Abuse filter log

[ 0 => '==Questions==', 1 => '', 2 => '*"You biased maniac! You excluded all the 'oppose' !votes which argued against the idea of presenting Gaza genocide in wikivoice at all!"', 3 => '**If you think the best argument the opposers can come up with is "well, uh, the preceding RfC was flawed, because I disagree with its outcome", then I'm rather disappointed. They have far better arguments than that. Can [[Wikipedia:CCC|consensus change]]? Absolutely. But the RfC on including the Gaza genocide in wikivoice [[Talk:Gaza genocide/Archive 12#RfC on first sentence|was closed just a few months ago]] and WP:CCC notes that "proposing to change a recently established consensus can be disruptive". This RfC runs on the basis that the Gaza genocide article presents the genocide in wikivoice. Wikipedians love debating, but this shouldn't extend to arguing against every established consensus and axiom – otherwise every discussion at AfD would devolve into an argument on whether we really ''need'' notability. This is not a productive approach to discussion. Opposers should present arguments on the proposal at hand – which certainly has its flaws – not on coverage of the genocide on Wikipedia as a whole. M.Bitton puts it excellently in their comment here:', 4 => '***'''Support''' in line with the main article. We don't need a RfC to apply what is already supported by a RfC consensus, nor do we need to rediscuss what has been discussed ad nauseam. [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) [[Talk:Israel#c-M.Bitton-20251106170000-Vice regent-20251106021800|17:00, 6 November 2025 (UTC)]]', 5 => '', 6 => '==The Table==', 7 => '{| class="wikitable"', 8 => '|+', 9 => '!Comment (quoted)', 10 => '!Notes', 11 => '!Notes on your Notes', 12 => '!?', 13 => '|-', 14 => '|'''Support''' the Gaza genocide RfC established that we talk about the genocide in wikivoice so this change makes sense as this also applies to other articles [[User:Laura240406|Laura240406]] ([[User talk:Laura240406|talk]]) [[Talk:Israel#c-Laura240406-20251104131600-Markbassett-20251116192000|13:16, 4 November 2025 (UTC)]]', 15 => '|', 16 => '|Appeal to previous RfC', 17 => '|{{Yeac}}', 18 => '|-', 19 => '|'''Support''' proposed change.--[[User:Ortizesp|Ortizesp]] ([[User talk:Ortizesp|talk]]) [[Talk:Israel#c-Ortizesp-20251104155400-Markbassett-20251116192000|15:54, 4 November 2025 (UTC)]]', 20 => '|At least put a "per nom" in there, man.', 21 => '|No argument', 22 => '|{{Nayc}}', 23 => '|-', 24 => '|'''Support''': it makes no sense for one article to state its a genocide, and for others to not. It's very inconsistent and confusing; this needs to happen. [[User:TheSilksongPikmin|TheSilksongPikmin]] ([[User talk:TheSilksongPikmin|talk]]<nowiki> | </nowiki>[[Special:Contributions/TheSilksongPikmin|contribs]]) [[Talk:Israel#c-TheSilksongPikmin-20251104202300-Markbassett-20251116192000|20:23, 4 November 2025 (UTC)]]', 25 => '|', 26 => '|Appeal to previous RfC', 27 => '|{{Yeac}}', 28 => '|-', 29 => '|'''Oppose''' I am neutral to leaning oppose on the first part as the genocide allegations are contentious but what swings me fully to oppose is changing allegations of war crimes and crimes against humanity to specfically be about the occupation. That is not an improvement it is better to state the full allegations of war crimes and crimes against humanity more generally than specfically mention the occupation.[[User:GothicGolem29|GothicGolem29]] [[User talk:GothicGolem29|(Talk)]] [[Talk:Israel#c-GothicGolem29-20251105011100-Markbassett-20251116192000|01:11, 5 November 2025 (UTC)]]', 30 => '|', 31 => '|', 32 => '|{{Yeac}}', 33 => '|-', 34 => '|'''Oppose''' Not in wikivoice. The ICJ hasn't even ruled that Israel committed genocide during the Gaza war, so it is not up to wikipedia editors in the I-P editing area to rule in wikivoice that Israel has committed genocide.', 35 => '|Appeal to authority; past consensus ''is'' that the genocide may be presented in its article in wikivoice.', 36 => '|You are accusing this person of "appeal to authority" when you have previously wrote to wait for the ICJ ruling.', 37 => '|<del>{{Yeac}}</del>{{nayc}}', 38 => '|-', 39 => '|'''Strong oppose''' Its fine as is, and also the sentence as is should specify during the Gaza war', 40 => '|Do you have a justification for why it's fine as is?', 41 => '|', 42 => '|{{Idkc}}', 43 => '|-', 44 => '|'''Oppose'''. The ICJ has not ruled anything yet, and the current sentence more accurately describes the situation than the proposed one. Also, the proposed sentence implies that all of Israel's actions against Palestinians constitute genocide, a claim that was determined to not have consensus at [[Talk:Palestinian genocide accusation#Requested move 26 September 2025|Palestinian genocide accusation]]. [[User:Nehushtani|Nehushtani]] ([[User talk:Nehushtani|talk]]) [[Talk:Israel#c-Nehushtani-20251105064600-Markbassett-20251116192000|06:46, 5 November 2025 (UTC)]]', 45 => '|', 46 => '|Appeal to authority', 47 => '|{{Yeac}}', 48 => '|-', 49 => '|'''Support''' per the conclusion of the Gaza genocide RfC to state the genocide in Wikivoice. There is a strong consensus amongst experts that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza. Wikipedia does not require a ruling from the ICJ to call something a genocide (see e.g. [[Rohingya genocide]]) but instead reflects what RS say. [[User:EvansHallBear|EvansHallBear]] ([[User talk:EvansHallBear|talk]]) [[Talk:Israel#c-EvansHallBear-20251105070500-Markbassett-20251116192000|07:05, 5 November 2025 (UTC)]]', 50 => '|', 51 => '|Appeal to previous RfC. ICJ mention.', 52 => '|{{Yeac}}', 53 => '|-', 54 => '|'''Support''' - To be inline with the Gaza genocide article, though I think we should specify during the Gaza war. - [[User:Butterscotch Beluga|Butterscotch Beluga]] ([[User talk:Butterscotch Beluga|talk]]) [[Talk:Israel#c-Butterscotch Beluga-20251105123500-Markbassett-20251116192000|12:35, 5 November 2025 (UTC)]]', 55 => '|', 56 => '|Appeal to previous RfC', 57 => '|{{Yeac}}', 58 => '|-', 59 => '|'''Support''' per the consensus at [[Gaza genocide]]. [[User:Skitash|Skitash]] ([[User talk:Skitash|talk]]) [[Talk:Israel#c-Skitash-20251105124300-Markbassett-20251116192000|12:43, 5 November 2025 (UTC)]]', 60 => '|', 61 => '|Appeal to previous RfC', 62 => '|{{Yeac}}', 63 => '|-', 64 => '|'''Oppose'''. The proposed wording is editorial and too far from NPOV, a [[Wikipedia:5P2|founding pillar of Wikipedia]]. It does not even mention, for instance, that genocide accusations (which should be mentioned) draw their fair share of criticism too. Also '''Procedural oppose''' because the proposition does not mention if this wording should be introduced in lead or body. The "current" wording already mentions genocide. [[User:Place Clichy|Place Clichy]] ([[User talk:Place Clichy|talk]]) [[Talk:Israel#c-Place Clichy-20251105133700-Markbassett-20251116192000|13:37, 5 November 2025 (UTC)]]', 65 => '|', 66 => '|NPOV arugment', 67 => '|{{Yeac}}', 68 => '|-', 69 => '|'''Oppose''' - the current wording is clearer. The proposed wording makes the genocide and the occupation sound like two related but distinct things, but the genocide stems from the occupation practices and is an aspect of the occupation that has received particular criticism - the current wording better reflects that relationship. Also agree with some of the other oppose votes that the ICJ hasn't made a ruling on the genocide yet, so it is probably worth being careful what is given due prominence in the lead and what isn't. [[User:NHCLS|NHCLS]] ([[User talk:NHCLS|talk]]) [[Talk:Israel#c-NHCLS-20251105201000-Markbassett-20251116192000|20:10, 5 November 2025 (UTC)]]', 70 => '|', 71 => '|', 72 => '|{{Yeac}}', 73 => '|-', 74 => '|'''Strong support''' per closing notes of the Gaza genocide RfC. [[User:Alexandraaaacs1989|Alexandraaaacs1989]] ([[User talk:Alexandraaaacs1989|talk]]) [[Talk:Israel#c-Alexandraaaacs1989-20251106025800-Markbassett-20251116192000|02:58, 6 November 2025 (UTC)]]', 75 => '|', 76 => '|Appeal to previous RfC', 77 => '|{{Yeac}}', 78 => '|-', 79 => '|'''Support,''' as a natural outcome of the Gaza genocide RfC, leaning on the side of mentioning it attributed as VR proposed tho — '''[[User:The Cheesedealer|🧀Cheesedealer]] ''[[User talk:The Cheesedealer|^!!!⚟]]''''' [[Talk:Israel#c-The Cheesedealer-20251106100500-Markbassett-20251116192000|10:05, 6 November 2025 (UTC)]]', 80 => '|', 81 => '|Appeal to previous RfC', 82 => '|{{Yeac}}', 83 => '|-', 84 => '|'''Oppose''' - There is insufficient evidence to substantiate the assertion that Israel has committed genocide. Given the ongoing and highly contested nature of this issue, introducing language referring to genocide in the article at this stage would likely be perceived as a politically driven action. [[User:BassiStone|BassiStone]] ([[User talk:BassiStone|talk]]) [[Talk:Israel#c-BassiStone-20251106154000-Markbassett-20251116192000|15:40, 6 November 2025 (UTC)]]', 85 => '|Completely ignores existing consensus (see the first reply) and thus isn't really pertinent to this discussion – this comment is for an argument we've already had.', 86 => '|', 87 => '|{{Nayc}}', 88 => '|-', 89 => '|'''Strongly Oppose''' and investigate this comments section for canvassing. [[User:Scharb|Scharb]] ([[User talk:Scharb|talk]]) [[User:Scharb|Scharb]] ([[User talk:Scharb|talk]]) [[Talk:Israel#c-Scharb-20251106165600-Markbassett-20251116192000|16:56, 6 November 2025 (UTC)]]', 90 => '|WP:NOTAVOTE plus aspersions without evidence = no thanks.', 91 => '|', 92 => '|{{Nayc}}', 93 => '|-', 94 => '|'''Support''' per the consensus at Gaza Genocide, however a date range should be clarified as @[[User:Butterscotch Beluga|Butterscotch Beluga]] points out. [[User:Monk of Monk Hall|Monk of Monk Hall]] ([[User talk:Monk of Monk Hall|talk]]) [[Talk:Israel#c-Monk of Monk Hall-20251106204200-Markbassett-20251116192000|20:42, 6 November 2025 (UTC)]]', 95 => ':', 96 => ':', 97 => '|', 98 => '|Appeal to previous RfC', 99 => '|{{Yeac}}', 100 => '|-', 101 => '|'''Oppose''', since when did this contentious topic stop being contentious? If we decided that everyone agrees there's a genocide and that everyone else is not reliable then I suggest to make a larger move altogether and completely remove this from the contentious topic area - changing every article about the topic accordingly. We should make an RFC about the entire wiki, not on a slow item by item list. [[User:Bharel|Bar Harel]] ([[User talk:Bharel|talk]]) [[Talk:Israel#c-Bharel-20251106223400-Markbassett-20251116192000|22:34, 6 November 2025 (UTC)]]', 102 => '|I'm treating this more as a general comment than a !vote about the specific proposal.', 103 => '|', 104 => '|{{Idkc}}', 105 => '|-', 106 => '|'''Support''' since there is an academic consensus that the Gaza genocide isn't a mere accusation [[Special:Contributions/Abo Yemen|𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨]] [[User:Abo Yemen|Abo Yemen]] ([[User talk:Abo Yemen|𓃵]]) [[Talk:Israel#c-Abo Yemen-20251108161100-Markbassett-20251116192000|16:11, 8 November 2025 (UTC)]]', 107 => '|', 108 => '|Appeal to authority', 109 => '|{{Yeac}}', 110 => '|-', 111 => '|'''Strong support''': There is an academic consensus that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza. On top of that, there has already been an RfC for the [[Gaza genocide]] article, where the community consensus came out to be in favor of stating the genocide to be in wikivoice. — [[User:EarthDude|'''EarthDude''']] ([[User talk:EarthDude|'''Talk''']]) [[Talk:Israel#c-EarthDude-20251109210200-Markbassett-20251116192000|21:02, 9 November 2025 (UTC)]]', 112 => '|', 113 => '|Appeal to authority.', 114 => 'Appeal to previous RfC', 115 => '|{{Yeac}}', 116 => '|-', 117 => '|'''Support saying Israel has committed genocide in wikivoice''', but open to different wordings. The '''overwhelming majority''' of scholarly sources affirm that Israel has committed genocide. Over the course of months an enormous amount of sources have been compiled ([[Template:Expert opinions in the Gaza genocide debate]]) and it is an utter violation of [[WP:FALSEBALANCE]] to give equal weight to "Israel has committed genocide" vs "Israel has not committed genocide".'''[[User talk:Vice regent|VR]]''' _{(Please [[Template:Ping|ping]] on reply)} [[Talk:Israel#c-Vice regent-20251106021800-Survey|02:18, 6 November 2025 (UTC)]]', 118 => '|', 119 => '|Actual sourcing', 120 => '|{{Yeac}}', 121 => '|-', 122 => '|'''Support''', per Laura240406, TheSilksongPikmin, and EvansHallBear. It doesn't do to have inconsistency in framing across articles. We are well beyond mere "accusations", as the current framing would have it, and have reached the stage where [[UNHRC Commission of Inquiry on Gaza genocide|commissions of inquiry]] are making findings, where scholarly opinion is overwhelming, where NGOs in Israel, Palestine and abroad have reached the same conclusion. Time to call a [[WP:SPADE]] a spade.[[User:WillowCity|'''WillowCity''']][[User talk:WillowCity|^(talk)]] [[Talk:Israel#c-WillowCity-20251106022000-Vice regent-20251106021800|02:20, 6 November 2025 (UTC)]]', 123 => '|', 124 => '|Appeal to authority.', 125 => '|{{Yeac}}', 126 => '|-', 127 => '|I '''Support''' this on the basis of widespread academic consensus (see this statement from the International Association of Genocide Scholars for instance), declarations from international human rights organizations (including multiple from the UN [2][3] and organizations in Israel like B'Tselem), the assessments of legal scholars [4][5], an RfC at Gaza Genocide with largescale community participation and involvement [[Talk:Gaza genocide/Archive 12#RfC on first sentence|[6]]], and consistency with our article, [[Gaza Genocide]]. -[[User:Darouet|Darouet]] ([[User talk:Darouet|talk]]) [[Talk:Israel#c-Darouet-20251106022200-Vice regent-20251106021800|02:22, 6 November 2025 (UTC)]]', 128 => '|', 129 => '|Appeal to authority.', 130 => 'Appeal to previous RfC', 131 => '|{{Yeac}}', 132 => '|-', 133 => '|'''Oppose'''. In my view, an apparent scholarly consensus or statements from human rights organizations do not clear the very high bar needed for Wikivoice. In particular, finding statements which support this characterization ignores the fact that many non-ideological groups have not formed a verdict and thus would not outright deny that Israel is committing a genocide. Those groups should also be considered in claims of broad consensus. For example, in this case neither the ICC or ICJ - currently considered the central legal authorities on such matters - have directly accused Israel's government of genocide/failing to prevent a genocide as they have in previous cases like Rwanda and Srebrenica (ICJ merely made the verdict that Gaza's Palestinians had a plausible right to be protected from genocide). Most of the world's governments likewise have not accused Israel of genocide, and many outright deny it. [[User:Michaelas10|Michaelas10]] ([[User talk:Michaelas10|talk]]) [[Talk:Israel#c-Michaelas10-20251106025200-Vice regent-20251106021800|02:52, 6 November 2025 (UTC)]]', 134 => '|Same with BassiStone's comment: we've already discussed the idea of Gaza genocide in wikivoice; this is not the place to relitigate it.', 135 => '|You ignored the argument about non-ideological groups. You ignored the ICJ argument. ', 136 => '|{{Nayc}}', 137 => '|-', 138 => '|'''Strong support''' according to academic consensus. Anything less than a full description of genocide is unbalanced. [[User:Wound theology|wound theology]][[User talk:Wound theology|◈]] [[Talk:Israel#c-Wound theology-20251106033000-Vice regent-20251106021800|03:30, 6 November 2025 (UTC)]]', 139 => '|', 140 => '|Appeal to authority.', 141 => '|{{Yeac}}', 142 => '|-', 143 => '|'''Support''' proposed change per the [[Talk:Gaza genocide/Archive 12#RfC on first sentence|Gaza genocide RfC]], which established a consensus among editors that a substantial and significant majority of scholars have declared that Israel is committing a genocide. [[User:Katzrockso|Katzrockso]] ([[User talk:Katzrockso|talk]]) [[Talk:Israel#c-Katzrockso-20251106045400-Vice regent-20251106021800|04:54, 6 November 2025 (UTC)]]', 144 => '|', 145 => '|Appeal to previous RfC', 146 => '|{{Yeac}}', 147 => '|-', 148 => '|'''Strong oppose''' - Per [[User:Michaelas10]] , apparent consensus among scholars and human rights organizations do not merit the descriptor "Genocide". Wikivoicing "Genocide" as in the proposed lead is a case of blatant [[WP:POVPUSH]]. Especially when no legally definitive answer exists as to whether the occurrences constitute a genocide. [[User:Kvinnen|Kvinnen]] ([[User talk:Kvinnen|talk]])', 149 => '|X per Michaelas10.', 150 => '|You ignored the POV argument.', 151 => '|{{Nayc}}', 152 => '|-', 153 => '|'''Support''' there is overwhelming consensus on this being a genocide among experts, academics, and international organizations, as the recent RFC in the [[Gaza genocide]] already clarified. --[[User:Ita140188|Ita140188]] ([[User talk:Ita140188|talk]]) [[Talk:Israel#c-Ita140188-20251106093500-Vice regent-20251106021800|09:35, 6 November 2025 (UTC)]]', 154 => '|', 155 => '|Appeal to previous RfC', 156 => '|{{Yeac}}', 157 => '|-', 158 => '|'''Support''' for [[Wikipedia:CON|consistency]] across articles. The RfC has already done most of the work in determining that the overwhelming majority of reliable sources do think genocide is happening, to the point that any denial is [[Wikipedia:FRINGE|fringe]]. I don't think this discussion on whether the Gaza genocide is actually a genocide needs revisiting, as the comments on Jimbo's comment on the [[Talk:Gaza genocide|Gaza genocide talk page]] make it quite clear that they think the RfC is quite valid. Now consensus can change, including both academic and wikipedia consensus, but it has not done so yet and it would too soon for such a change to happen anyway, academia doesn't move so quick and this case isn't an exception. [[User:Easternsahara]]_{[[Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of World Heritage Sites in Arab States/archive1|review]] and [[Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Intangible Cultural Heritage elements in Palestine/archive1|this]]} [[Talk:Israel#c-Easternsahara-20251106103800-Ita140188-20251106093500|10:38, 6 November 2025 (UTC)]]', 159 => '|', 160 => '|Appeal to previous RfC', 161 => '|{{Yeac}}', 162 => '|-', 163 => '|'''Strong oppose''' and there also should be a revisit to the supposed "consensus" which was weak and not well supported by the broad community on the [[Gaza genocide]] page (which should also have its article title renamed), even [[user:Jimbo Wales]] had to get involved here and suggest "bold" and "immediate" action to remedy this clear and blatant violation of NPOV. Let us not extend the errors of one article to yet another article. Instead, we should do the work of reversing that error both at its origin and on all articles where it is present. [[User:Iljhgtn|Iljhgtn]] ([[User talk:Iljhgtn|talk]]) [[Talk:Israel#c-Iljhgtn-20251106135800-Vice regent-20251106021800|13:58, 6 November 2025 (UTC)]]', 164 => '|We can do better than appeals to authority.', 165 => '|Second time you accused an Oppose vote of appeal to authority. Why aren't Support votes accused of appeal to authority?', 166 => '|{{Nayc}}', 167 => '|-', 168 => '|'''Oppose''': Doing so is to take a side in a discussion, and that goes against NPOV, regardless of any RFC. Besides, it would be more stuff to clean up when the WMF decides that this blatant POV pushing has gone too far. [[User:Cambalachero|Cambalachero]] ([[User talk:Cambalachero|talk]]) [[Talk:Israel#c-Cambalachero-20251106150400-Vice regent-20251106021800|15:04, 6 November 2025 (UTC)]]', 169 => '|I grudgingly admit this presents a logical argument, but every fibre of my body is yelling: "yes, we take a side in every discussion! We take a side on whether the Earth is round, whether Goering was a war criminal, and whether Franz Ferdinand was shot! We want NPOV, not WP:FALSEBALANCE!"', 170 => '|You admit this is logical but yet you still closed against NPOV?', 171 => '|{{Yeac}}', 172 => '|-', 173 => '|'''Oppose''' for being less informative. Name-checking "genocide" is less helpful here than giving, in ~the same number of words, the fuller weight of what's behind the label. The second iteration is substantially less helpful along these lines. (Though "academia" should definitely be added alongside human rights orgs and the UN) [[User:Placeholderer|Placeholderer]] ([[User talk:Placeholderer|talk]]) [[Talk:Israel#c-Placeholderer-20251106164800-Vice regent-20251106021800|16:48, 6 November 2025 (UTC)]]', 174 => '|', 175 => '|', 176 => '|{{Yeac}}', 177 => '|-', 178 => '|'''Support''' in line with the main article. We don't need a RfC to apply what is already supported by a RfC consensus, nor do we need to rediscuss what has been discussed ad nauseam. [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) [[Talk:Israel#c-M.Bitton-20251106170000-Vice regent-20251106021800|17:00, 6 November 2025 (UTC)]]', 179 => '|', 180 => '|Appeal to previous RfC', 181 => '|{{Yeac}}', 182 => '|-', 183 => '|'''Support wiki voicing genocide, not necessarily this specific wording''' the vast majority of scholarly sources available agree, so WP should follow them. Opposes on those grounds have already been rejected by consensus and are not policy based. ([[User talk:Buidhe|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Buidhe|c]]) '''[[User:Buidhe|buidhe]]''' [[Talk:Israel#c-Buidhe-20251106174400-Vice regent-20251106021800|17:44, 6 November 2025 (UTC)]]', 184 => '|', 185 => '|Appeal to authority.', 186 => '|{{Yeac}}', 187 => '|-', 188 => '|'''Strong Oppose''' per Iljhgtn, Katzrockso. The Gaza "genocide" RfC process was flawed. RS do not unequivocally or overwhelmingly support its conclusion. [[User:Dr Fell|Dr Fell]] ([[User talk:Dr Fell|talk]]) [[Talk:Israel#c-Dr Fell-20251106182000-Vice regent-20251106021800|18:20, 6 November 2025 (UTC)]]', 189 => '|The horse is dead, mate.', 190 => '|What kind of comment is this in assessing a poor vote?', 191 => '|{{Nayc}}', 192 => '|-', 193 => '|'''Support''' per the academic consensus ([[WP:BESTSOURCES]]). The argument that we need the result of the ICJ case for this, while it may seem sensible, isn't supported by any policy, and this is not the topic for [[WP:IAR]]. The sentence should make clear this is only during the Gaza war. Mention of opposing POVs (not just "Israel denies it") should immediately follow the sentence to maintain NPOV. [[User:Kowal2701|Kowal2701]] ([[User talk:Kowal2701|talk]]) [[Talk:Israel#c-Kowal2701-20251106202200-Vice regent-20251106021800|20:22, 6 November 2025 (UTC)]]', 194 => '|', 195 => '|', 196 => '|{{Yeac}}', 197 => '|-', 198 => '|'''Oppose''', not because of any objection to stating the current [[Gaza genocide]] in wikivoice, but due to the fact that this wording implies that Israel has been committed genocide in Gaza since before October 7th, which is not something we should state in wikivoice. I would therefore have no objections against Wasianpower's alternate wording. [[User:QuicoleJR|QuicoleJR]] ([[User talk:QuicoleJR|talk]]) [[Talk:Israel#c-QuicoleJR-20251106215500-Vice regent-20251106021800|21:55, 6 November 2025 (UTC)]]', 199 => '|', 200 => '|', 201 => '|{{Yeac}}', 202 => '|-', 203 => '|'''Oppose''' – The proposal fails [[WP:NPOV]], [[WP:V]], and [[WP:RS]] standards, and misapplies the result of the Gaza genocide RfC. That local consensus does not automatically extend to unrelated pages, particularly one about a state, where a much higher level of neutrality and contextual balance is required. Each article must reach its own consensus based on its own scope and sourcing ([[WP:LOCALCONSENSUS]]).[[User:Boutboul|Michael Boutboul]] ([[User talk:Boutboul|talk]]) [[Talk:Israel#c-Boutboul-20251106220600-Vice regent-20251106021800|22:06, 6 November 2025 (UTC)]]', 204 => '|Yes! A ''good'' comment about the previous RfC!', 205 => '|So all arguments that say the previous RfC establishes policy can be ignored?', 206 => '|{{Yeac}}', 207 => '|-', 208 => '|'''Oppose''' - NPOV, among others, as per above. [[User:Sir Joseph|Sir Joseph]] ^{[[User talk:Sir Joseph|(talk)]]} [[Talk:Israel#c-Sir Joseph-20251106224200-Vice regent-20251106021800|22:42, 6 November 2025 (UTC)]]', 209 => '|', 210 => '|', 211 => '|{{Yeac}}', 212 => '|-', 213 => '|'''Oppose''' There is a working group located at [[Wikipedia:Genocide]] where we are creating a new policy to determine when something can be called a "genocide" in wikivoice. No conflicts should be called a "genocide" until this new policy is established. Jimmy Wales supports this group and is also working on new NPOV policies. [[User:LDW5432|LDW5432]] ([[User talk:LDW5432|talk]]) [[Talk:Israel#c-LDW5432-20251107000200-Vice regent-20251106021800|00:02, 7 November 2025 (UTC)]]', 214 => '|I'm taking this about a general comment about how we should approach the topic, not a policy-based objection to this specific proposal.', 215 => '|You ignored this person's vote. They wrote oppose and you say its a "general comment"?', 216 => '|{{Idkc}}', 217 => '|-', 218 => '|'''Support''': This is in line with what was decided in the previous RfC. Also, please see the graphs regarding scholarly assessments that VR posted above. [[User:David A|David A]] ([[User talk:David A|talk]]) [[Talk:Israel#c-David A-20251107085400-Vice regent-20251106021800|08:54, 7 November 2025 (UTC)]]', 219 => '|', 220 => '|Appeal to previous RfC', 221 => '|{{Yeac}}', 222 => '|-', 223 => '|'''Support wikivoicing genocide, not necessarily this specific wording''': As [[Talk:Israel#c-Buidhe-20251106174400-Vice regent-20251106021800|per buidhe]] and the FAQ answer at [[Talk:Gaza genocide]] that links to the RfC, <q>The term "Gaza Genocide" is supported by a sufficient number of reliable sources. It is the [[Talk:Gaza genocide/Archive 12#RfC on first sentence|consensus]], not an opinion, that it is a genocide</q>. [[User:Boud|Boud]] ([[User talk:Boud|talk]]) [[Talk:Israel#c-Boud-20251107113100-Vice regent-20251106021800|11:31, 7 November 2025 (UTC)]]', 224 => '|', 225 => '|Appeal to previous RfC', 226 => '|{{Yeac}}', 227 => '|-', 228 => '|'''Oppose''' This clearly violates [[WP:NPOV]]. This is probably the most high profile case of opinion being stated as fact. Even many of the arguments in favor of using the Wikivoice try to use the opinions of experts as evidence, but even those are just that, opinions. This is against the black letter and the spirit of NPOV. Generally, the standard protocol is that when we are citing opinion rather than fact, we must use attribution rather than wikivoice. The fact that this conversation and similar ones have been this contentious highlights that wikivoice is inappropriate here. Additionally, by using wikivoice, Wikipedia is actively taking a side in the Israel-Gaza dispute. That was never supposed to be our role. Our role is to provide a neutral, verifiable, encyclopedia that simply informs the reader of all of the facts. This necessitates us not taking sides on a regional dispute. [[User:Gjb0zWxOb|Gjb0zWxOb]] ([[User talk:Gjb0zWxOb|talk]]) [[Talk:Israel#c-Gjb0zWxOb-20251107164000-Vice regent-20251106021800|16:40, 7 November 2025 (UTC)]]', 229 => '|', 230 => '|', 231 => '|{{Yeac}}', 232 => '|-', 233 => '|'''Oppose''' The [[Gaza genocide]] article is a disaster of NPOV and a source of public embarrassment to the encyclopedia. It reads like it was written by a committee of the most hostile anti-Israel academics available. The nomination would cause the related shortcomings of balance and readability to metastasize to this article. I would suggest waiting until the concerns raised by @[[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]] and @[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] in [[Talk:Gaza genocide]] are satisfactorily addressed before using it as a model for this article. [[User:Tioaeu8943|Tioaeu8943]] ([[User talk:Tioaeu8943|talk]]) [[Talk:Israel#c-Tioaeu8943-20251107203000-Vice regent-20251106021800|20:30, 7 November 2025 (UTC)]]', 234 => '|Not pertinent to ''this'' RfC; stop relitigating old battles. Besides – Zero justification for the hyperbolic statements, which are only backed by vague appeals to authority.', 235 => '|Another "appeal to authority" only on an Oppose vote.', 236 => '|{{Nayc}}', 237 => '|-', 238 => '|'''Support''' per Vice Regent and the massive amount of data and text at the Gaza genocide RFC. Many the opposes here aren't rooted in data/facts and seemingly misunderstand NPOV. The community put it's blood, sweat, and tears into that extremely well-attended RFC and came out of the other side with a consensus. Trying to create the reverse consensus here with less people makes no sense! The facts are not different! [[User:Parabolist|Parabolist]] ([[User talk:Parabolist|talk]]) [[Talk:Israel#c-Parabolist-20251107211900-Vice regent-20251106021800|21:19, 7 November 2025 (UTC]]', 239 => '|', 240 => '|Appeal to previous RfC', 241 => '|{{Yeac}}', 242 => '|-', 243 => '|'''Support''' Proposed wording is well sourced. [[User:FropFrop|FropFrop]] ([[User talk:FropFrop|talk]]) [[Talk:Israel#c-FropFrop-20251107234900-Vice regent-20251106021800|23:49, 7 November 2025 (UTC]]', 244 => '|Not well-put, given the concerns are NPOV, not V, but what see what they're trying to say.', 245 => '|', 246 => '|{{Yeac}}', 247 => '|-', 248 => '|'''Support.''' There is large agreement amongst scholars that it is a genocide. Carriyng out a genocide against the indengious palestinian population is obviously notable and must be included. --[[User:Supreme Deliciousness|Supreme Deliciousness]] ([[User talk:Supreme Deliciousness|talk]]) [[Talk:Israel#c-Supreme Deliciousness-20251108044200-Vice regent-20251106021800|04:42, 8 November 2025 (UTC)]]', 249 => '|', 250 => '|Appeal to authority', 251 => '|{{Yeac}}', 252 => '|-', 253 => '|'''Oppose''' on several grounds. First, per NPOV we don't engage in disputes. This is clearly a dispute among many people about what to call this. As such, when we refer to it in Wiki-voice we are violating NPOV by picking a side in the dispute. Second, based on information above there is not a consensus among various sources that this is a genocide. If we go by the chart to scholars then even now we have 1/5 don't agree this is a genocide. That is more than sufficient to say this is a contested claim. Add to that the fact that "genocide" doesn't have a hard and fast definition. Also, a point raised above is that some sources said this was a Genocide right form the time Israel was attacked. It was argued that those were just sources that were foretelling the future. Alternatively, they are sources that have already made up their minds thus should be discounted. Ultimately, decades from now the world may look back on this as a Genocide. However, in the hear and now NPOV says we don't pick sides and thus we should not call it Genocide. [[User:Springee|Springee]] ([[User talk:Springee|talk]]) [[Talk:Israel#c-Springee-20251108155600-Vice regent-20251106021800|15:56, 8 November 2025 (UTC)]]', 254 => '|Reasonable point about genocide's definition and the oddness of the graph.', 255 => '|', 256 => '|{{Yeac}}', 257 => '|-', 258 => '|'''Support'''. If I was writing an encyclopedia, I would not call it genocide - indeed I would follow Christian Gerlach's lead and abandon the term "genocide" altogether. But Wikipedia has made its bed, in the immediate sense by the Gaza genocide RfC and in the broader sense by deciding to blindly follow academic's politics while denying that they have them (there was the utterly absurd claim made recently that academics in multiple different fields and countries can't all be biased the same way on average!) and now it must lie in it by plastering "commited genocide" and "denied genocide" on every relevant article, e.g. most living Israelis with articles.--[[User:Eldomtom2|Eldomtom2]] ([[User talk:Eldomtom2|talk]]) [[Talk:Israel#c-Eldomtom2-20251110022300-Survey|02:23, 10 November 2025 (UTC)]]', 259 => ':', 260 => '|Reads like a sarcastic, veiled "oppose" given the last sentence, but whatever.', 261 => '|Appeal to previous RfC', 262 => '|{{Yeac}}', 263 => '|-', 264 => '|'''Oppose'''. I don't think the Gaza Genocide RfC should be binding here. This is a general article on Israel, and it should take into account opinions beyond academia, especially since academia is at least perceived as having an anti-Israel bias (for example, Harvard's Presidential Task Force on Combating Antisemitism and Anti-Israeli Bias) The idea that there is an academic consensus should explicitly cited, not implied by Wikivoice. The primary source given is [[Template:Expert opinions in the Gaza genocide debate]] which is a [[WP:SYNTH]] of academic sources. If it can't be used in the article, it can't be used to justify Wikivoice. It is easy to find sources in reliable, non-academic sources that the war in Gaza isn't genocidal (The New York Times, for example, is willing to run a piece called "No, Israel Is Not Committing Genocide in Gaza"). The debate exists, and the text should reflect that. [[User:Phirazo|Phirazo]] ([[User talk:Phirazo|talk]]) [[Talk:Israel#c-Phirazo-20251110145200-Survey|14:52, 10 November 2025 (UTC)]]', 265 => '|Provides an argument as to why the Gaza Genocide RfC shouldn't be binding rather than just ignoring it.', 266 => '|', 267 => '|{{Yeac}}', 268 => '|-', 269 => '|'''Oppose'''. No ICJ ruling; many (most?) of the entries in [[Talk:Israel#Comment: Academic consensus about genocide in Gaza|this table]] are non-experts (Sociology PHD student , Professor of Comparative Literature, etc.); even according to this list there is a sizable minority who disagrees with the characterisation. [[User:Alaexis|Alaexis]]_{[[User talk:Alaexis|¿question?]]} [[Talk:Israel#c-Alaexis-20251114223700-Survey|22:37, 14 November 2025 (UTC)]]', 270 => '|', 271 => '|', 272 => '|{{Yeac}}', 273 => '|-', 274 => '|'''Oppose''' For a variety of reasons, including [[WP:NPOV]] concerns and the points made by [[User:Alaexis|Alaexis]] ([[User talk:Alaexis|talk]]) and [[User:Iljhgtn|Iljhgtn]] ([[User talk:Iljhgtn|talk]]), but mostly because I cannot square the notion that there is a Wikipedia consensus with the range of views expressed on this page (let alone in the outside world). There simply is no consensus, and I hope any admin closing this RfC doesn't robotically apply a former RfC given that [[WP:CONSENSUSCANCHANGE]]. [[User:Coining|Coining]] ([[User talk:Coining|talk]]) [[Talk:Israel#c-Coining-20251115013700-Alaexis-20251114223700|01:37, 15 November 2025 (UTC]]', 275 => '|I'm taking this as a "oppose per Alaexis", which is solid. I'm going to ignore the "I cannot square the notion that there is a Wikipedia consensus with the range of views expressed on this page (let alone in the outside world)" because that seems like an argument from personal incredulity.', 276 => '|', 277 => '|{{Yeac}}{{Idkc}}', 278 => '|-', 279 => '|', 280 => '*'''Oppose - and Invalid RFC''' Oppose per [[WP:WIKIVOICE]], but also this RFC has a false premise so is invalid at "After two months of [[Talk:Gaza genocide/Archive 12#RfC on first sentence|discussion]] - consensus was reached to phrase the opening in Wikipedia’s voice that Israel is committing genocide against Palestinians." In correction, the close of the linked RFC did *not* make the determination stated, the close only stated that the first four words of [[Gaza genocide]] should be "The Gaza genocide is" and left anything more to further discussion. See also [[Talk:Gaza genocide#"Consensus there is genocide" in lead|there is no WP consensus about saying there is consensus]].', 281 => '', 282 => ':Using WIKIVOICE otherwise fails bullets in [[WP:WIKIVOICE]] - it may be generally failing NPOV or UNDUE for the article Israel, but in the WIKIVOICE policy I note', 283 => '::*'''Avoid stating [[Opinion|opinions]] as [[Fact|facts]].'''', 284 => '::*'''Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts.'''', 285 => '::*'''Prefer nonjudgmental language.'''', 286 => ':Cheers [[User:Markbassett|Markbassett]] ([[User talk:Markbassett|talk]]) [[Talk:Israel#c-Markbassett-20251116194100-Alaexis-20251114223700|19:41, 16 November 2025 (UTC]]', 287 => '|', 288 => '|', 289 => '|{{Yeac}}', 290 => '|-', 291 => '|'''Weak support'''. Calling it a genocide in wiki voice was ''allowed'' by the previous consensus, not ''required''. The particular proposed wording isn't great - probably should be two separate sentences. That said, any hedging on the wording is essentially a statement that the two positions are equally credible. My opinion is that a truly neutral point of view needs to emphasize that they are not, and the current state of the lead fails at this. [[User talk:Casualdejekyll|casualdejekyll]] [[Talk:Israel#c-Casualdejekyll-20251118212900-Alaexis-20251114223700|21:29, 18 November 2025 (UTC)]]', 292 => '|', 293 => '|Appeal to previous RfC', 294 => '|{{Yeac}}', 295 => '|-', 296 => '|', 297 => '*'''Support general proposal, agnostic on specific wording''' As EvansHallBear and others have exaustively demonstated, there is a firm and still growing consensus among scholars that Israel's actions in Gaza constistute a genocide. Wikipedia can, and in by policy must, reflect that point. Unfortunate as it is, many readers do not read past the lead so making sure the lead is able to <q>establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies</q> is incredibly important. We cannot do that if we fail to mention Israel's ongoing genocide.', 298 => '', 299 => ':That being said, I might prefer [[Template:Gaza genocide consensus sentence]] and a seperate sentence about the occupation. I feel perhaps the occupation and the current genocide in Gaza are independantly important things for readers to know.', 300 => '', 301 => '[[User:CamAnders|CamAnders]] ([[User talk:CamAnders|talk]]) [[Talk:Israel#c-CamAnders-20251119113600-Survey|11:36, 19 November 2025 (UTC)]]', 302 => '|', 303 => '|', 304 => '|{{Yeac}}', 305 => '|-', 306 => '|'''Oppose.''' The main supporting argument seems to be that there is something like "scientific evidence" for a genocide, but that assessment is based on a misunderstanding of how social sciences work. Mainly due to the complexity of their subjects, they require individual judgments to a much larger extent than sciences like physics or chemistry. For example, there are many different [[genocide definitions]]. Each of them comprises several criteria, and none of these criteria are measurable in the way that physical properties are measurable. Ultimately, individual opinions are involved in all judgments regarding history and politics. That's the main reason why there is disagreement among social scientists about the question whether Israel's actions against Gaza constitute genocide or not. And while judgments by historians and other social scientists are important, they are not based on empirical data and statistical analysis like the findings of other sciences. They are not entirely different from judgments by politicians. In a nutshell: There is disagreement among social scientists regarding this issue, there are arguments for and against, and they all involve a good deal of personal opinion. We should not state them as fact. — [[User:Chrisahn|Chrisahn]] ([[User talk:Chrisahn|talk]]) [[Talk:Israel#c-Chrisahn-20251119233400-CamAnders-20251119113600|23:34, 19 November 2025 (UTC)]]', 307 => '|', 308 => '|', 309 => '|{{Yeac}}', 310 => '|-', 311 => '|', 312 => '*'''Mixed support'''.No wiki formatting I agree with including the notion of genocide in the lead, for consistency purposes. I link here to a [[Template:Expert opinions in the Gaza genocide debate|template]] on the position of various experts. However, I agree with various editors that the proposed text is not satisfactory. Criticism from the international community has not been because of the occupation and this proposed lead opens the question on when the genocide started. I think that the proposed alternative by @[[User:wasianpower]] is decent.', 313 => '', 314 => '[[User:Chefs-kiss|Chefs-kiss]] ([[User talk:Chefs-kiss|talk]]) [[Talk:Israel#c-Chefs-kiss-20251121152600-Survey|15:26, 21 November 2025 (UTC)]]', 315 => '|', 316 => '|', 317 => '|{{Yeac}}', 318 => '|-', 319 => '|'''Oppose change, support current lead'''-I personally believe that Israel is guilty of genocide, but this is still very much under dispute, and we should not say so in Wikipedia voice. I see nothing wrong with the current version and no compelling reason to change it. [[User:Display name 99|Display name 99]] ([[User talk:Display name 99|talk]]) [[Talk:Israel#c-Display name 99-20251122180400-Chefs-kiss-20251121152600|18:04, 22 November 2025 (UTC)]]', 320 => '|', 321 => '|', 322 => '|{{Yeac}}', 323 => '|-', 324 => '|'''Support change with a qualifier''' per [[WP:NPOV]]. The current wording <q>... along with accusations from human rights organisations and UN officials that it has committed war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide against the Palestinians during the Gaza war</q> is too weak given the scholarship. It's not just "accusations" from "human rights organisations and UN officials". There should also be a qualifier such as "some scholars disagree".', 325 => '|', 326 => '|', 327 => '|{{Yeac}}', 328 => '|-', 329 => '|'''Oppose''' <q>for being less informative. Name-checking "genocide" is less helpful here than giving … the fuller weight of what's behind the label. The second iteration is substantially less helpful along these lines</q>, per [[User:Placeholderer|Placeholderer]]. The new text being presented is too blunt and fails to give historical context. I could probably support [[User:Wasianpower|Wasianpower]]’s alternative suggestion <q>Israel's occupation of the Palestinian territories has drawn sustained international criticism. Experts, human-rights organisations and UN officials have described Israel's actions as war crimes and crimes against humanity. Following the [[October 7 Attacks]] in 2023, Israel began committing [[Gaza Genocide|genocide against Palestinians in Gaza]]</q>. His stated aim was <q>to emphasize the historical criticism of Israel's treatment of Palestinians, which should be given weight to avoid recency bias</q>, which is apt on the country article.[[User:Pincrete|Pincrete]] ([[User talk:Pincrete|talk]]) [[Talk:Israel#c-Pincrete-20251124081100-Chefs-kiss-20251121152600|08:11, 24 November 2025 (UTC)]]', 330 => '|', 331 => '|', 332 => '|{{Yeac}}', 333 => '|-', 334 => '|'''Support''' in the sense that the proposed wording change is closer to NPOV in that it better reflects scholarly consensus. Having said that I take Pincrete's point (just above) and do prefer the wording put forward by Wasianpower quoted by Pincrete. The RfC proposed wording lacks context and information. So, while the RfC proposed change is better than what we've got it falls short of what it should be. [[User:DeCausa|DeCausa]] ([[User talk:DeCausa|talk]]) [[Talk:Israel#c-DeCausa-20251124082800-Chefs-kiss-20251121152600|08:28, 24 November 2025 (UT]]', 335 => '|', 336 => '|Appeal to authority', 337 => '|{{Yeac}}', 338 => '|-', 339 => '|S'''upport''' because as others have noted we already have existing consensus elsewhere on-wiki that the off-wiki consensus is that a genocide is occurring, and while of course articles can be independent and consensus is not a sledgehammer, we are re-litigating arguments we have already had and a conclusion we've already come to. If nothing else this is confusing for the reader, and it imo creates NPOV issues by presenting the same information with vastly different levels of certainty depending on the subject of the article. We've already discussed and resolved many of the objections the oppose !votes have raised: We do not wait for an ICJ ruling to label, i.e., the Rohingya genocide or the Armenian genocide; we follow the scholarly and expert consensus. Applying a different, unprecedented standard exclusively to Israel is a form of WP:UNDUE weight, elevating the political stance of a few governments over the methodological conclusions of subject-matter experts. Wikipedia is [[WP:NOTCENSORED]] which is especially important in a CTOP like this one – when a preponderance of RS make a determination, no matter if we agree or disagree with the information, we have a duty to the reader to present it. [[User:Smallangryplanet|Smallangryplanet]] ([[User talk:Smallangryplanet|talk]]) [[Talk:Israel#c-Smallangryplanet-20251125121900-Chefs-kiss-20251121152600|12:19, 25 November 2025 (UTC)]]', 340 => '|', 341 => '|Appeal to previous RfC', 342 => '|{{Yeac}}', 343 => '|-', 344 => '|'''Not this wording''' – I agree that we should go with the result of the RFC on [[Talk:Gaza genocide]], however I don't think this wording is really the way to go. For instance, in the article [[Gaza war]], it was agreed to introduce the genocide with the text <q>A wide consensus of scholarship has concluded that Israel is committing [[Gaza genocide|genocide in Gaza]].</q> Perhaps I'm a little biased, as I wrote that sentence, but I feel like it's a better way to phrase it than that. I feel like something like <q>Most scholars agree that during the [[Gaza war]], Israel is [[Gaza genocide|committing genocide]] [or 'Israel has [[Gaza genocide|committed genocide]]'] against Palestinians in Gaza</q> (with the usual ce to follow) makes more sense than the proposed wording. This is a sort of middle ground between the completely unequivocal statement of fact and the weaselly accusation sentence, as a sentence that follows the spirit of the RFC while acknowledging the strong dissent still existing. [[Special:Contributions/Chicdat|🐔]] [[User:Chicdat|Chicdat]]  ''^{[[User talk:Chicdat|Bawk to me!]]}'' [[Talk:Israel#c-Chicdat-20251128231000-Chefs-kiss-20251121152600|23:10, 28 November 2025 (UTC)]]', 345 => '|', 346 => '|Appeal to previous RfC', 347 => '|{{Yeac}}', 348 => '|-', 349 => '|'''Support''' consistency across the project and with consensus of scholars. [[User:Onceinawhile|Onceinawhile]] ([[User talk:Onceinawhile|talk]]) [[Talk:Israel#c-Onceinawhile-20251130000400-Chefs-kiss-20251121152600|00:04, 30 November 2025 (UTC]]', 350 => '|', 351 => '|Appeal to authority', 352 => '|{{Yeac}}', 353 => '|-', 354 => '|'''Support:''' Having gone through the arguments made by both sides and the sources presented, it feels like we're debating something that has previously been settled. The scholarship on this is very one-sided towards a genocide, and the proposed line basically reflects what the best sources are saying. This also fits with how Due and RS tell us to handle topics where the mainstream academic view is clear, which is the case here. Secondly, I don't see the point in trying to pretend we're starting from scratch after the big RfC that already went over all of this in exhaustive detail. Nothing major has shifted in sourcing since then, so updating the text to match existing consensus seems totally reasonable. As long as the surrounding context stays balanced, which it does, genocide should be stated in these terms. [[User:Genabab|Genabab]] 22:58, 5 December UTC', 355 => '|', 356 => '|Appeal to previous RfC', 357 => '|', 358 => '|}', 359 => '', 360 => '==Closing statement (under development!)==', 361 => ''''Yes''', but not with the proposed wording, which many found', 362 => '', 363 => '#lacked context', 364 => '#was too vague and seemed to discuss a Palestinian genocide as a whole', 365 => '', 366 => 'There is rough consensus that ', 367 => '', 368 => '*the sentence should specify that the accusations of genocide are from the Gaza war specifically', 369 => '*there should be distinct sentences about the occupation and the genocide, so that both topics are discussed.', 370 => 'Wasianpower's suggested sentences fulfill both of these, were backed by both supporters and opposers, and are an improvement on the originally proposed text. Wasianpower's proposed alternate text is:<blockquote>Israel's occupation of the Palestinian territories has drawn sustained international criticism. Experts, human-rights organisations and UN officials have described Israel's actions as war crimes and crimes against humanity. Following the [[October 7 Attacks]] in 2023, Israel began committing [[Gaza Genocide|genocide against Palestinians in Gaza]].</blockquote>This has the advantages of giving a clearer timeline to events, clarifying the separation between Israeli occupation and the genocide in Gaza, and putting a more balanced emphasis on the recent genocide and the occupation as a whole. "Attacks", however, should not be capitalized.', 371 => '', 372 => 'We already have site-wide consensus, achieved through an RfC, that the Gaza genocide should be identified as a genocide in the lead sentence in wikivoice. The question of this RfC was whether or not that wikivoice statement should be applied to this article as well.', 373 => '', 374 => 'Supporters argued that including it here was more consistent, that the accusations of genocide were well-sourced, and that the genocide was [[WP:DUE]] in the article. ''Most oppose !votes failed to respond to these points and instead argued broadly against identifying the genocide as such in wikivoice at all,'' either discarding or completely ignoring the consensus that emerged from the past RfC. This was not a constructive approach, and regrettably I gave little weight to some oppose !votes which appeared to be for an RfC that had already happened.', 375 => '', 376 => 'If you think the best argument the opposers can come up with is "well, uh, the preceding RfC was flawed, because I disagree with its outcome" or "we shouldn't be putting that in wikivoice because ''x''", then I'm rather disappointed. They could have far better arguments than that. Can [[Wikipedia:CCC|consensus change]]? Absolutely. But the RfC on including the Gaza genocide in wikivoice [[Talk:Gaza genocide/Archive 12#RfC on first sentence|was closed just a few months ago]] and WP:CCC notes that "proposing to change a recently established consensus can be disruptive". This RfC runs on the basis that the Gaza genocide article presents the genocide in wikivoice. Wikipedians love debating, but ''this shouldn't extend to arguing against every established consensus and axiom'' – otherwise every discussion at AfD would devolve into an argument on whether we really ''need'' notability. This is not a productive approach to discussion. Opposers should present arguments on the proposal at hand – which certainly has its flaws – not on coverage of the genocide on Wikipedia as a whole. M.Bitton puts it excellently in their comment here:<blockquote>'''Support''' in line with the main article. We don't need a RfC to apply what is already supported by a RfC consensus, nor do we need to rediscuss what has been discussed ad nauseam. [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) [[Talk:Israel#c-M.Bitton-20251106170000-Vice regent-20251106021800|17:00, 6 November 2025 (UTC)]]</blockquote>Oppose !voters did not supply persuasive arguments that the genocide was not WP:DUE in this article specifically, or why this article should not be consistent with others. While the proposed text was certainly flawed – that's why it's not being adopted – I see consensus here that the article on [[Israel]] should be consistent with the article on the ongoing [[Gaza genocide]] and mention the genocide in wikivoice. I am adding wasianpower's proposed text to the article; further refinements on how the wikivoice statement should be presented can be discussed and workshopped here.', 377 => '', 378 => 'If you want further explanation or clarification of any point in this closure, please contact my on my talk page. Thanks.' ]