Jump to content

Talk:South Africa's genocide case against Israel/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Requested move 12 January 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

South Africa v. Israel (Genocide Convention) → South Africa's genocide case against Israel – Per WP:COMMONNAME: "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable, English-language sources) as such names will usually best fit the five criteria listed above [Recognizability; Naturalness; Precision; Concision; Consistency]". A quick google search reveals this name has been used 1,46 million times. A closer look reveals overwhelming and undeniable widespread usage by the highest quality reliable sources available:

Other ICJ cases in which the common name was used instead of official includes the Oil Platforms case. This name fulfills WP:COMMONNAME and matches the five criteria outlined in WP:CRITERIA. The supporting evidence is overwhelming and undeniable, therefore this should not be a controversial move. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:35, 12 January 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky (talk) 06:34, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Support for now. I suspect the common name will change again as the case develops, eventually resolves and becomes recorded historically, and when that happens the name very well might end up reverting back to South Africa v. Israel. But for now, this obviously is the present common name and will make searching for it easier for the average user. Soweli Rin (talk) 12:58, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
Comment If we look at List of International Court of Justice cases, there does not seem to be a consistent way of naming eg Canada and the Netherlands v. Syrian Arab Republic gives no clue that it is the United Nations Convention Against Torture at issue (the official name is Application of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (Canada and the Netherlands v. Syrian Arab Republic)). Neither does Ukraine v. Russian Federation (2022) which is the Genocide convention (the official name is Allegations of Genocide under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Ukraine v. Russian Federation)).
A related ICJ case is Legal consequences arising from the policies and practices of Israel in the occupied Palestinian territory including East Jerusalem which uses the official name.
Although it is a bit of a mouthful, the official name might be best ie Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v. Israel) Selfstudier (talk) 13:07, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
While I agree the title should be more descriptive to highlight the Gaza/Palestinian aspect which is lacking in my suggestion, however, per WP guidelines a common name should be used, and what we have here is fits the outlined criteria, but this common name could later change and become more descriptive and inclusive of Gaza. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:34, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
Gaza / the Gaza Strip may not need to be included in the title since it is not a separate country but an occupied territory of the state of Israel. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 14:20, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
See comment below explaining that WP:COMMONNAME is not the only relevant policy. - Fuzheado | Talk 16:00, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
Comment - It seems to me like the title should begin with South Africa v. Israel. Some ideas: "South Africa v. Israel genocide case", "South Africa v. Israel (International Court of Justice 2024)", "South Africa v. Israel (Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip)" IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 14:14, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
Comment - Point of information: While WP:COMMONNAME is a general guideline, one must also consult Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Legal#Article_titles for more specific and relevant guidance that states: "Articles on cases that are primarily notable for the legal precedent they set, or are primarily discussed within legal scholarship, should be titled according to the legal citation convention for the jurisdiction that handled the case." So while the news headlines stated are descriptive renditions of a proceeding the public is just starting to get exposure to, it may not be a good indicator of the long-term title for this article. If you look at precedent, we almost always go "according to the legal citation convention" as stated in the WP:MOS for the reasons stated at Wikipedia:Article titles#Deciding on an article title, such as recognizability, precision, and consistency. This would support keeping the title as some form of "South Africa v. Israel" for now, but without prejudice. Over time, we may see a more colloquial name for the case, but that time does not seem to be now. - Fuzheado | Talk 15:58, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
I agree. I think the legal citation is how this article would be mostly liked searched for in the future. Jmbranum (talk) Jmbranum (talk) 16:43, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
The case neither sets a legal precedent (there have been many ICJ cases relating to genocide), nor is it primarily discussed within legal scholarship, so this does not apply for that guideline. Your quote missed the following sentence from the guideline: "For subjects that have wide coverage outside of legal scholarship the common name may not be the same as recorded in academic and court stylings. For example, R v Aubrey, Berry and Campbell is better known as the ABC trial."
So factually speaking, we are still bound exclusively by WP:COMMONNAME. Makeandtoss (talk) 16:48, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
I didn't miss that. It's that this case has not reached the point where it is known in a short or common form like "ABC trial" or "Fisheries case" or "Asylum case" which you see in List of International Court of Justice cases. The guideline says, "the common name may not be the same" (emphasis mine) and is only to suggest that this is a possible option, and not to give it priority. So your comment that we are "bound exclusively" is not supported by this. Given that we have not had the passage of time to adequately determine this, it makes sense to stick with the guidance we have regarding the case name. What struck me is that you didn't mention the MOS:LEGAL guidance on article titles at all, so I felt it was important to point it out. - Fuzheado | Talk 17:09, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing it out, my point remains that this is neither a legal precedent nor primarily discussed in legal scholarship. Makeandtoss (talk) 17:24, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
Although the current title and the proposed are in reality both descriptive because the case is as well described in multiple other ways in sources. Selfstudier (talk) 17:37, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
Indeed, there are multiple ways it has been described in. But from what I have searched, it appears to me that this one is the most commonly used. Also, I don't really like the current title, the official one, which gives off a football match vibe. Makeandtoss (talk) 19:35, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
