Edge Rewrite
everything Source code View original
// HTMLRewriter · presentation

This page was redesigned at the edge.

Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.

// request.cf · coarse context

A page that knows where it met you.

Only coarse request metadata is shown. This demo does not display or persist visitor IP addresses.

Country
US
Cloudflare location
CMH
Connection
HTTP/2
Language
Not provided

Ray ID: a2a9e4556adccac0

Jump to content

Talk:Gaza genocide/Archive 19

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Talk:Gaza genocide
Latest comment: 9 months ago by EvansHallBear in topic Acknowledgement of disputing genocide
Archive 15←Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21→Archive 25

Acknowledgement of disputing genocide

Latest comment: 9 months ago110 comments19 people in discussion

I believe that having genocide being disputed by many is valid to be placed. I think topics have to be fairly written. The fact this article is titled Gaza genocide vs another “Allegations of genocide in the October 7th attacks”. Why are they different? I mean people have accused Hamas of genocidal intent and Israel of it. However Israel’s apparently is confirmed, while Hamas isn’t?

I believe that making it fair will need either a title rename somewhere or a bigger acknowledgement of the disputed part of the in the Gaza genocide article. Currently it presents a bit of bias against Israel overall. I think it has to be neutral and not bias written. I tried to make it fairer, but my edit was reverted by @M.Bitton. Now I’m taking it to the talk page. - FellowMellow (talk) 22:06, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

