Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/House demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict

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 keep. Redirect or merge are possibilities but should be discussed on the talk page and consensus achieved if this is to happen. --Tony Sidaway 23:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

House demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict[edit]

House demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

I understand that when the page was protected, it was a redirect. However, the edit warring is over whether or not this page should be a redirect or an article. The article in question is contained in this revision link. The people involved in this argument should present their views; I'm just offering this as a compromise. No vote. (messedrocker • talk) 22:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I don't intend to work on the article myself, as it's not my speciality or area of interest, but the topic is clearly notable and well-documented by numerous reliable sources. The article is a spinoff of House demolition, which was originally focused entirely on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I completely rewrote the House demolition article on 17 June, giving it a much wider scope and perspective (while still briefly mentioning the I-P aspect). The rewrite was broadly welcomed (I intend to nominate it for FA status in the near future at the suggestion of Raul654). However, my actions in refocusing and expanding the article away from the I-P issue were challenged by another user on the talk page. In response, I suggested creating a spinoff article, House demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, as a way of covering this particular issue (per Wikipedia:Content forking#Article spinouts - "Summary style" articles). The topic is both notable and well-documented - the volume of documentation on house demolition in I-P actually caused me problems when researching House demolition, in that there was so much that it swamped my efforts to find other examples. (Google Books, for instance, returns over 600 separate works discussing the topic in relation to the I-P conflict; there are over 800,000 Google web hits and nearly 9,000 Google News hits on the same search terms.) I purposefully avoided adding this huge mass of content to House demolition, as it would have grossly imbalanced the article. The spinoff was duly created by Abu ali on 23 June. On 29 June Jayjg and SlimVirgin began repeatedly tag-teaming to blank the article and redirect it to House demolition, without consensus or prior discussion and declining to take it to AfD as policy requires. I have therefore requested an AfD on the article so that the wider community can discuss whether it should exist in the first place and if so, what form it should take. -- ChrisO 23:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've never seen this article before now, and the last version before redirection seems to be well-referenced and generally NPOV. Even if it could stand some improvement, I think the topic is notable and it should be possible to get an even better article from the references provided as well as ongoing media coverage and attention by activist groups. As an aside, excellent work, ChrisO; house demolition probably has the wrong title (something including punitive might be more appropriate), but it's a very good article right now. There's room for two. --Dhartung | Talk 23:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This looks like a WP:POINT on ChrisO's behalf. He has written: "I've had the article AfD'd as a means of stimulating input from the wider community ..." [1] and " ... I'd like to direct your attention to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/House demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict ... I've brought the matter to the attention of the wider community" (emphasis added). [2] First, that's not what AfD is for. What we discuss here is whether to delete the title, and no one has suggested it be deleted. What is being disputed is whether the material about Israel belongs on the main page about house demolition, or on a subpage. Several editors (on both sides of the political divide) believe it belongs on the main page, because hiving off material to a subpage looks both like the creation of an attack page about Israel, and an attempt to hide the material in a corner of its own. If the pages get too large to accommodate everything, then subpages are fine, but that's not the case at the moment. Secondly, Messedrocker, can you say how you came to protect a page and then file an AfD on it that ChrisO is telling people he arranged? SlimVirgin (talk) 00:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Requested, not arranged. Please don't put words in my mouth. I asked fellow admins for views on this situation; Messedrocker proposed an AfD as a solution. It's a better way forward than having someone unilaterally impose their own solution without consensus. We're supposed to be a community, you know. This AfD will hopefully give the wider community the chance to form a consensus on the article. Wikipedia:Consensus should be our guide here. -- ChrisO 00:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't put words in your mouth, Chris; I quoted you. "I've had the article AfD'd." Messedrocker doesn't say you requested it either. I wonder why you didn't do it yourself. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:34, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He gets the credit for bringing it to my attention? I dunno... (messedrocker • talk) 02:06, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What he said. Basically he came on IRC and talked about this, and then I told him he should bring it to AFD as a compromise. Then I said I could do it. Now we're here. Let's hope something constructive comes of this. (messedrocker • talk) 00:41, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lets hope this important discussion is not buried under a blizzard of personal attack. PalestineRemembered 11:24, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note that I purposefully did not incorporate the original content into the rewritten House demolition because (1) it didn't deal adequately with the Israeli-Palestinian dimension and (2) incorporating a version that was adequate would grossly distort the article. It would end up 75% Israel-Palestine and 25% everything else. The topic is simply too big to be dealt with in one article. -- ChrisO 00:33, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect The article currently redirect to house demolition, but should be redirected to the conflict article instead.--JForget 00:40, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and add the content to House demolition. Otherwise the content is both hidden and turns into yet another attack page, neither of which is encyclopedic. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:37, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is the crux of the issue. Why do you consider it an "attack page"? You seem to dislike the subject, rather than the content. -- ChrisO 02:18, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say I disliked it; on the contrary, it's important and shouldn't be hidden away on yet another demonization page. What I do dislike, Chris, is your seeming inability to paraphrase comments accurately. I also dislike people who challenge every comment in AfDs, and people who go on IRC to manipulate opinion. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:28, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"demonization page"? Please ease up on the hyperbole. "manipulate opinion"? Oh, the irony. --Timeshifter 03:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep your likes and dislikes of other editors out of this discussion, and refrain from personal attacks. Thanks. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 05:57, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per above.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 03:25, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep per ChrisO. The subject of House demolitions in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is clearly notable. Merging the material back into House demolition would make that article unwieldly. I would like to request that an admin restore a non-empty version of the page (which is now protected) so that people participating in this debate can see the article without trawling through the page history. The suggestion that this is an attack article is false. The article can not be descibed as one sided and contain the Israli authorities arguments justifying house demolitions. The article is actually an unusal example of cooperation between Israelis and Arabs pro and anti Zionists. But yesterday the editors who have been adding the pro-demolishion view have decided to blank and redirect the article. Before this artcle was created, some of these editors were actully removing content on the Israeli Palestinian conflict from House demolition with comments suggesting that this article is created and the content is moved there. Now that the article has been created and a fair amount of work done on it, they have started blanking the article and replacing it with a redirect back to the main article! This was done without even bringing the question of redirect up on the article's talk page. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 05:57, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have added this deletion debate to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Palestine and Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Israel ابو علي (Abu Ali) 13:15, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep No one actually believes the content on the page should be deleted outright. The nom was just procedural in order to get discussion going. The question of whether to merge and redirect or keep separate is determined through talk page discussion and an RfC if needed, not through AfD. nadav (talk) 06:14, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep We've been repeatedly told by all parties that we need more sub-pages of this topic, not less. Zimbabwe in particular, Darfur/Sudan, Chechnya and perhaps Tibet. It would be ludicrous to delete the first sub-page on such an important topic! I don't know what policy is on these matters, but I've created an alternative version of this page here and would welcome comments. PalestineRemembered 11:24, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per SlimVirgin. Beit Or 13:48, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete POV fork and name too long to be a useful redirect. Kuratowski's Ghost 14:44, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article is about as POV as these things get (which is saying something when it comes to Israel/Palestine). Anything neutral and usable can go into House demolition or articles about the conflict in general. IronDuke 15:59, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and do not redirect. The last version before redirecting provides a sound basis for an article. There is nothing inherently POV in the article title and while the article requires more information on why and when Israel has implemented the policy to provide balance to the article this is not grounds for deletion even under the guise of a redirect. There is far too much material to be just within the main House demolition article. Davewild 16:09, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Notable subject and well referenced. Well worthy of it's own article as agreed upon earlier. // Liftarn
  • Strong keep A POV fork is an article specifically written to discuss one point of view on an issue. An article on "Palestinian views of house demolition" or "International condemnation of Israeli demolitions" would be a POV fork.Eleland 18:37, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep House demolition is a significant issue in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and deserves its own article. It needn't be POV provided extensive weight is given to the Israeli perspective.Nwe 19:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to House demolition which includes all the information that was present in the original article. The legal debates or means of execution in the Israeli case are not different than the other cases mentioned (for example, the Soviet-Afghan War). --Gabi S. 20:17, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I have to correct you there. When I rewrote House demolition I removed all of the content that was later re-used by another editor to create House demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. House demolition does not include all the information that was present in the original article. Restoring that content to House demolition would greatly unbalance the article, giving undue weight to one particular instance of house demolition. -- ChrisO 21:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant but definite keep and do not redirect. Reluctant because the early versions of this article were a nauseating apology for an immoral and unacceptable practice, one of the worst examples of POV I've ever seen on Wikipedia. The current (pre-redirect) version is much better, but still has a nasty flavour of justifying the indefensible. However that is not a reason for deleting the article, as the POV can be corrected in the course of time. It should remain a separate article, as otherwise it is likely to overwhelm the House demolition article. No doubt in time Zimbabwe, Darfur, etc will have their own "House demolitions in ..." sub-articles. --NSH001 21:11, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See Operation Murambatsvina, which is the de facto equivalent for Zimbabwe. -- ChrisO 21:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But Jaakobou, why did you say only three days ago that you think that the subject is worth its own article? ابو علي (Abu Ali) 08:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
thank you "father of ali" for wikistalking me (you really want to reopen "the old fude"?), you can read my reply here, enjoy the read. Jaakobou 09:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can confirm that Jaakabou recreated this article with the comment "i figure it's worth it's own article." just 2 days ago. Maybe he did this without thinking. PalestineRemembered 10:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Gabi S. --Shuki 21:44, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect another attack page dedicated to Israel. Can be easily integrated into the main House demolition article. Noon 23:23, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Almost everybody agrees that the content should be kept. The suggestion that this should be merged into general House demolition is not viable, as this section would dominate the article, overwhelm any other examples or issues, and almost certainly lead ro proposals to reduce this aspect. Let's keep the existing structure, and work to produce a good article on this issue. RolandR 23:33, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. The article is too long to put back in House demolition. It is a typical spinout article. Spinout articles are covered by Wikipedia:Summary style and Wikipedia:Content forking#Article spinouts - "Summary style" articles. Here is a link to the last full version of the article. In my opinion the calls for redirects are mostly attempts to censor the issue. Mostly by many of the same people I have seen doing similar things elsewhere. See this quote from w:Wikipedia:Vandalism#Types of vandalism policy (emphasis added): "Blanking: Removing all or significant parts of pages, or replacing entire established pages with one's own version without first gaining consensus." There are some caveats, of course. But most of those calling for redirects are basically trying to bury the material in another article, and thus make it less relevant and useful. They can dress it up, and try to say the article is not NPOV. But I see it as NPOV now. If they really think it is not NPOV enough, then the correct thing to do is make it more NPOV, not bury it. Why is it an attack article? Then are articles about Palestinian suicide bombers attack articles? Is Child suicide bombers in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict an attack article on Palestinians? No, it is not. --Timeshifter 23:42, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The content before the recent deletion and protection was well souced, and an adequate separate topic. Though it has occurred elsewhere, its use in this conflict is certainly notable &Y madeheavy use of in political argumentation Those who think it in fact justified should just make sure that sources from all viewpoints are used. DGG 00:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect yet another fork of this subject matter. I don't see why this deserves such a higher level of detail than the rest of the project, which is after all called "Wikipedia", and not "Israeli-Palestinian conflictpedia". TewfikTalk 01:42, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Israeli-Palestinian conflictpedia"? More hyperbole from Tewfik.