Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United Holyland

Somebody's personal idea on how to solve the Mideast problem. RickK

God?, Humantarian political economists?, And a reported minority of zionists under the historical Binational movement.

A peace proposal addressing the fundimental problem of an "ethnic state" .. the "term" which got it listed here. Does the world need another white only government, black only government? These devicive political idologies insure social opression. The unification principle is not adderssed elsewhere, so is a very poiniant proposal. It sugests that "states" can survive without ethnic clensing or ethnic inequality.

It is THE peace proposal in a world that denies dialogue of that kind.Quickwik


 * I listed it here because it's your personal idea, it has nothing to do with ethnicity, and I object to your characterization. RickK

--Not true It is a growing meme as google searches note. But object on what grounds? How do you describe "inequality based on ethnicity"?

' Leviticus 19.33 ''Do not mistreat forigners who are living in your land. Treat them as you would treat a fellow israelite, and love them as you love yourselves. Remember that you were once slaves in egypt. I am the Lord your God and brought you out of Egypt. I am the Lord your God. ~'''

It is reasonable to beleive this addresses political representation.

Untrue- the "States" would remain under this proposal either seperate or overlapping regions. However this is the kind of rhetoric that causes the conflict. A "Jewish state" calls for the destruction of "palestine" and political inequality. It's confused terminology. The whole concept is that governments can co-coexist with proper political principles, bicameral legeslatures etc..
 * Delete. A "peace" proposal that starts with "destruction of Israel". --Humus sapiens|Talk 03:24, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Note: the "destruction of Israel" meme is a sick misnomer. A proposal to insure political protections of peoples and remediate ethnic violence terror and opression can hardly be called destruction. Do we need a page to explain the double speek of "loss of political inequality".


 * Keep, but rename to Scriptural Justification for a United Holy Land. This basic concept has been floating around in various forms over the years and deserves a mention. The article itself is planned well, but needs some less POV editing. Rhymeless 04:23, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * keep, though it also addresses the nonscriptural justification, human rights there is no peace without equality. Quickwik 19:00, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. -- Decumanus | Talk 04:57, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Whose plan is it?, When did they come up with it? Does anyone else support it? Does anyone oppose it? How did the Israeli right, the Israeli left, and the Israeli center react to it? What does Ariel Sharon say about it? What does the Palestinian Authority think of it? What does Hamas think of it? What do ordinary Palestinians think? What do the Arab League and the UN say? How about the US government? Too many unanswered questions . . . so delete as original research.  &#8212;No-One Jones 05:18, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * -proposal not research - You are free to ask them and the early zionists what they meant by equality.
 * Showing your true nature here, aren't you? RickK 03:59, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Delete. Exploding Boy 08:14, Apr 22, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, or redirect to Binational solution, which is a legitimate proposal. - SimonP 15:33, Apr 22, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, unless there's evidence that this is supported or even considered by anyone besides the author of the article. Radicalsubversiv 20:48, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

-two keeps

Actually Bi-National is entirely secular, United Holyland is a union of secular and religius foundations. Also the term Bi-National sugests seperate nations while confederations preserve state soverignty, they also create new unions and typically peace.

140 google hits for "United Holy land": 


 * Delete under the "no original research" rule. no references in three major news organizations searched (CNN, Wall Street Journal, BBC). The Canadian non-profit using the name "United Holyland" has nothing to do with the concepts in this article. Several other non-profits were found using the name &quot;United Holy Land Fund&quot; but none are connected with this concept. Two possibly relevant Google hits for &quot;United Holy Land&quot; (note the different title) but one letter to the editor  and one blog  do not make a trend. Rossami 21:16, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

2 google hits for "United Holyland": "united holyland" ->  second search Actually, "proposal" is not "research" nor is the biblical referance "origional.  It's sad that ideas like this are so heavily filtered.  And apparently the name is out there. The dual state solution is widely hoped for in U.N. resolutions. But the union of states option is hardly discussed and is the top technology in political economy see E.U., U.S etc..


 * Delete. Nothing wrong with the proposal, but Wikipedia is not the place for it. -Sean 00:56, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. I second the above argument. Jeeves 01:55, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Unless this is a widely-recognized proposal, I am forced to vote for deletion. Isomorphic 01:50, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

If theres nothing wrong with it and it is a peace proposal, supported by a history of Binationalism and the idea is not origional then why delete it?


 * In addition to my earlier delete vote, I am now considering a request to ban User:Quickwik for his repeated modifications of my vote and supporting comments. I have no problem if he argues with me or disputes my findings of facts, but changing my vote is wrong and contrary to our process. Rossami 18:26, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

My appologies, (and thanks for your other note) I thought this discussion is getting long I presumed that incorrcect or conditional information could be edited.. among those at least one agreement and the votes based on the incorrect assumption that this term and concept was soly mine.


 * By the way, his link to 143 google hits above is irrelevant. Based on the link he provided, the search was not properly structured and found all sites with "united" + "holy" + "land". His link to the "8 google hits" only brings up four hits when I run it - one to the Wikipedia article and three to the Canadian non-profit cited above - none relevant. He claims that this is not an original proposal, but provides a link to a google search which does not, in my opinion, support his claim. Rossami

I ran the search again and it now shows 140 hits as "united holy land" Among these are the Arabic proposals for a secular state and numerous links for fundrasing on the idea. Under "united holyland" I now see two fundrasing efforts and this Wiki ! at least were listed now :) I think someone has redone the search listings since it's the same link.  I hope the Canadian google is as up to date but your comment can not be considered reasonable in that regard. May I edit it for clarity?
 * No. Leave other people's comments alone.  And if you remove references to "United Holy Land Fund", you only get 9 links.  RickK 04:02, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Delete. There's a lot to wade through above, but I still found no evidence that this is encyclopedic, or that the author of the article and the unsigned comments above knows what this means. Nor does there seem to be any desire to find out. And I strongly suggest you don't do any more editing of other people's comments. Even if innocent, it's leading with your chin. Andrewa 03:54, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Delete. Wikipedia is a place to record famous peace proposals, not a place to promote new and obscure ones (even if they are deserving). Ideas should be promoted through other venues. If they become famous, then they can be recorded in an encyclopedia. Andris 05:25, Apr 25, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete - source text - T&#949;x &#964; ur&#949; 15:40, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

There appear to be about 5 options to the israeli oocupation palestine.
 * Ending the Jewish majority in an expanded "israel"
 * Exterminating the Palestinians in a destroyed "palestine"
 * Eternal opression of palestinians to the point of public suicide.
 * A "two state option"
 * Or a "Union of states" with some form of joint human rights.

It seems extreemly biased to have hundreds of pages cronical the collective stupidity and none covering 1 of the 5(+-) potential outcomes.

Perhaps this short list might be usefull in the organization of the topics.

Why hasn't this been deleted? I'm somewhat new to the VfD process, but shouldn't fourteen votes for deletion, versus only two to keep, count as a consensus? Best I can tell, all of the disagreement scattered throughout came from the author, Quickwik, who's having a hard time learning about talk etiquette. Radicalsubversiv 20:30, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)