Jump to content

Talk:Gaza genocide/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7

RfC about starvation estimate

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is a consensus to exclude the estimate from the infobox. Editors generally agreed that the statistic is too extraordinary to justify its inclusion on the basis of the sources available in an infobox, whose purpose is to summarize key facts and is a notoriously poor means of conveying anything requiring explanation. (non-admin closure) —Compassionate727 (T·C) 02:45, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Should the 62,413 estimate for starvation deaths be included in the info box or not? Originalcola (talk) 21:29, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

  • No - it's an WP:EXTRAORDINARY claim, since health officials reported 38 starvations [1] for a similar time period. The 62,413 estimate would imply that health authorities undercounted by an absurd factor. That aside, the sources just don't pass WP:SCHOLARSHIP. The closest we have is this paper, but it's written by an anthropologist and doesn't actually discuss whether the methodology is valid. It also appears to have no citations, and the group that published it doesn't appear to do any of the vetting that WP:SCHOLARSHIP requires. — xDanielx T/C\R 21:52, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
  • No per xDanielx. This wild and exaggeratory guesstimate comes nowhere close to passing muster. That said, the "38" count is surely also too low and shouldn't be in the infobox either, since no other body of work is backing it up (and it's too old to bother with, regarding an ongoing conflict of this magnitude; months might as well be decades when it comes to such coverage).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:15, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
  • No- My opinion is the same as xDanielx for rationale behind disputing paper. The letter itself isn’t exactly a reliable source (being self-published and non-independent) for such an extraordinary claim. I felt like an estimate shouldn’t be included in the infobox unless its reliability is very strong, and this clearly isn't it. The MJ article adds no analysis or commentary, so it fails to be more than churnalism restating the paper. Originalcola (talk) 00:18, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
  • No. A PDF not published in an academic journal doesn't meet WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Because there's no peer review, the letter and document cited for the death toll should be treated as WP:PREPRINTs. Since the claim isn't supported by reliable sources, it shouldn't be in the infobox stated as fact. The MJ article, at best, would make this estimate WP:DUE with attribution in the body, not in the main infobox with WikiVoice. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 07:12, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
  • No this number is at best extraordinary and at worst implausible, and the sourcing is not even close to strong enough for sucha claim, per the arguments above.:FortunateSons (talk) 10:36, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Yes but attributed We should make it clear it's an estimate but the other arguments for exclusion are non-persuasive. Simonm223 (talk) 14:34, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
    It seems hard to explain the source of this estimate (a joint letter from American physicians and nurses who had been operating in Gaza) without the content becoming too large for the infobox format.
    If we did include it, we should also include the 38 figure from health officials, and let the reader decide what to make of the massive difference. Omitting that information would seem like a major NPOV issue. — xDanielx T/C\R 19:00, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
  • No, but can be later in the article with attribution It is just not good enough for the lead. It is in the right ballpark as far as I can see for the 'natural' deaths from disease, lack of medicine, destroyed hospitals etc rather than those directly killed, but this document just has a ? for all those and says almost of these died from famine! NadVolum (talk) 16:07, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
  • No Available excess death projections do not include estimates for malnutrition/starvation because the aid restrictions leading to famine like conditions were not present when those studies were done, this newer study must be viewed as a first attempt at estimating excess deaths from this cause. I consider the report to be RS, but because it is the only such report so far, we should refrain from stating/implying it as a fact until additional RS become available. Selfstudier (talk) 16:56, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
    That's why I support attribution and clarification it's an estimate. We shouldn't be stating these are the death toll in wiki voice but we should include the estimate. Simonm223 (talk) 17:04, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Yes but with attribution Abo Yemen✉ 17:06, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
  • No. I originally found the report (due to Glenn Greenwald mentioning it in his YouTube channel, if I remember correctly), but despite really wanting the mass-killing of children to end, and also agreeing about that given the systematic killings of doctors and other healthcare workers, this deliberately makes it very hard to count the number of victims, after reading all of the arguments from both Wikipedia administrators and regular experienced members, I agree with Selfstudier about that it is likely not sufficiently verifiable information to state as a properly encyclopaedic infobox fact. It would feel intellectually dishonest for me to claim otherwise. I definitely think that we should add estimated death tolls from diseases and starvation to the infoboxes, both here and the main Israel-Hamas War article, if we find something more reliable and official though. David A (talk) 19:47, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
