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 delete. Consensus here is to delete but as noted there is some verifiable notable information on the page. Sean.hoyland's suggestion to move to a new title and merge with other pages to form a more complete and neutral article could be a solution. If someone wants to begin such a neutral page I would userfy this page to them. J04n(talk page) 11:16, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Violations of the Ceasefire of 21 November, 2012[edit]

List of Violations of the Ceasefire of 21 November, 2012 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The essence of the article is to promote the claim that certain actions violated a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas. This claim is usually not made even in the dubious sources cited. Thus the article is a classic violation of WP:NOT#OR and WP:NOTSOAPBOX. One also finds additional serious problems of the kind that would be expected in an article such as this: bad sourcing (consisting almost entirely of newspaper articles from dictatorial countries lacking freedom of the press), POV-ish selection of information and wording, and a very low quality of writing (e.g., what ceasefire in which part of the world does the title refer to?) Jalapenos do exist (talk) 19:01, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My views are the same as for Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Israeli_Violations_of_the_Ceasefire_of_21_November,_2013. If people want to properly document actions carried out by either belligerent in the same article so that Wikipedia content is balanced and complies with all policies, they can. If they only want to document actions carried out by one of the belligerents, they clearly don't belong here. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:28, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I concur with the above editors. There is a consistent failure by editors to observe WP:NPOV. Active in writing about Palestinian violence, they scour the pages to eliminate any similar pages documenting Israeli violence. That this comes so quickly after the failure to cancel the other page looks distinctly odd. Never give up? Keep pushing? Never take note of the problem? Hand-the-delete-baton-to-the-next-guy if the first fumbles?Nishidani (talk) 20:01, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Response: Obviously, violent actions both against Israel and by Israel (and any other country) should be catalogued on Wikipedia, but this should be done in accordance with Wikipedia policies and common sense. An example of a good article cataloguing violent actions by Israel is Israeli targeted killings. An example of a good article cataloguing violent actions against Israel is List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, 2012. The article we are now discussing happens to be extremely bad, and the previous comments are all parade examples of WP:OTHERSTUFF, appeal to motive, and projection. Pretty depressing. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 20:35, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the page just needs improvement, formatting, further detail. The article is not 'bad' except in a 'moral sense'. The word you are looking for is 'underdeveloped'. I think these pages are necessary and should perhaps be merged. But deleting one side of an a survey of incidents while retaining the other violates WP:NPOV. The main editor should in any case, look at formatting on similar pages, give the author's name, title, news source and date, and if possible add contextual detail. That is useful advice. Moving to just scrap it is not.Nishidani (talk) 06:52, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is a difference between articles on topics like Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel and Israeli targeted killings on the one hand and lists of incidents in a given time period such as List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, 2012 and List of Violations of the Ceasefire of 21 November, 2012. The question here, in my view, is why we should be documenting a list of infractions by one side, but deleting lists that cover infractions by the other party, or both parties. Dlv999 (talk) 21:53, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. We need a consistent policy and not this constant battling, which, depending on who shows up, could lead to something as absurd/silly as this article being deleted while List of Israeli Violations of the Ceasefire of 21 November, 2013 survived. Anyway to get a relevant WP:ARBPIA arbitration on systematic bias. (Of course, first we need a mention of it in the Wikipedia:Systemic bias article and/or Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias.) CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 04:19, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
entirely based on unreliable sources. That statement is entirely based on not doing elementary arithmetic on the source base. There are 29 sources, of which Press TV figures once, Al Qassam twice, Middle Eastern Monitor once,and the Palestinian Press Agency once. The remaining 24 sources, New York Times, Maan News Agency, NBC News, Daily Star, Reuters, Ynet, Jerusalem Post, International Middle East Media Center, are RS for these facts. Thus 18% of the article is composed of challengeable sources. Conclusion? You understand the word ‘entirely’ to refer to 18% of an article, and not to the 82% remainder. The four non-RS are easily replaced since the sparse data they provide can be cross-checked against better sources like this, namely the PCHR lists, or other mainstream outlets, once the data registered are, item for item, googled by date and event for wider press coverage. Please don't misrepresent facts in order to make an argument or a falsifiable generalization. This assumes Wikipedians don't check. Most of them do.Nishidani (talk) 14:38, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We don't need to mention every single time an Israeli kills an Arab, or vice versa. Please read WP:NOTNEWS pbp 22:51, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You shouldn't link to something without actually reading it first. WP:NOTNEWS is not relevant here. We are listing how many violations of the ceasefire there are, and the details about it. It is quite encyclopedic to have this data here. People studying this in the future will be able to look over the history, and better understand the situation. Dream Focus 22:56, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The details themselves are irrelevant. The only salvageable content from this article is about one sentence that says "There were some number of violations of this treaty". Almost all the violations themselves are non-notable. Imagine what would happen if we reported every casualty of larger conflicts in the same way we reported this. Wikipedia would be an utter mess of long casualty lists and where they fell. Also consider WP:NOT, the part about long lists pbp 23:03, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I always shake my head with disbelief when people say publicly that stuff like violating a truce or treaty are 'not news'. It's like saying the Gulf of Tonkin incident wasn't news. It's the whole basis of numerous wars. But then this war is WP:NOTNEWS, I guess (for those who don't like to read tis kind of news).Nishidani (talk) 06:08, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Imagine if Wikipedia described every single missile fired by Palestinian militants or the IDF. Editors scrupulously do the former but not the latter. Strange but true (see 2001, 2002–2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013). Try nominating those articles for deletion using the WP:NOTNEWS, WP:LAUNDRYLIST criteria and watch what happens. If Wikipedia is going to include details like this, and there is currently no way to prevent it, it should be done properly in a balanced way that complies with mandatory policy. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:50, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think it goes a little deeper than simply saying "Editors scrupulously do the former but not the latter." If you look at the editors that have been active in creating the "Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel" lists, it's the editors who are actively trying to get the lists that document attacks by Israel on Gaza deleted.
