Welcome to roadip.com on July 4 2009.
This is an internet experiment running to monitor browsing habbits of individuals through wikipedia contents.

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Military

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
Military history
WikiProject
Main project page + talk
News
Showcase
Style guide
Announcements and open tasks
 → Articles needing attention
 → Popular articles
 → New articles talk
 → Nominations for deletion talk
The Academy talk
Task forces
edit · changes
Deletion Sorting
Project
Project page (talk)
Lists (by ABC)
Lists (by topic)
AfD: Today, Yesterday
edit · changes

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Military. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting.

Anyone can help maintain the list on this page:

  • To add a new AfD discussion (once it has already been opened on WP:AFD):
  • Look through the list of current discussions to find items related to this subject area.
  • Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  • You can also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Military}}<small>—~~~~</small> to it, which will inform users that it has been listed here.
  • There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
  • Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
  • You can also add and remove links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Military.

Please note that adding an AfD to, or removing it from, this page does not add it to, or remove it from, the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page, before adding it to this page.

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.


Archive Relevant archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Military/archive.
Purge page cache Watch this page

FORCETOC

Contents

[edit] Military and combat

[edit] Military history of Catalonia

Military history of Catalonia (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

This "article" is just a bunch of headers, and even some of them have a strong Catalan separatist POV. To make matters worse, it will be pretty hard for a region to have a "military history" when that region has never had an army. This article's clearly a separatist attempt to spread free propaganda on Wikipedia, it's completely useless and, well, actually it isn't really an article. Taraborn (talk) 01:05, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 1948 Palestine war

1948 Palestine war (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

This page is a WP:POVFORK of the main 1948 Arab-Israeli War page. 1948 War (with a capital "W") redirects to the main page while 1948 war (with a lowercase "W") redirects to this POV fork. GHcool (talk) 19:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

A real debate took place on the IPCOOL project : [1]. It was not intended, such as the current RfD to pov-push a disgusting pov. Just keep in the area where you have a minimum know-how personal attack removed by Nableezy User:ceedjee

