Talk:Gaza genocide

Thread retitled from Will sources that called it a genocide ever admit they were wrong?. WP:TALKHEADPOV O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:17, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Most of the sources that are cited in this article were written prior to the October ceasefire agreement. If that agreement holds in the long term (which is likely, but not certain), it would fairly conclusively refute claims of genocide. However, most of these sources have not been updated or corrected, and I am unsure what we should do about that. Partofthemachine (talk) 05:38, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Your comment is based on the common misconception that genocide = complete extermination or the attempt thereof. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 05:48, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

I am not saying that genocide requires that killing of literally every single member of the targeted group. My point was that the Israeli government agreeing to (mostly) stop attacking once an agreement was reached with Hamas contradicts the claim of genocide. Partofthemachine (talk) 06:16, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

well they've ramped up their blockade again (see ) and it doesn't really matter if the victims are bombed or starved to death Laura240406 (talk) 06:26, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

It really doesn't. And we let the relevant experts and reliable sources determine what is and isn't genocide anyway; we certainly don't go by the opinions, analyses, or conclusions of Wikipedia editors such as you or me. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 07:42, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

The Israeli government has not in fact ceased attacking. As Al Jazeera reported in April 9th, Israel has bombed Gaza for 36 of the past 40 days.[^0] They have also tracked 736 Palestinian deaths and 2,035 injuries since the so-called ceasefire.[^1]

[^0]: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/4/9/israel-bombed-gaza-on-36-of-the-past-40-days-while-the-war-raged-in-iran

[^1]: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/11/11/how-many-times-has-israel-violated-the-gaza-ceasefire-here-are-the-numbers Tr3ndyBEAR (talk) 20:32, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

We follow the sources. If the sources change so what you say sounds like it has got some support then that was good thinking on your part and the article will have sources supporting a change. Until then there it is just your opinion and not something in a relable source. NadVolum (talk) 14:54, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

@Cambial Yellowing: Whether the number of deaths (186,000) mentioned in the letter to The Lancet (Khatib et al.) should be listed in the infobox. My arguments against including it: 1) because it's a non-peer-reviewed letter to The Lancet, 2) because it's a guess - it's a simple multiplication of then-known death toll by 5, not the result of any actual work involving Gaza of Gazans, 3) because estimates based on actual work involving Gaza of Gazans are now available, 4) because it includes expected future deaths. Periwinklewrinkles (talk) 13:02, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

You have breached the 1RR restriction on this page. You reverted this edit by IOHANNVSVERVS. . Please self-revert. As IOHANNVSVERVS points out, the sources that make use of it are peer-reviewed. In weighing the use of the source, the expertise of the authors and reviewers of those secondary sources is significant; your personal opinion is not. Cambial — foliar❧ 13:27, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Self-reverted my last edit. Going back to the topic: it is a fact, rather that personal opinion, that there are studies (Spagat et al. is one example) that are based on actual research performed in Gaza and are peer-reviewed. It is also a fact that the letter to The Lancet which, besides stressing the importance of getting an actual death count, also provided an estimate (186,000) for current and future deaths by multiplying then-known death toll by 5, was not peer-reviewed. Then, some peer-reviewed articles (secondary sources) quoted that 186,000 claim, but did they also state that their own research confirmed that claim? Periwinklewrinkles (talk) 14:07, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

That's not a useful test. What matters is whether those peer-reviewed sources considered the method by which that figure was arrived at to be sufficiently robust for inclusion in their work. They evidently did consider it so. Cambial — foliar❧ 14:17, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Talk:Gaza genocide/Archive 40#RfC about inclusion of 186,000 death toll estimate in infobox (17 January 2026) -- Cdjp1 (talk) 17:33, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

For those who don't want to follow that link, that RFC was closed as No consensus, defaulting to exclude. I also want to highlight this bit of text from the close: This decision applies until either (1) a reliable source with a more recent, less speculative death toll is published or (2) consensus changes. @IOHANNVSVERVS, you started that RFC, so I assume that you are aware of the outcome. Do you think consensus has changed on this? If it hasn't, then I don't think that figure should be in the infobox right now. Chess enjoyer (talk) 19:56, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

I agree with Chess enjoyer and would opine that we already have better sources to use other than that one Katzrockso (talk) 20:15, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

To be clear, that wasn't a comment on the actual merits of including it in the infobox. I just don't want the RFC's (lack of) consensus to be ignored. Chess enjoyer (talk) 20:21, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Which better sources are there for a total death estimate? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 20:39, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