Oppose. Besides reading as more POV, we shouldn't use WP:HEADLINES as our guiding content here, which is more editorial shorthand than WP:COMMONNAME. We should stick to the (albeit inconsistent) naming convention for the other Category:International_Court_of_Justice_cases on Wikipedia, which use the "Country X" vs. "Country Y" format. Longhornsg (talk) 20:06, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
Every cited article above has the common name mentioned in the body as well, so your argument does not stand. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:16, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
It's still a POV title. Longhornsg (talk) 08:11, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
Please, how is it POV? 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 17:14, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
Comment the argument that we have some naming convention already is valid. On the other hand, arguments that it is too soon to represent it as a precedent are also valid. I would change from neutral to support if a more concise and reasonable alternative was proposed. It doesn't make sense to me to move to a title that is so long. Ben Azura (talk) 20:14, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
Oppose. Typical naming convention for legal proceedings. Marokwitz (talk) 20:56, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
Oppose I think it should just be South Africa v. Israel. Genocide part is not needed, neither is a long colloquial name. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 21:32, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
Oppose This is a legal proceeding at the ICJ, not simply a formal accusation or UN resolution. I would support moving it to South Africa v. Israel, but the proposed title lacks formality. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 01:49, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
Oppose Country X v. Country Y (common name of Convention) is a better format and can be considered for other cases in List of International Court of Justice cases for consistency. Notably, most of the article on current case also discusses previous similar ICJ case as Gambia v. Myanmar. 2861969nyc (talk) 02:21, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
I'll oppose the request. X v. Y just sounds more formal and, as it has been noted by the users above, it also is consistent with other articles. AlexBachmann (talk) 02:46, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
Another proposal would be: "South Africa v. Israel (ICJ)". AlexBachmann (talk) 02:51, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
Oppose Acknowledging that there is no consistent way of naming these cases, I think it is more appropriate to use the formal name of the case and, in any event, clarify the case with a parenthetical as others have suggested. For instance, Raffles v Wichelhaus, also known as the Peerless Case, is not named as such in the title. Unless the case comes to be colloquially known as "South Africa's Genocide Case Against Israel" in the future, I think South Africa v. Israel is appropriate. I think, further, that the incidence of "South Africa's Genocide Case Against Israel" is likely a product of people not knowing about this case, and it will likely not remain that way moving forward. Rtgarcia (talk) 04:39, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
Oppose. X vs Y is a more formal approach and is in-line with other ICJ cases such as Peru v. Chile, Iran v. United States, and Croatia v. Serbia. --WellThisIsTheReaper Grim 18:22, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
Oppose - I don't think this should be followed the commonname policy, because it is a legal case between two countries especially in ICJ. We should follow other titles of ICJ cases, not based on news or articles. Wendylove (talk) 22:31, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
Oppose for the purpose of maintaining neutrality FortunateSons (talk) 14:48, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
Oppose because the article isn't primarily about South Africa's case (or Israel's defence), it's about both and most importantly about the ICJ's decisions in the matter. When the case was first brought, South Africa's case was very newsworthy, so it made the headlines. Now it's about the ruling. Later we get South Africa and Israel's arguments to the merits. Then finally we get another ruling. Leave the title, otherwise it will keep changing. Babakathy (talk) 04:34, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
Oppose The formal format tells us everything we need to know and keeps consistency with similar cases. Killuminator (talk) 17:05, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
Support
Consensus? Are we closer to getting to a consensus on this? Paul Duffill (talk) 20:38, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
Support for the inadequacy of the current title and need to improve it. Thanks for bringing this to our attention. I think given the contentious and evolving (the case isn't decided yet, and won't be for years) nature of the topic, and the five criteria listed above [Recognizability; Naturalness; Precision; Concision; Consistency]", it is particularly important to follow the naming precedent of List of International Court of Justice cases where the parties are clearly named and the topic and objective location (Gaza) is clearly stated, combined with the official name of the case, ie:
  • While at List of International Court of Justice cases there is no consistent naming format, at least in the first 100 cases the most common seems to be: [topic of the case which does not name the Respondent or Applicant] ([Applicant] v. [Respondent]), for example "Fisheries Jurisdiction (Spain v. Canada)". The format of the current title ("South Africa v. Israel (Genocide Convention)"), and the suggested improvement ("South Africa's genocide case against Israel") are both very unusual, therefore arbitrary, and so without justification in the five criteria listed above and therefore also don't meet the NPOV requirement.
  • The official name of the case is very similar to the common Wikipedia case name noted above. The official case name is: "Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v. Israel)" (https://www.icj-cij.org/case/192).
  • The inclusion of "Prevention" in the article title is very important because the Genocide Convention is almost unique in the sense that it requires (in Article 1: https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/convention-prevention-and-punishment-crime-genocide#article-i) signatories to act proactively to prevent genocide when there is a credible risk of it occuring (signatiories don't have to just act after the fact to punish it) which is the reason that the 153 signatory countries all have a legal obligation to act even when there is just the risk of genocide, which is one of the reasons that this case is getting so much attention from the news media and governments and why South Africa is seeking a preliminary injunction to get the court to order a cease of the hostilities in Gaza.

