Talk:Lemkin Institute

Criticism section

There is notable criticism of Amnesty International and criticism of Human Rights Watch. If there wasn't any notable criticism, they wouldn't be doing their jobs properly. Both are well-respected sources of encyclopedic knowledge on human rights violations.

For the record, here is the edit that removed the entire criticism section of this article. I reverted that edit.

Discussion of the notability or sourcing of the two current items of criticism can go in this section of the talk page. Boud (talk) 20:10, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Relation to Lemkin

@Vegan416: None of the articles Einstein Institute of Mathematics, Albert Einstein Institution or Max Planck Institute for Gravitational Physics (Albert Einstein Institute) seem to have any claims of affiliation between the institutions and Albert Einstein, his estate or his family. Presumably nobody considered the use of Einstein's name to be controversial.

Maybe there is a controversy in the case of Lemkin (we do have a sentence on that in the Criticism section), but that should best first go in the body of the article to let people reach consensus, with sources about the controversy. Your recent edit was reverted because it was sourceless; and even if sourced, it would seem excessive for the WP:LEAD, which should mostly just summarise the article. Probably a new paragraphs added to the background section, which is currently rather weakly sourced, would make sense. Boud (talk) 22:42, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Lemkin family reacted: As reported by The Algemeiner, they deny any knowledge of the Institute's existence until contacted by the journalists, they want the organization to drop the name of their relative, and are considering further steps in order to get them to do so. Grandmaster 10:47, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Also, it looks like Massimino quit this organization, as this is what she said to The Algemeiner. Grandmaster 11:04, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Artsakh vs Nagorno-Karabakh

This edit switched from Republic of Artsakh to Nagorno-Karabakh. We would need some attention to precedent from people editing on that general conflict about what the most NPOV way to handle this is. This relates to the general Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. Any pointers to previous discussions would help. Boud (talk) 02:33, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:COMMONNAME, the common name for the region is Nagorno-Karabakh. So I believe this is the term that we should use throughout the article to refer to the region. There is no consistency in this article, sometimes it mentions Nagorno-Karabakh, and other times Artsakh. Regarding the now defunct unrecognized republic, it had a dual name of Nagorno-Karabakh Republic/Artsakh Republic, both of which were official, but I think the title of the section needs to refer to the region, and not the republic, as the conflict is called Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, and most reliable sources use the term Nagorno-Karabakh when discussing it. Per the same rule, Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's official name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable, English-language sources) as such names will usually best fit the five criteria listed above. Grandmaster 11:22, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Insufficiently explained removals

In this edit I restored material removed in these two edits. One of the co-founders leaving the project seems uncontroversially notable to me. We tend to avoid the word "claims" as WP:WEASELly. The Algemeiner Journal seems reliable enough for the information and points of view that we attribute to it. Boud (talk) 02:12, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Looking for secondary sources

I had a look on google news and google scholar for secondary sources, given how few we cite here, and all the hits were low quality. Are any of these worth using?

Positive secondary coverage:

• Nils Adler, Stephen Quillen (2024-01-12). "ICJ updates: Israel's response to South Africa's genocide case". Al Jazeera. Retrieved 2025-03-18.

• Desk, Tribune (2022-01-01). "US-based Lemkin Institute recognizes 1971 genocide". Dhaka Tribune. Retrieved 2025-03-18. {{cite web}}: |last= has generic name (help)

• Rubin, Michael (2023-11-27). "Is BP Financing Armenia's Destruction?". American Enterprise Institute - AEI. Retrieved 2025-03-18.

• Bedevian, Astghik (2023-11-02). "Azeri Troops Not Massed At Border, Says Armenian Official". «Ազատ Եվրոպա/Ազատություն» ռադիոկայան (in Armenian). Retrieved 2025-03-18.

• Habib, Haroon (2022-01-30). "In East Pakistan in 1971: A 'forgotten' genocide". Frontline. Retrieved 2025-03-18.

• Gale, Robert Peter; Muradyan, Armen; Danelyan, Samvel; Manukyan, Narek; Babak, Maria V; Arakelyan, Stella; Tamamyan, Gevorg; Arakelyan, Jemma (2023). "The humanitarian crisis in Nagorno-Karabakh". The Lancet. 402 (10410). Elsevier BV: 1324–1325. doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(23)02034-2. ISSN 0140-6736. Retrieved 2025-03-18. [note: a letter not an article]

Critical articles:

• Post, Special to National (2024-12-13). "The Jews being used as pawns in the campaign against Israel". National Post. Retrieved 2025-03-18.

• Sherman, Martin (2024-10-06). "Kamala Harris's unsavory supporters". JNS.org. Retrieved 2025-03-18.

• In, Sign (2024-06-09). "Lemkin Institute has yet to respond regarding Armenian criminals in Baku prison". Azernews.Az. Retrieved 2025-03-18.

• Rahman, Shafiqur (2024-10-01). "No more lies: A reaction to Lemkin Institute's statement on Bangladesh's recent unrest". Dhaka Tribune. Retrieved 2025-03-18.

• Kogan, Ariel (2024-12-03). "Using the name of a dead Jew for anti-Zionist propaganda". JNS.org. Retrieved 2025-03-18.

• "[AGTRT-11] The Lemkin Institute's Problematic Accusation of the Genocidal Nature of the Gender Critical Movement's Ideology and Practice – Amsterdam Gender Theory Research Team (AGTRT)". Amsterdam Gender Theory Research Team (AGTRT). Retrieved 2025-03-18.

BobFromBrockley (talk) 03:08, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

The National Post is considered a reliable source per WP:NATIONALPOST. However this article is an opinion piece. Per WP:NEWSOPED, it cannot be used to support statements of facts, but it can be used to cite the opinion of the author Dave Gordon, who is a well-known journalist . There is a lot of criticism of this organization in Israeli and international media, as well as from NGOs. These two are also opinion pieces published in The Jerusalem Post: and the Institute for the Study of Global Antisemitism and Policy: (the latter is by the same author who published in JNS). These could possibly be used with attribution to cite personal opinions of the authors. Grandmaster 09:23, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Agreed, more secondary sources are always a good thing. However, I've just gone and removed all but 1 of the tags from the Israel/Palestine 2023–2025 section — it's a bit absurd to have 4-5 within such a short chunk of text when the material in question is just quotes from the subject of the article. ‍ –‍ Kilvin77 • 👾  23:32, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Legal dispute

@Buidhe, Why was so much content removed in this edit: , and additional information about the legal action taken by the Lemkin family against the Institute was removed as well? The memorandum is a primary source, but it can be used to support information about the views and actions of the Lemkin family regarding the dispute , especially since this information is also supported by secondary sources. The Lemkin Institute is a relatively little-known organization, so controversies involving it do not usually receive coverage in major mainstream media. Nevertheless, the dispute has been covered by outlets such as The Media Line , The Jewish Exponent , The Jewish Journal , The Times of Israel , and The Jerusalem Post

Also, why was the information about the letter by more than 100 Holocaust scholars removed? In addition to The Media Line mentioned above, this was also reported by The Algemeiner: I believe there is sufficient coverage to justify the inclusion of this information. Grandmaster 09:57, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

The dispute should be mentioned but I believe that it can be summarized in 1-2 sentences and there is no benefit to the reader of giving a blow by blow of aggrieved statements and angry letters. So far there has not been any verifiable effect on the article subject, limiting its relevance. (t · c) buIdhe 14:15, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

I also don't see any evidence of a lawsuit being filed, that would be worth mentioning. (t · c) buIdhe 14:18, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

I believe it makes sense to explain the position of the Lemkin family. Also, the legal process is already underway, this is not just a hypothetical threat of legal action. As a first step, Joseph Lemkin and the EJA filed a formal complaint with Pennsylvania authorities. This is not just an angry letter, but a formal step in a legal process. If that does not resolve the issue, they plan to take the Lemkin Institute to court. All of this is verifiable information supported by multiple sources. In addition, the fact that more than 100 Holocaust scholars signed a letter supporting the Lemkin family is a notable development that, I believe, also deserves mention. Grandmaster 08:59, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

the position of the Lemkin family is not verifiable. The position of one of its members is already covered. they plan to take the Lemkin Institute to court WP:CRYSTAL until it happens. (t · c) buIdhe 03:31, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't think the situation can be reduced to Joseph Lemkin simply "threatening to sue". It is a verifiable fact, supported by multiple sources, that Joseph Lemkin, together with the EJA, filed a formal complaint with Pennsylvania authorities. This goes beyond merely threatening litigation and represents a formal legal step. According to the Lemkins' legal counsel, a lawsuit would be the next step if the matter is not resolved at the state level. Legal actions are not limited to court proceedings. Filing a formal complaint with a government authority is also a legal action. According to The Jerusalem Post, which is listed as a generally reliable source: The filing marks the first formal complaint by the Lemkin family to state authorities in Pennsylvania. ... The matter now awaits responses from the governor’s office and the bureau that oversees charities, placing the dispute firmly in the public eye. The formal complaint is not a hypothetical WP:CRYSTAL event, but a verifiable fact. Also, you have not explained why the information about the letter signed by more than 100 Holocaust scholars in support of the Lemkin family was removed. A letter signed by that many scholars is notable. Grandmaster 08:34, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Citation rules

Reference 35 is credited to Reuters. However, a note at the top of the page states that this is "sponsored content" and Reuters staff was not involved in producing it. This is actually an EJA press release that was placed on the Reuters website in exchange for money, i.e. an advertisement. It seems to me that at the very least the credit should be changed from Reuters to EJA press release, but maybe there's a policy for these situations? RoiMaor1980 (talk) 04:14, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

@RoiMaor1980 I'm not aware of Policies or Guidelines for this sort of instance, but I've changed the reference to a press release template, listed the organisation that authored it and said it was via Reuters. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 09:44, 5 July 2026 (UTC)