Talk:Francesca Albanese

OK

No one else seems to want to do it, so I will. Selfstudier (talk) 19:58, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Balancing Section Entitled: United Nations Special Rapporteur on the occupied Palestinian territories

To balance the article, it would be beneficial to have the excerpted quotes from Albanese regarding the Holocaust and the "Jewish Lobby" so that readers can make an informed decision as to whether such controversy is warranted. This would also provide juxtaposition and contextualize the support noted in the proceeding sentences. ManU2482 (talk) 02:10, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Makes sense. What quotes were you thinking? Actualcpscm (talk) 06:13, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! According to this source , she said:

” America and Europe, one of them subjugated by the Jewish lobby, and the other by the sense of guilt about the Holocaust, remain on the sidelines and continue to condemn the oppressed — the Palestinians — who defend themselves with the only means they have (deranged missiles), instead of making Israel face its international law responsibilities,”

think having the quote in full should be noted? Or better to excerpt it? Either way think it’s helpful context ManU2482 (talk) 02:09, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

I think it should be contextualised the way it is in reliable sources; was it these statements that were criticised as antisemitic by some observers? Anyway, excerpts are probably better. I‘m thinking something like this: She described America as „subjugated by the Jewish lobby“ and Europe as subjugated by „sense of guilt about the Holocaust“, arguing that both „condemn the oppressed“ in their foreign policy with regards to the Israel-Palestine conflict. Actualcpscm (talk) 10:00, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

For the sake of balance wouldn't it also make sense to include the context that in response to that criticism a large number of experts on the field of antisemitism and the Holocaust defended her and said the criticisms took her statements out of context to suggest antisemitism that wasn't there? 2601:280:8202:BA80:8832:7168:75B1:67BF (talk) 04:21, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

If that‘s how it was reported on in reliable sources, absolutely. Actualcpscm ^{scrutinize, talk} 08:28, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

That was already done, I think? Selfstudier (talk) 08:30, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Edit request =

• The following should be added: On 15 November, Albanese gave an interview on Australian television where she was asked what she thought a correct response to the Hamas terror attack on 7 October should have been. Albanese replied that Israel should have responded with "law enforcement" instead of a declaration of war. She also suggested that Israel could have appealed to the United Nations to demilitarize Hamas. Finally, she compared Israel's situation to that of France after the Bataclan terrorist attack on 13 November 2015, arguing that France refrained from attacking Belgium in response, even though the terrorists had come from Belgium.:
• Why it should be changed: It should be added, as it involves important information regarding the views of Mrs. Albanese on what an appropriate Israeli response to the terrorist attack of 7. October 2023 should have been, as well as suggesting different alternatives that Israel could have employed. Seeing as she is the Special Rapporteur on Palestinian Human Rights, it only makes sense to add these views to her page.:
• References supporting the possible change: https://x.com/theprojecttv/status/1724693593032458508?s=20:

Bluminsint (talk) 20:27, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

References

 Not done for now: It is unclear where you want the requested edit to be made. Shadow311 (talk) 16:23, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 November 2023

Please append the following paragraph to the section "2023 Israel-Hamas War":

During an address to the National Press Club of Australia she stated that "Israel cannot claim the right of self-defence against a threat that emanates from a territory it occupies, from a territory that is under belligerent occupation", causing an uproar amongst the Israel supporters.

Source: https://www.news.com.au/finance/work/leaders/francesca-albanese-says-israels-right-to-selfdefence-non-existent-and-is-committing-war-crimes/news-story/99514e7f7928ec92fd68e9a470a5cf27 148.106.128.38 (talk) 13:59, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Shadow311 (talk) 19:47, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Her husband

who is she married to? 50.251.73.113 (talk) 20:40, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

She is married to Massimiliano Calì who served as an economic adviser to the Palestinian Authority’s ministry of national economy in Ramallah. 2601:580:4380:490:FC83:D36:8561:6B44 (talk) 21:40, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Spouse

A link to her spouse and "year + years married" is missing from the page. Unlike every other page of a prominent person. Please add this immediately. 50.251.73.113 (talk) 20:42, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

The criticism of Francesca for pointing out well-documented Israeli lobbying in the US...relies on a political Israeli newspaper as a source? Do better. That is far from a credible source.

Please remove the baseless smears mentioned in the introductory section. Of course she will be criticized by the regime (and its subjects) that she has been tasked to hold to justice for their crimes. 70.121.162.56 (talk) 03:47, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't think we need to cover the issue at that length in the lead. It should be removed or abridged. Any other thoughts? Burrobert (talk) 05:24, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Probably a good idea to remove it from the lead actually. From what I can see the criticism is only from partisan, pro-Israel sources. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 05:57, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

It is absolutely DUE for the lead. Per WP:LEAD, the lead should summarize any prominent controversies, which are amply covered in the body. The coverage is by credible RS WP:NEWSORGS that we use throughout WP and the I/P TA. Besides, the controversy was not over Albanese pointing out "Israeli lobbying" (which is wrong anyway, because she was talking about pro-Israel lobbying by Americans), but that American and European policy was controlled ("subjugated") by the Jewish lobby, a well-known antisemitic canard. Longhornsg (talk) 06:04, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

You might be right that it's due for the lead since it is a significant controversy; it's definitely covered prominently in the body of the article in its present state. As far as I'm aware the inclusion/removal could go either way.

As for your suggestion that she is in fact antisemitic or that the criticism is legitimate, let's not get into that here unless absolutely necessary/relevant.

- IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 06:33, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

The lead is likely improvable however in the way it presents the controversy.

In December 2022, sixty-five scholars of antisemitism, the Holocaust, and Jewish studies stated: "It is evident that the campaign against [Albanese] is not about combating today's antisemitism. It is essentially about efforts to silence her and to undermine her mandate as a senior UN official reporting about Israel's violations of human rights and international law."

In January 2023, a statement was issued in defence of Albanese by a number of human rights organizations, academic institutions, and other civil society organizations. The statement concluded by stating: "We commend UNSR Francesca Albanese’s tireless efforts toward the protection of human rights in the OPT and in raising awareness of the alarming daily violations of Palestinian rights. We call on third States to strongly condemn this politically-motivated attack on the Special Rapporteur’s mandate and to compel Israel to comply with its obligations under the Charter of the United Nations."[1]

These are paragraphs currently present in the body of this article after all, though the lead only speaks of the criticism of Albanese. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 07:10, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Removal and replacement of lead paragraph

I removed the paragraph of the lead which was as follows:

Albanese's appointment as the Special Rapporteur generated controversy due to comments made during the 2014 Gaza War, in which she described the United States as "subjugated by the Jewish lobby" and Europe by a "sense of guilt about the Holocaust". The Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Susan Heller Pinto of the Anti-Defamation League, and Michele Taylor, the American ambassador to the Human Rights Council, suggested these comments were antisemitic in nature. Albanese has said that she is not antisemitic and that her criticism of Israel is related to their occupation of Palestinian territories.

This paragraph deals with controversies and criticism regarding Albanese's tenure as UNSR. It is currently not balanced and per WP:BLP, specifically WP:BLPBALANCE: "Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints." This paragraph of controversy/criticism can and probably should be readded but only after the proper balance is restored. Note that this is not an attempt at WP:FALSEBALANCE but that the paragraph in question currently does not properly represent the relevant RSs nor the current body of this article, as I described in an above comment.

-IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 07:27, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I've added to the lead the following paragraph to replace the one removed:

There has been significant international attention and controversy surrounding Albanese's appointment and tenure as Special Rapporteur. Critics of Albanese have accused her of making antisemitic statements and of being biased against the State of Israel, while others have described these as illegitimate accusations and attempts to discredit her criticism of Israel's occupation of the Palestinian territories.

-Feedback on this is obviously more than welcome. Thank you, IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 08:50, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

(Review invited by IOHANNVSVERVS) I think this is an improvement in that it is both more balanced and presents a higher level summary more appropriate for the lede. I suggest from a copyedit standpoint that the antecedent to "these" be clarified, e.g. "while others have described these accusations as illegitimate attempts to discredit...". Jojalozzo (talk) 14:21, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for making the change. It is generally an improvement, but some more detail is probably appropriate here, specifically on the nature of the accusations. Antisemitism, particularly in the given context, can describe a wide range of conduct, and some specifics are beneficial if you ask me. FortunateSons (talk) 12:05, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Another significant change to be reviewed

I put this recent edit here for visibility and review. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 09:20, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

References

Deny

@Burrobert: Please self-revert as what you claimed about "deny" being a word to watch is not true; the word to watch is "denialist", which is not related. Deny is a perfectly neutral term. When someone is accused of something, they either acknowledge or deny it. That would be a factual reporting of which of the two they did. Makeandtoss (talk) 19:52, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

"Words to watch: reveal, point out, clarify, expose, explain, find, note, observe, insist, speculate, surmise, claim, assert, admit, confess, deny ... [B]e judicious in using admit, confess, reveal, and deny, particularly for living persons, because these verbs can inappropriately imply culpability. Burrobert (talk) 13:49, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

If you want to include her response in the lead, use a more neutral wording, such as the text from the article body: "She said that she has never been antisemitic and that her criticism of Israel is related to its occupation of Palestinian territories". Burrobert (talk) 13:55, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

@Burrobert: And where is deny in these words to watch? Deny is objective unlike point out or reveal or expose. The text from the body can be simply summarized into deny. I deny that the sky is blue; whether the sky is blue or not is a different story; the reporting that I denied the sky's blueness is not an endorsement of it. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:20, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

I am not interested in debating what your opinion of the word "deny" is. Let me highlight some parts of the policy I quoted in case you missed them. "Words to watch: reveal, point out, clarify, expose, explain, find, note, observe, insist, speculate, surmise, claim, assert, admit, confess, deny ... [B]e judicious in using admit, confess, reveal, and deny, particularly for living persons, because these verbs can inappropriately imply culpability". Burrobert (talk) 14:39, 31 March 2024 (UTC)