Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Views on Legitimacy of Israel


 * 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 delete. As DGG notes, a well-written discussion of Israel and legitimacy may conceivably be notable, but this is not that. No argument was put forth that this list of views is itself notable. edit: In case I wasn't clear the first time, an article on some topic like this may be worthy, but sufficient consensus says that this article is problematic. Shii (tock) 06:20, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

The result was no consensus. I am going to undelete the article, change the title, and rewrite it from scratch to show what the good article conceived of in the "keep" votes in this discussion ought to look like. Too much time was spent in this discussion talking about imaginary good articles, and not enough writing such an article. Shii (tock) 06:44, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Views on Legitimacy of Israel

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

It is unclear that this topic is notable and distinct from Anti-Zionism. Marokwitz (talk) 22:23, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 23 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete It's an essay, not an encyclopedia article. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 00:21, 24 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Belongs on some political blog. The very name of the article comes out of the polemic debate and precludes balancing. Zerotalk 03:22, 24 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. Pointless article.  --Ben Knapp (talk) 04:34, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete, as per above views, doesn't belong in an encyclopaedia. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:11, 24 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. This is a distinct and notable term, which has been widely discussed in RS and commented on by world leaders. There is no inherent POV problem because there is such a term.Scarletfire2112 (talk) 06:59, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, the searches above show quite clearly that it's not a "distinct and notable term". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:06, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete This appears to be a POV fork from several other articles, including Anti-Zionism, New antisemitism, Progressive Jewish Thought and the New Anti-Semitism, Criticism of the Israeli government, Zionist entity and others. Many of these are redundant, and we certainly do not need another covering the same ground. RolandR (talk) 10:46, 24 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - i love the line up of editors here.....anyway, this term is so clearly used by so many, even Abbas as very specific thing (call it what you want: phrase, neoligism, concept, etc.). it is not a generic thing for a generic article. Soosim (talk) 13:09, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * "keep" because of who is !voting delete?? quality argument you've got there...  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:04, 24 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - it's a legitimate term, used by many scholars, journalists and professionals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScottyNolan (talk • contribs) 15:18, 24 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - this is far more than a political topic. It's a source of concern and attention by not just Jewish communities but also many European and American policymakers, journalists, community leaders and more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IsraelUN (talk • contribs) 15:21, 24 March 2013 (UTC)  — IsraelUN (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep - It may need renaming and some work, but Delegitimization of Israel is very definitely and encyclopedic topic and therefore belongs in Wikipedia. Marokwitz, it is certainly part of anti-Zionism, but there is a whole wrath of sub-articles on antisemitism. Anti-Zionism needs the same treatment. Delegitimization actually falls under both and there are quite a few studies into it.  Oboler (talk) 15:42, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * If the article is kept then it certainly shouldn't be on the basis that it is a sub-article on antisemitism. It is perfectly possible to question Israel's legitimacy without being antisemitic. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:58, 24 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete- Article is Public Diplomacy not an encyclopaedia article. To add to Roland's list we also still have "Israelophobia" on the books. Dlv999 (talk) 17:39, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete, this "delegitimization of Israel" idea is a propaganda concept cooked up by Israel, which the article seems to present as an, if you'll allow the pun, legitimate subject of discussion. We have anti-Zionism etc already. --Dailycare (talk) 20:56, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't have a firm view at this point. But we have articles on things that POV editors may view as "cooked up" by those with a different POV.  As long as it meets our notability guidelines.  Such as coverage in reliable sources.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:13, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The fact that an editor views a subject as "cooked up" by those pushing a point of view doesn't mean that that editor him- or herself is a "POV editor". I don't usually involve myself in Israel/Palestine issues, because I don't have the energy to cope with all of the POV-pushers, but I can see, from a neutral point of view, that this article is being used to push the opinion that any questioning of Israel equates to antisemitism. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:29, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * My point is this. We have an article on Protocols of the Elders of Zion.  We have an article on Innocence of Muslims.  We have an article on Mein Kampf.  It is wholly irrelevant whether the subject of the article is a cooked up view (or may be a cooked up view).  At AfD, we care about notability.  One way we measure that is coverage in RSs.  If it is covered sufficiently in RSs, we cover it.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:53, 24 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Entire article seems to be a soapbox for Israeli propaganda points and quotes attacking critics of Israel. The article Anti-Zionism already covers opposition to the state of Israel making this article a clear POVFORK. Sepsis II (talk) 23:56, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. The political terminology, "delegitimization of Israel," has been around since as early as 1973 and has made its way to several academic journals and books. Below is a quick sampling. SimplesC (talk) 00:41, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Sprinzak, E. (1973). Beginnings of politics of Delegitimation in Israel in 1967-1972
 * Myers, N., Ray, B., Ray, B., & Myers, N. (2010). Review: From Empathy to Denial: Arab Response to the Holocaust, Meir Litvak and Esther Webman Post-Zionism, Post-Holocaust: Three Essays on Denial, Forgetting, and the Delegitimation of Israel, Elhanan Yakira. Columbia Press.
 * Rosen, E. (2011). Mapping the Organizational Sources of the Global Delegitimization Campaign Against Israel in the UK. Jerusalem Ctr Public Affairs


