Meta:Requests for deletion

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
(Redirected from Requests for deletion)
Shortcut:
WM:RFD
This page hosts local (i.e., Meta-Wiki) requests for page deletion. For requests for speedy deletion from global sysops or stewards, see Steward requests/Miscellaneous. Any language may be used on this page. Before commenting on this page, please read the deletion policy, in particular the criteria for speedy deletion, and the inclusion policy. Please place the template {{RFD}} on the page you are proposing for deletion, and then add an entry in an appropriate section below. As a courtesy, you may wish to inform the principal authors of the page about the request. After at least one week, an administrator will close and carry out the consensus or majority decision.

Articles that qualify for speedy deletion should be tagged with {{delete}} or {{delete|reason}}, and should not be listed here. (See also speedy deletion candidates.) Files with no sources should be tagged with {{no source}} and need not be listed here, either. To request undeletion, see #Requests for undeletion. See Meta:Inclusion policy for a general list of what does not belong on the Meta-Wiki.

Previous requests are archived. Deletion requests ({{Deletion requests}}) can be added to talk page to remember previous RfDs.

Wikimedia Meta-Wiki

Participate:

SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 1 day.

Pages[edit]

Submit your page deletion request at the bottom of this section.

Special:PrefixIndex/Translations:Access_to_nonpublic_personal_data_policy-summary[edit]

The page "Access to nonpublic personal data policy-summary/" has moved to the Foundation website, and we have all these unattached translations that people still are editing, which is valueless. Probably time for a cleanout, unless someone can think of a reason not to do so.  — billinghurst sDrewth 04:22, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See list

Research:Research_Community_Vision_and_Strategy[edit]

This page is outdated and is no longer relevant. We are moving all content which is under the WMF Research Team to MediaWiki (WMF Research) and leaving anything that is community-led here on Meta. --KGordon (WMF) (talk) 14:05, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joint Statement on Palestine[edit]

