Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of deaths and injuries caused by Israeli forces firing at alleged Palestinian stone-throwers

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. I have examined both AfDs about the Israeli perpetrators (I) and the Palestinian perpetrators (P) version of this content and am closing them together because the discussions are interrelated.

In both AfDs, opinions are roughly divided 8 to 8 between deleting (often expressly both) on the one hand, or keeping or merging the lists on the other. However, the merge opinions would generally also support the deletion of both articles. This leaves four "keep" opinions, all for the P list, whereas the about 12 other participants would prefer to delete (mostly both) or failing that merge the lists. This leaves us with the deletion of both as the most consensual result.

Examining the weight of the arguments made does not change this outcome. The four "keep" opinions are very short and generic, mostly boiling down to "It is sourced". However, having sources is a necessary but not sufficient requirement for article-level coverage, according to our policies and guidelines, and the "keep" opinions do not address the concerns raised by the "delete" side, such as coatracking and inappropriate newspaper-/current events-type coverage. These "keep" arguments carry, therefore, relatively little weight.

This result is a reaffirmation of the consensus expressed in this RfC, mentioned in one discussion, that our coverage of incidents of this type, regardless of which side is held responsible for them, should not include lists of individual incidents that are not themselves notable enough for an article.  Sandstein  19:36, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of deaths and injuries caused by Israeli forces firing at alleged Palestinian stone-throwers[edit]

List of deaths and injuries caused by Israeli forces firing at alleged Palestinian stone-throwers (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)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of deaths and critical injuries caused by Palestinian stone-throwing. Neither of these lists are encyclopedic, they're both created to make a point. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:39, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Note: I've just moved the article to a simpler title that does not contain "alleged." List of Palestinians killed and injured by Israelis in connection with stone throwing.Dan Murphy (talk) 16:23, 25 September 2015 (UTC))[reply]

  • Whoa. You just moved the article to a new title in the meddle of an AFD!?!?. E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:17, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
lol calm down there neo. nableezy - 19:30, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete - 'alleged' in the title pretty much sums up that this is a political statement. VMS Mosaic (talk) 06:50, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you actually read the article. It is beyond a shadow of a doubt that stone throwing is widespread and a daily practice in the Palestinian territories. It is also well documented by B'tselem and other respectable NGOs who are non-partisan, that many of the people shot or shot dead, and reported in army bulletins as having been shot for stone throwing, either weren't throwing stones at the time or doubt hangs over the cases, which almost never end in a legal verdict. For this reason alleged is obligatory, because the official reports are unreliable. It can be changed, if an intelligent alternative is thought up.Nishidani (talk) 08:13, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per WP:COATRACK a hotchpotch of incidents during a variety of riots and hooliganism. Nothing defines these sundry episodes of rampage, mayhem and vandalism as a category. Also problematic is poor sourcing, with many of the alleged incidents sourced to a single blog or partisan NGO, frequently lacking details like names making incidents impossible to verify.E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:46, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your vote was predictable, just as it was predicable that you would vote to keep the other parallel article that is not the least bit better than this one. But I'm disappointed you couldn't actually think of any good reasons. Zerotalk 11:54, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have recently been forced to spend an undue amount of time coping with E.M. Gregory's personal obsessions with stone-throwing, in the wake of User:Shulmaven's Palestinian stone-throwing, where he is active. He's now created Criminal rock throwing to use it in his polemic against 'Arabs' and I had to remind him that hooliganism on national roads is one thing, stone throwing by an occupied people another Rock throwing has been in the past often adopted as a method by an unarmed population to protest a governing power's authority. He's also created 2015 Rosh HaShanah death by stone-throwing (17 September) when, as the AfD shows, the sources say it is not known whether rocks or a heart attack caused the death. Still not satisfied, three days later he came up with List of deaths and critical injuries caused by Palestinian stone-throwing. Well, what do you do with this