Talk:Gaza genocide

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

IAGS

It turns out IAGS is not an association of genocide scholars but in fact open to everyone, starting at $125 a year. So obviously we shouldn't say that it is "world's biggest academic association of genocide scholars", as this is clearly untrue, and in my opinion we shouldn't publish things that are untrue. Either remove it from the article as a subpar, unreliable source that lies about its membership (in its own name), or else the criticisms should be made crystal clear per WP:SERIOUSLYCONTESTED. Since the resolution received a lot of attention the latter may be preferable.

Other sources: Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 17:20, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Nothing has changed about the IAGS just because you got around to reading their website Our own page on them is quite clear about their organizational structure and is rather more comprehensive than your para. They should be used with attribution but they are not unreliable nor undue. Simonm223 (talk) 17:30, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

No need for the personal tone. So you would accept that we should balance the claim that they are composed of "genocide scholars" with the copious sources (including the IAGS themselves) who say that this is not the case? Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 17:34, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

wdym the org that calls itself “international association of genocide scholars” claims its not genocide scholars?

find a reliable source that says otherwise. The guardian and BBC say as much. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 17:40, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

I believe the links should be clickable. According to IAGS themselves: IAGS members are academic scholars, human rights activists, students, museum and memorial professionals, policymakers, educators, anthropologists, independent scholars, sociologists, artists, political scientists, economists, historians, international law scholars, psychologists, and literature and film scholars. IAGS was formed in 1994 and currently represents 600 members from all continents. We encourage anyone dealing with genocide in a scholarly or professional capacity to join. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 17:44, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

None of the description precludes that they aren’t genocide scholars.

Again, it is false to claim an org that calls itself in its own name genocide scholars is also claiming they aren’t User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 18:30, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

The point is anyone with a bit of disposable income can sign up. They are not even disguising this. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 18:45, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Oh wow, they are just like every other learned society, someone stop the presses this is earth shattering news. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 20:55, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

There's no need to be sarcastic. If you don't think people read "international association of genocide scholars" and think this is probably a body of experts, and not just people with an interest in genocide, then I think you are likely mistaken. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 21:24, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

I refer you to my previous comment. Learned societies are silly little clubs full of silly little people, but people only care in this case because more silly little people kicked up a fuss about the game that the silly little club played. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 21:37, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

They aren't all open membership though, so there wouldn't be any harm in clarifying in this case. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 21:41, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

I think they pretty much all are open membership. Most people don’t shell out over $100 to join them (why would you?) but they’re not going to turn anyone away who does! How would you imagine they’d police membership to ensure only real experts join? BobFromBrockley (talk) 02:15, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

By doing more than zero vetting, which they would do if they required any level of expertise. But according to their own website it seems pretty clear that no such expertise is required. The issue isn't that it's open membership, the issue is that we call them the "world's biggest academic association of genocide scholars" when their membership includes people like "Adolf Hitler" from Gaza, the Cookie Monster wearing a Hamas logo, Emperor Palpatine . The whole thing is very clearly a joke, and I don't understand why we are pretending this is some legitimate society of qualified experts, other than to push a pov. Why should we not at least voice the criticisms of this group? Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 09:03, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

If we ignore the leadership of the organisation, the prominent membership, all of its work, and then ignore that criticisms are included in the subarticles for which this section is a summation of, then yes we can view it as an illegitimate society that was created to just push a POV that Israel has committed genocide. Personally I'm of the opinion that we have more than enough better sources to not need to mention the IAGS at all, but (as previously mentioned) the fuss kicked up gives much more prominence to the resolution, giving ammunition to those who would like to include it in the article. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 13:47, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

You're reading far too much into random factoids. To illustrate the problem with this kind of divination: Granting that these three members are "trolls", even if they participated in the vote (and that's a big if; how do you know they weren't kicked out before or joined later, or for any reason didn't actually vote on the resolution – in fact, I seem to remember reading they had joined only after the vote was widely publicised and when the organisation was made aware of them they were promptly given the boot again, given that few people knew about the IAGS before), how do we know they aren't pro-Israel moles who joined in an attempt to discredit the organisation and manipulate the vote, and in fact, perhaps, voted against the resolution? There are far too many possibilities, and that's why this outrage-mongering highlighting of factoids that superficially appear to support a specific narrative is pointless and misleading – especially without further in-depth research (which would most likely run afoul of WP:OR if done by Wikipedians, and it's unlikely anyone else cares enough, and even so it's unclear if there is sufficient available evidence to clarify the situation, which I personally doubt). Beware of confirmation bias (and emotion-driven cherrypicking of suggestive but contextless anecdotes) over known facts. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 02:44, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Research has shown that a large portion of members are not genocide scholars at all. When members include emperor palpatine from Syria, cookie monster, and Hitler from Gaza city. When 80 out of 400 members are from a single country, iraq, which has not produced a single peer-reviewed scholarly publication about genocide.

When only 108 out of 400 members voted on the Israel genocide issue, including 80 self proclaimed genocide scholars from Iraq. I doubt the vote passes as a source that deserves mention.

https://www.thefp.com/p/another-reason-not-to-trust-the-experts

https://www.thejc.com/news/body-of-experts-accusing-israel-of-genocide-admits-its-members-include-activists-and-artists-f412cfiz

https://www.the-sun.com/news/16404293/bbc-slammed-over-gaza-genocide-report-from-cookie-monster/ Patrick.N.L (talk) 01:26, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

The first source, which is in itself a WP:SPS according to WP:RSPS, attributes that claim to a board member of Honest reporting and contributor to WP:NGOMONITOR.

The second source falls under WP:RSPJC and is generally unreliable for the WP:PIA topic area

The third source falls under WP:THESUN and is deprecated.

Do you have any reliable source that support your claims? Laura240406 (talk) 23:26, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Does $125 a year get you voting privileges on matters such as this? Wehwalt (talk) 17:31, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Reliable sourcing describes it as an academic group, and give it credibility.

i could be persuaded saying that only 28% voted is useful, but the president of IAGS says its a definitive statement regardless. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 17:38, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

If our article on them is to be believed that's just a normal turnout for IAGS. It's not that a bunch of people usually voting decided to be silent because of the question at hand, rather, they weren't voting in the first place. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 17:42, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

That some reliable sources say it is credible does not actually make it credible. But it might mean that it should be included, which I'm fine with as long as we don't accept the clearly false description found in some sources as fact, but instead attribute the seriously contested claims, and give the counterclaims, including those made by the IAGS themselves. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 17:43, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

@Wh1pla5h99 If RS consensus is that it's credible, then it is credible to Wikipedia regardless of our own opinions. Regardless, in this case we're stating that a notable org says (WP:ATTRIBUTE). It's not the same as saying it in wikivoice. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:45, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

"the world's biggest academic association of genocide scholars" is indeed stated in wikivoice. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 17:49, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

On our article on them we say "multiple sources describe them as", so I suppose it makes sense to change that statement to match that. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 17:53, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Only seen the claim on Reuters so far. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 17:55, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Uhh there are some citations on our article on them I think. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 17:58, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

They seem to make varying claims (that turn out all to be fabrications). Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 18:02, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

@Wh1pla5h99 which fabrications?

Here's more sources for you regarding "largest":

Muller, Adam (2017). "3 – Troubling History, Troubling Law: The Question of Indigenous Genocide in Canada". In Keshen, Jeffrey (ed.). Understanding Atrocities: Remembering, Representing and Teaching Genocide (1 ed.). University of Calgary Press. p. 83. doi:10.2307/j.ctv6gqvg8. ISBN 978-1-55238-885-3. JSTOR j.ctv6gqvg8.

Cardashian, Vahan; Yeghiayan, Vartkes (2008). Vahan Cardashian: advocate extraordinaire for the Armenian cause. Glendale (Calif.): Center for Armenian Remembrance. pp. XIX. ISBN 978-0-9777153-3-6.

"Professor Waller Receives Two Prestigious Appointments". www.keene.edu. 2013-08-05. Archived from the original on August 22, 2013. Retrieved 2025-06-30.

