The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not Moved - I can see no consensus for moving at this point, and the discussion has run long enough. The nom raises some quite valid points about accuracy in "war" versus "attack". The oppose !votes are making a point that is not obviously connected to the proposed change in title, or if it is it needed more explanation than they have provided. However, with only one support !vote the necessary consensus is also not really here. This close is without prejudice to opening a further discussion. ( non-admin closure) FOARP ( talk) 15:03, 13 February 2024 (UTC) reply

---

Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza → Allegations of genocide by Israel in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war – See below.

Aside from the above discussion of merging this article with Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Hamas attack on Israel, the title of this article is just weird. Yes, I assume that some editor(s) with a particular viewpoint/POV chose to name this article as a parallel with that one. However, as many folks have invoked in the aforementioned discussion, that's just a false parallel. The common name for Israel's action is a "war" (Gaza War, Israel-Hamas War, whichever) rather than an "attack". Wikipedia refers to 7 Oct as the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel (and frankly, that genocide allegation Wikipedia article title should be amended to match this "Hamas-led" usage, to maintain consistent terminology across Wikipedia) while it refers to the events encompassing the Israeli response as the 2023 Israel–Hamas war. If this article ends up merged, the proper title would likely be "Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war" or, for accuracy and completeness, "Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel and Israel–Hamas war" (a bit long, but more precise and clear). For now, though, as a separate article, calling it the "Israeli attack on Gaza" is inconsistent with the terminology for this event in use elsewhere on Wikipedia and, more significantly, in widespread media coverage and public discourse. Jbbdude ( talk) 02:36, 12 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Please read the 2nd paragraph on 2023 Israel–Hamas war. That may help. Natsuikomin ( talk) 13:00, 12 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Okay, sorry for misunderstanding. Now I know what you meant to say, inconsistency of the naming. Natsuikomin ( talk) 13:12, 12 January 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Jbbdude The current title is appropriate and consistent.

The Israeli attack on Gaza is an event within a broader war. The genocide claims are specific to that locality and that attack, e.g. Israel are not currently being accused of genocide in Lebanon or the West Bank. There have been attacks in both those areas, but on a different scale.

Likewise Hamas et al. are being accused of genocide on 7 October, but nobody is suggesting that their current attacks on IDF troops invading Gaza are a genocide (at least nobody even remotely credible) and that corresponding page has a similar narrow title.

Irtapil ( talk) 06:23, 13 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Because attack and genocide are simply not the same thing? Natsuikomin ( talk) 07:15, 13 January 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Jbbdude I re read the middle of what you said. But I stand by what I wrote originally. There is only one war; the "war" goes all the way from Lebanon to the Red Sea, but the genocide is in the Gaza strip.

An "attack" is an action within a war, the word "attack" possibly isn't ideal, but "war" isn't a good substitute, because the war is bigger. Do you have any other suggestions?

"Invasion" doesn't fit, because the first clearly genocidal act was cutting off the food and water nearly a month before the invasion. And the day before that there were bombings that some would class as the start.

Irtapil ( talk) 06:31, 13 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Support. "Israeli attack on Gaza" implies that this is a single unilataeral attack rather than an ongoing bilateral war. Furthermore, reliable source do not refer to it as the "2023 Israeli attack on Gaza". The article should be renamed to Allegations of genocide in the Israel-Hamas War Marokwitz ( talk) 08:33, 29 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Comment We have Use of human shields by Hamas and Human shields in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and apparently we are missing Use of human shields by Israel to balance things up. Or perhaps we only need the middle one. This sort of titling is common atm, we have Palestinian genocide accusation too but not a Israeli genocide accusation except as a redirect to the former, Idk why. The current title seems already to refer to an allegation against Israel without the need to further alter it. Selfstudier ( talk) 11:24, 29 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Strong Oppose. The overwhelmingly vast majority of the victims in this conflict have been innocent Palestinian civilians. David A ( talk) 07:38, 12 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Oppose. As per @ David A. Natsuikomin ( talk) 08:32, 12 February 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. The support and oppose camps number roughly equally, with the opposition having a slight numerical advantage. On strength of arguments, though, this isn't close. Both supporters and opposers put forward some arguments mostly based on their perceptions of the article's subject (substituting their own analysis of events instead of what sources say); this was more prevalent in the support camp. These arguments were given little weight. On the policies in question ( WP:NCENPOV, WP:NDESC, and by extension, WP:NPOV), the opposition presents the much stronger argument. Their assertion that there is no clear consensus of reliable sources for the title is strong, considering the sources that have been cited within the discussion.

On a side note, some in the discussion attempted to get the attention of any admin to fix the discussion's malformation: the tenor of the discussion, and the proposed move target, suggest that the discussion is being carried out on the wrong article. I'm not entirely sure that I agree that Gaza humanitarian crisis (2023–present) would be a better article to have this discussion on; I think that a hypothetical Gaza genocide article would probably have some distinctions from either of the existing titles. That said, in the absence of any convincing policy-based argument to move, this article title stays as is. theleekycauldron ( talk • she/her) 19:45, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply

---

Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza → Attempted genocide by Israel in their 2023 attack on Gaza – As above. The actions taken by Israel over the last few months amount to, at very least, an attempted genocide. The number of those killed by Israel is now over 30,000 - more than a few "confirmed" genocides on the list of genocides - and Israel shows no sign of stopping their genocidal campaign against the people of Gaza. The list of war crimes is only increasing, and if things continue the way they are, it will eventually amount to a total genocide of the Palestinian people.

As Wikipedians, we are not here to peddle Israeli narrative, and must show the facts for what they are. Israel has openly declared its intent to destroy Gaza, and by displacing millions of people, moving them further and further south, to then continue to bombard areas they declared as "safe" is nothing short of barbarianism. ( 1, 2, 3, 4, 5)

Deliberately targeting civilians in this manner, with none of the "restraint" that they claim to be displaying, is a clear sign that they intend to kill every single person in Gaza. This is not particularly refutable, hence I did not see the move as "controversial", as [edit: it fits the 1948 United Nations Genocide Convention definition of a genocide]; there is no other way to describe what is currently happening. Davidlofgren1996 ( talk) 21:23, 29 February 2024 (UTC) reply

If you didn't see that page move as controversial and likely to generate pushback then you shouldn't be moving pages, plain and simple. Hey man im josh ( talk) 21:27, 29 February 2024 (UTC) reply

I do not believe that, given the nature of the actions that have been taken, and the clear intent shown by Israel, this specific move was controversial, as it meets the definition of (at very least) an attempted genocide. This, as mentioned in my rationale, is in line with other genocides on Wikipedia. Davidlofgren1996 ( talk) 21:30, 29 February 2024 (UTC) reply

To be clear then @ Davidlofgren1996, do not invoke WP:BEBOLD to make moves like this in a contentious area without a RM discussion first. It's not helpful and it's likely to create a lot of drama and inflame discussions. Hey man im josh ( talk) 21:37, 29 February 2024 (UTC) reply

If it is within your powers as an admin, I request that you immediately close this discussion and re-open the move proposal under the same name at Gaza humanitarian crisis (2023–present). – Howard 🌽33 15:43, 1 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Is it possible to move this RM discussion to the Talk page of Gaza humanitarian crisis? As I said below, this article primarily documents the allegations made by various organisations and people against the State of Israel, as well as academic and media discussion. For the actual event itself, it would make more sense to move Gaza humanitarian crisis to Gaza Genocide, if a consensus is reached that the event does indeed follow Wikipedia's guidelines for calling it a genocide. – Howard 🌽33 14:35, 1 March 2024 (UTC) reply

May I add that we can have two separate articles even if we describe what is happening at Gaza as a genocide. See Holodomor and Holodomor genocide question. Academic and legal discussion would not end after a Wikipedia RM or shortly after. We will thus have to make sure we give this article an appropriate title that does not overlap with any other right now or in the future. Also I want to note I think the humanitarian crisis article should be moved based on a RM on its talk page and not here, just in case. Super Ψ Dro 15:10, 1 March 2024 (UTC) reply

If we will be keeping consistent with the Holodomor articles, we should then move this article to "Gazan genocide question". And if we do end it up describing it as such, then the article for "Gaza Humanitarian crisis" shall be moved to "Gazan genocide". I would, however, like someone else to create a move proposal, since I do not really understand how to start a move proposal. – Howard 🌽33 15:18, 1 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Survey (Requested move 29 February 2024)

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst: spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst: canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst: csm|username}} or {{subst: csp|username}}.

• Support. Openly intending to destroy gaza, evacuating 2.3 million people to an area now under attack, putting hospitals under siege, attacking Palestinians evacuating Gaza City and airstriking schools isnt "Allegations of genocide" its genocide. Alternative name proposal is Gaza genocide, which already redirects here. Lukt64 ( talk) 23:39, 29 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  Would also fully support this alternate name proposal. Davidlofgren1996 ( talk) 23:58, 29 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Would fully oppose. Super Ψ Dro 11:20, 1 March 2024 (UTC) reply

• Strong support given the sheer amount of evidence. Salmoonlight ( talk) 00:03, 1 March 2024 (UTC) reply
• Strong support. Call a spade a spade. There are enough reliable resources that now refer to it as genocide. In the Rohingya genocide, about 25,000 people were killed. In the Palestinian genocide, over 30,000 people and counting have been confirmed killed, plus several thousand more missing people are most probably dead under the rubble. Crampcomes ( talk) 00:05, 1 March 2024 (UTC) reply
• Strong support. The evidence has been clear for a long time now, and it was further confirmed when the ICJ accepted the plausibility of "at least some of the rights claimed by South Africa" under the Genocide Convention in the case of Israeli genocide against Palestinians. Nori2001 ( talk) 00:12, 1 March 2024 (UTC) reply
• Mixed, overall support. I'd say it qualifies as a genocide, and has been recognized as such by multiple countries and organizations (including parts of the UN), and has been recognized as plausible by the ICJ.
  