I don't think that the current is necessarily wrong, but I would support at least a short sentence at the end of the first paragraph along the lines of that a non-insignificant minority still dispute the characterization, and that ultimately the number who continue to dispute it is about the same as the number who disputed that genocide was ongoing the month before the terrorist attack that started the current war two years ago. I think it risks shoving a specific POV down people's throats if we allow the properly sourced "callouts" of a UN agency and multiple high ranking organizations while not also saying there is still dispute. The average reader is not going to know that the reason we're calling the groups out is to evidence how it is the majority (but not universal) view. They're going to assume we're doing it to push them to agree with that distinction. So if nothing else for optics a short statement about the ongoing dispute should be added imo. How to word it and exactly where is beyond me. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 22:40, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
We're describing an acknowledged fact (the only reason those organisations are there is because that's what it took for some editors to finally accept what's happening). The sentence about the insignificant minority is where it belongs (at the end of the lead section). M.Bitton (talk) 22:46, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
This is wrong! You’re allowing the bias to set the tone of the article. The article starts with "intentional". This looks as if Wikipedia is in agreement with the genocide acknowledgement and it is taking a side. This has to be changed and become neutral like all articles. The article in its current format is not how it should be. Why all the sudden are you refraining from answering my first reply about your question? Did I give you an answer that you were not expecting? FellowMellow (talk) 22:51, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
@M.Bitton: I greatly respect you, but bluntly it is not "an acknowledged fact". If there's any point where it can be considered fact would be after a court (one tasked with determining this matter, not some random civil court somewhere) rules that it is. But ultimately, even then whether something is or isn't a genocide relies on a lot of opinions as to how severe something is or the intent of an action (or inaction).
So calling it a "fact" is, in my view, a clear instance of you letting your personal opinions/POV affect your editing. Regardless of yourself, or in fact the number of people (80-85% based on the last good number I saw) who thought genocide was occurring in Gaza isn't really that different from before the attack - maybe slightly higher but not so much so that there can somehow be a "fact" now where there wasn't before. The total number is nowhere near high enough that the alternative (i.e. not genocide) view would be considered a WP:FRINGE view if it was a scientific topic.
So I think it behooves us to treat this as we would any other significant (i.e. non-FRINGE) view. The lead should "summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies" - including the prominent controversy (including the significant minority view) that there is not a genocide occurring. Currently, the only mention of that in the lead is a small part in the very last sentence: although some scholars disagree. Whereas the prominence (and number) of proponents of the view are in the final sentence of the first paragraph.
I'm not saying we need to move the dissent/controversy to the first paragraph necessarily. But it shouldn't be relegated to the very last four words in the lead. To do so is to place it at the end as if it's an afterthought and not significant. Which can be seen as pushing a POV. To avoid this, we should mention at least the fact there is still significant (i.e. non-fringe) dissent in proximity to where we go over all the people who agree with it - rather than just at the end of the entire lead. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 22:59, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
The idea that facts can only be established through court rulings doesn't hold much water (as discussed in the previous RfC). I respect you too, that's why I'm willing to ignore everything you said starting with "in my view...". M.Bitton (talk) 23:11, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
Two things here. The previous RfC is not proof it's a fact. It's proof that Wikipedia considers it a fact. Please don't conflate things and think that Wikipedia can determine whether something is actually a fact or not. Regardless of what you call it, there is a non-insignificant, non-fringe minority who dispute the fact (or whatever you call it). That existing needs to be at least mentioned in relative proximity to when we discuss all the "proof" for the fact, otherwise we are not giving it due weight as required (by relegating it to four words at the end of the lead as if it were a fringe view).
The second thing is I really hope you were attempting to be funny, because if you truly believe you should ignore my view just because you respect me, that's a pretty massive sign you aren't discussing in good faith. And I will reject in advance any accusation of me casting aspersions - everything I've said has been based on your statements and words. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 23:17, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
That's one way of looking at it, the other being: we don't give UNDUE weight to insignificant minorities.
Not at all (I have no time for those who personalise discussions). M.Bitton (talk) 23:25, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
Insignificant? Are you serious? So you’re suggesting that anyone who agrees with it being genocide is significant and those who dispute it is insignificant? This does not look at all to be discussing in good faith and a mere voice of opinion. - FellowMellow (talk) 23:29, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
I don’t think you should be classifying what @Berchanhimez said was wrong. The user demonstrated seriousness on this matter and discussed it without biased. What do you mean willing to ignore? Callouts by organizations are not facts whatsoever. I would suggest that you discuss this matter more appropriately, As this is currently a 2-1 decision as of now, this is an inclination that there is current support on this matter. The language can’t remain, if only @M.Bitton supports the language. You have me and @Berchanhimez agreeing that it should be changed. Not necessarily agreeing how to change it, but in agreement that it needs to be altered to neutral language. FellowMellow (talk) 23:18, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
I think at this point we've all said our part and there's nothing more to be gained from any of us continuing to go back and forth at this point. I think we should all just wait and see what others think or have to ask/say. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 23:31, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
I agree with @Berchanhimez. You are right. But I feel me must find some sort of language to acknowledge that there are disputes. The current page uses the wording "intentional" and "the genocidal acts". These are very problematic words that are being used to highlight the introduction of the article. It appears that how it is written confirms that Wikipedia believe it is a genocide, while ignoring disputes. It has to be neutral language. - FellowMellow (talk) 22:47, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
