Jump to content

Talk:Palestinian genocide accusation

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bharel (talk | contribs) at 12:20, 23 August 2024 (→Requested move 21 July 2024: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Estimate of future deaths

Consolidated to Talk:Israel–Hamas war#Indirect casualties from the Lancet study, please continue discussion there. Kinsio (talk ★ contribs ★ rights) 21:31, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

@Genabab: re the estimate you added, I'm not necessarily against including this, but we should be cautious for a few reasons

  • Lancet lists this as "Correspondence", are essentially letters from readers. See here (emphasis theirs). Our readers’ reflections on content published in the Lancet journals or on other topics of general interest to our readers. These letters are not normally externally peer reviewed. The authors do have some credentials, so this isn't a dealbreaker, just more like a WP:SPS.
  • It's a projection of future deaths, so we should make that clear.
  • I feel "statistical estimate" is making this sound more rigorous than it is - they just picked a round-number multiple (four) that they felt would be not implausible for this conflict.
  • To corroborate the plausibility of the multiple, they seem to cite an article titled Global burden of armed conflict, which I can't find. They provide a URL which points to a report titled World Drug Report, so maybe it's that? That report seems to discuss some related ideas of extrapolation based on multiples, but in the context of heroin addicts.

Again not necessarily against including it, but I think it should be framed pretty differently if we do. — xDanielx T/C\R 02:14, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I expanded the line and the cite, and did the same at a few other articles (check my contribs). Feel free to massage it further. Levivich (talk) 04:51, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I might make some additional changes but will hold off a bit to see other input. — xDanielx T/C\R 06:27, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also think that this information should be included, given that only the identifiable bodies directly killed by assaults from Israeli forces have been included in the listed statistics here thus far, not the ones hidden under the rubble of collapsed buildings or killed by starvation or diseases as a result from this conflict. David A (talk) 04:57, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, it was clearly stated that the 4x number was a conservative estimate. The maximum was 15x, which would mean over 570,000 total deaths of mainly innocent women and children. Should that be mentioned as well? David A (talk) 05:33, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In terms of what the source says directly, they do say conservative but also say not implausible, which I think reflects the high uncertainty with such difficult projections. Maybe we should include both?
My take (which is admittedly less relevant) is that something close to 15x probably isn't plausible here, since that would be at least 25% of the population, maybe 50%+ if direct deaths rise. The cases with high multiples, like DRC (~10x), seem to involve smaller proportions of the population, and also parts of the world that are more ignored by the West. — xDanielx T/C\R 06:04, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but given the systematic prevention of food deliveries caused by the Israeli military and settler groups, combined with complete destruction of sanitation, systematic targeting of medical personel and rescue workers, and so onwards, wouldn't the situation rationally be considerably worse than usual in terms of indirect deaths? David A (talk) 06:11, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you have some valid points and it's probably fine to say conservative. Not sure about a number like 570k since we wouldn't have a source for it (maybe stil admissible based on WP:CALC but feels iffy to me), but we could mention the 3-15x range if that works?
I think for balance it would also be good to somehow highlight that these are very rough projections, with a lot of assumptions (that Gaza is comparable to other conflicts, that GHM isn't already counting indirect deaths, etc) and uncertainty. — xDanielx T/C\R 06:35, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that mentioning the 3x to 15x range seems reasonable, as long as we also mention that the 4x multiple was used for the currently listed estimate. David A (talk) 07:05, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think I found what the authors meant to cite to back the multiples they mention: The Global Burden of Armed Violence, chapter 2. It says In the majority of conflicts since the early 1990s for which good data is available, the burden of indirect deaths was between three and 15 times the number of direct deaths, and A reasonable average estimate would be a ratio of four indirect deaths to one direct death in contemporary conflicts. — xDanielx T/C\R 05:41, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the information. David A (talk) 05:45, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What if we cited this report as the main source discussing indirect deaths, and briefly mentioned the Lancet correspondence just for the 186k figure? This report just seems much more authoritative and rigorous. I think this could lead to a stronger, more verifiable statement, otherwise readers who check the Lancet source might get the impression that numbers were pulled out of a hat. — xDanielx T/C\R 06:12, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that we should use both sources in combination for stronger verification purposes. Mainly using the main source that the Lancet study used for its total casualties estimations does not directly mention the current situation in Palestine as far as I am aware. Meaning, please do not remove any current information, but feel free to add a reference and the 570,000 upper maximum number, in my personal view. David A (talk) 06:20, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I might have missed the part which implies that it is predictive. Though, when I first read it I interpreted it as indirect deaths up to that point (which would make sense given they're using a figure of how many people died up until recently).
That's not to say there's no grounds for interpreting it in that way, and I think there is good reason to think about including the "future" part Genabab (talk) 10:23, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Genabab: You missed it because at no point does the report say that the 186k figure is a projection.
Applying a conservative estimate of four indirect deaths per one direct death to the 37 396 deaths reported, it is not implausible to estimate that up to 186 000 or even more deaths could be attributable to the current conflict in Gaza. Using the 2022 Gaza Strip population estimate of 2 375 259, this would translate to 7·9% of the total population in the Gaza Strip. A report from Feb 7, 2024, at the time when the direct death toll was 28 000, estimated that without a ceasefire there would be between 58 260 deaths (without an epidemic or escalation) and 85 750 deaths (if both occurred) by Aug 6, 2024.
This is simple enough to interpret. For the current conflict in Gaza, a conservative estimate of four indirect deaths per one direct death is applied (which gives us the 186k figure). These are not future projections but rather an estimate of the impact to date. The future projections mentioned are from a February report and are based on a different context and point in time. - Ïvana (talk) 14:51, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That paragraph is a bit ambiguous, but I think the context from the two preceding sentences make it clear they're talking about a projection of future indirect deaths (or maybe both, past + future): Even if the conflict ends immediately, there will continue to be many indirect deaths in the coming months and years from causes such as reproductive, communicable, and non-communicable diseases. The total death toll is expected to be large given [...]
Besides, interpreting it as 186k past deaths would make the claim quite extraordinary. GHM must have a reasonable estimate of total excess (direct + indirect) deaths, which is simply total deaths minus expected deaths (based on pre-conflict data). If that number was anything close to 186k, surely GHM would have reported it and it would be all over the news. — xDanielx T/C\R 17:27, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please continue this discussion at Talk:Israel–Hamas_war#Indirect_casualties_from_the_Lancet_study where this has been copied. Selfstudier (talk) 19:02, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Understood, should we close these other threads then? — xDanielx T/C\R 19:23, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 21 July 2024

Palestinian genocide accusation → Palestinian genocide – Given the movement of Gaza genocide to that title, the current title here has become incongruously inconsistent. How can the parent of a child topic that is not couched in the language of "accusation" be couched in that language? It should be obvious than it should not. More generally, it has become apparent that the language of "accusation" is generally inappropriate. This is not only per MOS:ACCUSED (which outlines how the language of accusation is problematic in its presumptive deployment of doubt (presumably ultimately as a corollary of WP:NPOV)), but also per consistency with similar titles on similar subjects. There are many pages on the topics of presumed or suspected (but not legally ruled on) genocides -- this is in fact the majority of them -- but no other genocide topic on Wikipedia, regardless of how speculative it is, is couched as a "genocide accusation". See the search results. Likewise, the phrase "Palestinian genocide accusation" is all but unknown to scholarship, in stark contrast to "Palestinian genocide", which is a common and widely used phrase, including in titular form, such as in the 2013 The Palestinian Genocide by Israel by the eminent Francis Boyle. In the previous move discussion, I somewhat rallied support around the current title, but that was in October last year, before much of the subsequent discussion around developments in Gaza. It seemed sensible at the time, but that was then, and this is now. Events have moved on significantly since then, not least with the ICJ case and provisional measures -- and hence the Gaza genocide move. As this page covers the overarching legal and scholarly topic of Palestinian genocide, the weight of both everything that went into the Gaza genocide RM discussion, and everything that precedes it in Palestinian history, including the Nakba and all subsequent Israeli policies and actions that have been discussed as conceivably genocidal by legal and academic experts, is under consideration. Given that this page has a significantly grander scope than its child, its title cannot reasonably contain greater doubt than that of its child. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:29, 21 July 2024 (UTC)— Relisting. Jerium (talk) 15:16, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support per nom. "Accusation" implies doubt, and considering the recent move of the child article to a more straightforward title, this one is inconsistent. Given the recent ICJ developments, "Palestinian genocide" more accurately reflects the scope of this topic and is also a term widely used in scholarly and legal contexts. - Ïvana (talk) 15:13, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose — I did not participate in the Gaza RM but would have opposed it as well if I was made aware of it. I'd like the point to the first two sentences of this article: The State of Israel has been accused of carrying out or inciting genocide against Palestinians during the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. Debates are ongoing as to whether the entire process and which specific periods or events meet the definitions of genocide or not. (Emphasis mine) An accusation of genocide is an accusation of genocide, not a genocide. Incitement to genocide is not a genocide in and of itself. And the fact that we so prominently mention that "Debates are ongoing" means that I cannot support a move that seems to imply that one side of the debate is truthful while the debate is ongoing. If editors think that including "accusation" in the title favors the other side of this ongoing debate too much, then we could go for the more neutral-sounding "Palestinian genocide question" instead. But regardless, simply pretending in the title that this is not a matter of ongoing and heated debate with many reliable sources on both sides is in my opinion a violation of core policies regarding Wikipedia's neutral point of view. DecafPotato (talk) 20:46, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That debates are ongoing about the topic of "Palestinian genocide" is why it is a topic. Wikipedia page titles merely the names of topics. Example: Transgender genocide, as was discussed in the Gaza genocide discussion, reflects a disputed or contested term. But again, the very dispute and contestation of the topic validates it as a subject. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:31, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Transgender genocide is a somewhat unique case, and less of a WP:POVNAME for a couple reasons -
    • Most readers will recognize it as a nonstandard use of the term genocide, so readers are less likely to interpret it as a matter-of-fact statement that a genocide is occurring.