--Timeshifter 03:26, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So that is what its called. TewfikTalk 05:49, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This sounds like a WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument. We should include as many details as we can find in reliable sources on any topic. We have featured articles on obscure figures from thousands of years ago. Surely we can allow this topic to be covered in depth as well. nadav (talk) 04:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with in-depth coverage, au-contraire, that is exactly what we are here for. Rather I don't like what seems to me to be the creation of a separate hierarchy that consistently focuses on discussing one part of a specific conflict. While their creators may be well-intentioned and talk about how the same detail can be dedicated to other aspects or other subjects, they usually aren't. Even if every entry is kept neutral (something that gets difficult when so many articles are involved and more are constantly created), the sum is still problematic, if not nonneutral. TewfikTalk 05:45, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Aren't we supposed to have articles that focus on specific parts of specific things? Isn't that what an encyclopaedia is for? —Ashley Y 05:53, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But there's no reason why it would focus on a country by country basis, is there? The article certainly doesn't, which is why it is so upsetting to certain editors. This WP:POVFORK is not an expansion on any specific section in the article; rather, it is a re-framing of the content to promote a specific POV. Jayjg (talk) 05:56, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen many spinout (WP:SPINOUT) articles created for the Iraq War. Why should the Israeli-Palestinian conflict be any different? It seems to me that you are seeking special treatment of that conflict in an attempt to bury aspects of it that you don't want discussed in WP:NPOV, encyclopedic detail. You have been part of similar blank/merge/redirect attempts concerning this conflict. --Timeshifter 06:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Things are spun out from an article when the article or section gets too large; the article wasn't large, and which section was this "spun out" from? Name the section, and explain how it was "spun out". In fact, it was simply a copy of the article from a week before, as I have shown before; a clear WP:POVFORK. As for your argument, it's quite obvious you simply do not want actions taken by Israel to be placed in any larger context, but which to have a narrowly focussed POV instead. That's also the reason you recruited votes added this discussion to the Palestine board, but not the Israel one. Jayjg (talk) 06:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I answered the main point farther down. Posting a notice about a deletion review in project pages and their notice boards is normal. There are many WP:NPOV members who have joined both projects. So it is not canvassing. Tewfik is a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Palestine. I am a member of it and Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel. And in any case WP:CANVAS allows telling a few people. --Timeshifter 06:44, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Almost all members of Project:Palestine edit from a pro-Palestinian POV, as you well know. Prevarication is unhelpful, please desist. Jayjg (talk) 06:52, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't. I edit from a neutral POV. It is called WP:NPOV. From watching your edits over time, I believe you have a strong POV. So maybe you are projecting onto others. In other words, because you may have a strong POV, you assume most others do, too. "Prevarication"? I don't appreciate your incivility. --Timeshifter 07:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know you claim to edit from a neutral POV. That's amusing at best, or perhaps a sign of a deeper issue. Regardless, Wikipedia isn't therapy. Jayjg (talk) 07:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Try it sometime. WP:NPOV is very therapeutic. --Timeshifter 07:11, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as article per ChrisO. It's a sensible spinout article and too large for house demolition. —Ashley Y 02:34, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, obviously. POV-fork. If delete fails, then keep as a Re-direct; all material must be kept in context. Jayjg (talk) 02:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I tentatively accepted the idea of having an article explore this much discussed topic in depth. Can you explain why you see the very idea of having such an article as a POV fork? nadav (talk) 04:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no reason why the material could not be integrated into the proper section in the House demolition article. The article was initially turned into an article discussing only House demolitions in Israel: [3] On June 17 editors broadened the article so that it dealt with the whole topic of House demolition in a comprehensive way, eventually ending up with this version. User:Abu ali got upset that it no longer focussed solely on Israel, so he created a POV fork [4] that only talked about Israel - it is, in fact, the version of the article from June 16, before the article was broadened to deal with all house demolitions. Taking an old version of an article you prefer, and re-creating it under a new title, is the very definition of a WP:POVFORK. Jayjg (talk) 05:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article is an obvious, legitimate "spinout" article. See WP:SPINOUT: "Sometimes, when an article gets long, a section of the article is made into its own article, and the handling of the subject in the main article is condensed to a brief summary. This is completely normal Wikipedia procedure; the new article is sometimes called a 'spinout' or 'spinoff' of the main article, see for example wikipedia:summary style, which explains