Discussion open until at least 18 April 2024 (UTC)
Beyond the fact that it is not the place of Wikimedians to take sides in armed conflicts, this open letter identifies with the Palestinian cause regarding matters within Israel. This partisanship is devisive slacktivism and should not be present within Wikimedia's servers. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:02, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Keep There have been several open letters written by members of the Wikimedia Movement, pertaining to the Movement, hosted on Meta in the past. This statement does talk about specific actions that members of our Movement would like to see from the Foundation and is not trying to request or mandate things of organisations outside the Movement (for example, it is not asking any actions of any government or NGO). If the Foundation feels this matter is ultra vires for Meta, then they can take Office actions to remove the page and they can contact the editors there to discuss it further. I don't think this is a matter that needs to be addressed by the community on RfD — OwenBlacker (Talk; he/him) 18:13, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keep It's important to have space for open letters from members within the Wikimedia Movement. --Kiraface (talk) 18:21, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keep Deleting such a document goes against the democratic spirit of the Wikimedia community. Free knowledge is an agenda in the fight for democracy and it is even expected that organizations and movements with a social impact like ours take a stand on global issues like these. XenoF (talk) 19:47, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keep A request for deletion of a statement of this kind shouldn't take place in a democratic movement. If you disagree you can discuss the topic, but to just plainly ask that these words do not exist on our servers is against the spirit and values of this movement.Señoritaleona (talk) 20:14, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keep This open letter not only makes demands of our community and the Foundation, it serves as an opportunity for Wikimedians with shared values to connect and further strategize; it's unifying rather than divisive and is more aligned with the positive connotations of "slacktivism" than it is with the negative ones. Nyeboah (talk) 21:21, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keep the Wikimedia Foundation and Wikipedia in general has taken a position on the Russo-Ukrainian war in favor of Ukraine countless times. So, Wikimedians can take sides in armed conflicts. D.S. Lioness (talk) 01:13, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keep Wikimedia has always shown direct support for Ukraine and Israel and recently had issues regarding how to brand what Israel was doing to palestinian people on enwiki and commons which actually disgusted me (refusal to call the Al-Rashid massacre just that but instead pushing for it to be called an "incident" was downright insulting to over 118+ lives lost that day). We are no longer a neutral site cause even today i saw people from Israel wiki (hebrew wiki) push their propaganda on commons and enwiki, if we can no longer be neutral, atleast we should act like we are.--Stemoc 03:44, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely Keep Keep. It is what Wikipedia is for after all, an open source of unbiased information. -Filipinayzd (talk) 10:32, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keep one has the right not to agree with this statement (and personally, I don't fully agree with some of its sentences) but I see no reason to delete this statement. Cheers, VIGNERON * discut. 16:16, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Remove While I agree with the content, Wikipedia should not engage in political advocacy, it undermines Wikipedia's neutrality. Levivich (talk) 16:58, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, this is not Wikipedia. Luisalvaz (talk) 18:14, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Remove I don't want Wikimedia to become another forum or social network. Wikimedia should not become a a battleground or a forum to promote our own political or religious ideas, or any kind of advocacy or propaganda of any kind that does not strictly relate to our objectives. I sympathize with many causes, but I don't express my ideas on Wikimedia pages; rather, I use social media or spaces for social or political activism that are meant for that purpose. The goal of Wikimedia is to advocate for free knowledge, to collect and develop educational content under free licenses or public domain, and to effectively disseminate it globally, not to express our opinions on any conflict. We should only express opinions when our projects are at stake, for example, when Wikipedia is censored in some regions.--Jalu (talk) 17:20, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Remove Since when has Wikipedia politalized? Lilijuros (talk) 18:27, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
comment I am not at liberty to vote on this RFD, but I have updated my candidate page here -- Sleyece (talk) 18:36, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Remove This statement completely violates Wikimedia Foundation charter and NPOV policy. Moreover, it is one-sided, completely ignoring Hamas' massacre of October 7th 2023 and the kidnapping of innocent people to Gaza, and depicts a distorted version of reality. MathKnight (talk) 18:41, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
History does not begin on October 7th. If you have read your Torah, you should know that God has created the world and human civilization a long, long time ago. Interaccoonale (talk) 16:22, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Whatever the precedents elsewhere, Wikipedia should not be pulled left or right, pro or contra. I find this kind of thing - an attempt to identify an encyclopedia with a political statement - deeply disturbing, indeed somewhat shocking. And I state that even more firmly as an editor closely associated with working in the I/P area, basically curating Palestinian perspectives. Our remit here is to master the history and scholarship, and ensure that articles are written NPOV to that end. Political statements are facile: actually doing something to achieve informative coverage on a conflict is hard work. That is where editors must commit themselves, not to flagwaving. Horrible. I'm not neutral, but wikipedia is not about righting great wrongs (as opposed to giving detailed information about the history enabling readers to form their own opinions regarding the merits or otherwise of those perceived wrongs and the preceived 'justice' of those who claim that they are not wrongs, for example)(User:Nishidani) — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nishidani (talk) 19:05, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keep Please re-read the quote contained in the statement: "If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor". When 30,000+ innocent people are killed, neutrality becomes complicity. Silence becomes harm. Speaking up becomes a duty. This statement will not be censored. Mushroom (talk) 19:04, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Remove, per Kim Bruning arguments; arguments 1,4,6 would hold even if the statement authors had try just to express concern on human life loss while staying objective and not bringing specific agenda - which they clearly didn't, thus enabling also arguments 2,3,5 Шуфель (talk) 23:51, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Off-topic discussion. – Ajraddatz (talk) 21:18, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
About one-third to half of those 30,000 Palestinians killed were members of Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad and other militia/terror-groups and NOT innocent civilians. This is why the statement is factually false and distorted. MathKnight (talk) 19:41, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to believe that it's moral and justified to indiscriminately bomb and murder innocent civilians because (supposedly) some bad people are hiding among them, feel free to do so. I am equally free to express my disagreement. Mushroom (talk) 20:45, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can't preach about morality when you deny and refuse to condemn Hamas atrocities. On October 7th Hamas massacred 1000 innocent people, raped women, burned babies in front of their mothers, and kidnapped civilians into the Gaza Strip. This one-sided statement fails to condemn it and implicitly supports Hamas ' atrocities. This one-sided distorted and factually false statement should be speedily deleted. Wikimedia Foundation should not endorse hatred. MathKnight (talk) 15:20, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It does not, in any way, endorse Hamas. But I guess everyone in Gaza’s a terrorist in Israel’s eyes. Dronebogus (talk) 11:11, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even if we believe this ‘math’ from MathKnight, that still means that a qualified majority (more than two thirds) of the deaths were civilians. I don’t see how the presence of an alleged ‘one third’ justifies the mass killings of the two thirds. stjn[ru] 13:37, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If Wikipedia existed during WWII, would it have stayed silent when the Holocaust was being perpetrated?! Being an encyclopedia does not mean staying neutral when atrocities are being committed. Keep Keep! عمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 19:23, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If Wikipedia existed during WWII, this statement is the equivalent of denouncing The Allies for bombing Germany while refusing to denounce Nazi Germany. MathKnight (talk) 15:20, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, it’d be like saying “we condemn the US government’s violent policies against Indians” in the 19th century, and then US settlers said “but why don’t you condemn the massacres of Americans by the Indians?” The answer is of course that Native Americans did commit what would be considered war crimes by modern standards, but in retrospective analysis has since put that in a framework of complete genocide by the United States. Dronebogus (talk) 11:06, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keep there is no neutrality when it comes to human values. I don't think this will be brought up against the situation in Ukraine, or older conflicts in Europe. Besides this doesn't apply to what is considered Not acceptable--باسم (talk) 19:20, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keep I don't know how the page violates wikimedia policies. I trust no one can prove that. I've said before in a discussion: "the solidarity with human rights in safe life and other rights mentioned in UDHR isn't a violation of the neutral point of view" and I still hold this conviction. Ahmed Naji Talk 19:45, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Remove -- calling the crisis "Israel-created" as opposed to "Hamas-created" is disinformation; it's telling that not a single word could be spared to condemn the 10/7 attack by Hamas that threatened the lives of Israeli Wikimedians; nor is there any mention of the hostages still being held. Everyone involved with the publication of this should be ashamed of themselves. SWATJester Son of the Defender 20:04, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A more appropriate form will be Hamas-created Israel-intensified, so I see the current iteration as purely political statement that tries to shift blame on one party - i.e. the intention seems not to address the situation but to assign blame on the initial victim.
