Template talk:Expert opinions in the Gaza genocide debate: Difference between revisions

This page is subject to the extended confirmed restriction related to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Posen

@Cdjp1 With due respect I think that Posen clearly says that this is not a genocide. In fact he accepts the Israeli claim that the civilian death toll is a result of Hamas using civilians as human shields or camouflage, i.e. collateral damage and not intentional attempt to kill as many Palestinians as possible. See these paragraphs:

One answer is simple. When war is fought among civilians, civilians are killed. Among the most poignant examples is from World War II: the number of French citizens killed by Allied bombing in the months prior to the June 1944 Normandy invasion. The allies bombed lines of communication heavily to prevent the Germans from reinforcing their coastal defenses along the English Channel. Historians suggest that some 20,000 French civilians who had the misfortune of living near ports, bridges, roads, or railroad infrastructure were killed in these attacks and during the subsequent two months of ground and air operations.

Some would say that this is ancient history; we would never do that again. But more recent history suggests that, though modern weapons are considerably more accurate and procedures in Western militaries to avoid collateral damage are more formalized, fighting among civilians, especially in urban areas, always means hell on earth for the civilians who may be trapped there.

Hamas, for its part, appears unconcerned about putting Palestinian civilians in harm’s way. Indeed, this is a feature, not a bug, of their political and military strategy. Some use the term “human shield” for this strategy, but that is incomplete. This element of Hamas’s strategy could also be described as “human camouflage,” and more ruthlessly as “human ammunition.”

On a daily basis, the activities of civil society obscure Hamas’s activities. More importantly, Hamas understands that civilian casualties are an Achilles’ heel for Western military operations. Liberal democracies put a high value on the individual, and hence on every human life. Lawyers have developed an elaborate legal structure to regulate the conduct of warfare because of this respect for the individual, which is enshrined in international treaties.

Western militaries, including the IDF, try to live by these laws, though the law of armed conflict does not proscribe them from waging war. They try to follow these rules in part because they reflect the values of the societies that they serve and in part because of an expectation of reciprocity, but also because pragmatically, they know that lots of civilian casualties can become a political liability at home and abroad. Hamas spends the lives of Palestinian civilians as ammunition in an information war. They are not the first to do so, and they probably will not be the last.

Vegan416 (talk) 09:33, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

@Vegan416 OK,I can't re-add it in right now, but I've got a collection of additions to the table it will be included in when I update it this evening. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 10:39, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

thanks Vegan416 (talk) 10:42, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Habermas

@Cdjp1 With due respect Habermas clearly says that attributing geocidal intent to Israel is a complete slip of judgement.

And so it had been understood by other sources:

https://theconversation.com/jurgen-habermas-is-a-major-public-intellectual-what-are-his-key-ideas-218796

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/nov/22/israel-hamas-war-opens-up-german-debate-over-meaning-of-never-again

https://www.middleeasteye.net/opinion/war-gaza-european-philosophy-ethically-bankrupt-exposed Vegan416 (talk) 09:04, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

@Vegan416 I don't understand the need to ping me on Habermas et al.'s opinion. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 09:24, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I got confused. However, even with regard to professor Gat, I think it is obvious that he rejects the genocide accusation. Surely you wouldn't call engaged in genocide a "moral army"... Also please consider the following sentences from his opinion piece:

There is no way to eliminate this array without causing massive destruction. Anyone who argues that it is forbidden to cause such destruction must propose feasible alternatives that would enable the elimination of Hamas in Gaza in the sense defined above [i.e. the destruction of Hamas as a semi-state military organization with a massive military infrastructure that controls Gaza – not its elimination as an ideology and as a guerrilla movement]; otherwise, they are arguing that the situation in effect gives Hamas immunity. Many in the West evade the question, and presumably there are also those who implicitly support such immunity.

In practice, by the standards of the most respected democracies, it can be said that Israel has met its humanitarian obligations under international law in regard to warning the civilian population to evacuate combat zones, opening humanitarian corridors and observing humanitarian cease-fires to permit evacuations, using advanced technology to communicate these messages.

Assuming that more than 30,000 people have been killed in the Gaza Strip (Hamas' figures), of which 12,000-13,000 were Hamas members, according to IDF estimates, this is a ratio of 1.5 civilians killed for every Hamas member killed. This is still below the estimated civilian casualty ratio of the American wars of the past few decades, which certainly were not conducted at the same level of threat under which Israel operates.

Soldiers have a looser finger on the trigger, and they are not free of feelings of revenge, but the main factor explaining the killing and destruction is the enormity of the challenge and the acute danger to the troops' lives on the battlefield in Gaza. Vegan416 (talk) 11:35, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

@Vegan416 this strays into inference from the source. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 11:38, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Userfying

This shouldn't be in Draft space. If the intent is for it never to become an article, then the content is better-suited in User space. The Draft namespace is for pages that will eventually become articles. Please read WP:NOTWEBHOST. Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace. C F A 💬 22:35, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

The problem is this is supposed to be a common resources, not owned by one user. Vegan416 (talk) 10:10, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

OR comments

@Cdjp1 I saw you started to add critical comments about the experts opinions based on your opinion and OR. Are you sure you want to go this way? This is not the idea behind this list. If each of us will start adding critical comments based on our opinion and OR we'll end up with endless debates... Vegan416 (talk) 10:13, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

@Vegan416 these are not my opinions but the opinions of experts and legal bodies. The citations will be added in the next update this evening. Understanding the context to claims is important, please add any explanatory comments you think need to be in the notes column. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 10:39, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I disagree. What you suggest will turn this page page into a discussion forum. This is not what it was meant to be. It is meant to be a barebone list of sources to be used as reference page for discussions in places such as the talk page of the Gaza genocide article. Any critical discussion of the sources should be left to that talk page. Vegan416 (talk) 11:36, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

