Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Violence against Israelis

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - no consensus

Contents 1 Violence against Israelis 1.1 This VfD has expired 1.1.1 Not expired 1.1.2 Pending decision 1.2 Vote remains open 1.3 "User/s": "SpaceMonkey"; "Susvolans"; "HistoryBuffEr"

[edit] Violence against Israelis

Isreali Terrorism /Palestinian_terrorism_and_militancy /Terrorism against Israelis/Terrorism against Israel in 2000 / Terrorism against Israel in 2001 / Terrorism against Israel in 2002 / Terrorism against Israel in 2003 / Terrorism against Israel in 2004 and all these pages are making a mockery of wikipedia. Wikipedia is becoming a political mouthpiece. All relevant NPoV material should merged into Violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. --Spacemonkey 13:33, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• • I don't see any mockery. If there are notable historical facts, I don't see what's the problem with anybody writing articles about them. And merging would create extremely large articles.--AAAAA 15:24, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Take a look at Occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem by Jordan for more work by the same hand. Susvolans 16:27, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Look at the edit history of that article; clearly not by the same hand. Jayjg 16:32, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

And even if it was the "same hand", what is the problem?--AAAAA 15:24, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Merge and Redirect all to Violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. — Gwalla | Talk 19:11, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • So long as there is a corresponding (and a consesnsus for) NPOV edits, I agree, M&R (though not necessarily all, as the size will be prohibitive). El_C
• Merge and Redirect all but the date entries into Israeli-Palestinian conflict (duplicate info), Delete the date entries (not notable). --Improv 12:23, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Article would be too long. And regarding the date entries, would you consider a bomb in your local restaurant where your father, mother, brother, sister, wife, son & daughter died a NON-NOTABLE ENTRY?--AAAAA 15:24, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Sorry AAAAA, with all due respect to the victims, this is not a valid argument. Billions of people had died in the last centuries and all of them had their families and relatives. Most of them had someone for whom the date of their death was a day of mourning. This however does not mean that an encyclopedia should list all possible people that died. Wiki is not about copying obituaries from all the newspapers around the world. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 16:44, Oct 3, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep as it is an important record of current events. Even the New York Times keeps tallies of injured and war dead in conflicts. (By the way who is SpaceMonkey and why is he afraid to have a valid Wikipedia User name as there is no word "User" in front of his "signed" name, check it out for yourself by clicking on the "edit" page. It just shows up as --[[SpaceMonkey]] ??? Another Anti-Semite afraid to face the truth???) IZAK 12:36, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sir/Ma'am, I deeply resent your accusation of anti semitism. If you notice IZAK, I've included internal links from both sides. Also, is it necessary to have pages that say Terrorism against Israel 2001, 2002, 2003 etc. Where do we stop Israeli Terrorism against Palestinians 2001, 2002, 2003 etc? How about pages of Saddam's atrocicties 1991, 1992, 1993 or United States state sponsored terrorism 1999, 2000, 2001!!!! Why can't this information be included in a Palestinian/Israeli Conflict or similiar! Stop being narrow minded IZAK. We don't want you to make Wikipedia a political mouthpiece! All NPoV material Merge to Israeli/Palestian Conflict pages. --SpaceMonkey 09:17, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[[User:SpaceMonkey]] has now inserted his corrected Wiki user name...thank you. There is no "statute of limitations" of where Wiki articles can stop as long as they remain FACTUAL and TRUTHFUL. Israel has NOT sent "terrorists" to commit suicide-bombings against civilians as Israel has not launched any sort of "Intifada" against Arabs either, so I fail to see your "moral equivalancy" between Palestinian acts of terror and Israeli acts of self-defense. Furthermore, your suggestion that the United States would "sponsor" "state terrorism" (in ways similar to Saddam-the "Butcher of Baghdad) is highly offensive and merely reflects your distorted way of "thinking" that would explain why you crave to have this page "deleted". Finally, on a technical note, you cannot squeeze onto one page everything that pertains to the "Palestinian/Israeli Conflict" which is also part of the "Arab-Israeli Conflict" which in turn is part of the millenia-old struggle between the Jews and Anti-Semitism. IZAK 11:08, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• • I agree with IZAK.--AAAAA 15:24, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Merge all to Violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict Wolfman 16:11, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect. That way all the information is in one place. --G Rutter 19:53, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Merge and Redirect -- Jmabel 22:17, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)
• Neutralize POV, Merge, and Redirect. Sarge Baldy 00:52, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)
• Merge all of those pages and anything else in the same vein to Violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Redirect. Neutralise POV. The facts can be discussed without singling one side out as the victim. The data belong in the same place because they stem from the same conflict and because sometimes the blame is not easy to attribute accurately. Shorne 06:13, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • To Wolfman, G Rutter, Jmabel & Sarge Baldy: Article would be too long.--AAAAA 15:24, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Keep but consider merge of all pages into a more NPOV framework, e.g. chronicle of violence in the Israel-Palestinian conflict, with links to seperate pages if those exist (e.g. bus bombings or helicopter attacks on particular dates). Despite being biased towards the present title, I think it conveys too much POV to stand by itself. JFW | T@lk 10:09, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • I'm with JFW--Josiah 19:38, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Since not many of you read all the articles, here is a short briefing:
  • Palestinian terrorism surveys Palestinian terrorism since 1920. It do overlaps in some point the article violence against Israelis since Pals focused their attacks on Israeli civilian.
  • "Terrorism against Israel in 200?" are chronological listings of terrorist attacks against Israelis. These are seperate articles because merging to one will create too long article.
  • Terrorism against Israel in 2004 started as a continue of list of attacks against Israelis, but some user insisted on adding reports of Palestinian casualties from Israeli military operation. The page name was later changed to Violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict 2004, although only attacks againsst Israelis are tracked and monitored regularly.

