Talk:Gaza genocide denial: Difference between revisions

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination’s talk page, the article’s talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. You can locate your hook here. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected, closed by Narutolovehinata5 talk 13:43, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(t · c) buidhe 19:07, 10 October 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Policy compliance:

Hook eligibility:

Overall: Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:00, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I don’t think this is a fair review. The article was written by taking all Google Scholar results I can find that mention the topic, which makes it hard for editorial bias to creep in, and the charge that the entire article is a POVFORK was rejected in the merge discussion. As for ALT3, the quote appears in one of the paywalled sources. (t · c) buidhe 05:08, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination must go on hold until the merge discussion has concluded.–Launchballer 16:16, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge discussion has concluded. The article was kept by default. I do question whether this article is appropriate at all to put in the DYK section, however. DYK jibes best with quantifiable or specific facts such as X species of fish practicing cannibalism or Y person setting a world record. The article in large part is composed of legal scholars expressing their individual opinion, which is not suited for WP:DYK. This is an academically contentious topic and the phrasing of the hooks suggest we are endorsing these specific scholars and their interpretations. I kindly ask User:Buidhe to withdraw this nomination. Bremps… 16:52, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I’m not sure there is much basis for that in the Dyk rules. In any event, some of the hooks are explicitly attributed, which should address any concern about inappropriate wikivoice. (t · c) buidhe 17:08, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• ALT4: … that Gaza genocide denial includes literal denial, interpretive denial, and implicatory denial?–Launchballer 05:21, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, let’s go even more back to basics. ALT5: … that Gaza genocide denial has been ongoing since the beginning of the Gaza genocide?–Launchballer 13:05, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to leave it to others to judge the eligibility of this hook ALT5, but my judgment that this article overall is ineligible for DYK due to violation of WP:NPOV remains the same, as the article has been expanded but continues to espouse only one point of view on this disputed topic. —Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:23, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What are some reliable sources that you think offer opposing viewpoints to those presented in this article? It seems that people are just opposed to this article being on DYK just because it is on a controversial topic, or because they personally disagree with this article, and not because it is an actually bad article. User:Easternsahara_{review and this} 17:19, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That’s it exactly, even though consensus in the merge discussion went against the reviewers claims. (t · c) buidhe 17:22, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:RSOPINION, and since you are asking for “viewpoints”, here are some opinions published in major publications which oppose those presented in this article:

1. Goda, Norman JW; Herf, Jeffrey (3 June 2025). “Why it’s wrong to call Israel’s war in Gaza a ‘genocide’“. The Washington Post.
2. Hausdorff, Natasha (4 June 2025). “Israel is not committing a genocide in Gaza”. The Spectator.
3. Stephens, Bret (17 January 2024). “The Charges Against Israel Are a Moral Obscenity”. The New York Times.
4. “The U.N’s Anti-Israel ‘Genocide’ Purge: Alice Nderitu said Israel’s campaign in Gaza doesn’t meet the definition of genocide. She was fired”. The Wall Street Journal. 26 November 2024.
5. Wallis Simons, Jake (23 June 2024). “Israel is not committing genocide in Gaza: The vile allegations made by Hamas and its useful idiots bear no relation to the facts on the ground”. The Sunday Telegraph.

