Jump to content

Template talk:Gaza genocide sidebar

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Add topic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Latest comment: 1 day ago by David A in topic List of BIDI removals - examine

Removal of Genocidal intent section

[edit]
Latest comment: 10 months ago18 comments2 people in discussion

Hey CNC, thanks for your improvements to the template. It looks like you removed the Genocidal intent section entirely here. Was this intentional? Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 15:41, 5 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Yes it was mainly only section links per previous version, but there is a list to return I see so will fix. CNC (talk) 15:52, 5 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
So this link was the only one to restore, the others were sections links or duplicate like Palestinian genocide accusation. Given there is only two topics, there is no real need for a seperate list here. CNC (talk) 15:58, 5 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
Gotcha, thanks for letting me know. My only objection is putting "genocidal intent" directly under "genocidal acts" since this would be a conflation of terms under intl law. Hoping we can minimally reorganize to ensure a distinction is made between acts and the ~3 standalone intent articles. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 16:00, 5 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
We could also simply rename "Genocidal acts (actus reus)" to "Genocidal acts and intent" Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 16:03, 5 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
Ok have done that, if you give me a bit of time will work on making it alphabetical and some grouping where it'd save space or make sense. CNC (talk) 16:12, 5 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
Sounds good! My personal preference is for list1 to be acts and list2 to be intent (even though intent is short), but I won't die on this hill. Thanks for the help! Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 16:19, 5 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
Ok think I'm sort of done. Was thinking of tidying trimming down Template:Gaza genocide as well as convinced it could be made collapsible as a single template rather than by list. Last time I tried I couldn't figure out to change the collapsible option for lists though, any ideas? CNC (talk) 17:00, 5 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
Just made a change with the comment - Re-added genocidal intent section, legal cases section only has 3 articles and this one does too so I think it makes sense to have this distinction. I'll notify CNC in the talk page, definitely don't want to edit war, but I think tucking intent away in the middle of a bunch of genocidal acts doesn't help the reader navigationally. Is this alright? Seeing the final product, I really think it makes sense to keep acts and intent in separate lists. Definitely don't want to edit war, do you see where I'm coming from though, especially since there's another section with only 3 articles?
As for Template:Gaza genocide, good thinking, and while we're at it we could do the same for Template:Gaza war and Template:Campaignbox Gaza war.
Regarding your collapsibility suggestion, check this out and let me know what you think. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 03:41, 6 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
That's fine, the template doesn't need to be in the image of what I think's best, and on reflection it's fine (after trimming away some excess articles, it's far from cluttered). That sandbox example is otherwise what I was looking for thanks. I'm going to work with that and see if I can convert some lists to groups (just to warn you). It should make more sense on that template as usually sidebars will use more lists while navboxes will use less but more groups (given that sidebars effectively have no grouping). CNC (talk) 11:53, 6 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
Thanks, and sounds good! Looking forward to seeing what you do with it. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 14:14, 6 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
I've got this far, will be updating it soon enough. Just need to check it over, feel free to let me know what you think. CNC (talk) 15:27, 6 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
That's quite the series of changes! Personally, I'm struggling to form an opinion on it, but overall I do like how it's much easier to read. I also like a lot of the changes you made (especially with simplifying sections), but removing the Genocide Convention Article II a-d categories in genocidal acts gives me more mixed feelings, even though I understand why this might be beneficial. I also feel like removing some of the section links (like the American official statements section) might be harmful because while it makes a lot more sense in the campaignbox to remove section links, I think it's acceptable for this to be more of an in-depth navigational tool when it comes to linking to article sections explicitly, even if that means it's a bit more verbose. Feel free to notify me when you make some more changes and I'll give it another look—maybe having a little more time to think would be useful. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 15:48, 6 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
For example, Israel and weapons of mass destruction and many other articles have their own sections dedicated specifically to the Gaza war/genocide that I think deserve a spot in the template. It also looks like some other articles like Environmental impact of the Gaza war were removed altogether that I think are deserving of inclusion. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 15:51, 6 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
The problem with the Genocide Convention Article II a-d categories is that it made the navbox in the format of a genocide accusation, not within the structure of wikipedia coverage of the topics. Hence the groups are more orientated towards the natural grouping of topics, not the grouping based on the genocide convention. Because after all readers are trying to navigate articles on wikipedia, not a convention, nor weighing up arguments for a vs b.
I've otherwise added Israel and weapons of mass destruction and the American officials section, the latter can be an exception I guess as does have good coverage, even if best not to link an article multiple times by sections. As for Environmental impact of the Gaza war, there is no mention of genocide in the article, so is somewhat misleading for readers searching for content there that establishes the connection between the two topics, as they won't find it. I get there is likely a connection, but it should be established before the template added. Ultimately most of what has been removed in unnecessary space and surplus groupings/lists, aside from a handful of topics that made no reference to the genocide. I'll otherwise try check it over one last time before updating and will let you know. CNC (talk) 16:51, 6 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
Good point with the Article II a-d - you convinced me.
I would argue the environmental impact article falls under "conditions of life" genocidal act c per WP:BLUE, but you'd probably reply this might be WP:SYNTH. I can see both sides so I'll leave that one up to you.
And fair enough - my only remaining concern is that when you removed all sections relating to the genocide that some other similar articles to the mass destruction article (that have notable sections worthy of being linked) might have been removed during the mass removal of sections. If you could run through what you removed one more time to double check that no other sections worthy of inclusion were removed then I would really appreciate it and I'll happily support your updates. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 17:15, 6 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
I wouldn't reply with synth necessarily, as it's a navbox and not content, but it would fail WP:NAV-RELATED per "related by reliable sources in the actual articles".
One of the other links was United Nations, which is broken, as well as Explicit statements by national governments, which is also broken, which hopefully you can see why is another good reason not to have links like this that expire. Generally the other point as to why to avoid sections is because it makes the article links less visible by overwhelming the template with links. There were other sections, as well as articles, but they were only loosely related so removed on that basis. You can check by searching for # in the current template for section links btw. CNC (talk) 18:06, 6 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
Gotcha! Fair enough then, feel free to upload your edits and I'll support it. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 18:14, 6 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Disruptive editing by a user on this template

[edit]
Latest comment: 5 months ago11 comments4 people in discussion

Without notifying the talk page or attempting to build any semblance of consensus on this contentious and long-standing template that has been the subject of countless iterations and revision/debate, Sirfurboy removed 35 articles from this template . I undid these changes per WP:EDITCON.

This is a clear violation of WP:CAREFUL and therefore qualifies as disruptive editing. Sirfurboy, if you would like to remove half of the content from this template, make a case and build consensus. That is how Wikipedia works, especially when it comes to contentious topics like Israel-Palestine, and ignoring your obligation to build consensus before removing significant amounts of information from high-visibility templates is extremely disruptive.

This also may be approaching WP:HOUNDING territory because Sirfurboy only found this template because he disputed another template I created, (presumably) went to my user page, saw that I made a different template, and wanted to correct my other "wrongs".

