Talk:Academic and legal responses to the Gaza genocide

This page is subject to the extended confirmed restriction related to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Additional sources for review

• Ayad, Christophe (27 July 2025). "Is there a genocide in Gaza? Why legal experts are split". Le Monde.fr. Retrieved 29 September 2025.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: deprecated archival service (link) (President Macron does not make a judgement. Rafaëlle Maison, professor of public international law at Paris-Saclay University, says its a textbook case. Johann Soufi, a lawyer specializing in international criminal law and researcher at the Thucydide Center at Université Paris-II Panthéon-Assas, concurs. Also cites Julian Fernandez and Olivier de Frouville, two professors of law, who agree. Muriel Ubéda-Saillard, professor of public international law at the Université de Lille, says it may not meet intentionality threshold. Yann Jurovics, a senior lecturer at Paris-Saclay University, former law expert for the International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, as well as former legal reviser at the ICJ, has doubts. Philippe Sands expresses caution. Monique Chemillier-Gendreau, emeritus professor of international law at Paris Cité University, says there is risk of genocide.
• Klein, Ezra (13 August 2025). "When Is It Genocide?". The New York Times. Retrieved 29 September 2025. - interview with Philippe Sands, agnostic on genocide question, says it may not meet intentionality bar.
• Spencer, Philip (16 May 2024). "The Holocaust, Genocide and October 7". Responses to 7 October: Law and Society. London: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781003497417-2. ISBN 978-1-003-49741-7. Not a genocide.
• Bolton, Matthew (5 June 2025). "The meaning of 'genocide'". Jews, Europe, the XXIst century. Retrieved 29 September 2025. Not a genocide.
• Stone, Lewi; Rose, Gregory (1 October 2024). "When Military Targeting of Hamas Combatants was Misrepresented as Genocide: An Open-Source Data Analysis with a Focus on Israeli Airstrikes in the Gaza Urban Warfare, 2023–2024". Journal of Contemporary Antisemitism. 7 (2). Academic Studies Press: 1–22. doi:10.26613/jca/7.2.162. ISSN 2472-9906.
• Bartov, Omer (2024). "Genocide, the Holocaust, and October 7: On the Use and Misuse of Terminology". Antisemitism Studies. 8 (2). Indiana University Press: 272–277. doi:10.2979/ast.00019. ISSN 2474-1817. Not a genocide.
• Berkovits, Balázs (2025). ""Genocide" Arguments and Counterarguments". The Elizabeth and Tony Comper Interdisciplinary Center for the Study of Antisemitism, University of Haifa. Retrieved 29 September 2025. Not a genocide.

BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:54, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

And:

• Moses, A. Dirk (2025-09-19). "Introduction: Gaza and the Problems of Genocide Studies". Journal of Genocide Research: 1–14. doi:10.1080/14623528.2025.2558401. ISSN 1462-3528. Retrieved 2025-09-30. Criticises genocide concept. "There are various aspects to the debate that we cannot treat comprehensively here, but they are united by a single issue: the seeming impossibility of reaching consensus on the basic unit of analysis: genocide." Cites various people on each side, with Goda representing the deniers.
• Orbach, Prof. Danny; Boxman, Dr. Jonathan; Henkin, Dr. Yagil; Braverman, Adv. Jonathan (2025-09-02). "Debunking the Genocide Allegations:
  A Reexamination of the Israel-Hamas War from October 7, 2023 to June 1, 2025". Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies. Retrieved 2025-10-04.
• Medina, Barak (2024-07-20). "Hamas' Lawfare: The Plot of Accusing Israel in Genocide". hebrewulaw (in Hebrew). Retrieved 2025-10-21.. Author = The Landecker-Ferencz chair in the study of Protection of Minorities and Vulnerable Groups, Faculty of Law, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Not genocide.

BobFromBrockley (talk) 21:35, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Even more one-sided?

