Talk:South Africa's genocide case against Israel

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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4: 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:

You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive)
You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic
All participants in formal discussions (RfCs, RMs, etc) within the area of conflict are urged to keep their comments concise, and are limited to 1,000 words per discussion. Citations and quotations (whether from sources, Wikipedia articles, Wikipedia discussions, or elsewhere) do not count toward the word limit.

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.

Further information

The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are:

Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive.
Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.

With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:

Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring.
Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.

After being warned, contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topic sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions.
Editors may report violations of these restrictions to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard.

If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!

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.

Crime and Criminal Biography Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Death Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Discrimination Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Human rights High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: African / Middle East / Post-Cold War

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	African military history task force
	Middle Eastern military history task force
	Post-Cold War task force

International relations: Law Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject International law (assessed as Low-importance).

Israel High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Project Israel To Do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Assess : Rate the Unassessed Israel-related articles and Unknown-importance Israel-related articles.
Cleanup : Cleanup listing for this project is available. See also the list by category and the tool's wiki page.
Collaborate : Participate in WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration.
Copyedit : Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in 2005
Deletion sorting : Participate in discussions at WikiProject Deletion sorting/Israel.
Expand : Ayala Procaccia, Diamond industry in Israel, Edna Arbel, Levin Kipnis, Rami Kleinstein, Sephardic Haredim, Zman Tel Aviv, Nachum Heiman, Public Defence (Israel), Prisoner of Zion, Trial of Benjamin Netanyahu, Day to Mark the Departure and Expulsion of Jews from the Arab Countries and Iran, Pre-Modern Aliyah
See also Articles needing translation from Hebrew Wikipedia.
Geographical coordinates : Add geographic coordinates to Israel articles missing geocoordinate data.
Infobox : Add infoboxes to Israel articles needing infoboxes.
Maintain : See Israel articles needing attention.
Map : See discussion at Module:Location map/data/Israel. Add maps to articles in Wikipedia requested maps in Israel.
NPOV : Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries
Photo : Add pictures to articles in Wikipedia requested photographs in Israel.
Stubs : See Israel stubs.
Update : Basic Law proposal: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People
Other :
- Translate to Hebrew : David Bar-Hayim, Guy Bavli, and Guy Oseary.

Israel Palestine Collaboration

This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration, a collaborative, bipartisan effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. For guidelines and a participants list see the project page. See also {{Palestine-Israel enforcement}}, the ArbCom-authorized discretionary sanctions, the log of blocks and bans, and Working group on ethnic and cultural edit wars. You can discuss the project at its talk page.Israel Palestine CollaborationWikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine CollaborationTemplate:WikiProject Israel Palestine CollaborationIsrael Palestine Collaboration

Palestine High‑importance

	Palestine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Wikipedia. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

South Africa Mid‑importance

	South Africa portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject South Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of South Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.South AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject South AfricaTemplate:WikiProject South AfricaSouth Africa
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

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.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization:

Neil Seeman and Jeff Ballabon (November 18, 2024). "Opinion: Wikipedia has it out for Israel, and we've got the data to prove it". National Post. Retrieved November 25, 2024.

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:

Did you know... that in South Africa's genocide case against Israel, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to "punish the direct and public incitement to commit genocide" against Palestinians in Gaza?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2024/March. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/South Africa v. Israel (Genocide Convention).

Wikipedia

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Lightburst talk 20:20, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

The International Court of Justice

... that South Africa's genocide case against Israel at the International Court of Justice also accuses Israel of apartheid? Source: [1][2]
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Ingush towers

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.[reply]

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)[reply]

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

ALT1: ... that South Africa's genocide case against Israel at the International Court of Justice but Israel denies it as a blood libel Source: [3],[4] --Shrike (talk) 08:35, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such thing as you oppose my review, which is based on WP guidelines, nor is there such a thing as requiring another reviewer who is not involved in the area. The original hook is factual and does not have opinions in it, unlike the one you suggested. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:59, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:DYKRR is clear "use common sense here, and avoid even the appearance of conflict of interest." you edited this article and other articles in the WP:CTOP area. The original hook gives only prominence of South Africa POV so there is nothing neutral in it --Shrike (talk) 11:09, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've had people edit an article of mine before and edit in the topic area in question and still approve my nomination. It's not really that bit of a deal, so long as they are properly going through the requirements of approval. By the way, your proposed ALT is way more biased than the original hook and, considering you publicly state on your account that you are from Israel, you're the one that looks like they have a conflict of interest here and really should not be proposing such a hook. Silver seren^C 16:25, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ALT1 is grammatically incorrect. starship .paint (RUN) 12:18, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

ALT2: ... that during South Africa's genocide case against Israel, the Israeli legal team argued that the International Court of Justice had no jurisdiction over the war in Gaza? Source: Haaretz starship .paint (RUN) 12:40, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me as a good suggestion though in my opinion the article is not stable yet Shrike (talk) 13:47, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Starship.paint: no objection in principle, and the proposed hook is entirely factual. My concern is that the statement leads a reader to assume that by jurisdiction we mean something it doesn’t mean. Shaw’s argument on the topic of jurisdiction was: (1) a procedural question about whether SA had given Israel enough time to discuss ahead of the case, and (2) whether there really is enough evidence to confirm the proposed facts of the case and the intent required therein. Plus none of this technical argument is currently explained in the article. Onceinawhile (talk) 15:28, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I'll have to look into this once I am free. I think we have time as the article will stabilize in the meantime. starship .paint (RUN) 23:06, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're right Onceinawhile, I found a source giving a description that roughly matches (1), whether there was an actual dispute between South Africa and Israel regarding their responses to each other. In that case ALT2 is potentially misleading. I've withdrawn it in the meantime. starship .paint (RUN) 06:06, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ALT3: ... that South Africa's genocide case against Israel is aimed at persuading the International Court of Justice to order a ceasefire in Israel's war in Gaza? Source: Haaretz starship .paint (RUN) 09:44, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support this version. NPOV statement of fact that gets at the heart of the issue that the ICJ has been asked to rule on, unlike original and ALT1. --Chefallen (talk) 17:15, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Chefallen and Shrike: - would either of you like to approve ALT3 then and mark this nomination as ready? I mean, the opposition to original hook and ALT1 is clear, surely the DYK promoter would not choose those. starship .paint (RUN) 15:00, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As the court rejected the cease fire demand we need to reflect this in hook [5] --Shrike (talk) 17:58, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ALT3 is factually incorrect taking a strict view. And its given source is dated Jan 11, well before the recent Order with detailed discussion, so the source is speculative. South Africa did not ask for a two sided "ceasefire". Going to the ICJ judgement, it records that South Africa asked for "The State of Israel shall immediately suspend its military operations in and against Gaza" (page 3). SA actually asked for a one-sided "suspension", not a "ceasefire". So a DNY claiming something that is demonstrably not in the actual Order is a pretty silly. The ICJ did in fact order a provisional measure that Israel prevent the commission of "(a) killing members of the group (b) causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group", (measure 1 on pages 24-25) where "group" is roughly the Palestinian population of Gaza, so did in fact order something approximating to what SA asked. (As Palestine (or Hamas) is not a State Party to the Convention, I doubt that ICJ can actually order either of them to do things, hence SA did not ask for that.) Rwendland (talk) 21:29, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. ALT3 is simply not correct - the case is aimed at stopping an actual or potential genocide, depending on your point of view. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:18, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Struck. starship .paint (RUN) 02:18, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What was wrong with the original main hook again? It was completely factual per the ICJ filing by South Africa and is interesting because apartheid isn't as much discussed about the filing as compared to the genocide aspect. Silver seren^C 02:24, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ALT4: ... that during South Africa's genocide case against Israel, the International Court of Justice initially ordered Israel to "punish the direct and public incitement to commit genocide" against Palestinians in Gaza? Source: ABC News starship .paint (RUN) 02:47, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ITN Note that the article has also been nominated for ITN and so won't be eligible for DYK if it is posted there. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:38, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The ITN nomination was not approved so the nomination can proceed. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:06, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ALT4 is short enough, interesting, and cited, though the site is down and you will need this archived link. Anyone who wants to come at me with why I should approve a different hook may do so. I personally choose not to promote articles in the throes of a requested move to avoid risking having a redirect on the main page, but while we're waiting:

Refs 78 and 135 are malformed (78 uses a [1] for a title, 135 has a bare URL).

