Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Israeli propaganda


 * 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   WP:SNOW delete. No objections to anyone creating a WP:NPOV, general article about this subject, but it will have very little to do with the currently discussed and deleted article. Fram (talk) 14:43, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Israeli propaganda

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

POV fork and essay. Any salvageable portions should be added to Hasbara. — Malik Shabazz 01:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions.  — Malik Shabazz  02:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions.  — Malik Shabazz  02:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * omg delete Personal essay, pointless fork. Definitely should be deleted (rather than just merging and redirecting), because a redirect from this title to Hasbara could be seen as malicious (along the same lines as Miserable failure ). r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 02:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete better off being rewritten in the future; I don't see any salvageable content here.  This should be deleted without prejudice toward creation in the future.  —  Jake   Wartenberg  02:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete--I love a good propaganda article, but I don't care for this essay, and it certainly doesn't meet the requirements for a WP article such as, eh, NPOV. In the modern usage of "propaganda" every application of the term to current politics is POV. Drmies (talk) 03:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete We should have an decent article on this, but this is not helpful in making one. Better to start over than try to rescue this one. DGG (talk) 03:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Agree with DGG, this article does not provide even a decent starting point for an encyclopedic article on the topic. Nableezy (talk) 03:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete The article does make an effort to provide sources, but solely as a means to present a blatantly one-sided view of Israel and its communications efforts and those of its supporters, in clear violation of WP:NPOV. Alansohn (talk) 03:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - after moving anything worthwhile to Hasbara. A redirect Israeli propaganda -> Hasbara is a necessity in my view simply because Hasbara fits neutral definitions of propaganda. I suppose it's true that such a redirect 'could be seen as malicious' by some people if they aren't aware of what propaganda actually means. Not having a redirect serves to further the misunderstanding and misinterpretation of the term propaganda. We shouldn't be doing that. Furthermore describing the propaganda produced by country X isn't a violation of NPOV at all. That's a complete misunderstanding of both NPOV and propaganda. Israel has produced some outstandingly good propaganda posters for example as part of their propaganda efforts over the years. Describing those in an article for example would be entirely appropriate, encyclopedic and neutral.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 04:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You make a good point, but I am still a bit concerned&mdash;like Drmies points out, nowadays "propaganda" is pretty much always a negative term, and redirecting it to Hasbara makes it look like WP is taking a stance against Hasbara. It's a sticky situation, writing about a topic when almost everyone can agree it's a terrible thing but you're still stuck having to be NPOV about it (I came across similar problems working on Re-education through labor).  In this particular case, if a reader searches for "Israeli propaganda" and no redirect exists, then Hasbara is still the third search result, so I think readers will still be able to find it, and we wouldn't look like we're trying to make any subtle points. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 04:39, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * We have quite a nice article about propaganda if people are confused. For me it's a simple question, "is Hasbara propaganda ?" according to neutral academic definitions and the answer is a clear yes. The question doesn't touch upon whether Hasbara is morally-ethically-good/bad or truth/lies etc because those attributes don't define whether something is propaganda even if many people think they do. The Wikipedia's narrative voice 'subtle point' argument works both ways I guess since both the presence or the absence of a redirect might make a subtle point to different people. The difference for me is that Hasbara actually is propaganda in the neutral sense just like evolution can be neutrally described as a fact even if people don't like it. Furthermore Hasbara is explicitly referred to as propaganda by cited sources in the article. Even the Ambassador's Course itself as cited in the article uses the term propaganda. Of course they're referring to Palestinian propaganda. :) If something is propaganda according to neutral academic definitions and we don't call it propaganda because some people (yes, I'm looking at you wikifan)will be upset we have a problem. Consider it an opportunity to restore the word propaganda to it's rightful status. :)  Sean.hoyland  - talk 09:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC).
 * Delete inherently a POV fork and I don't see anything salvageable to merge to Hasbara Sceptre (talk) 05:21, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Doesn't even need a rationale. I do not endorse the re-directing of Israeli propaganda with Hasbara. That screams POV-pushing. We might as well link "Modern US military propaganda" with Public affairs (military). Can't help but expose the ideological motivations here...:D Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * oh noes, the propaganda article includes US military propaganda...the horror.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 09:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no article for "Modern US military propaganda." I was giving an example in regards to Public affairs (military). Propaganda in the United States is hardly comparable. Glad you caught that. Wikifan12345 (talk) 09:34, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete, obviously. What a piece of drivel. okedem (talk) 11:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete At this point, any "Delete" input is strictly pile-on. Pastor Theo (talk) 13:20, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Move to close&mdash;it's SNOWily obvious that everyone wants this deleted, and the only point of contention is whether it should be left as a redirect or not. How about we just manually blank the article and redirect it (since that doesn't require any admin help and there is already consensus to blank it), procedurally close this AfD, then take the new redirect to RfD? That will be the only way to gauge consensus well, since at AfD we're not all talking about the same thing. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 13:28, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


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