  I do have some reservations.
  

  1. Reliable sources haven't referred to it as genocide yet. They will likely change their tune if the ICJ rules against Israel, but we have to wait.
  

  2. Neutrality. Until sources and the ICJ say so, especially since it's a sensitive subject, it's a bit hard and will likely be very controversial.
  

  3. The proposed name. If we're going to change it, go all in. "Attempted genocide" is stupid when sources either aren't saying it is, denying it, or saying it is. No one is saying it's attempted.
  

  However. There is some precedent for this kind of thing. In 2016/2017, even when sources were describing the Rohingya genocide as massacres and a crisis, and the ICC hadn't ruled on it yet, we still named it a genocide as multiple countries recognized it as such, and the UN said it was plausible. (1) Does this not meet the same criteria? I say it would. Interpretation matters. If a bunch of countries say it's genocide, and international orgs say it is/could be, then I think there's a realistic case for this.
  

  Summary: I generally support the change, but it's a touchy situation, and it may be better to wait it out until the ICJ ruling. There is however precedent of Wikipedia editor's handling of the Rohingya genocide, and as such, I support this. Personisinsterest ( talk) 01:33, 1 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  I would also like to say that Western sources may be bias. Reliable sources supporting the claim of genocide may be found internationally. Personisinsterest ( talk) 01:41, 1 March 2024 (UTC) reply

• Comment, while I find the arguments above compelling I am worried about WP:NPOV issues with the proposed title. I would like to see evidence that international sources generally treat what's going on as a conclusive genocide and not just accusations of genocide. A full ruling in South Africa v. Israel may also be relevent. Esolo5002 ( talk) 01:37, 1 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  A full ruling is expected to take years, at least according to Reuters. But, I believe it's the best standard for this kind of case. – Howard 🌽33 08:51, 1 March 2024 (UTC) reply

WP:NODEADLINE. We can wait if necessary. Super Ψ Dro 11:20, 1 March 2024 (UTC) reply

• Strong support although if there is so much evidence that it is simply a genocide and not "attempted," I think it would be far more warranted to change it to something like Gaza genocide. GLORIOUSEXISTENCE ( talk) 02:25, 1 March 2024 (UTC) reply
• Comment - (commenting as editor who proposed the name change) I was wary to go all in with Gaza genocide at first, but as I can see other editors above agree that it is a more appropriate name, I’d like to formally change the proposed move to reflect this, as it would be more in line with similar articles. Would the best move be to wait out the debate to see how many people would also support Gaza genocide as the proposed name? It’s 2:51 am so I will most likely not reply until later in the morning, but if someone can formally change this, I would be appreciative, thanks. Davidlofgren1996 ( talk) 02:53, 1 March 2024 (UTC) reply
• Support with comment — I'm generally skeptical of putting qualifying verbiage into article titles when it's not justified, and I don't see it as justified here. The standard for accepting the notability of a phenomenon should, in my opinion, run through an accumulation of high-quality expert sources, and on this issue one can look to…

• Nine scholarly articles in the Journal of Genocide Research, none of which as best I can tell, argue that no genocide is happening in the current war. (To be clear, this is an expert forum, so it may not be a full peer-review process.)
• A joint statement by the highest level UN human rights experts.
• A joint letter by experts in the field of genocide.
• Other statements like the Lemkin Institute's " Statement on Why We Call the Israeli Attack on Gaza Genocide"

Reviewing these sources has reminded me that many such authoritative statements do have a conditional or future tense, so maybe the proposed title is correct, for now.-- Carwil ( talk) 05:30, 1 March 2024 (UTC) reply

• Support, the statements of leaders and actions of the military align with this. Albert Mond ( talk) 07:41, 1 March 2024 (UTC) reply
• Comment: What exactly is the Wikipedia policy on calling something a genocide? Do Wikipedia editors themselves have to review the facts of a case and evaluate if it meets the Genocide Convention, or do we call an event a genocide if and only if reliable sources call it as such? – Howard 🌽33 08:52, 1 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  Secondly, this article is primarily concerned with covering accusations, allegations, and views of various organizations and people during this event. An RM discussion like this would be better for Gaza humanitarian crisis (2023–present), which primarily covers the facts of the case. – Howard 🌽33 08:56, 1 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  Comment: This is actually a good point. An article called something like Gaza genocide or Alleged Gaza genocide or Palestinian genocide (Gaza) etc. would detail the actual events that constitute the genocide. While articles called something like Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza, Accusations of genocide in the 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza, Attempted genocide by Israel in their 2023 attack on Gaza, Gaza genocide question, etc. would detail discourse about the proper characterization of the events (in scholarly sources, in news media, in international fora, etc.). So perhaps it would better to move Gaza humanitarian crisis (2023–present) to something like the proposed title, rather than this article.

  I'll also add that overall I support there being an article with a title similar to the proposed title (probably without "attempted"), given the prevalence of scholarly and international sources calling it a genocide, and given the Rohingya precedent cited by Personisinsterest. Dylanvt ( talk) 22:39, 8 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  @ Howardcorn33 We can't deem anything genocide, terrorist, ourselves, that's banned as original research. We need high quality reliable sources. Doug Weller talk 09:47, 1 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  In that case, the entire argument for moving the article may fall apart. As it appears, Lofgren's (and several other's in this discussion) arguement is based on his judgement of the facts of the case and does not consider what reliable sources actually deem it. According to Carwil's comment, RS have deemed a potential for genocide to happen here, so perhaps we could instead rename the article to "Potential genocide in the 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza". – Howard 🌽33 09:56, 1 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  An argument for potential is a lot more reasonable, but alleged is better because of the wide range that potential can mean: I could potentially win the lottery next week, but no one is alleging that I will. FortunateSons ( talk) 22:54, 2 March 2024 (UTC) reply

• Strong oppose. The overly emotional and victimising Israeli-Palestinian conflict topic area strikes again. As usual arguments here are based on appeals to emotions and clearly personal points of view. As Wikipedians, we are not here to peddle Israeli narrative; Deliberately targeting civilians in this manner, with none of the "restraint" that they claim to be displaying, is a clear sign that they intend to kill every single person in Gaza.

One thing is claiming that evidently careless Israeli actions in Gaza have amounted to a genocide, which can be argued, and another is that their intention since the very start has been to erase the people of Gaza. What a ridiculous claim and I cannot believe it is actually being supported. Could someone explain to me what benefits does this proposed title carry? It has no additional informational value. To me it would appear that it only serves to fit a point of view. It also finds no consensus among reliable sources. The current title does and is perfectly neutral. To do something as inflammatory as referring to something as a "genocide" with appeals to emotion rather than objective arguments about what do reliable sources say is unbelievable. Have sources suddenly changed their narrative? I don't know, because this RM is not based on that. Super Ψ Dro 11:20, 1 March 2024 (UTC) reply

I believe it would be prudent to gather a list of RS and tally up which mention a genocide, a potential genocide, and not a potential genocide. – Howard 🌽33 12:07, 1 March 2024 (UTC) reply

This comment is, frankly, sickeningly apathetic. Dropping your phone is "careless", murdering over 30,000 people, 25,000+ of which are women and children (according to the United States) is NOT "careless".

... and another is that their intention since the very start has been to erase the people of Gaza. What a ridiculous claim and I cannot believe it is actually being supported. It is abundantly clear that this is the aim of Israel. Feel free to read through the database of over five hundred deplorable statements made by Israelis in positions of power here.

The current title is not neutral, and does not accurately reflect the current situation in Gaza. I think the sources provided by Carwil above give high-quality expert opinions on the matter, as Carwil states.

What is happening in Gaza is a genocide by definition of the word. We have expert opinion to back this up. Why should the title not reflect the truth? Davidlofgren1996 ( talk) 13:15, 1 March 2024 (UTC) reply

For context, 2 sources provided by Carwil, namely that from the UN and University of Notre Dame are at best raising concern of possible genocide in Gaza. While some high-profile politicians have straight out calling Israel guilty of genocide, they are not really expert on the topic. While an "allegation of genocide" is already a very serious issue, if we want the title to reflect more closely of what the experts are thinking, I think something like "Risk of genocide in Gaza" would be a more appealing option to a more editors. -- Sameboat - 同舟 ( talk · contri.) 13:27, 1 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Like I said before, we need to conduct a proper survey of reliable sources to see if they deem it a "Genocide" or a "Possible Genocide". We are Wikipedia, not the World Court, so we shall follow what the reliable sources actually call it, not what we judge it to be. – Howard 🌽33 13:35, 1 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Agree with Howardcorn33 and Sameboat. Very heavy sourcing plus evidence that contrary views are minoritary/fringe will be needed to defend that there is indisputedly genocidal intent from the part of Israel as the proposed move suggests. The only source provided by Davidlofgren1996 in their reply to me is an apparent list of declarations that we Wikipedians cannot synthesize or use to take conclusions of. That would be the job of secondary sources. I am not opposed to "risk of genocide" if editors deem it appropriate. But I still don't get what's the problem with the current title. To me it perfectly reflects the article's contents, which I remind is legal and academic discussion of Israeli crimes in Gaza rather than the crimes themselves (an argument already raised up above by Howardcorn33). Super Ψ Dro 13:56, 1 March 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Super Dromaeosaurus building a table of the sources from the article should have it posted here between 8 and 9 pm GMT. -- Cdjp1 ( talk) 15:00, 1 March 2024 (UTC) reply

