Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:12, 4 February 2024

Israel Palestine Collaboration

This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration, a collaborative, bipartisan effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. For guidelines and a participants list see the project page. See also {{Palestine-Israel enforcement}}, the ArbCom-authorized discretionary sanctions, the log of blocks and bans, and Working group on ethnic and cultural edit wars. You can discuss the project at its talk page.Israel Palestine CollaborationWikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine CollaborationTemplate:WikiProject Israel Palestine CollaborationIsrael Palestine Collaboration

NPOV sourcing

Sourcing for this article is largely based from Israeli media or claims from Israeli officials, with nineteen of the forty-three sources of those. The article also uses reliable data to get a specific point of view across, seen in the Harvard study in the misinformation section. The section does not explicitly state that there was any denial per se of the attacks, rather justification. The article's sourcing then tries to bring in unrelated references to the al-Ahli hospital strike and the Day of Rage fears, with neither the article nor the source mentions denialism of the attacks, rather that the attacks and Israel's response contributed to a rise in antisemitism online.

The article at multiple points also conflates denial that the attacks ever happened with justification of the attacks, and nearly every section rehashes the massacre itself. While I think the article should be kept as denialism of the attacks is a very notable and well-discussed topic, the way this article is written attempts to portray all forms of the rise of antisemitism post-10/7 as denial of the attacks. There are also various quips and phrasing attempting to unilaterally portray all Palestinians as antisemitic or supportive of Hamas. Jebiguess (talk) 23:06, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. This is an incredibly biased article. Needs to be reworked or deleted. JDiala (talk) 01:29, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

There are serious issues here.

1. In the realm of WP:RSOPINION and WP:USERG. Opinion articles and blogs being used for facts, which I am removing.
2. The very first sentence has WP:SYNTH problems: Denial of the October 7 attacks is the denial that Hamas attacked Israeli civilians on October 7, 2023 - yes, the source discusses denial of attacking civilians, but it does not say that this is "denial of the October 7 attacks".
3. Our article: Due to the denialism that raised in regard to the massacre toward Israelis on October 7, and in attempt to counter the denial or downplay of the events, the Israeli government presented a 43-minute film... Two sources are cited, one opinion article and one news article that says: The government showed the 43-minute compilation ... to counter what it said were attempts to deny or downplay the extent of the atrocities. Either the opinion source was used for facts or our article goes into WP:OR and WP:SYNTH.

Altogether this is very concerning. starship.paint (RUN) 06:43, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree with the above. There are major problems with the sourcing, and, as alluded to by the above editors, this extends even to the article title. Nobody is denying the reality of the attacks; Hamas are justifying them. This would not be the first time this author has introduced an article with a blatantly biased title - see Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Israeli humanitarian aid to Gaza. Deletion for this article might also be appropriate - Misplaced Pages:Blow it up and start over. Bastun 11:04, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

I wrote before, and I write now. Misplaced Pages is a joint venture. I write articles that I think are important, I know that my articles are not born perfect and I think that it is the role of our community to improve and balance articles.

I'm used to a situation where every article written about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that does not attack Israel is immidietly attacked and scrutinized from every side to look for cracks in it. Unfortunately, I also feel that editors who wrote here about these issues have disappeared. (Some were blocked and some simply stopped writing about the topics, maybe because of the reason I wrote above).

However, I will continue to write about these important topics.

I suggest that instead of finding cracks in the sources and the article, it can simply be improved together so that it presents the truth (I believe that only the truth should be written in Misplaced Pages). Eladkarmel (talk) 12:53, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

We can work on small cracks. These are large, significant cracks. This sentence from the very first version of the article: In addition, due to the belief in Hamas's puritanical Islamist image, many Palestinians find it hard to believe the accusations of atrocities committed by Hamas during the October 7 attacks - is cited to two articles, neither of which back the claim, instead the first has Iraq and Iran acknowledging that the attack was done by Palestinians / Hamas and the second has Hezbollah stating the attack was "100 percent Palestinian". starship.paint (RUN) 13:21, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Note, I removed even more opinion articles. One and Two. starship.paint (RUN) 14:30, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm used to a situation where every article written about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that does not attack Israel is immidietly attacked and scrutinized from every side to look for cracks in it. See, Eladkarmel - this right here is the problem. You start off by writing an article with clear bias (e.g. reporting only what's favourable to one side & critical of another; omitting context or background; claiming aid as Israeli when it's international; etc., etc.), coming from a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, and when the obvious biases you insert into the article are challenged, it must be because of anti-Semitic/anti-Israeli bias on the part of the challengers, and not because of anything like WP's policies on WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:DUE, WP:BALANCE, etc. If my country had experienced a terrorist attack such as occurred on October 7, no doubt I would absolutely feel as strongly; but I hope I would have enough self-awareness to maybe stay away from related WP articles until I could be objective about them. Bastun 14:14, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Please refrain from attacking other editors. This isn't WP:CIVIL. Longhornsg (talk) 19:53, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

• Why are references (cuurently numbered) 3 to 5 in the lede sentence? These just source that atrocities happened, not that anyone denies they happened? Bastun 14:43, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
  • @Bastun: - sorry, I removed an opinion article that probably had the denial starship.paint (RUN) 14:48, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Nobody is denying the reality of the attacks. I so wish that were true, but unfortunately it's not. Why is the use of Israeli RS a problem or NPOV? Of course, there's going to be more extensive coverage of this topic in Israel -- it's a topic that obviously resonates more with Israeli journalists and Israeli readers, just as it would be reasonable to include Australian sources when talking about a topic that would resonate more with Australian journalists and Australian readers, and so on. The nationality of a source has nothing to do with its credibility or bias.

These are all credible RS that cover the phenomenon of denying or revising facts about what happened on 7 October, all sources we widely use on WP. Just as we do on other articles in this space such as Weaponization of antisemitism and Nakba denial, sources that discuss the topic are absolutely germane even if they don't use the exact phrase "denial of October 7". Just like with Holocaust denial, denial also isn't limited to "it didn't happen", but includes making false claims (e.g. civilians weren't killed, most victims were killed by the IDF, there was no rape, it was an Israeli op to justify genocide, etc).

• Holocaust denial finds new life in Oct. 7 revisionism (Jerusalem Post)
• Growing Oct. 7 ‘truther’ groups say Hamas massacre was a false flag (Washington Post)
• Are conspiracy theories about Oct. 7 a new form of Holocaust denial? Experts weigh in (Times of Israel)
• Hamas releases propaganda doc denying atrocities, blaming Israel for civilian deaths on Oct 7 (Jerusalem Post)
• Denial of Hamas' October 7 massacre spreads in US (Ynet)
• For most Palestinians, October 7’s savagery is literally unbelievable. Blame the TV news? (Times of Israel)
• Haaretz
• As Hamas supporters deny rapes, investigation raises questions about whether forensic evidence from Oct. 7 was collected (The Forward)
• Queens College president condemns Muslim student group’s denial of Hamas attacks (The Forward)
• Too many people are in denial about events of October 7th, says Israeli ambassador (Irish Times)
• Israel shows footage of Hamas killings ‘to counter denial of atrocities’ (The Guardian)
• U of A fires director of Sexual Assault Centre for signing letter questioning attacks on Israeli women.

If there's an issue with the title, suggest an RM. If there are additional perspectives (without treading into WP:FALSEBALANCE territory, add them. Longhornsg (talk) 19:52, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

• Ra’am MK asked to resign after denying slaughter of babies
• [https://www.jns.org/levin-vows-to-outlaw-denial-of-hamas-atrocities/ Levin vows to outlaw denial of Hamas atrocities (JNS)
• "Hamas has denied the accusations of sexual violence" (NYT)
• "Hamas has denied the accusations of sexual violence." (Guardian)
• Anger as Oakland residents defend Hamas and deny 7 October attack at council meeting (The Independent)

Denial of Hamas' October 7 Massacre Is Gaining Pace Online (Haaretz)

Quoting notable voices and subject matter experts on the topic, especially published in credible RS, properly attributed as their opinion is standard practice across WP. These would qualify, properly attributed as opinion.

