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


 * 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. Keep, with strong encouragement to merge with Al-Aqsa Intifada on the basis of Content forking.''' ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

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

 * — (View AfD)

Forking of information which is either POV and unencyclopaedic, or should be merged to or already exists at Al-Aqsa Intifada.  Tewfik Talk 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)


 * Comment The subject matter may be encyclopaedic, but a page that singles out one side is almost the definition of an NPOV violation. I would like to see allegations of both sides given their own section on the main page, and only if they become too large should there be a subpage, but one in which they appear together.  Tewfik Talk 19:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I'd be perfectly happy with a combined allegations page for both sides - mention all the allegations on the Al-Aqsa Intifada main page, then link off to the allegations page for more description. As long as both sides' allegations are treated the same way. While on the subject of allegations, I think it's a bit POV for Al-Aqsa Intifada to have only two photos - one of a confirmed Palestinian suicide bombing, and one of an Israeli shooting that was alleged to be staged. Aren't there any photos around of verified Palestinian casualties to use instead? Ah, that's a topic for another day. Quack 688 22:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I just wanted to make sure you realised that this article does not mention "War Crimes" once either.  Tewfik Talk 02:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. This article presents some POVs, but also presents a lot of facts. Similar to articles such as Islamic terrorism, Allegations of Israeli apartheid, Islam and antisemitism; all articles which, more or less, make some sort of accusation against a group.Bless sins 12:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep bad nomination of legitimate topic, main article is a mere umbrella article hosting several spin out articles. The only thing that is missing is for the main article to link to this article in a spin-out summary section. --Striver - talk 15:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete per WP:POVFORK. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€  02:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. As admitted above, this is a WP:SOAPBOX to overcompensate for Islam and antisemitism and Islamic terrorism. ←Humus sapiens ну? 12:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep seems like a valid enough topic to me, although it might arguably work better as an article covering crimes by both sides. Gatoclass 12:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep valid article and subject. This isn't SOAPBOX any more than the following articles that single out issues concerning the Palestinians:
 * List of Palestinian Islamic Jihad suicide attacks,
 * Child suicide bombers in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict,
 * List of Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades suicide attacks,
 * List of Hamas suicide attacks,
 * List of massacres committed during the Al-Aqsa Intifada - a list that only includes massacres from the Israeli point of view.
 * --70.48.243.138 14:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment This is the IP's third edit on its month-long history. In any event, you would have a point if Israel committed suicide attacks or had child suicide bombers which were then kept out of WP. The point is even clearer in List of massacres committed during the Al-Aqsa Intifada - it is not titled List of massacres committed by Palestinian during the Al-Aqsa Intifada, just because no events were committed by Israel during that period which are widely considered "massacres" does not make the entry POV. On the other hand, both List of massacres commited by Israeli forces (Articles for deletion/List of massacres commited by Israeli forces) and Terrorism against Israel (Articles for deletion/Terrorism against Israel (2nd nomination)) were deleted for being one-sided.  Tewfik Talk 15:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey Tewfik - me again. My point is still valid.  But I do think that these lists can be combined.  The number of civilian Palestinians killed far outnumber civilian Israels -- in these various lists that fact tends to get lost.  Also I find that one problem with your perspective is that you feel that military deaths are just collatoral damage, and thus not questionable, thus giving the side with a formal military a general pass.  It comes across as convenient reasoning around your blindspot.  --70.48.240.99 04:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I never said anything about collateral damage, only that the existence of lists of suicide bombings has no relevance here since this isn't a list or discussion of either Israeli suicide bombings or events that are recognised as "massacres," just allegations (and OR) about possible human rights abuse on only one side which do not even discuss the concept of "war crimes".  Tewfik Talk 04:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not a place for anti-Israeli campagning. Beit Or 18:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per IP 70.48.243.138, and quack. When pages such List of massacres committed during the Al-Aqsa Intifada exist, (actually i expected to see Israeli war crimes on that article, but i found that it was highly israeli point of view) deletion of this article is one sided. I also propose a rename to Israel war crimes during the Al-Aqsa Intifada or something like that. Peace. --Nielswik(talk) 18:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * List of massacres committed during the Al-Aqsa Intifada is NPOV by definition because it does not name the perpetrators in advance. This is in stark contrast with the article you want to keep. Beit Or 18:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * So you're saying that List of massacres committed during the Al-Aqsa Intifada is NPOV because of the title, even though the contents are totally one-sided? Well, by that reasoning, this article should be renamed to Allegations of war crimes during the Al-Aqsa Intifada.


 * 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 Talk 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 Talk 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)


 * Delete per all above. Why on earth was this also posted to WikiProject Deletion sorting/Islam? Call me naïve, but is accusing Israel of war crimes now a component of the Islamic religion?Proabivouac 19:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and removed it. Which sorting do you think it should be listed on, if any?  Tewfik Talk 21:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel or Palestine-related deletions.  --  Tewfik Talk  22:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  For some reason this was listed on the log for 5th Jan - relisting as may not have been widely seen--Docg 00:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom and all above. Big  top  00:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC) (pov fork is reason.  Big  top  19:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC))
 * Delete pov fork.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 01:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep but Clean-up The information present is important to the topic. I don't think the article can be necessarily merged into Al-Aqsa Intifada and I think it is deserving of it's own article however it needs a strong clean-up effort if it is to remain on Wikipedia. Gan  fon  01:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Deleteper nom Elizmr 02:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep but Rename to Israeli war crimes during the Al-Aqsa Intifada. The "Accusations" is pointless rhetoric that has no good precedent. -- Ķĩřβȳ ♥  Ťįɱé  Ø  03:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 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 Wikipedia'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  ♥  Ťįɱé  Ø, Nielswik, and  TruthSpreader reply are in opposition to WP:NPOV and be given the appropriate weight, since AfD is not a vote.  Tewfik Talk  15:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Typical Israeli. I didn't even "vote." 72.88.146.173 20:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per above GabrielF 04:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Kirbytime.  TruthSpreader reply 04:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. -- Karl Meier 09:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment hey, Allied war crimes during World War II has similar title to this one, but without "accusation" thing. Peace. --Nielswik(talk) 12:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I would guess that this is because the war crimes are not disputed. Whether Israeli war crimes happened or not, you cannot deny that their existence is widely disputed. Thus, in the interest of NPOV, the article title should reflect that. -- Where 03:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Is a reasonable topic for an article. If the nominator has problems with POV the article can be improved.  Seems to be part of an attempt to remove several atricles portraying Israel in a negative light.  Also per Quack 688 Akihabara 12:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete per leftist/liberal votestacking at Articles for deletion/US Democratic Party-Iranian fundraising controversy. Khodavand 12:39, 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 Talk 15:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and cleanup, or merge &mdash; 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. &mdash; 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)


 * keep on grounds that merge (which would be preferable) is not option given length of intifada article. any other npov etc problems can be dealt with by editing the article. it's name, given it's obvious controversy, shld be dealt with thru a rename request, not here. &rArr;</b> bsnowball  09:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as clear POV fork per above. Eusebeus 13:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment This article is quite old. Where exactly did it POV fork off of, in 2004? Also this is, agreeing with previous people, a size fork. F.F.McGurk 13:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 'Forking' research for closing admin. OK, we have Al-Aqsa Intifada which is 70kb long--longer than recommended. New or different related material would be considered a SIZE fork. We have List of massacres committed during the Al-Aqsa Intifada, created January 30, 2004. Its just a table. We have Accusations against Israel of war crimes during the Al-Aqsa Intifada, created February 8, 2004, and 38kb which is just a bit too big for it's own article--it cannot all go back into Al-Aqsa Intifada. This smells definitely like a content/size fork, not a POV fork. If this is a POV fork, why is there no push to delete the matching (and poorly structured) article which lists crimes by Arabs? I call foul but want to AGF. Additionally, the matching articles that listed crimes by Arabs WERE nominated for deletion last year seen here. All were Keep. Precedent says this should be keep then as well? I dunno. F.F.McGurk 13:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Several editors have argued that the critical flaw of this article is original research. You can find no "accusations of war crimes", even the phrase "war crime" does not appear in the text. It's merely a list of episodes; the "accusations" come solely from the authors of the article. Beit Or 15:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge with Al-Aqsa Intifada. The allegations are significant and should be discussed, but they do not merit an article of their own. - ClemsonTiger 17:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep but rename per Bsnowball. --Magabund 18:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Accusations of povfork hold no water for a near 3-year-old article.  