Sirfurboy, please do not do this again. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 20:41, 21 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

Read WP:BIDIRECTIONAL. None of those were bidirectional, and I did, of course, notify you that I was going to do so beforehand . None of the links should be there, per policy, because they are not WP:BIDIRECTIONAL. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:47, 21 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
That ping in no way alerted me to the fact you were planning on deleting half of the content from this template.
If what you say is true, then convince editors your interpretation of policy is the correct one on this talk page and build consensus. Your own understanding of Wikipedia policy is not automatically the correct interpretation.
As a heads up, if you do not acknowledge that you were mistaken to delete half of the content from this template without notifying anyone and that this action was disruptive, then I may take this to the administrator's noticeboard. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 20:52, 21 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
Per your request, I am taking this to the noticeboard. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 20:58, 21 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
I didn't request you take it to a noticeboard. I requested that you avoid assumptions of bad faith. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:53, 21 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
I concur with Sirfurboy. The template is wildly out of step with our guidelines; improving it to comply with those guidelines is an obvious benefit. The guidelines have a stronger consensus than a local one, so he was editing in accordance with consensus. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:40, 21 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
Couldn't we easily fix the BIDIRECTIONAL issue and maintain most of the previously more extensive (and useful) sidebar by just adding the sidebar to the articles as appropriate (for example maybe the ones that don't have a sidebar on them yet). Seems like that should be ok per WP:SIDEBAR. I'll take a look at a few of them. ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 23:04, 21 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
That is the traditional approach, yes. But per WP:SIDEBAR articles in a sidebar template should be fairly tightly related. Remember that a SIDEBAR is not an exhaustive taxonomy, but a curated collection of tightly related articles on a subject that form a series of highlighted articles for the reader. That won't be the case for all of those articles. It may be the case for some of them. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 23:15, 21 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
Oh for sure, for example I don't see a reason to directly link to the article for Netanyahu in the "Intervention" section, but I think there's a good argument to be made for a fair number of them that were in the "Genocidal acts" section. But I agree with you that there's a fair amount of editorial judgment that goes into these. ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 23:25, 21 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
Just notifying you I started an RfC below on this topic. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 19:40, 6 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
Just leaving a note here that I apologized to Sirfurboy for escalating when he made an edit which I should initially have assumed to have been made in good faith. I'm going to start an RfC and I look forward to having a productive discussion with everyone in this thread. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 18:47, 6 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
[edit]
Latest comment: 2 months ago57 comments12 people in discussion

Non-bidirectional article links should be permitted on this template based on editor discretion. (Support or Oppose) Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 19:28, 6 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

