Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Israeli–Palestinian conflict (2015)


 * 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. Numerically there's a clear majority to keep, but I'm not sure we can call this a consensus, as I don't think everybody is talking about the same content: the "delete" side wants to delete the content, which they consider a redundant list of incidents, and the "keep" side wants to retain the topic in the very broad sense of an article about the recent wave of violence, although no clear idea emerges from the discussion about what it should contain and how it should be titled. Accordingly, the page is being heavily edited. I suppose we'll have to see if any sort of rough consensus about what the article should be about emerges at the editorial level; if not, a renomination is a possibility.  Sandstein  20:46, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Israeli–Palestinian conflict (2015)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

We have lists of violent attacks by both sides of the conflict (List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, January–June 2015 and List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, July–December 2015) as we have lists for years past (eg List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 2014). This is strictly a listing of violent actions committed by Palestinians against Israelis, so it is a pretty straightforward WP:POVFORK from those lists. That the list in this article is presented in paragraph form doesn't make it not a list, it's nearly entirely a listing of attacks. Nableezy 17:38, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I did some editing on this page earlier today to try to fix the numerous issues and put in some maintenance tags. I agree with what you're saying, and I think the page might need to be deleted. I do think there should be a page on the latest violence though, something similar to 2009 Temple Mount riots or 2010 Palestinian militancy campaign, although this title would likely not work. I think it's acknowledged widely that the most recent events is some sort of discrete event (although at this point I think it's far too early to call it a Third Intifada on WP). There might be something salvageable if this page was simply moved and purged of much of its content. mikeman67 (talk) 18:45, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The page is so POV-ridden that it defines dates by the Jewish calendar (appropriately on the Hebrew Wikipedia perhaps, but not in a global encyclopedia), uses Judea and Samaria for the default West Bank determined by ARBCOM. It wasn't written by anyone but is a paste and copy of the farcial article on the Hebrew Wikipedia, which labours under the impression that there is only one actor in the violence, Palestinians, and one victim, all this in an article whose title suggests there are two narratives. Nishidani (talk) 19:07, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, no question, there are major POV issues. Just was wondering if there's something salvageable, if at all possible. But perhaps there isn't. mikeman67 (talk) 19:41, 13 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. No shortage of reasons. The current content is an unattributed copy-paste from the Hebrew Wikipedia, as the bracketed numbers that used to be citations suggest. Accordingly, from a strict perspective, this content is a copyright violation and should be deleted on those grounds. The version prior to the copyright violation is not really any better: a demonstrably-biased accounting of events that also serves as a POVFORK of the articles indicated by the nominator. Because the only text in the article history that isn't flawed from a copyright attribution perspective is instead flawed from an NPOV perspective that does not lend itself to correction, there's nothing here to salvage. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:34, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * On a technical point, any article on wiki, irrespective of whether it draws on inter-wiki borrowings or not, should be edited gradually by point by point control of every source introduced. This has been violated grossly here, as noted above. Wiki is not a reliable source. Its reliability is based on careful composition on the basis of a close reading of extra-wiki RS. Nishidani (talk) 20:58, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note, WP:CWW means that copying from one location to another is fine if attributed (Copyvio is the wrong term as Hebrew wiki is open content also) POV may apply, but Copyvio is not a deletion reason.-- Callinus (talk) 00:05, 16 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep due to the latest events. --Midrashah (talk) 22:32, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Nishidani, If one thinks its one sided, he may edit it and not delete it--Midrashah (talk) 22:39, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The two-sided account already exists, as Nableezy noted, and it is thorough, with 300 footnotes. This has 4 Nishidani (talk) 17:16, 14 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete as WP:FORK of List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, July–December 2015.GreyShark (dibra) 20:24, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete as stated above there are already two pages identical to this one covering the January-June and July-December.Prohibited Area (talk) 08:06, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Hard to argue for deletion of an article on a topic with this much news coverage and impact. Move to an extremely neutral title, something like Escalation of violence, Israel and Palestinian territories - Fall 2015  Define a starting point, this: . Haaretz article chose early September, which pegs these events to new Israeli restrictions on an aggressive group of activists on the Temple Mount.  Improve the article.  Clearly  User:Mikeman67 is correct in suggesting that the last three Or four weeks constitute a specific event - a month ago would anyone have imagined that so many teenagers would suddenly start attacking strangers in the street with kitchen knives?  The recent spate of articles   on the role of viral videos validate the idea that the events of the last few weeks are a novel and intrinsically notable phenomenon.  The 2 articles cited by User:GreyShark, List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, July–December 2015, are lists.  Lists have their uses, but they are not articles.  What is called for here is an article that addresses the nature of the events of September and October, explores causes, discusses responses by Israeli and Palestinian authorities, and, please God, ends as the number of violent incidents declines.   User:Mikeman67 is correct that  2009 Temple Mount riots and 2010 Palestinian militancy campaign constitute valid models.  I propose that we KEEP this article. Closing this AFD will encourage editors to give this topic the article it merits.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:19, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:28, 15 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete There's nothing there worth keeping, and as a plagiarized page without notes it lacks any claim to seriousness.Nishidani (talk) 19:49, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:35, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:36, 15 October 2015 (UTC) (UTC)
