Talk:International Association of Genocide Scholars

Concealing membership requirements?

I wanted to add that membership is open to the general public, but my edit was reverted.

The edit is "Anyone from the general public, with or without a legal or scholarly credential, can join the IAGS by paying the sliding-scale fee; however, the organization "encourages anyone dealing with genocide in a scholarly or professional capacity to join."

People come to this page to understand what this organization is. The above is an objective description of the membership requirements. The only reason not to include it is a desire to hide facts that make the org appear more credible than it is.

This organization is similar to a self-published source or vanity source, and people need to know that. Slava570 (talk) 13:32, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Multiple reliable sources discuss it as a group of preeminent genocide scholars.

reuters, abc, etc User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 14:33, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

And that's contested. But it's also a completely separate issue here. The organization is a membership organization that's open to anyone who pays the fee.

For example, take this scenario: a legitimate scholar self published one of their books. I'm not making a comment about whether they are a legitimate scholar. I'm saying the book is self-published, and that's crucial information. Slava570 (talk) 14:50, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

So, including that is obvious WP:OR in article space. Is there a reliable due source that describes the IAGS like that? User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 15:07, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

That is according to the organization itself. You don't need a source to state the obvious WP:FACTS, but I'd be happy to include attribution, such as, "according the the IAGS..." Slava570 (talk) 15:16, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

The wording would have to match exactly or close to what iags says and have no other extrapolation per WP:PRIMARY That i may be ok with if you can give some proposed phrasings and the citation? User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 15:20, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

If we stick too closely to what the website says, that will veer into promotion WP:NOTPUBLICITY because they are trying to gain members. We can still reword what they write in a neutral way without it being original research.

Here's what their about us page says (bolding mine): A central aim of the Association is to draw academics, activists, artists, genocide survivors, journalists, jurists, public policy makers, and other colleagues into the interdisciplinary study of genocide, with the goal of prevention. Slava570 (talk) 15:27, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

If you are synthing a conclusion from a primary source and also dont wanna just state exactly from the primary source cuz its too promotional, then there is nothing we can add and the article stays as status quo.

The edit as it was attempted simply is unacceptable synth User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 15:51, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

You're threatening to use the procedure to get your way without having to engage with me, and that's not fair.

WP:SYNTH says "do not combine different parts of one source to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by that source."

That is not what is happening here. The only two things I want to say are that in order to join you have to pay a fee and that you don't have to be a scholar to join. These two things are not mutually exclusive, and we don't even have to connect them, just say both things are true.

Secondly, and more importantly, it also says: "Rewriting source material in one's own words while retaining the substance is not considered original research." Slava570 (talk) 17:08, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

until you can demonstrate consensus, its unlikely the edit will stand and id object to its inclusion User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 17:25, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Also how is it contested when these sources have it out? User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 15:09, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Where does your source state that Anyone from the general public, with or without a legal or scholarly credential, can join? JasonGen (talk) 06:11, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

On the IAGS website join page, the first thing they say is (bolding mine): IAGS members are academic scholars, human rights activists, students, museum and memorial professionals, policymakers, educators, anthropologists, independent scholars, sociologists, artists, political scientists, economists, historians, international law scholars, psychologists, and literature and film scholars. So they will take anyone. Slava570 (talk) 12:24, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

WP:synth still. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 12:30, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

I've started a noticeboard discussion about whether this is SYNTH here: Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#Content from an organizations's website Slava570 (talk) 12:55, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

It's definitely close enough to WP:SYNTH for it to be a WP:NPOV problem. It is pretty clear you want Wikipedia to treat this organization as having a worse reputation than it currently is described as having. It's also pretty obvious that a lot of this stems from the attributed use of this organization at Gaza Genocide. I've seen a few things posted to noticeboards where incomplete descriptions of the situation are being presented. I also have a sneaking suspicion (though I hope I'm wrong) that this thread is also related to the question of the reputation of IAGS. I think you should be very careful here to follow reliable secondary sources. The interpretation of primary sources is one of the easiest ways to fall into WP:OR patterns. Simonm223 (talk) 13:34, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

the teabord discussion is about something totally unrelated to this organization. Yes, you are wrong on that one. Nothing whatsoever to do with IAGS. Slava570 (talk) 13:39, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear that and happy to be wrong about that. My other advice still stands. Simonm223 (talk) 13:43, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

I want this organization to have a reputation commensurate with the one it deserves by being honest about its policies, including things that give it credibility and things that don't give it credibility. Presently, the things that don't give it credibility are being hidden from the public. Slava570 (talk) 13:41, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

That it deserves is the problem here. You have a subjective measure in your mind for how much repute this organization deserves. You should be finding reliable secondary sources to assess the reputation of the organization rather than describing your personal view of it. Simonm223 (talk) 13:45, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

I want to give readers the facts so that they can decide for themselves. I already said I will look into secondary sources and get back to you. Please stop repeating this over and over. I get it. Slava570 (talk) 13:48, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm sorry but this is getting repetitive. We need reliable secondary sources to establish this is relevant information for readers to know. Your belief that it is and your interpretation of the primary source is simply not how we approach the reputation of scholastic organizations. Simonm223 (talk) 15:06, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Since you are repeating the same silly arguments as elsewhere, as I replied elswhere:

Considering some of the most prominent figures in the founding of genocide studies (as well as holocaust studies) as a field are scholars from the backgrounds you highlighted as being not genocide scholars, makes it a silly claim to make. The immediate example of the top of my head is Israel Charny, who as an additional fun fact was one of the founders of IAGS.

