Talk:Israel–Hamas war: Difference between revisions

RfC on genocide accusation in lead

Should allegations of genocide be mentioned in the lead? There are four options in my mind.

1. Mention that Israel is accused of genocide.
2. Mention that Hamas is accused of genocide.
3. Mention that Israel and Hamas are both accused of genocide.
4. Make no mention of genocide at all.

JDiala (talk) 08:57, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Survey (genocide accusation in lead)

• Option D - Wiki is supposed to be low key and not a propaganda tool. The claims about genocide are important, but definitely not in the lead of the article. It is about the war, not about political claims. Agmonsnir (talk) 09:16, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
• Option C In the case of Israel, accusations of genocide have been serious enough for south Africa to formally accuse Israel of committing genocide by taking the claim to the International Court of Justice.
  1. https://www.reuters.com/world/south-africa-seeks-international-court-justice-genocide-order-against-israel-2023-12-29/
  2. https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2024-01-01/ty-article/.premium/state-officials-fear-hauge-could-charge-israel-with-genocide-in-gaza/0000018c-c1a9-d3e0-abac-d9a9acd80000

  At the same time, only talking about Israel could spark talks of neutrality. But since there have been just as many people ready to accuse Hamas of genocide, there are rs that talk about this too. One eample is: https://www.timesofisrael.com/hamas-actions-are-war-crimes-could-constitute-genocide-international-law-experts/ Genabab (talk) 10:07, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

  Times of Israel is not a neutral source in this matter (especially that the paper, and its owner, have an overtly right-wing agenda – see the article). — kashmīrī ^TALK 20:04, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

• Option C A significant number of legal scholars and professionals have indicated that what is taking place is genocidal in nature (both for Israel and Hamas). Further, there is an ICJ case brought forth by South Africa against Israel. Lastly, as a point of comparison, note that the term "genocide" is used in the lead to the Russian Invasion of Ukraine article as well. The Israel-Hamas war is significantly worse with respect to genocidal rhetoric used by leaders and the magnitude of the civilian suffering. JDiala (talk) 10:19, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
• Option A C: As well as being shown by their actions reliable sources clearly document enough statements of genocidal intent on the part of the Israeli government and call it that. Hamas has shown genocidal intent so it can be included as a counter even if there's no way for it to carry any such intention out, certainly not in the current war. The issue has become widespread and important enough for inclusion in the lead. NadVolum (talk) 10:18, 2 January 2024 (UTC) changed NadVolum (talk) 11:38, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
• Option C per above. Whether or not genocide occurs is a salient feature of war. Parham wiki (talk) 10:49, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
• Option C per above. The most sensible option at this stage. Aszx5000 (talk) 12:21, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
• Option D - As above; this is not the place for it. Drsruli (talk) 17:02, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
• Option D - It's standard for partisans in a totalizing ethnic conflict to hurl the term "genocide" at each other. Doesn't automatically merit inclusion in the lede without e.g. actual criminal prosecutions.

PrimaPrime (talk) 21:25, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Comment: This is incorrect. There is an ongoing case in the ICJ, as the article itself states (in the body). In general, I recommend doing the most basic amount of research on the topic before hurling accusations at others, especially for topics as sensitive as this. JDiala (talk) 06:24, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

• Option D Far from significant enough at this stage to include these dueling charges in the lead. Coretheapple (talk) 22:05, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
• Option C people undoubtedly come to Wikipedia looking for clarity/information, and we're well equipped/trusted to provide an accurate summary of the political discussions happening with detailed wikilinks where necessary. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 12:07, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
• Option D I don't think the accusations have been sufficiently noteworthy to justify inclusion in the lede. The accusations would need to feature far more prominently in the reliable sources for me to support adding it to the lede. Especially since we're not including things like the accusations of sexual violence by Hamas against Israeli civilians, which has been discussed far more in the reliable sources than these genocide accusations have (my point being that if that doesn't meet the prominence threshold for inclusion in the lede, then the genocide accusations shouldn't if we're applying the same threshold). Chuckstablers (talk) 19:39, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Comment This comparison is not quite accurate in my view. The Hamas sexual assault allegation is to the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel article what the genocide allegation is to the 2023 Israel-Hamas War article. The sexual assault allegations pertain to only a single day in the conflict (October 7th), and indeed they are mentioned in the lead to the article for that single day in the conflict. The relevance of the sexual assault allegation to the war in general (which has lasted for 3 months now) is less clear. However, the genocide allegation does in fact pertain to the entire war. JDiala (talk) 06:37, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

• Option A. Extremely well sourced, including legal positions of South Africa and a number of respected international organisations. On the other hand, genocide accusations against Hamas are not widely circulated outside of Israeli government mouthpieces – unlike with regard to Israeli policies, no expert international sources describe Hamas as carrying out a genocide of Jews. — kashmīrī ^TALK 20:00, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
• Option A. Not only is there the recent legal application by South Africa, but so have UN experts, legal experts, Palestinian human rights organizations, prominent Israelis, scholars and practitioners of international law, conflict studies and genocide studies, and genocide scholars, to name a few. I'd say that's enough for inclusion. In fact, some information could be copied over from the Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza into this page and placed in the lead. It would be relatively easy to do.Historyday01 (talk) 14:06, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
• Option D is my personal preference. There are accusations against both Israel and Hamas [1]. My personal preference is not to mention it in the lede. Hamas might have had a genocidal intent but killing one thousand people out of several million is not a genocide. Likewise, Israel might have considered an ethnic cleansing of the Gaza Strip, but it doesn't seem to be likely to happen atm and it's not the same as genocide anyway. I suggest waiting at least a few months until we have something more definite. Alaexis_¿question? 14:29, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
• Option Wikipedia is not a democracy: Lede serves as a summary of the body, including any prominent controversies, per guideline Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section. A vote, or survey, or any other phrasing will not get around this guideline; what is mentioned in body must be mentioned in lede. However, the 7 October genocide section suffers from extreme examples of synth and sources closely related to the subject, in which information is combined to make an argument not necessarily related to the war. While the Israeli campaign genocide section is well-sourced and has an ongoing ICJ court case. The latter claim clearly has more merit and it should not be made equivalent with the former one when these sections are summarized in the lede. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:01, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
• Option C or D. A and B are obvious non-starters - read the articles Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Hamas attack on Israel and Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza. Both articles have good sources, and both accusations need to be treated the same (although Hamas has explicitly announced their intended genocide beforehand many times and Israel has done no such thing). --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:25, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

  Disagree in strongest terms. Israel has been accused of carrying out genocide. Per the linked article, Hamas has been accused of having "genocidal intentions" (John Kirby), "genocidal ideology" (Israeli diplomat), and similar, however no serious source has stated that the 7th October attack was tantamount to genocide. No, the two sides cannot and should not be treated on a par. — kashmīrī ^TALK 20:02, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

  Reality check: They have not been accused of having "genocidal intentions", they actually said themselves that they have those intentions. You know, like that Hitler guy of whom people said he did not actually intend to do it? Hamas has little attacking power, of course they cannot actually achieve it - at the moment. But there should be a consensus among non-denialists that the intention is there. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:37, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

  Read the linked articles first. The survey is about genocide, not about Palestinian politicians chanting "Death to Israel", etc. You'll need extremely strong sourcing to claim that Hamas's policy was to kill every single Israeli. Unlike in case of Israel, which has been accused of indiscriminate killings of Palestinians over years. — kashmīrī ^TALK 00:16, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  kill every single Israeli - somebody just recommended I suggest you first read the legal definition of genocide. Maybe you should apply definitions consistently to both sides. But actually, you are going on the path to extinction [2] , even with context, is not very different from dann würde das Ergebnis nicht die Bolschewisierung der Erde und damit der Sieg des Judentums sein, sondern die Vernichtung der jüdischen Rasse in Europa. But all this is off-topic. The point is that both genocide accusations are important enough for the lede. So one of them has a bigger megaphone than the other? So what? --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:27, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  Sorry, I don't speak German nor do I intend to learn it. However, politicians can say whatever they want (Israeli politicians have also sometimes called for the extermination of Palestinians). What matters is whether policies leading to this have been developed/enacted. We need evidence of intent beyond political speeches. As far as we know, there have been no policies enacted by Hamas that would aim at the extermination of the Jews; while there's ample evidence that the Israeli policies, over years, have been made with an intention to destroy the Palestinian nation. You will find ample sources in the two articles you linked above. — kashmīrī ^TALK 14:55, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  I !voted, and you disagreed. I said that Hamas actually has genocidal intentions instead of just being accused of them, you disagreed at first, but then, when it became clear that you were wrong, moved the goalposts from intentions to actions. I could point out that "destroying a nation" is what defines anti-Zionism, but this leads nowhere, and I suggest we stop. This is moving towards WP:FORUM, so EOD. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:29, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

• Option A. Israel has been accused of genocide in a damning 84-page filing at the UN's highest court; these types of ICJ proceedings have been instituted quite rarely since the 1948 Convention. This is an extremely notable development in the context of the larger war. In contrast, the October 7 genocide claims have been trotted out by Israel and its ally, the US, as a form of mirror politics which should not be lent any further credence. The disparity in coverage, the disparity in legitimacy, and the WP:FALSEBALANCE issues of this approach should be obvious. WillowCity^(talk) 22:10, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
• it is genocide - I think it would be wrong to say "accusation" because that implies a lack of credibility, but I cannot think of a better word. Possibly just "credible accusation". Irtapil (talk) 20:27, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

  Are you saying that you have sources saying that every Palestinian in the Northern part of Gaza, which is controlled by Israel, is either dead or in extermination camps? Or are you saying that the article should be based on your opinion, in violation of WP:OR? --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:35, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

  I suggest you first read the legal definition of genocide before posting such dumb comments. Obviously, Irtapil did not say so, it's just you using a straw man argument, which amounts to manipulation in a discussion. — kashmīrī ^TALK 00:10, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  Be civil Zanahary (talk) 12:43, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  Strongly against this proposal. Whether or not an accusation is credible is wholly subjective, and it is not Wikipedia’s place to make that judgment. And if that judgment had been uncontroversially made (lol) by secondary sources, we would have to report that the accusation has been interpreted [by …] to be credible, or something similar: Zanahary (talk) 08:03, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  That is what I meant with my Are you saying comment above - "it is genocide" is classic POV pushing. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:27, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  I think said or stated should be used instead of "accused". So "x, y, and z stated that ..." FunLater (talk) 00:52, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

• Option A Israel is being taken to the International Court of Justice over this and there is the Palestinian genocide accusation documenting these accusations over time (as opposed to the half baked accusations against Hamas which have only appeared as a result of recent events). Selfstudier (talk) 13:16, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  Not half-baked at all. We have whole articles on Wikipedia documenting the indiscriminate slaughter and torture-murder of Israeli civilians including children, as well as the numerous statements of genocidal intent, advocacy, and celebration from Hamas. People seem to have forgotten Oct 7 already. JM (talk) 03:06, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

• Option C or D. I agree with Hob Gadling that A and B obviously against the body of the article. A and B would violate WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. Nemov (talk) 15:11, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
• Option C Notable accusations against both sides. --Andreas JN466 19:18, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
• Option A, with Option C as second choice: Given the ICJ court case, not mentioning the accusation levelled at Israel in the lead seems unsupportable. This should be fixed as soon as possible. The accusation levelled at Hamas is factual and supported by good sources as well, but given the far smaller numbers of victims involved – the ratio is in excess of 20 to 1 – it seems to me that the need for a mention in the lead is less strong than in the other case. --Andreas JN466 15:18, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
• option D preferred as these accusations are secondary to the conflict and come from others. I would compromise on option C. Any other options (A or B) are showing serious bias. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:53, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
• Option D, per Chuckstablers, Hob Gadling, and Graeme Bartlett. BilledMammal (talk) 07:30, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
• Option D for now Too early at the current time. Option C might be worth later, but for now best to wait.3Kingdoms (talk) 14:31, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

But the accusations themselves, credible or not, both already have an impact on the war.

