Talk:Gaza genocide

This page is subject to the extended confirmed restriction related to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

New opinion poll statistics

I found some new statistical opinion poll survey results that may be useful to include in this page.

Canada and the United States:

Léger’s binational online survey (June 6 to 8, 2025; 1,511 Canadians, 1,011 Americans) put the statement “Israel is committing genocide in the Gaza Strip” to respondents.

Canada: 49 % agreed (23 % “strongly”), 21 % disagreed, 30 % were unsure/refused.

United States: 38 % agreed, 26 % disagreed, 36 % were unsure/refused.

52 % of U.S. Democrats versus 30 % of Republicans agreed.

https://halifax.citynews.ca/2025/06/11/poll-suggests-half-of-canadians-believe-israel-is-committing-genocide-in-gaza/

https://leger360.com/in-the-news-middle-east-ukraine-conflicts/

https://leger360.com/special-report-gaza-ukraine_june-9th_en1/

Latin America:

M&R Consultores released the 5th-wave edition of its cross-regional study “Latinoamericanos: Perspectivas del Entorno Internacional” in February 2025 (fieldwork in the second half of 2024).

Sample & coverage. 7204 interviews conducted in 17 Latin-American countries (Central and South America, plus Mexico and the Dominican Republic).

Respondents were asked how they view “the bombings carried out by the Israeli army against the Palestinian people in the Gaza Strip.” The options were genocide or legitimate national self-defence. 52.5 % chose genocide, and 34.8 % chose legitimate self-defence. The remainder were undecided or declined to answer.

https://www.el19digital.com/articulos/ver/161412-m-r-consultores-845-de-latinoamericanos-afirman-que-el-general-sandino-es-un-referente-en-la-lucha-antiimperialista

https://www.myrconsultores.com/latinoamericanos-perspectivas-del-entorno-internacional-5ta-ola-2do-semestre-2024/

Also, according to a Pew Research Center survey from June 3, 2025, most people across 24 surveyed countries have negative views of Israel and Benjamin Netanyahu.

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/06/03/most-people-across-24-surveyed-countries-have-negative-views-of-israel-and-netanyahu/

David A (talk) 20:51, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

“Israel is committing genocide in the Gaza Strip” to respondents" They are asking respondents whether the lives of the victims matter or not? Wow, callous and unemotional traits are more widespread than I previously thought. And the Gaza Strip famine is still ongoing: "According to a United Nations report from June 2025, 2,700 children under the age of five in Gaza were suffering from acute malnutrition, representing a threefold increase compared to three months earlier." Personally, I get to see daily images of hungry or begging Palestinian children whenever I watch the news on any Greek channel and/or the BBC News which I typically use for international news. I suppose Americans think this is some kind of comedy show. Dimadick (talk) 02:21, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Well, you can likely blame the United States oligarchy's deliberately relentlessly intense tribalistic, ultranationalistic, and selectively censored divide and conquer indoctrination via Fox News and other extremely far right pundits, but we should try to avoid turning this into a forum.

Regardless, help with properly including this information into a new sub-section of the cultural discourse section would be extremely appreciated.

Also, from what I recall, this page used to include considerably more opinion polls of this nature, so if somebody is willing to go through the archived versions of this page to restore them as well, that would also be great. I may misremember though, so further information would be appreciated. David A (talk) 06:56, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

And we should also at least try to appear less political about this, especially when it comes to making unfounded claims that have nothing to do with the article (eg the idea that there is an 'oligarchy' in the US, which there is not).

The belief in a "Gaza Strip famine" is not a fact, and has been contested[274]. What is a fact is that, according to the most widely accepted estimates, Gaza’s resident population has fallen from roughly 2.23 million pre-war to about 2.1 million — a 6 percent drop that combines ~53k confirmed dead and ~100k who managed to leave, offset by one of the world’s highest birth rates. These numbers fail to show group destruction, and they’ve occurred amidst urban combat in the densest cities on earth, against an enemy that does not wear uniforms (a war crime) and embeds its military machinery in and underneath civilian infrastructure (another war crime). It's incredible that all these supposedly 'reliable sources' fail to take this into account or downplay the context. Jonathan f1 (talk) 19:08, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Also, here's an interview in The New Yorker with someone who has a direct line to Israeli policymakers[275]. No indication of any state policy to starve the Gazans. At worst the Israelis have been skeptical of humanitarian groups and their aid estimates and time intervals, but they have not pursued a deliberate policy to worsen the situation (I'm paraphrasing the source). Jonathan f1 (talk) 19:40, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

None of what you said is the point of this topic, so permanently stop derailing please. Anyway, I would still appreciate help from other members here with creating a new public statistics polling section for all of this information. David A (talk) 19:46, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Is this New Yorker article not relevant to the question of whether there's a) a famine in Gaza, and that it's been b) manufactured by Israeli war planners? Let me guess, the NYer is an 'unreliable source'.. Jonathan f1 (talk) 19:48, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Please read the topic title that this concerns public opinion poll statistics and stop spamming and derailing. Thank you. David A (talk) 20:13, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

You will have more success convincing a mountain to move. Besides that, while public polling is interesting, I do not think it's worth including in the article, unless we see it used within academic literature. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 21:28, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Well, I think that it would be relevant to highlight how Israel's actions are affecting its public perception internationally. David A (talk) 05:10, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

There is this European opinion poll as well:

https://yougov.co.uk/international/articles/52279-net-favourability-towards-israel-reaches-new-lows-in-key-western-european-countries

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jun/03/public-support-for-israel-in-western-europe-lowest-ever-recorded-yougov

David A (talk) 07:20, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Polling should be used sparingly in articles, and I see no reason to include it at this time. Maybe worthy in a few months/years if there is in-depth academic analysis. In addtion, general favourablity polling should not be included at all unless there is a very strong connection to the subject of the article. FortunateSons (talk) 09:19, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Okay, but most of the cited polling is directly connected to the main topic of this article, meaning how large parts of the population in different countries who agree with that this is a genocide. David A (talk) 17:14, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

You need a high quality secondary source to include that, and if there is one, you haven’t linked it FortunateSons (talk) 12:29, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

I used a combination of primary and secondary sources in my edit in a conventional Wikipedia manner. David A (talk) 12:43, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

I might be missing something, but which of the sources used in the edit linked below is a “high-quality secondary source”? FortunateSons (talk) 13:09, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

These references are the academic surveys themselves combined with regular popular newspapers where such results are usually reported. Why should this be treated more strictly than other polling? David A (talk) 13:19, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

I’m not seeing significant newspaper coverage. Do you have secondary academic coverage or some newspapers of record/equivalent sources? FortunateSons (talk) 13:48, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Here are some reliable news and other sources for the relevant surveys in question:

1. Leger 360 – Special report: Gaza & Ukraine. CTV News – “Poll suggests half of Canadians believe Israel is committing genocide in Gaza.” CityNews Winnipeg – same Canadian-Press story and headline. National Newswatch – Canadian-Press wire copy of the same report. Iqra.ca – “Nearly half of Canadians believe Israel is committing genocide in Gaza.”

2. M&R Consultores – Latinoamericanos: Perspectivas del Entorno Internacional. Viva Nicaragua 13 – “M&R presenta resultados de su reciente encuesta de valoración internacional.” El 19 Digital – “M&R Consultores: 52.5 % de latinoamericanos afirma que los bombardeos en Gaza son genocidio.”

3. PIPD / YouGov – How 5 European Countries See Palestinian Issues. Público (Spain) – “Las sociedades europeas, divididas ante las masacres israelíes en Gaza: esto dicen los sondeos.” Academic Paper: Operation al-Aqsa Flood and Israel’s International Status Indicators.

4. Real Instituto Elcano – Barómetro. Mundo Obrero – “La inmensa mayoría del pueblo español sigue repudiando las guerras y la carrera armamentista.” Público – Las sociedades europeas, divididas ante las masacres israelíes en Gaza: esto es lo que dicen los sondeos de opinión. RTVE.es – “Según una encuesta del Real Instituto Elcano, el 78 % de los españoles apoya reconocer Palestina.” Spanish public opinion regarding the recognition of the State of Palestine.

5. Tecnè (Italy) – June 2025 poll on Gaza. TGCOM24 – “Gaza: per il 50 % degli italiani Israele sta compiendo un genocidio.” David A (talk) 15:58, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! Which of those are larger or particularly high-quality sources (for the purpose of due weight)? FortunateSons (talk) 16:52, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

I am not familiar with them. I personally only read some Swedish and international English newspapers, and mostly limit my news intake nowadays as I find it depressing, but most of them seem like regular news sources. I doubt that anybody here is qualified from personal experience to compare their notabilities. But if you keep pushing this (in my view very redundant) angle, I can ask an artificial intelligence for their circulation numbers and whether any of the newspapers in question are considered unreliable sources by Wikipedia. I think that this would be unreasonably demanding though. David A (talk) 17:38, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Never mind. I have handled it. Here is the relevant information:

Canada: Leger360.com – Léger is a well-known Canadian polling firm with its own English-language Wikipedia article. Its surveys are treated as methodologically transparent and are routinely cited for federal and provincial elections. Wikipedia editors regard it as a mainstream, reliable pollster.

CTVNews.ca – CTV News is a national broadcaster with a long-standing Wikipedia article. Its professionally edited newsroom makes it a reliably-sourced outlet for general news on Wikipedia.

Winnipeg.CityNews.ca – CityNews, part of Rogers’ Citytv network, also has its own article. It is acceptable for local reporting and routine facts, though editors tend to prefer higher-profile sources for major national controversies.

NationalNewswatch.com – This site does not have a stand-alone article. It mainly aggregates wire stories and links rather than producing sustained original reporting. On Wikipedia it is usable only for the material it is directly re-hosting or summarising; it is not a strong independent secondary source.

Iqra.ca – A small community news blog run by Canadian Muslim volunteers. It has no Wikipedia article and counts as self-published. Editors will cite it only for uncontroversial statements about itself or for local, low-stakes coverage.

Nicaragua & Central America: MyrConsultores.com – M&R Consultores is a Nicaraguan polling outfit mentioned in several election tables, though it lacks a stand-alone Wikipedia page. Its methodology is criticised for favouring the Ortega government, so editors use it only with clear attribution and balance it against independent pollsters.

VivaNicaragua.com.ni – Viva Nicaragua / Canal 13 does have an article. Because the channel is owned by the Ortega-Murillo family, its coverage is considered pro-government. Wikipedia treats it as state-aligned and reliable chiefly for reporting the government’s own statements.

El19Digital.com – El 19 Digital is the official Sandinista news portal and likewise has its own page. It is suitable only for quoting or describing the Nicaraguan government’s positions, not for independent verification of contentious claims.

Palestine / Middle East: ThePIPD.com – The Palestine Institute for Public Diplomacy lacks an article but is cited for its commissioned surveys. As an advocacy NGO, it is acceptable for its own research or statements, but not as a neutral authority on disputed matters.

Eng.AlZaytouna.net – The Al-Zaytouna Centre for Studies and Consultations has no separate article yet is quoted in various entries. Wikipedia editors view it as a think tank with a pro-Palestinian stance; its material is usable with proper attribution but should be supplemented with other sources on controversial topics.

Spain & Portugal: Publico.es – Público (Spain) has a full Wikipedia article. Though left-leaning, it employs standard newsroom practices and is generally considered reliable for factual reporting, provided the editorial slant is kept in mind.

MundoObrero.es – Mundo Obrero, the periodical of Spain’s Communist Party, has its own page. It is a primary, partisan source, useful mainly for the party’s official positions or historical context.

