Talk:Palestinian genocide accusation
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. |
Article policies
|
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:
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.
|
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 |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
To-do list for Palestinian genocide accusation:
|
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. |
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. |
This article has been mentioned by a media organization:
|
Simon Sebag Montefiore[edit]
@Iskandar323: I'm not sure about this removal of Simon Sebag Montefiore's opinion. Yes, he writes pop history. But:
- He has a PhD in history from Cambridge University
- He was a visiting professor (of humanities) at University of Buckingham
- He is a fellow of the Royal Society of Literature (which admittedly isn't a history credential)
- On this topic specifically, he has a 2011 book, Jerusalem: The Biography, which:
- Received enough reviews to be wiki-notable
- Was a Sunday Times bestseller
- Won Jewish Book of the Year from the Jewish Book Council
- Won the Wenjin Book Prize from the National Library of China
- Has 238 Google scholar cites, including--from my quick check--scholarly citations such as [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]
- Also in the history category, his 2022 book The World: A Family History of Humanity, which:
- Was a NYT bestseller
- Was History Book of the Year by The Times (UK)
- Was Best History Book of the Year by Smithsonian Magazine
- Was one of the Best Books of the Year by The New Yorker
- Was one of the Best Books of the Year by The Economist
- Has "only" 5 Google Scholar cites (not a ton but not nothing considering it's a little over a year old), and all 5 seem like legit scholarship based on a very quick glance: [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]
So I think he counts as a historian, like a legit historian. Not on the level of Said or Morris, but enough of a historian to make his opinion WP:DUE for inclusion. He's not a genocide scholar, but is that where we draw the line for this article? Levivich (talk) 17:33, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- On the latter point – ideally, probably? I hear you that his credentials extend a little further than your average pop historian, but he is honestly known as a TV historian, and this really isn't even close to his area of expertise. The quote in question was also somewhat off-topic – this possibly being partially a result of him being a non-expert on the topic. He was saying apartheid yes, but genocide
no, but in a generic context without any real specificity to any particular time period or event. This made the statement vague at best in any case. He was saying apartheid yes, but genocideno about violence in the West Bank in 2022 and 2023, which appears to be a bit of an out-of-the-blue and pointless affirmation of a negative, since does anyone even assert that violence in the West Bank in 2022 and 2023 is genocide? (Genuine question. Not sure. Does anyone say it's a slow genocide? Otherwise, it's just knocking down a bizarrely specific strawman.) Iskandar323 (talk) 17:47, 30 April 2024 (UTC)- I'd be inclined to inclusion for this one, personally. Selfstudier (talk) 17:49, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- It is not out of the question that the WB events, taken not in isolation but in toto, add to the genocide narrative.
- Israel is Committing Genocide across Palestine:Active Genocide Alert Condemning Ongoing Violence in the West Bank Selfstudier (talk) 17:59, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah I get it. As a starting point, I'm not too fond of the "parade of opinions" approach in this or any article (lots of articles do this). But if we're going to list "X said genocide/not genocide," there ought to be some kind of standard for who gets included. Maybe that standard should be "historians," maybe it should be "historians of the I/P conflict," maybe it should be "genocide scholars." Then there's the other issue, do we include the opinions that all of it is/is not genocide, or some specific acts were/were not genocide, and does it have to be "genocide" or does "genocidal" count, etc. etc. I'm not sure what the best inclusion criteria would be, and don't really have a strongly-held opinion on where to draw the line, other than that there ought to be some objective standard for inclusion, and right now I look at the article and I think, well, on what basis do we exclude Montefiore but include, e.g., Michael Sfard and Stephen Sedley? Levivich (talk) 18:05, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- If there's a quorum for inclusion, I don't really mind. But yeah, it struck me as an oddly less expert voice amid much more esteemed ones. A bit meh. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:10, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- I guess if I were to try and formulate inclusion criteria, it would be "notable scholars of I/P conflict" and "notable scholars of genocide", which would exclude all three people I've mentioned. Levivich (talk) 18:13, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- Very much agree on this point, it should be notable academics and scholars, that is those who specialise in the subject who are presented for highlight. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 17:13, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