@Vegan416 for Mirsky, at least, it is highly important as he claims that of people South Africa presented as evidence, None of them, though, have direct decision-making power, when South Africa presented the statements of Netanyahu and Gallant in their evidence. I am open to hearing how Netanyahu and Gallant have no decision-making power over IDF direction. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 12:36, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I'll answer that so that you won't think I'm trying to evade the question, but my point is precisely that this kind of discussion that we are having now should not be held here in this sources page in this no man's land, but rather at the talk page of any article to which anyone will decide to bring Mirsky's opinion. Anyway the answer to your question is simple. Mirsky doesn't think that Netanyahu and Gallant made any genocidal statements (and I agree with him). Vegan416 (talk) 16:22, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Time to delete this page, and each one of us can work on his own copy of it in his user space

@Cdjp1 As you insist on adding contested comments, in contrast to the original purpose of this page, and we cannot reach consensus on them then I think it's time to delete this page, and each one of us can work on his own copy of it in his user space as he sees fit. I can and will answer your points for the last time, but I really don't want to waste any more time in discussions in this page which no one but you and me visits (except one addition by @FortunateSons that followed a discussion I had with him). The status of this page is barely "legal" anyway. It cannot really stay in the Template space, because it's not a template and not going to be used as a template. So let's copy it to our user spaces and mark it for deletion.

As for your points: 1. You missed Boot's argument. The argument is not that killing 1% of the population cannot be a genocide. It is rather that genocidal intent is determined also by how many people were killed compared to how many could have been killed if the intention was indeed to kill as many people as possible. In the case of the Bosnia war the Serbs didn't really have the possibility to kill significantly more Bosniaks since the power balance between the fighting armies was much more even than in the case of the IDF and Hamas.

2. As for Mirsky, he didn't say that SA didn't bring alleged "evidence" against Netanyahu and Galant. He simply thinks that while some members of the coalition did say thins that sound genocidal, the sayings of Netanyahu and Galant were not.

3. The debate about the exact civil rights status of Israeli-Arab citizens is not relevant. If they have 100% equal right or only 95% doesn't matter for the question of genocide. The fact is that they are not being remotely "genocided" even according to the most crazy and farfetched definitions of genocide. Quite the opposite. For example they equally enjoy governmental health service that many USA citizens could only dream of. They also enjoy a very extensive cultural autonomy. They have equal voting rights. There is some amount of affirmative action in the civil service for the benefit Arab citizens. Vegan416 (talk) 12:56, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

@Vegan416 You misunderstand templates, and I do not support it being marked for deletion. You continue argue the articles imply something that is different to what they state. You do not "answer [my] points", but choose to argue against genocide literature. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 13:07, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Well maybe we should ask an administrator if this kind of content really belongs in general template space or in user space. Also, I don't argue against any genocide literature. You are the one who argues here against the opinions of experts, whose arguments you don't even understand correctly. Anyway, since we are the only two people who work on this page and we don't have a consensus about adding critical comments, then according to the rules you cannot add these comments. Vegan416 (talk) 14:44, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Making no statement on the main point, I think it would be beneficial to avoid non-objective comments, particularly those "debunking" statements, unless what is done is citing RS referring to the specific statement and applies to all (which, in my opinion only, would not be worth the effort). The goal of the list was creating an as-close-to-objective-as-possible resource, so it would be wise to delete content-specific arguments. FortunateSons (talk) 15:07, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Administrators have no special rights in judging which namespace is appropriate. (1) It is quite likely that this page will be useful to include in various talk pages and other Wikipedia: namespace pages. (2) It also makes more sense that people edit a single version - sorting out conflicts on this talk page as needed - rather than forking individual versions. It seems to me that (1) + (2) are a good justification for keeping this as a template, though to satisfy the MOS: "don't collapse or hide material" guideline for article space, it should probably not be used in articles, or at least not without prior consensus on an article's talk page. In the long term, having it as a link at the top of Talk:Gaza genocide, possibly with a brief sentence to make it clear that work has already been done in collecting together many scholarly sources, would probably be useful, it seems to me (the main motivation would be that if people want to find sources, they will know that they need to find "better quality" or complementary sources rather than re-finding the same ones).

In any case, right now, this template is useful for others wishing to recommend endorsing or overturning in the Move Review for Gaza genocide, and indirectly for the person who closes the move review. Boud (talk) 01:02, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Eames

I'm not sure who added her, but I don't think that Eames meets the requirements for expert opinion, considering we are specifically going "beyond RS" here. Would whoever added the citation be willing to elaborate? FortunateSons (talk) 15:09, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree with you Vegan416 (talk) 15:18, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

@Cdjp1, is she one of yours? Either way, would you object to her removal? FortunateSons (talk) 15:19, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

@FortunateSons she was found in a recent scrape of published journal articles, while I was apprehensive of adding her, considering how low the bar seemed to have been set for "expert" and prominence of publication, I erred on inclusion. Remove her if you want. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 15:26, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Will do, thank you for taking the time, and sorry for picking on the sources :) FortunateSons (talk) 15:30, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

No problems, the sources should be interrogated, questioned, and where necessary pruned. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 15:55, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

I definitely agree! FortunateSons (talk) 22:09, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Genocide vs genocidal incitement

Reviewing the table, I notice that statements concerning incitement to genocide are automatically taken as an affirmation that genocide is being committed. However, incitement to genocide is actually distinct from genocide and can be prosecuted even if no genocide has occurred. The entries for Sfard and Intondi, and the second entry for Mack should be removed as they only state their opinions that incitement to genocide has been committed, which is not the same as saying there is a genocide. TRCRF22 (talk) 11:57, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Maybe a separate subsection? It is relevant info. Selfstudier (talk) 12:02, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Seems an improvement over the status quo, but it would need to make clear the distinction between the two topics.