Comment The party in favor of removing these links (PARAKANYAA and Sirfurboy) argues WP:BIDIRECTIONAL means we cannot include articles in this sidebar that do not have this sidebar in their article content.
For context, 35 article links in this sidebar were removed (click [show] to see hidden):
Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 19:28, 6 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
  • Strong support WP:BIDI says Every article that transcludes a given navbox should normally also be included as a link in the navbox, so that the navigation is bidirectional. [...] Whether to include navboxes, and which to include, is often suggested by WikiProjects, but is ultimately determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article. Per the bidirectionality principle above, this may also affect inclusion of a particular article in a navigation template. It seems to me that BIDI is clearly a guideline that does not want to be followed religiously and explicitly clarifies editors may use their discretion on whether to follow it in discussions.
Since the Gaza genocide is a complex political subject reaching into many disciplines, this is a point in favor of being allowed to use editor discretion in this sidebar regarding whether to include non-BIDI articles. For example, Israeli bombing of the Gaza Strip does not have this template on its page, but it still makes sense to include this article on the template because it is obviously related to the genocide, so using editor discretion to add it back without having to worry about local decisions on that page about sidebar inclusion makes sense. Moreover, all the removed sources (except for the marked exceptions) were A) related to actions that have been characterized as genocidal by expert consensus or B) were articles about responses to the genocide, and these articles make sense to include in this template if we're using WP:COMMONSENSE even if they don't have this sidebar on their pages.
WP:SIDEBAR even says Good navboxes generally follow these guidelines:
  • All articles within a template relate to a single, coherent subject.
  • The subject of the template should be mentioned in every article.
  • The articles should refer to each other, to a reasonable extent.
  • There should be a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template.
  • If not for the navigation template, an editor would be inclined to link many of these articles in the See also sections of the articles.
And all of these criteria were fulfilled by this template when it included the now-removed non-WP:BIDI links.
I also think it was a little strange that every single non-bidirectional article link was removed rather than adding this template to any of the articles instead, since it seems easy to conceive of some articles that would be improved by doing so. It feels a bit WP:NOSE and I don't agree with this deletionist approach to the content on this page (WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM). Maybe a different solution to this than opening an RfC suggested by ScrubbedFalcon might simply be adding this sidebar to all of these pages, but it did not seem like the parties who removed this content were open to doing so based on my interpretation making consensus-building a necessity either way.
Regardless, I think we should be allowed to use editor discretion rather than following BIDI religiously here, so let's use common sense and get a speedy support close. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 19:28, 6 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose, and bad RfC. We shouldn't even be having an RfC on whether we have to obey the guidelines. Why include articles in a series template if they aren't part of a series???? What compelling reason is there to completely ignore practice to have a hugely oversized navbox that doesn't even navigate properly??? As you say it is a "complex political topic" - meaning we should be far more restrictive, not less! PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:48, 6 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
  • Bad RFC & Oppose - this is an RfC to state that P&G does not apply in this case. That is a bad RfC question. Moreoever you are specifically requesting that a taxonomy be made that lists all related subjects, and not a navigational aid, since the absence of the SIDEBAR on pages in the series would mean navigation is not aided. Taxonomies are provided by categories, not sidebars. That is, we have the means to do what you want already, and there is no need to ignore P&G to do so. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:03, 6 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
    How are editors meant to demonstrate a consensus to WP:IAR in a given case, if an RFC to determine whether editors want to follow or ignore that guideline in a particular situation is "a bad RfC question"?
    BTW, I looked into BIDI for sidebars recently, and there were a surprising number of them that don't follow BIDI. {{LGBTQ sidebar}}, for example, contains 207 links but appears in 245 articles – nearly a 20% discrepancy. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:33, 22 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
    Editors are meant to determine an exception on a case by case basis. And yes, discrepancies are huge across the board because SIDEBARS are misunderstood, misused, and (like everything) can be edited by anyone, regardless of whether they understand what the SIDEBAR is for, or not, thus accrue these links like gas giants accruing space rocks. If I had infinite time, I'd fix them all. Alas, too much of Wikipedia is predicated on the idea that editor time is infinite. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:16, 23 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose this inadequately substantiated call to oppose the guidelines, which are, it bears repeating, quite far from religious diktats. -The Gnome (talk) 21:57, 6 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
  • (summoned by bot) Support with caveats. Clearly the PAGs in question already permit for exceptions, but for what it is worth, I think there is something to the OP's position that the contentious nature of the topic means that it would be exceptionally difficult to count on local consensus for the template and all the relevant articles to line up in a timely and efficient manner, leading to potential for omissions from the template/sidebar that jar with common sense when it comes to navigation functionality. So editors should keep an open mind, in light of the fact WP:BIDIRECTIONAL clearly leaves open the door for practical exemptions from the common rule. That said, the OP should bear in mind that they still need to secure express consensus for each exception, even if they do prevail in this discussion. In other words, I would not want my support !vote being interpreted as encouraging a willy-nilly rush to re-introduce all 35 entires. Instead, in my view, if you want push for exemptions, the onus is on you to get express consensus support for each. But strictly as a starting point, yes: exceptions should be considered, considering the overall context here. SnowRise let's rap 06:33, 7 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
    The controversial nature of the topic means we should be more restrictive about what we're including, not less. When is controversialness a reason to lower our standards? PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:45, 7 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
    That argument is a paradigmatic example of begging the question: you have assumed the conclusion within the antecedent by stating, as an a priori assumption/value judgment, that the approach you oppose is definitionally "lowering our standards". If you want to convince others (or at least me) that there is negative trade-off to allowing editors to exercise the discretion that is expressly built in to guideline, you are going to have to be far more concrete and specific, rather than just framing yourself as the party that is on the side of caution, without substantiating that claim through reference to policy and effective examples.
    And frankly, I think you need to consider that your position here does no favours to making your overall perspective look like the more reasonable one. I just lodged an !vote that is 95%+ in agreement with your objectives: I did technically, kinda-sorta hold open the door for exemptions here, since that is what the guideline suggests and the OP made some good points as to why it might be practical in this context. But I also set the threshold for getting those exemptions individually greenlit so high that the OP cannot take advantage of that potential without first gaining clear consensus support. That actually strongly favours the ability of you and any others who are skeptical of exceptions to prevent them, by expressly putting the burden of persuasion on those who would like to make some. It's overwhelmingly favourable to your position, but you seem so be so entrenched in your position that you didn't read very carefully past the bolded part of my !vote. Frankly, that suggests such a dogmatic and inflexible posture to the very idea of exceptions, that your position loses some credibility and only solidifies my position as an outside FRS respondent that some here need to concede that the possibility for WP:IAR-style exceptions is codified into the relevant guideline, as a reasonable starting point. SnowRise let's rap 07:23, 7 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
    I fully agree with the excellent point raised above by PARAKANYAA, which point I inexcusably omitted to bring forth. Yes, the extremely controversial nature of the main issue here, i.e. the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, dictates a stricter rather than a looser following of guidelines when editing related articles. Going the opposite route invites friction, warring, more otherwise avoidable discussions, and, in the end, more time wasting. We can do without any of that. -The Gnome (talk) 08:48, 7 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
Again, that's a very vague and conclusory invocation of the idea that your favoured approach simply must be the one which "more strictly follows the relevant guidelines" in a manner that reflects the increased level of care for a contentious topic. But as a respondent, I'm going to go out on a limb and presume that Alex would argue that their approach is the one that is in fidelity with that principle. But unless and until you substantiate your presumption of the high ground with some specific references to some specific provisions in specific guidelines and argument for how it applies to this situation, your position feels more like rhetorical posturing than effective argument.
Mind you, I'm not saying you couldn't convince me to be even more on your side than I already am, but bluntly, I am underwhelmed by your current "Caution is called for here; ergo, ours is the more cautious approach and the more logical solution" argument. There's a through-line there that you have not established at all. Why is using exclusively bidirectional links in the sidebar an approach that is inherently more respectful of controversial topics, rather than the opposite being true? If the answer is obvious to you, it is not to me, and I don't think it will be for most respondents. Additionally (and I ask this question of both sides), why shouldn't possible exceptions be weighed on a case by case basis, rather than clumping them all together in one lump, one-size-fits-all determination? SnowRise let's rap 09:18, 7 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
I'm going to go out on a limb and presume that Alex would argue that their approach is the one that is in fidelity with that principle. You guessed correctly!
---
Additionally (and I ask this question of both sides), why shouldn't possible exceptions be weighed on a case by case basis, rather than clumping them all together in one lump, one-size-fits-all determination?
OP should bear in mind that they still need to secure express consensus for each exception, even if they do prevail in this discussion
I agree with pretty much everything you said except for this general point you're getting at. I think resolving the BIDI question is a necessary first step because our stance on BIDI will automatically determine our next most logical course of action:
  • If we fail in creating consensus BIDI does not apply: the door to re-add the non-BIDI articles to the sidebar will close, solving the question of which individual articles to add back for us (add none back) and making further discussions redundant (unless we get consensus on an individual basis to add the sidebar to some removed articles, which we would do on those article talk pages).
  • If we succeed in creating consensus BIDI does not apply: WP:ONUS only applies during an active dispute, and if we determine BIDI does not apply, then there is no longer an active dispute because BIDI was the only reason presented in the original dispute for removing the articles. As a result, all removed articles should be added back if we create consensus that BIDI does not apply. If editors would like to put the WP:ONUS back on us for article inclusion in this sidebar, a new dispute would need to be started with new arguments for a new set of articles first. We should not presume that new arguments will be made against these articles' inclusion in this sidebar after adding them back (per BIDI not applying) because per WP:EDITCON, edits have presumed consensus until challenged (and adding the removed articles back would reinstate presumed consensus for their inclusion).
    • It seems like you're presuming a challenge will persist on new grounds against these articles after we determine whether BIDI applies. But it would be strange if the exact same set of articles removed solely because they weren't BIDI were each (without exception) challenged for different reasons after this RfC closes, because BIDI was the only uniting factor between them and if new arguments are made against including some articles in this sidebar, you'd expect this would lead to disputes over new sets of articles created in light of new arguments presented. And no other were presented prior to this RfC. Which is all to say: if other arguments are out there against including some of the removed articles, they do not belong in this discussion about these specific 35 articles and should be presented after this discussion closes in regards to a new set of disputed articles.
Did I adequately explain why I think we should add the articles back if BIDI doesn't apply as determined by this RfC until new challenges are presented? Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 13:06, 7 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
Yes, I do understand the argument you are advancing, but I suspect that, considering my previous comments, I probably will not shock you by telling you that I see the order of operations/analysis differently. For starters, I do not believe there is an open question about whether WP:BIDIRECTIONAL applies to this template or the particular determinations being made here. Or at least, if there is an open question, you seem to be the only person commenting thus far that thinks that BIDI arguably does not apply here. However, within the relevant BIDI framework exists the language you have leaned on, which suggests that exceptions may be made to the normal directional relationship between template entries and referenced articles. However, I do not believe there is any realistic likelihood of consensus for an exception in the shape of "this template no longer has to adhere to the normal BIDIRECTIONAL linking guideline, as a blanket matter". I believe the very most you can get consensus for, in terms of what the BIDI wording permits, is maybe for agreement that certain articles be included in the template despite the sidebar not itself being invoked on those articles.
That's your best case scenario, in my estimation. And even then, because this is an exception to a general rule that is a point of codified community consensus within the relevant guideline, the burden of persuasion is upon the proponent to establish that each exception is warranted under a utilitarian argument. In other words, when the other editors removed the entries that currently violate the general prohibition under BIDI, they were operating under the auspices of WP:BRD, by following the standard guideline, and each of those entries should stay out for now, as they are presumed invalid under policy. Including those links in the first instance without express consensus support and on the argument that they were reasonable exceptions to BIDI was a WP:BOLD set of edits. But those bold edits having now been reverted and challenged, the onus is upon you as their proponent to justify any special exemptions you feel are appropriate. And you may very well succeed with none. But as I see it, the guideline gives you the platform to propose those exceptions, and other contributors should keep an open mind. SnowRise let's rap 13:47, 7 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
I do not believe there is any realistic likelihood of consensus for an exception in the shape of "this template no longer has to adhere to the normal BIDIRECTIONAL linking guideline, as a blanket matter" Ah, I see what you mean now.
Feel free to correct me if I'm missing an obvious rebuttal, but I'm not fully convinced there is a meaningful distinction to be made between A) creating exceptions on a case-by-base basis for each non-BIDI article on this sidebar and B) creating a blanket exception that BIDI does not apply to this sidebar more broadly. The way I see it, any argument in favor of ignoring BIDI for one article applies equally to that article as it does every other potential article for inclusion on this sidebar, making BIDI debates on each individual article (rather than having one broad BIDI debate) redundant.
For example, I might argue Israeli bombing of the Gaza Strip belongs on this sidebar because bombing is tightly related enough to the Gaza genocide that this calls for an exception to BIDI (see my conversation with CNC). But this logic applies equally to List of companies involved in the Gaza war since the central question is still "is this article tightly related enough to warrant a BIDI exception?" We may as well take BIDI out of the picture and simply discuss on each article whether they are tightly related enough to the sidebar for the sake of simplifying discussions and preventing a relitigation of the same BIDI arguments in each individual debate over article inclusion.
I agree with CNC that this may cause slippery slope concerns if applied broadly, but we don't need to apply this logic broadly beyond the scope of this debate. WP:BIDI is a guideline, and guidelines are best practice in most cases rather than policies set in stone. If an exception to BIDI is ever warranted insofar as it applies to a navbox/sidebar, it is hard to imagine a scenario in which an exception could ever be warranted if a blanket exception is not warranted here. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 14:49, 9 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
I'm sorry, Snow Rise, but if you find my statement to the effect that controversial issues in Wikipedia invite by their very nature, "friction, edit warring, [and] otherwise avoidable discussions" to be a "very vague and conclusory invocation," I find myself unable to help the discussion any further. It's obvious that the obvious escapes you. -The Gnome (talk) 10:28, 9 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
No, that's pretty manifestly not what I said, and I believe you are the one being obtuse by suggesting as much. I accept that statement as basically true, but also a massive oversimplifcation of / red herring to the precise editorial issue being considered here. The problem is that you go on to make the implicit argument that handling controversial topics is automatically better served by not permitting exceptions to WP:BIDRECTIONAL (whereas your rhetorical opponent here is arguing the opposite, and frankly, more substantially, with at least some examples, though I am not entirely won over by his position either). Your argument boils down to "I am stating how very, very concerned I am that we handle a controversial topic carefully. Therefore, my preferred approach is the one that handles the controversial topic more carefully", without so much as a single reference to a relevant policy, illustrative example, or additional particularized argument for why and how your position better serves the stated goal. That's not useful, rational argumentation for the benefits of your preferred approach which a respondent can bite into--it's vague hand-waving about a priority we all agree with but still need to figure out how to apply to these particular circumstances. Again, maybe the reasons for why your stance on BIDI exceptions makes controversial topics so much more secure is obvious to you, but it's not to me, and if you have a more specific and applicable argument, it would be more productive to share it than to get defensive about uninvolved third opinions asking for it. SnowRise let's rap 21:22, 9 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose as bad RfC based on the promt Non-bidirectional article links should be permitted on this template based on editor discretion. as this is already answered by Whether to include navboxes [...] is ultimately determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article. So it's not editor discretion broadly speaking, ie an individual editor, but more so the local consensus as described which shouldn't be overridden. The wording, while concise, is the sort of slippery language that would likely be referenced as justification for adding non-bidirectional links, potentially any, which is something I'm obliged to oppose on principle. If the wording were different, such as can local consensus determine such links, then it would still be a bad RfC as that's already the guidelines.
Regarding this template specifically, is there any reason why content about the genocide can't be included into these articles (where appropriate and when it belongs) so as to improve them and then include a bidirectional template? If that's not possible, then how do we know the topics are closely related without employing original research disguised as common sense? IRL should otherwise never be used as a replacement for sourced information from reliable sources; to me that is common sense, not ignoring guidelines out of convenience.
The issue is otherwise not that certain articles aren't related, like in a navbox, but that they are not tightly related, per disadvantages of sidebars. Many are undoubtedly related: the genocide is obviously part of the war, but the war isn't entirely based on genocide either. So it becomes an issue when there isn't content about the genocide in those articles that aren't bidirectional, as it leaves readers looking for content about a subject that doesn't exist at the target. This type of navigation is something better suited for navboxes if considered suitable at all: provide an organized resource for readers [...] to find other articles on the same broad topic, [...], excuse the crude cut.
While my !vote is different to @Snow Rise the sentiment is similar, only my interpretation is slightly different. To me the rationale may apply to navboxes, but not to sidebars and their stricter remits. Overall sidebars are not for presenting information about a topic, they are for presenting links to more content on the same subject. CNC (talk) 10:08, 7 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
Hi CNC! I debated notifying you since I expected you'd be interested, but I figured you'd stumble upon this RfC either way (which seems to have happened), so I'm glad you found it and left a comment.
Regarding this template specifically, is there any reason why content about the genocide can't be included into these articles (where appropriate and when it belongs) so as to improve them and then include a bidirectional template? If that's not possible, then how do we know the topics are closely related without employing original research disguised as common sense? That's completely fair, and I was hesitant to open this RfC for this exact reason: a lot of this can be resolved by simply adding the sidebar to these articles/seeking local consensus in each case. I'll probably go about this if the RfC fails.
I think the only place where we actually disagree is on the "tightly related" point. My summarization of your argument (please feel free to correct me) is that if a sidebar is deemed unworthy for inclusion on an article, then the article is not tightly related enough to be included on the sidebar:
  • Overall sidebars are not for presenting information about a topic, they are for presenting links to more content on the same subject.
  • it becomes an issue when there isn't content about the genocide in those articles that aren't bidirectional, as it leaves readers looking for content about a subject that doesn't exist at the target
But I'm not sure I agree with your characterization. I agree with you that sidebars should be stricter than navboxes, but I think a sidebar can be tightly related to the article content discussed while simultaneously not having local consensus on that article in favor of including the sidebar. At the end of the day, tightly related is open to interpretation, and I don't want to leave off this discussion by essentially saying "who knows, there's no way to know what tightly related really means so let's not establish any standards for sidebar inclusion", but I do think it's conceivable a Wiki page could be tightly related enough to the Gaza genocide that it would be a useful navigational aid to include in the sidebar while local article consensus is against including the sidebar. There's a lot of reasons a tightly related article to the Gaza genocide could not have the sidebar on its page, like the Gaza war sidebar being a better fit and there not being enough space on the article. Neither of these things detract from the relevance of the Gaza genocide to the article. I'd argue List of companies involved in the Gaza war is (arguably) tightly related and therefore belongs on the sidebar but is a perfect example of an article that, regardless, should not have this sidebar included on its page. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 14:22, 9 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
That's completely fair, and I was hesitant to open this RfC for this exact reason: a lot of this can be resolved by simply adding the sidebar to these articles/seeking local consensus in each case. I'll probably go about this if the RfC fails.
To put this simply, there also isn't a dispute about whether bidreictional links can be included, so by adding the content, there would be no need to seek consensus for inclusion that requires sidestepping the guidelines. Sure, there might be some issues with one or two entries, but by making the articles bidrectional with the template, this resolves this problem in the most effective way while upholding the guidelines. I get that it's not as efficient as requires more effort, but to me this is usually a sign that the correct procedure is being following rather than unnecessary shortcuts: ie add the link when the article has content about the subject, not add the link and instead argue that there is a causal connection.
Respectfully, I think by the end of this discussion, if all these words were instead the same quantity of prose to go into articles listed at top this RfC, this would of largely resolved this entire dispute. An RfC should otherwise be a form of last resort for conflict resolution, so if adding the subject content to the article hasn't been tried first, in order to resolve the issue: this should certainly happen first and foremost. CNC (talk) 19:10, 16 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
I'm aware, but WP:BIDI is very clear about how to deal with exceptions; Whether to include navboxes, and which to include, is often suggested by WikiProjects, but is ultimately determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article. Per the bidirectionality principle above, this may also affect inclusion of a particular article in a navigation template. If a disagreement should arise, please centralize discussion at the article talk page, not that of the template (which may be watchlisted mostly only by template coders). As far as I can see, there have been no such discussions on the talk pages of the removed articles. Therefore, my point still stands. - ZLEA TǀC 16:55, 9 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
That's a valid point, and going by the word of the policy you are correct.
But should we really start 33 separate discussions on 33 separate article talk pages about whether BIDI applies in each individual scenario (I talk about other reasons this might be suboptimal here)? I don't think this is going to be received well by the Wikipedia community, and it's far from being in the best interest of editor time. (Talk:Gaza genocide has been notified and an RfC has been opened as substitutes to this approach, which I think is most appropriate, but we could also notify all 33 article talk pages individually if this would assuage your concerns.) WP:BUREAUCRACY says Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policies without considering their principles. If the rules truly prevent you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore them. Disagreements are resolved through consensus-based discussion, not by tightly sticking to rules and procedures.
WP:BIDI: If a disagreement should arise, please centralize discussion at the article talk page, not that of the template (which may be watchlisted mostly only by template coders). - It seems to me like this sentence was written with the intention of preventing editors from starting discussions on low-traffic template talk pages that no one will see, especially based on the parenthetical note at the end. And it also says if a disagreement should arise, go to the article talk page, meaning it seems to be written in the spirit of resolving a dispute over a singular template rather than 33 separate disputed non-BIDI articles. The principle (using WP:BUREAUCRACY's choice of words) of BIDI's openness to exceptions — which importantly is itself in the interest of centralization — does not in my interpretation beckon an absolutist opposition to a larger-scale form of centralization: that is, centralizing 33 discussions in one place in this article talk page. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 18:03, 9 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
I feel like I've been talking a lot (because this topic is relatively technical), so in the interest of avoiding bludgeoning now that opening arguments have been made, I'm going to take a step back and give others more room to speak (aside from chiming in with a very brief note or two if I feel it's needed down the line). You can respond here but I'll let others evaluate your response rather than responding myself. My final note is that hopefully I've sufficiently affirmed the legitimacy of establishing editor consensus to override the word of a guideline in congruence with the spirit of that guideline. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 18:11, 9 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
WP:BUREAUCRACY says Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policies without considering their principles. Centralizing 33 discussions into one may sound like a good idea in theory, but I believe it does go against the principle of WP:BIDI as much as it goes against the wording. BIDI states the reason for its wording ([template talk pages] may be watchlisted mostly only by template coders), which I believe makes it more reasonable to have 33 separate discussions. Right now, you are asking users to decide whether to include or exclude links to 33 individual articles, which severely limits their ability to determine whether each individual article actually meets the criteria to be linked in the first place. Even if users do find the time to individually vet each of the 33 articles, that just creates more work for the closer when determining the result of the RfC.
The links were removed because of a guideline violation, and therefore they should not be re-added wholesale without determining that each individual article actually deserves to be linked in the first place. Such exceptions to policies and guidelines are handled on a case-by-case basis, and WP:BUREAUCRACY is not an excuse to centralize such discussions. - ZLEA TǀC 19:23, 9 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
I'm largely agreement with your take on how any proposed exceptions should be handled, ZLEA, as per my !vote and response to the OP above. However, to be fair, that doesn't make this an invalid RfC. The OP is not, to my eye, proposing that we ignore the guideline, but rather trying to resolve a disagreement on a highly technical question about how some of the specific verbiage in that guideline should be interpreted and applied in these novel circumstances of this template. Now, I happen to disagree with much of the OP's position on how we ultimately resolve that question, but I think they are getting a lot undue pushback for their use of RfC here, which feels entirely appropriate in the circumstances, to me. Their centralized approach is not the one that should be adopted, imo, but their proposal is not so out there as to be absurd, and by its nature, this was as reasonable a space as any to discuss it. SnowRise let's rap 21:44, 9 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
What about this template is "novel"? PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:41, 19 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
David A Please revert your restoration of the WP:BIDI-violating links. Exceptions to guidelines require consensus, and as of yet none has formed and it's unlikely any will form from this RfC given that it violates the please centralize discussion at the article talk page part of WP:BIDI. - ZLEA TǀC 08:11, 4 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
I can naturally do so if it is genuinely inappropriate according to Wikipedia's rules, but can you provide a summarised explanation for why it is inappropriate first please? I do not understand the context properly. The links just seem to provide a more complete overview to me. David A (talk) 10:16, 4 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
No need. I have reverted the re-insertion. The policy you are looking for is WP:ONUS which states that the responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on editors seeking to include disputed content. You need a positive consensus before putting those back unless you do what the guidelines are pointing you towards, and actually deal with the lack of bidirectionality. Pages that are tightly focused and that include the template as a consequence should be linked, per the same guideline. Pages that do not include the template, and are not thus part of the collated series, should not be. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:56, 4 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
So is it a case of that each of the contested linked pages must first reach consensus to include the template, and then they can be gradually added again? David A (talk) 11:01, 4 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
If there is an objection to you including the template on any such page, then yes, each would need a positive consensus. Where it is uncontroversially tightly related and belongs in the series, just bold add the template to the page, and then you can add that link back here. You only need discuss when someone reverts, per WP:BOLD and WP:BRD. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:38, 4 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Okay. Thank you for the information. I think that the Gaza humanitarian crisis page in particular likely deserves an inclusion, at least from what I remember reading in it quite long ago. David A (talk) 15:58, 4 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Alexandraaaacs1989: We seem to have found a partial compromise solution here. David A (talk) 07:31, 5 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for the notification, I'll get around to this most likely at some point this week. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 07:34, 5 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Okay. That is good. And no problem. David A (talk) 07:35, 5 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
I listed each of the removed article links below. I'd like to get around to examining them and why their BIDI links were removed, and potentially re-adding many of them. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 20:48, 19 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
I have started a VPP discussion about revising BIDI. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 22:42, 2 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

