Talk:Gaza genocide

Latest comment:2 hours agoby Anachronist in topicEdit requests at RFPP


Attack type


Incorrect capitalization: Attack type: Rape -> Attack type: rape

I also think the word "others" should be removed from Attack type. It's unclear what it means and other articles on genocides (Holocaust, Armenian, Cambodian, Rwandan, Greek, Bosnian) don't use it. Bitspectator(talk)19:55, 15 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Partly done:capitalization done, please get another opinion for theothersword.Bunnypranav(talk)06:27, 16 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
I will second the issue. I don't see the reason we are using the word. It reads to me as an "etc." without clarity if there is more or if it is just a catch-all in case something isn't listed. --Super Goku V(talk)05:34, 26 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
I have remove it since there doesn't seem to be an objection to doing so.@Bunnypranav:Let me know if you disagree. --Super Goku V(talk)10:16, 3 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Super Goku VI agree with your opinion and reason, feel free to remove it as there is no objection.Bunnypranav(talk)17:34, 3 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Organize the Actions section

The Actions section looks to be all over the place. I propose creating some sections and then organizing the material accordingly:

Also, Israeli public reactions should be either moved to the section on intent, or the section on cultural discourse.VR(Pleasepingon reply)15:26, 21 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Last few editors on this page, @David A,Selfstudier,Super Goku V,BitspectatorandThebiguglyalienany thoughts?VR(Pleasepingon reply)00:05, 29 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
I need to look more thoroughly when I get to a computer, but yeah, I think that section could benefit a lot by being organized by category. It is really all over the place. Those categories you suggest make sense.I'm surprised there isn't content on the destruction of cultural heritage. I'm pretty sure there would be RS linking that to the concept of Gaza genocide.Bitspectator⛩️00:14, 29 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Do RS support a strong link between genocide, as defined in the 1948 convention, and destruction of cultural heritage? Please link me some sources.VR(Pleasepingon reply)03:04, 29 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
I'm wrong. It's a small part of the South African ICJ application though:https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/192/192-20231228-app-01-00-en.pdf(91.)Bitspectator⛩️03:34, 29 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Beyond the obvious link between the destruction of cultural heritage andcultural genocide,there are a variety of sources (both popular RS and academic RS) that link the destruction of cultural heritage with genocide, some include:
  1. Targeting culture: The destruction of cultural heritage in conflict - House of Lords Library
  2. Cultural Heritage under Attack: Learning from History - Hermann Parzinger at Getty
  3. Cultural Heritage, Genocide, and Normative Agency - Davidavičiūtė, Journal of Applied Philosophy
  4. Intentional Destruction of Cultural Heritage, Crimes Against Humanity and Genocide: Towards an Evolutionary Interpretation of International Criminal Law - Lenzerini, europa ethnica
In relation to Palestine two that immediately come to mind are:
  1. Nakba Memoricide: Genocide Studies and the Zionist/Israeli Genocide of Palestine - Rashed & Short, Holy Land Studies
  2. Settler-Colonialism, Memoricide and Indigenous Toponymic Memory: The Appropriation of Palestinian Place Names by the Israeli State - Masalha, Holy Land and Palestine Studies
So, scholars believe these things can be linked. Now for us, of course, we need a source to link these in the context of Gaza post-2023. Articles from theForum: Israel-Palestine: Atrocity Crimes and the Crisis of Holocaust and Genocide Studiesby theJournal of Genocide Researchmay provide such citation, none jump out from memory though, I'll have a look if I have some time later. --Cdjp1(talk)10:42, 29 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Only looked at five of the forum papers so far:
  1. Levene- No mention
  2. El-Affendi- No mention
  3. Semerdjian- "The blockade, coupled with the destruction of 70 per cent of Gaza’s housing stock, all its universities, and most of its hospitals, markets, and schools, removed life-sustaining infrastructure from the strip. After bombing its schools and hospitals, and killing more UN personnel than in any other conflict since its creation, a pending Israeli bill has declared UNRWA (United Nations Relief and Works Agency) – the primary agency supporting Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank –a terrorist organization. This disastrous legislation, if passed, will criminalize the most effective aid distributor in the Occupied Territories, removing a Palestinian lifeline."
  4. Sultany- "Yet, a proper consideration of" the general context, the perpetration of other culpable acts systematically directed against the same group, the scale of atrocities committed, the systematic targeting of victims on account of their membership of a particular group, or the repetition of destructive and discriminatory acts "can reveal the genocidal nature of starvation in Gaza. In fact, the combination between starvation and the systematic destruction of hospitals, schools, and universities – and the killing of doctors, nurses, teachers, and academics who can provide health and education – can indicate the targeting of the three pillars of social existence and reproduction (subsistence, health, education)."
  5. Üngör- "Fifth, targeted attacks on cultural heritage such as the Gaza local archives, public and university libraries, bookshops, manuscript collections, ancient mosques, tombs, temples, bathhouses, museums, monasteries, churches, castles, cemeteries, and many archaeological sites erase the memory of Palestinian culture."
So some of the articles do mention the destruction of aspects of cultural heritage (this includes universities and other such educational institutes), with some specifically linking the destruction of cultural heritage to destruction of the group. --Cdjp1(talk)18:01, 29 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
I think that improved organisation seems to be a good idea, yes. Thank you for helping out.David A(talk)05:38, 29 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
It seems like it is organized in a loose chronological order. That said, reorganization might make it clearer to read while improving flow. I would say that sub-section is a good plan. As for the reactions, I currently don't have an opinion on where the public reactions should be moved to. --Super Goku V(talk)10:06, 29 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Alright I've gone ahead and re-organized the section. I created an "other" section to put in all Israeli activities that seem to be not directly related to genocide, for example mass detainment of Palestinians or torturing them in prison. I'll wait a few days, but if evidence can't be provided to connect these actions to genocide, I'll delete this content.VR(Pleasepingon reply)00:37, 11 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Genocide denial

I think an important topic that is currently missing in this article is the denial of the genocide. Many other articles that discuss a particular genocide mention the fact that genocide denial exists for their subject matter (SeeHolocaust&Armenian genocide). My position is that this article should mention genocide denial. WhileHolocaustandArmenian genocidemention their respective genocide denials, they don't have specific sections devoted to denial. In contrast, an article such asPersecution_of_Uyghurs_in_China#Denial_of_abusesdoes have a specific section on denial. I'm looking to collaborate on what would be the best option for this article. Should we have a section specifically on denial, or should the genocide denial be weaved into the already existing sections? Beyond this question, should we have an entirely separate article on denial? The two genocides I mentioned, the Holocaust and the Armenian genocide, both have separate articles discussing denial specifically (Holocaust denialandArmenian genocide denial). Should we have the same for this genocide too? After all, we do have a separateDenial of the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel.Why not have an article onGaza genocide denialtoo?JasonMacker(talk)03:08, 8 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

As of 2024, that term "Gaza genocide denial" only gets about 60 Google results, so it's borderline synthetic. Part of the reason we don't have it isWP:NOTNEWS/WP:RECENTISM,part of it is the fact that not all experts agree that itisa genocide or ethnic cleansing, and this article title was quite a contentious move with plenty of grist for the mill. I would suggest 1, that any article on this is not merited for aWP:SPLITbut should be handled as part of the discourse of this article, and 2, the usage of the specific phrase or idea of "Gaza genocide denial" isn't at the level of Holocaust denial or similar. Maybe that will change in the future - or alternately, if the various ICJ/ICC cases donotfind that Israel is legally committing genocide (or that there is sufficient evidence thereof), particularly with the intent component, the discussion will likely take on a different tone;WP:CRYSTALof course, but I think premature either way, IMHO.Andre🚐03:32, 8 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
On Google Scholar, "Gaza genocide" itself only gets about 423 results.I agree that we still have to wait for more reliable sources to discuss the idea of genocide denial as it relates to the Gaza genocide. I thought that there would be more, but you're right. It's premature for now.JasonMacker(talk)03:44, 12 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
If there is something missing from the article that is present in reliable sources you can add it to this article in any way you see fit. You don't need anyone's permission or agreement to do that.Sean.hoyland(talk)03:47, 8 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
What you're saying is true, but I wanted community input on structural changes to the article and not simply a matter of adding moreWP:RS.JasonMacker(talk)03:40, 12 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
And let's not forget:Template:Genocide denial.--Timeshifter(talk)13:00, 8 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

UNHR as a primary source?

Andrevanjust reverted myeditsaying the UNHR is aWP:PRIMARYsource. That's news to me.WP:PRIMARYsays that such sources are "close to an event" and "accounts written by people who are directly involved". But this report was "researched and written by UNHR members from LAW’s International Human Rights Clinic, ​​the International Human Rights Clinic at Cornell Law School, the Centre for Human Rights at the University of Pretoria in South Africa, and the Lowenstein Human Rights Project at Yale Law School."[1]None of these institutions are located in Gaza or have any connection to the Gaza genocide. Indeed the report contains very little original research itself, instead almost entire depends on data and facts from secondary sources (which are all cited), and is probably akin to aWP:TERTIARYsource.VR(Pleasepingon reply)00:53, 11 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'd treat it more as an advocacy think tank report, the University Network for Human Rights isn't a journal or a book publisher, and the report is written by students. The release of the report is an event, and then secondary sources will comment on the report and interpret it. One clue is that there's no byline. Also, it's close to the event, as in time, doesn't necessarily have to be directly involved though that'd be a giveaway, but this report coming out in the midst of everything is an indicator that it's not sufficiently removed from the event itself, and actually it's kind of already out of date since it came out in May. TERTIARY would be more like an encyclopedia.Andre🚐00:58, 11 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
A source released in May 2024 is "not out of date" and practically every source on this topic "is close to the event, as in time". You appear to misunderstandpolicy.VR(Pleasepingon reply)01:23, 11 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
I don't see how that can be used for analysis. It's a report that doesn't even have an author. Inasmuch as its release is commented on by secondary sources, it can be used, but only if that interpretation is used. You're trying to use it for expert analysis. It was written by students.Andre🚐01:28, 11 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
What part of that statement do you disagree with?M.Bitton(talk)01:30, 11 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
I more object to the placement and arrangement of the content. As written it seems to imply some legal analysis and makes a comparison to precedent. A legal expert with proper credentials should be used for that kind of thing, who might analyze the data in this report.Andre🚐01:33, 11 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
It is an analysis of what has been published in reliable sources (all cited in the report).M.Bitton(talk)01:51, 11 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
The full reportincludes authors:
  • International Human Rights Clinic of Boston University School of Law
  • INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS CLINIC of Cornell Law School
  • CENTRE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS from University of Pretoria
  • LOWENSTEIN HUMAN RIGHTS PROJECT from Yale Law School
It is a fairly comprehensive document, and other sources call the document:
  • a report from "a consortium of human right centers"[2]
  • "a report by U.S. human rights experts"[3]
  • "most thorough legal analysis yet"[4]
I see citations to the source by other reputable journal articles in:
It seems like at the very least we should be able to use it with attribution and arguably without itBluethricecreamman(talk)01:36, 11 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Attribution would be better, but those are still students writing at those law schools. And the 3 cites above are not independent or reliable here (CAIR, BU, CommonDreams) but the ScienceDirect and UChicago journal are exactly the kind of sources weshoulduse.Andre🚐01:37, 11 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Do you reckon it's better if we used the reliable sources that they are citing, such as "Final Report of the Commission of Experts established pursuant to Security Council Resolution 780 (1992), etc"?M.Bitton(talk)01:40, 11 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
That'd be even more of a primary source.Andre🚐01:53, 11 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
We can't cite those sources directly because that would beWP:SYNTH.They are applying the learnings from previous genocide to this one. I think the source is perfectly reliable to make this synthesis.VR(Pleasepingon reply)01:54, 11 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
That would be using a primary source (not more, just primary). The reason I asked is because I was baffled by your claim that the report is a primary source.M.Bitton(talk)01:56, 11 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
An original research report without a single named author, put out by essentially alaw review,I would consider that a primary source, and I'd want to see those journal articles distilling and contextualizing raw research in a review.Andre🚐01:58, 11 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
staff and advisory seem to indicatea wide range of highly reputable academic supervision from a few fieldsindicating some normal aspect of scholarship and citations by other reputable works indicates it should count byWP:SCHOLARSHIP.2 citations (at least, i didnt do a good count) about about 4 months after publication is fairly alright for an article.Bluethricecreamman(talk)01:42, 11 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
I see no issue with using it (without attribution).M.Bitton(talk)01:45, 11 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
a paper reviewing existing research, a review article, monograph, or textbook is often better than a primary research paperAndre🚐01:54, 11 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
There is nothing primary about it since all its statements are attributed to other reliable sources, making the report a good secondary source.M.Bitton(talk)01:58, 11 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Most of the footnotes appear to be to legal memoranda and trials and judgments.Andre🚐01:59, 11 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
What do you expect them to be?M.Bitton(talk)02:00, 11 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
I'm saying it's a raw research report compiled of primary source research, and it should be further contextualized by a secondary source like a reliably published academic book or journal article, or a reliable news outlet, that can remove us from the raw research.Andre🚐02:03, 11 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Basically, you're looking for a tertiary source (because the report is a secondary source). The question is, is that needed for the inclusion of material that isn't even disputed?M.Bitton(talk)02:06, 11 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
it cant be both a collection of cited primary sources (by definition a secondary source) and itself a primary sourceBluethricecreamman(talk)02:17, 11 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
I'll withdraw my objection on this basis, because I think our policy doesn't explain that a primary source, like a think tank report, can cite other sources that are also primary, like court precedent. I don't want to beWP:1AMon this, but I still don't think that this is the best source.Andre🚐02:26, 11 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
There is no policy against using primary sources anyway. This is a wikimyth.Zerotalk08:32, 11 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Not against using them at all but they aren't the best source, should be used with care, and have issues with weight and interpretation:WP:PRIMARY:Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. While a primary source is generally the best source for its own contents, even over a summary of the primary source elsewhere, do not put undue weight on its contents.... Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so... Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on themAndre🚐18:37, 11 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

UNHR is student engagement organization. Its opinions are UNDUE. There will always be better, expert commentary on relevant issues.SPECIFICOtalk15:58, 11 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

consisting of law students from prestigious schools with significant supervision from various tenured professors, creating documents that are cited in other scholarly journals, providing a report with direct citations to previous legal precedents.Bluethricecreamman(talk)16:19, 11 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
In addition to the two journal articles that @Bluethricecreammanfound here are more references to it:
VR(Pleasepingon reply)16:30, 13 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Those are not RS publicateions. Laurent, e.g. is a working paper.SPECIFICOtalk19:35, 13 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Agree with SPECIFICO.Andre🚐22:36, 13 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • At the very least we should try and find additional sources for the "minimum number of victims" section; it is perhaps undue to devote so much to a single source. But also, just... zooming out, what is this sectionsaying?Why are we highlighting these particular bits from that massive report? Is there actually a dispute about the minimum number of victims? It reads like this is a part of an ongoing argument pulled out and dropped in without context, like someone was saying "this can't be a genocide, it doesn't meet the minimum number of victims!" but if so, we left that out, making it meaningless, so - why does the lack of a required minimum number of victims matter here? Either there's some context missing, or the section should be removed as tangential and giving undue weight to something that was just mentioned in passing in a single source and which isn't important to the topic as a whole. Finding more sources that connect all this to this topic in particular would also address this problem, in that it would at least establish that it does matter here even if the reason isn't obvious, but with just one source (and one that doesn't seem to spend a lot of time on it itself, relative to its length), I'm unclear why we're devoting a decently-sized paragraph and an entire subsection to this aspect. Note that we already sayApplicable law does not require a minimum number of victimsin the definition of genocide section - honestly I'm unsure why we even includethatmuch, but that seems more proportional, at least, and more than sufficient. Do we really need this section on top of that? --Aquillion(talk)19:33, 14 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
    AgreedAndre🚐19:41, 14 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Great question. I'll leave this section to focus on whether UNHR is RS, while starting a new discussion below on minimum number of casualties.VR(Pleasepingon reply)14:41, 15 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Relevance of number of casualties

ThanksAquillionfor bringing this up. ""this can't be a genocide, it doesn't meet the minimum number of victims!"is exactly a POV I've read, andthe originalversion of the section said that. Here are some sources that discuss the relevance of number of casualties to support or deny the existence of genocide, or argue that its not relevant.

  • "There is no evidence that they have engaged in a deliberate campaign to “destroy, in whole or in part,” the Palestinian people — which is what “genocide” means in international law. Awful as the civilian deaths in Gaza have been, they still constitute less than 1 percent of the territory’s population. If Israel, with all the firepower at its disposal, had been trying to commit mass murder, the death toll would have been higher by orders of magnitude. "[9]Max Boot,historian
  • "The brutal fact is that if Netanyahu and Gallant were the bloodthirsty genocidaires that their critics claim them to be, the death toll in Gaza would be orders of magnitude higher than what we see today. The Rwandan genocide, for example, was perpetrated over several weeks and resulted in 800,000 deaths, often at the hands of mobs equipped with machetes and gardening tools."[10]Raphael Cohen, professor atPardee RAND
  • "Though some have pointed out that Israel could have killed even more people in Gaza if it really wanted to do so [quotingDov Waxman,UCLAprofessor of Israel Studies], it does not necessarily have to unleash its full arsenal to commit genocide. “It’s quite plausible that the state uses some of its firepower and nevertheless is carrying out the attacks in the context of the destruction of the target group,” Verdeja said. "Ernesto Verdeja is aUniversity of Notre Dameprofessor in peace studies.
  • "No minimum number of victims is necessary to establish genocide, but the loss must be severe enough that it “will impact the group as a whole”. Since close to 50 families have already and horrifically been exterminated, and we’re only just past the first week of this carnage, what other word should we choose? "Moustafa Bayoumi
  • "Attacks on [Gaza] now alarmingly resemble those of genocidal campaigns in recent decades, such as in the 1982 genocide of Mayan people in Guatemala, the 1994 Rwandan genocide of Tutsis, the 1995 genocide of Bosnian Muslims, the 2003-2005 genocide in Darfur, the 2014 genocide against Yazidis in Iraq, and the 2016-17 genocide against Rohingyan Muslims. We emphasize that although the death tolls in these genocides vary considerably, they are considered genocides on account of the clear “intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group”. "[11]Declaration by John Cox (professor of Holocaust, Genocide & Human Rights Studies atUNC Charlotte), Victoria Sanford (professor withmany peer-reviewed publicationson genocide) andBarry Trachtenberg(professor of Jewish history atWake Forest University).
  • "Israel’s peak monthly killing rate of civilians in Gaza [10000 per month] is roughly equivalent to that in Darfur, and higher than in the other two recent cases, all of which our government labeled “genocide”. "[12]Alan J Kuperman, professor at theUniversity of Texas at Austin,where his research focuses on the causes and prevention of genocide.
  • "Official U.N. figures from early September note that Russian attacks killed slightly fewer than 10,000 civilians since February 2022, and injured just above 17,500. Israel has so far killed more than 11,000 Palestinians, wounding nearly 30,000. It is important that Biden described Russia’s attack on Ukraine as “genocide” on April 12, 2022 "[13].Raz Segal,professor of Holocaust and Genocide Studies atStockton University.

So some mention of this discussion isWP:DUE.VR(Pleasepingon reply)14:40, 15 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Both PDFs for source 83,hereare broken and no longer work.

The first one, which claims to be archived, is almost a joke as it leads only to ascreenshot. The original pdf no longer loads.

I did some searching and found what I assume is the original PDF on another site, but by the same author and looks to be exactly the same, overhere.

Could somebody with edit rights please fix this? And even if the page with only a screenshot DOES provide some way to access the PDF (if it can, I can't see how), surely it would be easier to use the link I have provided instead?Taiyaki Schizo(talk)18:01, 11 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, wrong page. I meant to write this on the Gaza genocide wikipedia page. Please ignore.Taiyaki Schizo(talk)18:04, 11 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Also, could someone who DOES have edit rights please bring this issue up over there, because apparently I can't even bring up this mistake since I don't have the editing rights yet.Taiyaki Schizo(talk)18:05, 11 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

(moved here by request)Selfstudier(talk)18:16, 11 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Taiyaki Schizo:Done.I kept the original archive link since Internet Archive is currently down and archive.today seems to only save screenshots, so I cannot replace it at the moment. Thanks! -Ïvana(talk)21:26, 11 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Excluding accused party's denial from genocide statements table

I think that thegenocide statements tableis intended to capture the international response to the events, and therefore, it should only reflect international recognitions or denials of genocide by other countries and organizations. Including Israel’s own denial of the charges distorts this purpose, as it is inappropriate for the accused party to "vote" on its own actions in a space dedicated to international views and reactions. Israel's rebuttal and perspective are already addressed in other appropriate areas of the article. I recommend removing Israel’s entry from this table.StarkReport(talk)14:38, 12 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Genocide template

Last month, in the talk for theList of genocidesarticle,an RFC for inclusion of the Gaza genocidewas closed with the decision to include this genocide on their list. With that in mind, I checked what templates other articles in the list use:

Basically, of the entries in thelist of genocidesarticle that have taken place since the Holocaust, the majority of them have the Genocide template, with the exceptions of:

  • 1. This article (Gaza Genocide)
  • 2. Rwandan genocide (which has its own topic-specific template)
  • 3. Anfal campaign
  • 4. Sabra and Shatila massacre
  • 5. Genocide of Acholi and Lango people (which isn't even an article)
  • 6. Zanzibar genocide (which is a redirect to an article that doesn't have "genocide" in its title)
  • 7. Deportations of the Chechens and Ingush
  • 8. Deportation of the Crimean Tatars
  • 9. The Holocaust

I think that this article is more similar to the majority of articles that use the Genocide template, and should also have it. I don't think this topic currently warrants its own special templates like the Rwandan genocide.

Based on the reasoning above, I call for incorporatingTemplate:Genocideinto this article.JasonMacker(talk)18:38, 13 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

The reasoning makes sense to me, but would this result in any visual changes to the infobox?Bitspectator⛩️19:59, 13 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Here's what it looks like, and there's no need to change anything on it. In terms of where it can be placed, I think between the infobox and the campaign box would work:

JasonMacker(talk)20:35, 13 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, I misunderstood. I thought you meant changing the infobox currently in the article. I have no objections other than the possibility of it causing clutter.Bitspectator⛩️20:39, 13 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
By the way, I remember asuggestionin August 2024 to add more images to the infobox. I think this is a good idea as our current image is from Oct 2023 — a lot has happened since then. I took a look at Wikimedia Commons but didn't see many new relevant images. If someone is aware of CC images that would work for this article, please let me know.Bitspectator⛩️20:54, 13 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Sidebars should only be included in articles, where the article appears as a link in the sidebar. All the genocides listed above (including Gaza), used to appear in the sidebar, but due to synth concerns, all links to specific genocides were removed from the sidebar. The sidebar should thus be removed from the listed genocide articles. --Cdjp1(talk)22:25, 13 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Australia is not sending weapons to Israel. This Wiki accuses them of doing so.

Source:https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/article/2024/jun/09/fact-check-is-australia-exporting-weapons-to-israelNesserWiki(talk)09:59, 14 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Recent couple of reports removing material on grounds of lack of connection to article subject, blah. In principle, it should be straightforward to connect both the killing of health workers and destruction of hospitals to genocide as, for example, inthis sourceorthisSo if anyone wants to do that before I get around to it, please do.Selfstudier(talk)10:55, 14 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Edit requests at RFPP

To the regulars here: There are a couple of edit requests atWikipedia:Requests for page protection/Editthat seem reasonable and well-thought-out, deserving some attention. Would someone more familiar with this topic than the administrators who monitor that RFPP page have a look and weigh in? ~Anachronist(talk)23:31, 15 October 2024 (UTC)Reply