Jump to content

Talk:Gaza war

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Extended-protected page
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Gaza genocide should be mentioned and linked in the first paragraph

Pachu Kannan, in this edit you argue that there is no need to mention it in first paragraph. It is already mentioned below. Please clarify why you don't think the first paragraph should mention the Gaza genocide and link to it, why you think it should be given less prominence in a later paragraph. إيان (talk) 07:34, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

International Court of Justice is reviewing a case accusing Thirty-seventh government of Israel of committing genocide in Gaza. So it is still an allegation. So it should not be mentioned and linked in the first paragraph. Pachu Kannan (talk) 08:05, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
it is still an allegation—no, there is unanimous agreement among human rights groups, scholars, and experts on genocide that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza. If you will not yield on this, we will go to RfC. إيان (talk) 15:07, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this. We dont have to wait for a single organization to declare it to be a genocide so that we can follow it. We follow what's de facto in wikipedia (per WP:VERIFY) 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 15:09, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of "is a genocide", might we insert something like "has been classified as a genocide" into an existing sentence in the lede (without saying "experts" or any other source)? The interested reader who wants to know more, such as who has classified it as such, would then find that later in the article, where we can give multiple citations and otherwise give the missing details. —Quantling (talk | contribs) 15:19, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with most of what Quantling proposes, but the 'authoritativeness' of those making this pronouncement should be conveyed. It should be clear to the reader that this is not hearsay or an uninformed assessment. Here is what I put in and what Pachu Kannan reverted. It does not declare 'is a genocide' in Wikivoice, but it makes it clear that this is a learned or authoritative opinion. إيان (talk) 15:47, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
By my thinking, if it were hearsay or an uninformed assessment, it wouldn't be in the article at all, so I'm not worried that it will be interpreted as such. By going with the passive voice of "has been classified as" (or similar language) I hope to both mark it as informed and also indicate that there are informed people who think otherwise. (And the interested reader can evaluate it all for themself by checking out the details later in the article.) —Quantling (talk | contribs) 16:15, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's a fair compromise for now. إيان (talk) 17:37, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your proposal. Pachu Kannan (talk) 18:45, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've updated the page to reflect this consensus. إيان (talk) 18:27, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we have consensus here, see the two comments below and the #Genocide citations in lead section above. Alaexis¿question? 07:51, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Alaexis has reverted the implementation of the consensus above, with which they appear to be the only one in disagreement. The RfC is on genocide in wikivoice, which the edit did not do. إيان (talk) 12:27, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Alaexis can you give us more detail about what you'd want to see instead? Maybe we can yet find some common ground. —Quantling (talk | contribs) 13:28, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Quantling, sorry for the delayed response. Earlier I suggested "that has been categorized as genocide by major human rights organisations and some scholars." Alaexis¿question? 21:14, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is probably the easiest way to include it, though I do have apprehension at using "some", though do not have a specific alternative. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 17:09, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I just saw that u:Monk of Monk Hall has already added a different version with attribution, I think it's alright. Alaexis¿question? 21:17, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Some scholars" is a massive understatement. If I remember correctly, 75% of the surveyed scholars of this area agreed that it is a genocide even over a year ago when the situation was far less dire and blatantly self-evident than currently, despite that those scholars live in the United States, which is far more supportive of Israel's actions than all other nations on this planet. "That has been categorised as a genocide by many major human rights organisations and a large majority of surveyed scholars in the area." would be far more matter-of-fact accurate. David A (talk) 05:11, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The language I used is "a growing number" but I would support "most", so long as that is amenable to others. Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 15:13, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest "many". That way we know that it is multiple credible sources. With "most" we are instead signing ourselves up for deciding which sources are credible so as to decide whether we have achieved "most", which is too big a debate to resolve in the lede. I suggest we go with "many" in the lede and then, in the body of the article, we list credible sources that back this up (or cite an article that lists them). Then the reader can decide for themself whether this list of sources passes their tests for credibility and whether this list thus constitutes "most" from their personal perspective. —Quantling (talk | contribs) 15:20, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm hesitant to support many because many can be 20% or even 10% of a large group. I suppose many and a growing number are equally challenging to quantify though. I think there's enough evidence for most. Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 16:47, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, what is the evidence you're referring to? In the Gaza genocide article I only see the results of the Brookings Institution survey (34% of the respondents said it was a genocide) that took place in June 2024. Also, the Guardian article published in December 2024 said that there was no consensus. It does say that there is a growing number of scholars holding this opinion, supporting the current wording. Alaexis¿question? 19:32, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The responses were: "Major war crimes akin to genocide", 41%" and "Genocide", 34%", which totals as 75%. "Akin" means "looking or being almost but not exactly the same", so I think that it would be to engage in semantics to not acknowledge this as support for using the genocide term, and again, 68% of the surveyed Israeli population seems to support starving all the Palestinians to death by withholding absolutely all humanitarian aid, whereas 47% support actively killing absolutely all Palestinians through direct violence, so I currently also think that the Israeli government appears to have made it very clear to the Israeli population exactly what it is doing and intends to do.
Anyway, I think that Monk's rationale above regarding using a "most expert scholars" or "a growing number of expert scholars" (or similar) wording seems to make good sense. David A (talk) 07:08, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Alaexis, here's one from last month (though journalistic), an investigation of scholarly opinions conducted by the Dutch newspaper of record NRC. It is discussed in English in this piece from Middle East Eye.
I also support "most experts" to indicate that this is the scholarly consensus or the current "a growing number of experts" to indicate that this is the prevailing opinion. إيان (talk) 07:20, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If it helps, here is a link to a copy of the full original article. David A (talk) 12:12, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As others have pointed out, we desperately need an expert literature review to settle this debate. However, @Cdjp1's Template:Expert opinions in the Gaza genocide debate is an extremely helpful resource. As far as I can tell, it's the most thorough effort to record and quantify expert opinion on the Gaza genocide debate anywhere in the world. As it stands now it records the opinion of 215 entities, 134 of whom (62.33%) answer yes to the genocide question. Another 26 say maybe, meaning 74.42% don't reject the question outright. Only 55 (25.58%) deny that a genocide is taking place. Please check my math but these numbers should be correct. Of course, some of the entities in the template are something like 800 scholars, 19 medical professionals, or all of Amnesty International, so a true quantification of expert opinion would be more challenging still, but the numbers here are so stark that I believe they strongly support the use of the word "most". Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 16:15, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While I did start it, it has been a community effort, and it would be remiss of me to not highlight some of the other top hands on it: User:Bogazicili, User:TRCRF22, User:Vegan416, and of course Monk of Monk Hall.