If there are POV issues within the article, then address and revise as appropriate. Tarc 20:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment There are plenty of errors that survive on Wikipedia - I've never heard of their age making them correct. That logic especially doesn't hold for those who will agree that the name was in error for just as long.  Tewfik <sup style="color:#888888;">Talk 22:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep -- strongly agree with Quack.
 * POV is not grounds for deletion.
 * I notice nominator has not made a single edit to the article's talk page -- the appropriate place to start to address a concern over POV. My comment to the nominator, if you don't first make an attempt to address a POV concern on the talk page, and jump right to a nomination for deletion, you put a huge strain on everyone else's ability to assume good faith.  Please don't put such a strain on the rest of us.  --  Geo Swan 23:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep -- Strongly agree with Quack as well. -- Rei 00:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Extremely POV and unencyclopaedic title. --Mardavich 08:57, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * is Allied war crimes during World War II also an "extremely POV and unencyclopedic title"? Peace. --Nielswik(talk) 10:03, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Merge any WP:RS into primary article(s). metaspheres 12:52, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. I dont think it's a POV fork. Just look at the extensive article List of war crimes. This one isnt any different from the rest.--Zereshk 18:11, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Exactly! That is what makes this POV, since this isn't about some objectively agreed up "Israeli war crimes", but only allegations of such (and the article doesn't even include any of those!).  Tewfik <sup style="color:#888888;">Talk 02:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * week keep I agree that it is unbalanced and full of POVs, BUT! this accusation exists, so I think we can have this article and a section for rejecting the Accusations must be added. --Pejman47 19:31, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * changing my vote to Delete; it is a POV fork of the the main article--Pejman47 10:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom, and delete all of the "Accusations . . ." and "Allegations . . ." articles as violative of Wikipedia against WP:NOR. The Illuminated Master of USEBACA 20:25, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Ganfon above. alternatively, merge into Al-Aqsa Intifada.  ITAQALLAH   22:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete merge info if needed --Rayis 01:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete obvious WP:SOAP article, and votes solicited at WikiProject Deletion sorting/Islam should be discounted. Also, almost none (or is there even one?) of the "sources" actually seems to refer to "war-crimes". Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 03:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * What soliciting? Peace. --Nielswik(talk) 09:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * LOL! Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 03:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete This is a blatant soapbox pov fork. Guy Montag 04:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete POV fork Kuratowski&#39;s Ghost 11:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Just to be clear, when I previously said that both this article and Al-Aqsa Intifada were violating WP:POVFORK, I wasn't suggesting that either be deleted. This is just a case where both articles need to be edited to be brought into line with policy. Tewfik is quite correct when he says that this article shouldn't be allowed to just present a list of facts regarding (blank), then make the argument that (blank) was a war crime. It needs to find sources which explicitly say that. However, judging by the number of Google hits that the phrase israeli "war crimes" gets, I feel confident that we can find several sources which not only list facts, but make explicit allegations about Israeli war crimes. Actually, the very first page that shows up on Google, BBC NEWS | Middle East | Amnesty slams Israel 'war crimes', is as good a place as any to start. The Amnesty International Report 2005 that it quotes from could also be used as a source. Another possible source is Israeli evades arrest at Heathrow over army war crime allegations, although that just deals with the actions of one Israeli general. Remember, we don't have to make any novel arguments ourselves. All we have to do is outline what existing sources say on the matter, both for and against. Quack 688 11:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete POV fork that combines a hodge-podge of accusations, statements, charts and numbers, while making very few specific claims of war crimes. Alansohn 17:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge per Crimson above. Just H 18:06, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per RJH. Given the number of similar articles listing suicide bombers etc it is justifiable to have an article on Israeli actions. --Duke of Duchess Street 18:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * keep per quack, swan, edison, etc. if there are some pov issues, fix them. afd is not a substitute for the normal editing process. that such accusations exist, and are notable, is unquestionable per article references. hence, it is a legitimate subject for an article, even if every accusation could be proven false. no valid grounds for deletion have been yet advanced. complaints in 2007 that a 2004 article is a "fork" is flimsy stuff indeed. Derex 01:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Derex, can you point me to any of the sources that actually refer to "war crimes"? Much appreciated. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 03:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * see quack post above. Peace. --Nielswik(talk) 04:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * None of those sources appear to be in the article though; instead they use dozens of other sources that say nothing about "war crimes". Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 16:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't object to an article name change to something more neutral. However, that's a garden-variety editing issue, not an AFD issue. Clearly there are documented and notable accusations of "bad things". What exactly you choose to call those "bad things" is an entirely different question than whether the article about accusations of "bad things" should be deleted. Derex 04:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe there are, but they don't appear in this article, which inherently is POV because it only deals with one side and is primarily based on OR.  Tewfik <sup style="color:#888888;">Talk 05:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You seem to confuse NPOV, which is policy, with balance, which is not. It is entirely possible to have an NPOV article dealing with allegations against only one party in a conflict. I would, by the same token, object to deletion of an article on allegations of Palestinian terror during the intifadah. There is no reason to combine two such articles into a single article except to promote a faux balance. Derex 06:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I suggest you review both WP:NPOV and WP:POVFORK, as policy is quite clear about cases which are not simply the separation of two aspects of an argument due to space or technical constrictions, but rather the intentional presentation of only one set of arguments to argue a nonneutral position. Of course we mustn't forget that in this case said argument ("war crimes") is not even mentioned in the article, which is instead filled mostly with WP:OR.  Tewfik <sup style="color:#888888;">Talk 23:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Why don't we work together and improve it instead of deleting it? Peace. --Nielswik(talk) 10:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * There are currently no allegations of war crimes in this article, so deleting it is improving it. That said, we should include criticism of both sides in the main article, and if there really is no room there, maintain a summary and move the detail to a new article. You are certainly invited to work together to add such criticism (of course in line with WP policies).  Tewfik <sup style="color:#888888;">Talk 17:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment Would it be proper to have an Accusations of Palestinian genocidal intent article? I would argue that if this article should be kept, then people should have no problems if I later create that article. Another nice article to have from the pro-Palestinian point of view would be Accusations of Israeli participation in the alleged global Jewish conspiracy. I think the question we face is "Is Wikipedia the place to comment on every argument (whether it be mainstream or extremest) for every issue under the sun, or is that not within its mission?". I'm not sure what the answer to that question is, in all honesty. -- <b style="color:blue;">Where</b> 02:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The presence of one article does not necessarily validate the existence of another article. An article created merely to prove a point will not last. --Ezeu 02:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Let me clarify. This article is meant to cover pro-Palestine arguments. If we keep this, in order to be balanced, we should also allow articles covering pro-Israel arguments (such as Accusations of Palestinian genocidal intent). In addition, we should cover other pro-Palestine articles, such as Accusations of Israeli participation in the alleged global Jewish conspiracy, as we should not selectively cover extremist anti-Israel arguments. -- <b style="color:blue;">Where</b> 13:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean. What I mean is that every article