Talk:Yinon Plan

"The French philosopher, convert to Islam, and Holocaust denialist, Roger Garaudy, who was married to a Palestinian woman, used the text the following year in the English version of his book, L'Affaire Israël: le sionisme politique, to support his argument that a mechanism was in place to drive Arabs out of what was defined as Eretz Israel and disintegrate Arab countries."

-why is this noteworthy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.186.143.246 (talk) 00:39, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Primakov and Lebanon
Could someone explain how Primakov supposedly connects Ambassador ball and his comments on Lebanon to Yinon? As far as I can tell the only connection is that the two paragraphs appear on the same page of the ebook. Epson Salts (talk) 14:04, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Read the page Nishidani (talk) 14:41, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I obviously did. the two things are not connected on the page. Epson Salts (talk) 15:00, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You were supplied the correct answer by another editor whom you trust. Drop it.Nishidani (talk) 16:02, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You read a page you didnt have access to? That is quite impressive, even for NoCal.  nableezy  - 16:31, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I have access to the Primakov source. I was asking No More Mr Nice Guy about a different source, with relation to a different part of THE article. This is not too difficult to understand, if you pay attention. Back to the topic at hand: How is Primakov connecting the Ball comments to Yinon? Anyone? Epson Salts (talk) 17:41, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * My comment was about the Yinon plan feeding Lebanese conspiracy theories. Nice to see everyone follows my talk page, by the way. I feel so popular. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:48, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Recent edits
User:Ynhockey
 * POV tag--on the whole this article is a conspiracy theory, but at the very least it should provide some analysis that are non-fringe/don't complete agree with it


 * You have tagged this as POV, the tag reading:’ Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page.’ If you had checked the talk page you would see no such discussion on the talk page. You should have provided one.

If you are going to put a tag on an article that proclaims it as seriously faulty, you should leave an explanation on the talk page of that article, even though the reasons seem plainly obvious to you.
 * If you have legitimate objections list them there so they can be addressed. I’ll leave it up for the moment, but you will have to set forth clear policy based arguments there if it is to stay.