As an additional note, the usefulness of the list is dependent on being able to capture as many relevant specialists, experts, academics, etc. within it. And while we have been able to grab a chunk of the English language literature and sources, and some German, French, and Spanish sources, I have no doubt we are missing plenty (especially in the non-English world). So I will request that anyone with the ability to, to help us in expanding the list as appropriate. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 17:06, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's definitely true that there are different opinions amongst scholars (see the post by @Prezbo above with the links to the Guardiand and Vox articles). So we can say attribute this in the article "has been classified by major human rights organisations and some scholars." Alaexis¿question? 21:05, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's very important to mention the allegation from the outset. If it is indeed a genocide, as many experts are saying, then the label "war" may be inaccurate. Thus, I think it's important to clarify the terminology in the first paragraph. Perhaps a terminology section would be an option. 20WattSphere (talk) 03:26, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't true. A genocide is often, but not always, just one portion of a larger military/political conflict. This article is about the war as a whole. It will continue to be about the war as a whole even if there's a genocide determined to be taking place as part of the war. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 03:33, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, the (alleged) genocide is not "just one portion of a larger military/political conflict". It seems to me that the vast majority of casualties are associated with the (alleged) genocide, rather than other fighting that is going on in a broader war. 20WattSphere (talk) 05:40, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note that there was a recent RfC with the resulting consensus against stating the Gaza Genocide in wiki voice as fact: Talk:Gaza_genocide#RfC:_Genocide_in_wikivoice/opening_sentence Eigenbra (talk) 15:41, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note that I agree with that the Gaza genocide page should be mentioned and linked to in the first paragraph of this page. David A (talk) 20:10, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
إيان claims that there is consensus on this issue but it seems as though it remains unresolved. Per the discussion that Bogazicili said regarding the Genocide citations in lead and WP:OR, I rephrased the phrasing in the lead to make it more in accordance with the sources provided. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 23:39, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're in violation of 1RR so please self revert. Then I would suggest rereading this conversation in full and seeing if you still feel that way. إيان (talk) 02:03, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this is necessary to pursue. In other words though it was technically against the rule, I think your edits have been premature. You, on the other hand, appear to have reverted that edit twice (1 and 2), which puts you in violation of 1RR.
I don't think sanctions are necessary against anyone right now. But please don't make accusations of 1RR violations when it's an initial edit (not a revert), and one revert. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 02:22, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
1RR is 24 hours and you provided diffs from June 9 and 11, so you can strike out your baseless accusation.
I didn’t say anything about sanctions. I just invited them to self revert in good faith. إيان (talk) 02:32, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:EDITWAR, though (1/3)RR are "bright lines", reverting the same edit repeatedly is still considered edit warring. So I stand by my statement. You should've waited for a consensus here and someone else (not involved, like you are) to make the edit again. To be clear, I don't think sanctions are necessary for anyone, but it doesn't help anyone for you to engage in a "technically permissible" edit war, even if it doesn't cross the bright line of 1RR/24h. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 02:39, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, the is or isnt debate should be more directed to the Gaza genocide page, and this page should based on that. I hope eventually we can move that to allegations, but thats a bigger debate that Im sure is happening over there, and will probably take years to settle. Until then, I think the current phrasing is tolerable in the current context. nb: I havent read the preceding discussion section yet. Metallurgist (talk) 19:41, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. It's undue for the first paragraph, and should instead by discussed in the 4th, together with war crimes by both sides. FortunateSons (talk) 09:25, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's clear that there's at least a rough consensus to discuss (if not link to) the Gaza genocide article in the first paragraph. I've made this edit attempting to use the wording that was there, while adding a link to Gaza genocide. I am happy for anyone else to improve on the wording, but I figured I'd put it out there so people can see how my proposed wording "flows" with the rest of the lead. I'm happy for anyone else to make changes, but can we all at least agree that this is okay? It doesn't make the claim of genocide in wikivoice (complying with the RfC on Talk:Gaza genocide) while also making clear that many scholars have opined that one is occurring. Regards, --bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 02:14, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I like your overall revised phrasing. The only minor tweak I would do is have it say "some" rather than "many," this indicates that there is some dispute among scholars and others regarding its status as a genocide. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 21:14, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Many" or "A large majority" would be far more factually correct. [274] [275] [276] David A (talk) 04:03, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The current wording is inaccurate, as it is not just academics, but also lawyers (see 1,101 lawyers), and human rights organizations such as Amnesty International, Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor and International Federation for Human Rights. The current wording omits these. I'll fix that Bogazicili (talk) 17:56, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am including sources for more lawyers who dispute the claim of genocide given that this seems to be an ongoing debate in the scholarly and legal communities, also did a slight rephrase to that effect. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 21:52, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You reworded it from "A growing number of human rights organizations and experts—such as lawyers and academics studying genocide and international law—say that a genocide is occurring in Gaza, though this is debated." to "While some human rights organizations, lawyers, and scholars specializing in genocide and international law have alleged that a genocide is occurring in Gaza, others dispute this characterization, and the issue remains the subject of ongoing legal and scholarly debate.", which is not a "slight rephrase", and "some" is still not accurate or supported by any talk page consensus here despite your edit summary claims. "Many", "a strong majority of", or "a growing number" would be factually accurate. David A (talk) 22:10, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have now restored the previous wording. David A (talk) 06:06, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead is a summary of the article and not everything belongs in the first para. At present, genocide is mentioned in both the first and fourth paras. This creates a discontinuity in the narrative of the lead - an idea should be dealt with at one place in the narrative. The detail of who said what is also inappropriate/unnecessary in the lead. It is more than sufficient to say at this point that there is debate on the matter. Trying too hard to press the issue of genocide becomes a matter of WEIGHT. I find the fourth para a bit disjointed - mainly because it does not clearly distinguish between the arrest warrants and the genocide case being reviewed and that the warrants do not include allegations of genocide. References should not be necessary in the lead. The two references cited in paragraph four are not used elsewhere. There are allegations of multiple war crimes. Why to we specifically/only mention crimes of a sexual nature in the lead? While the sentence on this refers to both sides, a perusal of the war crimes section appears to only mention Israel. Did I miss something? If it isn't in that section, that needs to be remedied. I also see matters relating to war crimes smattered through the article, where these should almost certainly be centralised. Why is the section Israeli prisons and detention camps stuck where it is, where the gist is the legality and treatment?
    I propose amending the fourth para as follows. While have retained the reference to sexual crimes in the draft, it is with a view to removal.
    Various experts and human rights organizations have stated that Israel and Hamas have committed war crimes. These include torture and sexual violence committed by Palestinian militant groups and by Israeli forces. The International Criminal Court has issued arrest warrants for Benjamin Netanyahu, Yoav Gallant and Mohammed Deif,[l] The warrants are for war crimes and crimes and crimes against humanity but do not allege genocide. Whether genocide has occurred is a matter of debate, though a case accusing Israel of committing genocide in Gaza is being reviewed by the International Court of Justice.
    Cinderella157 (talk) 03:04, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What is your proposal based on? Do you have an overview source about Gaza war? Bogazicili (talk) 19:57, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    My proposal is based on what is written in the body of the article and the sources cited. It is also based on the principle that the lead is a summary of the body of the article. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:04, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That seems to be based on lots of assumptions. We need reliable sources to assess MOS:LEADREL. You assume the body has appropriate proportion based on reliable sources per WP:Proportion.
    It's difficult with current and ongoing events, since there may not be a lot of WP:SECONDARY and WP:TERTIARY sources available.
    If your suggestion was based on your assumptions, I am against it. I don't like the deemphasis of genocide accusations.
    Even in a short sentence such as below, genocide is mentioned:
    Routledge Handbook on Palestine, Intro section, p. 2:

    In this context we should not overlook the latest turning point in the history of Palestine – the attack by Hamas on 7th October 2023 on Israeli settlements adjacent to Gaza and the subsequent genocidal war that the state of Israel has carried out in the Gaza Strip

    Bogazicili (talk) 22:25, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    FortunateSons, given that such a short sentence above mentions genocide, I think your decision to remove it from the first paragraph was wrong [277].
    FortunateSons, what was your reversion based on? Do you have secondary or tertiary sources about Gaza war? Ideally you have a WP:TERTIARY source about Gaza war, so we can settle MOS:LEADREL. Bogazicili (talk) 22:36, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As I mentioned in the description, this was primarily a WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY decision, as well as structuring the description before analysis.
    A similar style is also used in the Britannica article. Disputed genocides aren’t usually mentioned like that in other articles: Tigray war, Russo-Ukrainian War, the Congo wars, etc. Generally speaking, genocides that are strongly disputed aren’t included in the first paragraph. In this way, even our current mention goes beyond many reputable secondary sources: BBC, which has a lead-length section about the Gaza war below; the position in the NYT explainer; Reuters, etc.
    That's not to say that there aren’t exceptions, but many of our articles don’t include it at all, or pick a less prominent role in the lead. Using para 4 for the war crimes and crimes against humanity by both sides preserves a useful structure, matches the coverage of the conflict within much of the contemporary media, and ensures a NPOV that includes, but isn’t limited to American, Israeli, German, and other Western perspectives. FortunateSons (talk) 23:37, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Based on above source, unless other overview sources are provided, I think the first paragraph should mention and link at least:
    It is things like it follows the wars of 2008–2009, 2012, 2014, and 2021 that seem redundant in the first paragraph and can be moved elsewhere. Bogazicili (talk) 22:51, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Bogazicili's sentiments above. David A (talk) 07:59, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I was one of the editors that had a hand in that version, and there were reasons, but I'm beginning to think that that clause can be chopped, being dead wood, and the succeeding sentence can be joined to that one. GeoffreyA (talk) 17:48, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    So is somebody willing to restore the relevant sentence to the beginning of this page, and also preferably remove the WP:FALSEBALANCE of making it seem like there is a far greater division of scholarly expert views than there actually is? David A (talk) 06:15, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I meant the wars' clause and surrounding material and didn't contribute to the genocide discussion, but would be glad to tackle it. I also agree with Cinderella157 that there was discontinuity in the lead, breaking cohesion; but that needs to be weighed against the importance of the genocide characterisation. GeoffreyA (talk) 07:52, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    A counting, subject to human error, of the list of expert opinions in the Gaza genocide debate shows (if I understood the columns correctly):
    Yes: 135 (59.73%)
    Maybe: 24 (10.62%)
    Likely: 8 (3.54%)
    No: 54 (23.89%)
    N/A: 5 (2.21%)
    Total: 226
    This would support: Many human rights organizations and experts in the fields of genocide studies and international law say that a genocide is taking place in Gaza, though this is debated.
    Or: Many human rights organizations and experts in the fields of genocide studies and international law say that a genocide is taking place in Gaza, though some dispute this.
    Shorter: A large body of expert opinion says that a genocide is taking place in Gaza, though this is debated. GeoffreyA (talk) 10:27, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. I would prefer 2 as a first option, 1 as a second option, and 3 as a third option. David A (talk) 14:45, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Same. إيان (talk) 17:21, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Now, the question of placement. Leave it in the fourth paragraph, which I think is more cohesive, keeping related things together, that being the genocide and war crimes paragraph; or move it to the first paragraph? GeoffreyA (talk) 08:35, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it is more than relevant enough to move to the first paragraph. David A (talk) 08:41, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree. If anything, we should move the war crimes and crimes against humanity that are clearer into the first paragraph, and keep genocide (by both sides, with the latter still missing in the lead) in para 4. FortunateSons (talk) 08:46, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:FALSEBALANCE. M.Bitton (talk) 12:01, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I‘m not saying we should mention them with equal weight. But there is significant academic coverage describing October 7, and it’s the event that started the war, so we should mention it in the same place. FortunateSons (talk) 12:31, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fringe nonsense has no place in Wikipedia. M.Bitton (talk) 12:33, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have academic sources describing the characterisation of Oct. 7 as genocide/a genocidal massacre as fringe? Because the article is full of sources that it either is or isn’t a genocide based on in-depth analysis of complex motivations and behaviours. If you have high-quality sources that call it “fringe nonsense”, you really should find a place for it in the article instead of arguing it here, and if you don’t, you really should follow what the sources say instead of your personal views. FortunateSons (talk) 12:43, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, I suggest you read WP:FALSEBALANCE. M.Bitton (talk) 12:45, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have read the policy. Based on both the article and my reading of external academic discourse, there is either a significant minority or a slim majority of relevant scholars who consider Oct. 7 to be genocidal in some way. But even if it merely is a significant minority, it’s not even close to insignificant enough to exclude it from the lead. FortunateSons (talk) 12:50, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't even worth discussing. I'm done here. M.Bitton (talk) 12:52, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
