Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Hamas attack on Israel

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 no consensus‎.

Numerically, we have no consensus, with about 40% of opinions in favor of deleting and 60% in favor of keeping the article.

In terms of strength of argument, many "keep" opinions invoke the WP:N guideline. These opinions must be discounted, because lack of notability of the topic is not the reason for which deletion is sought. Instead, the nomination argues that the contents of the article constitute original research by synthesis, i.e., "combin[ing] material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source" (WP:SYNTH). In assessing the strength of arguments made here, we must examine whether this argument is made or rebutted convincingly. I find that neither is the case here.

To make a cogent SYNTH case, the "delete" side would have needed to address the specific sources cited in the article, and they would have needed to show how exactly these sources say one thing and the article text says another, and then they would have needed to show that these defects cannot be remedied except by deletion of the article (WP:ATD). But the "delete" side has failed to make their case in this way. They merely allege, but do not demonstrate, inadmissible synthesis.

The "keep" side does not really do better: with the exception of Homerethegreat and a very few others, nobody really addresses the specific sources cited in the article, and how well they correspond to the article text (as would have been needed to rebut a WP:SYNTH deletion rationale). Instead, they make sweeping allegations mostly about how notable the topic is, which, as explained above, is beside the point here.

Consequently, there is no informed consensus to delete the article. A merger discussion or a more convincing renomination for deletion remain possible. Sandstein 13:44, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Hamas attack on Israel

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

Allegations of genocide in 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)

This looks like a re-creation of an article that was deleted two months ago (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alleged Palestinian genocide of Israelis). The current article suffers from similar issues. The majority of the text in this article is WP:SYNTH, in that the source cited doesn't explicitly say that the Hamas-lead attack constituted genocide. In fact, many of the sources predate the attack, so they can't possibly be making that assertion. The few sources that do explicitly state f should be covered under Second_Holocaust#Claims_that_Palestinians_are_committing_genocide. VR talk 13:33, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Israel and Palestine. VR talk 13:33, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pinging participants from the last AfD (BilledMammal—Iskandar323—SomethingForDeletion—Marokwitz—JMWt—nableezy—Oaktree b—Daveout—Sj—Zero0000) VR talk 13:34, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - there are lots of extreme concepts flying around this conflict from various commentators and I don't think we have to participate in the war of words. If there really is a reason to write an article about the use of words in this conflict it seems to me to be way WP:TOOSOON to get the full picture. At very least we need to wait until we can write the page fairly. JMWt (talk) 14:07, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Still a delete, as SYNTH. Sources dating from before the attack... If you want to create a general article about this topic (without mention of this event), fine. A case could be made for that. Mooshing together a bunch of articles that talk about different things to try and prove a point isn't necessary. Oaktree b (talk) 14:08, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And in response to the "sourcebot" comment last time, you can install a browser extension for use on Wikipedia that uses the various RS lists we have and will colour code the sources used in the article. Beyond getting into a technical discussion about it, that should suffice. Oaktree b (talk) 14:09, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • SYNTH is not a valid deletion reason. There are sufficient articles that directly address the topic to establish notability. Anything else is just a content dispute. Marokwitz (talk) 18:25, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please note I included 20 sources referring directly to genocide accusation as well as being after the attack. It is below. Homerethegreat (talk) 14:17, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - article on very notable topic. I wrote it 2 months after the event, seeing along the discourse of experts in the fields of international law, genocide studies, history and more discuss the issue at length and when it became clear that it has received more than enough coverage and it has become clear that the topic has grown notable enough, seeing there was no article written I endeavored and wrote it. The allegation of genocide has/is (depending on time of reading) been brought up to the International Criminal Court in Den Haag. Notable topic has garnered international attention in multiple reputable news outlets as well as WP:NOTABILITY:
There is "Significant coverage" on the allegations, there are Reliable sources that deal with this topic directly, Secondary Sources are used, therefore meets WP:NOTABILITY
Article is also written in neutral language and attributes claims to scholars and therefore avoids wikivoice.