    Never mind. I abstain from my vote, as I also in good conscience do not want to do anything that might contribute to more innocent people being killed due to the full horror of the situation being officially severely understated. David A (talk) 06:20, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
  • No - as stated above, it's an WP:EXTRAORDINARY claim. Putting nonsense in the Infobox is extremely misleading, which I thought Wikipedia is supposed to avoid. However, the entire premise of the article is misleading, so what's a little starvation compared to a whole genocide? DaringDonna (talk) 20:23, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
Starving isn't quite the same as deaths from famine. The number of 'natural' deaths as they call them due to the war is about the same as the number of their 'martyrs' killed directly, and the main reason they die is because they are not recovering from illnesses or injury as they normally would because they do not have enough food. It is not just 'a little starvation'. Plus if the current business of supplies not going in continues it could go into full blown famine extremely quickly. NadVolum (talk) 22:06, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
Also, at this point there is even a 297 page report from Amnesty filled with evidence for that this is an actual blatantly obvious genocide/ethnic cleansing. Incredulity is not a valid counterpoint to that. David A (talk) 06:29, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
I agree there is a terrible war going on. And I have no doubt Amnesty has put together a book chronicling just how terrible this war is, substituting the word genocide for war, just as the word militant is a substitute for terrorist. This war would end immediately if Hamas released the hostages and surrendered. Israel did not start this war, and it is not committing genocide, no matter how long Amnesty's report might be. If there was a genocide going on, and a famine about to break out, why doesn't Egypt allow the civilians to come in where they can be protected and fed? If it were really a genocide, Israel would chase the Palestinians into Egypt to kill them, no? But no one believes that, do they? The premise of this entire article, and many others on Wikipedia, has ruined the trustworthiness and usefulness of this experiment in crowd sourcing and democratizing knowledge. It has proven an utter, and dangerous failure. It reminds one of Orwell's 1984, where black is white and 2+2=5. DaringDonna (talk) 19:34, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
If I must choose between a random person on the internet and Amnesty International, that's not really a contest, sorry. Selfstudier (talk) 19:54, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
I'm sorry but an individual editor's personal opinion regarding an assumed methodology by Amnesty International is not something we should entertain for editorial decisions. I will say this: unless the Amnesty report includes estimates for deaths by starvation it's not apropos to this discussion although it is certainly apropos this overall topic. I would caution @DaringDonna to respect WP:NOTFORUM but I would also suggest @NadVolum raise the Amnesty report in threads where it is planned as a citation. Simonm223 (talk) 20:11, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
The Euro-Med estimate of about 51,000 'natural' deaths by late June is what I find reasonable and they have people on the ground, they didn'ty give an error estimate but it is probably quite wide. I haven't discussed the Amnesty report. Expecting Egypt to assist Israel with clearing Gaza of its population is to expect it to help with genocide. If anyone should be looking after the civilians it is Israel by providing safe spaces in Israel, they would be perfectly withn their rights to search them before admitting them into camps. The civilians in Gaza are not Hamas they have just as much right to life as the people in Israel. NadVolum (talk) 00:21, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
I think that it would be useful if you add the Euro-Med estimate instead in that case, especially if they have far more recent updated numbers available. It has been almost half a year since then after all. David A (talk) 05:54, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
That report was About 10 percent of the Gaza Strip’s population killed, injured, or missing due to the Israeli genocide. The last hospital in Northern Gaza was destroyed a week ago so I don't expect we'll get any good figures from there. And with the Israeli soldiers letting aid lorries be openly looted by gangs in front of them but shooting any police I don't suppose there is much hope for the people there. The Israel-Hamas War One Year Later: Mass Violence and Palestinian Dispossession thinks it likely the Netanyahu coalition will continue in power till 2026 and Trump will support them like Biden has and Israel will be able to complete the removal of Palestinians from the occupied territories and Europe will eventually support America in recognizing the territory as Israels. NadVolum (talk) 10:38, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
Is this actually relevant to the RfC? WP:NOTFORUM Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 17:45, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
