Talk:Gaza genocide

RfC on the inclusion on the BU Today article in the lede

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

---

How should the statements in this BU Today "Voices & Opinion" article be covered in the lede?

1. The international human rights legal community, many political and legal experts, and many Holocaust scholars all have consensus that Israel is committing genocide against the Palestinian people in the Gaza Strip. (as seen in this edit)
2. The international human rights legal community, several political and legal experts, and many Holocaust scholars have concluded that Israel is committing genocide against the Palestinian people in the Gaza Strip. (as seen in this edit)
3. Do not include

02:56, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Survey

• C This is an opinion article published in a university newspaper. For a topic as well covered as this, to include a statement like this in the first paragraph of the lede on the basis of a single such source is virtually the definition of WP:UNDUE. Further, the suggestion is to include the position expressed in the article in Wikivoice; the sourcing is clearly not strong enough to do this.
  It may be appropriate to include the claim in the body attributed in line, but it is clearly inappropriate to include it in the lede in Wikivoice. BilledMammal (talk) 02:56, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

• B or similar, as the statement appears to capture the reality well. Only update the source to: "Israel's Genocide of Palestinians in Gaza". University Network for Human Rights. Retrieved 2024-06-22.. — kashmīrī ^TALK 06:18, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

  B, but would be improved by using the source given by @Kashmiri above. Lewisguile (talk) 07:02, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

• C (generally per BM) the source is undue, and the claim should be made with attribution in the body. Both the BU piece (and the better actual scholarship) are not appropriate, least of all without attribution. FortunateSons (talk) 09:50, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

  Oh, and particularly A goes beyond what the source states in their own voice IMO, so that’s not great. FortunateSons (talk) 09:52, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

• I don’t have a strong opinion on if this specifically should be in the lead, though we do need a summary of the academic discourse section. It does however absolutely belong in the body, and the attempts to claim that an academic expert discussing topics in the area of her expertise is somehow unreliable or undue are straightforward examples of disruptive editing. But does this specifically need to be in the lead? It isn’t the worst thing, it’s an expert giving an overview of the views of other experts. Something needs to be in there about the views of scholars on this topic. This isn’t the worst thing but again no strong opinion on this being the specific source for that summary. nableezy - 12:32, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
• B not because it is something that is only said in the source specifically named by OP but because that or something similar appears to be the prevailing view across relevant scholarship. See the sourcing given in the ongoing RM] that currently appears to have a consensus for amending the article title to Gaza genocide. As for removing the specific material from the body as was done, that is exceptionally difficult to comprehend. Selfstudier (talk) 12:50, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
• A combination of A and B: I agree with "A Socialist Trans Girl" below. David A (talk) 10:21, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
• C if this is the only source given (which is only a university newspaper, although nonetheless a secondary source summarizing the views of experts) per WP:DUE, but likely A or B if other sources are added to support it in the body, like Selfstudier mentioned. I don't see A as going beyond what the source says, with the words many and consensus being closer to what the source says:

  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.

  Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:53, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

  It isn’t the only source, see here. nableezy - 01:54, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks, this appears to be a solid source. While it might look like a primary source at first glance, it does in fact give an overview of previous findings in pages 9 to 11, which could be a good secondary source for the statement. I'd support B if that source is added. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 08:10, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

• Either of B or A. Neither the source is "merely a random opinion" nor the cited piece of information it provides is source’s own claim or opinion but rather a citation of the consensus in the international human rights legal community. The source is a report published by Boston University and "comes from researchers at the University Network for Human Rights, a consortium of human right centers", therefore the source is indeed reliable for the information it provides, indeed much more than newspapers articles. And the source doesn’t say or give its own opinion regarding the quoted information like saying "we believe there is a genocide" but rather reflects/cites what the international human rights legal community "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.", it is not the source’s own opinion or judgement. Beside the fact that this isn’t the only reliable source stating so as per @Selfstudier Stephan rostie (talk) 12:25, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

  But UNHR is neither independent of Akram's BU project nor is it a WP:RS publisher. Nor is it particularly esteemed, celebrated, discussed, or recognized in mainstream published discourse. SPECIFICO talk 21:42, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

  Are you seriously arguing that UNCHR is not a WP:RS ? Stephan rostie (talk) 14:19, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

  It's not UNCHR, UNHR. Selfstudier (talk) 14:24, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks, SS. It show the power of modern-day branding that a vaguely institutional-sounding name like UNHR so easily evokes parity with UNCHR AND miscast as a respected, WP;NOTABLE global institution. SPECIFICO talk 15:04, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

  Well it is kind of your mistake for making your own abbreviation and writing “UNHR” rather than “University Network

  for Human Rights” Stephan rostie (talk) 19:43, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks for elaboration Stephan rostie (talk) 19:41, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

• C This is a WP:PRIMARY source, self-published by Akram's employer in a university newsletter. That publication is an appropriate place to inform BU stakeholders of matters relating to the school, but neither that publication nor the fancy-sournding name of Akram's advocacy/activism project can elevate her work to a significant NPOV assessment of the range of current thinking on the issue. We would need a WP:RS publisher, prefereably peer-reviewed, to make a strong statement of a matter of current controversy and pending adjudication. The self-published opinion of a non-NOTABLE individual, however fine her commitment and advocacy, is UNDUE for the lead and should be replaced in the article body with better more reliable sources on the question. She. personally, is certainly not a secondary RS to evaluate the opinions of other observers. That should be clear to any WP editor. We need secondary RS publishers for that.

Further, whoever closes this -- please note that several !votes seems to say that, because her views seem OK therefore we can use defectively sourced content. Not so. SPECIFICO talk 16:18, 23 June 2024 (UTC),

It is not self published and a second source has been provided and not a single vote says anything close to what you claim in your last couple of sentences. False on all counts actually. nableezy - 17:51, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

The RFC question is "How should the statements in this BU Today "Voices & Opinion" article be covered in the lede?" and the answer is that it should be cited in support of a statement in Wikivoice (can as well be cited to https://www.humanrightsnetwork.org/genocide-in-gaza and not only to BU) along with multiple other supporting references saying a similar thing and about which bald assertions such as "self published" (it isn't) and "primary" (policy does not forbid primary source usage) play no part. Closer should refer to the RFCbefore discussion where it can be seen this editor and the RFC opener (who hasn't signed) both edited to suit a POV and when unable to persuade other editors, it led to this RFC. Selfstudier (talk) 18:45, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Except that there's no supporting evidence that humanrightsnetwork is a significant scholarly, juridical, or other expert organization. It's a student enrichment project and platform for advocacy and activism. All good, but it is not covered in the mainstream as an expert mainstream institution. This is all discussed in the thread prior to this RfC. SPECIFICO talk 20:39, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

It’s a paper by the University Network for Human Rights, the International Human Rights Clinic at Boston University School of Law, the International Human Rights Clinic at Cornell Law School, the Centre for Human Rights at the University of Pretoria, and the Lowenstein Human Rights Project at Yale Law School. Never heard of any of those universities, are they any good? nableezy - 10:57, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Kindly demonstrate that UNHR is a noteworhty RS publisher and that its independent of the person whose opinions are being proposed for article content. Maybe this needs to go to RSN. Namechecking a few ivy insitutions does not address the sourcing and notability issue. Do you have anything to document that the mainstream takes this UNHR seriously or even knows of its existence? Academia is a vast ecosystem with all sorts of offices and projects within its realm. The significant ones produce peer-reviewed, independently-published scholarly research. This is nothing of the sort. SPECIFICO talk 15:05, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

If you are asking whether anyone could make a satisfactory WP article for it, sure, no problem. The thought occurs to me that you don't like this org because James Cavallaro. Selfstudier (talk) 17:09, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

No, I did not ask whether it's NOTABLE. We know that it is not. I simply stated the fundamental WP principal, presumably known to editors EC-eligible to here, that an independent RS publisher would be needed even for an attributed opinion. Instead we've seen ad hominiems, personal disparagement, namechecking everyone from Eli Yale to Cavallaro, and folks saying, screw the RS bit, they like what Akram says, (!!!) But nobody seems able to demonstrate that this content is published by RS or meets our V and NPOV policies for any inclusion anywhere on this page. BURDEN and ONUS are out the window on this page. SPECIFICO talk 18:45, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

I can make an article, that means its notable. And making such an article would be very easy, just search books, scholar, etc. In any case, it just says the same thing as many others so this is all a lot of unnecessary fuss over nothing. Selfstudier (talk) 18:50, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Love ya, SS, but you are not a RS either, so saying you think you could write an article doesn't advance the process. But my interest in this from the start has simply been from seeing this self-published opinion (we can call self-published PRIMARY to short-circuit further indignant deflections) being used as if it were an independent RS-published account of a survey of qualified world opinion and with no evidence that Akram is a scholar qualified to make such an assessment. I have no opinion as to the underlying issue and I have expressed none. I've consistently said that I expect that better, solid RS could be found to address this content. I don't anticipate what they might say, but it's a shame to see editors ignore core policy to grab a handy blurb out of a promotional university newsletter and elevate it with a word salad of recognizable institution names, and buzzwords. You appear to be knowledgeable in the field. Please find valid sourcing and notable qualified experts to address the question. SPECIFICO talk 19:04, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Ive already shown you Akram's publications, the UNHR director is James Cavallaro, also a widely published expert in the field of international law, the Cornell program is led by Susan Babcock, who is, you guessed it, again a widely published expert in the field. You cant just say that the scholarship here isnt notable or noteworthy, what matters is that it is reliable, and it is reliable because of the people and institutions behind it. nableezy - 19:57, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

This is, again, more equivocation, namedropping, and elevation of a non-notable author's self-published (PRIMARY) opinion, broadcast in a Univeristy house organ circulated to its stakeholders. There are many stronger sources and there are scholars whose views should be prioritized above those of an activist/advocate. Her worki stands on its own, but she is not a scholar and her opinions are not of such note that this encuclopedia should rebroadcast them when the mainstream media and peer reviewed publications or RS journals have not done so. That is our responsibility on this project. We don't simply publish the opinions of people whose work or opinions we may admire. SPECIFICO talk 17:04, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Susan Akram, as a simple Google search says, is a law professor and director of the rights clinic at Boston University School of Law teaching international human rights, and refugee and immigration law. That apart I have edited a bit in the article to make things clearer, there is literally no basis for objecting to the sources, neither her expert opinion nor the UHRU report itself.

