Talk:Gaza genocide/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Edit requests at RFPP

To the regulars here: There are a couple of edit requests at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Edit that seem reasonable and well-thought-out, deserving some attention. Would someone more familiar with this topic than the administrators who monitor that RFPP page have a look and weigh in? ~Anachronist (talk) 23:31, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @Anachronist. Both have now been addressed.

I proposed the last sentence of the lead be replaced by: "The Israeli government rejected South Africa's allegations. Supporters of Israel say that accusing Israel of genocide is both antisemitic[1][2] and a form of Holocaust erasure[3], but others argue antisemitism shouldn't be exploited to shield Israel from such allegations.[4][5][6][7]. If anyone objects please say so below.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 14:58, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Total deaths

The following study from the Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs at Brown University establishes that, in addition to the officially reported deaths, over 10,000 people in Gaza are dead under the rubble and at least 67,413 have been killed from starvation and diseases, due to lack of access to healthcare, based on reliable data, making the total number of estimated Palestinian deaths over 120,000.

https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/papers/2024/IndirectDeathsGaza

https://www.thenationalnews.com/news/mena/2024/10/08/israel-gaza-war-death-toll-exceeds-120000-if-indirect-causes-are-included-study-finds/

https://www.msn.com/en-ae/news/middleeast/israel-gaza-war-death-toll-exceeds-120-000-if-indirect-causes-are-included-study-finds/ar-AA1rQIOg

I think that these numbers should be reported within this article.

David A (talk) 06:38, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Insufficient sourcing for German ban

The article currently says:

Karen Wells et al. highlight how Germany has entrenched its complicity in Israel's actions by banning use of the word "genocide" in reference to Israel.

The source used says:

Germany is supporting Israel at the ICJ and has banned the use of the word ‘genocide’ in relation to Israel, calling this charge ‘antisemitic’.

A straightforward reading of the source would indicate that the statement of the article is supported by the source. But the source itself doesn't cite any references with respect to this statement. And a google search also didn't yield much. If the German government has truly made such a ban it should be possible to find sources that directly support this (eg a source quoting the German government etc).VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 14:34, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

There is a lot of stuff going on in Germany, which is worth looking into generally, as far as a ban on the word, I could only find this:

"The police in North Rhine-Westphalia started circulating an information brochure to regional schools, in which it states that accusing Israel of committing a genocide may constitute hate speech and may thus be indictable as a criminal offense" along with complaints of arrest for carrying genocide placards, etcetera.

I doubt that you would see a gov statement saying there is such a ban. Selfstudier (talk) 15:06, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

@Vice regent Perhaps she is referring to this statement by Felix Klein:

"Anyone who accuses Israel of genocide is clearly acting in an antisemitic way because they are demonizing Israel, applying double standards, and specifically accusing the Jewish state of committing genocide like the Shoah. Because genocide would mean that the Israeli army is attacking to kill Palestinians - solely based on the fact that they are Palestinians."

Klein is Germany's Federal Commissioner for the Fight against Antisemitism. Kurat calls him "Germany's top bureaucrat dedicated to the fight against antisemitism," but this doesn't make his statements official political positions of Germany. DaWalda (talk) 19:00, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

@DaWalda@Selfstudier@Vice regent: See e.g. this article, published this week. Describes the case of a Jewish woman arrested in Berlin last November for holding a sign saying: "Als Jüdin und Israelin: Stoppt den Genozid in Gaza" ("As a Jewish woman and an Israeli: Stop the genocide in Gaza"). The police say whether a statement like that is a hate crime is a "contextual decision arrived at on a case-by-case basis". (The case against the lady has since been dropped, without explanation.) Andreas JN466 22:04, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

That's a good source. I suspect, though, that the key basis for the suspicion of antisemitism is not the term 'genocide' itself, but rather its generalized association with Jewish/Israeli women (the police further explain: 'However, if the term genocide is used in connection with a blanket statement, for example, directed at the population of Israel, it could constitute a legally relevant statement.'). But by now, we would at least have enough for something like this:

While the accusation of genocide itself is not a criminal offense in Germany, the claim is widely condemned and often regarded with suspicion in public discourse.[FN 1: Germany’s Federal Commissioner for the Fight against Antisemitism has argued that accusing Israel of genocide is inherently antisemitic: Source] [FN 2: A brochure circulated by police advised schools that such accusations may constitute hate speech: Source 2] [FN 3: At least one instance is documented in which demonstrators were reported to authorities for using the term ‘genocide,’ though the case was dropped afterwards.] DaWalda (talk) 22:44, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Private court proceedings against Mark Regev

Mark Regev, former diplomat of Israel and adviser to Netanyahu, has had proceedings launched against him in Australia (where he has joint citizenship), for "advocacy for genocide". Wanting input on including a sentence on this in the legal proceedings section. Reported in:

• PENMelbourne (11 October)
• Middle East Monitor (21 October)
• Haaretz (22 October)

-- Cdjp1 (talk) 23:37, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Including everything single legal proceeding on this article is a bit too much. Obviously it's totally notable for inclusion on Regev's own article. On the other hand, the growing number of legal cases concerning this event deserves a separate comprehensive list article. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 23:50, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Yariv Levin calls for 20 year prison sentences for Israeli citizens that support sanctions

Something of possible interest to include in this and a few other related articles:

After Amos Schocken, the publisher of the Haaretz newspaper, called for international sanctions against Israel to put pressure for acceptance of a two-state solution and an end to ethnic cleansing, Israel's justice minister Yariv Levin demanded a new law imposing up to 20 years prison sentences for any Israelis who call for sanctions.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=tQmE0o4C9dE

https://www.jns.org/israeli-justice-minister-urges-jail-time-for-boycott-calls-by-citizens/

https://skwawkbox.org/2024/11/02/israeli-justice-minister-calls-for-law-for-20yr-prison-sentences-for-israelis-who-call-for-sanctions/

David A (talk) 18:28, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

This should be covered in Human rights in Israel, as part of the lack of freedom of speech. Dimadick (talk) 12:09, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Are you willing to handle it please? David A (talk) 14:17, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

I added a request: [8] David A (talk) 11:05, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Percentage of women and children and the New UN independent analysis

Recently, the UN published a report of its analysis covering verified victims from at least three independent sources found that 70% of the Palestinians killed in Gaza are women and children.

this is certainly a significant change, but i am not sure about somethings we should change in the article:

should we now raise the lower bound to the 70% figure in wikivoice ? This figure have been stated by Gaza health ministry and other sources earlier but in 2023, i cant find reports of this figure in 2024 sources.

or should we highlight the 70% figure and attribute it to the UN only ? (This is assuming that there are no other sources mentioning this figure since 2023, idk if thats true)

what do you think ? @Cdjp1 Stephan rostie (talk) 12:31, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Apart from the figure, there is the "systematic violation of the fundamental principles of international humanitarian law" that "may also constitute genocide", the reference to the ICJ rulings and a call to third states. This is a pretty serious upgrade of the UN response to what has happened in Gaza. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn5wel11pgdo https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/nearly-70-gaza-war-dead-women-children-un-rights-office-says-2024-11-08/ https://www.france24.com/en/middle-east/20241108-nearly-70-percent-of-people-killed-in-gaza-women-and-children-un-finds Selfstudier (talk) 12:46, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

The link you shared says "Nearly 70%". I think it can be used in Wikivoice where the 50% figure is now, but not as a lower bound. Bitspectator ⛩️ 12:49, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

I would prefer to stay away from stating it in Wikivoice at this point, if we specify the percentage (as Bitspector highlights, it is "nearly" so we should state that) it is best to say it is from UN analysis from the sources. If others (news outlets, academic publications, NGOs) also come to a very similar number in their own analyses, we'd have footing to argue for stating the number in Wikivoice. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 16:37, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Short description

This edit conflict over the short description of the article should be discussed [9] [10]

@Daran755, @Pyramids09. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 09:56, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

The 9th word in the article is accused. Not committing/committed, but accused. Removing that word from the short article summary is a breach of NPOV, and only provides fuel to the biblical-size fire that this article has become. Pyramids09 (talk) 10:01, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia has many separate articles such as Israeli bombing of the Gaza Strip, Gaza humanitarian crisis, Gaza Strip famine, etc. that focus on what Israel is doing in Gaza. However, this article's focus (for now) is how to characterize Israel's mass killings and destruction in Gaza. I think the short description should reflect that. We can uncontroversially state that Israel is (1) engaged in mass killings in Gaza, and (2) engaging in mass destruction in Gaza. Those two aren't disputed. Instead, the characterization of those two actions is in dispute (among a minority of scholars, and a majority of the very politicians who could be found criminally liable for the crime of genocide). The problem with the "alleged genocide" phrasing is that the genocidal actions themselves are not alleged to have happened. They have actually happened according to reliable sources. Israel has engaged in mass killings and destruction in Gaza, and that is not at all in dispute, even among the genocide deniers. What the genocide deniers are focusing on is the characterization of Israel's actions as genocide. They're not arguing that Israel is NOT engaged in mass killings and destruction. They're arguing that although Israel is engaged in mass killings and destruction, its actions are justifiable under international law and thus not genocide (although there are a few examples where the Israeli government falsely blames Hamas for some killings). And it's for that reason that I support having "Israeli mass killings and destruction in Gaza" in the short description as a better descriptor.

My issue with the "Genocide of Palestinians in Gaza by Israel" short description is that it's just not a short description of what this article is about. This article is primarily about the characterization of Israel's actions. The very first sentence of this article is:

"Experts, governments, United Nations agencies, and non-governmental organisations have accused Israel of carrying out a genocide against the Palestinian people during its invasion and bombing of the Gaza Strip in the ongoing Israel–Hamas war."

That's a characterization, and is the main topic of this article. Thus, the short description should reflect that.

Contrast this with the Rwandan genocide article, which focuses largely on the genocidal actions. Should this article eventually transform into an article that is primarily focused on Israel's genocidal actions, I would be okay with the short description of "Genocide of Palestinians in Gaza by Israel." But until then, the short description should be what the article currently is about. And the article, as it currently stands, is primarily about how to characterize Israel's mass killings and destruction. Another point of comparison is the article Black genocide in the United States, whose short description is "Characterization of the past and present treatment of African Americans." My current assessment of the Gaza genocide article is that it's trying to be both. It's trying to be an article like Rwandan genocide, but with most of this article's content being a discussion of characterization, it currently has some similarity with the Black genocide in the United States article.

What the short description policy page says is that a short description should:

>1. focus on the purposes stated above [a very brief indication of the field covered by the article, a short descriptive annotation, a disambiguation in searches, especially to distinguish the subject from similarly titled subjects in different fields]

>2. start with the most important information (mobile applications may truncate long descriptions)

>3. use universally accepted facts that will not be subject to rapid change, avoiding anything that could be understood as controversial, judgemental, or promotional

>4. avoid jargon, and use simple, readily comprehensible terms that do not require pre-existing detailed knowledge of the subject

>5. avoid duplicating information that is already in the title (but don't worry too much if you need to repeat a word or two for context)

>6. avoid time-specific adjectives like "former", "retired", "late", "defunct", "closed", "current", "new", "recent", "planned", "future", etc.

>7. avoid subjective adjectives like "small", "famous", "popular"

>A good way to draft a short description is to consider the words that would naturally follow if you started a sentence like this:

>"[Article subject] is/was a/an/the ... ".

Based on all of this, I came up with a short description for this article:

"Characterization of Israeli mass killings and destruction in Gaza"

So let's go over the points raised in the short description article:

1. Focus on purposes stated above: yes, it's a very brief indication of the field covered by the article (discussion of the characterization of Israel's actions)

2. Start with the most important information: I wrote it so that on mobile apps, at least the "...Israeli mass killings..." shows up, and that's the most important information.

3. Use universally accepted facts: This is what led me to oppose the use of the word genocide, and instead to say "Israeli mass killings and destruction." The Israeli mass killings and destruction are universally accepted facts, even among the genocide deniers.

4. Avoid jargon: There's no jargon in my proposed short description.

5. Avoid duplicating information: The only word duplicated is "Gaza", which is critically important as its the primary location of the mass killings and destruction.

6. Avoid time-specific adjectives: I considered having "2023-present" or "Ongoing" in the short description, but I decided against it. Note that the Rohingya genocide article does use the word "ongoing" in its short description.

7. Avoid subjective adjectives: There are no subjective adjectives used. "mass" in mass killings is not subjective or controversial, as there are multiple incidents where the Israeli government themselves have admitted to mass killings of Palestinians (such as the hostage rescue operation, although the Israeli government does deny the death toll being hundreds).

Discussions regarding the scope of this article should be had, and should the scope of the article change, I think the short description of the article should change too. Personally, I do think too much weight is currently being placed on the "characterization" aspect and not enough on the material reality of what is actually taking place in the Gaza genocide, and too much weight is given to genocide deniers. Nevertheless, we need to have a short description that is actually reflective of what the article is currently about.

