You are an administrator, so you may disregard the message below
You are seeing this because of the limitations of {{If extended confirmed}} and {{If admin}}You can hide this message box by adding the following to a new line of yourcommon.css page:
.ECR-edit-request-warning{display:none;}
Stop: You may only use this page to create an edit request
You are not anextended-confirmed user, soyou must not edit or discuss this topic anywhere on Wikipedia except to make anedit request. (Additional details are in the message box just below this one.)
The following restrictions apply to everyone editing this article:
All participants in formal discussions (RfCs,RMs, etc) within the area of conflict are urged to keep their comments concise, and are limited to 1,000 words per discussion. Citations and quotations (whether from sources, Wikipedia articles, Wikipedia discussions, or elsewhere) do not count toward the word limit.
You must be logged-in andextended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except formaking edit requests, provided they are not disruptive)
You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours (except inlimited circumstances)
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize alllist pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit theproject page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to thediscussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographicPalestine region, thePalestinian people and theState of Palestine on Wikipedia. Join us by visitingthe project page, where you can add your name to thelist of members where you can contribute to thediscussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofIsrael on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofDeath on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath
Hi againCNC[1], hope you're doing well—I'm pretty exhausted and am logging off for the day shortly so if others could fill this in for me I'd really appreciate it. If no one else will, I'll get around to adding references next time I'm on.Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk)20:59, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, no rush. I also trimmed down the lead per[2]. I now see that it has beentaken to AfD, so will have to see how that goes. Hopefully you can add sources soon enough though to establish notability.CNC (talk)21:05, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to add all civilians to the list that I can find. Once I finish getting the list to a point of being as exhaustive as possible, I'll go back through and improve sourcing.Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk)14:47, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't it make sense to do this the other way around? Otherwise if there are other people to exclude then it's a waste of effort including them in the first place without adequae sourcing. Baring in mind that some topics atTemplate:Gaza war will be included as beingWP:NAV-RELATED to the subject, but not necessarily backed up by RS with a direct claim.CNC (talk)15:29, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was otherwise going to make a start on including images for the most notable deaths (mainly based on length of article and image quality, but not exclusively), in order to add some additional context to subjects included. I can also see a good fit for summarising the list to the lead once reliable sources have been added to the list.CNC (talk)15:31, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to add images, I think that would help, but someone removed the one I added due to fair use concerns in case you weren't aware.
Fair enough, how about as I add new ones I include sourcing on them as I add them and go back to add sourcing to old ones after so that others have the opportunity to add sourcing to the old ones while I work on the new ones? If you insist on me going back to the old ones first, then I can.Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk)15:43, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, realise the image I added was not CC now, thanks for reminder. Have added non-free rationale, but maybe it won't stick. Might need to check through articles again for CC licensed images.
I'm not going to insist anything, only generally it's best practice to improve V instead of just expanding content, especially if you create the article in the first place tbh.CNC (talk)16:18, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I like your addition of Hind Rajab - do you have any ideas to make it more visually appealing so that it doesn't introduce dead space to the right of the list?Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 17:12, 8 November 2025 (UTC) I see what you're doing now-making a column of images. I like that idea a lot.Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk)17:40, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
[[File:Nagham Abu Samra.png|thumb|24 year old Nagham Abu Samra, karate champion, sports icon, and expected [[2024 Summer Olympics]] athlete, killed in a [[Attacks on refugee camps in the Gaza war|refugee camp airstrike]] where she was residing]]
So the idea was a column of images, I've done this before on football article lists and it works well. However the only CC image I find could isHossam Shabat, so to avoid a squeeze I moved it to the analysis section for now. If the lead were longer, then it'd fit there OK, but doesn't at the moment (at least, once the maintenance template is removed it won't).CNC (talk)18:13, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
[3] Here's a person's image under CC I found. I'm going to add a few more rows, if you beat me to it feel free to start a gallery, otherwise I'll likely do so myself using the above linked image and the one currently on the page as starting points.Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk)18:26, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Done adding new rows (all with proper sourcing), next order of business is adding sources to old ones. I'll do that before getting to the gallery but first I'm taking a break.Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk)18:56, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good, after full sourcing I'll add a sentence summary of the means of death to the lead. I was going to do it earlier but thought best to include only after sourcing tbh.CNC (talk)19:29, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Whether to include Palestinians who died as a result of medical access denial in the list
The question:Should we include citizens who died as a result of Israeli actions that indirectly led to their deaths in this list?
My argument:Absolutely. Per theGenocide Convention Article II (c),Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part is a genocidal act. Denying medical care, as was done toFathi Ghaben andMajed Abu Maraheel, is an example of inflicting conditions of life calculated to destroy the group (by causing their deaths). If civilians die as a result of these conditions life, then they died (i.e. were "killed", according to the word's definition in theMerriam-Webster dictionary[7]:to deprive of life : cause the death of) as the result of a genocidal act, and thus were "killed in the Gaza genocide".
This is an argument used by theUNHRC Commission of Inquiry on Gaza genocide, whose 2025 report saidthe Commission concludes that the systematic and complete destruction of the healthcare system in Gaza, the siege-induced deprivation of medical necessities to Palestinians andthe denial of medical exit visas to Palestinians who were most in medical need were part of the intent to destroy Palestinians in Gaza by preventing their capacity and possibility to heal, recover and live. (see page 62 of the PDF)
Might be worth waiting for a couple more opinions on the war/genocide thing, since for no particular reason I think any RM in either direction will go for two weeks and end up "No consensus"Placeholderer (talk)15:57, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough! Happy to wait a bit longer. The main thing I'd like to hear from other editors is whether @CNC's argument that it'sWP:SYNTH to imply all of this is genocide in the title (despite the UNHRC connection andWP:NOTCOM) holds. I think this is what determines whether to use "war" or "genocide" languageAlexandraaaacs1989 (talk)16:04, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you everyone for constructive discussion. Starting with temp move is sensible solution. Let’s hope the civil and collaborative mood here prevails.
I agree with CNC. See next talk section for my comments onwar vgenocide (it’s a synth concern to attribute all these to genocide). Mild preference fordeaths overkilled, again to avoid synth - former could include indirect latter only direct, butdeaths might be too broad if included eg old age.Casualties/fatalitiesbetter as avoids that problem;casualties technically includes wounded sofatalities is best.BobFromBrockley (talk)09:43, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think you raise a good about fatalities being better than casualties, and thanks for bringing that up. Here's my current vote from best to worst:
1.killed - After giving more consideration toPlaceholderer's point that "killed implies direct deaths" (which was an important point), I think that a better characterization is that killed impliesintentional deaths resulting from your actions,not direct deaths. If person A is drowning and person B, outside of the water, blocks person A from reaching the land (analogy to refusing medical asylum to dying Palestinians), I would argue that person B killed person A even though this was technically an indirect death (the person was dying due to pre-existing conditions - drowning or liver failure) because person B intentionally partook in an action that caused person A to die.
2.fatalities - This removes the intentionality element inkilled, so I like it a little less because definitionally genocides are intentional. ButCNC's point aboutWP:SYNTH may apply to "killed" (especially if we use "genocide" instead of "war"), so "fatalities" seems like a good compromise for a temp move.
3.deaths - This is too expansive in my view because some Palestinians have died due to reasons completely unrelated to the genocide. If we rename the article to be "deaths in the Gaza war", then people may in their minds think "oh, well people die all the time in war, there's always civilian casualties" which lacks important context that these arenot just typical civilian wartime casualties. Deaths in the Gaza genocide I think alleviates this problem but is still less than optimal.
4.casualties - Now oppose perBobfrombrockley's reasoning that this includes injuries and should therefore be avoided.
Ok moved toList of civilian fatalities in the Gaza war for now per rough consensus here. I also agree with Bob that "fatalities" is best, over deaths or killed. This does leave my query below about including fatalities such ashostages, but seeing that list I just found means it's probably not too big a concern. Will add as hat/see also.CNC (talk)10:24, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Alexander you make a good argument against deaths which I am persuaded by (compared to killed). But if we go for killed we need RS to show intentionality for each which may be a high bar. Fatalities seems to avoid those problems. I think we could potentially make any of these work but exactly who is included most likely and standard of verifying might be slightly different.BobFromBrockley (talk)10:33, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree we need RS for "killing". From what I've seen of entries and sources in this list, they appear to mostly state "killed", given most are airstrikes (so is a straightforward assessment for RS). But there are exceptions, likeKilling of Mohammad Bhar, as in wikivoice it's stated "died after being mauled" and thus would be a dubious entry under killings. As Alexandra also said, can continue this discussion at the RM though.CNC (talk)10:40, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is a useful and very well crafted list. However, likeSuperPianoMan9167 in the AfD discussion, I don’t think it has the best name. While, as we know, a consensus has emerged among scholars that Israel has been committing a genocide in Gaza, there is no similar consensus that every single action of Israel since October 2023 has been part of this genocide. For instance, there isn’t agreement on when the genocide began. Having looked at a random selection of the cases on this page, particularly those in 2023, it is far from clear cut that scholars would include all of their deaths in the genocide. To give an imperfect analogy, we can think about the Holocaust, which unfolded alongside a world war. Civilians killed in Nazi German air rates, including Jewish civilians, were not victims of the Holocaust. Civilians, including Jewish civilians, who were killed while close to Allied military targets, were not victims of the Holocaust. Without reliable sources for each, it seems to me it’s impossible to disentangle from this list those who are killed in the genocide specifically from those who were killed in the Gaza war. I would therefore strongly urge a name change, and a very small edit to the lead to reflect that (eg to “killed by Israel during the Gaza war including the ongoing, intentional etc”).BobFromBrockley (talk)17:06, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I started typing this this morning before the talk section immediately above was added and hadn’t realised it had unfolded before I pressed publish. Realise it’s now somewhat superseded by the above section.BobFromBrockley (talk)17:10, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe “Additional civilian deaths” is confusing. Could change to “Deaths outside Gaza” or just have the names in the see also bullet list without a heading?BobFromBrockley (talk)09:48, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if the See also subcategory is "Deaths outside Gaza," one would be hard-pressed not to include the civilian fatalities in Israel that are directly part of the Gaza war before extending things out on a broader basis. I do tend to think that having the See also section be a place for other list articles instead of individuals makes the most sense.Coining (talk)13:13, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think since he was Lebanese we should probably not honestly, but West Bank Palestinians I think should be added to a "Deaths outside Gaza" section in "see also".Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk)10:21, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's fair, I mainly worry it may undermine the integrity of the list in the eyes of the reader looking solely for "innocent" people. Hamas affiliates are less likely to be seen as "innocent" and may lead to confusion about how many others on the list were affiliated with Hamas. I'd support having them included in the see also section at the bottom for this reason.Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk)10:56, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To me this would be better resolved by summarising in the lead something like "includes one Hamas leader, an Islamic preacher and scholar". Either that or we'd need to elaborate that it excludes Hamas civilians in the lead (as part of identifying the scope of the list), which from the perspective of the reader would look even worse.CNC (talk)11:22, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the outcome, but would clarify that you're citingProtocol II to the Geneva Conventions, and Israel has not ratified Protocol II. Protocol II governs non-international armed conflicts, so would apply unless this is an international armed conflict. If this is not an international armed conflict, customary international law would apply, and, per the source I linked below, customary international law is not settled on this point. But I think this is a reasonable interpretation for our purposes.WillowCity(talk)22:41, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
International humanitarian law is nebulous on this point: seethis summary. I think it would be reasonable to exclude members of an armed group's civilian leadership from a list of civilian deaths.WillowCity(talk)16:02, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
TheArab–Israeli conflict isdesignated as acontentious topic with special editing restrictions. Editing and discussing this topic isrestricted toextended confirmed users.You are not logged in, so youare not extended confirmed.Your accountis extended confirmedis not extended confirmed, but youare an administrator, so your account is extended confirmed by default.
Abot will list this discussion on therequested moves current discussionssubpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see theclosing instructions). Please base arguments onarticle title policy, and keep discussionsuccinct andcivil.
Strong supportList of civilians killed in the Gaza genocide - All of the means of death in the list have been characterized byWP:RS as genocidal (e.g.here).We can say there's genocide in Wikivoice. And saying "killed" ensures it's clear that the deaths were intentionally caused by Israel, as intentionality is necessarily implied by the presence of genocide, which Wiki consensus has determined is happening
Very strongly opposeList of civilian deaths in the Gaza war - "Deaths" is even more separated from Israel's actions than "fatalities", especially when not using "genocide". Sounds equal in weight to a hypotheticalList of civilian deaths in WW2 list which feels wrong given the significantly different levels of intentionality
Ioppose the headline request on this requested move discussion andsupport the status quo option of (b)List of civilian fatalities in the Gaza waras well as (a)List of civilians killed in the Gaza war. Ioppose all the other options because they are either too broad (e.g. inclusion of injured civilians) or violateWP:NPOV, both for reasons I've already expressed elsewhere, and because I do not want editors to have to go back and forth over whether any particular civilian's death is part of a genocide. I don't think it's nearly as well established, or encompassed by any Wikipedia consensus, how to decide which deaths are part of a genocide and which are not. Best to not open up that debate on this page.Coining (talk)15:14, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(a)Weak Support - "This is a list of notable civilians killed by Israel during the Gaza war and genocide" is literally the lead of this article; it is entirely redundant to have multiple articles saying the same thing. I think “fatalities” just sounds weird, it implies some kind of disconnect between the war and those who died which is odd considering this is a list of those who died in the war. Whilst some deaths may not have been intentional, it sort of implies that all deaths are unintentional.
(b)Strong Oppose - See above
(c)Weak Support - Similar reasoning to (a)
(d)Strong Support - Similar reasoning to (a), but this is more consistent as this is the format used to describe civilian casualties in the war in Afghanistan.
(e) - (h)Strong Oppose - This list ought to include those who are accidentally killed as a result of the war, as not including those unintentionally killed would make this list feel rather incomplete and may require a separate list. This is not to say that a genocide is or isn't going on, just that whether every single death was a part of it could be up for debate.Coining also raises a troubling issue that editors may have to determine if individual deaths should be on this list or not, which seems extremely problematic.Originalcola (talk)15:42, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose “casualties” (d & h) because technically that includes injuries and not just deaths
Strong support for “war” (a-d) over genocide for reasons set out in “concerns about title” above, specifically that establishing that all of theses deaths were in the genocide risks synth or a very short list (while there is a consensus that Israel has been committing a genocide, not all Israeli actions in the war are considered genocide by such a consensus, so it will be very hard to establish which of these people are killed in the genocide specifically).
Support “fatalities” (b or f) because “deaths” risks being too open-ended and sounding inevitable rather than intentional, while establishing intentionality involved in “killed” will be very difficult.
In conclusion: !vote for b (status quo), then: b>a/c>f>e/g>d>h
I think we can actually make any of these work, but we’d need to acknowledge it’ll be a very different list with each name (e.g. c and especially d are very long lists; e is a much shorter list than we have now).BobFromBrockley (talk)17:55, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support (e) or (g),strongly oppose (d) and (h),neutral on all others (but definitely do not prefer "fatalities" as the wording, since all of the incidents listed relate to direct killings as opposed to indirect, e.g. by starvation or disease, and the article would need to be rescoped). The argument has been made that editors can't parse whether individual incidents were part of the genocide. This argument doesn't grapple with the counterpoint: individual editors also cannot weigh whether particular killings were merely so-called "collateral damage", as is implied when we say their deaths were part of the war. To say that individuals were killed during the war suggests that their deaths were in furtherance of some specific military objective; in relation to many specific cases, such a conclusion is not sourced, and would be OR. In summary, implying that these deaths were part of the war is still speculating about Israel's intent; it's just speculation to Israel's benefit. The genocide is occurring alongside the war: we should keep those events separate, analytically. If we do that, it's moreWP:PRECISE to say the deaths occurred during the genocide than the war.WillowCity(talk)22:28, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To say that individuals were killed during the war suggests that their deaths were in furtherance of some specific military objective - I don't think there is any implied suggestion at all like this. Wars are replete with examples of civilians being killed in ways that didn't further a particular military objective - civilians were killed in the My Lai massacre (part of the Vietnam war), or the Kunduz hospital airstrike (war in Afghanistan). No one would exclude the victims of these from a list of casualties of their respective wars, and there would be no associated implication.
Furthermore,implying that these deaths were part of the war is still speculating about Israel's intent; it's just speculation to Israel's benefit. Why does this concern outweigh the concern about explicitly stating that these deaths were caused with genocidal intent - including in cases where there is, without OR, sources about the military objective being pursued?
It seems to me is that your argument weighs an implication that I think no one would reasonably draw as more problematic than an explicit connotation that will in some cases definitely be false.Samuelshraga (talk)07:40, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What about thedozens of genocidal statements by top Israel officials including the Prime Minister, President, and Defense Minister? But even just mentioning this feels like we're missing the point that it's not up to us to make our own decisions about whether it's genocidal, but instead is the responsibility of experts, whohave determined there is a genocide and therefore in some significant capacity there is an objective of killing civilians, divorced from the separate issue of pursuing a military objective.Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk)16:49, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is undisputed that the individuals listed were killed in the Gaza war. It is disputed that they were killed in the Gaza genocide. Some people dispute that Israel's actions constitute genocide. Other people call those people genocide deniers. The issue is complicated.
To be safe, and to avoid taking sides, we should just describe the article as a list of people killed during the war, as the fact that they were killed by Israel during the war is indisputable. It should be up to the reader to decide if these people were victims of genocide or not.SuperPianoMan9167 (talk)21:56, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
to avoid taking sides... It should be up to the reader to decide if these people were victims of genocide or not - This is not how Wikipedia works. We do not unequivocally avoid taking sides. Otherwise we would characterize the Holocaust as an "alleged genocide", present arguments on both sides (including Holocaust denial arguments), and allow the reader to decide for themselves whether it constitutes a genocide, which is certainlyWP:UNDUE.
Some people dispute that Israel's actions constitute genocide. - Please see[9]Neutrality is a core Wikipedia policy, but this does not mean as a matter of documented policy that it avoids stating facts as facts if anyone anywhere disputes themAlexandraaaacs1989 (talk)16:38, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A RfC considering the wording of the first sentence of one article said the Gaza genocide can be stated in wikivoicein that article. The argument that you are making here is that logically, because of said RfC, every single article that mentions genocide in Gaza must state it as an undisputed fact in wikivoice.SuperPianoMan9167 (talk)17:53, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Specifically, the consensus on the first sentence of that article does not equal a consensus that the genocide began on 7 October or that every single Israeli act of war was also an act of genocide.BobFromBrockley (talk)08:27, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're making the leap fromthere is a genocide to "everyone killed in Gaza from October 7th 2023 was killed in the genocide". @SuperPianoMan9167 argues that the genocide is disputed, but I don't particularly want to get into the weeds on that. My point is that even if you stipulate a genocide, that doesn't mean everyone killed in the war is part of that. Tutsis in the RPF killed in action in the Rwandan civil war are not victims of the simultaneous genocide against Tutsis in Rwanda. In that case, there's no question that the Rwandan political leadership had genocidal intent, but the military conflict with the RPF was not how they committed genocide. Are you going to filter the list of people killed in the Gaza war based on when and where they occurred, whether legitimate military objectives were being pursued, whether there is evidence of genocidal intent for each one? That seems impossible to me.Samuelshraga (talk)07:03, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
even if you stipulate a genocide, that doesn't mean everyone killed in the war is part of that - This exclusionary definition of genocide victims would prohibit us from counting all Jewish civilians who were killed by Nazis towards Holocaust death statistics because some might theoretically have died due to non-Holocaust factors, like being killed in crossfire in war. But this is not how we talk about genocide because this creates an unreasonable burden of proof making it impossible to claim a group of X people died in a genocide without individually reviewing every single death in that group during the genocide to ensure each was specifically due to genocidal causes. A genocide is a pattern of behaviors coupled with intent, and to individually review every single Palestinian civilian killed by Israel and nitpick which are allowed to be considered genocide victims somehow misses that point.Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk)16:45, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
he is drawing an analogy to help you understand it, he is not calling you a nazi. the holocaust is often the genocide which westerners know the most about, regardless of whether they are otherwise knowledgeable of history or notUser:Easternsaharareview andthis17:03, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do see the point you were making.making it impossible to claim a group of X people died in a genocide without individually reviewing every single death in that group during the genocide to ensure each was specifically due to genocidal causes makes sense.SuperPianoMan9167 (talk)17:54, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Alexandraaaacs1989 makes a valid and cogent point, and it is indeed a helpful analogy for thinking this through. But in thinking it through the limits of the analogy show us why we need to avoid the word genocide in the title here. While the Holocaust proceeded against the backdrop of war, most of its deaths were perpetrated in very distinct ways, but most of the deaths in the Gaza genocide have occurred in genocidal acts of war or through direct means such as starvation. While historians quibble over the exact start point of the Holocaust, there is broad consensus about which deaths to include, but that’s not the case with the Gaza genocide where there is not yet anything like consensus on when it began. We have decades of scholarship filling in the gaps in our knowledge about the Holocaust, where is the Gaza genocide is fresh if not ongoing and it will be a long time before the scholarly dust settles. And finally this is a list of notable named individuals, not a count of total victims. So counts of the Holocaust dead might indeed include a margin of error in terms of misattribution, per Alexandraaaacs1989, but a list of its notable dead would be far easier to produce without any original research. We can produce such an uncontroversial list for the civilian deaths of the Gaza war, but not at this early point in time for the dead of the genocide.BobFromBrockley (talk)09:04, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds like your main points against using "genocide" in the title are:
When to say the genocide started (October 7th?)
In the Holocaust, genocidal acts were more distinct from acts of war
The Gaza genocide is fresh and there's still some disagreement
I am sure it is not easy to place an exact start date on the Holocaust either since Nazis were arguably committing genocide earlier or later than the Kristallnacht, and setting an exact date seems difficult, but this does not prevent us from approaching the issue of saying Jewish people killed by Nazis early on were genocide victims, even if the start date of the genocide is a bit fuzzy. That said, here it seems like October 7th is a natural starting point. Their response to the October 7 attacks included the start of a bombing campaignon October 7 killing civilians including children, and this campaign has been determined to be genocidal.
The distinctness of genocidal acts is irrelevant in my view since the entire bombing campaign has been determined to be in and of itself genocidal by experts. So any who die in this genocidal bombing campaign are naturally genocide victims.
The freshness of the genocide does not detract from consensus amongWP:RS scholarly sources that this is a genocide.
the entire bombing campaign has been determined to be in and of itself genocidal by experts. I don't believe we've established a consensus on which specific acts are considered genocidal by experts, but if I'm wrong I'd welcome being corrected.
Other than the addition of the word "entire", I think you, Bob and I have covered this entire point more than once before and further repetition is unlikely to help anyone.Samuelshraga (talk)09:51, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This exclusionary definition of genocide victims would prohibit us from counting all Jewish civilians who were killed by Nazis towards Holocaust death statistics - yes! Jews killed by Nazis in the London blitz, or Jews killed as they participated in theWarsaw uprising, should not be classified as "victims of the Holocaust". Saying that is not "partisan" to the Nazis or disrespectful of the Jews involved. It's just accurate.
this creates an unreasonable burden of proof making it impossible to claim a group of X people died in a genocide without individually reviewing every single death. This burden of proof is not unreasonable. The fact that the Nazis killed some Jews outside the framework of the Holocaust doesn't diminish the fact that the Holocaust happened, or make it impossible to point to millions of individual people killed in it. An article listing them should be accurate. Here too, given that this article is a list of individuals, of course reviewing the inclusion of every single death on it is appropriate, and even required.Samuelshraga (talk)07:13, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think you missed the context of the argument. Others said that we are not allowed to include individuals on a genocide list unlessWP:RS explicitly state they are "genocide victims" or something nearly identical. This logic is the only thing I am responding to.WP:NOTCOM clearly implies we can include genocide victims on a list named "civilians killed in the Gaza genocide" even if they were not individually and explicitly connected to the genocide byWP:RS.Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk)20:18, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTCOM is totally besides the issue. The standard I'm arguing for is not that every death on the list has to have sourcing explicitly connecting them to theGaza genocide, that's a false representation of my argument.
Is there a consensus on the start date of the genocide? Is there a consensus as to whether all or just some of Israel's actions are part of the genocide? I think the answer to these questions is no, and given that, simply including every notable civilian to die in theGaza war presupposes something we have no reason to assume - that all of Israel's actions in the Gaza war are within the scope of the Gaza genocide.Samuelshraga (talk)07:01, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There's a broader issue of precision here. I broadly agree with e or g, but I don't have a strong enough conviction or certainty on this question to !vote yet. But I do think it's important to note that a broader campaign can be considered genocidal even if a particular individual killing may or may not bespecifically genocidal in the legal sense.
To obviate this confusion, it might be worth noting somewhere "This list includes civilians reported killed as a part of the campaign of genocide in Gaza". This aligns with other victim lists in other genocides.Katzrockso (talk)00:05, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, very well said. This is exactly the logic used in the2025 UNHRC Commission of Inquiry report on Gaza genocide, which saidgenocidal intent isthe only reasonable inference that could be drawn based on the pattern of conduct of the Israeli authorities inthe totality of the evidence. Genocide consists of two parts: genocidal intent and genocidal acts. So since these acts (airstrikes, sniping civilians, etc) were determined to be genocidal acts due to patterns in the totality of evidence, these acts are thus part of the genocide and therefore there is a direct connection between "killings in the genocide" and every person killed in this article. Denying medical aid, the most contentious method of killing to be included on this list, has specifically been cited as contributing toGenocide Convention Article 2 genocidal act (c)inflicting conditions of life calculated to destroy the group in whole or in part (with the report specifically citing medical care access blockage as genocidal). So yes denying medical aid intentionally imposes circumstances that cause another person's death (i.e. "killing" by physically blocking their access to hospitals outside the Gaza Strip that would provide lifesaving aid) and yes thisis a genocidal act under international law. So I think all this talk about specific genocidal acts needing to be individually accused of being genocidal in order to be in ain the Gaza genocide list is a little silly.Common sense to someone who adequately understands the sourcing says the people killed in an airstrike were killed in a genocide since airstrikes are part of why experts saythere is a genocide. The point was that thebroader campaign of bombings is genocidal and therefore when asked how many died in the bombings in the genocide, you should list every person who was bombed in that bombing campaign, even if there are some bombings which if isolated would not be considered genocidal acts in and of themselves (that's what a genocide is: aseries of acts, by definition, rather than an individual one). That logic generalizes to the rest of the means of death in the list.Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk)00:41, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose all "genocide" options. That would be (e) through (h). I don't accept the notion that because sources - even a consensus of sources - determine that Israel has violated the Genocide convention or committed genocidal acts, all deaths can therefore be ascribed to "the genocide". The sources that opine in this way are not unanimous in their definition of whether all or some aspects of Israel's conduct constitute genocide, nor of when that genocide began. The date of the first deaths recorded on this list is 7th October, and I do not think there is plausibly a consensus of sources that an Israeli genocide had begun by that morning. The alternative is to posit a different genocide start date for the casualties on this list, and I think there is unlikely to be a consensus for any other start date.
Support any of (a) through (d) with addition of "Palestinian" before civilian. Unless we want to add Israeli civilian casualties to the list, which I would also support.Samuelshraga (talk)12:19, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, I like the idea of adding "Palestinian" before civilians if we go with any of the Gaza war options. If we go with the Gaza genocide options then I oppose because Palestinian in this case is implied. If others could leave feedback on this particular issue, I'd like to gauge rough consensus on "List of civilians killed/fatalities/etc in the Gaza war" -> "List of Palestinian civilians killed/fatalities/etc in the Gaza war". I'll be quiet now to avoidWP:BLUDGEONING.Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk)12:46, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t think you’re at risk of bludgeoning at all. I agree with addition of Palestinians if “war” prevails, but that it’s not necessary if “genocide” prevails.BobFromBrockley (talk)06:56, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would not support changing the list of 8 choices we are voting on to 12 or 16 choices. This RM is complicated enough as is. Substantively, it will be an odd state of affairs if there ends up being a list of only "Palestinian" civilians killed in the war and not Israeli civilians (or non-Israeli, non-Palestinian civilians -- as there were civilian hostages that were neither).Coining (talk)16:04, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This RM really is a nightmare. It would have been better to vote on the two main points: war vs genocide AND fatalities/killed/casualties/deaths. ←Metallurgist (talk)20:57, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support option a-d;Oppose option e-h; my personal preference is option a. What happened in Gaza is the Gaza war, and during the Gaza war, there was very convincing evidence of genocide.Lova Falk (talk)08:19, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support A as the most concise and neutral title.Weak support B as slightly less understandable for readers (readers may not know thatfatalities refers to people that have died).Support C, for the same reasons as supporting A, but C would be slightly more vulnerable to becoming aWP:COATRACK of all people who have died in the war ("killed" implies intent, whereas "deaths" does not).Oppose D because "casualties" includes injuries, and this list is presumably only for people who have been killed, not injured.Oppose E-H: Let thereader decide if they are victims of genocide or not.It's not up to Wikipedia to call them victims of genocide.SuperPianoMan9167 (talk)22:05, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support E, especially since we have the Gaza genocide sidebar template on the article already. The wiki needs to be consistent with the genocide framing; either have it say it's a genocide everywhere, or only state that it's allegations, and the latter is incredibly unlikely to happen due to the excellently conducted months-long RfC for theGaza genocide page.TheSilksongPikmin (talk |contribs)20:55, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I do think that. It is confusing for one article to claim it's a genocide, while others only frame it as common accusations. They need to be consistent, so if someone doesn't agree with this, they should take it toTalk:Gaza genocide, where editors will very likely disagree, butconsensuscould change, even if unlikely. Until then, we should be consistent.TheSilksongPikmin (talk |contribs)21:10, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A crucial problem here, is that it isthis interpretation of the prior RfC that changes what it was about, and therefore it is a perhaps unintentional attempt (but an attempt nonetheless) to change the consensus. It was titled "RfC on first sentence" regarding theGaza genocide article. By its own terms, it was not about what should be done in other articles. Had it been framed that way, there might not have been an editor consensus previously. We should not automatically apply that prior RfC universally because the RfC itself said it was limited.Coining (talk)02:36, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No the consensus was to state that there was genocide, and since Wikipedia only state verifiable things, the truth had to be determined. Not only the truth, but other things like whether it was due, neutral, etc. had to be determined. So if that RfC was just going to determine whether the Gaza genocide has happened, it may have had a more supportive turnout. You are free to hold a RfC on the Gaza genocide page on whether all other articles should also follow it. If you do, what will likely happen is that people will point towards the moratorium. Whether that consensus applies on other articles depends on the turnout of it, and since it lasted for quite a long duration and had a healthy turnout, it was not a local consensus. That RfC has, so far, had a much larger turnout so it should indeed be applied here.User:Easternsaharareview this03:12, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Must be the first genocide in history whenno one knows when it started orwhat specifically was genocidal about it, just vague statements about backbench politicians saying things, contrived intent, and a general dislike for the war. "It was/is a genocide, but we cant give you any details about it". Altho, in fact, there are quite a number of "experts" who claim it started on October 7, 2023 or in the immediate weeks after, which can be used to assess their credibility. ←Metallurgist (talk)21:27, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I respectfully suggest you strike at least the first two sentences of your comment, which read as offensively dismissive of other editors, of the human suffering in Gaza, and of the victims of other genocides whose precise start date is not fully agreed upon or whose extent is not fully understood (e.g. can you give me the exact calendar date on which the Armenian genocide began, or identify which genocidal attacks during the War in Darfur were "actually" military operations?). This whole reply is also a complete strawman and misrepresentation of the actual scholarly discussion. There's nothing uncredible about academics correctly identifying something early on.WillowCity(talk)22:50, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My comment is not directed at any editor here. We can only go with what the sources say, and the sources are highly unreliable, which is why they deserve impeachment and rejection. And when claims of genocide are used to justifyburning synagogues,murdering killing Jews, andotherwiseattacking them, it certainly deserves intense scrutiny. Especially given the deficiencies and defects in the sources. Again, this is nothing to do with the editors. ←Metallurgist (talk)01:50, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Whataboutism: both the genocide in Gaza and actions, which resulted in a tiny fraction of the death compared to the Gaza genocide, can be bad. The sources are obviously reliable, at least when held to Wikipedia's definition, if they are written by experts and published in scholarly journals. You may argue that they are biased, but to say that they are unreliable because they do not all agree on a start date is dubious; especially so when the war itself only started ~2 years ago—giving limited time for scholarly consensus to form. Additionally, the killing of journalists and leveling of the strip does not help with evidence gathering. Otherwise, there are arguments which are for the Gaza genocide's veracity—critiquing them would be a better use of time—and the lack of start date seems insignificant in comparison to the arguments or their attempted rebuttals.
Also, it is disingenuous to say "killing Jews" when the attacked of the capital jewish museum shooting were israelis working for the embassy of israel. Does this make it better? No. Nonetheless, conflating antisemitism and antizionism makes it seem like these people were attacked because of their ethnicity rather than their political standings. Although unfortunate, political violence during times of political unrest is to be expected and "claims of genocide" didn't affect that, as none of the attackers cited academic consensus about the Gaza genocide as their motivation. And, to my knowledge, there hasn't been a paper arguing for attacks on Jews because of the Gaza genocide. So how is academia surrounding the Gaza genocide being used to justify any of those things?User:Easternsaharareview this02:40, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Must be the first genocide in history whenno one knows when it started orwhat specifically was genocidal about it, just vague statements about backbench politicians saying things, contrived intent, and a general dislike for the war.
If this is what you believe, then you haven't been listening at all to the arguments on the other side that have been presented to you throughout your extensive engagement with this topic. The idea that all genocide scholars and Wikipedia editors who concluded there is a genocide have no idea why it's a genocide after presenting detailed and specific arguments aboutwhy this qualifies as a genocide is extremely disrespectful, dismissive, and insulting. We have reasons for believing this is a genocide. You may not like these reasons, but simply stating they do not exist almost feels disruptive and like a violation ofWP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.
Easternsahara is correct that talking about bad things that have happened to Jews is a distraction from the actual argument at hand and is textbookwhataboutism. Their argument that it is misleading to characterize killing Israeli embassy workers as "killing Jews" (as if it was antisemitically motivated rather than politically motivated) is correct.
Saying "scholarly sources concluding there is genocide means we cannot say there is genocide because this (hypothetically) fuels antisemitism" (as far as I understood what you were saying) is not based in Wiki policy because we do not determine what is true and belongs in articles based on possible hypothetical political implications of facts.
Since you said no one knows what was genocidal about Israel's actions, I will lay out the argument that it is a genocide for you clearly:
A genocide is genocidal acts coupled with genocidal intent, per theGenocide Convention.
Genocidal intent is established in part throughstatements made by top Israeli officials, including the President, Prime Minister, and Defense Minister—some of which propose nuking Gaza, say all civilians (including all women and children) need to be punished, allude togenocidal biblical passages, and even explicitly advocate ethnic cleansing in the same vein as theNakba. One statement, by theMinister of Heritage, saidThe north of the Gaza Strip, more beautiful than ever. Everything is blown up and flattened, simply a pleasure for the eyes.
Genocidal actions according to Article II of the genocide convention that Israel engaged in were (a) killings, (b) inflicting serious bodily/mental harm, (c) inflicting conditions of life, and (d) preventing births, all with the intention of partially or fully destroying Palestinians as a people.These are some of the acts characterized as qualifying as genocidal under Article II (a-d).
No, the consensus was to change one sentence in the lede to be voiced. Numerous people, including many who are known to be more sympathetic to the Palestinians than not, have stated this was not a sitewide consensus, which is why that discussion is starting to take shape on village pump and elsewhere. ←Metallurgist (talk)21:13, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It actually has been stated by a few people that the RFC on the genocide page does not apply to a wiki-wide voicing RFC and that is why work is being done towards proposing that. However, the voicing there does add a little more support for voicing elsewhere. ←Metallurgist (talk)21:11, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Asking for a vote on names is a direct violation ofWP:NOTAVOTE. RMs cannot be a strawpoll of names where the highest voted name wins, only suggest potential names, which are then chosen based on the merits of the arguments in favor or against. Pretending this was an RM solely for the nom's strongly preferred name suggestion rather than an against-policy strawpoll, I oppose it on the grounds that the Gaza genocide page is about a debated subject. While having a page on it is merited to document the debate, I don't think a single discussion on said page about a passage on the page itself is sufficient to state that there is now a full, encyclopedia-wide consensus. I agree with the argument slightly above that it appears to be aWP:LOCALCONSENSUS.ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ)09:34, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Points well taken. I suppose a !vote to "Oppose" the whole approach of this RM is also equivalent to a !vote for option (b) (the status quo option). More importantly, it's an argument for option (b).Coining (talk)14:18, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This whole RM is a nightmare. There are two questions here: war vs genocide AND killed vs fatalities vs deaths vs casualties. @Bobfrombrockley made a good point about the difficulties of using genocide, so that makes war the obvious choice. That leaves us with the second part. @SuperPianoMan9167 made a good point that casualties would end up too broad, so that eliminates that. Oddly, I cant find any comparable lists like this, as I dont think war deaths are usually listed. I could not immediately find any genocide lists, altho one may exist. Deaths is also too broad for a war. So that leaves us with killed or fatalities. I am really fine with either. Finally, what a strange article. I am flattered to be imitated tho, and this gives me another idea. ←Metallurgist (talk)21:24, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Initially I was skeptical but I think it would be biased not to use genocide, in line with victim lists for all other genocides. I don't agree with the idea that it's POV to call it a genocide but not POV to call it a war, given that there are high quality sources that argue the opposite (ie. the war framing is itself biased or inaccurate).[1] Thus,support original proposal (t ·c)buIdhe15:57, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not please, it would only complicate the discussion tagging this in after a week. Would be best to see how this RM goes first before creating another or converting to a multi-page RM.CNC (talk)09:28, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Easternsahara I agree here withCNC that we should hold out on multi-page RM, as most multi-page RMs I've attempted have been disasters. That said, I am hesitant to open a new RM after this one closes, so I'd like if we could figure out issues that arise with the other article's name here in an (ideally) brief discussion.
If we do "civilians killed in the genocide" for this page and "journalists killed in the genocide" in the other page, that may cause some issues, e.g., with Lebanese journalists who were killed being included on the page. "In the Gaza war" seems to dodge a lot of issues where nationality is relevant, which is much more pertinent to the other list than the current makeup of this one in my view. So I like journalists killed in the Gaza war as-is, but if people decide on "fatalities" or "deaths" then I agree it would make sense to move to "journalist fatalities/deaths/etc".Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk)03:22, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
^"Other analysts have challenged the idea that this conflict can be described as warfare. Instead, they argue that the mass killings of civilians represent an act of genocide, crimes against humanity, or an ethnic cleansing campaign."[10]
LikeAlexandraaaacs1989 (talk)16:41, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
![[3]](/mt/?noimg=&dark=on&url=https%3a%2f%2fcommons.wikimedia.org%2fwiki%2fFile%3aMohammed_Barakat_(cropped).jpg){kind=link}