This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (center, color, defense, realize, traveled) and some terms may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel 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.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related
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 Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles 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.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lebanon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Lebanon-related articles 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.LebanonWikipedia:WikiProject LebanonTemplate:WikiProject LebanonLebanon
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 the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Syria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Syria 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.SyriaWikipedia:WikiProject SyriaTemplate:WikiProject SyriaSyria
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Yemen, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Yemen 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.YemenWikipedia:WikiProject YemenTemplate:WikiProject YemenYemen
You are an administrator, so you may disregard the message below
You are seeing this because of the limitations of {{If extended confirmed}} and {{If admin}}
You can hide this message box by adding the following to a new line of your common.css page:
.ECR-edit-request-warning{display:none;}
Stop: You may only use this page to create an edit request
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.)
The following restrictions apply to everyone editing this article:
All participants in formal discussions (RfCs, RMs, etc) within the area of conflict are urged to keep their comments concise, and are limited to 1,000 words per discussion. Citations and quotations (whether from sources, Wikipedia articles, Wikipedia discussions, or elsewhere) do not count toward the word limit.
You must be logged-in 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 (except in limited circumstances)
The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:
Hasson, Nir; Yaniv, Kubovich (2024-11-11). "The Israeli Army Is Allowing Gangs in Gaza to Loot Aid Trucks and Extort Protection Fees From Drivers". Haaretz. Archived from the original on 2024-11-19. …looting of the convoys reflects the complete anarchy that prevails in Gaza due to the lack of any functioning civilian government. … Defense officials confirmed that the IDF is aware of the problem. (the Israeli government) considered making the clans to which the armed men belong responsible for distributing aid to Gaza's residents, even though some of the clans' members are involved in terrorism, and some are even affiliated with extremist organizations like the Islamic State.
A wide consensus of scholarship has concluded that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza. A case accusing Israel of genocide is being reviewed by the International Court of Justice. Experts and human rights organizations have also stated that Israel and Hamas have committed other war crimes.
Is it possible to reword this to make it clearer that there is genocide in Gaza? Currently I still think it gives WP:UNDUE weight to people who believe there is no genocide in Gaza. As far as I know there is only one person with professional credentials in genocide studies who believes that there is no genocide in Gaza as of present(given all current evidence), who is Sara E. Brown([2], credentials, [3]). note that Brown doesn't directly criticize people calling the genocide a genocide, instead she criticizes the UN resolution process. We don't say that "a wide consensus of scholarship has concluded that the earth isn't flat," so why should we say that for the genocide in Gaza? An overwhelming majority of scholars, with credentials, have stated that there is, in fact, a genocide. Also, we already have an article titled Gaza genocide, which objectively states that there is a genocide: The Gaza genocide is the ongoing, intentional, and systematic destruction of the Palestinian people in the Gaza Strip carried out by Israel during the Gaza war. (See also Talk:Gaza_genocide/Archive_12).
(To further expand my flat earth metaphor, we don't say "a wide consensus of scholarship has concluded that the earth isn't flat," we say "The earth isn't flat." So shouldn't we call a spade a spade, and state that "There is a genocide in Gaza?" Also, is this a situation where WP:BRD would work better?) monkeysmashingkeyboards (talk) 03:55, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My proposed rewording:
Scholars have concluded that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza. A case accusing Israel of genocide is being reviewed by the International Court of Justice. Experts and human rights organizations have also stated that Israel and Hamas have committed other war crimes.monkeysmashingkeyboards (talk) 03:57, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is a clear attempt to WP:RGW in my view (as has been virtually every other discussion on this topic on any talk page) - though I don't think it's being done maliciously to be entirely clear. We say the Earth isn't flat because clear, widespread, well over 99% consensus over the course of decades has come to that conclusion. That is not what is happening here. There was a prior discussion on this page (edit: I meant the page Gaza genocide) that showed, in fact, that the proportion of scholars who state a genocide is occurring in Gaza now is virtually the same as it was before the 2023 Hamas attack in the first place. We didn't say a genocide was occurring in Wikivoice before 2023. So we should also not do so now - because the proportion of scholars saying so is virtually identical.
You say that it's an overwhelming majority - but you provide no sources for that. Currently, only about 70-80% of scholars have concretely said such - which is approximately the same number that said a genocide was occurring in Gaza before the 2023 Hamas attack. So why should we do anything differently now than we did then?
Lastly, your argument that the title of Gaza genocide should be relevant here is explicitly discounted in the closure of the RM that led to this being moved to the current title. The current title was chosen per WP:CONCISE and other title guidelines (if someone can find the discussion I'd appreciate it - I tried and it doesn't come up searching "requested move" on the current talkpage's archives) - not because it is a settled fact that should be referred to as such elsewhere.
By "scholars," meant SMEs in genocide only, e.g. genocide studies scholars. In this niche subject, the only person who has certifications, and knowledge the current evidence, that still argues that there is no genocide in Gaza is Sara E. Brown. I didn't survey any other fields, like Holocaust studies, so that might explain the difference in our research results.
Lastly, your argument that the title of Gaza genocide should be relevant here is explicitly discounted...
My argument isn't on the title of that article specifically, it's more on that article's lead. (Gaza genocide begins with The Gaza genocide is the ongoing, intentional, and systematic destruction of the Palestinian people in the Gaza Strip carried out by Israel during the Gaza war., and states it like fact, so shouldn't we do the same elsewhere?
Oppose - the word 'consensus' was already discussed a lot at Gaza genocide TALK such as the thread about OR. It seems just poor V and OR involved, and the word “consensus” is not normally used in articles of the List of genocides. May also be a confusion of 'consensus' with WP:CONSENSUS, which is not the same thing. At any rate, it seems articles about genocide are just not usually talking about some abstract “consensus”, perhaps because most others are years ago so have fact items like legal decisions or history books to talk about. In this case, I think the MENA survey in the USA said most scholars voice no opinion, and of those who do voice an opinion only about a third said it was genocide. More said Major war crimes akin to genocide, fewer said minor war crimes, and a small percent said justified war actions. I do not think the word choice enough of a WP:WEIGHT topic to really be in here, but if it goes, shall it have the WP:NPOV and represent *all* these views in WP:DUE weight ? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 20:11, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, thanks for responding. My use of the poll is just to illustrate my point that there has been an increase in scholarship believing that there is a genocide in Gaza, contrary to Berchanhimez's point. If you look for scholarly articles, there is much more consensus, based on my research, roughly 95% of the articles I've checked that are written by scholars with certifications in genocide studies agree that there is a genocide in Gaza.
User:Monkeysmashingkeyboards - Well, no... Wikipedia has guidance about articles keeping internally consistent in style about how content is presented, such as MOS:CONSISTENT, and there is WP:TITLE policy that titles should generally be consistent among articles covering similar topics. But as to content, different articles will differ as to what content is and how it is presented depending on the different article scopes and local WP:CONSENSUS. There's no requirement that a larger scope article "should" have content of asmaller scope topic. I might hope (without WP authority) only that wikipedia articles do not directly contradict. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 17:17, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Berchanhimez @Nehushtani I'm a bit more awake now, so I'd like to submit a demurrer to each of Berchanhimez's arguments. If there are any factual errors or mistakes, please let me know.
I'd also like to declare my bias, to be transparent: I firmly believe that genocide being committed by Israel in Gaza, along with other war crimes. I believe that Benjamin Netanyahu has been rightfully convicted of his crimes. I am against Hamas' tactics, and I believe that a lot of the actions Hamas have taken are unjust and atrocious.
Currently, only about 70-80% of scholars have concretely said such - which is approximately the same number that said a genocide was occurring in Gaza before the 2023 Hamas attack.
I can't find any sources to back this up. There are no sources indicating genocide scholars believed there was a genocide in Gaza committed by Israel before October 7th.
Analysis: Contrary to Berchanhimez's statement, [...] which is approximately the same number that said a genocide was occurring in Gaza before the 2023, there has been a trend upwards in the amount of people who believe there is genocide in Gaza, from 75% in 2024 to 82% in 2025.[3] Also, the amount of people who previously thought that Israel's conduct qualified as "Unjustified actions but not major war crimes" dropped 7 percent in the 2025 survey.
Question: Do you think that Israel is committing genocide against Palestinian civilians?
Yes
No
Not sure
Total (N=1,564)
43%
28%
29%
2024 Vote
Harris (N=620)
77%
7%
16%
Trump (N=559)
18%
55%
27%
Ideology
Lib (N=482)
78%
6%
16%
Mod (N=462)
44%
22%
34%
Con (N=482)
13%
58%
29%
Analysis: The total amount of voters[6] that thought that Israel is committing genocide rose from 31 to 43 percent, and there were significant increases for liberals and moderates, who rose from 53% to 78% and 33% to 44% respectively.
Full tables of the YouGov polls
The Economist/YouGov Poll (January 28-30, 2024)
Question: Do you think that Israel is committing genocide against Palestinian civilians?
Yes
No
Not sure
Total (N=1,681)
31%
34%
35%
Gender
Male (N=782)
31%
43%
26%
Female (N=899)
30%
25%
44%
Race
White (N=1,178)
26%
39%
35%
Black (N=199)
36%
22%
42%
Hispanic (N=184)
35%
26%
38%
Age
18-29 (N=255)
45%
22%
33%
30-44 (N=299)
30%
26%
43%
45-64 (N=643)
27%
38%
35%
65+ (N=484)
24%
48%
29%
Income
<50K (N=659)
28%
31%
42%
50-100K (N=495)
32%
38%
30%
100k+ (N=344)
34%
42%
24%
Registered Voters (N=1,481)
31%
40%
29%
2020 Vote
Biden (N=638)
49%
21%
30%
Trump (N=583)
13%
63%
24%
Party ID
Dem (N=595)
45%
21%
34%
Ind (N=627)
29%
30%
41%
Rep (N=459)
17%
53%
30%
Ideology
Lib (N=444)
53%
20%
27%
Mod (N=588)
33%
28%
39%
Con (N=527)
12%
60%
28%
Urban/Rural
Urban (N=491)
40%
24%
36%
Suburb (N=620)
29%
38%
33%
Rural (N=570)
24%
39%
38%
The Economist/YouGov Poll (August 15-18, 2025)
Question: Do you think that Israel is committing genocide against Palestinian civilians?
[...] your argument that the title of Gaza genocide should be relevant here is explicitly discounted in the closure of the RM that led to this being moved to the current title.[7]
This might be a misunderstanding, but as I've said before, my point isn't the title of Gaza genocide. It's the contents. The lead of the article Gaza genocide states the following as fact:
The Gaza genocide is the ongoing, intentional, and systematic destruction of the Palestinian people in the Gaza Strip carried out by Israel during the Gaza war. The genocidal acts include mass killings, starvation, infliction of serious bodily and mental harm, and preventing births. Other acts include blockading, destroying civilian infrastructure, destroying healthcare facilities, killing healthcare workers and aid-seekers, causing mass forced displacement, committing sexual violence, and destroying educational, religious, and cultural sites.
So shouldn't we state the genocide in Gaza in this article as a fact, for consistency? The current text in this article states this, but in a very loopy manner. [8]
^The 2023 and prior questionnaires aren't included because they didn't ask any questions directly related to the then-unfounded claims of genocide.
^Note that these polls aren't directly of scholars in the field of genocide studies. Quoting the 2025 poll: Recipients included those who are members of the Middle East and North Africa section of the American Political Science Association (APSA), the Middle East Studies Association (MESA), as well as members of the American Historical Association (AHA) who specialized in the Middle East, and other relevant contacts of the Project on Middle East Political Science (POMEPS) at George Washington University. Note that the 2023 poll also has the same text.
^ abFor sake of simplicity, I will refer both Genocide and Major war crimes akin to genocide as "genocide", and the totals are aggregated. If this is improper statistical/analytical practice, let me know.
^The question asked in verbatim is Do you think that Israel is committing genocide against Palestinian civilians? for both 2024 and 2025. The specific question numbers are no. 43 for 2025, and 49 for 2024.
^ abThese tables were trimmed. Full tables are below.
^Voters refers to the general populace polled in this survey.
^as a further smoking gun, this text: This article is about the ongoing genocide by Israel in Gaza. is present in the disambiguation section at the top.
There are no polls of genocide scholars that ask weather Israel is committing genocide made before the October 7 attacks as far as I know. There are no sources that indicate [70-80 percent of scholars agree that Israel is committing genocide,] which is approximately the same number that said a genocide was occurring in Gaza before the 2023 Hamas attack.
Argument 2 is probably unnecessarily long, and citing just the MESB poll would've been enough. We learn as we go, I guess.
The WP:BURDEN of proof lies with @Berchanhimez. I've taken my time to try and find sources for their claims:
We say the Earth isn't flat because clear, widespread, well over 99% consensus over the course of decades has come to that conclusion. Closest thing I could find is https://carsey.unh.edu/publication/conspiracy-vs-science-survey-us-public-beliefs, which to my surprise, 10 out of 99 people believe that the is flat. (Note that this survey's sample size is 99. Can't speak for the veracity of that.) There aren't any polls of scientists, because any self-respecting scientist would never say the Earth is flat. [citation needed]
In fact, that the proportion of scholars who state a genocide is occurring in Gaza now is virtually the same as it was before the 2023 Hamas attack in the first place. As I've said, no polls on genocide in Gaza before Oct 7.
There were "scholars" who said Israel was committing genocide just 2-3 weeks in to the war. There are "scholars" who claim that Israel began the genocide literally on October 7. The former made up their minds before anything happened and suffer from confirmation bias. They are not credible or reliable. The latter also lack all credibility because of their absurd claim. We need a full reassessment of every single one of these claims to determine their reliability and credibility, of which I suspect many or most are entirely lacking. And then there are concerns about how their stacking the deck and poisoning the well impacted later investigations and opinions. Not to mention, the large amount of abstentions suggests that many scholars are afraid of being bullied and railroaded by anti-Israel maniacs who dominate scholarly discourse. There is no scholarly consensus on this whatsoever.
I agree with you - the amount of "scholars" who said there was genocide before Oct 7 is disproportionate compared to later months, and 10/23's "scholars" who said there was a genocide should be discounted, as there simply wasn't enough evidence mere weeks after the start of the war, especially not enough to categorize Israel's actions as genocide at that point in time. monkeysmashingkeyboards (talk) 22:28, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Original research is allowed on talk pages. And this isnt a no true scholar fallacy. Objectively speaking, some can be discredited for the reasons I stated. Others will have done a somewhat fair appraisal later on and may have come to either conclusion. I am just saying we need to consider what is reliable and what isnt. Many of these arent reliable or credible. ← Metallurgist (talk) 22:42, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would also argue that this isn't a No true scotsman fallacy, because as David Hume puts it, "A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence." Given the evidence available, a wise man, or a scholar, wouldn't state in absolutes that Israel is committing genocide just 20 days after the war starts. monkeysmashingkeyboards (talk) 22:49, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You say "a scholar wouldn't state in absolutes that Israel is committing genocide just 20 days after the war starts." Yet there were scholars stating this. Your contention is that these are not "true scholars". Clear case of no true scotsman, with a bit of argument from incredulity as well.
At least 65 incidents in which a minimum of 20 civilians were killed in a single incident
A complete blockade of food and water, as well as humanitarian aid
This does show intent to commit genocide, given the definition:
the deliberate and systematic killing or persecution of a large number of people from a particular national or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group.
You also have a point that some scholars are afraid to speak of their stance on this issue because of pressure, perceived or otherwise, from others. Q1 of the MESB survey asks, Do you feel the need to self-censor when speaking about the Palestinian-Israeli issue in an academic or professional capacity?, with 76% of scholars answering yes. monkeysmashingkeyboards (talk) 22:34, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You cite question 1 but omit question 1A, which asked "On which issue do you most feel the need to self-censor?"
11% Is still a large portion of consensus, however, as that's 11% that may be underrepresented. (But this also applies to the 84%, so really, there's probably much more consensus.)
I don't see why people are arguing here. The consensus at the Gaza genocide RfC set a precedent that allows us to refer to the current genocide in Gaza as a genocide in wikivoice. I support your suggestion that the sentence should be reworded to be more clear in its presentation that Israel is committing genocide, not "most scholars believe..." or "every humans rights org, genocide scholar, several different legal institutions have concluded...", but a clearly worded "Israel is committing genocide in Gaza" or something similar. Yung Doohickey (talk) 15:59, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Re: I don't see why people are arguing here. - I hear the frustration in those words. Why indeed would people be arguing if there is a consensus? Maybe it's because, despite a process being held on a given Wikipedia talk page that led to a declaration that there is a consensus, there is in fact no such consensus. I've made the point elsewhere that there is a difference between Wikipedia "editor consensus" and real-world "consensus", but there is also a difference between "editor consensus" on one talk page and "editor consensus" across all of Wikipedia. Coining (talk) 16:19, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well it appears to exist a consensus both among editors and among real-world scholars. There is a consensus that there is a consensus and it is being argued that the consensus that concluded there is a consensus was the wrong consensus. At some point, this has to be considered disruptive because we cannot just continuously argue in a circular motion that the majority opinion is wrong without any backing. As far as I'm concerned it has been proven time and time again that the majority of academics supports this characterization. Yung Doohickey (talk) 16:39, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It’s fascinating that in defending the notion of a real-world consensus, you found the need to limit it to scholars and academics. It’s almost an implicit admission. Coining (talk) 20:18, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The arguments about people calling it genocide soon after the Israeli invasion are a bit misguided I think. It was evident fairly soon after the invasion that Netenyahu wanted to clear Gaza, he went on about Amalek and said the Arab states especially Egypt were failing the Gaza people because they were refusing to acccept them all. It was pretty obvious that he wasn't going to give up because they weren't leaving, but one couldn't say it was genocide until it was evident in action as well as word. I certainly didn't support calling it genocide till recently even though the trajectory was pretty obvious from very near the beginning. I still don't feel well about it what with the holocaust during WW2 but that's what the scholarly sources say and I don't disagree. NadVolum (talk) 10:45, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're absolutely right, and to further this point, the death rate during the first two or three months of the war was almost identical to the Srebrenica genocide (more than 8,000 Palestinians died in October 2023 alone), so it makes perfect sense why some would have referred to the campaign as genocide so early on—it was literally the point in the war where the civilian death rate was the highest, the likes of which we haven't seen since as far as I can tell. Yung Doohickey (talk) 04:19, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
User:Monkeysmashingkeyboards - from your interest, would you please clean up the cites there? The current line has twelve cites (112-123) to 18 works, mostly Human Rights groups and a bit dated, and three seem to need deletion or replacement.
delete 118 - Defining genocide: how a rift over Gaza sparked a crisis among scholars "Still, there is no clear consensus:"
delete 119 - Wintour, Patrick ( "No evidence of genocide in Gaza, UK lawyers say in arms export case")
change 122 - "2021 Middle East Scholar Barometer #7 (May 23 – June 6, 2024)". University of Maryland (it is not from "2021" and there is a 2025 survey)
Now that plans for a US-led postwar occupation of Gaza are becoming more solidified, I think it might be wise to split off much of the Post-war plans section, leaving only the most up-to-date information. I think the process of deliberation and post-war planning still has encyclopedic relevance, but we don't need every proposal that won't come to fruition to be included in the main article. What do others think? Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 00:34, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I hit Publish before finishing my edit summary so wanted to clarify my edit here. Pappe wrote The stated aim of eliminating Hamas is as far away as ever. This is a matter-of-fact statement in a chapter about the failures of the Israeli government. It's a statement about the future that was written one year into the war so it's not very relevant now.
Shaw's claim is different: he believes that the actual goal was different from the stated one. We shouldn't make it look like Pappe supports this assertion.
We need reliable sources to state the war is over before we remove that template a ceasefire does not automatically mean a war has ended(also the ceasefire deal has not been fully implemented yet and there was recent fighting.) GothicGolem29(Talk)11:43, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The addition of the Islamic State into the infobox (especially on the Hamas side) seems like promotion of the Hamas=ISIS narrative. The main reason that the Islamic State is even in the infobox is because:
On 29 August 2025, the IDF stated that an airstrike conducted several days earlier in Bureij had targeted and killed Muhammad Abd Al-Aziz Abu Zubaida. According to the IDF report, Abu Zubaida was the leader of an Islamic State branch called the Palestine District, said to be active in Gaza Strip, the West Bank, and the Sinai Peninsula. The report also claimed that Palestine District operatives had been involved in fighting Israeli troops during the Gaza war.[1][2][3] The three sources covering the existence of the Islamic State in Gaza are Israeli, and the sources are hence WP:PRIMARY and not WP:SECONDARY.
The rebuttal to these claims is: Major General Mohamed Abdel Wahid, former deputy head of Egypt's General Intelligence Service, said that there is no Islamic State presence in the Gaza Strip besides lone wolves, and that the Israeli claims are propaganda aiming to link Hamas to Islamic State. He also stated that the allegations la of a current IS presence in Gaza were not based on any facts on the ground and lacked independent and reliable evidence.[4] I think that we should lay off mentioning the Islamic State in the infobox until a more reliable source covers it involvement.
The Islamic State is not appropriate for the infobox. No reliable source is provided and even the claim by a belligerent indicates at most a marginal relevance. Zerotalk10:33, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The statement that Israeli sources are primary sources is wrong. If accepted, it would mean a double standard - we do not say that American publications cannot be used for events involving America such as 9/11 and their failed wars in Vietnam and Afghanistan. We have to treat Israeli sources the same way that we treat American sources in similar circumstances.
Having said that, I agree with Zero0000 that the sources are not evidence of an important Islamic State involvement in the Gaza conflict. So I support removing it from the infobox.-- Toddy1(talk)12:46, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't claim any particular insight into whether the Islamic State operates in Gaza, and my position has consistently been, and remains, that infoboxes are supposed to be limited to facts per MOS:INFOBOX, but the arguments for removal noted above are faulty. As @Toddy1 has pointed out, just because a source is from Israel does not make it WP:PRIMARY. Indeed, arguments have been made on this talk pages that WP:BIASED requires inclusion of sources that favor the anti-Israel side of the Gaza genocide debate, so even if the assertion is that Israeli sources are biased, that alone wouldn't under this argument mean they shouldn't be cited. There are specific reliability determinations available for WP:JERUSALEMPOST and WP:TIMESOFISRAEL, but even beyond those another source is provided. I don't see how it can be said, directly under a list of sources, that No reliable source is provided. On the flip side, I am not familiar with Al Masshad, but I do see that it has been cited at most 24 times on Wikipedia. It would be helpful to have a more widely published source for the rebuttal before removing the material from the infobox. Coining (talk) 16:16, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that, in general, there needs to be more verification on the Islamic State's presence/existence in Gaza, let alone their involvement in conflicts. I believe it as mistake on my part of not providing better arguments. I simply copy-pasted from Salafi jihadist militant groups in the Gaza Strip#Palestine District in order to explain the dubiousness/doubts over the group's existence. However The point is that there needs to be lots more information about Daesh's presence in Gaza. All of the Israeli sources are about statements/allegations/claims made by the IDF and needs further confirmation from multiple reliable sources, including both primary and secondary ones. As of right now, the claim is still in its infancy phase and still needs a lot more confirmation in order to be added to the infobox. KashanAbbas (talk) 17:15, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
more confirmation in order to be added to the infobox -- That's a fair request, apart from the point that the request at this point is to remove the material, rather than add it, but the burden is indeed on those who support its inclusion (per WP:ONUS). Maybe use the article history to find the editor(s) who added the material to the infobox and ping them in this discussion to ask whether they have any other sources and/or believe that the passage of time (assuming no further developments) warrants removal of the material from the infobox. Coining (talk) 17:47, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did not add ISIS in the infobox to promote Zionist bs I just added groups that were in the Gaza war order of battle page that were missing from the main Gaza war page and fixed the mistake that fatah al intifada is a part of the hamas led Joint Operations Room. OMA5577 (talk) 02:44, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
.svg){kind=small}