The Comparative Analysis of the 20th Century Genocides – International Association of Genocide Scholars – The twelfth meeting – 8-12 July 2015, Yerevan, The Armenian Genocide Museum-Institute, c. 2014, Wikidata Q136093872{{citation}}: CS1 maint: deprecated archival service (link)

EvergreenFir (talk) 21:57, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

I wasn't quibbling with the "largest" part. The organization is not limited to scholars, and could just as easily be full of activists as people with any relevant qualifications or expertise. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 22:02, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Seriously contested by who exactly? pro-Israeli mouthpieces would contest any narrative or scholarly evidence. Reliable sources that are contesting this would make a better case.

i am ok with some info about the iags vote such as the vote participation. Most scholarly orgs like IEEE have similar signup structures as IAGS, thats probably not worth mentioning. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 17:46, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

If nothing else it's certainly a seriously contentious claim.. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 17:49, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

If the sources are pro-Israel (no idea if this is true) do they no longer count? I'm not following. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 17:51, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Bias of source may mean its undue for inclusion. The more biased the more undue. We dont need to do on every claim between BBC, the guardian, and CNN saying an academic org is an academic org, and the same knee jerk rejection by pro israeli orgs. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 17:55, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

This is simply untrue I'm afraid. All sources are biased; we do not care about bias but about accuracy. And in this case the accuracy is clear. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 17:56, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

The statement "world's biggest academic association of genocide scholars" doesn't necessarily mean everyone who is part of the organization is a genocide scholar, and that isn't a strictly defined term in the first place. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 17:48, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

I agree it is nebulous and questionable. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 17:52, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

For convenience, I'm linking previous discussions of the IAGS, either directly or through comparison . - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 18:18, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

I've taken the percentage figure for dissenters off IAGS. It's clear this edit was made without affirmative consensus. Simonm223 (talk) 11:34, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Simonm223 I've restored the edits that were reverted by you that did not relate to the paragraph in question. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 13:57, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Needs update

The lead needs newer sources, as the currently cited sources stating the genocide is ongoing are from six months ago (November 2025). That new Moshman book and the other sources mentioned above might work. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 15:45, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

The books may have been written months ago. We need to find another source or drop the ongoing part. 🐈Cinaroot   19:13, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

I found one

March 2026

Over the past 29 months the devastating, multilayered impact of Israel’s ongoing genocide has pushed Palestinian women and girls in the occupied Gaza Strip to the brink, said Amnesty International today.

As tensions across the Middle East escalate sharply following Israeli-US attacks on Iran, we must not forget Israel’s ongoing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza and the brutal price women and girls have been paying. 🐈Cinaroot   19:20, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

was published two days ago (May 12) and says Israel’s unlawful and wanton destruction of civilian high-rise buildings continues to have devastating consequences for displaced Palestinian families in the occupied Gaza Strip, where reconstruction remains a distant dream amid ongoing genocide and air strikes despite the October 2025 so-called ceasefire, said Amnesty International today. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 19:23, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

It looks like the ongoing descriptor should probably stay for now, but I should question if that's really a reliable source here. The AI article gives the impression that the destruction of civilian high-rise buildings is still ongoing, but the body of the article says it stopped after the ceasefire. AI is considered a reliable but biased source, especially in this topic area, so other sources would certainly be best here. Unfortunately since the events in Iran, Gaza has faded into the background so there are few reliable sources still reporting on the events there. Currently we have two less-than-ideal sources from AI and one good source from an expert but that dates from six months ago in a different situation in Gaza where there was still famine. A few more academic or recent sources might strengthen this statement. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 11:37, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Boulos and Segal reviewing Bartov's book: "Just out in English and slated to appear in numerous other languages, the book asks readers to think about Israel’s ongoing genocide in Gaza through a narrative that begins with the Holocaust and antisemitism." EvansHallBear (talk) 18:04, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

While that source does support the statement, it's primarily a book review, and that book was published in April. Like with the Moshman book, we don't know if the book was written with the current conditions in Gaza in mind (that is, Bartov may have started writing the first draft of the book months before when there was still famine in Gaza).

I agree with @Chicdat that the source I found is less than ideal. I think the WP:BESTSOURCES here are recent news reports or scholarly opinions that rely on on-the-ground reporting and that explicitly state that genocide is still ongoing despite the ceasefire. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 18:39, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

The statement that the genocide is ongoing was written by Boulous and Segal in their May 10 review. It is not a claim that they attribute solely to Bartov's book. EvansHallBear (talk) 18:55, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

The problem is that it appears to be mostly a passing mention to give readers context, as in "this book asks readers to think about the ongoing genocide in Gaza", and not as in "we ourselves think that genocide is ongoing in Gaza". SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 18:59, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

I think it's perfectly clear from that quote that Boulos and Segal think the genocide is ongoing. But if not, this should remove any lingering doubts: "the Jewish supremacy and anti-Palestinian racism that fuel the genocide also drive the silencing of Palestinians and their activism to end it." EvansHallBear (talk) 19:40, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Given the concerns about using Amnesty International, I've slapped a {{Better source needed}} tag on it. If someone finds a better source, go for it. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 19:10, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Actually, {{Additional citation needed}} serves my purposes better, because Amnesty International is still usable as a source for facts, but we prefer adding more sources. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 19:14, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

How's UN experts warn against the irreversible ‘de-Palestinisation’ of Jerusalem stating "Irreparable harm is being inflicted on Jerusalem, as violence engulfs the region, and genocide continues in Gaza and spills into the West Bank, UN experts* warned today."?

Genocide Watch also covered the press release with UN Experts Warn Gaza Genocide Extends into West Bank. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 22:26, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Still would prefer a news source from May, but those are good sources. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 22:28, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Potential for May, people can determine due weight per RS.

• Mondoweiss It seems as if the temptation is too great to deflect from our own neo-Nazi predicament and claim a moral high ground by vilifying anybody who voices criticism of the ongoing genocide or, indeed, any pro-Palestinian sentiment.
• Qatar News Agency The Israeli occupation forces (IOF) murdered at least 72,769 Palestinian civilians and injured at least 172,704 others since the beginning of the genocide that the Israeli occupation has been committing against the Gaza Strip in October 2023.
• The Journal These sanctions should be placed on the state of Israel, not just for the ongoing genocide in Gaza but also for the last 80 years of ethnic cleansing, of apartheid, of a systematic genocidal campaign across Palestine and the complete denial of any rights to the Palestinian people.

-- Cdjp1 (talk) 13:30, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Additional source from March, Francesca Albanese: "torture is a structural feature of the ongoing genocide and broader settler-colonial apartheid." EvansHallBear (talk) 20:59, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Ultimately, per WP:V, if an event has ended those who believe it's no longer ongoing should have no trouble producing sources that say so. If not, then wp should not claim it has ended and it should continue to be labeled as ongoing. (t · c) buIdhe 02:27, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

RFC: How should the IAGS be described in body of the article?

1) Should we describe IAGS in as the world's leading association of genocide scholars?

• Yes, in wikivoice.
• Yes, attributed to major news outlets describing them that way.
• No
• Other

2) Should we include the IAGS's internal vote and turnout percentages when presenting their stance?

• Yes
• Yes, while stating in the body text that IAGS votes generally have similarly low turnouts as this one did.
• Yes, while stating in a footnote that IAGS votes generally have similarly low turnouts as this one did.
• No
• Other

Previous discussion 1, 2 Talk:Gaza genocide/Archive 11#For what it's worth, Talk:Gaza genocide/Archive 12#IAGS, etc.

Note: Per Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Arab–Israeli conflict#Word limits (1,000 words), all participants are limited to 1000 words. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 23:13, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Survey

• 1) No, per WP:POV. 2) No, per WP:OR. Achmad Rachmani (talk) 23:36, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
• 1) Yes + Attributed - inline with the IAGS article & 2) No - As I explained at NPOVN, the only aspect of the IAGS that's relevant to this article is what their official position is on the matter. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 23:42, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
• 1) Other - Remove IAGS. As I have commented at various points I don't think a club of academics et al. is worth the space it is given in this article, and is better suited in the Academic and Legal responses article. - Cdjp1 (talk) 10:08, 15 May 2026 (UTC)
• 1) Yes - attributed. 2) No. Basically follow reliable sources. They don't start making a meal of the voting. NadVolum (talk) 13:13, 15 May 2026 (UTC)
• 1) Yes, attributed as is done in the main article, 2) No as this would be out of scope for this article (Academic and legal responses to the Gaza genocide already goes into detail about that) and could be seen as an attempt to discredit the vote itself. Laura240406 (talk) 13:40, 15 May 2026 (UTC)
• 1) Leaning no for now 2) No: First off, somehow it slipped by me that you didn't catch my correction in the RfC workshopping, but @Bluethricecreamman you put "leading association" when it should be "biggest association".Alright @Bluethricecreamman, now that you've got those sources I back "leading" over "biggest". I'm glad you went and got those sources because I do in fact think "leading" is better than "biggest", as "biggest" necessarily means there is a measurement of some kind, but without us actually stating what that measurement is ("biggest" how?) there is going to be some risk of reader misinterpretation, and we can't answer how because the news outlets don't explicitly state it. Anyways, I'm a bit torn between "Yes, with attribution" and "No" on the first one. Considering the article isn't about IAGS, it feels a bit editorial to include one attributed description of the IAGS and nothing else. Why this one, when it requires attribution, instead of a description that can be presented in wikivoice? Are we being neutral when we are choosing to include a promotional description of the organization alongside their statement? I'm not so sure about that. On the other hand, it may of course be valuable to readers to be given context as to why the organization's stance matters, and if it the description is widespread enough in RS usage it may be justifiable. I may swing on this one depending on how the discussion goes.

