Talk:Gaza genocide/Archive 32

This is an archive of past discussions about Gaza genocide. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 25

←

Archive 30

Israel's denial of genocide in lede

Latest comment: 7 months ago35 comments16 people in discussion

This edit by @Cinaroot mostly tossed a change for which there was clear consensus, or at least no opposition (with a tweak to implementation made, with an explanation, by @CommunityNotesContributor). Cinaroot's explanation was this does not need to be in first para. refactoring. BOLD edit. I'm reverting this BOLD edit a la BRD (including moving scholarly consensus sentence to the other paragraph so the paragraph isn't an isolated "Israel says this") Placeholderer (talk) 11:04, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Also, this edit, undoing a change which came out of this mini-discussion. I guess I'll put it up for discussion under this section too cause separate sections would be weird, but not undoing it immediately Placeholderer (talk) 11:37, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Agree that the reorg by Cdjp1 per that discussion was an improvement. It's documenting the how & why the topic exists, so is pertinent to the opening paragraph per "supplying the set of circumstances or facts that surround it". I'm aware that we shouldn't be attributing facts as opinions, but ultimately it is the due context for notability of the subject, as much if not more so than the genocidal acts themselves imo which are part of "establish the boundaries of the topic", thus should therefore come later. I also realise you could apply this argument the other way round, but I think given the current state of the average readers opinion, it's more helpful providing the explanation as to why it's a genocide before the details of it, simply because it's likely more useful to maintain the readers interest per "define or identify the topic". For example in 10 years time, if there were convictions and so fourth, this info would likely be less relevant earlier on if that makes sense? Pinging Cinaroot who reverted that change per referenced edit. CNC (talk) 13:58, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

To elbaroate on my edit, that appears to have stuck for now as the best fit for now, it's because Israel's denial is due in the MOS:OPEN per providing context for topic notability. I don't see the rejection from other countries, those that supports Israel militarily, as being due for inclusion (their denial is to be expected). That said, we do have a very limited summary of the section "Responsibility of third states and other entities" in the lead overall, so that could be expanded in the 4th paragraph alongside ICJ summary, ie a brief summary on UK, US, Europe, Egypt, and Italy, which all have sections in this article. In my opinion either that content isn't due in a higher level summary article and should be split off and summarised here, or it should be summarised into the lead per WP:SUMMARY. CNC (talk) 13:40, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

The Israeli government maintains that its military actions...

Israel and its supporters deny that its actions constitute genocide...

Stating that Israel denies committing genocide in the first paragraph is unnecessary and premature—such denial is self-evident and not what readers are immediately seeking. This line belongs after the ICJ case discussion, where Israel’s response is presented in context. Positioning it there maintains a logical and chronological flow: first describing the acts, then the resulting ICJ proceedings, and finally Israel’s justification and denial. This structure preserves neutrality and clarity, presenting the genocide, adjudication, and rebuttal in a balanced sequence while avoiding disruption of the earlier factual and legal narrative. Cinaroot (talk) 14:53, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

I figure it would help to lay out some principles that are guiding my responses on this page. Firstly, I don't think it's undue to include a statement that Israel and its supporters (or some of its supporters) deny the genocide. I agree that this raises WP:MRDA, but I think the hysterical tenor of Israel's genocide denial is definitely relevant to understanding the genocide and surrounding discourse.

Building on this principle, I think it would be totally undue to discuss the specific reasons for their genocide denial (as in this diff): these claims are discussed in points (2), (4), (7) and (8) of the genocide denial article and we don't need to get into them in the lead of this article.

Principle 3: I think it's important to distinguish legitimate academic disagreement from outright genocide denial. Disagreement about the type of evidence that can be considered to determine mens rea is disagreement; falsely claiming that Israel attempts to avoid civilian casualties is just genocide denial. So, I think a single clause in one sentence at the end of the lead noting that there continues to be a bit of scholarly dissent is not undue. But it would absolutely be undue to get into Israel's argument that it was responding to October 7 or trying to free the hostages (see points 2, 7, and 8 of the genocide denial article). WillowCity^(talk) 16:15, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

To clarify, do you think the given reason for denial is inappropriate for just the opening paragraph or for the whole introduction? Placeholderer (talk) 16:22, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Concrete Proposals

I think this discussion would benefit from A/B/C voting format since this is quickly becoming verbose. I've done my best to create voting options based on existing points made. Feel free to edit options within reason if you disagree with my interpretation of points made so far.