I'd also include the entry citing "100 civil rights organisations and 6 scholars" in this discussion. The statement accuses Israel of committing war crimes, crimes against humanity and incitement to commit genocide, not the crime of genocide itself. TRCRF22 (talk) 12:48, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

@Cdjp1 since you are the user who added Mack and Intondi to the list, do you have anything to add? TRCRF22 (talk) 11:25, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

The opinions are on the case of the Gaza genocide and from relevant specialists, so should be included in the centralised resource. Splitting out those that specify incitement, and don't talk of the perpetration of genocide, seems like a fair distinction. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 11:44, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 September 2024

Apparently WP:ARBECR forbids me from editing this, so here's an edit request. Please add the following entry to the table:

Name	Month	Profession	Source	(English or autotranslated and verified) example statement	Simplified position	Notes
Zarni	16 October 2023	Genocide scholar	The Jakarta Post	"As if to spit on the post-Holocaust moral clarion call of “never again”, Israel, a signatory to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, has in effect declared its intention to commit an act of genocide by cutting off all “water, electricity, and food supplies” to the 2.2 million people in Gaza."	Yes	Not in the article

146.198.192.97 (talk) 09:50, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Not done. I was able to find info about Maung Zarni at https://forsea.co/forsea-board-members/, (a blog at https://www.maungzarni.net/en), it's my sense that he is not really qualified as an expert on genocide, at least not in the usual way. Are you aware of any published papers? Selfstudier (talk) 10:06, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

@Selfstudier He is listed as one of the authors of "The Slow-Burning Genocide of Myanmar's Rohingya" in the Washington Journal of International Law, as well as writing this paper in the Brown Journal of World Affairs, both of which relate to the topic of genocide. 146.198.192.97 (talk) 10:21, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, would still not be keen to add this, will wait and see if other EC editors have a view. Selfstudier (talk) 10:34, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

@Selfstudier he's worked with Genocide Watch, so fair to add him in imo. While the template article name is "experts", the article is broader including relevant scholars and specialists. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 11:48, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Think he's acceptable enough as an expert on genocide, we've included people with more dubious qualifications IMO.  Done TRCRF22 (talk) 13:38, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 October 2024

Update the entry for Sherene Razack. Her entry has been in the table for over a month and nobody has yet bothered to fill in her opinion. Somebody needs to add a quote from her cited article that would support her entry in the table, or else remove it altogether. 82.47.186.69 (talk) 12:05, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

 Done Added quote from the abstract. Liu1126 (talk) 16:59, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Tally the numbers?

Would it be helpful to list the totals at the end? By my count, there are 86 YES, 46 NO, 20 MAYBE, 6 {{}}. This doesn't include the 4 in the separate table. Given that the list has 158 entries, wouldn't a tally be useful here to summarize it? JasonMacker (talk) 17:35, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

@JasonMacker: Yes it would, I was about to make the same comment. I would make the change myself if I knew how Kowal2701 (talk) 22:14, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

ECCHR website

Maybe it's just my reading, but I feel like the report is closer to an "it's plausibel/reasonable" than it is to an "It's certain". While those are not even close to an exact science, I believe that "maybe" would be the better classification compared to "yes". Are there any objections to that? FortunateSons (talk) 12:14, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

See their press release

"In recent months, ECCHR has been conducting independent research and analysis on the topic of genocide, and analyzing this against the available information and evidence relating to Israel’s actions in Gaza. This process has led us to the conclusion that there is a legally sound argument that Israel is committing genocide against the Palestinians in Gaza."

That's not a maybe. Selfstudier (talk) 13:21, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

That’s a difference in tone between language, for example, the German version says: “Unsere Analyse hat ergeben, dass es rechtlich

fundierte Hinweise darauf gibt, dass Israel an den Palästinensern im Gazastreifen einen Genozid

verübt.”, which Google auto translates to: “Our analysis has found that there is legally sound evidence that Israel is committing genocide against the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.” However, and any German speaker will likely confirm this, the actual word is a lot closer to indications than evidence. I’ll tag @Cdjp1 just in case my translation is inaccurate, but the tone of the German texts is rather clear IMO. FortunateSons (talk) 13:50, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Then the Q&A says:

6. What are the legal arguments that support a finding that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza?

A large number of reports (for example, here, here and here), commentary and judgments support a conclusion that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza.

and

There is also evidence indicating that several of the prohibited genocidal acts have been, and continue to be, committed in Gaza. Some key evidence is summarized below:

Unless the ECCHR is deliberately going out of their way to mislead English language readers, I can't see any room for doubt here. I would find it more likely that a softer German language version is aimed at a German audience, given the climate there. Selfstudier (talk) 14:46, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, they describe legal arguments that they find credible, but they stop short of actually calling it a genocide in their own words. If you check the statement by the general secretary, it’s rather clear that they’re contributing to the discussion, but not referring to it as a genocide with the required certainty, something made even clearer in the German version. FortunateSons (talk) 15:03, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

The press release in English clearly says that according to their analysis, (there is a legally sound argument) that it is genocide (Amnesty said the same thing). How can the argument be legally sound but it not be genocide? (admittedly the court is the final arbiter of the legal argument).

Unless you can demonstrate that the English translation is a mistake, that's what we should be going with. Selfstudier (talk) 15:11, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

In this context, there is a destinction between a legally sound argument and conclusive proof, something that would be even clearer in the German version (Hinweis vs. Beweis). For example, there can be legally sound evidence for and against the same result, with the outcome being unclear, as is (afaik) very common for cases before the Supreme Court and similar bodies. I would prefer to wait for a few others editors regarding the interpretation here, as there is very limited RS coverage. FortunateSons (talk) 15:19, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

That the court is final arbiter is not in question, that's a given and not in dispute, there is still a need to demonstrate that the English version of what ECCHR is saying is incorrect. Selfstudier (talk) 15:24, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

So, while my German is not enough to comment as to how other German speakers would interpret it, I would say the English version of the statement provided by ECCHR is more correct in providing "arguments" for "Hinweise", than Google's attempt to contextually translate it as "evidence". And I would expect folk at the ECCHR to be able to provide a translation that didn't create such a drastic difference in reading.

Now, I understand where the reading that they conclude it is genocide comes in, but, especially considering they are lawyers, the phrasing "legally sound argument", I would read as the believe it can be presented in court and possibly be found that it is a case of genocide. So while they may hold the opinion that it is genocide, they aren't overstepping the fact that it is the court who ultimately decides that legal fact. So for the list, should they be included, it would probably be best to have them flagged as a "maybe".

On the point of Amnesty, they do state in their report that their conclusion is that it is a case of genocide, and then the present the legal argument for that, which is different to what ECCHR is saying.

Hopefully my statement makes sense. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 21:07, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much! FortunateSons (talk) 21:11, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Why am I allergic to the word "they"... -- Cdjp1 (talk) 21:14, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

One day I'll write my comments in some manner of English... -- Cdjp1 (talk) 21:15, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

I’m not a native speaker, but it looked fine to me? FortunateSons (talk) 21:17, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Most people will auto-correct my errors when reading it, but it's a persistent issue I have, where instead of writing "they", I instead write "the". Luckily in the above comment it only happened a couple of times, but if I use the figurative spray-bottle on myself, maybe I'll remember to re-read what I've written before posting. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 21:41, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Ahh, that makes sense. For what it’s worth, and I may or may not be in the majority with this view, I consider such errors to be harmless if they are just on a talk page. FortunateSons (talk) 21:48, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

@FortunateSons: where did you grab the German excerpt from? -- Cdjp1 (talk) 20:49, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

It’s here, with additional context in German being here FortunateSons (talk) 20:53, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Danke schoen. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 20:57, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Sehr gerne! FortunateSons (talk) 21:13, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

@FortunateSons @Selfstudier @Cdjp1 Hi everyone. I've started to use "Likely" in the summaries. I think this this is more accurate than "Maybe" for some of them. Bitspectator ⛩️ 15:12, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Likely is definitely a good additional metric, thank you. However, I would wouldn’t use it for ECCHR, where “maybe” is the accurate term IMO FortunateSons (talk) 15:53, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

As in there is a legally sound argument that Israel is committing genocide but we don't really mean that? Selfstudier (talk) 15:58, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

No, as in “we consider at least some of the arguments presented to be legally sound, and make no affirmative statements on the outcome” FortunateSons (talk) 16:11, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

That's not a quote, mine is. Selfstudier (talk) 16:12, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, and a summary of the entire content, in the context of statements made alongside it, is generally more beneficial than a short quote. FortunateSons (talk) 16:26, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

You mean OR? Selfstudier (talk) 16:28, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

No, OR would be going beyond what is said by the source, a summary of the statements isn't OR. Did you read the "additional context" I linked above? It might help to resolve this. Note for example how he treats war crimes and incitement to genocide compared to actual genocide. FortunateSons (talk) 16:34, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

They put it on twitter too https://x.com/ECCHRBerlin/status/1868614945791004779 Selfstudier (talk) 16:36, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, and? The existence of a shorter statement does not rob the full version of it's meaning. FortunateSons (talk) 16:37, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Everyone seems to understand it, it seems very clear (unless they don't really mean what they wrote). Selfstudier (talk) 16:39, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

I mean, not really: a) they provide the statement I linked above as context, and b) looking at the comments, I'm not the only person noting ambiguty (on either side), but twitter comments are not a source in either direction, so... FortunateSons (talk) 16:47, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

If you refer to the Q and A, I was first to link that above. And quoted Q6.

"What are the legal arguments that support a finding that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza?"

Why ask this question? Selfstudier (talk) 16:49, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Because they are creating a Q&A on the law and recent developments about Gaza and the matter of genocide, in line with their work as an educational and activist organisation? This is normal for them, for example, they have also been part of lawsuits regarding arms exports and offer educational programs for lawyers. Them answering the question of What reasonable arguments can be brought forward in the question that needs to be proven is entirely expected. FortunateSons (talk) 16:55, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

They answered the question already in the opening statement. Selfstudier (talk) 16:56, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

They should make a proper report like the professional hr organizations do. Instead of likely we should put "We don't really want to say what we really think so we will just confuse everybody instead". Selfstudier (talk) 16:59, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

The opening statement answers a question, just not the one we're asking. FortunateSons (talk) 17:03, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

If they are saying that it has to be proven, everyone knows that and it applies equally to Amnesty and HRW reports as well.

If they have no opinion beyond that, they could have saved themselves a lot of work by writing nothing at all. Selfstudier (talk) 17:15, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Would you mind reading the additional statement? I think it would help you understand the context and their motive: to contribute to the "german discussion", which they perceive as overly dismissive of the possibility of a genocide. FortunateSons (talk) 17:18, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

@Selfstudier and @Cdjp1, I reached out to the organisation in late December. It seems like the English/Selfstudier interpretation is more accurate (predating and therefore not precluding the likely-option), so mea culpa regarding that. In addition, the representative clarified that the English version is considered to be authoritative in cases of dispute, just for the purpose of later use. Here is the relevant part of the email, responding to my questions:

1. Our position in the statement you refer to, is that we consider that the elements of the crime of genocide can be satisfied in relation to Israel’s actions against the Palestinians in Gaza.

2. We consider that the category of “Yes” is most accurate for classifying this conclusion.

3. Yes, the German and English versions of the Q&A are intended to be identical in their meaning. Where there is a divergence, the English version should be considered authoritative. FortunateSons (talk) 16:37, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

As wonderful as it is that you have gotten such clarification, it may induce a bit of a headache due to the clarification not being "public" information, and so may start to stretch into OR (though I am not certain as this is the first time I've been in such a situation).