@Berchanhimez, I am asking for the opportunity to change the language currently set on the article and making it neutral and being approved on the talk page. FellowMellow (talk) 23:10, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
I really would like @Number 57 please to be brought into this matter, as I feel it is necessary to have a user for over 20 years to rule on the matter. FellowMellow (talk) 23:24, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
I would've appreciated being pinged here, considering my involvement as the original editor who removed it, but regardless -
I reverted your initial edit with the description "Removing ill-fitting statement "The claim of genocide has also often been disputed." from the middle of the lead paragraph. This is already covered in the last sentence of the opening & if you wish for it to be moved higher up, please discuss on the talk page."
By "ill-fitting", I meant that you put it into the middle of a paragraph describing the Gaza genocide, where it made no sense - the dispute was also placed before the overwhelming academic consensus. As the disputed nature was already included later on, I felt it best to momentarily remove the sentence & asked you to bring it to talk if you wanted it moved higher. Instead, you reverted back to your preferred version without discussion, only coming here after being reverted again.
The certainty in the opening is the result of an RfC with wide participation & backed by an overwhelming academic consensus, as opposed to the characterization of October 7 as a genocide, a position with no where near the level of academic backing. To have both articles be given equal validity would be an inaccurate portrayal of existing citations.
I'm fine with theoretically moving the disputed nature higher up, but this must be done properly in order to accurately convey that it is a minority view. This is both to avoid WP:FALSEBALANCE & to follow the closing of the recently concluded RfC.
With all that in mind, how specifically would you like the lead to be changed? Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 23:26, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
I've been trying to think of a way it could potentially be the first sentence of the second paragraph, something like A minority of scholars and experts dispute the claim that it is a genocide... (but here's some information on the number of deaths and things like that)... but I a) can't make that work well, and b) am not sure that's the best way to do it. Then there's also the problem of just putting it in its own (unconnected) sentence at the beginning of the next paragraph as that's just... yeah no.
So I guess I'd support a short sentence being added to the end of the first paragraph stating a minority (17%, sourced to the pie chart which appears to be sourced) disagree that a genocide is occurring or similar. Perhaps A (smaller group/minority) (17%) of scholars and experts disagree that a genocide is occurring in Gaza. or similar. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 23:38, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
And for the record, I agree with the removal and instruction to discuss it here. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 23:39, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
Yeah, I think that could work, but I'd remove the specific percentage as that's likely to regularly shift. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 23:40, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
I include the percentage because I think it may be the only way to satisfy everyone. I can't think of a set of words to describe the area around 15-20% that won't either make some people think it's being overly negative (i.e. "too small") or overly positive (i.e. "too big"). Maybe including the percentage (or a range, if that can be sourced elsewhere) would avoid arguments over the exact wording. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 00:15, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
Honestly, I think "A minority of scholars and experts disagree that a genocide is occurring in Gaza." is the best wording we can currently hope for.
No wording will satisfy everyone & people will argue that the survey's findings aren't wholly representative, but I think this wording accurately portrays the current situation.
There are experts who dispute the characterization of a genocide, not so few as to be considered entirely WP:FRINGE, but they are still in the minority. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 01:05, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
I would be fine with that sentence at the end of the first paragraph of the lead, with citation/footnote details if/where people feel necessary. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 01:12, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
Here is another response @Berchanhimez. Now, @Butterscotch Beluga, I am not requesting a change in the article name "allegations of genocide in the October 7th attacks." I reverted it because ill-fitting was not a clear explanation of the revert. Regardless, I appreciate your attention to this matter and listening to my opinion because I feel I have been ignored on this talk page by @M.Bitton sadly and I appreciate you discussing this in good faith, @Butterscotch Beluga. I think making it neutral can be like this and moving it upwards.
The characterization of the situation in Gaza as genocide has been subject to differing interpretations; however, assessments disputing this designation appear to represent a minority viewpoint within the international community. This would be neutral and appropriate. There is also the saying on the article “ongoing, intentional, and systematic destruction of the Palestinian people in the Gaza Strip carried out by Israel during the Gaza war. The genocidal acts…” this specific paragraph is giving a bias of agreement by Wikipedia that it is a genocide. However it is not Wikipedia’s job to determine that. We are to explain the situation, not take a side. This has to be omitted or neutrally written. FellowMellow (talk) 23:40, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
I also agree with @Berchanhimez that having a percentage is very appropriate and neutral, but the number may shift also. FellowMellow (talk) 23:41, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
That wording would go against the RfC - it wasn't about the title, it was about if we could state that it's a genocide in wikivoice & it was closed in favor of using wikivoice.
You're right that it's not our job to determine the facts, but that's not what we're doing - “ongoing, intentional, and systematic destruction of the Palestinian people in the Gaza Strip carried out by Israel during the Gaza war. The genocidal acts…” is wording backed by reliable sources & is the culmination of the RfC's closing. That description is neutrally worded as it's what constitutes a genocide, intent & systemic destruction of a people. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 23:54, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
But we have to describe it as that is being said by other sources. The current language it’s under is stating that Wikipedia is saying this. It needs to be adjusted so it’s clear to people, that this is stated by other sources. FellowMellow (talk) 00:08, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