But yeah this is still technically in scope, so it should be kept. 1233 T / C 03:05, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One need not qualify a statement against genocide with condemnations of the perpetrator's adversaries. AP295 (talk) 11:46, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keep If you disagree with this you are welcome to not sign it, or start your own competing open letter. Meta-Wiki is not censored. * Pppery * it has begun 20:06, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keep Since we are a global movement with a core principle based on community, free knowledge, participation and the recognition the value of all the individuals in the world, I think the correct answer is peace. Although not everyone is on the same page, the majority of people in the movement are against the occupation, the massacre and the destruction of a culture (including universities, temples and all kinds of culture heritage). --Luisalvaz (talk) 20:35, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keep I can't understand why some insist on deleting this statemen.. Do they want to wait for killing more innocent Palestinians while the world turns a blind eye? Freedom's Falcon (talk) 20:55, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keep This page falls within the scope of Meta Wiki. The rationale behind the deletion nomination is that the page does not adhere to the principle of Neutral point of view. As outlined in Meta:What Meta is not, '"Meta is not written from a neutral point of view. It concerns the entire Wikimedia community, and often contains the opinions of specific users,'" thereby invalidating the sole basis for the proposed deletion. Additionally, Meta:What Meta is not states, "Meta is not an encyclopedia, and does not collect encyclopedic information." Thus, referencing Wikipedia and its NPOV policy in the deletion discussion of a page on Meta Wiki is not relevant. Moreover, I observe a potential case of canvassing; although I do not understand the language, Google Translate outputs led me to this suspicion. -- BIDROHI Hello.. 21:00, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keep The page does not pretend to be an encyclopedia article but presents itself as the position of a group of Wikimedia organisations and Wikimedians. Over the history of the Wikimedia movement, the movement as a whole or groups within it have taken political positions; this is compatible with neutrality of project content and in some cases it is demanded by our cause of free and open knowledge. This wiki is not a content project and is a suitable venue for users to express opinions about the effect of events such as wars on our mission. MartinPoulter (talk) 21:26, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Remove Wikipedia should not engage in political advocacy, it undermines Wikipedia's neutrality. שמיה רבה (talk) 22:21, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is meta.wikimedia; it's not Wikipedia -- Sleyece (talk) 11:40, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keep Per OwenBlacker, and we are a democratic community, and it's important to have space for open letters.--Faisal talk 01:26, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Remove Although I agree with much of the sentiment in the letter, and can respect the wishes of components of the Wikimedia empire to express opinions on political or social issues, it is not the purpose of Wikimedia as a whole. Zero0000 (talk) 02:34, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, you voted remove while making an argument for keep. -- Sleyece (talk) 11:37, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Remove Even when most of us can agree with the fact that what's happening in Gaza is horrifying, speaking about it in terms of "oppressor/oppressed" is an oversimplification of the issue and lacks the rigor Wikipedia should have. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Foránea (talk) 04:33, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not Wikipedia, and thousands of people massacred is not an oversimplification. Luisalvaz (talk) 17:46, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Israel is running an apartheid state and is now committing genocide. This is "oppressor/oppressed", plain and simple. Dronebogus (talk) 11:17, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keep. This concerns Wikimedia communities and editors, some of whom have already been killed by this siege. Wikimedia has a responsibility to at least ensure the safety of volunteers. Why would anyone oppose this? -—M@sssly 04:44, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keep, wikipedia must stand for against any kind of injustice always. Bengali editor (talk) 06:05, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is wikimedia, not wikipedia. -- Sleyece (talk) 11:41, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keep Many objections to the page's existence seem to think we're on Wikipedia right now. Not to mention that the desire to delete the page on the grounds of it being unnecessarily political is as inherently political as its creation. Battleofalma (talk) 10:15, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keep justice! Why would anyone oppose this? 🌴Zulf talk 11:31, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keep there is no hard rule that says Wikimedians cannot publish political statements. English Wikipedia doesn’t rule Wikimedia; in fact it’s closer to the opposite. I don’t like to wade too much into the political meta-argument over this deletion but this coming on the heels of an unsubtle attempt to prevent ArWiki from condemning the war in Gaza sure seems like an attempt to enforce the West’s anti-Palestinian taboo on Wikimedia. Should Wikimedia not allow advocacy? Maybe, maybe not. But as long as there’s a lopsided focus on censoring pro-Palestinian advocacy I’ll vote against every one of these campaigns. Dronebogus (talk) 12:07, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Remove Extremely one-sided statement which completely ignores atrocities which has been done by the other side and, above all, violates any NPOV policy that was determined by the foundation. TheStriker (talk) 14:34, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
are there any special rules? 🌴Zulf talk 15:39, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This statement is not on behalf of the foundation, but the community (which is independent). There are not NPOV policies that limits our freedom of speech as volunteers and affiliates. Luisalvaz (talk) 17:43, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keep petrohs (gracias) 14:43, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
Remove Remove Partisan and unobjective. SigTif (talk) 18:07, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keep and move to Joint statement by Wikimedia organizations and individuals regarding the ongoing situation in Palestine, 7 April 2024. It is about the Wikimedia project, after all, but the page title is somewhat misleading. --魔琴 (talk) 19:05, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds fine Dronebogus (talk) 11:23, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Support the page title should be changed. I also support keeping the page, of course. Le Loy (talk) 22:56, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keep أمين (talk) 21:17, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keep Celinea33 (talk) 22:02, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keep Absolutely bogus to believe this page is "one-sided". There is nothing "one-sided" about advocating for an ethnic group currently being starved to death and unjustly massacred. Lastly, there is no mention or support for Hamas anywhere on the page. This isn't a case of politics, this is a case of humanity. EDIT: Further explanation regarding why this page should kept in accordance wtih Meta policies: "On the topic of politics, I would like to point (to the judging admin) that if we have pages related to political issues, such as Black Lives Matter (which failed an RFD, thankfully), we surely can keep this page as well. One could also argue, based on the Meta:Inclusion policy, that the page in question falls under "documentation and discussion concerning the Wikimedia Foundation and its projects". A Wikimedia member from Gaza even commented on the talk page of the joint statement, detailing their struggles as a Wikimedian living under the brutal conditions Israel has imposed. A lot of the opposing comments seem to be jarred at "Wikimedia not being political", failing to consider other political pages on Meta (as mentioned above, and including 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine). A lot of them are raising clearly political points, completely ignoring the very real humanitarian crisis going on in Gaza. I wanted to dwell more on my comment rather than just letting it be almost entirely subjective, and I was glad to have found some time to relate to Meta's policies." —Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 23:57, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Off-topic discussion. – Ajraddatz (talk) 21:18, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed it's a matter of humanity and I agree with your points, but it is also a matter of politics. There's no reason one should avoid political discourse in the first place. Correct me if I'm wrong, but WP:NPOV only states that wikipedia articles must be objective and fair. Do not confuse objectivity with political or moral quietism/apathy. If anything, healthy political discourse might have prevented this sad state of affairs. AP295 (talk) 09:49, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply, AP295. On the topic of politics, I would like to point (to the judging admin) that if we have pages related to political issues, such as Black Lives Matter (which failed an RFD, thankfully), we surely can keep this page as well. One could also argue, based on the Meta:Inclusion policy, that the page in question falls under "documentation and discussion concerning the Wikimedia Foundation and its projects". A Wikimedia member from Gaza even commented on the talk page of the joint statement, detailing their struggles as a Wikimedian living under the brutal conditions Israel has imposed. A lot of the opposing comments seem to be jarred at "Wikimedia not being political", failing to consider other political pages on Meta (as mentioned above, and including 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine). A lot of them are raising clearly political points, completely ignoring the very real humanitarian crisis going on in Gaza. I wanted to dwell more on my comment rather than just letting it be almost entirely subjective, and I was glad to have found some time to relate to Meta's policies. —Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 13:44, 17 April 2024 (UTC) (moved above so my comment can be easily read)[reply]
The response to the invasion of Ukraine seems very constructive! I'm not opposed to taking stances or helping innocent people or taking action in general, so long as it's constructive and positive and helpful. Kim Bruning (talk) 14:21, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is the difference between Ukraine and Palestine besides the fact that it’s politically correct to support the former? Dronebogus (talk) 14:31, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mourn deeply for all those who perished in the war, extending my sorrow not only to the Arab communities of Gaza and the West Bank but also to the innocent Jewish victims of Palestinian terrorism. Do you perceive the flaw in the Statement? It selectively portrays one facet of the tragedy, advancing the agenda of Hamas. Hence, I denounce it as nothing short of propaganda. This oversimplified narrative reduces a multifaceted issue to stark contrasts, casting Israel and the Jewish people as sole "oppressors" while perpetuating the portrayal of Palestinians as perpetual "victims". However, the world is far more nuanced than this.
It becomes abundantly clear from this RFD discussion that such a Statement only harms the Wikimedia Movement, fuelling anti-Semitism and dividing communities. Aisha8787 (talk) 11:07, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keep Meta is not written from a neutral point of view. It is not an encyclopedia or other educational resource, and hence, has no need for NPOV. Wikimedians should be free to express their opinions on Meta, unless those opinions are pure vandalism or spam. Justarandomamerican (talk) 22:38, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Remove It is a political message that has nothing to do with the goals of the Wikimedia Foundation. Leaving the message makes Wikimedia a political entity. דוד שי (talk) 23:45, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Remove Estyxxxx (talk) 23:59, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Remove This is not twitter.
Ex ex (talk) 00:32, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove RemoveIt has nothing to do with Wikimedia Foundation. שמש מרפא (talk) 00:58, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Remove This statement has been replaced by Talk:Joint_Statement_on_Palestine#What_WMF_should_do? which is being deseminated on the mailing list and asking people to come here and sign. 27.32.205.146 02:08, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keep Mystrixo (talk) 04:21, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Remove Utterly one-sided in favor of the aggressor, failing to acknowledge their responsibility for executing the deadliest single-day attack in the history of this conflict.