 * Keep I think the argument that Israel does not constitute a legitimate state is an argument that is sometimes made in a hit-and-run fashion without time being taken to examine the substance of the argument or the reasoning behind it. What high profile sources have taken stances on the question of Israel's "legitimacy"? It is a term that is used a lot but what arguments, reasoning, and rationale support either position? That is a topic for an article. I think some of the above posts are getting sidetracked by whether or not questioning the legitimacy of the state of Israel constitutes antisemitism or not. Our focus in this article should not be examining motivations. Rather I think our interest should be in the arguments themselves. This should be an article examining positions supported by reasoning. What "reasoning" has been advanced by prominent commentators in support of positions on this question? In some instances dialogue may have transpired by individuals holding opposing positions on this question. In other instances one-sided arguments may have been presented by high profile or influential people or organizations on this question. Whether spoken in dialogue or not, if reliably sourced, such articulations and arguments should be considered valid for inclusion in an article such as this. I think this is a question that warrants further examination and I think an article should be devoted to examining the arguments put forth on this question. Bus stop (talk) 00:52, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - an essay, and not even that good of one.  nableezy  - 15:21, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep—I don't know the current name of the article ("Views on Legitimacy of Israel"), which doesn't make sense, and I don't know much of the content of the article. However, I believe that there is a place on Wikipedia for an article on the practice of denying Israel's legitimacy, and the specific term "deligitimization of Israel" has been used for decades in a multitude of reliable sources (some of which have been displayed above). We have multiple precedents for keeping articles on topics and terms much less notable than this (in AfD), so on that basis the article should also be kept. —Ynhockey (Talk) 21:38, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep & Rename to Opinions of Legitimacy of the State of Israel. Regardless of my personal views on the subject, the question of an AfD is whether the subject is notable. Given the breadth of content regarding the "Legitimacy of the State of Isreal" (both pro-Israel and anti-Israel) I would say that the subject is clearly notable per WP:GNG. Does this type of subject full of POV, NEU, & WEIGHT related minefields? Yes. So are articles about any number of politically controversial subjects, but just because it is politically controversial subject doesn't mean that it should exist.
 * I would say that two non-involved Admins, both with differing points of view regarding the subject need to go through this article with a fine tooth comb and remove any NPOV issues or at the very least balance them out. All that being said AfD is not a replacement for clean-up, and an article about a notable subject should be kept.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:08, 26 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. I've finally had a chance to read more than a few of the books and articles that pop up when one does a google search.  IMHO it clearly meets GNG.  I took time to re-read some of the above naysayer !votes, and see that many of them focus not on whether it meets our notability requirements, but rather whether they like its title (that's for the talk page, not an AfD issue), or whether they like its format or how it is written (but AfD is not for cleanup), or whether they like what it says, or whether it is a covered by articles on anti-semitism (two different things, thought they can obviously co-exist), or whether it is cooked up (we cover Protocols of the Elders of Zion, which is cooked up, because it meets GNG), or whether they think it is well-written.  To the extent that !votes are based on those notions, I think they carry very little weight.  We are focused here on whether it meets our notability requirements, and as far as I can see it appears to quite amply.  At the same time, I concur with those who think discussion might be had on its talkpage as to its name, and who are in favor of cleaning it up.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:26, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Addresses an interesting aspect of the Israel-Palestine conflict, which based on the sources cited in the article, is deserving of individual attention. Though this article does not describe an obscure sex act, Justin Bieber's haircut, or appeal to the formidable Wikipedian penchant of video games, it is nevertheless notable. Juddhoward (talk) 02:24, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete This is adequately covered in other less POV-pushing titles. Anyway, wikipedia is an encyclopedia.  It covers topics not terms.