That is is a good solution add that a minority dispute it without a specific percentage GothicGolem29 (talk) 23:51, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Comment - given the many reputable international human rights organizations and scholars who characterize this as a genocide, the "dispute" should not be included in the first paragraph, where it would be given WP:UNDUE weight. Instead, it should remain where it is now, in the last paragraph. -Darouet (talk) 01:29, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
    I strongly object to keeping it as is, as it would make disputing scholars as insignificant. - FellowMellow (talk) 03:39, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
    I think using the word "dispute" is too charitable. It should instead be "deny." Every genocide has Genocide denial, and this genocide is no exception. Take a look at the most recent listing on Template:Expert opinions in the Gaza genocide debate that is a No. They claim to address the IAGS resolution, but fail to address its main points. For example, they discuss the deaths of children, and then immediately skip over to ICC arrest warrants (which aren't for the crime of genocide) when the IAGS resolution discusses genocidal intent expressed by Netanyahu and other Israeli leaders. This is never mentioned or responded to. Can this really be characterized as a "dispute" when one "side" is just ignoring what the other "side" is saying? And this is besides the fact that the "No" was literally organized by a group called "UK Lawyers for Israel." Does anyone really expect such a group to reach any other conclusion besides one that is exculpatory? Also, note that even among scholars who deny genocide, the viewpoint that the Israeli government is justified in its actions is a minority even among them. So to break it down:
    Majority of scholars and experts consider it to be a genocide.
    Of the minority who say it is not a genocide, a majority state that Israel is/has committed crimes against humanity (but not genocide). A minority of that minority say Israel's actions are wholly justified, and almost all of those who make such a claim are either literally the Israeli government or directly funded by the Israeli government, meaning that WP:MANDY applies. You have to get pretty far into the Armenian genocide article's lead before there is a mention of the Turkish government's position of denial. I don't see why that same standard doesn't apply here. The Israeli government's denial should be mentioned near the end of the lead.
    To reiterate, the word "dispute" is too charitable because it's not like there is any serious dispute over key facts, such as the destruction of over 90% of civilian homes in Gaza. If someone really believes that there is a substantial "dispute" here akin to Holodomor genocide question, I'd want to know what specifically is being disputed, because based on what I'm seeing, it's better described as denial, not dispute. JasonMacker (talk) 04:41, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
    "Deny", in my opinion, carries the view that it is a universally accepted fact that they're denying. Like the "vaccines cause autism" argument level. Yes, there's a very small percentage of people who still parrot that, but it's well into FRINGE territory. Not something that has over 10% of scholars/experts disagreeing with it.
    Ultimately, your entire comment here is about your personal desire to see Wikipedia be used to support your view on the whole thing. Which is not appropriate. It doesn't matter whether the dispute is over the facts themselves, or over whether those facts constitute genocide when taken as a whole. There is a significant (i.e. non-FRINGE) minority, and they deserve their due weight in the lead. Not to be relegated to 4 words at the literal end of the lead. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 05:31, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
    I absolutely 100% agree with @Berchanhimez. The user is right about everything. It can’t just be relegated to 4 worlds at the literal end of the lead. FellowMellow (talk) 19:06, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
    "Universally accepted fact" and "a very small percentage of people" are two very different things. I'm not sure which one you're arguing for here, because, especially in political science, history, and genocide studies, there is no such thing as a "universally accepted fact." I don't understand your appeal to WP:RGW as it seems to be an empty ad hominem. You don't even cite any specific thing I wrote as an example of RGW. Let's focus on editing Wikipedia as opposed to accusing others of bad faith or failing to uphold the standards of Wikipedia.
    > It doesn't matter whether the dispute is over the facts themselves, or over whether those facts constitute genocide when taken as a whole. There is a significant (i.e. non-FRINGE) minority, and they deserve their due weight in the lead.
    Ok, WHICH views within that minority should be given due weight? This was a part of my comment that you didn't bother addressing. Maybe it would have been constructive on this talk page to address the things I actually wrote instead of the unsubstantiated RGW ad hominem. So, because you didn't actually address it, I will reiterate my concern. Because there is no one minority view, which one should we be giving weight to? Look at the pie chart in the Gaza_genocide#Academic_and_legal_discourse section. According to that, 82% say genocide or major war crimes akin to genocide. That leaves 18% which do not invoke genocide for their description of the events of 2023-2025 in Gaza. Of those 18%, 50% (9% of the total when including the scholars that say genocide or major war crimes akin to genocide) say major war crimes but not akin to genocide, 22% (4% of the total) unjustified actions but not major war crimes, and another 22% (4% of the total) justified actions under the right to self-defense. There's also the 11% (2% of the total) that say they don't know. Which of these minority positions should be given their due weight, and what would that consist of? And note that this is limited to only Middle East scholars in the United States, so there could be an issue of being unrepresentative of scholars in general. But the general idea here, that the people who say it is not a genocide have differing views, remains true. My answer to this is to include the Israeli government's denial of any serious war crimes, in the same way that the Turkish government's denial of serious war crimes is noted in the Armenian genocide article. For the other scholarly positions, those don't need to be in the lead, and can instead be added to the Academic and legal responses to the Gaza genocide article.
    And again, I invoke Holodomor genocide question. If the article wants to say that the characterization of genocide is in dispute, then it needs to specify what exactly is being disputed. Is it the death toll, the amount of destruction, the motives of the Israeli government, or what? Are there any scholarly articles discussing this dispute and summarizing the various positions?If your response to this is that the main thing that is in dispute is just the genocide label, then that sounds more like denial rather than legitimate dispute. If there is a legitimate dispute, then we need to actually have sources stating so, and not engage in WP:SYNTH where we as editors look at people with different positions and conclude that there is a dispute.
    In contrast, we have academic sources that discuss Gaza genocide denial explicitly, such as this McDoom article that came out last month, or Gilbert Achcar's book that came out this year (2025), which also mentions Gaza genocide denial. We also have this Taner Akçam article that was also published last month. He explicitly makes a connection between Armenian genocide denial and Gaza genocide denial:

    If we strip away the exceptionalist vocabulary and normalize our field, what lies before us is something remarkably familiar: a textbook case of denialism. For those working on the Armenian Genocide, the rhetorical playbook surrounding Gaza feels like déjà vu. The language currently used by denialists of the mass atrocities in Gaza – fear of annihilation, appeals to self-defense, and the inversion of victimhood – has been rehearsed for over a century in Turkish denialism. The logic is familiar: violence is always framed as a response, never as an initiative. And whatever happened is explained solely by the victims’ own behaviour.

    And in case anyone is wondering, Taner Akçam is preeminent in his field, with the Wikipedia article describing him by saying that He is recognized as a "leading international authority" on the subject. So based on this academic sources, I think denial is the right word to use here, not dispute. If you have academic sources that talk about dispute, feel free to present them. Nevertheless, even if we agree to give some weight to the dispute characterization, the Israeli government's denial, and prominent scholars who mention said denial, should also be given some weight. JasonMacker (talk) 01:40, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
    The only thing I have to contribute to this discussion is an example.
    In UNHRC Commission of Inquiry on Gaza genocide#Israel, the Israeli government's official response to the 72 page long document establishing that Israel violated Article 2(a, b, c, and d) of the Genocide Convention and establishing genocidal intent was around one page long.
    Allow us to read the an excerpt from the response:
    The COI report falsely accuses Israel of allegations it cannot substantiate even by its cherry-picked data. Its claims rely on misleading statistics, unfounded apocalyptic projections based on weak data, and manipulated and unverified sources.
    Wow, this is a serious allegation. I'm excited to see what the inaccuracies in the report look like.
    One of the many examples is the report falsely quoting Israeli security officials as allegedly saying that they are focused on “what causes maximum damage”. Once again, the COI distorts reality - the full quote in this case was “maximum damage to Hamas military capabilities .”
    That's strange, because that quote was not a truncation of the longer quote: the "Hamas" clarification was only mentioned in a follow-up months later after they received significant public backlash for using genocidal rhetoric. So the report actually accurately characterized this statement and the Israeli government was lying to the audiences of their one page response. But that's okay, let's see what their next example is of inaccuracies in the report.
    Just kidding, there is no next example. That was it. That was the one piece of evidence they interacted with and it was a lie. They did not engage with the claims of genocidal intent (e.g. Amalek comparisons, which are characterized by scholars as genocidal), they did not engage with any of the dozens of pieces of evidence brought forward, and they claimed a "study" (in quotations because the study was not conducted by scholars) rife with inaccurate claims according to actual genocide scholars single-handedly "refuted every false allegation of genocide".
    There were about 10 lies total in this one page document. These are facts it takes 5 seconds to verify. One of the commissioners of the report, in response to the (reminder: one page) Israeli response, said she wished Israel "would look at the facts we set out and point out what is not true" since nothing they said actually engaged with any of the evidence.
    The Israeli government, of all people, should be putting out the best refutations of genocide out there, and what are we getting? Staggeringly inept responses replete with ad hominem attacks and easily debunked lies. So yes, I wholeheartedly agree with JasonMacker: the other side is textbook genocide denialism—not a serious body of scholarship. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 03:26, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
    The Israeli government making that response does not mean the other side is denialism. The scholarly work the says it is not genocide could be vastly different to that response and should be judged on it's own not based on the Israeli governments response. GothicGolem29 (talk) 19:14, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
    So let me get this straight: Israel is charged with genocide, and in response the Israeli government mass produces genocide denial misinformation, but in order to represent the "Israeli side of the argument," we should defer not to the Israeli government themselves, but to groups funded by the Israeli government who advocate that Israel, which is mass producing genocide denial misinformation, is not committing genocide? Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 20:46, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
    To represent the side of the argument that is saying it is not a genocide scholars they do have to be included yes because their views and articles on this could make different points to the Israeli response you mentioned. GothicGolem29 (talk) 22:09, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
    If arguments disputing the genocide exist then why does Israel lie instead of using them? Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 22:51, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
    While I understand the frustration, I think this is getting off-topic. Though the government of Israel & experts who reject the characterization of a genocide may agree in this matter, they aren't the same group.
    What is important here is the academic dispute & Israel's position isn't being considered as a factor in determining that.
    The reason the dispute has to be given more weight then other past genocides is because it is a developing acknowledgment among experts. A majority of experts agree it's a genocide, but it's still true that there is a sizable minority of subject matter experts who disagree, so we must acknowledge this fact for the sake of WP:NPOV. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 23:05, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
    there is.. there is or there was? Who is still disputing it after what the UN commission of inquiry said? M.Bitton (talk) 23:15, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
    Mostly Holocaust scholars among others. While I agree the vast majority of relevant scholars acknowledge it as a genocide (& personally agree with such an assessment), I think it is a new enough development (scholarly speaking of course, so inherently slow) that we can't quite present nigh academic unanimity yet.
    I believe this will change, but I don't think we're there yet. I hope that makes sense. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 23:28, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
    Can you cite the Holocaust scholars? And the only "other" listed in the section you linked since September 2025 was the BESA study, written by a teacher at IDF school before the UNHRC report came out. 86% of IAGS voters said it's a genocide before the UNHRC report came out, and a 14% minority amongst scholars which has almost certainly since shrunk undoubtedly seems fringe enough for it not to be considered a serious dispute. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 23:48, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
    I was the one who started the section below questioning BESA's quality/reliability, so I was definitely not referring to them. Rather, I was only referring to the pie chart & that article's section on Holocaust studies scholars.
    Regardless, I was mostly just trying to keep you on the topic of academics.
    If reliable sources conclude that the number of experts who disagree that it's a genocide has shrunk to negligible number, I will in no way contest less weight being given to the dispute. I was only arguing from a position of restraint, not personal disagreement. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 00:04, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
    I understand — I in no way think you're arguing from a place of personal disagreement and of course think you're a helpful and good-faith editor :)
    I just feel that 14% of scholars taking a contrary position in IAGS is enough of a WP:RS negligible number that it's less of a dispute and more of a denial. That's 1 in 7 genocide scholars, and of those 1 in 7, we still haven't ascertained any clarity (per JasonMacker's observation) on what specific arguments that engage with the evidence are being made. But that point aside, what percent would it have to be for it to be negligible enough to be considered a denial? Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 00:18, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
    There are possible reasons but I don't really want to speculate as I don't know for sure why they don't use other arguments. GothicGolem29 (talk) 00:05, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
    You put “the Israeli side of the argument” in quotes. Who are you quoting? GothicGolem29 wasn’t advocating for including the “Israeli side” but rather for including the views of scholars and other significant voices who don’t accept the genocide allegation, who may use different arguments from Israeli officials. BobFromBrockley (talk) 04:53, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
    Out of curiosity has anyone cited any sources also alleging how easy joining the International Association of Genocide Scholars is? Or how Ireland advocated for the definition of "genocide" to be changed in order to fit the current narrative? It seems to me that they want consensus on an issue that is still widely contested. Agnieszka653 (talk) 16:39, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
