Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/2008-09 Israel–Gaza Foreign involvement: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 01:50, 18 January 2009 editNableezy (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers56,154 edits 2008-09 Israel–Gaza Foreign involvement← Previous edit Revision as of 01:53, 18 January 2009 edit undoChase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers31,859 edits 2008-09 Israel–Gaza Foreign involvement: WarningNext edit →
Line 1: Line 1:
===]=== ===]===
:{{la|2008-09 Israel–Gaza Foreign involvement}} :{{la|2008-09 Israel–Gaza Foreign involvement}}

*This is an extremely blatant ] so that ] who was unable to force his non-consensus POV upon the article ']' has free rein to put in whatever that editor wants. For background, see ] and ]. This editor will not debate the issues with the consensus of opposing editors, since s/he considers them to be "fascists". ] (]) 20:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC) *This is an extremely blatant ] so that ] who was unable to force his non-consensus POV upon the article ']' has free rein to put in whatever that editor wants. For background, see ] and ]. This editor will not debate the issues with the consensus of opposing editors, since s/he considers them to be "fascists". ] (]) 20:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
====Warning that all users commenting here fall under special sanctions====
::I am happy to debate and I am committed to dialogue. I even attempted to debate on your user page. My participation in the ] discussion is extensive. In the talk page for the article you challenged, you made no attempt to debate the issues. In the main talk page, there was no consensus on whether the material can be used as the basis for a subarticle -- the subject was not even addressed. ] (]) 00:28, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
As a result of ], the ] has acknowledged long-term and persistent problems in the editing of articles related to the ], broadly understood. As a result, the Committee has enacted broad ], described ].

This AFD could, if an uninvolved administrator thinks it warranted, be closed under these sanctions without recourse to the below comments. Hopefully no such action will be necessary. {{User|NonZionist}} and {{user|The Squicks}}, as key parties in this discussion, are both reminded particularly reminded of these sanctions. ] (]) 01:53, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
====Discussion====
:I am happy to debate and I am committed to dialogue. I even attempted to debate on your user page. My participation in the ] discussion is extensive. In the talk page for the article you challenged, you made no attempt to debate the issues. In the main talk page, there was no consensus on whether the material can be used as the basis for a subarticle -- the subject was not even addressed. ] (]) 00:28, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


*The entire article, from the lead-- "Because foreign powers are involved in the conflict, providing military and/or diplomatic support, the Israeli offensive should not be seen in isolation. It is part of a larger global conflict, involving a series of military operations -- the 2007 military strike against Syria, the 2006 aggression against Lebanon, and the 2003 aggression against Iraq."-- down is one big fat ] ]. The creator of this article has a pet ], which he described ], saying that some dastardly gang of puppet masters has a secret evil plan to take over the middle east. Since s/he was not able to shape ']' to include his or her theory, s/he created this page. ] (]) 20:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC) *The entire article, from the lead-- "Because foreign powers are involved in the conflict, providing military and/or diplomatic support, the Israeli offensive should not be seen in isolation. It is part of a larger global conflict, involving a series of military operations -- the 2007 military strike against Syria, the 2006 aggression against Lebanon, and the 2003 aggression against Iraq."-- down is one big fat ] ]. The creator of this article has a pet ], which he described ], saying that some dastardly gang of puppet masters has a secret evil plan to take over the middle east. Since s/he was not able to shape ']' to include his or her theory, s/he created this page. ] (]) 20:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 01:53, 18 January 2009

2008-09 Israel–Gaza Foreign involvement

2008-09 Israel–Gaza Foreign involvement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Warning that all users commenting here fall under special sanctions

As a result of an arbitration case, the Arbitration committee has acknowledged long-term and persistent problems in the editing of articles related to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, broadly understood. As a result, the Committee has enacted broad editing restrictions, described here.

This AFD could, if an uninvolved administrator thinks it warranted, be closed under these sanctions without recourse to the below comments. Hopefully no such action will be necessary. NonZionist (talk · contribs) and The Squicks (talk · contribs), as key parties in this discussion, are both reminded particularly reminded of these sanctions. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 01:53, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

I am happy to debate and I am committed to dialogue. I even attempted to debate on your user page. My participation in the Talk:2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict discussion is extensive. In the talk page for the article you challenged, you made no attempt to debate the issues. In the main talk page, there was no consensus on whether the material can be used as the basis for a subarticle -- the subject was not even addressed. NonZionist (talk) 00:28, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
  • The entire article, from the lead-- "Because foreign powers are involved in the conflict, providing military and/or diplomatic support, the Israeli offensive should not be seen in isolation. It is part of a larger global conflict, involving a series of military operations -- the 2007 military strike against Syria, the 2006 aggression against Lebanon, and the 2003 aggression against Iraq."-- down is one big fat original research synthesis. The creator of this article has a pet conspiracy theory, which he described here, saying that some dastardly gang of puppet masters has a secret evil plan to take over the middle east. Since s/he was not able to shape '2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict' to include his or her theory, s/he created this page. The Squicks (talk) 20:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
The article presents no theories, only well-established facts. My personal beliefs are not relevant here. The discussion at Talk:2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict#Iranian_involvment_cont. pertains to Richard Perle's 1996 "Clean Break" plan, as published at an Israeli site. Again, this plan is fact, not theory. Not liking the facts presented in an article is not grounds for deletion. NonZionist (talk) 00:28, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Richard Perle is not God, and just because he wrote a book ten years ago does not mean that every single fracking event in the Middle East in the past ten years has been orchastarted by puppet masters.
The article presents no theories, only well-established facts. My personal beliefs are not relevant here. Marxist professors in the 1960s and 1950s wrote books about critical theory that advocated gay marriage in America. Therefore, all efforts in the years afterward to legalize gay marriage is nothing but a Marxist conspiracy! It's a part of a Marxist master plan to destroy American moral values, as articled by this book. Again, this plan is fact, not theory. Not liking the facts presented in an article is not grounds for deletion. Do you see that? It's the same silly kind of conspiracy mongering. The Squicks (talk) 04:42, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Where did I say that Richard Perle orchestrated ANYTHING?! Please don't put words in my mouth, Squicks. And why are you even talking about "Clean Break"? It was mentioned in the talk for the main article, but it is not mentioned in the article we're currently dealing with. There is no "therefore". You are seeing something that isn't there.
Let's make your analogy more realistic, Squicks. If a highly influential gang of Marxists with access to the highest circles of power developed a plan to use gay marriage to sow division in America, and gay marriage was subsequently implemented and did prove divisive, then one might reasonably ask to what extent the plan influenced subsequent events. That is not the same thing as saying that that Marxist gang totally orchestrated everything that happened over a ten year period! Using such a hysterical claim as a strawman would indicate an unwillingness to look realistically at the degree of influence the Marxists exerted.
Anyway, thanks for giving me this much debate. It seems to me that some people here are afraid to even raise the issue of foreign involvement, afraid to even ask the question. If that is true, then you have shown more courage than most by daring to respond intelligently to me. NonZionist (talk) 07:26, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
The previous request was removed by another user without my knowledge. NonZionist (talk) 00:28, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep:
  • This article contains WP:RS material that was moved from the main article, 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict. See Talk:2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict#Section_titled:_.22Iranian_involvment.22. It is under development: It will expand as new countries become involved and new sources are found. The proponents of deletion have made no attempt to balance the POV or remedy perceived shortcomings. They've offered no constructive criticism or discussion.
  • The article casts light on the hidden participants in the conflict in Gaza. Discussing the conflict without mentioning these larger powers would be like discussing the 1960s "conflict" in Vietnam without mentioning the U.S.. The assault on Gaza, moreover, could easily expand into a regional or global war, in which the covert involvement of other powers will become overt. If that happens, the information in this article will be useful as background.
  • The article addresses involvement and differs from International reaction to the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict. The latter addresses verbal reaction, which occurs after the fact, and it focuses on parties that are uninvolved. This article focuses on parties that have allegedly or actually contributed in significant ways to the conflict or its resolution.
  • Suppressing WP:RS information about the context of a situation amounts to censorship. That suppression is inconsistent with the purpose of an encyclopedia and inconsistent with wikipedia policy. See WP:UNCENSORED. Is Israel acting alone, or is it supported by other powers? How can that information not be of interest to encyclopedia readers?
  • Much as censorship may appeal to pro-war forces, it is ultimately ineffective. In this age of the internet, the information does eventually get out, if not through wikipedia, then through dozens of other sites. But the delay in making the information widely available results in an additional loss of life. For those who sat on the story, there is also a loss of credibility. Misplaced Pages has an opportunity to be at the head of the curve, promoting the humanitarian philosophy of the original Encyclopedists. That opportunity should not go wasted.
  • NonZionist (talk) 00:10, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Feel free to fix the format, or describe your objection to the format or offer constructive criticism. NonZionist (talk) 07:26, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Fixed the formatting (for what good it will do). TomStar81 (Talk) 08:15, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Violating neutrality policy is a reason to delete if the very existence of the article is POV. There's no way this article could be written that would make it NPOV, no matter how neutrally we worded it. Graymornings(talk) 19:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
If this is a "POVFORK" then where is the other side of the fork? TO be a "fork", one needs at least two POV's or tines. This information is presented nowhere else, and is based on mainstream WP:RS. It was moved out of the main article to reduce the length of that article, not to create a separate POV in opposition to the main article. NonZionist (talk) 01:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
I must admit that I don't know the intricate details of the history of this article. It would appear to me from it's bias that it has forked from the main article to push a POV. If it was moved from the main article to reduce its length I would suggest that the person who moved it had an agenda (as opposed to the people who called for it to be moved deliberately setting out to make a bias article). Similarly, whilst I accept your comments in good faith (and I hope you will do the same for me) your username suggests that this is an article you may have a personal stake in. Panyd 01:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep - The subject is notable, that the article is currently non-NPOV is not basis to delete, rather it is basis to improve the article. There is no room in the main article for this information, so I would support a subarticle. Though I do think it is not currently NPOV. Nableezy (talk) 01:50, 18 January 2009 (UTC)