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 keep. As many editors mentioned, the scope of this article has significant overlap with several others. However as the Keep proponents argued, the scope is identical to none of them and is an attempt at reorganizing the information in this topic area. How to clean up the content and adjust the scopes of these articles are a matter for discussions among editors, but there is clear consensus here that this article should not be deleted because of it. The WordsmithTalk to me23:49, 24 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Please don't shoot the messenger. This article is a summary
WP:POVFORK of various tangentially-related pages and is full of
WP:SYNTH and
WP:OR. For example, "so-and-so body says X is a universal right." Then, "Israel does XX", which is implied as a violation of the previous sentence. The entire article is like this.
WP:TNT.
Longhornsg (
talk)
04:24, 10 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep The article does need a fair amount of work to get it in shape, so that it is less of a laundry list and more focused. The cats organize via WB and Gaza and we might do the same, for instance. There should be a ready availability of scholarly sourcing on the subject that deals with the subject more in the meta and less in the weeds. The tangentially-related pages will need to reflect a summary of and wikilink to this article eventually. I see no good reason not to have a page like this, the need for which arises primarily due to the extended occupation of Palestinian territory and Israeli practices in relation thereto.
Selfstudier (
talk)
17:41, 10 January 2024 (UTC)reply
As I said in my !vote, there is work to be done, including clearing up the duplication/overlap etcetera, such that this becomes "main" and the others only need summaries/wikilinks.
Selfstudier (
talk)
18:41, 12 January 2024 (UTC)reply
See? Even you are confused about which page it should be in, lol. The ongoing occupation messes things up, better to sit in its own page and links coming in.
Selfstudier (
talk)
17:15, 14 January 2024 (UTC)reply
The cases are not exactly the same and let's not assume it exists, haha. If the Russian occupation continues for 50 years plus, then there would certainly be a case for a separate page about that (probably would be there right now if the Russians were anywhere near as bad as the Israelis).
Selfstudier (
talk)
17:27, 14 January 2024 (UTC)reply
No, Russian forces killed more than 20,000 civilians only in Mariupol during a month
[1]. Also, this data by a Hamas-controlled organization are just as "reliable" as data by Russian MoD ("According to Gaza's Ministry of Health").
My very best wishes (
talk)
18:14, 14 January 2024 (UTC)reply
A discussion for another day, meanwhile I am quite content that Israeli abuses, of which there are a lot, over an extended period of time, are worth their own page.
Selfstudier (
talk)
18:30, 14 January 2024 (UTC)reply
I said "we". We/WP now have "Human rights violations by" articles only with regard to CIA and Israel. Meaning a possible WP:NPOV issue. "Human rights abuses by" are mostly redirects.
My very best wishes (
talk)
19:27, 14 January 2024 (UTC)reply
At the risk of sounding like a broken record, the pertinent point is the occupation and the length of it. I don't understand what you mean by a NPOV issue, if you have contradictory sourcing, then add that.
Selfstudier (
talk)
19:43, 14 January 2024 (UTC)reply
We do not have pages on other countries entitled "Human rights abuses by...", even North Korea, although we do have such categories. I am afraid we are pushing the position that Israel is the worst country in the world. Like you said: if the Russians were anywhere near as bad as the Israelis.
My very best wishes (
talk)
18:48, 15 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Merge per @
My very best wishes, I think the reasoning presented, specifically the comparison with the Ukrainian situation as well as concerns raised regarding POV Fork as well as concerns raised by Longshorn regarding material on targeted assinations.
Homerethegreat (
talk)
19:43, 18 January 2024 (UTC)reply
My feeling is that this article does indeed have real-life implications, but only for the project, If it is kept, Israel would be the only country singled out for an article accusing it in Wikipedia';s voice of human rights violations, while countries like Russia and North Korea are not. As I believe you [My Very Best Wishes] commented, Wikipedia as an institution would in effect be saying that Israel is the worst country in the world, the most egregious human rights violator on the planet.
Keep. There is an objection that the lead, for one, fails NPOV. What do we want there, the more drastically eloquent statement in the first reference by the
United States Department of State?
Significant human rights issues included credible reports of: unlawful or arbitrary killings; arbitrary or unjust detention, including of Palestinians in Israel and the occupied territories; restrictions on Palestinians residing in Jerusalem including arbitrary or unlawful interference with privacy, family, and home; substantial interference with the freedom of peaceful assembly and association; arbitrary or unlawful interference with privacy; punishment of family members for alleged offenses by a relative; restrictions on freedom of expression and media including censorship; harassment of nongovernmental organizations; violence against asylumseekers and migrants; violence or threats of violence against Palestinians and members of national, racial, or ethnic minority groups; and labor rights abuses against foreign workers and Palestinian workers.
Israel 2022 Human Rights Report: Executive SummaryUnited States Department of State 2023 pp.1-69 pp.1-2.
I get this argument but I think many would agree that there are things sui generis about the AI/IP conflict that result in this fragmentation/overlapping, principally originating in the lengthy occupation. If editors were able to write a sensible article entitled Palestine and apartheid or Palestinian war crimes etcetera, they would probably do that too.
Selfstudier (
talk)
11:48, 12 January 2024 (UTC)reply
I agree that the exceptional length of this conflict contributes to us having a lot to talk about, including theorical and scholarly subjects and views. I still argue it's out of hand in Wikipedia.
Super Dromaeosaurus (
talk)
11:54, 12 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete. I agree with the nominator on a really new POVFORK. It's a very new package for old WP information. No objection to a merge, as suggested above, if there are relevant articles that do not yet contain this information for the umpteenth time. Delete is better.
gidonb (
talk)
15:02, 13 January 2024 (UTC)reply
It is not a POV fork because you're allowed to add content from reliable sources that says "Event X was not a human rights violation." I would encourage you to add such content. starship.paint (
RUN)00:50, 14 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete as POV fork. I haven't found content which is not present in other articles listed by u:Super Dromaeosaurus but if it exists then it should be merged into those articles.
Alaexis¿question?09:13, 15 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment A
WP:POVFORK (read it please) "generally arise when contributors disagree about the content of an article or other page. Instead of resolving that disagreement by consensus, another version of the article (or another article on the same subject) is created to be developed according to a particular point of view." which is evidently not the case here. All that is happening is that unchallenged material from several articles is being consolidated for good reasons in a single article with a view to that article becoming the main article for the topic.
Selfstudier (
talk)
11:53, 15 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment The article is still a morass of
WP:SYNTH. As one selected example from many available in the article, the
Human_rights_violations_against_Palestinians_by_Israel#Targeted_assassinations is a collection of claims that editors have cobbled together into a claim that this is a collection of "human rights violations". However, nothing in the sourcing makes that connection. Textbook example of SYNTH. Unfortunately, this is rife throughout a heavily POV-written article. The notability may be there. Why I argue for a
WP:TNT is how deeply embedded the SYNTH and POV is throughout.
Longhornsg (
talk)
12:39, 15 January 2024 (UTC)reply
That particular section is lifted verbatim from
Israeli occupation of the West Bank where it is not disputed so the material is not in itself synth. If instead your argument is that including that material in the current article is not NPOV then that can be addressed by editing and is not a reason for deletion. In fact that material should be expanded with an explanation of when targeted killings are legal and when they are a breach of international humanitarian law.
Selfstudier (
talk)
13:22, 15 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Strong, speedy keep. One of the most ridiculous and offensive attempts at elimination I have ever seen, not to mention disrespectful, censorious, and imposing of a particular point of view. The topic is clearly and indisputably notable, and the arguments for elimination are far from being substantiated.
RodRabelo7 (
talk)
12:42, 15 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Instead of
WP:PA, care to explain why you believe policy-based deletion arguments are unsubstantiated instead of just saying a stream of invective? Editors can disagree on policy, but it’s important to AGF as you have not here.
Longhornsg (
talk)
12:53, 15 January 2024 (UTC)reply
That the article treats a conflict full of human suffering doesn't make the article untouchable and sacred, not at all. One can also make a point against propagating several articles talking about the same thing with little differences. How about editors work on existing articles instead of each of them writing their own articles, which of course is easier for them, and keeping this topic area nice and clean and compact and easy to read?
Super Dromaeosaurus (
talk)
13:13, 15 January 2024 (UTC)reply
The editor did not mention at all That the article treats a conflict full of human suffering? While I tend to agree about the multiplicity of articles in general, this is not a new article in that sense, it is merely the consolidation of material that is better treated in one location, while any overlaps and duplication are to be eliminated.
Selfstudier (
talk)
13:32, 15 January 2024 (UTC)reply
The problem is that this article is not merely the consolidation of material from other articles. It's a SYNTHed together amalgamation of new material that is then awkwardly connected to existing articles. I would be making this argument no matter the POV or subject of the article. I can come to agree with the principle of such an index-like article, but unfortunately the deeply rampant synth is why TNT is the way to go.
Longhornsg (
talk)
13:50, 15 January 2024 (UTC)reply
This is part of the issue of having multiple, overlapping articles. First, that's in
Israeli occupation of the West Bank, not
Targeted killing by Israel, which is the article linked to in this mess of an article. Second, that section in the Israeli occupation article has nothing to do with the topic and shouldn't even be in there in the first place. Third, there's nothing in the content that connects targeted killings with human rights violations. It just lists a bunch of "scary" facts about targeted assassinations. This is just encyclopedic malpractice.
Longhornsg (
talk)
13:59, 15 January 2024 (UTC)reply
The article merely needs editing. There is a bunch of HR related stuff in occupation of the WB article which is far too long as a result. Then there is another pile of stuff in the the Israel human rights article, out of date and misplaced. I already dealt with the targeted killings thing above, again the article just needs editing. Once it gets sorted out the encyclopedia will be better as a result.
This is tedious. I have several times. It's too bad we've decided to turn an encyclopedia into a mishmash of file folder of reports, not to inform in a NPOV manner but to advocate, but here we are.
Longhornsg (
talk)
14:14, 15 January 2024 (UTC)reply
I didn't say the editor mentioned that, but to me it is apparent they were arguing deleting an article about such an inflamatory topic would be an act of disrespect, which I find as a very weak and improper argument. this is not a new article in that sense, it is merely the consolidation of material that is better treated in one location, while any overlaps and duplication are to be eliminated so we merge other articles into here instead? I would be okay with that too.
Super Dromaeosaurus (
talk)
14:10, 15 January 2024 (UTC)reply
That would be the way to go, all the stuff in the Israel HR article could go apart from a very short summary/wikilink to the article here, ditto the occupation of WB article.
Selfstudier (
talk)
14:13, 15 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Socialist press outlets are all
anti-Semitic as a result of their ideology.
Hitler in his grave is proud of the work of all these people who kept his ideology alive after endless times. This article is the gathering of all this anti-logical thinking professed by these types of people all over the world.
Gantuze (
talk)
22:14, 15 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete as blatant POV fork and clear political use of Wikipedia (Socialist Propaganda). It is nothing more than a combination of theories and whishful thinking without any logical sense, a great exercise of anti-Semitism professed worldwide today using invalid sources from the anti-Semitic socialist press, a war caused by the Palestinians who started the problem unilaterally by massacring babies and innocent people who were quiet in their corner and unilaterally invading. In other words, this article is illogical and should not even exist. It's a great old wives' tale.
Gantuze (
talk)
20:15, 15 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep: all seems well ordered and well cited, and the nom seems wholly lacking in substance. The claim of POVFORK is made, but no page is identified as being the page that this has forked from. The main nom motivation is therefore unsubstantiated. The topic is a notable one with a justifiable scope.
Iskandar323 (
talk)
21:00, 15 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Strong keep: I see no indication that this is a fork of any one article (and therefore not a POV fork), the topic is clearly notable, some of the arguments for deletion are that the title is biased, however, there are also articles that catagorize and list human rights abuses if they're significant enough to be notable. There's precedent, the topic is notable, it isn't a fork of anything, I see absolutely no reason or argument to delete this other than
WP:IDONTLIKEIT
Speedy Keep - As has been correctly pointed out, Israel has targetted Palestinian nationals outside of Palestine, therefore, it categorically cannot fall under human rights violations in israel or palestine, but against palestinians. The tile is accurate, and is the only correct title (or something semantically equivalent).
DarmaniLink (
talk)
22:56, 15 January 2024 (UTC)reply
There is no abuse of human rights, there is defense of the State of Israel. Those who defend human rights for criminals, murderers and people who start wars for no reason are socialists, who are the current descendants of the Nazis, using social anti-logic.
Gantuze (
talk)
23:02, 15 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep. This is clearly an important subject, and covered extensively in a large number of sources. It isn't restricted to either Israel or the OT, so merging into one of those is not optimal. Cleanup is required, but that has never been a reason for deletion.
Zerotalk10:54, 17 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: More input would be welcome. Please remember to remain respectful and on topic (whether this is an unnecessary fork of another article or not). Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
NotAGenious (
talk)
13:11, 17 January 2024 (UTC)reply
First, I see a clear WP:POVFORK here as there is an attempt to inflate one area which was already covered.
Second, even the title provides non-neutral one-sided reflection of the situation without a word "alleged". As a least we can merge to a more neutral
Human rights in the State of Palestine. When it's anti-Israel and pro Hamas we call "Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Hamas attack on Israel" and not "Hamas genocide accusation". But here we say "Violations". Nop, we need to be consistent.
Third, I see a WP:SYNTH problem. Some select claims are being grouped together without proper sources to show one single point of view without showing an alternative one. I haven't seem it other articles.
Indeed and hence it will not solve the problem here. We would no able to keep the article by adding such word and it needs to be deleted. With regards,
Oleg Y. (
talk)
12:52, 18 January 2024 (UTC)reply
The things listed, provided they happened and the sources stating they happened are reliable, are indisputably human rights violations.
Why do we need to create a sense of false neutrality with respect to the "other side" of an ongoing conflict?
"We would not(?) be able to keep the article by adding such (a)? word..."
Have you tried to rename the "Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Hamas attack on Israel" to "Hamas genocide accusation"? Do we have an article "Human rights violations against Israel by Palestinians"? With regards,
Oleg Y. (
talk)
22:21, 18 January 2024 (UTC)reply
I am well aware of this rule as well as I see that there was no attempt to remove that word in the other article as well as an attempt to say that here such word is not needed. I see it as a pure bias opinion which is not based on sources. When the cases are very similar. And now I see that one was unable to show that there is no violation of WP:POVFORK. Moreover there is an attempt to point to one direction saying "a sense of false neutrality". If one tries to hint that there was no human right violations by Palestinian terrorists of Hamas toward Israel then I have nothing to say as the initial fundamental believe is wrong. With regards,
Oleg Y. (
talk)
23:33, 21 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Repeatedly bringing up Hamas in a game of "whataboutisms" in a discussion on whether or not to keep an article on Israeli atrocities is exactly why we have
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and policies like
WP:FALSEBALANCE. Multiple people here have demonstrated there is no violation of the POV fork policy - by outright denying that the policy applies, as the article categorically is not a POV fork.
"...no human right violations by Palestinian terrorists of Hamas toward Israel" but we do in fact have articles discussing exactly these attacks that you are referencing. So what is the issue?
DMH43 (
talk)
18:03, 24 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Please give examples of 1 and 3. As for 2: we have the title "Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Hamas attack on Israel" because no thorough investigation has been conducted and released to the public. In the case of this article, every reputable human rights organization agrees and has presented reports which corroborate the reports of other organizations. This includes Israeli organizations. As for "Human rights violations against Israel by Palestinians", there is no equivalence, as others in this thread have pointed out. Israel is an occupier, Palestinians are living under Israeli military occupation.
DMH43 (
talk)
18:10, 24 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment. There seems to be an understandable diffidence here among those who oppose this page in terms of its title. Let me address that.
Human Rights in China,
Human Rights in Australia,
Human rights in the United States,
Human rights in Russia,
Human Rights in India,
Human rights in Afghanistan etc.etc, seem to suggest that the title adopted is anomalous and singles out (unfairly) Israel. We have a standard
Human Rights in Israel article but this does not reduplicate that. The reason for the ostensible anomaly lies in the difference between Israel and those other countries: Israel is, technically in international law,
a belligerent occupying power of a foreign territory beyond its recognized and legitimate confines, and has been so for 57 years. One cannot assimilate the material here to Human Rights in Israel because the overwhelming mass of human rights violations occur outside Israel, therefore we must speak of violations by that country. Secondly, one cannot subjectivize these as allegations. The yearly reports by independent NGOs testifying to these abuses have an archival, encyclopedic mass, repeated for decades in extensive reports endorsed by Israel's premier neutral authority on human rights violations,
B'tselem and most recently by the
State Department of the United States, which is under a statutory obligation, often violated in the past (for reasons explained today by Stephanie Kirchgaessner,
‘Different rules’: special policies keep US supplying weapons to Israel despite alleged abusesThe Guardian 18 January 2024). The politics of denial of the obvious should not interfere with our coverage, any more than the asserted bias, arising from a false premise of equivalence as the compass for neutrality. There can be no equivalence between an occupying power and an occupied people.
Nishidani (
talk)
00:41, 19 January 2024 (UTC)reply
1 An entire section in
Human Rights in Israel is devoted to the occupied territories, so you are quite incorrect.
2. Can you please confine such long mini-essays to beneath your own !vote or the talk page? Such walls of text, scattered around this page, make this hard to read and are disruptive.
Coretheapple (
talk)
16:52, 19 January 2024 (UTC)reply
I grew up before sound bites, in a world where 309 words took (scientifically) about 1 minute 15 seconds for the average reader. That one minute's demand on an interlocutor's time can be dismissed as a 'wall of text' tells me much about the decay in literacy and patience
Nishidani (
talk)
00:34, 20 January 2024 (UTC)reply
This indeed points up why this is a POV fork Er, no it doesn't. It has already been acknowledged since the beginning of this discussion that that section, which is only a part of the article, will go away after this discussion is finished. Furthermore, Nishidani comment seems quite on point afaics.
Selfstudier (
talk)
18:24, 19 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep As per discussion above, the section in
Human rights in Israel about the occupied territories would be merged into this page. The situation inherently has many aspect, there are rights violations in Israel on Jewish nationals and nonjewish israeli citizens which are addressed in the
Human rights in Israel article. There are rights violations in the west bank and gaza by the respective authorities, as described in
Human rights in the State of Palestine. Finally, there are rights violations of Israel against specifically Palestinians, on both sides of the green line. Obviously this last category is huge. It's not unfair treatment of Israel to recognize that this last category has enough history and complexity to justify its own page.— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
DMH43 (
talk •
contribs)
You beat me to it. Totally true. There are rights violations of Israel against specifically Palestinians, on both sides of the green line, and beyond that. Bombing Palestinians' homes abroad in Lebanon, Syria, withholding pension money of Palestinians living abroad, and preventing Palestinians from returning to their country etc. Targeted killings of Palestinians living abroad by Israel is actually terrorism and maybe we should have another article called "
Terrorism against Palestinians by Israel."
Crampcomes (
talk)
13:49, 20 January 2024 (UTC)reply
No we do not need that kind of article when the main problem with these wikipedia entries is lack of development to get each article to something like GA quality. I would advise all to work more consistently over time to that end, rather than risk a stub sprawl.
Nishidani (
talk)
02:44, 21 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep as a
WP:SPINOFF of
Human rights in Israel, as mentioned by @
Alaexis above. This is a big topic, clearly passes GNG, that also can't be merged back into an article that has room to accept it. Even if it was merged back into
Human rights in Israel, it would create an UNDUE focus on mainly Palestinians at the expense of taking focus away from various other groups. This is exactly why we spin-off articles.VR(Please
ping on reply)12:46, 21 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep per WillowCity and Crampcomes. Not a fork, as the content was not covered in existing articles, and the topic is notable with widespread coverage and academic studies.
Vinegarymass911 (
talk)
14:17, 21 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Merge to Human rights in the State of Palestine and Human rights in Israel per My very best wishes. The title of the article as it currently exists is not neutral and, if it is kept, it should be renamed.
Bookworm857158367 (
talk)
23:32, 21 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Purported human rights violations against Palestinians by Israel or Claimed human rights violations against Palestinians by Israel or List of reports of human rights violations against Palestinians by Israel, etc.
Bookworm857158367 (
talk)
02:41, 23 January 2024 (UTC)reply
This just seems like
MOS:DOUBT to me. Like intentionally trying to make it appear like "But wait, its only MAYBE a human rights violation!" when all of these unambiguously are. But, that's an argument against an RM proposal.
DarmaniLink (
talk)
15:49, 23 January 2024 (UTC)reply
I could understand using "purported" or "claimed" or "reports" if the reports were challenged or if they weren't corroborated by basically every reputable human rights organization and the US state department and including Israeli organizations. But the consensus is that these human rights violations by Israel against Palestinians have occurred and do occur today. Reports being challenged by the state of Israel does not mean that the reports should be treated as questionable, take for example that B'Tselem no longer files reports of human rights violations by Israel to the Israeli government since they have found the government incapable or unwilling to investigate these cases.
DMH43 (
talk)
17:59, 24 January 2024 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.