• Option A. With South Africa garnering sufficient support from various countries to file a genocide claim at the ICJ, specifically targeting Israel's conduct during this war, there is simply no reason not to mention the genocide accusation against Israel in the article lead. I also want to address some users here for supporting the rape accusations against Hamas while avoiding the genocide claim against Israel. The latter is evidently more relevant than the former for this article, which focuses on a war spanning more than three months, not the single-day incident which sparked this war. Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 00:37, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
• Option C but if is essential to have some sense of scale - a neutrally worded clear comparison - such as total number of deaths in the same sentence, or a prominent mention that only one case was brought to the ICJ. If that doesn't work, then A. Irtapil (talk) 11:37, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
• A Mention that Israel is accused of genocide. Abo Yemen✉ 12:00, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
• A, with attribution. As in the organizations "X, Y, and Z stated that Israel is commiting a genocide against the Palestinian people. FunLater (talk) 13:51, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
• Option C Seems to me that A and B are non-starters for Wikipedia, especially given the content of the article. D would be an alternative. Nigej (talk) 12:09, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
• C or D for now. Things can change and evolve. Maybe Israel will take Hamas to the ICJ. CurryCity (talk) 11:15, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
• A. Though there are accusations in both directions, the encyclopedic weight is not even close to being equivalent. The extent and quality of sources for the one, particularly surrounding the ICJ case, rises to the level of the lead. The other does not. False balance is not NPOV. Innisfree987 (talk) 07:47, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
• Option C, but my opinion weighs myself closer to Option A. Both accusations are highly-discussed and contentious. South Africa has taken Israel to the ICJ. I do also agree with Irtapil about the scales of the genocide accusations (i.e. 25,000 dead vs 1,500 may both be a result of genocide, but they have different magnitudes). It won't be like this forever: Israel's claim of genocide may or may not be rejected in sources later on, and South Africa's claim of genocide may or may not be ruled as correct. SWinxy (talk) 20:01, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
• Option A or, failing that, D. Strongly oppose B and C. There has clearly been significant coverage of genocide accusations made against Israel; accusations made against Hamas simply don't have the same degree of coverage outside Israel itself. A quick search for 'israel hamas genocide', for instance, overwhelmingly shows sources discussing genocide accusations against Israel. Option C would therefore be inappropriate WP:FALSEBALANCE; if they are currently balanced in the body, then that is a problem that should also be corrected - just looking at the sourcing for the two sections makes it obvious that the one for accusations made by Israel is lower-quality, relying on a far more sparse scattering of sources and in particular relying heavily on sources that are obviously WP:BIASED on this topic. By comparison the other paragraph cites 800 scholars across the world and an ICoJ case that has received massive coverage. Obviously B isn't worth considering, though I think it's noteworthy that everyone seems to recognize this and nobody has actually argued for it, which isn't really what I'd expect if the coverage was evenly-matched. That said, this doesn't mean we must include the accusations against Israel in the lead; whether they are leadworthy is another question and comes down to complicated questions about the relative weight of sources vs. other details of the conflict. I think there is enough coverage to put it in the lead, but leadworthy is a high bar for a topic that has this much coverage, and coverage of this particular aspect is probably at the level where it's a reasonable editorial choice to either include or omit them. --Aquillion (talk) 22:35, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
• Prefer C, Happy with Option D: Both sides are accusing each other of genocide, same goes for most sources from my understanding. Omission of either side would not be providing the whole picture of the situation. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 17:28, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
• Prefer A, could understand C. Gaza is more close to getting wiped out and many more have died on that side. That's not to deny Hamas' genocidal aspirations. Jikybebna (talk) 21:49, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
• Option D. These are just accusations, clearly politicised. Until resolved, they shouldn't be mentioned at all. --Governor Sheng (talk) 02:22, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
• Option A — As described in the article, genocide accusations against Israel are significant in that they come from not just Palestinians and by extension Hamas, but also several non-Palestinian foreign and international organisations with corroborating evidence. The genocide accusations against Hamas are made primarily by the Israeli government, are at a significantly smaller scale, and are used as a label rather than an actual accusation based on corroborating evidence. Yue🌙 06:43, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
• Option D for now, Option A or C once the ICJ makes a final ruling It seems best to wait until the ICJ makes a final ruling so that the accusations against Israel & the judgement can be summarized. However, I’m not sure if there are enough accusations of genocide against Hamas to include them in the intro (there may be enough accusations of genocidal intent against Hamas to include them in the intro). Blaylockjam10 (talk) 01:37, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

  @Blaylockjam10 Are you aware that the ICJ ruling is not expected for years? The "for now" would be a very long time. Andreas JN466 00:53, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

  Yes. I’m hoping that passions would die down by the time of the final ruling (though I don’t necessarily expect that to happen). Blaylockjam10 (talk) 22:48, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

• Option C The lead should reflect the article body, and in the body, accusations of genocide against Hamas and Israel are mentioned to a degree that warrants inclusions in the lead. Cortador (talk) 06:41, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
• Option A is best in my opinion, seeing as only the accusations against Israel have had large media coverage. Option C might be okay, but it must be mentioned in the lead, because it is very significant to the war. — RAGentry (talk) (contributions) 17:41, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

  Actually, on second thought, I note that mainspace articles exist for genocide allegations on both sides. In light of this fact, a good compromise solution might be to mention that both sides have been accused of committing genocide, but that Israel's allegations have been heard at the ICJ where they were deemed plausible. — RAGentry (talk) (contributions) 19:46, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

• Option A per the strong arguments of Kashmiri, Historyday01, WillowCity and others. When there is a judgement from the International Court of Justice telling a state to not engage in genocide that is pretty clear evidence. TarnishedPath^talk 13:29, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

  Exactly. While the case won't be resolved for a while, they've already made their preliminary ruling, and they voted in favor of South Africa (and their detailed 84-page argument accusing Israel of genocide in Gaza). Historyday01 (talk) 14:14, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

  This is a mischaracterization. They warned both sides, and refused to fulfil SA's requests for a ceasefire. JM (talk) 21:31, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

  No, that is mischaracterization. They said both sides are bound by international law, and they said the charge that Israel is committing genocide is plausible and ordered "Israel to take all measures within its power to prevent genocidal acts, including preventing and punishing incitement to genocide, ensuring aid and services reach Palestinians under siege in Gaza, and preserving evidence of crimes committed in Gaza." (see here). They made no such finding against Hamas, nor did they warn them about anything regarding genocide. The sole finding about Hamas was "The Court deems it necessary to emphasize that all parties to the conflict in the Gaza Strip are bound by international humanitarian law. It is gravely concerned about the fate of the hostages abducted during the attack in Israel on 7 October 2023 and held since then by Hamas and other armed groups, and calls for their immediate and unconditional release." There are several provisional measures it ordered on Israel, despite your framing of it as refused to fulfil SA's requests for a ceasefire. nableezy - 18:57, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

  You said I mischaracterized but then nothing you said after that conflicted with anything I said. JM (talk) 19:10, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

  They did not "warn both sides", and you claimed that "voted in favor of South Africa" is mischaracterization. That they did not grant all of the requests SA made does not make it so this was something other than it was. nableezy - 19:15, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

  You say they did not warn both sides at the same time as you say they warned Israel about the invasion and Hamas about hostages. You say that "voting in favour of SA" is not a mischaracterization at the same time you admit it did not vote entirely in favour of SA and indeed refused to side with it on the ceasefire. So what gives? JM (talk) 19:19, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

  That isnt a warning and it is certainly not a warning related to genocide. Vote entirely in favor is not the same as vote in favor. You gave the impression that this was a both sides thing when it was not. nableezy - 19:21, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

  It is definitely a both sides thing, even going off of your own comment should lead someone to that conclusion. And not sure how telling Hamas to follow international law and release the hostages is a warning any different from telling Israel to follow international law and avoid genocide. "Voting in favour", said unqualified as it was, implies no qualifications i.e., entirely. I really don't see how you're getting a different conclusion from your own information. Also, I said nothing about genocide warnings toward Hamas, so not sure where you got that idea. JM (talk) 19:32, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

  It is definitely a both sides thing In Narnia, maybe. Israeli legal analysts confirmed that the court largely adopted the South African argument. Selfstudier (talk) 19:36, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

  largely JM (talk) 19:45, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

  Uh this is a discussion about including the charge of genocide. All parties to an armed conflict are always bound by international law, there isnt a warning there. The call to free to the hostages is just that. There are six instances of "Israel must" in the decision. 0 for "Hamas must". That is there are six orders that the ICJ imposed on Israel, and 0 on Hamas. nableezy - 19:37, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

  My specific issue was what I saw as a small mischaracterization of the decision in a comment that used the decision to support including the charge of genocide. Re-reading the comment, I could have misinterpreted its scope. There was 0 reason for you to pick on that unless it was to say I was mistaken about the comment's meaning.