You don't know anything about the topic and you didn't even read the source. Go and see them. Go and read at least the lead. AND THEN APOLOGIZE. You should be forbidden to vote. User:ceedjee
You don't know anything about the topic and you didn't even read the source. Go and see them. Go and read at least the lead. AND THEN APOLOGIZE. You should be forbidden to vote. User:ceedjee
  • Merge per Fuzbaby. I see no useful neutral-POV information that merits a standalone article, especially when the main article has a neutral title. I also recommend speedy-redirecting 1948 war (lowercase "w") to the main article. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 19:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
There have been many wars in 1948. The most important war occuring in India. If you don't know anything about history, refrain from voting. user:ceedjee
  • Merge What I see now is either poorly sourced or duplicates the material on the main page anyway, anything sourced and not included on the main page can be happily merged in. Cazort (talk) 20:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Poorly source !??? You should be forbidden to give any mind. They are given in the articles. They are at the end of this. User:ceedjee
POVFORK ??? PROVE THIS. You are just a stupid ignorant. User:ceedjee
Blatant povfork. You are just a stupid ignorant. You didn't even take care to read the source and you didn't even take care to go and see who read this. Did you only ask him. All people who consider "merge" are stupid ignorant who, sorry that, should be forbiden to edit any encyclopaedia. user:ceedjee
  • comment I want to draw your attention to a very bad trend in Israel/Palestine articles. Tis article is an example of a recent surge in the paired articles we have spawned, and they are far from NPOV. See for example Kafr Bir'im and Kfar Bar'am, two articles about the same village that barely mention the other's existence, or Silwan and City of David or Shechem and Nablus. There is a current RFC on Nakba (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Nakba) where User:Hemlock Martinis proposes adding an article on Nakba although there is already a heavily edited article 1948 Arab–Israeli War. It is as though we now settle disputes by approving alternate realities, an Arab narrative and a Jewish narrative, one article pretending that Jews have never lived in a place, the other ignoring the Arabs who live there now. It doesn't do our credibility as an encyclopedia any good. (I assume everyone saw the rcent New York Times article on how untrustworthy Wikipedia is on the Middle East) I suggest that we handle things on the model of Temple Mount, with a good faith attempt to give due weight to the names used by all parties, everyone's history, and the points of view of all parties in a single article.Historicist (talk) 00:46, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
    • I agree. --GHcool (talk) 00:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
      • You both pov-pushers. You think there is a pov fork because there is the word Palestine. User:ceedjee
  • Keep. I can't quite see why this has been proposed for deletion. Historians (from all sides) use the term frequently. I believe it describes the period covering the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine, the 1947–1948 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine, and the 1948 Arab-Israeli War i.e. November 1947 to July 1949. What should happen is that we describe those events summary-style in 1948 Palestine War, with sub-articles for each topic. What is the benefit of deleting the umbrella article that gives the context? SlimVirgin talk|contribs 14:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • In case it helps, Benny Morris splits the 1948 Palestine War (or what he calls the 1948 War) into (1) the first stage of the civil war (this is when he says "the war begins") beginning November 30, 1947; (2) the second stage of the civil war, beginning April 1948; (3) the Pan-Arab invasion, May 15, 1948; and (4) the various operations thereafter. I can't see the benefit of losing that structure by deleting 1948 Palestine War. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 14:30, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Efraim Karsh, in some ways on the opposite "side" from Morris, if we have to speak in these terms: "The 1948 Palestine War was probably the most important Middle Eastern armed confrontation since the destruction of the Ottoman empire, and the creation of a new regional order in the wake of the First World War. By the time the fighting ended in the summer of 1949 ..." (Arafat's War, p. 33). SlimVirgin talk|contribs 15:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Alon Kadish and Avraham Sela (2005). "Myths and historiography of the 1948 Palestine War revisited: the case of Lydda," The Middle East Journal, September 22, 2005.
  • Ilan Pappe (2004). A History of Modern Palestine, Cambridge University Press, p. 131, section called "the Palestine War," though his dates are different (May to January 1949), p. 131.
The above shows that from left-wing anti-Zionist to right-wing pro-Zionist, Israeli academic historians use the term. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 16:15, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
    • That's beside the point. The point isn't that the term is POV (although, one could argue that it is). The point is that there is another better, longer article about the war already under a better name. --GHcool (talk) 17:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • You argued that it was a POV fork; that is your deletion reason. But the 1948 Arab-Israeli War article isn't about the 1948 Palestine War. Different timeframe. And the term is used by historians from all persuasions, so it's not a POV term. Therefore, I'm not seeing why you would want to delete it. It's the kind of thing that will keep on being recreated, because people will look for it and wonder why it's not there. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 17:21, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't follow what you're saying. AfDs are not where merges and content is decided. What is decided here is whether to delete the title. Anyone can recreate the content, and they will, because it would be odd not to have an article on it. You keep saying it's the same as the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, but you haven't shown that. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 17:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • You're not addressing my point. (1) 1948 Arab-Israeli War (what Israelis call the War of Independence) began on May 15, 1948, as our article on it says. (2) 1948 Palestine War comprises that and the previous Jewish-Palestinian civil wars fought before the creation of the state of Israel. Why would you want to delete the second? SlimVirgin talk|contribs 19:12, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Don't be disingenuous. The 1948 Arab-Israeli war has a section on the civil war.Historicist (talk) 22:40, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
LOL. LOL. LOL. What a stupid comment. It has not. It is in the context. You didn't even read this. You just one of these frustrated pov-pusher. 81.244.182.215 (talk) 16:15, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
The page 1948 Arab-Israeli War has an extensive section on the civil war.Historicist (talk) 17:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge Into the main 1948 Arab-Israeli War article. This page appears to be a blatant WP:POVFORK. --Nsaum75 (talk) 07:09, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep and merge 1948 Arab-Israeli War into this article. This is the term that historians use for the time range from near the end of the mandate through the 48 war, and having a separate article on the 48 war without the relevant context is what is the POV fork. Nableezy (talk) 14:41, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
You have here a FULL PANEL of RECENT SCHOLARS on the TOPIC and MOST OF ALL, from absolutely ALL SIDES and ALL POV's.
GHCool was fully aware of this. He is just a pov-pusher.
User:ceedjee
  • Immediate undefinite topic ban of GHCool and Historicist for blatant pov pushing. user:ceedjee
  • comment Most wars have multiple names. Statements like "This is the term that historians use..." are necessarily untrue when describing wars, like this one, where each side has a preferred name. In this case, Many Israelis prefer some version of the phrase "War of Independence." Many proponents of the Palestinian perspective prefer "War in Palestine" and the most widely-used neutral term is some version of Arab-Israeli War. This widely accepted phrase, "1948 Arab-Israeli War" has the virtue of listing, with brevity and accuracy, the opponents, Israeli on one side and several Arab states on the other, without giving a POV, as any inclusion of the word "Independence" would do. The advantage or problem with the phrase War in Palestine is that Palestine has come to be both a geographic term and the term widely used term for the aspirational state of the Palestinian people. The phrase therefore gives and inexorably POV boost to the belief that this was a war in land that belonged to a designated nation, i.e., it implies that since the war was fought in Palestine it was fought on land that rightfully belongs to the Palestinian nation. In reality, of course, the question of which nation or nations have a right to sovereignty on that land is the very issue that is being fought over. Use of the word Palestine as the article title is a violation of NPOV.Historicist (talk) 18:03, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Sorry, but that comment shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what we are discussing here. The sources provided above have multiple Israeli historians using this name. Also, as has been pointed out, the phrase Israeli War of Independence != Palestine War. And it implies no such thing as that the land belongs to the Palestinian nation. See, there was this place, it was called the British Mandate of Palestine, in fact the Jews who lived there were called Palestinian Jews. The name implies that it was fought in mandatory Palestine, which actually was a real place. Amazing what a little reading and not just going on ones gut feelings can do. Nableezy (talk) 18:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Israel is a raucous democracy with a famously free press. Unlike the situation in many countries, Israelis are entitled to publish whatever they please. A good many Israeli historians choose to publish books that present the history of the region from a highly partisan Palestinian point of view. My point, however, is that it is specifically historians who write as advocates of the Palestinian perspective - of whatever ancestry and of whatever citizenship - who use the term Palestine War.Historicist (talk) 18:55, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Cherrypicking examples to support your position is not helpful. There are hundreds of books about this war. You selectively site a title by Yoav Gelber, Palestine 1948, but Gelber also has a book entitled: Independence Versus Nakbah: The Arab–Israeli War of 1948." In an imperfect world, Arab-Israeli War is the most commonly used and probably the most parsimonious and neutral term available.Historicist (talk) 19:02, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
What do you not understand about this statement of absolute fact: 1948 Palestine War is not the same thing as the Arab-Israeli War of 1948, the second forms a part of the first. And you originally said that "Many Israelis prefer some version of the phrase "War of Independence", not what you say you meant later. But as to what you think you mean now (at least until that is shown to be fraudulent as well), would you care to show something backing up that statement? Or is it again your gut feeling? Nableezy (talk) 19:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Everything is already covered in 1947–1948 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine and 1948 Arab-Israeli War.Historicist (talk) 19:32, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
And this article should be a parent to those summary style. Nableezy (talk) 19:36, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge TomStar81 (Talk) 23:41, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. The problem here is that people are trying to use AfD as a way of solving a content dispute. AfD can't rule on the content of a page, or merges, or redirects. AfD is here to decide whether a title should be deleted entirely. The content was already discussed here, where it was decided that 1948 Palestine War was an umbrella term used by historians from all sides to cover essentially two wars: (1) a civil war in 1947-1948 between Palestinian Arabs and Palestinian Jews in Palestine before the state of Israel existed; and (2) a war between Israelis and other Arab states started on May 15, 1948, triggered by Israel's declaration of independence. It is historically inaccurate to say, "well, there was really only ever one war." The second was entirely different from the first, in terms of combatants, and in terms of goals. I ask that an admin who has never been involved in the I/P disputes before, and who has no known relationship with the participants, close this, because we have a situation here where we have the numbers on one side, and the historical facts (as well as WP policy about deletion) on the other. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 01:46, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. I meant to add to the above that Historicist has admitted the opposition here is to the word "Palestine." This is an issue I've been seeing increasingly on Wikipedia, namely that a small number of Israeli editors and their supporters are trying to make certain words disappear from Wikipedia. (It's ironic that those same editors recently condemned the ArbCom for blocking pro-Israeli accounts that were trying to stop the words "Judea" and "Samaria" from disappearing.) The only point that matters for Wikipedia is that we are not here to make words and terms disliked by one side or another disappear from history. Palestine existed, as did Palestinian Arabs and Palestinian Jews, and a series of distinct, separable battles were fought for supremacy over certain parts of it in 1947-1948, only one of which is called the 1948 Arab-Israeli War (or what the Israelis call their War of Independence, a title I personally would have no problem using for it). Historians call that series of battles the 1948 Palestine War. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 01:57, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Keep (Speedy) Per SlimVirgin, Nableezy, etc. This is not at all a case of POVFORKing, or something which should be in AfD at all. This is a summary / umbrella article, covering a war which had two major phases, each having its own article. It is not a fork of either. Quoting from the lede of these articles, there was:

  • A Civil War, the 1947–1948 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine, which " lasted from 30 November 1947, the date of the United Nations vote in favour of the termination of the British Mandate of Palestine and the UN Partition Plan,[3] to the termination of the British Mandate itself on 14 May 1948."

followed by

  • A War between nations, 1948 Arab–Israeli War "The war commenced upon the termination of the British Mandate of Palestine in mid-May 1948 following a previous phase of civil war in 1947–1948."

The current structure was decided at the IP collaboration as noted above. This, 1948 Palestine war, is the "main article", not 1948 Arab–Israeli War; changing this would entail changing the subjects of the two daughter articles. Nobody is suggesting use of the delete button or anything but normal editting. Peoples' feelings about "Palestine" and what the article should be named is not at all a matter for AfD.John Z (talk) 09:12, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 2007 Band of Brothers veterans deaths

2007 Band of Brothers veterans deaths (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Lists with little or no real purpose or possibility for expansion (exception 2009). The following are included in this nomination:

2008 Band of Brothers veterans deaths (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
2009 Band of Brothers veterans deaths (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 20:43, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • It was moved after this discussion began. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 10:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. An amazing series about some amazing men......but the article is not in keeping with guidelines. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete: The information contained therein should be merged into the separate bios for each person that has one. Could also possibly be combined into one list, but that seems a bit much too.--IvoShandor (talk) 05:05, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete all per nom and per Timmeh Nick-D (talk) 08:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete all. Buckshot06(prof) 10:34, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Belacevac Mine

Battle of Belacevac Mine (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Only one minor mention of this battle (other than sources that copy us), even for the Serbian and Albanian names of the battle. Probably not notable. J.delanoygabsadds 05:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kosovo-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Only 3 killed and 7 wounded, with just a few hundred people participating. Not much of a battle. Perhaps an article for the war itself, or minor battles in it. Did this receive coverage in whatever languages they speak over there? Dream Focus 22:24, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Redirect and merge to Kosovo War. JJL (talk) 00:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - Judging battles by casualty count doesn't seem to necessarily be the best way to do it. matt91486 (talk) 01:43, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —AustralianRupert (talk) 05:37, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment, it's not non-notable, but it's a problem if it's unverifiable. Punkmorten (talk) 12:43, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep: As mentioned above by another user, the number of casualties is probably not a good way to access notability as it is subjective and a rather arbitary method. Many of the battles in more recent conflicts have smaller casualty numbers than battles that occured earlier in history due to their nature and the evolution of weaponry and tactics, etc. Having said that, this article certainly has some issues. The first issue is its problematic title. The title is Battle of the Belacevic Mine, however, the lead sentence calls it the "Second Battle of Belacevic Mine". Is it intended to discuss both, or just the second battle? If so, the title needs to be changed. In regards to sources, there is definate room for improvement, however, I believe that the source labled rather poorly as "1" in the External links section is a reliable source. It links to an article in The Independent. The other link (listed in the References section) also discusses the incident, but I don't know if it could be called reliable or not. — AustralianRupert (talk) 03:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete Battles aren't automatically notable, and there's no evidence that WP:N is met. Nick-D (talk) 01:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep, I cannot think of any justifiable reason for deleting an article about a verifiable battle between armies; murderers are one thing - but actual battles are completely different. Operation Miracle is one example of a battle that barely anybody in the Western world has heard of, and you'll find almost no references to it; but careful research can unearth mention in ICOJ proceedings and propaganda from both sides in their native language, to piece together what is (immodestly) an "excellent" article on a battle that has never received any main-stream attention or "notability". It is a record of historical fact, and I consider this article to be the same. In weeks, months, years to come, it will grow as people find new sources in unconventional places. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 00:49, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Noteability now well established following improvements by editor Sherurcij. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:22, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete - not notable. I've seen bigger 'battles' in the city I live in most Saturday nights! Jw2035 (talk) 13:47, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 2009 Israel Defense Forces T-shirt affair

2009 Israel Defense Forces T-shirt affair (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

The conspicuously non-notable article is about an extremely minor and very brief media flurry about a group of young soldiers who printed up T-shirts that were in execrably bad taste and wore them while off-duty.Historicist (talk) 12:16, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete. This is exactly what WP:NOTNEWS refers to. It is a comically unimportant affair which, for about a week in March 2009, was in some newspaper articles, all of which were based on a single article in Israeli newspaper Haaretz. Since then it has disappeared from serious sources, remaining only in some anti-Israel blogs. All in all, Lindsay Lohan's latest outfit received more media attention than this. The first AfD occurred while the newspaper articles were appearing, so some editors innocently fell victim to recentism, but at this point it's fairly clear what the motivation for keeping the article is. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 12:45, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Oh dear This is why I stay away from I/P articles usually. Though there are probably good arguments to delete, Jalap's saying things like "remaining only in some anti-Israel blogs" and "at this point it's fairly clear what the motivation for keeping the article is" makes me just.. sigh. Oh dear.... Count this "Not really a vote" any way you want. Dendlai (talk) 13:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Even if people like me create a sense of despair in you, you may find that they are reasonable people and that dialogue with them is possible and even fruitful. My statement about where this issue does and does not remain is a verifiable fact. You can check for yourself. As for my opinion on the motivation to keep this article, perhaps my greater involvement in I/P articles (and in this particular article) has made me more cynical than you. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 13:42, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:12, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:12, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:12, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete or merge This is clearly a minor blip in the I/P history, or in the history of the IDF for that matter. There is already a large paragraph about it in the IDF article, this page should either be deleted as insignificant or it should be folded into the existing IDF page's paragraph (which could also use an editors pen...or scissors). Fuzbaby (talk) 14:36, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. Nominator may downplay the significance, in reality it is serious enough to keep. [richardsilverstein] draws the bigger picture on morality: "this is what the Occupation does to Israel". Re nom: it is not "extremely minor", "non-notable"? - notables it is, the papers are serious. Just "a group of young soldiers"? Well, it is a widespread practice in th IDF, "bad taste" is your sweet word for offensive and hate-inciting. -DePiep (talk) 14:42, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete and merge information into another article. I agree with DePiep that the episode "draws the bigger picture on morality". That is why it needs to be in a larger article dealing with the impact of the occupation on Israelis - perhaps Anti-Arabism#Israel, or in the IDF article (it is there already). Outside of that context, it is flimsy and unimportant.
There was, incidentally, a similar article in the Haaretz magazine section a couple of weeks ago, about instances of Israeli border guards humiliating Palestinians. And Gideon Levy publishes a weekly column there about really execrable incidents in the occupied territories. Are we going to write a Wikipedia article every time Haaretz publishes one of these miniscandals? --Ravpapa (talk) 15:06, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
If it's merged (and I have no opinion about whether it should be) the article should be kept as a redirect as the easiest way to preserve editing history (see WP:MAD) and since the title would not be an unreasonable one for a redirect. Olaf Davis (talk) 15:56, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete This is not about an "affair", but rather about a Haaretz article and its limited local response. Chesdovi (talk) 16:04, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. I would say to merge to the IDF article, but all that needs to be said is already there - see Israel Defense Forces#2009 Israel Defense Forces T-shirt controversy. Thryduulf (talk) 16:09, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is so minor, it should be completely deleted and not even merged. --GHcool (talk) 17:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. As WP:NOTNEWS.--Talain (talk) 17:36, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete—as was predicted last time, this story has no follow-up, it's just a news piece that somehow made it to Wikipedia. It has little to no encyclopedic value, and should've been deleted a long time ago. —Ynhockey (Talk) 18:14, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete- per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NTEMP. It was suggested that the topic would remain popular or notable as far as IDF-history is concerned, and that clearly is not the case. The IDF receives an unprecedented amount of attention for everything it does so if we were to make an article each time an Israeli grunt decided to act out of line wikipedia would likely crash for lack of bandwidth. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:44, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. WP:NOTNEWS Niteshift36 (talk) 04:06, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and per WP:NOT#NEWS Nick-D (talk) 10:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Comments - It is not just a single newsitem by a single paper. The article has been related to war-conduct in general by multiple sources. Expanded into new section. -DePiep (talk) 10:34, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Are you referring to the new weasel-word studded section sourced almost entirely to blogs? Jalapenos do exist (talk) 13:10, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Not here. Please go to the article's Talk page, not here. -DePiep (talk) 21:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
First AFD irrelevant? How does someone know? Most arguments there still valid. Also: more argumentation there, not just counting votes. Interesting. And relevant. -DePiep (talk) 10:34, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Comment True, arguments from prior AFDs can be relevant, but at the time it was implied the story would remain notable and not simply fall under the NOTNEWS policy. Plenty of articles have been deleted on the 2nd, 3rd, and 10th AFD. Wikifan12345 (talk) 16:33, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
re: Thank you for changing (I suggest striking your bold "irrelevant"). Indeed the arguments there may be relevant. -DePiep (talk) 21:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. If "Pallywood" deserves an article this surely does. Halfacanyon (talk) 15:18, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Sockpuppet User:Halfacanyon has now been banned as a sockpuppet.Historicist (talk) 02:37, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • User:Halfacanyon's highly suspect pattern of behavior for a new editor, i.e. a new editor who immediately wades into edit wars and AFD's always taking aggressive positions, reveals him as very probably a sockpuppet. Historicist Historicist (talk) 18:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment Apparently I'm a sock-puppet too. :D Wikifan12345 (talk) 19:57, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment The first AfD on this article may have been premature, but as a bit of time has passed this has turned to be a un notable minor news event. If wikipedia applied the same standard to every country, and every minor news story, we'd have thousands of articles to things that are not notable but for only a short period of time. Fuzbaby (talk) 17:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
re: 'premature'? There are no comments on the first AFD-procedure. And since a bit of time has passed, new relavant facts have appeared: e.g. another reaction of the IDF command (March 31, Haaretz). btw: the habit was going on since 2007. And of course, the linking with IDF-morality, esp in the Israel-Gaza-war. So the newsflash has reverbed. afterwards and wider. -DePiep (talk) 22:05, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. Single event from only one media source (albeit RS), all other foreign outlets merely reposted the same news with no follow up and very peculiar that the other Israeli media did not pick up the story at all. No evidence of phenomenon among Israeli soldiers. Oppose merge as well, no similar article or mention in other armies of dumb 'military humour'. --Shuki (talk) 20:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete While truly despicable, Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS and even if it was, this is old news. As reference to the event exists elsewhere, there is no need to expand it into an article. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete Unpleasant, but not a large incident. Do we catalogue every time a paper writes about similar things that happend in Palestine (Gaza/WB)? No, of course not. Looking the writers of the articles, and the way it is written, this article seems to be an attempt to push a certain viewpoint/bias in order to support it on other pages too. Gtadoc (talk) 02:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • CloseI think at this point it is clear the consensus is delete, so can an admin close? Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:58, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete It is a news piece not an encyclopedia piece. I don't even think one would put it in the I/P or IDF articles as it is such a minor incident. Soldiers have poor taste when it comes to humour at times shocker. Up next, an article on Wales about how their sheep have wool. --Narson ~ Talk • 10:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • We should Snow Close this.Historicist (talk) 10:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Let it run. I'd rather see a definitive consensus on the issue rather than accusations of a premature close. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 12:46, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete as a non-notable single event. This may warrant mention in an Israel-Palestine related article, as an example of how some people treat others, but it's not enough to stand alone on Wikipedia. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 12:46, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. seicer | talk | contribs 13:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • weak keep Appears to be a relevant, on-going controversy. While I understand the not-news argument, I'm not convinced it applies here since this isn't just a quick news event but something is apparently having longer term fall out. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Do you have any evidence to support the assertion that this is " having longer term fall out"?Historicist (talk) 16:42, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
re Historicist: Why not read the article as it is now. Multiple sources relate this 1:1 to the morality etc. of IDF. -DePiep (talk) 21:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