    Ireland advocating changing the definition of genocide is almost certainly WP:UNDUE. If the IAGS is not a WP:RS, then please provide other WP:RS sources making this accusation. As for Bobfrombrockley, I feel like my broader point applies even if I was admittedly a bit imprecise with my wording. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 17:03, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
    Here is your source from the Guardian https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/mar/27/gaza-ireland-joins-battle-to-include-the-blocking-of-vital-aid-in-definition-of-genocide Agnieszka653 (talk) 17:33, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
    Here is an article titled: ICJ asked to broaden definition of genocide over 'collective punishment' in Gaza https://news.sky.com/story/icj-asked-to-broaden-definition-of-genocide-over-collective-punishment-in-gaza-13271874 Agnieszka653 (talk) 17:34, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
    Here is a press release specifically about Ireland: Ireland’s Push To Alter ICJ Genocide Definition a ‘Double-Edged Sword,’ Experts Say https://www.inss.org.il/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/Irelands-Push-To-Alter-ICJ-Genocide-Definition-a-%E2%80%98Double-Edged-Sword-Experts-Say-Tammy-Caner-The-Media-Line-for-site.pdf Agnieszka653 (talk) 17:36, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
    I should have made clearer I'm fine with you adding details about this to other articles like Palestinian genocide allegation where it's more WP:DUE, but in this article which is supposed to be a broad overview of the genocide, attempts at expanding the definition of genocide don't add significant value to the reader as it's been determined there's a genocide based on its existing definition. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 17:42, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
    No it hasn't--that's why Ireland advocated to expand the definition in this case. If it met the definition initially they would not have done this. The point was that the ICJ initially determined that the war did not meet the qualifying factors therefore Ireland and South Africa requested to expand it. You are looking for uniform consensus where there is still debate. Agnieszka653 (talk) 18:09, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
    @Agnieszka653 do you have any reliable, independent sourcing for the that Ireland has promoted expanding the definition because the Gaza genocide fails to fit the former definition? I haven't seen any, in what you've linked so far. Newimpartial (talk) 18:16, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
    The Guardian? This statement from the UN? Ireland files a declaration of intervention in the proceedings under Article 63 of the Statute – Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v. Israel) – Press release https://www.un.org/unispal/document/ireland-files-a-declaration-of-intervention-in-the-proceedings-under-article-63-of-the-statute-application-of-the-convention-on-the-prevention-and-punishment-of-the-crime-of-genocide-in-the-gaza-str/
    This? From Cornell Law:
    Memorandum Regarding Ireland’s Proposal to Revise the Meaning of Genocide Under International Law
    https://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1190&context=clsops_papers Agnieszka653 (talk) 18:33, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
    @Agnieszka653 Having read both of those sources, I don't see either stating that Ireland believes the recent invasion of Gaza would not fit the former interpretation of genocide under the convention. This appears to be original argumentation on your part. Newimpartial (talk) 18:56, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
    This was also my reading Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 19:03, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
    This would be nothing of particular note really, as calls for broadening the "definition" have been made by scholars and lawyers for decades. Then on the level of states calling for change, previously in November 2023 in The Gambia's case against Myanmar, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom joined the The Gambia, and in their submission these 6 countries called for changes to prior precedent to make intent "easier" to prove, as the media portrayed it. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 19:00, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
    Cdjp1 is correct that many Scarlets have long argued that the concept and its legal framing is insufficient or not fit for purpose. Dirk Moses is probably the most prominent example.[https://www.dirkmoses.com/uploads/7/3/8/2/7382125/moses_-_genocide_fit_for_purpose_.pdf
    but I do note that Amnesty has been a particular focus of sources arguing that there’s been a moving of goalposts:
    • Kashti, Or (2024-12-05). "Predetermined Conclusion': Amnesty Israel Rejects Gaza Genocide Report by Amnesty International". Haaretz. Retrieved 2025-10-14.
    • Cohen, Amichai; Shany, Yuval (2024-12-16). "A "Cramped Interpretation of International Jurisprudence"? Some Critical Observations on the Amnesty International Genocide Report on Gaza". Just Security. Retrieved 2025-10-14.
    • Tress, Luke (2025-09-03). "Critics accused of quietly rewriting meaning of genocide to fling charges at Israel". The Times of Israel. Retrieved 2025-10-14.
    • MacRedmond, David (2024-12-11). "Why is Israel accusing Amnesty International of inventing its own definition of genocide?". TheJournal.ie. Retrieved 2025-10-14.
    Not sure how I’d assess these claims. BobFromBrockley (talk) 23:02, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
    They should be assessed, in the most charitable reading, as misinformed readings of the report, though could easily be bad faith readings. The report doesn’t change anything in regards to the legal definition. The report details how it is difficult to prove intent and how it holds a position in line with a broad swathe of legal experts and scholars on not the definition as many of the articles claimed, but on the standard for evidence of intent, all of these being SKYISBLUE statements. Amnesty then immediately details how it still believes it is possible to prove intent in this case. The reporting you have shared take the statement of how it is difficult to prove intent in genocide cases and run with "therefore they made up their own definition", which is flat out wrong. Throughout the report it constantly relates everything it presents to the CPPCG.
    So, in short, they take a criticism that the report makes at the beginning of it, and then ignore the rest of the report that only uses the CPPCG definition in its arguments.
    As an analogy, it would be like myself saying "I disagree with how broad copyright law can be in what cases are thought to break copyright law", at the beginning of a case, and then arguing how the hypothetical instance doesn't break current copyright law. But all the newspaper saying instead, because of my first comment, I have invented a "new definition" of copyright to show this hypothetical case didn't break the law. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 08:23, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
    "Out of curiosity has anyone cited any sources also alleging how easy joining the International Association of Genocide Scholars is? Or how Ireland advocated for the definition of "genocide" to be changed in order to fit the current narrative? It seems to me that they want consensus on an issue that is still widely contested" This is an important point which should invalidate sources where Ireland's oddly vested interest related to this matter comes up. Iljhgtn (talk) 00:26, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
    JasonMacker's argument is correct. Addressing Gaza genocide denialism is DUE for the final paragraph of the introduction now that the tide has turned. إيان (talk) 05:59, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
    I also agree with JasonMacker. The sum total evidence is overwhelmingly strong. David A (talk) 06:55, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
    I can get behind deny of what @JasonMacker proposed. However it must be clear and at the top. I am a bit skeptical about deny because you basically reroute to the same problem we had in the beginning. It’s just adding language that let’s keep it the way it is, but people are denying a fact. You can’t say it’s a fact. It’s being disputed. I think disputed is not charitable. We are not changing the whole article to flip to the other side. FellowMellow (talk) 19:05, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
    @Butterscotch Beluga you have reverted my edit. I urge all users to please stop intentionally delaying a decision on this matter by not responding. Please put the decision at the bottom as created. FellowMellow (talk) 19:27, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
    That edit is against the RFC consensus. GothicGolem29 (talk) 23:08, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
    This is a highly contentious topic, so cautious editing is required.
    This edit & your following revert to your preferred wording went against established consensus & the position of every other editor in this discussion & is WP:DISRUPTIVE behavior.
    The consensus is that the lead will refer to the Gaza genocide in WP:VOICE. This has been repeatedly explained to you, so I don't appreciate what appears to be an attempt to unilaterally circumvent community consensus. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 19:32, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Relitigating the RfC?