RTVE.es – RTVE, Spain’s public broadcaster, is well established on Wikipedia and is treated as a mainstream, professionally edited source.

RealInstitutoElcano.org – The Elcano Royal Institute is a respected foreign-policy think tank with its own article. It is accepted as an expert analytical source within its field.

Italy: TGCOM24.Mediaset.it – TGCOM24 is the 24-hour news service of the Mediaset group and appears on Italian-language Wikipedia. It is viewed similarly to other mainstream Italian broadcasters: generally reliable for straight news, though its corporate ownership and editorial line are acknowledged.

Overall verdict: None of the outlets above is currently flagged by Wikipedia as “generally unreliable,” “deprecated,” or otherwise discouraged on the community’s WP:RS/PERENNIAL list. Mainstream broadcasters, established newspapers, and recognised think tanks are broadly accepted. Aggregators, self-published community sites, and overtly partisan or state-aligned media are not automatically disallowed, but editors use them sparingly, attribute their claims clearly, and seek independent confirmation for contentious material.

So a large part of the sources seem reliable, but definitely not all of them. David A (talk) 18:33, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Just to be clear, this was created without the use of AI, right? FortunateSons (talk) 19:44, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

I asked an AI to help me find opinion poll article links, as it is hard to find them, especially in unfamiliar languages, but then I visited and read the information there (with help from automatic browser translation) and required several hours to organise it into Wikipedia article text and references on my own. Is that not allowed? It seems illogical to not allow that level of assistance. David A (talk) 20:18, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

WP:LLM isn’t well tested when it comes to “case law”. If you ask me, this is perfectly fine, though I would encourage you to mention the use of AI (and the fact that you personally checked and summarised the content) in the edit summary. However, some people might be very anti-AI even within those use cases, so I would advise you to be somewhat cautious. FortunateSons (talk) 20:53, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Here to second, having seen the use of LLMs in various permutations in both non-contentious and contentious topic areas, being as up-front as possible for any use, would likely make people less antagonistic than if they found out about the use of LLMs from tells where it hasn't been disclosed. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 21:43, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Okay. Noted. Thank you for the information. David A (talk) 04:33, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

CTV, Publico, RTVE, and TGCOM are the only ones I would consider worthy of inclusion. EvansHallBear (talk) 20:01, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the evaluation. Would you be willing to sift away the unreliable references? I am exhausted from overwork for several days and have to go to sleep now. David A (talk) 20:18, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

I've done an initial clean up of the public opinion section and merged it with the existing Israeli public opinion. EvansHallBear (talk) 20:24, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks a massive lot for your help. David A (talk) 20:27, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

At the very least, the Canadian, Spanish, and Italian survey results that I added can apparently be kept. The multi-European survey by a pro-Palestinian lobbying group and the Latin American survey seem much more uncertain though. David A (talk) 18:50, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Those three seem fine to me as well, I would strongly oppose all others based on what you explained above. Thank you for looking into it! FortunateSons (talk) 19:47, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

No problem at all, and thank you for being reasonable. David A (talk) 20:18, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

I previously added two polls to the "Cultural discourse" section as they were reported in reliable sources and directly asked respondents whether they thought Israel was committing genocide. I think it's fine to add some additional polling if it's been reported on as public opinion is relevant to the topic. But we can't use poll results directly per WP:PRIMARY. I also second FortunateSons that general favorability polling should not be included unless there's secondary analysis linking it to the genocide accusation. EvansHallBear (talk) 21:58, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

I handled it. Cleanup help would be very appreciated. Thank you. David A (talk) 11:15, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

More information:

Italy: In a Tecnè tracking poll, published on June 12, 2025, when asked directly whether Israel’s military operation in Gaza “can be defined as genocide,” 50 % answered yes, and another 23 % still condemned Israel's actions. Only 15 % called Israel’s response proportionate, and 12 % were undecided.

https://www.tgcom24.mediaset.it/mondo/israele-per-il-50-degli-italiani-a-gaza-e-genocidio_99547536-202502k.shtml

A summary of statistics from polls in several European countries. Among other results, 71% of Spaniards and 49% of Swedes considered Israel's actions to be genocide even around 1 year ago, when the situation was considerably less extreme than currently.

https://www.publico.es/internacional/sociedades-europeas-divididas-masacres-israelies-gaza-esto-dicen-sondeos-opinion.html

https://www.realinstitutoelcano.org/comentarios/la-opinion-publica-espanola-ante-el-reconocimiento-del-estado-de-palestina/

https://www.thepipd.com/resources/polling-2024/

David A (talk) 07:59, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Generally-speaking, it is tricky to use polls directly as sources, because interpreting what a particular poll means (and how much weight it should be given) requires expertise; polls differ wildly in quality, impact, etc. and differences between them can reflect everything from seismic cultural shifts to mere quirks of how they're worded. For this reason it's best to find secondary sources covering polls instead, and ideally sources that summarize broad swaths of polls. --Aquillion (talk) 13:13, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

I think that at least one of the cited newspapers did that, but generally speaking it is hard to find widespread coverage of polling for this particular issue in the western world, due to that the governments of these countries and their newspapers are afraid of provoking the United States in a time when, for example, Canada and Greenland might be invaded by the United States and rest of Europe by Russia. And statistics for public opinion is a highly relevant issue, so it is important for us to find statistics. Although I would of course appreciate help with finding further coverage of the cited studies. David A (talk) 13:27, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

References

At least 56,150 reported directly killed (traumatic injury deaths)

How many of them are militants? How many of them killed as Collateral damage? This figure cannot be used plainly like that to describe an act of Genocide, when a considerable portion of it includes active militants, some of whom died fighting. I have yet to find any reference to the fact that militants are included in that figure. Bolter21 (talk to me) 10:19, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

As is repeatedly brought up, being a combatant (see militant) is not in and of itself a reason to excluded a person from a count of victims of genocide. Besides the reasoning, there is the fact we go off of what RS say, and the fact the relevant number (at time of publication) from the same sources are used by multiple people publishing articles in academic journals, these are the numbers they consider to be the potential victims of genocide, and so we use the same source for the number in the article discussing the accusations. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 21:24, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Right, and this number also includes, for example, civilians who inadvertently stepped on unexploded munitions, as well as combatants killed in combat between Hamas and oppositional groups who may or may not be connected to the IDF (to say nothing of civilians killed by Hamas themselves!). It is grossly misleading to, on the one hand, present a genocide theory, that's got more holes in it than Swiss cheese, and on the other, list the number killed in this hypothetical genocide. Just earlier today there was another news report offering more evidence that the IDF has been evacuating civilians from bombing targets before commencing[276]. Note also the Palestinian man shouts "we're tired of war!" -implying that he recognizes what's going on around him as a war and not an extermination.

