Talk:Gaza genocide: Difference between revisions
rating |
→RfC on the inclusion on the BU Today article in the lede: closing discussion |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{talk page}} |
{{talk page}} |
||
{{contentious topics/talk notice|a-i}} |
{{contentious topics/talk notice|a-i}} |
||
{{controversial}} |
|||
{{notforum}} |
{{notforum}} |
||
{{WikiProject banner shell |blpo=yes |class=B |collapsed=y |1= |
|||
{{WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography |importance=Mid}} |
|||
{{WikiProject Death |importance=low}} |
|||
{{WikiProject Disaster management |importance=Mid}} |
|||
{{WikiProject Discrimination |importance=Mid}} |
|||
{{WikiProject Ethnic groups |importance=Mid}} |
|||
{{WikiProject Human rights |importance=Mid}} |
|||
{{WikiProject Israel |importance=Mid}} |
|||
{{WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration}} |
|||
{{WikiProject Palestine |importance=Mid}} |
|||
{{WikiProject International relations|importance=Mid}} |
|||
}} |
|||
{{Press |
|||
|author = Aaron Bandler |
|||
|date = 25 July 2024 |
|||
|url = https://jewishjournal.com/news/united-states/373440/wikipedia-editors-title-article-gaza-genocide/ |
|||
|title = Wikipedia Editors Title Article "Gaza Genocide" |
|||
|org = [[Jewish Journal]] |
|||
|archiveurl = https://web.archive.org/web/20240731015947/https://jewishjournal.com/news/united-states/373440/wikipedia-editors-title-article-gaza-genocide/ |
|||
|archivedate = 31 July 2024 |
|||
|urlstatus = live |
|||
|accessdate = 31 July 2024 |
|||
|author2 = Daniel Edelson |
|||
|date2 = 5 August 2024 |
|||
|url2 = https://www.ynetnews.com/article/byp188cyr |
|||
|title2 = Amid Gaza war, Wikipedia editors conclude Israel guilty of genocide |
|||
|org2 = [[Ynetnews]] |
|||
|archiveurl2 = |
|||
|archivedate2 = |
|||
|urlstatus2 = |
|||
|accessdate2 = 6 August 2024 |
|||
|author3 = Jo Elizabeth |
|||
|date3 = 5 August 2024 |
|||
|url3 = https://allisrael.com/wikipedia-editors-label-israel-guilty-of-genocide |
|||
|title3 = Wikipedia editors label Israel guilty of genocide |
|||
|org3 = [[All Israel News]] |
|||
|archiveurl3 = |
|||
|archivedate3 = |
|||
|urlstatus3 = |
|||
|accessdate3 = 6 August 2024 |
|||
|author4 = Batya Jerenberg |
|||
|date4 = 5 August 2024 |
|||
|url4 = https://tjvnews.com/2024/08/case-closed-wikipedia-editors-say-israel-committing-genocide-in-gaza/ |
|||
|title4 = Case closed? Wikipedia editors say Israel committing genocide in Gaza |
|||
|org4 = [[The Jewish Voice]] |
|||
|archiveurl4 = |
|||
|archivedate4 = |
|||
|urlstatus4 = |
|||
|accessdate4 = 6 August 2024 |
|||
|author5 = Shiryn Ghermezian |
|||
|date5 = 6 August 2024 |
|||
|url5 = https://www.algemeiner.com/2024/08/06/wikipedia-editors-vote-accuse-israel-genocide-ongoing-hamas-war-gaza/ |
|||
|title5 = Wikipedia Editors Vote to Accuse Israel of Genocide During Ongoing Hamas War in Gaza |
|||
|org5 = [[Algemeiner Journal]] |
|||
|archiveurl5 = |
|||
|archivedate5 = |
|||
|urlstatus5 = |
|||
|accessdate5 = 6 August 2024 |
|||
|author6 = Refaella Goichman |
|||
|date6 = 8 August 2024 |
|||
|url6 = https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2024-08-08/ty-article/.premium/english-wikipedia-editors-concluded-israel-is-committing-genocide-in-gaza/00000191-321a-d4dc-a397-bf1e3fba0000 |
|||
|title6 = English Wikipedia Editors Concluded: Israel Is Committing Genocide in Gaza |
|||
|org6 = [[Haaretz]] |
|||
|archiveurl6 = |
|||
|archivedate6 = |
|||
|urlstatus6 = |
|||
|accessdate6 = 9 August 2024 |
|||
|author7 = Catherine Perez-Shakdam, Elisa.T. |
|||
|date7 = 9 August 2024 |
|||
|url7 = https://www.express.co.uk/comment/expresscomment/1934078/israel-wikipedia-gaza-genocide |
|||
|title7 = Israel is facing new information war after key Wikipedia change to Gaza entry |
|||
|org7 = [[Daily Express]] |
|||
|archiveurl7 = |
|||
|archivedate7 = |
|||
|urlstatus7 = |
|||
|accessdate7 = 12 August 2024 |
|||
|author8 = The New Arab Staff |
|||
|date8 = 9 August 2024 |
|||
|url8 = https://www.newarab.com/news/english-wikipedia-editors-say-israel-committing-genocide-gaza |
|||
|title8 = English Wikipedia editors say Israel is committing genocide in Gaza |
|||
|org8 = [[The New Arab]] |
|||
|archiveurl8 = |
|||
|archivedate8 = |
|||
|urlstatus8 = |
|||
|accessdate8 = 12 August 2024 |
|||
|author9 = |
|||
|date9 = 12 August 2024 |
|||
|url9 = https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJVpxdtuiO8 |
|||
|title9 = Did Wikipedia editors just conclude that Israel is committing genocide? |
|||
|org9 = [[Middle East Eye]] |
|||
|archiveurl9 = |
|||
|archivedate9 = |
|||
|urlstatus9 = |
|||
|accessdate9 = 16 August 2024 |
|||
|author10 = Eviva Winton |
|||
|date10 = 14 August 2024 |
|||
|url10 = https://aijac.org.au/australia-israel-review/wiki-cide/ |
|||
|title10 = Wiki-cide |
|||
|org10 = [[AIJAC#Australia/Israel_Review|Australia/Israel Review]] |
|||
|accessdate10 = 21 August 2024 |
|||
|author11 = |
|||
|date11 = 11 August 2024 |
|||
|url11 = https://www.trtworld.com/middle-east/israels-genocide-in-gaza-becomes-a-wikipedia-fact-18193873 |
|||
|title11 = Israel's genocide in Gaza becomes a Wikipedia fact |
|||
|org11 = [[TRT World]] |
|||
|accessdate11 = 21 August 2024 |
|||
|author12 = |
|||
|date12 = 6 August 2024 |
|||
|url12 = https://www.naftemporiki.gr/kosmos/1734602/to-wikipedia-anagnorizei-ti-genoktonia-sti-gaza/ |
|||
|title12 = Το Wikipedia «αναγνωρίζει» τη «γενοκτονία» στη Γάζα |
|||
|org12 = [[Naftemporiki]] |
|||
|accessdate12 = 21 August 2024 |
|||
}} |
|||
{{banner holder |
|||
|text=This page has been the subject of multiple discussions. |
|||
|image=Clipboard.svg |
|||
|size=36 |
|||
|collapsed=yes |
|||
|1= |
|||
{{Old prod |
{{Old prod |
||
| nom=Maylingoed |
| nom=Maylingoed |
||
Line 11: | Line 140: | ||
| conreason=Content is significantly different; Seems to be a [[WP:POVFORK]] |
| conreason=Content is significantly different; Seems to be a [[WP:POVFORK]] |
||
}} |
}} |
||
{{Old RfD |date=17 January 2024 |result='''keep''' |page=2024 February 1#Gaza genocide}} |
|||
{{WikiProject banner shell|blpo=yes|class=|collapsed=no|1= |
|||
{{Old move | collapse = no |
|||
{{WikiProject Current events|importance=}} |
|||
| date1 = 13 January 2024 |
|||
{{WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography|importance=Mid}} |
|||
| from1 = Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza |
|||
{{WikiProject Death|importance=low}} |
|||
| destination1 = Allegations of genocide by Israel in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war |
|||
{{WikiProject Disaster management|importance=Mid}} |
|||
| result1 = Not moved |
|||
{{WikiProject Discrimination|importance=Mid}} |
|||
| link1 = Special:PermanentLink/1206944480 |
|||
{{WikiProject Ethnic groups|importance=Mid}} |
|||
| date2 = 29 February 2024 |
|||
{{WikiProject Human rights|importance=Mid}} |
|||
| from2 = Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza |
|||
{{WikiProject Israel|importance=Mid}} |
|||
| destination2 = Attempted genocide by Israel in their 2023 attack on Gaza |
|||
{{WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration|importance=}} |
|||
| result2 = Not moved |
|||
{{WikiProject Palestine|importance=Mid}} |
|||
| link2 = Special:PermanentLink/1215727822 |
|||
| date3 = 3 May 2024 |
|||
| from3 = Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza |
|||
| destination3 = Gaza genocide |
|||
| result3 = Moved |
|||
| link3 = Special:PermanentLink/1232356978#Requested move 3 May 2024 |
|||
}} |
|||
}} |
}} |
||
{{Annual readership}} |
{{Annual readership}} |
||
{{Tmbox |
|||
|text={{Template:Expert opinions in the Gaza genocide debate}} |
|||
|type=notice |
|||
|image=[[File:Nuvola apps package editors.png|50px]] |
|||
}} |
|||
{{Section sizes}} |
{{Section sizes}} |
||
{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis |
|||
== List of Supporting Countries == |
|||
| age =336 |
|||
Please add a list of countries and organisations supporting South Africa's case at ICJ. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/141.70.80.51|141.70.80.51]] ([[User talk:141.70.80.51#top|talk]]) 23:46, 10 January 2024 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
| archiveprefix =Talk:Gaza genocide/Archive |
|||
| numberstart =3 |
|||
| maxarchsize =150000 |
|||
| header ={{Automatic archive navigator}} |
|||
| minkeepthreads =3 |
|||
| format = %%i |
|||
}} |
|||
<!-- Template:Setup cluebot archiving --> |
|||
==RfC on the inclusion on the ''BU Today'' article in the lede== |
|||
{{Archive top |
|||
|status = no consensus |
|||
|result = In this discussion, Wikipedians decide whether and how the conclusions of [https://www.bu.edu/articles/2024/is-israel-committing-genocide-in-gaza/ this BU Today article] should be summarised in the lead. The most relevant [[WP:PAG]]s are thus [[WP:RS]], [[WP:NPOV]], and [[WP:LEAD]]. I find that there is '''no consensus''' on which option to follow.{{pb}}'''Closing method''': The key dispute in this discussion was on the reliability of the BU Today source, which was strongly questioned due to irregularities in the publication location and author-publisher relationship. Dissenting arguments held that the BU Today source essentially summarised a report reliable enough to be cited; while [https://www.humanrightsnetwork.org/genocide-in-gaza this source] was mentioned in the discussion, it was not made prominent enough that I can judge that all participants should have noticed it. Both sides have merit, but neither were unquestionably superior..{{pb}}While there was a slight numerical majority in favour of adding a statement cited to the BU Today source, [[WP:NOTDEMOCRACY|consensus is not a majority vote]]. As closer, I find the argument that a sentence should be added because of [[MOS:LEADREL]] to be unconvincing, because the RfC specifically cites the BU Today to support the statement, not the sources already in the article. {{pb}}'''Involvement''': I have closed two related RFCs ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1211470335 1], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1212425427 2]); in terms of article editing, I have twice rewritten the lead of [[Israel–Hamas war]] and once removed 30kb from [[Template:Israel–Hamas war infobox]].{{pb}}If you have any questions or complaints about this close, please feel free to post on my talk page. {{nac}} [[User:AirshipJungleman29|~~ AirshipJungleman29]] ([[User talk:AirshipJungleman29|talk]]) 02:16, 5 September 2024 (UTC) |
|||
}} |
|||
How should the statements in [https://www.bu.edu/articles/2024/is-israel-committing-genocide-in-gaza/ this] ''BU Today'' "Voices & Opinion" article be covered in the lede? {{Ordered list |list_style_type=upper-alpha |
|||
| {{tq|The international human rights legal community, many political and legal experts, and many [[Holocaust scholar|Holocaust scholars]] all have consensus that Israel is committing genocide against the Palestinian people in the Gaza Strip.}} ''(as seen in {{diff2|1229215676|this edit}})'' |
|||
| {{tq|The international human rights legal community, several political and legal experts, and many Holocaust scholars have concluded that Israel is committing genocide against the Palestinian people in the Gaza Strip.}} ''(as seen in {{diff2|1230213447|this edit}})'' |
|||
| Do not include |
|||
}} 02:56, 22 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
===Survey=== |
|||
* '''C''' This is an opinion article published in a university newspaper. For a topic as well covered as this, to include a statement like this in the first paragraph of the lede on the basis of a single such source is virtually the definition of [[WP:UNDUE]]. Further, the suggestion is to include the position expressed in the article in Wikivoice; the sourcing is clearly not strong enough to do this.{{pb |
|||
}} It may be appropriate to include the claim in the body attributed in line, but it is clearly inappropriate to include it in the lede in Wikivoice. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 02:56, 22 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
* '''B''' or similar, as the statement appears to capture the reality well. Only update the source to: {{Cite web |title=Israel's Genocide of Palestinians in Gaza |url=https://www.humanrightsnetwork.org/palestine |access-date=2024-06-22 |website=University Network for Human Rights |language=en-US}}. — [[User:Kashmiri|<span style="color:#30c;font:italic bold 1em 'Candara';text-shadow:#aaf 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em;">kashmīrī</span>]] [[User talk:Kashmiri|<sup style="color:#80f;font-family:'Candara';">TALK</sup>]] 06:18, 22 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:'''B''', but would be improved by using the source given by @[[User:Kashmiri|Kashmiri]] above. [[User:Lewisguile|Lewisguile]] ([[User talk:Lewisguile|talk]]) 07:02, 30 July 2024 (UTC) |
|||
* '''C''' (generally per BM) the source is undue, and the claim should be made with attribution in the body. Both the BU piece (and the better actual scholarship) are not appropriate, least of all without attribution. [[User:FortunateSons|FortunateSons]] ([[User talk:FortunateSons|talk]]) 09:50, 22 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:Oh, and particularly A goes beyond what the source states in their own voice IMO, so that’s not great. [[User:FortunateSons|FortunateSons]] ([[User talk:FortunateSons|talk]]) 09:52, 22 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*I don’t have a strong opinion on if this specifically should be in the lead, though we do need a summary of the academic discourse section. It does however absolutely belong in the body, and the attempts to claim that an academic expert discussing topics in the area of her expertise is somehow unreliable or undue are straightforward examples of disruptive editing. But does this specifically need to be in the lead? It isn’t the worst thing, it’s an expert giving an overview of the views of other experts. Something needs to be in there about the views of scholars on this topic. This isn’t the worst thing but again no strong opinion on this being the specific source for that summary. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|<span style="color:#C11B17;font-size:90%">nableezy</span>]]''' - 12:32, 22 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*'''B''' not because it is something that is only said in the source specifically named by OP but because that or something similar appears to be the prevailing view across relevant scholarship. See the sourcing given in [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Allegations_of_genocide_in_the_2023_Israeli_attack_on_Gaza#Requested_move_3_May_2024 the ongoing RM]] that currently appears to have a consensus for amending the article title to [[Gaza genocide]]. As for removing the specific material from the body as was done, that is exceptionally difficult to comprehend. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 12:50, 22 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*A combination of '''A''' and '''B''': I agree with "A Socialist Trans Girl" below. [[User:David A|David A]] ([[User talk:David A|talk]]) 10:21, 2 July 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*'''C''' if this is the only source given (which is only a university newspaper, although nonetheless a secondary source summarizing the views of experts) per [[WP:DUE]], but likely '''A''' or '''B''' if other sources are added to support it in the body, like Selfstudier mentioned. I don't see A as going beyond what the source says, with the words {{tq|many}} and {{tq|consensus}} being closer to what the source says:{{talk quote|The opposition is political, as there is consensus amongst the international human rights legal community, many other legal and political experts, including many Holocaust scholars, that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza.}} [[User:Chaotic Enby|<span style="color:#8a7500">Chaotic <span style="color:#9e5cb1">Enby</span></span>]] ([[User talk:Chaotic Enby|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Chaotic Enby|contribs]]) 18:53, 22 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:It isn’t the only source, see [https://www.humanrightsnetwork.org/genocide-in-gaza here]. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|<span style="color:#C11B17;font-size:90%">nableezy</span>]]''' - 01:54, 23 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*::Thanks, this appears to be a solid source. While it might look like a primary source at first glance, it does in fact give an overview of previous findings in pages 9 to 11, which could be a good secondary source for the statement. I'd '''support B''' if that source is added. [[User:Chaotic Enby|<span style="color:#8a7500">Chaotic <span style="color:#9e5cb1">Enby</span></span>]] ([[User talk:Chaotic Enby|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Chaotic Enby|contribs]]) 08:10, 23 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
* '''Either of B or A'''. Neither the source is "merely a random opinion" nor the cited piece of information it provides is source’s own claim or opinion but rather a citation of the consensus in the international human rights legal community. The source is a report published by [[Boston University]] and "comes from researchers at the University Network for Human Rights, a consortium of human right centers", therefore the source is indeed reliable for the information it provides, indeed much more than newspapers articles. And the source doesn’t say or give its own opinion regarding the quoted information like saying "we believe there is a genocide" but rather reflects/cites what the international human rights legal community "there is consensus amongst the international human rights legal community, many other legal and political experts, including many Holocaust scholars, that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza.", it is not the source’s own opinion or judgement. Beside the fact that this isn’t the only reliable source stating so as per @[[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] [[User:Stephan rostie|Stephan rostie]] ([[User talk:Stephan rostie|talk]]) 12:25, 23 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:But UNHR is neither independent of Akram's BU project nor is it a [[WP:RS]] publisher. Nor is it particularly esteemed, celebrated, discussed, or recognized in mainstream published discourse.[[User:SPECIFICO |<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b>]][[User_talk:SPECIFICO | ''talk'']] 21:42, 23 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*::Are you seriously arguing that [[UNCHR]] is not a [[WP:RS]] ? [[User:Stephan rostie|Stephan rostie]] ([[User talk:Stephan rostie|talk]]) 14:19, 26 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:::It's not UNCHR, UNHR. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 14:24, 26 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:::: Thanks, SS. It show the power of modern-day [[branding]] that a vaguely institutional-sounding name like UNHR so easily evokes parity with UNCHR AND miscast as a respected, [[WP;NOTABLE]] global institution.[[User:SPECIFICO |<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b>]][[User_talk:SPECIFICO | ''talk'']] 15:04, 26 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:::::Well it is kind of your mistake for making your own abbreviation and writing “UNHR” rather than “University Network |
|||
*:::::for Human Rights” [[User:Stephan rostie|Stephan rostie]] ([[User talk:Stephan rostie|talk]]) 19:43, 26 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*::::Thanks for elaboration [[User:Stephan rostie|Stephan rostie]] ([[User talk:Stephan rostie|talk]]) 19:41, 26 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*'''C''' This is a [[WP:PRIMARY]] source, self-published by Akram's employer in a university newsletter. That publication is an appropriate place to inform BU stakeholders of matters relating to the school, but neither that publication nor the fancy-sournding name of Akram's advocacy/activism project can elevate her work to a significant NPOV assessment of the range of current thinking on the issue. We would need a [[WP:RS]] publisher, prefereably peer-reviewed, to make a strong statement of a matter of current controversy and pending adjudication. The self-published opinion of a non-NOTABLE individual, however fine her commitment and advocacy, is UNDUE for the lead and should be replaced in the article body with better more reliable sources on the question. She. personally, is certainly not a secondary RS to evaluate the opinions of other observers. That should be clear to any WP editor. We need secondary RS publishers for that. |
|||
:Further, whoever closes this -- please note that several !votes seems to say that, because her views seem OK therefore we can use defectively sourced content. Not so.[[User:SPECIFICO |<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b>]][[User_talk:SPECIFICO | ''talk'']] 16:18, 23 June 2024 (UTC), |
|||
