Talk:Gaza genocide/Archive 20

Archive 15

←

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

→

Archive 25

Ecocide

should we mention Ecocide in this article. Cinaroot (talk) 08:48, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Please explain further. David A (talk) 09:13, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Maybe he means we could briefly mention information in this article? Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 12:14, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

I suppose that seems reasonable, but ecocide is probably too strong a word to use in this regard. David A (talk) 12:36, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

According to the article,

"

The size and lasting impact of the systematic and intentional destruction of agriculture in Gaza have led to calls by the research group Forensic Architecture at Goldsmiths, University of London, and the Palestinian Environmental NGOs Network for the Israeli Government to be investigated for the Rome Statute war crime of ecocide for "widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment".

"

So it does seem like ecocide is an actual legal term used by RS. I've been talking a lot recently so I'll quiet down and let others chime in. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 13:05, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Ecocide in Gaza is the largest in recent history. But this was last year's analysis, so it would be even worse. We just need to find some more RS. Cinaroot (talk) 17:05, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Okay. My mistake then. I apologise. David A (talk) 21:22, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Don't beat yourself up, no big deal! Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 21:29, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

To include here really you'd need sources that link the ecocidal nature of the war to genocide. Some potential sources are Friends of the Earth Palestine with Newcastle University, Women's International League for Peace and Freedom, The Ecologist, David Whyte and Samira Homerang Saunders, Abuawad et al., Lesley Joseph, Laurent A. Lambert, Joni Aasi, Transnational Institute, Andreas Malm, Mario Pansera, and Iain Chambers. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 21:28, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

yes we have some explaining to do. but i don't want that to get too big. just 1-2 para is enough.

i got the section started. ill keep working on it Cinaroot (talk) 21:50, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

User:Cinaroot/sandbox what do u think. not so good :( Cinaroot (talk) 01:19, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

I made some improvements to your sandbox draft :)

The main thing I think it would benefit from is better sourcing. And being as short as it is, I don't know if Truthout should be named explicitly rather than grouped in with other groups explicitly making the ecocide-genocide connection. Otherwise, I think the draft has a lot of potential Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 13:15, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Are you saying that i should add more content? I kept it short because article is already getting so big. and other editors will add to it later on Cinaroot (talk) 07:12, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

I think you should make a source bundle that includes all of the sources put together by Cdjp1. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 13:16, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Some comments, you should choose sources that are the highest possible RS available to support the information. On this note, Truthout is an outlet likely to be challenged, so I wouldn't use them for this instance. The Guardian as an overview of the ecocidal nature is good, the journals Genocide Studies and Prevention and Health and Human Rights linking ecocide to genocide are good. From the previous crawl results I provided, I would suggest using White and Saunders, while it's Al Jazeera so people will inevitably complain, they are guest writers who are academics specialising in relevant fields. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 15:33, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

You can also add the academic discussion of ecocide in the context of genocide to the article Academic and legal responses to the Gaza genocide. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 15:36, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Aljazeera is an opinion piece. thats why i didn't want to add that.

What do you think about Cinaroot (talk) 06:50, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

@Alexandraaaacs1989 i updated the sources. check it out. Cinaroot (talk) 07:01, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Looks good to me! I'd ideally like to see all of Cdjp1's sources added, but in its current state it's my view it's ready to be added to the article. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 12:47, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Including all of them is probably overkill, and as highlighted, they're not all to the same level wrt RS. More can be brought in on the Academic Legal Discourse article, where we specify points from the different sources. wmWe should always remember that this article, for sections that have child articles, should give a high level overview of those child articles. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 13:24, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Maybe get a second opinion from a couple other editors first though before making large changes. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 12:48, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

I think text in sandbox is excellent. I think sourcing still not optimal. 4/Monbiot is an op ed. 5/ Hamouchene it’s very interesting and I’m not totally opposed to using it but I don’t think it’s exactly mainstream scholarship so there must be something stronger. Note a is unnecessary as this is way down an article about a genocide. And 8/Eichler is anachronistic, preceding the period we speak about (but should be in ecocide article if not already there). BobFromBrockley (talk) 22:13, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

