Talk:Cultural discourse about the Gaza genocide


Lead section has extra information

[edit]

I tagged this article for clean-up because the lead section has extra information not included in the article. The lead mentions that Israel has invaded the Gaza strip, however this is not explained or even mentioned anywhere else in the article. there needs to be some sort of background material in the article about the Israeli invasion of Gaza for this to be mentioned in the lead. Otherwise, the article assumes knowledge that the reader may not have. See MOS:LEAD for purpose of the lead. It should provide an accessible overview to the whole article. Information in the lead should be in the body of the article too. See WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY - Cameron Dewe (talk) 22:20, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the link to the main invasion article should be sufficient for readers who need background information on the invasion, but the article could be improved with a short background section if you feel that one is necessary, or a sidebar that connects it back to related articles in the topic area. Most traffic to this page will be from the parent article, which has more explanation. Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 01:06, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I came across this article without encountering either the article about the Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip or the article about the Gaza genocide. So I was initially confused about what invasion was being talked about, as the lead doesn't contain enough clues to orient the reader to what the article is talking about without having to click away to another article. Since the lead will often appear in isolation in results from search or summaries on another website, you should not assume that readers can read another article to understand the context of the lead section. Also, which invasion of Gaza are we talking about? There has been an ongoing intermittent wars over Gaza for more than a hundred years, and in the general area since biblical times. If somebody discovers this article in a hundred years, will they appreciate what the article is discussing? So, yes, some background information is ging to be helpful to the reader. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 01:53, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We can create an overview section, and copy and paste the lead of Gaza genocide. This would fix the problem. Bogazicili (talk) 18:39, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality of title

[edit]

@Monk of Monk Hall: Giving this article the title Cultural discourse about the Gaza genocide pre-supposes there is a "Gaza genocide". So far, genocide in the "Israeli invasion of Gaza" has not been proved and what people are really discussing is their opinions about the "Israeli invasion of Gaza", and whether or not this invasion has a genocidal objective, is ethnic cleansing, or is a military operation to eliminate Hamas fighters and release hostages in Gaza. Wikipedia articles should be given neutral names. Using the term "Gaza genocide" implies a genocide situation exists, while using the term "Israeli invasion of Gaza" is much more neutral and allows both sides of the argument to be discussed in the article. See WP:POVTITLE and WP:IMPARTIAL. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 23:00, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is intended to be a child article of Gaza genocide. It is not intended to exceed the consensus established on that page, which is that the title Gaza genocide itself is not a judgment of the truth or falsity of the Gaza genocide case. I don't think that Cultural discourse about the Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip is a better title for the contents of this child article, because that is a broader topic than the one described here. The section of Gaza genocide from which this page is derived primarily includes material where a figure of some cultural significance is weighing in on the question of genocide in Gaza in some form, or opinion polling on the genocide question. It's not about other aspects of the invasion and the corresponding cultural discourse. In other related pages, editors have chosen to solve this problem by tweaking the title, for example with Template:Expert opinions in the Gaza genocide debate. I was not able to find a way to apply that sort of language in this title, but I am not really interested in defending the current title if someone can suggest a better one that accurately captures the contents of this child article. I can also see this article being improved in a way that would justify a title change, but ideally the excerpted lead would still fit in the Gaza genocide page so that this page does not disrupt its parent. Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 01:02, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't aware this was intended to be a child article of another article which had Gaza genocide in the title. Because it is a child article, there should be a hatnote such as {{Main}} that indicates readers should read this article in conjunction with Gaza genocide. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 02:01, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Gaza genocide was over 15k words, so a part of it had to be trimmed per WP:TOOBIG Bogazicili (talk) 18:33, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We don't put Main hatnote on top of the lead. It is noted in Gaza_genocide#Cultural_discourse Bogazicili (talk) 18:36, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ms. Rachel

[edit]

I wrote a paragraph about Ms. Rachel. For anyone who's wondering why I wrote a separate paragraph for her instead of merging her with the list of public figures at the beginning of the article, it's because I had a hard time finding any source where she has explicitly called it a genocide. I'm sure she wouldn't object to calling it that, but she just hasn't used that language yet. However, she constantly speaks out against it. Thus, I felt uncomfortable including her there, but still felt like it was noteworthy enough to receive its own paragraph. Tul10616 (talk) 06:10, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also have not seen Ms. Rachel use the term genocide. Although she has been very outspoken about the impact of the war on children, we shouldn't attribute views to her that she hasn't actually conveyed. EvansHallBear (talk) 09:04, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I just felt that it was still important for me to include her in here because she has been an important part of the overall cultural discourse. Tul10616 (talk) 16:52, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]