Talk:List of civilians killed in the Gaza war

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

For reference...

Working largely from an old draft I compiled: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Gaza_genocide&diff=prev&oldid=1314622844 Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 18:44, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

And also from this. {{Gaza war}} Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 19:39, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

And this: List of journalists killed in the Gaza war Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 19:39, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Lacking sources

Hi again CNC , hope you're doing well—I'm pretty exhausted and am logging off for the day shortly so if others could fill this in for me I'd really appreciate it. If no one else will, I'll get around to adding references next time I'm on. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 20:59, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

That's fine, no rush. I also trimmed down the lead per . I now see that it has been taken to AfD, so will have to see how that goes. Hopefully you can add sources soon enough though to establish notability. CNC (talk) 21:05, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, appreciate it!

If you could leave some feedback here as the article's just been nominated for deletion, that would also be very helpful. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 21:15, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm going to add all civilians to the list that I can find. Once I finish getting the list to a point of being as exhaustive as possible, I'll go back through and improve sourcing. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 14:47, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Wouldn't it make sense to do this the other way around? Otherwise if there are other people to exclude then it's a waste of effort including them in the first place without adequae sourcing. Baring in mind that some topics at Template:Gaza war will be included as being WP:NAV-RELATED to the subject, but not necessarily backed up by RS with a direct claim. CNC (talk) 15:29, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

I was otherwise going to make a start on including images for the most notable deaths (mainly based on length of article and image quality, but not exclusively), in order to add some additional context to subjects included. I can also see a good fit for summarising the list to the lead once reliable sources have been added to the list. CNC (talk) 15:31, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Feel free to add images, I think that would help, but someone removed the one I added due to fair use concerns in case you weren't aware.

Fair enough, how about as I add new ones I include sourcing on them as I add them and go back to add sourcing to old ones after so that others have the opportunity to add sourcing to the old ones while I work on the new ones? If you insist on me going back to the old ones first, then I can. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 15:43, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Ah yes, realise the image I added was not CC now, thanks for reminder. Have added non-free rationale, but maybe it won't stick. Might need to check through articles again for CC licensed images.

I'm not going to insist anything, only generally it's best practice to improve V instead of just expanding content, especially if you create the article in the first place tbh. CNC (talk) 16:18, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Like Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 16:41, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

I like your addition of Hind Rajab - do you have any ideas to make it more visually appealing so that it doesn't introduce dead space to the right of the list? Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 17:12, 8 November 2025 (UTC) I see what you're doing now-making a column of images. I like that idea a lot.Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 17:40, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Old image in case it's useful

File:Nagham Abu Samra.png

[[File:Nagham Abu Samra.png|thumb|24 year old Nagham Abu Samra, karate champion, sports icon, and expected [[2024 Summer Olympics]] athlete, killed in a [[Attacks on refugee camps in the Gaza war|refugee camp airstrike]] where she was residing]]

Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 17:39, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

So the idea was a column of images, I've done this before on football article lists and it works well. However the only CC image I find could is Hossam Shabat, so to avoid a squeeze I moved it to the analysis section for now. If the lead were longer, then it'd fit there OK, but doesn't at the moment (at least, once the maintenance template is removed it won't). CNC (talk) 18:13, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps a gallery section would be due if we find more images? Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 18:18, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes probably that'd make more sense. CNC (talk) 18:19, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Here's a person's image under CC I found. I'm going to add a few more rows, if you beat me to it feel free to start a gallery, otherwise I'll likely do so myself using the above linked image and the one currently on the page as starting points. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 18:26, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

I think that footballer is the only other one I found, but it's such poor quality so not worth including imo. CNC (talk) 19:27, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Done adding new rows (all with proper sourcing), next order of business is adding sources to old ones. I'll do that before getting to the gallery but first I'm taking a break. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 18:56, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Sounds good, after full sourcing I'll add a sentence summary of the means of death to the lead. I was going to do it earlier but thought best to include only after sourcing tbh. CNC (talk) 19:29, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Whether to include Palestinians who died as a result of medical access denial in the list

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Discussion continued in Talk:List of civilian fatalities in the Gaza war#Requested move 9 November 2025. -- Beland (talk) 10:25, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

---

• Clarityfiend demoted Fathi Ghaben and Majed Abu Maraheel from the list to "see also" demoted two people to See also who died of lack of medical care

• Rainsage undid this demotion lack of medical care is part of the gaza genocide and/or gaza war

• Clarityfiend undid Rainsage's undoing Reverted good faith edits by Rainsage (talk): Killed, not died

The question: Should we include citizens who died as a result of Israeli actions that indirectly led to their deaths in this list?

My argument: Absolutely. Per the Genocide Convention Article II (c), Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part is a genocidal act. Denying medical care, as was done to Fathi Ghaben and Majed Abu Maraheel, is an example of inflicting conditions of life calculated to destroy the group (by causing their deaths). If civilians die as a result of these conditions life, then they died (i.e. were "killed", according to the word's definition in the Merriam-Webster dictionary : to deprive of life : cause the death of) as the result of a genocidal act, and thus were "killed in the Gaza genocide".

This is an argument used by the UNHRC Commission of Inquiry on Gaza genocide, whose 2025 report said the Commission concludes that the systematic and complete destruction of the healthcare system in Gaza, the siege-induced deprivation of medical necessities to Palestinians and the denial of medical exit visas to Palestinians who were most in medical need were part of the intent to destroy Palestinians in Gaza by preventing their capacity and possibility to heal, recover and live. (see page 62 of the PDF)

Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 13:33, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

I think a list of people who were "killed" implies direct deaths, as opposed to a list of people who "died" Placeholderer (talk) 14:52, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Per Placeholderer, unless we can establish the connection via RS we should not be making it. CNC (talk) 15:03, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

@Placeholderer @CNC

Is the UNHRC source I described not enough of a connection (WP:NOTCOM)? Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 15:17, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

No, we'd need a reference based on the subject (the person killed). CNC (talk) 15:26, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Would moving to List of civilian casualties in the Gaza genocide resolve your concern? Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 15:34, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Or List of civilian casualties in the Gaza War, as this would help broaden the scope with RS making the connection to the war, but not necessarily the genocide. CNC (talk) 15:41, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Maybe "deaths" or "fatalities" over "casualties" too, since "casualties" could also imply serious injury Placeholderer (talk) 15:43, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

I worry "deaths" would be improperly broad/include people who died of old age.

Strong support for List of civilian casualties in the Gaza genocide since I'm a bit less strict with my WP:SYNTH interpretation

Weak support for List of civilian casualties in the Gaza war since this is more conflict averse

Proposal: How about we move to List of civilian casualties in the Gaza war right now and open an RM after to List of civilian casualties in the Gaza genocide? Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 15:54, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Might be worth waiting for a couple more opinions on the war/genocide thing, since for no particular reason I think any RM in either direction will go for two weeks and end up "No consensus" Placeholderer (talk) 15:57, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Though I am conceptually obligated to support the proposal of a placeholder name :) Placeholderer (talk) 15:59, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Fair enough! Happy to wait a bit longer. The main thing I'd like to hear from other editors is whether @CNC's argument that it's WP:SYNTH to imply all of this is genocide in the title (despite the UNHRC connection and WP:NOTCOM) holds. I think this is what determines whether to use "war" or "genocide" language Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 16:04, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Let's give it some time in case other editors way in, as I agree we could go round in circles on these titles. If no objections, then agree with List of civilian casualties in the Gaza war and opening an RM. CNC (talk) 16:26, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you everyone for constructive discussion. Starting with temp move is sensible solution. Let’s hope the civil and collaborative mood here prevails.

