Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Controversial Israeli and Zionist quotes


 * 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 Deleted at sole editor's request. --Aoratos 14:49, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

People quoting Israeli and Zionists
(NB the title has changed from 'Controversial Israeli and Zionist quotes' since nomination)

Whilst well referenced quotes may have a place on wikiquote, the only place they should be in wikipedia is in relevant articles where they can be contextualised. Wikipedia is not an indescriminate collection .... . A quixotic collection of inflametory zionist quotes, cherrypicked from around various sources, cannot be anything other that POV, as I suspect the creator of this User:Striver is aware. Read the introduction to the article - and this otherwise unsolicited comment he has made on the talk page. Delete or transfer to wikiquote. --Aoratos 14:58, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep It is common knowledge that Wikipedia is not an "indiscriminate collection" and that we have wikiquotes. But i argue that the nomination is flawed in its logic. The article is not indiscriminate, it describes and represent a real phenomena that it sources to (1) David Ickes website, (2) Radio Islam, (3) whatreallyhappened.com, (4) CounterPunch, (5) Rense.com (6) islamonline.net and more. Within those sites, each one (except whatreallyhappened) having their own article here on wikipedia, it can not be said to be a "indiscriminate collection", rather, its a well organized and intentfull collections of quotations aimed to achieve a specific aim. And that is why moving to wikiquote is not appropriate either. This articles main objective is not to present the quotes, rather to represent the phenomena that the practice of using this quotes represent. The quotes are there to give examples of the phenomena, which is evident since every quote is sourced to its main source, or it stats that it lacks such, and then proceeds to show what secondary sources use them to defame Israel and Zionist. The quotes in the article are not cherrypicked, they are picked from list that cherry pick: A huge and important disstinction. The quotes being inflammatory to Zionists is totally irrelevant. --Striver 15:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * So, you'd be OK with List of nasty things muslims have said about America or List of Anti-Semitic remarks made by Arabs? As I say, an article about controversies that gave quotes as examples would be fine. Bringing them together is not neutral. --Aoratos 15:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I was actualy thinking about creating a counterpart, maybe Controversial anti-Israeli and anti-Zionist quotes, and put them both on the "Arab-Israeli conflict" template. I have absolutly no problem with that. Only questions that needs to be answered is if Zionist proponens have the same practice of listing anti-zionist quotes. I do not understand " an article about controversies that gave quotes as examples would be fine. Bringing them together is not neutral", could you elaborate on that, so i understand? Thanks. --Striver 15:27, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per the nomination. I do not find Striver's reasoning convincing, and there is ample precedent for deleting information whose organization depends on subjective judgement. Mackensen (talk) 15:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * What part is subjective, the quotes being controversial or being used to defame Isreal/Zionist? --Striver 15:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Move any that can be verified to wikiquote Lurker talk 15:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * May i ask, are you arguing that the phenomena is not real, or that it should not be represented? --Striver 15:17, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep - Striver's arguments are compelling. Why would one delete this article. We need more. Williamborg (Bill) 15:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - It is possible to collect only those facts which support a particular point of view, such that even a presentation of facts can violate our NPOV policy. This appears to be one of those times. The page is also orphaned, which speaks to the "indiscriminate collection of information" point - a pretty specious collection of data, really. (ESkog)(Talk) 15:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You seem to be under the impresion that this article tries to "prove" that Zionist are evil. If that was the case, you would be right. But that is not the case, the article clearly stats that it is portraying the phenomena of people doing so. In other words, your support for the deletion is based on a missrepresentation of what the article is about. --Striver 15:53, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Keep - article may need developing, but it hasn't been up for long.