  Just to be clear, you're saying that the words both sides are bound by international law and that It is gravely concerned about the fate of the hostages abducted during the attack in Israel on 7 October 2023 and held since then by Hamas and other armed groups, and calls for their immediate and unconditional release is not a warning to Hamas because it doesn't include the exact words "Hamas must"? Well, I acknowledge that you disagree with me and will never agree with me, nothing more can be done, time to move on. JM (talk) 19:53, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

  both sides are bound by international law is a tautology, not a warning, it is a reminder. Being gravely concerned and calling for the release of hostages is also not a warning or an order. Also because Hamas is not a member state and the ICJ doesnt have the ability to order it to do anything. nableezy - 20:14, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

• Option A, if not, then Option D per others { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 13:48, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
• Option A per extensive media coverage on the topic and of course the ICJ case.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 14:26, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
• Option A Accusations of genocide against Hamas lack widespread acknowledgment beyond Israeli government sources. Furthermore, the significance of genocide accusations against Israel, as they come from various international organizations and non-Palestinian sources, with corroborating evidence. It is what it is and its WP:DUE nature is incontrovertible.--StarkReport (talk) 10:26, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
• Option A It seems implausible and almost a whitewash to not mention the allegations of genocide in the context of the substantial media coverage of South Africa's case at the ICJ and the preliminary ruling from the ICJ. With regards to the actions by Hamas, undoubtedly many in Hamas would aspire to commit a genocide against Israelis but the reality is what happened on 7 October was a terrorist attack. No one would suggest the September 11 attacks were a genocide of Americans. The difference is in the scale of the violence, the military capabilities and death toll from Hamas's actions and Israel's actions. AusLondonder (talk) 15:51, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

  Does genocide have a minimum body count? Hamas' goal was to torture-murder as many Jews as possible. Body count should not be used to argue about what constitutes a genocide. JM (talk) 18:04, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

  Does genocide have a minimum body count? It is possible for an entity to commit the crime of genocide without killing anyone, so long as they had the intent to commit genocide and took actions towards doing so. We shouldn't be dismissing the possibility that Hamas committed genocide on October 7 on the basis of the scale of the attack and WP:OR related to that. BilledMammal (talk) 18:09, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

  You're misrepresenting my point. It's a false equivalence between Hamas, a terrorist organisation with the enormous military power of the Israeli state aided with military equipment from countries such as the United States and Germany. Again, is there a suggestion that a terrorist attack is a genocide? Were the September 11 attacks a genocide? AusLondonder (talk) 15:50, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

  I'm not misrepresenting anything. You said "death toll". You argued based on your own views, not on the views of RS, and one of your arguments was death toll, explicitly. Military capabilities are not recognized as a measure of what constitutes genocide as far as I know.

  There are suggestions from various sources that the Oct 7 massacre constituted a genocide or genocidal massacre, and had genocidal intent, or has valid comparisons to the Holocaust. Here are 10:

  1. Genocide Watch
  2. Two Holocaust scholars in the Times of Israel
  3. Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council
  4. Engelsberg Ideas
  5. A Holocaust and genocide specialist writing in the Hill
  6. Qanta A Ahmed, a Muslim doctor and author, writing in the Washington Post
  7. Legal scholar and human rights specialist interviewed by the Times of Israel
  8. Chris Cuomo, political commentator
  9. Jewish Voice for Peace
  10. Government of Israel

  JM (talk) 18:34, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

• Option A - the weight of coverage here is what counts. And the weight of coverage for the accusation that Israel is committing genocide is orders of magnitude higher than the claim that Hamas did so, and also orders of magnitude higher than other things that people have argued should be in the lead. Accusations against Hamas have largely been made in a handful of opinion pieces. Accusations against Israel have however seen incredibly wide coverage. Just the coverage of the ICJ hearing and its ruling is wider than the coverage on accusations of rape for example, and when you add in all the coverage that is not about the ICJ case it isnt even close. Option C is a straightforward BALASP violation, and option D is a straightforward LEAD and DUE violation. nableezy - 18:21, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
• Option A per @Nableezy. We should not give undue weight to accusations of genocide that are largely made in op-eds by pro-Israeli sources. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:50, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
• Comment An additional head of state of a major regional power, Brazil, has accused Israel of genocide. Given how widespread these accusations are, I will reiterate my strong stance in favour of inclusion. Frankly, not using that word in the lead gives a misleading impression on how this conflict is perceived internationally. It's not another flare-up in the Middle East forever wars; it's qualitatively distinct. JDiala (talk) 00:21, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

  Agreed. I think consensus has moved towards Option A and it's frankly embarassing Wikipedia is so behind on this. Hoping this discussion can be concluded soon. AusLondonder (talk) 15:41, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

  there is a very good majority choosing option A. This RfC should be concluded Abo Yemen✉ 16:00, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

  Wikipedia is not a democracy and this is not a majority vote (stated right at the top of this survey). It's for the uninvolved closer to decide when to close according to the rules. JM (talk) 19:22, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

  Of course it's not a vote. The fact it's not a vote is arguably unhelpful to those

  opponents of even mentioning the genocide accusation. They have been completely unable to clarify why Wikipedia should turn a blind eye and whitewash the matter and literally pretend the ICJ case and preliminary ruling doesn't exist. Much of the Option D argument has been "I don't agree/I don't like it /I support Israel" without convincing policy rationale. AusLondonder (talk) 11:24, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

  Exactly, almost if not all of them do not mention a wikipedia policy Abo Yemen✉ 11:56, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

  Any examples of that happening? JM (talk) 17:21, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

• Option A, Option C as second choice. There's nothing new I can add to the conversation. A lead is a summary, and this seems like an important topic.
  — Urro^{[talk][edits]} ⋮ 13:32, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
• Option D Politicized accusations should not appear on lede. Eladkarmel (talk) 19:20, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

  The whole article is about politics, since wars are politics, and lead must reflect body. — kashmīrī ^TALK 11:07, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

• Option D Because Wikipedia is not supposed to be a propaganda tool. Article should be restricted to facts, nothing else. Hogo-2020 (talk) 20:23, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

  If you think Wikipedia covering accusations of genocide including a preliminary ruling from the ICJ is propaganda, I'd suggest you either don't understand what Wikipedia is or don't know what propaganda is. AusLondonder (talk) 11:01, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

  My point is that accusations are not facts, and an encyclopedia should cover facts. If you don't agree, then all the best to you, but please don't personalize the debate. Hogo-2020 (talk) 06:38, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

  It’s a fact that Israel has been accused of committing genocide. nableezy - 10:59, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

  If an accusation was equivalent to a fact, then it would be referred to as a "fact" and not merely as an "accusation". Hogo-2020 (talk) 10:16, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

  If the proposal were to include that Israel has committed or is committing genocide you’d have a point. It isn’t though and so you don’t. nableezy - 11:57, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

  see South Africa v. Israel (Genocide Convention) Abo Yemen✉ 12:16, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

  Whether there is an act of genocide here, by either side, is for an uninvolved, neutral and reliable body to decide. In war there will always be accusations being thrown around, and as it is there is already a lot of bias in this topic. Hogo-2020 (talk) 06:12, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

  this is no accusation Israel lost this case and it was confirmed that they were doing genocide by even the UN themselves Abo Yemen✉ 06:54, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

  This is false. JM (talk) 15:07, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

  @JM2023 ??? Abo Yemen✉ 15:29, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

• Option D. Unfortunately this term is now applied to nearly every conflict. While we can't stop it as we need to follow the sources, we shouldn't run ahead them either. For now it's an accusation, and Hamas has been credibly accused of genocidal intent, with their atrocities and charter. I suppose that once the ICJ rules on this it will receive widespread coverage and we'll add it then. Alaexis_¿question? 20:34, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

  Well, it's an accusation, and that's much more meat than there exists for Transgender genocide – and that article doesn't even use the term "accusation". Removing the mention of Gaza genocide from lead would feel like censorship. — kashmīrī ^TALK 11:10, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

• Option D Not the job of Wikipedia to decide on this. With so much bias one way or the other, this is best left out at least for now.--Egghead06 (talk) 20:55, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
• Option D I don't have much to add to the mountains of claims that were written above. If needed, I'll add the main arguements that convinced me. פעמי-עליון (pʿmy-ʿlywn) - talk 21:23, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
• Option D - The hyperbolic accusation is undue for lead, although if the ICJ rules that the war constitutes genocide, then it's a different story. But I doubt South Africa will be able to prove that Israel's intention is to exterminate the Gazan population rather than destroy a terrorist group and get their hostages back. We'll see, but it's too soon to add this to lead. –BanyanClimber(talk) 23:33, 22 February 2024 (UTC) — BanyanClimber (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of AndresHerutJaim (talk · contribs).

  If you're destroying a terrorist group, why would you kill more than 12,000 children? More than 1% of the children in Gaza. How is that part of destroying a terrorist group? AusLondonder (talk) 10:58, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

• Option A - per Historyday01 and Aquillion, the former provided sources justifiying significant and widespread accusations against Israel, while the latter convincingly argues that it would be WP:FALSEBALANCE to list both accusations when the sources do not give both equal weight. starship.paint (RUN) 23:45, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
• Comment to closer: Please be on the lookout for double votes. This RfC has been open for so long ... I noticed the other day I myself had double-voted, and I see now I am not the only one. --Andreas JN466 21:40, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
• Comment Six no votes within a 4-hour period on 22 February after the discussion has been largely quiet for a month seems rather odd. JDiala (talk) 01:54, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

  Yep. Very odd. AusLondonder (talk) 11:03, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

  And one of those votes is from a sock of the user who orchestrated this canvassing campaign. nableezy - 14:53, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

• C or D. If we're including it, and given the particularly specific focus on genocide in this particular instance of hostilities (compared to every other conflict on the planet in the past several decades) I lean towards believing we should, then it needs to include both sets of claims. Otherwise, it should include neither. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 03:56, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
• Option A - To not mention the accusations of genocide in this case would be reprehensible. Option C is a false equivalence, and I oppose that as written, but a nuanced version of option C would be possible. Too late to workshop that in this RfC though. It should be option A, and then a new discussion can be opened, if necessary, regarding the extent to which we can neutrally report the genocidal intent of Hamas. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:42, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
• Option A. I see no reason not to include what is covered by a raft of reliable sources. The other options are just there to create a false balance. M.Bitton (talk) 14:59, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
• Option A. The genocide accusations against Israel are in an international court and are being taken very seriously both by other countries and the sources, so it needs to be included, so Options B and D are out. Option C would be WP:FALSEBALANCE because the genocide accusations against Hamas primarily are being made by the Israeli government and frankly don't seem to be taken seriously by independent sources. I would prefer Option D over Option C if it comes down to it because I would prefer to exclude good information than include bad information. Loki (talk) 19:43, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Option A. Palestinian genocide has become a defining phrase of the war, whether people believe it or not. Salmoonlight (talk) 19:41, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

• Option A - Many subject-matter experts, academic scholars and world-class researchers have accused Israel of committing genocide in Gaza. Furthermore, Option C is a clear case of WP:MINORASPECT i.e. a violation of NPOV - accusations of genocide against Hamas are not discussed extensively in RS, unlike the vast number of in-depth, rigorously-researched accusations of genocide against Israel. Ijon Tichy (talk) 20:23, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

• Option A. The claim that Israel is committing genocide is a central part of the discussions about this war. That it is not part of the lead goes against WP:NPOV, as it minimizes serious and impactful accusations.🩸 𝗕𝗹𝗲𝗳𝗳 🩸 (talk) 02:19, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
• Option A, with Option D as second choice. Israel being accused of committing genocide is widely covered by reliable sources, including South Africa filing a lawsuit. Option B is clearly biased towards Israel and should be completely ruled out, and Option C also gives undue weight to the pro-Israeli point of view. NasssaNser 12:02, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
• Option A, Going into this, I would have !voted C, but looking at arguments, I agree that adding the hamas bit would be a false equivalence, and israel has been accused of genocide by the ICC and other multiple countries.DarmaniLink (talk) 21:15, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