Puting all the information in one article will create an article that is too long, so - keep the lists, and merging of "Palestinian terrorism" with "violence against Israelis" should be reexamined carefuly. MathKnight 10:17, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect, this is what sections are for, no need to create separate articles. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 12:15, Oct 3, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep/merge and redirect/delete. These articles present a serious NPOV problem but I can't see how it can be solved unless some good soul dedicates a lot of time to describing Israeli violence targetted at Palestians, which is several times bigger than the violence described in these articles, as well as other human rights violations which are of far greater magnitude. Oh, and IZAK please refrain from gratuitous accusations of anti-Semitism. In the absence of any evidence to support that claim you violate a basic Wikipedia policy of personal attacks, and you banalise anti-Semitism. - pir 12:38, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Keep It deserves its own page. it is hard to have NPOV articles when people deny facts. violence by israelis against palestinians tends to be the israeli army going after TERRORISTS. violence by the palestinians against israelis tends to be indiscriminate killing of CIVILIANS. Xtra 13:43, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• KEEP This article deserves to exist much more than many other lame articles about the "philosophy of the mosquito" that wikipedia currently has and nobody deletes. Seems to me that this article is FACTUAL and not POV as some others say. Merging would create an article too long. Every single page about violence against ANYBODY should be always kept, as a reminder to all of us of the "bad" part of society and as a tribute to the victims.--AAAAA 15:24, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, but it must be refactored with Palestinian terrorism in mind, since there is a heavy overlap: "Palestinian terrorism" should be a section of the current article in the form of summary, with the rest in the "main article" (Palestinian terrorism), as it is customary in wikipedia. Mikkalai 17:28, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Keep whatever is accurate and present in a NPOV manner (I'm not arguing that the current presentation is or isn't NPOV), because the material is valuable and encyclopedic and is one of the better compilations I've seen. My problem is the title, which is not really accurate. It is not really violence against Israelis because the subject predates modern Israel and non-Jews are also Israelis. The issue should really be in two articles, the earlier one covering Antisemitism in Arab Lands or "Muslim Lands" if you include Iran or Historical Status of Jews in Arab Lands, either of which would be a part of the study of similarities and contrasts with worldwide anti-Jewish sentiments, and the latter material is more in the nature of Asymmetric Warfare Against Jews after World War II or Asymmetric Warfare Against Jews in the Middle East. Either title is appropriate for the time frame after Israel became a state. The nature of asymmetric warfare is that one side (usually the weaker one) cannot or will not fight on the same terms or by the same methods as the other side. The reason I would characterize the ongoing Jewish-Arab situation as AS is because it is a war whose tactics have not much changed over more than a century, although the formation of Israel changed the complexion of things by giving the Jewish side the ability to wage conventional warfare and much of the world acting as a Greek chorus to judge and pressure the combatants. So I guess, in sum, I would want to see this subject expanded rather than suppressed, if only every word wouldn't be fought over by the opposing veiwpoints. -- Cecropia | Talk 18:09, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Delete (or M&R) this and all the ...in the year xxxx articles as well. Irreconcilably propaganistic. The proponents of these pages should create their own web sites with this information if they feel it needs to be recorded for prosterity and not attempt to use Wikipedia for this purpose . -- Viajero 20:05, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Delete the date entries (not notable). Merge and Redirect all but the date entries into Israeli-Palestinian conflict (duplicate info). -- BCorr|Брайен 00:38, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Keep. This is part of a larger problem which needs to be solved as a whole. Jayjg 01:42, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, but consider either rename or define a framework: a template (Template:Arab-Israeli confict?) or a series. Deleting valuable info would not make the problem go away. Merging would create a too long article requiring resplitting. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 03:33, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Keep or merge. The titles could be better but this is all factual information. I have minor issues with the term "Israeli terrorism" since I do not see invasions or targetted assassinations as the same as suicide bombings of innocents. (My view - this isn't the forum for a discussion.) But at the same time the state policy of destroying family homes of suicide bombers smacks of terrorism. - Tεxτurε 03:55, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Merge and Redirect. Separate articles written from the Palestinian or Israeli side, which is what we will have if we don't merge, are counter to the spirit of Wikipedia. I can see an argument for having a number of articles on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but I don't think this is the way to go about it. Saforrest 04:07, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)