1. - Lula de Silva - Jacobin - Genocide
2. - Omer Bartov - NYT - Genocidal intent, risk of genocide
3. - 800 scholars in law, conflict studies, and genocide studies - Third World Approaches to International Law Review - Risk of genocide
4. - Abdelwahab El-Affendi - Journal of Genocide Research - Genocide
5. - 100+ Global Rights Groups - Common Dreams - Genocide
6. - Mark Levene - Journal of Genocide Research - Genocide
7. - Zoé Samudzi - Journal of Genocide Research - Genocide
8. - Martin Shaw - Journal of Genocide Research - Genocide
9. - Elyse Semerdjian - Journal of Genocide Research - Genocide
10. - Raz Segal - Jewish Currents - Genocide
11. - 100 Civil Society Organisations and Genocide Scholars - Al-Mezan Centre for Human Rights - Genocide
12. - Palestinian UN Envoy - Reuters - Genocide
13. - Human Rights Watch - Human Rights Watch - Failure to prevent and punish Genocide
14. - Amnesty International - Amnesty International - Failure to prevent and punish Genocide
15. - Michael Fakhri - The Guardian - Genocide
16. - Ernesto Verdeja - TIME - gravitating towards a "genocidal campaign"
17. - Center for Constitutional Rights - The Intercept - Genocide
18. - 47 scholars in the fields of history, law, and criminology - International State Crime Initiative - Genocide
19. - Israeli Public Figures represented by Human Rights Lawyer Michael Sfard - The Guardian - Ignoring incitement to genocide
20. - Ben Kiernan - Time - Does not meet legal definition for genocide
21. - Adam Jones - Vox - Causing Article 2, Clause C
22. - Dov Waxman - Vox - Risk of genocide
23. - Norman Finkelstein - GV Wire - Genocide
24. - Eva Illouz - Le Monde - Not genocide
25. - Eva Illouz - The Forward - Incitement to genocide
26. - Organization of Islamic Countries, The Arab League, and 7 other countries supporting South Africa - Al Jazeera - Genocide
27. - Venezuela - Mehr News - Genocide
28. - Australia, Austria, Czechia, France, Germany, Guatemala, Hungary, Israel, Italy, Paraguay, USA, UK - Various prominent news outlets - Not genocide
29. - Colombia - Associated Press - Genocide
30. - Genocide Watch - Genocide Watch - Risk of genocide
31. - Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention - Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention - Genocide
32. - Norman J. W. Goda - Quillette - Not genocide
33. - Jeffrey C. Herf - Quillette - Not genocide
34. - Cuba - Al Jazeera - Genocide

On counting the statements from different countries in the total this puts it at:

• 30 sources say it's genocide
• 7 say it's a Risk, Maybe, or Partial
• 16 say it is not (only counting Eva Illouz's initial statement saying it is not genocide)

-- Cdjp1 ( talk) 21:39, 1 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Thank you. Personally I would see this as proof of there not being an universal or widely accepted interpretation. There are more calling it a genocide than I expected though. It might have increased over time, and might continue to do so. But in this case it would be appropriate to propose a title of this type only in some months next time. The current one is an appropriate middle ground for something with several main views. Super Ψ Dro 23:02, 1 March 2024 (UTC) reply

I would just point to take note that some of those sources in labelling this as genocide are counting dozens to hundreds of people in the relevant academic fields. Which is not present in the sources stating it is not. -- Cdjp1 ( talk) 23:10, 1 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Thank you for surveying the various media outlets. It appears that slightly more than 50% of the sources gathered directly acknowledge it as a genocide. However, seeing that there is still not unanimous agreement among RS, I recommend the following:

• That Gaza humanitarian crisis be moved to "Gaza genocide", with the following lead sentence: "During the ongoing Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip, the inhabitants of Gaza have been experiencing a humanitarian crisis, widely described as either a potential(insert citations) or an active(insert citations) genocide perpetrated by the Israeli Defense Forces."
• That Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza be moved to "Gaza genocide question", in line with both Holodomor and Holodomor genocide question.

– Howard 🌽33 23:02, 1 March 2024 (UTC) reply

I oppose this. We aren't obliged to follow other cases' standard practices. Because again I see no problem with the current title. Also I don't think a majority (over 50%) means there is academic consensus. We should be looking to get close to unanimity. We already follow values like these at Wikipedia, see WP:NOTAVOTE, a few strong arguments can override a majority of opposite ones. I recommend that we look into this in some months, or even later. There is no rush. The final veredict of the international investigation is probably going to be the most respected authority on this topic in the future. Not implying that things might not get clearer before that though. Super Ψ Dro 23:07, 1 March 2024 (UTC) reply

I'd personally like to rename this article "Gaza genocide question" per WP:CONCISE. As for Gaza Humanitarian Crisis, I suppose it should stay as such (although I hardly think 2023-present is necessary) considering that there is not total unanimity. What exactly is the percentage of agreement that we should consider "unanimous" anyway? – Howard 🌽33 23:22, 1 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Anyway I really would like the admins to close this discussion down so we can migrate to discuss this on Gaza humanitarian crisis. I'll put my vote here for now. – Howard 🌽33 23:24, 1 March 2024 (UTC) reply

What was the methodology behind building this list? BilledMammal ( talk) 22:13, 2 March 2024 (UTC) reply

@ BilledMammal: All sources currently used within this article that provide a decision on what is occurring in relation to it being a genocide, plus a couple of sources that declare it is not a genocide which were removed from the article due to being published in a GUNREL source, and pulling the states that opposed South Africa's case at the ICJ from the article on that matter. I can pull from more sources should people want, as I have a list of sources to work through adding to this article (both saying it is and is not a genocide), but as is the case here the majority of these as of yet not used sources do declare Israel's actions as genocidal or part of a genocide. -- Cdjp1 ( talk) 17:57, 3 March 2024 (UTC) reply

I don’t think that’s a useful metric; there is no reason to believe that the sources in our article are representative - and given we have sources explicitly stating scholars are split on this question, I would suggest they are not and the fact they are not is an indication of NPOV issues with this article. BilledMammal ( talk) 21:56, 5 March 2024 (UTC) reply

The source of an article should determine the specific name of the article, if said name is under debate. If the event that is the subject of the article is referred to as a genocide by the source, the article should reflect that. Cortador ( talk) 09:12, 6 March 2024 (UTC) reply

• Oppose: This article is not concerned with the humanitarian crisis in Gaza itself, it is concerned with covering the allegations, statements, and opinions of various organizations and people, including also academic discourse on the genocide question. I instead propose moving this article to Gaza genocide question, per WP:CONCISE. I am still waiting for an admin to close down this discussion and re-open it somewhere more appropriate such as Gaza humanitarian crisis. – Howard 🌽33 23:36, 1 March 2024 (UTC) reply
• Oppose It is far too contentious to put in wikivoice that Israel is attempting genocide in Gaza, and it isn't supported by the majority sources. Users that are just opining "this is a genocide" without citing sources should be ignored. To move this title to the proposed one would clearly fail Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(events)#Maintaining_neutral_point_of_view. The closer should heed the guidance following passage mentioned in the Naming conventions (events) article: If there is no common name for the event and no generally accepted descriptive word, use a descriptive name that does not carry POV implications. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 00:26, 2 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  The majority of reliable sources, as shown in discussion above do call this a genocide. Across a variety of reliable source outlets, including thousands of relevant experts, plus leading figures in the field of genocide research. -- Cdjp1 ( talk) 15:24, 2 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  Is a simple majority of sources enough to deem it a genocide? Or must it be a unanimity? – Howard 🌽33 16:04, 2 March 2024 (UTC) reply

There is no fixed amount. It should be an amount large enough to convince editors that this should be considered a genocide. This doesn't mean that all editors must agree either, but that consensus is achieved. I don't think there's currently consensus among sources to reach a new consensus here, and opposes by other editors would indicate this as well. Super Ψ Dro 16:28, 2 March 2024 (UTC) reply

I acknowledge that the vast breadth and depth of those who have declared this genocide will not achieve consensus among editors, but just correcting the record for those who claim it "isn't supported by the majority". -- Cdjp1 ( talk) 16:34, 2 March 2024 (UTC) reply

• Oppose The current title is the most neutral. Being accused of genocide is not the same thing as attempting genocide. Strongly oppose 'Gaza genocide' until the lead sentence can definitively state that "The State of Israel is committing (has committed) genocide..." Some1 ( talk) 02:22, 2 March 2024 (UTC) reply
• Oppose. To call this "attempted genocide" or "genocide" in wikivoice we need a consensus among reliable sources that it is an attempted genocide or a genocide. No such consensus exists, and doing so in its absence would be a clear WP:NPOV violation. BilledMammal ( talk) 02:30, 2 March 2024 (UTC) reply
• Oppose no consensus of sources. This proposal is neither evidence-based nor policy-based, and most of the votes are devoid of the same. This CTOP has been experiencing things like this all too much lately. I also agree with Super Dromeosaurus and Hemiauchenia. JM ( talk) 04:36, 2 March 2024 (UTC) reply
• Oppose. Need to have that it is genocide from an authorative source like the ICJ or for lots of time to pass and it be agreed in scholarly sources. NadVolum ( talk) 11:29, 2 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  The majority of reliable sources, as shown in discussion above do call this a genocide. Across a variety of reliable source outlets, including thousands of relevant experts, plus leading figures in the field of genocide research. -- Cdjp1 ( talk) 15:25, 2 March 2024 (UTC) reply

• Oppose. It is a serious violation of NPOV to refer to these allegations as facts while the CIJ oredered Israel to take measures to prevent [future] acts that could be considered genocidal, and did not order Israel to suspend the military campaign. Had the "attempt" been so obvious, the court's decision would have state it and its orders to Israel would have been much more serious. פעמי-עליון (pʿmy-ʿlywn) - talk 12:48, 2 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  This not only fails in understanding how the ICJ has ruled in previous genocide cases, where they had meagre suggestions given, when subsequently multiple individuals and parties were convicted of the crimes of genocide, and ignores the entire scholarly side of examination, which provides the reasoning for most cases of genocide to be labelled as such. -- Cdjp1 ( talk) 15:28, 2 March 2024 (UTC) reply

• Strong support. Most of the world is outraged at the scale of Israeli atrocities in Gaza, which include the murder of thousands upon thousands of children; and "genocide" has become the common term for what is happening there. WP:IAR was written for occasions like this, when we should use common sense and not be dissuaded by a pedantic interpretation of the rules from calling something by what it is. There is nothing wrong with the article title Gaza genocide. NightHeron ( talk) 17:32, 2 March 2024 (UTC) reply
• Support: Per arguments of user Davidlofgren1996 in the nomination and list of 30+ sources given by Cdjp1 in the survey.

