Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The bride is beautiful, but she is married to another man


 * 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   keep. The discussion post-paring down of the article clearly leans toward "keep" (even if not, there would be no consensus to delete). ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 11:41, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

The bride is beautiful, but she is married to another man

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

This article is entirely a dump of a single journal article. Every single statement is drawn from that article, including the author's opinion which is here stated as fact. There appears to be no significant attention to the subject from other reliable sources. The only thing that could taken from other sources would be a SYNTHy list of sources using the story. No other reliable source has discussed the meta-issue of the story, as far as I know. Zerotalk 10:19, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment The comments posted when this article was nominated for deletion, shortly after I wrote the article, are no longer valid. Sources have been added, the article has been rewritten for neutrality, and a assessment of the article ( the "meta-issue") by a major academic authority on the Middle East added.WmTyndale (talk) 15:43, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, no additional sources that discuss the quotation have been added. Only some examples of sources that use the quotation have been added.  This failure to find any further sources simply proves the case for deletion. Zerotalk 13:35, 15 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment. Wikipedia should have an article on Miss Karmi's The Bride Is Beautiful, into which the material from this article can then be merged.—Biosketch (talk) 10:44, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. The sentence is the title of a newly released book about the history of zionism (in swedish): . The book is critical of zionism, according to book reviews. --Frederico1234 (talk) 18:59, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The BBC documentary Birth of Israel also references it here, at around 5:50–6:30. I'm starting to lean toward keeping the article but rewriting it to be strictly about the purported 1897 meeting and the rabbis' survey of Palestine. The story and the quote derived from it are notable.—Biosketch (talk) 10:26, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge with Anti-Zionism, perhaps with the Anti-Zionist conspiracy theories section. --BDD (talk) 19:52, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Google the phrase and you will see that it is in widespread use. A book in English and, apparently, one in Swedish have taken this phrase as their title.  Many other books have echoed the phrase, not as a metaphor, but as a citation of a cable that was actually sent.  Now, the author of an article in an academic journal asserts that the phrase is a fabrication and supports his assertion by contacting several of the better known authors who have used it, none of whom can supply him with a reliable source - or any source at all that goes back before 1996 for a phrase that was supposedly used in the 1890's.   The 1966 citation is from a book by a journalist who does not give a source, merely asserting that it was widely used.  I have added a See also section listing several similar articles.  This looks notable to me, albeit more sources can and should be added.WmTyndale (talk) 21:37, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is very similar to Azzam Pasha quotation, which, interestingly, was created by the same editor who wants to delete this article. This quote comes up in various places, and there's really no reason to delete the article. It is reliably sourced and quite notable. The quote itself receives over 18,000 hits on google. Not to mention that the article was created yesterday, so some time to improve it would be nice. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:14, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The Azaam article is entirely different. It is based on multiple articles that discuss the quotation and don't merely repeat it.  It is also a complete story in the sense that the real source of the quotation has been found and discussed in reliable sources.  In this present case no original source has been found.  All that is reported is that a few prominent users of the quotation can't identify a primary source for it, and the author (Afsai) can't find anything earlier than a 1996 book.  That book's author is still alive, but Afsai doesn't even mention having asked him. Zerotalk 23:42, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Please correct me if I'm missing something, but when you wrote the Azzam article, you had exactly two sources discussing the issue with the quote. One journal article by Barnett and Karsh, and one Haaretz supplement article by Segev. This article isn't that far behind it would seem. I don't see how the fact the original quote wasn't found (if it even exists) is relevant to whether there should be an article or not. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:58, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Even two would be better than one as here, but no there were four sources that actually discussed the veracity of the quotation in addition to the original source of the quotation. That makes five sources which were not just examples of places where the quotation was used. In this case there is exactly one source that discusses the veracity of the quotation.  As I said, every single word in the article comes from the same source.  There is no rule against it, but it is generally regarded as a Bad Idea; also look for "Isolated studies" at WP:RS. I have no objection in principle to an article on this quotation, but where are the sources? Zerotalk 09:55, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment : who is Shai Afsai ? I hope not just a journalist from Jerusalem Post ? If so, we cannot have an article with so few relevance given it is only based an analysis from this person. 81.247.173.155 (talk) 18:24, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The journal identifies him only as "Independent Scholar", which means that he has no university affiliation. I guess he is the same as the journalist of that name who has published in various places, but I don't know that for sure. Zerotalk 01:38, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * -> Delete : wikipedia is not there to create the notoriety of information ; notoriety must come first. Maybe the article is interesting but the controversy is not notorious enough. 81.247.83.224 (talk) 07:35, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Is there some reason you're not logging into Wikipedia with your registered account, preferring instead to hop from one IP to the next? You wouldn't by any chance be trying to evade scrutiny now, would you.—Biosketch (talk) 18:40, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think it is forbidden to edit wikipedia under IP and it is not forbidden to argue and comment in discussions. On the other side, wikipedia 4th pillar (no less) recquires civility and one of the rules requires WP:AGF.