I've long been urging editors here to take a more cautious tone in this article. This could be accomplished by, as you suggest, removing the casualty figures. I'd also support drastically reducing the weight this article confers to humanitarian activists hiding among academics and NGOs. There are more than enough RSes indicating that "genocide studies" is an untraditional field full of activists. Jonathan f1 (talk) 21:04, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Please read WP:FORUM. M.Bitton (talk) 22:59, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, what about it? I agreed with an issue an editor raised and offered additional suggestions on ways to improve the article. That you don't like what I said doesn't make it 'foruming'. Jonathan f1 (talk) 23:01, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Approximately 80% are civilians, and much of the basis of this article is that the so-called "collateral damage" committed by Israel is due to an aim to kill as many Palestinians as possible. I agree with @Cdjp1 that we oughta keep the current estimate as it is highly relevant and within the scope of the article. Yung Doohickey (talk) 01:00, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

This is a good point, the framing of the death toll currently implies that all 50k are part of the accusation of genocide. This isn't accurate because it includes all deaths in the Gaza war regardless of if they were combatants. It's unclear what Cdjp1 is referencing about this number being officially recognized by genocide scholars. The citations I see in the infobox and the lead do not explicitly connect the death toll with the word "genocide". The inclusion of the death toll appears to be WP:SYNTHESIS.

I'm not sure why people believe including the death toll is pro-Palestinian or that removing it will benefit Israel. 50k is a low number especially for something that includes combatants, which is why the article and pro-Palestinian sources repeatedly emphasize that it could be much higher. But most people will treat the 50k number as a reference point and look at other numbers in relation to that.

If the 50k death toll was removed or de-emphasized, readers would instead encounter the 1.9 million forced displacement figure as their reference point for scale. That number is significantly higher. Since "genocide" is defined as targeting an entire group, framing the article as "85% of Gazans are affected" vs "1 in 44 Gazans are affected" would probably be more of an endorsement of the claim of genocide, not less. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 04:49, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Hey Chess, thank you for your detailed and insightful reply. It wouldn't seem appropriate to me to think of this in terms of "pro-Palestinian" or "benefit Israel". My concern is with creating an account as-objective-as-possible. This article, does not, and cannot deal with a genocide, but with the accusation of. The disclaimer on top of this talkpage says: The term "Gaza Genocide" is supported by a sufficient number of reliable sources. Whether the issue is contested is not the primary consideration when determining an article title on Wikipedia. This is odd to me, but I won't push it now. This clearly does not mean that the article can also just say there is a genocide in Gaza, when the ICJ case is still not concluded and that there is a large body of criticism for this accusation. You are right in saying, there shouldn't be a mix between the allegations of genocide, and the acts of war. If the sources do not make a conjunction between an act, an event or a policy with the accusation of genocide, then they cannot appear here.

Just see how many articles we have already about humanitarian crisis in Gaza due to the war: Gaza war, Israeli war crimes in the Gaza war, Israeli blockade of the Gaza Strip (2023–present), Gaza Strip famine, Gaza humanitarian crisis (2023–present), Effect of the Gaza war on children in the Gaza Strip. I am not making a statement regarding the necessity or notability of any of these article, but I believe that in light of your comment, it would be appropriate to say that the article about genocide should deal with genocide, and not mix with any other humanitarian crisis, to avoid WP:SYNTH as you said. In addition, some WP:WEIGHT is warranted.

None of this can change the facts: Over 50k people died in Gaza, probably most of them are reported as civilians. Almost the entire population of Gaza has been displaced. The entire civilian infrastructure in Gaza is virtually destroyed. Plenty of people are also dying from indirect consequences of the war. What's going on there is hell. And it is no surprise that many are regarding this as genocide, regardless of whether I think it is right or not. We should provide our readers with as much reliable and relevant information to decide for themselves whether there is a genocide there or not. Bolter21 (talk to me) 11:25, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

I recommend you start reading the literature that i alluded to earlier, starting with the littany of articles in the Journal of Genocide Research, that link all the various acts, rhetoric, etc. that this article discusses to the discussion of it potentially being a case of genocide. Then after that there are the dozens of other papers that fo similar across various other journals. These can all be found in the Expert opinions resource at the top of the talk page. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 12:52, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Hey Cdjp1. Would you object if I will: (1) remove sentences and paragraphs supported by sources which fails to make a connection with genocide, while providing with an adequate explanation allowing you or anyone else to criticize and revert my doings; and (2) include in the article any official, diplomatic, journalistic and academic stances, opinions, rulings, declarations etc. against genocide, referring to either specific matter or in general? Both bearing in minde the implications of WP:SYNTH and WP:WEIGHT. Bolter21 (talk to me) 13:09, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

I most certainly will. The idea of separating the victims of the genocide from the genocide is frankly not even worth discussing, though you're welcome to start a RfC about it. M.Bitton (talk) 13:12, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

That is not what I said. I said that any source that refer to casualties and other contexts in the Gaza War, that does not draw a connection with genocide, should be removed. Otherwise this is WP:SYNTH. Bolter21 (talk to me) 13:22, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

You can make whatever edits you want, I can't stop you. I will edit as I see fit in this article. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 14:08, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

I tell you what, I am so used to edit-wars, and desperately try to prevent them, especially since there are many here who have opposite stances on these matters than myself, but we can still collaborate on the common grounds of proper Wikipedic conduct. Bolter21 (talk to me) 14:46, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

None of what you describe here has any relevance to assessing genocide. Whether 50k are killed or half a million, proving genocide is about demonstrating the special intent to commit the act through a chain of command (not cherry-picking "rhetoric" by the way).

