Talk:Israel

Survey

(inserting section break Cheers Markbassett (talk) 19:20, 16 November 2025 (UTC))

Support the Gaza genocide RfC established that we talk about the genocide in wikivoice so this change makes sense as this also applies to other articles Laura240406 (talk) 13:16, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

• Support proposed change.--Ortizesp (talk) 15:54, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

  Why? SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 22:36, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

  @Ortizesp: Please remember that Wikipedia is not a vote, and comments with zero reasoning attached will likely be discounted by the closer of this discussion. With that in mind, please elaborate on your reason for supporting the change. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:40, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Support: it makes no sense for one article to state its a genocide, and for others to not. It's very inconsistent and confusing; this needs to happen. TheSilksongPikmin (talk | contribs) 20:23, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose I am neutral to leaning oppose on the first part as the genocide allegations are contentious but what swings me fully to oppose is changing allegations of war crimes and crimes against humanity to specfically be about the occupation. That is not an improvement it is better to state the full allegations of war crimes and crimes against humanity more generally than specfically mention the occupation.GothicGolem29 (Talk) 01:11, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

  Its actually attributed to experts, human rights org and UN officials an i have used the word `described them as` - i think thats very neutral representation. If others oppose to that part - can be rewritten. Cinaroot (talk) 02:16, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

  Even when you atribute it to those orgs experts and officials having the text be just about the occupution is going backwards from the text mentioning the general allegations which will cover more of the allegations than just the ones about the occupation. GothicGolem29 (Talk) 18:29, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

  I see your point. I don't mind changing to this.

  Israel is committing genocide against Palestinians in the Gaza. Israeli actions toward Palestinians—including its occupation of the Palestinian territories—have drawn sustained international criticism; human-rights organisations and UN officials have described Israel’s conduct as war crimes and crimes against humanity. Cinaroot (talk) 04:57, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks for adding an alternate proposal.I am assuming the Gaza is a typo given your official alternate statement above so on this alternate proposal I would be Very weak oppose as I cannot support given my concerns on including the contentious Genocide allegations in Wikivoice but given all my other concerns are alleviated and given the relatively recent RFC consensus on another page that has not been overturned it is is only a very weak oppose. GothicGolem29 (Talk) 13:13, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose Not in wikivoice. The ICJ hasn't even ruled that Israel committed genocide during the Gaza war, so it is not up to wikipedia editors in the I-P editing area to rule in wikivoice that Israel has committed genocide. Wafflefrites (talk) 03:56, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Strong oppose Its fine as is, and also the sentence as is should specify during the Gaza war. ← Metallurgist (talk) 04:27, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose. The ICJ has not ruled anything yet, and the current sentence more accurately describes the situation than the proposed one. Also, the proposed sentence implies that all of Israel's actions against Palestinians constitute genocide, a claim that was determined to not have consensus at Palestinian genocide accusation. Nehushtani (talk) 06:46, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

There was no consensus for a page move because it discussed genocide allegations from different times. Here it says `genocide against Palestinians in Gaza`, which is accurate and supported by the RFC from the Gaza genocide. Cinaroot (talk) 06:51, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

The proposed sentence does not make the scope clear. Nehushtani (talk) 06:58, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

• Support per the conclusion of the Gaza genocide RfC to state the genocide in Wikivoice. There is a strong consensus amongst experts that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza. Wikipedia does not require a ruling from the ICJ to call something a genocide (see e.g. Rohingya genocide) but instead reflects what RS say. EvansHallBear (talk) 07:05, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
• Support - To be inline with the Gaza genocide article, though I think we should specify during the Gaza war. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 12:35, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
• Support per the consensus at Gaza genocide. Skitash (talk) 12:43, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose. The proposed wording is editorial and too far from NPOV, a founding pillar of Wikipedia. It does not even mention, for instance, that genocide accusations (which should be mentioned) draw their fair share of criticism too. Also Procedural oppose because the proposition does not mention if this wording should be introduced in lead or body. The "current" wording already mentions genocide. Place Clichy (talk) 13:37, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

  Reply - note that it is already clear this is for the lead. Because the text that's quoted and being discussed here is from the lead (it took me 10 seconds to verify). So that's what would be replaced. And there's a discussion immediately above titled "...lede" -Darouet (talk) 02:07, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks. Then that is definitely not language suitable for a lead sentence per all that Wikipedia stands for. The current phrasing seen in the article (3rd paragraph of the introduction) is: "Israel's practices in its occupation of the Palestinian territories have drawn sustained international criticism, along with accusations from human rights organisations and UN officials that it has committed war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide against the Palestinians during the Gaza war." This sentence clearly attributes the accusations, which are sustained but still controversial. It is much better than unattributed "Israel is comitting genocide" in wikivoice. One may compare how the introduction of article Rwanda mentions genocide, as that country is probably defined by genocide at a whole other level.

  Also, I don't really get why we would use harsher wording for the present-day Gaza horrors than for the Nakba 2 sentences prior to that, which is IMHO far worse in terms of genocide, if things can be compared. Place Clichy (talk) 16:21, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose - the current wording is clearer. The proposed wording makes the genocide and the occupation sound like two related but distinct things, but the genocide stems from the occupation practices and is an aspect of the occupation that has received particular criticism - the current wording better reflects that relationship. Also agree with some of the other oppose votes that the ICJ hasn't made a ruling on the genocide yet, so it is probably worth being careful what is given due prominence in the lead and what isn't. NHCLS (talk) 20:10, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

• Comment: I left an RfC notice at Talk:Gaza genocide. It seemed appropriate, given that the root of this question was the subject of an RfC over there. Should WikiProject Palestine also be notified? Chess enjoyer (talk) 02:04, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

  @Easternsahara left a notice, but they forgot to sign their post. I signed it for them. Chess enjoyer (talk) 16:18, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

  For balance, can you leave a similar notice at WikiProject Israel? Scharb (talk) 13:59, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

   Already done by Triggerhippie4 in Special:Diff/1320544054. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 14:04, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Strong support per closing notes of the Gaza genocide RfC. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 02:58, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

• Support, as a natural outcome of the Gaza genocide RfC, leaning on the side of mentioning it attributed as VR proposed tho — 🧀Cheesedealer ^!!!⚟ 10:05, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose - There is insufficient evidence to substantiate the assertion that Israel has committed genocide. Given the ongoing and highly contested nature of this issue, introducing language referring to genocide in the article at this stage would likely be perceived as a politically driven action. BassiStone (talk) 15:40, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

There is insufficient evidence to substantiate the assertion that Israel has committed genocide - This is not the consensus of Wikipedia editors. See here.

introducing language referring to genocide in the article at this stage would likely be perceived as a politically driven action - There is no policy basis for avoiding making changes that could be perceived as politically driven. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 15:56, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

On your first point my response is - Argumentum ad populum.

On your second point - You are correct but it's misapplied, since if this is a genocide in Gaza or not is not yet a settled matter. Objectivity and Neutrality. The article must maintain an objective, neutral tone, providing balanced coverage of the topic and avoiding advocacy or politically charged language. BassiStone (talk) 16:37, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

• Argument ad populum here is Wiki policy per WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS.
• if this is a genocide in Gaza or not is not yet a settled matter - I defer again to the RfC which addresses all your arguments. If you disagree with that RfC, then please open a new discussion to challenge its findings rather than relitigating the argument here.

Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 17:22, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

That was tried at Talk:Gaza genocide. The same people that are saying "challenge the RfC instead" here also opposed opening an RfC there. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 19:31, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to reopening the RfC. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 20:21, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

I would argue that your reasoning misapplies key terms and relies on circular logic, compounded by an argumentum ad populum. The claim that Israel is committing genocide because it has been concluded that Israel committed genocide presupposes the very point in question. Given that credible sources disagree and the issue remains actively debated globally, Wikipedia editors cannot act as arbiters of truth. Our task is to follow reliable sources and represent only what can be verifiably established, that is our foremost principle.

The burden of evidence here lay with the one who wants to add genocide to the Israel article on Wikipedia, Big claims require big evidence, not just a small selection Wikipedia editors with no more of a leg to stand on then the quality of sources they've used. BassiStone (talk) 22:03, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

The opinions of Wikipedia editors are irrelevant. We follow the sources. And there are a significant number of sources that reject that Israel's actions constitute genocide. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 16:55, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Strongly Oppose and investigate this comments section for canvassing. Scharb (talk) Scharb (talk) 16:56, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Support per the consensus at Gaza Genocide, however a date range should be clarified as @Butterscotch Beluga points out. Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 20:42, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose, since when did this contentious topic stop being contentious? If we decided that everyone agrees there's a genocide and that everyone else is not reliable then I suggest to make a larger move altogether and completely remove this from the contentious topic area - changing every article about the topic accordingly. We should make an RFC about the entire wiki, not on a slow item by item list. Bar Harel (talk) 22:34, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Support since there is an academic consensus that the Gaza genocide isn't a mere accusation 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 16:11, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Strong support: There is an academic consensus that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza. On top of that, there has already been an RfC for the Gaza genocide article, where the community consensus came out to be in favor of stating the genocide to be in wikivoice. — EarthDude (Talk) 21:02, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

• Support saying Israel has committed genocide in wikivoice, but open to different wordings. The overwhelming majority of scholarly sources affirm that Israel has committed genocide. Over the course of months an enormous amount of sources have been compiled (Template:Expert opinions in the Gaza genocide debate) and it is an utter violation of WP:FALSEBALANCE to give equal weight to "Israel has committed genocide" vs "Israel has not committed genocide".VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 02:18, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

User:Vice regent Comment: that table is just a collection of WP editor selections, not a particularly significant percentage of the voiced views and not representative of anything in particular. Also, some voices got listed multiple times so folks may misunderstand how many are present. See also the RFC at Gaza genocide about saying there is no cWP:CONSENSUS on saying there is expert consensus here Cheers Markbassett (talk) 19:10, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Mark, it's a bit disingenuous to refer to the template as just a collection of WP editor selections, not a particularly significant percentage of the voiced views and not representative of anything in particular. We have a pretty good reason to think it represents a good survey of the evidence: namely that reliable sources have said so.

Writting in the Forward, Shira Klein, chair of history at Chapman University, said that

The attacks by the ADL and Congress on Wikipedia purport to protect Jews, but in fact have nothing to do with antisemitism, and everything to do with controlling the narrative about Israel. But Wikipedia’s processes around that narrative are admirable in their strenuous research. Wikipedians, for instance, compiled a meticulous survey of more than 200 statements by experts — scholars, human rights agencies, international courts and more — on whether Israel is committing genocide in Gaza. No academic has curated such a thorough list, certainly not the ADL, which continues to deny a growing consensus among experts that Israel is committing genocide.
— Shira Klein

CamAnders (talk) 04:54, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

"No academic has curated such a thorough list" Then it's original research. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 07:31, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Which would be an issue if anyone proposed including the template in the article. Thankfully WP:NOR says This policy does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards. CamAnders (talk) 10:46, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

We're beating a dead horse at this point, Alexandraacs already explained to Sharb that original research does not apply on talk pages 9 days ago. User:Easternsahara_{review this} 12:26, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Here's the comment for reference ~ Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 23:25, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

It's OK to post WP:SYNTH and WP:OR on talk pages, but it's still SYNTH and OR. Some Wikipedia editors put together a list of sources. That's OK, but the list not a reliable source, and it shouldn't be treated as fact, not even in this discussion. For example, it's unclear according to which criteria the list was assembled. Were there criteria for inclusion or exclusion? Did someone perform a thorough meta-analysis of certain journals and other works? If so, which ones? And so on. Since this is Wikipedia, it's reasonable to assume that the list grew "organically", without a clear strategy and without clear criteria. Basically, whenever people happened to find a source they deemed useful, they added it to the list... Given these issues, the purported percentages of opinions for and against the classification as genocide are not very meaningful. — Chrisahn (talk) 00:11, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

If you want to know how the list was assembled, then you should ask the people who made the list like @Cdjp1 and @Rainsage. To me, the list seems like a meta analysis conducted by Wikipedians of all available sources and seems highly methodologically sound. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 20:05, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

For myself, as I focus on articles published in academic literature, its searching through academic databases and repositories for ["gaza"+"genocide"], ["palestine"+"genocide"], and ["israel"+"genocide"] (across multiple languages) post October 2023, and then manually checking the items for weight of publication outlet and whether it actually is discussing the question of whether there is a genocide. Beyond the current list I have a log of ~400 other items to work through from 2024 to September 2025. The list is for use in discussion on Wikipedia, to make it easier for editors to access statements and sources that are relevant to the sorts of discussions that regularly occur at Talk:Gaza genocide. The list has also been referenced by multiple external outlets. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 20:15, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

As a note on the languages I have conducted the searches in: English, German, Dutch, French, Spanish, Italian, Swedish, Polish, and Japanese. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 20:17, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

This method is likely to be biased towards works that accuse Israel of genocide. For example, it may ignore sources by military historians that compare the Gaza war to other wars. Such sources may not mention the word "genocide", but they may find that the war is similar to others in certain aspects, e.g. the civilian casualty ratio, which is relevant for the question whether a war should be called a genocide. Another example: Scholars of international law who analyze the Gaza war may come to the conclusion that Israel's actions are within the limits of these laws. Such works would be very relevant for the questions we're discussing, but your method will ignore them in case they don't use the word "genocide". — Chrisahn (talk) 22:00, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

In assessing whether something is a case of genocide, it is somewhat important for the individuals engaging in the assessment to use the word "genocide". The issue with your suggestion is that we would have to assume they hold a position of "not a genocide" as opposed to not taking a position, or even possibly viewing it as a case of genocide just that such assessment is not the focus of their current article. I do not want to guess at the positions of academics and put words in their mouths as have so many others with regards to this issue. The method used works it does not require us to guess what position the individual has, as they will be explicit in it, whether that be yes, no, or neutral. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 22:30, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

There may well be cases that are unclear, but if a source says "overall, Israel's actions in the conflict are within the limits of international law", that would certainly be relevant and should be counted as "not a genocide", and yet your method completely ignores it.

This is actually a common mistake that I've seen before in Wikipedia discussions. People often argue that "to find out whether many sources say X, just search for sources that contain the word X". Of course, that ignores all sources that use different words but may be highly relevant.

For example, if we want to find out whether the Hiroshima bombing is considered an act of genocide, we could search for works that contain the words "Hiroshima" and "genocide", and I bet we would find quite a few. But we would miss all the sources that say things like "the bombing was justified", "the bombing was not a war crime" or "the bombing ultimately saved many lives", and so on.

In conclusion: Methods like that are flawed. They produce biased results. And we don't even know how biased, because we don't know which sources we are excluding. Maybe the bias is rather small, maybe it's huge. But we can be sure there is a bias. — Chrisahn (talk) 01:35, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

You seem to have gone from arguing against WP:SYNTH to engaging in a rather risky form of it: combin[ing] different parts of one source to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. WillowCity^(talk) 01:41, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

OK, let me put it this way: If a source says "Israel's actions in the conflict are within the limits of international law", it's highly relevant to the debate whether Israel is committing genocide, and it should be included in Template:Expert opinions in the Gaza genocide debate. — Chrisahn (talk) 01:46, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Given these linked statistics of scholarly opinions, the frequency of reliable academic sources that consider Israel's current actions justified (here just 4%) seem comparatively very limited, but feel free to add them if you find them. Many editors, with very different viewpoints regarding this topic area, have contributed to the list in question. David A (talk) 04:04, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

This is an interesting discussion.

Cdjp1: In assessing whether something is a case of genocide, it is somewhat important for the individuals engaging in the assessment to use the word "genocide" - I agree with this.

Chrisahn: If a source says "Israel's actions in the conflict are within the limits of international law", it's highly relevant to the debate whether Israel is committing genocide - But I also agree with this.

I think that Chrisahn's criticism is valid. This is a methodological limitation of the list that affects its accuracy. It also seems plausible at face value that this word search (Gaza/Palestine + Genocide) would bias in favor of claims denying a genocide occurred because it excludes articles saying Israel didn't violate international law, didn't commit war crimes, etc.

However, David A raises a good point that scholarly opinion statistics such as the one he linked, as well as the IAGS being 86% of voters in favor of there being a genocide as well as other sources, strongly imply there is scholarly consensus. So the findings of the list align with other statistics about consensus.

Here are some conclusions I'm making based on this discussion:

• Chrisahn raises a good concern about methodological criticisms in the list that slightly undermine its findings and probably imply a genocide-affirmation bias.
• However, we are not including the % of experts concluding there is/isn't genocide from the list in articles. It is simply one source in addition to many others that support the presence of consensus/Wikivoice on Gaza genocide in talk page discussions.
• So the list should serve as a general guide for claiming there is or isn't consensus so long as we keep the bias in mind.
• However, the list is so overwhelmingly affirmative (and aligns with statistics about consensus) there is a genocide that I don't think it's plausible Chrisahn's concerns would make enough of a difference that the list, should all bias hypothetically be removed, would not affirm that there is a genocide.
• Therefore I think the list is due in this discussion, but I do think we should A) keep in mind possible genocide-affirming bias in its findings and B) explore options to expand the search criteria so that we can alleviate this bias and improve the list's veracity.

How does this sound?

Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 23:17, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

How I collect sources is not the only way sources are added to the list. The 22 others who have also added sources to the list will be using methods that are not the same as mine, and if anyone has concerns about items missing from the list, as I have repeatedly stated and requested, provide help by contributing to the Template. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 23:27, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Ah gotcha, sorry for misunderstanding. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 23:58, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

I imagine it would not be hard to craft search criteria that captures recent scholarship on Israel's (non)compliance with IL. And I think the fact that it would be so easy should encourage anyone so inclined to search out those articles and add them to the list--I think that would be more productive than debating methodology. WillowCity^(talk) 03:57, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

"I have a log of ~400 other items" – Do you have a list of these items somewhere on Wikipedia, e.g. in your user pages? If yes, please post a link. If not, please make it available. It's important that others can check how Template:Expert opinions in the Gaza genocide debate is curated. — Chrisahn (talk) 01:43, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

No, and no, as that is additional effort that I don't care for. Items will be added when I have reviewed them. Most can easily be found with the simple instructions I have detailed, and using any academic library, or public repository/speacialised search engine, such as JSTOR or Google Scholar. As I stated, this is just how I am grabbing entries to include, as Alexandraaaacs1989 pointed out I'm not the only one adding to the Template, and anyone can add material. So should you wish to add material please do, I have repeatedly asked people across multiple discussions to contribute to the Template so it is more comprehensive in what it captures, but unfortunately there are only a tiny handful of us who have decided to actually put the effort in. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 09:12, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

• Support, per Laura240406, TheSilksongPikmin, and EvansHallBear. It doesn't do to have inconsistency in framing across articles. We are well beyond mere "accusations", as the current framing would have it, and have reached the stage where commissions of inquiry are making findings, where scholarly opinion is overwhelming, where NGOs in Israel, Palestine and abroad have reached the same conclusion. Time to call a WP:SPADE a spade.WillowCity^(talk) 02:20, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

  I also just want to expand on my above comment, to emphasize that we should not adopt a "Palestine exception" to WP's coverage of genocide. Why should Israel be given preferential treatment over the governments of (e.g.) Myanmar or Sudan or Turkey or Serbia? These are also cases where culpable state parties (and, sometimes, their allies) deny responsibility (or the occurrence of genocide, as the case may be), where the weight of scholarly opinion is one-sided... I have yet to be persuaded that we should depart from this practice here, or that the practice should be revised merely to validate the Palestine exception. WillowCity^(talk) 17:42, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

