Talk:Gaza genocide

Based on the template, updated til 02/2026, for anyone who may find it useful

— 🧀Cheesedealer ^!!!⚟ 04:44, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Unless some WP:Reliable source shows a graph like that I think that comes under WP:Original research so we can't use it in an article. NadVolum (talk) 18:09, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm aware of that — 🧀Cheesedealer ^!!!⚟ 21:59, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Does it? Source information does not need to be in prose form: Any form of information, such as maps, charts, graphs, and tables may be used to provide source information. Any straightforward reading of such media is not original research provided that there is consensus among editors that the techniques used are correctly applied and a meaningful reflection of the sources.

I suppose the question is whether the template has adequately recorded all expert opinion. Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 20:29, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

The 'maps, charts, graphs, and tables' would have to be WP:RS. This seems to have been complied from disparate sources, according to the compiler's own classifications, and is thus clearly WP:OR. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:40, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Since the template is a compilation of reliable sources, filled out to the best of our collective ability, I'm not sure I see the issue. It seems quite similar to how, to my understanding, maps such as the ones at 2026 Iran War or Myanmar civil war (2021–present) are created. Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 23:10, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Two problems: First, the template doesn't include ALL sources. Second, as I was tallying the sources in the template, I found that some entries have hundreds of scholars but out of trust for the judgement of the compilators of the list I decided to count them as one in the chart I made, which I'm not even sure if it's the right/fair to go with.

I made a mistake by posting it in this talk page when i should have done so in the talk page of the template itself, but oh well... with that being said, I made it originally to facilitate discussions on bringing up the genocide in wikivoice, and now to facilitate any incoming discussions about a scholarly consensus on this matter. — 🧀Cheesedealer ^!!!⚟ 01:52, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Do we have acknowledged the 100% of such people making opinions, to be able to talk about percentages? Cambalachero (talk) 18:17, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

A more simplified graph may be placed in the template article - not on this page. Astropulse (talk) 22:10, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

This article is not NPOV, particularly the summary paragraphs. My additions that the IJC has not yet adjudicated the case, that some experts say intent has not been proven and that the civilian-to-combatant ratio have been deleted were deleted. Please explain why these are not appropriate on summary paragraphs, which are the only things that many people read. Purplewriter (talk) 19:59, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

The lede has been adjudicated by many rfcs, and the current one is fairly stable. Per WP:ONUS, you need to explain why this inclusion is due not us.

either way, that the icj case has not been adjudicated is clear enough, most sourcing on this doesnt use this combatant to civilian framing at all and many not more than two thirds of the dead are women and children, and the expert opinions need to be significant. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 20:03, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

I thought it needs to be clear in the summary. After all, many people don't get further than that. Purplewriter (talk) 18:11, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

Which sources are not being neutrally represented? Or which sources are bring given WP:UNDUE weight? EvergreenFir (talk) 20:13, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

The article Intent and incitement in the Gaza genocide deals with intent and you can check the citations there. As to the rest of what you say Israel didn't do anything to conform with the provisional orders of the ICJ to prevent genocide and yet you say Wikipedia should treat a lack of a final judgment yet as something Wikipedia must treat as negative? Wikipedia does not treat the law as final except in restricted cases like WP:BLP. NadVolum (talk) 20:58, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Noting that this user's edit history is almost universally subjective, non-encyclopedic support of Israeli warfare, including many which were quickly reverted and citing outlandish sources like freebeacon.com. Mausfield (talk) 23:22, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

What was the point of creating this section back in August 18 if you're not going to respond to anyone for over two weeks, even after multiple users responded on the same day within hours? JasonMacker (talk) 15:37, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

A couple days ago, South Africa majorly expanded their litigation dossier in their ICJ suit against Israel, likely in reponse to Iceland, the Netherlands, and Germany attempting to intervene on the basis that somehow there is a lack of jurisdiction. Post-HRC determination, it has become a bandwagon goalpost-moving situation to now cite the ICJ as the only possible determinant of genocide as a material fact, now that they can no longer cite the UN.

To avoid the very tired reference of the "ICJ hasn't ruled" thing from people who had never heard of the ICJ prior to hearing that it had not "ruled" on the matter (and have certainly never read an rfc on the matter), I suggest moving the mention of the Sep 2025 report and condemnation to the lede, unaltered as it seems fine to me in its current state.

There is also the secondary reason for the move, that listing the UN alongside even major privately founded/run NGOs, including those who share the HRCs conclusion, is a bit misleading in terms of force and scope. Moving this mention to the lede would allow that section to be renamed a more focused "Non-governmental organizations". Mausfield (talk) 00:22, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

WP:LEDEFOLLOWSBODY -- Cdjp1 (talk) 14:39, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

Putting aside the question whether this is a genocide, how much longer should the article refer to this event as "ongoing?" There is a ceasefire in effect. Queens Historian (talk) 16:40, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

They are still killing people in spite of the ceasefire, including children. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/6/19/israel-kills-a-child-a-day-on-average-in-gaza-despite-ceasefire-un-says C.J. Griffin (talk) 17:01, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

Until reliable sources state the event is no longer ongoing. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 17:35, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

Is ongoing as long as Palestinians in Gaza face conditions that could make a substantial part of the population unable to remain there permanently. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 11:26, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change "...while reports by Francesca Albanese and Amos Goldberg highlight the project of Greater Israel."

To: '...while a report by Francesca Albanese argues that the campaign advances a long-pursued Israeli government goal of "Greater Israel".'

Goldberg's cited page (2024, p. 9) here never mentioned "Greater Israel". The footnote there just cites Albanese's report as taking a similar "genocide as a process" approach, not endorsing this specific claim. Goldberg should be removed from this sentence. Albanese also refers to "Greater Israel" as a goal, rather than a project. Snackbar.me3 (talk) 07:49, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: according to the page's protection level, you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Day Creature (talk) 21:25, 7 September 2026 (UTC)