Talk:Gaza genocide/Archive 23

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

→

Archive 30

Edit request, 6 November 2025, #2

Remove Since 7 October 2023, the IDF has been accused of extrajudicial killing of unarmed Palestinian detainees[151][152] since neither source referenced says this. The first, 151, does not mention any killing, and the second, 152, does not say anywhere that they were detainees - in fact it describes a chase, in which neither were at any point first detained. ~2025-31297-29 (talk) 04:57, 6 November 2025 (UTC) Copied from WP:RFED by Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:23, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

I removed "detainees" and kept the rest since both sources mention the killing of unnamed Palestinians. M.Bitton (talk) 16:28, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Am I tripping here? The references are not 151 and 152, but 159 and 160. wound theology◈ 16:36, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

You're right, but those numbers are not static. M.Bitton (talk) 16:53, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Question

This is related to the discussion above but I wanted to avoid endless pings.

Why does the lead sentence have to be in wiki voice? What's wrong with it being attributed? Just because there is a consensus of reliable sources doesn't mean we can't attribute the statement. I fail to see the drawbacks of saying something like "There is a scholarly consensus that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza". Attributing the statement is not genocide denial.

WP:NPOV says to attribute disputed opinions and to not take a side. But this article takes a side due to the RfC. Why is editor consensus (the RfC) conflicting with the plain text of a policy that is supposed to be non-negotiable? Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them. So why have we taken a side in the dispute? SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 19:30, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

the consensus is that there is not a significant dispute in reliable sources. Governments, politicians, pundits, etc. are not reliable sources. Please check existing discussions rather than ask repetitive questions that should probably be in a FAQ. (t · c) buidhe 19:38, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

But why can't the statement be attributed? Doesn't "There is an overwhelming scholarly consensus that it is a genocide" convey the exact same information as "It is a genocide", but with the statement attributed to its source? Why is adding attribution so controversial? SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 19:44, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

+1. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:56, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Please see this discussion's rationale:

The most relevant part:

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 (participants cited WP:FALSEBALANCE in support of this interpretation). This includes genocides. Holocaust denial is listed as an example at Wikipedia:Fringe theories; the Holocaust is described as a fact due to academic consensus, and contrary views are noted with due weight. Some participants in favor of option 1 argued that in cases of an academic consensus, Wikipedia's idea of neutrality is the inclusion of dissenting opinions (typically held by political actors and non-experts) in the lede, even if they are not in Wikipedia's voice. For example, the Armenian genocide is described as a fact in that article, but we quickly go into detail describing who recognizes those events as a genocide, who disputes that label or the consensus history, and we have the whole article Terminology of the Armenian genocide.

Since Wikipedia editors recognize scholarly consensus, it is recognized as sufficient for characterization as a fact using Wikivoice. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 14:33, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Then why are the opposing views in this article not mentioned until the fifth paragraph? SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 14:37, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

WP:FALSEBALANCE — 🧀Cheesedealer ^!!!⚟ 14:40, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

But this is just false. There’s a massive dispute documented in reliable sources. The whole war is a documented dispute. Larry Sanger (talk) 18:34, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Nobody contests that there is a dispute documented by reliable sources. However, that's not what's relevant here. What's relevant here is whether reliable sources describe the events in Gaza as a genocide in their own voice, not whether they document someone else's opinion on the events in Gaza. Cortador (talk) 09:31, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Real talk: Because the authoritarian leftists who patrol this page are trying to establish their narrative as reality. If they attribute the lead as you're suggesting, which would in fact follow policy just as you say, it moves a proposition that they want to be fact into the realm of mere contention. I apologize for the PA. I had an unsatisfactory experience adding an item to this that criticized the genocide narrative. Suffice it to say that that pro- and anti-Israel claims are not being held to the same standards. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 19:45, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

So do you also propose The Holocaust and Armenian genocide be given lead attribution?

