Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Use of human shields by Hamas

Add links
Extended-protected page
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 keep‎. WP:SNOW keep. Concerns about the article title and content can be dealt with over at the article's talk page. No point in keeping this open any longer. (non-admin closure) ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 17:36, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Use of human shields by Hamas

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Use of human shields by Hamas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page is a clear WP:POVFORK that has been created from exactly one side of a two-sided and balanced section at the parent page Human shield, which covers the full breadth of human shield usage in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. This page, by selectively duplicating one-side of this – rather than splitting out both sides of the content together into a page titled, say, Use of human shields in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict – makes the resulting item no longer two-sided and balanced, but POV by design. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:21, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

keep Topic appears to meet required need to create its own article, since this topic has been the extensive topic of international contentions regarding Hamas as well as a central tenant in the criticism toward Hamas. Furthermore, it appears that there is a lot of extensive research and media reports on the subject. Therefore there should be an independent article on the subject. meets WP:GNG, use of reliable sources vital and important.
Also per @Marokwitz This page cannot be a WP:POVFORK since by definition Homerethegreat (talk) 14:32, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Homerethegreat: - I am puzzled, you very recently [1] proposed moving Palestinian genocide accusation → Genocide allegations in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, as in your words, both Israeli and Palestinian sources frequently accuse each other of genocide or genocidal intention ... to gain objectivity ... Neutrality (NPOV) will be better served by such an article. Here, we have accusations of human shield usage from both Israeli and Palestinian sources (see content at Human shield#Israeli–Palestinian conflict), so by your logic, to gain objectivity, shouldn't neutrality be better served by an article like Use of human shields in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? starship.paint (RUN) 15:12, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Question to you: In your opinion, should we rename Comparisons between Israel and Nazi Germany to Comparisons to Nazism in the Israeli Palestinian conflict and Israeli settler violence to Violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? This is in line with the suggestion that I mentioned above, by @Levivich . If the consensus here is to consistently apply the same idea across all articles in the I/P conflict space then it would be something I'd support. Marokwitz (talk) 19:37, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Marokwitz: - first it would depend on how much material there is, if there is significant material on comparisons between Palestinians and Nazis, I could consider the proposal, but I also would like to know how the combined article would be structured. Secondly, for the settler violence article, I would say no because I think the scope of Violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would be far too broad, which would include all war actions. A proposed combined article regarding comparison to Nazis would not be too broad. starship.paint (RUN) 00:44, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Marokwitz. Impeccably and widely sourced. \\ Loksmythe // (talk) 16:06, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Use of human shields in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The only purpose of this page is to justify the ongoing genocide, by implying that the victims were "human shields" and therefore legitimate targets. —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 17:29, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Calling "genocide" on a war against a de facto state which has the explicit public goal of genocide and which just actually invaded Israel and murdered over a thousand people with the explicit public motive of genocide, is inflammatory. And it's unwarranted to claim that accusing Gaza of using human shields somehow means human shields become targets. JM (talk) 18:40, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Trilletrollet I saw you delete your reply under this reply in which you off-topic asked me "Do you agree that Palestinian lives matter?" and then in this diff write in the change summary "apparently not" when I didn't answer in time. This looks like a failure to WP:AGF and be WP:CIVIL. Not appreciated in such a contentious topic or a deletion discussion. This deletion discussion probably falls under ARBPIA. JM (talk) 00:16, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that it was a bit incivil. But unfortunately there's no way to modify edit summaries. —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 00:25, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The above !vote in this AFD discussion appears to contravene Wikipedia's core guidelines on assuming good faith. In line with Wikipedia's deletion policies, !votes in deletion discussions should be based on policy and content considerations, not on perceptions of a contributor's motives. Therefore, it is recommended that this particular !vote be set aside in evaluating the consensus. Marokwitz (talk) 