As of present, more than 30,320 Gazans have been killed, 7,800 are missing and more than 71,000 Gazans have been wounded. Out of more than 30,300 people killed; more than 12,600 are children. Approximately 1.9 million Palestinians are forcibly displaced. The ongoing military campaign appears to be genocidal.

Social media is full of anger and shock about the atrocities occuring in Gaza. When I googled "Gaza genocide", there are plenty of websites, journals and articles accusing Israel of perpetrating a genocide.

Some of the sources I read:

• "Israel is intentionally starving Palestinians and should be held accountable for war crimes – and genocide, according to the UN’s leading expert on the right to food."

  (" Israel is deliberately starving Palestinians, UN rights expert says", " The Guardian", 27 February 2024)
• " A Textbook Case of Genocide", "Jewish currents.org", 13 October 2023
• " The Limits of Accusing Israel of Genocide", " The New Yorker", 7 February 2024

Although if there are counter-arguments, I would want to read it and assess. Shadowwarrior8 ( talk) 20:05, 2 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Again, I don't think this is the correct article to move. – Howard 🌽33 20:54, 2 March 2024 (UTC) reply

People are misunderstanding the purpose of this article. It is not to document the ongoing humanitarian crisis unfolding currently in Gaza, which has legitimate reason to be classified as a genocide. This article is about the accusations and discussion by various figures on if the crisis should be considered a genocide. Please stop adding votes here. Move this discussion to Gaza humanitarian crisis (2023–present).. – Howard 🌽33 20:57, 2 March 2024 (UTC) reply

• Strong oppose. It is considered doubtful, including by RS, judges at the ICJ, legal scholars, governments and many others that this is a genocide. Additionally, the word attempted implies that they couldn’t commit a genocide if they wanted to - a fact untrue about most modern militaries in the vast majority of conflicts in the last century, and definitely true about an alleged nuclear power. Lastly, this is simply not supported by RS: many still speak of accusations or charges, not of an (un-) successful attempt. If the ICJ (and preferably, the SC) agree with this in a few years, it is definitely worthy of debate, but otherwise such a title change is simply not supported by policy. FortunateSons ( talk) 22:51, 2 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  There is also a practical problem with the (as far as I can tell, well made) list of sources: those that consider “not genocide” so obvious that discussing it is pointless, those in different languages and from different areas (like Israeli, German, etc.), those that make statements that provide limited value (saying that there are allegations and not taking a position) and things of limited relevance but high value, such as the statement by the German ICJ judge, which I didn’t find (but may have overlooked).

  Last but not least, IAR is highly inappropriate here: as long as a significant amount of people, governments and scholars (and many RS) are denying the existence of a genocide or making inconclusive statements, you can’t just skip important policies and discourse by using IAR. FortunateSons ( talk) 23:04, 2 March 2024 (UTC) reply

• Oppose: I second FortunateSons's point about the list of sources. Looking at a few RSes off the top of my head (nytimes, bbc, apnews, guardian), none of them refer to this as a genocide in their own voice. ARandomName123 ( talk)^{Ping me!} 02:55, 3 March 2024 (UTC) reply
• Oppose. I've looked at the list compiled by user Cdjp1. Some of them, like the opinion of Nicolas Maduro who is well known for respecting human rights, should be ignored. However this is not the only problem with the list. Looking at sources that explicitly say that there is no genocide produces a warped picture. There are hundreds of news articles which describe the events in Gaza without saying that there is a genocide going on, and this approach ignores them. Alaexis _¿question? 14:07, 3 March 2024 (UTC) reply
• Strong support as per Lukt64's argument and Cdjp1's sources. If anything, this is a classic case of a state first explicitly attempting ethnic cleansing (per this and per Avi Dichter's "we're rolling out Gaza Nakra 2023" comment) and as it cannot accomplish it (Egypt not opening the border - yet) resorts to genocide. BubbleBabis ( talk) 16:52, 3 March 2024 (UTC) reply
• Strongest support possible, including a possible move to 2023–2024 Palestinian genocide, given that the bar to terming something a genocide has consistently been low on Wikipedia – a small number of reliable sources was enough as evidenced by other events included in Template:Genocide navbox, incl. e.g. such questionable "genocides" as Transgender genocide. Kashmiri ( talk) 15:27, 3 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  To clarify: transgender genocide is not included as a genocide in the Template:Genocide navbox, but is instead listed in the "Terms" section, which lists concepts, terms, and ideas, that are not necessarily part of genocides but are related and do fall under the remit of genocide studies. Better examples for @ Kashmiri:'s point would be the inclusion of the Destruction of Carthage, the Asiatic Vespers, or the Gallic Wars, which are all listed as genocides in the navbox. -- Cdjp1 ( talk) 18:06, 3 March 2024 (UTC) reply

• Oppose as the new title would be a violation of WP:NPOV (i.e. WP:WIKIVOICE: we should not state contested assertions as facts in Wikipedia's voice). There is a range of views among experts on whether or not Israel's actions meet the legal definition of genocide -- for a singular example, see the nuanced mix of opinions expressed by experts in this TIME article. This is equally important for article titles, which should be neutral unless there is clearly a common name for the topic, which is not the case here. WP:NDESC therefore applies: "allegations" is appropriate as there is an accusation of illegality that has not been proven. Editors would do well to remember that no matter how clear they feel the evidence for genocide is, there is a legitimate dispute among experts in reliable sources over whether or not Israel is committing genocide, and therefore Wikipedia's rules on presenting the dispute neutrally apply: see this explanatory essay for more. Jr8825 • Talk 15:29, 3 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • The majority of reliable sources, as shown in discussion above do call this a genocide. This includes a littany that have been published since the Time article, as well as considering the opinions of experts in the Time article. These opinions come from a variety of fields (international law, political science, holocaust studies, genocide studies, history, etc.) as well as from across a variety of reliable source outlets. -- Cdjp1 ( talk) 15:24, 2 March 2024 (UTC) reply

    As another note while Israel has been accused with the crime of genocide, whether a criminal decision is provided by the courts does not actually affect whether a genocide has/is/will occur. This is a point that genocide scholars have written about ever since the adoption of the genocide convention in 1948, and is a point many scholars have brought up in relation to Palestine, and specifically Gaza in 23-24. This is reflected in how a vast swathe of wikipedia articles treat genocides, where many instances are called and labeled as genocide (in wikivoice) based on scholarly opinion without any legal decision having been made, or even legal proceedings having occurred. For examples see any of the dozens of examples at the article List of genocides or that are included in the Template:Genocide navbox -- Cdjp1 ( talk) 17:52, 3 March 2024 (UTC) reply

    The full range and balance of academic views is uncertain as this is a current affairs issue, so expert views will continue to develop and become clearer over time. With that caveat aside, presuming your short list is an accurate reflection of the current opinions of experts, you've counted 30 sources that say Israel is committing genocide and 23 that say there are caveats to this claim, or it is not genocide. This is nowhere near the clear consensus required to state there is a genocide in wikivoice and the accurate way to describe this disagreement is "allegations". Jr8825 • Talk 18:02, 3 March 2024 (UTC) reply

    I did my best to steelman the not genocide position, including opinions on the matter I personally believe do not meet the standard we should be using. -- Cdjp1 ( talk) 18:12, 3 March 2024 (UTC) reply

    I appreciated your integrity in doing so. I understand your position about inconsistency across Wikipedia's treatment of the term genocide – as a general comment, I think this is simply reflecting a broader inconsistency with the application of the term in media, discourse and politics, because of the weight it carries, where attention is paid, and who is listened to. For every example of where we describe an event as genocide, there is another topic such as Tigray War where the term genocide has been legitimately used by some experts to characterise atrocities, but for various reasons it has not gained widespread traction & we have not applied the term to our article. My position is that if there is significant disagreement about whether or not there is a genocide, we should cover the discussion in detail, but be particularly cautious about applying the term in wikivoice until there is a clear consensus/it becomes the accepted term. I don't think it's a moral failing on the part of editors to describe "allegations" of genocide rather than "genocide", even if events eventually come to be accepted as genocide, as we don't know whether this will happen. Documenting the events themselves, and the surrounding discussion and about whether or not they amount to genocide, is still serving our purpose of educating readers and reflecting the current state of knowledge/range of opinions. Jr8825 • Talk 18:27, 3 March 2024 (UTC) reply

• Comment I apologise for any confusion I've caused. The wording of the a-i alert seems confusing as it says "you must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days, and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on a page within this topic." without mentioning what you can't do without ECP, the decision is clearer, saying without ECP editors cannot make "edits relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict, to pages and discussions in all namespaces with the exception of userspace ("related content"). Thus I've removed an edit by someone without ECP/ Doug Weller talk 17:17, 3 March 2024 (UTC) reply
• Support (with caveats), as can be seen from my comments in replies to others here I do support labelling this as a genocide in wiki articles, based on the 3:1-ish ratio of reliable sources (ignoring how various sources that label it a genocide do so with the signing dozens to hundreds of relevant specialists, and a litany of other reliable sources that also call it a genocide which are currently not used in this article). Caveats: I am swayed by the argumentation that this article should remain with it's current title and scope, and that the Gaza humanitarian crisis (2023–present) should instead be renamed, so if it be under consideration that this discussion should be closed and moved to that article's talk page, I support that action over renaming this article. -- Cdjp1 ( talk) 18:46, 3 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  Just to clarify, what do you propose Gaza humanitarian crisis should be renamed to? Jr8825 • Talk 19:11, 3 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  The argument as laid out by others is to rename the Gaza humanitarian crisis article to Gaza genocide, as that details more the conditions and actions that are brining about said genocide, where as this one only touches on them and focuses more on the academic and legal discourse. -- Cdjp1 ( talk) 20:36, 3 March 2024 (UTC) reply