::It is not self published and a second source has been provided and not a single vote says anything close to what you claim in your last couple of sentences. False on all counts actually. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|<span style="color:#C11B17;font-size:90%">nableezy</span>]]''' - 17:51, 23 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::The RFC question is "How should the statements in this BU Today "Voices & Opinion" article be covered in the lede?" and the answer is that it should be cited in support of a statement in Wikivoice (can as well be cited to https://www.humanrightsnetwork.org/genocide-in-gaza and not only to BU) along with multiple other supporting references saying a similar thing and about which bald assertions such as "self published" (it isn't) and "primary" (policy does not forbid primary source usage) play no part. Closer should refer to the RFCbefore discussion where it can be seen this editor and the RFC opener (who hasn't signed) both edited to suit a POV and when unable to persuade other editors, it led to this RFC. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 18:45, 23 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::Except that there's no supporting evidence that humanrightsnetwork is a significant scholarly, juridical, or other expert organization. It's a student enrichment project and platform for advocacy and activism. All good, but it is not covered in the mainstream as an expert mainstream institution. This is all discussed in the thread prior to this RfC.[[User:SPECIFICO |<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b>]][[User_talk:SPECIFICO | ''talk'']] 20:39, 23 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::It’s a paper by the University Network for Human Rights, the International Human Rights Clinic at Boston University School of Law, the International Human Rights Clinic at Cornell Law School, the Centre for Human Rights at the University of Pretoria, and the Lowenstein Human Rights Project at Yale Law School. Never heard of any of those universities, are they any good? '''[[User talk:Nableezy|<span style="color:#C11B17;font-size:90%">nableezy</span>]]''' - 10:57, 24 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Kindly demonstrate that UNHR is a noteworhty RS publisher and that its independent of the person whose opinions are being proposed for article content. Maybe this needs to go to RSN. Namechecking a few ivy insitutions does not address the sourcing and notability issue. Do you have anything to document that the mainstream takes this UNHR seriously or even knows of its existence? Academia is a vast ecosystem with all sorts of offices and projects within its realm. The significant ones produce peer-reviewed, independently-published scholarly research. This is nothing of the sort.[[User:SPECIFICO |<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b>]][[User_talk:SPECIFICO | ''talk'']] 15:05, 24 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::If you are asking whether anyone could make a satisfactory WP article for it, sure, no problem. The thought occurs to me that you don't like this org because [[James Cavallaro]]. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 17:09, 24 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::No, I did not ask whether it's NOTABLE. We know that it is not. I simply stated the fundamental WP principal, presumably known to editors EC-eligible to here, that an independent RS publisher would be needed even for an attributed opinion. Instead we've seen ad hominiems, personal disparagement, namechecking everyone from Eli Yale to Cavallaro, and folks saying, screw the RS bit, they like what Akram says, (!!!) But nobody seems able to demonstrate that this content is published by RS or meets our V and NPOV policies for any inclusion anywhere on this page. BURDEN and ONUS are out the window on this page.[[User:SPECIFICO |<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b>]][[User_talk:SPECIFICO | ''talk'']] 18:45, 24 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::I can make an article, that means its notable. And making such an article would be very easy, just search books, scholar, etc. In any case, it just says the same thing as many others so this is all a lot of unnecessary fuss over nothing. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 18:50, 24 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::Love ya, SS, but you are not a RS either, so saying you think you could write an article doesn't advance the process. But my interest in this from the start has simply been from seeing this self-published opinion (we can call self-published PRIMARY to short-circuit further indignant deflections) being used as if it were an independent RS-published account of a survey of qualified world opinion and with no evidence that Akram is a scholar qualified to make such an assessment. I have no opinion as to the underlying issue and I have expressed none. I've consistently said that I expect that better, solid RS could be found to address this content. I don't anticipate what they might say, but it's a shame to see editors ignore core policy to grab a handy blurb out of a promotional university newsletter and elevate it with a word salad of recognizable institution names, and buzzwords. You appear to be knowledgeable in the field. Please find valid sourcing and notable qualified experts to address the question.[[User:SPECIFICO |<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b>]][[User_talk:SPECIFICO | ''talk'']] 19:04, 24 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Ive already shown you Akram's publications, the UNHR director is James Cavallaro, also a [https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C14&q=JAMES+CAVALLARO&btnG= widely published] expert in the field of international law, the Cornell program is led by [https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=yaiqJPMAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao Susan Babcock], who is, you guessed it, again a widely published expert in the field. You cant just say that the scholarship here isnt notable or noteworthy, what matters is that it is reliable, and it is reliable because of the people and institutions behind it. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|<span style="color:#C11B17;font-size:90%">nableezy</span>]]''' - 19:57, 24 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::This is, again, more equivocation, namedropping, and elevation of a non-notable author's self-published (PRIMARY) opinion, broadcast in a Univeristy house organ circulated to its stakeholders. There are many stronger sources and there are scholars whose views should be prioritized above those of an activist/advocate. Her worki stands on its own, but she is not a scholar and her opinions are not of such note that this encuclopedia should rebroadcast them when the mainstream media and peer reviewed publications or RS journals have not done so. That is our responsibility on this project. We don't simply publish the opinions of people whose work or opinions we may admire.[[User:SPECIFICO |<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b>]][[User_talk:SPECIFICO | ''talk'']] 17:04, 25 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::Susan Akram, as a simple Google search says, is a law professor and director of the rights clinic at Boston University School of Law teaching international human rights, and refugee and immigration law. That apart I have edited a bit in the article to make things clearer, there is literally no basis for objecting to the sources, neither her expert opinion nor the UHRU report itself. |
|||
:::::::::No-one is really disputing that Akram alone should be in the lead so this entire RFC and this dialogue are just one oversized straw man designed to throw shade on the idea that Israel may be guilty of genocide. |
|||
:::::::::What y'all need to do, instead of shooting the messengers, is accumulate a sufficient number of RS specifying that Israel is '''not''' committing a genocide in order to constitute a significant view in that regard as counterpoint to the already demonstrated significant view that Israel '''is''' committing a genocide. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 17:24, 25 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::I have no opinion as to the allegation. Now, I see you've changed the article content before the resolution of this ongoing RfC. It's now quoting ''multiple'' self-published, primary sources, again highlighting non-NOTABLE Ms. Akram without independent RS indicating any WEIGHT for her conclusions. If your googling found mainstream RS citations to establish the NOTABILITY of Akram such as might justify these primary sourced opinions, pleaase provide them in lieu of the various ad hominem attacks and deflections. I am focused only on policy and sourcing and there's no basis for any claim that I am trying to do what various supporters of Ms. Akram have stated they're doing here - pushing article content because I wish to support a personal opinion.[[User:SPECIFICO |<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b>]][[User_talk:SPECIFICO | ''talk'']] 18:24, 25 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::::Happy to discuss that at RSN anytime but since it is not going into the lead anyway, it has nothing to do with this RFC. I have changed the article content but I have not changed anything in the lead, which is what this RFC purports to be about. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 18:38, 25 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::::Even if it were self-published, which it is not, it would clearly pass [[WP:EXPERTSPS]]. {{xt|Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications.}} '''[[User talk:Nableezy|<span style="color:#C11B17;font-size:90%">nableezy</span>]]''' - 19:47, 25 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*'''B''' Selfstudier's reasoning pretty much sums it up. [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 14:03, 24 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*'''C''' or an attributed statement. Interpreting consensus on a highly contentious topic across multiple (academic, legal and political) communities is a messy and somewhat subjective matter. While Akram is an expert, there isn't enough clarity and objectivity here to take a single expert's interpretation of consensus as established fact, and repeat it in wikivoice. — [[User:XDanielx|<span style="font-family: Arial; font-weight: bold; color: green;">xDanielx</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:XDanielx|T]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/XDanielx|C]]</sub>\<sup>[[Wikipedia:Editor review/xDanielx|R]]</sup> 22:36, 25 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*'''B''' although I would prefer if a stronger source could be found to summarize opinion, it is a good summary of other sources that otherwise may be impossible to extract without WP:OR. ([[User talk:Buidhe|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Buidhe|c]]) '''[[User:buidhe|<span style="color: black">buidhe</span>]]''' 03:39, 27 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*'''B:''' This statement is already more than supported by the aggregation of sources on the page. The discussed source, alongside the UNHR, merely helps provide a more sourced basis for the summary wording, which is beneficial. [[User:Iskandar323|Iskandar323]] ([[User talk:Iskandar323|talk]]) 06:28, 27 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*'''C''' Do not include, or only as an attributed statement. As per BilledMammal, xDanielx and FortunateSons. I would also add that when a person, even an expert, claims that the consensus agrees with his view, as is the case with Susan Akram, it is a somewhat doubtful testimony as it is self-serving. It is different when a person admits that his view contradicts the consensus because then the testimony is not self-serving. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Vegan416|Vegan416]] ([[User talk:Vegan416#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Vegan416|contribs]]) 17:07, 2 July 2024 (UTC)</small> |
|||
'''Combination.''' I think it should be {{xt|The international human rights legal community, ''many'' political and legal experts, and many Holocaust scholars all have ''concluded'' that Israel is committing genocide against the Palestinian people in the Gaza Strip.}}. I believe it should be ''many'' political and legal experts, as it's more accurate than 'several' and is consistent with how Wikipedia frames things; if it was not many enough to be ''many'' and merely ''several'', then it'd probably be WP:UNDUE. And I think the ''concluded'' phrasing is better, as consensus implies they as a whole have consensus, not phrasing limited to the ones that do. I also support the phrasing of {{xt|"The international human rights legal community, political and legal experts, and Holocaust scholars<s>,</s> all have consensus that Israel is committing genocide against the Palestinian people in the Gaza Strip."}}. <s>There should be a comma before "all have consensus"</s>. [[User:A Socialist Trans Girl|<span style="font-family:default;color:#246BCE;">A Socialist</span>]] [[User talk:A Socialist Trans Girl|<span style="font-family:default;color:#FF1493;">Trans Girl</span>]] 22:22, 1 July 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:I support these suggested modifications. [[User:David A|David A]] ([[User talk:David A|talk]]) 10:21, 2 July 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:The removal of the vague "many" and "several" would be no loss. [[User:Iskandar323|Iskandar323]] ([[User talk:Iskandar323|talk]]) 16:25, 2 July 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::Good point. Agreed. [[User:David A|David A]] ([[User talk:David A|talk]]) 16:43, 2 July 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*'''C''' and [[WP:UNDUE]]. Do not include. [[User:Hogo-2020|Hogo-2020]] ([[User talk:Hogo-2020|talk]]) 06:06, 3 July 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*'''C''' per SPECIFICO's reasonign. Given the sensitivity of the subject matter, our sources should be ironclad. [[User:CoffeeCrumbs|CoffeeCrumbs]] ([[User talk:CoffeeCrumbs|talk]]) 14:49, 3 July 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:The sources are ironclad. SPECIFICO's reasoning makes a mockery of [[WP:RS]] which places established academic experts near the top of our reliability pyramid. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|<span style="color:#C11B17;font-size:90%">nableezy</span>]]''' - 15:22, 3 July 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*::Nableezy, please review the [[WP:REPUTABLE]] section of our RS page to see your error explained more thoroughly. There are numerous PRIMARY and self-published sources, including blog opinions of grad students, where independent RS publications are required.[[User:SPECIFICO |<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b>]][[User_talk:SPECIFICO | ''talk'']] 16:45, 4 July 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:::Can you please tell us what self-published means? '''[[User talk:Nableezy|<span style="color:#C11B17;font-size:90%">nableezy</span>]]''' - 17:46, 4 July 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*::I'm aware of your continued opinion on this subject. That was mine. [[User:CoffeeCrumbs|CoffeeCrumbs]] ([[User talk:CoffeeCrumbs|talk]]) 09:51, 4 July 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:::This whole RFC is completely academic after the rename, the lead will in effect explain how the title fits into the scope and the particular ref subject of this RFC is just one of several that will allow a statement in wikivoice. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 11:17, 4 July 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*::::I don't know what this has to do with the price of tea in China. I expressed my opinion that I agreed with SPECIFICO's reasoning on this particular issue. The closer is free to take my opinion into consideration with the weight they feel is appropriate. |
|||
*::::I do want to congratulate you and Nableezy on your apparent promotions to [[WP:INQUISITOR]]. For future reference, what is the proper procedure for me to follow when expressing future opinions? Do I have to ask for permission from one or both of you to express an opinion or do I need specific pre-clearance for the exact opinion that will be expressed? Thanks in advance. [[User:CoffeeCrumbs|CoffeeCrumbs]] ([[User talk:CoffeeCrumbs|talk]]) 00:46, 5 July 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*[[File:Information icon4.svg|18px|class=noviewer|link=]] '''Comment''' – {{ping|A Socialist Trans Girl}} I'm pretty sure that the comma before ''all'' is not grammatically correct. '''[[User:Kinsio|<span style="color:#df0000">Kinsio</span>]]''' <span style="color:#096450">('''''[[User talk:Kinsio|talk]]''''' ★ '''''[[Special:Contributions/Kinsio|contribs]]''''' ★ '''''[[Special:UserRights/Kinsio|rights]]''''')</span> 15:01, 4 July 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:@[[User:Kinsio|Kinsio]] I believe you are correct. Apologies. [[User:A Socialist Trans Girl|<span style="font-family:default;color:#246BCE;">A Socialist</span>]] [[User talk:A Socialist Trans Girl|<span style="font-family:default;color:#FF1493;">Trans Girl</span>]] 02:55, 5 July 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*'''A and B''' per A Socialist Trans Girl (and Iskandar's tweaks). Combining both sentences seems appropiate given the recent article name/scope change and it's a proper summary of other sources in the body. Disagree with the UNDUE arguments - experts opinions are absolutely due and as shown by nableezy this has also been covered by secondary sources. - [[User:Ïvana|Ïvana]] ([[User talk:Ïvana|talk]]) 01:52, 5 July 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*We absolutely need some statement summarizing academic discourse, hence I strongly '''oppose option C''' as a violation of [[WP:LEAD]]. The article currently has an entire section on "Academic and legal discourse", "Cultural discourse" and academic opinions are throughout the article. Unless such academic opinions are being given UNDUE weight in the body (and there is no evidence of that), we need to summarize them somehow in the lead too.'''[[User talk:Vice regent|VR]]''' <sub>(Please [[Template:Ping|ping]] on reply)</sub> 05:34, 14 July 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*'''B (or A)''': I think B is worded better but A is similar enough I'd take either of them. I do think that there's very much sufficient sourcing for this statement, though of course it should also be present in the body. [[User:LokiTheLiar|Loki]] ([[User talk:LokiTheLiar|talk]]) 21:39, 29 July 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*'''B (or A)''': Agree with both LokiTheLiar and SelfStudier [[User:Bluethricecreamman|Bluethricecreamman]] ([[User talk:Bluethricecreamman|talk]]) 06:34, 11 August 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*'''C'''. Too weak of a source for the lede; it's an opinion piece in a university paper by an author who usually covers wine trail and honeymoon destinations. [[User:IntrepidContributor|IntrepidContributor]] ([[User talk:IntrepidContributor|talk]]) 16:11, 17 August 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*'''C''' giving [[WP:UNDUE|undue]] weight to the opinion of some non-notable person. [[User:Me Da Wikipedian|Me Da Wikipedian]] ([[User talk:Me Da Wikipedian|talk]]) 09:55, 18 August 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*'''A''' or '''B''', both are accurate. --[[User:Supreme Deliciousness|Supreme Deliciousness]] ([[User talk:Supreme Deliciousness|talk]]) 07:28, 20 August 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*I personally find the BU source to be exceedingly weak. On top of being a student newspaper, it's a primary source and not an independent source (as it's an interview from the university's own publication). The best it could be used for, under policy for non-independent sources, is a qualified statement of the interviewee's views. ~ [[User:Freedom4U|F4U]] ([[User talk:Freedom4U|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Freedom4U|they/it]]) 05:24, 24 August 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:No, even if Akram wrote this on her blog as an expert on the topic it could be used for a statement of fact. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|<span style="color:#C11B17;font-size:90%">nableezy</span>]]''' - 11:14, 24 August 2024 (UTC) |
|||
===Discussion=== |
|||
* It may need clarifying that a mention of the Stanford report has already been included in the article, and what the RfC aims to achieve is a better wording. The current suboptimal wording will likely remain if there's no consensus. Editors are welcome to propose further wording options for this RfC. — [[User:Kashmiri|<span style="color:#30c;font:italic bold 1em 'Candara';text-shadow:#aaf 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em;">kashmīrī</span>]] [[User talk:Kashmiri|<sup style="color:#80f;font-family:'Candara';">TALK</sup>]] 13:20, 22 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
* Given it's an opinion, why is there no option for attribution per [[WP:RSOPINION]]? Ie, "According to the University Network for Human Rights", per the content in the body. Either way, have to agree with others that it doesn't seem due in the lead, unless covered by other reliable sources; the proposed sentences are just a regurgitation of of the body, not a summary of it. A lead summary would be something like "Certain scholars, A, B to C, consider it a genocide, due to..., disputed by X, Y and Z, because of...". As far as I can tell nothing in the "Academic and legal discourse" has been summarised in the lead, despite numerous paragraphs of content. It's better to work on summarising the content for the lead per [[MOS:INTRO]], rather than trying to pick out one particular report. [[User:CommunityNotesContributor|CNC]] ([[User talk:CommunityNotesContributor|talk]]) 23:26, 23 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:With better sourcing, I'd be willing to support. Or re-wording to satisfy a bundle of sources. [[User:CommunityNotesContributor|CNC]] ([[User talk:CommunityNotesContributor|talk]]) 23:42, 23 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:Thus far, we have no evidence that "UNHR" is a significant organization or that its title should be used to elevate one person's primary-sourced opinion.[[User:SPECIFICO |<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b>]][[User_talk:SPECIFICO | ''talk'']] 08:36, 24 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
{{Archive bottom}} |
|||
== Edit request == |
|||
{{moved from|[[WP:RFED]] [[User:Left guide|Left guide]] ([[User talk:Left guide|talk]]) 21:39, 8 August 2024 (UTC)}} |
|||
{{edit extended-protected|Gaza genocide|answered=yes}} |
|||
I would like to request that under the ‘Victims’ subheading Mike Spagat is properly introduced with relevant qualifications. His name is brought up in the 3rd paragraph, 3rd sentence beginning with “Spagat analysed…” as a source but he has not been introduced (i am assuming he was introduced in a previous paragraph or sentence that has since been deleted). |
|||
[[User:Chanticlaire701|Chanticlaire701]] ([[User talk:Chanticlaire701|talk]]) 19:11, 8 August 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:{{Done}}: Done. Reason: Obvious correction per standard styles. -- [[User:Cdjp1|Cdjp1]] ([[User talk:Cdjp1|talk]]) 21:53, 8 August 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Academic dissent == |
|||
Question: which, if any, major remaining scholars of genocide are still maintaining a dissenting or hold-out opinion on the genocide? Neier, Bartov, Goldberg and Schabas have now all come to a conclusion of genocide – several after the events of May – so who does that leave as undecided, non-committal or in outright dissent? Again, talking major scholars of genocide here, not the average Joe. [[User:Iskandar323|Iskandar323]] ([[User talk:Iskandar323|talk]]) 14:58, 15 August 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:This is just a list of prominent (living) scholars in genocide studies who I've come across in reading genocide scholarship more broadly, beyond the 4 you mentioned: |
|||
:# [[Mohamed Adhikari]] |
|||
:# [[Taner Akçam]] |
|||
:# [[Paul R. Bartrop]] |
|||
:# [[Yehuda Bauer]] |
|||
:# [[Donald Bloxham]] |
|||
:# [[Michael Berenbaum]] |
|||
:# [[Israel Charny]] |
|||
:{{strikethrough|# [[Vahakn Dadrian]]}} – dead |
|||
:# [[Adam Jones (Canadian scholar)|Adam Jones]] |
|||
:# [[Steven T. Katz]] |
|||
:# [[Ben Kiernan]] |
|||
:# Shmuel Lederman |
|||
:# [[Mark Levene]] |
|||
:# [[A. Dirk Moses]] |
|||
:# [[Norman Naimark]] |
|||
:# [[Raz Segal]] |
|||
:# [[Timothy Snyder]] |
|||
:# [[David Stannard]] |
|||
:# [[Samuel Totten]] |
|||
:# [[Uğur Ümit Üngör]] |
|||
:# Ernesto Verdeja |
|||
:I will note, for Katz, there's a near 0 chance he will declare this a genocide, as he holds the position that throughout history there has only been one true genocide, the Holocaust. -- [[User:Cdjp1|Cdjp1]] ([[User talk:Cdjp1|talk]]) 18:05, 15 August 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::Strange position, and certainly fringe. Out of curiosity -are you saying that Timothy Snyder disputes the genocide allegation? I am familiar with Snyder from the media (listened to one or two of his lectures), but was not aware he weighed in on this. [[User:Jonathan f1|Jonathan f1]] ([[User talk:Jonathan f1|talk]]) 19:04, 15 August 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::Their positions are not specified afaics (other than Katz), which was not what Iskandar was asking for. How are we deciding "prominent" anyway? [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 19:36, 15 August 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::That's what I thought. I can't find any significant scholarly pushback against the genocide position. Most searches seem very one-sided. [[User:Jonathan f1|Jonathan f1]] ([[User talk:Jonathan f1|talk]]) 20:45, 15 August 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::As I stated this is simply a list of prominent scholars I have come across, that is, they have written multiple books and papers covering the topic of genocide, and in near all cases across different genocides. Out of the list multiple of them have provided comments/assessments (such as Bauer, Berenbaum, Charny, Jones, Kiernan, Lederman, Levene, Segal, Üngör, Verdeja), mainly calling it a genocide, some claiming it isn't. -- [[User:Cdjp1|Cdjp1]] ([[User talk:Cdjp1|talk]]) 22:10, 15 August 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::The request was specifically for dissent from what appears to be a consensus (ie that the IDF is either engaged in genocide or war crimes approaching that), not some random list of genocide scholars. [[User:Jonathan f1|Jonathan f1]] ([[User talk:Jonathan f1|talk]]) 23:33, 15 August 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::I think Cdjp1 partly answered y’alls question when he commented on Katz. [[User:Wafflefrites|Wafflefrites]] ([[User talk:Wafflefrites|talk]]) 05:17, 16 August 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::Ok, here’s the opinions with this list |
