Talk:Gaza genocide/Archive 30

This is an archive of past discussions about Gaza genocide. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 25

←

Archive 28

→

Slow-mo edit war over the POV template?

Latest comment: 8 months ago85 comments14 people in discussion

Added, removed, added, removed, added, removed

Come on now. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 02:30, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

no reason to add, there will always be someone enraged at this article by nature of the article.
but consensus seems not to have changed, as per Talk:Gaza_genocide#How_to_proceed?, we don't do permanent tags on articles. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 02:58, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Gaza_genocide#How_to_proceed? is about the RfC on the first sentence; the RfC wasn't about and doesn't preclude NPOV concerns expressed about the rest of the article.

In any case, for the reasons I've mentioned earlier on this talk page, the criteria for adding the tag outlined at WP:NPOVD were met, and the specific admonition in the tag is that it shouldn't be removed until other criteria are satisfied, and they have not been.

Anyway, I'm too close to this debate, as I'm one of the editors who restored the tag (and sought to expand on the reasons it was included), and I'm a bit tired of folks citing rules not contained in Wikipedia policy (such as that this tag can't be used on contentious topics) to justify removing the tag. Coining (talk) 03:17, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

@Coining: If you want the tag on the article, you must specify the specific issues you want fixed. A hand-wavy "there's a dispute" isn't good enough. QuicoleJR (talk) 12:37, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

But that's very much not what I did. (And I'm not even sure why "there's a dispute" is put in quotation marks -- I didn't use that phrase.) Take a look at the text of the tag I restored and expanded upon, the explanation of that edit ("Restoring NPOV tag removed yesterday despite active discussion on the talk page. The prior editor's explanation for including it had been made on the talk page, so it should not have been removed, per Template:POV. In any case, I have listed a series of talk page discussions raising NPOV issues. This is far from a drive-by." Even more straightforwardly, immediately after restoring and expanding the tag, I posted on this talk page an explanation of specific issues and specific sections of this talk page that warranted the tag. It's really not that hard to search for my username on this talk page before accusing me of tagging the article with no explanation or just a hand wave. Coining (talk) 13:36, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Let's go through your list of discussions and see how they stack up against the WP:NPOVD criteria of specific issues that are actionable within the content policies:

Talk:Gaza_genocide#Statement_from_Jimbo_Wales: Closed discussion so clearly not actionable.
Talk:Gaza_genocide#NPOV_Dispute_Template: No specific issues identified with mostly meta-discussion about the usage of the NPOV template. Some references to above statement from Jimbo as well as talk page discussion more broadly.
Talk:Gaza_genocide#Edit_request:_add_subsection_"Statements_rejecting_the_genocide_characterization": The request was rejected on a procedural basis and most of the discussion objected to the inclusion of an arbitrary list of opinions already covered at Gaza genocide recognition. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say that there may be something actionable here regarding how to best incorporate dissenting opinions in the article.
Talk:Gaza_genocide#Question: Request to overturn the RfC consensus to state genocide in Wikivoice. Not actionable.
Talk:Gaza_genocide#Re:_non-academic_sources_and_"significant_minority_viewpoint"_versus_FRINGE: Worthwhile discussion topic but nothing specific or actionable.
Talk:Gaza_genocide#A_regular_edit_request_amidst_the_chaos: The only discussion that is truly specific and actionable. However, this does not warrant an NPOV tag on the entire page but instead in the specific section discussing the BESA report.
Talk:Gaza_genocide#Well,_I_tried: User upset that their attempt to unilaterally overturn the RfC consensus to state genocide in Wikivoice was reverted. Not actionable.

Based on this, it's very difficult to see how your restoration of the NPOV tag was actually meant to constructively improve the article. EvansHallBear (talk) 22:31, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

I could technically open another RfC to overturn the most recent RfC but that seems like a really bad idea for reasons that have already been explained. The best course of action I can take is to stop editing in this topic area, and I will (attempt to) do that. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 22:37, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this is how the Gaza genocide article got to its current state. Editors like @SuperPianoMan9167 make insightful comments, but then enough editors of the opposite point of view engage in sealioning and/or threatening with sanctions, and the editor with the less popular view then withdraws. But I do get it, and I appreciate your contributions. No matter what you decide to do going forward, I wish you all the best. Coining (talk) 00:53, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

If it was very difficult, how about asking me, instead of casting aspersions.

First, you've misstated the WP:NPOVD criteria. As I pointed out near the top of Talk:Gaza_genocide#NPOV_Dispute_Template, WP:NPOVD says that specificity is needed "If you add this template to an article in which there is no relevant discussion underway," and all those pre-existing talk discussions are at least relevant to the NPOV debate -- I identified them by searching for the term "NPOV" on this talk page. The explicit admonition on WP:NPOVD and the tag itself is to not remove the template prematurely, and yet that's exactly what has been done, multiple times.

But as to specifics:

On Talk:Gaza_genocide#Statement_from_Jimbo_Wales - Why are NPOV concerns in a closed discussion not actionable? Just open up the discussion, read the relevant parts, and act on them if you (or any other editor) would like. But also, as I noted previously, that talk section was closed by a (2-time) participant in the very discussion that was closed, which is not, as I understand it, how conversations should get closed. Of course it's very convenient to use the improper closing to not only stop that discussion from continuing, but now also act as though the hundreds of comments in it from @Jimbo Wales and other editors can now be wholesale ignored without any analysis of whether they raise legitimate NPOV concerns.
On Talk:Gaza_genocide#NPOV_Dispute_Template - Though you write "No specific issues identified", even a search for the word "specific" would have found in that section:

For example (and this is just one example), an editor could believe that even with the first sentence as is, a reader shouldn’t have to wait until the fifth paragraph to get any information about the minority view (and even then about only Israel's position, as if no one else outside Israel thinks that the genocide conclusion is unwarranted). Specifics like this have already been mentioned on this talk page (the above one by @SuperPianoMan9167), so the NPOV Dispute Template is appropriately placed in the article.

No wonder @SuperPianoMan9167 is now considering stopping editing in this topic area, when his suggestions are simply ignored.

On Talk:Gaza_genocide#Edit_request:_add_subsection_"Statements_rejecting_the_genocide_characterization" - This edit request raises the NPOV issue of whether the article fully enough presents the range of entities/organisations that do not accept the genocide conclusion. @Boutboul provides a series of examples that aren't in the article, provides reliable sources, and the article's existing "Political discourse" section contains references to, for example, countries in support of the genocide characterization that are not more noteworthy than the examples in this edit request. That is an actionable NPOV concern.
On Talk:Gaza_genocide#Question - This is the section where @SuperPianoMan9167 first raised the fifth paragraph concern mentioned above, and more generally it raises the concern of whether the noted RfC precludes compliance with WP:NPOV. For reasons @Jimbo Wales raised in his statement, it's not even clear that an RfC can override one of the WP:FIVEPILLARS. Even if one views the RfC as sacrosanct (although consensus can change), the RfC was about the first sentence (literally titled "RfC on first sentence"), so there are ways to address the substantive NPOV concerns raised in this section by making edits past the first sentence. The comment from @Larry Sanger in this section is itself essentially conveying an WP:NPOV concern (among other concerns). Anyway, it's a long discussion section that shouldn't just be summarily dismissed with Request to overturn the RfC consensus to state genocide in Wikivoice. Not actionable.
On Talk:Gaza_genocide#Re:_non-academic_sources_and_"significant_minority_viewpoint"_versus_FRINGE - the implications of this conversation go directly to WP:NPOV issues, as if the opposition to the genocide conclusion is a minority viewpoint, rather than a WP:FRINGE theory, then WP:NPOV requires the minority viewpoint be given its WP:DUE. When you say that there is nothing specific or actionable here, are you saying that editors like @Berchanhimez who wrote extensively in this section agree that none of what he's writing would imply any changes to the Gaza genocide article? I highly doubt that. If you can't find relevant article changes to make yourself, the action item would be to ask editors like @Berchanhimez, whom I suspect would happily oblige you with a set of specific action items.
On Talk:Gaza_genocide#A_regular_edit_request_amidst_the_chaos - You say that this is The only discussion that is truly specific and actionable. However, this does not warrant an NPOV tag on the entire page but instead in the specific section discussing the BESA report. So, I'll accept that, if this were the the only NPOV issue in the article. In any case, the questioned material has been removed from the article, so it is now a moot point (which it wasn't at the time of my earlier comment).
On Talk:Gaza_genocide#Well,_I_tried - You write User upset that their attempt to unilaterally overturn the RfC consensus to state genocide in Wikivoice was reverted. Not actionable., but the attempted (and then reverted edit from @SuperPianoMan9167 affected more material than just the first sentence that is, seemingly, locked in by the RfC. So, again, you could take the action of inquiring with that editor whether there is a way to modify their edit in light of both that restriction and subsequent edits to address WP:NPOV concerns.

