Jump to content

Talk:Denial of the 7 October Hamas-led attack on Israel

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

NPOV sourcing

[edit]

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)[reply]

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

There are serious issues here.

  1. In the realm of WP:RSOPINION and WP:USERG. Opinion articles [1] [2] [3] [4] and blogs [5] 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 [6] 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 [7] and one news article [8] 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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Israeli humanitarian aid to Gaza. Deletion for this article might also be appropriate - Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:04, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote before, and I write now. Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia). Eladkarmel (talk) 12:53, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Note, I removed even more opinion articles. One and Two. starship.paint (RUN) 14:30, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 14:14, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from attacking other editors. This isn't WP:CIVIL. Longhornsg (talk) 19:53, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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).
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)[reply]
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.
More than notable topic. Longhornsg (talk) 20:25, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Longhornsg: - thank you for finding sources. starship.paint (RUN) 23:27, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 00:01, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
I honestly have no idea what turning October 7 into a brand means. Longhornsg (talk) 00:13, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is a 7 October branding effort? Zanahary (talk) 07:42, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Better article name?

[edit]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
7 October Attacks (and similar) has established as the standard reference in RS, at least from my survey of those around me, TNYT and etc. Drsruli (talk) 20:58, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Was discussed in 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel and seems that is not the case. Selfstudier (talk) 21:34, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also replying in the middle of an ongoing discussion after 20 days? Selfstudier (talk) 21:35, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Just tryin to decide AfD or RM is all. No rush. Selfstudier (talk) 17:37, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the reason for AfD being? Longhornsg (talk) 17:49, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the sources speak about instances of denial not denialism as a subject. Selfstudier (talk) 17:50, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Scholars and RS are making that comparison. We'll use that, not your opinion. Longhornsg (talk) 18:58, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Who denies that Palestinian militants breached Israel's southern perimeter fence, and which sources? Iskandar323 (talk) 18:43, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Definitely leaning toward AfD now. Selfstudier (talk) 19:00, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Should it by some misfortune survive, then we will deal with the name. Selfstudier (talk) 19:01, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AfD'd. Selfstudier (talk) 19:08, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Times of Israel reference

[edit]

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? BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:53, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the assessment, it would seem like an extraordinarily weak source for establishing anything other than, yes, the handful of observations that you note. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:56, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TNT?

[edit]

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 TALK 13:33, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

:::::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.[10] or [11]. — kashmīrī TALK 20:15, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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 TALK 20:39, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Actually, please explain exactly what you mean by “ones like you”. Drsmoo (talk) 20:55, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Kashmiri made the personal attack, while you are creating your own, they can answer for themselves.
Strawmen regarding narratives and propaganda have no relevance to facts established by reliable sources. Drsmoo (talk) 21:06, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yor unfaltering belief in "facts established by reliable sources", in the midst of a war propaganda, is amusing. — kashmīrī TALK 03:12, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Facts are facts, if you want to ignore reliable sources because you'd prefer to call atrocities propaganda, then you probably shouldn't be editing on a site based on reliable sources. And yes, denying Hamas committed mass rapes is fringe. Drsmoo (talk) 03:21, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@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. — kashmīrī TALK 03:00, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There were mass rapes. That is a fact, not a narrative. Calling factual atrocities propaganda is unacceptable Drsmoo (talk) 03:17, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Drsmoo: You need to step away from declaring facts in your own voice and back towards the actually useful wiki dialogue process of quoting the sources that you are basing your summation of facts upon. Editors can then actually further their understanding of where you are coming from. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:12, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Iskandar323 Hamas committing mass rape is a fact well established by reliable sources. Drsmoo (talk) 06:50, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Drsmoo: Regardless of the subject and your level of surety about things, you should still provide the sources you are referencing, not just speak like you are your own oracle on a topic. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:35, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't looked into this much. @Drsmoo: great to hear that you have been able to confirm these facts are 100% certain. Please could you provide the sources which:
  • confirms the minimum number of rapes that have been established, perhaps with the names of the victims where available (we need a minimum number in order to 100% confirm the use of the word "mass")
  • confirms that these rapes were ordered by the Hamas leadership as a pre-planned strategy of terror, ideally with the source explaining how they were able to ascertain this (we need this in order to 100% confirm that it was "Hamas committing" these atrocities)
We can then add these much-needed sources to our article Sexual and gender-based violence in the 7 October attack on Israel.
Many thanks. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:40, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
“We need”
Nah. There are reliable sources attesting to widespread, systematic rape. Any WP:OR denials, diy investigations, or claims of “propaganda” are irrelevant. Drsmoo (talk) 11:49, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No sources then. Selfstudier (talk) 11:52, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They’re always in the relevant articles. Drsmoo (talk) 12:04, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looked, couldn't find any to back up your claims here, specifically widespread, systematic, mass rape. Maybe you have some others? Selfstudier (talk) 12:08, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You read my post, did a search, and replied all within four minutes of my posting it, incredible. The sources are already in the relevant articles so this conversation, along with the baseless claims of “propaganda” is entirely irrelevant. Drsmoo (talk) 12:23, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No sources then. Selfstudier (talk) 12:33, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Drsmoo Since you wrote that "Hamas committing mass rape", I'll ask you to provide evidence that the rapists you had in mind were all Hamas functionaries (and not, e.g., affiliated with other militant outfits or just random Palestinian youth). Because I've seen sources that say that many 7/10 attackers were not affiliated with Hamas. See, unless backed by credible evidence, your assertion about mass rapes committed specifically by Hamas amounts to parroting war propaganda. — kashmīrī TALK 12:52, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is the same user who is accusing participants in the AfD of denying the reality of the atrocities committed by Hamas, but who has been silent since being asked to provide diffs. I would not be expecting them to provide evidence for anything, frankly, when they go around making personal attacks like that. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 13:00, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which participants did I accuse? And if noting that users are disputing established sources regarding this subject is impugning those unnamed users, then you must agree that disputing the established sources is itself a negative. Drsmoo (talk) 18:17, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, you didn't specify. It seems to have been a general smear. Why not reply on the AfD page, as you were asked to do? BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 21:22, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
denying Hamas committed mass rapes is fringe … There are reliable sources attesting to widespread, systematic rape.
From The Guardian which certainly doesn't deny that rape probably occurred:
By cross-referencing testimonies given to police, published interviews with witnesses, and photo and video footage taken by survivors and first responders, the Guardian is aware of at least six sexual assaults for which multiple corroborating pieces of evidence exist. Two of those victims, who were murdered, were aged under 18. At least seven women who were killed were also raped in the attack, according to Prof Ruth Halperin-Kaddari, a legal scholar and international women’s rights advocate … Israel’s top police investigations unit, … says it is unable to put a number on how many women and girls suffered gender-based violence. … The New York Times and NBC have both identified more than 30 killed women and girls whose bodies bear signs of abuse, such as bloodied genitals and missing clothes, and according to the Israeli welfare ministry, five women and one man have come forward seeking help for sexual abuse over the past few months. … In the immediate aftermath of the attack, overwhelmed by the sheer number of victims, and the burned or disfigured state of some of the bodies, morgues were preoccupied with identification and did not have the time or capacity to test for sexual assault using rape kits, said the police spokesperson Mirit Ben Mayor. Lack of trained personnel was also a problem: according to the Israeli daily Haaretz, there are only seven forensic pathologists in the entire country. … Most Zaka workers are conservative ultra-Orthodox men: several have said that they “didn’t think of rape at all”.… Our team commander saw several soldiers who were shot on the crotch, intimate parts, vagina or shot in the breasts,” she added.
Even if you ignore the element of not knowing who committed any of these rapes which it is possible to verify to a reasonable level of proof (not surmisal based on bloody clothing/prone position for example, which in itself is no more than an indicator of the possibility of sexual violence or rape) and even if one ignores it being presently unestablishable yet whether these were organised/systematic, rather than 'rogue' occurences, there is widespread disagreement about the number claimed, even by sources who in general terms believe rape occurred. Israel police are avoiding giving a figure (although they must know how many they suspect, how many they find credible, how many have so far been reported). For possibly legitimate reasons, almost certainly nearly no cases will reach the 'courtroom' level of proof, but no forensic examination or collection of evidence means there is no way of anyone -Israeli or otherwise - getting more than a general idea of prevalence. Is six rapes, seven rapes or thirty rapes 'mass rape'? And how many of the acts suspected of being 'gender-based violence', were for example, caused by bullets/grenade fragments/other weapons happening to strike the lower belly? I suspect, in many cases, one would need to be an experienced forensic expert to begin to distinguish deliberate from random violent damage to the pelvic region.
There simpy isn't any certainty among even sympathetic sources as to what the actual level of rape and or intentional sexual violence was. How can anyone deny something that even Israeli police say they can't yet put a figure on? Pincrete (talk) 20:14, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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 TALK 19:57, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Iman Khatib-Yassin guilty of what exactly?

[edit]

Re: Israeli Member of the Knesset Iman Khatib-Yassin said on 5 November 2023 that the attackers on 7 October "didn't slaughter babies and they didn't rape women, at least not in the footage" of a 43 minute video made by the Israeli Defense Forces and shown to Members of the Knesset, but: "If [such actions] happened, it's shameful".

Unless Bearing Witness shows women being raped, or babies being killed (I believe it shows a burnt baby's corpse), what is Khatib-Yassin being accused of denying? Insensitivity perhaps in her phrasing, but not denial. I believe the time she made these remarks was the same time as the "40 beheaded babies" was being widely circulated, so her scepticism was -at least in part- well founded. Pincrete (talk) 06:56, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I've removed the relevant sentences. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:08, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 10 February 2024

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Denial of the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel. There is consensus to be precise and match the parent article. – robertsky (talk) 14:14, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Denial of the 7 October attacks → Denial of 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel – There is no commonname only descriptive and we should be consistent with article titling elsewhere, specifically 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel, which is not specified merely by date and a recent attempt to do so, Talk:2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel#Requested move 26 January 2024 was not successful. Selfstudier (talk) 19:03, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There should be an article about the denial of the genocide too Abo Yemen✉ 15:55, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The section #No consensus AfD below is relevant to this discussion.Selfstudier (talk) 22:51, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Since there has been no consensus to move 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel to "7 October attacks"[12], the only logical option is to move. Therefore, support. — kashmīrī TALK 19:10, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Reflecting the AfD discussion the title needs to be more specific. All the proposed GNG sources advocated at the AfD, and the lede of the article as it continues to stand, focuses only on denial of whether they actually happened rather than denial of any specific claim about them. So a name change needs to remove any confusion about this. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:34, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A better title might be Conspiracy theories about the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:36, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Conspiracy means something else than denial. — kashmīrī TALK 23:06, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Dwoskin's examples (Some argue the ambush was staged by the Israeli military to justify an invasion of Gaza. Others say that some 240 hostages Hamas took into Gaza were actually kidnapped by Israel. Some contend the United States is behind the plot.) are all conspiracy theories. Onceinawhile (talk) 07:03, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Dwoskin is an extremely unreliable source. I was about to start a thread about her a few days ago. She's normally a tech correspondent who has to-date focused essentially on Silicon Valley. Only recently (due to her heritage?) she started touching on the Middle East affairs. I argue that Dwoskin is nowehere near experienced enough, knowledgeable enough, or with access to reliable sources to be quoted in an encyclopaedia. — kashmīrī TALK 12:02, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is patently ridiculous. A long-time, award-winning journalist at a well-regarded reliable source used throughout this encyclopedia is assigned an article by her editor based on her journalistic expertise. To imply that her coverage of this topic is due to her implied heritage is gross. Longhornsg (talk) 21:26, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Award-winning Why misleading? She was not awarded for her Middle Easte related work. It was for her article about... Chinese technology companies. Her Middle Eastern experience appears nil, and her writing is sub-par (in the quote above, all claims are unsubstantiated – no sources, no interviews, no quotes, just pure made-up bs). Your claim that the editor "assigns articles" is a misunderstanading of how journalism works. — kashmīrī TALK 12:10, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The sources cited in this page are using this terminology exactly, for example - "For most Palestinians, October 7's savagery is literally unbelievable. Blame the TV news?", "How the internet is erasing the Oct. 7 Hamas massacre", "Denial of Hamas' October 7 massacre spreads in US", "Israeli Ministerial Committee approves imprisonment for denying Oct. 7", "How Hamas broke through Israel's border defenses during Oct. 7 attack", "Evidence points to systematic use of rape and sexual violence by Hamas in 7 October attacks", "Hamas used horrific sexual violence, raping and mutilating Israeli women and girls on October 7: NYT", "Are conspiracy theories about Oct. 7 a new form of Holocaust denial? Experts weigh in". Marokwitz (talk) 12:03, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That should have gone into the move discussion at Talk:2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel. — kashmīrī TALK 12:10, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Obviously the page title should align/be consistent with the consensus title of the parent, and should not have been created misaligned. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:03, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The proposed is bad English and not the common name. gidonb (talk) 15:39, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I mentioned this below, but I would suggest renaming and / or splitting this to something like one of the following:
1. Conspiracy Theories about the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel
2. Conspiracy theories about the Israel–Hamas War
3. Denial of atrocities in the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel
4. Denial of atrocities in the Israel–Hamas War
5. Disputes over atrocities in the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel
6. Disputes over atrocities in the Israel–Hamas War
Or any of these with "7 October attacks" instead. Of these, I favor the first and either the fourth or last one. My rationale is that there are narrow, specific conspiracy theories about the attacks themselves; but when international sources cover denial of atrocities or disputes over atrocities, they generally focus on the conflict as a whole. When it comes to discussing atrocities, international sources are also generally much less sweeping in their conclusions; many key atrocities (eg. cutting the heads off babies) remain reasonably disputed, so it makes more sense to discuss it as a dispute rather than denial until a clear historical consensus can be cited to high-quality sources without relying too much on ones with any particular bias. Sources exist for any of these six options, of course, especially if we rely too heavily on WP:BIASED sources, but looking at overall coverage, I feel that one and either four or six are more neutral ways to cover the broad topics they fall under. But "anything that is described by anyone at all about denying anything at all about the October 7 attacks" isn't a coherent topic. --Aquillion (talk) 16:09, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. 3 seems like a very good option to me (no. 4 sounds even better, but the article focuses on 7/10). — kashmīrī TALK 12:13, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we go in two steps, first fix the bad current title and then depending on how the conversation below goes, see if it/scope can be improved. Selfstudier (talk) 12:56, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I like choice No. 4. That would broaden the scope of this article, which would not be a bad idea. Coretheapple (talk) 20:59, 17 February 2024 (UTC) Striking out. On second thought, I think the proposed title, while not optimal, makes sense. Coretheapple (talk) 21:49, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. 3. Yes, that is a good idea. I hemmed and hawed but that is the best. Coretheapple (talk) 22:57, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]


The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

No consensus AfD

[edit]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denial of the 7 October attacks was closed as no consensus primarily because those advocating for deletion "have not convincingly demonstrated their case that the article's content is so problematic that deletion is the only reasonable option" and instead relied on assertion albeit with some exceptions. Mea culpa.

Is a second nomination justified? Selfstudier (talk) 19:26, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Selfstudier: One plausible option is to remove the SYNTH portions and use the rest in suitable merger destination. --Mhhossein talk 10:54, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If instead we advocate for a merge, then what is the appropriate target? Selfstudier (talk) 11:52, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • One thing that might help is to discuss the article's topic first. My opinion is that people moved the goalposts a lot in that discussion in a way that made it hard to discuss. In particular, is this an article about:
  • A conspiracy theory that the October 7 attacks simply did not happen at all,
  • A conspiracy theory that the October 7 attacks were a false flag by Israel,
  • Denial of individual atrocities, by Hamas only, that have an unequivocal academic consensus stating that they occurred,
  • Any sort of denial of any sort of allegation of an atrocity, against Hamas only, regardless of whether there is a clear consensus that it occurred,
  • Denial of individual atrocities, by either side, that have an unequivocal academic consensus stating that they occurred,
  • Any sort of denial of any sort of allegation of an atrocity, against either side, regardless of whether there is a clear consensus that it occurred
These are mostly disparate topics (especially the first two vs. the last four), and of course the last four raises POVFORK issues. Clearly establishing which of these the articles' supporters envision could make it easier. The point in the RFC that most frustrated me was when someone who had presented numerous sources about disputes over individual atrocities - including ones that, by my assessment, lack an overall consensus among high-quality sources - argued that the article was only the first two points. If that's the case then we need to remove significant parts of it and get an agreement that the last four points are outside of its scope. If people are unwilling to agree to that then it makes for a more focused and specific objection, either for an RFC to clearly set the article's scope, an RFC to move / retitle the article, or groundwork for another AFD if none of those produce a viable article and the underlying disputes make it clear that the problems can't be solved without deletion. My understanding, based on what was discussed by the article's defenders in the AFD, was that they agreed to shift the focus to solely the first two points, so we should also push for a hard line on that, see if that holds, and see if an article based on solely those two specific points is workable. Another possible option is to push for a rename or split to "Denial of Atrocities in the Israel–Hamas War", which could cover the last four points in a more neutral manner, and perhaps rename this to the other side of the split, "Conspiracy Theories about the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel" (or Israeli-Hamas War) - or words to that effect; there's already another rename proposal above that would affect this. And I have concerns that the article could become a motte and bailey WP:SYNTH article where it basically says "people deny that the attacks took place, which everyone agrees that they did; therefore, anyone who doesn't accept the unverified claims that Hamas cut the heads off of babies is a denialist and guilty of historical negationism", which is a serious problem. --Aquillion (talk) 15:40, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the last four points have received sufficient coverage of note, a "Conspiracy theories about the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel" (or with titles like "Misinformation", "Disinformation") should be created and a merge if still felt necessary taken up then. Though we already have Misinformation in the Israel–Hamas war and a merge into it may also be discussed now. Gotitbro (talk) 06:40, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The motte and bailey analogy is spot on in characterising the problem with this article, the character of many of the current discussions on WP, and the polarised nature of much debate out in the real world. Scepticism about whether individual claims are reasonably proven, or in some instances even reasonably provable - or mere conjecture/supposition, perhaps more of an indicator of prejudice, than of fact, or likelihood are conflated with 'historical denialism', throw in a sprinkling of "#MeToo, always trust the victim" logic (ignoring that nearly all of the victims are dead) - all taking place within the context of a propaganda war in which trading opposing atrocity stories has become the staple diet. So many discussions take place as though every single atrocity story is not only wholly true - regardless of how implausible or unsupported it is - or none of them is true. The '(40) headless babies' is the extreme exemplar of that trend.Pincrete (talk) 06:39, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to work on this article

[edit]

First, I believe that the current title is an improvement over the prior one (with "October 7..."). Next, this article is not a C-class article at present. Far from it. Give me a few days to work on it. I will try to address the numerous tags and poor grammar so that it is C class.

I don't like to rely heavily on Ha'aretz as it is heavily biased. Times of Israel is more balanced but cannot be relied upon much for an article with this subject matter due to WP:NPOV. In the two proposals (one was an Afd and the other a request for merge or name change), numerous articles from sources originating from other places than Israel were suggested. I will peruse them, taking care to check if they are op-eds or blogs.

Since this article was first started, the UN sent a committee with some findings. The 40 beheaded babies was a mis-statement. Hamas definitely released some Go-Pro footage of their activities on October 7. Some living hostages have been released and spoken about violence although I will need to confirm what was said about rape. (From anecdote) I am aware that there are too many people who are convinced that October 7th was a false flag operation entirely committed by Israel in "Apache helicopters" on their own people with Hamas playing no role, so I think the article is worth writing.

My constant guide will be the following: "The result of the move request was: Moved to Denial of the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel. There is consensus to be precise and match the parent article. – robertsky (talk) 14 March 2024"-- FeralOink (talk) 22:48, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison to Nakba denial

[edit]

I've added comparisons to Nakba denial. Let me know if anyone has objections.VR (Please ping on reply) 12:40, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like irrelevant whataboutism. 96.248.86.161 (talk) 10:28, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Denial_of_the_7_October_Hamas-led_attack_on_Israel&oldid=1261862361"