That concerned having been stated, as Selfstudier did come to such a reading prior to the clarification, it should be fine to switch to that. For myself, I am happy to accept your reporting of the clarification and won't stand against changing it to a "yes". -- Cdjp1 (talk) 18:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

In my opinion, it’s just an interpretation guide and not a distinct source, so I don’t believe it will be much of an issue, but I’m occasionally wrong about this stuff. :) For what it’s worth, I‘m happy to forward the email to either of you or any admin upon request. Regarding changing the list, I think both likely and yes are reasonable here, with no objection to a change towards yes in line with the statement. FortunateSons (talk) 18:28, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Blank entries

Could people please stop adding entries to the table with just the experts' names and leaving the "Example statement" and "Simplified position" columns blank? Entries which only provide a scholar's name without actually telling readers their opinions are useless for the purposes of this template, and they force other users to spend time going through the articles in order to fill in the table themselves. I don't want to be rude or argumentative, but @Cdjp1 you are particularly bad for doing this (example). TRCRF22 (talk) 13:57, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

The only reason I am particularly bad is because I am one of the main contributors for all the entries into the list. Good thing thing this is a collaborative project, so if you have any issues with entries, you are able to correct them. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 14:50, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

"This is a collaborative project" is not an excuse. Whether or not it is a collaborative project, you should still not be adding entries that are missing key details and expecting other users to fill them in for you. All it does is needlessly create work for users such as myself and make the template seem incomplete. I remember one entry which had no opinions attached to it for a full month until eventually someone filed an edit request to have it filled in. TRCRF22 (talk) 22:22, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your efforts, may they continue. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 22:33, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Ta-Nehisi Coates

@Monk of Monk Hall:, while Coates' commentary may warrant inclusion in the article due to his prominence as a commentator, I would not consider him a Scholar or Expert in relation to this matter. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 16:53, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

I figured his inclusion might be contested due to his lack of academic credentials. I think it is reasonable to challenge his inclusion on the grounds that Coates is more of a "public intellectual" than an academic. Here's what I'll say in defense of adding him to the template: I added him because I felt that scholars and authors focused on race and colonialism were underrepresented in this accounting of the debate. I think scholars of race and colonialism have something to contribute to the debate because race and colonialism are closely related to the topic of genocide, and I think it's notable that they are (generally) more likely to identify Gaza as a genocide than scholars of some other backgrounds. I'm sure there are more credentialed scholars than Coates who share his position, so the first thing I'll do is attempt to find and add them. I think removing Coates here and adding him to the article in the cultural discourse section might be an appropriate thing to do, but I want to ensure we are being consistent in doing so. I was initially unsure about adding him here, but felt comfortable doing so after seeing that Max Boot was included. In my opinion, Boot is more of a pop historian/public intellectual whose work is mostly commentary rather than original academic research, similarly to Coates. Nonetheless, reliable sources seem to consider both of their opinions notable. If we remove Coates, I think we should consider also removing Boot and making sure that whatever standard is set in doing so is applied uniformly. I also think it would be fine to take a more inclusionist approach and keep both of them. Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 17:45, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Edit request 31 March 2025 / Add Avi Shlaim point of view in JHLPS 2025

Description of suggested change:" Add Avi Shlaim point of view in Journal of Holy Land and Palestine Studies 24.1 (2025): 17–36 Edinburgh University Press DOI: 10.3366/hlps.2025.0349 "this horrendous murdering of innocent civilians is not the same as previous Israeli assaults on the people of Gaza. This is ethnic cleansing and genocide." Diff:

−

ORIGINAL_TEXT

+

CHANGED_TEXT

Reneza (talk) 11:19, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Added. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 13:21, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Edit request 10 April 2025

Description of suggested change: Could you add also this article ? Fitful Infrastructures: Dwelling with Infrastructural Elimination in Gaza Khalid Dader, Mikko Joronen First published: 20 March 2025 https://doi.org/10.1111/anti.70013 Diff:

−

ORIGINAL_TEXT

+

CHANGED_TEXT

Reneza (talk) 13:42, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. twisted. (user | talk | contribs) 04:20, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Some cells are missing values

Specifically there are three cells with the following as their value: {{ }} Oneequalsequalsone (talk | contribs) 18:25, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Missing scholars

That’s definitely an questionable thing to do, but I‘m gonna use this to collect missing scholars that I‘m to lazy to add, such as: Eitan Diamond [1] (maybe/acts of genocide, starting at 5 min) FortunateSons (talk) 18:14, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Bozbuğa

I‘m not sure who added her, but could they please elaborate on what makes her a scholar in one of the disciplines relevant to this? The Hannah Arendt-connection is loose at best, IMO. FortunateSons (talk) 18:23, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

@JasonMacker, found it, that was you, right? FortunateSons (talk) 18:24, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I was the one who added her to the list. She is an academic philosopher specializing in ethics, and the abstract of her academic article is:

Israel’s acts of violence against the Palestinian people which started in the second quarter of the 20th century, still continue to increase. Following the Aqsa Flood, which was initiated by groups affiliated to Hamas on October 7, 2023. Israel launched intensive attacks on Gaza. This study aims to evaluate Israel’s actions in Gaza within the framework of Hannah Arendt’s (d. 1975) concepts of radical evil and the banality of evil. The importance of the study is that it analyses the philosophical and moral dimensions of Israel’s acts of violence in Gaza and presents an intellectual evaluation of a contemporary example of genocide. In this context, the study discusses how Israel’s actions constitute a form of moral evil, the discourses that legitimize these actions, and how the perpetrators normalize violence. In line with Arendt’s theory of evil, it is assessed how the violent events in Gaza are shaped by structural processes rather than the individual intentions of the perpetrators, and what this situation means in terms of moral responsibility. The study analyses the events in Gaza in terms of the problem of evil using current data. Consequently, the events in Gaza offer a salient example that demonstrates the systemic nature of evil, suggesting that it is not confined to individual actions but rather is embedded in institutional and systematic structures.