8/Eichler is added to link genocidal nature of ecocide. 4/Monbiot is op - but this is the best I could find that directly links the sentence

At this time - this is the best i could find. I'll keep looking Cinaroot (talk) 06:34, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Proposal for removal

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

---

I propose the deletion of this article for the following reasons:

1. Legal Standards Not Met: The legal definition of genocide requires meeting strict international criteria. The article's claims do not demonstrate that these specific legal conditions have been met.
2. Unsubstantiated Serious Crimes: Allegations of war crimes and crimes against humanity must also be substantiated and comply with established legal definitions, which the article fails to do conclusively.
3. Unreliable Casualty Figures: The figure of 680,000 casualties is sourced from Hamas and pro-Hamas activists and cannot be considered an authoritative or independent estimate. Dr. Richard Hil and Dr. Gideon Polya originated the estimate of 680,000 Palestinians killed in Gaza, including around 380,000 children under age 5, in their article "Skewering History: The Odious Politics of Counting Gaza’s Dead," published in the Australian magazine Arena in September 2025. They calculated this by combining 136,000 direct violent deaths (from Gaza's Ministry of Health data as of April 25, 2025) with an estimated 544,000 indirect deaths from deprivation—such as starvation, disease, and lack of medical care—using a conservative ratio of four indirect deaths per direct death, based on epidemiological studies cited by experts like Professor Devi Sridhar. This figure has since been referenced and amplified by others, including: Francesca Albanese, the UN Special Rapporteur on the occupied Palestinian territories, who in a September 15, 2025, UN press briefing stated that while 65,000 deaths are confirmed (75% women and children), "we should start thinking about 680,000" as the true toll, drawing on scholarly estimates. Ralph Nader, the consumer advocate, who in an August 2025 open letter republished in Pearls and Irritations urged journalists to report undercounted deaths, aligning with the 680,000 figure when including indirect fatalities. Critics, including outlets like HonestReporting and the Middle East Forum, have dismissed the estimate as "nonsensical" and "absurd," arguing it's impossible (e.g., claiming more child deaths than the pre-war under-5 population of about 342,000) and relies on unverified assumptions. Official figures from Gaza's Ministry of Health, as of late July 2025, reported over 60,000 direct deaths, while some independent analyses suggest totals could be higher but not at 680,000. The claim has spread widely on social media, often without context.
4. Unverified Data: The figure of 67,000 casualties originates from the Hamas-run Gaza Ministry of Health and requires independent verification to be considered reliable.
5. Presumptive and Non-Neutral Title: Most critically, the article's title presents the allegation as a settled fact (res judicata), while no verdict has been delivered by the International Court of Justice (ICJ). This framing appears to be a reaction to partisan activism rather than a neutral presentation of a legal proceeding. EquinoxeIV (talk)

1. We are not a court of law, we do not make decisions of whether the legal standards of a crime have been met.
2. Same as above.
3. Firstly, we do not use the 680,000 in the article, so I don't know why you are arguing that the article should be deleted because of it. Next, for the numbers we do use, I suggest you look through the archived discussions that have covered all of these extensively. As a note, referring to explicit propagandistic outlets that are not considered RS, as you have done, is not going to be taken seriously.
4. The numbers are supported by a litany of secondary sources that we use throughout the article. This is before we get to how through the years the IDF, Israeli intelligence, and other Israeli agencies use the MoH's numbers as accurate reporting, including IDF sources supporting the numbers as recently as in 2025.
5. As for point 5, see the multiple archived discussions, and actually try to counter the conclusions and reasoning that led to the title, instead of repeating the same simplistic argument that has long been disregarded.

