Talk:2025 UNHRC Commission of Inquiry report on Gaza genocide: Difference between revisions

By /

 

Line 53: Line 53:

::You’ve written lines like: {{tq|Claiming without evidence … that the Commission is partisan against Israel}}. Now the “without evidence” is not sourced, it’s your own interpolation based, according to your comment, on [[WP:NOTCOM]]. This is not even close to what [[WP:NOTCOM]] means, and is absolutely not a license to make editorial comments about primary sources that fail to meet your personal standards. Later in this article we cite a Palestine foreign affairs statement discussing “international silence” on the Gaza genocide, but that document provides no evidence that there is international silence on the issue. Should we append to that sentence “without providing evidence of any international silence on the issue”? I think you’d correctly judge such an addition ludicrous, and probably partisan.

::You’ve written lines like: {{tq|Claiming without evidence … that the Commission is partisan against Israel}}. Now the “without evidence” is not sourced, it’s your own interpolation based, according to your comment, on [[WP:NOTCOM]]. This is not even close to what [[WP:NOTCOM]] means, and is absolutely not a license to make editorial comments about primary sources that fail to meet your personal standards. Later in this article we cite a Palestine foreign affairs statement discussing “international silence” on the Gaza genocide, but that document provides no evidence that there is international silence on the issue. Should we append to that sentence “without providing evidence of any international silence on the issue”? I think you’d correctly judge such an addition ludicrous, and probably partisan.

::{{tq|”Dismantling” the response is not automatically bad.}} Well, no, but typically we strive for [[WP:NPOV]], so in your example: {{tq|In Flat Earth it opens Flat Earth is an archaic and scientifically disproven conception of the Earth’s shape as a plane or disk.}} If we got here by one wikipedia editor saying “I have circumnavigated the globe and therefore know as a matter of [[WP:NOTCOM]] that the conception of it as flat is erroneous”, I would be with the flat earthers. The [[Flat Earth]] is the fringest of [[WP:Fringe theories]]. The claim that the report is {{tq|an attempt to “demonize the State of Israel”}}, is not a fringe theory, or a theory at all. It’s a claim, and if it is [[WP:DUE]] (I have seen no evidence of this), it is due with attribution because it’s a contentious claim. There’s literally no situation in wikipedia where it’s warranted to add editorial judgement of our own without reference to reliable sources. If no reliable sources cover a claim, the thing to do is omit it from the article, rather than add our own commentary – that’s what [[WP:DUE]] is about. [[User:Samuelshraga|Samuelshraga]] ([[User talk:Samuelshraga|talk]]) 09:14, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

::{{tq|”Dismantling” the response is not automatically bad.}} Well, no, but typically we strive for [[WP:NPOV]], so in your example: {{tq|In Flat Earth it opens Flat Earth is an archaic and scientifically disproven conception of the Earth’s shape as a plane or disk.}} If we got here by one wikipedia editor saying “I have circumnavigated the globe and therefore know as a matter of [[WP:NOTCOM]] that the conception of it as flat is erroneous”, I would be with the flat earthers. The [[Flat Earth]] is the fringest of [[WP:Fringe theories]]. The claim that the report is {{tq|an attempt to “demonize the State of Israel”}}, is not a fringe theory, or a theory at all. It’s a claim, and if it is [[WP:DUE]] (I have seen no evidence of this), it is due with attribution because it’s a contentious claim. There’s literally no situation in wikipedia where it’s warranted to add editorial judgement of our own without reference to reliable sources. If no reliable sources cover a claim, the thing to do is omit it from the article, rather than add our own commentary – that’s what [[WP:DUE]] is about. [[User:Samuelshraga|Samuelshraga]] ([[User talk:Samuelshraga|talk]]) 09:14, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

::A couple of further issues just because I don’t want you to think I’m ignoring anything you wrote:

::{{tq|This was written before there was much secondary coverage}} – perhaps it shouldn’t have been? When something isn’t covered by secondary sources, we don’t need to include it – [[WP:DUE]] again.