No-one is really disputing that Akram alone should be in the lead so this entire RFC and this dialogue are just one oversized straw man designed to throw shade on the idea that Israel may be guilty of genocide.

What y'all need to do, instead of shooting the messengers, is accumulate a sufficient number of RS specifying that Israel is not committing a genocide in order to constitute a significant view in that regard as counterpoint to the already demonstrated significant view that Israel is committing a genocide. Selfstudier (talk) 17:24, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

I have no opinion as to the allegation. Now, I see you've changed the article content before the resolution of this ongoing RfC. It's now quoting multiple self-published, primary sources, again highlighting non-NOTABLE Ms. Akram without independent RS indicating any WEIGHT for her conclusions. If your googling found mainstream RS citations to establish the NOTABILITY of Akram such as might justify these primary sourced opinions, pleaase provide them in lieu of the various ad hominem attacks and deflections. I am focused only on policy and sourcing and there's no basis for any claim that I am trying to do what various supporters of Ms. Akram have stated they're doing here - pushing article content because I wish to support a personal opinion. SPECIFICO talk 18:24, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Happy to discuss that at RSN anytime but since it is not going into the lead anyway, it has nothing to do with this RFC. I have changed the article content but I have not changed anything in the lead, which is what this RFC purports to be about. Selfstudier (talk) 18:38, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Even if it were self-published, which it is not, it would clearly pass WP:EXPERTSPS. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. nableezy - 19:47, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

• B Selfstudier's reasoning pretty much sums it up. M.Bitton (talk) 14:03, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
• C or an attributed statement. Interpreting consensus on a highly contentious topic across multiple (academic, legal and political) communities is a messy and somewhat subjective matter. While Akram is an expert, there isn't enough clarity and objectivity here to take a single expert's interpretation of consensus as established fact, and repeat it in wikivoice. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 22:36, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
• B although I would prefer if a stronger source could be found to summarize opinion, it is a good summary of other sources that otherwise may be impossible to extract without WP:OR. (t · c) buidhe 03:39, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
• B: This statement is already more than supported by the aggregation of sources on the page. The discussed source, alongside the UNHR, merely helps provide a more sourced basis for the summary wording, which is beneficial. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:28, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
• C Do not include, or only as an attributed statement. As per BilledMammal, xDanielx and FortunateSons. I would also add that when a person, even an expert, claims that the consensus agrees with his view, as is the case with Susan Akram, it is a somewhat doubtful testimony as it is self-serving. It is different when a person admits that his view contradicts the consensus because then the testimony is not self-serving. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vegan416 (talk • contribs) 17:07, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Combination. I think it should be The international human rights legal community, many political and legal experts, and many Holocaust scholars all have concluded that Israel is committing genocide against the Palestinian people in the Gaza Strip.. I believe it should be many political and legal experts, as it's more accurate than 'several' and is consistent with how Wikipedia frames things; if it was not many enough to be many and merely several, then it'd probably be WP:UNDUE. And I think the concluded phrasing is better, as consensus implies they as a whole have consensus, not phrasing limited to the ones that do. I also support the phrasing of "The international human rights legal community, political and legal experts, and Holocaust scholars, all have consensus that Israel is committing genocide against the Palestinian people in the Gaza Strip.". There should be a comma before "all have consensus". A Socialist Trans Girl 22:22, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

I support these suggested modifications. David A (talk) 10:21, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

The removal of the vague "many" and "several" would be no loss. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:25, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Good point. Agreed. David A (talk) 16:43, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

• C and WP:UNDUE. Do not include. Hogo-2020 (talk) 06:06, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
• C per SPECIFICO's reasonign. Given the sensitivity of the subject matter, our sources should be ironclad. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:49, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

  The sources are ironclad. SPECIFICO's reasoning makes a mockery of WP:RS which places established academic experts near the top of our reliability pyramid. nableezy - 15:22, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

  Nableezy, please review the WP:REPUTABLE section of our RS page to see your error explained more thoroughly. There are numerous PRIMARY and self-published sources, including blog opinions of grad students, where independent RS publications are required. SPECIFICO talk 16:45, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

  Can you please tell us what self-published means? nableezy - 17:46, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

  I'm aware of your continued opinion on this subject. That was mine. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 09:51, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

  This whole RFC is completely academic after the rename, the lead will in effect explain how the title fits into the scope and the particular ref subject of this RFC is just one of several that will allow a statement in wikivoice. Selfstudier (talk) 11:17, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

  I don't know what this has to do with the price of tea in China. I expressed my opinion that I agreed with SPECIFICO's reasoning on this particular issue. The closer is free to take my opinion into consideration with the weight they feel is appropriate.

  I do want to congratulate you and Nableezy on your apparent promotions to WP:INQUISITOR. For future reference, what is the proper procedure for me to follow when expressing future opinions? Do I have to ask for permission from one or both of you to express an opinion or do I need specific pre-clearance for the exact opinion that will be expressed? Thanks in advance. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 00:46, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

• Comment – @A Socialist Trans Girl: I'm pretty sure that the comma before all is not grammatically correct. Kinsio (talk ★ contribs ★ rights) 15:01, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

  @Kinsio I believe you are correct. Apologies. A Socialist Trans Girl 02:55, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

• A and B per A Socialist Trans Girl (and Iskandar's tweaks). Combining both sentences seems appropiate given the recent article name/scope change and it's a proper summary of other sources in the body. Disagree with the UNDUE arguments - experts opinions are absolutely due and as shown by nableezy this has also been covered by secondary sources. - Ïvana (talk) 01:52, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
• We absolutely need some statement summarizing academic discourse, hence I strongly oppose option C as a violation of WP:LEAD. The article currently has an entire section on "Academic and legal discourse", "Cultural discourse" and academic opinions are throughout the article. Unless such academic opinions are being given UNDUE weight in the body (and there is no evidence of that), we need to summarize them somehow in the lead too.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 05:34, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
• B (or A): I think B is worded better but A is similar enough I'd take either of them. I do think that there's very much sufficient sourcing for this statement, though of course it should also be present in the body. Loki (talk) 21:39, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
• B (or A): Agree with both LokiTheLiar and SelfStudier Bluethricecreamman (talk) 06:34, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
• C. Too weak of a source for the lede; it's an opinion piece in a university paper by an author who usually covers wine trail and honeymoon destinations. IntrepidContributor (talk) 16:11, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
• C giving undue weight to the opinion of some non-notable person. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 09:55, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
• A or B, both are accurate. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 07:28, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
• I personally find the BU source to be exceedingly weak. On top of being a student newspaper, it's a primary source and not an independent source (as it's an interview from the university's own publication). The best it could be used for, under policy for non-independent sources, is a qualified statement of the interviewee's views. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 05:24, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

  No, even if Akram wrote this on her blog as an expert on the topic it could be used for a statement of fact. nableezy - 11:14, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

• It may need clarifying that a mention of the Stanford report has already been included in the article, and what the RfC aims to achieve is a better wording. The current suboptimal wording will likely remain if there's no consensus. Editors are welcome to propose further wording options for this RfC. — kashmīrī ^TALK 13:20, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
• Given it's an opinion, why is there no option for attribution per WP:RSOPINION? Ie, "According to the University Network for Human Rights", per the content in the body. Either way, have to agree with others that it doesn't seem due in the lead, unless covered by other reliable sources; the proposed sentences are just a regurgitation of of the body, not a summary of it. A lead summary would be something like "Certain scholars, A, B to C, consider it a genocide, due to..., disputed by X, Y and Z, because of...". As far as I can tell nothing in the "Academic and legal discourse" has been summarised in the lead, despite numerous paragraphs of content. It's better to work on summarising the content for the lead per MOS:INTRO, rather than trying to pick out one particular report. CNC (talk) 23:26, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

  With better sourcing, I'd be willing to support. Or re-wording to satisfy a bundle of sources. CNC (talk) 23:42, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

  Thus far, we have no evidence that "UNHR" is a significant organization or that its title should be used to elevate one person's primary-sourced opinion. SPECIFICO talk 08:36, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 August 2024

Clockwise from top left:

• Bombing campaign of the Gaza Strip
• A man carries the body of a Palestinian child killed by the shelling
• Dead infant in Kamal Adwan Hospital
• Bags filled with body parts of Palestinians killed by rocket strikes in Al-Tabaeen school
• Child dead due to starvation
• Palestinian body parts in plastic bags

Please replace the single image in the infobox by a Template:Multiple image

I think this single image undermines the reality of what's going on in Gaza considering that we got in Commons many precious pictures that illustrate the situation well and I think it would be a shame if they remained unused.

I'm not insisting on using the exact same pictures with the exact same captions in the example I provided, I'm just saying that such a subject needs definitely more than one picture to illustrate it while taking into consideration WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:GRATUITOUS — 🧀Cheesedealer ^!!!⚟ 02:43, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

@The Cheesedealer Thank you for your effort. I support updating the infobox, and I have no objections agains these images except for the assurances, if at all possible, that the childrens' families don't object to these photographs being posted on Wikipedia. Copyright is one thing, and right to privacy is quite another, and here I'd really would like to make sure that Wikipedia respects it and doesn't add to parents' trauma.

I'll also wait for other editors to opine on the matter. Cheers, — kashmīrī ^TALK 18:40, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Sadly I don't think it is possible to verify whether those children's families accept using the photographs in Wikipedia or not (I'd assume they don't).

Thank you for reminding me of this, I retract my request til at least better pictures are available — 🧀Cheesedealer ^!!!⚟ 18:50, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

@The Cheesedealer Thank you. I'm sure more suitable photographs will gradually become available. I'd be grateful if you could keep an eye on the Commons and come up with an updated collage in a while. — kashmīrī ^TALK 20:50, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

 Note: The edit request has been retracted. M.Bitton (talk) 23:37, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

What's the status of genocide studies and middle east studies in academia?

I'm genuinely curious how these two fields are perceived by the more established disciplines they grew out of. Political scientist Ernesto Verdeja, for example, contends that "genocide scholarship still rarely appears in mainstream disciplinary journals."[8]. He also claims that mainstream political scientists essentially ignore this field, in part because the scholars are involved in a "humanitarian activism" that's odd for an academic community. Similarly, the Middle Eastern Studies article contains a relatively lengthy criticism section accusing the field of a "pro-Palestinian" and "pro-Arabist" bias that apparently affects their scholarship.

FYI -I don't follow this scholarship and haven't contributed to this article, but after researching these fields for about 20 mins, a lot of academic controversies popped up that got me curious. So is Verdeja correct in his assessment of genocide studies? A lot of the scholarly opinion in this article comes from scholars working in one of these two fields, but as far as I can tell it's mostly statements published in non-academic press (and think tanks like Brookings), rather than mainstream, peer-reviewed journals. Jonathan f1 (talk) 07:55, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Did you want to add something to this article? Selfstudier (talk) 12:01, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Verdeja's article was written over 12 years ago, when the discipline he refers to was somewhat new, but burgeoning. And he notes that the mainstream's ignoring of its results to that date specifically referred to Political science, another discipline. PolScience likewise had some of its research work ignored by the sociological mainstream and so set up its own journals just as Genocide scholars were doing. When one talks of 'mainstream' these days, it's a matter of a lustrum or two as to what drops out or becomes commonplace.(Karl Popper once spoke of theories passing by as regular as Piccadilly Buses (back around 1947 from memory) In any case it would be reductive to dismiss this as activism. Indeed Verdeja himself has written on the status of the SA application (Ernesto Verdeja, https://peacepolicy.nd.edu/2024/02/27/the-international-court-of-justice-and-genocide-in-gaza/ The International Court of Justice and Genocide in Gaza 27 February 2024) in terms more or less c onsonant with those of A. Dirk Moses, an innovative and highly influential scholar on genocide over the last two decades (compare this) I hope this answers your query.Nishidani (talk) 13:36, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I'm satisfied with your response. I would just add that with the proliferation of all the fields that end in "studies" in academia, it's becoming increasingly difficult for non-specialists to assess this research. Jonathan f1 (talk) 18:09, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Or alternatively, do you have anything to add to this talk section? Talk sections are not merely for discussing changes, but also the quality of the sources being used. And in any event, Nishidani answered my questions quite well so I don't think there's any need to drag this out, unless someone else wants to add something here. Jonathan f1 (talk) 18:03, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Why is this article just titled "Gaza genocide" rather than "allegations of genocide in Gaza" or something similar, while the article on the genocide in Ukraine has to be titled "Allegations of genocide"? Seems like a clear double standard. The latter has far more reputable international organizations deeming it as such, including the International Criminal Court and the Council of Europe, even if the death toll is as of yet unclear due to most of them taking place on Russian-occupied territory.--Nihlus1 (talk) 06:23, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Why is this article just titled "Gaza genocide" rather than "allegations of genocide in Gaza" or something similar It was and was changed in a well attended RM that was also subject to MR. The title does not mean that a genocide is proven and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not relevant. Selfstudier (talk) 10:55, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Best to have that discussion at the Ukraine war page. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:29, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Gaza's 2.2 million people are confined to an area smaller than Manhattan

Edit ...

Gaza's 2.2 million people are confined to a humanitarian area smaller than Manhattan

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/gaza-humanitarian-zones-smaller-than-manhattan-rcna167056

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan#/media/File:Above_Gotham.jpg 76.156.161.247 (talk) 19:49, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

I think that this information is very relevant to add, if it isn't already, but which section of this page would be most appropriate? David A (talk) 07:29, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Add this information to the end of ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_genocide#Alleged_genocidal_actions 98.46.117.113 (talk) 19:23, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I have handled it. David A (talk) 07:32, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank You !!! 98.46.117.227 (talk) 17:25, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

No problem. 🙏 David A (talk) 17:32, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Buildings listed in the "Victims" section in the header infobox

This article includes buildings as victims of the purported genocide. I raised this as an illogical inclusion in a talk thread here. In that talk thread, it was suggested that I be bold and edit it. That edit was reversed, with the edit note suggesting it shouldn't be edited without a talk page consensus, which I came here to do before editing. That talk page thread has been erased in its entirety.

I am here to propose that buildings, at least non culturally significant ones, be removed as listed victims of the genocide in the infobox. It is inconsistent with Wikipedia's policy and the intended usage of the infobox. Jbbdude (talk) 00:27, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree it's illogical to list buildings under "victims." Destruction of buildings may be part of a genocide, but that still doesn't make the buildings "victims." "Victims" are people, not things. It's a little disrespectful of the victims in my view to equate buildings and people ("40 people were killed in the attack, and we lost a perfectly good apartment building" just doesn't sound right). Maybe the building destruction can be listed elsewhere in the infobox. Levivich (talk) 01:18, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Victims are people, that's true; there should be another list called "Damage" which lists the buildings destroyed as well. Also, I don't think only culturally significant buildings should be listed because due to the sheer amount of residential buildings destroyed it is clearly intended to contribute to the damage Gazans have suffered already, so it should be stated as part of the genocide. Abdulhakim1917 (talk) 14:23, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

I do not at all mind if the number of destroyed buildings are moved to another section within the infobox, but I think that they should be listed somewhere within it. David A (talk) 15:01, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Netanyahu "huge price" comment

I take issue with the sentence "On 7 October, Netanyahu said the people of Gaza would pay a "huge price" and Israel would turn parts of Gaza 'into rubble'.". The source, NYT, links to an archived Haaretz article. The article is inaccessible except for saved versions on October 8th, which still don't contain the actual quote. The actual article is still online, but behind a paywall. I was able to find the full article on archive.today, but the only thing close I could find was this: "The second goal according to Netanyahu, is to 'exact a huge price from the enemy, also in the Gaza Strip.'"

Unless we're able to find a direct quote for this, we should remove it. Personisinsterest (talk) 18:22, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

From the official Israeli gov't English translation of the speech: All of the places which Hamas is deployed, hiding and operating in, that wicked city, we will turn them into rubble. I say to the residents of Gaza: Leave now because we will operate forcefully everywhere. Here's a video of the speech (in Hebrew). BTW, that cite to a NYT op-ed should probably be replaced with a cite to the version that was published as a chapter in a book: [9]. Levivich (talk) 19:23, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Hmm. I think we should just remove the part about the huge price altogether. There's nothing like it in the actual speech or source. Maybe we could keep the rubble part with a different source. Personisinsterest (talk) 19:33, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

The "huge price" part apparently came from remarks issued at the start of the same Oct. 7 Security Cabinet meeting, I guess before the prepared remarks that were released separately (linked above). From the official translation: The second objective, at the same time, is to exact an immense price from the enemy, within the Gaza Strip as well. On Oct. 9, Netanyahu gave another speech saying much the same (official translation): Hamas will understand that by attacking us, they have made a mistake of historic proportions. We will exact a price that will be remembered by them and Israel’s other enemies for decades to come. So when Omer Bartov said that Netanyahu said "huge price" and "into rubble," the official Israeli translations of Netanyahu's remarks back that up. I'm not seeing any problem here. Levivich (talk) 19:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Well, it doesn't say anything about the people of Gaza. It only talks about "the enemy" (Hamas) and Hamas itself. It wouldn't make sense to keep that in, given the scope of the article and section being alleged genocidal intent by him. Personisinsterest (talk) 19:40, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

No, it definitely says something about the people of Gaza. "...exact an immense price from the enemy, within the Gaza Strip as well" is saying something about the people of Gaza, because the people of Gaza are the people in the Gaza Strip (duh). What it doesn't say anything about is "Hamas." Your interpretation of "the enemy" to mean "Hamas" is not really in the source text, and if you think "the enemy" is limited to just Hamas I'd say you're being naive. But even if "the enemy" is just Hamas, guess what: Hamas are part of "the people of Gaza." Heck, Hamas is the de facto government of the people of Gaza.

