This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Palestinian genocide accusation article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article: You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive) You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. Further information The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are: Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required. With respect to the WP:1RR restriction: Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring. Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence. After being warned, contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topic sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions. Editors may report violations of these restrictions to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!

Daily pageviews of this article A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

Section sizes Section size for Palestinian genocide accusation (35 sections) Section name Byte count Section total (Top) 14,716 14,716 History 45 64,523 20th century 21 17,868 Nakba 6,802 6,802 Naksa 1,958 1,958 Complicity in the Sabra and Shatila massacre 9,087 9,087 21st century 21 46,610 Blockade of Gaza 3,544 3,544 2014 Gaza War 1,288 1,288 2021 Israel–Palestine crisis 3,194 3,194 2023 Israel–Hamas war 33,000 38,563 Forcible population transfer 5,563 5,563 Discourse 16 67,646 Conceptions of genocide 1,292 7,934 Raphael Lemkin 1,240 1,240 Genocide Convention 5,402 5,402 Academic discourse 20,074 20,074 Legal discourse 10,526 10,526 Political discourse 19,878 19,878 Cultural discourse 9,218 9,218 Rhetoric 16 26,405 From Israeli officials 17,321 17,321 From American officials 9,068 9,068 Responses to the accusation 4,701 4,701 Victims 998 9,157 Deaths 3,896 3,896 Displacement 4,263 4,263 Alleged American complicity 10,768 10,768 See also 454 454 Notes 42 42 References 17 28,444 Footnotes 45 45 Works cited 28,382 28,382 Further reading 1,860 1,860 External links 570 570 Total 229,286 229,286

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Israel C‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Project Israel To Do: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Assess : Rate the Unassessed Israel-related articles and Unknown-importance Israel-related articles. Categorization : Diffuse articles from Category:Companies of Israel. Cleanup : Cleanup listing for this project is available. See also the list by category and the tool's wiki page. Collaborate : Participate in WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration. Copyedit : Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in 2005 Deletion sorting : Participate in discussions at WikiProject Deletion sorting/Israel. Expand : Ayala Procaccia, Diamond industry in Israel, Edna Arbel, Levin Kipnis, Rami Kleinstein, Sephardic Haredim, Zman Tel Aviv, Nachum Heiman, Public Defence (Israel), Prisoner of Zion, Trial of Benjamin Netanyahu, Day to Mark the Departure and Expulsion of Jews from the Arab Countries and Iran See also Articles needing translation from Hebrew Wikipedia. Geographical coordinates : Add geographic coordinates to Israel articles missing geocoordinate data. Infobox : Add infoboxes to Israel articles needing infoboxes. Maintain : See Israel articles needing attention. Map : See discussion at Module:Location map/data/Israel. Add maps to articles in Wikipedia requested maps in Israel. NPOV : Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries Photo : Add pictures to articles in Wikipedia requested photographs in Israel. Stubs : See Israel stubs. Update : Basic Law proposal: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People Other : Translate to Hebrew : David Bar-Hayim, Guy Bavli, and Guy Oseary. Merge Nahal Rafiah (draft, heb) into Nahal as requested by Wikipedia authority Israel Palestine Collaboration This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration, a collaborative, bipartisan effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. For guidelines and a participants list see the project page. See also ((Palestine-Israel enforcement)), the ArbCom-authorized discretionary sanctions, the log of blocks and bans, and Working group on ethnic and cultural edit wars. You can discuss the project at its talk page.Israel Palestine CollaborationWikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine CollaborationTemplate:WikiProject Israel Palestine CollaborationIsrael Palestine Collaboration articles International relations: Law C‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject International law (assessed as Low-importance). Crime and Criminal Biography C‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Law C‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Palestine C‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Wikipedia. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Death C‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Human rights C‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Philosophy: Ethics C‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Ethics Ethnic groups C‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ethnic groupsWikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groupsTemplate:WikiProject Ethnic groupsEthnic groups articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Ethnic groups open tasks: Here are some open WikiProject Ethnic groups tasks: Meta-tasks: Place the ((Ethnic groups)) template on the talk page of articles within the scope of this project. Resolve the disparity in importance rankings among different ethnic groups Articles about ethnic groups that currently have issues needing resolution: Category:Unassessed Ethnic groups articles Category:Ethnic groups articles needing merge action Category:Ethnic groups articles needing infoboxes Category:Ethnic groups articles needing reassessment Category:Ethnic groups articles needing attention Iyer Peruvian people Start an article: Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Article requests Feel free to edit this list or discuss these tasks. Discrimination C‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

To-do list for Palestinian genocide accusation: edit · history · watch · refresh · Updated 2023-12-29 Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Expand : Add GenocideWatch statement on the risk of genocide, as seen in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war article.

This article was nominated for deletion on 15 October 2023. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

It is requested that an image or photograph be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible. The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

It is requested that an image or photograph be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible. Wikipedians in Israel may be able to help! The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

no need for separate article (t · c) buidhe 02:25, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To clarify, I think there is scope for a separate article on the court case, but not the general allegations. (t · c) buidhe 02:26, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree Parham wiki (talk) 08:39, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would oppose for now. The "2023 attack" article is fairly new, and I suspect that with some work it will reach a length and scope that would be disproportionate for this article, which is intended to cover at least 75 years of history. The volume and tenor of allegations in recent months is particularly notable; I think it goes beyond the ICJ case (which is significant in and of itself) and extends to academic, legal, political, and popular discourse in a way that likely warrants a full article's worth of coverage. WillowCity^(talk) 17:39, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agree with WillowCity for now. Pincrete (talk) 06:29, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Strong support. This is almost like laughing at the face of readers. Most of the infobox of this article deals with the 2023-2024 war. Editors better not come here arguing why we should keep separate the two articles they've written when they've put virtually the same information on them. I think the allegations of the recent war can be dealt with here and at South Africa v. Israel (Genocide Convention). Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 13:20, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  I've raised below whether this article and the '2023' one has an apt infobox. The infobox is a muddle of current and historic info and states motive etc in WP:VOICE IMO inaptly for an article about accusations. Pincrete (talk) 15:21, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oppose: Per notability guideline, both meet the criteria for separate articles; one for accusations prior to the current war or including it; and one for the current war. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:31, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Most of this article is about the current war. See Palestinian genocide accusation#History, half of the section is about the current war. See #Discourse, entire subsections deal mostly (#Genocide Convention, #Legal discourse, #Cultural discourse) or completely (#Political discourse) with the current war. Three full sections of this article, #Rhetoric, #Victims and #Alleged American complicity, are sections 100% about the current war. #Responses to the accusation is the only of the six sections of this article which doesn't depend on six months of this 75-year-long conflict. Purest example of WP:RECENTISM possible.

Looking at Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza, on top of all of the above, both have largely the same sections as well. Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza#Background and Palestinian genocide accusation#History (and #Conceptions of genocide) are the same, sections #Academic and legal discourse, #Statements by NGOs and intergovernmental organizations, #Legal proceedings and #Cultural discourse of Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza are all the same as #Discourse here. Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza#Alleged genocidal intent is very similar to #Rhetoric here.

Come on, what notability? They're in essence the same article in contents and structure, and de facto scope as well (just look at the infoboxes of the two). Has anybody bothered in taking one look at the articles in the first place? How can we argue both articles are different? How can we argue we should keep the 2023-2024 article separate from this one when that's what this article is mostly talking about? Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 13:59, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Important to note that I am talking in theory and not in practice. They interlap and they are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Both topics are notable in their own right: whether the 1948 allegations, or continuously throughout Sabra and Shatila; or just the current events. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:56, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In theory the notability of the two separate articles hasn't been proven. They overlap in a majority of their contents. That cannot be a good indicator of notability. I see no evidence that we have such a large pool of information to draw from that we can properly and encyclopedically treat (instead of for example mashing up the opinions of every scholar with a blue link in Wikipedia into a text without coherence and point [1]) that splitting is our only option left. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 15:12, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Per your detailing of the repetition here Super Dromaeosaurus, instead of merge I would suggest moving much of the content giving the back-and-forth over accusations in the current conflict, from any and every commentator, to Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza, while keeping an overview, using more stringent/reputable sources, in the article Palestinian genocide accusation. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 23:48, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Exactly. Let's not overwhelm this article with what is objectively a sub-topic (not an overlapping topic). The scholarly genocide accusations started before this war and mostly concern events that precede this war. The consensus for genocide is stronger for pre-war events than for the current war (at least for now; obviously more academics have had time to weigh in on pre-war events); so to make this article consist mostly of the current war would have detrimental effects both in terms of POV and in terms of more fundamental aspects of article quality (i.e. providing a good overview of a topic). So oppose a merge; the coverage there is too detailed for much of it to be due here, so a merge would equal a deletion of a large amount of sourced content. Looking at WP:MERGEREASONs, none are met, including #2 ("overlap") as claimed above. When one article's topic is a strict subset of the other's topic, the scopes don't overlap, by definition; if there is excessive information here about the current war, a merge isn't the solution. DFlhb (talk) 09:04, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oppose because We have Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Hamas attack on Israel.

For that matter, we have Use of human shields by Hamas and Human shields in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict so it seems we are missing Use of human shields by Israel? (sarcasm).

As long as every article "needs" a counter/response article this game will continue. Unfortunate but there you are.Selfstudier (talk) 13:50, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Someone wrote Palestinian genocide accusation, so as a response someone wrote Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Hamas attack on Israel, and as a result someone wrote Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza, and I presume next will be Israeli genocide accusation (which for some reason is a redirect, please nobody write that as a serious article). Instead of engaging into this WP:FALSEBALANCE tit-for-tat game I incite editors to delete everything we don't need and organize this disastrous topic area, rather than accepting it as you seem to do with your comment Unfortunate but there you are.

And Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Hamas attack on Israel should be deleted as a POV-pushing SYNTH mess. Likely Use of human shields by Hamas should also be merged but that's not my focus today. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 14:06, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oppose also, I agree. The other article has so much content that merging it into this one would overshadow the other historical content in this article (e.g. the Nakba etc). Scientelensia (talk) 19:51, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

1. The 2023-2024 war already covers most of this article. The Nakba has been dedicated a few paragraphs. 2. Most of the info in both articles is repeated as I've shown above. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 20:18, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support per Super Dromaeosaurus. BilledMammal (talk) 19:54, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Neutral, leaning don't merge Editors in the discussion have already noted that both articles are currently experiencing some issues related to the addition of non-essential quotes. Without an article to accomodate the unavoidable tendency to turn Wikipedia into a news aggregator in these fast paced articles, merging too soon could be detrimental to this article. Ben Azura (talk) 06:18, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Oppose - I came into this initially leaning towards support but after reading the arguments, this is a good fork as including it in the other article would cause undue weight, and information would need to be lost to make it due, which would lead to this article being recreated as a split for that purpose. To avoid that, this article should stand.

DarmaniLink (talk) 01:18, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An example

As pointed out by Super Dromaeosaurus, large sections of the article are almost exclusively about the current war, my suggestion is to trim this article so that covers the full historical scope of the accusations, while having the litany of writing and commentary available for the specific allegation in regards to the current war in it's own article. So, below is an example for cutting down the Palestinian genocide accusation#History section, where currently half of the section is about the current war. Thoughts and opinions are appreciated.

 Following the bombing of Gaza by Israel in, in response to Hamas attacks, concerns have arisen among Palestinians and international legal scholars about the potential genocide of Palestinians by Israeli forces.[1]  According to Time, there is currently disagreement among scholars as to whether Israel's actions can be described as a genocide against the Palestinians.[2] On 15 October, TWAILR published a statement signed by over 800 legal scholars, alarmed by this possibility, urged UN, including the UN Office on Genocide Prevention and the Responsibility to Protect, as well as the Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court to intervene and protect the Palestinian population.[3][4][5] Additionally, 100 civil society organizations and six genocide scholars[a] petitioned Karim Khan, Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, to investigate new crimes in Palestinian territories and issue arrest warrants against Israeli officials.[6] These actions were underscored by statements from lawyers and groups like the Center for Constitutional Rights[7] and Defence for Children International,[8] accusing the United States of complicity in these alleged crimes.

 United Nations experts, academics, and human rights organizations have further amplified these concerns.[9][10] UN rapporteurs warned of the grave risk of genocide to Palestinians,[11][4][12] and several Palestinian rights groups[b] filed a lawsuit with the ICC, urging the body to investigate Israel for "apartheid" as well as "genocide" and issue arrest warrants for Israeli leaders.[13] Ernesto Verdeja, a professor at the University of Notre Dame, told Time on 14 November, that Israel's actions in Gaza were gravitating towards a "genocidal campaign", noting that "the response when you have a security crisis…can be one of ceasefire, negotiation, or it can be genocide."[2] Victoria Sanford, professor of City University of New York, compared events in Gaza to the 1960–1996 killing and disappearance of 200,000 Mayans in Guatemala, today known as the Guatemalan genocide.[14] David Simon, director for genocide studies at Yale University, stated that it was possible that a court could find the IDF guilty of committing an act of genocide, but added that "it's certainly not textbook in that connecting the intent to destroy ethnic group as such is difficult."[14] Yale's Ben Kiernan opined that events did "not meet the very high threshold that is required to meet the legal definition of genocide."[14] The Jewish Voice for Peace and FIDH have openly condemned the actions as genocidal.[15][16] South Africa, supported by several countries,[c] filed a case against Israel at the International Court of Justice, labeling Israel's conduct as genocide and requesting provisional measures to halt the military campaign in Gaza.[23][24] This move was met with strong criticism from the Israeli government, but found support from some Israeli politicians, including Ofer Cassif.[25]

-- Cdjp1 (talk) 16:30, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah, condense those then point to the "main" article DarmaniLink (talk) 12:06, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Electronic intifada is depreciated per RFC: Electronic Intifada, but the author, though almost certainly affected significantly by WP:Biased, is often considered a subject-matter expert. Are there suggestions for an appropriate resolution? FortunateSons (talk) 22:13, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

These are probably now 93 & 94 and both are views expressed by Ilan Pappé. Both are supported by other sources (first by a Pappé book). He is clearly a RS for his own views and I don't see a problem with Electronic Intifada being the 'mouthpiece' for those views.Pincrete (talk) 06:25, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don’t disagree with him being a ‚biased but reliable‘ source. While I still think a non-depreciated source (like his books) are preferable, I agree that they can stay until such a source is found. FortunateSons (talk) 10:17, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Masha Gessen, when asked in late December 2023 if what is happening in Gaza is a genocide stated, "I think there are some fine distinctions between genocide and ethnic cleansing and I think that there are valid arguments for using both terms". When pressed further they stated, "it is at the very least ethnic cleansing". This was followed soon after controversy surrounding Gessen's receival of the Hannah Arendt Prize over remarks in a New Yorker Article critical of Israeli actions in the strip wherein Gessen compared them to an Eastern European Ghetto "being liquidated" by the Nazis. Nandofan (talk) 19:41, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nandofan, added. Pincrete (talk) 07:15, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Major problem can be seen in lede in which genocide accusations leveled against Israel for its role in the Nakba in 1948 or Sabra and Shatila in 1982 - along with their responses - are being conflated with the ongoing events. There needs to be an explicit delineation or we risk conflating modern and past events and arguments with modern ones. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:54, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How/what is being conflated? These are simply a list of the major events around which accusations have been framed and sources are not going to agree about which are/aren't examples of genocide. Pincrete (talk) 17:44, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Of course sources are going to argue about which are or are not examples of genocide. If you have a refutation that relates to the Nakba in 1948, it can be in no way used to refute the genocide currently undergoing. Makeandtoss (talk) 18:28, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm still not sure what is being conflated in the lede. The genocide of the Palestinian people has been (and still is) an on-going, multi-generational event. The Nakba, among others, is critical to understanding how & why the genocide began. Just as October 7 did not occur in a vacuum, nor is the genocide of the Palestinians restricted to "ongoing events". Detsom (talk) 03:28, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In fact there seems to be an article covering the genocide and ongoing events, Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza, so I consider the issue you've proposed is irrelevant to scope of this article. Detsom (talk) 03:31, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That just proves my point.. Even if you consider that a genocide had occurred in a continuous manner, there are still specific points within that continuum that have a very specific context. Arguing that Israel had actually not committed genocide in 1948 but merely ethnic cleansing, cannot be used to respond to 2023 war arguments. This is pretty self-evident. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:37, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Arguing that Israel had actually not committed genocide in 1948 but merely ethnic cleansing, cannot be used to respond to 2023 war arguments. Of course, but the article doesn't do that. If I start an article with a list of allegations made against Donald Trump over the years, I'm not implying that if some of the accounting ones are true/false, then the sexual or political ones must also be true/false. All or some or none of the allegations might be held to be wholly or partially true - that's fairly sef-evident.

Also, even if a source thinks that 1948 wasn't genocide, it is still background to Isr-Pal relations. Pincrete (talk) 11:16, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Of course, it does just that: "While some scholars describe Palestinians as victims of genocide, others argue they are not victims of genocide, but rather of ethnic cleansing, politicide, spaciocide, cultural genocide or similar; still others argue that none of these have occurred. Critics of the accusation sometimes argue that the charge that Israel is committing genocide is an assertion commonly made by anti-Zionists with the aim of demonizing Israel." Anyone reading this paragraph will think this is related to the ongoing war, and not to the 1948 context. There is a clear need to separate the different accusations, and when separated to clearly attribute and give context. Otherwise, it would be blatant misinformation. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:32, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It means over time, not just two specific instances. Scientelensia (talk) 17:17, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not necessarily, and that is exactly the problem, using arguments which were made in the past to counter a more recent episode. Makeandtoss (talk) 18:14, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Makeandtoss, IMO it is almost impossible to put 'your' construction on it. The accusations (plural) relate to a series of events/episodes (plural) any one of which can separately be seen by any commentator/reader as demonstrating/not demonstrating any one of a series of 'crimes' (or none at all). Pincrete (talk) 17:39, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, and the key word here is separately. Saying that accusing Israel of genocide in its 1948 actions is meant to delegitimize the state is one thing, saying that about the current event is another. Should be clearly separated episodes and accusations, each with its own counterarguments and context. Otherwise, it will be a complete synth and original research. Makeandtoss (talk) 18:16, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What kind of synth are you referring to? --Mhhossein ^talk 17:48, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(edit conflict) It doesn't say that Israel's actions delegitimise the state, either in 1948 nor at any time since. It says: "This accusation has been linked to the conceptualization of Israel as a settler colonial state. ie those who assert genocide often see Israel as 'settler colonialist'. I don't think there are any people who say that Israel was legitimate in 1948, but is not so now, nor vice versa. There are some who say it has lost its moral compass since 1948, but that is a separate matter. I still don't understand what is being conflated. Pincrete (talk) 17:50, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I read the led but could not realize what was being "conflated". I just suggest adding separate inline citations after each instance of genocide in the first paragraph. --Mhhossein ^talk 16:50, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article has acquired an Infobox civilian attack. This, and much of the content, seems both inapt and fairly self-contradictory. Apparently the attack has been going on since 1948, but many figures relate either to post-2008, or even post-October 7th. It also appears to present as fact events/judgements/motives which are highly contested. Does the infobox serve any purpose? Pincrete (talk) 23:38, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The continuity claim certainly raises factual concerns about the statistics and figures included. There were too many changes in Israeli politics since Nakba. From the start, this article has presented this as an accusation of genocide that is based on a "conceptualization of Israel as a settler colonial state".

This has been one of my gripes with the article from the start. The worst mass deaths and atrocities of the Holocaust occured under conditions of food scarcity. I'm not able draw any equivalence between the millions of innocent people and children facing a deliberate and manmade famine with the founding of a Jewish National Home.

The political philosophy and sociology of "imagined communities" is always and perpetually contested, but he accusation of Islamophobia is usually not intended for communities living in the Middle EasT, and is remarkably absurd and ignorant. This and other absurdities in the infobox makes many of the problems with this article worse by presenting them as facts. Ben Azura (talk) 08:14, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ben Azura, I actually removed the infobox this AM as nobody defended its presence.Pincrete (talk) 16:54, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

the article would benefit from an infobox of some kind just not the absurd one that is gone now. Ben Azura (talk) 17:13, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Pincrete: I defend it: it should remain to give people an overview of dates/potential motives/deaths immediately. The info box is not complete upon deaths, but before 2008 deaths are not well sourced/recorded which is why the deaths were split up into three adjacent periods. I don’t believe the motives are quite so controversial: almost all have happened in some context and the others have been planned/debated on.

There is nothing wrong with using Islamophobia as a motive. It can happen everywhere, including the Middle East (though it is of course almost nonexistent in Muslim nations) and is widespread in Israel. This is neither absurd nor ignorant. @Ben Azura – if you are offended by the fact that many Israelis have been called ‘Islamophobic and wish to remove information denoting this, then perhaps such a contested page is not for you. It’s difficult for us all.

Other articles about allegations of genocide have similar info boxes, such as Allegations of genocide of Ukrainians in the Russian invasion of Ukraine. This format is accepted.

The removal of the info box is neither useful nor correct. If you wish to change motives, do so instead of removing all the information. If you wish to alter the info box to change it for the better, simply do so! Seek to enact constructive edits. Scientelensia (talk) 17:49, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Who decides what the motives are for a series of unproven accusations? That's the most blatant WP:OR. AFAIK, Islamophobia isn't generally regarded as a motive here, since a significant segment of Palestinians are Christians (inc Edward Said, whose family were displaced in 1948 and other notable Palestinians), those Palestinians Christians were not anymore welcome/safe as full citizens in Israel after 1948 than were Muslims. You don't have to be a fan of Israel to recognise that the motives at various times have been more complex than not liking Muslims!

Death and displacement figures for when? For 1948? For following the 6-day war? For Sabra and Shatila massacre? For 2014? For 2023-4? There are those who make accusations against Israel for each of these events and for all of them. How do you summarise each/all of these events? How do you NOT imply that the genocide accusations are NOT contested?

This is not an apt infobox, nor do I see one that could be. I don't know about the Ukraine article, but one significant difference is that Isr-Pal conflict is a series of clashes/occupation and wars stretching over 75 years. Pincrete (talk) 21:05, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I can add references for the motives and re-upload it. That would solve it. I take your points though.

Of course there “have been more complex [motives] than not liking Muslims”: that much is obvious, but let’s not ignore what is obvious. I would likely be able to source this motive.

The death and displacement figures are chronological and aim to cover as much time as records allow. While the conflict is a “series”, it has undeniably been ongoing since 1947-8. Scientelensia (talk) 21:23, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The infobox isn't meant to be summarising the conflict, it's meant to be summarising the genocide accustations, which are related to separate events which occurred over 75+ years. What is the motive for an accusation? What is the motive for a series of discrete accusations? You're looking for motives for genocide, not for motives for accustations. Apart from anything else, this is like deciding why a person murdered another, before we are even certain the 2nd person is dead and before there has been a trial! It's speculation at best, if there is no genocide, there's no motive. Pincrete (talk) 21:37, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The accusation is overall not separate but has distinct points of interest. I’ll refer you to what I said above. Shall I find sources? Please read what I recently said. Scientelensia (talk) 22:43, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Another major factor is that the infobox is a summary of the main established facts in the article. Where in the article is ANY motive discussed? Let alone these specific motives, and are such motives broadly accepted as facts by most sources? Of course not, because about half of the sources contend that there is no genocide and the only motive for actions taken is self-defence. You are entitled to not accept that view or not, as are we all, but you aren't entitled to ignore it and find individual sources that endorse a particular PoV. Pincrete (talk) 06:55, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So what do you say to a “potential motives” section? Scientelensia (talk) 21:55, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I say that we can all have our personal opinion as to why Israel has done the things that led to these accusations. But all the same objections arise whether you call them motives/ possible motives/ hypothetical motives. No agreement among sources, no coverage in the article body and no agreement on the pro-Israeli side of this argument that anything wrong has been done that actually needs a motive, other than self-defence. Pincrete (talk) 22:14, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As Super Dromaeosaurus highlights in a previous discussion on this talk page there is a prominent recency bias in the article due to the ongoing 2023 Israel-Hamas War and this bringing new prominence to the discussion of genocide of the Palestinians.

I've gone through some searches to pull the following news and opinion articles which comment on a genocide of the Palestinians (supportive of the allegation or against it) that have been published prior to 2023.

I plan to gather a better list of academic pieces that have currently not been used in the article over the next week. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 23:48, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As stated here is a list of academic articles, books, and such that we don't use in the article, most of which occur from before the Israel-Hamas war.

Academic sources

1950–2000

• Rouleau, Eric (January 1975). "The Palestinian Quest". Foreign Affairs. 53 (2): 264–283. doi:10.2307/20039507. JSTOR 20039507.
• Sayigh, Rosemary (October 1983). "Women in Struggle: Palestine". Third World Quarterly. Taylor & Francis. 5 (4): 880–886. doi:10.1080/01436598308419739. JSTOR 3990828.
• Said, Edward W. (1984). "Permission to Narrate". Journal of Palestine Studies. Taylor & Francis. 13 (3): 27–48. doi:10.2307/2536688. JSTOR 2536688.
• Linn, Ruth (1999). "In the name of the Holocaust: Fears and hopes among Israeli soldiers and Palestinians". Journal of Genocide Research. 1 (3): 439–453. doi:10.1080/14623529908413971.

2000–2010

• Ron, James (2000). "Savage Restraint: Israel, Palestine and the Dialectics of Legal Repression". Social Problems. 47 (4): 445–472. ISSN 0037-7791.
• Staub, Ervin; Bar-Tal, Daniel (2003). "Genocide, mass killing and intractable conflict: Roots, evolution, prevention and reconciliation". In Sears, D. O.; Huddy, L.; Jervis, R. (eds.). Oxford handbook of political psychology. Oxford University Press. pp. 710–751. ISBN 978-0199760107.
• Stohlman, Nancy; Aladin, Laurieann (2003). Live From Palestine: International and Palestinian Direct Action Against the Israeli Occupation. South End Press. ISBN 978-0896086951.
• Beinin, Joel (2003). "Is Terrorism a Useful Term in Understanding the Middle East and the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict?". Radical History Review. 2003 (85): 12–23. doi:10.1215/01636545-2003-85-12.
• Litvak, Meir; Webman, Esther. "Perceptions of the Holocaust in Palestinian Public Discourse" (PDF). Israel Studies. Indiana University Press. 8 (3): 123–140. JSTOR 30245620.
• Said, Edward W. (2004). "Memory, Inequality, and Power: Palestine and the Universality of Human Right". Alif: Journal of Comparative Poetics. American University in Cairo. 47 (3): 15–33. doi:10.2307/4047418. JSTOR 4047418.
• Kuriansky, Judy (2005). The Case for Palestine: An International Law Perspective. Bloomsbury Publishing. ISBN 978-0275990411.
• Midlarsky, Manus I. (2005). The Killing Trap: Genocide in the Twentieth Century. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0521894692.
• Quigley, John (2006). Terror in the Holy Land: Inside the Anguish of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. Duke University Press. ISBN 978-0-8223-8676-6.
• Usher, Graham (2006). "The wall and the dismemberment of Palestine". Race & Class. SAGE Publications. 47 (3): 9–30. doi:10.1177/0306396806061084.
• Abed, Mohammed (2006). "Clarifying the Concept of Genocide". Metaphilosophy. Blackwell Publishing. 37 (3–4): 308–330. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9973.2006.00443.x.
• Moshman, David (2007). "Us and Them: Identity and Genocide". Identity: An International Journal of Theory and Research. 7 (2): 115–135.
• Ganguly, Debjani; Curthoys, Ned, eds. (2007). Edward Said: The Legacy of a Public Intellectual. Melbourne University Publishing. ISBN 978-0522853568.
• Rogan, Eugene L.; Shlaim, Avi, eds. (2007). The War for Palestine: Rewriting the History of 1948. Cambridge Middle East Studies (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0521699341. – First edition, 2001
• Vollhardt, Johanna R. (2009). "The Role of Victim Beliefs in the Israeli–Palestinian Conflict: Risk or Potential for Peace?". Peace and Conflict. Routledge. 15 (2): 135–159. doi:10.1080/10781910802544373. ISSN 1532-7949.
• Hanafi, Sari (2009). "Spacio-cide: colonial politics, invisibility and rezoning in Palestinian territory". Contemporary Arab Affairs. Brill. 2 (1): 106–121. doi:10.1080/17550910802622645. ISSN 1755-0920.
• Bloxham, Donald (2009). The Final Solution: A Genocide. Oxford Histories. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0199550340.

2010–2015

• Lieberman, Benjamin (2010). "'Ethnic Cleansing' versus Genocide?". In Bloxham, Donald; Moses, A. Dirk (eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Genocide Studies. Oxford University Press. pp. 42–60. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199232116.013.0003. ISBN 978-0199232116.
• Collins, John (2010). "Between Acceleration and Occupation: Palestine and the Struggle for Global Justice". Studies in Social Justice. 4 (2): 199–215. doi:10.26522/ssj.v4i2.1002.
• Herman, Edward S.; Peterson, David (2010). The Politics of Genocide. Monthly Review Press. ISBN 978-1583672129.
• Cook, William A., ed. (2010). The Plight of the Palestinians: A Long History of Destruction. Palgrave Macmillan. doi:10.1057/9780230107922. ISBN 978-0230107922.
• Saldívar, Martha Vanessa (December 2010). "From Mexico to Palestine: An Occupation of Knowledge, a Mestizaje of Methods". American Quarterly. Johns Hopkins University Press. 62 (4): 821–833.
• Moshman, David (2011). "Identity, Genocide, and Group Violence". In Schwartz, Seth J.; Luyck, Koen; Vignoles, Vivian L. (eds.). Handbook of Identity Theory and Research. Springer. pp. 917–932. doi:10.1007/978-1-4419-7988-9_39. ISBN 978-1-4419-7988-9.
• Davidson, Lawrence (2012). Cultural Genocide. Rutgers University Press. ISBN 978-0813553443.
• Docker, John (2012). "Instrumentalising the Holocaust: Israel, Settler-Colonialism, Genocide (Creating a Conversation between Raphaël Lemkin and Ilan Pappé)". Holy Land Studies. 11 (1). ISSN 1474-9475.
• Lloyd, David (2012). "Settler Colonialism and the State of Exception: The Example of Palestine/Israel". Settler Colonial Studies. 2 (1): 59–80. doi:10.1080/2201473X.2012.10648826.
• Shalhoub-Kevorkian, Nadera (2014). "Human suffering in colonial contexts: reflections from Palestine". Settler Colonial Studies. 4 (3): 277–290. doi:10.1080/2201473X.2013.859979.

2015–2020

• Lentin, Ronit (2016). "Palestine/Israel and State Criminality: Exception, Settler Colonialism and Racialization". State Crime Journal. 5 (1): 32–50. doi:10.13169/statecrime.5.1.0032. JSTOR 10.13169/statecrime.5.1.0032.
• Shalhoub-Kevorkian, Nadera (2016). "Stolen childhood: Palestinian children and the structure of genocidal dispossession". Settler Colonial Studies. 6 (2): 142–152. doi:10.1080/2201473X.2015.1024380.
• David, Lea (2017). "Holocaust and genocide memorialisation policies in the Western Balkans and Israel/Palestine". Peacebuilding. 5 (1): 51–66. doi:10.1080/21647259.2016.1265045.
• Levine, Mark; Cheyfitz, Eric (2017). "Israel, Palestine, and the Language of Genocide". Tikkun. 32 (2): 50–55. doi:10.1215/08879982-3858345.
• Culverwell, Shannon M. (2017). Israel and Palestine- An analysis of the 2014 Israel-Gaza war from a genocidal perspective (BA).
• Amir, Merav (2017). "Revisiting politicide: state annihilation in Israel/Palestine". Territory, Politics, Governance. 5 (4): 368–387. doi:10.1080/21622671.2016.1231630.
• Bashir, Bashir; Goldberg, Amos, eds. (2018). The Holocaust and the Nakba: A New Grammar of Trauma and History. Columbia University Press. ISBN 978-0231544481.
• Abdullah, Daud (2019). "A century of cultural genocide in Palestine". In Bachman, Jeffrey S. (ed.). Cultural Genocide: Law, Politics, and Global Manifestations. Routledge. pp. 227–245. ISBN 978-1-351-21410-0.
• Divine, Donna Robinson (2019). "Word Crimes: Reclaiming The Language of The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict". Israel Studies. Indiana University Press. 24 (2): 1–16. doi:10.2979/israelstudies.24.2.01. JSTOR 10.2979/israelstudies.24.2.01.

2020–September 2023

• Nijim, Mohammed (2020). Genocide in Gaza: Physical destruction and beyond (MA). University of Manitoba.
• Fatafta, Marwa (2021). "Permission to Narrate 2.0". Arab Studies Journal. 29 (2): 128–133.
• Farsakh, Leila H., ed. (2021). Rethinking Statehood in Palestine: Self-Determination and Decolonization Beyond Partition. University of California Press. doi:10.1525/luminos.113. ISBN 978-0520385634.
• Nijim, Mohammed (2023). "Genocide in Palestine: Gaza as a case study". The International Journal of Human Rights. 27 (1): 165–200. doi:10.1080/13642987.2022.2065261.
• Musleh-Motut, Nawal (2023). Connecting the Holocaust and the Nakba Through Photograph-based Storytelling: Willing the Impossible. Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 978-3-031-27238-7.

October 2023–Present

• "Active Genocide Alert - Israel-Palestine: There is No Justification for Genocide". Genocide Watch. 13 October 2023.
• "Genocide Emergency Alert: Israel and Gaza". Lemkin Institute for the Prevention of Genocide. 17 October 2023.
• El-Affendi, Abdelwahab (2024). "The Futility of Genocide Studies After Gaza". Journal of Genocide Research. 27 (1). doi:10.1080/14623528.2024.2305525.

-- Cdjp1 (talk) 19:29, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The lede image has a caption that currently says: "Israeli settler graffiti in Hebron, in the Israeli-occupied West Bank, calling for the gassing of Arabs, above a tag for the right-wing group the Jewish Defense League".

An image caption is not a pathway to insert unverifiable contentious insinuations into controversial articles. The image description from Commons by an editor who uploaded the photo is not enough for it to stay in the lede.

The link to the gas chambers article and Israeli settlers worsens the pov balance by emphasizing controversial points that have already been the subject of multiple discussions on this talk page. There is very little sourced content in the article about the West Bank to justify this lede image, and not one sourced word about JDL. Skitash, you restored the image, so it falls upon you to explain to us why you think the image should be in the article and find the RS for it. Ben Azura (talk) 11:35, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've removed the 'Israeli settler' claim, since we have no way of knowing who painted this. I'm neutral about its use beyond that. Pincrete (talk) 13:23, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The previous image "Free Palestine rally" had the advantage of being a bit more colourful/cheerful! Pincrete (talk) 13:29, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Gas-the-Arabs-painted-on-the-gate-outside-a-Palestinian-home-in-Hebron-by-Israeli_fig4_374363567 Makeandtoss (talk) 13:48, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The image has been on Wikipedia since 2008 and the article being presented as verification is from 2023. Ben Azura (talk) 15:37, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Multiple articles attribute the JDL when related to anti-Arab and anti-Palestinian graffiti to the Jewish Defense League.

• Same graffiti but a different photo of it with Jerry Levin stood next to it, on Flickr, taken 2005, uploaded 2020.
• Same graffiti but a third different photo of it in Mother Jones, 2015.
• Article 1 and Article 2 both use a photo from Ryan Rodrick Beiler, which has graffiti expressing the same message on a different street in Hebron, in +972 Magazine, taken 2012, articles both from 2014.
• Different graffiti with a similar message from The Islamic Workplace, 2008.
• No photo but article describing graffiti near a Palestinian girls school in Hebron and attributing it to the Jewish Defense League, in Common Dreams, 2014.

There are then also articles such as this one which describe how such statements as "Gas the Arabs" have been used by the Jewish Defense League. So, these should give enough credence from sources external of Wikipedia to state that the JDL tag is likely the Jewish Defense League. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 16:23, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Some of Common Dreams' sources describe: 'racist graffiti' some say 'sign attributed to the Jewish Defense League'. None AFAI can see says 'Israeli settlers', possibly because it is almost impossible to know who graffitied something. The researchgate link posted by Makeandtoss verifies nothing except what the poster of the image on researchgate assumed was its provenance.

Various of the photos have a remarkably similar 'hand' and style. Painting a slogan in English in an Arab area, using the tag of a mainly US org, seems an odd thing to do, but that's, but that's academic and WP:OR. of course. Pincrete (talk) 05:57, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We don't have time for this hairsplitting. The researchgate link's caption clearly and explicitly states that settlers drew it. Makeandtoss (talk) 08:59, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

All the press uses avoid saying any such thing! How on earth would an academic in the US know who painted a piece of graffiti in Hebron! Neighbours generally don't know unless they witness the act itself! This isn't 'hairsplitting' it's relying on best sources. Pincrete (talk) 09:13, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Too bad, WP reflects RS, we are not in a position to judge how RS made their judgements. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:36, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WP reflects the balance of best RS - not WP:CHERRYPICKING one's favourite! Pincrete (talk) 09:49, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cherrypicking means choosing sources that say something, while ignoring others that say an opposite thing. Please provide an RS that says they were not drawn by settlers. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:45, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is Wikipedia even a RS? anything that was copied from Wikipedia can't be more RS than what it was copied from. Ben Azura (talk) 18:20, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No proof it was copied from WP. Makeandtoss (talk) 21:13, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is the image in the researchgate article the same as the image from commons? Ben Azura (talk) 06:44, 23 January 2024 (UTC) The discussion below has confirmed citogenesis and implemented changes relevant to this discussion. Ben Azura (talk) 06:50, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The researchgate article is a chapter in a book, page viii credits the image to commons. Levivich (talk) 06:54, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Credits the image, not the caption. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:31, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes the source got the image from one location and a description of what the image was from somewhere else entirely! Pincrete (talk) 09:43, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Even if true, the RS saw no reason to doubt the authenticity of the caption. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:04, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What existing text in the article would that illustrate? would adding this content without a clear source about a genocide accusation gain consensus on the talk page? If it does gain consensus the photo is fine, with some modifications to the caption, like Pincrete's last change that was reverted. Ben Azura (talk) 18:11, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My only argument is for keeping the description of the image. It is probably more suited for a section later in the article talking of incitement, such as the quote from Matan Vilnai threatening a "Shoah" against Palestinians. The image is descriptive in showing how the use of holocaust imagery is used in incitement against Palestinians. Cdjp1 (talk) 19:43, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The march might be somewhat more indicative of the actual accusation/charge than the Hebron image, which is more of an example of incitement. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:22, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I find Cdjp1's sources above adequate to verify the photograph and also that it's by JDL. I would change the caption to Jewish Defense League graffiti in Hebron, in the Israeli-occupied West Bank, calling for the gassing of Arabs and include a citation to the MJ and 972 articles. Israeli settler must be removed as unsourced; the only source that says that is WP:CITOGENESIS (the 2023 book, p. viii, sources the photo to Wikipedia); all other sources presented here do not say anything about it being by settlers. I agree with Isk and others that this picture should be moved to where the article talks about incitement. Levivich (talk) 18:37, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As Levivich and Pincrete have laid out, I also support the removal of stating that the graffiti is from settlers. I also reiterate my suggestion, in support of Iskandar23 and Pincrete, of (until a new/better image is suggested) replacing the graffiti image with the Helsinki rally, moving the graffiti to a section which mentions incitement. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 19:13, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've implemented--though not exactly as was discussed here, see my recent edits/edit summaries for details. If anyone disagrees, of course feel free to change or revert. Levivich (talk) 20:00, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Remove this paragraph:

Stuart N. Brotman, American government policymaker; tenured university professor; and lawyer, suggested that when genocide is mentioned, the qualification should follow. "There is no current basis under international law to validate the claim that Israel’s response to the October 7 attack is ‘genocide.’ Rather, if genocide has occurred here, international law indicates that it should be attributed instead to Hamas."^[1]

Reason:

Mr Brotman is not an expert in the field and the article in which the quote appears is not well-reasoned nor, indeed, reasonable. Wikimastername (talk) 13:44, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Their article seems a bit (a lot?) puffed up, although a lawyer, at first glance, he does not appear to be qualified to give an expert opinion on this subject. But I will leave this open for others to also comment. Selfstudier (talk) 16:39, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agree with both editors, Brotman is Professor of Journalism and Electronic Media and has no legal/historical expertise. His argument, inso far as there is one, has been better made by other included legal/historical experts IMO.Pincrete (talk) 17:00, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done M.Bitton (talk) 17:47, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is a mistranslation and misinformation. The actual quote is Gaza will not return to what it was before. There will be no Hamas. We will eliminate it all. [2] --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:30, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Um, what's the difference between "We will eliminate it all" and we "We will eliminate everything"? Selfstudier (talk) 19:37, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think the difference is intended to be between destroying everything in Gaza and destroying all of Hamas, but it's fairly academic whether Gallant was correctly translated on that one phrase. What we say is: "Defense minister Yoav Gallant called for a “complete siege” on Gaza and stated that “we are fighting human animals, and we are acting accordingly.” Along with the other things Gallant said, this was "called out as expressing genocidal intent". We can't decide that sources mis-translated and the criticism of him doesn't hinge on that one phrase anyway AFAI can see.Pincrete (talk) 18:09, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is not academic. The difference is that the fake quote has him say he plans to destroy Gaza, and the correct quote, which includes the "There will be no Hamas" senctence, says he plans to destroy Hamas. Hamas is a terrorist organization, not a people. Destroying a terrorist organization is not genocide.

Do you really think there is no difference between destroying Hamas and destroying Gaza? --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:23, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's academic since we don't use either text - except within the ref itself, where we obviously have to rely on sources checking its translation, not deciding who can or can't competently translate. It's also a bit academic since Gadling spoke of 'human animals' to whom Israel will 'act accordingly". Pincrete (talk) 20:49, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You mean Gallant. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:40, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This individual was mentioned specifically at the ICJ genocide case for comments amounting to incitement. I read the statement as referring to both Hamas and Gaza, which seems to be what is actually happening as well, so I agree with Pincrete. Selfstudier (talk) 10:07, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In the correct quote, Hamas and Gaza are both mentioned, so you can interpret it that way: I read the statement as referring to both Hamas and Gaza.

In the fake quote quote, only Gaza is mentioned, so, if we use the fake quote, we are taking away that interpretation and the reader is forced to read it as referring to Gaza.

If you support the fake quote over the correct one, that means you want to frame the quote in a way that makes people believe the genocide story more than the original quote justifies.

That is the choice you have: between honesty and dishonesty, between NPOV and your POV which seems to be what is actually happening. Which do you choose? --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:45, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I go by sources. Selfstudier (talk) 18:47, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unless the source is an Israeli?

I repeat the two versions:

1. Correct: "Gaza will not return to what it was before. There will be no Hamas. We will eliminate it all."
2. Fake: "Gaza will not return to what it was before. We will eliminate everything."

You seriously want the article to omit the Hamas part? When it comes to Israel, some even usually reliable sources go Alex Jones and distort facts. Read the Atlantic link above. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:56, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Depends which Israeli source it is. I understand that Israel would like to emphasize the Hamas part and not the Gaza part if that's what you mean. Let me go over the sources myself and see if I can locate any others. Selfstudier (talk) 19:08, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

NYT correction to "Gaza won’t return to what it was before. There will be no Hamas. We will eliminate everything." I am OK with that and I personally read "everything" as referring to both Gaza and Hamas because otherwise the simplest thing to say would be "We will eliminate Hamas". Selfstudier (talk) 19:19, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

[3] When was the "everything" part "agreed upon"? This is not, as the article says now, "The actual quote", it is how NYT translates it now. Calling it "the actual quote" is not NPOV. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:40, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agreed to the NYT correction version, look up above. As for actual quote, I believe that trend may have begun with yourself, see the first line of this section. Selfstudier (talk) 13:42, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You agreed. What was agreed in talk suggests agreement among a group, which was not the case. But Cdjp1 has deleted the "actual quote" part, so the question is moot. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:56, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, if you can produce more equally reliable versions, then we can make a note or something to the effect that there is disagreement over the translation, it just seemed to me that if NYT had looked at it twice, once originally and then for a correction, that ought to be good. Selfstudier (talk) 13:59, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I already said it is moot. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:40, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry, thought you just meant the actual quote bit. Selfstudier (talk) 14:44, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unless it is added into the actual text of the article, better to have a note if you have a comment to make on the translation than have it placed within a reference, keeping in style with the article. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 21:46, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

IMO, the mis-translation and correction are now part of the narrative (there will still be those quoting the original). However rendered, (possibly even with the original in a footnote), briefly both should be included IMO. Pincrete (talk) 06:08, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And can someone explain in plain English why a whole thread about this page got redacted from Talk:List of genocides? Irtapil (talk) 15:53, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ask at that page. Selfstudier (talk) 16:08, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is a page where this seems to be a lot more likely than average to happen.

If somebody asks you to do a "self revert" to correct an alleged violation of WP:1RR, please make sure you explain this clearly in this edit summary.

• mention it is a self revert or mention its about WP:1RR
• specify who asked you to do it
• specify which edit you are reverting (time stamp or version number)

If you use the "undo" button, leave what is there automatically and just add (for example, if I asked you to do a "self revert") "self revert requested by [[user:irtapil]]" to the start.

Probably a good idea to tag who asked for it in any edit that involved someone else, e.g. "as user:____ suggested on the talk page (link to discussion section)" instead of just "as agreed on talk page" like I've seen a few times on various pages.

Irtapil (talk) 15:54, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No need to leave these reminders, editors are or should be aware of the Arbpia/ECR/CT/1R restrictions. Selfstudier (talk) 16:09, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]