Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Kennedy in Palestine (1948)


 * 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.

The automated headcount shows that opinions are nearly split about whether to delete/merge or to retain the article. That indicates a "no consensus" closure, unless there are compelling arguments for deleting the article or unless the arguments for keeping it are particularly weak. Consequently, since the discussion is split between generally valid but not compelling "keep" and "delete" opinions, it is closed as no consensus. I note also that the article has been heavily edited during the AfD, which makes assessing any consensus even more difficult.  Sandstein  07:54, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The arguments for deletion are mainly that the content is deficient (WP:SYNTH, WP:POV, WP:COATRACK) and that this minor episode in Robert Kennedy's life does not need a separate article. These are valid arguments, but they do not compel deletion, since the first issue can conceivably be addressed through editing rather than deletion and the second issue is a matter of editorial judgment.
 * As to the arguments for keeping the article, since keeping an article is the default outcome, all that is needed for them not to be discounted is that they should not be frivolous or counter to policy and practice (e.g., WP:ILIKEIT). By these standards, all or most "keep" opinions are valid.

Robert Kennedy in Palestine (1948)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This article fails notability and is highly problematic in terms of WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, WP:POV and WP:RS. It seems to have been created entirely to push a pro-Israel point of view and the particular thesis of the author that Kennedy's later pro-Israel views and assassination were a direct result of this early experience. When Robert F. Kennedy was only 22 he spent a couple of weeks in Palestine. The main article Robert F. Kennedy devotes a single sentence to this trip. (Or it did before Mbz1 started editing that article, too).

The title of the article is not accurate to the content, and the article is a WP:COATRACK. Rather than describing Robert F. Kennedy's experiences in Palestine it is mostly about his opinions on the Arab-Israeli conflict. In particular, anti-Arab and pro-Israeli comments that have been cherry picked from Kennedy's dispatches by the articles author.

The sourcing of this article is poor. It relies mainly upon unreliable opinion pieces from sources such as the Jerusalem Post and the obscure blog Jerusalem World News. It also uses the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs as a source, which is a pro-Israeli advocacy organization. 3 pages of a book about RFK is used, but this source does not support much of the material which is cited to the opinion pieces and it is also being selectively quoted to present RFK as an uncritical fan of Israel.

The article is written in a highly non-encyclopedic manner. For example, "The story that ended in tragedy in The Ambassador Hotel in Los Angeles had started twenty years earlier in a different part of the world.". This sounds like popular magazine writing, not encyclopedia writing. "In spite of his antisemitism, Joseph P. Kennedy probably was proud of his son Robert." this kind of speculation is not factual or supported by sources. "Robert Kennedy was also correct when he completely dismissed the notion that a Jewish state would ever become a Communist state." Kennedy didn't say that a Jewish state could never become communist, and agreeing with him about such a claim regardless is highly POV. "Young Kennedy had a special gift for getting people to talk to him." is a subjective judgement. "He became expressive while visiting a kibbutz." is just poorly written.

The article assumes and repeatedly states that Robert F. Kennedy's later support for Israel as a politician was due to these several weeks he spent there as a young man not because of later experiences or politics. This is a highly debatable notion, but the article repeatedly presents the notion as if it were fact.

The current (2010-03-12 10:55 AM EAST) lede is an observation that Kennedy's assassination fell on the same date as the Six Day War, and says nothing about Kennedy's visit whatsoever. This shows how little this article is about the supposed subject and how much it is about the OR argument of the author.

Note that the author is reverting any attempts to fix the obvious NPOV problems and sourcing problems by removing balanced Kennedy quotes and keeping the ones uncritical of Israel and by keeping distorted summaries of Kennedy's view points without explaining himself on talk -,. Meanwhile, Mbz1 has kept her cherrypicked pro-Israel quotes. This is an obvious violation of WP:NPOV and suggest that Mbz1 is using this article purely to push a certain point of view, not to present a balanced, encylopedic overview of the subject

Amazingly, Mbz1 has even removed such objective, important information as the dates that RFK was in Palestine simply because they don't further her agenda. This user really needs to improve their understanding of neutrality on Wikipedia.

Note: because this article is unsalvageable due to the massive original research, sourcing, and POV issues and its topic is a WP:COATRACK I have started a draft of an article that should cover the same material but is accurately titled - User:Factsontheground/Robert F. Kennedy and the Arab-Israeli conflict. Editors are invited to improve that article.

Factsontheground (talk) 08:15, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment Please notice that Factsontheground is falsifying practically everything in the deletion request. For example that quote that he tries to attribute to Robert Kennedy is false and the user knows about that. The user has chosen to ignore few reliable sources that were introduced to the article yesterday and today.I've never seen such dishonesty as I see now in that deletion request by user Factsontheground. It is very disappointing that some revieweres instead of reading the article, checking out the sources and so on are making their opinions based on the statements made by Factsontheground.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:24, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The difference you provided only shows I added the references, and did not remove anything. If I removed the dates, it was by accident because you made few edits at once, and I felt it was safer to revert to the last version. Please wp:AGF and post the dates back. I have nothing against those dates.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:19, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong keep Fails notability? Everything about Robert Kennedy is notable! There are nothing wrong in any of the source, but the nominator forgot to mention that piratically everything that is stated in the article has one more very reliable source pages 74-77.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:27, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep per Mbz1, although I would recommend that a few sentences will be rephrased. Broccoli (talk) 13:48, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete non notable topic per Factsontheground. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:43, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Poorly sourced, POV rant personal essay. Gatoclass (talk) 15:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Question Do you really believe that you are in a right position to call Robert Kennedy's writings "a rant"?--Mbz1 (talk) 16:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No, just your presentation of them. Gatoclass (talk) 16:53, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You are an admin, aren't you. You should know better than call something "rant" with no samples. Please provide an example of mine "presentation of them", which is "rant" in your opinion.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:56, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The article is poorly sourced, heavily one-sided and reads like a WP:OR personal essay. However, since I have no desire to cause offence, I have struck "rant" and substituted "essay". Gatoclass (talk) 17:15, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Why do you consider this to be a "poor source"? Why two articles from Jerusalem Post are "poor sources"? Where exactly to you see WP:OR, provide all the instances please?--Mbz1 (talk) 17:28, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * One or two of the sources look okay but you have also sourced to an Israeli advocacy site, a hard right magazine, and a bunch of op-eds mostly from Jewish publications. These are a long way from optimum sources when it comes to a topic area as contentious as the I-P conflict. OR? Well for one thing, you have attempted to melodramatically link Kennedy's 1948 visit to his assassination. You have also cherry picked Kennedy's quotes. For example, here's one quote from Kennedy's diary you didn't bother to add:
 * "However, the battle over Palestine was the result of an extraordinary endeavor: an attempt by some European Jewish leaders to implant a large Jewish community in Palestine - which necessarily implied their taking all or part of this land away from the Palestinian Arab people who had been living here for centuries".  Gatoclass (talk) 18:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I did not see that quote. Could you please provide the link to it? I found it. This quote is mentioned in one source only. I doubt very much that this quote is from 1948. Kennedy never used the words "Palestinian Arab people" in any of the dispatches from 1948 that I have read so far.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The source precedes the quote with the words: Kennedy continues. He is quoting from the same 1948 article in the Post he was quoting a moment before. Gatoclass (talk) 19:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I saw after you mentioned it. It is from the source I added today. I did not see this quote before. I doubt very much it is from 1948 because of the reason I have explained above. The therm "Palestinian Arab people" came about much later, maybe even after Kennedy's death, but of course I might be wrong on that. --Mbz1 (talk) 19:32, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep While some of the phrasing could be improved, the article deals with a notable topic and is well sourced and can easily be more so given  some time rather than this quite speedy delete attempt.  It is a good start on a larger article.  As noted in  the article RFK's fate was sealed in Palestine and he was one of the  first victims of Palestinian  political violence in the United  States, ie Sirhan Sirhan.  While we already have a main article about RFK,  this is an area that deserves expansion, with a  reference to the main (RFK) article.  Stellarkid (talk) 16:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Weak delete Seems more like a personal essay than an encyclopedia article. On the other hand, the subject may be (barely) notable. I'm not sure whether this merits an article of its own or merely a sentence in Robert F. Kennedy. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 18:09, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Kennedy was in the ME for a few days in 1948 as a callow 22-year-old and made some entries in his diary. I'm inclined to agree that this is not substantial enough for an encyclopedic topic. Perhaps an article on Kennedy's views of Israel or the ME conflict as they developed through his life might be worthwhile, but I can't see the point of an article on a topic as narrow as this. Gatoclass (talk) 18:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Haven't you read that all those so-called " entries in his diary" were published in the most popular news paper of Boston Boston Globe? IMO your inputs here so far clearly shows that you have not a slightest idea what you're talking about.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:30, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well if he wrote copiously on the topic, you ought to be able to create a more nuanced article than a grab-bag of comments that make him sound like a cheerleader for Zionism. Gatoclass (talk) 18:35, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not own the article, and will appreciate any help, I could get.