) the genocide claim in the first few months of this Gaza war invoking the high threshold of the intent to destroy, this becomes more difficult with each day this war continues in this brutal and disproportionate manner. Put differently, on the whole, the dynamics of the conflict now speak more in favour of genocide than against it. EvansHallBear (talk) 02:36, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. I agree with VidanaliK on this point. The template: “expert opinions in the gaza genocide debate” shows plenty [b]expert[/b] opinions arguing against genocide. The questions seems to be: when is a majority view considered so overwhelming, that you can use wikivoice to state it as fact and discard the minority view as fringe. In my eyes, we are nowhere near at that point. And i don’t think we need new sources to prove that point. The current sources already show no consensus. Lumdeloo (talk) 10:14, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Some halfway good argument for it not being described as genocide would be far more compelling I think, lacking that the numbers really are quite damming. NadVolum (talk) 12:25, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see, this opinion by the Israeli branch of Amnesty International didn’t make it onto the expert opinions list. But would you consider something like this “halfway good” as you put it.

https://www.amnesty.org.il/2024/12/05/amnesty-israel-does-not-accept-the-main-findings-of-the-report-by-amnesty-international-which-accuses-israel-of-genocide/

https://www.amnesty.org.il/2024/12/08/the-alternative-hypothesis-to-israeli-intent-to-commit-genocide/ Lumdeloo (talk) 11:04, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"Neutrality requires that..articles...fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources."

You summarized the template as "528 [experts] say, yes Israel has committed genocide."

However, the very first row in that template shows 800 scholars. This immediately challenges the math that you used.

I suspect you counted the number of rows to get the number 528, but each row should not be weighted equally, when some rows encompass hundreds of experts (e.g., statements issued by groups or coalitions of experts, such as the IAGS and this one).

If we are going to be quantitative on this (which by the way there is no specified wikipedia policy on), then your methodology is not adequate.

The fact remains that the vast majority of reliable sources -- however, you weigh them (either naively giving equal weight to each source, or weighing them proportionally by how many experts they comprise) -- characterize Israel's actions as genocide. Greensminded24 (talk) 19:27, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Greensminded24: This is an excellent point, and explains in both quantitative and qualitative terms how not all sources are equal. A reasoned report that is drafted by one or several research team and published by a human rights organization is not equivalent to a position paper or editorial. And yet, these two sources could be misleadingly conflated in this way. -Darouet (talk) 20:01, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Greensminded24Ah you have changed my statement ever so slighty. I wrote about the number of expert opinions, not about the number of experts. I do agree that the number of experts writing or signing an opinion matters, but I am just not sure how much. Wikipedia policy is not clear on this I think? In my experience on wikipedia, it’s the number of reliable sources that is being weighed, not the number of authors or supporters of a certain source. But then again, this seems to be an exceptional case. If you can point me to WK policy that says otherwise, please do.

If we assume for a moment that the number of reliable sources that argue against genocide is in fact a usable (not the only) indicator for deciding if that position is a relevant minority view (let’s say in this case around 20% of the opinions listed), are you in that case still saying the majority (80%) is so vast, we can just use wikivoice to state it as fact? Lumdeloo (talk) 09:06, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It should be kept in mind that the academic consensus on the genocide only solidified in 2025, and many if not most dissenting citations are older. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 04:13, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There are still several dissenting views from 2025. VidanaliK (talk to me) 17:37, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Which is irrelevant to the existence of a consensus. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:21, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikivoice is not about consensus or majority. WP:SERIOUSLYCONTESTED clearly states: If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements in wikivoice. Fringe means only existing in unreliable sources; that's why, for example, Fox is not considered reliable. If even a single reliable source disputes a particular claim, it cannot be stated in wikivoice because that source is reliable. This is clearly established by Wikipedia policy and cannot be superseded by editor consensus such as previous RfCs. VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 18:34, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Despite your use of bold text, there is nothing in Wiki policy to support the idea that any idea that can be supported by just a single RS is seriously contested. There is also no requirement that we treat older RS as equivalent to newer RS, which is an absurd policy that would render every scientific advancement or historical discovery as seriously contested. EvansHallBear (talk) 18:57, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is also no requirement that we treat older RS as equivalent to newer RS hence what I was saying about several dissenting sources being from 2025. Also, while maybe using just a single new RS is probably a bit of a stretch, the term "seriously contested" is explicitly defined in the wiki policy I cited to be a matter over which reliable sources make differing claims of a statement. It provides no requirement for number or percentage. I've already mentioned several dissenting sources. What would be the requirement for you to consider the claim seriously contested, using 2025 sources? VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 19:16, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