  I found no information online about the ICC accusing Israel of genocide. If you mean the ICJ, they didn't either, they merely assented to hearing SA's case and issued some warnings to Israel. JM (talk) 21:19, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

  ICJ, yeah. My bad. "It's plausible they committed genocide" does sound like a soft accusation, but I'll reword to be more explicit :). DarmaniLink (talk) 21:36, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

  Option A, Going into this, I would have !voted C, but looking at arguments, I agree that adding the hamas bit would be a false equivalence, and the ICJ said that "it's plausible" that israel committed genocide, and has been directly accused of genocide by multiple countries DarmaniLink (talk) 21:39, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

• Option A per MOS:LEADREL (and, by extension, WP:WEIGHT). The allegations of genocide levelled at Israel are an important aspect of the conflict and widely discussed in reliable sources. This is reflected in 45 mentions of genocide in our article prose. The MOS guidance for lead sections says that they should reflect the relative emphasis of information in the article, so it's appropriate to include a sentence mentioning the allegations of genocide by Israel. Allegations of genocide by Hamas do not have equal weight in the sources or our article, so including them in the lead would be WP:FALSEBALANCE, as noted by nableezy, Starship.paint and others. Per LEADREL, I think the lead mention of genocide should be kept brief – for example, to a single sentence. (Summoned by bot) Jr8825 • Talk 00:06, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
• Option A. It is a WP:FALSEBALANCE to mention both or not to mention both.Ghazaalch (talk) 08:07, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
• C or D per Cortador and Swatjester. As reflected in the body of the article, such accusations have been made against both sides in the conflict. Include both or none at all. Including only the accusations against Israel would not be neutral, and the absence of neutrality of that proposal is a dealbreaker. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 13:46, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
• Option A. Not only is it WP:FALSEBALANCE to mention both, it completely misrepresents the situation on the ground. Only one party in this conflict has nearly its entire population displaced and/or under constant threat of being the victim of military action. It should not be controversial that Israel has been accused, as there is a current ICJ case in which they found the allegations to be plausible. While I understand this conflict is not at the same scale as WWII or WWI, both of those articles mention genocide in their lede, and I think inclusion is also appropriate here. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 15:40, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
• Option A Several world leaders have made this accusation, including bringing it before the highest court we have to decide this stuff. It'd be irresponsible not to mention it. As for accusations of genocide by Hamas, these are extremely hard to find outside of Israel and organizations dedicated to upholding it, it's not a mainstream view held by neutral observers. BSMRD (talk) 16:41, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
• Option A in the context of South Africa v. Israel. Per what others have stated. KlayCax (talk) 16:58, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
• Option A No case against Hamas for genocide has occured yet, while one has occured for Israel in international law. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 01:06, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

  The assumption that this !vote (and the subsequent votes are based on) is that no case exists because Hamas hasn't committed genocide. That isn't correct; there isn't - and cannot be - a case against Hamas because Hamas isn't a recognized state entity, and the ICJ only deals with cases between state entities. BilledMammal (talk) 10:55, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

• Option A No international case against Hamas for committing any genocide exists, while there is one for Israel. It's really that simple. Brusquedandelion (talk) 19:58, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
• Option A No international case against Hamas for committing any genocide exists waddie96 ★ (talk) 09:07, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

"Increasingly isolated"

I recently reverted a controversial section of the lead. (See here for previous discussion on this..)

My first objection relates to this sentence:

Israel and the United States were internationally isolated amid global calls for a ceasefire

"Internationally isolated" is a very amorphous term. Considering that several of the world's great powers, including the United Kingdom (which is also a UN Security Council member) and Germany, have provided military aid to Israel during the course of the ongoing war, this would have to be reworded in a much narrower sense if it is to remain in the lead at all. It would be better if we simply state that the "UN Security Council" has passed a ceasefire resolution and leave it at that.

My second to this one:

US military and diplomatic support for Israel during the war has been condemned by [sometimes "various" is included here] human rights groups

Why is the United Kingdom, Germany, or Hamas/other Palestinian militant groups being left out of this? The first two also provided substantive military aid and diplomatic support to Israel. All sides during the war have been accused of war crimes.

Tagging involved editors: @BilledMammal:, @Makeandtoss:, @PrimaPrime:, @Homerethegreat:, @JDiala:, @Borgenland:, and @Drsmoo:. (Amid others, not including all to avoid spam.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by KlayCax (talk • contribs) 18:28:38, 05 February 2024 (UTC)

Looks good to me, though some more precisely worded summary of the diplomatic environment would be warranted. PrimaPrime (talk) 02:20, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

@KlayCax: Please revert yourself first, as this has been there in the article for months and has consensus for its inclusion. Your objections to "internationally isolated" based on what Germany and the UK have done is original research and goes against what numerous reliable sources have reported. Please provide opposing reliable sources and not your personal observations and opinions. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:32, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Reverted as there is/was consensus for the material. Can discuss further but not simply remove. Selfstudier (talk) 12:20, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

@KlayCax: So not only are you repeatedly reverting other users but also refusing to adhere by the talk page consensus or engage in the discussions. Please revert yourself or this will be taken to AE. Makeandtoss (talk) 19:29, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

There was never talk page consensus for this. @Drsruli:, @PrimaPrime:, @BilledMammal:, @Borgenland:, and me have all objected to the wording, and it appears that the only reason it wasn't reverted was because of the 1RR rule on this page, so I decided to remove it as well using mine. I am engaged in the conversation, and it's not my intention to edit war, but claiming that the United States and Israel is "internationally isolated" is simply false. @Makeandtoss:. @Selfstudier:. I think that Israel is committing ethnic cleansing against Palestinians. But that doesn't change the fact that they're not presently isolated on the world stage. (Germany and the UK, also great powers, are still providing them an immense amount of weapons.)

The source invoked isn't claiming that the United States and Israel is "internationally isolated". It says increasingly internationally isolated. Even worse, multiple sources, including a CNN source two months after the citations used to justify it, says that: CNN says: Israel sided with the West against Soviet-backed Arab regimes during the Cold War, and Western countries largely view it “as a fellow member of the liberal democratic club,” he added. “Some of this explains the continued strong Western support for Israel – which has now largely become reflexive.”. How is Israel internationally isolated if 4 great powers are sending them weapons? KlayCax (talk) 19:44, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

@KlayCax: This claim has been on the article for more than three months now and has been discussed multiple times on the talk page. It has remained largely stable so that definitely shows consensus. Meanwhile, your version was unilaterally inserted by yourself despite having ignored the ping to engage in the talk page and avoid edit warring. The claim was crystal clear in saying the US and Israel were "internationally isolated" in rejecting the calls for a ceasefire. Not that they were just internationally isolated. I think this is a clear case where an editor thinks their personal analyses trumps the majority of high quality RS. Please revert yourself because the version you inserted has never been even discussed once. Makeandtoss (talk) 19:50, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

It shows that editors who wish to avoid the sort of slow-motion edit warring you have been asked to refrain from are limited to addressing one thing per day. A "consensus" based on sheer attrition is no consensus at all. PrimaPrime (talk) 20:12, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

The source says "increasingly isolated" (in the context of the Global South). The wording in the article says "internationally isolated".

Those are two different things. It also comes across as WP: CRYSTAL. The Time Magazine and Reuters articles are essentially saying what CNN is. In that:

• The West is predominantly supporting Israel, with the United States, United Kingdom, and Germany providing significant military support. (Which are three great powers.)
• The Muslim/Arabic World and most of the Global South strongly opposes the actions of Israel.

I'm not sure where the objection is. This seems neutral, indisputable, and an accurate summary of the current geopolitics.

Claiming that there was a consensus on the matter — when a minority of editors supported the wording — seems wrong. Particularly since, as you said, it was done out of a fear of 1RR instead of agreement. This seems to me a case of WP: RIGHTGREATWRONGS. People are (rightfully in my view) criticizing the conduct of Israel and are thus trying to make it seem that they're internationally isolated. The same thing happened during the Russia-Ukraine war. Editors wanted Russia to seem internationally isolated in the conduct, until it became non-contestable that India, China, and other countries from the Global South were either indifferent to the invasion or actively supporting it.

Geopolitics often doesn't involve moral considerations of right or wrong. It's absolutely laughable to claim that the United States is "internationally isolated" on the world stage.

Reliable sources don't agree with the claim, either. KlayCax (talk) 20:41, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

In relation to the calls for a ceasefire...a situation which is still the case. Sending weapons is something different and material about that can be added, what can't be done is remove material that had consensus, without getting a new consensus to remove it. Selfstudier (talk) 19:51, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

That's not clear from the wording. It implies that the United States and Israel is presently isolated. That's far from the case.

Germany, the United Kingdom, and others have also faced criticism from human rights groups, so why would the lead only mention the U.S.? KlayCax (talk) 20:19, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Because that's what the sources say. — kashmīrī ^TALK 20:44, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

The UK and Germany have also been criticized. Essentially all sides have been. KlayCax (talk) 20:51, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but we're looking for statements about increasing isolation (diplomatic, etc.) — kashmīrī ^TALK 21:01, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

• The only "increasing isolation" I've seen relates to symbolic calls for a ceasefire at the UN Security Council or General Assembly. If at least three great powers (United States, United Kingdom, and Germany) are providing significant military aid to Israel right now, then in what sense are they meaningfully isolated? The Reuters and Associated Press sources are being used in a way different from their meaning.
• The United States hasn't been sanctioned, no countries have cut off diplomatic contact with them, and other Western military allies are also providing military funding to Israel. Has anything meaningful been done?
• Increasing isolation is also different from isolated. The sentence presently says that they are "internationally isolated" on the world stage. What citation says this? This is a remarkable claim that is entirely unsourced.
• Human rights organizations have criticized all major sides of the conflict (Israel, United States, United Kingdom, Germany, Hamas, and other Palestinian militants) in various ways. Why is the U.S. only mentioned?
• If we decide to add something like: "All in the war have been criticized by human rights groups" that would be alright with me. But it's strange to focus only on the United States here.

The wording seems to be trying to WP: RIGHTGREATWRONGS by convincing the reader that Israel should be/is internationally isolated. The sources don't claim this. KlayCax (talk) 01:33, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

I think it was good removal because it is not clear what exactly the "international isolation" means. Did they break diplomatic relations? Apparently not. Did they sanction each other? No. Did they just vote differently in UN or did not provide weapons to each other? This is something very much common and does not mean isolation. My very best wishes (talk) 00:38, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Yep. As mentioned above: it's a highly amorphous term.