    • The title doesn't imply that a particular entity is committing genocide; in that sense it's closer to Persecution of Muslims than Palestinian genocide.
    — xDanielx T/C\R 04:45, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose pure defamation and against the definition. מתיאל (talk) 20:48, 21 July 2024 (UTC)מתיאל[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:POVNAME and WP:POVTITLE. A title of Palestinian genocide essentially amounts to a (strongly implied) statement in wikivoice that a genocide is occurring. Such a statement is decidedly non-neutral, given the controversy. I don't think it's necessary to discern which side of the controversy has more weight, as long as there exists a significant (non-fringe) viewpoint that genocide has not occurred (which there does, see e.g. here). There are exceptions to WP:POVNAME for widely used (effectively proper) names; that's a high bar that isn't met here. I don't see why MOS:ACCUSED would support Palestinian genocide; it says alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined, such as with people awaiting or undergoing a criminal trial. Consistency is a minor stylistic consideration relative to these neutrality issues. Gaza genocide might also not be the long-term title, since the consensus seemed to be against it; the RM close didn't seem to recognize that those opposing it were split between two similar alternatives. Setting aside that particular article, there's nothing unusual about "allegations" or similar language in titles; it's a common practice for avoiding WP:POVNAMEs. See e.g. 1, 2, 3, or (from a different topic area), 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, etc. — xDanielx T/C\R 20:51, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As mentioned in the opening statement, "Palestinian genocide" is a term with plentiful scholarly circulation, while "Palestinian genocide accusation" is a Wikipedia invention. It is also redundant. Every genocide is an accusation. Someone has to be accused of a genocide for there to be a genocide topic. It therefore adds no precision, while clearly detracting from concision, per WP:CRITERIA. The only function that it does serve is as an expression of doubt, which we avoid. As with other genocide topics, few of which are legally affirmed, the title alone does not pass judgement and cannot provide the reader with a notion as to how credible the accusations of genocide might be. To comprehend, they have to read the content. However, the current title here, in using an expression of doubt, does pass a value judgement and therefore exerts a POV, so there is a POVNAME problem, but you have it backwards. The POV name is the current one. The NPOV name would be the proposed title, which names the subject without expressing doubt or casting a value judgement. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:46, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Great, so you're supporting Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel -> Israeli Genocide? Every genocide is an allegation. Someone has to be accused of a genocide for there to be a genocide topic. It therefore adds no precision, while clearly detracting from concision. The current title here, in using an expression of doubt, does pass a value judgement and therefore exerts a POV, so there is a POVNAME problem. The POV name is the current one. The NPOV name would be the proposed title (Israeli Genocide), which names the subject without expressing doubt or casting a value judgement. Bar Harel (talk) 22:42, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well they say that imitation is the highest form of flattery, but that's a question for that page. However, I would suggest that there are probably some other factors involved. Context is key. Iskandar323 (talk) 23:50, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    However, I would suggest that there are probably some other factors involved.
    I agree. For one, there are no reliable sources to my knowledge describing the October 7 attacks as the "Israeli genocide", at least nowhere near enough to establish it as a common term. The term "Israeli genocide" is ambiguous in its common usage (or lack thereof), as evidenced by the fact that it currently redirects to this article. Meanwhile, "Palestinian genocide" completely unambiguously refers to the subject of this article. PBZE (talk) 17:45, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hold on, I thought adding the term "allegation" was inherently redundant? If it is inherently redundant, contextual factors shouldn't matter. If it isn't inherently redundant, you should consider the huge NPOV issues with the title "Palestinian genocide". You can't have your cake and eat it, too. Rhosnes (talk) 22:50, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Can if the sourcing is good enough, that's the real question, just as it was with the Gaza genocide article (and problems with the other article need to be discussed there not here). Selfstudier (talk) 22:54, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, if the argument is that terms like "allegation" and "accusation" are inherently redundant, then even if there was scholarly consensus that there is no Israeli genocide (which there isn't), the title should still be "Israeli genocide" or "genocide of Israelis". Rhosnes (talk) 20:05, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not my argument, my argument is that the sources justify the title. Selfstudier (talk) 20:21, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, but my comment was in relation to Iskandar's argument, so your argument isn't relevant.
    Anyway, your argument isn't supported by RS, as there is no consensus in the RS that a genocide in Gaza/Palestine has indeed taken place. Rhosnes (talk) 21:11, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems like we disagree about what is implied by titles. To me a title of X implies the existence of X (at least in general; there are some murky edge cases like dark matter), so "Palestinian genocide" implies that a genocide has definitively occurred. A title of "Palestinian genocide accusation" merely implies that accusations have been made, without really saying anything about their merit.
    If your view is that "accusations" is redundant, wouldn't that mean that a vast number of articles in Category:Allegations should have "allegations", "accusations" and similar terms removed from their titles? It seems the community has decided that the terms are important.
    I don't think any guideline says to "avoid" expressions of doubt; MOS:DOUBT rather tells us to "watch" such words and use them when "appropriate". The current article repeatedly uses expressions of doubt when discussing genocide claims, suggesting a consensus that they're appropriate here. — xDanielx T/C\R 05:05, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To me a title of X implies the existence of X Well, what about Israel and apartheid? Does that imply the existence of Israel and apartheid? No, you need the WP:SCOPE which is title plus first sentence(s), which in that case is "Israel's policies and actions in its ongoing occupation and administration of the Palestinian territories have drawn accusations that it is committing the crime of apartheid.". Ditto Gaza genocide "Israel has been accused by experts, governments, United Nations agencies and non-governmental organisations of carrying out a genocide.." There are many titles that do not imply existence (see User talk:Joe Roe#Genocide close). Selfstudier (talk) 08:32, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said there are edge cases where it's more difficult to say what (if anything) the title implies, such as Israel and apartheid, dark matter, Epstein didn't kill himself, etc.
    But none of those are syntactically similar to Palestinian genocide accusation or Palestinian genocide. For more closely related examples, we can look to Category:Allegations, where most titles contain "allegations" or similar language.
