Extended-protected page

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denial of atrocities during the 2023 Hamas attack on Israel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. This has been an extended discussion, featuring a lot of good-faithed contributions from editors with a wide range of viewpoints, and I thank everyone for their collegial participation below in what is obviously a very sensitive topic.

There have been a number of arguments advanced on all sides, but the primary focus as this debate has developed has been around (for those advocating 'keep') that the general notability guideline has been met and that coverage exists in multiple reliable sources, contrasted with a belief (for those advocating 'delete') that an insufficient number of the sources cover the concept of denial of atrocities, and therefore this is a synthesis and constitutes 'original research' as defined by Wikipedia's policies. These two arguments were explored signficantly more than any alternate rationales to keep or delete, and on that basis I have focused my assessment of consensus on these two basis primarily.

Reviewing the discussion, it is clear that the two arguments were both made in good faith and enjoyed some level of support. Critically, neither was disproven by their opponents to the point that they should be disregarded by me as the closer. My assessment of the relative strength of the arguments is that those advocating 'delete' did a better job of refuting the core argument to 'keep', than vice-versa. However, it definitely wasn't completely refuted or disproven, and so I considered it at the next stage of the consensus-reviewing exercise.

Having established that both key arguments to delete or keep are valid in terms of our policies & guidelines and neither was sufficiently refuted to be discarded entirely, I then have to assess the relative support each position has. Ultimately the discussion was deadlocked in the sense that there were competing views, and neither 'side' was willing to budge on their interpretion of P&Gs as they relate to this article. In this situation, the next step is to assess which argument had more support.

On this marker of consensus-finding, I find that the 'delete' rationale had more support from those who explored the subject adequately. To be clear, this is not a head-counting exercise at this point in assessing consensus, and I did indeed apply lower weight to a significant number of comments which did not advance this or any other argument that was relevant. I discounted (note: not "disregarded", but "discounted" - ie. applied reduced weight to) a larger number of 'keep' contributions than I did 'delete' or 'merge' at this stage, as they did not offer an especially compelling rationale for keeping or deleting per our P&Gs. The margin was not as clear as many 'delete' closes we see at AfD, but I found it to be sufficient to allow consensus to be established.

In summary:

  • Both core arguments for keep and delete were presented in good faith and neither was completely refuted or proven to be an unreasonable interpretation
  • However, the 'keep' argument was more significantly countered throughout the discussion, therefore making the 'deletion' argument stronger
  • On the arguments, the 'delete' held slightly more support of those advancing positions that aligned with P&G

On these basis, I find a consensus exists to delete and have subsequently closed the debate as such. Daniel (talk) 07:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Denial of atrocities during the 2023 Hamas attack on Israel

AfDs for this article:

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

Denial of atrocities during the 2023 Hamas attack on Israel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is no significant coverage by reliable sources on a trend of "denial", therefore this does not fulfill WP:Notability. Moreover, this is a collection of supposed "denials" which goes against WP:Original research. And finally, the sources cited are mostly low-quality, such as Hindustan Times, Jewishnews.co.uk, and Radar Online. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:19, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to Merge based on superb suggestion from BlakeIsHereStudios (see timestamp 17:53, 16 November 2023). The Disinformation article can be (and still is, more or less) NPOV; it has a far less incendiary / POV-pushing title; solid RS support that article; and there is already scholarship building around that concept, whereas this one has little more than a collection of one-off denials. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 20:36, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Denials are flying in all directions, of course. That does not make an WP:OR aggregation of news about disparate denials of this, that or the other suddenly its own topic when there is no indication that it is. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:24, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep references include The Economist, The Guardian, CNN, and Times of Israel, and the Jerusalem Post. And the IDF is directly talking about it.
𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊 🇮🇱🇮🇱🇮🇱 ☎️ 📄 23:58, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"And the IDF is directly talking about it." - makes it less credible surely? Iskandar323 (talk) 13:13, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • We're not discussing credibility, we're discussing notability.
𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊 🇮🇱🇮🇱🇮🇱 ☎️ 📄 19:13, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per nom. There is very little in what amounts to credible coverage. Additionally, it's not really encyclopedic and these types of articles lead to a good deal of subjectivity and become battlegrounds. Some of the sources seem to be circular (source A says it, then source B and C say it based on source A's reporting), which doesn't portend significant coverage. I would encourage !voters to review voorts's lists of sources below. Also, per @Last1in, pure WP:SYNTH at this stage. There is no conversage (yet) of denials as a group or collective concept - it's not really anything other than media coverage of who said what at this point. It's not a "thing" (like holocaust denial is). ButlerBlog (talk) 13:36, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Reliable sources. Zanahary (talk) 17:50, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Source quality is terrible, material is a WP:SYNTH collection of anecdotal WP:NEWS examples of largely individual acts of denial, with little to no analysis of the topic cohesively as a subject, and even if such a topic were to exist, it would need to reflect both sides of this conflict to be WP:NPOV, not be totally one-sided. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:53, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops. Lost track there, but strike the vote, not the comment. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:16, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Well sourced and documented by several sources. Definitely worth keeping since it's a phenomena that also holds historical value in conjunction with the rise of Fake News and the information Era. Indeed it has also been attributed to be a major factor in the rise of anti-semitism and is also crucial in understanding the Israeli response. There are ample sources to support this, this is an historical phenomena that is also highly reflective of the current progression regarding the War on Information and the digital Era, therefore this is an article of high interest and high potential. Homerethegreat (talk) 09:19, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What sources are you referring to that has discussed this as a phenomenon? So far, I've only uncovered this Haaretz article. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:11, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete in agreement with what has already been said above about naming this as a definitive trend and the quality of source issues. numerous articles exist on Wikipedia where people can learn about current events and political responses and it does not make sense to me based on all that I have read on this topic to carve this out as a separate phenomenon and article, at least not at present without appropriate secondary analytical sources rather than a "this person said" list of statements, which would seem to me to reflect Original Research. Jackie.salzinger (talk) 15:49, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Source assessment

Source assessment table: prepared by User:voorts
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Anadolu Agency Yes No Per WP:RSPS. No Does not establish that denial of atrocities is a notable phenomenon. Example of Hamas denial. ✘ No
CNN Yes Yes No Does not establish that denial of atrocities is a notable phenomenon. Example of Hamas denial. ✘ No
CNN 2 Yes Yes No Does not establish that denial of atrocities is a notable phenomenon. Example of Hamas denial. ✘ No
Washington Institute 1 ? Organization is associated with AIPAC. No Organization associated with AIPAC and therefore not sufficient to establish notability in this context (see WP:BIASED). Yes ✘ No
The Economist Yes Yes No Does not establish that denial of atrocities is a notable phenomenon. Example of Hamas denial. ✘ No
Radar Online Yes No Self-described as "the most influential and trusted pop culture, celebrity and entertainment news brand in the world" and no clear editorial standards. No Tabloid-style coverage of an interview with a Hamas leader. ✘ No
Hindustan Times Yes Yes No Does not establish that denial of atrocities is a notable phenomenon, and is being used in a misleading way (see talk page discussion). ✘ No
Daily Beast Yes ? Per WP:DAILYBEAST. No Does not establish that denial of atrocities is a notable phenomenon, and is being used in a misleading way (see talk page discussion). ✘ No
Ynetnews Yes ? Unclear whether there are editorial standards. No Does not establish that denial of atrocities is a notable phenomenon. Just another example (Knesset member). ✘ No
Jewish News Yes ? Unclear whether there are editorial standards. No Does not establish that denial of atrocities is a notable phenomenon. Just another example (Piers Corbyn). ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Source assessment table: prepared by User:voorts
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
JPost 1 Yes Yes No Does not establish that denial of atrocities is a notable phenomenon. Just another example (Piers Corbyn). ✘ No
Times of Israel 1 Yes Yes No Does not establish that denial of atrocities is a notable phenomenon. Just another example (Roger Waters). ✘ No
JPost 2 Yes Yes No Does not establish that denial of atrocities is a notable phenomenon. Does not even establish that anyone is intentionally denying any atrocities. ✘ No
The Guardian Yes Yes No Does not establish that denial of atrocities is a notable phenomenon. Merely establishes that the Israeli government wants to counter what Hamas has said and change the narrative around the conflict. ✘ No
Fox News Yes No Per WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS. No Does not establish that denial of atrocities is a notable phenomenon. Merely establishes that the Israeli government wants to counter what Hamas has said and change the narrative around the conflict. ✘ No
JPost 3 Yes Yes No Does not establish that denial of atrocities is a notable phenomenon. Merely establishes that the Israeli government wants to counter what Hamas has said and change the narrative around the conflict. ✘ No
Times of Israel 2 Yes Yes No Does not establish that denial of atrocities is a notable phenomenon. Merely establishes that the Israeli government wants to counter what Hamas has said and change the narrative around the conflict. ✘ No
CBC Yes Yes No Does not establish that denial of atrocities is a notable phenomenon. Merely establishes that the Israeli government wants to counter what Hamas has said and change the narrative around the conflict. ✘ No
Rep McCaul statement Yes No Statement by Member of Congress. No Does not establish that denial of atrocities is a notable phenomenon. Political statement made for political purposes. ✘ No
Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs No Strong association with Netanyahu and his government. No Associated with Netanyahu / biased and therefore not sufficient to establish notability in this context (see WP:BIASED). Yes ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Source assessment table: prepared by User:voorts
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Haaretz Yes Yes Yes ✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Here is my source assessment. Most of the sources cited are examples of either Hamas or random people denying particular atrocities (or denying things that were later debunked, like babies being decapitated). Of the sources cited in this article and this discussion, only one establishes GNG. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:22, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Solid effort voorts. One point to add is that even the Haaretz article doesn't make claims that for example Queen Rania was engaged in some sort of "denialism". Makeandtoss (talk) 14:34, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 23:47, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BlakeIsHereStudios (talk) 17:53, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Does it make sense to merge Holocaust denial into an article called Disinformation in the Second World War? Those seem to be different topics ... This article is about historical negationism and not about "disinformation in the war". Marokwitz (talk) 20:54, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. There is no lack of participation here but I also don't see editors who advocate Keeping this article address voorts's persuasive source analysis tables. I don't think anyone is denying that sources exist that provide examples, at least to someone, that a denial of atrocities may be happening in statements made by individuals or organizations, the question is whether or not this article is OR and whether "denialism" is being discussed as a notable and coherent concept on its own. There is a huge amount of literature on Holocaust denialism and an academic study of that subject and so a comparison can't be made to this very recent phenomena. I'd like to see editors arguing to Keep this article go beyond WP:ITEXISTS statements and address the problems pointed out by the nominator.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:20, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • [30], "In the wake of global silence and denial of Hamas’ sexual violence against Israeli women, efforts are being made across multiple echelons to raise awareness, including a civil commission to document the crimes, international diplomacy, and a campaign by tech industry executives"
  • [31], "Global women’s rights groups silent as Israeli women testify about rapes by Hamas"
  • [32], "UN and Women’s Groups Ignore or Deny the Systematic Rape of Israeli Women by Hamas"
  • [33], "Deborah Lipstadt struck by ‘speed and intensity’ of Hamas atrocity denial"
  • [34], "World's denial of Hamas's massacre of Israelis is a betrayal"
You can disagree with the point of view or the conclusions of the above but it is clear this is a notable topic being discussed widely in the media.  // Timothy :: talk  06:05, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not a single one of these seem to be a reliable source. Tryin to make a change :-/ 10:45, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention none of them deal with the topic exactly; they are quotes. Read WP:Notability. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:34, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What you need are sources treating "denial" as the topic itself, not giving examples of individuals denying something. That is how you demonstrate a notable topic, not one that is attempted to be put together through SYNTH. The Haaretz piece comes closest, but its just one news article. But you need sources that treat this topic as a topic, not just discussing individual examples so that Wikipedia editors can try to invent a topic by combining things that never refer to the overarching topic. nableezy - 14:54, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh no, providing individual examples of denial (per the sources above) is fine, just as it is fine on pages like Armenian genocide denial or Holodomor denial. There is absolutely no requirement that every source must be exclusively or specifically on the subject of the page, treat the subject as the whole, etc. It is enough that it says something on the subject of the page. My very best wishes (talk) 20:32, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If there is no source which describes the phenomenon of denial at length, instead of just minor passing details, then it is WP:SYNTH. There are entire monographs dedicated to Armenian genocide denial and Holocaust denial. Tryin to make a change :-/ 20:55, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, of course, there are no "entire monographs" dedicated to denials of these atrocities yet. This is because they are current events. My very best wishes (talk) 02:30, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CRYSTALBALL. Tryin to make a change :-/ 04:20, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No it is not, and no user who has read and understands WP:SYNTH, much less WP:GNG, would say such a thing. The topic is what must have received significant coverage in reliable independent sources. You can say "oh no", but you are quite wrong. And this is basic English. nableezy - 21:06, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To continue my source review (don't feel like doing a table):
30 reads like an op-ed and mentions denialism in passing.
31 is largely about what groups haven't said, not what they are saying.
32 is a DAILYBEAST op-ed.
33 is an article about the claims of a US government official, which is not independent in the conflict and thus not independent for notability purposes.
34 is another op-ed, and includes what Queen Rania said as an example of denialism, which as I've discussed above, it was not, making me question its reliability or ability to treat facts in an unbiased manner. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:49, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Editorials" and opinion articles can used on WP pages per WP:V, especially if written by experts. And in many cases they should be used. My very best wishes (talk) 02:35, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but op-eds and editorials are generally not secondary (or arguably independent) sources for purposes of establishing notability. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Put another way, for a topic like "denialism [or historical negationism] of X", one would expect secondary, independent (e.g., scholarly or critical) sources, rather than primary, biased (e.g., op-eds) sources. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:02, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Denial_of_atrocities_during_the_2023_Hamas_attack_on_Israel&oldid=1187278443"