List of BIDI removals - examine

[edit]
Latest comment: 1 day ago64 comments8 people in discussion

Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 20:46, 19 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

I think that all of the links leading to separate pages (that are not duplicates of each other, and are also not stubs) should preferably be re-added. David A (talk) 07:09, 20 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
All done - added back bidirectionality to the ones that made sense, and put the ones that don't belong in the "related" section since Sirfur said I can BOLD add the articles. Also did some reorganizing. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 21:19, 24 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Alexandraaaacs1989 I'm now seeing this, and correct me if I'm wrong.
There's been an argument reflected in a prolonged slow-motion edit war over whether links on this template need to be bidirectional to be included. Ultimately, you resolved this by transcluding the sidebar to many of the disputed articles and adding them back in to the template - now they're bidirectional, problem solved.
But there are actually two problems. One I guess we could relocate to individual articles that you linked to but is worth mentioning centrally:
  • There is no demonstrated reference to Gaza genocide. E.g. the word "genocide" does not appear in the article text. Out of two I've checked, I found two such examples from your 24th July additions.
The second problem is irrespective of the first and has to do with the template:
  • Many of these articles are listed under genocidal acts. But the subjects of the article are transparently not about genocidal acts, at least as defined by the Genocide Convention. E.g. the destruction of cemeteries or cultural heritage sites. Even of the others, you'd need sources to actually describe these as genocidal acts in order to make that claim.
At the very least, a change of section header would be required for the second problem, but given the first problem, I'd limit the contents to actually relevant articles first and then determine what would be the header. Samuelshraga (talk) 19:18, 17 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
It is the sheer deliberately systematic and methodical sum totality of all the atrocities being committed that have been repeatedly officially evaluated to together qualify as a genocide, since all of them contribute to the complete destruction of the Palestinian people, culture, and society. Omitting any currently highlighted areas would greatly lessen a full overview, so all of them should remain linked to in full sight. David A (talk) 08:10, 18 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
all of them contribute to the complete destruction of the Palestinian people, culture, and society. Well for each one that needs inclusion, you should be able to provide sufficient sourcing to establish that as a claim in wiki-voice, if we're going to say as much in a template. And to avoid WP:SYNTH, that would have to specifically establish that the soruce is referring to cultural destruction as genocide, as this is not an uncontested equation. Samuelshraga (talk) 18:00, 19 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
As far as I am aware, many different reliable human rights organisations and highly knowledgeable scholars have evaluated the sum total situation and deemed it a genocide, several of the most prominent ones referenced at the top of the Gaza genocide page. I also think that it is extremely important to not diminish a full encyclopaedic visitor overview of the entire situation causing the ongoing extreme human suffering.
Here are a few of the main sources, but you can check the main page yourself if you wish to find more evaluations:
And here is the main list of who thinks what, which found a clear consensus:
I would greatly appreciate if you try to be reasonable here. Thank you. David A (talk) 13:08, 20 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
As I understand it, the meaning of your response is this: Reliable sources have evaluated the sum total situation and deemed it a genocide. The pages linked to in the sidebar are part of the "sum total situation". Therefore, they are part of the genocide.
This is a practically paradigmatic case of WP:SYNTH. To quote from there, "A and B, therefore, C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument concerning the topic of the article. If A is "There is a genocide in Gaza" and B is "Cemeteries were destroyed in Gaza", it does not follow that the destruction of cemeteries is part of the genocide - a source actually has to make that claim. The finding that there is a genocide in Gaza does not imply that everything that happened in Gaza since October 7th 2023 is part of the genocide, or to use the stronger language of the sidebar, a "genocidal act". Samuelshraga (talk) 19:12, 21 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Yes, as I replied to you on my talk page, after I wrote that, I realised that this may have been a basic misunderstanding. I thought that you wanted to remove all bombings of hospitals, refugee-camps, inhabited buildings, and so onwards that self-evidently greatly worsen the humanitarian disaster, and are incorporated into the official genocide assessments, but you likely simply wanted to remove a few links regarding destructions of cultural sites that are not directly related to human suffering. I am so used to dealing with people who sweepingly want to remove virtually any valid information that my automated assumptions likely got the better of me. My apologies. David A (talk) 20:33, 21 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Well I haven't gone through them yet, but my basic decision criterion would be whether that if there isn't a supported wiki-voice sentence relating the topic of the page to the Gaza genocide, it's obviously inappropriate. I think more subjective discussions about what makes a good sidebar are simply too fraught to be productive (though we could do worse than apply the guidelines for good navboxes from WP:SIDEBAR), but the criterion I suggested seems like a good enough basic and objective one. Samuelshraga (talk) 21:13, 21 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
The highly reliable official evaluations that were used as a basis to name the Gaza genocide page in the first place, self-evidently concern the sum total situation created by all of the causes of extreme human suffering in the area, so none of them should be removed at least. You can also read through all of the reports linked to in the main page regarding this topic if you wish to make certain. I am unfortunately far too busy to do so myself to provide quoted mentions for all of the areas. David A (talk) 10:25, 22 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
@David A I feel like we're going around in circles. I explained precisely why I would remove links from the sidebar: my basic decision criterion would be whether that if there isn't a supported wiki-voice sentence relating the topic of the page to the Gaza genocide, it's obviously inappropriate.
So for you to revert the removals saying Why were these links removed? is a bit frustrating. For the rest of your edit summary: They all seem to directly concern the human suffering that is a part of the genocide. This may well be your opinion. However, the topic of the Gaza genocide is not infinitely capacious of human suffering, in fact one can imagine plenty of acts that are not genocidal but still cause human suffering. Therefore, including topics that are not specifically linked to Gaza genocide (the topic is not even mentioned in the text) in a sidebar marked "Part of a series on the Gaza Genocide", under a section titled "Genocidal acts" when no sourcing establishes this, is WP:OR. Not to even mention WP:NPOV. Samuelshraga (talk) 16:36, 27 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
No, as far as I am aware all of the systematic murders carried out against the Palestinians by the government of Israel have been evaluated as being aspects of the genocide by the United Nations, many human rights and relief organisations, and a large majority of the genocide experts who have expressed any views about the situation. So your removals do not seem warranted, and from my viewpoint you are the one who is going against the academic consensus that is a basis for Wikipedia's genocide classification based only on your own opinions, which warrants NPOV and WP:OR mentions. David A (talk) 21:03, 27 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
We're going round in circles. Would you like to go to WP:DRN? Samuelshraga (talk) 21:12, 27 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
That seems like overkill, and would mostly draw in people who are not informed about the context. I asked for input in the main Gaza genocide page instead.
@Alexandraaaacs1989: It seems like your input is needed here as well, given that you started this topic. David A (talk) 21:53, 27 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Frankly, pretty clearly an WP:INAPPNOTE to cross-post the discussion with a biased message about how I'm so insistent, but whatever. The value of dispute resolution is not to draw people in, it's to get a neutral volunteer to mediate the discussion, keep things focussed on policy, and help us to steer towards either resolution or a productive way forwards by some other means. Samuelshraga (talk) 22:32, 27 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
I have modified my wording to turn more neutral now. David A (talk) 19:55, 28 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
It's difficult for me to respond to every attempt at mass removing articles from this sidebar, or at deleting this sidebar entirely. I've been keeping an eye on this discussion and sure there might be an argument there was an INAPPNOTE, but there is also clear consensus for inclusion of the removed articles. If you'd like to remove articles Sam, please start individual discussions for each of the removed items to create consensus for deletion to override the current consensus for inclusion, which satisfies WP:ONUS. It's difficult to respond to mass removal requests that do not go into detail about any individual articles you'd like to remove, so if you're serious about getting an article removed, please put in the effort of making an argument for each item in discussion form. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 02:52, 28 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
there is also clear consensus for inclusion of the removed articles. I don't get this, when was consensus formed for inclusion in all these? Your point about WP:ONUS is similar - the onus is on those who advocate inclusion, not removal.
My argument for removal applies to more than one article, which is why I removed more than one, but if you want a specific example let's take the first one in your list above: Israeli razing of cemeteries and necroviolence against Palestinians.
Currently the prose text of that article does not contain the word "genocide". So I suppose you could demonstrate its relevance retroactively: is there a supported wiki-voice sentence connecting the topic of that article to the topic of Gaza genocide? (Let alone a source defining it as the template currently does, as a "genocidal act"?) Samuelshraga (talk) 12:22, 28 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

I would advise to seek out and focus on what RS say rather than on whether there is a "wiki-voice sentence connecting the topic[s]". IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 13:12, 28 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

Strongly agreed. David A (talk) 19:56, 28 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
This isn't a discussion about whether there should be more content connecting these pages to Gaza genocide. That definitely relates to the article itself, not the template. My point is this - WP:SIDEBAR says of good navboxes: All articles within a template relate to a single, coherent subject. Why was this template linked to so many articles that don't even mention that subject within their prose text? Samuelshraga (talk) 20:13, 28 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Articles can relate to the Gaza genocide without technically having the words "Gaza genocide" in them.
Please allow me to make an observation, and this is not at all intended to be a personal attack, so please remember that as you read this. And I also would like to acknowledge I've been unnecessarily confrontational in the past, and by saying this I am not trying to be in any way confrontational, so if I come off that way I apologize.
It feels a bit like there is an extremely technical interpretation of a guideline being made, which is never interpreted as strictly as you are interpreting it now. It does not feel to me like the spirit of the guideline is being followed, and although I am not saying you guys are WP:WIKILAWYERING, I will point to the part of the essay that says Editors who "wikilawyer" apply a portion of a policy or guideline with the motive to achieve an objective that goes against the intended message of that policy or guideline, particularly when doing so in a way that is stricter, more categorical or more literal than the norm. They abide by the letter of a policy or guideline while violating its spirit or underlying principles. I think the principle of that part of the essay applies to this situation, and I think it's important we remember WP:NOTBURO also applies.
If this were something that I believed could conceivably be a genuine improvement to the sidebar, I would understand a lot better. But advocating for the removal of articles like Israeli razing of cemeteries and necroviolence against Palestinians, despite multiple RS saying it is part of the genocide, does feel a bit unusual, especially considering how other policies like WP:BIDI have also been applied in a way that is unusually strict to this sidebar (e.g. compared with Template:LGBT sidebar, a good example of a normal high-profile sidebar which does not follow BIDI to the letter).
Again, I'm not making any accusations, but I hope you can understand my perspective on this issue and help me understand what greater purpose you guys have in mind while persistently trying to remove all these articles from the sidebar. Are you both strong adherents to a deletionist philosophy? What bad thing do you think including these articles would result in that you are trying to prevent? Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 21:39, 28 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
I think that this reasoning is extremely sensible. David A (talk) 08:55, 29 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