As for as an alternative short description, I'd also be okay with omitting "characterizaiton of" entirely, although I think that would require a discussion on changing the current scope of the article.

Let me know what you all think about changing the short description, for now, to "Characterization of Israeli mass killings and destruction in Gaza" JasonMacker (talk) 23:38, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Alternate descriptions to consider based on this be "Characterization(s) of Israeli actions in Gaza as genocide" or "Characterization(s) of Israeli mass killings and destruction in Gaza as genocide". IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 00:06, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

My concern with "characterization(s)" is that this isn't an article about various characterizations in general. This article is specifically about the genocide characterization. The term "Gaza genocide" refers to a "characterization of Israeli mass killings and destruction in Gaza" by scholars. That's what makes it a great short description of this article. "...as genocide" is not needed in the short description because the article's title already provides the information that the characterization is genocide. If anything, point 5 of WP:SDESC should lead to use omitting "in Gaza" ("Characterization of Israeli mass killings and destruction") instead of adding another word of the article's title. But, unfortunately, because Israel has engaged in multiple mass killings and destruction in different locations, even recently (see 2024 Israeli invasion of Lebanon), I think having the location in the short description should be there for disambiguation purposes. But the word "genocide" isn't needed. As for replacing "mass killings and destruction" with "actions", I'm opposed to that because the short description I gave is already within the max range of a short description.

As WP:SDESC notes:

"Fewer than 3% of short descriptions are longer than 60 characters, and short descriptions longer than 100 characters will be flagged for attention." My short description is 65 characters, including spaces. As noted here, there are about 6000 articles with 65 character short descriptions. Based on this, I see no need to shorten "mass killings and destruction" to "actions." If it's really necessary to shorten my proposal, I suggest just removing "and destruction" and just leave it with mass killings: "Characterization of Israeli mass killings in Gaza" (49 characters) JasonMacker (talk) 01:26, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I've come around to prefer "Characterization of Israeli mass killings in Gaza" over "Characterization of Israeli mass killings and destruction in Gaza." Especially since this article is about genocide, which in common parlance specifically focuses on killing people. Although "domicide" is a part of the genocide, I think just having the mass killings is enough for the short description.

Does anyone here have objections to changing the short description to "Characterization of Israeli mass killings in Gaza"? I'll give it a few days for people to object, but if there's no response, I'm going to be WP:BOLD and change the short description. JasonMacker (talk) 19:42, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Domicide

In the previous section in the talk, I referenced the concept of domicide. Right now, domicide is not mentioned in this article. However, the bombing of Gaza is mentioned in the domicide article, as well as the Israeli bombing of the Gaza Strip article. I think it could be mentioned in this article. Right now, the infobox mentions bombardment in its "attack type" section. I think it would benefit from also mentioning domicide. It's a term that has become more widely used in the 21st century, with its usage significantly increasing since 2016 (see Google Ngram). If you look at the references of the domicide article, a lot of them specifically reference the Gaza genocide, such as this NPR article that mentions South Africa's case against Israel.

At the minimum, I think domicide should be included in the infobox, and then the "Deliberate destruction of civilian infrastructure" subsection can be expanded to include discussion of this domicide label. JasonMacker (talk) 20:03, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

The article says that domicide isn't even a war crime. How does it factor in here? Jonathan f1 (talk) 03:13, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Look at the "attack type" section right now... "Bombardment" and "targeted killings" are also not war crimes. But it's what Israel is doing. Domicide is the same thing. Just because Israel's attack type in particular is not a war crime doesn't mean they aren't engaging in that attack type. Israel is engaging in domicide. It doesn't really matter if it's currently a war crime or not. This is the same as mentioning the use of biological weapons prior to the Biological Weapons Convention. I don't think it makes sense to say "oh we shouldn't mention the use of biological weapons by the Mongols because it wasn't a war crime back then." The fact that Israel is engaging in domicide should be mentioned, even if it's not currently a war crime. JasonMacker (talk) 00:53, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I was only asking because not every Israeli military action is related to genocide, just like we don't normally reference the Warsaw domicide as part of Nazi genocide/war crimes. I know that Israel has been accused specifically of using hunger as a weapon of war, and that's significant. As far as domicide goes -I think it's relevant insofar as more than half the victims (as of now) are probably under the rubble (the frequently cited death count of "40,000" is almost certainly exceptionally low).

Also, I'm sure most of you are aware that the ICC just announced arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant. Jonathan f1 (talk) 17:35, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

As noted in the German war crimes article, the very first war crime committed by Nazi Germany was the Bombing of Wieluń, and as that article's infobox states, the "Territorial changes" was the "Destruction of Civilian Infrastructure." Separate from that, the article of the Warsaw uprising has a section that focuses specifically on the Nazi plan to destroy the city of Warsaw. However, as I cited in the Google Ngram graph above, the word "domicide" was not commonly used during ww2 and the rest of the 20th century, and that's why it doesn't show up. It's a newer term that has been retroactively applied. Thats why the Destruction of Warsaw article doesn't use the term in the main body of text, but it does list "Domicide" in the See Also section, and the domicide article mentions the Bombing of Warsaw as an example of domicide (the Bombing of Warsaw is yet another article that details part of Warsaw's domicide).

But yes, as you say, the largest crime of the Nazis, the Holocaust, didn't actually entail much domicide, because it was a program of specifically targeting Jews (and other "undesirables")for deportation/killing while leaving the rest of the population subject to military occupation. In contrast, the destruction of Warsaw was a specific plan to destroy the entire city of Warsaw and replace its populations of millions with a German settler colony of about 130,000. This Gaza genocide article describes actions of the Israeli government that are more akin to the domicide of Warsaw than the Holocaust. Nevertheless, reliable sources in the present day (unlike most ww2 literature) are using the neologism domicide to describe Israel's actions in the Gaza Strip (see this Google Scholar Search). JasonMacker (talk) 03:34, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

ICC arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant

CNN reporting a few hours ago[11]. Jonathan f1 (talk) 17:40, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Already in article. Selfstudier (talk) 17:42, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

I didn't see it. The legal proceedings section still says "A panel of ICC judges is considering whether to issue the warrants." Jonathan f1 (talk) 17:49, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Removed. Selfstudier (talk) 17:53, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Update on Genocide Watch

The "Scholarly and expert opinions on the Gaza genocide" section lists "Genocide Watch", but it cites an article from them in 17 October 2023 and lists them as a "maybe." However, a recent article from Genocide Watch makes it clear that they have changed their position on this:

"These are the signs of the genocidal process in Israel's war in Gaza:

• Israel's leaders persist in conflating all Palestinian people with Hamas. [classification];
• Israel’s leaders incite genocide against Palestinians by dehumanizing Palestinians as “human animals” and by summoning Biblical justification for genocide [dehumanization, polarization];
• Israel collectively punishes all Gazans for the actions of Hamas. Israel’s leaders deny that there are any innocent civilians in Gaza. This falsehood denies any duty to obey the laws of war, which require avoidance of attacks on civilians. [dehumanization, polarization];
• This collective punishment is used to justify the bombing and killing of tens of thousands of Palestinian women, children, and noncombatants, including at least 85 journalists [persecution, extermination];
• Israel has forcibly displaced 1.7 million Gazans from their homes into tent cities [persecution];
• Israel bombs and assaults hospitals where wounded civilians seek medical care and shelter [persecution, extermination];
• Israel bombs Palestinian refugee camps in Gaza [persecution, extermination];
• Israel bombs and attacks areas in Gaza to which it has directed civilians for their “safety” [persecution, extermination];
• Israel bombs “escape routes” it has designated for Palestinians fleeing Israeli attacks [persecution, extermination];
• Israel's blockade and siege of Gaza is producing widespread famine [persecution, extermination].

Together, these actions demonstrate intent to commit genocide, the intentional destruction in part of the Palestinian people of Gaza."

Based on this article, it seems clear that they're no longer a "Maybe" but rather a "yes."

Is the "Scholarly and expert opinions on the Gaza genocide" section open to updates? JasonMacker (talk) 19:41, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I would add a new entry for the new position. I wonder what the threshold for scholarly/expert consensus is. Bitspectator ⛩️ 19:54, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

A few months ago some editors here had a discussion about how many scholars don't believe a genocide is occurring, and there didn't seem to be much dissent at the time, and there seems to be even less dissent now. I personally know of only one prominent genocide scholar who's still skeptical that a legal case of intent could be made at the level of state policy. Jonathan f1 (talk) 07:14, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

It is open to edits by anyone, in line with Israel-Palestine editing restrictions. I have added the new article to the list. @Bitspectator: the template is intended to be a tool to make it easier for editors to find various articles for discussion, instead of having to manually grab the same sources every single time they are brought to discussion. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 18:43, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Edit requests

There are five edit requests related to this article at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Edit, some of which have been open for over a month. If anyone's interested in implementing/rejecting those requests (or copying over the ones that need discussion), I'm sure the requesting editors would appreciate it. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:31, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

@Extraordinary Writ: The first 3 can be filed, I think. Selfstudier (talk) 16:19, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Self-defence

Regarding the "self-defence" talking point, I cannot help but think of Genocide justification. I seem to remember this point having been made before, that this is such a commonplace excuse, but I can't remember where exactly. If a RS can be found making this point regarding Gaza, it can be integrated into the article. Just a heads-up. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 10:56, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Genocide definition

Is there a particular reason why definitions for genocide are included in the article? No other articles on events that have been at least alleged as genocides by some include this, and including it at the start makes it read more like an essay than an encyclopedia entry. Originalcola (talk) 10:43, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Probably because there is an associated court case? Selfstudier (talk) 10:59, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

But that’s not really a justification for including the legal definition of genocide. To use a similar example, it’s like including the legal definition for defamation on a defamation trial page. You normally just link to another article like so. Furthermore, the “Other Defintions of Genocide” aren’t referenced even implicitly anywhere in this article nor are used in any of the trials; it is totally irrelevant to the topic of this article. Originalcola (talk) 11:44, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Well, idk about other articles but at this one, there has been a lot of discussion about the merits of the accusation and since this article is covering both the legal/non legal aspects, I think it doesn't hurt to have those definitions up front, it seems as if it would be helpful to the reader, I certainly don't agree that it is totally irrelevant to the topic of this article. Selfstudier (talk) 12:04, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

You’ve convinced me, I hadn’t considered the readability of the article being lowered by not having a genocide definition. Originalcola (talk) 15:18, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Unlike defamation, there is academic discussion about varying Genocide definitions. Genocide denial often involves using a non-standard definition of genocide (see this: "I do agree with the honourable gentleman," said Lammy, before redefining the term genocide in a way that no expert would recognise, let alone accept.)

There is no separate Gaza genocide denial article for now, so those views of genocide denial should be noted within this article. Unfortunately, genocide denial is a prominent view among western government officials. However, this is not unprecedented. For example, the genocide denial article dealing with the genocide of indigenous peoples also includes discussion of the definition of genocide. The section on rationalization also provides insight:

>>>American academic and activist Gregory Stanton has described ten stages of genocide, in which the ninth stage is extermination and the tenth is denial. During this final stage, Stanton argues that individuals and government may "deny that these crimes meet the definition of genocide", "question whether intent to destroy a group can be proven", and "often blame what happened on the victims". The concept of denial as the final stage of genocide has been discussed in more detail in the 2021 textbook Denial: The Final Stage of Genocide? Stanton also indicates that stages often co-occur; the first eight stages include classification, symbolization, discrimination, dehumanization, organization, polarization, preparation, and persecution. Early denial of genocide often occurred through these stages. For instance, American historian David Stannard explained that European colonizers "purposefully and systematically dehumaniz[ed] the people they were exterminating".

>>>Further, South African sociologist Leo Kuper has described denial as a routine defense, referring to it as a consequence of the Genocide Convention. He argues that denial has become more prevalent because genocide is considered "an international crime with potentially significant sanctions by way of punishment, claims for reparation, and restitution of territorial rights".

I don't see how having an overview of the definition of genocide harms this article.

However, I'm going to add a "Main article" template to the "Other definitions of genocide" section that links to the Genocide definitions article, as that would provide important context. JasonMacker (talk) 21:14, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree that my original point was poorly conceived and that including the definitions doesn't hurt, I'm no longer opposed to that. However, it seems like most of the arguments aren't strictly genocide denial per se, but more debating whether it should be considered a genocide. Since this is an article on genocide accusations, it's probably not wise to link to genocide denial, given a lack of consensus amongst editors or experts. Originalcola (talk) 04:06, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

"it seems like most of the arguments aren't strictly genocide denial per se, but more debating whether it should be considered a genocide."

There's two different but related concepts when talking about genocide denial. First, there is a form of genocide denial that disputes the characterization of events. You can see the examples listed here, such as "It was self defense." This is not a denial of the events happening but rather offering a justification for it.

Second, there is the other kind of genocide denial, where specific events are claimed to have either not happpened at all or to have been exaggerated. An example given in the article is Mahmoud Abbas saying that only a few hundred thousand Jews died in the Holocaust.

In the specific case of Gaza genocide denial, there is definitely a mix of both of these forms of genocide denial.

In the first case, there are plenty of examples of people who are arguing that self defense is not genocide. see this Google search for plenty of examples (I should not that the terms in the search inquiry doesn't have words such as "Gaza" or "Israel" but almost all of the search results involve the Gaza genocide denial).

In the second case, there are also plenty of examples of people who dispute the number of Palestinian civilians killed in Gaza. (A search for "Hamas-run health ministry" should bring up plenty)

The point is that both of these are forms of genocide denial. It could be useful sometimes to distinguish between these two forms of genocide denial, but they're both genocide denial. JasonMacker (talk) 18:06, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I should note that a different way to parse the issue of Gaza genocide is through scholarly inquiry versus "petty" denial. Wikipedia, for example, has two separate articles on Holodomor denial and Holodomor genocide question. The first article details "petty" denial of the events by saying that there was no famine, or that the famine was primarily caused by weather. In contrast, the second article focuses on actual academics that have reached a consensus that the famine was man-made, but disagree on whether there was a specific intent to exterminate Ukrainians. Scholars are often reading between the lines to figure out what the Soviet intent was, because there were never any explicit statements of "We want to eliminate Ukrainians." This is in contrast with ww2 Nazis who have plenty of explicit statements referring to the extermination of Jews. In the case of the Gaza genocide, it definitely looks more akin to ww2 nazis than 1932-1933 Soviet officials. Plenty of Israelis, from the lowest ranking soldiers to the highest government officials, have spoken of eliminating Palestinians specifically.

For this reason, I don't think there is an actual academic debate in the Gaza genocide question. Denial is mostly in the form of "petty" denial rather than serious academic debate. See the McDoom article discussing this. JasonMacker (talk) 18:39, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I know what you're trying to get at, but it's quite a stretch to say that there is no actual academic debate on the question of genocide in Gaza. I've edited on Holodomor pages before, and have made multiple rash edits in the past due to strong opinions I held. Even if it seemed obviously a genocide to me, it didn't mean that there wasn't serious academic discourse or an unclear international consensus on the question. Not all cases where the characterization of something as a genocide is disputed is genocide denial(as stated in the introduction of the textbook you cited). Actions characterized as self-defense by apologists and perpetrators can be considered genocide, that doesn't necessarily make it so that all actions characterized as such constitute genocide. With regards to death toll, estimates do vary quite a bit and the true death toll as of now isn't known. In most of the articles I can see when searching "Hamas-run health ministry" do not dispute the numbers either([12][13][14][15]). Not all criticisms fall under the egregious examples you've described, there are plenty of opinions included in previous name change and deletion discussions, pinned at the top of this talk page or in the article at present that aren't routed in some deliberate distortion of facts.

Wikipedia isn't a publisher of original research so we shouldn't be comparing what happening in Gaza right now to past events to try to determine whether it's a genocide. Instead, we should cite reliable secondaries in order to back up our viewpoints instead. I also do find the idea of comparing the Holocaust and Holodomor to be somewhat distasteful in this context, especially given the classic argument by Holocaust and Holodomor deniers that there was no written order by Hitler or Stalin so said events aren't genocides/weren't caused by them. I'd also note that McDoom's article acknowledges academic discourse on the issue of genocide and a lack of consensus, whilst alleging systematic bias amongst some scholars. It does not allege that other scholars are actively engaging in genocide denial. It's also an article that has literally never been cited before, which makes it questionable whether the opinion stated represents a mainstream opinion or not. Originalcola (talk) 01:47, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

If by debate, you mean are there those who say there is not a genocide, then of course that's the case and why we say in the lead that it is an accusation and not a fact.

However, the majority opinion among experts is that there is a genocide and this is a discussion that has already been had multiple times at this page and the number of experts signing on to that theory has only increased in recent times.

That's where we are at and I do not see any benefit in extending the conversation beyond that currently. Selfstudier (talk) 09:24, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I just don't think a genocide denial background section or genocide denial section was warranted before some kind of strong consensus was formed on the genocide question. That's why I chose to do some necroposting but I'll refrain from commenting any further. Originalcola (talk) 03:58, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

December 2024

@DancingOwl: the previous edit has been reverted without properly justifying the deletion - the one "explanation" provided was basically WP:JD I did give a valid reason that I expect the average editor (who's here to build an encyclopedia) to understand.

What makes you think that such baseless allegations about South Africa's genocide case against Israel belong in the article (in the lead to boot)? M.Bitton (talk) 22:35, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

I reverted it as undue, nothing to do with the article here, possibly due at the case or ANC articles but even there, it seems like an extraordinary claim. Selfstudier (talk) 22:57, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I reverted its addition to the case article as UNDUE there too (it is an extraordinary "allegation"). M.Bitton (talk) 23:02, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Why is it UNDUE there?

It's highly relevant to the topic of that article, and the allegations have been reported in several mainstream media outlets. DancingOwl (talk) 05:27, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I do agree that its placement in the lead gave it undue weight, but, in my view, it shouldn't have been removed altogether, but rather moved to the ICJ application section, where it's definitely relevant. DancingOwl (talk) 05:15, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but "Wikipedia is not a collection of every piece of alleged garbage" is both wp:rude and wp:jdl and not a "valid reason" for deletion.

I do agree that its placement in the lead gave it undue weight, and it should've been moved to the ICJ application section, where it belongs.

The fact that you consider the allegations in the report "extraordinary" is also, in and by itself, not a valid reason for deletion, unless there are good reasons to consider Institute for the Study of Global Antisemitism and Policy unreliable source (in which case I'd expect it to be explicitly stated as the reason for deletion). DancingOwl (talk) 04:20, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

that isn't a rude assertion. See also WP:DUE, but unless there is a case to be made that a fact is important to the encyclopedic value of the article, it should not be included. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 05:29, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

allegations are almost certainly extraordinary as well. Seems bizarre to suggest that an $30 million debt to arabian countries would cause the ICJ case... there is not much coverage of this as a legitimate rationale for the case by other sourcing, and to suggest a debt that is less than 1% of 1% of the GDP of south africa is enough to cause bias is definitely extraordinary. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 05:33, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

1. The claim is that a donation was made directly to the ruling African National Congress (ANC) party, to cover its $30 million debt, not to South Africa as a country, so the comparison to the GDP is irrelevant.

2. Institute for the Study of Global Antisemitism and Policy are not the first ones to bring up those allegations, similar claims were made back in May in a letter signed by 160 international legal experts

3. Those allegation basically mean that ANC had ulterior motives in initiating the ICJ proceedings against Israel, which is clearly a very important part of the context of this case DancingOwl (talk) 06:32, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

legal experts that's a claim in a GUNREL source about some allegation. M.Bitton (talk) 13:10, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Citing the JC now as well, jeez. Selfstudier (talk) 13:19, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

The May story was also covered by "Jerusalem Post", "The Times of Israel" and "South African Jewish Report".

And the ISGAP report was also mentioned by "Ynet News", JNS and "South African Zionist Federation", among others.

Is your line of argument now going to be that any Jewish/Israeli source mentioning those allegations is GUNREL? DancingOwl (talk) 15:12, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

The line of argument is simple: extraordinary claims need extraordinary sources (unsubstantiated claims by an involved party are pure propaganda). M.Bitton (talk) 15:25, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Enough. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:29, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Does the same line of argument apply to reports originating from Gazan sources? DancingOwl (talk) 15:51, 2 December 2024 (UTC) Do you have a claim in mind or are you just fishing? M.Bitton (talk) 15:52, 2 December 2024 (UTC) For example, claims about the number of casualties - in particular, the number of bodies buried under the rubble. DancingOwl (talk) 16:05, 2 December 2024 (UTC) Claims about themselves are a different matter (you ought to know that). M.Bitton (talk) 16:07, 2 December 2024 (UTC) I'd appreciate it if you could explain why. DancingOwl (talk) 16:15, 2 December 2024 (UTC) I already did and have no intention of repeating myself. M.Bitton (talk) 16:16, 2 December 2024 (UTC) I must've missed it - could you point me to your explanation? DancingOwl (talk) 16:23, 2 December 2024 (UTC) There are reliable sources dealing with that. Afaik, it is generally accepted that there a significant number of unverified casualties, as to how many, I doubt anyone really knows at this point. Selfstudier (talk) 16:09, 2 December 2024 (UTC) I'm talking about specific numbers, not a general statement that there is a significant number of unverified casualties DancingOwl (talk) 16:17, 2 December 2024 (UTC) Apples and oranges. If you have a problem with a specific claim, you discuss it in the appropriate talk page. M.Bitton (talk) 16:19, 2 December 2024 (UTC) Will do. Just wanted to make sure that the "unsubstantiated claims by an involved party are pure propaganda" principle goes both ways, as far as you're concerned. DancingOwl (talk) 16:25, 2 December 2024 (UTC) No point in trying to put words in my mouth, because I won't let you. Sources are always judged in context, if you don't know that, then I suggest you learn and learn it fast. M.Bitton (talk) 16:27, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't see any links to the other coverage but that apart, it is just not due in this article, it may be due in another article, either or both of the South Africa's genocide case against Israel and African national Congress.

At any rate, there is no point in further discussion here. Selfstudier (talk) 15:35, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I'll locate the relevant links and add them, but before I do that, is it acceptable, as far as you are concerned, to also add a short summary of this to the ICJ case section?

Also, I don't want this to turn into an edit war, so before I make any edits, I suggest I start a topic at the South Africa's genocide case against Israel, in which the best phrasing/sourcing can be discussed - how does this sound? DancingOwl (talk) 15:58, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

No objection to a discussion at the case page (or at the ANC page, I would be interested to see editorial reaction there).

There is no basis to add anything here, because an allegation of corruption on the part of the ANC has no bearing on whether or not there is a Gaza genocide. To put it another way, assume the allegation is true, does it follow that there is not a Gaza genocide? Obviously not. Selfstudier (talk) 16:04, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Ok, the "Corruption controversies" section at the ANC page seems like a good place to start - that can give us important input that we won't get elsewhere.

I'm not sure I agree with your view regarding mentioning those allegations in the ICJ case section here, but let's leave this discussion for later. DancingOwl (talk) 16:13, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

You start with the talk page and you seek consensus for what you want to add to the ANC. M.Bitton (talk) 16:14, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

of course DancingOwl (talk) 16:21, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't belong in the case article either. Maybe the Institute for the Study of Global Antisemitism and Policy (as it says more about them than anyone else). M.Bitton (talk) 16:10, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

FYI: Institute for the Study of Global Antisemitism and Policy seems to be funded by the Israeli government:[16]

This year’s program was given a boost by a US$1.3 million ($1.74 million) grant (over three years) from the government of Israel.

Bogazicili (talk) 16:36, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware of that - it's also clearly stated in the lead of the Wikipedia article about them:

"...an Israeli-funded American non-profit organization..." DancingOwl (talk) 16:45, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Wairimu Nderitu

So, I was looking for the actual statement by the UN special advisor on genocide Prevention to add to the experts opinions list, and despite how it has been worded in the article, she has not stated that Gaza is or is not a case of genocide.

In her most recent reiterated statement she reaffirmed her position does not allow for her to state whether something is or is not genocide, and such determinations should be deferred to the relevant courts.

The assumption that she does not consider Gaza a genocide seems to come from the WSJ applying some of the arguments she made in a 2022 paper to the situation in Gaza. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 15:44, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Estimated death toll

Please add an estimated death toll figure in the infobox. 44,249 is confirmed casualty. The Lancet estimated 186,000 deaths. A range should be included because a user has removed the combined figure that was in the infobox as original research https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gaza_genocide&diff=prev&oldid=1261500337 Hu741f4 (talk) 03:02, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

A letter in The Lancet. Bitspectator ⛩️ 03:13, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

It's already included in the indirect deaths section. I think Talk:Israel–Hamas_war/Archive_44#h-Indirect_casualties_from_the_Lancet_study-20240708021400 suggested that since there is a very wide range of estimates, the current wording is appropriate for now. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 03:36, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 6 December 2024

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Gaza genocide → Gaza genocide accusations – This article seems to be about the accusations, and in my opinion, until the South Africa v. Israel case ends or settles, it would be best to leave it as accusations. Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 23:43, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose With Amnesty International declaring it a genocide, [17] the case for changing the article back looks less favourable than when it was originally moved. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:08, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. The only thing that has changed since the last RM is that now there are more RS describing it as what it is, a Genocide. M.Bitton (talk) 01:59, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Oppose Too many sources calling it a genocide. See also all the previous move discussions and requests. The academic consensus seems clear. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 02:07, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose no valid reason has been provided for such a significant POV push. Simonm223 (talk) 02:30, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose This isn't an accusation anymore. Hu741f4 (talk) 03:05, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Oppose there have been only three genocides officially labeled as such by the ICJ (Rwanda, Cambodia, and Srebrenica). Several scholars and organisations have described the actions in Gaza as a genocide The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 03:54, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Oppose please familiarize yourself with the template at the top of this talk page before making move requests. JasonMacker (talk) 10:02, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose per my understanding of Wikipedia:Article titles policy. Specifically, Wikipedia:Article titles#Deciding on an article title

As far as I know, we currently do not have any review articles published on a peer-reviewed journal that is not a predatory journal. However, a non-scientific example which is a bit similar to a review is the October 2024 Vox article. They contacted several scholars, and only one "still did not think Israel’s actions qualify as genocide". As mentioned above, we also have Amnesty International's report. We also have other scholarly sources. While there is no universal agreement among scholarly sources, a lot of sources call this a genocide. Wikipedia policy also has the following recommendations:

Recognizability: Google Books Ngram Viewer is not available for this yet. It is until 2022. However, in Google trends, Gaza genocide is more popular than Gaza genocide accusations [18]. In google.com (with the language setting in English), "Gaza genocide" (with quotation marks) has "About 1,920,000 results". "Gaza genocide accusations" (with quotation marks) has "About 4,870 results". Click on Tools tab to see these numbers.

Naturalness: Gaza genocide is more popular than Gaza genocide accusations in all English-speaking countries [19]

Precision: Both are precise, this is a toss up.

Concision: Gaza genocide is more concise.

Consistency: As mentioned above, very few cases have rulings by international courts. But there are lots of articles in Wikipedia with the genocide title without those international court rulings:

To date, only a few events have been determined by competent judicial bodies to constitute genocide. At the international level, the ICTR determined the 1994 killings of Tutsi and moderate Hutus in Rwanda to be genocide. The ICTY has determined that the events of 1995 in Srebrenica (Bosnia & Herzegovina) were genocide. The ICJ also qualified the events of Srebrenica as genocide. In other instances, charges of genocide have been brought against specific individuals, but the trial or final decision in the cases in question are still pending and therefore genocide has not yet been established. Such charges have been brought, for example, by the International Criminal Court in the case of Darfur (Sudan); and by the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia.

[20] Bogazicili (talk) 16:00, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Comment: While I still disagree with the original move, believing another article would have been more appropriate for the move, since the move closed in June, we have tracked 25 expert/specialist opinions release, of these:

• 3 stated it is not a genocide
• 19 stated it is a genocide
• 2 stated it may be a genocide
• 1 has not been assessed.

These numbers include the Amnesty Report, as well as two leading experts in the field of genocide studies who have changed their assessments from it not being a genocide, to it being a genocide.

It is very much possible to change the title to accusations, but sources of the requisite weight to counteract those we already have must be brought to the discussion. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 16:33, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Oppose It's pretty evident at this point that it is a genocide. I also think the article's opening paragraph should be rewritten to remove mentions of accusations and call it what it is, a genocide (think "The Gaza Genocide is... in contrast to "Israel has been accused of carrying out a genocide against the Palestinian people by...". Clammodest (talk) 19:58, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Oppose I agree with Hemiauchenia. Nothing has changed since the last RM to suggest the current title is inappropriate, if anything, sources support it even more then before. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 20:40, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

@Selfstudier: Please restore my comments that were archived minutes after I posted them.Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 14:58, 8 December 2024 (UTC) @ScottishFinnishRadish: Please restore my comments that were archived minutes after I posted them.Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 15:01, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

The section, including but not limited to your comments, was archived because the RM was already snow closed. Start a new section about the close if desired.(btw, Idk why you are writing this here, either) Selfstudier (talk) 15:05, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Re-opening Requested move 6 December 2024

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Discussion of changing "Gaza genocide" to "Gaza genocide accusations" was closed and archived before adequate discussion could take place. All comments should be restored from the archive, including my comments, namely:

• “Genocide” refers to the physical destruction of a group that has been targeted on the basis of its identity. Immense suffering and civilian toll in Gaza have resulted from the war started by Hamas, and from specific actions by Hamas that put Gazan civilians in harm’s way.
• Hamas does not separate fighters from civilians in its Gaza health ministry numbers. Hamas does not specify whether they died because of attacks carried out by the IDF or because of intentional or unintentional actions by Hamas or other Palestinian armed groups; for example, the explosion at Al-Ahli Arab Hospital in Gaza City was caused by a failed rocket fired by Palestinian Islamic Jihad.
• Israel’s goal is to destroy Hamas, not the Palestinian people or the Palestinian population of Gaza. When Israeli officials have made statements reflecting callous disregard for Palestinian civilian lives, they have been disciplined.
• The goal of Hamas is to wipe Israel and Jews off the map, an example of genocidal intent. Israel directs its force at legitimate military targets, which Hamas has intentionally placed under and within civilians’ homes, hospitals, mosques, and schools.
• The Israeli military sends Arabic-language warnings to Gazans prior to its airstrikes on military targets, and indicates routes for Palestinian civilians to relocate. Hamas has repeatedly called on Palestinian civilians to ignore Israel’s warnings about impending strikes and reportedly forced civilians to remain in the vicinity of military objectives, using them, like its hostages from Israel, as human shields.
• Hamas has continued to launch missiles into Israel, not from military bases, as international law dictates, but from civilian areas in Gaza. International law allows legitimate military targets to be attacked when the anticipated military advantage from the attack exceeds the expected civilian harm. Hamas has inflated the number of civilian casualties. Harm to Gazan civilians is a horrible outcome of war, but it is not genocide.

Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 15:19, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

RM is snow closed above, if you want to contest the close, then first discuss with the closer at their talk page and if not satisfied can request a Wikipedia:Move review. Selfstudier (talk) 15:35, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

I've made my request on SFR's talk page. Please restore the archived comments so the discussion can continue. Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 16:02, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

1. Physical destruction is not the only definition. Any type of war does not preclude the commission of the crime of genocide, per previous legal rulings on the UN Convention.
2. Per previous rulings on cases of genocide (both in reference to the UN Convention, and prior to it's adoption), regular and irregular combatants can and have been included as victims of genocide.
3. Per investigations and analysis by dozens of independent international groups, experts, and specialists, including both Jewish and Israeli individuals, they conclude that the requisite intent has been fulfilled.
4. Israel has been open historically and contemporaneously in their military conduct to consider most individuals who fall outside of the consideration as "combatants" in international law, to be considered combatants for operational purposes. Multiple experts and specialists have highlighted the weaponisation of international humanitarian law by Israel to inflict inhumane conditions on the population of Gaza, such as with the evacuation orders.
5. See above. Additionally for years Israeli and International groups have highlighted the IDF practice of literally using Palestinians as human shields in the West Bank and Gaza, and others have highlighted the bar for Israeli claims of "placing military targets in civilian populations" would apply equally to the IDF placement of bases, alongside most militaries.
6. See above.

-- Cdjp1 (talk) 15:58, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

The move review doesn't take place here, there is a separate place for that per the link above should you decide to go that route. Selfstudier (talk) 16:06, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Allthemilescombined1, can you confirm that you have read WP:NOTFORUM and WP:NOTADVOCACY and that you understand them? Sean.hoyland (talk) 16:46, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

References

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Starvation

The topic of deaths from starvation was reverted based on a discussion at another page altogether. This is highly irregular. Please explain why this figure should be excluded here or I will restore it. Simonm223 (talk) 12:48, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

If you’re referring to the estimate in the infobox the estimate comes from the Doctor’s letter signed to Biden. The paper cited includes that letter in a note which includes a table. The paper doesn’t include any indication of peer-review or similar vetting and does not appear to have a citation count from what I could find, which makes it unlikely to meet the requirements for academic sources. The Mother Jones article is a report restating said paper, in practice it is not a separate source since it includes no form of analysis or commentary to distinguish it which means it should not be included as a citation even if the estimate is kept.

I didn’t make the revert on this page but in the talk page for the Gaza Famine page an editor suggested that the estimate should be included in the infobox because it was included here. I responded that it sounded like it should probably be changed on this page instead. Originalcola (talk) 13:00, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

The letter itself isn’t exactly a reliable source, being self-published and non-independent. I felt like an estimate shouldn’t be included in the infobox unless its reliability is very strong. Originalcola (talk) 13:05, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

OK it seems like people were maybe acting a bit WP:POINTy - I'd ask, going forward, that if edits are made to this page on the basis of article talk conversation that the article talk conversation in question be on this page. It doesn't take long to start a thread saying "over at article X we've identified this issue with this source" as part of your editing. Quite a few editors don't have every single Israel / Palestine article on their watch list and for those of us not privy to that other conversation such edit summaries seem baffling.

Thanks. Simonm223 (talk) 13:29, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

You and XDanielX can swap around reverting here and at the other article and providing different reasons each time, that's not going to work. For a start, we can't just diss RS and say they don't count, WP:USEBYOTHERS is a standard reason for designating another source as reliable. The letter itself isn’t exactly a reliable source, being self-published and non-independent is just wrong, the paper is published by Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs and authored by Sophia Stamatopoulou-Robbins, who is an Associate Professor of Anthropology, an author and "with extensive fieldwork experience in Israel/Palestine", who are then both citing the letter that contains the appendix and the appendix further cites the IPC (verifiable) for the detailed calculation. Selfstudier (talk) 14:45, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Alright so everybody we know this is a contentious topic so we should all try to adhere closer than average to Wikipedia policy and norms. My opinion based on a review of the paper Selfstudier linked above is that it constitutes pretty close to WP:BESTSOURCE standards. It's published by a university, was written by an academic within her field of expertise and is even timely for figures that tend to change rapidly. It is not Wikipedia practice to interrogate the bibliography of a reliable source and to declare subsections of the source unreliable because Wikipedia might not accept as RSes everything in that bibliography. Based on this the estimate of death by starvations is likely due, and is cited to a reliable source, although I would support that it should be attributed to Stamatopoulos-Robbins. Let's just move forward from here. Simonm223 (talk) 14:55, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't think this is really a question of WP:BESTSOURCES; if the best sources still fall short of standards like WP:SCHOLARSHIP then we shouldn't include the material.

It was published by a university-affiliated research group, but that seems like essentially self-publication. At least their website doesn't mention peer review, editorial review don't seem to mention editors, peer-review, or other signs of vetting. I'd also somewhat disagree about the author's field of expertise, which seems to be anthropology rather than public health.

I'm not necessarily against including it somewhere though, but highlighting it in the infobox is almost like endorsing the estimate in Wikipedia's voice, when it hasn't been vetted by the scholarly community. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 16:07, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

That's a wildly irregular take to suggest that a university publication is WP:SPS. Simonm223 (talk) 16:09, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Not technically self-published, but similar in the sense that it doesn't involve the vetting WP:SCHOLARSHIP requires. It's like using university letterhead, it doesn't imply that some university process has vetted the content. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 16:26, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

You do not need to be a scholar to do the mathematical calculation. Nor is it reasonable to demand scholarship for recent events. This sourcing is not some rubbish written by nobodies on the back of a serviette, it's pretty convincing. Selfstudier (talk) 16:30, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

It's not the calculation itself that we need reliable scholarship for, but the soundness of the methodology. As it stands there's no evidence that the methodology has been vetted by the scholarly community. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 16:39, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

It's the IPC's methodology, all they did was do a math calc that a child could do. Selfstudier (talk) 16:41, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

The IPC publication is about using mortality data as one metric (among others) to classify food insecurity phases. It never suggests that it's valid to do the opposite, i.e. to infer mortality figures based on the classification. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 16:52, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Exactly DancingOwl (talk) 22:15, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

This is an unproven and extraordinary assertion. Simonm223 (talk) 16:54, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

How so? It would be unusual for a research group to seriously vet papers before putting them on its own website. That would mean having internal editors or peer reviewers who would need to routinely reject their colleague's papers, and that's just not how research groups normally operate. There's also no mention of editors, peer review, or any other vetting on the group's website.

And again, zero citations is also a pretty clear signal that it falls short of WP:SCHOLARSHIP. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 17:01, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

This RS is not pretending to be scholarship, what you need to do is show that they made the figure up (I can show that they didn't) and Motherjones screwed up by endorsing their findings, good luck with that. Selfstudier (talk) 17:09, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

And that Forbes screwed up by mentioning the Costs of War project, Sophia Stamatopoulou-Robbins and her paper plus her conclusions. Selfstudier (talk) 17:45, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

The question isn't whether they made it up, but whether their methodology has been vetted by the relevant scholarly community. WP:SCHOLARSHIP isn't concerned with coverage in news outlets; that isn't evidence of scholarly vetting. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 18:15, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Where is the policy that says our sources require scholarly vetting? This is not a history or science article. There are a multitude of sources in this article that are not scholarly vetted. Selfstudier (talk) 18:19, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

The broader topic isn't a scientific one, but this estimate in particular is scientific in nature, which is what counts in terms of WP:SCHOLARSHIP applying to it. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 18:28, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

It's a WP:CALC. Selfstudier (talk) 18:31, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

The calculation itself is trivial, it's the methodology behind it that's novel and constitutes unvetted scholarship. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 19:43, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

The "methodology" takes the IPC published data (verifiable) and the IPC "according to the IPC technical manual: in the catastrophe phase of food insecurity the crude death rate rises to at least 2 deaths per 10,000 people per day, and in the emergency phase the crude death rate rises to 1-2 deaths per 10,000 people per day.(also verifiable) and does the math, that's it.

You can say the IPC technical conclusions belong to them but they are the experts. Selfstudier (talk) 19:51, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

But the methodology wasn't developed for predicting mortality based on phase classification, but for doing the opposite inference - producing phase classification based on several factors, one of them being mortality. DancingOwl (talk) 22:24, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

@M.Bitton: rather than just reverting, can you join in the discussion and explain how you think this passes WP:SCHOLARSHIP? — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 04:30, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

You are editwarring removal of this material

4 Dec

5 Dec

7 Dec

Last time, RFC or RSN else AE. Selfstudier (talk) 10:37, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

That's a single revert (the second). Please don't make threats, if you think AE is needed then just do so.

I hadn't promptly reverted M.Bitton because I wanted to see if there was any argument or explanation behind it, and give the discussion a chance to settle a bit more. If there are no new arguments for how this zero-citation paper could pass WP:SCHOLARSHIP, then I think it's reasonable to insist on its removal (from the infobox, the body is another matter).

If anything a discussion on WP:RS might be the best venue to clarify whether affiliation with some research group is enough to pass WP:SCHOLARSHIP, but I think it's pretty clear what the outcome would be. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 15:55, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

@XDanielx: there is no reason for it to pass what you think it should, and therefore, no reason for me to re-explain what has been explained by others. Your edit has been reverted three times so far by those that you failed to convince, so I suggest you listen to what the others are saying and take it to RSN or start a RfC about it. M.Bitton (talk) 02:39, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

1. "Cost of War" are not the source of the number - the estimate of starvation deaths comes from the physicians' letter and just quoted as is in the "Cost of War" report

2. Neither physicians' letter nor "Cost of War" report underwent a review by relevant experts (e.g., in Public Health) and both Sophia Stamatopoulou-Robbin, who authored the report, and Stephanie Savell, who edited it, are anthropologists, i.e. not experts in the this specific field, hence them quoting the figure in their report cannot be considered to be expert endorsement.

3. The IPC manual says the following about mortality estimates:

Evidence for Mortality includes the CDR and the U5DR from representative surveys of good method. If the CDR is below the Famine threshold but the U5DR is higher, the latter can be used to classify the Famine if the 95 percent confidence interval of CDR includes the Famine threshold (i.e. 2/10,000/day).

That is to say that according to IPC methodology, the mortality needs to be estimated using representative surveys and than it can be used as one of the metrics for IPC phase classification. There is nothing either in IPC manual or any other related literature implying that the process can be reversed, with phase classification used for estimating mortality.

4. Moreover, the "IPC Famine Review Committee Report" published on June 25, 2024, stated:

Estimation of non-trauma CDR and U5DR was performed using WFP CATI survey interviews collected between 20 April and 9 June. These interviews used the past census method to determine the number of deaths in each household using a recall period beginning on 1 January 2024, and a mean recall period of 134.4 days...
Taken together, these data allow for a reasonable level of certainty that non-trauma CDR and U5DR were below Famine thresholds during the current analysis period.

In other words, the IPC Famine Review Committee - who are the experts on IPC methodology - looked at the survey data, in order to estimate the number of indirect deaths between January 1 and June 9, rather than trying to infer it based on IPC Phase classification, like the authors of the "physicians' letter" did.

5. All of the above, along with the fact that there have been only 34 officially confirmed malnutrition-related deaths, makes the claim about 62,431 "starvation deaths" wp:extraordinary, and the current level of evidence is insufficient for including it in the article, let alone in the infobox.
DancingOwl (talk) 17:25, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

The IPC FRC states the all-cause CDR(crude death rate) was 0.55 deaths per 10,000 per day, and that after factoring out non-violence related deaths it was below famine thresholds. Looking at the technical manual, CDR for IPC classifications discounts trauma deaths from total deaths, and are not actually meant to be just deaths by starvation. I personally think that an actual study conducted directly contradicting the estimated numbers of deaths from starvation by the study seems to provide further evidence to suggest that the letter shouldn't be used as a source. Originalcola (talk) 01:09, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Sources

I am not a sock puppet, nor am I either co-ordinating my edits with or editing on behalf of another editor. Nor am I constantly changing the core of my arguments to move the goal posts or do anything of the sort, or at least I don't believe that I did. I just honestly think that we should wait until a convincing, authoritative and reliable secondary source is found with a confident estimate for this number, and that as of now it's preferable to state that the true death count might be much higher than the known. We're in no hurry to add a number anyway, we can simply wait for a better source.

The letter is quite literally self-published and is written for political advocacy, making it non-independent. That doesn't necessarily mean it can't be cited in all cases, but as a literal statement of fact that makes it questionable. The fact that the study that cites it has literally 0 citations is proof of it not representing a mainstream view and being inappropriate for Wikipedia. You referred to the Mother Jones article as a reliable secondary source on numerous occasions, despite it being marked as a report and not containing any form of commentary or analysis. This is why the context of when a source is used matters. Originalcola (talk) 17:44, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

I have added Forbes, another RS, above, they unreliable too? Sorry I cannot take your objections at all seriously. Selfstudier (talk) 17:46, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

That Forbes source is a WP:FORBESCONTRIBUTOR. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:50, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

It's also a Forbes contributor article, not a Forbes article. This is stated before the first paragraph. In the first paragraph, the author states he co-authored the twin paper on military loses, and he's also a contributor to Cost of War. They are also not an expert in any relevant field, he's a bloody defense analyst. It is a minimum requirement to be specialized in public health or demography or some other relevant field in order to say that he's qualified to comment about a paper. It doesn't matter if he's an exec in a think tank, being an expert in one field does not automatically make you an expert in every field.

SO YES THEY ARE WHOLLY UNRELIABLE AS A SOURCE. Originalcola (talk) 19:37, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

No need to WP:SHOUT, also see below. Selfstudier (talk) 19:44, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Discussing a separate source can't possibly be considered repetition and the quote I sent was a reply to someone else, not you. That was never mentioned in this talk page, and they requested "that if edits are made to this page on the basis of article talk conversation that the article talk conversation in question be on this page", which was something I agreed with. Originalcola (talk) 19:52, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

I suggest you (or XdanielX) take this to RSN for an opinion, or failing that, start an RFC asking whether "Estimated at least 62,413 dead from starvation (refs)" should be in the infobox/article. Selfstudier (talk) 17:57, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Except, again, the DR letter is not the source. Concur with @ScottishFinnishRadish that a forbes contributor article is not a reliable source. Simonm223 (talk) 18:18, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

I didn't notice he was a contributor there, here he is again, different publisher, he is an exec at Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, a think tank admittedly, but he is qualified to comment about the Costs of War project. In any case, that's just additional opinion sourcing. Selfstudier (talk) 18:30, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

"Note: There were 62,413 additional deaths from starvation, according to the October 2, 2024, “Appendix to letter of October 2, 2024 re: American physicians observations from the Gaza Strip since October 7, 2023." - It's on page 3 of the paper. [21]

The DR letter is explicitly the source so, regardless of whether you believe the paper is a reliable source, the opinion is from the letter. Originalcola (talk) 19:40, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

RSN, RFC...repeating the discussion isn't going to resolve this. Selfstudier (talk) 19:43, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

As i have already explained, Watson Institute of Brown University is unquestionably a highly reliable source, it is not our role here to make WP:OR that criticizes any section of its publishing like the indirect deaths section, even the primary source (the letter) xDanielx and OriginalCola trying to dismiss on base of self-publishing is itself a WP:RS because it is written by first-hand experts on the subject.

xDanielx (invalid) argument that the estimate is much higher than the last estimate is also invalid because the previous estimate is out-dated by this estimate by 2/3rds of an entire year.

There is 0 merits in any of these claims to discard a highly reliable academic source. Stephan rostie (talk) 11:39, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Since the authors use novel methodology to arrive at a novel estimate, we're firmly in WP:SCHOLARSHIP territory, and need to adhere to those rules rather than just the basic WP:RS standards. Author expertise isn't sufficient for that, we need evidence of vetting by the scholarly community.

The timing difference is minor. One can adjust the 62k estimate for a different time period by looking at the table on page 5. Even if we remove the entire June 16-September 30 time period (which is over-adjusting since the 41 figure was from July 8), the IPC-based methodology still would imply 44,022 starvations. That's still more than 1000x the number of recorded cases reported by Wafa and Al Jazeera. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 16:19, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Still disagree and If anything a discussion on WP:RS might be the best venue am waiting for you to do this. Selfstudier (talk) 16:23, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

I see that Originalcola has opened Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Death estimation for you. Selfstudier (talk) 16:38, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Once again, I didn't create that on anybody's behalf. I know that both @XDanielx and I have been arguing on the same side of this dispute, but I am not affiliated with that editor in any way. I'm asking you to please stop doing that. Originalcola (talk) 20:48, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

I think you are reading too much into things I write. Stop doing that, please. Selfstudier (talk) 21:18, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Sure I'll start one on RS - Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources#Do these pass WP:SCHOLARSHIP?. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 16:42, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

As I just said, Originalcola has opened a discussion already. Selfstudier (talk) 16:47, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

xDanielx, why did you delete the 62,413 number [22], but left 5,000? They are both from the same sources. Bogazicili (talk) 22:30, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

• Got here from AE. FWIW, this content does seem pretty dubious. Doesn't it seem like 60,000+ deaths from starvation over the course of a year would be getting coverage in mainstream international media? But all I'm finding there is starvation/malnutrition deaths in the dozens. And the point that numbers in an infobox look very much like Wikivoice is valid. I'd support removing from the infobox while discussing, and maybe an RfC, notifying appropriate projects/noticeboards. Valereee (talk) 12:52, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

  I have created an RfC and will temporarily remove the estimate from the infobox until RfC concludes. Originalcola (talk) 21:30, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

  What do you mean by "temporarily"? Selfstudier (talk) 21:47, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

  As in, "until the RfC concludes". It's been reverted anyway, and it was probably way too rash of me to do that so I'd say no harm no fowl. Originalcola (talk) 23:42, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

  @Valereee I don't think smell-test will work very well here. I mean there's very few independent journalists on the ground, and very few medical volunteers, because so many have been shot or barred from entry. As such estimates is probably all we'll ever get barring some sort of future truth and reconciliation process. This then asks what the most credible sources for estimates are. I still contend this is one. I'd 100% support use with attribution though. Simonm223 (talk) 20:04, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

  I have zero problem with using it with attribution, but that's not really workable in the infobox. Use it with attribution in the text. Leave it out of the infobox until we have actual RS. Valereee (talk) 22:38, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

  I have also removed the lower number which used the same sources from infobox. Bogazicili (talk) 14:49, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Infobox

This article is about allegations and arguments about whether Israel's attacks on Gaza since 10/7/23 can be called a genocide. The infobox is about a genocide—so it corresponds to a topic different from its article, and it non-neutrally takes a side in the dispute described in the article. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 23:45, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Would you like the infobox to be changed or removed? By dispute, do you mean anything short of unanimity? Bitspectator ⛩️ 00:01, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Well, the article is about accusations and arguments, not a genocide. I'd say the infobox should be removed, since it does not correspond to the article topic. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 00:56, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

One of the arguments includes deaths and injuries and other things mentioned in the infobox. Things like death toll is also mentioned in secondary sources [23]. I don't think your suggestion has any basis in Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. Bogazicili (talk) 16:24, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Unless the infobox is naming the death toll of the accusation(s), it does not correspond to the article's topic. From MOS:Infoboxes: An infobox ... summarizes key facts about the page's subject. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:00, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

The article WP:SCOPE includes the title as well as the first sentence(s). Idk what naming the death toll means, all of those killed in Gaza (at a minimum) are subject of the Genocide accusation. Selfstudier (talk) 18:15, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

No, Israel is subject of the genocide accusation. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:54, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, Israel is subject to genocide accusations. Which is why the genocide infobox is appropriate on this page. Simonm223 (talk) 20:13, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

How? Genocide accusations are not a genocide. The infobox and article describe completely different phenomena. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 20:20, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

I get that you just want to ignore the scope but that's not going to fly. This is just a variant on discussions we have had already. Selfstudier (talk) 21:07, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

I don’t know what you mean about ignoring the scope, but please don’t uncharitably read my intentions. How is the alleged genocide itself in the scope of this article? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 21:28, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

but please don’t uncharitably read my intentions End of conversation, bfn. Selfstudier (talk) 23:18, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Selfstudier has announced his departure! All others are encouraged to fill the Selfstudier-shaped hole in the discussion. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 00:02, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Looking at the infobox it directly includes Genocide under Attack Type. There's also the inclusion of a victims section separate to injured or dead, which includes buildings and homes despite it not being mentioned outside the infobox and lead. It also lists multiple sources that don't actually allege that these actions constitute part of a genocide(eg.[[24]]) , which is odd considering that there are probably sources that can be found that do so.

