Talk:Gaza genocide

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

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)

RfC on page move moratorium

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is consensus against a moratorium on move discussions. C F A 💬 02:12, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

---

Megabytes of text have been written on this Talk in the last 30 days, with 87 distinct editors making a total of 917 edits. Arguments were traded, insults flew. Most of it was a discussion about the page title. I'm glad that Joe Roe has now skilfully closed the heated debate with an excellent summary.

As the new title needs to "settle in", I'd like to propose a temporary moratorium on further rename discussions. Please kindly indicate your preferences from among:

• A-6 – A six-month moratorium on page move requests
• A-12 – A 12-month moratorium on page move requests
• A-24 – A 24-month moratorium on page move requests
• B – No page move moratorium

Thank you. — kashmīrī ^TALK 12:51, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

B Unnecessary. Selfstudier (talk) 13:11, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

A-12: Unlikely that the situation on the ground will warrant a rename anytime sooner, while a moratorium will certainly save everyone's time. — kashmīrī ^TALK 13:22, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

A-24: Given the sheer massive amounts of controversy and conflict that this topic has generated, I do not think that we should revisit it any time soon. David A (talk) 14:43, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

B – WP:NO-PREEMPT. It's best we discuss this only if there are disruptive requests to move the article again. I think it's pretty common to close requests right away if there is no new information that would change the result anyway. FunLater (talk) 15:08, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

B considering that the RfC was relatively close after a very recent RfC with the opposite results, a variety of real-world factors and events could rapidly change in a way that would lead to a justified move. If someone proposes a bad move, we can deal with it through existing policy. Particularly opposed to A-24, as it could theoretically (despite the low risk) interfere with the time frame of ICJ or ICC decisions with significant impact on RS coverage. FortunateSons (talk) 15:21, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

B – I think this is more an argument for involved editors being more thoughtful and moving extensive discussions on topics that are getting away from strict relevance to the question under discussion to a different section of the talk page (or to user talk pages, as the case may be) than for foreclosing on certain types of discussions entirely because they're too "risky". Let's trust editors to be responsible and respond accordingly if they fail to do so, rather than tying their hands. Kinsio (talk ★ contribs ★ rights) 19:29, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

B – No reason to treat this differently from any other contentious topic. Vegan416 (talk) 19:44, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

B. No moratorium is necessary, and I think it is generally a bad idea to push for one when the original move itself was extremely contentious. This is an article covering a situation that is ongoing and potentially still fast-moving, the title should be able to reflect that and we should not seek to tie our own hands. Domeditrix (talk) 14:14, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

A-24 per David A. Snokalok (talk) 16:54, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

B – Since this is still (slowly) occurring, as per the arguments of FunLater and Kinsio. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 20:42, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

B, per some editors above: why should we tie our own hands? We have strong policy that's carried us through the past ~20 years, no reason here to put all that on hold. Move requests can be handled normally. AviationFreak💬 13:44, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

B, extremely unnecessary to put a moratorium on moving a page's article. Auror Andrachome (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:30, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

B, I'm not seeing the need for this, honestly. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 04:21, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

B? WP:NO-PREEMPT as per FunLater seems correct. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 06:35, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

• B, I'm not a fan on moratoriums on discussions. I think they fly in the face of WP:CCC. Most of us can identify when the relitigating of a subject has become disruptive, however naturally occurring discussions should not be limited because of the disruptive behaviour of a few. TarnishedPath^talk 08:33, 11 August 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.

Edit request

Moved from WP:RFED Left guide (talk) 21:39, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I would like to request that under the ‘Victims’ subheading Mike Spagat is properly introduced with relevant qualifications. His name is brought up in the 3rd paragraph, 3rd sentence beginning with “Spagat analysed…” as a source but he has not been introduced (i am assuming he was introduced in a previous paragraph or sentence that has since been deleted). Chanticlaire701 (talk) 19:11, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

 Done: Done. Reason: Obvious correction per standard styles. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 21:53, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

The title

This tittle and some of the page content is more like propaganda. So I hope that this page should be written with no bias. This is a sensitive topic and should maintain accuracy. Thisasia  ^(Talk) 12:48, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion. The talk page is for improving the article, not for opinions. Looking forward to seeing some sources rather than opinion. Selfstudier (talk) 13:26, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

This is not opinion this is fact, I suppose Wikipedia shouldn't be a place for propaganda. This page have indirectly accused many people while fueling and promoting hatred to some certain groups.

