Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Racism in the Palestinian territories

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 and improve. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 16:52, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Racism in the Palestinian territories[edit]

Racism in the Palestinian territories (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Essay-style article, a seemingly random collection of blog-style commentaries, virtually none relating to the proposed subject of the article. The entire article is based on the hypothesis that opposing Israeli occupation is tantamount to racism, if that hypothesis is not accept then the validity of the content automatically falls. (there also quite a lot of Reductio ad Hitlerum fallacies). Soman (talk) 02:38, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep :::Style is no reason to delete, Then, on the other hand, I saw you try to expand the 'Racism in Israel' page...Ip82166 (talk) 11:18, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep - Malek, I can't see anything wrong here. it is all full of valuable backedup data, no essays here.RS101 (talk) 09:16, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
RS101, I haven't expressed an opinion about the article. I think you're replying to Soman's rationale for nominating the article for deletion. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:55, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I take it that RS101 is refering to me as royalty, ;). --Soman (talk) 21:59, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Merge - This article contains nothing that is not or should not be better contained within Racism in Israel. I see no reason for there to be a specialized sub-article when that one already covers the topic. May be suitable to advise editors of that article that if anything is contained in this one that should be salvaged, they should save a copy for incorporation into the other. - OldManNeptune⚓ (talk) 04:48, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - After reviewing this further I feel like political motives are unfortunately behind the nominations. I therefore support merging this article with Racism in Israel with the understanding that NPOV be strictly adhered to and the resulting article be cleaned up thoroughly. I feel my prior vote of delete was inappropriate to the situation, I had not realized that these two articles were essentially at odds with one another. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 17:06, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Article created for obvious purposes of political soapboxing. No redeeming features, no chance of bring up to acceptable quality. Zerotalk 05:42, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How did you come to this conclusion?RS101 (talk) 15:06, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is way greater and wider than that subject.RS101 (talk) 15:06, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Noleander advocated WP:SUMMARY for keeping Criticism of Judaism, although all the subjects within that article are given full coverage elsewhere. (See Avis' last post.) I fail to understand why Noleader chooses to take a contrary stance regarding this article. Chesdovi (talk) 12:27, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do not "take a contrary stance" - in fact, I think this article should be kept. Please do not take my comments out of context. I simply stated that there was already an existing article that had a section on this topic: if that article gets too large, the WP:Content fork and WP:Summary style policies kick in and a new article is warranted. This topic (racism in any country) is highly notable. --Noleander (talk) 14:31, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Unless you delete Racism in Israel which is worse in tone, unreliable sources and collection of essays.Ip82166 (talk) 08:54, 20 August 2010 (UTC) — Duplicate !vote: Ip82166 (talk • contribs) has already cast a !vote above.[reply]

*keep I wish ADL would be accepted by critics of Israel. and Haaretz is quoted here as well, so? There's so far no argument for deleting it, What essays are here? the point was made that one's bias view should not dictate deletion. No none's including Palestinian's racism should be pardoned.Ip82166 (talk) 09:25, 20 August 2010 (UTC) — Duplicate !vote: Ip82166 (talk • contribs) has already cast a !vote above.[reply]

  • Um, being anti- or pro-Israel has nothing to do with whether or not something meets our policy on reliableness. I personally wouldn't cite *from* the ADL on general principles, as I find them to be full of shit on a number of things, but nor would I automatically challenge its use as a source. --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 10:02, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the topic itself is notable, but this article is crap. I generally dont support deleting articles that cover notable topics, but we are better of starting with a blank page to write an actual encyclopedia article than we are trying to fix this screed. There is nothing here worth saving, not one version in the history of the article comes anywhere near being a valid article. So, either delete or stubbify until a real article can be written. nableezy - 09:42, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is no reason why this poorly written page can not be improved by members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Palestine. There will eventually be a page about racism in each and every country/territory. Why rush to delete? Chesdovi (talk) 12:27, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If there were more than 2 sentences in this article worth saving I would agree with you. I think the topic itself should be covered, but this doesnt come anywhere close to being an encyclopedia article and not a single version in the history is worth saving. nableezy - 12:54, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You Nableezy have removed vital information by historians , including anything racist by the Nazi infamous Ex Mufti, and to dismiss a source because someone doesn't like the message? Dont shoot the messenger, Don't convert it into "unreliable source", the tag which you wrongly inserted there.
