Talk:Gaza war protests

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

Notification of large-scale article moving discussion

[edit]

I encourage individuals involved with maintaining this and other pro-Palestinian/Gaza war protest articles to provide feedback to this discussion: Talk:Ohio State University pro-Palestinian campus protests during the Gaza war - Wikipedia

We are currently discussing moving 21 articles en masse to conform to a new proposed naming format. I don't want to blindside anyone with these changes, hence this notification. Feel free to express opposition.

Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 16:33, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 2 September 2025

[edit]

Naming cleanup proposal (multi-article)

[edit]

Background. A prior discussion at Talk:Gaza war protests at Ohio State University#Requested move 19 August 2025 became overly broad (covering ~20 additional related articles). It was closed after renaming Ohio State University pro-Palestinian campus protests during the Gaza war to Gaza war protests at Ohio State University, with the suggestion to open a new RM elsewhere for the broader question. This section opens that discussion to consider renaming related articles along multiple lines.

Intent. Reduce title verbosity and provide a clear policy set for consistent renaming across similar articles.

All relevant pages will be notified shortly after this RM is created.

The above suggestions are example name changes and do not necessarily reflect the outcome of this RM discussion. Depending on policy votes, some may be changed, and others may not be changed at all.

Policies under discussion

[edit]

1) Campus occupation(s) alone

[edit]
  • 1A — Keep "campus occupations". In titles that have "campus occupation(s)" without "protests", keep "campus occupations". checkYcheckYcheckYcheckY
  • 1B — Replace with "protests". In titles that have "campus occupation(s)" without "protests", replace "campus occupations" with "protests". checkYcheckYcheckYcheckYcheckYcheckY
  • 1C — Use "campus occupations and protests". In titles that have "campus occupation(s)" without "protests", rename to "campus occupations and protests".

2) Campus occupation(s) and protests (both present)

[edit]
  • 2A — Keep both. In titles that include both "campus occupation(s)" and "protests", keep both. checkYcheckYcheckYcheckY
  • 2B — Keep only "protests". In titles that include both terms, keep only "protests". checkYcheckYcheckYcheckYcheckYcheckY

3) Title format (verbosity)

[edit]
  • 3A — Status quo. Keep the "X pro-Palestinian campus protests during the Gaza war ..." format. checkYcheckYcheckY
  • 3B — Concise "Gaza war". Adopt the "Gaza war protests at X" format. checkYcheckYcheckYcheckYcheckY
  • 3C — Concise "Gaza genocide". Adopt the "Gaza genocide protests at X" format. checkYcheckYcheckYcheckYcheckY

4) Dates in titles

[edit]
  • 4A — Keep all dates. checkYcheckYcheckY
  • 4B — Conditional removal. Remove dates only if article content currently extends beyond 2024. checkYcheckYcheckYcheckYcheckYcheckYcheckY
  • 4C — Remove where possible. Remove dates from titles as much as possible and reorganize articles accordingly. checkY

5) Inclusion of the word "the"

[edit]
  • 5A — Keep "the" conditionally. In articles that currently preface university names with "the", keep "the". checkYcheckYcheckYcheckYcheckYcheckYcheckY
  • 5B — Remove "the". Remove "the" from universities names that start with "the". checkYcheckY

Additional policy notes

[edit]

Per discussions below, there will be some exceptions to policy changes:

  • Dutch articles will not have dates removed if 4A/4B is voted upon due to discrepant organization practices for these articles
  • Gaza war protests at Ohio State University: "the" will not be added to this article if policy 5A is voted upon due to Ohio State University being the university's more commonly used name

How to participate

[edit]
  • To keep titles as they are now, support: 1A + 2A + 3A + 4A.

Please state which policies you support (e.g., “Support: 1B, 2B, 3B, 4C”), and feel free to propose additional policies or refinements.

You can vote for multiple of the same policy options, e.g. 3B and 3C, if you are agnostic with two but oppose the other.

Consensus & tracking

[edit]

A check mark will be placed in real time after each policy to reflect the current amount of endorsements it has received. If you leave a comment endorsing specific policies, feel free to add a new check mark yourself. Otherwise, I will do so for you as soon as I can.

Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 02:51, 2 September 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky (talk) 15:49, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion:

[edit]
Support 1B checkY, 2B checkY, 3C checkY, 4B checkY & 4C checkY, 5B checkY (updating based on subsequent discussions)
...in order to maximally reduce verbosity, to use consistent search terms in article titles, and to encourage editors to expand the scope of existing articles as much as possible using sources that have not yet been added.
I believe articles limited in scope (e.g., a campus occupations in 2024 article may have had notable protests in 2025) are not being added to due to the narrow nature of their current titles.
Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 03:01, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support 3C checkYComment:
Gaza war → Gaza genocide in all titles
The protestors, in their own words, have been protesting the genocide. Consensus among scholars on the fact that Israel has been committing genocide in Gaza is solidifying into unanimity at this point. That is what the title changes should be about. إيان (talk) 03:29, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have introduced new policy 3C for "Gaza genocide" and have changed my personal vote to endorse it, per your reasoning. I have registered your comment as a vote of Support 3C. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 04:15, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support on this point (3C) checkY. Afonso Dimas Martins (talk) 18:37, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:
@Alexandraaaacs1989: It was suggested that you enter a request for comment in order to establish a naming convention for this sort of article. Requests for comment generally run for 30 days and, rather than focus on specific articles, look at the big picture without diving too deeply into the names of individual articles. In contrast, requested moves are intended to run for only a week and focus on following established naming guidelines. Trying to bite off to much with a single RM tends to lead to "trainwreck" no-consensus closes, if not done very carefully... RfC venue would be the talk page for the appropriate Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events). wbm1058 (talk) 07:37, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I added the Request for Comment template twice in the previous discussion to understand next steps going forward, and both times it was immediately removed and I was scolded that RfC has no place in these kinds of discussions. I created this new RM discussion per the suggestion of another user in the previous discussion, and having received so much recent contradictory advice and having witnessed so many recent contradictory actions, I at this point have no idea who I should be listening to regarding procedures for this kind of proposal, and WP guidelines aren't of much help either.
If you can get an administrator to comment, you are welcome to do so, but I've stuck out my hand too many times to risk having it get bit again. I also feel that this is the best way to go about this kind of change, as the discussion has so far been very productive and provided significant clarity. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 07:58, 2 September 2025 (UTC) (updated Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 20:29, 2 September 2025 (UTC))[reply]
Support: 1A checkY, 2A checkY, 3B checkY, 4B checkY, 5A checkY. Oppose: 3C.
I support shortening the titles for consistency and readability, while maintaining accuracy and neutrality.
Regarding occupations vs. protests: When both occurred, both terms should remain (2A). Where only one term applies, it should be reflected accordingly (1A). Removing "occupations" entirely would eliminate important nuance.
Regarding "Gaza war" vs. "Gaza genocide": I oppose 3C. "Gaza genocide" is not a neutral or commonly accepted term in reliable sources and its use in titles would violate both WP:NPOV and WP:COMMONNAME.
On dates (4B), they should be retained only when necessary to distinguish between years, but avoided when overly specific to allow for content expansion beyond 2024.
For university names (5A), "the" should be retained when it is part of the institution’s official name (e.g., The Ohio State University), and omitted otherwise.
Given the scope and scale of this multi-page discussion, I also believe that an RfC at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events) may be a more appropriate venue to establish a consistent standard. Eliezer1987 (talk) 09:10, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Eliezer1987, thank you for your constructive contribution. I'll go through my perspectives on your votes and reasoning. Sorry if this is long—feel free to respond with shorter responses, if you wish to respond at all.
==== Policy 1 ====
Regarding your vote for 1A, I argue that although the term "occupations" applies to many existing articles, the actual scope of the article itself should be broadened to be inclusive of additional information. For example, we have seen this issue in articles such as 2024 University of Amsterdam pro-Palestinian campus occupations and 2024 University of California, Los Angeles pro-Palestinian campus occupation: a new protest section has been created in the "campus occupation" articles, but it's very limited in scope because going into depth about protests is WP:UNDUE given the current name of the article. If we renamed the articles, over time new editors would restructure it to also include notable protests that have not yet been added. Alternatively, we could create a new option to evaluate on a case-by-case basis whether articles should be renamed to "protests" depending on whether either 1) there is an existing protests section/protests information within or 2) based on whether additional notable protests have been reported in the news that should reasonably be added for context.
==== Policy 2 ====
Regarding your vote for 2A, none of my following arguments are airtight, but together I think they carry significant weight. 1) Campus occupations are a form of protest, meaning it is redundant to include both from a reductive logical point of view (per a point made in the previous discussion). 2) I also argue including "campus occupations and protests" is overly verbose (WP:CONCISE). 3) Finally, I argue it is often ambiguous what qualifies as a campus occupation as opposed to a merely protest—e.g., the Gaza Solidarity Encampment at Ohio State could conceivably be construed as a campus occupation, but it is not. So in the interest of not inserting editor POV, I think it would be best to lump "campus occupation and protest" articles simply under a "protests" label.
==== Policy 3 ====
Regarding 3C, the Gaza genocide, per the article, is a "Characterisation of Israeli war crimes in the Gaza war". Given the introduction to the article decided upon by editors:
"According to a United Nations special committee, Amnesty International, Médecins Sans Frontières, B'Tselem, Physicians for Human Rights–Israel, International Federation for Human Rights, numerous genocide studies and international law scholars (including the International Association of Genocide Scholars), and many other experts, Israel is committing genocide against the Palestinians during its ongoing blockade, invasion, and bombing of the Gaza Strip. Experts and human rights organisations identified acts of genocide"
I therefore disagree that Gaza genocide is not a "commonly accepted term in reliable sources". In Talk:Gaza genocide, it says "Q1: Why does this article title present an opinion as an established fact...? A1: The term "Gaza Genocide" is supported by a sufficient number of reliable sources. Whether the issue is contested is not the primary consideration when determining an article title on Wikipedia."
Since another article entitled Gaza genocide A) exists and B) clarifies that it is a characterization of events without violating WP:NPOV, it is my view that it is reasonable to allude to this characterization in the title because, like user:إيان said, the protesters themselves have alluded to their protests as protests over a genocide, not a war. In fact, I would be surprised if protesters alluded to the conflict as a war at all rather than as solely a genocide. Moreover, protests over the Gaza genocide would narrow the scope of the article to be more explicitly pro-Palestinian and therefore be more descriptive, because it assumes the protests subscribe to the view that there is a genocide in Gaza, and therefore does not include the logical possibility of pro-Israel protests occurring over the Gaza war.
==== Policy 4 ====
I can get behind your logic here—I'll change my vote to reflect being open to 4B.
==== Policy 5 ====
Keeping "the" in names when it is in an institution's official title is not a steadfast rule, as Ohio State University article is named "Ohio State University", even though the institution's official name is "The Ohio State University", because per WP:AT and WP:CONCISE - Use commonly recognizable names, there are exceptions for the sake of concision. I believe these proposed changes are examples of article titles benefitting from concision.
==== Moving this discussion ====
I am not an expert on where these kinds of discussions belong. I feel like we've been productive so far and therefore that this is the correct avenue for this kind of discussion, but if you feel a need to request administrator comments to get a corroborating opinion, you are welcome to do so—I just am hesitant to close this discussion altogether, but if consensus is reached it should be closed, I am not opposed.
Thank you for your contributions to and votes in this discussion! Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 17:20, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Options A 1-5 checkYcheckYcheckYcheckYcheckY, oppose moves
I'm a big fan of consistency, but the issue here is that the protests themselves weren't consistently the same. As Eliezer1987 points out some were occupations, others were protests, and some were both and equally due for inclusion in the title, thus these articles are best named at local consensus based specifically on the content of the topic, which varies across universities and countries. The other main issue with renaming to Gaza war protests, is that these aren't/weren't child articles of that topic, but instead Pro-Palestinian protests (evidenced by holding the redirect) along with Pro-Palestinian protests on university campuses. This is based on the WP:COMMONNAME from reliable sources within the articles, which was decided at RM back in 2024 with not a lot changing since then. It's deliberately different because those protests were different from non-university based protests (even if still a sub-section of it at the end of the day). Furthermore, strong oppose to renaming all of these to Gaza genocide protests, as this isn't referenced in all protests even if highly notable in some. Likewise for dates, as they are dated for a reason, and some topics have both 2024 and 2025 articles like the parent articles. Also no idea why Gaza genocide protests at Ohio State University is proposed as part of this move, as opposed to leaving it at Gaza war protests at Ohio State University. CNC (talk) 10:22, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I added above: The above suggestions are example name changes and do not necessarily reflect the outcome of this RM discussion. The reason why Gaza genocide protests at Ohio State University was suggested as a move was because I needed a specific move suggestion to use for the template in that article from its current title, and given the introduction of policy 3C, it is technically possible that this will be the new article title as a result of the move if 3C garners enough support.
