Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Palestinian incitement


 * 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. I think there's a rough consensus at this point that this article should be deleted due to POV and SYNTH/COATRACK concerns. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:35, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Palestinian incitement

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Violation of WP:NOTADVOCATE. This is to all intents and purposes propaganda, intended to present Palestinians in a bad light, and no article with a title remotely resembling ' Palestinian incitement' could possibly meet basic WP:NPOV requirements. WE already have articles on the broader subject (e.g. Media coverage of the Arab–Israeli conflict for example), and this is inherently a POV-fork intended to cover the subject solely from a pro-Israeli perspective. It simply doesn't belong in a credible encyclopaedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:34, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * This article seems like a WP:COATRACK of the worst kind. Any content that does need to be covered from this article could be handled in a more neutral manner in other articles relating to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict; but I don't see this specific article as being a net benefit to Wikipedia.  -- Jayron  32  05:41, 24 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment For the moment I would suggest we could redirect it to another article. The "media coverage" article would not be a good target. I think the information could be used in an article on propaganda and indoctrination in the conflict if it noted the Israeli aspect, but a redirect would preserve the information.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 05:46, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment The article was moved to Incitement to violence in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict while being discussed. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:51, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete content and redirect title to media coverage of the Arab–Israeli conflict as obvious WP:POVFUNNEL / WP:POVFORK thereof. Tijfo098 (talk) 05:50, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I think Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the better target as there is an actual section with the same title in that article. As to "delete and redirect", I don't think that is the right vote in this instance. Simply redirecting would suffice.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 05:54, 24 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete as POV-fork. The content seems biased and subjective, so not suitable for merging in its present form. Mathsci (talk) 05:58, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I recommend taking a closer look at the material. It is all based on reliable sources. If you could list examples of what you deem to be biased and subjective it could help improve the discussion. Plot Spoiler (talk) 06:16, 24 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete or redirect because, looking at the references, a lot of them are from the Jerusalem Post or the Israeli government. CarniCat (meow) 06:05, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Is The Jerusalem Post' not a reliable source? Did you go to WP:RSN? Plot Spoiler (talk) 06:16, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Sources are rarely de-facto reliable for anything. Reliability is always dependent on what you are using the source for, but I don't think anyone has stated that the comments made are not cited reliably, rather that they are cited to involved sources. Using Israeli newspapers to characterize the Palestinians is clearly problematic; the article is serving as Palestinian bashing from the Israeli government, Israeli newspapers and Pro-Israeli groups, including numerous quotes. The article is clearly acting as a soapbox. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:11, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I didn't go to the noticeboard, but I'll do that now; still, the sources aren't exactly unbiased. Here's a quote from the first article:
 * "The bottom line, Kuperwasser said, is that Palestinian incitement is “going on all the time,” adding that the phenomenon is “worrying and disturbing.” He said that at an institutional level the Palestinian Authority was continuously driving three messages home: that the Palestinians would eventually be the sole sovereign on all the land from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea; that Jews, especially those who live in Israel, were not really human beings but rather “the scum of mankind”; and that all tools were legitimate in the struggle against Israel and the Jews, though the specific tool used at one time or another depended on a cost-benefit analysis."