I removed crap cited to crap. I dismiss crap sources. You used such sources as WND and self-published books to write this crap article. So long as this place remains an encyclopedia those are unreliable sources. nableezy - 14:00, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have also observed that in the last 24 hours you have removed important information by a user on Israel National News (a well noted news source) showing its well notoriety in books, cited in RS media outlets such as: The Washington Post, The Washington Times, The Guardian, Foxnews. But you have removed it (what is your fear???) with some noensense argument there.Colourfully (talk) 14:08, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the appropriate venue to discuss such topics, but since you ask I removed original research from that page. nableezy - 14:17, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is a wealth of material to be added on Palestinian Arab racism, most notably towards blacks. The encyclopedia has relatively poor coverage of the Arab slave trade, but one of the legacies of this trade is the endemic racist attitudes toward blacks found in Palestinian society. It needs coverage, not deletion.AMuseo (talk) 13:15, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepI appreciate that someone can admit that there's wide racism in Palestinian society, authority, it's almost racist to say that Palestinian Arabs can't be racists but Israelis can...Colourfully (talk) 13:54, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody has said that. nableezy - 14:01, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not explicitly... just push for deletion of this article about racism among Arab Palestinians. But to argue against the deletion of Racism in Israel...Colourfully (talk)

When you dont know what you are talking about you should remain silent. And I see you are doing the exact thing you are saying is "almost racist" here. nableezy - 14:17, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Racism should be documented in an article for every country. One exception is: if there is a parent article about "Human rights in ..." or "Discrimination in ..." that is small-ish and can hold a section on the racism topic, the material could go in that parent article. --Noleander (talk) 14:31, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (or, conditionally, Move to Article Incubator) - Noleander's point is right in theory, but numerous others are right that the article as began fails badly on WP:NOT#SOAPBOX, and is on trajectory where it could almost never be NPOV or Encyclopedic. I say that because (1) the article lacks any coherent structure, and functions as a laundry list at present, without distinction between prejudiced comments and larger historical trends; (2) fails to take seriously the prejudice-racism distinction; (3) treats historical claims about Israel/Palestine as racism per se (which as presently laid out can lead to endless edit wars, but never an encyclopedic article); (4) hasn't begun to address the complex problem that Jews, the target group of anti-semitism, rarely appear in the Palestinian territories as anything other than settlers or soldiers, complicating the meaning of racism (imagine "racism against whites in Robben Island prison" as an article). If some editors are serious about taking on such issues, they could well work on it in Wikipedia:Article_Incubator. Perhaps more usefully, we could split the Anti-semitism section as currently written into an also incubated "Racism in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict" article, and keep the anti-Kurdish and anti-black sections (which are currently horribly written, but lack these structural problems). Then, when some work is done we could put a Summary back in this article. However, I withhold support for anything other than delete until editors interested in something other than Soapboxing step forward to work on this.--Carwil (talk) 15:21, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Continue rescue I still think there are structural issues best addressed by a "Racism in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict" article, and that the article has numerous flaws. But substantial improvement has occurred. More editors, especially those who don't work full time on I-P issues would be really helpful.--Carwil (talk) 16:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Lots of text in the article has nothing to do with racism. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:04, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is pretty clearly a tit-for-tat POV-push in response to the existence of the unfortunately titled sub-page Racism in Israel. The article was launched only on August 15. One would think that this topic could and should be handled under the general aegis of "Antisemitism," allowing, of course, for the fact that Palestinian Arabs are themselves Semitic. Carrite (talk) 18:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I've removed several poor sources and added the 2009 report from the US State Department. It's still a very poor article, but the subject is notable. --Frederico1234 (talk) 20:32, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Well done article. Not "random" at all. Concur w/Nab that the subject is notable. At AfD, if the subject is notable, one is to look beyond the refs in the article and not limit one's analysis to those. The issue is the notability of the subject, not the quality of the article. As to that -- sofixit.