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:26, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment Mbz1, please stop using a large font to emphasize your comments. Using a bold font is sufficient. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 18:11, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Shabazz, I used "big" two times here. First I put my comment in big to attract the attention that I'd like to get the help with my prose. So far instead of the help I hear POV, OR, personal essay. So, even me using "big" did not help. The  second time I used big was to write Robert Kennedy name. Do you see any problems with writing his name in big letters? I am amazed that some Wikipedia administrators and users seem to forget that it is Robert F Kennedy they are talking about, that it is his writings that they do not find notable enough to have their own article on Wikipedia.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:43, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't care if you were writing about God Almighty, there is no reason to shout (i.e., write in big text). I think, or at least I hope, everybody who comments here knows who Robert Kennedy was, but if they don't, shouting his name won't enlighten them. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I do agree on this one. No reason to use large font size.  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  00:16, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions.  — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 18:15, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions.  — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 18:15, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Appears to be more of poorly written personal essay  than an encyclopedic article covering a notable event.  Also plagued  with POV issues. NickCT (talk) 21:20, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * KeepFrankly, the article needs improvement, but frankly the reasons given here by the nom and Gatoclass have yet to convince that deleting is legitimate here. The nom's reason is clearly heavily laden with a POV justification and not a WP editting justification. The nom and gatoclass cry that all the sources are pro-Israel? This is ridiculous, the nom has never had a problem finding other references to suit his POV and this is not a reason to delete. The article needs improving, not a deletion. --Shuki (talk) 23:21, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep There has been a dismaying rush to judgment here. The article has barely had a chance to have its initial shortcomings corrected.  Considerable development has taken place in the past 24 hours, much of it in response to issues raised here (not always politely).  Constructive criticism on its talk page is always welcome, deletion would be an overreaction. Hertz1888 (talk) 23:58, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * There has been an attempt to correct the shortcomings of the article, but unfortunately Mbz1 seems intent on retaining them and is reverting attempts to balance and improve the article. Factsontheground (talk) 02:37, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Rewrite (Keep) - Just recently I saw an article written like wiki was the "Palestinian Encyclopedia" and the thought of raising it for AfD crossed my mind. Anyways, I gave a look to the article and, indeed, it is written a bit like an essay. Going over the general body of it - I learned something new about RFK and, when you think about it, this seems like an encyclopedic side story for the assasination. i.e. the mention of the visit is fitting for the main article while the data from his visit is a side article for the random Kennedy enthusiast. Btw, while this one feels a little similar to the other article, its not nearly as bad. Keep and rework in proper wiki-fashion.  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  00:26, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Which pro-Palestinian article are you talking about, if you don't mind me asking? Factsontheground (talk) 00:56, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Factsontheground, I am not sure why don't you like so much that Kennedy said that Jewish state will not become a communist state, but here just for you: page 77. The quote starts like that: "...that communism could exist in Palestine is fantastically absurd..." Please read it directly from the source.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:24, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Keep just rework the article...its contents are clearly valid and notable. Jack1956 (talk) 08:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't like what you are insinuating, but the reason I don't like it is simple - he didn't say that. He was talking about Palestine, as your quote demonstrates, not any Jewish state. Factsontheground (talk) 02:28, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I insinuating nothing. Please see just above the quote in the source I provided. It clearly says that Kennedy dismissed the notion that Jewish state will ever become a communist state. I really do not see what the argument is about. Back in 1948 Kennedy did not know that, but we do, there's no communism in Jewish state -Israel.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:39, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Could this AfD be just a little more premature? I see issues here, but ones that are fundamentally addressable. IronDuke  02:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Article needs lots of work. Maybe the people arguing to delete because it's a personal essay will help improve it and make it more encyclopedic. Anybody want to bet on that? I'll give you odds. Breein1007 (talk) 03:11, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * We are attempting to do that, but Mbz1 is reverting every change that does not support his pro-Israel agenda. So much for neutrality or balance. Factsontheground (talk) 03:12, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I reverted the adding of the quote that probably was not by 1948 Kennedy, and explained why at the talk page. It will be added back after I will do the research. That quote is from fiction book, and no other source has it. It also looks very different from everything else that Kennedy said. I provided the source only to confirm yet another time the quotes that other sources mention, but it is not reliable enough by itself to use it for a quote that is not found in other sources. I understand Wikipedia has to me neutral, but most importantly it has to be reliable at the best on its ability. --Mbz1 (talk) 03:26, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment - having had a closer look at this article, there are some points I think worth making.

