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.
Topic clearly meets
WP:GNG due to wide and persistent coverage by
WP:RS.
This is a
WP:SPINOFF of
Human shield and not a
WP:POVFORK . I advise participants to read that policy carefully and see that it is not applicable. This page cannot be a
WP:POVFORK since by definition, a POV fork requires the existence of another article on exactly the same topic, however, there is no such article. Article splits are permissible when written from a neutral point of view.
keep Topic appears to meet required need to create its own article, since this topic has been the extensive topic of international contentions regarding Hamas as well as a central tenant in the criticism toward Hamas. Furthermore, it appears that there is a lot of extensive research and media reports on the subject. Therefore there should be an independent article on the subject. meets
WP:GNG, use of reliable sources vital and important.
@
Marokwitz: - first it would depend on how much material there is, if there is significant material on comparisons between Palestinians and Nazis, I could consider the proposal, but I also would like to know how the combined article would be structured. Secondly, for the settler violence article, I would say no because I think the scope of
Violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would be far too broad, which would include all war actions. A proposed combined article regarding comparison to Nazis would not be too broad. starship.paint (
RUN)00:44, 17 November 2023 (UTC)reply
Calling "genocide" on a war against a de facto state which has the explicit public goal of genocide and which just actually invaded Israel and murdered over a thousand people with the explicit public motive of genocide, is inflammatory. And it's unwarranted to claim that accusing Gaza of using human shields somehow means human shields become targets.
JM (
talk)
18:40, 16 November 2023 (UTC)reply
@
Trilletrollet I saw you delete your reply under this reply in which you off-topic asked me "Do you agree that Palestinian lives matter?" and then in
this diff write in the change summary "apparently not" when I didn't answer in time. This looks like a failure to
WP:AGF and be
WP:CIVIL. Not appreciated in such a contentious topic or a deletion discussion. This deletion discussion probably falls under ARBPIA.
JM (
talk)
00:16, 17 November 2023 (UTC)reply
The above !vote in this AFD discussion appears to contravene Wikipedia's core guidelines on
assuming good faith. In line with Wikipedia's
deletion policies, !votes in deletion discussions should be based on policy and content considerations, not on perceptions of a contributor's motives. Therefore, it is recommended that this particular !vote be set aside in evaluating the consensus.
Marokwitz (
talk)
19:24, 16 November 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep per above; a
WP:SPINOFF and not a
WP:POVFORK. The community decided to keep the
Nakba denial article after it was challenged as a POV fork because it was a Wikivoice criticism of a criticism of a narrative (
WP:CRIT and
WP:POVFORK), so an article which covers one of various war crimes by one de facto state per
WP:SPINOFF is definitely fine, its not like it would be the only example. Also note that the deletion proposer here is the same one who created/significantly expanded the
Nakba denial article in question, and defended it constantly in its deletion nomination; not a personal attack, just making the point that the user should be aware that if the same standards apply then this article must be kept.
JM (
talk)
18:36, 16 November 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep Useful article and meets all of the criteria for existence as a separate article. Addressing the reason given for the AFD, this is not a POVfork from the noted very general article. It is a more specific article on a vvery wp:notable topic. North8000 (
talk)
18:56, 16 November 2023 (UTC)reply
I am aware of the redirect but I don't think it's sensical for it to go to the timeline of the entire conflict from 1948 onward, I mean that's not just an article about conflicts involving settlers as main parties (settlers being defined in the article as Israelis who moved to the West Bank or descend from those who did so since 1967). To me the relation between
Israeli settler violence and
timeline of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is most similar to the relation to
use of human shields by Hamas and
Israel-Hamas war i.e., the latter articles in both instances are way too broad to be considered a treatment of both sides of a single aspect of a conflict.
JM (
talk)
00:56, 17 November 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep. Seems like a notable topic, although based on media coverage. Renaming can be discussed on article's talk page. I hear POV concerns, yes, but does the other side (Isreal) use human shields? (If you think they do, ping me here with a reply or on article's talk page - I'd like to learn more about it). But if the answer is no, or there is no reply to my message, consider my comment also an oppose to a rename. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here02:03, 17 November 2023 (UTC)reply
@
Piotrus: See the first link in the opening statement, which goes to the section from which this was copied at
human shields - yes, there has been extensive Israeli use of human shields over the years, including in the more explicit, gun-to-the-head manner, not just the close-to-civilians manner.