The current version implies that the United States is a pariah state. To anyone who knows anything about politics, this is absolutely ridiculous. KlayCax (talk) 01:43, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

I've removed it again; while I don't have strong opinions on this passage, editors here have claimed that it It has remained largely stable so that definitely shows consensus and this is false, with it having been subject to slow moving edit warring and the editor responsible being warned at AE.

It should obtain formal consensus to be re-added before any editor does so again boldly. BilledMammal (talk) 00:50, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I think this version [3] is better. My very best wishes (talk) 00:53, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

"US military and diplomatic support for Israel during the war has been condemned by various human rights groups" should be removed as well.

Or changed to include Germany, the UK, Hamas, and other Palestinian militant groups as well. It comes across as POV-pushing and isn't reflective of WP: RS. KlayCax (talk) 02:28, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Disagree. Just because nobody has yet added bits about Germany and UK is no reason to remove sourced text about the US. — kashmīrī ^TALK 12:37, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

The proposal isn't about removing sourced text. It's about expanding it to the other combatants/polities giving military aid. KlayCax (talk) 02:37, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Where are you reading about Germany being increasingly isolated? — kashmīrī ^TALK 02:47, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I was referring to the war crimes allegations/criticism from human rights organizations. It would be WP: UNDUE to just list the U.S. here. My very best wishes also provided a good reason against inclusion. For the isolation quote, the source says increasingly isolated, not isolated. Those are two different things - and even then - it's too amorphous to fit within. If it just means a vote at the UN, we need to specify what this means. KlayCax (talk) 04:48, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

@KlayCax: I'm only going to echo your rationale and the first response, I agree with you; you shouldn't be forced to revert your change; it was correct. Drsruli (talk) 03:46, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

This is in the article body and I assume noone is disputing it.

By 13 December 2023, Israel and the United States were becoming increasingly isolated amid growing global calls for a ceasefire.

And we can add NYT "It is one reason, with the year drawing to a close, that the United States finds itself diplomatically isolated and in a defensive crouch. That isolation is a dramatic turnaround in international perceptions for the Biden administration:" and

USA Today "The U.S. has become increasingly isolated in its support of Israel as the Palestinian death toll rises past 27,000, with two-thirds of the victims women and children." brings us right up to date.

References

Selfstudier (talk) 15:36, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Again editors' personal opinions should not trump what RS have said. If RS have said that Israel and US are becoming increasingly internationally isolated in relation to calls for a ceasefire, then it is Wikipedia's job to reflect that. Replacing this with geopolitical divisions is irrelevant to the body and disproportionate. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:20, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Yep. Way the lead reads right now is like the opposite situation, gross distortion. Selfstudier (talk) 10:23, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Increasing is different to isolated. (It appears that this is talking about the Global South. Of course, there's an agreement on that point.) The other wording is semi-WP: CRYSTAL. KlayCax (talk) 02:36, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

@KlayCax: This it the second time you edit war disputed content into the article despite clear objections to it on the talk page and in edit summaries. [4] Waiting for yourself revert before taking this to AE. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:21, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

"increasingly isolated" (Time, AP Guardian and NBC and USNews), then "diplomatically isolated" (NYT) and you write Increasing is different to isolated as an excuse for complete removal? And then opine without evidence that It appears that this is talking about the Global South as an excuse for reinserting disputed material?Seriously? Selfstudier (talk) 09:44, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Also separate from the important point you mentioned, the removal of "increasingly isolated" is one thing, and the addition of "global south.." is another. He is edit warring and re-adding the latter against consensus despite clear objections being made. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:30, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I am looking back at the archives and when this was discussed previously and I see these two archives:

Talk:Israel–Hamas war/Archive 35#"Increasing isolation" 4 January ->

Talk:Israel–Hamas war/Archive 37#International isolation 22 January ->

I saw that you added on 16 December and 30 December (Billed mammal said three times but only gave diffs for two), can you save me the effort and tell me who reverted the material on each occasion and for how long was the material stable in the article prior to 5 February? Selfstudier (talk) 11:15, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I am not sure, the article's history is a mess. Are there any tools? Makeandtoss (talk) 14:24, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

@KlayCax: Pinging you for the third and last time, asking you to remove the content you edit warred into the lede twice, despite objections from everyone on the talk page; before I take this to AE. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:25, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

An alternative is an RFC, however I agree that AE is an alternative in this case, given the behavior. Selfstudier (talk) 15:47, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

1.) I didn't revert it back into the article. BanyanClimber (partially) and several other editors did. I can't control what other editors do per 1RR. The phrasing of the lead has been consistently unstable for months and has been consistently changed.

What is the "objections from everyone on the talk page" in reference to?

• KlayCax, PrimaPrime, My Very Best Wishes, Billed Mammal, Drsuli, Homerethegreat, Drsmoo, and Bobisland favor "Israel/many Western countries v. Arabic/Muslim World and parts of the Global South" wording. (8 in favor)
• Makeandtoss, Selfstudier, JDiala, Aszx5000, and kashmīrī favor the "internationally isolated/increasingly isolated" wording. (5 in favor)
• BanyanClimber favors both. (1 in favor)

That's why we're discussing this matter: to get consensus. (Which is presently lacking.) I'm fine with starting a RFC, however.

2.) Why is it objectionable to state that much of the Global South is sympathetic to the Palestinian cause? I wasn't aware that there was an objection to this. Why do you believe that this would be problematic?

Thanks. KlayCax (talk) 19:50, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

The objection on my part is not 2), it is the unjustified removal of well sourced info re isolation. Selfstudier (talk) 15:23, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

See below. Jeremy Scahill, Donald Collins, Hugh Lovatt, and Agnès Callamard have explicitly rejected the idea that Israel is isolated.

There's no consensus among reliable sources on this. Of the ones that make the class, it appears that they're talking about de jure wishes of a ceasefire. (Meaningless.) KlayCax (talk) 04:40, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

@KlayCax: What are you talking about? You did revert it back into the article despite being the objections in the edit summaries that removed them and the objections here on the talk page, and here you are continuing to refuse to revert yourself despite multiple editors telling you that they don't agree, thus there is no consensus. The way forward for this dispute is through a RFC. I would like to remind you that edit warring does not need to break 1RR. Waiting for your self-revert. Makeandtoss (talk) 16:47, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

I did. But that's because editors kept trying to insert one or a synthesized version of both into the article. It was reverted back twice. I explicitly stated in the edit summary that both should be removed. Yet editors kept reinstating one version over the other. Multiple reliable sources — including those who say that Israel is presently committing genocide — dispute that they're isolated on the world stage.

• Jeremy Scahill, no friend of Israel, says in The Intercept: "But it’s not just the U.S. that has steadfastly backed the scorched-earth war; it’s virtually the entire Western establishment, with a few notable exceptions. Canada, they’re all-in. Britain, all-in. France, all-in. Germany, enthusiastically all-in."
• Donald Earl Collins says in Al-Jazeera: For more than four months now, the United States, the United Kingdom, and other Western countries have been staunchly supporting Israel's war on Gaza.
• Hugh Lovatt in CNN disputes that Israel is isolated: Israel sided with the West against Soviet-backed Arab regimes during the Cold War, and Western countries largely view it “as a fellow member of the liberal democratic club,” he added. “Some of this explains the continued strong Western support for Israel – which has now largely become reflexive.”
• Foreign Affairs says: The United States and many Western countries have supported Israel, providing military assistance, opposing calls for a cease-fire at the United Nations, stopping funding of the UN Relief and Works Agency serving Palestinian refugees, and rejecting South Africa’s genocide case against Israel at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), even as the carnage continued to unfold.

De jure, the United States supports a two-state solution. Symbolic calls for a "ceasefire" at the UN General Assembly (while they give Israel billions of dollars in advanced weapons) have about the same meaning.

It would be absolutely ridiculous to imply to readers that Israel is "isolated" while the world's only superpower (United States) and at least two great powers (Germany/United Kingdom) send them large-scale military funding. If reliable sources contradict (and at best they do on this; if not, they've merely narrowly talking about a ceasefire at the UN, and it's unclear how much of this was a PR move) on this: then it shouldn't be added in.

I'm aware there is no consensus for either edit. That's why I wanted to discuss it on here. A RFC can be made, but it's something that should be avoided if possible in order to save editor's time.

If reliable sources contradict: then it would be unwise to add it to the article. (For isolation.)

If reliable sources agree - such as the fact that the U.S., U.K., Germany, and others have given a substantial amount of military support to Israel - then it of course should be included.

We already had a similar case of this during the initial Russian invasion of Ukraine. Editors said that Russia was "isolated" or "growing increasingly isolated". Then, it was found out that great powers like India - and much of the Global South - were either actively indifferent to it or supported it. It's way too early to make broad, sweeping claims. I strongly doubt that Germany, the United Kingdom, or the United States will be isolated in the long run from this. Most reliable sources indicate the same. A few votes at the UN General Assembly is nearly meaningless. KlayCax (talk) 04:37, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

The sources are clear about the US isolation (along with Israel) and that situation continues to date. The removal is not justified no matter how many walls of text you write about it. Selfstudier (talk) 12:49, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Even if he had written a ten-page wall of text about it, there would still be no consensus and he would still be edit warring. Taking this to AE. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:48, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Disagreement isn't an AE situation. Threatening editors — particularly when they want to develop a consensus on the talk page with you, have been entirely civil throughout it, and are in active conversation — is uncalled for.

If reliable sources contradict: then it's best to leave it out. (And AP/Reuters are clearly using it, within context, in a much more narrow sense.) I created a RFC below. KlayCax (talk) 17:27, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

The RFC in relation to this matter is immediately below. Selfstudier (talk) 17:45, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

@KlayCax: Edit warring, reinserting material twice despite being asked not to and wait for consensus to develop on the talk page through RFC, is definitely AE situation. I am not threatening you, on the contrary, I am warning you to remove the disputed content so that no actions are taken against you in AE. I will be filing this tomorrow. Makeandtoss (talk) 19:20, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

And the material in question was? I have no clue what you're talking about. The only thing I added was #1.): Geopolitical divisions emerged by region, with much of the Western World providing "strong" support to Israel militarily or diplomatically, including the United States (US), United Kingdom (UK), and Germany, while the Islamic world and much of the Global South denounced its actions.

The only thing I removed was #2.) Israel and the United States were internationally isolated amid global calls for a ceasefire.

Per WP: RS's (CNN, Foreign Affairs, and Al-Jazeera #1 is true. If you dispute it: then I'll start another RFC. Is that what you're referring to?

