My complaint was not at all about the first sentence but about the total absense in the entire article of any alternative viewpoint, or even references to the conflict or the totally different treatment of scholarly consensus (because there is a scholarly consensus that hamas committed genocide too, in fact, there is consensus about multiple hamas genocides, and about many genocides committed by other palestinian factions including the PA). And as I pointed out even the beginning of the conflict, Hamas' attack, which is a genocide without any discussion about it, is barely mentioned at all, and only as an "attack".

Because once again, your comparisons just doesn't work.

Wikipedia title for an article that 90% of scholars (WITH academic credentials) agree hamas and palestinians committed genocide on Jews:

"Allegations of genocide in the October 7 attacks"

Wikipedia title for an article that 90% of scholars (who paid 20 euros to be considered scholars, the IAGS) agree Israel committed genocide against Gazans:

"Gaza genocide"

(IAGS does not require academic credentials to be a member, and many members have none)

Here is the link to the page about Hamas' (and random Palestinians) committing genocide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_genocide_in_the...

Note that the scholars alleging Hamas' committed genocide in the October 7 attacks are largely the same as the in the "Gaza genocide" article. In ONE of those articles both genocides are represented ... in the other they aren't (except in the non-user-editable part).

Of course, on the page describing the hamas' genocide, none of the your arguments apply. The various viewpoints are represented (frankly ad nauseam), including arguments by individual scholars denying the genocide. On that page Wikipedia seriously makes the argument that "a massacre with genocidal intent" does not constitute a genocide. On that page scholarly consensus that a genocide occurred is described as "allegations of genocide". It continues like that, with for every scholar mentioned every tiny caveat they put anywhere in their paper repeated. For example that information sources may not be reliable as to intent.

On that page it is extensively mentioned that there are accusations against Israel committing genocide in Gaza, whereas on the "Gaza genocide" page it is not mentioned at all that hamas' committed genocide (except in that consensus is that hamas' definitely committed genocide against Israeli too ... oh and of course, there's the title.

I could keep going, pointing out that even in this article it is not mentioned that hamas' has in fact committed multiple genocides, including against Palestinians (in Al-Shifa hospital, among other places), and that the Palestinian Authority has done so as well, including against Palestinians, Jordans, Lebanese, ...