Talk:Israel/Archive 110

Polling (RfC)

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|sock username|sockmaster username}}.

• Yes, it should be linked in the lead and the body of the article, attached to content similar to that Selfstudier developed above, and content similar to that Huldra developed in would serve well in the lede. It's obviously something readers are going to be coming to this page to learn more about, and the information exists on the encyclopedia, the conversations about whether it belongs here or not have laready been had, so there's no reason this page should not serve reader needs. — penultimate_supper 🚀 ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:53, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
• Yes, adding content as Selfstudier's above, preferably at the end of the 21st century paragraph + add a single sentence to the end of lead like this, Huldra (talk) 22:15, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

  I don't understand why it would be necessary to add it as a completely separate paragraph (if we were to add it) instead of just putting at the end of the third paragraph, which is far more related, and less abrupt. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 20:46, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

• Yes, adding content as Selfstudier's above, preferably at the end of the 21st century paragraph and add a single sentence to the end of lead per Huldra, but I would modify their suggested text ("In 2024, Israel was accused of committing the Gaza genocide)" to "In 2024, Israel was accused of committing genocide in Gaza" or similar. My logic for the change is that the accusation/dispute centres on whether Israel's actions in Gaza constitute genocide (or are legitimate self-defence/similar), rather than whether the 'Gaza genocide' is being committed by Israel (as opposed to some other State or body) which Huldra's text otherwise implies.Pincrete (talk) 07:59, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
• Yes, I agree with the inclusion in the lead. JacktheBrown (talk) 16:02, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
• Yes to Selfstudier's suggestion in the body per the weight of reliable sources given (I'll leave to others to determine where), with a summary in the lead. Only suggestion is to add the arrest warrants on. TarnishedPath^talk 09:29, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
• Yes it should be included in the lede and in the body text.--Ortizesp (talk) 14:21, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
• Yes similarly to how self has suggested DMH223344 (talk) 00:09, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
• No Not until a new article about Palestine's genocide against Israel is linked to the Palestine article.^[1]Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 01:36, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

  See WP:OTHERCONTENT and then perhaps think about making a policy based argument or your !vote will likely be ignored by whoever closes this RFC. TarnishedPath^talk 02:30, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

• No Given that there is no actual genocide. Very much not. MaskedSinger (talk) 05:06, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
• No The article "Gaza genocide" presents claims that lack broad consensus within the international community and are subject to significant dispute. Linking to such an article may mislead readers into perceiving these claims as established facts rather than contested allegations, thereby compromising the integrity of the host article. Eladkarmel (talk) 20:45, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
• No per MaskedSinger, Allthemilescombined1 and Eladkarmel; feels like including this would unduly shoehorn something in that doesn't belong in the general overview article. Andre🚐 21:05, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
• Not in the lede. It should be made clear that these are accusations and many sources do not agree with this characterisation. Note that many country articles don't mention genocides in the lede even when there is a consensus that it happened (Bosnia and Herzegovina, Iraq, Syria (Yazidi genocide), Uganda, etc). Alaexis_¿question? 21:38, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

User:Alaexis just a question: when you say "nor in the lead; does that mean you think it should be in the body? If so, which paragraph? Huldra (talk) 22:03, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

• Yes. There's a relevant section where it can be mentioned: Israel#Israeli-occupied_territories. Right now, this article doesn't mention two important things: That the current Prime Minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, is a fugitive wanted for crimes against humanity by the International Criminal Court, and that Israel is being charged with genocide by South Africa in the International Court of Justice. I think there can be a new subsection in the "Israeli occupied territories" section, that mentions both facts. I see Selfstudier has given a sample text. I support that paragraph being added to the relevant section, but I think a mention of the ICC's arrest warrant of the Prime Minister of Israel (and Yoav Gallant's warrant too) could also be added, since it's also international litigation for crimes against humanity in Gaza. Mohammed Deif's arrest warrant doesn't need to be mentioned in this article. I think we can have a new subsection titled "Gaza Strip" that moves text that already exists in the section. So in addition to Selfstudier's text, I would add the first sentence of the arrest warrant article to the end of it, and make it look like THIS (A link to a sandbox page that would show what the article would look like).--JasonMacker (talk) 05:43, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