  Many of these sources are wholly unreliable. There were some who decided it was genocide within 2-3 weeks of the October 7 attacks. And others who subsequently said it started on October 7. By no stretch of the imagination can such be considered credible or reliable, as they had already made up their mind and were confirming their own biases. ← Metallurgist (talk) 23:20, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

  Is a source less reliable because they correctly identified something before others? Many of the signs were certainly there quite early on, if you consider (e.g.) this Analysis Framework from the Office of the UN Special Advisor on the Prevention of Genocide. WillowCity^(talk) 02:44, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

• I Support this on the basis of widespread academic consensus (see this statement from the International Association of Genocide Scholars for instance), declarations from international human rights organizations (including multiple from the UN and organizations in Israel like B'Tselem), the assessments of legal scholars , an RfC at Gaza Genocide with largescale community participation and involvement , and consistency with our article, Gaza Genocide. -Darouet (talk) 02:22, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose. In my view, an apparent scholarly consensus or statements from human rights organizations do not clear the very high bar needed for Wikivoice. In particular, finding statements which support this characterization ignores the fact that many non-ideological groups have not formed a verdict and thus would not outright deny that Israel is committing a genocide. Those groups should also be considered in claims of broad consensus. For example, in this case neither the ICC or ICJ - currently considered the central legal authorities on such matters - have directly accused Israel's government of genocide/failing to prevent a genocide as they have in previous cases like Rwanda and Srebrenica (ICJ merely made the verdict that Gaza's Palestinians had a plausible right to be protected from genocide). Most of the world's governments likewise have not accused Israel of genocide, and many outright deny it. Michaelas10 (talk) 02:52, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

  We are not reopening the debate over whether the Gaza genocide should appear in Wikipedia’s voice — that issue was settled in a recent, well-attended RfC. Even after Jimbo’s statement, the consensus remains not to revisit that discussion, as editors spent months carefully reaching it. Cinaroot (talk) 03:01, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

  Like Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 03:17, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

  Even if that close means that discussion cannot be revisited on the Gaza genocide page(which I have my doubts unless there is a moratorium) it would not mean editors cannot reference it here and given this RFC is about including it in Wikivoice on this page I would have been surprised if points on that did not come up. GothicGolem29 (Talk) 03:36, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

  The main subject (perpetrator ) here is Israel — so if a local RfC on the Gaza genocide concluded that Israel committed genocide, that determination applies in this article as well. While it may be true that a local consensus in one place or time doesn’t override another elsewhere, that principle doesn’t apply in this case. Because it make no sense. Cinaroot (talk) 04:45, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

  I disagree. If consensus is found here to not include genocide as it is contentious or the kind of reasoning we are discussing(a preety big if ) that could possibly apply that consensus to this page as a consensus for this page. And in my view certainly the discussion can and will be reopened on this page given the proposal regardless of the final outcome. GothicGolem29 (Talk) 12:50, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

  The lack of ICJ ruling was discussed several times in prior Gaza genocide RfCs, most thoroughly here. In summary, Wikipedia is not bound by the decision of the ICJ but by what RS say. Requiring an ICJ ruling would mean that we couldn't, for example, call the Cambodian genocide a genocide in Wikivoice which is patently absurd. EvansHallBear (talk) 06:39, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

  The same for Rohingya genocide, another ongoing genocide that does not have a ICJ ruling that genocide occurred. Katzrockso (talk) 08:07, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

  There are several crucial differences. For the Cambodia genocide: (1) the ICC had no jurisdiction as it can only prosecute crimes committed after 2002, (2) ICJ can only adjudicate state-backed litigation, and none was pursued for the Cambodia genocide - unlike here, (3) that said, it was ultimately adjudicated by the UN-backed Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (ECCC), which convicted Nuon Chea and Khieu Samphân of genocide in 2018 and is also authoritative. No adjudication applies here. For the Rohingya genocide there are widespread governmental accusations of genocide and I would argue clearer scholarly consensus. Michaelas10 (talk) 10:53, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

  Governments are not reliable sources that Wikipedia relies on when evaluating if something is a genocide. What evidence do you have for "clearer scholarly consensus"? Katzrockso (talk) 00:25, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

• Strong support according to academic consensus. Anything less than a full description of genocide is unbalanced. wound theology◈ 03:30, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
• Support proposed change per the Gaza genocide RfC, which established a consensus among editors that a substantial and significant majority of scholars have declared that Israel is committing a genocide. Katzrockso (talk) 04:54, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
• Strong oppose - Per User:Michaelas10 , apparent consensus among scholars and human rights organizations do not merit the descriptor "Genocide". Wikivoicing "Genocide" as in the proposed lead is a case of blatant WP:POVPUSH. Especially when no legally definitive answer exists as to whether the occurrences constitute a genocide. Kvinnen (talk)

• Your claim is that consensus reality does not apply to Wikivoice? Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 08:56, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

If consensus among scholars and human rights organizations [does] not merit the descriptor "Genocide" then what does? In any case, the Gaza genocide RfC has made Wikipedia's position on this issue clear, so whether or not it should be called a genocide is not being discussed here, but rather whether this fact belongs in the lede. wound theology◈ 10:42, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia should not be taking a position on this issue and for that reason I think that the Gaza genocide RfC closure was flawed. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 16:54, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

• Comment: Went to the Myanmar article for guidance, but the relevant paragraph there is very janky and not a helpful precedent. Though worth noting it's not mentioned in the intro Placeholderer (talk) 08:31, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

  I mean this is a CTOP - some might call it mother of all CTOP. I think it sucks world don't care about other genocide that happened in Africa etc.. - i do not know why. Maybe there is racial bias Cinaroot (talk) 08:49, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

• Support there is overwhelming consensus on this being a genocide among experts, academics, and international organizations, as the recent RFC in the Gaza genocide already clarified. --Ita140188 (talk) 09:35, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

• Support for consistency across articles. The RfC has already done most of the work in determining that the overwhelming majority of reliable sources do think genocide is happening, to the point that any denial is fringe. I don't think this discussion on whether the Gaza genocide is actually a genocide needs revisiting, as the comments on Jimbo's comment on the Gaza genocide talk page make it quite clear that they think the RfC is quite valid. Now consensus can change, including both academic and wikipedia consensus, but it has not done so yet and it would too soon for such a change to happen anyway, academia doesn't move so quick and this case isn't an exception. User:Easternsahara_{review and this} 10:38, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

  • The problem is that claims of consensus about a hot, contentious issue should not simply rest on who was willing to speak out. In this case, there appears to be a large 'silent contingent' of courts, governments, and even scholars that has not received due attention in previous discussions and claims of consensus. Some of them (e.g., ICJ) are yet to make a determination, while others have implicitly rejected the genocide label. I understand this was already discussed ad-nauseum, but I still think it warrants more reflection. Michaelas10 (talk) 15:06, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

• Strong oppose and there also should be a revisit to the supposed "consensus" which was weak and not well supported by the broad community on the Gaza genocide page (which should also have its article title renamed), even user:Jimbo Wales had to get involved here and suggest "bold" and "immediate" action to remedy this clear and blatant violation of NPOV. Let us not extend the errors of one article to yet another article. Instead, we should do the work of reversing that error both at its origin and on all articles where it is present. Iljhgtn (talk) 13:58, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

  so you're denying the validity of the Gaza genocide RfC? Laura240406 (talk) 16:51, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

  If an RfC took a stand on a controversial issue than it is indefensible. The opinions of editors as to whether Israel's actions constitute genocide are irrelevant. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 16:59, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

  The opinions of editors as to whether Israel's actions constitute genocide are irrelevant. Incorrect. The opinion of editors as to whether reliable sources indicate that Israel's actions constitute genocide are relevant. Whether something is controversial or not is determined with regard to reliable sources, not the opinion of editors (see the table of sources in the section #Comment: Academic consensus about genocide in Gaza. TucanHolmes (talk) 09:50, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

  Re: Whether something is controversial or not is determined with regard to reliable sources, not the opinion of editors -- This seems to run contrary to WP:CT, which this page is a part of. That Wikipedia rule seems to affirm that this topic is indeed controversial. (By saying, as WP:CT does, that "Not all topics that are controversial have been designated as contentious topics", the implicit implication (not guaranteed logically, but implied) is that all contentious topics are inherently controversial. That is, while being controversial isn't a sufficient condition for CT status, it is a necessary condition for CT status.) So, this may be a situation where the particular issue simply cannot be decided by "editor consensus". And, to be clear, I think the Arbitration Committee made their CT designation correctly. Coining (talk) 14:43, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

  Coining, I'm sorry but that is the most extraordinary wikilawyering I have seen. CT is explicitly about what is controversial among editors, not sources, and it is clearly not intended to be invoked on content disputes. Kowal2701 (talk) 18:54, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

  I think you may be missing my point, which was not to say that @TucanHolmes violated any policy, but rather to say that it's hard to square the notion of a topic being deemed contentious if it's actually not a controversial one. Coining (talk) 19:48, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

  This is getting off topic. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 19:57, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

  If you want to show it’s "seriously contested", the best way would probably be to list recent high quality sources by subject matter experts that contest it Kowal2701 (talk) 16:55, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

  I've seen how this sort of request goes. I'll take @IOHANNVSVERVS's advise and not let this conversation veer off topic. 22:43, 14 November 2025 (UTC) Coining (talk) 22:43, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose: Doing so is to take a side in a discussion, and that goes against NPOV, regardless of any RFC. Besides, it would be more stuff to clean up when the WMF decides that this blatant POV pushing has gone too far. Cambalachero (talk) 15:04, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

