Talk:Gaza genocide/Archive 47

Archive 40

←

Archive 45

Archive 46

Archive 47

Archive 48

Archive 49

Archive 50

New The Lancet paper

The Spagat et al., previously released as a preprint on medrviv , has now been published in The Lancet . There has been some media coverage already in The Guardian, Al Jazeera and The Telegraph . Katzrockso (talk) 01:19, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Preprint was last discussed in this RfC on the 186,000 figure and in this discussion on the reliability of death toll estimates. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 10:50, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Spagat et al. was accepted as a peer-reviewed article by The Lancet, so I added the 75,200 figure to the infobox with clarification that it's an estimate and it's only prior to 5 January 2025. But - I also added the Gaza Ministry of Health-recorded figure for the later time period (more than 1 year long), which is not covered by Spagat's article. Periwinklewrinkles (talk) 11:39, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Looks a well researched paper to me. I thought the excess indirect deaths would be 50,000 or more from earlier reports because of polluted water, exposure, food shortages, and the absence of drugs, I guess that will be an underestimate percentage but it would be difficult to reach my previous estimate. I'm really very impressed they have managed to keep it down to less than a fifth of that. I also thought the number of children killed would be around 10,000 higher given the number of women killed, I'm unable to explain that discrepancy. They seem about as good as well have for the moment besides the capture recapture ones. NadVolum (talk) 15:04, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

I agree this is a very good source to use. BobFromBrockley (talk) 05:44, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

A disagreement arose between me and Cdjp1 whether it's ok to use the Spagat figure (until January 2025) immediately followed by Gaza MoH data for the time period that Spagat does not cover (January 2025 onwards). Not summing them up, just one figure after another in the same bullet point entry. I strongly support this option; without it, a reader might not notice that something changed in what we know about the overall death toll. Periwinklewrinkles (talk) 06:52, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

I get the issue with the discrepancy, but we need to be careful about how we frame it and what sources to use. Tech4Palestine isn't a good source. Current version is better though. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:47, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

I really would like to see some reason to close the discrepancy as I see it in the childrens deaths. Childrens 0-17 deaths 22,600, women 18-64 deaths 16,600. Ratio 1.36. Comparable demographics are hard to pin down , and additionally the CIA factbook used in Demographics_of_Palestine#Demographics_of_the_Gaza_Strip is now gone, but as far as I can figure out it is children 0-14 809941, 15-24 391909 - of which about 3/10 117575 would be children 15-7, and 3.5/10 137168 would be women 18-24. Women 25-54+55-64 297877 which overall gives about children 0-17 927519 and women 18-64 435045. Supposing childrenstay with women that ratio is 2.13 children per woman. If we only include children up to 14 and compare that to half the population from 15 and above we get 44.1/((100-44.1)/2) , a ratio of 1.58. And that's really stretching it. I just can't get down to 1.36 if children have a similar chance of being killed as adults looking after them. And any statistics from elsewhere indicate explosions are more likely to kill children than adults. I am not arguing against the inclusion of the figures just saying I feel somthing important is missing somewhere. It may be something that should be obvious for all I know. NadVolum (talk) 13:30, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Re: I just can't get down to 1.36 if children have a similar chance of being killed as adults looking after them. This is probably analysis beyond what a source says. Children are generally weaker than adults under stressed conditions, such as hunger, disease, injury, displacement etc. For instance, in many (maybe most) countries children aged 0-1 have a higher death rate than their parents, even without a war or a genocide. Place Clichy (talk) 23:12, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

If you have a look at the GHM have 67,173 identified trauma fatalities of which 20,179 are children and 10,427 women aged 18-64 which gives a ratio of 1.935. Which is very hard to reconcile with the studies 1.36. NadVolum (talk) 00:18, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

This original analysis is way beyond the scope of this article, although if there were sources commenting on it it might be relevant for the Casualties of the Gaza war article. The Lancet article was peer-reviewed and it's kind of not our job to re-run the peer review. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:56, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

I have no idea where the problem is whether it is with Spagat's assumptons or he GHM counting. It could be for instance that the GHM somehow undercounted women by about 4400 from what one should expect. I'm not sure what kind of peer review anyone did to not comment on something of that magnitude, could it be something obvious I'm missing? I very much do hope someone takes it up soon. NadVolum (talk) 15:16, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

The sources of the data are quite distinct between Spagat and the GHM, so that may be skewing the stats for ratios. It is enough for us to report the numbers/give the highlights from the paper, and should there be others who criticise them, we add as appropriate, such as how we have Spagat's criticism of other estimates made, as his expertise are in estimating such numbers. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 15:34, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

I understand that, but these translate into very big differences and it is not clear which figures for women and children are anywhere near right. I would like people to look out and see if they can spot what's happening. If we find a reason and it is in a reliable source then it probably would be an important addition to the casualties article at least. NadVolum (talk) 18:12, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

What looks to be the first Comment paper in response: From enumeration to inference: what the Gaza Mortality Survey reveals—and misses—about counting deaths in the Gaza Strip. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 22:36, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Neutrality concern regarding description of genocide

This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I would like to raise a neutrality concern regarding the article’s wording and framing of genocide.