I haven't check in with this article for a while, but it seems to me to continue to suffer from - perhaps suffers even more from - one-sidedness. Given the number of "No" opinions recorded in our table, it seems odd to me that we find only two no-saying Holocaust scholars noteworthy, and only name two no-saying scholars in the "other scholars" section. It is also striking that we tend to use secondary sources for no-saying scholars, but rarely for yes-saying ones whose opinions we are happy to give primary sources for. I don't think it is a call for false balance to ask for a little bit more representation of the dissenting views. BobFromBrockley (talk) 05:53, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

New section on Rabea Eghbariah

Re this revert: The word “Gaza” appears 4 times, the first three in relation to the pre-2023 period. The sole mention of the 2023+ atrocities is in the conclusion: The genocide in Gaza has underscored the centrality of Palestine to the international legal order. Our article about the article doesn’t mention Gaza either. The onus is on you, إيان, to get consensus for your new content; please self revert. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:30, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

The claim that the piece and its trials and tribulations with censorship are not of centrla importance to the topic of Academic and legal responses to the Gaza genocide is absurd. See The Nation's headline: "The Harvard Law Review Refused to Run This Piece About Genocide in Gaza" إيان (talk) 18:05, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

That’s a WP:HEADLINE. He mentions Gaza in his Nation article, but doesn’t say his Law Review article is about Gaza (because it isn’t). I’m not sure if it was you who created the WPR article about his article, but whoever did described the contents and didn’t mention Gaza. BobFromBrockley (talk) 19:51, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Genocide is a crime. It is a legal framework. It is unfolding in Gaza. And yet, the inertia of legal academia, especially in the United States, has been chilling. Clearly, it is much easier to dissect the case law rather than navigate the reality of death. It is much easier to consider genocide in the past tense rather than contend with it in the present. Legal scholars tend to sharpen their pens after the smell 1of death has dissipated and moral clarity is no longer urgent.
Some may claim that the invocation of genocide, especially2 in Gaza, is fraught.3 But does one have to wait for a genocide to be successfully completed to name it? This logic contributes to the politics 4of denial. 5 When it comes to Gaza, there is a sense of moral hypocrisy 6that undergirds Western epistemological approaches, one which mutes the ability to name the violence inflicted upon Palestinians. But naming injustice is crucial to claiming justice. If the international community takes its crimes seriously, then the discussion about the unfolding genocide in Gaza is not a matter of mere semantics. إيان (talk) 20:16, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

This is from the Nation article, not the Law Review article. BobFromBrockley (talk) 23:19, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

It appears you missed this in the editors' note:

In the past two months, Israel has killed over 17,700 in Gaza. Two-thirds of those killed were women and children. As Rabea Egbariah so chillingly observes, legal scholars writing in times of painful tragedy “tend to sharpen their pens after the smell of death has dissipated and moral clarity is no longer urgent.” Within the world of the legal academy, pens instead have sharpened towards those seeking to amplify the voices of Palestinian scholars and activists. This past November, after commissioning the following piece for the Harvard Law Review blog, that journal’s editorial board voted not to publish this work. Harvard Law Review’s editorial staff cited concerns about harassment, doxing, or attempts to otherwise intimidate their membership over the publication of this piece.
As students at NYU Law, we understand the legitimacy of those fears, and have watched as members of our community faced those exact realities over the past months. Nonetheless, we cannot allow those who seek to silence Palestinians to obfuscate the scope and genocidal nature of this tragedy. As a journal, the Review of Law and Social Change is committed to solidarity with Palestinians collectively struggling toward liberation. We dream of a day where Palestinian students can play, learn, and rejoice freely; of an end to the occupation and colonization of Palestinian land; and of an end to the discrimination and denial of rights to Palestinians. We publish Rabea Egbariah’s piece, “The Ongoing Nakba: Towards a Legal Framework for Palestine” to offer the piece that standing it was denied in legal academia and amplify a necessary and astute analysis of the ongoing Israeli genocide of the Palestinian people, from 1948 to today.
This piece was first published in The Nation at the following link: https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/harvard-law-review-gaza-israel-genocide/

إيان (talk) 13:54, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

What do you mean by the editor’s note? This is an NYU law students’ blog reposting the Nation article, no? I’ve read the actual Columbia and Harvard Law Review article(s) and there’s no sense in which it’s *about* Gaza, even if Gaza is the context in which it was written. BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:11, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Sorry I have been confused. Spending more time reading the texts, I accept the HLR piece does talk about Gaza while the CLR piece doesn’t. I now agree the former is due here while maintaining the latter isn’t. BobFromBrockley (talk) 06:44, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Hey, sorry missed this earlier—I appreciate the note. إيان (talk) 06:07, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Bobfrombrockley: —WP:CT/PIA is WP:1RR إيان (talk) 20:34, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

This is different content. You reverted me and added content. I removed part of the new content. No? BobFromBrockley (talk) 23:22, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Apologies. I re -read 1RR and realise I’m wrong. Will self revert in am (it’s night where I am) BobFromBrockley (talk) 05:46, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

The onus is on you to get consensus so you should not have reverted my edit in the first place surely; we should be at the stable version while we discuss this shouldn’t we? BobFromBrockley (talk) 23:24, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Isn’t it also a bit weird to have a separate section for Palestinian scholars? BobFromBrockley (talk) 23:29, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

I believe that individuals should be included in the discipline subsections we already have, or if it is warranted, new subsections based on disciplines. So for Eghbariah, you would probably want to put him in the "legal assessments" section, but it would probably not be the text that is currently included, as (has been highlighted) the thrust of "Nakba as a legal concept" isn't to do with the Gaza genocide, and it is "Nakba as a legal concept" that the current text in the article focusses on. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 19:00, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Exactly. There are other Palestinian scholars mentioned in this article under their disciplinary area. There are also Israeli scholars; should they have their own section? What about Jewish scholars? What about pieces Co-written by Palestinian and Israeli or other non-Palestinian scholars? It’s just silly to file them by identity. BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:18, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Relevant text connecting Gaza genocide to ongoing Nakba removed here by Boutboul with edit summary simply stating per talk page discussion إيان (talk) 19:08, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

I am aware of that text, and that does not change my statement. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 22:02, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

I’m sorry but the notion that Eghbariah’s scholarship and its experience in Western academia is not of central relevance to Academic and legal responses to the Gaza genocide is absurd to me. ‘Votes’ on whether or not the genocide is a genocide are not the only possible academic and legal responses to the genocide. إيان (talk) 22:08, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

The piece was literally initially commissioned by the Harvard Law Review for him to respond to the situation in Gaza. إيان (talk) 22:10, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Neither of the two sources we currently cite about the commissioning in the WP article about the article make that claim. They both say it was commissioned two weeks after October 7, to get a Palestinian perspective. They don’t say what he was asked to write about specifically. BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:15, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

As I previously said إيان we can include mention of Eghbariah's piece on the contents that relate to the Gaza genocide and how he seeks to understand in the longer ongoing Nakba. The text as it currently exists in the article:

1. Dedicates an entire subsection to just Eghbariah.
2. (previously) Passingly mentions how the piece relates to the topic of the Gaza genocide.
3. Dedicates the majority of its two paragraphs to the core of Eghbariah's piece which is the ongoing Nakba and developing Nakba as a legal concept.

-- Cdjp1 (talk) 09:17, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Responded to your points in this edit. إيان (talk) 22:23, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

That edit, on reflection, also addresses my content concerns. I remain opposed to a section on Palestinian scholarship, and think it would be fair better to start with genocide scholarship. BobFromBrockley (talk) 06:47, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

I have boldly broken down the "Palestinian scholars" section and moved them as follows:

• Rashid Khalidi to "Historians"
• Saree Makdisi and Joseph Massad to "Other scholars"
• Rabea Eghbariah and Noura Erakat to "Legal assessments"
• Removed Nadera Shalhoub-Kevorkian as the sentence on her didn't relate to the Gaza genocide but the October 7 attacks.

