Talk:Gaza war

First lead paragraph

@Quantling: I've broken this off from Continuing or starting for better visibility and comment from others. The linked section had discussion on the context for the war, and level of detail for that context. Different versions were looked at. My concern is that the live version doesn't describe much, but sticks to the definition in a staccato fashion, jumping from point to point. An alien from outer space, reading the paragraph, would not understand much. Here is the last iteration I proposed, taking into account commentary on the previous too-long and too-short versions: The Gaza war is a war/conflict/armed conflict between X and Y in the Gaza Strip and Israel since 7 October 2023. It is the 15th war of the Gaza–Israel conflict dating back to 1948. The war caused the deaths of tens of thousands of Palestinians and over a thousand Israelis, and unprecedented destruction and a humanitarian crisis in the Gaza Strip. The first day was the deadliest in Israel's history; it is the deadliest war for Palestinians in the entire Israeli–Palestinian conflict. A Middle Eastern crisis also followed. GeoffreyA (talk) 08:05, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

@GeoffreyA Thank you for your ongoing efforts. I have major objections with both this text and the text it would replace, That said, the newer may be better than the older. At any rate, I wouldn't accuse you of edit warring if you were to go ahead and make edits along these lines. (I can't speak for others!) As to my major objections:

1. "is a war ... since 7 October 2023" is how people frame things when they want to imply that the attacks of 7 October 2023 were "out of the blue" or an unprecedented escalation, etc. To indicate that the conflict since 7 October 2023 is somehow a distinct war from what preceded it is capitulating to that bias. (I have no problem indicating that this article focuses on those parts of the decades-long conflict that have occurred since that date.)
2. "A Middle Eastern crisis also followed" is similar. The fact is that a Middle Eastern crisis also preceded 7 October 2023, and to imply (by omission) that that isn't the case is capitulating to a biased framing of events.

—Quantling (talk | contribs) 16:16, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

@Quantling: Thank you for your commentary. I feel that, with each iteration, we draw closer to a final version. Regarding (1), I am of the view that the second sentence makes it clear that the present conflict is a continuation and a part. (2) I am not sure how to resolve this, being perhaps a problem with that article's name. In summary, propose a version of this paragraph so that I could see what readings you've got in mind, and we can work from there. GeoffreyA (talk) 06:23, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

> propose a version of this paragraph...

The second sentence tries to count wars (subwars?) saying that this is the 15th despite that the Gaza-Israel conflict article lists it as 14th. This counting of subwars may be of interest to someone but I don't think it belongs in the lede, even if we could agree on what constitutes a subwar and how many there have been. The first sentence is written as if this subwar is an entity all on its own, which it is not. So I end up with something like:

Gaza War refers to the part of the decades-long Israeli–Palestinian conflict that has been occurring in Gaza and Israel since 7 October 2023. The first day was the deadliest in Israel's history and the subsequent violence has been the deadliest for Palestinians.

If we instead have separate citations and/or wikilinks for Israeli and Gazan deaths in the second sentence that would be okay by me. —Quantling (talk | contribs) 15:03, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

I also think that the counting of subwars is superfluous but I'm not sure about the first sentence. Normally we should say *what* something is and then give additional context, what this is part of. This is how most of RS describe the conflict (for example, Israel and Hamas have been waging war since gunmen from the Palestinian militant group in the Gaza Strip stormed into southern Israel on Oct. 7, 2023... The Gaza war is the bloodiest episode yet in a conflict between Israelis and Palestinians that has rumbled on for more than 75 years and destabilised the Middle East.[16]). It is also what we do in most other articles (for example, Norwegian campaign doesn't say that "it's a part of WW2 that occurred in Norway", it starts with *what* and then says that it was a part of WW2). Thus, both the policy and precedent support the current version. Alaexis_¿question? 08:21, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

I agree with Alaexis. The war is part of a conflict stretching back to the 20th century or earlier, but this article's opening sentence should describe what that part is, and then go from there. As a tentative offering of the first two sentences: The Gaza War is an armed conflict between X and Y in the Gaza Strip and Israel since 7 October 2023. It is part of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict dating back to the 20th century, and the nth war of the Gaza-Israel conflict. GeoffreyA (talk) 13:37, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