An individual massacre is logically not remotely on the same scale as systematic deliberate and methodical calculated extermination of an entire population. David A (talk) 15:33, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The term for that (depending on who you ask) is either a Genocidal massacre/acts of genocide or simply referring to the entire act a genocide/genocidal, which, among others, Historians, holocaust studies scholars, and lawyers/law professors (most prominantly not yet in the article, Ambos) find to be at least plausible in this case. On a general note: there is no formal requirement for systematic deliberate and methodical calculated extermination of an entire population., and the worst incidents of Srebrenica took place over a few days, with the total lasting less than a month. And even just within our list, Massacre of Salsipuedes had fewer casualties and lasted a shorter time than October 7. FortunateSons (talk) 07:56, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that genocide is not tied to a length of time or certain numbers, but rather a peculiar quality that is evident to everyone but hard to put in words. (To many, the images pouring out of the Strip are reminiscent of it.) At any rate, "genocide" is a word invented in the 20th century, to cover actions in the world, and acts of later times may not necessarily square with that definition fully.
Here, the question becomes, what percentage of scholars and sources consider October 7 to be a genocide or genocidal? Are they chiefly American and Israeli scholars, etc.? Will placing it and the Gaza one next to each other suggest equivalence between the two? GeoffreyA (talk) 10:06, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think that it would suggest a false equivalence between the two, yes. David A (talk) 18:50, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I largely agree with all of those concerns. While many are American and Israeli (which, just to be clear, does not significantly impact the weight here), many others are from a plethora of different countries, such as Canada, Germany, the UK, Moldova, Argentina, and Turkey, among others. A suggested phrasing could be: Many human rights organizations and experts in the fields of genocide studies and international law say that a genocide is taking place in Gaza, though some dispute this. Additionally, a smaller but significant number of experts and human rights groups stated Hamas committed or may have committed genocide or a genocidal massacre during the October 7 attacks. FortunateSons (talk) 13:42, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Genocide claim against Israel is in the tertiary source you shared: [278], specifically in [279].
Genocide claim against Hamas is not there though. I don't see the justification of the wording you suggested, unless you provide more sources, especially WP:Tertiary sources.
You can add something like Hamas attack was widely criticized, which is in [280] Bogazicili (talk) 19:15, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, sorry about that, it doesn’t show up through the normal search for me and I didn’t think to check the reactions manually. It nevertheless doesn’t appear in the lead section at all, thereby not disproving the original point. The relevant claim wouldn’t be the denouncement, but the categorisation as terrorism against civilians, which we don’t currently have in the lead (though again, I strongly object to any analysis, including this one, in para 1). There is a plethora of secondary sources (not yet in the article, for example, this), though I’m unfamiliar with any tertiary coverage that mentions it. However, I‘m also unaware of any neutral tertiary coverage that mentions the Gaza genocide in a position as prominent as is suggested here. Do you happen to know any? FortunateSons (talk) 19:51, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Genocide claim against Hamas is not in the entirety of entry in Britannica (including all subsections). And it's a pretty long entry, much longer than leads in Wikipedia. As such, I think it is WP:UNDUE for the lead. It can be added into article body though. Bogazicili (talk) 20:00, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not trying to get you into a gotcha here, but just for the sake of my curiosity: if it gets added to this Britannica article at some point in the future, would you support it being added next to the accusation of genocide against Israel, wherever that ends up being placed in the lead? FortunateSons (talk) 20:05, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unless there are conflicting tertiary sources, I wouldn't oppose it. Bogazicili (talk) 20:11, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that’s good to know FortunateSons (talk) 20:14, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It depends on article format too. Britannica introductions seem to be much shorter than Wikipedia leads, so I look at rest of Britannica entry too. If Britannica ends up with a huge intro section, which mentions genocide accusations against Israel and not against Hamas, it'd be a question mark. But even then you'd have a stronger argument compared to now. Bogazicili (talk) 20:16, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That’s definitely fair. Considering the relative positions and the relevant policy for genocide and terrorism, do you oppose adding something along the lines of „The attack was described as terrorism by […], and included the mass murder of civilians and a pattern of sexual violence.“ as sentence 2 of para 2? FortunateSons (talk) 20:24, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Some of this may already be in 4th paragraph: Experts and human rights organizations have also stated that Israel and Hamas have committed war crimes ... Torture and sexual violence have been committed by Palestinian militant groups and by Israeli forces
I am not opposed to described as terrorism by [...].
I don't know about the rest, I haven't read the sources. It's easier for me to edit some parts because I already edited Gaza genocide article. Bogazicili (talk) 21:32, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This has nothing to do with what إيان suggested, so let's not get derailed by it. M.Bitton (talk) 21:40, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember to use the code {{od}} when discussions here begin to turn too vertically aligned, and as such nearly unreadable. Anyway, I agree with M.Bitton. We should try to stick more to the intended topic. David A (talk) 06:44, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Move it to the first paragraph (the genocide is probably the most important characteristic of this war). I would also change "though some dispute this" to a "minority dispute this". M.Bitton (talk) 12:35, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That seems perfectly fine to me. David A (talk) 15:35, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback. GeoffreyA (talk) 10:09, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Based on tertiary source provided above [281], we might want to move death numbers into the first paragraph instead:
On 7 October 2023, Hamas-led militant groups launched a surprise attack on Israel, in which 1,195 Israelis and foreign nationals, including 815 civilians, were killed, and 251 taken hostage