I should note that I found all of these sources listed in the appendix to McDoom, Omar Shahabudin (2025). “It’s Hamas’ Fault, You’re an Antisemite, and We Had No Choice: Techniques of Genocide Denial in Gaza”. Journal of Genocide Research: 1, 18, which is the first and most frequently cited source used in Gaza genocide denial, and selected five of the twenty-two to look up the full text of. To answer a potential objection: if you consider that the above sources are biased or unreliable, please consider that they are being cited for their opinions and to establish that the belief that Israel did not commit genocide in Gaza is a mainstream belief. To that end, I would also note that Gaza genocide recognition indicates that the governments of countries such as Germany, Greece, Italy, Poland, Portugal, and the UK have also rejected the accusation that Israel committed genocide in Gaza. Why? Because they don’t believe that what Israel’s actions were genocide. The article as it stands now suggests only malign motives or malign behavior on the part of those who don’t believe that Israel committed genocide. And that’s why I say that “The entire article is one-sided and presents only a single point of view on a disputed topic.” —Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:48, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• That’s because a handful of op eds don’t outweigh the ~95% of scholarly sources (per my counts on Google Scholar, and other people’s counts) that agree. This issue has already been settled in numerous discussions and it’s disruptive to relitigate it here. The article already mentions that some people deny the genocide and to add additional content cited to sources that don’t mention genocide denial would be wp:or. (t · c) buidhe 14:20, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The entire premise of “X denial” where “X” is any concept or idea presumes that “X” is true. It should be obvious that only those who already believe that there was a genocide in Gaza are going to write about “Gaza genocide denial”. You are using a kind of circular reasoning to justify this article on a controversial topic, where only those who support one side of the issue are considered reliable sources. The other ~5% of scholarly sources (per your comment above, I haven’t done my own count), as well as all non-scholarly sources who disagree, are assumed in this article to be acting malignly. Saying that “the article already mentions that some people deny the genocide” is obvious but doesn’t address the one-sided presentation, as the views of those who do not believe that there was a genocide in Gaza are presented only from the perspective of their opponents. Finally, keep in mind that this discussion is not about deleting this article or merging it, but whether it deserves to be presented on the main page of Wikipedia as an article to highlight. —Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:54, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • If the community has determined that the article should continue to exist and, it appears, you don’t have any policy based suggestions for improving it, then the argument to reject the article has no basis in the dyk criteria or other rules. (t · c) buidhe 15:12, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      • The burden of proof is not on me to prove that this article shouldn’t make it to DYK. We get about 500 new articles a day per Wikipedia:Statistics, and only nine articles per day make it to DYK. The burden of proof is on you to establish that the article is “well-sourced, neutral, BLP-compliant, and copyvio-free” per WP:DYKCITE (emphasis added). I would also note that WP:DYKELECT says, “Nominations about contentious topics … may be subject to greater scrutiny from reviewers and promoters.” And the footnote to that sentence says, “A common example of a contentious topic is the Israeli–Palestinian conflict.” —Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:30, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
        • I didn’t even realize before that there was Template:Expert opinions in the Gaza genocide debate which lists 83 expert opinions saying that there was not a genocide in Gaza. Yes, I am well aware that they are outnumbered by the number of opinions saying that there was a genocide in Gaza, but I think 83 expert opinions go well beyond a “handful of op-eds”. The fact that Wikipedia editors have a consensus in favor of declaring a Gaza genocide doesn’t mean that all the scholars and experts in the world are required to obey Wikipedia’s consensus. —Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:48, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
          • No every scholar is not required to obey Wikipedia’s consensus. Rather, Wikipedia is required to obey the scholarly consensus. Does the absolute number of people who say anything is true matter when they are a very small fraction of “experts”? No.