I think it needs to be trimmed down a lot because, as of now, it's bloated and contains way too much info. Originalcola (talk) 03:18, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Not sure about removing the infobox, I think we should just change the title back to the more appropriately qualified Allegations of Israeli genocide in Gaza as it was before. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 19:02, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Spinning up for another round -- Cdjp1 (talk) 19:12, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm not proposing a title change. While it would be unusual for an infobox title to diverge from the article title, we're already in unusual territory with a title that diverges from the actual scope (as reflected in the first sentence). — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 21:39, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

WP:SCOPE is title + first sentence(s) so no contradiction there.The title together with the lead section (ideally, the introductory sentence or at least the introductory paragraph) of an article should make clear what the scope of the article is. Selfstudier (talk) 22:09, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Since sourcing since the last round has only served to demonstrate an increasing consensus among the experts, that can't go anywhere. Selfstudier (talk) 19:26, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

That’s just not happening. But you just reminded me that Transgender genocide was used by some Move voters to argue for this new title. I’m sure if we had an infobox for the transgender genocide on that article we’d see the issue? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:42, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Airwars report

Airwars have released their report on Gaza: Patterns of harm analysis: Gaza, October 2023 -- Cdjp1 (talk) 15:31, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Non-noteworthy opinion

I support NadVolum’s edit removing non-noteworthy opinion. I think there are still a few more such that could also be beneficially removed. I see Jonathan Cook in Middle East Eye (three op eds), Owen Jones, Seraj Assi in Jacobin, Rob Ferguson in the SWP’s magazine, Tony Lerman in Declassified. I’ve removed a couple of these and they’ve returned with no edit summary explanation. I think non-noteworthy opinion devalues the scholarly and other RS content we otherwise lean on here. BobFromBrockley (talk) 19:13, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

If they have WP articles, they are notable. They may not be expert for the context, Anthony Lerman is, so this list is based on what, exactly? Selfstudier (talk) 19:20, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

And I also felt as well as not saying much and it being an opinion piece and he's not notable since Arsen Ostrovsky is a Senior Fellow Misgav Institute for National Security & Zionist Strategy, which was not noted in the inclusion, his contribution fell under Well he would, wouldn't he?. Which while not a policy did seem like padding compared to the rest. NadVolum (talk) 20:08, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Being notable enough to have a WP page doesn’t make someone noteworthy in this article. I agree Lerman is more relevant than the others on my list, particularly on the topic of antisemitism. But he’s here in an unreliable/fringe source. Given the vast (probably excessive) number of references here, I would have thought we’d want stronger not weaker sources. BobFromBrockley (talk) 07:42, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

And that what Lerman says about the two examples mentioned is clearly factually incorrect shows why Declassified is not an RS. BobFromBrockley (talk) 07:50, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

I would note that Boulton is non notable (no wl), a recent PHD and that the book being cited is "A Guide to Identifying Antisemitism Online". Selfstudier (talk) 09:52, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Bolton doesn't have a WP article (nor do many of the people we cite in this article) but he's a heavily published scholar of antisemitism BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:20, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

This RSN suggests that Declassified is an RS. Israeli officials commenting on the genocide accusations apparently can't help themselves but accuse all and sundry of antisemitism, whether it has anything to do with Jews or not. Here's Ben Gvir "The decision of the antisemitic court in The Hague proves what was already known: This court does not seek justice, but rather the persecution of Jewish people". OK then. Selfstudier (talk) 09:23, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree with @Selfstudier that Anthony Lerman's inclusion is due as a subject matter expert, but I also agree that citations to Owen Jones, Seraj Assi, Jonathan Cook, & the like aren't necessary.

However, I see no issue with some staying in the "Further Reading" section. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 21:36, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Revert re weaponization of antisemitism

@Bobfrombrockley: Time ref says "That’s woefully misguided—and dangerous. Indeed, the blanket assertion by pro-Israel advocates is intended as a political cudgel: weaponizing antisemitism to shield Israel from criticism of its attack on Gaza, which has left at least 35,000 Palestinians dead in the in the wake of the Oct. 7 Hamas attack, wounded tens of thousands more, and forcibly displaced nearly 2 million Palestinians who now face famine conditions. The conditions in Gaza are such that many scholars have said that the situation amounts to a genocide. Ultimately, the weaponization of antisemitism intensifies the discrimination and exclusion against vulnerable communities in the U.S.—including Jews." ?

Kindly self revert. Selfstudier (talk) 23:26, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

The preceding sentence is "As Gaza solidarity encampments take root at dozens of campuses across the U.S., many Democratic and Republican lawmakers—in addition to President Joe Biden—have accused protestors and colleges of rampant antisemitism." Segal does not call the genocide allegation antisemitic. BobFromBrockley (talk) 23:47, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I mean Segal does not say the lawmakers who make the antisemitism allegation call the genocide allegation antisemitic. His point is about anti-Israel protest in general being called antisemitic, not about the genocide allegation being called that. BobFromBrockley (talk) 23:49, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Pardon? "Indeed, the blanket assertion by pro-Israel advocates is intended as a political cudgel: weaponizing antisemitism to shield Israel from criticism of its attack on Gaza, which has left at least 35,000 Palestinians dead in the in the wake of the Oct. 7 Hamas attack, wounded tens of thousands more, and forcibly displaced nearly 2 million Palestinians who now face famine conditions. The conditions in Gaza are such that many scholars have said that the situation amounts to a genocide."

How can this be read as anything other other than what was in the article before your revert? Viz, " While Israel's supporters say that accusing Israel of genocide is antisemitic others argue that this is a weaponization of antisemitism, intended to shield Israel from such allegations.

I will rearrange things so that a) the weaponization assertions are in the body and b) There is an appropriate summary in the lead. Selfstudier (talk) 03:00, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Segal says blanket accusations of antisemitism in general are shields for criticism of genocide. He doesn’t say the use of the term genocide is called antisemitic. BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:08, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

By the way, I really don't think this belongs in the lead at all. It's not in the body. Segal would be a strong source if he said this, but our other sources are weak.

I would move it to the body, but I'm not sure which section it fits in. BobFromBrockley (talk) 23:50, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

This passage doesn't explicitly state that "Israel's supporters say that accusing Israel of genocide is antisemetic" and, perhaps more importantly, there actually isn't a section or any content on the "weaponization of antisemitism" outside the lead. Originalcola (talk) 03:00, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Both versions of the sentence try to give some kind of balance between the two arguments but there isn't any sort of pro-Israeli argument included in the article,(not arguing for inclusion of this either way) which makes the inclusion of this sentence in the lead look odd. Originalcola (talk) 03:02, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Replied above already. Selfstudier (talk) 03:03, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Fair, but it shouldn't be included in the lead until it's included in the main body of the article. Originalcola (talk) 03:20, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

This report [25] has something which might be relevant 'David Mencer, an Israeli government spokesman, has told Sky News that Amnesty's claim of genocide against Israel is "a classic example of antisemitism" and "Holocaust inversion"'. NadVolum (talk) 22:35, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Agree. BobFromBrockley (talk) 00:35, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

This idea that sources must explicitly call the genocide ruling "antisemitic" is twaddle lacks any basis, that's not necessary at all, all that is required is evidence to show that antisemitism is weaponized in the context of the Gaza events. If anyone want's clarity on Raz Segal views see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_c1Bj6OOwQI (or, together with Adam Horowitz, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kYDulaqTPSE) and there is plenty more sourcing available, which I will be adding in due course to make it clear that this is not just a passing fad or something of that sort but something important, ongoing and real. Selfstudier (talk) 13:00, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

If our claim is that some have said that "accusations of antisemitism are weaponised in the context of the Gaza events" then of course Segal is an excellent source. But the claim was "calling the genocide allegation antisemitic is to weaponise antisemitism then we need someone who says that. This article is about the genocide allegation; we have other articles on the Gaza events in general where we can add such information if due. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:50, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

I already changed the Guardian ref, they called the court antisemitic and others have called the judges antisemitic, etcetera, slicing and dicing is not going to get away from these facts, which are straightforward examples of weaponized antisemitism wrt to the Gaza genocide, however that may be referred to. Selfstudier (talk) 17:59, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Also, Selfstudier, I don’t think “twaddle” is acceptable language among editors. You can say I’m wrong without insulting me. BobFromBrockley (talk) 18:28, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Struck and replaced with "lacks any basis", trust that's better. Selfstudier (talk) 18:39, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. BobFromBrockley (talk) 19:14, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

I don’t understand the removal of Matthew Bolton for having nothing to do with antisemitism. The book is called “Antisemitism in Online Communication: Transdisciplinary Approaches to Hate Speech in the Twenty-First Century” and the chapter is about the debate over whether the genocide accusation is antisemitic. It couldn’t be more relevant to the section, is peer reviewed, and is based in serious research (in contrast to the op eds we cite now). BobFromBrockley (talk) 19:18, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

The quote "The claim that Israel has, is or intends to commit genocide upon the Palestinian population across the Middle East is one of the most incendiary charges that can be made of the Jewish state" doesn't even mention antisemitism. Selfstudier (talk) 19:29, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

I think, given the context, that it's reasonable to assume this is referring to antisemitism. I can see just lines above you saying: This idea that sources must explicitly call the genocide ruling "antisemitic" lacks any basis, that's not necessary at all, all that is required is evidence to show that antisemitism is weaponized in the context of the Gaza events. Originalcola (talk) 00:30, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Evidence, not assumption. In any case a different quote has now been provided so this is moot. Selfstudier (talk) 09:41, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

revert of revision 1262894317 without any explanation

Earlier today I made an edit, adding several sources, including Amnesty Israel, criticizing the methodology of the latest Amnesty International report.

I see now that my edit has been reverted by @Cdjp1, without providing any explanation, and I would like to understand the reason why. DancingOwl (talk) 18:39, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Multiple sources did not support the statement you had written, many were poor quality, and the grammar and sentence structure of the statements (not to mention their formatting) were sub-par, so a reversion was the easiest action. As an example, the Fox News article that mentions the ASU professor does not support the statement that he believes Amnesty "made up" a definition for genocide, but instead he believed the evidence for potential genocide as presented by Amnesty, did not meet the the requisite bar for a determination of the crime of genocide. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 18:44, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

You are right about the Fox News article - it needs to be replaced by a link to his opinion column in WSJ, where he explicitly talks about "bogus genocide definition".

https://www.wsj.com/opinion/amnesty-international-responds-on-genocide-israel-gaza-49a972b5#:~:text=Amnesty%20International%E2%80%99s%20report,disprove%20such%20intent.

I've double-checked the other 3 sources, and they all talk about Amnesty redefining genocide.

Before I make a revert and replace the link, any other suggestions as to how this edit can be improved? DancingOwl (talk) 19:19, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Amnesty Israel, Honest reporting and Fox, just make sure we keep "vexatious". Selfstudier (talk) 19:31, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

can you elaborate? DancingOwl (talk) 07:11, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

The opinion one and Honest Reporting should go. What does Fox add? Also it would be much better to at least give the reason Amnesty Israel gave for alleging the grounds were changed. NadVolum (talk) 20:04, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

While Fox is not reliable for facts here, I don't see the issue with citing them for an attributed statement by a law professor. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 21:53, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

As previously stated, the Fox article did not contain the statement added to the article. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 22:03, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

That law professor is a senior member of Foundation for Defense of Democracies which I think should be mentioned if he is mentioned. NadVolum (talk) 22:18, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Fox can't be used (see the closing statement of the RfC). M.Bitton (talk) 23:09, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

I would have thought politics for Fox as far as RS is concerned would mean American politics. It does seem very political in America though, so I suppose this does come under that. NadVolum (talk) 23:32, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

It's only for an expert quote though, Fox isn't the source of any interpretation or factual claims. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 18:26, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

As has been repeatedly stated, the core issue with the Fox piece was that the quote did not appear in the Fox article. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 19:51, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

1. Amnesty Israel didn't claim the definition was changed, but that the conclusions of the report were "predetermined" ("From the outset, the report was referred to in international correspondence as the ‘genocide report’, even when the research was still in its initial stages”) and that their own analysis did not find that Israel’s actions met the definition of genocide

2. Why do you think that Honest Reporting and prof. Orde Kittrie's opinion piece shouldn't be mentioned? DancingOwl (talk) 07:24, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

According to the opinion I linked above, AI "quickly rejected the report, arguing that there was insufficient evidence of "special intent"". The court will decide that, apart from which scholars and others may still argue, and do argue, a genocide independently of whether the convention high bar for intent is met. AI was also at odds with its parent over their apartheid report so this is nothing new for them, at least they admit there are serious crimes being committed in Gaza and this admission should be included. As for Honest Reporting, "an Israeli media advocacy group. A pro-Israel media watchdog, it describes its mission as "combat[ting] ideological prejudice in journalism and the media, as it impacts Israel", a bit beyond mere bias, that. The prof is OK for his attributed opinion. Selfstudier (talk) 10:54, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

1. I agree that the "insufficient evidence" part is less relevant here - the key part is their claim about "predetermined conclusion".

