Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blame Israel first


 * 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   Delete - feel free to ignore the WP:TLDR bit below if you have no interest in seeing how I reached this conclusion.

The article itself concerns the idea that people or organisations have a tendency to "blame Israel first"; that is, it is used by supporters to "imply that any particular criticism of Israel is just one more example of the tendency to blame Israel unfairly". The article was created by User:Mbz1 and nominated for deletion by User:Phearson a few minutes later. The nominator's rationale of "Possible attack page? I didn't CSD this, because it appears sourced and well written (for an essay anyway)" is not reflected in the comments by those advocating deletion, who (to broadly summarise) instead argue that the article constitutes WP:SYNTHESIS and is inherently violating our policy on maintaining a neutral point of view; some also pointed out that as a collection of links and quotes (and nothing more) it was nothing more than a WP:COATRACK. Those arguing keep, on the other hand, counter these assertions, arguing that any WP:SYNTH problems and WP:NPOV problems can be fixed through normal editing.

It's rare to find an article that is inherently POV-y - that is, regardless of what is done to it, the very subject is POV - and there's little that can't be fixed with sufficient editing. The same is true of WP:COATRACK. The only exception, really, is situations where there are no sources covering the subject in such a format as to allow for a non-coatrack, or non-synthesis based article. Unfortunately that seems to be the case here; one submission is this, with the justification for its use as evidence being "As you could see it has 60 customers reviews, and all are 5 stars!". Somehow this failed to sway the argument; I can't see why. Many of the other things relied on are similarly inappropriate polemical or unreliable sources, as helpfully discussed by User:Unomi below. The end result is a debate with a clear consensus to delete, and that's the action I'm undertaking. I'll avoid going into my usual analysis of who posted useless !votes, because quite frankly, that'd take too long. Several people have mentioned the idea of merging the topic, or userfying it so it can be merged, or userfying it as an essay. I am opposed to the third option (Wikipedia's userspace is most certainly not for unrelated essays like this) but am perfectly happy to, for a small period, userfy the article for the purposes of including some of its content in other articles. I will expect whoever comes to my talkpage to have got some kind of consensus on the article in question that including this sort of thing is acceptable; failing that, I will not userfy it.

One thing worth mentioning is that the Israel-Palestine Wikishitstorm is subject to arbcom sanctions, which permit administrators to install and enforce discretionary sanctions on any editor in this area who, after being made aware of the decision, fails to adhere to our standards of conduct. Several editors contributing here have been made aware of the decision, including TFighterPilot, Mbz1, Crotalus_horridus, Quantpole, Johnuniq, Off2riorob, Brewcrewer, Chesdovi, NickCT, Marokwitz and Epeefleche (yes, I compared the entire AfD history to the enforcement and warning logs) but none of their behaviour here seems of the sort that would require further enforcement action. If people feel differently, they're welcome to leave me a message with the specifics on my talkpage, and I'll take a look at it. Until then, those people mentioned above should know that they are treading a thin line by contributing in an area they've already been warned over, and that some of the conduct here would certainly not be acceptable if repeated.

Thanks to all who read my little (hah) explanation. I'm open to any comments, plaudits, critiques or suggestions on my talkpage, as usual. Regards, Ironholds (talk) 23:50, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Blame Israel first

 * – ( View AfD View log )

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)
 * Well, because its written like an essay doesn't necessarily mean it is. But that is a content problem that needs to be discussed on that article's talk page, not here. Phearson (talk) 00:26, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


 * NOTICE: Article may fall under sanctions imposed by ArbCom
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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 Keep. 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. -- brew crewer  (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   ;; --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: ; ;, 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)
 * It is, but probably not in an uncorrectable way. Marokwitz (talk) 09:11, 29 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 following the recent rename and improvements to the article. Marokwitz (talk) 09:10, 29 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. Keep. A distinct propaganda strategy that deserves a separate article. 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) Revised to Regular Keep per betsy. Qrsdogg (talk) 22:42, 30 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 .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 . 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."? (forgot to sign) 21:33, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Ha-ha-ha, great edit summary :) BTW you were so preoccupied with writing the edit summary :-) that you forgot to sign. What Jimbo said is the sad truth. I just added a new section to the article about a book written by an Italian journalist. In this article the author is described as one of non-Jewish intellectual, who's horrified by the amount of blames and hater Israel gets. The article says the number of those non-Jewish intellectual could be counted on fingers. And wikipedia is a very good mirror of a real world's opinion. Anyway I believe we should end the discussion now because a closing admin would have a very hard time reading it over. If you'd like to discuss it more, let's do it at my talk page please. --Mbz1 (talk) 21:28, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I should have been more precise. The secondary sources aren't parsing the phrase, analyzing it's usage, or why this particular term is notable. The Israel and apartheid analogy has all of that; RS employing the term, analyzing its claims, refuting it, condoning it, etc. The sources here use the phrase, in varying forms, and I get the general aim of the article but it looks like it's built around a phrase that's received usage but not coverage, if that makes sense. The various underlying motives(new anti-Semitism/xenophobia/nationalism etc.) are notable and perhaps some of the material should be incorporated there. There's certainly a push by various political forces to demonize Israel (or India, China, Russia, the U.S., Sparta, etc.) and use it as a scapegoat for their domestic issues. The balance problems are daunting but that's a different issue. Sol (talk) 05:27, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe we should follow due process, which is to allow 7 days for comments on an AfD before closing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:33, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:SYNTHESIS, NPOV. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 22:32, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notability is reflecting in the ample sourcing.  Balanced -- I don't see a pov issue here.  There is no synth that is at the level of a delete !vote; any such issue, if it exists, can be addressed in normal talk page discussion and editing.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:43, 29 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Strongest possible delete. So radically fails NPOV as to come far closer to propaganda than we can possibly allow; this kind of thing has no legitimate place on Wikipedia, regardless of whose cause it was designed to champion. I predict that if it had been written to support the opposite side in the I/P battles here that the howl for its deletion would be overwhelming and that suggestions would be made to sanction its creator... It would really be refreshing if, just once in a while, editors who write so prolificly on one side of the I/P conflict or the other would occasionaly contribute an article that focuses on the humanity and legitimate predicament of the other side. –  OhioStandard  (talk) 11:28, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment What an oppose with threatening me with the sanctions! There's no NPOV issue in the article. All sides presented in the article, and the facts simply speak for themselves. This is not an attack article. This is a defense article, an article that analyzes a phenomena why Israel is always to blame. And about writing "occasionaly contribute an article that focuses on the humanity and legitimate predicament of the other side", guess what? I did: The Mountain of Israeli-Palestinian Friendship;Yoni Jesner and Ahmed Khatib;Arab rescue efforts during the Holocaust and others.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:04, 29 January 2011 (UTC)