The problem with your argument is that it seems much too specific to this article in particular and is never a kind of "this is how all articles on genocide should be written" thing. You tell me, what should be the Wikipedia policy on this be? JasonMacker (talk) 19:51, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

@Tioaeu8943 is correct in the sense that there's definitely been substantial civil POV pushing in this topic. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 19:58, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

And what is the POV being pushed, exactly? The POV that scholars and experts should be given appropriate weight? Just vaguely gesturing that something isn't right is not suitable for a discussion. JasonMacker (talk) 20:02, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Since only the leaders of Israel itself will ever really know the true reason why Israel is invading Gaza, the statement that Israel has genocidal intent is, in fact, an opinion, albeit one backed up by a lot of evidence. There is an opposing opinion that states Israel acted in self-defense (held by the United States government and others). SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 20:14, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

You seem to be forgetting that some opinions carry more weight than others, in particular scholarly opinions. There is an opposing opinion that states Israel acted in self-defense (held by the United States government and others). Such opinions amount to Gaza genocide denial. KetchupSalt (talk) 00:57, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Why should Wikipedia imply there is agreement among the whole world when there is none? The scholarly opinions are all in agreement that the Gaza genocide is a genocide. Other opinions are certainly not in agreement, so why should Wikipedia imply that they are? That's where the false balance happens: not by implying that the minority has more support than it actually does, but by implying that the majority has more support than it actually does. False balance goes both ways.

We should distinguish between the scholarly consensus and the rest of the world by using attribution. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 02:14, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

WP does not require complete and total agreement across the entire world on a topic. WP always prefers academic sources, especially over primary sources, and especially over primary sources that have a vested interest in a conflict. Such primary sources are of dubious reliability, as many others have stated. As it stands right now there is sufficient agreement in academia, and from human rights groups, that a genocide is being carried out. KetchupSalt (talk) 10:29, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Can you articulate this idea into a broader statement?

Would you be okay with the following statements wrt other articles on genocide?

• The statement that Nazi Germany had genocidal intent is, in fact, an opinion,
• the statement that the Committee on Union and Progress had genocidal intent is, in fact, an opinion,
• the statement that Hutu militias have genocidal intent is, in fact, an opinion,

To put it plainly, what do you identify as the justification for why THIS article should do something completely different from other longstanding articles covering genocides? JasonMacker (talk) 01:12, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

This quote from another section on this talk page sums it up nicely:

The term "genocide" has a general definition that everyone agrees on. Per Wiktionary: The systematic and deliberate destruction of a group of people, typically by killing substantial numbers of them, on the basis of their ethnicity, religion, or nationality. But whether something meets that definition is inherently a matter of pure opinion, because nobody comes out and says "hey, I'm going to deliberately kill (insert a number) of (group of people) with the intent to systematically destroy them", because of course they wouldn't - and even if they did, whether that number counts as "substantial" is still a matter of opinion.

— User:Berchanhimez, Special:Diff/1320297442

As for why this article should be treated differently: The opposing views are not FRINGE. When a significant number of Western nations and other sources reject the genocide characterizations, it is a significant minority viewpoint, not FRINGE. Holocaust denial is FRINGE.

If there is a significant (not FRINGE) minority viewpoint for a controversial issue, the majority viewpoint should be attributed. Only when the minority viewpoint is truly FRINGE can the genocide characterization be stated in wikivoice, as is the case for the three examples you provided. Wikipedia should not imply there is general agreement when there is none. Wikipedia should imply there is general agreement among scholars by attributing the genocide characterizations to them, as they are the sources in consensus. The scholarly world is generally in agreement that the Gaza genocide is a genocide, but other parts of the world are not in agreement and Wikipedia should not imply that they are.

SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 02:10, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

I come from a political science background, and my understanding of fact & opinion comes from that.

• Facts refer to objective, verifiable reality that exists independent of anyone's feelings or beliefs. "There is a ball in the table" could be a fact, or not, depending on being able to look at the table and check if a ball is on it.
• Opinions are of two types in legal theory. The first type is generally inadmissible in court: personal beliefs, feelings, or preferences. "I believe that the ball should be on the table." "I feel uncomfortable about the ball not being on the table." "I prefer that the ball be on the table." Separate from this personal opinion, there is legal opinion. Legal opinion is based on the analysis of facts of the case and the relevant law being applied. Legal opinion is a synthesized judgment of the totality of the facts of a case. "Based on the blood-covered clothes of the deceased person and the text message written by the defendant, which expresses homicidal intent, the opinion of the court is that the defendant is guilty of the crime of murder."