I agree with CNC. See next talk section for my comments on war v genocide (it’s a synth concern to attribute all these to genocide). Mild preference for deaths over killed, again to avoid synth - former could include indirect latter only direct, but deaths might be too broad if included eg old age. Casualties/fatalities better as avoids that problem; casualties technically includes wounded so fatalities is best. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:43, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

I think you raise a good about fatalities being better than casualties, and thanks for bringing that up. Here's my current vote from best to worst:

1. killed - After giving more consideration to Placeholderer's point that "killed implies direct deaths" (which was an important point), I think that a better characterization is that killed implies intentional deaths resulting from your actions, not direct deaths. If person A is drowning and person B, outside of the water, blocks person A from reaching the land (analogy to refusing medical asylum to dying Palestinians), I would argue that person B killed person A even though this was technically an indirect death (the person was dying due to pre-existing conditions - drowning or liver failure) because person B intentionally partook in an action that caused person A to die.

2. fatalities - This removes the intentionality element in killed, so I like it a little less because definitionally genocides are intentional. But CNC's point about WP:SYNTH may apply to "killed" (especially if we use "genocide" instead of "war"), so "fatalities" seems like a good compromise for a temp move.

3. deaths - This is too expansive in my view because some Palestinians have died due to reasons completely unrelated to the genocide. If we rename the article to be "deaths in the Gaza war", then people may in their minds think "oh, well people die all the time in war, there's always civilian casualties" which lacks important context that these are not just typical civilian wartime casualties. Deaths in the Gaza genocide I think alleviates this problem but is still less than optimal.

4. casualties - Now oppose per Bobfrombrockley's reasoning that this includes injuries and should therefore be avoided.

New proposal: Temp move to List of civilian fatalities in the Gaza war, then open an RM where there are two axes: "war vs genocide" and "killed/fatalities/deaths/casualties". Let me know if you guys are happy with this proposal. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 10:07, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Ok moved to List of civilian fatalities in the Gaza war for now per rough consensus here. I also agree with Bob that "fatalities" is best, over deaths or killed. This does leave my query below about including fatalities such as hostages, but seeing that list I just found means it's probably not too big a concern. Will add as hat/see also. CNC (talk) 10:24, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for moving - I'll open an RM and notify Talk:Gaza genocide. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 10:26, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Good good. Blocking another move for 7 days works for me :) CNC (talk) 10:34, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Alexander you make a good argument against deaths which I am persuaded by (compared to killed). But if we go for killed we need RS to show intentionality for each which may be a high bar. Fatalities seems to avoid those problems. I think we could potentially make any of these work but exactly who is included most likely and standard of verifying might be slightly different. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:33, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Good point, but let's move this discussion to the RM I just opened below and feel free to re-state your arguments in whole for newcomers there. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 10:35, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

I agree we need RS for "killing". From what I've seen of entries and sources in this list, they appear to mostly state "killed", given most are airstrikes (so is a straightforward assessment for RS). But there are exceptions, like Killing of Mohammad Bhar, as in wikivoice it's stated "died after being mauled" and thus would be a dubious entry under killings. As Alexandra also said, can continue this discussion at the RM though. CNC (talk) 10:40, 9 November 2025 (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.

Name concerns

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Discussion continued in Talk:List of civilian fatalities in the Gaza war#Whether to include Palestinians who died as a result of medical access denial in the list. -- Beland (talk) 10:27, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

---

I think this is a useful and very well crafted list. However, like SuperPianoMan9167 in the AfD discussion, I don’t think it has the best name. While, as we know, a consensus has emerged among scholars that Israel has been committing a genocide in Gaza, there is no similar consensus that every single action of Israel since October 2023 has been part of this genocide. For instance, there isn’t agreement on when the genocide began. Having looked at a random selection of the cases on this page, particularly those in 2023, it is far from clear cut that scholars would include all of their deaths in the genocide. To give an imperfect analogy, we can think about the Holocaust, which unfolded alongside a world war. Civilians killed in Nazi German air rates, including Jewish civilians, were not victims of the Holocaust. Civilians, including Jewish civilians, who were killed while close to Allied military targets, were not victims of the Holocaust. Without reliable sources for each, it seems to me it’s impossible to disentangle from this list those who are killed in the genocide specifically from those who were killed in the Gaza war. I would therefore strongly urge a name change, and a very small edit to the lead to reflect that (eg to “killed by Israel during the Gaza war including the ongoing, intentional etc”). BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:06, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

I started typing this this morning before the talk section immediately above was added and hadn’t realised it had unfolded before I pressed publish. Realise it’s now somewhat superseded by the above section. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:10, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

I made this edit to reflect this. Starting to think this would be better as List of civilians killed by Israel during the Gaza war, as it is currently specifically civilians killed by Israel as opposed to overall (such as Israeli hostages etc). Casualties also implies we'd be adding injured or captured, but I assume that's not the intended scope in hindsight. Pinging from previous discussion, Alexandraaaacs1989, Placeholderer CNC (talk) 19:41, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

I agree. Thank you. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:44, 9 November 2025 (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.

See also's "Additional civilian deaths"

Why aren't they on the list? Yacàwotçã (talk) 02:53, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

By the way, can we please add fair use images to the articles of each one of them? Yacàwotçã (talk) 02:53, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Discussed above; there was only Hossam Shabat and Mohammed Barakat regarding CC images. The former is included in analysis section, the latter being a poor quality image. The other images are all non-free and wouldn't fulfil criteria for usage. CNC (talk) 10:07, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Speaking of images, we could add images of other civilians injured/killed than ones on the list, like many on the Gaza genocide article. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 10:18, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Because they either weren't affirmatively killed or the death was outside Gaza. Coining (talk) 03:06, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Maybe “Additional civilian deaths” is confusing. Could change to “Deaths outside Gaza” or just have the names in the see also bullet list without a heading? BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:48, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

How about Awdah Hathaleen is put into a list "Deaths outside Gaza" and the other two are re-added to the list after we temp move the article to "civilian fatalities" rather than "civilians killed"? Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 10:20, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Well, if the See also subcategory is "Deaths outside Gaza," one would be hard-pressed not to include the civilian fatalities in Israel that are directly part of the Gaza war before extending things out on a broader basis. I do tend to think that having the See also section be a place for other list articles instead of individuals makes the most sense. Coining (talk) 13:13, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Reviving this because Layla Al-Khatib (currently in the main list) is also one killed outside Gaza, whereas currently the "Additional civilian deaths" list is two Gazans who were not directly killed by a military action and one Palestinian directly killed in the West Bank. It would help to have clear criteria for what should be included in See Also. I don't think all civilians killed outside Gaza makes sense - as @Coining points out, are we including Israeli civilians? And if we're saying it's all civilians killed by Israel, are we saying within the entire framework of the Middle East Crisis? I don't think listing individuals makes sense without clear criteria for inclusion that can be met without multiplying the size of the page. Samuelshraga (talk) 14:09, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Issam Abdallah was killed in Lebanon. Should he not be moved here too? (Hard to argue he died in the genocide.) BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:52, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