So, she is engaging in direct analysis of Israel's actions in Gaza, using Hannah Arendt's framework for understanding the violence that is taking place. In other words, she is an expert giving an opinion in the Gaza genocide debate. Her answer is yes, it is a genocide, and it can be assessed using Hannah Arendt's framework. JasonMacker (talk) 01:32, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

But she’s not a historian, sociologist, lawyer or genocide/holocaust scholar, or a member of any field with significant connections to the study of genocide (medical doctors, Jewish studies, etc.) Therefore, she’s not an expert in the way that matters, even if she does have other relevant expertise. FortunateSons (talk) 09:32, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Philosophy, and especially ethics, has a significant connection to the study of genocide. That's why she is citing Hannah Arendt in her philosophical analysis of genocidal intent in the actions of Israelis in Gaza. JasonMacker (talk) 16:18, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

A look at her publication history shows that her focus is on ethics and the problem of evil. Both of these are very clearly relevant to genocide studies. JasonMacker (talk) 16:28, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Your link is broken, but I already looked at it and found no significant expertise. She may have expertise in general ethics, but not in the determination that something is or isn’t a genocide. By that logic, we could include psychologists with expertise in trauma or experts in food supply chains and nutrition. @Cdjp1, what do you think? FortunateSons (talk) 16:41, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

I can't find away a way to find her publication history on Dergipark, and doesn't seem to exist on archives. She does have an ORCID id with three publications. Beyond this I can't provide really any comment, I know maybe 5 words in Turkish, so without her writing in another language I can't comment to the content.

On the note of psychologists as an example, I wouldn't disregard them outright, if their work repertoire did focus on genocides, such as with Israel Charny (who did comment on Gaza, and we have in the template). -- Cdjp1 (talk) 17:16, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes, there are always exceptions, of course. She just doesn’t seem to be one. FortunateSons (talk) 17:18, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Oh missed the translation provided by JasonMacker. If the translation is correct, in the abstract she seems to take it as a given that it is a genocide, I would ideally want her to discuss how it is a case of genocide (by whatever definition) in the article proper, as she doesn't seem to have a history of writing of genocide. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 17:25, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

I encourage you to read her article. In the English-language summary, she explicitly states that:

What is happening in Gaza today has reached the level of genocide.

As the article is primarily in Turkish, here are some important parts that discuss why she calls it genocide:

Günümüzde Gazze, İsrail ablukası altında olması açısından çatışmaların merkezinde yer alan bir bölgedir. Bu durum, 7 Ekim 2023’ten bu yana bir soykırıma dönüşmüş ve bölgede uzun yıllardan beri devam eden İsrail-Filistin çatışmasının radikal bir şekilde devamını temsil etmiştir. [Today, Gaza is a region at the center of conflict, in terms of being under Israeli blockade. This situation has turned into a genocide since October 7, 2023, and represents a radical continuation of the long-standing Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the region.]

and

Bu çalışmada dinî boyutu felsefî açıdan ele alınmaktadır. Dinî boyutu, genel olarak Filistin topraklarında İsrail tarafından askeri bir güçle Müslümanların kutsal mekân ve embollerine zarar verilmesi ve inancın dokunulmazlığının ihlal edilmesi yeni bir olay değildir. Ancak Gazze’de 7 Ekim 2023’ten bu yana İsrail’in hastane, okul ve ibadethanelere zarar vermesi bu durumu dinle sınırlandırılamaz bir boyuta taşımış ve bir insanlık sorunu haline getirmiştir. Gazze’de yaşanan saldırılar bir soykırıma ulaşmış ve gün geçtikçe daha çok insanın zarar görmesine yol açmıştır. [This study examines the religious dimension from a philosophical perspective. In general, the religious dimension is not a new event in the Palestinian territories, where Israel has damaged Muslim holy places and symbols with military force and violated the inviolability of faith. However, since October 7, 2023, Israel has damaged hospitals, schools and places of worship in Gaza, and this situation has reached a dimension that cannot be limited to religion, and has become a humanitarian problem. The attacks in Gaza have reached a level of genocide and have caused more and more people to be harmed every day.]

and

Gazze’deki soykırımda İsrail’in insan haklarını ihlal etmesi, bu ihlallerin, fâilleri tarafından olağan bir durum gibi yansıtılması, bazı aşırı Siyo-nistlerin şiddeti destekleyen ifadeleri14 ve ayrıca diğer insanların da hukuki ve politik olarak bu olaya sessiz kalması kötülüğün sıradanlaştırıldığının bir örneğidir. [Israel’s violation of human rights during the genocide in Gaza, the portrayal of these violations as normal by the perpetrators, the statements of some extreme Zionists supporting violence,14 and the legal and political silence of others regarding this incident are all examples of how evil is normalized.]