Thus the issue is not the specific number, but rather the fact that this article pertains to an allegation of genocide -not a fact -and no RS explicitly connects the 50k estimate to a genocide in Gaza. On this we seem to agree.

Regarding ICJ...the response you are going to get is that "we give more weight to scholarly sources than court rulings" -which is true, provided the 'scholarly sources' are what we would consider objective academic research, which is far from the case here. Fields like "genocide studies" have been talking about a "prelude to genocide" in Gaza since at least 2009[277] -16 years ago, and four years after Israel withdrew from Gaza, dismantled all 21 of their settlements there, along with 4 settlements in the West Bank. This is the same exact language used in a letter warning of a potential genocide in Gaza, signed by the x-studies enterprise on October 15, 2023, roughly 2 weeks before Israel’s ground invasion began[278]. Genocide studies has been described as a field that "lacks a disciplinary home," where there is no consensus on even a basic definition of genocide, other than general agreement that the definition currently applicable in international courts is insufficient[279]. This means that whatever the ICJ rules, these scholars are unlikely to abide by it, and will simply use their own novel definition of genocide, constructed to meet the needs of the moment. This is activism, not academics. Jonathan f1 (talk) 14:15, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

these scholars are unlikely to abide by it, and will simply use their own novel definition of genocide, constructed to meet the needs of the moment. This is activism, not academics are you seriously contesting what the scholars are saying? M.Bitton (talk) 14:27, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

I wasn't too clear but I meant that if the ICJ rules no genocide, the genocide studies crowd is unlikely to respect this ruling. Whether ICJ rules yes/no on genocide, the GS field already made up their minds, and had their minds made up before the IDF fired a shot.

I think that if we could get a fair, objective reliability assessment for genocide studies (and Middle East Studies, and a bunch of other "studies"), then consensus would be to use work from these fields sparingly but not in contentious topic spaces. As an analogy, imagine if a group of right-wing academics invented a field called "critical woke studies," invented their own journals, reviewed each other's work, and were demonstrably involved in political activism. I doubt Wiki editors would deem such research reliable. Jonathan f1 (talk) 14:43, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

the GS field already made up their minds, and had their minds made up before the IDF fired a shot prove it (using RS) and then explain its relevance. M.Bitton (talk) 14:47, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Go on Google scholar, type in terms like "settler-colonialism" "Gaza" "erasure" "genocide" and check the dates on the publications. I just cited one that was published in 2009 (16 years ago!). I also cited the letter hundreds of 'x studies' academics signed 2 weeks before the IDF commenced the ground invasion. When it comes to this assessment of genocide, it was only a matter of timing. Jonathan f1 (talk) 14:55, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

The relevance is that having passionate political views about a subject affects the objectivity of research, making it nearly impossible to act fair and reasonable[280] Jonathan f1 (talk) 15:03, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

I repeat the initial WP:NOTFORUM comment. Bolter21 (talk to me) 14:48, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Discussing the reliability of sources on a talk page is not "foruming." Jonathan f1 (talk) 14:56, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

If the ICJ ruled no genocide, many in the genocide studies field would rightfully view that as a debasement of the post-WW2 international order designed to prevent genocide and other atrocities rather than debate-settling proof that a genocide hasn't occurred. As far as I'm concerned, this would be the analytically correct stance to take. I've argued on this talk page in the past that the ICJ's ruling should not be considered uniquely authoritative precisely because scholars of genocide studies consider international law and courts to be profoundly imperfect. Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 14:47, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

@Jonathan f1 I am unaware of any basis in policy for discounting peer-reviewed work by pre-eminent academics in their field because certain Wikipedia editors regard these academics as "activists".

Also, had their been pro-Jewish academics in Germany in 1933 discussing the potential for NAZI genocide before Kristallnacht, would anyone regard that as grounds for dismissing those academics as "activists"? I find that hard to imagine. Newimpartial (talk) 22:45, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

If only the article were limited to peer-reviewed work by pre-eminent academics in their field, then this would be a fair point, but there are many sources cited in the article that aren't, for example, peer reviewed. For instance, correspondence to The Lancet isn't peer reviewed, and yet Faddoul et al. 2023, is cited. Perhaps we can have an approach where those concerned about "activism" focus first on sources that aren't peer-reviewed. Coining (talk) 01:40, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

@Coining in case I wasn't clear, I was weighing in against labelling scholars editors don't like "activists" in order to dismiss their work. I don't think it is policy-compliant to do that, but it was Jonathan's essential point IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 01:47, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

@Newimpartial I suppose my point, if I wasn't clear, is that there might be a Venn diagram of overlap between your understandable desire for upholding peer-reviewed work, and @Jonathan f1's desire to remove what he refers to as activism, but could more neutrally be called, perhaps, letter-writing. Perhaps it's naive, but I'm trying to point out that there is a potential for common ground even on this contentious topic. Coining (talk) 02:25, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Except what Jonathan views as activism is any academic no matter how reputable who dare say this is or may be a case of genocide. So the venn diagram for what Jonathan believes should be ignored is near all of the peer-reviewed publications on this. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 19:04, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

WP:AGF. Coining (talk) 23:51, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Except it isn't just my opinion because I don't "like" them (I have no personal opinion on them frankly) -it's what other academics have said about these fields in reliable sources. This academic paper on genocide studies describes participants as "scholar-activists"[281]. And here's a piece by historian Stephen Mintz in Inside Higher Ed, on the "critical studies revolution," or the proliferation of cross-disciplinary fields that end in the word "studies" (and often start with the word "critical" -eg critical genocide studies)[282]. He describes the reaction to these fields by academic critics as follows:

“Serious critics argue that critical studies tends to veer into relativism and subjectivism, suggesting that by emphasizing the socially constructed nature of knowledge, identities and realities, these fields undermine the possibility of objective truth. Other detractors contend that this approach is inherently political and promotes a particular ideological agenda rather than pursuing objective scholarship. Some critics claim that these fields prioritize activism over rigorous academic inquiry, which, in their view, compromises the integrity of academic research and teaching." (last link)

It is absolutely relevant when assessing the reliability of academic research to consider a) untraditional disciplines that did not even exist 20 -30 years ago; b) the use of untraditional research methods (eg borrowing different methods from different disciplines and fusing them in novel ways); and c) researchers who are demonstrably involved in political activism. "Peer-review" assumes that those "peers" are completely independent and without any conflicts of interest. Jonathan f1 (talk) 16:04, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

You're at over 980 words and ARBPIA discussions are limited to 1000 words per editor. Please disengage. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:14, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish: My understanding is that's only for "formal discussions". One of the reasons for applying it to "formal discussions" is so we can have detailed source analysis in discussions that don't need to be closed, such as this one. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 18:36, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

@Jonathan f1 To begin at the end, you are making a demonstrably false claim: "Peer-review" assumes that those "peers" are completely independent and without any conflicts of interest. This has never been the case, whether in natural or social sciences. Peer review for any specific journal and within any specific discipline typically reflects the dominant paradigm (or coalition of accepted, established paradigms) within that journal or discipline. The idea that disciplines that existed in the 20th century - whether in the natural or human sciences - were impartial and objective, and lacked conflicts of interest, does not hold up to scrutiny. It seems clear to me that the discipline best positioned to adjudicate those characterizations is Science studies, and your statement doesn't stand up very well IMO based on the best sources available in that field.

More generally, though, we simply do not evaluate the scholarship in a given field based on the opinions held about that field by those outside of it. Stephen Mintz's view of Critical X Studies is simply his own view, and is not lent additional authority by his field - American History - being a couple of centuries older than fields he criticizes (or does not understand). It would be like taking the opinion of a Pure mathematics practitioner about Computational mathematics, which I imagine could be equally scathing depending on the self-importance and other personality traits of the critic. Newimpartial (talk) 19:51, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Per your own criteria, we should ignore the academic paper you cite here, as it is in fact from the field of genocide studies. And this is of course ignoring Schaller's support of genocide studies as a useful field in the paper you cite. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 19:07, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

• Well, I'm about to be blocked (again) so you won't have to worry about me questioning your reliance on critical studies any longer. Editors of a certain ideological persuasion have found reliable academic allies in these fields.
• Show me any source describing computational math as a field with an activist problem. The source in question does not say all of GS is problematic and does in fact say the field has a promising future. But it also warns: "severe methodological and ideological implications hamper the further development of the field.... There is no consensus on how to define genocide... Activists and profit-oriented actors have entered the stage and dominate the external perception of the field... Whereas scholars are bound to scientific standards and objectivity, activists want to mobilize public opinion through the spread of simple truths... we need more Lemkin and less Clooney...the influence of activism in the realm of genocide scholarship must be clarified."(p.254). Normally, in a controversial topic area, this would be an important consideration when weighing sources.
• What's going to happen is, the war in Gaza is going to end long before the ICJ genocide case concludes, at which point it will be revealed that the Israelis committed serious war crimes but the crimes fell short of genocide. And when that happens, I'll also predict that a force will form on this article to defend the title and heavy reliance on GS/ME studies as genocide experts. At this point, you'll be in your own activist bubble, preaching to the activist choir.
• Have a nice life.

Jonathan f1 (talk) 17:42, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

I did not read all of the responses. With respect to WP:SYNTH:

• An overview secondary source is Amnesty International report. P. 16:

By 7 October 2024, the Gaza-based Ministry of Health had recorded 42,010 Palestinian fatalities in Gaza, the vast majority of which were of Palestinians killed during Israel’s offensive, and 97,590 other Palestinians injured since 7 October 2023. The actual toll of those killed during the offensive may be higher and will only become apparent once the conflict is over, including when rescue teams are able to count the dead and retrieve missing bodies from under the rubble. The armed conflict in Gaza has seen some of the highest known death tolls among children (13,319 by 7 October 2024), journalists, as well as health and humanitarian workers of any recent conflict in the world

• Total deaths are also discussed in this report, in the very summary.
• Given overview WP:Secondary sources about this topic discuss total deaths, I don't see the WP:SYNTH issue. The article doesn't say all deaths are due to genocidal reasons. Content are based on sources. If sources about genocide mention total deaths, we should also mention total deaths.
• IDF numbers about military deaths seem unsubstantiated (IDF claims on this matter have been unsubstantiated and inconsistent throughout [283]). But I think their claims could be added somewhere, perhaps as a footnote into the infobox. Bogazicili (talk) 19:58, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

introductory sentence

EvansHallBear, can we have a new RfC? إيان (talk) 22:39, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

The previous RfC just closed a little over a month ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gaza_genocide/Archive_1#RfC:_Genocide_in_wikivoice/opening_sentence It's way too soon to rehash this issue. EvansHallBear (talk) 22:52, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

There's no moratorium, is there? There has been a lot of change in the past two months. إيان (talk) 22:54, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

A lot has happened in the war, but have there been any major changes on academic/legal scholarship or international recognition? I haven't seen any big developments since the NRC article came out in late May. EvansHallBear (talk) 23:11, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

The day after asking this, MSF unequivocally called it genocide. I still don't see anyone changing their mind from the previous RfC so soon afterwards, so I maintain it's best to wait. EvansHallBear (talk) 23:38, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Omer Bartov just called it genocide in his op-ed "I’m a Genocide Scholar. I Know It When I See It." in the The New York Times. إيان (talk) 17:00, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Bartov has been calling it a genocide for a while now. See [284]. Shocked this ended up getting published in the NYT though. EvansHallBear (talk) 18:17, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Great amounts of deleted information regarding South Africa's ICJ case

Hello.