::{{tq|<q>It does not speak for the UN</q> does not imply it is a <q>non-UN document</q>. It’s a document commissioned and recognized by the UN, and to go beyond this to say it is a non-UN document would be [[WP:SYNTH]].}} I think you misunderstood me, I’m not saying we should describe the report as a ‘non-UN document’. I’m saying we shouldn’t insert our own personal opinions into wikipedia articles. No reliable secondary source I know of has described this particular Israeli claim as misleading, but I don’t think any sources have covered the Israeli claim at all – again, [[WP:DUE]].

::I suspect that if we’re still diametrically opposed on this, it might be best to get fresh eyes, perhaps by asking for a [[Wikipedia:Third opinion]]? [[User:Samuelshraga|Samuelshraga]] ([[User talk:Samuelshraga|talk]]) 09:17, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

User:EvansHallBear regarding your WP:NOR claim for the UNHRC Commission of Inquiry on Gaza genocide#Israel section:

  • The claim something the document stated was presented “without evidence” is clearly justified by the cited document, which you can visibly verify was presented without evidence.
  • Every claim that something the document said was false was based either on A) content described in the same article or B) external sources cited.

As for saying every paragraph had one or more such claims, please see Wikipedia:What SYNTH is not#SYNTH is not numerical summarization and Wikipedia:No original research#Routine calculations.

With this in mind, are we clear to remove the [original research?] tag?

Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 00:40, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I am not doubting that the Israeli press release was full of false or unverifiable claims. Ideally though we’d have RS that say that the press release claims were false. Per WP:SYNTHNOTSUMMARY, I think it’s fine to say claims are false using externally cited sources which contradict the Israeli press release. So for the claims that contradict content cited elsewhere in the article, citations to the underlying evidence should be provided as well. EvansHallBear (talk) 18:47, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see what you mean. Thanks for bearing with me. I’ll see if I can dig up some sources regarding “false” claim allegations and restructure the wording of that section if not. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 19:25, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the OR tag after significantly restructuring that section in the article. If you feel I shouldn’t have done so, please revert my change and explain why. Otherwise, thanks for bringing this to my attention so that I could make these much-needed improvements. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 20:25, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, this looks a lot better in my opinion. EvansHallBear (talk) 20:34, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

| 2_1_1_group1 = Rhetoric 

  | 2_1_1_list1 = (i) Intent is established through statements expressing an intent to destroy, in whole or in part, the protected group.[1]

  | 2_1_1_group2 = Totality of 
evidence
  | 2_1_1_list2 = (ii) Intent is established through inference based on patterns of conduct identified from the totality of the evidence. [1] Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 12:59, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexandraaaacs1989, I’m tagging you because I think you largely wrote this, so please let me know if I’m wrong.
The Israel reaction section is, to put it mildly, a POV minefield.

Let’s start with the obvious:
To cite a claim to the Israeli government by quoting its press release (i.e. without demonstrating its notability in secondary coverage), and then to add your own editorial commentary in the presentation of that claim (“Claiming without evidence …”) makes no sense here. Firstly, we don’t do WP:Editorialising. Secondly, Israel’s reaction was in fact covered in reliable secondary sources, and the reactions that received that coverage should be given more WP:DUE WEIGHT than just citing things to the primary source.

Secondly, some of these, even when cited to a secondary source, push a POV, and make assertions, not found in that source. “Claiming the report is a “non-UN document”, which is misleading, as the report was commissioned and recognized by an official body of the UN”. This is cited to an AP article which (a) doesn’t cover the Israeli claim about it being a “non-UN document”, let alone call it misleading, (b) actually says “The team was commissioned by the Human Rights Council, the U.N.’s top human rights body, but it does not speak for the United Nations.” This source is being misrepresented in the content that is cited to it.

Thirdly, not every Israeli claim, even when a source has addressed the content of that claim, needs to be overtly discredited. It’s not axiomatic that whenever a source denies or doubts that a genocide is taking or has taken place in Gaza, that it must be followed by an unsourced sentence denigrating the academic standing of that source, as is done with the Begin-Sadat report in this section. The aim of the section, surely, is to describe Israel’s response to the Commission of Inquiry’s report, basically as covered in reliable secondary sources. Not to set up the Israeli response to be dismantled through the original editorial interpretation of wikipedia editors. Samuelshraga (talk) 20:51, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1. Nothing in WP:Editorialising seems applicable here. How does saying a claim was made without evidence count as editorialisation rather than simply stating a fact—that it was, indeed, a claim made without evidence? Is it not notable to the reader that Israel did not substantiate any of their claims with any evidence? Are details surrounding Israel’s response to a genocide accusation irrelevant in a section about their response to said genocide allegation? Saying a claim was made without evidence is valid here as WP:NOTCOM applies.
2. This was written before there was much secondary coverage, so if you believe secondary sources should be cited more than they currently are, then by all means feel free to add them.
3. It does not speak for the UN does not imply it is a non-UN document. It’s a document commissioned and recognized by the UN, and to go beyond this to say it is a non-UN document would be WP:SYNTH.
4. Given the relevance of the article to Israel, it seems more relevant to address claims in detail in the Israeli section than in sections for other countries, so it makes sense to go into greater depth there. “Dismantling” the response is not automatically bad. In Flat Earth it opens Flat Earth is an archaic and scientifically disproven conception of the Earth’s shape as a plane or disk. Is this also “dismantling” flat earth with editorial adjectives like archaic and scientifically disproven conception? Is Empirical evidence for the spherical shape of Earth, which is an entire article “disproving” flat earth, therefore equally flawed? Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 00:54, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Saying Israel did not substantiate any of their claims with any evidence is an editorial comment. Perhaps I shouldn’t have wiki-linked to WP:Editorialising, but to WP:WTW more broadly, and to MOS:INSTRUCT. In the former: Strive to eliminate expressions that are flattering, disparaging, vague, clichéd, or endorsing of a particular viewpoint. In the latter: Simply present sourced facts neutrally and let readers draw their own conclusions. Sourced facts. Neutrally. Eliminate expressions disparaging of a viewpoint.
You’ve written lines like: Claiming without evidence … that the Commission is partisan against Israel. Now the “without evidence” is not sourced, it’s your own interpolation based, according to your comment, on WP:NOTCOM. This is not even close to what WP:NOTCOM means, and is absolutely not a license to make editorial comments about primary sources that fail to meet your personal standards. Later in this article we cite a Palestine foreign affairs statement discussing “international silence” on the Gaza genocide, but that document provides no evidence that there is international silence on the issue. Should we append to that sentence “without providing evidence of any international silence on the issue”? I think you’d correctly judge such an addition ludicrous, and probably partisan.
“Dismantling” the response is not automatically bad. Well, no, but typically we strive for WP:NPOV, so in your example: In Flat Earth it opens Flat Earth is an archaic and scientifically disproven conception of the Earth’s shape as a plane or disk. If we got here by one wikipedia editor saying “I have circumnavigated the globe and therefore know as a matter of WP:NOTCOM that the conception of it as flat is erroneous”, I would be with the flat earthers. The Flat Earth is the fringest of WP:Fringe theories. The claim that the report is an attempt to “demonize the State of Israel”, is not a fringe theory, or a theory at all. It’s a claim, and if it is WP:DUE (I have seen no evidence of this), it is due with attribution because it’s a contentious claim. There’s literally no situation in wikipedia where it’s warranted to add editorial judgement of our own without reference to reliable sources. If no reliable sources cover a claim, the thing to do is omit it from the article, rather than add our own commentary – that’s what WP:DUE is about. Samuelshraga (talk) 09:14, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of further issues just because I don’t want you to think I’m ignoring anything you wrote:
This was written before there was much secondary coverage – perhaps it shouldn’t have been? When something isn’t covered by secondary sources, we don’t need to include it – WP:DUE again.
It does not speak for the UN does not imply it is a non-UN document. It’s a document commissioned and recognized by the UN, and to go beyond this to say it is a non-UN document would be WP:SYNTH. I think you misunderstood me, I’m not saying we should describe the report as a ‘non-UN document’. I’m saying we shouldn’t insert our own personal opinions into wikipedia articles. No reliable secondary source I know of has described this particular Israeli claim as misleading, but I don’t think any sources have covered the Israeli claim at all – again, WP:DUE.
I suspect that if we’re still diametrically opposed on this, it might be best to get fresh eyes, perhaps by asking for a Wikipedia:Third opinion? Samuelshraga (talk) 09:17, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Must Read

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top