          • Moreover, I don’t think that the experts that you’ve cited have focused researched or justified their claims rather well. Reliable sources can be expected to have logical reasoning as to how they arrived to their conclusions right? For example, one of the “experts” among your 83 claim that “There are massive war crimes in Gaza, committed by the IDF, including hunger policies and the intentional shooting of civilians. However, this is still not a “genocide” as all anti-Semites from Australia to Germany and New York City claim.” This is very clearly an equation of antisemitism as antizionism, which is faulty reasoning and a fringe view. Also, the scholar literally acknowledges that the IDF has committed disgusting and terrible atrocities, but says that calling those atrocities is antisemitic. In other words, your conclusion is antisemitic and you shouldn’t be allowed to say it even if it is true. Another one of them say “Thus, Hamas committed the crime of genocide and remains the only party to legally meet the requirements of the elements of the crime of genocide.” which would require an immense amount of mental gymnastics to say that hamas has committed genocide, but Israel has not. They’ve not made their argument particularly well as to why Hamas has but Israel hasn’t.
          • Now, let’s analyze the sources that you posted. As a general note, news articles are less reliable than those published in academic journals.
            1. Goda, Norman JW; Herf, Jeffrey (3 June 2025). “Why it’s wrong to call Israel’s war in Gaza a ‘genocide'”. The Washington Post. Jeffrey Herf is a European historian, not a genocide scholar, so it seems peculiar to cite him in this article as he would not be the most knowledgeable about the Gaza genocide. Norman J. W. Goda has written about the international policy of Nazi Germany, the Holocaust, and the Cold War. Since he has sutided the Holocaust, this may make him better but he has not studied genocides other than the holocaust. This may make him less knowledgeable about all genocides than someone who, say, has studied both the armenian genocide, holodomor and holocaust. Also, he holds a number of fringe views relating to the gaza genocide such as the characertization of antizionism as antisemitism, which was one of the reasons that the ADL was found to be generally unreliable for israel’s invasion of gaza. He has also said that images of starving children in gaza were staged, so he believes in the pallywood conspiracy theeory as well. He seems very reliable on this topic!
            2. Hausdorff, Natasha (4 June 2025). “Israel is not committing a genocide in Gaza”. The Spectator. Natasha Hausdorff specializes in international law, so she might be more reliable on this topic. However, she does believe that antizionism and antisemitism are the same, which may impact her reliability. I won’t analyze this any further as WP:SPECTATOR exists, saying that it is yellow reliability.
            3. Stephens, Bret (17 January 2024). “The Charges Against Israel Are a Moral Obscenity”. The New York Times. The author is a journalist, why are we using a journalist’s opinion on something that requires a scholar in genocide studies or international relations? This guy’s qualifications don’t seem very relevant to the topic of this article or what he is writing about.
            4. The U.N’s Anti-Israel ‘Genocide’ Purge: Alice Nderitu said Israel’s campaign in Gaza doesn’t meet the definition of genocide. She was fired”. The Wall Street Journal. 26 November 2024. Says that Israel is acting in seld-defense, this too is a fringe view. Also legitimises pallywood by saying that Hamas uses human shields so that they can use the deaths for propaganda. These claims have been treated as just accusations, this is article is again fringe by saying that hamas has without a doubt been using them. The entire thing is speculating that Alice Nderitu’s contract wasn’t renewed because she supports Israel.
            5. Wallis Simons, Jake (23 June 2024). “Israel is not committing genocide in Gaza: The vile allegations made by Hamas and its useful idiots bear no relation to the facts on the ground”. The Sunday Telegraph. Again, a columnist does not have any experience or knowledge in this field, so why should their opinion have any bearing? This news article also says that it is an alleged “Jewish genocide” so again it brings up the belief that antizionism is antisemitism. Also from the Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion, as this incident was mentioned in the article, “In its investigation on 20 October 2023, Forensic Architecture concluded that the blast was the result of a munition fired from the direction of Israel.[21] Subsequent investigations by Forensic Architecture published in February and October 2024 — the first one tracking, in 3D, each rocket in a volley of Palestinian rockets that Israel accused of striking the hospital, and the latter including situated testimony from Dr. Ghassan Abu Sitta — were said by the organisation to cast further doubt on the errant rocket launch theory.” So this article is spreading misinformation as well. Also denies the famine in Gaza, this makes it a fringe article as well. “Palestinians had surrendered while strapped with explosives, he said, and children had fired on his men. In almost every abandoned house he had found an Arabic copy of Mein Kampf, common as dictionaries” this part is provided without citation and is definitely an extraordinary claim, just from some random paratrooper, eh? Surely this paratrooper must be a reliable source of information on what the opposing side of the war is doing right? he wouldn’t lie for propaganda purposes right? User:Easternsahara_{review and this} 20:37, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn’t even have brought up those 5 sources if I had known about Template:Expert opinions in the Gaza genocide debate when I wrote that list of them on 7 November. —Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:19, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]