And apparently it is relevant because several people have brought up the "most of the dissenting sources are old" argument. VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 18:35, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FALSEBALANCE is not npov. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 04:50, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I 100% agree. As per WP:NPOV, "Neutrality requires that..articles...fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources."

Therefore, to specify or attribute the dissenting view provides too much undue weight. Greensminded24 (talk) 19:57, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Any mention of the dissenting view? SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 20:10, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

sorry my mistake: I think it should be mentioned but in proportion to its coverage by reliable sources. I think the current weight provided in the Lead/Lede is correct. Greensminded24 (talk) 21:56, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If anything, it is FALSEBALANCE in the current version since the dissenting view is rarely mentioned and, when it is mentioned, it is presented as incorrect. VidanaliK (talk to me) 17:39, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think the basis of your argument is that Wikipedia should highlight the position of governments more here. I don't know if the broader Wikipedia community agrees with this - they are widely seen as unreliable sources and their opinions rarely WP:DUE for inclusion on their own merits, only when they have received coverage in a particular context. Katzrockso (talk) 08:02, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

>In a neutral article about a hot war

You use the phrase "hot war" multiple times. Given that most genocides take place during war, why is it important to emphasize that a war is taking place? JasonMacker (talk) 15:14, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Larry Sanger In general I think you raise some important issues. I too think that this article lacks NPOV. Not just in the use of wikivoice in the introduction. But also in the subsequent paragraphs. The article is written as if it wants to prove to the reader Israel has committed genocide, not inform the reader about the discourse in reliable sources about this subject. To me it's obvious there is no consensus about the genocide accusation. About 20% of the reliable sources editors have found, state is not genocide or it is maybe genocide. (see: Template talk:Expert opinions in the Gaza genocide debate#/media/File:Gaza-genocide-scholars-chart.svg) In other words, not a fringe minority view. And that is not taking into account the opinions of states / governments who either deny its genocide or defer to the ruling in the ICJ case. Let alone public opinion which seems to be equally divided.

This dissenting view is at this point not represented in a balanced, proportional way in this article. I would love to work on adding excerpts from the dissenting view (in a balanced, proportional way) to this article. Maybe the first step could be identifying sentences or paragraphs that lack NPOV? The lead stated in wikivoice should probably be skipped for the moment, seeing it has already caused so much commotion. User:Lumdeloo (talk) 13:28, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'd love to work with you on that. In the introduction, there aren't many NPOV-lacking statements outright that are not already being covered by RfCs, but for example in the first paragraph, at the end you could say something like "Israel, several of its allies, and roughly 20% of relevant scholars dispute this claim due to questions about intent, arguing that the deaths in Gaza are collateral damage from Israel's main effort, to eradicate Hamas.". Before actually BOLDing I'd want to work on it in a sandbox page to polish those sentences. VidanaliK (talk to me) 16:09, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Michaelas10, this seems similar to the work you tried to do recently to bring a host of neutrality concerns to this talk page. As I recall, the first set of objections to your list was that you were bringing too many concern to this page at once. I tend to be more concerned about there being so many non-neutral statements in the article. Coining (talk) 23:49, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Are you replying to the wrong person? Why were you replying to me and Lumdeloo while pinging Michaelas? VidanaliK (talk to me) 23:53, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I did mean to ping Michaelas10. For example, Michelas10 initiated the neutrality discussions at Talk:Gaza_genocide/Archive_36. Even that list of topics was pared back from an earlier attempt to catalogue a host of NPOV concerns. Coining (talk) 23:58, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, this effort seems similar to an effort undertaken a few months ago, and three (or more) heads are better than two. Coining (talk) 00:00, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Coining thank you! Very useful link. Lumdeloo (talk) 09:45, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