While the diversity of perspectives in Wikimedia is valued, the inclusion of such a statement could risk politicizing this platform and alienating individuals who hold differing viewpoints. Wikimedia's primary focus should remain on providing neutral and reliable information, and endorsing one side of a complex geopolitical issue may compromise its reputation for impartiality. YedidyaPopper (talk) 05:10, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop distorting facts. The aggressor is your country. Interaccoonale (talk) 16:36, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve said it before and will say it again: arguing with an Israeli about Palestine is like arguing with a Turkish person about the Armenian Genocide. Dronebogus (talk) 01:00, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Remove העיתונאי המנטר (talk) 08:26, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Remove דגן דיגן (talk) 10:03, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Remove It is a political message that has nothing to do with the goals of the Wikimedia Foundation. Wikimedia is not Twitter. בן עדריאל (talk) 10:05, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Remove It is a political message which should not be mentioned in Wikimedia. ykantor 12:47, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keep Editors and communities on Wikimedia are affected by this, as some have already perished as a result of the siege. At the very least, it is the duty of Wikipedia to protect its volunteers. Why would someone be against this?. SIR SUCCESS (NAA JAHINFO) (talk) 13:50, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keep دعما لمن لا علاقة له بالحرب. أبو هشام (talk) 14:27, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keep - MartinPoulter sums up my thoughts well. There is no evidence the user groups are speaking on behalf of Wikimedia. However, I think the title could be adjusted to make this clear. Leaderboard (talk) 14:31, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Remove אייל (talk) 14:40, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Remove - clearly political and subjective. I would expect it to call on Hamas to release the kidnapped and surrender, not de-facto blame Israel, but that's my political opinion and it too should not appear in a joint statement. DGtal (talk) 07:47, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Remove Not our scope. --Krd 08:02, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Comment an outsize number of “delete” voters are clearly Israeli, either explicitly or implicitly (no other country speaks Hebrew). Many of those same users have barely or never used Meta before. It’s entirely possible there’s nationalistically-motivated canvassing going on here. Dronebogus (talk) 10:02, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There is clearly canvassing going on on both sides here (or at least those who have been shown to the page see the deletion discussion link at the top). Comments from Meta-Wiki regulars, and those commenting as to how the page fits or does not fit in the Meta:Inclusion policy will be more heavily weighted than the others. – Ajraddatz (talk) 15:47, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    ...Except on one side, there is an overt call to members of the Hebrew Wikipedia from someone who had never edited on that Wikipedia to urgently come and comment on this RfD. The eyesore of a banner on top (which won't be missed when it's gone) is an invitation to all, and can hardly be equated with canvassing. I agree that "on both sides" there are people who are for/against the statement itself, which is not what this RfD is about, and I trust the closing admin will be able to judge which of the arguments have merit and which are mere "voting" on the statement. In fact if this were a popular vote, I would argue that all the individuals who've signed the statement should count towards "keep". In any case, it would set a dangerous precedent if a page on Meta is deleted because someone doesn't like or agree with its content. Fjmustak (talk) 18:26, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would suggest focusing on the merits of arguments, not on who made them. This is a cross-Wiki policy (Enwiki users probably are familiar with it as en:WP:AVOIDYOU), although apparently it has not found its way into Meta pages. Deinocheirus (talk) 16:35, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In fact, on this very page some users are already engaging in personal attacks on others. And these attacks are not coming from people who have supposedly been called here to vote "remove". --Deinocheirus (talk) 17:33, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    People who actually edit Metawiki frequently, who have actual arguments, have a right to be annoyed and maybe a bit less-than-polite with a bunch of people who never edited this wiki in their life showing up in a coordinated mass-vote with little or no case to delete. Dronebogus (talk) 16:20, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keep It doesn't violate wikimedia policies.--Dr-Taher (talk) 20:13, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keep I don't find a reason on how the page does not fit under our scope. Its name does appear problematic as noted by 魔琴 and a rename to a suitable new title should work, for instance, Collective Letter from Wikimedia movement groups and individuals about ongoing situation in Palestine concerning Palestinian Wikimedia community, date perhaps?. Neutral point of view is not an issue here because Meta is not an encyclopedia nor is this an encyclopedic article. It hasn't been portrayed as a statement by anyone else not signing it. If someone doesn't agree, a simple solution would be not to sign it. Getting it deleting for mere disagreement is not a policy-centered idea. None of the delete voters have so far provided an argument on how this page fails the scope and inclusion policy of Meta-Wiki. I'd be glad to change my vote if there comes a policy-centered argument about how exacly the page fails and why explictly it should be deleted. I mean not just: "I don't like it", "Out of scope", "fails this policy". Exactly how and why? Best regards, ─ Aafī (talk) 21:00, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Remove per above. Neriah - 💬 - 22:30, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keep It's for a good cause. Some parts are rather non-specific and should probably be made clearer, but I get the gist of it. As others have pointed out, NPOV only applies to wikipedia articles. To say that everyone must remain apolitical at all times on any wikimedia site is nonsense, and would essentially amount to political censorship. The word "neutral" is being applied as euphemism to conflate objectivity and political quietism. AP295 (talk) 09:19, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is the rationale to say that this is for a good cause?
Many people here don't agree that this is for a good cause. BilboBeggins (talk) 13:25, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So Israel murdering civilians is a good cause? Dronebogus (talk) 13:29, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Israel is accused of genocide in the world court. AP295 (talk) 12:22, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keep It doesn't violate wikimedia policies. Batoul84 (talk) 10:02, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keep. A statement of solidarity with peaceful civilians, including Wikipedians who have died in the conflict, does not violate any Meta rules or Wikimedia-wide policies. stjn[ru] 13:29, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Remove There is essay WP:Nothere which sums up why this should not be here and should be removed. BilboBeggins (talk) 17:58, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Essays aren't policy. AP295 (talk) 18:34, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia policies hold no bearing on Meta-Wiki. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs) 00:20, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Remove ארז האורז (talk) 07:28, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keep, it is clearly ok to make a humanitarian statement, no reason to censor it. Wikisaurus (talk) 08:06, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Remove per בן עדריאל. --Всезнайка (talk) 10:57, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Remove. Wikimedia projects shouldn't be exploited for spreading propaganda or advancing the agendas of terrorist organisations. The Statement bears a striking resemblance to a PR ploy by Hamas: they initiated the conflict with heinous acts like murders, kidnappings, and even rapes ("rapesistance"?), yet shamelessly shift blame onto Israel. They callously employ innocent children as shields, hiding behind them whilst evading accountability. Additionally, they manipulate casualty numbers to fit their narrative. As Mosab Hassan Yousef, son of Sheikh Hassan Yousef, rightly said, "You only speak on the authority of Hamas propaganda, because if you were a decent human being, you can say that the thousands that were killed on October 7 that it was a crime against humanity, it was a genocide!" We cannot turn a blind eye to the severe human rights abuses and war crimes committed by Hamas, Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades, Islamic Jihad, al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades, and other Palestinian terrorist groups. Let's ensure that the Wikimedia Movement steadfastly upholds neutrality, accuracy, and champions peace, truth, and justice. Free Palestine (from Hamas)! Aisha8787 (talk) 11:57, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Israel and its proxies can claim genocide all they want but that means nothing when they’re routinely talking of ethnically cleansing Palestinians out of “their” territory. Dronebogus (talk) 13:23, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Remove I don't want to be mean, but this seems to be the wrong place for this particular approach. 1. Explicitly rejects Foundation issues: ("If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor."); 2. attacks/lays blame at feet of one party, ("ongoing Israel-created humanitarian crisis") thus arguably falling afoul of Inclusion policy on no dedicated attack pages; 3. Obviously DOES advocate, which would be ok, but it doesn't fit in with other essays here, since it's not really advocating for just actions actionable by wikimedia (eg. ("demand an immediate and lasting ceasefire"); . 4. It's WP:NOTHERE to build an Encyclopedia, Dictionary, Multimedia Repository, etc; 5. It's divisive to/for/between the communities in the current form. 6. Overall very little seems actionable by the foundation or the diverse wikimedia communities at this time. | Basically this is the wrong place for this sort of action. / Alternately -with editing- possibly something actionable and useful for all *could* be done(?), but the current format doesn't seem conducive to editing as such. It's a fixed signed statement, so if we edit it, we effectively change what the people signed. --Kim Bruning (talk) 12:42, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Off-topic discussion. – Ajraddatz (talk) 21:18, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Israel did create this humanitarian crisis. What tactical advantage did they possibly gain over Hamas by indiscriminately destroying homes or creating an artificial famine? Dronebogus (talk) 13:21, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My primary worry here is that the way this is being approached right this moment will lead to acrimonious political debate, rather than constructive wiki activity. --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:03, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It’s too late for that; it’s already become an acrimonious political debate. It’s just that one side is just “what about October 7” “what about Hamas” “what about Nazis” “too political” “not neutral”; none of these arguments apply to what the open letter is saying— there’s a humanitarian crisis, created by Israel, with no attempts at mitigation by Israel (in fact quite the opposite) and the authors and signatories support the rights of the millions of innocent Palestinians suffering because of it. Dronebogus (talk) 18:20, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The IDF tirelessly facilitates humanitarian aid to reach civilians in Gaza, providing food, water, shelter supplies, and medical equipment. Despite these efforts, Hamas members forcibly seize aid from civilians, exacerbating the situation. It's clear who truly creates problems. Aisha8787 (talk) 18:37, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That’s a good one. Dronebogus (talk) 00:55, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Straight bullshit. AP295 (talk) 12:48, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WM:CIVIL. Aisha8787 (talk) 12:53, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I hardly think it's civil to tell such bald faced lies and tall tales as that, less civil still to abuse site policy to silence critique.AP295 (talk) 13:14, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I base my stance on firsthand reports from sources on the ground in Arabic and the testimonies of Gazans themselves. It's evident that Hamas, in a brazen display of disregard for human life, has shamelessly pilfered humanitarian aid meant for civilians.