The Norwegian campaign starts The Norwegian campaign (8 April – 10 June 1940) involved the attempt by Allied forces to defend northern Norway coupled with the Norwegian military's resistance to the country's invasion by Nazi Germany in World War II. It manages to say that this is a part, right there in the first sentence, with the mention of World War II. If folks had chosen to call it the "Israel–Gaza battle" I suppose the wording for the present article would be easier because it would be clear off the bat that this is a piece, not a whole

What if we change "refers to" to "is"?

The Gaza War is the part of the decades-long Israeli–Palestinian conflict that has been occurring in Gaza and Israel since 7 October 2023. The first day was the deadliest in Israel's history and the subsequent violence has been the deadliest for Palestinians.

—Quantling (talk | contribs) 13:40, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

I don't support that opening sentence because it doesn't fully define "the part," or does so from a bird's-eye view. Looking at it a different way, Baldur's Gate 3 is the third instalment of the Baldur's Gate series, but first and foremost a 2023 RPG developed and published by Larian. GeoffreyA (talk) 15:26, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Please say more about doesn't fully define "the part". My sentence gives the time subset and the place subset, and names the larger whole, which is lots about the "part" as I see it. So, what do you mean by that? Or if instead I should be focusing on or does so from a bird's-eye view, what specifically is it under- or overemphasizing? If I understand better what you mean, I can propose new wording.

I don't know much about role-playing video games, so I apologize if I am off the mark here, but the name Baldur's Gate 3 has "3" in it. In my book that's a very strong hint that it isn't the beginning of something. Our work here would be easier if the "Gaza War" were instead named with "battle" or some other part-indicating word; but, to the best of my knowledge, that's not common usage. —Quantling (talk | contribs) 17:58, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Your version gives the place and time, and is correct. "GW is a conflict between X and Y in Place 1 and 2 since Date" is also correct. Therefore, I think it is a matter of what do we emphasise, and from what level of abstraction? Perhaps a compromise could join the two sentences, at the risk of overload. The Gaza War is an armed conflict between X and Y in PLACES since DATE, and part of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict dating back to the 20th century. GeoffreyA (talk) 21:29, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

(Good point about the 3 in BG3!) GeoffreyA (talk) 21:36, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes, your version could work, though we need to work out what to put there for between X and Y, or to remove that part. Removal has the advantage of using the Israeli–Palestinian conflict already in the sentence to sidestep having to make those X and Y satisfy a broad host of concerns. That might look like:

The Gaza War is an armed conflict in Gaza and Israel since 7 October 2023, and part of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict dating back to the 20th century.

Less important to me, though still worth discussing is dating back to the 20th century. Most would agree that it dates back to 1948 at least, but many would argue that it started decades (or, sometimes, even longer) before then. So, I see value in being a little vague. However in my experience, the presently used language is the sort often used to include just a few years in the 20th century and, thus, to me, is somewhat too vague and/or slightly off the mark. Is it too poetic to say dating back generations? —Quantling (talk | contribs) 15:01, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Should we include something about the fact that this isn't the first "Gaza war" (Gaza War (2008–2009), 2012 Gaza War, 2014 Gaza War)? 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 15:17, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Another iteration adding Abo Yemen's suggestion. As for "dating back generations," Quantling, it is too poetic; but I added "early" to address any vagueness. The Gaza War is an armed conflict between X and Y in the Gaza Strip and Israel since 7 October 2023, and part of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict dating back to the early 20th century. It is the nth war of the Gaza-Israel conflict, following those of 2008–2009, 2012, 2014, and 2021. GeoffreyA (talk) 08:12, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Looks good 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 09:27, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps we are converging to something that works. I'd eliminate between X and Y because I fear that we'll end up calling Israel's opponent "Hamas" or "Hamas-led militants", which disappear the Gazan civilians. I'd eliminate the last sentence It is the nth war of the Gaza-Israel conflict, following those of 2008–2009, 2012, 2014, and 2021 because the list of wars appears to be from an Israeli point of view. For example, the 2018–2019 Gaza border protests during which "Israeli forces killed a total of 223 Palestinians" is not being counted as a war. —Quantling (talk | contribs) 12:38, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

The war has always been asymmetrical: Palestinian militants were fighting the IDF, but the IDF were fighting those militants and shooting and bombing defenceless civilians (and still are). So I would not support a reading, or omission, suggesting that the civilians of Gaza had a part in the fighting.

