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.
::The deletion discussion already failed. This article has enough source material to remain, as was determined here: ].
::The deletion discussion already failed. This article has enough source material to remain, as was determined here: ].
::This is about whether to '''rename''' the article or not to expand its scope. ] (]) 05:34, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
::This is about whether to '''rename''' the article or not to expand its scope. ] (]) 05:34, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
*’’’Support option 4’’’. Overall support the move per nom, but more specifically number 4 as the best concise option given for the target. ] ] 06:42, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support option 4'''. Overall support the move per nom, but more specifically number 4 as the best concise option given for the target. ] ] 06:42, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
Revision as of 06:42, 12 December 2024
This article was nominated for deletion on 11 November 2024. The result of the discussion was keep.
The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. Parts of this article relate to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing the parts of the page related to the contentious topic:
You must be logged-in to an extended confirmed account (granted automatically to accounts with 500 edits and an age of 30 days)
You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on this article (except in limited circumstances)
If it is unclear which parts of the page are related to this contentious topic, the content in question should be marked within the wiki text by an invisible comment. If no comment is present, please ask an administrator for assistance. If in doubt it is better to assume that the content is covered.
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Misplaced Pages. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's Health, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's Health on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HealthWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HealthTemplate:WikiProject Women's Healthwomen's health
Irfan, Bilal; Abu Shammala, Abdallah; Saleh, Khaled (November 2024). "Will there be a future for newborns in Gaza?". The Lancet. 404 (10464): 1725–1726. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(24)02249-9. The ongoing Israeli military assault on Gaza has led to an alarming humanitarian catastrophe, whereby the onset of famine is coupled with a deterioration of maternal health services, severely impacting the wellbeing of pregnant women and of children.
I came to this article while wondering if we had an article covering the challenges of pregnancy and childbirth in Gaza. This article seems very related, but the current title "2023–2024 Gaza Strip preterm births" is not in scope. For example, complications in at-term births (i.e. not preterm births) would not be in this article's scope. One option is to retitle this to "Pregnancy and childbirth in 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza". Alternatively, we can have separate articles like "2023–2024 Gaza Strip preterm births", "2023–2024 Gaza Strip miscarriages" etc. VR(Please ping on reply)19:42, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
This article uses some sources that are live updates from a liveblog. Per WP:NEWSBLOG, "Some newspapers, magazines, and other news organizations host online pages, columns or rolling text they call blogs. These may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals, but use them with caution because blogs may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process."
There isn't a reason to include this section in this article. The fact that a topic is broadly associated with another topic doesn't warrant it to have its own section in an article, this isn't an article on children or births it's on pre-term births specifically. Originalcola (talk) 11:34, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
No, I am not. This just isn't an article on embryos or the individual incident mentioned; it's clearly far beyond the scope of this article. Originalcola (talk) 12:09, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
@Originalcola The article is about preterm births and the embryos destroyed were destined for IVF implantation, it's absolutely relevant in an article discussing the dangers faced by expectant or soon-to-be-expectant mothers in the Strip. I've restored the content (I didn't see your message on the 6th) for the time being. WP:RELNOT suggests that we consider the relationship of seemingly unrelated content to the article in question when making this kind of decision. In this case, we know through abundant RS that the status of viable embryos is relevant to preterm births (we cover it in our article about preterm births in general) and so there is a relationship between the destruction of said embryos and the topic of the article. Smallangryplanet (talk) 09:03, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
@Smallangryplanet It doesn't matter what the embryos were destined for, this isn't an article on IVF implantation or the dangers faced by expectant or soon-to-be-expectant mothers; this is an article on pre-term births specifically. WP:RELNOT is an essay that doesn't state that we consider unrelated content, it describes ignoring editing rules to keep relevant content. It directly states that "Content must be directly about the subject of the article. Claiming relevance because of an indirect relationship to the subject of the article suggests the item is more about something else than it is about the subject of the article". This is the exact opposite of "consider the relationship of seemingly unrelated content to the article in question".
None of the news articles cited mention pre-term births or the potential effect of this on pre-term births, there's nothing in any of the news articles cited linking the raids to pre-term births. The section you've linked to on pre-term births has one sentence mentioning reducing risk of pre-term births with IVF. There are 3 sentences total on IVF on that page. The destruction of embryos precludes IVF and any kind of birth, making it further removed from the topic of this article. Originalcola (talk) 19:35, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
Looking at the third opinion, would it be objectionable to remove the content about embryos for now and propose to rename the article to re-scope it? Alternatively, you could try and include the content in a different and potentially new article if it’s independently significant. I can see in this talk page that it’s been discussed before. Originalcola (talk) 20:21, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
I believe the section regarding embryos should remain in that it adds important information and context. I would suggest renaming this article to "Pregnancy and childbirth in the 2023–2024 Gaza War" to broaden its scope and accommodate for more information. DocZach (talk) 06:34, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
The deletion discussion I started seems looks like it's going to result in a keep, but I'd still wait a few hours to a day so that we don't start a discussion on a page which could be merged/deleted. Originalcola (talk) 11:09, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
I agree with Originalcola that the embryos fall outside the scope of this article. Perhaps the article topic could be broadened to include the information about embryos? A case could be made that this article is too narrow in focus and could be expanded to include the information in dispute. Nemov (talk) 14:13, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
Lead
@Genabab - My partial revert in the lead was because neither the CBC or ABC news article claims that the destruction of embryos added to concerns about preterm births in Gaza. Such a claim is simply either original research or an attempted synthesis of the 2 sources implying something not directly stated in the sources. I'm not going to remove the section on destruction of embryos again until there is a consensus in the talk page, but regardless of whether the embryo section remains or not that should be struck from the lead. Originalcola (talk) 04:58, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil.
Support option 4. Overall support the move per nom, but more specifically number 4 as the best concise option given for the target. TiggerJay(talk)06:42, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
Referencing and citation: criterion met
Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met
Response to third opinion request:
