Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Palestinian Islamic Jihad suicide attacks


 * 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 Keep. Fairly clear keep consensus; nomination was withdrawn by nominator as well. Closing admin encourages the interested parties to add sources where needed. --Fang Aili talk 06:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

List of Palestinian Islamic Jihad suicide attacks

 * — (View AfD)

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are of the same nature:


 * List of Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades suicide attacks
 * List of massacres committed during the Al-Aqsa Intifada
 * List of Hamas suicide attacks

Delete per consensus reached on Articles for deletion/List of massacres commited by Israeli forces. --Nyp 03:10, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

NOTE that has very few edits to his name and should probably not be indulging in AfDs at this time. IZAK 19:06, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

NOTE that Nyp (I) have been contributing since September this year. --Nyp 20:24, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Abstain per below Delete I am probably asking for trouble by even getting involved in this AfD but these are just lists of red links. Furthermore this topic is already well-covered here. MartinDK 07:43, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * So remove the red links. Most bombings do not justify articles of their own, anyway. - crz crztalk 16:48, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per above. MER-C 07:58, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom - this is merely implementing that consensus. (Side note: My personal belief is that these articles should be kept in some form, since they're a useful method of cataloguing information. But the most important thing on Wikipedia is consistency. If the previous consensus says that a one-sided list is inherently POV, all these lists need to go. If a new consensus is reached, saying these lists are allowed as long as they don't use terms like "massacre", then the deleted list should be revived, and edited to the exact same standards. Consistency above all else.) Quack 688 08:45, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Consistency is important which is also why there is admin discretion and AfD is not a vote. That said, we should not overinterpret it. X was deleted so Y is deleted too is not an automatic process, it must be dealt with on a case by case basis. Regarding this specific AfD I would say that the previous AfD more than anything established that if these things are already well-covered there is no need for these lists. They (like most lists...) add nothing important to Wikipedia. Timelines in the main article are much etter suited for this kind of thing. The POV naming is easy to deal with but they are still just lists of things we already covered in other articles. The problem of lists being POV because they only contain attacks comitted by one party in the conflict could have been easily dealt with by merging the lists. So the POV argument really isn't reason for deletion, the fact that lists are a horrible way of doing this kind of thing is a valid reason for deletion, POV or not. MartinDK 09:07, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * "X was deleted so Y is deleted too is not an automatic process, it must be dealt with on a case by case basis." Agreed. We need to examine the reason why X was deleted. If it can be shown that Y doesn't have this problem, the original consensus doesn't apply. In this case, the Israeli list was deleted because it was decided that a list of only one side's attacks (whether or not the term "massacre" is used) is inherently POV. Some of these articles use the term "massacre", some don't, but at their core, they are all lists of one side's attacks. Therefore, I believe that, whether or not they're kept or deleted, all these articles need to be treated the same way. Quack 688 09:55, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Absolutely true. These lists are an inherently bad idea and same line of reasoning applies as on the other AfD. My only additional point is that even if the one-sided aspect is removed by merging all these lists the fact that it is a list makes it an inferior way of dealing with this since in this case a timeline in the main article would be much better and less prone to POV arguments. Sorry if my arguments got mixed together, I totally agree with you. MartinDK 10:02, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd also be happy to see all these lists turned into timelines within appropriate articles. Quack 688 10:21, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

