Template talk:Gaza genocide sidebar

This page is subject to the extended confirmed restriction related to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Removal of Genocidal intent section

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)

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)

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)

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)

We could also simply rename "Genocidal acts (actus reus)" to "Genocidal acts and intent" Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 16:03, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Thanks, and sounds good! Looking forward to seeing what you do with it. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 14:14, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Gotcha! Fair enough then, feel free to upload your edits and I'll support it. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 18:14, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by a user on this template

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)

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)

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)

Per your request, I am taking this to the noticeboard. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 20:58, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Just notifying you I started an RfC below on this topic. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 19:40, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

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)

RfC: Only include bidirectional links in sidebar?

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)

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):

• Genocidal acts
  • • Cemeteries
    • Designated civilian safe zones
    • Evacuating civilians
    • Health facilities
    • Refugee camps
    • Religious sites
    • Schools
  • Evacuations
  • Humanitarian crisis
    • Famine
    • Gaza Humanitarian Foundation
    • Healthcare collapse
  • Killings
    • Aid distribution
    • Bombings
      • AI targeting
    • Children
    • Health workers
      • World Central Kitchen aid convoy attack
    • Journalists
      • List
    • Torture
  • Mass graves
  • Sexual and gender-based violence
  • Preterm births
  • War crimes
• Intervention
  • Artists4Ceasefire
  • BDS movement
  • Boycotts of Israel
    • Benjamin Netanyahu (this was correctly removed, not sure why this was here)
    • Yoav Gallant (this was correctly removed, not sure why this was here)
    • Bogotá conference
  • Humanitarian aid
  • List of sanctions
  • No Tech for Apartheid

Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 19:28, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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)
• 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)

  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)

  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)

• 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)

• (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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

• Support with caveats. I agree with Alexandraaaacs1989's point that the guideline does not strictly mandate that every single navbox entry needs to be bidirectional and many editors erroneously interpret it as a strict no-exceptions rule. It also seems like unnecessary WP:BUREAUCRACY to try to have a positive consensus for inclusion of the navbox at every page in question before adding the pertinent articles to the navbox. In this topic area, I suspect most additions of anything to be reverted and often require lengthy discussions to get a consensus on even one sentence. However, the caveats are that editors make an attempt to make the entries in the navbox bidirectional and that if a particular local consensus is against the addition of the navbox to the article, then there should a particularly compelling reason to include the article in the navbox. If the editors at Gaza genocide decided they didn't want the navbox in the article, I would presume we would still have a link to Gaza genocide in this navbox, even though it wouldn't be bidirectional, for example. I agree with SnowRise that non-bidirectional additions to this template should need a consensus at this template for readdition. Katzrockso (talk) 00:08, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

  P.S. a few relevant discussions from Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates:

  Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates/Archive 7#Bidirectional navboxes? - discussion on BIDI

  Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates/Archive 10#WP:BIDIRECTIONAL_navbox_requirements - RfC that found that WP:BIDIRECTIONAL is a guideline-level recommendation that like any guideline-level guidance has occasional exceptions

  Another note I didn't even think about is that technically the guideline does not state that articles in a navbox should transclude the navbox itself, but rather than articles that transclude the navbox should be included as a link in the navbox. A discussion to explicitly add the former sentiment to the guideline in 2017 did not achieve consensus for inclusion (Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates/Archive 11#Proposal to clarify BIDIRECTIONAL). Katzrockso (talk) 00:26, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

  Also some relevant discussions based on local discussions and consensus:

  • Talk:Gaza genocide/Archive 21#Creating Gaza genocide dropdown template - September 2025. This isn't about this template, but rather the associated navbox. With three reviews, it covers incusion and exclusion, section links and such.
  • Talk:Gaza genocide/Archive 24#Gaza genocide campaignbox template - November 2025. This was the review of the sidebar (previously named campaignbox), some trimming was made.
  • Talk:Gaza genocide/Archive 33#Inclusion of Gaza genocide sidebar in article - November 2025. Discussion over inclusion of the sidebar after it was removed. The sidebar was subsequently restored, not sure when/who.

  It'd be worth pinging users who were active in these previous discussions per WP:APPNOTE, there have been a diversity of opinions on these templates generally. CNC (talk) 09:52, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

  Pinging all users from the previous discussions you linked:

  ZLEA, David A, BobFromBrockley, Scharb, Rainsage, GothicGolem29, WillowCity, Cdjp1, Moxy, Drsmartypants, Coining, Originalcola, SuperPianoMan9167 Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 15:03, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

  Correction for @Bobfrombrockley, Drsmartypants(Smarty M.D). CNC (talk) 15:08, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

  Others can decide this matter, as I do not have the want to expend energy on it. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 15:10, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose as bad RfC - Are we seriously having an RfC for whether we should ignore a guideline? - ZLEA ^TǀC 15:15, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

  I don't want to sound terse, but yes. Per the above discussion, the guideline explicitly makes room for exceptions and we are debating whether this is a case where such exceptions are warranted. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 15:27, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

  @ZLEA, an RFC is one of the most effective ways to determine whether there is community consensus to make an exception to a guideline. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:57, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

What about this template is "novel"? PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:41, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

• I Support Alexandraaaacs1989's points here, as it is far more informative to visitors regarding the full context of this situation. David A (talk) 03:35, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@Alexandraaaacs1989: We seem to have found a partial compromise solution here. David A (talk) 07:31, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

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)

Okay. That is good. And no problem. David A (talk) 07:35, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

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)

Collapsed tangent about guideline wording.