As an additional comment, I would be fine with having a number of pages if someone could propose a framework for them that was clearly NPOV. Page names such as "Terrorism against Israel", "Palestianian terrorism" refer accurately to actual past events (in that terrorist acts were committed), but these titles discourage NPOV. The title of an objective account of the conflict should at least be general enough to encompass the intifada at large (beyond just terrorism). Saforrest 04:17, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)

• DELETE ALL (without Redirect) for POV titles, POV piling on and needless clutter.

"Terrorism" in titles disqualifies all articles on POV grounds.

Having 7 articles on attacks on Israel and just 1 on attacks on Palestinians is in itself POV (and laughably so because 3 times more Palestinians were killed).

If there is useful NPOV'd info there it should be merged into Violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. HistoryBuffEr 04:49, 2004 Oct 4 (UTC)

Who prevents you from writing a couple more articles, if there is something to write about? (But I agree that the word "terrorism" in the title is bad.) Mikkalai 05:29, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Keep This article should be kept as a standalone, as opposed to the Israeli-Palestinian/Israeli-Arab conflict, as these are primarily fought by Palestinian fighters against the IDF. Violence against Israeli civilians, some which is genocidal, is totally different to the main conflict between the IDF and Palestinian militants. Don't go on about how keeping this article is POV when it is a seperate idea. Those who still believe it is POV can read the dispution message up the top. It is also a benefit to keep this article seperate as opposed to a merger as it keeps bellow the maximum file size. Evolver of Borg 18:05, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Keep. --YUL89YYZ 13:26, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)

• Keep. The article maintains an important record of who was killed/wounded and whether they where civilians/soldiers or unarmed/armed (beginning in 2004). This distinct tally for civilians:unarmed vs soldiers/armed should be expanded from 2004 to all other years. Lance6Wins 14:03, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Keep. Suggestions to "merge" look suspiciously like part of a censorship campaign. If more Arabs are dying than Jews, by a ratio of 5:1 in the Arab-Israeli conflict then that might mean that there is less violence against Israelis or that it's less important, or that it's justified. Let our readers make those judgments. We should just provide all the relevant info we can find, and organize it as well as we can. If it's accurate and neutral, the article should stay. Any merge with Violence against Arabs or "Violence against Palestinians" will only aggravate the edit wars. --Uncle Ed 15:31, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Merge and Redirect -- I had voted for "Redirect and protect redirect" on the "Occupation of Palestine" VfD, and this seems to me the only neutral thing to do. Etz Haim 00:53, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Important historical record. Efforts shoould be made to remove POV wherever possible and focus on citing sources. --Viriditas 06:52, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. The coverage of violence by either side should not be hidden or reduced. I hope we will soon have more to cover also on the peace front. gidonb 18:07, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] This VfD has expired

This VfD expired 5 days after being open (on Sep 27 at 13:33), on Oct 2 at 13:33. Here's the Tally:

• Merge and Redirect: 8 of 9 (89%).
• Keep: 1 of 9 (11%)

Consensus: Merge and Redirect

HistoryBuffEr 02:53, 2004 Oct 5 (UTC)

It is most disingenuous of HistoryBuffEr to arrive at this verdict when there are at least 14 Keeps. This is not right, and deserves to be protested. IZAK 03:02, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

No need to whine and falsely accuse people, you can try a Vote to undelete. HistoryBuffEr 03:10, 2004 Oct 5 (UTC)

The issue was obviously still open and being debated. Jayjg 03:12, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"whine and falsely accuse people"? Heavens to Betsy, why would anyone want to do that? IZAK 03:22, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I just added my Keep. Does that make 15? --Viriditas 06:52, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Not expired

Notwithstanding HistoryBuffEr's strange math, a VfD is live and can continue being voted on until an admin gets around to ruling on consensus. -- Cecropia | Talk 03:16, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Really? From Deletion policy:

At the end of five days if a "rough consensus" ... has been reached

HistoryBuffEr 03:29, 2004 Oct 5 (UTC)

Yes, really. This is modified by the statement on the "old votes" page, where it is noted that the voting is open until an admin acts on it. This is further reinforced by Wikipedia:Deletion_guidelines_for_administrators which especially notes Wikipedia bias against deletion "When in doubt, don't delete." (The bold face is in the original, I didn't add it.) And see my "pending decision" section below.

This is priceless: Cecropia claims that what's on the "old" page modifies the actual Deletion policy. (BTW, the "old" page just says "you can add vote if you feel strongly", but not that such vote would count.) HistoryBuffEr 05:22, 2004 Oct 5 (UTC)

I don't know why you're protesting, you've been told the exact same thing by the administrator Stormie on this page, after you tried the same tactic: Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/User_talk:HistoryBuffEr/Archived-Sermons Jayjg 05:54, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

If you think I am mistaken, see if you can find an administrator that is willing to interpret the rules to your satisfaction. -- Cecropia | Talk 05:48, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Pending decision

• OK, I see History's reasoning—he is trying to freeze the vote as of five days after posting. But VfD's, like most Wikipedia votes, are to determine consensus, not play games of "timing gotcha." Admins are given broad discretion to determine consensus in a VfD with the general policy being that a 2/3 vote to delete is consensus, but keeping in mind that "if in doubt, don't delete"—i.e., the Wikipedia policy is prejudiced against deletion. I am going to leave this discussion up for another 24 hours (to approx 0400Z 6 Oct 2004) to give advocates on both sides time to understand this and have their say, and if another admin does not act first, I will act on this. See "Vote remains open" below.

As of now, even judging "merge" as implicit votes for "deletion" as a separate article, there is clearly no consensus for deletion as a separate article, and even less for deletion of the content. Barring a significant change in consensus, I will move this discussion to article talk, and then you all can take it from there. I am not an editor on this article. -- Cecropia | Talk 03:50, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

My "merge" vote (although it's cast late) should be interpreted as Cecropia suggests. Etz Haim 04:04, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

To Cecropia: You have voted and are obviously biased in this vote, so you should let impartial admins make decision and take action. HistoryBuffEr 05:15, 2004 Oct 5 (UTC)

Voting does not disallow an admin from correctly interpreting consensus according to guidelines. If you look at the guidelines you will see that admins are advised not to delete articles they have proposed for deletion. I have openly stated my opinion on this matter, but my vote is one vote. I have a significant record of making decisions of articles I do and do not agree with and people I do and do not like. And I have defended people who have fought against me. I think it ill befits you to make accusation of bias when you have attempted to cut off debate and channel consensus without an understanding of policy. Your user history indicates you have been here three weeks. This implies you are either interpreting policy on a short history as a Wikipedian or else are a sockpuppet. -- Cecropia | Talk 05:25, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

HistoryBuffEr was surprisingly well-versed in the minutiae of Wikipedia from his/her very first edit. Jayjg 05:47, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment. Too bad more people don't get familiar with Wikipedia before jumping to edit, huh? HistoryBuffEr 05:56, 2004 Oct 5 (UTC)

That's one possible explanation. Jayjg 06:04, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

And the real explanation, which I did not mention out of courtesy, is that I am just smarter than other beginners. (P.S: This is my last reply on this subject) HistoryBuffEr 06:11, 2004 Oct 5 (UTC)