I think since he was Lebanese we should probably not honestly, but West Bank Palestinians I think should be added to a "Deaths outside Gaza" section in "see also". Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 10:21, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

I removed Issam Abdallah based on this. Samuelshraga (talk) 13:57, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Hamas figures

Should civilians in Hamas leadership be included here, as in the case of Wael Al Zard? BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:00, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

I feel like they shouldn't because my intuition says they'd count as combatants, not civilians. Other politicians who were not officially in Hamas like Mohammed Shabir I think should be included though. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 10:15, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

To me it seems they are due for inclusion, not every Hamas leader is a combatant. CNC (talk) 10:45, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

That's fair, I mainly worry it may undermine the integrity of the list in the eyes of the reader looking solely for "innocent" people. Hamas affiliates are less likely to be seen as "innocent" and may lead to confusion about how many others on the list were affiliated with Hamas. I'd support having them included in the see also section at the bottom for this reason. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 10:56, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

To me this would be better resolved by summarising in the lead something like "includes one Hamas leader, an Islamic preacher and scholar". Either that or we'd need to elaborate that it excludes Hamas civilians in the lead (as part of identifying the scope of the list), which from the perspective of the reader would look even worse. CNC (talk) 11:22, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

I like the idea of specifying we're excluding Hamas civilians in the lede. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 14:56, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

But this could imply we are excluding numerous, when we could just include the few and reference that? CNC (talk) 14:59, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

I did some research and it looks like Hamas leaders aren't civilians under intl law:

https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/api-1977/article-50

https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/gciii-1949/article-4

Articles 4(A)(1) and 4(A)(3) in the second article mean Hamas leaders are not civilians if I'm reading it correctly. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 18:24, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

I agree with the outcome, but would clarify that you're citing Protocol II to the Geneva Conventions, and Israel has not ratified Protocol II. Protocol II governs non-international armed conflicts, so would apply unless this is an international armed conflict. If this is not an international armed conflict, customary international law would apply, and, per the source I linked below, customary international law is not settled on this point. But I think this is a reasonable interpretation for our purposes. WillowCity^(talk) 22:41, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

International humanitarian law is nebulous on this point: see this summary. I think it would be reasonable to exclude members of an armed group's civilian leadership from a list of civilian deaths. WillowCity^(talk) 16:02, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

I mean, they are still civilians, but I also understand the viewpoint. I think a separate section would do good. User:Easternsahara_{review this} 00:13, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Requested move 9 November 2025

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Result: Move to List of civilians killed in the Gaza war.

In discerning consensus, I have taken into account both the popularity of specific choices and the strength of arguments made for them. I have split the RM into two questions: "war" vs. "genocide", and picking one of "killed", "fatalities", "deaths", and "casualties". Trying to account for dependencies between these was too complicated and the vast majority of participants didn't express any dependencies.

For "war" vs. "genocide", some editors claimed the entire war was genocidal from the minute it started, but others objected to this claim. No reliable sources were presented that prove this claim, and it seems like a active scholarly and political debate. This raises the question of whether attributing any given death to genocide instead of war would be original synthesis without individualized sources allocating it to one or the other category. The idea that a genocide can be one part of an active war was illustrated with examples, and undermines the argument for consistency with other articles like Gaza genocide. Participants were evenly split between "war" and "genocide". To both keep the status quo in the absence of strong support for change, and to avoid sourcing and synthesis difficulties, keeping "war" seems like the safer choice. The article itself says "Gaza war and genocide", so the existing scope seems compatible with this title choice if the idea is that genocide and war are both happening and it's disputed what portion of the war is genocide.

For the KFDC question, there were substantial objections to "casualties" (which might include injuries) and "deaths" (which might include natural deaths). "Killed" was overwhelmingly the most popular first choice, and unlike "fatalities" no one put it as their last choice. It implies intentionality, and to some ears directness. It requires individualized documentation of the manner of death. I see the table has a column for that and it is filled in for every single entry, so this seems like a burden of proof this list intends to and is capable of satisfying.

It was suggested to add "Palestinian" to the title of this article, but it was too late to inject that into an already complicated RM. Feel free to discuss that in a new RM.

It was also suggested to move List of journalists killed in the Gaza war at the same time to match this article. But given that the chosen title will match that article, that question seems moot for the moment.

-- Beland (talk) 11:35, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

---

List of civilian fatalities in the Gaza war → List of civilians killed in the Gaza genocideList of civilians killed in the Gaza genocide –
Please clearly cast up to 8 votes in support/opposition to the below move options:

(a) List of civilians killed in the Gaza war

(b) List of civilian fatalities in the Gaza war (status quo)

(c) List of civilian deaths in the Gaza war

(d) List of civilian casualties in the Gaza war

(e) List of civilians killed in the Gaza genocide

(f) List of civilian fatalities in the Gaza genocide

(g) List of civilian deaths in the Gaza genocide

(h) List of civilian casualties in the Gaza genocide

Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 10:33, 9 November 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Vestrian24Bio 09:31, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

• Strong support List of civilians killed in the Gaza genocide - All of the means of death in the list have been characterized by WP:RS as genocidal (e.g. here). We can say there's genocide in Wikivoice. And saying "killed" ensures it's clear that the deaths were intentionally caused by Israel, as intentionality is necessarily implied by the presence of genocide, which Wiki consensus has determined is happening
• Mid support List of civilian fatalities in the Gaza genocide - Removes the intentionality element in "killed", but it's implied in the word "genocide" so not a huge difference
• Neutral List of civilians killed in the Gaza war and Weak support List of civilian deaths in the Gaza genocide - Keeps the intentionality element but removes "genocide", or keeps the intentionality element in genocide but removes "killed". Previous WP:SYNTH concerns were cited opposing saying it's "genocide" or "killed in the war" but I think this is overridden by WP:NOTCOM
• Weak oppose List of civilian deaths in the Gaza genocide - "Deaths" makes it sound like it includes people who died of old age and other natural causes
• Strong oppose List of civilian fatalities in the Gaza war - Makes it sound like a list of inevitable wartime casualties, minimal intentionality present
• Strong oppose List of civilian casualties in the Gaza genocide - "Casualties" includes injured people who survived
• Very strongly oppose List of civilian deaths in the Gaza war - "Deaths" is even more separated from Israel's actions than "fatalities", especially when not using "genocide". Sounds equal in weight to a hypothetical List of civilian deaths in WW2 list which feels wrong given the significantly different levels of intentionality
• Most strongly oppose List of civilian casualties in the Gaza war - "Casualties" and "Gaza war" are both bad for separate previously-described reasons

Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 10:48, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Support any option including gaza genocide. In order of most to least preferred, I would say killed, deaths, and then fatalies/casualities due to common name concerns. User:Easternsahara_{review and this} 22:27, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

I oppose the headline request on this requested move discussion and support the status quo option of (b) List of civilian fatalities in the Gaza war as well as (a) List of civilians killed in the Gaza war. I oppose all the other options because they are either too broad (e.g. inclusion of injured civilians) or violate WP:NPOV, both for reasons I've already expressed elsewhere, and because I do not want editors to have to go back and forth over whether any particular civilian's death is part of a genocide. I don't think it's nearly as well established, or encompassed by any Wikipedia consensus, how to decide which deaths are part of a genocide and which are not. Best to not open up that debate on this page. Coining (talk) 15:14, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

(a) Weak Support - "This is a list of notable civilians killed by Israel during the Gaza war and genocide" is literally the lead of this article; it is entirely redundant to have multiple articles saying the same thing. I think “fatalities” just sounds weird, it implies some kind of disconnect between the war and those who died which is odd considering this is a list of those who died in the war. Whilst some deaths may not have been intentional, it sort of implies that all deaths are unintentional.