stacking of multiple victim articles? I responded by creating this article 'List of deaths and injuries caused by Israeli forces firing at alleged Palestinian stone-throwers' as the sister article. The only word that covers the behavior of an editor that writes a POV-pushing anti-Arab article, and then asks that its mirror article (per NPOV) be deleted, is chutzpah, to not speak of in-your-face double-standards. B'tselemis not a partisan NGO - it is the most objective verifier of hostile incidents in Israel and mainly run by Israelis , nor is Amnesty International and all events listed will be sourced to that or mainstream newspapers. Independently of its origin as a balance to the article Gregory created, this article has it own justification, in the fact that several hundred Palestinians have been shot dead or wounded over the last decades by Israel's troops of occupation, in contexts of clashes where stones are thrown. It is a unique situation since no other modern democratic country allows its police to systematically use sniper squads to take out people, often teenagers, in demonstrations, even when rocks are thrown, and well worthy of recording. Nishidani (talk) 12:08, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very sensible. You cannot have one victim article saved while having its sister 'victim' article deleted, and vice versa. Roscelese? Nishidani (talk) 12:52, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • People have already started weighing in [differently] in both, so this seems moot. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:06, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To the contrary. It is, from a decade's experience obvious that an article dealing with an Israeli death will pass AdD. Other than neutral editors, it is stacked by the known POV pushers to achieve that end by sheer numbers. Articles on Palestinian deaths are usually suppressed. The merge proposal is the only way to see if editors from all walks vote consistently with policy, or according to a subjective view of whose lives are to be 'memorialized' and whose lives are of negligible interest.Nishidani (talk) 17:07, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:AGF is a policy. We don't arrange discussions based on assumptions or predictions of bad faith/bias -- especially not when it disrupts already ongoing discussions. Every article on Wikipedia is kept or deleted on its own merits. There are no "if we delete this, we have to delete this other one". Sometimes it works out like that, but going into it with that attitude here falls under WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS (and, in a way, WP:OTHERSTUFF). There are two different discussions going on. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:13, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Rhododendrites: I am not sure what you are saying here. WP:BUNDLE exists, for nominating multiple related articles for deletion. I will not bundle these two, because they don't strictly meet the guidelines for bundling. However, the reasoning that "every article is kept or deleted based on its own merits" is blind to the realities of this area. And regarding "sourcing" keep in mind WP:WORLDVIEW. As any scholarly study of the area shows, this category is much much more vast than the other category. If this article is deleted and the other kept, it would be the triumph of WP:BURO thinking. Kingsindian ♝♚ 21:18, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Kingsindian: Acknowledging your point about sourcing, but just responding to the procedural comment now: I know articles can be nominated together. These weren't, though. And that's ok. By the time it was suggested, it was too late. WP:MULTIAFD: For the sake of clarity, debates should be bundled only at the start or near the start of the debate, ideally before any substantive discussion.... It lists a couple exceptions to that which don't apply (even less so now). It also says Bundling AfDs should be used only for clear-cut deletion discussions based on existing policy. If you're unsure, don't bundle it. and An article with a fair or better chance of standing on its own merits should not be bundled. I.e. Bundling needs to be more or less uncontroversial (it's to simplify things, not to avoid POV/bias, though I understand the reasoning behind the latter). Since I think it would be controversial, that means a bundled nomination could easily turn into a train wreck (and be closed as such). Personally I think it's very rare to see effectively bundled nominations... But anyway, yes, if they were nominated together it would've been entirely legitimate (one could easily argue they're directly connected), but a separate nomination is also [always] legitimate, and since discussion has taken place since then, it's just kind of a moot point. Not trying to be difficult by calling it moot -- I just don't think talk of the nomination can go anywhere productive. If you'd like to continue talking about it, however, I'd be happy to continue on a relevant talk page. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:43, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:05, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:05, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:05, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The sourcing for this looks to be much weaker than the counterpart list and the criteria for inclusion slippery (though my !vote was to delete that one too). If there weren't clear consensus for excluding non-notable news stories at Palestinian stone-throwing, I'd suggest a selective merge, but the RfC made that consensus clear not long ago. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:10, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - There should be a discussion about all articles similar to those two ([1][2] and maybe more). WP:OSE for all such articles should be discussed together and one consensus make the rule for all. Settleman (talk) 14:51, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - +972 mag is not an impartial source, it is not noteworthy, the title is a run-on sentence and the main image is pure propaganda. WikiMania76 (talk) 16:22, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(a) The page has 23 unchallengeably mainstream sources, and a miniscule use of a borderline source, +972, which is steadily being replaced. None of its references have yet to be shown inaccurate, since all are being confirmed by the mainstream sources that will replace them. You cannot make a delete article on the dislike of just 1 of 24 sources. Almost all sources in this area are, ahimé, not partial.Nishidani (talk) 19:27, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notice An editor with years of experience just changed the title of this article in the middle of this AFD.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:27, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you should take those years of experience into account before saying foolish things. nableezy - 19:27, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Moving the article while it is being discussed can produce confusion (both during the discussion and when closing using semi-automated closing scripts). If you do this, please note it on the deletion discussion page, preferably both at the top of the discussion (for new participants) and as a new comment at the bottom (for the benefit of the closing administrator)." I moved the article taking into consideration feedback and general article improvement. I have notified at the top of this AFD, and now I have done so at the bottom.Dan Murphy (talk) 17:33, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Noting your belated notification, and the fact that it came only after a lag during which I posted your inappropriate action both here and on your talk page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:43, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That dog won't hunt.Dan Murphy (talk) 18:04, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and severe trout slaps to all concerned. Saw this article and List of deaths and critical injuries caused by Palestinian stone-throwing, also nominated for deletion, referenced on a user talk page I watchlist. Should be merged into one article with a concise, neutral title, or perhaps merged with yet another article. The presence of these two tit-for-tat articles is a great example of WP:BATTLEGROUND in action. It may help if all editors currently involved in this intra-wiki warfare be topic-banned, a remedy I usually don't favor, but let's leave that for another day. Making a similar comment at the other AfD. Coretheapple (talk) 18:10, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I write lists because I have been consistently opposed to the article memorialization or 'celebration' of victims of terrorism, Israeli or Palestinian. I do few, and while many could immediately generate the material for an article, like the recent killing of Hadeel al-Hashlamon, I put that in an appropriate list, succinctly List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, July–December 2015, since WP:NOTNEWS commends that choice. E. M. Gregory is a very good non I/P editor, but here he has a personal obsession, the creation of numerous articles on Palestinian/Arabs as terrorists, esp. re rock-throwing incidents
Extended content about a particular editor. Please take to WP:ANI or WP:NPOVN if needed (this page is already really long)
This was needed but as anyone can see from the introductory draft, Gregory drafted by lifting the ethnic cleansing activist lobby's own laundered statement of its ostensible aims as though this was neutral and accurate. This required again lots of work to give both sides of the story, which Gregory neglected to do.
  • 2003 Route 60 Hamas ambush 16 August 2015 Another Pal terrorists shoot Israel family article. This has merit because it had legal consequences. Hundreds of similar articles could be written of large Palestinian families wiped out by police, or IDF action, but there is a general agreement among editors not to go there.
  • 2015 Rosh HaShanah death by stone-throwing ‎ 17 September 2015 This asserted as notable an un derreported story under gag order for which two versions exist. Again the aim is to screw Palestinian stone throwers.
  • Rafik Y 17 September 2015 A not notable Islamic terrorist, again fails not news and notability. Again, an Arab.
  • Interstate 75 rock-throwing death 21 September 2015 Not News, not notable, but is is a buttress for the Palestinian death by stoning programme he is engaged in.