From this, it should be clear that editors need to be very careful in avoiding equivocation when it comes to referring to ideas as opinions. Specifically, when it comes to the case of Gaza genocide, subject matter experts should not be identified as people who merely have opinions of the first kind. It is far more appropriate to refer to them as having opinions of the second kind. In contrast, non-experts are more likely to have opinions of the first kind. So a government official stating "I don't believe Israel is committing genocide" should not be given the same weight as scholars in peer-reviewed journals stating something like "the facts of mass killings in Gaza are correctly identified as genocidal acts, and when combined with the facts of clearly expressed genocidal intent from Israeli leaders, these facts leads to the conclusion that a genocide is taking place."

I'd argue that this focus on whether or not a view is "FRINGE" is missing the point. The real issue is that the natures of the two types of opinions are different. For example, when it comes to climate change, climate scientists have a robust theoretical framework for interpreting data and drawing conclusions. Climate change deniers do not. In the same way, the genocide scholars who are concluding that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza have a robust theoretical framework (grounded in the methodologies of Genocide Studies). In contrast, the genocide deniers are primarily concerned with just saying no, without any specific theoretical framework.

Of course the article should have a section detailing how certain government officials deny the genocide, just like The Holocaust, and Armenian genocide do. And more broadly, the article on Evolution also mentions how so many people deny the theory of evolution. But until there is actually academic dispute (such as Functionalism-intentionalism debate or Holodomor genocide question), the article should focus on giving the due weight to scholars in terms of the framing of the article (we should not have the article on Water begin by stating "According to chemists and physicists, water molecules have two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom, but a minority of homeopaths believe water also has memory." This is even if many people don't understand what Dihydrogen monoxide is).

So, I don't understand the importance of referring to the scholarly conclusions of experts as mere "opinion." It reminds me too much of people who dismiss evolution as Just a theory and a kind of equivocation. JasonMacker (talk) 03:40, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

It is very strange to say the least that after three years of people being in discussion here arguing that it can't possibly be genocide due to the legal definition, we now have people arguing for using for using a much more expansive vernacular definition to argue it can't be genocide. Especially alongside the multiple claims in this thread that expanding the definition is bad and worthy of scorn. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 09:01, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Must you be reminded of no personal attacks and no casting aspersions? If you believe conduct has violated any of our policies and guidelines, you are well aware of where you should file your cases. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 20:57, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

This article is handled the same as the Armenian genocide is. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 19:49, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Why should it? This topic is significantly more controversial as it is recent; shouldn't we err on the side of caution and attribute the statement? No one has told me the answer to my question yet: why can't we attribute the statement? Is it because of the RfC? SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 20:04, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

There is a consensus among reliable sources that it is a genocide. The RfC determined that the scholarly consensus was great enough to support the use of wikivoice, While there is a dispute, it is not among relevant reliable sources & as such, is irrelevant in determining due weight.

The reason we don't attribute the statement is because it'd present a WP:FALSEBALANCE. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 20:16, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

I fail to see how simple in-text attribution gives a false balance. Also, WP:FALSEBALANCE says We do not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers, for or against, which is contradicting how it is invoked here. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 20:19, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Is it because of the RfC?

Yes, directly. First, the RfC represents the established consensus of hundreds of editors working on this page. Attributing the statement without discussion is bad practice.

Second, attribution implies opinion whereas reality is what is being described. Significant portions of the Japanese government have denied and continue to deny the existence of Japanese war crimes in WWII, and yet Japanese war crimes still plainly states "the Empire of Japan committed numerous war crimes and crimes against humanity". Mind you, this is describing a genocide with far less video documentation than Gaza (for obvious reasons).

Caution is not necessary when describing consensus reality. The fact that describing reality as such infuriates a political group or government is not basis for attributing statements about reality— it gives undue weight to unreliable and low-quality sources.

Cadenrock1 (talk) 20:23, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

So WP:FALSEBALANCE requires Wikipedia to take the side of the majority of reliable sources? What about the nutshell of WP:NPOV, which says "Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without editorial bias."? Which is correct? SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 20:34, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

WP:FALSEBALANCE is designed to prevent editors from making the public think some issues are scientifically contentious when they are not, as is implied here: Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, or plausible but unaccepted theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship.