-- Cdjp1 (talk) 20:59, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Why should the section on the responses of Palestinian scholars have been broken into separate academic fields when the Palestinian scholars are uniform in their contextualizing the genocide within the Nakba? This is a significant academic and legal response to the genocide. The division obscures it, as if it were unrelated debates happening in isolated fields. إيان (talk) 05:29, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Also removing Shalhoub-Kevorkian altogether for the stated reason appears to me a surprising reading of the source. إيان (talk) 05:32, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

If the source supports her comments in relation to the Gaza genocide you need to detail that in text, what you added, as I stated didn't not relate to this article's scope. Additionally to your prior comment not every person in that section contextualised the genocide within the Nakba base on the text you provided for them. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 11:11, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

It may be possible to have a separate section on a thematic argument that multiple people present (the genocide within the Nakba), but all entries have to relate to that, and a more appropriate section title will be the thematic argument rather that "Palestinian scholars". -- Cdjp1 (talk) 11:14, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

not every person in that section contextualised the genocide within the Nakba—which didn’t? إيان (talk) 13:44, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

To start with, based on the text you added, Shalhoub-Kevorkian. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 17:54, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

It was added to a section prefaced with the fact that Palestinian scholars emphasized the genocide as a continuity of the Nakba. Verification is by consulting the RS anyway. إيان (talk) 22:30, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

You removed the context. إيان (talk) 22:31, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

The text you added for Shalhoub-Kevorkian had nothing to do with situating the Gaza genocide within the Nakba. Nadera Shalhoub-Kevorkian, Lawrence D. Biele Chair in Law at Hebrew University of Jerusalem, criticized some claims of sexual violence in the October 7 attacks, the Gaza genocide, and Zionism, for which she has faced persecution. You have to provide the text that shows it is, otherwise it is just random text that does not belong in the article. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 09:25, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Fully agree with @Cdjp1. If Shalhoub-Kevorkian said something else that makes it relevant we can add that, but this is obviously not about the Nakba.

@إيان Are there reliable secondary sources which say Palestinian scholars are uniform in their contextualizing the genocide within the Nakba, or is that original research?

@إيان would you be in favour of adding sections for Israeli scholars? For Jewish scholars? For German scholars? The national category doesn't make any sense to me, versus type of scholarship. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:10, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps this source from Shalhoub-Kevorkian will put it in clearer relief:

"To begin, I must state that what guides my theorization are Palestinian voices and testimonies from the beginning of the Nakba in 1948 through the ongoing genocide today" and more throughout.

• Shalhoub-Kevorkian, Nadera (2025-09-19). "Five Pillars of Zionist Genocidal Apparatus: A Palestinian Problematization of Genocide Studies". Journal of Genocide Research: 1–13. doi:10.1080/14623528.2025.2556589. ISSN 1462-3528.

Bobfrombrockley, you said you read Eghbariah.

If we were discussing an article regarding a genocide of any of those groups, I would certainly advocate for the scholars of the relevant group to narrate their own condition, yes. إيان (talk) 15:35, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

And that is not the source you provided in the article for Shalhoub-Kevorkian, nor related to what you wrote with regards to Shalhoub-Kevorkian. If you want to pull her opinion, analysis, etc form the journal article, that would be great.

We are not saying that Palestinian scholars should not be included, but questioning grouping them all as a quasi-monolithic position. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 15:39, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

That is the preponderant contention in the academic and legal responses to the Gaza genocide among Palestinians. I haven't yet encountered an exception.