A note for the closer just in case, I really don't think discussion here should determine the title of that other article. I think we should start a new RM pinging everyone here instead on that article's talk page. The result of this RM should focus strictly on this article. Super Ψ Dro 22:56, 3 March 2024 (UTC) reply

It's a bit irritating how so many on both sides continue to misunderstand and misrepresent the purpose of this article. If we did move this article specifically, we would either have to move it back to its original name or rewrite the entire text to better align with the title. Either way is unnecessary hassle, so I expect an admin to step in and move the RM. – Howard 🌽33 08:05, 4 March 2024 (UTC) reply

• Strong support - The overwhelming evidence and numbers involved are not controversial, so they speak for themselves. There is only some "diplomatic" reluctance to call a spade a spade, a reluctance to do that last step of presenting the obvious interpretation of said facts and numbers, a reluctance which seems to be present, not because of what, but because of who ("us and them"). But there should be no room for any particular "exceptionalism". In striving for neutrality, there should be no double standards. Niokog ( talk) 10:34, 4 March 2024 (UTC) reply
• STRONGLY OPPOSE -- both Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza and Attempted genocide by Israel in their 2023 attack on Gaza are both absurd and offensive. Allegations are inherently unreliable and anathema to true journalism. Does anyone refer to the Six Day war as "genocide" even though the Arab/Muslim intent was to destroy the State of Israel? Al Jazeera reliant anti-Israel editor @Davidlofgren1996 needs to be sanctioned for these obnoxious, biased, irresponsible redirects and attempted redirects. Nirva20 ( talk) 20:59, 4 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  Let’s fix the tone on this FortunateSons ( talk) 21:04, 4 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  Do not cast WP:ASPERSIONS. Salmoonlight ( talk) 21:04, 4 March 2024 (UTC) reply

• Apologies. Is the following better?

STRONGLY OPPOSE -- Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza, Attempted genocide by Israel in their 2023 attack on Gaza and, especially, Genocide in Gaza, should be deleted. If Israel wanted to "kill everyone in Gaza" as at least one editor stated or quoted on this colloquy, they could do so far more efficiently. They are seeking out the Iranian funded tunnels built under civilian areas and hospitals. Does anyone refer to the Six Day War as "genocide" even though the Arab/Muslim intent was to destroy the State of Israel or the al-Assad attack on Homs as genocide or even the 1492 edict of Alhambra expelling non-Christians from Spain and marking the onset of the Inquisition and colonization of the Americas as genocide? Nirva20 ( talk) 21:37, 4 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Genocide of Indigenous peoples ??? Salmoonlight ( talk) 21:46, 4 March 2024 (UTC) reply

I think they are referring to the expulsion in Spain, not the aftermath. FortunateSons ( talk) 21:49, 4 March 2024 (UTC) reply

I don't think you know how genocide works judging by that second sentence. Salmoonlight ( talk) 21:51, 4 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Wouldn't Gazans' plight fit into Genocide of Indigenous peoples, then? Nirva20 ( talk) 21:54, 4 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Well, that gets us into the question of Gazans are indigenous, an entirely to complex question for Wikipedia to decide as a precursor for inclusion. FortunateSons ( talk) 21:56, 4 March 2024 (UTC) reply

I suggest reading "El-Affendi, Abdelwahab (18 January 2024). "The Futility of Genocide Studies After Gaza". Journal of Genocide Research: 1–7. doi: 10.1080/14623528.2024.2305525.". A genocide need not be successful for it to be a genocide, under any definition of genocide accepted in law or scholarship. As to the other instances you list, you show you have no reading whatsoever on genocide scholarship, as many of them are debated and have been compared to and considered in regards to conceptions of genocide and genocidal actions. -- Cdjp1 ( talk) 22:38, 4 March 2024 (UTC) reply

"If Israel wanted to "kill everyone in Gaza" as at least one editor stated or quoted on this colloquy, they could do so far more efficiently."

Are you implying that Israel isn't committing genocide in Gaza because they aren't killing Palestinians fast enough? HadesTTW (he/him •  talk) 23:14, 4 March 2024 (UTC) reply

No. I am stating that Israel's goal is not to "kill everyone in Gaza" (which would be the most obvious definition of genocide) as some have claimed and that what has been happening since 8 October 2023 is not "genocide", a term some (including on Wikipedia) throw about far too carelessly. Mimicking the UN, which seats third world despots and tyrants on its human rights committees, doesn't convince me either. Nirva20 ( talk) 01:00, 5 March 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Nirva20 First read the definition of genocide before posting this sort of nonsense. It's not far. It's on Wikipedia even. — kashmīrī  ^TALK 02:11, 5 March 2024 (UTC) reply

I am a supporter of the State of Israel and I will never accept that its conduct has ever been or is genocidal. Period. There have been many actual genocides throughout history. Why don't you check and see if each has its own proper Wikipedia article? Nirva20 ( talk) 02:18, 5 March 2024 (UTC) reply

You are free to support whomever you wish, even Alpha Centauri. Publishing on Wikipedia requires adopting a neutral point of view. You may ask yourself whether you are able to respect that policy. — kashmīrī  ^TALK 02:21, 5 March 2024 (UTC) reply

I would be genuinely fascinated to hear what you believe is currently happening in Gaza, especially considering Israel has admitted to murdering numerous hostages. When you have one of the most thorough intelligence agencies in the world, but still end up bombing your own people being held captive, I think it’s clear that you intend to indiscriminately murder everyone in Gaza. When you kill people who were waving a white flag, regardless of who you believe them to be, I think it’s clear that you intend to indiscriminately murder everyone in Gaza. When you are indiscriminately bombing civilians in Gaza, I think it’s clear that you intend to indiscriminately murder everyone in Gaza.

Do you need any more evidence? 1, 2, 3 We can even go back to before Oct 2023 ( 1, 2, 3) if you’d like, because Israel has made its intention to wipe out Palestinians from Gaza for a very, very long time now. Such is their dehumanisation of the Palestinians, Israeli companies “joke” about building holiday homes in the ruins of Gaza. As Israel been given carte blanche to continue with their genocide by the west, we will see thousands more die. Davidlofgren1996 ( talk) 06:16, 5 March 2024 (UTC) reply

While all of these are terrible cases, none of the sources you've just linked are useful to showing how is the academic and legal consensus currently. In fact most of them do not mention the word "genocide". You took these cases and defined what is happening in Gaza as a genocide based on them. That's not how it works. Super Ψ Dro 23:17, 5 March 2024 (UTC) reply

I have defined nothing. My basis for the claim that Israel is committing genocide is based on the Genocide Convention, which very clearly states that genocide is defined as any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such: (a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.. The point of the sources I included was to show that Israel is, and has been, deliberately committing at least two of these acts for a number of years, specifically targeting Palestinians. Davidlofgren1996 ( talk) 08:50, 6 March 2024 (UTC) reply

kill everyone in Gaza The UN definition does not require that literally everyone is killed, and neither does the more lax definition used in some academic circles. That would be an impossibly high bar to clear. KetchupSalt ( talk) 21:16, 5 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Was the intent of the Arab/Muslim states during the Six-Day War to destroy, in whole or in part, the people of Israel as a national, ethnic, or religious group? If not, then that would explain why people don't refer to it as a genocide. Arctic Circle System ( talk) 04:52, 6 March 2024 (UTC) reply

• Oppose - like most, I think the Israeli government actions in the last four months are abhorrent and massively disproportionate. But this isn't about what I think and we need to keep WP:WIKIVOICE and WP:NPOV in mind - I don't see a strong enough consensus in RS for this move. Too divisive in my mind. Tim O'Doherty ( talk) 22:21, 4 March 2024 (UTC) reply
• Oppose for linguistic reasons I agree with a move that openly declares what is happening in Gaza a genocide, but I don't believe the "attempted" part of the title is accurate. A state commits genocide or it doesn't. Very few genocides in human history have ever actually successfully destroyed an entire people, and nobody only calls events such as The Holocaust as an "attempted" genocide despite the existence of Holocaust survivors. I would prefer something like Genocide of Palestinians (2023-present) instead. HadesTTW (he/him •  talk) 23:09, 4 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  This seems reasonable to me. David A ( talk) 16:22, 5 March 2024 (UTC) reply