Per WP: ONUS, #2 should be removed until consensus was established. A majority of editors (see above) opposed it being in the lead since it was proposed. KlayCax (talk) 19:37, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

@KlayCax: I explicitly said reinsertion of dispute material, aka the material about geopolitical divisions. ONUS applies to 1 and 2 that is why no one has reinserted 1 back; but you have reinserted 2 back twice despite being asked not to, aka edit warring. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:01, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

• Rewinding back to KlayCax's original post, I agree with his comments concerning the text in question. Coretheapple (talk) 18:01, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

RFC

Should the bolded phrase and relevant sources be added in "US military and diplomatic support for Israel during the war has been condemned by various human rights groups and the US left increasingly isolated in its support for Israel" Selfstudier (talk) 17:33, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

References

Survey

• Support The wording Israel and the United States were internationally isolated amid global calls for a ceasefire was reverted here on 9 February and the wording US military and diplomatic support for Israel during the war has been condemned by various human rights groups and left the US diplomatically isolated was reverted here on 12 February without good reason. There appear to be no good reasons for exclusion.Selfstudier (talk) 18:01, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

• Do not add: Multiple reliable sources — including those who say that Israel is presently committing genocide — contradict the notion that they're isolated (or "increasingly isolated" - which is a vague and amorphous term) on the world stage.

• Jeremy Scahill, no friend of Israel, says in The Intercept: "But it’s not just the U.S. that has steadfastly backed the scorched-earth war; it’s virtually the entire Western establishment, with a few notable exceptions. Canada, they’re all-in. Britain, all-in. France, all-in. Germany, enthusiastically all-in."

• Donald Earl Collins says in Al-Jazeera: For more than four months now, the United States, the United Kingdom, and other Western countries have been staunchly supporting Israel's war on Gaza.

• Hugh Lovatt in CNN disputes that Israel is isolated: Israel sided with the West against Soviet-backed Arab regimes during the Cold War, and Western countries largely view it “as a fellow member of the liberal democratic club,” he added. “Some of this explains the continued strong Western support for Israel – which has now largely become reflexive.”

• Foreign Affairs says: The United States and many Western countries have supported Israel, providing military assistance, opposing calls for a cease-fire at the United Nations, stopping funding of the UN Relief and Works Agency serving Palestinian refugees, and rejecting South Africa’s genocide case against Israel at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), even as the carnage continued to unfold.

De jure, the United States supports a two-state solution.

Symbolic calls for a "ceasefire" at the UN General Assembly (while many of these countries also give Israel billions of dollars in advanced weapons) have about the same meaning.

It would be absolutely ridiculous to imply to readers that Israel is "isolated" while the world's only superpower (United States) and at least two great powers (Germany/United Kingdom) send them large-scale military funding. If reliable sources contradict (and at best they do on this; if not, they've merely narrowly talking about a general assembly "ceasefire" resolution at the UN, and what exactly a "ceasefire" means is up to heavy interpretation) on this: then it shouldn't be added in.

The proposed wording also says that the United States and Israel are isolated [in general]. The actual wording says increasingly isolated — which seems like a clear reference to the Global South. The West is still predominantly supporting Israel. (Outside of Ireland) It would actively mislead readers about current geopolitical realities. I understand why many want Israel or the United States to be internationally isolated. (But WP: RIGHTGREATWRONGS) There's not good evidence for this. The articles are taken out of context and cherrypicked. This is a question of WP: WEIGHT. Neither Israel, or the United States, or the United Kingdom, or Germany, or any other side is meaningfully isolated enough. KlayCax (talk) 17:59, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

• Do not add: Per KlayCax as above, and definitely not for inclusion in the lede. Drsruli (talk) 03:32, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

• Comment Increasingly isolated does not imply that the U.S. is now alone. So this is slightly different from the RFC below. That said, it may be too recent to summarize condemnation and isolation in the lead. Many parties have been criticized. Who is isolated can also change over time. Senorangel (talk) 04:21, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

WP:NOTNP applies here, in my opinion, @Senorangel:. Let's wait for the conflict to end. International reception of Israel (and German, British, and American support) has definitely trended negative, but it's still too soon to see what the long term effects of any of this is going to be, in terms of how countries interact with one another + the long term reputational impact it will have. KlayCax (talk) 13:28, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

• Do not add per above. JM (talk) 06:27, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
• Do not add also per above. Hogo-2020 (talk) 10:20, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
• Strong support At this point not adding the US to the infobox is just us denying a very obvious fact that is supported by multiple sources Abo Yemen✉ 18:40, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

My reading of the sources is that they are saying the US is increasingly isolated in its support for Israel, not isolated in general. Meaning the US is standing alone (or increasingly alone) in supporting Israel, but it's not like the US is isolated on the world stage, subject to sanctions or boycotts, a pariah country. It's not isolated like North Korea, Iran, or Russia are isolated. It's just that more and more countries are supporting Israel less and less, whereas the US has been one of the few to really continue supporting Israel (which is also changing this last month or so). But I think "left the US diplomatically isolated" implies countries are cutting diplomatic ties with the US which isn't happening. I'd rework it to say "left the US increasingly isolated in its support for Israel" or something like that. Levivich (talk) 17:44, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Amended as noone has yet replied, I'm fine with that wording as well. Selfstudier (talk) 17:50, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

@Selfstudier: thanks. A couple more nitpicks: source #2 isn't USNews, it's AP. That one is from two weeks ago, and says in AP's voice, "The U.S. has become increasingly isolated in its support of Israel...". I see it as one of the strongest sources in favor of saying in this article that the US has become increasingly isolated in its support of Israel.

All of the other sources are from December 13, and (unless I misread them, I admit to only skimming) are specific to the a particular UN ceasefire veto (not the only US veto of a UN ceasefire resolution).

In Klay's alt-RFC, there are a number of sources that say essentially the opposite: that the US is not isolated, and not alone in its support for Israel, that (at least some) Western countries are supporting Israel similarly to the US (UK, France, Germany being called out). However, those sources seem to be opinion, or least a lot of them, are op-eds, podcast, etc.

So how do we filter that? I'd say look at sources that aren't just from one time period (Dec 12-13 or thereabouts), but more current (January, February), if they're avialable. I'd also say filter out the op-eds and look at statements in a publication's own voice, not just the opinion of a commentator. The Feb 2 AP (via USNews) article linked above, I'd say, is an example of a source that hits both criteria. But AFAICS it's the only one on either list of sources? Personally I'm not convinced that RS say either that the US is isolated, or that it is not isolated, in its support for Israel. It was isolated in its ceasefire veto, but then other Western countries are still providing support for Israel. So I honestly don't know what a good summary of the RS would be, based on these sources.

Sorry this was so long. Levivich (talk) 19:38, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

I updated the US News to AP.Selfstudier (talk) 11:32, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

I used the sources that were initially in the article that were originally the basis for "isolated" before all the reverting and added the other two after. I haven't really looked that hard for sources tbh because it just strikes me as being blindingly obvious. Note that NYT is happy to repeat themselves as of 25 January."The United States finds itself diplomatically isolated and at odds with staunch allies like France, Canada, Australia and Japan, all of which voted last month for a resolution calling for a cease-fire (the resolution failed to pass on account of a U.S. veto)." Selfstudier (talk) 19:45, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

A quick look turned up LeMonde today "To redress the US's current diplomatic isolation, Joe Biden has signed an executive order punishing Jewish settlers responsible for violence in the West Bank.·" and Tme 18 January "The U.S. has to consider whether it can achieve its broader agenda while being so regularly isolated from the rest of the world on such an important issue." [Israel] and Haaretz yesterday "Globally, the United States is isolated in its support for Israel.." Selfstudier (talk) 19:59, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

(disclosure: I think Time is crap and just raised it at WT:RSP) The Time article, though, doesn't say that the US is increasingly isolated, it says something quite different: Going it alone, or close to alone, is an expected and accepted reality, one roughly a half century old ... The U.S. has to consider whether it can achieve its broader agenda while being so regularly isolated from the rest of the world on such an important issue. So "regularly isolated" for 50 years. Le Monde says Its diplomatic isolation is striking (and the second half of the article is behind a paywall so I'm not sure what it says entirely). But "striking" implies to me more isolation than before.

Which begs the questions: Was the US always isolated and continues to be isolated? Was it always isolated and is now more isolated than before? Was it not previously isolated and is now isolated? Levivich (talk) 20:09, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

My concern is about the difference between "isolated in the moment" and "isolated in general." For example, I just searched Reuters.com, and found:

• Reuters Dec 14, 2023 article saying the US is diplomatically isolated at UN for supporting Israel (same exact line as the other sources)
• BUT... Here's Reuters saying, in 2021, that the US is isolated at the UN over its Middle East policy
• Here's Reuters saying in 2019 that the US is isolated over another UN decision over the Golan Heights
• And again in 2017, isolated over the Jerusalem thing.
• In 2015, it's Israel that's isolated

So here's my question: Was the US always isolated, from 2017 to the present? Was it isolated in 2017, 2019, 2021, and 2023, but not isolated in between? Is the current isolation anything new? I don't know the answers, but I am hesitant to say "the US is increasingly isolated" by it's support for Israel in 2023, if that's what the RSes have been saying for years. In which case we should say that: that the US has become increasingly isolated over the last 10 years or so for its support of Israel.... if that's what the RSes are saying.

But I wonder does "isolated" just mean the US voted in a different way from most other countries? In which case... is that really isolated in any sense? Or just that they support Israel more than everyone else?

Are we really saying something different than, "The US was the only country to veto the cease fire resolution"? Maybe we should just say that? Has there been any actual isolation or harm of the US or US interests as a result of its support for Israel? Levivich (talk) 20:01, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

I think the current Gaza induced isolation is qualitatively distinct from any prior isolation (at the UN principally). Whether or not there is harm is a different question and anyway too early to analyse that, I think. I also think the sourcing is clear that it is a current thing not a continuation of some prior isolation. Selfstudier (talk) 20:10, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

The Haaretz article you linked above says harm: Biden's unwavering support for Israel – in general and since Oct. 7 in particular – is genuine, visceral, heavily sentimental and almost nostalgic in tone. He sees Israel as a dependable U.S. ally, though he is by now convinced that Netanyahu is not only no ally but actively working against American interests. But this policy stance also inflicted tangible political damage and has had an adverse strategic effect in the United States.

And The United States has also been losing political capital in the Middle East, with many Arab states reluctant to even indirectly assist American attacks on Iranian-backed militias in Yemen, Syria and Iraq. Globally, the United States is isolated in its support for Israel, but more importantly is perceived as lacking the leverage it supposedly had to affect behavioral change on Israel's conduct in the war and Netanyahu's intransigence regarding postwar Gaza and the broader Middle East.

Now, this Haaretz analysis by Alon Pinkas seems to me to be saying like the direct opposite of the analysis by Jeremy Scahill at the Intercept [5], quoted below, "But it’s not just the U.S. that has steadfastly backed the scorched-earth war; it’s virtually the entire Western establishment, with a few notable exceptions." Foreign Affairs, also quoted below, says a similar thing, "The United States and many Western countries have supported Israel" [6].

