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

Use of human shields by Hamas

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

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Use of human shields by Hamas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Military, Israel, and Palestine. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:21, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
• Keep - I strongly oppose this proposal. This piece is factual, well sourced and balanced. Dovidroth (talk) 09:42, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

• Looking at the extensive content that is present in Human shield, I'm sympathetic to the argument that the content can be instead presented at Use of human shields in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. After all, the same group of people (Palestinians) are being used as human shields in the same conflict. If not, perhaps there should be another article Use of human shields by Israel, wonder if editors will have the same opinion then. starship.paint (RUN) 10:05, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
• Rename to Use of human shields in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. There is much to talk about and notable enough. Yet, considering the presence of other militant groups apart from Hamas that also participate(d) in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, I would propose renaming it to the aforementioned title. 𝕎.𝔾.𝕁. ^{(chat | contribs)} 10:18, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
• Keep for the following reasons:
  • Topic clearly meets WP:GNG due to wide and persistent coverage by WP:RS.
  • This is a WP:SPINOFF of Human shield and not a WP:POVFORK . I advise participants to read that policy carefully and see that it is not applicable. This page cannot be a WP:POVFORK since by definition, a POV fork requires the existence of another article on exactly the same topic, however, there is no such article. Article splits are permissible when written from a neutral point of view.
  • This is no different than hundreds other pages such as, for example, Palestinian political violence which scope does not cover also Israeli political violence. Marokwitz (talk) 10:29, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
• Note: Recently, a new tree-based reorganization of all articles in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict space has been proposed by User:Levivich here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genocide against Palestinians, this is an idea worth considering. Marokwitz (talk) 10:29, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

• Rename - The article meets WP:GNG and is well sourced. The subject has significant in-depth coverage on the use of human shields in this war in particular, though I do think there should be more weight to criticisms of the accusations, the accusations are attributed. As mentioned by Marokwitz, the article can't be a WP:POVFORK due to there only being a section in another article on the topic, not a stand-alone article. I agree that the article should be renamed to Use of human shields in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, or Accusations of use of human shields in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict commemorative (talk) 11:59, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

keep Topic appears to meet required need to create its own article, since this topic has been the extensive topic of international contentions regarding Hamas as well as a central tenant in the criticism toward Hamas. Furthermore, it appears that there is a lot of extensive research and media reports on the subject. Therefore there should be an independent article on the subject. meets WP:GNG, use of reliable sources vital and important.

Also per @Marokwitz This page cannot be a WP:POVFORK since by definition Homerethegreat (talk) 14:32, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

@Homerethegreat: - I am puzzled, you very recently [1] proposed moving Palestinian genocide accusation → Genocide allegations in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, as in your words, both Israeli and Palestinian sources frequently accuse each other of genocide or genocidal intention ... to gain objectivity ... Neutrality (NPOV) will be better served by such an article. Here, we have accusations of human shield usage from both Israeli and Palestinian sources (see content at Human shield#Israeli–Palestinian conflict), so by your logic, to gain objectivity, shouldn't neutrality be better served by an article like Use of human shields in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? starship.paint (RUN) 15:12, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Question to you: In your opinion, should we rename Comparisons between Israel and Nazi Germany to Comparisons to Nazism in the Israeli Palestinian conflict and Israeli settler violence to Violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? This is in line with the suggestion that I mentioned above, by @Levivich . If the consensus here is to consistently apply the same idea across all articles in the I/P conflict space then it would be something I'd support. Marokwitz (talk) 19:37, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

• Keep per Marokwitz. Impeccably and widely sourced. \\ Loksmythe // (talk) 16:06, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
• Rename to Use of human shields in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The only purpose of this page is to justify the ongoing genocide, by implying that the victims were "human shields" and therefore legitimate targets. —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 17:29, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

  Calling "genocide" on a war against a de facto state which has the explicit public goal of genocide and which just actually invaded Israel and murdered over a thousand people with the explicit public motive of genocide, is inflammatory. And it's unwarranted to claim that accusing Gaza of using human shields somehow means human shields become targets. JM (talk) 18:40, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

  The above !vote in this AFD discussion appears to contravene Wikipedia's core guidelines on assuming good faith. In line with Wikipedia's deletion policies, !votes in deletion discussions should be based on policy and content considerations, not on perceptions of a contributor's motives. Therefore, it is recommended that this particular !vote be set aside in evaluating the consensus. Marokwitz (talk) 19:24, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

  This page was created just as the IDF was starting to invade al-Shifa Hospital. It's a bit sus. —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 19:37, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

  Your WP:ASPERSIONS are noted. \\ Loksmythe // (talk) 19:40, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

  I struck it, it didn't contribute much to the conversation anyway. —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 19:48, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

  agreed JM (talk) 19:57, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

• Strong keep, per Markowitz and numerous sources. François Robere (talk) 17:37, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
• Keep while noting that consideration should be given to the creation of an equivalent Use of human shields by Israel by engaging in the same copy paste routine that was used to create this article. Selfstudier (talk) 17:54, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
• Keep; well-sourced and balanced article about a notable subject. Jweiss11 (talk) 17:55, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
• Keep per above; a WP:SPINOFF and not a WP:POVFORK. The community decided to keep the Nakba denial article after it was challenged as a POV fork because it was a Wikivoice criticism of a criticism of a narrative (WP:CRIT and WP:POVFORK), so an article which covers one of various war crimes by one de facto state per WP:SPINOFF is definitely fine, its not like it would be the only example. Also note that the deletion proposer here is the same one who created/significantly expanded the Nakba denial article in question, and defended it constantly in its deletion nomination; not a personal attack, just making the point that the user should be aware that if the same standards apply then this article must be kept. JM (talk) 18:36, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

• Rename to Use of human shields in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, this currently comes across as a WP:POVFORK. Occidental𓍝Phantasmagoria [ User ] [ Talk ] [ Contributions ] 18:46, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

• Keep Useful article and meets all of the criteria for existence as a separate article. Addressing the reason given for the AFD, this is not a POVfork from the noted very general article. It is a more specific article on a vvery wp:notable topic. North8000 (talk) 18:56, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 20:57, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

• Keep per North8000. Balanced, sourced, factual article about a notable subject. Justanotherguy54 (talk) 20:57, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
  • How is it balanced when it ignores Israel's history of using human shields?VR _talk 21:00, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
• This article is definitely a POVFORK that ignored the consensus established at Talk:Human_shield#Fork_out_the_Israeli-Palestinian_conflict, for an article on Use of human shields in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It should be rescoped to cover human shields in the whole I-P conflict by all actors.VR _talk 21:00, 16 November 2023 (UTC)