-- Cdjp1 (talk) 08:42, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Where to even begin with this: the complete absence of policy based rationales, the likely LLM generated text, references to a casualty count not actually used in the article, non-sequiturs about Ralph Nader, arguments that have been dismissed in multiple RfCs, etc. Clear case of WP:SNOW. EvansHallBear (talk) 21:04, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

You haven't cited any deletion policy or what kind of deletion process this is meant to be, and none of the points make sense. (5) is really egregious since there is a consensus established on this article on this point that is in the infobox for this talk page. Originalcola (talk) 21:11, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

You should really have a good look at WP:N about the grounds for an articles existence. None of your points seems to me to match any policy or guideline in Wikipedia which is quite an achievement given how extensive they are. NadVolum (talk) 22:30, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Even though you're an editor with long contribution history on en.wp, that you suddenly made such comment on a contentious topic without regard to recent consensus after about 5 years of dormancy is a bit concerning to say the least. I am really tempted to snow close this topic. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 23:23, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

I second the WP:SNOW proposal Laura240406 (talk) 01:58, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

WP:SNOW close. No policy-based justification to do anything whatsoever has been provided. Newimpartial (talk) 02:17, 18 October 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.

Picture of the Day nomination

Is there a picture we could nominate for Picture of the Day on commons? The current image provided by UNRWA is of low res. I could request an exception if we can agree on one suitable nomination.

https://unrwa.photoshelter.com/galleries/C00009xWZSJER24M/G0000LyFEeIWQ6Ko/2023-War-on-Gaza Cinaroot (talk) 08:38, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Instead of violent picture - I’m thinking of a picture like that tells a story. But there could be better pics. Cinaroot (talk) 08:52, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Curious—did UNRWA waive copyright ownership of these images?

I like Cinaroot's suggestion! Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 01:27, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

They are releasing low res with logo under CC BY-SA 3.0 IGO. i want to ask if they can release one pic ( high res, no logo ) so that we can nominate and feature on wiki. Cinaroot (talk) 01:34, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Requested merge at Talk:Israeli_invasion_of_the_Gaza_Strip#Merge_proposal

There is a requested merge discussion at Talk:Israeli_invasion_of_the_Gaza_Strip#Merge_proposal that may be of interest to editors of this article. Cinaroot (talk) 07:19, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Are protest images relevant here?

There are several images of protesters in this article. How are they relevant? The article does not describe protests in its prose. -- mikeblas (talk) 18:28, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

There are 8 images related to protests. 4 have been in the article for years now, 4 were added today. The four added are:

1. Columbus, Ohio - "Genocide Joe" sign is the focus of the image
2. Palestine Action protest in London - multiple signs saying they oppose genocide and the crimnalised phrase in the UK
3. Protest in Slovenia - Prominent sign that is the focus of the image insinuating EU leaders support genocide
4. Avezzano, Italy - Multiple signs mentioning genocide, but none are the focus

Of the ones that have a long presence in the article, while the protests aren't mentioned in text at least two are related in that:

• The 'Keir Starmer' one is a protest sign mentioning genocide in Gaza.
• 'Millions of people', likewise, a protest sign calling for an end to genocide is the focus of the image.

The other two long standing:

• Austin, Texas, has a sign mentioning genocide, but its not the focus and is not easily identified.
• Frankfurt, again one sign mentioning genocide, but in this one the actual word genocide is obscured behind someone's head.

I would suggest returning to four images, with the four retained moved to 'relevant sections' (mainly in the countries they took place), and the four I suggest keeping are:

1. Columbus, Ohio - 'United States' section
2. Protest in Slovenia - 'European Union' section
3. 'Kier Starmer' - 'United Kingdom' section
4. 'Millions of people' - 'Impact' section

-- Cdjp1 (talk) 22:44, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

I don't think any of the images are relevant. The article is not about protests, or the reaction of citizens. (The reactions, responses of governments are relevant, and covered. But that's not what these pictures are about.) For example, people "insinuating" that leaders support something is strictly public reaction, might be fringe, isn't verifiable, and creates a bias for viewers of the article which the article itself doesn't support or verify.

Maybe these would be fine for an article like Cultural discourse about the Gaza genocide or some other "reactions to" article, but they shouldn't be here.

