Legality of Cannabis by U.S. Jurisdiction

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. Clearly, no one wants to close this toxic subject, so I'll put on my flak jacket and hard hat and stand by for the flying shrapnel.

I have pretty much dismissed the argument for POVFORK since no credible argument from policy has been presented showing that this actually is a fork of something. True, it concerns Operation Protective Edge, but an expansion of one aspect of a main article is not the same as a fork. From the guideline "On the other hand, as an article grows, editors often create summary-style spin-offs or new, linked article for related material. This is acceptable, and often encouraged, as a way of making articles clearer and easier to manage." The POV part of POVFORK would have some grounds if it were not for the existence of List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, 2014 which pretty much gives the other side. That article is also at AfD and if deleted would put a different light on this one. However, at the moment it looks like that one is going keep as well. If that changes, there would perhaps be grounds for a new nomination. It is also arguable that attacks and casualties of both sides should be covered on the same page for NPOV reasons. I sympathise with that, but it is a matter that can be handled outside the AfD process. The consensus in the debate is strongly leaning keep. Without the POVFORK argument it is overwhelmingly keep and the close decision is unambiguous.

Another policy argument raised was NOTDIR. I have a great deal of sympathy for that argument. After all, the casualties for much larger conflicts, such as the Battle of the Somme are sourcable in principle, but we do not create such articles for a number of poicy reasons. However, there is no consensus in this debate for deletion on those grounds. SpinningSpark 11:25, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Israeli strikes and Palestinian casualties in Operation Protective Edge[edit]

List of Israeli strikes and Palestinian casualties in Operation Protective Edge (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)

This article, by its very name and content is a WP:POVFORK of Operation Protective Edge - it is a list dedicated only to casualties of one side, and attacks by the other side, without the corresponding casualties/attacks of the other side. Were we to include the missing content , it would be a copy of Operation Protective Edge Brad Dyer (talk) 20:39, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. AlanS (talk) 15:01, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I told my conclusions really gently in the Talk page Gunrpks (talk) 21:04, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I have read the article and it is fine. I have addressed your Vague POV points in the Article's Talk page. Ia m not even sure why this article is nominated for deletion. I am strongly for keeping this page as it carefully list the Israeli strikes and casualties caused by them. If you need to add to the page any Palestinian strikes inside Israel and the Israeli casualties - if you know of one till now :) - please don't hesitate to edit and modify the page as you see fit "neutrally"! We did not attack you man :) You are our friend :) We have a Hatikva to be free --علي سمسم (talk) 21:51, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Basically I don't have problem with list article about attacks during a war (or operation, never mind), but this specific article seen to me not show the full picture and really biassed.By the way, yesterday nigth, when I wrote here in Wikipedia and we "fought" about this article I had to run to the shelter 6 times, so maybe you don't attack me, but rockets not launched from themselves. Single-aisle, I hope that one day we all will be free, from siege and from rocket attacks, and we have to make peace between peoples and not between governments. Gunrpks (talk) 08:03, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment'. You gave no reasons on the talk page for why you think this article should be deleted. Please provide them here. That an article might have POV problems is not an objection, because nearly all articles need tinkering to iron out imbalances. (What happened to you yesterday, happens with great intermittently to people in Gaza since 2005. In late last year, the IAF threw several sonic boom sorties over Gaza for over five successive weeks. See 'The Sonic Booms in the sky over Gaza,' B'tselem 1 January 2014. Take the time to read of Israel's use of this practice with its devastating impact of the health of denizens of that prison camp which is the Gaza Strip, by clicking on the follwing links: (a) Juliette Volcler Extremely Loud: Sound as a Weapon, New Press 2013 p.34; (b) Stephen Graham, 'Disruption by Design:Urban Infrastructure and Political Violence,' in Stephen Graham (ed.) Disrupted Cities: When Infrastructure Fails, Routledge 2010 pp.111-130 p.123; (c) Howard Friel, Chomsky and Dershowitz: On Endless War and the End of Civil Liberties, Olive Branch Press, 2013 p.178; (d) Chris McGreal, 'Palestinians Hit by Sonic Boom Air Raids,' The Guardian November 3, 2005, etc.etc. As McGreal notes, once Israel withdrew its settlements, it could deploy a device that causes sleeplessness, neurosis, vomiting chronically in the Gaza gulag to punish the indigenous population even when a ceasefire was in place, when not conducting its 'responses' to flimsy lamppost tubes and steel pipes stuffed with explosives that are devastating the southern deserts sands mostly (I've lived there and hitchhiked all over Gaza as well), though you would never get this impression from Western newspaper reports. Mind you, it has a positive side: the use of sonic bombs increases miscarriages by 40%, thus reducing the number of future terrorists. My apologies for this personal aside responding to your personal remark that you lost a night of sleep. Such comments are not appropriate to this Afd page)Nishidani (talk) 12:57, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. As soon as I notified the creation of the page, both editors attacked it, breaking the IR rule of ARBPIA articles, and when I requested that they address the talk page, (see presently) the objections then were garbled or showed signs of not having even read the article.