Issue (1): Extent to which Israel's denial of genocide should be included in first paragraph

Option (1A): Israel and others deny the genocide should be in first paragraph

(You should specify which "others" to include if you vote for this option, e.g., the US, Israel's supporters, some academics, etc)

Option (1B): Israel denies genocide should be in first paragraph

Option (1C): No mention of denial of genocide should be in first paragraph

Issue (2): Extent to which genocide denial arguments should be included in first paragraph

Option (2A): Israel maintains it's responding to October 7th should be in first paragraph

Option (2B): Another genocide denial argument should be in first paragraph (specify if voted for)

Option (2C): No mention of genocide denial arguments should be in first paragraph

Issue (3): "Consensus there is genocide" claim in first paragraph

There is a parallel discussion on this issue here. Let's quickly close up discussion there to keep things organized.

Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 16:35, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Support (1B): Seems WP:DUE per MOS:SUMMARY but (1A) does not. Updated to Support (1C) based on buidhe's reasoning. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 17:17, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Support (2C): Don't feel like genocide denial arguments are WP:DUE per MOS:SUMMARY in the first paragraph given scholarly consensus these arguments are invalid in the RfC.

Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 16:39, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

I thought the RfC only determined the wording of the first sentence. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 16:52, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

The reasoning for the first sentence was in that the RfC found there was a scholarly consensus Placeholderer (talk) 16:56, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

+1 Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 17:14, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Support 1B If non-Israel national positions are to be included in the intro, whether supporting or rejecting the genocide label, that probably shouldn't be in the first paragraph. Including country supporters of Israel in the first paragraph without country "opponents" of Israel would be imbalanced.

Support 2C But I think it should be elsewhere in the introduction (i.e the last paragraph) Placeholderer (talk) 16:52, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Support 1C/2C. Fits perfectly fine in other paragraphs, governmental opinions are not WP:DUE in first paragraph. I haven't seen any other articles on genocide that mention particular government positions in the first paragraph, not even for events that aren't considered genocide in wikivoice. Katzrockso (talk) 22:45, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

1A and 2A. The fact that the US and UK and others say that there is no genocide needs to appear prominantly. Nehushtani (talk) 07:25, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Weak support for 1A and 2C, but should read along the lines of "Israel and a number of other states deny that a genocide is occurring." LegalSmeagolian (talk) 02:22, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Support Option 1A and 2C - There should be due weight in the lead so it would be appropriate to also state "numerous genocide studies and international law scholars, and other experts"(I don't think any major human rights groups have stated there isn't a genocide) and cite them in the same way as the line before. I don't like how the current genocide recognition is structured(I think it should be shortened and opinions included in a note) but this probably isn't the right place to litigate that. I don't think nation states should be mentioned other than Israel but if they are those that take the stance that there is a genocide should also be mentioned. I feel like mentioning genocide denial arguments would be undue and add extra bloat to the lead paragraph. There also aren't arguments in favour of it in the paragraph either, which I think would have to be included for balance if it were to be included. Originalcola (talk) 11:15, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Strong support for 1C & 2C. Per @Buidhe. This article is about the genocide, not denialism. Ahammed Saad (talk) 17:27, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Support 1C/2C the article is about what's happening in Gaza, not about what people (and governments) are saying about it. (t · c) buidhe 17:13, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
Under your argument, the article shouldn't use the word "genocide" at all as that falls under "what people are saying about it". That version of the article would just describe the events (X people have been killed, etc.) without any mention of scholarly, legal, or governmental opinions. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 17:58, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
Support 1A (status quo), meets DUE. Support 2C (status quo), not due per Buidhe. Oppose 3, there is already a lengthy discussion above on this which shouldn't be relitigated here per WP:MULTI Kowal2701 (talk) 17:30, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
Weak support for 1A (status quo) if this would definitively resolve the NPOV dispute. No real preference, though, and Support 1C, as I am advised that my position is not a viable compromise, and due to my view that any reference to denial would be undue without a link to the denial article. Support 2C, and would go further to oppose mention of specific denial arguments in the lead. Defer to the outcome of the above discussion for Issue (3). EDITED to change my position. WillowCity^(talk) 22:17, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
Support 1A: this is basically what I did in Special:Diff/1321025448 and satisfies giving appropriate due weight to the significant minority (and I would prefer mentions of specific countries as in that edit). I think linking the article Gaza genocide recognition instead of Gaza genocide denial in the lead better meets NPOV. Support 2C: giving a specific denial reason is likely not necessary in the first paragraph, since Mandy Rice-Davies applies. However, I still think the denial should be included; like Placeholderer said, it should be elsewhere in the lead. Defer for issue three due to the duplicate discussions. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 22:29, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
I also think the sentence explaining the scholarly consensus and the statement of the opposing views should come before the description of Israel's actions. If we can't directly attribute the statement of genocidal intent in the same sentence due to the RfC, we can at least put it as close as possible to the wikivoice statement, which is a form of attribution that probably flows better than direct attribution (beginning the article with "According to..." doesn't seem very intuitive now that I think about it). SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 22:37, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
Support 1C/2C - however i support mentioning below statement in first para

