Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:00, 16 October 2023

Genocide against Palestinians

New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

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 Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages compromises the project's reliability and credibility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eladkarmel (talk • contribs) 12:19, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

• Merge to Criticism of Israel. This isn't a mainstream opinion, and while it probably passes WP:GNG it doesn't warrant a standalone article under WP:PAGEDECIDE; it is better to cover it within an existing article. BilledMammal (talk) 12:28, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
• 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)

  Support keep and rename. I agree with this point. Should the article be renamed to something like Allegations of genocide against Palestinians or Palestinian genocide question/allegations? -- GnocchiFan (talk) 12:46, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

  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)

  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)

  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)

• Keep, well sourced article about a notable topic.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:59, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
• 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)

  I fear this AFD may be politically motivated too. —Trilletrollet 14:50, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

  The hint is in the "resembles content from Hamas' propaganda". Iskandar323 (talk) 16:22, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

• 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 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)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Discrimination, Israel, and Palestine. Spiderone 13:40, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

• Delete: The term 'Genocide against Palestinians' doesn't align with Misplaced Pages'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)

  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)

• 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)
• 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)
• Delete. WP:FRINGE WP:POVFORK. Loksmythe (talk) 14:11, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
• 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)

• 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)

• Keep. While some may deny that Israel's actions constitute genocide, this is still a notable topic that deserves an article. NPOV issues can be fixed without deleting the whole page. This is not a BLP, nobody is being defamed by this info. —Trilletrollet 14:29, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
• 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 Faddle 🇺🇦 14:41, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

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)

• 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)

Delete - looks like not NPOV. Doesn't cite references for the claimed "Genocide". Ovedc (talk) 15:37, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

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 15:49, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

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)

The actual scholarly sourcing basis for this topic is frankly huge. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:33, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

I've provided but a small sample of this in the further reading. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:29, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

According to Misplaced Pages: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)

I don't see any evidence provided that the notion is fringe. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:44, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

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)

Refer again to where I note the huge literature. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:22, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages, 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)

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)

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)

@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 Misplaced Pages. Moot point. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:21, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

• Merge or delete. Genocide against Palestinians, Allegations of war crimes against Israel (which, despite its ambiguous title, is about allegations of war crimes by Israel, not war crimes against Israel), Human rights in the State of Palestine, Israel and apartheid, Israeli demolition of Palestinian property, Israeli law in the West Bank settlements, Israeli torture in the occupied territories, Ongoing Nakba, Palestinian enclaves, and portions of Palestinian prisoners in Israel and Racism in Israel, are all articles about the same thing: human rights abuses by Israel against Palestinians. The whole set should be reorganized into something that's less WP:CFORK-y. "Apartheid," "genocide," and "ongoing Nakba" are three characterizations of the same thing: Israeli occupation of Palestine.

  The "article tree" should look like this: The parent article to all this is, of course, Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Below that should be some parent-type article for human rights abuses, like Human rights in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Below that might be two articles, Human rights violations by Israel in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and Human rights violations by Palestinians in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The article about Israel's human rights violations could cover Nakba, the "apartheid" characterization, the "genocide" characterization, and any other WP:DUE characterizations, probably all of which should be in one article rather than split up into individual articles, unless there's a WP:SIZE issue down the line. (The article about Palestinian human rights violations would cover the set of articles largely dealing with Palestinian terrorism in the conflict, e.g. parts of Palestinian political violence, Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, and so on.)

  So it should be merged, but probably not to Criticism of Israel (which is one hell of a WP:COATRACK article; why the hell does Misplaced Pages have "Criticism of " articles???); rather, the whole topic area should be re-organized into something that makes sense, doesn't duplicate topics or fork them, and is easy for the reader to navigate. Barring a merger, second choice is delete. Genocide against Palestinians shouldn't exist as a stand-alone page, as it 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 Misplaced Pages article you read. That's not how Misplaced Pages should work. Levivich (talk) 16:49, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

  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 Misplaced Pages's NPOV policy. An organized, fact-based structure is more in line with Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages'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)

  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)

  Uyghur genocide does not fall under Misplaced Pages: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)

  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)

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

  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)

  Do you have a source for that? Take a look a the requirements of WP:FRINGELEVEL Marokwitz (talk) 19:07, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

  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)

  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)

• 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)
• Keep well sourced article. Clearly a notable topic. - Ïvana (talk) 17:44, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
• Delete. Unsourced and not NPOV. Atbannett (talk) 17:56, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

  @Atbannett: Sorry, unsourced how and in what possible sense? Iskandar323 (talk) 18:50, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

  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)

  So, your issue is a naming issue, not a content issue then. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:26, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

• Delete as a WP:POVFORK of Criticism of Israel and the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. WP:SOAP also applies. gidonb (talk) 17:57, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

  It's not a WP:POVFORK of Criticism of Israel; it's openly a child article. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:49, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• Delete as WP:FRINGE 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: .— 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)

@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 Misplaced Pages should not cover that debate itself, insofar as that debate is expressed in reliable sources SomethingForDeletion (talk) 23:41, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

• 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)
• 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)

  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)

• 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. 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)

• AfD debates (Society topics)
• AfD debates