The objections are a matter of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Look at List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel with its ten lists (none of which mentions anything about Israel strikes in the context of each rocket firing) and Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel. Brad Dyer, and many others, have never expressed the slightest worry over those articles, and the moment a similar type of article is proposed for Palestinians, a deletion is called for. Worse still Gunrpks is a major contributor to one of the articles I listed above, as his edit history shows (List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, 2013 see here, here here and here). It's very hard to find Israeli casualties. I tried before writing the article, but with 52 Palestinians dead, all I came up with (and refrained from registering on any article) was this:

8:20 P.M. One person sustained light injuries when running for shelter in Bat Yam. He was taken to the Wolfson Medical Center in Holon for treatment. Emergency services treated two people suffering of shock.(Live updates, July 8: Israel launches aerial offensive in Gaza Haaretz 8 July 2014).

The article is amply and reliably sourced, and, given the prospect that this war will drag on for a week or two, it will require by its nature very extensive additions which the other article so far (only interested in Israeli strikes against terrorists or militants, and calling all casualties 'terrorists') is wholly disinclined to register. Regardless, there are a great many lists for rocket attacks, and the damage done by them, on Israel. Nishidani (talk) 21:21, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes there are other articles about X, Y, and Z but just because something is sourced doesn't mean it passes here on Wikipedia. In wars people die, where is the enduring notability of the people killed here? This is why we have WP:NOTNEWS, and WP:NOTDIR we don't need a list of everyone who died from rocket attacks made. If you want to go over a WP:OTHERSTUFF argument on you saying what about the rocket attack articles, can you explain to me why we don't have a list of all of those killed in World War II by X country? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:13, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Could do with do with some improvement but it is notable and well sourced. This nomination seems like an attempt to white-wash. AlanS (talk) 13:13, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    It owuld be a little more helpful if you addressed the actual reasons for deletion- POVFORK - rather than the strawman of "notable" and "well sourced". The latter are true of most any POVFORK, but PVFORKs are still not allowed. As to the aspersions on my motivations, you would do well to observe WP:AGF, which is wikipedia policy, and to refrain from the outright hypocrisy involved in voting to keep this article while nominating for deletions articles like this. Brad Dyer (talk) 16:01, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    It would be even more helpful if you not engage in personal attacks. Do I need to quote wiki policy about that for you? As per your comments about me attributing any motivation to you, I did no such thing. I commented on the nomination itself and I maintain that this nomination appears to me (I make no assertion about the truth of my perception) to be an attempt at white-wash. As per your allegations of hypocrisy. You've never heard of taking a position of devils advocate I take it? AlanS (talk) 16:34, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- It seems a bit odd when we have so many one sided List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel type articles, that the only one slated for deletion is the sole article trying to add some balance the other way, so that Wikipedia's conflict coverage is a bit more neutral. Personally I would rather not have this type of one sided article genre at all. But as so many already exist documenting Palestinian attacks on Israel, it is not rational or neutral to prohibit this type of list only when it documents Israeli attacks on the Palestinians. Dlv999 (talk) 14:03, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    See Wikipedia:Other stuff exists Brad Dyer (talk) 16:01, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but just linking that essay is not contributing to the discussion. If you have any policy/evidence based reasons why our coverage in the Israel Palestine conflict should include numerous articles that cover Palestinian attacks on Israelis only but strictly prohibit any article that covers Israeli attacks on Palestinians only then you need to articulate them. Just linking an essay and leaving at that is not going to cut it. Dlv999 (talk) 11:52, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 23:25, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: factual information that is reliably