There is scholarly consensus on the genocide assessment, with few notable dissenting voices.

Above has has a more disinterested and encyclopedic tone. Cinaroot (talk) 23:11, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Support 1C/2C based on Buidhe's arguments above, but I think that it should be mentioned that the government of Israel and some other countries, along with a small minority of experts, oppose the genocide description, just not in the first paragraph. However, it should be mentioned somewhere near the beginning of the page. David A (talk) 06:54, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
Support 1C/2C per Buidhe and WillowCity 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 17:22, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Discussion

SuperPianoMan9167, Regarding your proposal above, would that be something along these lines?

[EDIT: moved to a discussion section to keep things tidy]. WillowCity^(talk) 22:41, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes, see Special:PermaLink/1321026380. My only comment is that the sentences could be condensed a little bit more, but that's otherwise what I was going for. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 22:46, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

I believe all information about recognition of/denial should be removed from the first paragraph and put into a separate paragraph, perhaps closer to the end of the lead (where there already is discussion of this), and weighted there. The first paragraph should describe the genocide itself. Overall the lead places undue weight on discussions of consensus, when the genocidal acts should be discussed more, as this is what significantly more of the body covers. WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY.Katzrockso (talk) 23:13, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

I see the point, but there still needs to be some indication of the scholarly consensus and the minority opposing opinions in the first paragraph so that the reader does not assume Wikipedia has directly made the determination of genocide.

Would putting a footnote that states the consensus in the first paragraph work? How about something like A majority of expert opinions and scholarly analyses have concluded Israel's actions constitute genocide. This is disputed by Israel and several other countries. inside an {{efn}} at the end of the first sentence? SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 23:52, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

No, we're not going to give UNDUE weight to the views of the "I don't like it" minority, much less some cherry picked countries. M.Bitton (talk) 03:03, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

A footnote doesn't make sense, and "other countries" shouldn't be cited in the opening paragraph if countries supporting the designation aren't, but given the salience in real life of the denial—which there isn't with e.g the Armenian genocide—the briefest possible statement of fact (Israel denies that its actions constitute genocide) ~~is clearly~~ could be appropriate in detailing the context in which the topic is being considered by supplying the set of circumstances or facts that surround it Placeholderer (talk) 11:37, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

You know what, I've been looking around at other introductions, and I think inclusion of denial the first paragraph isn't clear. Denials aren't the context in which the topic is being considered in this article. But mentioning elsewhere in the lead does make sense along the mentioned lines Placeholderer (talk) 12:16, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Re: Historian Taner Akçam

Latest comment: 6 months ago3 comments3 people in discussion

In the Denial section, someone cited Turkish historian Taner Akçam. Why is this individual's opinion cited here to the exclusion of other individuals? I tried to include other voices in this section and someone undid my additions. When I restored them, I was accused of edit warring. Can we get a consensus on why Taner Akçam was restored but other individual opinions were not? Queens Historian (talk) 13:32, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Might be helpful to share diffs so editors can see exactly what was added / removed Rainsage (talk) 17:10, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

I believe they are referring to this sentence they removed, a change later reverted by @EvansHallBear.