 * My feeling from your comment is that you cannot disagree with what I wrote so you attack ad hominem. 81.247.83.224 (talk) 06:19, 10 June 2012 (UTC)


 * KEEP This story is in wide circulation. It is interesting to learn where it came form, looks like some Egyptian made it up.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by WaldorfNaples (talk • contribs) 22:25, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * For the record, the source provides no evidence whatever that the Egyptian in question invented the story. Zerotalk 01:40, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Seems I have a nose for dubious claims. Two sources earlier than the Egyptian book have been found, proving Afsai's thesis is mistaken. Details in due course. Zerotalk 16:14, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Depending on what your new sources say, they wouldn't necessarily prove Afsai's thesis is mistaken (unless one of them is the original cable, of course). Two earlier sources repeating the claim without reference don't really prove it's true, and they certainly don't disprove the fact Shalim and Karmi (among others) used it without knowing where it came from. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:25, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Afsai calls it "fake" and strongly suggests that Mohammed Heikal invented it in his 1996 book. The latter claim is certainly false since I found it (with different details) published in 1977. I don't know if the story is based on some real event, but Afsai doesn't either. The very most we should write in Wikipedia is that Afsai alleged it is fake. The argument that the story must be false as something like that couldn't have happened is rubbish, as many similar things and even much stronger things are well documented. Zerotalk 02:51, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that the argument that the story must be fake is not correct. It may or may not be fake. On the other hand, the very least we should write in Wikipedia is that Shalaim and Karmi acknowledged they used it without knowing its source. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 03:27, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Karmi got it from Shlaim, and Shlaim got it from Heikal. So it isn't true that they didn't have a source, though they didn't have a primary source and both acknowledge it would have been better if they did. As noted above, tons of authors of all shades have mentioned this story without giving a primary source, so why single out Karmi and Shlaim?  In particular, WP:BLP requires us to avoid writing anything that could be read like an accusation of dishonesty or academic misconduct, as no evidence of that whatever is available and Afsai doesn't even say that (except maybe in the case of Heikal). Zerotalk 04:03, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should re-read exactly what Karmi and Shlaim told Afsai. Also, BLP is not a shield against criticism. We can certainly quote Afsai and any response he got and not run afoul of BLP. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 04:23, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I did re-read it and it is like I said. See page 50. Zerotalk 05:55, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Read the article more carefully, then. Afsai doesn't call the "bride is beautiful" story "fake" anywhere. Why misrepresent his argument? As NMMNG rightly points out, the argument is (a) that Shlaim and Karmi borrowed the story from Heikal and (b) that the story's gone through various mutations in its history without anyone having bothered to research what the original version was like – which is at best sloppy scholarship or at worst knowingly biased historiography. That argument is altogether sound and valuable for its insight into Shlaim's and Karmi's methodology.—Biosketch (talk) 10:06, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Gee, you know you are right, Afsai doesn't call it "fake" at all! Only "fabricated" (three times) and "invented" (twice). And what's a few "non-facts" and "spurious"es and "fiction"s between friends?  And why does it seem like the only argument being presented here for putting this stuff on Wikipedia is that it is nice for bashing Karmi and Shlaim? Zerotalk 11:03, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for conceding that point. The fact is that there are times when the story is reported with rabbis, other times with unspecified delegates; sometimes with Herzl, other times without. These inconsistencies can reasonably lead a person to conclude that the various versions of the "bride is beautiful" story are distortions or incarnations of a myth. Fabrications, fictions – those terms aren't uncalled for, if ultimately subjective, which is still fine since in the BLPs the source is being incorporated with attribution. As to the claim of "bashing" Shlaim and Karmi, that sounds like a straw man: no one has tried to use the source to call Shlaim or Karmi incompetent scholars. All that's being said is that they adopted a story they came across as factual without having done any research into it themselves – one even using it as the title of her book. The reader is left to draw his own conclusions as to the credibility these individuals' histories. Nothing wrong with that; it's what we're supposed to be doing.—Biosketch (talk) 11:27, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I accept your apology for claiming that I misrepresented Afsai. Zerotalk 12:01, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I accept that your excitement in having discovered two sources earlier than Heikal led you to misquote Afsai but that it was a careless error conceivably made in good faith.—Biosketch (talk) 12:11, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That's funny. Not. Zerotalk 12:15, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Good. Glad we agree then.—Biosketch (talk) 12:18, 10 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment: So now we have useless and predictable commentary from the Facebook page of a Shlaim enemy. What's next?  