Lastly, your reply (the one I'm replying to now) was to a comment in which I suggested to search for my username on this talk page for other specifics. Here, for example, are some specific concerns I mentioned about the infobox at the top of the article. @Michaelas10 may be putting together a further list. Coining (talk) 03:46, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

The fifth paragraph thing has since been fixed by CommunityNotesContributor in Special:Diff/1320592290. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 04:15, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

I added more coverage of the opposing views to the first paragraph in Special:Diff/1321025448. What do you think? SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 04:42, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

@M.Bitton: May I ask why you reverted my edits to the lead? You said in the edit summary, "Not without consensus", but that's not a valid reason to revert. The RfC consensus only applies to the wording of the first sentence, so why can't I make bold changes to the other parts of the first paragraph? SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 04:58, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

1) Comparing some cherry picked/irrelevant countries to scholars is the definition of WP:FALSEBALANCE. 2) if we ever need to mention the countries (certainly not in the lead), then we'll name all the countries that describe it is as genocide.

Contrary to what you seem to think while seeking support from a specific editor (below), Your so-called "bold change" (to the lead section of all places) was reverted for a valid reason. M.Bitton (talk) 05:20, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Ok, but when you revert my edits, can you please include a more detailed edit summary than "Not without consensus"? SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 05:26, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

It doesn't seem like this is at all settled -- see here from just a short time ago, for instance. I'd rather keep lists comprehensive rather than assuming that some temporary version of the article has solved an issue for all time.

Also, the location of the minority view (5th paragraph vs. 1st paragraph) is just one of the points. It's also the limited framing of that minority view that is at issue. Indeed, the existing article still relegates the explanation of the not-a-genocide position to the 5th paragraph, and in the 1st paragraph links to Gaza genocide denial, which is not a neutral attempt to present the minority view, but rather an attempt to discredit it. Coining (talk) 16:00, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

I removed that link per both NPOV and MOS:EGG. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:09, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. Coining (talk) 16:14, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

And already, @QuicoleJR's well-reasoned small change has been reversed. Coining (talk) 02:21, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

I started a new talk page section about that below. QuicoleJR (talk) 03:01, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

@Coining: Not only are my suggestions being ignored, I am also being threatened with sanctions, warned I might be taken to AE, accused of civil POV pushing, accused of tag team edit warring, chastised for attempting to "unilaterally overturn the RfC consensus", and reverted with little explanation other than "no consensus". SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 05:13, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

It’s not one enraged person. It’s a whole, very active talk page of editors arguing over neutrality. The fact it’s an emotive topic doesn’t make that less true. BobFromBrockley (talk) 06:01, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

the tag may not be used as a badge of shame. It's hardly necessary to draw more eyes to the article and there is no consensus that major POV issues exist, so I do not see any benefit to having it even if I agreed with the rationale. (t · c) buidhe 07:16, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Theres always gonna be folks talking about how its nonneutral forever.

but tags are not supposed to be permanent, and this article has been the subject of countless RFCs and discussions. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 13:43, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

There is a large space between permanent and editors not even allowing the tag (backed by specific, active discussions on this talk page) to be up for more than a few hours. If the NPOV tag referenced archived discussions, perhaps that would be an attempt at permanent tagging, but that's not at all what's been put forth. Coining (talk) 14:03, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

There have been move discussions and RFCs on this. Consensus is crystal clear. Anyone adding the tag is going against consensus and can be taken to WP:AE at any time. Consider this a general warning as all of the persons adding have previously been advised that this is a contentious topic area. TarnishedPath^talk 11:48, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Threatening sanctions is not conducive to discussion. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 12:03, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Participating in tag team edit warring against established consensus is a behavioural issue. TarnishedPath^talk 12:52, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

I have neither added nor removed the tag from the article. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 13:30, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Who are you accusing of co-ordinating with whom? On second thoughts: Probably best not to answer here but at a noticeboard that deals with such behaviour, as quite a strong accusation. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:00, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

It is when some people don't get it — 🧀Cheesedealer ^!!!⚟ 12:54, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

+1 M.Bitton (talk) 13:00, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Whatever consensus is "crystal clear" is limited to the first sentence; it was literally titled "RfC on first sentence." As I've written on this talk page previously, it doesn't stand for the proposition that the entire article isn't the subject of an NPOV dispute. Threatening sanctions for "going against consensus" when the scope of that consensus is being misrepresented is not appropriate. Also, per WP:TAGTEAM, "Unsubstantiated accusations of tag teaming are uncivil." Coining (talk) 13:21, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

As others have said, the reason for the tag is issues throughout the entry rather than the first sentence - there has been no RfC about these issues in general. While I support adding the tag, it needs to be justified by an organized list of major issues alongside sources showing either clear omissions of contradictory information or misrepresentations of cited information. Then there needs to be an agreement that the issues are indeed real and will require significant work to address. Has anyone compiled such a list before? If not, I can give it a shot. I already pointed out a few specific issues in discussions above, and fixed some of them (the water blockade claim and 83% civilian casualties interpretation). Michaelas10 (talk) 15:38, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

A possible starting place could be based on going through the list of sections of this talk page that I noted above which explicitly mention NPOV concerns, an edit which also includes the particular item about the lead not mentioning anything about a minority viewpoint until its fifth paragraph.

There are lots of issues if you'd rather start going through the article itself. For instance, the infobox asserts that the genocide started on "7 October 2023", instead of simply saying "October 2023", despite noting "This start date is the beginning of the war. Sources disagree on when the genocide started..." (So, if we know there is a disagreement, why is the infobox taking one side of that disagreement?) In addition, one of the infobox's notes says, "Per the Gaza Health Ministry and Government Information Office, which has previously been deemed reliable by prominent and independent organisations", even though a neutral approach would recognize that some reliable sources deem the ministry reliable and some do not.

Thank you for anything you can do help compile a list of issues that need to be addressed. Coining (talk) 21:51, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

The article is currently featured in the ITN section on the Main Page, so adding the tag is highly inappropriate. Doing so undermines both the established consensus and the editorial process that was properly followed. Cinaroot (talk) 05:10, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

The consensus and editorial process concerned the first sentence, not NPOV throughout the article. "The article is currently featured in the ITN section on the Main Page, so adding the tag is highly inappropriate." Is there any policy which suggests this? I would actually argue the opposite - the high publicity gives even more of an impetus to put scrutiny on the article (including about POV issues) and improve it. Michaelas10 (talk) 11:13, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

NOOOOOOOO....... I clearly recall that Arbitration Committee member HJ Mitchell once removed an NPOV tag from a featured article (not an ITN item) for a similar reason—because featured articles represent the best of Wikipedia, and such tags are not appropriate for them. Editors are expected to resolve disputes on the talk page instead.

ITN items, likewise, are only selected if they meet a high standard of quality. See WP:ITN. Cinaroot (talk) 15:06, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Here is the ref. edit Cinaroot (talk) 15:10, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

That precedent clearly does not apply here. It is on ITN simply because it is a current event, not because it was deemed by the community to represent the best of Wikipedia. Michaelas10 (talk) 15:14, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Attention everyone, I started a draft of a list of major neutrality issues which - when completed - will form the backbone of a future RfC on this topic. Feel free to add or edit. Thanks! Michaelas10 (talk) 12:51, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Per the section title RfC: NPOV tag, is this an RfC over applying an NPOV tag? CNC (talk) 14:23, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Not yet. Once I (and maybe others) complete the list, and determine that the issues indeed cannot be straightforwardly addressed, then it will become an RfC. Michaelas10 (talk) 14:49, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

An RfC to have an NPOV tag added or to make changes though? CNC (talk) 15:37, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

It is about whether a temporary tag is warranted while we work through the specific unwarranted weight/omission issues that I will raise. It is not an omnibus proposal for content changes; those will be handled in separate, focused threads. Michaelas10 (talk) 17:56, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

So you're suggesting a one-month long RfC on whether to include this tag? Is that correct? CNC (talk) 18:23, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Please stop trying to box @Michaelas10 in. All that has been done is the creation of a sandbox page, and @Michaelas10 has been kind enough to post about it in this public discussion. There is no need to prejudge that effort, or get @Michaelas10 or any other editor to decide in advance what exactly \the sandbox page will be used for. The page created conforms with the intentionally loose rules of WP:ABOUTSAND. I recommend caring more about the POV issues with the main article, rather than what @Michaelas10 might eventually decide to do with the sandbox page. Coining (talk) 18:34, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Huh? What part of me asking questions is prejudging, would you like to strike that now? I'm trying to understand what the RfC proposal actually is as it remains unclear. I've already patrolled the sandbox, so I'm not suggesting there is any issue with it...? CNC (talk) 18:46, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

There is no RfC proposal so long as it stays on the sandbox page. There is no need to get clarification on it now, because anything on that page is still a work in progress. Coining (talk) 23:57, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Correct, but the intent is not to run a month by default; it’s simply to get a clear consensus on the tag while we address specific issues in parallel. If there’s quick consensus either way, I’m fine with an early close. If folks prefer to avoid an RfC entirely, I’m also willing to take this to NPOV Noticeboard for outside input instead. Michaelas10 (talk) 18:44, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

I think an entire RFC on whether the tag can be placed temporarily on the article is unnecessary. Personally, I would support the tag's inclusion on the condition that it will be removed again once all of the threads you plan to open conclude, to make sure that it is truly temporary. Would you consider that acceptable? QuicoleJR (talk) 19:09, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

