Jump to content

Talk:Palestinian genocide accusation: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 571: Line 571:
:::Yeah yeah, I knew one of these was coming. Good to see some hall monitors on site. [[User:Jonathan f1|Jonathan f1]] ([[User talk:Jonathan f1|talk]]) 02:29, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
:::Yeah yeah, I knew one of these was coming. Good to see some hall monitors on site. [[User:Jonathan f1|Jonathan f1]] ([[User talk:Jonathan f1|talk]]) 02:29, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
::::As well as [[WP:NPA]]. I assure you nobody cares what you think, nobody wants to read what Jonathan f1 thinks about genocide. Kindly stop sharing your personal opinions here. Thank you. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">'''[[User talk:Nableezy|<span style="color:#C11B17">nableezy</span>]]''' - 11:47, 2 November 2023 (UTC)</small>
::::As well as [[WP:NPA]]. I assure you nobody cares what you think, nobody wants to read what Jonathan f1 thinks about genocide. Kindly stop sharing your personal opinions here. Thank you. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">'''[[User talk:Nableezy|<span style="color:#C11B17">nableezy</span>]]''' - 11:47, 2 November 2023 (UTC)</small>
:::::And I double assure you that the conversation ended long before you came over here power tripping. [[User:Jonathan f1|Jonathan f1]] ([[User talk:Jonathan f1|talk]]) 06:37, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
:Unless reliable sources discuss there being a discourse around population growth as a rhetorical tool for genocide denial in this particular case then we have no reason to add it. [[User:Iskandar323|Iskandar323]] ([[User talk:Iskandar323|talk]]) 05:21, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
:Unless reliable sources discuss there being a discourse around population growth as a rhetorical tool for genocide denial in this particular case then we have no reason to add it. [[User:Iskandar323|Iskandar323]] ([[User talk:Iskandar323|talk]]) 05:21, 2 November 2023 (UTC)


Revision as of 06:37, 3 November 2023

Proposed merge \ rename

Rename is being considered with a requested move below. starship.paint (RUN) 07:06, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

More section than article

This reads like a section in a relevant article rather than its own article. The title isn't a term of art, but is being used as a target for links in other articles as though it is. It's referenced in a handful of documents with a divergent set of definitions [by which standard the list of genocides would be long indeed] and doesn't need its own entire section in the navbox. – SJ + 22:52, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sj: FYI, with regards to this edit, I would note that segregation is one of the well-recognised steps along the path to genocide, as elaborated on here. While I haven't yet checked if this material was supported with this sort of a context, I would imagine this is why such content was there in the first place. Just a note. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:12, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed rename + merge

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Pausing this discussion as the ongoing AfD which includes a similar discussion (one proposed outcome is a merge), and would supercede any outcome here. A new merge thread can be started if needed once that discussion concludes. – SJ + 19:11, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge into Israel and apartheid Criticism of Israel, in a new section about allegations of genocide. The title should be something like the Ukrainian example linked in the last section. – SJ + 01:21, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Comments on that page pointed out that apartheid and genocide should not be conflated. The merged section was moved to Criticism of Israel#Allegations of genocide, which includes a proportionate description of the allegations without undue weight. – SJ + 21:40, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, please see my message on your talk page. Scientelensia (talk) 21:51, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The title is very one sided. YZM1987 (talk) 16:36, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What would you propose renaming it? If you wish, you can create page entitled ‘Genocide against the Israelis’. I think that what you do not perhaps see is that this article is not objectively saying that the violence is genocide, but that some people think it is. The lede even says it is a view, not the certain truth. Scientelensia (talk) 16:39, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Having an article with this title, and a redirect from an even more inappropriate title, promotes a phrase and concept into search results that mostly appears in highly polarized political propaganda. While there might indeed be more sources for a page on 'Genocide against the Israelis', considering what has passed for political speech in the past few decades, that is likewise not an appropriate title or concept for an encyclopedia article. The proposal is to merge with an existing page, which both contains many paragraphs that were copied here (there's no reason to conflate apartheid with genocide), offers historical and semantic context, and has an established group of editors to provide feedback. I have made a quick summary + merge, including a few references for each in the merged section. Please be careful about giving undue weight to rare views. – SJ + 20:22, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See what you are saying, but this is by no means a rare view. Scientelensia (talk) 21:33, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree:
  • there have been other separate pages on genocides before.
  • this article has a different subject
Scientelensia (talk) 12:04, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are other pages on alleged genocide. The severity and significance of this subject cannot be undermined, which is why we should not merge this article. To merge this subject is to dismiss it. Scientelensia (talk) 16:20, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For people who agree, see the discussions below and the discussions in the Apartheid in Israel article, where the conversation was temporarily moved. Scientelensia (talk) 16:36, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, adding a better balance of views and merging into Israel and apartheid#Allegations of genocide. Please move discussion to the talk page there. – SJ + 20:00, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the discussion on that talk page. I find your actions deeply troubling and also simply wrong. Scientelensia (talk) 09:42, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't remove the banner for a discussion in progress. Your recent additions made this article more unbalanced, with innuendo and misstated data. – SJ + 21:40, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - merge or delete entire thing. Leaving aside the fact that the Palestinian population has only increased since 1948 (interesting "genocide"), this is just a grout of fringe, hyperbolic and extremely biased accusations by radical anti-Israel activists who deprecate the value of words, as usual, just like they did with 'racism', 'fascism', 'apartheid' and, in some cases, even the 'holocaust' itself. Someone could easily start another article called "Genocide against Israelis" with some random writer detailing 100 years of riots, massacres, suicide bombings, rocket attacks, stabbings, car-rammings and shootings, followed by Palestinian and Arab leaders calls to wipe Israel off the map and drown the Jews into the sea. See WP:Advocacy and WP:Competence. Dovidroth (talk) 04:51, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Article specifically mentions what is happening in the Gaza strip which specifically falls under the definition of genocide. Your description of these "radical anti-Israel activists" is laughable considering the article itself is listed as a view. If you would like, feel free to start the Genocide against Israelis" article as a "radical Zionist". 2600:8807:C600:EF60:CED:466B:D6B7:B868 (talk) 22:02, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • All I know is that the current title is ridiculous. An example of petty activism trumping over neutrality. The article also doesn't belong in the category "genocides in Asia", that category is for real genocides. Less POV-pushing please. –Daveout(talk) 06:24, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Merge but, if the merge is not successful, support renaming to Allegations of Genocide against Palestinians or an equivalent title. For renaming, the current title is without a doubt incorrect as there is no consensus among reliable sources as to whether or not genocide is occurring. While I do concur that this is an important topic, I believe it should be merged because a significant portion of this article overlaps with the Criticism article (e.g. History section). It appears that, as a stand-alone article, it is impossible for this to be told from NPOV. No matter how it's reworded, the consensus is nonexistent, suggesting that the existence of this article as an independent page is at fault and that the only way to establish consensus is to merge (merging at least poses a possibility of us reaching consensus in the future, whereas leaving it clearly is not going anywhere). Sincerely, Novo Tape (She/Her)My Talk Page 18:31, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

AfD discussion

The above discussion may be superceded by the outcome of the AfD discussion started yesterday. For those who commented above but not at the other @Novo Tape, Daveout, Zanahary, Lilijuros, Omri2424, HalfHazard98, Abrvagl, Yotamsahar, SamiBuzaglo, Omervk, YZM1987, IshChasidecha, and Drmies: that discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Genocide_against_Palestinians. – SJ + 19:11, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Should I ping the people in the discussions bellow as well? –Daveout(talk) 19:23, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I normally don't ping people to preserve their notifs, but the above discussion which would normally be closed at some point is now moot. I would leave it; the AfD banner is clear for those interested. – SJ + 19:33, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming of article due to disputed factuality

It's obvious from even just this talk page that the claim that a genocide against Palestinians actually exists is contested. Therefore I recommend the name of the article change to "Claims of genocide against Palestinians" or "Alleged genocide against Palestinians" or another NPOV name. DGtal (talk) 05:46, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment, We also have the Uyghur Genocide article, despite the supposed genocide only being allegations with little to no evidence too. It would also have to be renamed to include "Allegations" to keep things consistent. FF toho (talk) 07:53, 15 October 2023 (UTC) Stricken through comment by blocked user. GnocchiFan (talk) 17:32, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Good point. However, I think it should be a case-by-case basis. Evidence aside, the Uyghur Genocide article must not appear contentious enough to the people editing it, but this one certainly is. HalfHazard98 (talk) 19:16, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This may be a good solution. Scientelensia (talk) 08:54, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We should change the title to:
Allegations of genocide of Palestinians in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict Scientelensia (talk) 08:56, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposed deletion

Article was brought to AFD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genocide against Palestinians) and the result was no consensus. starship.paint (RUN) 07:07, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

NB: Eladkarmel proposed this article for deletion on October 15 Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Genocide_against_Palestinians. The primary discussion about the proposal is on that page.

Deletion of Article 1

This article is clearly politically motivated and against Wikipedia conventions. I propose this article be deleted. Due to the circumstances of the publication of this article. It is very possible that it was written with the intention of influencing people's opinions on the war between Hamas and Israel. Homerethegreat (talk) 18:25, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Highly lack of WP:NPOV, poorly sourced. In addition to the timing, seems like an ugly attempt to justify the terror attack and the Re'im music festival massacre. A shame that this piece of antisemitic propaganda is gonna probably stay here until a vote. Just shows how messed up and horrible is the bias in English Wikipedia. I'm not gonna be suprised if The Holocaust article or articles related to it are the next ones who are gonna be effected. Trying to rewrite history through Wikipedia. dov (talk) 19:19, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You do realise that the creator of this article Buidhe, is in fact, one of Wikipedia's most prolific writers about the Holocaust and genocide generally? I really don't think this was a bad faith creation, maybe it wasn't the best idea, but "antisemitic", really? Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:45, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. And people can add more info to the page, reducing any possible POV, rather than deleting it. Scientelensia (talk) 08:46, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I support the restoration of this page. For more, see the section about the merge here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Israel_and_apartheid Scientelensia (talk) 12:44, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(The next section down) Scientelensia (talk) 12:45, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If it is so (" that the creator of this article Buidhe, is in fact, one of Wikipedia's most prolific writers about the Holocaust and genocide generally").
then it is not clear the lack of standards of the value's visibility, for example in the pictures in it. About showing a picture of skulls from the Rwandan genocide it is misleading. In addition, a picture of a non-representative anecdotal case of a Jew with an ultra-Orthodox appearance who supports a Palestinian demonstration as encyclopedic evidence for what? Even showing coffins in which it is claimed that they belong to unarmed dead can be found in Israel about jews as well and how is this an example of the issue? מי-נהר (talk) 17:29, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That they can be found in Israel bears little resemblance to the subject matter. I invite you to put similar images which relate to Israel on other pages, if you wish, although not this one, as that would be insensitive. Also, the skulls image belongs to the template of genocides and is automatically added when one adds this template to the page. The coffins image symbolise the tragedy of the matter. Even if you do not like Palestinians, you must see that this scale of death, whoever caused it, is a tragedy. The image of the man shows that not all Israelis oppose Palestine. And also, what is wrong with being “ultra-Orthodox”? You sound like you may hold a prejudice in this regard; if so, please say why, if not, I issue my apologies.
If you wish you can create an opposing page (e.g. Genocide against Israelis) Scientelensia (talk) 17:40, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think you'll find that it's the other way around, and the Re'im music festival massacre is being used in the ugly attempt to justify the litany of sins and war crimes that we now see unfolding in Gaza. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:18, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do support the restoration of this page. For my thoughts, see the section about the merge here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Israel_and_apartheid Scientelensia (talk) 12:45, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(The next section down) Scientelensia (talk) 12:45, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Using the adjunct 'ugly' on an "attempt" rather than a massacre is where the problem starts. dov (talk) 12:57, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure it is not lost on you that I was using your own turn of phrase. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:09, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not state that those who are not Pro-Israel are also anti-Semites, as this is deeply alarming and untrue. Many clearly do not understand the concept that those who are against Israel are not inherently anti Jews. Scientelensia (talk) 09:44, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Add appropriate content and sources here: Genocide against Palestinians#Rejection of characterization Scientelensia (talk) 16:47, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
100% agree. Is there any way to make the process move quicker of addressing this issue? IshChasidecha (talk) 19:42, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See Talk:Israel_and_apartheid#Allegations of genocide – SJ + 20:08, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Sj@Homerethegreat@Hemiauchenia@Iskandar323@דוב@VeronkiaStein@Nableezy
What do you think of this: Talk:Genocide against Palestinians#Remodelling the article? Scientelensia (talk) 09:06, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This article is an obvious propaganda. I wished for higher standards in the Ewiki... Please Don't fail your audience. Lilijuros (talk) 09:38, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of advocating the deletion, you can implement these higher standards by adding content. Scientelensia (talk) 09:53, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article is politically motivated and the contents already exist on the Israel apartheid page. So I don't see why there should be a page that is misinformative. Homerethegreat (talk) 10:12, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Article 2

Clearly breaches codes of neutrality. Raises serious concerns of abuse of power in order to manipulate public opinion regarding current Israel-Hamas war. Raises serious concerns regarding potential political motives that seeks to legitimize Hamas actions against Israelis.

Due to misinformation, breach of neutrality as well as potential political motivation; I propose this article be deleted as soon as possible. Homerethegreat (talk) 19:33, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, because ... sources Iskandar323 (talk) 21:07, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not a reliable source Drsmoo (talk) 21:40, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are many other sources throughout the article. Scientelensia (talk) 21:51, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
News flash: that's not the only source on the page; far from it. And I think you can expect more in the coming days if Israel keeps bombing trapped civilians. Also, the consensus on Mondoweiss specifically is no consensus, so it's not not reliable either. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:52, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Many sources are unreliable, by pundits or authors known for fringe or controversial ideas or employed by think tanks with a related political goal. That doesn't mean they can not be a ref in some article, but they can't prop up a one-sided one. While future developments may merit an article, this one is presently just a hatrack for fringe or discredited ideas and aspersions. – SJ + 22:04, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This view was always going to be subjective however, thus the sources are also. What one cannot deny (I believe?) is that Israel have breached the UN’s Genocide Convention and around 2-3/5 of its terms. I’ve tried to make this article as neutral as possible, and cannot do this alone.
These are not discredited ideas, they are becoming much more relevant and already were too.
I really would appreciate your help on developing the page.
Please also see my thoughts on your talk page. Scientelensia (talk) 22:11, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please read my message to you on your talk page and reconsider your actions. Scientelensia (talk) 21:18, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This article, aka Hamas propaganda, is a disgrace to Wikipedia. Hamas publicly calls for the destruction of Israel and worldwide murder of Jews. Last week he took the most significant step in this direction. Efforts are now being made in the field of propaganda as well. ℬ𝒜ℛ (talk) 23:46, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How is this propaganda? It may not be 100% but we, the editors, are working in this. Many government officials have called also for the destruction of Palestinians, and perhaps you do not regard this as as severe? In the words of Raz Segal:
“The UN Genocide Convention lists five acts that fall under its definition. Israel is currently perpetrating three of these in Gaza: “1. Killing members of the group. 2. Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group. 3. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.” The Israeli Air Force, by its own account, has so far dropped more than 6,000 bombs on Gaza, which is one of the most densely populated areas in the world—more bombs than the US dropped on all of Afghanistan in any year of its war there. Human Rights Watch has confirmed that the weapons used included phosphorous bombs, which set fire to bodies and buildings, creating flames that aren’t extinguished on contact with water. This demonstrates clearly what Gallant means by “act accordingly”: not targeting individual Hamas militants, as Israel claims, but unleashing deadly violence against Palestinians in Gaza “as such,” in the language of the UN Genocide Convention. Israel has also intensified its 16-year siege of Gaza—the longest in modern history, in clear violation of international humanitarian law—to a “complete siege,” in Gallant’s words. This turn of phrase that explicitly indexes a plan to bring the siege to its final destination of systematic destruction of Palestinians and Palestinian society in Gaza, by killing them, starving them, cutting off their water supplies, and bombing their hospitals.
It’s not only Israel’s leaders who are using such language. An interviewee on the pro-Netanyahu Channel 14 called for Israel to “turn Gaza to Dresden.” Channel 12, Israel’s most-watched news station, published a report about left-leaning Israelis calling to “dance on what used to be Gaza.” Meanwhile, genocidal verbs—calls to “erase” and “flatten” Gaza—have become omnipresent on Israeli social media. In Tel Aviv, a banner reading “Zero Gazans” was seen hanging from a bridge.” Scientelensia (talk) 08:35, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a strong case for this current war to be classified as unquestionable Genocide. It will soon be added to the 'List of Genocides' page as well. This particular instance may be called "Genocide of Gaza" as it appears to be contained within Gaza (for now).
https://jewishcurrents.org/a-textbook-case-of-genocide VeronikaStein (talk) 04:20, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I support the immediate deletion of this article. IshChasidecha (talk) 17:55, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can you give your reason(s)? HalfHazard98 (talk) 19:19, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the deletion of this article, for reasons I have stated in other sections (topic isn't to be taken lightly, notability, has sources, title can be changed to make the article more neutral, etc). — Preceding unsigned comment added by HalfHazard98 (talk • contribs) 19:28, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]


An arbitrary article, as you can have a genocide article on any group of people that went through some war. Gabi.guetta (talk) 12:56, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is not one war however, it is a series of wars, skirmishes and general ethnic cleaning since 1948. It’s different. Scientelensia (talk) 13:13, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't just "some war", the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the world's oldest ongoing conflict, in which tens of thousands have perished. HalfHazard98 (talk) 19:07, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Keep this article

This is no different than the page for "Holodomor genocide question", merely showing that there is a debate and varying views on the topic. Deleting this article would come across as hiding the fact that many do characterize the conflict as genocide, as the sources show. At most, rename the article. HalfHazard98 (talk) 05:33, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. This must be stated. Scientelensia (talk) 08:54, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

False claims? not on Wikipedia!

The false claims on this article should not win Wikipedia space. They should be framed as false lies, and put in their true context, as a mixture between Criticism of Israel, and attempts to tamper with facts.

