Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Edit
| Requests for page protection | ||
|---|---|---|
|
You are currently viewing the requests for edits to a protected page subpage of Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Requests for specific edits should be made on the talk page of the protected article. You can create an edit request below only if the talk page is also protected, preventing you from editing it.
| ||
Previously second highest-grossing video game film at the time of its release BUT now the third since Mario Galaxy. WikiTimCharlier (talk) 07:31, 7 October 2026 (UTC)
My concern is not with the inclusion of the views of scholars, human rights organizations, UN bodies, or others who have concluded that genocide is occurring. Those views are significant and should continue to be fully represented.
Rather, my concern is that the current wording may unintentionally present a contested legal conclusion as an established fact. While a number of organizations and experts have characterized the events in Gaza as genocide, the matter remains the subject of ongoing legal proceedings before the International Court of Justice. The Court has issued provisional measures, but it has not yet delivered a final judgment determining whether genocide has legally occurred.
Wikipedia's policy on maintaining a neutral point of view encourages editors to describe significant disputes in a way that reflects the existence of differing viewpoints rather than presenting one side of a contested matter as settled fact. In this case, Israel rejects the allegation of genocide, and the issue continues to be debated among governments, legal experts, scholars, and international bodies.
For that reason, wording such as"Allegations of genocide in Gaza" may better communicate that the topic concerns claims and findings that are widely discussed but remain legally and politically disputed. Such wording would not diminish the importance of the evidence or arguments presented by those who believe genocide has occurred; it would simply help distinguish between allegations, opinions, findings, and a final judicial determination.
I offer this suggestion in the spirit of balance, accuracy, and neutrality, and I appreciate the considerable effort editors devote to maintaining such a complex and sensitive topic.
1. The ICJ case is still ongoing and no final ruling has determined that genocide has occurred. 2. The ICJ's January 2024 order was for provisional measures, not a final judgment on genocide. 3. Israel formally rejects the genocide accusation. 4. The article itself acknowledges both recognition and denial of genocide claims, demonstrating that the matter remains disputed. 5. Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View (NPOV) principle generally favours describing contested claims in a way that reflects the existence of the dispute rather than assuming the conclusion has already been settled.
These points are likely to be more persuasive to Wikipedia editors than arguing whether genocide did or did not occur. The strongest argument is one about neutrality, terminology, and the absence of a final judicial determination, rather than about the underlying politics. Johnnpaul511 (talk) 07:33, 7 October 2026 (UTC)
Please add the following comment to Talk:Gaza genocide, preferably under the existing “Not NPOV” section as a direct response to EvergreenFir, or otherwise as a new section titled “Lead wording and legal status”.
My concern is less that a specific source is being misquoted, and more that the lead gives undue certainty to one characterisation by stating it in Wikipedia’s own voice without equally clear legal/procedural context.
The sources supporting the genocide characterisation are significant and should be covered prominently. However, “genocide” is also a specific legal classification, and the ICJ proceedings remain ongoing. The Court has issued provisional measures, but it has not made a final merits determination that genocide has occurred.
I do not think including that point in the lead would give undue weight to Israel’s denial or create false balance. It is basic context needed for readers to understand the current status of the claim.
A more neutral formulation might be:
“Multiple human rights organisations, genocide scholars, UN-linked experts and some states have characterised Israel’s conduct in Gaza as genocide. Israel denies the allegation. Proceedings under the Genocide Convention remain ongoing before the International Court of Justice, which has issued provisional measures but has not made a final ruling on whether genocide has occurred.” ~2026-54148-28 (talk) 12:14, 7 October 2026 (UTC)