It would make more sense for the article to conform to a more thematic taxonomy. The current taxonomy organized by academic discipline presupposes that this is the most important aspect of the responses. إيان (talk) 16:32, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

And yet we have Palestinian scholars in the Expert template who conclude this is genocide without linking it to the Nakba. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 19:18, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Which template? Link would be helpful. إيان (talk) 19:23, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Top of the talk page. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 09:04, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Template:Expert opinions in the Gaza genocide debate is massive and I'm not sure what I'm supposed to be looking for, so if you know of and could name a few Palestinian scholars in the Expert template who conclude this is genocide without linking it to the Nakba that would be great. إيان (talk) 13:50, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

And this organization appears to be weighted toward addressing the "is the genocide a genocide" question, which has been resolved for months, instead of a more comprehensive presentation of the topic. إيان (talk) 16:34, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

If you believe the current structure is wrong, you can be BOLD and re-do the article, but when people contest the BOLD action (as will happen based and the contention on your recent additions), the ONUS is on you to convince your fellow editors it is more correct to structure in the way you believe it should be structured. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 19:20, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Seems like another fool's errand to devote hours of my precious time to something that could be discussed and agreed upon in principle beforehand, and against the collaborative principle of the encyclopedia. إيان (talk) 13:53, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

I have copied the new section to Palestinian genocide accusation where it is very much relevant. It's clear there is no consensus for including it here. BobFromBrockley (talk) 18:00, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

New section on Student protests

This is an article on academic and legal responses to genocide. Personally, I really do not believe that student protests are a type of academic or legal response. I think and intimidation of students by far right groups and the Trump administration is even further removed from this article’s topic.

If there is consensus from other editors that this new section should be kept, it at least should move down the article so that it comes after and not before actual academic and legal responses to the Gaza genocide. BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:05, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

I agree. I do not think student protests are part of an academic or legal response to reports of genocide Michael Boutboul (talk) 08:13, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Student protests I would place with other protests more in a Cultural discourse about the Gaza genocide. 'Protests' that would be inclusive of the scope of this article would more so be things like academic boycotts by scholars and professors. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 09:12, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

This is entirely relevant background information that affects the production of knowledge and how scholars have been able to respond. In the United States in particular, where many of the scholars discussed in this article are employed and where much of their academic and legal production has taken place, unprecedented pressure—ranging from funding cuts to the tune of US$400 million in relation to protests against the genocide to scholars being apprehended by masked agents in the streets for an op-ed they have written—has certainly influenced the conditions in which Academic and legal responses to the Gaza genocide have taken place. إيان (talk) 22:21, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Doesn’t make sense to me. Some of the scholarship takes place in UK universities where there is terrible financial situation so should we add a section to this article about that before we get to the actual scholarly responses? Some of the scholarship takes place in Israel so should we add a section in academic freedom in Israel? No, of course not. This article has a clear and obvious scope, and this stuff falls outside it. You have not got consensus for this addition so please remove it. BobFromBrockley (talk) 22:44, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Legal persecution due to protests and academic evaluations seems to fall under the scope of this article's title, but I also think that it is fine if it is moved to the Cultural discourse about the Gaza genocide page instead, as Cdjp1 suggested. However, deleting the information completely from Wikipedia is not acceptable. David A (talk) 10:04, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

There is a main article on this linked to (Gaza war protests at universities) plus several articles like Columbia University pro-Palestinian campus protests during the Gaza war, Gaza Solidarity Encampment (Columbia University), etc, so there’s no danger of deleting the information completely from Wikipedia. The question is how many other articles does it need to be reproduced in. BobFromBrockley (talk) 22:28, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

@إيان This is not “academic and legal” response you deem notable, it is government response to protests. And I haven’t seen any RS saying these cuts have impacted academic coverage, and it it did, then the article should be talking about it, but your addition doesn’t.

