Wiki143:Articles for deletion/Israel Defense Forces using human shields

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. - Mailer Diablo 06:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Israel Defense Forces using human shields

Propaganda topic, and POV fork of Human rights in Israel Jayjg (talk) 03:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep If nothing else, then just for going all the way to the Supreme Court, this deserves its own article. --Striver 03:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
The very article you linked to links to yet another article, implying the need to collect the information on the topic one place. Its perfecly logic to creat a subarticle when there is a lot to write about it, and the issue covers several fields. --Striver 03:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I found a third article with a section about this topic. It makes perfect sense to collect all of the info into one article, rather than having part of it all over the place. --Striver 03:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - POV fork, lacking substance, wishful thinking from an anti-Zionist ideological platform. --Leifern 03:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete POV fork, any relevant info could be placed in the Israel Defence Forces article and/or Human rights in Israel.--Jersey Devil 03:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete How much possible information can you put in this article? Two paragraphs at most. It doesn't justify its own page. merge well written and relevent information into the relevent articles. Guy Montag 03:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete, it's a POV fork. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 04:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Rename to Use of human shields by Israel Defense Forces or similarly titled to avoid "active present tense" because it refers to past documented acts; then Keep for notability. If Mel Gibson DUI incident can have a hugh article, then surely .... --Vsion 04:18, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
It is being suggested that the Gibson article be merged to his main article. Everyone should vote on that issue. --HResearcher 18:25, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
No it isn't. I can go take a picture of an American kid sitting on a tank any day and then claim the US uses human shields. Or I could take a picture of a whole bunch of school kids boarding the USS Kittyhawk during a fieldtrip and then say the US uses human shields. --HResearcher 16:10, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg Schrodingers Mongoose 15:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per AED. This is a fork. Avi 17:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I don't see that this article meets ANY of the requirements in Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#Overview. It was nominated for deletion before it was even a day old, not even giving a chance for edits to address objections. Most of the ridiculous delete arguments are made by Israelis and in line with a massive propaganda operation [| Operation Megaphone] being orchestrated by the Israeli Gov't. Sarastro777 17:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
People need to learn what a WP:POVFORK is, before throwing the term around. --Striver 18:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Please abide by WP:CIVIL and WP:NPOV. Conspiracy theories are not a good reason to Keep an article. Jayjg (talk) 18:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
It's not a conspiracy theory if it is being documented in mainstream media [[1]] [[2]] etc. Please abide by WP:CIVIL and WP:NPOV by not attacking me for disagreeing with you. Sarastro777 18:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Alleging that Wikipedia editors are "Israelis" and claiming that they are voting on AfDs at the behest of the government of Israel as part of some "massive propaganda operation" is indeed a conspiracy theory and a violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. The issue here is not "disagreeing with you", it is your unwarranted attacks on editors here. Please apologize for doing so, and please make sure not to do it again. Jayjg (talk) 19:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
First of all, there are editors that are Israeli--fact. If it is uncivil to say so, then they are guilty of it for making it known from the information they disclose. To then turn that into an excuse to attack me is uncivil and a personal attack, especially marginalizing well-published facts as 'conspiracy theories.' Second, their government is using "hundreds of thousands of Jewish activists" to POV'ize info about Israel. I'm sorry you have a problem with reality, but it hardly entitles you to an apology. Sarastro777 20:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
It's all very convenient to be able to blame anything not going one's way on a massive Global Jewish Conspiracy (tm). It's also lazy thinking. Which is more likely: that a single anti-Israel user created a biased article in violation of the oft-violated POV fork policy, or that armies of trained Jews, at the behest of their Mossad masters, have descended on this page with the intent of erasing all that is critical of Israel? Schrodingers Mongoose 20:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
What's more likely, that the Foreign Ministry is using "hundreds of thousands" of people to purposely slant articles on Israel, and Wikipedia has not been touched by the project? Or that perhaps one of the largest websites in the world, that is open to editing by all might be a target of the project? What reality are you living in? Accusations of POV are distraction arguments. All I see are verifiable (cited) reports of "Human Shield" events Israel has done on a relatively new article. I see people trying to get it deleted before it has even started. Sarastro777 21:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not aware of any of the voters on this AfD saying they are Israeli; perhaps you can say which ones do. Furthermore, the Megaphone tool you refer to was put out three weeks ago by the World Union of Jewish Students, not the Israeli Foreign Ministry - the editors here have been editing for many months or years. I'm giving you a final chance to apologize for claiming that editors here are stooges of the Israeli Foreign Ministry; otherwise, it will be clear you are unrepentant in your violations of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Jayjg (talk) 21:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
"for claiming that editors here are stooges of the Israeli Foreign Ministry" -- I never did this, the statements made here are quite apparent. If you think you show someone how to be civil by trying to bully an apology out of them and mischaracterizing their statements, you are sadly mistaken. Sarastro777 21:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, you did Sarastro. You said: "Most of the ridiculous delete arguments are made by Israelis and in line with a massive propaganda operation".[3] You really should step down. --HResearcher 16:18, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
You obviously don't have a comprehension level high enough to understand the nuance/difference between the accusation and the actual statement. Sarastro777 06:19, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Sure, whatever you say. But have you ever read WP:NPA? And again you were the one who wrote this. --HResearcher 10:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. There is no way in hell this could be interpreted as an encyclopedia article. News - maybe. Propaganda - maybe. Encyclopedia article - no. Any allegations of war crimes or whatever go in the main article. --Chodorkovskiy (talk) 18:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Jay, Moshe, Leifern, et al. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 18:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, Leifern and others. 6SJ7 18:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, clear WP:POVFORK. TewfikTalk 18:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, Tewfik, others. Really disgraceful propaganda polemic.--Mantanmoreland 18:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and rewrite. Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International are legit sources.Left Words 19:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: Account was created 7 minutes before this vote, and this is its fourth edit. Jayjg (talk)