Regarding the list of wars, I am not against adding the border protests of 2018-19, since that was a key "bone" in the skeleton of the story. GeoffreyA (talk) 16:11, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

I want to leave out between X and Y unless we can agree that it should be between Israel and Gaza or, possibly, between Israel and Palestine. I fear that between Israel and Hamas and between Israel and Hamas-led militants leave out the "shooting and bombing [of] defenceless civilians" of one nationality (among other problems).

I think any listing of wars within this conflict is like any recounting of the history of this conflict: any omission or emphasis is too easily interpreted as a bias. Wikipedia has to deal with this mess, but I strongly suggest that that be in the articles dedicated to that long history and, at the very least, that we don't attempt this arduous task in the lede of this article about one part. Instead, let's wikilink to the articles that have a better chance of doing that well. If the existing wikilink to Israeli–Palestinian conflict doesn't already accomplish this, let's replace it or add to it with another wikilink, but not include this enumeration of subwars. —Quantling (talk | contribs) 16:36, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

I find that the Gaza Strip is a mouthful in phrases like Gaza Strip–Israel conflict and, generally, that the Gaza Strip is becoming deprecated in favor of simply Gaza. Can we use the latter? That's all giving me:

The Gaza War is an armed conflict in Gaza and Israel since 7 October 2023, and part of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict dating back to the early 20th century.

—Quantling (talk | contribs) 16:42, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

I've been thinking about this a lot, trying different versions in Notepad. It is simpler to leave out "between X and Y" and sounds better, but one-sentence war definitions tend to answer WHO, WHERE, and WHEN? In addition, I am starting to think that jamming up IP conflict with the first sentence is trying too hard to define it in a certain way. I am backtracking and offer this as a second sentence: It is part of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict dating back to the early 20th century, and follows the Gaza Wars of 2008–2009, 2012, 2014, and 2021. We don't have to list the wars, but there's nothing controversial or biased about those being the chief conflicts after 2007. The border protests can be added if needed.

On Gaza vs. Gaza Strip, it is merely language but does convey a slightly different sense---to my ears at any rate. "Gaza Strip" fits better when we are stating it for the first time, or emphasising geography; it is more journalistic than colloquial. "Gaza" seems to carry more than just geography; the term also goes back to ancient times. GeoffreyA (talk) 11:49, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

The Gaza War is an armed conflict in the Gaza Strip and Israel since 7 October 2023. A part of the unresolved Israeli-Palestinian conflict dating back to the early 20th century, it follows the Gaza Wars of 2008–2009, 2012, 2014, and 2021. The war caused the deaths of tens of thousands of Palestinians and over a thousand Israelis, along with widespread destruction and a humanitarian crisis in Gaza. At the same time, the surrounding region saw heightened instability and fighting. The first day was the deadliest in Israel's history; it is the deadliest war for Palestinians in the entire Israeli–Palestinian conflict. GeoffreyA (talk) 09:28, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, this is definitely a step in the right direction; I would support you making this edit.

If I had my druthers, I'd further change

1. the Gaza Strip to Gaza. I think "Israel" (seemingly inclusive of citizens, government, armed forces, and the geography for those entities) and "the Gaza Strip" (a singling out of geography, more distant from its citizens, etc.) is a mismatch that does the readers a disservice.
2. I'd remove "it follows the Gaza Wars of 2008–2009, 2012, 2014, and 2021." thus joining two sentences into one: A part of the unresolved Israeli-Palestinian conflict dating back to the early 20th century, the war caused the deaths of tens of thousands of Palestinians and over a thousand Israelis, along with widespread destruction and a humanitarian crisis in Gaza.
3. I might change occurrences of past tense to a perfect tense, such as The war caused... to The war has caused..., the surrounding region saw to the surrounding region has seen. Maybe those are better for accuracy in that they convey that these are "events so far" rather than being events that are in the past but, by omission, not the present.