I do not think that campus protests qualify as academic response. I do think that they may qualify if it can be shown that the majority of the protesters study subjects related to the topic, and even then, it is possible to question the notability of the responses of undergraduates studying relevant subjects. Given that only one in ten students study humanities, which themselves have subjects irrelevant to the topic (e.g. linguistics), it is safe to assume the majority, or even the vast majority of them do not have an “academic” understanding and therefore their responses do not qualify as “academic.” We wouldn’t include mathematicians’ response, so neither should we include these protests. This is all assuming that all protesters at campus are students, which is itself not so clear.

I would say that in order to include the protests we must first establish a connection between them and actual academic and legal responses, which your addition doesn’t do. NorthernWinds (talk) 16:59, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

There's some absurd argumentation in there that doesn't need to be addressed. Otherwise, here, for example:

• "Columbia University Settlement an Unprecedented Disaster". AAUP. Archived from the original on 2026-01-31. Retrieved 2026-02-03.
• Dunbar, Marina (2025-05-14). "Indian academic held over pro-Palestinian views released from Ice jail". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 2026-02-03.
• Biazzo, Meghnad Bose, Sacha (2025-04-16). "Inside Columbia's Betrayal of Its Middle Eastern Studies Department". The Intercept. Retrieved 2026-02-03.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
• Oakes, Meghnad Bose, Anna (2025-08-07). "How Columbia's Leadership Refashioned the University in Trump's Image". The Intercept. Retrieved 2026-02-03.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
• Powell, Alvin (2025-04-15). "Harvard won't comply with Trump administration's demands". Harvard Gazette. Retrieved 2026-02-03.
• Closson, Troy (2025-03-20). "Why Trump's Ultimatum to Columbia Could Upend Higher Education". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2026-02-03.
• Sarat, Austin. "Every American Has a Stake in Columbia's Fate". Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved 2026-02-03.
• Singh, Kanishka (1 April 2025). "Princeton's US grants frozen, follows Trump actions against other schools". Reuters.

إيان (talk) 22:18, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

There’s no need to be insulting in your reply to other editors. Can you explain how these show the student protests are academic or legal responses? They don’t seem to to me. BobFromBrockley (talk) 22:30, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

If these sources demonstrate a change in academic coverage, you are more than welcome to add them. Until you do, this section you added should be removed. NorthernWinds (talk) 05:15, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Some of the scholarship takes place in UK universities where there is terrible financial situation so should we add a section to this article about that before we get to the actual scholarly responses? Some of the scholarship takes place in Israel so should we add a section in academic freedom in Israel? Where are the RS discussing the relationship between these matters and academic responses to the Gaza genocide? Is coverage comparable to the ink spilled on the relationship between the Gaza solidarity protests, e.g. responses to the Gaza genocide, and conditions of academic work, including matters such as academic freedom, funding, censorship, and so on?

What is covered in this background section is not merely 'student' protest; there has also been faculty involvement and significant involvement from graduate student workers, i.e. academics. Protest by academics in response to the genocide is 100% pertinent to Academic and legal responses to the Gaza genocide. إيان (talk) 12:11, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

You can assert that but you haven’t shown it. You have not got consensus to include this new section so please remove it until you have. BobFromBrockley (talk) 22:31, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

"Members and supporters of UAW Local 4811—which represents 48,000 academic workers in the University of California system—demonstrate for Palestine on May 23, 2024, as officials declare the rally an 'unlawful assembly.'"

• "The U.S. Workers Who Went on Strike for Gaza". In These Times. 2026-01-26. Retrieved 2026-02-03.

إيان (talk) 00:01, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

To me “academic and legal responses” doesn’t include trade unions acting as trade unions. If historians join a strike for pay at X university, you wouldn’t include that in an article on the historiography of X town. This is massive scope inflation, which is unnecessary given we have multiple articles on these protests. BobFromBrockley (talk) 06:51, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Supporting BobFromBrockley's comment above. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 20:22, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Faculty being involved in protest in my view doesn’t make it count as an academic response. BobFromBrockley (talk) 22:32, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

BobFromBrockley, if you are unable to provide comparable RS for the whatabout UK universities where there is terrible financial situation affecting academic responses to the Gaza genocide, then you have to contend with the fact that this is entirely relevant background information that affects the production of knowledge and how scholars have been able to respond.