sourced. More than 88 Palestinians now confirmed to have been murdered by Israeli air strikes and will likely increase over the coming hours. A separate article is eventually needed to list the growing number of victims. Al-Andalusi (talk) 16:54, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. By the way, thanks for the link to the names' page source. Names, as I have already shown, are not only intrinsically worthy of note, but they assist editors in their search for RS that can provide details of each particular 'incident'. That is a key reason why this page is required, for such a list is not thinkable on the main operational page (which, it seems,(if I may intrude a comment on systemic bias), is basically edited to reflect mainstream sources deploring defective home made rockets and praising modern technology's capacity to destroy people efficiently.)Nishidani (talk) 17:17, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This page violates NPOV policy, it severely suffers from lack of factual accuracy, it is based about only two sources. It fails to mentions that many of the casualties were Hamas and PIJ activists and armed militants. MathKnight 19:06, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. You have not addressed the issue that no one challenges the numerous lists of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, over a dozen articles which do not mention the Israeli strikes and Palestinian casualties which either precede or follow them. The precedent exists for articles of this kind (b) you have not indicated where the factual inaccuracies are (c) unless you mean that it so far has failed to note who were Hamas and PIJ activists or 'armed militants' (sources in Israel and abroad never state if the dead were armed or not, by the way). if (c) then you are incorrect because the article, as specified, will check the death lists with RS to enter how each casualty is described politically. So far many sources fail to mention this, and close to half are too old or young to bear a 'militant' designation. (d) that its list is formed from the only two RS sites who provide casualty compilations cannot be avoided. The 'two sources' are no longer two, and several dozen will be added as the search progresses for other RS that give more details.Nishidani (talk) 19:36, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep or Merge : If we keep a list keeping track of the usual rocket attacks on the Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel page, there is no reason to get rid of this when its linked to a specific event. Perhaps a merger could occur, but the thing is that this page is much more detailed and is more concerned with the event at hand. --Riadse96 (talk) 19:41, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    See Wikipedia:Other stuff exists Brad Dyer (talk) 16:01, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The reasons are general and specific. In general, there is no need for "breaking news" articles, which will be filled every minute with information's that may be or not be accurate. In this way Wikipedia could become a journal and not an encyclopedia. Specific reasons are, as stated above, this article fell short of WP:NPOV policy. Claims like "The forces in the conflict are Gaza-based militants using mainly home-made missiles, mainly Qassam rockets, most of which often hit open fields, versus Israel's combined military forces, which are equipped with F-15 fighter jets, AH-64 Apache helicopters, Delilah missiles, IAI Heron-1 drones and Jericho II missiles.[3]The Israeli civilian population has, in addition, access to shelters, early-warning sirens and is defended by the Iron Dome missile detection defence system" can be seen as WP:SYNTH. Israeli shelters are not subject here. Also, Hamas does not use only home made rockets and according to many sources, they fire them indiscriminately on civilian targets. Symmetric claims on Palestinian side point out that Israelis are also hitting Palestinian civilian targets causing widespread casualties..Symmetric claims on opposite side have been made regarding alleged use of civilians as human shields and a lot of sources can be found on this issue as well. All of this claims can be properly sourced, depening how they are picked, and as we do not need "the absolute truth" sections, claims falling short of neutrality, should be dealt with equal standards. However as I said, first and foremost we do not need a "breaking news" article and this article contrary to the article mentioned above is looking like that.--Tritomex (talk) 23:12, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment.
(a) If there is no reason for breaking news articles, you don't read wikipedia's main page every day. And secondly, you should place your objection at Operation Protective Edge
(b) Falls short of WP:NPOV policy. Specify where, and we or you, can address that.
(c) WP:SYNTH is wrong. The sentence comes from the cited source.
(d) 'Israeli shelters' are mentioned in that source. The accompanying contrast in the source, that Palestinians in Gaza lack them, I omitted. So much for NPOV violations.I left that as implicit.
(e) Hamas does not only use home-made rockets. Quite true, and I emended to mention Grad missiles. The majority of those fired however are home or better still 'factory-made' Qassams.
(f) Many sources state that these rockets are fired on civilian targets. True, many sources repeat that. They are fired however mainly 'into Israel' from the south, and the overwhelming majority never strike civilian areas. Did they, you would have big casualty lists, but none are forthcoming. The entire length of the Gaza strip is dotted with kibbutzs. How many have been targeted? I know of three that have suffered slight damage (apart from Sderot, a particular point of animus because large numbers of Gazans descend from the 7al hundred Arab villagers driven off that land at gunpoint and crammed into Gaza, so their agricultural land could be given to fresh immigrants from Morocco and elsewhere).
(g)'Symmetric claims ' These sentences are garbled, and hard to understand. Reformulate them. As to human shields, one IDF hand out says that, I believe. Human shields have been used throughout the conflict for decades, by the IDF as well, as the Israeli Supreme Court stated on at least two occasions, and unless sources specify where concrete evidence shows their use among Palestinians, we cannot impose this suspicion on events.Nishidani (talk) 11:31, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This article also falls under WP:NOTDIR. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:40, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment
It is certainly not a fork but an article created after considerable experience of the past, that these matters drag on, and the quantity of information stretches articles beyond reasonable limits unless one has specific sub or sister articles.
Notability for each case? I guess Palestinian deaths, even when multiple sources attest them for families, are not notable. Wikipedia is dedicated to WP:NPOV, but in practice within the I/P area, we don't get that by proportionate articles. We have large numbers of killings of Israelis articles, and I for one have always deplored this use of the encyclopedia, but they keep on being written and passing the rare AfDs where questions are raised. To name just a few.
(a) Murder of Koby Mandell and Yosef Ishran
(b) Death of Yehuda Shoham
(c) Murder of Shalhevet Pass
(d) The Death of Asher and Yonatan Palmer
(e) Murder of Neta Sorek and Kristine Luken
(f) Murder of Ofir Rahum
(g) Murder of Tali Hatuel and her four daughters
(h) Murder of Eliyahu Asheri
(i) Murder of Helena Rapp
(j) Kidnapping and murder of Nissim Toledano
(k) Kidnapping and murder of Yaron Chen
(l) Kidnapping and murder of Avi Sasportas and Ilan Saadon
(m) Kidnapping and murder of Nachshon Wachsman
Off the top of my head I could imagine a much larger list of potential articles for Palestinians murdered in similar wise. I dislike writing such articles on principle. I think it saner to make one general encyclopedic article, and a list serves that purpose. As to Israeli casualties, from past wars they range from 1 for every 10, 20 or 100 dead on the other side, so they normally never have sufficient numbers to justify independent articles, but then if anyone wishes to write them, I won't complain. I will list them (as I have twice already) here in any case.
The other point is that all of the objections here blithely ignore the fact that there is a 10 to 1 disparity in Isael's favour for the article I am writing. I.e.
List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel
List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, 2001
List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, 2002–2006
List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, 2007
List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, 2008
List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, 2009
List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, 2010
List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, 2011
List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, 2012
List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, 2013
List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, 2014
My impression is that NPOV is being adduced to strike out the one article on Israeli strikes on Gaza, but not to challenge the presence of the above articles in the encyclopedia which mirror this one. That itself shows that the objections are indifferent to, or violate WP:NPOV because the weigh in against one side. They are saying:it is not neutral to write in wikipedia about Israeli strikes and consequences, but there is nothing objectionable in creating such articles if Israel suffers attack. Please address this concern.Nishidani (talk) 13:13, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Other stuff exists Brad Dyer (talk) 16:01, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I did, and read:

The generic form of this argument, that "loads of other crap articles exist" is also common. However, Wikipedia recognizes that it suffers from systemic bias (see WP:BIAS).