As for the percentages, I'm pretty firmly against including them. The problem is that if we were to include it we really couldn't do anything with it other than say "these were the percentages", as RS don't assign any meaning to them. I pointed out in the previous discussion that low turnouts were the norm, and while I do think readers will be misled if told turnouts without being informed of that, I realize that it's hard to argue that my suggestion of simply telling them that, when RS don't mention it, (in line with them not giving much attention to the percentages at all) would not amount to us being editorial/doing WP:OR. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 05:48, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Yeah i think i changed from biggest since it seemed a bit stronger claim, but i can see how leading can be editorializing as well User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 16:42, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

• No Invited by the bot. With regards to the RFC version ("leading") such is an extraordinary POV claim, not sufficiently sourcable. With regards to the RFC version or the article text version ("largest") the amount of qualifiers makes it look like POV wordsmithing (only academic organizations count, and only ones limited to just genocide count) and also it's an extraordinary claim probably not sufficiently sourcable. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:13, 17 May 2026 (UTC)
• 1) Yes - either leading or largest supported by

2) No - because its a official resolution - how many people voted is irrelevant. 🐈Cinaroot   00:08, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

• 1) Yes, attributed to RS, per the reasoning of the other yes's.

2) Yes, of course the 86% support should be mentioned here. The 86% support for the resolution was publicly reported by the the IAGS itself, and also by lots of reliable sources like PBS, BBC, The Guardian, ABC, Reuters, NBC News, et cetera. Also obviously, Wikipedia should not contradict the 14% in Wikivoice, unless we conclude they fall under WP:FRINGE. Even putting aside the IAGS resolution, we have plenty of evidence that a substantial minority of scholars believe the actions of Israel in Gaza do not meet the legal definition of genocide (although it may meet non-legal definitions which are broader, and even though Israel may be guilty of other serious crimes against humanity). I am quite certain that none of this will be allowed in this article, because then we would have to stop contradicting the substantial minority's view in wikivoice. Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:57, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that in the linked paragraph Academic and legal responses to the Gaza genocide § Legal assessments, all opinions by individual legal scholars doubting that the legal standard for genocide is met are from 2023 or 2024, before the solidification of the academic consensus in the course of the year 2025. This seriously weakens the assertion that there is "plenty of evidence". What is left is an unknown number of unnamed legal experts who were said in July 2025 by Le Monde to have rejected the genocide label, but we do not know when. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 03:23, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Absence of evidence is not proof of absence. I've personally emailed a few scholars who gave their opinion early on and have not updated their opinion and all of them (4) said that their opinion did not change. My sample size is small of course, but it is telling. NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 20:52, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

• No and Other/YES Now that I understand this issue more, I've changed to second vote. What is happening is that people are attempting to hide the problematic aspects of this vote in order to sanitize it. It is absolutely not NPOV to hide this information and other problematic info about the vote, including the irregularities, the stifling of dissent by the Board Member Sara Brown, and the 500+ genocide scholars and others (a group similar in composition to IAGS but 5 times larger) who signed a petition against this vote.

Remove all mention of this non-credible organization. It's an embarrassment to Wikipedia to include any information from such a source, just as it would be an embarrassment to include a self-published source or a vanity press. Membership is open to anyone who pays the fee, and there is no required legal or scholarly credential for membership. If kept in, it should be described in some way as a "self-styled genocide scholar organization" or something like "a membership organization open to the general public masquerading as a genocide scholar organization" or something to the effect. Slava570 (talk) 11:45, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

IAGS says: "IAGS’ membership is designed to be open to all who are committed to working on issues pertaining to genocide from a variety of disciplines and perspectives." They also say, "We encourage anyone dealing with genocide in a scholarly or professional capacity to join." Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:06, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I think the key words here are ...open to all who are committed.... They may encourage it, but there is no requirement to be a scholar. On their join page, the first thing they say is (bolding mine): IAGS members are academic scholars, human rights activists, students, museum and memorial professionals, policymakers, educators, anthropologists, independent scholars, sociologists, artists, political scientists, economists, historians, international law scholars, psychologists, and literature and film scholars. I don't see how museum workers, for example, have any credibility here. Slava570 (talk) 12:11, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Considering some of the most prominent figures in the founding of genocide studies (as well as holocaust studies) as a field are scholars from the backgrounds you highlighted as being not genocide scholars, makes it a silly claim to make. The immediate example of the top of my head is Israel Charny, who as an additional fun fact was one of the founders of IAGS. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 13:12, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

When a field is first founded, it's understandable that there may be people from other disciplines involved. Genocide studies is firmly established now, so I would think the situation is different. I mean, artists? Literature and film scholars? These are not credible experts on genocide. Slava570 (talk) 14:54, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

This is all irrelevant. We don't make these sorts of reputational claims on the basis of our personal opinions. We follow reliable sources. Simonm223 (talk) 15:01, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Simon here. Unless editors are going off some reliable sources here (please share with the class) we have to remember this is WP:NOTAFORUM. Ideas that have personal views and experiences as their basis are certainly important and worth discussing, but an RfC on article content is not the place to do that. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 03:12, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

The vast majority of people working in genocide studies in fact do not have qualifications in "genocide studies", due to the fact only a small fraction of universities offer such programs(*). Most, as can be seen by those publishing within the field, are academically trained in other fields and engage in genocide studies from their training, including yes fields such as museum studies, education, psychology, etc.

(*) In some countries it is even becoming harder to study in genocide studies, such as the UK which has gone from three universities offering programs that specialise in genocide studies (though only one was genocide studies in itself, while the other two are other fields which had a focus on genocides), to just one offering such a qualification and it's actually a qualification in history with a focus on genocides.

One final point, you highlight students as a member category that shows IAGS isn't a serious organisation. Are you familiar at all with other similar groups in different disciplines? Every single one includes membership categories for students. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 15:03, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

• No, No. In this article no more than a brief mention is due. In the Academic and legal responses article, how it is is described can be included with attribution. And the numbers should be spelled out in full, but not here. I don’t know what “leading” means in this context and seems like puffery, whereas largest, if true, is objective. I’m worried that “leading” was sloppy cut and paste by RS reporters from a press release because having looked I’m pretty certain there’s no source using that term prior to the press release. BobFromBrockley (talk) 07:21, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

  Leading, could really be any metric, due to the fact it was the first and consequentially, has been the largest of such associations focussing on genocide studies. But such description is easily replaced with a more clear metric such as being the largest. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 13:15, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

• 1: Yes, attributed to major news outlets describing them that way. This is because these sorts of comparative judgments must be dependent upon the perspective of reliable secondary sources. We are a trailing indicator. And 2: No. I've gone over why we should not be discussing vote percentages at WP:NPOV/N. In short, I don't think any inclusion of voting statistics is likely to be neutral. Furthermore we don't have sourcing to indicate the voting statistics are significant. We should not be interpreting primary sources like this per WP:PRIMARY and WP:OR. Simonm223 (talk) 14:59, 19 May 2026 (UTC)
• 1) Yes + Attributed per descriptions in multiple mainstream RS. 2) Don't have a strong preference here but if turnout is mentioned, WP:NPOV would require mentioning (ideally in the body) that IAGS votes generally have similarly low turnouts. EvansHallBear (talk) 20:54, 19 May 2026 (UTC)
• 1) Yes + Attribution So and so described by such and such as something something ...
  2) No no need to give the background of who decided what in the alleged subject matter expert. If it is included at all, can be included in a note i.e. Template:EFN. --RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 21:22, 22 May 2026 (UTC)
• 1) Yes, attributed, world's leading>world's biggest way too many reliable sources discuss it like that the wording seems interchangeable in how reliable sources say it, many use leading though. Reuters, CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, PBS, NPR, AP, WaPost, and BBC
  2) No, there is no meaningful argument from reliable sourcing that suggests otherwise.
  It is undue to try to argue IAGS is simply yet another academic reaction with this much coverage. And it is undue to describe this as anything except a group of genocide scholars. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 20:22, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