the technique. Even if the subject of the new article is controversial, this does not automatically make the new article a POV fork. However, the moved material must be replaced with an NPOV summary of that material. If it is not, then the 'spinning out' is really a clear act of POV forking: a new article has been created so that the main article can favor some viewpoints over others." --Timeshifter 06:11, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense. Did you even read the comments you were responding to? The article was hardly lengthy, and which section was it "spun out" from? Show me which one. Jayjg (talk) 06:15, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I did. Here is the June 23, 2007 House demolition article just before Abu Ali spunout the other article. Here is the spinout article when Abu Ali created and tweaked it on June 23, 2007. All the info in the expanded spinout article was too much to put in House demolition. --Timeshifter 06:34, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Which section of the House demolition article did he take that from? Name it please. Which material did he remove from the House demolition article to put in that fork? Show me the diff please. Jayjg (talk) 06:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is the point. He had so much material that he did not have room for it in the first article. --Timeshifter 06:46, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How would he know, if it was never in there in the first place? In fact, his "spin out" article was simply a copy of the version of the article from June 16, under a different name. Your prevarication is unhelpful. Jayjg (talk) 06:52, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Prevarication"? I don't appreciate your incivility, O great admin, Jayjg. I looked at the article at the point that it was spun off. All else you wrote of is your reading and interpretation of tea leaves in the history revisions. --Timeshifter 07:09, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article created on the 23rd was identical to the House demolition article of the 16th. No material was removed from the House demolition article on the 23rd to create the WP:POVFORK. You still fail to address that, and it's not a violation of WP:CIVIL to point out that your many statements are at odds with the truth. Jayjg (talk) 07:15, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter what happened before. His decision to create a spinout article on June 23 was correct. Because on June 23 he had too much material to put it into, or back into, the article that existed on June 23. --Timeshifter 07:25, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c)The main reason I agreed with spinning it off was to prevent the general "House demolitions" page from placing undue weight on Israel's particular use of house demolitions, a relatively recent thing in the ancient history of the subject. Even fringe topics (which this is not) get their own articles if they are sufficiently notable, but should not receive undue weight in the main article. The example in the undue weight policy is Flat Earth theory, which is barely mentioned in Earth (and most certainly does not have its own section), but for which there are enough sources to justify having a free-standing article. Whatever Abu Ali said when originally supporting the article is not too relevant. We can all work together on ensuring the article is NPOV, just like we do on other controversial topics. nadav (talk) 06:50, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Quite. It's certainly big enough and notable enough to stand on its own as a separate article. —Ashley Y 06:57, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's been no convincing claim made that the House demolition article is long enough to require a WP:POVFORK, and certainly not one that serves to promote a specific POV. Jayjg (talk) 07:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is simple math. Add the length of the 2 articles in their current form, and you see that putting them together would create a much longer article with undue weight on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The spinout article seems WP:NPOV to me. If it does not seem that way to you, then add more sourced material to make it so.--Timeshifter 07:14, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Where was it "spun out" from? Please give the specific diff which shows the material being removed by Abu ali from House demolition. Jayjg (talk) 07:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It could have been spun out from the original article, his head, his friends, his muse, his guardian angels, etc.. Who knows. It doesn't matter where it came from. If it was too much to add to the original article, then it needed to be spun off. --Timeshifter 07:21, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jayjg, could you please explain this edit [[5], particulaly the comment? ابو علي (Abu Ali) 08:16, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jayjg's edit summary is interesting: "too detailed and specific for here; perhaps it belongs in House demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict." So in that June 27, 2007 diff Jayjg removes info from the House demolition article, and recommends putting it in the spinout article. Then on June 29 Jayjg helps blank and redirect the spinout article. This is not the first time that Jayjg has tried to inappropriately delete an article. This time he used blanking and a redirect in order to inappropriately delete an article without going through an AFD. Concerning an AFD for another article, Israel-United States military relations, Jayjg interfered with a closing admin in an attempt to inappropriately delete the article. See this and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 April 26.
Let's stay on topic. Jayjg's past editing history is not germane. I am curious maybe about why he changed his mind about this particular article, but everything else is irrelevant. nadav (talk) 08:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue that it does show the good faith or rather the lack of good faith of some of those who support the redirect. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 21:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I've explained, I was subsequently convinced that the article was an unhelpful POV-fork, based on argumentation from others, and a review of the article history. Now, please listen to Nadav1, follow policy, and focus on issues germane to this AfD. Jayjg (talk) 19:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In hindsight, it might perhaps have been better if I'd moved the original House demolition article to House demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, since the content was entirely focused on that issue, and then created a brand new article on house demolition. In any case, what we have here is an overview article describing the general use of house demolition, and a spinout article describing the specific use of the tactic in a particular conflict, comparable to how Eastern Front (World War II) deals in depth with a topic summarised in World War II. -- ChrisO 09:00, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, look at the many spinoff articles linked from the Iraq War, and many more found here: Category:Years in Iraq. Click the plus (+) signs to see the many subcategories. See also: Template:Iraq War. Many angles are covered by many spinout articles. WP:SPINOUT. --Timeshifter 09:34, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - another attempt to turn WP into a battleground. ←Humus sapiens ну? 11:16, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. There is an attempt to keep this material out of Wikipedia altogether by saying it's too specific for House demolition but a POV-fork if spun out into its own article. This is all the more astonishing when one takes into account that the preponderance of RS-material on house demolitions focuses on Israel-Palestine. As I wrote on the talk page of the first House demolition article:

    A search on Google Books [3] for all books containing the phrase "house demolitions" yielded 299 results. I went through the first 50 by hand, so to speak. 48 of these 50 sources focused on Israel-Palestine. Of the two exceptions, one was a passage in Pragmatic Women and Body Politics which mentioned house demolition as one of various punitive measures the goverment of China has used against families who don't comply with the one-child policy; the other was a passage in a book on urban planning (Planning and the Heritage: policy and procedures) which lamented the loss of "stately country homes" in the aftermath of World War II. In other words, 48 of 50 sources checked dealt with house demolition by this article's definition, as a counter-insurgency tactic, and all 48 focused exclusively on the tactic as a component of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I fully expected that most RS material on the tactic of house demolitions would focus on Israel-Palestine, but I was surprised to discover that the phrase itself seems to be almost exclusively associated with that conflict.

    I also did two Lexis-Nexis searches, one for "house demolitions" + terrorism, and one for "house demolitions" + insurgency. The latter produced 49 citations, 47 of which focused exclusively on Israel-Palestine. The former produced 248 citations; again I hand-checked the first 50. Of these 50, only two discussed anything other than Israel-Palestine. Because the pattern was so overwhelmingly clear, I did not see the need to hand-check the remainder, or to try other search permutations. I realize however that not everyone has access to Lexis-Nexis, and I'll gladly perform other relevant searches at the request of other editors.

    It should be emphasized that all of the book sources, and almost all of the newspaper sources, addressed house demolitions as a highly controversial practice.

Following some serious and impressive research, ChrisO has found enough scholarly and historical material to create an article on the general phenomenon of House demolition through time. The result is superb and we should all be grateful for it. That article in its present state would be overwhelmed by adding the material on House demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, an issue for which the literature is independently massive. There are three compelling reasons to treat this topic separately: 1) The RS's that write about it treat it separately, not comparatively or historically. 2) Demolitions in the I/P conflict are sui generis insofar as they comprise both military demolitions citing security and punitive reasons, and "civil" demolitions citing lack of permit. The preponderance of RS's treat these collectively as a single phenomenon within the Israel-Palestine conflict (where security and demography are so inextricably intertwined). In most (if not all) other contexts, on the other hand, civil and military demolitions are widely perceived and treated by RS's as separate and unrelated phenomena, and revising the mandate of House demolition to include both would make it truly enormous, a shapeless and baggy monster covering everything from eminent domain to counterinsurgency. 3) Because so very much has been written about demolitions in the I/P conflict, adding it to House demolition would overwhelm that article. Separate articles, each cross-linked, makes eminent sense and has all the RS precedent anyone could ask for. --G-Dett 12:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep per ChrisO and G-Dett. There is no reason we cannot have both an article on the general subject of home demolitions and an article on their use specifically in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. There is more than enough material from reliable sources on the latter to justify an article. And there is no reason the article could not be neutral. Editors who believe the material is not presented in a neutral way should make an attempt to fix the article rather than blank or delete it. Analogous articles exist which focus on specific Israeli grievances, one example is Child suicide bombers in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Sanguinalis 15:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, and