Talk:South Africa's genocide case against Israel

Map „Stances of states“ Not up-to-date
Map needs an update 2A01:599:100:E0EB:AD8E:56B6:7411:499C (talk) 07:31, 14 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I assume you mean the map of stances? Could you please indicate what part of it is no up to date and suggest some sources? Paul Duffill (talk) 07:51, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * From what I could tell, the only updates needed are Spain and Ireland. CheezyCheddar (talk) 20:33, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

"Transcript" section only lists "provisional measures" documents not the links to all of the case's transcripts
For example Bosnian genocide case (in the equivalent section) links to both written and oral proceedings. So I suggest we replace or supplement the "provisional measures" submissions with: https://www.icj-cij.org/case/192/written-proceedings and https://www.icj-cij.org/case/192/oral-proceedings. Paul Duffill (talk) 07:31, 26 June 2024 (UTC)


 * And Rohingya genocide case links to the official case page (https://www.icj-cij.org/en/case/178) which is similar to the two transcripts links I put above. Paul Duffill (talk) 07:34, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Does the lead section need to list the full official name of the case?
With my sincerest apologies to because we hashed this out a bit on their talk page with them ultimately self-reverting... actually, that discussion (and taking a walk through List of International Court of Justice cases) has gotten me thinking: obviously the lead should refer to some form of the WP:OFFICIALNAME of the case (South Africa v. Israel at minimum, I'd say), but how are people feeling about keeping the full name there? Is it too much or is it fine as is?

And FYI, if anyone would like to do the first sentence opening with the legal citation as some case articles do, that citation would currently be (in Bluebook style)  Kinsio  (talk ★ contribs ★ rights) 05:53, 4 July 2024 (UTC)


 * its an improvement. lets do it Gsgdd (talk) 06:18, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Just saw this discussion, personally I don't mind the addition of the legal citation, or the removal of the full name. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:44, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Alright, since I'm seeing these opinions in favor of the legal citation, I'll rework the lead section to incorporate it.  Kinsio  (talk ★ contribs ★ rights) 12:50, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ here. Left out the date and case status explanatory parenthetical because even though they're technically part of the legal citation, they don't feel quite right placed in the text in this manner. I doubt anyone will object to just providing the General List number. Thanks for getting me thinking about this with your bold edit, I must admit it does look much better this way.  Kinsio  (talk ★ contribs ★ rights) 13:15, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It looks weird like a typo, I think we are better off using it in a footnote. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:58, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It does look a bit odd but I'd refer you to the articles Fisheries case, Asylum case, and Ambatielos case for comparison (or for a random example of a FA that uses this format, Regents of the University of California v. Bakke); since the 2024 volume of the ICJ reporter, Reports of Judgments, Advisory Opinions and Orders (abbreviated as "ICJ" in citations) has not yet been published, the citation is to the court docket number (for the ICJ, this is the General List number).  Kinsio  (talk ★ contribs ★ rights) 15:59, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * i made some small improvements. should we add `alleged` infront of the mass killing - because the case is ongoing ? Gsgdd (talk) 21:15, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The mass killings, more than 38,000 Palestinians by now, maybe even at least 48,000, is a fact and not an allegation. The ICJ is deliberating whether the level of mass killings has met the threshold of genocide and whether there is genocidal intent. So I would opposed the reintroduction of alleged. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:36, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Seconded. Overdoing it with alleged is MOS:DOUBT and my least favorite verbal tic of journalists.  Kinsio  (talk ★ contribs ★ rights) 12:21, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Support. "Alleged" is (over)used my media to cover their asses should anyone tried to sue them. They do it with all wrongdoing that has not been tried in court. We are an encylopaedia, though, and our cover is reliable sources. — kashmīrī  TALK  13:43, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * We don't have to follow them; plenty of other ICJ cases that do not add this to the opening sentence. I think moving this into a footnote would be a satisfying middle ground. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:38, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I can absolutely do that. I think I'll check for other citations to the case at the same time when I do that to make sure I'm not duplicating anything.  Kinsio  (talk ★ contribs ★ rights) 12:43, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

China
The article currently states that China supports South Africa's genocide case against Israel. However, the sole source provided for the claim is a news article describing a separate issue at the ICJ: "Legal Consequences arising from the Policies and Practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem (Request for Advisory Opinion)". This is not South Africa's case. Has China explicitly supported South Africa's case? I can't find any news articles on Google that describe China's explicit support for South Africa's case. Until then, I argue that China should be removed from the list of countries supporting the South African case, and also removed from the image depicting them as such. JasonMacker (talk) 19:50, 13 July 2024 (UTC)