Break

[edit]

I tend to agree with David A that Samuelshraga's removals are inappropriate and their rationale unreasonable. In the most recent removal and the first one I checked, removing the link to 2023–2024 Gaza Strip preterm births, the edit summary states "Article doesn't mention Gaza genocide". But the article does mention the Gaza genocide in the "part of" section of the infobox. And a quick and simple search on Google Scholar yielded the source Shoman, H. (2026). Reprocide: examining the silenced gendered dimension of Israeli genocide in Gaza. Journal of Gender Studies, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/09589236.2026.2683863 which states "These conditions increase the risks of preterm birth [etc]". IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 21:23, 27 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

In general, I've specified in this discussion that I'm focused on articles that lack a sourced direct link between the subject and Gaza genocide in wiki-voice, not because this would justify the template per WP:SIDEBAR, but because the addition of the template to articles that lack this is obviously inappropriate.
No comment at the moment on the Journal of Gender Studies article, I'll try and get to it. Samuelshraga (talk) 22:26, 27 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
You're not getting the point. Just please get consensus before enacting further removals. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 23:36, 27 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
A WP:SIDEBAR is not meant to be exhaustive. It is a collated series of relevant articles. If a link is WP:BIDIRECTIONAL then a challenge to that link's inclusion should be made on the article's page and talk page, and not here. Per WP:ONUS, of course, a bold challenge of inclusion on a page is fine, and consensus is needed for inclusion of the disputed material. We are not supposed to support les faits accomplis. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:31, 28 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Maybe I'm not getting the point. Maybe you're not getting the point. I suggested WP:DRN as a place where we could resolve this dispute in a way slightly more productive than just saying that the other person isn't getting it. If you don't like that, perhaps you'd suggest an alternative? Samuelshraga (talk) 12:23, 28 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Let's focus on one entry at a time. I analyzed 2023–2024 Gaza Strip preterm births and found that it was clearly relevant and an element of the Gaza genocide. Do you agree with that?
You mentioned Israeli razing of cemeteries and necroviolence against Palestinians, we can examine this one in detail next. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 12:45, 28 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Looking into Israeli razing of cemeteries and necroviolence against Palestinians, I would once again say it is rather obviously a part of the Gaza genocide and that sources are easily found to support that.
  1. Dana, T., & Ayyash, M. (2026). Beyond genocide: colonial modernity and the destruction of the ‘infrastructures of existence’ in Gaza. Race & Class, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/03063968261425124
    "Even cemeteries have been targeted, with documented bulldozing of burial grounds, to sever connections to ancestors."
    This quote has an inline citaton to: Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor, "Israel demolishes Gaza cemeteries, confiscates dead bodies of Palestinians," December 14, 2023, https://euromedmonitor.org/en/article/6032/Israel-demolishes-Gaza-cemeteries,-confiscates-dead-bodies-of-Palestinians.
  2. Rajendram, E. (2026). Book review of Theology After Gaza: A Global Anthology, edited by Mitri Raheb and Graham McGeoch. International Journal of Asian Christianity, 9(1), 148, 300-150. https://doi.org/10.1163/25424246-20262010 (I'm not 100% sure I have this citation information correct)
    "The genocide in Gaza [...] This genocide also witnessed the necroviolence unleashed on the corpses of the Palestinians."
-IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 13:15, 28 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
... or you could just carry on putting the discussion here, where editors at that page will not find it. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:31, 28 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
The first source is a serious journal whose field is within the scope that might examine these topics. I won't quibble with you about Euro-med or whatever. The text certainly connects the topics, though this is not the categorisation of destruction of cemeteries as a "genocidal act" which is what the template does. I also don't know what exactly you'd expect this source to do on the page in question.
I deliberately chose a quite extreme standard not found in policy for removal of the template - not a single supported wiki-voice mention of the template's subject. If you want to find sources to meet this low bar, that's fine with me. Do you honestly think that in doing so you make the template compliant with the higher standards found in WP:SIDEBAR? Samuelshraga (talk) 20:37, 28 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

David A Can you explain why you restored List of journalists killed in the Gaza war to the template despite it not being bidirectional? As far as I can see, there was never a discussion in the article's talk page for its inclusion in accordance with WP:BIDI. - ZLEA TǀC 14:24, 28 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