2. Regarding Honest Reporting - as you said it yourself, "bias≠unreliability", and the fact that their are a pro-Israel media watchdog makes them WP:PARTISAN, but doesn't automatically disqualify them, unless, of course, there is evidence that they published misleading and/or false information. DancingOwl (talk) 11:12, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Trafficking in falsehoods == unreliable. M.Bitton (talk) 11:17, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

A single instance, in which an involved party criticized by HR made some accusations against them is hardly a conclusive evidence indicating unreliability. DancingOwl (talk) 12:19, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

AI say they were not involved with the report so Idk how they can say that the conclusions were predetermined, that's also a pretty extraordinary claim, is anyone else saying that?

If HR was at RSN right now, I would argue that extreme bias affects reliability, an argument I have made before and have no issue with making again, essentially it's an independence argument, the level of independence from the topic the source is covering, if you are consistently taking a side and in this case, admitting that's what you do, then how can you be considered reliable? Selfstudier (talk) 11:29, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

1. According to the "Haaretz" article, while not directly involved in report preparation, AI have been be exposed to internal correspondence about it:

"From the outset, the report was referred to in internal correspondence as the 'genocide report,' even when research was still in its initial stages," the Jewish employees reveal.
"This is a strong indication of bias and also a factor that can cause additional bias: imagine how difficult it is for a researcher to work for months on a report titled 'genocide report' and then to have to conclude that it is 'only' about crimes against humanity. Predetermined conclusions of this kind are not typical of other Amnesty International investigations."

2. I partially agree with you - an extreme bias/partisanship definitely CAN affect reliability, which means that partisan sources should be treated with more a priori suspicion than non-partisan ones, but, still, unreliability cannot be directly deduced from partisanship alone.

Also, if we decide to exclude partisan sources, this should be equally applied to both sides and, in case of Gaza war, this would mean that extremely partisan sources, such as Middle East Eye, Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor or Francesca P. Albanese, just to name a few, shouldn't be used either. DancingOwl (talk) 13:40, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

I just explained that I am not basing the claim on partisanship alone. Selfstudier (talk) 14:02, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Then, perhaps, I misunderstood your argument.

You said "if you are consistently taking a side and in this case, admitting that's what you do, then how can you be considered reliable" - this sounds like a description of partisan advocacy.

Did you mean something beyond that? DancingOwl (talk) 16:14, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

The part I quoted from Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Biased_or_opinionated_sources "the level of independence from the topic the source is covering". Selfstudier (talk) 16:40, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

So you're saying bias implies non-independence? This seems like a novel argument which doesn't reflect how the relevant policies are normally applied.

We should certainly be careful about any statements in wikivoice based on biased sources like HR, but the material in question were appropriately attributed. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 18:56, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

So you're saying bias implies non-independence? Where did I say that? Selfstudier (talk) 18:59, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

essentially it's an independence argument. If that's not what you meant, can you clarify what the argument is exactly? — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 23:52, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Take HR to RSN and I'll explain it there (again). Selfstudier (talk) 10:16, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

If you will read it what was said was it once again trafficked in falsehoods. Not just once. These various pressure groups need careful treatment and need to earn a reputation as reliable since they have no real oversight. As to Orde Kittrie as the article said he is a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. Another Israeli pressure group. He is a professor of law but his connection to that needs to be made clear. Lawyers tend to just argue their case and his bias is manifest. Anyway don't we need a clear statement about what the case is? NadVolum (talk) 12:51, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

1. The word "again" refers to HR repeating the same claim about Yousef Masoud, not to some separate incident. Also, see HR's response to NYT accusations. I do agree with your general attitude towards pressure groups though.

2. I have no objection to mentioning Kittrie's affiliation with FDD. DancingOwl (talk) 13:53, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

As we now have a better source on Kittrie, I've added him as an example of the claim. I referred to him using his signature in the cited article, that is as a senior fellow of the FDD. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 15:17, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

I think the fact that he's also a legal expert - a professor of law, whose research focuses on international law - is also an important detail that should be mentioned. DancingOwl (talk) 16:10, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

I see that, once again, you made several changes to my edit, without bothering to provide any explanation:

- First of all, the word "falsely" you added before the description of the claims made by Ostrovsky and Kittrie is a gross violation on NPOV - the opposite point of view is already reported in the next sentence, and adding your personal opinion about Ostrovsky/Kittrie claim is absolutely out of place

- Second, replacing the word "experts" with "professionals", when describing Ostrovsky/Kittrie claim, whereas the opposite side is describe as "experts" is another violation of NPOV. We are describing a controversy among legal experts and should provide a neutral balanced report of the claims made by both sides, without trying to inject own own personal views in the description.

I'm reverting those two changes you made and I kindly ask you that if you have any objections to the way my edits are phrased to first discuss this here. DancingOwl (talk) 11:19, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Short explainers were given, your choice not to read them is not my problem. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 13:04, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

The only explainer I see is "not how you format" DancingOwl (talk) 13:34, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

The J7 can't be included, per all the articles I've looked at from the Algemeiner, ADL, and the J7 member groups, as none of them state that the preliminary ruling was antisemitic, but that it would be used as justification by antisemites. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 13:14, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Not sure I understand how J7 are related to this discussion. DancingOwl (talk) 13:57, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Think it was meant for the antisemitism section, I already removed J7 anyway. Selfstudier (talk) 14:00, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

@Selfstudier: please format the sources you add, bare URLs are very much below standard. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 15:03, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

I was distracted before I ran Refill, done now. Selfstudier (talk) 15:06, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Merci beaucoup -- Cdjp1 (talk) 15:12, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

J7, citing the ADL's publication of their statement, was in the reversion. Since I've now got round to digging through them specifically, I thought it pertinent to report what I'd found. So, while the Declassified UK article makes the claim of the J7 supporting the accusation that the ICJ prelim ruling was antisemitic, I believe that is (at least by the letter of the source) wrong. You could use a variety of other points the J7 make against the ICJ prelim ruling, such as claims of ideological capture, believing propaganda, etc. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 15:01, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

My apologies, I got myself mixed up between reversions that had been made, you are correct DancingOwl, the J7 matter is not relevant to this section. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 15:11, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Why would we treat Honest Reporting as a reliable source for... anything? They're an advocacy group, not a news organization.

The fact that they accused journalists of "coordination with the terrorists" despite later saying they "had no evidence for the allegation" is atrocious behavior. Such careless misinformation even "led two Israeli politicians to threaten that these journalists be killed". Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 18:06, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

It's certainly reliable for its own positions, which was how it was being used (with attribution).

In the incident you refer to, HW was position a question, not making a claim. It's not so relevant since we would never use a question in a source to back a wiki statement. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 19:06, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, but why would their position be due for inclusion at all?

They aren't subject matter experts, they aren't exceptionally notable, & their article doesn't actually make any independently salient refutations of Amnesty International. It either repeats Amnesty Israel's position, repeats what unreliable sources like NGO Monitor says, or simply expresses outrage that Israel is accused of genocide at all.

Their inclusion among those who appose the report's findings doesn't materially add anything more then if we were to cite some dude off the street for their opinion on the matter. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 20:02, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

You could say the same about AI themselves; both are NGOs staffed by mostly non-experts.

I'm not adamant about including HW in particular, but NPOV requires us to represent this viewpoint in some form or another. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 23:50, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

No, I don't think I could say the same about Amnesty International, as unlike Honest Reporting, Amnesty is a widely respected human rights organization cited globally.

I'm in no way against including those disputing/critical of Amnesty's report, but that issue seems to've already been properly covered above with Orde Kittrie's article & Amnesty Israel's position.

I'm just against adding Honest Reporting specifically as their inclusion wouldn't benefit the article. They don't bring much original, meaningful criticisms of the report themselves, so their inclusion would feel like we were scrounging around for anyone with dissenting positions on the matter, something I know isn't true. _{(Hope that makes sense)} Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 00:33, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

And I've just removed th opinion piece with Arsen Ostrovsky. It is an opinion piece, he hasn't the reputation of Orde, and he's an avowed Zionist rather than just some legal expert. Please try and find a better citation rather than just trying to stuff the article with this sort of ... stuff. NadVolum (talk) 13:10, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

As far as I see, opinion pieces are commonly used as sources, with attribution, and the fact that he's "an avowed Zionist" in and by itself is not a sufficient reason for dismissal, but you are right about the prominence part, so I have not objection to the removal.

I do want to add back the previously removed mention of the Amnesty Israel response - do you have any suggestions/comments, before I make the edit? DancingOwl (talk) 13:30, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

I think we have to consider what is due criticism here, particularly when we have AI's former chair saying "Amnesty Israel finds itself in the awkward position of being neither a source of legal expertise, nor providing a diverse human rights perspective of Israelis and Palestinians. It is just another place for Israeli Jews to express themselves." (among other things) and Amnesty itself saying "its Israeli branch is 'undergoing deep internal divisions,' with a series of resignations amid accusations that Palestinians in the group had been silenced. Those accusations are 'unacceptable and will be handled through Amnesty’s international democratic processes'".

It seems to me that an Israeli denial, even if proforma for virtually every accusation levelled at it, is due but the opinions of sundry nonnotables with clearly contradicted "vexatious" opinions are not. Selfstudier (talk) 13:44, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

1. I don't see how this criticism is relevant to the core claim made by Amnesty Israel that conclusions of the report were "predetermined" ("From the outset, the report was referred to in international correspondence as the ‘genocide report’, even when the research was still in its initial stages”). Regardless of the internal controversies within Amnesty Israel, this is a factual statement that provides important context about the report.

2. I also don't agree with the "clearly contradicted" part - after all, even the experts quoted in "The Journal" piece admit that “the test that the Court has developed is what is sometimes referred to as ‘the only reasonable inference test’” and that Amnesty interpretation is based on "ICJ dissenting view ... that this standard of only a genocidal inference is unrealistic", so the criticism of Amnesty's definition by Kittrie and others clearly has some merits. So, we have two opposing views expressed by experts in the relevant field, and the NPOV principle dictates that both perspectives must be represented. DancingOwl (talk) 15:29, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

All the RS I have seen do not describe the predetermined thing as AI's core claim, instead they refer to the intent matter, that is, a legal issue rather than some random opinion.

The Journal piece is a factchecker and kinda points up the absence of them in the criticism.

Both perspectives can be represented by Israel and Kittrie, I don't object to either of those. Selfstudier (talk) 15:34, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

1. In both "Haaretz" and "Times of Israel" reports, the words "predetermined conclusions" appear in the headline:

2. I thought your remark about "opinions of sundry nonnotables" referred to Kittrie - glad that we agree his opinion should be represented.

3. The criticism voiced by Amnesty Israel is substantially different from Kittrie's - he's talking about legal definition, while AI voice criticism about the process that lead to report's conclusions - both aspects need to be addressed in the article. DancingOwl (talk) 15:53, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

WP:HEADLINES are not RS. To reiterate, I don't think AI is due to begin with and even if they were, it would only be wrt factual/legal issues and not wrt some process they were not even involved in.

It's a bit like IBM announcing a new corporate policy and some employees at the Nepal branch disagreeing. In the same way, we do not need to note AI endorsing previous findings already made by Amnesty, it's not due. Selfstudier (talk) 16:21, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

If we go with your IBM metaphor, the more precise description would be "IBM announcing a new corporate policy in Nepal and majority of employees at the Nepal branch disagreeing."

To take another, much closer example, consider the way Amnesty's 2022 report on alleged placement of Ukrainian forces in civilian areas is described in the Criticism of Amnesty International article, in particular the part about response of Amnesty International in Ukraine. DancingOwl (talk) 16:54, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Suggest wait for other editors to comment. Selfstudier (talk) 16:58, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

I think the predetermined is pretty content-free and not WP:DUE but I'm happy for a little bit about it to be in if AI really thinks that is a good argument. The business about them changing the definiton is as far as I can make out the main one. Considering the Rohingya case though I can see why Israel might have a bit of contempt for the ICJ. The whole of WW2 would fit inside that no problem and the result will just be a page in Wikipedia. NadVolum (talk) 17:46, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

The "Haaretz" article elaborates what they meant by "predetermined":

"From the outset, the report was referred to in internal correspondence as the 'genocide report,' even when research was still in its initial stages," the Jewish employees reveal.
"This is a strong indication of bias and also a factor that can cause additional bias: imagine how difficult it is for a researcher to work for months on a report titled 'genocide report' and then to have to conclude that it is 'only' about crimes against humanity. Predetermined conclusions of this kind are not typical of other Amnesty International investigations."