Iskandar323 (
talk)
02:17, 17 November 2023 (UTC)reply
Strong Keep. As others mentioned, this is strongly referenced with high quality sources, additionally, as others mentioned this is a
WP:SPINOFF and not a
WP:POVFORK. Ill also say, given recent news around the event and the delete proposer's actions with the Nakba denial article changes and proposals, this for me follows under an invalid reason to delete specifically
WP:DLSLhendre (
talk)
03:35, 17 November 2023 (UTC)non-ec editorreply
Keep There are plenty of sources that talk about Hamas's use of human shields without mentioning Israel's use of them -- they are not always dealt with as a pair. See, e.g.,
WaPo;
NATO (2008 - 2014);
CNN;
NYT;
Vox;
Channel 4. The outcome of this AfD is not determinative of whether an article on Israel's use of human shields is created or kept. --Orgullomoore (talk)
06:30, 17 November 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep This is absurd. A very prominently-covered phenomenon, which has sparked debate and implied conclusions that have themselves received a lot of coverage. Obviously keep.
Zanahary (
talk)
06:52, 17 November 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep Can the use of human shields really be compared between Hamas and Israel? Can IDF soldiers who have used in the past what is called the "neighbor procedure" for security operations be compared to Hamas' use of schools, mosques, children's bedrooms and hospitals as hiding places for the organization's leadership?
Eladkarmel (
talk)
08:53, 17 November 2023 (UTC)reply
That's not really analogous, though. Operation Overlord was a legitimate (and heroic) military campaign, not a war crime. Keeping with World War II history, a better analogy would be if you had spun off the "Arguments against justification" section of the
Bombing of Dresden in World War II article, without preserving any other content or context from the parent article, thereby creating the impression that the carpet-bombing is universally considered unjustifiable and criminal. And even that's not a perfect analogy. WillowCity(talk)02:07, 20 November 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep. The article passes the
WP:GNG with the greatest of ease and the article is a well-developed
WP:SPINOFF of its parent,
Hamas. The use of human shields represents Hamas warfare. It is exceptional for the IDF to use a human shield, so a big NO also to the rename suggested above.
WP:SNOW does apply.
gidonb (
talk)
20:43, 19 November 2023 (UTC)reply
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.
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.
Topic clearly meets
WP:GNG due to wide and persistent coverage by
WP:RS.
This is a
WP:SPINOFF of
Human shield and not a
WP:POVFORK . I advise participants to read that policy carefully and see that it is not applicable. This page cannot be a
WP:POVFORK since by definition, a POV fork requires the existence of another article on exactly the same topic, however, there is no such article. Article splits are permissible when written from a neutral point of view.
keep Topic appears to meet required need to create its own article, since this topic has been the extensive topic of international contentions regarding Hamas as well as a central tenant in the criticism toward Hamas. Furthermore, it appears that there is a lot of extensive research and media reports on the subject. Therefore there should be an independent article on the subject. meets
WP:GNG, use of reliable sources vital and important.
@
Marokwitz: - first it would depend on how much material there is, if there is significant material on comparisons between Palestinians and Nazis, I could consider the proposal, but I also would like to know how the combined article would be structured. Secondly, for the settler violence article, I would say no because I think the scope of
Violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would be far too broad, which would include all war actions. A proposed combined article regarding comparison to Nazis would not be too broad. starship.paint (
RUN)00:44, 17 November 2023 (UTC)reply
Calling "genocide" on a war against a de facto state which has the explicit public goal of genocide and which just actually invaded Israel and murdered over a thousand people with the explicit public motive of genocide, is inflammatory. And it's unwarranted to claim that accusing Gaza of using human shields somehow means human shields become targets.
JM (
talk)
18:40, 16 November 2023 (UTC)reply
@
Trilletrollet I saw you delete your reply under this reply in which you off-topic asked me "Do you agree that Palestinian lives matter?" and then in
this diff write in the change summary "apparently not" when I didn't answer in time. This looks like a failure to
WP:AGF and be
WP:CIVIL. Not appreciated in such a contentious topic or a deletion discussion. This deletion discussion probably falls under ARBPIA.
JM (
talk)
00:16, 17 November 2023 (UTC)reply
The above !vote in this AFD discussion appears to contravene Wikipedia's core guidelines on
assuming good faith. In line with Wikipedia's
deletion policies, !votes in deletion discussions should be based on policy and content considerations, not on perceptions of a contributor's motives. Therefore, it is recommended that this particular !vote be set aside in evaluating the consensus.