 * (Late annotation: It should be noted that Mbz1 has since removed the ref to the book Living in the Times of the Signs, whose "The Antichrist Dimension of Islam" chapter I linked to below. Discovery of problematic nature of source courtesy of Unomi, first provided above. –  OhioStandard  (talk) 18:40, 29 January 2011 (UTC) )


 * To legitimize your title phrase and thesis you cite one book that includes the phrase exactly once, in passing, and another that does just the same, but also includes a chapter on The Antichrist Dimensions of Islam, which advises, "When considering the spirit of the antichrist, one must begin with Muhammed." I really dislike having to say so, but that is simply irresponsible. I'll admit I'm probably reacting much more strongly to this than I otherwise would, though, if I hadn't spent hours reviewing the sources you offered for a previous, now-deleted article, which tried to show that Richard Wagner's first deep love was a Jewess, where you relied in very large part on a completely unreferenced 1896 article in a Jewish home/family publication akin to our modern Readers Digest which neglected to mention that Wagner was 12 or 13 at the time of the relationship it alleged, and that he didn't even reside during those years in the same city where the relationship was supposed to have taken place. Ostensible "sourcing" like this is just extremely discouraging to me... Good on you, though, for the articles you mention that document acts of cooperation and kindness between Jews and Palestinians. It's that kind of cooperation that can end the I/P conflict, if anything can, rather than each side constantly trying to document how they've been wronged and to decry the evil on the opposing side. –  OhioStandard  (talk) 15:12, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not sure what Wagner has to do with that, but if you call this source written by Ferdinand Praeger, who is listed in Music_encyclopedia_topics "a completely unreferenced 1896 article in a Jewish home/family publication" I've nothing else to add to the Wagner's subject. About the article in question, you may want to look at the least of external links alone to see the justification of the title.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:30, 29 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I wasn't referring to Praeger's 1892 book, which was rife with invention and has long since been discredited. I was referring to your reliance on this ostensible source, from an 1896 edition of The American Hebrew magazine, and apparently taken via translation from some earlier unidentified editon of Allegemeine Zeitung des Judenthums. But you're right that Wagner himself has nothing to do with this present article. Your habit of introducing sources like this has everything to do with it, however, and it's this habit that prompted my comments above. –  OhioStandard  (talk) 16:55, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah I see, you never bothered to look over the sources presented in this article, but you made your comment because of "my habit"? How about at least trying to assume good faith. If I found a book at google books how should I have known it got discredited? And why in your opinion Jewish sources should not be taken into account?  BTW the reference you complained about for this article was removed. It is will be nice, if you at least strike out your comment. --Mbz1 (talk) 17:02, 29 January 2011 (UTC)


 * It'd be much easier for me to assume good faith if I weren't puzzled as to how it is that you don't recall having been presented with just this same information before, on the now-deleted talk page for your Richard Wagner's first love article and in its AfD discussion, at length, and by multiple editors - including a genuine Wagner scholar - and I do recall it. And really? Really ? You're going to try to twist my objection to the crap sources you've introduced into allegations of objections to Jewish sources in general? I'm sorry, but I don't know how to have an AGF discussion with someone whose giggle test seems so impaired. Get that looked at, and if you still feel inclined to make ugly suggestions then you're welcome to do so at my talk page. All the best, –  OhioStandard  (talk) 18:40, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I wrote 63 articles, and I possibly cannot remember all the sources I used. If I wrote a few articles, or none as somebody did not, then I might have remembered.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:49, 29 January 2011 (UTC)