a good example. I'm seeing a lot of "makes Israel look bad, therefore POV/attack page" arguments. —Ashley Y 22:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per ChrisO, G-Dett, and others. Interesting point by Sanguinalis about Child suicide bombers in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict -- some of the same people who are opposing the existence of this article have edited the other and appear to be quite comfortable with its existence. Anyway, no need for me to repeat arguments eloquently stated above. Organ123 16:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per others. Though the article needs some improvements.Bless sins 17:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore and Keep. I think PalestineRemembered said it best: "We've been repeatedly told by all parties that we need more sub-pages of this topic, not less. Zimbabwe in particular, Darfur/Sudan, Chechnya and perhaps Tibet. It would be ludicrous to delete the first sub-page on such an important topic!" I am making no comment on the validity or neutrality of the content represented in any particular version, but I fully support the notion that a separate article should exist to describe this important topic, as it specifically applies to the Israeli-Palestinian case, along with the controversy that surrounds it. There is too much to this topic to simply merge it into the main House demolition article, and the remainder that isn't covered by that summary is by no means unimportant or irrelevant, nor should it be excluded from Wikipedia for any reason. LordAmeth 18:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is already an article devoted to the Zimababwe government's house demolitions, and one on British "dehousing" in WWII, so this would not be the first. nadav (talk) 20:24, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment much of the information kept out of the main entry was on content grounds, not length, and it is just as challenged on the subarticle. I believe everyone would agree that a subarticle is necessary if/when the material becomes too long, but that is not currently the case. TewfikTalk 19:11, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Tewfik that length is not the issue, not yet anyway. The issue is that these are organically separate topics. Wikipedians may want to situate house demolition in the I/P conflict comparatively and historically, but the reliable sources by and large have not done this. There seems to be some confusion here about what a POV-fork is. Slavery in the United States is not a POV-fork of Slavery, because the independently voluminous literature on the former does not, by and large, treat it as a sub-topic of the latter; it does not talk about America's "peculiar institution" in the context of ancient Babylonia or the contemporary sex trade. Now, by contrast, if I start making copious and tendentious additions to the "Jefferson and Slavery" subsection of William Jefferson, and editors object on WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE grounds, and I respond by creating a new article William Jefferson and Slavery, so that my hobby horse may graze and gallop with solipsistic abandon, that's a POV-fork. The dead giveaway and sine qua non of a POV-fork is that it treats as a discrete topic that which reliable sources treat as an inseparable component of something larger. If there is a larger topic for reliable sources in the present case, that larger topic is very clearly the Israel-Palestine conflict. Hence the entirely appropriate title of this entirely appropriate article.--G-Dett 20:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Yes, house demolition has become a hot issue in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and it can be argued that it deserves its own section in the house demolition article. However, the topic simply isn't broad or encyclopedic enough to merit its own article and I fear that its own article will be turn into nothing more than an attack page: every house demolition will be cited by Israel's enemies and Israel's arguments for house demolitions will either become redundant or be cited once at the bottom of the page. --GHcool 20:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Israel's justifications of House Demolitions was given prominent coverage in every version of this article. So GHcool's argument for removing the content of the article is based on speculation as to how the article may develop in the future. This is certainly a novel agrument for a deletion debate. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 20:56, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Without commenting on the content of the article itself, it makes sense to me that there is a general article on house demolition as a military tactic and then separate articles on each important conflict where it is used. I would suggest reducing the information on this particular conflict in the main article once it is spun off. --Peter cohen 21:50, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is a sensible suggestion. There's already too much prominence given to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the main article - it has more coverage than World War II, which is crazily disproportionate. -- ChrisO 22:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • redirect obviously a POV fork of House demolition that is poorly sourced. Topic isn't notable enough to have its own article, and only presents one viewpoint.--SefringleTalk 03:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't notable? You do realise that one of the major Israeli anti-occupation groups is named "Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions"? I think that's a clue that this is fairly important issue in the conflict... —Ashley Y 05:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In what way is the article poorly sourced? It contains 15 references. And the statement that the article "only presents one viewpoint" is also false, it quotes Israeli propogandist Shmuel Katz and Yaacov Lozowick who justify house demolitions, the Israeli army's own justifications, the Israeli high court decsions as well as the views of groups such as Amnesty International and the Israeli committee against house demolition which oppose demolitions. Have you actually read the article? ابو علي (Abu Ali) 06:21, 2 July 2007 (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/House_demolition_in_the_Israeli-Palestinian_conflict&oldid=1089934608"