—Quantling (talk | contribs) 19:21, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

@Quantling. I understand your points. For (1), I would prefer to stick with Gaza Strip because it is convention, sounds better, and ties to geography. For "Israel," there is no alternative term for the whole country's geography. Southern Israel, perhaps? Gaza Envelope?

(2) I'm hesitant to follow that reading; it could be synthesis?

(3) Agreed. We can do that. GeoffreyA (talk) 08:42, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

@GeoffreyA thank you for your continuing efforts.

1. What is convention or sounds better depends upon the audience, context, etc. I don't think that that will serve as a basis for deciding between "the Gaza Strip" and "Gaza". To me, the choice of the Gaza Strip is like indicating that a crime occurred in someone's house rather than in their home. There is a emotional difference between the two framings. Calling it home for one side, but merely a place for the other ... that's my objection. (Yes, I know my example isn't a perfect match to the present discussion, but I hope it gives you a feel for what I am saying.) (Also, going with what you propose is better than doing nothing.)
2. I don't follow your argument. Are you saying that that sentence as I have modified it connects two ideas that are not already connected in many secondary sources?
3. Thank you.

—Quantling (talk | contribs) 14:23, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

You're welcome, and thank you for your efforts as well. I know we've been debating for weeks, but turning these sentences on their head has led to progress and narrowing down the best reading.

(1) We could use, along with GS, southern Israel, and that would be more precise. If I remember correctly, the lead used that at some point; I stand to be corrected. I also understand your argument: GS is too objective or cold, and stirs a certain picture, of war and refugee camps.

(2) I'm not sure. I think it seems temporally-displaced from each other, and disjointed. But I'm not firmly against it.

All I'm aiming for in this paragraph is the definitive, most spot-on reading, the definition of the topic. GeoffreyA (talk) 09:11, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

This discussion has distilled down to just the two of us. You might make your edit because it is good, or at least in the spirit of WP:BRD; I am hopeful that there is a decent chance that the edit will stand as is or, at the very least, bring additional editors to this discussion. —Quantling (talk | contribs) 16:19, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Exactly. We're the only two, and when we make these edits, they might be reverted straight away. But, as you note, hopefully it will bring more editors to the discussion. Anyhow, we've carefully reasoned through various points. GeoffreyA (talk) 07:05, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

I've been reading thru yall's convo and I support those edits dw :) 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 07:12, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, Abo. One more point: I see the lead has a lengthy note on Palestinian fighters along with sources. Do we just get rid of that, if we follow our version without the actors? Or better to keep the actors, folding that into our version? GeoffreyA (talk) 07:39, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

The other factions in this war are as notable as Hamas is, and I think that they should still be kept 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 08:12, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Implemented. GeoffreyA (talk) 17:54, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Sorry [17] iv made a improvement here. Feel free to revert or make improvements. Just cleaned it up. Cinaroot (talk) 18:33, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

@Cinaroot: Thanks for the contribution. We'll see what's the best course of action. Your version has some good, logical improvements, particularly integrating the last sentence into the fabric. GeoffreyA (talk) 06:05, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Here is Cinaroot's version, whose improvements we can try to merge with the other version.