and

Sözgelimi şu pasaj incelenebilir: “Her şeye egemen Rab diyor ki, ‘İsraillilere yaptıkları kötülükten ötürü Amaleklileri cezalandıracağım. Çünkü Mısır’dan çıkan İsraillilere karşı koydular. Şimdi git, maleklilere saldır. Onlara ait her şeyi tümüyle yok et, hiçbir şeyi esirgeme. Kadın erkek, çoluk çocuk, öküz, koyun, deve, eşek hepsini öldür.’”22 İsrail devlet başkanı Binyamin Netenyahu Amalekliler ile ilgili bu pasajı 7 Ekim 2023’ten günümüze sürdürdükleri soykırımın dinî bir dayanağı olarak sunmuştur.23 Ancak bu pasaj oldukça farklı açıdan yorumlanmaya ve anlaşılmaya açıktır. Öncelikle kutsal kitaptaki bu olayın Filistin toplumuyla lişkilendirilmesinde açık bir delil yoktur. Ancak İsrail yönetimi, evrat’taki bazı pasajları yorumlayarak kendi eylemlerini destekleyecek ifadeler bulmuş, ancak soykırım eylemlerinin karşısında olabilecek pasajları göz ardı etmiştir. Ayrıca Tevrat’ta insanların birbirini sevmesi ve saygı göstermesi hatta yabancıya karşı hoşgörülü olması öğütlenmiştir: “Yabancıları sevin. Çünkü siz de Mısır’da yabancıydınız.”24 İsrail’in Filistinli sivillere yönelik yıkıcı saldırıları, toprak gaspı ve insan hakları ihlalleri dinî metinlerde vurgulanan bu değerlerle çelişkili görünmektedir. [For example, the following passage can be examined: “Thus says the Lord of hosts: ‘I will punish the Amalekites for the evil they have done to the Israelites, because they opposed the Israelites when they came out of Egypt. Now go and attack the Malekites and completely destroy everything that belongs to them, sparing nothing. Kill everyone, men and women, men and children, oxen, sheep, camels and donkeys.’”22 Israeli President Benjamin Netanyahu presented this passage about the Amalekites as a religious basis for the genocide they have been carrying out since October 7, 2023.23 However, this passage is open to being interpreted and understood from quite different perspectives. First of all, there is no clear evidence in the holy book to associate this event with Palestinian society. However, the Israeli administration has interpreted some passages in the Torah to support its own actions, but has ignored passages that may oppose genocidal acts. In addition, the Torah advises people to love and respect one another and to be tolerant of foreigners: “Love foreigners, for you too were foreigners in Egypt.”24 Israel’s devastating attacks on Palestinian civilians, land seizures and human rights violations seem to contradict these values ​​emphasized in religious texts.]

and

Gazze’de başta kadınlar ve çocuklar olmak üzere insanlara yapılan işkence, taciz, tecavüz ve öldürme eylemleri tam bir soykırımdır ve Arendt’in gereksizleştirme ifadesinin pratikteki bir örneğidir. Orada hastalara değil hastanelere ve okullara saldırılmıştır, çünkü Gazze halkının her türlü kurtarılma ihtimalinin ortadan kaldırılması hedeflenmiştir. [The acts of torture, harassment, rape and killing of people, especially women and children, in Gaza are a complete genocide and a practical example of Arendt’s expression of redundancy. The attacks there were not on patients but on hospitals and schools, because the aim was to eliminate any possibility of saving the people of Gaza.]

Do I need to keep going? Her article is very clearly evaluating Israel's actions in Gaza (as genocide), but also examines the statements of Israeli soldiers & officials for genocidal intent. And, because of the religious nature of the conflict (with Netanyahu quoting scripture), her expertise on philosophy of religion is especially relevant here. It's a fascinating article and this conflict, which has religious dimensions, is clearly within the purview of an academic expert whose listed fields include philosophy of religion. JasonMacker (talk) 01:23, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

JasonMacker may I ask how you are doing the translation, is it through your own knowledge of Turkish, or with the use of something like Google Translate?

Based on the translations provided, it seems again, more so that she accepts the fact of it being a genocide. So, not really what I would want. That being said, the third paragraph sparks some interest in how that relates to potential dehumanisation with such a normalisation of rhetoric and violence. And the fourth paragraph is the sort of area where she would be more useful to the article, if we were to use her, and that is the discussion of the religious invocations, symbolism, and terminology in the rhetoric we see from Israeli officials, considering her background. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 22:57, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I am not a Turkish speaker (or reader) so I am relying on Google Translate. (btw here's her articles listed on Google Scholar)

To be clear, I don't think that this is the best analysis possible. She's not directly engaging with the definition of genocide. She's saying that Israel is acting in ways that can be analyzed using Arendt's methods for analyzing the Holocaust. I personally don't feel strongly about including her in the main article, but if we would want to use her in the main article, I think that at best, her comments about passages in the Torah that speak of loving and respecting one another would be the most relevant to her expertise. In other words, I don't think her direct commentary on "genocide" itself is noteworthy. However, she does represent the only Middle Eastern non-Israeli non-English language scholar in the template, as far as I see.

Looking at the main article, we don't have a subsection in the "Academic and legal discourse" for philosophy of religion that discusses Amalek (the Middle Eastern studies subsection mentions it once). So we could give 1 sentence to her in the Others section, something like:

"Islamic philosophy scholar Bozbuğa argues that while the Israeli government has interpretated passages in the Torah to justify their actions, they are ignoring other passages in the Torah that advises people to love and respect one another, including foreigners, such as Deuteronomy 10:19.{{efn|Love ye therefore the stranger; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.}}"

That's the best I could come up with to justify including her in the article. However, the "Academic and legal discourse" section of the article focuses more on the question of whether it is a genocide, while Bozbuğa's article is focusing on how to explain Israel's genocidal actions.

To be honest, the article does seem lacking in experts on religion discussing the religious texts and imagery used in the Gaza genocide. I'll look into that and see if I can't find more experts discussing the issue, and we can make a sub-subsection of "Others" titled "Commentary on religious aspects" or something. For comparison, the Gaza war article doesn't mention Amalek, Torah, or Bible at all. So if this would belong anywhere, I guess it would be here in the Gaza genocide article. I've found this Tamir Sorek article discussing Amalek, although his background is sociology. JasonMacker (talk) 02:58, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

The link should be fixed now (it was already in the template, but I missed the period at the end of it). JasonMacker (talk) 00:28, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

The problem of evil is not very clearly relevant to genocide studies. Genocide studies is a political science, the problem of evil is a theological question about the nature of God. The two are not connected. TRCRF22 (talk) 17:08, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Do you think Hannah Arendt is relevant to genocide studies? She's listed here, so then the question is whether Holocaust studies is related to genocide studies. I say yes, very much so. If somebody is using the analysis of a very prominent Holocaust studies scholar to analyze the Gaza genocide, that sounds like it's incredibly relevant. JasonMacker (talk) 00:39, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

After reviewing the Gaza genocide article, I think I can fit that sentence above into Gaza_genocide#Invocations_of_Amalek. However, I think this needs to be discussed on that article's talk page, rather than the template's talk page. I'll make a new section there.--JasonMacker (talk) 14:52, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Who counts as an expert? Which experts warrant inclusion?