I was asked where I got the 51,000 from and I believe this RfC is about the starvation figures. The second cite has references to a few different estimates for the deaths at the very beginning including that one and its conclusion section calls the whole business in Gaza genocide. It also has cites which are about genocide. NadVolum (talk) 19:13, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
Well, we definitely do need good estimates for victims of starvation and preventable diseases, but the source that I found earlier was very unfortunately likely not sufficiently reliable. David A (talk) 07:30, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
  • No per XDanielx. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 23:41, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
  • No per Selfstudier. This is an extraordinary claim so needs exceptionally good sourcing. I don't think we need scholarship standard peer reviewed sourcing for an on-going situation, but for something so at odds with other reports we can't put this in an infobox. It looks like consensus is against inclusion, but if that changes I think it'd be essential it's clearly labelled something like "estimate per Gaza Healthcare Letters and placed next to the reported number (currently 38). In general, the Costs of War project might be considered reliable enough to mention in the body with attribution because they're based at a university, but I find them very un-impressive. Their report, authored by an assistant professor in Anthropology, says that "There were 62,413 additional deaths from starvation", citing a source (the doctors' letter) that clearly doesn't say that but rather says that this is an estimate. Having looked at their earlier reports on Syria and Iraq, their methodology seems to be to try to find the highest number in the public sphere and simplify it into meaninglessness. If we mention the doctors' letter in the body, we need to give their methodology, which is to extrapolate deaths by the number of people estimated to be experiencing famine, per a very rough formula developed by the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:11, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove ICC from article?

Considering that genocide hasn't actually been alleged for the warrants, I believe this part of the article to be WP:UNDUE (and arguably synth, with the exception of the Just Security article, which is probably just undue). I have removed those sections and am starting this discussion in the spirit of WP:BRD. FortunateSons (talk) 08:47, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

@Selfstudier the more limited addition is good, thank you. However, the Amnesty additon to the lead is undue IMO, as I don't see the significance for it being placed in this part of the lead, compared to other organisations. Could you elaborate why you think that is? FortunateSons (talk) 10:28, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
Would have thought that was obvious, it's Amnesty not just any old NGO, for example:
Why Amnesty International and other experts say Israel is committing genocide in Gaza "They’re part of a growing list of genocide scholars and international law experts now using that word to describe Israel's actions. And while Amnesty International was the first nongovernmental organization to call it genocide, other groups such as Human Rights Watch and the Israeli group B’tselem have meticulously documented the country’s alleged war crimes, including using starvation as a weapon of war, committing torture and sodomy in Israeli prisons, deliberate attacks on civilians, among other charges."
Amnesty International Accuses Israel of Genocide in Gaza "the first of its kind by a major human rights organization" Selfstudier (talk) 10:49, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
Of course, I'm just not sure whether or not Amnesty has a unique rank compared to HRW et al, meaning that we will either end up with a list or later removal if they should join the claim. It just seems like a case of recency bias to me, better suited to the body (or a lower part of the lead, if you want to change the structure). FortunateSons (talk) 10:55, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
I am still checking if other ngos have called it genocide or whether Amnesty is the only one of the majors. If the other principal NGOs get on board later on, then we can change it to "major ngoss" or something of that sort, there are many ngos so just saying ngos is not particularly informative. Recent or not, it is significant. Selfstudier (talk) 11:02, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
I think just keeping it as is was would be better, but this is okay FortunateSons (talk) 12:21, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
Afaics, besides Amnesty, only the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDE) has called it a genocide, they are a federation of hros and ngos, so I tweaked it a little. Selfstudier (talk) 13:36, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
@Selfstudier, are you aware of the new HRW report?It’s your edit, so do you mind switching that to this now, based on the HRW statement? I think either “major rights organisations” or “major NGOs” work here FortunateSons (talk) 07:23, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
Let's wait a bit for the RS to settle down, glancing through the reports so far, HRW has not quite actually just called the whole thing a genocide but has said that an act of genocide was committed (assume Article II of convention but focused on water deprivation) and then separately of crime of humanity of extermination (what Dief was accused of by the ICC but not Netanyahu/Gallant).