  I am not arguing against your oppose(I myself am very weak opposed to one proposal and fully to the other) but the WMF is not going to step in as these things are fully decided by the community and have been for a while. GothicGolem29 (Talk) 15:26, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

  In normal circumstances, no, but don't forget the real world where Wikipedia is in. Have you forgotten Ed Martin's attempts to revoke the WMF's tax-excempt status? He basically claims that the NPOV is just a facade, that Wikipedia is strongly biased, and as such it can not be considered educative for the purposes of IRS law. That was on April 24. Since then, a RFC stated those things in wikivoice, it was listed among the "ongoing" items of In The News (meaning, a permanent presence on Wikipedia's main page), and expanded into other pages as in this proposal. Even Jimbo Wales himself (as well as Larry Langer) had to politely point that this was wrong: the discussion was closed in a couple of days and he was dragged to the administrator's noticeboard for it. Jimbo. Freakin'. Wales. And this is not a minor dispute that may go unnoticed, it is the highest controversy in the world as of now, and the most obvious place to check if we want to test if Wikipedia is as "neutral" as it claims to be. If Martin wants to keep pressing his proposal and revoke the WMF tax-excempt status by pointing that it is blatantly biased, all those things give him all the proofs he may need on a silver platter. So don't get surprised if Jimbo, the WMF or whoever is in charge decides that enough is enough, and enforce neutrality by force if needed be. Wikipedia's very survival may be hanging in the balance. Cambalachero (talk) 16:17, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

  Not to comment in this on the merits of the RfC, but it's our role to earnestly pursue NPOV in good faith. If outside forces don't like how that ends up, then [strong language withheld] them. WP:NOTCENSORED Placeholderer (talk) 16:31, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

  Second this. We will not be bullied by the likes of Ed Martin. wound theology◈ 16:47, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

  If the WMF intervened against the communities that in itself would seriously harm Wiki as many would be very upset at such an intervention. So I do not agree they will do that as a survival strategy as as a surival strategy it would not work given it would cause great harm to Wiki(plus as pointed out below Wiki is not censored.) GothicGolem29 (Talk) 17:04, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

• Comment: I support this change principle but I'm not a fan of the provided wording, especially given that the consensus for genocide in Wikivoice is at Gaza Genocide and not Palestinian Genocide. Propose alternate wording:

Israel's occupation of the Palestinian territories has drawn sustained international criticism. Experts, human-rights organisations and UN officials have described Israel's actions as war crimes and crimes against humanity. Following the October 7 Attacks in 2023, Israel began committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza.

My goal with this wording is to emphasize the historical criticism of Israel's treatment of Palestinians, which should be given weight to avoid recency bias, before moving on to provide enough detail to more precisely define the genocide's periodization. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 16:33, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

• Comment: Reminder for the folks appealing to WP:NPOV that WP:NPOV ≠ WP:FALSEBALANCE.. We have around 370 sources quoting scholars/experts aggreeing that Israel is committing a genocide — 🧀Cheesedealer ^!!!⚟ 16:39, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

  This is not a scientific topic, so the science vs. non-science dichotomy does not apply here. Cambalachero (talk) 16:43, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

  WP:FALSEBALANCE is not predicated on a science vs. non-science dichotomy. wound theology◈ 16:51, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

  Funnily enough, I remember that in those new Wikipedia editors training exercices they use the Holocaust as an application of WP:FALSEBALANCE — 🧀Cheesedealer ^!!!⚟ 16:59, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

  Neither is the Guatemalan genocide, and yet it plainly states in WikiVoice what occurred.

  Let me echo and quote what @JasonMacker said on the Gaza genocide talk page and reiterate that legal opinion is not the same as personal opinion. The difference is that legal opinion is arrived at after consulting all available evidence using a robust theoretical framework for interpreting data and drawing conclusions, whereas personal opinion is not reached with the same scrutiny. In this sense, the scholarly consensus doesn't come from a bunch of experts going "we think so", but from extremely meticulous work analyzing intent from civilian and military deaths, the nature of military engagements, public statements, and more.

  In spite of my first sentence, I also take issue with your labeling of the topic as "non-scientific". This isn't an obscure branch of philosophy, there is directly observable phenomena with which we can hypothesize, create theories, and draw conclusions from. I also take issue with your implication that scientific findings should not be treated as authoritative when they encompass topics that aren't strictly scientific. Interdisciplinary fields like psychology, linguistics, sociology, economics, and public policy rely on a healthy mixture of the sciences and humanities to theory craft and test hypotheses. You sayWP:FALSEBALANCE describes "science vs. non-science", but this is a deeply troubling understanding of the policy. Science and non-science are constantly working hand-in-hand. It is when consensus truth and minority opinions are weighed equally that creates a false balance. Cadenrock1 (talk) 17:12, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

  To say this is not a "scientific" topic is a misread of what the field of study that deals with this topic is. Genocide studies is an interdisciplinary field that is primarily empirical. It draws from the social sciences. While there aren't experiments in a lab, the field is rigorous and evidence-based. For these reasons, to dismiss it as "not science" is just wrong. JasonMacker (talk) 17:49, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

  That's it, it's a topic of social sciences. Those do not have the precision and accuracy of hard sciences (physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy, among others), can not make hypotheses, experiments or predictions, and their findings are nowhere near that authoritative. Cambalachero (talk) 18:28, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

  So? M.Bitton (talk) 18:41, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

  can not make hypotheses, experiments or predictions

  This is completely wrong. Cadenrock1 (talk) 18:52, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

  Ahm... What? Social sciences can absolutely state (and disprove!) hypotheses – that's why we have a replication crisis; I believe you drastically underestimate the nature and scope of social science research. TucanHolmes (talk) 09:57, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

• Comment - a lot of the opposing votes are based on the question of whether Israel is committing a genocide but the Gaza genocide RfC concluded that Israel is committing a genocide so this is the basis of this RfC. Arguing that Israel isn't committing a genocide or that it violates NPOV to say that they do is against the consensus on the Gaza genocide and not a valid argument in this RfC. Laura240406 (talk) 16:47, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

  That's not what the RfC concluded. The RfC concluded that the statement of genocide in the lead of Gaza genocide should be in wikivoice instead of attributed. The opinion of Wikipedia editors as to whether Israel's actions constitute genocide or not are irrelevant. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 16:52, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

  wikivoice reflects the consensus Laura240406 (talk) 17:11, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

  A RFC that decided to take a side in a dispute is an incurable nullity. Cambalachero (talk) 16:56, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

  It does not work like that. Your statement could be applied to any "dispute" (e.g. flat earth, creationism); just because something is politically salient doesn't mean the facts change or the opinion of experts is suddenly less relevant. Wikipedia has a hierarchy of reliable sources, and if reliable sources "take a side", then Wikipedia will absolutely do so as well, by its very mission; see WP:FALSEBALANCE. TucanHolmes (talk) 10:00, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

  We do not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers, for or against; we merely omit this information where including it would unduly legitimize it, and otherwise include and describe these ideas in their proper context concerning established scholarship and the beliefs of the wider world.

  — WP:FALSEBALANCE (emphasis added)

  SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 19:41, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose for being less informative. Name-checking "genocide" is less helpful here than giving, in ~the same number of words, the fuller weight of what's behind the label. The second iteration is substantially less helpful along these lines. (Though "academia" should definitely be added alongside human rights orgs and the UN) Placeholderer (talk) 16:48, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

  I think many/most comments regarding the RfC about the first sentence of Gaza genocide miss the point of that RfC. Just because it's more appropriate to start the Gaza genocide article with The Gaza genocide is doesn't mean it is never appropriate anywhere else to mention who's calling it a genocide. Attribution isn't some mark of shame; it's clear writing, except where it's clunky or redundant, which it clearly isn't here since we're attributing in this passage even under the proposals Placeholderer (talk) 17:11, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

  A big problem here is that this RfC (and the preceding discussion) has skipped a step. We've gone straight to arguing whether or not the change is acceptable under NPOV. What should have been sought to argue instead is whether or not the change is an improvement to the text. For the reasons I've said, I think this change is not an improvement to the text. I don't want to go all WP:1AM, but I shake my cane at this thread and what I see as its framework Placeholderer (talk) 09:53, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

• Support in line with the main article. We don't need a RfC to apply what is already supported by a RfC consensus, nor do we need to rediscuss what has been discussed ad nauseam. M.Bitton (talk) 17:00, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

  Another editor has said the Gaza genocide RfC concluded that Israel is committing a genocide. If the RfC is overriding the spirit of NPOV (not taking sides in a dispute) there is a big problem. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 17:08, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

  You're not making any sense. M.Bitton (talk) 17:12, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

  Wikipedia does not decide if Israel is committing genocide. Sources do that. We should mention the sources so that it is clear that scholars, not Wikipedia, have made the conclusion. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 17:15, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

  We do that by putting the inline references — 🧀Cheesedealer ^!!!⚟ 17:17, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

  That would work, but:

  1. Many readers don't bother to check the references.
  2. Inline references are often removed from lead sections.

  SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 18:20, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

  Yes, but the former is just user error, and the latter is something that is just not an issue. Wikipedia should not concern itself with online PR-backlash if they haven't done anything wrong; the article mentions and cites the sources, why does it have to name them at the start, when other consensus-based articles do not do that? TheSilksongPikmin (talk | contribs) 19:15, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

  Wikipedia should put the readers first. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 19:34, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

  Are you attempting to re-litigate the RfC that took nearly months to achieve? M.Bitton (talk) 17:18, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

  Consensus can change. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 17:19, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

  Not when one has nothing but hot air to present. Thank you for confirming that this is nothing but an attempt at keeping consensus-dodging content. M.Bitton (talk) 17:29, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

  "Months to achieve"? Wikipedia is not a battleground. Please review Wikipedia policies and guidelines and self-correct. Scharb (talk) 17:30, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