This isn't promoting peace but rather sewing Discord and hatred from now on. Neither of this will help our society. Thisasia  ^(Talk) 13:39, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

That's another source free opinion. Selfstudier (talk) 14:01, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I have a question Thisasia. Did something specific, something you read for example, cause you to post this message? This kind of edit is exceptionally unusual for your account so I'm curious what caused it. Sean.hoyland (talk) 14:18, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

@Sean.hoyland Yea i don't usually edit on war topics and this is my first time. I have been paying very close attention to the war in Gaza. I'm not objecting the idea of the page itself, I just realized that some of the page content are fueling hatred full of accusations against some certain groups. Thisasia  ^(Talk) 14:30, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

And again since this is an accusation as per the page contents, i suppose the rightful tittle should be "Gaza Genocide Accusation" Thisasia  ^(Talk) 14:39, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

There is one like that already, the Palestinian genocide accusation. That apart, if you look in the archives, the title of this article was decided by consensus, read through it if you want to see how. Selfstudier (talk) 15:03, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the information provided, later i will request to merge this page with Palestinian genocide accusation Thisasia  ^(Talk) 15:17, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

They are different topics. Per WP:MERGEREASON merging should be avoided if "the topics are discrete subjects warranting their own articles, with each meeting the General Notability Guidelines". This is the case here. The gaza genocide refers to the genocide of the people of Gaza, whereas the Palestinian genocide accusation page is about the 'accusations' of genocide during the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a whole. Policy in this case would clearly disfavor a merge... Chuckstablers (talk) 22:41, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

See this RM where it was decided that gaza genocide was going to be the title. Chuckstablers (talk) 22:58, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

[citation needed] -- Cdjp1 (talk) 17:30, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

@Thisasia, @Guise and @mountainhead's opinions are welcome here, and their posts are exactly what this talk page is for. There is no policy or guideline requiring them to come up with the exact remedy for the problem they note. They're not even required to define the problem according to policy. Common sense is enough. IntrepidContributor (talk) 05:00, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

The current title poses a serious problem. The article clearly states that it is about "genocide accusations against Israel in the Israel-Hamas war". Consequently, calling the article "Gaza genocide" commits an ambiguity, not to say an inconsistency, between the title and the lead section, not complying with WP:PLA. To distinguish this article from the more general article Palestinian genocide accusation, simply choose the more precise title "Genocide accusations against Israel in the Israel-Hamas war". --Guise (talk) 16:21, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

The current title was agreed in May via an RM, It was moved from "Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza" so you would appear to be somewhat out of date with developments here. Selfstudier (talk) 16:26, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree with @Guise that "Genocide accusations against Israel in the Israel-Hamas war" is a clearer and more precise title. It better aligns with the terminology used by leading reliable sources and avoids issues with ambiguity and neutrality. I support this move. UnspokenPassion (talk) 18:02, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

You'd be better off discussing whether there was consensus for the title change. You can find the discussion on this here. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 21:08, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Academic dissent

Question: which, if any, major remaining scholars of genocide are still maintaining a dissenting or hold-out opinion on the genocide? Neier, Bartov, Goldberg and Schabas have now all come to a conclusion of genocide – several after the events of May – so who does that leave as undecided, non-committal or in outright dissent? Again, talking major scholars of genocide here, not the average Joe. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:58, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

This is just a list of prominent (living) scholars in genocide studies who I've come across in reading genocide scholarship more broadly, beyond the 4 you mentioned:

1. Mohamed Adhikari
2. Taner Akçam
3. Paul R. Bartrop
4. Yehuda Bauer
5. Donald Bloxham
6. Michael Berenbaum
7. Israel Charny

# Vahakn Dadrian – dead

1. Adam Jones
2. Steven T. Katz
3. Ben Kiernan
4. Shmuel Lederman
5. Mark Levene
6. A. Dirk Moses
7. Norman Naimark
8. Raz Segal
9. Timothy Snyder
10. David Stannard
11. Samuel Totten
12. Uğur Ümit Üngör
13. Ernesto Verdeja