 * STRONG keep While the article needs a POV cleanup and sourcing in its horrid state, the content of the article is vEry important as this is not just a spaTe of incidents or a list. Its a much wider phenomena currently ongoing. A Third Intifada perhaps?Lihaas (talk) 21:48, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:58, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * IMPORTANT NOTE Since the above mentioned comments, I have drastically changed the article to be more neutral and called for more expansion/citations (which were non-existent before).Lihaas (talk) 22:45, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * you are ignoring all of the technical arguments (a) this began as a plagiarized article (b) it has no substantial notes (c) it is machine translated (d) its title falsifies the content, since it is about the events of October not about the whole year so far (e) the events of the whole year are already extensively documented in 2 existing articles. (f)It began as, and remains, an article focused on Palestinian attacks on Israelis, which the lead then asserted was typical of 2014, and 2015 (no source), without any context for the Israeli pattern of violence. You are suggesting we save an article because, essentially, if we do, all of these flaws will be fixed in the future. I know virtually crap will survive AfDs in the IP area if it is of the Israeli victim type, but this is patently ridiculous. Nishidani (talk) 08:18, 16 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment Wikipedia serves the information needs of users (not governments) - there should be information somewhere that attempts to give a basic overview of the previous issues in the last, say, 15 years after the Second Intifada, Temple Mount entry restrictions etcetera, and perhaps Silent Intifada or some other background on violence in 2014, esp after 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict.
 * Sourcing from Israeli gov sources has major POV and COI issues.


 * List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 2014 has an NPOV tag on the "background" section. But it's important information for readers who have limited understanding of the issue. -- Callinus (talk) 01:11, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Since the cleaning mentioned just above the background section does indeed mention the wikilinks you said above. as for the Gaza conlict that is not directly relevent here (otherwise every issue in the peace process/conflict would need to be mentioned...although we can add one of the templates).
 * I also tried removing the MFA link, but someone wanted it so I merged in to complement the rest (of course wording will change).Lihaas (talk) 02:56, 16 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep Per recent events. Clearly notable. Also article shape status and deletion is not the same thing. A notable article that is in a bad shape should be c/e not deleted.--BabbaQ (talk) 08:05, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - after recent changes made to the page. I think it should be kept as a regular page on the subject which, unlike lists, provides description of the historical events in a different order and logic. Having list does not make a regular page on the same subject a content fork. My very best wishes (talk) 15:32, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge with the bunch of WP:MEMORIAL articles like Lions' Gate stabbings. Murabitat can also be combined here, since the group's only importance is in connection to the al-Aqsa events. As I said elsewhere, the latest events deserve an article, I am not sure exactly what form it should take. In an ideal world people will wait a bit before creating encyclopedia articles, but we don't live in that world. Like it or not, Wikipedia is a stop for understanding recentish events. Simply having a list of attacks on both sides does not give an interested reader a good overview. One can also identify important triggers in between the violence. The major things which salient in an ideal article should be the recent disturbances regarding al-Aqsa (the background regarding this goes back at least a year and more). Also the disturbances last year should be mentioned. And the overall situation regarding East Jerusalem etc. Gaza is not yet fully involved but several people were killed there, and a bit of the background there should also be mentioned. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 12:11, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * If I understand correctly, you suggest to merge a bunch of other pages into this page? Hence, do you mean to keep this page? If so, I think the best course of action would be to mark these other pages for merging and discuss. My very best wishes (talk) 20:45, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment. I find this reflex vote in the face of an unbelievably stupid piece of text hard to understand. Are people sensitive to what sentences, piled on one after another, mean? or mangle? Let me construe just the first: "The Israeli–Palestinian conflict refers to a series of events that occurred in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in 2015. In this year, and especially in its summer and autumn months, there was an escalation of violence in Jerusalem and the West Bank in response to continuous Palestinian accusations, with Abbas's speech to the General Assembly of the UN of 2015 as the straw that broke the camel's back, about Temple Mount restrictions. In their statements, Palestinians accuse Israel of Temple Mount status quo violations, which are denied by the Israeli government. Jewish settlers and security forces clashed with Palestinians including arson incidents and shootings and raids. Palestinians stabbing attacks occurred almost daily, as well as vehicle ramming, molotov cocktail and stone-throwings are the most common. Following the restrictions during Rosh Hashanah, in September and October a drastic escalation of violence occurred"
 * Keep Recent events have made the uptick in violence notable in it's own right. A list or timeline does not cover these events in detail, and makes them seem like there are run of the mill attacks. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:21, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep This article covers notable recent events. It should be modified and filled out than deleted wholesale if there are content concerns.  R mosler  | ●   02:38, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong delete - Simply just to vex Isreal and her supporters. and to prove that Wikipedia is one western information outlet that IS NOT entirely manipulated by Israel and her western allies. What happened to the right of FREEDOM OF SPEACH PEOPLE?! Does the alarm only ring on the "DRAW MUHAMMAD" day?! --علي سمسم (talk) 08:22, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The term Israeli Palestinian conflict does not refer to events in 2015. That is a nonsense sentence, sitting there uncorrected.