Firstly, all the content related to RFK's assassination is irrelevant to the topic "Robert Kennedy in Palestine (1948)", and the attempt to link Kennedy's assassination with his 1948 visit is WP:SYNTH.

About half the remaining references relate to Joseph Kennedy's antisemitism, scarcely relevant to the topic. That leaves just three references relating directly to the topic itself. One is an Israeli advocacy website, one an op-ed in the Jerusalem Post, and the third is the Schlesinger book.

Taking a look at the first two references, it turns out they were both authored by the same person, Lenny Ben-David, who is described in the JPost as a former Israeli diplomat. His credentials are unknown, there is no way of cross-checking his claims, and he can hardly be described as an independent or scholarly source.

That seems to leave just one scholarly source which has written about this topic, and that is Schlesinger. It really does seem to be just the one source as I've been unable to turn up anything else on this topic with Google. So we basically have an article sourced to a single reference. I very much doubt that this is sufficient sourcing for an encyclopedic article, particular in a contentious topic area like the I-P conflict. As I've said, an article about Robert Kennedy's attitudes to Israel might perhaps be viable, but an article about four op-eds Kennedy happened to write for the Boston Post in 1948 otherwise seems like a pretty trivial topic for a standalone article to me, an assessment reinforced by the apparent lack of scholarly sources which have bothered to cover it. Gatoclass (talk) 10:06, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Wrong again. I just did a search for the quote "The Arab world is made up of many disgruntled factions" and :found it in one more book besides two other sources: . Practically all quotes are present in that book. Besides I contacted Lenny Ben-David, and he explained to me that he used original news papers for his article, that BTW was fully endorsed by Kennedy's daughter.--Mbz1 (talk) 11:01, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * So you managed to find one long out of print book by an obscure author that apparently includes a brief quote from one of the articles. My congratulations, but this fails to persuade me the topic merits a standalone article. And I really have no interest in your private correspondence, which is irrelevant to the issue of reliable sourcing or to the other issues raised. Gatoclass (talk) 11:51, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Wrong again. I managed to find yet one more book that has a limited preview in Google Books. There are dozens books out there that have the info, and have no preview at Google books, which means they are hard to find.. I first read about it, when I lived in Soviet Union 25 years ago in Russian book. The author of the book I found is not "an obscure". His name is Godfrey H. Jansen. The book has all or almost every quote that is used in the article in full length. The book is used as a reference in many places including, but not limited to Wikipedia. You do not have interest in learning not about my private correspondence,you've no interest in the learning the truth, because you just doesn't like it. --Mbz1 (talk) 14:01, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Fine, but you don't have a copy of the book, so you have no idea what it says about Kennedy's trip, and whether anything it says is substantial enough to establish notability for a standalone article on this topic.
 * What you do have right now is a single scholarly source, the Schlesinger biography, which briefly covers the trip. Schlesinger summarizes the significance of the trip and the Boston Post articles which came out of it as follows: "The pieces showed a maturity, cogency and, from time to time, literary finish creditable for a football player hardly out of college." That's it, he has nothing more to say about it. Does that sound like an item worthy of a standalone encyclopedic article? Gatoclass (talk) 14:43, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Wrong again, I am afraid. First I found yet another another book (page 650). Second I found more info about the other one. Why Robert Kennedy Was Killed: The Story of Two Victims JANSEN, Godfrey. Hit the link and read: "Foreword by Abdeen Jabara, member of Sirhan's defense team" and "Sympathetic portrayal of Sirhan Sirhan" . The author and the attorney are establishing the connection between "two victims" Robert Kennedy and Sirhan. The book extensively quotes Kennedy's reports and diaries on many pages. It looks like it has the complete text of everything he wrote from Palestine in 1948.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:43, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Good, it seems you've managed to find some useful commentary on the Kennedy visit. I am pleased this discussion has motivated you look for some more viable sources, and I look forward to seeing some of this new material included in the article. Gatoclass (talk) 03:50, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * They are included either as references or as external links.