Talk:Israel/Archive 112

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

Description of suggested change:

update population count in infobox per central bureau of statistics

-- in the club bumping that 12:26, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

 Done GothicGolem29 (Talk) 15:53, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

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

Description of suggested change:

make the image caption a little less confusing?

Diff:

-- in the club bumping that 14:15, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

 Done Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 12:12, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

The redirect Israhell has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 December 6 § Israhell until a consensus is reached. Thepharoah17 (talk) 00:33, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

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

Description of suggested change: To ensure journalistic balance, the lede should explicitly state that the State of Israel vigorously disputes allegations of genocide. Israel has formally rejected these claims as "baseless" and "outrageous," maintaining that its military actions constitute a lawful defense against Hamas following the October 7 attacks. During proceedings at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), Israel’s legal team argued that the IDF’s efforts to facilitate humanitarian aid and warn civilians are fundamentally incompatible with genocidal intent. Including this dispute is essential for fairness, as much of the evidence cited against Israel originates from the Hamas-run Gaza Health Ministry—a source whose data is contested for its lack of transparency and failure to distinguish between combatants and civilians. Note on International Law: In its January 2024 ruling, the ICJ did not determine that genocide was occurring, but rather that some of the rights claimed by South Africa were "plausible," ordering Israel to take steps to prevent any potential genocidal acts while the full case proceeds. See edit request below:

Diff: Warning Unnamed parameter |1= set to default value. Please change it. Failure to use {{Text diff}} to specify your requested text changes, if not adequately described above, may lead to your request being denied.
Ri5009 (talk) 18:47, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Text diff added and fixed. Ri5009 (talk) 18:58, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: Edit requests are for noncontroversial changes only. The wording at issue was the subject of extensive recent talk page discussion, including a well-attended request for comment, and will not be changed without consensus to do so. Day Creature (talk) 19:43, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

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

Isreal needs tp be corrected to Palestine its not a legitimate place and came to be through the displacement of it's owners the people of Palestine. Genocidal owners isreal and nazi Germany shouldn't be encouraged by media following there narratives. ~2026-60156-6 (talk) 03:02, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

 Not doneThat violates too many Wikipedia policies to list. -- Avi (talk) 03:15, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

We now have a statement at the 3rd paragraph of introduction that Israel is "committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza." Arguably, the Nakba produced more destruction, more expulsion, and more death than the Gaza genocide, at least in proportion. Should that not be also called a genocide as well? The present wording of the same paragraph is the following (sources removed):

"Israel declared independence at the end of the British Mandate on 14 May 1948, and neighbouring Arab states invaded the next day. A 1949 armistice left Israel with territory beyond the UN plan; no Arab state was created, as the Gaza Strip and the West Bank came under Egyptian and Jordanian control. Most Palestinian Arabs fled or were expelled during the Nakba, leaving a minority in Israel, while the country's population grew in later decades as Jews fled or were expelled from the Muslim world."

In all honesty I don't have a fixed opinion in either direction, I am just trying to make sense of words and facts. Place Clichy (talk) 12:19, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

The Nakba is identified in the lead of that article as ethnic cleansing, not genocide. Genocide usually involves a high death toll and brutality; ethnic cleansing usually focuses more on displacement and more insidious harassment, etc. However, I note that the Nakba infobox includes the Gaza genocide as part of the Nakba, so I'm a bit of a loss here. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 22:12, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

I would guess that it is either due to the debate over where the line is between ethnic cleansing & genocide &/or a rather literal interpretation of the Ongoing Nakba framework, under which the genocide would be considered a part.

However, I don't know if I'm convinced by said reasoning & we definitely can't state as such in this article without highly reliable sources to back up said interpretation. As such, I think it'd be best to stick with the article's current description of the Nakba. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 00:09, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

This makes me wonder if the ongoing debate about genocide wording isn't a bit plagued by recentism, a known systemic bias. This recentism may also affect the sources themselves from which the consensus above was deemed to be inferred. Arguably, the Nakba produced more loss of territory, property, and life (in proportion).