User:Shrike (a) Where does policy state that all articles must be sourced to specialists? (b) Noam Chomsky also is a specialist on American policy, the Middle East and specifically Israel’s relations with the Arab world, on which he has written several widely cited books. (c) Besides being a noted economist, Michel Chossudovsky provided a translation of the Yinon document on his page, which you removed just as you removed, only to have the RSN board overturn you, the link to Jonathan Ofir’s translation of a key text for the Al-Dawayima massacre. You left it in the reference system, but it should not be there unless it has article text supporting it. There is no sense in removing a reference to that translation in the body of the article. You give no edit summary and introduce garbled English (Oded Yinon, a (an) allegedformer senior official). What sources gave you the evidence for the idea that Oded is allegedly a former  senior official? The text saying he was a former senior official is backed by several sources. Nishidani (talk) 12:33, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Removing views by not specialists
 * User: Arthistorian1977
 * It took me a few seconds to find a source saying that an Oded Yinon existed, who lectures to students like Tamara Park and who believes the Middle east is a tinder spot ready to explode. It may not be him, but an Oded Yinon exists.Lecturing on the day news of Sept 11 2001  Tamara Park Sacred Encounters from Rome to Jerusalem, InterVarsity Press, 2008 p.11  Nishidani (talk) 13:32, 12 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Nishidani There is no single reliable source, supporting that Oded Yinon ever existed. I've searched in Hebrew and English and didn't find anything, besides known conspiracy theory sites. Otherwise, mainstream reliable sources supports that the whole Yinon Plan is new "Protocols of Sion Elders" and he didn't exist. For example. this one: . Arthistorian1977 (talk) 13:14, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Find a source that says he, contrary to the opinion of a dozen regional experts cited in this article, doesn't exist. Your argument is WP:OR.Nishidani (talk) 13:27, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't have anything against linking to the translation but why opinion of those two individuals that not academics on this topics are WP:DUE to include?--Shrike (talk) 13:22, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Please read the relevant articles on Chomsky and Chossudovsky, Please focus on answering my request for the basis in policy of your aapparent belief that articles must be composed by sources that are authored by academic specialists on the specific field, exclusive of all other otherwise reputable sources. (2)Your use of WP:Due is unfocused. What is due or not due must be argued convincingly, not simply asserted. Citing policy tags without explaining their specific relevance to some text by illustrating is flag-waving. Nishidani (talk) 13:27, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I already answered they not professionals in the field and hence can't be used to asses Oded Yinon Article.The WP:ONUS is on you to prove why we should use this sources and why their opinion is important at all--Shrike (talk) 13:59, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * For the third time, cite the policy. The text you removed without a policy ground was stable for several months. No reader questioned the inclusion of those sources. When a text has been scrutinized by several practiced eyes, and then is suddenly excised without a policy ground, the onus lies with the eraser, not with the community that reviewed it and didn't object for a considerable amount of time.
 * By the way, in your recent edit you (a=) introduced an author and a source that are already present in the text, and failed to observe the protocols of the reference system used. The text already has
 * (a) Mordechai Nisan likewise notes that it made waves, stirring both curiosity and wrath, the latter since it fed into regional suspicions that Israel was intent on "balkanizing" the neighbourhood
 * You cite by your link the same page and write:
 * (b)Mordechai Nisan noted exaggerated reaction to the article that represent only personal view of the author and not government policy.
 * All citations used have page numbers, your new one, to a source already used, does not have a page citation. So please provide one on this talk page. and if possible provide the text. (This is apart from the fact that you have added reduplicated text).Nishidani (talk) 15:20, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I only quote Zero word from some other article "Although you are not the first editor to think that long-standing text has higher status, there is no such rule. The onus is on those wishing articles to contain given text, regardless of how long it has been there. " And the policy is already cited WP:ONUS.--Shrike (talk) 06:12, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The major onus on editors is to avoid confusing everyone by excessive editorial interventions which complicate matters. I negotiated with you to get you to avoid repeating the use of Mordechai Nisan.
 * (a)You have now supplied the page numbering and the format I requested, but it reduplicates the same text I added.
 * I had added:
 * "Mordechai Nisan likewise notes that it made waves, stirring both curiosity and wrath, the latter since it fed into regional suspicions that Israel was intent on 'balkanizing' the neighbourhood.p.275"
 * You clicked on this source, and then added without page numeration a reference to the same source with a very curious summary of his position, and placed it in the next section:
 * <"Mordechai Nisan noted exaggerated reaction to the article that represent (sic) only (sic) personal view of the author and not government policy.(p.275 added)"
 * Now p.275 which you now supply to support this 'paraphrase' has absolutely no mention of Mordechai Nisan stating that Yinon's paper 'represent(s) only (the) personal view of the author, and not government policy,'
 * So your addition for this rephrasing is ungrounded in the page you cite. Please, cite the exact text in Nisan p.275 which justifies your 'paraphrase.'
 * (b) As noted below,you removed 2 pieces of text I had added while saying you were reverting an IP not allowed to edit here. Please restore that text because your edit summary falsified what you did. At the moment, you have (a) falsified a source and (b) falsified an edit summary, treating an ARBPIA compliant experienced editor as if he were an anonymous IP. Any less lenient editor would report another editor for less.Nishidani (talk) 12:38, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Shrike. Thanks for this. but you are making hard work of this. You removed sfn|Sleiman|2014|p=94.n53 as well as though that addition were from the IP, as my link to your revert shows.
 * Unless you can come up with text that justifies your paraphrase from Mordechai Nisan (itself a reduplication in different words of what I cited and wrote) then your addition there too must be removed. I'm waiting fore you to address this issue, as requested. Nishidani (talk) 17:18, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The page number is 276 I am not sure what reference I deleted and from where.--Shrike (talk) 06:24, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'll fix the other error you made, and will fix the confusion you caused by having essentially the same source and pages (Mordechai Nisan) cited in two different sections. Please edit more carefully in future. These things, dragging on 2 days, could have been resolved in a few minutes of attentive review.Nishidani (talk) 09:15, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you too but I already fixed the 276 page yesterday I think .--Shrike (talk) 12:12, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

POV problems
Please list here any perceived POV problems so that editors may address them concretely and systematically.Nishidani (talk) 13:36, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * When I tagged the article, I assumed that the problems would be so obvious that stating them here would be superfluous. However, it appears that I was mistaken. Here are a few, some mentioned in the edit summary:
 * The title of the article itself—while there are no scientifically rigorous requirements for something to be called a "plan", it is plain that an article by an unknown individual that makes no indication of acceptance by anyone else, is not a "plan". At most it is a proposal, but even that's being generous, as a proposal with its own Wikipedia article must indicate some kind of notability (most importantly, acceptance by high-level officials or notable non-official groups).
 * There are a lot of sources in the article, but most don't satisfy WP:RS. Some of these are cited for facts, which directly violates a number of Wikipedia policies, and NPOV indirectly. For example, the primary non-RS source Prince Talal is used as a citation for the "fact" that Yinon was an advisor to Ariel Sharon. Not saying all of these alleged facts are wrong, but some of them make little sense, like this one. Why would Sharon, who had not been the foreign minister as of 1982, have an advisor who was a clerk (sorry, senior official) in the foreign ministry? Why was it kept secret? (as there are no other sources I could find linking the two). Sounds like another Ouze Merham case to me.
 * Essentially all sources cited in the article, except the Interpretations, appear to be left-wing (correct me if I am wrong), except Yinon himself (doesn't count). This alone might not be a huge issue (depends on context), but at least two of these sources are Noam Chomsky and Israel Shahak, who are on the far fringes and should not be used as sources on Wikipedia on anything Israel-related. I think this has been long-established, especially in the case of Chomsky. Some are even cited in the lead.
 * To continue the previous two points, the "Contemporary reception" and "Interpretations" sections are completely one-sided. With the exception of Mordechai Nisan, it reads like one long anti-Israel opinion piece (not surprising since it includes long-time anti-Israel activists). It's true that most Israeli sources, like Nisan, dismiss the article out of hand and don't take it seriously, and this might be why it was difficult to find an Israeli or pro-Israel point of view. However, this is not an excuse to give undue weight to conspiracy theories. Feature articles like this one (by Haaretz subsidiary TheMarker, which cannot be accused of being right-wing), where it cites reactions to Yinon's article as a ridiculous conspiracy theory, should be given equal weight. Here is another one by The Jewish Press. At the same time, the section should be shortened and similar opinions/interpretations (almost all of them) should be grouped.
 * Aside from all of the above, I was personally unable to verify that Yinon even exists, let alone is a notable individual, a senior official, a journalist or a diplomat (note: just noticed the conversation below this one that says he existed. I am not really arguing that he didn't, rather that it's so hard to find any reliable information on him that he could not be as notable as this article makes it appear). A Hebrew-language search turns up some references to Yinon's article (although the article does not appear to exist online in its original language/form), but no explanation of who Yinon is (one article briefly states that he was a foreign ministry clerk). I was in any case unable to find a single source that talks about Oded Yinon outside of this article's context.
 * —Ynhockey (Talk) 22:24, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * (a)Article names are subject to what the subject is called in reliable sources. "Yinon Plan" getsd 39,000 google hits. 664 google scholar hits
 * (b)a proposal with its own Wikipedia article must indicate some kind of notability, acceptance by high-level officials or notable non-official groups’
 * The first part is correct. The second clause strikes me as an invention. A plan or proposal is just that, something put forward in an official policy journal or forum. Whether it is followed through, implemented by high officials etc. is wholly irrelevant if its notability is established by sources widely commenting on it.
 * (c) ’ a lot of sources in the article, but most don't satisfy WP:RS.'
 * A mere glance, with a familiar eye, at the sourcing contradicts your claim.
 * (1)There are 25 references, 15 cite mainstream publishers, university presses, or specialist institutes i.e. the majority. Edinburgh University Press, SUNY Press (2). South End Press, Pluto Press (3). Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Transaction Publishers. Brookings Institute, Algora Publishing, Hurst Publishers, McFarland & Company, Walter de Gruyter, University of Michigan Press
 * (2)Of the 23 authors, aside from the author, Oded Yinon, 16 have a strong academic background, being professors, research fellows, academics etc ( Deborah Bernstein, Muhammad Idrees  Ahmad, Noam Chomsky, Roger Garaudy, Yehoshafat Harkabi, Michel Chossudovsky  William W. Haddad, Christine M Helms,. Ghada Karmi, Nur-eldeen Masalha, fr:Richard Labévière, Jean-François  Legrain, Ilan Peleg, Israel Shahak André H Sleiman;, Virginia Tilley, Francis  Feeley. This is exceptionally strong sourcing for a wiki article.
 * (3)2 are high profile political insiders at the highest level withintimate personal knowledge  of the area, Yevgeny Primakov,  Hassan bin Talal,
 * (4)2 are noted journalist sa and commentators specializing in this area (Jonathan Cook), Linda S Heard.
 * (5) 1 Just one is a noted left-wing activist, namely Ralph Schoenman. Compare the pathetic version we had before I stepped in to fix the shambles, a mere five sources.
 * (d)Left-wing bias.’ Essentially all sources cited in the article, except the Interpretations, appear to be left-wing (correct me if I am wrong), except Yinon himself (doesn't count).’
 * Can you define for me what left-wing means? I knew what it meant 60-40 years ago, but the only sense it has in my reading over recent decades is that it is as a term of contempt most frequently directed at any one with a public profile for a addressing  human rights issues, or as a dismissive term for opinions formed by anyone with a doctoral degree in the subject she writes on.
 * (e) ‘the primary non-RS source Prince Talal is used as a citation for the "fact" that Yinon was an advisor to Ariel Sharon.’
 * That is a very odd inference (and the rest is second guessing sources on Yinon without evidence). As a regional actor at the highest level who was privy to the ‘Israeli-Jordanian conversation’, Prince Talal is a respectable source for the information stated. If one disagrees, the solution is to use attribution, which I did (reputedly=Prince Hassan bin Talal). I have no objections. I note that User:Shrike in another false edit summary took this out while it is under discussion, reverting my edit under the pretext of reverting an IP ('Rv changes done by editor in violation of WP:ARBPIA3'). Shrike, you have reported people to AE/AN/1 for less, so I suggest you restore the wording I put in while we continue discussing possible changes.
 * (f) ‘Essentially all sources cited in the article, except the Interpretations, appear to be left-wing (correct me if I am wrong)’