The "multiple sources" referred to by DePiep are radical blogs, some tinged with what can only be called hate-speech. DePiep, please try to understand the Wikipedia concepts of notability and reliable sourcing.Historicist (talk) 23:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Which old version have you read (missing Haaretz twice, BBC, Jewish Chronicle for starters)? Anyway this should be on the Talk, not here. -DePiep (talk) 12:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Might be worth pointing out that DePiep believes there is a massive zionist conspiracy in action on wikipedia, according to his essay page. --Narson ~ Talk • 11:12, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Thank you User:Narson. How very interesting. Turns out User:DePiep is something of a conspiracy theorist. The essay on his personal page opens by alleging that there is an organised, agenda-driven pro-Israel lobbyism (his italics, not mine) operating on Wikipedia. It is a remarkable assertion. This conspiracy involves "All pages, and a lot of editors, all with the same agenda." It is organised', ' "secret," and "ugly." But, never fear, User:DePiep is our guardian against the Zionist conspiracy. His advice: "learn and recognise the tricks used." and if all else fails, stick it to those trick Zionists by leaving "the much-needed template 'Page in bad condition due to pro-Israel lobbying'" That'll learn'em. Dear User:DePiep, do try to at least encounter the idea, the possibility, that a great many people may perceive Israel in a different light than you do, and that they may have some facts and evidence on their side.Historicist (talk) 20:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
It was not worth pointing out, and has no place in this discussion. If you wouldnt mind raising your concerns about a specific user at the appropriate place (the user's talk page, an/i, whatever) it would make these discussion less acrimonious. Nableezy (talk) 22:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America#Wikipedia campaign Pro Israel lobbies tried some serious hidden lobby attempts on wikipedia, so try not to accuse other editors without knowing the cases fully. Kasaalan (talk) 10:58, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Also I can count numerous clearly Israeli sided editors in these vote, but why they may so easily offended by pre-stated opinions of other editors.
I can clearly state "an organised, agenda-driven pro-Israel lobbyism" do exist in wikipedia, too which I also find a clear danger to accuracy of articles, as a general guide of course "pro-Arab" editors and acts also exist in wikipedia, yet they are generally unorganised, so not agenda driven and not lobbyist and remain as personal attempts. Kasaalan (talk) 11:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete, since Richard Silverstein does not seem a major figure in Israeli or Arab politics, I don't think hanging the notability of this article on comments in his blog is justifiable. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and Jalapenos. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Question. Which article would the material be merged into if this article were deleted? SlimVirgin talk|contribs 12:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • comment Slimvirgin, as an experienced editor, would any material like this be allowed on the American and British Army pages? --Shuki (talk) 13:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I've never edited any of those pages, but I should imagine that if British soldiers had these T-shirts made up about pregnant women in Northern Ireland, say, there would be an unimaginable uproar, and almost certainly a Wikipedia article (not to mention senior resignations). Ditto if American soldiers did the same regarding Iraqi women, for example. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 13:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I remain doubtful that this event is really that significant. Soldiers from quite a few nations have been objectionable in the past. I mean, do we make reference to the anti-german and anti-hitler songs in the British army page? Some of thos were quite objectionable. Troops being dumb ass in their own time is not remarkable. At best this is 2 lines on the IDF or 2009 war page. --Narson ~ Talk • 14:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Can you show me anything comparable from the modern (or any) British army joking and rejoicing about shooting pregnant women? What is quite noticeable on this page is that those of you who seem to want to defend Israel are actually saying you expect no better of the IDF, which is something of a contradiction: you support them but you think less of them than their critics do. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 15:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • The only comparable case that comes to mind was the "joke" car built by paratroopers after they'd killed two teenage joyriders. This isn't mentioned in the British army article and not even in the Lee Clegg article. Not sure if that is much help as a comparison. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • It's a good comparison. We could certainly add it to the Lee Clegg article. At least there is a Lee Clegg article. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 16:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I hope that User:SlimVirgin will put some of her boundless enthusiasm for recording the misbehavior of uniformed troops into creating an article about United Nations peacekeeping troops raping African children.Historicist (talk) 20:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Please feel free to expand that article, but although I know the history quite well I don't tend to edit articles on the Northern Irish conflict, since it would be a struggle for me to maintain a NPOV. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Curious. "Historicist the nom" wrote above it should not be on Wikipedia at all. -DePiep (talk) 02:14, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • It is always best to test assertions about what would have appeared against actual cases. The military of Pakistan, Morocco and Nepal were accused not of wearing offensive T-shirts, but of raping women and very young girls (children) while serving as peacekeepers in the Congo. There was enough documentation to satisfy the Washington Post and many other newspapers. Each army has a wikipedia page. The incident is mentioned on none of these pages. It gets a mention in the UN article in a single sentence referencing "various peacekeeping missions, starting in 2003, in Congo,[58] Haiti,[59][60] Liberia,[61] Sudan,[62] Burundi and Côte d'Ivoire.[63]" I have not checked on the armies involved in the Haiti, Liberia, Sudan, Burundi and Ivory Coast incidents, but I'm willing to bet that even actual rape by serving soldiers doesn't get the attention Israeli boys for bad judgement in designing T-shirts.Historicist (talk) 19:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Sure, Historicist the nom, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. So what? -DePiep (talk) 02:21, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
I was responding to User:SlimVirgin's unsubstantiated assertion that if the soldiers f other nations printed up derogatory T-shirts there would be an uproar, buy pointing out that soldiers form other nations actually rape innocent young girls without arousing an uproar of inspiring User:SlimVirgin to write wikipedia pages about actual incidents of rape by uniformed soldiers.Historicist (talk) 18:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • comment There is already MORE than enough of this article in the main page for the IDF. My guess is what is there right now is an over representation of this content, however, it looks like the main IDF page could use some of this page's references. Fuzbaby (talk) 13:04, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep The article appears to have good sources. Reseaunaut (talk) 22:34, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
another sock puppet Reseaunaut is the second sock pupet who has voted keep and subsequently been blocked form Wikipedia.Historicist (talk) 18:47, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete, but mention in anti-arabism and idf articles. article is well written, well-sourced, but it has turned out to not have been picked up as a more major event than what the initial reaction to it was. Nableezy (talk) 22:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
"to not have been picked up as a more major event than what the initial reaction to it was" is sorta kinda the definition of non-notable. i.e., it was a news event. This is exactly the kind of one-story affair without legs that WP:NOTNEWS refers to.Historicist (talk) 23:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
did you notice the note was preceded by "delete" or is it just fun to argue with everybody? Nableezy (talk) 23:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Again please note that the article is, since a few days, also describing a wider view, connecting T-shirts directly to IDF-behaviour (esp. in the Israel-Gaza-War). This might be new to readers who skipped some days. Users are invited to review their vote. -DePiep (talk) 03:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Second Delete This article is about a trivial incident. Expanding it to other topics is just that, adding information that could be (or already is) on other topics. Reading it again, it now reads like an article whose sole raison d'etre is IDF bashing, it has lost much of the more neutral tone it originally had and now forks off onto lots of tangents. Fuzbaby (talk) 05:05, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Fuzbaby, I don't think "second delete" adds much to the discussion. You can always revise your original advocation of "Delete or merge" based on the changes in the article you mention, or simply add more comments. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 12:15, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Jalapenos, I wanted to specifically point out that it was a response to DePiep. And, if you would notice, I did add comments after it, I'm sorry if you disagree with them :-)Fuzbaby (talk) 13:40, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't disagree with your comments at all. I just thought "second delete" could be misunderstood as meaning that you're voting delete after having voted delete in the first AfD. Anyway, it was just a simple misunderstanding. Sorry. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 14:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Commennt I have looked at the article again following DePiep's comments and my delete !vote above still stands. Thryduulf (talk) 13:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment: the article is actually worse now than it was when the AfD opened, becuase it contains some coatracking, such as the Breaking the Silence statement, and some content unsupported by the cited sources, such as the Anshel Pfeffer statement. In any case, none of this has to do with the question of whether this is an important, encyclopedia-worthy topic or a single news article that was restated and commented on in some other sources. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 14:28, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Agree, nothing you write here has to do with the AFD here. Same for your delete-motivation above. -DePiep (talk) 22:40, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment This article is about provocative clothing and how angry it makes some people. Is that the defining bar for "Affair?"