The vast majority of people working in genocide studies in fact do not have qualifications in "genocide studies", due to the fact only a small fraction of universities offer such programs(*). Most, as can be seen by those publishing within the field, are academically trained in other fields and engage in genocide studies from the viewpoint of their training, including yes fields such as museum studies, education, psychology, etc.

(*) In some countries it is even becoming harder to study in genocide studies, such as the UK which has gone from three universities offering programs that specialise in genocide studies (though only one was genocide studies in itself, while the other two were other fields which had a focus on genocides), to just one offering such a qualification and it's actually a qualification in history with a focus on genocides.

One final point, you highlight students as a member category that shows IAGS should not be considered as a serious organisation. Are you familiar at all with other similar groups in different disciplines? Every single one includes membership categories for students. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 20:00, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

And beyond students, you can join most learned societies as long as you are tangentially related to the focus of the society, so in layman's terms open to the general public. So on this point, as I have previously stated, IAGS is no different to any of these silly clubs. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 20:03, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Re: students, you're right. I retract that part. Even if not specifically genocide studies, if they studied history or some other related field that would be one thing, but activists, literature and film studies, artists, etc... no that does not make you an expert on genocide and I think it's relevant information to readers. In any case, I need time to review the secondary sources, and I'll try again later... Slava570 (talk) 22:04, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Literature, film studies, and philosophy are all heavily constitutive components of genocide studies. Often they're people who specialize in the art of people who have been subject to genocide, diasporized and persecuted. Simonm223 (talk) 22:39, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Do you have a source for this claim? Also, we need a source for how museum professionals are legitimate genocide experts as well. Slava570 (talk) 11:55, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

I would have to pull sources up since this is pointing back in the direction of my own education and would want to use more *current* sources. But the same applies to museum professionals. For example, would you suggest Sara J. Bloomfield was not a genocide scholar? Simonm223 (talk) 13:33, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Dershowitz open letter

@Slava570 your recent edit does include due information and other pages that discuss the IAGS declaration do discuss it. But those pages provide significantly more information about the forcefully pro-Israel character of the signatories of the open letter. I'm leaving your edit up for now but it has serious neutrality problems and I will be doing a bit of a rewrite when I have the time. Simonm223 (talk) 13:39, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Done. Simonm223 (talk) 15:37, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

How was this a "Dershowitz letter" letter when he was only one signatory out of over 500? This sounds like guilt by association, one of several POV aspects of your edit. My new edit does not delete anything you added. However I think this sentence is not really due and should be deleted:

The letter was promoted by pro-Israel figures such as UK Lawyers for Israel and Israel's Ministry of Foreign Affairs. There is already other information that clearly describes the POV of the letter authors. I think this is extraneous information. Slava570 (talk) 11:52, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

@JasonGen

you reverted my edit, which changed next to nothing from the previous edit, except that it reorganized the information more neutrally. Your edit summary said:

"In an article about an organisation with 32 years of history, this gives disproportionate prominence to one recent dispute. Prior concise coverage was sufficient."

If that's the case, then @Simonm223's edit should have been reverted to the previous one, since it's almost all the same information. Can you please explain more about your justification for this? Slava570 (talk) 12:14, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't think the point is just whether the edit added a lot of additional material. It did add some new material and alter the framing, for example "wrongdoing and irregularities" and the "quieting of dissent" claim. But the bigger issue is weight.

The previous version already covered the criticism of the Gaza resolution, the open letter, the vote numbers, and the later issues with the letter/signatories. That seemed proportionate. Splitting it out into a standalone "Controversy" subsection makes one 2025 dispute appear to be a defining feature of a 30+ year-old organisation. I don't think the article supports that, and I don't think the available RS establish this as a standalone controversy in the organisation's history rather than criticism of one resolution.

I'm not saying to remove the material. I think it should stay concise and integrated unless there's consensus for giving it its own subsection. JasonGen (talk) 12:41, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

I was perhaps being overly glib calling it the Dershowitz letter. I referred to it as such because Dershowitz's signature was seen as notable by multiple reliable sources. I would agree with @JasonGen that "controversy" sections are not best practice and should be avoided. However I am responding to pings here so I haven't yet looked at the specific diffs in question and reserve comment on that. Simonm223 (talk) 13:01, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

I have now examined the diffs. @Slava570 you provided no justification for the reversion of my improvement to your inclusion. Please self-revert. Simonm223 (talk) 13:06, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

The justification was provided by JasonGen: RECENTISM and DUE. I'm fine with an extended version, but if this applies to my edit, then it applies to the previous edit as well as both had all the same information. Either these justifications apply to both or to none. We need to pick a lane. I'm fine either way. Slava570 (talk) 13:12, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Then this is the diff you should have reverted to while discussion is ongoing. So, instead of restoring my preferred version, restore it to that version so that we can work on a consensus version. Simonm223 (talk) 13:16, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

"quieting of dissent" was a direct quote from the source, which Simon deleted. He also deleted several sources in his edit. "wrongdoing and irregularities" is my wording but I think it perfectly encapsulates the sources. I'm not married to those specific words, though. My edit was not a revert of Simon's edit, as I didn't delete anything. I only reverted once today, and I think it would be best if we discuss here before deciding which version is better. Slava570 (talk) 13:09, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