I will note, for Katz, there's a near 0 chance he will declare this a genocide, as he holds the position that throughout history there has only been one true genocide, the Holocaust. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 18:05, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Strange position, and certainly fringe. Out of curiosity -are you saying that Timothy Snyder disputes the genocide allegation? I am familiar with Snyder from the media (listened to one or two of his lectures), but was not aware he weighed in on this. Jonathan f1 (talk) 19:04, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Their positions are not specified afaics (other than Katz), which was not what Iskandar was asking for. How are we deciding "prominent" anyway? Selfstudier (talk) 19:36, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

That's what I thought. I can't find any significant scholarly pushback against the genocide position. Most searches seem very one-sided. Jonathan f1 (talk) 20:45, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

As I stated this is simply a list of prominent scholars I have come across, that is, they have written multiple books and papers covering the topic of genocide, and in near all cases across different genocides. Out of the list multiple of them have provided comments/assessments (such as Bauer, Berenbaum, Charny, Jones, Kiernan, Lederman, Levene, Segal, Üngör, Verdeja), mainly calling it a genocide, some claiming it isn't. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 22:10, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

The request was specifically for dissent from what appears to be a consensus (ie that the IDF is either engaged in genocide or war crimes approaching that), not some random list of genocide scholars. Jonathan f1 (talk) 23:33, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

I think Cdjp1 partly answered y’alls question when he commented on Katz. Wafflefrites (talk) 05:17, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Ok, here’s the opinions with this list

1. Mohamed Adhikari – Signed the TWAILR declaration warning of potential genocide
2. Taner Akçam – Signed the TWAILR declaration warning of potential genocide
3. Omer Bartov – Genocide
4. Paul R. Bartrop
5. Yehuda Bauer – Not Genocide
6. Donald Bloxham
7. Michael Berenbaum – Not Genocide
8. Israel Charny – Not Genocide

# Vahakn Dadrian – dead

1. Christian Gerlach
2. Amos Goldberg – Genocide
3. Adam Jones – Genocide
4. Steven T. Katz
5. Ben Kiernan – Not Genocide
6. Shmuel Lederman – "Genocidal violence, not Genocide per se"
7. Mark Levene – Genocide
8. A. Dirk Moses – This is what I could find from Moses on Gaza: "Today, international law on genocide is working as it was designed to: allowing states to ruthlessly exterminate security threats while making it difficult to apply that law."
9. Norman Naimark
10. Aryeh Neier – Genocide
11. Raz Segal – Genocide
12. William Schabas – Genocide
13. Martin Shaw – Genocide
14. Timothy Snyder
15. David Stannard
16. Dan Stone
17. Scott Straus
18. Samuel Totten
19. Uğur Ümit Üngör – Genocide
20. Ernesto Verdeja – "moving toward a genocidal campaign." (from November)

-- Cdjp1 (talk) 17:35, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for putting this list together. If anybody is interested in splitting the list up and running down the missing ones, I'd be happy to chip in. Levivich (talk) 17:03, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Re Samuel Totten, see here Doesn't quite say it outright, pretty sure he's thinking it, tho. Selfstudier (talk) 17:37, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

While we could quote the article, we can't make any assessment for what he's "thinking" behind the article. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 09:30, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Of course, I do notice however that those against tend to say so directly. Selfstudier (talk) 09:39, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

One issue I've had with some experts who have said it is not genocide, is they specify not genocide per the UN convention, which is a different framework to what they normally employ in their work. But that is just the musings of one random editor.

For numbers, as per the list:

• Genocide = 9
• Not Genocide = 4
• Risk of genocide = 3
• Genocidal violence = 1
• Moses and Totten = 2
• No statement = 9

As is repeated across almost every discussion here, things change over time, so in the future I expect we may see comments from some of the others on the list, and we will see more academic work analysing Gaza as a case/potential case of genocide, from all different positions. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 10:56, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

One issue I have with your list is it seems tilted towards historians as opposed to international law experts. Some of them like Bauer and Michael Berenbaum are really only known for studying the Holocaust, so I doubt they can be considered experts on genocide in general. The only expert on international criminal law on your list is Schabas. (t · c) buidhe 14:06, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

As stated, this is a list of genocide scholars, that is those who have regularly published in the field of genocide studies, which stemmed primarily from the discipline of history, so having a over-representation of those who were trained as historians is not surprising. Genocide studies as a field is extremely critical of the legal definition both in it's ability to prosecute the crime of genocide, as well as a tool of analysis for determining cases of genocide. For a wider net of specialists and experts from a variety of fields see: Template:Expert opinions in the Gaza genocide debate -- Cdjp1 (talk) 14:30, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Addendum, on Genocide studies as a field is extremely critical of the legal definition, you can see an example in the quote from Moses in the list above. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 14:32, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Dadrian has been dead for several years so he won't be producing any opinion. (t · c) buidhe 05:05, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Oops, Missed that, I'll strike it. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 09:25, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Should we add John Docker and Damien Short? Levivich (talk) 01:25, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