(b) Strong Oppose - See above

(c) Weak Support - Similar reasoning to (a)

(d) Strong Support - Similar reasoning to (a), but this is more consistent as this is the format used to describe civilian casualties in the war in Afghanistan.

(e) - (h) Strong Oppose - This list ought to include those who are accidentally killed as a result of the war, as not including those unintentionally killed would make this list feel rather incomplete and may require a separate list. This is not to say that a genocide is or isn't going on, just that whether every single death was a part of it could be up for debate. Coining also raises a troubling issue that editors may have to determine if individual deaths should be on this list or not, which seems extremely problematic. Originalcola (talk) 15:42, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose “casualties” (d & h) because technically that includes injuries and not just deaths

Strong support for “war” (a-d) over genocide for reasons set out in “concerns about title” above, specifically that establishing that all of theses deaths were in the genocide risks synth or a very short list (while there is a consensus that Israel has been committing a genocide, not all Israeli actions in the war are considered genocide by such a consensus, so it will be very hard to establish which of these people are killed in the genocide specifically).

Support “fatalities” (b or f) because “deaths” risks being too open-ended and sounding inevitable rather than intentional, while establishing intentionality involved in “killed” will be very difficult.

In conclusion: !vote for b (status quo), then: b>a/c>f>e/g>d>h

I think we can actually make any of these work, but we’d need to acknowledge it’ll be a very different list with each name (e.g. c and especially d are very long lists; e is a much shorter list than we have now). BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:55, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Support (e) or (g), strongly oppose (d) and (h), neutral on all others (but definitely do not prefer "fatalities" as the wording, since all of the incidents listed relate to direct killings as opposed to indirect, e.g. by starvation or disease, and the article would need to be rescoped). The argument has been made that editors can't parse whether individual incidents were part of the genocide. This argument doesn't grapple with the counterpoint: individual editors also cannot weigh whether particular killings were merely so-called "collateral damage", as is implied when we say their deaths were part of the war. To say that individuals were killed during the war suggests that their deaths were in furtherance of some specific military objective; in relation to many specific cases, such a conclusion is not sourced, and would be OR. In summary, implying that these deaths were part of the war is still speculating about Israel's intent; it's just speculation to Israel's benefit. The genocide is occurring alongside the war: we should keep those events separate, analytically. If we do that, it's more WP:PRECISE to say the deaths occurred during the genocide than the war. WillowCity^(talk) 22:28, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

To say that individuals were killed during the war suggests that their deaths were in furtherance of some specific military objective - I don't think there is any implied suggestion at all like this. Wars are replete with examples of civilians being killed in ways that didn't further a particular military objective - civilians were killed in the My Lai massacre (part of the Vietnam war), or the Kunduz hospital airstrike (war in Afghanistan). No one would exclude the victims of these from a list of casualties of their respective wars, and there would be no associated implication.

Furthermore, implying that these deaths were part of the war is still speculating about Israel's intent; it's just speculation to Israel's benefit. Why does this concern outweigh the concern about explicitly stating that these deaths were caused with genocidal intent - including in cases where there is, without OR, sources about the military objective being pursued?

It seems to me is that your argument weighs an implication that I think no one would reasonably draw as more problematic than an explicit connotation that will in some cases definitely be false. Samuelshraga (talk) 07:40, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

What about the dozens of genocidal statements by top Israel officials including the Prime Minister, President, and Defense Minister? But even just mentioning this feels like we're missing the point that it's not up to us to make our own decisions about whether it's genocidal, but instead is the responsibility of experts, who have determined there is a genocide and therefore in some significant capacity there is an objective of killing civilians, divorced from the separate issue of pursuing a military objective. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 16:49, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

It is undisputed that the individuals listed were killed in the Gaza war. It is disputed that they were killed in the Gaza genocide. Some people dispute that Israel's actions constitute genocide. Other people call those people genocide deniers. The issue is complicated.

To be safe, and to avoid taking sides, we should just describe the article as a list of people killed during the war, as the fact that they were killed by Israel during the war is indisputable. It should be up to the reader to decide if these people were victims of genocide or not. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 21:56, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

to avoid taking sides... It should be up to the reader to decide if these people were victims of genocide or not - This is not how Wikipedia works. We do not unequivocally avoid taking sides. Otherwise we would characterize the Holocaust as an "alleged genocide", present arguments on both sides (including Holocaust denial arguments), and allow the reader to decide for themselves whether it constitutes a genocide, which is certainly WP:UNDUE.

Some people dispute that Israel's actions constitute genocide. - Please see Neutrality is a core Wikipedia policy, but this does not mean as a matter of documented policy that it avoids stating facts as facts if anyone anywhere disputes them Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 16:38, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

We strive for articles with an impartial tone that document and explain major points of view, giving due weight for their prominence. We avoid advocacy, and we characterize information and issues rather than debate them. In some areas, there may be just one well-recognized point of view; in others, we describe multiple points of view, presenting each accurately and in context rather than as "the truth" or "the best view". All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy with citations based on reliable sources, especially when the topic is controversial or is about a living person. Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong on Wikipedia.

— WP:5P2

SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 16:49, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Emphasis on giving due weight for their prominence Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 16:54, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

This is again just relitigating the RfC, which already discussed all of these issues in depth. This is the inappropriate venue to bring up these arguments in my view. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 16:58, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

A RfC considering the wording of the first sentence of one article said the Gaza genocide can be stated in wikivoice in that article. The argument that you are making here is that logically, because of said RfC, every single article that mentions genocide in Gaza must state it as an undisputed fact in wikivoice. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 17:53, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Specifically, the consensus on the first sentence of that article does not equal a consensus that the genocide began on 7 October or that every single Israeli act of war was also an act of genocide. BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:27, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

You're making the leap from there is a genocide to "everyone killed in Gaza from October 7th 2023 was killed in the genocide". @SuperPianoMan9167 argues that the genocide is disputed, but I don't particularly want to get into the weeds on that. My point is that even if you stipulate a genocide, that doesn't mean everyone killed in the war is part of that. Tutsis in the RPF killed in action in the Rwandan civil war are not victims of the simultaneous genocide against Tutsis in Rwanda. In that case, there's no question that the Rwandan political leadership had genocidal intent, but the military conflict with the RPF was not how they committed genocide. Are you going to filter the list of people killed in the Gaza war based on when and where they occurred, whether legitimate military objectives were being pursued, whether there is evidence of genocidal intent for each one? That seems impossible to me. Samuelshraga (talk) 07:03, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

even if you stipulate a genocide, that doesn't mean everyone killed in the war is part of that - This exclusionary definition of genocide victims would prohibit us from counting all Jewish civilians who were killed by Nazis towards Holocaust death statistics because some might theoretically have died due to non-Holocaust factors, like being killed in crossfire in war. But this is not how we talk about genocide because this creates an unreasonable burden of proof making it impossible to claim a group of X people died in a genocide without individually reviewing every single death in that group during the genocide to ensure each was specifically due to genocidal causes. A genocide is a pattern of behaviors coupled with intent, and to individually review every single Palestinian civilian killed by Israel and nitpick which are allowed to be considered genocide victims somehow misses that point. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 16:45, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Godwin's law SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 16:47, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

he is drawing an analogy to help you understand it, he is not calling you a nazi. the holocaust is often the genocide which westerners know the most about, regardless of whether they are otherwise knowledgeable of history or not User:Easternsahara_{review and this} 17:03, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