Agree with Jala, the new section adds nothing to the notability and simply proves editors are willing to do anything except recognize the truth. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:51, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep For various reasons keep the article
    • WP:NOTNEWS cannot be applied here. Editors suggesting WP:NOTNEWS are seriously mistaken or did not even read the guideline. Not News refers to "Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article." as a guidelines, not serious human rights violations by armies.

Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events. News coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, but not all events warrant an encyclopedia article of their own. Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article.

    • The Vehement of the events The T-shirts contains aiming of pregnant women, killing of children, and homosexual rape. The T shirt controversy is a serious and certain human rights violation, and cover up attempts of the event by deletion from wikipedia only indicates POV issues.
http://www.richardsilverstein.com/tikun_olam/2009/03/20/idf-t-shirts-boast-of-killing-babies-pregnant-women-sodomizing-hamas-leaders/ Homosexual Rape T-Shirt worn by IDF soldiers. This shirt wearing in Israel army, is a serious human rights violation, wearing these t-shirts, letting lower rank soldiers wear these, and defending these as "humour" is also in the same league.
http://www.notes.co.il/idanl/54276.asp Original Hebrew version with more violant t-shirts.
http://www.notes.co.il/idanl/user/racist%20t-shirs%204.jpg A clear human rights violation that depicts Homosexual rape to "enemy soldiers", shooting of babies
No further comment needed. Kasaalan (talk) 20:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Some editors claim if the news, would be kept for US army pages, but they claim is not helpful
      • First the t-shirt controversy is added to the IDF page by POV attempts
        • User tried to remove the T-shirt page completely without any discussion, redirected into IDF page, and put a paragraph of the article to IDF page to trim it
        • Any human rights scandal, who is attempted by vast number of personnel deserves a page when the event is covered by reliable international 3rd party sources, and any attempt to delete the event or trim most possibly fall under censorship of COI or POV parties