I urge you to heed the voices of the residents of Gaza themselves, rather than lending an ear to the terrorists who seek to manipulate and deceive. الجيش الإسرائيلي / قطاع غزة (Gaza). Aisha8787 (talk) 14:54, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Part of a journalist's question at the 1/11/24 state department briefing "You have evidence of industrial-style killing. The South African legal team presented 20 minutes straight of statements on the record by Israeli leadership expressing the intent to commit genocide, for example, referring to the Palestinian population as Amalek. ".[1] An article on the UNICEF website reads "More than 13,000 children have died since bombardment began on Oct. 7, "an astronomically horrifying number," said UNICEF Executive Director Catherine Russell."[2] And from ohchr.org, "Gazans now make up 80 per cent of all people facing famine or catastrophic hunger worldwide, marking an unparalleled humanitarian crisis in the Gaza Strip amid Israel’s continued bombardment and siege, according to UN human rights experts."[3] AP295 (talk) 16:03, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for sharing those links, I'll give them a read later and ponder on them. But let's not forget, in this whole discussion, that even organisations like UNRWA and Al Jazeera have been infiltrated by terrorists. So, take everything you hear with a pinch of salt, darling. Aisha8787 (talk) 18:14, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The US state department cut funding to UNRWA hours after the court refused to dismiss the case in the first interim ruling. The USDS are corrupt thugs, though sometimes you'll see the journalists put them on the spot during state department press briefings. All they can do is deflect. It's all on their website, but I doubt you'd catch these salient portions on CNN, FOX and MSNBC. AP295 (talk) 19:30, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, though, can we cut the nonsense and get to the point? This back-and-forth ain't doing anyone any favours. Aisha8787 (talk) 19:36, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The point is, South Africa's accusations seem well substantiated in the application and by newer evidence. Israel is credibly accused of Genocide and the US secretary of state has nothing to say to the public but "these charges are meritless"? Does anyone really believe this insulting nonsense? At any rate, the Joint Statement on Palestine page should be kept. AP295 (talk) 19:58, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And I could go on. I'm quite certain that Israel presently terrifies many more people than Hamas, so the presumption of moral authority or superiority is wearing quite thin. AP295 (talk) 16:22, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Remove, Wikimedia should not take sides in such a blatant matter. Seems like the authors of the discussed page are not at all worried about Wikimedians in Israel and its cultural heritage, only those in Gaza, despite the fact that Israeli cities, its population and citizens abroad are constantly subjected to violent attacks, of which October 7 and the recent Iranian missile/drone barrage are only two most glaring examples. --Deinocheirus (talk) 12:55, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Off-topic discussion. – Ajraddatz (talk) 21:18, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Israel and its heritage are under zero threat of destruction as long as the US keeps supplying them massive quantities of munitions. As for Wikimedians in Israel they’re all here complaining about this essay. Dronebogus (talk) 13:28, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is simply not true. There were attacks at Israeli cultural institutions, there were attacks at the cultural events, including on October 7, and NO amount of munitions can guarantee that every single Iranian rocket is intercepted and doesn't ruin an ancient synagogue, museum or theatre. Not to mention that there probably were at least some Wikimedians among the victims of October 7 and other attacks, we just don't know them given the anonymity of most Wikipedia accounts. 2605:B100:D4E:C96:0:9:633F:8D01 14:19, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now this is about Iran? Didn’t Israel start that without provocation? Maybe the best way to protect your country is not to be a warmongering apartheid state. Dronebogus (talk) 14:29, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't Hamas start the current humanitarian crisis with provocation? I repeat (for the last time since my words seem to fall on deaf ears): as long as this "essay" addresses only one side's safety and cultural heritage, it is not in compliance with the Wikimedia Foundation's policy. Deinocheirus (talk) 14:31, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That was me above. I also would add that Israeli Wikimedians are quite right complaining about this essay because it doesn't address their safety and their culture. It also doesn't address the history of disregard for previous ceasefires by the Palestinian militant groups. So, it essentially demands Israel and only Israel to stop hostilities while the other side will be free to continue attacking Israel (including its Wikimedians and its cultural institutions). Deinocheirus (talk) 14:29, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again: History does not begin on October 7th.
The security of Israeli Wikipedians depends on the Israeli government. If the Israeli government could stops invading and occupying Palestine, stops massacring Palestinians, stops blockading Gaza, stops apartheid and new settlements, and allows all Palestinians who originally lived in the current Israeli "territory" but were expelled in the Nakba to return to their own home, Israeli Wikipedians will be very safe. Interaccoonale (talk) 17:13, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
... Or, rather, very dead. I know Palestine's history, thank you. --Deinocheirus (talk) 17:33, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Remove I'd like to see somebody calling to stop "humanitarian crisis" in 1945 in Berlin. Vcohen (talk) 12:56, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Off-topic discussion. – Ajraddatz (talk) 21:18, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop your inappropriate analogies. It's not Palestine should be compared with Nazi Germany, but Israel.
If the killing of hundreds of Israeli civilians by Palestinians after 70 years of aggression, occupation and massacre is terrorism, then the killing of German and Japanese civilians by the Allies is also terrorism. Obviously this doesn't make any sense.
To be honest, I think both are wrong, killing of civilians is never legitimate, and possibly suspected of war crimes (but apparently the latter one has not yet been judged even after 80 years). But "wrong" does not equal to "terrorism," nor does "war crime". And the violation of international humanitarian law by the invaded country can never erase the war crimes of the aggressor. Interaccoonale (talk) 16:50, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They had a brilliant opportunity to establish their own state and develop their own economy, just like Israel did. Instead, they decided to fight and complain. And the more they lose in their fighting, the more they complain. They should either stop fighting or accept the results. Vcohen (talk) 08:29, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don’t you have something better to do than promote racist disinformation about Palestinians? Even Ben Shapiro had enough sense to walk back on his “Arabs like to bomb crap and live in open sewage” remark. Dronebogus (talk) 12:19, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Allow me to expand upon what I and many others categorize as "terrorism." Palestinian terrorist groups, which you can find listed on the CIA website (cia.gov/the-world-factbook/countries/gaza-strip/#terrorism), have perpetrated heinous acts such as suicide bombings aimed at buses, restaurants, and malls, resulting in the loss of countless innocent lives, including Jews and Israeli Arabs alike.
"A terrorist group is defined as a group that uses terrorist tactics, meaning it deliberately targets civilians in pursuit of political goals." (© David B. Carter A Blessing or a Curse? State Support for Terrorist Groups). Aisha8787 (talk) 11:11, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So did United States in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. A standard makes no scene if it does not apply equally to all individuals, organizations and countries. Especially when a country itself has done the same thing, but uses this standard to accuse others. As Dr Adnan Abu Amer, the head of the Political Science Department at the University of the Ummah in Gaza said, I quote: "The West must understand that biased, selective application of international law and anti-war action only further encourage aggressors to commit violations." -- Interaccoonale (talk) 13:00, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the quote. But I must express my view that comparing WW II to the current Middle East conflict might not be entirely accurate. Truth often unfolds in layers, more intricate than our initial perceptions. Therefore, I firmly believe that our world is not confined to mere black and white; it's a vibrant spectrum akin to a glorious rainbow.
It's widely understood that Hamas harbours a sinister agenda, seeking nothing short of the annihilation of Israel. Their rhetoric, heard in Arabic speeches delivered by sheikhs in mosques, openly calls for the global murder of Jews. We also cannot overlook their previous Charter, which shamefully perpetuated the anti-Semitic Protocols of the Elders of Zion (إلى الفرات، وعندما يتم لهم هضم المنطقة التي يصلون إليها، يتطلعون إلى توسع آخر وهكذا، ومخططهم في بروتوكولات حكماء صهيون وحاضرهم خير شاهد على ما نقول). Such venomous hate speech is unequivocally unacceptable.
Let me be clear: There is no place for spreading hate towards Israel or Jewish members of our Wikimedia community. Our goal here is to build the encyclopedia together, harmoniously. Aisha8787 (talk) 13:35, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The media's favored euphemism. "Humanitarian crisis", it sounds like something that results from a tsunami, an earth quake, a bad growing season, or some other natural disaster. AP295 (talk) 20:22, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Human behaviour's like a tsunami, ain't it? In the grand cosmic ballet, we're merely celestial marionettes, twirling to the whims of destiny's choreography. Aisha8787 (talk) 20:35, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that's called a thought terminating cliche .AP295 (talk) 20:52, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keep Freedom of information must be free. --Д. Карнаж (talk) 13:12, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t see how that applies to this situation. Dronebogus (talk) 13:18, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Y) My mistake. Д. Карнаж (talk) 13:58, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Remove I started searching in the text: "hostage" - zero; "Hamas" - zero; "October" - zero. Stop! "Israel-created crisis", wow. I wanted to write “a usual piece of jihadist propaganda”, but no, it’s more blatant than usual. Not in my voice. --Nicoljaus (talk) 15:31, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Off-topic discussion. – Ajraddatz (talk) 21:18, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
History does not begin on October 7th. If you have read your Torah, you should know that God has created the world and human civilization a long, long time ago. Interaccoonale (talk) 16:20, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you have read your Torah - Wow. The new normal on Wikipedia. Nicoljaus (talk) 16:31, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is Wikimedia meta, not Wikipedia. Interaccoonale (talk) 16:51, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"This includes name calling, using slurs or stereotypes, and any attacks based on personal characteristics. Insults may refer to perceived characteristics like intelligence, appearance, ethnicity, race, religion" Nicoljaus (talk) 23:52, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did not attack you. I just assumed that you should know your own culture. Just as a Briton should read Shakespeare, and a French should read Hugo. PS: I am an atheist, but I also know the Chinese mythologies. Interaccoonale (talk) 01:51, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have no idea about my culture, so your speculations are stupid and funny to me, but they are offensive to editors from Israel. Exactly like the statement under discussion. Nicoljaus (talk) 06:44, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your home wiki is the Hebrew wiki.
I just think it will reduces communication barriers to use the culture you're familiar. For example, obviously I can not assume that everybody knows the Chinese mythology about Pangu. Your baseless accusation clearly violates the AGF. Interaccoonale (talk) 08:58, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I don’t see how it could be offensive to Israeli editors, just as I don’t see how blaming Nazis could be offensive to German editors at all. Interaccoonale (talk) 09:00, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your home wiki is the Hebrew wiki - What a blatant lie... Or trolling, idk. Nicoljaus (talk) 09:15, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I confused you with another user, my fault. Interaccoonale (talk) 12:46, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn’t matter what you “сonfused” about, even if we believe you. You have no right to launch personal attacks on the ground of "Hebrew" or "Torah". Just like the statement under discussion, which attacks Israel as falsely as you attributed “Jewishness” to me. Nicoljaus (talk) 15:51, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again: Your baseless accusation clearly violates the AGF. Interaccoonale (talk) 16:36, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to reduces communication barriers using your culture, just like if somebody was from France, I would adapt the Les Misérables:

⁠"I persist," continued the conventionary G, "You have mentioned October 7th to me. Let us come to an understanding. Shall we weep for all the innocent, all martyrs, all children, the lowly as well as the exalted? I agree to that. But in that case, as I have told you, we must go back further than 1948, and our tears must begin before Hamas. I will weep with you over the children of Israel, provided that you will weep with me over the children of Palestine."

"I weep for all," said the Bishop.

"Equally!" exclaimed conventionary G, "and if the balance must incline, let it be on the side of Palestinians. They have been suffering longer."⁠

I believe that nobody will accuse me of attacking French people for rewriting Les Misérables, even if they're not actually French and I confused them with a French user. Interaccoonale (talk) 17:00, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Before we proceed, let me pose a few questions.
1) Do you condemn the atrocities committed by Hamas?
2) Do you speak out against the genocide of the Uyghurs in the Xīnjiāng Uygur Autonomous Region and the internment camps there? Aisha8787 (talk) 17:08, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"I will weep with you over the children of Israel, provided that you will weep with me over the children of Palestine." Interaccoonale (talk) 17:45, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
┌───────────────────────────────────────┘
I've got to say, I'm not vibing with the moral vibe of the Abrahamic religions, find them a bit off. And you know what's kinda wild? The Qur'an talks a lot about the sons of Israel (بنو إسرائيل), but seems to have totally blanked on mentioning Palestine. Aisha8787 (talk) 17:54, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your last comment seems to have nothing to do with this one. I don't quite understand what you want to express. Interaccoonale (talk) 18:15, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But I haven’t seen your responses to the direct questions. What are your thoughts on the Uyghurs in China? Do you condone the establishment of camps for Uyghurs in Xīnjiāng or not?
我问了一个直截了当的问题,你能不能给我一个直截了当的回答?别再为恐怖分子辩护了。 Aisha8787 (talk) 18:28, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Obviously this is off-topic.) I have never visited Xinjiang, I cannot tell you what is happening there. I can only answer based on what I have observed: I think China's ethnic policy is problematic and there are some policy-based differential treatments, but I don't think it meets the standard of genocide.
For example, Xinjiang people (regardless of ethnicity) need to go through additional procedures when checking into hotels in other provinces. But they can get into better colleges with lower scores.
In fact, every ethnic group (including the Han people) has some members (on the network) believe that their own ethnic group is treated unfairly by Chinese gov, and other ethnic groups have privileges. That's really incredible. I cannot understand it.
That's all I know about Xinjiang, I can't tell you anything more. Interaccoonale (talk) 18:53, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was in Xīnjiāng with my hubby, right near Pakistan. Cameras everywhere, mosques shut, people scared to chat...
Wishing you all the best. Honestly, I'm getting a bit knackered with this discussion. 👋 Aisha8787 (talk) 20:04, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keep: There are already some similar pages on meta. && Comment Comment to some people who voted to delete: I don't see this page having anything to do with Hamas. How much do you love Hamas that you want to write its name on all pages? Interaccoonale (talk) 16:24, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Remove It's an attempt by a certain political group to weaponize Wikipedia, not to mention the grotesque distortion of reality. They failed to mention that there was a ceasefire on October 6, and that it was Hamas who broke it, starting the war on October 7. In fact, they failed to mention Hamas at all. The way they are framing the conflict, it's only Israel and the Palestinians. In their crooked mirror, there is no Hamas, no terror, no 7/10 massacre, no rapes, no hundreds of kidnapped hostages. I don't think that such Orwellian propaganda should exploit Wikivoice.
Desertdweller1983 (talk) 17:34, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
History didn't start at that time, even the past and far away. 🍃Zulf🍃talk 19:16, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I understand what history is. And I have a lot to say on the history of the conflict. But our discussion is focused on the statement in question, and my argument remains valid. Desertdweller1983 (talk) 19:26, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Remove If the wiki community turns into a political party, I did not join such a party. Support terrorists separately from Wikipedia. Pessimist (talk) 19:24, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not Wikipedia. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs) 00:21, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Remove. Cannot participate in Wikipedia, if it supports terrorists (such as Hamas) killing plenty of innocent people,
, using Gaza region habitants as human shield, stealing humanitarian aid, etc. Горизонт событий (talk) 04:06, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Comment I respectfully ask that this RfD (that doesn't appear to have been made in good faith in the first place) be closed as it is quickly devolving into a political argument that has nothing to do with the statement. Canvassing for participation in this RfD on the Hebrew and Russian Wikipedias has summoned people interested in suppressing voices they don't agree with who are deflecting from and drowning any legitimate discussion of the merits of the RfD. --Fjmustak (talk) 19:41, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Starting the request with "respectfully" and ending it with accusing your opponents of being "interested in suppressing voices they don't agree", "deflecting from and drowning any legitimate discussion" doesn't look good at all. I don't see any of your opponents trying to invalidate the uniform "keep" voting from at least seven Arabic Wiki users, or the unsubstantiated "keep" votes from some other users. As I stated earlier, the arguments should be assessed on merits, not on who made them - and most of the "remove" votes here do come with arguments and thus should not be dismissed just because they come from Hebrew or Russian Wiki users. Deinocheirus (talk) 15:21, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keep While every Wikimedian is entitled to their opinion and their own political activity outside Wikimedia projects, I believe the WMF, affiliates, and Wikiprojects (collectively) should remain neutral. That being said, deleting an open letter by part of the community is an extraordinary measure I think is not granted here. SOPA blackout enjoyed high support. Almost nobody raised an eyebrow when Ukrainian Wikipedia had several project pages dedicated to support the government of Ukraine, including calls to cyberwarfare. Almost nobody expressed any concern about the Wikimedia Foundation allying with Silicon Valley companies to campaign against Trump's immigration policies. And I certainly do not expect that a call to stop genocide is the instance that is off limits. Would you like more political neutrality from the WMF, affiliates, and Wikimedia projects? Feel free to start the process for a global policy. MarioGom (talk) 20:04, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was wondering why everyone from ruwiki suddenly showed up to bloc-vote against keeping. Dronebogus (talk) 00:58, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not true. At least three spoke in favor of “keep.” Nicoljaus (talk) 06:39, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Metaphor Dronebogus (talk) 12:17, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Or just another false claim among other “ad hominem” arguments. Nicoljaus (talk) 15:59, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. Metaphor. Dronebogus (talk) 16:18, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aisha8787 posted the link to canvass to w:ru:Обсуждение проекта:Израиль#«Совместное заявление о Палестине» (WikiProject Israel), then I think it was posted/discussed on one of the Discord servers as well. stjn[ru] 16:19, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You see, I made it crystal clear that users had the liberty to present arguments both for and against the Statement. I didn't nudge anyone towards opposing it. I made no explicit endorsement for opposition. Rather, I upheld a stance of impartiality in a realm where interests in editing articles on Israel and Palestine run high. I dare say, a statement of such magnitude deserves to echo across all corners of the Wikimedia "universe". Aisha8787 (talk) 16:41, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given your advocacy of a specific point here and the ideological prevalence of pro-Israeli viewpoint in WikiProject Israel in Russian Wikipedia (as is not surprising, we literally have administrators from the occupied territories who downplay atrocities committed by Israel there), this falls under votestacking even if we apply complete AGF here. You specifically chose the WikiProject Israel, according to your words. stjn[ru] 17:13, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your idea that WikiProject Israel on Russian Wikipedia might be biased and ignoring atrocities doesn't sit right with me. Let's focus on unity and respect.
If you fancy it, you could start up WikiProject Palestine. If it existed, I'd have penned my thoughts there. Aisha8787 (talk) 17:33, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Who are these so-called "administrators from the occupied territories"? I'm not aware of any. Desertdweller1983 (talk) 19:44, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To my awareness, only one administrator from the Russian-language Wikipedia, of Jewish heritage, has commented here. Furthermore, he resides not in Israel but across the Atlantic, in a nation untouched by occupation. It's a clear case of misinformation and a stark manifestation of anti-Semitism. Aisha8787 (talk) 04:43, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keep I agree with Fjmustak. I believe that the statement aligns with the inclusion policy, because the purpose is to augment the WMF's response and support for the volunteer community in Gaza and it asks it to support the community in Gaza and ensure the impartiality of content about Palestinian genocide. We have to support our Palestinian colleagues and an open letter is a very good way to point out attention in the precarious situation our Palestinian colleagues face. They need our support. NikosLikomitros (talk) 20:09, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Remove because it politicizes Wikipedia and politicizes humanitarian issues. Probably the statement would be ok if it didn't mention Israel. Mentioning Israel and not mentioning the other side Israel is fighting against (It's Hamas, and not the Palestinian people) makes the statement miss the point and distort the truth. In addition, "you have chosen the side of the oppressor" again means it condemns Israel without explanations, which is manipulative. Let us keep politics out of Wikipedia. Rijikk (talk) 20:31, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Everyone dead in Gaza is actually Hamas" is a claim so outlandish that I am not surprised that only a Russian Wikipedia community member is pushing that bogus line, Rijikk. (Speaking as a Russian Wikipedia community member myself.) stjn[ru] 23:05, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But... Rijikk did not make such a claim! Here is his statement, right before everyone’s eyes. But that's exactly how the big lie works. Nicoljaus (talk) 23:34, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just another example of weird misinterpretation. Sorry, stjn, I didn't expect it from you. Rijikk (talk) 00:03, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone dead in Gaza is actually Hamas — they didn't make such a statement. Горизонт событий (talk) 04:11, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I really can't take any time off, wow. Further off-topic discussion (i.e. not focused on arguments for or against deleting the page against Meta's inclusion policy) will result in a partial block from this page, at a minimum. – Ajraddatz (talk) 13:40, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Comment "everything I don't like is politics, everything that I like is not politics" --Sleeps-Darkly (talk) 00:38, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
what about the human tragedy. 🍃Zulf🍃talk 06:55, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Almost, but not quite. Rather, it's simply very convenient to force 'neutrality' and political silence upon the public when you violate the genocide convention. AP295 (talk) 11:47, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Genocide has a precise legal definition outlined in the CPPCG, and the allegation must be substantiated in an international court. As of now, this has not been proven. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has not determined that Israel is engaging in "genocide", but has only issued an order for Israel to take "all measures within its power" to prevent genocide. Aisha8787 (talk) 12:17, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course they would say that. Just like how Putin is taking all measures in his power to save ethnic Russians from genocide by Ukrainian Nazis. Dronebogus (talk) 12:21, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Stop the demagoguery. The International Criminal Court has issued an arrest warrant for Putin, and Russia has been designated as a terrorist state by numerous countries. Similarly, Hamas has rightfully been designated as a terrorist organisation by a multitude of nations, including Australia, Argentina, New Zealand, Canada, Israel, the UK, and the US. Aisha8787 (talk) 12:29, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And the International Court of Justice issued provisional measures against Israel demanding from it to protect Palestinians in Gaza from genocide from Israeli actions. But I guess we can pick and choose which international courts are deserving to be followed and which are not. stjn[ru] 13:17, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the link. I aim to write in good faith, sharing what I know to the best of my ability. You shared a link to the HRW article, which references the Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip. "The Court considers that, with regard to the situation described above, Israel must, in accordance with its obligations under the Genocide Convention, in relation to Palestinians in Gaza, take all measures within its power to prevent the commission of all acts within the scope of Article II of this Convention..."