 * "As somebody did not" would make me all teary if I thought more of those 63 articles; as it stands I'd rather have my article-creation history than yours. You know what, though? I enjoy spirited discussion, but I don't especially like to fight when there's any real rancor involved. Besides, it's hard to want to growl at anyone who can take such breathtaking pictures. Want to kiss and make up at my talk page?  –  OhioStandard  (talk) 03:25, 30 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Just to be clear this is the Jesner and Khatib article you created, where you later fought for retaining this wording:
 * Zakaria Zubeidi,who at that time was a leader of Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades, helped to carry Ahmed's coffin. He acknowledged "...that giving life might be a better way of winning Israeli understanding for the Palestinians' plight than blowing up children on buses."
 * and fought, threatening with withdrawing the DYK to keep out:
 * At Ahmed's funeral, Zakaria Zubeidi, then the leader of Al-Aqsa Martyr's Brigades, helped carry the coffin. Of the organ donations, Zubeidi said:"When we heard Ahmed's father decided to donate the organs, we blessed the step ... Despite Jenin's reputation for the suicide bomber and the bomb belt, the people of Jenin camp love life and granted life to five or six children and didn't distinguish whether they were Jewish or Muslim or Christian because our problem is not with the Jewish people as the Jewish people, but with the occupation."
 * Almost all Many of the articles you create pertaining to A-I crawl through AfD with a large number of issues raised by a variety of editors and invariably they have to be fixed by others. u</b><b style="color:#645">n</b><b style="color:#545">☯</b><b style="color:#445">m</b><b style="color:#345">i</b></i> 14:12, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You are lying and trolling as usually. From 63 articles I created 5 or 6 were nominated on deletion. Only one that had nothing to do with A/I conflict was deleted. I recommend you collapse your comment because it is absolutely irrelevant and has nothing to do with this DR. If you have issues with me, file AE.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:32, 29 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - Partisan hackery by someone that should have been removed from the topic area long, long ago. A Wikipedia article is not a platform from which to whine about how one personally feels about the treatment of Jews, supporting one's sentiments by stitching together a hode-podge of quotes of others.  Srsly, go blog about it. Tarc (talk) 13:35, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Userfy as essay Seems the prudent and reasonable course.  If the user can mark it up into a real article, that is one thing, but it does not appear to meet that criterion at this point. Collect (talk) 13:40, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is a notable topic, and the article is well-referenced to reliable sources.  Potential problems with respect to non-neutral point-of-view and perhaps synthesis/original research can be fixed with prudent editing; deletion therefore is unnecessary.  Peacock (talk) 15:42, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge. Synthesis in current form. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:22, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - POV, Attack nonsense from the same editor that gave us this shenanigans. NickCT (talk) 17:05, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You are mistaking. The attack articles are Israel and the apartheid analogy; Judaism and violence and a few dozen more [....] like those. This article is a defense article, not an attack. BTW so called "shenanigans" was kept and read by about 9,000 people on DYK--Mbz1 (talk) 17:13, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It would help if you could quit BAWWWing about other articles that your side of the playing field cannot tolerate. Go ahead and try to AfD either of those if you think  your case is strong enough. Tarc (talk) 02:54, 30 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep if "Blame Israel" is discussed as a meme used by Israel's defenders instead of being presented as a factual explanation that discredits any particular critic of Israel. betsythedevine (talk) 17:28, 30 January 2011 (UTC) Delete or Merge to Criticism of Israel. Do many critics of Israel have bad motives? Yes. Can one find examples of stupid or hypocritical criticisms of Israel? Yes. It is still a long jump from these facts to this article's claim that Blame Israel First "is a tendency that prevails in the Arab World, and is prevalent as well among the Western and Israeli far left and at the United Nations." Comparing this article to  Self-hating Jew or New anti-semitism,  other criticisms of critics of Israel, this article looks even more like a WP:COATRACK display of polemics that favor one side of a question, with examples that support those polemics. To people who say that the article just needs clean-up and should be kept, OK, please clean it up then. We are not doing an AfD for a hypothetical article that could be written with the same article name (although "Israel derangement syndrome" is a more common name for this particular meme based on g-hits), this is an AfD for this article as it exists. betsythedevine (talk) 17:37, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I was even worrying, that it took you so long to show up here, and I guess now I could expect to be taking to RFC/U after that trolling of yours. Once again I wrote the article you did not like. But could you at least try to be fair? Where did I compare this article to Self-hating Jew and/or New anti-semitism? I did provide very well sourced opinion pieces that "blame Israel first" mentality might have something to do with antisemitism, but I have never compared this article to New anti-semitism. The article is based on facts. I am far from saying that Israel is always right. She is not, but if Israel was the only country that could not take her turn in sitting in UN security council for human rights, there something wrong with UN, not with Israel. If Obama, while giving the speech in Indonesia blames Israel for new homes  built in Jerusalem, while completely ignoring that Indonesia does not allow Israeli citizens to visit the country there's something wrong with Obama, not Israel, If wikipedia could host such articles as Israel and the apartheid analogy there's something wrong with wikipedia not with Israel, if Israel is blamed for ..., but that's enough. No reason to go on. And over all most of "delete" reasons prove the subject of the article --Mbz1 (talk) 18:09, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. If you actually want this article to survive AfD, you might do better to demonstrate your ability to write with a NPOV by not making personal attacks on everyone who comments negatively on it, Mbz1. Frankly, everything you've written so far in 'support' of your article has done little other than demonstrate why if any article on the subject could ever be written, it needs to be done by someone with less emotional involvement. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:21, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I mentioned Self-hating Jew and New anti-semitism only as examples to show that, as Jimbo says below, a neutral article can be written on a similar topic. New anti-semitism, for example, discusses the usage and history of that meme--it does not WP:COATRACK a bunch of examples of writers who think new anti-semitism is a valid meme, followed by some examples where criticisms of Israel were demonstrably motivated by anti-semitism. betsythedevine (talk) 19:27, 29 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete, Fast POV Pushing and biased article. T ofutwitch11  (T ALK ) 18:44, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - This has nothing to do with me. WP:AAJ and all that.  Having said that, I do have some hopefully useful thoughts.  First, it is entirely possible, as a general rule, to write a neutral article on topics of the sort covered by this article.  Whether this article is that or not, I'm not in a position to say, having only cursorily reviewed it.  But deletion is not usually the correct answer to an article that isn't as good as it could be. Second, I see a fair number of problems in this discussion with other irrelevant arguments: for example, the various attacks on Mbz1's alleged partisanship seem mostly false and highly partisan themselves.  Let's focus on the article, not the author.  Let's focus on the arguments and facts, not the personalities.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:53, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per Peacock. Plot Spoiler (talk) 00:00, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per brew and Peacock. Obviously notable and reliably sourced topic. Any NPOV and/or SYNTH issues should be dealt with on the talk page, not by deleting the article. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:19, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete it's a POV screed (whoever wrote it) not treated by any academic work (or non-opinion journalism in serious publications) anywhere as a topic. It's also a fork of the many articles on antisemitism, and suffers from rather glaring OR and SYNTH problems.Bali ultimate (talk) 00:25, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. I'm pretty sure we don't have articles like that. Heck, I'm having a hard time coming up with a summary of what the article is about in the first place, it certainly isn't about a phrase. I also find it the two images rather disturbing. How blatant can POV-pushing get around here? --Conti|✉ 14:18, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Out of all the POV debacles in this area, this pretty much takes the cake. Shoplifter (talk) 14:34, 30 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment Putting emotions aside let's see what is POV according to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
 * To avoid POV one must:


 * 1) Avoid stating opinions as facts. No opinion listed in the article is stated as fact.
 * 2) Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. There is no  seriously contested assertions listed in the article stated as fact.
 * 3) Avoid presenting uncontested assertions as mere opinion. All assertions, if any, are all directly stated to the source.
 * 4) Prefer non-judgmental language. All language used in the article is neutral.I am not talking about quoted and directly stated to the sources opinions.
 * 5) Accurately indicate the relative prominence of opposing views. This is an interesting one. What could be opposite views in this particular article? That all the blames Israel gets are justified? But who is to state such a view? Instead of stating it, Israel simply gets blamed. So, here's the paradox of this article: the blames themselves that are well represented in the article, and the opinions that contradict those blames make the article neutral.
 * So in accordance with wikipedia policy there is POV in the article.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:46, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the 'opposing point of view' to the premise that Israel gets blamed for everything would be the premise that it doesn't. The article is cherry-picking multiple sources to suggest 'blame Israel' is a normal response in the Middle East etc, without providing evidence (from WP:RS) as to how common this is. Yes, I'm sure it happens, but asserting that it is "an attitude found not only in Arab countries, but also in Israel itself, and across the world" seems rather stretching things. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:09, 30 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment Like a lot of us, I became aware of this article from a post on Jimbo Wales' talk page, so I paid close attention to Jimbo's comment above that this article should be salvageable. I don't think it is possible at this time, unless there is a major change in the title and framing of the article. For example, it could be titled Allegations of Israel's demonization, perhaps. "Blame Israel first" is a nonstarter. Then you have to be balanced in the lead and be sure to provide a balanced perspective in the text. Otherwise the article will come across as POV synthesis. I suggest that people interested in salvaging the article work toward that goal. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:56, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The article name has been changed, and now it is simply Blame Israel. The word "Allegations" in the title will not work out. "Blaming Israel" is fact, not allegations. Just above I explained why the article is not POV, but I am very much open to all suggestions and all the help for improving the article except removing well sourced, directly stated to the reliable sources opinions.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:08, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that "Blame Israel" is too clipped to be useful. You need a more explicit title. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:09, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Would you like Criticism of criticism of Israel better?--Mbz1 (talk) 16:13, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Only if we're going to have Criticism of criticism of criticism of Israel. --Conti|✉ 16:15, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * (ed) I'd seriously consider my initial suggestion. Remember that critics of Israel do not view criticism or singling out of Israel as demonization. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:16, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The word "allegations" in the name you proposed does not work out for me. How about Criticism of Israel:facts and opinions--Mbz1 (talk) 16:32, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That sounds like the title of an essay and not an encyclopedia article, which is precisely why this should be deleted. --Conti|✉ 18:11, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment In my opinion, the article's neutrality would be improved by describing "Blame Israel" as a meme or slogan used by defenders of Israel instead of showcasing it as the uncontestedly accurate way to describe the motivation behind criticism of Israel. betsythedevine (talk) 17:13, 30 January 2011 (UTC) I made that change to the article's lede and assuming it is accepted, I will change my !Vote above to Keep. betsythedevine (talk) 17:28, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge to Criticism of Israel....no more POV than the preponderance of 9/11 conspiracy theory advocacy pages like 9/11 conspiracy theories, September 11 attacks advance-knowledge debate, United States government operations and exercises on September 11, 2001, World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories, 9/11 Truth movement...etc, ad nauseum...all of which are riddled with SYNTH issues far worse than this article has.--MONGO 17:34, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The article has nothing to do with 9/11 or conspiracies. Phearson (talk) 17:40, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course the article has nothing to do with 9/11 except Israel was blamed for 9/11 too. User:MONGO simply provided examples of a few other articles, in which "SYNTH issues far worse than this article has".--Mbz1 (talk) 18:15, 30 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Info The lead was re-written, the new proposed name is Blame Israel (Meme), which is fine IMO. So, if there are no other opinions I will move the article to Blame Israel (Meme), and let's please close this DR as "speedy kept" :-)--Mbz1 (talk) 18:15, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The content is still not encyclopedic in the slightest. --Conti|✉ 18:33, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That would be the proverbial lipstick on the pig. Tarc (talk) 19:19, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Even with the recent changes, my delete vote stands. This is a collection of quotes and sources on a theme. That doesn't meet WP:GNG and COATRACK-ing it can't cover the initial OR deficiencies. If this is the standard for what's allowed as an article, editors could create all sorts of POV-pushing coatracks by assembling thematically related quotes and calling it a "meme" (ie, "Obama as socialist meme", "UN as New World Order meme", whatever). Sol (talk) 20:10, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * There is also the issue of whether this 'meme' (horrible word) actually exists, rather than an 'Israelis (and their supporters) always thinking that the Arabs (etc) blame everything on Israel' meme. The article contains plenty of (cherry-picked) evidence of what supporters of Israel think, but little evidence that the supposed 'blame Israel meme' itself is anything like as common as the article makes out. Until WP:RS can be found that actually discusses this, there are actually no grounds for treating the 'meme' as a real phenomenon at all. If anything, the logic behind the article is that of the conspiracy theory, rather than of a description of observable fact. As I've said before, there is probably some truth to the article's premise, but that doesn't alter the fact that it is OR based on a particular POV. Unless a properly-researched neutral source discussing the subject (the 'meme' as a meme) can be found, this is simply not a fit subject for an encyclopaedia. It needs to be deleted. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:29, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, let me please rephrase your own comment made about different article: We are not reporting the Blame Israel (meme) as fact, and nor are we attempting to asses its validity. All we should reporting is the fact that the issue has been raised in notable places. There are facts, blames and opinions presented together in the article. It should be kept. --Mbz1 (talk) 20:46, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - given the failure to allow this article to develop by the nominator and that the topic meets WP:GNG and WP:NOT. Blame Israel can be broken down to (i) reliable sources describing acts of blaming Israel and (ii) reliable sources describing the topic "blame Israel." This was the same issue in Articles for deletion/Baby Jesus theft. If you look at the source table here, you can see a division between the two approaches used by the reliable sources. The column "Article Title cont." allows you to sort the news article titles to see what Israel in fact is being blamed for (over time) and to make it easier to locate reliable sources describing the topic "blame Israel." The topic meets meets WP:GNG and WP:NOT and any issues can be resolved over time, given an appropriate amount of time. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 18:40, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Info The article was renamed to Blame Israel (Meme).--Mbz1 (talk) 20:27, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't believe that helps. I have an open mind on this article, certainly no dog in this fight, so if this could be made more neutral, starting with the title, I'd cheerfully chance my stance to "keep." But that hasn't happened yet. ScottyBerg (talk) 00:22, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Scotty, thanks for the comment. I am open to other suggestions about the name, but I am against including the word "allegations" in the name. Could you think about something else please?--Mbz1 (talk) 00:25, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sort of out of ideas. I would suggest that you try to think creatively as to a formulation of this article. It has some good content in it but smacks of synthesis, and it is getting a lot of "delete" sentiment. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:53, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

--Bobbyd2011 (talk) 10:34, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep The article is well sourced and well written. The subject very important and very noteworthy. Scientists, journalist, politicians are all referenced.
 * Keep Does this appelation apply to any other country, "Blame Cambodia", for instance? Chesdovi (talk) 13:20, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * See Anti-Americanism for an obvious example. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:03, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, the "Blame Cambodia" theme happens to be quite a popular subject of discussion at the moment in Thailand and Cambodia. You can find many articles/blogs etc that talk about it. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 18:57, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, we do have Blame Canada, but that's about a song. Qrsdogg (talk) 16:25, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Good point, Chesdovi, but not in the direction you apparently intended: "Accusations of anti-Semitism are a tool used to silence anyone who criticizes Israeli policies. But would any one criticizing the policy of Iran be labeled as anti-Muslim or anti-Persian? Are critics of the Chinese Government routinely described as anti-Chinese? Is condemning the Saudi Arabian government anti-Arab? Surely aggression, military occupation and violations of human and political rights should not be put beyond criticism?"1 Substitute "anti-Israeli sentiment" for "anti-Semitism" and the same argument applies. –  OhioStandard  (talk) 17:01, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The above quote is by Palestinian Arab from Gaza (the government of which shells Israel with rockets) Alaa Kullab. He now lives in Sweden, a country with a constantly increasing numbers of antisemitic incidents.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:45, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Unbelievable. You object to this RS because its author is Palestinian ? You who wrote (and had the decency to retract) above, "And why in your opinion Jewish sources should not be taken into account?" Is it really possible that you fail to see that your ad hominem would apply equally to any Jewish author who defends Israel's current government policies? Is it really possible that you can't see how utterly racist the attitude behind your statement is?  –  OhioStandard  (talk) 19:38, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Do not put words in my mouth. I have never said Arab opinions should not count. I simply provided information about the author of the quote, exactly the same way I did it for the quotes I used in the article, like, for example in this section name Egyptian writer and columnist Hassan Hafez on blaming Israel or Mudar Zahran, a Jordanian of Palestinian heritage or Ahmed Sheikh, a Palestinian journalist and the current editor-in-chief of the Qatar-based television channel Al Jazeera and so on. You should have done it yourself. Providing a quote without naming the author is a copyright violation. (I did not notice the link.) I will appreciate, if you are to stop calling my remarks "racists". Not that I care about your apology, but you really should think before you write something similar to what you did above. --Mbz1 (talk) 19:45, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, lets see what your words were: "The above quote is by Palestinian Arab from Gaza (the government of which shells Israel with rockets)". Does Alaa Kullab represent the Gazan government? No. Have you any evidence of him being involved in shelling? No. Have you any evidence that he is responsible for any "antisemitic incidents" in Sweden? No. You made a totally unjustified attack on a critic of Israel because he is a Palestinian. That you see nothing wrong with this if further evidence that you cannot write on the subject of Israel without blatent POV-pushing. If you wish to see an article on the subject, I'd suggest you leave it to those whe can actually do so to Wikipedia standards. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:05, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * What AndyTheGrump said. You were implying that Alaa Kullab's quote should be disregarded because he is from Gaza and now lives in Sweden. If that's not a racist comment, I don't know what is. --Conti|✉ 20:09, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