19:24, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This page was created just as the IDF was starting to invade al-Shifa Hospital. It's a bit sus. —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 19:37, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Your WP:ASPERSIONS are noted. \\ Loksmythe // (talk) 19:40, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I struck it, it didn't contribute much to the conversation anyway. —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 19:48, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    agreed JM (talk) 19:57, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, per Markowitz and numerous sources. François Robere (talk) 17:37, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep while noting that consideration should be given to the creation of an equivalent Use of human shields by Israel by engaging in the same copy paste routine that was used to create this article. Accusations/allegations is appropriate per WP:NDESC. Selfstudier (talk) 17:54, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; well-sourced and balanced article about a notable subject. Jweiss11 (talk) 17:55, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above; a WP:SPINOFF and not a WP:POVFORK. The community decided to keep the Nakba denial article after it was challenged as a POV fork because it was a Wikivoice criticism of a criticism of a narrative (WP:CRIT and WP:POVFORK), so an article which covers one of various war crimes by one de facto state per WP:SPINOFF is definitely fine, its not like it would be the only example. Also note that the deletion proposer here is the same one who created/significantly expanded the Nakba denial article in question, and defended it constantly in its deletion nomination; not a personal attack, just making the point that the user should be aware that if the same standards apply then this article must be kept. JM (talk) 18:36, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Useful article and meets all of the criteria for existence as a separate article. Addressing the reason given for the AFD, this is not a POVfork from the noted very general article. It is a more specific article on a vvery wp:notable topic. North8000 (talk) 18:56, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 20:57, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. As others mentioned, this is strongly referenced with high quality sources, additionally, as others mentioned this is a WP:SPINOFF and not a WP:POVFORK. Ill also say, given recent news around the event and the delete proposer's actions with the Nakba denial article changes and proposals, this for me follows under an invalid reason to delete specifically WP:DLS Lhendre (talk) 03:35, 17 November 2023 (UTC)non-ec editor[reply]
Keep There are plenty of sources that talk about Hamas's use of human shields without mentioning Israel's use of them -- they are not always dealt with as a pair. See, e.g.,WaPo; NATO (2008 - 2014); CNN; NYT; Vox; Channel 4. The outcome of this AfD is not determinative of whether an article on Israel's use of human shields is created or kept. --Orgullomoore (talk) 06:30, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is absurd. A very prominently-covered phenomenon, which has sparked debate and implied conclusions that have themselves received a lot of coverage. Obviously keep. Zanahary (talk) 06:52, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Factual article about a very important facet if the conflict. Well sourced with high quality sources. GidiD (talk) 07:54, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Can the use of human shields really be compared between Hamas and Israel? Can IDF soldiers who have used in the past what is called the "neighbor procedure" for security operations be compared to Hamas' use of schools, mosques, children's bedrooms and hospitals as hiding places for the organization's leadership? Eladkarmel (talk) 08:53, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, clearly notable topic. BilledMammal (talk) 16:24, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Use of human shields in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The nom is correct that this is at best an evident POV fork. The WP:SPINOFF argument is not persuasive; if the content was simply spun off from the human shields page, it would encompass allegations against both sides. By selectively emphasizing one side, it is definitionally a POV fork. WillowCity(talk) 00:17, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how this is evident. I spun American logistics in the Normandy campaign off from Normandy campaign. There was no evident need for it to cover German logistics. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:53, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's not really analogous, though. Operation Overlord was a legitimate (and heroic) military campaign, not a war crime. Keeping with World War II history, a better analogy would be if you had spun off the "Arguments against justification" section of the Bombing of Dresden in World War II article, without preserving any other content or context from the parent article, thereby creating the impression that the carpet-bombing is universally considered unjustifiable and criminal. And even that's not a perfect analogy. WillowCity(talk) 02:07, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article passes the WP:GNG with the greatest of ease and the article is a well-developed WP:SPINOFF of its parent, Hamas. The use of human shields represents Hamas warfare. It is exceptional for the IDF to use a human shield, so a big NO also to the rename suggested above. WP:SNOW does apply. gidonb (talk) 20:43, 19 November 2023 (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/Use_of_human_shields_by_Hamas&oldid=1194652794"