I simply did not notice that. I was just reverting a connected succession of edits that removed the template from different pages without any preceding consensus. However, I vaguely recall the considerable number of murdered journalists as being mentioned by the United Nations or human rights organisations in conjunction with their genocide designations, but it has been quite long since I was active regarding this topic, so my memory is not the best regarding it and I would greatly appreciate if somebody has the available time to investigate that issue a bit and to then create a discussion about adding the template in the murdered journalists page. David A (talk) 19:50, 28 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
This is the weirdest version of WP:ONUS imaginable, in which the onus is on those who would remove the recently added content to achieve consensus, and the basis for inclusion is that an editor vaguely remembers reading something relevant in a primary source. Samuelshraga (talk) 20:25, 28 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Are we really arguing whether or not the killing of journalists is a part of the Gaza genocide? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 20:58, 28 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
The article in question covers journalists killed both accidentally and intentionally by both sides. It's not exactly as clear-cut as you seem to think, so if you want to include it in the template, you're going to need to seek consensus on the article's talk page. - ZLEA TǀC 21:12, 28 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
It's not clear cut whether the article is related to the genocide? The first sentence of the article is literally The killing of journalists in the Gaza war, overwhelmingly Palestinians killed by Israel, along with other acts of violence against journalists, marks the deadliest period for journalists in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict since 1992 and the single deadliest conflict for journalists in all known conflicts in the history of the world, according to the Costs of War Project. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 22:18, 28 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
surely if it's so clear cut it should be possible to add a high quality source to the article that explicitly says the 2 are related? Rainsage (talk) 22:27, 28 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
There is no ambiguity as to whether List of journalists killed in the Gaza war is part of the genocide (it is), so why are we debating these meaningless semantics?
If you genuinely believe List of journalists killed in the Gaza war is unrelated to the Gaza genocide, then I distrust your editorial judgement. But if you're instead saying you believe List of journalists killed in the Gaza war is related to the Gaza genocide but the template called Template:Gaza genocide sidebar does not belong on the article and the article does not belong on the template, then why? I am trying very hard to assume good faith here, so help me understand what specifically concerns you about the sidebar being included in the article. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 22:44, 28 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
The first sentence of the article is literally "The killing of journalists in the Gaza war, overwhelmingly Palestinians killed by Israel, along with other acts of violence against journalists, marks the deadliest period for journalists in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict since 1992 and the single deadliest conflict for journalists in all known conflicts in the history of the world, according to the Costs of War Project." Key word "Palestinians", not "Gazans"; the latter being a far more narrow term. Unless a source exists verifying that a majority of these were indeed Gazan, then we cannot make claims that the sources themselves don't make.
There is no ambiguity as to whether List of journalists killed in the Gaza war is part of the genocide (it is), so why are we debating these meaningless semantics? Then give us a reliable source that explicitly says that (not one that requires original research to draw such a conclusion) and we can be done with it. Verifiability is a policy, and as you can see, this isn't exactly an uncontroversial WP:SKYBLUE situation. - ZLEA TǀC 23:13, 28 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
It kind of is a blue sky situation though.
But here is a source for example: Amahl Bishara, On Palestinians’ insistence that Palestinian journalism matters, Communication, Culture and Critique, Volume 19, Issue 1, March 2026, Pages 19–22, https://doi.org/10.1093/ccc/tcag008
These are the first lines of the abstract:
"Israeli violence against Palestinian journalists and journalistic institutions has made this the deadliest war for journalists in the 20th and 21st centuries. During the genocide in Gaza, Israel has killed, imprisoned and starved journalists."
-IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 23:25, 28 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Additional sources connecting the killing of journalists with the genocide:
Gaza: UN experts appalled by murder of Al Jazeera correspondents in Israeli strike - The deliberate killing of four Al Jazeera journalists in Gaza, including correspondent Anas Al-Sharif, was an attempt to silence reporting on the ongoing genocide and starvation campaign in the besieged enclave, UN experts said today, condemning the targeted attacks in the strongest possible terms.
Al-Haq’s Jabarin, who was put on a ‘red notice’ list, the same designation used for other Palestinian journalists later targeted and killed, said In my view, the targeting of journalists fits within a framework of genocide… It aims to annihilate not just people but also the narrative. citation: How Israel’s Unprecedented Killing of Palestinian Journalists in Gaza Makes Accountability Reporting Almost Impossible
“Gaza has become the Deadliest Conflict Ever for Journalists” UN Special Rapporteur Irene Khan – Press Briefing - the way in which journalists are being killed, silenced, murdered, in fact, is the cover-up of genocide Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 23:37, 28 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Is there anything stopping these sources from being used in List of journalists killed in the Gaza war to link the killings to the genocide in wikivoice? If not, then I don't see what the problem is with doing so and adding this template to the article as well, thereby removing the BIDI issue altogether. - ZLEA TǀC 00:03, 29 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
We could easily add it, but again I don't see why this is necessary. Contrary to what you said I agree with IOH that this is clearly a WP:SKYBLUE situation and the only thing you're accomplishing here is drawing the discussion out. What is even the policy basis of needing each relevant article to explicitly say there is a genocide to include a sidebar about genocide? Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 00:57, 29 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
I obviously agree with Alexandra and IOHANN here, but somebody likely needs to copy a few Gaza genocide references to the contested pages in order to avoid this type of situation being repeated over and over in the future. David A (talk) 09:14, 29 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
What is even the policy basis of needing each relevant article to explicitly say there is a genocide to include a sidebar about genocide? WP:V for a start, and WP:OR. I find the idea that this somehow is a WP:SKYBLUE situation to be laughable at best. The article is a list about the war, not the genocide, and currently makes no claim of any connection to the latter. If there was an article about journalists killed during World War II, it would not be included in the Holocaust sidebar unless there was a claim in the former that many of the killings were connected to the Holocaust. - ZLEA TǀC 02:00, 29 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
This discussion about journalists exactly tracks one that happened last year at Talk:List of civilians killed in the Gaza war. Some including myself said that it would be WP:Synth to ascribe deaths there to the genocide when we have no sources pointing us there, and that it's completely coherent to say that at least some subset of deaths (including civilian deaths) can be ascribed to the Gaza war but not the Gaza genocide. There too, @Alexandraaaacs1989 argued that WP:NOTCOM allowed us to say that the people on the list were killed in the Gaza genocide. That discussion was closed against Alexandraaacs' position, with the close referencing the synth difficulty as one reason to prefer "war" over "genocide".
In the discussion about List of journalists killed in the Gaza war, that position is even more problematic, as the list includes people who were literally combatants affiliated to Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad. But even without those entries, the same problem would apply - you'd be making a statement about the killing of many different people who were not all killed in the same circumstances, and while sources might support a genocide framing for some of them, giving the article itself a "genocide" framing would carry exactly the same synth difficulties that were proposed and rejected before. Samuelshraga (talk) 18:54, 29 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
combatants can also be victims of a genocide if they are members of the targeted group Rainsage (talk) 19:00, 29 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
They absolutely can be, but that doesn't mean we can engage in WP:SYNTH or WP:OR to draw such conclusions. - ZLEA TǀC 20:07, 29 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
agree. Rainsage (talk) 20:47, 29 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
It's important to note that there is not a black and white distinction between the terms war and genocide in regards to what's happening in Gaza. Many sources for example use the phrase "genocidal war" (https://scholar.google.ca/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=gaza+%22genocidal+war%22&btnG=) IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 19:08, 29 September 2026 (UTC) Edited 19:45, 29 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Which is why we need to be extra careful to not make claims that the sources themselves do not explicitly make. - ZLEA TǀC 20:07, 29 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
For sure. The two terms are not mutually exclusive, and perhaps the important point is that the relationship between them is not entirely clear. One can make a case that the relationship is identity - all Israeli actions within Gaza from 2023 fall both within the topic of Gaza war and Gaza genocide. You could also make the Gaza genocide concerns only a subset of Israel's actions in the war - and there are many possible permutations of that subset.
One debate in the sources you could map onto this axis (though it doesn't map perfectly) is the question of when the start date of the Gaza genocide was. Those who say October 7th hold a position compatible with the relationship of identity, those who say a later date must hold that the genocide only describes a subset of Israel's actions in the Gaza war.
So if you say - for instance - that pages that are explicitly scoped as about the war are actually about the genocide, you're actually taking a position on a debated question (what is the relationship between these two topics). Samuelshraga (talk) 21:33, 29 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
The WP:BLUESKY essay is about not needing to source things that are obvious. When you have multiple editors saying something is not obvious to them, you are going to have to accept that what is obvious to you may not, after all, be obvious. This discussion highlights what is wrong with SIDEBAR collations. What goes into the SIDEBAR is editor collated without any need to add a source (you can't add a citation to the SIDEBAR), nor reference any inclusion criteria. WP:SIDEBAR states that an article should only be included if it is "tightly related'. That is not tightly related in the mind of the editor, but tightly related in the text of the article.
It seems to me that there is a clear link to be made between a genocide, and the attempts by a regime to suppress reporting of that genocide, which would include targetting of journalists. That case is not made, as it stands, in List of journalists killed in the Gaza war, and neither is it likely to me that this is the right article to collate into a series for readers. If we want readers to see an article about how a regime is silencing dissent, a list of journalists killed doesn't really make that case. Rather, it seems there should be a substantive article on the suppression, and that article should link to the list, which is important supporting information, but not the [tertiary article describing the] synthetic account of the actions.
You still seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that a SIDEBAR should be linked to everything related to the subject. It should not. For that, you want a category or a footer navbox. A SIDEBAR is a collation of tightly integrated articles. Lists are rarely appropriate in them, and this one won't be without rewriting. And, of course, as you are discussing it here and not on the article, editors at the article have no idea that there is even an issue to be discussed. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:29, 29 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Well, if something is designated as being a part of the genocide in official evaluations from the United Nations, relief organisations, and/or prominent experts, then it actually is self-evident. David A (talk) 18:13, 29 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Not in a SIDEBAR it isn't. It needs to be on the page. Which, not to sound too much like a scratched record, is why this discussion should be on the article talk page. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:46, 29 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
So can this entire situation be resolved if somebody simply copies a few relevant references from the Gaza genocide page to some of the contested linked pages? David A (talk) 20:16, 29 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Not just a few references. Per WP:SIDEBAR the page content should be tightly related. When a reader follows a link, they need to be able to understand, based on what they are reading, how this page relates to the collated series of articles. As we write for readers, not editors, we can't assume they will know why it is related. The page needs to answer their information requirement. That is, the article needs to explain why the page is included in that collation, and provide them with context and information related to the collation's subject. Per the SIDEBAR guidelines, The use of navigation templates is neither required nor prohibited for any article. Whether to include navboxes, and which to include is ultimately determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article. (my emphasis). Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:37, 29 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
+1, agree. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:10, 29 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Okay, so is somebody willing to handle the necessary work please, so we can solve this situation? David A (talk) 05:06, 30 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Also there's a section on our Gaza genocide article about the killing of journalists - Gaza genocide#Journalists. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 23:56, 28 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Good point. David A (talk) 09:14, 29 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Gaza_genocide_sidebar&oldid=1377615745"