Among the articles quoted on the table on this talk page which mentioned genocide, I notice that some describe the Gaza events as a second Nakba, equating it with genocide or worse, and another sees the continuity of Israel's settler colonial policies and practices of massacre and genocide, beginning with the 1948 Nakba. Another states that "on two occasions, in 1948 and in 2023–2024, this anxiety has led to the mainstreaming of the genocidal imagination". If the genocide is in fact made of all Israel actions since 1948 including settler colonialism, then the wording that "Following the October 7 attacks in 2023, Israel began committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza" does not really reflect that. I think we can all agree that the conflict did not start on 7 October 2023, although much of what I read here seem to make it believe. This makes me deplore that we lose the meaning of words and facts. Place Clichy (talk) 16:48, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

See Palestinian_genocide_accusation#Nakba. There isn't yet a consensus that the events constitute genocide. However, it can be mentioned as an ethnic cleansing, as that label does have consensus among scholars. JasonMacker (talk) 01:31, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Following the RfC, the article now says Experts, human-rights organisations and UN officials have described Israel's actions as war crimes and crimes against humanity. Following the October 7 attacks in 2023, Israel began committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza. Something I still don't understand, as I said in the RfC, is why it makes sense to come out saying Following the October 7 attacks in 2023, Israel began committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza and not, for instance, Following the October 7 attacks in 2023, Israel began committing war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide against Palestinians in Gaza. At least re: the war crimes assessment, it would be, as I said, far easier to find a scholarly consensus that war crimes have been committed compared to a consensus on genocide Placeholderer (talk) 02:09, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

I think the current wording accurately conveys the idea that Israel was already committing war crimes and crimes against humanity before October 7, but only began committing genocide after that date. Day Creature (talk) 16:53, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

As far as I know, no RfC has concluded that Israel only began committing genocide after October 7, having not previously been committing genocide. I'm sure plenty of sources would argue there's been a continual genocide since 1948, as @Place Clichy no relation alludes to above. War crimes, meanwhile, only applies as a concept during war.

And there has certainly been no RfC consensus that Israel was already committing war crimes and crimes against humanity before October 7 Placeholderer (talk) 18:18, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

Clarification: As far as I know, no RfC has concluded that Israel only began committing genocide after October 7, having not previously been committing genocide as in, the instigating genocide RfC only concluded that we can refer to the Gaza genocide as a genocide in its first sentence without attribution—with no "start" time given. While the RfC here is closed with post-Oct 7 wording, I think that part of the conclusion is unsafe since a "start time" was not in the scope of the RfC (at least, as far as I was following it) Placeholderer (talk) 18:30, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. Indeed, if we consider the contributions of academic scholars listed on this page alone, the one sure thing that can be said is that no black and white short statement can be confirmed with certainty. There are many, many, ways to describe the present and past situation, and academic inputs confirm that. Therefore, affirming in wikivoice that "Following the October 7 attacks in 2023, Israel began committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza" is quite a leap, to the point it is misleading on several accounts. Many argue that a genocide is ongoing, many argue against it, many prefer referring to war crimes or ethnic cleansing, many consider the 1948 Nakba events and subsequent settler colonization as part of the same continuum. Concision is good, but we should probably find a sentence that leaves more space to this variety of academic points of view, because that variety IS the academic consensus. Place Clichy (talk) 21:58, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

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

Description of suggested change:

Diff: Warning Unnamed parameter |1= set to default value. Please change it. Failure to use {{Text diff}} to specify your requested text changes, if not adequately described above, may lead to your request being denied.
SvenningT (talk) 18:17, 21 December 2025 (UTC) Please remove the refeerence to Israel committing genocide since 7 October 2023. It is quite plausible that some aspects of Israel's warfare in Gaza during the intervening period may be gnocidal, but the law on is very complicated and judgment should await the outcme of legal processes.

