The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. Ifconsensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Wikipedia. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Limited recognition, a WikiProject dedicated to improving the coverage of entities with limited recognition on Wikipedia by contributing to articles relating to unrecognized states and separatist movements. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join our WikiProject by signing your name at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.Limited recognitionWikipedia:WikiProject Limited recognitionTemplate:WikiProject Limited recognitionLimited recognition
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arab world, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Arab world on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Arab worldWikipedia:WikiProject Arab worldTemplate:WikiProject Arab worldArab world
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of countries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CountriesWikipedia:WikiProject CountriesTemplate:WikiProject Countriescountry
This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Western Asia, which collaborates on articles related to Western Asia. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.Western AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject Western AsiaTemplate:WikiProject Western AsiaWestern Asia
Stop: You may only use this page to create an edit request
This page is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, a restricted topic. You are not an extended-confirmed user, so you must not edit or discuss this topic anywhere on Wikipedia except to make an edit request. (Additional details are in the message box just below this one.)
Administrators may disregard the above message.
You are seeing this because of the limitations of {{If extended confirmed}} and {{If administrator}}. You can hide this message box by adding the following to a new line of your common.css page:
.ECR-edit-request-warning{display:none;}
Warning: active arbitration remedies
The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive)
You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic
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.
The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are:
Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive.
Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.
With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:
Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring.
Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.
@Slatersteven: This article does indeed refer to Palestine as a country: three times in the lede, and many more times in the body. I'm not sure why you seem to disagree with this. Dotyoyo (talk) 09:02, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I stand corrected, I am sure that we never used to but rather used to call it a state. As to why I disagree with it, I do not, we should go back to calling it a state. Slatersteven (talk) 10:46, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On 2023-10-07, this article didn't refer to Palestine as a country. Now there are about 30 such references. I agree that "state" is preferable. Quasi-state would be more accurate, but ungainly if repeated often. Dotyoyo (talk) 20:44, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Taking a look at prior discussions, you did participate in a few such as Talk:Palestine/Archive 19 § A "Country", which seems to be the most recent active discussion. However, with the RFM (Talk:Palestine/Archive 21 § Requested move 31 December 2024) moving it to "Palestine", calling it a state now would cause issues and could require another RFC. However, I do not think it's necessary as what is a "country" to begin with? Kosovo, Taiwan, Somaliland,Cook Islands, and Niue, are all called countries in their opening sentences, even though they all have less recognition. I don't think this is something that needs to be re-litigated, and we should automatically close requests like these. AG202 (talk) 22:09, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying that calling Palestine a state is problematic and shouldn't be "re-litigated" because an RFM late last year moved the article from "State of Palestine" to "Palestine"? The UN has been using the term "State of Palestine" since 2012!
what is a "country" to begin with? I'd say a good starting point would be the 1933 Montevideo Convention's four key (constitutive) criteria for statehood, together with other criteria not conceived of then. For several reasons, an international vote is an oversimplified measure of statehood.
The UN does not determine what is or is not a "country," nor does it attempt to. They call each "member state" by the name that they request. I don't see anyone stating that Bolivia should be called a state even though its official name in English is the "Plurinational State of Bolivia", including at the UN. As for the Montevideo Convention, that lists possible criteria for statehood, which is not the question at hand. Though at this point, I'm not sure if you even support "state" anymore with that point. The term "country," as Wikipedia's own country page states, is an ambiguous term that "may refer to a sovereign state, state with limited recognition, constituent country, or dependent territory." I don't see the need to change the lede of this article to state "state". "Country" causes fewer issues. AG202 (talk) 04:26, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Smallangryplanet: You said: CN tags are not for when you disagree with a source
Agreed, but both the reason parameter of the CN tag and my edit summary make it clear that I was not contesting the source, but rather pointing out that the oversimplified characterization of the UN special committee's content was at odds with its actual content: (1) "a genocide is unfolding" does not claim that a genocide has occurred—it could refer to a genocide predicted to happen in the foreseeable future. I think the key issue here is the set of possible meanings of the WP:WEASEL word "unfolding".
Princeton's Wordnet succinctly defines unfolding as "a developmental process". thefreedictionary.com lists a couple meanings for unfold (intransitive):
To develop or occur as a series of events or stages
To be revealed gradually to the understanding
The first definition reflects a transformation or development: the outcome of the series of events will not be the same as it was at the outset. The second definition reflects a transformation of our understanding, not specifying whether that change might be concurrent with a change in the thing being understood. Both reflect a transition, from one state [folded] to a different state [unfolded]. Until the unfolding is complete, the state is in transition, and the current state is left ambiguous unless otherwise clarified.
For example, the phrases "unfolding pandemic" and "unfolding recession" can describe things that are suspected of soon meeting a qualifying definition, but haven't yet gotten there. Though these phrases might carry a sense of palpable presence, the writer isn't committed to a specific timeframe. So at what point does an "unfolding genocide" change from a yet-to-be genocide into one that fully meets the definition?
If the UN special committee wanted to unambiguously state that Israel has committed genocide, they could have easily done so as straightforwardly as Amnesty International did. But they didn't. Instead, they used circumspect language. When I want to convey to someone that it's raining outside, I don't usually say that the sky is aligned with the properties of rain, or that the humidity circumstances might be consistent with rain.
Of course, editors need to summarize. But we need to avoid the type of WP:BIAS and WP:OR that can easily result from selective oversimplification of source ambiguities into allegedly unambiguous Wikivoice.
I long ago read something to the effect that {{citation needed}} could be used to indicate that the preceding citation was insufficient. But now reading the page, I don't see that. Hmmm. I'll give a few more days for any responses, before possibly inserting a wp:v tag. Thanks! Dotyoyo (talk) 19:49, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that "a genocide is unfolding" is not the same as "a genocide has occurred", but your understanding of the meaning of "unfolding" is not correct. It does not mean something that might occur in the future. It refers to something in process now and continuing; i.e., it has already started and is now playing out (perhaps still in its early stages). Neither pandemics nor genocides occur at a single moment in time but over an extended period. They go from "will happen", to "is happening", to "did happen", and "unfolding" is a reference to the second stage. The error in the article can be corrected with a rewording, and the least disputable option would be to copy the wording: "a genocide is unfolding". Zerotalk11:31, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So you believe that "unfolding" always refers to something that is already in its final category, while I believe that it can also be used to refer to something that is changing categories. Yet somehow, we both agree that the article is in error.
When discussing the straightforward opinion of Amnesty International, there's no need for weasel words. I would advise readers, when they encounter sources that seem to be an odd mix of weasel words with a direct statement of what the weasel words suggest, to take a careful look at the source to ensure that the direct statement isn't made of weasel words that somehow escaped their scrutiny.
Agree entirely with @Zero0000, and this was discussed on the main genocide page where the consensus was to use it as the head of the committee explicitly said it was a genocide. As I said there:
The UN special committee report concludes that Israel's policy in Gaza is consistent with the characteristics of genocide, deliberately carried out, as reported by – among others – The Guardian and CNN (which specifically flags the intentional acts of Israeli officials such as the starvation policy), and so on.
Additionally, when presenting the report at the UN General Assembly, the head of the special committee in question explicitly says their report concluded that "a genocide is unfolding before our eyes" (source):
Our report leaves no room for ambiguity.
A genocide is unfolding before our eyes. Failing to act now—failing to put an end to this atrocity crime— will tear apart the very foundation of the international rule of law we have collectively built to protect peace, security, and the well-being of all. Our inaction today is setting a perilous precedent for tomorrow. Think about it.
In terms of the report itself, we can see this laid out in multiple sections, including where it quotes Israeli politicians intentionally engaged in the acts that the report concludes are consistent with the characteristics of genocide:
...In the light of the extensive information reviewed during the reporting period, the Committee is particularly concerned about the life-threatening conditions and severe physical and mental harm deliberately inflicted on the Palestinian people, through Israel’s means and methods of warfare in Gaza and policies and practices in the occupied West Bank, including East Jerusalem...
...The developments in this report lead the Special Committee to conclude that the policies and practices of Israel during the reporting period are consistent with the characteristics of genocide...Senior Israeli government and military officials must be held accountable, including for using dehumanizing language and inciting violence...
Since the escalation of the conflict, Israeli officials have publicly supported policies depriving civilians of food, water, and fuel, indicating their intent to instrumentalize the provision of basic necessities for political and military objectives and retribution ... On 9 October, the Minister of Defence of Israel announced a “complete siege” of the Strip with no electricity, no food, no fuel and removed every restriction on Israeli forces so they could “eliminate everything” ... On 10, 12 and 13 October, the then Minister of Energy and Infrastructure reiterated that Gaza would not receive a drop of water or a single battery until they leave the world, adding that this is how we will do to a nation of murderers and butchers and that what was will not be ... Other officials, such as the Minister of National Security, emphasized that humanitarian aid to Gaza would be contingent upon the release of hostages. ... On 10 October, the Israel Defense Forces’ spokesperson reaffirmed that the army’s focus was on causing “maximum damage” ... and on 18 October, the Prime Minister reiterated that they would not allow humanitarian assistance in the form of food and medicines ... A retired Major General, former head of the National Security Council, and advisor to the Minister of Defence, opined: “the way to win the war faster and at a lower cost for us requires the collapse of systems on the other side and not just the killing of more Hamas fighters. The international community is warning us of a humanitarian disaster in Gaza and of severe epidemics. We must not shy away from this […] After all, severe epidemics […] will bring victory closer.”
The committee's report, which again "leaves no room for ambiguity" that "A genocide is unfolding before our eyes", cites Israeli politicians' statements to this effect extensively to provide evidence for that intent. Therefore the current phrasing we have in the lead accurately reflects the sources, though one can argue it's overly weak as it merely states that these statements "may amount to" genocide when the report concluded the statements combined with the acts did amount to genocide.
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
.svg){kind=small}