:So I think the name of the article should be: "Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v. Israel)" Paul Duffill (talk) 14:12, 13 January 2024 (UTC) EDIT. After feedback from others I withdraw this suggestion. Please see my later comments below.

Arbitrary naming doesn't matter as it is allowed per WP's common name guideline. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:02, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
I'm puzzled by this proposed title as it appears to fail four of the five criteria you have appropriately cited: it is not concise or natural, leading to recognizability problems as it is inconsistent with how we name other articles. Its lone virtue is that it is precise, but it comes at the expense of the other four criteria. - Fuzheado | Talk 19:28, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
It is consistent with how the most common format on List of International Court of Justice cases (at least for the first 100 case titles I checked. If you have checked more, how many did you check and what was the most common pattern?). It is natural (the case is being taken under the "Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide"; the parties are named, and the core issues are "Prevention" and "Punishment") thus it also avoids recognisability problems. You've already correctly identified its precision. Agree that it is less concise than alternatives but concision mattes little if it doesn't actually accurately describe what it should be describing. It is at least as consistent, natural, recognisable, and precise as at least the first 100 case titles I checked on List of International Court of Justice cases so you are arguing not against my suggestion as the title of the article but against the policy/practice of the common format used on at least for the first 100 case titlesList of International Court of Justice cases which surely would mean that your comments belong on the talk page of that article?
Regarding "Articles on cases that are primarily notable for the legal precedent they set, or are primarily discussed within legal scholarship, should be titled according to the legal citation convention for the jurisdiction that handled the case.": The large amount of media coverage and comments from governments, and that it is far far far too early to know if it is precedent-setting or not (the case hasn't even had it's interim injunction decided yet, and the full case will take months if not years which means its significance is still very unclear and therefore also its common name that reflects that significance is also unknowable at the moment), and the consistent obstacle of national sovereignty to the consistent application of international law renders legal precedent in international law far less influential than domestic common-law legal systems (rememner that at least one of the UN Security Counicil P5, the US, literally has a law that authorises or obliges its Head of State to invade the territory of the ICC to prevent the effects of its cases against its citizens and allies (American Service-Members' Protection Act ; original document: https://2001-2009.state.gov/t/pm/rls/othr/misc/23425.htm ; HRW on the law: https://www.hrw.org/news/2002/08/03/us-hague-invasion-act-becomes-law). This means this legal titling requirement clearly doesn't apply. Paulduffill (talk) 06:51, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
Category:International Court of Justice cases is the best place to look for the titles of other articles, as you can see them easily all at once. There is no consistent pattern. I do not like the proposed title because the reader has to read 13 words "Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the" before finding out the specific topic here - that is why WP:CONCISE is important.
Onceinawhile (talk) 10:16, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the Category:International Court of Justice cases tip. I see your point re: 13 words before specificity. Agree would be good to have a shorter title and agree with VR 's approach below of following Wikipedia precedent of naming of genocide cases. Paulduffill (talk) 16:23, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
Oppose. Seems a typical naming of a legal case, and a very good shortening of the official name "Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v. Israel)". I searched for some WP: guidance on naming cases, and while not a great match MOS:LEGAL#Cases loosely supports the current name (assuming the case creates legal precedent as it seems likely to do) saying "Articles on cases that are primarily notable for the legal precedent they set, or ..., should be titled according to the legal citation convention for the jurisdiction that handled the case." If/when a common name emerges, then I think a better renaming argument could be made. Rwendland (talk) 15:41, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
Oppose - I think the current title is clear enough, and there seems to be precedent to have ICJ case titles be Country A vs Country B. i2n2z 13:23, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
Strongly support - I can't understand why people oppose this name change considering we have articles like Rohingya genocide case, Bosnian genocide case, and Croatia–Serbia genocide case. The logic used by Soweli Rin seemed convincing to me, and news media coverage, presented by the OP and what I've seen elsewhere as a common editor of this page, makes clear this page should be changed as the OP, Paul Duffill, AlexBachmann, Parham wiki, VR, and Freedom's Falcon have stated in other comments. Historyday01 (talk) 20:48, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
I'd personally be fine with "Gaza Genocide Case." What I would oppose is calling it "South Africa genocide case" because that might people think South Africa is being accused of genocide, when it is not. Historyday01 (talk) 20:19, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
It seems to me that "Gazan Palestinian Genocide Case" would be the best title, because:
(1) given the contentiousness of this topic it's important to closely hew to precedent (2) as @Vice regent and VR: and others have pointed out there is a precedent in how all the ICJ genocide cases on Wikipedia are titled: either of the people being claimed to be the victims of the genocide or the location (3) the case focuses specifically on genocide in Gaza and does not focus on all Palestinians being the claimed victims and does not focus on all Palestinian territory (the Palestinian territory that is the West Bank is generally excluded from the case and the case's official title refers only to "the Gaza Strip") @DFlhb: ; @Flipandflopped: (4) the South African complaint specifically claims that Palestinians, because they are Palestinians, are the affected population and victims of genocide in Gaza, and makes no similar claims about the other recent residents of Gaza, and those who currently and in recent history exercised control over all or parts of Gaza and the borders of Gaza: ie Israelis and Egyptians. And Israel may well move its residents back into Gaza soon. So it is important to specify "Palestinian". Paul Duffill (talk) 11:38, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
Oppose There’s a precedent to use Country A vs. Country B & it seems like the most neutral format. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 23:48, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Mild support. It always helps when potentially ambiguous titles are disambiguated; however, consistency would favour South Africa v. Israel. I'd be fine with either. — kashmīrī TALK 20:53, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Strong Support for the name change initially suggested in this section, as I think that it is an improvement, but I agree with Paul Duffill about that "Gaza Genocide Case", or "Gazan Palestinian Genocide Case" may be preferable titles. David A (talk) 21:10, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose, because it's a specific lawsuit with regard to a specific convention. Renaming the article would dilute the context. -Mardus /talk 23:02, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Strong Support for the change. While the current title, South Africa v. Israel (Genocide Convention), maintains technical accuracy and legal neutrality, changing it to South Africa's genocide case against Israel offers several advantages. The revised title would use direct language to instantly communicate the key concepts of the case. This increases accessibility for the average reader unfamiliar with legal terminology. Next, the proposed title mirrors how people would likely search for this topic, improving both searchability and discoverability within Wikipedia and external search engines. Finally, it would highlight the gravity of South Africa's claim, drawing attention to the significant charge of genocide. While I understand concerns about reduced neutrality in the new title, I believe clarity and accessibility for the broader audience outweigh this consideration. Moreover, the article content can maintain neutrality in its descriptions and the presentation of both South Africa's and Israel's positions. Ultimately, this proposed title change aligns with Wikipedia's aim of disseminating knowledge effectively to a broad readership. Detsom (talk) 03:43, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
    I can agree with that. Its better than "Gazan Palestinian Genocide Case" and "Gazan Palestinian Genocide Case" (too clunky). Historyday01 (talk) 13:43, 13 February 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.

European Union and other intergovernmental organisations (currently Arab League, Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, and Non-Aligned Movement) and their member countries' support

European Union: With the EU's statement (joint statement by the head the EU's exective, and the EU's foreign minisiter) on January 26 2024 "We take note of today's order of the International Court of Justice on South Africa's request for the indication of provisional measures. The EU reaffirms its continuing support to the International Court of Justice, the principal judicial organ of the United Nations. Orders of the International Court of Justice are binding on the Parties and they must comply with them. The EU expects their full, immediate and effective implementation" [emphasis added by me] ( https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/statement_24_465 ) this seems to show that the EU's position is now "support", whereas it is currently listed in the article as "neutral". I can see how its earlier source cited in the article (and other like this: https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2024/01/12/where-do-eu-countries-stand-on-south-africas-genocide-case-against-israel) would have justified it being "neutral" but now it seems to be showing explicit support for the case. And as other editors have occasionally forgotten: remember the "support" section does not indicate support for South Africa's position (which the court did not completely support in its judgement) but just support for the case itself being judged by the ICJ (see for example the Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch entries). Also, given that the EU make decisions only be consensus (see the Treaty on European Union here: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:12016M/TXT) this would also seem to mean that each of the EU countries should be added as individual supporters of the case. Paulduffill (talk) 12:06, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