 Not done The current wording is a result of this discussion/RfC. Because this article is a contentious topic that falls under WP:CT/PIA, non-extended confirmed editors can only contribute through edit requests. So you were right in making an edit request, but this request is far from uncontroversial, and for that reason it isn't actionable. Let me know if you have questions Placeholderer (talk) 18:43, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

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

Change “Following the October 7 attacks in 2023, Israel began committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza.” to “The International Court of Justice (ICJ)ruled that the risk of genocide is "plausible" but did not rule that genocide occurred. The International Criminal Court (ICC) has pursued charges of crimes against humanity and war crimes, but not pursued formal charges of genocide.” ~2025-41916-07 (talk) 18:23, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

 Not done The current wording is a result of this discussion/RfC. Because this article is a contentious topic that falls under WP:CT/PIA, non-extended confirmed editors can only contribute through edit requests. So you were right in making an edit request, but this request is far from uncontroversial, and for that reason it isn't actionable. Let me know if you have questions Placeholderer (talk) 18:44, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

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

Remove the line that says, "Following the October 7 attacks in 2023, Israel began committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza." This is an opinion not a fact, and it is an opinion that is not supported by facts. BenGoodLuck (talk) 19:24, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

 Not done The current wording is a result of this discussion/RfC. Because this article is a contentious topic that falls under WP:CT/PIA, non-extended confirmed editors can only contribute through edit requests. So you were right in making an edit request, but this request is far from uncontroversial, and for that reason it isn't actionable. Please review the previous discussions on this page—there have been lots of edit requests nearly identical to this. Let me know if you have questions Placeholderer (talk) 19:33, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

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

DELETE "Israel is committing genocide against the Palestinian people" OR include opposing view! ~2025-42050-46 (talk) 19:25, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

 Not done The current wording is a result of this discussion/RfC. Because this article is a contentious topic that falls under WP:CT/PIA, non-extended confirmed editors can only contribute through edit requests. So you were right in making an edit request, but this request is far from uncontroversial, and for that reason it isn't actionable. Please review the previous discussions on this page—there have been lots of edit requests nearly identical to this. Let me know if you have questions Placeholderer (talk) 19:33, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

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

An encylopedia entry on Israel should not claim that after October 7, 2023 Israel began committing a genocide against the Palestinians, as that is not truthful. ~2025-42268-94 (talk) 03:22, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: Please see the FAQ at the top of this page, and the citations in the article. – bradv 06:23, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

I've updated the FAQ with another frequently asked question. Since I summarized the RfC but was involved in that RfC (and opposed the proposal) I'm mentioning the update here so people can check/verify if I faithfully summarized the RfC Placeholderer (talk) 19:52, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, I believe that was due. You wrote: "The text Following the October 7 attacks in 2023, Israel began committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza was added following this RfC, which concluded that Israel should be described in the introduction as committing genocide without in-text attribution. For further information see Gaza genocide and another relevant RfC which was held there."

A comment: this page gets direct incoming visitors from the outside of Wikipedia, and a FAQ section is probably especially targeted at them. In this regard, RfC is jargonesque. I suggest using instead the wording of both the question and answer at Talk:Gaza genocide about the RfC there, with minimal change, especially since the RfC here basically said that what applies there applies here:

• Question: Why does this article state that Israel has committed genocide in Gaza, even though this is heavily contested and neither the ICJ nor the ICC have issued a final judgment?
• Answer: A September 2025 request for comment (RfC) about the Gaza genocide article decided to state, in Wikipedia's own voice, that it is a genocide. Another December 2025 request for comment concluded that Israel should be described in the introduction as committing genocide without in-text attribution.

Note that this wording, in its question, also addresses objections, which is very important: people who are genuinely looking for the answer to this question (why does Wikipedia state without attribution that Israel has committed genocide) want to see that objections were addressed. Place Clichy (talk) 23:49, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

I used the structure/jargon from the first answer (about Jerusalem), but I'd be up for changing both to spell out request for comment (RfC). But I think that description of the Gaza genocide RfC falls into something I've complained about before—that RfC was narrowly about making the first sentence of the article a sane first sentence, not a discussion of whether or not there's ever any place for in-text attribution in describing the genocide. The Israel RfC shouldn't have been about "implementing" the Gaza genocide RfC. But I griped about this at length in the Israel RfC (and I may yet gripe more above), so I'll spare the word count here.