I agree that the claim about changed definition is the most substantial one, but the "predetermined conclusion" claim provides important context about what could have led the authors of the report to seek alternative definitions of genocide and, as experts cited in "The Journal" piece admit, adopt "dissenting ICJ view" instead of the "standard of only a genocidal inference". DancingOwl (talk) 07:17, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Well they are a human rights organisation and that's the allegation they were investigating. And you agree it is not primary - and I don't see non-Israeli papers considering it of interest. So perhaps it could be given its due space which isn't much. There's an Irish expression for what they're doing 'putting on the poor mouth', and it isn't appropriate afer tens of thousands of people have been killed. NadVolum (talk) 12:08, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

The discussion about reasonable inference has been ongoing for some time, https://www.ejiltalk.org/karadzics-genocidal-intent-as-the-only-reasonable-inference/ and has absolutely nothing to do with alternative definitions of genocide. It's right there in the Amnesty report (p.105). Selfstudier (talk) 12:19, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

I didn't say that the discussion is new - the ICJ dissenting opinion mentioned previously is just one example of such discussion. However, this doesn't change the fact that, by Amnesty's own admission, the test they are suggesting to use for determining whether genocide had been committed is different from the standard of proof adopted in the past by the ICJ majority. DancingOwl (talk) 15:00, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Nope, they are making a legal argument "And so Amnesty International is setting out a path for how you can, in fact, arrive at a finding of genocide while still adhering to the language of the Genocide Convention and the court’s own test for establishing genocidal intent." <- Secondary source (Becker), no editor OR here. Selfstudier (talk) 15:04, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

This is Becker's interpretation, and on the other hand, Kittrie describes this line of argument as "bogus genocide definition", Amichai Cohen and Yuval Shany - as "attempt to move the normative goalposts regarding these evidentiary standards" and Stefan Talmon says the following:

"...if Amnesty International says I am now examining whether Israel has committed genocide, then I must, in all honesty, base my decision on the current legal situation. I cannot first draw up my own rules of evidence and then apply them to the Israel-Gaza case. But that is what the organization did. Amnesty International's work in this respect was legally sloppy and not entirely honest."

DancingOwl (talk) 15:33, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

To reiterate, none of this is new https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/20/magazine/genocide-definition.html Selfstudier (talk) 15:40, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Think of it this way, why are so many experts saying it is genocide when they know about the inference thing already? Selfstudier (talk) 15:56, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Talmon addresses this point exactly when he says, before the quote above, that the legal debate regarding relaxation of the standard of proof is entirely legitimate, in and by itself, but when examining whether Israel has committed genocide, the decision must be based on the current legal situation.

The experts you refer to conflate those two discussions, and Talmon criticises this by saying "I cannot first draw up my own rules of evidence and then apply them to the Israel-Gaza case. DancingOwl (talk) 16:14, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Makes no difference, this is just a reflection of the discussion that's already been had, there is a minority position and a majority position and the sources you give are in the minority position, all the top experts don't agree with it. Selfstudier (talk) 16:29, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Not sure what are you basing you claims about majority/minority positions on.

The current legal standard is the majority ICJ position and the view that Amnesty are promoting is based on ICJ dissenting opinion.

And someone like the former Chair of the UN Human Rights Committee Yuval Shani that I quoted above definitely counts as "top expert", so your claim about "all the top experts" is factually incorrect. DancingOwl (talk) 16:41, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Not sure what are you basing you claims about majority/minority positions on Like I said, the discussion has already been had when we established the article title. In terms of the article here there is a consensus to call it a genocide based on expert sourcing. That consensus is unlikely to alter regardless of what ultimately happens in court just as Israel would in all likelihood dispute the result if it went against them.

If you want to analyze only the legal positions, then South Africa's genocide case against Israel is a better place for that. Selfstudier (talk) 16:52, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm not contesting article's title and/or experts' opinions it's based on.

My comments refer exclusively to Amnesty's report that framed genocide claim as a legal position, and to the responses of different legal experts to report's conclusions/methodology. DancingOwl (talk) 17:01, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

And I said that if you only want to discuss the legal positions, then there is a better article to do that in. Amnesty is just another expert source, a pretty good one, reliable for facts and attributable for opinion. They say it is a genocide, that a few lawyers disagree is hardly a surprise. Selfstudier (talk) 17:06, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Here is just security hot off the press https://www.justsecurity.org/105629/amnesty-international-gaza-genocide-report/

Re Talmon, "Unsurprisingly, the report has received criticism from a variety of sources. One line of criticism alleges that the report applies “an alternative test not based on the established jurisprudence of the ICJ.” This criticism reflects a misunderstanding...."

Amnesty International could have taken a different approach. Amnesty could have applied the lower standards of proof commonly applied by international fact-finding missions and commissions of inquiry, such as "reasonable grounds" or "balance of probabilities." The report more than satisfies these standards. Alternatively, Amnesty could have limited itself to finding that there is a serious risk that Israel is committing genocide. Such a serious risk triggers the legal obligation of all States Parties to the Genocide Convention to prevent genocide in Gaza (which the report also urges). The report more than satisfies this standard. The legal duty of all States to prevent genocide in Gaza is clearly engaged. Instead, Amnesty chose to hold itself to the highest standard of proof known to public international law. This choice likely reflects Amnesty’s confidence in its evidence and legal analysis, as well as its understanding of the gravity of its accusation." Selfstudier (talk) 17:14, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure what we are arguing about :)

We have established that there is a debate among legal experts about the validity of Amnesty's approach and this debate is currently reflected in the article.

As far as I'm concerned, we have reached a reasonable balance - I would prefer to have Amnesty Israel position mentioned as well, because controversy within Amnesty sounds like an important part of the context, but if everyone else thinks it's undue, I won't insist. DancingOwl (talk) 17:21, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure what we are arguing about We are arguing about your assertion that Amnesty is making stuff up. They're not. Selfstudier (talk) 17:27, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

This is not my assertion, but assertion of several legal experts, quoted above - I just wanted to make sure that their point of view is reflected in a balanced way in the article, as per NPOV principle. DancingOwl (talk) 17:36, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I saw your edit, I will remedy the overstating of a minority viewpoint in due course. Selfstudier (talk) 17:41, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

I would really appreciate it, if you could provide evidence from RS, showing that this is, indeed, a minority viewpoint among legal experts commenting on Amnesty's report, before "remedying" anything. DancingOwl (talk) 21:21, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't require your permission to edit. Selfstudier (talk) 22:25, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

I didn't say you need my permission, but I do think that making veiled threats to "in due course" make changes you clearly expect to lack consensus is not the most good-faith way to proceed. DancingOwl (talk) 05:40, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry, saying that I will edit is a veiled threat and not the most good-faith way to proceed?

In what world? Selfstudier (talk) 09:43, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

In a world where we are having a discussion about an issue that we view differently, and then, instead of trying to reach a consensus, you just say that, despite this disagreement, you intend to make some changes "in due course", which I hear as "when I feel like it, regardless of what you think about it".

If I misinterpreted your intention, feel free to correct me, and I'll be more than happy to take it back. DancingOwl (talk) 10:27, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

I see that you removed the "former Chair of United Nations Human Rights Committee" before Yuval Shani's name, dismissing it as "puffery".

I believe this detail is significant as an indication of his notability. Furthermore, he is also a law professor and a former Dean of the Law Faculty at Hebrew University, not merely a 'rights lawyer,' as you chose to describe him, so your - rather petty, I must say - attempt to somehow downplay his expert opinion is really regrettable. DancingOwl (talk) 21:39, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

I provided the wikilink that you omitted, not only is that a better indicator of notability, all relevant info is at the wikilink including the "when" of "former", see MOS:RELTIME. I have no objection to changing rights lawyer to law professor if you prefer. Selfstudier (talk) 22:24, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

The wikilink was already there, but it was broken due to me misspelling his name - thanks for fixing that.

MOS:RELTIME refers to events, not people's positions.

Similarly, MOS:PUFFERY is absolutely irrelevant characterization for a factual statement stating person's former title. DancingOwl (talk) 05:48, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Since you are a relatively new editor, I will just overlook the fact that you seem to be unfamiliar with WP practices in this respect. We don't puff up descriptors with titles and what not (we are not writing a CV) because this detail is significant as an indication of his notability. So we say historian, academic, lawyer, professor and so on, nothing more. Just look at a few articles to see this is the case. Selfstudier (talk) 09:49, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

This is a fair point, though I must say that this standard doesn't seem to be applied consistently.

Even in this article, additional bio details are provided for some experts - for example:

- Michael Fakhri is described as "law professor and United Nations special rapporteur on the right to food"

- Devi Sridhar - as "the chair of global health at the University of Edinburgh"

In any case - point noted, always happy to learn and improve. DancingOwl (talk) 10:45, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

doesn't seem to be applied consistently True but those are good examples of unnecessary puffing up imo, it just leads to competitive padding of descriptors as editors unnecessarily try to make one source look better than another.

For example, at International Criminal Court investigation in Palestine, reverted commentary originally introduced by a sock, goes "Michael Waltz, set to become US national security adviser under President-elect Donald Trump", "US defense lawyer and professor Alan Dershowitz" and "Canadian politician and human rights advocate Irwin Cotler" while Kahn is "merely" an ICC prosecutor (rather than international criminal law and international human rights law specialist, former Special Adviser and Head of the United Nations Investigative Team to promote Accountability for Crimes Committed by Daesh/ISIL in Iraq (UNITAD)). Selfstudier (talk) 11:32, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, genocide is not an "allegation", but a conclusion about a pattern of action and, more importantly, the intention behind this pattern of action. Starting with the conclusion before the pattern of actions has been properly investigated is exactly the "predetermined conclusion" Amnesty Israel are talking about.

Also, note that Amnesty Israel are not disputing the claim that war crimes had been committed, but only whether those crimes cross the genocide threshold or not, and their criticism against Amnesty International is that the conclusion that the threshold has, indeed, been crossed was predetermined in advance. So I don't see what "isn't appropriate" with their claims per se, which in no way justify Israel, but only criticize the way the report's authors conducted their investigation.

Finally, I don't see how the fact that non-Israeli (or, non-Jewish) papers are not "considering it of interest" is relevant here - "Haaretz" is considered to be a reliable source, and in any other circumstances interest or lack thereof from other papers wouldn't have been brought up as a relevant consideration, so it's not clear why this case should be treated any differently. DancingOwl (talk) 14:46, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

If you think it's relevant, then take it to RSN for an opinion. My position is simple, it's undue and AI's opinions in general are only due to the extent that other mainstream independent RS have reported them. Selfstudier (talk) 14:59, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm pretty certain that covering that and not covering the main point about the change in definition would be undue. NadVolum (talk) 15:15, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

A thing that strikes me as peculiar is if AI were involved from the earliest - why did they not suggest a better name if they thought it was so prejudical? NadVolum (talk) 15:44, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

They weren't involved, it's just internal gossipy stuff according to some AI members. Selfstudier (talk) 15:52, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

References

Reverts re critiques of Fassin and UK Labour MPs

A few of my edits reverted in this diff with which I disagree.

1. Why do we need details of the UK Labour Party disciplining "several" (our citations indicate three) MPs and candidates "for comments they made against Israel"? Andy McDonald (politician) did not mention genocide in the comments (which involved the "river to sea" phrase) for which he had the whip removed (it was later returned when an investigation found he hadn't broken any rules. Nor did Graham Jones (he said British people shouldn't be allowed to serve in the IDF or any foreign army) or Azhar Ali (he said October 7 was a false flag). Moreover, that all happened when Labour was in opposition, so completely irrelevant to UK complicity. I'm sure we have an article where this belongs, but this isn't it.
2. Illouz seems inappropriate to cite here considering how her opinion has changed in the months since this first interview - I don't see why that's a reason to remove her opinion. She is as least as qualified as Fassin to comment on this topic; if she changed her position on Fassin we can say that rather than remove her because of that.
3. Bruttmann may be the only one of the three critics cited to question Fassin's expertise, but nonetheless he does exactly that, so I don't understand the grounds for removing that.

BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:17, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

1. 100% agree, also neither the BBC or Guardian article mentions genocide nor suggests complicity in any kind of Israeli actions(criminal or otherwise) as a result of doing this.

2. I don't know what they're referencing in terms of her opinion changing, but you could do that, although that might be putting undue weight on one opinion.

3. Looking at the edit summary you've linked and the article now that seems to still be in the article, it hasn't been removed.

@Cdjp1 Pinging editor who reverted Originalcola (talk) 01:21, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

1. Removed the note, there is one instance of a Labour MP being disciplined for calling Gaza a genocide, but probably undue for even a note.

2. Per the expert opinions list, Illouz has released a couple of pieces since her initial one, each time moving towards a position that this is more likely a case of genocide (stating there is clear incitement from some political figures and sections of Israeli society, stating the requisite intent may be there)

-- Cdjp1 (talk) 08:48, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. Osamor wasn’t disciplined for calling it a genocide (I believe many Labour MPs have) but for the apparent Holocaust analogy. Does Illouz speak about Fassin in her other texts? BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:23, 17 December 2024 (UTC)