  @Maltazarian, I think I owe you an apology, I forgot the real reason I had changed the wording of the RFC from biggest to leading was because of these sources. Full disclosure, I had forgotten that was the real reason. In the spirit of intellectual honesty, I also did not put the effort into finding these sources myself, I mostly found the list from this FAIR org link User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 00:45, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

  All worked out in the end. I'm happy. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 00:49, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

  Apologies, I also did not mean to suggest that all these sources uniformly use one or the other btw. They use a mix and/or both. WaPO and BBC use both terms.
  Largest/biggest: Reuters, ABC, BBC, WaPo,
  Leading: NBC, CBS, PBS, NPR, AP, WaPo, BBC

  The CNN link is a news video, they describe it as a group of scholars around the world and does not say leading or largest/biggest User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 00:51, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

  Yes, don't worry, I'm aware. I checked and saw that it was a mix. In a situation like this I believe its within our discretion to choose the description that works the best for our readers, considering the fact multiple are used. Although if someone really takes issue with using one over the other I guess technically we could be forced to use both (although I'd much rather use neither if it came down to that). ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 01:08, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

• 1) Yes, attributed. Multiple RS refer to them as "leading" so this should be reflected with attribution; "The International Association of Genocide Scholars, described by multiple major news outlets as a leading association.." For *2) No as such details are not meaningfully contextualized in reliable secondary sources, and including them risks introducing unsupported interpretations of their significance.JaredMcKenzie (talk) 15:13, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
• 1) Yes, attributed - I'll always go with RS, particularly if so many. O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:11, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
• 1) Yes, attributed. Slight preference for "leading" based on sources provided by Bluethricecreamman, but no opposition to using biggest/largest or similar wording. 2) No. Including internal voting breakdowns violates WP:OR and WP:PRIMARY, as reliable secondary sources largely report the final official resolution rather than parsing the internal metrics. Doing so veers into editorializing to discredit the result, which violates WP:NPOV. Paprikaiser (talk) 21:44, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
• 1) No 2) No. Both per WP:NPOV as amplifying or discrediting the organization's statement, respectively. Also per BobFromBrockley. NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 20:48, 30 May 2026 (UTC)
• 1) No 2) Noper WP:NPOV as amplifying or discrediting the organization's statement per NorthernWinds and per BobFromBrockley's comments I was tempted towards Slava's argument that there is no reason to believe that this very small voting group, made up of a self-selecting membership with an unknown number of experts on the (notoriously problematic) legal aspects of gemocide, really has little value, but given the level of coverage their decision received, it deserves a brief mention.Pincrete (talk) 07:40, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
• 1) Yes, attributed too may sources have described it

2) Yes, with footnotes, as per Anythingyouwant Ahammed Saad (talk) 16:23, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

• For number 1. Yes, with attribution. 2) No. If mainstream sources describe IAGS as a leading genocide-studies association, the article can reflect that. Genabab (talk) 23:12, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

• 1) Yes, in wikivoice - multiple RS support this description. With attribution if necessary, but let's call a spade a spade. 2) No - WP:NOTNEWS Smallangryplanet (talk) 19:00, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

  It's not clear how NOTNEWS applies here. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 23:15, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

  Agreed. Please explain? User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 23:17, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

  If, as the suggested text points out, there's nothing notable or unique about the turnout for the vote, I can't see how it's suitable for inclusion: ...not all verifiable events are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia... Smallangryplanet (talk) 01:15, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

• 1) No. 2) No. Broadly per Bobfrombrockley and Cdjp1. The outcome of sparsely attended votes by academic associations is approximately the least interesting aspect of this (or any) topic, and the vagueness of "leading" is another issue. Samuelshraga (talk) 05:50, 3 June 2026 (UTC)
• 1) No and 2) Yes based on all of the discussion of the scope, breadth and membership structure of IAGS, there is no reason to include claims from selected sources about the reputation of the group, any more than we would provide claims across the article about all other news sources and organizations. Particularly given the organizational structure, the lack of any membership selection criteria, the inability to identify whether voters have genuine academic credentials other than membership in the organization or to identify how representative the voter base has been of the organization as a whole, there should be clarity about the low turnout, though I am open regarding the manner in which it should be included to properly inform readers and allow them to make an appropriate judgement of the validity of the claims. Alansohn (talk) 12:26, 3 June 2026 (UTC)
• 1) Yes + Attributed 2) No per points made above Orca🐋 (talk) 16:07, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
• 1) YES, and in wikivoice. 2) NO. The details of the vote turnout and voting percentages are not so important as the article is not about the IAGS or the vote itself. Dualpendel (talk) 09:49, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Discussion

• took a bit to wait, wasn't sure if there was still interest in this specific rfc.User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs)

Gaza genocide title

Thread retitled from Article not up to par to Wikipedia standard and need a complete overhaul and renaming to allegations of Gaza genocide; taints Wikipedia neutrality. WP:TALKHEADPOV

This article is not up to par to wikipedia standards in all its sections and in almost all of its essence is not based on facts, contaminating the whole article. Genocide allegations in Gaza were brought to both the ICC and ICJ and both have confirmed that there was no conclusive proof of genocide. The Association of genocide experts were not experts, including so called experts as "emperor Palpatine" from Syria; cookie Monster, and "Adolf Hitler" and had an overrepresentation of members from Arab countries, including 80 of 500 scholars from Iraq alone; Iraq not being known for any academic genocide publication.

The head ICJ judge of the genocide case against Israel and former ICJ president has confirmed that the ICJ had never concluded to a plausible genocide : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T44DebmlvNs

Likewise The prosecutor of the ICC, Karim Khan, has also confirmed there was no legal case for genocide to bring against Israel : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KgU6QvpEg3Y

The incapacity of Wikipedia to avoid such bias, coupled with both the ICJ and ICC confirming the absence of a plausible legal case make this whole Wikipedia article bringing an alleged genocide as a fact with the title of "Gaza genocide" as opposed to "accusation of Gaza genocide" and "alleged Gaza genocide" taints the credibility of the whole of Wikipedia in regards to conflict and bias resolution and its overall neutrality and usefulness. Patrick.N.L (talk) 23:40, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

So your argument against the established consensus is based on -

- Questioning the IAGS, seemingly without reading the two sections currently discussing them already on this page (Here are more discussions about them for your convenience though [1][2][3][4]) - I'll note though that the IAGS does not make up a significant aspect of this article, so even if they were theoretically disregarded as a viable citation, it would have no material impact on this article's overall content.

- UK Lawyers for Israel's YouTube channel, which fails to contradict this article's current content, rather instead restating it - "On 26 January 2024, the ICJ issued a preliminary ruling finding that the rights asserted in South Africa's filing were "plausible", and an order requiring that Israel take all measures in its power to prevent acts of genocide, prevent and punish incitement to genocide, and allow basic humanitarian services into Gaza." This doesn't confirm nor deny that it's a genocide, nor do we state that the ICJ has currently come to such a conclusion, so this seems irrelevant to your argument.

- What appears to be an active misinterpretation of an interview with Karim Khan because he clearly didn't say that "there was no legal case for genocide to bring against Israel", instead at 10:58, in reply to the question "so genocide is not off limits, you haven't ruled it out?" he states that "no crime is off limits if the evidence is there." & notes that he can't get into details.

This is not a convincing argument & I ask that, in the future, that you take the time to verify that your citations actually support your position & that you do not make contentious edits clearly against community consensus. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 00:47, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

@Patrick.N.L - Please self-revert in accordance with WP:1RR. The content you've added has repeatedly been objected to & you're now adding fabricated quotes. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 01:53, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Nothing actionable. See WP:FORUM but this is not the place for it. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 01:19, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Is there a way to escalate this? The IAGS is not credible with 80 out of 400 contributors from Iraq while Iraq has 0 genocide academic publications, and members such as emperor Palpatine, hitler, and cookie monster. If the ICC and ICJ decisions are not convincing arguments but a vote by emperor palpatine and cookie monsters are, there is a serious problem with Wikipedia consensus process.