Michael Boutboul has made no reasoned argument beyond I do not think student protests are part of an academic or legal response to reports of genocide

NorthernWinds has argued that it needs to be shown that the majority of the protesters study subjects related to the topic, which is an unreasonable argument.

David A sees the content as within scope.

Cdjp1 would group "student" protest with other protests more in a Cultural discourse about the Gaza genocide, but has not yet responded to the argument in my comment that the content is relevant background information, as the consequences of the protests have materially influenced the conditions in which academic work is produced. I would like to know what they have to say with regard to that. If Cdjp1, after consideration of it, still thinks the section should be removed from the article, I will remove it myself.

In the meantime, I see the point that the section puts more emphasis on the protests themselves when it perhaps should focus on the consequences of the protests, and I will seek to remedy this. إيان (talk) 00:10, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

which is an unreasonable argument I said they may qualify if so and then said I would say that in order to include the protests we must first establish a connection between them and actual academic and legal responses NorthernWinds (talk) 05:19, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

My comments were not whataboutery; they were trying to illustrate why scope creep is bad. They were examples of things that shouldn’t be in the article. I’ve already responded to your session that this is entirely relevant background, so I will not do so again.

What your comment here makes very visible is that you are one against many; in other words you do not have consensus for the addition of this section. Per policy, the section should be removed unless or until you do get consensus, BobFromBrockley (talk) 06:59, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Let’s see if editors feel your rewrite addresses concerns. If not, we should remove it. BobFromBrockley (talk) 07:05, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

In my opinion either remove or move down under a "reaction" section. Upon further inspection it seems like it does not belong on the page, for it still does not establish a clear connection between the protests and academic coverage. NorthernWinds (talk) 07:39, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

The references you have provided are not supportive of the argument to include broad protests within this article. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 20:24, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Why not? إيان (talk) 20:25, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

The vast majority are government and institutional reactions to the protests, not to the Gaza genocide, and not by academics or legal professionals. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 20:31, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

The vast majority are government and institutional reactions to the protests—that's true. Therefore it is relevant and pertinent background information. إيان (talk) 20:36, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

US$ billions in politically targeted funding cuts, attempts to put academic institutions into receivership, attempts to police and control the curricula of Middle East scholars, imposition of IHRA definition, persecution of international scholars and abducting them off the street for things they've written with regard to Palestine, climate of surveillance and intimidation—irrelevant to academic responses to the Gaza genocide? I don't think so. إيان (talk) 20:41, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

that's true so you agree that it is in fact not academic and legal responses to the Gaza genocide, and so is not within the scope of this article. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 00:18, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

It is essential context. Obscuring this context would be like writing about the Unequal treaties, for example, as if they were ordinary peace treaties without acknowledging that they were made under duress. إيان (talk) 15:41, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

You will need to show how such context relates to the academic and legal responses then. Which was lacking in the prior additions you made. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 15:44, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

I also think the current text is extremely US-centric. Not all academic and legal responses are coming from North American universities! BobFromBrockley (talk) 07:02, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Richard Nevell, since you've been contributing to the section, just wanted to make sure you see this discussion thread. إيان (talk) 23:09, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

It seems to me - and I'm happy to be corrected of I've got wrong end of the stick - that the main objection is that students aren't academics. If we accept that generalisation, they are still part of academia and have been using protests to influence the institutions of academia. I understand why framing a section as being only about student protests was received with scepticism, however the response of academic institution to those protests is part of their reaction to events in Gaza. For example, Trinity College Dublin divested from Israeli companies as a result of student protests. Not all student protests should be covered, but I believe there is a case for inclusion where there is an institutional response. The revised approach to the section can work. The difficult part is where to draw the line. Responses by government and groups such as Betar US are part of the academic reaction but I wonder if excluding those results in partial coverage. Richard Nevell (talk) 22:41, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

I think that this page should remain dedicated to the responses of academics of relevant fields and legal scholars. I do not think that divestment or institutional responses in general should be included in the scope of this article unless they impact academics' responses directly (e.g. limit opinions allowed to be expressed).

