Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of massacres commited by Israeli forces


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 21:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

List of massacres commited by Israeli forces

 * — (View AfD)

This is partly a copy paste from List of massacres committed during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war, but entirely POV since it's only Israli massacres. Complete original research, POV, and unverifiable by nature. There's been some 3RR over prodding it and redirecting it to List of massacres committed during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war, but I'd rather see it deleted and salted Elar  a  girl  Talk 19:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete. It's not partially a copy paste - it's a complete copy paste. Check the history. In time, some were added which are not massacres by any standards, it's a POV fork. It's such a copy paste that the person who created it didn't bother to add "references" in the end to the sources linked from the original article. Amoruso 19:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and Amoruso. RGTraynor 20:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as POV forking. Koweja 20:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete POV magnet. Beit Or 20:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - per nom, and also that it'll lead to endless arguments about each listing. --Leifern 21:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Another great article written by a true man on a mission.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 21:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - Your sense of sarcasm is crushingly good. :D -- Elar  a  girl  Talk 21:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * question How is this a Pov Fork? One is about a war that spans a year, the other is about all the massacres commited by a nation. One is has several nations involved, and only one year span, the other has one nation span and several years... I think i just convinced myself to vote Keep. --Striver 21:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. POV fork. Jayjg (talk) 21:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and Amoruso. 6SJ7 22:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep, it's not OR, because the sources are on the other pages. We have Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America which is undergoing AfD for the second time and is going to pass for the second time, this article is the same sort of thing. It would be nice for some of the sources to be carried over from this article, and I would support a move to List of alleged massacres by Israeli forces or something like that if the article name is so troublesome, but the page belongs here. &mdash; coe l acan t a lk  &mdash; 22:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Then basically you say "Rename". That would be ok but this article is flawed from the beginning as 99% of it is copy paste from another article and the rest is obviously not a massacre and not sourced (the sources provided now are not sources for this at all...). So best to delete it and it's possible to create another article like you say. Amoruso 23:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom, duplicate POV fork. -- M P er el ( talk 22:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep As long as sources are provided this article is fully valid. There is no POV in a list of facts. If this article is deleted the articles Palestinian political violence, List of Palestinian Islamic Jihad suicide attacks, List of Hamas suicide attacks, List of Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades suicide attacks and Terrorism against Israel are to be deleted as well per your own reasoning. --Nyp 22:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, shameless POV fork for purposes of db-attack. Weregerbil 22:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete. My reasons are obvious. Its so totally an attack page on Israel. Ilikefood 22:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment List of Hamas suicide attacks is 'so totally an attack' on the Palestinians then? --Nyp 22:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The references you add don't support that these were massacres (except Palestinains saying so). You can change it to "List of Israeli operations" for example. Note that it doesn't say List of Hamas genocide terrorist attacks which is what it is. Amoruso 23:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * How come that you are the one to define what is a massacre and what is not? See Massacre at your own convenience. Israel has done precisely the things listed on that page. Whether it is me, you or the Palestinian people who call the actions for massacres is irrelevant. As long as it can be verified that they did occur and that they fall under the massacre criteria, they are per definition massacres. --Nyp 23:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Israel has not done the things listed at all and definitely not precisely like you claim. Massacres="deliberate and direct mass killing" - what you're trying to add wasn't direct and definitely not deliberate. It was colltareal damage or MISTAKES. It was deliberate sometimes during those events already described in the original article it was copy pasted from. Hence, redundant. Amoruso 23:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Which is why I stated that the article should be properly sourced. No, not with sources calling the actions for massacres, but with sources verifying that the incidents did occur and that Israel was the perpetrator. Whether it were deliberate actions or not is something that never will be fully agreed upon on this site, thus, a redundant discussion. Find sources for either POV instead, and do remember that UN officials stand above Israeli newspapers. --Nyp 23:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Saying that Israel did not deliberately do those is not a question for debate and no RS in the world accused Israel of doing that. It's just grinding water now. Amoruso 00:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * This is laughable, are you insinuating that only sources that are Israel-friendly are WP:RS? --Nyp 01:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * No, exactly the opposite. There are no RS whatsoever who call it massacre, israeli friendly or not. Amoruso 02:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete and salt. Appears on the face of it a combination of POV-fork and soap box. I have no issue with "so totally an attack page on Israel" (not leaping out at me from WP:DP that we have an obligation to be nice to Israel) or "endless arguments" (nope, don't see that either; debate is healthy). However, the article has fatal NPOV issues: the title begs the question; the content is poorly sourced, and the list indiscriminate. I do not believe that these issues could be resolved in the course of normal editing, or by better sourcing. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep as per Coelacan. Travb (talk) 23:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete IZAK 23:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep It is WP:V verifiable and WP:RS sourced and does not violate WP:NPOV as well as notable and follow what WP:LIST says we should have lists for. ThanksRaveenS 23:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - even if it was true, it's simply a copy paste of another article with a a few mistakes and perhaps one more massacre. Amoruso 23:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Instead of pushing for a deletion you could consider improving the article instead. --Nyp 23:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I tried. I tried to redirect it to its original article before the copy paste. I then tried to remove the recent military operations from it that were decided in their respective articles that they weren't massacres, hence being a 1 to 1 copy paste. Amoruso 23:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Consensus reached amidst Wikipedia users does not stand above what term definition, international organizations and media call the actions. Personally I support a redirect as per your suggestion though as I partially dislike 'articles' like this. --Nyp 23:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't know of any RS media/international organizations who truly believed Israel massacred there in the meaning of the definition you provided. Good, if you support a redirect then change your vote. the article can always be recreated as a redirect. Cheers, Amoruso 00:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete and salt per nom - unsalvageable POV fork,  Tewfik Talk 23:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€  23:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - POV fork. savidan(talk) (e@) 00:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and Amoruso. Elizmr 01:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and all above.--Mantanmoreland 03:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, POV fork and not especially needed.--Rosicrucian 04:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep (after rename) The title is POV, it should be changed to IDF operations with significant civilian casualties, to avoid any hint of bias. My concern arises when the list itself, irrespective of its title, is referred to as "a POV attack page".


 * Unverifiable - Unless someone wants to argue that one of these incidents is a worldwide media hoax, we should accept that all of these were, in fact, IDF operations with significant civilian casualties - i.e. on date A, some civilians (estimates range from B to C) died at location D, and the IDF was operating in the area at the time. So change the list name to something that reflects that. Any arguments about sourcing, and whether something was a massacre or not, belong in each specific article - this should be just a navigation list, not a full article. (Btw, if someone wants to argue that "significant" is biased, we could change it to just IDF operations with civilian casualties, so even 1 is enough for a mention, but that'd result in a lot of red-linked articles like we see in the terrorist lists below. If we have to go down that road, though, fine, I'm up for it - fair's fair for everyone.)


 * One-sided - as Nyp mentioned, there are several one-sided lists regarding this conflict on Wikipedia. (I'm assuming those groups took responsibility for every single action listed there, and that there are no "alleged" attacks in those lists.) A "one-sided" approach would be achieved by making it easy to locate articles on incidents involving one side, while making it difficult to locate articles on incidents involving the other side. Quack 688 06:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: The list contains events that happened by Jews and not Israelis before Israel was even created. Such a list you propose might be a possibility but it's something completley differnet. This one should be deleted as it's just a copy paste ! Start over if there's a need for a like like you suggested... Amoruso 06:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * That's a fair call, the IDF wasn't involved in all the incidents listed - my bad. I looked up the other "responsible parties" in that list on Wikipedia and found these:


 * The Haganah (Hebrew: "The Defense", ההגנה) was a Jewish paramilitary organization
 * The Palmach (in Hebrew - " פלמ"ח ") was the regular fighting force of the Haganah
 * Lehi ... was an armed underground Zionist faction
 * Irgun ... was a clandestine militant Zionist group


 * The neatest option I see is a split into two lists. All IDF ops can be left in the current list (after a rename to List of IDF operations with civilian casualties, I forgot "List of" before), and a new List of Jewish paramilitary operations with civilian casualties list can be created to move those non-IDF incidents into. If we could think of a good NPOV name, we could keep them together, but it's becoming more and more unwieldy, if we can't use "massacre" or "alleged massacre", and we can't say "Israeli forces", since some incidents occured before Israel was created. "List of Israeli military or Jewish-aligned paramilitary operations with civilian casualties"? is getting ridiculous. Any thoughts on the split into those two lists? Like I said before, as long as incidents on both sides of the conflict are easily accessible, I'll be happy. Quack 688 07:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Zionist operations with civilian casualties? --Striver 14:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * That one sounds even more risky.--Rosicrucian 21:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

