Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2008-09 Israel–Gaza Foreign involvement


 * 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. There is no consensus for an outright deletion of this article. Many who request its deletion cite WP:NPOV concerns, but to the extent that the article has or had such deficiencies (on which I express no opinion), they are in principle remediable by editing. The article has in fact undergone substantial editing since its nomination, making POV-based arguments even harder to assess. Accordingly, these comments count less in this closure (as, incidentally, do the "keep" comments who do nothing but complain about censorship). Similarly, the WP:SYNTH-prone assertion of this being part of a larger global conflict has now been edited out. In view of this, there is currently no consensual basis on which to delete it, but this does not prevent continued discussion about merging or renaming it, as perceived appropriate by editors.  Sandstein  07:11, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

2008-09 Israel–Gaza Foreign involvement



 * This is an extremely blatant POV fork so that an editor who was unable to force his non-consensus POV upon the article '2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict' has free rein to put in whatever that editor wants. For background, see Talk:2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict and Talk:2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict. This editor will not debate the issues with the consensus of opposing editors, since s/he considers them to be "fascists". The Squicks (talk) 20:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Warning that all users commenting here fall under special sanctions
As a result of an arbitration case, the Arbitration committee has acknowledged long-term and persistent problems in the editing of articles related to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, broadly understood. As a result, the Committee has enacted broad editing restrictions, described here.

This AFD could, if an uninvolved administrator thinks it warranted, be closed under these sanctions without recourse to the below comments. Hopefully no such action will be necessary. and, as key parties in this discussion, are both reminded particularly reminded of these sanctions. Chase me ladies, I&#39;m the Cavalry (talk) 01:53, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

 * I am happy to debate and I am committed to dialogue. I even attempted to debate on your user page.  My participation in the Talk:2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict discussion is extensive.  In the talk page for the article you challenged, you made no attempt to debate the issues.  In the main talk page, there was no consensus on whether the material can be used as the basis for a subarticle -- the subject was not even addressed. NonZionist (talk) 00:28, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The entire article, from the lead-- "Because foreign powers are involved in the conflict, providing military and/or diplomatic support, the Israeli offensive should not be seen in isolation. It is part of a larger global conflict, involving a series of military operations -- the 2007 military strike against Syria, the 2006 aggression against Lebanon, and the 2003 aggression against Iraq."-- down is one big fat original research synthesis. The creator of this article has a pet conspiracy theory, which he described here, saying that some dastardly gang of puppet masters has a secret evil plan to take over the middle east. Since s/he was not able to shape '2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict' to include his or her theory, s/he created this page. The Squicks (talk) 20:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The article presents no theories, only well-established facts. My personal beliefs are not relevant here.  The discussion at Talk:2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict pertains to Richard Perle's 1996 "Clean Break" plan, as published at an Israeli site.  Again, this plan is fact, not theory.  Not liking the facts presented in an article is not grounds for deletion. NonZionist (talk) 00:28, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Richard Perle is not God, and just because he wrote a book ten years ago does not mean that every single fracking event in the Middle East in the past ten years has been orchastarted by puppet masters.
 * The article presents no theories, only well-established facts. My personal beliefs are not relevant here. Marxist professors in the 1960s and 1950s wrote books about critical theory that advocated gay marriage in America. Therefore, all efforts in the years afterward to legalize gay marriage is nothing but a Marxist conspiracy! It's a part of a Marxist master plan to destroy American moral values, as articled by this book. Again, this plan is fact, not theory. Not liking the facts presented in an article is not grounds for deletion. Do you see that? It's the same silly kind of conspiracy mongering. The Squicks (talk) 04:42, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Where did I say that Richard Perle orchestrated ANYTHING?! Please don't put words in my mouth, Squicks.  And why are you even talking about "Clean Break"?  It was mentioned in the talk for the main article, but it is not mentioned in the article we're currently dealing with.  There is no "therefore".  You are seeing something that isn't there.
 * Let's make your analogy more realistic, Squicks. If a highly influential gang of Marxists with access to the highest circles of power developed a plan to use gay marriage to sow division in America, and gay marriage was subsequently implemented and did prove divisive, then one might reasonably ask to what extent the plan influenced subsequent events.  That is not the same thing as saying that that Marxist gang totally orchestrated everything that happened over a ten year period!  Using such a hysterical claim as a strawman would indicate an unwillingness to look realistically at the degree of influence the Marxists exerted.
