Applying the term genocide to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict would be shaky, given that there is no consensus among experts. It would be a clear break with the Neutral Point of View policy.
I’m not sure why you’re replying to a two year old comment, but whatever. I was talking about Wikipedia policy. It’s not going to take a stance using an emotionally charged and poorly defined word like genocide unless there is an expert consensus. And no, an individual or even a high ranking official going on a bloodthirsty rant doesn’t make for a genocide. Instead, Wikipedia has an article that specifically covers the Palestinian genocide accusation very thoroughly from a neutral, well sourced, and historical prospective.
Again, I’m not taking a stance on that here. I’m pointing out that when it comes to Wikipedia, it has to reflect expert consensus and be well organized. Where there is not a consensus, the opinions of individuals are presented. Wikipedia editors are expressly forbidden from synthesizing stances in articles.
Speaking of South Africa’s presentation, the ICJ has not ruled that what is happening is a genocide. It ruled that Israel must take care to prevent genocide, among other things. It’s effectively the ICJ version of an injunction. So there again, one set of reasonably neutral experts have not made a ruling.
plausible: (of an argument or statement) seeming reasonable or probable
From a court, what that is saying is that the argument brought in front of it is reasonable enough for the court to take action to prevent harm within their power. It’s very different from an actual ruling, which comes later. There was a lot of criticism of South Africa’s case, that it was weak and grandstanding. Likewise, there was criticism of the ICJ for using the wording plausible genocide when many people would rely on that to accuse Israel of genocide without a full ruling.
Applying the term genocide to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict would be shaky, given that there is no consensus among experts. It would be a clear break with the Neutral Point of View policy.
deleted by creator
I’m not sure why you’re replying to a two year old comment, but whatever. I was talking about Wikipedia policy. It’s not going to take a stance using an emotionally charged and poorly defined word like genocide unless there is an expert consensus. And no, an individual or even a high ranking official going on a bloodthirsty rant doesn’t make for a genocide. Instead, Wikipedia has an article that specifically covers the Palestinian genocide accusation very thoroughly from a neutral, well sourced, and historical prospective.
deleted by creator
Again, I’m not taking a stance on that here. I’m pointing out that when it comes to Wikipedia, it has to reflect expert consensus and be well organized. Where there is not a consensus, the opinions of individuals are presented. Wikipedia editors are expressly forbidden from synthesizing stances in articles.
Speaking of South Africa’s presentation, the ICJ has not ruled that what is happening is a genocide. It ruled that Israel must take care to prevent genocide, among other things. It’s effectively the ICJ version of an injunction. So there again, one set of reasonably neutral experts have not made a ruling.
deleted by creator
plausible: (of an argument or statement) seeming reasonable or probable
From a court, what that is saying is that the argument brought in front of it is reasonable enough for the court to take action to prevent harm within their power. It’s very different from an actual ruling, which comes later. There was a lot of criticism of South Africa’s case, that it was weak and grandstanding. Likewise, there was criticism of the ICJ for using the wording plausible genocide when many people would rely on that to accuse Israel of genocide without a full ruling.
deleted by creator