comment if its a duplicate as stated then obviously it goes. equally obviously same logic should be applied to all these lists from this conflict, predating al nakba up until the present, they should all be laid out as in List of massacres committed during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war not these random pov 'lists of x by y organisation'. this also provides the most logical/'neutral' way of list massacres whose perpetrators are disputed. &rArr; bsnowball  08:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep No one is proposing deleting Terrorism against Israel so why delete this list which brings together important information Abu ali 22:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as per User:Nyp and User:RaveenS though i am not sure about renaming it. --  Szvest   -  Wiki me up ®  12:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete, per nom and violation of copyrite. frummer 14:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * How is it a copyright violation, exactly? Quack 688 16:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Note: compare this list with List of massacres committed during the Al-Aqsa Intifada. Both lists use the same casualty standards (10 or more). We can argue over the naming conventions, but if both sides have their own list of "incidents", it's hardly a case of POV. Quack 688 16:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong delete per nom. Note also that the above suggestion that List of massacres committed during the Al-Aqsa Intifada is an exact parallel does not hold, since that title refers to an event, whereas the title in question here refers, and apparently quite intentionally at that, to a specific group of people. -- Olve 16:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * As I said, we can argue over the titles all we want, but when you stop and look at the actual contents, you'll see that there are a lot of one-sided lists in existence. (Just for the record, the list I mentioned contains twenty-three massacres committed by Palestinian forces, and zero massacres committed by Israeli forces.) Quack 688 16:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Whether it refers to an event or a group makes no difference. We have Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America which is passing AfD as we speak, and this is the same thing, referring to a nation's military. &mdash; coe l acan t a lk  &mdash; 16:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete POV, if it had original content, which it does not, I would vote to merge, but oh well. FirefoxMan 16:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You might not know this, but POV is actually not an argument for deletion. Look right there on Articles for deletion where it says "The argument "non-neutral point of view" (violates WP:NPOV) is often used, but often such articles can be salvaged, so this is not a very strong reason for deletion either." And at the top of the page it also says "For problems that do not require deletion, including ... POV problems, be bold and fix the problem or tag the article appropriately." So you actually have no argument for deletion. You're welcome to try again. &mdash; coe l acan t a lk  &mdash; 16:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You might not have noticed but his argument is that it has no original content which is definitely a reason for delete. This article is not about whether or not it's POV or not, it's just a copy paste of another article with a few wrong additions. That's why it should be deleted foremost. Amoruso 10:51, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete: per nom and Amoruso. ♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪   Walkie-talkie |undefined 19:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete: It's my belief that words like "massacre" are impossible to square with WP:NPOV. The simple reason for this is that there is no neutral definition of the term, and any classification is bound to involve, intentionally or unintentionally, the bias of the individual author.  Even if it were renamed more neutrally, I have specific POV-conflict issues with any listing that includes only one side in a battle, "list of state terrorist acts against israel" would never be accepted as fully NPOV, neither would "List of acts of unprovoked agression by Arab states" so why would this?  NPOV also extends to the articles we keep in relation to the ones deleted.  Wintermut3 21:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, these are not even massacres. --Shamir1 22:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - okay, this POV issue has gone too far. There are two ways that I see this list could be considered POV:


 * 1) The term "massacre" in the title is POV - if so, find a better name. "List needs renaming" is not a criteria for deletion.


 * 2) Any article which only lists one side's attacks is inherently POV - if the group reaches that decision, I'd humbly suggest that all the following lists be put up for deletion on the same criteria:


 * (If anyone else knows some lists or articles with purely one-sided content for either side (I don't care what it's named, I'm talking about content here), feel free to edit my post and add them below:) Quack 688 01:51, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * List of massacres committed during the Al-Aqsa Intifada
 * List of Palestinian Islamic Jihad suicide attacks
 * List of Hamas suicide attacks
 * List of Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades suicide attacks
 * Terrorism against Israel
 * Zionist political violence Quack 688 00:12, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong keep per Coelacan. Facts are not POV. Akihabara 09:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: All facts are already covered in another article as stasted. It's a duplicate. Amoruso 10:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. SlimVirgin (talk) 11:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep: It seems that rules apply differently depending on who is doing the killing... The article is only a duplicate since User Amoruso erased all the massacres he didnt like.--Burgas00 16:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: That's of course not true. It's sad to see this response actually by the user who copy pasted the article and didn't even bother to copy paste it correctly. Amoruso 17:31, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment - This and related list concerning Israeli-Palestinian conflicts are controversial. I have seen an Afd for something similar before.  Lists of this kind fail the WP:POV test unless there are articles covering atrocities on both sides.  Merge with List of massacres commited during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war, but there is a need for a list of atrocities commited by Arabs on Israelis in 1948 too for neutrality.  Peterkingiron 18:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I think you miss the point. this article is not confined in time, while List of massacres commited during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war is confined to one single year. --Striver 18:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. POV. Shanes 20:20, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * What kind of POV? Who's point of view? --Striver 20:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Whether or not to call them massacres depends on people's point of view. We're taking side by calling them that. We shouldn't. Shanes 20:44, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I opened up List of massacres commited during the Al-Aqsa Intifada (an example of a list which contains only one side's attacks), and chose Jerusalem bus 19 massacre at random. Two sources are provided on the list, a third appears in the article itself.
 * 


 * The only source where the term "massacre" is used is from the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Therefore, I suggest that its use to describe that incident constitutes POV, and it should be removed from the title. If this list gets renamed to "alleged massacres", so should that list. Look, either we ban the terms "massacre" and "alleged massacre" all together, we establish a common definition for their use, or we only use "massacre" when the mass media uses the term itself. But whatever policy we choose, we have to be consistent when applying it.


 * Same for content - I don't care if we ban all "list of one side's attacks" pages, or if we say they're only allowed if each side gets their own page - but we have to be consistent above all else. Quack 688 00:12, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, i agree, i do not appreciate this move to delete this article, while the palestinian "massacre" articles remained untouched and undisputed. --Striver 05:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't see nominations to delete articles about the actual/alleged incidents. --Leifern 12:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Articles like Jerusalem bus 19 massacre remain undisputed because Hamas and al Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades actually both claimed responsibility, and believe that blowing up the bus is justified.  Tewfik Talk 07:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete inherently POV - note how what Wikipedia titles the Beit Hanoun November 2006 incident is labeled on this list as Beit Hanoun massacre GabrielF 05:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Is List of massacres commited during the Al-Aqsa Intifada also "inherintly POV"? Are you saying that it is IMPOSSIBLE for the Israeli forces to commit a massacre and any claim of it will always be a point of view? even if so, why not a simple rename to "killing" or something else? Is it "inherintly pov" to chronologically list the Israeli forces killings, but NPOV to list the Palestinian killings? --Striver 07:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm saying that it is inherently POV to take a list of attacks from both sides and copy only one side into a separate article. Further, it is absolutely improper to relabel incidents as massacres when they are not described as such in the article. The intifada list is a separate issue, although I would probably support a name change. GabrielF 18:01, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * If you are worried that some non-massacress will be included, then delete those, that is an editorial issue irrelevant for this afd. But maybe your argument is that ALL of the Israeli forces massacress occured during that single year? If not, why is it POV to list them, and who's pov? --Striver 19:13, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete - I'm skeptical about such lists to begin with, but this one is begging for trouble. Alleged massacres and other violations should be covered and discussed, but this is a clear POV magnet. --Leifern 12:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Holy POV fork, Batman. 205.157.110.11 14:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * We've had another five "delete - pov" votes, but no-one's directly addressed what I asked before, so I'll try again. Is it POV because of the term "massacre" in the title? If so, rename to List of Israeli operations with civilian casualties, and replace the word "massacre" throughout the list with "incident". Is it POV because it only lists one side's attacks? If that's reason enough for deletion, then every list which only list one's sides attacks should also be deleted, starting with the six lists I mentioned a couple pages ago. Think about the precedent that sets for a moment. Quack 688 16:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * People still think that this is a vote, so they ignore arguments. If the presedence is that single-sided lists are POV, then ill start following it. --Striver 19:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Single sided anything is PoV, hence the policy WP:NPOV. --Nuclear Zer0 18:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Why not merge the page with "Terrorism against Israel" that way we solve 2 problems at once/....--Burgas00 22:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

*Keep: (or possibly merge with all the various list of massacres commited by Palestinians) Abu ali 22:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I think this is your second vote, isn't it? Beit Or 22:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Struck out attempt to double vote. Isarig 22:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, my mistake Abu ali 23:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - POV. Isarig 22:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * And Isarig is never POV. Just look at his edit history :-)
 * Please cease your personal attacks. Comment on content, not editors. Isarig 23:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Were you yourself not blocked twice for personal attacks. Do I not detect certain degree of hypocrisy here? Abu ali 23:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete POV fork, magnet.--MONGO 16:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete PoV Fork, highly biased / one sided. Magnet for trouble. I mean come on "massacres commited by Israeli forces" we need an article title filter to prevent stuff like this. --Nuclear Zer0 18:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - now that someone has renamed the ridiculous title, it's actually encyclopedic an relevant. -Patstuarttalk 02:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Nearly every military operation involves civilian casualties, thus the new title just makes no sense. Beit Or 10:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. I think this could be construed as very POV, with weasel language in the name of the article and in the redirect links. For example, it still refers to 2006 Qana as a massacre, even after the Wikipedia community voted to change it to 2006 Qana Airstrike. This could also be construed as racism. Valley2city 03:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 05:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Yes but that can be simply edited (to valley2city) no need to erase the article because there are some things to fix in the content.--Burgas00 11:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong delete - farcical. Define these so-called "civilian deaths" in a NPOV way for me. The very existence of listcruft like this stinks. Horrible POV and is not needed. Moreschi Deletion! 13:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Unnecessary, inflammatory cut-and-paste job. POV magnet. --Folantin 13:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Subject inherently NPOV. And looking over the article I sense a structural NPOV in the article names. Whereas 9/11 was an “attack”, Beslan & Moscow & Budyonnovsk were crisis, Amish was a shooting, 7/7 in London, Mumbai & Madrid, Moscow were bombings, etc. - all these incidents involving Israel were apparently no less than massacres. Rune X2 14:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete pov fork Tom Harrison Talk 18:35, 20 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.