And this is me naturally saying "I think my version is better"—I shouldn't make the final call Placeholderer (talk) 00:23, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

I've made some changes implementing some of the feedback, pending discussion on the rest Placeholderer (talk) 16:31, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

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

Description of suggested change: Please add that the Wall Street Journal Editorial staff strongly rejects the characterization that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza, "The case law at the International Court of Justice requires a finding that 'intent to destroy the group, in whole or in part, must be the only reasonable inference which can be drawn from the pattern of conduct.'" The article notes that the definition of genocide was changed by a "sleight of hand," that Israel is not trying to destroy the Palestinian people, and that Israel's actions of warning civilians in advance and trying to move them away from the fighting is in contrast to genocide. See link: https://www.wsj.com/opinion/amnesty-international-report-israel-genocide-hamas-gaza-811acf05?mod=article_inline

Diff: Warning Unnamed parameter |1= set to default value. Please change it. Failure to use {{Text diff}} to specify your requested text changes, if not adequately described above, may lead to your request being denied.
~2025-36083-57 (talk) 21:40, 22 December 2025 (UTC) P

 Not done I think this would be a fair detail to propose at Gaza genocide, but that article doesn't have a space (as far as I can see) for newspaper editorial positions—the opinions included are more along the lines of governments, NGOs, and academics—so this would be an outlier Placeholderer (talk) 22:36, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

Placeholder Temp accounts are not permitted to edit in this topic area. I missed that you had replied, but this request is not uncontroversial, so they can't make it. 331dot (talk) 22:43, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

I hadn't replied yet, but I do think proposing addition of a reasonable source's opinion is constructive (at least, compared to "An encyclopedia can't say it's genocide you're all evil"), and given the topic a relatively uncontroversial request Placeholderer (talk) 22:48, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

I don't think that this is as uncontroversial as it seems to you. Many might wonder why the views of an American newspaper should be called out specifically in this article. 331dot (talk) 22:58, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

Well, the fact it would be an out-of-place spotlight was the reason I'd reject the proposal. By my reckoning "uncontroversial" doesn't have to mean "right".

And I'd just like to see more edit requests that are actual requests. At the very least this is an example for people to see that not all edit requests have to say "cut the genocide claim" Placeholderer (talk) 23:03, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

"Uncontroversial" is generally understood in reference to CTOPs with a 30/500 restriction to mean "something that no reasonable person would disagree with" and that does not require discussion to achieve a consensus. 331dot (talk) 23:09, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

Ok, but if I saw a plausibly GF request that I thought made sense to implement, but that a reasonable person could conceivably disagree with me about, I think it would be an appropriate course of action for me to just implement it myself as EC, even if that means I mark something as  Done that's technically an inappropriate use of an edit request.

And at the very least (for real this time), plausible/reasonable edit requests need not be reverted for breaking protocol; it's enough that it's  Not done. I think excessive reverting of edit requests risks making good-faith visiting editors sour on Wikipedia and prompt a Streisand effect-type situation that leads to further unconstructive edit requests.

Not to say that the flood of nearly identical "cut the genocide claim" requests are helpful to keep up, and certainly not to say that walls of text with varying degrees of obliviousness about WP's process are helpful to keep up, but rather to say that requests like this one are neither of those and warrant more lenience Placeholderer (talk) 23:24, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

You are free to take up what a non-EC user proposes on your own responsibility if you choose, they just cannot discuss it.

I have left some inappropriate requests up before, but this page has been flooded today(and generally since the genocide statement was added). 331dot (talk) 23:49, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

this page has been flooded today(and generally since the genocide statement was added). Maybe that's a sign that it's not the best idea to include the statement as currently written. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 01:02, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

The statement was included after an extensive discussion. No matter what the result was, many people would disagree. 331dot (talk) 01:22, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

+1 On the one hand, we have groups urging for the statement's removal, as they see it as an example of "Wikipedia's antisemitism"; on the other hand, we have groups urging for the statement to be kept, saying "to remove it would be censorship". SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 01:30, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

I have added the following sentence, with citations, to the lead: Israel and several other countries, including the United States, dispute that its actions constitute genocide. I think this mention of the opposition is acceptable, but I'm sure this change will be contested, so I am preemptively opening a discussion to decide if something like it should remain or not. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 01:52, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

