Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of massacres committed during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war


 * 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 Speedy Keep. Paul Cyr 23:09, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

List of massacres committed during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war
biased, discredited, false, one sided. gives wrong impression because of the use of the word massacres - not in context. many of the dead are combatants, and none were deliberately targeted. only cited by discredited notorious propogandist Benny Morris, not enough information to put such a list which gives wrong impression for people who won't enter the specifics. Unusual list, not present for other wars. clear biased and POV reason for compling such a list with no encylopedic value. Amoruso 13:58, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep, obviously. This is a politically-motived listing. Amoruso has not given any of the reasons which are generally accepted as a basis for deletion, and has not given a single example of an error.  If the article is biased, there are procedures for fixing the bias.  Actually the article is conservative and well-researched.  Many of the items link to articles with good quality citations to the academic literature. --Zerotalk 14:48, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep &mdash; How is it one-sided? It covers incidents on both sides. (BTW, does this AfD template seem messed up?) &mdash; RJH (talk) 15:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's messed up. Amoruso created a new section in another AfD entry to list this for deletion. I've tried to fix the AfD by giving it an entry, and adding the appropriate templete to the article, but I can't find a way to correct the fact his paragraph is repeated in the log Lurker  oi!  15:22, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep but it needs amendment for WP:POV. I think 'massacre' may be an emotive word, but if the incidents happened, they should be recorded. If there are similar incidents on the other side, they should be added to the list rather than the list being removed. Unlike the later Arab-Israeli Wars, the 1948 conflict was in the nature of a civil war. These are often particularly brutal. If there were massacres in wars elsewhere, they may deserve articles, and possibly a list. Peterkingiron 15:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, I agree first the genocide term needs to be removed. Furthermore, it IS one sided, check the discussion page of the article. Many of these events aren't referenced by any reliable sources. And you can see the many critics on the discussion page which also refute most of the findings. So like you said, it needs atleast amendement for WP:POV, first by deleting the massacre word. (sorry for the log mixup, don't know how it happened). I've also given many reasons for deleting, acceptable reasons, the most important one that this according to many users in the discussion serves no encyclopedic value and that it is highly misleading. Amoruso 16:32, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Speedy Strong keep Needs a rewrite to bring in a better POV, but it has references, and is an interesting and informative table. LinaMishima 17:08, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep. Bad faith nomination. This Nominator's edits suggests a strong Israeli POV (edits include changing Arab claims to Arab "claims" ). Previously, Nominator has placed multiple dispute tags on articles about Israeli massacres (e.g.    ), while removing a dispute tag on a similar Arab article  ; using no edit summaries, marking edits as minor, and with no discussion on talk other than the occasional "I disagree". Plus a lot more suited for AN/I. As for the article, it covers both sides (or should). Notability: this might play a role in "the right of return" claim by the Palestinian side. Furtermore, other historians have researched this subject besides Morris, so there are more sources to cite for willing editors. -- Steve Hart 18:57, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Any bad faith here is only by you, Steve. I've changed "claims" to claims only because I was citing the writer who said this. It wasn't my opinion. You could have mentioned that it is I who wrote claims in the first place ! The whole article was written by me, it was an immediate edit. Therefore that shows bad faith from your side. Secondly, I only put tags where I thought it belonged, I always explained my edits, or nearly always. I removed a tag which was put for spite (a violation in the first place). Unlike some people like you who use pop-ups and damage articles written by Israelis or Jews with no apparent reason. Like a real speedy check said above, the article needs a serious clean up as it is critically one sided, based only on one discredited source, and is misleading and doesn't live up to wikipedia standards. Amoruso 20:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Point of information: Article was created on July 14, 2003 by User:BL. Your claim to have been the author of the whole page is a little hard to swallow.  Georgewilliamherbert 22:11, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, I think User:Amoruso is referring to a different article. However, my point was that this article is nominated not out of concern for notability, but because he would like to see it go despite of (presumed) notability. -- Steve Hart 22:42, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep, this is abuse of the AfD, Amoruso should be banned. --PEAR 23:02, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I was referring to the article that Steve Hart was referring to, obviously not to this article. Now with this article, I don't want to see this article go for any reason except the fact that a lot of users including myself have expressed our opinion that the page does not conform with wikipedia standards and that it has no value. You can read the discussions on the page. Many feel this way and I thought it needed to be discussed. Amoruso 23:04, 12 August 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.