Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/Israeli shelling of Beit Hanoun - 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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) at 09:03, 29 March 2022 (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 09:03, 29 March 2022 by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12))(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
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.

The result was Speedy delete. See my closing statement for Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Beit Hanoun November 2006 incident. Note: I am not deleting it for a few hours to give participants a chance to merge pertinent material. El_C 23:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Internal error: Could not delete the page or image specified. (It may have already been deleted by someone else.) And it was. El_C 07:05, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Israeli shelling of Beit Hanoun

Israeli shelling of Beit Hanoun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article should be deleted because: (1) it is a POV fork of Beit Hanoun November 2006 incident created by a known POV and edit warrior named Striver in an attempt to shoehorn material that violates WP:NPOV into the article it forks, (2) the images used by the page are all copyright violations. RunedChozo 16:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Since a number of people are trying to confuse this issue!

The facts in the case are:
#1 - The original article, Beit Hanoun November 2006 incident, was created at 13:06. NINE HOURS LATER, Striver comes along and creates a fork. There is zero possible chance he didn't know the original article existed, yet instead of editing on the original article, he created a fork. It strains the bounds of credulity to try to presume he was not creating an illegal POV fork as defined in wikipedia's policies.

#2 - I nominated this based on that principle.

#3 - The idea that the content of a highly POV forked article should be merged into the original article directly contradicts our NPOV policies.

Now, to the other items at hand: In reading the responses and checking the userpages of the editors in question, it appears that Striver, Bhaisaab, Nielswik, Puddleman, Truthspreader, Palestine48 (counting those I've identified so far) are all either (a) members of a POV-pushing group on Misplaced Pages that calls themselves "The Muslim Guild" or else have strong POV biases in the Palestine conflict that they are trying to push. I do not consider it an unreasonable assumption that they are even going so far as to try to "stuff" this AFD by calling in friends to vote for them, seeing as only Striver and Nielswik have any connection to the page in question. This is behavior that Misplaced Pages very much frowns upon and I again believe it strains the bounds of credulity to try to assume there is good faith involved when editors like this are saying things like "showing the atrocities committed by the Israeli government" is their goal for the article in question. WP:NOT a soapbox and obvious propaganda, which is all that the POV fork up for deletion is, ought to be excised as quickly as possible. RunedChozo 15:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, a note to Striver: your demand for an apology is denied. AGF does not require that I ignore the resounding evidence in front of my eyes. A 9-hour gap between the creation of the article, when the article was edited heavily, and when the article was being edited by other members of your guild like Nielswik, it seems to me almost impossible that you somehow did not know of its existence. I am stating, for the record: I believe that as per AGF, your behavior strains the bounds so far that I can not assume you are operating in good faith. If you can convince me otherwise, fine, but the creation of a POV fork so late after the other article was created, and the pushing of obvious propaganda statements as well as copyright violation images, and the concurrent statements by your own guildmates indicating that the whole purpose of your POV fork is to be as negative to the Israeli side of the issue as possible, shows me that it was a bad-faith creation. RunedChozo 15:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

as per below that title (esp. the word 'incident') is a revolting euphemism for the slaughter of innocent civilians. it is highly POV & everyone supporting it knows very well that people would take issue with it. this article was created afterwards with a purely descriptive title in an attempt to redress that mistake per per 'npov' & naming conventions. obviously the other article should be merged on these grounds. then 'debate' about content can proceed (it's not relevant here). furthermore the nomminator's biases and prejudices are amply demonstrated in his/her refusal to acknowledge this problem and in the above hypocrisy about other users spreading "propaganda". clearly these are all reasons for terminating this process & allowing a purely procedural merge to go ahead.  ⇒ bsnowball  16:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Yawn. Don't insult my intelligence. If you have a problem with the title of an article, you hold a discussion on the title of the article on the article's page. You don't go off and create a Propaganda POV Fork, which is a violation of both WP:POINT and WP:NPOV. You just proved that you are interested in this purely to introduce bias by the wording of your own statements. WP:NOT a Soapbox. You are admitting that your goal in trying to get this disgusting piece of POV propaganda merged is because you are trying to create an article that has emotional context. You are in bad faith trying to create an article that violates NPOV standards. Shame on you. RunedChozo 16:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Commentary by others