  • Note: Through what process did you ascertain this to be the same person? How can we independently verify your conclusions which at best can be based on circumstantial evidence of users sharing an IP address? Sarastro777 20:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Note:Sarastro-Do you have any clue what you are talking about?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 21:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Sarastro777, try looking at this link[4] where you can independently verify that the account was created 7 minutes before the vote. Jayjg said nothing about a "same person". --HResearcher 16:15, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --tickle me 19:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete pov fork, soapbox Tom Harrison Talk 20:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete one of a zillion POV forks related to the Arab-Israeli conflict GabrielF 20:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non encyclopedic; offensive propaganda. Noon 21:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep with a rename as per Vsion. Also edit to ensure nPOV. I don't think that the article is inherantly POV, if it's based on verifiable information by independant organisations. --Darksun 22:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - we don't need IDF officers go to the bathroom during Lebanon bombing raid either. This topic is worth a paragraph in the main article about the conflict. We don't need an article for every news story out of Israel. BigDT 22:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete typical anti-Israel racist drivel. Kuratowski's Ghost 00:19, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
    • How is is racist? All the incidents listed are verifiable by independant sources. You can claim it's unencyclopedic if you wish, but there are absolutly no grounds to call it racist. Doing so is considered a Personal Attack against the articles contributers. --Darksun 10:36, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as per User:Darksun--Oiboy77 06:07, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete per nom. -- tasc wordsdeeds 06:35, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep as per Striver. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deuterium (talk • contribs) [5]
  • Strong delete per nom. Evolver of Borg 08:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete POV fork. Ayinyud 17:15, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete POV fork. Carlossuarez46 23:26, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete POV fork. gidonb 01:11, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Rename Keep Spin-offs and expansions legit. Centralization of argument at a central page instead of across articles possible for heated topic. Can be renamed Human Shields, IDF in a series of articles on Human Shields. Can easily be made NPOV. Well documented, no OR. Not a differing version to qualify for WP:POVFORK. Knee-jerk reaction to an extremely young article should be avoided and it should be allowed to develop.--Tigeroo 05:11, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. POV fork. Pales in comparison to the same practice on the other side of the conflict and should therefore be analysed in conflict. By the way, are we still writing an encyclopedia? JFW | T@lk 09:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as POV fork. Metamagician3000 10:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 11:23, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as POV fork.--Cúchullain t/c 02:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. The article's not very good, and could probably be accommodated within Human rights in Israel. But it's not a POV fork to discuss a particular discrete issue. The current article title is shitty, and the content probabl doesn't warrant its own article, but at the same time I don't think the topic itself is one where we can never conceivably have an article, which was my understanding of what the basic criteria for deleting something would be. I won't cry too much for this article if it dies, but I find it incredible that everyone views this as a POV fork, and nobody cares about an actual POV fork like Judea and Samaria, whose purpose seems to be to describe the West Bank from the Israeli POV. john k 02:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    Just to note, I see that the most recent revision of Judea and Samaria has been drastically shortened, making it rather less of a POV fork. But I still think that's a much clearer instance of a POV fork than this is. A POV fork is when you have two articles on the same subject, but one of them is limited to discussing a single POV on that issue. That's what "Judea and Samaria" basically is. The term means the same thing as West Bank, but is only used by people with one POV. An article on Judea and Samaria can only be about the use of that term, because any further discussion is essentially overlapping with West Bank (and the version of that page before July 31 was full of discussion that could just as well have gone at West Bank). Here, people seem to be saying that this is a POV fork because it discusses an issue which only makes Israel look bad. But that's not what a POV fork is, as I understand it. john k 02:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, unless merged with Human Shield, then delete. Ulritz 13:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Coredsat as pov fork; John K's arguments to keep are well made, but at bottom they are just a better written version of the "You have X, so this must be kept" argument we all know and hate. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    I was trying not to make that argument, but I fear it did come across that way. As I said, mine was a weak keep vote. I do not think that having an article on this topic is necessary, I just don't think it falls into line with deletion policy. I'd probably prefer a redirect to Human rights in Israel and a merge of the content there. But I don't think it's a POV fork, and I don't think it (quite) qualifies for outright deletion. The notice of Judea and Samaria was not meant to indicate that we "must keep" this article, just as a way of explaining why this doesn't qualify as a POV fork. Anyway, I don't especially care about this article. john k 17:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom Elizmr 18:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete, it's a POV fork. I agree with John that it is conceivabl for this not to be a POV fork, but then it would be a content fork and in this case a content fork is not justified. My point is that we shouln´t have an article on every topic a few editors want to write about. This is not a blog. There should be a series about Israel and the Israeli-Palstinian conflict as well as specific wars including th current one in Lebannon. And these articles should be as comprehensive as an encyclopedia article could be. Any valid material in this article is better suited in another article that will provide more context and NPOV. User:Slrubenstein — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.100.35.28 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment, well, you deleted Problem-reaction-solution arguing there is no mainstream sources. Is BBS a mainstream source? It has a headline named "Israelis accused of 'human shields' tactic". If that does not cut it, then i am seriously dismayed in the face of wikipedias west-central bias.--Striver 19:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a platform for propaganda. Pecher Talk 09:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
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 "http://debianws.lexgopc.com/wiki143/index.php?title=Wiki143:Articles_for_deletion/Israel_Defense_Forces_using_human_shields&oldid=3273828"