Still no sources that actually address the subject of the article? Zerotalk 01:44, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Isn't that "Shlaim enemy" an expert in the field? He's talking directly about the topic of the article, and one of its sources. What's the problem? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 02:47, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * He did no research on it whatever and doesn't even claim to have. When we use a source in Wikipedia, do we add other people praising the source without adding anything at all? Come on, apply some standards. Zerotalk 03:00, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * While I don't disagree with the point you're making, we do indeed add people praising sources without doing any research or adding anything. A simple and obvious example is book reviews (which often aren't even done by experts) which are included left and right. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 03:03, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Book reviews are regularly cited in articles about books, that is correct. But then the book itself is the article topic.  This article does not claim to be an article about Afsai's paper, but only to be using Afsai as a source.  Besides that, I don't think we should be copying comments off peoples' Facebook pages except in exceptional circumstances, it can only have the effect of lowering standards. Zerotalk 03:46, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I can easily show you book reviews being cited in articles about history. As for lowering standards, as long as wikipedia uses newspapers as reliable sources, the standards are quite low to begin with. But this is all beside the point. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 04:11, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That may be the occasion to agree (the evidence) that NO newspaper or book review should be used (if they don't fit what is stated in reliable secondary sources) and even if so, they should be replaced when possible. If everybody would agree (and would convince 'friends' of that) that would be good for the content, for the quality of articles and to prevent edit wars. I can agree comparing wp:rs book against wp:rs book but that is tiring to have to discuss when a newspaper article or a book from the seventies is contradicted by recent scholars. What is your mind ? 91.180.65.140 (talk) 08:14, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 91.180.65.140 (talk) 08:14, 11 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment Revisiting this conversation I am frankly puzzled by all the Sturm und Drang.  This is a widely cited quotation.  An academic article has appeared by an author who asserts that he can find no use of the phrase in a good-faith search during the century after it was allegedly first used, and that major authors who have cited the phrase cannot find a source for it earlier than the 1990's. It is therefore useful for everyone to be able to see what is known and not known about this apparently fabricated quotation.WmTyndale (talk) 15:14, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete: While the quotation is used in many places, it is only discussed as a subject in itself in a single source. A single source is not enough as "We require multiple sources so that we can write a reasonably balanced article that complies with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, rather than representing only one author's point of view". Thus, the quotation as an article topic has not yet "gained sufficiently significant attention" and should be deleted per WP:N. --Frederico1234 (talk) 16:05, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. I've decided, despite initial reservations, to argue it be deleted. My reasons are, those working the page seem unfamiliar with wiki policy, and do not respond to specific requests for information. That is, the original drafter of the page, and those who have commented in support on the article's talk page, are unresponsive to numerous, simple, policy-based requests to supply citations from the article to support the way this one article's thesis is presented as a fact. As Zero and Federico note, it goes against policy to create an article, which is in fact a polemic, from one source. Make a copy of it, and bring it back when more sources are available, which surely will be the case in a few months when scholars respond to Afsai's thesis.  Nishidani (talk) 16:53, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   08:37, 16 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. This is now such a famous phrase that it belongs here. There is so far only one RS discussing whether or not the anecdote accompanying the phrase is true, but there are multiple that discuss the implications of the phrase (and even a book that takes it for its title). Here, for example, Le Jeudi unpacks the phrase, without questioning its truth. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 16:15, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. This article is not about a phrase. It is about Afsai and his book. The two added citations to O'Rourke's and LeBor's books don't help much as the material in the WP article is so minimal as to illuminate nothing about the phrase.