  Read WP:ASPERSIONS and if you're still not happy, then WP:ANI is that way. M.Bitton (talk) 17:33, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

  +1 - In my view, Scharb's response is irrelevant, and M.Bitton's statement is backed by WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 17:37, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

  People voting in support of this proposal are not conceding that it is not following NPOV — 🧀Cheesedealer ^!!!⚟ 17:13, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

  please consider WP:FALSEBALANCE

  WP:NPOV means that we should give a neutral point of view based on the available sources so when most agree that there is a genocide, we state that there is one Laura240406 (talk) 17:14, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

  Wouldn't it be helpful to clarify that this statement is based on the scholarly consensus? Without attribution, it looks as if Wikipedia has decided that Israel is committing genocide (and indeed, a lot of press coverage has focused on that aspect). SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 17:17, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

  The "The Holocaust" article does not start with the many, many, possible citations, for example. When there is a consensus on something by experts, we can just say it without having to cite in the beginning. The article later on does mention the scholarly consensus, and at no point does Wikipedia itself claim it's a genocide with WP:OR-like claims. TheSilksongPikmin (talk | contribs) 19:11, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

  NPOV does not mean "not taking sides in a dispute" and there is near-unanimous consensus that we "take sides" in some disputes (i.e., reflect scholarly consensus and common sense.) We don't describe the moon landing or Earth's shape as disputed, despite a very vocal minority. wound theology◈ 17:30, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

  NPOV does not mean "not taking sides in a dispute"

  Um, what? Are we looking at the same policy? The nutshell summary of NPOV literally says Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without editorial bias. This applies to both what you say and how you say it.

  SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 18:16, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

  Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, or plausible but unaccepted theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship. We do not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers, for or against; we merely omit this information where including it would unduly legitimize it, and otherwise include and describe these ideas in their proper context concerning established scholarship and the beliefs of the wider world. wound theology◈ 18:41, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

  Key parts in WP:FALSEBALANCE (emphasis mine): We do not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers, for or against; we merely omit this information where including it would unduly legitimize it, and otherwise include and describe these ideas in their proper context concerning established scholarship and the beliefs of the wider world. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 19:44, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

  The classification of the war in Gaza as a genocide is a subjective manner and should be treated as such.

  The uncompromising, contentious local consensus at Gaza Genocide does not mean that one side "won" and it must now cascade across Wikipedia. Numerical head counts of everyone calling themselves a genocide expert is original research. 20% is not "fringe," if reputable scholars are asserting a minority opinion, it is not automatically fringe for being a minority. What real life source claims there is an unquestionable consensus?

  The comparison to holocaust denial is unreasonable. The Holocaust has been established in court beyond reasonable debate.

  Conversely, on Gaza, the ICJ never issued a ruling. Many countries don't recognize it as such. And numerous credible scholars do not deem it so, or may be waiting for better evidence of A) intent and B) effect to unfold. In which case, the supposed consensus is improper, as it is simply too soon to say–– just as it is apparently too soon to call the massacres in Sudan as a genocide in wikivoice, or Mariupol. Scharb (talk) 19:48, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

• Support wiki voicing genocide, not necessarily this specific wording the vast majority of scholarly sources available agree, so WP should follow them. Opposes on those grounds have already been rejected by consensus and are not policy based. (t · c) buidhe 17:44, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose per Iljhgtn, Katzrockso. The Gaza "genocide" RfC process was flawed. RS do not unequivocally or overwhelmingly support its conclusion. Dr Fell (talk) 18:20, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

  Why was it flawed again? — 🧀Cheesedealer ^!!!⚟ 18:39, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

  Obvious canvassing by users violating policy and treating wikipedia as a battleground. There's a "side" that is trying to deem the other "fringe" on a subjective matter in order to delete their views, instead of just telling the truth that there are credible sources that say there is no consensus ('Le Monde: Is there a genocide in Gaza? Why legal experts are split'), few definitive sources say there IS a consensus, and Wikipedians compiling their own evidence of a consensus ("X# of sources say Y" is fine for persuasive essays, not an encyclopedia) must be dismissed as original research. Scharb (talk) 20:17, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

  There is not a consensus among legal experts, just like there is not a conensus among countries; there are other things to take into account here (partisanship, politics, legal technicalities and so on). There is conensus among academic scholars on the topic: Israel's actions in Gaza constitute genocide. wound theology◈ 14:55, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

  +1 Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 15:20, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

• Support per the academic consensus (WP:BESTSOURCES). The argument that we need the result of the ICJ case for this, while it may seem sensible, isn't supported by any policy, and this is not the topic for WP:IAR. The sentence should make clear this is only during the Gaza war. Mention of opposing POVs (not just "Israel denies it") should immediately follow the sentence to maintain NPOV. Kowal2701 (talk) 20:22, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose, not because of any objection to stating the current Gaza genocide in wikivoice, but due to the fact that this wording implies that Israel has been committed genocide in Gaza since before October 7th, which is not something we should state in wikivoice. I would therefore have no objections against Wasianpower's alternate wording. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:55, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose – The proposal fails WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:RS standards, and misapplies the result of the Gaza genocide RfC. That local consensus does not automatically extend to unrelated pages, particularly one about a state, where a much higher level of neutrality and contextual balance is required. Each article must reach its own consensus based on its own scope and sourcing (WP:LOCALCONSENSUS).Michael Boutboul (talk) 22:06, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

  Each article is rightly held to a high standard of NPOV. In the RfC you reference above, the community reached an interpretation of the NPOV policy which you may contest, but which was definitely backed by a rough consensus. That interpretation of policy (correctly, in my opinion) allows us to state, in WV, that genocide is occurring. The proposal certainly does not fail WP:V or WP:RS, it is impeccably well-sourced from an RS perspective, and that suffices to establish verifiability. WillowCity^(talk) 02:52, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose - NPOV, among others, as per above. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 22:42, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose There is a working group located at Wikipedia:Genocide where we are creating a new policy to determine when something can be called a "genocide" in wikivoice. No conflicts should be called a "genocide" until this new policy is established. Jimmy Wales supports this group and is also working on new NPOV policies. LDW5432 (talk) 00:02, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

  No conflicts should be called a "genocide" until this new policy is established setting aside the fact that the Gaza genocide is already described as such in wp voice, can you please point to the policy that supports your claim? M.Bitton (talk) 00:44, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

  "No conflicts should be called a "genocide" until this new policy is established."

  This made me laugh. Yah - lets go ahead and change all genocide article - because LDW5432 and working group is working on new policy. Cinaroot (talk) 00:50, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

  The people editing Wikipedia:Genocide are {{brainstorming}} some text that may lead to a WP:PROPOSAL for a guideline or policy, on an unknown time scale (months?), that might be accepted in an RfC, typically on a month time scale. Guidelines and policies are descriptive, not prescriptive: Policy and guideline pages are living documents that attempt to describe the actual practice of experienced editors. This case will likely provide input to help draft WP:GENOCIDE rather than vice versa. Boud (talk) 11:50, 7 November 2025 (UTC) (minor clarification Boud (talk) 11:52, 7 November 2025 (UTC))

• Support: This is in line with what was decided in the previous RfC. Also, please see the graphs regarding scholarly assessments that VR posted above. David A (talk) 08:54, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

  I'm concerned those graphs constitute original research as synthesis of published material to conclude that "there is a consensus among scholars". SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 21:29, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

  Yes. By the way, there is another aspect of the graph that seems to be getting little attention - half the scholars already claimed there was or likely was a genocide already in October 2023. That is absurd, and should immediately call for more scrutiny of the supposed scholarly consensus (e.g., who counts as a scholar, what grounds did they make the October 2023 determination on, how should we weight scholarship in this case relative to courts and governments, etc.) Michaelas10 (talk) 21:34, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

  SuperPianoMan9167 please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:What SYNTH is not#SYNTH is not directly applicable to talk pages. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 21:36, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

  If SYNTH is not directly applicable, then I was mistaken. I just had concerns. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 21:45, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

  No worries! Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 14:25, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

• Support wikivoicing genocide, not necessarily this specific wording: As per buidhe and the FAQ answer at Talk:Gaza genocide that links to the RfC, The term "Gaza Genocide" is supported by a sufficient number of reliable sources. It is the consensus, not an opinion, that it is a genocide. Boud (talk) 11:31, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose This clearly violates WP:NPOV. This is probably the most high profile case of opinion being stated as fact. Even many of the arguments in favor of using the Wikivoice try to use the opinions of experts as evidence, but even those are just that, opinions. This is against the black letter and the spirit of NPOV. Generally, the standard protocol is that when we are citing opinion rather than fact, we must use attribution rather than wikivoice. The fact that this conversation and similar ones have been this contentious highlights that wikivoice is inappropriate here. Additionally, by using wikivoice, Wikipedia is actively taking a side in the Israel-Gaza dispute. That was never supposed to be our role. Our role is to provide a neutral, verifiable, encyclopedia that simply informs the reader of all of the facts. This necessitates us not taking sides on a regional dispute. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 16:40, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

  See this comment by JasonMacker, but basically we shouldn't reduce scholarly analysis to mere opinion, it's a false equivalence. Kowal2701 (talk) 19:43, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose The Gaza genocide article is a disaster of NPOV and a source of public embarrassment to the encyclopedia. It reads like it was written by a committee of the most hostile anti-Israel academics available. The nomination would cause the related shortcomings of balance and readability to metastasize to this article. I would suggest waiting until the concerns raised by @Jimbo Wales and @Larry Sanger in Talk:Gaza genocide are satisfactorily addressed before using it as a model for this article. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 20:30, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

  Well said. Dr Fell (talk) 20:51, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

  It reads like it was written by a committee of the most hostile anti-Israel academics available :/ Placeholderer (talk) 21:07, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

