Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of the Israeli government


 * 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 no consensus. Numerically, opinions are divided. That also applies if we discount opinions based mainly on the particular politics of this topic. We also don't seem to have consensus at a policy level about whether "criticism of x" articles are allowed. WP:NPOV, the relevant policy, tells us that "an article titled 'Criticisms of X' might be better renamed 'Societal views on X'" and, in a footnote, that "Article sections devoted solely to criticism, and pro-and-con sections within articles, are two commonly cited examples. There are varying views on whether and to what extent such structures are appropriate." This does not weigh heavily for or against keeping this article. The page WP:Criticism, which covers the issue in more depth, is an essay and therefore not relevant as guidance in this closure. That being the case, I can't weigh either side's arguments more or less strongly, and recommend that clarification is sought at a policy level about whether we do want these types of articles, or whether we want to cover criticism in the context of broader articles about the topic (such as, here, Israel, its history, institutions and policies).  Sandstein  11:02, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Criticism of the Israeli government

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This page is a content fork and a non-encyclpedic collection of cherry-picked negative information about a country. This is not an appropriate encyclopedic topic, but rather a "coatrack" page. I do not think it serves any good purpose except to disparage the subject. This is a content fork of the following pages:


 * 1) Israel. Please note that none of other countries, including even Nazi Germany has a similar "criticism of the country" content fork. This is because all significant "negative" information about any country should be included in the page about that country.
 * 2) Anti-Israeli sentiment. Not only this page is mostly about the anti-Israeli sentiment, but it is currently used as a soapbox to promote the anti-Israeli sentiment through Wikipedia, as one can see from this section. This is explicitly forbidden by our policies.
 * 3) Human rights in Israel - this section
 * 4) Arab–Israeli conflict - for example, this section
 * Yes, this page includes a lot of significant and well-sourced content. However, most of this content can be found on other pages mentioned above. If not, it should be moved to these other pages.

Thank you. My very best wishes (talk) 21:05, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * NOTE: This article was previously discussed at AfD under a different name, see: Articles for deletion/Criticism of Israel. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:37, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:10, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:10, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:36, 16 December 2015 (UTC)