And aside from all of that, I always look askance at people who say that they want to take content out because they think it's inaccurate. The solution is not to remove the content, it's to edit it to make it more accurate. If you want to change "the people of Gaza would pay a 'huge price'" to "the enemies of Israel would pay a 'huge price'", I'd have no objection to that change. Levivich (talk) 19:47, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

I guess the problem is that my interpretation (Hamas) and your interpretation (people of Gaza, or Hamas which are people of Gaza) are not grounded in the text. It just says "the enemy", and that isn't relevant in the context of this article. Personisinsterest (talk) 19:50, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Omer Bartov says it's relevant. His interpretation, not mine or yours, is what counts. And Netanyahu didn't just say "the enemy," he said "the enemy, within the Gaza Strip". There is no doubt that Netanyahu said a goal is to extract a huge price from the enemy in the Gaza Strip. Bartov connects that to the topic of Gaza genocide. I think that makes it WP:DUE, particularly when Bartov's work is published in an academic book. Levivich (talk) 20:04, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

But his interpretation is a misrepresentation of the original source, so which is more important? Personisinsterest (talk) 20:09, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

His interpretation is only a misinterpretation according to you, and your interpretation doesn't count. Still, if you want to edit the language to hew closer to the official translation of the source, no objection from me. Levivich (talk) 20:11, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

fine Personisinsterest (talk) 20:13, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

"United Kingdom, under the Sunak ministry"

In the infobox, this is currently how the UK's complicity is described. However, isn't the Starmer ministry also implicated? Editors involved with this article: What are your thoughts about updating this to say "United Kingdom, under the Sunak and Starmer ministries"?--JasonMacker (talk) 00:15, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

@JasonMacker I'd just say "United Kingdom" with no extra qualifiers for the time being. The whole event started when Sunak was prime minister, so there's no need to point out his government specifically. I also haven't seen that the UK changed its stance significantly apart from a light limit on arms exports. However, unless sources state otherwise regarding complicity, "United Kingdom" should stay. Should that happen, and should the Starmer government been identified as the turning point (by sources), "Sunak government" should be added.

I'd remove the information about all the government in general. I think that should be added in a few years when source identify and exact time frame for the genocide. Cortador (talk) 12:08, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 7 September 2024

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

---

Gaza genocide → Accusations of Gazan genocide in the Israel–Hamas war – Let me preface this by saying that, in my mind, there is little doubt that Israel is committing a genocide. I mention this not because my non-expert opinion should have any sort of weight in this debate, but as an assurance to you that this RM is being done in good faith. After reading the previous discussion, as well as the whole scholarly/expert opinion table on the talk page, I wholeheartedly believe that "Gaza genocide" is a premature title and does more harm than good, risking the erosion of public confidence in Wikipedia for a wide swath of the population. My reasoning :

The scholarly/expert opinion is more polarized that what has been claimed. A lot of the argumentation in favor of the "Gaza genocide" title centers around the fact that, while the mainstream opinion and media may be split on the genocide accusation, a wide majority of scholars and experts consider the massacre a genocide. Before anyone contributes to this discussion, I strongly encourage that you first read the "Scholarly and expert opinions" table that has been compiled on the talk page. It's huge, I read all of it, and I have to say I didn't come out of it with any impression of a consensus. Opinions range widely, from "It is one" to "It could be one" to "It isn't one", and no position is clearly dominant. One thing to take into account is that a lof of these sources, on both sides of the argument, are not actually specialized in the topic of genocide. If we really want to know if there's an academic/expert consensus, a useful exercise could be to improve the table and prioritize genocide/Holocaust scholars and international law experts, as well as separate them based on their stance and their level of confidence in said stance. While I would be happy to be proven wrong, I doubt such an exercise would show a consensus yet.

The title doesn't match the article. When I wrote that this title could erode confidence in the neutrality of Wikipedia, I was referring to this point. Someone who clicks on "Gaza genocide" will immediately be met with multiple clear contradictions, and a general appearance of dishonesty. First, the short description refers to an "alleged genocide", while the hatnote informs the reader that "[t]his article is about genocide accusations". Then, the first sentence describes accusations of genocide, just like the rest of the article. Some have pointed to other articles, such as Transgender genocide and Black genocide in the United States, as examples of articles titled "genocide" without a consensus/a legal ruling. However, these articles are about terms that are used to characterize systemic oppression and don't refer to a single historical event, like the Holocaust. We should be honest that "Gaza genocide" as a title evokes a historical event, not a characterization of an event. In any case, I think the titling of such an important article as "Gaza genocide" should be based on reasoning rather than on a precedent by two articles with relatively low readership.

Unambiguity is more important than concision, especially in a polarizing article. Until there is an academic/expert consensus on the genocide, this article is about a debate and we don't lose anything by titling it as such, except a bit of concision. Neutrality should be our priority when it comes to a crucial article like this one. As a reminder, readers won't read an article which they perceive as dishonest, and Wikipedia's great potential for de-polarization is then wasted.

The title I'm suggesting, "Accusations of Gazan genocide in the Israel-Hamas war", is the one I think is best. The "in the Israel–Hamas war" goes along with my call for unambiguity, as there have been multiple other accusations of a Gazan genocide in the past. However, I think it would be pertinent to first debate whether or not the article should be titled "Gaza genocide", and, in the case of a negative, adjust the title afterward. WikiFouf (talk) 15:23, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Polling (Requested move 7 September 2024)

• I think it is worth distilling all possible new names into to two choices. We need to make sure we end up with something representative of consensus. I think Gaza genocide accusations and/or Gaza genocide allegations are the best possible names on the NPOV side, and Gaza genocide as the current name on the contentious POV side. IntrepidContributor (talk) 17:06, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

  FYI, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#IntrepidContributor. Levivich (talk) 18:45, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

  While I happen to agree with you that the current name is in need of improvement and I do like your suggestions, unless you can find something significant that changed since the endorsed RM closure a weeks ago, I don't how this isn't just a waste of everyone's time. I would recommend a procedural close. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 20:45, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

  I don't know why editors keep on insisting on a procedural close when there are more than enough editors here supporting the motion. Shutting down discussion is a hallmark of POV pushing or stonewalling, and neither of those are legitimate means for conducting a a discussion according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. IntrepidContributor (talk) 08:01, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

  Because this isn’t some game where if you try try again and just get the numbers to turn out then you win. We had a discussion that resulted in consensus. That discussion was reviewed and the finding of consensus endorsed. If there had been no consensus then fine discussion further makes sense. But here, when there was consensus, it is tendentious, making people go through the same shit because some people are upset they didn’t get their way. nableezy - 11:16, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

  if you try try again and just get the numbers to turn out then you win This topic area as a whole seems ripe with this ideology (see the 5th banner down here). PhotogenicScientist (talk) 15:35, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

  People, especially people who don't edit the articles in question, starting snap-RMs (and RFCs) with no "before" discussion, and doing this multiple times in rapid succession, is a huge problem in this topic area. It's very disruptive, it makes talk pages almost unusable and causes widespread burn out. It's caused a giant mess at the main war page, and we need to figure out a way to not let this disruption continue. I tried to address this here and at AE (unsuccessfully), and when the AE closes I'm planning to bring it up at AN for a community discussion. Levivich (talk) 15:42, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

• Strong oppose nothing has changed since the last RM. M.Bitton (talk) 02:55, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
• Strong oppose and Bad RFC - Exactly nothing has changed. This is just WP:BATTLEGROUND and relitigation. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 02:58, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
• Strong oppose There was an RM closed on 3 July 2024, endorsed on 22 August 2024, nothing new has been presented and this appears as nothing more than disruptive WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Selfstudier (talk) 03:03, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
• Procedural close/Oppose. Absolutely nothing has changed since the last RM. Given that the last RM closed on 3 July 2024, was endorsed at a move review 22 August 2024 and that there have been three RMs on this article this year, the filling of another RM so soon after the last one was endorsed by a move review is entirely disruptive. Consensus can change, but filing an RM less than a month after the previous one was endorsed by a move review is taking the mickey. TarnishedPath^talk 03:09, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support move I will note a precedent for repeated move requests despite nothing really changing due to a POV title, 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight. I support some similar rename per WP:POVTITLE and similar article title Palestinian genocide accusation. First of all, I think it's not at all clear that there's an overwhelming consensus that such a name as the current one is accurate. I find this article by Donna Robinson Divine useful to understand how the distortion of terminology serves to inflame and imply that a war or policy of extermination is the official policy of Israel when it isn't. This article is a good overview of the legal basics of Hamas' war crimes and why the war is one of self-defense and an attempt to rescue the hostages. I also think what David Simon has written is relevant; director of the genocide studies program at Yale University, says that Israel has only explicitly said they want to exterminate Hamas, and has not directly stated intent to “destroy a religious, ethnic or racial group.” Ben Kiernan, the director of the Cambodian Genocide Program at Yale University, also agrees. Fareed Zakaria agrees: determine whether Israel’s government is committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza. I think the charge is invalid; there is no systematic effort to exterminate Gaza’s population. (If there were, given the vast disparity in power, Israel would surely have killed many more than 23,000 people, though that number is, of course, still staggeringly high. The death toll figure comes from the Hamas-run Health Ministry in Gaza.) Genocide is an incendiary accusation that should not be used loosely Habermas, et al: "Despite all the concern for the fate of the Palestinian population, however, the standards of judgement slip completely when genocidal intentions are attributed to Israel's actions." These distortions fuel misinformation. For example, misinterpretation of the ICJ and ICC rulings which did not find a "plausible" genocide. They will have to show Israeli intent. While the death of any innocent person is a tragedy, the killing of 2% of the Gazan population during a tough urban war isn't equivalent to such historical events like the Armenian genocide or the Holocaust and shouldn't be compared to them, and it's at least argued by some experts such as John Spencer that Israel is not intentionally killing civilians and shows restraint. I recognize these are unpopular opinions. While I note that the previous close addressed the potential counterfactual aspect of the title, I believe editors should nonetheless find a consensus to rename it. Andre🚐 03:30, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Nearly all these sources date back to the early months of the war, when the casualties and damage were, though high, risible compared to the situation from March onwards, where the scale of the devastation multiplied to a level of qualitative difference. Omer Bartov like the early commentators cited here (several with no credentials) was initially sceptical but changed his opinion in August for this reason.Nishidani (talk) 08:52, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

A genocide need not reach the level of the Holocaust to be a genocide, and pointing to the arguments of someone a believes a certain threshold of number dead be met to constitute genocide, is not just at odds with any of the frameworks employed by genocide scholars, but is also counter to the UN Convention on the matter. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 09:55, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

This article is a good overview of the legal basics of Hamas' war crimes and why the war is one of self-defense and an attempt to rescue the hostages. where the article is by an IDF colonel who's repertoire of research is all in support of Israel's military actions. Firstly, I would comment that a retaliatory war does not preclude then possibility of genocide in the UN convention. Secondly, I would highlight how this list of bullet points was published 16 October 2023, almost 11 months ago. Thirdly, I would point in counter to A. Dirk Moses' article "Replacing 'Genocide' with 'Permanent Security' via Genealogy" (which was actually published in a peer-reviewed journal by an expert in genocide studies), about how arguments of "security" and "defense" are used and wielded to justify and perpetrate genocide. Moses then expands this greatly in his book "The Problems of Genocide: Permanent Security and the Language of Transgression" (published by Cambridge University Press). Then specifically to Gaza currently, we have the following academic articles which discuss the argument of a "defensive war" as justification why this does not constitute genocide, and why such an argument doesn't work:

• ""We are Fighting Nazis": Genocidal Fashionings of Gaza(ns) After 7 October" by Zoé Samudzi
• "A World Without Civilians" by Elyse Semerdjian
• "Expert Commentary, the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, and the Question of Genocide: Prosemitic Bias within a Scholarly Community?" by Omar Shahabudin McDoom
• "A Threshold Crossed: On Genocidal Intent and the Duty to Prevent Genocide in Palestine" by Nimer Sultany
• "Genocide and Resistance in Palestine under Law's Shadow" by Maryam Jamshidi

All of these being full articles, published in the Journal of Genocide Research, and having been much more recently published than Baruch's list of bullet points. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 10:27, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Further to this, beyond all the issues with bullet points 1–7, which are all contentious claims in the scholarship of each point, I would like to focus on number 8. Bullet point 8 in Baruch's 8 bullet points focusses on the legality of a blockade, and how if there is a severe humanitarian shortage aid agencies can simply request for more aid to be allowed in. This is a perfect point to show the outdatedness of these bullet points, as has been shown from the ICJ's ruling in January, the IDF controlling the blockade (alongside a small section of civilians), restricted aid into Gaza even further, leading multiple international observers to report that Israel had failed to meet the requirements of the ICJ's ruling, further leading South Africa to request additional measures, and for various reliable sources to report on deaths due to starvation within Gaza. This is just one exemplary aspect show the stark difference in conditions in just 4–5 months, let alone the further 6 months since the ICJ rulings. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 13:41, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm aware of the existence of such essays, and certainly the article should discuss in a balanced and NPOV way, the various opinions with due weight, but there also many more sources which are not convinced, even recent ones. For example this Eli Rosenbaum Daily News piece, from last month Bruce J. Einhorn, Kathleen N. Coleman, Clarice R. Feldman, Joel K. Greenberg, Jeffrey N. Mausner, and Philip L. Sunshine — worked as U.S. federal prosecutors of perpetrators of Nazi genocide ...we have seen no evidence of Israeli commission of genocide, and there is much evidence that disproves that charge — including the recent report that, since October, Israel has facilitated the entry of more than 870 metric tons of food and other humanitarian aid to Gaza’s two million inhabitants. Meanwhile, Hamas attacks or plunders food shipments, and it has denied Gazan civilians access to vast storehouses of food and medicines that it secreted in its tunnels before Oct. 7...Israel has, in fact, done more than any other military has ever done to minimize civilian casualties during large-scale urban warfare, even sacrificing the lives of many of its own soldiers in the process. For example, Israeli forces drop warning leaflets, distribute maps, and place automated phone calls to civilians in Gaza to identify areas in which combat is planned, in order to enable civilians to evacuate in advance...Yet Hamas intentionally impedes efforts of Palestinian civilians to flee to safer areas, and then it uses the military plans provided by Israel to attack its troops, employing Palestinian civilians and hostages seized in Israel as human shields — undeniably a war crime..the deaths of thousands of people during a war is not alone indicative of genocidal intent...Israel too is waging a defensive war against ongoing aggression, war crimes and genocide, but it is taking far greater steps to protect civilian lives than Allied forces did Andre🚐 04:02, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

That's a tabloid press opinion piece by a prosecutor bigging up other prosecutors and repeating tired Israeli talking points, not a serious anything, and certainly no answer to the peer-reviewed academic papers in the Journal of Genocide Research noted above. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:35, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

It's a Pulitzer Prize winning publication and one of the major newspapers in the NY area, WP:GENREL on WP:RSP, with an op-ed by a legendary former director of the US DOJ and an expert in prosecuting war crimes, so absolutely reliable and germane. Andre🚐 05:42, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Still opinion. Still non-academic. And from a hardened political insider with a political perspective. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:40, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

870 metric tons of food and other humanitarian aid For the record in a population of 2 million over 11 months this amounts to 1.3 grams(!) per person per day. KetchupSalt (talk) 07:16, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

That isn't the only aid though, as other countries and NGOs have provided aid as well, not to mention charitable donations and aid provided by the private sector. Also, not literally every person needs the aid, though it may be more than half and as much as 80%. There's some statistical information released by the Israeli government that suggests that while most of the aid was public early on, more of it is private now.[10] That chart also isn't just food because it also shows the other types of humanitarian aid broken out such as shelter and medical supplies. Also, looking at that site, the number was supposed to be 870,000.Andre🚐 07:25, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

870,000 tons does bring a more reasonable number of 1.3 kg/(person*day). Indeed not everyone needs aid, so perhaps the amount per person in need is closer to double that. Raw mass isn't super useful however, since much of this could for example be water or cement. But this would enter the territory of quibbling, as compared to a difference of three orders of magnitude... KetchupSalt (talk) 07:43, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Oh and the sending of aid in no way absolves Israel of the crime of genocide. KetchupSalt (talk) 07:52, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Academic articles by experts in the field, in the leading journal for the field in question, should be considered of more weight than articles published in the popular press. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 08:54, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Strictly pertaining to the Eli Rosenbaum op-ed, it's a question of the author's expertise and not simply the publication. An expert article that is WP:SELFPUB or in a WP:RS that's less reputable may take on the reputation of the author. In this case, there's nothing wrong with the publication's reliability, but I'm mainly offering the author as an expert on the topic of war crimes and the prosecution thereof. Andre🚐 09:12, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

He isn’t that. nableezy - 12:14, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose - even if we completely ignore that there was an established consensus for this title and that consensus was reviewed and upheld at a review, the proposed title is terrible. Just independent of any process concern, "Accusations of Gazan genocide in the Israel–Hamas war" is a terrible title. It is overly long and confusing, is it genocide against Gazans or by Gazans? It is limited in scope, ignoring the sources that say this process started well before last year. It fails basically every criteria for article titles. And that’s ignoring the process here. nableezy - 03:36, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

  Agreed that the proposed title is awkward. A better proposal is simply Accusations of genocide in the ... SPECIFICO talk 10:39, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

  @Nableezy and @SPECIFICO there is a discussion below on proposed names if you would like to help select a better alternative. IntrepidContributor (talk) 11:16, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

• Strong oppose As M.Bitton noted, nothing has changed since the last requested move, and the claim that "unambiguity is more important than concision" is completely unsupported by WP:TITLE, which treats precision and concision as equally important characteristics in selecting article titles BluePenguin18 🐧 ( 💬 ) 04:44, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
• Strong oppose – Nothing has changed since the previous RM, no need to open yet another one for essentially the same thing. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 04:56, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose - At some point, obvious truths need to be recognized for what they are. There are prominent figures who continue to deny the Holocaust and the Armenian genocide, but their positions are rightly ignored by Wikipedia for the same reason that the positions of flat-earthers and climate change deniers, some quite prominent, are ignored here. Because the truth is obvious, and no amount of argument is going to change that. At some point, you have to stop wasting time entertaining those who are willfully ignorant of reality. Ferocious Flying Ferrets 05:10, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose We've had two votes on this now. Unless there is some groundbreaking evidence that miraculously exonerates Israel from everything, I am forced to consider any new vote an attempt, perhaps unintentional, to manufacture a weak or biased enough turnout to force a change, and then argue for retention at the new title based on the new precedent. I am also very unswayed by the notion we may offend people or cause a lack of trust. Wikipedia has gone against a dozen governments before, I scarcely think we should back down because this one wields scarier accusations of "isms" than the previous lot. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 05:44, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
• Strongest possible oppose and speedy close. Nothing has changed from earlier, and all of the massive amount of evidence in this page still remains. This is just battleground behaviour. David A (talk) 05:46, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support, per u:Andre's arguments. The two discussions (move discussion and closure review) were quite close (per the move review closer Overall, there's nothing in here to suggest one side is emphatically right or wrong on that question Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2024_July). Alaexis_¿question? 07:09, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
• Strong Support I opposed the move to Gaza Genocide from the very beginning because I think it does not reflect the uncertainty and ongoing investigation by experts in various fields regarding whether the events in Gaza truly constitute genocide. In the context of the current discussion, I believe that the suggested title "Accusations of Gaza genocide in the Israel-Hamas war" is more appropriate. The use of "accusations" clarifies that the term genocide is a subject of debate and (extreme) controversy, not a settled fact, while maintaining neutrality. The suggested title makes it clear that these are accusations, not a definitive statement in Wikipedia's voice.Eladkarmel (talk) 09:12, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
• Comment - Someone lit a fire. This will attract attention. Perhaps the talk page should be extended confirmed protected to reduce the cost of enforcing ARBECR compliance. Sean.hoyland (talk) 09:32, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