That sounds good, but based on the above it seems others will disagree. What do folks think? One motivation for wanting to make this into an RfC is simply to get everyone on the same page. Michaelas10 (talk) 19:24, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Address them one by one. If you put a rfc for everything - i will oppose it. There are so many discussions here i cannot keep track off. Cinaroot (talk) 14:59, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I’m happy to address specific issues one by one. However, I will argue that in this case there is an article-wide balance issue (undue weight/omissions) that merits proposing a POV tag while we work through these issues. Per WP:TAGGING and the NPOV docs, tags are appropriate when there are real, actionable concerns, and when they are linked to a talk section summarizing the issues (i.e., not an omnibus tag). This will allow everyone to be on board with the requested changes and their underlying justification. Michaelas10 (talk) 15:11, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

I understand your point, but it’s important to see the broader picture. Having a POV tag on a high-visibility article featured on the main page reflects poorly on Wikipedia. This is one of the most actively discussed talk pages, with significant attention from many editors, so there’s already ample oversight. A POV tag isn’t necessary in this context. Cinaroot (talk) 15:23, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

(I haven't read this full thread, but) I don't see why it should reflect poorly. It's an indicator that there's active discussion Placeholderer (talk) 15:41, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

But some editors' ideas are immediately shot down by the same handful of people. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 16:04, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Your first so-called idea was disruptive beyond the pale, and your second was reverted for a good reason. If you still believe that they shouldn't have been reverted, then instead of throwing accusations around, you should take you concerns to AE. M.Bitton (talk) 16:19, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

It's having an article with significant NPOV issues that reflects poorly on Wikipedia, not the tag itself. And it's not a matter of whether a POV tag is necessary; the question is whether it is allowed (which it is), and whether removal of the tag is allowed at this time (which it isn't per WP:NPOVD and the instructions in the tag itself). Coining (talk) 16:10, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Getting everyone on the same page

So, me and Michaelas10 have come to an agreement earlier in this section, to add the POV tag while Michael posts his threads for making the article more neutral, and to immediately remove it once all of those threads conclude. Does everyone else accept this? Thanks, QuicoleJR (talk) 19:28, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Pinging all participants in the above thread (sorry if I miss you): @SuperPianoMan9167, Bluethricecreamman, Coining, EvansHallBear, M.Bitton, BobFromBrockley, Buidhe, TarnishedPath, The Cheesedealer, Cinaroot, CommunityNotesContributor, and Placeholderer: thoughts on the above? QuicoleJR (talk) 19:33, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

No. I explained above why the POV tag will not contribute to improving the article. (t · c) buidhe 19:42, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Strong NO. Explained many times Cinaroot (talk) 19:52, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes, please. The issues need to be addressed. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 19:55, 8 November 2025 (UTC) Putting the NPOV tag on the article is not necessary, but addressing the issues is. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 23:04, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm unaware of any other article where such a process has been necessary. I'm not sure what there is in terms of broad structural NPOV problems—i.e beyond an aggregation of little violations that, sure, are maybe policed a bit more diligently in one flavor than another. (Contrast that with, e.g, some of the war timelines which reference Al Jazeera hundreds and hundreds of times). I guess I can only wish good luck on the NPOV page—maybe there are such bigger problems—but it might risk becoming an unactionable laundry list encouraging semi-permanent placement of the NPOV template at best or providing a megaphone for POV-pushing at worst. I think what we can expect is that it somewhat substitute the talk page in the role of calling attention to problems.

I just feel like the template shouldn't be so complicated. This page is full of active discussions that can be taken as NPOV issues, since any issue at all here can be construed as NPOV noncompliance. I want to say that means we should just go ahead and use the template. Will there always be such active discussion here? Maybe? But Talk:Israel at least is far less discussion-"vibrant" right now, so it's not some guaranteed feature of the CTOP. My feeling is that yes, we should have the NPOV template up for now, since there's a lot of productive work happening that touches on that and I naively think that issues will be resolved over time. But I'm also not entirely sure what boost it provides, given that everyone on this page is thinking NPOV thoughts already. (But is the tag—albeit a maintenance tag—really only meant for editors?)

TLDR: I guess I support that the tag will be added. I feel weird about the new page Placeholderer (talk) 20:20, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Could someone refer me to where there's an existing consensus against the tag? @TarnishedPath said There have been move discussions and RFCs on this. Consensus is crystal clear, but I've only been at this page since Nov 2 and if the relevant RfCs and RMs were since then I must've missed them Placeholderer (talk) 23:24, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Update: consider my "I guess I support" to be a proper "support". At the very least, until someone points me to the previous NPOV-tag RFCs Placeholderer (talk) 15:36, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

The previous RFCs do exist, right? Placeholderer (talk) 15:21, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

NO, this has been explained. WP:DROPTHESTICK. TarnishedPath^talk 22:30, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

@TarnishedPath: I wasn't even one of the people pushing for the tag's inclusion, and I don't have a strong opinion on inclusion or exclusion. I was simply trying to work towards a compromise between the two camps and figure out where the consensus lies. If this discussion decides to omit the tag, I won't have a problem with it. I've only even made three or four comments in this thread, so I'd appreciate it if you could retract your accusation. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:40, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

My comment was meant to be generalised towards those pushing for the tag, not you specifically. Apologies if it case across that way. TarnishedPath^talk 22:44, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

I appreciate the clarification. I agree that some of the people pushing for the tag really should drop it, and a large part of the reason I started this subsection is so that we could get a final consensus one way or the other, so that we can finally move on to something more productive. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:54, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

We don't really need the tag on the article to address NPOV issues; we can still address them without putting a tag on the article. The drawback would be that other editors won't know that there are NPOV issues being addressed unless they check the talk page. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 23:03, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

POV tag should be added - I'm honestly a bit frustrated that this discussion has been framed in this way. WP:NPOV is policy. The text of the POV template is clear on the conditions that must be met for it to be removed. Editors who have added the tag have upheld policy; those who have removed it have asserted that there are no specific NPOV concerns on this talk page, and then are repeatedly shown examples. And yet that doesn't seem to make a difference. There is no equivalence between these approaches. It's one thing to have everyone agree that there should be an intense, one-month period of review of the article to lay out the range of specific NPOV issues, and allow editors in good faith to digest and respond to them. However, adding an NPOV tag while those many issues remain in the next month is proper regardless of whether this conversation specifically authorizes it. This conversation seems more likely to merely give those who improperly remove the tag yet another specious argument to do so if it concludes that the tag isn't warranted, and that's neither how WP:NPOV nor the tag's procedures work. I'd be happy to focus on the NPOV issues instead of the POV tag, if I saw enough instances of those issues not being summarily dismissed on this page. Coining (talk) 00:13, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

See WP:ITNUPDATE

Articles that are subject to serious issues, as indicated by 'orange'- or 'red'-level tags at either the article level or within any section, may not be accepted for an emboldened link.

This article is currently featured in the In the News (ITN) section. Such maintenance tags should not be added, as articles with these tags would not have been eligible for inclusion in ITN. Cinaroot (talk) 00:40, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

That's backwards. If it has the tag, it shouldn't be at ITN. Being at ITN shouldn't block the tag.

Though that is helpful context re: significance of the tag Placeholderer (talk) 00:45, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes, it does. It looks very bad on Wikipedia. Editors should use talk to resolve issues. You should not place such tags for articles featured on the main page. ArbCom members have reverted these tags when editors placed them on FA. Cinaroot (talk) 00:52, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

I just don't understand this point, as I commented previously. And per Michaelas10 regarding FAs Placeholderer (talk) 00:55, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

I understand his point—that the precedent applies only to Featured Articles. However, the point I’m trying to make is that this is a high-visibility article linked from Wikipedia’s main page, and placing such a tag on it reflects poorly on the project. It gives the impression that editors cannot maintain neutrality or resolve disputes through discussion, which undermines confidence in the article and in Wikipedia as a whole. Cinaroot (talk) 01:02, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Thats all i have to say about this. :( Cinaroot (talk) 01:03, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

I guess we just fundamentally interpret the meaning of maintenance tags differently. I think they show we're self-aware and working to improve. It's not the diagnosis that's bad; it's the condition.

Agree to disagree :| Placeholderer (talk) 01:07, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

No. per the above discussion. M.Bitton (talk) 00:45, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

A different tack

For the folks who oppose the above proposal, I would like to understand why a bit better. I have already written critiques about the neutrality of two of this article's sections based on high-quality sources, and expect to finish going over the whole article by a few weeks from now. As far as I can tell, most of my criticisms there are new and have not been discussed before (including in previous RfCs). Since it's a lot of work, I want to make sure I am not wasting my time here. Please indicate if you disagree because:

Option A: I need to present a convincing case first (as decided by consensus) before we put up the POV tag.

Option B: While it is worthwhile to present justified criticisms, even if I do so you still think a POV tag will not be conducive to the article's quality (please explain why if possible, or link to an earlier explanation).

Option C: The article is clearly balanced as it is, and you do not see any way that my analysis could possibly convince you it is not.