 * The use of ‘left-wing’ here is meaningless, as it is generally. In Israeli usage, I know, it means ‘human rights activists’, but as the analysis of the sources and their authors shows, such a categorization of a wide variety of figures is void of meaning
 * (g) Noam Chomsky and Israel Shahak, who are on the far fringes and should not be used as sources on Wikipedia on anything Israel-related
 * This is extreme caricature. Chomsky has lectured at West Point, by invitation, on the Middle East; Israel Shahak, whose status as a ‘controversial figure’ is easily challenged, but is not cited for his general interpretations of Judaism or Israel, but for his translation of a document in Hebrew, whose quality/accuracy is not disputed.
 * (h)’With the exception of Mordechai Nisan, it reads like one long anti-Israel opinion piece (not surprising since it includes long-time anti-Israel activists). It's true that most Israeli sources, like Nisan, dismiss the article out of hand and don't take it seriously, and this might be why it was difficult to find an Israeli or pro-Israel point of view


 * Mordechai Nisan holds extremist views on the wing opposite to that of Ralph Schoenman,, as you can see reading his input at Arutz Sheva. Not for that do I excluded him. He thinks anyone backing Palestinian rights is engaged in insurgency, and that they should be bundled into Jordan if they can’t face their destiny as non-citizens with borough sovereignty in a greater Israel. 	To evaluate interpretations in a ‘pro-Israeli’/’anti-Israeli balance is the cause of much confusion, since the question begged is always ‘which kind of Israel’., not whether  a point of view is for or against an ‘Israel’ whose nature is never defined, territorially or otherwise.


 * (I) You think it unbalanced because it lacks countervailing sources. All I have done is cover the English RS sources. If Hebrew-language RS dismiss interpretations of Yinon’s essay as useless, roll your sleeves up: they should be cited, except for rubbish like the second source you refer to, the anonymous JNi.Media hosted by The Jewish Press, itself not a particularly good source. I say it is rubbish because whoever lies behind the anonymity writes.
 * "The Iranian author claims to have retrieved this information from spy cables sent by the Guardian and Al Jazeera"
 * The author claimed no such thing:
 * "Israel has “plans to appropriate African diamonds”, as well as efforts to secure “African uranium, thorium and other radioactive elements used to manufacture nuclear fuel,” according to spy cables revealed by the Guardian and the Al Jazeera, citing South African Intelligence agents Reza Bahar Africa is home to other precious minerals, as well.' Islamic Republic News Agency 23/09/2015"


 * The content of Bahar's article comes from the Guardian and Al Jazeera's publication of wikileaked cables. There is no mention of the Yinon Plan. Both Bahar’s article and the JNi.Media are boring blips on the net POV battle sites.