• Jill Filipovic
• Gideon Levy
• Views of Jewish organizations
• Jeffrey Sonnenfeld

More than notable topic. Longhornsg (talk) 20:25, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

@Longhornsg: - thank you for finding sources. starship.paint (RUN) 23:27, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Sigh, who's going to do the deletion discussion? The title is wrong as well, another 7 October branding effort.Selfstudier (talk) 19:02, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Some or most of those sources are indeed reliable. But what's your point? The reliable source Irish Times article is quoting what? Statements by the Israeli ambassador to Ireland! Hardly objective. Textbook WP:MANDY, in fact. Bastun 00:01, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

MANDY is an essay, not policy. And of course we include official statements of opinions not as a statement of fact, but to capture all relevant POV. See “but hamas denied X” on WP articles throughout this topic. Longhornsg (talk) 00:05, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

I honestly have no idea what turning October 7 into a brand means. Longhornsg (talk) 00:13, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

What is a 7 October branding effort? Zanahary (talk) 07:42, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

The ongoing argument that it is a commonname and something WP should be using in article titles. Selfstudier (talk) 09:56, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Better article name?

Any suggestions? (1) Denial related to the 7 October attack? (2) Denial of aspects of the 7 October attack? starship.paint (RUN) 23:26, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Don’t see a problem with the current title, which is clearly WP:COMMONNAME in RS Longhornsg (talk) 00:26, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Puzzled if this is clearly COMMON then why did you comment even if they don't use the exact phrase "denial of October 7". above Longhornsg? starship.paint (RUN) 01:09, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

The title is simple, gets the point across, and is not inaccurate. It’s correct use of English, the clausal phrase is commonly used in a general sense. Drsruli (talk) 03:34, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

7 October is the date of 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel (which an editor has put up an RM to change to 7 October attacks but currently looks as if it is not going to change).

Then we have UNRWA October 7 controversy which should be Alleged UNRWA involvement in the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel (RM ongoing).

Now have this article which if it deserves to exist at all (see Talk:2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel#Denialism should be Denialism in the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel.

Selfstudier (talk) 12:03, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

The current title is flawed by way of ambiguity. I don't believe anyone has denied that the attacks took place, and the "denial", when and where it is phrased as such in sources, pertains only to certain aspects or characteristics of the attacks, not the attacks as a whole. As had been noted, there is doubt as to whether the page should exist at all, but if it does, it should be under a clear, precise title, not a conflating one. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:45, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Plenty of RS report on the topic of denial that the attacks took place, and use the article title. Editors can choose to pretend these don’t exist and are free to nominate for AfD. Longhornsg (talk) 13:49, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Just tryin to decide AfD or RM is all. No rush. Selfstudier (talk) 17:37, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

the reason for AfD being? Longhornsg (talk) 17:49, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Most of the sources speak about instances of denial not denialism as a subject. Selfstudier (talk) 17:50, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

I assume the intent is to put denial of the attack on the same level as Holocaust denial but there is clearly no comparison. Selfstudier (talk) 18:13, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Scholars and RS are making that comparison. We'll use that, not your opinion. Longhornsg (talk) 18:58, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Who denies that Palestinian militants breached Israel's southern perimeter fence, and which sources? Iskandar323 (talk) 18:43, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

That's not all "denial" means. If we look at Holocaust denial, to which scholars and researchers are comparing the phenomenon of October 7 denialism, it doesn't just mean "the Holocaust didn't happen", but also making false claims related to size, culpable party, and method of extermination. Is someone who says only 300k people died in the Holocaust, not considered a Holocaust denier? That would be quite the stirring news to scholars in this field. Nakba denial does not just mean saying "750k Palestinian Arabs were not uprooted from their homes", but per the WP article the "denial of a distinct Palestinian identity, the theory that Palestine was barren land, and the theory that Palestinian dispossession were part of mutual transfers between Arabs and Jews justified by war." I guess then only someone denying that the population displacement occurs would qualify? Besides, we go by what RS say, not editor's opinions, and RS cited above and in the article use "October 7 denial" to properly encompass the full scale of mendacious claims about what happened that day. Longhornsg (talk) 18:57, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Definitely leaning toward AfD now. Selfstudier (talk) 19:00, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Should it by some misfortune survive, then we will deal with the name. Selfstudier (talk) 19:01, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

AfD'd. Selfstudier (talk) 19:08, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

I suspect there are not any scholarly sources delineating this subject in the manner you speak of as of yet, or really any sources of any kind dealing with it in this sort of analytical capacity. Also, "Holocaust" is a discrete term for an event, while "7 October" is not a discrete term for an event, but a date in which a range of variously described events took place. Aside from the inherent ambiguity the current term presents, it also implies that there is a single, semi-coherent definition and/or narrative of events that is then in turn the subject of denialism - this for a set of events upon which the dust has not even yet settled, let alone become subject to study. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:22, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

9/11, 7/7, 11M are discrete names for an event, like October 7. Again, the topic of denialism does not focus on questioning a narrative, but making false claims that are not up for question, like "did civilians die" or "actually Israel did this." Longhornsg (talk) 19:43, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

There are reasons why those are discrete names and October 7 is and will not be. See 2023 Hamas attack on Israel where the effort to alter the title is not going through. Selfstudier (talk) 20:18, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Times of Israel reference

Currently, this article from the Times of Israel is used as a reference no less than 12 times throughout the article. Is this due? The article:

• Introduces the concept of denialism in the opening paragraph, stating that what denialism means are the claims that October 7 was a false flag operation.
• It then goes on to discuss Holocaust denialism, antisemitism, and attacks on Jewish and Israeli people prior to October 7, for fifteen paragraphs, with no mention of denial of October 7.
• The 16th paragraph then mentions October 7: "And in government meetings such as the city council meeting in Oakland, California, last November, people denied the attack’s occurrence." This text links to a YouTube video of a council meeting, 1.5 minutes in total duration, where 1m12s of the video shows nine members of the public discussing a motion "affirming Oakland's support for the Congressional and worldwide calls for immediate ceasefire in Gaza." The meeting apparently lasted hours, so this is obviously highly edited, and contains the following statements from the public:
  • "There were no beheadings of babies" (I believe this to be factual); and accusation that it was a false flag operation.
  • Three statements in support of Palestine and/or Hamas (none denying anything)
  • A statement saying the IDF were responsible for deaths (there was mainstream press coverage at the time stating that some deaths were indeed caused by the IDF, and the other main reference in the article also repeats the claim, saying it comes from Israeli citizens and that the IDF are investigating); but I don't know if the speaker was talking about this, or making a false flag claim.
  • Another four statements in support of Palestine and/or Hamas (none denying anything)
• The next paragraph quotes Jennifer Evans, as the moderator of a panel, stating that the denialism of both the Holocaust and October 7 fits into a troubling trend. (No direct quote.)
• The remaining four paragraphs talk again about Holocaust denialism.

So - that reference is doing a lot of heavy lifting. I'm not sure it should be used for anything more than the sentences: "(Claims include) The attack was a "false flag" operation" and "Jennifer V. Evans has tied the denialism surrounding October 7 to Holocaust denial, which surged online after October 7". I'm also proposing to remove "disputed the veracity of the attack at local government meetings." as WP:UNDUE. Thoughts? Bastun 15:53, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

TNT?

An encyclopaedic article about a denial of something should focus on the phenomenon, its causes, occurrence, mechanisms, explanations, psychological/sociological mechanisms, and so on.

In its current form, this article is just a collection of press clippings about instances when various people questioned all or parts of the 7/10 attack. The article essentially synthesises these individual views to create an impression that a "7/10 denial" is an actual concept, separate from (1) the normal denial of uncomfortable facts, and (2) standard political narrative (no political leader ever says, "we deliberately kill civilians").

Unless we have quality academic material, I suggest the current article is, at best, draftified. — kashmīrī  13:33, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Best comment at the deletion discussion. Selfstudier (talk) 14:01, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

The worst part of the article is that the lede contains only strawman arguments:

• October 7 didn't occur
• no civilians were killed
• etc...

...i.e. nonsense that no-one except the fringe-of-the-fringe-of-the-fringe might believe...

...whereas the underlying sources cited throughout are almost all about the specific areas of wide public dispute:

• were the civilian killings intentional as part of an explicit strategy directed by the Hamas leadership
• were there really mass rapes, again as part of an explicit strategy directed by the Hamas leadership
• were babies hung on clothes lines, put in ovens and beheaded

It feels like the strawmen positions in the lede are intended to given the article a false legitimacy, and to position those who dispute the Israeli narrative as outside the Overton window. Onceinawhile (talk) 14:32, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

The claims in the lede are the false claims that RS are reporting on, which as you correctly point out no one except the far reaches of the fringes would doubt...except some are, which is what the RS are providing coverage.

I'm not seeing anywhere in this article that says that denial includes questioning the official Israeli narrative, what Hamas's strategy may or may not have been, or the manner in which people were killed, nor would that be in scope anyway.

I don't see how "denying that any civilians were killed" = disputing the Israeli narrative is denialism. Longhornsg (talk) 19:36, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

One needs RS that treat denialism as the subject, not a random assortment of claims denying one thing or another, otherwise I can make any article Denial of (insert something here) and collect up reports of random denials of same. Selfstudier (talk) 19:45, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

The core of the article body is the section "Denial claims". If you read it carefully you will see that the sources cited there are mostly disputing the details (e.g. the last three bullets in my post above), whereas the article's summary of those sources frequently misstates them to make them look like strawman denials (e.g. the first two bullets in my post above).

For example, the sources in that section don't state that people have denied "that any civilians were killed"; what they describe is a dispute over matters such as whether the civilian killings were part of a Hamas pre-planned strategy, whether they were killed by Hamas vs. other Palestinians, the scale of the civilian killings by Hamas vs. by Israel as part of Hannibal directive-type orders, the scale of atrocities with children or women etc.

Thus the lede is incongruent with the body of the article.

Onceinawhile (talk) 19:53, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

I’m not aware of an “official Israeli narrative”. There are facts that are well established in reliable sources. Drsmoo (talk) 20:09, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you can't tell facts from propaganda. You might like to read more about it. War propaganda is a good place to start, followed by more in-depth studies, e.g. or . — kashmīrī  20:15, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

I’m referring to facts established by reliable sources that are being denied by some on the fringes. Calling established facts an “Israeli narrative” is not ok. Drsmoo (talk) 20:32, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

The problem is that a lot of facts have not been established (yet). What percentage of victims were killed by Israeli friendly fire, for instance? If someone says that that it was 15% and another person says 40%, would that be a "denial of established facts"? Sure, the Israeli official narrative is that Hamas is responsible for 100% of deaths. But what's the reality? Can you challenge the narrative without being labelled a "fringe" by ones like you? — kashmīrī  20:39, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

I’m referring to facts. I also strongly advise you to strike the “ones like you” comment. Drsmoo (talk) 20:54, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Actually, please explain exactly what you mean by “ones like you”. Drsmoo (talk) 20:55, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

I read it to mean "editors who will not acknowledge that propaganda exists on both sides of every conflict". Onceinawhile (talk) 20:57, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Kashmiri made the personal attack, while you are creating your own, they can answer for themselves.

@Drsmoo: You literally labelled those who challenge or question war propaganda as "those on the fringes". You might owe an apology to quite a few people. — [[User:Kashmiri|<span

Strawmen regarding narratives and propaganda have no relevance to facts established by reliable sources. Drsmoo (talk) 21:06, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Yor unfaltering belief in "facts established by reliable sources", in the midst of a war propaganda, is amusing. — kashmīrī  03:12, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

style="color:#30c;font:italic bold 1em 'Candara';text-shadow:#aaf 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em;">kashmīrī]]  03:00, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't notice that you AfD'ed the article between the time I started drafting my comment and the time I clicked the Publish button. Commented there. — kashmīrī  19:57, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

• WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration articles