They are supporting the ICJ itself and saying its orders should be complied with, not supporting South Africa's case. You can support the ICJ itself without implicitly supporting every case any party ever brings to it, of course. Endwise (talk) 12:20, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
Please read the section of my comment above yours that says "And as other editors have occasionally forgotten:...". And if it still unclear please read the full statement. You'll see that your claim "You can support the ICJ itself without implicitly supporting every case any party ever brings to it" is not correct. Your claim could only be stretched to be correct in only these instances:
(1) the EU only supports the general vague idea of something like the ICJ (and not necessarily the actual ICJ) and decides on a case-by-case basis if each case brought to a court like the ICJ should be brought, which the EU has not said. The absence of that leaves only two possibilities for your claim:
(2) a statement is made showing a particular case is an exception to their usual support for the ICJ, which the EU has not said
(3) or their previous position ("This is not for us to comment at all." ) which although logically inconsistent with their support for the ICJ did indicate a lack of support for this particular case, which the EU has changed with their new statement
Thus the EU statement clearly shows that:
(1) They support all ICJ orders
(2) South Africa's case is not an exception to this and falls within the realm of this
(3) They support South Africa's case (but don't necessarily support South Africa's position - see the last paragraph - but that is not the topic of this article section we are discussing.
And range of media organisations are reporting the EU supports the ICJ order from this case (eg: https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israel-braces-world-court-ruling-focuses-attack-south-gaza-2024-01-26/ https://www.timesofisrael.com/eu-urges-implementation-of-icj-ruling-s-africa-hamas-turkey-welcome-decision/ https://news.yahoo.com/eu-demands-israel-abides-icj-201211668.html https://www.aljazeera.com/news/liveblog/2024/1/26/live-icj-to-issue-preliminary-ruling-in-south-africa-genocide-case-against-i https://www.aa.com.tr/en/europe/eu-says-it-expects-from-israel-full-immediate-effective-implementation-of-icj-ruling/3120070) Paul Duffill (talk) 14:32, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
I've given time for someone to contest the basic fact that the EU now supports the case and no one has responded. So is there any serious reason why the EU (as an organisation) can't be added to supporters? Paul Duffill (talk) 20:30, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
Hi @Paul Duffill
Is there a discussion and consensus on precisely what the (non) support should be about ? I don't see a clear answer. One country can indeed support the ICJ and its decisions without supporting South Africa's position in this case, or without ruling on the merits of the case and awaiting ICJ decisions. Cuspysan (talk) 01:59, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Other intergovernmental organisations (currently Arab League, Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, and Non-Aligned Movement): (Pings for people who were following this in previous thread mentioned below: @Freedom's Falcon: @GlebRyabov:)

Within the topic Talk:South Africa v. Israel (Genocide Convention)#Adding a map of stances I started a thread on this starting with: "It seems to me that the question of, whether OIC members should be added or not (not just to the map but also the list of supporters)..." but I've realied that because it goes beyond the issue of the map so that thread should be in this new secton I just created. To avoid just duplicating a whole lot of exisitng text, first please see that thread below ("It seems to me that the question of, whether OIC members should be added or not (not just to the map but also the list of supporters)..."). Paul Duffill (talk) 12:28, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

The answert to the question of adding each individual Non-Aligned Movement country seems a pretty straight-forward "Yes": as this article states (source: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/liveblog/2024/1/21/israels-war-on-gaza-live-deadly-israeli-attacks-across-gaza?update=2637040) it supports the case being brought. And we have the other ingredient of knowing how this decision was made: the Non-Aligned Movement makes decisions by consensus (https://www.britannica.com/topic/Non-Aligned-Movement). It doesn't have a formal constitution (and seemingly no permanent web site) so I'm using the https://www.britannica.com source. Paulduffill (talk) 13:00, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
The answer to the question of adding each individual Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) country hinges on us finding out how this decision has been made (was it consensus and if not what is list of countries that voted "yay" and "nay"). I can't find anything on English on this and my reading of the OIC Constitution (English version) seems to indicates that the vote could have been either by a majority or unanimously. And so I ask that an Arabic (the official language of the OIC) speaker check this. @Freedom's Falcon has begun to look at this has but not answered this question yet. Paulduffill (talk) 13:14, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
Arab League seems to be the exact same situation as the OIC and so I ask that an Arabic (the official language of the Arab League) speaker check this. Paulduffill (talk) 15:11, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

I Strongly Support Paul Duffill's suggestion here. David A (talk) 21:13, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

So can this be added now? It seems self-evident. David A (talk) 08:15, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
I agree. It should be added now. Historyday01 (talk) 02:31, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
@Paulduffill: This seems to have been accepted. David A (talk) 15:35, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Japan support

Seems like the same situation as the EU that I noted in the OP in the above topic: Talk:South_Africa_v._Israel_(Genocide_Convention)#European_Union_and_other_intergovernmental_organisations_(currently_Arab_League,_Organisation_of_Islamic_Cooperation,_and_Non-Aligned_Movement)_and_their_member_countries'_support: before the ICJ January 26 order was made no support for this specific case expressed (ie official statements: https://www.mofa.go.jp/press/kaiken/kaikenwe_000001_00022.html; https://www.mofa.go.jp/press/kaiken/kaikenite_000001_00002.html; https://www.mofa.go.jp/pageite_000001_00094.html; https://www.mofa.go.jp/press/kaiken/kaikenite_000001_00003.html; https://www.mofa.go.jp/press/kaiken/kaikenwe_000001_00028.html) but as soon as the ICJ January 26 order was made support for this specific case expressed: https://www.mofa.go.jp/press/release/pressite_000001_00120.html . And the Japanese versions of these statements do not deviate from the English versions on these points. Paul Duffill (talk) 11:52, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Does anyone have a serious reason why Japan shouldn't be added to supporters? Paul Duffill (talk) 20:31, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
I Strongly Support this suggestion. David A (talk) 21:12, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
Much like with the EU – the court told Israel to refrain from violating the Genocide Convention, and in politics, timed statements expressing support for the court in fact communicate support for its decision. Countries that didn't support the decision either kept silent or went ahead with a repeat statement about Israel's "right to self-defence". I see no reason why such support statements ("we support the Court") shouldn't be counted as support. — kashmīrī TALK 21:15, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
So can this be added now? It seems self-evident. David A (talk) 08:16, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
Again, it should be added. Historyday01 (talk) 02:31, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
@Paulduffill: This seems to have been accepted. David A (talk) 15:36, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Human animals