Marokwitz (
talk)
19:24, 16 November 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep per above; a
WP:SPINOFF and not a
WP:POVFORK. The community decided to keep the
Nakba denial article after it was challenged as a POV fork because it was a Wikivoice criticism of a criticism of a narrative (
WP:CRIT and
WP:POVFORK), so an article which covers one of various war crimes by one de facto state per
WP:SPINOFF is definitely fine, its not like it would be the only example. Also note that the deletion proposer here is the same one who created/significantly expanded the
Nakba denial article in question, and defended it constantly in its deletion nomination; not a personal attack, just making the point that the user should be aware that if the same standards apply then this article must be kept.
JM (
talk)
18:36, 16 November 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep Useful article and meets all of the criteria for existence as a separate article. Addressing the reason given for the AFD, this is not a POVfork from the noted very general article. It is a more specific article on a vvery wp:notable topic. North8000 (
talk)
18:56, 16 November 2023 (UTC)reply
I am aware of the redirect but I don't think it's sensical for it to go to the timeline of the entire conflict from 1948 onward, I mean that's not just an article about conflicts involving settlers as main parties (settlers being defined in the article as Israelis who moved to the West Bank or descend from those who did so since 1967). To me the relation between
Israeli settler violence and
timeline of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is most similar to the relation to
use of human shields by Hamas and
Israel-Hamas war i.e., the latter articles in both instances are way too broad to be considered a treatment of both sides of a single aspect of a conflict.
JM (
talk)
00:56, 17 November 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep. Seems like a notable topic, although based on media coverage. Renaming can be discussed on article's talk page. I hear POV concerns, yes, but does the other side (Isreal) use human shields? (If you think they do, ping me here with a reply or on article's talk page - I'd like to learn more about it). But if the answer is no, or there is no reply to my message, consider my comment also an oppose to a rename. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here02:03, 17 November 2023 (UTC)reply
@
Piotrus: See the first link in the opening statement, which goes to the section from which this was copied at
human shields - yes, there has been extensive Israeli use of human shields over the years, including in the more explicit, gun-to-the-head manner, not just the close-to-civilians manner.
Iskandar323 (
talk)
02:17, 17 November 2023 (UTC)reply
Strong Keep. As others mentioned, this is strongly referenced with high quality sources, additionally, as others mentioned this is a
WP:SPINOFF and not a
WP:POVFORK. Ill also say, given recent news around the event and the delete proposer's actions with the Nakba denial article changes and proposals, this for me follows under an invalid reason to delete specifically
WP:DLSLhendre (
talk)
03:35, 17 November 2023 (UTC)non-ec editorreply
Keep There are plenty of sources that talk about Hamas's use of human shields without mentioning Israel's use of them -- they are not always dealt with as a pair. See, e.g.,
WaPo;
NATO (2008 - 2014);
CNN;
NYT;
Vox;
Channel 4. The outcome of this AfD is not determinative of whether an article on Israel's use of human shields is created or kept. --Orgullomoore (talk)
06:30, 17 November 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep This is absurd. A very prominently-covered phenomenon, which has sparked debate and implied conclusions that have themselves received a lot of coverage. Obviously keep.
Zanahary (
talk)
06:52, 17 November 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep Can the use of human shields really be compared between Hamas and Israel? Can IDF soldiers who have used in the past what is called the "neighbor procedure" for security operations be compared to Hamas' use of schools, mosques, children's bedrooms and hospitals as hiding places for the organization's leadership?
Eladkarmel (
talk)
08:53, 17 November 2023 (UTC)reply
That's not really analogous, though. Operation Overlord was a legitimate (and heroic) military campaign, not a war crime. Keeping with World War II history, a better analogy would be if you had spun off the "Arguments against justification" section of the
Bombing of Dresden in World War II article, without preserving any other content or context from the parent article, thereby creating the impression that the carpet-bombing is universally considered unjustifiable and criminal. And even that's not a perfect analogy. WillowCity(talk)02:07, 20 November 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep. The article passes the
WP:GNG with the greatest of ease and the article is a well-developed
WP:SPINOFF of its parent,
Hamas. The use of human shields represents Hamas warfare. It is exceptional for the IDF to use a human shield, so a big NO also to the rename suggested above.
WP:SNOW does apply.
gidonb (
talk)
20:43, 19 November 2023 (UTC)reply
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.