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:40, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That would be an argument for improving the article, surely, rather than for deleting it? --Andreas Philopater (talk) 09:08, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. This article topic is notable since it is highly debated historical fact with significant coverage in reliable sources. Some writers who covered this topic include Ghada Karmi - "Married to Another Man: Israel's Dilemma in Palestine", Shai Afsai, Muḥammad Ḥasanayn Haykal - "Secret channels: the inside story of Arab-Israeli peace negotiations" (1996), and there are plenty more. There is significant academic interest in whether this is a true or fabricated quote.Marokwitz (talk) 09:14, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Just to be precise. It is not a 'highly debated historical fact'. It is a meme, that only one writer so far has 'debated'.Nishidani (talk) 09:21, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Per WP:GNG: We require multiple sources so that we can write a reasonably balanced article that complies with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, rather than representing only one author's point of view. This is also why multiple publications by the same person or organization are considered to be a single source for the purpose of complying with the "multiple" requirement. This article not only relies on a single source, it in effect represent[s] only one author's point of view as per the above quote, thus failing GNG on both counts. If we had an article on every random academic paper that appeared in some journal somewhere, we would not have an encyclopedia but a database of useless information. The lack of notability of this topic is further underlined by the fact that the article is practically an orphan, with only a handful of links (added to several other pages by the author of this article that arguably violate both WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP). What this topic needs is multiple quality sources establishing notability, right now even the quote itself appears in only a handful of links on Google Scholar, let alone any substantial discussion about it. Gatoclass (talk) 16:21, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. (listed on 20:57, 7 June 2012 (UTC) — Frankie (talk) 18:28, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. (listed on 21:00, 7 June 2012 (UTC) — Frankie (talk) 18:28, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:28, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:SOAP. If there were multiple, reliable sources, or even a sufficient reason by way of links, I'd keep this essay and fix it into an article.  But it's lacking even basic sourcing and I have no idea how to fix it.  Cf. Palestinian law. Bearian (talk) 23:24, 18 June 2012 (UTC)  I think the stubification and sourcing by Andreas Philopater has worked to fix what I thought was unfixable. Change to keep. Bearian (talk) 20:11, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable and interesting subject as attested by the multiple reliable sources. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 02:23, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Looks like problematic sourcing and insufficient third party references in reliable sources to establish notability, per WP:N.--GrapedApe (talk) 12:08, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. We have five books, two by recognized scholars and one by a famous writer, two newspaper articles from the quality press, and an article from a scholarly journal. These are in English, French, and Swedish. That's not so bad going for third-party reliable sources. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 19:07, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you referring to books on Afsai's thesis? We need books that cite Afsai's thesis, not books Afsai's thesis cites. Nishidani (talk) 19:22, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The article is about the phrase, not about Afsai's thesis. I have never before seen it suggested that we need to cite tertiary sources that cite a secondary source in order to use the secondary source in an article not about the secondary source itself. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 19:46, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * My apologies. I hadn't followed your edits on the page. It is now a different article. If that is the shape we're voting on, I'd change to keep, only I wonder if it passes as a page to be kept, whether the original version more or less, which is written wholly from Afsai's article, will be restored bit by bit. That would make a mockery of the deletion/(non-delete process. So I'd like to know how much that article can, from its pared form, be reshaped out by the exclusive use of Afsai's article's details.Nishidani (talk) 20:52, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, that's a question that goes well beyond anything I can tell you. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 21:29, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * In synth. This was proposed for deletion because it plainly violated several key guidelines: WP:GNG, WP:ONESOURCE,WP:UNDUE and,WP:BLP), for example. You completely rewrote it, and these problems are addressed. So it can be approved. But, in lieu of clear indications about the original draft's nature, approval can just mean the page was retained, so that the old editors can then repatch it with all of the non-policy compliant material which brought the original objection. That would make this process farcical.Nishidani (talk) 12:28, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I've said from the outset the phrase deserves an article, but it is premature since we have only 1 source commenting on it from a meta-perspective, as opposed to numerous sources which just cite it (mindlessly). If retention of the phrase article means it can serve as a coatrack for Afsai's rather careless opinions then these deletion processes would look like a charade.Nishidani (talk) 12:32, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that Andreas has done an excellent job of addressing the massively WP:UNDUE coverage in the original article. However, since he has only added one additional source that apparently discusses the topic, and the substantiality of that discussion is unclear, I'm still not persuaded a standalone article on this topic is justified. Gatoclass (talk) 12:43, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

*Comment. This AfD has now been going on so long that it doesn't even show up among "Old AfDs" on the AfD page. Should it not be either closed as no consensus or relisted to generate consensus? --Andreas Philopater (talk) 10:30, 23 June 2012 (UTC) Hadn't noticed that it had been relisted. Sorry. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 14:00, 23 June 2012 (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.