(ec):::::::No, I did not do anything of above. I provided information on the background of the provided quote, and its author for a better understanding. The opinion was written by the author, who was introduced as "Stockholm-based Palestinian Alaa Kullab." The newspaper also specified it was written in response to this opinion. I have nothing to retract. --Mbz1 (talk) 20:20, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


 * So now we have to explicitly identify every commentator on I/P issues as either an Arab or a Jew? As if the sub-heading of the article I linked to, which identifies its author as a "Stockholm-based Palestinian", were somehow trying to hide something? Btw, I'm disappointed you seem to have declined to meet up on my talk page. I'd hoped we could work out our apparent conflict over this article there instead of here. –  OhioStandard  (talk) 20:15, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I did not notice the link you provided. I believe in some situations, in particular, when we quote opinion pieces it might be important to know the background of the person, who stated the opinion for a better understanding of it. It has absolutely nothing to do with a racism, it has absolutely nothing to do with rejecting of an opinion, but yes, I do be believe in some situations it is important. After all the newspaper that published the opinion provided the author background not only in the beginning, but also in the end of his opinion.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:54, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Just how much worse will you make it for yourself before you give up, Mbz1? Did the source you quote choose to link Kullab with the shelling of Israel? No, you did. Did it link him with asntisemitic attacks? No, you did. A blatant attempt to smear him. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:04, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


 * No worries re the missed ref. That superscript cite method I used is easy-enough to miss. I'll need to think more about this context/background thing. In the meantime, would you please try to think about how you might respond if a pro-Palestinian editor had made the post you did, but about a Jewish author, instead. I'd appreciatate that. Also, I know we all do it to some extent, but I'd be grateful if you'd try to avoid adding substantively to your comments after you've posted them. It kind of interferes with the continuity of the thread. Thank you,  –  OhioStandard  (talk) 21:21, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * In this particular situation I would not have accused a pro-Palestinian editor in making a "racist" comment.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:27, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * (ec) What just happened here is pretty cut and dried; linking where the man is from to the government that is alleged to "shell Israel with rockets", thereby poisoning the well in terms of accepting his words on the subject matter. If that wasn't bad enough, he/she further denigrates the person by noting that he now lives in a country where antisemitism is allegedly on the rise.  So in one neat and tidy little statement, mbz1 discredits someone who holds a different point of view by lumping him in with terrorists and antisemites.  The WP:BLP implications here are rather serious IMO, and a retraction may be wise before this is escalated. Tarc (talk) 20:22, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment on contra-meme. Editors should realize that there are plenty of reliable-source editorials that will make it into this article that claim the proposition that the world "blames Israel first" is one or both of the following:


 * − A canard promoted to shield Israel's government from legitimate criticism.


 * − The result of a paranoia (not my word, see sources) that tends to produce the results it decries.


 * Here are just three of the abundance of "contra-meme" ( yucky word, I know ) articles available: (1) Israel's unprecedented insecurity – and paranoia (Belfast Telegraph); (2) "... they resolve the problem by creating a conspiracy theory that explains everything." (Haaretz); (3) Then there's this, about manufacturing the appearance of anti-Semitism for political gain (Inter Press Service) Do we honestly need another synth opinon piece masquerading as an encyclopedia article for I/P editors to fight over? Don't we have enough of those on Wikipedia already? –  OhioStandard  (talk) 20:15, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, all those sources, and I could provided hundreds more of the same, are a very good prove that Blame Israel first has the right to exist.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:37, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Articles don't have rights. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:40, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, English is not my first language. Once in while I have difficulties in expressing myself, as well as in understanding others. For example I have spent the last 10 minutes trying to understand what in the world shut the **** up" means, but so far I was not able to find it in any dictionary. (sigh)--Mbz1 (talk) 21:51, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * So what would stop the converse of this article? If thematic variations on a topic are worthy of inclusion sans a focal point like having the article covering the book Why Blame Israel, what stops someone from taking all of these references to Israel as the root of all problems and write the article "Israel as cause of all Middle Eastern issues"? Aside from why anyone would actually want to write such nonsense, they could do it with the sources you've compiled here. Or what about an article "The Best Baseball Player Ever"? It's got 1,200 hits on google archives compared to the 88 here. "Obama is a socialist"? 5,950. Are these also article worthy? Cause there are lots and lots of books on both of them. I think they are ancillary to larger topics and aren't in themselves notable, like this article. I'm not trying to be glib, I just don't think phrases related to notable issues receive notability by association. This is an outgrowth of New Antisemitism but it lacks that topics serious academic treatment. Sol (talk) 22:00, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The exact "converse" of Blame Israel is Criticism of the Israeli government, a random WP:COATRACK of the ruminations of silly op-eds and partisan academics. Oh, and the latter survived a recent afd with nary a whimper.-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 22:05, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "Their side has an article critical of us, so we must have an article critical of them" is not a valid reason to keep an article, or to even create one in the first place. It is becoming increasingly clear that this article was created not because the subject was thought to be notable, but rather to serve as a counter-weight to articles that the proponents do not like.  This sort of thing got some people into a bit of trouble a few years ago, i.e. Allegations of Saudi Arabian apartheid, and others... Tarc (talk) 22:35, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Straw man.-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 22:53, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