 * Anyway, thanks for giving me this much debate. It seems to me that some people here are afraid to even raise the issue of foreign involvement, afraid to even ask the question.  If that is true, then you have shown more courage than most by daring to respond intelligently to me. NonZionist (talk) 07:26, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Note This article was previously 'proposed for deletion' by me on 15 January. The Squicks (talk) 20:15, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The previous request was removed by another user without my knowledge. NonZionist (talk) 00:28, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete--In the current form this article is an example of WP:POVFORK and WP:OR.--J.Mundo (talk) 21:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep:
 * This article contains WP:RS material that was moved from the main article, 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict. See Talk:2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict.  It is under development: It will expand as new countries become involved and new sources are found.  The proponents of deletion have made no attempt to balance the POV or remedy perceived shortcomings.  They've offered no constructive criticism or discussion.
 * The article casts light on the hidden participants in the conflict in Gaza. Discussing the conflict without mentioning these larger powers would be like discussing the 1960s "conflict" in Vietnam without mentioning the U.S..  The assault on Gaza, moreover, could easily expand into a regional or global war, in which the covert involvement of other powers will become overt.  If that happens, the information in this article will be useful as background.
 * The article addresses involvement and differs from International reaction to the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict. The latter addresses verbal reaction, which occurs after the fact, and it focuses on parties that are uninvolved.  This article focuses on parties that have allegedly or actually contributed in significant ways to the conflict or its resolution.
 * Suppressing WP:RS information about the context of a situation amounts to censorship. That suppression is inconsistent with the purpose of an encyclopedia and inconsistent with wikipedia policy.  See WP:UNCENSORED.  Is Israel acting alone, or is it supported by other powers?  How can that information not be of interest to encyclopedia readers?
 * Much as censorship may appeal to pro-war forces, it is ultimately ineffective. In this age of the internet, the information does eventually get out, if not through wikipedia, then through dozens of other sites.   But the delay in making the information widely available results in an additional loss of life.  For those who sat on the story, there is also a loss of credibility.  Wikipedia has an opportunity to be at the head of the curve, promoting the humanitarian philosophy of the original Encyclopedists.  That opportunity should not go wasted.
 * NonZionist (talk) 00:10, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. It's WP:SYNTH and extremely POV. Clearly belongs on a blog instead of Wikipedia.  Graymornings (talk) 00:22, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I agree completely with Graymornings - this is a POV-fork on topic which is better covered in other articles (eg, articles on the Israeli Defence Force and the equipment it uses, etc). Nick-D (talk) 03:36, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.   —Nick-D (talk) 03:36, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Blatant POV fork, as said above. Bsimmons 666  (talk) 03:58, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete there is more POV in this article than there was for the entire 2008-2009 US Presidential election. The article isn't even properly formatted. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:36, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Feel free to fix the format, or describe your objection to the format or offer constructive criticism. NonZionist (talk) 07:26, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed the formatting (for what good it will do). TomStar81 (Talk) 08:15, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep No censoring. Brunte (talk) 15:46, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:NPOV, and is an obvious POV fork of the main article. --Patar knight - chat/contributions 17:52, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Again We should use our common sense to pick a side, as i am sure you will agree with me that nearly any one who goes on wikipedia is clever enough to make his own mind and tell the difference between fact and opinion and wikipedia has a NO CENSORSHIP policy thus this page should remain. NeMiStIeRs (talk) 19:00, 17 January 2009 (GMT)
 * Delete - but violating NPOV is not a reason to delete. The reason is that this is a WP:POVFORK from another article. If we were to delete articles simply for being non-neutral, we wouldn't have more than a thousand articles. --Cerejota (talk) 19:16, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Violating neutrality policy is a reason to delete if the very existence of the article is POV. There's no way this article could be written that would make it NPOV, no matter how neutrally we worded it.  Graymornings (talk) 19:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I completely disagree. Foreign funding of a State is clearly a neutral, encyclopedic topic, that if it warrants its own article should deserve it. This article isn't. It is a WP:POVFORK attempt to eliminate the material on Iranian involvement from another article.