- Drawing the line is tricky, not sure about Sfard, for example, he seems well versed in the IP conflict. Selfstudier (talk) 17:19, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
- Sfard would be most easily resolved by moving him to the legal discourse, imo. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 17:25, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
- Another way to skin this cat is to go with the only-opinions-reported-in-secondary-sources rule, i.e., we don't cite X for "X said genocide/not genocide", we only cite Y for "X said genocide/not genocide", and so long as Y is an RS, it doesn't matter who X is. In other words: significant opinions are any opinions reported in RS. IMO it would work better if the rule was that you have to have 2 or even 3 Y's for every X. In other words: significant opinions are any opinions reported by multiple RS. And then to go further, we could say the Y has to be a scholar, or an I/P scholar or genocide scholar, or whatever criteria. I'm still not sure where exactly to draw the line but that's another approach to line-drawing. Levivich (talk) 17:26, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
- We would need a cut out for publications in relevant journals, as the most extensive and thought out argumentation is likely to be journal articles where the scholars detail their analysis, and these are nearly never covered in secondary RS. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 17:31, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
- I haven't like analyzed it to actually know one way or the other, but I would guess that these opinions/analyses are covered in secondary RS, specifically when scholars respond to each other. It would create a delay -- people are publishing now responding to things that were published six months or a year ago -- and that delay is a disadvantage when it comes to covering post-Oct 7 stuff. We could have one rule for new stuff (too new to be responded to) and a separate rule for old stuff (old enough to have been responded to by now if it were significant). Levivich (talk) 17:36, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
- I think material gets temporally sorted by default. Single-sourced opinions and quotes tend to get steadily trimmed down with time, much as weathered limestone. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:08, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
- I haven't like analyzed it to actually know one way or the other, but I would guess that these opinions/analyses are covered in secondary RS, specifically when scholars respond to each other. It would create a delay -- people are publishing now responding to things that were published six months or a year ago -- and that delay is a disadvantage when it comes to covering post-Oct 7 stuff. We could have one rule for new stuff (too new to be responded to) and a separate rule for old stuff (old enough to have been responded to by now if it were significant). Levivich (talk) 17:36, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
- I agree its tricky, but one way or another, presumably genocide scholars would get a free pass with just one source - they are the most pertinent voices after all. Sfard, as noted above, is probably indeed more pertinent to the legal discourse section. Same for Stephen Sedley. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:13, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
- So: experts in I/P, experts in genocide, and experts in human rights law/law of war (I don't think opinions of just any lawyers would be WP:DUE)? I could get on board with that. That would exclude Montefiore but include Sfard. However, I think it would exclude Sedley, who I think is not an expert in human rights/war/international law? Levivich (talk) 18:46, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
- The Sedley material is also almost criminally anecdotal. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:48, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
- Both Montefiore and Sedney are excellent sources (Sedley by the way is an expert on human rights)Nishidani (talk) 20:08, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
- I'll confess to ignorantly not voyaging beyond the WP page of Sedley for details, so my appraisal is only as partial as that shakey substance, but it appears his expertise is generally of the more domestic legal variety. Montefiore is also a perfectly adequate voice generally speaking; I'm just not sure genocide rulings are really his forte. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:42, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
- From memory Sedley sat on the European Commission of Human Rights. To my mind he has always been one of the sanest occasional commentators in this area. His anecdote reflects direct observation. Montefiore, like Simon Schama, is a marvellously gifted historian, and someone with expertise on the long story of Jerusalem will not be unfamiliar with genocidal realities, since core events in Jerusalem's history revolve round extreme ethnic violence. While I am often perplexed when both he and Schama comment on recent decades of I/P conflicts - one cannot be scrupulous in documenting Jewish travails over time and then careless in applying the same sensitivity to the tragedies and traumas of Palestinians without dropping one's historical guard against partisanship in a decidedly embarrassing way- my reservations over such lapses in no way permit me to call into question their authority to comment. Nishidani (talk) 07:49, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
- I'll confess to ignorantly not voyaging beyond the WP page of Sedley for details, so my appraisal is only as partial as that shakey substance, but it appears his expertise is generally of the more domestic legal variety. Montefiore is also a perfectly adequate voice generally speaking; I'm just not sure genocide rulings are really his forte. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:42, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
- Both Montefiore and Sedney are excellent sources (Sedley by the way is an expert on human rights)Nishidani (talk) 20:08, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
- The Sedley material is also almost criminally anecdotal. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:48, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
- So: experts in I/P, experts in genocide, and experts in human rights law/law of war (I don't think opinions of just any lawyers would be WP:DUE)? I could get on board with that. That would exclude Montefiore but include Sfard. However, I think it would exclude Sedley, who I think is not an expert in human rights/war/international law? Levivich (talk) 18:46, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
- We would need a cut out for publications in relevant journals, as the most extensive and thought out argumentation is likely to be journal articles where the scholars detail their analysis, and these are nearly never covered in secondary RS. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 17:31, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
- I guess if I were to try and formulate inclusion criteria, it would be "notable scholars of I/P conflict" and "notable scholars of genocide", which would exclude all three people I've mentioned. Levivich (talk) 18:13, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- If there's a quorum for inclusion, I don't really mind. But yeah, it struck me as an oddly less expert voice amid much more esteemed ones. A bit meh. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:10, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
Infobox[edit]
I am proposing an updated version of the info box. Given this page’s importance and the fact that these pages – Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel and Allegations of genocide of Ukrainians in the Russo-Ukrainian War – both have infoboxes, I felt it was important to do so. I have fixed/addresssed many earlier raised concerns:
- “It also appears to present as fact events/judgements/motives which are highly contested.”: I don’t believe so, but feel free to delete any or reorder them. They are not sourced on this page (Allegations of genocide of Ukrainians in the Russo-Ukrainian War) and thus have no need to be here
- “Who decides what the motives are for a series of unproven accusations?”: Again, feel free to change or delete them. I thought these would be standard etc.
- “Islamophobia isn't generally regarded as a motive here”: this I disagree with. It may not be the main motive, but it is a secondary one.
Alternatively, I would be happy to remove the motives section altogether and keep the rest. By the way, good figures over a long period are very hard to find. If you can, please insert any relevant info there.
Here are some of my improvements:
- As with the accepted formula on this page, I have added many attack types. Better, they are sourced.
Palestine genocide allegations | |
---|---|
Part of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict | |
Location | State of Palestine and Israel |
Date | 1948 – present |
Target | Palestinians |
Attack type | Allegations of usage of: Collective punishment,[1][2][3] airstrikes (including in refugee camps),[4][5][6] famine,[7][8][9] forced displacement (ethnic cleansing),[10][11][12][13][14][15] looting,[16][17][18] psychological warfare,[19][20][21] rape and sexual violence,[22][23][24] deliberate and systematic infliction of life-threatening conditions by military sieges,[25][26][27][28][29][30] others |
Deaths |
|
Victims |
|
Motive | Allegations of: Anti-Palestinianism, Anti-Arab racism, desire to expand into the West Bank (including the Jordan Valley), Islamophobia, Zionism, settler colonialism |
Accused | Israel |
Please work constructively and add or remove what you think if you have consensus. If little feedback or amendment is given, I will add this box to the page.
Thank you, From Scientelensia (talk) 17:34, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think this page needs an infobox, tbh. Selfstudier (talk) 17:45, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- Why do you think that? I think it provides clarity and information for new viewers and upgrades the status of the article. Scientelensia (talk) 17:49, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- The question is why do we need one, we managed perfectly well without one till now. It is not for WP editors to make a "case" for genocide via infobox, the accusation is of course disputed and none of that is in the infobox. Selfstudier (talk) 17:54, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- My thoughts for reasons:
- Improves information, makes it more readily accessible without having to trawl through a page.
- Provides a summation of the allegations of the article.
- Other respected articles of the same nature use infoboxes for these reasons
- (As a lesser point, the page looks good.)
- Scientelensia (talk) 18:50, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- My thoughts for reasons:
- The question is why do we need one, we managed perfectly well without one till now. It is not for WP editors to make a "case" for genocide via infobox, the accusation is of course disputed and none of that is in the infobox. Selfstudier (talk) 17:54, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- Why do you think that? I think it provides clarity and information for new viewers and upgrades the status of the article. Scientelensia (talk) 17:49, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- I made some tweaks to the infobox to try and improve it, but I'm still not really liking the idea of an infobox on this article (or infoboxes on the other articles you mentioned for that matter). An infobox is for giving readers at-a-glance quick facts about the topic. For a topic like this, I don't think there are any quick facts that can be summed up into short infobox parameters. Almost every parameter is "unsure/needs explanation," e.g. when it started, where it happened, who was targeted, how many died, the methods (attack type), motives, and who's responsible (it's not just Israel). This infobox kind of concatenates everything from everywhere... but not everyone who says there is a genocide of Gazans going on since Oct 7 also thinks that this genocide began in 1948 or includes anyone in the West Bank or in Israel. Similarly, not everyone who says that the 1948 Nakba was a genocide thinks that the 2nd intifada was part of that genocide. One thing I agree with is the title: it should be "Palestinian genocide accusations" because there are more than one accusation of more than one genocide (or of a genocide with more than one set of boundaries or features). It's all very... complex. Levivich (talk) 18:32, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- Hard to disagree. Removing the infobox sounds wise. — kashmīrī TALK 18:42, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- True, thanks for engaging.
- Just to say that this page is specifically accusations since 1948. It is difficult, but the if what you say is correct (“not everyone who says that the 1948 Nakba was a genocide thinks that the 2nd intifada was part of that genocide”) it does not mean that the date of this uprising did not host other events which could be listed under genocide. Hope I’m explaining myself well. The page for “a genocide of Gazans going on since Oct 7” is different: Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza.
- Also, I made some important edits, emphasising that these are only allegations. Do you think it is appropriate now? What would you change?
- If others are complicit, you could always add a complicit section?
- As for the stats, they are hard to find especially before 2000. Maybe more extensive research is needed.
- Scientelensia (talk) 18:57, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- What do you think about the infobox at The Holocaust, and using an infobox like that one here? (So, radically shorter.) Levivich (talk) 21:49, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- There the essential facts are well known and not (usually) disputed so it sort of works. Still think here it is just too...messy...for it to work. Selfstudier (talk) 22:42, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- Yes potentially, or we could simply remove the motives section here. In any case, I believe an infobox is the right way to go. Scientelensia (talk) 17:02, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Scientelensia: Have you considered forking {{infobox civilian attack}} and creating {{infobox alleged genocide}}, perhaps with more appropriate parameters and parameter labels? Because as much as I don't like it on several levels, Wikipedia has multiple articles about alleged genocides, maybe they'd all benefit from a tailored infobox.
- I should say at the outset that I don't necessarily support the creation of such an infobox or the use of infoboxes on any alleged genocide articles. I'm not convinced that the infoboxes are more informative than (unintentionally) misleading. But forking is an idea.
- One example of an inherent problem with an alleged genocide infobox is that while genocide is alleged, often (almost always?) the underlying facts are not alleged, they're established. For example, in this case, it's not alleged that tens of thousands of Palestinians have been killed, or millions displaced, or that there have been airstrikes, etc., all of these individual events are undisputed. What's disputed, or alleged, is that these events together are properly labeled "genocide." So how can an infobox convey that the details are proven, it's the overall characterization that is "alleged"? Without misleading the reader into thinking that either: (a) it's a genocide and Wikipedia is saying so, or (b) the underlying facts are alleged/disputed/uncertain.
- But maybe there's a way to do this? Also it's possible that other editors will think forking the infobox is a terrible idea (I note there is no {{infobox genocide}}). Idk. Levivich (talk) 04:44, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
- An interesting and good idea. Scientelensia (talk) 15:36, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
- Not sure if I have time right now yet I understand you what you are saying. Scientelensia (talk) 15:41, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
- An interesting idea. I'd even go for {{Infobox genocide}}, with a parameter "Alleged" (Yes/No), alternatively {{Infobox mass atrocity}} with "Genocide" a value of "Type", etc. — kashmīrī TALK 17:06, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
- What do you think about the infobox at The Holocaust, and using an infobox like that one here? (So, radically shorter.) Levivich (talk) 21:49, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- I agree with Levivich as well. Infoboxes are best for summarizing data in a compact format, and that seems very difficult to do in this case without losing qualifications or nuances which are important for NPOV.
- I think the suggested infobox is a reasonable attempt, trying to balance nuance with compactness, but it ends up having to compromise on both somewhat.
- I think the goal of making key information more apparent can be accomplished in other ways, like trimming the lead paragraphs, moving some less important details to sections below. XDanielx (talk) 18:10, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- A well reasoned solution. Scientelensia (talk) 20:17, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Notes
- ^ Per the Gaza Health Ministry and Government Information Office.[32]
Sources
|
---|
|
Recent content: "actions [...] identified"[edit]
@Scientelensia: a few concerns about the content you added,
- "Conceptions of genocide" doesn't feel like the right section for these conflict-specific details, although this leads to broader questions of organization.
- There's a ton of content inside some <ref>s. The quotes are useful, but why so many separate sources, can't we pick strongest couple sources for each claim? Also, I'm not too familiar with best practices here but I would think large quotations should probably get their own <ref>?
- It seems like some of this content is veering off from the topic of genocide claims, or at least there may be WP:OR or WP:SYNTH required to connect some of these points to genocide claims. For example, at first glance I don't see any of the sources connect rape claims back to genocide claims, although I could have missed something since the references are so large.
I think it would be ideal if we could clean up this article before major additions, since there are severe organization and redundancy issues which get harder to fix as it grows. XDanielx (talk) 19:37, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- These are fair concerns; let’s work on it. Thanks for bringing it to my attentions. As for the <ref>s, they are largely taken from other pages and I was simply trying to make sure that these actions were obviously true, not disputed. Scientelensia (talk) 20:16, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- B-Class Israel-related articles
- Low-importance Israel-related articles
- WikiProject Israel articles
- WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration articles
- B-Class International relations articles
- Low-importance International relations articles
- B-Class International law articles
- Low-importance International law articles
- WikiProject International law articles
- WikiProject International relations articles
- B-Class Crime-related articles
- Low-importance Crime-related articles
- WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography articles
- B-Class law articles
- Low-importance law articles
- WikiProject Law articles
- B-Class Palestine-related articles
- Mid-importance Palestine-related articles
- WikiProject Palestine articles
- B-Class Death articles
- Low-importance Death articles
- B-Class Human rights articles
- Low-importance Human rights articles
- WikiProject Human rights articles
- B-Class Philosophy articles
- Low-importance Philosophy articles
- B-Class ethics articles
- Low-importance ethics articles
- Ethics task force articles
- B-Class Ethnic groups articles
- Low-importance Ethnic groups articles
- WikiProject Ethnic groups articles
- B-Class Discrimination articles
- Low-importance Discrimination articles
- WikiProject Discrimination articles
- Wikipedia pages with to-do lists
- Wikipedia requested photographs in the Palestinian territories
- Wikipedia requested photographs in Israel
- Wikipedia pages referenced by the press