Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/Accusations against Israel of war crimes during the Al-Aqsa Intifada - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by ClemsonTiger (talk | contribs) at 17:33, 12 January 2007 (→[]). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 17:33, 12 January 2007 by ClemsonTiger (talk | contribs) (→[])(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Accusations against Israel of war crimes during the Al-Aqsa Intifada

Accusations against Israel of war crimes during the Al-Aqsa Intifada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Forking of information which is either POV and unencyclopaedic, or should be merged to or already exists at Al-Aqsa Intifada. Tewfik 23:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete. This is undoubtably a POV fork. I often want for such articles to be kept, but only for balance, not for POV pushing. --Ezeu 00:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Argument that it is a POV fork does not seem to hold, so withdrawing my comment. --Ezeu 14:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. 6SJ7 01:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge. This should be merged to or already exists at Al-Aqsa Intifada? That article doesn't even mention these allegations - actually, now that I think about it, I think Al-Aqsa Intifada itself is violating NPOV (I note that it's been tagged as such). Have a look for yourself. Do a search in that article for the phrases "war crime" and "allegation" and see what you get (excluding the link to this AfD'd article):
"war crime" : Not a single mention.
"allegation" : Mentioned a few times, but all in relation to allegations of Palestinian misconduct. We've got:
  • A link to "EU investigation into Allegations of Incitement to Violence in Palestinian Authority textbooks".
  • Some "false allegations of a massacre of thousands of Palestinians" that were later disproved
  • Photo caption: the shooting of a 12-year old Palestinian that was "surrounded by allegations of staging."
The subject matter - documented allegations - is worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia, we just need to make sure those allegations are addressed in a NPOV manner. The one concern I have about merging this into the main article is size - the main page is 69 KB already. If it's decided to combine all the offshoot articles back into the main one, and turn it into one massive NPOV article, I suppose that'd be fine, as long as other offshoots like Child suicide bombers in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, List of massacres committed during the Al-Aqsa Intifada, and The lynching in Ramallah are similarly merged back in. If it's decided that that'd make the main article too large, all the offshoots should be kept separate. Quack 688 11:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
List of massacres committed during the Al-Aqsa Intifada -> currently contains only Palestinian massacres of Israelis, but is NPOV because it could contain Israeli massacres of Palestinians.
Allegations of war crimes during the Al-Aqsa Intifada -> currently contains only Palestinian allegations of Israeli war crimes, but is NPOV because it could contain Israeli allegations of Palestinian war crimes.
What's the difference between those two, exactly? Quack 688 23:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you think the content of List of massacres committed during the Al-Aqsa Intifada is one-sided. It doesn't contain "Israeli massacres of Palestinians" only because there were none during that time period AFAIK. If you think one is missing, then please add it. Tewfik 00:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
But that's exactly my point. If this article is renamed to Allegations of war crimes during the Al-Aqsa Intifada, then Israeli allegations of Palestinian war crimes could be added. Are there any such published allegations? If so, I'd be happy to see them listed. Quack 688 01:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
That would be fine except that very little of the information in the entry is actually about "Allegations of war crimes..." - most of it is simply unrelated data being used to present a novel argument (OR style). There would be no "List of massacres..." if there was only one or two massacres, and I don't see this page as needing to exist if only one or two claims exist which could be dealt with on the main article. If however there is enough content to warrant a separate entry, then I would wholeheartedly agree. Tewfik 01:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Hmm. Fair call on the OR. The article needs to find citations for its arguments, not just its facts. (i.e. if the article says, "Israel did X, and X is considered a war crime", it needs to find sources for both "Israel did X" and "X is considered a war crime".) That's still not a reason to delete the entire thing, though. Quack 688 04:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For some reason this was listed on the log for 5th Jan - relisting as may not have been widely seen--Doc 00:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~~~~<noinclude></noinclude>

  • Hang on - I think this article's content should be kept in some form, but there's no way it can be renamed like that. Look at Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center (which has just survived its third AfD). It describes the hypothesis, but it doesn't say "this is what happened". Just to be clear, I'm not trying to compare these war crime allegations to a conspiracy theory. My point is that there's enough published material out there for us to outline the allegations of war crimes (by either side) in an NPOV manner. But it's not Misplaced Pages's place to say whether or not they were war crimes. The title "Israeli war crimes during the Al-Aqsa Intifada" implies exactly that. Quack 688 03:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Kirbytime, I must agree that the word "accusations" is awkward and forced. How about, "Criticism of Israeli responses to Palestinian terrorism?"Proabivouac 06:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
"Israeli Massacres against innocent civilians" is a good one too. 72.88.146.173 06:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I ask that the closing admin note that the rationales for 72.88.146.173, Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ, Nielswik, and TruthSpreader are in opposition to WP:NPOV and be given the appropriate weight, since AfD is not a vote. Tewfik 15:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
What does it have to do here? Peace. --Nielswik(talk) 11:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep This article has over THIRTY SIXTY sources for an article of it's length. It's heavily sourced. Strong keep. Clearly a notable topic based on amount of sourcing. F.F.McGurk 14:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  • COMMENT. Admin, please userfy if someone deems to delete, for rewriting, and notify everyone of who gets it. F.F.McGurk 14:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC) F.F.McGurk 14:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment on POV Fork argument: Hardly. The oldest version of this page is from 13:32, February 8, 2004. How is this a POV fork and of what exactly, that is slipped through almost three years of cracks and hundreds of people editing it? F.F.McGurk 14:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment It did not have more than 50 editors, and age in any event does not make something less of a fork. As I mentioned before (and Quack 688 confirms), most of the references merely cite unrelated facts who are positioned to synthesise novel arguments (OR). Tewfik 15:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup, or merge — Article has some definite neutrality/POV/propaganda issues that can be addressed. But as long as we're covering accusations from both sides, we should probably keep this. To me it just reads like a typical war-time scenario. — RJH (talk) 16:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge to Al-Aqsa Intifada (why do the names have to be so hard to spell! FirefoxMan 17:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Important topic, and has citations to show notability. POV issues in any statements should be dealt with by editing. But the citations should be changed to inline sitations to allow seeing what they are without cicking on them and going to the site. Edison 20:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Its more of a type of article that wikipedia doesn't need. Delete on sight to me. Rasillon 21:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Arkon 23:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Per nomination. All these complaints are all the fault of the Al-Aqsa Intifada, not Israel directly.--Sefringle 04:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, this absolutely fits the definition of a POV fork. Perhaps some of the content can be merged as suggested above but this article and others of its type do not belong on wikipedia.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 05:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I had a look at WP:POVFORK, and I'm still convinced that this isn't a POV fork. If anything, it's an article spinout due to size. There are two quotes in WP:POVFORK that I think are relevant:
There is no consensus whether a "Criticism of .... " article is always a POV fork. At least the "Criticism of ... " article should contain rebuttals if available, and the original article should contain a summary of the "Criticism of ... " article.
...
Even if the subject of the new article is controversial, this does not automatically make the new article a POV fork. However, the moved material must be replaced with an NPOV summary of that material. If it is not, then the "spinning out" is really a clear act of POV forking: a new article has been created so that the main article can favor some viewpoints over others.
After reading that, one thing's clear - both articles are in violation of WP:POVFORK. This article is in violation as it doesn't present any Israeli rebuttals of these claims. Meanwhile, Al-Aqsa Intifada is also in violation, as it doesn't even mention the existence of these allegations (as I said at the start, the only "allegations" mentioned there are allegations of Palestinian misconduct, and the phrase "war crime" never appears.) Quack 688 06:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Categories: