Talk:Gaza genocide/Archive 45

Archive 40

←

Archive 43

Archive 44

Archive 45

Archive 46

Archive 47

→

Archive 50

Lead is too long

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

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

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

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

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

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

because the RfC concluded that it's not an allegation

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

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

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

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

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

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

Looking at the Armenian Genocide, we have the following:

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

How about the following for the Gaza Genocide?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Neither are too long.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The over 700 killed relatives of Palestinian journalists

Given that this topic disappeared without a conclusion earlier, is somebody willing to add the information to this page, if any of the following references are acceptable? David A (talk) 10:24, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

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

I would also ask how the sources are defining a "relative" of a journalist. As Draft:Palestinian families begins, "A Palestinian family is a large community of extended family members ...." If one uses a broad enough definition of a "relative", pretty much everyone is a relative of a journalist. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:41, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

The report claims that the family members are targeted because they are family members so in a way that issue doesn’t matter (but I don’t see how they could evidence that claim in most cases). BobFromBrockley (talk) 07:45, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Al Jazeera's coverage could possibly be used to have a sentence mentioning the report, the rest as previously mentioned aren't great sources. The question is whether the report itself is due. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 09:45, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

This is probably more appropriate and due in the article Killing of journalists in the Gaza war. Additionally do we have a direct link to the report as none of the articles link to it? I would guess it is in Arabic. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 09:50, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

I think that this is it. David A (talk) 09:57, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Talk:Academic and legal responses to the Gaza genocide

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

Bumping this. Page has 34 editors and fewer than 30 watchers. There is a discussion about removing background information about protests at academic institutions and their consequences (surveillance, abductions, funding cuts, adoption of IHRA definition, etc.) for academic production with regard to the Gaza genocide. إيان (talk) 20:46, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

RfC: Wikivoice/NPOV in lead

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

This is a procedural close per the comments below. Editors should partake in the already ongoing discussions rather than opening new RfCs concurrently. (non-admin closure) 11WB (talk) 08:56, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Endorsed by Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:48, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

---

The current wording in the lead of the article violates very clear-cut statements from WP:NPOV, namely that seriously contested assertations should not be presented as facts. That Israel is/was (that is a separate issue) committing genocide in Gaza is a seriously contested assertation due to multiple reliable sources not agreeing.

The previous RfC in September did not establish a very clear consensus; about a third of editors were opposed to the wikivoice with clear arguments. A non-RfC discussion was closed by Hemiauchenia, who stated elsewhere that they would not close a legitimate RfC.

This RfC presents the question: Does the claim that Israel is/was committing genocide fall under seriously contested assertations due to the reliable sources that do not agree?

And if it does, should the lead be changed to present it as an ongoing debate?

VidanaliK (talk to me) 00:25, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

While I admire your boldness, I don't think having three RfCs open on the same talk page simultaneously is a very good idea. See WP:RFC#Multiple simultaneous RfCs on one page. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 00:33, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

As long as they are presenting different problems, I think it's fine; all of those deal with specific article content, this one deals with how statements made interact with Wikipedia policy to provide a more logical discussion about the wikivoice dealing with the term "seriously contested assertations". VidanaliK (talk to me) 00:38, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Speedy procedural close As you well know, this issue has been discussed to death, including in a recent well attended RfC. Please withdraw this before someone else has to close it for you. CamAnders (talk) 02:49, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

speedy procedural close - forcing an RFC and discussion over and over like this is beating a WP:DEADHORSE. WP:DROPTHESTICK, and do the rfcs above. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 03:26, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Proceedural close: this is an unnecessary rehashing of a recent RfC in a contentious area. These broad discussions tend to become large and unruly for everyone involved, wasting significant time in the process. Either wait for some development to occur that could change the outcome or pose a more specific question to keep the discussion limited in scope. IsCat (talk) 03:48, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Oppose per WP:UNDUE. Achmad Rachmani (talk) 04:31, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

The RfC did not produce the result you prefer. Let it go. I also think the result is probably not as close to maximum NPOV compliance as it could be, but the difference is that I don't care. The process is more important. There was a process, the process worked as designed and it produced an output. If the process is producing invalid outputs, change the process. Sean.hoyland (talk) 05:35, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Procedural close: Per Bluethricecreamman and IsCat, I don't have anything further to add that they haven't already said. Blue Sonnet (talk) 07:11, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

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

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

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

"Israelis committed genocide" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Israelis committed genocide has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 February 10 § Israelis committed genocide until a consensus is reached. — An anonymous username, not my real name 22:37, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

About the FAQ

I restored the simplified version of the FAQ because the expanded version is not a neutral summary of the discussion; instead, it attempts to convince the reader that the current position of the article is "correct". The main reason why the article is in its current state is the September RfC. That's it. Attempts to revisit it since then have faced significant opposition.

If people are curious about the arguments in that RfC, they can read the full discussion. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 20:33, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

The previous version of the FAQ was not attempting to justify the RfC outcome, but to explain the reasoning behind it. Your "simplified" version does not actually answer anything and instead requires anyone interested in the process to wade through a large wall of text filled with Wikipedia jargon they may not understand. I prefer @Alalch E.'s version because it is more complete and explains, in plain terms, the logic behind the RfC outcome. Most readers are not going to read the full discussion. Paprikaiser (talk) 22:22, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

I added more to my version in a way that does not take a side in the dispute. How is it now? SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 22:24, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

I don't prefer Alalch E.'s version because it goes beyond explaining the decision to hit the reader over the head with language intended to convince them of the RfC's infallibility. (The RfC can only be considered a firm consensus if you consider the vote count, as demonstrated by the repeated challenges of its outcome.) SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 22:27, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Even going beyond that, Alalch E's version has a lot of unnecessary words; for example, the Wikipedia community decided what Wikipedia should say on the matter of the Gaza genocide in principle, on the basis of Wikipedia policy... can be more concisely stated as Wikipedians decided to state... SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 22:33, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

The decision was not made by fiat, as if editors could have decided anything they felt was right. The decision was made on the basis of policy, which is standard for such RfCs. —Alalch E. 22:59, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

And it is definitely possible to disagree with the policy basis for the decision. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 23:01, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

The decision was made in the RfC on the basis of policy. Saying that a decision was simply "made" can mean a lot of things to people who are the target audience for the FAQ. There being a consensus with a policy basis for the decision made narrows it down significantly, so that the reader of the FAQ can get a comprehensible answer to their "why". —Alalch E. 23:36, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

How's this: Participants cited Wikipedia's policies on false balance and using high-quality sources, both part of the neutrality policy, as well as precedents from other articles, such as the Armenian genocide. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 23:48, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

That's okay. In actuality, I don't want to "polemize" here all that much, since your current version as of special:permalink/1337688266 is acceptable to me. I just want to air that no conscious attempt to use the FAQ to convince was made on my part. —Alalch E. 00:01, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Ok. Understood. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 00:03, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

And it is definitely possible to disagree with the policy basis for the decision.

And while concensus can change, it can't be relitegated endlessly or constantly. Precedent starts to count. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 16:01, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Also, "in principle" is wrong, as the RfC only applies to this article. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 23:34, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

I have come to realize, after reading the messages in this section that that specific phrasing can be interpreted in multiple ways, so I agree that using them is not the best option. The meaning I intended those words to relay corresponds a particular part of the closing statement (also quoted below): The specific wording that should implement this RFC and what surrounds the specified treatment was in fact part of the discussion. I leave it up to future discussion to decide on specific wording beyond what was literally specified in the phrasing of this RFC, because most participants did not address that question. The idea was not that some general principle was derived. —Alalch E. 23:40, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

The version by Alalch E. was simply wrong. "the Wikipedia community decided" – Wrong, just the editors who happened to participate. "what Wikipedia should say on the matter of the Gaza genocide in principle" – Wrong, the RFC was about the first sentence of a single article. "Scholarly sources" – Dubious. Many sources by genocide "scholars" are highly biased, some stuff by the IAGS badly distorts basic facts. — Chrisahn (talk) 22:49, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

You're disputing the close then, because I fairly summarized the close, which includes: The question of whether to describe the genocide as a fact in Wikipedia voice rather than as an attributed characterization does seem to be binary, and does seem to be what editors were weighing in on. The specific wording that should implement this RFC and what surrounds the specified treatment was in fact part of the discussion. I leave it up to future discussion to decide on specific wording beyond what was literally specified in the phrasing of this RFC, because most participants did not address that question.—Alalch E. 22:56, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

No, I'm saying your version misrepresents the RFC and the close. — Chrisahn (talk) 23:01, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

I don't think so, and I find support for that in the quote from the close included above, but I appreciate that you do. —Alalch E. 23:41, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

You wrote above that you realized that "in principle" could easily be misunderstood. Sounds good. If I understand you correctly, you simply meant the fact that the RFC closer left the specific wording open but said that our article should say it's a genocide. I thought "Wikipedia ... in principle" meant that the RFC decided what Wikipedia should say about the matter as a general principle, which of course it didn't. If we remove that unfortunate wording, that's a step in the right direction. But the other two issues I mentioned remain, and there may be others, I'm not sure. — Chrisahn (talk) 23:53, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes, we've cleared up the "in principle" part. I would not want to include that language now. About "the Wikipedia community decided", that is an expression very often used in relation to RfCs. That is how RfCs are conceptualized. See for example Wikipedia:Requests for comment § What an RfC is. Decisions reached in RfCs and formal decision making venues are "community decisions". The intended meaning is not that all active editors of Wikipedia have participated in the decision. I decided to use this language because I believe that it illustrates the nature of the RfC process without using Wikipedia-specific jargon, but it might be that this particular wording is Wikipedia jargon in itself.

About "Scholarly sources": That part of my version of the FAQ is a paraphrase of this part of the close: Participants highly valued the opinions of scholars (especially genocide scholars), human rights organizations, and international panels in establishing the facts. Participants discounted sources allied with the government allegedly carrying out the genocide because they have a strong political or fear-of-prosecution interest which may lead them to make inaccurate claims. This aligns with how sources have been treated for articles on e.g. the Holocaust and the Armenian genocide. The value of whether news organizations use the genocide label for Gaza in their own voices was disputed. —Alalch E. 00:00, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

RfC: "Scholarly consensus there is genocide" Wikivoice in lead

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

---

This RfC has two questions:

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

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

Background

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

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

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

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

Sources

• Over 800 scholars argue "potential" genocide (Oct 2023), Public Statement: Scholars Warn of Potential Genocide in Gaza 2023 (TWAIL Review) (online): On 15 October 2023, over 800 scholars and practitioners of international law, conflict studies and genocide studies signed a public statement warning of the possibility of genocide being perpetrated by Israeli forces against Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.
• 48 scholars report ongoing genocide (Jan 2024), International Expert Statement on Israeli State Crime 2024 (online): Cumulatively the evidence firmly indicates that in a disproportionate response to the Hamas killings of October 7 the Israeli state is employing its extensive and advanced military capacity to inflict violence on Palestinian peoples on such a scale that it is accurate to frame it as the annihilation phase of genocide.
• Genocide scholar reports near consensus (Feb 2024), El-Affendi 2024 (Al Jazeera) (online): Overall, in the forum, there was uneven worry about the health of the field, but near consensus that what Israel is doing in Gaza is certainly "genocidal" if not outright genocide.
• Leading genocide historian reports scholarly consensus (Feb 2024), Gessen 2024 (online): Trachtenberg testified to a consensus opinion among historians of genocide that what is happening in Gaza can indeed be called a genocide, largely because the intent to cause death on a massive scale has been so clear in the statements of Israeli officials
• Legal and human-rights scholar reports expert consensus (Jun 2024), Bouranova 2024 (online): The opposition is political, as there is consensus amongst the international human rights legal community, many other legal and political experts, including many Holocaust scholars, that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza.
• Professor who wrote textbook on genocide reports growing consensus (Oct 2024), Narea 2024 (Vox) (online): There is plenty of this demonization and dehumanization on the other side as well, but whatever peace constituency existed in Israel seems to have vanished, and there is a growing consensus for genocidal war, mass population transfer, and long-term eradication of Palestinian culture and identity.
• 7/7 surveyed scholars report consensus (May 2025), NRC 2025 (UWA clipping) (online): NRC spoke to seven renowned genocide researchers about Gaza. They are not nearly as divided as public opinion: without exception, they qualify the Israeli actions as 'genocidal'. And according to them, almost all their colleagues agree with that.
• Genocide scholar reports genocide view as consensus (May 2025), Center for International Policy 2025 (online): [There is a] Growing Consensus on Israel’s Atrocities in Gaza... Prominent Israel experts identifying a genocide in Gaza include Omer Bartov, Daniel Blatman, Amos Goldberg, Lee Mordechai, and Raz Segal, with Shmuel Lederman calling it the “consensus” view among genocide researchers.
• Leading genocide scholar and legal experts report growing consensus (Jul 2025), Democracy Now! 2025 (Bartov interview) (online): ...over time, many genocide scholars who are — and legal experts, experts in international law, who, like me, have been very cautious about applying this term [genocide], have gradually come to the conclusion that what we’re watching is genocide. And that’s important, in the sense that there is now, I think, a growing consensus over that view.
• Public health and foreign policy scholar reports expert consensus (Aug 2025), Arab Center Washington DC 2025 (Asi) (online): ...a growing consensus among experts and human rights organizations holds that genocide in Gaza is not a risk but a reality.
• Genocide studies scholar reports overwhelming consensus by 2024 (Sep 2025), Shaw 2025b, p. 3 (online): By the end of 2024, when Amnesty International published a comprehensively evidenced and legally argued case, the consensus that Israel was committing genocide was becoming overwhelming.
• 86% of scholars in scholarly association report genocide (Sep 2025), International Association of Genocide Scholars resolution on Gaza 2025 (online): Eighty-six percent of those who voted among the 500-member International Association of Genocide Scholars backed the resolution declaring Israel's 'policies and actions in Gaza' had met the legal definition set out in Article II of the 1948 UN convention on genocide.