|||
::::::::# [[Mohamed Adhikari]] – Signed the [https://twailr.com/public-statement-scholars-warn-of-potential-genocide-in-gaza/ TWAILR declaration] warning of potential genocide |
|||
::::::::# [[Taner Akçam]] – Signed the [https://twailr.com/public-statement-scholars-warn-of-potential-genocide-in-gaza/ TWAILR declaration] warning of potential genocide |
|||
::::::::# [[Omer Bartov]] – Genocide |
|||
::::::::# [[Paul R. Bartrop]] |
|||
::::::::# [[Yehuda Bauer]] – Not Genocide |
|||
::::::::# [[Donald Bloxham]] |
|||
::::::::# [[Michael Berenbaum]] – Not Genocide |
|||
::::::::# [[Israel Charny]] – Not Genocide |
|||
::::::::{{strikethrough|# [[Vahakn Dadrian]]}} – dead |
|||
::::::::# [[Christian Gerlach]] |
|||
::::::::# [[Amos Goldberg]] – Genocide |
|||
::::::::# [[Adam Jones (Canadian scholar)|Adam Jones]] – Genocide |
|||
::::::::# [[Steven T. Katz]] |
|||
::::::::# [[Ben Kiernan]] – Not Genocide |
|||
::::::::# Shmuel Lederman – "Genocidal violence, not Genocide per se" |
|||
::::::::# [[Mark Levene]] – Genocide |
|||
::::::::# [[A. Dirk Moses]] – This is what I could find from Moses on Gaza: [https://dawnmena.org/why-the-international-community-made-it-so-difficult-to-prosecute-the-crime-of-genocide/ "Today, international law on genocide is working as it was designed to: allowing states to ruthlessly exterminate security threats while making it difficult to apply that law."] |
|||
::::::::# [[Norman Naimark]] |
|||
::::::::# [[Aryeh Neier]] – Genocide |
|||
::::::::# [[Raz Segal]] – Genocide |
|||
::::::::# [[William Schabas]] – Genocide |
|||
::::::::# [[Martin Shaw (sociologist)|Martin Shaw]] – Genocide |
|||
::::::::# [[Timothy Snyder]] |
|||
::::::::# [[David Stannard]] |
|||
::::::::# [[Dan Stone (historian)|Dan Stone]] |
|||
::::::::# [[Scott Straus]] |
|||
::::::::# [[Samuel Totten]] |
|||
::::::::# [[Uğur Ümit Üngör]] – Genocide |
|||
::::::::# Ernesto Verdeja – [https://web.archive.org/web/20231125022352/https://time.com/6334409/is-whats-happening-gaza-genocide-experts/ "moving toward a genocidal campaign."] (from November) |
|||
::::::::-- [[User:Cdjp1|Cdjp1]] ([[User talk:Cdjp1|talk]]) 17:35, 16 August 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::Thank you for putting this list together. If anybody is interested in splitting the list up and running down the missing ones, I'd be happy to chip in. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 17:03, 17 August 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::Re Samuel Totten, see [https://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2024/jun/15/haunting-tragedies/ here] Doesn't quite say it outright, pretty sure he's thinking it, tho. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 17:37, 17 August 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::While we could quote the article, we can't make any assessment for what he's "thinking" behind the article. -- [[User:Cdjp1|Cdjp1]] ([[User talk:Cdjp1|talk]]) 09:30, 18 August 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::::Of course, I do notice however that those against tend to say so directly. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 09:39, 18 August 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::::One issue I've had with some experts who have said it is not genocide, is they specify not genocide per the UN convention, which is a different framework to what they normally employ in their work. But that is just the musings of one random editor. |
|||
:::::::::::::For numbers, as per the list: |
|||
:::::::::::::* Genocide = 9 |
|||
:::::::::::::* Not Genocide = 4 |
|||
:::::::::::::* Risk of genocide = 3 |
|||
:::::::::::::* Genocidal violence = 1 |
|||
:::::::::::::* Moses and Totten = 2 |
|||
:::::::::::::* No statement = 9 |
|||
:::::::::::::As is repeated across almost every discussion here, things change over time, so in the future I expect we may see comments from some of the others on the list, and we will see more academic work analysing Gaza as a case/potential case of genocide, from all different positions. -- [[User:Cdjp1|Cdjp1]] ([[User talk:Cdjp1|talk]]) 10:56, 18 August 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::::::One issue I have with your list is it seems tilted towards historians as opposed to international law experts. Some of them like Bauer and Michael Berenbaum are really only known for studying the Holocaust, so I doubt they can be considered experts on genocide in general. The only expert on [[international criminal law]] on your list is Schabas. ([[User talk:Buidhe|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Buidhe|c]]) '''[[User:buidhe|<span style="color: black">buidhe</span>]]''' 14:06, 18 August 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::::::As stated, this is a list of genocide scholars, that is those who have regularly published in the field of genocide studies, which stemmed primarily from the discipline of history, so having a over-representation of those who were trained as historians is not surprising. Genocide studies as a field is extremely critical of the legal definition both in it's ability to prosecute the crime of genocide, as well as a tool of analysis for determining cases of genocide. For a wider net of specialists and experts from a variety of fields see: [[Template:Expert opinions in the Gaza genocide debate]] -- [[User:Cdjp1|Cdjp1]] ([[User talk:Cdjp1|talk]]) 14:30, 18 August 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::::::: Addendum, on {{tqq|Genocide studies as a field is extremely critical of the legal definition}}, you can see an example in the quote from Moses in the list above. -- [[User:Cdjp1|Cdjp1]] ([[User talk:Cdjp1|talk]]) 14:32, 18 August 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::Dadrian has been dead for several years so he won't be producing any opinion. ([[User talk:Buidhe|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Buidhe|c]]) '''[[User:buidhe|<span style="color: black">buidhe</span>]]''' 05:05, 18 August 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::Oops, Missed that, I'll strike it. -- [[User:Cdjp1|Cdjp1]] ([[User talk:Cdjp1|talk]]) 09:25, 18 August 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::Should we add [https://press.anu.edu.au/publications/authors-editors/john-docker John Docker] and [[Damien Short]]? [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 01:25, 23 August 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::@[[User:Levivich|Levivich]] while I do like their work in regards to the genocide, as that is not their primary training or work, I excluded them due to being peripheral contributors. [[User:Cdjp1|Cdjp1]] ([[User talk:Cdjp1|talk]]) 07:54, 23 August 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::@[[User:Cdjp1|Cdjp1]]: I disagree, particularly on Short. He's authored or co-authored a number of books and papersthat have each received hundreds of Google Scholar cites, e.g. "Redefining genocide: Settler colonialism, social death and ecocide" (254 cites). Compare [https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=_KhDYR0AAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao Short's cites] with [https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ZQlzr_QAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao Verdeja], [https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=EK5hJqQAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao Lederman] or [https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=9OZIgXEAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=sra Üngör], all of whom are on the list. |
|||
:::::::::::John Docker's work isn't as widely-cited as Short's, but still, Docker has publications in the field that are very much on point, e.g. the chapter he co-authored, "Chapter 1: Defining genocide" (93 cites) in Dan Stone's book ''The Historiography of Genocide'' (aside from Stone, the other authors of that book are familiar: Moses, Bergen, Jones, Kiernan, Straus, etc.; Docker's in good company there). Other examples: his book ''The Origins of Violence: History, Religion and Genocide'' (83 cites); "Genocide: Definitions, Questions, Settler-colonies" (66); "Raphael Lemkin's history of genocide and colonialism" (64); "Nakba memoricide: genocide studies and the Zionist/Israeli genocide of Palestine" (46). [https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C22&q=author%3Ajohn-docker&btnG= Full list here]. |
|||
:::::::::::I know GScholar cites aren't the end-all and be-all, but it seems based on "how widely cited?" that Short and Docker are no more peripheral than Verdeja, Lederman, or Üngör (and Short in particular seems significantly less peripheral than the other four). [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 16:22, 23 August 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::::Add him to the list. I was just providing my reasoning, which as I mentioned right near the beginning is based from what I've read within Genocide Studies, so hadn't checked things like the relative stats on GS, or similar databases. -- [[User:Cdjp1|Cdjp1]] ([[User talk:Cdjp1|talk]]) 17:16, 23 August 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::+[[Christian Gerlach]], [[Dan Stone (historian)|Dan Stone]], and [[Scott Straus]]. (I assume we're not including the Holocaust specialists like [[David Engel (historian)|Engel]] and [[Peter Hayes (historian)|Hayes]]?) [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 04:14, 16 August 2024 (UTC) |
|||
==Lead sentence== |
|||
I have improved the [[MOS:FIRST|lead sentence]] with the page title. |
|||
"{{xt|The first sentence should introduce the topic, and tell the nonspecialist reader what or who the subject is, and often when or where. It should be in plain English. ... the page title should be the subject of the first sentence..}}" |
|||
The previous version did not introduce or summarize the topic and was confusing to readers. [[User:Shadowwarrior8|Shadowwarrior8]] ([[User talk:Shadowwarrior8|talk]]) 19:17, 17 August 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:I reverted it. First, if you're going to change it to say in Wikivoice that Israel is engaged in an extermination campaign, you obviously need to get consensus on the talk page first before making such a significant change. Secondly, if you're going to do that, use an accurate edit summary/talk page post. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 19:22, 17 August 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::'''There is already a consensus that Israeli occupation forces are perpetrating a genocide in Gaza'''. Only Zionist religious fanatics and ultra-nationalists deny that a genocide is occurring. Over a month ago, the page title was moved from "Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza" to "Gaza genocide" by '''consensus'''. |
|||
::At the wikipedia pages about all other genocides, the [[MOS:LEADSENTENCE|first sentence]] in the lead introduces the page topic. |
|||
::What you have done [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gaza_genocide&diff=prev&oldid=1240840523 here], is a [[WP:DISRUPT|disruptive edit]] in the lead sentence with a deceptive edit summary. There was no "POV change" as you claimed. [[User:Shadowwarrior8|Shadowwarrior8]] ([[User talk:Shadowwarrior8|talk]]) 20:05, 17 August 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::I don’t really think “extermination campaign” should be used in th sentence because there is something called [[Extermination (crime)]]. This article is about genocide accusations not extermination. the article title did leave out the accusations part which is causing confusion. At least one scholar who disagreed with the genocide label said it could be [[Extermination (crime)]], not the legal definition of genocide. There are also other non legal genocide definitions which makes it even more confusing what the article scope is about. Anyways, extermination and genocide are basically the same thing, except according to law extermination doesn’t require intent. [[User:Wafflefrites|Wafflefrites]] ([[User talk:Wafflefrites|talk]]) 21:02, 17 August 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::The article scope is not confusing, the title is valid because it is used a lot in sources and then there is the accusation in court, and while it is possible to assess a genocide without a court decision, such a decision has not as yet been made, which does not mean that the article should be titled Gaza genocide (decision pending)). [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 09:00, 18 August 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::The reason I said it was confusing is because I see other editors posting comments and questions about it in at least three threads: |
|||
:::::[[Talk:Gaza genocide/Archive 3#Again, genocide or accused|Again, genocide or accused]] |
|||
:::::[[Talk:Gaza genocide/Archive 2#What is the Gaza genocide?|What is the Gaza genocide?]] |
|||
:::::[[Talk:Gaza genocide/Archive 3#Genocide or alleged genocide|Genocide or alleged genocide]]. It may not be confusing to you, but it does appear to be confusing to readers sometimes. [[User:Wafflefrites|Wafflefrites]] ([[User talk:Wafflefrites|talk]]) 14:37, 18 August 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Uh huh, except that the confusion seems to be more along the lines of don't like the title, rather than trying to understand the [[WP:SCOPE]]. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 15:18, 18 August 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::Your comment on July 4 was |
|||
:::::::: Yea, people are assuming the title = fact, which of course, it doesn't. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) [[Talk:Gaza genocide/Archive 3#c-Selfstudier-20240704233500-Personisinsterest-20240704232000|23:35, 4 July 2024 (UTC)]] |
|||
:::::::[[User:Wafflefrites|Wafflefrites]] ([[User talk:Wafflefrites|talk]]) 15:25, 18 August 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::Yep, about the size of it. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 15:33, 18 August 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::It seems to be two groups of people based on the comments in the talk page. The first group thinks the article is about allegations/accusations and they are wanting the title to reflect the allegations/accusations portion. The second group are people who do not think it’s accusations/allegations, and they want to change the scope of the article to reflect the current title and define Israel as committing genocide. It seems the second group is more confused or wanting to change the article scope rather than the first group wanting to make the article title more precise to clearly reflect the current scope [[User:Wafflefrites|Wafflefrites]] ([[User talk:Wafflefrites|talk]]) 16:53, 18 August 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::If that's the case, then they cancel each other out and should just leave it the way it is. Maybe we should put a hidden note in the text explaining title/scope but I would wait for MR to conclude first. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 18:26, 18 August 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::[[Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2024 July#Gaza genocide|Helpful link to MR.]] I sense a new move request coming up. [[User:IntrepidContributor|IntrepidContributor]] ([[User talk:IntrepidContributor|talk]]) 04:51, 19 August 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::Well, there's also a group of editors, me included, who have observed the terms ''Gaza genocide'', ''Genocide in Gaza'', and similar being widely used in multiple reliable sources and who thus believe that the term merits a Wikipedia entry (without prejudice to future legal determination, etc.). — [[User:Kashmiri|<span style="color:#30c;font:italic bold 1em 'Candara';text-shadow:#aaf 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em;">kashmīrī</span>]] [[User talk:Kashmiri|<sup style="color:#80f;font:small-caps 0.8em 'Candara';">TALK</sup>]] 10:18, 21 August 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::MR has now been concluded and the move endorsed. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 17:00, 22 August 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::{{od}} |
|||
:::I propose the folllowing statement to be inserted as the [[WP:LEADSENTENCE|lead sentence]] of the page: |
|||
:::QUOTE |
|||
:::{{talkquote|"'''Gaza genocide''' refers to the ongoing extermination campaign carried out by the [[state of Israel]] against the [[Palestinian people]] during [[Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip|its invasion]] and [[Israeli bombing of the Gaza Strip|bombing of the Gaza Strip]] amid the [[Gaza War (2023–present)]]."}} |
|||
:::END QUOTE [[User:Shadowwarrior8|Shadowwarrior8]] ([[User talk:Shadowwarrior8|talk]]) 21:19, 22 August 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::And no one here is going to agree. There is no consensus whatsoever for this. --[[User:Rockstone35|<span style="color:#DF0101"><b>Rockstone</b></span>]][[User talk:Rockstone35|<span style="color:0000ff;font-size:15px"><sup><small><b>Send me a message!</b></small></sup></span>]] 02:30, 23 August 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::Can't state that as a fact and an opinion (or even several of them) would not be due for the lead. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 10:29, 23 August 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 August 2024 == |
|||
{{Edit extended-protected|Gaza genocide|answered=yes}} |
|||
{{multiple image|perrow = 2|total_width=300 |
|||
| image1 = Damage_in_Gaza_Strip_during_the_October_2023_-_01_(cropped).jpg |
|||
| image2 = Fars_Photo_of_Casualties_in_Gaza_Strip_during_2023_War_05.jpg |
|||
| image3 = Fars Photo of Casualties in Gaza Strip during 2023 War 03.jpg |
|||
| image4 = Dead infant in Kamal Adwan Hospital 28 june 2024.jpg |
|||
| image5 = Death of Mohammed Assaf due to starvation 1.jpg |
|||
| image6 = Al-Tabieen school massacre 05.jpg |
|||
| footer_align = center |
|||
| footer = '''Clockwise from top left:''' {{flatlist| |
|||
* Bombing campaign of the Gaza Strip |
|||
* A man carries the body of a Palestinian child killed by the shelling |
|||
* Dead infant in Kamal Adwan Hospital |
|||
* Bags filled with body parts of Palestinians killed by rocket strikes in Al-Tabaeen school |
|||
* Child dead due to starvation |
|||
* Palestinian body parts in plastic bags |
|||
}} |
|||
}} |
|||
Please replace '''the single image in the infobox''' by '''a [[Template:Multiple image]]''' |
|||
I think this single image undermines the reality of what's going on in Gaza considering that we got in Commons many precious pictures that illustrate the situation well and I think it would be a shame if they remained unused. |
|||
I'm not insisting on using the exact same pictures with the exact same captions in the example I provided, I'm just saying that such a subject needs definitely more than one picture to illustrate it while taking into consideration [[WP:NOTCENSORED]] and [[WP:GRATUITOUS]] — '''[[User:The_Cheesedealer|<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS;color:#fca311;">🧀Cheesedealer</span>]] ''[[User_talk:The_Cheesedealer|<sup style="color:#e85d04; font-size:10px">!!!⚟</sup>]]''''' 02:43, 16 August 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:@[[User:The Cheesedealer|The Cheesedealer]] Thank you for your effort. I support updating the infobox, and I have no objections agains these images except for the assurances, if at all possible, that the childrens' families don't object to these photographs being posted on Wikipedia. Copyright is one thing, and [[right to privacy]] is quite another, and here I'd really would like to make sure that Wikipedia respects it and doesn't add to parents' trauma. |
|||
: I'll also wait for other editors to opine on the matter. Cheers, — [[User:Kashmiri|<span style="color:#30c;font:italic bold 1em 'Candara';text-shadow:#aaf 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em;">kashmīrī</span>]] [[User talk:Kashmiri|<sup style="color:#80f;font:small-caps 0.8em 'Candara';">TALK</sup>]] 18:40, 16 August 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::Sadly I don't think it is possible to verify whether those children's families accept using the photographs in Wikipedia or not (I'd assume they don't). |
|||
::Thank you for reminding me of this, I retract my request til at least better pictures are available — '''[[User:The_Cheesedealer|<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS;color:#fca311;">🧀Cheesedealer</span>]] ''[[User_talk:The_Cheesedealer|<sup style="color:#e85d04; font-size:10px">!!!⚟</sup>]]''''' 18:50, 16 August 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::@[[User:The Cheesedealer|The Cheesedealer]] Thank you. I'm sure more suitable photographs will gradually become available. I'd be grateful if you could keep an eye on the Commons and come up with an updated collage in a while. — [[User:Kashmiri|<span style="color:#30c;font:italic bold 1em 'Candara';text-shadow:#aaf 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em;">kashmīrī</span>]] [[User talk:Kashmiri|<sup style="color:#80f;font:small-caps 0.8em 'Candara';">TALK</sup>]] 20:50, 17 August 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:[[File:Pictogram voting comment.svg|20px|link=|alt=]] '''Note:'''<!-- Template:EEp --> The edit request has been retracted. [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 23:37, 16 August 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Gideon Levy's analysis == |
|||
{{Ping|Buidhe}} |
|||
Hello. |
|||
Is it really a good idea to remove the following text from this article? It seems to more properly explain the context for immediately preceding statistical opinion poll information in the sense that most Israeli citizens genuinely are not remotely well-informed about the ongoing atrocities performed by their government and military, as otherwise a reader of this article might get the false impression that 94% of Israeli citizens consciously and deliberately support genocide. |
|||
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gaza_genocide&diff=1241439417&oldid=1241344412 |
|||