Setting aside the fact that all humans are human animals, regarding this edit that changed 'stated' to 'said of Hamas', should this be in Wiki's editorial voice? I haven't been following this particular issue closely but I'm aware that there is debate over what was said/what was meant etc. Have these inconsistencies between the views of different parties been resolved to everyone's satisfaction or do they still exist? I don't know personally. Sean.hoyland (talk) 10:02, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

This change explicitly goes against [1]. — kashmīrī TALK 14:16, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
Yes, it does, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's wrong I guess. It's inconsistent with many sources as diverse as Al Jazeera to HRW to Reuters (e.g. 'It made specific reference to remarks made by Israel's Defence Minister Yoav Gallant on Oct. 9 in which he referred to Palestinians as "human animals"'...in Reuter's editorial voice) etc. I'm not sure what Yair Rosenberg had to say on the matter as I can't see that article. Perhaps someone could quote the relevant parts. Either way, it seems odd that there is (was?) a dispute about something that was presumably recorded and has a transcript somewhere...maybe... Sean.hoyland (talk) 15:24, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
Atlantic says "Fadel was not convinced, and deftly countered with several damning quotes from the Israeli defense minister, Yoav Gallant: "We are fighting human animals." "Gaza won’t return to what it was before. We will eliminate everything."
That seems conclusive so I reverted that change. Selfstudier (talk) 15:45, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
The relevant excerpt is Take the claim, also cited by NPR’s Fadel among others, that Gallant referred to Gazans as “human animals.” The defense minister has used this harsh language several times, and it’s reasonable to wonder whom he’s referring to. But as can be seen from the same Bloomberg video, Gallant uses this phrase to talk about Hamas, telling soldiers who fought off Hamas on the devastated Gaza border: “You have seen what we are fighting against. We are fighting against human animals. This is the ISIS of Gaza.” (Hamas’s atrocities on October 7 have been likened to acts of the Islamic State by both Israeli and American officials, including President Joe Biden and Secretary of State Antony Blinken.) One can certainly take issue with Gallant’s language—for one thing, a nonhuman animal never executed a grandmother in her home and then uploaded the snuff film to her Facebook page—but not with the fact that the defense minister’s words referred specifically to Hamas.
Also relevant is this part: On October 10, as the charred remains of murdered Israelis were still being identified in their homes, Gallant spoke to a group of soldiers who had repelled the Hamas assault, in a statement that was captured on video. Translated from the original Hebrew, here is the relevant portion of what he said: “Gaza will not return to what it was before. There will be no Hamas. We will eliminate it all.” This isn’t a matter of interpretation or translation. Gallant’s vow to “eliminate it all” was directed explicitly at Hamas, not Gaza. One doesn’t even need to speak Hebrew, as I do, to confirm this: The word Hamas is clearly audible in the video. The remainder of Gallant’s remarks also dealt with rooting out Hamas: “We understand that Hamas wanted to change the situation; it will change 180 degrees from what they thought. They will regret this moment.” It was not Gallant who conflated Hamas and Gaza, but rather those who mischaracterized his words. The smoking gun was filled with blanks.
I make two points in this connexion.
  1. It should at least be mentioned that the proper construction of these remarks is disputed.
  2. It is not clear to me that the right balance in the background section is reached by immediately discussing the proper construction of remarks of Israeli officials at length. In fact, that occupies quite a large section of the submissions of the parties. I think that it would be better to refer to growing accusations against Israel of genocide.
In view of (1), I shall include the full quote as translated by Rosenberg. Docentation (talk) 19:52, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
(But, to be clear, I’d have no objection to moving all of this out of § Background.) Docentation (talk) 20:19, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

This matter has been dealt with properly at Palestinian genocide accusation, there it says under Israeli rhetoric, we can just use that:

On 9 October 2023, Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant announced that Israel would launch a "complete siege" of Gaza, with plans to cut off electricity, food, water and fuel supplies, saying, "We are fighting human animals and will act accordingly."[1] Gallant's statements have been characterized as expressing genocidal intent towards Palestinians, particularly in the context of calling for collective punishment which would affect Gazan civilians, even with the phrase "fighting human animals" being interpreted as referring to Hamas specifically.[2][3]

