Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2009 Israel Defense Forces T-shirt affair (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Given the contentious topic, is it unsurprising the amount of discussion that has been spent on this AfD. The delete votes were strong, numerous, and based the argument firmly on WP:NOTNEWS. Some keep votes claimed that due to the nature of this event, NOTNEWS is being misapplied, and that there were adequate source to consitute notability, but I don't believe the amount nor the quality of the keep arguments outweighed the deletes and hence did not change the result. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 03:51, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

2009 Israel Defense Forces T-shirt affair

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

The conspicuously non-notable article is about an extremely minor and very brief media flurry about a group of young soldiers who printed up T-shirts that were in execrably bad taste and wore them while off-duty.Historicist (talk) 12:16, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is exactly what WP:NOTNEWS refers to. It is a comically unimportant affair which, for about a week in March 2009, was in some newspaper articles, all of which were based on a single article in Israeli newspaper Haaretz. Since then it has disappeared from serious sources, remaining only in some anti-Israel blogs. All in all, Lindsay Lohan's latest outfit received more media attention than this. The first AfD occurred while the newspaper articles were appearing, so some editors innocently fell victim to recentism, but at this point it's fairly clear what the motivation for keeping the article is. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 12:45, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh dear This is why I stay away from I/P articles usually. Though there are probably good arguments to delete, Jalap's saying things like "remaining only in some anti-Israel blogs" and "at this point it's fairly clear what the motivation for keeping the article is" makes me just.. sigh. Oh dear.... Count this "Not really a vote" any way you want. Dendlai (talk) 13:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Even if people like me create a sense of despair in you, you may find that they are reasonable people and that dialogue with them is possible and even fruitful. My statement about where this issue does and does not remain is a verifiable fact. You can check for yourself. As for my opinion on the motivation to keep this article, perhaps my greater involvement in I/P articles (and in this particular article) has made me more cynical than you. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 13:42, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:12, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:12, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:12, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge This is clearly a minor blip in the I/P history, or in the history of the IDF for that matter. There is already a large paragraph about it in the IDF article, this page should either be deleted as insignificant or it should be folded into the existing IDF page's paragraph (which could also use an editors pen...or scissors).  Fuzbaby (talk) 14:36, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Nominator may downplay the significance, in reality it is serious enough to keep. [richardsilverstein] draws the bigger picture on morality: "this is what the Occupation does to Israel". Re nom: it is not "extremely minor", "non-notable"? - notables it is, the papers are serious. Just "a group of young soldiers"? Well, it is a widespread practice in th IDF, "bad taste" is your sweet word for offensive and hate-inciting. -DePiep (talk) 14:42, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete and merge information into another article. I agree with DePiep that the episode "draws the bigger picture on morality".  That is why it needs to be in a larger article dealing with the impact of the occupation on Israelis - perhaps Anti-Arabism, or in the IDF article (it is there already).  Outside of that context, it is flimsy and unimportant.


 * There was, incidentally, a similar article in the Haaretz magazine section a couple of weeks ago, about instances of Israeli border guards humiliating Palestinians. And Gideon Levy publishes a weekly column there about really execrable incidents in the occupied territories.  Are we going to write a Wikipedia article every time Haaretz publishes one of these miniscandals? --Ravpapa (talk) 15:06, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * If it's merged (and I have no opinion about whether it should be) the article should be kept as a redirect as the easiest way to preserve editing history (see WP:MAD) and since the title would not be an unreasonable one for a redirect. Olaf Davis (talk) 15:56, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete This is not about an "affair", but rather about a Haaretz article and its limited local response. Chesdovi (talk) 16:04, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. I would say to merge to the IDF article, but all that needs to be said is already there - see Israel Defense Forces. Thryduulf (talk) 16:09, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is so minor, it should be completely deleted and not even merged.  --GHcool (talk) 17:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. As WP:NOTNEWS.--Talain (talk) 17:36, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete—as was predicted last time, this story has no follow-up, it's just a news piece that somehow made it to Wikipedia. It has little to no encyclopedic value, and should've been deleted a long time ago. —Ynhockey (Talk) 18:14, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete- per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NTEMP. It was suggested that the topic would remain popular or notable as far as IDF-history is concerned, and that clearly is not the case. The IDF receives an unprecedented amount of attention for everything it does so if we were to make an article each time an Israeli grunt decided to act out of line wikipedia would likely crash for lack of bandwidth. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:44, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. WP:NOTNEWS Niteshift36 (talk) 04:06, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * First AfD concluded no consensus here. -DePiep (talk) 06:31, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Irrelevant^^^. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:51, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and per WP:NOT Nick-D (talk) 10:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments - It is not just a single newsitem by a single paper. The article has been related to war-conduct in general by multiple sources. Expanded into new section. -DePiep (talk) 10:34, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you referring to the new weasel-word studded section sourced almost entirely to blogs? Jalapenos do exist (talk) 13:10, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Not here. Please go to the article's Talk page, not here. -DePiep (talk) 21:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * First AFD irrelevant? How does someone know? Most arguments there still valid. Also: more argumentation there, not just counting votes. Interesting. And relevant. -DePiep (talk) 10:34, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment True, arguments from prior AFDs can be relevant, but at the time it was implied the story would remain notable and not simply fall under the NOTNEWS policy. Plenty of articles have been deleted on the 2nd, 3rd, and 10th AFD. Wikifan12345 (talk) 16:33, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * re: Thank you for changing (I suggest striking your bold "irrelevant"). Indeed the arguments there may be relevant. -DePiep (talk) 21:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. If "Pallywood" deserves an article this surely does. Halfacanyon (talk) 15:18, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Sockpuppet User:Halfacanyon has now been banned as a sockpuppet.Historicist (talk) 02:37, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and Ravpapa's comment above (which I disagree with). Jalapenos do exist (talk) 15:31, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * User:Halfacanyon's highly suspect pattern of behavior for a new editor, i.e. a new editor who immediately wades into edit wars and AFD's  always taking aggressive positions, reveals him as very probably a sockpuppet. Historicist Historicist (talk) 18:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Apparently I'm a sock-puppet too. :D Wikifan12345 (talk) 19:57, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment The first AfD on this article may have been premature, but as a bit of time has passed this has turned to be a un notable minor news event. If wikipedia applied the same standard to every country, and every minor news story, we'd have thousands of articles to things that are not notable but for only a short period of time.  Fuzbaby (talk) 17:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * re: 'premature'? There are no comments on the first AFD-procedure. And since a bit of time has passed, new relavant facts have appeared: e.g. another reaction of the IDF command (March 31, Haaretz). btw: the habit was going on since 2007. And of course, the linking with IDF-morality, esp in the Israel-Gaza-war. So the newsflash has reverbed. afterwards and wider. -DePiep (talk) 22:05, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Single event from only one media source (albeit RS), all other foreign outlets merely reposted the same news with no follow up and very peculiar that the other Israeli media did not pick up the story at all. No evidence of phenomenon among Israeli soldiers. Oppose merge as well, no similar article or mention in other armies of dumb 'military humour'. --Shuki (talk) 20:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete While truly despicable, Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS and even if it was, this is old news. As reference to the event exists elsewhere, there is no need to expand it into an article. ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 23:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Unpleasant, but not a large incident. Do we catalogue every time a paper writes about similar things that happend in Palestine (Gaza/WB)?  No, of course not.  Looking the writers of the articles, and the way it is written, this article seems to be an attempt to push a certain viewpoint/bias in order to support it on other pages too.  Gtadoc (talk) 02:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * CloseI think at this point it is clear the consensus is delete, so can an admin close? Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:58, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete It is a news piece not an encyclopedia piece. I don't even think one would put it in the I/P or IDF articles as it is such a minor incident. Soldiers have poor taste when it comes to humour at times shocker. Up next, an article on Wales about how their sheep have wool. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 10:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * We should Snow Close this.Historicist (talk) 10:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Let it run. I'd rather see a definitive consensus on the issue rather than accusations of a premature close. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 12:46, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as a non-notable single event. This may warrant mention in an Israel-Palestine related article, as an example of how some people treat others, but it's not enough to stand alone on Wikipedia. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 12:46, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. seicer  &#x007C;  talk  &#x007C;  contribs  13:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * weak keep Appears to be a relevant, on-going controversy. While I understand the not-news argument, I'm not convinced it applies here since this isn't just a quick news event but something is apparently having longer term fall out. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you have any evidence to support the assertion that this is " having longer term fall out"?Historicist (talk) 16:42, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * re Historicist: Why not read the article as it is now. Multiple sources relate this 1:1 to the morality etc. of IDF. -DePiep (talk) 21:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The "multiple sources" referred to by DePiep are radical blogs, some tinged with what can only be called hate-speech.  DePiep, please try to understand the Wikipedia concepts of notability and reliable sourcing.Historicist (talk) 23:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Which old version have you read (missing Haaretz twice, BBC, Jewish Chronicle for starters)? Anyway this should be on the Talk, not here. -DePiep (talk) 12:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Might be worth pointing out that DePiep believes there is a massive zionist conspiracy in action on wikipedia, according to his essay page. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 11:12, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you User:Narson. How very interesting.   Turns out User:DePiep is something of a conspiracy theorist.  The essay on his personal page opens by alleging that there is an organised, agenda-driven pro-Israel lobbyism (his italics, not mine) operating on Wikipedia.  It is a remarkable assertion.  This conspiracy involves "All pages, and a lot of editors, all with the same agenda."  It is ''organised', ' "secret,"  and "ugly."    But, never fear, User:DePiep is our guardian against the Zionist conspiracy.   His advice:  "learn and recognise the tricks used."   and if all else fails, stick it to those trick Zionists by leaving  "the much-needed template 'Page in bad condition due to pro-Israel lobbying'"   That'll learn'em.    Dear User:DePiep, do try to at least encounter the idea, the possibility, that a great many people may perceive Israel in a different light than you do, and that they may have some facts  and evidence on their side.Historicist (talk) 20:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It was not worth pointing out, and has no place in this discussion. If you wouldnt mind raising your concerns about a specific user at the appropriate place (the user's talk page, an/i, whatever) it would make these discussion less acrimonious. Nableezy (talk) 22:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America Pro Israel lobbies tried some serious hidden lobby attempts on wikipedia, so try not to accuse other editors without knowing the cases fully. Kasaalan (talk) 10:58, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Also I can count numerous clearly Israeli sided editors in these vote, but why they may so easily offended by pre-stated opinions of other editors.
 * I can clearly state "an organised, agenda-driven pro-Israel lobbyism" do exist in wikipedia, too which I also find a clear danger to accuracy of articles, as a general guide of course "pro-Arab" editors and acts also exist in wikipedia, yet they are generally unorganised, so not agenda driven and not lobbyist and remain as personal attempts. Kasaalan (talk) 11:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete, since Richard Silverstein does not seem a major figure in Israeli or Arab politics, I don't think hanging the notability of this article on comments in his blog is justifiable. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and Jalapenos. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Question. Which article would the material be merged into if this article were deleted? SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 12:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * comment Slimvirgin, as an experienced editor, would any material like this be allowed on the American and British Army pages? --Shuki (talk) 13:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I've never edited any of those pages, but I should imagine that if British soldiers had these T-shirts made up about pregnant women in Northern Ireland, say, there would be an unimaginable uproar, and almost certainly a Wikipedia article (not to mention senior resignations). Ditto if American soldiers did the same regarding Iraqi women, for example. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 13:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I remain doubtful that this event is really that significant. Soldiers from quite a few nations have been objectionable in the past. I mean, do we make reference to the anti-german and anti-hitler songs in the British army page? Some of thos were quite objectionable. Troops being dumb ass in their own time is not remarkable. At best this is 2 lines on the IDF or 2009 war page. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 14:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you show me anything comparable from the modern (or any) British army joking and rejoicing about shooting pregnant women? What is quite noticeable on this page is that those of you who seem to want to defend Israel are actually saying you expect no better of the IDF, which is something of a contradiction: you support them but you think less of them than their critics do. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 15:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The only comparable case that comes to mind was the "joke" car built by paratroopers after they'd killed two teenage joyriders. This isn't mentioned in the British army article and not even in the Lee Clegg article. Not sure if that is much help as a comparison. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a good comparison. We could certainly add it to the Lee Clegg article. At least there is a Lee Clegg article. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 16:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I hope that User:SlimVirgin will put some of her boundless enthusiasm for recording the misbehavior of uniformed troops into creating an article about United Nations peacekeeping troops raping African children.Historicist (talk) 20:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Please feel free to expand that article, but although I know the history quite well I don't tend to edit articles on the Northern Irish conflict, since it would be a struggle for me to maintain a NPOV. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The best fit for this material is on the Anti-Arabism page.Historicist (talk) 19:12, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Curious. "Historicist the nom" wrote above it should not be on Wikipedia at all. -DePiep (talk) 02:14, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It is always best to test assertions about what would have appeared against actual cases. The military of Pakistan, Morocco and Nepal were accused not of wearing offensive T-shirts, but of raping women and very young girls (children) while serving as peacekeepers in the Congo.   There was enough documentation to satisfy the Washington Post and many other newspapers.   Each army has a wikipedia page.  The incident is mentioned on none of these pages.  It gets a mention in the UN article  in a single sentence referencing "various peacekeeping missions, starting in 2003, in Congo,[58] Haiti,[59][60] Liberia,[61] Sudan,[62] Burundi and Côte d'Ivoire.[63]"  I have not checked on the armies involved in the Haiti, Liberia, Sudan, Burundi and Ivory Coast incidents, but I'm willing to bet that even actual rape by serving soldiers doesn't get the attention Israeli boys for bad judgement in designing T-shirts.Historicist (talk) 19:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, Historicist the nom, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. So what? -DePiep (talk) 02:21, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I was responding to User:SlimVirgin's unsubstantiated assertion that if the soldiers f other nations printed up derogatory T-shirts there would be an uproar, buy pointing out that soldiers form other nations actually rape innocent young girls without arousing an uproar of inspiring User:SlimVirgin to write wikipedia pages about actual incidents of rape by uniformed soldiers.Historicist (talk) 18:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * comment There is already MORE than enough of this article in the main page for the IDF. My guess is what is there right now is an over representation of this content, however, it looks like the main IDF page could use some of this page's references.  Fuzbaby (talk) 13:04, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The article appears to have good sources. Reseaunaut (talk) 22:34, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * another sock puppet Reseaunaut is the second sock pupet who has voted keep and subsequently been blocked form Wikipedia.Historicist (talk) 18:47, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete, but mention in anti-arabism and idf articles. article is well written, well-sourced, but it has turned out to not have been picked up as a more major event than what the initial reaction to it was. Nableezy (talk) 22:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "to not have been picked up as a more major event than what the initial reaction to it was" is sorta kinda the definition of non-notable. i.e., it was a news event. This is exactly the kind of one-story affair without legs that  WP:NOTNEWS refers to.Historicist (talk) 23:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * did you notice the note was preceded by "delete" or is it just fun to argue with everybody? Nableezy (talk) 23:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Again please note that the article is, since a few days, also describing a wider view, connecting T-shirts directly to IDF-behaviour (esp. in the Israel-Gaza-War). This might be new to readers who skipped some days. Users are invited to review their vote. -DePiep (talk) 03:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Second Delete This article is about a trivial incident. Expanding it to other topics is just that, adding information that could be (or already is) on other topics. Reading it again, it now reads like an article whose sole raison d'etre is IDF bashing, it has lost much of the more neutral tone it originally had and now forks off onto lots of tangents. Fuzbaby (talk) 05:05, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Fuzbaby, I don't think "second delete" adds much to the discussion. You can always revise your original advocation of "Delete or merge" based on the changes in the article you mention, or simply add more comments. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 12:15, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Jalapenos, I wanted to specifically point out that it was a response to DePiep. And, if you would notice, I did add comments after it, I'm sorry if you disagree with them :-)Fuzbaby (talk) 13:40, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree with your comments at all. I just thought "second delete" could be misunderstood as meaning that you're voting delete after having voted delete in the first AfD. Anyway, it was just a simple misunderstanding. Sorry. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 14:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Commennt I have looked at the article again following DePiep's comments and my delete !vote above still stands. Thryduulf (talk) 13:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: the article is actually worse now than it was when the AfD opened, becuase it contains some coatracking, such as the Breaking the Silence statement, and some content unsupported by the cited sources, such as the Anshel Pfeffer statement. In any case, none of this has to do with the question of whether this is an important, encyclopedia-worthy topic or a single news article that was restated and commented on in some other sources. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 14:28, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree, nothing you write here has to do with the AFD here. Same for your delete-motivation above. -DePiep (talk) 22:40, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Jala, the new section adds nothing to the notability and simply proves editors are willing to do anything except recognize the truth. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:51, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment This article is about provocative clothing and how angry it makes some people. Is that the defining bar for "Affair?"