 * There are other similar articles Criticism of the United States government, Criticism of the United Nations so the first point is wrong. Some of the content could in principle be included in other articles, but would run into WP:TOOBIG. There is no case for WP:POVFORK: both the criticism and the response to criticism is included, and could be expanded if needed. A simple glance at the page shows that it is not soapboxing by any stretch of the imagination. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 14:51, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Both articles containing criticism and refutes does not contradict it being WP:POVFORK; they contain much of essentially same information but are leaning towards different POVs - Anti-Israeli sentiment tends to be more neutral and points alleged connection between Anti-Zionism and antisemitism, while this article tends to be more supportive of the Anti-Israeli views.&#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 15:00, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, some other crap does exist. As about Jews as Nazi, this is soapboxing. As someone wrote, "It is a charge that is purposefully directed at Jews in an effort to associate the victims of the Nazi crimes with the Nazi perpetrators, and serves to diminish the significance and uniqueness of the Holocaust. To make such a comparison is an act of blatant hostility toward Jews and Jewish history." My very best wishes (talk) 15:54, 16 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete, per nom. The very existence of the article is a violation of NPOV. If it was something like Views of Israel or Positions on Israeli government it had a chance of being NPOV. As it exists now, it's just a collection of every slander that was ever thrown toward Israel. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 14:55, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete This is most certainly a POV fork and coatrack article. This whole article's contents can be included, and I think is, within the Israel article itself. The purpose of this article is written solely to disparage and has no place in a NPOV encyclopedia. Sir Joseph (talk) 15:15, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete as a WP:SYNTHESIS of various topics and therefore original research. There isn't a reliable source (I'm sure there are plenty of low quality sources though) that properly combines all the various topics on this page. I would agree that these criticisms would also apply to the United States and United Nations pages as well. In general we try to avoid criticism sections and articles: WP:CRITS. This article isn't even necessary: many of the sections have links to pages that actually discuss the topic in a neutral manner, e.g., Human rights in Israel, Racism in Israel, etc. FuriouslySerene (talk) 15:24, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, your initial statement is incorrect - see for example The Case for Israel, and look at the quotes in the first few references of this article. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:01, 17 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. per WP:SYNTH,WP:NOTESSAY, WP:CRITS, WP:SOAPBOX, and inherently WP:POV. Also quite embarrassing to Wikipedia to have this speech dedicated to Israel while countries far more worthy of criticism do not have such an article beautifully dedicated to them.  brew crewer  (yada, yada) 16:21, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Not only have all these arguments now been refuted later on this page, Brewcrewer chose not to disclose that he was the nominator of the previous AfD for this article. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:01, 17 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Strong delete for the cogent reasons articulated above by others. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 16:31, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment previously nominated at Articles for deletion/Criticism of Israel. Also creator  does not seem to have notified, which while not obligatory is good form at Afd. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:33, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Inherently POV. Criticism and praise should be included in every topic, not divided out. Borock (talk) 16:46, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Plus the general idea of lumping criticisms together is also POV. For instance, my country the USA is criticized for being too rich, too poor, too snobbish, too low-brow, too isolationist, too interventionist, too conservative, too liberal, etc. etc.  What would be the point of putting them all together on one page?  Of course individual notable issues could have their own articles. Borock (talk) 16:52, 16 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: Firstly, people citing WP:SYNTH haven't read the policy. It refers to synthesizing two or more sources for a statement; it doesn't have anything to do with article topics. If this article is WP:SYNTH, you can then argue then Human rights in Israel and virtually every other article is WP:SYNTH. Secondly, there are tens of "Criticism of X" articles on Wikipedia, including Criticism of Christianity, Criticism of communist party rule, Criticism of the United States government (apparently hasn't noticed in their comment that the latter already exists). Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 17:04, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I actually did check out that article before I posted my comments. It is mentioned in an earlier comment.  I would say delete 'em left and right, if you'll pardon the expression.Borock (talk) 17:08, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Want to bet on whether anyone on this page is going to nominate any of the others for deletion? And on whether any of the AfDs will pass if nominated? :P Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 17:14, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I would nominate them but I don't really care that much. Maybe I will change my mind. But don't bet on it, or against it. :) Borock (talk) 17:27, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Obviously, any country has been criticized with respect to a large number of issues. But here is the question: should all such very different criticisms be combined under umbrella of one article, or it would be more appropriate/encyclopedic to create more specific and neutrally titled pages, such as those above or let's say Public image of Israel, Israel in international politics, etc. Simply combining all imaginable criticisms about any country looks biased, not encyclopedic and a combination of content already described on other pages. My very best wishes (talk) 17:58, 16 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Strong keep There are other similar articles Criticism of the United States government, Criticism of the United Nations. There is no case for WP:POVFORK: both the criticism and the response to criticism is included, . Why doesn't someone start a Support for the Israeli Government page if they feel aggrieved at this.Johnmcintyre1959 (talk) 18:11, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Because separate "for" and "against" articles on everything is precisely what we want to avoid. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:17, 16 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment:I note that the page that is linked to here Anti-Israeli sentiment. is actually titled Anti-Zionism, so it does not belong in this discussion and should be removed.Johnmcintyre1959 (talk) 18:15, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I talked about anti-Israel (anti-country) sentiment, which is different from antisemitism (anti-ethnic group) and Anti-Judaism (anti-religion). If Anti-Israel sentiment is something different from Anti-Zionism (I am not sure), then perhaps this page should be completely rewritten and renamed to Anti-Israeli sentiment (currently a redirect page). Either way, this page under discussion has a content overlap with Anti-Zionism .My very best wishes (talk) 18:49, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The Anti-Israel sentiment page should be redirected to this page. It makes no sense for it to be redirected to the anti-Zionism page. Zionism is an ideology. Israel is a state. There can be many motivations for anti-Israel sentiment, including anti-Semitism, anti-Zionism, international law, Arab nationalism etc. Of course there are overlaps between the concepts, the pages could link to each other. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 19:05, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * So, yes, "Anti-Israeli sentiment" is a separate subject, different from "anti-Zionism". That is what this page ("Criticism of the Israeli government") is mostly about. It is about Anti-Israeli sentiment, which would be a much better and neutral title/subject for this "criticism" page.My very best wishes (talk) 19:18, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Is your position that the article should be renamed? I see Anti-Russian sentiment but that is a very different article than this one. Actually I am not even sure whether the "anti-Israel sentiment" redirect should exist, but I am sure that it should not be redirected to anti-Zionism. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 19:40, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that renaming and rewriting might be one of options - if others think so. As about "Anti-Russian sentiment", yes, this is something different ("a diverse spectrum of negative feelings ... and/or prejudice of Russia, Russians and/or Russian culture"). This is just one subject. However, Jews were hated so much that it led to several separate subjects: dislike of their country (this page), dislike of their ideas (anti-Zionism), dislike of their religion and culture (anti-Judaism), and dislike as an ethnic group (antisemitism). My very best wishes (talk) 20:03, 16 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Strong keep: Let me again point out to the fact that similar articles exist such as the American one. The debate on why this article should be deleted because it says 'criticism' in the title, is invalid, can be simply renamed into 'Views' or whatever is necessary. Also the NPOV argument, WP:PRESERVE might be a better policy to follow. Finally, let me remind everyone that Wikipedia is not a democracy per WP:DEMOCRACY, considering that the majority of people supporting deletion here and giving their views are from Israel. I highly suggest expanding this discussion and inviting more uninvolved editors to voice their opinion and share any points that we missed.Makeandtoss (talk) 22:27, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) I've added this Afd to three WikiProject Deletion sorting pages, including the Palestine project page. It is no way a 'non-public' discussion. 2) Your statement that "the majority of people supporting deletion here and giving their views are from Israel" seems to be incorrect as well as rather reprehensible 3) and on that note, I see you're from Jordan - should we be discounting your vote, too? 4) if by "expanding this discussion" you mean seeking out editors more inclined to support your position, please read WP:VOTESTACK. thank you, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:20, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry for not replying, didn't notice your comment. WP:VOTESTACK is exactly why I suggest this discussion should be expanded.Makeandtoss (talk) 10:18, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Obviously, Israel was criticized a lot, and especially with regard to human rights and controlling the territories. This info should be included in page Human rights in Israel and other appropriate pages, and it has been included. However, simply collecting various accusations about certain country is not really a good encyclopedic approach. Same can be said about Criticism of the United States government. However, I would not rush to nominate the US page for deletion because: (a) it was written as a criticism of the government rather than the country, and (b) it is written in a more neutral language and does not read like a blatant propaganda (e.g. "Nazi" on this page). My very best wishes (talk) 23:04, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yet here we are discussing its removal not its improvement.. Wikipedia works on verifiability not truth.Makeandtoss (talk) 23:18, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Just saying that no one suggests to delete this page just "because it says 'criticism' in the title". Many other "criticism" pages are fine. And even if they are not, that does not matter. WP:Other crap exists. My very best wishes (talk) 03:20, 17 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep but edit, possible rename: Israel is already a large article and many topics have already been summarized on that page and moved to separate pages. The page under consideration for deletion does have both (negative) criticism and response to those criticisms, so it has the opportunity to attain NPOV and encyclopedic coverage. The page has major problems. It needs editing to remove undue emphasis, piling up of quotes on the exact same point (I'm guessing that's what is meant by "coatrack"), trimming quotes to the minimum necessary (these are supposed to be references, and source content is supposed to be paraphrased, not quoted at length from primary sources), and improving coverage of the responses to criticism. The inline inclusion of responses to the responses to criticism belong in the original criticism section so that the responses section stands by itself as just the responses to criticism. Favorable commenting on the Israeli government and negative responses to that belong on this page as well; criticism isn't necessary just negative. However, this might require a page rename to something like "Critical coverage of Israeli Government" or "Criticism about Israeli Government" as "Criticism of" is likely to be taken as just about negatives. Finally, there is a mix of comments about anti-semitism independent of comments about the Israeli government that don't seem to belong on this page. Thisisnotatest (talk) 07:24, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * As currently written, this page is not about the government, but about the country, including criticizing its right to exist. It tells in first phrase: "Criticism of the Israeli government, often referred to simply as criticism of Israel", "Israel is sometimes compared to Nazi Germany", and so on. Hence my suggestion to delete. My very best wishes (talk) 17:41, 17 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Strong keep – The topic meets the requirements for WP:GNG with all the significant coverage received in numerous relevant non-trivial, independent, reliable third party and secondary sources, and is large enough to have a stand-alone article. There is also potentially more information to expand the article further.