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:02, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The commentary needs to be in the article. One of the central problems with the article is the lack of secondary source commentary on Kennedy's pieces. The Kennedy pieces are effectively a primary source for this article, Wikipedia articles are based on secondary sources, not primary ones. Gatoclass (talk) 07:27, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - I spent some time trying to rewrite this article, just to figure out what the heck it was talking about so I could make a determination if it should be kept or not, but it's a great big terrible mess. Any useful information contained herein would be better housed in the Robert F. Kennedy assassination and Sirhan Sirhan pages. Who on earth would ever type "Robert Kennedy in Palestine (1948)" as a search term? What articles would even link to this one, aside from the two I mentioned? This article is just... useless. ← George talk 13:47, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * What a strange statement from an experienced editor "Who on earth would ever type "Robert Kennedy in Palestine (1948)"? The article has been linked to already from Robert Kennedy article, and probably could be linked to from few other places. It contains a valuable and interesting information--Mbz1 (talk) 14:05, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * A link that wouldn't have existed had you not added it. Regardless, while I agree that the information is interesting, I don't see any value in it. As the creator of this article, maybe you can help me Mbz1. What the hell is this article talking about? RFK visited Palestine in 1948, and fell in love with the Jews who lived there, then gets killed 20 years later by a Palestinian who is angry at RFK for supporting Israel in a war a year before that. Why does this need an article? There's nothing in this article but a random assortment of quotes and some random dribble about Joe Kennedy being anti-Semitic, and something about communism. Reading this article was like trying to talk to a person who hears voices in their head. It talks about a half dozen unrelated subjects, and tries to hint that they're related without saying how. I don't get it. ← George talk 14:19, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, per Broccoli.--Gilisa (talk) 14:13, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete as a synthesized essay on a young RFK's opinions, and speculation on how they may have been the reason for his assassination. The (weak) attempt to frame his assassination within the context of the ol War on Terror doesn't help matters any, either.  Salvage anything useful and use it in the main pages on RFK or the assassination. Tarc (talk) 15:32, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep or redirect Sources exist which assert notability. I agree that this is quite "specialised" in focus though.. I would not object to merging info into main article. ‡ Himalayan ‡  ΨMonastery 17:40, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment The article is being attacked with a hatchet by some  attempting to remove the POV from the article.  However the POV is not  Mbz1's or any WP editor's opinion, it is the well-documented opinion (POV) of  RFK.  We cannot remove it simply because we  don't  like it.  The opinions are his. By complaining that they are cherry-picked and deleting them from the article, the editors are not whitewashing and censoring opinion from WP. The BBC has said that RFK's support for Israel was "well-documented."  Consequently the quotes will reflect that. Stellarkid (talk) 18:04, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete As near as I can figure, the author believes this to have been a major turning point in someone's life. Or not.  The date of the articles and RFK's assassination is an interesting bit of trivia (June 5-6, 1948 and June 5-6, 1968).  Historically notable?  Not then, not now.Mandsford (talk) 18:31, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Then you figured it out wrong. It is a very important, and notable connection that was established not by me, but by Michael R. Fischbach, who is a history professor at Randolph- Macon College in Ashland, Va. His book "Records of Dispossession: Palestinian Refugee Property and the Arab-Israeli Conflict" was published by Columbia University Press and the Institute for Palestine Studies. He writes: "Sirhan was a Palestinian whose parents had fled their home in West Jerusalem as refugees during the first Arab-Israeli war, in 1948, when he was 4 years old. Raised first in Jordanian-controlled East Jerusalem and later in Pasadena, Sirhan grew up deeply embittered about Israel and the plight of his fellow Palestinian refugees.