@Levivich while I do like their work in regards to the genocide, as that is not their primary training or work, I excluded them due to being peripheral contributors. Cdjp1 (talk) 07:54, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

@Cdjp1: I disagree, particularly on Short. He's authored or co-authored a number of books and papersthat have each received hundreds of Google Scholar cites, e.g. "Redefining genocide: Settler colonialism, social death and ecocide" (254 cites). Compare Short's cites with Verdeja, Lederman or Üngör, all of whom are on the list.

John Docker's work isn't as widely-cited as Short's, but still, Docker has publications in the field that are very much on point, e.g. the chapter he co-authored, "Chapter 1: Defining genocide" (93 cites) in Dan Stone's book The Historiography of Genocide (aside from Stone, the other authors of that book are familiar: Moses, Bergen, Jones, Kiernan, Straus, etc.; Docker's in good company there). Other examples: his book The Origins of Violence: History, Religion and Genocide (83 cites); "Genocide: Definitions, Questions, Settler-colonies" (66); "Raphael Lemkin's history of genocide and colonialism" (64); "Nakba memoricide: genocide studies and the Zionist/Israeli genocide of Palestine" (46). Full list here.

I know GScholar cites aren't the end-all and be-all, but it seems based on "how widely cited?" that Short and Docker are no more peripheral than Verdeja, Lederman, or Üngör (and Short in particular seems significantly less peripheral than the other four). Levivich (talk) 16:22, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Add him to the list. I was just providing my reasoning, which as I mentioned right near the beginning is based from what I've read within Genocide Studies, so hadn't checked things like the relative stats on GS, or similar databases. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 17:16, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

+Christian Gerlach, Dan Stone, and Scott Straus. (I assume we're not including the Holocaust specialists like Engel and Hayes?) Levivich (talk) 04:14, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Lead sentence

I have improved the lead sentence with the page title. "The first sentence should introduce the topic, and tell the nonspecialist reader what or who the subject is, and often when or where. It should be in plain English. ... the page title should be the subject of the first sentence.." The previous version did not introduce or summarize the topic and was confusing to readers. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 19:17, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

I reverted it. First, if you're going to change it to say in Wikivoice that Israel is engaged in an extermination campaign, you obviously need to get consensus on the talk page first before making such a significant change. Secondly, if you're going to do that, use an accurate edit summary/talk page post. Levivich (talk) 19:22, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

There is already a consensus that Israeli occupation forces are perpetrating a genocide in Gaza. Only Zionist religious fanatics and ultra-nationalists deny that a genocide is occurring. Over a month ago, the page title was moved from "Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza" to "Gaza genocide" by consensus.

At the wikipedia pages about all other genocides, the first sentence in the lead introduces the page topic.

What you have done here, is a disruptive edit in the lead sentence with a deceptive edit summary. There was no "POV change" as you claimed. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 20:05, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

I don’t really think “extermination campaign” should be used in th sentence because there is something called Extermination (crime). This article is about genocide accusations not extermination. the article title did leave out the accusations part which is causing confusion. At least one scholar who disagreed with the genocide label said it could be Extermination (crime), not the legal definition of genocide. There are also other non legal genocide definitions which makes it even more confusing what the article scope is about. Anyways, extermination and genocide are basically the same thing, except according to law extermination doesn’t require intent. Wafflefrites (talk) 21:02, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

The article scope is not confusing, the title is valid because it is used a lot in sources and then there is the accusation in court, and while it is possible to assess a genocide without a court decision, such a decision has not as yet been made, which does not mean that the article should be titled Gaza genocide (decision pending)). Selfstudier (talk) 09:00, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

The reason I said it was confusing is because I see other editors posting comments and questions about it in at least three threads:

Again, genocide or accused

What is the Gaza genocide?