 * Keep For various reasons keep the article
 * WP:NOTNEWS cannot be applied here. Editors suggesting WP:NOTNEWS are seriously mistaken or did not even read the guideline. Not News refers to "Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article." as a guidelines, not serious human rights violations by armies.


 * "Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events. News coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, but not all events warrant an encyclopedia article of their own. Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article."


 * Reliable sources The event has various international reliable third party source coverage
 * WP:Notable The Observer, Haaretz, The Independent, Sky News, Jewish Chronicle, BBC News, CNN, Al Jazeera English


 * The Vehement of the events The T-shirts contains aiming of pregnant women, killing of children, and homosexual rape. The T shirt controversy is a serious and certain human rights violation, and cover up attempts of the event by deletion from wikipedia only indicates POV issues.
 * http://www.richardsilverstein.com/tikun_olam/2009/03/20/idf-t-shirts-boast-of-killing-babies-pregnant-women-sodomizing-hamas-leaders/ Homosexual Rape T-Shirt worn by IDF soldiers. This shirt wearing in Israel army, is a serious human rights violation, wearing these t-shirts, letting lower rank soldiers wear these, and defending these as "humour" is also in the same league.
 * http://www.notes.co.il/idanl/54276.asp Original Hebrew version with more violant t-shirts.
 * http://www.notes.co.il/idanl/user/racist%20t-shirs%204.jpg A clear human rights violation that depicts Homosexual rape to "enemy soldiers", shooting of babies
 * No further comment needed. Kasaalan (talk) 20:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Some editors claim if the news, would be kept for US army pages, but they claim is not helpful
 * First the t-shirt controversy is added to the IDF page by POV attempts
 * User tried to remove the T-shirt page completely without any discussion, redirected into IDF page, and put a paragraph of the article to IDF page to trim it
 * Any human rights scandal, who is attempted by vast number of personnel deserves a page when the event is covered by reliable international 3rd party sources, and any attempt to delete the event or trim most possibly fall under censorship of COI or POV parties

I will add more rationale, and proof here in similar style. Kasaalan (talk) 11:50, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: I think you've demonstrated the flaw in your position excellently. You start out by assuming that the affair was "a serious human rights violation by an army", and proceed from there. It would be interesting to know how you reached the conclusion that wearing offensive shirts is a serious human rights violation. The conclusion is clearly false, and any argument dependent on it is baseless. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 12:00, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * CommentI agree with Jalapenos here. The idea that wearing a T-shirt is a human rights violation is pretty ludicrous. What they depict may be but the shirts themselves? Far more likely they'd fall under laws to do with decency (at least in the UK. I'm not aware what Israeli law has to say about it). I have serious doubts there much of a CoI exists here, the odds of one of those soldiers being on wikipedia and being in this debate are slim. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 14:32, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I too have to agree here with Narson and Jalapenos. As has been pointed already, this is a minor incident and to claim it is a major human rights scandal is ludicrous.  While clearly in bad taste, I don't think that is surprising nor unique in regard to young men in any military. Fuzbaby (talk) 14:53, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Replies
 * The kid who wore "Bush is a terrorist" t-shirt was disbanded from his high school in America.
 * In the same manner that is why I readded the removed "Cartoon describing attacking Anti-Defamation League" section. Any Cartoon does not make violance acts less important or more pretty.
 * COI does not limited to army personnel who currently wears such t-shirts (the number is not so low as you claim by the way). IDF calls for any Israeli citizen to the Israel army (which means millions of people), so the chances of previous or current members of IDF or their relatives who edits similar articles are actually pretty high. Don't try to make up statistics out of your mind.


 * The army scandal which you call as "minor incident" is your own claim, and does not reflect any universal standard.
 * I don't have to agree with any of you, since you make your point on your human right standards clearly when it comes to IDF.
