Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genocide against Palestinians

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

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected csp |username}}.

If you were notified to this discussion through an off-wiki communication (such as a direct email), you should disclose the source and nature of that off-wiki communication when participating in this discussion. I am adding this notice in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 15:36, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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]

• Merge to
  WP:PAGEDECIDE; it is better to cover it within an existing article. BilledMammal (talk) 12:28, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Disagree As another user on the talk page has already said, "This is no different than the page for Holodomor genocide question, merely showing that there is a debate and varying views on the topic. Deleting this article would come across as hiding the fact that many do characterize the conflict as genocide, as the sources show. At most, rename the article." FF toho (talk) 12:36, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FF toho, there's big difference here. There is an article on

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

]

• Support keep and rename. I agree with this point. Should the article be renamed to something like

  Palestinian genocide question/allegations? -- GnocchiFan (talk) 12:46, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  I think the former title is better. I would also like to say that potentially changing the formatting of the article to something similar to Holodomor genocide question would also be beneficial (which each scholar as its own section). ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 14:01, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree with the suggestion, the current name lacks of neutrality and takes a stand that the 'genocide' is confirmed, and there isn't such a consensus. dov (talk) 14:55, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  A restructuring and naming discussion was already underway on the talk page before this AfD was launched.

  Iskandar323 (talk) 16:24, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Keep, well sourced article about a notable topic.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:59, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: The article breaches codes of neutrality and is misinforming. Also I fear the article may be politically motivated (in connection with the Hamas-Israel war). Therefore, I concur that this article ought to be deleted. Homerethegreat (talk) 13:28, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I fear this AFD may be politically motivated too. —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 14:50, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The hint is in the "resembles content from Hamas' propaganda".

  Iskandar323 (talk) 16:22, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  It absolutely is Deadlyops (talk) 20:33, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as a widely sourced topic. A quick search in google books and google scholar provides clear support.

No comment on what is the correct name at this point. Note the

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]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Discrimination, Israel, and Palestine. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:40, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: The term 'Genocide against Palestinians' doesn't align with Wikipedia's neutrality guidelines and
  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: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
  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. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 14:41, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or Merge
  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: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
  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

Iskandar323 (talk) 17:29, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

According to

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]

• Delete Title presents subject as a fact, which it isn’t. Delete or rename to neutral title. Drsmoo (talk) 16:18, 15 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]

@

Iskandar323 (talk) 16:21, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

• Merge or delete.
  WP:CFORKs the articles Ongoing Nakba, Israel and apartheid, and the others I listed above. We have way too many articles about allegations in this topic area, which water down and obfuscate the facts. Readers need easy, understandable access to the facts, the history of the area, rather than to every characterization of the conflict (it's apartheid! it's a bantustan! it's an ongoing Nakba! it's genocide!). That only confuses readers. Is it a genocide? It is it apartheid? Is it an onoging Nakba? Depends on which Wikipedia article you read. That's not how Wikipedia should work. Levivich (talk) 16:49, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  I concur with Levivich's excellent points for several reasons:

  1. Overlapping Articles: Having multiple overlapping articles dilutes the impact of each piece and muddles the information landscape. It's inefficient and confusing for readers seeking a comprehensive understanding.
  2. Article Hierarchy: Levivich's idea for an article tree offers a structured way to present a complex issue. This hierarchical approach enables a detailed discussion while making navigation more intuitive.
  3. Prevention of Content Forking: The WP:CFORK issue is a significant one. Multiple articles on closely related subjects can lead to inconsistencies and make updates cumbersome. Consolidation is a more practical and policy-compliant approach.
  4. Focus on Facts Over Characterizations: Articles with titles like "Genocide against Palestinians" can be seen as taking a stance, contrary to Wikipedia's NPOV policy. An organized, fact-based structure is more in line with Wikipedia's ethos.
  5. User Navigation: Current organization makes it difficult for readers to form a well-rounded understanding of the topic. Levivich’s suggested approach ensures that users have a smoother, more educative experience.
  6. Clarity and Consistency: The presence of various characterizations (such as apartheid or genocide, in separate articles undermines Wikipedia's credibility. A unified article structure addresses this issue by presenting a balanced view in a single, authoritative source.
  7. Secondary Option of Deletion: If consolidation proves impossible, deletion of redundant articles is a sensible alternative to prevent dissemination of fragmented or conflicting information.

  Overall, I think this provides a roadmap for making Wikipedia's coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict more coherent, navigable, neutral, and in line with our policies and guidelines. Marokwitz (talk) 17:03, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Disagree with Levivich. We wouldn't merge

  Uyghur genocide into Human rights in China, right? Nor would we merge Holodomor genocide question into either Holodomor or Human rights in the Soviet Union right? VR _talk 18:56, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Uyghur genocide does not fall under Wikipedia:Fringe theories , and there is no Criticism of China or China and apartheid article, despite China being approximately 100 times more populous than Israel Marokwitz (talk) 19:05, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  As Levi proposes, Criticism of Israel should be deleted as all Criticism of X articles are inherently POV. VR _talk 19:22, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  So we, at least, agree on one thing. Marokwitz (talk) 21:27, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Also Levi, the whole point of this article is (or at least should be) to discuss whether or not there is a genocide of Palestinians. If RS agree this is an unfounded allegation then the first sentence in the lead with "While Israel has been accused of committing a genocide of Palestinians, most scholars believe this is not true." VR _talk 19:01, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Do you have a source for that? Take a look a the requirements of

  WP:FRINGELEVEL Marokwitz (talk) 19:07, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  I think when it comes to the debate over the "genocide" label specifically, there are actually two aspects to the debate (1) factual debate over what Israel actually has or hasn't done, (2) semantic debate over how words such as "genocide" are to be defined. The question of whether Israel has committed genocide is determined by (1) and (2) in combination. I think the average reader is primarily interested in (1) not (2); but, on the other hand, there is a great deal of scholarly literature from fields such as international law, history and genocide studies which debates (2), both in general and in the specific context of the Israel/Palestine issue. Given that, I think it makes sense to have both a general article(s) focussed on (1), and a more specialist article which focuses more on the scholarly application of issue (2) to this particular topic. I don't think the current article is really focussing on (2), but I see no reason why it could not be evolved in that direction with appropriate attention. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 00:08, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I would also be OK with rename. If the articles were reorganized as I suggest above, I could see (for WP:SIZE reasons) there being a standalone article about the scholarly debate concerning genocide and Palestinians, which I would title something like "Genocide and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict" or, for a different scope, "Genocide and Palestinians." The description of that scholarly debate is laid out well in the comments on this page by SomethingForDeletion, so I won't repeat them, just +1. Levivich (talk) 00:16, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Yea, I'm still looking at this but the title is definitely a problem. Selfstudier (talk) 18:03, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I think the best next step would probably be to merge this article and

  coin new phrasing, but that's still a better title than the current title). Still opposed to keeping as a stand-alone at the current title. Levivich (talk) 16:32, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Delete: No internationally accepted definition was proved to be met using credible sources. These are all lies that should be removed. TaBaZzz (talk) 17:25, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep well sourced article. Clearly a notable topic. - Ïvana (talk) 17:44, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unsourced and not NPOV. Atbannett (talk) 17:56, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @

  Iskandar323 (talk) 18:50, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  There are indeed claims, but the article name seems to indicate that it's agreed. It's not. Atbannett (talk) 19:07, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  So, your issue is a naming issue, not a content issue then.

  Iskandar323 (talk) 21:26, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  No, this article should be deleted. It deals with a

  WP:SYNTH what I mentioned before about sources. Atbannett (talk) 18:38, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Delete as a
  WP:SOAP also applies. gidonb (talk) 17:57, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  It's not a

  Iskandar323 (talk) 18:49, 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

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

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]

• Merge to Human rights in the State of Palestine or any related article as a first step in making Levivich's proposal happen. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:22, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  One problem is Human rights in Israel#Human rights in the_occupied territories. Selfstudier (talk) 17:42, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and rename to
  Palestinian genocide question, similar to Holodomor genocide question. There are many sources in the article that are very reliable and academic, and they clearly believe a genocide against Palestinians are taking place. These sources may very well be in the minority and we should definitely give due weight to the contrarian view, ie human rights violations under the occupation don't rise to the level of genocide. (Fwiw I personally don't believe there is a genocide taking pace, these allegations are an exaggeration). But clearly this is a notable, and controversial, topic similar to Israel and apartheid, where we had deletion discussions but decided to keep the article. VR _talk 19:18, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep It is a relatively well-sourced article, and I am surprised that we did not have one on this topic until now. I have been hearing and reading allegations of genocide by Israel since my childhood in the 1980s, and I don't see many voices in the Greek press willing to defend Israel. Dimadick (talk) 20:35, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I think keep because it's well-sourced by reliable sources. Keep because more
  WP:RS will continue to be available re: the Genocide of Palestinians by Israel, in the days and months to come. The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 20:39, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete as
  WP:SYNTH and POV-pushing the light of the current conflict; besides being absolutely false given that the Palestinian population was 1.37 million in 1948, and an estimated 5.4 million in the State of Palestine according to the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics. Furthermore, when the West Bank and Gaza came under Israeli control, the Palestinian population has been increasing since 1967. Needless to say (one hopes), genocide results in precipitous decline of population. Additional sources and data here: [1].— Preceding unsigned comment added by Chefallen (talk • contribs
  )

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 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: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

  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
  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.

• This page literally relies on nothing but

  Iskandar323 (talk) 08:28, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• The article doesn't cite Jalil Abbas Jilani as a source. It cites a reputable newspaper that quotes Jilani as making the genocide allegation. Do you dispute that Jilani made that allegation?

  This is similar to a Holocaust denial article citing a source that might quote David Irving denying the Holocaust. VR _talk 21:53, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I've now created what is essentially a mirror image of this article,
  Alleged Palestinian genocide of Israelis, which covers Israeli accusations that Palestinians are guilty of genocide. Personally I don't think it would be consistent to delete this article and keep my new one, although other editors may disagree with me on that. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 08:26, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  I've nominated it for deletion; it shouldn't exist either, sorry. BilledMammal (talk) 08:47, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or merge - this is where the whole idea of relying on sourcing for notability falls down. Clearly some have reached for extreme language of genocide, which is tough to justify when the population is increasing. I don't see that anything is gained by giving this kind of extreme language credibility on en.wiki. JMWt (talk) 10:11, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  BBC:How do you define genocide? The Genocide conventions has "acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such". It's not that simple of course but notice that it says "in whole or in part". Selfstudier (talk) 12:04, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There are several reasons for deletion:

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.--
  talk) 18:12, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete or merge.
  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. There is no “genocide” to speak of, encyclopedically. Zanahary (talk) 19:13, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this article overlaps with the Criticism article (e.g. History section). It appears that, as a stand-alone article, it is impossible for this to be told from NPOV. No matter how it's reworded, the consensus is nonexistent, suggesting that the existence of this article as an independent page is at fault and that the only way to establish consensus is to merge (merging at least poses a possibility of us reaching consensus in the future, whereas leaving it clearly is not going anywhere). Sincerely,
  My Talk Page 19:47, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep and rename to
  WP:CRITS). Criticism articles are where encyclopedic content goes to die (and not get read). DFlhb (talk) 19:58, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Also alternatively support a merge to

  Allegations of war crimes against Israel or a move to Allegations of Palestinian genocide, as Levivich suggests; "Palestinian genocide question" feels too uncommon an expression to be used as an article title. DFlhb (talk) 20:50, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Redirect to Criticism of Israel It is genuinely possible to write articles about questions of genocide, and Holodomor genocide question and Armenian genocide are excellent examples of the use of high quality sources from books and scholarly journals that address the topic; this is not what we have here. This article is a COATRACK recapitulating the near entirety of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict in a non-neutral manner, characterizing every historical event as genocide. These are largely fringe theories and the sources don't meet the same standard as other, far more legitimate articles. I would have suggested a merge, but it's not clear that there's anything in this article that is not already in the Criticism of Israel article, which already includes the word "genocide" more than a dozen times as part of various allegations. Alansohn (talk) 21:03, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but rename. As other editors have already suggested, the title should be
  WP:FRINGE) on a genocide against Palestinians, so we should not delete the article. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:23, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Actually that title is unacceptably ambiguous. You see it as "Allegations of (genocide against Palestinians)" but many people will read it as "(Allegations of genocide) against Palestinians" as if the Palestinians are the ones accused. Zero^talk 10:27, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, you are right.

  Palestinian genocide question would be better and avoid the ambiguity you note. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:37, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Keep and rename to something that doesn't make it sound like it's a thing already. I was surprised to see the amount of sourcing available in support. Selfstudier (talk) 23:15, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Right?! I had no idea there was such a large body of extant literature.

  Iskandar323 (talk) 04:52, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Delete or Merge.
  WP:COATRACK, etc. Like others have argued, this article only recapitulates the near entirety of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict in a non-neutral manner. WonderCanada (talk) 08:08, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]