Talk:Holocaust memory in pro-Palestinian activism

I am concerned that this article contains (and may originally been primarily composed of) LLM-generated content. The original author has a logged warning for misuse of LLMs in the PIA topic area (which I do not edit in). Below I documented article content that is unsupported by the listed sources and was included in the article as of

• A foundational principle for many is the interpretation of the Holocaust's central lesson as a universal imperative to prevent genocide and mass suffering for all people. this is WP:OR and is not characterized this way in either listed source . The first source is a primary source; the second makes no such broad claims and focuses on the perspectives of a single individual. Certainly has AISIGNS
• The instrumentalization of Holocaust memory to justify military action in Gaza is a specific point of contention is more WP:OR sourced to a single primary source
• They argue that while not identical, Israel's policies in Gaza (such as siege, mass displacement, and high civilian casualties), bear troubling similarities to historical persecution, bold is unsupported in source (also a primary source) . There is also non-NPOV language here typical of LLMs, i.e. "bear troubling similarities".
• Many of these individuals distinguish between Judaism and political Zionism, framing their support for Palestine as an anti-Zionist position. They reject the idea that a Jewish ethno-state is a necessary response to the Holocaust or that it guarantees safety, instead viewing it as a source of oppression for Palestinians. this is WP:OR at best (some of it fails any verification at all) and is sourced only to this blog post/personal essay , which is not close to WP:RS.
• Organizations they associate with, such as the International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network (IJAN), argue that the foundational ideology of Israel leads to the oppression of the people of Palestine. does not verify, sourced to . Source also may not be RS
• A German-born Jewish-American political activist and Holocaust survivor known for her work with the International Solidarity Movement in support of the Palestinian cause. bolded phrase is unsupported by the only source
• Their stance is rooted in the belief that lessons from the Holocaust demand opposition to all forms of oppression and that the memory of the Holocaust should not be used to justify violence against Palestinians. Given the sourcing issues identified above, I think this sentence from the lead is more WP:OR. Even if not, some of the language is editorializing/non-NPOV: especially "rooted in the belief"

NicheSports (talk) 22:08, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

@Rap no Davinci please let me know if I have made any mistakes in my analysis above. I am concerned given the past issues with LLM use. But it is certainly possible to make mistakes in verification analysis, so let me know if I have. NicheSports (talk) 22:15, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

NicheSports, I think I'm gonna escalate to AE. This also looks like a G15 candidate Kowal2701 (talk) 22:20, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

I was going to give RnD a chance to respond, but if you double check my analysis and find it accurate then I agree AE is appropriate - thanks btw. I have a high threshold for G15 noms, which criteria do you think this meets? AfD seems a better fit here (unless I missed something). NicheSports (talk) 22:24, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

You're right, sorry, AfD would be better. Given they've already received a warning, imo they can answer at AE. If it's CIR then that's worse Kowal2701 (talk) 22:27, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

Makes sense. I'd just ask that you verify my analysis before taking to AE. If it is correct, I agree that AE is appropriate; thank you very much for handling. NicheSports (talk) 22:28, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

1) the primary source says Instead of ignoring the key lesson of the Holocaust — that Never Again means never again for anyone... which could be stretched to support most of it, but only with attribution and not "many people"

2) the primary source says ...and manipulating our trauma to support a genocidal war..., but because it's primary, this is novel analysis

3) Y (it's also an op-ed)

4) Y, unreliable source

5) Y, also unreliable

6) Y

7) serious WP:RGW issue if nothing else

Ngl I'm shocked at how rubbish those sources were for rather exceptional claims Kowal2701 (talk) 22:59, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

AE it is then? And yeah the sourcing here was eye-opening to say the least NicheSports (talk) 23:08, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, see WP:AE#Rap no Davinci Kowal2701 (talk) 23:10, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

I will be answering at the AE. Rap no Davinci (talk) 05:39, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

I reviewed the sourcing and wholeheartedly disagree with the characterization here.

• "A foundational principle for many is the interpretation of the Holocaust's central lesson as a universal imperative to prevent genocide and mass suffering for all people. They argue that the slogan "Never Again" must not be exclusive to Jews."

This accurately reflects the cited sources: "As descendants, we recognize that genocide makes no one safer. We are not alone in our trauma, and we have a collective duty to prevent others from experiencing similar harm. Instead of ignoring the key lesson of the Holocaust — that Never Again means never again for anyone."1

• "Meyer expressed the lesson of the Holocaust, NEVER AGAIN. Never again for Jews, never again for anyone. Mistreating other people is wrong and violates Jewish values." 2

This is not WP:OR, and the first source is not a primary source in this context as it reflects Holocaust survivor and descendants' reasoning rather than statements about JVP itself. Additional RS would be helpful but is not strictly required. It's certainly not AE worthy.

• "The instrumentalization of Holocaust memory to justify military action in Gaza is a specific point of contention" 3

This is directly supported by the cited source: "The Israeli government has made very clear its intent to destroy Palestinian life in Gaza. To justify this horrific violence, the Israeli government has shamelessly manipulated Holocaust trauma. As descendants, we are outraged that the memory of our ancestors is being used to justify the same kind of horror being inflicted on others. We cry out against this genocidal assault: Not in our name!"

Attribution addresses any WP:OR concerns.

• "They argue that while not identical, Israel's policies in Gaza (such as siege, mass displacement, and high civilian casualties), bear troubling similarities to historical persecution, explaining "that is why, as a Holocaust survivor, I’ve felt compelled to join various pro-Palestine protests in London" 4

The bolded parts are supported, including references to civilian casualties and characterization of the situation as genocidal: "As Israel resumes its indiscriminate bombing – murdering hundreds more civilians in Gaza", "For over a year now it’s been clear that Israel’s plan is to destroy Palestinian society in Gaza", "We Jews who survived all this pain, killings, humiliation and destruction are against the use of the memory of the Holocaust by the Government of Israel as cover and justification for the ongoing genocide against the Palestinian people in Gaza and the West Bank."

Minor attribution edits can improve clarity, like "Israel's plan to destroy Palestinian society in Gaza", which I shall incorporate.

• "Many of these individuals distinguish between Judaism and political Zionism, framing their support for Palestine as an anti-Zionist position. They reject the idea that a Jewish ethno-state is a necessary response to the Holocaust or that it guarantees safety, instead viewing it as a source of oppression for Palestinians." 5

The source itself is not RS, but the content reflects the sources linked in it and is corroborated by other sources already added to the article, and is hardly controversial content. I will update this accordingly.

• "Organizations they associate with, such as the International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network (IJAN), argue that the foundational ideology of Israel leads to the oppression of the people of Palestine." 6

This is supported: "These 40 survivors of one of the worst atrocities in human history have gone a step further, placing themselves in the post-Zionist camp due to what they see in Israel."

Attribution and context make this RS-compliant.

• "A German-born Jewish-American political activist and Holocaust survivor known for her work with the International Solidarity Movement in support of the Palestinian cause." 7

The NYT article documents her participation in a 2009 Gaza action with the international solidarity movement, and her linked Wikipedia article provides further RS on her activism with it. This is uncontroversial.

• "Their stance is rooted in the belief that lessons from the Holocaust demand opposition to all forms of oppression and that the memory of the Holocaust should not be used to justify violence against Palestinians."

This is supported by RS in the body and reflects the individuals’ stated beliefs. Minor wording edits such as "They state that their stance is" could maybe improve attribution, but it is not WP:OR or POV, and again very far from AE-worthy.

In short, the sources accurately reflect the claims. Minor attribution or phrasing edits are possible, but there is no basis for AE escalation or claims of deliberate fabrication for RWG purposes, and editors should keep WP:AFG in mind.

The only diff where @Rap no Davinci went wrong here was citing the medium piece that contains other sourcing backing up the content rather than directly citing RS doing so, but this is minor issue that can be resolved by adding a better source needed tag, removing it outright with the edit summary that a better source is needed, or as I am going to do shortly adding the sourcing already on the page that backs it up. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 10:08, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Frankly, if you think those are appropriate sources for those statements then you shouldn’t be editing in this topic area either. Most of this is also OR because it is interpretation of primary sources and not attributed to the organisations, and they do not directly support the content as your quotes show (ie. in no world can they be described as paraphrases). Kowal2701 (talk) 10:23, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

You haven't substantively addressed anything in my source analysis showing the content does match the cited sources. Opinion pieces by a Holocaust survivor in Al Jazeera and statements by the organizations Jewish Voice for Peace and International Jewish anti-Zionist Network can be cited if properly attributed, and if they directly support the content. Your claim that they do not is inaccurate, as I have shown. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 10:51, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

I am fairly bewildered by your analysis, which affirms why I choose to not edit in this topic area despite likely sharing similar personal views to you on the topic. Just picking one point, your analysis of my 6th bullet. You state The NYT article documents her participation in a 2009 Gaza action with the international solidarity movement, and her linked Wikipedia article provides further RS on her activism with it. This is uncontroversial. The source does not mention an organization called the "International Solidarity Movement" anywhere. For you to state/imply this is uncontroversially supported by the only source is objectively incorrect and calls your entire analysis into serious question. I agree with Kowal2701's concern about your ability to edit within the topic area. Also, this went to AE because the author has a documented history of unambiguous LLM misuse in and out of the topic area, which was discussed at length in a prior AE filing which led to the logged warning linked to in my original comment. I agree that without that history, AE would be inappropriate here. But I strongly suggest you drop this particular stick and - in particular - hold off on further participation in the AE thread. NicheSports (talk) 11:09, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

I am bewildered by the fact you chose the most uncontroversial case as the one that you find to be most clearly evidence of wrongdoing, but it helps explain your source analysis.

The event described in that NYT source was organized by Gaza Freedom March, as is stated in the piece, which is part of the Free Gaza Movement, which is in turn a part of the International Solidarity Movement. This entire movement overlaps with one another. Hedy Epstein is primarily known for having been a part of said movement, as noted in the Salon obituary I added, and is stated in the lede of her own BLP which was already linked in the added content.

How is this in any way an egregious content-violation, let alone one that is in need of an AE case? Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 11:20, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Can we leave it to the AE admins to decide rather than have a pointless back-and-forth? Kowal2701 (talk) 11:23, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Going over the page separately from the diffs highlighted here, there are places in need of improvement. For instance here a quote from an open letter was cited to BDS, which is a poor source and unnecessary as it is available in RS, and I have updated it accordingly, along with some other changes. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 11:30, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

@Raskolnikov.Rev, I don't understand how the statements you quote are supported by the sources you cite. To address them according to the bullet points in your comment:

1. JVP source. You don't address how our text cites this source to establish "A foundational principle for many Holocaust survivors and descendants". Nothing in the source establishes anything about "many". The source identifies itself as speaking for "descendants of Holocaust survivors" and not Holocaust survivors themselves. And probably most importantly, JVP is not a reliable source, except perhaps for WP:ABOUTSELF claims, and we are not presenting this as about Jewish Voice for Peace members (even though that's specifically what the source says - Jewish Voice for Peace members who are descendants of Holocaust survivors) - instead we extend that without sourcing to "many Holocaust survivors and descendants".
2. Is promisedlandmuseum.org a reliable source? Never heard of them.
3. JVP again, same source. Isn't it pretty obvious that even if JVP were Reuters, this particular piece would be citable only as WP:RSOPINION?
4. Stephen Kapos in Al-Jazeera - your addition of attribution in the article makes this pass WP:V at least.
5. Instead of Medium to support this point, you've cited Middle East Eye (any consensus on reliability of this source?) that doesn't seem to back up in any way claims about an anti-zionist framing or rejection of Israel as a response to the Holocaust. There's also an auto-biographical essay by Sara Roy in the Journal of Palestine Studies, which clearly falls under WP:RSOPINION. The other source is paywalled, perhaps everything is backed up there?
6. International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network - I assume that IJAN is reliable for statements of its own opinion, but that hardly explains why its opinion is WP:DUE.
7. NYT that doesn't make the claim. To make the BLP claim that someone "is known" for working with a particular organisation, you need a source that says that that's what she's known for. We could just rephrase the sentence to avoid that specific claim if no reliable source stating this can be found.
8. No source. The fact that you think the sentence: "Their stance is rooted in the belief that lessons from the Holocaust demand opposition to all forms of oppression and that the memory of the Holocaust should not be used to justify violence against Palestinian" doesn't need a source is pretty astonishing. Who is "they"? All holocaust survivors and their descendants who "support Palestine"? Whether that means support for a two state solution, a binational state, the dismantling of Israel and expulsion of its Jewish inhabitants or anything else in between or beyond? Is it conceivable that some people who fall into these expansive categories do not share the specific and well-defined views outlined here? Perhaps some who support Palestinian rights without reference to the memory of the Holocaust?

Of course, this last point is a fatal issue with the entire page. There is basically no discussion of a phenomenon: "Holocaust survivors and their descendants supporting Palestine". What there is is the extensive and repetitive citing of tokenistic coverage of individuals or groups of people, holocaust survivors and more often people descended from them, emphasising that identity characteristic in their criticisms of Israel and Zionism. Inferring a phenomenon from individual cases is WP:SYNTH. Samuelshraga (talk) 09:12, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Re 7 I see you added a source for the ISM claim, which almost makes the same claim as our article. Your edit summary portraying the change as unnecessary is mystifying to me but we need not disagree on the point. Samuelshraga (talk) 11:28, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

@Samuelshraga, you are raising specific issues that were not raised by the other editor. I shall address them now.

But first, I fundamentally disagree with your conclusion that the page is fatally SYNTH-based or that it fails to describe a real and notable subject, and your rather offensive statement that Holocaust survivors and their descendants who support Palestinian rights drawing on their experiences as such is "tokenistic", which appears to be why you are dismissive of an entirely valid Wiki-compliant source base.

As I said on the merge discussion, where you made the same point:

You seem to have this quaint notion that a page about Holocaust survivors and their descendants supporting Palestine can't include Wiki-compliant sourcing that clearly attributes their own stated views in pieces they authored. I don't know where you got this from, but it has nothing to do with policy. WP:RSOPINION explicitly permits the use of opinion pieces to source an author's views, provided those views are clearly attributed and not used for statements of fact: "Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact. For example, an inline qualifier might say "[Author XYZ] says....". A prime example of this is opinion pieces in mainstream newspapers. When using them, it is best to clearly attribute the opinions in the text to the author and make it clear to the readers that they are reading an opinion (see also § Editorial and opinion commentary, above)."

This is reinforced by other core policies, including WP:NEWSOPED, which says opinion pieces are reliable sources for the author's own views: ""Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (invited op-eds and letters to the editor from notable figures) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." WP:V more generally makes clear that the standard is whether material can be verified as having been published, and WP:RS explicitly notes that biased or opinionated sources remain usable with attribution.

And no, it is not SYNTH to cite what is explicitly stated in sources about Holocaust survivors and their descendants supporting Palestinian rights. By that strange logic everything on Wikipedia is WP:SYNTH because editors have utilized their basic analytical skills to make the connection that sources about X are indeed about X, and hence can be cited for X.

Addressing your specific substantive content points:

"Many Holocaust survivors and descendants": I did not write this, but yes, this should be more clearly attributed and qualified per the cited sources, and I will do so. On JVP and RSOPINION: JVP is not being used to establish historical fact or sociological analysis; it is being cited for the views of Holocaust descendants who are members of that organization. That is squarely within WP:ABOUTSELF when attributed correctly, which it now is.

More generally on opinion pieces, Wikipedia does not exclude opinion sources; it excludes unattributed synthesis of opinions. Quoting or summarizing survivor statements from Al Jazeera, NYRB, or similar outlets is routine and acceptable when the claim being supported is clearly attributed, "X argues/believes/states,” which is exactly how the content is framed.

There are better Meyer sources for that, will replace it.

Regarding Middle East Eye and that entire section, it does backs up the content it is cited for along with the other sources, but I agree this should be clearly attributed and qualified. I will do so.

IJAN has its own page meaning it meets SIGCOV, and is cited in RS over years. It is obviously due for inclusion on a page that is about Holocaust survivors and their descendants supporting Palestinian rights.

"Their stance is rooted in the belief…" The sourcing for this was in the body and added later, but yes, here too it requires clearer attribution, which I shall add. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 05:21, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

"Many Holocaust survivors and descendants": I did not write this. You seem to have written part of it, but whatever.

On JVP and RSOPINION: JVP is not being used to establish historical fact or sociological analysis; it is being cited for the views of Holocaust descendants who are members of that organization. It is used to support this sentence: "Holocaust survivors and descendants who support Palestinian rights situate their activism within broader debates about Holocaust memory, Jewish political identity, and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict". I take it the source should be removed, as this is clearly a factual claim that doesn't mention JVP.

I'll get to the rest later. Samuelshraga (talk) 08:50, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

"opposition to all forms of oppression" Does that mean that several Holocaust survivors and descendants are supporters of anti-authoritarianism? Dimadick (talk) 10:00, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

This seems to be a POV fork (of what, I wonder?) intended to serve as a WP:COATRACK for antisemitic and anti-Israeli sentiment. “Supporting Palestine” is hopelessly vague. Many of the people who support of Palestine is cited hope (or once hoped) for a two-state solution. Others hope (or once hoped) for the eradication of the Jewish homeland and the slaughter of its residents. The list does not add to knowledge. (Also: the category "self-hating Jew" seems inappropriate.) MarkBernstein (talk) 18:13, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Your claim that survivors and descendants of the Holocaust being pro-Palestinian is "antisemitic" is deeply worrying. There is nothing antisemitic about these people and their activism. In any case, your personal views on that are wholly irrelevant. We go by what RS states, and here there is clearly RS on the subject that is clear and distinct and not at all ambiguous or vague. The support for Palestine is not only itself evidently clear in its meaning, it is also further concretely specified in the page itself for each of the groups and figures discussed, per the cited RS. Support for a two-state solution is not incompatible with this, and many if not all those who are cited on the page do support it. There is no content on the page stating a hope for the "slaughter of" the "Jewish homeland". Again, this is a extreme personal view of yours that has no place in a content discussion here. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 08:08, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Now the discussion is whether to merge this POV fork and LLM vomit? This nonsense should be deleted according to G15, as stated above. It is a coatrack to hang antisemitism, as also stated above.DaringDonna (talk) 20:26, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

I am out of date on procedure. Is the evidence for LLM use sufficient for G15? If so, a prod might be sufficient. AfD is likely to be a circus, I imagine. How best to proceed? MarkBernstein (talk) 22:15, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

A page on the survivors and descendants of Holocaust survivors who are pro-Palestinian is not a CFORK "to hang antisemitism" on, and it is deeply worrying that you are saying these people are antisemites either directly or by implication.

Also, no, there is insufficient evidence that this was produced by LLM, and the editor who made it has clarified that it wasn't. You cannot bypass normal procedure to get this speedy deleted because it's content you happen to disapprove of. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 08:02, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Quite correct; what we are discussing here, and elsewhere, is whether (a) it is wikipedia policy to ignore LLM detectors, or not; (b) whether this is indeed a POV fork; (c) whether the topic is notable. Not one (except you) has said anything about anyone being an antisemite; some of the tropes discussed here resemble tropes considered antisemitic by reliable sources. MarkBernstein (talk) 15:21, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

I did not say that the people holding these views are necessarily anti-Semitic. The fact that an article that is a non-notable fork and coatroack, written by a robot and was not immediately deleted by the PTB, is. Numerous less harmful articles have disappeared much quicker than this one. DaringDonna (talk) 19:54, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

For what it's worth I also think this is probably at least LLM-edited, although the more obvious signs of it containing LLM writing (i.e., purely just linguistic markers) are all the highlighting, emphasizing, shaping, etc. all over the place. The excerpts mentioned above are the problems that the signs hint at.

For instance, the following sentence is obviously crafted by AI, but there's nothing wildly inaccurate about it compared to the source: Drawing on this perspective and her fieldwork in Gaza, she highlights the impact of occupation on Palestinians, witnessing Israeli soldiers subject civilians, including children, to humiliation and coercive control. She frames these experiences as reflecting the denial of humanity she encountered in Holocaust narratives, while stressing that the occupation is distinct in scale and intent from the Holocaust. But there are nevertheless subtle things -- "stressing" is kind of strong for the one-sentence aside it actually is; she only mentions one Holocaust narrative in the context of "denial of humanity," and the whole point of the mention of seeing her father's arm was that it wasn't a narrative, because her father wouldn't tell her about it, i.e., the opposite of a narrative.

I don't use AI detectors, I've just read this same stuff thousands of times with thousands of topics madlibbed in, and I'm pretty sure NicheSports has too. Gnomingstuff (talk) 15:45, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Notability is determined by substantive and persistent RS coverage of the subject, which as the sources on the page attest to clearly exists.

DaringDonna said "It is a coatrack to hang antisemitism", and MarkBernstein said it seems to be a fork "for antisemitic and anti-Israeli sentiment", so no, I did not introduce allegations of antisemitism and normative judgements about the nature of the content, both of you did. MarkBernstein repeated it again by referring to "tropes discussed here" that are "considered antisemitic by reliable sources", without specifying any content or RS, while DaringDonna shifted to saying that it is antisemitic for this page not to have been immediately deleted, which can only mean that the content is antisemitic. No explanation has been provided for why that is.

Rhetoric like "LLM vomit" and insinuations about motives and personal judgments about the content are of unhelpful. The focus should be on what policy requires and what the sources support.

As regards claims of LLM use, this has already been discussed here and in AE, and admins are satisfied that the article was not LLM-generated, so G15 does not apply. Speedy deletion is intentionally narrow, and where there is reasonable disagreement about POV forking, notability, or framing, normal discussion-based processes are the correct route.

Gnomingstuff, I did not write the excerpts highlighted by NicheSport though I did the one you highlighted and I can confirm I wrote it myself, and if you check my edit history you will see it matches my general writing style. The others were written by the creator of the page. It does not read as LLM-generated to me. In any case, if you or others have any issues with the phrasing of any particular section(s), feel free to change it, as long as it accurately represents the cited RS. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 16:28, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Shall we have a page of Holocaust Supporters and their Descendants critiquing Palestine? MarkBernstein (talk) 22:42, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

No, if this is to be kept it should be moved to Holocaust survivors and the Gaza war or similar Kowal2701 (talk) 01:30, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

The proposed merge to Jewish pro-Palestinian activism would be more productive. Samuelshraga (talk) 07:58, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Rap no Davinci has deleted my addition of Gerald Kaufman and his 2009 speech in the House of Commons to this list, on the grounds that he allegedly wasn't a Holocaust survivor or descendant. He seems to be suggesting that, had his grandmother survived the Holocaust, rather than being shot in her bed by a Nazi officer, Kaufman would have been eligible for inclusion. This is a patently absurd argument, and I have restored the edit in question. RolandR (talk) 21:48, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi @RolandR, first, thank you for adding the photo to the article, very valuable contribution.

For Gerald Kaufman, I am not sure how the argument is "absurd". This article is solely about Holocaust survivors and their descendants, since Kaufman's grandparents are -sadly- not survivors, nor his parents (nor is he), based on the source you cited (and the sources I looked up online), then he clearly doesn't belong on this particular article. I think that piece of info would be better fit in Cultural discourse about the Gaza genocide. Descendants of victims of the Holocaust is totally different. If any reliable source describe as a survivor (or descendent), please share it. Cheers Rap no Davinci (talk) 11:14, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

The current title is “Survivors AND Descendants” not “Survivors and THEIR Descendants”. If the scope should be narrower, maybe name should change. Seems very arbitrary to me. BobFromBrockley (talk) 03:00, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

The article claims “their” interventions “have attracted media attention and controversy”. We have a couple of primary examples of a couple of interventions attracting media attention. What’s the evidence of controversy? BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:42, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

I realise we do have one example of controversy to go with the two examples of media coverage. I’ve edited the sentence to reflect this. I think we need secondary sources saying that there’s controversy to include this in the lead though. If there’s just one example, then this is original research and not due the lead. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:19, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Our article says "Public expressions of this position became more visible from the early 2000s onward, particularly during periods of intensified violence in Gaza and the West Bank." Is there a source saying this is the case? If so, can we cite it please? Or is it original research based on the fact that there are some media article since 2000, mainly during 2014 and the 2023+ war? Pinging Raskolnikov.Rev who removed my cn tag by this statement, without explanation. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:49, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Ah, just saw this. I added an OR tag earlier but cn might be more appropriate. Either way it's transparently a factual claim that needs a source. Samuelshraga (talk) 22:20, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

I noticed there are several places in the article, including the lead, where weasel words are used. For instance, A number of Holocaust survivors and their descendants, such as... implies there are a significant number, but no source backs that up, just sources for the individually named persons. Later in the same paragraph, Some, such as Sara Roy, have stated that the memory of the Holocaust should not be used to justify human rights abuses against Palestinians. This gives the impression that a significant minority have made the statement, but the citation is only to Sara Roy; the MEE source says that the memory of the Holocaust shouldn't be used to justify the Gaza War, and is mute on human rights abuses. The third source is a letter to the editor. Then at the end of the lead, there's a massive WP:OVERCITE with seven citations. If you need more than one or two citations for a statement, it's probably WP:SYNTH.

All this is in the lead only. A quick glance through the article shows something similar, of dressing up the opinions of individuals as representative of a movement with sources only to verify the individual's stance. While the article might be able to use a "Notable individuals who have expressed support for the movement" section, I think the majority of the article should focus only on WP:RS describing the movement. Then we could do away with the weasel words and summarize what independent, secondary sources say. If there are no such sources, then this article should be merged into another or deleted outright, as right now it feels like a massive WP:OR and WP:SYNTH violation. EducatedRedneck (talk) 00:44, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

On what basis are we calling individuals and groups notable or prominent? A single article in a fairly obscure website, especially for somebody that doesn’t have their own WP article, hardly seems notable, which is the case for most of the people here. I think we should delete that whole section and start again with secondary sources. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:05, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

All of those individuals are notable, evidenced by the simple fact that they have their own WP articles (minus 1). If you believe that some of them are not notable enough, you're welcome to AfD them, and let's see what the consensus will be. Two names don't have English WP pages, one has one in a different language, it's interlinked (Haim Bresheeth [es]); while the other's inclusion (Stephen Kapos) is supported by several sources attesting to his notability, (Same goes for the groups). Rap no Davinci (talk) 12:28, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

In the lead it says "Prominent figures include..." In the absence of secondary or tertiary sources, what makes us say those (currently five) names are prominent in relation to this topic? Then we have a section entitled "Notable individuals and collectives", which basically repeats material already earlier in the article, except organised by name, and it starts off with a red linked name. If "notable" here just means "notable enough to have a WP article", we should remove the two red linked ones (although there may well be others to add). But presumably it means "notable in relation to this topic", in which case my question stands, where are the "several sources attest[ing] to [their] notability"? BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:04, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

For the lead, changing the word 'prominent' to 'notable' with be a more accurate and better worded; for the section "Notable individuals and collectives", the description and sources to each name is to demonstrate that "notable in relation to this topic". for example, the red linked ones: Haim Bresheeth [es] is a son of Holocaust survivors and co-founder of Jewish Network for Palestine, some sources to his notability in relation to the topic are this and this; Also, Haim is a subject matter expert (even tho he doesn't need to be, but it adds to his notability to the topic). For Stephen Kapos, he is a Holocaust survivor and pro-Palestine activist, some sources are this and this. These sources are already in the article that I found and added during the initial creation of the article, if you look further, you will find way more. Rap no Davinci (talk) 06:37, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

I think websites like Truthout and Realnews (neither of which is GUNREL) are poor for establishing notability. Kapos sources are better for that. But the better route would be finding secondary sources that indicate that this is a notable topic and then identifying which individuals they find noteworthy in relation to it. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:12, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

The sources Truthout and Realnews might be poor to establish notability for a standalone article (if that's all we have), but they definitely serve their purpose for justifying why the individual's name is mentioned in the list, as they are not unreliable, nor some shallow in passing coverage. Rap no Davinci (talk) 11:25, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

I thought your argument was that these people are notable. We need definitely reliable sources to establish notability. To justify why they’re mentioned in this list, we need sources saying their relevant to this topic, which we still don’t have after all this time. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:17, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

There are notable, I said if we use only those 2 sources to have a standalone article for Haim, it wouldn't be enough. But there is way more. I just look up some: this, this, this, and this. None of these sources is unreliable, and their coverage is in depth. Rap no Davinci (talk) 12:38, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

I agree that Bresheeth counts as an SME, so we could use his academic work and commentary (eg the Jadaliyya interview) for the article, although that doesn’t mean that we can use his own work as evidence of his prominence in relation to this topic. Of the four new links you’ve posted, I don’t think the first two are reliable sources. But you seem to be consistently missing my repeated point: where are the independent secondary or tertiary sources that talk about this topic which we could use to establish which names are noteworthy in relation to it? BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:36, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

I am not sure what you mean by "independent secondary or tertiary sources that talk about this topic which we could use to establish which names are noteworthy in relation to it"!! Does that mean a source that provides a list of "notable Holocaust survivors and their descendants with pro-Palestine views" as a way for us to know which names we should include and which shouldn't? Rap no Davinci (talk) 13:49, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Well not a list necessarily but something like that. Isn’t that how Wikipedia articles should normally be built? You start with the best sources about the topic and see what they consider noteworthy enough to mention? Otherwise you risk cherrypicking based on your biases and/or conducting original research BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:14, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

The risk of OR and cherry-picking is always there in every article. The risk of something to happen doesn't equal that thing is happening. The names are included based on sources and common sense: a (child of)/Holocaust survivor is covered by multiple sources for their support of Palestine = they qualify to be included. The same way if other (or same) sources criticize Holocaust survivors for supporting Palestine, they qualify to be included in the Criticism section.

Otherwise, are these articles (and 1000s others) cherry-picking/OR? Jewish pro-Palestinian activism (what about those who aren't pro?), Sexual and gender-based violence in the October 7 attacks (cherry-picking?), Dehumanization of Palestinians in Israeli discourse (what about the humanization?), etc. Rap no Davinci (talk) 12:09, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes of course there's always a risk of OR and cherry-picking, and on a contentious topic that's why it's vital to generate articles in the right way, from the WP:BESTSOURCES on the topic as a whole, ideally independent, scholarly, secondary or tertiary sources.

Even proceeding backwards, as you propose, nobody here is in fact covered by "multiple (good) sources" - most of them are covered by a couple each, and mostly by rather weak, partisan sources. I don't think we need critical sources or a criticism section; we just need to know that this is considered a topic.

I don't really understand your WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments in the third paragraph. Maybe you're arguing against those in the thread below arguing for broadening the topic, but not that's not my concern here. There almost certainly is OR and cherry-picking in those three articles, but it is also obvious from looking at the articles that there are decent secondary sources that at least could be the starting point (and in the cases of Sexual and gender-based violence in the October 7 attacks and Dehumanization of Palestinians in Israeli discourse these appear to have been used to determine what is noteworthy in the articles.) BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:44, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Not a case of Otherstuffexists as I mentioned there're 1000s of such cases. It just means it's an established and policy adherent practice. I used examples of the same contagious topic just for clarity.

I agree that the article needs improvement when it comes to sources (as the case with most new articles falling in this category). But supporting a merge proposal with an article that is in no way is better sourced and written than this one is not the right move. If you truly believe that this article doesn't merit existing for policy-based reasons, you have every right to AfD it and the community will have the last say. In many cases, AfDing, if it doesn't get articles deleted, it might help get them improved!! Rap no Davinci (talk) 14:08, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

I am not now supporting a merge proposal; I am leaning delete, which I assumed would be one of the options in the RfC but for some reason wasn't. I was hoping that one of the advocates of the status quo might respond to the debate by pointing out the secondary sources we could use to improve the article we have but so far none have. I'm glad you agree that the article needs improvement when it comes to sources and agree that this article isn't exceptional but that that's the case with most new articles falling in this category. But I think if you're open to improving it, you'd at least consider that the way to do this might be to let go of the arbitrary list of characters we have now and look for the sources that could tell us who is actually noteworthy. It may be of course that those sources confirm that these names are the noteworthy ones, but we need to start in the right place to determine that. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:13, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

This whole back-and-fort is me being open to improve the article!! from my pov, I was able to provide several in-depth articles that demonstrate the 2 red inked names are notable in relation to the topic. It's NOW on you to point to other names that you think shouldn't be there.

For the sources I shared (some of which didn't satisfy your standards), as long as there's no community consensus on whether they are un/reliable, none of us two can say for fact that they are 100% un/reliable, especially given that it's not just one source, but multiple. They're definitely in-depth and clearly show why those 2 names are included. So they shouldn't be removed.

I am focused on those 2 names because they're red inked, so their notability is questionable by default. I am here to work on the rest of names if you are open to improve the article/section as well. Rap no Davinci (talk) 10:31, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

That’s a good answer and I’ll give it some thought. But I’m still eager for you to share what you think are the best general sources on this topic so we can see what names they mention. BobFromBrockley (talk) 20:58, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Withdrawn. I misunderstood the ECR rules and did not intend to request proxy participation in the AfD. Goobi100 (talk) 00:59, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

What does this term mean and where do we get it from? I can’t see it in any cited sources. BobFromBrockley (talk) 04:03, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Yeah I don't think the term “Critical scholarship” came from anywhere. My best guess is that it was intended to mean "scholarship that is critical of", in this case, critical of the use of Holocaust memory in relation to pro-Palestinian activism. If that was the intention though, such wording was unclear & unnecessary, so I think you were correct to remove it. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 17:54, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Now the article has been moved to “Holocaust memory in pro-Palestinian activism”, the contents need to refer to that. what’s the case for the inclusion of the following?: Never Again:

• Rav Segal’s biblical reflection – obviously about Holocaust memory, but is it pro-Palestinian activism? If so, what is source for that?
• The first five sentences on Zalloua – don’t mention pro-Palestinian activism so shouldn’t we trim and cut straight to last sentence?
• Hirsch - is the “we” in her call for teaching pro-Palestinian activists or her teaching framed as a form of pro-Palestinian activism? If not, should she be cut?

Israel:

• Bauman and Segal are discussing memory politics in Israel not in pro-Palestinian activism, so presumably in wrong article. Same with John Rose later
• El-Hasan - again first sentence is about Israel. Should trim and keep second sentence
• Farber: are the “some critics” he documents also pro-Palestinian activists? If not, not relevant.

Critiques of Zionism:

• Makdisi discusses Israel’s use of Holocaust memory, not Holocaust memory in pro-Palestinian activism
• Segal & Daniele discusses Holocaust studies use of Holocaust memory to support Israel, not Holocaust memory in pro-Palestinian activism
• zalloua and Thompson & Tuzcu talk about how Holocaust can be used to silence pro-Palestinian activism; neither talk about Holocaust memory IN pro-Palestinian activism
• Hirsch: isn’t about activism, unless Spiegelman is counted as an activist?

BobFromBrockley (talk) 04:41, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

As no response, I’ll slowly start to trim these BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:13, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Acting on some of these now. Also doubtful that the John Rose sentence is relevant. Any thoughts? BobFromBrockley (talk) 07:11, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

The trimming you've done so far looks good to me.

While I could see an argument for retaining the material attributed to Marianne Hirsch as it conveys how Holocaust memory is invoked in pro-Palestinian activism, I think its removal is ultimately correct. As that rhetoric more broadly relates to Holocaust memory in activism as a whole rather then specifically pro-Palestinian activism, & that the citation is more a criticism of its misuse, it probably verged too close to WP:OR. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 20:18, 27 May 2026 (UTC)