Ref 184 is cited to TASS and refs 64, 138, 185, 220 are cited to Anadolu Agency, which are both listed at WP:RSP as being unreliable, and ref 181 claims to cite Anadolu Agency when it instead cites A.com.tr, instead of Aa.com.tr. Can these be remedied?--Laun chba ller 03:10, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Onceinawhile: Please address the above. Z1720 (talk) 02:20, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720 and Launchballer: this has now been remedied. I left the AA/TASS sources in only two places, where they were supporting a direct quote from a Russian politician. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:52, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let's roll.--Laun chba ller 09:18, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Onceinawhile: There is a ^{[failed verification]} tag in the Ruling on provisional measures section. Please fix it and then ping me Lightburst (talk) 15:58, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lightburst: this has been resolved (I removed the offending text and removed the tag). Onceinawhile (talk) 20:06, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 November 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

ElderOfZion (talk) 13:40, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: this is neither an uncontroversial improvement, nor one that has consensus. Please read WP:EDITXY. M.Bitton (talk) 10:49, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Donoghue view is included in #Initial_ruling_on_plausibility section. Selfstudier (talk) 10:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 December 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

This part is in fact not............."The Court concluded that it is plausible that Israel's actions in Gaza Strip could amount to genocide and issued provisional measures,[11]" The president of the Court at the name Joan Donoghue, who also read out the judgement, was interviewed on BBC Hardtalk (https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001yplc) and said the judgement was that Palestinians had a plausible right to be protected from genocide NOT that Israel had a plausible case. Kindly amend to show this. Clanrickard (talk) 08:32, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Donoghue view is included in #Initial_ruling_on_plausibility section. Selfstudier (talk) 10:26, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And now what?

The page says the case is ongoing, but the last information seems to be from March 2024. Can we have a para in the introduction that says what might happen in the future and when? Marnanel (talk) 23:56, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 25 January 2025

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: Not moved — Wug·a·po·des 06:02, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

South Africa's genocide case against Israel → South African genocide case against Israel – I am requesting that the nonstandard use of a possessive form in this title be replaced with a demonym. –Gluonz^{talk contribs} 19:50, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. There's nothing wrong the phrase "South Africa's", and it's perfectly clear. See e.g. Google Books showing that "South Africa's" is ordinary language. Adumbrativus (talk) 06:40, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Is there a defined standard for this kind of subject? There are about 155,000 articles with possessive apostrophes not including redirects. Sean.hoyland (talk) 12:27, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I understand, there is no compelling reason for using a possessive form in this title. Possessive forms are sometimes used when an alternative title would sound awkward, but demonyms are frequently used rather than possessives in article titles, and the new title in this case would not cease sounding natural. –Gluonz^{talk contribs} 17:06, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – I think "South Africa's" should be preferred here to "South African", since the demonym is associated with the people of South Africa, whereas this case was filed by the government of South Africa and likely not all individual South Africans agree with the case. I think even better would be to move it to the formal name of the case, either the long name Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip or the short name South Africa v. Israel. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 07:09, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. "South African" somewhat imparts a connotation of the case being South African in nature, as if it intrinsically belongs to South Africa's geography or culture. It's an interesting distinction you've raised; I had never thought about it before. Rebestalic^{[leave a message....]} 22:08, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Requested move 3 February 2025

It has been proposed in this section that South Africa's genocide case against Israel be renamed and moved to South Africa v. Israel.

A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil.

Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly.