Genocide or alleged genocide. It may not be confusing to you, but it does appear to be confusing to readers sometimes. Wafflefrites (talk) 14:37, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Uh huh, except that the confusion seems to be more along the lines of don't like the title, rather than trying to understand the WP:SCOPE. Selfstudier (talk) 15:18, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Your comment on July 4 was

Yea, people are assuming the title = fact, which of course, it doesn't. Selfstudier (talk) 23:35, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Wafflefrites (talk) 15:25, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Yep, about the size of it. Selfstudier (talk) 15:33, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

It seems to be two groups of people based on the comments in the talk page. The first group thinks the article is about allegations/accusations and they are wanting the title to reflect the allegations/accusations portion. The second group are people who do not think it’s accusations/allegations, and they want to change the scope of the article to reflect the current title and define Israel as committing genocide. It seems the second group is more confused or wanting to change the article scope rather than the first group wanting to make the article title more precise to clearly reflect the current scope Wafflefrites (talk) 16:53, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

If that's the case, then they cancel each other out and should just leave it the way it is. Maybe we should put a hidden note in the text explaining title/scope but I would wait for MR to conclude first. Selfstudier (talk) 18:26, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Helpful link to MR. I sense a new move request coming up. IntrepidContributor (talk) 04:51, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Well, there's also a group of editors, me included, who have observed the terms Gaza genocide, Genocide in Gaza, and similar being widely used in multiple reliable sources and who thus believe that the term merits a Wikipedia entry (without prejudice to future legal determination, etc.). — kashmīrī ^TALK 10:18, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

MR has now been concluded and the move endorsed. Selfstudier (talk) 17:00, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

I propose the folllowing statement to be inserted as the lead sentence of the page:

QUOTE

"Gaza genocide refers to the ongoing extermination campaign carried out by the state of Israel against the Palestinian people during its invasion and bombing of the Gaza Strip amid the Gaza War (2023–present)."

END QUOTE Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 21:19, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

And no one here is going to agree. There is no consensus whatsoever for this. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 02:30, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Can't state that as a fact and an opinion (or even several of them) would not be due for the lead. Selfstudier (talk) 10:29, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

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)

Citations and Update

We should attempt to add more citations, and update the death toll over time, since the brutal genocide and mass murder of Palestinians has not ended. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 06:06, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

I support the adding of any citations, but the section on your user page saying "We can also remove Pro-Zionist statements on Wikipedia, The Pro-Zionist editing lowers the credibility of Wikipedia and makes it less reliable" leads me to seriously question your dedication to the maintaining of a politically neutral, factual encyclopedia. —mountainhead / ? 19:07, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Gideon Levy's analysis

@Buidhe:

Hello.

Is it really a good idea to remove the following text from this article? It seems to more properly explain the context for immediately preceding statistical opinion poll information in the sense that most Israeli citizens genuinely are not remotely well-informed about the ongoing atrocities performed by their government and military, as otherwise a reader of this article might get the false impression that 94% of Israeli citizens consciously and deliberately support genocide.

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Gaza_genocide&diff=1241439417&oldid=1241344412

David A (talk) 05:28, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

David A I have my issues with the opinion polls; it doesn't seem like the source connects them to the "Gaza genocide" topic and if included they should probably be in another section. The quote from Levy also doesn't mention genocide so it may be more appropriate to include in another article. I definitely think there is room for a different article about Israeli perceptions of the war/genocide, but per WP:NOR this one needs to be based on sources that are explicitly about genocide. (t · c) buidhe 06:22, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Well, I think that the opinion polls should definitely be displayed in some prominent Wikipedia page about the Israeli government's war crimes, as they show the Israeli public support for the ongoing military campaign and the deliberate starvation of the Palestinians respectively, but you are much more experienced regarding writing this type of article than I am, if you wish to move the information elsewhere, but again, it seems highly relevant to prominently include somewhere. David A (talk) 07:29, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

I've replaced it with an English-language interview where Levy said much the same thing. Genocide is explicitly referenced. Andreas JN466 07:59, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for helping out. David A (talk) 08:30, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

University Network for Human Rights

According to a https://www.humanrightsnetwork.org/ this is a supervised student training project (which explains the absence of author names). I think this should at least be clarified in the text, and it should be placed in a less prominent position. Frankly, where it stands at the moment, I think it could be deleted without much impact on the flow and logical coherence of the article. --Andreas JN466 09:38, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

That's a part of the discussion at BU RFC above. Why delete it? Selfstudier (talk) 10:35, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

