Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:37, 18 January 2009

2008-09 Israel–Gaza Foreign involvement

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

• This is an extremely blatant POV fork so that an editor who was unable to force his non-consensus POV upon the article '2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict' has free rein to put in whatever that editor wants. For background, see Talk:2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict#Iranian_sources.3F and Talk:2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict#.22Temporal_Context.22.3F. This editor will not debate the issues with the consensus of opposing editors, since s/he considers them to be "fascists". The Squicks (talk) 20:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

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)

• Note This article was previously 'proposed for deletion' by me on 15 January. The Squicks (talk) 20:15, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The previous request was removed by another user without my knowledge. NonZionist (talk) 00:28, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• Delete--In the current form this article is an example of WP:POVFORK and WP:OR.--J.Mundo (talk) 21:27, 16 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)

• Delete. It's WP:SYNTH and extremely POV. Clearly belongs on a blog instead of Misplaced Pages. Graymornings_(talk) 00:22, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
• Delete I agree completely with Graymornings - this is a POV-fork on topic which is better covered in other articles (eg, articles on the Israeli Defence Force and the equipment it uses, etc). Nick-D (talk) 03:36, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick-D (talk) 03:36, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Blatant POV fork, as said above. Bsimmons666 (talk) 03:58, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
• Delete there is more POV in this article than there was for the entire 2008-2009 US Presidential election. The article isn't even properly formatted. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:36, 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)

• Keep No censoring. Brunte (talk) 15:46, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:NPOV, and is an obvious POV fork of the main article. --Patar knight - /_{contributions} 17:52, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Again We should use our common sense to pick a side, as i am sure you will agree with me that nearly any one who goes on wikipedia is clever enough to make his own mind and tell the difference between fact and opinion and wikipedia has a NO CENSORSHIP policy thus this page should remain. NeMiStIeRs (talk) 19:00, 17 January 2009 (GMT)
• Delete - but violating NPOV is not a reason to delete. The reason is that this is a WP:POVFORK from another article. If we were to delete articles simply for being non-neutral, we wouldn't have more than a thousand articles. --Cerejota (talk) 19:16, 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)

• Delete - Firstly for WP:POVFORK - it's beyond reprieve. And secondly because wikipedia is not a newspaper. Thirdly, if we're going to have a neutral, informative article like this (which is definitely a notable topic) the best way is to salt the Earth Panyd 22:34, 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)