Comment: This entire RfC seems to be based on an assumption that the guideline says something it doesn't. The guideline says Every article that transcludes a given navigation template should normally also be included as a link in the template, so that the navigation is bidirectional. but not the other way around, and therefore the template doesn't need an exception as it is not a situation covered by the guideline. The guideline does not say everything must be bidirectional, it says that if an article transcludes a navigation template then it should be bidirectional. If a navigation template includes an article there is nothing saying that the navigation must be made bidirectional. In other words, an article generally cannot transclude a navigation template without being included as a link in the navigation template, but a navigation template can include an article as a link without having to be transcluded onto that page.

I simply cannot see how the guideline can be read to say otherwise. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 03:04, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

I suppose the last sentence of 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. Per the bidirectionality principle above, this may also affect inclusion of a particular article in a navigation template. could be read as an attempt to imply that the "bidirectionality principle" goes both ways, but that's just not what the previously stated principle says, and it makes not attempt at clarifying how it may affect the inclusion of a particular article in a navigation template. The only way it adds up logically is that it is up to editors whether or not to exclude a link to an article in a template based on whether or not the article transcludes the template. I'm a bit shocked that the guideline has been written like this honestly. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 03:07, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Bidirectional means two-way, so to me it's self-explanatory. If the suggestion is that it could only mean one-way then it'd be called undirectional. If the idea is that it could be either bi/undirectional, then it'd just be called directional. So invoking that terminology alone makes it clear enough: Every article that transcludes a given navigation template should normally also be included as a link in the template, so that the navigation is bidirectional. The principle is based on navigation templates functioning in their desired format: as a bidirectional navigation aid for readers.

The only way it adds up logically is that it is up to editors whether or not to exclude a link to an article in a template based on whether or not the article transcludes the template. More or less, with the decision making process for whether a template is included being based on the criteria at NAVBOX/SIDEBAR. In this case, namely: The subject of the template should be mentioned in every article. which is what is lacking here. This RfC effectively exists because this criteria has not been met for certain subjects, although per above discussion, this also doesn't appear to have been attempted either unfortunately. CNC (talk) 09:03, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Bidirectional means two-way, yeah, but it says that it should be two-way under certain circumstances, so it's not self-explanatory. I seriously think it should be edited to say Every article that transcludes a given navigation template should normally also be included as a link in the template, and every article included as a link in the template should normally also transclude the template, so that the navigation is bidirectional.

As for this situation in particular The subject of the template should be mentioned in every article. seems enough to deal with this, but I'm going to see about clarifying the guideline because it's ticking me off right now. Might just do a bold edit. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 16:00, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Agree the wording is not the best, you're proposed change is precisely how I understand it and is a lot clearer. It confirms it goes both ways, which is what bidirectional attempts to explain. CNC (talk) 16:31, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Yeah no I get what you're saying, to me I felt very strongly that it has to have been intended to "go both ways", because it just made sense that it would. It's intuitive. But as I was reading it I realized that semantically speaking, if you break it down word for word, it doesn't actually say that. I made a topic on the talk page there yesterday so I'm just going to boldly edit it with a summary to look at the talk page. I'm not expecting much opposition. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 18:58, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Btw are you cool with collapsing our discussion? It's kind of a tangent to the discussion others are having and I don't think it's adding much now that it has come to a conclusion. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 19:06, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Assuming you mean from your original comment (which is what I think you mean) instead of cutting me off then sure, no problem with that. I'll add a link to the discussion you referenced as a courtesy for anyone reading: Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates#The bidirectionality section might be flawed. I think there are other editors in this discussion that might be interested. CNC (talk) 19:13, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 19:22, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

I have started a VPP discussion about revising BIDI. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 22:42, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

List of BIDI removals - examine

• • Cemeteries Y

• • Designated civilian safe zones Y

• • Evacuating civilians Y

• • Health facilities Y

• • Refugee camps Y

• • Religious sites Y

• • Schools Y

• Evacuations Y

• Humanitarian crisis Y

• • Famine Y

• • Gaza Humanitarian Foundation Y

• • Healthcare collapse Y

• Killings

• • Aid distribution

• • Bombings

• • • AI targeting

• • Children

• • Health workers

• • • World Central Kitchen aid convoy attack

• • Journalists

• • • List

• • Torture

• Mass graves

• Sexual and gender-based violence

• Preterm births

• War crimes

• Artists4Ceasefire

• BDS movement

• Boycotts of Israel

• • Benjamin Netanyahu

• • Yoav Gallant

• • Bogotá conference

• Humanitarian aid

• List of sanctions

• No Tech for Apartheid

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

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)

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)