It's still a comparison to Nazis in an online discussion either way. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 17:16, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

I don't want to assume bad faith/assume you are trolling, but it feels like you're intentionally missing the point I was making, which makes me a little frustrated. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 17:27, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

I do see the point you were making. making it impossible to claim a group of X people died in a genocide without individually reviewing every single death in that group during the genocide to ensure each was specifically due to genocidal causes makes sense. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 17:54, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 18:07, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Alexandraaaacs1989 makes a valid and cogent point, and it is indeed a helpful analogy for thinking this through. But in thinking it through the limits of the analogy show us why we need to avoid the word genocide in the title here. While the Holocaust proceeded against the backdrop of war, most of its deaths were perpetrated in very distinct ways, but most of the deaths in the Gaza genocide have occurred in genocidal acts of war or through direct means such as starvation. While historians quibble over the exact start point of the Holocaust, there is broad consensus about which deaths to include, but that’s not the case with the Gaza genocide where there is not yet anything like consensus on when it began. We have decades of scholarship filling in the gaps in our knowledge about the Holocaust, where is the Gaza genocide is fresh if not ongoing and it will be a long time before the scholarly dust settles. And finally this is a list of notable named individuals, not a count of total victims. So counts of the Holocaust dead might indeed include a margin of error in terms of misattribution, per Alexandraaaacs1989, but a list of its notable dead would be far easier to produce without any original research. We can produce such an uncontroversial list for the civilian deaths of the Gaza war, but not at this early point in time for the dead of the genocide. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:04, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

It sounds like your main points against using "genocide" in the title are:

• When to say the genocide started (October 7th?)
• In the Holocaust, genocidal acts were more distinct from acts of war
• The Gaza genocide is fresh and there's still some disagreement
• Including people on this list may violate WP:OR

My rebuttals

I am sure it is not easy to place an exact start date on the Holocaust either since Nazis were arguably committing genocide earlier or later than the Kristallnacht, and setting an exact date seems difficult, but this does not prevent us from approaching the issue of saying Jewish people killed by Nazis early on were genocide victims, even if the start date of the genocide is a bit fuzzy. That said, here it seems like October 7th is a natural starting point. Their response to the October 7 attacks included the start of a bombing campaign on October 7 killing civilians including children, and this campaign has been determined to be genocidal.

The distinctness of genocidal acts is irrelevant in my view since the entire bombing campaign has been determined to be in and of itself genocidal by experts. So any who die in this genocidal bombing campaign are naturally genocide victims.

The freshness of the genocide does not detract from consensus among WP:RS scholarly sources that this is a genocide.

Per WP:NOTCOM, we are allowed to make basic assumptions supported by sources without this qualifying as WP:SYNTH/WP:OR. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 18:53, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

the entire bombing campaign has been determined to be in and of itself genocidal by experts. I don't believe we've established a consensus on which specific acts are considered genocidal by experts, but if I'm wrong I'd welcome being corrected.

Other than the addition of the word "entire", I think you, Bob and I have covered this entire point more than once before and further repetition is unlikely to help anyone. Samuelshraga (talk) 09:51, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

This exclusionary definition of genocide victims would prohibit us from counting all Jewish civilians who were killed by Nazis towards Holocaust death statistics - yes! Jews killed by Nazis in the London blitz, or Jews killed as they participated in the Warsaw uprising, should not be classified as "victims of the Holocaust". Saying that is not "partisan" to the Nazis or disrespectful of the Jews involved. It's just accurate.

this creates an unreasonable burden of proof making it impossible to claim a group of X people died in a genocide without individually reviewing every single death. This burden of proof is not unreasonable. The fact that the Nazis killed some Jews outside the framework of the Holocaust doesn't diminish the fact that the Holocaust happened, or make it impossible to point to millions of individual people killed in it. An article listing them should be accurate. Here too, given that this article is a list of individuals, of course reviewing the inclusion of every single death on it is appropriate, and even required. Samuelshraga (talk) 07:13, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

I think you missed the context of the argument. Others said that we are not allowed to include individuals on a genocide list unless WP:RS explicitly state they are "genocide victims" or something nearly identical. This logic is the only thing I am responding to. WP:NOTCOM clearly implies we can include genocide victims on a list named "civilians killed in the Gaza genocide" even if they were not individually and explicitly connected to the genocide by WP:RS. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 20:18, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

WP:NOTCOM is totally besides the issue. The standard I'm arguing for is not that every death on the list has to have sourcing explicitly connecting them to the Gaza genocide, that's a false representation of my argument.

Is there a consensus on the start date of the genocide? Is there a consensus as to whether all or just some of Israel's actions are part of the genocide? I think the answer to these questions is no, and given that, simply including every notable civilian to die in the Gaza war presupposes something we have no reason to assume - that all of Israel's actions in the Gaza war are within the scope of the Gaza genocide. Samuelshraga (talk) 07:01, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

+1 BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:06, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

This was my point. I co-sign this. WillowCity^(talk) 23:18, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Comment. There's a broader issue of precision here. I broadly agree with e or g, but I don't have a strong enough conviction or certainty on this question to !vote yet. But I do think it's important to note that a broader campaign can be considered genocidal even if a particular individual killing may or may not be specifically genocidal in the legal sense.

To obviate this confusion, it might be worth noting somewhere "This list includes civilians reported killed as a part of the campaign of genocide in Gaza". This aligns with other victim lists in other genocides. Katzrockso (talk) 00:05, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes, very well said. This is exactly the logic used in the 2025 UNHRC Commission of Inquiry report on Gaza genocide, which said genocidal intent is the only reasonable inference that could be drawn based on the pattern of conduct of the Israeli authorities in the totality of the evidence. Genocide consists of two parts: genocidal intent and genocidal acts. So since these acts (airstrikes, sniping civilians, etc) were determined to be genocidal acts due to patterns in the totality of evidence, these acts are thus part of the genocide and therefore there is a direct connection between "killings in the genocide" and every person killed in this article. Denying medical aid, the most contentious method of killing to be included on this list, has specifically been cited as contributing to Genocide Convention Article 2 genocidal act (c) inflicting conditions of life calculated to destroy the group in whole or in part (with the report specifically citing medical care access blockage as genocidal). So yes denying medical aid intentionally imposes circumstances that cause another person's death (i.e. "killing" by physically blocking their access to hospitals outside the Gaza Strip that would provide lifesaving aid) and yes this is a genocidal act under international law. So I think all this talk about specific genocidal acts needing to be individually accused of being genocidal in order to be in a in the Gaza genocide list is a little silly. Common sense to someone who adequately understands the sourcing says the people killed in an airstrike were killed in a genocide since airstrikes are part of why experts say there is a genocide. The point was that the broader campaign of bombings is genocidal and therefore when asked how many died in the bombings in the genocide, you should list every person who was bombed in that bombing campaign, even if there are some bombings which if isolated would not be considered genocidal acts in and of themselves (that's what a genocide is: a series of acts, by definition, rather than an individual one). That logic generalizes to the rest of the means of death in the list. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 00:41, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose all "genocide" options. That would be (e) through (h). I don't accept the notion that because sources - even a consensus of sources - determine that Israel has violated the Genocide convention or committed genocidal acts, all deaths can therefore be ascribed to "the genocide". The sources that opine in this way are not unanimous in their definition of whether all or some aspects of Israel's conduct constitute genocide, nor of when that genocide began. The date of the first deaths recorded on this list is 7th October, and I do not think there is plausibly a consensus of sources that an Israeli genocide had begun by that morning. The alternative is to posit a different genocide start date for the casualties on this list, and I think there is unlikely to be a consensus for any other start date.

