Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denial of the 7 October attacks: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 04:08, 5 February 2024

Denial of the 7 October attacks

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article does not deal with a notable subject, merely instances of denial. Selfstudier (talk) 19:08, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Note that the article 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel contains no mention of this.Selfstudier (talk) 19:12, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Israel and Palestine. Shellwood (talk) 19:24, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Page appears to be a collation of anecdotal material alongside some polls, but it does not appear to represent a subject based on secondary analytical sources that seriously discuss it as a cohesive, established topic. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:42, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. There's a body of secondary coverage in RS that seriously discuss it as a cohesive, established topic. These are those which discuss denial as a topic, in addition to many others that discuss instances. Many RS, including those cited in the article use "October 7 denial" to properly encompass the full scale of mendacious claims about what happened that day.

* Growing Oct. 7 ‘truther’ groups say Hamas massacre was a false flag

* Holocaust denial finds new life in Oct. 7 revisionism

* Are conspiracy theories about Oct. 7 a new form of Holocaust denial? Experts weigh in

* Denial of Hamas' October 7 Massacre Is Gaining Pace Online

* Levin vows to outlaw denial of Hamas atrocities

* Anger as Oakland residents defend Hamas and deny 7 October attack at council meeting

* Israel shows footage of Hamas killings ‘to counter denial of atrocities'

* Queens College president condemns Muslim student group’s denial of Hamas attacks

* For most Palestinians, October 7’s savagery is literally unbelievable. Blame the TV news?

* US Jewish groups found ‘The 10/7 Project’ to fight denial of Hamas atrocities

* '26 million people' view social media posts denying Hamas attack on Israel

User:Longhornsg

Without doing original research, which of the sources explicitly talk about the so-called "Denial of the 7 October attacks"? --Mhhossein ^talk 20:00, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is OR -- material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published source exists -- here? Please read the RS, which explicitly cover the topic. If we look at Holocaust denial, to which scholars and researchers are comparing the phenomenon of October 7 denialism, Holocaust denial doesn't only include claims that "the Holocaust didn't happen", but also false claims related to size, culpable party, and method of extermination. A claim that only 300k people died in the Holocaust, would be labeled by scholars and RS as Holocaust denial? Nakba denial does not only explicitly include making the claim that "750k Palestinian Arabs were not uprooted from their homes", but per the WP article, a range of charges that are not denial that the Nakba occurred, including 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? Denial of the 7 October attacks, as RS discuss the topic, includes false claims that the attack on Israel did not occur, it was a false flag operation by Israel, was exaggerated, etc. I'm using how RS discuss the topic, which is what we should go by. User:Longhornsg (talk) 20:07, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IF you think there are problems in other articles needing attention from editors, please convey your concerns to the associated talk pages. Then you can go ahead by quoting the portions where the denial is 'explicitly' covered in a reliable source. --Mhhossein ^talk 08:53, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

??? Between the sources cited here and those already in the article, the topic more than meets GNG Longhornsg (talk) 09:57, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is not how GNG established. The denial of 7 oct attacks should have "Significant coverage" among reliable sources, which is not the case now. Significant coverage is defined as the coverage "directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content." Moreover, WP:VERIFY necessitates the inclusion of "an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material". It means that the insertion of sources which are tangentially related to the topic does not show the general notability. The article currently suffer from WP:SYNTH simply because time should pass so the title receives direct and in-depth coverage by the reliable sources. --Mhhossein ^talk 20:20, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:GNG as shown by Longhornsg --Shrike (talk) 20:10, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:33, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete mainly under the pretense of WP:STARTOVER, if not merge into a subsection of the October 7 attacks page and Holocaust denial. The initial article was essentially an essay citing opinion pieces as facts, and equated justification of the attacks as outright denial of them, along with arguably racist blanket generalizations of Palestinians regarding their support of the attacks. Even the second source in the article - the Times of Israel one - doesn't back up the definitions of denialism listed in the article. While there are some great sources/articles on denialism so far (esp. this WaPo one and this Times of Israel one), even many of the sources stated by Longhornsg mention Oct 7 denialism as the reason for an increase in Holocaust denial.

I don't see enough RS available at the moment to keep this page up at the moment. Maybe down the line, whenever the effects of denialism is better studied, sure, but right now the article is scraping the bottom of the barrel for scattered incidents of Oct 7 denial in the news, conflating justification of the attacks with denialism at various points, and every article mentioning large-scale denial of the attacks leads into how that denial is part of a rise in Holocaust denialism. Jebiguess (talk) 20:54, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Jebiguess. If long term, more reputable sources become available discussing in depth denial of the attacks we can remake the page, but for now as said above and on the article talk page there isn't enough there, and the article is heavily breaching WP:NPOV with its comments on Palestinians especially. We can add a paragraph to the October 7 attacks page with the few good sources. CoconutOctopus talk 21:01, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel, preferably using the sources found by Longhornsg. There's no need for it to have its own article at the time, but keep the option of a future WP:SIZESPLIT. As usual, I look forward to the pro-Israel SPAs desperately trying to keep this article around and the pro-Palestine SPAs desperately trying to get rid of it because neither of them are interested in building an encyclopedia. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:10, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as an WP:ATD per Thebiguglyalien. Yeah, all the SPAs are gonna be fun with this one. As for the article, I do think that the sources are good, but for its own article, the content spread feels weak. Conyo14 (talk) 23:10, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: Sources 1, 15 and to a lesser extent 8 are about this subject. Rest appear to stretch the truth to suit the narrative... Oaktree b (talk) 23:24, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not seeing that, 1 is an article from the tech editor about people on the internet linked to Holocaust denial, the second is disinfo about 40 beheaded babies and the third is about a Hamas propaganda document. Selfstudier (talk) 10:09, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Jebiguess and WP:TNT. Failing that, merge to a section in 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel. As it stands, the article clearly breaches WP:NPOV, and, while I can understand why the article creator feels the way they do, they have form for ignoring that policy. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 00:30, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article is in a quite different space than how the creator left it. NPOV concerns (please articulate what those currently are) are not a reason for deletion. Longhornsg (talk) 09:59, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not a fan of TNT arguments anyways, but the "tipping point" for TNT is if the article's content is useless (including all the versions in history) but the title might be useful, then delete the content to help encourage a new article. Clearly this article does not meet TNT, and its topic meets GNG. Zanahary (talk) 07:40, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Longhornsg and Zanahary. ManOnTheMoon92 (talk) 07:53, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Zanhary says the article meets GNG without explaining why. On the other hand, Longhornsg, who has been cited by multiple editors here, has not shown how the offered sources can be used to reach the WP:GNG. --Mhhossein ^talk 09:04, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which sources meet GNG? Selfstudier (talk) 10:12, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete: as WP:POVFORK, in which the article title and content appears designed to suggest that the facts as presented by Israel regarding October 7 are beyond dispute. There has still been no third party validation of the version of events provided by Israel (e.g. Israel forbids doctors from speaking to UN group investigating Oct. 7 atrocities) and the Israeli investigation has barely begun (e.g. Israeli Ministers Come Out Against Internal Probe of Army's Conduct on October 7: Israeli ministers lash out at the army chief of staff over team heading the inquiry into the failures surrounding Hamas' assault. 'We are at war, and this is the time you are starting to investigate?' one said). The facts-and-counterfacts of October 7 are still as we speak being used to justify the killings of a huge number of Gazan people every day, so the well-funded propaganda campaigns are still at their peak and we need to tread very carefully. In time we will know whether it is reasonable or not to "question" the events of October 7, but we are still some way away from that point.

For now, views and counterviews should be integrated throughout the relevant articles. See e.g. Wikipedia:Criticism#Approaches to presenting criticism.

Onceinawhile (talk) 14:10, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:GNG. Plenty of reliable sources discuss October 7 denialism. Just some quick examples, in addition to those provided by Longhornsg.

Marokwitz (talk) 16:24, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Look closely at these sources in this list. It is a mishmash of:

Conspiracy theories regarding the October 7 attacks, i.e. people suggesting false flag or Israeli prior knowledge / letting it happen]
Disputes regarding Atrocities during the October 7 attacks, i.e. whether atrocities were pre-planned, and whether the facts match the Israeli narrative, and
Broader articles about the Propaganda during the Israel-Hamas war.

These three articles would be clear and delinated subjects and thus useful articles. This current one that we are discussing is a mishmash, which by conflating these three topics creates a significant POV skew. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:34, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about historical negationism related to the October 7 attacks. This term comprises outright denial of the events and conspiracy theories aimed at denying or significantly minimizing the responsibility of the perpetrators. According to a survey by the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research (PCPSR), over 90 percent of Palestinians polled believe that "Hamas did not commit the atrocities seen in the videos" on October 7, which is why "Denial of the October 7 attacks" is a notable topic and the subject of intense discussion within reliable sources. Marokwitz (talk) 20:03, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Marokwitz: Just because 70% of polled Americans once believed that Saddam Hussain was behind 9/11,[1] are you arguing that Wikipedia should automatically create an article titled Iraqi involvement in 9/11, focusing on random quotes? — kashmīrī ^TALK 20:09, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, an article about 9/11 denial is the correct analogy. That article scope is defined as "a set of overlapping conspiracy theories that dispute the general consensus of the September 11 attacks that a group of Al-Qaeda terrorists had hijacked four airliners and crashed them into the Pentagon and the original World Trade Center Twin Towers, which consequently collapsed. ". Marokwitz (talk) Marokwitz (talk) 20:14, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Marokwitz: What would you make the equivalent summary scope of this article? Then we can decide whether (a) that specific scope is supported by WP:GNG, or (b) how significant would the amendments to the current article content need to be. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:33, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Marokwitz: It's not a page about historical negationism, because no learned papers or history books yet cover the topic area, let alone historiographical works analysing such works for negationism. Your comment and its misuse of formal terms adds to the sense that what we are seeing here is an attempt to will a topic into existence under the given title when in fact there is no such established topic. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:20, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Clearly notable per reliable sources documented above. That users are disputing the well-documented atrocities even in this discussion is all the more reason why the article is relevant. Drsmoo (talk) 18:16, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where, exactly, in this discussion are users disputing the well-documented atrocities? Be specific, with diffs. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 19:09, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drsmoo, it's been over 24 hours now, and you still have not provided diffs to justify your accusation that users are disputing the well-documented atrocities even in this discussion. Would you care to strike that personal attack? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 21:13, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If it’s a personal attack then I’ll strike it, I just don’t see how? How is it derogatory? And if it is derogatory, wouldn’t it only be a personal attack If I directed it towards a person by linking to their diffs? Drsmoo (talk) 21:25, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have accused editors of this page of "disputing well-documented atrocities." Nobody actually did that, but you've literally accused people of being denialists of a terrorist attack. Of course that's a personal attack! No, it wouldn't be a personal attack if, and only if, you'd supplied diffs. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:52, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Systematic and widespread sexual violence/rape is well attested in highly reliable sources. Multiple users posting in this article’s talk page have not only disputed whether this occurred, they’ve called the reliable sources that investigated it “propaganda”. Drsmoo (talk) 23:18, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

An encyclopaedic article about denial of something should focus on a well-defined phenomenon, its causes, psychological/sociological mechanisms, explanations, frequency, and so on, based on quality social and psychological studies. Sensational press clippings don't really cut it. For me, the current writeup can only be TNT'ed or, at best, draftified. — kashmīrī ^TALK 19:55, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep As above. Denial is mentioned in the lede of nearly every article on related topics. Drsruli (talk) 23:47, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Denial is mentioned in the lede, but not in the actual basis. Most sources refer to Oct 7 denial as a rationale for Holocaust denial. Jebiguess (talk) 19:42, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (regular, not weak or strong). Let's start with the undisputed fact that 7 October denial is a thing. Next, based on the impressive amount of sources it should be concluded that is also a notable thing under the GNG. That much is important but still insufficient for a keep. Examing this article in the context of similar articles, it should be concluded that the denial article is a legitimate spinoff of Misinformation in the Israel–Hamas war#"False flag" conspiracy theories. The section and article should be better integrated. I have added a link that will be a first step. As a notable, legitimate, and necessary SPINOFF, this article should be kept. gidonb (talk) 20:32, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn’t notices that Misinformation article. Having read it there I feel even more strongly about my delete vote:
- you assert “the denial article is a legitimate spinoff” but provide no rationale.
- why not call this False flag conspiracy theories regarding the October 7 attacks rather than trying to combine it with other unrelated elements of the dispute? Onceinawhile (talk) 20:44, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad I could introduce you to new information! It's very important to understand information in context.

Your question if the name of the article should change relates to my comment The section and article should be better integrated. I was thinking perhaps a rename of the "False flag" conspiracy theories section to "Denial of the 7 October attacks" but hadn't thought this through yet. There are other options. For example, conspiracy theories on both ends. That's common and could be more NPOV. Yet it seems that people just deny these atrocities ever happened, also without conspiracy or false flag theories. That would speak in favor of denial again. In the end, this is an editorial decision that could be debated here or on a talk page.

Regarding the rationale or need for having this SPINOFF, it should have been implied above but I'm happy to make it more explicit. Thank you for this opportunity! Misinformation in the Israel–Hamas war deals with a wide range of issues that do tie together. These 7 October consparicies/denial are one small topic therein. Since so much has been written on this topic, it is notable under the GNG. Yet who says that it cannot be contained in the parent article? We often merge notable content! People, who know me from other AfDs, know I'm big on that. It's exactly what I meant here: That much is important but still insufficient for a keep. Well, since Misinformation in the Israel–Hamas war deals with such a broad range of issues and so much has been written in sources and at WP about these conspiracy theories/denial, we must have a spinoff. The reason is simple: if we would merge the content of Denial of the 7 October attacks into the Misinformation article, WAY TOO MUCH of the content of the misinformation article would be about one type of misinformation and that article would no longer be balanced over the entire range of issues that it covers. Briefly put, we would knock it entirely out of whack!

Let me know if I missed anything and if my position now is clear to you. I had read your opinion and saw that you think that the article is a povfork. That would be a concern, however, you did not explain a povfork of what. Maybe something you can elaborate upon (or reconsider) under your own position, so to strengthen your own argument. As explained, I view the article as a SPINOFF, not as a povfork, and a legitimate and even necessary SPINOFF at that. gidonb (talk) 21:48, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gidonb: in summary your three paragraphs say simply "[a merger would mean that] WAY TOO MUCH of the content of the misinformation article would be about [denial]". Let's check that in numbers:

Denial of the 7 October attacks - 1122 words, of which about 120 words are generic text about the conflict
Misinformation in the Israel–Hamas war - 4328 words, of which the section "False flag" conspiracy theories is 357 words (8% of the article)

So if we were to put this entire denial article into the misinformation article we would be at c.5000 words, of which about 1000 words would be from the denial article (20%).

I think 20% is entirely appropriate.

By the way, perhaps the best illustration of the real problem with this article is its sentence By January 2024, there was a small, but growing group that denied basic facts of the attacks and spread falsehoods and misleading narratives... An NPOV version of that sentence would instead be ...small groups on both sides either denied basic facts or invented and exaggerated facts regarding the attacks and spread falsehoods and misleading narratives... I.e., as is well documented, there are two sides to the propaganda. This NPOV version fits well into a misinformation article, and is much more consistent with the intentions of Wikipedia as a project.

Onceinawhile (talk) 11:23, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So for the second part, AFDISNOTCLEANUP but that was only your BTW. Let me get back to you on the merge! gidonb (talk) 18:04, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Novel, and entirely ridiculous, theory. Selfstudier (talk) 20:47, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion is not a theory. It's an opinion. Since your response confuses my opinion for a theory, then adds adjectives, then nothing, it's not something that can be answered on the merits. As I always try. Next time, please try to make a point (any) even if you "must" (although it's better not) also share your negative emotions. gidonb (talk) 23:45, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I refer to the theory that this is a spinoff from the Misinformation article. Selfstudier (talk) 10:54, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's my opinion about where this information fits, yes. Now if I go back to the intro, you compared this information directly to 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel and ignored the fact that we have a whole range of articles with more detailed information. Very important, as information could have needed to merge there. In fact I did your due dilligence as nominator for you. I checked if there is a place where this should be merged (or redirected) even though there was no serious discussion of such options in the intro. gidonb (talk) 14:36, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would the closer kindly take note that this editor has removed a properly placed notability tag at the article with the edit summary "being debated" (which i.s of course why the tag was placed to begin with) Selfstudier (talk) 21:21, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By all means. My edit has been undone. It's a principled position regardless of whether I want to keep or delete. People slack way too many warnings on articles, usually when they want to delete. When I nominate, I remove excessive warnings so there is a good chance for the opposite position to be adopted. The nominator should convince in the opining. There I count just 12 words and a few more in a comment that was later added below. You will not convince by making the debate unpleasant for those who agree to share their thoughts. gidonb (talk) 02:00, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (Note, I write the article). The topic is widely covered and is based on diverse and reliable sources. As usual, I invite those who think the article is not good enough to improve it.Eladkarmel (talk) 09:23, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or merge in to the main article if anything is salvageable. This is a WP:POVFORK of the main article that relies on a comparative tiny handful of sources to perform WP:SYNTHESIS. Of the sources in the article, only three sources (the Washington Post, ynet, and the Times of Israel) use the word "denial"; the ynet coverage is just a brief note that the Washington Post coverage exists.) Two of these sources are WP:BIASED ones; we cannot base an entire article on just that. Likewise, the sources listed above cover a wide variety of views that can't be easily combined into a single article without synthesis, including conspiracy theories about the attack as a whole; people who deny, downplay, or dispute specific atrocities, which in turn can range from denial of things that clearly took place to disputes over aspects where the truth or magnitude remains unclear; and broader coverage of propaganda on the topic. Few of the sources actually combine this into a singular topic - the lists of sources above reads like a news source for every usage of the word "denial", which isn't a useful base for a Wikipedia article. "Denial" and "denialism" are also extremely strong terms that we'd want high-quality sourcing to back up, with special care to avoid over-reliance on a mixture of sources that leans towards any one bias; right now, most of the sources are recent news articles, many of which are from WP:BIASED sources. When we make sweeping accusations of historical negationism in the article voice or title like this, encompassing a wildly disparate and far-ranging array of totally distinct claims, we want to be absolutely sure we know precisely what the academic consensus is and which views the academic consensus supports describing that way, which in turn requires being extremely specific about what views we're focusing on. None of that is present here, at least not yet. --Aquillion (talk) 11:45, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fully agree, and well-worded. Jebiguess (talk) 19:38, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. asking for deletion with the reason of "merely instances" is not seeing the wood for the trees. TaBaZzz (talk) 12:22, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the article was about the wood, we wouldn't be here. — kashmīrī ^TALK 12:55, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
of course you wouldn't TaBaZzz (talk) 13:27, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep as discussed by LonghornSG, Zanahary and others, but there are some legitimate concerns about quality which should be addressed appropriately. FortunateSons (talk) 14:08, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Extremely important topic as per Longhornsg, Marokwitz, Gidonb, Eladkarmel and others. Denying this dramatic event or minimizing the horrendous atrocities committed by Hamas - raping and committing other sexual and gender based crimes, beheading, torturing, burning people alive, mutilating bodies and indiscriminately killing more that 1000 civilians - is similar to denying the Holocaust. Quality is a different issue. GidiD (talk) 16:42, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We know what Holocaust denial is, we just don't know what 7 October denial is, just something made up. Selfstudier (talk) 17:04, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GidiD: Before you asserting a position on what is and isn't denial, perhaps you should first get your basic facts straight. The current count of civilians killed in the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel is 766 – and if you're inaccurate on that lone item of presented quantitative information, I wonder what we should make of your more qualitative assertions. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:21, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The main reason for the article's deletion isn't because anyone here is outright denying the attacks, it is because the article has extremely shoddy sourcing and can't seem to define how or what denialism is. Not to mention, most links attribute October 7 denial not as a separate entity, but instead as a rationale for an increase in Holocaust denial. Jebiguess (talk) 19:37, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Denying any horrible event can be outrageous. But we are an encyclopaedia, not a Sunday sermon. — kashmīrī ^TALK 19:54, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Going through these comments here, I think we should start an article titled Denial of the Gaza genocide. Then, in case someone takes it to AfD, we'll be able to repeat some of the same arguments to keep it. — kashmīrī ^TALK 19:44, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely. Selfstudier (talk) 19:45, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is not the same at all, since claiming the October 7 attacks didn't happen or were a false flag operation is a fringe view not held by any reliable source, while the question of whether a genocide occurred in Gaza is an active debate. Marokwitz (talk) 19:58, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the current article is not the subject of an active debate if that's what you mean. Selfstudier (talk) 20:00, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy you agree. This is not a debate between reliable sources, as there is clear consensus that atrocities took place, and there is no serious dispute that this was a surprise attack and not a false flag operation. Marokwitz (talk) 20:56, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's irrelevant. My point was that a lot of arguments are not based on factual analyses or the existence of the subject, but instead can be summarised as "it's so outrageous that we must keep it". — kashmīrī ^TALK 00:00, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Except that it's undeniable that the October 7th attacks occurred and they are presented in Wikivoice everywhere on Enwiki, while the so-called "Gaza genocide" is a WP:FRINGE viewpoint that is not presented in Wikivoice anywhere on Enwiki. JM (talk) 22:34, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh really? So it must have been a shock for you when the top UN court decided that that "fringe theory" is plausible.[2] — kashmīrī ^TALK 00:02, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or merge Though the only substantive mergeable content appears to be the very fringe belief that the event didn't occur or was a 'false flag'. This is a WP:POVFORK of the main article that relies on a comparative tiny handful of sources to perform WP:SYNTHESIS per Aquillion, and the article title and content appears designed to suggest that the facts as presented by Israel regarding October 7 are beyond dispute, per Onceinawhile. It's about something that cannot yet even be defined, let alone been analysed to any degree. Too many details are still unknown to tell what is 'denialism' and what proper scepticism.Pincrete (talk) 20:43, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Longhornsg and Marokwitz. They have shown that there is extensive coverage of the denial, therefore it should have an article. JM (talk) 22:32, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel. May be notable based on other people, but at a quick glance, I don’t think that it is ready to have its own article. Also tagged for neutrality, so the article needs to be blown up. Brachy08 _(Talk) 01:45, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If we blew up every article and section that was ever tagged for neutrality we would have few if any articles in any CTOPs. JM (talk) 01:58, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify or Weak Keep I think the article is notable enough that it should get it's own page but right now it has some issues. Far too much of the article is about reactions and not enough about the denial phenomenon itself, if that makes sense. Swordman97 ^{talk to me} 04:05, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That being said I heavily oppose this article getting deleted. I don't see any POVFORK or SYNTH issues like the commenters above are saying. Swordman97 ^{talk to me} 04:08, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 127: / Line 127: @@
 *:If we blew up every article and section that was ever tagged for neutrality we would have few if any articles in any CTOPs. [[User:JM2023|JM]] ([[User talk:JM2023|talk]]) 01:58, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * '''Draftify''' or '''Weak Keep''' I think the article is notable enough that it should get it's own page but right now it has some issues. Far too much of the article is about reactions and not enough about the denial phenomenon itself, if that makes sense. [[User:Swordman97|<span style="color:green;">Swordman97</span>]] [[User talk:Swordman97|<sup>talk to me</sup>]] 04:05, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
+*:That being said I heavily oppose this article getting deleted. I don't see any POVFORK or SYNTH issues like the commenters above are saying. [[User:Swordman97|<span style="color:green;">Swordman97</span>]] [[User talk:Swordman97|<sup>talk to me</sup>]] 04:08, 5 February 2024 (UTC)