• Support per Vice Regent and the massive amount of data and text at the Gaza genocide RFC. Many the opposes here aren't rooted in data/facts and seemingly misunderstand NPOV. The community put it's blood, sweat, and tears into that extremely well-attended RFC and came out of the other side with a consensus. Trying to create the reverse consensus here with less people makes no sense! The facts are not different! Parabolist (talk) 21:19, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

  The community put it's blood, sweat, and tears into that extremely well-attended RFC Wikipedia is not a battleground. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 21:21, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

  It's an idiom, man. BATTLEGROUND is about treating discussions as 'winnable' and team based, but consensus-building is argumentative! It's definitionally about people who believe different things having a (hopefully) healthy debate about what we should include. That's what happened there, and that's what I'm talking about. Parabolist (talk) 21:32, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

  I think one assumption you and other people in this RfC are making is that the previous RfC represents the full consensus of the community. I would argue it represents the consensus of people who were interested in and actively edited the article "Gaza Genocide", and not the whole community. A large number of the 'support' votes there seem to assume this issue is obvious and does not require a high evidentiary bar, contrary to NPOV. Just a few examples: "This is really approaching "the sky is blue" territory with Benjamin Netanyahu openly announcing plans about the full military occupation of the entire Gaza Strip and the forced displacement of most of the population. Wikipedia can not engage in genocide denial..." "..the consensus is so obvious" "..the veracity of genocide accusation is not in doubt therefore attribution is no longer necessary.." "...there is indeed harm in sitting on this a moment longer than necessary, never mind another 2-3 months when there is already consensus. To do so would not only amount to gross negligence and irresponsibility due to consequences in the real world.." These are just from a quick glance. Among the comments who did justify their support, they were overwhelmingly focused on the supposed scholarly consensus and UN Commission of Inquiry findings - ignoring dissenting voices as 'fringe' and in particular dismissing lack of court verdicts (including ICC and ICJ) as irrelevant and disagreeing governments as 'biased'. So I disagree that you can simply point to said RfC to justify making further changes - it was flawed, to say the least. Michaelas10 (talk) 21:50, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

  The purpose of the consensus is to produce a neutral article, and it failed. That a great effort went into it is unfortunate, and beside the point. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 02:34, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

  At the time of your post an RFC had essentially immediately occurred, adding to a list of RFCs that have been repeatedly made for over a year. I would say, after utilizing WP:Read the room and WP:There is no deadline, that the great effort was fortunate, and exactly the point. Lumbering in thought (talk) 05:04, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

• Support Proposed wording is well sourced. FropFrop (talk) 23:49, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
• Support. There is large agreement amongst scholars that it is a genocide. Carriyng out a genocide against the indengious palestinian population is obviously notable and must be included. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 04:42, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose on several grounds. First, per NPOV we don't engage in disputes. This is clearly a dispute among many people about what to call this. As such, when we refer to it in Wiki-voice we are violating NPOV by picking a side in the dispute. Second, based on information above there is not a consensus among various sources that this is a genocide. If we go by the chart to scholars then even now we have 1/5 don't agree this is a genocide. That is more than sufficient to say this is a contested claim. Add to that the fact that "genocide" doesn't have a hard and fast definition. Also, a point raised above is that some sources said this was a Genocide right form the time Israel was attacked. It was argued that those were just sources that were foretelling the future. Alternatively, they are sources that have already made up their minds thus should be discounted. Ultimately, decades from now the world may look back on this as a Genocide. However, in the hear and now NPOV says we don't pick sides and thus we should not call it Genocide. Springee (talk) 15:56, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

  Springee, how small in your opinion would the minority view have to be to for it not to be "seriously contested"? (it’s more like 80% to 15% going off the above chart) Kowal2701 (talk) 16:05, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

  As noted above, about 30% had made up their minds well before any reasonable view was claiming this was a genocide. Also, when it comes to applying that label we need to be extra cautious. There are clearly well reasoned sources that oppose the label. We shouldn't be picking sides which is exactly what putting this is wiki voice is doing. If this were a question about keeping the material in or out I would side with keeping it in. However, that isn't the question at hand. The article and readers don't suffer because we chose to not put this into Wikivoice. Wikipedia should always be slow about these things. If we are 5 years late to the party that's better than being early and wrong. We are meant to be the caboose of history, not the engine. Springee (talk) 16:21, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

  about 30% had made up their minds well before any reasonable view was claiming this was a genocide. A very rough count shows ~400 sources say this is a genocide and ~80 deny it. The first 30% of the "yes" sources (the 120th "yes" source) was on or before September 2024. By that time Israel had killed ~40,000 Palestinians (exceeding the death toll of the Yazidi genocide and Rohingya genocide). Springee has no reasonable grounds for automatically dismissing all sources that made an affirmative genocide determination before September 2024. VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 04:05, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

  I certainly do have reasonable grounds. I'm basing my claim on the charts above. It shows about 30% saying this was genocide in November of 2023. Note that the number was near 50% in October 2023. I certainly would dismiss those sources as putting a cart before the horse at that time. If the chart is wrong it should be deleted. Please note I didn't say September of 2024 and I'm not sure where you picked up that date. Springee (talk) 05:38, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

  I'm not conceding, but are you saying that we should dismiss the sources aggreeing with the genocide claim in 10 an 11/2023? which are like.. 9? I'm not sure i'm getting your ultimate point — 🧀Cheesedealer ^!!!⚟ 16:44, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

  If you look at my arguments you will see that I, like many others, disagree for reasons that are not limited to the chart. That said, if the chart is wrong or misleading perhaps it should be deleted or corrected. The problem is it doesn't show absolute values, just 100%. Springee (talk) 19:28, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

  In {{Expert opinions in the Gaza genocide debate}} I count 7 sources in Oct 2023, 21 in Nov 2023, making just 4% out of about 717 sources in total. If we decided that genocide cannot happen on a scale of less then two months (dubious, since the Rwandan genocide lasted 13 days per the current Wikipedia lead), i.e. if we arbitrarily dismissed those 4%, then that wouldn't affect the statistics significantly (it would likely slightly increase the fraction stating genocide). Boud (talk) 18:45, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Support. If I was writing an encyclopedia, I would not call it genocide - indeed I would follow Christian Gerlach's lead and abandon the term "genocide" altogether. But Wikipedia has made its bed, in the immediate sense by the Gaza genocide RfC and in the broader sense by deciding to blindly follow academic's politics while denying that they have them (there was the utterly absurd claim made recently that academics in multiple different fields and countries can't all be biased the same way on average!) and now it must lie in it by plastering "commited genocide" and "denied genocide" on every relevant article, e.g. most living Israelis with articles.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 02:23, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

And what if you were writing a rules-based encyclopedia that happened to have precisely the same policies and guidelines as this one with respect to scholarly sources etc. What would you do then? Sean.hoyland (talk) 02:59, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

My answer to that is in the first word of my previous comment.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 13:21, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose. I don't think the Gaza Genocide RfC should be binding here. This is a general article on Israel, and it should take into account opinions beyond academia, especially since academia is at least perceived as having an anti-Israel bias (for example, Harvard's Presidential Task Force on Combating Antisemitism and Anti-Israeli Bias) The idea that there is an academic consensus should explicitly cited, not implied by Wikivoice. The primary source given is Template:Expert opinions in the Gaza genocide debate which is a WP:SYNTH of academic sources. If it can't be used in the article, it can't be used to justify Wikivoice. It is easy to find sources in reliable, non-academic sources that the war in Gaza isn't genocidal (The New York Times, for example, is willing to run a piece called "No, Israel Is Not Committing Genocide in Gaza"). The debate exists, and the text should reflect that. Phirazo (talk) 14:52, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Have you voted with any other accounts that you have? I am just asking as this shows that you have other accounts? User:Easternsahara_{review and this} 14:57, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

As I read it, this means that in 2006, @Phirazo's user page had an infobox that read "This user is the owner of multiple Wikipedia accounts in a manner permitted by policy." (That policy link is now preserved here.) Why is that a basis for questioning their participation in this discussion, especially as it is something from 19 years ago? Coining (talk) 20:45, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

not having edited in more than a year, and having your last 50 edits go back to 2009 just seemed suspicious. I was just asking the user to clarify, I don't want to regurgitate the same comment over and over again, so I'll tell the user to read over the discussion to see that other people have already responded to most of their claims. User:Easternsahara_{review and this} 21:33, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

I have not voted with any other accounts. Phirazo (talk) 22:03, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

That NYT piece is an op-ed by Bret Stephens, who has no expertise in the field. It's completely irrelevant. Parabolist (talk) 20:41, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm demonstrating that there is a dispute in main stream sources. If there is a academic consensus here, that should cited. Per WP:NPOV, "Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them." Phirazo (talk) 22:10, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose. No ICJ ruling; many (most?) of the entries in this table are non-experts (Sociology PHD student , Professor of Comparative Literature, etc.); even according to this list there is a sizable minority who disagrees with the characterisation. Alaexis_¿question? 22:37, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

The two examples you cited are published in peer-reviewed academic journals, Critical Sociology (journal) and Diacritics (journal), respectively.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 06:05, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

I think that this strengthens my case.