- The ruling judge of the ICJ and its former head clarified that "contrary to some reporting, the court did not make a ruling on whether the claim of genocide was plausible, but it did emphasise in its order that there was a risk of irreparable harm to the Palestinian right to be protected from genocide." https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-middle-east-68906919 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patrick.N.L (talk • contribs) 01:12, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Presenting an accusation as fact when the presiding judge clearly stated : " the court did not make a ruling on whether the claim of genocide was plausible" (https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-middle-east-68906919) and when a prosecutors "cannot go into details" for not prosecuting it is quite a lack of neutrality. It's like saying that if a crime has not been publicly disproven, it is enough proof that the crime took place. Patrick.N.L (talk) 01:20, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

The main problem is that Wikipedia is taking sides in an ongoing legal dispute, and against significant scholarly dissent on a legal question. A much better title would be, "Gaza Genocide and Whether it Qualifies as Such in a Legal Sense." The definitions of genocide vary quite a bit, and the narrowest is the legal definition. The title lacks nuance, and will be widely misunderstood as a statement that Israel is guilty of genocide in the legal sense. If people think that title sounds too elaborate or nitpicky, then just change it to "Gaza Atrocities" which is simple and cannot be confused with a particular criminal offense. Even a title like "Heinous Gaza Atrocities" would be an immense improvement. Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:26, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

None of those titles would be compliant with WP:AT. Katzrockso (talk) 01:46, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

A reason would be preferable to a bare assertion. And even if you're correct for some reason, is there a way within WP:AT to come up with a title that addresses the problem that I described? Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:29, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

I think "Allegations of genocide in the Gaza war" would work Slava570 (talk) 11:01, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Feel free to conduct another RM. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 22:06, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Do you have any policy based reason or new reliable sources to cite that'd justify, again, attempting to challenge the consensus/FAQ?

Your insistence that we can't refer to it as a genocide without an official legal determination is incongruent with the field of genocide as a whole & would subsequently deny the vast majority of genocides, including the Armenian genocide. You already raised your concerns on this matter earlier this month where editors disagreed that there was any issue to act on.

I'll note though that you seem to be going even further with your opposition here though as previously you stated that you "haven't been suggesting here that the term genocide shouldn't be used in wikivoice.", but are now arguing that the title "Gaza genocide" is somehow misleading.

If this discussion proves to only be retreading old ground, then I propose we hat this section's kvetching as WP:FORUM & move on, there's nothing actionable here. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 16:22, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

The Armenian Genocide is widely recognized as such after over a century. It's not the same as a contemporary issue with far more politics involved in the slightest. An official legal determination for now or at least blatant evidence of mass extermination would be the only legitimate way you could call it a genocide given the circumstances of an urban war in a dense area. A bunch of NGOs, practically all of which lean one way politically, proclaiming it a genocide isn't as strong an argument as many seem to think. This is a hotly contested political issue and it's very possible that the ICJ will ultimately rule that there's insufficient evidence of genocide. RM (Be my friend) 00:13, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

If a final ICJ ruling is the threshold, here are some existing articles with genocide in their titles for you to rally against:

• Darfur genocide (2023–present)
• Masalit genocide
• Rohingya genocide
• Tigray genocide
• Yazidi genocide
• Iraqi Turkmen genocide
• Chechen genocide

Or is that standard only being applied to articles concerning Israel? JasonGen (talk) 06:31, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

There is far less dispute in all those instances. The Chechen genocide article actually has bern nominated for deletion to that matter. This is a highly contentious issue. As it stands Karim Khan has stated that his office as of now lacks sufficient evidence to charge Israeli leaders with genocide and in their reports NGOs like Amnesty International blatantly state the current definition is too restrictive and argue for a wider interpretation. Ireland made the same point in its intervention. We likely won't get an ICJ ruling until 2030 at minimum but it's very likely that the court will rule that there's insufficient evidence of genocide and Wikipedia will look silly. RM (Be my friend) 15:46, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

"The Chechen genocide article actually has bern [sic] nominated for deletion to that matter." - Irrelevant to the discussion at hand as the point was how few genocides receive an actual ICJ ruling, meaning it is by no means the be-all & end-all in determining what is referred to as a genocide.

"Karim Khan has stated that his office as of now lacks sufficient evidence to charge Israeli leaders with genocide" - I already pointed out above how this is simply not true & I'm not sure where people are getting the idea from. Karim Khan specifically says that he can't go into detail on the matter, which is standard procedure for any ongoing case, but that nothing has been ruled out yet.

The idea that Amnesty International is arguing for a wider definition of genocide is simply inaccurate. Interpretation of existing wording is a fundamental aspect of engaging with laws, not an attempt to change them. That there is disagreement with that legal interpretation is to be expected.

"We likely won't get an ICJ ruling until 2030 at minimum but it's very likely that the court will rule that there's insufficient evidence of genocide and Wikipedia will look silly." - Unfounded WP:CRYSTALBALL.

Again, if editors here aren't going to cite any new reliable sources or they continue to make bold assertions either unsupported or flat-out contradicted by reliable sources, then this discussion will remain a disruptive waste of time. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 17:38, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

And likewise there are those who [https://www.justsecurity.org/105790/critical-amnesty-international-gaza-genocide/ disagree] with Amnesty's interpretation. And I didn't notice where you said that above but Khan's statement by itself already throws a wrench into the issue. The point is that in such a contentious issue it's better to wait a bit before rushing to conclusions and saying something in Wikivoice that will very possibly embarrass Wikipedia in the long term. RM (Be my friend) 18:52, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

That is a mischaracterisation of what the Amnesty report said. The Amnesty report provides a statement on the restrictive nature of the UN Convention, and how this is in fact a problem, in line with the opinion of the vast majority of scholars who work on the topic of genocide. The report then goes on to say that even using the UN Convention, there is enough evidence to conclude that genocide has occurred. The rest of the report is then Amnesty presenting evidence and arguing how this meets the UN Convention. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 22:10, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

I am still not objecting to this article referring to a Gaza genocide in wikivoice. In fact, a title I just suggested referred to it as genocide ("Gaza Genocide and Whether it Qualifies as Such in a Legal Sense"). There's a much stronger consensus among experts that it's a genocide in a non-legal sense than a legal sense. Anythingyouwant (talk) 10:36, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

We won't find out the result of the legal case until at least 2029 now, but I see basically no chance that they will find it was genocide, as the threshold is very high. But the supposed scholarly consensus is blown way out of proportion too, and does not reflect reality. 108 people in IAGS voted for the genocide resolution. We don't have the exact makeup of that group in secondary sources, but it was not all genocide scholars. A similar mixed group of scholars and others, but five times larger, signed a petition saying it wasn't genocide. And there are plenty of sources saying it was not genocide. Here's one from Israel Law Review (Cambridge University Press): The article also examines how reverse accusations of genocide against Israel have functioned as a rhetorical shield to deflect recognition of Hamas’ own genocidal actions. Slava570 (talk) 12:17, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

That article was written by a senior fellow at the Kohelet Policy Forum, a right-wing Israeli think tank. I don't think that's a valid source. I also don't see how a website created last year named scholarsfortruthaboutgenocide.com with one page would be considered RS. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:05, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

And yet, we also have about a dozen other open letters which count to thousands of signatories that declare it is a case of genocide. So if we are playing "let's determine genocide by which open letter is bigger", the conclusion is that it is a case of genocide. But playing such a game would be nothing but the height of ridiculousness. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 22:13, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Both the resolution and the petition have been problematic for various reasons, but they include genocide scholars and experts. Petitions of individuals from the general public are not relevant. Slava570 (talk) 11:33, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Oh you don't know what I'm speaking of that's my bad. To clarify the open letters I refer to are ones that are signed by scholars of a breadth similar to the those in the SFTAG open letter, all listed in the Expert and specialist opinions list. So, they are of equal weight on those grounds, but as previously mentioned, extend in to the thousands of signatories. And so I repeat: if we are playing "let's determine genocide by which open letter is bigger", the conclusion is that it is a case of genocide. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 13:57, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

I just saw this about one of the open letters I think you're talking about. According to Norman J. W. Goda, professor of Holocaust Studies: In Goda’s view, the “appeal to expertise” was being manipulated. “The first scholar of which I’m aware who made a genocide accusation against Israel did so on Oct. 12, just days after the Hamas massacres, before an Israeli offensive ever really got underway. What is going on with all of this is this appeal to expertise, this appeal to authority. But you peel back the layers and what you see is that not all of the people claiming to be authorities are actually authorities,” he noted. “One open letter had 800 or 900 self-proclaimed experts in genocide studies. You start looking them up and you see maybe 40 graduate students, I found a veterinarian, an expert in medieval Islamic art, an expert in forestry in India. A lot of the people claiming expertise are simply activists.” Slava570 (talk) 13:27, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia by design has an WP:ACADEMICBIAS, appeals to expertise hold high value User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 13:32, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Academic bias is still bias. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 13:42, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