See the thing is that I replaced the prior text with text transcluded from a source that goes into this topic in detail. I replaced low-quality sources with higher quality sources. I removed POV material that preferred a pro-Israel pov by ignoring that the group created by the open letter was obviously formed specifically to have an organization to release an open letter and that many "signatories" were added without awareness or consent. I moved the material closer to NPOV compliance. You replaced it with your own version. This is a problem. Simonm223 (talk) 13:13, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

What are you talking about? My edit kept all of that information in. Slava570 (talk) 13:16, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

No, you cut all of that in this edit. And the two secondary sources I cut were Jewish Insider and American Jewish Committee Which I replaced with citations from Haaretz and Misbar. Jewish Insider is well known to be a highly biased source. As for AJC, they are an advocacy group and, as such should be attributed while the edit that you restored is in wikivoice. You are violating policy with that edit in order to replace high-quality sources with lower-quality sources. Simonm223 (talk) 13:25, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Then lets keep all the sources in, as my next edit did, and attribute wherever necessary. It's not fair to be constantly reverting only my edits rather than trying to work with me to improve the article. Let's talk about why my next edit is not acceptable to you, when it kept all the same information in, and only put back the sources you deleted and one small quote that you deleted. So far the only justification I can see is an argument saying there should be no separate section. But that's absurd. All of the other lines in this section are bullet points with a single fragment describing the resolution. Why should only the last line be a very long paragraph while all the other lines are not even a single complete sentence? I understand if we make it a few short lines, but if we are going to write all of that, it makes more sense to put it in a separate section. It's just for ease of reading.... Slava570 (talk) 13:37, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

For the time being, while we are discussing precisely what is relevant you should restore back to the status quo as indicated by me up-thread. Please note that the diff I included was the most recent edit you made. There was no subsequent edit. Simonm223 (talk) 14:34, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Please, I'm asking you, you have the power to make this so easy, if you want, and we can move in a direction that is amenable to everyone. You can do this. We don't have to turn this into another pointless brouhaha. Why can't we just start from my latest edit, which puts the content into a new section, does not delete anything of yours (even though there was one sentence I didn't like, as noted above) and only puts back in a couple minor things you deleted. Why can't we start from that edit and add whatever attribution is needed? We could so easily move forward if we wanted to. This can be very painless and everyone will be happy in the end. Please? Slava570 (talk) 14:59, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

out of over 500, including multiple added to the letter without their consent, multiple fake individuals who have since been removed, and fake individuals still present. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 12:50, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

arbitrary break

I was not paying attention to this. Slava can you provide a proposed edit that you feel addresses concerns? User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 15:06, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

I woul like to start from this edit, and add attribution as needed Slava570 (talk) 15:11, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

That edit has serious POV issues regarding the exclusion of the context surrounding the astroturf group created to produce the open letter. I produced a more neutral version via transclusion from another page and you reverted it apparently because you didn't like @JasonGen having reverted a subsequent edit of yours. Simonm223 (talk) 15:23, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Agree with simon and jason you need to attribute what these groups are and include them with appropriate due weight. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 16:05, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

If you put the edit in, I think we will be able to move forward, and I will put in the attributions today. It will not help if I put the edit back in. Slava570 (talk) 16:57, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

I dont want to enter whatever this edit war is without additional info, as i dont have time today to worry much about

rhis.

Also if im counting correctly, both simon and slava used their 1

revert (this subsection intersects with PIA so its technically covered by WP:1RR). User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 17:02, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Hence, why I cannot do this. But even if I did it tomorrow, I still don't think it would help. Would you be willing to look at it tomorrow then when you have time? Slava570 (talk) 17:05, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Yeah. My edit removed enough of Slava570's that it definitely constitutes a revert. You can tell I was aware of that by how I didn't revert to the status quo ante myself and instead asserted they should do so. And I would never be so gauche as to wait exactly 24 hours to do another revert. Simonm223 (talk) 17:12, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

That being said I'd appreciate if Slava570 wouldn't use my reticence to revert a second time to include more POV edits . Simonm223 (talk) 11:34, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

How is this a POV edit? It's a statement of fact about the organization taken from a secondary source. I worded it in the most neutral way I possibly could. I wanted to include this information directly from the organization's website, but that was disallowed, so I took it from this secondary source. What's the problem? Slava570 (talk) 11:36, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

You're putting in the misleading not-all-scholars POV on IAGS again. We've had this dispute on other pages recently so I know you're aware this is of contested neutrality. Simonm223 (talk) 11:39, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

We've had this dispute directly on this page (and almost entirely on this page). Neutrality means what the sources say, not whether it serves a political agenda or not. My wording stuck as close as possible to the secondary source, without being exact. Any deviance from exact wording has not been allowed, so this was the best I could possibly do. Your contestation before was based on the fact that I wanted to use a primary source. Now it's secondary. You also said artists are valid genocide experts or something to the effect. If you can find a source that says that, I'm fine with also adding that info in. Slava570 (talk) 11:44, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, you removed sources critical of the open letter and added more sources that are known for a strong pro-Israel bias. I mention Jewish Insider for the prior POV edit directly above in this thread. I really am starting to feel like you're just ignoring people who disagree with you. Every editor who has responded opposed your prior edits. Simonm223 (talk) 11:50, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