Your point: pro-Palestinian protests is better than Gaza war protests based on common reliable sources My response: The problem with "pro-Palestinian protests" is that the time period to which "pro-Palestinian protests" refers is ambiguous—i.e., it refers to events before/after the Gaza war/Gaza genocide, therefore broadens the scope, and therefore needs the qualifier "during the Gaza war". That is why simply removing "pro-Palestinian protests at X during the Gaza war" to "Gaza war protests at X" is on the table (per WP:CONCISE).
I've responded to the point about "occupations" and "genocide" in the title in my response to @Eliezer1987's contribution to the discussion.
For moving the discussion, I've responded to other users who suggested the same and feel I have little more to add regarding this suggestion. Feel free to do what you will, but I do feel like this suggestion has been productive so far and wish to continue it to gauge whether we can approach consensus.
Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 17:39, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support 1B checkY, 2B checkY, 3B checkY, 4B (but 4A for Dutch universities) checkY, 5A checkY. (Mostly as proposed, except for the adding "the" for the relevant universities, and dates now have to be kept for the Dutch universities.)
1B, 2B and 3B: These are WP:CONSISTENT with the title of this article (Gaza war protests), and this style brings the articles for protests by university in line with the articles for protests by country.
4B: Alexandraaaacs1989 kindly offered in the 19 August RM to make changes to articles which would expand their chronological scope. However, the situation has since changed for Dutch universities because separate 2024 and 2025 articles have been created for all of them, so I suggest no change in chronological scope for those articles. The list of affected articles is below. So as not to overcomplicate this RM, it might be best to strike through the three articles on Dutch topics in this nomination and deal with all the below in a future RM after this one is closed; then my !vote here can be a simple 4B.
5A: Not including "the" would break consistency with the titles of related articles such as Colleges of the University of Oxford; History of the University of California, Los Angeles; and Nike and the University of Oregon. For clarity, these are the article titles where I think "the" should be included if the new style is applied:
(The) Ohio State University is an unusual case; we have a related article titled History of Ohio State University, despite the official name apparently being "The Ohio State University". Per WP:OFFICIALNAME we can disregard an official form if another form is more commonly used.
In the 19 August RM I expressed concern that "Gaza war protests" might be too broad a term for five of these articles – UC Davis, UC Irvine, USC, Oregon and PSU – because those ones just seem to be about individual encampments or occupations. Is it feasible to expand these articles so that their scope is more than a single protest against the Gaza war? Ham II (talk) 18:46, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Ham II, thank you for your kind words and for notifying us of the situation with Dutch articles. I support keeping the chronology of those a separate topic for a different RM, as you requested.
As for your question relating to "Gaza war protests" being too broad relating to the 5 articles you mentioned, I did a brief search for news related to each article and it appears it is feasible to expand all five of these articles so their scopes cover more protests than a single event.
As for your suggestion removing "the" in only the OSU article but not in other articles, I can get behind this and will create a "notes" section to mention this up top, as well as to mention your note about Dutch article chronologies.
As for your suggestion to maintain a WP:CONSISTENT format with Gaza war protests, if Gaza genocide protests is decided upon, we could rename this article to Gaza genocide protests in order to maintain consistency. Therefore, I will expand the move request to encompass a possible move of this article to Gaza genocide protests just in case there is consensus for 3C.
Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 20:12, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support 1B checkY, 2B checkY, 3B checkY, 4B checkY, 5B checkY
I basically support the moves that keep the article titles more concise and consistent. Some protests involved occupying campuses but the more generic term is "protest". Not opposed to making exceptions where warranted. I came to this discussion via the Columbia University pro-Palestinian campus protests and occupations during the Gaza war article, whose name is very unwieldy. I oppose 3C as this was not consensus when these pages were written and I don't think is consensus even now although it's trending in that direction. Nnev66 (talk) 19:35, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
this was not consensus when these pages were written This is not a Wikipedia policy. Pages are constantly being revised and rewritten.
I don't think is consensus even now although it's trending in that direction There certainly is consensus. Read the recent news about the International Association of Genocide Scholars: [1][2][3][4] إيان (talk) 21:46, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I second this. There is absolutely consensus among non-partisan international human rights organizations and scholars that this is a genocide. In fact, I don't think there is a single reputable non-partisan international human rights organization that has rejected the label of "genocide". Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 22:11, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I just created article List of humanitarian groups accusing Israel of genocide in Gaza. To name a few groups accusing Israel of genocide, there's the Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention, Genocide Watch, a United Nations special report, and the International Association of Genocide Scholars—all leading international authorities on genocide. (updated Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 18:52, 3 September 2025 (UTC))[reply]
Strong support this as well. What is happening in Palestine is increasingly recognized as genocide rather than war because Israel’s actions - to name a few, mass killing of civilians (an average of 93 a day), deliberate destruction of hospitals (34 out of 36), homes, and essential infrastructure (including agricultural land), forced starvation, and displacement - target the survival of Palestinians as a group rather than constituting reciprocal armed conflict. This assessment has gained consensus among genocide scholars and was affirmed by the ICJ, which ruled that Israel’s conduct plausibly falls within the Genocide Convention. We must call it what it is. It is a genocide and it's no longer up for debate. Afonso Dimas Martins (talk) 08:05, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, The International Federation for Human Rights, Doctors without Borders, of course the earlier mentioned International Association of Genocide Scholars, European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights, even NGO's inside Israel, have called it a genocide. Not to mention the ongoing trials which at the very least show there's enough evidence to have a case. What is being waited for, for us to say there is a consensus? Nearly every relevant NGO has said it's one. ReiPeixe (talk) 06:30, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support for 1-B checkY, 2-B checkY, 3-C checkY, 4-B checkY, 5-A checkY, as the academic consensus is overwhelmingly supporting that a genocide is occurring. David A (talk) 17:51, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support 1B checkY, 2B checkY, 3C checkY, 4B checkY, 5A checkY
"Campus occupations" is far too restrictive as there have been plenty of protests that had nothing to do with the campuses, and campus protests that didn't involve 'occupations'. The wording seems to be a bit charged. The 'campus occupations' should be a part of a broader article of the protests overall. It does not make sense to have two seperate articles. As for war vs genocide, all those protesting would consider what is going on a genocide, and their protests as anti-genocide protests. Not to mention, even if we are not to regard the opinions of those who created the protests on it's name, we can clearly see what it being protested against, which is the alleged genocidal acts by the Israeli state not simply the war itself. ReiPeixe (talk) 06:14, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support 1A checkY, 2A checkY, 3A checkY, 4A checkY, 5A checkY.
With regards to "pro-Palestinian" vs. Gaza War, numerous sources confirmed the demonstrations were in support of a free Palestine, which is beyond stopping the Gaza War and returning to the status quo, thus pro-Palestinian is correct. Furthermore, the article is Gaza war, so "Gaza genocide" is not WP:COMMONNAME. The dates provide important context. Therefore, I cannot see the argument for changing the status quo at all. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:27, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:
Good on to those of you who managed to read through all of this. Alexandraaaacs1989, you should really minimize the amount of walls-of-text (in general >0 is bad). There is just no justification for the amount of text in a simple RM proposal. Even RFCs have less text. --Gonnym (talk) 16:40, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll ignore the passive aggressive comment in this reply. This is not a simple RM proposal—it's a 5-dimensional RM proposal relating to 22 high-profile articles subject to ArbCom restrictions, and as such, this move deserves proper space for in-depth discussion. If you believe I said something that was fluff or irrelevant, please notify me of such instances. Otherwise, I intentionally indented the discussion section so that my "wall of text" is easy to skim over for those who choose not to read it, as no one is forcing anyone to read any part of this discussion before writing a reply. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 17:32, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support 1B checkY, 2B checkY, 3B checkY, 4B checkY, 5A checkY
As other editors have stated above, my support comes from a desire to have these titles shorter and more consistent. Particularly, replacing campus occupation with protest is something that achieves both of these goals. Perhaps the most controversial part of this discussion, I oppose 3C for a few reasons, including that (according to my non-extensive personal analysis) many sources in the individual articles state that these protests were related to the Gaza war rather than the Gaza genocide. I agree with this characterization for the most part, but acknowledge this fact is partly impacted by more mainstream sources not acknowledging a genocide until this year (or still haven't), and that these articles cover 2024, when the word genocide was even more taboo than it is today. Yeoutie (talk) 15:02, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dear @Yeoutie,
I wrote a response to another comment by @Kelob2678 who used the same logic as you did to justify opposing 3C. If you could read my response to his comment, this would be appreciated, since I would like to think it in some way pushes back against the "deferring to article statements" logic you provided. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 21:08, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose genocide, ie: support 3A checkY > 3B; 1A checkY 2A checkY 4A checkY 5A checkY
We don't say Dresden genocide but Bombing of Dresden, nor Hiroshima genocide but Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Israel is fighting a defensive war that, like WW2, resulted in thorough devastation of the initial aggressor's land and population. The analogy is even correct down to Hamas blocking any elections and semblances of democracy, just like NSDAP did — thus, just like a lot of Germans disliked the Nazis, so do Palestinians towards Hamas. And of course, Nazi sympathizers did protest it just like Hamas sympathizers do today. There should be no normalization of the protesters' goals — the side they support has the words "death to Jews" literally in their foundation charter and on some of official battle standards — and includes a total removal of Israel in the current version of the charter. And of course, it's the general population that suffers due to Hamas leadership, no matter if they support it or not. -KiloByte (talk) 17:43, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is a laughably wrong false equivalence. There is already a consensus among reliable sources that what's happening is a genocide. The International Association of Genocide Scholars - the leading academic body in genocide studies by the way - voted overwhelmingly (86%) in favor of a resolution declaring that Israel’s actions in Gaza fulfill the legal definition of genocide under Article II of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The resolution cited deliberate attacks on civilians, starvation tactics, deprivation of essentials including water and humanitarian aid, forced displacement, and sexual and reproductive violence as evidence supporting the genocide classification. About 83% of those killed by Israel are civilians, compared to 3% killed by Russia in Ukraine's war. These are not normal war numbers, it's a complete ethnic cleansing and genocide is the right term for it. Afonso Dimas Martins (talk) 17:50, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@KiloByte I support Afonso Dimas Martins's comment. It's also important to note that debating whether a genocide is happening is like debating whether climate change is happening. Yes, you may be able to argue some points to say it's not happening. But when every reputable authority figure on whether this phenomenon is happening is saying yes, it doesn't really matter what we think. These people (IAGS, the Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention, Genocide Watch, UN special committees, etc) have been studying international law and genocide their entire lives. Hundreds of humanitarian NGOs have accused Israel of genocide. They know more than we do, and it is our job as Wikipedia editors not to insert our own opinions, but to listen to authorities. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 20:47, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support 1B checkY, 2B checkY, 3B checkY, 4B checkY
Protests for consistency. The sources also sometimes describe events as protests even in cases where clear occupation took place. Looking at Google Trends, "protests" is far more common than "occupation".
Without a decision of the ICC or the ICJ, I believe it is WP:POVTITLE to call it the Gaza genocide, irrespective of the consensus on the respective page. I looked at Google News using the queries gaza genocide protests when:7d and gaza war protests when:7d I see roughly 60 results for the former and 90 for the latter. The ratio was probably even more in favor of "war" over "genocide" at the time of the events, which is supported by Google Trends. Kelob2678 (talk) 20:14, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Kelob2678 I've added your votes, thanks for your comment. On point 3B vs 3C:
Tallying up articles written by the media is a pretty clever idea for determining whether to use "genocide protests" or "war protests"—I haven't thought of that, but I'll definitely add it to my toolbox for the future.
However, I unfortunately have to push back a little. Media bias, Media bias in the United States, and Media coverage of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict being biased due to the Israel lobby in the United States and other countries are certainly substantial factors when it comes to whether news outlets report a genocide protest or a war protest.
For example, according to the Media coverage of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict article, The Intercept reported that in October 2024, on the outbreak of the Gaza war, an internal memo written by Philip Pan and other senior New York Times editors instructed the paper's journalists to restrict, or avoid or refrain generally from using the terms genocide, ethnic cleansing, occupied territory, Palestine, and refugee camps. This would certainly influence whether articles included in your query are referred to as Gaza war protests or Gaza genocide protests.
Therefore, it's my view not that we should defer to news outlets on whether these are protesting a genocide or a war, but A) the protesters' own words when possible (if you need sources they are in their words protesting a genocide, I can reference some upon request), because what the protesters are protesting is determined not by external media outlets but by the protesters themselves; and B) leading world authority figures on whether a genocide is happening.
Please let me know whether my reasoning was convincing.
Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 21:03, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I searched further using NOW Corpus (requires registration). The only source that used the phrase "Gaza genocide protests" was Daily Pakistan, and its context wasn't related to student protesters. In contrast, "Gaza war protests" was used in 48 articles, among them Nature (April 2024), NBC (April 2024), LA Times (May 2024), BBC (March 2025), Boston Globe (April 2025, very biased but still RS), The Daily Telegraph (July 2025), Politico (September 2025). It is indeed likely influenced by political considerations, but WP:RGW applies. Kelob2678 (talk) 09:58, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your view that we should not defer to news outlets for common name, but this completely contradicts WP policy on the matter: "as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable, English-language sources". Ergo, how protesters describe their own protests does not influence this (unless it's given some credibility by independent, reliable sources). Whether a genocide or not is happening is also besides the point of an article's common name, if the protesters aren't being reported on as being against such a genocide. CNC (talk) 14:24, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose 3C
This is the only issue I want to opine on at the moment. Per the last RfC at Gaza genocide we can't use the genocide label in Wikivoice, so that should close the book on that question. This is not the place to overturn that consensus. However, even if that were to change in the future, it's still not clear that every protest viewed the war as a genocide (particularly in the earliest stages of the war). EvansHallBear (talk) 23:42, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But Wikipedia "not taking a stance" by calling it a war when a long list of humanitarian organizations and experts are calling it a genocide, is precisely taking the stance of the Zionists and genocide-deniers. There's no neutral Wikivoice on some subjects I'm afraid. Afonso Dimas Martins (talk) 09:10, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is simply the wrong place to have that discussion. There's an ongoing RfC at Gaza genocide where interested parties can weigh in. EvansHallBear (talk) 17:47, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How is it not the place to have the discussion if that is exactly one of the motions (3C) being considered? Afonso Dimas Martins (talk) 17:51, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You could argue that 3C does not violate the RfC as it wouldn't necessarily state genocide in Wikivoice, similar to how we can still title the article Gaza genocide. But the question of stating genocide in Wikivoice doesn't belong here. EvansHallBear (talk) 17:58, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah I understand. But then calling it Gaza war makes even less sense as all protests were about a free Palestine against the genocide. But of course that isn't picked up by the media which downplays it to being only a war and being only about Gaza. So should the Wikivoice be a mediavoice or a factsvoice? Afonso Dimas Martins (talk) 18:11, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I'm in agreement that there's a consensus of scholars and human rights orgs that Israel is committing genocide. But even if the vast majority of the protesters also held that view, if we don't have RS that say they were protesting genocide (and not just a "conflict") then we can't make that claim. EvansHallBear (talk) 18:48, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We need to be responsible in our engagement with the sources. Several participants in these protests have articulated the nature of their protest themselves, through published opinions in op-eds, interviews, and statements to the press. Scholars, too, are now far beyond consensus—verging on unanimity—on the matter of Gaza genocide. We can't lend WP:undue weight to legacy journalistic sources that say otherwise. إيان (talk) 08:18, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Some sources in the cases of protests at Columbia, for example, in which participants and others associated describe their political activism as against the Gaza genocide:
  • Khalil, Mahmoud. "A Letter to Columbia". Columbia Daily Spectator. Retrieved 2025-09-10.
  • Democracy Now! (2025-03-28). "The Encampments": New Film on Mahmoud Khalil & Columbia Students Who Sparked Gaza Campus Protests. Retrieved 2025-09-10 – via YouTube.
  • Melnick, Jeff; Lamalle, Juliette (pseudo.) (2025-09-02). "Columbia punished our kids for protesting against the genocide in Gaza. We condemn the university's cowardice". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 2025-09-10.
  • Democracy Now! (2025-05-16). "They Want to Silence Me": Columbia Student Mohsen Mahdawi on ICE Jail, Palestine, Buddhism & More. Retrieved 2025-09-10 – via YouTube.
  • Mahdawi, Mohsen (2025-05-02). "Opinion | I Was Detained for My Beliefs. Who Will Be Next?". Retrieved 2025-09-10.
  • Howley, Joseph A. "Campuses like ours are a second front in Israel's war on higher education and free expression". Columbia Daily Spectator. Retrieved 2025-09-10.
  • Ramirez, Isabella; Amira McKee, Rebecca Massel, Emily Forgash, Noah Bernstein, Sabrina Ticer-Wurr, and Apurva Chakravarthy. "Our Campus. Our Crisis". Columbia Daily Spectator. Retrieved 2025-09-10.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
إيان (talk) 09:48, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Columbia would be top of the list for Gaza genocide inclusion, but that's not a great source list either. WP:DEMOCRACYNOW is not really good enough, Daily Spectator is questionably too close to the subject (though still reliable), and The Guardian has it's well known biases.. For a change to COMMONNAME you'd want sources from across the political spectrum (the majotity) reporting in this way which is far from the case. If anything some of the Netherlands occupations were more anti-genocide orientated than anti-war, but none of them appear to meet the threshold as far as I can tell (or at least remember from 2024). CNC (talk) 10:12, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