And also I want to add, the quote above speaks to the credibility of the open letter. Meaning, they were mostly not academics like they claimed, but activists. Slava570 (talk) 13:44, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

No it doesn't show anything of the sort. It just shows that some people are interesting in more than one thing and that a professor can make a case for what they want by cherrypicking. And none of that is going to fix what has happened and what the Israelis will hav to live with.. NadVolum (talk) 16:08, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

A lot like the SFTAG letter then, which you have repeatedly portrayed as being an acceptable source due to it being made up of experts and scholars. And so, I once again repeat the point of how by applying your own metrics for the SFTAG letter, other such open letters are just as valid. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 22:18, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

As I have repeatedly stated, I do not think silly things like open letters should be considered on the matter, it is other individuals, such as yourself, who are arguing that they be considered and included. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 22:21, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

It is congruent with the field of genocide to not consider the events in Gaza falling in the definition of genocide if both the ICC and the ICJ have reviewed the evidence regarding the case accusing Israel of genocide and the ICC did not conclude in the plausibility of a genocide (ICC)

https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-middle-east-68906919

or that the ICJ chief prosecutor concluded in the current lack of evidence to accuse Israel of genocide. Obviously it could change, but the opinion of the chief prosecutor is “It would be a reckless prosecutor to move simply because of clamor. You move based upon evidence.” The fact is Wikipedia recklessly and with lack of neutrality concluded in genocide when the highest international courts have reviewed the evidence and did not conclude in a genocide. This page should be merged with the pahe 'accusation

https://nashaniva.com/en/395378

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2026/may/26/icc-prosecutor-khan-undercuts-gaza-genocide-narrative-israel/ Patrick.N.L (talk) 10:01, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

In your opening statement (quoted below) you appear to make the claim that there are factual errors in the article. Since almost all of the article has no dependency on the specific wording choice for the title, have you considered changing your focus from the title to the content? I ask because I would have thought that, for an encyclopedia, factual errors are more significant than differences of opinion about a title.

• This article is not up to par to wikipedia standards in all its sections and in almost all of its essence is not based on facts...

Sean.hoyland (talk) 11:31, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Please see: WP:WASHINGTONTIMES. I don't know why you linked to a Belarusian paper. It is based on a Telegram message by BILD на русском which I can't read as it's in Cyrillic script. O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:29, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi, I read Russian. The article linked in English above is a translation of what was written in Cyrillic on the Telegram channel. Slava570 (talk) 13:32, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

You may want to slow down and read the sources your using and comparing to what you are writing and to the article proper.

You are repeatedly mixing up the ICC and ICJ, you are ending your paragraphs mid sentence, you are arguing that the page contradicts what an individual clarified in an interview when the article actually explicitly quotes the ruling that the "plausibility" is in regards to Palestinians being afforded the rights of being protected by the Genocide Convention (in line with the individual's clarification), the article does not state that the court found it plausible that genocide is occurring, as you have repeatedly insinuated that it does. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 22:32, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Off-topic discussion trying to redefine WP:NPOV EducatedRedneck (talk) 17:23, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

:::::::The fact that an author is at a right-wing think tank is 100% irrelevant, except for the fact that it shows you (and I suspect others here) are politically biased and attempting to exclude opposing viewpoints for political reasons. This was an RS published by Cambridge University Press, and that's all that matters. I'm fine with left, right and center sources as long as they are considered reliable.

I didn't say the petition website was an RS. There are other secondary sources that discuss the petition. I linked the primary source here on the talk page for disussion purposes. Slava570 (talk) 14:14, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

tone it down. Yelling politically biased in article talk space is very much WP:ABF User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 14:28, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

The thing about assuming is that's it's what we do when we don't know for sure. Once we do know for sure, it's no longer an assumption but a statement of fact. They literally said themselves, openly, that this source cannot be included because of the author's politics. That's the definition of politcal bias. We are all biased in some way, and all RS's are also biased in some way. We can always walk back our past statements and try to be less biased in the future. Slava570 (talk) 14:38, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

I would have said the same if he was a senior fellow at a left wing Gazan think tank. You are way out of line and violating WP:AGF. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:51, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

OK point (partially) taken. I shouldn't have said you were biased (or anyone else), but that the statement was biased. Saying the same of left wing sources doesn't change that. It means the bias is towards the political center. What WP:BIASED says is When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering. Bias may make in-text attribution appropriate... Unless proven otherwise, a Cambridge University Press publication should fit the bill of an RS. Slava570 (talk) 15:00, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

It doesn't necessarily infringe on the source's reliability, but I think it's entirely appropriate to question how much WP:WEIGHT we should give a senior fellow of a think tank who's self-described mission is "To defend Israel against distortions of international law and discriminatory treatment in the international arena." on the matter.

I don't think their perspective is enough to justify reexamining the current consensus, but they would definitely be WP:DUE for inclusion at Academic and legal responses to the Gaza genocide. I'd also like to thank you as, though we obviously disagree on this matter, you at least cited a source here to support your position. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 15:42, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

University press publications often contain the opinions of one person. That must be taken into account, particularly in a highly contentious, politically fraught area. I was responding to your post stating: I see basically no chance that they will find it was genocide, as the threshold is very high. Now you might think about whether that might suggest editor bias. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:43, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Can we stop talking about editor bias on all sides??? Entirely useless and going into abf. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 15:48, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Fine with me. If not involved, I'd hat the posts starting with the accusation of attempting to exclude opposing viewpoints for political reasons. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:04, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

No, please do not hat this discussion. That was a legitimate comment, even if I could have worded it better. Bias is a legitimate topic of discussion. It exists. It especially exists in Israel/Palestine discourse. That's true in popular culture, in the media, in academia, in sources, and among Wikipedia editors. All of us have biases. Assuming good faith does not mean assuming bias does not exist. It is a very difficult topic to talk about, but it should and must taken into consideration. My comment fundamentally was that excluding a source because of the political views of the author is not correct, and I backed it up with a Wikipedia guideline. Rather than silence this discussion, let's move it into the realm of the abstract, and talk about how we can identify and correct potential biases in the article. Slava570 (talk) 16:37, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Start an rfc with new arguments or news sources, otherwise consensus is clear User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 16:24, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Request to add sourced facts

The title page says the alleged genocide in Gaza is supported by experts and countries but fails to give the very supported counterpoint that the Gaza genocide was reviewed by the highest experts and the highest international experts stated the opposite.

We need to add some information to give some neutrality to the page gaza genocide denial, because currently a POV should be added.

Here is what should be added :

Accusations of a genocide in Gaza have been denied by experts and the highest legal international bodies. The chief prosecutor of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) refused to lay genocide charges on Israel and affirmed there was no evidence of a genocide in Gaza . The International Criminal Court has refused to conclude the Gaza genocide was plausible Patrick.N.L (talk) 16:07, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

The Nash Niva article is based upon a telegram message by BILD на русском who is not a reliable source. As for the second soucrce, see WP:WASHINGTONTIMES. We cannot use this as a source for a CTOP. The BBC article is two years old and it does not indocate a "refusal" by the ICJ. The actions of the ICJ before and after the BBC article are correctly laid out and referenced in our article. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:34, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

References

Removing external link to BESA study

Hello. I tried to remove the external link to the BESA study as it is not neutral or academic. @Slava570 reverted my change and asked me to come to the talk page, so here I am. The study by BESA is not a peer-reviewed academic journal article. The broader scholarly consensus runs strongly counter to the report's conclusions. The study by BESA also does not discuss intent, which is a key factor in determining genocide. Does anyone object to removing this external link from this article? Thank you.--TitCrisse (t•c) 17:38, 6 June 2026 (UTC).

