Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alleged Ya'alon quotation


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   redirect to Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America.  MBisanz  talk 01:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Alleged Ya'alon quotation
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

The "Alleged Ya'alon quotation" (the term is of course a Wikipedian-invented neologism) has been the subject of exactly two articles, both of which were published in Internet-only sources of arguable reliability. The quotation has been used by a leading scholar of Palestinian nationalism, writing in the world's leading newspaper. It has been used twice by a Senior Fellow of one of the world's leading think tanks, writing in two other leading publications. (He happens to be the former head of the American Jewish Congress.)

So if Wikipedia's policies about NPOV and sourcing were actually operating here, then the article would have to be called "Ya'alon quotation," and it would begin something like, "The Ya'alon quotation was an utterance of Israeli defence minister Moshe Ya'alon in 2002, although two neoconservative American Jewish sources dispute this..." This would of course be a terrible article, but that's my point. The only way to make "Alleged Ya'alon quotation" into a notable topic is to rely on partisan ephemera over real sources, which have never covered it non-trivially. The article is not intended to enlighten anyone, but rather to appear in Google results as an "independent" source bolstering those already available. We do not need any more of this metastatizing series of agitprop pieces (the articles linked in "see also" should give an idea of what I mean.) &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 01:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * KEEP I hope that editors will read the articles, and the similar articles on Wikipedia listed under "See also." There are several, well-established parallel articles, such as Alleged Ouze Merham interview of Ariel Sharon .  The bogus Ya'alon quotation appears in hundreds of newspapers.  So do quotations from the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" appear in University syllabi and major newspapers in many countries despite the fact that ist is  as fake as this quote is.  What Eleland ought to do is demonstrate that Ya'alon said this.  Or accept that Palestinian scholars like Rashid Khalidi can make a mistake.  Mistakes happen.  This one is being used as nasty propaganda.  Ya'alon is entitled to redress.Historicist (talk) 12:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)Historicist (talk) 02:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Addendum. One thing I want to point out. We do not have an article Alleged Nasrallah suicide bombing quotation, even though it is well established that an extremely widely publicized "quotation" of this Muslim militant leader (far more publicized than this quote,) which led to my own country banning charities associated with his political party, is unsubstantiated and probably fraudulent. We do not have an article Alleged Nasrallah going after Jews quotation, even though it is likely that this quotation, again more widely circulated then the Ya'alon quote, is a fabrication. I don't think that we should have such articles. But frankly, if Wikipedian consensus is against me on this point, I will have to serously consider an article creation spree of this sort. I might throw in Alleged massacre of worshippers in Kiryat Arba while I'm at it - outright, consciously deceiful atrocity propaganda - or Alleged Khalil Sulieman attack - that's a good one, the IDF machine-gunned a Palestinian ambulance and killed its driver, claimed it was screaming towards them in a suicide bomb attack, only to later admit quetly that no, the only thing in that ambulance that exploded was a medical oxygen supply. Again, I don't think these kind of articles, which go out of their way to spotlight and promote bits of tragic Mideast ephemera, are appropriate. But I think it would be even less appropriate to leave the field to one side only. &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 02:38, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I googled the fake Nasrallah quote. I got 7 hits.  I googled the fake Ya'alon quote.  748 hits.  Wikipedia has lots of pages on similar frauds.  It is a useful function for us to perform.Historicist (talk) 12:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete: The article claims that the "alleged Ya’alon quotation" is "widely cited" but it has zero hits in Google News, Books, and Scholar. ( WP:OR and WP:R) --J.Mundo (talk) 03:40, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That is partially an artifact of the article naming. You will find hits in all three, I believe, for something like 'ya-alon defeated-people,' if you try that. &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 03:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If you google the quote you will find hundreds of uses, in major newspapers and books. One of the uses of this kind of article is this: When an innocent party finds the quote and googles it, s/he can find reliable information about its validity.  This saves people form making fools of themselves in print.  For example, since the Wikipedia article on the fake Ouze Merham quotation, journalists have stopped printing the fake quote.  although it does still appear on blogs.Historicist (talk) 12:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:USEFUL. We do not have a responsibility towards dumb journos who don't heed our warnings not to use Wikipedia as a reliable source. However, how do you know we played such a pivotal role? We should be flattered, but I am not sure I would adscribe such importance to us. --Cerejota (talk) 04:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete or merge  There is no appropriate reason for this sort of emphasis on individual sentences. The material should be discussed briefly in the article for Moshe Ya'alon, and even a redirect is not NPOV, s it is merely the highlighting of one side of a political issue. DGG (talk) 04:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC) DGG (talk) 16:41, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Pace DGG this is not a matter of opinion. Ya'alon either did or did not say this.  