Lede

"South Africa alleges" and "Israel argues". Nice. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:08, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. It does not seem to be neutral language, as it favors Israel's attempts to justify its actions. David A (talk) 15:39, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
@פעמי-עליון: The guideline you cited has nothing to do with the discussion going on here. "Contends" and "argues" are not synonyms of "claims". Makeandtoss (talk) 17:29, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
The relevant passages amount to a recitation of the submissions of the parties and shouldn’t pass judgement on them. If a verb is appropriate in describing the submissions of one party, it will be appropriate in describing the other.
As I personally read them, ‘submits’, ‘claims’, ‘argues’, ‘says’, ‘alleges’, ‘regards’, ‘adduces’, and so on are not quite synonymous but often interchangeable, in that the valance of the doubt they implicitly express is roughly equivalent in the context of reporting the submissions of the parties. I also think that it is a good idea to switch between them to avoid repetition.
If the worry here is that systematic use of ‘allege’ for one party and ‘argue’ for another party will implicitly suggest that the latter’s submissions are more credible, the solution is not to remove variation but to tabulate the frequency with which the various verbs are used.
@Makeandtoss why don’t you make a list of verbs classified by how credible you think they imply the relevant submission is? So long as nobody else objects to your reading of implied credibility, it should then be possible to ensure that the distribution of verbs by implied credibility is the same for both parties whilst avoiding repetition. Docentation (talk) 21:00, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
And perhaps @David A and @פעמי-עליון could indicate whether they agree or at least don’t object to your classification if you would be prepared to produce one. Docentation (talk) 21:02, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Ok, I’ll make a start and perhaps @David A: will chip in later.
  1. Factive terms that should be used with caution if at all include ‘point out’, ‘explain’, ‘make clear’, ‘show’, ‘clarify’, and ‘emphasise’.
  2. Terms that connote some sort of reasoning include ‘argue’, ‘reason’, ‘adduce’, and so on.
  3. Neutral terms without any connotation of reasoning include ‘submit’, ‘maintain’, ‘state’, ‘posit’, ‘contend’, and ‘respond’.
  4. Terms with a slight negative connotation include ‘claim’, ‘allege‘, and ‘accuse’.
  5. Particularly connotatively negative terms that probably should not be used include ‘insist’, and ‘assert’.
Docentation (talk) 20:27, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
I don't think claim and allege are slightly negative; they feel pretty neutral to me; so we can use these, instead of ones like argues. Argues just implies that they have a valid point, which is not necessarily the case, and is POV to be stated in WP voice. Let's just simply interchange between claim and allege. Makeandtoss (talk) 21:46, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
I may not understand English well enough, what is the difference between contend, argue and claim in this context? WP:CLAIM states: "To say that someone asserted or claimed something can call their statement's credibility into question", so I tried to use more neutral language. פעמי-עליון (pʿmy-ʿlywn) - talk 21:18, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
If party A is systematically described as making claims/assertions and party B is systematically described as making arguments it sounds like party A is not actually backing up their claims/assertions with arguments and so party B looks slightly better.
On the other hand, if a paragraph reads something like ‘A claims that X. A cites Y. A argues that X and Y entail Z. A submits that W. A further claims that V. A concludes that U.’, to me little is implied about the relative strength of V-Z. My suggestion is therefore that so long as the mix of verbs is the same, there is no NPOV problem. (What if one is wrong? Well, that’s for others to argue and then it’s for us to relate those arguments here in accordance with our policy, without passing judgement on them.) But perhaps Makeandtoss or David A disagree. Docentation (talk) 21:59, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
I think that "state" and "respond" seem like properly neutral terms. Thank you for helping out. David A (talk) 04:11, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
Definitely a problem. Because even the choice of "randomizing" the claims vs argues is by itself a biased act. By what right do we use a "argues" for a certain allegation by South Africa or Israel? "Argues" and "concludes" are heavily biased terms that should not be used at all in WP voice. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:48, 10 March 2024 (UTC)


  • What I think should be changed (format using {{textdiff}}):

Under "See also"

−
+
Israel–South Africa relations
  • Why it should be changed:

That article directly mentions this one already. Additionally, it provides further historical background for this case.

  • References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):

Slaymaker1907 (talk) 00:29, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I think that this seems like an acceptable change. David A (talk) 06:07, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
I also have no issue with linking that page as a person who has edited it previously, in fact. Historyday01 (talk) 13:52, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Karantth 2023.
  2. ^ Karantth 2023; Semerdjian 2024, p. 1; Narea & Samuel 2023
  3. ^ Cite error: The named reference Igwrd was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
 Done M.Bitton (talk) 17:07, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Add Ireland to countries that support the ICJ against Israel

Its officially confirmed that they will be intervening https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/28/world/middleeast/ireland-south-africa-israel-genocide-icj.html#:~:text=Ireland%20plans%20to%20file%20an,actions%20against%20civilians%20in%20Gaza. 78.17.25.255 (talk) 12:18, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Lede

@Oncenawhile: I didn't understand your last edit summary here? Makeandtoss (talk) 21:04, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

As far as I can tell the idea is that the depth of coverage of the parties’ submissions in the lede should be the similar to avoid partiality. That is a reasonable principle, but I am not sure that the balance now is right. I have revised the relevant paragraphs to the following.
South Africa alleged that Israel had committed and was committing genocide against Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, contravening the Genocide Convention. South Africa requested that the ICJ indicate provisional measures including the immediate suspension of its military operations in and against Gaza.
Israel's Foreign Ministry characterized South Africa's charges as "baseless" and opposed South Africa's requests. Israel claimed that it was conducting a war of self-defense in accordance with international law following the Hamas-led attack on its territory on 7 October 2023.
  1. These are pretty much the same length (42 v 40 words).
  2. I have excluded details of legal representation from consideration because those seem balanced.
  3. I think that it was right to remove Israel blamed civilian casualties on Hamas and other militant groups for using civilian infrastructure as human shields. because the lede doesn’t mention South African submissions about them. I also think it is right to remove Israel stated it is facilitating humanitarian aid into the territory. because the lede doesn’t mention South African submissions about aid.
  4. Going into the detail of the submissions of either party seems to be inappropriate in the lede. I therefore removed the detail of South Africa’s contextualisation of the case in view of the occupation, blockade, and allegations of apartheid. I also removed Israel’s contextualisation of the case in view of rocket attacks and the kidnappings.
  5. In view of the § Lede (above) I changed ‘argued’ to ‘claimed’, so we have ‘alleged’ (South Africa) ‘claimed’, and ‘characterized’ (Israel). I hope @Makeandtoss: and @David A: have no objection to this distribution of verbs.
  6. I reinserted the central Israeli response, viz that it is conducting a war of self-defence. I do not think that this amounts to reporting on its detailed arguments, but the major dispute between the parties is whether Israeli operations are genocidal or legitimate self-defence.
Docentation (talk) 22:20, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
I agree with most but not all.
  • The dispute is not whether Israel's actions are or are not self-defence, but whether they violate the Genocide Convention or not. In simple words, genocides in self-defence are also illegal. I'll remove references to self-defence because South Africa's accusation did not refer to that narrative of Israel, and the term "self-defence" is only mentioned once in the whole of ICJ order.
  • I see no reason to change "argued" to "alleged".
— kashmīrī TALK 23:37, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
Is your suggestion then something like Israel claims that its operations following the Hamas-led attack on its territory on 7 October 2023 accord with international law? Ad 2, the article previously read ‘South Africa alleges…Israel argues’ and supposedly this is unfair to South Africa. This is why I changed it to ‘South Africa alleges…Israel claims’. See the section also (unhelpfully) titled ‘Lede’ above. Docentation (talk) 01:17, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
The problem is that it goes against our guideline MOS:CLAIMED. We'd better use words that don't express doubt in the veracity. — kashmīrī TALK 02:59, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
I agree with Kashmiri here. David A (talk) 04:15, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
I have restored mention of apartheid, occupation and blockade to the lede, as I didn't previously notice this was part of the changes mentioned. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:52, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Infobox is misleading