I dislike anything originating from a think tank, particularly in a CTOP, as they are usually advocacy groups. Which is to say I agree with removal. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:53, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

The study is by two military historians, an independent scholar, and a legal expert. I agree that intent is key, and so do the authors. The word "intent" or "intentional" comes up 52 times in the study, and the word "deliberate" comes up 63 times. Unlike the article, and your own interpretation of scholarly consensus, the question of whether there was a genocide in Gaza is highly contested. If we delete any instance of opposing opinions, then of course it's going to look like there's consensus. But that would be misleading and not a true reflection of the range of opinions. Slava570 (talk) 18:01, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

And here is a press release with more info about the study It was done in collaboration with the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, and looks to have used the highest academic standards. The authors are also calling for greater evidentiary standards, and: The authors introduce the term “humanitarian bias” to describe a tendency among aid organizations to accept alarming claims from stakeholders in order to mobilize urgent action. In this context, factual corrections are often met with hostility or ignored altogether—undermining accuracy in humanitarian reporting. Even when myths are disproven, corrections are rarely incorporated into public or academic understanding. This is an important study and speaks to possible errors in other studies. Slava570 (talk) 18:15, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

One last thing for now, according to this media report about the study , it was published by "Bar-Ilan University’s Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies." Not only should it not be deleted, but info from this study should be added to the article. Slava570 (talk) 18:22, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Hello Slava570. Respectfully, there is consensus by the international community and scholarly experts that a genocide happened and is on going in Gaza. The article lists those sources well.
The issue I have is that BESA is a conservative, Zionist, think tank and the study's authors are Zionists. Furthermore, it's disingenuous. A party with a direct stake in the outcome is funding research that exonerates itself. Similar parallels exist with Selling Apartheid, Tobacco Institute, & Purdue Pharma. Regards,--TitCrisse (t•c) 18:26, 6 June 2026 (UTC).

The group calls itself non-partisan, but is described in their Wikipeda article as "right leaning." However, that's not a legitimate reason for excluding a source. WP:BIASED. Zionist sources are legitimate, but suppressing them is not legitimate. Slava570 (talk) 18:32, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Well, it could then also be classified as a primary source since it represents Israel's point of view. Again, it is not a peer-reviewed academic journal article.--TitCrisse (t•c) 18:42, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

That's not how primary sources are defined. Also, there isn't a single "Israeli point of view." That shows black and white thinking. The authors are legitimate scholars and experts in relevant fields, and according to the same press release above Special emphasis was placed on cross-referencing Israeli, Palestinian, and international sources, while actively avoiding ideological bias and preconceived assumptions. Slava570 (talk) 19:00, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi Slava570. You mentioned WP:BIASED above, it states "When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering". The BESA "study" is not independent from the topic it is covering. It should therefore be removed from this article. Thank you, TitCrisse (t•c) 19:12, 6 June 2026 (UTC).

Well, obviously they would say such. But:

"The Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies seeks to advance a realistic, conservative and Zionist agenda in the search for security and peace for Israel.  Over the years, BESA has been the first to successfully place on the public agenda issues such as the problematic aspects of Palestinian Statehood, the danger of Arab chemical and biological weapons and missile stocks, Israel’s relations with key countries such as Turkey and India, and the abuse of international institutions in the attempt to delegitimize Israel. Today, BESA leads an attempt to introduce creative thinking about alternatives to the entrenched two-state paradigm in the Israeli-Palestinian peace diplomacy, and an initiative to nourish U.S.-Israeli relations."

The fact that they have an agenda, are against Palestinian Statehood (a two-state solution) don't include peace for Palestinian territories, indicates they do not express an view independent of state policy. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:20, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

"Agenda" is just a negative sounding way to say opinion. Other sources have the opposite opinion/agenda (antizionism) which incldues being against Israeli statehood. That is not fundamentally why we should include or exclude a source. As I'm looking into it more, it's a 300 page report that looks very thorough and rigorous. The group is part of Bar-Ilan University, and it was co-published with the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. The authors are legitimate scholars and experts.

Regardless, it's in the external links section, and as Bluethricecreamman pointed out, there are different guidelines for External links. See here WP:EL Sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources. I'd like to see what other people say here, but if there's still confusion, I'd like to take this to the reliable sources noticeboard to find out if it can be used in the article (maybe with attribution) or only in the external links section. What do others think? Slava570 (talk) 20:11, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Again, I don't want to see sources with an agenda on any side. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:26, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

'Agenda' is just a negative sounding way to say opinion. No, opinion is passive. Agenda is active. They are actively pushing against a two-state solution. That is Israeli statehood and no Palestinian state. O3000, Ret. (talk) 10:35, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Zionism, Israeli nationality and conservativism are not valid arguments for removing a citation or link. We rightly cite and link anti-Zionist, Palestinian and liberal sources, among others. BobFromBrockley (talk) 03:47, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Just a thought-experiment: would we ever agree to include pro-Nazism site which denies the Holocaust in the EL section of the Holocaust, during WW2 and no tribunal has taken place yet. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 04:32, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

If we delete any instance of opposing opinions.... Again, please stop suggesting that there is any such effort. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:59, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Per WP:EL links that may not be otherwise suitable as refs are allowed to be added as external links. I dont think they necessarily need to meet same reqs as citations tho im not knowledgeable about this.

slava is reverting back towards status quo i think right? User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 18:12, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

It has been in the external links section since 19 October 2025. There's no problem having it there in my opinion. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 20:49, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

It repeats known misinformation and talks about Israelis as if they weren't Israelis themselves! However I've no objection to people seeing what Israel produces. NadVolum (talk) 12:17, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

The nationality of the authors of a study is not a relevant factor in determining its quality. Israelis can be perfectly good scholars, just like any other nationality. Can you give an example of the misinformation it allegedly repeats? Slava570 (talk) 12:44, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Misinformation is indeed a good reason to remove, but that needs to be shown not asserted. Being Israeli is not a good reason to remove or include. BobFromBrockley (talk) 03:49, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Well for instance see pages 122 to 124 where two charts from an article by Professor Abraham Wyner described in Misinformation in the Gaza war#Gaza Health Ministry casualty reports. To show how balanced they are they argue against a critical article from an undergrad newspaper. If you look at the current poll statistics BESA is pretty representative of three quarters of the population of Israel as far as Gaza is concerned so I am still in favor of keeping the link. NadVolum (talk) 19:56, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

I agree that nationality is not the issue. I do not believe anyone is saying Israeli scholars cannot be reliable. The issue is whether this particular non-peer-reviewed BESA report, from an institution close to Israeli security-policy advocacy, should be singled out as an external link when its core factual claims are directly disputed by stronger independent and peer-reviewed sources.

On starvation and aid sufficiency, the report says on p. 8 that Claims of starvation prior to March 2, 2025, were based on erroneous data, that the claims rested on three empirically false assumptions, and that a maximum of 82 food trucks were needed daily. It also says Israel provided a food supply sufficient to meet the caloric needs of the entire population up to the January 2025 ceasefire. That is not a neutral summary of the evidence. HRW found in December 2023 that Israel was using starvation as a method of warfare. UN experts said Israel was destroying Gaza's food system and using food as a weapon. Reuters later reported that the IPC had formally confirmed famine in Gaza City and surrounding areas. Even if editors disagree on intent, the report's factual minimization of starvation is not in line with the weight of high-quality sourcing.

On aid theft and GHF, the report says on pp. 8-9 that there was systematic looting and profiteering of aid by Hamas. It describes GHF-style distribution as not only a militarily legitimate practice but a humanitarian necessity. But Reuters reported that an internal USAID analysis of 156 aid-loss incidents found no reports alleging Hamas benefited from U.S.-funded supplies, and that Israel had not made public proof of systematic theft. Reports by Reuters, The Washington Post, AP, and The Guardian also undermine the report's presentation of the GHF model as a humanitarian corrective.

On casualty data, the report says on p. 20 that Gaza Health Ministry figures were repeatedly manipulated to inflate the proportion of women and children among the dead and that the 70% women-and-children claim has been debunked. On pp. 118-119 it then offers an alternative (though speculative) model involving around 6,400 natural and rocket-misfire-caused deaths inserted into the lists, along with the exclusion of a similar number of combat-aged male deaths. Reuters' coverage of the peer-reviewed Lancet capture-recapture study points the other way. It reported that the official death toll likely undercounted traumatic-injury deaths by about 40%, and that 59.1% of casualties were women, children, and elderly people. The UN Human Rights Office found that nearly 70% of verified deaths in its analysis were women and children. Other high-quality reports and expert analyses say the same, including Le Monde on the reliability of Gaza Health Ministry figures, Michael Spagat's AOAV analysis, Matthew Ghobrial Cockerill's AOAV analysis, Reuters on the WHO's confidence in the figures, and Le Monde on Spagat et al.'s later Lancet Global Health field survey. So BESA's speculative model is not just one more uncontested correction. It is a minority challenge to a much stronger body of source-quality evidence.