OK, then why did you reply here? VidanaliK (talk to me) 00:13, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This post proposed, among other things, to more prominently note the statements of governments like the United States, the United Kingdom, and Germany. Larry's comment led me to realize that the actions of these governments are not mentioned once in the lead or infobox. Here is one of the concluding statements from the report, OUR GENOCIDE, published by Israel's leading human rights organization, B'Tselem:

Most of these crimes have been extensively documented and made public throughout almost two years of war. Yet many state leaders, particularly in Europe and the United States, have not only refrained from effective action to stop the genocide but enabled it – through statements affirming Israel's "right to self-defense" or active support, including the shipment of weapons and ammunition.

The role of some western governments in facilitating this has extensive documentation; indeed our article reviews this information. Shouldn't our lead mention some part of this? -Darouet (talk) 20:10, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have thought United States support for Israel in the Gaza war would be more appropriate in most cases unless genocide involvement was a prominent part of the citation. I don't see anything like that becoming DUE in the infobox unless there's a lot more about it. NadVolum (talk) 23:22, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As per WP:MOS the lead should only have up to four paragraphs.

See Wikipedia:Tip of the day/November 24 - Wikipedia

This article currently has 5. I shortened it so that it would fit in 4 paragraphs, but was reverted by @Cinaroot. See revert here. Alternative ways of abbreviating this can be done, but we need a shorter Lead. Greensminded24 (talk) 15:16, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

See MOS:LEADLENGTH which is policy, this 15 year old tip of the day is not. There is no fixed length, often more complex higher level summary articles (that have numerous child articles) have 5 paragraphs, even if 4 is preferred. CNC (talk) 15:29, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned, my objection is to the use of the word “allegation.” Four or five paragraphs don’t bother me. If you can shorten it without changing its meaning, please do so. 🐈Cinaroot  💬 15:50, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What is the problem with the word "allegation"? VidanaliK (talk to me) 22:17, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

because the RfC concluded that it's not an allegation

one could read this as a new attempt from you to relitigate the RfC like you've done many times and it's getting annoying Laura240406 (talk) 03:06, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

no one could read this as a new attempt from me to relitigate since I am simply responding to another discussion. VidanaliK (talk to me) 16:35, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe MOS:CLAIM will help clarify why this was assumed. CNC (talk) 17:42, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see. Anyway, I hope my above comment will clarify why it should not be assumed. VidanaliK (talk to me) 17:46, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I did not intend to cast doubt on the veracity or truth that the Gaza Genocide is considered a WP:WIKIVOICE fact. Sorry for that.

I was simply trying to abbreviate the Lead. I don't think we need 5 paragraphs. Just look at the articles for the Armenian Genocide or Holocaust. Both articles -- which have a more mature publication discourse than the Gaza Genocide -- have four paragraphs.

Looking at the Armenian Genocide, we have the following:

"The Turkish government maintains that the deportation of Armenians was a legitimate action that cannot be described as genocide."

How about the following for the Gaza Genocide?

"Israel and its supporters maintain that its actions do not constitute genocide and are a legitimate response to the Hamas-led October 7 attacks on Israel which aim to destroy Hamas and free Israeli hostages." Greensminded24 (talk) 18:02, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That also helps with NPOV, because it adequately describes the counter-argument without immediately dismissing it. VidanaliK (talk to me) 18:04, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Did U.S and all of Israel's supporter came out and say its a "legitimate" response to every action Israel took in Gaza - There is plenty of evidence that many of Israel’s targets are not legitimate military targets, a point that does not require further elaboration. Sure, you can say Israel has legitimate rights to self defence. That right is not unlimited.

Israel do not have any legal or legitimate right to destroy Hamas without constraints - its not OK to say that its legitimate.