TaBaZzz (talk) 08:03, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Any credible source to show that? TaBaZzz (talk) 08:42, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

:::You can look at the sources section of this article. FF toho (talk) 11:08, 15 October 2023 (UTC) Stricken through comment by blocked user. GnocchiFan (talk) 17:32, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Name one fact that is a lie. Scientelensia (talk) 08:57, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please name facts. TaBaZzz (talk) 09:16, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The stats and sourced facts in the article!? Scientelensia (talk) 09:50, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not a credible source. TaBaZzz (talk) 10:18, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Which ones aren’t? Scientelensia (talk) 10:49, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Allegations of Palestinian genocide against Israelis

As well as allegations of Israeli genocide against Palestinians, there are also allegations of Palestinian genocide against Israelis. See for example Weiner, Justus Reid, and Avi Bell. "The Gaza War of 2009: Applying International Humanitarian Law to Israel and Hamas." San Diego Int'l LJ 11 (2009): 5, Jens David Ohlin, "International Criminal Law Analysis of the Situation in Israel", 12 Oct 2023, Stuart Winer, "Hamas actions are war crimes, could constitute genocide – international law experts", The Times of Israel, 15 October 2023. I am thinking, given Wikipedia is covering allegations that Israel is committing genocide against Palestinians, it is only reasonable to also cover Israeli allegations that Palestinians are committing genocide against Israelis. However, the question is whether both sets of allegations belong in the same article, or whether two different articles should exist. I think the problem with two different articles, is the "Israeli genocide against Palestinians" claim has received significantly more (and more long-standing) scholarly attention than the "Palestinian genocide against Israelis" claim, and an article on each might wrongly imply the two claims have equal scholarly support. This suggests to me, that we should broaden the scope of the article – maintain alleged Israeli genocide against Palestinians as the primary topic and main focus of the article, but include a section discussing the converse Israeli allegations towards the end, with a brief mention of them in the article opening. What do people think? SomethingForDeletion (talk) 03:48, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As you say, this material has a totally different scope. Having a bi-directional page on this type of topic (have you ever seen a twin genocide page?) would be a clarion call for WP:FALSEBALANCE. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:37, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm certainly not suggesting the two sets of claims should be treated as equivalent – it is clear that much more scholarly attention has been paid to one set of claims than the other. However, the problem with two separate articles, is it creates a WP:FALSEBALANCE problem of a different sort – having a pair of articles, Allegations of Israeli genocide against Palestinians and Allegations of Palestinian genocide against Israelis, essentially puts the two topics on an equal footing, despite the fact that the scholarly literature takes one of those topics much more seriously than it does the other. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 06:20, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest a second page. Scientelensia (talk) 06:04, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sporadic acts of terrorism should be seen as a strain of genocide, i.e. genocidal, but cannot be viewed and considered entirely comparable to systematic genocide, which is committed over a sustained period of time and typically by an economically and militarily superior nation state or internationally recognized political entity. 76.126.242.226 (talk) 23:11, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've created Draft:Palestinian genocide of Israelis. I'm still not sure where it belongs or under what title, but I definitely think there is enough material on the topic for an article. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 07:43, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nice. I suggest removing genocide against Jews and just put the Israeli population as a significant part of this population is non-Jewish and the conflict from Hamas’ side has not yet been directed to non-Israeli Jews. Scientelensia (talk) 15:32, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think that would be mistaken. Indeed Hamas and other organizations have called specifically for murder of Jewish civilians and not the Arabs of Israel which are viewed as their Palestinian brethren. Indeed, the intent of genocide and the actions of Hamas and other Palestinian organizations are aimed specifically against the Jewish population. Therefore it is fitting that it be against Jewish Israelis. Of course there are some who view Israeli Arabs as traitors, but most of the narrative opinion of anti-Israeli organizations are against the Jews. Homerethegreat (talk) 08:46, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Plenty of Jews are antizionists and most of them are not Israelis so acting like all of those terms are interchangeable is ridiculous. The issue is against settlers. Even Hamas Charter says they're against Zionists, not Jews (you can choose to believe that or not). - Ïvana (talk) 17:42, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rename or merge

Rename suggested below. starship.paint (RUN) 07:08, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Rename or merge article: suggested target: Nakba or Nakba-related pages, or rename to "Allegations of genocide against Palestinians" etc Andre🚐 15:00, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely not a merge to Nakba, this covers way more than 1948 and the surrounding years. No opinion on a rename but oppose "allegations" as a rule. nableezy - 15:04, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, "claims" and similar are not recommended by MOS, but obviously the current title implies an active genocide against Palestinians as opposed to a disputed term. Any suggestions? Andre🚐 15:09, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Accusations". nableezy - 17:24, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The analogy is not exact but imagine "Apartheid against Palestinians" iso "Israel and apartheid" (a title arrived at with much effort with "accusations" being ditched in the process).
Suggests "Israel and (accusations of) genocide". Selfstudier (talk) 17:32, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm cool with these improvements if y'all are. Andre🚐 17:58, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think wait and see if the other afd closes keep or merge or delete and decide from there. nableezy - 18:11, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, you're right. I looked and thought it was already closed no consensus. There's one still open? Andre🚐 18:14, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This one?, closed as redirect. Selfstudier (talk) 18:17, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Although seems to be some difference of opinion as to the redirect target... Selfstudier (talk) 18:21, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but that shouldn't block the RM of this page. But, if there's another AFD open against this page that would. So let me know if there is one. I can't find one though. Andre🚐 18:22, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hadnt seen that close, the question was if that closed to merge that here and combine the articles in to Accusations of genocide in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. But I see my vote did not carry the day (honestly tho, yall should really just let me write these articles and trust my judgment, it would be much better than this system we have now), so thats moot. And in that case my comment about waiting is not relevant, and you can feel to propose a move at your leisure. (er you did that, nvm) nableezy - 22:54, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. I'm quick on the trigger, but all is well in this case. Andre🚐 23:07, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 24 October 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved to Palestinian genocide accusation. Multiple possibilities were raised but this clearly had the strongest support. (non-admin closure) starship.paint (RUN) 23:06, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Genocide against Palestinians → Israel and accusations of genocide – Idea from above discussion, but open to others. More descriptive and accurate title IMO. Andre🚐 18:01, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think Allegations of genocide against Palestinians is preferable given that it is similar to existing article titles and directly states what it is about. Israel and accusations of genocide is unclear because it could also refer to accusations of genocide that someone else is committing against Israel, which is not within the article's scope. (t · c) buidhe 19:34, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Buidhe: When you just put "allegations of" out in front, it can read like allegations against Palestinians. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:06, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Iskandar323 I see your point. What title do you support? (t · c) buidhe 20:10, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See below. (I was already typing.) Iskandar323 (talk) 20:21, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I also support "Palestine genocide question/allegations" etc. (t · c) buidhe 01:14, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
True, but "Palestinian genocide accusations/allegations" has the same problem even if to a lesser degree. Fundamentally, when you mention a person/group alongside the word "accusations" or "allegations", people infer guilt rather than victimhood. DFlhb (talk) 20:19, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fooian Genocide seems to always means the Genocide of Fooians in any example I can care to think of. I can't see there being serious confusion with this. Rather than the possible source of confusion that you're suggesting, if anything, the one possible semantic confusion with "Palestinian genocide accusations/allegations" is that it could be about "genocide accusations/allegations" made by Palestinians. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:29, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough - DFlhb (talk) 21:06, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Although I believe that the label of "genocide" is accurate and pertains to the situation of Palestinians, they are indeed allegations and few international bodies or academic scholars classify it as definitively a genocide. I support the title "Allegations of genocide against Palestinians." HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 20:00, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Gave this some more thought, I realize that my proposed title would be ambigious and could mean that the Palestinians are the ones committing genocide. I think there are two titles that work: Allegations of Israeli genocide against Palestinians or Allegations of Palestinian genocide by Israel. Both of the make it pretty unambigious that Israel is being accused of genocide. 18:13, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
If one were to go down the tempering route, Palestinian genocide accusation(s) would be better. "Foo-ian genocide" is a pretty standard format and "accusation" is more suitable (and accurately descriptive) than allegation, which should be avoided, per MOS:ALLEGED and the point that alleged can imply inaccuracy. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:12, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Since there was no consensus to keep, merge, or delete this page, but significant dissatisfaction with its name, it should be renamed (the closer said there's not enough support for any one of the proposed alternatives). Palestinian genocide question seemed to me like the best of the choices that was proposed in the AfD... not only does it recall the landmark 1948 debate cited in the article (the question of genocide in Palestine), and the Holodomor genocide question, but the word "question" is wishy-washy-lukewarm-neutral whereas "allegations" and "accusations" are hot and could lead to shrinkage. -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥 22:37, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Question" works too. Also briefer. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:05, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: As mentioned below Palestinian genocide is a term that's been mentioned a fair bit in RS, and like Armenian genocide it's more clear about who the victim is. Given the clarity of what the subject is and use in RS, I'd also support this as the title. aismallard (talk) 00:05, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My vote is to merge this page and Second Holocaust (and are there any others out there?) to Accusations of genocide in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Levivich (talk) 03:29, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's actually not a bad idea. I'd be fine with that.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 03:38, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Levivich I oppose this proposed merger because the main uses of "second Holocaust" include to decry the practice of Jews marrying non-Jews outside the context of the Israel Palestine conflict, as well as antisemitism in the Jewish diaspora. Relatedly, Holocaust is not synonymous with genocide. (t · c) buidhe 03:40, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fair. Then I'd leave Second Holocaust alone, still merge this page to Accusations of genocide in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and retarget Alleged Palestinian genocide of Israelis there. Levivich (talk) 03:42, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd support that for whatever that is worth. Andre🚐 04:14, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This suggestion works. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:30, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I should note this is actually Nableezy's idea (in case there's a boomerang later) Levivich (talk) 04:43, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not it. nableezy - 04:47, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Off topic discussion
*Comment I can't tell you how messed up it is that this is even a discussion. It beggars belief. This page shouldnt even exist but of course, too many want it to do so. The irony of course about this is that there's no page devoted to Genocide against Jews despite the fact of what's happened through the ages. How is this even possible? Genocide of Jews is the core tenet of Hamas' charter and was on full display on October 7 and is well documented as opposed to this based on a paper written by a couple of anti-semites. MaskedSinger (talk) 10:43, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support move to Palestinian genocide accusation: Concise, simple, does what it says on the tin. Also seems to avoid a lot of the issues created by title options with prepositions, including titles using "against", which is causing no end of dual meanings. The accusation is a simple one: that there is a Palestinian genocide, or has been one ongoing for a long time, hence "Palestinian genocide accusation". Supports the standard "Foo-ian genocide" format that everyone knows, and which is definitively in circulation. That the "accusation" is a tangible one is now in little doubt, not least in the figure of Raz Segal stating that it is a "textbook case of genocide", and the numerous accusations by Holocaust survivors and legal voices over the years; "allegation", which MOS:ALLEGED notes implies inaccuracy, does not really cut it. Even NGO Monitor, in its dismissal of the accusations, uses the term "accusations". I also do not thing "accusation" needs to be plural, with the singular both sufficing in a collective sense, and abiding better by WP:SINGULAR. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:05, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support, this is the simplest solution and the reasoning is good. DFlhb (talk) 10:14, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think this idea is fine. Andre🚐 16:08, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That works. Levivich (talk) 16:11, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Aye, that'll do. Selfstudier (talk) 18:16, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support, this is the simplest solution and the reasoning is good. Parham wiki (talk) 19:04, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support this as a potential different title. XTheBedrockX (talk) 13:28, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support, right now the article makes an impression that genocide against Palestinians is an accepted mainstream concept, which it is not.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:45, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Palestinian genocide accusation Ymblanter (talk) 16:09, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support this move per reasoning by Iskandar323 (although I'm not sure whether it should be accusation (singlular) or accusations (plural)) GnocchiFan (talk) 21:09, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fine with this too. nableezy - 21:35, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Will do (for now). M.Bitton (talk) 00:03, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This works well. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:30, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are the last 12 responses supporting Israel and accusations of genocide, or Palestinian genocide accusation? Please consider editing your comments to make it clearer. –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:49, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Until you raised the question, I had not doubt it was the latter. I still think so. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:20, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Same. DFlhb (talk) 10:29, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Same. Levivich (talk) 14:48, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All aboard the same train. nableezy - 16:16, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support PGA and will risk being the unlucky #13 to do so... When's the last time there was snow for Halloween? -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥 09:52, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Redirect creation