The Gaza war which began on October 7, 2023, is an ongoing armed conflict between Israel and Hamas-led Palestinian militant groups in the Gaza Strip and southern Israel. The war, the 15th in the Gaza–Israel conflict, is part of the broader, unresolved Israeli–Palestinian conflict and has led to heightened instability across the region. Over 1,200 Israelis were killed on the first day of the war, making it the deadliest day in Israel’s history. Since then, more than 53,000 Palestinians have been killed, making it the deadliest conflict for Palestinians. The war has led to widespread destruction across Gaza and triggered a humanitarian crisis. GeoffreyA (talk) 10:01, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

@Cinaroot (and @GeoffreyA) Thank you for the language to discuss. Unfortunately, I'm not a big fan of some parts. I don't like having the opponents be "Israel" and "Hamas-led Palestinian militant groups". It's the reverse of "Netanyahu and his militant supporters" vs. "Gaza", which perhaps highlights why I don't like it. I don't like "15th" because, for one, the cited article claims it is the 14th and, two, what is being counted is somewhat Israeli-centric, not counting some of the devastating events that affected only Gazans. (I fear that it is not possible to sum up all that preceded the Gaza War in an unbiased way in a sentence or two, so I aim to give links to the articles on that topic rather than attempt a summary here.) Otherwise, your language is quite similar to what we were already discussing, which I find to be acceptable. If my objections to your text make sense to you and are acceptable then that's great! But if not, let's keep discussing this. Thank you —Quantling (talk | contribs) 15:39, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

I don't think we should hide that it's Hamas in the opening because it's widely reported in the media. Cinaroot (talk) 01:32, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Despite disagreement on the form, I have tended to support the actors being included because the first sentence of a war article should state who, where, and when. The present one's advantage is its simple prose. GeoffreyA (talk) 06:40, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

If we're going to explicitly name the actors, I'd like that to be closer to "Israel vs. Gaza" than to "Netanyahu and his militant supporters vs. Hamas-led Palestinian militant groups". —Quantling (talk | contribs) 16:07, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

I understand your concern, Quantling. You've got a point. We could leave it as is for the time being and see how it stands. GeoffreyA (talk) 16:29, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

I don't see this as an improvement. Quantling's points are well made. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:03, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Personally, at this point, I feel that this sort of change needs to have a clear proposal fleshed out and a full RfC (listed at all appropriate places). It's clear that the lead is contentious - some people think it shouldn't be called separate from the conflict that's been going on for decades... and some think it should. I think it would be best to either have a multi-part RfC that addresses each proposed change separately, or one proposed text fleshed out here and then an RfC of "keep current or change to proposal" made. However, I think it's clear that it's contentious enough that an RfC is necessary. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 04:44, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. Good points. We'll see what's to be done. GeoffreyA (talk) 07:04, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

References

Add Jaysh al-Ummah to Hamas side on infobox.

Jaysh al-Ummah https://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2023/12/al-qaeda-aligned-jaysh-al-ummah-says-it-is-fighting-israeli-troops-in-gaza.php JaxsonR (talk) 15:04, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Genocide citations in lead

We need to audit these citations. The Alice Speri Guardian article "Defining genocide: how a rift over Gaza sparked a crisis among scholars" doesn't support the cited sentence ("Various experts and human rights organizations have stated that Israel and Hamas have committed war crimes, and that Israel has committed genocide in Gaza."). This article focuses on two professional communities: Holocaust and genocide studies scholars and (to a lesser extent) international law scholars. Here are some representative quotes: On Holocaust and genocide studies scholars:

But as courts and rights groups tackle the question head on, only some scholars of genocide have done so publicly, with many keeping to the sidelines.

The hesitation signals “a massive crisis in the field”, said Raz Segal, a US-based Israeli historian and one of the first scholars of the Holocaust to call Israel’s actions a “textbook case of genocide”, days after 7 October. The war, Segal told The Guardian, only exacerbated the fundamental fissure that has long divided the community.

The field of Holocaust and genocide studies originated in the aftermath of the genocide of the Jews during the second world war. It expanded in the 1990s in response to more instances of mass violence, including the Bosnian and Rwandan genocides. That expansion was controversial for some, and the disagreement continues to play out.

On international law scholars:

The distinction between Amnesty and Human Rights Watch’s findings – “genocide” versus “acts of genocide”(the latter focusing on the deprivation of water) – has been the crux of the debate among international law scholars. (The former requires evidence of “genocidal intent”.)