Referring to the events contained within this article as a genocide reflects accepted scholarly consensus.

So WP:FALSEBALANCE requires Wikipedia to take the side of the majority of reliable sources?

Yes, much like how the article for climate change represents the side of the majority of reliable sources. Equivocating scientific consensus to the minority voices of non-experts and politicians is a picturesque example of false balance. Cadenrock1 (talk) 20:59, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

But this is not about science. This is about the supposed motivations of one country invading another country. Comparing this to scientific debates is a false equivalence. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 21:06, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Then let me amend my statement and say that equivocating scholarly consensus to the minority voices of non-experts and politicians is a picturesque example of false balance. Mind you, WP:FALSEBALANCE still includes speculative history in its list of things that should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship, so your argument is a bit of a moot point. Cadenrock1 (talk) 21:17, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Equating scholarly consensus to a broad consensus among all opinions (including non-scholarly ones) is also false balance, but in the opposite direction: instead of giving too much weight to the minority view and exaggerating the controversy, it gives too much weight to the majority view and downplays the controversy. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 02:17, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

The logic you present for determining intent would mean we could never find anyone guilty of genocide in the relevant courts unless the accused tell the court they intended to commit genocide. So considering all accused in Rwanda, Bosnia, and Cambodia denied intent to commit genocide, employing your logic, none of them committed genocide, regardless of the determination of their relevant courts. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 21:20, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

All countries will deny genocidal intent regardless of the merits of the allegations. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 21:45, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

So why are you arguing that it is not possible to claim/determine intent as the only people who know if they intended it are the ones taking the action claimed to be genocidal? -- Cdjp1 (talk) 21:50, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Because we don't have telepathy. People's stated motivations are not guaranteed to be their actual motivations. The only way to truly find out a person's motivations is to either be that person or read their mind. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 21:55, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

And you simply repeat the initial claim of intent, which takes us back to The logic you present for determining "intent" would mean we could never find anyone guilty of genocide in the relevant courts unless the accused tell the court they intended to commit genocide. So considering all accused in Rwanda, Bosnia, and Cambodia denied intent to commit genocide, employing your logic, none of them committed genocide, regardless of the determination of their relevant courts. So is that your stance, that we can never determine or convict people of genocide in law? -- Cdjp1 (talk) 21:59, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

That's a difficult question and I see why I've avoided answering it. Intent is hard to prove, so courts determine or convict people of genocide in law based on evidence. My point is really that even though we can make a decision based on evidence, it's not Wikipedia's job to make said decision. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 22:08, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes courts determine intent based on evidence. Intent is key here due to the dolus specialis that was built into the Genocide Convention. So while we don't know what exactly a person intended by their actions, we can determine their intent based on evidence. And it is exactly these grounds that some genocide scholars and legal scholars have built their published opinions on to claim that this is a case of genocide, and meets the requirements of the legal definition. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 22:24, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Also, the RfC has some voluntary response bias as the editors supporting the use of wikivoice were likely the editors with stronger opinions on the topic and were thus more likely to participate in the RfC than editors who preferred attribution. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 20:37, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Why do you think editors supporting the use of wikivoice would have stronger opinions on the topic as opposed to editors who preferred attribution? Cadenrock1 (talk) 21:09, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

They feel morally obligated to intervene and use wikivoice. I know this because many editors in the above discussion have accused @Jimbo Wales of "promoting Israeli propaganda", "endorsing genocide denialism" or "giving into the demands of the Trump administration". SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 21:20, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:24, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

To be more specific, why isn't that the case for editors who preferred attribution? Is there not also a moral obligation for those sympathetic to Israel to intervene and prevent wikivoice? It's just odd to fixate on the possibility of one politically motivated flavor of voluntary response bias, whilst ignoring the other in an infamously contentious issue.

As for the attacks against @Jimbo Wales, it hardly seems reasonable to cite the aspersions cast against him today as a reason for why an RfC from months ago passed. Especially given the fact that many of those responses in the RfC simply reiterated their positions based on consensuses from prior RfCs. Cadenrock1 (talk) 01:55, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

It's just odd to fixate on the possibility of one politically motivated flavor of voluntary response bias, whilst ignoring the other in an infamously contentious issue.

This is exactly what the article does. It fixates on one possibility and ignores the other in an infamously contentious issue. So how is the article different and why is it not "just odd"? SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 02:22, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

What about my suggestion to simply expand on the following linked page in that regard (which was created due to size complaint about the main page)? David A (talk) 08:09, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

And worth noting the people who were, by policy, excluded from the discourse. Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:23, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Could you please detail what you mean by this statement? Which people and what policies? -- Cdjp1 (talk) 21:27, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Non extended-confirmed editors were excluded per the ruling of the Arbitration Committee. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 21:32, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Are you Jimbo Wales? -- Cdjp1 (talk) 21:34, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

No, but I assumed that's what he meant. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 21:35, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

I asked Wales explicitly and specifically, because I don't want to assume what he means, so you providing an assumption is of little help. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 22:26, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Ok SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 22:40, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

I have a bad feeling that I may be WP:BLUDGEONing the discussion. If anyone thinks that, please call me out and I'll stop replying. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 21:46, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

So far, no one has imposed a word limit in this section, so I think you are fine for the moment. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:33, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Imo it's a simple question of fairness and consistency. If genocide is to be a viable concept, it must be applied consistently. The events in Gaza passed the threshold at which Wikipedia has long described genocides in wikivoice. Not calling Gaza a genocide means either an exception to the standard consistently applied elsewhere, or making Wikipedia altogether less capable of calling an injustice an injustice so as to "consistently" call this genocide something other than what it is. Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 05:42, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

It's not our job to call out injustices as injustices. And how is the literal exclusion of a disfavored viewpoint fair? SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 17:28, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

I don't support excluding the minority viewpoint from the article, and it's not excluded. It can be found later in the lead and throughout the article. I do oppose equivocating between the factually supported, carefully reasoned, theoretically robust majority view and the hasty excuses and disavowals of the perpetrators. Calling an injustice an injustice when the preponderance of sources is more than adequate to do so is not righting a great wrong. It's a simple matter of accuracy. Making this page less accurate and undermining Wikipedia's accuracy standards on the whole to cater to a minority viewpoint because of outside pressure would be wronging something that it is great for Wikipedia to have gotten right. Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 17:43, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

All that we need to do is attribute the statement so that readers know it is the scholarly consensus that there is a genocide. Why is this so hard? SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 17:48, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes, this is what I oppose, because it is not in line with the standard of how genocides have historically been and are presently being treated on Wikipedia. I believe it would make Wikipedia a worse resource to start doing this now in service of the loud, powerful but ultimately minority viewpoint of Gaza genocide denial and normalization. It would negatively affect coverage of all genocides on the site and give deniers and apologists of other genocides a precedent to change their respective articles. And it's simply not necessary or justified by the sources. Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 18:13, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Your argument refutes itself:

1. What other articles do doesn't matter.
2. If there is a loud, powerful but ultimately minority viewpoint of Gaza genocide denial, the fact that it is loud and powerful makes it a significant minority; thus, the statement of genocidal intent requires attribution as a controversial statement.

We are not here to right great wrongs. Personal opinions are irrelevant because attribution is required by a policy that is non-negotiable. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 18:28, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

1. is an essay, not a policy, and frankly I don't fully agree with WP:OCON because I think that standardizing wikivoice is a neutrality and reliability concern. That being said, OCON itself says that While consistency with other pages is not a good argument by itself, comparisons between pages are often made in order to illustrate a more substantial argument; as such, comparative statements should not be dismissed out of hand unless they lack any deeper reasoning.

2. Being loud and powerful does not make this viewpoint worthy of equal weight. Scholars in the field of genocide studies have recognized genocide denial as an integral part of genocide and a genocidal process. Denial does not, counter to @Tioaeu8943's assertion, only include wholesale denial of events, but also denial of intent, definitional debates, blaming the victim (sometimes called "mirroring" ), claiming self-defense, media disinformation campaigns, and challenging the victims' group identity. Genocide scholars have, since the immediate aftermath of WW2 and the Holocaust, sought to define genocide according to a criteria that can be evaluated through an analysis of verifiable facts and evidence. They have done this because they know that genocide will always be a contentious topic, and yet it must not be equivocated on. See @JasonMacker's comment for a more thorough analysis of the difference in weight between opinion and expert analysis.