While I am not a legal expert and do not possess extensive knowledge of jurisprudence, I fail to find any statements akin to "Israel is committing genocide and we must destroy it." Aisha8787 (talk) 14:15, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t think anyone here said that Israel ‘must be destroyed’, so I don't think that should be discussed in this RfD. stjn[ru] 16:20, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of the interim ruling was to decide whether the charges were plausible enough that action needed to be taken immediately, which they were. South Africa's application contains a large amount of substantive evidence. AP295 (talk) 12:35, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Every party is considered innocent until proven guilty. Therefore, the notion of Israel committing genocide remains, at best, an opinion until proven otherwise. According to WP:NPOV, we should "avoid stating opinions as facts". Desertdweller1983 (talk) 20:09, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The suggestion that one should wait until after the fact rather than take action or speak against presently ongoing war crimes is entirely untenable. I'll restate the following facts, which were part of a collapsed conversation above but which I trust are on-topic: Part of a journalist's question at the 1/11/24 state department briefing "You have evidence of industrial-style killing. The South African legal team presented 20 minutes straight of statements on the record by Israeli leadership expressing the intent to commit genocide, for example, referring to the Palestinian population as Amalek. ".[4] An article on the UNICEF website reads "More than 13,000 children have died since bombardment began on Oct. 7, "an astronomically horrifying number," said UNICEF Executive Director Catherine Russell."[5] And from ohchr.org, "Gazans now make up 80 per cent of all people facing famine or catastrophic hunger worldwide, marking an unparalleled humanitarian crisis in the Gaza Strip amid Israel’s continued bombardment and siege, according to UN human rights experts."[6] AP295 (talk) 22:01, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest to stop distorting the facts is all. Here's the full quote from Netanyahu: "In the last couple of days, I have met with our soldiers in the bases, in the field, in the north and in the south. Remember what Amalek has done to you. We remember, and we are fighting". Whoever claims that he was "referring to the Palestinian population as Amalek" is inventing facts. Desertdweller1983 (talk) 22:47, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What about the 13,000 dead children? AP295 (talk) 23:20, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please take a moment to read through the link I've provided above: "How the Gaza Ministry of Health Fakes Casualty Numbers". The Gaza Ministry of Health is under the thumb of a terrorist group, fabricating casualty numbers. If you choose to buy into the data churned out by Islamist terrorists, that's your prerogative, but those seeking factual information steer clear of such skewed figures. Aisha8787 (talk) 04:47, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll quote South Africa's report, "Since 7 October 2023, Israel has engaged in a large-scale military assault by land, air and sea, on the Gaza Strip (‘Gaza’), a narrow strip of land approximately of 365 square kilometres – one of the most densely populated places in the world.48 Gaza — home to approximately 2.3 million people, almost half of them children — has been subjected by Israel to what has been described as one of the “heaviest conventional bombing campaigns” in the history of modern warfare.49 By 29 October 2023 alone, it was estimated that 6,000 bombs per week had been dropped on the tiny enclave." That's 6,000 bombs per week dropped in area one tenth the size of long island, whose population is/was nearly half children. AP295 (talk) 05:18, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rather not stray off-topic here. If you're engaging, feel free to contribute to Wikipedia in any language you're fluent in, and perhaps address these statistics in relevant articles. However, blindly trusting the words of Islamist terrorists – who endorse the brutalization of innocent civilians, the raping of women, and the abduction of children – is simply naïve.
As someone knowledgeable in religious studies, I can affirm that this conflict has deep historical roots, originating from the Jews' rejection of Prophet Muhammad. There's extensive scholarly literature available on this topic, detailing how, during his reign, between 600–900 Jews tragically lost their lives. (See تاريخ الرسل والملوك Tārīkh al-Rusul wa al-Mulūk, vol 8). Aisha8787 (talk) 05:36, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What are Israel's casualty estimates? I should hope they have a better answer than "only 8,000 children" or "no comment", if you're going to say the numbers are completely false.AP295 (talk) 05:53, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If Hamas hadn't been using children as human shields or hiding among civilians, there would've been fewer casualties. They aim to increase losses and portray themselves as "victims" to manipulate Western public opinion. It's a terrorist tactic and psychological manipulation. I suggest checking out NATO reports, and if you're too busy to dive into the details, just watch this video: YouTube, Hamas using children as human shields. Aisha8787 (talk) 06:00, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here in the USA, if a criminal were to hide behind a child hostage, authorities presumably would not just kill them both. I guess there was Waco, but at any rate it's not acceptable. AP295 (talk) 06:28, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And what would South Africa stand to gain by falsely charging Israel with violating the genocide convention? AP295 (talk) 06:47, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
┌───────────────────────────────────────┘
Alright, mate, let's break it down. Firstly, comparing law enforcement situations in the US to the complexities of warfare in conflict zones like Gaza is a bit like comparing apples and oranges, innit? In urban combat situations, where terrorists use civilians as human shields, it's a bloody nightmare for everyone involved. While the priority is always to minimize civilian casualties, these terrorists don't play by the rules, do they? They use innocent lives as bargaining chips, making it a right challenge for authorities to respond without collateral damage. And yeah, there've been blunders like Waco, but that doesn't justify or excuse the reprehensible tactics employed by Islamist terrorists. So yeah, not acceptable... Aisha8787 (talk) 06:58, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Urban combat situations"? Gaza was carpet bombed. They can see it from satellite photos. This article was back in December: "The United Nations said on Tuesday it had used its satellite analysis agency UNOSAT to determine that 18 per cent of Gaza’s infrastructure had been destroyed since the October attacks. This includes at least 60 per cent of all housing units according to the UN’s Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs and 50 per cent of all infrastructure in the north of the strip. [...] More than 77 per cent of Gazan hospitals are now non-operational according to the World Health Organisation and nine out of 10 Palestinians do not eat every day according to the World Food Programme."[7] AP295 (talk) 07:12, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gaza's been hammered, no denying that. But let's not lose focus here. Hamas, they're the real villains. Using innocent folk as shields, it's low, innit? We gotta back our Jewish mates in Israel. They're just tryna defend themselves against these terrorists.
And let's call it like it is – anti-Semitism's rife, and it ain't on. We gotta stand tall against that rubbish, show some solidarity with our Jewish brothers and sisters. They deserve better, plain and simple. Aisha8787 (talk) 07:22, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While Hamas has done questionable actions here, you are presenting a heavily pro-Israeli skewed viewpoint which is somewhat unhelpful for a Meta-Wiki discussion. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs) 07:32, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I delve into Islam daily, and my hubby's an ex-Muslim. Can't fathom why you'd launch such an attack on me, love. Aisha8787 (talk) 07:41, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Using condescending language isn't helping your case. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs) 08:55, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's all you've got, is it? Fine then. AP295 (talk) 07:49, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My dear, what have you got, besides the drivel from Islamist terrorists? These folks murder and assault, and yet you put your faith in them. Aisha8787 (talk) 07:55, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's mind-boggling, really. Putting your faith in the words of those who engage in such despicable acts like murder and rape. Backing such barbarity against innocent folks, especially the Jewish community, is not just morally corrupt but also downright intellectually feeble. Aisha8787 (talk) 08:06, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ahem, Meta:Civility. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs) 09:06, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I pen this with utmost respect, dear. My voice emerges from the depths of my own harrowing experience as a survivor of rape. Yet, your message, I must say, lacks any semblance of ethical integrity. Aisha8787 (talk) 09:22, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry you had to experience what you did, but that does not give you a license to violate the civility policy. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs) 10:25, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They're wrong because their statement is a meaningless ad hominem, not per se because it's uncivil. AP295 (talk) 10:45, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That too. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs) 10:52, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that a sound argument need not lean on policy like w:WP:CIVILITY. It only debases an argument. AP295 (talk) 11:14, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keep It doesn't violate wikimedia policies Raedfares (talk) 07:32, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a general comment - please stop the personal attacks. Clearly there are perspectives on both sides of the irl conflict here, and those aren't going to be properly addressed or considered as part of a Meta deletion request. Please keep comments focused on reasons to include or delete the page in question, and refrain from replying to other users unless absolutely necessary. Future replies that are uncivil / personal attacks or off topic will be removed. – Ajraddatz (talk) 13:21, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ajraddatz Yes, I see it has become an arena for debate. 🍃Zulf🍃talk 18:42, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Comment why is this the subject of debate and spread everywhere and other issues?🤔 🍃Zulf🍃talk 19:14, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, I see it continued while I was at work. I've collapsed some of the most egregious off-topic discussions (and yes, I understand you believe they are relevant, but this is just beyond unhelpful at this point). Keep your remarks to your own comment please people. – Ajraddatz (talk) 21:18, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Unhelpful to whom? AP295 (talk) 22:32, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And yes, I do believe they are relevant, directly relevant, (at least those I was involved in) as they concern the probable truth/falsehood of information in the page nominated for deletion. It is inherently a political discussion. The official behavioral guidelines state the following: "Off-topic posts: Your idea of what is off topic may differ from what others think is off topic, so be sure to err on the side of caution. Collapse. If a discussion goes off topic (per the above subsection § How to use article talk pages), editors may hide it using {{Collapse top}}/{{Collapse bottom}} or similar templates. This normally has the effect of ending the off-topic discussion while allowing people to read it by pressing the "show" link. Involved parties must not use these templates to end a discussion over the objections of other editors." The metawiki guidelines here [8] seem to imply that this portion of wikipedia's policy is to be observed on meta as well. Also, assuming the template documentation is still accurate, collapsed portions can't be viewed in mobile browsers either. Mobile mode seems to work for me, though the template disables the reply button within the collapsed portion, and it would be extremely tedious to use the main edit button on a mobile browser, I imagine. At the very least, you should change the title to "Discussion" instead of "Off-topic discussion", because my discussions are obviously not off-topic. (Why else would you have felt the need to preempt my response with "and yes, I understand you believe they are relevant"?) AP295 (talk) 01:45, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Comment: I wanted to share that in the Wikimedia Community Discord server, the moderators shut down any discussion about the Israel-Palestine conflict (including the Israel-Hamas war), because of the serious amount of moderation it requires to allow discussion of this topic. This conflict should seriously be discussed as if it is under sanction. Before posting something unrelated one should think whether it is really worth the risk of a block or having the comment deleted; w:WP:Disruptive editing. This topic has been discussed countless times at w:WP:ARBCOM and simply reiterating propaganda that isn't verifiable is counterproductive. There are outlets where one can talk about the conflict without causing disruption to operations on Meta or Wikipedia. Any person commenting should take a look at w:WP:ILIKEIT or w:WP:IDONTLIKEIT; neither of these are valid reasons for keeping or deleting a page. I don't think political reasons are a good reason why content should be removed, except when it is polemic or discriminatory or likely to bring the project into disrepute. I commend the efforts of Meta stewards and administrators here to keep this discussion focused on Meta policy rather than on personal opinions. Aasim 19:31, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If anything is likely to bring the project into disrepute, it's censoring discussion about ongoing war crimes and violations of the genocide convention. Your phrasing, the Israel-Hamas war, may well be obsolete in a year or two. All of my comments are relevant to the discussion, though some have been collapsed, along with some comments made by others. Whom are you addressing, with your insinuations? While I am in favor of keeping, I don't necessary like the page, though I agree with the general thrust of it. AP295 (talk) 03:00, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I can understand that there are real people affected by this escalation in the conflict; I don't doubt it. Also, where are you getting the idea that we are censoring discussion? Administrators, moderators, and stewards are empowered by the Wikimedia community or their relevant subcommunities to deal with disruptive editing. In fact, a few months ago, the enwiki Arbitration Committee took action on canvassing within that specific topic area. All I was highlighting is that this topic area has been subject to disruptive edits and POV pushing and propaganda in the past, and that it is important to keep comments here based on Meta:Policy and not just one's feelings. Aasim 04:42, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "I wanted to share that in the Wikimedia Community Discord server, the moderators shut down any discussion about the Israel-Palestine conflict"
    "Also, where are you getting the idea that we are censoring discussion?"
    AP295 (talk) 05:18, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keep: Everything has already been said, I agree with keeping it -- Remux - Ĉu mi povas helpi vin iel? 21:12, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Comment I really don’t see the point in keeping this open any longer. The minimum deadline has passed and a majority of “delete” votes are canvassed from hewiki and ruwiki editors who have rarely or never edited metawiki and largely don’t provide valid arguments. Subtracting those and factoring in all the users who have supported the statement but not voted as of now, consensus is clearly “keep”. Dronebogus (talk) 00:37, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