I have to ask, is this discussion effectively attempting to re-open the RfC on the genocide in a new format? I think there needs to be a much more formal discussion if we are going to give prominence to the view, held by a small minority if not WP:FRINGE, that this isn't a genocide. A discussion with a few editors isn't sufficient. -Darouet (talk) 15:44, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

I hope not, because that would be disruptive. M.Bitton (talk) 16:05, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
I don’t see this as re litigating the RFC as this discussion is not about if genocide is in wikivoice it is about where to place the dissenting views. GothicGolem29 (talk) 16:40, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
Refer to the RFC close. Only the first four words are to be “The Gaza genocide is”, the closer noted wikivoice was mentioned by some but left the it up to future discussion to decide on specific wording beyond the first four words. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 17:00, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
Like other editors have said, this is not a sound interpretation of the RfC closing notes. I am going to start a new discussion at the bottom of the page on the topic of using the term "consensus" so that we can settle this. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 17:45, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
GothicGolem29 and MarkBassett are right. The close does not preclude this but actually notes that some of the participants on the “winning” side argued that in cases of an academic consensus, Wikipedia's idea of neutrality is the inclusion of dissenting opinions…in the lede.
I support ButterscotchBeluga’s proposed wording above but opposed any talk of %s as clearly opposed by consensus in other talk sections. BobFromBrockley (talk) 05:07, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Comparing other genocide articles

There are some scholars who dispute the Armenian genocide, but look how we cover it in the lead of that article... we mention the academic consensus with no explicit mention of dissent, because the consensus is more important than the dissenting view. (t · c) buidhe 19:51, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

But see, the options aren't "no weight" or "it's undue weight". There is a middle ground, due weight for a significant minority viewpoint. The difference about Armenian genocide is that it's only formally denied by three states - Turkey, Azerbaijan, Pakistan. The Gaza genocide is debated by 15-20% of scholars and a double digit number of countries (even still). It's a significant minority viewpoint - well beyond FRINGE - and thus deserves its due weight in the lead. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 20:16, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
The Gaza genocide is debated by 15-20% of scholars and a double digit number of countries — I respectfully disagree with the premise that countries are WP:RS sources on whether a genocide is happening. As for scholars, I don't think dissent from 15-20% of scholars is WP:NOTABLE enough for inclusion prior to the final paragraph. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 23:28, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
While I agree with disregarding the political opinions of countries, having between 1 in 7 and 1 in 5 scholars who have commented being in dissent, especially considering their broad background, is NOTABLE. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 08:45, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
The views of scholars who reject the term genocide are potentially notable, but at this point, not enough for the lead. -Darouet (talk) 02:31, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
When accounting for where the scholars are from, it takes it up even more. There is nothing like a clear consensus that the Gaza war involved a genocide. At least not in terms of global opinion. Iljhgtn (talk) 02:41, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
If we ignore how we have scholars who say it is a genocide from every country where there are others who say it isn't a genocide, plus many more and a broader swathe of countries where the scholars who've commented are only saying it's a genocode, rhen your comment would be correct. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 08:13, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
Define scholar? Considering you only need to pay a small entrance fee aren't vetted academically ie: publication numbers, being part of a university, have a degree in genocide studies or an adjacent field to join the International Association of Genocide Scholars--I think we need to define what a scholar is. In addition we have people like Julia Sebutinde of Uganda who was on the ICJ who did this: ICJ Judge Voted Against Every Approved Measure in Israel Genocide Case: https://globalaffairs.org/commentary-and-analysis/blogs/icj-judge-sebutinde-voted-against-provisional-measure-south-africa-genocide-case-israel Agnieszka653 (talk) 16:07, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
Please see "Talk:Gaza genocide/Archive 12#IAGS" for previous discussion regarding the IAGS in relation to this page. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 16:24, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
Maybe those publishing in peer-reviewed academic journals, which when we consider that, the consensus skews even more drastically to calling this a genocide. Or maybe we should use the definition used by UK Lawyers for Israel in their "Scholars for truth about genocide", which includes individuals not publishing in peer-reviewed journals and includes such scholars as: corporate nutritionists, ceramic artists, robocop, the terminator, and scholars who have vocally called this a genocide for years before the letter claims they in fact say this isn't a genocide. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 19:30, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
I think we can safely discard Sebutinde's opinion: EvansHallBear (talk) 20:05, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gaza_genocide/Archive_19&oldid=1319613424"