[[User:David A|David A]] ([[User talk:David A|talk]]) 05:28, 21 August 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:{{u|David A}} I have my issues with the opinion polls; it doesn't seem like the source connects them to the "Gaza genocide" topic and if included they should probably be in another section. The quote from Levy also doesn't mention genocide so it may be more appropriate to include in another article. I definitely think there is room for a different article about Israeli perceptions of the war/genocide, but per [[WP:NOR]] this one needs to be based on sources that are explicitly about genocide. ([[User talk:Buidhe|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Buidhe|c]]) '''[[User:buidhe|<span style="color: black">buidhe</span>]]''' 06:22, 21 August 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::Well, I think that the opinion polls should definitely be displayed in some prominent Wikipedia page about the Israeli government's war crimes, as they show the Israeli public support for the ongoing military campaign and the deliberate starvation of the Palestinians respectively, but you are much more experienced regarding writing this type of article than I am, if you wish to move the information elsewhere, but again, it seems highly relevant to prominently include somewhere. [[User:David A|David A]] ([[User talk:David A|talk]]) 07:29, 21 August 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== January 2024 == |
|||
:I've replaced it with an [https://www.newstatesman.com/international-content/the-international-interview/2024/01/gideon-levy-south-africa-genocide-israel English-language interview] where Levy said much the same thing. Genocide is explicitly referenced. [[User:Jayen466|Andreas]] <small>[[User_Talk:Jayen466|<span style="color: #FFBF00;">JN</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Jayen466|466]]</small> 07:59, 21 August 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::Thank you for helping out. [[User:David A|David A]] ([[User talk:David A|talk]]) 08:30, 21 August 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== University Network for Human Rights == |
|||
According to a https://www.humanrightsnetwork.org/ this is a supervised student training project (which explains the absence of author names). I think this should at least be clarified in the text, and it should be placed in a less prominent position. Frankly, where it stands at the moment, I think it could be deleted without much impact on the flow and logical coherence of the article. --[[User:Jayen466|Andreas]] <small>[[User_Talk:Jayen466|<span style="color: #FFBF00;">JN</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Jayen466|466]]</small> 09:38, 23 August 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:That's a part of the discussion at BU RFC above. Why delete it? [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 10:35, 23 August 2024 (UTC) |
|||
I propose that we split this article into like 10 articles more. Clearly we haven't created enough content forks out of this war, how about we divide it by months or cities or something? I'm sure it will serve for, well, something probably. |
|||
::It makes the article assailable. And it doesn't say anything that stronger sources aren't saying as well. Incidentally, the German translation of this article was [[:de:Wikipedia:Löschkandidaten/13. August 2024#Völkermord-Vorwürfe gegen Israel (Gazakrieg 2023–2024) (gelöscht)|deleted]] yesterday, citing "egregious quality problems". (I argued against deletion.) This source didn't come up in that discussion but I recall it was found too weak in a previous discussion in German Wikipedia because of its lack of a named author. There is not much you can say in response to such criticism. Britannica or other scholars wouldn't prominently cite an undergraduate und graduate project, even if it was supervised and a joint project of leading universities. At least we need to identify it as what it was. [[User:Jayen466|Andreas]] <small>[[User_Talk:Jayen466|<span style="color: #FFBF00;">JN</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Jayen466|466]]</small> 09:39, 24 August 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::The report itself, discussed by a qualified expert in the BU today, carries the UNHR name as well as the law schools. I find it difficult to imagine that those law schools would have permitted the use of their names, inclusive press releases, without a proper scrutiny of the material, which on the face of it, looks to be professionally prepared. The lack of named authors is because the material has in effect been endorsed by those institutions. OK, I can see why some might disapprove of [[James Cavallaro]] but he is an HR expert and they are camped out at Wesleyan, again, I don't think that would be allowed without a proper scrutiny. If their report were saying anything exceptional or out of line with other sourcing, that would be something else but it isn't and it is a convenient summary with many useful references. I don't mind if it is not in the lead but removing it altogether makes no sense at all. |
|||
:::I wouldn't pay too much attention to what German WP is doing either, tbh. The "Staatsräson" thing has the entire country behaving in a peculiar fashion as regards Israel (with the possible exception of the FO). [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 11:03, 24 August 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::Agreed on the peculiarity of German discourse. As someone in the Guardian [https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/dec/18/hannah-arendt-prize-masha-gessen-israel-gaza-essay put it the other day], [[Hannah Arendt]] wouldn't qualify for the [[Hannah Arendt Prize]] in Germany today; she'd be accused of antisemitism. ;) |
|||
::::I am actually considering starting an article on German anti-antisemitism because there has been substantial commentary that it's gone completely off the rails. (The German Wikipedia is not unaffected by this. Just look at the length of the antisemitism section in the German WP biography of [[:de:Achille Mbembe]] ... bizarre.) As [[User:Buidhe|Buidhe]] once pointed out in a [[Talk:Anti-antisemitism|DYK]] even before the present Gaza war started, right-wing elements of German society have started using antisemitism charges as cover for anti-islamic sentiment, using the fact that the substantial muslim (mainly Turkish) minority in Germany has tended to take a dim view of civilian deaths in Gaza. |
|||
::::Still, all that said, I am wary of having the University Network for Human Rights report do any heavy lifting in this article. I don't see significant citations for this particular report in Google Scholar (the only good one is, as it happens, in another article on German anti-antisemitism, namely [https://www-journals-uchicago-edu.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/doi/epdf/10.1086/731960 "Refusing Epistemic Violence: Guernica-Gaza and the ‘German Context’"], ''[[Afterall: A Journal of Art, Context and Enquiry]]'', Volume 57, Issue 1; this is a Wikipedia Library link). It hasn't attracted press coverage either. (A 2019 University Network for Human Rights report on Yemen at least generated articles in Newsweek and the Washington Post.) [[User:Jayen466|Andreas]] <small>[[User_Talk:Jayen466|<span style="color: #FFBF00;">JN</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Jayen466|466]]</small> 14:02, 24 August 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::Selfstudier, that rationale does not address any of the many defects in that source. As has been said, why use a non-compliant self published source in a house organ when there are valid sources available on the matter?[[User:SPECIFICO |<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b>]][[User_talk:SPECIFICO | ''talk'']] 22:17, 24 August 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Referred to RSN for an opinion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#https://www.humanrightsnetwork.org/about [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 09:12, 25 August 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::OK, the feedback suggests that altho this source might well be considered reliable in ordinary circumstances, there is a concern that for this particular article, citing UNHR directly might subject the article to external criticism. I think the material directly cited to them should be replaced with other sourcing, if available. That does not mean that references to UNHR by other RS are affected, however. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 16:20, 25 August 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::I have removed three direct cites to UNHR. It doesn't affect the article at all and will perhaps put paid to the nonsensical objections in the ongoing RFC about BU, which has nothing directly to do with UNHR, if Susan Akhram wants to mention them, as an expert in her own right, she is entitled to do that. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 16:59, 25 August 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Possible position from Denmark == |
|||
This article is at least much, much more serious and realistic than [[Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Hamas attack on Israel]]. But we have [[Palestinian genocide accusation]] already. [[User:Super Dromaeosaurus|Super Dromaeosaurus]] ([[User talk:Super Dromaeosaurus|talk]]) 16:28, 4 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
I'm not sure whether this is the right place to place this information, but the table on the article page has a list of countries and their position on what happens in Palestine. Here is information regarding the position of the Danish government. I don't want to edit the article, as this is beyond my qualifications. |
|||
:@[[User:Super Dromaeosaurus|Super Dromaeosaurus]]: Redirecting to [[Palestinian genocide accusation]] has [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Allegations_of_genocide_in_the_2023_Israeli_attack_on_Gaza&diff=next&oldid=1192523468 already been tried] by [[User:Parham wiki|Parham wiki]] and was reverted by [[User:Vinegarymass911|Vinegarymass911]] with the comments that these two articles are "''... not the same thing and this should not be merged without a discussion''". Also, while [[WP:TITLES|article titles]] should be [[WP:PRECISE|precise]], advice also exists that [[WP:PRECISELANG|precise language]] should not date quickly. Now it is January 2024, I also have to wonder at the wisdom of including the year in the article title. The current conflict in Gaza does not look like being over any time soon, so a change in title is probably warranted. - [[User:Cameron Dewe|Cameron Dewe]] ([[User talk:Cameron Dewe|talk]]) 00:06, 5 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:I think we should merge this and the (currently somewhat shambolic) [[Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Hamas attack on Israel]] into a neutral [[Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war]] (or whatever the main article ends up getting moved to). Keeping two separate articles is a recipe for POV forking based on original research and synthesis, rather than a collaborative effort to summarize, with due weighting, what reliable sources say - which is what we're supposed to be doing here. [[User:PrimaPrime|PrimaPrime]] ([[User talk:PrimaPrime|talk]]) 10:15, 6 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::I agree. To me the current situation just seems like a [[WP:FALSEBALANCE]] situation, editors creating certain articles and other editors creating their equivalent of the other side as a reaction. Though if it was up to me I'd completely delete the genocide by Hamas one and merge this one into the general one for a Palestinian genocide, which is an article in a much better shape and standing. [[User:Super Dromaeosaurus|Super Dromaeosaurus]] ([[User talk:Super Dromaeosaurus|talk]]) 11:46, 6 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::I'm not sure if there is much in common between the two articles to merit a merger? '''[[User:Vice regent|VR]]''' <sub>[[User talk:Vice regent|talk]]</sub> 06:19, 8 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::There is, quite obviously in my view, much in common between the two. They're the same article but about the opposite side in the same war. And both are alleged genocides. [[User:Super Dromaeosaurus|Super Dromaeosaurus]] ([[User talk:Super Dromaeosaurus|talk]]) 15:14, 10 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::Can you explain what is in common? In other words, wouldn't that article just consist of two sections: "allegations against Israel", and "allegations against Hamas". '''[[User:Vice regent|VR]]''' <sub>[[User talk:Vice regent|talk]]</sub> 20:46, 10 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::At least that would provide some [[WP:BALANCE|balance]]. - [[User:Cameron Dewe|Cameron Dewe]] ([[User talk:Cameron Dewe|talk]]) 20:55, 10 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::[[WP:FALSEBALANCE]]. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">[[User:WillowCity|<span style="color: #9932CC;">'''WillowCity'''</span>]]</span>[[User talk:WillowCity|<sup style="color: #9932CC;">(talk)</sup>]] 23:54, 10 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::I also cannot see what is in common, nor what balance. Hamas is certainly accused of having genocidal ''intent'' towards Israel, but I have heard of no one who thinks that October 7 - however indiscriminate and bloody it was - was a realistic attempt to eliminate Israel or the Israeli people. [[User:Pincrete|Pincrete]] ([[User talk:Pincrete|talk]]) 10:47, 11 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::International law references "genocidal acts" in discussions of genocide. Essentially, genocidal intent + violent action to pursue that intent = genocidal act. Hamas has absolutely been accused of genocidal acts re 7 October. It's why the genocide conventions say "in whole or in part". But that's hardly germane to this discussion. [[User:Jbbdude|Jbbdude]] ([[User talk:Jbbdude|talk]]) 02:28, 12 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::It would only be false balance if the two sides were presented perfectly equally rather than in proportion to the weight they are given in reliable sources. I imagine we could have a shorter section about accusations of genocide against Hamas re: October 7, followed by a longer section about accusations of genocide against Israel in the ensuing war. [[User:PrimaPrime|PrimaPrime]] ([[User talk:PrimaPrime|talk]]) 07:28, 23 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
* Dagbladet Arbejderen, 2024, by ML, https://arbejderen.dk/indland/regeringen-afviser-borgerforslag-om-at-anerkende-risiko-for-folkedrab-i-gaza/ (in Danish) |
|||
== Request to add Masha Gessen's comments == |
|||
: First line in the article: The government refuses to comment on whether there is a risk that Israel is committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza. |
|||
[[Masha Gessen]], when asked if what is happening in Gaza is a genocide [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YU6kP9UqhGI&t=977s stated], "I think there are some fine distinctions between genocide and ethnic cleansing and I think that there are valid arguments for using both terms". When pressed further they stated, "it is at the very least ethnic cleansing". This was followed soon after [[Masha Gessen#Award controversy|controversy]] surrounding Gessen's receival of the [[Hannah Arendt Prize]] over remarks in a [https://www.newyorker.com/news/the-weekend-essay/in-the-shadow-of-the-holocaust New Yorker Article] critical of Israeli actions in the strip wherein Gessen compared them to an Eastern European Ghetto "being liquidated" by the Nazis. [[User:Nandofan|Nandofan]] ([[User talk:Nandofan|talk]]) 03:02, 10 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:[[User:Nandofan|Nandofan]], added, though in the 'cultural discourse' section since she has no claim to being a legal or similar scholar. [[User:Pincrete|Pincrete]] ([[User talk:Pincrete|talk]]) 11:24, 11 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::That makes sense. Thank you [[User:Nandofan|Nandofan]] ([[User talk:Nandofan|talk]]) 19:42, 11 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::@[[User:Pincrete|Pincrete]] thanks, @[[User:Nandofan|Nandofan]] sorry, I should have checked other replies first. [[User:Irtapil|Irtapil]] ([[User talk:Irtapil|talk]]) 06:12, 13 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::@[[User:Pincrete|Pincrete]] *they |
|||
::[[User:Irtapil|Irtapil]] ([[User talk:Irtapil|talk]]) 06:13, 13 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:@[[User:Nandofan|Nandofan]] If you're able to edit the article then I agree that's relevant and endorse you adding it, but it needs a reference. |
|||
:If you're not able to edit the article, can you suggest where that fits and give a link to a citation we can use please? |
|||
:[[User:Irtapil|Irtapil]] ([[User talk:Irtapil|talk]]) 06:10, 13 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::Just saw someone already done. [[User:Irtapil|Irtapil]] ([[User talk:Irtapil|talk]]) 06:13, 13 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
* Proposal by the public that mandates the parliament to initiate a discussion: https://www.borgerforslag.dk/se-og-stoet-forslag/?Id=FT-16712 |
|||
== Proposed Title Change to "Allegations of genocide by Israel in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war" == |
|||
{{requested move/dated|Allegations of genocide by Israel in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war}} |
|||
* Response by the majority of the parliament - rejected the proposal: https://www.ft.dk/samling/20231/beslutningsforslag/b200/index.htm |
|||
[[:Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza]] → {{no redirect|Allegations of genocide by Israel in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war}} – See below. |
|||
[[User:Kimse84|Kimse84]] ([[User talk:Kimse84|talk]]) 10:57, 24 August 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== What's the status of genocide studies and middle east studies in academia? == |
|||
Aside from the above discussion of merging this article with [[Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Hamas attack on Israel]], the title of this article is just weird. Yes, I assume that some editor(s) with a particular viewpoint/POV chose to name this article as a parallel with that one. However, as many folks have invoked in the aforementioned discussion, that's just a false parallel. The common name for Israel's action is a "war" (Gaza War, Israel-Hamas War, whichever) rather than an "attack". Wikipedia refers to 7 Oct as the [[2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel]] (and frankly, that genocide allegation Wikipedia article title should be amended to match this "Hamas-led" usage, to maintain consistent terminology across Wikipedia) while it refers to the events encompassing the Israeli response as the [[2023 Israel–Hamas war]]. If this article ends up merged, the proper title would likely be "Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war" or, for accuracy and completeness, "Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel and Israel–Hamas war" (a bit long, but more precise and clear). For now, though, as a separate article, calling it the "Israeli attack on Gaza" is inconsistent with the terminology for this event in use elsewhere on Wikipedia and, more significantly, in widespread media coverage and public discourse. [[User:Jbbdude|Jbbdude]] ([[User talk:Jbbdude|talk]]) 02:36, 12 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
I'm genuinely curious how these two fields are perceived by the more established disciplines they grew out of. Political scientist Ernesto Verdeja, for example, contends that "''genocide scholarship still rarely appears in mainstream disciplinary journals."''[https://www.jstor.org/stable/41479553?read-now=1&seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents]. He also claims that mainstream political scientists essentially ignore this field, in part because the scholars are involved in a "humanitarian activism" that's odd for an academic community. Similarly, the [[Middle Eastern Studies]] article contains a relatively lengthy criticism section accusing the field of a "pro-Palestinian" and "pro-Arabist" bias that apparently affects their scholarship. |
|||
:Please read the 2nd paragraph on [[2023 Israel–Hamas war]]. That may help. [[User:Natsuikomin|Natsuikomin]] ([[User talk:Natsuikomin|talk]]) 13:00, 12 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:Okay, sorry for misunderstanding. Now I know what you meant to say, inconsistency of the naming. [[User:Natsuikomin|Natsuikomin]] ([[User talk:Natsuikomin|talk]]) 13:12, 12 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:@[[User:Jbbdude|Jbbdude]] The current title is appropriate and consistent. |
|||
:The Israeli attack on Gaza is an event within a broader war. The genocide claims are specific to that locality and that attack, e.g. Israel are not currently being accused of genocide in Lebanon or the West Bank. There have been attacks in both those areas, but on a different scale. |
|||
:Likewise Hamas et al. are being accused of genocide on 7 October, but nobody is suggesting that their current attacks on IDF troops invading Gaza are a genocide (at least nobody even remotely credible) and that corresponding page has a similar narrow title. |
|||
:[[User:Irtapil|Irtapil]] ([[User talk:Irtapil|talk]]) 06:23, 13 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::Because attack and genocide are simply not the same thing? [[User:Natsuikomin|Natsuikomin]] ([[User talk:Natsuikomin|talk]]) 07:15, 13 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:@[[User:Jbbdude|Jbbdude]] I re read the middle of what you said. But I stand by what I wrote originally. There is only one war; the "war" goes all the way from Lebanon to the Red Sea, but the genocide is in the Gaza strip. |
|||
:An "attack" is an action within a war, the word "attack" possibly isn't ideal, but "war" isn't a good substitute, because the war is bigger. Do you have any other suggestions? |
|||
:"Invasion" doesn't fit, because the first clearly genocidal act was cutting off the food and water nearly a month before the invasion. And the day before that there were bombings that some would class as the start. |
|||
:[[User:Irtapil|Irtapil]] ([[User talk:Irtapil|talk]]) 06:31, 13 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:'''Support'''. "Israeli attack on Gaza" implies that this is a single unilataeral attack rather than an ongoing bilateral war. Furthermore, reliable source do not refer to it as the "2023 Israeli attack on Gaza". The article should be renamed to [[Allegations of genocide in the Israel-Hamas War]] [[User:Marokwitz|Marokwitz]] ([[User talk:Marokwitz|talk]]) 08:33, 29 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:'''Comment''' We have [[Use of human shields by Hamas]] and [[Human shields in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict]] and apparently we are missing [[Use of human shields by Israel]] to balance things up. Or perhaps we only need the middle one. This sort of titling is common atm, we have [[Palestinian genocide accusation]] too but not a [[Israeli genocide accusation]] except as a redirect to the former, Idk why. The current title seems already to refer to an allegation against Israel without the need to further alter it.[[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 11:24, 29 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
FYI -I don't follow this scholarship and haven't contributed to this article, but after researching these fields for about 20 mins, a lot of academic controversies popped up that got me curious. So is Verdeja correct in his assessment of genocide studies? A lot of the scholarly opinion in this article comes from scholars working in one of these two fields, but as far as I can tell it's mostly statements published in non-academic press (and think tanks like Brookings), rather than mainstream, peer-reviewed journals. [[User:Jonathan f1|Jonathan f1]] ([[User talk:Jonathan f1|talk]]) 07:55, 25 August 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== First sentence of background is awkward == |