Furthermore, article is not Synth, sources directly refer to the allegation of genocide. Other sources that predate describe background of event which is normal. I will use an example to explain the rationale: Would one deny a source explaining that blue birds live in Madagascar from 1990 and are in danger of extinction when describing the background if those same blue birds were extinct in 2020?
Furthermore, regarding propositions to merge to 2023 Israel-Hamas war article or The Hamas attack article, it has already been raised multiple times in these articles that there is need to make child articles so that those articles do not become to long and burdensome. Furthermore, topic is of such repute that it is worthy per notability explanation above to be its own stand alone article.
Furthermore, this article deals with a specific event on a specific point of time, not the notion of fear from second holocaust. Indeed holocaust describes a different category of slaughter which would destroy or significantly wipe out part of the Jewish people. This is not the case here and therefore should not be merged with the article proposed for merger. Homerethegreat (talk) 14:30, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Adding here a list of sources, all different directly on the topic, to show notability used in the article:
[1] The Atlantic
[2] The Economist
[3] Haaretz
[4] Times of Israel
[5] Genocide Watch
[6] France 24
[7] Times of Israel
[8]Times of Israel
[9] The Economist
[10] Genocide Watch
[11] The Australian
[12] The Bulletin
[13] Jerusalem Post
[14] Engelsberg ideas
[15] Time
[16] Israel Hayom
[17] The Wall Street Journal
[18] The Jerusalem Post
[19] The Jerusalem Post (United States Government referring to issue).
[20] AFP, Barrons'
I think this is enough for notability, also included several renown newspapers such as WSJ, The Economist, Time in order to show international notability. Homerethegreat (talk) 22:18, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain why this can't be covered Second Holocaust#Claims that Palestinians are committing genocide? VR talk 23:42, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the following, I believe it was explained, Marokwitz provided an adequate answer in Talk:Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Hamas attack on Israel#Merge into Second Holocaust. Furthermore, I also referred to that specific question in my answer, please read what I wrote above and also the other mentioned. Homerethegreat (talk) 14:16, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You said that this topic can't be merged into Second Holocaust because it doesn't deal with "destroy or significantly wipe out part of the Jewish people". But the very definition of genocide is to attempt to destroy a group of people "in whole or in part". VR talk 23:43, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This mess of pottage is a very obvious POV end run around the earlier deletion discussion; if the parent Alleged Palestinian genocide of Israelis could not survive AfD, how can a subtopic of it? Furthermore..never mind. Selfstudier (talk) 15:09, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The nominator's deletion reasons are not aligned with our deletion policy.
  • Policy requires that we evaluate this subject for notability on its individual merits - AFD for another article is irrelevant.
  • Any concerns regarding WP:SYNTH or other content disputes can and should be addressed through editing, not deletion.
The topic of the article is undeniably notable through direct coverage in reliable and secondary sources. Here are just a few examples demonstrating the notability of this topic:
  • Israeli families bring genocide complaint against Hamas to ICC reported by Al Jazeera.
  • How the term “genocide” is misused in the Israel-Hamas war from The Economist.
  • Hamas has genocidal intentions against Israel - White House, reported by The Jerusalem Post.
  • Hamas's Genocidal Intentions Were Never a Secret by Bruce Hoffman, published in The Atlantic.
  • 9 bereaved Israeli families bring ICC war crime, genocide complaint against Hamas. The Times of Israel.