•  Comment: I'd much prefer Gaza genocide. Israel's declared intent was to destroy the Palestinian ethnic group in Gaza by making the area uninhabitable, killing off a proportion of the population, and terrorising the remainder into escaping to Egypt (vide Israeli requests to Egypt to open the border). It's a textbook case of genocide. — kashmīrī  ^TALK 02:18, 5 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  Isn't that what Turkey and Pakistan did and have been doing since the 20th century to non-Muslims? Nirva20 ( talk) 02:20, 5 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  @ Nirva20 Another bullshit from you. Pakistan state has several privileges for non-Muslims, including a double quota in the Parliament, permission to drink alcohol, and so on. There's no systemic persecution of non-Muslims. Turkey is a largely secular state – arguably more secular than Israel. Why don't you learn about the world before editing an encyclopaedia? — kashmīrī  ^TALK 02:25, 5 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  Turkey is flexing to recreate the Ottoman caliphate and Pakistan still has the death penalty for blasphemy. Tell Aasiya Noreen how privileged non-Muslims are there. Nirva20 ( talk) 02:33, 5 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  Why don't you stop digging deeper? Pakistan is no angel in its treatment of minorities, but to-date not a single person has ever been executed for blasphemy in Pakistan, so the "genocide" label doesn't stick. By the way, blasphemy is also a criminal offence in a number of countries worldwide, including in Denmark, Ireland, and the Netherlands [3] – will you call them out for genocide? You are mixing up religious discrimination with genocide, likely because you have no understanding of legal concepts, no idea about what constitutes genocide, and no idea about other countries whose names you just fly people in the face hoping to, what, impress them? For the sake of my time, EOT. — kashmīrī  ^TALK 10:24, 5 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  Let’s lower the heat on that response, please? FortunateSons ( talk) 10:28, 5 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  This article is not about Turkey or Pakistan so I fail to see the relevance of this comment. But if that question matters, articles already exist on genocides perpetuated by these states or their predecessors ( Greek genocide, Bangladesh genocide). InterDimensional14 ( talk) 01:47, 7 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  WP:NOTAFORUM. Brusquedandelion ( talk) 19:56, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  I would also support the title Gaza genocide. HadesTTW (he/him •  talk) 03:01, 5 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  Yes. I also find that title preferable. David A ( talk) 16:26, 5 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  I'd prefer Gazan genocide, as it's in line with other titles such as Rwandan genocide and Cambodian genocide. Arctic Circle System ( talk) 04:58, 6 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  I've struck this comment as Kashmiri has previously given a bolded response (see the "Strongest support possible" post above). Hemiauchenia ( talk) 21:52, 5 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  Thanks. Didn't notice a double vote as my signature failed there. I've converted my !vote into a comment. — kashmīrī  ^TALK 23:49, 5 March 2024 (UTC) reply

• Oppose for two reasons. First, word "attempted" is wrong and should not be used. If someone indeed "attempted" a genocide, this is already a genocide, plain and simple. Secondly, a lot of civilians will be killed in any significant military conflict and especially during urban warfare (as in this case). One question here if the reasonable and possible precautions were taken to minimize the civilian casualties. If not, this could be a war crime, but not necessarily a genocide. But even that is very much debatable because some precautions were taken, but critics say they were not sufficient. There is a much higher bar for calling something a genocide in WP voice, and it was not passed in this case, as best review sources say, i.e "Scholars are torn on whether the current conflict can be yet classified a genocide officially." [4]. My very best wishes ( talk) 15:09, 5 March 2024 (UTC) reply

I would suggest to rename this page to Allegations of genocide in Israel-Hamas war. That would increase the scope of the page and make it more NPOV. My very best wishes ( talk) 18:27, 9 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Merely calling it a war with Hamas is not NPOV at all, given the overwhelming amounts of evidence of an extreme focus on systematic slaughter of civilians rather than enemy combatants. David A ( talk) 05:17, 10 March 2024 (UTC) reply

I think such title would be better because it would allow describing allegations by the both sides on the same page (i.e. to merge this page and Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Hamas attack on Israel). Right now we artificially divide the Israel-Hamas war into two parts, i.e. the attack by Hamas and the response by Israel. They could be treated on the same page, although keeping them separately is not a POV problem (I agree with this). My very best wishes ( talk) 18:35, 10 March 2024 (UTC) reply

What benefit would merging "Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Hamas attack on Israel" with this one provide? The scope and events for each article are different, so it seems forcing two articles together for, based on your comment, "both sides"-ing the events the articles deal with. -- Cdjp1 ( talk) 20:05, 10 March 2024 (UTC) reply

yes, better keep them separately. My very best wishes ( talk) 21:44, 10 March 2024 (UTC) reply

• However, deliberately denying food and water to a population or deliberately driving them away from a given geographic area are not war crimes; they are indicators of a genocidal intent. Compare with Holodomor where nobody was shot – people were just deliberately starved to death. — kashmīrī  ^TALK 19:29, 5 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • deliberately driving them away from a given geographic area is generally not considered genocide or proof of intent, even though it can be under some ( exceptional) circumstances .
  • And using actions such as not providing food and water as anything but a weak indicator needs to be done with a high degree of care in any alleged genocide (particularly those that are also wars), as they can be fully covered as war crimes (or other unethical/illegal conduct) without amounting to any intent to exterminate in whole or in part (hypothetical example: we will give you food once you overthrow your government -> definitely unethical and illegal, but clearly not genocide, as you want them to be desperate and not dead)

  FortunateSons ( talk) 19:45, 5 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Yes, I agree this is a reasonable analogy. Deliberately denying food and water to a population and preventing them from leaving the affected area using military forces (that is what NKVD did during the Holodomor) may be a genocide. And indeed, the Israeli forces do not allow them to escape to Israel. But another place to leave is Egypt. Is not it Egypt who controls that border? If so, then Israel and Egypt could be responsible if these events will result in mass death of civilians from hunger (I assume that did not happen yet, but the events are definitely moving in this direction). But this is just my understanding. The RS say what they say (cited above). My very best wishes ( talk) 19:57, 5 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Egypt possibly, however from whatever I've read, Egypt's aim is actually to prevent the 2 million Palestinians being relocated to its territory. This, as I'm reading, apart from being a humanitarian catastrophe and rendering moot any talks of a two-state solution, would expose Egypt to a near-certain risk that its soil will be used for cross-border armed attacks against Israel, likely for generations. (It's assumed that Israel will never allow those people back). Egypt seems betting that the international pressure will stop Israel from invading Rafah; yet simultaneously it started constructing a gigantic enclosure where, it is said, it will try to settle Palestinians in case of an Israeli onslaught on the city. [5] Whether this means they are complicit in genocide, it's difficult to ascertain. As we are told, it's intent that matters, and it may be hard to prove that Egypt's intent was to destroy the Palestinian ethnic group in Gaza, — kashmīrī  ^TALK 23:36, 5 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Yes, indeed. But I just do not see how they can survive in no man's land in Gaza while IDF battle with Hamas for another year. My very best wishes ( talk) 03:47, 6 March 2024 (UTC) reply

P.S. As someone only casually familiar with this conflict, I would assume that all civilians must be allowed to voluntarily evacuate somewhere (probably to Egypt) during the hostilities, just as it would be during any other war (e.g. a lot of Ukrainian civilians were evacuated or just left the country after the invasion by Russian forces, etc.) But again, it only matters what the RS say on the subject. My very best wishes ( talk) 20:15, 5 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Let's be real. Little precautions were taken by Israel. Also I heavily disagree with diverting some attention to Egypt. A third country should not be coerced into taking any responsabilities because one country is committing crimes in another. I doubt many sources hold a stance like this. Super Ψ Dro 23:37, 5 March 2024 (UTC) reply

On one hand yes, on the other you'd try to avoid such situations as during the war in Abkhazia where 250,000+ people fled the fighting, only to never be allowed back; nor were they allowed to integrate into the host society as Georgia needed them remain refugees in order to maintain international pressure on Abkhazia.

Similar situation was with regard to Syrian refugees in Turkey and, prominently, in Lebanon.

Removing entire populations to other countries is not always the best solution long term. — kashmīrī  ^TALK 23:43, 5 March 2024 (UTC) reply

The latest event of this nature was Flight of Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians. I agree such things amount to ethnic cleansing. My very best wishes ( talk) 03:38, 6 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Yep, although in that last event, I wonder whether Armenian families were forced out (that would indeed be ethnic cleansing) or they just decided to leave "because everyone is leaving" or because they didn't see their future in Azerbaijan. I'm asking this because two years prior, millions of Ukrainians run away from Ukraine even though they were not being forced out (many later returned). Again, this would boil down to the actions of the invader. In Gaza, it's blatantly obvious: invading forces have publicly ordered the population to remove itself from the area. — kashmīrī  ^TALK 11:49, 6 March 2024 (UTC) reply

• But remember, there is a huge difference between this case and Holodomor. This whole thing was initiated by the attack of Hamas on Israel. This changes everything. One can say that it is Hamas who is responsible for genocide of their own people. Or as Israeli commenters say, Hamas is using their own people as human shields. Moreover, this is war. Holodomor was not. My very best wishes ( talk) 14:41, 6 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  Just as a note, no someone committing crimes against you does not give you permission to conduct a genocide under international law. And should such a situation occur, then the culpability for genocide is still on those who conducted it, not those who committed crimes. -- Cdjp1 ( talk) 15:10, 6 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Yes, of course. Committing a genocide (if there is one) can not be justified by anything. But is it a genocide? The Hamas-Israel war was initiated by the attack by Hamas. This is the reason for Israel to argue this is just a war, they have been attacked and acted in self-defense [6]. My very best wishes ( talk) 15:32, 6 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Comment:An attack being committed by a group representing an ethnic, linguistic, national, or religious group does not itself preclude the response to that attack being a genocide. Attempting to destroy, in whole or in part, an ethnic group in response to an attack doesn't make that response not genocide. Arctic Circle System ( talk) 03:14, 8 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Yes, of course. It is precisely the question if Israel comitted genocide while excersizing their right on self-defense. My very best wishes ( talk) 18:13, 9 March 2024 (UTC) reply

No, Israel has not been exercising its right to self-defence other than on 7/10. What Israel started on 27/10 was a military offensive, not a defensive. It's undeducated to conflate defensive actions and offensive actions. — kashmīrī  ^TALK 05:36, 10 March 2024 (UTC) reply

You are mistaken. Conducting an offensive operation can be exercizing the right on self-defense. Consider Ukrainian offensives. Yes, the right of Israel on self-defense in this case was disputed, but on different grounds [7]. My very best wishes ( talk) 01:42, 11 March 2024 (UTC) reply

One can say that it is Hamas who is responsible for genocide of their own people. Just casually justifying genocide I see. Lovely. KetchupSalt ( talk) 21:45, 7 March 2024 (UTC) reply

We have a big page, Use of human shields by Hamas. Is it genocide? No, this is more like a war crime. Is Hamas responsible for the war? Yes, sure, as the side that started the war. Does it justfy genocide by anyone? No, of course not. My very best wishes ( talk) 18:13, 9 March 2024 (UTC) reply

This reasoning only leads to such nonsense as saying that Jews were responsible for part of the Holocaust because they started the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising. You're saying that the party that starts an uprising is responsible for all of the subsequent pacification, right? — kashmīrī  ^TALK 05:39, 10 March 2024 (UTC) reply

That is completely irrelevant. Also as far as human shields go, the IDF regularly uses Palestinians as literal human shields. The Palestinian resistance is also completely justified in armed struggle against the occupation. KetchupSalt ( talk) 23:27, 11 March 2024 (UTC) reply

If you are talking about the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel, then no, it was not "completely justified", and it was not something suggested in the UN documents you linked to. And yes, it was obviously an action that started the ongoing Israel-Hamas war. This is just a fact. I am not trying to justify anything or whitewash anyone. My very best wishes ( talk) 18:39, 15 March 2024 (UTC) reply

• The strongest support possible. What the nation of Israel is currently doing is far beyond absolutely heinous, and the sum total evidence I have seen both via Wikipedia and elsewhere has been overwhelmingly convincing. The International Court of Justice also ordered Israel to take all measures to prevent any acts that could be considered genocidal according to the 1948 Genocide Convention, and said that at least some of the South African allegations appear to fall under the provisions of the Genocide Convention. David A ( talk) 15:51, 5 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  That is factually inaccurate: the standard that was currently met in the ICJ was plausible, which is significantly lower than beyond all reasonable doubt.

  Additionally, Wikipedia pages don’t „prove“, they simply explain the points of view of RS. FortunateSons ( talk) 16:04, 5 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  I have seen lots of video evidence as well, so the sum total of all the evidence I have read or watched has still proven overwhelmingly convincing for me. David A ( talk) 16:30, 5 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  I get that; would you mind striking the inaccurate claim(s) from your original comment? :) FortunateSons ( talk) 16:36, 5 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  I have now modified my text above according to what Wikipedia currently says regarding the topic. David A ( talk) 16:44, 5 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  Thank you! FortunateSons ( talk) 16:49, 5 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  No problem. David A ( talk) 17:01, 5 March 2024 (UTC) reply

• Comment: there is no "attempted" with genocide. It either is or it isn't a genocide. It may be too early to imply in WikiVoice that it is, even if the evidence is mounting. If "attempted" is removed, and if there's sufficient RS for it, then I would support renaming. KetchupSalt ( talk) 21:23, 5 March 2024 (UTC) reply
• Comment: The tone and substance of this discussion has veered into original research and accusatory language. I'm not going to single anyone out here, so I've left a few messages on the talk pages of participants, just as a friendly reminder. To reiterate, accusations of dishonesty are not appropriate here, and editors should not be applying their own analysis on the definition of genocide when considering their !vote. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 21:59, 5 March 2024 (UTC) reply

I ask Thebiguglyalien not to try to play police and contribute to the discussion and the consensus-building process. They have decided to send some kind of warning to 14 editors that have participated in this discussion which I am pretty sure is the vast majority if not outright the totality of them. This includes cases of users who put one single perfectly neutral comment [8]. I am sure good faith was behind their comments but frankly I don't find them well-thought nor helpful. Super Ψ Dro 23:03, 5 March 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Thebiguglyalien You might like to know that original research is welcome and indeed encouraged on Talk pages. More importantly, editors must feel free to express their views in any way they like within the constraints of the project's policies. It would be great if you let people share their comments about article subjects, even if they are not a copy-and-paste of press articles. — kashmīrī  ^TALK 23:58, 5 March 2024 (UTC) reply

They're allowed to, and I didn't use any sort of warning template to imply otherwise. But they should be notified that these arguments on their own will not be considered in the close. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 00:05, 6 March 2024 (UTC) reply

• Oppose as we should wait for what the ICJ rules (we already note in the article that they say it is plausible) or for numerous reliable sources to report it as such - I have yet to see a list and while I am knowledgable about the Western media's pro-Israel bias I haven't seen enough reliable non-Western/English sources refer to it as such. LegalSmeagolian ( talk) 23:09, 5 March 2024 (UTC) reply

I second a call to wait. It all will be surely clearer in the future. We don't necessarily have to wait for the ICJ ruling but I am pretty sure it will be regarded as the most authoritative source for this for a long time once it comes out. Super Ψ Dro 23:17, 5 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Third FortunateSons ( talk) 07:09, 6 March 2024 (UTC) reply

• I think that this is an excellent analysis, and agree with it. David A ( talk) 06:11, 6 March 2024 (UTC) reply

• Strong oppose as a WP:NPOV violation. The current title is much more neutral. Like Some1 said, being accused of genocide is not the same as doing genocide. There isn't source consensus that Israel is doing genocide. Hogo-2020 ( talk) 07:33, 6 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  @ Hogo-2020 what would satisfy this threshold, in your opinion 70.31.178.242 ( talk) 08:03, 6 March 2024 (UTC) reply

• Comment - To any !Oppose votes, which definition of genocide are you using when determining a definition for Israel's actions? While it is not deniable that most, if not all, of us here have strong personal opinions on the subject, the fact is that there is an objective definition for genocide. Given that we have such definitions, specifically the Genocide Convention, why is it that we have to wait for a specific scholar (of number of scholars) or specific amount of RS describing this as a genocide (which is unlikely to happen while a lot of them are Israel-backed), when the situation meets the definition?

If there were opinion to be had on the subject, then yes, I can fully understand holding off renaming the article, but by the United Nations' definition, Israel is intending (see sources given above in this article by myself) to destroy a national group, Palestinians, by killing members of said group. It has also caused "serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group", and is guilty of "inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part". This is not opinion-based, this is not disputable, these are things that are objectively happening. It meets the conditions for the definition of genocide (including Wikipedia's own definition) it is genocide. Davidlofgren1996 ( talk) 09:05, 6 March 2024 (UTC) reply

If we need RS to confirm something that adheres to a definition, then I think we need to add “reportedly a” or “generally considered by a number of sources to be a” before each description on Wikipedia (i.e. “The European tree frog (Hyla arborea) is generally considered by a number of sources to be a small[1][2] tree frog.[3][4][5]” This, of course, would be ridiculous. But that is how ridiculous this discussion is; why do we have strict definitions if we are going to just ignore them to satisfy personal biases? Davidlofgren1996 ( talk) 09:34, 6 March 2024 (UTC) reply

I would wait for the ICJ judgement, and potentially its reception (in either direction).

You can not kill anyone/very few people and still commit a genocide, or kill an entire ethnic group without committing genocide. There is a reason while dolus specialis is such a complicated and yet essential issue, and I agree with the assessment of the German judge (maybe on incitement, unlikely to be an actual genocide).

We (as in Wikipedians) cannot make our own assessment even when we have legal or other relevant backgrounds, and the ones that don’t definitely can’t. FortunateSons ( talk) 11:27, 6 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Well, when looking at Template:Genocide navbox, it doesn't seem that an ICJ ruling is viewed as an inclusion criterion. Following the sources, Wikipedia have called certain events genocides even in absence of ICJ decisions. — kashmīrī  ^TALK 11:55, 6 March 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Kashmiri what seems to be the standard for Wikipedia, is detailed in the lede of the article List of genocides (though the list also seems to be more stringent than the navbox, likely due to need to provide explanation in article text and multiple sources for adding entries to the list), where a significant section of scholarship (not necessarily a majority) needs to label an event as a genocide according to the UN legal definition. So an ICJ ruling is not necessary. I believe this criteria has come about due to the vast amount of historical genocides that will never be seen in the ICJ. And this is then the crux of contention for more recent genocides, where labelling current or recent regimes as genocidal without a court ruling on Wikipedia seems defamatory, and how this consideration is deployed is of course highly politicised based on who the accused are. Cdjp1 ( talk) 12:26, 6 March 2024 (UTC) reply

That is a good point, the standard for a historical genocide may be different from a contemporary genocide. For example, if the ICJ were to consider it not to be a genocide, that would be a strong indication, but could nevertheless be convincingly called genocide if 90% of scholarship disagrees. On the other hand, if the ICJ calls it a genocide and encounters 90% negative reactions from scholars, it should credibly remain as just accusations.

While the question of what to do in absence of a court ruling is complex in many cases, we are very likely to receive a ruling here, so we just have to wait; it really isn’t urgent. FortunateSons ( talk) 12:56, 6 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Can you bring an example on that list in which we label an event as genocide even though a majority of scholars disagree? A majority of scholars agreeing at the very least would seem to me like a basic requirement. Super Ψ Dro 17:52, 6 March 2024 (UTC) reply

An ICJ ruling would be 100% cause for WP to consider it genocide imo, but it is not the only way it could (as Cdjp1 also points out). Since a final ruling is likely to take many years, in the interim an overwhelming majority of scholars considering it genocide according to the UN definition could suffice. KetchupSalt ( talk) 15:37, 6 March 2024 (UTC) reply

We aren’t in a hurry, we can leave it as allegations until we get a judgement. FortunateSons ( talk) 15:50, 6 March 2024 (UTC) reply

I agree there's no hurry. But we also don't have to wait for the ICJ. My main worry is WP:RECENTISM and also waiting for academia to catch up. An ICJ guilty verdict would just remove any doubt. KetchupSalt ( talk) 21:48, 7 March 2024 (UTC) reply

I think the ICJ will only take 2-3 years, so we can wait for them + reception in my opinion. But yes, we definitely need clear academic consensus to remove accusations from the title, and that will probably take just as long, particularly considering the (personal opinion warning) poor quality of some of the pleading on special intent by SA, so someone would probably have to do significant amounts of research to get to a credible claim for that. FortunateSons ( talk) 21:59, 7 March 2024 (UTC) reply

