Content deleted Content added
→Blame Israel first: grammar, etc |
AndyTheGrump (talk | contribs) →Blame Israel first: reply to someone who seems to think that me referring to him by name is somehow wrong. |
||
Line 45: | Line 45: | ||
:::::::Actually, it is not only me who thinks so. Once again [[:user:Jimbo Wales]]'s opinion that [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=prev&oldid=376306090 "we have a problem with anti-Israeli bias"]. BTW Jimbo [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_63#Request_for_responsible_attitude got scrutinized for stating his opinion]. |
:::::::Actually, it is not only me who thinks so. Once again [[:user:Jimbo Wales]]'s opinion that [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=prev&oldid=376306090 "we have a problem with anti-Israeli bias"]. BTW Jimbo [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_63#Request_for_responsible_attitude got scrutinized for stating his opinion]. |
||
:::::::I will of course eventually read the book, but reading the reviews on Amazon, and the author's summary are good enough for me to know it is a very relevant to the subject. <small>BTW I will really appreciate, if it is possible for you to do, to avoid adding my user name to every edit summary you write.</small> --[[User:Mbz1|Mbz1]] ([[User talk:Mbz1|talk]]) 20:37, 28 January 2011 (UTC) |
:::::::I will of course eventually read the book, but reading the reviews on Amazon, and the author's summary are good enough for me to know it is a very relevant to the subject. <small>BTW I will really appreciate, if it is possible for you to do, to avoid adding my user name to every edit summary you write.</small> --[[User:Mbz1|Mbz1]] ([[User talk:Mbz1|talk]]) 20:37, 28 January 2011 (UTC) |
||
:::::::::What does the phrase "if anything" mean in this: "...I think a cursory look at dozens of articles suggest that, if anything, we have a problem with anti-Israeli bias, not the other way around."? |
Revision as of 21:07, 28 January 2011
Blame Israel first
- Blame Israel first (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Possible attack page? I didn't CSD this, because it appears sourced and well written (for an essay anyway) Phearson (talk) 23:24, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- Well, you nominated the article for deletion in 3 minutes after it was put in. You claimed it to be an essay. If I understand this "essay" thing right it means that I expressed my own opinions. May I please ask you to be so kind and point any instance in which I expressed my own opinion that I would be able to fix it? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:15, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- NOTICE: Article may fall under sanctions imposed by ArbCom [1]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 23:45, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete WP:SYNTH — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 23:47, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- Honestly I never was able to understand exactly what is WP:SYNTH. That's why may I please ask you to explain it to me by examples. Why for example Criticism of the Israeli government, or Criticism of Islam for that matter is not WP:SYNTH, and Blame Israel first is? What is the difference? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:15, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- It means to gather information and put it together to make something else. Phearson (talk) 00:26, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) On Wikipedia, synthesis occurs when an editor takes what two or more sources say and puts them together in such a way as to make a conclusion that wasn't in any of the sources. In this case, the important question is whether any of the sources discuss the concept of "Blame Israel first"? The ones I looked at didn't. Putting together a series of well-sourced paragraphs about people unfairly blaming Israel for their woes and wrapping it up as a "Blame Israel first" syndrome is, in my opinion, synthesis. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 00:31, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for taking the time to explain it to me. I just added this source and this source that directly talks about "Blame Israel first", but IMO one should take into account the other names of the syndrome that are counted in the article like: "Israel Derangement Syndrome" and "When in doubt, blame Israel" and "Israel did it". Those all are different ways to describe the very same thing, and the sources for those are well represented in the article. That's why I do not believe the article falls under WP:SYNTH? Will you agree with my assessment? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:47, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- SYNTH is actually not a reason for deletion. The only reason to delete an article based on the policy WP:SYNTH is if the entire topic is made up. Based on the sources you provided I don't think this is the case. Still, the article does not appear to take a neutral view on the subject, and should be fixed. Marokwitz (talk) 07:00, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for taking the time to explain it to me. I just added this source and this source that directly talks about "Blame Israel first", but IMO one should take into account the other names of the syndrome that are counted in the article like: "Israel Derangement Syndrome" and "When in doubt, blame Israel" and "Israel did it". Those all are different ways to describe the very same thing, and the sources for those are well represented in the article. That's why I do not believe the article falls under WP:SYNTH? Will you agree with my assessment? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:47, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) On Wikipedia, synthesis occurs when an editor takes what two or more sources say and puts them together in such a way as to make a conclusion that wasn't in any of the sources. In this case, the important question is whether any of the sources discuss the concept of "Blame Israel first"? The ones I looked at didn't. Putting together a series of well-sourced paragraphs about people unfairly blaming Israel for their woes and wrapping it up as a "Blame Israel first" syndrome is, in my opinion, synthesis. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 00:31, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- It means to gather information and put it together to make something else. Phearson (talk) 00:26, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- Strong Keep Well written and well sourced article of a very important subject. Opinions of a different people including scientists, journalist, politicians are present . There's no issues with WP:NPOV. Broccolo (talk) 23:51, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- I disagree with the NPOV statement. See Talk:Blame Israel first Phearson (talk) 03:10, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- Comment. Basic Google searches reveal the term to be notable. An article on the term, its use, and its applications should be a welcome addition to this encyclopedia. The article has some SYNTH components, but this is a problem that should be rectified by editing. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:28, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Israel gets blamed for a lot of truly whacky things (or awesome things, depending on perspective; trained sharks and vulture spies would be awesome) it has nothing to do with, no question. But this article covers the trope of people blaming Israel or other people talking about people blaming Israel. The "Ahmed Sheikh" section actually does neither, it's just about why Sheikh thinks Arab countries don't like Israel. A lot of these sources don't talk about the titular phrase or use words to similar effect which looks like a coat-rack/SYNTH. The phrase does exist, sure, but I'm not seeing the secondary-sources picking up on it as noteworthy. Sol (talk) 04:43, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- Actually I got an idea about writing the article after I read the book WHEN IN DOUBT...BLAME A JEW!: A PERSONAL AND PEOPLE'S MEMOIR OF ANTI-SEMITISM. As you could see it has 60 customers reviews, and all are 5 stars! And of course the section about Ahmed Sheikh is a good addition to the article. He's blaming Israel in absence of democracy in Egypt. He believes "that the schools in Morocco would have been better, or that the public clinics in Jordan would have functioned better", if there was no Israel. His opinion is very important because "He is not a mere propagandist, but a keen and influential observer of the current Arab temperament.". And of course the article is well represented by both primary and secondary sources Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL ;Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL;Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL --Mbz1 (talk) 05:10, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - classic WP:SYNTH, additionally much of the content appears barely relevant to the purported topic. Gatoclass (talk) 05:33, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep It is not even close to WP:SYNTH.I did not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. I provided a few reliable sources that do explicitly state the conclusion: [2]; [3];[4], and I could easily provide a dozen more.--Mbz1 (talk) 05:58, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- Your not supposed to make conclusions, per WP:OR. Phearson (talk) 06:20, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- Right. I did not make any conclusions. The sources I have used did.--Mbz1 (talk) 06:26, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- Then WP:COATRACK Applies. This article blatantly one-sided. Phearson (talk) 06:31, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- Right. I did not make any conclusions. The sources I have used did.--Mbz1 (talk) 06:26, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep per mbz. I think I understand why people would want to delete this article, but it is not synth in any case. The references all talk about it so it is not something mbz put together himself to create the subject. I don't think it should be in cat Israel though and it should be named something else. GGdowney (talk) 06:16, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- Rename to something else or Merge to Arab Israeli conflict. The references I read did mention the topic so I agree it is not something the author put together himself. This article is basically about the well known claim that Arab leaders divert attention from their own domestic problems and suppress initiatives of democratization using Israel as a pretense. As such it is a notable topic as part of the Arab Israeli conflict article. But the current title and wording of the lead seems to imply that this claim is a fact, this makes the article unbalanced. Marokwitz (talk) 06:50, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Any problems with NPOV can be fixed via editing, and looking at the article it is would appear that the synthesis argument doesn't quite work since the sources cited are about the subject. This will certainly need eyes on it, but I can see no reason to delete, and I would suggest that in the future the nominator wait more than three minutes before nominating articles for deletion. AniMate 07:33, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- Move/rename to Anti-Israel propaganda. This is a part of Anti-Zionism, however, Anti-Zionism is a large article. Hence it would be beneficial creating a separate sub-page about this. Biophys (talk) 16:09, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- Weak Keep As is true of many articles on contentious issues, it does need a lot of work--but there is some well sourced content here about how blame is thrown at Israel. That being said, a Merge to Criticism of Israel might be a good use for the content. But that article is enormous to begin with, so maybe it is best to keep this here. I do think a new title might be in order, perhaps Criticism of Accusations Against Israel Controversy :) Qrsdogg (talk) 02:20, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