    For example, consider Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations and Joe Biden sexual assault allegation. If "allegations" is redundant in titles, would you support renaming them to Donald Trump sexual misconduct and Joe Biden sexual assault? I suspect there would be overwhelming objections based on their non-neutral implications. — xDanielx T/C\R 01:21, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As with Gaza genocide, it would boil down to the available sourcing and what it actually says. I don't think title syntax has much to with anything at all, titles are not syntactically composed, they are just a reflection of sources and are not engineered to have some inherent semantic meaning. If "allegations" (or accusations, usually associated with legal proceedings) are what is mainly said in sources, that's what it will be. Selfstudier (talk) 09:33, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not brushed up on what the specific difference would be in title with regards to accusation vs allegation, to the common ear, either would be fine. On a slightly different note, maybe the "accusation/allegation" part should be pluralised, to better reflect the scope of the article as it deals with accusations of genocide across different events over the past century. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 21:14, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a false equivalency. WP:BLP means you have to call allegations about individuals "allegations" or "accusations" if they may be contentious or defamatory. Once those allegations are proven, then you may drop the "allegations" and "accusations" part of the title.
    Israel is not an individual that can be defamed, nor does WP:BLP apply to it. Moreover, Palestinian genocide neither indicates who is accused of the genocide nor whether they're guilty; in fact, it could even suggest "genocide committed by Palestinians" until you read it. Hence why you read the article to find out, because a title is just a title. Compare, again, to Transgender genocide but also Black genocide. Lewisguile (talk) 09:04, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If the title was Israeli genocide, then it would be more directly comparable, but the point about WP:BLP not applying would still stand, either way. Lewisguile (talk) 09:06, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I recall my split !vote elsewhere "Option 2 or 3, 2 because there is already a Palestinian genocide accusation that has not as yet changed its title, and 3 because there is a significant view in sources that Israel is committing a genocide and I have not as yet seen a sufficiency of sources saying that Israel is not committing a genocide." and here we are. Due to circumstance and current events we are doing this backwards, the child is done and the parent is waiting when ordinarily it would be the other way about and the child renamed without fuss. The issues are the same tho, is there a preponderance of sourcing that makes the proposed title a topic? And then, if so, is there source evidence sufficient to overcome a POVNAME objection. So we will, willy nilly, have to do all that source analysis over again replacing "Gaza" with "Palestine" (or Palestinian, I guess). I suppose it might be possible to merge the two articles but then we will still have the same discussion so that will have to wait.Selfstudier (talk) 22:53, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait. I believe that having Wikipedia write about apparently two separate Palestinian genocides may be confusing to readers (and also challenging to capture in navboxes). Looking at where things are moving, I think we'll most likely end up with one well-sourced article about a genocide in Palestine whose scope (time, geography) will mirror the scope of the forthcoming ICJ judgment, due in the next year or so (too optimistic, indeed). Once that judgement is out, we'll have to discuss merges and renames in the PI topic area, especially as regards genocides, war crimes and human rights violations, to address the current overlapping. While I'm not opposing the proposed rename as a matter of principle, and I see the all-important COMMONNAME point raised by Iskandar, I'd be somehow inclined to wait for the ICJ, not least for any such renames to be sustained. — kashmīrī TALK 00:51, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    is the final icj verdict expected "in the next year or so"? I thought it was likely going to take "years" [15] [16]... Rainsage (talk) 03:33, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed. Crossed out. — kashmīrī TALK 20:03, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I agree that this would be WP:POVTITLE and WP:POVNAME. In addition, there is WP:TITLECON: The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles. See, for example,
The former of these two is also being reviewed at the ICJ. Why should we take it into our hands to decide which case is stronger? There are some exception to this rule, such as the Rohingya genocide, but it has been formally labelled as a genocide by governments, such as the U.S. Amayorov (talk) 01:20, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, to be honest, Palestinian genocide has also been formally named by governments, and anyway we don't take government viewpoints that much into consideration when naming articles (especially the US government viewpoint which is particularly underpinned by politics). — kashmīrī TALK 13:02, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, In the opening of the article it is written: "Debates are ongoing as to whether the entire process and which specific periods or events meet the definitions of genocide or not". To remove the word accusation from the name of the article, is to give the article a wrong name. Hanay (talk) 04:27, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose The accusations are just that, accusations. There is no hard evidence of a genocide. Felicia (talk) 16:05, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose: The opening arguments to move this page make no sense. Unless the meaning of genocide has changed to mean unfortunate victims of a horrible war, there is no genocide going on in Palestine or in Gaza, and this vote and similar votes are a disruptive waste of time which humiliates and demonizes Israelis a kin to the blood libels of the past. The continuation of these types of discussions and the biased decisions which seem to be their inevitable outcomes, will be the downfall of the Wikipedia project. DaringDonna (talk) 17:14, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Your insinuation that Iskandar's intention was to "humiliate and demonize Israelis" is certainly wrong and also quite unfriendly, especially given that Iskandar has extensively relied on sources. Would you consider retracting it? — kashmīrī TALK 19:33, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like to reiterate what was said by @Kashmiri. Scientelensia (talk) 05:09, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per the arguments above; Additionally, many of the claims in this article are significantly less certain/clear than the ones in the Gaza article (which was a close discussion as it was), and it's a POV name (due to being unproven and highly disputed, particularly regarding the legal dimension). It is also too soon, we should wait for the ICJ.
FortunateSons (talk) 17:51, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - removing the word accusation completely changes the meaning of the article title, and is clearly a WP:POVTITLE. On such sensitive a topic, it is clearly influencing the reader and not providing facts. Hkabla (talk) 07:08, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support. Parent should match child, even if the child was changed first. Also, this is the WP:COMMONNAME, and a title itself doesn't suggest a subject is true. Opposition that suggests as such essentially boils down to WP:IDONTLIKE, which isn't a valid reason. "Palestine genocide accusations" doesn't even show up on Ngrams: http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Palestinian+genocide%2CPalestinian+genocide+accusation&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=en-2019&smoot "Palestinian genocide" also narrowly beats "Israeli genocide", and the latter would make even less sense, so I'd say that's even more support for the former: https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Palestinian+genocide%2CIsraeli+genocide&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=en-2019&smoothing=3 Also compare with "Black genocide", for example. Lewisguile (talk) 10:28, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
a title itself doesn't suggest a subject is true - if your view is that this holds in general, not just for certain edge cases like Epstein didn't kill himself, wouldn't this view imply that there's no need for the WP:POVTITLE policy?
For POV titles, the standard for commonness becomes a significant majority of English-language sources or effectively become a proper name. It seems like we're far from that. A quick search for Palestinian genocide (without quotes) shows no sources on the first page using that exact wording.
Removing a word from an n-gram will always increase its count in a corpus; I don't think that's a good argument for dropping qualifiers that improve neutrality (except in uncommon cases where the above standard is met). Most titles in Category:Allegations do include such qualifiers. — xDanielx T/C\R 14:35, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Palestinian genocide" isn't a POV name; it is the only prevalent name for the topic. There isn't any obvious contender, except for "Israeli genocide", which is likely to cause confusion, as it breaks with the very well worn pattern of "Fooian genocide" being the genocide of the Fooian people. This proposed move merely seeks to bring the page name back into line with using the terminology as it is used in sources, i.e. without the current, inappropriate expression of doubt, which serves no purpose other than to add a value judgement that is not contained in most sources and thus is POV. As for whatever dodgy search was performed above, if you search Google scholar (the only place to look for genocide literature) what pops up for a search of the terms "Palestinian" and "genocide", without any frills, is: Genocide in Palestine: Gaza as a case study, Palestine and genocide: An international historical perspective revisite, Ongoing Palestinian Genocide, Nakba memoricide: genocide studies and the Zionist/Israeli genocide of Palestine, etc. What's not apparent in any of these is the word "accusation", because, again, the charge of genocide isn't a frivolous accusation, but the most weighty of legal and scholarly, peer-reviewed assertions. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:04, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Look, this proposition is half way there in the sense that Gaza genocide exists, and Gaza is an integral part of Palestine per recent ICJ statement of the law, now is some one going to make up a source table for the other half that is sufficient to overcome POVTITLE? Selfstudier (talk) 16:58, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could start at Talk:Palestinian genocide accusation/Archive 1#Genocide scholars who say it is/is not genocide Selfstudier (talk) 17:00, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This will not easily work with the scope of this article, as an example for Ilan Pappe, does not view the Nakba as genocide, whereas he views the Blockade of the Gaza Strip around 2006, and the Israeli assault on Gaza from 2023 as two cases of genocide. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 21:09, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This not an accusation, this is a historical genocide. This is the main purpose for Zionism's existence. Dimadick (talk) 16:52, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How is this comment allowed to remain here? I demand this editor remove such an outrageous and inflammatory statement, much worse than anything I said and was reprimanded for. If this statement is removed, with an apology, I will remove my statement as well. DaringDonna (talk) 19:45, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Raise any behavioral issues at the editor's talk page in the first instance.Selfstudier (talk) 20:35, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The main purpose of Zionism is to genocide Palestinians? Bar Harel (talk) 19:09, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not heavily involved in these discussions, but this is a completely inappropriate reason for a RM vote, especially without a reliable source to back up your claims. I hope an admin strikes this vote when closing this discussion. Jdcomix (talk) 19:59, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. We shouldn’t use a title that implies the veracity of a contentious theory. This is why we have an article called Chemtrail conspiracy theory, not just Chemtrail. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 20:18, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, not true. We have Flat Earth, Levitation (paranormal), Astrology, Alchemy, etc. Article titles don't have to be objectively true; they only need to be terms that have an encyclopaedic notability. — kashmīrī TALK 22:29, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's clear to most readers that those are fringe or non-scientific viewpoints, so there's no real concern about a non-neutral implication. I.e. they're not WP:POVNAMEs for the same reasons that unicorn isn't.
    The most relevant comparisons would be to other disputed accusations, such as 1993 Michael Jackson sexual abuse allegations for example. Would you broadly support removing "allegations" from such titles? — xDanielx T/C\R 05:08, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You can't compare it with BLPs – they have a specifically different ruleset. Do the obvious thing, as I mentioned right up top, and compare it with other genocide articles, where you will find no other example of "X genocide accusation". Iskandar323 (talk) 05:11, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    While BLP does apply to titles, that's only because titles imply statements, thus conveying information to which BLP applies. Under this (unusual) view that titles don't imply statements, 1993 Michael Jackson sexual abuse would merely be a reference to a topic, with no statement to which BLP would apply.
    There are other titles similar to "X genocide accusation" as well, see 1, 2, 3, 4. There are also many other non-BLP titles with similar language, such as CIA drug trafficking allegations, or Alleged Pakistani support for Osama bin Laden. — xDanielx T/C\R 17:26, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Your examples are yo-yoing in all directions now, and I'm sure you're aware that you are cherrypicking exceptions, but you have at least seized on at least one comparable "X genocide Y"-style title – though I'll note that the Holodomor title still doesn't appear to have caused you to even mull over the "question" format as an alternative. Are you looking for alternatives? Or eyeing other titles for inspiration? Or merely flagging them to make some sort of point? Iskandar323 (talk) 19:09, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    All of the examples I've given are about other contested allegations, and thus subject to similar naming considerations. My point is that if we look at closely related examples like that, most of them have some kind of qualifier (whether it's "allegation", "accusation" or "question").
    There's nothing exceptional about my examples, this is just the standard practice for avoiding WP:POVNAMEs for contested allegations. See Category:Allegations.
    Comparisons to dissimilar names/topics like Flat Earth (no real controversy) or Epstein didn't kill himself (very different syntax, and effectively proper) are less relevant. — xDanielx T/C\R 19:53, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The most closely related examples, and the ones that you are conspicuously ignoring, are most genocide articles, not the handful of contrarian counter-examples that you've plugged produced. Yes, there is one allegations page about the start of the conflict that was erected by a now topic-banned user. I would suggest that's still at that title because the very notability is spurious. I can't comment on the Ukraine one, but maybe there are good reasons there too. Both are a distraction from the more general pattern of genocide topics being readily presented as topics in titular form without the need to warp the titles with expressions of doubt that also find disfavour in our guidelines. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:08, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The question at hand was whether, for articles about contested allegations, titles can imply things about the truth or merit of the claims. We can go into other contested genocide accusations if you like, but the question is a general one, nothing to do with genocide in particular.
    These aren't "contrarian counter-examples", it's at least 100+ articles (I can make a list if you like) which reflect a standard practice of qualifying contested claims in titles. — xDanielx T/C\R 22:49, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, that's lovely. You've found 100 unrelated pages that may or may not have been named well. We'd have to discuss 100 specific circumstances to assess them. I'm pointing to the specific corpus of parallel titles in the same topic area as a matter of consistency. You are making vague hand waves at other stuff, as well a ignoring all other points that have been made: not least that this is not a mere accusation, but at bare minimum a serious scholarly assertion. There are numerous academic sources that do not use the word "accusation" in relation to the topic, so it is not a word that is intrinsic to the topic, but a POV on certain aspects of the topic, i.e.: certain statements being labelled accusations. A peer-reviewed in paper in the International Journal of Human Rights, for example, is not an "accusation"; it is the scholarly discussion of a topic that stands alone and apart from mere accusatory language. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:10, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you recognise that no-genocide is a POV then you might also recognise that yes-genocide is a POV too? NPOV asks us not to position POVs as truth where sources are split.
    Aside, but an important one: “scholarly” is a better trump card in the empirical sciences where the paper authors are theoretically neutral referees. Less so in the social sciences in cases where the authors are themselves players. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 07:36, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There's not a no-genocide and yes-genocide option. There's the title that's just the description of the subject, or the same title with a misrepresentative and POV expression of doubt. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:21, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Using the logic for the name change of the article Gaza genocide for this article is extremely off point. This article is specifically about the history of the argumentation to there being a potential genocide of Palestinians, as such it deals with a vast array of frameworks and instances under analysis, including instances which while relevant to the history of this academic discourse, do not have the weight of support from experts to consider them genocides under expert consensus. This means should (the ridiculous option be taken) the article's name change the scope is then changed, and these instances should be removed from the article, which makes Wikipedia's coverage of this discourse poorer.
The strongest arguments of genocide occurring to the Palestinians are specific instances, such as Sabra and Shatila, or Gaza from 2023. The much broader scope argument, as per scholars like Rosemary Sayigh and Mohammed Nijim, is less well supported, that is that the past century is one procession of genocidal ideology, with distinct periods of repression and destruction. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 21:02, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The overarching operative theme here is that of: Israel’s slow-motion genocide in occupied Palestine. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:15, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to read the comment before replying. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 21:18, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, yes, you think it's irreconcilable. But I'm not sure who put you in charge of the "stronger arguments". Iskandar323 (talk) 22:06, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per arguments above. It should link to Gaza genocide in the lead. Kowal2701 (talk) 21:06, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support as per WP:NDESC Avoid judgmental and non-neutral words; for example, allegation or alleged can either imply wrongdoing, or in a non-criminal context may imply a claim "made with little or no proof" and so should be avoided in a descriptive title.
These days increasing no. of sources no longer using alleged. So i think wiki should do it as well Astropulse (talk) 04:41, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - People actually state here that they wish to move it because the "main point of Zionism is to genocide Palestinians". Are we back to blaming Jews for global domination, poisoning wells and making bread out of Christian blood? If you're already doing it least update it, now we're in charge of black holes, global warming and we made the Earth flat. Looks like Wikipedia is turning into 4chan. Bar Harel (talk) 19:21, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:WHITEWASH. By the way, well-documented killings of 100,000+ civilians is not same as "causing black holes", nor is Israel same as Jews. — kashmīrī TALK 20:57, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you have a citation for 100.000 Palestinian civilians? Palestinian casualties of war and a realistic civilian/combatant ratio for the recent conflict doesn’t get me close, but I could be wrong FortunateSons (talk) 21:20, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Estimates vary, e.g., this source quotes 100,000 Palestinians killed by the end of 2021. The Palestinian casualties of war feels a bit unreliable: it says 3,000 killed in the Nakba while Time gives the number as 15,000.[17] However, primarily, Israel has killed Palestinians not only by shooting them. It has used more perverse methods – depriving them of water in summer, of heating in winter, of food all year round, bombing hospitals and blocking the supply of medications. How many people have died only because Israel has been blocking access to anything more than basic healthcare for decades? They are all victims of deliberate Israeli policies, and they are certainly well above 100,000 when even the ongoing Israeli invasion has killed an estimated 186,000 people.[18] — kashmīrī TALK 23:57, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As far as I can tell, the first two sources do not exclude combatants or other members of armed groups. While counting indirect (as in: not directly attributable, something that at least within colloquial usage generally isn’t called killed) is an complicated endeavour, I do think we can both agree that “ well-documented killings of 100,000+ civilians” doesn’t include projected casualties? FortunateSons (talk) 08:10, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't go into combatant-noncombatant discussion, at least as long as Israel considers anyone who throws a rock at an Israeli soldier a "terrorist"[19] who needs to be killed on the spot[20].