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:14, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Keep and remove redundant tags that resemble vandalism. Racism in the Palestinian territories is documented by reliable sources. The article has a lot of potential (certainly more than Racism in Israel) and I say this AFD is premature. I mean come'on, Arabs cannot sell land to Jews says the Palestinian leadership. How is that not totally racist? Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:39, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - Why can't we discuss racism in the Palestinian territories, yet there is a huge Israel-apartheid page, and another page about "racial and ethnic discrimination in Israel?" All you have to do is watch Palestinian TV to see Jews being described as the sons of apes and pigs, having desecrated the scriptures, killing prophets, Protocols is a huge seller, as is Mein Kampf there. Racism can be said to be a reason why Palestinians have and continue to attempt attacks inside Israel behind the Green Line. Also, it was mentioned about blacks there too. Not to forget anti-Non-Muslim violence, which while is religious discrimination, is akin to racism. Wikipedia's credibility is on the line, especially when far-left editors are trying to have their way and only present their side, and hide all other arguments. Tallicfan20 (talk) 04:07, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Totally different issue. Israel has racist laws that discriminate against Palestinian people. The suicide attacks are from being treated like garbage all the time. The attacks increase according towards actions by Israel. The fact that some disgruntled people get on television and say something, doesn't represent the nation. Dream Focus 16:25, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Not a totally different issue. I am disappointed to see that political anti-Israeli motives are behind this. I voted delete but I did so under the understanding that the Racism in Israel article be expanding to include racism in Palistine and racism by Arab Israelis. I simply don't think it needs two different articles when it is one country under a single jurisdiction. However, if the only options are that we have an article discussing Jewish Israeli racism while ignoring Arab Israeli racism or keep two articles, then I would most definitely prefer we simply keep this article and clean it up. More importantly, I think editors need to stick to WP:NPOV and not foist a transparent political argument in favor of or against the existence of articles. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 17:01, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Needs a lot of work, but that is no reason to delete.Slatersteven (talk) 14:11, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Reading through the article, it does seem politically motivated. Are sources like http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/ reliable? One reliable source is the United States state department which at http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/40258.htm don't under Occupied Territories sums up the situation very well. Are there any reliable sources, outside Israel, that talk about this as a major problem? In any nation you can find a small number of people preaching racisms and publishing their own poorly selling magazines, but do they represent the nation, or even a considerable percentage of the people? Do the Palestinian people have actual laws that are racist? The Israels certainly do, so their article is justified. Dream Focus 16:19, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is if it isn't politicially motivated to dub laws Israel uses for security as "racist?" Your double standards are indeed pretty standard on the anti-Israel side of the debate.Tallicfan20 (talk) 16:38, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Many reliable sources state those laws are racist. At Wikipedia we go by reliable sources. And Israel continuously stole that land because they wanted their ancient boundaries, those areas only for just Jews to live, and no one else. How much more racist can you get? Dream Focus 22:39, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Last I checked "reliable source" or not, Wikipedia adheres to NPOV and avoids weasel wording. It is correct to say that many observers label Israeli policy as racist, but it is not a neutral statement of fact to outright label it as such with no qualifier as to who says so. That also has nothing to do with the deletion debate at hand, could you possibly refrain of injecting political bias into what is intended to be a neutral process? - OldManNeptune ⚓ 23:42, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Incubate - IMO a healthy dose of WP:TNT needs to be dropped onto this article so we can try to begin again fresh. A lot of shit has been stirred up lately with the mediation results from Israeli apartheid, resulting in a lot (moreso than usual in the I-P topic area) of "Well if we're gonna have THIS on the Wikipedia then I'm gonna go create THAT" tit-for-tat editing. In its current form, this article has been crafted largely out of spite and is far too reliant on jpost, ynet, harretz, and (mind-boggle) worldnetdaily for sourcing. There may be a notable topic here, but building on the current foundation is not the way to go. Tarc (talk) 14:36, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep No brainer. If there is an article about Israel and Apartheid, then certainly there should be an article about the racism (including apartheid? against Christians) by the Palestinians. --Luckymelon (talk) 23:03, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The poor quality of this piece does not invalidate the need for it. Clearly notable and sufficient reliable sources speak on the subject. Plot Spoiler (talk) 01:51, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am unconvinced by arguments that this article is politically motivated. Most articles are. If you are voting to delete this article for that reason, why are you not voting to delete Racism in Israel for the same reason? Yes, there is racism in Israel. And there is racism in the USA, and Mexico, and Canada. And guess what, yes, there is racism in the Palestinian territories too. How idiotic and transparent do you have to be to vote to delete this article but keep the Israel article? 