Speedway

Talk:South Africa's genocide case against Israel

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]

The International Court of Justice
The International Court of Justice

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

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. SilverserenC 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. SilverserenC 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]
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?--Launchballer 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.--Launchballer 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]

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]

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

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) — Relisting. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:23, 10 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]
Support per how Nicaragua v. Germany is named. However, I am also supportive of the name Gaza genocide case (similar to Rohingya genocide case).--JasonMacker (talk) 19:21, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support – "Plaintiff v. Defendant" is standard naming for lawsuits, I don't see why we should not follow it here. There is no ambiguity because I'm not aware of any other cases in which South Africa has sued Israel. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 02:50, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Plaintiff v. Defendant is common in the US legal system. However, elswhere this nomenclature is not common and is prone to causing confusion. As many countries have announced their intention to join the case [6] this title could cause the false impression that South Africa is a single party opposed to Israel in this particular case. 2804:FEC:D32B:2A00:293F:1C86:FECA:A7D0 (talk) 23:29, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is a bad argument, because it isn't just common in the US legal system, it is common in lots of other legal systems too. For example, e.g. R (Miller) v The Prime Minister and Cherry v Advocate General for Scotland (important Brexit-related case in the UK, has format "A v B and C v D" because it started out as two separate cases, one in the English courts and the other in the Scottish courts, and they were joined on appeal), Edwards v Canada (AG) (which some have described as the most famous legal case in Canadian history), Mabo v Queensland (No 2) (arguably the most famous legal case in Australian history), Eight Mile Style v New Zealand National Party (Eminem's successful copyright lawsuit against one of New Zealand's major political parties)... and probably most relevant to the issue at hand, it is also common in Israel (see for example Rufeisen v. Minister of the Interior, a famous Supreme Court of Israel case which ruled that Jews who converted to Christianity didn't qualify as Jewish for the purposes of the Law of Return) and South Africa (see e.g. S v Makwanyane, South African constitutional court case holding that capital punishment is unconstitutional). Rather than being something US-specific, actually most legal systems cite cases as "A v B". One might argue all the countries I've mentioned have legal systems ultimately based on English common law, but the "A v B" convention is also used in France – see e.g. Affaire Selmouni contre France – the big difference is that in French, instead of "versus" (abbreviated "v" or "v."), one says "contre" (abbreviated "c."). Maybe it isn't universal, but it is extremely common – and considering this is English Wikipedia, almost all English-speaking countries use it, so most native English speakers should be familiar with it (and surely very many non-native speakers too) SomethingForDeletion (talk) 06:34, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Legal#Article titles, article titles should use commonly recognizable names. For subjects that have wide coverage outside of legal scholarship the common name may not be the same as recorded in academic and court stylings. For example, R v Aubrey, Berry and Campbell is better known as the ABC trial. This is WP:COMMONNAME spelled out for cases like this. You gave several other examples with the George Zimmerman and O.J. Simpson trials. There is no evidence that South Africa v. Israel is the common name and it seems unlikely. This topic is of broad interest to the general public and has been widely covered in a variety of sources and media. A descriptive title is appropriate. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 17:35, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the current title is the WP:COMMONNAME. M.Bitton (talk) 23:33, 11 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. Zerotalk 12:43, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I read through the source code of that SVG (2024-07-08T19:13:19 version of File:International_stances_on_South_Africa_v._Israel_lawsuit.svg), and it is a totally normal SVG. It is not malicious.
We do filter SVGs (both here and on commons) for security issues. However no security measure is perfect, so its always possible that someone finds some way around it. In the event someone ever did find a loop hole in the SVG filter, it would most likely only affect direct views of the SVG file, not thumbnails. So if you ever see anyone trying to convince people to directly look at the .svg file on upload.wikimedia.org instead of the PNG thumbnail (e.g. using [[media: links), you should raise the alarm. However normal usage of SVGs in the same way they are used on thousands of other articles is really not something to worry about. Bawolff (talk) 23:24, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the definitive answer. OP was blocked for rather clear reasons, but it's nice to double-check for observers who might be left with questions. Remsense ‥ 论 23:25, 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. Zerotalk 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". Zerotalk 12:43, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What editors have neglected to mention so far is that SVGs are not actually served inline to users in articles. In thumbnails, they are rendered as PNGs and you have to expand them to get the SVG, which is hosted on commons. Remsense ‥ 论 23:21, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think this whole discussion was started by someone who obviously has very poor technical knowledge, and whose worries about computer security are grounded in their ignorance of the topic. While it is possible for a maliciously crafted SVG file to exploit a security vulnerability in an SVG decoder – the exact same point holds for other formats such as PNG or JPEG. The proverb "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing" applies. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 02:54, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In full fairness, there are relative risk differences between different media formats. Of formats that you can upload, PDF and SVG are probably the riskiest relatively speaking (which is why we have an extra security filter for SVGs). To be clear, i'm just saying relative to other formats. I am not saying the risk is high. Generally this is not something to worry too much about for the average Wikipedian, since Wikipedia has protections in place to ensure SVGs are safe. Not to mention we show PNG thumbnails in articles anyways. (Standard disclaimer: if you have reason to believe you are being targeted by a nation-state actor different computer security advice applies). All of this is to say, its not exactly correct to say the SVG case is identical to the PNG case, but you still shouldn't worry regardless. Bawolff (talk) 06:07, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There have been security vulnerabilities in PNG decoders too, see e.g. CVE-2015-8472. The original commenter's argument that XML is "code" and therefore might contain "malware" clearly betrays a severe misunderstanding of the topic at hand. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 06:41, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As noted at WP:Village pump (technical), SVGs are not served as SVGs. They are converted to PNGs and served that way. You can check this by loading a page with an SVG then looking at the raw html by using the feature every browser has for doing that. Consequently, if the advanced capabilities of an SVG (such as javascript) are a threat, it is a threat to the Wikipedia server and not to the user. Zerotalk 06:49, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Quelle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:South_Africa%27s_genocide_case_against_Israel