For the purposes of this template, what qualifies someone for inclusion in this article? @TRCRF22 recently removed the entry for Lavalette with the following reasoning: "A retired professor of social work is not an expert in any relevant discipline". I agree with this, but after looking through the entries, I have found a couple of entries of people in fields that I do not see as relevant enough to warrant inclusion. I did not want to make such a major change and just delete multiple entries without input, as I suspect that would be challenged, so I would like other users thoughts on some entries:

• Reingewertz (1 April 2025) Professor of public administration and policy specialising in economics
• Bozbuğa (21 March 2025) Islamic Philosopher and Assistant Professor at Bandırma Onyedi Eylül University [disscussion above]
• James (28 February 2025) Professor of cultural diversity
• Stone & Rose (8 November 2024) Mathematician; Professor of law, specialising in maritime law [I understand how many fields of law could be relevant, but maritime? I might just be too much of a laymen for this one]
• Bauhn (21 August 2024) Professor of philosophy [A particular field I noticed in multiple entries that imo has a tenuous connection to the topic is general philosophy, as in philosophy without a specialty in application to a relevant sector such as race/ethnicity or conflict].
• Suslovic et al. (17 June 2024) Reader in social welfare; Professor of social work; Professor of social work; Professor of social work; Professor of social work; Organizer; Professor of social work [same field as Lavalette]

I also think we need to establish some sort of policy on inclusion as it relates to notability. Does this list simply require expertise? For example, if someone is a non-notable scholar in a relevant field (as in holds a degree from an accredited university + is published) and makes a non-published statement on their opinion (even on social media), should it be included? I do not have a particular opinion on this, but I haven't seen it be brought up yet.

Sorry for including two questions under one topic, but I think these both should be addressed. Mason7512 (talk) 23:57, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

I added Bozbuğa because of these three criteria:

(1) Professional academic

(2) Academic publication

(3) Evaluation of Israel's actions in Gaza (YES, it is a genocide)

Those are the criteria that I thought were needed for inclusion. As long as the expert's profession is listed alongside them, I don't see an issue with including them in the list, even if their profession doesn't seem directly related. Blogs, social media, or news/opinion articles should only be used for an entry if the person who wrote them is relevantly notable (like Benny Morris). If someone wants to offer more/less/different criteria, I'd be happy to hear them. JasonMacker (talk) 01:53, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for responding, I think you bring up a good point: the criteria of inclusion is not clear and therefore everyone is currently operating on their own assumed criteria. I think this is where a lot of the user conflicts about content in this template stem from. If we can establish criteria, this will provide us with a framework for resolving and preventing conflicts. Mason7512 (talk) 02:37, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

I agree that we need to establish more specific criteria for who counts as an "expert" for the purposes of this table. In addition to Lavalette, I have previously had cause to remove an economist and a professor of linguistics from the table. Unlike JasonMacker above, I do think we should restrict this table to people whose expertise is in relevant fields, because if they don't have any more expertise in the subject than a layperson we can hardly call them "experts", can we? While I'm not disputing the academic credentials of people like Lavalette who I'm sure are well-respected in their own fields, their opinions on the Gaza genocide are no more or less credible than others without the necessary expertise, and in some cases they may simply be calling it genocide based on the analysis provided by experts in more relevant fields (I'm thinking specifically of Bozbuğa, who only refers to it as genocide in passing before going on to discuss the moral implications of the conflict - is this really an example of relevant scholarly analysis?). The question we now have to ask is what qualifies as a relevant sphere that would justify inclusion. Some are self-evident, such as genocide studies or law, but other fields may be relevant in other ways (such as Middle Eastern studies for example). TRCRF22 (talk) 10:59, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

>Unlike JasonMacker above, I do think we should restrict this table to people whose expertise is in relevant fields

Your example (the article discussing professors at UNAM) highlights what I think is something important to consider.

(1) It's not an academic paper

(2) It mainly consists of people in unrelated fields

(3) It only involves assertion, without any serious analysis.

As long as the person, (1) is an academic (someone with a degree that allows them to teach at a university), (2) presents analysis (3) published in a peer-reviewed journal, that should warrant inclusion in the template. Beyond this, there most be some other important criteria to allow exceptions that don't meet those three crtieria, such as when someone like Omer Bartov or Benny Morris, academics with directly-related fields, express their views in a news article (or have their views noteworthy enough that the mere expression of them is newsworthy). So, my logic could be boiled down to:

(1) Academic (someone with Master's, PhD, or equivalent who is working in academia or directly in human rights or international law)

(2) Doing analysis of what is happening in Gaza

(3) In Peer-reviewed paper

If (1) isnt fulfilled, then they should be excluded from this template.

If (1) and (2) are fulfilled, but (3) isn't fulfilled, then that person should have to show notability by having a Wikipedia article about them that demonstrates their relevant work in the subject matter.

Note that this is my criteria for individuals. For groups, preferably they should at the very least be doing analysis and also demonstrate that their group has relevant work in the subject matter. So any human rights group that covers Israel/Palestine would count.

And if some general rule can't be formulated, then we could review individual entries on a case-by-case basis, here on the talk page. JasonMacker (talk) 16:03, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

As one of the hands behind the initial creation of the list, the point of it was as a resource for editors to use in discussions. So instead of running around looking for these sources from scratch in repeated regular discussions, people could easily find/point to the source in the list. So, with that in mind, while we could cut it down in a whole multitude of ways, I believe it better serves our purposes (in utility) to have a broader set of inclusion criteria. We of course can then enforce stricter criteria, should we so wish, on which are actually included in the article proper (Gaza genocide). -- Cdjp1 (talk) 17:21, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

On a general note, maritime law is often the intersection between national and international law (and, depending on specific content, also military law). I’m not sure how good his general expertise is, but it is something to keep in mind. FortunateSons (talk) 17:56, 18 May 2025 (UTC)