This is a question of fact, not opinion.Historicist (talk) 12:21, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does not judge matters of fact. it reports what people say about them. it is not our responsibility to evaluate the evidence for what he did say, or for wht he did mean. This is the basic principle of editing anything controversial: we report, and let the reader judge. . However, the  main article Moshe Ya'alon uses the heading Fake Ya’alon quotation, which is an unacceptable POV judgement. Interestingly, neither article gives a link to the actual interview. It is at  --in English. It is not clear to me whether the original interview was in Hebrew--if so, there needs to be a link to that also. Reading the English, it says "I defined it from the beginning of the confrontation: the very deep internalization by the Palestinians that terrorism and violence will not defeat us, will not make us fold. ... If that [lesson] is not burned into the Palestinian and Arab consciousness, there will be no end to their demands of us." if the words are accurately reported there, it would appear to me that neither side reported accurately. The NYT op-ed has a much more aggressive paraphrase than the Haaretz article indicates--the Commentary article does give the quotation correctly, but then interprets it in a way that seems to me at least equally at odds with the actual statement. The Wikipedia section in the Ya'alon article reports the Commentary view as if it were undoubted, and this is also in the separate article, which gives it as "terrorism will not make Israelis into a defeated people." Camera gives what I consider an even great distortion.  However we do it, in one article or two, we must do it correctly, with a direct quotation of what he said., and a report of the different interpretations. Then the reader can judge. The present article, and the section in the Ya'alon article, each judge for the reader, and can therefore both best be described as propaganda. That neither of them even link to the actual quotation, was the hint to me that they might be so inaccurate that it would be worth finding the actual text.  Now, others may judge that one or the other  version is the actual meaning of what he said, and that I am being over-critical. That's fine. But the actual interview must be cited and quoted.  DGG (talk) 16:41, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment on nominators rationale A phrase in plain English is not a neologism, and hence WP:NEO should not apply here. Other than that, no real opinion on this article. JulesH (talk) 11:04, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I was using "neologism" as, you know, a word. &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 01:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge with Moshe Ya'alon as a separate section. This way it can easily be linked/redirected to from other articles, including in 'See also'. The article probably can't stand on its own, but it's well-sourced and there's absolutely no reason to entirely delete well-sourced information. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 13:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment While you convinced me to merge, I disagree that there's absolutely no reason to entirely delete well-sourced information. There are many reasons to do so: when the information doesn't verify is on the top of the list. Verifiability, not truth is as important a core principle or even more important than reliable sources. Second on the list is bias, an important part of WP:NPOV: we must give due weight to arguments, even if this means deprecating sourcing (just because one side of a dispute is more vocal or has better media, we shouldn't give them undue weight). And another reason, is notability: is this worth writing for in an encyclopedia?. For example, see this AfD: Articles_for_deletion/Paul_Croft. The article was very well sourced, from reliable and notable media, but the subject was not deemed worth of encyclopedic treatment. Sourcing isn't everything, and de-COATRACKing as you suggested is something that many articles around here could use.--Cerejota (talk) 04:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete DGG put it well. This feels a little soapy to me. Wikipedia is not a soapbox nor is it a battleground. And it's not our job to save "people form making fools of themselves in print." (The threat to shower Wikipedia with inappropriate articles is just plain pointy.) Cheers,  Dloh  cierekim  14:15, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Alright, let me walk that one back, I really don't intend to go creating a bunch of counterattack articles. Although a bio of Khalil Suleiman would be appropriate, as would an article on the Kiryat Arba attack (normal, neutral articles, though.) &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 01:29, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Pretty obviously not notable by WP standards, material is far too weak to carry a whole page. I mean are we going to have a page here for every complaint or allegation of discrepancy or media error raised on the (highly partisan, as it happens) CAMERA website, or for every alleged misquote in the world ever? As noted, WP:POINT and WP:NPOV issues as well, quite apart from the more fundamental WP:NN problem. --Nickhh (talk) 15:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete WP is not a quotation guidebook. Not even N enough to put in article. A quote has to be extremely significant if an bio article should carry it. --Shuki (talk) 21:46, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete And if possible all the other well sourced WP:COATRACK quotation articles in the whole sorry mess that are the I-P and A-I conflict articles. Just because something is sourced, it doesn't mean it deserves an article on its own, or even as content in an article. We are an encyclopedia, not a collection of blog-cruft. --Cerejota (talk) 03:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, merge content and delete WP:OR name that has no chance of being searched for into Moshe Ya'alon as a separate section. Ynhockey's argument is convincing. I shot from the hip. I apologize. --Cerejota (talk) 03:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, Nudve is even more convincing. Moshe Ya'alon can seealso/wikilink to CAMERA if needed.--Cerejota (talk) 13:04, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge into Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America. It seems that CAMERA's disputation is this quotation's main claim to notability. The CAMERA article already has a long section dedicated to their commentary. Merging it into Moshe Ya'alon is also an option, but I think it would result in undue weight. -- Nudve (talk) 07:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * There seems to be a general feeling that this material beongs on Wikipedia.... on some page or other.  I had it posted on Moshe Ya'alon.  User:Eleland who proposed this RFD, appears to be atempting to insure that it appears nowhere.  He has removed the material three times from Moshe Ya'alon's page.  I am happy to merge it back onthe the Ya'alon page.  I do, however, feel the Ya'alon is entitled to have thiw well-sourced debunking of a widely oublished bogus statement made somewhere.Historicist (talk) 22:07, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge into Ya'alon's page. The material is well-sourced and this widely cited false quotation is non-trivial.76.169.197.225 (talk) 01:21, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.