WP:V says The reliability of a source depends on context... information that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable; editors should cite sources focused on the topic at hand where possible

War crimes are not a principal topic of these journals. Alaexis_¿question? 14:38, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

The discipline of Sociology does relate to genocide and the The Oxford Handbook of Genocide Studies even has a chapter called "Sociology and Genocide".VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 03:21, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose For a variety of reasons, including WP:NPOV concerns and the points made by Alaexis (talk) and Iljhgtn (talk), but mostly because I cannot square the notion that there is a Wikipedia consensus with the range of views expressed on this page (let alone in the outside world). There simply is no consensus, and I hope any admin closing this RfC doesn't robotically apply a former RfC given that WP:CONSENSUSCANCHANGE. Coining (talk) 01:37, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

"range of views expressed on this page (let alone in the outside world)" - when it comes to WP:DUE, neither the opinions of wikipedians, nor outside world are relevant. (The policy literally says "The relative prominence of each viewpoint among Wikipedia editors or the general public is irrelevant and should not be considered.") Instead, we only consider reliable sources, which overwhelmingly agree that Israel is committing genocide.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 06:05, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

A newer RfC has now closed and was not able to find a consensus amongst experts that a genocide has occurred in Gaza. So, we cannot conclude that reliable sources... overwhelmingly agree that Israel is committing genocide. Coining (talk) 19:27, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

That RfC was about "consensus amongst experts" and not whether "Israel is committing genocide". M.Bitton (talk) 19:11, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

It looks like the problem was that "experts" is vague, and due to different definitions there was no consensus among legal scholars but there was consensus among scholars of genocide. -- Beland (talk) 19:16, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

So, there is no "overwhelmingly agreement" because at least there is no overwhelmingly agreement among legal scholars. Coining (talk) 00:41, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

That depends on whether you are asking "did Israel commit genocide" or "can Israel be held legally responsible for committing genocide", which can have different answers. -- Beland (talk) 02:57, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Or whether the properly phrased second question is "legally, did Israel commit genocide"? Coining (talk) 03:23, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

• Many users have objected that "only" 80-90% of scholars accept the existence of Gaza genocide. So what percentage of consensus is necessary before wikipedia states something in its own voice? Wikipedia has been blaming humans for climate change – in its own voice – since at least 2006. Back then, only about 75% of scientists agreed to that. In 2007-2008, two studies came out showing 84% of scientists blamed humans for climate change, and it wouldn't be later until the consensus reached >99%.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 06:05, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

  Where does the 80-90% percentage come from? If it's from the same table then we should ignore it until it it's cleaned up. I've already mentioned such experts as a Sociology PHD student and Professor of Comparative Literature but there are many many more: Distinguished Professor of Arts at the Social Justice Institute, Cross-cultural psychoanalyst, Doctoral candidate in Gender Studies, Professor of global mobilities, borders, and gender, Professor of American Indian Studies, Film studies scholar, etc.). Alaexis_¿question? 15:48, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

  This indeed was part of the conclusion of the admin in this recent RfC close. Quoting the close: For example in Template:Expert_opinions_in_the_Gaza_genocide_debate the language around consensus among experts (with the exception of the Journal of Genocide Research) is not taken from academic sources, additionally when consensus is mentioned it is qualified (except for one source in the template). Coining (talk) 19:31, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

  Expanding on the "with the exception of the Journal of Genocide Research". Two articles in a peer-reviewed journal that literally specializes in genocide said:

  • "By the end of 2024, when Amnesty International published a comprehensively evidenced and legally argued case, the consensus that Israel was committing genocide was becoming overwhelming."
  • "There is an increasing legal consensus that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza...this consensus is emerging because the evidence is overwhelming".

  See Template:Gaza genocide consensus citation bundle. VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 03:25, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose - and Invalid RFC Oppose per WP:WIKIVOICE, but also this RFC has a false premise so is invalid at "After two months of discussion - consensus was reached to phrase the opening in Wikipedia’s voice that Israel is committing genocide against Palestinians." In correction, the close of the linked RFC did *not* make the determination stated, the close only stated that the first four words of Gaza genocide should be "The Gaza genocide is" and left anything more to further discussion. See also there is no WP consensus about saying there is consensus.

Using WIKIVOICE otherwise fails bullets in WP:WIKIVOICE - it may be generally failing NPOV or UNDUE for the article Israel, but in the WIKIVOICE policy I note

• Avoid stating opinions as facts.
• Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts.
• Prefer nonjudgmental language.

Cheers Markbassett (talk) 19:41, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

I just asked the closer to elaborate on what he meant with his "future discussion" comment here. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 22:52, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

As the closer of that RFC, it was pretty clear to me that a supermajority of participants supported Option 1 because they believe reliable sources support the idea there is an academic consensus that Israel has been committing genocide in Gaza. No exact wording was provided outside the first four words, but the RFC was indeed about whether to call this a genocide in wikivoice, and the answer was "yes". The winning view was that neutrality was satisfied by also presenting notable viewpoints that disagree with this academic consensus.

The '"Consensus there is genocide" in lead' RFC seemed to fail because there was support for an academic consensus among scholars of genocide, but not a legal consensus. That is compatible with the result of the RFC that I closed. -- Beland (talk) 20:27, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

As the closer of that RFC, it was pretty clear to me that a supermajority of participants supported Option 1 WP:NOTAVOTE. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 21:57, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

The winning view was that neutrality was satisfied by also presenting notable viewpoints that disagree with this academic consensus. Those viewpoints are conspicuously absent from the lead of Gaza genocide and are dismissed as obviously wrong later in the article. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 22:00, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Then find argument against the counterarguments that have been published in RS and then add them in, who is stopping you? User:Easternsahara_{review this} 23:13, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Special:Diff/1321027265 SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 00:09, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

In my view the current characterization of opposing viewpoints doesn't contradict what he said, but even if it does, I think how we present the opposing view should be best left to discussion in Talk:Gaza genocide. As for WP:NOTVOTE, it's mainly about people who say "support" or "oppose" without giving policy-based reasons (polling is not a substitute for discussion) not being considered. I don't think he was claiming it was a poll, he was simply saying there was consensus in the discussion supporting Option 1. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 23:14, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Whether you think of an RFC as an enlightened poll or a non-numerical weighing of arguments, that RFC closed as an endorsement of describing Gaza as a genocide in wikivoice. Anyone is free to agree with the minority in that RFC and argue that based on reliable sources and NPOV, the Israel article should not be aligned with Gaza genocide. But I don't think the idea that the premise of this RFC is invalid is a fact-based argument. -- Beland (talk) 00:34, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

• Weak support. Calling it a genocide in wiki voice was allowed by the previous consensus, not required. The particular proposed wording isn't great - probably should be two separate sentences. That said, any hedging on the wording is essentially a statement that the two positions are equally credible. My opinion is that a truly neutral point of view needs to emphasize that they are not, and the current state of the lead fails at this. casualdejekyll 21:29, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
• Support general proposal, agnostic on specific wording As EvansHallBear and others have exaustively demonstated, there is a firm and still growing consensus among scholars that Israel's actions in Gaza constistute a genocide. Wikipedia can, and in by policy must, reflect that point. Unfortunate as it is, many readers do not read past the lead so making sure the lead is able to establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies is incredibly important. We cannot do that if we fail to mention Israel's ongoing genocide.

That being said, I might prefer Template:Gaza genocide consensus sentence and a seperate sentence about the occupation. I feel perhaps the occupation and the current genocide in Gaza are independantly important things for readers to know.

CamAnders (talk) 11:36, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose. The main supporting argument seems to be that there is something like "scientific evidence" for a genocide, but that assessment is based on a misunderstanding of how social sciences work. Mainly due to the complexity of their subjects, they require individual judgments to a much larger extent than sciences like physics or chemistry. For example, there are many different genocide definitions. Each of them comprises several criteria, and none of these criteria are measurable in the way that physical properties are measurable. Ultimately, individual opinions are involved in all judgments regarding history and politics. That's the main reason why there is disagreement among social scientists about the question whether Israel's actions against Gaza constitute genocide or not. And while judgments by historians and other social scientists are important, they are not based on empirical data and statistical analysis like the findings of other sciences. They are not entirely different from judgments by politicians. In a nutshell: There is disagreement among social scientists regarding this issue, there are arguments for and against, and they all involve a good deal of personal opinion. We should not state them as fact. — Chrisahn (talk) 23:34, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
• Mixed support.No wiki formatting I agree with including the notion of genocide in the lead, for consistency purposes. I link here to a template on the position of various experts. However, I agree with various editors that the proposed text is not satisfactory. Criticism from the international community has not been because of the occupation and this proposed lead opens the question on when the genocide started. I think that the proposed alternative by @User:wasianpower is decent.

Chefs-kiss (talk) 15:26, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose change, support current lead-I personally believe that Israel is guilty of genocide, but this is still very much under dispute, and we should not say so in Wikipedia voice. I see nothing wrong with the current version and no compelling reason to change it. Display name 99 (talk) 18:04, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

• Support change with a qualifier per WP:NPOV. The current wording ... along with accusations from human rights organisations and UN officials that it has committed war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide against the Palestinians during the Gaza war is too weak given the scholarship. It's not just "accusations" from "human rights organisations and UN officials". There should also be a qualifier such as "some scholars disagree".

I'd suggest the following sentence, similar to the one from Gaza genocide

There is increasing scholarly consensus that Israel has committed genocide against the Palestinians during the Gaza war, though some scholars challenge it.

Some of the sources include:

• Journal of Genocide Research:

  Although legal scholars and commentators were slow to recognize the severity and urgency of the situation, this article sought to show that there is an emerging consensus that Israel's actions in Gaza are not another instance of armed conflict but instead amount to genocide

• The Round Table: The Commonwealth Journal of International Affairs and Policy Studies:

  South Africa's actions led to an ever-growing consensus in international legal circles that Israel is committing genocide

• Journal of Genocide Research:

  Roughly since mid-2024, there seems to have emerged a broad agreement among genocide scholars—at least those who have expressed their views on the matter—that this is indeed the case ... What followed seems to be a similar broad agreement emerging among legal scholars that this is indeed a genocide, and even those who are still hesitating find the genocide charges much more convincing.