I will add more rationale, and proof here in similar style. Kasaalan (talk) 11:50, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment: I think you've demonstrated the flaw in your position excellently. You start out by assuming that the affair was "a serious human rights violation by an army", and proceed from there. It would be interesting to know how you reached the conclusion that wearing offensive shirts is a serious human rights violation. The conclusion is clearly false, and any argument dependent on it is baseless. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 12:00, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
    • CommentI agree with Jalapenos here. The idea that wearing a T-shirt is a human rights violation is pretty ludicrous. What they depict may be but the shirts themselves? Far more likely they'd fall under laws to do with decency (at least in the UK. I'm not aware what Israeli law has to say about it). I have serious doubts there much of a CoI exists here, the odds of one of those soldiers being on wikipedia and being in this debate are slim. --Narson ~ Talk • 14:32, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Comment I too have to agree here with Narson and Jalapenos. As has been pointed already, this is a minor incident and to claim it is a major human rights scandal is ludicrous. While clearly in bad taste, I don't think that is surprising nor unique in regard to young men in any military. Fuzbaby (talk) 14:53, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Replies
The kid who wore "Bush is a terrorist" t-shirt was disbanded from his high school in America.
In the same manner that is why I readded [2] the removed "Cartoon describing attacking Anti-Defamation League" section. Any Cartoon does not make violance acts less important or more pretty.
COI does not limited to army personnel who currently wears such t-shirts (the number is not so low as you claim by the way). IDF calls for any Israeli citizen to the Israel army (which means millions of people), so the chances of previous or current members of IDF or their relatives who edits similar articles are actually pretty high. Don't try to make up statistics out of your mind.
The army scandal which you call as "minor incident" is your own claim, and does not reflect any universal standard.
I don't have to agree with any of you, since you make your point on your human right standards clearly when it comes to IDF.
Homosexual Army Rape or civilian, child or pregnant women slaughtering by soldiers are never funny. Neither t-shirts that depicts these acts, nor the army personnel with heavy arms who can easily commit these acts easily may never be successfully covered up so easily [they already accused by various reliable international and jewish third party human right organisations' numerous reports on committing such acts over the years]. I don't have to tell you anyone who wears, enjoys or consider these shirts as "humorous" should immediately get serious psychological help, and likewise should get disarmed from any army on the spot. If they are "teens" why are they under arms, if they are under arms, how they can wear such clear violent shirts while they are within the army training. Claiming any similar scandal would be covered up or ignored in Europe or even in America is what you should depict as "ludicrous" if you seek something funny. You cannot just tell this is "bad taste" and "unsurprisingly" normal among "young army men" and remove the scandal from wikipedia. Kasaalan (talk) 20:59, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
http://www.notes.co.il/idanl/user/racist%20t-shirs%204.jpg A clear human rights violation by universal standards that depicts Homosexual rape to "enemy soldiers", shooting of babies
No further comment needed. Kasaalan (talk) 20:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
While I can't speak for other editors, I think people are arguing that the IDF should be held to the same standard as any other army, not a special standard set by their adversaries in a conflict. Its no surprise that this incident is not on the front page (or anywhere) here | Human Rights Watch or here | Amnesty International. No mention of freedom to not have ugly t-shirts made of you here | Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In looking at the history of the I/P conflict, human rights violations on both sides are easy to find without manufacturing scandals. Equally, I would argue against including distasteful, but non notable events that are portrayed in the media about Palestinian fighters. In regard to militaries, I wonder why wikipedia editors do not document the shocking human rights abuses of other militaries (for example Military of Pakistan or Military of Cambodia). Perhaps those countries and peoples aren't considered as important to some.Fuzbaby (talk) 21:24, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
This event is WP:Notable for wikipedia by reliable third party independent sources with enough coverage The Observer, Haaretz, The Independent, Sky News, Jewish Chronicle, BBC News, CNN, Al Jazeera English, so you don't have to invent new personal standards for other editors in wikipedia to dictate deletion and cover up of notable army scandals.
I don't care what you wonder much, but personally I don't add "shocking military abuses" for Military of Pakistan or Military of Cambodia simply because I don't have any expertise or knowledge about those countries. However I do add for any human rights violation attempts by governments on armies I read by reliable sources recently or previously on any country yet mainly for Britain USA Israel Palestine which I have the most knowledge.
On the other hand when I add [3] Human Rights Watch report against Hamas noone objects
However when I add critical Human Rights Watch reports against IDF some POV parties try to remove reports by sugar coated and "policy based" systematical bias
Such attempts has gained some acceleration recently, by remove this remove that chanting, as my main area of expertise and interest of International Politics-conflict area articles are mainly israel-palestine ones, I can easily tell the Israeli sided editors has clear attempts on removal of reliable Israeli critical coverage from wikipedia, which I cannot tolerate by any means. Kasaalan (talk) 21:50, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Being of Pakistani decent, I have some knowledge and expertise on the abuses committed by its army; however, I couldn't honestly write such a section in a neutral manner. Having read through only a few dozen articles on the I/P conflict, I can see no systemic bias, but I do see clear pov pushing by people on both sides, with no attempt to maintain neutrality but instead an attempt to "win" by getting in information in or posting personal attacks on each other (this article, and this AfD are just on example). Outside editors with knowledge to contribute avoid the articles because anything they add will immediately label them "Israeli sided" or "Palestinian sided" by editors whose personal motivations cloud their objectivity. The lack of decorum demonstrated by editors on these topics, imo, is more of a systemic problem on wikipedia than any "conspiracy" to cover anything up. Fuzbaby (talk) 22:03, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
I know what neutrality is and what systematic bias is and I know what I am talking about.
Haaretz Publishes Border Police Abuse Israeli troops humiliate Palestinians - and put it on YouTube Dead Palestinian babies and bombed mosques - IDF fashion 2009 this is by Haaretz posted in Breaking the Silence (non-governmental organization) [Israeli sources] Israeli Border Police#Palestinian abuse controvery IDF human rights abuses are vast, and IDF is one of the leading human right abuser armies in the world along with USA, Britain and others. And I cannot tolerate any human rights abuse in the same manner by any party. Hamas human right violations also vast, however as a state army IDF should be held accordingly stressed.
On the other hand the case is not trivial by any means, and anyone claims the case is trivial should go and look to the dictionary definition for the word again.