 * NOTICE TO ALL ABOVE I have posted ANI regarding this AfD, which is clearly getting uncivil by the minute. Phearson (talk) 23:25, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to say that we should delete this as SYNTH. there is a possibility that the article could be radically re-written so as not to be a hodgepodge of pull quotes and examples and instead convey a coherent thesis, but I'm not holding my breath. Protonk (talk) 23:36, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * And I am inclined to say that you are mistaking. According to WP:SYNTHESIS states: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources". In this article 90% of the sources that are used do imply the conclusion of the topic of the article.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:46, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * the spirit of SYNTH is to prohibit articles strung together by a tenuous editor derived connection. Related to this subject I can imagine an article on the self hating jew in foreign policy.  Many of these same authors have (and others in the neocon circles) trotted out the argument that Jews who criticize Israel do so out of some pop-psychological self hatred rather than any grounding in fact.  It is the same issue.  A subject which appears only as a rhetorical device among a small class of authors and think tank members crafted into some apparently coherent whole because we can find a bunch of quotes that all say the same thing. Protonk (talk) 00:21, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I do not know what is "the spirit of of SYNTH", but I read the policy, and this article does not violate it. Period. And about "a small class of authors" you are right only "a small class of authors" rise their voices on that subject. If there were many people, who do, there would not have been "blame Israel first" mentality and then there would not have been this article.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:41, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 68 contributions and wikilawyering to boot. I think you are reaching the point of diminishing marginal returns in your contributions to this discussion. Protonk (talk) 02:55, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * That so called "wikilawyering" is a great argument, where there are no valid arguments left. I do not like this argument. If I or the article I wrote is accused in something I have to have the right to defend in accordance with wikipedia policices. But you are right, I have to stop contributing to this AFD. There's no use to continue, but it was an interesting experience because in the last few days I was the subject of PAs, incivility, bad faith assumptions in different places (not only on this AFD) could provide links by request, and all concerning the article. --Mbz1 (talk) 03:10, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * delete Looks to be WP:SYNTH shit list of anyone who has ever blamed isreal for anything. No source appear to directly discuss the over arching Idea that this is a "meme." I am sure that using the mehtod employed here Blame America and Blame France would be doable. I see nothing here to suggest that "Blame Isreal" is in fact a meme rather than an action of blaming Israel The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 23:53, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete It's synthesis and this is evident in the heading "Intellectuals analyzing "Blame Israel" mentality". The article is comprised entirely (excepting the short lede) of quotes by people and these quotes are being used as examples of this meme. Does any source do more than imply, but actually say "there is a mentality of blame Israel anywhere? Is there any substantial analysis, not just quotes, of a specifically named "blame Israel" viewpoint? Here are some sources at random: Haaretz, Al-Masry Al-Youm, A Match Made in Heaven. None of them seem to do anything but provide quotes. Who interprets these quotes? Wikipedia's editors. Ergo, synthesis. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  00:00, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I will really appreciate, if you are to provide a single example of any quote that got interpreted in the article?--Mbz1 (talk) 00:05, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * And yes, there are sources about mentality of blame Israel
 * Why Blame Israel? The facts behind the headlines;


 * "For a surprising number of people, Israel has become a pariah state, a threat to world ? not just regional ? peace and security. Israel gets the blame for half a century of Middle Eastern violence, for inciting Islamic-based terrorism throughout the world, and for stealing land whose historical right of ownership is at best contentious. "


 * "We must excel in our writing… and stop blaming all our problems on Israel. I wonder why we blame Israel for every fault in [Arab society. This is the logic of the weak, who seek a peg on which to hang all their mistakes in order to evade a true confrontation with reality"] and so on, and so on.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:15, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * None of those you just gave an example seem to be WP:RS criteria. 1 is an obvious WP:SPS, one is a Website Selling a book, and 1 one is some institute which may or may not be a WP:RS The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 00:19, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If no one is interpreting the quotes, Mbz1, pray tell us why they are in the article? How are they examples of anything if one does not associate them with a certain viewpoint they don't explicitly mention or support? I would really appreciate it if you would provide one reason why the article comprises only examples and no actual analysis of the "blame Israel meme"? As for your sources, they don't actually say anything about the meme itself (nor are they particularly reliable); you will need to cite the book itself and stubbify the article if your argument is to hold. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  00:28, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Fetchcomms, from your question I see you never bothered to read the article.I cannot provide any reason why there's no no actual analysis of "blame Israel meme" in the article because there is actual analysis of "blame Israel meme" in the article, for example this one "Israel was to be blamed because its hundreds of air strikes against combatants were lethal, while Hezbollah was to be excused for shooting off thousands of rockets aimed at civilians because of its relative incompetence." or that one "Beyond that lies the oldest hatred of all, that of the Jew. A full answer to the question ‘why blame Israel’ must, in the end, deal with anti-Semitism." and there are more of those analyzes.
 * Here's a source that used the very same wording used in the article "blame-Israel mentality".--Mbz1 (talk) 00:41, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't quite follow you—that source makes allegations against NPR; I see your quote from the WP article, but that quote is under the "Intellectuals analyzing "Blame Israel" mentality" section, just a compilation of quotes and examples. Let me get this straight: I think the topic is pretty valid—but the article right now is written completely in the wrong way, and basically needs to be stubbified and restarted. It's a bunch of examples and quotes that purposely lead the reader to think something. I see no balancing arguments, I see no explanation for the validity of the opinions of these "intellectuals". The reader is simply forced to make the conclusion that Israel is being (unfairly) blamed by other countries. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  04:03, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment Some sources about Blame Israel First. Washington Times and this book. The Blame Israel First saying is also attributed often to groups or crowds of people, such as here. Silver  seren C 00:34, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Silver seren, and Norman Podhoretz source with exactly the same launderer "blame Israel mentality" is cited in the article: "Nor did being on the Left entail the blame-Israel-first mentality that by now has become as widespread among Israeli intellectuals as anti-Americanism was in the United States in the days of Vietnam"--Mbz1 (talk) 00:48, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete this article seems to be nothing but WP:SYNTH --Guerillero &#124; My Talk   00:45, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete this is why we have WP:SYNTH, so we can't publish articles about topics that aren't already established subjects. Just because a few commentators have used this style of argument doesn't mean its a notable topic for an encyclopedia. The article can be nothing more than original research without neutral parties discussing "blaming Israel" as a phenomenon. The article also smells pretty strongly POV. It might work as an academic blog posting or as a published essay, but not as an encyclopedia article. Also, per fetchcomms and Bali ultimate.  Them  From  Space  00:47, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I do hope that the closing administrator will act within wikipedia policies and disregard the delete votes based on wp:synth. There is no wp:synth in the article.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:56, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Consensus seems to indicating quite a few feels its WP:SYNTH. Your WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT attitude is the most troubling of this whole situation. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 02:05, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - it doesn't even seem clear what the topic of this article is. I think it's meant to be about an argument or perception that Israel is unfairly singled out for criticism; but it seems to have broadened to cover criticism of Israel generally. We already have an article on that, Criticism of Israel, and this one feels like a WP:POVFORK. Perhaps it could be rewritten to focus more tightly on this specific argument, but the topic is so inherently contentious that I doubt a NPOV article on the subject could really be written. Robofish (talk) 00:59, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * delete - subject isn't encyclopedic at all imo - awful. I went to look who had created it and my guess was correct - how amazing is that? Off2riorob (talk) 02:10, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I knew 99% of users, who will vote to delete it, that is before it was brought up to Jimbo's page and AN/I. How amazing that is? This AFD is kind of paradoxical on its own. While the article will probably get deleted the AFD for this article has proved very well the name of the article Blame Israel first, the topic of the article,and the necessity of it to be on wikipedia. --Mbz1 (talk) 02:25, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * So the fact that may editors do not consider the article appropriate for Wikipedia is proof that it is! Interesting logic... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:59, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The thing is that no matter how many users and administrators for that matter will come here and tell me that this is wp:synth I will never agree that it is. If I do not agree that it is wp:synth then I do not agree that the delete reasons are valid. If I do not agree that the delete reasons are valid then... Well I'd better stop here before you will tell me something else with a few "*" as you did here :-)--Mbz1 (talk) 03:22, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * We all need to dial it down, Mbz1, you included. You've called other editors trolls and liars over this, in edit summaries and on at least one talk page that I know of. Don't let's start calling for blood, any of us, okay? No one needs any more strife over this, including all our friends at ANI. For my own part, I've tried to respond to you with all the good manners I can bring to the discussion, on my talk page, where I hope you'll have the good grace to reply, despite the very difficult nature of this conversation. –  OhioStandard  (talk) 04:05, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete- the only possible way I can see this article being retained in any form is as an illustration of what a partisan synthesis of POV-pushery looks like. This article is nothing but flag-waving propaganda. Reyk  <sub style="color:blue;">YO!  03:05, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * What a user wasting its time "in this shithole" :-)--Mbz1 (talk) 03:22, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, and the sad thing is, as I've previously suggested, there probably is a grain of truth in the article's premise: that 'Blame Israel' is a common-enough response in Middle-Eastern politics, even when clearly irrelevant to an outsider. This article is a good example of exactly not to discuss the issue: it illustrates the demonisation of Israel by demonising its critics instead.AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:11, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Since nationalist propaganda articles like this are part of the reason I and many others are turning off Wikipedia, I'm not sure what your point is. I suspect you were going for a cheap shot, but you'll have to flail harder. Reyk  <sub style="color:blue;">YO!  03:28, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * "nationalist propaganda articles like this"... no more questions.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:31, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Very well referenced and notable, no violation of WP:SYNTH at all. Basket of Puppies  03:25, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