should carry its own weight. I mustn't be created merely on the premise that a POV article exists, therefore a counterPOV one must exist. If one deems an article to be POV, then one should edit it to remove POV, not create a new one with ones own POV. You can create any article you want, but it must meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. --Ezeu 20:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are right in that what I am saying is mostly irrelevant as to whether to keep or delete the article. Thus, I suppose I should have never said it here anyhow. Oh well. -- <b style="color:blue;">Where</b> 23:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I would agree in principle, but as of now there is no content accusing Israel on this article, and I imagine that any allegations regarding the Palestinians could fit in the main article. I would be equally concerned with creating a separate article not dictated by space etc. which would in practice only deal with the Palestinians. Remember that even such an article as you suggest would have to have its main points incorporated in al-Aqsa Intifada.  Tewfik <sup style="color:#888888;">Talk 23:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * note: jayjg removed a vote which he said to be a "banned editor" . Peace. --Nielswik(talk) 04:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If your faction contains a relatively large number of banned editors, as appears to be the case, whose fault is that? Additionally, please stop saying, "peace"; informed editors know the reason for this, and it is annoying.Proabivouac 06:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't realize AFD was a team sport. What's this "faction" thing you're on about, and how do I get "informed"? Peace. Derex 06:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * See WikiProject Deletion sorting/Islam, per our discussion above.Proabivouac 06:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't belong to any faction. I didn't even know the so-called "banned" editor before this. And I don't see anything wrong with including "peace" in my post sign. Peace. --Nielswik(talk) 06:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * What Proabivouac discusses is not there anymore, but you can see evidence that it was there once here. -- <b style="color:blue;">Where</b> 23:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That is apparently a misunderstanding by an inexperienced editor. Anyway I don't see any problem there since it has been listed there for less than 7 hours (insignificant). And let's come back to the topic. Peace. --Nielswik(talk) 10:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Rename to Accusations of war crimes during the Al-Aqsa Intifada so it can be NPOV and cover alleged war crimes on the part of both the Isaelis and the Palestinians. Examples of an alleged war crimes on the part of the Palestinians would be some militant/terrorist groups' alleged use of human shields or alleged use of civilian clothing while engaging in hostilities. -- <b style="color:blue;">Where</b> 23:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I concur. --Ezeu 07:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as yet another attack page. The day we can even imagine a page like this in the Enyclopaedia Britannica is the day we should consider having one here. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 00:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Is Britannica the benchmark? If so then this is too easy, delete. --Ezeu 06:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Per Articles for deletion/US Democratic Party-Iranian fundraising controversy, it appears that there is a double-standard here - if articles like that can be deleted (in my opinion wrongly), then this article can be deleted for the very same reasons as that one. Where is the "reliable sources" here? Who is the judge of what accusation and allegation is "reliable" or "unreliable"? If we ask most people, they will say that any accusation or allegation is "unreliable"! If this article is kept, then this system is a nepotism where people gang up and vote delete on articles they hate and vote keep on articles they like making this completely pointless. If there are rules and regulations in place, then they should hold true for all articles, not just because of the preferences and prejudices of people. Whats worse is when they attack a person (making personally-motivated, hateful attacks, not calling someone a "liberal" or "right-winger" or "neocon" or something!), and that is what happened to me. This is an appalling behavior and that it is used in these processes is not right. At least with the article I wrote I attempted to invite others to provide counter sources, but instead they attack and ridicule me and vote keep on this types of articles. You can see their votes here, same people. Khodavand 05:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * My experience is that useless articles are sometimes kept (by popular demand), but that the same articles (unless they improve substantially) eventually get deleted anyway – especially articles about contentious subjects (such as this one). The axe may well fall on this one, but if not, there is no need for doomsaying. --Ezeu 06:37, 17 January 2007 (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.