I noticed that large amounts of information was deleted from the section of this page concerning South Africa's ICJ case, under the rationale that it should be inserted into the South Africa v. Israel (Genocide Convention) page instead, but the information was not inserted into that page instead in conjunction, as would have been the appropriate procedure, so I ask our community to please reincorporate all of the missing information into this page instead.

Thank you. David A (talk) 06:20, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

@David A I'll look at doing this later. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 14:37, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your help. David A (talk) 21:43, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

The irrelevant opinion of a businessman

@Coining: what makes you think that Sergey Brin is decently prominent commentator?

as relevant as the ones mentioned in that section this is factually incorrect.

if you think... since you added it, it's your responsibility to explain why it belongs there. M.Bitton (talk) 12:35, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

My personal opinion is largely irrelevant; what matters is that plenty of RS believe that his views are relevant, having reported on his comments, particularly in the context of the UN. In addition to the Washington Post article already cited in @Rafi Chazon's original inclusion of this language in the article, there are news pieces from the Times of India, the New York Post, and the The Jerusalem Post, for example. Coining (talk) 13:31, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

It does matter since you're making the claim about the relevance of his irrelevant opinion. Wikipedia is not a newspaper.

Care to substantiate the baseless assertions (highlighted in green)? M.Bitton (talk) 13:41, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

I've backed up the relevance of the opinion by citing four reliable sources. In contrast, you deleted another editor's work without anything backing up your assertion that the views of Sergey Brin are irrelevant.

You are correct that Wikipedia is not a newspaper, but newspapers are reliable sources for references in Wikipedia articles (as you can see in the many newspapers cited in this very article).

I personally don't think it's a stretch to think that the views of the co-founder of one of the largest companies in the world is at least as relevant as the views of an Irish hip hop band. Coining (talk) 14:03, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

co-founder of one of the largest companies in the world how is that relevant to his irrelevant personal views on the genocide?

I will remind you that you added his irrelevant views to the UN section (while making the factually incorrect claim that his views are as relevant as the ones mentioned in that section).

So, according to you, if I cite sources about what a supermodel thinks of the Gaza genocide, then I can add it to the article (alongside the views of scholars). Is that correct? M.Bitton (talk) 14:09, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Based on the coverage, his comments are worthy of inclusion, though in the cultural discourse section, as thats what his comments are. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 14:32, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Maybe it could go in the claims of antisemitism section? EvansHallBear (talk) 20:30, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

The "that section" that I was citing (as anyone who reads the broader edit history statement will see) was the Cultural discourse section. And, not according to me, but according to other editors, yes, the views of rappers, hip hop bands, singer-songwriters, post-punk bands, and others are mentioned. Perhaps an argument could be made that charges of genocide are not decided by popular vote and therefore the cultural discourse section's relevance is suspect, but it's not consistent (neither internally consistent to the argument you've put forth, nor, more importantly consistent with the Wikipedia policy NPOV) to simply delete the views of the public person you disagree with and leave in the article the views of somewhat less notable public persons that you agree with. Coining (talk) 14:40, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Actions speak louder than words. The "that section" is the section you added it to (i.e., the UN section). M.Bitton (talk) 14:47, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Here is the full quote: If you think this point should be moved to the Cultural discourse section, that's one thing, but this decently prominent commentator is as relevant as the ones mentioned in that section. Basic English construction conveys that "that section" references the section earlier in the sentence, which is the "Cultural discourse section." In any case, another editor has re-deleted the Sergey Brin addition (originally placed there by @Rafi Chazon), instead of moving it to the Cultural discourse section. Coining (talk) 14:53, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Good try, but it won't work because, like I said, actions speak louder than words: when you do X and mention Y, then I will judge your action (regardless of what is said in passing). M.Bitton (talk) 14:56, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

It would make more sense to work on excising some of the others. Many celebrities have expressed an opinion on this subject; we don't need to include those just because it made the news. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:04, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

This is a WP:MANDY situation. Google (and by extension the founder and current board member Brin) was accused of complicity in genocide. Of course he is going to deny there's a genocide. Brin is no doubt more notable than many of the people mentioned in the cultural discourse section, but he's also not a neutral 3rd party. EvansHallBear (talk) 18:12, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Would you, by the same logic, assert that Israel's views on the charge of genocide should not be included in the article? It's not neutral to not allow those accused of a crime to defend themselves. Perhaps also of relevance, Wikipedia doesn't allow primary sources, so it wouldn't allow Sergey Brin directly as a source, but here the sources are secondary sources (both the one originally cited in the article, and the additional ones I've listed above). Coining (talk) 18:58, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

He's not defending himself, he's sharing his irrelevant opinion about genocide and antisemitism, i.e., subjects he's in position to comment on. M.Bitton (talk) 19:10, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

The comments were made in response to the UN's report on Google's complicity. EvansHallBear (talk) 19:57, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

I understand that part, but he's not defending Google or denying its complicity. M.Bitton (talk) 20:02, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

You're right that it's not an explicit denial, but his comments are denying that there is a genocide so implicitly Google can't be complicit in something that isn't happening. EvansHallBear (talk) 20:20, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Israel's arguments in their defense are certainly WP:DUE. A simple denial without any corresponding argument is not. Brin doesn't actually make an argument, he just denies the genocide and baselessly attacks the UN as antisemitic. EvansHallBear (talk) 19:54, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. David A (talk) 21:49, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