In the case of Gaza, the scholars evaluating the facts who conclude that a genocide has taken place have both numerical superiority and the better argument. That is the highest level of genocide recognition possible; "more recognized" genocides only have numerical superiority and the better argument to a higher degree, usually because of factors such as the passage of time and defeat of the perpetrators. Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 19:02, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

This is circular. Claiming that the Holocaust or the Armenian Genocide didn't happen - denial - and claiming that the situation in Gaza does not meet the definition of genocide are not equivalent. Refusing to attribute the genocide allegation in the latter case because they are equivalent is POV. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 18:30, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Claiming that the Holocaust does not meet the definition of genocide would constitute Holocaust denial in, for example, Germany, under Strafgesetzbuch § 130.3. wound theology◈ 00:33, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

The English Wikipedia is not subject to German law - in fact, not even the German Wikipedia is (though some of their editors may be). And that's even if we ignore the fact that such an argument has no relevance here in the first place, since we go off policies and guidelines (and US law), not anything else. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 00:40, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

My point here is that in some jurisdictions, perhaps rightfully, claiming that an act of mass killing was not really a genocide does in fact constitute denial. wound theology◈ 00:42, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

As explained in the Genocide denial article, denial is not merely "things didn't happen," but can also include statements such as

"...claiming that the situation in Gaza/Poland/Turkey does not meet the definition of genocide."

I encourage you to read Armenian genocide denial to see the arguments presented by deniers. It's not simply "nothing happened to Armenians," but rather the same kinds of statements that Gaza genocide deniers make. Preeminent scholar Taner Akçam directly mentions this similarity (as noted in the Gaza genocide denial article).

There is a fine line between actual academic disagreement, and denial. Consider the difference between Holodomor denial and Holodomor genocide question. Scholars are divided as to whether the Holodomor constitutes a genocide, but that's different from being a Holodomor denier. A review of Academic and legal responses to the Gaza genocide should make it clear that this is not a contentious dispute among scholars the way that the genocide classification of the Holodomor is. JasonMacker (talk) 11:21, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Editing Problem

I tried to introduce a Hebrew version of a Haaretz article as a source, but somehow I failed. Can somebody help out?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gaza_genocide&diff=prev&oldid=1320551217

Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 11:39, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations by Wikipedians. Do any RS discuss the article with a different translation from how Haaretz translates it? If not, I think we should defer to Haaretz's translation of their own article Placeholderer (talk) 11:47, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

My apologies, I missed that the additional info you provided originally when I reverted to the English language article. I have moved the information to a note for now, as I feel it strays into OR, as it's not an outlet pointing out the nuance in the terms as the differ in Haaretz's different language articles. I shall leave it to other editors as to whether to keep or delete. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 12:36, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

That is definitely OR as ההשמדה could be translated a few ways. Google Translate offers destruction, as does wiktionary, and Biblical lexicon (which usually but not always agrees with modern Hebrew) uses that and several other words. Destruction zone is probably more correct, but its difficult to use here, esp since it seems there is an English version. ← Metallurgist (talk) 18:14, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Add "mostly non-combatant civilians" to first sentence?

I believe that would be a good thing. It's an important factor. Later in the lead, we mention: "Most of the victims are civilians, of whom at least 50% are women and children. Compared to other recent global conflicts, the numbers of known deaths of journalists, humanitarian and health workers, and children are among the highest."

That should be mentioned briefly in the first sentence, as per my suggestion.

Final product:

"The Gaza genocide is the ongoing, intentional, and systematic destruction of the Palestinian people, mostly non-combatant civilians, in the Gaza Strip carried out by Israel during the Gaza war."

Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:44, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

I find it redundant and unnecessary imo Stephan rostie (talk) 19:54, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

I don't think this specificity is necessary for the first sentence & doesn't read as well as an intro. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 20:25, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, no point adding it considering that also fighters can be victims of genocide — 🧀Cheesedealer ^!!!⚟ 09:59, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Feel free to try other ways of wording and punctuating it. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:40, 5 November 2025 (UTC)