However, I'll note that this sentence is unrelated to the edit war in question, as that content is being discussed above at "Israeli position". Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 17:44, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Palestinians from Gaza to South Africa, "Al-Majd Europe"

Latest comment: 6 months ago3 comments3 people in discussion

153 Palestinians out of the Gaza Strip on a plane arrived in South Africa, run by "Al-Majd Europe"

initially refused entry, 23 went elsewhere, 130 entered, further flights banned

search: Israel flights of Gazans to South Africa

is this the best place for this?

https://apnews.com/article/palestinians-israel-gaza-refugee-asyslum-south-africa-7d5dcbacae38e3564f77e0576a9eaaa1

https://www.dw.com/en/south-africa-holds-150-palestinians-on-plane-for-12-hours/a-74743754

https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2025-11-14/south-africa-investigates-mystery-of-plane-that-arrived-with-more-than-150-palestinians-from-gaza

https://www.france24.com/en/middle-east/20251115-israel-army-gazans-palestinian-refugees-south-africa-mystery-plane-granted-entry-ramaphosa

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cp3dgkx419qo

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/17/world/africa/gaza-palestinians-south-africa-flights.html

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/gazans-say-they-paid-2000-per-seat-flight-south-africa-2025-11-17/

Piñanana (talk) 10:57, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Palestinian refugees would be a better place than here. This article doesn't really discuss refugees much, and there are still unknowns about the details in which they were deported so it's not entirely clear if it is directly related to the content of this article. Originalcola (talk) 22:27, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

I agree with this advice from cola, if it meets WP:NEVENT then an article may also be created. Additionally, you can also add the information to Palestine–South Africa relations specifically the "Gaza war (2023-present)" subsection. User:Easternsahara_{review this} 16:49, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Israeli position

Latest comment: 6 months ago20 comments9 people in discussion

The Russian language page on Gaza Genocide has a section on the Israeli government's position, so why can't the English language page also have it? Without the Israeli government's position, it would be one-sided article. Queens Historian (talk) 19:45, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

I agree that the article is extremely lopsided. It contains several long sections about governments, organizations and individuals that accuse Israel of committing genocide, or accuse other countries of being complicit in it, but merely two or three short paragraphs about opposing views. We need to fix that. The article misrepresents the global perspective on the issue. — Chrisahn (talk) 20:18, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

other language encyclopedias have no bearing on en.wiki. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 20:33, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

As I hadn't realized that you started a separate conversation here from the one you started on my talk page, I'll repost my reply to you for the sake of centralizing the discussion.

The Israeli government's position is already covered throughout the article & should continue to be written that way. It both reads better to have data & accusations followed by dissenting perspectives & is a more fair way of presenting the Israeli government's position. Their counterarguments are properly contextualized in relevant sections, rather then being excised into an entirely separate section.

The section you added also had massive issues including, MOS:EDITORIAL (terms like "insists" & "treacherously attacked" as well as stating that Hamas "does not recognize Israel's right to exist", a vague phrase with several possible interpretations), MOS:TERRORIST, & unsourced statements or statements exclusively cited to primary sources. How other languages cover this topic is irrelevant as each project has their own distinct rules. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 20:39, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Why do you think that because Russian Wikipedia has it, then English Wikipedia should too? You haven't cited any policy. How would you respond if someone on that article's talk page says the section on the Israeli government's position should be deleted because English Wikipedia doesn't have it? JasonMacker (talk) 21:45, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Other language editions have serious NPOV problems. No need to mimic them. English wiki is better written than other languages. Cinaroot (talk) 03:43, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

That made me laugh. Many articles in the English Wikipedia also have serious NPOV issues, including this one. — Chrisahn (talk) 03:48, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Npov issues will be there everywhere. But the Russian article is not well written. Make the case by comparing it to other genocide articles in English. Not Russian. Cinaroot (talk) 04:13, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

I don't speak Russian, but I know that this English article has serious NPOV issues, and many other articles in the English Wikipedia are also not as neutral as they should be. It's not as bad as idiots like Elon Musk proclaim, but it's an issue we should acknowledge. — Chrisahn (talk) 04:33, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

I had a quick look at the Russian article (using automated translation) and didn't see any obvious issues. The lead looks OK. There's a section about Israel's position (roughly 10% of the article), and a section about criticism of the genocide accusations (roughly another 20%). The rest describes the accusations. Seems like a reasonable ratio. More balanced than this article. But I only had a quick look, it's quite possible that I missed instances of bias. — Chrisahn (talk) 05:23, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

This is a good idea. Based on my experience of trying to introduce a two-sentence item about the 2025 BESA report to this article, editors are going to add three critical perspectives to every claim made, and finally delete the whole section as Shit public relations bumph or similar. But it's still a good idea. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 14:34, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