  As far as adding it to the lead, the already existing sentence in the lead, "Israel's practices in its occupation of the Palestinian territories have drawn sustained international criticism—along with accusations that it has committed war crimes and crimes against humanity against the Palestinian people—from human rights organizations and United Nations officials." seems to be a good enough summary, but I guess I would modify it to "Israel's practices in its occupation of the Palestinian territories have drawn sustained international criticism—along with accusations that it has committed war crimes and crimes against humanity against the Palestinian people—from human rights organizations, the International Criminal Court, and United Nations officials." The ICC is technically not a UN body, so it should be mentioned separately. But other than that, I think such a sentence would be fine. I'm open to suggestions on this though. JasonMacker (talk) 05:48, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

*No. The genocide allegation appears to be, at the moment, primarily a tool of propaganda. Unless substantial new evidence emerges, analyzed by impartial, non-politicized sources and supported by more than two vague statements and casualty figures (which include a significant number of Hamas militants but the Hamas-run Health Ministry prefers not to differentiate militants from civilians), such claims lack the rigor required for inclusion in serious, encyclopedic coverage. ABHammad (talk) 06:53, 27 November 2024 (UTC)Blocked sock Selfstudier (talk) 11:08, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

• "The genocide allegation appears to be, at the moment, primarily a tool of propaganda." This is simply not true. See: Expert opinions in the Gaza genocide debate. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 07:00, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

• No. This article is about the State of Israel. Not news. Should the articles about the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, and many others feature the various proven genocides that actually took place, or even in the lead? Might as well say "also known as the Z.E.", in the lead or anywhere, with some extra brackets for good measure? This is a matter of an ongoing armed conflict, with fog of war and disinformation throughout. Not only would it be "commenting on an ongoing investigation" as they say, but entirely inappropriate and irresponsible. Skullers (talk) 11:38, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
• Yes Per WP:LEDE, required mention of significant criticism or controversies, clearly true and which several of the No !votes have acknowledged as being the case. A mention should be added via inclusion within the sentence "Israel's practices in its occupation of the Palestinian territories have drawn sustained international criticism—along with accusations that it has committed war crimes and crimes against humanity [and genocide ] against the Palestinian people—from human rights organizations and United Nations officials." Selfstudier (talk) 12:10, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
• Not in the lede - a good chunk of the lede is already criticism, so adding additional accusations would seem like POV shoehorning. Not necessarily against inclusion in the body, but there isn't a specific proposal to comment on. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 23:37, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

User:XDanielx there is a question about whether it should be in the body. ("Yes, it should be linked from the body of the article (please specify which paragraph") So, if you agree: which paragraph? Huldra (talk) 22:03, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

@Huldra: Relevant material is currently in the body, unless it is reverted. The original dispute was about a sentence being added to the lead not material being added to the body, something which is not usually a source of dispute unless the amount of such material is undue. Option 2 already assumes material present in the body, no?. And option 1 just says no, so the third option is not really necessary. Selfstudier (talk) 10:36, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

@Selfstudier: When I started this RfC on the 22 nov, it wasn't in the body (that was first added the 27th) so the the third option is useful (necessary?) for keeping it there, Huldra (talk) 23:09, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

I just think the two things should not be mixed up, this RFC should not attempt to rubber stamp the addition that I made to the body, that should just be subject to the normal editing process. Imagine that I had not added it and people voted option 2? Then there would have had to have been another discussion about what should be in the body, so yes I have attempted to remedy a deficiency in the way the RFC was drafted and hopefully it meets with approval. Selfstudier (talk) 23:19, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

• Yes in the body and the lede: There are prominent RS (UN Special Committee, Israeli holocaust scholar Omer Bartov to cite two examples) supporting the charachterization that Israel has been committing a genocide in Gaza, so there is no reason why this shouldn't be mentioned in the body. Accordingly, lede summarizes the body, so it should include that, given that it is one of the most prominent controversies Israel is facing second to the crime of apartheid in the West Bank (I am in favor of including both in the lede), though admittedly genocide hasn't reached the threshold of being confirmed, that's why for now it can be described as an accusation. The perfect short phrasing in my opinion for the lede can be:

Update to my "admittedly genocide hasn't reached the threshold of being confirmed," that is beginning to change as Amnesty International launched a report today charachterizing that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza. While this does not yet mean the threshold has been reached, but it gives a whole new significance to the inclusion of the "accusation" to the lede. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:01, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

• Yes, both in the lead and body: Per sources and my understanding of Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. Some of these policies and guidelines are:

1) Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Due_and_undue_weight. WP:Tertiary sources can be used to assess WP:DUE. My understanding is that once DUEness is established, Wikipedia articles can be kept up to date. This is actually a strength of Wikipedia. For example, no one would argue mentioning something about the economy in this article is WP:UNDUE. WP:Tertiary and overview WP:Secondary sources about Israel would include something about the economy. It could be too much or too little, but something about the economy would be DUE in this article. However, economic stats in this article would probably be much more up to date than many published overview WP:Secondary sources about Israel such as Routledge Handbook on Contemporary Israel.

Similarly, WP:Tertiary sources mention Israeli-Palestinian or Israeli-Arab conflict at length. As such, Gaza genocide would be DUE. If in several years, newly published WP:Tertiary sources do not mention this, it can be taken out of the lead. If in several years, both newly published WP:Tertiary and overview WP:Secondary sources about Israel do not mention this, it can also be taken out of the body. But for now, to keep the article up to date, this is DUE. (Update: quote from intro chapter in overview secondary source provided below Bogazicili (talk) 19:17, 3 January 2025 (UTC))

Sources are below, I cannot give lengthy quotes due to word count restrictions in Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Arab–Israeli conflict

More tertiary sources can be found using Google Books, Google Scholar, or the Wikipedia Library (for example: Oxford Reference Online database)

wording suggestion removed

The above wording makes the lead neutral as only the accusation is added in Wikivoice. Similarly, the text in the body should be NPOV.

2) Wikipedia:Verifiability. Lots of WP:RS. See Template:Expert opinions in the Gaza genocide debate. There are already WP:Secondary sources about this such as Gaza Faces History by Enzo Traverso. This source also ties Gaza genocide with Israeli-Palestinian conflict: In this urgent, insightful essay, a respected historian places the Israeli-Palestinian war in context, challenging Western attitudes about the region

3) MOS:LEADLENGTH. The above proposal would trim the lead word count by something like 26 words. It'd still be more than 400 words, but even many featured articles are longer than 400 words. Bogazicili (talk) 17:27, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

You linked to four tertiary sources, but I don't see the word "genocide" in any of them? (Britannica links to recent news about it, but that seems temporary.) Maybe this is a sign that our lede's focus should somehow be different, but in terms of accusations of genocide, if anything it seems like a sign that we should omit them.

I don't think there's any dispute that something like accusations that it has committed genocide would pass WP:V, but that isn't really an argument for highlighting material in a lede. That comes down mainly to WP:DUE and to MOS:LEDE, which tell us to briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 01:34, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

I gave my reasoning for this.

This is a recent and ongoing event. The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Modern World, published in 2008, would not have mentioned 2024 events. It's a reliable source, but they are not clairvoyant.

My DUE argument was due to heavy coverage of Israeli-Palestinian or Israeli-Arab conflict in Israel entries in tertiary sources.

If sources published in the next few years do not explicitly mention Gaza genocide, it can be taken out of the body or the lead.

But for now, we can keep the article up to date. I believe this is the precedent in Wikipedia. Otherwise Wikipedia would be several years or longer behind everything if we had to wait for overview WP:Secondary or WP:Tertiary sources for everything. Once those type of sources covering recent events are available however, those sources would determine how we proceed. Bogazicili (talk) 11:52, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

• Yes, it should be linked in the lead, at the end of the third paragraph where it discusses war crimes and crimes against humanity. This text has been through various iterations, but would benefit from greater precision by means of specificity. A great many countries have been accused of war crimes, making that a rather generic, not outstanding observation. While it is probably more notable that Israel has been accused of a particularly voluminous number of different war crimes in the post-WWII period, sitting above that are the very specific crimes against humanity in which it has been implicated –namely apartheid and genocide. Now apartheid has already been through the RFC process and denied a mention (based on rationales that grow poorer by the day) but to the question here, yes, it is extremely pertinent to mention the particularly nation-defining crime against humanity of genocide – the so-called crime of crimes. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:32, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
• Yes it is notable enough for an article, therefore should be linked. SKAG123 (talk) 23:47, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
• Yes, but not in the lead. There's some discussion of genocide in the 21st century section of the article and this link could be put there, but it's not clear why this should be added to the lead. I am strongly opposed to adding it to the lead and most of the arguments for inclusion into the lead can be discounted on WP:10YT/WP:NOTTHENEWS/WP:RECENTISM grounds. Nemov (talk) 22:07, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
• Yes for the body, no for the lead It is certainly notable enough to mention in a relevant part of the article, but I think it is too recent to mention in the lead, since we cannot assess long-term historical importance yet. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:24, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

  QuicoleJR, can you point to the relevant Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines for your argument? Bogazicili (talk) 15:32, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

  The bar for something being included in the lead is pretty high, much higher than inclusion in the body. According to MOS:LEADNO, emphasis on material, such as the Gaza genocide, should reflect its relative importance to the topic as described by reliable sources. I think the current state of the lead is fine, although I would also be fine with adding a sentence or two about how Israel's occupation of Gaza and the West Bank is illegal. I don't think the Gaza genocide by itself has enough weight to warrant inclusion in the lead. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:42, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

  Gaza genocide is part of the Israeli-Palestinian or Israeli-Arab conflict, which is heavily covered in Israel entries in WP:Tertiary sources. See the sources above. Bogazicili (talk) 15:46, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict certainly warrants inclusion in the lead. However, is the Gaza genocide itself heavily covered in those entries? It is the level of coverage for the specific topic that matters, not the level of coverage of the wider subject it is part of. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

  See the discussion above. Bogazicili (talk) 15:59, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

  WP:LEDE requires mention of significant criticism or controversies, this fits the bill, it needs no more than a wikilink. Selfstudier (talk) 16:07, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

  It says summarize the most important points. I am simply contending that this is not one of them. Israel is a sizable country with a lot of history, and I don't believe that this has enough DUE weight in reliable sources about Israel as a whole to warrant including prominently in the lead, although I think it is important enough to mention in the body. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:12, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

  To be clear, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict definitely warrants inclusion in the lead, and we could probably add a sentence about the legality of Israel's occupation of Gaza and the West Bank, but I think including the Gaza genocide specifically in the lead would be recentist and UNDUE, especially since the Israel-Hamas war is only covered by "several wars" in the lead. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:15, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

  See the wording suggestion above. This could be added into the lead while trimming the lead. For WP:DUE, we can look at coverage of Arab-Israeli conflict. If newer tertiary sources in the upcoming years do not explicitly mention Gaza genocide, Gaza genocide can be taken out. Do we have any tertiary sources published in the past few months?

  If the only sources were newspaper articles, recentist arguments would succeed. However, we have so many secondary sources on Gaza genocide now. Bogazicili (talk) 16:26, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, we have many secondary sources on the Gaza genocide. We also have many secondary sources on a variety of other things, like the 7 October attacks or the Munich massacre of Israeli athletes. Those aren't included in the lead either. My question is whether secondary or tertiary sources on the topic of Israel as a whole mention the genocide. If not, it shouldn't be in the lead yet. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:29, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

  Assessing DUEness of Munich massacre is easy, since it happened in 1972. Look at tertiary sources. Bogazicili (talk) 16:30, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

  Arguing that we should rush this into the lead because we can't assess long-term importance yet is pure recentism. I'm not saying we can't update the body to add this information, but we should wait on adding it to the lead until the long-term impact is more clear. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:35, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

  That wasn't my argument, I won't respond any further to not WP:Bludgeon Bogazicili (talk) 16:38, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

  It says summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies I can assure you this is a prominent controversy. Well, unless you can convince me it isn't. Selfstudier (talk) 16:19, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