- How about renaming it to Criticism of criticism of Israel :-)--Mbz1 (talk) 02:58, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. Perceptive, and with more than an element of truth to it, but clearly violates WP:NPOV, WP:SYN etc. Sadly, I don't see any way a neutral article on the subject could be written. A more general article about the use of 'external enemies' to deflect internal criticism might work, if WP:RS is available, but this is just too specific, and likely to degenerate into yet another edit-war. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:46, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete and merge salvageable information to one or more of anti-zionism, politics section of relevant countries, Criticism of Israel and perhaps propaganda. Mbz1 cites two sources above that use the phrase "Blame Israel first", one of them is Living in the times of the signs, where the next chapter is "Is the Islamic Messiah connected to the Antichrist" which goes on to offer evidence that this is in fact the case. These are not serious sources, they are invariably polemic and/or below the quality threshold of sources we should use for an encyclopedia. un☯mi 07:27, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Actually all those delete reasons are unjust, and only prove the name of the article "Blame Israel first". For example User:AndyTheGrump writes: " ...but clearly violates WP:NPOV, WP:SYN etc. Sadly, I don't see any way a neutral article on the subject could be written." Then what about that [...] Israel and the apartheid analogy. How this does not violate WP:NPOV, WP:SYN etc? How that is not biased? unomi complains about sources. I used many sources, and there are many more that could be used (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL).user:Sol Goldstone complains that the article is not supported by "secondary sources", but there are at least 70% of secondary sources used as the references in the article. Once again user:Jimbo Wales's opinion that "we have a problem with anti-Israeli bias" proves to be the case.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:13, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
- I think there is a clear enough difference between this article and 'Israel and the apartheid analogy'. The latter is a topic that has been widely discussed in multiple sources, with the pro and anti positions getting serious attention from well-qualified commentators. This article essentially only presents one POV, and is on a 'topic' that has apparently received little scholarly attention as such. It is a polemic, rather than an encyclopaedic summary of an external debate or controversy. I happen to think, as I suggested earlier, that it actually illustrates a real enough phenomenon, but that in itself doesn't make it suitable as a topic for a Wikipedia article.
- As for Jimbo Wales's opinion on this, I think that (a) I'd rather hear that from Jimbo himself, and (b) he'd quite likely also say that his opinion deserves no special weight, and AfDs should be decided on the merits of arguments, not on the notability of contributors. I'd also recommend people to look at what Jimbo actually wrote, rather than rely on your somewhat selective quotation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:20, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
- One is only left to wonder, if the user really looked at how many sources on the topic blaming Israel there are. So here they are yet another time Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. If so many reliable sources discuss the subject why unreliable wikipedia should not?--Mbz1 (talk) 19:35, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
- Using Google etc to find sources for a subject one thinks of oneself is WP:OR. Find sources that actually attempt to analyse the question, rather than mention it in passing, and maybe there will be grounds for an article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:44, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
- There are many attempts to analyze the question. Here's one for example. I admit I have not read the book, but here's a review from which it is clear that the author does "analyze" the question, and this book description clearly states "For a surprising number of people, Israel has become a pariah state, a threat to world ... And how can a geographically tiny state of only 6.5 million people be thought to have such a profound effect on world politics? " I would rephrase the question, and ask how for so many wikipedia users Israel has become a pariah state, a threat to world--Mbz1 (talk) 20:05, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
- Is that supposed to be a serious question? How do you know how many Wikipedia users consider Israel a 'pariah state'? Perhaps we need a Why do supporters of Israel think that everyone is against them article too. Meanwhile, I'd suggest you read the book first, and then tell us if it is relevant. This is generally considered the best procedure ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:13, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, it is not only me who thinks so. Once again user:Jimbo Wales's opinion that "we have a problem with anti-Israeli bias". BTW Jimbo got scrutinized for stating his opinion.
- I will of course eventually read the book, but reading the reviews on Amazon, and the author's summary are good enough for me to know it is a very relevant to the subject. BTW I will really appreciate, if it is possible for you to do, to avoid adding my user name to every edit summary you write. --Mbz1 (talk) 20:37, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
- What does the phrase "if anything" mean in this: "...I think a cursory look at dozens of articles suggest that, if anything, we have a problem with anti-Israeli bias, not the other way around."?
- Is that supposed to be a serious question? How do you know how many Wikipedia users consider Israel a 'pariah state'? Perhaps we need a Why do supporters of Israel think that everyone is against them article too. Meanwhile, I'd suggest you read the book first, and then tell us if it is relevant. This is generally considered the best procedure ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:13, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
- There are many attempts to analyze the question. Here's one for example. I admit I have not read the book, but here's a review from which it is clear that the author does "analyze" the question, and this book description clearly states "For a surprising number of people, Israel has become a pariah state, a threat to world ... And how can a geographically tiny state of only 6.5 million people be thought to have such a profound effect on world politics? " I would rephrase the question, and ask how for so many wikipedia users Israel has become a pariah state, a threat to world--Mbz1 (talk) 20:05, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
- Using Google etc to find sources for a subject one thinks of oneself is WP:OR. Find sources that actually attempt to analyse the question, rather than mention it in passing, and maybe there will be grounds for an article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:44, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
- One is only left to wonder, if the user really looked at how many sources on the topic blaming Israel there are. So here they are yet another time Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. If so many reliable sources discuss the subject why unreliable wikipedia should not?--Mbz1 (talk) 19:35, 28 January 2011 (UTC)