So when in another 2 days he came up with
  • List of deaths and critical injuries caused by Palestinian stone-throwing, which contains the short list of names already present in Palestinian stone-throwing, I got fed up. This is so patently POV abuse, that there is a limit to tolerance. It will pass AfD. But if this is the pattern, to consolidate WP:Systemic bias, it can hardly be charged against my account that I decided for some NPOV balance, by creating, not non notable articles, but a comprehensive list of Palestinians shot dead or wounded in conflicts where the former throw stones to be linked to articles where Gregory is trying to frame as factual a highly partisan narrative. I regard this measure as imposed on me by the months long campaign by people like Gregory to push one POV, while consistently refusing to write a balanced, contextualized account. As a reader of fish manuals and a gourmet, I don't mind a trout slapping - it would never hit my cheek. I'd snap it up before you knew. But, I stand by my record of not doing what Gregory does, but keeping these non-notable arguments to brief lists.Nishidani (talk) 20:19, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The process that you've described is exactly what I'm talking about. Someone sees an article that is POV so rather than deal with it, they exacerbate the situation by creating an article that has the same problem. Perhaps one solution is to merge both to List of casualties during stone-throwing incidents. This would include both mideastern and non-mideastern situations, and could go back to King David for all I care. Coretheapple (talk) 14:54, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Again, User:ShulMaven, as one of several terror articles he wrote in Sept-Nov last year, created Palestinian stone-throwing, which required a month to fix. Given the intensity of editorial pressure there, I had to create for balance Jewish Israeli stone throwing, which is still primitive, and hardly covers the fact that settler stone throwing under IDF protection is a daily phenomenon in the Palestinian territories. I too think they should be merged. What is unacceptable (compare the voting on these sister pages) is the community as often voting to retain numerous non notable articles on specific incidents of Jewish tragedy, and voting to erase lists that briefly if extensively list the well documented daily occurrence of incidents of tragedy to Palestinian families. Nishidani (talk) 20:31, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge: I am not sure if merging is the right thing to do here, or whether lists of incidents like this should exist, but given the realities in this area, it is the best option. Deleting one and keeping the other is obviously a no-no. Kingsindian ♝♚ 20:42, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both or delete both or merge. As per Zero. What is at stake is NPOV, and the coherent application of policy to similar articles. Nishidani (talk) 20:45, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both or delete both or merge. Any other option would be an obvious and severe NPO violation. Zerotalk 04:54, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Merge - The two lists have very little to do with each other. One is about attacks and the other is about response to protests/riots. Settleman (talk) 10:44, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redefine - The article right now includes also incidents of Molotov cocktail or event where the shooting and killing are not necessarily connected (ex. 1976). Settleman (talk) 10:44, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete seems very much like NPOV-violating astroturfing. -- Ohc ¡digame! 12:48, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "That an attempt to counter article bias by the other perspective can be dismissed as a battleground mentality is cheap innuendo that ignores the long term interests of a global encyclopedia, which optimally can be read, with equal discomfort and pleasure, by all sides in a conflicted area." Wish I'd said that.Dan Murphy (talk) 16:26, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sourcing remains a major problem for this article, which is heavily sourced to an Israeli NGO (B'tselem) notorious for overestimating and erroneously reporting deaths, in the 2014 Gaza-Israel war and during riots and civil disturbances. In deaths during riots and conflict in all parts of the world, cause of death can be extremely difficult to determine, and even the simple number of deaths can be difficult given the incentive to claim high numbers. Multiple, reliable, secondary sources may be hard to get - but there are reasons why Wikipedia requires them before permitting assertions that individuals were killed in a particular incident or manner. As it stands, this is a list of allegations. In keeping lists like this, we violate our own rules and risk our reputation.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:00, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming this article survives in some form, perhaps merged, the best place to raise that issue would be on RS/N. There is nothing to prevent you from raising the issue there right now, irrespective of the outcome of this and the other AfD. Coretheapple (talk) 15:46, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Again double standards, E. M. Gregory. That your assertion above is ideological can be shown by a simple empirical contrast of the kind of sourcing you use to jerry rig the usual victim article, and the sourcing used in the mirror article you want deleted.
(List of deaths and critical injuries caused by Palestinian stone-throwing)
31 sources. These include the following non-mainstream items
I.e. Gregory's sourcing is barrel-scraping of dubious community newspapers to pass off an impression of wide reportage.
It is sourced basically to international NGOs that provide the best objective or neutral information, since they are critical of both sides. This is why they are disliked by Israeli officials and politicians, and I assume by Gregory.