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:15, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - A topic merely meeting WP:N is not enough to merit an article. Under Wikipedia:No original research, "Articles may make an analytic or evaluative claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source." Primary sources are sources that originate written material and secondary sources are sources that summarize the original material provided by primary sources. This article is nothing more than a compilation of sources that originate written material - a compilation of analytic or evaluative claims published by a primary source contrary to Wikipedia:No original research policy. Also, where does this end? Is the next Wikipedia article Opinions on views on legitimacy of Israel? Views on legitimacy of the United States? The topic assumes that Israel is not authorized by the law or is not in accordance with accepted standards or rules, without providing sufficient reliable sources in the article to support such an assumption. This article also is a WP:POVFORK of articles that already adequately cover this topic, such as Anti-Zionism and, given is unsupported premise that Israel is not legitimate, the article can never be written to describe the topic from a neutral point of view as required by WP:NOTADVOCATE. -- Jreferee (talk) 13:46, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep but rewrite from scratch, which is essentially the same as "Delete and start over", except that it keeps the article history. . My opinion was asked for off-wiki. I certainly think this is a distinct topic. and a highly notable one. The phrase is widely used internationally, and it is a phrase that needs specific information. There is no current article that really covers the same specific topic.  The present article is, however, biased, and is to a very considerable extent a POV fork.  This has been given as a reason for deletion, and while it is a correct characterization of the contents--starting off from the lede--it is a reason for rewriting, not for deletion. Even those saying delete admit the subject is notable, & the only other criteria necessary to justify an article like this is that sufficient RSs exist to write one. It's also objected that WP covers topics not terms; this is flat-out wrong: WP covers topics, and some of these topics are phrases used in various sort of discourse--we have probably a few tens of thousands such. DGG ( talk ) 17:24, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - It's an essay. It doesn't belong here. The search term 'delegitimization' was used to build an essay based on sources that contain that term. Exactly the same process could have been followed using the search term 'brutality'. Plenty of reliable sources that express and discuss 'views on the brutality of Israel' are of course available. Constructing mélanges like these are best left to the experts whose job it is to produce propaganda. It is however quite a good example of the deligitimization of Wikipedia as a decent encyclopedic source for anything to do with the Arab-Israeli conflict.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 18:03, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep notable topic that deserves article Mont84 (talk) 22:56, 30 March 2013 (UTC) — Mont84 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. This user's first edit under this name after creating a dummy user page and a self-welcoming user talk page was to attempt to close this discusssion by impersonating an admin. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:05, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep-While the article itself is a POV fork used to attack individuals and needs to be completely rewritten to give even the hope of a good article. I believe it should redirect to World Jewish Congress at the end of this discussion until someone comes in to actually write an objective view on the various arguments for and against legitimization of Israel. Coffeepusher (talk) 01:40, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Which article is this article a WP:POVFORK of? The only article I can think of is the Israel article. What other article might the Delegitimization of Israel article be a WP:POVFORK of? Bus stop (talk) 17:17, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Well I would make the argument that it is a POV fork because it "The most blatant POV forks are those which insert consensus-dodging content under a title that should clearly be made a redirect to an existing article." It should probably be inserted into New antisemitism or, as I said above, World Jewish Congress.  Unfortunately in those articles it probably wouldn't be able to make the statement that "Delegitimizers use myths and misinformation" which isn't true, some people who question the legitimization of Israel do so from standpoints other than myths and misinformation.  The fact that this could be a good article but instead uses a possibly neutral title to attack those who attack Israel makes this a POV fork.  Reading through the article I haven't learned a single thing about the rhetoric of the de legitimization of Israel, all I learned is that if you disagree with Israel being a legitimate nation you do so because you are evil, lying, full of misinformation, and against a world consensus.Coffeepusher (talk) 17:38, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I support you (and anyone else who wishes to) adding RS-supported views as to the illegitimacy of Israel to the article. That's as a number of us have already agreed (perhaps you are one of them) a clean-up matter.  But we don't use AfD for clean-up.  I'm supportive of it taking place, however (as the article is kept).--Epeefleche (talk) 18:23, 31 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete I'm actually changing my vote to "delete" because after looking over the talk page, it is a POV fork, and after looking over the history it is clear that some editors intend to maintain it as such. The current article is so toxic I don't think it can be fixed to conform to wikipedia's policies.Coffeepusher (talk) 19:37, 31 March 2013 (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.