Links: current log • target log • direct move

South Africa's genocide case against Israel → South Africa v. Israel – from SomethingForDeletion's idea? I can think of Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc. or Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants as affirmative examples. On the other hand, articles like Trial of George Zimmerman and Murder trial of O. J. Simpson, for titles not reflecting any official name of the case. Rebestalic^{[leave a message....]} 00:12, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Note that a previous requested move changed the title of this article from "South Africa v. Israel (Genocide Convention)" to its current title. –Gluonz^{talk contribs} 02:24, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't notice that, thanks very much for the heads-up! Rebestalic^{[leave a message....]} 07:26, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

oppose: current title is clear Astropulse (talk) 08:09, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OPPOSE. Current title is clear and factual. Isoceles-sai (talk) 18:06, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Like all the other proposed changes, this does nothing to make the page better. As a reminder, I said, back in January and February 2024, removing names of specific users for this quote, the following:

I can't understand why people oppose this name change [from "South Africa v. Israel (Genocide Convention)" to "South Africa's genocide case against Israel"] considering we have articles like Rohingya genocide case, Bosnian genocide case, and Croatia–Serbia genocide case. The logic used [by one user]...seemed convincing to me, and news media coverage, presented...and what I've seen elsewhere as a common editor of this page, makes clear this page should be changed...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...Its better than "Gazan Palestinian Genocide Case" [or]..."Gazan Palestinian Genocide Case" (too clunky).

It was later decided, in late April 2024, to move the page to its current name. I agree with Astropulse that the current title is clear and with Isoceles-sai that the current title is "clear and factual."Historyday01 (talk) 19:31, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

.svg link likely containing malware embedded within page

In the map of "International stances" it is an .svg file instead of a .png file. This breaks the pattern within the page and strikes me as highly suspicious given that .svg files are likely to have malware since they are essentially code executed through XML. At the very least - a review of the .svg file's code is necessary. Throwaway 55215 (talk) 08:49, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To be more clear - I think the file should be changed to .png Throwaway 55215 (talk) 08:50, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Many thousands of svg files are used in Wikipedia in all languages. What is the evidentiary basis for the statement "given that .svg files are likely to have malware"? Sean.hoyland (talk) 10:02, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey its me on a different account since I lost the one I used to make this talk page.

The reason I think this is possible is because after doing some research, it is actually unclear if wikipedia actually sanitizes any .svg files at all, I found literally nothing about that. That's why I'm bringing it up as a possible threat.

Also - it is a fallacy to assume that just because allot of pages do the same thing then it must be mean its ok. This proves nothing.

I am not suggesting removing the file but I am suggesting changing it with a png or a jpg or some other image file.

If you can prove that that Wikipedia sanitizes its .svg files, then I would have no problem with the file staying. Throwaway 55216 (talk) 11:04, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not assuming anything. Allow me to ask the question in a different way. What is special about this file out of the many thousands of svg files that are used in Wikipedia in all languages? If the answer is nothing, then it is better for you to raise the matter elsewhere in a more general way, although I'm not sure where. Perhaps at one of the Wikipedia:Village pumps. However, for interest, see 'For security reasons, MediaWiki does not accept SVG files containing the following patterns...' Sean.hoyland (talk) 11:28, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I made this account after the .svg file used here but I'm also opening up similar topics in other pages that use SVG links, like: Canada, European Union, Botnet, Obsessive-Compulsive disorder, SVG, American Civil war. Throwaway 55216 (talk) 11:32, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NO, don't do that, it would be highly disruptive. Zero^talk 12:43, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Throwaway 55216: @Sean.hoyland: Most image files are served from Commons, and all SVG files loaded onto Commons are checked for a range of vulnerabilities. See this page and in particular the section "Blocked Elements and Scripting" and "External Files". If you know of dangers that are not listed there, you should comment on the talk page of that page. I don't see a similar statement at Help:SVG, which refers to SVGs served directly from en.wiki, but I'll ask about it. Zero^talk 11:32, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah asking about it would be a great idea and could possibly plug up a massive malicious loophole Throwaway 55216 (talk) 11:42, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See WT:SVG help#Security_issues. If that doesn't get a response, I know another place to ask. To tell if an image comes from Commons, click on it then click or mouse-over "More details". Zero^talk 12:43, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]