Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zionist attitudes toward the Palestinian Arabs


 * 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. Most of the keep arguments actually have good reasoning, while most of Delete arguments seem to be not offering arguments for it, as JaapBoBo rightly points out. I'm also concerned that because of the constant "Delete - POV fork" argument that there is some sockpuppetry here to try and get the article deleted. Therefore, after looking at the debate (and removing possible sockpuppet reasons) its almost certainly keep. The renaming issues can be further discussed on the article talkapge. D.M.N. (talk) 18:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Zionist attitudes toward the Palestinian Arabs

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This is a personal essay on Zionist attitudes toward the Palestinian Arabs. It starts with a POV title and goes downhill from there. I tried redirecting it, but the creator and sole editor reverted me with a charming edit summary. As far as I can tell this essay is partial, inaccurate, biased, a POV fork, cited from a handful of references (not since the opening chapters of A History of the English Speaking Peoples have I seen quite so many references to quite so few sources) and is in sundry ways unacceptable, violating WP:NPOV from the outset. Since the creator won't allow it to be quietly redirected, here it is for the community's consideration. Guy (Help!) 10:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep
 * This is really ridiculous.
 * The article was created because there was lack of space in the Zionism article. I proposed it in the talk section . Below that, on the same talk page Ceedjee says 'I think the idea of having an article dedicated to this topic could be useful.' and Telaviv1 says 'It might be necessary to create an article "Zionism and the Arabs", which would be of interest to a lot of people.'.
 * I suspect JzG has only taken a superficial glance at the article. He refused to substantiate his allegations: 'partial, inaccurate, biased, a POV fork, cited from a handful of references'  on the talk page of the article and went directly to a nomination for deletion. Maybe he doesn't like the thruths stated in the article and thinks there are many sources that would claim something different. I'm quite sure the article uses sources from both sides and gives their bearing in a neutral way. Improvement is of course always possible, certainly in such a new article, and if JzG is interested I'd be happy to cooperate with him to improve the article.
 * The subject/title in itself is not POV, because it lends itself to incorporation of pov's from both pro-Israeli and pro-Palestinian sources (which are both in it). Also, to call 'Zionist attitudes toward the Palestinian Arabs' in itself pov would be an admittance of a personal pov of an editor that these attitudes were immoral, while they might just as well be moral. I grant that the article might lend itself for pov-edits from one side, but (1) that is true for many articles on wikipedia, e.g. the Mohammad Amin al-Husayni article gives a lot of attention to his Nazi-ties, and (2) the article is already quite long (readable text of the article is now 44 kB), so e.g. 'Palestinian Arab attitudes toward Zionism' can better be treated in a separate article (which we could link to directly below the title of this article).
 * I propose we first discuss whether there is substance to JzG's allegations on the talk page of the article before taking any decisions. I already started the discussion, and I hope JzG will join it. --JaapBoBo (talk) 11:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep but rename - This proposal of deletion is a bad idea. I wrote on the talk page that I considered (too) there was some pov-fork and maybe a little PoV issues in the article BUT the way to solve this is certainly not first in deleting whole JaapBoBo's work and just after in starting this process of deletion... Currently (but it should be discussed) I think the best title for an article on the topic would be Zionists and Arabs in Mandate Palestine referring to 2 books used in the bibliography of the article (Flapan, Simha, 1979, Zionism and the Palestinians - Gorny, Yosef, 1987, Zionism and the Arabs, 1882-1948) and also to Tom Segev, One Palestine, Complete, whose subtitle is Jews and Arabs under the British Mandate. Ceedjee (talk) 11:17, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This is the whole problem, for me. The term "Zionists" is pejorative, and rehashing the arguments on one side of the debate made by a handful of books is not what Wikipedia is for.  Per WP:NPOV and especially WP:UNDUE, we shold cover such arguments in an article that covers both sides of the dispute.  This has served us well in the past and has gained critical acclaim for our handling of the Israel-Palestine conflict. Guy (Help!) 11:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand what you mean when you write that "the term Zionists is pejorative" but this is only true today because it is a way to delegitimate Israel. Historically and for the period covered by the article, it is not. Majority of Jews in Palestine were Zionists (and proud to be).
 * For the remaining, I think we have the same point of view except I deplore the procedure. Ceedjee (talk) 11:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems that JzG/Guy has dropped most of his allegations, and has reduced his criticism to the criticism of Ceedjee. As Ceedjee points out 'Zionists' is the usual way to refer to Zionists before 1948. So I think there's no problem with the title in itself. Apparently there is only a problem with the subject covered by the title, which is percieved as one-sided. Equivalently creationists could have a problem with the article on 'evolution', because they percieve that as one-sided. Ceedjee would like to extend the subject to include Palestinian attitudes toward the Zionists and the British. In view of the size of the article (already 44 kB readable text ) I'd propose to deal with that in a separate article, and to prominantly link the articles. --JaapBoBo (talk) 12:16, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Doesn't read like something that appears in an encyclopedia.  It seems to be a collection of material from various sources welded together into an essay.  The fact that it is from one editor is a little worrying inasmuch as that implies a lack of consensus, particularly with the ownership issues from that editor.  The article doesn't seem to follow the title but perhaps would be better retitled to "Zionism and 101 reasons I dislike it...".  Unfortunately the article does look beyond repair, not without gutting it to neutralise the forking going on.    Shot info (talk) 11:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * In my view the article as it is now is already quite NPOV. The 'Transfer idea' section is from causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus. It needs copy-editing, but many editors contributed to it in the course of about half a year. I consider it NPOV. The sections in historical order 'During ...' are taken from Zionism, although I added some texts that were not included there because of space-considerations. This part is also fairly NPOV. The first three sections were added in the last three days. I don't think they are very pov, but improvement by other editors is welcome. This is of course normal in an article that is only four days old.
 * WP:syn is not applicable here. There are no conclusions that are not in the sources. As WP:syn says: Summarizing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis — it is good editing. --JaapBoBo (talk) 13:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I could mention that it reads like it is copied from the sources, but there is enough original research and synthesis in the article (on top of clear ownership problems) as well as it reads like a personal essay...rather than an encyclopedic article. You are more than welcome to have this hosted on your own personal website, but unfortunately POVFORKs don't belong in Wikipedia.  Sorry, comments from the editor with the ownership problem isn't enough to sway my intention to recommend this article for deletion.  Shot info (talk) 04:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep This is a mostly well-written article that deserves inclusion. It could stand to be copy-edited, but that's another issue, so keep. Alloranleon (talk) 12:07, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, but rename first of all - the title is too one-sided, it should read something like Relations... whichever should follow (must admit I haven't read it in whole). Afterwards it deserves a thorough peer review. --Ouro (blah blah) 13:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. Avani patel (talk) 14:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * My comment: Actually the title is not one-sided, as it is a neutral title for the subject covered. I admit the subject covered is one-sided. However there are many books covering this 'one-sided' subject. In Gorny's work only the Zionist attitudes are discussed. The same in Finkelstein's work. Flapan gives about 10 percent space to discuss the Arabs, but he also discusses mainly the attitudes of the Zionists. Teveth discusses only Ben-Gurion's attitude. Note that Gorny and Teveth are pro-Israeli historians. Have they been accused of onesidedness? No, because in this context onesidedness has nothing to do with NPOV.
 * Why should Wikipedia adopt a different approach than these respected historians? --JaapBoBo (talk) 15:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, I see... I think. Actually, as I am unfamiliar with literature on the subject, I will have to rely on your word here in terms of the attitudes of the historians you mention, as well as how respected they are. Now, as there are two sides to every story, do you think it wouldn't be prudent to include the opposite view in the article, so as to balance it? Is there literature by/of/on Palestinian Arabs and their attitude towards the Israelis? Preferably by historians of equal stature? --Ouro (blah blah) 16:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * We should distinguish between the opposite view (on Zionist attitudes) and the opposite subject (Palestinian Arab attitudes). Including the opposite view is necesarry for balance and NPOV (as it is now views from both sides are already included). Including the opposite subject has nothing to do with NPOV, and it would make the article very large. Excluding the opposite subject is certainly not POV-forking as that would require exclusion of an opposite view. The three books and the chapter by Finkelstein I mentioned take this approach.