Since the start of the Israeli offensive, over 57,000 Palestinians in Gaza have been killed, over half of them women and children, and more than 135,000 injured. A study in The Lancet estimated 64,260 deaths due to traumatic injuries by June 2024, while noting a larger potential death toll when "indirect" deaths are included.
The current wording, The war has resulted in the deaths of more than two thousand Israelis and tens of thousands of Palestinians is repetitive with the later paragraphs, and seems to play down Palestinians deaths. It could be more than "tens of thousands" Bogazicili (talk) 19:21, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's too detailed to include all that information in the first paragraph, and enough to summarise it with one line, letting the succeeding paragraphs unfold the details.
I proposed the "tens of thousands of Palestinians" line originally: the war caused the deaths of tens of thousands of Palestinians and over a thousand Israelis. My intention was to summarise, in plain language, the numbers. In my opinion, the numbers take more mental effort and are opaque, whereas the words are intuitive straight away. Somewhere along the line, it got switched round, making, I think, the Palestinian deaths like an afterthought. I believe the latter should come first, being the more immediate, more urgent, and bigger of the two. Right now, 57,000 is our number, which "tens of thousands" accurately reflects and has the advantage of not needing to be changed. GeoffreyA (talk) 08:58, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It could be more than 100,000 at this point, A study in The Lancet estimated 64,260 deaths due to traumatic injuries by June 2024, while noting a larger potential death toll when "indirect" deaths are included
I see "tens of thousands" as downplaying it.
The first paragraph of the lead doesn't summarize the rest of the lead by the way. The entire lead summarizes the article. Bogazicili (talk) 19:07, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I also perceive "tens of thousands" as severely downplaying the full severity of the situation, especially as the Israeli armed forces seem to systematically deliberately kill healthcare personel, who count the identified number of dead people, if I have understood correctly. David A (talk) 06:44, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Noted, Bogazicili and David A. If others see it as downplaying, I would support using the numbers. GeoffreyA (talk) 08:42, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll reorganize the lead based on above and based on the WP:Tertiary source provided then. Bogazicili (talk) 20:16, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have made an edit removing the genocide reference in the first paragraph, per Cinderella157's wise point about flow. I also believe that the scope of this page is more concerned with the military aspect of the Gaza war than the dispute over whether genocide has occurred. Therefore, it should be relegated to a very important part of the article, but not the most important. For example, our article on the Yugoslav Wars does not mention the many genocides in the first paragraph, rather, it focuses more on the military and geopolitical aspects of the conflict. As a last note, the colons have grown to such an extent that some comments are not even visible on my mobile phone! Which is especially relevant because it's all just NOTFORUM-violating arguments by editors who, if you changed the sigs, could easily be some of the editors who were banned by ARBPIA5 last winter. So please stick to the actual merits of this and what Wikipedia policy actually says on the matter (i.e. summary style, only most crucial information) and not devolve into bickering about what death toll refers to. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 10:05, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep in mind that given that this is a livestreamed massive humanitarian tragedy, the vast majority of the editors here are still making an extreme effort to be as polite and respectful as we are able, despite that the topic is inherently extremely upsetting. I don't think that there is any need to threaten other editors with sanctions. David A (talk) 05:34, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@David A: If your views on the subject are this extreme that you feel the need to put your personal views on the talkpage here that have nothing to do with improving the encyclopedia, you really need to take a step back and consider whether you can contribute constructively to this topic area. You've made your personal, real life views clear - not just in this reply but in many others over time. I am convinced at this point that your contributions to this area are a net negative - because you've made it clear time and time again that you think our role is to right what you personally see as a "great wrong", not to build an encyclopedia. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 07:06, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think what David A is saying, in that comment, is just a fact: this is a worsening humanitarian crisis, according to most reputable sources. As such, it is sensitive material, and editors may end up debating at times; but I think all the discussions have tended towards the goal of improving the article's content, making it more accurate and neutral, and it has got better over time. Editors have generally maintained civility, helping everyone find common ground during disagreement. GeoffreyA (talk) 07:45, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would just note that David A's accusation that I'm threatening other editors with sanctions is incorrect. My own userpage says in no unclear words that ARBPIA5 was a witch hunt. I haven't changed my mind one bit since writing that and would go so far as to say that only BilledMammal and Ïvana deserved to be banned. No, I'm simply stating that there's been a lot of bludgeoning and FORUMy behavior within this discussion. That's all, don't take it any further. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 11:37, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I greatly apologise for misunderstanding then, and I agree with your assessment. David A (talk) 15:27, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per my comment above[282] I find the fourth para a bit disjointed - mainly because it does not clearly distinguish between the arrest warrants and the genocide case being reviewed and that the warrants do not include allegations of genocide. I have amended the para per my proposal. If this is not accepted, a distinctiobn between the arrest warrants and the genocide case being reviewed needs to be made clear. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:57, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per the above comments, there is no reason to downplay the most important characteristic of this war (the genocide). M.Bitton (talk) 12:00, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reorganization