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

Remove Israel committed genocide. The definition of genocide is the deliberate and systematic killing or persecution of a large number of people from a particular national or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group. Israel warned the population to move so they would not be harmed. They sent food and supplies. Hamas hid behind human shields, embedded themselves in the UN and other organizations etc etc. Palestinians had been given so many opportunities for full statehood by Israel, including the Abraham accords in 2005. They rejected and refused. If they were committing genocide, why do that? Only the majority of Muslim nations call for the elimination of Israel and hatred of Jews..including death to Jews. The only democracy in the Middle East has a Jewish population of many opinions and the VAST majority only want peace and certainly do not call for the death of Muslims and Arabs as a people. Oct 7 was a clear example of the desire to commit genocide of Jews. Yet again. If this is allowed, once we are all gone, another group will be next. Maybe you and your family? Hard to believe, isn’t it? Unfortunately, that is the long history that we have endured…yet still we love. Yet still we want peace. Despite the world hating us just because of our religious belief or genetic makeup or for those “unlucky” to call themselves friends or Partners of Jews. Please remove genocide. Stop spreading misinformation and hate. Jenb11 (talk) 04:40, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: See the responses to the multiple previous edit requests concerning this. Day Creature (talk) 05:00, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

New accounts are not permitted to edit in this topic area. Please see your user talk page. 331dot (talk) 08:42, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

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

The claim that Israel is committing genocide is not an accurate statement of fact, but rather an ideological claim that is false. ~2025-43990-60 (talk) 21:14, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

•  Not done: It is not stated as fact in the article. OTOH, you are incorrectly stating that it is only an ideological claim as fact. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:25, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

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

Change: Following the October 7 attacks in 2023, in which the Hamas government of Gaza and its allies killed about 800 Israeli civilians in one day, Israel began committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza.[c] Israel and several other countries, including the United States,[44][45] dispute that its actions constitute genocide.[46] To: Following the October 7 attacks in 2023, in which the Hamas government of Gaza and its allies killed about 800 Israeli civilians in one day, Israel began retaliating in what has become the Israel-Hamas war. Some have made allegations that Hamas’s attack was an act of genocide or a genocidal massacre against Israelis[55][56][57], while others allege that Israel has been committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza. ~2025-43925-87 (talk) 21:28, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

•  Not done: Sorry, but you must gain consensus for such a change before making an edit request; and since you are not Extended Confirmed, you cannot discuss this. Actually, you can only make non-controversial edit requests on this topic. See extended confirmed for the restrictions. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:49, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

I'm opening this thread in response to an apparent dispute over the lead, which is 543 words long at the time of this comment. @Nikkimaria attempted to rework it, but was reverted by @Onceinawhile with the edit summary "needs consensus". On one hand, I would not consider that to be a good reason to revert, and would ask Onceinawhile to explain why exactly they disagreed with Nikkimaria's edit. On the other hand, while MOS:LEADLENGTH says that the leads in most featured articles contain about 250 to 400 words, perhaps the complexity of the article subject warrants the extra ~140 words. I don't have a strong opinion of this at the moment. Chess enjoyer (talk) 04:45, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

In addition to overall length, I would argue that the current lead overemphasizes history - it's meant to represent the whole article. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:47, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

The point about whether it overemphasizes history has had a great deal of discussion on these talk pages. Cutting out significant parts of it needs discussion first. Onceinawhile (talk) 05:22, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

All right, so do you have arguments to present one way or the other? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:48, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

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

The comment that Israel is committing genocide since 2023 should be removed. This is not supported by fact. No supporting evidence is given in the article to support this contention. It would be acceptable to say that some groups purport that Israel is committing genocide. This is not a generally accepted fact. Accurotheme (talk) 04:40, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: The statement is supported by reliable sources. We had a request for comment not too long ago that decided to state that Israel is committing genocide as objective fact (here's a link to it), which makes this a controversial edit request. Edit requests should only be used for uncontroversial edits, such as fixing typos and such. Chess enjoyer (talk) 05:12, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Y'all may be interested in this here

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gaza_genocide#Moratorium_proposal — 🧀Cheesedealer ^!!!⚟ 14:33, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Should the section title Gaza-Israel conflict:

A keep it's original name, or

B be renamed to:

B1 October 7 crisis, or

’B2' October 7 war, or

B3 Post-2008 conflicts, or

B4 Post-2008 conflicts and the Gaza Strip?