I've converted this to a redirect; per WP:ONUS, The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content, and per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genocide against Palestinians no such consensus exists. A redirect seems like the simplest way to resolve this issue; it will allow the article to be restored should such a consensus emerge. BilledMammal (talk) 09:37, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Novem Linguae: Per WP:ONUS, the responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content; please revert your restoration of the content until such a consensus is obtained. BilledMammal (talk) 09:40, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is a very binary thing. There was an AFD a week ago. It can close as certain things: no consensus, delete, keep, redirect, merge, etc. In this case it closed as no consensus. You cannot then go "per AFD, we are redirecting this". –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:47, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What "no consensus" means varies depending on the context.
In this context, where there is no prior consensus for the inclusion of this context, per WP:ONUS the article cannot exist. How it ceases to exist isn't overly relevant; I believed a redirect was more appropriate, but if you prefer to delete it outright or move it to draft space I will not object.
The only way we are permitted to keep this article is if I am mistaken about the "prior consensus" aspect; if I am, can you please link that consensus? BilledMammal (talk) 09:55, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A bunch of experienced Wikipedians just talked about this article's existence a week ago and did not come to a consensus to take a deletion action. Don't you think that if this article needed to be redirected for WP:ONUS reasons, it would have been mentioned and decided there? –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:58, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ONUS isn't and shouldn't be brought up during a formal discussion, because it has no bearing on what the consensus is; it only becomes relevant if there is no consensus. For example, if an RfC is held proposing to include disputed content, and there is no prior consensus to include that content, then a "no consensus" result means the content is not included, per WP:ONUS, even if no one raises WP:ONUS during the RfC.
It's no different here; if we don't have an affirmative consensus for inclusion, we must exclude - which is why I am asking you to revert your restoration of the article unless you can point at such a consensus. I would note that consensus via the existence of the article being the status quo would be appropriate, but I don't believe that applies here as the article is only a few weeks old. BilledMammal (talk) 10:07, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Using WP:ONUS to dispute an entire article containing 41 citations... I'm scratching my head here. Anyway, I decline to self-revert at this time. Per WP:BLAR, contested BLARs should go to AFD. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:19, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter how many citations the article has; as ONUS says, Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion.
Let me ask you two questions:
  1. Is this disputed content?
  2. Is there a consensus for its inclusion?
BilledMammal (talk) 10:21, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@BilledMammal: The AfD clearly produced no consensus for redirecting. Your attempt to then do this unliterally was at bare minimum wholly unconstructive. And just why? - with zero chance it would not be reverted. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:22, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It clearly produced no consensus for its existence either, and per WP:ONUS this means the article cannot exist - unless you know of a consensus formed elsewhere, either before or after the AfD, for it to exist?
Redirecting was one way to bring the article into compliance with policy, but if you prefer a different method then I have no objection. BilledMammal (talk) 10:26, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ONUS refers to the inclusion of content within a page; it does not address a page's existence - I'm sure you actually know this. Hence why WP:PAGEDECIDE is a see also link. And a resounding 'no consensus' result at a well-attended AfD is likewise extremely resoundingly not an endorsement of any unilateral action. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:48, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ONUS refers to the inclusion of content within a page - the inclusion of any content within the page is disputed, and there is no consensus to include it.
You're right that ONUS is silent on how to handle the resulting page when we have removed the content, but as I said if you don't believe a redirect is appropriate then I have no objection to an alternative method of handling the resulting page.
And a resounding 'no consensus' result at a well-attended AfD is likewise extremely resoundingly not an endorsement of any unilateral action. Unilateral action, which includes the initial creation of the article. How to determine our actions under such circumstances is why we have policies like ONUS.
Let me ask you the same questions I asked Novem Linguae:
  1. Is this disputed content?
  2. Is there a consensus for its inclusion?
BilledMammal (talk) 10:55, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe go with less of the trying to come up with novel procedure interpretations to engender the change you voted for at the AfD, and more of respecting the community and process. I'll also note that while you were busy with your extremely point-y redirect, you didn't find time to actually copy any material at all to your chosen redirect destination at Criticism of Israel, making it pretty transparent that your sole aim here is deletion. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:04, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The redirect was reverted within three minutes of me making it; hardly time to identify and copy over any content that was not disputed.
more of respecting the community and process I would ask you to do the same; there hasn't been a consensus for your creation of this article, and until there is it cannot exist. BilledMammal (talk) 11:08, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're mistaking me for someone else. Create it I did not. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:11, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, I apologize; you did not create the article. BilledMammal (talk) 11:14, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What a lot of tosh, that is not at all how ONUS (or AfD) works and I expect this nonsense to cease pdq. Selfstudier (talk) 11:31, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@BilledMammal Unilaterally turning an article about a contentious and much discussed subject into a redirect – without any consensus to do so – is still highly inappropriate, and I would advise against trying to do that for similarly contentious topics the future. XTheBedrockX (talk) 18:18, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Bold editting is absolutely allowed. No-one is required to get pre-approval for their edits, and (as happened) any editor can revert it if they disagree. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:06, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that’s true. I strongly disagreed with the decision to redirect, but you are right about bold edits. XTheBedrockX (talk) 05:49, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
At the same time, there is still a thing called context that can still make certain permissible actions disruptive and time-wasting in a given context. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:53, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You cant ignore an AFD and then impose a result it did not find. Pinging the closing admin to see if this is really an acceptable method of editing to effectively impose deletion when there was no consensus for it or if this merits sanctions in the ARBPIA topic area, Randykitty. And yes, BilledMammal is aware of the sanctions and has sought sanctions at AE against others. nableezy - 16:13, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • No consensus means just that: no consensus to delete, no consensus to keep, and no consensus to merge/redirect. A priori "no consensus" defaults to "keep", but a subsequent discussion on the talk page can decide to merge/redirect. Apart from closing the AfD, I am not very interested in this issue, so if you must, take it to ANI. --Randykitty (talk) 16:27, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, thank you, AE it is. nableezy - 16:31, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I've ever seen ONUS applied such that a no-consensus result in an AFD of a new article means the article is redirected (or deleted or merged or whatever). True, a straightforward reading of ONUS says anything that doesn't get consensus should be removed unless it has consensus, and new articles with no-consensus AFDs don't have consensus... but our deletion policy and longstanding practice is that "no consensus" defaults to "keep". Basically, ONUS means that a "no consensus" should default to delete. This is a contradiction between ONUS and deletion policy/practice (I'm not actually sure if no-consensus-defaults-to-keep is in any actual policy, but it's certainly longstanding practice). This is one of many ONUS-related contradictions. Levivich (talk) 16:37, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is insane, it would turn every no consensus outcome to delete. Imagine if every editor who was upset about not "winning" an AFD decided to ignore the outcome and impose their desired one instead. I have nominated lots of articles that I think merited deletion and it ended with no consensus. You know what I did? Moved on with my life. nableezy - 16:41, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The idea that a no-consensus AFD outcome should default to delete rather than keep is not insane. I happen to think it's a good idea. It's not consensus, but it ought to be. More generally, the principle that nothing should appear on the pages of Wikipedia that doesn't have affirmative consensus to be there, is a good principle. I wish it was consensus. It's what ONUS says, but ONUS is an example of one of the many Wikipedia policies that Wikipedia does not apply. Why we even still have it, ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Levivich (talk) 16:48, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The idea that it should is not, the idea that it does is. nableezy - 16:51, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For interest I posted this for commentary at the current onus go round at V, here Selfstudier (talk) 16:56, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
From my reading of WP:ONUS, it applies pretty clearly to content within or part of an article, and is not intended to be read with respect to an entire article. WP:ONUS means "Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion" for "certain information"; it doesn't mean that all RS information on a topic can be excluded short of consensus. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:51, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the "no consensus" close of an AfD can be connected with the idea of consenus expressed in ONUS. The AfD close is that there is no consensus to delete the article, not that there is no consensus to keep the article (that would be AfK). It's that second form of the consensus that ONUS is discussing, and it's not something you can just invert as it's based on the original question asked. Just because there's no consensus for the negative form doesn't immediately imply that there's no consensus for the positive form (if you asked "should we keep this article?" you may get a different answer than "should we delete this article?"). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:30, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
not that there is no consensus to keep the article Above, the closer actually clarifies that there was both no consensus to delete the article and no consensus to keep the article. I feel this adds strength to the position that WP:ONUS applies here. BilledMammal (talk) 01:40, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As with all policies ONUS can't be read in isolation. The policies aren't a set of laws and no specific sentence is a trump card in all situations. It doesn't give you a reason to edit war, and if page decides it's not appropriate that's consensus for ( at least some form of) the content. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 17:40, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The emergence of a consensus to move the article to its current title points towards a keep. starship.paint (RUN) 00:08, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this - there is a sizeable and strong consensus forming behind a new title, which indicates that there is a sizeable and strong consensus that the content has a home at said title, echoing the RM, where there were a large number of votes to move or rename alongside keep. Yes, editors can still wade in like bulls in a china shop and make a mess, but doing so at this point would suggest that either they are not reading the talk page, or they are failing to incorporate its direction of travel into their thinking. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:02, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

About those 800 "legal scholars"

The 800 scholars who signed a letter of concern regarding the possibility of genocide two weeks ago were not just "legal scholars": they were also scholars of genocide studies, conflict studies and a bunch of other fields that don't seem to have any relevancy to this subject (gender studies, journalism etc), and the list was also padded with several Phd students and 'independent scholars' with ambiguous credentials. They were also drawn from all over the world which I think kind of diminishes the significance of this number. They wrote/signed this 2 weeks ago before mass evacuations had taken place, and were fearful that the "safe" routes weren't safe because civilians were being targeted by the IDF. Well, two weeks later we know there are 600,000 displaced Palestinians[1], out of the war zone although suffering miserable conditions (as you'd expect). Jonathan f1 (talk) 09:40, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Then provide a source that argues against that statement — based on the exact arguments presented by the statement Hovsepig (talk) 21:13, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not arguing against the statement -I'm just saying that not all 800 of those scholars are who the article says they are. Let's deal with this nice and calmly. Jonathan f1 (talk) 00:17, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how them being from all over the world or this happening two weeks ago is relevant at all, but I do agree that "legal scholars" is not a good representation of the people who signed the letter. There's no need to look for another source because the one currently being used specifically says "800 scholars and practitioners of international law, conflict studies and genocide studies" which is not the same as 800 legal scholars. - Ïvana (talk) 03:26, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware that they were described as "practitioners of international law, conflict studies and genocide studies", but not all of them are involved in these fields. I randomly selected Abigail Balbale of NYU, number 6 on the list, and it turns out she's a "cultural historian of the Medieval Islamic world"[2][3] -what the heck does she know about genocide and international law? This whole list is padded with people like her. Jonathan f1 (talk) 04:19, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A history professor who focuses on political power, religious ideology, and Christian-Muslim relations in the medieval Islamic world probably counts as a scholar of conflict studies. Levivich (talk) 05:04, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly what does studying Medieval conflicts have to do with the role of modern laws in regulating 21st Century warfare? The term "genocide" didn't even exist before the 20th Century.
Here's #12 on the list: Ahmad Al-dissi, University of Saskatchewan, a professor of veterinary science[4]. I suppose treating victims of dog fights qualifies him as a conflict studies scholar?
Here's 62, Anna Bigelow, associate professor of religious studies at Stanford, specializing in ritual practice[5]. And it is interesting she advises graduate students but there's a caveat on her page: "Please note – if your interests are philological, legal, or primarily before the modern period, I am not the right advisor for you and I encourage you to seek admittance elsewhere." By her own admission, she's got no relevant qualifications in conflict law.
And 115, Bilal Maanaki, University of Virginia, a specialist in Arabic poetry/literature who is currently working on love poetry[6].
I'm not going to keep doing this but I'd encourage some of you to check some names. These are not "800 legal scholars" nor are they "800 scholars and practitioners of international law, conflict studies and genocide studies." Jonathan f1 (talk) 06:17, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Al-Dissi is with Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East. Bigelow is a professor of Islamic studies who's done work in shared sacred sites (can you think of any of those that might be relevant to this conflict?). Maanaki is a professor of Arabic literature, communication and culture. They're all scholars. The RSes all say this is a letter written by 800 scholars. Yeah, they're not all legal scholars, but they're all scholars. You don't need to be genocide scholar to denounce genocide. You don't even need to be a scholar. Levivich (talk) 07:13, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So Al-Dissi is an activist as one would expect with a number of these individuals. You know very well it's misleading saying they're all scholars of international law and genocide, and that this was worded deliberately to make it seem like these are 800 people with expertise in the subject they're writing about. But you're right -if reliable sources say a scholar of ancient Egyptian pottery is a "scholar or practitioner of international law" then that's what we say in the article. Jonathan f1 (talk) 09:40, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I changed it to just "scholars" in wikivoice. Levivich (talk) 16:51, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But you raise a good point that the value of all the individuals behind the statement is dubious. Is there a published critique of this statement somewhere that we can cite? Hovsepig (talk) 17:43, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you want a critique of the statement or just a critique of the signatories? The statement looks pretty solid even if you shoot a few of the messengers. Selfstudier (talk) 17:49, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly I don't think it's even WP:DUE for inclusion, even counting it as breaking news... MSM is not reporting on this AFAICT. Levivich (talk) 17:53, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
TWAILR is more like a journal (calls itself one) than breaking news. Sponsored by a couple of UK university law departments. I think it is OK as long as it is attributed. Selfstudier (talk) 18:09, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I thought TWAILR was the author, or publisher, of the letter? They posted it in the "announcements" section of their website (where they post announcements about their own activities), they're hosting the letter, and TWAILR seems to be what other sources link to as "the source" of the letter. Am I mistaken about that? Is TWAILR an independent RS covering it, or is this "WP:ABOUTSELF" in a sense?
Outside of TWAILR, the only other coverage of this letter I can find that is even arguably RS is from Middle East Monitor, which isn't an RS if the Wikipedia article is accurate, this op-ed by one of the signatories (not an RS), and Common Dreams [7], which I think is an RS. Aside from Common Dreams, I'm not finding any other RS.
So that's either 1 RS, or 2 RS (if you count TWAILR as independent)... in the sea of coverage of this conflict, 2 RS might as well be 0 RS, when it comes to WP:DUE, IMO. BBC, AP, CNN, Al Jazeera... none of them even mention this. This letter does not seem to be a significant aspect of Palestinian genocide studies.
We should consider that one reason this isn't being covered by RS is because it's not actually signed by 800 scholars and practitioners of (whatever that means) genocide studies, international law, or conflict studies. I'm speculating there, but, for whatever reason, this doesn't seem to be covered by the media, even though they're very actively covering the issue of whether there's a genocide going on. Levivich (talk) 18:35, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
TWAILR is a journal review of TWAIL. Evidently it is the publisher, it is on their site. If we accept that the signatories are experts then their views are OK on that basis with attribution; en masse, I guess. Anyway, en toto, I still think it is OK. here is a ref by Segal (also a signatory) in the Forward and at Institute for Palestine Studies. Selfstudier (talk) 19:10, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, the Forward I think is actually independent RS coverage -- the author/editor thought it was important enough to mention, so I think that "counts." Doesn't really change my ultimate opinion, but 2 independent RS now (Forward and Common Dreams).
Interesting idea that the letter is like 100s of WP:EXPERTSPS statements (they're not all experts about genocide or IP conflict within the meaning of EXPERTSPS, but surely some hundreds of them are). If they all posted this statement on their blogs, it'd be like 100s of EXPERTSPS sources, and that would be WP:DUE, right? Hmm, hadn't considered that before. Levivich (talk) 19:22, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This was precisely my point: it's been 2 weeks since this was published and no mention in mainstream media (has this changed?). The New York Times hasn't exactly shied away from the G word but why no mention of this letter? Probably because it's impossible to determine who's a legitimate expert and who isn't: the list is a crazed mix of academics with relevant credentials, academics with credentials in other fields, and students and 'independent scholars' who have little or no digital footprint. The way the names are presented is kind of deceptive too -some of them have credentials/specializations next to their names/universities while others just have a university or institution listed. And it's a real grab bag when you search up the names with unspecified credentials -some of them are legit, others have no background in any of these fields. It's not there aren't (probably) 100s of experts on this list, but that this list is padded with amateurs and activists and there's no way to tell what percentage of these people are who they're claimed to be.
FYI -I had no idea this article existed until I listened to a debate/interview on Youtube where a woman claimed "800 legal scholars have accused Israel of genocide" and then said the US is complicit (around 13:30[8]). I googled this and was taken to this article. Mehdi Hasan with MSNBC also cited "800 legal scholars" in a segment on genocide earlier this evening.[9]. Jonathan f1 (talk) 06:02, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

POV tag

@Ymblanter: - you restored a POV tag for the entire article, stating that it is pretty clear POV since only one, marginal, POV is represented (except for one paragraph which I added and which was immediately switched to a "personal opinion", no reason to remove the template. Clearly, you are aware of the existence of other POV which are yet to be represented in this article. Thus, I invite you (and every other editor who supports the POV tag) to bring relevant reliable sources here so that we can address this POV issue in this article. starship.paint (RUN) 00:32, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Ymblanter. There's only one point of view detailed presented. The counter arguments are just like "some disgree and call it racist". C'mon!. This is a very fringe narrative and must be presented as so. One of the biggest counter arguments I've been hearing is that the Arab population never stopped growing (both in Israel and controlled territories). Apparently it is growing faster than the Jewish population. What kind of genocide is this??? In Israel you can see many Islamic cultural spots preserved and secured (like the golden mosque). These type of things should be mentioned and have equal detailment. Yes it is up to us to fix that, but until we find the time, the placement of the tag is warranted. –Daveout(talk) 15:49, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The idea that because a population of growing there can be no genocide is only an argument in circulation among the clueless on social media. It reflects more on the lack of understanding of the concept of genocide among its proponents than anything else. You will see a genocide scholar stating this. Ever. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:04, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Quite the opposite. The first thing people think when they hear "genocide" is an orchestrated "great population elimination". People normally don't equate bad living conditions to genocide. The theory that "I'm oppressed thus my ppl is being genocided" is very VERY new and fringe. I'd like to see the population growth mentioned (even if followed by an ideological "rebuttal".) I bet this "population growth doesn't mean no genocide" theory must be mentioned and "rebutted" in the sources of this very article already (or somewhere else). Just give us a couple of days. –Daveout(talk) 16:55, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Encyclopedias don't pander to ignorance, however widespread. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:16, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Read the literature sometime, population growth has nothing to do with genocide just "intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group.", note that it says "in part" so a little bit of OR yields the conclusion that the current killings in Gaza would qualify under that definition. It's no use Israel saying they have no "intent" either, casualties of war/collateral damage doublespeak won't wash. If anything this article understates the case against Israel so I don't really care about the tag, I will appropriate that for my position. Raz Segal nailed it "Israel’s genocidal assault on Gaza is quite explicit, open and unashamed,..Perpetrators of genocide usually do not express their intentions so clearly." Selfstudier (talk) 16:15, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Quite the opposite. The first thing people think when they hear "genocide" is an orchestrated "great population elimination". People normally don't equate bad living conditions to genocide. The theory that "I'm oppressed thus my ppl is being genocided" is very VERY new and fringe. I'd like to see the population growth mentioned (even if followed by an ideological "rebuttal".) I bet this "population growth doesn't mean no genocide" theory must be mentioned and "rebutted" in the sources of this very article already (or somewhere else). Just give us a couple of days. –Daveout(talk) 16:56, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to wait for the sources to go with that opinion. Selfstudier (talk) 17:06, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Just the intent to destroy part of a culture is genocide." C'monnnnnnn.
  • From Britannica: "Genocide, the deliberate and systematic destruction of a group of people because of their ethnicity, nationality, religion, or race."
  • Merriam Webster: "the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group"
This "intent" and "partially" are stretches. Potentially OR. –Daveout(talk) 17:09, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tertiaries? No OR from me What is Genocide? definition right there. Selfstudier (talk) 17:12, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Or Genocide here. Selfstudier (talk) 17:14, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"bad living conditions" - well acquainted with drinking sea water, eh? Iskandar323 (talk) 18:14, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Loksmythe: - I think you originally added the POV tag so I extend to you the same invitation as above to contribute. starship.paint (RUN) 03:10, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My point is very simple. The article makes an an impression that genocide of Palestinians is an established mainstream academic concept. It said at the moment that I restored the template that the concept (i) not shared by all Israelis (ii) (which I added myself) that Montefiore thinks this is not genocide. This is pretty much all opinions mentioned in the article which disagree with the concept of genocide. It does not even mention that the last war started with the massive terrorist attack HAMAS carried out specifically targeting civilians (it was added to the article and immediately removed). Until a significant number of comprehensive sources has been added to the article showing that the majority of academics do not think occupation of the West Bank and the war against Gaza is genocide (or until it was shown that a large majority think it is genocide), the article is one-sided, and the POV tag must not be removed. I do not feel that this is my responsibility to find these sources. Ymblanter (talk) 06:25, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why you are bringing up the Hamas attack. That is a prominent Israeli and Western talking point in the media, for sure, as a means of deflection, but it is irrelevant to the accusation of genocide - a crime which of course cannot be justified, regardless of the proceeding circumstances. In addition, the views of Israelis are largely irrelevant to the picture here. What we need are the views of reliable authorities and experts, with an emphasis on the latter. The only contrasting views that one would really take seriously here would be genocide experts demurring on the use of terminology here. Such a case applies to the Srebrenica massacre, where William Schabas has prominently demurred on the language of 'genocide'. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:27, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am bringing the HAMAS terrorist attack because it is mentioned in the article. I would actually be in favor of removing everything related to the current war because obviously we have zero academic articles related to it. Views of Israelis are mentioned in the article, and not by me. I would be also in favor of removing it, because the statement reads now as "only some Israelis oppose the notion" which is obviously incorrect. Ymblanter (talk) 07:47, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It does not even mention that the last war started with the massive terrorist attack HAMAS carried out specifically targeting civilians - the article does have some sort of a mention of that now: The 2023 Israel–Hamas war began when Hamas attacked Israel on 7 October 2023, killing 1,400 Israelis, most of whom were civilians; this led to an Israeli counteroffensive. starship.paint (RUN) 08:59, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ymblanter: majority of academics do not think occupation of the West Bank and the war against Gaza is genocide (or until it was shown that a large majority think it is genocide) - how do we know either way what a large majority of academics think unless the reliable sources are brought here? There are two circumstances here - either (a) you know that the article is one-sided because you are familiar with what reliable sources say about whether there is Palestinian genocide (of which then please provide the reliable sources), or (b) you assume that the article is one-sided. Which is it? starship.paint (RUN) 08:06, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If the article represents one view and does not represent the opposite view, it is by definition one-sided. I am not even sure what we are discussing. Ymblanter (talk) 08:10, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ymblanter: I am inviting you to present the opposite view with reliable sources that there is no Palestinian genocide. starship.paint (RUN) 08:17, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I already said, I do not feel this is my responsibility. If you claim EVERYBODY think it is genocide and there is no opposite view, this is a highly unusual claim which needs to be justified. Ymblanter (talk) 08:22, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're asking to prove a negative with evidence that there is no opposite view. Far easier to prove a positive by providing evidence of the opposite view. You're simply claiming a problem exists without providing any evidence in reliable sources to support yourself. Disappointing. starship.paint (RUN) 08:29, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, the article is now entitled Palestinian genocide accusation, which means that the scope of the article is "some people accused the existence of a genocide against Palestinians". It does not mean EVERYBODY think it is genocide. Rather it implies "some people think it is genocide". starship.paint (RUN) 08:30, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Im sorry but it is your responsibility to demonstrate a POV issue with sources when claiming one exists with a tag on an article. You cant just say this doesnt feel like NPOV to me, we dont base our articles on our feelings. You do have to bring sources to show that there are issues with the weight as shown or there is some significant POV being neglected. You dont necessarily have to edit the article to incorporate those views, but you do have to establish the basis for the tag, and that is only done with reliable sources. nableezy - 15:07, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did establish the basis of the tag, if you do not like it, I can not help. Hopefully other users will join the discussion. Ymblanter (talk) 15:30, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The operative part of my comment was with sources. You can tell because I bolded it. nableezy - 17:09, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No comment on the POV tag or the current article content, as I haven't read it lately. But since I'm doing some reading on Nakba anyway, here are a couple of quotes of scholars arguing it's genocide, or it's not genocide:

  • Rashed, Haifa; Short, Damien; Docker, John (2014). "Nakba Memoricide: Genocide Studies and the Zionist/Israeli Genocide of Palestine". Holy Land Studies. 13 (1): 1–23. doi:10.3366/hls.2014.0076. ISSN 1474-9475. (already cited in the article)
    • Rashed, Short & Docker 2014, p. 13, "The University of Oxford’s first professor of Israel Studies Derek Penslar recently stated that pro-Israelis needed to catch up with the past 30 years of academic scholarship that has accepted the ‘vast bulk of findings’ by the New Historians regarding the Nakba. He said: ‘what happened to the Palestinians, the Nakba, was not a genocide. It was horrible, but it was not a genocide. Genocide means that you wipe out a people. It wasn’t a genocide. It was ethnic cleansing’ (Kalmus 2013)."
    • id, p. 18 "The fact that these Palestinians are Israeli citizens means that we could view these policies from a minority rights perspective, as the acts of a selectively ‘repressive’ government. This does not preclude individual victims experiencing this as genocidal. Indeed, if we take the view that the Nakba – including the ‘transfer’, denial, elimination and discrimination against Palestinians – is still taking place as part of a process of settler colonialism, the relevance to Genocide Studies cannot be ignored. ... Yet it is apparent to Palestinians in different contexts experiencing discriminatory policies intended to drive them away from their land that the ‘Nakba’ of 1948 did not end in that era and is an ongoing process. Thus in this essay we have re-emphasised the possibility of viewing the Zionist project as a structural settler-colonial genocide against the Palestinian people, one that started with early Zionist colonisation and that continues until the present day."
  • Lentin, Ronit (2013). Co-memory and melancholia: Israelis memorialising the Palestinian Nakba. Manchester University Press. ISBN 978-1-84779-768-1. (not currenty cited in the article)
    • Lentin 2013, ch. 2 "While neither ‘categorial murder’ nor genocide, the Nakba has been described variously as ‘ethnic cleansing’ (Pappe 2006) or ‘spaciocide’ (Hanafi 2005), perpetrated by people categorising themselves as ‘Jews’, ‘Zionists’ or ‘Israeli Jews’, against people categorised as ‘Palestinians’, ‘Arabs’, and later ‘Israeli Arabs’."
  • More sources not currently in the article

- Levivich (talk) 22:23, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 November 2023

Please remove "accusation" in the title. The article cites prominent historians' viewpoints stating that this is a textbook case of genocide, therefore it is not an accusation. Raneemh (talk) 01:43, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We've just had a massive conversation about this with over a dozen people. This is the least bad title that was come up with. I really don't think you'll be able to overturn this. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:33, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware there was a conversation around this. Unfortunately I couldn't participate then. It's illogical for this to be titled an "accusation" when you cite historical scholars, who determine these instances of genocide. If we do not trust a scholars statement, then how do we determine whether or not something is genocide? It doesn't make any logical sense to state this as an accusation when there is history to back it up, citing similarities to other historic genocides. Why is it an accusation when it lines up with different genocides practically 1:1 in both rhetoric and action? Is it because it's an ongoing genocide?
More than 400 Palestinians were incinerated just a few hours ago from writing this message. How is that not genocide? Raneemh (talk) 02:41, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We generally only title articles as explicitly "genocides" when there is a broad scholarly consensus to classify them as such. For example the Amhara genocide article was renamed recently because the only sources describing it explicitly as a genocide were Amhara advocacy groups. There is no scholarly consensus that Israel's decades long persecution of Palestinians counts as a genocide. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:50, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well the issue that automatically arises with "scholarly consensus" is that:
1. this is an ongoing issue so we've yet to have a multitude of sources yet that have undergone peer review, meaning that we can only define a genocide after it happens rather than during it, which is in itself problematic
2. I'm unclear with how "scholarly consensus" is defined — if needed I can provide different resources of scholars who have claimed independent from journals that genocide is what is happening
3. Does that not mean we value the voices of a select few rather than the victims of said genocide? There may not be a consensus, but already scholars are stating this falls in line with the pattern of past genocides. When coupled together, does that not provide consensus enough? Many Palestinian advocacy groups are headed by scholars themselves — does that mean they are not subject to be listened to brcause they are advocacy groups? Raneemh (talk) 03:06, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It’s possible for more than 400 people of any type to be killed (via incineration) and yet not be a genocide. I'm not sure why you are arguing that it automatically counts as genocide. starship.paint (RUN) 03:04, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Raneemh appears to be a Palestinian herself, so I can understand her quite personal anger expressed here, even if I don't agree with her opinion. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:07, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When they are all Palestinian, meaning they all were targeted because they are part of an ethnic group, then it is genocide. What other definitions of genocide do you have? Or are you claiming that they were targeted for some unknown reason? When a single ethnicity occupies a space and you bomb that space without concern for casualties, then you are committing genocide. Unfortunately, it's not a radical conclusion to draw. Raneemh (talk) 03:13, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is a possible argument (and I’m not saying that this definitely happened) that there were Hamas operatives in that area that Israel wanted to eliminate, and that there were civilians killed as collateral damage. In that case this may not have been genocide. As such I find no automatic presumption of genocide just because 400 Palestinians died. starship.paint (RUN) 03:19, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, you look at something like the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which caused mass civilian casualties (over 100,000 deaths). There has been debate about whether or not the bombings were justified, but I don't think many people argue that the US government were trying to commit a genocide of the Japanese people. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:36, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thats why rhetoric is important. Israeli media outwardly calls for the death of Gazans. Within their government systems, even. This obstructs from the fact that various points of genocide align 1:1 in this case. So we have:
1. Media outwardly proclaiming from the state of Israel itself its intention to "wipe gaza from the map."
2. Indiscriminate killings where people are killed. It doesn't matter if it's collateral as you claim. Once the rhetoric is established, intention is established, therefore it must fall within the constraints of genocide.
To ignore the hand media and propoganda plays in determining genocide is a willful simplication of the aspects of genocide. Raneemh (talk) 03:43, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Killing people because of their ethnicity is not genocide. See genocide definitions. Not every hate crime, war crime, crime against humanity, or ethnic cleansing, is a genocide. Genocide has multiple definitions, most require genocidal intent, and there isn't even a universally-agreed-upon definition of that, and there is no such thing as a "textbook genocide," because they're all different, and genocide studies is full of lively scholarly debate about which mass killings were genocides v. ethnic cleansing v. war crime, etc. Levivich (talk) 03:45, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again, there are Israeli government officials that explicitly state their intent. I'm not pulling something out of thin air—the people bombing gaza indiscriminately have openly called for erasing Gazans, a group of Raneemh (talk) 03:50, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Palestinians. To state that rhetoric is hard to pinpoint in this situation is again, willful misconstruction of the actual facts. Raneemh (talk) 03:52, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
According to your own sources they have vowed to wipe out a group Western governments have classified as a terrorist group (Hamas) and said nothing about wiping out Palestinians. People of Palestinian descent are Israeli citizens and serve in the IDF and in senior positions in the Israeli government and legal system. These claims of 'genocide' and 'apartheid' are bizarre. Jonathan f1 (talk) 04:00, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I never mentioned apartheid? But yes, that was a poor link. Apologies. I meant to link the one in the next comment. Raneemh (talk) 04:05, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Gazans" is not an ethnic group, though. And the link you linked to is about an Israeli government official vowing to wipe Hamas off the face of the Earth, not Gaza, or Gazans, or Palestinians, speaking of willful misconstruction... Levivich (talk) 03:53, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I realize now that my link was incorrect. You are right, that was a poor link. I had meant to link this one. Or perhaps this one, which mentions dehumanization, a telling sign of genocide. Raneemh (talk) 04:04, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As Hemi said above, Wikipedia is not going to call something a "genocide" unless there is broad scholarly consensus to use that label. See WP:NPOV. Your first link is an opinion piece, so not a reliable source (see WP:RSOPINION), and reprinted from Mondoweiss [10], which is yellow at WP:RSP. The second link is about a UN agency warning of Gaza "being dehumanized." Neither are indicators of scholarly consensus, or even scholarly opinion. Even the scholarship cited in this article isn't broad scholarly consensus, it's a "significant viewpoint" in the parlance of WP:NPOV policy. It's not enough that some scholars say it's a genocide, and it doesn't matter at all what opinion writers or UN agencies say, it has to be broad scholarly agreement, essentially uncontroverted by scholarship. It's a very high bar, and intentionally so, to prevent misinformation. We can't state one scholarly viewpoint on a contested issue as if it were an uncontroversial fact, that would be misinformation. It would similarly be misinformation if we didn't cover all significant viewpoints, so Wikipedia does what's being done in this article: it describes the significant viewpoint, while presenting it as one viewpoint that is not the only viewpoint. Levivich (talk) 04:17, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You know, this is a highly emotional subject that's bringing out a wide range of opinions and perspectives. A lot of the discussion around genocide is speculation (the article you link talks about 'possible genocide' based on comments from one Israeli). There really is no scholarly consensus here. Jonathan f1 (talk) 04:19, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Raneemh: I understand your frustration, given that the Israeli government has clearly expressed genocidal intent and perpetrated systematic killing, as now recognised by many genocide scholars, particularly in relation to the current travesty of a conflict. However, Wikipedia is a lagging indicator, and it is still quite early in the day for the groundswell of shifting opinion during the recent conflict, and the human rights and academic literature will obviously take some time to catch up. That, in essence, is what we are waiting for here. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:42, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 November 2023 (2)

ADD Include a reference to pre-20th century sources: Specifically, include a link for details on the earliest Zionist-Arab relations (which bear on the topic at hand): https://jewishcurrents.org/who-owns-the-land Joshuakrug (talk) 19:17, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not done. The source makes no mention of genocide accusations/rebuttal. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:25, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification on “warning signs”

Looking through the talk page, it seems to me that the main problem is that people are equating "warning signs of genocide" with "there is a completed/ongoing genocide" vs accusations. For example the Lemkin institute for genocide prevention is saying there's "warning signs" of a genocide in Gaza. Same for Genocide watch. Whether genocide scholars will eventually reach a consensus on what's going on in Gaza is a future problem — after the war is over, and after various genocide institutes are finished with their ICC reports. Only after the war is over can people decide whether what's going on now is an incomplete genocide vs just mindless massacres that had public genocidal statements.

Because of wiki voice, I think the most neutral statement is to do the following.

1) the title should be "allegations of genocide…" simply because right now it is technically still an allegation. The word "accusation" should not be used because that word is much less neutral than the word "allegation"

2) In the body, the article should stay strict to citing and reporting what genocide scholars and international human rights lawyers of said — and emphasize the word "warning sign".

3) it would be wise to keep a list of the statements uttered by Israeli officials that have a genocidal interpretation — it's those statements thats the main empirical basis for arguing there's a genocidal intent going on or not. By having a list of such statements, it'll be clearer for readers to know what exactly people are talking about when they use the genocide allegation Hovsepig (talk) 21:02, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the problem is that the discourse sections are not in chronological order. It would be wise if the discourse related to the 2023 war are all combined into a single section (with subsections) instead of being sprawled across sections.
I say this because it seems that the degree of reporting for the genocidal warnings is much more recent than in the past, so it's wise to make this article be in chronolgical order — like one section on descriptions of genocide for the nakba, one section about pre-2023 wars/events, and one section for the 2023 war Hovsepig (talk) 21:10, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here are all the problems I have with this article:
  • Relies on a dated definition of genocide that's broad and at times ambiguous (wiping out "personal liberty", "dignity" etc?) This is not the definition used by the UN and certainly there are a range of different views that use more precise language.
  • Makes it seem as if this "characterization" is only rejected by Israelis (surprise, surprise). You mean to tell me there aren't any scholars of genocide, international law or Israeli-Palestinian history who totally reject these accusations? I find this hard to believe.
  • Cites a statement that was supposedly signed by 800 scholars of genocide and international law, who aren't all scholars of either genocide or international law. Some are independents with no specific credentials or expertise listed, others are students, and several come from fields that have no apparent connection to the subject of the article (gender studies, feminist studies etc). I don't have the time, patience or staff to go through the backgrounds of 800 people, but having encountered this type of stuff before with other highly politicized and polarizing subjects, there is something suspicious about this list.
Jonathan f1 (talk) 00:41, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All someone has to do to add a genocide scholar who rejects these accusations is to go out and find one. It's all very saying "it's hard to believe", but the proof of such things is 100% in the pudding. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:12, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But my point still stands on how to improve the structure of the article Hovsepig (talk) 17:15, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the critique against the 800 scholar list. So it would be good to add a footnote that provides a cited critique of it.
It's also good I think to explicitly state relevant "genocide scholars" who argue there's warning signs of genocide. the two genocide prevention institutes are an example. And also a recent article by a | Bosnian genocide researcher Hovsepig (talk) 17:23, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And speaking of warning signs, the | UN also announced there's a "grave risk of genocide". Again, I think the article would be improved if we used wikivoice explicitly state that the pro-genocide reports are being careful to say "risk or warning sign" because we're in the middle of the war, not in the post-hoc Hovsepig (talk) 17:51, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Population growth counter argument

It may be wise to have a section on how a common counter argument is the population growth statement (with a citation for that counter argument). And then provide a counter-citation that explicitly states how population growth is irrelevant to genocidal attempt — it may indicate a failed or incomplete genocide for a specific time period, but it doesnt count to arguing against genocidal intent-full statements by the current Israeli government.

