Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Israeli Violations of the Ceasefire of 21 November, 2013


 * 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, but would it be that horrible to merge with  List of Violations of the Ceasefire of 21 November, 2012? Shii (tock) 06:59, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

List of Israeli Violations of the Ceasefire of 21 November, 2013

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article is entirely based on unreliable sources. For example, Al-Qassam Brigades (Hamas), several unknown pro-Palestinian sites and PressTV (Iranian regime's propaganda), among others. There is not a single source from a relevant newspaper. IranitGreenberg (talk) 06:13, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions.  czar   &middot;   &middot;  06:50, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  czar   &middot;   &middot;  06:50, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  czar   &middot;   &middot;  06:50, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Questions Can this be referenced to more reliable sources? Also, do the sources say that these were actually violations of the ceasefire? Nick-D (talk) 07:34, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I would expect that much of it and more of the same could be sourced from the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs - occupied Palestinian territory (OCHA-oPt) very detailed Protection of Civilians (Weekly) and Humanitarian Monitor (Monthly) reports.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 12:56, 3 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I think the whole approach to these kind of issues is wrong in WP:ARBPIA. Having separate lists of things like "Israeli Violations" and "Palestinian rocket attacks" strikes me as a pretty dumb and misleading approach more suited to propaganda sites for nationalist drones. It's fine if the objective is article-scale half-truths, demonization of the enemy and presenting victimhood and agency in an ethnically segregated way. But we aren't supposed to be doing that. I think a better approach would be to build combined lists, timelines, that document events in the conflict no matter which belligerent carried them out and no matter which methods were used. In other words, I'm suggesting re-scoping/renaming/merging articles. So, keep for now and merge what can be merged to an article that probably doesn't exist yet along with rocket attack info. Also, I think the statements "This article is entirely based on unreliable sources" and "There is not a single source from a relevant newspaper" are not strictly true although they are nearly true.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 07:38, 3 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Sean, it's not the same at all. The lists of Palestinian rocket attacks are based on several important newspapers (no, I'm not talking about Arutz Sheva). Probably you prefer the New York Times to Jerusalem Post, but both sites report real rocket attacks and are considered reliable on this topic. The list of alleged "Israeli violations of the truce" is simply a fake and we can't trust its sources report the truth. This article does not belong to Wikipedia.--IranitGreenberg (talk) 08:38, 3 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm curious why you think I would prefer the New York Times rather than the Jerusalem Post but that's for another time. Anyway, back to business, I didn't say they were the same. Clearly they aren't the same. But many articles/topics in Wikipedia, and especially in ARBPIA, are "fake" in both the sampling frame sense and the framing analysis sense. Editors in ARBPIA love to frame things in ways that just look bizarre, arbitrary and inherently problematic from a policy perspective to me. Perhaps I didn't explain myself very well. What I meant really was that it might be better to forget about the current fake frames/article titles/scopes, look at the actual data, the events, and document the notable events no matter which existing article contains them. For example, look at the events on April 28 and 30 in List of Israeli Violations of the Ceasefire of 21 November, 2013. Those are notable events, notable in the same way that a rocket attack reported by RS is notable. They should be in the same list/timeline.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 09:03, 3 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment. I do think it's pretty impressive violating a ceasefire that won't be agreed for another seven months! How on earth did they manage that? -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:09, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment if you read it more closely the comma between november and 2013 indicates that it is the a list of violations conducted in 2013. Incidentally it links to another article for violations in 2012. The ceasefire seems to be named after it's date. Gmkeros (talk) 12:22, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Then it needs to be retitled (e.g. List of Israeli Violations of the Ceasefire of 21 November in 2013, because this is not what it currently says! A comma is often used like this in dates. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:54, 3 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep First, there are sI agree with User:Sean.hoyland that these lists are problematic. Also I've noted that ones with Israeli casualties or Palestinian ill deeds multiply like bunnies but ones with more Palestinian casualties or Israeli ill deeds tend to get deleted regularly. (Like an editor without discussion changed 2008-2009 casualty list name to this title which someone else then got deleted.) This leads to a real WP:Systematic bias. Let's not add to it by deleting this article.
 * Second, the editor who nominated for deletion has only been editing a few weeks so does not know that 23 of the 60 citations are from reliable sources, i.e., Reuters, Al Jazeera Ma'an News Agency, Palestinian Centre for Human Rights (generally reliable). More importantly this news google archive search of Gaza Israel ceasefire from January to today shows about 150 returns, the majority reliable sources, discussing alleged and admitted violations of the ceasefire, as well as other related issues. CarolMooreDC &#x1f5fd; 15:25, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment I can't believe it. Israel is the only country in the world which has an entire article in Wikipedia to be criticized and delegitimated, it's the only democracy in the Middle East but still is the only one compared with Apartheid South Africa... and you are complaining for "systematic bias" in favor of Israel?--IranitGreenberg (talk) 03:10, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment in reply: Hey, I'd like to see a Criticism of government article on every government on the planet... I'm quite disgusted that the same article on the US is called Anti-Americanism, as if criticism is a bad thing! I see criticism of China is in several parts of that article, another legit way to do it. Same with Russia. And North Korea. I am surprised no one's started the Criticism of the government of Iran article as one more excuse to bomb the hell out of Iran. But thanks for reminding me that the Israel article needs to mention the 2011 poll showing Israel was as popular as Iran and North Korea, i.e, at the bottom of the pile with them. CarolMooreDC &#x1f5fd; 03:49, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You know what is truly outrageous? An hypocrite deleted Criticism of the Iranian government. And you talk about systematic bias... And no, Jews were never too popular in the world, but here's another poll for you.