I presume therefore that you would be willing to delete 2001, 2002–2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, 2013 which is supported by no 'independent reliable sources' and therefore, is largely, in your view, 'original research'? Could I remind deletes that per policy we are obliged to apply our interpretation of policy neutrally, not for POV advantage. That is what editing here is about.Nishidani (talk) 18:15, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, topics such as "Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel", and "Israeli airstrikes in the Gaza Strip", are widely discussed as a set by independent reliable sources. So far I did not see any independent reliable source attempting to document the "Violations of the Ceasefire of 21 November, 2012" as a set. Do you? Notice that "Truce Violations" is a critical term, in contrast to the neutral "attacks" - independent reliable sources do not tend to catalog events that way. Marokwitz (talk) 18:30, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you evidently haven't troubled to read List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, 2013 which is not documented by any 'independent reliable source'. So, where's the principle of neutrality you believe you adhere to, in calling for the deletion of a Israeli attack article that has the same type of sourcing as the other article on Palestinian attacks which you apparently would not delete? By the way, the last article should not use the word 'Palestinians' (collective guilt) but identify the group (like the IDF in this article) that is thought responsible.Nishidani (talk) 19:55, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I just checked what comes up if you google 'violations+ceasefire+Israel+Palestine+November+2012'. What you say is wholly misleading. It is very easy to thicken out this article with details from UPI, Xinhua, The Times of Israel etc. which mention the violations, provide details of victims names (Anwar Abdulhadi Qudaih, 21, not 20 as here, and 20 farmers are reported injured not 10, in some sources), give background to be used for a lead, interviews with Riyad Mansour, and Ziyad al-Thatha etc. We shouldn't be choking off an article before it has had a chance to mature.Nishidani (talk) 20:52, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would be happy to see where are the mainstream reliable sources (such as NYTimes) which talk about "violations of the ceasefire" as a concise and well defined set. Reliable sources talk about "attacks" or "incidents" but do not state as a fact that a specific incident is or is not a "ceasefire violation". At most, those sources say things such as "Palestinians Claim Israel has Violated Gaza Ceasefire", or "Riad al-Malki, the Palestinian foreign minister, described Friday’s shooting as a clear violation of the agreement that was signed". Marokwitz (talk) 13:22, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I.e. If a ceasefire was agreed to, it means what that word means. If following a ceasefire, either side shoots, it is a violation of the ceasefire. You may argue that it is WP:OR to say the ceasefire was 'violated', of course. In that case, rather than remove the information, whose content is not challenged as false, you, like the rest, should be respecting the numerous Israel-victim lists examples, by simply asking that either that each reference contain a mention of the ceasure, or that this be retitled as 'Israeli assaults on The Gaza Strip/PT and Palestinian attacks on Israel following the November 2012 ceasefire'/'Israeli/Palestinian incidents of violence following the November 2012 ceasefire', or something like that. Moves to erase the data are, given the numerous Israeli-victim lists, nothing but manoeuvers to tilt wiki towards a unilateral perspective. That stands out like dogs' balls.Nishidani (talk) 15:48, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"If following a ceasefire, either side shoots, it is a violation of the ceasefire." - that is the source of your mistake. A "ceasefire agreement" does not necessarily equate to ending all hostilities. There are always terms and conditions in such agreements. It depends on the interpretation and wording of the agreement and in no way are we capable or allowed to judge which party violated the agreement based on international law. This causes the scope of the current article to be poorly defined. Yes, a new article could be written about hostile incidents in the Gaza strip since 21 November, 2012. I would not object to such article being created, given that it is balanced and well sourced. Marokwitz (talk) 05:33, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(a)WP:SOAPBOX should never have been cited by the proposer in the first place. It does not apply to a list, in neutral language of events, shorn of Advocacy, Propaganda, Recruitment, Opinion pieces, Scandal mongering, Self-promotion. (b) You are labouring under the impression that WP:RS refers to American news sources. It does not. Maan News Agency, for one, has long been regarded as RS for the I/P articles.Nishidani (talk) 16:04, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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.
More