 * Merging all of the information into Israel might violate WP:UNDUE and nothing will be gained by merging a token bit into another article and the rest being lost. In addition, this will also make the Israel article far too long - WP:Article size says that any article over 100 kb should "almost certainly be divided" and it is currently on just under 315,000 kb.


 * There is no argument for WP:POVFORK as both the negative or positive viewpoints are included. If the argument for WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is going to be used then as per WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST, there is nothing stopping editors for creating articles of "Criticism of" other governments, the fact that there are only a few such articles currently exist is not a valid argument for deleting this article. As per WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP, any specific problems with the article should be addressed through editing not deletion. Also, the repetitive, flippant WP:IDONTLIKEIT labelling of the article as racist and/or anti-Semitic is also unhelpful and not a valid argument or grounds for deleting the article as per WP:NOTCENSORED.


 * It is also worth noting that after two months of multiple editors attempting to edit warring to remove a large section of the article without any discussion, the same editors are all voting to delete the article now that it has been nominated for deletion. As per WP:NOTVOTE, bear in mind it is '"not the vote" that matters, but the reasoning behind the !vote that is important'. Tanbircdq (talk) 17:04, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no need to include all of the information from this page into Israel or other pages because most of the important information has been already included in the corresponding pages. This page is simply a content fork and non-encyclpedic collection of cherry-picked negative information about a country, which is not an appropriate encyclopedic topic in my opinion. My very best wishes (talk) 17:50, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I wonder how you don't think it's worth noting that the section in question was added without any discussion, and multiple editors, including you, continued edit warring to keep it in without any discussion and are voting to keep the article. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 19:44, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The argument for WP:POVFORK is perfectly valid: "POV forks generally arise when contributors disagree about the content of an article or other page. Instead of resolving that disagreement by consensus, another version of the article (or another article on the same subject) is created to be developed according to a particular point of view. The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major points of view on a certain subject should be treated in one article."
 * "Anti-Zionism is opposition to ... the modern State of Israel". There is clearly a major overlap between the subjects of the two articles, and while this article represents mostly views critical of Israel and supporting Anti-Zionism, the article dedicated to Anti-Zionism considers the nature of the phenomenon. See for example how criticism of Israel is compared with antisemitism. The same subject is covered here as well. Most of the sections of the article suffer from the same problem, they are contradicting POVs of a subject already covered elsewhere. The remaining few sections should be cleaned up and moved to other articles. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 20:06, 17 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Strong keep – my views have not changed since the previous AfD on this article. In summary, this topic is of extremely high notability, particularly the hotly debated question of whether the overall criticism is disproportionate. Innumerable WP:RS books and media articles have been written on the topic, of which some of the clearest examples are the first few references in the article - the relevant quotes are shown clearly in the footnotes.
 * As to the question of whether criticism articles should exist, there are around 160 such articles today, and given the decades of media and scholarly focus on this topic, this article seems highly appropriate in that context. Apart from following sources such as Dershowitz, the article serves a clear purpose. Without this article, there are at least 16 articles which contain information relevant to this page: (1) Anti-Zionism; (2) Human rights in Israel and Human rights in Israel; (3) Relationships between Jewish religious movements; (4) Israeli Settlements; (5) Economy of the Palestinian territories; (6) Israeli-occupied territories; (7) Palestinian refugees; (8) New antisemitism; (9) Israel, Palestine, and the United Nations and List of United Nations resolutions concerning Israel; (10) Public diplomacy (Israel); (11) Loyalty oath; (12) Israel and the apartheid analogy; (13) International law and the Arab–Israeli conflict; (14) Boycotts of Israel; (15) Disinvestment from Israel; (16) Hafrada and this excludes main topic articles such as Israel or Anti-Zionism. There is no article which connects them despite the fact that the sources provided prove the notability of the overall topic beyond any doubt. This article covers a highly important topic, important to academics, the government of Israel and the people of Israel, among others.
 * Oncenawhile (talk) 23:25, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, there are numerous legitimate subjects and pages (above) that contain negative information about Israel. Taking all these disparate negative claims from different pages and copying/dumping them into this single "criticism" page was not a good idea. This is very definition of a "content/POV fork". My very best wishes (talk) 23:58, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I suggest you read WP:POVFORK. It states clearly that "There is currently no consensus whether a "Criticism of..." article is always a POV fork". As shown in many other comments, not only is "Criticism of Israel" a "ubiquitous rubric", but the contents of this article are mirrored by numerous WP:RS. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:47, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * "There is no consensus whether always" means "it many cases (maybe all of them) it is". It is a far cry from "there is consensus that it's not". A "Criticism of" article is only POV fork when it repeats content already covered elsewhere giving preference to a specific POV, as is the case in this article. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 07:00, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete along with any other "Criticism of" articles, as inherently unencyclopedic.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:00, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete I would not object to this article (and for that matter, the one on the united states if they weren't the only two "criticism of government" articles. It's really ridiculous that two democratic countries have those articles and there's no, say, Criticism of the North Korean government. Therefore it seems its very creation was POV --Monochrome  _ Monitor  05:30, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * That is because nobody defends North Korea (at least on Wikipedia), while many people defend Israel, United States, communism, Christianity, Islam, United Nations etc. That is why the article has both criticism and response to criticism. I will make a deal with people who claim that this is "inherently POV", some new concept I have never heard of before. Nominate any of six "Criticism of X" articles I mentioned above for deletion (you can choose). If the AfD ends up delete, I will switch my vote to delete. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 06:14, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * If the question is asked as to why these two governments receive criticism, well if a state that claims to be a secular, democratic republic but fails to respect UN resolutions, honour Geneva Conventions, abide with international law or value humanitarian laws etc, then its regime is clearly going to be scrutinised more than a totalitarian dictatorship whose criticism is not going to be as highly documented as there will naturally be less independent people inclined to defend it. However, there is little point repeating all this again if a WP:IDHT stance is adopted by editors.
 * Kingsindian, have you actually !voted? I cannot see that you have. Tanbircdq (talk) 17:29, 19 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep and improve per Oncenawhile. The comparison with North Korea is a bit off. Editors of that article and topic in general allow criticism and handle it in a disinterested way according to policy rather than complain about it or get offended by it and try to suppress it. Nor do they focus their attention on criticizing South Korea, the US, NGOs and international organizations on behalf of the North Korean state. This is a good thing. Editors who want to work on articles related to North Korea are spared the unpleasant and counterproductive experience that so often comes with being required to collaborate via discussion with nationalist apologists.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 18:42, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete as a WP:COATRACK upon which thinly veiled Antisemitism is hung. Criticism of Israeli policies and government procedures is well-covered in articles about those policies and procedures.  Opposition to the existence of Israel is well covered at Anti-Zionism.  This article serves no useful purpose.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:19, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, please be careful throwing around charges of Antisemitism. You may find it interesting to read Criticism_of_the_Israeli_government. Not only is this relevant to your own comment, it is also a good example of good content that would be lost from the encyclopaedia if this article is deleted. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:53, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You mean material already covered at length in a dedicated article and repeated here with a POV spin ? No, it would not be "lost". &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 07:00, 19 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - The topic is notorious enough to deserve an article as proven by these books. Given the responses they reveiced, from other books, the notoriaty of the topic is confirmed and the topic can be dealed in compliance with NPoV. This said, these sources are not real scholars but protagonists and there are many more interesting topics. Pluto2012 (talk) 12:06, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * / pov-1 /
 * Michael Neumann, The case against Israel, 2005.
 * Naomi Klein, The case for sanctions against Israel, 2012.
 * / pov-2 /
 * Alan Dershowitz, The case for Israel, 2003.
 * Cary Nelson, The Case Against Academic Boycotts of Israel, 2014..
 * Existence of such books proves that it's notable that Israel is both criticized and supported. It does not explain why there should be an article dedicated chiefly to one and not the other, and why there should be more than one article covering the subject. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 16:09, 19 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep, this subject-matter is notable in its own right, to the extent that Israel's government and its little helpers go out of their way to denounce international criticism, and hatch plots to undermine anyone who agrees with the criticism ("delegitimize the delegitimizers"). Furthermore, the alternative, moving this material to Israel would make that article even longer than it already is. Yet even further, instead of arguing along the lines of "this is criticism, we don't like criticism, therefore delete" misses the point since it fails to address the specific reasons this particular criticism article was started to begin with. Criticism of Israel's policies has been published by very reliable entities in a huge number of sources. --Dailycare (talk) 14:58, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You are using two invalid arguments (WP:THEYDONTLIKEIT and WP:SOURCESEARCH) specifically mentioned in Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. The fact that Israel is criticized is notable, every claim ever made against Israel is not. No or very little material needs to be moved to Israel, most of the material is already covered at several other articles. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 15:48, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * That is one of the most useless essays on Wikipedia. If one avoided every argument which that essay lists, one would be left with no arguments at all. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 15:56, 19 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete Comparisons with Nazi Germany is just antisemitism. This type of vulgar language has no place on Wikipedia. Bus stop (talk) 20:21, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Vulgar language?????Makeandtoss (talk) 23:55, 22 December 2015 (UTC)


 * merge/redirect/reorganize. If the target article is too big, it shoud be split by essential topics: "External politics", "internal politics", "economical politics", etc. and/or by chronology: clearly there was many Israeli governments and I am sure each had its own politics, either criticized or praized. In any case, I agree the discussed article is a nonencyclopedic chaos. - üser:Altenmann >t 07:48, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: As an editor exempt from WP:ARBPIA3, I would like to quote an observation made by a less fortunate editor: "The Working Definition of Antisemitism gives as one example of antisemitism “Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis”. The definition was created in 2004 by the European Union Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC), now known as the Fundamental Rights Agency of the European Union. It has received widespread international use, for example in its adopted by the US Government for the State Department Report on antisemitism, and in its adoption by the British Police as part of their Hate Crimes Operations Guide. The London Declaration of the Inter-Parliamentary Coalition to Combat Antisemitism, signed by members of Parliament from around the world also adopts the Working Definition and encourages its widespread use. Comparing Israeli policy to that of the Nazis, calling Israel a Nazi state, or saying Jews should know better and not behave like Nazis are all forms of the racist attack that uses Jewish identity as grounds for attacking. This needs to be called out." &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 09:57, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed. This is already in the article. See references 83 and 84. Oncenawhile (talk) 10:07, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * And yet most (500 words out of 700) of the section is dedicated to quoting various antisemitic claims. I can't think of anything being further from WP:NPOV. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 10:33, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Good point. I suggest we reduce the section significantly, to just a couple of paragraphs. The paragraphs should simply explain that such comparisons have been used to criticise Israel by a variety of commentators, and that such comparisons are deemed to be unacceptable and antisemitic by many reputable organizations. Oncenawhile (talk) 10:57, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * And then these paragraph should be moved to New antisemitism, where comparison with Nazis is already somewhat covered. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 11:46, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The new antisemitism article uses the term "criticism of Israel" at least 15 times. If this article didn't exist, a reader of the new antisemitism article would suddenly lack a huge chunk of the relevant context. Oncenawhile (talk) 13:14, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * If the section is problematic, one can simply argue for changes on the article talk page. What does this have to do with AfD? 90% of the article has nothing to do with the section. By the way, I myself stated on the talk page that at least 75% of the section is junk and should be removed. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 15:29, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Didn't the EU drop the Working Definition of Antisemitism in 2013 ? See for example.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 15:42, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

It is true that no other country has been confronted with as much criticism, often basically hate thinly veiled in criticism "of the government". And indeed Israel is regularly held against the highest standards, often enough even double-standards. So that's at least one of the major reasons why respective articles exist for Israel and the U.S. only. Whether we like it or not, we need to take it as a fact that around the world Israel is the favorite object of criticism. Wikipedia isn't supposed to selectively tone down or disregard excessive criticism on the grounds of it not being fair. Secondly, most if not all of these criticisms are widely known and shared by Israel-haters and Israel-critics around the world. It's not like we were showcasing fringe discourses, thereby giving them undue weight. It's all here, and can only be addressed and answered if openly presented. In fact, it is in the best interest of the people of Israel that these criticisms aren't dislodged to far more fact-averse places than Wikipedia is. We can discuss whether the current title is optimal, given that even the staunchest Israel-haters might have noticed that there have been many different Israeli governments over time, espousing different policies. But this isn't the right situation to discuss rescoping and/or retitling. The current scope is a highly relevant real-world topic, so it is a valid Wikipedia topic. If the article in its current state is POV or simply poor in quality, then the reason might be that quite some participants have been arguing about the article rather than actually improving it. I just made a first step in restructuring it. Much more needs to be done. --PanchoS (talk) 03:52, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. While the article is in a very poor state, it is not a POV fork, nor does it per se serve to disparage the criticized subject.


 * 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.