--MostlyHarmful 15:51, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Sockpuppet of user evading block. Mackensen (talk) 18:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thats right, i has only been up for 90 minutes before being afd'd. Now, that speaks a lot in my view. --Striver 15:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The truth hurts - that's probably a motivation behind advocating the deletion of a very useful article.--MostlyHarmful 16:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Please assume good faith and avoid speculating on other people's motives. It is about as useful as if I were to speculated on Striver's politics because he created it. I nominated this because it doesn't belong here, that's all. --Aoratos 16:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete say what, Striver? Lists that cherrypick? What is the point of having this? Wikipedia is not a fricking blog! - CrazyRussian talk/email 15:54, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You are right, it is not. But it desribes the phenomena of blogs, see: Blog. In the same sence, this article desribes this phenomena of creating cherrypicked anti-Israely quotes. In other words: No valid reason for deletion is provided. --Striver 15:56, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. Adam Bishop 15:57, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * No arguements? Just a opinion? --Striver 16:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete: I agree with ESkog. ED MD 16:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * in that case, could you please show me were the article is trying to advance the view of Israel-Zioninst being evil/bad? --Striver 16:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment. I don't know enough about the situation to give an informed vote, however if kept the use of the word "controversial" in the article title is POV and should be changed. 23skidoo 16:59, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Sure, i have no problem with a rename. I would actualy appreciate some suggestions on better titles.--Striver 17:46, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * maybe Quoting Israeli and Zionists? --Striver 17:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom, wholly unencyclopedic arguing and POV pushing. David Icke's web site is an encyclopedic source now? And I would suggest article creator get out of the habit of leaving inappropiate talk page comments. Weregerbil 18:07, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Its a very appropriate cite regarding what the cite contains. The cite is not used as a source of facts like "Israel is bad", it is used as a source of the fact "David Ickes site lists quotes", and that is a 100% correct use of the source. Anyway, What pov is the article pushing? Give a example. What part of the argument is unencyclopedic ? I feel there is a lot of sweeping statements that might not be possible to specify. Again, you seem to be under the impression that this is the "Israel is bad" article, while this is the "People like to give this kind of quotes" article. --Striver 18:48, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The article is unencyclopedic. I would consider a collection of hand-picked (i.e. WP:OR) out-of-context quotes unencyclopedic. Re "what is POV pushing": the choice and editing (context and lack thereof) of the quotes. Please do not speculate on other editors' motives, your guesses tend to be wrong pretty much all of the time anyway. Whenever you find yourself typing "you seem to think..." the "delete" key is a pretty good choice. (I still don't think the reptilian humanoid hunter guy is a particularly reliable source...) Weregerbil 19:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Listen, a list of quotes might be POV, OR, out-of-context or whadever. BUT. It is not the article that originaly researched the quotes, the quotes in the article are prominently used in the lists of quotes describes. Let me put it this way: If i was to take a biblical verse, and claim it to be false, it would be OR. But if i quote the Qur'an doing the same, then it is ok. You understand my point? "Doing OR" = Wrong, "Reporting on OR" = Right. If i was to create a list of quotes out of thin air, that would be POV, OR, out-of-context or whadever, BUT i am NOT doing that, i am REPORTING that some PEOPLE are doing that. And THAT IS encyclopedic. Maybe you are arguing that it is not encyclopedic to report on those peoples habits of creating list of quotes? And by the way, just not liking to see the list is not a reason to argue to delete.
 * Yes, I understand. My disagreeing with you on the encyclopedia-worthiness of this article is due to disagreeing, not lack of understanding. Thank you for explaining it though to make sure I understand. Weregerbil 19:59, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, then we understand eachother. Peace.--Striver 21:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment People, please, can you stop missrepresenting the article? The article is not about stating anything about Israeli and Zionist, its about representing what their detractors do. --Striver 18:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above ... and while I'm at it, perhaps User:Striver might consider that it isn't that we don't understand his position ; we just don't agree with it. The article's lack of fidelity to Wikipedia guidelines has nothing to do with the creator's intent ... which, incidentally, given his long history of Islamist POV, can't readily be described as neutral. Ravenswing 19:19, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * What is not neutral? Why is it not neutral to report that some people have that habit? --Striver 19:34, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. The article doesn't seem to be terribly POV, but basically reports that people are being quoted by other people. If there is some significance to this practice, then that needs to be verified by a non-Wiki source, or this article is original research. eaolson 19:39, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete Some of the quotes are exceptionally racist and without any source. They are just attributed to the said person. Merge some of the quotes with soucres to the said person. --Ageo020 21:07, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong delete for several reasons: besides being an indiscriminate collection of information (Wikipedia is not a collection of quotes; there's Wikiquotes for that), the selection of quotes is inherently a POV act; and more importantly, the sourcing -- that is, the verifiability the the quotes are genuine -- is either nonexistent, or completely unreliable. Sites like Rense.com are not even remotely reliable for Wikipedia purposes. --MCB 21:13, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The soulution to that is to state it in the article. The unrliable factor is what makes the article notable in the first place, that people go to such length to state their view. If the quotes were comon knowledge, it would not be anything special and would not merit a article. Its like a modern day version of the protocols, if you will. The protocols are even more unriliable than this, in this case you can just go to the library and check it out. But still we have a article on the protocols.--Striver 21:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * comment guys, if its the quotes that are sitcking in your eyes, then delete them, not the entire article! If you look closly, i have added that some of the quotes have more than one sorces, making it questionable if any of the sources are accurate. That is inline with having a article on the phenomena. But you give in to your gut-reaction of "rasist-bs" that you rather delete the entire article rather than help editing it, or just remove the quotes. It really should not be any problems having them really, as long as its clear that they are not presented as factual, rather, as examples of what people list...--Striver 21:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep but the article deserves a POV tag. The title of the article is somehow strange! --Aminz 22:43, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep.--Zereshk 23:13, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Ignoring for a moment the quote farm (which should go) & the website list (which should also go) as editorial issues - and ignoring the strong POV this article completely hinges on whether or not one can consider a series of websites selectively publishing "controversial" quotations as a phenomenon.  This is really the crux of the article.  Deeming these "Israeli and Zionist" quote sites a "phenomenon" is not WP:V; i.e. there is no external source provided (and I could not find one myself) that has documented the "phenomenon" of this type of quotation.  That being said, This makes the very central point of the article original research, unless sources are provided that this has been documented as a "phenomenon" by reliable sorces.  Drop the contention that this is a phenomenon and you are left with a link farm and quote list... both violating WP:NOT.  There are of course websites that selectively choose quotes to publish, but this is a general practice, not limited to sites quoting Israelis about Zionism.  I could find you dozens of websites that only mention the witicisms of H.L. Mencken, while completely ignoring his racist comments.  That doesn't make an article called People quoting H.L. Mencken selectively an encyclopedic article though.  Without sources that this is documented as a "phenomenon" the very contention of such is original research and what is left is an indescriminate collection of information.--Isotope23 04:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Very well said.  One wonders what response Mr. Striver will have to that one.  And frankly, the title change makes it MORE POV, if anything.  This sure as hell isn't an article about "People quoting Zionists."  It's an article about inflammatory anti-Arab quotes.  Ravenswing 04:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Very good comment, the first one i read that makes a compeling argumentations for deleting. I will userfy the article and put a speedy tag on it. Thank you for taking the article afd seriously! Peace.--Striver 08:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete. As Isotope23, above.  Also, this appears dangerously close to original research -- the author is attempting to describe a phenomenon by citing instances of that phenomenon and not commentary about it in secondary sources.  And finally, allowance of this article would mandate an inappropriate POV article fork for its anti-Israeli counterpart 'phenomenon'.  Serpent&#39;s Choice 04:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete per Isotope23. ←Humus sapiens ну? 08:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete w/ Comment The user has moved the page into his userspace. --Jersey Devil 11:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong delete per Isotope23, and also because wikipedia is not a festering ground for racist drivel and conspiracists-- Nesher 12:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€  12:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * question has it been deleted? I can't find it. Jon513 19:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Answer the user moved it to his userspace, User:Striver/People quoting Israeli and Zionists. --Jersey Devil 20:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per Isotope23 and Nesher.Heja Helweda 03:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Can we speedie end this already, the article is deleted on my request, no point in wasting wikipedia resources. --Striver 13:33, 3 August 2006 (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.