It’s a narrower debate than the one among other scholars, and constrained by the strict parameters set by the 1948 genocide convention. Intent is an extremely difficult standard to prove, with legal experts disagreeing about whether it must be explicit or can be established based on a “pattern of conduct”.

The question of intent was also at the heart of the field’s early days, when “functionalist” and “intentionalist” interpretations diverged on whether the mass extermination of Jews had been the result of a clear directive from above or of a lower-level bureaucracy enabling mass violence.

“There was already a controversy in the aftermath of the Holocaust – everybody was like, ‘Where’s Hitler’s order?’ And there was no order,” Hirsch said.

There are “good faith conversations among people who really believe in international law and feel very strongly about it”, she said, “but people who have a more capacious view of the term really look more contextually at what disables life and what makes life unlivable”.

The war in Gaza has also prompted an unprecedented push by dozens of states that have asked the ICJ to apply the genocide convention more liberally so as to make it “more effective” at preventing mass violence, said William Schabas, a professor of international criminal and human rights law.

If I had to summarize this article in one sentence, I would say something like "scholars in the fields of Holocaust and genocide studies and international law hold differing views on whether Israel's actions in Gaza constitute genocide."

Looking at the rest of these citations: there are two quotes from individual scholars (Michael Dumper/Amneh Badran, Enzo Traverso), one article in Vox that I haven't read yet, an Amnesty International report and a UN report. The last two are most convincing to me. It wouldn't be that hard to find two quotes from comparable scholars saying that it's not genocide, the Guardian article contains quotes like that. If we're trying to summarize expert opinion what we need are media or academic journal sources that try do that, like the Guardian or Vox articles. Maybe there are better sources buried deeper in the article. Prezbo (talk) 13:19, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

What is desperately needed is for multiple genocide scholars to do an academic survey or literature review. I think we shouldn't be basing our consensus on a single news article. Either way, I suggest asking this question on the page for Gaza genocide rather than here. 20WattSphere (talk) 14:42, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

There are other human rights organizations who concluded genocide, such as Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor and International Federation for Human Rights. See: Template:Expert opinions in the Gaza genocide debate

But you are right, those were not included in the citation in the lead. I'll fix that. Bogazicili (talk) 20:12, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Reading through the article: "Resumption of Hostilities..." through to "Continued Operations..."

Probably 60-70% of the sentences in these sections are timeline-type descriptions of particular incidents/operations--what was struck when, how many people were killed, what did witnesses say, what did the IDF say...Maybe this is the best Wikipedia can do at this point, but at some point we should try to delete some of sentences and replace them with broader synthetic statements about broader trends in the war between December 2023 and December 2024. Prezbo (talk) 18:49, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Gaza genocide should be mentioned and linked in the first paragraph

Pachu Kannan, in this edit you argue that there is no need to mention it in first paragraph. It is already mentioned below. Please clarify why you don't think the first paragraph should mention the Gaza genocide and link to it, why you think it should be given less prominence in a later paragraph. إيان (talk) 07:34, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

International Court of Justice is reviewing a case accusing Thirty-seventh government of Israel of committing genocide in Gaza. So it is still an allegation. So it should not be mentioned and linked in the first paragraph. Pachu Kannan (talk) 08:05, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

it is still an allegation—no, there is unanimous agreement among human rights groups, scholars, and experts on genocide that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza. If you will not yield on this, we will go to RfC. إيان (talk) 15:07, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

I agree with this. We dont have to wait for a single organization to declare it to be a genocide so that we can follow it. We follow what's de facto in wikipedia (per WP:VERIFY) 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 15:09, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Instead of "is a genocide", might we insert something like "has been classified as a genocide" into an existing sentence in the lede (without saying "experts" or any other source)? The interested reader who wants to know more, such as who has classified it as such, would then find that later in the article, where we can give multiple citations and otherwise give the missing details. —Quantling (talk | contribs) 15:19, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