Collective punishment, indiscriminate attacks, and the destruction of civilian infrastructure etc... are not legitimate.

I wont support such framing. 🐈Cinaroot  💬 08:14, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I'm removing the word "legitimate" since that bothers you. But please note that the term "legitimate" is there in order to assist the reader as per WP:READER understand the content. In addition, the term"legimate" is a term used precisely by those who affirm that it is genocide when paraphrasing/describing Israel's rhetoric.

See:

• Sumption, Jonathan (22 September 2025). "The genocide case is growing". New Statesman. Archived from the original on 2 November 2025. Retrieved 29 September 2025. But it does not confront the fundamental problem that the scale and character of Israeli operations in Gaza go well beyond anything that can reasonably be explained by legitimate military objectives. This is why responsible organisations have concluded that the targeting and elimination of at least part of the Palestinian population is the only reasonable explanation of what is happening.
• "Gaza Tribunal: "We are witnessing genocide. The UK Government does not want to hear"". Médecins Sans Frontières. 3 September 2025. Archived from the original on 6 September 2025. Retrieved 29 September 2025. There is no safe space in Gaza, and Israel's indiscriminate military assault across the strip demonstrates that it considers the entire population as a legitimate target.

We can also see this in the case of Turkish denial of its genocide against Armenians; the denialists don't all use the term "legitimate"; instead, they say they were just "deporting" the Armenians because they posed a "military threat". Using the term "legitimate" when describing genocide denial does not support genocide denialism; it simply characterizes how the denialist rhetoric through paraphrasing. Greensminded24 (talk) 13:51, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Let’s not conflate the Armenian genocide with Gaza. The context, intent, and actions are entirely different. Even without the word “legitimate,” the current sentence accurately depicts Israel’s point of view. Words like “legitimate” can sometimes used to denote the existence or recognition of a position without endorsing it.

In my POV, the term “legitimate” should be reserved for legally permitted actions. Israel’s response to the October 7 attacks has been broad, and not all of the actions Israel has taken can be described as “legitimate,” even in the context of genocide denialism. Its prone to misunderstandings.

Now if we have to use "legitimate" - then we have to say "Israel describes its action as a legitimate response" (not its supporters because that adds more weight) - but this is not me endorsing this - just saying. 🐈Cinaroot  💬 23:12, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Not in wikivoice, but Israel's allies did say it is a legitimate response and that it has a right to self-defense, which in this case (still paraphrasing them) would include its actions in the Gaza war. Again, here we are attributing claims. VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 16:15, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

And I will agree that per WP:WIKIVOICE since many people claim it is not legitimate and it is seriously contested it should be attributed. VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 16:17, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, as of special:permalink/1335431753, the lead is not too long. —Alalch E. 19:06, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean the attempt to mash the fourth and fifth paragraphs together, the former about the South Africa/ICJ proceedings, and the latter about the minority view (separate from the South Africa/ICJ case), this was not a proper way to solve the 5 paragraphs vs. 4 paragraphs issue. These each involve a separate "particular point or idea", per WP:PARAGRAPH and MOS:PARA, and so should be separate paragraphs. It also makes it harder for a reader to find the minority point of view, which I don't think is consistent with WP:NPOV. Accordingly, I have undone that change.

If two paragraphs are to be combined, paragraphs 2 and 3, both of which contain statistics explicating the concepts outlined in paragraph 1, strike me as better candidates. Coining (talk) 20:04, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the minority view should be a bit earlier in the article, where it gives the organisations in the majority view. I'm fine if there are less organisations given as examples to deal with WP:FALSEBALANCE, since even if only a few organisations are given it's obvious that neither list is exhaustive. VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 20:10, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

For context I added one sentence at the end of the opening paragraph months ago, it lasted about a week. CNC (talk) 20:30, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That's comparatively long for these kinds of changes; one relatively minor change I made was reverted in 20 minutes. VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 20:47, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yeh it got quite close to consensus by editing tbf, after a week I thought it'd survive. It feel apart over (legitimate) disagreement over a wikilink that was added. It just goes to show that this article is written based on very fine margins, hence why it's under consensus required. CNC (talk) 09:27, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Can you propose an alternative? It seems odd to me that the articles Armenian Genocide, the Rwandan Genocide, and the Holocaust, -- all articles with more mature and better quality sources -- each have less than 5 paragraphs. There is no good reason we need to have 5 paragraphs for the Gazan Genocide. For comparison, the Armenian Genocide is the archetype of genocide denial (by Turkey, Azerbaijan, Pakistan) and yet it only has 4 paragraphs.