 * E.g. in the article you can read that the Zionist movement had a policy of excluding Arab workers and that therefore few Arabs worked in the Jewish sector of the economy. Quite some reasons are given for this policy. Personally I think that the absorption capacity for immigration was a quite important reason, and fears of exploiting cheap indiginous labor (a socialist argument) a much less important reason. Yet the sources attribute about equal importance to these reasons, and that is why I wrote it like that. That's what NPOV is about. Adding that Jews earned 2 or 3 times as much as Arabs, and therefore few Jews worked in the Arab sector has no effect on the neutrality of the former. It introduces however a different subject. The problem I have with that is article size.
 * There is literature on the opposite subject of course, e.g. by R. Khalidi. --JaapBoBo (talk) 17:21, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll have to really bite into the article to continue this discussion, but we're both keep !voters anyway. Give me some time. Cheers, Ouro (blah blah) 17:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't agree that historians do not refer to the Arab attitude towards Zionism and this would be an opposite subject ! It is even a main point on the subject because the Zionist attitude toward them was soon dictated by the Arab reaction and attitude toward them.
 * Tom Segev, a new historian who cannot be accused of pro-israeli bias, give numerous exemples of this mutual perception and interaction. He has chapters dedicated to the Nebi Musa riots, 1921 Jaffa riots and 1929 Hebron massacre, which are "Arabs attitudes toward Zionists" that deepely influenced Zionists attitude toward Arabs. And they are many other things.
 * But this is also explained in Morris, Righteous Victims or in Laqueur, The Unseen Question chapter of his History of Zionism (even if they deal less with the subject).
 * More, when we have 3 historians who chose precise (neutral) titles to their work, we should chose the same :
 * Flapan - Zionism and the Palestinians
 * Gorny - Zionism and the Arabs, 1882-1948
 * Tom Segev, One Palestine, Complete : Jews and Arabs under the British Mandate.
 * Particulary when 2 first are the one the most used references in the articles !
 * Ceedjee (talk) 18:07, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course Zionist attitudes were affected by events and circumstances. This is also clear in the books I refer to. However despite that they limit themselves to the Zionist attitude. I don't think the Zionist attitudes were 'deeply influenced' by these events (the basic attitude was the same before and after the riots, the invocation of the 'historical right', and the 'Jewish labour' policy was not changed), but if they were then these events can be mentioned as events that deeply influenced the attitudes. In fact Flapan and Gorny mention them and their effect, which was mainly that the Zionists realised that there was forceful opposition to them (and more to be reckoned with in the future), and that the British restricted immigration, which in turn was disliked by the Zionists. These facts can be mentioned, but if they are discussed completely it is clear that also British attitudes should be mentioned and discussed. That would make the article even bigger. Why should we do this if it is completely unneccesarry for NPOV? There is nothing in WP:NPOV that says inclusion of the opposite subject is necesarry?
 * Flapan's and Gorny's titles are about Zionism in relation to the Palestinian Arabs. Their chief subject is Zionist attitudes and not Arab attitudes. By the way their titles are not neutral: for the pre-1948 era 'Palestinians' is not a word easily used by pro-Isreaeli writers, and 'Arabs' is not a word easily used by pro-Palestinian writers. That's why I chose the more neutral 'Palestinian Arabs'. I chose 'Zionist attitudes toward ...' to limit the article to that, and if the title is changed to 'Zionism and the Palestinian Arabs' it will not be limited to that. In that respect writers of books have much more freedom in choosing their title, while at the same time limiting their subject. Segev, along with many others, did not limit himself to this subject. --JaapBoBo (talk) 19:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Segev just added the British in the picture but he puts them in the context of the Arab and Jews relationships.
 * The best title would be Zionists and Palestinian Arabs in Mandate Palestine
 * What precisely in WP:NPOV prevents the current title ? Nothing. This policy doesn't deal article titles but -as you wrote- the subject is one-sided, which is never very good.
 * In history, a fair picture of events or thoughts or attitudes can only be achieved with the appropriate context and the context of the Zionists attitude was the Arab attitude and vice versa.
 * Finally if we create Zionist attitude toward Palestinian Arabs and Palestinian Arabs attitude toward Zionists we create some pov-fork's because articles will deal with the same material. Ceedjee (talk) 20:17, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand the issue of the length but I think that
 * Considering that most editors favor a very strict interpretation of NPOV (not only inclusion of various views, but also inclusion of opposite subject) I guess I have to give in. So I'll accept extension of the subject.
 * Ceedjee's title (Zionists and Palestinian Arabs in Mandate Palestine) seems reasonable, although it doesn't include the pre-1917 era. I'd prefer 'Mandatory Palestine' to 'Mandate Palestine' (30.200 vs. 6.100 hits with google), but otherwise it's okay with me. I do think though that we would have to write in the intro that the article focusses on the attitudes.  --JaapBoBo (talk) 22:22, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete, the article is a POV fork. 6SJ7 (talk) 19:44, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi,
 * Could you develop ? Maybe it could be corrected...
 * Is a new title that cover a wider subject not a solution ?
 * Do you mean that the context should be merged in the main article (zionism) ? Ceedjee (talk) 09:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per above. POV fork. Tavix (talk) 00:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi,
 * Could you develop ? Maybe it could be corrected...
 * Is a new title that cover a wider subject not a solution ?
 * Do you mean that the context should be merged in the main article (zionism) ? Ceedjee (talk) 09:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep article topic may be POV by nature, but it is an important topic and seems fairly well written. Needs some editing. Rename may be reasonable, but I don't know what to rename it to... Hobit (talk) 01:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete POV fork. The argument that it was a split from Zionism in unconvincing. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Looking at the Zionism talk, it does appear to be. Was it a staged thing?  I'll assume good faith.  Hobit (talk) 04:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete POV fork as per Guy et al. Avi (talk) 04:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Burn with fire then salt Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 07:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Was that a poetic vote for deletion or just pure randomness? :) Alloranleon (talk) 08:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. This is a notable subject which should have an article. Any POV issues can be fixed by editing. As for the assertion that "zionist" is a pejorative term, that's just ridiculous. I'm sure any of the people whose attitudes are described in the article would be proud to be called zionists. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and then merge redlink with Fascist attitudes towards Subhuman People - per Kyaa . --Jack Merridew 13:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Phil Bridger. PRtalk 08:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * POV-fork supporters are offering no arguments
 * Please give me a braek here!
 * I have given arguments as to why the article is not a POV-fork: The subject/title in itself is not POV, because it lends itself to incorporation of pov's from both pro-Israeli and pro-Palestinian sources
 * Although it is not required by WP:NPOV, which says nothng about including the opposite subject, I agree to change the subject to include the opposite subject (Arab attitudes toward Zionism), and rename it accordingly
 * The content of the article as it is now is hardly pov (according to Ceedjee, a moderately pro-Israeli editor who knows really a lot of the I/P conflict before 1949: maybe a little PoV issues in the article
 * There really was a space-problem in the Zionism article, as TelAviv1 has repeatedly removed my additions with 'article length' as the only argument.
 * Please take a look at the talk page to see how Guy/JzG 'defended' his arguments: partial, inaccurate, biased, a POV fork, cited from a handful of references etc.
 * If none of the 'POV-fork' supporters is offering any substantial arguments as to why it is a POV-fork, and if the result of this 'trial' is a 'delete', than I will certainly object! This would be unfair. Certainly on Wikipedia a consensus should be reached by discussion and offering arguments, and not simply, as I fear is happening here, by letting some editors have a superficial glance at the article and base their vote on that. The Guide to Deletion page says: Always explain your reasoning..
 * Please, if you find it a POV-fork, try to convince me of that. Thx. --JaapBoBo (talk) 22:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Actually reading it, its an objective balanced article.DGG (talk) 15:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well...
 * What do you know about this subject to state that it is "balanced" ?
 * Judging the NPoV of an article requires to know all the pov's it must introduce.
 * But it is worth keeping the subject, indeed.
 * Ceedjee (talk) 07:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep per Phil Bridger; notable indeed, and enlightening to help understand many of the underlying issued that divide the two sides. CasualObserver&#39;48 (talk) 15:45, 4 January 2008 (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.