 * CarniCat (meow) 17:44, 24 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep This subject clearly merits its own page, given the copious references that address the issue directly - and those have barely scratched the surface. I would implore editors not to give into WP:IDONTLIKEIT exhibited by some editors. Please judge the article on its own merits. It is very well-sourced to only reliable sources - Associated Press ("Israel takes aim at Palestinian 'incitement'"), Agence France Presse ("Palestinian PM vows crackdown on arms, incitement, calls for talks with Israel"), The New York Times ("Palestinians Honor a Figure Reviled in Israel as a Terrorist"), BBC, Haaretz, Jerusalem Post ("'Palestinian incitement continuing unabated'"), etc. Addressing Incitement is indubitably a key aspect to the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. Policy grounds for the wholesale removal of the article are quite tenuous. Plot Spoiler (talk) 06:08, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Are editors really arguing that one of the key negotiating concerns in the Israeli–Palestinian peace process does not merit its own Wikipedia page? "Incitement" is explicitly mentioned in the 1993 Oslo Accords, 1998 Wye River Memorandum (which led to the establishment of the Trilateral Anti-Incitement Committee) and the 2003 Roadmap for peace. Plot Spoiler (talk)
 * "key negotiating concerns"? Citation (from a neutral source) needed? Then again, I'd like to see a neutral reliable source that claims that there is a 'peace process' - there's little sign that the propagandists on Wikipedia are interested in peace... AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:49, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:No Personal Attacks. Please. Plot Spoiler (talk) 06:52, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, no personal attacks - please confine your attacks to an entire nationality... AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:59, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment WP:SARCASM is not, has never been, nor will ever be, a Wikipedia policy or guideline, especially when dealing on very sensitive matters like wars that ended just three days ago. Please let's try to do our best in refraining from flaming, thanks.   M  aurice    C arbonaro   11:23, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * While that is no doubt sensible advice, it would mean that an opportunity for a sarcastic and witty response to an editor writing an attack article and then appealing to a policy for personal protection from attack would have been missed. That would be a terrible waste and in some cultures, certainly mine, it borders on criminal neglect. Just as the hasbara-force is strong in Plot Spoiler, the urge to make serious and profound points using witty sarcasm is strong in others. Vive la différence.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 10:09, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * For Sean and others like him, it's WP:Ignore all rules if you want to insult other editors. For him (or her), rules like WP:Civility and WP:No personal attacks need not apply. Plot Spoiler (talk) 14:54, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Cut the personal attacks out, IRWolfie- (talk) 16:19, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Having difficulty comprehending that an article like Israel and the apartheid analogy merits a page but an article on Palestinian incitement, a much more well-established phenomenon immediately deserves deletion. It does not appear that uniform standards are being applied to the topic area. Plot Spoiler (talk) 15:17, 24 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. It's conceivable it could be turned into an NPOV article, but to quote the Limelighters quoting God, "Not in My lifetime."  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 06:22, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Then salt forever. This is an unwarranted expansion of a topic that should rate nothing more than a few paragraphs in some other article, like Israeli-Palestinian conflict. There is no way in heaven or hell that this will ever be a viable article, or that it is even an encyclopedic topic at all. § FreeRangeFrog 06:43, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - per nom and Jayron. Among the worst POV forks I have seen.  nableezy  - 06:53, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is definitely a discrete topic and a longtime Israeli concern, and documented by third party organizations, ie MEMRI's famous translation of Tomorrow's Pioneers, which is an example of Palestinian incitement to anti-Semitism. Witness also the sourced statement within the article that the Israeli government considers Anti-Israel and anti-Semitic messages as "an integral part of the fabric of life inside the PA... heard regularly in the government and private media and in the mosques and are taught in schools books". Much is written about incitement's sub-topics, including Palestinian textbook controversies. I can't consider this article a POV-fork of "media coverage of the Arab-Israeli conflict", since that covers international news media, while this topic is about inflammatory and defamatory media of a certain bent within Palestine. Shrigley (talk) 07:31, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you actually have even the vaguest understanding of what WP:NPOV policy is about? Cherry-picking sources to push one side of an argument is no way to create an encyclopaedic article - and we aren't here to promote 'longtime Israeli concerns'. I think that your comments are possibly the best illustration so far as to why this article needs to be deleted, as the violation of WP:NOTADVOCATE that it is. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:56, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I only say that it is a longtime Israeli concern as evidence that people have been producing sources about the topic from which we can drawn on. Of course we wouldn't only use Israeli sources, but it's pretty intuitive that non-neutral organizations like the Anti-Defamation League, for example, would be most concerned with documenting anti-semitism, or that Amnesty International would be most concerned with documenting human rights violations. A comparable historical topic is Anti-Japanese sentiment in the United States, which of course should include Japanese perspectives, but not only that. The existence of anti-Jewish, anti-Israeli propaganda inside and by the Palestinian Authority is an encyclopedic topic. Shrigley (talk) 08:10, 24 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete I have no interest in the conflict save that it ceases in peace. From Wikipedia's standpoint this is a heavily biased article. What is required is a solid and heavyweight impartial treatise on the conflict and its various stages, something I assume exists here anyway, not a diatribe against one or other party in the conflict. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 09:27, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Less an article than an Israeli government press release. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 10:16, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete The article is not neutrally written, and appears to be based around advocating a particular POV. As such WP:TNT is in order on the grounds that this is a POV fork. Nick-D (talk) 10:17, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Almost every source is Israeli, and not an uninvolved source. An article that can not be written about neutrally because it aims to push a pro-Israeli POV. As one of the main editors has already made clear, he is here to push an Israeli POV in other articles, it comes as no great surprise : . This is an advocacy piece, and has no place on wikipedia. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:23, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Blatantly one-sided POV, sourced from blatantly one-sided sources. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:37, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete as a clearly biased POV fork. The article is almost entirely based on pro-Israeli sources and much of it simply lists the opinions of the Israeli government or pro-Israeli organisations. The problem is sufficiently severe that it cannot be addressed through normal editing. The topic might conceivably be worth covering in an article on the media of Israel and Palestine, cultural relations between Israel and Palestine or the Israeli-Palestinian conflict more generally, but not in this way. I should also note that the fact that something is sourced, or even well sourced, does not mean it is neutral. Hut 8.5 13:05, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I don't think the renaming makes any difference. The entire article is so biased that it would take a fundamental rewrite to bring it into compliance with one of our core content policies. The notability of the subject is irrelevant, as no one is proposing deletion on notability grounds and there are many reasons to delete articles besides notability. Hut 8.5 10:38, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - as above, 'clearly biased POV  - lists the opinions of the Israeli government or pro-israeli organisations.' there could be an interesting and informative article about 'indoctrination and demonisation in the Palestine-Israel conflict 1940s-present times', looked at in a rounded fashion. But this is just a propaganda leaflet. Sayerslle (talk) 13:44, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per all the above delete votes. Pass a Method   talk  14:37, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Israeli-Palestinian conflict per my comments above.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 15:15, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete: POV fork, apologetic, polemic advocacy based on extremely biased sources. Nothing of encyclopedic value to save. Can be deleted in its entirety. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 16:41, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - This is the type of "article" that serves as nothing more than a playground for the pro-Israeli Wiki-warriors around here. Delete as a painfully obvious POV fork and sanction those involved in its creation and editing per ARBPIA as warranted. Tarc (talk) 16:44, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * As one of the editors who has been accused of being a pro-Israeli Wiki-warriors, I resent the implication that this article was for me. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 17:57, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - as per non - ....just read over Israel and the apartheid analogy that was mentioned above - got problems there to.Moxy (talk) 17:08, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * There are no problems with that article. The aforementioned Wiki-warriors have longed tried to create junk like "Palestinian incitement" because they have for years tried and failed to delete, gut, or dilute the Israeli apartheid article to no avail, and see such creations as some sort of counter-point to something they don't like. Tarc (talk) 20:26, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * A reply of this nature leads me to believe that we have two groups of editors not willing to work things out - not the type of interactions we are looking for here.Moxy (talk) 20:32, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why the reply leads you to believe that. There are 2 sets of editors. One set follows the rules, the other doesn't. The set of editors who don't follow the rules includes people with conflicting real world views about the Arab-Israeli conflict.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 21:08, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * This is the problem name calling - labeling  editors "Wiki-warriors" and "non-rule followers". Its very very clear there is 2 groups of editors here that have such a problem with each other that any reasonable conversation is impossible (WP:WIAPA).Moxy (talk) 21:31, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No, that is not correct, but I can understand why you want to make it simple. It really isn't and I would encourage you to edit in the topic area so you see how things really are. The topic area needs more editors who just follow the rules. The illusion that things are "very very clear" will soon go away when you see that things are far more messy than you imagine. Also you have confused name calling with stating facts. There are editors in the topic area who don't follow the rules. That is a fact. Describing them accurately is, of course, not a personal attack. It is no more of a personal attack than describing an editor who follows the rules as an editor who follows the rules. There are also people who can be reasonably described as "Wiki-warriors". See Special:Contributions/EditorInChiefSD for a perfect example. Within that set of "non-rule followers", to quote you, not me, are a diverse collection of individual people (not two nice tidy groups wearing badges or uniforms) who have various degrees of experience, language skills, willingness to collaborate, knowledge of the topic, allegiance to Israeli interests, allegiance to Palestinian interests, all sorts of nationalities, ethnicities, cultural backgrounds etc etc and consequently very complicated impersonal relationships when they bother to use the talk pages. So, no, it is not a toy universe with "2 groups of editors here that have such a problem with each other that any reasonable conversation is impossible". Of course this diversity exists for the people who do follow the rules too, but it doesn't matter because they follow the rules.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 22:51, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * (ec)You are drawing parallels where none exist, and are in effect exacerbating the problem at hand. A disruptive editor like this Plot Spoiler person creates an article attacking the POV of his opponent, highlights an article critical of his own POV (Israeli apartheid analogy), and tries to paint the two as being on equal footing, hoping that if  "Palestinian incitement" goes down, it'll drag something else down with it.  This song and dance has been playing out in this project for years, and is why I rarely set foot into Israel-Palestine topics anymore. Tarc (talk) 22:56, 24 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per the comments above. POV, biased, selectively referenced, only possible purpose to slant opinion and attack. But can it be done quickly, or do we need to leave the disgraceful thing up there for a week to be gazed at by the world? Begoon &thinsp; talk  20:19, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * SNOW DELETE AND REQUEST TO CLOSE This should have been speedy deleted with all of the Wikipedia policies violated. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:23, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

*Keep and expand. It didn't take long to find a source that told of a FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLAR study funded by the U.S. State Department on this very topic.