I agree with most of what Quantling proposes, but the 'authoritativeness' of those making this pronouncement should be conveyed. It should be clear to the reader that this is not hearsay or an uninformed assessment. Here is what I put in and what Pachu Kannan reverted. It does not declare 'is a genocide' in Wikivoice, but it makes it clear that this is a learned or authoritative opinion. إيان (talk) 15:47, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

By my thinking, if it were hearsay or an uninformed assessment, it wouldn't be in the article at all, so I'm not worried that it will be interpreted as such. By going with the passive voice of "has been classified as" (or similar language) I hope to both mark it as informed and also indicate that there are informed people who think otherwise. (And the interested reader can evaluate it all for themself by checking out the details later in the article.) —Quantling (talk | contribs) 16:15, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

I think that's a fair compromise for now. إيان (talk) 17:37, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

I agree with your proposal. Pachu Kannan (talk) 18:45, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

I've updated the page to reflect this consensus. إيان (talk) 18:27, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

I don't think we have consensus here, see the two comments below and the #Genocide citations in lead section above. Alaexis_¿question? 07:51, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Alaexis has reverted the implementation of the consensus above, with which they appear to be the only one in disagreement. The RfC is on genocide in wikivoice, which the edit did not do. إيان (talk) 12:27, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

@Alaexis can you give us more detail about what you'd want to see instead? Maybe we can yet find some common ground. —Quantling (talk | contribs) 13:28, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

@Quantling, sorry for the delayed response. Earlier I suggested "that has been categorized as genocide by major human rights organisations and some scholars." Alaexis_¿question? 21:14, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

This is probably the easiest way to include it, though I do have apprehension at using "some", though do not have a specific alternative. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 17:09, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Oh, I just saw that u:Monk of Monk Hall has already added a different version with attribution, I think it's alright. Alaexis_¿question? 21:17, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

"Some scholars" is a massive understatement. If I remember correctly, 75% of the surveyed scholars of this area agreed that it is a genocide even over a year ago when the situation was far less dire and blatantly self-evident than currently, despite that those scholars live in the United States, which is far more supportive of Israel's actions than all other nations on this planet. "That has been categorised as a genocide by many major human rights organisations and a large majority of surveyed scholars in the area." would be far more matter-of-fact accurate. David A (talk) 05:11, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

The language I used is "a growing number" but I would support "most", so long as that is amenable to others. Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 15:13, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

I suggest "many". That way we know that it is multiple credible sources. With "most" we are instead signing ourselves up for deciding which sources are credible so as to decide whether we have achieved "most", which is too big a debate to resolve in the lede. I suggest we go with "many" in the lede and then, in the body of the article, we list credible sources that back this up (or cite an article that lists them). Then the reader can decide for themself whether this list of sources passes their tests for credibility and whether this list thus constitutes "most" from their personal perspective. —Quantling (talk | contribs) 15:20, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm hesitant to support many because many can be 20% or even 10% of a large group. I suppose many and a growing number are equally challenging to quantify though. I think there's enough evidence for most. Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 16:47, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, what is the evidence you're referring to? In the Gaza genocide article I only see the results of the Brookings Institution survey (34% of the respondents said it was a genocide) that took place in June 2024. Also, the Guardian article published in December 2024 said that there was no consensus. It does say that there is a growing number of scholars holding this opinion, supporting the current wording. Alaexis_¿question? 19:32, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

The responses were: "Major war crimes akin to genocide", 41%" and "Genocide", 34%", which totals as 75%. "Akin" means "looking or being almost but not exactly the same", so I think that it would be to engage in semantics to not acknowledge this as support for using the genocide term, and again, 68% of the surveyed Israeli population seems to support starving all the Palestinians to death by withholding absolutely all humanitarian aid, whereas 47% support actively killing absolutely all Palestinians through direct violence, so I currently also think that the Israeli government appears to have made it very clear to the Israeli population exactly what it is doing and intends to do.

Anyway, I think that Monk's rationale above regarding using a "most expert scholars" or "a growing number of expert scholars" (or similar) wording seems to make good sense. David A (talk) 07:08, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Alaexis, here's one from last month (though journalistic), an investigation of scholarly opinions conducted by the Dutch newspaper of record NRC. It is discussed in English in this piece from Middle East Eye.

I also support "most experts" to indicate that this is the scholarly consensus or the current "a growing number of experts" to indicate that this is the prevailing opinion. إيان (talk) 07:20, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

If it helps, here is a link to a copy of the full original article. David A (talk) 12:12, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

As others have pointed out, we desperately need an expert literature review to settle this debate. However, @Cdjp1's Template:Expert opinions in the Gaza genocide debate is an extremely helpful resource. As far as I can tell, it's the most thorough effort to record and quantify expert opinion on the Gaza genocide debate anywhere in the world. As it stands now it records the opinion of 215 entities, 134 of whom (62.33%) answer yes to the genocide question. Another 26 say maybe, meaning 74.42% don't reject the question outright. Only 55 (25.58%) deny that a genocide is taking place. Please check my math but these numbers should be correct. Of course, some of the entities in the template are something like 800 scholars, 19 medical professionals, or all of Amnesty International, so a true quantification of expert opinion would be more challenging still, but the numbers here are so stark that I believe they strongly support the use of the word "most". Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 16:15, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

While I did start it, it has been a community effort, and it would be remiss of me to not highlight some of the other top hands on it: User:Bogazicili, User:TRCRF22, User:Vegan416, and of course Monk of Monk Hall.

As an additional note, the usefulness of the list is dependent on being able to capture as many relevant specialists, experts, academics, etc. within it. And while we have been able to grab a chunk of the English language literature and sources, and some German, French, and Spanish sources, I have no doubt we are missing plenty (especially in the non-English world). So I will request that anyone with the ability to, to help us in expanding the list as appropriate. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 17:06, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, it's definitely true that there are different opinions amongst scholars (see the post by @Prezbo above with the links to the Guardiand and Vox articles). So we can say attribute this in the article "has been classified by major human rights organisations and some scholars." Alaexis_¿question? 21:05, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

I think it's very important to mention the allegation from the outset. If it is indeed a genocide, as many experts are saying, then the label "war" may be inaccurate. Thus, I think it's important to clarify the terminology in the first paragraph. Perhaps a terminology section would be an option. 20WattSphere (talk) 03:26, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

This isn't true. A genocide is often, but not always, just one portion of a larger military/political conflict. This article is about the war as a whole. It will continue to be about the war as a whole even if there's a genocide determined to be taking place as part of the war. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 03:33, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

In this case, the (alleged) genocide is not "just one portion of a larger military/political conflict". It seems to me that the vast majority of casualties are associated with the (alleged) genocide, rather than other fighting that is going on in a broader war. 20WattSphere (talk) 05:40, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Note that there was a recent RfC with the resulting consensus against stating the Gaza Genocide in wiki voice as fact: Talk:Gaza_genocide#RfC:_Genocide_in_wikivoice/opening_sentence Eigenbra (talk) 15:41, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Just a note that I agree with that the Gaza genocide page should be mentioned and linked to in the first paragraph of this page. David A (talk) 20:10, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Photos available from UNRWA

See the topic by John Cummings in Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Palestine#Photos_available_from_UNRWA. Some of those images could be used in this article. Bogazicili (talk) 18:51, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Flag for Popular Forces in infobox

The flag accompanying the Popular Forces in the infobox is currently the flag of the Islamic State. However, this usage is based on allegations put forward by Avigdor Lieberman, an Israeli opposition leader. The IS connection is denied by the group itself and the Popular Forces does not use the IS flag; it uses the Palestinian flag instead. A more appropriate symbol is needed. 2018rebel 19:41, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

I would like to say that this group does not have any is links other than the allegations from the Israeli opposition and that one pan arab newspaper, so the use of the is flag in the info box and labeling them as isis linked gangs is really not appropriate, these are clans just like the dogsmush clan and several clans in taken sides in the war even isis had made propaganda about the war against Israel RossoSPC (talk) 01:48, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

I agree with the above arguments. David A (talk) 08:09, 8 June 2025 (UTC)