    If you want to exclude people deliberately starved to death or those who had to die "in the largest open-air prison" for deliberate refusal of medical services, you'll need to revise down WW2 casualties, too. — kashmīrī TALK 10:30, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, the distinction of when someone throwing rocks is or isn’t a combatant is a lot more complicated, but I’m pretty sure that we can both agree that at least some of them are directly taking part in hostilities, and therefore aren’t afforded the protections one usually associates with civilians, with the same applying to any Palestinian who uses attempts to use (deadly) force against Israelis, even if they do not de jure lose their status as civilians?
    Are we counting indirect deaths among the Axis powers as „civilians killed by the allies“? If so, I would probably be opposed to it, yes. Because that is the relevant analogy here, not people „deliberately starved to death (which make up a very small amount of casualties) or „deliberately denied medical services“ which again, the number of people for whom Israel is clearly obligated to provide medical services and doesn’t is a homeopathic amount.FortunateSons (talk) 11:11, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Can we take this OT convo elsewhere, please. Selfstudier (talk) 11:33, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, but generally speaking, refuting an inaccurate casualty count for civilians is on topic, as long as the casualty count is an argument. FortunateSons (talk) 11:37, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My friendly advice would be to avoid making personal evaluations about how many people being intentionally starved to death is too many. The correct answer is any number above zero. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:28, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, as applicable to the death of any innocent civilian. However, considering the intentionality is disputed and the confirmed number (for total starvation, not necessarily intentional starvation, but potentially higher due to lack of information) is below 50 as of the beginning of this month (per Gaza Strip famine), it would make up less than 1/2000 of the casualties claimed above. Any dead civilian is a tragedy, but if I estimated the number of dead Israeli civilians as double or triple what they actually are to make a claim about them being victims of a genocide, you would rightly be critical of that estimate, even though the correct number of Israelis killed is zero. FortunateSons (talk) 16:44, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sigh, why nobody listens to me, somebody hat this stuff. Selfstudier (talk) 16:46, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    While I can’t speak for the others, I‘m fine with you doing it. FortunateSons (talk) 16:52, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @FortunateSons, two Palestinian children a day[21][22], and many more Palestinian adults per day have been deliberately denied life-saving treatment by Israel. I don't know what numbers you call homoeopathic, but certainly these thousands of dying people are not. See also this[23]. I stand by the number of 100,000 deliberately killed over 70 years as a conservative estimate. Anyway, as Iskandar pointed out, precise numbers don't matter as long as they are above 0. — kashmīrī TALK 22:09, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Take this to my talk page per Selfstudier, preferably with an RS backing up the number. FortunateSons (talk) 22:18, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not "people," just one guy, and I don't get why this one guy's inflammatory comment is a basis to oppose this RM? (Also, FYI, Israel did in fact poison Palestinian wells [24].) Levivich (talk) 00:34, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support Most things said above , but most scholars and the absolute majority of the world (both counting population and country) which is not composed of only the US and co. agrees too AlexBobCharles (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:40, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support - to keep "accusation" in the title is bias. I don't doubt that supporters of Israel will deny this until the end of time, genocide denial is not uncommon. D1551D3N7 (talk) 14:15, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per comments above. This makes it a POV title.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 22:48, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The current title is a reasonable compromise that was come to in discussions several months ago. Given the general pivot away from titling things "x genocide" when such claims are contentious (notably the recent Uyghur genocide move), I don't see a reason to reverse the trend. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:37, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hemiauchenia: For the record, I wasn't anywhere near the discussion, but I think the move away from "Uyghur genocide" is a terrible one. Not only is that the clearly prevalent name for the topic, but the issue of denial and euphemism in the circumstances is widely discussed in literature. The "vocational training centres" in Xinjiang are unambiguous concentration camps and the cultural genocide, suppression and erasure is off the charts. However it is the mass, forced sterilisation of women that clearly contravenes Article 2D of the Genocide Convention, as has been amply reiterated in scholarship on it. The point is, I'm not sure how useful a guiding star that move is for best practice. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:27, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Iskandar323 I was reading the Uyghur article and I think maybe the editors changed the title to persecution because it seems like China has closed most of the camps and instead transferred some of the people to prisons. The rest are monitored/under surveillance. Since at least the camps where abuses were taking place have mostly been closed, maybe that was a factor for changing the title to persecution. Wafflefrites (talk) 17:59, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support as per the insightful arguments made by Levivich. Scientelensia (talk) 06:17, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I was and am still not completely clear on on this, because of the idea that there are two genocides, one in Gaza and another in the OPT taken as a whole (for that matter what about the Palestinian refugees/diaspora?). I have nevertheless decided to hang my hat on a Center for Constitutional Rights paper, The Genocide of the Palestinian People: An International Law and Human Rights Perspective which asserts (as of 2016) that "there is a long history of human rights scholarship and legal analysis that supports the assertion. Prominent scholars of the international law crime of genocide and human rights authorities take the position that Israel’s policies toward the Palestinian people could constitute a form of genocide" and "Numerous prominent human rights authorities, advocates, and scholars have claimed that Israel’s policies and actions with respect to the Palestinian people have amounted to a form of genocide." and since 2016, matters have obviously further deteriorated. Selfstudier (talk) 10:06, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Oppose, Wikipedia should not take sides on such an extremely controversial allegation. Using the title "Palestinian genocide" implies that Wikipedia endorses this partisan claim, and violates policies such as WP:POVNAME and WP:POVTITLE. The same applies for Gaza genocide. HaOfa (talk) 11:37, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. It's not Wikipedia's place to make political assessments. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:32, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. As pointed out by Levivich, there is scholarly consensus for the genocide in Palestine. The citation in the lead describes this as a slow-motion genocide (published in 2008). Reputable human rights organizations have published documentation of Israel committing genocide. The ICJ has found it plausible that there is genocide, despite a sustained pressure campaign from the US and its allies that is unprecedented in history. Given all of this context, the current title is a highly politicized claim and is a violation of WP:NPOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CoolAndUniqueUsername (talk • contribs) 20:41, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - per DecafPotato and xDanielx. Jdcomix (talk) 20:03, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Consensus exists among scholarly sources, NGOs, and international bodies like the UN that a genocide exists. The implication that it is simply an accusation or an allegation is giving WP:UNDUE weight to sources that go against the consensus. I would go so far as to say that this falls under the definition on WP:FRINGE: We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field. Di (they-them) (talk) 22:49, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is clearly very controversial. With most of the world, academics and experts not recognizing this a genocide, the proposed title change risks Wikivoice. In the UN, it is Francesca Albanese and another few figures who state this, not the wider body. Therefore, claims that the UN has declared that what is happeneing in Gaza is genocide is not the case. Let's not ruin Wikipedia with presenting narrative voices as the truth. ABHammad (talk) 07:43, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support: the current name is the only article on Wikipedia with the title "... genocide accusation". There is no good reason for that.
Apart from the Holocaust, I challenge the oppose editors to bring a single other example of a modern event in List of genocides which is not disputed as to whether it was actually a genocide by supporters of the perpetrators. Onceinawhile (talk) 16:04, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Onceinawhile swap accusation with allegation and you'll find three other articles. This article is also not listed in the article "List of genocides". -- Cdjp1 (talk) 07:53, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cdjp1: please could you link to the three articles? I cannot find them. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:24, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Allegations of genocide of Ukrainians in the Russo-Ukrainian War, Allegations of genocide in Donbas and Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel, if I had to guess? FortunateSons (talk) 08:28, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm - those are quite different from what Cdjp1's comment seemed to imply. One is explicitly stated in wiki voice to be false, and the others are described as relating to specific events as opposed to a long term sustained campaign. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:37, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that view, but I would argue that the first one in particular is somewhat analogous to this? A definition of event that covers a 10 year multi stage conflict might be close enough to this? FortunateSons (talk) 08:44, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify my request for a single other example of a modern event in List of genocides which is not disputed as to whether it was actually a genocide by supporters of the perpetrators, the point is that, other than the Holocaust, all genocides are disputed. The silence in response to my challenge above appears to confirm that oppose editors accept this fact. Therefore those oppose arguments suggesting that we cannot have an article with the title "genocide" unless there is no dispute cannot hold water. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:43, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the holocaust is “disputed” too. Having said that, it might get us to the actual point: mainstream disputes (as in: major law professors, multiple respected states, academic publications, etc.) and “state/it’s fanatical supporters doing a WP:Mandy” are the core difference here, and this article is significantly more disputed than most (or everything?) on the list. FortunateSons (talk) 08:48, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide evidence for your suggestion that "this article is significantly more disputed". The opposite is true – as you have just acknowledged, Israel and its supporters have been doing a WP:Mandy. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:58, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the “best evidence” exists for Gaza genocide (where the template maintained by @Cdjp1 at least showed at reasonable enough doubt that the name became about use, not fact - as seen in the move). Many of the claims in this article simply lack mainstream recognition as genocide, and have almost no recognition as genocide in the legal sense. FortunateSons (talk) 09:03, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn’t support your claim, which was a relative claim comparing this article to others on the list. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:09, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, for example: Yazidi genocide has EU, partial US and UN, France, UK etc. recognition. The Palestinian genocide in line with the scope of this article, particularly those that are pre-2023, have clearly weaker recognition, both politically and scientifically. FortunateSons (talk) 10:10, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This comment conflicts with WP:GLOBAL. We do not view the views of Western governments as somehow superior to the many non-Western governments that have described Israel’s long term campaign against Palestinians as genocide. Onceinawhile (talk) 15:20, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are also Armenian and Iraqi (and maybe others not in the article?) who were critical. However, when it comes to practical impacts, a condemnation from for example China/the US/the EU matters more than any smaller or less economically powerful entity. That doesn’t mean that other's don’t matter, but the Swiss position is likely to matter less than the Indian one. And in case of genocides, security council and ICJ/ICC membership are what matters directly, with economic strength and global influence being secondary but also significant. FortunateSons (talk) 15:29, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sources disagree with your personal opinion on the matter, which is irrelevant anyway. Selfstudier (talk) 09:30, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They also disagree with my assessment, but I’m not a reliable source, so my assessment has no bearing in the facts included in the article. FortunateSons (talk) 10:03, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Onceinawhile ah, apologies for my misunderstanding on the point of "List of genocides". For the three articles, it is the three FortunateSons provided in reply earlier. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 11:43, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Cdjp1 and XDanielx. The argument that Palestinians are undergoing a genocide is easier to support in only specific instances, e.g. the gaza war in 2023-2024. The broader case of all Palestinian peoples from different geographic areas or from different times is not well supported and doesn't currently have consensus.
In addition, this specific name change will change the scope of the page. As shown in earlier discussions, there is a distinction between allegations and accusations and whether removing the label or changing from one to another reflects the same content.
The nuances of WP:POVNAME and WP:POVTITLE have been flushed out in previous discussions. XDanielx's clarification on this is well substantiated. Having indicators in titles that misdirect the reader should be avoided particularly when the article is on a controversial topic. Relspas (talk) 19:27, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support. The fact of the matter is that every genocide in history has people disputing whether it happened. None of the other genocide articles are titled as "accusation". Also, the current article name is what I would consider to actually violate WP:POVNAME and WP:POVTITLE, because it gives the implication that the accusation is false. — Red XIV (talk) 15:59, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    True. Scientelensia (talk) 18:13, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I agree with all the points regarding WP:ALLEGED. The current title needs to be given extra scrutiny given that WP:NDESC explicitly says to avoid using weasel words like "allegation". We also need to take WP:GLOBAL seriously. The world as a whole treats the Palestinian genocide with more credibility than the US, Israel, and other Western countries do. Despite being an English encyclopedia, we need to avoid overemphasizing Western sources when discussing to what extent the word "accusation" (which is already a discouraged weasel word per WP:ALLEGED and WP:NDESC) is appropriate for the title. PBZE (talk) 18:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Furthermore, there are other articles about (real or alleged) genocides, including transgender genocide and Black genocide in the United States, which have been less extensively discussed and supported in reliable sources.
    Most articles about (real or alleged) genocides do not include the word "accusation". Again, the word "accusation" in this context is an unnecessary weasel word, privileging the opposing point of view without the support of reliable sources, violating WP:NPOV.
    It would take an abundance of reliable sources denying the existence of the Palestinian genocide, outweighing the reliable sources discussing it, in order to justify the current title. That threshold is simply not met. PBZE (talk) 20:41, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Genocide is such a strong and serious charge that we should actually expect a high proportion of reliable sources affirming it before positioning it as proven. N.B. WP:NDESC calls out the following exception to the use of "alleged" in titles: Exception: articles where the topic is an actual accusation of illegality under law, discussed as such by reliable sources even if not yet proven in a court of law. These are appropriately described as "allegations". This article does indeed include an actual accusation of illegality under law. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 20:56, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's incredibly unclear to what extent that policy, in its use of the term "law", refers to international law. For example, the article "Israeli war crimes" is not titled "Allegations of Israeli war crimes" even though its coverage includes war crimes that have yet to be proven in an international court. It opens with Israeli war crimes are the violations of international criminal law [...] which the Israel Defense Forces [...] has been accused of committing since the founding of Israel in 1948. Such an interpretation of policy also contradicts the consensus for "Gaza genocide" and the titles of the aforementioned articles about other (real or alleged) genocides. PBZE (talk) 04:53, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a standard clearly intended to be applied to discrete domestic crimes, not breaches of international law. Major war crimes and crimes against humanity are less individual charges so much as they are cases built up of many instances of war crimes. They are far removed from the realm of specific, let alone individual charges and have no interaction with BLP restrictions, which is presumably what the NDESC line is geared towards and designed to safeguard. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:25, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The article includes content on parties seeking charges against specific named individuals.Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 09:09, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Individual statements can speak for themselves. What charges are you talking about? The broad subject here is state-level genocide. Individual legal cases are liable to be covered on other pages and named accordingly. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:40, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The article currently names individuals and states directly that they have been accused of the crime of genocide: On November 9, Al Haq, Al Mezan Center for Human Rights, and the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights, filed a lawsuit with the ICC, calling for the inclusion of Israeli crimes against humanity, namely apartheid and genocide, in their ongoing investigation and for the arrest of Benyamin Netanyahu, Isaac Herzog, Yoav Gallantand others suspected of committing these crimes. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 12:08, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's just one statement, and the broad scholarly topic here really doesn't revolve around single statements. That specific topic also has its own dedicated page at International Criminal Court investigation in Palestine. Here it's a mere episode. And you'll also notice that this statement is heavily couched – "calling for the inclusion" – this is just one advocacy group calling for a legal charge to be added. This is at best a side-topic here until the point at which the pre-trial chamber makes a decision. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:00, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To be clear, that's one statement linked to a sub-topic (the ICC case) of a sub-topic (the Gaza genocide) of the actual subject here. Its relative weight here, in terms of determining the title of the grandparent article, is pretty minimal. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:05, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The broad scholarly topic here is an actual accusation of illegality under law, which policy tells us is appropriately described as "allegations". There's no exception saying this only applies to domestic law, nobody arguing that genocide is not a crime, and no exclusion of crimes committed by states - and realistically, if this accusation is pursued, the arrest warrants will not be for the abstract notion of the State of Israel, they will be for specific individuals. Probably the ones our article names. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 08:05, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The topic of genocide is not in fact defined by law at all. The crime of genocide as outlined in the genocide convention is merely one definition. There are plenty of other scholarly definitions that do not rely on precise legal specifications. And in any case, you're still speaking to a sub-topic of a sub-topic, not the broader topic. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:23, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not a sub-topic of a sub-topic - "crime of genocide" is mentioned in the first sentence of the article, and just because there are multiple definitions of genocide doesn't make the international law definition unimportant or moot (and just because "international law" has a different nature to domestic law, doesn't mean it doesn't exist, or isn't real law, or that illegality at the international level is undefined). Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 16:40, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The topic here is the broad sweep of genocidal actions against the Palestinian people, the first layer of sub-topic is of recent pertinent actions in Gaza, and the second layer of sub-topic is of any ICC movements on the latter matter. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:36, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Would you not consider a broad sweep of genocidal actions to be a crime? Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 19:07, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral to oppose to wait and i mean this in the most WP:NPOV sense of caution based on something that Red XIV said... which is that genocides are a topic of debate almost by definition and this is ongoing and I see way too many editors on both sides trying to substitute their opinion for the factual findings made by reliable sources... which are mixed on this finding of fact. Wikipedia does not make judgments of fact on live issues but is often left with no choice but to summarize events after the dust has settled and sober judgment has had time to pass. Wait is probably the most epistemologically sound way to handle this even if a genocide is much more than an epistemic exercise but those concerns are outside of the scope of an encyclopedia. Jorahm (talk) 17:10, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The proposed title change does not reflect a consensus from reliable sources. In my opinion, a significant change like this requires a stronger consensus among scholars to confirm that the events listed were indeed genocides directed at Palestinians, to ensure we avoid potential bias. UnspokenPassion (talk) 17:54, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly oppose. As per xDanielx. Iskandar's objection that the term "allegation" is redundant since all genocides were first alleged by someone is nonsensical: if something is truly a genocide, then it will remain a genocide even if no one calls it out. Also, as xDanielx has pointed out, there are somehow no proposals to rename the Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel article; in fact, paradoxically, not even Iskandar himself would support such proposals (by his own admission), even though he is adamant that the term "allegation" is inherently redundant. I know the Wikipedia policy is to assume good faith, but is it even possible to do that in this case when editors are explicitly applying double standards to push their POV?
The argument made in the proposal that the parent should reflect the child is also weak for several reasons: 1) as per WP:NOTASOURCE, Wikipedia articles should not be used as grounds to rewrite other Wikipedia articles, and 2) the RM close of the Gaza genocide discussion was an obvious mistake as xDanielx has pointed out since the closer counted votes for "Gaza genocide accusation" and "Gaza genocide question" separately, even though by the closer's own admission most of those who supported one also supported the other.
Let's be frank here: the proposal as well as the votes supporting the proposal amount to nothing other than WP:CPOV. There is no real argument to support the proposal that wouldn't also apply to similar articles whose titles are unanimously accepted. Rhosnes (talk) 23:18, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rhosnes: A reminder to address the content, not the contributors ... and definitely not to put words into other editor's mouths or cast aspersions. I would request that you scratch the part where you invent an opinion that I never gave, and the aspersions ... promptly ... and refrain from off-topic commentary on other pages. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:06, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think discussing both is appropriate in this situation. We need to be mindful of CPOV pushers on both sides - and you seem to be one of them. The reason this is relevant is that your "the term allegation is redundant" argument reads much more like a post-rationalisation of the POV that you want to push than a good-faith argument. This might not be obvious to someone merely skimming through this page, but if one stays mindful of CPOV pushers, disingenuous arguments like this become a lot easier to spot.
As to "putting words in your mouth", mind clarifying what exactly you're referring to? Rhosnes (talk) 19:50, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
there are somehow no proposals to rename the Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel article
In the interest of avoiding false equivalences and whataboutism, what do you think is the analogous alternate title for that article? For such a title, can you state which exact arguments would equally apply, and why? For example, is there an abundance of reliable sources which use said title when discussing the topic of that article? PBZE (talk) 06:37, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There should be no renaming effort there. It is quite rare for one series of attacks to be termed a genocide throughout history. Scientelensia (talk) 10:32, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. The point is that the other article's situation isn't necessarily equivalent to this one, for a variety of reasons. PBZE (talk) 23:14, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Israeli genocide or Genocide of Israelis. Yes, there are RS using both of these terms, although not as many as those using terms like "Palestinian genocide" (mostly because social sciences have been consistently found to have a significant progressive bias, but I admit this isn't 100% relevant here because Wikipedia policy is to not discriminate between sources labelled as RS). But either way, there is no consensus for either an Israeli genocide or a Palestinian/Gaza genocide occurring, so the exact frequency of scholarly use of the relevant terms is pretty immaterial. Rhosnes (talk) 20:23, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Having the title doesn't mean that there IS a genocide. Selfstudier (talk) 20:25, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Israeli genocide" is just an alt name for the genocide against Palestinians, i.e. this topic. More generally, "Israeli" is a citizenship, like British, American, etc., so "genocide of Israelis" would be quite a confused term as to its target in the context ... what would this mean? All Israelis regardless of ethnicity? The issues which such terminology emerge rapidly, hence it does not find serious currency in literature. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:45, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If Palestinians are a people, then so are Israelis. The Palestinian populace is also composed of a number of traditional ethnic groups (mostly Arabs of different flavours, just like Israel is mostly composed of Jews of different flavours), and a Palestinian identity also emerged not long before an Israeli identity did. Whether or not Israelis constitute a distinct ethnic group is irrelevant to the definition of genocide.
I agree that the term "Israeli genocide" could be confusing, which is why a title like "genocide of Israelis" would be more appropriate. Rhosnes (talk) 22:18, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion is about genocide of Palestinians. Selfstudier (talk) 08:40, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A search for "genocide of Israelis" on Google scholar [25] only shows four results, none of which refer to the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel. A search for "Israeli genocide" [26] shows results primarily referring to this article or its subtopic Gaza genocide.
This isn't a matter of "exact frequency of scholarly use". A more accurate characterization is that "genocide of Israelis" and "Israeli genocide" are fringe terms. You're making a false equivalence. PBZE (talk) 02:31, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So far, these are the results:
Strong support 7
Support 11
Note: the strong support excludes the initial proposition, so that should really be counted as 8
Neutral/Wait 2
Oppose 19
Weak oppose 1
Strong oppose 4
I suggest we set a date to count all votes and decide.
@Scientelensia: Please sign above comment. Reminder that this is WP:NOTAVOTE and I don't think a running total is particularly helpful. Although this RM has gone on for longer than usual, it can remain open as long as there are !votes coming in, if it dies off for some time, then anyone can request a close at close requests. Selfstudier (talk) 11:33, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support: It is obvious that the Israeli policy since 1948 has been driven by a long-term ideological programme to establish a racially homogenous Jewish religio-political state in the Levant region. Ideologically, zionism has its roots in European fascist movements of late 19th century and in fundamentalist, apocalyptic interpretations of political Judaism.
Theodore Herzl, the founding father of Zionist movement, explicitly wrote in his nationalist pamphlet "Der Judenstaat":

“There [in Palestine] we shall be a sector of the wall of Europe against Asia, we shall serve as the outpost of civilization against barbarism.”

The current far-right regime in Israel fanatically publices its desires to exterminate Palestinians and destroy Islamic religious sites. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 20:54, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: This shouldn't be allowed because it violates WP:NPOV, on top of the fact that it's factually incorrect. Of course, would those supporting this move create a page devoted to the genocide of Jews and not just the Holocaust? If so, why not? After all, isn't this what occurred on October 7 - just indiscriminate killing? And this is what Hamas preaches. Remember this is meant to be a neutral balanced independent encyclopedia something that seems to have been forgotten along the way.MaskedSinger (talk) 09:33, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Off-topic hypotheticals aren't actually a serious form of policy-based argument. If you think there is a missing page that you can create in good faith as a topic supported by multiple reliable sources and without engaging in synth, go create it instead of drawing the matter idly into an unrelated discussion. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:05, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you please stop WP:HOUND WP:HARRASS me. This is a policy you're familar with? I don't appreciate it and it's past the point of being civil. MaskedSinger (talk) 10:44, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You should raise behavioural complaints on user talk pages, but neither of those apply here. Your aspersions are an actual issue though. I'm justifiably responding to your nonsense, off-topic and off-policy comments in an RM. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:57, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Calling another editor's argument 'nonsense' isn't civil and doesn't belong here. IntrepidContributor (talk) 04:29, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NOTFORUM then, if you prefer the specifics. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:01, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am having a hard time understanding your argument. How does "genocide of Jews and not just the Holocaust" apply here? We aren't discussing moving this page to "Arab genocide". The scope of the move is Palestinian genocide of which there's plenty of scholarly consensus. Also, the presence/absence of the former would have no impact on the latter since Wikipedia doesn't operate on the premise of tit for tat. CoolAndUniqueUsername (talk) 14:17, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please stop with the WP:BADGER.
    What I clearly wrote is that I oppose this because it iolates WP:NPOV, on top of the fact that it's factually incorrect. MaskedSinger (talk) 16:09, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That was my first and only comment to you. WP:BADGER says Asking for a clarification is fine, as long as you aren't demanding. Offering a rebuttal to a comment is also fine, although arguing repetitively is not.. Nevertheless, please go ahead with escalating to an admin if you feel strongly.
    What I clearly wrote... Agree to disagree about the meaning of "clearly". CoolAndUniqueUsername (talk) 13:03, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd be fully in support of an article discussing the longer history of genocide and genocidal violence against Jews, but there is a lack of RS and scholars to cite for labelling the expulsions, ethnic cleansings, and pogroms, in Europe (let alone the wider world) as cases of genocide. This will hopefully change in the future, especially if Damien Short and John Docker's works arguing that ethnic cleansing and genocide is more a distinction without a difference gets incorporated into the work of genocide scholars. Martin Shaw has also published on this distinction without difference. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 14:57, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: There are numerous scholars (including Ernesto Verdeja, William Schabas, John Quigley, Martin Shaw, Eyal Weizman), who argue that Israel's actions in Gaza do not meet the legal definition of a genocide. When a definition is contested like this, NPOV needs to be applied. IntrepidContributor (talk) 04:26, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @IntrepidContributor: Shaw and Schabas have said quite the opposite. Perhaps you are referencing outdated material. Schabas has said that South Africa's genocide case is the strongest ever put before the ICJ, and Shaw wrote a paper entitled "Inescapably Genocide" about events in Gaza. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:10, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I have struck those two. I may stand corrected on the opinions of individual experts but not on the general point. There is no clear consensus among scholars or a ruling from an international court making the genocide allegation definitive for an encyclopaedic article. IntrepidContributor (talk) 05:40, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused as to why editors keep arguing that because there is no consensus for the genocide to be actually happening, the title should stay as it is. The title merely describes the topic. Updating it != validating it. Every genocide starts as an accusation and has people denying it (even the Holocaust to this day). "Palestinian genocide" (and variations) is a term which is being widely used by scholars and experts, whether they argue against it or not; "palestinian genocide accusation" is a made up POVish term created here under the guise of neutrality. - Ïvana (talk) 00:15, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dropping qualifiers will always lead to a name that appears more in sources, e.g. Trump sexual assault appears more than Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations, which is our own unique wording. That isn't sufficient justification for a WP:POVNAME, except in more extreme cases where it has effectively become a proper name. Outside of that, WP:POVNAME normally trumps WP:CONCISE. The title merely describes the topic seems like an argument that would justify any POVNAME. — xDanielx T/C\R 16:27, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are failing to grasp that BLP topics have a very different ruleset, for specific, defamation-related reasons. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:58, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Our BLP policy is largely about sourcing; there are some reminders about neutrality but it's ultimately the same set of rules, including WP:POVNAME. — xDanielx T/C\R 18:33, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're missing the huge part about privacy and the presumption of innocence for living people. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:24, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't apply to WP:PUBLICFIGUREs such as Trump. — xDanielx T/C\R 19:40, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The presumption of innocence does, obviously, per most national statutes. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:44, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, I hope it's clear that there's nothing BLP-specific about WP:POVNAME. If you'd really prefer some non-BLP examples, there are plenty, such as Accusations of racial bias in Grammy Awards. No other source is going to describe the topic with that particular wording. Racism in the Grammy Awards would match more sources, but that's not a good enough reason to drop qualifiers and adopt a WP:POVNAME. — xDanielx T/C\R 19:55, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please, by all means, go start an RM there. Seems reasonable. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:12, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BLP topics have a very different ruleset, for specific, defamation-related reasons -- so when the defamation is larger scale it's better? Because a single person defamation can lead to a lawsuit, but when you do that to a large group of people based on their nationality (i.e. Israelis / Zionists / Jews / Muslims / Palestinians) it is fine. Gotcha. From now on we only slander large groups 🎉 Bar Harel (talk) 12:20, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@IntrepidContributor: Verdeja has not argued that "Israel's actions in Gaza do not meet the legal definition of genocide". His argument is that the current legal definition today is inadequate. From his article titled The International Court of Justice and Genocide in Gaza:
Proving genocidal intent, however, in resort to or conduct of armed force is difficult under the narrow legal understanding. The narrow understanding is one reason why many genocide scholars, including me, are critical of the Convention. It does not accurately reflect how genocide unfolds. Genocide is rarely preceded by a detailed plan with explicit extermination orders.
If you read his article, you can see that he thinks Israel is committing genocide. If you read his interviews and other works, you'll see he has an approach that avoids labels and focuses on policy that gets the most impact for people as quickly as possible. It's an indictment of Israel that even Verdeja calls it a genocide despite his reticence in using the word in general. CoolAndUniqueUsername (talk) 13:26, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@IntrepidContributor: I read some of John Quigley's work and it looks like he thinks that Israel is demonstrating genocidal intent. Maybe you're referring to some of his older works where he thinks Israel is engaging in "ethnic cleansing" and "crimes against humanity" in Palestine instead of genocide?
This is a May 2024 article by Quigley where he concludes:
Whereas in Bosnia, the warnings coming from the United Nations were of ethnic cleansing, in Gaza the warnings were of death. The population was knowingly thrust into a situation from which many would not be able to survive. The “conditions of life” were imposed not merely on discrete sectors of the group, but on its entirety. Israel had control over both egress and ingress from the relevant territory. No intent alternative to that of destruction was apparent.
The "conditions of life" and "discrete sector" arguments are relevant to genocide and Quigley explains the definitions and nuances in that article. I'm leaving those quotes out since they're quite protracted, but Quigley's conclusion is clear that Israel is showing genocidal intent. CoolAndUniqueUsername (talk) 15:13, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support per others { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 12:45, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose since this framing is rejected by most scholars on the topic, making it an accusation, exactly as the current title describes. Galamore (talk) 07:06, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please list some of these scholars? It looks like (see the comments to the response by IntrepidContributor above) many centrist scholars have moved away from calling it "ethnic cleansing" or "crimes against humanity" and just call it genocide now. CoolAndUniqueUsername (talk) 14:28, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support per all of the above. PersusjCP (talk) 07:24, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per clearest rationale, which has been stated a few times above but has not always been at the fore in this discussion. Namely, (1) every genocide involves accusations and denials, so it's superfluous to include the word considering that (2) the term "Palestinian genocide" has seen widespread use in academic and other sources; meanwhile, (3) a Wikipedia title is not an assertion of fact, but a term that concisely, recognizably, and as neutrally as possible names or describes a topic, whereas (4) including words like "accusation", "question", or "allegations" in the title in spite of this frequency in sources imparts an implied judgment, namely that the accusations are false.
The name "Palestinian genocide" clearly, neutrally, and recognizably states that this article is about that topic; it does not say that there is or isn't a genocide, merely that this article is about a topic that is commonly named "Palestinian genocide" in sources. Dylanvt (talk) 11:21, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 July 2024

Why is the category Biden administration controversies on this article? What does Joe Biden have to do with the genocide in Palestine? 2A01:5A8:303:C65E:C1CA:3323:5D99:4DC (talk) 11:06, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Treating this as an edit request for removal. Done. (unless someone can explain what I might be missing here). Selfstudier (talk) 11:12, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He's been nicknamed "genocide Joe" by people who oppose his support for Israel's military. That redirects to the broader article, where it is mentioned. If he isn't mentioned on this page, then it probably doesn't belong in that category. But the nickname is recent, so possibly that section belongs here instead (or as well). FourPi (talk) 17:05, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, probably in relation to the Gaza genocide specifically, rather than here. Selfstudier (talk) 17:15, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I got mixed up about which page was in which tab. That redirects here? In that case the content and redirect maybe warrant moving? But probably mostly belongs on the page about US involvement, with only a brief mention on Gaza genocide and here, with a link to US involvement as main. FourPi (talk) 19:48, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Palestinian_genocide_accusation&oldid=1241836605"