 * Delete Seems to me that it was created to be a POV fork. Simple as that. Silver  seren C 21:44, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Clearly a POV fork. We don't need to be a conduit for anyone's propaganda. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:09, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete This is entirely a presentation of one side of a debate and is clearly intended as such. One of the worst bits of propaganda in one of the most propaganda-strewn corners of Wikipedia.  Zerotalk 06:49, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete -- not encyclopedic, in fact basically the opposite of encyclopedic. Perhaps some material on this page could be useful for other articles, but the topic is not suitable for an article here.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:23, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

"a team of six bilingual researchers -- three Israeli Jews and three Palestinians -- are examining the poems, narrative descriptions, maps, stories, photographs and illustrations in 141 Palestinian and 486 Israeli textbooks used from grades 1 to 12. The researchers log their findings into a computer system, with half of the books analyzed twice by both an Israeli and a Palestinian and the other half split evenly between both sides and analyzed once to counter possible bias."

The study's designer, Yale University psychiatry professor Bruce Wexler, told the Forward that the study's methodologies have never been used for textbook analysis. "We borrowed techniques in other areas of research to create a more objective, quantitative analysis," Wexler told the paper (Al Haaretz). "The State Department's grant for the study comes from a $4 million fund appropriated by Congress for work pertaining to religious freedom."
 * And please also look at these references: https://www.google.com/search?tbs=bks:1&q=%22Palestinian+incitement%22 Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 10:37, 25 November 2012 (UTC) Based on the statements below, I now have no opinion one way or the other. GeorgeLouis (talk) 15:37, 25 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but we already have articles Textbooks in Israel and Textbooks in the Palestinian territories. We don't need another on the same subject. Zerotalk 11:40, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * But it wasn't on this very topic and the approach was entirely different. The Israeli-Palestinian schoolbook project very sensibly covers sources from both belligerents in the conflict, whereas oddly, we only look at one side of the incitement issue in this article. Funny that. The good people who worked on that project used scientific methods to try to figure out the actual state of things, whereas we, a charity with the mission to "Empower and Engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content" so that "every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge", thanks to the 2 main authors of the article, Plot Spoiler and AnkhMorpork, use the card stacking propaganda technique to manipulate the perception of readers and present one side of an issue. The contrast is quite stark. Incitement in the Arab-Israeli conflict is probably an encyclopedic topic but this article clearly isn't how to deal with it. Ironically, these kind of propagandistic articles in the topic area always seem to be written by, and attract, editors who should not be going anywhere near these kinds of articles, and other people have to clean up the resulting mess. Anosognosia is also an encyclopedic topic but I very much doubt that it was written by people with anosognosia.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 12:25, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It might be a good idea for some participants in this discussion to clean up their mouth with a soap and to say Hail Mary,  Hare Krishna or any other mantra of their choice to clear up the smelly atmosphere. We just LUV our fellow Wikipedia editors, don't we? Anyway, our annual propaganda holiday is over, stuffing my face full of turkey and booze is not as easy as it sounds. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 19:37, 25 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete The topic is covered in other articles a neutral way ; this one is one-sided and sounds like propaganda. Pluto2012 (talk) 19:39, 25 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Per Plot Spoiler. The nomination makes no argument for deletion. The article's sources demonstrate the notability of the topic and the rest is a matter of ordinary editing in accordance with our editing policy. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 19:57, 25 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete, but consider partial merging with antisemitism. The section on antisemitism in the Palestinian Territories is too small. Zaminamina (talk) 20:25, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Which reminds me that there is already another very low quality article Racism in the Palestinian territories. Zerotalk 21:46, 25 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. Clear synthesis in support of the same old anti-Palestinian agenda by the same old users. It looks like they literally just googled "Palestine" and "incitement" and threw in everything they could find, but that is not how article writing works, because articles have to be about topics that are identified in reliable sources (and, frankly, the JPost is looking more and more like an opinion page). The fact that the article takes for granted that anything and everything constitutes "Palestinian incitement" is also obviously unacceptable. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 21:28, 25 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep The article is a work of art. Raquel_Baranow (talk) 22:08, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Wha? –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 22:10, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I recall that username from Wikipedia past; a Holocaust denier, 9/11 truther. This non-vote won't count for anything in the final tally, no worry. Tarc (talk) 22:22, 25 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Snowball delete. I think consensus has already been achieved. –  Richard  BB  22:30, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:39, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:39, 25 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - this article is one sided and is a serious violation of WP:NOTADVOCATE. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:53, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete The issues probably are and should be covered in the various relevant articles (Oslo, Wye River, Roadmap, etc). (And Media coverage of the Arab–Israeli conflict is already a mess of coatrack attacks on Palestinians, so don't add it there!)  There are a lot of articles like this and it gives me hope to see one finally deleted. Maybe I'll start AfDing the worst ones! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎Carolmooredc (talk • contribs)
 * Keep — Wow, yet another example of the huge anti-Semitic bias at Wikipedia. All these anti-Israeli activists gang up to delete this neutral and factual article, but they scream bloody murder when someone tries to get the garbage anti-Semitic propaganda articles Israel and the apartheid analogy and Criticism of the Israeli government (notice how that is the only "Criticism of [Country's government]" article on all of Wikipedia! Criticism of the Iranian government was unilaterally deleted without a vote.) deleted. Wikipedia is a joke. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samson3930 (talk • contribs) 00:23, 27 November 2012 (UTC)  — Samson3930 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.   blocked sock
 * Keep There are at least 15 articles which could be seen as intended to present Israelis in a bad light, like in the case of "Israel and Apartheid analogy" or "Racism in Israel" with many non factual POV views and written far benith the standards of this artickle. The delation of this tickler would be enormous bias, maybe unprecedented in Wikipedia history.--Tritomex (talk) 14:19, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The thing is, each article here stays or goes on its own merits. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:59, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed. If there exist "articles which could be seen as intended to present Israelis in a bad light", then the solution is not to try to balance that by adding "articles which could be seen as intended to present Palestinians in a bad light" - the solution is to address any existing problematic articles and ensure they adhere to WP:NPOV policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boing! said Zebedee (talk • contribs) 10:08, 28 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete — The topic is POV. That aside, it fails WP:GNG as far as encyclopedic concepts go. Examples cobbled together do not support the notion that this is a real concept with serious treatment in reliable sources. JFHJr (㊟) 06:23, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - I do not have to much time to invest into this, but see for instance the abstract of Incitement in the Mosques: Testing the Limits of Free Speech and Religious Liberty by Kenneth Lasson, University of Baltimore School of Law, Fall 2005, Whittier Law Review, Vol. 27, p. 3, 2005:

From quick look at Google search it appears that the question is being discussed by the sources and researched in academia. So WP:GNG failure claim appears as baseless. There is no reason why there could not be a neutral article on the matter. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:20, 28 November 2012 (UTC)


 * "Palestinian incitement" on Google scholar gets 46 results. Hardly evidence of massive academic interest - and does the source you cite specifically refer to Palestinians, or are you just assuming that it does? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:51, 28 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Rename to "Incitement to violence in the Arab-Israel conflict" and expand the article cover both Israeli and Arab incitement. Marokwitz (talk) 07:50, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep as a notable topic in its own right for numerous reasons:
 * 1) This issue is an important aspect of the Israeli claims that need to be addressed in the "peace process". It is documented by Israeli government sources, non-Israeli sources and the media. It is specifically addressed in the 1993 Oslo Accords, 1998 Wye River Memorandum and the 2003 Roadmap for Peace. Clearly it is not insignificant if it is mentioned in all 3 of these documents and is a topic worthy of examination and explanation.
 * 2) It should not be conflated into another article; just as for example, Israeli Settlements, another issue in the conflict/peace process is treated separately. There are a multitude of sources out there and not all of them are going to present the Israeli view. In fact many may dispute whether or to what extent this is an issue - and that is something that can be treated in this article.
