Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human rights violations against Palestinians by Israel


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. 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 Wordsmith Talk to me 23:49, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Human rights violations against Palestinians by Israel

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

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)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Israel and Palestine. Longhornsg (talk) 04:24, 10 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep There was no page about the lengthy Israeli human rights violations against Palestinians before the creation of this article. Neither Human rights in the State of Palestine nor Human rights in Israel seem like the correct article to add this information. At present, there are many scattered articles with information about said human rights violations. Similar articles like this are present in Wikipedia e.g. Human rights violations by the CIA.Crampcomes (talk) 04:45, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment Obviously pretty much all of the content was copied from various Wikipedia articles (without the required attribution), as there's 272 broken Harvard citations. — Diannaa (talk) 14:20, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * This issue has been fixed.Crampcomes (talk) 15:08, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Keep. Existing articles outline a range of specific issues, but as it stands, it's like having articles for raven, penguin, and chicken but no article on birds. It's important to help readers see the forest for the trees and understand the larger context. As an editor noted on the talk page, the article's text seems to be primarily lifted from the relevant sections in Israeli occupation of the West Bank which is already too long. Note that page does not have a NPOV tag, and was recently reviewed for GA status. Definitely some work is needed, but it's absolutely not a TNT situation. See also: Accusations of ExxonMobil human rights violations in Aceh, Human rights abuses in Balochistan, Human rights violations at Guantánamo Bay detention camp (for precedents re: other articles of this type). As an aside, I question whether it's even definitionally possible to have a WP:POVFORK of various ... pages since POV-forking usually implies a content fork from a single page. WillowCity  (talk)  13:14, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep per WillowCity and Crampcomes. This can be improved to be a useful summary article, and we do have similarly various pages on human rights violations in certain areas. Looking at Google Scholar, the topic seems to pass WP:GNG. Also look at Google Books and look at Google News.  starship .paint  (RUN) 14:59, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep. Yes, one could reasonably argue this page is a content fork of Human rights in the State of Palestine or Human rights in Israel, but this page has a different focus. My very best wishes (talk) 23:52, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It seems that Human rights in the State of Palestine is more targeted towards actions that were by Palestinian authorities, which makes sense.  starship .paint  (RUN) 00:27, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree. This is a unique political situation when we do need such third page. If they followed through with one-state solution or two-state solution, that would be another story. But both "solutions" seem to be dead. My very best wishes (talk) 00:40, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Merge to Human rights in the State of Palestine and Human rights in Israel. This page is an obvious content fork of Human_rights_in_Israel. It is common practice that the human rights articles are organized by the country or a territory. If the violations had happen at the occupied territories, they belong to page Human rights in the State of Palestine, and so on. Does it matter who committed the violations? Yes, of course. But this should be described at the proper page. It is another matter that page Human rights in the State of Palestine might need to be renamed.My very best wishes (talk) 15:27, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Occupation is not common practice, that's the difference here. Selfstudier (talk) 15:53, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The State of Palestine is occupied. So what? We have page Human rights in the State of Palestine where this content belongs. My very best wishes (talk) 16:41, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * A lot of it, has for a long time been included in Human rights in Israel so it is easy to see the confusion caused by the occupation. Selfstudier (talk) 17:04, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Meaning that there is already a content overlap between pages Human rights in the State of Palestine and Human rights in Israel. Do we need to resolve it by having 3rd page? My very best wishes (talk) 18:36, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * I think this is bad idea. The "occupied territories" are considered a part of Israel, or at least they are treated as such on our pages, i.e. Israel. Based on that, Human rights in Israel is our main page on this subject, while Human rights in the State of Palestine is a legitimate sub-page of that page, even though there is a significant duplication in section Human_rights_in_Israel. However, this page, i.e. "Human rights violations against Palestinians by Israel" is definitely a content fork. It should be merged to other pages, not the other way around. My very best wishes (talk) 17:09, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * No, I am not confused. Let's consider an analogy. We have Human rights in Ukraine. It has no section "Human rights at the occupied Ukrainian territories", but it could, and we could even create such sub-page. Let's assume it exists. However, in such case, yet another additional page entitled Human right violations against Ukrainians by Russia would be a content fork. My very best wishes (talk) 17:23, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * You say if the Russians were anywhere near as bad as the Israelis. Khmm... My very best wishes (talk) 17:32, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * There is a big difference in the demographics. As I said, the cases are not really the same. Still, Civilian deaths in 1 month of Israeli attacks on Gaza top entire Russia-Ukraine war toll so, y'know... Selfstudier (talk) 17:40, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * No, Russian forces killed more than 20,000 civilians only in Mariupol during a month . 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)
 * 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)
 * Indeed, we have Category:Human rights abuses by country, but again, they are organized by country, e.g. "Human rights abuses in Afghanistan‎". As about by, yes, we have Human rights abuses by the Taliban, but it redirects to page Taliban. I hope we are not making the point that Israel is worse than Taliban. My very best wishes (talk) 19:17, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't recall mentioning the Taliban, just the lengthy occupation. Selfstudier (talk) 19:19, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * I think you raise a very good point. Editors need to ponder the implications of this article. Coretheapple (talk) 21:53, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * We kept Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Hamas attack on Israel, so much for implications.  starship .paint  (RUN) 23:50, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I think it's a blot on the project. That is what I meant by "implications." Coretheapple (talk) 14:18, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I did not mean real life implications. But this and some other pages do strike me as examples of Activism. My very best wishes (talk) 23:59, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)

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.

Obviously Wikipedia has undergone self-inflected reputational harm in the past, and one can question whether we as editors should care about such things, but that is no reason to put another albatross around Wikipedia's neck. Coretheapple (talk) 15:06, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

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 Summary United States Department of State 2023 pp.1-69 pp.1-2. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nishidani (talk • contribs) 03:36, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete as the whole content and title are an unbalanced point of view. The more neutrally titled Human rights in the State of Palestine could include these allegations. Allegations should be clarified as to who claims them, rather than presented as facts. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:06, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 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?
 * Keep per WillowCity and others. Problems noted above can be dealt with by editing, not deletion. --NSH001 (talk) 08:45, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Yet another Israel-Palestine content fork. We have so many articles with overlapping scopes. Israel and apartheid, Human rights in Israel, Israeli war crimes, Israeli-occupied territories, Anti-Palestinianism, Zionism as settler colonialism, Palestinian genocide accusation. Indeed, over half of this article's sections have hatnote links to other articles at the top. I simply do not see what was the need of another article saying what so many others do. Wikipedia does not fragmentise other conflicts to this excessive degree. It makes navigating articles about this topic needlessly confusing. Merge, into all relevant articles, or perhaps merge articles into here. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 11:25, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * No doubt about that. We have Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Hamas attack on Israel after all.
 * 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)
 * I'm not opposed to deletion, by the way. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 21:06, 13 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep. I also agree with WillowCity and the other members above. David A (talk) 14:25, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Delete as blatant POV fork. Coretheapple (talk) 15:53, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Sure, and the same can be said about any POV fork. Coretheapple (talk) 22:13, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Maybe this 'POV fork'? Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Hamas attack on Israel, main article 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel. It seems you said then at Articles for deletion/Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Hamas attack on Israel: No valid reason has been presented to delete, this article.  starship .paint  (RUN) 15:09, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * "It seems you said then...." Please don't personalize the discussion. Thanks in advance, but meanwhile please strike out your comment. Coretheapple (talk) 15:57, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Respectfully decline the request.  starship .paint  (RUN) 23:44, 15 January 2024 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * @Alaexis to clarify where do you think human rights violations by Israel against Gazans belongs: in Human rights in Israel or Human rights in the State of Palestine? VR (Please ping on reply) 02:36, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Human_rights_in_Israel seems to be appropriate, in addition to articles about individual events such as the ongoing war and countless other articles discussing every possible aspect of this conflict (e.g., Blockade of the Gaza Strip). Alaexis¿question? 09:38, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Human rights in Israel is at 13,800 words, only 1,200 words away from "Almost certainly should be divided or trimmed" per the WP:SIZERULE. This article is already at 10,000 words and still has room to expand. A WP:SPINOFF is in order anyway. VR (Please ping on reply) 12:35, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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 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)
 * 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)
 * Yes, that should be in the Targeted killings by Israel article, not an article about Israeli occupation or human rights violations. Do you really not see how this is SYNTH? Longhornsg (talk) 14:00, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The material is mostly about targeted killings in Gaza! This is ridiculous. Longhornsg (talk) 14:01, 15 January 2024 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Actually identify the alleged synth, then we will see. I already dealt with one incorrect claim of synth above. Which "new material"? Selfstudier (talk) 13:54, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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.
 * And you have not identified the alleged synth as requested, just more hand waving. Selfstudier (talk) 14:11, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Handwave, handwave... Selfstudier (talk) 14:23, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * Weak keep per WillowCity. There are some reliable sources that cite the occurrence of human rights violations, as The Guardian, UN, Human Righs Watch, so it is not a case of WP:OR. It is true that the article lacks impartiality, however, this problem can be remedied and there is no need for deletion, according to WP:POVDELETION. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 14:23, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)
 * So, if you are part of the Palestine Project it is obvious that you support this anti-Semitic article. But it's an obvious conflict of interest.Gantuze (talk) 22:14, 15 January 2024 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Documented RS in the article say otherwise
 * If you disagree with the sources, you should gain consensus that the sources are invalid and should not be used. :) DarmaniLink (talk) 23:08, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a soapbox for your Zionism. Salmoonlight (talk) 23:15, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

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)
 * Merge as appropriate to Human rights in the State of Palestine and Human rights in Israel. An obvious POV CFORK.  // Timothy :: talk  03:11, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 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. Zerotalk 10:54, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep. I don't think this is a POV fork as it is a specific enough topic, and one that is heavily covered in the literature. CoconutOctopus   talk  17:30, 17 January 2024 (UTC)


 * There is nothing in this article that is in disagreement with anything in any other Wikipedia article. So obviously this article cannot be a WP:POVFORK.Crampcomes (talk) 23:30, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete as per the "POV" problems:
 * 1) First, I see a clear WP:POVFORK here as there is an attempt to inflate one area which was already covered.
 * 2) 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.
 * 3) 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.
 * With regards, Oleg Y.  (talk) 01:00, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Isn't adding alleged as your own analysis when RS states something definitively, and the events are proven to have occured what MOS:DOUBT warns against? DarmaniLink (talk) 01:43, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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..."
 * How come? The word doesn't belong there in the first place. Why would it need to state its an allegation when it demostratively occurred? DarmaniLink (talk) 16:28, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS focus on the merits of this article, there's already precedent for articles on human rights abuses. And please answer my questions so we can build a consensus. DarmaniLink (talk) 23:23, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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.
 * Also why are you still bringing up "the other side", after accepting that it isn't a valid argument? DarmaniLink (talk) 02:10, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * "...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)
 * 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)


 * Keep: An important topic covered in many WP:RS. This clearly passes WP:GNG. Any issues with the article can be addressed through editing. TarnishedPathtalk 01:09, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep per Selfstudier and WillowCity. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 17:25, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete POV fork that seeks to amplify and trumpet what is already covered in other articles, replete with grossly non-neutral title and rampant synthesis. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 22:49, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Please explain further and give more details, since most in this thread seem to disagree DMH43 (talk) 18:00, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 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 abuses The 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)


 * 1 An entire section in Human Rights in Israel is devoted to the occupied territories, so you are quite incorrect.
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Israel#Human_rights_in_the_occupied_territories This indeed points up why this is a POV fork.
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * Delete per WP:POVFORK, it would be much better to redirect this page to Human rights in the State of Palestine. Marokwitz (talk) 19:59, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Except that this article has absolutely nothing to do with Human rights in the State of Palestine, which deals overwhelmingly with the violation of P rights by the Palestinian Authority. But more important, the state of Palestine's existence is not even recognized by Israel. Nishidani (talk) 01:08, 20 January 2024 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * Also human rights violations against Palestinians by Israel outside of both Israel and Palestine. E.g., in Lebanon. Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b><b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b> 05:12, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * Delete A clear POVFORK, any content that is encyclopedic can find home in existing articles, if it's not already there. Arkon (talk) 01:48, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Please explain what is pov about this article DMH43 (talk) 18:00, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * What would be a more neutral title for an article about human rights violations against palestinians by israel? DarmaniLink (talk) 02:50, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * OK, so by your logic List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel should be renamed also? I'll watch for your RM proposal. <b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b><b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b> 03:23, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * An RM can be proposed for that in due course.Selfstudier (talk) 10:18, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Delete as the content appears mostly copied from Israeli occupation of the West Bank PrimaPrime (talk) 17:22, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The idea is that this will replace the content in the article you linked DMH43 (talk) 17:51, 24 January 2024 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.