Sen. Kennedy, by contrast, admired the Israelis, a feeling that dated from his days as a young correspondent for the Boston Post covering the war in Palestine in 1948. Sirhan's early support for Kennedy turned to hatred after the senator advocated the sale of advanced F-4 Phantom jets to Israel in the wake of the 1967 war in the Middle East, a war that also signaled the growing U.S. support for the Jewish state."

this connection is almost symbolic: Kennedy wrote his reports in 1948 about the conflict. Sirhan's family fled their home in the very same 1948 because of the very same conflict. Both men met again in 1968. Another point that Mr. Michael R. Fischbach made is that " The Robert Kennedy assassination was the first case of Middle Eastern "terrorism" here at home -- decades before the 1993 and 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center, decades before Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda became household names." --Mbz1 (talk) 18:40, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

BTW you do not want to say that the assassination of Robert Kennedy on June 5, 1968 is not notable event or do you?--Mbz1 (talk) 18:43, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Certainly, Robert F. Kennedy's assassination was notable enough for its own separate article. Sirhan Sirhan (also, certainly notable enough for his own separate article) was, unfortunately, one of thousands of Palestinians who became refugees when the State of Israel was proclaimed.  And Robert F. Kennedy was one of many United States Senators and politicians who supported Israel.  Within the article about the assassination, or the article about Sirhan, Mr. Fischbach's observations would Sirhan's motives would be part of the information.  Fischbein's suggestion that Sirhan was carrying out "the first case" of Middle East terrorism isn't something that most people would agree with.  It goes along with other theories that he didn't act alone and was part of a larger conspiracy, and those theories are discussed in both articles, although if someone other than Sirhan took credit for Kennedy's murder, I'm not aware of it.  Mandsford (talk) 20:17, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * First-of-all Robert Kennedy was not just "one of many United States Senators and politicians" . He was a brother of John Kennedy, and, if he were not killed, he would have been the president of the USA. Second of all Mr. Michael R. Fischbach does not suggest that it was the first act of terrism, he said it was "the first case of Middle Eastern “terrorism” on American soil", and that is a proven fact.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:36, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Several have expressed the hope that the POV can be eliminated and that the original synthesis and the essay can be replaced with something more concrete. I'm not sure how much more POV or OR that one can get than the premise that "...Robert F. Kennedy became the first American politician murdered by an Arab terrorist. The story that ended in tragedy in The Ambassador Hotel in Los Angeles had started twenty years earlier in a different part of the world," so it's going to take a lot of rewriting, to be sure.  Though I can't see that this would pass based the policies concerning point-of-view and original synthesis, it looks like there are enough keep !votes for this to close as a "no consensus" this time around.  Mandsford (talk) 02:52, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * May I please ask you, if you have read the article itself or only the deletion request? There's nothing of what you mentioned above left in the article now.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:45, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Sadly, it seems that this "article" is going to be saved by bloc voting. Factsontheground (talk) 02:55, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Info I just contacted John Kennedy's library at 617-514-1629. They do have both Robert's reports and his diary in their possession.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:36, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as someone's WP:OR thesis. Every cite is essentially from a primary source; the thesis itself comes from the article's author. Mangoe (talk) 20:35, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment The idea that his is one person's thesis and essentially from a primary source is just plain wrong. The following are some of the sources (non Primary) that support this:
 * 1) BBC- RFK's ""well-documented support for Israel" was the cause of the attack.
 * 2) Jerusalem Post (Ben-David)"RFK was a strong supporter of Israel, and that support was genuine, deep, and heart-felt. And it cost him his life."
 * 3) Jerusalem World News "When a former U.S. attorney general and Democratic presidential candidate was murdered in 1968, no one asked whether it could have been over foreign policy. In fact, Robert Kennedy was the first American politician murdered by a Middle Eastern terrorist, Sirhan Sirhan."
 * 4) orig from the Daily Star "In fact, Robert Kennedy’s murder offered another, different lesson that America failed to absorb, a lesson about Palestinian anger. The Kennedy assassination was the first case of Middle Eastern “terrorism” on American soil ­ decades before the 1993 and 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center, and before Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda became household names.
 * 5) Law Encyclopedia "Cooper then steered Sirhan into the reasons for his attack on Kennedy, a vicious diatribe about the Middle East conflict between Arab and Jew. So impassioned was Sirhan's anti-Zionist rhetoric that one of his own lawyers, Emile Berman, a Jew, felt compelled to offer his resignation from the defense team."
 * 6) "Robert Kennedy and His Times", Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. (2002). *Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. Pulitzer Prize winning historian and author of some 30-plus historical works
 * 7) Godfrey H Jansen (1970). Why Robert Kennedy was killed: the story of two victims? page 275. New York: Third Press. author of 5 histories
 * Support any friend: Kennedy's Middle East and the making of the U.S.-Israel Alliance By Warren Bass pages 50 (the last paragraph) and 51.
 * Zionism, Israel, and Asian nationalism 1971
 * Afro-Asia and non-alignment
 * Why Robert Kennedy was killed; the story of two victims,
 * Militant Islam, 1979
 * Whose Suez? aspects of collusion, 1967