  It is a decently prominent controversy, but the State of Israel has had a lot of prominent controversies in its short history, and we can't stuff them all in the lead. I think mentioning that their occupation of Gaza and the West Bank is illegal would cover the most important controversy, being their illegal occupation of Gaza and the West Bank. The Gaza genocide is arguably a subtopic of that. For an applicable example from another article, the featured article Japan does not mention the atrocities they committed against China in World War II in the lead, even though it was, and still is, a very prominent controversy. Similarly, the lead of Germany only gives the Holocaust two words in a sentence about the Nazi government. Similar considerations apply here. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:27, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

  And this would be exactly one word in the lead, per my suggestion. Bogazicili (talk) 16:29, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

QuicoleJR, can you provide recent sources (second half of 2024 for example) that supports your interpretation of Wiki policies? Bogazicili (talk) 14:07, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

What do you mean by that? QuicoleJR (talk) 14:11, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Please provide a recent (second half of 2024 for example) tertiary or overview WP:Secondary source about Israel, and show that these issues are not mentioned. Bogazicili (talk) 14:15, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

The only one I have been able to find is Brittanica, which has been updated recently and makes no mention of the genocide. Very few overview sources have been published in that timeframe, and you are asking me to prove a negative. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:17, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

The ONUS is on you to prove that they are covered in such sources. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:18, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

And I did provide recent sources below.

Britannica's updates seem superficial. They have very detailed information about Netanyahu’s second stint in history section, but it seems to stop at a certain point. Bogazicili (talk) 14:23, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

• Only in the body while it’s a non-insignificant criticism, it’s not sufficiently significant to be included in the lead. Both based on the uncertain status and the recency of the accusation, the lead should instead continue referring to other, certain misconduct, per the relevant policies cited above, instead of referring to a disputed interpretation of some of the very recent actions. FortunateSons (talk) 23:14, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

  FortunateSons, can you please specify "the relevant policies"? Bogazicili (talk) 16:19, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

  MOS:LEADNO, WP:Recentism, WP:10YT, WP:DUE would probably be the most relevant ones FortunateSons (talk) 08:50, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

  FortunateSons, thank you for clarification. Note that WP:10YT and WP:Recentism are not policies, they are explanatory essays. You can get more information in WP:SUPPLEMENTAL.

  For interpretation of WP:DUE and MOS:LEADNO, we disagree, but this has been discussed above, so I'm not going to get into it again. Bogazicili (talk) 14:15, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

  Of course, but they are broadly accepted as a concretisation of policy; nevertheless, thank you for the reminder. FortunateSons (talk) 18:04, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

FortunateSons, can you provide recent sources (second half of 2024 for example) that supports your interpretation of Wiki policies? Bogazicili (talk) 14:07, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

What do you imagine this source to be? There are news reports that don't mention genocide, but that not what you mean? FortunateSons (talk) 14:25, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Something like Routledge Handbook on Contemporary Israel or an encyclopedia, but published on second half of 2024. Bogazicili (talk) 14:27, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

I would defer to the cited Britannica here; more importantly, the fact that we’re discussing less than a handful of sources and a timeframe of 6 Months (or a year) is a strong indication that this is in fact recency bias. FortunateSons (talk) 15:15, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

FortunateSons, Britannica doesn't seem that updated. See above. Bogazicili (talk) 19:19, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Which seems like a strong indication that there has not been sufficient change to justify us updating either. FortunateSons (talk) 22:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

That seems like an WP:OR explanation. We do not know when Britannica updates their articles. It could be once in every 5 years for example. Bogazicili (talk) 07:03, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

But the work doesn't end there. Articles and multimedia are regularly revised and updated, ensuring they stay up to date. It's a rigorous, thorough process, but it's worth it. Our editorial methods are what make Britannica a digital source of knowledge and information you really can trust and enjoy. it’s possible, but that doesn’t seem to align with this. FortunateSons (talk) 09:15, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

I actually found the information 2023–present: Israel-Hamas War

But for Israel, history seems to stop before 3rd Netanyahu government: Bogazicili (talk) 10:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

With this entry also not supporting your position, right? FortunateSons (talk) 10:11, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

What do you mean? It shows that Israel entry wasn't really updated. Arab-Israeli wars entry was updated. Bogazicili (talk) 11:38, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Leave it to closer to decide relative merits, which won't really depend on whether Britannica is updated or not. Selfstudier (talk) 11:46, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