It says "Decided: 26 January 2024". Only the request for provisional measures was decided, which is the rough equivalent of a preliminary injunction in some domestic legal systems. The substantive case is still ongoing, and is probably going to take several years to be resolved. Likewise, the "Verdict" is not the final decision, just the decision on provisional measures, it is not the verdict on the underlying dispute. This is like saying a verdict is reached in a lawsuit, when the court has only ruled on a motion for a preliminary injunction. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 22:29, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

I think that these seem like sensible and logical arguments, and agree that an adjustment of the wording seems appropriate. David A (talk) 19:40, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. I just removed those two fields from the infobox for now, since that seems like the simplest solution. My understanding is those fields are meant to be used for the ultimate outcome of a case, not preliminary rulings along the way. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 20:25, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 22 April 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved to South Africa's genocide case against Israel. Consensus to move to the alternative title. Most oppose !votes are solely against moving to South Africa v. Israel. (non-admin closure) NasssaNser 08:02, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

South Africa v. Israel (Genocide Convention) → ? – (options added while RM was underway) Move to

  1. South Africa v. Israel, or
  2. South Africa's genocide case against Israel

– The "(Genocide Convention)" part of the name is not necessary since there is no other notable legal case filed by South Africa against Israel. Officially, the title of the case is Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v. Israel), so this South Africa v. Israel (Genocide Convention) name doesn't appear to have any official status, it seems to be just nomenclature Wikipedia editors have invented. Per the article title policy, we don't use disambiguating parentheses unless it is necessary to disambiguate with another article (there isn't one), or there is some other strong reason to do it (which there isn't either). SomethingForDeletion (talk) 07:44, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Strong oppose that makes the article seem something similar to a football match rather than an ICJ case involving genocide and egregious violations of international humanitarian law.
The common name should be used as demonstrated in the last move request which is the South Africa's genocide case against Israel and is still being used by RS till now. [2], [3], [4].
A more complete list here:[5] Makeandtoss (talk) 13:08, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
Strong Oppose – we routinely mention the case subject in articles about ICJ cases (see Category:International Court of Justice cases), since descriptive titles are of much more benefit to the reader compared with bare enumeration of parties. — kashmīrī TALK 13:30, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
Just to add that I'd be fine with the alternative proposal of a rename to South Africa's genocide case against Israel. — kashmīrī TALK 15:55, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
Oppose I see no reason to replace a descriptive title with a meaningless one that could easily be about a football match. M.Bitton (talk) 13:38, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
Neutral The related Nicaragua v. Germany doesn't have it, otoh not having the parens makes them sound like football matches or something, I said in an earlier RM I preferred the official name but if not then something like "South Africa's genocide case against Israel" as mentioned above might be the way to go. Selfstudier (talk) 13:43, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
South Africa's genocide case against Israel is indeed the common name. M.Bitton (talk) 13:48, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
X v. Y is standard naming convention for court cases. Nobody thinks Roe v. Wade was a football match. And for court cases at the national level, we don't normally mention the subject matter of the case in parenthesises, unless it is needed for disambiguation – it is Roe v. Wade, not Roe v. Wade (abortion) or anything else like that. And this is not just for US court cases, the same convention applies for those in other countries: Australia has e.g. Mabo v Queensland (No 2) (the "No 2" is part of its standard title, to disambiguate it from the earlier Mabo v Queensland (No 1) case with the same parties); Canada e.g. Nevsun Resources Ltd v Araya; UK e.g. Wells v Devani; the Netherlands e.g. State of the Netherlands v Urgenda Foundation; I'm sure many other countries too. And we do the same thing for other international courts than the ICJ, see e.g. the European Court of Human Rights interstate case Cyprus v Turkey, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights case Almonacid-Arellano et al v. Chile, the European Court of Justice case Apostolides v Orams. Another example, we don't have an article on it, but in 2001 the US 11th Circuit Court of Appeals decided a case entitled United Kingdom v. United States (in which the UK government unsuccessfully challenged a US court ruling that certain documents it desired to use in a UK criminal case were legally privileged and could not be released), and subsequent court decisions have cited that case. All that said, we aren't completely consistent on this topic, you can find various examples of court cases whose naming deviates from this norm – still, it seems well-established, so I think it should be applied here too, unless there is a strong reason not to. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 08:51, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
As a non-American, yes Roe v. Wade sounded like a football or wrestling match to me when I first learnt about it. Not a good analogy anyway as Roe v. Wade is a common name, while the common name here as demonstrated above is "South Africa's genocide case against Israel." Makeandtoss (talk) 09:20, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
I'm not American either. But obviously "X v Y" is standard terminology for legal cases in most countries. I think people are forgetting that the topic area is law, and some standard conventions for that topic area should apply. In that topic area, nobody thinks "X v Y" is a sporting match instead of a court case. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 09:22, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Strong oppose. Without noting the genocide convention in the title, it could confuse readers, and create misperceptions. I agree with Makeandtoss that the common name should be used instead. Historyday01 (talk) 14:00, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
Oppose. I'll make the same comment I made last time: No need to reinvent the wheel. It's sufficient (and, I'll add, necessary in this case) to note the parties to the litigation and the subject matter of the litigation. The "football match" comparison is a good reason to require a disambiguating parenthetical. Alternatively, I see some support for South Africa's genocide case against Israel which, while perhaps a bit wordy, may in fact be the common name. But I view the current wording as a reasonable abbreviation of the official title. There doesn't seem to be a consistent naming format for ICJ cases, and this title aligns more or less with others such as Libya–Chad Territorial Dispute case, Alleged Violations of the 1955 Treaty of Amity (Iran v. United States), and, notably, Croatia–Serbia genocide case. WillowCity(talk) 15:03, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
Interesting, I could support South Africa-Israel genocide case, which is just similar to the South Africa's genocide case against Israel proposal which seems to be garnering growing consensus. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:10, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
I would support that name as well. Historyday01 (talk) 14:02, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Strong oppose this is not a sports match, the title has to be specific and mention what this is all about, Genocide Convention next to the state's name. Deblinis (talk) 04:02, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
I also strongly oppose this, for the above-stated reasons. David A (talk) 13:44, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Update: I also Support moving this page to "South Africa's genocide case against Israel" instead. David A (talk) 07:45, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
Strong Oppose as we use descriptive titles for most ICJ cases, and this one is especially deserving of description – not minimization. Detsom (talk) 17:04, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:CONSISTENT with the analogous Nicaragua v. Germany and per WP:MISPLACED. The base name and move target South Africa v. Israel already (improperly) redirects here, so there is no disambiguation issue that is being solved by the parenthetical qualifier. If there are other pages that need disambiguation, then a disambiguation page and/or hatnotes are needed, but the status quo is untenable according to WP:QUALIFIER policy. If a descriptive title is desirable, which I would not oppose, it needs to be one without a parenthetical qualifier unless there is an obvious need for disambiguation with other topics covered on Wikipedia. If so, similar articles like Nicaragua v. Germany should be treated analogously, which could be addressed in a subsequent RM. For now, the proposed move improves the article title per WP:AT policy. Mdewman6 (talk) 19:48, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
To be clear, I would also support the alternative of a move to South Africa's genocide case against Israel as a descriptive title. Mdewman6 (talk) 19:51, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Update: There is growing consensus that the article should be moved to South Africa's genocide case against Israel. Editors so far in support of the move: Makeandtoss, kashmīrī, Selfstudier, M.Bitton, Historyday01, WILLOWCITY, Pppery, Mdewman6. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:25, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Courtesy ping: SomethingForDeletion given the above, would you agree to expanding the current move request to include this alternative name as well? — kashmīrī TALK 11:45, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
I'm not sure how best it would be to structure that – amend the move proposal to have two options? Or open a new move discussion for the alternative proposal. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 23:27, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
It's common for RMs to close with a consensus to move to something other than that originally proposed. Mdewman6 (talk) 23:34, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Support, per nom Galamore (talk) 19:00, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Oppose proposed, support South Africa's genocide case against Israel nableezy - 19:05, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
I would also support the "South Africa's genocide case against Israel" name. Historyday01 (talk) 16:11, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
Oppose South Africa v. Israel; support South Africa's genocide case against Israel, per seemingly emerging common name and consensus. Also per WP:NCDAB, which prefers natural disambiguation (versus all the sporting fixtures that "South Africa v. Israel" alone could represent) over parenthetical disambiguation. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:49, 27 April 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.