It makes the article assailable. And it doesn't say anything that stronger sources aren't saying as well. Incidentally, the German translation of this article was deleted yesterday, citing "egregious quality problems". (I argued against deletion.) This source didn't come up in that discussion but I recall it was found too weak in a previous discussion in German Wikipedia because of its lack of a named author. There is not much you can say in response to such criticism. Britannica or other scholars wouldn't prominently cite an undergraduate und graduate project, even if it was supervised and a joint project of leading universities. At least we need to identify it as what it was. Andreas JN466 09:39, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

The report itself, discussed by a qualified expert in the BU today, carries the UNHR name as well as the law schools. I find it difficult to imagine that those law schools would have permitted the use of their names, inclusive press releases, without a proper scrutiny of the material, which on the face of it, looks to be professionally prepared. The lack of named authors is because the material has in effect been endorsed by those institutions. OK, I can see why some might disapprove of James Cavallaro but he is an HR expert and they are camped out at Wesleyan, again, I don't think that would be allowed without a proper scrutiny. If their report were saying anything exceptional or out of line with other sourcing, that would be something else but it isn't and it is a convenient summary with many useful references. I don't mind if it is not in the lead but removing it altogether makes no sense at all.

I wouldn't pay too much attention to what German WP is doing either, tbh. The "Staatsräson" thing has the entire country behaving in a peculiar fashion as regards Israel (with the possible exception of the FO). Selfstudier (talk) 11:03, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Agreed on the peculiarity of German discourse. As someone in the Guardian put it the other day, Hannah Arendt wouldn't qualify for the Hannah Arendt Prize in Germany today; she'd be accused of antisemitism. ;)

I am actually considering starting an article on German anti-antisemitism because there has been substantial commentary that it's gone completely off the rails. (The German Wikipedia is not unaffected by this. Just look at the length of the antisemitism section in the German WP biography of de:Achille Mbembe ... bizarre.) As Buidhe once pointed out in a DYK even before the present Gaza war started, right-wing elements of German society have started using antisemitism charges as cover for anti-islamic sentiment, using the fact that the substantial muslim (mainly Turkish) minority in Germany has tended to take a dim view of civilian deaths in Gaza.

Still, all that said, I am wary of having the University Network for Human Rights report do any heavy lifting in this article. I don't see significant citations for this particular report in Google Scholar (the only good one is, as it happens, in another article on German anti-antisemitism, namely "Refusing Epistemic Violence: Guernica-Gaza and the ‘German Context’", Afterall: A Journal of Art, Context and Enquiry, Volume 57, Issue 1; this is a Wikipedia Library link). It hasn't attracted press coverage either. (A 2019 University Network for Human Rights report on Yemen at least generated articles in Newsweek and the Washington Post.) Andreas JN466 14:02, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Selfstudier, that rationale does not address any of the many defects in that source. As has been said, why use a non-compliant self published source in a house organ when there are valid sources available on the matter? SPECIFICO talk 22:17, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Referred to RSN for an opinion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#https://www.humanrightsnetwork.org/about Selfstudier (talk) 09:12, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

OK, the feedback suggests that altho this source might well be considered reliable in ordinary circumstances, there is a concern that for this particular article, citing UNHR directly might subject the article to external criticism. I think the material directly cited to them should be replaced with other sourcing, if available. That does not mean that references to UNHR by other RS are affected, however. Selfstudier (talk) 16:20, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

I have removed three direct cites to UNHR. It doesn't affect the article at all and will perhaps put paid to the nonsensical objections in the ongoing RFC about BU, which has nothing directly to do with UNHR, if Susan Akhram wants to mention them, as an expert in her own right, she is entitled to do that. Selfstudier (talk) 16:59, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Possible position from Denmark

I'm not sure whether this is the right place to place this information, but the table on the article page has a list of countries and their position on what happens in Palestine. Here is information regarding the position of the Danish government. I don't want to edit the article, as this is beyond my qualifications.

• Dagbladet Arbejderen, 2024, by ML, https://arbejderen.dk/indland/regeringen-afviser-borgerforslag-om-at-anerkende-risiko-for-folkedrab-i-gaza/ (in Danish)

First line in the article: The government refuses to comment on whether there is a risk that Israel is committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza.