  You can request it at WP:RPP/I if you want, but I don't think you have much chance unless there is quite a bit of IP disruption. TarnishedPath^talk 10:11, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

You are probably right. Also, it takes some time for people to organize their Reddit, Discord etc. calls to arms/off-site canvassing efforts. There is normally a sizable delay between call and response. Sean.hoyland (talk) 10:55, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

• Procedural close: While I still think it was inappropriate to change this article's title, the arguments I point to for a procedural close are the same as TarnishedPath above, with further details on the current sources, explained by myself in a discussion comment below. --Cdjp1 (talk) 10:02, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
• Strong oppose – Nothing has changed since the page was moved to Gaza genocide. Unless there's any new information that would justify moving this page to the long title mentioned above, this discussion should be closed. FunLater (talk) 10:43, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
• Strong oppose per above. Nothing has changed since the previous RM. Skitash (talk) 11:08, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support move this move would be an initial and crucial step in restoring Wikipedia's credibility and neutrality regarding ARBPIA topics. ABHammad (talk) 12:07, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
• Strong support. The current title claims that there actually is a genocide, namely that people are being killed intentionally because of their ancestry or other aspects correlated with ancestry (e.g skin color, culture). This is not the case. The target title makes zero claim on any actual genocide, only accusations of it. Animal lover |666| 12:44, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
• Strong oppose and procedural close per Selfstudier and TarnishedPath who echoed what I wanted to say. How many times are we going to do this? Sixth time's the charm? - Ïvana (talk) 13:04, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
• Strong oppose for the reasons mentioned by Bluethricecreamman, TarnishedPath, Iazyges, Cdjp1, BluePenguin18 and Selfstudier.
• Strong oppose per Tarnishedpath. Similarly, Allegations of Israeli apartheid was nominated no less than 10x for deletion (different situation here) and currently is moved to its current target Israeli apartheid. As a side note, English Wikipedia's reputation remains strong throughout, despite efforts by Israeli lobby groups to cast doubt. Perhaps if we renamed to Settlement of Gaza genocide people would stop trying to 'evict' it. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 13:47, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. Firstly, WP:SNOW means this is already over, especially considering the last move review was concluded less than 3 weeks ago on 22 August 2024. I would have supported a moratorium (for 3/6 months, not any longer), but that vote is already over, extremely convincingly choosing for no moratorium. But, I mean this debate is not going to go away. A month or two maximum after this is closed, there will be another RM. MarkiPoli (talk) 14:04, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
• Strong oppose for not bringing anything new to the table and only relitigating the previous, well-attended and confirmed move, but with an even worse and more convoluted title alternative than the original + with no substance or merit to the RM. A lack of a moratorium is not an invitation to raise fresh RMs without demonstrating a change of circumstances. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:04, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support, the topic is widely controversial and there are ferocious arguments about it in the real world. It is best for Wikipedia to be neutral and reflect an objective outlook on the issue. The title nominated better serves in protecting Wikipedia's neutrality. Galamore (talk) 15:10, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support. This is complicated. There is a war, and a lot of civilians are always killed in every war. Actually, the ratio of civilian:militant killed during this war is pretty low (1:1 according to Israeli sources). It was much higher in wars by US. Then, there could be war crimes, but they are not genocide. But even the war crimes are debatable because the Israeli forces did care to move civilians out of the areas of most intense operations and created some presumably safe zones in Gaza. Yes, a couple of Israeli officials (I would call them far-right idiots) did say on several occasions "let's kill them all". Nevertheless, this is not at all an official policy of the Jewish state, de juro or de facto. What we have are only allegations. They should be described as such, and indeed, they are described as such in the lead of this page (I did not read anything below the lead). The title of the page should simply be consistent with its content. My very best wishes (talk) 16:04, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

'Comment.

Actually, the ratio of civilian:militant killed during this war is pretty low (1:1 according to Israeli sources).

MVBW. You are citing one Israeli source, that ignored the evidence of Israeli officials themselves.

See Casualties of the Israel–Hamas war, where it cites a December 2023 estimation by the IDF that Israel was doing remarkably well in killing only two civilians for every combatant.

Official sources stated by April that it was acceptable to kill 30 civilians in exchange for taking out one lower-order Hamas commander.

It was The Times of Israel which trumpeted the claim you repeat almost verbatim, that the combatant vs civilian kill ratio was close to I:!, an historic achievement in protecting civilians.

But serious strategic analysts stated shortly afterwards the contrary that:

'Israeli military rules of engagement reportedly allow the killing of up to 20 civilians to take out a single junior Hamas fighter, 100 for a senior leader. By comparison, the United States put the ratio at 30-to-one for Saddam Hussein.(Daniel Byman, A War They Both Are Losing: Israel, Hamas and the Plight of Gaza International Institute for Strategic Studies 4 June 2024.

Given that oppose positions are grounded in prior discussion of a mass of first class RS, supporting a change requires serious new sourcing, not trumped up propaganda claims, duly dismissed, like the ToL piece.Nishidani (talk) 22:35, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't trust any estimations made over 5 years in the future...@Nishidani Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 22:39, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

CorrectedNishidani (talk) 22:44, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

• Myth #1: The conflict is too complex to possibly understand – The 11 biggest myths about Israel-Palestine ... thankfully there are genocide scholars for this topic, as reiterated quite redundantly at the last RM – so covered! Iskandar323 (talk) 16:33, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

I did not say the conflict is too complex to possibly understand, and I agree with the author of the linked article about the "myths". This is an interesting "fact checking" article. Please check Myth #10: Israel is explicitly seeking Palestinians’ total destruction. That is what I am saying. My very best wishes (talk) 16:50, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

That was written in 2015, years before Gaza genocide began in 2023. Levivich (talk) 17:01, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, of course. My very best wishes (talk) 17:06, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

I would point out the Vox article is almost ten years old, and in that time there has been an explicit move in the Knesset to the right, with Bibi agree to work with far-right parties who have explicit expulsionary and irredentist ideologies. This fact has been brought up multiple times in popular press, as well as explicitly in the work of genocide scholars, in published academic articles assessing the current situation as genocidal. Particularly Yoav Di-Capua's article "Genocidal Mirroring in Israel/Palestine", and Raz Segal and Luigi Daniele's article "Gaza as Twilight of Israel Exceptionalism: Holocaust and Genocide Studies from Unprecedented Crisis to Unprecedented Change". These three scholars highlight the increasing genocidal rhetoric in the Knesset over the past decade. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 17:10, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

"the increasing genocidal rhetoric in the Knesset". Yes, this seems to be true. Somehow I am not surprised given the ferocity and the endless nature of the conflict. I have no idea how they are going to resolve it. My very best wishes (talk) 17:23, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

"Safe zones" have been a tool of genocide before... it does not prove anything about the supposedly benign intentions of the Israeli state—and they are specifically argued to be tools of ethnic cleansing and genocide by multiple sources that have been cited here. Also Forensic Architecture found that "these measures, far from protecting Palestinian civilians, serve rather to support Israel’s genocidal campaign by systematically forcing civilians into unliveable areas". (t · c) buidhe 17:35, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it does appear that nowhere in Gaza is safe. As an outsider to this conflict, I would assume that all civilians should simply be allowed to evacuate from the war zone (as would be in any other war), which can be only to Egypt or other countries. But apparently that other countries do not allow the Palestinian refugees to enter, even when they want to go, and do not facilitate their immigration and transportation (I assume that the Israel would be only happy to help them out?). I am not trying to make any moral judgements, but simply thinking about the historical precedents of resolving such conflicts, only the recent Flight of Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians comes to my mind. Was it genocide of Armenians? That did not happen in Gaza, at least not yet. My very best wishes (talk) 18:48, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM. nableezy - 19:41, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

• Strong oppose/bad RM/WP:SNOW - Procedurally, two weeks after the last Move Review closed, with no new sources brought to the discussion, and no new arguments, is too soon to have another RM. It's a ridiculous waste of time to have a whole second RM simply because somebody on the internet disagrees with the first one. (Disclosure: I tried removing this RM when it was first posted and reported InterpidContributor to AE for restoring it twice.) We're going to end up having the same people make the same votes for the same reasons as last time. Substantively, I oppose this for the same reasons as last time. Levivich (talk) 17:05, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
• Strong support – As I said on the talk page I believe the current title is an NPOV violation and I do not feel a consensus was reached in the previous move request. —mountainhead / ? 17:27, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose relitigation of the last RM. Let's put a moratorium on it and discuss it in 1-2 years when the dust settles. Incidentally, the support arguments often rest on a misconception of the concept of genocide—for example one supporter arguing that Gazans are not "being killed intentionally because of their ancestry or other aspects correlated with ancestry (e.g skin color, culture)"—mass killing is not required for genocide, nor is "ancestry" and its correlates the only grounds on which genocide can be committed—even according to more restrictive definitions of genocide. (t · c) buidhe 17:35, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
• Strong oppose To be honest this RM seems like the continuation of the usual toxic battleground behaviour that dominates this topic area. A matter of weeks ago the previous RM closure was endorsed at WP:MRV. Fundamentally what has changed since the last time this was assessed? AusLondonder (talk) 19:07, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