Maybe that is the "real" explanation. HistoryBuffEr is smart enough to know where to try to cut off the discussion. :D -- Cecropia | Talk 13:06, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I will add that I will make a decision here (and have already stated that I will do it if another admin doesn't) because, as I have stated a number of times on Wikipedia, I am not afraid of making decisions on contentious issue, because that is the heart of management. If another administrator even less involved than I says that he/she will make the decision, I will be glad to defer, but that person will have to be guided by the exact same guidelines I would. -- Cecropia | Talk 05:30, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for making it clear that your apparent bias means nothing in your book of ethics. HistoryBuffEr 05:56, 2004 Oct 5 (UTC)

Would you describe my "apparent bias"? That I believe the article should stay? I have not edited on this article nor do I intend to. If the vote were close I might credit your concern, but the vote right now is 14 to keep and 14 to either delete or merge and redirect. This is not close to a consensus to remove the article in any form. What outcome would satisfy you, coming from an "unbiased" admin? -- Cecropia | Talk 06:13, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This VfD was open for 5 days. There were enough votes cast by then (9) and only 1 vote was added the day before closing. Because there was a clear consensus and not much activity this VfD should have been closed. That's exactly what happened in the recent Vote to delete my user page.

However, instead of closing an expired and inactive VfD you added your vote and are now promising to use your admin privs to enforce your will. It should be obvious what's wrong with your approach.

It should be also obvious what to do with this VfD: Follow the clearly spelled out rules (stretching the rules to get your will may come back to haunt you in another vote.) If the late-comers want they can use the rules and try a Vote to undelete.. HistoryBuffEr 06:34, 2004 Oct 5 (UTC)

You are trying to dictate policy. Wikipedia is about consensus not playing a timing game. If this voting were formally extended while all others in the same time frame were being closed, you would have a point. But you are looking for an exception in order to push your own POV. -- Cecropia | Talk 13:37, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Your "quick study" of Wikipedia rules evidently does not extend to avoiding personal attacks and charactering other users' motives. I rarely vote on VfD, but, more importantly, I have extended nothing. Topics remain open to voting until an admin gets to them. This is the way it has been and cuts the same for everyone. Deletions are chronically behind because it is an arduous and time-consuming task, especially when so many users post complicated opinions. The admins who are willing to keep on top of these are saints (IMHO) because it is one of the toughest tasks. You are trying to interpret Wikipedia policy to your POV, and get admins to go along. However, since you are so intent on claiming bias, see my amendation below.

[edit] Vote remains open

I have decided not to act on this issue at the end of 6 October, as I promised above. I was trying to put a period on this contentious subject, giving all advocates an extra 24 hours to get their "last licks" in. Since User:HistoryBuffEr] has been so intent on calling me biased, however, I've decided to allow this to run its course. This does not mean the vote is frozen at five days, as the editor asserts. It means this will remain open until another admin acts on it in due course, and the voting can continue to that point. Practice has been that the oldest VfDs get acted on first, although some are left for (quite) awhile simply because they're complicated and waiting on an admin willing to take the time and trouble. When this one reaches its "turn," there are nearly 300 active admins who can take care of it. Every single one is bound by the same policy. I am not abandoning this subject. I would challange any admin who follows "History's" assertion, expecting them to show me that this is policy based on the many other VfDs. I am not telegraphing that the decision to be to keep, merge, or delete. That will depend on the status of the vote at the time. If noone else is willing to act, I will. -- Cecropia | Talk 13:29, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] "User/s": "SpaceMonkey"; "Susvolans"; "HistoryBuffEr"

It should be pretty clear by now that the seemingly "new" "Users": "Spacemonkey"; "Susvolans", and "HistoryBuffEr" (by the way, check their User contributions) (and presumably more to come) are probably all one person out there, obviously very familiar with the world of Wikipedia, making up Wiki-user names at random, wasting everybody's time in good old Internet troll fashion, and playing "mind games" as he/it wages a "shadow war" (or "war from the shadows") against articles relating to Israel, Zionism, or Jews. Until such time as it can be established just who exactly "User/s: 'SpaceMonkey'; 'Susvolans'; 'HistoryBuffEr'" is/are and what he/they is/are up to, beyond having an anti-Israel, and yes, an Anti-Semitic agenda, his/their comments and tactics should be totally ignored, and this entire vote cancelled unless Users who are better known, responsible and reliable are willing to handle this subject. Rather than follow "HistoryBuffEr"'s desire for kangaroo court tactics as evidenced here thus far. It's time to smell the coffee...IZAK 06:23, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.