Talk:Calls for the destruction of Israel/Archive 1

Archive 1

Some modification requests regarding "Hamas"

Request 1

First sentence states "Hamas ... has consistently advocated for the destruction of Israel and the establishment of an Islamic state across the entire territory of Palestine" and cites following Litvak material which was published in 2010. Either the date of publication needs to be mentioned, or additional and more recent citations are needed to fulfil the "consistently advocated" scenario.

Request 2:

"Expressions advocating for the destruction of Israel have been articulated by several figures associated with Hamas." Ahmad Yassin, the first cited example, was assassinated in 2004. The long deceased part doesn't appear in the statement. Either a newer source could be stated, or the long deceased part needs to be mentioned.

Request 3:

The paragraph on Imam Khalid Tafish's relies solely on a single Haaretz article (which relies on a Lebanese interview). Additional sources may be necessary.

Request 4:

The paragraph concerning the Economist article doesn't mention year.

Perhaps we can rephrase this paragraph:

"According to The Economist, referring to Hamas' 1988 charter advocating Israel's eradication and the UN genocide definition, Hamas can be characterized as a genocidal organization. In line with this analysis, "Hamas fighters who burst into Israel on October 7th and killed more than 1,400 Israelis (and other nationalities) were carrying out the letter of their genocidal law."

as:

"Regarding the 2023 Hamas attack on Israel, the Economist wrote that Hamas is a "genocidal organization" according to UN definition of genocide, and its founding charter "explicitly commits it to obliterating Israel." Moreover, "Hamas fighters who burst into Israel on October 7th and killed more than 1,400 Israelis (and other nationalities) were carrying out the letter of their genocidal law." (The Economist citation goes here) Slavery-slasher (talk) 19:14, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

• What I think should be changed (format using {{textdiff}}):

On "Hamas" section, the link on "Economist" points to the wiki page for an "economist." The link should be changed to point to The Economist.

• Why it should be changed:

Because The Economist cannot reflect the view of economists in general regarding the subject matter. The Economist != representation of all economists.

• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):

Slavery-slasher (talk) 19:20, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

References

 Done Cannolis (talk) 19:33, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Removal of sources

Hey @Iskandar323 I've seen you've removed information and the sources supported in the following edits:

[1]

[2]

[3]

I checked the perennial sources page and I didn't see it highlighted as problematic. Can you please explain? Homerethegreat (talk) 14:31, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Not every source discussion that has ever been had is commemorated at WP:RSP - you have to use the main search function near to the top of the page to look for other past discussions. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:17, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

I haven't been able to find a mention of this source going through an RFC in WP:RSN. So I think we should approach every article and attempt to see if there is a problem. I haven't seen a major problem but you can take it to RSN. Homerethegreat (talk) 07:23, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

I have not found good reason and they appear legitimate so I'm restoring it. However, I'll add additional sources. Homerethegreat (talk) 10:06, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Meforum is not the best source. And if there are better sources, it seems like there are, we should use those.VR _talk 21:03, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Add something about the phrase "Death to Israel" in "Expressions in Public Discourse"

Would probably be appropriate. Koopinator (talk) 10:55, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

"Death to Israel" deserves its own page. Drsruli (talk) 03:13, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Definition

The first section should be a definition of the topic. What constitutes a "call for destruction of the state of Israel". For example:

• the right of return of Palestinian refugees is seen as the destruction of Israel.[4]
• the One station solution is considered an attempt to destroy Israel[5]
• Arab Israelis criticizing Israeli policies is sometimes labelled as "conspiracy to destroy Israel"[6]
• Indeed the very existence of Arab Israelis is call for Israel's destruction: "The fourth immediate threat to Israel’s existence is internal. It is posed by the country’s Arab minority."[7] was written by the infamous Israeli historian Benny Morris

VR _talk 05:28, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

This is a very good point. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:22, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

PLO

curious as to why PLO wasn't included. I understand they changed policy in the oslo accords, but until then it seems calls for "uprooting the zionists entity" were part of the movement's agenda.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine_Liberation_Organization?wprov=sfla1 MoshiachNow (talk) 22:57, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Neutrality

Oh wow, this article is worse than anyone can imagine with the hidden symbolisms and dog whistles in it. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:24, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

In addition to the highly selective approach to what sources are cited—nothing from Taylor & Francis's Journal of Palestine Studies, or Antisemitism: A Very Short Introduction, 2nd ed. (Oxford University Press, 2015), or this Jewish Currents piece, or this Conversation piece, this piece from the university-published Class, Race and Corporate Power journal—the article manages to twist even those sources it does cite. The Their Anti-imperialism and Ours website's statement that saying it's disgraceful slander to consider the phrase "from the river to the sea" a call to replace Israel gets somehow reshaped into Wikipedia saying the very opposite: it may imply the replacement of Israel. I would say that subsection should be cut, but really I think the tilt of the whole article is tremendous enough that this case may call for WP:TNT because the skeleton created by this article, its organization, its history, and its premise is so resistant to any NPOV portrayal of the topic. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 23:00, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Is there no deletion (AFD) proposal? Aren't the title and framing a kind of synthesis WP:SYNTH if not original research WP:OR? Are there enough academic or other strong reliable sources that specifically use this framing? I don't understand why these pieces are not already placed in suitable articls. ProfGray (talk) 23:19, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

It's unclear if this has ever been an academic framing of sufficient import to justify a standalone article along these lines. The page was created amid high emotions last year and obviously suffers from a POV framing. However, within that emotional context, the first AfD resulted in a vote to keep. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:11, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Between this article, anti-Zionism, and legitimacy of the State of Israel, it's hard to believe there are three topics. Zero^talk 12:06, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Anti-Zionism and calls for the destruction of Israel might plausibly different topics; part of why I think this article should remain tagged for neutrality pending substantial revision is that the way this article is written severely conflates the two in a way that wide ranges of reliable sources don't. (And that's without getting into possible overlap with legitimacy of the State of Israel.) Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 19:29, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Well, it's a piece of sloppy hackwork, worst of all, overlapping with the other two articles without contributing anythingt but confusion. Whatever is salvageable (I.e. whatever survives direct scrutiny of the sources paraphrased) should be moved to Legitimacy or anti-Zionism.Nishidani (talk) 19:36, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Would like a list of these supposed hidden symbols and dog whistles. I don't see anything profoundly controversial with this page. What are specific examples / issues? I'm seeing here far more discomfort with this page than actual page issues. Mistamystery (talk) 22:30, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by reviewer, closed by Narutolovehinata5 talk 04:13, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
Neutrality and other issues exist; the nominator has not responded to the concerns despite multiple pings and a talk page message.

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

US and Israel flags burned in Iran in support of the October 7 Hamas attack

• ... that Hamas leaders have consistently called for the destruction of Israel, with Ghazi Hamad recently stating that Hamas intends to repeat the October 7 attacks until Israel is annihilated? Source: "Hamas Official: We Will Repeat October 7 Attacks Until Israel Is Annihilated". Haaretz. 2023-11-01. https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-11-01/ty-article/hamas-official-we-will-repeat-october-7-attacks-until-israel-is-annihilated/0000018b-8b9d-db7e-af9b-ebdfbee90000
  • ALT1: ... that groups such as Hamas, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, and al-Qaeda have all openly advocated for the destruction of Israel and supported acts of terror to accomplish this objective? Source: Cotler, I. (2010). Global antisemitism: Assault on human rights. The Yale Papers–Antisemitism in Comparative Perspective, pp. 349-350
  • Reviewed:

Created by Eladkarmel (talk). Self-nominated at 08:55, 9 November 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Calls for the destruction of Israel; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

• Given the ongoing situation, a more balanced hook would be appropriate. The sentence "... that Israeli leaders have consistently called for the destruction of Gaza (and Palestine)" would be equally valid and equally unbalanced. The only difference between the two statements is that one country is actively being destroyed right now. Onceinawhile (talk) 12:49, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

• If you could combine the two, that would make for an interesting and neutral hook. Not sure how you would word it. Give it a try? Viriditas (talk) 03:21, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

• @Eladkarmel: I would recommend making an attempt to find more neutral sourcing and possibly other hooks, as you will face opposition from many editors. It’s best to bypass this opposition altogether by creating a hook based on the most neutral source you can find, and given the sources you are using right now, I would like to suggest you can do better. Viriditas (talk) 03:16, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

• @Eladkarmel: Do you have any additional hooks to propose? If not, should this nomination be closed as withdrawn? Z1720 (talk) 19:02, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

• @Z1720: The nomination should be failed (or closed) not because of the hooks, but because it has a neutrality maintenance tag which prevents a reviewer from passing it. This tag is highly unlikely to be removed before the DYK window closes. I think we need to be more proactive about failing disputed topics that are unlikely to be resolved during the DYK process. Viriditas (talk) 18:51, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

• Failed due to neutrality maintenance tag. Viriditas (talk) 18:52, 24 December 2023 (UTC)