Support any of (a) through (d) with addition of "Palestinian" before civilian. Unless we want to add Israeli civilian casualties to the list, which I would also support. Samuelshraga (talk) 12:19, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Good point, I like the idea of adding "Palestinian" before civilians if we go with any of the Gaza war options. If we go with the Gaza genocide options then I oppose because Palestinian in this case is implied. If others could leave feedback on this particular issue, I'd like to gauge rough consensus on "List of civilians killed/fatalities/etc in the Gaza war" -> "List of Palestinian civilians killed/fatalities/etc in the Gaza war". I'll be quiet now to avoid WP:BLUDGEONING. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 12:46, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

I don’t think you’re at risk of bludgeoning at all. I agree with addition of Palestinians if “war” prevails, but that it’s not necessary if “genocide” prevails. BobFromBrockley (talk) 06:56, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

I would not support changing the list of 8 choices we are voting on to 12 or 16 choices. This RM is complicated enough as is. Substantively, it will be an odd state of affairs if there ends up being a list of only "Palestinian" civilians killed in the war and not Israeli civilians (or non-Israeli, non-Palestinian civilians -- as there were civilian hostages that were neither). Coining (talk) 16:04, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

This RM really is a nightmare. It would have been better to vote on the two main points: war vs genocide AND fatalities/killed/casualties/deaths. ← Metallurgist (talk) 20:57, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

• Support option a-d; Oppose option e-h; my personal preference is option a. What happened in Gaza is the Gaza war, and during the Gaza war, there was very convincing evidence of genocide. Lova Falk (talk) 08:19, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
• Support E per WillowCity 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 14:58, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
• Strong support A as the most concise and neutral title. Weak support B as slightly less understandable for readers (readers may not know that fatalities refers to people that have died). Support C, for the same reasons as supporting A, but C would be slightly more vulnerable to becoming a WP:COATRACK of all people who have died in the war ("killed" implies intent, whereas "deaths" does not). Oppose D because "casualties" includes injuries, and this list is presumably only for people who have been killed, not injured. Oppose E-H: Let the reader decide if they are victims of genocide or not. It's not up to Wikipedia to call them victims of genocide. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 22:05, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

  When applying NPOV, we must be sure to avoid fringe ideas, those which are not inline with the main academic viewpoint. Otherwise we wouldn't put the earth's shape as spherical, we'd "let the readers decide" but that would be creating a false balance. User:Easternsahara_{review this} 03:29, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

  +1 Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 02:04, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

  What fringe idea? ← Metallurgist (talk) 21:09, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

  Well put. Andrewa (talk) 06:40, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

• Strong support E (e) List of civilians killed in the Gaza genocide so that its not unambigous. --Masssly (talk) 14:09, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
• Strong support E, especially since we have the Gaza genocide sidebar template on the article already. The wiki needs to be consistent with the genocide framing; either have it say it's a genocide everywhere, or only state that it's allegations, and the latter is incredibly unlikely to happen due to the excellently conducted months-long RfC for the Gaza genocide page. TheSilksongPikmin (talk | contribs) 20:55, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

  So that RfC requires that every single article mentioning the events in Gaza must describe them as genocide as an undisputed fact? That seems too broad. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 21:02, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

  Yes, I do think that. It is confusing for one article to claim it's a genocide, while others only frame it as common accusations. They need to be consistent, so if someone doesn't agree with this, they should take it to Talk:Gaza genocide, where editors will very likely disagree, but consensus could change, even if unlikely. Until then, we should be consistent. TheSilksongPikmin (talk | contribs) 21:10, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

  A crucial problem here, is that it is this interpretation of the prior RfC that changes what it was about, and therefore it is a perhaps unintentional attempt (but an attempt nonetheless) to change the consensus. It was titled "RfC on first sentence" regarding the Gaza genocide article. By its own terms, it was not about what should be done in other articles. Had it been framed that way, there might not have been an editor consensus previously. We should not automatically apply that prior RfC universally because the RfC itself said it was limited. Coining (talk) 02:36, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

  No the consensus was to state that there was genocide, and since Wikipedia only state verifiable things, the truth had to be determined. Not only the truth, but other things like whether it was due, neutral, etc. had to be determined. So if that RfC was just going to determine whether the Gaza genocide has happened, it may have had a more supportive turnout. You are free to hold a RfC on the Gaza genocide page on whether all other articles should also follow it. If you do, what will likely happen is that people will point towards the moratorium. Whether that consensus applies on other articles depends on the turnout of it, and since it lasted for quite a long duration and had a healthy turnout, it was not a local consensus. That RfC has, so far, had a much larger turnout so it should indeed be applied here. User:Easternsahara_{review this} 03:12, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

  I don't understand your reasoning here. The RfC was titled "RfC on first sentence" and explicity asked participants to evaluate the merits of the first sentence. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 03:23, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

  And, specifically, the first sentence didn't note when the genocide started, or which Israeli acts were part of it BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:36, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

  Must be the first genocide in history when no one knows when it started or what specifically was genocidal about it, just vague statements about backbench politicians saying things, contrived intent, and a general dislike for the war. "It was/is a genocide, but we cant give you any details about it". Altho, in fact, there are quite a number of "experts" who claim it started on October 7, 2023 or in the immediate weeks after, which can be used to assess their credibility. ← Metallurgist (talk) 21:27, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

  I respectfully suggest you strike at least the first two sentences of your comment, which read as offensively dismissive of other editors, of the human suffering in Gaza, and of the victims of other genocides whose precise start date is not fully agreed upon or whose extent is not fully understood (e.g. can you give me the exact calendar date on which the Armenian genocide began, or identify which genocidal attacks during the War in Darfur were "actually" military operations?). This whole reply is also a complete strawman and misrepresentation of the actual scholarly discussion. There's nothing uncredible about academics correctly identifying something early on. WillowCity^(talk) 22:50, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

  My comment is not directed at any editor here. We can only go with what the sources say, and the sources are highly unreliable, which is why they deserve impeachment and rejection. And when claims of genocide are used to justify burning synagogues, murdering killing Jews, and otherwise attacking them, it certainly deserves intense scrutiny. Especially given the deficiencies and defects in the sources. Again, this is nothing to do with the editors. ← Metallurgist (talk) 01:50, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

  Whataboutism: both the genocide in Gaza and actions, which resulted in a tiny fraction of the death compared to the Gaza genocide, can be bad. The sources are obviously reliable, at least when held to Wikipedia's definition, if they are written by experts and published in scholarly journals. You may argue that they are biased, but to say that they are unreliable because they do not all agree on a start date is dubious; especially so when the war itself only started ~2 years ago—giving limited time for scholarly consensus to form. Additionally, the killing of journalists and leveling of the strip does not help with evidence gathering. Otherwise, there are arguments which are for the Gaza genocide's veracity—critiquing them would be a better use of time—and the lack of start date seems insignificant in comparison to the arguments or their attempted rebuttals.

  Also, it is disingenuous to say "killing Jews" when the attacked of the capital jewish museum shooting were israelis working for the embassy of israel. Does this make it better? No. Nonetheless, conflating antisemitism and antizionism makes it seem like these people were attacked because of their ethnicity rather than their political standings. Although unfortunate, political violence during times of political unrest is to be expected and "claims of genocide" didn't affect that, as none of the attackers cited academic consensus about the Gaza genocide as their motivation. And, to my knowledge, there hasn't been a paper arguing for attacks on Jews because of the Gaza genocide. So how is academia surrounding the Gaza genocide being used to justify any of those things? User:Easternsahara_{review this} 02:40, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

  Must be the first genocide in history when no one knows when it started or what specifically was genocidal about it, just vague statements about backbench politicians saying things, contrived intent, and a general dislike for the war.

  If this is what you believe, then you haven't been listening at all to the arguments on the other side that have been presented to you throughout your extensive engagement with this topic. The idea that all genocide scholars and Wikipedia editors who concluded there is a genocide have no idea why it's a genocide after presenting detailed and specific arguments about why this qualifies as a genocide is extremely disrespectful, dismissive, and insulting. We have reasons for believing this is a genocide. You may not like these reasons, but simply stating they do not exist almost feels disruptive and like a violation of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.

  Easternsahara is correct that talking about bad things that have happened to Jews is a distraction from the actual argument at hand and is textbook whataboutism. Their argument that it is misleading to characterize killing Israeli embassy workers as "killing Jews" (as if it was antisemitically motivated rather than politically motivated) is correct.

  Saying "scholarly sources concluding there is genocide means we cannot say there is genocide because this (hypothetically) fuels antisemitism" (as far as I understood what you were saying) is not based in Wiki policy because we do not determine what is true and belongs in articles based on possible hypothetical political implications of facts.

  Since you said no one knows what was genocidal about Israel's actions, I will lay out the argument that it is a genocide for you clearly:

  • A genocide is genocidal acts coupled with genocidal intent, per the Genocide Convention.
  • Genocidal intent is established in part through statements made by top Israeli officials, including the President, Prime Minister, and Defense Minister—some of which propose nuking Gaza, say all civilians (including all women and children) need to be punished, allude to genocidal biblical passages, and even explicitly advocate ethnic cleansing in the same vein as the Nakba. One statement, by the Minister of Heritage, said The north of the Gaza Strip, more beautiful than ever. Everything is blown up and flattened, simply a pleasure for the eyes.
  • The rest of genocidal intent is established through patterns of behavior, such as the IDF routinely shooting children with snipers
  • Genocidal actions according to Article II of the genocide convention that Israel engaged in were (a) killings, (b) inflicting serious bodily/mental harm, (c) inflicting conditions of life, and (d) preventing births, all with the intention of partially or fully destroying Palestinians as a people. These are some of the acts characterized as qualifying as genocidal under Article II (a-d).

  Hopefully this clears things up and helps you understand the arguments being presented. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 22:41, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

  No, the consensus was to change one sentence in the lede to be voiced. Numerous people, including many who are known to be more sympathetic to the Palestinians than not, have stated this was not a sitewide consensus, which is why that discussion is starting to take shape on village pump and elsewhere. ← Metallurgist (talk) 21:13, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

  It actually has been stated by a few people that the RFC on the genocide page does not apply to a wiki-wide voicing RFC and that is why work is being done towards proposing that. However, the voicing there does add a little more support for voicing elsewhere. ← Metallurgist (talk) 21:11, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

  Also, I have removed the sidebar template pending the outcome of this RM. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 21:05, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose Asking for a vote on names is a direct violation of WP:NOTAVOTE. RMs cannot be a strawpoll of names where the highest voted name wins, only suggest potential names, which are then chosen based on the merits of the arguments in favor or against. Pretending this was an RM solely for the nom's strongly preferred name suggestion rather than an against-policy strawpoll, I oppose it on the grounds that the Gaza genocide page is about a debated subject. While having a page on it is merited to document the debate, I don't think a single discussion on said page about a passage on the page itself is sufficient to state that there is now a full, encyclopedia-wide consensus. I agree with the argument slightly above that it appears to be a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:34, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

  Points well taken. I suppose a !vote to "Oppose" the whole approach of this RM is also equivalent to a !vote for option (b) (the status quo option). More importantly, it's an argument for option (b). Coining (talk) 14:18, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

  This whole RM is a nightmare. There are two questions here: war vs genocide AND killed vs fatalities vs deaths vs casualties. @Bobfrombrockley made a good point about the difficulties of using genocide, so that makes war the obvious choice. That leaves us with the second part. @SuperPianoMan9167 made a good point that casualties would end up too broad, so that eliminates that. Oddly, I cant find any comparable lists like this, as I dont think war deaths are usually listed. I could not immediately find any genocide lists, altho one may exist. Deaths is also too broad for a war. So that leaves us with killed or fatalities. I am really fine with either. Finally, what a strange article. I am flattered to be imitated tho, and this gives me another idea. ← Metallurgist (talk) 21:24, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

• Initially I was skeptical but I think it would be biased not to use genocide, in line with victim lists for all other genocides. I don't agree with the idea that it's POV to call it a genocide but not POV to call it a war, given that there are high quality sources that argue the opposite (ie. the war framing is itself biased or inaccurate). Thus, support original proposal (t · c) buIdhe 15:57, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

  The source you referenced doesn't make that argument. It ascribes that argument (that the war framing is inaccurate) to Francesca Albanese and the President of Brazil - not high quality sources for our purposes. A much more representative quote from the source would be "describing this conflict as a war does not suggest that it cannot also be a genocide or a form of ethnic cleansing". This is pretty close to the opposite of the use you are making of this source. Samuelshraga (talk) 22:00, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

  I'm simply pointing out that "war" is disputed as a framing, and is not necessarily less controversial than the genocide framing, as some editors assume without evidence. (t · c) buIdhe 23:44, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

  +1 User:Easternsahara_{review this} 00:12, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

  I get that you're saying that "war" is disputed as a framing, and on that I agree with you. However, you said that it's disputed by high quality sources, and the article you provided only cited low quality sources for that opinion (an activist and a politician).