YOU: "For a change to COMMONNAME you'd want sources from across the political spectrum"
ME: Sources across the political spectrum do not agree that the U.S. 2020 election was not stolen, yet we report that it was not stolen regardless. If we are being honest, right-wing news outlets are significantly more likely to spread misinformation and biased narratives than left-wing news outlets. So should we really be prioritizing referencing common article framings between both sides of the spectrum? Because as long as debate over whether X is happening remains in the Overton window, there will be disagreement between both sides of the spectrum, even when facts backed by reliable sources per Wiki standards clearly strongly favor one side over the other.
-----
YOU: Some articles are "too close to the subject" for their "genocide" phrasing to be considered
ME: I argue every news source is close to the subject. The New York Times had executives email employees not to use the word "genocide" in articles (according to this article), yet WP:NYT considers it a reliable source. Similar cases occurred with WP:CNN, WP:REUTERS, and a myriad of other reliable news sources. It is impossible to separate political media outlets from the subject—I wouldn't be surprised if, behind the doors, the majority of news outlets decided on a politically-motivated policy for discussing the Gaza war. So then this devalues the idea that news article framings should be our reference point when deciding article names and instead places emphasis, in my view, on listening to the views of students as described by reliable sources (like the ones mentioned by إيان, some of which are biased, but it's my impression they accurately cite the views of the students). This is not violating WP:RGW because it merely reflects a shift in our reference points for naming articles—not drawing on article framings, but drawing on, to the extent they exist, trustworthy article descriptions of students' views.
-----
YOU: Columbia is the best case for renaming to "Gaza genocide", but this doesn't necessarily translate to other universities.
ME: SJP Columbia ignited and in a way set a model for the movement. And the official stance of SJP, which more or less led the movement between all the individual university protests, is that they are protesting a genocide. (In fact, one of the stances of SJP OSU is that they are protesting a genocide as well, per the article). So I would argue on this basis that the position that "إيان's sources are relevant to Columbia and SJP but not to the broader movement" is a misunderstanding: since إيان cited sources showing the Columbia protests and SJP members alleged genocide, that's actually a strong case that the broader movement is explicitly and primarily anti-genocide.
Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 18:53, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The sourcing I provided is for how the people who did the protests themselves narrated and articulated their protest, instead of exonyms applied by legacy media outlets that have been repeatedly criticized for their coverage of matters relating to the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. The attribution is not to The New York Times, The Guardian, nor Democracy Now!, for example, but to the people hosted on these outlets who speak for themselves and the movements they represent—therefore concerns about them as a potentially partisan sources do not apply needing to be counterbalanced by partisan sources perceived representing a different segment of a political spectrum. إيان (talk) 19:20, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree about that the protesters themselves should be allowed to define what they are protesting against, not people who are actively attempting to slander them. David A (talk) 05:32, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is why there were/are named as Pro-Palestinian protests. It's the nearest we can get to label protests that go beyond the gaza war and into broader issues like blockades and genocide. Changing these titles to merely Gaza war protests reduces them considerably by intended scope alone, as does removing occupations when they were some of the most notable forms of certain protests (in the U.S. in 2024 predominantly). This is why based on WP:CONCISE there is a reason the status quo has existed for so long, and it's not for lack of RMs. CNC (talk) 19:18, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wholeheartedly agree with this. "Pro-Palestinian protests" fits the scope better and avoids parallel discussions of war vs genocide. Afonso Dimas Martins (talk) 19:19, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, we don't need to impose a nationalist framework by inscribing 'pro-Palestinian,' especially not by replacing a concise identifier addressing the reasons for the protest, often explicitly articulated by people participating in the protest in reliable published sources. إيان (talk) 08:26, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We're not imposing a nationalist framework no, the protests are described as "pro-Palestinian" based on COMMONNAME from previous consensus on the subject (where pro-Palestinian redirects to - instead of an a topic like Palestinian cause - is somewhat irrelevant to the reason for the phrasing). Consensus can change, but I'm not seeing any change to the 2024 common names, even if 2025 remains a subject for debate. The protests also varied considerably in their strategies, motives, and ideologies, hence variations in article titles. Some continued into 2025, others didn't, so labelling them all identically based on consistency completely ignores being concise regarding varying scope. CNC (talk) 10:21, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]