174.112.83.21 (talk) 01:57, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fix. Serious POV issues, created as an attack page of sorts, quite clearly a tit-for-tat piece in response to its israeli counterpart. That said, the subject is notable and the sources are many. It should be rewritten, and I hope the rescue squad does that. Throwaway85 (talk) 03:07, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It's time to close the AFD. The tag has been on for more than 2 days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikifan12345 (talk • contribs)
    AfDs are usually open for 7 days, barring a forecast of snow. Tarc (talk) 03:43, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Exremely important. long overdue. I agree with Wikifan123 to close it.RolesRoice (talk) 11:01, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Structuring comment -- There is no "illegitimate topic"-based argument for deleting this article. Rather, there is a WP:SOAPBOX argument and an argument that the text can not be modified to Wikipedia standards. It would seem that Delete will not achieve consensus, but that does not exhaust the above discussion. Numerous people, mostly voting for delete, have argued that the article must be restarted. Two of us have proposed use of the Article Incubator or WP:TNT to fix the article. Please weigh in on whether you support that as you comment.--Carwil (talk) 15:31, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Article has been improved significantly since the AFD was filed. It is supported by plenty of reliable sources. For an infant article I think it is pretty solid. You can't expect a featured-status in the first week. IMO editors are more upset at the content rather than any concern for policy. Wikifan12345 (talk) 20:45, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Really, Wikifan, it's a mess. Filled with "x-org or y-individual (often not notable) charges z-person/policy with racism" statements that in half or more of the cases argue that the Palestinian side of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is racist per se. Also, ungrammatical, poorly organized, and lacking in any sources attempting to systematically evaluate the situation. WP:SOAPBOX and WP:CHERRY predominate. Given the major policy violations and stylistic concerns, is it so much to ask to shunt the text into the incubator until these problems are resolved and we have a good Start-class article (FA status may be a long time coming :) ).--Carwil (talk) 14:56, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination and Zero. Tec15 (talk) 13:25, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 'Racism in...' is unfortunately rampant in all areas of the world and a legitimate article, in this case specifically, article needs to be expanded and improved. --Shuki (talk) 14:21, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: To all the people voting Keep for "balance" with Racism in Israel (or whatever it's been moved to), please note that all Racism by Country articles cover their entire geographic scope. Which means that a discussion of racism by Israeli settlers and Israeli soldiers in the West Bank and Gaza will be inevitably included in this article. To not do so would be a POV fork.--Carwil (talk) 14:56, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: Do you know what a POV fork is? I saw a few editors trying to shove in bizarre info about racism among settlers and israeli soldiers, it was totally bogus and had no purpose in the article. Gaza and the West Bank are not part of Israel, settlers are not residents of the Palestinian territories. Any racism goes in racism in Israel. The article is about racism among Palestinians, not Israelis. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:34, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Further discussion of this issue is not relevant to the AfD, but is happening on the NPOV noticeboard.--Carwil (talk) 03:11, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong chatter 17:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Article needs work but deletion is not the solution here. Perhaps an RFC would be appropriate to resolve some of the more tendentious editing issues. SnottyWong chatter 17:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - flawed article, considerably more flawed than Racism in Israel, but like that one it is a legitimate topic. The article should be kept and improved, not deleted. Robofish (talk) 22:36, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the article is well sourced, and the subject is notable. It can be improved, but WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason to delete. Noon (talk) 22:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is clearly notable and the long list of sources is an indication of this. The level of racism (or lack of it) is notable for any country.Dejvid (talk) 13:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article does seem a little one sided. Cases of Palestinians confronting racism would be nice but perhaps none exist and that is not grounds for deletion.Dejvid (talk) 13:12, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Racism_in_the_Palestinian_territories&oldid=1138274895"