Do you agree or disagree that, essentially, there are RS analyses saying both that the US is alone in its support for Israel, and that the US is not alone in its support for Israel? Or do you see the state of RS differently? Levivich (talk) 20:21, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

I see it differently but I will think a bit about how to explain that, just to say that the two things are not mutually exclusive, the usual diplomatic both things are possible baloney, just because UK has historically supported Israel and the US does not mean they are diplomatically supporting the US support of Israel in every respect today, in fact its pretty obvious that they are not on board currently, while the US appears to be shifting its position as a result of the pressure, new "Biden doctrine in the ME" refers. Selfstudier (talk) 20:30, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Note that there is a spinoff article United States support for Israel in the Israel–Hamas war where the sentence "Israel and the United States were becoming increasingly isolated amid growing global calls for a ceasefire" was added by Makeandtoss on 7 January and remains there. The Intercept context was a roundtable discussion around the idea that certain countries are wholly on board with Israel's war on Gaza although I think that what that means is that they are on board with the idea that Hamas cannot be in charge of Gaza (or a Palestinian state) anymore rather than that they support all the killing, thus the calls for ceasefire/humanitarian pauses/aid shipments etcetera. It is these latter areas where the "isolation" comes in, whether at the UN or outside of it. Selfstudier (talk) 12:19, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

OK, so I have added the recent sources supporting the proposed statement (and there are others). Two of them speak about how the US is apparently reacting to the situation (Biden doctrine, yada yada). As I said below, I have no objections to apparently (but not really) contradictory material being added, what I object to is that material wrongly replacing the isolated material. Selfstudier (talk) 13:10, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

• I don't mean to be stuffy about this, but this RfC should be at the bottom of the page, in a separate section, and it needs to not duplicate the RfC on the identical subject that already is at the bottom of the page. This needs to be rectified one way or the other. Coretheapple (talk) 18:35, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

  Not a duplicate, the RFC at the bottom has no RFCbefore because the things in it are not subject of any current dispute, so it is a bad RFC and should be closed. Selfstudier (talk) 18:38, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

  RFC's are also supposed to neutrally worded. But this clearly slants the discussion in one way, @Coretheapple:. KlayCax (talk) 19:20, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

  How so? Selfstudier (talk) 19:39, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

  I don't have a problem with neutrality, but as I mentioned before I have a big problem with there being two gol dang RfCs on the same subject! Dagnabit! Seriously. In deciding how to comment I flipped between the two RfCs and then I just gave up. I think that the world would be done a great service if you could combine the two RfCs into one organic, neat whole. Please. Coretheapple (talk) 23:02, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

  I am quite OK with there being two RFC about different things other than the fact that the other one has no RFCbefore but I have said that already. I'm sure people will be able to figure things out. Selfstudier (talk) 23:16, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Editor ClayCax writes The proposed wording also says that the United States and Israel are isolated [in general] That is not the proposed wording. It only speaks about the isolation of the US in its support of Israel and 3 of 4 sources provided by ClayCax are about Israel and not about the US. The only source discussing the US position specifically is the Intercept.Selfstudier (talk) 11:51, 17 February 2024 (UTC) If we examine the two reverts removing the "isolated" material, it is replaced with contentious material purporting to show the opposite. But these things are not opposites, they are distinct, I do not object to other material being added, I object to the other material replacing what was removed.Selfstudier (talk) 12:51, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

The RM discussion

When will it finally be closed? Two months have pased lol GreatLeader1945 ^TALK 19:11, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

It's absurdly long, and the topic is controversial. You can't blame prospective closers for passing up a close. But you're right, the most recent relist was more than a week ago. There needs to be a close ASAP. I see someone has made a request at CR, but I think a post at AN would also be beneficial. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:11, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

@InfiniteNexus Isn't there a time limit for how long a RM discussion could last? Because if there isn't such, this one could theoritically still be active well into the next year lol. Also, most comments in it are made by a few certain users which is a problem in itself. GreatLeader1945 ^TALK 21:15, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

There isn't, because it depends on how many comments an RM has received and what direction it's heading toward. In this case, there have been more than a hundred comments, and it's unlikely new comments will have a substantial impact on determining consensus. One month is nmore than sufficient, especially since this is an RM and not an RfC (where 30 days is the normal timeframe, but again, the level of input varies). InfiniteNexus (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:12, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Totally crazy at this point that it's still open. I haven't looked through it too much but I'm sure it's a lot of the same arguments over, and over, and over again. Esolo5002 (talk) 23:25, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

This is a type of article that is a hot potato for reviewers. Not a lot of people are going to want to touch it, @Esolo5002:. KlayCax (talk) 17:33, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Deletions by User:KlayCax

@KlayCax: in this edit you removed that The United States has vetoed multiple UN Security Council resolutions proposing a ceasefire. Can you explain why it should not be in the lede?Ghazaalch (talk) 04:11, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

I restored the US vetoes, that has been a widely covered aspect of the overall war, and explaining why the war continues is obviously appropriate for the summary of the article on the war. nableezy - 18:57, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

It's already covered by: Support to Israel militarily and diplomatically in the lead. Germany and the United Kingdom have offered similar diplomatic and military support.

Because the majority of Wikipedia users are likely American, I think many are writing it from the perspective of someone from the country, rather than taking an internationalist viewpoint. KlayCax (talk) 12:21, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

No, that does not cover the vetoes, and the vetoes have been widely covered internationally. nableezy - 12:26, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

A lot of things about this have been widely covered internationally. Unless it goes into effect, it's a WP: WEIGHT issue to repeat essentially the same thing 2-3 times in a single paragraph.

The United States vetoing a resolution about Israel at the Security Council is the geopolitical equivalent of water being wet. KlayCax (talk) 13:06, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

The effect is the denial of the imposition of a ceasefire. And the UNSC vetoes is not the same thing as providing support, because as you note the UK has provided support but they have not vetoed ceasefire resolutions. The weight of coverage of the vetoes is the weight we need to worry about, so claiming that it is both widely covered and it does not have weight makes zero sense. You are also edit-warring, and if you do not stop I will be asking that you be made to stop. Kindly self-revert your repeated removal of this material. nableezy - 13:10, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Other editors have similarly removed the material for reasons similar to my own. If you want to reinstate it, then this needs to be a RFC, as there was never a consensus for the additions. (Per WP: ONUS). I've only made one reversion over the past day. I want to let you know (on a personal level) that I agree with you that what Israel is doing is atrocious. Yet I don't believe that it merits inclusion in the lead. It's not our place to WP: RIGHTGREATWRONGS.

For the UK vote, see below. KlayCax (talk) 13:24, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

1RR isn't an allowance, and your next block for edit warring will be indefinite. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:22, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Doing it three times and being described as isolated in their support of Israel isn't though. Selfstudier (talk) 13:13, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

The Intercept, Al-Jazeera, and other news agencies have disputed the notion that the United States is isolated, for the reasons I expressed above.

In terms of the U.S. votes, due to the nature of the Security Council: it's much easier for the U.K. and France to vote "neutral" — while using the U.S. to take votes that they consider "hard". KlayCax (talk) 13:25, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

I am just looking at your latest edits, seems that all your editing is designed to dilute any and all criticism of the US. Quite wrongly in my view. I will be correcting that. Selfstudier (talk) 13:29, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

That's a ridiculous ad hominem. The personal attacks are completely uncalled for. I certainly don't support every policy decision of the United States.

Ironically, I've also been accused of having an anti-American bias on other pages. KlayCax (talk) 13:40, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

I am talking about this article. Here's the US doing some more blocking Selfstudier (talk) 13:49, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish you have repeatedly dealt with edit-warring and this article, is this sequence by KlayCax acceptable? They removed stable material multiple times and are now demanding an RFC to restore it, is that how this works now? nableezy - 13:56, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

The two sentences I removed from the lead (not article) are:

1.) the United States has vetoed multiple UN Security Council resolutions calling for an immediate ceasefire

2.) International rights groups have condemned US military and diplomatic support for Israel, which risks complicity in alleged war crimes

Neither of which were "stable" within the article. Multiple editors objected to it. Of which I was but one. The sentences violate WP: WEIGHT and are unduly Americentric. (As a disproportionate amount of editors on English Wikipedia likely come from the United States.) The United Kingdom, Germany, and other Western nations have faced similar criticism, so it wrongly implies that criticism of support is exclusively limited to the U.S. Additionally, the lead is already abundantly overstuffed.

I'm not demanding a RFC. (Which is a last resort.) But per WP: ONUS, this is something that needs discussed first before adding, as the two sentences have repeatedly been added/removed into the article by multiple editors (including myself) over the past month. POV differences between editors is normative. The only times I've reverted the sentences was (incidentally) when it was being lumped together with the "America is (increasingly) isolated wording" on Feb 5th and Feb 9th. And when you recently reinstated the sentence back into the article on the 27th and today. My whole edit history on this article can be seen here. You can see that I haven't been predominantly active on this article at all since November.

I'm willing to revert it back if there's consensus. KlayCax (talk) 14:56, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

The lead has included US vetoes since the first one. Here is a random diff from a month ago showing it included. nableezy - 14:58, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

For as much as these articles change and move and how quick editors are to challenge material a month+ is a pretty strong argument for WP:STATUSQUO and clear WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS. That you disagree with the inclusion isn't WP:RFCBEFORE, and your removal doesn't carry the force of consensus against inclusion. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:31, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

I'll reinstate the two sentences for the time being, @ScottishFinnishRadish:, although I think this is definitely something that needs more discussion. It doesn't make sense to exclude Germany and the UK if we're going to mention it.

I wasn't the only editor to object to the wording, either, or to delete the two sentences. Apologies if there's any misunderstanding. KlayCax (talk) 15:50, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

But theres more, 1000 edits ago (Jan 4) includes, 1500 edits ago (Dec 18) includes, 2000 edits ago (Dec 4) includes, 2500 edits ago (Nov 22) includes. nableezy - 15:39, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

I have a much stronger objection to #2 instead of #1, which was added relatively recently, @Nableezy:. Would you object to adding Germany and the UK?

If that works as a compromise. KlayCax (talk) 15:53, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

The US position regards Israel is unique in many respects, and its not just about arms shipments. Selfstudier (talk) 15:59, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

It certainly is unique. But arm shipments are arm shipments. Does it matter if it's from a German, Brit, or American? KlayCax (talk) 16:16, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Neither of them vetoed a UNSC resolution, which is what I think is relevant. nableezy - 16:13, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm fine with the UNSC resolution being included. But Germany and the UK has also received substantial criticism. (Not just from Human Rights Watch). KlayCax (talk) 16:17, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

To reiterate, it isn't just about arms shipments. Selfstudier (talk) 16:20, 1 March 2024 (UTC)\

I understand that. But German and British support is notable. (Particularly considering the British control of Mandatory Palestine) KlayCax (talk) 16:30, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

That was already edit warred in previously by yourself (the para commencing "Geopolitical divisions emerged...." at the same time as removing information about the US position. Selfstudier (talk) 16:36, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Im fine removing the second part, I dont think that has enough weight to include in the summary, thats for the lead of United States support for Israel in the Israel–Hamas war. But the UNSC resolutions absolutely are a part of the overall summary of the war article. nableezy - 17:17, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Alright, thanks. That works. Could you reinstate it? Assuming there's no objections, @Nableezy:. Glad we got it figured out. KlayCax (talk) 17:32, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

I cant because it would be a 1RR violation for me to do so. Suggest you ping the person who added it. nableezy - 17:35, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Translation of civilian massacre articles

In the arabic wiki, there is a category that has 168 very well cited articles about massacres during the ongoing war. It would be very helpful if anyone helps in the translation to english of these articles

The category

A google translate version of it Abo Yemen✉ 16:05, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Seems like there's some good material in there. I'm only fluent in French (from the days I lived in Québec) and English, unfortunately.