This crisis so far has expanded beyond Gaza, and has included Syria, Lebanon, Iran, and the Red Sea. I think we should expand the scope for this one. ✾✾ 🙞 quái hoa 🙝 (talk) (contribs) ✾✾ 18:19, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

RFC is undue; the section's scope is beyond October 7. Triggerhippie4 (talk) 21:52, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

@Triggerhippie4: I’ve added another option after re-reading the section ✾✾ 🙞 quái hoa 🙝 (talk) (contribs) ✾✾ 02:30, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

I renamed the section. It's not RFC-worthy and should be closed. Triggerhippie4 (talk) 02:58, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

• B3. The section extends beyond October 7th so it should not be the first two and the section extends beyond Israel and Gaza as it talks about other conflicts(Israel Iran etc). I prefer B3 over B4 as B3 already covers Gaza so I see no need to extend it to include the Gaza strip in the section title. GothicGolem29 (Talk) 02:53, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
• I'm closing this RFC, as it appears to have been posted in error with no prior discussion or an edit conflict. If the original poster has concerns, they are welcome to start a discussion. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 03:20, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

  understandable have a good day ✾✾ 🙞 quái hoa 🙝 (talk) (contribs) ✾✾ 04:02, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

@Triggerhippie4 you are clearly going against the consensus established here when you reverted me here Removing wording genocide against Palestinians in gaza and calling it as characterization is not wp:voice its the opposite. You are the reason i had to open that rfc - now you are deliberately going against the rfc

You made the change first here Please respect consensus and immediately self revert Cinaroot  💬 14:51, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

You said - there is text bloating and its a long para. Thats not a valid reason. I realize occupation is linked before - but that link should be removed in favor of mine which is more clearer. You did not have any consensus to make this change in the first place. Cinaroot  💬 15:01, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

The RFC on a different page does not apply here. The current wording already states "Israel began the Gaza genocide." I have replaced "characterization" with "designation" now. In addition, the link should appear at its first mention rather than later in the text, MOS:BUILD. Triggerhippie4 (talk) 16:10, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

I gave you wrong rfc. Rfc on this article is Talk:Israel/Archive 111#RfC: Whether to state that Israel has committed genocide against Palestinians

Im sure you are aware of this. You are using your own words and going against consensus established. Cinaroot  💬 19:09, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

tagging rfc closer @Cremastra for input. Saying Israel began the Gaza genocide is insufficient. Saying its a designation is also not in the spirit of the rfc. Cinaroot  💬 19:17, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

I do not see TH4's changes is drastic, but I don't think they are an improvement. They don't explicitly go against the broad consensus, but they do change the consensus wording, and as such must be discussed here. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 19:54, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Reading it again, "committing" is an essential word because it establishes Israel's culpability. Otherwise it sounds like they initiated it at a distance. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 19:56, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

This is simply bad wording:

After the Hamas-led attacks on 7 October 2023, Israel began committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza. Israel and several other countries, including the United States dispute this.

Dispute what? Triggerhippie4 (talk) 20:50, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Sure - we can say - Israel and several other countries, including the United States, dispute that genocide has been committed against Palestinians. Cinaroot  💬 20:56, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

or dispute that its actions constitute genocide Cinaroot  💬 21:00, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

@Triggerhippie4 Link a term at most once per major section, at first occurrence. Do not re-link in other sections if not contextually important there.

I think you not considering - Do not re-link in other sections if not contextually important there.

Its very important here - not so important in earlier sentence. Cinaroot  💬 21:09, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Israel occupied the West Bank, Gaza, and the Egyptian Sinai, and annexed East Jerusalem and the Syrian Golan Heights.

above its understood whats occupied means

Link better works here

Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories has drawn international criticism, with experts calling its actions war crimes and crimes against humanity. Cinaroot  💬 21:14, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

The lead is one section. The guideline says to include a link once per section, at its first mention. Also, your recent edits again bloat the lead. The word "designation" is neutral and can help keep the text concise. Triggerhippie4 (talk) 21:39, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

I restored to edit that previously existed. lets wait for other editors feedback. its not a designation. its consensus Israel has committed genocide. Cinaroot  💬 23:25, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

For reference, here's what Cinaroot is opposing:

After the Hamas-led attacks on 7 October 2023, Israel began the Gaza genocide—a designation rejected by Israel and several other countries, including the United States.