As discussed above, I reorganized the lead based on WP:TERTIARY source, entry in Britannica

  • Britannica entry discusses full death numbers pretty early, so death numbers were moved into the first paragraph
  • There was some repetition in the previous version, with the first paragraph saying The war has resulted in the deaths of more than two thousand Israelis and tens of thousands of Palestinians, along with widespread destruction and a humanitarian crisis in Gaza, which was repeated in second and third paragraphs
  • The lead is slightly shorter, at 626 words down from 651 Bogazicili (talk) 20:42, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your efforts. I think it's going in the right direction.
I would say that we don't have to be guided too much by Britannica's version. Though they give an abstract in two paragraphs, theirs is bogged down by lots of trimmable material. I'm not sure if it's their font or organisation, but I struggle to read their second opening paragraph, which is ill written. GeoffreyA (talk) 07:59, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We can always reassess when more sources are provided. Bogazicili (talk) 18:34, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do we really need to say who is contesting the genocide characterization?

I think that the sentence A growing number of human rights organizations and experts in the fields of genocide studies and international law say that a genocide is occurring in Gaza, though this is debated provides sufficient explanation of the Gaza genocide debate for the lead of the article. I believe that it sufficiently implies that other legal scholars and organizations debate the characterization. I would like the lead to have sentences in it that sound natural and concise to read. I don't believe that these attempts to create false balance Frankenstein sentences in an attempt to appease editors of all viewpoints are worth the trouble. Finally, I think that counterpoising legal scholars and organizations who oppose the genocide characterization is misleading. It's true that a minority of scholars and (maybe) some less prominent human rights organizations oppose this characterization, but a significant portion of the opposition comes from Israel and its allies, whose disavowals should not be given too much weight per WP:MRDA.