<--- Please explain why you think you are entitled to tell other editors where to place their comments. And please sign your contributions AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:30, 1 February 2011 (UTC) -->
 * I have restored the comments of other users to the proper chronological order, and downgraded mbz1's section headers appropriately. All of that was highly inappropriate. Tarc (talk) 05:39, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * A note to the closing administrator

according to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view wp:Synth states: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research"
 * To avoid POV one must:
 * Avoid stating opinions as facts. No opinion listed in the article is stated as fact.
 * Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. There is no  seriously contested assertions listed in the article stated as fact.
 * Avoid presenting uncontested assertions as mere opinion. All assertions, if any, are all directly stated to the source.
 * Prefer non-judgmental language. All language used in the article is neutral.I am not talking about quoted and directly stated to the sources opinions.
 * Accurately indicate the relative prominence of opposing views. This is an interesting one. What could be opposite views in this particular article? That all the blames Israel gets are justified? But who is to state such a view? Instead of stating it, Israel simply gets blamed. So, here's the paradox of this article: the blames themselves that are well represented in the article, and the opinions that contradict those blames make the article neutral.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:08, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Explanation why this article does not violate wp:Synth

There's nothing like this in the article. The conclusion was reached not by me and/or any other editors, who edited the articles, but by the sources themselves.

Here are only few examples of the sources used and conclusions they reached


 * 1) the reviews on book written by the Director of the Center for Israeli Studies at University College London. The book's name is Why Blame Israel?
 * 2) Book by Norman Podhoretz has exact same wording "blame-Israel-first mentality that by now has become as widespread among Israeli intellectuals as anti-Americanism was in the United States in the days of Vietnam"
 * 3) a book by Pierluigi Battista questions "a mad blame" of Israel by United Nations, European Union, who blame Israel while completely ignoring what is happening in China and Darfur.
 * 4) Please see the titles of the external links

More examples could be presented by request. Thanks for reading--Mbz1 (talk) 04:08, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * *Comment The article reminds me of Peter Robinson's Uncommon Knowledge. Except there are 17 hard liners (purveying Tu quoque, the ad hominem of antisemitism, etc) to 1 strawman moderate (saying, "Actually, I quite agree") instead of 3 to 1. Representing opposing views with the interpretations of those who oppose them is hardly sufficient, however unbiased their analysis. For the sake of argument, I shall put aside the issue of whether opinions are being stated to be facts. But where, then, are the facts? After the opinions of the quoted 17 is removed, there is only the opinions of the people of Israel as surveyed by Tel Aviv University. This lack of any NPOV content turns a content discussion, which should be conducted on the talk page, into a deletion discussion, the only defense for which is assurances that it can be made better. Anarchangel (talk) 04:53, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - The discretionary sanctions say "What Wikipedia can do is aspire to provide neutral, encyclopedic coverage about the areas of dispute and the peoples involved in it, which may lead to a broader understanding of the issues and the positions of all parties to the conflict." Does this article positively contribute to that effort ? I don't think so. The article seems to be a synthesis of published material that advances the position that Israel is a victim of a cruel and unjust world. While playing the victim is quite a nice propaganda technique to distract people from looking at the facts and context of a matter, and slogans are essential to any propaganda effort, I'm not sure that it's a sensible way to frame an article in Wikipedia when the objective is meant to be neutral, encyclopedic coverage about the areas of dispute and the peoples involved in it. The collection of cherry picked soundbites are interesting and reliably sourced but they are sampled from a vast space of commentary about the conflict and synthesised to advance a particular narrative. It could have been an article about the currently popular delegitimization narrative rather than the Blame Israel narrative. Perhaps that article will be written soon. These narratives deserve a place in Wikipedia amongst all of the other narratives about the conflict, they need to be described but this isn't the way to do it. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 05:29, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete – One can surely make well-written and well-sourced POV and OR material here; this is one of them. –MuZemike 05:43, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per serious SYNTH concerns. --John (talk) 05:58, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete − this doesn't seem encyclopedic at all. It advances a particular point of view and I think that is contrary to the established principle of neutrality. I agree that it has been concocted from various sources in an attempt to present an argument which none of those sources actually support when considered on their merits. Lovetinkle (talk) 06:14, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - None of the sources given support the titular assertion that there is a meme here. Can't not be OR. 24.177.120.74 (talk) 07:25, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per Tarc. Hobartimus (talk) 07:50, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - the article calls it a meme, but the sources don't seem to. It's basically an article about a tendency to ascribe negative events to a real or imagined stereotypical enemy, either seriously or for humorous effect. Except that none of the sources are about this tendency, they're all about specific instances. It probably falls into one of the list of cognitive biases but I couldn't be bothered to work out which. At best, this tendency, as applied to Israel, deserves one short and well-sourced paragraph in the Israel article.-- K orr u ski Talk 09:07, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Topic is great for a blog, but is totally unsuitable for an encyclopedic article (try again when a couple of secondary sources have written substantial works on the article topic ). At the moment, the article violates WP:SYNTH since it is just a list of random comments remotely connected with blaming Israel. Johnuniq (talk) 10:41, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. I have no confidence that this topic could ever comply with NPOV. In addition there are concerns about synthesis. I would not expect to find this in an encyclopedia. Quantpole (talk) 13:19, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * *Comment There does seem to be sourcing for the fact that there are accusations of the Blame Israel mentality. But evidence for this being a meme is rather slim (to say the least, this indicates the page may be forkish trying to make a claim for which there is little evidence to push a POV) also the page does not appear to have any counter argument (this is not a reason for delete but a reason to work on). I see no reason why this material could not be merged with out damaging our understanding of what may not even be a topic. There is also I think an element of synthesis, whilst some sources do talk about Blame Israel mentality others seem to only be talking about singling out Israel and ignoring others. There may be something here, but I am not too sure.Slatersteven (talk) 14:09, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Per WP:SYNTH. JoeSperrazza (talk) 15:46, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete as exactly the kind of WP:SYNTH POV-pushing that Wikipedia doesn't need in this sensitive topic area. <b style="color:#1111AA; font-family:monospace, monospace;">*** Crotalus ***</b> 17:36, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:SYNTH. The article topic itself is irretrievably incompatible with the requirement to provide coverage in a manner that meets WP:NPOV. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:57, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete This is a ridiculously bad subject for an article. There is no way that it can ever be made neutral or objective and it borders on Persecution complex. Dingo1729 (talk) 22:11, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:SYNTH. Yet another POV-pushing article we do not need. Huldra (talk) 22:46, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Selective merge to Criticism of Israel (very selective). That article should discuss outside reception of Israel and it can easily accommodate "criticism of criticism of Israel", which this material essentially is. This article is cobbled together and cannot stand alone as it is a NPOV violation. For an example of the issues with sourcing, I removed "When in doubt, blame Israel", which was claimed to be an alternate topic, because that phrase appears in no reliable source that I can find. Fences  &amp;  Windows  04:21, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Aha, there is already Criticism of the Israeli government, which addresses the issues this article attempts to cover. I'm thinking this present article is a POV fork. Fences  &amp;  Windows  04:25, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for scouting around to find this, F&W. I also see there's a large selection of similar commentary quoting Dershowitz and other proponents of the notion that the world blames the Israel government inappropriately for its actions at Israel lobby in the United States. I agree this article is a POV fork. –  OhioStandard  (talk) 09:31, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * A little more looking aroung just now leads me to believe that Criticism of Israel might be a better home for anything in this article that merits salvage. Editors interested in reading more about this whole issue might like to review the following, as well: Debate on pro-Israel lobby in U.K. and American Israel Public Affairs Committee.  –  OhioStandard  (talk) 09:51, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, this is yet another unjust reason to delete the article. Why? Here's why: Do we have to delete or merge article Divergent boundary only because it has some info about in volcano, and there are thousands examples like this one all over wikipedia. Do they all have to be deleted and/all merged to other articles, or only the ones, that have something positive to say about Israel?--Mbz1 (talk) 12:07, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Respectfully, if you've not read Other stuff exists, you should consider doing so. JoeSperrazza (talk) 13:51, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, no one could view the examples you mention as POV forks. Our policy about such forks says, among other things: "A point of view fork is an attempt to evade the neutrality policy by creating a new article about a subject that is already treated in an article, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. POV forks are not permitted in Wikipedia." But I won't argue the point with you; I think we've already used up too much real-estate here that way. –  OhioStandard  (talk) 14:20, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Mbz1, I think your view depends on the notion that the Blame Israel first article doesn't violate SYNTH. Everything else you say follows from that assumption. I agree with OhioStandard that the analogy doesn't work well. It's possible to write a synthesized article about divergent boundaries that would present a particular POV held by a certain subset of geoscientists advocating a specific view about one or more aspects of the topic by collecting their work together and excluding the rest of the research carried out on these features. It wouldn't be very difficult to synthesize an article because there has been so much work published on the geology of ocean ridges and rift valleys. It might even be in someone's interests to do so if, for example, they wanted to promote some commercial aspect of investment in seafloor massive sulfide mining associated with a small spreading centre somewhere. The current divergent boundary article isn't an article like that, it isn't a synthesized POV fork. It's simply an article about divergent boundaries. It's not a great article about divergent boundaries but it provides a basic introduction and overview. Naturally a summary is included in volcano per WP:SUMMARY although it appears to be a summary of the MORB article. Anyway, my basic point is that if you don't see it as SYNTH then pretty much everyone's delete/merge arguments are going to look invalid to you. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 14:23, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge or Delete This does seem to be a fork. There is anotehr page that covers this very subject, and fits in better with hte way similar subjects are presented.Slatersteven (talk) 14:02, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge with anti-Zionism or antisemitism – I think everyone here can agree that there's plenty of historical evidence of bigoted people blaming Jews for everything (eg. Protocols of the Elders of Zion). This subject is simply a facet of a much larger bigoted phenomenon. At the moment, the article doesn't cover past events or background information and only focuses on modern events. I believe that it should be merged, so readers could view it in a larger, historical context. If it isn't viewed in the greater context, then readers could mistaken view this phenomenon as something invented by Muslims or the Left. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:51, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, my main concern is that the article is taken out of context. If background information and alternate views could be incorporated into the article, then I'll change my !vote to keep. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 16:02, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete This is just asking for troubles. There are enough problems with legitimate articles. TFighterPilot (talk) 17:43, 2 February 2011 (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.