So sorry but the argument that the sources were all primary and/or that the thesis was only that of the author of the article is incorrect. Stellarkid (talk) 22:21, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Just a minor correction: The book's author is Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., not Arthur Meier Schlesinger, which redirects to Schlesinger Sr. It's more than a little disappointing that neither you nor Mbz1 have looked at the book's cover at Google Books. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 22:30, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Lol, the Afd came about within 5 minutes (hyperbole a bit) of the article presentation.  IN trying to defend the article in such a short period, mistakes can happen.   A simple correction would have been nice without the "more than a little disappointing" criticism considering the extenuating circumstances, but... there you go!  You got your bit of criticism in for a simple mistake anyone could have made, and did not comment on the substance of what I wrote.  Stellarkid (talk) 01:09, 13 March 2010 (UTC)ps.  I have corrected my post!Stellarkid (talk) 01:19, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I did Malik, of course I did, but the thing is that instead of typing a hard name I decided to copy and paste the author name. For that I copied and pasted the book name to Google search and :) found that:Arthur Meier Schlesinger. It is how the mistake came about. Very nice job on catching it!Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:49, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. At the time the afd was initiated, most of the content was impeccably sourced and well-written. Whether this belongs as a separate article or should be renamed are things that have to be discussed, but there's no valid reason for deletion at this point.-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 22:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Hahahaha. "Impeccably sourced". See WP:RSN here. Factsontheground (talk) 23:12, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It is one of the best sourced articles on Wikipedia.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:14, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep While the article has a difficult bar to climb for notability and other issues, I'm willing to give it time. I see nothing so irredeemable about the article that it needs to be deleted within a day or two of its creation. That said, WP:NOT, WP:N, and WP:OR weigh strongly here. Ray  Talk 22:13, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge into Robert Kennedy, where it would deserve at most a small paragraph. The article establishes quite well that this event had no lasting significance and isn't more than a footnote to Kennedy's biography.  Zerotalk 03:43, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge - I'm not convinced that the topic is notable as a standalone article. It does seem notable within the context of Robert Kennedy's life, and should be merged into his article.  Rami  R  11:07, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Heyo, give a look at my comment above, let me know what you think. Warm regards,  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  11:35, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge Into Robert F. Kennedy article. RFK never pursued journalism as a career and the Middle East was never to central focus of his political career, so having a standalone article on this topic is curious.  Nonetheless, some material here can be cited in the existing biographical article.  Warrah (talk) 12:35, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete or NPOV re-write needed There is no great reason to have this stand alone article; it is more of an episode in RFK's life; a chapter and not a major event. If it is kept, it should be re-written in NPOV. Further, an accepted historian should be used as source, such as Schlesinger, who in his re-issued tome on RFK discusses the trip on pp 73-77. Kierzek (talk) 15:43, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Would you be so kind to point out POV for me that I would be able to fix it. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:46, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * One that stands out is:..."June 5, 1968 was the day Robert F. Kennedy was murdered. Michael R. Fischbach wrote: "The Kennedy assassination was the first case of Middle Eastern 'terrorism' on American soil ­ decades before the 1993 and 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center, and before Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda became household names."[1] This is the newspaper "Commentary" author's POV. Further there is no reason to name Fischbach (a footnote cite is better) and using a direct quote. There is no need to promote him directly, using this article as the springboard. Now it is true that Sirhan, in his mind, thought RFK was too pro Israel. You should check out the book, "RFK Must Die" it fills out more information. Kierzek (talk) 16:14, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, Fischbach, is not just any author. Michael R. Fischbach is a history professor at Randolph- Macon College in Ashland, Va. His book "Records of Dispossession: Palestinian Refugee Property and the Arab-Israeli Conflict" was published by Columbia University Press and the Institute for Palestine Studies. He is an expert on the subject.He is a reliable source. Do you still believe the quote by him should be removed? I believe the quote should stay, but please change it as you suggested yourself. Thank you for your time.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:24, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Other authors that make the same case include:


 * "Robert Kennedy was the first American victim of modern Arab terrorism" Jeffrey Salkin
 * RFK Shooting was Arab Terrorism --"Associate Editor of The Jewish Week Jonathon Mark wrote "...Sirhan Sirhan, a West Bank immigrant who wanted fair play for Palestinians."
 * Book review of The Forgotten Terrorist: Sirhan Sirhan and the Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy "However, there is a wealth of evidence to show that Sirhan was not faking when he insisted his act was political in nature. And his act of terrorism does not contradict the personal motive as terrorism experts like Steve K. Dubrow-Eichel recognize."
 * Book entitled The Forgotten Terrorist: Sirhan Sirhan and the Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy Mel Ayton
 * It's what we do Writing in The Independent, Cato Institute's scholar Ivan Eland wrote "The most noteworthy instances of such retaliatory terrorist attacks are: In 1968, Robert Kennedy was assassinated by Sirhan Sirhan, who regarded Kennedy as a collaborator with Israel. Sirhan was born to Palestinian parents and felt betrayed by Kennedy’s support for Israel in the 1967 Six-Day War. Stellarkid (talk) 19:09, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Preferably Merge somewhere, but Keep the content. This is clearly a notable and verifiable topic that should be covered by Wikipedia; I just don't think there's enough to say about it to justify a separate article, and what we have could perfectly well be covered in other articles (mainly Robert Kennedy and Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy). Failing a merge, I'd be OK with keeping it, but I just don't think it needs a separate article. Robofish (talk) 18:49, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * strong delete This article is badly written, not notable and extremely POV. I suggest a brief mention is included in the main article. Vexorg (talk) 01:03, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: Vexorg has chosen to lie about two other participants in this Afd, apparently trying to dismiss their posts (see below). --Avenue (talk) 21:13, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * note Avenue has chosen to lie about me by claiming I have lied about two other participants in this thread. I did post erroneous information about ONE participant due to failing to updating my information propoerly but I did not lie about anyone. >-(
 * comment To assume good faith about you,  that you were unaware that the checkuser had found both people innocent  of the charge at the time of your post, you at the very least made an false and bad faith  accusation, despite being ignorant of the truth of the accusation.  I  can't speak for anyone else, but I personally think an apology is in  order.  Stellarkid (talk) 05:42, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Avenue could be being purposely disingenuous. Vexorg (talk) 02:03, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comments like that make it very hard to assume good faith about your  prior assertions. Stellarkid (talk) 05:57, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Vexorg, I'm not sure what you're trying to imply. I believed you would have known about the SPI result, and I was not the first person to post here saying so. My post was made in good faith. If you would rather we believed that you made serious allegations about other editors without bothering to check the SPI's progress, then I'm sorry for saying you lied. The fact remains that you chose to malign two other participants here by making serious accusations that you could have easily found out were false. --Avenue (talk) 14:37, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Nota Bene: The article has been extensively re-edited since it was nominated for deletion, it is completely different now than when nominated, and because of that the reasons given for the nomination no longer seem to apply. 173.52.134.191 (talk) 17:10, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I see nothing in the current version of the article that would change my entry above. Tarc (talk) 18:31, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep either as a separate article or (preferably) as part of a broader one that may not exist yet, e.g. Robert F. Kennedy's views on Israel. There is useful, well-sourced information here, which provides too much detail to merge into the articles on Robert F. Kennedy or his assassination. -- Avenue (talk) 21:13, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep and rename to Robert Kennedy's visit to Palestine or Robert Kennedy's 1948 visit to Palestine. The event in question seems to have been covered by a number of reliable third party sources, which makes it pass the general notability guideline. —Ynhockey (Talk) 00:09, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm changing my vote from delete to rename or merge. I've rewritten a lot of this article, and while the topic is interesting, and can be sourced, I don't think Kennedy's visit by itself is broad enough to warrant its own article. I would support either (a) renaming and expanding as Robert F. Kennedy's views on Israel, per Avenue, or (b) merging into Robert Kennedy and Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy, per Robofish. ← George talk 02:09, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree, it is a better name.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:16, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Over-weight on a very minor aspect of a famous person's career. Nothing to merge--everything pertinent is already in the main article.    DGG ( talk ) 18:59, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Research concerning anti-Zionist quote in question
(Moving to talk page, per editors' agreement. Tarc (talk) 15:35, 12 March 2010 (UTC))


 * This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:47, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. I have been struggling to work out what the purpose of this article is. It appears to be trying to say that Robert Kennedy was killed because of his support of Israel, which originated when he was in palestine in 1948. That could well be a fair enough point, but a separate article is not required to say this. Rather, it is better to discuss this on existing pages such as Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy or Robert F. Kennedy. There, it can be addressed within the full gamut of reliably sourced information on this topic (of which there is a vast amount). I can't help but think this is a POV fork from the main topic. Quantpole (talk) 10:44, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. Original research by synthesis, appears to have been created for the purpose of advancing a POV.  *** Crotalus ***  17:28, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete While the article appears to largely cross the verifiability threshold, the standalone notability of this handful of dispatches appears to be questionable, at best. Even after extensive clean-up and somewhat better referencing, I'm pressed to understand why this couldn't be condensed to a solid paragraph in the main RFK article.  The article is only nominally about the dispatches and RFK's experiences and more an excuse to quote selectively from the dispatches themselves making any POV issues intractable. - Dravecky (talk) 11:32, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Everything that happened in this mans life will be covered by multiple sources, that does not mean that everything that happened in his life merits its own article. This is a minor point in his life that can be covered sufficiently in other articles.  nableezy  - 16:04, 20 March 2010 (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.