What do others think? Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 19:08, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The current formulation is definitely WP:FALSEBALANCE, but I would prefer expounding rather than just saying it's debated. The nature of the debate needs to be clarified (and citations aligned accordingly). I would propose something similar to what's on the Gaza genocide page, e.g. Other scholars have argued that there is insufficient evidence of the specific "intent to destroy" required under the Genocide Convention. I agree that Israel's self-defense argument should not be included per WP:MRDA. Amongst scholars, that argument is very fringe (only 4% of ME scholars believe Israel's military campaign is justified according to this poll) and also does not warrant inclusion. EvansHallBear (talk) 18:10, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Even that seems like too much explanation for the lead, imo. We don't really present the arguments for the genocide characterization here, so why should we present the arguments against? (I suppose one could argue that certain facts which support the genocide characterization are presented in the lead.) If people want to read about the Gaza genocide debate, they can do so on the Gaza genocide page. Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 18:23, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree that it's overkill for the lead but given the sensitivity of the topic, the additional detail seems worth it to avoid WP:NPOV concerns. One issue though is the debate isn't really discussed in the article itself, so from that perspective it doesn't belong in the lead at all. EvansHallBear (talk) 19:25, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think that EvansHallBear makes sense here. David A (talk) 07:16, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we absolutely do. As longs as there is a significant minority within scholarship, many countries, and most newspapers of record do not use the term affirmatively, we need to qualify this appropriately. FortunateSons (talk) 09:28, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. The version we've had is in need of cutting, to keep it simple and concise. A baroque wrapping of qualifications makes it harder to understand and, more importantly, is creating a false balance. It's enough to say it's debated.
If we could get a numerical for and against, it would make the picture clear, allowing for a straightforward reflection in words. GeoffreyA (talk) 11:01, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, even one year ago, 75% of expert scholars located in the United States thought that Israel's actions against the Palestinians constitute genocide or major war crimes akin to genocide, with only 4% considering them justified, and outside of the Israel-supporting United States and in the present day, when the humanitarian crisis has considerably worsened, those sentiments should logically be even more statistically onesided. David A (talk) 17:30, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that, David. I think our version should make such a disproportion clear, mirroring the maths in language, and not suggesting that the opposition is of equal weight. GeoffreyA (talk) 18:00, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Middle East scholar views are of lesser value here, except those with a focus on legal or genocide studies. In addition, the descriptor for “war crimes akin to genocide” is not genocide, you can’t just group it into the same category FortunateSons (talk) 12:32, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree with your first assertion, and the second is almost exactly identical, so arguing semantics seems very redundant. David A (talk) 12:41, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Could you elaborate on your argument? FortunateSons (talk) 13:10, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I have understood, all of the interviewed scholars are highly informed regarding the situation, as it is a part of their main area of expertise, and "war crimes akin to genocide" means "We think that this is identical just with some slight variation". David A (talk) 13:15, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that sentiment, and would understand that view within a more general article, but “slight variation“ that matter enough to not be a genocide in their eyes are really relevant in an article about genocide, particularly if anyone (and we of course do not know this) interpreted that answer as “genocide except for the special intent”, for example including mass killing as collective punishment instead of with the intent to destroy the group in whole or in part. FortunateSons (talk) 14:11, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we also have this list of expert opinions regarding this issue. David A (talk) 15:03, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know, I’m one of the original creators of that list FortunateSons (talk) 15:24, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indirect deaths

70.000 multiplied by 15 is just over a million. According to the infobox, this is the maximum range of the "likely" number of indirect deaths. That's half the population of Gaza. Is this hyperbole, or do any editors actually believe that there is a chance half of Gaza's pre-war population is dead? Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 13:28, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It’s certainly inaccurate. The quote provided is from an article written in 2008 says that it there are between "three and fifteen times" more indirect deaths than direct deaths in "recent conflicts", based on the wars in Iraq, Sudan and Sierra Leone, which are completely unrelated (and also different) from the Gaza War, and because something is true for one war does not make it true for another. One of the other sources in the citation, from the Journal of Genocide Research, states that the (total) "death toll is at least 118,908 … as of September 30, 2024". This is the number we should be using, as it's an actual estimate made by academics, and not some arbitrary "this many times" figure based on other unrelated conflicts written 15 years before the Gaza War even started. Tomissonneil (talk) 18:51, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Links:https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14623528.2025.2483546
https://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/Crime-statistics/Global-Burden-of-Armed-Violence-full-report.pdf Tomissonneil (talk) 18:57, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It’s certainly inaccurate what exactly is inaccurate and what quote are you referring to? M.Bitton (talk) 20:38, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That as many as fifteen times more people have died indirectly in Gaza than directly, the higher end of the scale stated in the 2008 document. Tomissonneil (talk) 20:53, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The three to fifteen times figure does originate from earlier conflicts, but it was used by the Lancet writers (cite 27) specifically in the context of this conflict to derive a 'conservative estimate' at a 4:1 ratio of 'up to 186,000 or even more' eventual indirect deaths resulting from the conflict presuming an immediate cessation to hostilities at the time of writing in June 2024.1 It is a widely misunderstood figure as it does not mean that there are 186,000 indirectly dead already, nor in the most extreme case would it mean that 'half of Gaza's pre-war population is dead' as Mikrobølgeovn incorrectly infers above. The figure includes people who die months and years after the end of the conflict from causes attributable to it (e.g. a post-war famine or epidemic). Several discussions were held about this previously, and consensus was ultimately to include the spectrum of 3–15:1 rather than any set figure such as 4:1. Mr rnddude (talk) 20:56, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but it's not "likely" that up to fifteen times as many people have died indirectly than the 70,000+ direct deaths so far, which is what is currently said in the infobox. Regarding the Lancet study, including deaths that have not happened yet may not be accurate, as future deaths can be very difficult to determine, and may give the reader a false impression of the current figures, depending on how it's worded. But even so, my point still stands. The 3 to 15 times as many indirect deaths is from an article written in 2008 about different wars, and even the Lancet Study does not state that up to 15 as many people have died in Gaza. How can there have been consensus to put that figure instead of "up to four times as many" estimated in the Lancet Study, (which is actually about the current Gaza war, unlike the 2008 study) is beyond me. Tomissonneil (talk) 02:13, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've managed to find the specific discussion I was thinking of in the talk page archives. I've misremembered the outcome, even though I proposed the options. The consensus at that time was to say 'multiple times higher' without specifying either a range or figure. I am unsure if a later discussion modified that outcome or if somebody re-introduced three to fifteen as a bold edit that simply went uncontested thereafter. It took quite a while to find the discussion as there are damn near fifty archive pages now. If the wording wasn't changed as a result of a later discussion, then the consensus wording is 'multiple times higher'. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:47, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
According to that discussion it seems like beforehand it was "magnitudes higher", which implied that more people died than the sum of the entire population. We're so accurate, I love it.
I'm not bold enough to remove or modify it atm as I had my fair share of contentions topic conversations, but it makes no sense for it to stay. Bar Harel (talk) 15:30, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a review article in International Journal of Health Policy and Management, which is in top quartile in various fields:

Indirect deaths from starvation, lack of medical care, and infections remain uncountable.76 According to a Lancet paper based on similar recent conflicts, up to 190 000 or even more deaths could be attributed to the ongoing genocide in Gaza. It is estimated that half a million people will be lost by the end of the year.76

[283]
We can say "Indirect" deaths likely multiple times higher and cite this source. I'll make the change. Bogazicili (talk) 18:47, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I adjusted the wording slightly differently, with a different source. Bogazicili (talk) 20:53, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Mikrobølgeovn Where does the 72,368+ number even come from because a lot of sources on the internet say 50,000 something. Also the 72,368 number is not written even once elsewhere in the article, only in the infobox, and the sources for it are convoluted. Alexysun (talk) 18:58, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

„Led to the fall of the Assad regime“

Are we sure that our sourcing is strong enough to make this claim in our own voice? (Last para of the lead) FortunateSons (talk) 20:27, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. Alaexis¿question? 20:54, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Seconded. While I'd argue it was a definite contributing factor, saying it was a direct cause (as "led to" implies), seems far too strong, and we would need some strong sources to state that in WikiVoice. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 14:38, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is this fix fine? FortunateSons (talk) 14:45, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Gaza war" is a mischaracterization of the war

The article and its title mischaracterize the war by leaving out of its main discussion the direct involvement of the Houthis in Yemen, Hezbollah, and Iran, all of whom have attacked Israel directly and been attacked by Israel in the context of the war.

The sidelining of Hezbollah is exceedingly strange given that:

  • They attacked on October 8 right at the beginning of the war. Hence, it's misleading to describe that front as a "spillover".
  • There were at the time credible Israeli fears of a simultaneous Hezbollah invasion.
  • The Israeli defense minister wanted to launch an attack on Hezbollah at the onset of the war.
  • There were Israeli attacks in Lebanon against Hezbollah at the very beginning of the war.
  • The effect of the Hezbollah front in the war has been ~96,000 displaced persons in Israel and ~1.4 million displaced in Lebanon.

The Israeli self-understanding of the war is that it's a war against Iran and its proxies on seven fronts[1][2]

The problem with calling it the "Gaza war" is that many might draw the conclusion that Wikipedia authors and editors can only understand the war from the perspective of a resident of Gaza. Many residents of the West Bank, Lebanon, Israel, Syria, Iran, and Yemen have weathered attacks in the war as well. Avisnacks (talk) 04:38, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think this has been touched on previously, though it's hard to find the relevant discussions: [284][285] If you would like to gain consensus to move, you will have to weigh the previous discussions and address what was decided there. All these fronts do come under, more properly, the Middle Eastern crisis (2003-present), and each has its own article. The Gaza war focuses chiefly on the fighting in Gaza and Israel (initially). GeoffreyA (talk) 08:35, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is about the Gaza war, not about the other conflicts that broke out related to it. It started with an attack from Gaza and most of the action has been in Gaza, hence Gaza war. Also WP:COMMONNAME. Metallurgist (talk) 18:51, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ O'Connor, Tom. "Israel's War with Iran on Seven Fronts". Newsweek. Retrieved 15 July 2025.
  2. ^ FRANTZMAN, SETH J, (1 January 2025). "How Israel managed a seven-front war in 2024 | The Jerusalem Post". The Jerusalem Post. The Jerusalem Post. Retrieved 15 July 2025.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)


Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha> tags or {{efn}} templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}} template or {{notelist}} template (see the help page).