Best, NorthernWinds (talk) 22:50, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Divestment is relevant because it is a response by academic institutions. Richard Nevell (talk) 23:55, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

I agree with Richard here. David A (talk) 07:33, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

It seems like we disagree on scope then. Pinging the other editors of diverging opinions to have them consider Nevel's comment (@Bobfrombrockley @Boutboul @Cdjp1) NorthernWinds (talk) 20:09, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

As previously stated I would place the line at academic boycotts, I can understand how Universities taking divestment actions is related to academic output, but as I want this article to more so focus on actual published works that can provide views on the conflict and genocide from people who's training gives them pertinent insight, I lean on a weak oppose to dedicating text to divestments. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 20:29, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

I agree with Cdjp1. This page should focus on published scholarly responses.

Activism is well covered elsewhere ( in Gaza war protests at universities and its numerous child pages such as

List of pro-Palestinian protests on university campuses in 2024)

Divestment from Israel and Academic boycott of Israel also have their own pictures which have sections on universities which would be better places to deal with those campaigns.

The beauty of Wikipedia is we don’t need to cover everything in every article BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:10, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

As I've not been over on some pages I have been pretty much unaware of them. If we don't currently link out them from this article, I would argue we definitely need to as they are related via universities being locus of where the actions and output we are writing about come from. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 13:53, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

This is what I want this section to do, to mention and link out to the necessary contextualizing background information relevant to the conditions at academic institutions affecting academic production and responses to the Gaza genocide. إيان (talk) 14:30, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

It can be done sans a separate section, and even sans any text with See also templates. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 14:46, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

What 2-3 links would you put in that template? For me, burying essential contextual knowledge or reducing it to the point of uselessness does a disservice to the reader seeking to learn about Academic and legal responses to the Gaza genocide. إيان (talk) 05:22, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

I would say we can put Academic boycott of Israel and Gaza war protests at universities in “See also.” NorthernWinds (talk) 07:34, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

I 100% agree we should link to some of the other pages. We should remove the section and add links to the see also section. If there’s a way of doing it with templates that might work too. BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:29, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

As others have already said, student protests and activism are not academic responses in themselves: they belong to activism and student life. Likewise, institutional decisions (e.g., divestment campaigns) are primarily acts of university governance, not scholarly contributions. Including them here risks (1) expanding the scope to "everything that happens at universities", (2) duplicating content already covered elsewhere, and (3) forcing arbitrary and disputable decisions about where to draw the line. Michael Boutboul (talk) 10:40, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

It’s very clear that a larger number of editors oppose the new section than support it. Ergo there is no consensus for inclusion. We need to remove it now, although the editors favouring it can still make the case BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:31, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

@Bobfrombrockley Note that consensus is not an outcome of a vote, but strength of arguments. @إيان I have removed the section and added “See also” links instead. NorthernWinds (talk) 08:48, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. Re your edit summary, the removal isn’t that bold. The creation of the section was bold. It didn’t get consensus, so we revert to stable version. Per BRD and ONUS, it should’ve gone some time ago. Obviously it may achieve consensus in the future but it simply hasn’t now. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:17, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

the removal isn’t that bold any edit relating to this ongoing conflict feels bold, especially if it makes such big changes. I’d much rather stay in the talk pages of these recent articles and instead be in the front of its more historical articles where I have more expertise and confidence. NorthernWinds (talk) 09:27, 8 February 2026 (UTC)