Thanks, Michaelas10 (talk) 01:03, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

I lean towards B. Your critiques will be very helpful and I, for one, will appreciate them. However, it doesn't seem like a tag will do the article much good. The main purpose of maintenance tags on Wikipedia AFAICT is for editors who are passing by to see them and help fix the issue, which this article doesn't need. We have enough people working on the issue right now and the fact that this article has issues right now is pretty well-known at the moment, so the tag is unnecessary. QuicoleJR (talk) 01:13, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

My reasoning is that placing a POV tag on a high-visibility article undermines confidence not only in the article itself but in Wikipedia as a whole. If you have neutrality concerns, the right approach is to open a discussion here and invite broader input—such as from the NPOV noticeboard, or by notifying relevant WikiProjects like Israel, Palestine, and others. There are many ways to bring in neutral editors and achieve balance. W Cinaroot (talk) 01:40, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Gotcha. I will do so. Thanks! Michaelas10 (talk) 22:46, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Begin–Sadat Center for Strategic Studies report

Latest comment: 8 months ago152 comments21 people in discussion

@Tioaeu8943 - While I'm not fundamentally opposed to including the report by Begin–Sadat Center for Strategic Studies, I'm unsure if their inclusion is WP:DUE as they are a think tank whose stated mission is "conducting policy-relevant research on Middle Eastern and global strategic affairs, particularly as they relate to the national security and foreign policy of Israel and regional peace and stability." & despite describing themselves as non-partisan, list among their advances "generat[ing] a debate about the problematic aspects of Palestinian statehood" & putting "The dangers of radical Islam; the myths of Palestinian demography; the abuse of international institutions in the attempt to delegitimize Israel" on the public agenda. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 00:26, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

I've clarified the positioning of the Center, that being an Israeli think-tank that supports military solutions to just about every issue they look at. It's inclusion this time is better than when a previous editor tried to dedicate a third of the article to the think tank. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 10:07, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

It shouldn't be a third of the article, that's not reasonable. I changed "piece" back to "report" so that the second sentence follows logically, and removed "two-state solution" (if they're opposed to statehood, they're necessarily opposed to the two-state solution), but I otherwise don't object to the context. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 13:26, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

i moved it to "other scholars" because, per TOI, the authors are mostly military historians. there are some actual legal experts that could be added to this section, most notably Stefan Talmon. Rainsage (talk) 16:33, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

An organization's mission does not appear to figure into policies described at WP:DUE. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 13:23, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

I don't see any problem to include to report as long as it described in WP:RS. In my opinion the addition regarding recognition of two state solution is irrelevant to the topic of the article as it not mentioned in the source that describe the report. --Shrike (talk) 19:31, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. Iljhgtn (talk) 20:10, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

I mean this is an explicitly partisan organization, so I don't think this belongs in the "scholarship" section. Or in the article at all because it offers zero enlightenment to our readers on the line of WP:MANDY. There are many Israeli institutions that aren't nakedly partisan. (t · c) buidhe 19:39, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Per NRC, one of the authors "teaches at the Israeli army's officer academy and is himself a reservist". So even ignoring the politics of the organization, this is a pretty clear cut case of WP:MANDY. EvansHallBear (talk) 04:04, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Not a fan of the WP:MANDY essay, but more importantly, its just an essay and not policy. Dismissing it merely because it is an "Israeli institution" is itself a nakedly partisan take. Iljhgtn (talk) 04:27, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Not merely because it is an "Israeli institution" but because it's authored by a member of the army committing the genocide. EvansHallBear (talk) 04:37, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Reserve service is compulsory in Israel, so millions of Israelis are designated reservists by law. Calling one of the authors "a member of the army committing the genocide" is a jaundiced take. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 11:40, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

I agree with EvansHallBear here per WP:SELFSOURCE. Whether military service being mandatory is morally exculpatory I think is a different question. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 13:12, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

The sources for the item are RSs per WP:RSPS. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 13:18, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not able to find mention of BESA in WP:RSPS. Could you point it out for me?

I'm also reading the BESA article lead sentence: The Begin–Sadat Center for Strategic Studies (BESA Center) is an Israeli think tank affiliated with Bar-Ilan University and supported by the NATO Mediterranean Initiative. So they are supported by a public university in Israel (which receives money from the Israeli government) and by NATO, which has obvious geopolitical motives to support Israel that creates a WP:COI. I agree this seems like a textbook case of WP:MANDY and I don't think this should be dismissed simply because it's not official policy. More, one of the reasons for using Gaza genocide in Wikivoice is because in previous RfCs it was argued by the winning side that we should discount sources allied with the government allegedly carrying out the genocide because they have a strong political or fear-of-prosecution interest which may lead them to make inaccurate claims. I think this logic is more than sound. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 13:33, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

The sources for the item are Times of Israel and The Jerusalem Post. And I'm now looking at the item and thinking that it would only be fair to attach three sentences of qualification regarding the objectivity and expertise of many of the other claimants in the article. If we're going to apply WP:MANDY here, let's apply it evenly. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 14:11, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

The sources for the item are Times of Israel and The Jerusalem Post Gotcha, thanks. Well let's look at what WP:RSPS says about each source's limitations:
- WP:JERUSALEMPOST: It should be used as a source for the Israeli–Palestinian conflict only to cite basic facts or if its reporting is validated by additional reporting from another source not similarly limited.
- WP:TIMESOFISRAEL: In the 2024 RfC, there was consensus that The Times of Israel is generally reliable, although potentially biased in certain topics like the Israeli–Palestinian conflict.

Based on these descriptions, I think we can support the claim that the BESA study occurred but can not make any claims about the validity of the study itself based on these sources. Other WP:RS such as actual scholars describe the BESA study as unreliable.

it would only be fair to attach three sentences of qualification regarding the objectivity and expertise of many of the other claimants in the article. If we're going to apply WP:MANDY here, let's apply it evenly — This feels a little bit like a WP:POINT. I'm not necessarily saying you're violating the policy or even that you intend to, but I'm just advising caution based on the impression I'm getting from your comment, which is hopefully an inaccurate impression of what you're actually saying.

If you believe there are biased sources (like WP:ALJAZEERA) whose characterizations about reliability of certain claims are being deferred to as opposed to as opposed to merely using them to cite facts, then feel free to start a new discussion describing specific examples. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 14:50, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

The item says, in two sentences, that the study occurred and relates what it found, so I'm glad we agree that it's properly sourced. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 23:18, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Forgive me for losing the plot in my reply. Speaking on the question at hand, I think a WP:MANDY source is WP:UNDUE here and would instead be WP:DUE in the Gaza genocide denial article. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 23:40, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

My original point is that for anyone familiar with the think tanks ideological position, their opinion on the Gaza genocide is obvious so it doesn't add any information to the article. I have removed many statements from the opposite POV on similar grounds.

Putting a think tank alongside more respectable scholars and scholarly organizations is also not appropriate Imv. (t · c) buidhe 02:39, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

The report is mentioned by multipile sources and hence WP:DUE and itwas doneby academics so there is no reason to remove it. There is plenty of biased sources of questionable quality in this article like +972 that shouldn't be used maybe we should start with them --Shrike (talk) 09:14, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Just because a report is mentioned by multiple sources does not automatically mean it's WP:DUE.

There is plenty of biased sources of questionable quality in this article like +972 that shouldn't be used maybe we should start with them — This feels like a WP:POINT. If it's true that other sources used in this article are biased then please start a separate discussion so we can examine them on a case-by-case basis. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 10:03, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

No it does mentioned by multiple source and relevant to the article make it a nessaccary addition to the article per WP:NOTCENSORED --Shrike (talk) 10:34, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Well I advocated putting it on Gaza genocide denial instead, so I don't think that is censorship.

Your claim is that if something is mentioned by multiple sources it is automatically WP:DUE for inclusion? By this logic I could go on a featured neuroscience article and start adding extremely niche and technical information in the field that's yes, related, but doesn't belong on that article. There is a spectrum—some things cited by multiple sources don't always belong on an article that they could technically be included in, especially when there's thousands of better sources out there that are not literally sponsored and written by the government denying the genocide accusation against them. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 10:52, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Putting it in the denial article would probably (depending how it was written up) be highly POV unless the overwhelming majority of RSs mentioning it describe it as an example of denial. It belongs in this article. BobFromBrockley (talk) 02:32, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

I think WP:BLUE applies here. It is obvious genocide denial, and we don't need to cite that the sky is blue.

The rest of your comment doesn't respond to doubts that it's WP:DUE for inclusion. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 13:32, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

This is a claim which has opposing sides. No one contests that the WP:SKYISBLUE which is why it can be called as such. Plenty of people do not think what happened (especially now that it is past tense) in Israel was a genocide. That does not mean that they are right or wrong for that matter, but WP:BLUE is absolutely not applicable here. Other policies, sure, but not WP:BLUE. Iljhgtn (talk) 22:32, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

I think WP:BLUE is being invoked here in regards to the report denying that it's a genocide, not whether they are correct or not in that assessment. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 22:42, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Yup this is what I meant Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 03:09, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

The problem is that "genocide denial" is a loaded term. It has strong connotations with Holocaust denial. The term "genocide denial" implies (or at least stronlgy connotes) that the genocide is a fact, and people who deny it are wrong. That's not the case here, and thus WP:BLUE does not apply to uses of the term "genocide denial". Even in cases where it's obviously correct that "X denies that it is genocide" or, more neutrally, "X disagrees with the classification as genocide". — Chrisahn (talk) 23:07, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

This isn't a discussion where NOTCENSORED is applicable. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 13:33, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

I agree with Shrike here. Iljhgtn (talk) 16:31, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

The report was done by academics affiliated with a partisan organization and who have no expertise in genocide research. Numerous flaws in their arguments were pointed out in the NRC article I provided. Including this report alongside actual scholarship is false balance, no matter how many articles TOI and Jpost publish about it

References to +972 are completely irrelevant to this discussion. EvansHallBear (talk) 17:14, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

The Middle East Studies Association, mentioned in the prior paragraph, became so partisan against Israel that another organization spun off to do actual research. Its statement was authored by leadership who are also not genocide scholars, and doesn't even count as scholarship. Do you plan to qualify that statement as well? Tioaeu8943 (talk) 22:45, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Besides the unnecessary dismissal of MESA due to some members wanting to splinter off into their own group, there is still a substantial difference between the two here.