*Delete per Quack 688 --khello 15:36, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete all per above Akihabara 09:43, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Quack. Khoikhoi 10:22, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete List of massacres committed during the Al-Aqsa Intifada, Keep the rest. With the exception of Al-Aqsa which is pretty dodgy, I'm not sure that there is a parallel between this AfD and Articles for deletion/List of massacres committed by Israeli forces. That article was a pretty clear copy-and-paste from a larger list except that attacks from only one side were copied and then relabeled as massacres even when the article did not identify them as such. In this case, the inclusion criteria is easily verifiable (did the guy blow himself up?). Some of these lists are too long to be part of a timeline (Hamas for example) and they are useful on their own (for example in tracing the history of one of these organizations). I would recommend the following remedies to deal with POV problems: (1) rename all of the articles now called "xxx massacre" to "xxx suicide bombing" unless the incident is more commonly known by another name and (2) clearly identify each list as a subset of a larger list covering both sides of the conflict with a note that attacks from one side do not occur in a vacuum. GabrielF 16:09, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel or Palestine-related deletions.   -- GabrielF 16:12, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Why? For what policy reason? Are they not verifiable? - crz crztalk 16:26, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Read the AfD mentioned in the nomination. I am not going to repeat the arguments for deletion stated there just for you, but the consensus drawn was to delete the article in question and as these articles are of the very same kind consistency has to be maintained. We cannot delete articles listing Israeli actions but keep the articles listing the actions of their enemies. The very idea of that is inherently POV. --Nyp 16:34, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Well who deleted those articles?! What do you want me to do about it now? No binding decisions. - crz crztalk 16:43, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? The only article in question of the AfD I referred to was deleted by User:Jaranda and I don't want you to do anything about it. I want the Wikipedia to be NPOV. Deleting one side's actions and keeping the other side's actions is not NPOV. --Nyp 16:51, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Dude, I truly sympathize, but I got NBD and no policy reason to delete this! - crz crztalk 16:56, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep. Rationale is supposed to be "Complete original research, POV, and unverifiable by nature." I find that not to be the case at all. Nomination is some kind of exercise in WP:POINT in order to achieve parity between two AfDs. Independent third party reliable sources could be easily adduced to justify each entry on each list. To the extent this cannot be done, the lists should be trimmed, but under no circumstances does this justify deletion. I find the entire AfD bizarre. - crz crztalk 16:46, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete List of massacres committed during the Al-Aqsa Intifada (Per GabrielF above), and rewrite the rest. sorry for the above stroked-out vote- I wasn't aware this AfD was for all those- I came directly to this page from the List of massacres committed during the Al-Aqsa Intifada and thought this was just for it. I say rewrite the rest because, as GabrielF said, they need to be put in context. Also in a lot of cases the naming of the event is not consistent with the source quoted. An encyclopedia is meant to add to readers' understanding, and in my opinion just listing things like that really don't add anything as opposed to a thorough article explaining them, or at least putting them in the context of the conflict in general. --khello 17:49, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. I do not see a policy-based reason for deletion in this AfD. All lists are useful and verifiable if correctly managed by diligent Wikipedians. I would argue that the cited AfD kind of got it wrong and efforts should be made to create an acceptable list on that topic rather than purging these lists.  young  american  (ahoy hoy) 17:57, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep because it's all true and legit, good lists and let's avoid Historical revisionism (negationism). IZAK 18:37, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. I'm not keen on lists, but insofar as we have them, I can't see a reason to delete this particular one, although it'd be good to see each entry sourced. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:57, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * As this AfD is not closed yet then, would you mind explaining the difference between your opinions here and here? --Nyp 21:59, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. Hard to assume good faith on this AFD, smacks of WP:POINT. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 19:03, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * And this violates WP:POINT ... where? Instead of referring to guidelines back and forth while disregarding from the presented arguments, state your arguments why the lists should be kept. A list of Israeli attacks was deleted. Articles of the very same kind that are listing attacks by the other side of the conflict are now being defended. See this by SlimVirgin in the AfD of the Israeli attacks article. Here she assumes the contrary position. I might not be a person with much temper, but such obvious unfairness is ridiculous. --Nyp 20:01, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * "A list of Israeli attacks was deleted" - There's the POINT. As to the other AfD, deletion was not the answer there. I think it was a crappy outcome and would have voted to keep and cleanup (save for the POV fork angle, which is not present here). - crz crztalk 20:05, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * So would the correct action I should have taken been a deletion review of the other article instead? In my eyes that would have caused the NPOV of the Wikipedia to be at the whim of a few persons that I from what I have seen most likely would have endorsed the deletion. --Nyp 20:10, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't know, but certainly not to augment one crappy outcome with another - crz crztalk 20:15, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * If even an admin is unsure about the proper action to take, a fairly new Wikipedia contributor cannot be expected to take the 'right' action either. Regardless of that, my point still stands. Does anyone even argue against that deleting lists of only one side's actions in a conflict is NPOV? Should this AfD fail I will take the other article to a deletion review, as I in neither way can see me being at fault. These articles are all of the same nature. Either they all should be kept, or they all should be deleted. Anything else is in conflict with the trustworthiness of the Wikipedia. --Nyp 20:21, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment yeah you should have taken it to deletion review... only the massive consensus on that AfD meant that you wouldn't have achieved anything. As I said above I don't think the problem here is POV at all... whatever POV problems there might be with these lists are easily overcomed. What should happen is that the way the information is presented should be improved, possibly by integrating the information into relevant articles. The problem now, as forseen, is that this AfD has gone from a debate that could have led to an improvement of Wikipedia without loss of valuable information to a heated debate with no apparent possibility of a comprimise. I would have abstained from AfD'ing this at all and worked on getting this integrated into the relevant articles if possible. I change my recomendation to abstain. MartinDK 20:25, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * But wait: I have just gone through the deleted stuff and most all of it is already contained in List of massacres committed during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war. That was a POV fork AfD. These are not POV forks of anything (if they are, let me know). These cases are not the same. - crz crztalk 20:27, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * If you check the history of the deleted article you will see that any additions of massacres committed by the IDF in more recent times were removed again by pro-Israeli contributors. --Nyp 20:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * So why don't you start List of Israeli Defense Forces operations and limit it to 10 casualties or higher? It would be hard work, but you would avoid the POV issues. - crz crztalk 20:38, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * If I am not mistaken such a suggestion was brought forth on the other AfD, but was either ignored or not good enough. I would not have a problem with attempting to create such an article, and if you can provide me with the information in the deleted article I would have a basic ground to start working with. Not meaning that I would publish the very same article again, but that I would not have to go through fifty years of Middle East history before creating the article. --Nyp 20:43, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Here you go: User:Nyp/IDF. And remember, neutral sources. Preferably news articles from the likes of Reuters, AP or NYTimes. Many of those have been hyped, numbers unverifiable. - crz crztalk 20:49, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'll see what I can do with it. Feel free to do whatever you are supposed to do with this AfD, this compromise would be fair enough to me. --Nyp 20:53, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep The nomination seems to be at odds with WP:POINT. Beit Or 21:15, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * And is withdrawn, so lower your shields. --Nyp 21:21, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Until there are no delete opinions left, the AfD lives, so people can and should continue to vote. - crz crztalk 21:26, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Right, so all that is withdrawn is my own vote for deletion? My misinterpretation then. --Nyp 21:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment AfD is not a vote. People can and should continue to voice their opinions on the deletion of these articles but I would like to see a closer that actually deletes an article whose nomination was withdrawn. MartinDK 21:36, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep per SlimVirgin and Izak. Though I was under the impression that if a nominator withdrew the AfD, it is closed as an automatic keep. -- Chabuk [ T • C ] 21:40, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Read Speedy keep - crz crztalk 21:41, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong keep. Should never have been dominated in the first place. Since this AfD has been wisely withdrawn, shouldn't this be closed out?--Mantanmoreland 21:58, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment Depends on how you look at it. If people continue to point to WP:POINT then the closer can point to that and speedy keep on that account. MartinDK 22:01, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Good point. Since the nominator has withdrawn the nom, can't someone other than the nominator post the template? Perhaps an admin or uninvolved user should do so.--Mantanmoreland 22:17, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. This is a hot topic. Personally I am a Zionist Jew, so I am biased in favor of keeping anything related to terrorism against my people.  On a more formal level, I think the material is fundamentally verifiable, notable, and neutral in point of view.  By this last point, I mean that there are many Palestinian supporters of terrorism who should find no fault with the informative format of the articles under discussion.  I hope cooler heads prevail in this debate.  129.98.212.71 22:24, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment Well, the problem here is not that we don't have enough people saying keep. The problem is that we still have 4-5 people saying delete so it can't be speedy closed. So really I see no reason for any heated debate to resurface. MartinDK 22:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per GabrielF smart and fair reasoning. --64.230.120.144 22:46, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 *  Strong Delete MetsFan76 22:48, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment So, it looks like consensus is saying that as long as a list only contains verifiable incidents, it can remain on Wikipedia, even if it only lists one side's attacks. Fine, I'm happy with that, I'm changing my original comment to a keep. I look forward to seeing the deleted list brought back using the same standards.