I didn't remove any sources with this edit. Jewish insider is a reliable source and this is a basic fact about the organization which it also says on their own website. Can you find a source that disagrees with the statement? Slava570 (talk) 11:52, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

It's interesting how you have been very vocal across discussions in multiple boards that IAGS can't be considered serious because it's not made up of only people who completed degrees in genocide studies, yet in you edits adding the letter you describe all signatories as experts and scholars in genocide, when large swathes by your arguments should not be considered such. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 13:05, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

I used the language I saw in the source. It's not something sinister. Things like that can always be adjusted. Both groups have the same number of people and both groups are comparable in their makeup. Both groups should therefore be described the same way. Your new edit (which is Simon's edit) treats one of these groups as legitimate and the other as illegitimate, so it's POV. I tried to correct that with my edit after that. Is there a reason you were against my changes to that edit? Slava570 (talk) 13:09, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

I used the language I saw in the source and you have spent days arguing against such language from sources being used to refer to IAGS. The groups are in fact not equivalent, as the 'group' that signed the open letter is simply that, signatories to an open letter, they have no structure as an organisation outside of that, whereas IAGS is a fully structured organisation with bylaws, membership rolls, internal democratic systems, etc, etc. When the signatories of the open letter set up such an organisation, then they could be considered comparable as a group.

I simply added the context that is present repeatedly where the open letter is brought up, showing that there is broad community support to have it weighted as such. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 13:13, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Re: language around experts/scholars, I already said you were right about that, and I'm ok with making whatever necessary adjustments. What is your goal in harping about it?

What is your justification for deleting that there was a "quieting of dissent." This is also repeated in other sources in slightly different ways.

Why is it due to include that the letter was promoted by pro-Israel groups? Why is it due to include a single signatory out of 500, Alan Dershowitz? Besides being minor points, these are guilt by association.

What is your argument against putting it in a separate section that points to there being a controversy with accusations traded on both sides? All the other resolutions are listed short bullet points.

No, you simply added one sided context and pretended it was neutral. Slava570 (talk) 13:28, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

You will need to ask the editors who wrote the passage. I believe Dershowitz actually came about as people wanted to show 'legal experts' were signing the letter, with the citation being this paragraph from the JTA/Haaretz article The letter was initiated by Elliot Malin, a Nevada attorney. The letter's signatories include former U.S. Department of Justice war crime prosecutor Eli M. Rosenbaum, former Hague legal fellow Isaac Amon; the Holocaust Museum of South Florida; and the pro-Israel attorney Alan Dershowitz, as well as several Holocaust educators and survivors' children., where those authors believed he was prominent enough to single out for mention.

The lead signatories (initial) should be mentioned, but as that is a list of ~50 people, I've just added the first 2 who are mentioned in the JTA/Haaretz article in place of Dershowitz. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 13:39, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

argument against putting it in a separate section I don't have one, as I'm not against such, but you act as though this was how it was structured, which, it wasn't. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 13:41, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm talking about this diff in which I put this information in a separate section. I did not delete any information that Simon added, only put back the info that he deleted and structured it in the form of a controversy in which both sides have valid criticisms. Slava570 (talk) 13:49, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Ok, well you have my position on the matter now. If you want to know the argument of the person who revert that edit, I suggest you ask them not someone who didn't revert it. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 14:56, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Timeline of events

There's been far too much back-and-forth concerning the edit history underpinning this conflict. To clarify matters this is taken directly from the edit log:

1. Slava inserts a sentence regard the open letter.
2. I replace this sentence with a slightly longer section transcluded from another article.
3. Slava further expands this material and creates a controversies section
4. JasonGen reverts this edit citing WP:UNDUE and WP:RECENTISM
5. Slava reverts my edit (number 2) with an edit summary saying In the meantime, I'm reverting to the previous edit before Simon's edit. If UNDUE and RECENTISM applies, then it should apply to this edit as well. Simon's edit added POV info. Let's discuss on talk whether we want an expanded or shorter version. This restores the page not to the status-quo ante, but rather to Slava's original edit.
6. After a discussion surrounding WP:1RR at article talk, Slava then adds a sentence saying Non-academics, including artists and activists, may join the organization, and all paid members have voting rights. cited to Jewish Insider. This now sets the status quo to contain additional attempts to shift POV to match that of the open letter.
7. Cdjp1 makes a series of edits that effectively revert the status of the article to my version (edit 2) but with some minor corrections to incidental text.

These are the facts of the matter here that bring us to the page as it stands on 5/22.

Below is a diff that shows the overall change from the start of this content dispute to now: Simonm223 (talk) 14:02, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Number 6 is unrelated, and it's in a separate section. Let's leave that out of this. We are now largely at Simon's edit (#2 above) with a very minor change from Cdjp1. I do not support this edit as it is not NPOV. And if UNDUE and RECENTISM applies to my edit (#3 above), then it equally applies to our current edit, as they are nearly identical in terms of what content they include. Slava570 (talk) 14:09, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm done arguing with you. Facts are facts. That's my last word on this. Simonm223 (talk) 14:10, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

For clarity, the section is titled Resolutions and statements. It has now been moved, which I agree was appropriate, but at the time of the edit it appeared before even the organisation’s History section. Your edit created a standalone subsection, elevating criticism of a single resolution to a Controversy subsection that was considerably more prominent because of the added heading, content and paragraph spacing. It was not nearly identical to the current structure, nor to Simonm223’s earlier edit that you subsequently reverted.