MESA's board member statement is placed in "Other scholars" & their position that Israel's actions amount to "cultural genocide" is within their board members area of expertise (Most being experts in culture &/or history in the Middle East)

BESA however is a think-tank with an explicit mission of advocacy & as they're trying to dispute another group's findings rather then simply state their position like MESA, they'll be under heavier scrutiny.

You originally placed their report in the "Legal and human rights experts" section despite the organization's focus being the security and foreign policy of Israel. Among the report's authors, only 1 of the 4's areas of expertise is at all relevant (Adv. Jonathan Braverman's LinkedIn says their education is in International Humanitarian Law), the others being either military historians or a biochemist.

On top of all that, despite the report being so recent, scholars in more relevant fields have already criticized it for inaccuracies & poor evidence.

Their is a gulf between the deserved weight given to these 2 groups, with BESA's report needing qualifications to be included at all. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 23:50, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

So being a partisan organization doesn't matter until it does, being a historian qualifies you to discuss genocide until it doesn't, and a four-paragraph statement has more weight than a 300-page report. Got it. Oh, I see we're up to four sentences of qualification! Sourced four times to two publications, one by Derk Walters, and another by Derk Walters and friends. Who is Derk Walters?A Dutch journalist who has been criticizing Israel for his entire career, neither a scholar of genocide nor anything else. You're right, there's a gulf here, between how this item is being treated and the rest of the page. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 01:15, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

It is true, Derk Walters should have his background qualified for the monomaniacal career slant, not scholarly. Iljhgtn (talk) 01:17, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

We aren't citing Derk Walters for his position on genocide nor interpretations, but for their reporting of the BESA author's credentials & corroboration of genocide researcher Iva Vukusic's analysis, so potential bias from a journalist is a non-factor in the citation's reliability.

A 4 paragraph statement by a learned society whose focus is on the culture & history of the Middle East, that finds this crisis amounts to a cultural genocide (cultural genocide refers to the destruction of historical landmarks & aspects of culture).

Vs.

A 300 page report by non-experts from a partisan think-take whose focus is on a different field, criticized by experts either for inaccuracies or for failing to materially dispute the IAGS' conclusion.

A military historian does not qualify you to meaningfully analyze genocides, nor to supersede the position of genocide experts, but being a cultural historian does qualify you to meaningfully analyze cultural genocides

To argue that BESA requires no qualifications is an are argument for a WP:FALSEBALANCE.

I've now made my point clear, so to avoid needles arguing/WP:BLUDGEONING on my end, I don't believe my continued discussion on the matter with you will be productive. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 02:11, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

[Being] "A military historian does not qualify you to meaningfully analyze genocides"? This is WP:JUST and nothing more. I'm going to edit the qualifications to an appropriate length. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 14:31, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Butterscotch Beluga is absolutely correct. Genocide scholars are authorities on genocide, not military historians. International law has little overlap with military history. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 14:37, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

In that case, I'll remove every claim on this page attached to anyone who is not expressly described as a genocide scholar. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 15:13, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Genocide scholars are authorities on whether a genocide is happening, which is the subject in dispute. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 15:59, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Also, I respectfully recommend you read WP:POINT. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 16:06, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

And now you're edit warring to keep your precious WP:JUST items on the page. Great. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 15:10, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Changing a sentence that points out the opinions of relevant experts to a sentence saying that the interviewer of those experts, is the one who disagrees with the report, needs a hell of a justification to show its not simply POV pushing. Feel free to present that justification here, as you didn't in your edit summary. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 15:21, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm not edit warring, that's not my revert.

Just because you don't agree with other's assessments of sources, doesn't mean it's WP:JUST behavior.

Your statement that you'll "remove every claim on this page attached to anyone who is not expressly described as a genocide scholar." is WP:POINTY & uncollaborative. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 15:24, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Tioaeu8943, your tone makes it feel like you are assuming bad faith. I'd recommend you take a step back for a little bit before returning to the discussion. I've been in your shoes too, I understand it's easy to feel like others have bad intentions for opposing changes you strongly believe in. But in order to maintain a collaborative atmosphere on Wikipedia, it's important that we are able to have calm and collected conversations about these important issues. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 16:04, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

I agree with Buidhe here. David A (talk) 09:22, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Me too. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 10:04, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

"We're not going to include this viewpoint because it's obvious that the people who have this viewpoint would have this viewpoint" is a circular claim that would considerably shorten this page if it were applied equitably. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 22:48, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Surely it would be better to include less obviously biased sources supporting the minority viewpoint that there is no genocide? Rainsage (talk) 16:30, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

This is what I was getting at. (t · c) buidhe 16:32, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Agreed Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 17:08, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Yeah begin-sadat center is definitely very undue with respect to other sources in the section. Stephan rostie (talk) 23:07, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

It’s a thinktank and partisan, but the overwhelming majority of sources used in this article are partisan, perhaps inevitably given how emotive the subject is. Most of the key academics writing about this are also activists. If we consider academics involved in Palestine solidarity activism legitimate sources, we should also consider pro-Israeli academics legitimate. At least one editor above argues that the authors are supported by a public university in Israel (which receives money from the Israeli government) thus should be dismissed. If we followed that logic we’d have to remove Amos Goldberg too, and other Israeli scholars who write about genocide. Better to actually assess (a) the credibility of the authors, (b) evidence of due weight via secondary sources. Re (a) the first and main author Dr Danny Orbach is a military historian at Hebrew U, not an employee of a think tank. His publications include articles that are about Israeli army actions and about legal responses to massacres. He has written in peer reviewed genocide studies journals. Jonathan Boxman, an independent scholar specialising in epidemiology and quantitative analysis, seems less credible. The third, Henkin, is a military historian and seems sufficiently legit. The fourth, Braverman, is identified as an IHL lawyer but I can’t see evidence of that in a quick search. Re (b) best source: https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2025-07-24/ty-article/.premium/the-israeli-strategy-of-denial-new-study-attempts-to-cast-doubt-on-gaza-genocide-claims/00000198-3cec-d5d4-a9fd-7eef19b90000 Some coverage: JNS, INN, The Australian, NBC.

Plus critiques (which also demonstrate noteworthiness: +972. BobFromBrockley (talk) 04:36, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

@Bobfrombrockley you've posted the INN article link for The Australian. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 08:19, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Ah sorry. Here: https://www.theaustralian.com.au/world/israel-has-no-policy-of-genocide-or-starvation-bombshell-report-finds/news-story/d9003924c0b16a1768775dbb8de96a70 It’s quite breathless BobFromBrockley (talk) 18:20, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

The +972 article actually supports Alexandraaaacs1989's proposal to include this report in Gaza genocide denial although not necessarily to exclude from this article. EvansHallBear (talk) 17:35, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

It certainly describes it as such. Given the reportage has mainly come from pro-Israel outlets, the majority of secondary sources don’t describe it as that so we can’t call it that in our voice but if we’re careful it might be due in an article or section on denial. BobFromBrockley (talk) 19:03, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

This is why I said I wasn't entirely opposed to their inclusion. As you've shown, the report has received secondary coverage, but my issues were with the initial lack of qualifications & being listed under "Legal and human rights experts". With those issues now having been satisfied, I'm fine with their continued inclusion.

I'd still prefer, if available, a stronger academic report sharing its position to take its place in this article, with this one moved to Academic and legal responses to the Gaza genocide, but that's just a theoretical preference, so it's neither here nor there. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 18:02, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Template:Expert opinions in the Gaza genocide debate has a a variety of sources to choose from. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 19:07, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

I removed surplus information regarding the report per WP:DUE. What was once a one sentence line in the "Other Scholars" section about this report had become an entire paragraph with 2/3 of the paragraph dedicated to two critics of the report who had no hand in engaging in the official peer review of the report. Also, per WP:DUE, the claim that "none are genocide exerts" reads as editorial commentary rather than providing neutral context. If editors want to summarize the academic response, a potential alternative could be, "The report received criticism from some historians, including Utrecht University's Iva Vukusic and Tufts University's Alex de Waal, who disputed its methodology and conclusions. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 15:37, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Source notable, but not reliable

This source , "Debunking the Genocide Allegations: A Reexamination of the Israel-Hamas War from October 7, 2023 to June 1, 2025," is not a reliable source, and is notable only for its own opinion. As detailed in Haaretz , "The stated goal of authors" is to undermine the credibility of reports on the genocide by historian Lee Mordechai, the United Nations, international human rights organizations, other scholars, and the piece is riddled with absurd errors identified by Israeli academics, including:

Failure to calculate the number of trucks delivering supplies to Gaza, based on the simple error of confusing the seven-day week with the five-day work week,

The claim that half of Gaza's pre-war buildings have been demolished in the war by a single IDF division because the buildings were booby-trapped,

Referring to the Rafah Crossing as separating Egypt from the West Bank,

And more. The Haaretz analysis notes that the study erroneously accuses various sources of information from Gaza of being unreliable, for instance accusing an Al-Jazeera journalist Hossam Shabat of being a Hamas activist (Shabat was killed in a targeted strike by Israeli forces in March of this year). I've read portions of the report and it claims that many Palestinian journalists working for Al-Jazeera are agents. The Haaretz analysis further notes that some of the most explosive claims of the report, for instance denying the starvation in Gaza that has been extensively documented by newspapers, international organizations, and witnessed by the whole world including by editors here, have been walked back by one of the study's authors, Danny Orbach.

