Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genocide against Palestinians

Add links
Extended-protected page
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. Even though I find many of the "delete" !votes weak on policy grounds, I think it is quite evident that there is no consensus for either keeping or deleting the article. Quite a few editors argue for merge, but the targets vary. Similarly, several editors argue that the article should be renamed, but again there's not enough support for any one of the proposed alternatives. There is no particular trend to any consensus among the later !votes either. I therefore close this as "no consensus". Possible renaming or merging can be discussed on the article's talk page. Randykitty (talk) 09:57, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Genocide against Palestinians

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Genocide against Palestinians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article falls short of Wikipedia's criteria for neutrality, accuracy, and verifiability. It relies on a combination of highly fringe sources and unsubstantiated public opinion slogans, resulting in a piece that resembles content from Hamas' propaganda. The theory presented does not warrant more than a brief mention in an article covering Palestinian perspectives on Israel, certainly not an entire dedicated entry. Its presence on Wikipedia compromises the project's reliability and credibility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eladkarmel (talk • contribs) 12:19, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FF toho, there's big difference here. There is an article on Holodomor and Holodomor genocide question presents the scholarly debate about the subject. Genocide against Palestinians is just the an analog to the latter, untethered to widely-accepted-as-fact analog to the former. Jweiss11 (talk) 00:28, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No comment on what is the correct name at this point. Note the Rohingya genocide and Genocide of Yazidis by the Islamic State as examples situations of a similar scale and accompanied by expulsions etc. Also consider the overlap with Ongoing Nakba.
Onceinawhile (talk) 13:58, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The term 'Genocide against Palestinians' doesn't align with Wikipedia's neutrality guidelines and WP:Fringe. The view that Israel has comitted Genocide is held by a tiny segment of scholars, and thus should be presented as such in the context of majority opinion. To ensure balanced discussion, topics like these could be more appropriately covered in existing broad articles like Israeli–Palestinian conflict. I'd like to note that renaming to 'Allegations of Genocide against Palestinians' would not solve this problem as it would still put WP:UNDUE emphasis on the fringe theories.
    • Furthermore, the article violates the WP:FRINGELEVEL policy by failing to provide reliable sources that cover the level of acceptance of the topic. According to that policy, for articles that delve into contentious or contested theories it's essential to cite credible sources that indicate the level of acceptance these ideas have within the pertinent scholarly community. If reliable sources cannot be found to provide information on an idea's level of scholarly acceptance, the assumption should be that the idea lacks academic consideration or endorsement. Marokwitz (talk) 13:56, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You are massively misreading that guideline. Sure, it says it would be nice to show the level of acceptance of the idea. And actually, the page does include at least one poll, FWIW. But that's not the point. You seem to taking a guideline saying something would be nice as implying that if you don't have it, you suddenly have a reason for deletion. In fact, that guideline has nothing to do with notability or deletion in any way at all. Also, on the contrary to your concluding statement above, the guideline actually says the opposite: "However, a lack of consideration or acceptance does not necessarily imply rejection, either; ideas should not be portrayed as rejected or carry negative labels such as pseudoscience unless such claims can be documented in reliable sources." As it stands, you have provided no reliable sources suggesting that the characterizations on this page are in any way "fringe", as you claim. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:33, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: After reading the article thoroughly it does seem like it doesn't follow WP:NPOV and in it's current form represents a narrative rather than coherent information. I am not against merging it into Criticism of Israel while deleting all of the non-RS backed up information. dov (talk) 14:06, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep clearly notable topic as evidenced by the sources cited in the first version of the article. It's irrelevant for notability how popular a view it is since the sources exist. In fact if the perspective is a fringe one as some are arguing, then it would suggest that merging is not a good solution because most of the article content would be wp:undue in other articles. (t · c) buidhe 14:10, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:FRINGE WP:POVFORK. Loksmythe (talk) 14:11, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - notable topic, article whose topic is a POV. People are reacting emotionally to the title without reading the article. This meets all the requirements of an article, it has sustained in-depth coverage in a number of reliable sources. Peer-reviewed journal articles from 2000 onwards, news and analysis from within a few days, all focused on this as a topic. The argument to delete is an appeal to emotion and simply attempts to wave away the reliable sources with claims of it being "Hamas propaganda". Sorry, but this is not published by Hamas University Press, it is published by Routledge. Ditto for this or any of the other sources on that page. You cant just say you dislike what the sources say so delete them. nableezy - 14:19, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The idea that this is somehow "fringe" simply does not square with our guideline. Something discussed by reliable sources is not fringe. Notable commentators discussing a topic is not fringe. The sources cited in the article are all reliable. The idea that this is fringe is a dishonest argument that is playing on the hope that people will not actually look at what is cited. As far as Levivich's argument that the occupation is the same topic, that is absolutely false, and the sources do not simply say the occupation is leading to this. nableezy - 19:45, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename to Palestinian genocide question or something similar. While some may deny that Israel's actions constitute genocide, this is still a notable and complex topic that deserves its own article. NPOV issues can be fixed without deleting the whole page. This is not a BLP, nobody is being defamed by this info. —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 14:29, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: That an article has a popular or an unpopular topic is not, in and of itself, a reason to keep or to delete an article. In assessing this we must set aside that fact that this is a current and very difficult issue, not least for those caught up in the fallout, Instead we must analyse the neutrality, the notability, and the verification.
    A merge discussion has already started. Running this in parallel with a deletion discussion complicates discussions. I would prefer to set that aside until the AFD is concluded, unless sufficient opinions to merge are reflected in the eventual close.
    *The topic is notable, whether one likes or dislikes, agrees or dosagrees with the subject matter
    *The notability is verified with significant coverage in independent and relaibel sources
    *the article is neutral, balanced
    That leads me to the conclusion that there is no possible rationale for deletion, and every possible rationale for retention. However we must then consider whether it should exist as a stand alone article, or whether to incorporate in within the body of another.
    My view is that is warrants a stand alone article. This is a sufficiently distinct topic that it should be given its own article, referred to from relevant other articles, geographic and political, from topics which will benefit from that referral. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 14:41, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge WP:FRINGE, violates WP:NPOV and simply not evidentiary. Can be retained for discussion as part of a larger topic of attitudes, criticism, and debate around Israeli policies, but does not meet standards for its own page
Mistamystery (talk) 15:17, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article is notable, but it has issues with POV. I would suggest cleanup rather than deletion. NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 15:18, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    In adition, this article should be renamed to somthing like Palastinian genocide question or similar. NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 00:36, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - looks like not NPOV. Doesn't cite references for the claimed "Genocide". Ovedc (talk) 15:37, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, obviously. The very title suggests that it's a real phenomenon, but this could not be further from the truth. No serious WP:RS source claims that there is a genocide, and the article reads like a WP:SYNTH collection of unrelated information meant to paint a picture with a WP:FRINGE point of view. —Ynhockey (Talk) 15:49, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: There is obviously plenty of material here, including input from genocide experts. Nomination doesn't stand up to scrutiny, asserting that it relies on fringe sources when the sourcing is anything but. The nominator also sounds like they didn't read the page, because they seem to think it solely presents Palestinian perspectives, which is self-evidently incorrect. It is highly doubtful that WP:BEFORE was followed either. The arguments related to NPOV also appear to be half-baked. For one, an article not being balanced is not a reason for deletion; it is a reason for improvement. To be deleted purely for being unbalanced it would need to egregiously and irrevocably so, and to this end, none of the delete voters using this argument have actually provided any evidence - not a single source - contradicting the content or outlining how the characterizations referred to on the page are representative of an unreasonable academic position. As to other points, such as whether or not the name of the page is correct - that is a separate discussion that was already ongoing on the talk page. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:06, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The actual scholarly sourcing basis for this topic is frankly huge. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:33, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've provided but a small sample of this in the further reading. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:29, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
According to Wikipedia:FRINGELEVEL policy articles which cover controversial, disputed, or discounted ideas in detail should document (with reliable sources) the current level of their acceptance among the relevant academic community. If proper attribution cannot be found among reliable sources of an idea's standing, it should be assumed that the idea has not received consideration or acceptance. I don't see such a sourced statement in the article. Marokwitz (talk) 17:40, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any evidence provided that the notion is fringe. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:44, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The policy is for articles which cover "controversial, disputed, or discounted ideas in detail". Take another look. Marokwitz (talk) 21:11, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Refer again to where I note the huge literature. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:22, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you read serious academic works on genocide, the treatment of Palestinians is discussed, and its relationship to the concept of genocide is seriously debated. For example, The Oxford Handbook of Genocide Studies (2010) refers to the scholarly debate over whether ethnic cleansing was committed by the Israeli side in the 1948 War (see page 57), and also the debate over the relationship between ethnic cleansing and genocide (pages 45–46) (is ethnic cleansing a type of genocide, or a closely related but distinct phenomena?) I think we have to distinguish (a) issues which respectable scholarship debates but has not yet come to a consensus over, from (b) issues which are beyond the scope of respectable scholarship entirely. What we are talking about here is really (a) not (b), but when we talk about "FRINGE" in the context of Wikipedia, we usually mean (b) instead. This is a debate in mainstream scholarship, not some fringe theory, but at the same time any article needs to present it accurately as a debate without a conclusion, not as anything on which consensus has been reached. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 00:01, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Edit: Subject is fringe. Article could only be acceptable with a complete change of subject, in other words, a different article. Drsmoo (talk) 16:27, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Drsmoo: If your own reason for deletion is the name, that should be a reason for a naming discussion. A bad name is not, and never has been, a reason for deletion on Wikipedia. Moot point. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:21, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This reaction, in its selectivity, further strengthens the case for deletion. For example, the name of the "parent" starts with allegations, while the "child" drops that. The article does not truly expand on what is written in the "parent", only attempts to apply it on the Israeli–Palestinian conflict by rehashing the conflict's content in a POV manner, along with long quotes that artificially fluff the article. So, no, this is not a justified WP:SPINOFF (assuming on my part that is what was meant) of a chapter that the respondent added after the fact to a "parent". It is WP:POVFORK of Criticism of Israel AND the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. WP:SOAP also applies. Or, as others have put it, WP:FRINGE and WP:SYNTH. gidonb (talk) 19:42, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Which proposed parent does it not expand open? There is infinitely more material here than currently sitting at Criticism of Israel. The rest of your post is a bit drowned in guidelines. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:18, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing that makes it a meaningful expansion. The text is SYNTH, FRINGE, SOAP, POV, fluff, and a rehash of stuff that appears time and again elsewhere. gidonb (talk) 04:15, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article is sourced to books by respectable academic publishers such as Routledge, Palgrave Macmillan, and Rutgers University Press, and articles in mainstream academic journals such as the Journal of Genocide Research, and the University of Edinburgh's Journal of Holy Land Studies. How are those mainstream academic sources "FRINGE"? SomethingForDeletion (talk) 04:22, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also in academia it is fringe. The common view in and outside academia is that there is a conflict between nations. The topic is fringe enough and the article is weak enough to strongly recommend against keeping it for the reasons listed above. There is no reason to rehash the entire Palestinian Israeli conflict through the prism of what could be described as a conspiracy theory. Since it has been given some attention, I did not say eradicate any mention from WP, so the sources mentioned support my opinion. The fact that already the second person took statements out of context shows once more how weak the case for keeping is. gidonb (talk) 05:27, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have evidence to support your claim that "Also in academia it is fringe"? The fact that this academic debate is covered at length in books by mainstream academic publishers, and in mainstream academic journals, is clear evidence that it is a mainstream debate not a fringe debate in academia. Do you have any scholarly sources to support your claim that "in academia it is fringe", or is this just an assertion on your part? SomethingForDeletion (talk) 06:28, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Everything to the best of my acquaintance with this literature and, very importantly, after reading the article, and knowing what it takes to create a valid article on a valid topic. From the debate here it is evident that some people are very passionate about having this article yet the arguments in favor of a keep are very weak. For example, the reasoning of My very best wishes is a total knockout against keeping this article. gidonb (talk) 18:09, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, the old "people are having babies so they're not being persecuted" trope - I believe I've heard that one in relation to the Uyghur Genocide too - this response is sort of making the case for exactly why the content gap is better filled than left open for the chill breeze of misinformed thought to waft through.Iskandar323 (talk) 21:14, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Chefallen: I think one issue here is that there is a difference between how "genocide" is defined colloquially, and how it is defined in international law. The colloquial definition emphasises the idea of mass killing, and so a significant increase in population seems rather decisive counter-evidence to claims of genocide. The international law definition is a lot broader than that, and can potentially include a lot of things which don't involve any killing, and given that much broader definition, a population increase is not decisive counter-evidence to genocide allegations. Genocide scholars disagree among themselves on how to define "genocide", with some preferring a narrow definition closer to the colloquial understanding, others a much broader definition which mirrors the legal one. In any event, what you are presenting here is a really a contribution to the substance of the debate, not an argument why Wikipedia should not cover that debate itself, insofar as that debate is expressed in reliable sources SomethingForDeletion (talk) 23:41, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rename I think the citations demonstrate there is serious academic debate over whether or not Israel has committed genocide against Palestinians. Given that real academic debate, I think it is appropriate to have an article on the debate; I think there are enough sources available on the topic to justify an independent article. However, the current title clearly endorses one side of the debate, and so I think should be renamed to something else, e.g. Palestinian genocide debate, Palestinian genocide question, Palestinian genocide allegations. This is different from other historical situations where there is a clear scholarly consensus that "genocide" is the appropriate label. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 23:31, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge - 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) 04:55, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps check out the reliable sources actually referenced on the page and read those essays yourself. For the point about population increase, SomethingForDeletion responded above. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:50, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Iskandar, unfortunately this seems to reflect how low-level and histrionic any debate about I-P has become. The WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims (such as genocide) require exceptional sources, not far-left "experts" and activists proposing the expansion of the definition to conveniently fit the Palestinians. It was cringy to read. Trust me, there's no way someone would take that seriously. It makes Wikipedia look comical at best. Dovidroth (talk) 07:29, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    not far-left "experts" and activists proposing the expansion of the definition to conveniently fit the Palestinians But historically that has got it back-to-front. The word genocide was coined by Rafael Lemkin–who was a Polish Jew, and a Zionist, who developed such a broad definition in order to capture what he saw as the true breadth of Nazi criminality. Nobody has broadened the definition; rather, it has progressively been narrowed compared to Lemkin's original definition. Lemkin likely would not have agreed with using his very broad definition of "genocide" against his own Zionist cause; but it is simply historically false to suggest that Palestine supporters are responsible for that breadth. Furthermore, when people seek to use narrow definitions of genocide as an argument against Palestinian accusations of genocide against Israel, those narrow definitions may end up also undermining Israeli allegations of genocide by Palestinians–so if the Palestinian side were guilty of "conveniently" broadening the definition, would that not be true of (some of) the countervailing Israeli claims as well? SomethingForDeletion (talk) 08:02, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Someone could easily start another article called "Genocide against Israelis" Actually, I have created a draft of such an article at Draft:Palestinian genocide of Israelis. I don't think this is the counterargument that you think it is, because if notable allegations are being made, then it is reasonable for Wikipedia to cover them–irrespective of whether the allegations are actually fair or not. I've found a number of notable individuals (Benjamin Netanyahu, Alan Dershowitz, Justus Weiner, Avi Bell, Irwin Cotler, Dan Eldad and Jens David Ohlin) who have made claims of Palestinian genocide against Israelis. Given there are notable individuals on both sides of the Israel-Palestine conflict claiming that the other side is guilty of genocide, I think Wikipedia ought to cover both sets of claims. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 07:52, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • As an uninvolved administrator, I recently blocked an editor for improper canvassing at this AfD, which included emails to over 40 at least 190 editors across multiple sending accounts (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Fagerbakke). If you are participating after being notified of this discussion by an off-wiki communication, please disclose it when contributing to this discussion (see WP:CANVAS). Needless to say, this AfD falls within a designated WP:CTOP. Further CTOP enforcement actions may be forthcoming. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 05:44, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That would be the Yaniv Horon special. Who else is shocked that people would not disclose such a thing? nableezy - 14:10, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete as per Dovidroth. This article relies on a combination of WP:FRINGE and non-WP:RS sources, including radical leftist op-eds and Iranian officials, to perpetuate a WP:SOAP baseless theory without evidence of alleged Israeli atrocities. If there were an ongoing genocide in the Palestinian territories, where are the alleged extermination camps? Where are the supposed mass massacres of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians? In reality, Palestinians in the West Bank experience a higher quality of life compared to the broader Middle East. In Gaza, most Palestinian casualties result from airstrikes against militant radical Islamist organizations, which often use civilians as shields. (Actually, recent events, like the mass massacre of Israeli civilians by Hamas solely for being Jewish, align more closely with the term "Genocide"). Deleting this article is vital for maintaining Wikipedia's commitment to neutrality and reliability. A brief mention in the "Criticism of Israel" article, adhering to WP:NPOV, would acknowledge the existence of this (conspirative) viewpoint, while making it clear that it is held by the fringes of the scholarly world and radical anti-Israel activists. LUC995 (talk) 08:19, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*::Yes, because sources like Hossein Amir-Abdollahian, Jalil Abbas Jilani, and Progressive International are textbook examples for WP:RS. Other sources appear selectively chosen to convey a sense of unanimous scholarly agreement, while in reality, they represent a thin minority in the field. This aligns with what constitutes WP:FRINGE. LUC995 (talk) 19:53, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Genocides (e.g. Armenian Genocide) are well-defined events, even though they can span a period of time. Here, we have at least 3 separate events (starting from 1940s) all of which are claimed to be a "genocide against Palestinians". This is like an attempt to include the recent flight of Armenians from Karabakh to page Armenian genocide. Therefore, this page reads like bashing of Israel, a unifying motif of this and some other pages.
  2. Deciding if something was a genocide is a very big deal. Even with regard to something like Holodomor, this is still debated, and we have a separate page Holodomor genocide question. Do we have here a coverage in scholarly sources that would be at least remotely similar to the coverage of Holodomor as genocide? Do we have multiple governments officially admitting this to be a genocide, as for Holodomor? I do not see it.
  3. This page is a POV fork of Allegations of war crimes against Israel. I also agree with other arguments by Levivich. My very best wishes (talk) 16:46, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    On point #2, no one is deciding if something was a genocide (or characterized as such). As we do we with everything on Wikipedia, we simply report the material from relevant sources. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:40, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If the title of this page was "Allegations of genocide...", then indeed, one might collect all sourced allegations of that nature. But it would be more logical to place such claims to page Criticism of Israel I think. My very best wishes (talk) 19:09, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep many politicians, researchers, and organizers describe what is happening to the Palestinians as genocide, and Israel has been explicit in announcing its intentions since its establishment. Increasing birth rates among the population does not mean that genocide should be downplayed or excluded. This argument is completely rejected. Likewise, genocide is not only defined by mass murder, but also by displacement, siege, torture and dehumanization.--Dl.thinker (talk) 18:12, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge. MVBW and Marokwitz put it well. (I proposed a merge into Criticism of Israel, which has another section of allegations, but support a merge into Allegations of war crimes against Israel.)
Per Levivich, the forest of content forks should be refactored into fewer articles; new small forks always risk becoming POV forks and hatracks for fringe claims. Here claims of genocide are strongly tied to other political maneuvering in the region, including to justifications for broader wars; and a trope of anti-semitic conspiracy theories[2][3]. We should avoid defamation even though it is not a BLP, and require stricter sourcing for extreme claims than merely "appearing in an article" or "being made by counsel to the Palestinian Authority". – SJ + 18:51, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge per all above Parham wiki (talk) 18:56, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; potentially rename. There definitely is an argument to be made about what's happening in Palestine and Israel. Let's be honest, it's not like Isreali government is giving flowers to Palestinians. And some things like displacing people, removing them from their ancestral homes, and putting them inside the walled off ghettos, while their homes are given to "the settlers" is definitely something that would definitely support arguments for genocide. However I do argee that Wikipedia should keep neutrality (which does not mean deleting something to not upset Isreal, which I'm after might be at heart of this proposition). As I recognise that international community does not sounds alarms of genocie, nor nobdy stood in court with charges. However the accusations are thrown so often, and for as far back as to the Mandate of Palestine, I do believe it is something that should be mentioned on Wikipedia. I would propose, to review the contents in article, and rewrite unneutral points of view, only to include facts of what's happening, and remove heated interpretations. As simlar example, I would suggest looking at article "Allegations of genocide of Ukrainians in the Russian invasion of Ukraine". Note that it doesn't outright says "Geonocie of Ukrainians (2020s)", since it is an ongoing issue and it will be years if not decades before international court will actually officially call it genocide if such will be proven. Maybe it would be wise to rename this article in a similar matter, to something like "Allegations of genocide of Palestinians by Israel" or something like that.Artemis Andromeda (talk) 19:44, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: If you are going to claim that something is WP:FRINGE, you are going to have to prove that assertion with actual evidence based on reliable source coverage and without using original research. If you cannot, then you are just engaging in WP:IDON'TLIKEIT and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Also, I don't see how this should be merged since the topic and scope of this article are about the characterization of an ongoing event as genocide rather than human right violations against Palestinians by Israel in general. For the proper article title, we should have a proper requested move discussion after this deletion discussion is over. For NPOV issue, we should also have a separate discussion about that but it is definitely not a reason to delete. --StellarHalo (talk) 22:20, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Disclaimer: Two users sent me emails about this thread a while ago but I ignored at the time. My comment is: If you can find solid evidence like a leaked military document that explicitly states Israel's intention to commit genocide on Palestinians, theN keep. Else delete, merge, or rename. Also could someone please direct me on how I can stop receiving emails from users? I received another email today and I responded via email and I didn't realize I had given out my real email!!!!! Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 02:46, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Wh15tL3D09N You can go to your preferences. There should be a check box on the first page to disable email. NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 02:51, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you so much!!! Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 02:53, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - article passes WP:GNG with in-depth coverage in reliable sources. I find it peculiar that some editors are wanting deletion because simply they disagree with the article, e.g. (no “genocide” / this could not be further from the truth. starship.paint (RUN) 08:59, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep meets our notability guideline with multiple RS. Some of the above ivotes read like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. There are many vague waves at NPOV. If those issues exist they can be fixed. Lightburst (talk) 17:19, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ugh. One the one hand this is a clearly notable, if arguably FRINGE characterization of Israeli actions. On the other, it is generally undesirable to have separate articles looking at a topic from different points of view. A merge such as those proposed by SashiRolls is probably the best way forward. Also, as SomethingForDeletion notes it is much more useful to inform our readers of what crimes/human rights violations have been alleged and or /proven than to present the scholarly/legal debate over what constitutes the specific war crime of genocide. Maintaining this article as it stands is a disservice to our readers. While a merger would be best a rename with concomitant rewrite would be a worthwhile improvement to emphasize that this a partisan characterization rather than a broadly accepted understanding of the conflict. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:26, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with many others here that this is essentially a fringe, POV fork Criticism of Israel. There may be some content here that could be merged to that article or other related ones. Jweiss11 (talk) 00:31, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This genocide accusation is just hysteria and hyperbolism caused by latest conflict in an attempt to drawn attention, we've seen this many times before. There's obviously no Israeli genocide being carried out BY Palestinians either. The genocide bar has been lowed so much to appease the latest Palestinian war propaganda that any county in conflict could claim genocide. They're doing this by using a very broad, stretched, and cherry-picked definition of genocide. Unlike the apartheid accusations, which gained weight thanks to independent reports by influential NGOs, this accusation comes exclusively from A COUPLE of activist and partisan academics. Still it has no weight for a standalone article. It's just a fringe propaganda slogan trying to pass as mainstream theory. Maybe some of the text could be moved to the "2023 Gaza war" article, in the reaction section. Also there's A LOT of WP:SYNTH going on. Mixing together many different events in an attempt to create a narrative. And why in the "forcible population transfer", it is not mention that all jews were removed from Gaza (and expelled from arab countries) Was that genocide as well?. This violates our neutrality policy, it is POV-pushing and wiki activism. Losing territory after a war that you initiated is not genocide. And of course, the blockade hoax: Palestinians are in a prison 😭 they can only go out to slaughter thousands of civilians. No food or medicine is allowed to pass 😭 but they have no problem importing missiles, guns, and ammunition. The "blockade" could be lifted at any time, it's not genocide.
This clownish article is only still standing because there's now way more pro-palestine users than pro-israel, instead of exercising constraint and neutrality, they're taking advantage of this to pamphletize each and every Palestinian propaganda. –Daveout(talk) 08:58, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that bias-replete and policy-devoid statement. Laying it one a bit thick aren't you? Three propaganda accusations in one comment? Also "blockade hoax"? And the fringe is ... here? Iskandar323 (talk) 09:28, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If they can go out killing people, if they can smuggle guns, ammunition, and thousands and thousands of missiles, Blockade is not the right word to use is it friend? I've seen farm fences more constrictive than that. The Gazan "line-in-the-sand" is more like it. –Daveout(talk) 09:37, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Genocide_against_Palestinians&oldid=1181642244"