|||
:Did you want to add something to this article? [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 12:01, 25 August 2024 (UTC) |
|||
: First sentence of background reads very strangely, "{{tq|'''Background''' - After Israel began the bombing of Gaza following the [[2023 Hamas attack on Israel|7 October attacks]], some Palestinians immediately expressed concern that this violence would be used to justify genocide against Palestinians by Israel." }} |
|||
::Verdeja's article was written over 12 years ago, when the discipline he refers to was somewhat new, but burgeoning. And he notes that the mainstream's ignoring of its results to that date specifically referred to [[Political science]], another discipline. PolScience likewise had some of its research work ignored by the sociological mainstream and so set up its own journals just as Genocide scholars were doing. When one talks of 'mainstream' these days, it's a matter of a lustrum or two as to what drops out or becomes commonplace.([[Karl Popper]] once spoke of theories passing by as regular as Piccadilly Buses (back around 1947 from memory) In any case it would be reductive to dismiss this as activism. Indeed Verdeja himself has written on the status of the SA application (Ernesto Verdeja, https://peacepolicy.nd.edu/2024/02/27/the-international-court-of-justice-and-genocide-in-gaza/ The International Court of Justice and Genocide in Gaza 27 February 2024) in terms more or less c onsonant with those of [[A. Dirk Moses]], an innovative and highly influential scholar on genocide over the last two decades (compare [https://www.bostonreview.net/articles/more-than-genocide/ this]) I hope this answers your query.[[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] ([[User talk:Nishidani|talk]]) 13:36, 25 August 2024 (UTC) |
|||
: But I'm stumped on how to fix it. Can a better writer than I am please have a go at turning it into something cohesive? |
|||
:::Yes, I'm satisfied with your response. I would just add that with the proliferation of all the fields that end in "studies" in academia, it's becoming increasingly difficult for non-specialists to assess this research. [[User:Jonathan f1|Jonathan f1]] ([[User talk:Jonathan f1|talk]]) 18:09, 25 August 2024 (UTC) |
|||
: It looks like multiple people have added three opinionated words each? All of the points there probably should be included, but connected better and with a more even tone. |
|||
::Or alternatively, do you have anything to add to this talk section? Talk sections are not merely for discussing changes, but also the quality of the sources being used. And in any event, Nishidani answered my questions quite well so I don't think there's any need to drag this out, unless someone else wants to add something here. [[User:Jonathan f1|Jonathan f1]] ([[User talk:Jonathan f1|talk]]) 18:03, 25 August 2024 (UTC) |
|||
: [[User:Irtapil|Irtapil]] ([[User talk:Irtapil|talk]]) 06:07, 13 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::Flaws seem to be that it isn't only Palestinians, it isn't now only concerns about ''what would happen'', it's about deeds rather than only about justification. [[User:Pincrete|Pincrete]] ([[User talk:Pincrete|talk]]) 07:20, 13 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Allegations_of_genocide_in_the_2023_Israeli_attack_on_Gaza&diff=prev&oldid=1195297268 I've tried to fix], I don't know whether this works for others. [[User:Pincrete|Pincrete]] ([[User talk:Pincrete|talk]]) 07:40, 13 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Gaza's 2.2 million people are confined to an area smaller than Manhattan == |
|||
== Civilian attack infobox == |
|||
Edit ... |
|||
The article has acquired a civilian attack infobox. It is much less muddled, PoV and synthy than that of the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Palestinian_genocide_accusation&diff=next&oldid=1194583445 related 'historic' article infobox]. Still, is this apt for an article about accusations? [[User:Pincrete|Pincrete]] ([[User talk:Pincrete|talk]]) 06:51, 16 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
Gaza's 2.2 million people are confined to a humanitarian area smaller than Manhattan |
|||
:I would say not. [[User:PrimaPrime|PrimaPrime]] ([[User talk:PrimaPrime|talk]]) 07:31, 23 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::Considering various other genocide accusation articles, including specifically in contexts of war, also use the same infobox for a brief summary, it would seem to be the best one we have until a specific one is created, and would be in line to how we treat other articles of a similar nature. -- [[User:Cdjp1|Cdjp1]] ([[User talk:Cdjp1|talk]]) 13:45, 28 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::This is less synthy than the related infobox, but how do you decide what are the motives for an allegation? Who says that the motives are [[Anti-Palestinianism]] or [[Settler colonialism]]? Finally, where in the article are these motives expounded?[[User:Pincrete|Pincrete]] ([[User talk:Pincrete|talk]]) 10:40, 29 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::It may be better to leave that section blank until we have more comprehensive sources that state the alleged motives. Though for a the three motives listed, on the first that is easy to cite to the statements of Israeli officials on declaring war against Hamas and Gaza. The second you could cite to previous statements in recent years from government officials and politicians, such as declaring Palestine and Palestinians do not exist, alongside statements that declare the West Bank and Gaza as Israeli territory, and the dehumanising language used against Palestinians both before October 2023 and since. For the third point, you'd cite it to such papers as: |
|||
::::* {{cite journal |last1=Wolfe |first1=Patrick |author1-link=Patrick Wolfe |title=Settler colonialism and the elimination of the native |journal=[[Journal of Genocide Research]] |date=21 December 2006 |volume=8 |issue=4 |pages=387–409 |doi=10.1080/14623520601056240 |doi-access=free}} |
|||
::::* {{cite journal |last1=Rashed |first1=Haifa |last2=Short |first2=Damien |author2-link=Damien Short |title=Genocide and settler colonialism: can a Lemkin-inspired genocide perspective aid our understanding of the Palestinian situation? |journal=The International Journal of Human Rights |date=2012 |volume=16 |issue=8 |pages=1142–1169 |doi=10.1080/13642987.2012.735494 |s2cid=145422458}} |
|||
::::* {{cite journal |last1=Shaw |first1=Martin |author1-link=Martin Shaw (sociologist) |title=Palestine and Genocide: An International Historical Perspective Revisited |journal=[[Holy Land Studies]] |date=2013 |volume=12 |issue=1 |pages=1–7 |doi=10.3366/hls.2013.0056}} |
|||
::::You could also cite it to any of the news pieces written which cover the treatment of Palestinians in the Palestinian territories by Israeli settlers. -- [[User:Cdjp1|Cdjp1]] ([[User talk:Cdjp1|talk]]) 18:35, 29 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/gaza-humanitarian-zones-smaller-than-manhattan-rcna167056 |
|||
== "[[:Gaza genocide]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] == |
|||
[[File:Information.svg|30px]] |
|||
The redirect <span class="plainlinks">[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gaza_genocide&redirect=no Gaza genocide]</span> has been listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|redirects for discussion]] to determine whether its use and function meets the [[Wikipedia:Redirect|redirect guidelines]]. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{slink|Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 17#Gaza genocide}}''' until a consensus is reached. <!-- Template:RFDNote --> [[User:The sum of all human knowledge|The sum of all human knowledge]] ([[User talk:The sum of all human knowledge|talk]]) 13:33, 17 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan#/media/File:Above_Gotham.jpg [[Special:Contributions/76.156.161.247|76.156.161.247]] ([[User talk:76.156.161.247|talk]]) 19:49, 26 August 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== "We will eliminate everything" == |
|||
This is a mistranslation and misinformation. The actual quote is {{tq|Gaza will not return to what it was before. There will be no Hamas. We will eliminate it all.}} [https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2024/01/israel-south-africa-genocide-case-fake-quotes/677198/?gift=io6YtOnzuLCwQZEnaHP4G9oAcXYhLiwGtWOE-Sj-9KA&utm_source=copy-link&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=share] --[[User:Hob Gadling|Hob Gadling]] ([[User talk:Hob Gadling|talk]]) 11:30, 23 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:I've modified so as to report the initial quote - and its correction rather than simply linking to an article saying "the quote was wrong".[[User:Pincrete|Pincrete]] ([[User talk:Pincrete|talk]]) 10:35, 29 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:That is NYT correction (ie they reviewed the thing again) of their initial report so they believe it to be "everything". [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 11:13, 29 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:I think that this information is very relevant to add, if it isn't already, but which section of this page would be most appropriate? [[User:David A|David A]] ([[User talk:David A|talk]]) 07:29, 27 August 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Suggested edit: Main article link for [[:Defense for Children International-Palestine et al v. Biden et al]] == |
|||
::Add this information to the end of ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_genocide#Alleged_genocidal_actions [[Special:Contributions/98.46.117.113|98.46.117.113]] ([[User talk:98.46.117.113|talk]]) 19:23, 27 August 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::I have [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gaza_genocide&diff=1243057849&oldid=1243050140 handled it]. [[User:David A|David A]] ([[User talk:David A|talk]]) 07:32, 30 August 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::Thank You !!! [[Special:Contributions/98.46.117.227|98.46.117.227]] ([[User talk:98.46.117.227|talk]]) 17:25, 30 August 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::No problem. 🙏 [[User:David A|David A]] ([[User talk:David A|talk]]) 17:32, 30 August 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Buildings listed in the "Victims" section in the header infobox == |
|||
After the heading |
|||
<code>=== Center for Constitutional Rights lawsuit ===</code> |
|||
This article includes buildings as victims of the purported genocide. I raised this as an illogical inclusion in a talk thread here. In that talk thread, it was suggested that I [[WP:BOLD|be bold]] and edit it. That edit was reversed, with the edit note suggesting it shouldn't be edited without a talk page consensus, which I came here to do before editing. That talk page thread has been erased in its entirety. |
|||
I request that a link to the main article for this lawsuit be inserted on the line immediately following that heading. |
|||
I am here to propose that buildings, at least non culturally significant ones, be removed as listed victims of the genocide in the infobox. It is inconsistent with Wikipedia's policy and the intended usage of the infobox. [[User:Jbbdude|Jbbdude]] ([[User talk:Jbbdude|talk]]) 00:27, 2 September 2024 (UTC) |
|||
{{main|Defense for Children International-Palestine et al v. Biden et al}} |
|||
:I agree it's illogical to list buildings under "victims." Destruction of buildings may be part of a genocide, but that still doesn't make the buildings "victims." "Victims" are people, not things. It's a little disrespectful of the victims in my view to equate buildings and people ("40 people were killed in the attack, and we lost a perfectly good apartment building" just doesn't sound right). Maybe the building destruction can be listed elsewhere in the infobox. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 01:18, 2 September 2024 (UTC) |
|||
[[User:Lovelano|Lovelano]] ([[User talk:Lovelano|talk]]) 07:43, 5 February 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::Victims are people, that's true; there should be another list called "Damage" which lists the buildings destroyed as well. Also, I don't think only culturally significant buildings should be listed because due to the sheer amount of residential buildings destroyed it is clearly intended to contribute to the damage Gazans have suffered already, so it should be stated as part of the genocide. [[User:Abdulhakim1917|Abdulhakim1917]] ([[User talk:Abdulhakim1917|talk]]) 14:23, 2 September 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::I do not at all mind if the number of destroyed buildings are moved to another section within the infobox, but I think that they should be listed somewhere within it. [[User:David A|David A]] ([[User talk:David A|talk]]) 15:01, 2 September 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Netanyahu "huge price" comment == |
|||
: {{Done}}, thanks. — [[User:Kashmiri|<span style="color:#30c;font:italic bold 1em 'Candara';text-shadow:#aaf 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em;">kashmīrī</span>]] [[User talk:Kashmiri|<sup style="color:#80f;font-family:'Candara';">TALK</sup>]] 10:16, 5 February 2024 (UTC) |
|||
I take issue with the sentence "On 7 October, Netanyahu said the people of Gaza would pay a "huge price" and Israel would turn parts of Gaza 'into rubble'.". The source, [https://web.archive.org/web/20231218055737/https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/10/opinion/israel-gaza-genocide-war.html NYT], links to an [https://web.archive.org/web/20231218193900/https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-10-07/ty-article/.premium/israeli-prime-minister-netanyahu-we-are-at-war-we-will-win/0000018b-0978-dc5d-a39f-9f7cb7ee0000 archived Haaretz article]. The article is inaccessible except for [https://web.archive.org/web/20231008000412/https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-10-07/ty-article/.premium/israeli-prime-minister-netanyahu-we-are-at-war-we-will-win/0000018b-0978-dc5d-a39f-9f7cb7ee0000 saved versions on October 8th], which still don't contain the actual quote. The [https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-10-07/ty-article/.premium/israeli-prime-minister-netanyahu-we-are-at-war-we-will-win/0000018b-0978-dc5d-a39f-9f7cb7ee0000 actual article] is still online, but behind a paywall. I was able to find the full article on archive.today, but the only thing close I could find was this: "The second goal according to Netanyahu, is to 'exact a huge price from the enemy, also in the Gaza Strip.'" |
|||
== More sources == |
|||
Unless we're able to find a direct quote for this, we should remove it. [[User:Personisinsterest|Personisinsterest]] ([[User talk:Personisinsterest|talk]]) 18:22, 3 September 2024 (UTC) |
|||
Some more sources |
|||
* {{cite news |first=Jillian |last=Kestler-D'Amours |date=9 January 2024 |title=Israel's war on Gaza and the 'obligation to prevent genocide' |url=https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/1/9/israels-war-on-gaza-and-the-obligation-to-prevent-genocide |work=[[Al Jazeera English|Al Jazeera]]}} |
|||
* {{cite news |date=5 February 2024 |title=Nicaragua taking Germany, Canada, UK, Netherlands to ICJ for genocide |url=https://english.almayadeen.net/news/politics/nicaragua-taking-germany--canada--uk--netherlands-to-icj-for |work=Al Mayadeen}} |
|||
* {{cite news |date=5 February 2024 |title=Former UNWRA Spokesperson Says UK & US Complicit in Gaza Genocide |url=https://novaramedia.com/2024/02/05/former-unwra-spokesperson-says-uk-us-complicit-in-gaza-genocide/ |work=[[Novara Media]]}} |
|||
-- [[User:Cdjp1|Cdjp1]] ([[User talk:Cdjp1|talk]]) 18:47, 6 February 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:From the [https://www.gov.il/en/pages/statement-by-pm-netanyahu-7-oct-2023 official Israeli gov't English translation of the speech]: {{tqq|All of the places which Hamas is deployed, hiding and operating in, that wicked city, we will turn them into rubble. I say to the residents of Gaza: Leave now because we will operate forcefully everywhere.}} Here's [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dsv7RNKX-BA a video of the speech] (in Hebrew). BTW, that cite to a NYT op-ed should probably be replaced with a cite to the version that was published as a chapter in a book: [https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/9783111435046-021/html]. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 19:23, 3 September 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Link to Channel 14 == |
|||
::Hmm. I think we should just remove the part about the huge price altogether. There's nothing like it in the actual speech or source. Maybe we could keep the rubble part with a different source. [[User:Personisinsterest|Personisinsterest]] ([[User talk:Personisinsterest|talk]]) 19:33, 3 September 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::The "huge price" part apparently came from remarks issued at the start of the same Oct. 7 Security Cabinet meeting, I guess before the prepared remarks that were released separately (linked above). From [https://www.gov.il/en/pages/pm-netanyahu-s-remarks-at-the-start-of-the-security-cabinet-meeting-7-oct-2023 the official translation]: {{tqq|The second objective, at the same time, is to exact an immense price from the enemy, within the Gaza Strip as well.}} On Oct. 9, Netanyahu gave another speech saying much the same ([https://www.gov.il/en/pages/statement-by-prime-minister-benjamin-netanyahu-9-oct-2023 official translation]): {{tqq|Hamas will understand that by attacking us, they have made a mistake of historic proportions. We will exact a price that will be remembered by them and Israel’s other enemies for decades to come.}} So when [[Omer Bartov]] said that Netanyahu said "huge price" and "into rubble," the official Israeli translations of Netanyahu's remarks back that up. I'm not seeing any problem here. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 19:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::Well, it doesn't say anything about the people of Gaza. It only talks about "the enemy" (Hamas) and Hamas itself. It wouldn't make sense to keep that in, given the scope of the article and section being alleged genocidal intent by him. [[User:Personisinsterest|Personisinsterest]] ([[User talk:Personisinsterest|talk]]) 19:40, 3 September 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::No, it definitely says something about the people of Gaza. "...exact an immense price from the enemy, within the Gaza Strip as well" is saying something about the people of Gaza, because the people of Gaza are the people in the Gaza Strip (duh). What it ''doesn't'' say anything about is "Hamas." Your interpretation of "the enemy" to mean "Hamas" is not really in the source text, and if you think "the enemy" is limited to ''just'' Hamas I'd say you're being naive. But even if "the enemy" is ''just'' Hamas, guess what: Hamas are part of "the people of Gaza." Heck, Hamas is the de facto government of the people of Gaza. |
|||
:::::And aside from ''all'' of that, I always look askance at people who say that they want to take content out because they think it's inaccurate. The solution is not to remove the content, it's to edit it to make it more accurate. If you want to change "the people of Gaza would pay a 'huge price'" to "the enemies of Israel would pay a 'huge price'", I'd have no objection to that change. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 19:47, 3 September 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::I guess the problem is that my interpretation (Hamas) and your interpretation (people of Gaza, or Hamas which are people of Gaza) are not grounded in the text. It just says "the enemy", and that isn't relevant in the context of this article. [[User:Personisinsterest|Personisinsterest]] ([[User talk:Personisinsterest|talk]]) 19:50, 3 September 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::Omer Bartov says it's relevant. His interpretation, not mine or yours, is what counts. And Netanyahu didn't just say "the enemy," he said "the enemy, within the Gaza Strip". There is no doubt that Netanyahu said a goal is to extract a huge price from the enemy in the Gaza Strip. Bartov connects that to the topic of Gaza genocide. I think that makes it [[WP:DUE]], particularly when Bartov's work is published in an academic book. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 20:04, 3 September 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::But his interpretation is a misrepresentation of the original source, so which is more important? [[User:Personisinsterest|Personisinsterest]] ([[User talk:Personisinsterest|talk]]) 20:09, 3 September 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::His interpretation is only a misinterpretation according to you, and [[WP:OR|your interpretation doesn't count]]. Still, if you want to edit the language to hew closer to the official translation of the source, no objection from me. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 20:11, 3 September 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::fine [[User:Personisinsterest|Personisinsterest]] ([[User talk:Personisinsterest|talk]]) 20:13, 3 September 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== "United Kingdom, under the Sunak ministry" == |
|||
Channel 14 is mentioned twice in the article. It is not clear what / who this channel is. It would be better to make the first reference a link to the Wikipedia article about Channel 14. [[Special:Contributions/86.139.218.163|86.139.218.163]] ([[User talk:86.139.218.163|talk]]) 13:42, 9 February 2024 (UTC) |
|||
In the infobox, this is currently how the UK's complicity is described. However, isn't the Starmer ministry also implicated? Editors involved with this article: What are your thoughts about updating this to say "United Kingdom, under the Sunak and Starmer ministries"?--[[User:JasonMacker|JasonMacker]] ([[User talk:JasonMacker|talk]]) 00:15, 4 September 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:{{Done}}, thanks. — [[User:Pincrete|Pincrete]] ([[User talk:Pincrete|talk]]) 13:54, 9 February 2024 (UTC) |
Latest revision as of 02:17, 5 September 2024
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Gaza genocide article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 14 days ![]() |
![]() | Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. Parts of this article relate to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing the parts of the page related to the contentious topic:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. If it is unclear which parts of the page are related to this contentious topic, the content in question should be marked within the wiki text by an invisible comment. If no comment is present, please ask an administrator for assistance. If in doubt it is better to assume that the content is covered. |
![]() | This page is not a forum for general discussion about Gaza genocide. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Gaza genocide at the Reference desk. |
While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:
|
![]() | This page has been the subject of multiple discussions. | ||||||
|
![]() | Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org |
![]() |
|
![]() |
|
RfC on the inclusion on the BU Today article in the lede
[edit]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.