The CNN report says "HRW says Israel’s actions amount to acts of genocide under the Genocide Convention and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC)" which is of interest as it links the ICC directly but it doesn't tie Amnesty and HRW together specifically. What I am looking for is RS saying something like major hr orgs/ngo or similar have ...., have you seen any such? Selfstudier (talk) 11:15, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
Agreed on the content, HRW is significantly more measured.
Not perfect, but Spiegel [2], Guardian [3] and FT [4] mention them in context of each other? FortunateSons (talk) 11:25, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
Got JPost [5], this should work? FortunateSons (talk) 11:30, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
That's Reuters, not quite, that's talking about the use of the word genocide for both but then specifies Amnesty separately (which is I think actually an accurate way of expressing it). Selfstudier (talk) 11:42, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
Now we have AP saying "The rights group was the latest among a growing number of critics to accuse Israel of genocidal acts in its war in Gaza", that seems like another useful statement.
"Genocidal acts" rather than "genocide" may be a way around the conundrum but I also think we now have enough rs for "a growing number" or some such. Let's do the body first and then see. Selfstudier (talk) 11:56, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable, thanks FortunateSons (talk) 12:07, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I'd say Amnesty International is due in the lead, per NYT source. Its report is also a WP:Secondary. It's good to have secondary sources in the lead.

Description of Amnesty International from A Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics and International Relations (4 ed.) in Amnesty International entry: Widely respected, and awarded the Nobel peace prize in 1977, its monitoring of human rights issues through Amnesty International Reports has provided information widely used by policy makers and political scientists. Bogazicili (talk) 16:20, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Of course the amnesty report should be in the lede. Simonm223 (talk) 20:15, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Improper attackt types in Infobox

Multiple attack types are either making statements that go beyond what we should say in our own voice (genocide, without alleged), not part of the standard genocide terms (ethic cleansing, torture, sexual violence) or are not appropriate in this case (targeted killings). It should be trimmed down to those that are actually broadly alleged, that being mass murder, collective punishment, bombardment and starvation as method of war. Anything else is undue. In addition, the source about rapes doesn't actually make the claim and is therefore synth. FortunateSons (talk) 10:09, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

I see no issue with this change. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 10:27, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
Great, thank you. Just FYI, I'll wait a bit for others to respond, just because this change was reverted before. FortunateSons (talk) 10:46, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
Genocide is also alleged by multiple reliable sources, and I would consider removal of that highly problematic.
However that entire field needs a note such as "The following are alleged:" Bogazicili (talk) 14:46, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
I think genocide can stay as an allegation, even if it’s technically tautological (after all, any genocide would include the attack type genocide). However, it seems to be commonly done on similar articles, so no serious objection from my end to keeping this one as well. Do you mind the removal of the other ones as well, or are you ok with those? FortunateSons (talk) 15:22, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
I don't know yet, I have to review the sources. Did you review the sources and find out that other types are not mentioned? Bogazicili (talk) 15:24, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
I support the changes as well. 3Kingdoms (talk) 15:42, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
It’s a bit of both; sources primarily discuss actions that have or are likely to cause significant causalities, and don’t generally discuss torture, targeted killings etc. as acts of genocide. Even sources that do mention those (example: Albanese) do so as a minor point to draw a general picture of mistreatment (for torture) or the possibility of it counting as either an action or an indication of intent (for cleansing). Those topics have a place in other articles, or potentially in the body, but according to my reading of the sources, they aren’t due for the Infobox. FortunateSons (talk) 15:49, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
Pings: @Ecpiandy for reversion, @Smallangryplanet for potential synth. FortunateSons (talk) 11:19, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
Potential synth? My edit is sadly abundantly supported by RS. Or maybe I'm misunderstanding. What do you mean? Smallangryplanet (talk) 19:27, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
I have had the same issue in the past, don’t worry; the issue isn’t the occurrence of sexual violence, the synth/potential coatrack issue would be that the source doesn’t claim that it’s genocidal. (unless I missed that?). FortunateSons (talk) 19:32, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
I can add some other sources that do, if that would help? Smallangryplanet (talk) 19:44, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