  • There are only 2 sources which might be questioned: Middle East Eye, used only cnce, and +972 magazine, used sparsely and invariably together with confirming mainstream sources for the datum in question. Both websites are run by journalists with mainstream professional careers.
Really it is sheer chutzpah to deplore this article for a quality of sourcing your own article lacks.Nishidani (talk) 16:02, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comparing apples and oranges. What Nishdani fails to mention is that the article on deaths by thrown rocks is heavily blue-linked. And the blue-linked articles are well-sourced. He also fails to highlight the article's primary reliance on major newspapers.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:24, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That is not an answer to a reasoned empirical analysis. It is an attitude.Nishidani (talk) 18:26, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Editor Nishdani is a highly problematic POV-pusher who is engages in a type of WP:WIKIHOUNDING in which he adds endless silly lists, repeates himself endlessy, and writes lengthy essays at AFD in an effort to make the process of creating or commenting on the notability of an article about Israel is made so aversive that neutral, objective and good editors stay away.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:31, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Um, you are not a neutral, objective or good editor. nableezy - 22:47, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Coretheapple raised this more cogently in his remarks here, but with less animosity and informed by a generic concern. You instead are trying to personalize this by saying I am rather uniquely a problem, and so I will document what actually is the background which you, unlike Coretheapple, should be familiar with, since you edit this area.
Coretheapple suggests that is the proper practice when one perceives an article has a POV slant is to fix that article, rather than create a mirror article that reduplicates the defect one objects to.
This is precisely what I usually do in coping with articles clearly using Wikipedia to lobby for a unilateral' victimization portrait of the conflict (a) I have repeatedly asked that no such articles be written on individual Palestinian tragedies and have never created one (b) I have consistently improved such victim articles when they have been created and pass, predictably AfD: compare the POV state of this article with the shape it took after numerous fixes or Palestinian stone-throwing which again was started to repeat the list Gregory is now expanding with his new article and looked like this (11,000) to 104kb here. I do not engage in exacerbating a problem by reduplicating bad practices.
Experience shows most of these articles survive AfDs (Deaths of Asher and Yonatan Palmer ; Death of Yehuda Shoham ; Murder of Helena Rapp ; Murder of Shalhevet Pass; Death of Adele Biton; Kidnapping and murder of Eliyahu Asheri; Murder of Ofir Rahum; Murder of Hatuel family; Murder of the Aroyo children; Murder of Shelly Dadon ;Death and ransoming of Oron Shaul; Kidnapping and murder of Yaron Chen; Murders of Neta Sorek and Kristine Luken; Kidnapping and murder of Avi Sasportas and Ilan Saadon; Kidnapping and murder of Nissim Toledano; Kidnapping and murder of Nachshon Wachsman; 2007 Nahal Telem attack; Death of Binyamin Meisner; Murder of Koby Mandell and Yosef Ishran, and now 2015 Rosh HaShanah death by stone-throwing etc., are non-events , essentially memorialist and, though for each one any obsessi ve could write 10 parallel Palestinian victim articles, this, thankfully, is simply not done. Serious editors there have a different research focus:
Were I someone who retaliated with mirror articles of what I dismiss as POV WP:NOTNEWS victim articles, then of course in observing the creation of the Death of Binyamin Meisner, I would have jumped at it as an excuse to counter it with The Death of Edmond Ghanem. It came to mind. I know people who knew him. He was killed in exactly the same manner by Israeli troops in Beit Sahour. Since I don’t believe in these articles, I reserved what I knew for the proper occasion, and mentioned the fact at Palestinian stone-throwing when User:ShulMaven created it. Nishidani (talk) 21:12, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • My question is whether an article on this topic can be reliably sourced. the incidents in quesiton, incidents in which individuals are killed, can, of course, be listed in the series of articles about this conflict that already exist (List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, July–December 2015, etc.) The problem here is the attempt to create an article about deaths in situations where rock-throwing was part of a sundry array of riots and disturbances. The article defines itself in the lede as covering "events during which stones and Molotov cocktails are said to have been thrown." How is this list to be defined? My susipicion is that Nishdani, a tireless controversialist, created it for the purpose of challenging the list of individuals killed by thrown rocks. But my question is how we can maintain a list that defines itself as dealing with alleged incidents, but that in fact includes deaths in an enormous variety of different types of riots, protests, and confrontations in which rock-throwing may or may not have taken place and , if it did take place, may or may not have been the factor that led to a particular death, and, ot make things worse, the causes of the deaths are often not confirmed by reliable sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:24, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'll explain my relation to list articles, since you assert ‘I create endless silly lists.’