Appearing on the Begin–Sadat Center for Strategic Studies, it seems clear from its many errors and poor reception in academia that this piece is not peer-reviewed, and it could even be considered self-published. I've seen a couple editors complain that we are giving this piece greater scrutiny. But because its claims are truly WP:EXCEPTIONAL, mentions in the Israeli press or by Rupert Murdoch's The Australian confer no aspect of reliability. -Darouet (talk) 14:16, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

This so-called analysis is an opinion piece. It characterizes differences of judgment as indefensible errors, likens the BESA report authors to "anti-vaxxers or flat Earthers," and reaches this outrageous conclusion: "the four authors suggest we wait further before forming an opinion about what is happening in Gaza. In the meantime, they provide journalists and the Israeli public with a tranquilizer – there's no starvation, no massacres, everybody is lying, trust us, you can go on with your normal lives."

Concerning your other points:

The report called Shabat a "an Al Jazeera journalist who was in fact a Hamas military activist." A more accurate term would have been "Beit Hanoun Battalion sniper." The IDF and Shin Bet said that he "cynically posed as an Al Jazeera journalist." The Committee to Protect Journalists and Reporters Without Borders chose to ignore that claim, but they're not going to be the ones who die if Shin Bet designates threats inaccurately.
A half-dozen Al Jazeera reporters were identified as Hamas militants at one point, including Shabat, in 2024. Another was an Al Jazeera op-ed contributor who was holding three hostages and killed in the Nuseirat rescue.
Danny Orbach did not walk anything back, that was Haaretz speaking for him. He was still challenging starvation reports a month ago and two months after this Haaretz opinion column.
The "poor reception in academia" can be explained by the extremity of anti-Israel bias in academia.

None of the claims in the report rise to the level of WP:EXCEPTIONAL. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 19:18, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

This so-called analysis is an opinion piece, and yet labelled opinion pieces are valid to prove the extremity of anti-Israel bias in academia. "Standards for thee, but not for me" perhaps? -- Cdjp1 (talk) 19:36, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps it depends on what you compare it to. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 23:37, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

How does that relate to my comment? You have repeatedly linked to unrelated articles, edits, etc. across discussions on multiple Wikipedia articles. What is the point? Or is it just a competency issue? -- Cdjp1 (talk) 08:08, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

This item has been getting dogpiled since I introduced it. Editors have hit it with policy, non-policy like WP:MANDY, and ad hoc rules made up on the spot ("A military historian does not qualify you to meaningfully analyze genocides"). This level of scrutiny applied to the rest of the page would blank half of it. So it's rich to be accused of double standards, and now incompetence. I'm entirely competent to discuss and edit this material within an honest, fair, disinterested, good-faith framework. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 13:35, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Editors have criticized it with multiple reasons because there exist multiple reasons to criticize it, not due to double standards. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:31, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Greetings from the bottom of the dogpile. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 17:02, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

That doesn't answer the question. Why do you not want to answer the question? -- Cdjp1 (talk) 18:46, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

You asked three questions. I answered the third one, which I took to summarize the prior two. Let me know if you'd like to discuss the article. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 19:29, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

There were extensive WP:WEASEL words in this, someone may want to revisit that as it was recently reverted. Iljhgtn (talk) 03:44, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Not a single word you removed was WEASEL. Every single one was cited to RS. It will benefit you to actually read policies and guidelines before invoking them. Just because you don't like the fact someone is recognised as a genocide scholar, or that a think tank has a recognised political bias, just not justify removing such text. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 11:30, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

They need to actually be called that. Right back at you for reading policies and guidelines, would be a good place to start before further commenting. Iljhgtn (talk) 17:02, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

And yes, 60% of it was junk WEASEL words written as if by a total partisan hack. Iljhgtn (talk) 17:03, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

They did. I know not everyone can read Dutch or English, but there are plenty of people here who can if you need help. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 22:26, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

I used translators for the Dutch, and I can read English perfectly fluently thank you very much. Can you please point out exactly then where each the contested labels were in the text so I can cross check? Iljhgtn (talk) 17:59, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

It doesn't though. You claimed it isn't a competency issue, but you didn't respond to the questions which the cause for the final question. So again: How does that relate to my comment? You have repeatedly linked to unrelated articles, edits, etc. across discussions on multiple Wikipedia articles. What is the point? -- Cdjp1 (talk) 11:33, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

It's quite simple. You asked if I was indulging in double standards, I answered that it depends on what you compare it to, such as the double standards necessary to perpetrate the situation described at the link. Since your comment was about me and not the article supposedly under discussion, I don't see a pressing need to explain it further. If you have a problem with reply I've made on another article, feel free to address it at the other article. Per WP:NPA, "When in doubt, comment on the article's content without referring to its contributor at all." Tioaeu8943 (talk) 13:32, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

So it had nothing to do with the discussion. From what I've seen, you seem to be simply be on wikipedia to act as a nuisance if you are not going to actually engage in discussions across the project. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 22:28, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

It had as much to do with the discussion as the remark to which it was replying. I recommend a WP:WALK. Once again, let me know if you actually want to discuss the article. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 23:06, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Myself, and many others, have tried to engage with you in discussing articles and their content, but your cryptic replies, and linking to unrelated matters and content, shows there is little point in trying to engage with you. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 18:09, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

@Cdjp1 please remain WP:CIVIL even in disagreement, saying, "you seem to be simply be on wikipedia to act as a nuisance" is not WP:CIVIL and does border on a personal attack. Iljhgtn (talk) 18:00, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

I will follow your advice on policies and guidelines, when you have shown an ability to understand them, as your repeated invocation of WEASEL to remove explicit descriptions cited to RS, indicates a severe lack in understanding our policies and guidelines, to assume good faith in your actions. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 18:08, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Now you're just being straight up rude. Iljhgtn (talk) 18:10, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

My advice is not to use irrelevant policies to claim something be removed that matches and is cited to reliable sources. As I shall repeat for whatever time this is, assuming you misunderstand the sources and the policies and guidelines, is the AGF reading of such actions. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 18:26, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims include those that are supported purely by primary or self-published sources or those with an apparent conflict of interest. IDF claims that haven't been independently verified about journalists being militants clearly meets that definition. EvansHallBear (talk) 20:20, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

So much for all the sourcing on this page to the Gaza Ministry of Health. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 22:34, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

The American Enterprise Institute is not a reliable source. It's a lobby group and peddler of nonsense. The poor reception is because the report is dogshit. Cambial — foliar❧ 00:36, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Your opinion. Iljhgtn (talk) 04:40, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Nir Hasson’s analysis is not an opinion piece. It’s labelled news. He’s the former deputy ed of Haaretz, one of Israel’s most respected journalists, and a doctoral fellow at the Harry S. Truman Research Institute for the Advancement of Peace at Hebrew U. BobFromBrockley (talk) 18:59, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Comment — Tioaeu8943, you have cited "anti-Israel bias in academia", but the piece you are advocating for here specifically targets work by an Israeli scholar , and finds itself in direct conflict with Israeli human rights organizations, e.g. B'Tselem or Physicians for Human Rights–Israel . Regarding the Haaretz commentary on the piece, stating that it provides "journalists and the Israeli public with a tranquilizer – there's no starvation, no massacres, everybody is lying, trust us, you can go on with your normal lives," you counter that this is an "outrageous conclusion."

Among the broader academic community and within international organizations however, if there is outrage, it has been towards the mass killings themselves, and not — as in your case — opposition to them.

Lastly, you criticize the Gaza Ministry of Health as a source of information about death tolls. This is strange since the IDF itself "considers the Gaza health ministry toll reliable" , and actually rigorous methods of measuring mortality due to violence derive casualty counts that are far higher (as is the case in all wars) . -Darouet (talk) 14:54, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

+1 Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 17:46, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Lest it get lost in all the discussion below, if the edit war related to this section kicks off again I'm going to start topic banning people. I note that there has been no further discussion about the content being edit warred over during the protection period. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:45, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

@Tioaeu8943: Like I said before, I'm open to discussing this with you here. But first, I can't tell from this section what the content looks like. If you wouldn't mind, can you please post here what the proposed edit looks like so that I don't have to try to dig through hundreds of diffs or piece it together through context clues? Thanks, QuicoleJR (talk) 16:06, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

See the blanked item here. Thanks for looking into it. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 19:52, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Following up on this. Any thoughts? Tioaeu8943 (talk) 21:06, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Length

I agree with Tioaeu8943 that the paragraph about this report is too long. Surely we don't need 5 sentences citing 6 different sources criticizing this report. Rainsage (talk) 00:45, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Thats the problem here. Everyone coatracks each other.