  A few relevant experts have changed from "warning of potential genocide" to "this is genocidal", is the main difference in RS since the last move request. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 22:31, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support moving this article to something that is less POV pushing - but I'm not a fan of this particular proposed title. It's unwieldy. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 21:00, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support - Gaza genocide is a WP:POVNAME, and our policy is to use POV names only when they're so common as to effectively become a proper name, which clearly hasn't happened. There's no need to quantify how many genocide scholars subscribe to each view - the fact that there's a (non-fringe) controversy means that it's a POV name. We should take a cue from the mainstream media here, since they tend to have similar asperations of neutrality. Literally all MSM sources describe accusations of genocide, rather than calling it a genocide in their own voice. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 21:25, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

  Or maybe look to ask the scholarly papers already out in the Journal of Genocide Research et al. ... instead of, erm, the local newspapers. Iskandar323 (talk) 23:49, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

  Mainstream media has the unique feature of journalistic objectivity, making it a useful signal for assessing the neutrality of names. Of course this is an ideal; in reality no source is perfectly neutral. But when MSM sources are completely unanimous about a certain naming decision, that should be a wake-up call.

  Individual scholars have no such commitment to neutrality. Certain journals might impose some standard of neutrality, but not so much the Journal of Genocide Research, which has been accused of Holocaust Minimization, Anti-Israel Themes, and Antisemitism. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 04:16, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

  Ah, that article by Charny, where Charny considers any comparative analysis in genocide studies between any event and the Holocaust to be at least Holocaust minimisation if not denial. Oh, except for when Charny does the comparative analysis. And may we not forget Charny has had it out for the journal ever since it retracted a comment by him accusing another Jewish genocide scholar of Holocaust denial.

  And this is before we get into the laughable notion of "journalistic objectivity", where broadly sich a notion is ripped to shreds in research, and is even highlighted as an issue in regards to Israel-Palestine. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 09:03, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

  That's not a fair summary of Charny's critique, and anyway the important part of the paper is the data, where a majority of respondents felt the journal involved Holocaust minimization and so forth.

  Sure no news agency is perfectly neutral; that doesn't really matter given that they're completely unanimous on this matter. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 15:03, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

  @XDanielx the data is how respondents felt about selected quotes, taken from the context of their articles that Charny presented to them. How the respondents felt had they been presented the papers the small quotes were taken from could be very different, and must be considered when assessing Charny's paper here.

  And to clarify, my previous comment is a summary of how Charny has conducted himself across multiple critiques, not this specific paper. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 15:48, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

• Procedural closeit's been a few weeks since we closed the last RM, i don't see any new evidence presented etc etc ... —blindlynx 22:00, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support; was pinged here since I participated in the previous RM, and my position remains the same. Mainstream media and news outlets don't refer to what's happening in Gaza as a "genocide" in their own 'voice', so neither should Wikipedia. Some1 (talk) 22:26, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support move The current title is a clear POV title. The previous close illustrates one of the flaws of our close review process. We have what can very reasonably be seen as a bad close (clear consensus for some move but no obvious consensus between the choices with a near 50/50 split). However, once the move was made with basically no majority, it now takes a supermajority to say the close was bad since the 50% that liked the move can simply claim "the move was good" and secure a "no consensus". I agree with the concerns that this makes Wikipedia look very biased and overall hurts the credibility of Wikipedia via the bad look. I didn't participate in any of the previous topic discussions. Springee (talk) 22:48, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support move. Current title is clearly POV, there may not be any new arguments but hopefully there will be an actual assessment of consensus in this discussion. The last RM ended in a supervote based on a fractured discussion that intentionally split editors up between two different "qualifier" words in order to make it seem like the current title had the most support. There is no academic consensus at all that this is a genocide, even if there is consensus that there have been significant civilian casualties. Those claiming there is some academic consensus have repeatedly cherrypicked sources to support their view. This entire topic has been the subject of POV pushing and it damages Wikipedia's reputation to allow a title like this that states as a fact what is still in active, significant debate. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 03:27, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per the previous discussion. As for "The title doesn't match the article", we should bring the article in line with the emerging consensus and the reality of the situation. Also it seems there is no title you can pick that won't be seen as POV. Take "Gaza genocide accusations" for example. This would seem to suggest that these are mere accusations without any substance to them. Such a suggestion would require completely ignoring the words and actions of Israeli officials and IDF soldiers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KetchupSalt (talk • contribs) 07:56, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
• Strong oppose/bad RM/WP:SNOW/Procedural close This is getting absurd at this point. The topic was closed just recently after having gone through several rounds already, and it was decided convincingly. No new arguments have been presented to restart it, nothing has changed in terms of the underlying facts. This is an abuse of the system and we shouldn't entertain it.Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 08:56, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. Almost nothing has been said in this discussion that wasn't said in the last two. If the consensus (or lack thereof) ends up any different, it'd be because everyone is exhausted and may not argue as effectively as they did before. We should propose a moratorium after this to avoid yet another rehash and save everyone's time and energy. PBZE (talk) 17:12, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose Such a move would further the article from a neutral point of view, and as mentioned above this issue has been handily and repeatedly settled. entropyandvodka | talk 17:30, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
• Strong oppose per logic of the RFC which brought the article to Gaza Genocide in the first place. 🌸wasianpower🌸 (talk • contribs) 17:38, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Discussion (Requested move 7 September 2024)

Pinging @Paul Vaurie, @Simonm223, @Kashmiri, @Entropyandvodka, @Chaotic Enby, @Zanahary, @The Great Mule of Eupatoria, @Jerdle, @Esolo5002, @Howardcorn33, @CybJubal, @Iskandar323, @David A, @Levivich, @Unbandito, @Ïvana, @PBZE, @Hogo-2020, @My very best wishes and @Stephan rostie as editors involved in the prior RM. Part 1 of 4. TarnishedPath^talk 03:56, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
Pinging @Rainsage, @Cdjp1, @Oleg Yunakov, @Eladkarmel, @האופה, @FunLater, @Skitash, @Smallangryplanet, @Vinegarymass911, @BilledMammal, @FortunateSons, @Nishidani, @SKAG123, @MarkiPoli, @Metropolitan90, @Dreameditsbrooklyn, @CoffeeCrumbs, @CommunityNotesContributor, @BluePenguin18 and @XDanielx as editors involved in the prior RM discussion. Part 2 of 4. TarnishedPath^talk 03:58, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
Pinging @Trilletrollet, @TimeEngineer, @Bondegezou, @Cremastra, @Blindlynx, @Vice regent, @Crossroads, @FunLater, @KetchupSalt, @Vegan416, @Cremastra, @Brusquedandelion, @AndyBloch, @Alaexis, @Czello, @Me Da Wikipedian, @Animal lover 666, @Kinsio, @NoonIcarus and @Personisinsterest as editors involved in the prior RM discussion. Part 3 of 4. TarnishedPath^talk 04:01, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
Pinging @Some1, @Kowal2701, @Let'srun, @Alalch E., @Iazyges, @Huldra, @SPECIFICO and @DaZyzzogetonsGotDaLastWord as editors involved in the prior RM. Part 4 of 4. Appologies if I've missed anyone or doubled up pinging anyone. It was a lot of editors. TarnishedPath^talk 04:03, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject International relations, WikiProject Discrimination, WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, WikiProject Human rights, WikiProject Israel, WikiProject Death, WikiProject Ethnic groups, WikiProject Palestine, WikiProject Disaster management, and WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration have been notified of this discussion. TarnishedPath^talk 04:04, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: In response to scholarly/expert opinion is more polarized that what has been claimed, it is very dependent on how we draw the boundaries. Template:Expert opinions in the Gaza genocide debate aimed to gather all opinions, and there are a couple of trends of note that should be pointed out:

1. As time has gone on we have seen more people come to the conclusion that this is genocide, a couple of prominent opinions of note that have come out since the last move request are Omer Bartov in August 2024 where he has moved from warning of a potential for genocide to this being genocide, and Amos Goldberg in July 2024.
2. If we look at specifically genocide scholars, there is a clear majority of those who have expressed their opinion, or provided their analysis that this is a genocide. It is also (so far) only genocide scholars who have published their analysis in peer-reviewed academic journals.
3. Most of the experts who argue this is not genocide are legal scholars, applying the UN framework, that is, they argue there is not currently evidence of dolus specialis. The UN framework is considered generally lacking and not fit for determining what is or is not genocide among genocide scholars (even among the few genocide scholars who are currently choosing to use the framework to argue that Gaza is not a genocide). While we should include their opinions in the article, the UN framework is not the metric we use, we use what reliable sources use, so we privilege academic literature first-and-foremost, balanced with the other published opinions of relevant specialists and experts.