I guess you are suggesting that a article closely documenting the unfolding groun level effects of a war on a people' is just "stuff" and "crap".Nishidani (talk) 16:24, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I did, and read:

The generic form of this argument, that "loads of other crap articles exist" is also common. However, Wikipedia recognizes that it suffers from systemic bias (see WP:BIAS).

I guess you are suggesting that a article closely documenting the unfolding ground level effects of a war on a people' is just "stuff" and "crap".Nishidani (talk) 16:24, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, I am suggesting that an article closely documenting the unfolding ground level effects of a war on JUST ONE SIDE of the conflict is much worse that 'crap' - it is a gross violation of Wikipedia's NPOV polices, and the people involved in creating should probably be prevented from editing in this topic area. Brad Dyer (talk) 16:37, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Fine. As the link you provide suggests, by all means work positively to help balance the article by making concrete improvements to improve it. In all AfDs I have witnessed it is normal for participating editors who are critical to edit and improve the article, something singularly lacking here.
I have listed the two Israelis injured or dead as a result of the conflict, you are welcome to add any I miss. NPOV does not demand that in a situation where casualties are overwhelmingly on one side, they must not be mentioned because there are conspicuously fewer casualties on the other. That is a farcical reading of WP:NPOV, which simply asks us to take a topic and deal with the relevant RS sources comprehensively and neutrally.
Editors might like to peruse List of Israeli civilian casualties in the Second Intifada and Israeli casualties of war; List of Palestinian suicide attacks to name just a few more. I had no hand in any of these 20 odd articles, which like nearly all I/P conflict articles are deplorably inadequate. NPOV which fundamentally demands that editors strive for comprehensive coverage, is maimed if it is used to systematically ask for the deletion of articles that manage to provide very precisely sourced information, readily available and yet unaccountably opposed for inclusion into the encyclopedia. If this is deleted, then a very substantial amount of information bearing on Operation Protective Edge goes down the gurgler. In that article, every second time I see a POV requiring a balancing POV statement, and I edit that in, it disappears in edit-warring if it attends to the Palestinian perspective, a practice of prioritizing one side and making the other disappear I have always deplored and fought against. The edits I made to the lead giving details on Israel's perspective remain stable. Go figure.Nishidani (talk) 19:12, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, for the reasons given in the nomination I support deletion. AlanS (talk) 16:54, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep I try to avoid this subject, but the present article seems like a reasonable NPOV attempt to deal with the subject , especially considered in view of other articles here. I personally rather doubt NPOV writing is really possible on the whole general subject, but attempts to cover both sides are to be encouraged. DGG ( talk ) 17:43, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep - Basic NPOV. This is an attempt to cover this situation completely.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:46, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per my !vote and comment on this related AfD. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:07, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
AFD is not determined by voting but by reasonable arguments based upon Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Please read Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. --Bejnar (talk) 22:48, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a very good argument and falls under WP:OTHERSTUFF, the fact is that this article is not List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel. One article discusses in prose attacks on Israel over a long period of time, this article limits it to one conflict that can very easily be discussed in the main article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:56, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. AlanS (talk) 21:26, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a POV list, which shrieks a potential for WP:SYNTHESIS. Also per DGG, and WP:NOTNEWS. --Bejnar (talk) 22:48, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • strong delete Definitely has factual and NPOV problems, but I think the main issue is that these events are not notable on their own but rather are part of the story of Protective Edge. I don't believe we keep similar pages for most other military conflicts. For example in the ISIS conflict we have articles about the parties and about the current campaign but not each attack. Analogously I don't think there's a wiki page listing Basketball games Michael Jordan played in even though they were all mentioned in newspapers. IMO the total figures and maybe a few of the most newsworthy incidents should be merged into the main article if anything. I would say the same about a list of each rocket Hamas fired in a single operation.Avraham (talk) 23:37, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What I find truly disturbing is the difference between voting on this nomination and WP:Articles for deletion/List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel. AlanS (talk) 07:18, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why find this siturbing, Alan? Anyone with I/P experience knew from the moment you (logically) added the parallel 'Palestinian rockets on Israel' articles, to this, and called also for their deletion, that the former would automatically survive deletion while the Palestinian casualties argument would have to struggle to survive and obtain a minimum NPOV dignity in the area. Well, I knew that, and it is one reason I don't add my logical vote to keep the Israeli victim articles. It is in the nature of things here and elsewhere that parity of discourse is deplored in this area, mostly because the systemic bias of sources frames readers the world over to think one state has right and history on its side, and the other has no right to existence, being congenitally 'teroristic' in its battle to survive the tragedy of its history.Nishidani (talk) 07:30, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep In the interest of balance against WP:Articles for deletion/List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel. AlanS (talk) 07:47, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The article is well-sourced and I fail to see any neutrality issue in it. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 08:18, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The article is fine. It does what it says, lists the Israeli strikes and Palestinian casualties in Operation Protective Edge and it doesn't violate any policies or guidelines at all by doing so. It's not a POVFORK because there is no POV involved in listing details of the Israeli strikes and the Palestinian casualties that result from them during Operation Protective Edge published by reliable sources (some of which even frame their coverage the same way as this article). All of the numerous List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel articles have the same level of detail as this article. There is nothing special or different about this list. Details about the Palestinian attacks and the Israeli casualties that result from them can be covered in List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, 2014 or incorporated into this article by simply renaming it, if there is too much information for the main article. And the nomination statement "Were we to include the missing content, it would be a copy of Operation Protective Edge" is patently false. Try it, then compare the articles. They won't be similar at all. Either way, there's no justification for removing this information from the encyclopedia. I'll also add that rather than trying to delete this article, time would be better spent fixing the Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel which seems to have a number of issues related to the casualty data and its sourcing (which is either poor, out of date or broken) among other things e.g. in the article's table for 2001 it lists 1 death, which I assume was IDF Sgt 1st Class Medmon Barak killed by mortars near the Neve Dekalim Israeli settlement in the Gaza Strip rather than in Israel. Several Israelis, mostly civilians, were killed by mortars in the Gaza Strip rather than Israel. That article needs the same level of attention currently being given to Israeli strikes and Palestinian casualties in Operation Protective Edge to get the details right. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:37, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I came to the Wikipedia because I imagined that here I would find the most comprehensive and up to date list of Palestinian casualties of Israeli actions during Operation Protective Edge. This page provides the information I was searching for. I think this page provides the information that it claims to provide. It does not promise to present the list of Israeli casualties of Operation Protective Edge because that wouldn't make sense. I find it to be NPOV because it is just a list of strikes and the names of casualties. It is not claiming that Operation Protective Edge is immoral and anti-human and part of a history of oppression against the Palestinian people etc. nor is it claiming that the Palestinians want all Jewish people dead and Israel has a right to protect itself or any other claims about the rightness or wrongness of the action. It just presents in a list, the names of Palestinians who have been killed during this operation. It does strike me that the desire to delete this information is, in itself, not neutral and is ideologically driven. If the article were about a list of fictional Jedi Knights who had been killed by the Empire or what have you, I doubt people would be wanting to delete it because it wasn't neutral. But the lists would be the same in that they presented information about casualties. Saudade7 17:51, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Again people are trying to compare this to List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, which is a Separate article. None of the policy related arguments have been addressed here that people arguing for this article's deletion have raised. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:18, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No. The comparison is with, among other things, 10 lists of Palestinian rockets on Israel articles. It is, also, rather hard to understand what the policy links have to do with the issue. None survives examination, and few who wave them argue in any detail: a link is apparently argument enough. But that leaves us second-guessing. Nishidani (talk) 21:24, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why do we need all the lists? It goes against WP:NOTNEWS, the enduring notability lies with the effects over time and not each attack. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:29, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I hate to say it but rocket attacks on Israel have become routine news. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:30, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, Palestinian deaths ain't 'routine news', so the fact that Israel has killed 2 Palestinian children, to mention one category, every week for 14 years is a not a routine statistic, and not worthy of mention (You won't be persuaded but our source bias on all of this was eloquently and elegiacally expounded by Mouin Rabbani Institutionalised Disregard for Palestinian Life as the 'institutionalized disregard for Palestinian life' ( London Review of Books 11 July 2014)), and that is what the objections here mirror.Nishidani (talk) 21:44, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is an encyclopedia not a WP:SOAPBOX or a newspaper, I feel sorry for Palestine and Israel both but deaths and injuries are reported almost daily on each side, this being an encyclopedia we do not need a list of every attack that has or will take place. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:48, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Waving WP:SOAPBOX is grasping at straws, since there is none in the article. That's incoherent. First you argue Palestinian deaths are not 'routine' unlike Israeli deaths, and would exclude the first. Now you come back and say we do not need lists of this type, i.e., the 10 articles listing attacks on Israeli are also unencyclopedic. So now your position is, implicitly, that those ten articles, unchallenged, which set the precedent for this, are to be AfDed. Wiki is full of lists, so be coherent and make a general protest, rather than show up and single out one list because it happens to deal with Palestinians.Nishidani (talk) 21:56, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Again you keep going on and on about how I have something against Palestinians, first with your link to an article called "Disregard for Palestinian Life" and saying "that is what the objections here mirror" and now "because it happens to deal with Palestinians" Please stop with the accusations and focus on the content. Yes there are lists here on Wikipedia each list is handled differently, where is the enduring notability of each attack mentioned in the lists? Why cant this be summed up in the main articles? On both sides rocket attacks are reported almost daily. Deleting the lists will not rob people of knowledge they are lists on an encyclopedia that are not needed as they go against policies here. Cant a person get the knowledge they want without having to look through a list of attacks by X? I made an argument above, why don't we have a list of attacks in World War II? The answer is because they were not all notable and the enduring notability was summed up in main articles. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:06, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how familiar you are with the historiography of WW2 (or 1) but it is now standard in narrative works to interleave general descriptions of battles, massacres, bombings with focused episodes in which a series of individual experiences are reported, so that the reader has a concrete sense of what it really is like, behind the abstractions of grand strategy. These supplementary lists have a similar function. Nishidani (talk) 22:18, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moderate View Both sides have suffered casualties, but this article is a good start. Perhaps an article about civillian casualities in this conflict could be made?--Arbutus the tree (talk) 00:55, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In the name of balance perhaps it's time this page be forked out a bit into lists of IDF attacks and Palestinian casualties by year. AlanS (talk) 08:22, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You can't fork out this page into year by year lists. It deals with events from 8 July this year to a week or two later, and is strictly connected to a specific military operation. It is not a year list. I'm sure Jim Cairns could have seen this.Nishidani (talk) 09:39, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, Alan, the nomination of this for deletion has a formal defect, and for this reason, the AfD should have been dismissed as improperly phrase because it violates WP:POVFORK's words: "do not refer to forks as "POV" except in extreme cases of persistent disruptive editing." It is arguable whether it is a fork. But the arguments that it violates WP:NPOV goes in the face of the fact that there has been zero persistent and disruptive editing.Nishidani (talk) 09:45, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's no reason it can't be broadened out to casualties as a result of IDF activities more broadly. Bit of a title change is all that is needed. AlanS (talk) 09:59, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Nishidani:, I didn't nominate this one. Brad Dyer did. I did however, very deliberately, copy the wording from this nomination for my nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel. AlanS (talk) 10:07, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, I wasn't implying that. Brad Dyer, whose alacrity in trying to remove the article instantaneously, prompted me to mull his contribs. I think the point of this exercise is just to hang that banner up there over the article for a month or so, while the battle lasts. Of course, this is just my own impression, but, since I've edited these I/P articles for 8 years, I have a fair intuition as to the logic of these things.Nishidani (talk) 10:26, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If this discussion goes on for a month, I think there is something seriously wrong. Especially considering Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel. AlanS (talk) 10:40, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That of course is obviously asking for administrative close as keep because virtually unanimous. This has a split vote predictably because it concerns Palestinians, but as you pointed out, the article here does what those do, and if the former AfD is closed, I think it only fair that the logic there apply here. I don't care what editors do, or what their POVs are, as long as they are coherent over different articles, as both you and kowledgekid have been.Nishidani (talk) 10:54, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your turn to renominate it if it gets closed down before this one. AlanS (talk) 07:55, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at the List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel articles the format usually includes who is doing the attacking and also who is being attacked. Dlv999 (talk) 16:04, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't oppose including the information in the article. My issue is only with the anomalous name. What is the standard for inclusion, only airstrikes that resulted in Pal causalities? If it is either or, can a Pal causality be included even where it was not the result of an airstrike? --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:08, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why the Israeli-edited titles of preceding articles should impose their terms on this article is not clear to me. Anything not following the former pattern is 'anomalous'? Your suggestion retains 'Israel' and 'disappears' Palestine/Palestinian. Nishidani (talk) 16:19, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about "Israeli-edited"? So you're a Palestinian because your editing this article? Why do you have to make this about the ethnicity/race of the authors?