 * The main reason I wrote that I'm not fond of this article is that I don't know of an proven direct connection between Yinon's opinion and Israeli official policy. Of course one can argue for similarities as many authors have, and one can claim that he was some "former senior official" (which is a particular assertion I would not bet my house on), but only a handful of senior officials make policy and we would know more about Yinon if he was one of them. I think this article should exist just because the noise surrounding Yinon's article is sufficiently loud, but we must be careful in attributing all opinions to those making them. Zerotalk 09:34, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Cut it out. Of course Oded Yinon existed.
I've never been fond of this article, but really this rubbish about Oded Yinon not existing has to stop. I have no sympathy for people who repeatedly parrot this fable without the slightest evidence. Of course he existed. You can look at Articles for deletion/Oded Yinon for multiple proofs provided by Roland. I also provided proofs but I don't know where they are (maybe on the talk page of the deleted article). For example the letter he published in Commentary, Vol 78, No 6, 1984, pages 9–10? Do non-existent people write letters? Even better, his letter in the same magazine of Vol 82, No 6, 1986, page 11 is perfectly consistent: "The idea of 'territory for peace' has been dead for years..a measure of the [Israeli] cabinet's naïveté and stupidity...In the coming years, however, we are going to see a totally different Israeli policy." Here you can find Yinon's article in Kivunim listed in an Israeli library catalogue with full bibliographic details. And here the details of several other publications of the non-existent Oded Yinon. Zerotalk 19:54, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Of course. The problem was not that silly idea, so much as the fact that two of the 3 editors who edited the page, and obviously saw this attempt to deny his existence, did not care to remove the ridiculous counter-factual intrusion of Yinon being an 'alleged' person. This indifference by long-term editors watching the page to blatantly counterfactual edits (if they can be read as supportive of one POV?) is one of several things that made me change my mind, and come back here.Nishidani (talk) 21:48, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Undue weight to a conspiracy theory charge in the lead
Why should a POV coming from an Israeli source claiming the Yinon plan is a conspiracy theory be pushed into the lead? The lead should be representative of the general points in the body. The conspiracy charge to me makes for undue weight and POV-pushing! --Expectant of Light (talk) 06:01, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by POV? We mention that the Yinon Plan is a document, with a theory which is mentioned in reliable sources as feeding into conspiracy theories. This is simply a precise registration of what sources say, and what we are obliged to transcribe. Not to do so, as you seem to suggest, would be to repress valid POV documentation pertinent to the theory's fate.Nishidani (talk) 10:20, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Haaretz is a reliable source for matters concerning Israel. The article used as a source discusses conspiracy theories in general, not only the Yinon Plan and not only ones about Israel. It doesn't express any point of view.
 * I've added it to the lead since most of the times I've heard about the Yinon Plan it was included in some conspiracy theory. Every attempt to try to make this document relevant today to Israeli policy is usually part of a conspiracy theory.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 10:31, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

The perception of conspiracy theory is often subjective. So you can't determine it based on your personal judgement of what is and is not a conspiracy theory. At any rate, I believe you need more reliable sources to back up the weight given to the thesis in the lead. Otherwise it has to move to the body. --Expectant of Light (talk) 05:46, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I didn't determine anything based on my personal judgement. I used a reliable source here and in my view, there is no need for more.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 19:25, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

POV
If there are any further POV issues, please put then down, with clear specific examples so that each issue can be dealt with. The function of tags is not to blemish, but to request work be done. If the work is done, they no longer serve their poipose.

This tag was put in, I called for details, a very few were supplied. I replied extensively in the earlier thread to each, and at times the text was adjusted. I think the former POV queries have been answered, and therefore the POV tag is past its due expiry date. I therefore intend to remove it.Nishidani (talk) 19:06, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Rafi Eitan
Just call me nuts but I am darn convinced that Rafi Eitan was mentioned with Ariel Sharon. Are there Stewards arround messing arround with the history ??? --178.6.238.183 (talk) 10:52, 28 September 2020 (UTC)