What is "the crimnalised phrase"? -- mikeblas (talk) 03:19, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Mikeblas I assume "I support Palestine Action" see Palestine_Action#Support, and the content in that article about its designation as a terrorist organization. (t · c) buidhe 00:42, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

I agree with the above points, it feels like these images are fairly randomly chosen. I also feel like the lack of secondary sources in the "Responsibility of third states and other entities" sections makes it harder for readers to determine which allegations are more or less credible or notable and which would be useful in determining which photos are appropriate. Originalcola (talk) 15:55, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

The selection of sources for this article feels weird. Often news articles and op-eds are often the only things cited for whole subsections despite a relative abundance of reliable secondary sources(incl. academic) on this particular subject. Originalcola (talk) 15:58, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

I kept US UK and Impact. I think Impact could be deleted as well. But kept 3 Cinaroot (talk) 06:50, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Possible failed verification issue

"Most scholars that support the genocide argument cite 7 October as its beginning." I tried to verify this but unless I'm missing something, neither the quote from the first source nor anything in the second source supports it. (t · c) buidhe 20:28, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Chicdat looks like this was your edit? (t · c) buidhe 20:46, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

It was. I wanted to make it clear that the view stated in the article that the genocide has been ongoing for decades as part of Zionist settler colonialism etc. is a minority. However, it does appear that most sources that say genocide don't give a start date (with one exception) which makes this difficult. I would recommend that we remove that whole thing altogether and replace it with the paragraph that I added today: Cdjp1 removed it citing BRD. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 20:54, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Chicdat I am not sure if it's the case that the view stated in the article that the genocide has been ongoing for decades as part of Zionist settler colonialism etc. is a minority. In any event, we cannot state that in the article without a source that explicitly supports it. (t · c) buidhe 20:59, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Well, our infobox states "7 October 2023 – present". If there are no sources that say the genocide started on 7 October 2023, then the infobox shouldn't either. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 21:02, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

I don't think it's accurate that no sources give a start date, and I would tentatively oppose changing the date in the infobox, because, per my own research, I think that the plurality of sources would probably agree on October 2023. I just am not aware of any secondary sources that would allow us to make statements in article space about what the majority of sources say. (t · c) buidhe 21:18, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Understood, that makes sense. The sentence previously said that B'Tselem thought the genocide began on 7 October; as this is easily verifiable, it should be changed back to that. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 21:21, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

B'Tselem are still there as a citation for it starting 7 October. Others who can be used to support the statement, due to identifying retaliation to October 7 as in part the motive for the genocide are Fassin (2024) "The Rhetoric of Denial: Contribution to an Archive of the Debate about Mass Violence in Gaza", Semerdjian (2024) "A World Without Civilians", and Levene (2024) "Gaza 2023: Words Matter, Lives Matter More". Additionally there is the UN Commission of Inquiry report (2025) which in it's conclusion states:

The Commission’s analysis in this report relates solely to the determination of genocide under the Genocide Convention as it relates to the responsibility of the State of Israel both for the failure to prevent genocide, for committing genocide against the Palestinians in Gaza since October 2023 and for the failure to punish genocide. The Commission also notes that, while its analysis is limited to the Palestinians specifically in Gaza during the period since 7 October 2023, it nevertheless raises the serious concern that the specific intent to destroy the Palestinians as a whole has extended to the rest of the occupied Palestinian territory, that is, the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, based on Israeli authorities' and Israeli security forces' actions therein, and to the period before 7 October 2023.

-- Cdjp1 (talk) 21:46, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

• Additionally, I agree with Cdjp1's revert here because it looks like the sources are not about the article subject, thus increasing the risk of original research. (t · c) buidhe 21:33, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

  If what has happened since October 2023 is just a chapter in a 75 year genocide in the whole of Palestine, then we shouldn't have an article called "Gaza genocide". I don't think that's a mainstream view. BobFromBrockley (talk) 20:01, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

  While it's not a perfect match up, I would point to the Bosnian genocide and the Srebrenica massacre, where per the ICTY the Bosnian genocide did not occur, whereas the Srebrenica massacre was concluded to be a case of genocide. We have articles for both as their scopes are different, and that could be the case here for having articles.

  Though, as I have written at length of in other discussions, the view of a long genocide from the Nakba to present is a minority view in the literature. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 10:56, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Agree with Cdjp1. The situation was pretty abominable before the Gaza War but I would not have classed it as a straightforward genocide. NadVolum (talk) 12:48, 21 October 2025 (UTC)