 * Can we at least reach consensus to remove the word "massacre" from all of these lists, and from the individual articles they link to? In many of the listed cases, the only source that refers to an incident as a massacre is the "Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs". If the international media or other neutral sources call something a massacre, fine, we can call it that too. If not, all the articles like "Bus X massacre" should be renamed to "Bus X bombing". Quack 688 23:48, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep comments on why is a waste of your and my time.--Shmaltz 00:18, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Reorder as a category. frummer 03:54, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * A category would encourage people to create an article for each and every incident - I don't think that's truly necessary. Quack 688 04:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * and why not?!?!? frummer 05:00, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, too many redlinks, need to wait untill those redlinks to turn blue in order to reorder. frummer 11:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep --Gabi S. 08:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I agree that we should rename them so that the rethoric used is the same as the Israeli articles. With all due respect though a guy blowing himself up is not a complicated affair. Yes, it is horrible when he kills people and it is definately a notable event but I would find it very hard to fill an entire article about one attack, except perhaps the larger ones that have prompted serious military responses. Eventhough we keep these articles I still think there is room for consistency as stressed by Quack. I personally like timelines (that extension to the MediaWiki software is way underrated in my opinion), apparently there is no consensus for that which was partly why I abstained so that's off the table but there is still room for improvement. We just don't need to go through this AfD to do that. MartinDK 08:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep--yidi 11:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * delete & merge into non-pov lists of all the atrocities committed during this war. also the inclusion of word 'palestinian' in title is unnecessary & arguably pov. would we accept 'List of Israeli civilian massacres'? &rArr; bsnowball  14:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Whose fault is it that PIJ call themselves Harakat al-Jihād al-Islāmi al-Filastīni? - crz crztalk 17:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Speedy Keep - No grounds for deletion. Apparently, the nominator was frustrated that a list which was a copy paste of another article and contained only falsehoods was deleted, but in contrast to that one, these are lists of factual suicide attacks that took place and are relevant and there is no reason whatsoever to delete them, nor was there any attempt to articulate such a reason. The comment above by Bsnowaball shows why those who want to delete the article lack a whole lot of knowledge on the issue and shouldn't participate in the AFD probably. Amoruso 11:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Take it easy Amoruso.  Everyone is entitled to their opinion, even you, and for you to attack people for voting delete is extremely uncivil. MetsFan76 15:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I did not attack anyone. Sorry if it sounded like it did to you. Amoruso 19:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Saying that people who vote delete are "lacking knowledge" and "shouldn't participate in the AfD" is an attack on people's intelligence but I accept your apology. MetsFan76 19:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * How is it attack on people's intelligence ? I merely meant that a person who doesn't know what Palestinian Islamic Jihad is and thinks that I've added the word "Palestinian" there is obviously lacking knowledge on the issue. It's like saying that writing "Irish Republican Army" is POV and unnecessary. cheers, Amoruso 20:18, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I know exactly what Palestinian Islamic Jihad is yet I voted delete. Are you saying that I "lack knowledge?" MetsFan76 20:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * No, it was not my intent to generalise. I didn't mention your name, i mentioned Bsnowball above. Cheers, Amoruso 20:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * But Bsnowball is entitled to his opinion without someone claiming that he doesn't know what he is talking about. Would you like if someone did that you during the next AfD? MetsFan76 20:33, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * If I make a comment that proves I'm not familiar with the matter at hand, then I wouldn't mind. The comment above proved it. Amoruso 20:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * But why would you make a comment if you had no clue what you were talking about? My point is that it is not up to you to pick on people if they made a "mistake," it is up to the admin or whomever that decide whether to keep this article or not. All I was asking for you to do was to keep cool; I didn't ask for a debate. MetsFan76 20:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The article in question was created by me, and I was offended by the allegation made by Bsnowball - I explained politely that if someone doesn't understand that basic issue about the group concerned then his vote is questionable, which was my entitled opinion. Cheers, Amoruso 23:06, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment Actually, I'm more interested in Amoruso's claim that the deleted list "contained only falsehoods". I look forward to receiving "a whole lot of knowledge on the issue", which will prove this claim to be true. Quack 688 15:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * If you claim the Kafr Qasim massacre to be 'a falsehood' you are nothing but a revisionist of the worst kind. I withdraw my withdrawal of the nomination. --Nyp 19:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Kfar Qasim was a massacre, so yes it had 2 massacres and the rest a copy paste. The falsehoods are the ones from 1948 that weren't included in the original 1948 war list. Amoruso 19:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep - Certainly notable, and I can't see any of the POV that could easily be associated with such a topic. Why exactly is this up for deletion anyway? Dbratton 19:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * We don't know except for the WP:POINT. Amoruso 19:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep - --Haham hanuka 22:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - nom didn't give a good enough reason to delete; article is notable, encyclopedic as far as a list can be, and can prove useful for many purposes. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 22:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - no reason given to delete. Zeq 15:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - I think that surveys show that Palestinians are proud of these attacks and a list is the most basic way to keep track of them for supporters. On the other hand, the lists are reminders to Israelis of the 'peace' some are chasing. So, an Afd on this is merely ignorance of the conflict. --Shuki 22:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, articles are not sourced properly. Giving the entire Ministry of Foreign Affairs website and the entire Israeli Defense Force website as a source does not cut it. Original research. For NPOV best to have an article that lists both Palestinian attacks on Israelis and Israeli attacks on Palestinians.  --Duke of Duchess Street 04:51, 31 December 2006 (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.