These sources are not only reputable but also directly relevant to the topic at hand without any original synthesis. They provide significant coverage and come from reliable outlets, fulfilling the criteria for notability as per WP:GNG. Marokwitz (talk) 18:20, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Some Israelis filing papers at the ICC, which anyone can do, is not even news. The Palestinian genocide accusation was a well sourced reality before the current indiscriminate bombing of Gaza and that is why it survived AfD and the ridiculous Alleged Palestinian genocide of Israelis did not, and neither should this. The Hamas attack constitutes war crimes no doubt and that is covered at War crimes in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war otherwise one attack does not a genocide make, this is just an invented topic with no real history until October 7. Selfstudier (talk) 12:21, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that Palestinian genocide accusation also widely refers to events from 7 October onwards. I honestly find it confusing, on the one hand some editors say there should be sources only from after 7 October, others suggest from before 7 October, I'm finding it absurd. I understand this is a hot and notable topic. Please read the sources presented and familiarize yourself with the topic. Homerethegreat (talk) 14:13, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete & Start Over -- this topic as stated last time is irretrievably NPOV as long as it does not include both sides of this conflict. For every source about one side's atrocities, there is one about the other's. It is unencyclopaedic to take sides and give WP:UNDUE weight to one viewpoint. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 20:01, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This is contradictory. By suggesting to start over, you are acknowledging the notability of the page's topic, therefore it should be kept, and any issues addressed through content edits. Marokwitz (talk) 10:55, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No, quite the opposite. My objections are not based on WP:GNG. As I stated, the focus of the article as it stands is irretrievably biased. It is, imo, literally impossible to write an NPOC article with a one-sided, islamophobic title. It could be encyclopaedic if you WP:TNT and build an article about claims of genocide across the Israeli-Hamas conflict. I chose not to use the TNT tag because someone objected in another AfD, claiming that it was inappropriate in the context of the mutual atrocities on both sides. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 12:12, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the best article that we can compare this to is the Allegations of genocide of Ukrainians in the Russo-Ukrainian War. I will note the current article is actually modeled partially on the above per consistency and precedent. The Russians also claim that Ukraine is commiting genocide against Russians in the Donbas see Accusations of genocide in Donbas. In the Allegations of genocide of Ukrainians it is focused on Russian actions, international response, academic discourse etc... There is its own article, whilst Russian accusations have there own article. Therefore there is precedent. I will also mention that there are other specific item allegation Wikipedia articles such as Palestinian Genocide Accusation, should it be combined with a wide article on genocide accusations in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? As I recall it I actually tried to advance such a scheme in this particular however it was rejected and therefore it is article per topic. Homerethegreat (talk) 14:09, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Any time we have articles that focus on a conflict, behaviour or attitude from a single side, we enable bigotry. In this case, the accusations of genocidal behaviour and policies are rampant, from and towards all sides. In such a situation, imho, it both unwise and against NPOV to have single-sided articles. Last1in (talk) 23:30, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You say: "the accusations of genocidal behaviour and policies are rampant". Yes, exactly. Such claims appear in multiple RS, and they are well founded. This is the reason for the page to exist. My very best wishes (talk) 05:05, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as all the sourcing appears to be opinion pieces and light press articles. I don’t see any reputable scholars of genocide or large human rights groups making this claim. Perhaps this will change with time, but until it does the article in its current form is unsuitable. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:41, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There are two options here: either you didn't read the article, or you think all the scholars of genocide cited in the article are not reputable, including Gregory H. Stanton , Israel Charny, Niall Ferguson , Stephen D. Smith among others. Marokwitz (talk) 11:08, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Article on very notable topic and sourced. Any potential issues of SYNTH can be addressed. Dovidroth (talk) 05:44, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep No valid reason has been presented to delete, this article. Coretheapple (talk) 18:37, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A needless WP:NOTNEWS spinoff that will inevitably have to be cleaned up in a few years if kept. The content is definitely worth being included in other articles, but doesn't warrant a standalone entry. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:59, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Significant international coverage by reliable sources that refer directly to the topic, including the Wall Street Journal, the Economist, France 24 and many others - which estalishes clear WP:Notability. Noon (talk) 18:42, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect, but don't know to which target. Andre🚐 21:08, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Andrevan: how about Second_Holocaust#Claims_that_Palestinians_are_committing_genocide? VR talk 05:16, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yup. Andre🚐 05:19, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Nop, that would be inappropriate. This page is about Hamas (rather than Palestinian people) committing genocide. That's why the deleted page Alleged Palestinian genocide of Israelis was actually on a different subject. Please keep this page. My very best wishes (talk) 23:46, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the article cites notable scholars with relevant expertise (such as genocide studies or international criminal law), who believe that the action of Hamas constituted genocide. Wikipedia should report the existence of the views of those scholars. I think there is too much relevant sourced detail to merge this to some other article. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 02:08, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I don't believe there is any issue with WP:SYNTH in this article, as it is well-sourced and I think it just doesn't fit under that rule, but any concerns one has about OR in the article can make comments on the talk page about editing revisions to the page, and does not have to advocate for the entire deletion of the page. It's not WP:TOOSOON either, because the war has been going on for well over 2 months now and there's enough concrete evidence and analysis by RS to use in an article. EytanMelech (talk) 17:52, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The use of "genocide" to describe things that are not genocidal is problematic. Wiki's policy is to reflect reliable sources, so I'm not currently voting either way, but it feels like every group is calling things genocide to cut through social-media noise, and it's problematic. Drsmoo (talk) 19:22, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There are several definitions of "genocide". Your argument relies on using one of them and ignoring the others. Popular definitions emphasise the idea of industrial scale mass murder; some scholarly and legal definitions are much broader, and include as "genocide" actions on significantly smaller scales, and even actions which don't involve killing anyone at all. Arguments that the Hamas attack was genocide are relying on those broader scholarly and legal definitions, not the much narrower popular one. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 23:26, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't imagine Drsmoo would be moved in his belief that the term 'genocide' is over-applied with a reminder that the term is sometimes applied to cases that do not match a stricter definition of genocide. Zanahary (talk) 03:14, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It is well established that Hamas is genocidal (by the “old definition”) in intent. However, there is a kind of inverse “euphemism treadmill” where every group wants to be the loudest and to do so jumps to the worst name possible to get the attention of an increasingly jaded populace. Eventually a new word will be used for the old definition, rinse repeat. It is well established that Hamas committed crimes against humanity, per what would be the old terminology. Words change meaning, genocide already seems to be broadly redefined to the new meaning in any case. Drsmoo (talk) 04:35, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    A lot of the evidence for them being genocidal is based on things that are deliberately out of context, e.g. threats of violence that leave out, "if Israel don't stop (some specific injustice) we will…" to look like the violence itself is the goal for it's own sake. Irtapil (talk) 01:18, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Or just years out of date.Irtapil (talk) 03:05, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The point is the broader definition is the original one. Raphael Lemkin coined the word "genocide" in his 1944 book Axis Rule in Occupied Europe, and he included as examples of genocide the Nazi attempts to suppress French and Dutch culture; the 1948 Genocide Convention's definition is narrower than Lemkin's, but still a lot broader than the popular definition. Most people who argue from the narrower popular definition are doing so in ignorance of the fact that the broader definitions are older and more authoritative. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 22:36, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. First of all, the nominator did not provide any valid justification for deletion. This is not a recreation. The "Alleged Palestinian genocide of Israelis" (see last version) was on entirely different subject and had almost no overlap with this page. Secondly, this page is legitimate because (a) it is about the crime by terrorist organization Hamas (rather than by Palestinian people), (b) this subject has significant coverage in news and other sources, and (c) the page is well sourced. My very best wishes (talk) 19:34, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Possibly parts of that could be salvaged to improve this article. Irtapil (talk) 19:03, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Your logic is a bit weird. Are they terrorists or are they doing a genocide? Those ideas are almost mutually exclusive. Terrorism and genocide come from opposite directions, like the residents of Lodz ghetto hurling Molotov cocktails and other improv explosives at Nazis in 1943. Irtapil (talk) 19:21, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are making strange point. Yes, they are terrorists and they were making genocide in Israel. Exactly. This is nothing special. Consider Armenian genocide. Was not it a form of Terror (politics) designed to terrorize the population? Did not the attack by Hamas serve the same purpose? See RS [1] My very best wishes (talk) 02:51, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per Homerethegreat. I'll now also need to create a translation of this article to Russian and perhaps Ukrainian, to improve it's resilience from deletion with no valid reason. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 02:50, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    and Arabic. Irtapil (talk) 18:56, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Too soon; synth. There's way too many different narratives and concepts being written regarding this fresh conflict. We don't know yet what will be notable. Zanahary (talk) 03:13, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, mostly per sources provided by u:Homerethegreat. I have sympathy with the view expressed by some editors that a lot of extreme terms are applied to this conflict and that a lot of sources are newspaper articles. However, as long as we cover ongoing events, and as long as we have the current RS policy, I believe that this is inevitable. Also, u:Marokwitz has provided some scholarly opinions. Alaexis¿question? 07:15, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Completely insignificant subject and weak sourcing, meant to push a narrative. WP:ARTN also applies. Salmoonlight (talk) 07:45, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    But the accusation is significant, the accusation is being used to justify a real genocide (or at the very least ethnic cleansing) that is currently a very high risk, imminent, or actively in progress. Plenty of dangerously terrible ideas need good wiki articles, e.g. the Great Replacement theory, the Love jihad conspiracy theory, and The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. This current topic probably needs a better Wikipedia article, but deleting this article definitely won't help. Irtapil (talk) 18:54, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per sources presented by Homerethegreat. François Robere (talk) 12:45, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP - It is important to keep this article to put the accusations in the proper perspective and historical context. Obviously the allegations massively stretch the "or in part" section of the definition of genocide (and the evidence for "with the intent to" is spurious). BUT the story is that there are accusations and not that any reasonable unbiased person would describe this event as "genocide" or even an "attempted genocide" - especially in light of 1948 to 2023-10-06 and 2023-10-09 until the present moment. Irtapil (talk) 18:38, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; insufficiently notable for encyclopedic coverage, rife with POV and OR issues (i.e., suitable for TNT at best), WP:TOOSOON, big WP:SOAPBOX/NOTADVOCACY energy overall. Taking an exceptionally generous approach, maybe parts of it could be merged into a new article on Crimes against humanity in the 2023 Israel–Hamas War, for example, or another suitable merger/redirect target. WillowCity(talk) 18:55, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There is an already an article on war crimes in the 2023 Israel-Hamas war for the things that Hamas and their allies actually did do that day (like taking civilian hostages).
    I think the genocide accusation article needs to stay separate, to put the genocide accusations in their proper context and perspective, it needs to exist for the same reason as climate denial or the great replacement theory or holocaust denial or AIDS denial or any of the other dangerously dubious ideas that need good Wikipedia articles about them.
    I think bits of this current article are salvageable to create a good article on that concept. Possibly combined with bits of another deleted article somebody mentioned above. If we keep deleting it, new bad articles will keep popping up. It would be better to turn it into a good article.
    If we expand the scope it could be exaggerated claims about Hamas in which we could include "40 beheaded babies" (which was actually 40 civilians under 18, one of whom was possibly beheaded, which is still awful, but not "40 beheaded babies") and "alleged similarity to ISIS" (when they actually hate ISIS, like most other Muslims do, and arrested multiple people in Gaza with alleged connections to or sympathies for ISIS). Or something that includes accusations made against Israelis in the current war the are proven false, like that the truck loads of blindfolded men were lined up and shot.
    But it could be better to keep this separate, because "40 beheaded babies" was factually false, whereas the "October 7 Genocide" claim is much more subjective.
    Or possibly put the focus back to the prior article which was "Alleged Palestinian genocide of Israelis" (meaning the one i already linked above - I'm not sure that redirect is really appropriate) because I suspect the current rhetoric of "they are trying to wipe us out, so we need to do it to them first" is a dangerous reoccurring theme and continually just deleting articles that pop up to push that agenda is massively counter-productive.
    Irtapil (talk) 02:23, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Irtapil This is a really interesting point. But can it be done based on existing sources, or do you expect that other sources will emerge exploring Israeli use of mirror politics? This proposed shift in direction is intriguing, but the underlying topic is already seriously lacking in terms of WP:SIGCOV, and OR/SYNTH (or repeated attempts at such) are rampant on this page. If you are aware of sources treating this allegation as a dangerous and discredited propaganda tool, I'd be interested to see them for my own edification. WillowCity(talk) 02:32, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I do not see a problem with the sourcing. बिनोद थारू (talk) 05:50, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: this page has few redeeming features: the page is more a mausoleum of rhetoric from marginal figures than it is a serious topic in its own right - much of it would be more fitting in a reactions section or page about the conflict. The structure seems improvised and the article is replete with synth (less so after a cull). Even if it were to be deemed worthy as a standalone topic per WP:PAGEDECIDE (and that I doubt, since the context of the statements is everything and thus it makes more sense contextualised), this rendition would not be it. This is a WP:TNT affair. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:06, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The claims that this is not a valid deletion reason are bizarre; the nomination statement makes sense and does not appear to violate any policy I can think of. The information here should clearly be dealt with on articles it is related to, such as Hamas, 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel, and 2023 Israel–Hamas war, where appropriate. -- asilvering (talk) 02:30, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article is a textbook example of WP:SYNTH. The existence of the article itself seems to imply that the allegations themselves have notability, but the article is just a bunch of people making those allegations. None of the sources do any analysis to establish why this topic deserves its own article. I still don't know why people think Wikipedia is a place to propagandize but the bias in this article is obvious. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 11:33, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Marokwitz, Dovidroth and homerethegreat. Notable topic, well sourced by mainstream media. Noon (talk) 12:12, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this is clearly a notable topic and well source. I don't feel the nomination statement is supported by the content of the two articles with the old, now deleted, 'Alleged Palestinian genocide of Israelis' article focusing on a different subject to this one. If people feel there are issues with this article then they should to be fixed not purged. ThinkingTwice contribs | talk 13:01, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; clearly notable subject per Homerethegreat and others. Jweiss11 (talk) 19:33, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as a blatant SYNTH violation. There is maybe one source discussing this as a topic. This is similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hamas and the Taliban analogy, where people were collecting sources making such an analogy and then constructing a topic about the analogy. But those sources did not cover the topic, they were the topic. Here, there are sources discussing genocidal intent in Hamas's original charter (and every source that pre-dates the attack is obviously SYNTH in an article about accusations about the attack), sources saying that the attack was an act of genocide, and those are the subject of the article, not sources covering the subject, and a few sources covering academics saying it was an act of genocide, and that would be a secondary source about the topic. But that last chunk is the smallest chunk in the sources, and they dont establish this as a notable topic. This belongs as a section in the article on the attack, as those sources are secondary sources discussing that topic. But here, this is mostly cobbled together with a. sources that should not be used (all of them published prior to the attack), and b. what are primary sources here (the ones making the accusation themselves). nableezy - 20:31, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, lets take a look at that supposedly impressive list of sources. #2, The Economist. The only place it says "genocide" is where it says As a share of Israel’s population, it is equivalent to 12 September 11th attacks—a daily mortality rate exceeded only by full-scale wars, genocides or natural disasters. That is not an accusation Hamas committed genocide on 7 October. That is, apparently, the result of somebody googling "genocide Hamas October 7" and then not reading the results before posting them here. So for the people claiming the list of sources support the article, did you even read those sources? nableezy - 13:21, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Yet another WP:CFORK in this exaggeratedly contentious topic area. Per Nableezy I don't think there's a lot of actual content of the article we should keep and I support that it be merged into Second Holocaust. This article is just another name-calling WP:SYNTH amalgamation. There's little more in this page other than "X said this". Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 23:21, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unlike Second Holocaust, this page is about crimes committed during the specific operation by Hamas, i.e. 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel. The important and significant well sourced materials from this page are only briefly mentioned on page "Second Holocaust". One might reasonably argue this page should be renamed to something like "War crimes by Hamas during 2023 attack on Israel". However, an outright deletion of this page would be wrong. My very best wishes (talk) 16:19, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
War crimes in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war. Already exists. However we really needed to have an article of the same thing but calling what the opposing side did a genocide, because that's the trend now. An absolute insult to actual genocides such as that of the Armenians or the Holocaust. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 11:26, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: there's significant synthesis and recentism here. There may be scope for expanding Second Holocaust#Claims that Palestinians are committing genocide but it is not appropriate at this time to accumulate a list of lots of different public statements by lawyers, politicians, opinion columnists and so forth. A topic like this (which should start more broadly, like Allegations of genocide by Hamas) would need to be grounded in academic journals, books and sources that summarise different factions/ideological viewpoints, rather than ourselves choosing out of the many thousands of quotes by public figures on Israel and Palestine that are verifiable. — Bilorv (talk) 16:06, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Hoffman, Bruce (2023-10-10). "Understanding Hamas's Genocidal Ideology". The Atlantic. Retrieved 2023-12-07.
  2. ^ "Hamas's attack was the bloodiest in Israel's history". The Economist. ISSN 0013-0613. Retrieved 2023-12-07.
  3. ^ "Deadly Hamas Rampage Constitutes 'International Crime of Genocide,' Hundreds of Legal Experts Say". Haaretz. Retrieved 2023-12-07.
  4. ^ WINER, STUART (15 October 2023). "Hamas actions are war crimes, could constitute genocide – international law experts". Times of Israel.
  5. ^ Watch, Genocide (2023-10-18). "Legal Experts: Hamas committed War Crimes, Genocide". genocidewatch. Retrieved 2023-12-07.
  6. ^ "Israeli families bring war crime complaint to ICC: lawyer". France 24. 2023-11-03. Retrieved 2023-12-07.
  7. ^ AFP, TOI STAFF (3 November 2023). "9 bereaved Israeli families bring ICC war crime, genocide complaint against Hamas". Times of Israel.
  8. ^ Even Khen, Hilly Moodrick (30 October 2023). "Israel is not committing genocide in Gaza: An international legal perspective". Times of Israel.
  9. ^ "How the term "genocide" is misused in the Israel-Hamas war". The Economist. ISSN 0013-0613. Retrieved 2023-12-07.
  10. ^ "Holocaust & Genocide Scholars condemn Oct 7 Hamas Massacre". genocidewatch. Genocide Watch. 2023-10-25. Retrieved 2023-12-07.
  11. ^ "Hamas 'Intending nothing less than a second holocaust'. Neil Fergusson". The Australian. 12 December 2023.
  12. ^ "Hamas 'Intending nothing less than a second holocaust'. Neil Fergusson". The Australian. 12 December 2023.
  13. ^ "Can the Hamas Oct. 7 massacre be compared to the Holocaust? - opinion". The Jerusalem Post | JPost.com. 2023-10-29. Retrieved 2023-12-11.
  14. ^ "Hamas' genocidal massacre on October 7 has deep historical roots". Engelsberg ideas (in Swedish). Retrieved 2023-12-11.
  15. ^ "Finding Common Ground Between Israelis and Palestinians". TIME. 2023-12-08. Retrieved 2023-12-11.
  16. ^ Avraham, Rachel (22 November 2023). "Denying October 7 must be condemned worldwide". www.israelhayom.com. Retrieved 2023-12-11.
  17. ^ Ahmed, Qanta A. (2023-11-10). "Opinion | The Scenes of Genocide I Saw in Israeli Morgues". Wall Street Journal. ISSN 0099-9660. Retrieved 2023-12-11.
  18. ^ "Son of Hamas co-founder: Death penalty for October 7 massacre terrorists". The Jerusalem Post | JPost.com. 2023-11-30. Retrieved 2023-12-11.
  19. ^ "Hamas has genocidal intentions against Israel - White House". The Jerusalem Post | JPost.com. 2023-11-08. Retrieved 2023-12-11.
  20. ^ Presse, AFP-Agence France. "Israel, Palestinians Accuse Each Other Of 'Genocide' At UN". www.barrons.com. Retrieved 2023-12-11.
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/Allegations_of_genocide_in_the_2023_Hamas_attack_on_Israel&oldid=1192442973"