• Proposal by the public that mandates the parliament to initiate a discussion: https://www.borgerforslag.dk/se-og-stoet-forslag/?Id=FT-16712

• Response by the majority of the parliament - rejected the proposal: https://www.ft.dk/samling/20231/beslutningsforslag/b200/index.htm

Kimse84 (talk) 10:57, 24 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."[15]. 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)

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)

Jbbdude's concerns about this article

The entirety of this article is outrageous to me. Top to bottom. There are allegations of a genocide in Gaza. That's something Wikipedia should cover accurately and without breathless, NPOV violating intensity. This article isn't that.

First off, the talk archives aren't linked on this talk page. I haven't seen that before. Some folks have linked prior talk archives and the move discussion but the archives aren't here.

The title is bad. Just bad. The move discussion I read clearly did not have consensus. This has been talked to death.

Most of the cited sources for this being called a genocide refer to allegations or, more egregiously, potential for genocide, genocide "in the making," etc. This article makes the leap of *not* relying upon the actual common terminology in media coverage, but rather, adopting the claims the media coverage is reporting on! That is NOT supposed to be how Wikipedia works.

As to facts? This thing is comical.

The infobox "victims" includes buildings. Buildings, to my knowledge, are not people in an ethnic group and cannot be victims of a genocide. The death toll includes a count of dead Gazans, no mention of any civilian/Hamas split of any kind, then speculative estimates of bodies buried based on minimal evidence (but reported by media so, fair) and then a 180k stat from a Lancet letter (not article, not peer reviewed), the sole methodology of which was to take the Hamas-supplied death toll stat and multiply it by three.

In the genocidal actions section, things like arrests and threats are listed. It lists statements made by TV hosts and other media figures, i.e. not government or military affiliated.

In the lede, in the ICJ paragraph, there's a claim that Israel rejected the ICJ decision. There's a citation to a BBC article. Reading the live article since archive.today is acting up for me, I didn't see Israel reject the ICJ decision once. I did see the ICJ decision be explained as not saying the genocide accusation is plausible but rather the rights are plausible, and Israel rejecting the SA case, but not Israel rejecting the decision. To the contrary, I've seen media reports of Israel welcoming the decision, agreeing they shouldn't commit genocide, and submitting the demanded reports highlighting their purported efforts to avoid civilian casualties.

As a normal person with stuff to do, I don't have time to cite every single example. But this entire article is a mess. Again, top to bottom. This thing needs to be taken down to the rivets, every single citation checked to ensure it actually supports what the article is claiming. Most of these things have been raised before. And the arguing went on and on with folks insisting, hey, this isn't a place for opinions (as they loudly expressed their own), you need concrete examples (when they're plentiful enough to fill their own article on Allegations of Bias in Wikipedia Coverage of the 2023-present Gaza War), and on and on until the talk page gets archived again (and the archives aren't linked on this page). Fix this, people. Jbbdude (talk) 15:32, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

The talk page archives are linked at the top of this page in the talk page header, the same place as every other talk page. Levivich (talk) 15:35, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Your point re casualties including infrastructural damage is well taken. That should be reformulated in a different way. But the assumption is flawed.

The Convention defines genocide as any of five "acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group." These five acts include killing members of the group, causing them serious bodily or mental harm, imposing living conditions intended to destroy the group, preventing births, and forcibly transferring children out of the group. Victims are targeted because of their real or perceived membership of a group, not randomly Genocide Convention

I have bolded the third act in the definition, which has a large secondary literature elaborating on what that refers to. In the South African case, the third act is illustrated by detailed references to the massive destruction of upwards of 70% of the material infrastructure of the Gaza Strip, without which civil survival is impossible: hospitals, schools, housing etc., together with the erasure of most institutions where the culture is maintained, mosques, universities, libraries etc.Nishidani (talk) 15:50, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate your striving for neutrality and accurate sourcing, because it's crucial for every article on this site and I am trying to do the same thing, but I believe some of your points may stem from a misunderstanding of the broader academic discourse on genocide.

The title reflects the prevailing terminology used by many international bodies and experts which are cited in the article. The article also carefully cites reputable media and academic sources, distinguishing between allegations, official statements, and expert analysis.

The destruction of cultural property and infrastructure is widely recognized as a part of genocide. The UN Convention on Genocide includes "deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part." The article also reflects Israel's public responses to the ICJ's ruling, citing multiple reliable sources.

You could check out work by Norman Finkelstein (or read the Genocide article) if you're interested in learning more about it. I believe this article already meets the standards for neutrality and reliable sourcing. ViolanteMD 15:52, 31 August 2024 (UTC)