None have been published to my knowledge, and it is on you to prove that they do exist. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:14, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Plenty of sourcing, obviously relevant and controversial enough to outweigh proforma objections. Selfstudier (talk) 17:27, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

QuicoleJR, source provided below Bogazicili (talk) 19:18, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

• Not in the lead per WP:RECENTISM. Would prefer to wait until a court conviction or acquittal has been made to decide. Wafflefrites (talk) 04:10, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

  The Palestinian genocide accusation is not recent only the Gaza genocide is and that is still a significant controversy, regardless. Selfstudier (talk) 17:08, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

  Since 1955, the population of Palestine has steadily increased. The life expectancy has increased, the infant mortality and child death rate has decreased. So I don’t understand how Israel has been genociding the Palestinians if all these numbers are improving for them. Wafflefrites (talk) 00:34, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

  Reminder of WP:OR and WP:NOTAFORUM. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 00:37, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

  Here is a source so it is not OR or NOTAFORUM. The source is a Jewish advocacy group. Wafflefrites (talk) 00:49, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

  That isn’t a reliable source for the topic. nableezy - 02:12, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

  Without even getting into if the advocacy group source you provided is a reliable source, for accusation of genocide, we would use WP:Secondary sources such as , so the source you provided does not invalidate those, per WP:NPOV. Bogazicili (talk) 14:27, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

• Yes should be linked in lead per Iskandar323's reasoning. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 23:16, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
• Comment, newer sources

• Overview WP:Secondary source: Routledge Handbook on Palestine. From the introduction chapter:

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

Although the title says Palestine, it covers Israel too. See the definition on page 3 in pdf preview (click on preview pdf in the link)

• The Palgrave Handbook of Contemporary Geopolitics, Geopolitics in Israel entry. Although this is an entry about geopolitics, and not an entry about Israel as a country, the prominence of 7 October Hamas-led attack on Israel is notable. Genocide accusations are also mentioned.

Given no recent (second half of 2024 for example) overview secondary or tertiary sources about Israel have been provided in this RfC, and given the lengthy coverage of Arab-Israel conflict in older tertiary sources about Israel, and given the above sources, I now think that three things are due both in the lead and in the body:

1. 7 October Hamas-led attack on Israel
2. Most recent Israel–Hamas war
3. Gaza genocide

Bogazicili (talk) 14:01, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

The lack of recent overviews (I don't think many have been published) does not mean that we should include these things in the lead. I support adding the Israel-Hamas war, I think the other two would be both be giving UNDUE weight to recent events. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:15, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

The lack of recent overviews means we have to use what we have (above), while keeping in mind the heavy coverage of Arab-Israeli conflict in older sources. I just pinged you to ask for newer sources though, no need to discuss what we already discussed above. Bogazicili (talk) 14:26, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

• Yes, the available sourcing here and on the related article indicates that it's a major part of the coverage and history of Israel. The arguments against inclusion don't make any sense, either; whether individual editors agree with it, or whether it's disputed, are reasons to be cautious about the precise wording for how we cover it, but they're not what we use to determine if we cover it at all - that question comes down to how broad and high-quality the sourcing is and how significant they treat it as. And the extensive academic sourcing clearly justifies treating it as a high-profile aspect of the topic worth discussing prominently here. A lead is supposed to contain mention of significant criticism or controversies; we don't exclude high-profile stuff just because it's controversial. The sourcing disputing it above doesn't help; while it's not terribly high-quality, I'm sure higher-quality sourcing for that perspective exists... but it's written from the perspective of "this is an important and central argument over Israel", ie. a controversy worth covering even if they have a clear perspective on it. The sort of coverage that would be necessary to exclude it isn't just academics who disagree, but sourcing that establishes that it is broadly fringe, which doesn't seem to be the case. --Aquillion (talk) 15:14, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
• Yes in body (end of 21st century para) and lead per Selfstudier and Iskandar323, as well as WP:10YT - while I've seen several comments opposing the change on 10YT grounds, I actually think that as increasing amounts of information - backed by RS, of course - comes out on this topic, it will look increasingly strange in 10 years time for us to not have included this. Regardless of how one personally feels about the matter, this is a significant charge to be levied against a state, and it will be significantly more confusing to omit or downplay this information than to just include it. Smallangryplanet (talk) 19:21, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
• The lead's so fucked up it might as well be included, and it obviously should be included in the body. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:42, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Discussion (RfC)