• Journal of Genocide Research:

  By the end of 2024, when Amnesty International published a comprehensively evidenced and legally argued case,17 the consensus that Israel was committing genocide was becoming overwhelming

• The New Yorker:

  Trachtenberg testified to a consensus opinion among historians of genocide that what is happening in Gaza can indeed be called a genocide, largely because the intent to cause death on a massive scale has been so clear in the statements of Israeli officials

• Boston University:

  The opposition is political, as there is consensus amongst the international human rights legal community, many other legal and political experts, including many Holocaust scholars, that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza.

For other sources, see Template:Expert opinions in the Gaza genocide debate Bogazicili (talk) 20:52, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm assuming that these are the strongest sources from the list. Masha Gessen (#4) is not an expert by any definition. The Journal of Genocide Research (#1, #3, #4) has been accused of the anti-Israeli bias long time before this war, seeJournal of Genocide Research#Criticism. Alaexis_¿question? 13:19, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Your link shows that the Journal of Genocide Research was accused of "Holocaust Minimization, Anti-Israel Themes, and Antisemitism" by one scholar (Israel Charney), and that "Those whom Charney accused issued a rebuttal; 60 scholars signed the rebuttal." IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 13:41, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Charny's article is actually a perfect example of WP:FRINGE. In their response to Charny, Amos Goldberg, Raz Segal, Martin Shaw, and A. Dirk Moses (those criticized/accused by Charny) write that his article "refers to JGR authors as “hate-mongering genocide scholars,” and compares the president of the International Network of Genocide Scholars (INoGS) to the Ugandan dictator, Idi Amin".^[1] They point out among other absurdities that "Charny in effect suggests that Segal is a Holocaust denier", and conclude that Charny's article is "based on distortions, misquotations, and falsifications of our work", making it "unworthy of scholarly consideration." IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 14:35, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

• Masha Gessen (The New Yorker) is there because of the quote. Read the quote again please. Barry Trachtenberg is an expert and he testified in Defense for Children International – Palestine v. Biden: Trachtenberg testified to a consensus opinion among historians of genocide that what is happening in Gaza can indeed be called a genocide, largely because the intent to cause death on a massive scale has been so clear in the statements of Israeli officials
• Academic sources are usually regarded as reliable in Wikipedia. Journal of Genocide Research is in top quartile in History and Law . It's not a predatory journal. If you have more concerns, you can ask in WP:RSN. Many academic journals may also have a Westerncentric or Eurocentric bias, but it's not Wikipedia job to reject those sources. If journal sources are rejected with random and inconsistent criteria, there may be Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing concerns.
• No high quality sources have been provided that would conflict the above sources. My suggestion also includes a qualifier "though some scholars challenge it" per WP:NPOV Bogazicili (talk) 20:46, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose for being less informative. Name-checking "genocide" is less helpful here than giving … the fuller weight of what's behind the label. The second iteration is substantially less helpful along these lines, per Placeholderer. The new text being presented is too blunt and fails to give historical context. I could probably support Wasianpower’s alternative suggestion Israel's occupation of the Palestinian territories has drawn sustained international criticism. Experts, human-rights organisations and UN officials have described Israel's actions as war crimes and crimes against humanity. Following the October 7 Attacks in 2023, Israel began committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza. His stated aim was to emphasize the historical criticism of Israel's treatment of Palestinians, which should be given weight to avoid recency bias, which is apt on the country article.Pincrete (talk) 08:11, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

  This doesn't seem like an Oppose? Maybe it's because the RfC starter, Cinaroot, used specific wording, instead of asking if we should simply strengthen the current wording.

  I also support this proposal and adding October 7. Both October 7 and Gaza Genocide is in introduction chapter in Routledge Handbook on Palestine, which is a recent overview WP:Secondary source. Although the title says Palestine, it covers Israel too.

  We can also say "... Following the October 7 Attacks in 2023, Israel began committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza, according to an increasing scholarly consensus, though some scholars challenge it. ..." Bogazicili (talk) 20:55, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

• Support in the sense that the proposed wording change is closer to NPOV in that it better reflects scholarly consensus. Having said that I take Pincrete's point (just above) and do prefer the wording put forward by Wasianpower quoted by Pincrete. The RfC proposed wording lacks context and information. So, while the RfC proposed change is better than what we've got it falls short of what it should be. DeCausa (talk) 08:28, 24 November 2025 (UTC)
• Support because as others have noted we already have existing consensus elsewhere on-wiki that the off-wiki consensus is that a genocide is occurring, and while of course articles can be independent and consensus is not a sledgehammer, we are re-litigating arguments we have already had and a conclusion we've already come to. If nothing else this is confusing for the reader, and it imo creates NPOV issues by presenting the same information with vastly different levels of certainty depending on the subject of the article. We've already discussed and resolved many of the objections the oppose !votes have raised: We do not wait for an ICJ ruling to label, i.e., the Rohingya genocide or the Armenian genocide; we follow the scholarly and expert consensus. Applying a different, unprecedented standard exclusively to Israel is a form of WP:UNDUE weight, elevating the political stance of a few governments over the methodological conclusions of subject-matter experts. Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED which is especially important in a CTOP like this one – when a preponderance of RS make a determination, no matter if we agree or disagree with the information, we have a duty to the reader to present it. Smallangryplanet (talk) 12:19, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Setting NPOV aside for a moment...

Starting a section to try to prompt discussion around whether or not the proposed change, NPOV-compliant or not, is an improvement. As I've commented, I don't think it is. Almost all of this discussion so far has been around WP:5P2; this has meant, I think, not addressing WP:5P1.

I don't want to bludgeon, so I probably won't say much more than I've already argued, but the dynamic of "This change follows NPOV so it's good!" vs. "This change doesn't follow NPOV so it's bad!" has been frustrating to me. So, regardless of whether or not the proposals are NPOV-compliant, do they actually make the article better? A penny for your thoughts Placeholderer (talk) 21:33, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

I am also not sure whether its clear that this is changing the wording when the existing wording already mentions the genocide claims. ← Metallurgist (talk) 23:22, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

It mentions it more plainly and clearly, so it is an improvement. If it improves the neutrality and the due weightage of an article, then yes, the article is made better. User:Easternsahara_{review and this} 14:29, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

I dispute that saying less information in the same amount of words is clearer. The status quo attribution is not non-neutral. Due weight is a non-issue here—no one's disputing the genocide's mention in the intro.

If we do this change, we might as well change A United Nations Special Committee, multiple governments, and various experts and human rights organisations have concluded that Israel is committing genocide against the Palestinian people due to the harm and loss of life inflicted on civilians during the Gaza War in the body to Israel is committing genocide against the Palestinian people due to the harm and loss of life inflicted on civilians during the Gaza War, since at least that's fewer words. The point is to be informative, not to shove our editorial decisions down people's throats.

I want to reiterate that the change to the first sentence Gaza genocide is absolutely not comparable to this change. That sentence was changed from

According to a United Nations special committee and commission of inquiry, Amnesty International, Médecins Sans Frontières, B'Tselem, Physicians for Human Rights–Israel, International Federation for Human Rights, numerous genocide studies and international law scholars (including the International Association of Genocide Scholars), and many other experts, Israel is committing genocide against Palestinians during its ongoing blockade, invasion, and bombing of the Gaza Strip.

to

The Gaza genocide is the ongoing, intentional, and systematic destruction of the Palestinian people in the Gaza Strip carried out by Israel during the Gaza war.

That former sentence is hideous and is a ridiculous first sentence when there's consensus that we can write "The Gaza genocide is".

The change here, meanwhile, is from

Israel's practices in its occupation of the Palestinian territories have drawn sustained international criticism—along with accusations that it has committed war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide against the Palestinians in Gaza—from human rights organisations and UN officials.

to (using the updated proposal)

Israel is committing genocide against Palestinians in the Gaza war. Israeli actions toward Palestinians—including its occupation of the Palestinian territories—have drawn sustained international criticism; human-rights organisations and UN officials have described Israel’s conduct as war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Actually, not only is it less informative with the same number of words—it's less informative with more words, or at least more text. Why are we excluding genocide from the attribution when it would be far easier to find a scholarly consensus that war crimes have been committed (it's a much lower bar)? Why not just come down and say Israel is committing war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide against Palestinians in Gaza? (Hopefully that's more clearly weird). Why not censor everywhere all mention of who are the ones calling it a genocide—our readers can all just take our word for it!

and so, the editor said they'd limit their engagement, but they kept on posting... Placeholderer (talk) 22:14, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

• User:Placeholderer - In this case, I voiced in past TALK at Gaza genocide (which closed against using wikivoice) that attributing (to UN Commission, etcetera) was objective facts which were more WP:DUE by WP:WEIGHT of coverage, and also just stylistically better. "I'd say give emphasis to objective facts, avoid WP:SENSATIONAL outcries of WP:LABEL that have no specific meaning or weight using WP:WIKIVOICE to proclaim something." Stylistically I think using WIKIVOICE and voicing a judgement with pejorative comes off as a bit of a rant or bias, especially if a conclusion is stated before evidence instead of as a summary at the end of evidence, so for example WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE often goes astray.

The Israel article would present more reputably as a process if it were to work on the body and go from that, not just jamming a RFC to do a LEAD proclamation. The body for example could (IMHO should) add a subsection under Government and politics "4.3.3 Accusations of genocide" specific to this topic. The only immediate outcome from that would be to divide ibn two the lead sentence "Israel's practices in its occupation of the Palestinian territories have drawn sustained international criticism, along with accusations from human rights organisations..". Them it would be "Israel's practices in its occupation of the Palestinian territories have drawn sustained international criticism." as a sentence separate from "Human rights organisations and UN officials have said that Israel has committed war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide against the Palestinians during the Gaza war." Cheers Markbassett (talk) 20:36, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Comment: Academic consensus about genocide in Gaza

I'm putting this here for reference. This is a compilation of hundreds of articles that shows the vast majority of experts emphatically call Israel's actions genocide.