On indiscriminate bombing, the report says on p. 101 that the ratio between munitions and reported fatalities points to a consistent pattern of precision targeting and operational restraint, and that IDF measures showed a remarkable overall adherence to the legal thresholds of incidental harm. That is contradicted by investigations such as HRW's report on the Engineer's Building strike, where 106 civilians, including 54 children, were killed and HRW found no evidence of a military target in the vicinity. Amnesty found further Israeli attacks causing mass civilian casualties that should be investigated as war crimes. Reuters reported that the UN Human Rights Office found Israel may have systematically violated the principles of distinction, proportionality, and precautions.

The report's claim of precision targeting and operational restraint is also contradicted by Israeli and Israeli-Palestinian reporting based on Israeli military sources themselves. +972/Local Call's "mass assassination factory" investigation reported, based on current and former Israeli intelligence and air force personnel, that the army expanded bombing of non-military power targets. It also reported that expected civilian deaths were calculated in advance and that strikes on civilian society were used to create pressure on Hamas. +972/Local Call's "Lavender" investigation reported, based on six Israeli intelligence officers, that the army used an AI targeting system with little human oversight and a permissive casualty policy. +972/Local Call's soldier-testimony investigation reported that six Israeli soldiers described being authorized to open fire on Palestinians virtually at will, including civilians. Haaretz reported that Israel created Gaza kill zones where anyone crossing an invisible line was shot. Reuters reported on Haaretz's GHF investigation that Israeli soldiers said they were told to fire at crowds of Palestinians near aid sites to keep them back. The report said this involved unnecessary lethal force against people who appeared to pose no threat. The Guardian, +972, and Local Call also reported that classified Israeli military intelligence data indicated an 83% civilian death rate in Gaza.

So this is not about excluding Israeli scholars. It is about whether a non-peer-reviewed think-tank report, making broad claims contradicted by stronger independent and peer-reviewed sources, should be singled out as an external link in a contentious article. I do not think it should be. Lf8u2 (talk) 03:18, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your detailed explanation and removing the external link. Much appreciated--TitCrisse (t•c) 10:33, 13 June 2026 (UTC).

The 'selective' Israeli report that sows doubt about the genocide in Gaza, published by NRC, including analysis from assistant professor of international history & genocide scholar, Dr Iva Vukusic & famine expert, professor Alex de Waal, who stated the report's section on famine “contains many incorrect claims”. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 20:02, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

• I'm not that strongly opposed to BESA remaining as an External Link, but I do have a question. As BESA was previously removed due to the report's notability chiefly coming from the criticism it received, is it appropriate to retain the link, but now without any of the previous qualifications? Basically, I'm unsure what value this link serves if it was deemed too low-quality for actual inclusion before. If other editors here see no issue though, I'd feel no compulsion to further pursue the matter. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 00:40, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

I concur with TitCrisse and others that removal is warranted. The institution's own mission statement states that it does policy-relevant research on the national security and foreign policy of Israel directed to the Israeli defense and foreign affairs establishments. The report itself is not a peer reviewed think-tank publication. It was also previously rejected for article use because it did not pass reliable sourcing requirement and due weight. Zalaraz (talk) 19:24, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

I will remove it now as there is general consensus for removal and per WP:ELBURDEN. This is now a disputed external link, and external links are treated differently from ordinary disputed article text. WP:CONSENSUS states: External links. In disputes over external links, disputed links are removed unless and until there is a consensus to include them.

WP:ELBURDEN says the same: Disputed links should be excluded by default unless and until there is a consensus to include them. It also says: Every link provided must be justifiable in the opinion of the editors for an article. And WP:ONUS states: The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on editors seeking to include disputed content. WP:ELPOV is also directly relevant: On articles with multiple points of view, avoid providing links too great in number or weighted to one point of view, or that give undue weight to minority views.

I support removal as there are serious source-quality concerns, and I believe it fails WP:RS, WP:V and WP:DUE. Aside from the serious content-issues I detailed here, BESA's own mission statement describes its work as policy-relevant research on the national security and foreign policy of Israel. It says its work is directed to the senior Israeli decision-making level, the Israeli defense and foreign affairs establishments, and the wider foreign-policy and security-policy public. The same university’s AFBIU describes the Center as advancing a realistic, conservative and Zionist agenda. This report is about whether Israel committed genocide. That raises obvious independence and reliability problems.

The report is also a non-peer-reviewed think-tank report, not a peer-reviewed genocide-studies article or independent legal determination. It is framed as Debunking genocide allegations, while also saying its purpose is not to engage in legal or ethical discourse. Its contents devote major sections to discrediting UN agencies, human rights organizations, humanitarian reporting, Gaza Health Ministry figures, Lee Mordechai's database, and other sources used by the article, all which are backed by reliability sourcing, while giving uncritical and undue weight to COGAT/IDF claims and its own non-vetted speculative casualty model.

There is also a timeliness problem. The report's stated scope ends on 1 June 2025. Major later sources, including the IPC famine determination, Israeli human rights reports, the IAGS resolution, and the UN Commission of Inquiry report, post-date that cutoff.

If editors think this report has encyclopedic significance, the correct route is to propose attributed text supported by independent reliable secondary coverage explaining its reception and weight. As @Butterscotch Beluga noted, this was already attempted and failed. Adding it as an external link risks circumventing WP:V and WP:DUE. It should remain removed unless consensus forms to include it. Lf8u2 (talk) 03:41, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

• Consider having it as an EL at Gaza genocide denial, not here, or even giving it some coverage there. Reasons:
  • 1. First, the publisher of the report is not WP:INDEPENDENT of the IDF – the very organization that carried out the Gaza genocide. BESA's director, Eitan Shamir, was a researcher at the "IDF Headquarters", and lead a department at Prime Minister's Office (Israel) (PMO is also instrumental in the Gaza genocide, and its current holder is wanted by ICC for war crimes). In fact, when Le Monde quotes this very report, it is quick to note BESA's "close ties to the [Israeli] military" Other senior BESA employees have held senior ranks in the IDF, and BESA currently has a partnership with "IDF's own" National Security College (Israel).
  • 2. IMO, WP:NPOV requires that we explain all sides in WP:DUE proportion. Just as we should explain Hamas' views on the October 7 attacks, we should explain Israel's views on the Gaza genocide.
  • 3. Probably the best place to expand in detail on Israel's views is at Gaza genocide denial (but some mention should also be made here). That article is unfortunately named, as it makes Gaza genocide deniers seem like Holocaust deniers. I would support moving Gaza genocide denial -> Controversies about the Gaza genocide and Denial of the October 7 attacks -> Controversies about the October 7 attacks.

VR 19:27, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

It's called denial because that's the wording that the sources use, not controversy. (t · c) buIdhe 03:23, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Npov does not say all sides. It says neutral.

wp:falsebalance says that not all the sides deserve equal coverage. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 03:41, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Npov does not say all sides.

Yes it does: Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources. (emphasis in original) SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 19:37, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

• Remove: per WP:HOST; Wikipedia is not a web host for material that's otherwise not suitable. If the article were peer reviewed it would be used in the article as a source; since it's not, there's no point in including it. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:41, 9 June 2026 (UTC)
• I think when we discussed this extensively before (in autumn 2025?) I argued that a brief mention in the body was appropriate as it has been heavily cited in secondary sources, both positively and critically. That thread is so complicated I don’t know how we concluded what consensus was - I’m guessing no consensus either way so revert to status quo before it was mentioned. However, I don’t think it belongs in the external links, as it fits none of the ELYES criteria. I also don’t think the UN video fits the ELYES criteria either. BobFromBrockley (talk) 04:08, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

@TitCrisse i definitely did not say keep. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 18:30, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

@TitCrisse: Please do not make pre-close summaries. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 19:33, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Remove – The BESA report is already included in Academic and legal responses to the Gaza genocide where it is appropriately contextualized, including the authors' lack of expertise, links to the IDF, and inaccurate claims. Of all the sources included in that page and not this one, I see no reason why only this particular report should be included in external links. Giving this report undue weight in external links fails WP:ELPOV. Given the issues with the BESA report, it also falls under point 2 of WP:ELNO. EvansHallBear (talk) 18:19, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Remove yeah makes sense. Evans reasoning seems correcf. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 18:29, 9 June 2026 (UTC)