 * Homosexual Army Rape or civilian, child or pregnant women slaughtering by soldiers are never funny. Neither t-shirts that depicts these acts, nor the army personnel with heavy arms who can easily commit these acts easily may never be successfully covered up so easily [they already accused by various reliable international and jewish third party human right organisations' numerous reports on committing such acts over the years]. I don't have to tell you anyone who wears, enjoys or consider these shirts as "humorous" should immediately get serious psychological help, and likewise should get disarmed from any army on the spot. If they are "teens" why are they under arms, if they are under arms, how they can wear such clear violent shirts while they are within the army training. Claiming any similar scandal would be covered up or ignored in Europe or even in America is what you should depict as "ludicrous" if you seek something funny. You cannot just tell this is "bad taste" and "unsurprisingly" normal among "young army men" and remove the scandal from wikipedia. Kasaalan (talk) 20:59, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * http://www.notes.co.il/idanl/user/racist%20t-shirs%204.jpg A clear human rights violation by universal standards that depicts Homosexual rape to "enemy soldiers", shooting of babies
 * No further comment needed. Kasaalan (talk) 20:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * While I can't speak for other editors, I think people are arguing that the IDF should be held to the same standard as any other army, not a special standard set by their adversaries in a conflict. Its no surprise that this incident is not on the front page (or anywhere) here | Human Rights Watch or here | Amnesty International. No mention of freedom to not have ugly t-shirts made of you here | Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In looking at the history of the I/P conflict, human rights violations on both sides are easy to find without manufacturing scandals. Equally, I would argue against including distasteful, but non notable events that are portrayed in the media about Palestinian fighters.  In regard to militaries, I wonder why wikipedia editors do not document the shocking human rights abuses of other militaries (for example Military of Pakistan or Military of Cambodia).  Perhaps those countries and peoples aren't considered as important to some.Fuzbaby (talk) 21:24, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This event is WP:Notable for wikipedia by reliable third party independent sources with enough coverage The Observer, Haaretz, The Independent, Sky News, Jewish Chronicle, BBC News, CNN, Al Jazeera English, so you don't have to invent new personal standards for other editors in wikipedia to dictate deletion and cover up of notable army scandals.
 * I don't care what you wonder much, but personally I don't add "shocking military abuses" for Military of Pakistan or Military of Cambodia simply because I don't have any expertise or knowledge about those countries. However I do add for any human rights violation attempts by governments on armies I read by reliable sources recently or previously on any country yet mainly for Britain USA Israel Palestine which I have the most knowledge.
 * On the other hand when I add Human Rights Watch report against Hamas noone objects
 * However when I add critical Human Rights Watch reports against IDF some POV parties try to remove reports by sugar coated and "policy based" systematical bias
 * Such attempts has gained some acceleration recently, by remove this remove that chanting, as my main area of expertise and interest of International Politics-conflict area articles are mainly israel-palestine ones, I can easily tell the Israeli sided editors has clear attempts on removal of reliable Israeli critical coverage from wikipedia, which I cannot tolerate by any means. Kasaalan (talk) 21:50, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Being of Pakistani decent, I have some knowledge and expertise on the abuses committed by its army; however, I couldn't honestly write such a section in a neutral manner. Having read through only a few dozen articles on the I/P conflict, I can see no systemic bias, but I do see clear pov pushing by people on both sides, with no attempt to maintain neutrality but instead an attempt to "win" by getting in information in or posting personal attacks on each other (this article, and this AfD are just on example). Outside editors with knowledge to contribute avoid the articles because anything they add will immediately label them "Israeli sided" or "Palestinian sided" by editors whose personal motivations cloud their objectivity.  The lack of decorum demonstrated by editors on these topics, imo, is more of a systemic problem on wikipedia than any "conspiracy" to cover anything up. Fuzbaby (talk) 22:03, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I know what neutrality is and what systematic bias is and I know what I am talking about.
 * Haaretz Publishes Border Police Abuse Israeli troops humiliate Palestinians - and put it on YouTube Dead Palestinian babies and bombed mosques - IDF fashion 2009 this is by Haaretz posted in Breaking the Silence (non-governmental organization) [Israeli sources] Israeli Border Police IDF human rights abuses are vast, and IDF is one of the leading human right abuser armies in the world along with USA, Britain and others. And I cannot tolerate any human rights abuse in the same manner by any party. Hamas human right violations also vast, however as a state army IDF should be held accordingly stressed.
 * On the other hand the case is not trivial by any means, and anyone claims the case is trivial should go and look to the dictionary definition for the word again.


 * "According to the Chronicle Herald, soldiers wore the shirts to celebrate finishing basic training. It’s an interesting/repulsive example of dehumanizing the group defined as the enemy (they aren’t people, they’re “kills”), as well as how women’s reproductive capacity is often seen as a threat or potential weapon–by reproducing, women create more enemy soldiers."