Appropriate way to handle the judges interview

Based on the clarification provided by Joan Donoghue, I think we might benefit from clarifying some of the language that RS seem to have gotten wrong. Is someone opposed? FortunateSons (talk) 11:50, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

The article has it correctly. Selfstudier (talk) 12:07, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
I think you’re right, I missed that it was already added. FortunateSons (talk) 12:14, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
[OT] This is not a place to argue with Donoghue, but I don't think her position makes much sense. The ICJ cannot decide that Palestinians can plausibly claim any rights: their right is conferred by the Genocide Convention itself. In other words, every group in the world has the said right, the right to be protected against genocide.
The only thing that the ICJ could do is to determine whether safeguarding that right can only be achieved through the instatement of provisional measures. I.e., the Palestinians' right to be protected against genocide is under jeopardy. Which, as we know, the court determined to be plausibly the case, and so it decided to institute provisional measures (otherwise provisional measures wouldn't be necessary).
Palestinians' plausible right to ask for Court's intervention ( = protection against violation of the Convention) is tantanomous to Israel plausibly denying them that right, i.e., there being a plausible risk of genocide being committed on Palestinians. — kashmīrī TALK 17:01, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
[OT] Do you happen to have a law background? I must admit that I did not pay particularly attention on the procedural side of IL (and still got a decent grade, so no regrets), so I would be quite happy to have you cite a legal text by a reputable scholar that disagrees with her when it comes out, so consider this me hedging my position.
As far as I recall and based on my understanding of Nolte and the ruling, it seems to be generally in line with how those proceeding tend to go, despite the media’s questionable interpretation. At this stage, plausibility is an intentionally low bar and led to the application of relatively mild measures, but the court not wanting to rule it implausible is expected in a very bloody armed conflict, no? FortunateSons (talk) 17:37, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
Some media may have got it wrong but our article had it right even before her interview because we reported what the court actually said. So it kind of doesn't matter for this article. Selfstudier (talk) 17:39, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
You really wanna rub in my humiliation further, I already admitted that I missed the part of the article ;) FortunateSons (talk) 17:45, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
Of course not, I meant that we had it right anyway but we still included the judges view in addition. Selfstudier (talk) 17:47, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
I know, that was just a joke that does not seem to have landed (/ been funny, depending on who you ask). :) FortunateSons (talk) 17:50, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 May 2024

The "Movements, parties, and unions" section doesn't list the Green Party of the US or the Green Party US International Committee among the signatories of the letter. Since we did sign on, can we get our organization added?

https://www.gp.org https://gpus.org/committees/international/

Signed by David Doonan, web manager for the Green Party of the United States GPUS (talk) 17:38, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Need a reliable source saying that you did. Selfstudier (talk) 17:41, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. M.Bitton (talk) 20:56, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
@GPUS: David A (talk) 15:06, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
@GPUS, is this a account for your organisation or used by a group of people? FortunateSons (talk) 09:13, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
@FortunateSons Good catch. I've left them a message on their Talk. — kashmīrī TALK 09:17, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Thank you, I wasn't sure what the proper approach for this sort of thing would be. FortunateSons (talk) 09:19, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:South_Africa%27s_genocide_case_against_Israel/Archive_3&oldid=1234339030"