How should the statements in this BU Today "Voices & Opinion" article be covered in the lede?
The international human rights legal community, many political and legal experts, and many Holocaust scholars all have consensus that Israel is committing genocide against the Palestinian people in the Gaza Strip.
(as seen in this edit)The international human rights legal community, several political and legal experts, and many Holocaust scholars have concluded that Israel is committing genocide against the Palestinian people in the Gaza Strip.
(as seen in this edit)- Do not include
Survey
[edit]- C This is an opinion article published in a university newspaper. For a topic as well covered as this, to include a statement like this in the first paragraph of the lede on the basis of a single such source is virtually the definition of WP:UNDUE. Further, the suggestion is to include the position expressed in the article in Wikivoice; the sourcing is clearly not strong enough to do this. It may be appropriate to include the claim in the body attributed in line, but it is clearly inappropriate to include it in the lede in Wikivoice. BilledMammal (talk) 02:56, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
- B or similar, as the statement appears to capture the reality well. Only update the source to: "Israel's Genocide of Palestinians in Gaza". University Network for Human Rights. Retrieved 2024-06-22.. — kashmīrī TALK 06:18, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
- B, but would be improved by using the source given by @Kashmiri above. Lewisguile (talk) 07:02, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- C (generally per BM) the source is undue, and the claim should be made with attribution in the body. Both the BU piece (and the better actual scholarship) are not appropriate, least of all without attribution. FortunateSons (talk) 09:50, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
- Oh, and particularly A goes beyond what the source states in their own voice IMO, so that’s not great. FortunateSons (talk) 09:52, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
- I don’t have a strong opinion on if this specifically should be in the lead, though we do need a summary of the academic discourse section. It does however absolutely belong in the body, and the attempts to claim that an academic expert discussing topics in the area of her expertise is somehow unreliable or undue are straightforward examples of disruptive editing. But does this specifically need to be in the lead? It isn’t the worst thing, it’s an expert giving an overview of the views of other experts. Something needs to be in there about the views of scholars on this topic. This isn’t the worst thing but again no strong opinion on this being the specific source for that summary. nableezy - 12:32, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
- B not because it is something that is only said in the source specifically named by OP but because that or something similar appears to be the prevailing view across relevant scholarship. See the sourcing given in the ongoing RM] that currently appears to have a consensus for amending the article title to Gaza genocide. As for removing the specific material from the body as was done, that is exceptionally difficult to comprehend. Selfstudier (talk) 12:50, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
- A combination of A and B: I agree with "A Socialist Trans Girl" below. David A (talk) 10:21, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- C if this is the only source given (which is only a university newspaper, although nonetheless a secondary source summarizing the views of experts) per WP:DUE, but likely A oder B if other sources are added to support it in the body, like Selfstudier mentioned. I don't see A as going beyond what the source says, with the words
many
andconsensus
being closer to what the source says:
Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:53, 22 June 2024 (UTC)The opposition is political, as there is consensus amongst the international human rights legal community, many other legal and political experts, including many Holocaust scholars, that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza.
- It isn’t the only source, see here. nableezy - 01:54, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks, this appears to be a solid source. While it might look like a primary source at first glance, it does in fact give an overview of previous findings in pages 9 to 11, which could be a good secondary source for the statement. I'd support B if that source is added. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 08:10, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- It isn’t the only source, see here. nableezy - 01:54, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- Either of B or A. Neither the source is "merely a random opinion" nor the cited piece of information it provides is source’s own claim or opinion but rather a citation of the consensus in the international human rights legal community. The source is a report published by Boston University and "comes from researchers at the University Network for Human Rights, a consortium of human right centers", therefore the source is indeed reliable for the information it provides, indeed much more than newspapers articles. And the source doesn’t say or give its own opinion regarding the quoted information like saying "we believe there is a genocide" but rather reflects/cites what the international human rights legal community "there is consensus amongst the international human rights legal community, many other legal and political experts, including many Holocaust scholars, that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza.", it is not the source’s own opinion or judgement. Beside the fact that this isn’t the only reliable source stating so as per @Selfstudier Stephan rostie (talk) 12:25, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- But UNHR is neither independent of Akram's BU project nor is it a WP:RS publisher. Nor is it particularly esteemed, celebrated, discussed, or recognized in mainstream published discourse. SPECIFICO talk 21:42, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- Are you seriously arguing that UNCHR is not a WP:RS ? Stephan rostie (talk) 14:19, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- It's not UNCHR, UNHR. Selfstudier (talk) 14:24, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks, SS. It show the power of modern-day branding that a vaguely institutional-sounding name like UNHR so easily evokes parity with UNCHR AND miscast as a respected, WP;NOTABLE global institution. SPECIFICO talk 15:04, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- Well it is kind of your mistake for making your own abbreviation and writing “UNHR” rather than “University Network
- for Human Rights” Stephan rostie (talk) 19:43, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for elaboration Stephan rostie (talk) 19:41, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks, SS. It show the power of modern-day branding that a vaguely institutional-sounding name like UNHR so easily evokes parity with UNCHR AND miscast as a respected, WP;NOTABLE global institution. SPECIFICO talk 15:04, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- It's not UNCHR, UNHR. Selfstudier (talk) 14:24, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- Are you seriously arguing that UNCHR is not a WP:RS ? Stephan rostie (talk) 14:19, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- But UNHR is neither independent of Akram's BU project nor is it a WP:RS publisher. Nor is it particularly esteemed, celebrated, discussed, or recognized in mainstream published discourse. SPECIFICO talk 21:42, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- C This is a WP:PRIMARY source, self-published by Akram's employer in a university newsletter. That publication is an appropriate place to inform BU stakeholders of matters relating to the school, but neither that publication nor the fancy-sournding name of Akram's advocacy/activism project can elevate her work to a significant NPOV assessment of the range of current thinking on the issue. We would need a WP:RS publisher, prefereably peer-reviewed, to make a strong statement of a matter of current controversy and pending adjudication. The self-published opinion of a non-NOTABLE individual, however fine her commitment and advocacy, is UNDUE for the lead and should be replaced in the article body with better more reliable sources on the question. She. personally, is certainly not a secondary RS to evaluate the opinions of other observers. That should be clear to any WP editor. We need secondary RS publishers for that.
- Further, whoever closes this -- please note that several !votes seems to say that, because her views seem OK therefore we can use defectively sourced content. Not so. SPECIFICO talk 16:18, 23 June 2024 (UTC),
- It is not self published and a second source has been provided and not a single vote says anything close to what you claim in your last couple of sentences. False on all counts actually. nableezy - 17:51, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- The RFC question is "How should the statements in this BU Today "Voices & Opinion" article be covered in the lede?" and the answer is that it should be cited in support of a statement in Wikivoice (can as well be cited to https://www.humanrightsnetwork.org/genocide-in-gaza and not only to BU) along with multiple other supporting references saying a similar thing and about which bald assertions such as "self published" (it isn't) and "primary" (policy does not forbid primary source usage) play no part. Closer should refer to the RFCbefore discussion where it can be seen this editor and the RFC opener (who hasn't signed) both edited to suit a POV and when unable to persuade other editors, it led to this RFC. Selfstudier (talk) 18:45, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- Except that there's no supporting evidence that humanrightsnetwork is a significant scholarly, juridical, or other expert organization. It's a student enrichment project and platform for advocacy and activism. All good, but it is not covered in the mainstream as an expert mainstream institution. This is all discussed in the thread prior to this RfC. SPECIFICO talk 20:39, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- It’s a paper by the University Network for Human Rights, the International Human Rights Clinic at Boston University School of Law, the International Human Rights Clinic at Cornell Law School, the Centre for Human Rights at the University of Pretoria, and the Lowenstein Human Rights Project at Yale Law School. Never heard of any of those universities, are they any good? nableezy - 10:57, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- Kindly demonstrate that UNHR is a noteworhty RS publisher and that its independent of the person whose opinions are being proposed for article content. Maybe this needs to go to RSN. Namechecking a few ivy insitutions does not address the sourcing and notability issue. Do you have anything to document that the mainstream takes this UNHR seriously or even knows of its existence? Academia is a vast ecosystem with all sorts of offices and projects within its realm. The significant ones produce peer-reviewed, independently-published scholarly research. This is nothing of the sort. SPECIFICO talk 15:05, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- If you are asking whether anyone could make a satisfactory WP article for it, sure, no problem. The thought occurs to me that you don't like this org because James Cavallaro. Selfstudier (talk) 17:09, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- No, I did not ask whether it's NOTABLE. We know that it is not. I simply stated the fundamental WP principal, presumably known to editors EC-eligible to here, that an independent RS publisher would be needed even for an attributed opinion. Instead we've seen ad hominiems, personal disparagement, namechecking everyone from Eli Yale to Cavallaro, and folks saying, screw the RS bit, they like what Akram says, (!!!) But nobody seems able to demonstrate that this content is published by RS or meets our V and NPOV policies for any inclusion anywhere on this page. BURDEN and ONUS are out the window on this page. SPECIFICO talk 18:45, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- I can make an article, that means its notable. And making such an article would be very easy, just search books, scholar, etc. In any case, it just says the same thing as many others so this is all a lot of unnecessary fuss over nothing. Selfstudier (talk) 18:50, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- Love ya, SS, but you are not a RS either, so saying you think you could write an article doesn't advance the process. But my interest in this from the start has simply been from seeing this self-published opinion (we can call self-published PRIMARY to short-circuit further indignant deflections) being used as if it were an independent RS-published account of a survey of qualified world opinion and with no evidence that Akram is a scholar qualified to make such an assessment. I have no opinion as to the underlying issue and I have expressed none. I've consistently said that I expect that better, solid RS could be found to address this content. I don't anticipate what they might say, but it's a shame to see editors ignore core policy to grab a handy blurb out of a promotional university newsletter and elevate it with a word salad of recognizable institution names, and buzzwords. You appear to be knowledgeable in the field. Please find valid sourcing and notable qualified experts to address the question. SPECIFICO talk 19:04, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- I can make an article, that means its notable. And making such an article would be very easy, just search books, scholar, etc. In any case, it just says the same thing as many others so this is all a lot of unnecessary fuss over nothing. Selfstudier (talk) 18:50, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- No, I did not ask whether it's NOTABLE. We know that it is not. I simply stated the fundamental WP principal, presumably known to editors EC-eligible to here, that an independent RS publisher would be needed even for an attributed opinion. Instead we've seen ad hominiems, personal disparagement, namechecking everyone from Eli Yale to Cavallaro, and folks saying, screw the RS bit, they like what Akram says, (!!!) But nobody seems able to demonstrate that this content is published by RS or meets our V and NPOV policies for any inclusion anywhere on this page. BURDEN and ONUS are out the window on this page. SPECIFICO talk 18:45, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- Ive already shown you Akram's publications, the UNHR director is James Cavallaro, also a widely published expert in the field of international law, the Cornell program is led by Susan Babcock, who is, you guessed it, again a widely published expert in the field. You cant just say that the scholarship here isnt notable or noteworthy, what matters is that it is reliable, and it is reliable because of the people and institutions behind it. nableezy - 19:57, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- This is, again, more equivocation, namedropping, and elevation of a non-notable author's self-published (PRIMARY) opinion, broadcast in a Univeristy house organ circulated to its stakeholders. There are many stronger sources and there are scholars whose views should be prioritized above those of an activist/advocate. Her worki stands on its own, but she is not a scholar and her opinions are not of such note that this encuclopedia should rebroadcast them when the mainstream media and peer reviewed publications or RS journals have not done so. That is our responsibility on this project. We don't simply publish the opinions of people whose work or opinions we may admire. SPECIFICO talk 17:04, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- Susan Akram, as a simple Google search says, is a law professor and director of the rights clinic at Boston University School of Law teaching international human rights, and refugee and immigration law. That apart I have edited a bit in the article to make things clearer, there is literally no basis for objecting to the sources, neither her expert opinion nor the UHRU report itself.
- No-one is really disputing that Akram alone should be in the lead so this entire RFC and this dialogue are just one oversized straw man designed to throw shade on the idea that Israel may be guilty of genocide.
- What y'all need to do, instead of shooting the messengers, is accumulate a sufficient number of RS specifying that Israel is not committing a genocide in order to constitute a significant view in that regard as counterpoint to the already demonstrated significant view that Israel is committing a genocide. Selfstudier (talk) 17:24, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- I have no opinion as to the allegation. Now, I see you've changed the article content before the resolution of this ongoing RfC. It's now quoting multiple self-published, primary sources, again highlighting non-NOTABLE Ms. Akram without independent RS indicating any WEIGHT for her conclusions. If your googling found mainstream RS citations to establish the NOTABILITY of Akram such as might justify these primary sourced opinions, pleaase provide them in lieu of the various ad hominem attacks and deflections. I am focused only on policy and sourcing and there's no basis for any claim that I am trying to do what various supporters of Ms. Akram have stated they're doing here - pushing article content because I wish to support a personal opinion. SPECIFICO talk 18:24, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- Happy to discuss that at RSN anytime but since it is not going into the lead anyway, it has nothing to do with this RFC. I have changed the article content but I have not changed anything in the lead, which is what this RFC purports to be about. Selfstudier (talk) 18:38, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- Even if it were self-published, which it is not, it would clearly pass WP:EXPERTSPS. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. nableezy - 19:47, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- I have no opinion as to the allegation. Now, I see you've changed the article content before the resolution of this ongoing RfC. It's now quoting multiple self-published, primary sources, again highlighting non-NOTABLE Ms. Akram without independent RS indicating any WEIGHT for her conclusions. If your googling found mainstream RS citations to establish the NOTABILITY of Akram such as might justify these primary sourced opinions, pleaase provide them in lieu of the various ad hominem attacks and deflections. I am focused only on policy and sourcing and there's no basis for any claim that I am trying to do what various supporters of Ms. Akram have stated they're doing here - pushing article content because I wish to support a personal opinion. SPECIFICO talk 18:24, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- This is, again, more equivocation, namedropping, and elevation of a non-notable author's self-published (PRIMARY) opinion, broadcast in a Univeristy house organ circulated to its stakeholders. There are many stronger sources and there are scholars whose views should be prioritized above those of an activist/advocate. Her worki stands on its own, but she is not a scholar and her opinions are not of such note that this encuclopedia should rebroadcast them when the mainstream media and peer reviewed publications or RS journals have not done so. That is our responsibility on this project. We don't simply publish the opinions of people whose work or opinions we may admire. SPECIFICO talk 17:04, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- If you are asking whether anyone could make a satisfactory WP article for it, sure, no problem. The thought occurs to me that you don't like this org because James Cavallaro. Selfstudier (talk) 17:09, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- Kindly demonstrate that UNHR is a noteworhty RS publisher and that its independent of the person whose opinions are being proposed for article content. Maybe this needs to go to RSN. Namechecking a few ivy insitutions does not address the sourcing and notability issue. Do you have anything to document that the mainstream takes this UNHR seriously or even knows of its existence? Academia is a vast ecosystem with all sorts of offices and projects within its realm. The significant ones produce peer-reviewed, independently-published scholarly research. This is nothing of the sort. SPECIFICO talk 15:05, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- It’s a paper by the University Network for Human Rights, the International Human Rights Clinic at Boston University School of Law, the International Human Rights Clinic at Cornell Law School, the Centre for Human Rights at the University of Pretoria, and the Lowenstein Human Rights Project at Yale Law School. Never heard of any of those universities, are they any good? nableezy - 10:57, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- Except that there's no supporting evidence that humanrightsnetwork is a significant scholarly, juridical, or other expert organization. It's a student enrichment project and platform for advocacy and activism. All good, but it is not covered in the mainstream as an expert mainstream institution. This is all discussed in the thread prior to this RfC. SPECIFICO talk 20:39, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- B Selfstudier's reasoning pretty much sums it up. M.Bitton (talk) 14:03, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- C or an attributed statement. Interpreting consensus on a highly contentious topic across multiple (academic, legal and political) communities is a messy and somewhat subjective matter. While Akram is an expert, there isn't enough clarity and objectivity here to take a single expert's interpretation of consensus as established fact, and repeat it in wikivoice. — xDanielx T/C\R 22:36, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- B although I would prefer if a stronger source could be found to summarize opinion, it is a good summary of other sources that otherwise may be impossible to extract without WP:OR. (t · c) buidhe 03:39, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- B: This statement is already more than supported by the aggregation of sources on the page. The discussed source, alongside the UNHR, merely helps provide a more sourced basis for the summary wording, which is beneficial. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:28, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- C Do not include, or only as an attributed statement. As per BilledMammal, xDanielx and FortunateSons. I would also add that when a person, even an expert, claims that the consensus agrees with his view, as is the case with Susan Akram, it is a somewhat doubtful testimony as it is self-serving. It is different when a person admits that his view contradicts the consensus because then the testimony is not self-serving. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vegan416 (talk • contribs) 17:07, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
Combination. I think it should be The international human rights legal community, many political and legal experts, and many Holocaust scholars all have concluded that Israel is committing genocide against the Palestinian people in the Gaza Strip.. I believe it should be many political and legal experts, as it's more accurate than 'several' and is consistent with how Wikipedia frames things; if it was not many enough to be many and merely several, then it'd probably be WP:UNDUE. And I think the concluded phrasing is better, as consensus implies they as a whole have consensus, not phrasing limited to the ones that do. I also support the phrasing of "The international human rights legal community, political and legal experts, and Holocaust scholars, all have consensus that Israel is committing genocide against the Palestinian people in the Gaza Strip.". There should be a comma before "all have consensus". A Socialist Trans Girl 22:22, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
- I support these suggested modifications. David A (talk) 10:21, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- The removal of the vague "many" and "several" would be no loss. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:25, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- Good point. Agreed. David A (talk) 16:43, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- C and WP:UNDUE. Do not include. Hogo-2020 (talk) 06:06, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- C per SPECIFICO's reasonign. Given the sensitivity of the subject matter, our sources should be ironclad. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:49, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- The sources are ironclad. SPECIFICO's reasoning makes a mockery of WP:RS which places established academic experts near the top of our reliability pyramid. nableezy - 15:22, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- Nableezy, please review the WP:REPUTABLE section of our RS page to see your error explained more thoroughly. There are numerous PRIMARY and self-published sources, including blog opinions of grad students, where independent RS publications are required. SPECIFICO talk 16:45, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- Can you please tell us what self-published means? nableezy - 17:46, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- I'm aware of your continued opinion on this subject. That was mine. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 09:51, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- This whole RFC is completely academic after the rename, the lead will in effect explain how the title fits into the scope and the particular ref subject of this RFC is just one of several that will allow a statement in wikivoice. Selfstudier (talk) 11:17, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- I don't know what this has to do with the price of tea in China. I expressed my opinion that I agreed with SPECIFICO's reasoning on this particular issue. The closer is free to take my opinion into consideration with the weight they feel is appropriate.