And here's what Cinaroot is restoring:

After the Hamas-led attacks on 7 October 2023, Israel began committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza. Israel and several other countries, including the United States, dispute that Israel's actions constitute genocide.

This isn't about the subject of the RFC or whether the term "genocide" has consensus or not. I'm trying to keep the text concise, whereas Cinaroot is adding unnecessary wording to an already long paragraph. Triggerhippie4 (talk) 13:57, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

While the second version's wording is slightly longer, I think it's actually clearer.

"Gaza genocide" isn't a proper noun, rather, it's descriptive in nature (otherwise it would be "Gaza Genocide"), so "Israel began the Gaza genocide" reads poorly. Also, the first version's wording reads as if Israel is rejecting the term itself, rather then the substance of the accusation, that their action's constitute genocide.

I think clarity is more important here then concision. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 22:00, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

As I mentioned in my edit description, the sources use the word reject, so that should not be changed to dispute. JasonMacker (talk) 02:09, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

We are not compelled to use the exact words of the sources. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 22:46, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

But the “reject that” formulation is bad English. You’d need to say “reject the claim” or “reject the charge”, as in the sources, which might open new controversies, so “dispute” seems simpler. BobFromBrockley (talk) 05:38, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

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

Change: "Israel,[a] officially the State of Israel,[b] is a country in the Southern Levant region of West Asia."

To: "Israel,[a] officially the State of Israel,[b] is a country in the Southern Levant region of West Asia, established in 1948 as a homeland for the Jewish people."

Reason: This is a well-documented historical fact about Israel's founding, sourced from Israel's Declaration of Independence (1948) and UN General Assembly Resolution 181 (1947). The lead paragraph currently describes geography but omits this fundamental context about the state's establishment. ~2026-29786-6 (talk) 21:40, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: The historical context of Israel's founding is already described in the 2nd paragraph of the lead. Day Creature (talk) 16:03, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

In this version: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Israel&oldid=1331815456, the third paragraph of the article ends with the following three sentences:

After the Hamas-led attacks on 7 October 2023, Israel began committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza. Israel and several other countries, including the United States, dispute that Israel's actions constitute genocide. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) is currently hearing a genocide case against Israel, and it has acknowledged a 'plausible' case of genocide, and a 'catastrophic humanitarian situation' arising from Israel's military offensive and aid restriction.

In the reverted version, it ends with the following two sentences:

After the Hamas-led attacks on 7 October 2023, Israel began committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza. Israel and several other countries, including the United States, dispute that Israel's actions constitute genocide.

I explained the reason for the edit at the time I made it - a bunch of references supporting the claim that Israel committed genocide were buried in a note that was prefaced with indescriptive text 'Multiple sources:', so there was a need to give it a better lead-text, which I did - I changed it to 'Multiple sources supporting the assertion that Israel is or was committing genocide including IAGS and OHCHR:'

More concerning was the fact that the last three sources actually are not good sources in support of the claim - they're orders made by the International Court of Justice that do not definitively declare a genocide, which is to be expected, because the court has a tradition of using obfuscating language in their pre-verdict statements so as not to pre-empt or prejudice their verdict. Instead, I moved those references to the end, after a brief statement about the ICJ genocide case against Israel. 36 words in an article that previously didn't even mention South Africa's genocide case against Israel. To call it "bloat" and against "consensus" is just absolute rubbish. MathewMunro (talk) 06:34, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

This adds unnecessary undue weight to an already long lead paragraph and goes against the recent RFC. Triggerhippie4 (talk) 18:01, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

The sentence 'The International Court of Justice (ICJ) is currently hearing a genocide case against Israel, and it has acknowledged a 'plausible' case of genocide, and a 'catastrophic humanitarian situation' arising from Israel's military offensive and aid restriction.' is no more undue than the sentence 'Israel and several other countries, including the United States, dispute that Israel's actions constitute genocide.'

Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories has drawn international criticism, with experts calling its actions war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Occupation of the Palestinian territories - in lede must be linked to Israeli-occupied territories - i'm getting pushback from Triggerhippie4 - from linking it - citing MOS:DUPLINK - but it is contextually important and it is within communities discretion. Please vote Cinaroot  💬 05:06, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

It seems like an appropriate/necessary wikilink to me. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 02:12, 16 January 2026 (UTC)