That will of course depend on the source material used for the topic. If, as was the case with your earlier proposal, the source material is shit public relations bumph, I agree that one would naturally infer that reaction to the proposal will be of a similar tenor. Cambial — foliar❧ 15:57, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Except that it wasn't, that was just your hostile interpretation of it. It didn't have more or worse problems than a couple of dozen other cited sources here. You wouldn't know this, because by your own admission you didn't read the rest of the article. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 17:25, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Nope, haven't read it, nor is it incumbent on me to do so. If you believe other sources that are used in the article have been criticised by scholars to the same extent as Begin-Sadat centre's badly-researched, lying, offensive shit, start a thread about them. Cambial — foliar❧ 18:25, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

At any rate, @Queens Historian, you see what you'd be up against. The editors who WP:OWN this page assume that Israel's perspective is inherently WP:UNDUE and WP:MANDY. They're also evidently allowed to violate any policy they like, starting with WP:CIV. But if you wanted to work on it anyway, I'd be glad to help in any way I can. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 22:28, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Please assume good faith of editors and stop this us vs them idealogueing User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 00:21, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Seriously, this is your assessment of what's wrong with the above thread? Tioaeu8943 (talk) 14:30, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

It is not productive to section the article into "Israeli government position", "United Nations position", "Palestinian Authority position", "Amnesty International position" etc. Rather the article should be sectioned thematically like "Bombing", "Starvation and famine" etc. Within those sections we should certainly include the positions of Israel, UN etc in proportion to their WP:DUE weight.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 03:01, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

For comparison: Sexual and gender-based violence in the October 7 attacks has a long "controversies" section largely about people who deny the accusations, and it even has a dedicated section "Hamas response". Of course, each article is different, but given such examples (and there are many more), it's difficult not to get the impression that the English Wikipedia has a bias that leans towards Hamas and against Israel. — Chrisahn (talk) 17:42, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

@Chrisahn I agree that there shouldn't be a section "Hamas response" in that article either and instead it should be folded in "Controversies" and "Evidence" section of that article. If you decide to implement this, kindly open a discussion on the talk page and ping me to it.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 04:52, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

186,000 death toll estimate

Latest comment: 6 months ago13 comments6 people in discussion

Not sure why the 186,000 deaths estimated by Khatib et. al. 2024 keeps being removed from the infobox. I've restored it. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 20:21, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

@IOHANNVSVERVS: Please see the discussion in #Neutrality concerns - Infobox, in particular the subsection "Inclusion of combatant deaths in death toll". SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 21:53, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

I would expect combatant deaths to be included in the death toll, there is no policy based reason to exclude them and multiple sources have noted that destroying the military forces of a targeted group can be part of genocide. (t · c) buidhe 22:14, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Could I ask your assessment of the Khatib et al. source? Is it due for inclusion do you think? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 22:25, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

I think it's fine to use with attribution. (t · c) buidhe 22:30, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes, a search for the term "186,000" above, particularly at Talk:Gaza_genocide#Indirect_deaths_framing would answer your question. But also Khatib et al. 2024 is "Correspondence" to The Lancet and is not reliable as a statement of fact per WP:NEWSOPED. Coining (talk) 21:58, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Khatib et al. 2024 is cited in peer reviewed journal articles such as

I am seeing 272 citations of Khatib et al. 2024 in Google Scholar

We are way past WP:RSEDITORIAL phase. Bogazicili (talk) 22:25, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

I think this shows very well that this is due for inclusion here.

Also @Coining, WP:NEWSOPED states clearly "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (invited op-eds and letters to the editor from notable figures) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author". IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 22:26, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

@IOHANNVSVERVS @SuperPianoMan9167 @Buidhe @Coining @Bogazicili

Keep the discussion in the infobox conversation above, no need to have 2 parallel conversations on the same issue. Originalcola (talk) 22:38, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Agreed with this... I have put my comment above. Thank you. Coining (talk) 23:21, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Please respond to my specific points here @Coining. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 23:47, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Well, @IOHANNVSVERVS, I had previously addressed your points in my above comment in Talk:Gaza_genocide#Indirect_deaths_framing, as @Originalcola requested, but as you less than an hour after this comment started an RfC, I'll assume that your request to Please respond to my specific points here comment was simply rhetorical, as surely I (and everyone else) should now respond in the RfC. Coining (talk) 01:32, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

I started an RfC for this. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 00:27, 26 November 2025 (UTC)