@ FortunateSons: Any idea what the threshold for academic consensus is and how to evaluate it? Arctic Circle System ( talk) 03:08, 8 March 2024 (UTC) reply

By searching Google Scholar and JSTOR and reviewing the sources found there. An academic consensus may develop more quickly than an ICJ case, but it still won't be instantaneous. It takes months for academic papers to go through the review process for publication in a journal. It's therefore difficult to write a paper discussing genocide in the context of Gaza if events are developing so rapidly that the conclusions will likely be outdated by in a few months' time -- I expect we'll see more scholarship when a new status quo emerges, for example if the Israeli military withdraws or the violence slows down. Jr8825 • Talk 05:51, 8 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Probably that. A lazier method, but decent when it comes to getting a picture, is looking what the main authors/universities/institutes are saying/have published. FortunateSons ( talk) 07:17, 8 March 2024 (UTC) reply

As I reminded you on your talk page, coming to your own conclusion about the facts is inappropriate and may not be used to dictate what we do with the article. Interpreting the definition and whether something meets it yourself is original research. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 19:44, 7 March 2024 (UTC) reply

"which definition of genocide are you using when determining a definition for Israel's actions" - I'm not using any definition myself, because as an anonymous editor I don't have any authority to make an assessment and apply it in Wikipedia's voice (irrespective of my real life views on the matter or expertise) – the principle of no original research/views. All I'm doing is pointing out that currently there clearly isn't unanimous agreement among outside observers that what is happening is specifically a "genocide", as opposed to war crimes and human rights abuses. I read/listen/watch a range of high quality news sources daily, including the Guardian, the Financial Times, the Economist and Channel 4 News; none of these sources and their reporters and journalists directly refer to events as genocide – they sometimes interview/invite experts to discuss whether or not Israel's actions could be considered genocide, and even then, the topic is not the most prominent feature of their coverage of Gaza, and the word is often entirely absent from articles or episodes. An encyclopedia, which follows rather than leads sources, should not be labelling the overall situation a genocide unless there is a clearer shift in that direction among sources. Jr8825 • Talk 05:04, 8 March 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Jr8825 you keep using the term unanimous, we do not require unanimous agreement for it, as that would be an impossible bar to ever clear. Depending on where we draw the boundaries, it would only require a majority or a consensus. -- Cdjp1 ( talk) 11:25, 8 March 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Cdjp1 I agree, and sorry for my unclear wording. What I meant there is that there's far from unanimous agreement currently, as in, there's no clear majority/consensus position. Jr8825 • Talk 14:29, 8 March 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Jr8825 no worries, as long as we understand where we're at we can continue having constructive discussion. -- Cdjp1 ( talk) 14:54, 8 March 2024 (UTC) reply

• Strongest Oppose possible horrifically biased. going from "accusations of genocide" to "attempted genocide" is unencyclopedic.
• Oppose for three reasons.

1. As others have mentioned, the word "attempted" is meaningless here. Either it's a genocide or it's not.
2. The proposed title is not WP:CONCISE. A better title would be Gaza genocide.
3. Most importantly, this article isn't even about the genocide. It's about discourse about the genocide. i.e. this is not the right article to move. As Howardcorn33 has pointed out repeatedly, this move should be proposed in the article Gaza humanitarian crisis, for which I believe sources support a move to Gaza genocide.

Thus this article, being about discourse about the events, rather than the events themselves, should be moved to the more concise title Gaza genocide question. So while I support the move in spirit, the proposed title is clunky and, most importantly, this is not the right article to move. Dylanvt ( talk) 23:02, 8 March 2024 (UTC) reply

• Oppose. Arguably the principal problem for this suggestion is the conceptual distinction between a genocide and debate about whether that genocide occurred. This article is about the latter. Therefore, the move request really really ought to concern Gaza humanitarian crisis (2023–present). This has been repeatedly raised.

As far as I can tell, no supporters of the move have responded to this concern. Nor do I see how any of the arguments made in support (some of which I respond to explicitly below, giving them in italicised form) of the move can be read as a response to that concern.

1. It is simply obvious that Israel’s actions and intent are genocidal. First, that is for reliable sources to judge (as has been repeatedly raised), not editors. Second, this, again, would motivate moving Gaza humanitarian crisis (2023–present) rather than this article.
2. Reliable sources call Israel’s actions genocidal. Again, that motivates moving other articles, not this one.
3. Failing to rename the article amounts to peddling Israeli narratives. First, it doesn’t, any more than the title of Holodomor genocide question peddles Russian narratives. This is an argument for renaming, e.g., Gaza humanitarian crisis (2023–present). Second, to the extent reliable sources support the Israeli view, our coverage will have to reflect that.
4. Failing to rename the article obscures the facts. Again, this appears to concern Gaza humanitarian crisis (2023–present) or similar, rather than this article, and ignores the conceptual distinction above.
5. We should ignore all rules; adherence to them would be pedantic in view of the scale of the tragedy. Wikipedia covers lots of tragedies, and it does not seem that we should ignore rules about all of them; the rules should probably apply to e.g. The Holocaust in large part. Moreover, even if we should IAR in this case, why not, again, rename Gaza humanitarian crisis (2023–present)? That would surely respect the urgency of the matter.
6. The bar for renaming articles genocide has been low. Why not then rename Gaza humanitarian crisis (2023–present)?
7. Hesitance vis à vis calling Israeli actions genocidal is mostly diplomatic. I don’t think we are meant to read sources this way on Wikipedia, and, again, this ignores the conceptual distinction between the question of whether something amounts to a genocide and a genocide itself.

Docentation ( talk) 20:16, 9 March 2024 (UTC) reply

I think where WP:IAR comes into play is with questions like what you've written above: to the extent reliable sources support the Israeli view, our coverage will have to reflect that. Cases like this are exactly where ignoring all rules becomes important, since maintaining neutrality, objectivity, and high quality are more important that repeating whatever the NYT says just because they're judged to be reliable. Otherwise, I agree with the broad conceptual distinction of your vote. Dylanvt ( talk) 04:54, 10 March 2024 (UTC) reply

• Oppose (update below) for the reasons stated just above by Docentation and in the section below by Howardcorn33. Debate about a genocide and the genocide itself are two distinct (though related) topics. The current name Gaza humanitarian crisis (2023–present) is currently a euphemism for what is either a crime against humanity or a genocide according to most scholars; the term "genocide" attracts more attention, but as for the War crimes in the Tigray War, a 10% genocide done within the two years from Nov 2020 to Nov 2022 (and still ongoing as a famine crime)), scholars see stopping the event as higher priority than deciding between a crime against humanity versus a genocide. Nevertheless, Wikipedia should choose a better name for Gaza humanitarian crisis (2023–present) while keeping this article with the current name (or change to "Debate about genocide ..."). Boud ( talk) 13:11, 12 March 2024 (UTC) reply
• Oppose: WP:NCENPOV is very clear on article title requirements for controversial topics. Per the policy, we should use 1) the common name for an event; 2) if not common name exists, a generally accepted word used when describing the event; or 3) if there is no generally accepted word, a descriptive title that avoids POV implications. The sources shared do not establish a common name, and the body of reliable sources that do not refer to these events as a genocide means that there is not a credible reason to hold that "genocide" is a generally-accepted word. There are serious significant, credible allegations of genocide; that is not in dispute, and those allegations should be the focus of this article and discussion. A number of editors have appealed to their interpretation of the facts on the ground, but that is not sufficient under WP:NOR and WP:VERIFY: Wikipedia's content is determined by previously published information rather than by the personal beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it. We are not a jury. Our role is not to be finders of fact; it is to reflect what sources reliably call an event or occurrence. -- Delta1989 ( talk) ( contributions) 13:43, 19 March 2024 (UTC) reply
• Oppose. If the current Gaza War is considered a genocide, then what about the Allied bombings of Japan and Germany (especially the Bombing of Dresden) which also claimed many lives on this scale? Or the Korean War when the Americans flattened Pyongyang and North Korea? Or the Vietnam War when US forces bombed Cambodia? Those are war crimes, yes, but a genocide? Also the proposed title is a bit odd, which seems to imply Israel is committing genocide but not successful. This article is more on various groups (NGOs, ICC, governments) accessing and alleging whether Israeli actions in Gaza amount to a genocide. The proposed title would have suited describing the existing humanitarian crisis in Gaza, not this page.-- ZKang123 ( talk) 05:20, 22 March 2024 (UTC) reply
• Oppose - per WP:NPOV. The nomination makes absolutely no reference to policy and is a clearly a WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS proposal.-- estar8806 ( talk) ★ 23:42, 23 March 2024 (UTC) reply
• Oppose. This is a fringe opinion, far from the mainstream view of reliable sources on this topic. Marokwitz ( talk) 15:12, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply
• Support either of Gazan genocide or Attempted genocide by Israel in their 2023 attack on Gaza. Converting the humanitarian crisis page into the "genocide itself" article versus this article as the "debate about the genocide" page doesn't look viable. An alternative could be to split this article into a "debate" article versus a "what happened article", but I think that much of "what happened" is already more or less covered in various sub- or overlapping articles, such as Gaza humanitarian crisis (2023–present), so there's no need for a split.
  United Nations Special Rapporteur on the occupied Palestinian territories Francesca Albanese's report was released today. ^[1] This is the most neutral and reliable source that we have apart from the ICJ proceedings. The claim that there is no ongoing genocide is now a fringe opinion. Both the actions and the intent are clear according to Francesca, and the IV Humanitarian camouflage – ... distortion of international humanitarian law articulated by Israel as a state policy in its official documents ... illustrates a clear pattern of conduct from which the requisite genocidal intent is the only reasonable inference to be drawn. The proposed new name is justified based on the sources. Boud ( talk) 17:21, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply