Talk:Gaza genocide

This page is subject to the extended confirmed restriction related to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

RFC: How should the IAGS be described in body of the article?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

First, the easy part: there is overwhelming consensus against the inclusion of IAGS internal vote data.

Then we get to question 1; the !vote-count there is 15-11 (~57%) for the various yeses as opposed to all other options; for inclusion via wikivoice we have 3 !votes. So I read consensus against such an inclusion in wikivoice at this time. We then proceed to analysis of the arguments.

Arguments in favor of including a description as set out in the RfC question generally revolve around following the practice of reliable sources, with some presented in the discussion that I’ll get to later.

The objections are plural: that such an inclusion runs afoul of WP:NPOV, that it might be construed as promotional, that “leading” is both vague and puff-ish, and that IAGS’s membership requirements are suspect. I would not consider these arguments convincing if held to restrict all such descriptors of the IAGS (it requires explanation in a way the Red Cross does not; I hope this statement isn’t contentious), however, BobfromBrockley, who three other nos have cited, has taken objection more specifically to “leading” in particular. But this makes only four.

It’s not clear to me whether most participants have examined the sources set forth, but I took a look at those provided by Cinaroot, Anythingyouwant, and Blurthricecreamman. They seem to be a rough superset of those presented in the linked past discussions. My findings are here. The yeses seem to conflate “a leading” with “the leading”, descriptions of the makeup of the group with that of the group, and usage of terms in headlines as opposed to the article body. Here I speak via personal contact with journalists: it is common practice for headlines to be written by editors or social media teams as opposed to reporters in order to maximize engagement and for online headlines to differ from print headlines.

In any case, 57% is well within no-consensus territory. The arguments on both sides are wanting.

Therefore: no consensus on the descriptor as written ("the world's leading association of genocide scholars"), defaulting to exclusion. In solidarity, Iseult ^Δx talk to me 01:42, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

---

1) Should we describe IAGS in as the world's leading association of genocide scholars?

• Yes, in wikivoice.
• Yes, attributed to major news outlets describing them that way.
• No
• Other

2) Should we include the IAGS's internal vote and turnout percentages when presenting their stance?

• Yes
• Yes, while stating in the body text that IAGS votes generally have similarly low turnouts as this one did.
• Yes, while stating in a footnote that IAGS votes generally have similarly low turnouts as this one did.
• No
• Other

Previous discussion 1, 2 Talk:Gaza genocide/Archive 11#For what it's worth, Talk:Gaza genocide/Archive 12#IAGS, etc.

Note: Per Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Arab–Israeli conflict#Word limits (1,000 words), all participants are limited to 1000 words. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 23:13, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Survey

• 1) No, per WP:POV. 2) No, per WP:OR. Achmad Rachmani (talk) 23:36, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
• 1) Yes + Attributed - inline with the IAGS article & 2) No - As I explained at NPOVN, the only aspect of the IAGS that's relevant to this article is what their official position is on the matter. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 23:42, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
• 1) Other - Remove IAGS. As I have commented at various points I don't think a club of academics et al. is worth the space it is given in this article, and is better suited in the Academic and Legal responses article. - Cdjp1 (talk) 10:08, 15 May 2026 (UTC)
• 1) Yes - attributed. 2) No. Basically follow reliable sources. They don't start making a meal of the voting. NadVolum (talk) 13:13, 15 May 2026 (UTC)
• 1) Yes, attributed as is done in the main article, 2) No as this would be out of scope for this article (Academic and legal responses to the Gaza genocide already goes into detail about that) and could be seen as an attempt to discredit the vote itself. Laura240406 (talk) 13:40, 15 May 2026 (UTC)
• 1) Leaning no for now 2) No: First off, somehow it slipped by me that you didn't catch my correction in the RfC workshopping, but @Bluethricecreamman you put "leading association" when it should be "biggest association".Alright @Bluethricecreamman, now that you've got those sources I back "leading" over "biggest". I'm glad you went and got those sources because I do in fact think "leading" is better than "biggest", as "biggest" necessarily means there is a measurement of some kind, but without us actually stating what that measurement is ("biggest" how?) there is going to be some risk of reader misinterpretation, and we can't answer how because the news outlets don't explicitly state it. Anyways, I'm a bit torn between "Yes, with attribution" and "No" on the first one. Considering the article isn't about IAGS, it feels a bit editorial to include one attributed description of the IAGS and nothing else. Why this one, when it requires attribution, instead of a description that can be presented in wikivoice? Are we being neutral when we are choosing to include a promotional description of the organization alongside their statement? I'm not so sure about that. On the other hand, it may of course be valuable to readers to be given context as to why the organization's stance matters, and if it the description is widespread enough in RS usage it may be justifiable. I may swing on this one depending on how the discussion goes.

As for the percentages, I'm pretty firmly against including them. The problem is that if we were to include it we really couldn't do anything with it other than say "these were the percentages", as RS don't assign any meaning to them. I pointed out in the previous discussion that low turnouts were the norm, and while I do think readers will be misled if told turnouts without being informed of that, I realize that it's hard to argue that my suggestion of simply telling them that, when RS don't mention it, (in line with them not giving much attention to the percentages at all) would not amount to us being editorial/doing WP:OR. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 05:48, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Yeah i think i changed from biggest since it seemed a bit stronger claim, but i can see how leading can be editorializing as well User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 16:42, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

• No Invited by the bot. With regards to the RFC version ("leading") such is an extraordinary POV claim, not sufficiently sourcable. With regards to the RFC version or the article text version ("largest") the amount of qualifiers makes it look like POV wordsmithing (only academic organizations count, and only ones limited to just genocide count) and also it's an extraordinary claim probably not sufficiently sourcable. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:13, 17 May 2026 (UTC)
• 1) Yes - either leading or largest supported by

2) No - because its a official resolution - how many people voted is irrelevant. 🐈Cinaroot   00:08, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

• 1) Yes, attributed to RS, per the reasoning of the other yes's.

2) Yes, of course the 86% support should be mentioned here. The 86% support for the resolution was publicly reported by the the IAGS itself, and also by lots of reliable sources like PBS, BBC, The Guardian, ABC, Reuters, NBC News, et cetera. Also obviously, Wikipedia should not contradict the 14% in Wikivoice, unless we conclude they fall under WP:FRINGE. Even putting aside the IAGS resolution, we have plenty of evidence that a substantial minority of scholars believe the actions of Israel in Gaza do not meet the legal definition of genocide (although it may meet non-legal definitions which are broader, and even though Israel may be guilty of other serious crimes against humanity). I am quite certain that none of this will be allowed in this article, because then we would have to stop contradicting the substantial minority's view in wikivoice. Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:57, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that in the linked paragraph Academic and legal responses to the Gaza genocide § Legal assessments, all opinions by individual legal scholars doubting that the legal standard for genocide is met are from 2023 or 2024, before the solidification of the academic consensus in the course of the year 2025. This seriously weakens the assertion that there is "plenty of evidence". What is left is an unknown number of unnamed legal experts who were said in July 2025 by Le Monde to have rejected the genocide label, but we do not know when. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 03:23, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Absence of evidence is not proof of absence. I've personally emailed a few scholars who gave their opinion early on and have not updated their opinion and all of them (4) said that their opinion did not change. My sample size is small of course, but it is telling. NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 20:52, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

• No and Other/YES Now that I understand this issue more, I've changed to second vote. What is happening is that people are attempting to hide the problematic aspects of this vote in order to sanitize it. It is absolutely not NPOV to hide this information and other problematic info about the vote, including the irregularities, the stifling of dissent by the Board Member Sara Brown, and the 500+ genocide scholars and others (a group similar in composition to IAGS but 5 times larger) who signed a petition against this vote.

Remove all mention of this non-credible organization. It's an embarrassment to Wikipedia to include any information from such a source, just as it would be an embarrassment to include a self-published source or a vanity press. Membership is open to anyone who pays the fee, and there is no required legal or scholarly credential for membership. If kept in, it should be described in some way as a "self-styled genocide scholar organization" or something like "a membership organization open to the general public masquerading as a genocide scholar organization" or something to the effect. Slava570 (talk) 11:45, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

IAGS says: "IAGS’ membership is designed to be open to all who are committed to working on issues pertaining to genocide from a variety of disciplines and perspectives." They also say, "We encourage anyone dealing with genocide in a scholarly or professional capacity to join." Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:06, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I think the key words here are ...open to all who are committed.... They may encourage it, but there is no requirement to be a scholar. On their join page, the first thing they say is (bolding mine): IAGS members are academic scholars, human rights activists, students, museum and memorial professionals, policymakers, educators, anthropologists, independent scholars, sociologists, artists, political scientists, economists, historians, international law scholars, psychologists, and literature and film scholars. I don't see how museum workers, for example, have any credibility here. Slava570 (talk) 12:11, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Considering some of the most prominent figures in the founding of genocide studies (as well as holocaust studies) as a field are scholars from the backgrounds you highlighted as being not genocide scholars, makes it a silly claim to make. The immediate example of the top of my head is Israel Charny, who as an additional fun fact was one of the founders of IAGS. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 13:12, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

When a field is first founded, it's understandable that there may be people from other disciplines involved. Genocide studies is firmly established now, so I would think the situation is different. I mean, artists? Literature and film scholars? These are not credible experts on genocide. Slava570 (talk) 14:54, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

This is all irrelevant. We don't make these sorts of reputational claims on the basis of our personal opinions. We follow reliable sources. Simonm223 (talk) 15:01, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Simon here. Unless editors are going off some reliable sources here (please share with the class) we have to remember this is WP:NOTAFORUM. Ideas that have personal views and experiences as their basis are certainly important and worth discussing, but an RfC on article content is not the place to do that. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 03:12, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

The vast majority of people working in genocide studies in fact do not have qualifications in "genocide studies", due to the fact only a small fraction of universities offer such programs(*). Most, as can be seen by those publishing within the field, are academically trained in other fields and engage in genocide studies from their training, including yes fields such as museum studies, education, psychology, etc.

(*) In some countries it is even becoming harder to study in genocide studies, such as the UK which has gone from three universities offering programs that specialise in genocide studies (though only one was genocide studies in itself, while the other two are other fields which had a focus on genocides), to just one offering such a qualification and it's actually a qualification in history with a focus on genocides.

One final point, you highlight students as a member category that shows IAGS isn't a serious organisation. Are you familiar at all with other similar groups in different disciplines? Every single one includes membership categories for students. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 15:03, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

• No, No. In this article no more than a brief mention is due. In the Academic and legal responses article, how it is is described can be included with attribution. And the numbers should be spelled out in full, but not here. I don’t know what “leading” means in this context and seems like puffery, whereas largest, if true, is objective. I’m worried that “leading” was sloppy cut and paste by RS reporters from a press release because having looked I’m pretty certain there’s no source using that term prior to the press release. BobFromBrockley (talk) 07:21, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

  Leading, could really be any metric, due to the fact it was the first and consequentially, has been the largest of such associations focussing on genocide studies. But such description is easily replaced with a more clear metric such as being the largest. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 13:15, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

• 1: Yes, attributed to major news outlets describing them that way. This is because these sorts of comparative judgments must be dependent upon the perspective of reliable secondary sources. We are a trailing indicator. And 2: No. I've gone over why we should not be discussing vote percentages at WP:NPOV/N. In short, I don't think any inclusion of voting statistics is likely to be neutral. Furthermore we don't have sourcing to indicate the voting statistics are significant. We should not be interpreting primary sources like this per WP:PRIMARY and WP:OR. Simonm223 (talk) 14:59, 19 May 2026 (UTC)
• 1) Yes + Attributed per descriptions in multiple mainstream RS. 2) Don't have a strong preference here but if turnout is mentioned, WP:NPOV would require mentioning (ideally in the body) that IAGS votes generally have similarly low turnouts. EvansHallBear (talk) 20:54, 19 May 2026 (UTC)
• 1) Yes + Attribution So and so described by such and such as something something ...
  2) No no need to give the background of who decided what in the alleged subject matter expert. If it is included at all, can be included in a note i.e. Template:EFN. --RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 21:22, 22 May 2026 (UTC)
• 1) Yes, attributed, world's leading>world's biggest way too many reliable sources discuss it like that the wording seems interchangeable in how reliable sources say it, many use leading though. Reuters, CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, PBS, NPR, AP, WaPost, and BBC
  2) No, there is no meaningful argument from reliable sourcing that suggests otherwise.
  It is undue to try to argue IAGS is simply yet another academic reaction with this much coverage. And it is undue to describe this as anything except a group of genocide scholars. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 20:22, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

  @Maltazarian, I think I owe you an apology, I forgot the real reason I had changed the wording of the RFC from biggest to leading was because of these sources. Full disclosure, I had forgotten that was the real reason. In the spirit of intellectual honesty, I also did not put the effort into finding these sources myself, I mostly found the list from this FAIR org link User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 00:45, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

  All worked out in the end. I'm happy. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 00:49, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

  Apologies, I also did not mean to suggest that all these sources uniformly use one or the other btw. They use a mix and/or both. WaPO and BBC use both terms.
  Largest/biggest: Reuters, ABC, BBC, WaPo,
  Leading: NBC, CBS, PBS, NPR, AP, WaPo, BBC

  The CNN link is a news video, they describe it as a group of scholars around the world and does not say leading or largest/biggest User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 00:51, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

  Yes, don't worry, I'm aware. I checked and saw that it was a mix. In a situation like this I believe its within our discretion to choose the description that works the best for our readers, considering the fact multiple are used. Although if someone really takes issue with using one over the other I guess technically we could be forced to use both (although I'd much rather use neither if it came down to that). ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 01:08, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

• 1) Yes, attributed. Multiple RS refer to them as "leading" so this should be reflected with attribution; "The International Association of Genocide Scholars, described by multiple major news outlets as a leading association.." For *2) No as such details are not meaningfully contextualized in reliable secondary sources, and including them risks introducing unsupported interpretations of their significance.JaredMcKenzie (talk) 15:13, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
• 1) Yes, attributed - I'll always go with RS, particularly if so many. O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:11, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
• 1) Yes, attributed. Slight preference for "leading" based on sources provided by Bluethricecreamman, but no opposition to using biggest/largest or similar wording. 2) No. Including internal voting breakdowns violates WP:OR and WP:PRIMARY, as reliable secondary sources largely report the final official resolution rather than parsing the internal metrics. Doing so veers into editorializing to discredit the result, which violates WP:NPOV. Paprikaiser (talk) 21:44, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
• 1) No 2) No. Both per WP:NPOV as amplifying or discrediting the organization's statement, respectively. Also per BobFromBrockley. NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 20:48, 30 May 2026 (UTC)
• 1) No 2) Noper WP:NPOV as amplifying or discrediting the organization's statement per NorthernWinds and per BobFromBrockley's comments I was tempted towards Slava's argument that there is no reason to believe that this very small voting group, made up of a self-selecting membership with an unknown number of experts on the (notoriously problematic) legal aspects of gemocide, really has little value, but given the level of coverage their decision received, it deserves a brief mention.Pincrete (talk) 07:40, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
• 1) Yes, attributed too may sources have described it

2) Yes, with footnotes, as per Anythingyouwant Ahammed Saad (talk) 16:23, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

• For number 1. Yes, with attribution. 2) No. If mainstream sources describe IAGS as a leading genocide-studies association, the article can reflect that. Genabab (talk) 23:12, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

• 1) Yes, in wikivoice - multiple RS support this description. With attribution if necessary, but let's call a spade a spade. 2) No - WP:NOTNEWS Smallangryplanet (talk) 19:00, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

  It's not clear how NOTNEWS applies here. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 23:15, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

  Agreed. Please explain? User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 23:17, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

  If, as the suggested text points out, there's nothing notable or unique about the turnout for the vote, I can't see how it's suitable for inclusion: ...not all verifiable events are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia... Smallangryplanet (talk) 01:15, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

• 1) No. 2) No. Broadly per Bobfrombrockley and Cdjp1. The outcome of sparsely attended votes by academic associations is approximately the least interesting aspect of this (or any) topic, and the vagueness of "leading" is another issue. Samuelshraga (talk) 05:50, 3 June 2026 (UTC)
• 1) No and 2) Yes based on all of the discussion of the scope, breadth and membership structure of IAGS, there is no reason to include claims from selected sources about the reputation of the group, any more than we would provide claims across the article about all other news sources and organizations. Particularly given the organizational structure, the lack of any membership selection criteria, the inability to identify whether voters have genuine academic credentials other than membership in the organization or to identify how representative the voter base has been of the organization as a whole, there should be clarity about the low turnout, though I am open regarding the manner in which it should be included to properly inform readers and allow them to make an appropriate judgement of the validity of the claims. Alansohn (talk) 12:26, 3 June 2026 (UTC)
• 1) Yes + Attributed 2) No per points made above Orca🐋 (talk) 16:07, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
• 1) YES, and in wikivoice. 2) NO. The details of the vote turnout and voting percentages are not so important as the article is not about the IAGS or the vote itself. Dualpendel (talk) 09:49, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Discussion

• took a bit to wait, wasn't sure if there was still interest in this specific rfc.User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs)

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

Questionable BLP violations

It naturally follows that if you say that a country is committing genocide, then you are saying that some/all of the people leading the country are committing genocide. A country absent of people cannot commit genocide, because a country itself is not a sentient thing who acts without human action. As a result, saying "Israel is carrying out a genocide" as a fact implies that some Israeli politicians/governmental figures are committing genocide, which requires strong sourcing to avoid violating WP:BLP. CerealContainer (talk) 18:44, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

There already is strong sourcing and that's not how BLP policy works. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 18:46, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Hypothetically, if Wikipedia said "The United States committed genocide during the Iran war", it necessarily implies that US leaders are responsible for genocide, which would require strong sourcing under BLP. Does it not? Also, BLP says to avoid making claims that would imply guilt by association unless they are sourced well. CerealContainer (talk) 23:30, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

And we don't do that as the sourcing does not exist. We do not make such determinations ourselves in any instance. We use reliable sources. O3000, Ret. (talk) 23:44, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

For better or worse, Wikipedia:BLPGROUP says not to worry so much about accusations against groups, compared to accusations against individuals. On the other hand, Wikipedia:BLPCRIME says to presume individual people innocent. Go figure. Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:10, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

There is also WP:BLPPUBLIC and all the people in Intent and incitement in the Gaza genocide satisfy that. NadVolum (talk) 20:26, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

New UN Commission of Inquiry

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israel-targeted-gaza-children-resulting-genocide-un-inquiry-says-2026-06-23/ (secondary source)

https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/hrbodies/hrcouncil/sessions-regular/session62/a-hrc-62-crp-2.pdf (primary source)

Can we add this to the article somewhere? And perhaps the expert opinions template too? JasonMacker (talk) 13:15, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Absolutely. Please do.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 18:07, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Added it as an additional source for the "ongoing" statement; it should still be used elsewhere since it is a very strong source. TheSilksongPikmin (talk | contribs) 14:14, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory is probably the right place for details. Sean.hoyland (talk) 15:05, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Mixed citation style

The mix of short (namely using {{sfn}}) and long citation formatting is unnecessary and making the article longer. Imo should just do consistent long form when news articles are being cited, and short form only when a book/document with page nubmers is being cited. Many news articles are currently referenced using sfn, while others aren't. grapesurgeon (talk) 11:55, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

The agreed upon style the last time this was discussed was that for multipage sources (reports, journal articles, etc.) the sfn templates should be used to call pages, whereas all other sources should be inline longform. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 14:37, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Then work needs to be done to put that into force; will put a cleanup tag up grapesurgeon (talk) 14:42, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Can we clean this up or remove the tag. Cinaroot (talk) 04:37, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

Tag remains up until someone cleans; I have other projects atm. grapesurgeon (talk) 04:50, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

If I understand this right, you want any references which currently directly reference a book or pdf to have the book or pdf in the Works cited section instead and a sfn template used in the article to reference the work and page number? NadVolum (talk) 12:28, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

I think Cdjp1's comment is a good explanation, but I'll reword it in case helps understanding.

• Any sources (namely news articles) that don't have multiple pages should be inside <ref></ref> tags like normal. Currently many of them are unnecessarily made into {{sfn}} and citation pairs (where citation is put on bottom in that big list of sources, and sfn appears in body) despite having no pages. We should instead replace sfns with ref tags and remove those sources from that massive source list.
• Any sources that have multiple different pages or ranges being referenced (namely books or reports) should use {{sfn}} and have citations in that big list.

grapesurgeon (talk) 12:33, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

@Grapesurgeon Can you please find some time to fix it? I’m not an expert on this - so unsure how to fix it. If it’s a demanding task - I don’t think anyone will fix it. The yellow tag is ugly and should be removed on a high-visibility article. Cinaroot (talk) 00:05, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

@Cinaroot I just made an edit with a sample of how to fix this. I will not do the entire thing; I have enough work that I am working on.

A tag being ugly is the point, it is how people see that there is a problem that needs to be fixed. In this case, the problem is important to fix; it's making the page like 20% longer and slower to load/edit than it should be. grapesurgeon (talk) 00:21, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

I didn't agree with Cdjp1's comment regarding the agreed upon style in past discussions for a long time. WP:ONUS. Achmad Rachmani (talk) 04:53, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

But you did support it in so far as conducting many edits to bring the citation style in line with what had been agreed. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 04:57, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

@Achmad Rachmani I see that you've been partially pushing the ref format back to the mixed form. Can I ask why you prefer it to be this way? It makes the page much longer and larger in a literal sense; look at the amount of bytes you've added to the article in doing so. grapesurgeon (talk) 08:27, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

@Grapesurgeon: Because I read harvard citation warning: no link pointed to one of the citations with the anchor named, CITEREFNebehay2011. Please see your edit. Achmad Rachmani (talk) 08:34, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Ah I see it was just the one mistake I added, my bad. grapesurgeon (talk) 08:39, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

A plan to place all Palestinian civilians into camps?

Some information of possible interest to include in this page:

https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/trumps-board-peace-launch-hamas-free-shelters-while-israel-tightens-grip-gaza

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/7/1/secretive-gaza-meetings-in-cyprus-as-plan-to-isolate-hamas-gathers-pace

David A (talk) 07:22, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Oh dear. That's awful. Sounds very like the Second Boer War concentration camps, much of that was stupidity, here there is real hate. Yes they sound like they fit into this article. If it goes forward I can see it forming yet another contentious article. NadVolum (talk) 17:04, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

It's going to be difficult to find exceptional sourcing on this. But it will eventually appear. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:22, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Agree it needs an independent reliable source, Middle East Eye is not that. NadVolum (talk) 20:40, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Yeah we wait for more info. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 21:11, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Are any of the following sources considered sufficiently reliable to cite combined with Al Jazeera?

https://www.israelhayom.com/2026/06/30/board-of-peace-to-open-hamas-free-humanitarian-zones-in-gaza/

https://novaramedia.com/2026/07/02/palestinians-to-be-herded-into-humanitarian-shelters-in-gaza/

https://www.aa.com.tr/en/middle-east/board-of-peace-to-soon-begin-managing-humanitarian-shelter-centers-in-gaza-report/3982772

https://www.timesofisrael.com/board-of-peace-finalizing-plans-for-gaza-but-implementation-timeline-up-in-the-air/ David A (talk) 07:26, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

You tripped an edit filter in that reply, probably because of your link to The Cradle. So, maybe not that one. Chess enjoyer (talk) 08:58, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Okay. I have removed that link. David A (talk) 20:01, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Well Al Jazeera and Times of Israel between them are enough. Israel Hayom is widely read and probably shows the geneal feeling. NadVolum (talk) 10:57, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. If somebody is willing to handle it, that would be very appreciated. David A (talk) 20:01, 5 July 2026 (UTC)