I still think it’s undue for the lead, but yes, that fixes the synth issue for the body, thank you! FortunateSons (talk) 19:47, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
Ah sorry I'm confused again (it's been a long week already...) I thought this was about the infobox itself, not the lead or body? Smallangryplanet (talk) 21:00, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
That’s maybe poor phrasing: there are two separate issues: which content should be in the infobox, and that there was a sourcing problem within the infobox. This solves issue two for your content, so it can definitely stay (in my opinion), it’s just a question regarding whether or not it’s due for the lead or just the body. FortunateSons (talk) 21:07, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
Ah, okay, that makes sense - thank you for clarifying. I think it can go in the infobox + body, I'll make that edit. I don't want to set precedent for it never being in the lead, so I'll say here that I think there could come a time where it is due for the lead, even if we leave it out for now, and this conversation shouldn't be used as evidence or justification for not adding it there in future. Smallangryplanet (talk) 21:51, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
Of course, thank you; for example, if it’s widely analysed or shown to be sufficiently widespread, it will be obviously due for the lead/infobox FortunateSons (talk) 21:59, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
I don't really think these changes make sense. Genocide is generally regarded to be inclusive of and built upon "lesser" acts of group-directed violence. Removing mentions of torture and sexual violence is not in line with the way that other genocides are covered on-wiki or with the broad consensus in the field. I'd consider Yazidi genocide a strong contemporary and comparable example that demonstrates this point. A close reading of certain wiki policies may provide some justification for your edits, but I think they ultimately buck common sense and the broader mainstream scholarly understanding of genocide. I think that rather than trying to remove this material, we should focus on finding a better source and/or a larger number of sources that explicitly connect institutional sexual violence and torture to the allegations of genocide. If those sources aren't available now, they will likely emerge as we begin to gather a more historical view of these events. Unbandito (talk) 16:48, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
That’s a good contemporary example, but it’s not comparable: during the Yazidi genocide (and similar contemporary cases, potentially even including Ukraine), torture and sexual violence were one of the primary means of perpetuating the crime, which is not the case here: during the Israel-Hamas war, it seems like (based on current sourcing and reporting) that both sexual violence and torture are relatively rare, affecting a significantly smaller part of the population compared to the other alleged actions. It’s possible that later sourcing will broadly connect those acts to the allegations of genocide, but for now, this isn’t the case, both due to a lack of sources and because of the limited evidence that there is special intent to destroy (compared to the “normal” justification for such acts, as seen during the American war on terror). If this becomes a majority view in a month or a year, I’ll support its inclusion, but this isn’t the case for now. FortunateSons (talk) 17:14, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
Genocide is a crime against humanity is a war crime so yes, I think "built upon" is as good a way to express it as any. The special intent thing is theoretically applicable at ICJ level but won't impact on whether others call it a genocide so that's something of a red herring. It's not difficult to find sources that connect crimes "while Amnesty International was the first nongovernmental organization to call it genocide, other groups such as Human Rights Watch and the Israeli group B’tselem have meticulously documented the country’s alleged war crimes, including using starvation as a weapon of war, committing torture and sodomy in Israeli prisons, deliberate attacks on civilians, among other charges." Selfstudier (talk) 17:23, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
Yes, and I’m not opposed to mentioning them in the body for context, they’re just undue for the lead. For example, we don’t mention them in the box for the Holocaust, Armenian genocide or Unit 731, despite known occurrences and a likely higher frequency. There is just a lack of strong sourcing for “torture/rape as means of (allegedly) committing genocide” instead of “torture/rape while (allegedly) committing genocide” for this case, and as long as it isn’t broadly discussed, it’s not due here. FortunateSons (talk) 17:49, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
Amnesty's recent investigation, which concluded that Israel is committing genocide, explicitly links Israel's practice of incommunicado detention, torture and sexual violence in prisons to its conclusion that a genocide is taking place. From section 7.1.4 on page 233:
As another indication of intent, Israel was responsible, during the nine-month period under review, for a pattern of incommunicado detention, torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment (ill-treatment), including sexual violence, of Palestinians from Gaza, according to documentation by Amnesty International and other organizations. Genocidal intent may be inferred from evidence of “other culpable acts systematically directed against the same group.”961 This pattern of incommunicado detention, torture and other ill-treatment underscores the systematic dehumanization and mental and physical abuse of Palestinians in Gaza and may also be taken into account with a view to inferring genocidal intent from pattern of conduct.
IMO this should be more than enough to justify inclusion of the material at any level in the article. Unbandito (talk) 02:55, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
Actually no, but this is a common misconception: this specifically cannot, because that would be the wrong section. This source would be potentially due for genocidal intent, and attack type is part of the act category. This of course isn’t a problem for the body, but it is for the infobox. To stick with the obvious example, Antisemitism isn’t listed as an attack type for the holocaust, despite the fact that the widespread beliefs and actions by German and other citizens and officials can obviously be used as an indicator for intent. FortunateSons (talk) 06:53, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
Amnesty is saying that the pattern of abuses (an action or attack type) is evidence of genocidal intent because that pattern fulfills the criteria by which genocide is defined. In plain language, the abuses in Israeli prisons are both a part of the genocide, and support the assertion that genocide is taking place. I don't think the distinction you're making makes sense. Moreover, I think you'd be hard pressed to find any example in history where a source asserts that a genocide is taking/has taken place and yet the contemporary mass detentions, torture and sexual abuse of members of the targeted group by the same perpetrators should be treated separately from the overall genocide. That strikes me as an inherently absurd position. Unbandito (talk) 14:49, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
Unbandito, great find. This can be used as a source for multiple attack types. "Rape" should be changed to "sexual violence". Bogazicili (talk) 15:07, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
I think there won’t be a clear consensus for any of the options here; does anyone mind if we just do this as an RFC? FortunateSons (talk) 12:44, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
You started this discussion on 17 December 2024. Today is 18 December 2024. We are still going over the sources. See WP:RFCBEFORE. Bogazicili (talk) 15:00, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
I’m happy to wait, just pre-empting what I think is likely end. FortunateSons (talk) 16:42, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
Since 'type' is an optional field, if there is an RFC, perhaps one of the options should be to leave it blank and cover things in the article body. Sean.hoyland (talk) 15:07, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
Nice catch, thanks FortunateSons (talk) 16:43, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Ireland to intervene

Apologies if this was discussed already but I couldn't find it. Ireland is intervening in the case and asking for the definition of genocide to be made less narrow. Andre🚐 22:15, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Similar to when Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Britain and the Maldives intervened in the genocide case against Myanmar, arguing that the current requirement for proving specific special intent was to stringent and hampered the application of the law. Seeing more countries lend their weight behind the criticisms of the Genocide Convention that genocide scholars and legal experts/scholars have been making for decades. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 22:57, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
Maybe it is similar. I don't know enough about Myanmar. The Rohingya genocide article says it was described as a "textbook example." So that doesn't really square with the idea that they're having trouble proving that case. I wouldn't want to wade into something I'm not familiar with without doing the proper research. But for this article given that we mention stuff like the German lawsuit and the Australian legal proceedings, and the South African thing is discussed, the Irish intervention seemed like it will probably have relevance to the article, though it's still recent. Andre🚐 01:59, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
textbook example much as how multiple sources, including leading experts in the field have called Gaza a "textbook case". The aforementioned group of countries wanted to step in, as they were worried of seeing results in the court case similar if not worse than the ICTFY, which set some rather interesting precedents, such as people being able to be victims of genocide, when the genocide in question was ruled not to have occurred. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 02:17, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
Just as a further note of interest, most of the countries that have intervened in the Myanmar case to make it "easier" to ascertain specific special intent, have provided a variety of statements indicating the exact opposite in regards to the Israel case. While this has been pointed to in some relevant sources that we cite for other information in this article, this note I don't believe merits inclusion. Maybe it could be included in another article, but someone else would need to pursue such an action if they so desired. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 14:56, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gaza_genocide/Archive_7&oldid=1267239247"