The article currently presents genocide as a factual characterization in Wikipedia’s voice. However, the classification of Israel’s actions in Gaza as genocide is a matter of ongoing legal, scholarly, and political dispute. Governments, legal scholars, and commentators differ on whether the actions meet the legal definition of genocide under the Genocide Convention, and the issue is currently the subject of proceedings before the International Court of Justice.

Per WP:NPOV, Wikipedia should avoid stating seriously contested assertions as fact. When reliable sources disagree about a characterization, Wikipedia policy generally requires that the claim be attributed to the sources making it rather than asserted in Wikipedia’s voice. Related guidance at WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV also recommends attributing opinions and interpretations when they are not universally accepted.

Additionally, WP:LABEL advises caution when using controversial labels such as "genocide" as definitive descriptors when the classification is disputed. In such cases, it is often preferable to attribute the characterization to the relevant sources.

There is also a potential consistency issue. Wikipedia currently uses titles and wording such as Allegations of genocide in the October 7 attacks, which explicitly frame genocide claims as allegations. Presenting one set of genocide claims as allegations while presenting another as an established fact may raise neutrality concerns.

To better reflect Wikipedia policy and the ongoing dispute in reliable sources, it may be more appropriate for the article to attribute the characterization rather than assert it in Wikipedia’s voice. For example, wording such as:

• "Some governments, human rights organizations, and scholars have accused Israel of committing genocide in Gaza, while others dispute that the actions meet the legal definition of genocide."

Alternatively, the article could more explicitly summarize the range of views in reliable sources regarding whether the term genocide applies.

I am not proposing a specific wording change at this stage, but rather opening discussion on whether the current language sufficiently reflects the dispute in reliable sources and complies with WP:NPOV and related policies. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 14:16, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

See the Moratorium discussion at the top of this page. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:29, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

I did so before submitting this change. Having read it I become more convinced WP:Neutral is not being upheld by this article. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 14:51, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

And you read the Frequently asked questions? Sean.hoyland (talk) 15:26, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 15:41, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

we are not doing this again, this discussion has been beaten to death Laura240406 (talk) 15:49, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

It's alive and well in the attention economy, and there is no cognitive autonomy equivalent of the extendedconfirmed requirements, so... Sean.hoyland (talk) 16:35, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

With respect, no user possesses the unilateral authority to decide what may and may not be discussed. Even Jimmy Wales has said this does not meet WP:Neutral. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 21:31, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

you've brought no new reliable sources to the table so any relitigation of the last RfCs is pointless Laura240406 (talk) 22:26, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Firstly, Mr. Wales is just an editor like anyone else. Their opinion has no more weight than any other editor. Secondly, no user possesses the unilateral authority... is not quite right in this topic area because of WP:ECR. That means that any extendedconfirmed editor has the authority to enforce the ECR rules that prevent non-extendedconfirmed accounts and temporary accounts from doing anything other than posting edit requests that follow the WP:EDITXY guidelines. Sean.hoyland (talk) 15:26, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

I don't see how the opinion of a single editor, Jimmy Wales has anything to do with this Ita140188 (talk) 08:54, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Well at least the LLM didn't hallucinate some citations that needed to be checked. And I'm pretty certain citations would be needed to change the RfC. NadVolum (talk) 18:20, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

I did not use an LLM to write the text, I drafted the text but used an LLM to enhance it in terms of wording, clarity and grammar. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 21:32, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

By the way is there a term for the meat puppet of an LLM? NadVolum (talk) 18:23, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

"RentAHuman" O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:49, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

'meatspace worker' is one - there is a 'meatspace layer' in the economy. Another term used by human.farm is 'operator'. So, you have synthetic agents and human operators. They have an 'Operator Kit' that 'lets operators prove their humanity and agents verify task completion'. Sean.hoyland (talk) 04:58, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks both very much. RentAHuman looks like it will really be a thing in the future and I like the term much better than meatspace worker or operative. I just hope it's not used on Wikipedia! NadVolum (talk) 19:26, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Journal of Genocide Research vol. 28, workshop on Gaza

The Journal of Genocide Research has published volume 28 (made up of 3 issues) which was based on a workshop about Gaza held c. June 2025, I haven't read any of it thoughKowal2701 (talk, contribs) 23:15, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

The vast majority of articles are already included in the Expert template, and most of the articles are already referenced across this wikiarticle and its child articles, due to near all of the papers published online before the collected volume. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 09:52, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Shame

Rant The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This page perfectly lays out the blood libel that underpins the current rise of antisemitic hate and violence. With the worst ever actual genocide just a few generations back, vast numbers are being primed to repeat it best they can, and everything good Wikipedia has ever accomplished will be quite overshadowed by our complicity. No hiding behind the favourite sources of International Humbug, and no excuse. Shame on you consensus-talking, pseudo-intellectual, group-thinking de facto hatemongers, shame. —St.Nerol (talk, contribs) 09:53, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Please, we're simply following the sources. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gaza_genocide/Archive_12#RfC_on_first_sentence and Template:Expert opinions in the Gaza genocide debate

- IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 10:03, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

British Institute of International and Comparative Law

@Footballnerd2007: in your RfC you brought up this reflections paper as a source stating it is not a case of genocide, as I want to add the individuals from this source to the Experts template, are you able to provide quotations from the people in the paper which show a position of "not genocide"? -- Cdjp1 (talk) 09:58, 13 March 2026 (UTC)