The Spagat paper already postdates the Lancet letter and includes both violent and nonviolent deaths. Katzrockso (talk) 06:53, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

A few reasons why I re-added the estimate:

1. I added five more peer-reviewed sources that weren't presented in the last RfC.

2. One of the main editors reverting and objecting in the previous RfC was since topic banned for "persistent one-sided participation in centralized community discussions"

3. The closer themselves stated "It is the best available figure made by the best experts in the best available source", so I don't really understand how it would not be due for inclusion. The closer stated their reason to exclude from infobox was because "it's also an educated guess made in an information vacuum, so it needs more context than an infobox allows." But all the citations in the footnote have quotes which explain the context and nuance of the estimate.

Also people keep focusing on the merits of the Khatib et al 2024 source itself. But we have ten or so additional sources, most of them peer-reviewed, which also cite the estimate. I don't see how if we're following the sources we wouldn't include this estimate with attribution. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 20:30, 29 March 2026 (UTC) Edited 20:40, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

is there any more up to date this is really dated. Moxy🍁 20:50, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

There are peer-reviewed sources from 2026 citing this estimate. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 21:22, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

I re-removed this estimate. Editing against an existing consensus from a drawn-out RfC borders on tendentious. The fact that other sources cited the Khatlib estimate was considered in the RfC and there was still no consensus to include. Katzrockso (talk) 06:57, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

I agree with the removal. This article is about the genocide. There's no reason to stick in estimates of deaths which make practically no difference to the topic compared to what is well documented. NadVolum (talk) 11:02, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

There is an RfC in this article's corollary sidebar template talk page: Template talk:Gaza genocide sidebar#RfC: Only include bidirectional links in sidebar? Editors are encouraged to contribute. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 19:36, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

What is its relevance in the section in question? It seems random and out of place. Shoshin000 (talk) 22:13, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

It's a quote highlighting the genocidal act of killing journalists, as well as the justification for killing journalists that is written by journalists in the west. JasonMacker (talk) 15:23, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

This edit removed allegations of use of thermobaric weapons, which made claims of the disappearance of thousands of people undergoing "evaporation". The material was removed per WP:ECREE, a component of the core Wikipedia:Verifiability policy which states that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" for which red flags include "surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources".

That edit was reverted by User:إيان in this edit, after which the editor added sources from Al Jazeera English and a site called Zeteo, in addition to the original source from Middle East Eye.

Though it was added later by User:إيان, this article from Al Jazeera is the original source for all of the claims of thousands of people being evaporated. The original reference in the article from Middle East Eye, which is essentially a news aggregator, states in its lead sentence that "Israel used internationally prohibited thermal and thermobaric weapons, leaving thousands of Palestinian bodies 'evaporated' as a result, an investigation by Al Jazeera revealed." (see here). The source from Zeteo, which is described as a Substack newsletter / podcast, says in its first sentence that "Israeli forces deployed US-made bombs in Gaza that instantly killed and vaporized more than 2,800 Palestinians, according to a new Al Jazeera investigation published Tuesday." (see here).

WP:ECREE is clear that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" and that "surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources" is one of the red flags demonstrating that the standard is not met. Both Middle East Eye and Zeteo are news aggregators that explicitly indicate that their articles are restating allegations made in Al Jazeera; neither Middle East Eye nor Zeteo meets the standard of being a "mainstream source" as required by WP:ECREE / WP:Verifiability. Al Jazeera is left as the only source for these remarkable claims.

In the absence of the required multiple credible mainstream sources backing up these claims, the material will be removed. Alansohn (talk) 14:50, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Per the topic policies quoted at the top of this talk page "Changes challenged by reversion may not be reinstated without affirmative consensus on the talk page", so I've removed pernding such affirmative consensus. MEE and Zeteo are bad sources. AJ English is an OK source, but this is an extraordinary story so needs multiple good sources. Snopes leaves it unrated, noting that the weapons described in the AJ investigation are not thermobaric at all. Searching Google news, no reliable sources have picked it up yet. Let's leave it out unless good sources give it credence. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:25, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Why shouldn’t the claim be attributed? إيان (talk) 16:43, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

I guess it is the business of the people 'evaporating' that is the extraordinary bit. The use of thermobaric weapons goes back a long time and places with lots of combustible dust like grain elevators have always had to be very careful not to generate the effect. They can be enormous explosions when the fuel is dispersed over a large area but there would still be remains. Perhaps they were confused by that they tend to collapse buildings or tunnels in so the bodies can't be found. NadVolum (talk) 18:42, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

@Alansohn

"The material was removed per WP:ECREE, a component of the core Wikipedia:Verifiability policy which states that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" for which red flags include "surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources"."