+1. It would be interesting to see how this discussion looked if you filtered out everyone who hasn't made over 100 edits to Meta-Wiki over the last 12 months. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs) 01:02, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Meta is not the special province of those editors who hang their hats here. Most editors are active at their home wikis and are voicing here since they found the open letter here. When you make weak arguments like that (or cherry picking the he-wiki editors) you prove that you are only interested in forwarding your political propaganda, rather than fairly representing the Wikimedia movement. As for arguments made, many above had stated how slanted this open letter is, beyond the point that this political posturing does not belong here. Do you not lament the weak claims about canvassing and NOTCENSORED, Dronebogus, or can you only see this through your own partisan filter? Chris Troutman (talk) 01:47, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because canvassing is disruptive behavior and is visibly evident in this thread. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs) 01:56, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your summary is a rather selective one. You won't mind if I add that many above have made quite strong arguments in favor of keeping the article? Or better yet, let's avoid weasel words like many above altogether. AP295 (talk) 02:34, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Presuming that this RfD is not judged as a plebiscite, but rather on the merit and truth or falsehood of each argument, it should not make much difference. That's the responsibility of whoever makes the decision. I agree that it should be kept and I believe I've made sound arguments. AP295 (talk) 02:17, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did a count and assuming I didn't mess up my counts anywhere, 33 of the remove votes come from users with fewer than 100 edits or IPs, but only 11 keep votes from users who fall into the same category. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs) 05:22, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is worth remembering that we don't treat deletion debates as a plebiscite, where 50% +1 vote "wins". Deletion debates, like most other things in the Movement, are on the basis of consensus.
There is clearly no consensus here, irrespective of whether or not we exclude any votes that might have been canvassed (and, to be clear, I am deliberately not expressing any opinion on whether they were canvassed or whether that is inappropriate).
On the English Wikipedia, if there is no consensus to delete, the outcome defaults to Keep. Is that also the case here on Meta? — OwenBlacker (Talk; he/him) 05:40, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Responding to this and other comments re: canvassing, Meta-Wiki is a bit of a unique place in that nobody really calls Meta "home" - most Meta users are editors somewhere else and come to Meta to do specific things. As such, we typically don't see canvassing in the same way as other projects, and sometimes even like it when a wider cross-section of the (global) community shows up than usual. But the closing admin will take explicit/slanted canvassing into account when closing, and it is also typical for the arguments of users who are Meta regulars to be weighed more heavily than others when closing these type of discussions. On the topic of default outcomes, you (OwenBlacker) are correct that consensus is generally required to change the status quo, so for this discussion there would need to be consensus to delete otherwise the page would be retained. I have held off closing myself as I have done some (not particularly effective) attempts at moderating the discussion, and I think it would be better for a different admin to close it. But if no other admins have within a day or so I will. – Ajraddatz (talk) 06:15, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that the authors of this deeply biased statement called it "joint". In order for it to remain, there must be consensus in this discussion that the statement is truly a "joint" statement by Wikimedia organizations and individual, and does not reflect the views of only part of the community (with strong objections from another part of the community). It is necessary either to prepare a new statement that truly reflects consensus, or to explicitly notify the difference in views on such a one-sided statement. Nicoljaus (talk) 13:27, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I really, really hesitate to say this, because I expect any such discussion would just devolve into the same useless political drivel that this has... but that's a topic best discussed on the page's talk page. – Ajraddatz (talk) 13:40, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The statement is clearly attributed to the signing parties. The WMF and Wikimedia affiliates have never been required to obtain on-wiki consesus to post any statement on their websites or Meta. There's years of precedents and no policy that prevents it. MarioGom (talk) 16:23, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think this would be expressed much more clearly by renaming the title to “Statement by Certain Wikimedia Organizations and Individuals on Palestine.” Nicoljaus (talk) 17:49, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, but there is no policy requiring that. And this is a deletion discussion. Renaming of the page can be discussed elsewhere, usually in the talk page. MarioGom (talk) 17:53, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bold-Revert-Descuss. We will remove this bold statement and discuss with interested parties how it can be published on Meta. Possibly with a changed title. Possibly with changes to the text. Nicoljaus (talk) 18:07, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BRD is meant for edition, not deletion. And I don't think it would be appropriate to bold edit a signed affiliate statement. Just like you would not edit an official WMF statement once it has been finalized. MarioGom (talk) 19:35, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Comment a lot of delete voters are complaining about it not discussing Hamas atrocities or supporting Israeli hostages and victims of the 7th of October attacks; why don’t they create a joint statement addressing those things rather than targeting a statement they disagree with? Because as discussed this clearly isn’t about “politicization” or “bias” because nobody complained about supporting Ukraine or opposing SOPA. Dronebogus (talk) 01:12, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Borderline case[edit]

Doesn't seem to be within Meta's scope. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 13:15, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete yeah, not the place.
🌴Zulf talk 15:36, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete what is this thing? An incredibly boring essay some IP apparently moved from enwiki during WM’s absolute infancy, and it’s still kicking around 20 years later? Who actually reads this thing, let alone finds it helpful? I’d look at page statistics but it’s not even worth the effort. Dronebogus (talk) 11:23, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete English Wikipedia related old stuff which doesn't have any relevance there as well. Unsure about how it is in-scope here? ─ Aafī (talk) 21:12, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Templates[edit]

Submit your template deletion request at the bottom of this section.

Categories[edit]

Submit your category deletion request at the bottom of this section.

Files[edit]

Submit your image deletion request at the bottom of this section.

Redirects[edit]

Submit your redirect deletion request at the bottom of this section.

Requests for undeletion[edit]

Submit your undeletion request at the bottom of this section.