 * 3) While incitement in the media and textbooks are some areas that are already addressed separately, this article covers a broader spectrum, including the phenomenon in media (television, radio, newspapers) and textbooks, but also in sermons, cultural events, naming of public buildings etc., and can and should examine the broader context of these discrete elements.
 * 4) Many of the "delete" votes are based on POV concerns; however, that is not a reason to delete; that is an opportunity to work at making this into an NPOV article. Yes, it's not a pleasant topic, but the article can be improved to address this real issue in a NPOV way. PopularMax (talk) 17:48, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Just one more example of a highly visible push by a handful of editors to build up Israel's official case against the Palestinians. Nishidani (talk) 20:30, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I've renamed the article to Incitement to violence in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict per Marokwitz's constructive suggestion above and tagged the article for NPOV, to encourage editors to improve the balance of opinions. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:40, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * There has been no discussion of this move. Please move it back and establish consensus first. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:44, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed, this is highly inappropriate behavior. Zerotalk 22:22, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * How is it inappropriate to seek to make improvements to the page? Barely anybody here has expressed any interest in improving the article -- just deleting it outright. Plot Spoiler (talk) 22:43, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * In this case, the overwhelming consensus seems to be that deleting it would be an improvement. Still, if you wish to 'improve' it, can I suggest that to help establish the necessary NPOV for an article under this title, you find material relating to Israeli incitement of violence against Palestinians? I'm sure there is plenty to be found... AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:14, 30 November 2012 (UTC)


 * A reference is made to "Israeli incitement of violence against Palestinians". There is probably a scarcity of this material. That does not make this article in violation of WP:NPOV. Such material belongs in this article if reliably sourced. The article has an implied scope. The primary indication of the implied scope is the title. It is: Incitement to violence in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. Your argument boils down to the paucity of reliably sourced instances of Israeli Jewish indoctrination and agitation and incitement to violence in the Middle East conflict. That is not a reason to delete an article. Bus stop (talk) 01:14, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Please don't tell me what I think. I meant exactly what I said - any NPOV article on the subject will cover incitement by Israelis - and I'm sure that there is no shortage of material relating to this. Actually, we already have an article on one such example: Israeli settler violence - not that I'm necessarily endorsing the content of it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:24, 30 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I fail to see where I have told you what you think. You are mentioning an article called Israeli settler violence. That article is not an article on incitement to violence but rather it is an article on violence itself. You say that "any NPOV article on the subject will cover incitement by Israelis". This is correct. Obviously you would need to find sourced instances of such incitement on the part of Israelis, and then you could justifiably add them to the article. Let us bear in mind that the article is presently titled Incitement to violence in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. Bus stop (talk) 01:39, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting that Israeli settlers engage in acts of violence with no prior incitement whatsoever? Actually, don't bother to answer that - I'm not interested in engaging in facile debates with you. This article is an NPOV-violating coatrack, regardless of the title, and it is shortly going to be deleted accordingly. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:52, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The implication by Andy's statement and that of others is that there cannot be an article of this nature unless parity is drawn between Palestinian incitement and Israeli incitement. Of course there are examples that can be pointed to in Israeli society but they don't come close to matching the levels of Palestinian incitement. An article of this nature - "Incitement to violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict" - will therefore have more of a focus on acts Palestinian incitement, just like Israeli settlement speaks about the illegalities of Israel's behavior and Israel and the apartheid analogy focuses on charges of Israeli apartheid. The double standards hear are clear. Plot Spoiler (talk) 04:42, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "The double standards hear are clear". The POV-pushing bullshit here is clear. Given the near-universal consensus from contributors to this AfD that this article grossly violates WP:NPOV, if it isn't outright propaganda, I think your claims for the moral high ground will fall on deaf ears... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:50, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You really don't think WP:Civility and WP:No personal attacks applies to you? You clearly don't understand what Wikipedia is trying to build. Plot Spoiler (talk) 04:56, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand perfectly well what Wikipedia is trying to build - and it is self-evident from this AfD that we'd rather do it without the 'contributions' of POV-pushers and propagandists like yourself. Given the enthusiasm with which you engage in endless 'personal attacks' on an entire nationality, your ridiculous posturing will get you nowhere. I suggest you find a more amenable forum for your obsessions. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:07, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Andy—there is no reason to delete this article. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason. There is no violation of NPOV because both Israelis and Palestinians are being subject to the same scrutiny in this article. A closing admin should be aware that on the basis of policy there exists no reason to delete. The article is well-sourced. Many eminently reliable sources speak of the propaganda war that supports the military war. Wikipedia does not have to be so timid as to shy away from addressing in an article such as this, the topic of the constant agitating for violence that frustrates and burdens attempts to bring peace to the area. Bus stop (talk) 05:19, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Bus stop, if you honestly believe that "both Israelis and Palestinians are being subject to the same scrutiny in this article", I can only assume that you haven't read it... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:27, 30 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Regarding the unilateral move of this article to 'Incitement to violence in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict.