"a right-wing Israeli think tank" this is SYNTH. That article is from 2014.

This just needs one sentence stating it and maybe one sentence questioning it. All Haaretz has is a journalist claiming to refute some of their claims, and says "denial bad". 972 just makes a passing mention that it exists. Questioning figures and motivations isnt denial. And its perfectly reasonable to dispute something this contentious. Denial is saying something didnt happen, like is done with the Holocaust, Armenian genocide, Holodomor, etc. No one is denying a large quantity of Palestinians died, people are questioning whether war deaths constitute a genocide.

And finally, the Dutch article is cited three times when it could just be used once in one sentence. The two Vukusic cites are unnecessary because the Dutch article already titles her as a "genocide researcher".

Proposal:

The Begin–Sadat Center for Strategic Studies published a report in September 2025 that said Israel had not committed genocide in Gaza, and the allegations are based on faulty data and methodology.^{[besa 1]}^{[besa 2]} Genocide scholar Iva Vukusic said that the Israeli researchers are taking part in scientific discourse by "sow[ing] doubt and pok[ing] gaps in the consensus", but that the report doesn't refute the "overwhelming" evidence of genocide.^{[besa 3]}

I originally included the de Waal quote, but it is probably UNDUE. He is talking about famine, this is about genocide. It would also be nice to add a non Israeli cite for the report with TOI of jpost. I dont understand why editors cant just work these issues out instead of warring over it. You can achieve a consensus to get everyone what they want. I dont think a topic ban is appropriate where a warning will suffice.

↑ ^[1]
↑ ^[2]
↑ ^[3]

← Metallurgist (talk) 03:26, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

2009 "conservative", 2016 "hard-right", 2017 "right-leaning", 2021 "right-wing", 2023 "right-leaning", 2023 "right-wing", 2025 "right", 2025 "Pro-Israel" "Critics argue that its work too closely aligns with right-wing Israeli government policies", bar NPR in 2009, Haaretz is the most RS in my opinion of the batch, even though the others (including Times of Israel) are more recent. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 09:23, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

If people are going to criticize NGO Monitor, CAMERA, and Honest Reporting, then the latter of those ought to be considered similarly. However, I would be open to a broad inclusion of both sides such entities. That said, the articles citing support and criticism for the report dont use that appendation, nor does the Begin–Sadat Center for Strategic Studies article, so it is SYNTH. If you can find an article mentioning the report and that description, then we can consider it.

Aside, do you have any issues with the rest of this? If we can agree on this and then debate the one detail, thats a W. ← Metallurgist (talk) 19:46, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Overall, I still maintain the report is not due for a summary article. But if it's going to be kept then your language is a definite improvement as it focuses solely on the report itself. The "taking part in scientific discourse" part doesn't add anything though and should be removed. I also think de Waal's criticism of the report is still due but can be trimmed substantially. EvansHallBear (talk) 20:32, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

It may or may not. I take no position on that. The scientific discourse bit is her quote. I think she was acknowledging their right to dispute, but said they were wrong. I also have read down further on the article and the report author responded to her statements. That may merit inclusion, but we would probably need to slim things down to a gist again, and expand it more on their article perhaps? de Waals criticism is on the basis of the alleged famine, not the genocide. That would make sense on Gaza Strip famine, but I dont see it DUE here. ← Metallurgist (talk) 01:05, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Given that imposed starvation is one of the genocidal acts (see e.g. UNHRC Commission of Inquiry on Gaza genocide), de Waal's criticism of BESA's famine denial is clearly relevant. EvansHallBear (talk) 06:12, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Like Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 06:16, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

nor does the Begin–Sadat Center for Strategic Studies article, except it does, and has done for a while, I've made it more obvious so you don't accidentally miss it again. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 21:40, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

I see that now and you addition to the lede makes it more obvious, altho you might want to toss some cites on that before someone gripes about it. And you might want to tone down that attitude, as I have seen you personally attack people here at least once or twice, and this straddles the line. ← Metallurgist (talk) 01:00, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Lede follows body, as I'm sure someone with your editing experience knows, if not, we do have policies to guide you on the matter. And no describing people's self-admitted actions, and stating I will not consider them further for showing they are not engaging seriously here is not an attack. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 01:18, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

There is clearly no consensus established for the several sentences added about this report in a summary article. I have ensured all of the detail is in the main Academic responses article and trimmed it down to a due sentence. BobFromBrockley (talk) 06:08, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

There is no consensus established for mentioning the report at all. Leaving the report in the article while removing all WP:DUE criticism of it is exactly the type of edit warring that ScottishFinnishRadish warned about. EvansHallBear (talk) 06:21, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Like Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 06:28, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

I missed the warning from ScottishFinnishRadish, who makes the good point that there was no discussion while the page was locked. Trying to count in my head while going down this thread, I think we have roughly equal numbers (around 5 or 6 on each side?) for inclusion and against, so maybe it should be removed as no consensus.

However, I think that would be a mistake. All of the critical comments that have been loaded around the brief sentence reporting it (which I believe are all in the main Academic responses article) seem to me to clearly indicate that it is noteworthy. (Whether it is reliable is not important here when we mention the report rather than repeat its words in our voice.)

That we can only mention it if we also comment on the expertise of the authors is bizarre. Our one sentence on the IAGS rightly does not come with several sentences about all the faults that have been found with its membership system. We rightly don't stop to say whether Raz Segal supports a one state or two state solution. We rightly don't spend any sentences on whether MESA's leadership is anti-Zionist or not. We concisely and neutrally report them because they are noteworthy based on secondary sources, as we should with this report. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:22, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

There's a massive difference between a source just having a bias & a source lacking relevant expertise. The coverage they've received shows their report is most notable for being criticized by reliable secondary sources (including by subject matter experts) as inaccurate & of poor quality. To present it without such qualifications would improperly reflect the report's reception & create a WP:FALSEBALANCE.

I ask that you self-revert as this section has faced continued debate & edit-warring, with your WP:BOLD edit being a continuation of that. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 14:57, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Like Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 15:58, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Noting the request that I self-revert made since I was last here but it’s now redundant as I was long since reverted and now the whole passage has been removed. I think no mention might be better than surrounding a brief mention with a whole paragraph of denunciation, but it seems hard to imagine a NPOV article where those are the only two possibilities for a widely reported dissenting view. I don’t think it’s a high quality report at all, but we cite other noteworthy stuff making the opposite argument that’s low quality. BobFromBrockley (talk) 19:53, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

However, it is NOT edit warring to remove newly added sentences that clearly have no consensus. The onus for inclusion is always on those proposing it. So it was probably correct to remove the whole paragraph while this dispute is live, but improper to restore the deleted content (as in this edit) BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:45, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

One of the policies made up on the spot for the sake of this item is that anyone not literally described as a genocide expert is disqualified from making claims about whether the Gaza conflict should be characterized as a genocide. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 16:02, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

It is not a matter of people literally having to be described as genocide experts in order for a source to be credible. It is a matter of how one of the people who wrote the report literally trained IDF soldiers (see WP:MANDY). Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 16:25, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Someone who trains IDF soldiers may be deeply invested in lawful warfare. Your presumptions to the contrary are why MANDY is not and should not be policy. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 16:38, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

By your logic, let's start citing Hamas as genocide experts. Hypothetically, they could be deeply invested in lawful warfare. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 16:42, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

I am entirely in favor of citing Hamas as experts on genocide. Practice trumps theory every time. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 16:50, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM - Both of you knock it off. This particular line of discussion is unproductive, so please stay on topic. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 16:54, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

I made a reductio ad absurdum argument to demonstrate the importance of WP:MANDY as it applies to the BESA study. His response was unrelated to the argument I made but this does not render any of what I said irrelevant to the policy basis of his argument. I don't think it's fair to criticize the substance of what I said—if you had a problem with the way I articulated it as inviting a bad faith response I would understand this criticism much more. Regardless, I'll stop responding in this discussion as I've said what I wanted to say and clearly am not changing any minds. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 17:09, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

You've accused me of making up policies repeatedly on this talk page, but I'm not.

My reasoning is based on what I assumed common sense, that if you aren't an expert on a subject/don't have relevant subject matter experience in a topic, you shouldn't be considered as such. You've yet to demonstrate how being a military historian is a relevant credential to demonstrate expertise in the topic.

So I ask you to stop badgering me with nonsensical accusations of malfeasance & to instead either contribute constructively to consensus building here, or if you genuinely believe there to be an issue on my part, to file a report at WP:AE. Either way, this behavior is detracting from meaningful discussion. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 16:29, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

You're asking for a ridiculous demonstration. The supposed genocide is happening in the context of an active military conflict about which a military historian is entirely qualified to remark. And this is credentialism anyway; the claims in the report ought to be considered on their merits, not dismissed out of hand via genetic fallacy. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 16:44, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

They have been considered on their merits independent of their credentials, as I wrote above, their report is most notable for being criticized by reliable secondary sources (including by subject matter experts) as inaccurate & of poor quality. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 16:51, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

That criticism has been included in an appropriate manner and I am satisfied with the current state of the item. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 17:04, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

A military historian directly funded by the government committing the alleged genocide, for context.

WP:PARTISAN: When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as ... the level of independence from the topic the source is covering Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 16:54, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

You should see who wrote the criticism. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 18:13, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

The criticism was made by genocide scholar Iva Vukusic, famine expert Alex de Waal, and Holocaust historian Daniel Blatman. Do you have a point to make or are you just engaging in WP:TROLLING? EvansHallBear (talk) 18:53, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Aren’t you all blurring reliability and noteworthiness? We don’t need to assess the reliability of the report because we’re not citing it for facts. We report opinions based on the weight given them by reliable sources. We don’t repeat what the IAGS says in our voice; we report its opinion because we know it is noteworthy based on secondary sources.

The job of a balanced article is to report the controversy neutrally, which in this case would be showing that the majority of scholars are in agreement but that a significant minority disagree. BobFromBrockley (talk) 20:00, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Discontinuing further discussion on this by request. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 20:02, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

That was not a request to discontinue conversation but merely to keep conversation confined to the topic at hand. EvansHallBear (talk) 20:15, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Discontinuing anyway because the item in question just got blanked and I'm too disgusted with the process to WP:AGF. Taking a WP:WALK. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 20:24, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

A poorly-disguised PR exercise needs the context given in reliable sources. We need a consensus for whether such content is worthy of inclusion at all; the appropriate section for it (the organisation that published it is not a higher education institute, so placing it under academic discourse my not be appropriate); and how to contextualise it, before adding it to the article. Cambial — foliar❧ 19:08, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

This article is currently lacking content in the academic discourse section showing the Israeli POV that they are not committing genocide in Gaza, and this report seems like a pretty good summary of that POV + the reasoning behind it. e.g. Daniel Blatman called it: "The most prominent rebuttal to these [genocide] accusations to date" . it is part of the "discourse" even if you think it is flawed. if not this report, then I think something else should be added to show the Israeli POV.

the organisation is affiliated with Bar-Ilan University, 2 of the 4 authors are professors, and 1 is a lawyer, so academic/legal discourse seems like the best place to put it.

what kind of context do you think needs to be added to this: Rainsage (talk) 03:51, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Additionally this had been added to the "Academic and legal discourse" section and then at the bottom of the "Other scholars" sub-section! That is due in every possible way for such a section, and if not there, then somewhere else. This is blatant whitewashing if it simply is stated that it could not be added at all, with any wording, in any way, anywhere in the article. Iljhgtn (talk) 04:15, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

You blanked this item five days ago and have not yet answered any objections to its being removed. What makes this a "poorly-disguised PR exercise," especially relative to other items on the page? Under what conditions of context would you agree to putting it back in? Tioaeu8943 (talk) 14:34, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

There is no consensus in this talk section to include this poorly-disguised PR exercise, and there seems to be a consensus against including it without the relevant context, including that no-one with expertise in the topic is named as an author. Cambial — foliar❧ 16:21, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Again, what makes this a "poorly-disguised PR exercise"? And the claim that the authors lacked domain expertise was argued at length, inconclusively. To the question of "what conditions of context would you agree to putting it back in," is your answer "there are none"? Tioaeu8943 (talk) 16:34, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

inconclusively is the key word. per WP:ONUS, you need to show consensus for inclusion of the report. I'd object to over inclusion of the report and agree it is essentially highly POV-slanted PR. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 16:38, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Again, what makes this, and no other item on the page, "POV-slanted PR"? Tioaeu8943 (talk) 16:45, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

It dismisses well-documented facts by making claims without evidence. That is not a feature of scholarship, and is a clear indicator that something is not scholarship. It is a feature of public-relations texts. Cambial — foliar❧ 16:50, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Please indicate where it "dismisses well-documented facts by making claims without evidence." Asking you again, to the question of "what conditions of context would you agree to putting it back in," is your answer "there are none"? Tioaeu8943 (talk) 16:54, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Sure:

p. 157.

"...Hossam Shabat, an Al Jazeera journalist who was in fact a Hamas military activist". citation is a bare url youtube link to a documentary first aired on Al Jazeera. The documentary does not state Shabat was connected to Hamas. No evidence.

p. 216.

"as well as “journalists” identified as operatives, like Ismail Al-Ghul". cites a press release by the Israeli military. Despite the glaringly obvious conflict of interest the report takes the claim at face value and states it as fact. Scholarship does not do this. Shit public relations bumph does.

p. 216. "these removals aimed to preserve a narrative of Israel targeting journalists and medical personnel unrelated to Hamas". no citation. Argument relies entirely on previous acceptance of IDF claims as fact.

p. 248

"Another assumption is that eyewitnesses among the civilian population, especially professionals such as doctors, journalists, and academics, are trustworthy and free from political interests". No citation for this claim dismissing human rights NGOs because of a unevidenced assumption. No evidence.

p. 302

"They also required the IDF to refrain from handling physical evidence before presenting it to journalists, which is entirely unrealistic." No citation for this claim dismissing mainstream news organisations' reporting on IDF claims about Hamas links. No evidence.

The main requirement for inclusion, as already pointed out to you numerous times by others but has apparently not sunk in, is that there is a consensus here on talk to include, and a consensus for how to contextualise it. My view is that the context needs to include relevant observations reported in RS: the claim is from a think-tank; none of the authors are genocide scholars; one author teaches at the command college of the Israeli military; Iva Vukusic says it does not negate the evidence of genocide; the report dismisses well-documented facts by making claims without evidence; the report contains inaccurate claims about the Gaza Strip famine; Haaretz and +972 characterise it as part of the pattern of atrocity denial or genocide denial. Cambial — foliar❧ 18:30, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

So your assessment that the report was PR was WP:OR, thank you for clarifying. There was a consensus that including all this was too long; note the name of this section. It was obvious that attaching three times as much text qualifying the item as the item itself contained was ridiculous, disregarded NPOV, and held the item to standards not applied to any other on the page. Your colorful designation of this report as "Shit public relations bumph" is interesting, given that the article uncritically cites Hamas. So should we hold the rest of the page to the standards applied to this article, or shall we hold this item to the standards of the rest of the page, and put it back to the one-sentence claim with the one-sentence qualification like it we had it last week? Tioaeu8943 (talk) 19:34, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

An inappropriate section heading does not magically generate a consensus which does not exist in fact.

Yes, the observation that this garbage is a crap PR exercise is a. not something that has been proposed to be included in the article, but an assessment made on this talk page and b. perfectly reasonable to make, given the policy to which you link, either mistakenly or for reasons known only to you, makes clear in its opening summary that This policy does not apply to talk pages.

No, the qualifying text was appropriate. Trying to pass off poorly written schoolboy pap as scholarship is ridiculous. We're not talking about the rest of the article, we're talking about your inappropriate proposal. Cambial — foliar❧ 20:43, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you again for clarifying that you're applying standards to this item that you're not applying to the rest of the article. I've been pointing out the double standards for weeks, as other editors insisted that the process was consistent with the fairest application of policy and had produced an article as neutral as tap water. Truly, I prefer your candor to their gaslighting. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 21:08, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

I mean, you can keep lying about me if you want, and pretend to yourself that I'm applying standards to this item that [I'm] not applying to the rest of the article. I'm pretty thick-skinned and my regard for your opinion about me or any other person is zero. But it won't change reality, nor is anyone else going to pay it much attention. I haven't read the rest of the article, nor edited it. My only edits outside the dumb section you proposed is removing some line breaks and some minor copyedits to verb tense. If it makes you feel better or something, feel free to continue thinking up things I'm doing in your obviously fertile imagination. Cambial — foliar❧ 21:20, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

On the contrary, I'm commending you for telling the truth. I've suspected all along that editors were targeting this item with hostile scrutiny that they weren't applying to the rest of the article. It's validating to read it in so many words. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 21:35, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

You two, knock it off. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:37, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

↑ Sharon, Jeremy (22 September 2025). "Gaza genocide claims are based on skewed facts, sometimes deliberately, says study author". The Times of Israel. ISSN 0040-7909. Archived from the original on 26 September 2025. Retrieved 9 October 2025.
↑ Keinon, Herb (3 September 2025). "New report dismantles Gaza genocide accusations". The Jerusalem Post. Archived from the original on 11 October 2025. Retrieved 9 October 2025.
↑ Walters, Derk (25 September 2025). "Het 'selectieve' Israëlische rapport dat twijfel zaait over de genocide in Gaza" [The 'selective' Israeli report that casts doubt on the genocide in Gaza]. NRC (in Dutch).{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: deprecated archival service (link)

[2] [1]

[4] [2]

[6] [3]

[1] Sharon, Jeremy (22 September 2025). "Gaza genocide claims are based on skewed facts, sometimes deliberately, says study author". The Times of Israel. ISSN 0040-7909. Archived from the original on 26 September 2025. Retrieved 9 October 2025.

[3] Keinon, Herb (3 September 2025). "New report dismantles Gaza genocide accusations". The Jerusalem Post. Archived from the original on 11 October 2025. Retrieved 9 October 2025.

[nrc_besa-5] Walters, Derk (25 September 2025). "Het 'selectieve' Israëlische rapport dat twijfel zaait over de genocide in Gaza" [The 'selective' Israeli report that casts doubt on the genocide in Gaza]. NRC (in Dutch).{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: deprecated archival service (link)

[besa 1]

[besa 2]

[besa 3]

[1]

[2]

[3]

This page was redesigned at the edge.

A page that knows where it met you.