In that article the "dissenting view" is limited to a single sentence: "The Turkish government maintains that the deportation of Armenians was a legitimate action that cannot be described as genocide." We can do the same for the Gazan Genocide. Greensminded24 (talk) 20:47, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but in this case the minority is not restricted to a single government and regarded elsewhere as hateful; not only do Israel and its allies dispute the genocide assessment, but there are at least a hundred reliable sources/scholars and several other countries that dispute the genocide assessment. It's not as clear-cut as with Armenia or Bosnia. VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 21:21, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Propose an alternative to what? Your comment is in reply to mine, and I thought I did propose an alternative, centered around combining paragraphs 2 and 3 (and not just by removing the paragraph break between them, but by developing a coherent topic sentence and determining which of the figures are needed in the lead in support of that sentence, and which are sufficiently covered in the body of the article). Coining (talk) 21:33, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to comment that, currently, as of special:permalink/1335723110 the lead is not too long either. —Alalch E. 22:44, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I might not be following the point you're trying to make. That version of the article still has 5 paragraphs in the lead, and I thought that "not too long" meant 4 paragraphs instead of 5. What instead is your criterion for too long or not? Coining (talk) 02:28, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Neither are too long.

About what you say, how I was trying something, that is false. I did not try anything. I fully did what I wanted, and now it's done. The point has been made, and no trying was involved. Your not following is all on you. Further, about your question as to my criterion — the criterion, mine, and the community's, is MOS:LEADLENGTH. —Alalch E. 08:07, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It was a genuine question, not an accusation. I’m sorry you took it as such. You’re basically saying you reject the premise of this talk page discussion, and that’s fine - you just didn’t say that, and it was confusing because you kept pointing to specific versions of the article, which lead readers like me to believe that you were saying those versions, and not others, had appropriate length leads. Your position is in fact that all versions of this article (at least the last few hundred versions) have appropriate length leads. It would have been clearer to simply state that. Coining (talk) 14:02, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Coining asked to self revert my edit iv done so. 4 or 5 para - It’s not a controversial change. Why is this even a hotly contested matter ? 🐈Cinaroot  💬 16:47, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty certain I'd prefer 5 sensible sized paragraphs that summarize the main topics in the article than 4 longer messed up ones squashed together for the sake of some rule. NadVolum (talk) 17:15, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know that I'd characterize 4 versus 5 paragraphs as controversial -- although a discussion is being had over it. However, I do think edits that, whether intended or not, hide the minority point of view are more consistent with efforts to characterize that view as WP:FRINGE rather than preserve neutrality. Coining (talk) 22:13, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hide the minority point of view? I think that’s a stretch. It’s just merging two paragraphs without changing any order. If someone were to move a sentence from the first to the last paragraph, then yes, the visibility of that sentence has changed. The 4th paragraph talks about ICJ case where Israel is alleged of Gencocide and Israel’s rebuttal belong there. But if you want to keep it as separate para for more visibility - i will not oppose it. But 5th para is a short one - combining them keeps the article in 4 para per standard practice. 🐈Cinaroot  💬 00:50, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Seeking input at talk page of child article: Talk:Academic and legal responses to the Gaza genocide#New section on Rabea Eghbariah إيان (talk) 13:43, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Given that this topic disappeared without a conclusion earlier, is somebody willing to add the information to this page, if any of the following references are acceptable? [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] David A (talk) 10:24, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This seems due but these are not great sources. MEMO is no consensus per RSP and Newsline is definitely unreliable. Al-Jazeera best I’d say BobFromBrockley (talk) 22:53, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]