According to the Chronicle Herald, soldiers wore the shirts to celebrate finishing basic training. It’s an interesting/repulsive example of dehumanizing the group defined as the enemy (they aren’t people, they’re “kills”), as well as how women’s reproductive capacity is often seen as a threat or potential weapon–by reproducing, women create more enemy soldiers. [4]

Ex-soldier and campaigner with Breaking The Silence, Michael Maniken, told Sky News Online this week’s revelations suggest a pattern of immoral conduct in the army. “The army keeps on saying we’re talking about a few rotten apples but it seems the army doesn’t understand there’s a norm in this kind of action,” he explained. “We’re hearing about this time and time again and the army seems disconnected from reality.”[5]

You may read more on the case if you like. [6] [7] Yet try not to belittle the case. Kasaalan (talk) 22:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Technical comment: For clarity, I have struck through the comments by the two sock puppets on this page. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 12:12, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Correct. Another suggestion for strikeouts on your talkpage here. -DePiep (talk) 15:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. I have no confidence that, if this article is deleted, the material will in fact be merged anywhere else. Any article it is added to, it will either be removed from, or repeatedly reduced as "undue," until it disappears entirely from the project. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 05:26, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Categorical deletion attempts for the article per IDF side claims
    • Previous keep by no consensus decision after AFD in 28 March 2009 [8]
    • Removal of article into redirect without consensus or any discussion that I reversed 26 June 2009 [9]
    • A big trim after redirecting the article page [10] into a paragraph within IDF article [11] 26 June 2009, while 5 references by 3 parties at that time [Haaretz, Independent and Sky News], trimmed to 3 references by 2 parties [Haaretz and Independent], article currently uses 8 refences
    • AFD request per "non notability" and various other wrong claims 1 June 2009 [12]

"The conspicuously non-notable article is about an extremely minor and very brief media flurry about a group of young soldiers who printed up T-shirts that were in execrably bad taste and wore them while off-duty"

"The conspicuously non-notable [ WP:notable by various international reliable 3rd party news sources] article is about an extremely minor [major international news sources Haaretz, The Independent, Sky News, CNN, Al Jazeera English were available at AFD nomination date [13], while The Observer, Jewish Chronicle, BBC News added during AFD] and very brief [not brief by any means] media flurry [respectable news and criticism for a serious human rights abuse which contains "dehumanisation"] about a group of young soldiers [who are heavily armed and trained to kill in war, including snipers and air bombardment personnel] who printed up T-shirts [pays for vulgar T-shirts that depicts illegal acts including murdering of civilians and rape of "enemy"] that were in execrably bad taste [depicting illegal acts cannot be tolerated just by bad taste] and wore them while off-duty [didn't they also wear as a graduation ceremony in military area]"

    • A clear repeated misuse of WP:NOTNEWS during AFD, which actually refers tabloid news, not serious human rights abuse or attempts per dehumanisation.
    • Categorical trimming attempt of the article into nothing, and early blocking for article improvement about a recent case, per IDF sided claims.
  • However do not forget the party which reveals this scandal is also another Israeli newspaper Haaretz in the first place, and it has various coverage internationally, so this is not about being against or pro Israeli, but directly related to IDF cover up. Jewish human rights organizations in the field and some Jewish newspapers accomplishes highly respectable works, and neutral research about human rights abuse of both Hamas and IDF, therefore their works are credible internationally. Kasaalan (talk) 07:44, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
    • OK, if I can follow the various arguments you've presented here (Apologies, I'm having some trouble following parts of it), I'd like to bring up part of the general notability guidelines you suggested. "However, Wikipedia is not a news source: it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute sufficient evidence of notability". The nature of wiki guidelines is that interpretation is required and accusing other users of 'misusing' things or absolute wrongs is perhaps not great. Taking block quotes of other peoples texts and inserting your own comments is also fairly passive aggressive and poor form. --Narson ~ Talk • 21:11, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep This article seems to me a clear keep given the coverage it has had and the interest it has aroused. Deleting would seem to me to be to be pushing a point of view and removing useful information for our Encyclopedia's users. The articles existance I can see might be viewed as pushing a point of view but the articles tone seems to me to avoid that. The affair is now very well known in both Palestinian and Israelis circles. On the one side it is viewed as showing something important about the culture of some those involved in the conflict and on the other side about how any story no matter how apparently trival is blown out of proportion by those wishing to criticise the protagonists. Whichever side one takes the event is well known and in my view the article is worth keeping rather than deleting. (Msrasnw (talk) 17:33, 4 July 2009 (UTC))
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 redirect to Second Battle of the Odon. Merge new information to Second Battle of the Odon and keep redirect (non-admin closure) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:21, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Operation Pomegranate

Operation Pomegranate (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article is redundant and i am requesting it to deleted.

Operation Pomegranate was one of two operations launched that were later dubbed the Second Battle of the Odon, the latter article has only recently been set up and contains far more detail on Pomegranate than this article does.

Hardly anyone has edited this article and the hit counters available show that this article is being visited less than 100 times a month, this month less than 50 whereas the Odon article is being visited in the hundreds.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:05, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

  • merge and redirect per your suggestion in May. The correct way to go about this is to tag the articles with {{merge-to}} and {{merge-from}} rather than to nominate one for deletion, especially as the title you wish to delete is a very useful redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 22:49, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect TomStar81 (Talk) 23:06, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge as other have said. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:33, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
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.

[edit] Military Proposed deletions

[edit] Military-related Images and media for Deletion

The following military-related IfD's are currently open for discussion:

[edit] Military-related Miscellany for deletion

The following military-related MfD's are currently open for discussion: None at present


[edit] Military-related Templates for Deletion

The following military-related TfD's are currently open for discussion: None at present

[edit] Military-related Categories for Discussion

[edit] Military-related Deletion Review

The following military-related Deletion reviews are currently open for discussion:

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Military"
Personal tools
Visit joltnews for the latest headlines
Visit bloit.com for company information
Geed Media does computer consulting on long island.
This page viewed times. See Logs