This doesn’t seem that actionable an RfC, or that productive a question. The content of the article is what is discussed, and links serve as navigational aids for delving into the content. Considering a link alone in the aether rather misses its purpose. CMD (talk) 09:02, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Seems that there should be first some material in the body related to the wikilink and South Africa's genocide case against Israel. @Huldra: Suggest you pull the RFC tag on this for now until some material can be put together for the article body. Selfstudier (talk) 11:07, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Something like this perhaps

Israel is accused of carrying out a genocide against the Palestinian people by experts, governments, United Nations agencies, and non-governmental organisations during its invasion of the Gaza Strip in the ongoing Israel–Hamas war.^[2][3] Observers, including the UN Special Committee to investigate Israeli practices and United Nations Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese,^[4] have cited statements by senior Israeli officials that may indicate an "intent to destroy" (in whole or in part) Gaza's population, a necessary condition for the legal threshold of genocide to be met.^[2][5][6] A majority of mostly US-based Middle East scholars believe Israel's actions in Gaza were intended to make it uninhabitable for Palestinians, and 75% of them say Israel's actions in Gaza constitute either genocide or "major war crimes akin to genocide".^[7] On 29 December 2023, South Africa instituted proceedings against Israel at the International Court of Justice pursuant to the Genocide Convention,^{[8][9][10][11]}

This is just wrt the genocide issue, need something about the arrest warrants as well. Selfstudier (talk) 15:43, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't seem very neutral to cover statements from sources like Albanese without also covering accusations of bias on their part. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 23:36, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

It doesn’t make sense to cover things that aren’t relevant to the topic, like accusations of bias instead of addressing the substance of the statement. nableezy - 00:57, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

If we don't want to get into such accusations of bias then we shouldn't be using sources like Albanese in the first place. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 17:00, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

That makes no sense to me. We dont include accusations of bias against the Times of Israel anytime we use them as a source, or the NYTimes, or Benny Morris, or whatever other reliable sources we cite. The ad hominem of "she's biased" is not relevant to the argument she makes or the qualifications she has to make them. At most, such accusations belong in the biography of Albanese, or Morris, or whatever other article that covers the sources themselves, not whenever they are cited. nableezy - 17:23, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

That's not at all comparable. NYT and Morris are occasionally criticized by both sides for various perceived biases. Accusations of bias against Albanese are far more significant, e.g. with officials from several different governments openly calling her antisemitic or unfit for her role. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 18:59, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

They are directly comparable, and governments arent reliable sources for anything other than the views of the politicians heading those governments. It is a basic ad hominem, and it has nothing to do with the actual content of her comments. nableezy - 19:04, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't really make sense to call this an ad hominem, when source selection inherently involves evaluating sources rather than the content of their statements. Surely the WP:BESTSOURCES here would be uninvolved ones with some semblance of objectivity.

Covering Albanese's claim here is like covering Biden's claim that there isn't a genocide. Clearly neither is among the BESTSOURCES, and neither claim is noteworthy enough that it would need to be covered anyway. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 19:57, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Biden is a politician speaking as a politician. Albanese is an expert in international law, speaking as an expert in international law. nableezy - 20:04, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I should add that she isn't just speaking as an expert in international law (which she undoubtedly is), but she is speaking as a UN official who is the current United Nations Special Rapporteur on the occupied Palestinian territories. To compare her speech with Biden (a non-expert politician who has absolutely no scholarship on the issue and doesn't have an international law background) is ridiculous. JasonMacker (talk) 18:39, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Special Rapporteurs are not UN officials, they are independent experts consulted by the UN, and they remain independent. See United Nations special rapporteur for an overview. nableezy - 20:54, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

And Jews and others praising her, no? She must be doing something right. Afaics, she has tended to be ahead of the curve on most matters. Selfstudier (talk) 19:06, 2 December 2024 (UTC)