- I do want to congratulate you and Nableezy on your apparent promotions to WP:INQUISITOR. For future reference, what is the proper procedure for me to follow when expressing future opinions? Do I have to ask for permission from one or both of you to express an opinion or do I need specific pre-clearance for the exact opinion that will be expressed? Thanks in advance. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 00:46, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- This whole RFC is completely academic after the rename, the lead will in effect explain how the title fits into the scope and the particular ref subject of this RFC is just one of several that will allow a statement in wikivoice. Selfstudier (talk) 11:17, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- Nableezy, please review the WP:REPUTABLE section of our RS page to see your error explained more thoroughly. There are numerous PRIMARY and self-published sources, including blog opinions of grad students, where independent RS publications are required. SPECIFICO talk 16:45, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- The sources are ironclad. SPECIFICO's reasoning makes a mockery of WP:RS which places established academic experts near the top of our reliability pyramid. nableezy - 15:22, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
Kommentar - @A Socialist Trans Girl: I'm pretty sure that the comma before all is not grammatically correct. Kinsio (talk ★ contribs ★ rights) 15:01, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Kinsio I believe you are correct. Apologies. A Socialist Trans Girl 02:55, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- A and B per A Socialist Trans Girl (and Iskandar's tweaks). Combining both sentences seems appropiate given the recent article name/scope change and it's a proper summary of other sources in the body. Disagree with the UNDUE arguments - experts opinions are absolutely due and as shown by nableezy this has also been covered by secondary sources. - Ïvana (talk) 01:52, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- We absolutely need some statement summarizing academic discourse, hence I strongly oppose option C as a violation of WP:LEAD. The article currently has an entire section on "Academic and legal discourse", "Cultural discourse" and academic opinions are throughout the article. Unless such academic opinions are being given UNDUE weight in the body (and there is no evidence of that), we need to summarize them somehow in the lead too.VR (Please ping on reply) 05:34, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- B (or A): I think B is worded better but A is similar enough I'd take either of them. I do think that there's very much sufficient sourcing for this statement, though of course it should also be present in the body. Loki (talk) 21:39, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- B (or A): Agree with both LokiTheLiar and SelfStudier Bluethricecreamman (talk) 06:34, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- C. Too weak of a source for the lede; it's an opinion piece in a university paper by an author who usually covers wine trail and honeymoon destinations. IntrepidContributor (talk) 16:11, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- C giving undue weight to the opinion of some non-notable person. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 09:55, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- A or B, both are accurate. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 07:28, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- I personally find the BU source to be exceedingly weak. On top of being a student newspaper, it's a primary source and not an independent source (as it's an interview from the university's own publication). The best it could be used for, under policy for non-independent sources, is a qualified statement of the interviewee's views. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 05:24, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- No, even if Akram wrote this on her blog as an expert on the topic it could be used for a statement of fact. nableezy - 11:14, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
Discussion
[edit]- It may need clarifying that a mention of the Stanford report has already been included in the article, and what the RfC aims to achieve is a better wording. The current suboptimal wording will likely remain if there's no consensus. Editors are welcome to propose further wording options for this RfC. — kashmīrī TALK 13:20, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
- Given it's an opinion, why is there no option for attribution per WP:RSOPINION? Ie, "According to the University Network for Human Rights", per the content in the body. Either way, have to agree with others that it doesn't seem due in the lead, unless covered by other reliable sources; the proposed sentences are just a regurgitation of of the body, not a summary of it. A lead summary would be something like "Certain scholars, A, B to C, consider it a genocide, due to..., disputed by X, Y and Z, because of...". As far as I can tell nothing in the "Academic and legal discourse" has been summarised in the lead, despite numerous paragraphs of content. It's better to work on summarising the content for the lead per MOS:INTRO, rather than trying to pick out one particular report. CNC (talk) 23:26, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- With better sourcing, I'd be willing to support. Or re-wording to satisfy a bundle of sources. CNC (talk) 23:42, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- Thus far, we have no evidence that "UNHR" is a significant organization or that its title should be used to elevate one person's primary-sourced opinion. SPECIFICO talk 08:36, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
Edit request
[edit]![]() | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= oder |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I would like to request that under the ‘Victims’ subheading Mike Spagat is properly introduced with relevant qualifications. His name is brought up in the 3rd paragraph, 3rd sentence beginning with “Spagat analysed…” as a source but he has not been introduced (i am assuming he was introduced in a previous paragraph or sentence that has since been deleted). Chanticlaire701 (talk) 19:11, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Erledigt: Done. Reason: Obvious correction per standard styles. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 21:53, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Academic dissent
[edit]Question: which, if any, major remaining scholars of genocide are still maintaining a dissenting or hold-out opinion on the genocide? Neier, Bartov, Goldberg and Schabas have now all come to a conclusion of genocide – several after the events of May – so who does that leave as undecided, non-committal or in outright dissent? Again, talking major scholars of genocide here, not the average Joe. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:58, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- This is just a list of prominent (living) scholars in genocide studies who I've come across in reading genocide scholarship more broadly, beyond the 4 you mentioned:
# Vahakn Dadrian– dead- Adam Jones
- Steven T. Katz
- Ben Kiernan
- Shmuel Lederman
- Mark Levene
- A. Dirk Moses
- Norman Naimark
- Raz Segal
- Timothy Snyder
- David Stannard
- Samuel Totten
- Uğur Ümit Üngör
- Ernesto Verdeja
- I will note, for Katz, there's a near 0 chance he will declare this a genocide, as he holds the position that throughout history there has only been one true genocide, the Holocaust. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 18:05, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- Strange position, and certainly fringe. Out of curiosity -are you saying that Timothy Snyder disputes the genocide allegation? I am familiar with Snyder from the media (listened to one or two of his lectures), but was not aware he weighed in on this. Jonathan f1 (talk) 19:04, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- Their positions are not specified afaics (other than Katz), which was not what Iskandar was asking for. How are we deciding "prominent" anyway? Selfstudier (talk) 19:36, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- That's what I thought. I can't find any significant scholarly pushback against the genocide position. Most searches seem very one-sided. Jonathan f1 (talk) 20:45, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- As I stated this is simply a list of prominent scholars I have come across, that is, they have written multiple books and papers covering the topic of genocide, and in near all cases across different genocides. Out of the list multiple of them have provided comments/assessments (such as Bauer, Berenbaum, Charny, Jones, Kiernan, Lederman, Levene, Segal, Üngör, Verdeja), mainly calling it a genocide, some claiming it isn't. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 22:10, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- The request was specifically for dissent from what appears to be a consensus (ie that the IDF is either engaged in genocide or war crimes approaching that), not some random list of genocide scholars. Jonathan f1 (talk) 23:33, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- I think Cdjp1 partly answered y’alls question when he commented on Katz. Wafflefrites (talk) 05:17, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- Ok, here’s the opinions with this list
- Mohamed Adhikari – Signed the TWAILR declaration warning of potential genocide
- Taner Akçam – Signed the TWAILR declaration warning of potential genocide
- Omer Bartov – Genocide
- Paul R. Bartrop
- Yehuda Bauer – Not Genocide
- Donald Bloxham
- Michael Berenbaum – Not Genocide
- Israel Charny – Not Genocide
# Vahakn Dadrian– dead- Christian Gerlach
- Amos Goldberg – Genocide
- Adam Jones – Genocide
- Steven T. Katz
- Ben Kiernan – Not Genocide
- Shmuel Lederman – "Genocidal violence, not Genocide per se"
- Mark Levene – Genocide
- A. Dirk Moses – This is what I could find from Moses on Gaza: "Today, international law on genocide is working as it was designed to: allowing states to ruthlessly exterminate security threats while making it difficult to apply that law."
- Norman Naimark
- Aryeh Neier – Genocide
- Raz Segal – Genocide
- William Schabas – Genocide
- Martin Shaw – Genocide
- Timothy Snyder
- David Stannard
- Dan Stone
- Scott Straus
- Samuel Totten
- Uğur Ümit Üngör – Genocide
- Ernesto Verdeja – "moving toward a genocidal campaign." (from November)
- -- Cdjp1 (talk) 17:35, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for putting this list together. If anybody is interested in splitting the list up and running down the missing ones, I'd be happy to chip in. Levivich (talk) 17:03, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- Re Samuel Totten, see here Doesn't quite say it outright, pretty sure he's thinking it, tho. Selfstudier (talk) 17:37, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- While we could quote the article, we can't make any assessment for what he's "thinking" behind the article. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 09:30, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- Of course, I do notice however that those against tend to say so directly. Selfstudier (talk) 09:39, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- One issue I've had with some experts who have said it is not genocide, is they specify not genocide per the UN convention, which is a different framework to what they normally employ in their work. But that is just the musings of one random editor.
- For numbers, as per the list:
- Genocide = 9
- Not Genocide = 4
- Risk of genocide = 3
- Genocidal violence = 1
- Moses and Totten = 2
- No statement = 9
- As is repeated across almost every discussion here, things change over time, so in the future I expect we may see comments from some of the others on the list, and we will see more academic work analysing Gaza as a case/potential case of genocide, from all different positions. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 10:56, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- One issue I have with your list is it seems tilted towards historians as opposed to international law experts. Some of them like Bauer and Michael Berenbaum are really only known for studying the Holocaust, so I doubt they can be considered experts on genocide in general. The only expert on international criminal law on your list is Schabas. (t · c) buidhe 14:06, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- As stated, this is a list of genocide scholars, that is those who have regularly published in the field of genocide studies, which stemmed primarily from the discipline of history, so having a over-representation of those who were trained as historians is not surprising. Genocide studies as a field is extremely critical of the legal definition both in it's ability to prosecute the crime of genocide, as well as a tool of analysis for determining cases of genocide. For a wider net of specialists and experts from a variety of fields see: Template:Expert opinions in the Gaza genocide debate -- Cdjp1 (talk) 14:30, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- Addendum, on
Genocide studies as a field is extremely critical of the legal definition
, you can see an example in the quote from Moses in the list above. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 14:32, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- Addendum, on
- As stated, this is a list of genocide scholars, that is those who have regularly published in the field of genocide studies, which stemmed primarily from the discipline of history, so having a over-representation of those who were trained as historians is not surprising. Genocide studies as a field is extremely critical of the legal definition both in it's ability to prosecute the crime of genocide, as well as a tool of analysis for determining cases of genocide. For a wider net of specialists and experts from a variety of fields see: Template:Expert opinions in the Gaza genocide debate -- Cdjp1 (talk) 14:30, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- One issue I have with your list is it seems tilted towards historians as opposed to international law experts. Some of them like Bauer and Michael Berenbaum are really only known for studying the Holocaust, so I doubt they can be considered experts on genocide in general. The only expert on international criminal law on your list is Schabas. (t · c) buidhe 14:06, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- Of course, I do notice however that those against tend to say so directly. Selfstudier (talk) 09:39, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- While we could quote the article, we can't make any assessment for what he's "thinking" behind the article. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 09:30, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- Re Samuel Totten, see here Doesn't quite say it outright, pretty sure he's thinking it, tho. Selfstudier (talk) 17:37, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- Dadrian has been dead for several years so he won't be producing any opinion. (t · c) buidhe 05:05, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- Oops, Missed that, I'll strike it. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 09:25, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- Should we add John Docker and Damien Short? Levivich (talk) 01:25, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Levivich while I do like their work in regards to the genocide, as that is not their primary training or work, I excluded them due to being peripheral contributors. Cdjp1 (talk) 07:54, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Cdjp1: I disagree, particularly on Short. He's authored or co-authored a number of books and papersthat have each received hundreds of Google Scholar cites, e.g. "Redefining genocide: Settler colonialism, social death and ecocide" (254 cites). Compare Short's cites with Verdeja, Lederman or Üngör, all of whom are on the list.
- John Docker's work isn't as widely-cited as Short's, but still, Docker has publications in the field that are very much on point, e.g. the chapter he co-authored, "Chapter 1: Defining genocide" (93 cites) in Dan Stone's book The Historiography of Genocide (aside from Stone, the other authors of that book are familiar: Moses, Bergen, Jones, Kiernan, Straus, etc.; Docker's in good company there). Other examples: his book The Origins of Violence: History, Religion and Genocide (83 cites); "Genocide: Definitions, Questions, Settler-colonies" (66); "Raphael Lemkin's history of genocide and colonialism" (64); "Nakba memoricide: genocide studies and the Zionist/Israeli genocide of Palestine" (46). Full list here.
- I know GScholar cites aren't the end-all and be-all, but it seems based on "how widely cited?" that Short and Docker are no more peripheral than Verdeja, Lederman, or Üngör (and Short in particular seems significantly less peripheral than the other four). Levivich (talk) 16:22, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- Add him to the list. I was just providing my reasoning, which as I mentioned right near the beginning is based from what I've read within Genocide Studies, so hadn't checked things like the relative stats on GS, or similar databases. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 17:16, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Levivich while I do like their work in regards to the genocide, as that is not their primary training or work, I excluded them due to being peripheral contributors. Cdjp1 (talk) 07:54, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for putting this list together. If anybody is interested in splitting the list up and running down the missing ones, I'd be happy to chip in. Levivich (talk) 17:03, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- Ok, here’s the opinions with this list
- I think Cdjp1 partly answered y’alls question when he commented on Katz. Wafflefrites (talk) 05:17, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- The request was specifically for dissent from what appears to be a consensus (ie that the IDF is either engaged in genocide or war crimes approaching that), not some random list of genocide scholars. Jonathan f1 (talk) 23:33, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- As I stated this is simply a list of prominent scholars I have come across, that is, they have written multiple books and papers covering the topic of genocide, and in near all cases across different genocides. Out of the list multiple of them have provided comments/assessments (such as Bauer, Berenbaum, Charny, Jones, Kiernan, Lederman, Levene, Segal, Üngör, Verdeja), mainly calling it a genocide, some claiming it isn't. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 22:10, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- That's what I thought. I can't find any significant scholarly pushback against the genocide position. Most searches seem very one-sided. Jonathan f1 (talk) 20:45, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- Their positions are not specified afaics (other than Katz), which was not what Iskandar was asking for. How are we deciding "prominent" anyway? Selfstudier (talk) 19:36, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- +Christian Gerlach, Dan Stone, and Scott Straus. (I assume we're not including the Holocaust specialists like Engel and Hayes?) Levivich (talk) 04:14, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- Strange position, and certainly fringe. Out of curiosity -are you saying that Timothy Snyder disputes the genocide allegation? I am familiar with Snyder from the media (listened to one or two of his lectures), but was not aware he weighed in on this. Jonathan f1 (talk) 19:04, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
Lead sentence
[edit]I have improved the lead sentence with the page title. "The first sentence should introduce the topic, and tell the nonspecialist reader what or who the subject is, and often when or where. It should be in plain English. ... the page title should be the subject of the first sentence.." The previous version did not introduce or summarize the topic and was confusing to readers. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 19:17, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- I reverted it. First, if you're going to change it to say in Wikivoice that Israel is engaged in an extermination campaign, you obviously need to get consensus on the talk page first before making such a significant change. Secondly, if you're going to do that, use an accurate edit summary/talk page post. Levivich (talk) 19:22, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- There is already a consensus that Israeli occupation forces are perpetrating a genocide in Gaza. Only Zionist religious fanatics and ultra-nationalists deny that a genocide is occurring. Over a month ago, the page title was moved from "Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza" to "Gaza genocide" by consensus.
- At the wikipedia pages about all other genocides, the first sentence in the lead introduces the page topic.
- What you have done here, is a disruptive edit in the lead sentence with a deceptive edit summary. There was no "POV change" as you claimed. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 20:05, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- I don’t really think “extermination campaign” should be used in th sentence because there is something called Extermination (crime). This article is about genocide accusations not extermination. the article title did leave out the accusations part which is causing confusion. At least one scholar who disagreed with the genocide label said it could be Extermination (crime), not the legal definition of genocide. There are also other non legal genocide definitions which makes it even more confusing what the article scope is about. Anyways, extermination and genocide are basically the same thing, except according to law extermination doesn’t require intent. Wafflefrites (talk) 21:02, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- The article scope is not confusing, the title is valid because it is used a lot in sources and then there is the accusation in court, and while it is possible to assess a genocide without a court decision, such a decision has not as yet been made, which does not mean that the article should be titled Gaza genocide (decision pending)). Selfstudier (talk) 09:00, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- The reason I said it was confusing is because I see other editors posting comments and questions about it in at least three threads:
- Again, genocide or accused
- What is the Gaza genocide?
- Genocide or alleged genocide. It may not be confusing to you, but it does appear to be confusing to readers sometimes. Wafflefrites (talk) 14:37, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- Uh huh, except that the confusion seems to be more along the lines of don't like the title, rather than trying to understand the WP:SCOPE. Selfstudier (talk) 15:18, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- Your comment on July 4 was
- Yea, people are assuming the title = fact, which of course, it doesn't. Selfstudier (talk) 23:35, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- Wafflefrites (talk) 15:25, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yep, about the size of it. Selfstudier (talk) 15:33, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- It seems to be two groups of people based on the comments in the talk page. The first group thinks the article is about allegations/accusations and they are wanting the title to reflect the allegations/accusations portion. The second group are people who do not think it’s accusations/allegations, and they want to change the scope of the article to reflect the current title and define Israel as committing genocide. It seems the second group is more confused or wanting to change the article scope rather than the first group wanting to make the article title more precise to clearly reflect the current scope Wafflefrites (talk) 16:53, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- If that's the case, then they cancel each other out and should just leave it the way it is. Maybe we should put a hidden note in the text explaining title/scope but I would wait for MR to conclude first. Selfstudier (talk) 18:26, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- Helpful link to MR. I sense a new move request coming up. IntrepidContributor (talk) 04:51, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- Well, there's also a group of editors, me included, who have observed the terms Gaza genocide, Genocide in Gaza, and similar being widely used in multiple reliable sources and who thus believe that the term merits a Wikipedia entry (without prejudice to future legal determination, etc.). — kashmīrī TALK 10:18, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- MR has now been concluded and the move endorsed. Selfstudier (talk) 17:00, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- If that's the case, then they cancel each other out and should just leave it the way it is. Maybe we should put a hidden note in the text explaining title/scope but I would wait for MR to conclude first. Selfstudier (talk) 18:26, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- It seems to be two groups of people based on the comments in the talk page. The first group thinks the article is about allegations/accusations and they are wanting the title to reflect the allegations/accusations portion. The second group are people who do not think it’s accusations/allegations, and they want to change the scope of the article to reflect the current title and define Israel as committing genocide. It seems the second group is more confused or wanting to change the article scope rather than the first group wanting to make the article title more precise to clearly reflect the current scope Wafflefrites (talk) 16:53, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yep, about the size of it. Selfstudier (talk) 15:33, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- Your comment on July 4 was
- Uh huh, except that the confusion seems to be more along the lines of don't like the title, rather than trying to understand the WP:SCOPE. Selfstudier (talk) 15:18, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- The article scope is not confusing, the title is valid because it is used a lot in sources and then there is the accusation in court, and while it is possible to assess a genocide without a court decision, such a decision has not as yet been made, which does not mean that the article should be titled Gaza genocide (decision pending)). Selfstudier (talk) 09:00, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- I propose the folllowing statement to be inserted as the lead sentence of the page:
- QUOTE
"Gaza genocide refers to the ongoing extermination campaign carried out by the state of Israel against the Palestinian people during its invasion and bombing of the Gaza Strip amid the Gaza War (2023–present)."
- END QUOTE Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 21:19, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- And no one here is going to agree. There is no consensus whatsoever for this. --RockstoneSend me a message! 02:30, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- Can't state that as a fact and an opinion (or even several of them) would not be due for the lead. Selfstudier (talk) 10:29, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- I don’t really think “extermination campaign” should be used in th sentence because there is something called Extermination (crime). This article is about genocide accusations not extermination. the article title did leave out the accusations part which is causing confusion. At least one scholar who disagreed with the genocide label said it could be Extermination (crime), not the legal definition of genocide. There are also other non legal genocide definitions which makes it even more confusing what the article scope is about. Anyways, extermination and genocide are basically the same thing, except according to law extermination doesn’t require intent. Wafflefrites (talk) 21:02, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 August 2024
[edit]![]() | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= oder |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
- Bombing campaign of the Gaza Strip
- A man carries the body of a Palestinian child killed by the shelling
- Dead infant in Kamal Adwan Hospital
- Bags filled with body parts of Palestinians killed by rocket strikes in Al-Tabaeen school
- Child dead due to starvation
- Palestinian body parts in plastic bags
Please replace the single image in the infobox by a Template:Multiple image
I think this single image undermines the reality of what's going on in Gaza considering that we got in Commons many precious pictures that illustrate the situation well and I think it would be a shame if they remained unused.
I'm not insisting on using the exact same pictures with the exact same captions in the example I provided, I'm just saying that such a subject needs definitely more than one picture to illustrate it while taking into consideration WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:GRATUITOUS — 🧀Cheesedealer !!!⚟ 02:43, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- @The Cheesedealer Thank you for your effort. I support updating the infobox, and I have no objections agains these images except for the assurances, if at all possible, that the childrens' families don't object to these photographs being posted on Wikipedia. Copyright is one thing, and right to privacy is quite another, and here I'd really would like to make sure that Wikipedia respects it and doesn't add to parents' trauma.
- I'll also wait for other editors to opine on the matter. Cheers, — kashmīrī TALK 18:40, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- Sadly I don't think it is possible to verify whether those children's families accept using the photographs in Wikipedia or not (I'd assume they don't).