  • Keep and merge: RunedChozo, the articles should be merged. You are a POV pusher who is attempting to white wash the "unpleasant" aspects of the "incident" on Beit Hanoun November 2006 incident. This request is done in bad faith, and you simply dislike the pictures, there is no copyright violation, which you dont really care about in my opinion.--Burgas00 16:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Despite your blatant show of bad faith Burqas,, I'll note I have edited only once on the normal article, and never edited on the POV fork your buddy created, except to nominate it for deletion according to Misplaced Pages's policies. I also note you were one of a muslim group who keep trying to POV-push the title of the forked article into "Massacre". Go push POV somewhere else.RunedChozo 16:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
If you really are interested in my religious background I inform you that my family is Catholic. Yes I feel massacre is the appropriate term but I will also agree with "killings" as a consensus title.--Burgas00 16:48, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with the title of the main page, this is an AFD about deleting the POV-pushing fork created by Striver. Please do not clutter the AFD page. He and his pov pushing guild will probably be here soon enough to do that. RunedChozo 16:52, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
btw, the other article was created 13:05, my was created 22:18, and this is how the other article look liked when i created mine: . At 22:56 i added the merge tags. What sounds more logical, that i created a bad-faith consensus dodging article just so i could merge it 48 minutes later, or i had no idea the other article existed? You owe me an apology. --Striver 00:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Nobody owes you an apology or anything else. You knew, or should have known with a simple search, that an article already existed on the same topic. You created yours anyways rather than add to that article, even though you're trying to claim the preexisting article was somehow inadequate. Assuming Good Faith is being a Simplistic Gullible Idiot to think you were doing anything other than creating a propagandistic POV fork. NotAWeasel 03:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
This policy does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary. - taken from the Assume Good Faith page. And your edit history and behavior are perfect evidence that you're not behaving in anything close to good faith. NotAWeasel 04:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Somebody needs to look at this, preferably an admin. --Striver 00:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Like who? I see nothing wrong with the comments. They edge the line of civility but assuming good faith only goes so far before you're acting delusional, and it is quite clear that you and other editors are engaging in deliberate, coordinated pov-pushing behavior. NotAWeasel 03:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Oh look: a proud member of "The Muslim Guild" of POV pushers. NotAWeasel 04:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Oh, you're right. I'm sorry. Remember: "Assume good faith" is a nicer restatement of "Never assume malice when stupidity will suffice." Try not to be stupid either. I'll just assume you're a (Personal attack removed) then. NotAWeasel 04:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

*Strong Keep this massacre is notable event. to runed: please WP:CIV and WP:AGF . Peace.--Nielswik(talk) 04:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

And we have a better article for it: Beit Hanoun November 2006 incident. POV forking is not allowed. Do some reading on policy and stop being deliberately dense trying to help your POV-pushing Muslim Guild brethren. NotAWeasel 04:24, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
But 'shelling' or 'killing' is more preferred than 'incident'. Please be civil and assume good faith to your fellow editor, otherwise you may be reported. Peace. --Nielswik(talk) 04:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong and Speedy deleteMisplaced Pages is not a soapbox for Hamas propaganda.Beit Hanoun November 2006 incident is just fine.Hkelkar 04:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and improve Keep, merge, and improve The incident is signifcant and deserves a space on wikipedia. TruthSpreader 06:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, merge and improveBoth of these articles are very similar, and Israeli Shelling of Beit Hanoun is a better title, factual and NPOV. It's dissapointing to see the vicious diatribes and personal attacks on here, I hoped that on Misplaced Pages even if people were opposed politically they could treat each other civilly. Isn't it better to let people you disagree with 'condemn' themseleves with their words rather than attacking them? Puddleman 06:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep I agree with Nielswik this massacre is a notable event in the Palestinian Struggle. However, I think we should use a better sentence structure in the article in order for it to be more encyclopaedic and off-course the Israeli excuse for this "mistake" should be clearly stated within the article. --Palestine48 09:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep & merge Beit Hanoun November 2006 incident to Israeli shelling of Beit Hanoun. This article's title is clearly the more accurate and informative of the two: there is no dispute over the facts that Israeli shells hit Beit Hanoun, there are no "weasel words" in the title (unlike "incident" which is completely undescriptive). As for POV in content, that can be cleaned up by making sure all content is properly sourced, which at the moment both articles appear to be trying to keep on top of. QmunkE 17:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete & Redirect POV fork. Any encyclopaedic information should be merged, but discussion about content and naming should be held on the original entry's Talk, and should most certainly not be forked out like this. Tewfik 17:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete & Redirect to Beit Hanoun November 2006 incident. This article is highly biased against Israel and written in an unencyclopedic tone. --PiMaster3 20:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and Redirect to Beit Hanoun November 2006 incident. Blatant PoV fork.--Rosicrucian 20:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - I have just completed some major cleanup of the article (including references), and I have to say that unless someone points the NPOV violations out to me I can't see any - all the references (with the possible exception of the Gush Shalom article which I suspect is likely not to qualify under WP:RS), seem to be from reputable sources, and no statements made in the article are taken out of context. This article is now better sourced and contains a good degree more information than Beit Hanoun November 2006 incident, all of it verifiable. The only question that remains in my mind is whether it is encyclopaedic (at the moment it seems to be more of a news article, but it has become an increasing trend on Misplaced Pages for events in the news to develop rapidly). I'd like to see some other unbiased editors opinions on this (I am neither pro-Israeli, pro-Palestinian, or anti-American), since it appears to be almost exclusively users with strong views on this conflict editing here. QmunkE 21:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment In my mind furthering the split by improving the newer article is counterproductive. This is editing that can be better spent on the main article.--Rosicrucian 22:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment It doesn't change the creation of it as a POV fork. If you have information that you think belongs, it could be added to the real article. But I notice that the bad faith POV pusher Burgas00 has now put the real article up for deletion and even falsely claims it to be the fork, and is such a cowardly bad faith POV pusher that he wouldn't even sign his name to that AFD. RunedChozo 22:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Of course it is, but to not have "Israeli" in the title doesn't hold the same level of "oh look what those evil Joos did now" POV that they POV fork's creator was trying to push. RunedChozo 23:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
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.