So I would argue, since there hasn't been any massive change in such sources (though it could be argued a slight move in support of labelling this a genocide), there is not currently grounds to reargue the move of the article. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 08:53, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

• Comment I’d like to see evidence of academic polarization before I decide. Personisinsterest (talk) 10:59, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Let's not forget @HaOfa, @Oleg Y, @Rockstone35, @Thisasia, @Guise, @Zohariko1234 and @mountainhead. IntrepidContributor (talk) 14:08, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

@IntrepidContributor, HaOfa's and Oleg Y's usernames are different to their signatures. I already included them. I can't see that Rockstone35, Thisasia, Guise or mountainhead participated in the RM at Talk:Gaza_genocide/Archive_2#Requested_move_3_May_2024. Can you please advise where you are getting those editors from? TarnishedPath^talk 02:36, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I participated in the move review, but I did not participate in the May 3rd proposal. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 03:42, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I ping those two users from the list of names in the move review. The other three are from page move related discussions above. IntrepidContributor (talk) 07:11, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

@IntrepidContributor have you pinged selected editors from the move review? TarnishedPath^talk 04:05, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

@TarnishedPath i do participated in the move from the achieved talk Thisasia  ^(Talk) 08:00, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

From talk page discussions above: [11] [12] [13]. IntrepidContributor (talk) 08:19, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

@IntrepidContributor, it's apparent to me that you didn't ping all editors from those discussions. That's WP:CANVASSING. I suggest you rectify that by pinging ALL editors who were involved in those discussions excluding ones that I've already pinged above. TarnishedPath^talk 09:23, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I suggest you AGF. If you notice any editors missing from my post, who you didn't ping already in your post, you may do so now. IntrepidContributor (talk) 11:06, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

@Chuckstablers, Sameboat, Hemiauchenia, and Redxiv: you were missing from overly-long ping lists. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:49, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

• Comment - there are two questions here, one procedural (whether it's too early for another RM) and one substantive (which title is most appropriate). It might be too late now, but it would have been cleaner if procedural objections had been made in a separate section. If this ends up not being closed for procedural reasons, then it goes to substance, where the closer may have a hard time discerning whether each procedural oppose is also a substantive oppose, and if so, how much weight to assign such !votes which don't get into substantive arguments. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 16:32, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Proposed alternative names

• Name #1: Gaza genocide allegation is more in line with the current content of the article.
• Name #2: Gaza genocide accusation is a second favourite often proposed in some form, like the one above.
• Name #3: Allegations of genocide in the Israel-Hamas war propoped above, inserting here. The others still concatenate Gaza and genocide. SPECIFICO talk 15:11, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Both these names are shorter and more concise than the Accusations of Gazan genocide in the Israel–Hamas war and some of the longer names proposed in earlier discussions. IntrepidContributor (talk) 18:07, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Why u wanna change the name if it's confirmed most victims are civilians 50% women and children. Says it's confirmed in article, change name and it's all of a sudden biased bruh HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 22:28, 9 September 2024 (UTC) struck WP:ECR violation Left guide (talk) 05:38, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

The relationship between genocide status and casualty ratios is a matter for genocide scholars to discuss; this isn't the place for it. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 22:45, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

• Either Name 1 or Name 2 works in my opinion. Let'srun (talk) 00:13, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
• Name 2 would match Palestinian genocide accusation nicely, though WP:CONSISTENT is a minor consideration; any of the proposed names seem okay. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 02:58, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
• Either 1 or 2 is fine, I have a slight preference for name 2 for consistency as XDanielx points out. I will caution those commenting on this topic however that the last RM was derailed by the splitting of editors between these alternative names, and that is the reason the closer claimed to find a consensus for the current POV name. If editors are arguing against one or more of these alternative names (rather than just expressing a slight preference for one but acceptability of them all), it would be prudent to be extremely clear in your reasoning to avoid your opinion being seen as a !vote for the current title. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 03:29, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

  The purpose of this discussion is to decide on the right alternative name. I so happen to believe that the closer of the last discussion should have been able to count the !votes and group them by names, and decide on one of them, or as a noconsensus. IntrepidContributor (talk) 07:13, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

• Either one is fine, with a slight preference for 2 per xDanielx. FortunateSons (talk) 07:19, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

New name for RM

Based on the discussion immediately above, I would like to propose Gaza genocide accusation as the new RM name in place of Gazan genocide in the Israel–Hamas war as proposed above by OP @WikiFouf. IntrepidContributor (talk) 08:54, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support as nominator. IntrepidContributor (talk) 08:55, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support this or the other name. Andre🚐 08:57, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

References

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

Restoring my improperly removed comment

We don't just open an RM for no obvious reason, out of the blue, just after a recent RM that also went through MR and was endorsed, without a prior discussion. Specifically, one should elaborate on what has changed since the previous discussion, that would warrant opening a new RM? Selfstudier (talk) 17:32, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Please do not remove a RM just because you don't agree on the timing. We can use this post to discuss whatever needs to be discussed for a new RM discussion and close. You could well have replied in the move request section above instead of deleting it and creating this new discussion. IntrepidContributor (talk) 17:41, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

I created this discussion before you disruptively (re)posted the above RM and you improperly moved it, causing further disruption. Selfstudier (talk) 18:00, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

No, first you removed the above editor's post [14], and then a full seven minutes later you made this post [15]. Please do not delete other editors contributions to talk page as per WP:TPO. IntrepidContributor (talk) 18:03, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

That can be dealt with at AE. Selfstudier (talk) 18:35, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps if the article were renamed 'Not the Capital' it might help reduce the number of people trying to storm it to Stop the Steal. Sean.hoyland (talk) 10:35, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

That kind of conjecture is really not what these talk pages are for. IntrepidContributor (talk) 17:44, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

I know. They are also not for people to waste volunteer time by engaging them in a death spiral of RM requests until the 'correct' outcome is obtained. That would quite a foolish thing to do, the kind of foolishness I see a lot in the PIA topic area. It is so easy to have patience in this life. Sean.hoyland (talk) 07:28, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Supposed Romanian complicity in genocide

I already know well this topic area is eager to emotional and exaggerated claims. But I was actually baffled to see the claim in the infobox that Romania is allegedly complicit in a genocide in the Gaza Strip. Is there any academic consensus or discussion regarding this? Currently this Gaza genocide#Romanian complicity section only features claims from three pro-Palestine groups that Romania is somehow involved. Only the reasoning of one of the three is explained and it is uniquely that Romanian weapon sales to Israel have continued after the war started. I am not an expert by any means but I seriously doubt this condition meets the criteria for genocide anyhow. Is there even a definition for complicity in genocide in international law?

I think many of you need to reconsider what are you writing over here. This is just biased propaganda at this point. Pointing fingers at random countries online is a ridiculous thing to do. I think the section should be removed. Or, if there's actual academic and expert debate on this, the section needs some heavy working and sourcing so that the claim does not look WP:EXCEPTIONAL. Currently the only sources in the section are three newspapers reporting about pro-Palestine protests. Super Ψ Dro 22:36, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

uniquely that Romanian weapon sales to Israel have continued after the war started not unique, as that is the argument that has lead to the accusations of complicity and legal actions around such in all countries listed as "complicit". -- Cdjp1 (talk) 22:43, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Cdjp1, is there any source other than pro-Palestinian protestors that Romania is complicit in genocide in the Gaza Strip? Nothing in Google Scholar [16], I can't find much in Google either. Erdoğan is well-known for being an international leader who has harshly protested against the Israeli actions in Gaza; he said nothing about any of this when he met some months ago with Romanian PM Marcel Ciolacu, whose cabinet was supposedly complicit in genocide [17]. Several other EU countries sell weapons to Israel, and they do not have their own sections acussing them of genocide complicity [18]. From what I can see, this claim is non-existent in reliable sources.

I have just seen that this section was first added by an editor who was known in the Romanian topic area for his sloppy edits. He was indefinitely blocked last month. I really don't see much weight for keeping this section in the article. I really find it ashaming that this section has been kept for three months and nobody has said anything about this propaganda despite the many views that this article receives. Super Ψ Dro 22:56, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Those included here use the logic of legal cases brought against them for complicity. As there is a legal case brought against Romania by citizens of Romania, using my 1 revert in this 24 hour period to add it back there's nothing about this in the article, and I'd be surprised to find out that such a legal case wouldn't be considered undue when acussing a country of complicity in genocide in Wikipedia. Super Ψ Dro 23:07, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

@Super Dromaeosaurus apologies I seem to have misremembered the sources for Romania. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 08:29, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree it should be removed if proper sourcing can't be found. Proper sourcing should be scholars saying "Romania," "complicit," "Gaza genocide." (I did a quick Google Scholar search and was unable to find anything.) Simply saying Romania supplies arms to Israel shouldn't be enough for Wikipedia to characterize it as complicity in Gaza genocide. Levivich (talk) 23:21, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

absolutely agree, that'd be classic WP:SYNTH Andre🚐 00:17, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I've removed Romania. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 09:41, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. Super Ψ Dro 10:28, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

ICJ case delay sought by South Africa

South Africa is attempting to extend the deadline for presenting evidence against Israel at the International Court of Justice in The Hague because it is unable to prove its allegations of genocide, Kan News reported on Tuesday. WP:BLPCRIME should protect specific allegations of guilt of the crime of genocide for specific Israelis or other living individuals from being unequivocally stated, as the case is ongoing. I'm not sure that the current text does. Andre🚐 02:23, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Why are you linking JNS instead of KAN? Bluethricecreamman (talk) 02:38, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

The KAN article is in Hebrew. Here's another source from JPost. [19] Andre🚐 02:41, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Google Translate exists. Please post Kan News link, I can't find it in the article. JNS is apparently fairly right-wing. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 02:43, 11 September 2024 (UTC)