  Moreover, you said that it's not necessarily less controversial than the genocide framing, as some editors assume without evidence: you actually provided evidence that it is less controversial - a journal article specifically addressing the issue and making the opposite claim: a "war" framing does not preclude any conclusion of "genocide". Samuelshraga (talk) 14:28, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

  +1 Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 19:17, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose (e) (f) (g) (h) as POV when applied to the current article scope. Some say it is genocide and we can and should report their views, but Wikipedia should avoid adding our own voice to this view. Andrewa (talk) 23:32, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

  Not applicable per WP:READBEFORE. This point about WP:NPOV has been beaten to death, settled, and affirmed in more appropriate venues such as here. There is consensus it is appropriate to call it a genocide in Wikivoice despite WP:NPOV, which is not up for debate unless an RfC is opened in Talk:Gaza genocide specifically challenging that RfC's genocide in Wikivoice conclusion. It is respectfully a waste of editors' time to relitigate the same question again in an inappropriate location, so if you could strike out your comment that would be greatly appreciated. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 01:23, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

  No RfC can stop an editor from making an NPOV argument, WP:NPOV is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia. I do not recommend striking your comment. An administrator can weigh it appropriately when deciding what to do with this requested move. Coining (talk) 01:43, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks. And in any case I see no reason to strike my comment. I respect the view of user:Alexandraaaacs1989 and their right to express it, and their referring to the previous RfC is helpful. But consensus can change. The two comments in previous discussions to which they linked are also helpful and I am sure the closer will consider them. But their strong (and unflattering) appeal to an essay, stating rather blandly Not applicable per WP:READBEFORE as if that settled something is not IMO helpful at all; Again that is a matter for the closer to assess. Andrewa (talk) 07:02, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

RM on journalists list

@Alexandraaaacs1989: would you also add List of journalists killed in the Gaza war to the RM on this page as it is very similar to this article? A separate move for that article does not seem warranted, since the arguments for and against would be very similar. User:Easternsahara_{review this} 03:41, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Let's not please, it would only complicate the discussion tagging this in after a week. Would be best to see how this RM goes first before creating another or converting to a multi-page RM. CNC (talk) 09:28, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Easternsahara I agree here with CNC that we should hold out on multi-page RM, as most multi-page RMs I've attempted have been disasters. That said, I am hesitant to open a new RM after this one closes, so I'd like if we could figure out issues that arise with the other article's name here in an (ideally) brief discussion.

If we do "civilians killed in the genocide" for this page and "journalists killed in the genocide" in the other page, that may cause some issues, e.g., with Lebanese journalists who were killed being included on the page. "In the Gaza war" seems to dodge a lot of issues where nationality is relevant, which is much more pertinent to the other list than the current makeup of this one in my view. So I like journalists killed in the Gaza war as-is, but if people decide on "fatalities" or "deaths" then I agree it would make sense to move to "journalist fatalities/deaths/etc". Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 03:22, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose all options that put genocide in wiki voice. Genocide is a congested term that shouldn't be in wiki voice as Wikipedia isn't supposed to pick sides. We can provide the evidence that is used to claim it's a genocide but putting it in wiki voice results in Wikipedia picking a side. Springee (talk) 10:59, 8 December 2025 (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.

Rafah paramedic massacre?

Should the Rafah paramedic massacre be included on the list? Rainsage (talk) 09:25, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Lead section

@Alexandraaaacs1989 has readded "genocide" to the lead section with the justifications

Added "and genocide" after "in the Gaza war, this seems WP:DUE since this list, regardless of whether we use "war" or "genocide" as the title, is certainly highly relevant to the genocide (and the genocide is highly relevant to it). If you contest this change, please open an RfC to prevent future edit warring.

and

Removed "please do not add information about the genocide until the move is closed" because the article not having "genocide" in its name does not prohibit us from discussing the genocide in the article. Added back genocide sidebar since this article is in it. Per WP:SNOW I think this change does not need consensus first but if you'd like to contest it feel free to open a talk page discussion and if others back your argument we can remove genocide stuff until the discussion is resolved.

I disagree with these changes and am thus opening a discussion. I think we should not add this to the lead until the RM is closed. I disagree with the notion that changing this requires an RfC. (Also, I think WP:SILENCE is a better link to explain the idea of "if no one disagrees there is consensus".) SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 16:55, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

I agree with @SuperPianoMan9167. Coining (talk) 00:14, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

I also agree with SuperPianoMan9167. Lova Falk (talk) 10:05, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

The lead should not state genocide in wiki voice. The claim of genocide is contested. Springee (talk) 11:02, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Matching name and scope

Given the name, I think it would make sense to add a section for notable Israeli civilians killed in the Gaza war (based on consistent criteria for inclusion to the existing list). Samuelshraga (talk) 07:54, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

(Notable meaning having a wikipedia article). Samuelshraga (talk) 07:54, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

I support this to full inclusion of all civilians killed from any country in the war. The War infobox would help with that. The Israeli casualties in particular are well documented and may pass NLIST on their own, but I am not in any rush to make a list of 1200 people... ← Metallurgist (talk) 00:48, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

@Metallurgist Someone already is a draft of October 7th civilian victims in draftspace, although it already got rejected in the AFC process. EaglesFan37 (talk) 02:21, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

@EaglesFan37 do you have a link for that? Would save a lot of work on collating. Samuelshraga (talk) 18:25, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

@Samuelshraga Here's the link Draft:List of victims of the October 7 attacks.

People on the list with their own articles are Lior Asulin, Bibas Family, Alex Dancyg, Samer Talalka, Hersh Goldberg-Polin,Yotam Haim, Liel Hetzroni, Yanai Hetzroni, Bipin Joshi, the Kutz Family, Hayim Katsman, Oded Lifshitz, Shani Louk, Izhar Peled (was retired), Chaim Peri, Nattapong Pinta, Alon Shamriz, Vivian Silver, the Siman Tov Family, and Yahav Winner. EaglesFan37 (talk) 19:15, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

I agree with the above point. Given the current title of the article seems to refer to all civilian killed in the war, Israeli civilians with wikipedia articles killed during the war (such as Vivian Silver, Oded Lifshitz, Hersh Goldberg-Polin, Lior Assulin, etc.) should be included. If this list only refers to Palestinian civilians killed, then the title should be changed to reflect as such. EaglesFan37 (talk) 02:24, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Oh it looks like this list is limited to those with articles, so that is a fair point. I thought it was more comprehensive at first. ← Metallurgist (talk) 21:39, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Thing is, adding Israeli civilians to the list would necessitate significant changes to the lead, which would need wider discussion. EaglesFan37 (talk) 03:20, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

Yea, but thats not incredibly difficult to do. ← Metallurgist (talk) 22:24, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

@Metallurgist The lead does make it clear what the article is meant to be about. The article title needs to be changed to match. EaglesFan37 (talk) 21:47, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

The lead needs to be changed regardless. "This is a list of notable civilians killed by Israel during the Gaza war and genocide." First of all, not all the civilians on this list are notable in the sense in which it appears to be used (passing WP:GNG) - many of the always are to "Killing of X" pages, signifying that their killing was what passed WP:GNG, not their biography.

I think the rest of the lede is questionable too - on what basis are we including that analysis? The list's inclusion criteria include the existence of a wikipedia page, and AFAIK there is no RS commentary on a list so defined (as opposed to RS commentary on Civilian casualties of the Gaza war in general, which properly belong on that page).

Either we need to fix the lede and content to match the title, or we need to change the title and also the lede to match the current content. I think the former is fine, and probably better. The use of a page like this is broadly navigational, and it will be helpful to navigate to Israeli casualties as much as to Palestinian ones. Samuelshraga (talk) 23:03, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

@Samuelshraga The scope is also unclear as well. The list includes at least one Palestinian child killed in the West Bank, which should probably be listed in the "Additional Civilian Death" in the "See also" section.

Anyways, my main concern about changing it is that it is clear what the article was intended to be (list solely of Palestinian civilians). EaglesFan37 (talk) 23:48, 17 January 2026 (UTC)