Could you clarify why this claim is considered extraordinary in this context?

The effects described in the article are not inherently inconsistent with the known destructive effects of thermobaric weapons. Therefore, the claim in question is not that thermobaric weapons are capable of causing extreme physical destruction, which is well-documented in literature, but rather the reporting of specific incidents in which victims were not fully recoverable and were described as "evaporated" by medical or civil defence personnel. The question under WP:ECREE is consequently whether such reporting, when attributed and sourced, is itself extraordinary, or whether it reflects the characterisation used by sources describing conditions on the ground.

Further, similar claims have previously been reported:

• WP:EMHRM
• WP:TRT
• Al Jazeera Arabic

"Though it was added later by User:إيان, this article from Al Jazeera is the original source for all of the claims of thousands of people being evaporated."

The original source is Al Jazeera Arabic. It was later reported in Al Jazeera English.

"Both Middle East Eye and Zeteo are news aggregators that explicitly indicate that their articles are restating allegations made in Al Jazeera; neither Middle East Eye nor Zeteo meets the standard of being a "mainstream source" as required by WP:ECREE / WP:Verifiability."

Neither MEE nor Zeteo are news aggregators, at least in this instance, and both reports were attributed to staff writers. The Al Jazeera English report did appear on the aggregator Yahoo News, but that was not used as a source.

@Bobfrombrockley

"Snopes leaves it unrated, noting that the weapons described in the AJ investigation are not thermobaric at all."

Snopes also noted that the investigation referred to "thermal and thermobaric" weapons, while stating that it was unclear whether the specific munitions described were thermobaric.

"Searching Google news, no reliable sources have picked it up yet."

• TRT News
• WP:TIMESOFINDIA

While several of the cited reports reference the original investigation, they are reported by multiple outlets rather than being confined to a single publication, even if they draw on a common source. Given the current restrictions on foreign media access to Gaza, much reporting relies on local journalists, which invariably limis the number of independently sourced international reports on specific incidents. Nonetheless, the claim has been reported by multiple outlets and attributed to identified sources, rather than being presented as an unverified assertion.

@NadVolum

"They can be enormous explosions when the fuel is dispersed over a large area but there would still be remains"

Notwithstanding WP:OR, that is what the Al Jazeera English article reported:

“If a family tells us there were five people inside, and we only recover three intact bodies, we treat the remaining two as ‘evaporated’ only after an exhaustive search yields nothing but biological traces—blood spray on walls or small fragments like scalps,” he added.

JasonGen (talk) 09:47, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

By remains I mean the skeleton and lots of the insides. Not traces of blood or small fragments like scalps, those could come from most other any bomb. And as to WP:OR the citation you gave does not back up what you said. It only referred to soft tissue being possibly obliterated whwn close to the explosion. NadVolum (talk) 11:04, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

1/ I think that thousands of people adapting is by definition extraordinary. When that happens, you’d expect news organisations to be at least interested. Of instances given here of “previous reporting”, only the first one is previous, which is not in fact reporting but speculation by an advocacy organisation; the other two examples are this exact story.

2/ Correct AJ Arabic did the investigation, and other sources, including AJ English are citing that. Note that. WP:ALJAZEERA says “Editors perceive Al Jazeera English to be more reliable than Al Jazeera Arabic.”

3/ Correct that neither MEE nor Zeteo are news aggregators. I think it is the case that neither of them too much of their own original reporting but rather pass on content from other sources, and that neither of them are generally reliable.

3/ re Snopes, I find it a little confusing but it seems that AJ have either been confused of dishonest and the description of the weapons used. The only evidence for the supposed thermal weapon seems to be a Russian expert called Vasily Fatigarov, whose only other presence on the web is a mention by the BBC as a retired officer retaining Kremlin propaganda for a Russian TV station.

4/ I did miss TRT and times of India, but I know that neither of them is a generally reliable source. Both of them are fully attribute all of their information to AJ, so if this does go back in it must be attributed to AJ (and only AJ). BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:55, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

One thing I did notice just now when reading the Al Jazeera article is it seemed to be saying Israel changed the explosive in some American bombs to do this rather than that they were supplied the bombs. America does make thermobaric bombs so this is a bit odd if true. And might be the basis of a more reasonable story if they can get some good evidence. NadVolum (talk) 19:35, 10 April 2026 (UTC)