--Cerejota (talk) 04:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, let me clarify my wording - I think we're on the same page here. This topic could definitely be presented neutrally if it did warrant its own article, but the intent of this article was bad to begin with, so the article (i.e. its existence) can't be neutral because it's a POV fork.  Graymornings (talk) 09:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - Firstly for WP:POVFORK - it's beyond reprieve. And secondly because wikipedia is not a newspaper. Thirdly, if we're going to have a neutral, informative article like this (which is definitely a notable topic) the best way is to salt the Earth PanydThe muffin is not subtle 22:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If this is a "POVFORK" then where is the other side of the fork? TO be a "fork", one needs at least two POV's or tines.  This information is presented nowhere else, and is based on mainstream WP:RS.  It was moved out of the main article to reduce the length of that article, not to create a separate POV in opposition to the main article. NonZionist (talk) 01:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I must admit that I don't know the intricate details of the history of this article. It would appear to me from it's bias that it has forked from the main article to push a POV. If it was moved from the main article to reduce its length I would suggest that the person who moved it had an agenda (as opposed to the people who called for it to be moved deliberately setting out to make a bias article). Similarly, whilst I accept your comments in good faith (and I hope you will do the same for me) your username suggests that this is an article you may have a personal stake in. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 01:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your response, Panyd. I do have a personal stake in the Middle East peace -- as do we all!  My taxes go to support Israel, and war-making in the region could draw in the entire world, and could even go nuclear.  To fix the problem, we have to know what factors are contributing to the problem.  That's why I am making an effort to keep the notable RS information in the article from being deleted.  That is my POV and my agenda.  Although I created the article, I do not own it: Anyone can edit it, change phrasing, and add or subtract POV.  Some of the material already in the article comes from someone with a POV very different from mine.
 * I'm really disappointed by the knee-jerk rush to delete. It makes me wonder how anything at all political gets published here.  Instead of deleting each other's work, shouldn't we be making an effort to collaborate and improve things together?! NonZionist (talk) 03:13, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - The subject is notable, that the article is currently non-NPOV is not basis to delete, rather it is basis to improve the article. There is no room in the main article for this information, so I would support a subarticle. Though I do think it is not currently NPOV. Nableezy (talk) 01:50, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * How do you propose we fix the article? The very foundation of it is rotten. It was created solely to promote a user's own personal POV. See WP:POVFORK. The Squicks (talk) 01:54, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Just as any other article, we go through and remove unsourced information or find sources for it, making sure to keep in mind UNDUE, and try to create an article that presents an encyclopedic account of foreign involvement in this conflict. I think too many people are trying to delete it based on the motives of the creator, but just ask yourself this, is the topic notable? Are there RS that discuss this topic? I think most would answer yes to those questions. This article has a long way to go to be NPOV, but the topic is notable. Nableezy (talk) 02:13, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I try to make my wikipedia participation a learning experience, so that something positive can be taken away even when deadlock arises. Your comment, Squicks, points to a general problem I find when editing controversial articles, especially articles pertaining to Israel.  It is all too easy to stereotype people and assume we know their intentions.  Palestinians are often victims of this, and I seem to be a victim of it too -- because I use a taboo word, "Zionist", in my id.  But this "problem" is also a great opportunity, an opportunity to move beyond stereotypes and assumptions about motives.  You will find that I am reasonable and willing to listen and respond to your concerns about the article.  Yes, I have a POV -- I care about justice, peace, freedom, life -- and that inspires my work here.  But that doesn't have to be an obstacle.  We can still find things to agree on, and, when that fails, agree to disagree.  Anyway, I hand the article over to you: Make it your own!  But if you simply delete it, I'm confident that someone else will repost it, in some other form perhaps, because the foreign involvement in this conflict really is worth noting.  