By adding this section, the talk page would quiet down over the population growth counterargument Hovsepig (talk) 21:24, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Would you come off this please? I briefly mentioned this once last night but dropped it because the exchange almost got heated. This is hardly something that needs to be clarified.
I am well aware that it is possible to "attempt" genocide, and some definitions don't even require actual mass murder. But when you're dealing with one culture that is scientifically and technologically advanced, with one of the most powerful militaries in the world, and another that is pre-modern, the point is not entirely irrelevant. I don't believe many editors here appreciate how difficult it is to prove genocide in international courts -it is well beyond war crimes[11]. Jonathan f1 (talk) 00:58, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please read and internalize WP:NOTFORUM. Thank you. nableezy - 02:13, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah yeah, I knew one of these was coming. Good to see some hall monitors on site. Jonathan f1 (talk) 02:29, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As well as WP:NPA. I assure you nobody cares what you think, nobody wants to read what Jonathan f1 thinks about genocide. Kindly stop sharing your personal opinions here. Thank you. nableezy - 11:47, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And I double assure you that the conversation ended long before you came over here power tripping. Jonathan f1 (talk) 06:37, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unless reliable sources discuss there being a discourse around population growth as a rhetorical tool for genocide denial in this particular case then we have no reason to add it. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:21, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Mokhiber

Current section reads:

Craig Mokhiber, a director in the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, resigned over what he called the "text-book case of genocide" in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war. He criticized the OHCHR, the US and Western media for their positions on the conflict and noted: "Once again, we are seeing a genocide unfolding before our eyes, and the Organization that we serve appears powerless to stop it." At the same time his letter did not mention the 7 October attack by Hamas (killing more than 1,400 people and taking 240 hostages), while calling for the "establishment of a single, democratic secular state in all of historic Palestine, with equal rights for Christians, Muslims, and Jews", which would require "the dismantling of the deeply racist, settler-colonial project".

From the source:

The outgoing director’s departure letter did not mention the 7 October attack by Hamas on southern Israel killing more than 1,400 people and taking 240 hostages. Even more contentiously, his letter calls for the effective end to the state of Israel. “We must support the establishment of a single, democratic secular state in all of historic Palestine, with equal rights for Christians, Muslims, and Jews,” he wrote, adding: “and, therefore, the dismantling of the deeply racist, settler-colonial project and an end to apartheid across the land.”

I don't think the bolded sentence is an accurate summary of this portion of the source. The quote included is not even the full one (skips apartheid). I don't see the value in mentioning that he did not talk about October 7. What does that have to do with his accusation of genocide? It seems like an attempt to undermine his criticism of Israel by implying he supports violence against Israelis. His letter also specifically mentions violations to the Geneva Conventions and how US and its allies are actively participating in the conflict by arming Israel's assault and providing political and diplomatic cover for them. Shouldn't that be summarized in a better way? - Ïvana (talk) 21:27, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It did mention just the relevant part, and then an editor added the irrelevant, off-topic part here Iskandar323 (talk) 21:59, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Iskandar323: Yes I am aware but I didn't want to single out a specific person or revert without mentioning it here before. Now that I'm looking through the article history that is the only contribution that this editor made both in the article and its talk page. But still it doesn't hurt to see if anyone opposes to removing/tweaking that section. - Ïvana (talk) 03:11, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it is always good to make a context to a statement. If someone says this is a genocide and then adds that Israel should not exist (i.e. calls for a genocide of Israelis), this is an important detail, isn't it? Ymblanter (talk) 06:51, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Though I agree the current wording is not good. Ymblanter (talk) 06:56, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
the dismantling of the deeply racist, settler-colonial project and an end to apartheid across the land does not mean that "Israel should not exist". The source says "effectively" and then
"We must support the establishment of a single, democratic secular state in all of historic Palestine, with equal rights for Christians, Muslims, and Jews,” he wrote, adding: “and, therefore, the dismantling of the deeply racist, settler-colonial project and an end to apartheid across the land." Selfstudier (talk) 11:31, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Effective end to the state of Israel" means, well, end to the state of Israel. I am fine with the current version though. Ymblanter (talk) 13:20, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously, editors with different POV will want to quot different parts of Craig's statement. Therefore I prefer to follow the secondary source cited.--Nicoljaus (talk) 07:51, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
However, this version is satisfactory.--Nicoljaus (talk) 13:17, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"If someone says this is a genocide and then adds that Israel should not exist (i.e. calls for a genocide of Israelis)" what..? how are those two statements remotely connected? This is exactly what the article cited tries to imply. Craig explicity says "We must support the establishment of a single, democratic secular state in all of historic Palestine, with equal rights for Christians, Muslims, and Jews". I think the current section is a good representation of his letter so, nothing more to add. - Ïvana (talk) 18:28, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Many people (and the cited secondary source too) understands that he is calls "for the effective end of Israel". And he didn’t even condemn Hamas for the October 7 attack (why was this point removed again)?--Nicoljaus (talk) 20:01, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why was it removed? Because it isnt relevant? And why is he supposed to condemn Hamas? Is he a spokesman for the group? Have some association with them? nableezy - 20:04, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because this issue is covered in a secondary source. And this is important to understand Craig's real position on genocide. Nicoljaus (talk) 20:43, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The position is covered in an article on Mokhiber's letter, not in an article on Palestinian genocide. If our article were about Mokhiber's letter then yes we should include the Guardian's view on what a one-state solution means (and that has nothing to do with genocide, so I fail to understand what this is important to understand Craig's real position on genocide even means). nableezy - 21:07, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I give up. A pointless waste of time. Nicoljaus (talk) 21:58, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnic Cleansing section

The following section should be deleted, or otherwise relegated to any applicable pages that cover accusations of ethnic cleansing or forcible population transfer against the Palestinians by Israel.

Ethnic cleansing is a completely separate matter than Genocide. Outside of the bolded sentence below, none of this section should be on this page.

Israel's evacuation order was characterized as a forcible population transfer by Jan Egeland, the Norwegian former diplomat involved with the Oslo Accord. A "forcible transfer" is the forced relocation of a civilian population as part of an organized offense against it and is considered a crime against humanity by the International Criminal Court. In an interview with the BBC, Egeland stated, "There are hundreds of thousands of people fleeing for their life — [that is] not something that should be called an evacuation. It is a forcible transfer of people from all of northern Gaza, which according to the Geneva convention is a war crime." UN Special rapporteur Francesca Albanese warned of a mass ethnic cleansing in Gaza. Raz Segal, an Israeli historian and director of the Holocaust and Genocide Studies program at Stockton University, termed it a "textbook case of genocide." A leaked policy paper from the Israeli Ministry of Intelligence suggested a permanent expulsion of the population of Gaza into Egypt, which has been described as an endorsement of ethnic cleansing. Mistamystery (talk) 19:36, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the idea that Ethnic cleansing is a completely separate matter than Genocide. The page on ethnic cleansing says, in the Genocide section:

Ethnic cleansing has been described as part of a continuum of violence whose most extreme form is genocide, where the perpetrator's goal is the destruction of the targeted group...

Some academics consider genocide to be a subset of "murderous ethnic cleansing". As Norman Naimark writes, these concepts are different but related, for "literally and figuratively, ethnic cleansing bleeds into genocide, as mass murder is committed in order to rid the land of a people". William Schabas adds, "Ethnic cleansing is also a warning sign of genocide to come. Genocide is the last resort of the frustrated ethnic cleanser." Sociologist Martin Shaw has criticized distinguishing between ethnic cleansing and genocide as he believes that both ultimately result in the destruction of a group through coercive violence.

The distinction between "ethnic cleansing" and "genocide" is nowhere close to cut-and-dry. Considering the topic of this article, it makes sense for this to be here. XTheBedrockX (talk) 19:49, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relationality considered, it is a wholly separate crime. And as the page is currently formatted, it is placing “population transfer” in the same category as accusations of actual acts of genocide.
Either create a new section about continuum related matters or observations, or remove it. Very simply - ethnic cleansing - while a precursor or connected element of a genocide - is not genocidal on its own. Mistamystery (talk) 19:53, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"while a precursor or connected element of a genocide" - which means they are related. But what actually matters here is that the sources discuss ethnic cleansing as part of the topic of accusations of genocide by Israel of Palestinians. And, as a result, so does this article. nableezy - 19:57, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If it’s in sources, then mention it in the paragraph. Right now the paragraph (outside of one free floating sentence) doesn’t mention genocide at all, or its connection to ethnic cleansing.
Recommend getting to work on connecting the two, or pending a clearly outlined direct connection in the paragraph, it should go. Mistamystery (talk) 20:01, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And a correction/clarification on what I said above: “ethnic cleansing - while may be a precursor or connected element of a genocide in certain circumstances, it obviously not always a universal precursor to genocide.
If the assertions of claims of ethnic cleansing here are connected to accusations of genocide, they need to be made abundantly clear, or else general unconnected items pertaining to just ethnic cleansing on its own are not meant for this article.
Mistamystery (talk) 20:02, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Palestinian_genocide_accusation&oldid=1183267389"