 * I consider this entirely inappropriate, and liable to lead to unnecessary disruption of the AfD discussion. Any article thus named would necessarily also include incitement to violence against Palestinians by Israelis - and none of the previous contributors to this debate have had the opportunity to comment on the validity of such an article. I have asked that the article be moved back, and wish to make clear that if this is not done by those involved, I will raise the matter elsewhere. Changing the topic of any article half way through an AfD is liable to be problematic, and in a contentious subject area like this can only be more so. Common sense alone suggests that this should have been discussed first, and I have to question the motives of those involved in this unilateral move. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:05, 29 November 2012 (UTC)


 * An obvious disruptive and bad-faith move, yes, but it won't change the outcome of this discussion, which will be article deletion in 2 days time. Let him be Nero in Rome if he wishes. Tarc (talk) 05:22, 30 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Just painting a burning house at this point. Won't change the fate of the article, so ignore it. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 05:44, 30 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep We have for instance Criticism of Israel (Criticism of the Israeli government), Criticism of Judaism. Bus stop (talk) 22:55, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * How is that a policy-based argument? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:40, 29 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete as a coatrack, obviously. Drmies (talk) 01:23, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * There exists an Israeli–Palestinian conflict. There is incitement to violence on both sides. This is an article documenting the reliably sourced instances of this phenomena. I don't understand how this is an instance of WP:COAT. The title of the article addresses both Palestinian as well as Israeli instances of this. Bus stop (talk) 01:31, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * And what, you think the title of an article is the only thing that matters? It's the *content* that's the problem - just sticking a new label on it doesn't change that. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:19, 30 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. Boing! said it best. Blatant POV-pushing.  Night w   01:38, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:COATRACK and WP:NOTADVOCATE. By  it's very nature, it is impossible for this article to meet WP:NPOV.  Wikipedia is NOT a propaganda repository. Athenean (talk) 09:05, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment on the notion that "the article can be improved to address this real issue in a NPOV way", the retitle->fix approach. The statement sounds reasonable but there isn't an evidence-based reason to believe that the statement is true. Optimistic statements like this seem to be largely based on the premise that "Wikipedia has remedies in place to tackle its policy violation issues", to quote the WP:AADD essay, but that premise simply isn't true in the WP:ARBPIA topic area. The notion that the community can rename and fix articles like this is a belief, an article of faith of the community, an admirable one perhaps, but it isn't supported by the evidence. Wikipedia doesn't have remedies in place in the WP:ARBPIA topic area that can ensure and enforce NPOV compliance. Nor does the topic area have the editor resources available to fix article-scale NPOV problems like this article. POV concerns in the ARBPIA topic area aren't an opportunity for something to be fixed and improved in practice, they're a problem, a sign of failure and symptom of more systemic problems that editors and admins active in the topic area haven't managed to solve. Sometimes, it really is just better to blow it up and start again and I think this article is a prime example.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 10:56, 30 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Sean.hoyland—thank you for your reasoning presented above. Let me ask you this: We have an article titled Israel and the apartheid analogy, and this is the article titled Incitement to violence in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. How are the two articles different vis-a-vis Wiki policy in your opinion? Is the existence of one of these articles more defensible than the other? Bus stop (talk) 11:59, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * They aren't fundamentally different to me. There are several articles in the topic area that have been framed in what are probably inherently problematic ways. It's a good way to seed self-assembling article-scale NPOV problems using magic googleable words. As the great philosopher...um...Kevin Costner said in Field of Dreams, "If you build it, he will come". Many have tried and failed to blow it up and start again but usually for the wrong reasons, national pride springs to mind, not something I will pretend to understand. Allow me to quote Harry Hill, "My father used to say: 'Always fight fire with fire' - and that's why he was thrown out of the fire brigade." <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 12:28, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Sean.hoyland—are you not conceding that there are no policy-based reasons for deleting this article? I don't believe there are any policy-based reasons for deleting this article and the 24 sources in the References section of the article support this view. I think they are 24 good quality sources. Bus stop (talk) 13:57, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Simply being referenced isn't the final arbiter of what is or is not article-worthy, otherwise that time Obama swatted a fly would still be in article-space. All you're doing her eis making a slanted fork of material that can be addressed somewhere like Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Tarc (talk) 14:17, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Repeating "there are no policy-based reasons for deleting this article" like a mantra doesn't make it true. It is obvious from the discussion that there are plenty of (seasoned) editors here who think there are such reasons. It is possible, Bus stop, that you are God and all the others are wrong, but until I see evidence of that I think you should consider that absolute truths, esp. in this area, are hard to come by. Drmies (talk) 15:29, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Drmies—I'm not "God". You are presenting reasons for delete in the form of sound bites: "Delete as a coatrack, obviously." I understand that you want the article deleted. What I don't understand is in what way you see this article as an embodiment of the problem described at WP:COAT. It is that reasoning that I am asking you to explain. Thanks. Bus stop (talk) 17:53, 30 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep, now that it has been moved to Incitement to violence in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, and cover individual and institutional incitement in Israel as well. It is an important topic, large enough for its own article. If it's still biased in a month, I'll drag it back here and notify everybody who's commented. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:44, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Nope - it doesn't work like that. We are all quite capable of recognising a coatrack article expressly constructed for propaganda purposes - and also entirely capable of recognising that a token attempt to make it more acceptable by fiddling with the title and adding a couple of words to the lede (which now no longer reflects article content) is nothing but a ruse to avoid deletion - at least one major contributor has made clear that he refuses to recognise that Israeli's have ever engaged in incitement, and we have further weasel-worded statements from others suggesting that rather than a 'neutral' encyclopaedic article, we would instead end up with yet another mud-slinging contest of no merit whatsoever. The new title is no less questionable than the original one, and there had been no effort whatsoever to discuss its appropriateness before it was unilaterally imposed. If such unilateral changes of topic during an AfD aren't prohibited by policy, I'd suggest that maybe policy needs changing - otherwise, the entire AfD process becomes meaningless. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:51, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll bow to your greater experience of these things, Andy. Incitement is an important issue for Israelis, and having lived in the Middle East (not Palestine) I know it's a real element in the larger conflict. So, it is something well-deserving of neutral treatment here. I'll take it from your comments and those of other experienced editors above and below, though, that going on past form, it's not likely to get neutral treatment here. What a shame. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:25, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that I'm particularly 'experienced' in this topic - on the whole I've tended to stay away from it, except where I've noticed the most questionable material, or most obvious slanting of the issues. Many other contributors seem to feel the same way - it is an endless task, with little reward. Personally, as I've argued elsewhere, I think we'd do a greater service to our readers if we had fewer articles on 'I-P' topics and the like, and went for (neutral) quality, rather than quantity. As it stands, existing Wikipedia policy encourages the synthesis of 'topics' which can be slanted one way or another, and then filled with Google-mined material of little note, solely for the purposes of making one side or the other look bad. If 'incitement to violence' in this region needs coverage in Wikipedia, it needs it in the broader historical and political context - people presumably aren't inciting violence for the fun of it, and we should at least attempt to explain the 'why' as well as the 'what' when our articles discuss such matters - and an article that describes phenomena without context simply cannot do this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:48, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes. Sources needed are scholarly treatments of the topic, not Israeli government press releases, and news reports. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:04, 1 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete It still looks horrible. It still is basically the same coatrack as when the AFD started and is certainly not where to start cosntructing any unbiased article on the subject.--Peter cohen (talk) 16:07, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yep, this article is still a giant WP:COATRACK on which any mention of incitement can be slung into the article, IRWolfie- (talk) 17:02, 1 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Soooo, what do we do, in the middle of the 2012 Gaza War...(where 10-20 Palestinian civilians are killed for every single Israeli civilian killed); Ah, yes: start an article about how Palestinians are taught to hate and kill. Eeeh, right. Coincidence? Suuuure. Better kill them while they are young, right?  Like the  The King's Torah teach us.
 * This, while every other more objective observer note that there is a shift in the Palestinian protest towards non-violence. Even the normally so pro-Israeli NY Times have noted it.
 * Though of course articles like this serves one purpose: as long as things like this exits on Wikipedia, nobody, but nobody, will take Wikipedia to be an ...encyclopedia. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 18:58, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Ps: this vote has now gone on for more than a week; how long will it continue?
 * 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.