NonZionist (talk) 04:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep, problems with formating and POV pushing can be fixed through editorial improvement, thats how wiki works and its not grounds for deletion. I think this issue does deserve its own page as it is only going to grow as an issue worth noting as more facts emerge and these will not be properly addressed if left a sub section on the main article. Work on this article, dont delete it. Superpie (talk) 09:07, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I really think this can be fixed quite rapidly with some editing, deleting seems a little knee jerk because its off to a rocky start Superpie (talk) 09:11, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep the article, although it may need heavy rewriting to comply with WP:NPOV policies. The subject (foreign involvement in the 2008-9 Gaza conflict) seems to me a notable one; I don't accept that it's a POV fork of 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict, as that article doesn't contain much information on this specific topic (and besides, it's long enough already). The question here is not 'is this article, in its current form, worth keeping?' but 'is this an acceptable subject for an article?', and I would have to agree that it is. Terraxos (talk) 15:45, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Would it be an acceptable compromise if the page was blanked, and started again completely from scratch? The Squicks (talk) 17:17, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Unfortunetly, no. If the page gets blanked then it qualifies for speedy deletion. It is possible for the page to be recreated IF AND ONLY IF the article is rewritten from scratch and presents a Neutral Point of View. Why? Where you planning on rewriting the article? TomStar81 (Talk) 21:32, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If you're going to rewrite the article—a good idea if you can find enough neutral sources—it might be a good idea write an entirely article instead of trying to rescue this one, since it'll essentially be a completely different article.  Graymornings (talk) 09:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete It does a disservice to the "2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict" article to have a link to this one at the bottom of the page.  This page is rife with grammatical errors, formatting problems, and POV phrases like "U.S.-supplied weapons have facilitated the killing in the Gaza Strip".   Really one of the worst examples of blatant POV pushing I've seen on wikipedia.Kaylorcc (talk) 17:46, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete (warning first wiki post ever so if i mess anything up sorry in advance) - ok-this is a complete unnecessary fork as has been mentioned many times. it's not censoring to delete this whole thing completely it is -redundant- heavily from information already available in the main topic. as i've seen its entire purpose has been propaganda based POV from the beginning - example: the amount of money that US provides Israel a year is irrelevant to the involvement in the Gaza war .. another example: where the drone parts are made.. this is completely propaganda to the extreme. i'm surprised that the author didn't mention that IDF's soldier's beef jerky was made in spain and that their fine boots were manufactured in Italy by Versace... and the battery packs came from China.. you get the point. this post presents VERY VERY little NEW information that has not been presented in the main article - actual involvement of various governments has been mentioned and the fork serves very little purpose in it's current form - (did i do this correctly?) Sereneami (talk) January 18 2009  —Preceding undated comment was added at 18:21, 18 January 2009 (UTC).
 * This article actually does discuss things that there is no room for in the main article. Nableezy (talk) 16:35, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

anything that hasn't been covered in the main article is already under "international reactions". so yes everything in here 90% is already been covered elsewhere. look under syria does it say anything -new- that has not been covered in the main article or the international reactions page? same goes for turkey - nothing new. really if there is tell me what new information they have. again out of everything there is on here.. tell me what relevant information there is here that's not covered anywhere else. the 3 billion aid from the US is not relevant to this particular war - there only for propaganda. the amount of aid israel receives has other pages to go under- not relevant here whatsoever...and again the section under britain is propaganda.. and has very little relevance to this conflict at all --Sereneami (talk) 19:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Neither the main article or the international reactions article cover any type of information that the topic of this article covers. There is no mention of aid or military support given to either Israel of Hamas from other countries in either of those articles. Nableezy (talk) 22:06, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment I think the main reason I support keeping the article, beyond me thinking the topic notable, is because I dont want this stuff clogging up the main article. There have been attempts to tie this conflict to Iran in the very first sentence of the main article with a citation to an editorial, I personally would rather send all that nonsense to some periphery article and let it be dealt with there. Nableezy (talk) 00:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep For this same reason, the page should be improved as the first option, but the information has correlation with the 'parent' article and so if deleted we should find room under the section titled "International reactions" for the inclusion of the 'information' in question. I vote to keep it because i see the world not as a stage for the strong or the battleground for the evils of this world but as a sick place where sick things happens all the time. Cryptonio (talk) 05:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge to Foreign involvement in the middle east, or something similar. Far broader in scope. Would make for a good article. Xavexgoem (talk) 20:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: I see that others have made significant improvements to the article. Now that much of the POV has been eliminated, it may be easier to reach a consensus on the article status. NonZionist (talk) 21:24, 21 January 2009 (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.