--IranitGreenberg (talk) 04:01, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 3 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. Lacks WP:RS, constructed in a comically WP:POV manner. Clear WP:POVFORK that should probably be WP:SALTed. Plot Spoiler (talk) 19:20, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Which article is it POV forking exactly? Dlv999 (talk) 06:25, 4 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment. Checking some of the sources, they tell about different incidents, but they don't outright say violations of the ceasefire, so it appears to be a grave violation of WP:SYNTH to list these incidents/attacks under the current headline (I did not check reliability of sources). Regards, Iselilja (talk) 19:39, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "Checking some of the sources": 3 - 6 - 8? The ones that didn't have ceasefire in the article title or description? With all those sources, I'm sure a dozen solid ones could be found if someone did the research. In this case I'm not going to. But often I do and save the article's butt... CarolMooreDC &#x1f5fd; 03:49, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * References 39, 44, 46, 48, 67. In order to state in Wikipedia's voice that Israel has violated the ceasefire we need reliable sources that say so very clearly and unequivocally. I think ordinary news organizations will be a bit careful doing so in ordinary news reporting of specific incidents, so sources that are a bit more analytical may be needed. Iselilja (talk) 07:17, 4 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. The article is poorly sourced and excessively POV. --1ST7 (talk) 22:28, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep but consider renaming from "violations" to something like "attacks and incursions". Reads as reasonably factual. The contents are one-sided, but coherent, and balanced by other articles. Many of the facts here could be further sourced via sources such as Protection of Civilians (Weekly) and Humanitarian Monitor (Monthly) reports.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 15:16, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for good UN links to know about in general... CarolMooreDC &#x1f5fd; 17:18, 4 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Doesn't seems so true that the article is "simply a fake" (nominator POV?). Adding to Carol's comment above regarding the sources, I have found few reports supporting the article with a fast search:  (BBC),  (NYT times),  (reuters) --aad_Dira (talk) 01:04, 5 May 2013 (UTC).
 * Your first link is unrelated (event in the West Bank), and the other three are the same news about an Israeli targeted killing against an Islamic Palestinian militant responsible for a previous rocket attack against Eilat (it's not precisely a "violation of the ceasefire" with Hamas).--IranitGreenberg (talk) 02:17, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It should be noted that on aad_Dira's user page on the Arabic Wikipedia, he calls for the destruction of Israel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pulpykhann (talk • contribs) 23:29, 7 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:NOTNEWS, also some of the websites used as references do no appear to be reliable sources.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:34, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - Seems like a good example of systemic bias in the topic area that the editors active in creating List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, 2013, also believe that there should not be an equivalent article listing Israeli attacks on Gaza. I would support a name change per Truth or consequences-2. Also I would support a merge with List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, 2013 to make a neutral balanced article documenting attacks by both parties to the conflict - absent a merge the second best option is to have the two articles or delete them both for balance. Dlv999 (talk) 06:18, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Another solution is to delete both articles per WP:NOTNEWS. But if both are kept, a merging into a single article would potentially create one more neutral article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 13:20, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with RCLC. Pluto2012 (talk) 14:11, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. To underline the risks of bias in selective retention or deletion of articles like this, as Dlv points out, see Nancy Kanwisher, Johannes Haushofer and Anat Biletzki's research on one period of exchanges between Israel and the Gaza Strip. They addressed the problem of skewed reportage, showing statistically that the media blitzes on showcasing Palestinian rocket attacks and presenting Israeli bombing as ‘reactions’, doesn’t reflect the actual patterns of cause and effect. If articles are permitted listing Palestinian attacks, by parity, one can hardly delete the corresponding articles listing Israeli assaults.Nishidani (talk) 09:34, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I remember that interesting article. It came out of MIT's Center for International Studies although the article doesn't mention that.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 11:13, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * A very large number of articles are framed, (inadvertently perhaps because it only reflects mainstream media (biased) reportage), to make the Palestinian-cause and Israeli-reaction narrative look normal, whereas their later research Reply to Golan and Rosenblatt:Revisiting the statistical analysis of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict confirms that both sides retaliate: retaliation is reciprocal. An example of perfectly good RS used to break WP:NPOV because the the best RS reflect WP:Systemic bias. That is why their research, and the follow up, which includes critiques by Rosenblatt and Golan and others, (the paper above has a short bibliography down to April 2011) should be de rigueur on the relevant pages, like these two, to state the obvious. I hope to see someone with the relevant statistical background here begin to add that in, or create an article, since it is fundamental research, and yet most RS ignore it. Nishidani (talk) 13:39, 5 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Some people must be confused. Foreign media around world are generally biased and hostile to Israel. This is just a little example: Why all digital newspapers publish an image of a terrorist's relative, but not a photo related to an Israeli civilian killed in the West Bank the same day?--IranitGreenberg (talk) 13:47, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry but we are dealing here with the science of statistical analysis, conducted through peer review, to address queries raised on this deletion proposal. It is a meme that Israel is the victim of unprovoked unilateral attacks from Gaza. It is a meme in some quarters that the world's media is biased against Israel. Neither is to be believed until statistical analysis shows where the probabilities lie. The New York Times (Jodi Rudoren) wrote an article on the Golan barrier with Syria yesterday, from Mount Hazika, Israel. Though several bloggers noted the error on the talk page, they won't correct the error to reflect the facts. Every one in the real world knows that the Golan, let alone Mt Hazika, is not in Israel. This is no place to list an infinite number of journalistic oversights from any personal perspective. Nishidani (talk) 13:53, 5 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge in List of Violations of the Ceasefire of 21 November, 2012 because this topic is so anecdotical that it doesn't deserve to be cut in two articles. NPoV will be easier to manage if all "violations" are dealt together. Pluto2012 (talk) 14:08, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:V. Barely any, if any, of the incidents listed are described by reliable sources as violations of a cease fire.-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 16:41, 7 May 2013 (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.