We need to have someone who is fluent in Arabic, simply using Google Translate won't do. KlayCax (talk) 16:55, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

I could start by translating ~2 articles per day but that would take a very long time. I'd really need help with all of that Abo Yemen✉ 16:02, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

The level of detail on the pages is good, but many of them seem to be a rehash of the same background, with the victims header and the lede being the only individuality for each family massacre. With some fixes, I think we can make some articles though. Jebiguess (talk) 20:53, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

This should be obvious, but still worth saying that the notability rules of ar-wiki and en-wiki might be different so the existence of an article there does not mean that there should be an article here. Judging by the main article about the war in arwiki, which mentions neither civilian casualties of the October not hostages in the lead, there might be NPOV problems too. Alaexis_¿question? 21:25, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

most of those articles also use non-arabic sources btw Abo Yemen✉ 11:26, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Houthi

@Ghazaalch: Why did you restore the Houthi quote to the lede? It is most certainly excessive there. [7] Makeandtoss (talk) 13:58, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Readers need to know why the Houthis attack merchant ships and what this has to do with the Gaza war.Ghazaalch (talk) 06:32, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Last requested move

I counted the number of people supporting or not supporting the name change (Talk:Israel–Hamas war#Requested move 23 January 2024), and the result was: 52 opposed the change, while 56 supported it. The numbers are almost equal. The margin of error varies between ±1 and ±2, but I believe I counted everything correctly.
These values ​​are here for reference only, as this discussion has been already closed as "no consensus". InTheAstronomy32 (talk) 00:17, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Mondoweis should be removed

Since my edit was reverted, bringing it here. Mondoweis is listed in WP:RSPSS as "heavily biased", and in a discussion in January, all but one out of 35 editors in question identified Mondoweis as a source that is, at minimum, heavily biased; 14 of those editors involved favored either "generally unreliable" or outright deprecation. Currently, Mondoweiss is cited along with The Intercept (another source listed in RSPSS as having a bias) to refute a New York Times article on alleged sexual assault. While The Intercept piece is more arguable as actual news, the Mondoweiss piece is a straight-up opinion piece, and the site is question is far less credible. I don't see any reason to use such a clearly contentious source here, especially when virtually no editors in such a large discussion were uncomfortable with deeming it as generally reliable. Toa Nidhiki05 14:39, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

It's a 2, that means that it can be used with attribution. RSP does not say "heavily biased", it says "Editors consider the site biased or opinionated, and its statements should be attributed." The January discussion is pending a close and I am guessing that it will be a 2 once more. All sources are biased, does not mean they cannot be used, in this case the NYT story has a bunch of well documented problems.

The Nixonian New York Times Stonewalls on a Discredited Article About Hamas and Rape from The Nation.

New York Times Launches Leak Investigation Over Report on Its Israel-Gaza Coverage from Vanity Fair.

The unravelling of the New York Times’ ‘Hamas rape’ story AJ Listening Post video.

have all commented. Selfstudier (talk) 14:53, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Those are all credible news outlets. So why not use them instead of Wondoweiss? I'm not asking to remove the content, I'm asking to remove a subpar source. Toa Nidhiki05 14:55, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Sure but you made it about Mondoweiss (and dissed the Intercept en passant) and not the story. Add the sources (assuming they support the text) and then people are less likely to object to removing one of them. Selfstudier (talk) 15:00, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

I made it about Mondoweiss because that's my objection. Why not add the sources yourself, and remove Wondoweiss (literally what I'm asking for)? Toa Nidhiki05 15:08, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't agree with making it about Mondo and therefore I do not agree with your edit on that basis either. Selfstudier (talk) 15:10, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

What value does an opinion piece from a biased source bring here? Toa Nidhiki05 16:38, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

A significant viewpoint. Should check WP:NPOV for why we include those. The piece by Mondoweiss has also been reported on by others, including The Intercept. nableezy - 17:25, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

It's not a significant viewpoint. Is the author a recognized expert in the subject? Does the source actually back up the listed claim? Is a source unreliable for news reliable for news when published as an opinion piece? Toa Nidhiki05 18:05, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

I assume you checked those things when removing it? Selfstudier (talk) 18:09, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

It's significant because The Intercept cited it. nableezy - 18:09, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

So according to Media Bias/Fact Check https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/mondoweiss/, Mondoweiss is a “questionable source” and the reasoning for this is “ Propaganda, Hate Group, Misinformation”. I think it is reasonable to remove Mondoweiss and keep the content that is supported by other reliable sources. Wafflefrites (talk) 17:10, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

MBFC is not a reliable source. Selfstudier (talk) 17:13, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

And most editors in the discussion above didn't see Mondoweiss as a reliable source for news, either. Toa Nidhiki05 18:06, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Most people in the most recent discussion said it was fine for attributed use, but even if we did not cite Mondoweiss directly it would be perfectly appropriate to include that they first questioned Schwartz's reporting via the Intercept source. nableezy - 18:08, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

It depends upon how Mondoweiss is used. It tends to be used too much in I/P when better sources are available. IMO it should not be used ever to source negative information in BLPs. Coretheapple (talk) 18:23, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

If the author is a subject matter expert, that might be possible as well. But this article is not a BLP so it doesn't matter. Selfstudier (talk) 18:31, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

That discussion about Mondoweiss was in January with 14 users.

Since then, a team of high profile journalists of The Intercept did an in-depth inverstigation and gave credit to the fact checking done by Mondoweiss.

The seriousness of Mondoweiss's work debunking NYTimess claims which none of mainstream corporate media did; was analysed and re-used by The intercept and Democracy Now.

Mondoweiss can be used as a source, it has not been depreciated. Deblinis (talk) 01:02, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

A pro-israeli narrative called Hasbara

A pro-israeli narrative called Hasbara aimed for western media, as they say to tone down important or annoying facts perceived as thorns in the israeli presentation, to project a favorable story telling, is teached and orchestrated to israeli wikipedia users who are pro-israeli settlers: as the Guardian had reported it as soon as 2010.the Guardian - "Wikipedia editing courseslaunched by Zionist groups" Attempts to silence independent sources like Mondoweiss and Counterpunch which do a valable and necessary fact-checking of content advanced by mainstream corporate media, has been on but as these sources are not depreciated, these sources can be included and credited. They find facts that are backed up by The intercept and Democracy Now - Deblinis (talk) 01:02, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

US involvement

Interesting article from WAPO about the arms supply to Israel from the US, "more than 100 separate foreign military sales to Israel since the Gaza war began", "the latest indication of Washington’s extensive involvement in the polarizing five-month conflict". I would be inclined to show the US in the infobox now, as a participant of some description, if not precisely a belligerent. Selfstudier (talk) 16:03, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Are we including other countries that provide weapons to belligerents? Should Iran, China, Russia and North Korea also be included? Wafflefrites (talk) 16:10, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

https://apnews.com/article/israel-hamas-war-guns-weapons-missiles-smuggling-adae9dae4c48059d2a3c8e5d565daa30

https://www.newsweek.com/israel-says-hamas-using-chinese-weapons-gaza-strip-1858559

https://www.businessinsider.com/hamas-has-a-chinese-weapons-arsenal-in-gaza-says-the-idf?op=1

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/01/15/hamas-fights-with-patchwork-of-weapons-built-by-iran-china-russia-and-north-korea-00135641 Wafflefrites (talk) 16:11, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

No, because the scale of their supplies is not significant compared to that of the US. As Jeremy Konyndyk, a former senior Biden administration official, states in the WAPO article:

Have they supplied anything during the war? It would be unreasonable to say they are involved otherwise. NadVolum (talk) 20:10, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Not during the war. The sources say some of the countries have a history of training or supplying weaponry, but nothing about supplying during the war. These seem to be stockpiled weapons. Wafflefrites (talk) 21:39, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

"That’s an extraordinary number of sales over the course of a pretty short amount of time, which really strongly suggests that the Israeli campaign would not be sustainable without this level of U.S. support". Selfstudier (talk) 16:31, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Against that we've got to balance the 76,000 meals they dropped into Gaza in the last week. I'm sure that's a great relief to the two million people there. NadVolum (talk) 20:20, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Clarity

Food aid convoy bound for northern Gaza looted after being stopped at Israeli checkpoint (Guardian)

Newborns die of hunger and mothers struggle to feed their children as Israel’s siege condemns Gazans to starvation (CNN)

16 children have died of malnutrition in aid-starved Gaza, health officials say (WAPO)

Article needs to coherently reflect Israeli blocking and restrictions on aid flows and the effects of this. Selfstudier (talk) 19:27, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

This is clearly the explanation for the new filing on 6 March by South Africa at the ICJ

"compelled to return to the Court in light of the new facts and changes in the situation in Gaza — particularly the situation of widespread starvation — brought about by the continuing egregious breaches of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide . . . by the State of Israel . . . and its ongoing manifest violations of the provisional measures indicated by this Court on 26 January 2024”. Selfstudier (talk) 23:15, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Inclusion of footnotes about friendly fire

In the lede, after the first casualty mentions, should we mention that some of the Israeli and Palestinian casualties were caused by friendly fire? If so, should we include this as a footnote or as direct text?

Specific wording would be determined through normal editing, but may be along the lines of:

• For Israeli Casualties: This includes an unknown number killed by friendly fire or as a result of the Hannibal Directive
• For Palestinian Casualties: This includes an unknown number killed by the approximately ten to twenty percent of militant rockets that fall short

04:07, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Survey

• Support both as direct text. Friendly fire casualties are widely reported in reliable sources (For Palestine: 1, 2, 4, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9y, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 etc, as well as major incidents such as Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion. I understand that a similar number of sources can be provided for Israel), and it is important to inform readers that contrary to their expectations Israeli casualties are not all caused by Palestinians, and Palestinian casualties are not all caused by Israeli's. I prefer direct text to footnotes as research has shown that most readers do not view footnotes , but I would prefer footnotes over excluding it entirely. I would also oppose including just one, as casualties on both sides include those from friendly fire, and it would violate WP:BALASP to only inform readers about one side of this. BilledMammal (talk) 04:07, 7 March 2024 (UTC)