Specific change proposal:

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

->

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Survey

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

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

Hi, thanks for your response.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Here are my thoughts on this RFC:
  

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

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

Statements invoking a presumption of innocence and/or deference to the ICJ re. alleged Gaza genocide

• Australian Foreign Minister Penny Wong said that "Israel will be judged in the international courts" and that "the position we've always taken as a country is that questions relating to genocide are matters where we respect the independence of international courts and tribunals and their role in upholding international law".
  

• Austrian Foreign minister Beate Meinl-Reisinger said in July 2025 that she "think[s] one should be very careful with the term 'genocide' and it will ultimately be the [International Court of Justice] that has to judge it".
  

• Belgian Prime Minister Bart De Wever said that the claim of genocide was "something for the International Court of Justice to determine".
  

• Former Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Foreign Minister Melanie Joly neither endorsed nor rejected South Africa's genocide case against Israel. Joly said she would watch the case "very closely" and Global Affairs Canada promised to abide by any decision the court reaches.
  

• Danish Foreign minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen refrained from accusing Israel of genocide in Gaza, saying that it was a matter for courts to decide.
  

• When asked why the Finnish government doesn't officially say whether there was a genocide in Gaza, Foreign Minister Valtonen responded that they would leave the final judgments to the ICJ.
  

• French Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot responded to a direct question on France's position on whether a genocide is happening in Gaza by stating that the government "has no position to take on the legal description of the facts," and that it is "up to the international courts" to do so.
  

• Iceland's Foreign Affairs Minister, Þorgerður Katrín Gunnarsdóttir stated in September 2025 that ultimately "it is for the International Court of Justice to decide this."
  

• In January 2024, Luxembourg's Foreign Minister Xavier Bettel said the country would remain neutral and wait for the results of the proceedings in the case.
  

• Dutch Foreign Minister David van Weel said that the Netherlands would not support the UN report that described the situation in the Gaza Strip as genocide and would instead wait for the ICJ's decision.
  

• New Zealand's Foreign Minister Winston Peters said: "We're interested in what the international courts might say, and that's what we would wait for."
  

• On 2 September 2024, Norwegian Foreign Minister Espen Barth Eide said, "We welcome the use of the ICJ, but leave to the court to assess whether the accusation of genocide is correct."
  

• In a statement published on 22 September 2025, Singapore's Minister of Foreign Affairs Vivian Balakrishnan and Senior Minister of State for Foreign Affairs Sim Ann acknowledged that the matter was being investigated by the ICJ, which they referred to as "the appropriate forum to adjudicate such grave concerns."
  

• Sweden's Foreign Minister Maria Malmer Stenergard commented in September 2025 that the Swedish government would "await the assessments from an international court before we establish that it is a matter of genocide."
  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• 1. No, as selection biased.

2. No, as WP:UNDUE.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    • Journal of Genocide Research:

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

    • Journal of Genocide Research:

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

    • The New Yorker:

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

    • Boston University:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  No it was contested. See User talk:Alexandraaaacs1989/Archive 1#Talk:Gaza_genocide#RfC: "Scholarly consensus there is genocide" Wikivoice_in_lead. TarnishedPath^talk 14:00, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

  Still, now I think it should be closed, now that comments have been sparse for weeks since the reopening. VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 17:27, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

  By someone else, I mean. VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 17:27, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

  Why not make a formal request it be closed in the RfC closure request page? Wikieditor662 (talk) 18:38, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

  It's already there, @Wikieditor662. Chess enjoyer (talk) 18:43, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

  Alright, thanks for your help. Wikieditor662 (talk) 18:49, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

  That one was discarded as it was reopened. VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 18:54, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

References

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