It's anomalous because that's the pattern until now and its anomalous because the inclusion criteria is ambiguous.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:40, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Passes GNG. We additionally have a nearly decade-long precedent that non-related rocket events in the region may be listed; this is a list of directly related incidents. Carrite (talk) 16:32, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Articles like this which are encyclopedic-bordering-on-the-dull very useful for my work as a journalist. Yudel (talk) 16:47, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Given the number of sources in the article, it seems to me that there is sufficient material here for a separate article from Operation Protective Edge. Certainly including all of the notable material from here in the parent article seems unfeasible. Therefore, it seems that accusations of POV-forking are off the mark; this is a legitimate article on a more specific topic. If there are POV issues, then these should be addressed, but a failure to meet NPOV is not a reason for deletion. Ideally, there would be an article called "List of airstrikes and casualties" irrespective of nationality; if such were created, I would support a merge into that. As things stand, feelings have probably run too high for that; so I can live with the current non-ideal. Vanamonde93 (talk) 07:45, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep and Rename In the interest of balance against WP:Articles for deletion/List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel I say this page be renamed List of IDF attacks against Palestinians. AlanS (talk) 08:01, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep To balance out the Palestinian rocket attack page.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 20:39, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep seems allright to me 80.43.179.249 (talk) 15:27, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Keep and Rename. It is notable and rename to List of Israeli strikes in Operation Protective Edge. Frmorrison (talk) 22:35, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestions that it be renamed thus, distort the content of the article which should be visible to the reader when seeking information. This is not a list of Israeli strikes, which will number a few thousand in a few days, and there is no newspaper record of them. This is a list of the strikes that produce casualties among the Palestinians. To expunge reference to the casualties is absolutely pointless or POV. The 10 pages on Palestinian rocket strikes on Israeli are very good at listing strikes, but have very few casualties, and therefore the suggestion of title mimesis is misplaced. The list will, in a month, if I'm still around editing it, have a comprehensive cross-referenced list of the several hundred people who will be killed by the end of this war.Nishidani (talk) 22:43, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
List of Palestinian casualties as consequence of IDF attacks?AlanS (talk) 04:34, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Alan, I don't know why the word 'Palestinian' raises such anguish. All of the objections here to the natural descriptive title relate to the benchmark of the article on Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel. Fine. No one thinks twice. But in turning over in my mind for a title, the first thing I wanted to avoid was the obvious title. 'IDF missile strikes on Palestinians. So I put in and thinking I'd sidestepped the usual predictable objections. It sums up the article, and is neutral.Nishidani (talk) 07:01, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. So a necrology of deaths in a military operation (there are dozens of these in the articles on suicide bombings in Israel) is Hamas propaganda? It is not a fork, since the article it is supposedly 'forked' from has almost zero information on the effect of Israeli strikes, and a maximum of information on Gaza rocket attacks on Israel, and is a massive POV operation itself. A list of who was killed and when, limited to strike details, cannot be POV, unless those who throw such complaints around consider death itself POV.Nishidani (talk) 10:24, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is a brief list of dozens, where Israeli victims of terrorist strikes are listed by name and age

I.e. your objection is to the parallel listing of Palestinian names, and you imply that it is no excuse that wikipedia has dozens of such lists in terror articles that one editor make a similar list for Palestinians. The objection is, again (see several delete comments above), reflective of ethnic discrimination: Palestinians must remain nameless.Nishidani (talk) 10:37, 19 July 2014 (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.
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FList_of_Israeli_strikes_and_Palestinian_casualties_in_Operation_Protective_Edge