A few days ago, taking into account this discussion, I placed the Sergey Brin criticism of the UN and the use of the term genocide into the Cultural discourse section of the article. There were some expressions of support for this approach, in part because it represented essentially a compromise position between the original placement in the UN section and those who felt that his views are irrelevant. (There is a broader discussion perhaps to be had about whether the entire Cultural discourse section is relevant, but simply adding the reporting on the Brin perspective didn't directly raise this issue.) In any case, the placement of this Brin criticism in the Cultural discourse section was quickly removed from the article on the basis that there was no consensus. My compromise edit was an attempt to reach WP:CONSENSUS, though if it is not satisfactory, I welcome further comment here. I maintain my general view that as long as the views of individual music performers are viewed as worthy of inclusion in this section, then Mr. Brin's views are as well given the multiple secondary sources that reported on those views. Coining (talk) 14:22, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Not that consensus is formed by "vote", but of the seven people in this discussion, 2 support inclusion, while 4 do not. I would suggest trying to wrangle input from more editors, by asking for input on this discussion at the relevant WikiProject talk pages. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 09:55, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for following up, and for the idea. For what it's worth, I think it fair to say that the original editor who placed the Brin criticism in the article, @Rafi Chazon, should be included in the list of editors supporting inclusion, and that @Nikkimaria and I are in agreement that the Cultural discourse section would ideally be pared down (and we might also agree that if there isn't consensus to do so, then the Brin comments should be included for completeness), though I still understand that a broader set of perspectives would be helpful. Coining (talk) 14:00, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Ah, I thought you had originally added it Coining, my apologies. I didn't count Nikkimaria, as I didnt think they provided a firm stance as to inclusion or exclusion. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 15:41, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Totally understanding that this isn't a vote, I then only count 3 editors expressing a view in opposition if Nikkimaria is not included. Either way, even if it is 3-3 instead of 2-4, your broader point about further outreach is appreciated. Coining (talk) 15:48, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

I am also opposed to the addition. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:52, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Add relevant reverted information

Information on an academic and legal report was removed by DecrepitlyOnward, request to re-add or please re-add for me:

In July 2025, the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies (BESA) published a comprehensive report rebutting claims that Israel committed genocide or deliberately caused famine during its military operations in Gaza. The study, authored by historians Danny Orbach, Jonathan Boxman, Yagil Henkin, and legal scholar Jonathan Braverman, systematically challenges the factual, legal, and methodological foundations of such allegations, particularly those raised before international legal bodies such as the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the International Criminal Court (ICC).

The report argues that accusations of genocide rely on misinterpretations of international law and selective quoting of Israeli officials while ignoring the context of urban warfare and Hamas’s embedded military infrastructure. It contends that no persuasive evidence exists of a systematic policy to target civilians, and that incidents of harm to civilians, largely stem from the complexity of combat in densely populated environments and Hamas’s strategy of using civilian areas for military purposes.

The report criticizes the methodological approaches of international human rights organizations and media outlets, accusing them of relying heavily on unverified testimonies, politically motivated sources, and secondary citations. It also warns that broad use of the term "genocide" without rigorous evidentiary standards undermines the term’s moral and legal weight and risks weakening international mechanisms designed to prevent atrocities. Rafi Chazon (talk) 14:31, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

You are clearly giving UNDUE weight to an Israeli claim. M.Bitton (talk) 14:34, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

An entire paragraph in the lede and a whole separate section of three paragraphs dedicated to a report from an explicitly political Think Tank is extremely undue weight, as it means that it as a source outweighs every other source we use in the article. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 14:42, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Completely agree with this. At best, a short sentence with in-text attribution could be added into the body, "According to a Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies report ..." Bogazicili (talk) 19:11, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Given the numerous sources on both sides of the debate editors have identified that aren't included in the article, I don't see this particular report warranting inclusion. EvansHallBear (talk) 20:46, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

I also agree with Cdjp1 and M.Bitton here. David A (talk) 21:48, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Emergency Conference to Halt the Genocide in Gaza

El Pais This conference is scheduled from 15 June 2025 to 16 June 2025 and is currently underway in Colombia. I think that it warrants a mention in this article, but I'm not sure what section would be best. JasonMacker (talk) 21:12, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

We have a full article on The Hague Group already. EvansHallBear (talk) 22:22, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

As the article on The Hague Group explains, the group consists of 8 members. However, this conference is being attended by representatives of 32 countries. So, this is broader than just The Hague Group. JasonMacker (talk) 01:33, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Sorry if that came off as flippant, which I wasn't intending. We'll see if anything comes of this emergency meeting (I'm not optimistic), but it probably warrants a mention here while the details can go into the Hague Group article. EvansHallBear (talk) 02:08, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

It looks like the relevant article is Bogotá summit. JasonMacker (talk) 17:32, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Useful source

https://x.com/caitoz/status/1945093686976487483

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/15/opinion/israel-gaza-holocaust-genocide-palestinians.html

Has it been added to the article? The NYT article, of course. RodRabelo7 (talk) 23:19, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

We already include earlier articles from Bartov where he stated in his opinion as a genocide scholar this is a case of genocide. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 11:06, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Maybe we can simply add this article as an extra reference for Bartov? It is extremely prominently published and compellingly written. David A (talk) 19:19, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

• While he is an expert, we don't need to include every individual opinion piece he writes. One thing we might consider, though, is whether this is a better source than one of the existing ones; if so, we might replace one of the current quotes and citations to him with this one, since it is more recent. Really we might consider rewriting the entire paragraph for him, which currently is a bunch of piecemeal quotes; the final statement of My inescapable conclusion has become that Israel is committing genocide against the Palestinian people is probably more important, but if we're going to use that it should replace something or his various opinion pieces should be condensed and summarized rather than listing an elaborate timeline of his views quote-by-quote. It might also be worth waiting a little bit to see if this one gets some secondary coverage (his other statements have), which would be a better way to cover it if we use it. --Aquillion (talk) 20:11, 17 July 2025 (UTC)