 * There is no evidence given there was an escalation in summer
 * That there was an escalation of violence (by Palestinians) in East Jerusalem in October is known. That there was an escalation of violence in the West Bank is undocumented.
 * The hypothetical 'escalation' is in response to, um . .  continuous Palestinian accusations. The word 'continuous' is incorrect: it means 'never ending', not, as appears to be contextually the desired word, 'repeated'.
 * The meaning of the preceding sentence is itself bizarre, implying that the violence (by Palestinians) escalated as a response to never ending Palestinian accusations. I.e. one expects that the violence is to be a response to something Israeli does: no, the Palestinian violence is a Palestinian response to Palestinian accusations. Christ!!! Doesn't anyone notice the obvious stupidity here?
 * There's an attempt to pin down some responsibility. Abbas addressed the UN and this was 'the straw that broke the camel's back', an hilarious metaphor, but we don't know whose camel's back was broken, Israel's or Palestine's. If Palestine's, then his speech broke his own people's camel's back, and they reacted by a kind of intifada? One doesn't know.
 * All of a sudden here, the meaning of the article, which should apply to the events of the whole year, reveals itself. Israeli–Palestinian conflict (2015) in the lead means, 'events triggered by Abbas's 'incedndiary incitement' at the UN. Who said this? The editor.
 * 'In their statements, Palestinians accuse' i.e. whenever Palestinians talk, they do nothing but discuss and accuse Israel'. Sheer ineptness.
 * 'Jewish settlers and security forces clashed with Palestinians including arson incidents and shootings and raids.'
 * That is an hilariously bad sentence. It is a preliminary brief sop (the intended meaning being that, yeah, there's been a few incidents of Jewish violence but')

Do those voting read the article? Have they a literacy level beyond primary school? This is perhaps the most inanely inept piece of drafting I've seen in donkey's ages, and the majority approves of it as showing great promise! Well done Nishidani (talk) 14:08, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 'Palestinians stabbing attacks occurred almost daily' (this has sense only for October, not for the explicit time span in the article title.
 * Please read WP:NOTCLEANUP. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:13, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment.Calm down. it is a reflex vote, I never read the article. I changed my vote to delete and it is still a valid vote even if it just a reflex. I didn't realize you on the Palestinian side until I revised your views on other articles. I don't read the English Wikipedia at all to get any political view on the conflict concerning Israel-Palestine simply because its full of bullshit. the pro-Israel side gather like hyenas and attack in numbers. They do capitulate on their native tongue and the victims' language barrier and fill the English Wikipedia with fallacies and bullshit lies!--علي سمسم (talk) 15:39, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Re 'Calm down. it is a reflex vote, I never read the article.' One should never engage in reflex votes: it is obligatory to read thoroughly the evidence, which includes the article's form and content, before making a call. I don't care which way a vote goes: I am amazed that most votes ignore the obvious state of total inadequacy for an encyclopedic article. Thanks for your honesty. I'd advise you to strike out that generic remarks about 'pro-Israeli' editors. There's nothing wrong with being pro-Israel, as long as it doesn't translate into deceptive editorial practices.Nishidani (talk) 17:12, 19 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep*. Per reasons given by E.M Gregory: Hard to argue for deletion of an article on a topic with this much news coverage and impact.Mr.User200 (talk) 18:39, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed, I don't know why this comes as a surprise as events that have received in depth coverage within larger events have been made into articles before. The uptick in violence, and the non WP:ROUTINE attacks is what is gathering the coverage. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:03, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment. Again neither of you is reading the article, which has numerous glaring violations of policy and which belies its title: the article is about the so called Third Intifada, content-wise, not about events (on both sides) for the period 2015, and therefore the article's title is a gross misnomer.Nishidani (talk) 22:33, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, im sorry but deletion isn't cleanup as there is nothing stopping an editor from starting a title move discussion, and improving the content. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:55, 19 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep* Like many others above pointed out, the topic is both important, timely AND missing adequate coverage on the subject. Some news networks began running interactive maps days ago in anticipation of the probable escalation of violence, and unfortunately the truth is this is likely to continue and have serious repercussions for events in the larger 'conflict'. So yes, definitely keep, even if a renaming discussion will have to follow. Skycycle (talk) 22:40, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. This wave of violence is follow by a huge media coverage and plenty of analysis to understand it. It even got a "name", the knife Intifada. We don't know yet if it going to last, and no one hope to, but it is already famous enough for an article. Kormin (talk) 17:41, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep It should however be merged with the Silent Intifada article, so as to rename it to "Israeli-Palestinian unrest, 2014-15"? There have been other attacks between the "Silent intifada" events and the attacks happening now? To me it seems a bit illogical to create a new page for each little spike in violence, and not show that it's part of a bigger trend since last year. At least, we should put most of the contents from the Silent Intifada page into the background of this one, and keep it how it is. Unless anyone has other suggestions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.219.227.29 (talk) 01:33, 21 October 2015 (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.