This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
South Africa's genocide case against Israel article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 10 days |
Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.
|
While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
An item related to this article has been nominated to appear on the
Main Page in the "
In the news" section. You can visit
the nomination to take part in the discussion. Editors are encouraged to update the article with information obtained from
reliable news sources to include recent events. Please remove this template when the nomination process has concluded, replacing it with Template:ITN talk if appropriate. |
Text and/or other creative content from this version of South_Africa_v._Israel_(Genocide_Convention) was copied or moved into Nicaragua v. Germany with this edit on 2 March 2024. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
A fact from South Africa's genocide case against Israel appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 9 March 2024 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
The result was: promoted by
Lightburst
talk
20:20, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
Created by Onceinawhile ( talk). Self-nominated at 22:29, 6 January 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/South Africa v. Israel (Genocide Convention); consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.
New article, long enough, fully supported by both primary and secondary source provided, and is interesting. No problems facing the bold-linked articles. QPQ has been done. The hook is neutral and factual and does not hold any opinions. The nomination is good to go. Makeandtoss ( talk) 12:58, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
I oppose that User:Makeandtoss will review this nomination he is involved in this WP:CTOP WP:ARBPIA area we need another reviewer that is not involved in the area. Suggest NPOV hook
Oppose original formulation and ALT1. The original proposal throws in the apartheid allegation, which is out of scope of the Genocide Convention and will not be adjudicated by the ICJ. ALT1 also cites an emotive and non-substantive "blood libel" rebuttal rather than the actual reasons that Israel denied the charges at the ICJ, namely that they are acting in self-defense and that the official directives of the authorities conducting the war do not show any genocidal intent. ALT3 seems to be best alternative, as it is a NPOV statement of fact that gets at the heart of the issue that the ICJ has been asked to rule on (in the short term). -- Chefallen ( talk) 17:12, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
Map needs an update 2A01:599:100:E0EB:AD8E:56B6:7411:499C ( talk) 07:31, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
For example Bosnian genocide case (in the equivalent section) links to both written and oral proceedings. So I suggest we replace or supplement the "provisional measures" submissions with: https://www.icj-cij.org/case/192/written-proceedings and https://www.icj-cij.org/case/192/oral-proceedings . Paul Duffill ( talk) 07:31, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
With my sincerest apologies to Gsgdd because we hashed this out a bit on their talk page with them ultimately self-reverting... actually, that discussion (and taking a walk through List of International Court of Justice cases) has gotten me thinking: obviously the lead should refer to some form of the WP:OFFICIALNAME of the case (South Africa v. Israel at minimum, I'd say), but how are people feeling about keeping the full name there? Is it too much or is it fine as is?
And FYI, if anyone would like to do the first sentence opening with the legal citation as some case articles do, that citation would currently be (in Bluebook style)
South Africa v. Israel, No. 192 ( ICJ 24 May 2024) (order indicating provisional measures).
Kinsio ( talk ★ contribs ★ rights) 05:53, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
The article currently states that China supports South Africa's genocide case against Israel. However, the sole source provided for the claim is a news article describing a separate issue at the ICJ: "Legal Consequences arising from the Policies and Practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem (Request for Advisory Opinion)" [6]. This is not South Africa's case. Has China explicitly supported South Africa's case? I can't find any news articles on Google that describe China's explicit support for South Africa's case. Until then, I argue that China should be removed from the list of countries supporting the South African case, and also removed from the image depicting them as such. JasonMacker ( talk) 19:50, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
South Africa's genocide case against Israel article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 10 days |
Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.
|
While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
An item related to this article has been nominated to appear on the
Main Page in the "
In the news" section. You can visit
the nomination to take part in the discussion. Editors are encouraged to update the article with information obtained from
reliable news sources to include recent events. Please remove this template when the nomination process has concluded, replacing it with Template:ITN talk if appropriate. |
Text and/or other creative content from this version of South_Africa_v._Israel_(Genocide_Convention) was copied or moved into Nicaragua v. Germany with this edit on 2 March 2024. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
A fact from South Africa's genocide case against Israel appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 9 March 2024 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
The result was: promoted by
Lightburst
talk
20:20, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
Created by Onceinawhile ( talk). Self-nominated at 22:29, 6 January 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/South Africa v. Israel (Genocide Convention); consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.
New article, long enough, fully supported by both primary and secondary source provided, and is interesting. No problems facing the bold-linked articles. QPQ has been done. The hook is neutral and factual and does not hold any opinions. The nomination is good to go. Makeandtoss ( talk) 12:58, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
I oppose that User:Makeandtoss will review this nomination he is involved in this WP:CTOP WP:ARBPIA area we need another reviewer that is not involved in the area. Suggest NPOV hook
Oppose original formulation and ALT1. The original proposal throws in the apartheid allegation, which is out of scope of the Genocide Convention and will not be adjudicated by the ICJ. ALT1 also cites an emotive and non-substantive "blood libel" rebuttal rather than the actual reasons that Israel denied the charges at the ICJ, namely that they are acting in self-defense and that the official directives of the authorities conducting the war do not show any genocidal intent. ALT3 seems to be best alternative, as it is a NPOV statement of fact that gets at the heart of the issue that the ICJ has been asked to rule on (in the short term). -- Chefallen ( talk) 17:12, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
Map needs an update 2A01:599:100:E0EB:AD8E:56B6:7411:499C ( talk) 07:31, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
For example Bosnian genocide case (in the equivalent section) links to both written and oral proceedings. So I suggest we replace or supplement the "provisional measures" submissions with: https://www.icj-cij.org/case/192/written-proceedings and https://www.icj-cij.org/case/192/oral-proceedings . Paul Duffill ( talk) 07:31, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
With my sincerest apologies to Gsgdd because we hashed this out a bit on their talk page with them ultimately self-reverting... actually, that discussion (and taking a walk through List of International Court of Justice cases) has gotten me thinking: obviously the lead should refer to some form of the WP:OFFICIALNAME of the case (South Africa v. Israel at minimum, I'd say), but how are people feeling about keeping the full name there? Is it too much or is it fine as is?
And FYI, if anyone would like to do the first sentence opening with the legal citation as some case articles do, that citation would currently be (in Bluebook style)
South Africa v. Israel, No. 192 ( ICJ 24 May 2024) (order indicating provisional measures).
Kinsio ( talk ★ contribs ★ rights) 05:53, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
The article currently states that China supports South Africa's genocide case against Israel. However, the sole source provided for the claim is a news article describing a separate issue at the ICJ: "Legal Consequences arising from the Policies and Practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem (Request for Advisory Opinion)" [6]. This is not South Africa's case. Has China explicitly supported South Africa's case? I can't find any news articles on Google that describe China's explicit support for South Africa's case. Until then, I argue that China should be removed from the list of countries supporting the South African case, and also removed from the image depicting them as such. JasonMacker ( talk) 19:50, 13 July 2024 (UTC)