I won’t go through every edit line by line, but reducing the Misbar article to Accusations of wrongdoing and irregularities were then traded on both sides was particularly egregious and I certainly don’t think it perfectly encapsulates the sources, as you claimed.

I note that the Controversy over the 2025 Gaza resolution heading was subsequently re-added little more than 24 hours after it was removed, despite there being no consensus for its inclusion. I’ve changed it to Response to the 2025 Gaza resolution, which I think is more in line with WP:NPOV and WP:WTW, though I'm open to alternative wording. JasonGen (talk) 23:26, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

JasonGen, I'm going to assume that you completely misrepresented my edit by accident. The diff of my edit is this . It says The fact-checking website Misbar said that it could not find any previous activity by Scholars for Truth About Genocide, and stated, "the investigation found the statement relies on selective citations, omission, and misleading framing, falling short of the academic standards required to engage with the IAGS report." This is verbatim the text added by Simon. I did not change one word of this.

You erased the word controversial from the section heading, as if that word is non-neutral. But the literal first word of the link you shared to Misbar is "Controversial." Controversial is a perfectly neutral word to describe a controversy (and it's even in the source). But by changing that to "response" you are doing PR for the organization. This is as if pretending there was no criticism of their resolution. That is what is not neutral.

My edit did not create a heading, but a subheading directly underneath the resolution, in the resolution section. I agree that the section didn't need to be at the top, but it really doesn't matter to me that much. Slava570 (talk) 12:18, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Simon, you've reverted my edit which is from a former board member of the IAGS. If I don't use the Jerusalem journal, and only the other source, can I put the info back in? Slava570 (talk) 12:54, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

@Simonm223 you say that it is "best practices" not to label a section as a controversy. Can you please provide a guideline where I can read about that? Slava570 (talk) 12:58, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

WP:CRIT Simonm223 (talk) 13:21, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

This is an essay, not a policy, but in the section on Organizations and corporations, it says If reliable sources – other than the critics themselves – provide substantial coverage devoted to the controversies or criticisms, then sections and subarticles about them may be justified. Literally your own Midbar source uses the word controversy. Slava570 (talk) 13:38, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

I said not best practice, I did not say non-policy compliant. Your edit was non-neutral and is part of a clear pattern of borderline WP:ATTACK editing. I already said I was going to try and avoid more endless bickering here. Let's let others speak. Simonm223 (talk) 13:43, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

That is absurd to call this an attack page (or my editing "attack" editing). The page is 99% positive about this organization and criticisms from reliable sources are being disallowed repeatedly. The idea that adding the single word "controversial" turns this into some kind of hit piece is a bit strange. The paragraph that you added is probably 3/4 negative information about criticizers, not the organization. It actually defends the organization more than it criticizes. I'm trying to add balance to reflect the sources, which includes leaving in all the information you added. Slava570 (talk) 13:54, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Misbar is clearly a biased source and therefore the current version is likely to violate WP:NPOV.

Also, the admission criteria and voting eligibility are important and worth including. You can't simultaneously a) say that it's problematic that some of the signers of Scholars for Truth About Genocide are not academics and b) ignore that quite a few members of IAGS are not subject matter experts (example). Alaexis_¿question? 19:53, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

In this context, you can in fact hold those 2 positions simultaneously as we do not say that every member of the IAGS is a subject matter expert. This is opposed to how the initial edit in question characterized the "Scholars for Truth about Genocide" as "a group of over 500 scholars and experts", which is strictly inaccurate. The more significant issue with the "Scholars for Truth about Genocide" however is that it also included actual academics who had not given their consent.

I also don't see how WP:BIAS concerns would really impact Misbar's inclusion here, let alone enough to constitute an WP:NPOV violation. Besides being used to support Times Higher Education's reporting, content originating from them is either clearly attributed or non-controversial (at least, I hope it's not considered controversial to state that UK Lawyers for Israel & Israel's Ministry of Foreign Affairs both promoted the letter & are pro-Israel figures). Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 17:44, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

The initial edit in question was using language directly from the petition. I didn't say the first draft was perfect, but when others criticized it, I then adjusted what I wrote, because I am trying to work with others. Both these groups are comparable in that they include scholars and non-scholars (I didn't say they were comparable in every way, but comparable in this way). I'm fine with statements like these using attribution, but in this case, it's a moot point because that's no longer the language we're using. As far as the people added without their consent, according to the Higher Ed article, they were later removed, and the people behind the petition called this "sabotage." Slava570 (talk) 19:22, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Proposed WP:RFC

Yeah enough. Time to workshop this.

Q1) Can IAGS be described as an organization of genocide scholars, and is criticism of that characterization due?
Q2) Should the Dershowitz letter be attributed to a pro-Zionist group?

I don't like these questions so some workshopping on what exactly is the conflict would be helpful. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 20:29, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Worth noting that there is another ongoing RfC where one option leads to the IAGS being referred to as a leading organization of genocide scholars in another article, just in case any previously uninvolved editors ending up here might not be aware. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 22:54, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Yep. Its not immediately clear the outcome of that RFC necessarily impacts this one, or if q1 is still in contention on this article as that convo may have simmered out a bit ago on this talk page User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 23:03, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

I looked into it a bit and I have to say I was expecting a bit more coverage of this letter that hundreds of experts supposedly signed. It doesn't seem to have gotten that much attention. Hard to find unbiased sources. Can someone like give me a rundown what this kerfuffle is about and what each side wants? I don't feel like trudging through the warzone up there right now, I have had enough PIA for a day already. You know, while I was searching for sources I noticed the 14th result for "Dershowitz IAGS" on Google was a 2003 article. Dershowitz was just a side-character in it, he happened to be meeting some Brit called Andrew at the home of the subject of the article, some financier guy called Jeffrey. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 23:22, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Academic Engagement Network could be another key word when referring to the letter, but I also see a lack of useful sourcing as well. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 00:56, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Here's a past discussion on the "Scholars for Truth About Genocide" & they're mentioned in Academic and legal responses to the Gaza genocide. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 01:06, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Oh my… ok so i saw some arguments from previous discussion and definitely against mentioning this dershowitz letter User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 01:10, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

This is a pretty important piece of information I'd say. That combined with the fact that it wasn't really reported on at all outside of Israel or American firmly pro-Israel media, which I would find highly unusual if the letter was worth its salt considering the fact that its not like American mainstream media shies away from publishing pro-Israel talking points or opinions. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 01:25, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, I think that was the cincher for me. Inside Higher Ed is pretty well-regarded, if they are saying a supposed academic org is lying about its members, then the letter is entirely useless. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 01:45, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

The open letter is not an academic organisation, and makes no claims to be any such organisation. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 10:54, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

The Inside Higher Ed source mentions a couple people who were added without their consent, who were then removed. The person behind the letter called it "sabotage." You do not need to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Only about 100 people signed the IAGS letter and somehow this is considered incredibly meaningful, whereas 500+ signed the Scholars for Truth letter, with a relatively small number that shouldn't be there. Slava570 (talk) 11:17, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Like how people brought up similar trolling to discredit IAGS in multiple discussions on Wikipedia? -- Cdjp1 (talk) 14:19, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm not aware of what you're talking about, but if IAGS was also trolled, we should use the same standard for both. Slava570 (talk) 14:40, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

No. If reliable sourcing takes IAGS seriously and does not mention the other letter, we dont engage in False equivalence or Whataboutism. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 15:14, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, folks. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 01:09, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

What's the Dershowitz letter? If you mean the "Scholars for Truth About Genocide", it should be referred to as such in any formal discussion. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 10:52, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Simon admitted he was being overy glib by calling it the Dershowitz letter. Dershowitz was a single signatory out of over 500, and by trying to insert his name into the title and the article, it shows the intention was totally not NPOV, but guilt by association, using a single name to try to discredit the letter. Slava570 (talk) 11:21, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't see anyone articulating why it is DUE to include a single signatory (Dershowitz) in the article. Why would we be workshopping an RFC on this minor issue, when editors have said elsewhere that they are tired of RFCs?

The Scholars for Truth letter already is attributed to a Zionist group, in a way that is completely overkill, and yet even so, no one has said not to do that. Why would we workshop an RFC about that?

IAGS can be called an org of genocide scholars, but it should be noted that it is not only made up of scholars. Why would we hide that information from readers?

If we want to have an RFC, I'm wondering why we have ignored this comment. I did not touch the Misbar info because I wasn't familiar with the source, but if it further shows the POV intent behind Simon's edit, then it needs to be deleted. This info can be replaced with info from the Higher Ed source, and we do not need an RFC for this. Slava570 (talk) 11:31, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

if there is no RFC, then the WP:ONUS is on inclusion and WP:STATUSQUO applies (that means no letter)
I don't see a real consensus forming to include this letter. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 13:26, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Simon said this information was DUE here. We are working from his edit. Do you disagree with that? If so, what is the reason not to include it? Slava570 (talk) 13:38, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't think it's completely undue to include some reference about it, but we have to present it in a careful way. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 14:08, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Right now, considering the overall size of the article and the fact that barely any attention is given to the resolution itself despite that being what gained much more media attention, I firmly believe that the amount of space this letter is given is WP:UNDUE. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 14:28, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Clarifying, I do think mention of the open letter is due but should be reasonably brief and it should be contextualized as what it was and how most sources present it: a pro-Israel astroturf campaign. Simonm223 (talk) 14:32, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

My original addition was quite brief and reasonable. It was Simon that expanded it. I think we should work with Simon's edit and improve it. We need to not use loaded words like astroturf unless a preponderance of neutral sources use loaded terms like that. Slava570 (talk) 14:38, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

The only one engaging in that double standard mentioned by the comment has been yourself, where when it has been highlighted that the reasons you have argued against the use of IAGS, you disregard as not issues with the letter, you claim to have only used the language I saw in the source, when you have argued against doing so with regards to IAGS. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 14:21, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Latest Reverts

I've gone and reverted the last set of edits, this is my reasoning.

• Calling IAGS a research org is a mischaracterization, it is an academic organization and doesn't necessarily seem to fund research on its own.
• Jewish Insider is a right leaning org that is undue for characterizing the key operations of the IAGS.

User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 15:30, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

It's also quite baffling that you deleted the short description change. "Genocide research organization" is a much clearer and more apt description than "international academic organization," which could probably define hundreds of other organizations. I took the change from an article somewhere, so it was in a source anyway. It's not about funding research, but about promoting research Slava570 (talk) 19:28, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

It is not a genocide research organisation, though. On top of the fact that "genocide research" is not an adjective, what would it mean to be a "genocide research organisation"? I have never heard such a term. Slomo666 (talk) 14:29, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Sources for review

Re Sarah Brown and IAGS membership and democracy, taken from Reliable Source Noticeboard where this has been under discussion:

• Tress, Luke (2025-09-02). "Genocide scholar says group pushed through Israel condemnation without debate". The Times of Israel. Retrieved 2026-06-01.
• Walters, Louisa (2025-09-04). "Association of 'experts' who called Gaza a genocide open to anyone to join". Jewish News. Retrieved 2026-06-01.
• Colodro, Gabriel (2025-09-04). "Only 28% of Scholars Association's Members Voted on Gaza Genocide Resolution, but Global Media Missed the Story". The Media Line. Retrieved 2026-06-01.
• Gebert, Konstanty (2025-09-05). "Is Genocide Being Redefined to Indict Israel?". Project Syndicate. Retrieved 2026-06-01. (RSOPINION)
• "Another Reason Not to Trust the 'Experts'". The Free Press. 2025-09-07. Retrieved 2026-06-01. (RSOPINION?)

BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:43, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

All are in context of criticizing the Gaza Genocide vote. All are fairly pro-Israeli.

Could belong wrt gaza genocide vote. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 19:13, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

The existing sources are all praising the Gaza genocide vote, so by your logic, it would add balance. The important thing is that the board member herself is criticizing the Gaza genocide vote, and her perspective is DUE. There's nothing wrong with adding criticism (and we are talking barely a tiny hint of criticism... the main "criticism" is that the organization is not all made up of academics and experts, which is true, and secondly that the Board member's dissent was censored, which is also 100% true) Slava570 (talk) 19:26, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Which currently used source praises the vote? And what is this about censorship? User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 19:35, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

The board member Sara Brown tried to publish a dissent, but the moderators censored it. That was in the sentence I added, which you reverted. There were other irregularities highlighted in the article as well, such as the fact that they did not do any town halls, even after they said they would, and even though that is their normal process, according to Brown. This happened during the vote. Slava570 (talk) 19:43, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

I placed the sara brown info back into the gaza genocide resolution section. Apologies for reverting that section, it probably shouldnt have been removed User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 20:25, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Im fine with adding criticism in context. Was she criticizing before this vote or in context of this vote? User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 19:42, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

• Number 1 is GREL, and covers Brown's statements in enough detail to cover them in the article, so I would go with using that.
• I would stay away from number 2 due to it being a tabloid.
• Number 3 I'm not familiar with, at RSN they only appear in a comment claiming they support that 40 babies were beheaded, this being in an RfC for the reliability of Jerusalem Post. Looking at their article they don't make any claims themselves but actually provide the full quotes of Chen Kugel, including his detailing of the limitations in their ability to assess how pathologies occurred, which honestly I am surprised and impressed at seeing. So alongside the general position of assuming an established news outlet is GREL, I would also lean in support of GREL from the little I've looked at.
• While number 4 is an opinion piece, considering Gebert's experience, while potentially biased, I would hazard that it may be worth noting his opinion, but that is if we were going to him for his opinion. If we are going to him for the information about the vote stats, or for what Brown has said, then it is probably a better idea to go with other news articles that provide that information.
• Considering number 5 is flagged as MREL, an opinion piece outlet, and blatant bias in their various articles, I would not use it as a citation for what has shown to be a contentious matter.

-- Cdjp1 (talk) 14:20, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

I broadly agree with that assessment. The last couple are more evidence of due weight rather than something we would want to use for facts. In general I would push back at the idea that number two is bad because it is a tabloid: yes, in terms of it the paper it’s printed on it has that shape, but it is a solid reporting outlet, gaining credibility in recent years in exact proportion to the sad decline of the credibility of its key rival, the Chronicle. However, it’s called focuses in the UK, and here it is relying on the reporting of others so it’s not the best one to use. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:52, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

A lot of these articles boil down to "water is wet" being elevated on the basis that the org in question said something critical of Israel. No. 2 is an example of that. Simonm223 (talk) 19:58, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Vote stats

Speaking of the vote stats, there is something off about them. Various sources say an estimated 500 members, 28% voting, and 86% of them voting yes (and that's what the article says). 28% of 500 is 140 members. 86% of that is 120 voting yes.

However, various sources also say "129 members had participated: 108 in favor, 18 against and three abstentions" 129/500 is 26%, not 28%. As part of my edit before which was reverted, I wanted to update the stats to include the percent and raw vote count. However, now I see that something is off. Any thoughts on how to proceed? It seems to me the raw vote count is more likely correct and the percentage was the result of a typo somewhere along the line... Slava570 (talk) 13:42, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Math like this probably cannot be inserted into article space without violating WP:OR, and im not entirely sure I understand the issue anyways. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 14:56, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

I think we can do something based on WP:CALC, but I don't know what. The thing is, the math doesn't add up. If there are 500 members, and 129 voted, that's 26%, but the article and the BBC source says 28%. Either there are fewer members (129 voting out of 461 is 28%) or 140 voted, not 129, as the sources say. Slava570 (talk) 15:18, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

I would revert changing a widely reported percentage as synth unless there is a reliable source that says otherwise. Calc usually covers basic math supported by the source, i dont know if you can use it to contradict sourcing like this User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 15:32, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

I would say it cannot since WP:CALC explicitly states as a condition: there is consensus among editors that the results of the calculations are correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources. Even if consensus were found the calculations are correct, contradicting a source is not a meaningful reflection of the source. Like, heck, maybe one of the sources made a typo somewhere? We don't know. We can only speculate. And that invites WP:OR. Simonm223 (talk) 15:44, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

So I have found four sources that mention 129 in relation to this, a ToI blog by Tim Flack (a PR consultant), where he made the claim on his 2 September 2025 blog that only 129 members of IAGS voted in support of the resolution, a ToI article, published on 2 September 2025 where they state that Brown said only 129 people took part, a The Forward article written by Brown and published 3 September 2025, and a The Media Line article by Gabriel Colodro on 4 September 2025.

Colodro's article for The Media Line is disappointing, as the following is from their "context" section:

When the ballots were counted, 129 members had participated: 108 in favor, 18 against and three abstentions. The association presented the result as an 86 percent majority, but that figure refers only to those who cast ballots, not the entire membership.

But they make no mention of where they got this number from. Further down, they have Goda quoted as saying From what I hear, the organization has about 500 members and 129 actually voted, 108 in favor. From what I hear, it was something of an irregular vote.. So, per Goda's own description, and the structure of the article, it suggests that this is simply hearsay. They even quote Brown in the article, but not for the number.

But as the ToI article and The Forward article show, the number is stated explicitly by Brown. So, we could include the specific numbers, quoted to Brown, and the fact that these are then at odds with the percentages working with 500 is just the reality that exists.

Now, this next part is speculative, but it is a potential solution as to how these disparate facts coexist. The membership number of 500 actually isn't correct in itself, as this is actually the shorthand we have been using in discussion. Sources states that the membership number is around 500. Taking 129 as 28%, and reversing it gives us a total membership of 461, which is within 10% of that '500', and can be acceptable within various publishing guidelines for rounding up to 500. So, while the numbers on the face of it may seem at odds, it is very possible they actually aren't, and it's a rounding error.

Though this doesn't resolve Flack's claim, but with it being a blog from a non-relevant specialist on the matter, I do not see the need to expend the effort pondering how his claim may have occurred. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 16:43, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

That's far more effort than was probably necessary here but is also very convincing for the effort put into it. Simonm223 (talk) 16:46, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

This is just a side note, but it is something that annoys me with many of the articles about Brown with regards to this matter, and that is that they frame Brown having been a member of IAGS' advisory board as a claim made by Brown, not as a fact, suggesting they did not bother to even check the matter. The fact is she was a member of the 2017-2019 advisory board, as reported by IAGS' itself. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 16:49, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

In looking at articles on this though, some articles say 500, some say about/estimated 500, and some, such as the Jewish Insider article say over 500, so no matter how you look at, there's a math issue in a number of these articles... I'll add the word estimated for now though since that's what most of the articles say. Slava570 (talk) 11:21, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

This seems sensible to me but was reverted by JasonGen. Jason can you explain why? BobFromBrockley (talk) 04:32, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Misbar, ToI, Brown, Media line says “approximately”.

Segal, PBS, AP, Independent, ToI say “around”.

WaPo say “roughly”.

European Palestinian Council for Political Relations say “over”.

I would go with around or approximately rather than estimated as it’s a rounding rather than a guess. BobFromBrockley (talk) 05:01, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Sounds good, and I think you've clearly shown that "around" would be much more supported by the sources. If no one else puts it in, I'll do it later (I don't want to do it now just in case it ends up being a 1RR issue for me, although I don't think it really is...) Slava570 (talk) 11:56, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

I see no problem with writing out the membership number of 500 isn't an exact number, "estimated" seems off style wise, so I would suggest using a term that is used in any of the RS reporting on the matter, which BobFromBrockley has shown be about in most cases.

While I do agree Slava570 that this shouldn't be viewed really as a 1RR, unfortunately it is. I've been caught out making such mistakes before. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 15:39, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

been caught out for same too.

As i havent done reverts on this, i went ahead and did the edit. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 15:42, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Oh, I just did the same, adding "around" and providing the 5 articles BobFromBrockley gathered as a citation. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 15:48, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Recent revert

@Slava570 I've reverted your recent edits as neither of these additions line up with their sources.

1. The Inside Higher Ed article mentions two names that were added without the individuals' consent while Elman refers to only one removal ("the name that was submitted in error has been removed"). It therefore does not support the claim that "names of individuals that had been added without consent were later removed."
2. The BBC article cited says "Out of its 500 members" and does not support the claim that it's an "estimated" figure. Other reliable sources also give that figure without the qualifier.

JasonGen (talk) 01:09, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Agree with removing the word estimated, not sure i agree with #1. I think slava corrected it thi? User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 03:01, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

I didn’t see this before commenting in the previous section which was about the word “estimated”. As there’s already a thread there, could we keep the discussion there. It seems to me consensus had been established but maybe not. BobFromBrockley (talk) 04:34, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

oh, I didn't see. Yeah, that makes sense. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 04:44, 5 June 2026 (UTC)