- Thank you for reminding me of this, I retract my request til at least better pictures are available — 🧀Cheesedealer !!!⚟ 18:50, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- @The Cheesedealer Thank you. I'm sure more suitable photographs will gradually become available. I'd be grateful if you could keep an eye on the Commons and come up with an updated collage in a while. — kashmīrī TALK 20:50, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
Note: The edit request has been retracted. M.Bitton (talk) 23:37, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
Gideon Levy's analysis
[edit]@Buidhe:
Hello.
Is it really a good idea to remove the following text from this article? It seems to more properly explain the context for immediately preceding statistical opinion poll information in the sense that most Israeli citizens genuinely are not remotely well-informed about the ongoing atrocities performed by their government and military, as otherwise a reader of this article might get the false impression that 94% of Israeli citizens consciously and deliberately support genocide.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gaza_genocide&diff=1241439417&oldid=1241344412
David A (talk) 05:28, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- David A I have my issues with the opinion polls; it doesn't seem like the source connects them to the "Gaza genocide" topic and if included they should probably be in another section. The quote from Levy also doesn't mention genocide so it may be more appropriate to include in another article. I definitely think there is room for a different article about Israeli perceptions of the war/genocide, but per WP:NOR this one needs to be based on sources that are explicitly about genocide. (t · c) buidhe 06:22, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Well, I think that the opinion polls should definitely be displayed in some prominent Wikipedia page about the Israeli government's war crimes, as they show the Israeli public support for the ongoing military campaign and the deliberate starvation of the Palestinians respectively, but you are much more experienced regarding writing this type of article than I am, if you wish to move the information elsewhere, but again, it seems highly relevant to prominently include somewhere. David A (talk) 07:29, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- I've replaced it with an English-language interview where Levy said much the same thing. Genocide is explicitly referenced. Andreas JN466 07:59, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for helping out. David A (talk) 08:30, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
University Network for Human Rights
[edit]According to a https://www.humanrightsnetwork.org/ this is a supervised student training project (which explains the absence of author names). I think this should at least be clarified in the text, and it should be placed in a less prominent position. Frankly, where it stands at the moment, I think it could be deleted without much impact on the flow and logical coherence of the article. --Andreas JN466 09:38, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- That's a part of the discussion at BU RFC above. Why delete it? Selfstudier (talk) 10:35, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- It makes the article assailable. And it doesn't say anything that stronger sources aren't saying as well. Incidentally, the German translation of this article was deleted yesterday, citing "egregious quality problems". (I argued against deletion.) This source didn't come up in that discussion but I recall it was found too weak in a previous discussion in German Wikipedia because of its lack of a named author. There is not much you can say in response to such criticism. Britannica or other scholars wouldn't prominently cite an undergraduate und graduate project, even if it was supervised and a joint project of leading universities. At least we need to identify it as what it was. Andreas JN466 09:39, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- The report itself, discussed by a qualified expert in the BU today, carries the UNHR name as well as the law schools. I find it difficult to imagine that those law schools would have permitted the use of their names, inclusive press releases, without a proper scrutiny of the material, which on the face of it, looks to be professionally prepared. The lack of named authors is because the material has in effect been endorsed by those institutions. OK, I can see why some might disapprove of James Cavallaro but he is an HR expert and they are camped out at Wesleyan, again, I don't think that would be allowed without a proper scrutiny. If their report were saying anything exceptional or out of line with other sourcing, that would be something else but it isn't and it is a convenient summary with many useful references. I don't mind if it is not in the lead but removing it altogether makes no sense at all.
- I wouldn't pay too much attention to what German WP is doing either, tbh. The "Staatsräson" thing has the entire country behaving in a peculiar fashion as regards Israel (with the possible exception of the FO). Selfstudier (talk) 11:03, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- Agreed on the peculiarity of German discourse. As someone in the Guardian put it the other day, Hannah Arendt wouldn't qualify for the Hannah Arendt Prize in Germany today; she'd be accused of antisemitism. ;)
- I am actually considering starting an article on German anti-antisemitism because there has been substantial commentary that it's gone completely off the rails. (The German Wikipedia is not unaffected by this. Just look at the length of the antisemitism section in the German WP biography of de:Achille Mbembe ... bizarre.) As Buidhe once pointed out in a DYK even before the present Gaza war started, right-wing elements of German society have started using antisemitism charges as cover for anti-islamic sentiment, using the fact that the substantial muslim (mainly Turkish) minority in Germany has tended to take a dim view of civilian deaths in Gaza.
- Still, all that said, I am wary of having the University Network for Human Rights report do any heavy lifting in this article. I don't see significant citations for this particular report in Google Scholar (the only good one is, as it happens, in another article on German anti-antisemitism, namely "Refusing Epistemic Violence: Guernica-Gaza and the ‘German Context’", Afterall: A Journal of Art, Context and Enquiry, Volume 57, Issue 1; this is a Wikipedia Library link). It hasn't attracted press coverage either. (A 2019 University Network for Human Rights report on Yemen at least generated articles in Newsweek and the Washington Post.) Andreas JN466 14:02, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- Selfstudier, that rationale does not address any of the many defects in that source. As has been said, why use a non-compliant self published source in a house organ when there are valid sources available on the matter? SPECIFICO talk 22:17, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- Referred to RSN for an opinion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#https://www.humanrightsnetwork.org/about Selfstudier (talk) 09:12, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- OK, the feedback suggests that altho this source might well be considered reliable in ordinary circumstances, there is a concern that for this particular article, citing UNHR directly might subject the article to external criticism. I think the material directly cited to them should be replaced with other sourcing, if available. That does not mean that references to UNHR by other RS are affected, however. Selfstudier (talk) 16:20, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- I have removed three direct cites to UNHR. It doesn't affect the article at all and will perhaps put paid to the nonsensical objections in the ongoing RFC about BU, which has nothing directly to do with UNHR, if Susan Akhram wants to mention them, as an expert in her own right, she is entitled to do that. Selfstudier (talk) 16:59, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- Referred to RSN for an opinion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#https://www.humanrightsnetwork.org/about Selfstudier (talk) 09:12, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- It makes the article assailable. And it doesn't say anything that stronger sources aren't saying as well. Incidentally, the German translation of this article was deleted yesterday, citing "egregious quality problems". (I argued against deletion.) This source didn't come up in that discussion but I recall it was found too weak in a previous discussion in German Wikipedia because of its lack of a named author. There is not much you can say in response to such criticism. Britannica or other scholars wouldn't prominently cite an undergraduate und graduate project, even if it was supervised and a joint project of leading universities. At least we need to identify it as what it was. Andreas JN466 09:39, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
Possible position from Denmark
[edit]I'm not sure whether this is the right place to place this information, but the table on the article page has a list of countries and their position on what happens in Palestine. Here is information regarding the position of the Danish government. I don't want to edit the article, as this is beyond my qualifications.
- Dagbladet Arbejderen, 2024, by ML, https://arbejderen.dk/indland/regeringen-afviser-borgerforslag-om-at-anerkende-risiko-for-folkedrab-i-gaza/ (in Danish)
- First line in the article: The government refuses to comment on whether there is a risk that Israel is committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza.
- Proposal by the public that mandates the parliament to initiate a discussion: https://www.borgerforslag.dk/se-og-stoet-forslag/?Id=FT-16712
- Response by the majority of the parliament - rejected the proposal: https://www.ft.dk/samling/20231/beslutningsforslag/b200/index.htm
Kimse84 (talk) 10:57, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
What's the status of genocide studies and middle east studies in academia?
[edit]I'm genuinely curious how these two fields are perceived by the more established disciplines they grew out of. Political scientist Ernesto Verdeja, for example, contends that "genocide scholarship still rarely appears in mainstream disciplinary journals."[1]. He also claims that mainstream political scientists essentially ignore this field, in part because the scholars are involved in a "humanitarian activism" that's odd for an academic community. Similarly, the Middle Eastern Studies article contains a relatively lengthy criticism section accusing the field of a "pro-Palestinian" and "pro-Arabist" bias that apparently affects their scholarship.
FYI -I don't follow this scholarship and haven't contributed to this article, but after researching these fields for about 20 mins, a lot of academic controversies popped up that got me curious. So is Verdeja correct in his assessment of genocide studies? A lot of the scholarly opinion in this article comes from scholars working in one of these two fields, but as far as I can tell it's mostly statements published in non-academic press (and think tanks like Brookings), rather than mainstream, peer-reviewed journals. Jonathan f1 (talk) 07:55, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- Did you want to add something to this article? Selfstudier (talk) 12:01, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- Verdeja's article was written over 12 years ago, when the discipline he refers to was somewhat new, but burgeoning. And he notes that the mainstream's ignoring of its results to that date specifically referred to Political science, another discipline. PolScience likewise had some of its research work ignored by the sociological mainstream and so set up its own journals just as Genocide scholars were doing. When one talks of 'mainstream' these days, it's a matter of a lustrum or two as to what drops out or becomes commonplace.(Karl Popper once spoke of theories passing by as regular as Piccadilly Buses (back around 1947 from memory) In any case it would be reductive to dismiss this as activism. Indeed Verdeja himself has written on the status of the SA application (Ernesto Verdeja, https://peacepolicy.nd.edu/2024/02/27/the-international-court-of-justice-and-genocide-in-gaza/ The International Court of Justice and Genocide in Gaza 27 February 2024) in terms more or less c onsonant with those of A. Dirk Moses, an innovative and highly influential scholar on genocide over the last two decades (compare this) I hope this answers your query.Nishidani (talk) 13:36, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, I'm satisfied with your response. I would just add that with the proliferation of all the fields that end in "studies" in academia, it's becoming increasingly difficult for non-specialists to assess this research. Jonathan f1 (talk) 18:09, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- Or alternatively, do you have anything to add to this talk section? Talk sections are not merely for discussing changes, but also the quality of the sources being used. And in any event, Nishidani answered my questions quite well so I don't think there's any need to drag this out, unless someone else wants to add something here. Jonathan f1 (talk) 18:03, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- Verdeja's article was written over 12 years ago, when the discipline he refers to was somewhat new, but burgeoning. And he notes that the mainstream's ignoring of its results to that date specifically referred to Political science, another discipline. PolScience likewise had some of its research work ignored by the sociological mainstream and so set up its own journals just as Genocide scholars were doing. When one talks of 'mainstream' these days, it's a matter of a lustrum or two as to what drops out or becomes commonplace.(Karl Popper once spoke of theories passing by as regular as Piccadilly Buses (back around 1947 from memory) In any case it would be reductive to dismiss this as activism. Indeed Verdeja himself has written on the status of the SA application (Ernesto Verdeja, https://peacepolicy.nd.edu/2024/02/27/the-international-court-of-justice-and-genocide-in-gaza/ The International Court of Justice and Genocide in Gaza 27 February 2024) in terms more or less c onsonant with those of A. Dirk Moses, an innovative and highly influential scholar on genocide over the last two decades (compare this) I hope this answers your query.Nishidani (talk) 13:36, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
Gaza's 2.2 million people are confined to an area smaller than Manhattan
[edit]Edit ...
Gaza's 2.2 million people are confined to a humanitarian area smaller than Manhattan
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/gaza-humanitarian-zones-smaller-than-manhattan-rcna167056
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan#/media/File:Above_Gotham.jpg 76.156.161.247 (talk) 19:49, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- I think that this information is very relevant to add, if it isn't already, but which section of this page would be most appropriate? David A (talk) 07:29, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- Add this information to the end of ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_genocide#Alleged_genocidal_actions 98.46.117.113 (talk) 19:23, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- I have handled it. David A (talk) 07:32, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thank You !!! 98.46.117.227 (talk) 17:25, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- No problem. 🙏 David A (talk) 17:32, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thank You !!! 98.46.117.227 (talk) 17:25, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- I have handled it. David A (talk) 07:32, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- Add this information to the end of ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_genocide#Alleged_genocidal_actions 98.46.117.113 (talk) 19:23, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
Buildings listed in the "Victims" section in the header infobox
[edit]This article includes buildings as victims of the purported genocide. I raised this as an illogical inclusion in a talk thread here. In that talk thread, it was suggested that I be bold and edit it. That edit was reversed, with the edit note suggesting it shouldn't be edited without a talk page consensus, which I came here to do before editing. That talk page thread has been erased in its entirety.
I am here to propose that buildings, at least non culturally significant ones, be removed as listed victims of the genocide in the infobox. It is inconsistent with Wikipedia's policy and the intended usage of the infobox. Jbbdude (talk) 00:27, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- I agree it's illogical to list buildings under "victims." Destruction of buildings may be part of a genocide, but that still doesn't make the buildings "victims." "Victims" are people, not things. It's a little disrespectful of the victims in my view to equate buildings and people ("40 people were killed in the attack, and we lost a perfectly good apartment building" just doesn't sound right). Maybe the building destruction can be listed elsewhere in the infobox. Levivich (talk) 01:18, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- Victims are people, that's true; there should be another list called "Damage" which lists the buildings destroyed as well. Also, I don't think only culturally significant buildings should be listed because due to the sheer amount of residential buildings destroyed it is clearly intended to contribute to the damage Gazans have suffered already, so it should be stated as part of the genocide. Abdulhakim1917 (talk) 14:23, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- I do not at all mind if the number of destroyed buildings are moved to another section within the infobox, but I think that they should be listed somewhere within it. David A (talk) 15:01, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- Victims are people, that's true; there should be another list called "Damage" which lists the buildings destroyed as well. Also, I don't think only culturally significant buildings should be listed because due to the sheer amount of residential buildings destroyed it is clearly intended to contribute to the damage Gazans have suffered already, so it should be stated as part of the genocide. Abdulhakim1917 (talk) 14:23, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
Netanyahu "huge price" comment
[edit]I take issue with the sentence "On 7 October, Netanyahu said the people of Gaza would pay a "huge price" and Israel would turn parts of Gaza 'into rubble'.". The source, NYT, links to an archived Haaretz article. The article is inaccessible except for saved versions on October 8th, which still don't contain the actual quote. The actual article is still online, but behind a paywall. I was able to find the full article on archive.today, but the only thing close I could find was this: "The second goal according to Netanyahu, is to 'exact a huge price from the enemy, also in the Gaza Strip.'"
Unless we're able to find a direct quote for this, we should remove it. Personisinsterest (talk) 18:22, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- From the official Israeli gov't English translation of the speech:
All of the places which Hamas is deployed, hiding and operating in, that wicked city, we will turn them into rubble. I say to the residents of Gaza: Leave now because we will operate forcefully everywhere.
Here's a video of the speech (in Hebrew). BTW, that cite to a NYT op-ed should probably be replaced with a cite to the version that was published as a chapter in a book: [2]. Levivich (talk) 19:23, 3 September 2024 (UTC)- Hmm. I think we should just remove the part about the huge price altogether. There's nothing like it in the actual speech or source. Maybe we could keep the rubble part with a different source. Personisinsterest (talk) 19:33, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- The "huge price" part apparently came from remarks issued at the start of the same Oct. 7 Security Cabinet meeting, I guess before the prepared remarks that were released separately (linked above). From the official translation:
The second objective, at the same time, is to exact an immense price from the enemy, within the Gaza Strip as well.
On Oct. 9, Netanyahu gave another speech saying much the same (official translation):Hamas will understand that by attacking us, they have made a mistake of historic proportions. We will exact a price that will be remembered by them and Israel’s other enemies for decades to come.
So when Omer Bartov said that Netanyahu said "huge price" and "into rubble," the official Israeli translations of Netanyahu's remarks back that up. I'm not seeing any problem here. Levivich (talk) 19:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC)- Well, it doesn't say anything about the people of Gaza. It only talks about "the enemy" (Hamas) and Hamas itself. It wouldn't make sense to keep that in, given the scope of the article and section being alleged genocidal intent by him. Personisinsterest (talk) 19:40, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- No, it definitely says something about the people of Gaza. "...exact an immense price from the enemy, within the Gaza Strip as well" is saying something about the people of Gaza, because the people of Gaza are the people in the Gaza Strip (duh). What it doesn't say anything about is "Hamas." Your interpretation of "the enemy" to mean "Hamas" is not really in the source text, and if you think "the enemy" is limited to just Hamas I'd say you're being naive. But even if "the enemy" is just Hamas, guess what: Hamas are part of "the people of Gaza." Heck, Hamas is the de facto government of the people of Gaza.
- And aside from all of that, I always look askance at people who say that they want to take content out because they think it's inaccurate. The solution is not to remove the content, it's to edit it to make it more accurate. If you want to change "the people of Gaza would pay a 'huge price'" to "the enemies of Israel would pay a 'huge price'", I'd have no objection to that change. Levivich (talk) 19:47, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- I guess the problem is that my interpretation (Hamas) and your interpretation (people of Gaza, or Hamas which are people of Gaza) are not grounded in the text. It just says "the enemy", and that isn't relevant in the context of this article. Personisinsterest (talk) 19:50, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- Omer Bartov says it's relevant. His interpretation, not mine or yours, is what counts. And Netanyahu didn't just say "the enemy," he said "the enemy, within the Gaza Strip". There is no doubt that Netanyahu said a goal is to extract a huge price from the enemy in the Gaza Strip. Bartov connects that to the topic of Gaza genocide. I think that makes it WP:DUE, particularly when Bartov's work is published in an academic book. Levivich (talk) 20:04, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- But his interpretation is a misrepresentation of the original source, so which is more important? Personisinsterest (talk) 20:09, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- His interpretation is only a misinterpretation according to you, and your interpretation doesn't count. Still, if you want to edit the language to hew closer to the official translation of the source, no objection from me. Levivich (talk) 20:11, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- But his interpretation is a misrepresentation of the original source, so which is more important? Personisinsterest (talk) 20:09, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- Omer Bartov says it's relevant. His interpretation, not mine or yours, is what counts. And Netanyahu didn't just say "the enemy," he said "the enemy, within the Gaza Strip". There is no doubt that Netanyahu said a goal is to extract a huge price from the enemy in the Gaza Strip. Bartov connects that to the topic of Gaza genocide. I think that makes it WP:DUE, particularly when Bartov's work is published in an academic book. Levivich (talk) 20:04, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- I guess the problem is that my interpretation (Hamas) and your interpretation (people of Gaza, or Hamas which are people of Gaza) are not grounded in the text. It just says "the enemy", and that isn't relevant in the context of this article. Personisinsterest (talk) 19:50, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- Well, it doesn't say anything about the people of Gaza. It only talks about "the enemy" (Hamas) and Hamas itself. It wouldn't make sense to keep that in, given the scope of the article and section being alleged genocidal intent by him. Personisinsterest (talk) 19:40, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- The "huge price" part apparently came from remarks issued at the start of the same Oct. 7 Security Cabinet meeting, I guess before the prepared remarks that were released separately (linked above). From the official translation:
- Hmm. I think we should just remove the part about the huge price altogether. There's nothing like it in the actual speech or source. Maybe we could keep the rubble part with a different source. Personisinsterest (talk) 19:33, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
"United Kingdom, under the Sunak ministry"
[edit]In the infobox, this is currently how the UK's complicity is described. However, isn't the Starmer ministry also implicated? Editors involved with this article: What are your thoughts about updating this to say "United Kingdom, under the Sunak and Starmer ministries"?--JasonMacker (talk) 00:15, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- B-Class Crime-related articles
- Mid-importance Crime-related articles
- WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography articles
- B-Class Death articles
- Low-importance Death articles
- B-Class Disaster management articles
- Mid-importance Disaster management articles
- B-Class Discrimination articles
- Mid-importance Discrimination articles
- WikiProject Discrimination articles
- B-Class Ethnic groups articles
- Mid-importance Ethnic groups articles
- WikiProject Ethnic groups articles
- B-Class Human rights articles
- Mid-importance Human rights articles
- WikiProject Human rights articles
- B-Class Israel-related articles
- Mid-importance Israel-related articles
- WikiProject Israel articles
- WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration articles
- B-Class Palestine-related articles
- Mid-importance Palestine-related articles
- WikiProject Palestine articles
- B-Class International relations articles
- Mid-importance International relations articles
- WikiProject International relations articles
- Wikipedia pages referenced by the press