 * "Ex-soldier and campaigner with Breaking The Silence, Michael Maniken, told Sky News Online this week’s revelations suggest a pattern of immoral conduct in the army. “The army keeps on saying we’re talking about a few rotten apples but it seems the army doesn’t understand there’s a norm in this kind of action,” he explained. “We’re hearing about this time and time again and the army seems disconnected from reality.”"


 * You may read more on the case if you like.  Yet try not to belittle the case. Kasaalan (talk) 22:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Technical comment: For clarity, I have struck through the comments by the two sock puppets on this page. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 12:12, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Correct. Another suggestion for strikeouts on your talkpage here. -DePiep (talk) 15:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. I have no confidence that, if this article is deleted, the material will in fact be merged anywhere else. Any article it is added to, it will either be removed from, or repeatedly reduced as "undue," until it disappears entirely from the project. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 05:26, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Categorical deletion attempts for the article per IDF side claims
 * Previous keep by no consensus decision after AFD in 28 March 2009
 * Removal of article into redirect without consensus or any discussion that I reversed 26 June 2009
 * A big trim after redirecting the article page into a paragraph within IDF article  26 June 2009, while 5 references by 3 parties at that time [Haaretz, Independent and Sky News], trimmed to 3 references by 2 parties [Haaretz and Independent], article currently uses 8 refences
 * AFD request per "non notability" and various other wrong claims 1 June 2009
 * "'The conspicuously non-notable article is about an extremely minor and very brief media flurry about a group of young soldiers who printed up T-shirts that were in execrably bad taste and wore them while off-duty'"
 * "'The conspicuously non-notable [ WP:notable by various international reliable 3rd party news sources] article is about an extremely minor [major international news sources Haaretz, The Independent, Sky News, CNN, Al Jazeera English were available at AFD nomination date, while The Observer, Jewish Chronicle, BBC News added during AFD] and very brief [not brief by any means] media flurry [respectable news and criticism for a serious human rights abuse which contains 'dehumanisation'] about a group of young soldiers [who are heavily armed and trained to kill in war, including snipers and air bombardment personnel] who printed up T-shirts [pays for vulgar T-shirts that depicts illegal acts including murdering of civilians and rape of 'enemy'] that were in execrably bad taste [depicting illegal acts cannot be tolerated just by bad taste] and wore them while off-duty [didn't they also wear as a graduation ceremony in military area]'"


 * A clear repeated misuse of WP:NOTNEWS during AFD, which actually refers tabloid news, not serious human rights abuse or attempts per dehumanisation.
 * Categorical trimming attempt of the article into nothing, and early blocking for article improvement about a recent case, per IDF sided claims.
 * However do not forget the party which reveals this scandal is also another Israeli newspaper Haaretz in the first place, and it has various coverage internationally, so this is not about being against or pro Israeli, but directly related to IDF cover up. Jewish human rights organizations in the field and some Jewish newspapers accomplishes highly respectable works, and neutral research about human rights abuse of both Hamas and IDF, therefore their works are credible internationally. Kasaalan (talk) 07:44, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, if I can follow the various arguments you've presented here (Apologies, I'm having some trouble following parts of it), I'd like to bring up part of the general notability guidelines you suggested. "However, Wikipedia is not a news source: it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute sufficient evidence of notability". The nature of wiki guidelines is that interpretation is required and accusing other users of 'misusing' things or absolute wrongs is perhaps not great. Taking block quotes of other peoples texts and inserting your own comments is also fairly passive aggressive and poor form. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 21:11, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep This article seems to me a clear keep given the coverage it has had and the interest it has aroused. Deleting would seem to me to be to be pushing a point of view and removing useful information for our Encyclopedia's users. The articles existance I can see might be viewed as pushing a point of view but the articles tone seems to me to avoid that. The affair is now very well known in both Palestinian and Israelis circles. On the one side it is viewed as showing something important about the culture of some those involved in the conflict and on the other side about how any story no matter how apparently trival is blown out of proportion by those wishing to criticise the protagonists. Whichever side one takes the event is well known and in my view the article is worth keeping rather than deleting.  (Msrasnw (talk) 17:33, 4 July 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.