The overwhelming majority of these I/P lists are written up to exclude the Palestinian side and focus on Israel as a victim of endemic assaults. (Lists of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel so far has 11 sub-articles), there is no mention of in what context on each occasion those rockets were fired, though some statistical evidence shows a strong correlation with Israeli military actions. All those lists are a violation of the NPOV pillar, and are written in the service of the Israeli ministry which composes the lists.
I didn’t set out to create lists. Someone set up a Price tag policy article, which was basically a definition of the practice and a long section on how much Israeli politicians and settler rabbis went on record as loudly deploring this or that specific price tag action. No measures were ever taken to stop the practice. It became more an article documenting Israeli public protests at the practice, than a record of the actual practices. So I began a section listing such occurrences. An editor disliked that, and removed it and eventually the dispute was resolved by another editor creating List of Israeli price tag attacks. Since that is what settlers do, one cannot easily give the settler POV. It’s a list that is by definition unilateral. In other lists I edit, and have created, I have defined them in such away that both narratives are included in each article.
Thus when User:ShulMaven tried to frame a Palestinian wave of violence void of any context in creating Silent Intifada, I started giving a chronological list of all acts of violence by either side that year. This was then forked off, not by me, into a List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 2014.
As the year turned, I continued this neutral collation of victims on both sides , by creating List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, January–June 2015 and List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, July–December 2015, where the reader can see all reliably reported forms of violence regardless of who is the victim in chronological order, pared down to facts.
Gregory has created numerous stoning articles and this list. It is a personal battle to get over that we must document in detail these 'Arab hooligans' behavior by individual memorial articles and a list. The list contains information mostly already available in the Palestinian stone-throwing article. Since there is a huge body of evidence, well documented by mainstream sources, of Palestinians being shot dead or critically injured in clashes with armed forces, to whose actions they respond with stones, and no article exists on this in Wikipedia, the article I created to balance the list has as much legitimacy as Gregory's, is better documented. Keep both, delete both, or merge. All I insist on, as throughout my career here, that NPOV be rigorously applied to what we accept or do not accept in the I/P area.Nishidani (talk) 21:12, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I referred to the endless silly lists and endless repetitive comments Nishdani posts at AFDs.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:36, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete BOTH per various aspects of WP:WWIN and WP:POVFORK. Wikipedia should not attempt to catalog every death in a conflict, particularly those that are otherwise not notable, and it certainly should not selectively catalog certain deaths based on political bias. I cannot help but see these articles as soapboxes or coatracks. - Location (talk) 23:38, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Juvenile WP:POV propaganda and the pointiest of WP:POVFORKs. This WP:Battleground nonsense is wasting everyone's time. Watch the WP:Boomerang. Plot Spoiler (talk) 02:37, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, with vote applying equally to similar articles regardless of POV. Cataloging casualties resulting from a war or warlike conflict is a noble effort, but such a list has no place in an encyclopedia, in which we report such information statistically. VQuakr (talk) 17:10, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Partisan civil war-related coatrack. Carrite (talk) 23:28, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both This list might be a reaction to the other list, and there is more justification for this list than the other because this one has explanatory power, but despite its careful prose a list focusing on one side is not suitable (or maintainable) at Wikipedia. Johnuniq (talk) 00:21, 3 October 2015 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_deaths_and_injuries_caused_by_Israeli_forces_firing_at_alleged_Palestinian_stone-throwers&oldid=1079437356"