Talk:Zionist revisionism in Israeli-Palestinian conflict

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yoshiah, if thine eye offends thee, pluck it out. --Alberuni 04:14, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Look in the mirror before you make comments in archaic english.--Josiah 05:28, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

No such belief exists. Someone has rewritten the article on Holocaust denial, and attributed these beliefs to Jewish people. If I didn't know better, I would say that this was written by certain professors of Columbia University who are now under investigation for trying to incite students to be racist against people of Jewish ancestry. It is not appropriate for fictitious material to be accepted in a peer-reviewed encyclopedia. To whom can one appeal? I now know that anyone can contribute, but who are the reviewers who check for this sort of thing? I would like to contact them, by regular mail or e-mail.

Previously I identified myself as Been to New Jersey, and knowing what I am missing, and not missing it., but perhaps I should add that I have Been to Columbia, and knowing what I am missing, and not missing it..

Contents 1 VfD vote, and suggestion to redirect 2 Yoshiah, your edit "For example, Saudi Arabia recently denied Palestinians the "right" to enter it" 3 NPOV 4 Some Zionist tried to redirect this page to Revisionist Zionism 5 Looking for evidence of consensus 6 There is no consenus to delete or redirect 7 Renaming proposal 8 What the...?

[edit] VfD vote, and suggestion to redirect

No consensus was reached on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion about this article (see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Zionist Revisionism), however, given the large number of redirect votes (52%, plus another 18% favoring delete only), there seems to be strong latent support to redirect this article. We should do the same thing with this article and its bastard stepchild Israeli-Palestinian history denial. Suggestions? Cool Hand Luke 00:13, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm definetely in favor.--Josiah 01:58, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This article should redirect to Revisionist Zionism. It seems we had the pleasure of the company of Israeli-Palestinian history denial since April, so it is really unrelated to the VfD. Gady 19:54, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

VfDs are about deletion, not about redirecting. Deletion failed. Therefore the default is keep.The page should be kept. Redirecting is just a back-door attempt by Zionist POV pushers at deleting the page and censoring the content; i.e. more Zionist revisionism. --Alberuni 19:41, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

In saying such you ignore hundreds of VfD cases where the decision was made to redirect instead of entire deletion.--Josiah 21:56, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps you should review the policy again: "To request that a page (or image) be permanently deleted, the request made on VfD, and any votes or comments relating to a listed page must be made in good faith. At the end of five days, if a "rough consensus" (what a rough consensus is is not set in stone, a few do consider a 2/3 majority a "rough consensus") has been reached to delete the page, the page will be removed. Otherwise the page remains." --Alberuni 01:10, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Israeli-Palestinian history denial was the original article; it's hardly a bastard stepchild of this one, being composed of long-standing material refactored out of Bible conspiracy theories plus some new content. If anything is to be redirected it should be this article; the other one should stay. —No-One Jones ^(m) 19:47, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Agreed.--Josiah 21:56, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yeah. Agreed. Sorry, they looked similar. Cool Hand Luke 08:26, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Yoshiah, your edit "For example, Saudi Arabia recently denied Palestinians the "right" to enter it"

Makes me laugh. This is an article about Zionist revisionism and the section is about Zionist denial of palestinina identity. The line preceding your edit describes how Zionists like to blame neighboring Arab states for not absorbing the refugees created by the Jewish state. So what do you do? You add a line claiming that Saudi Arabia has denied Palestinians the "right" to enter it. You realize you are providing an example of Zionist revisionism, don't you? It would be nice to know the Israeli source for this piece of revisionism. As an aside, why do you think Palestinians should have a "right" to enter Saudi Arabia? --Alberuni 01:03, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

I'm attempting to remove many of the weasel words and claims. --Viriditas 21:06, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Some Zionist tried to redirect this page to Revisionist Zionism

Luckily, the censorship was only temporary and it was recovered. --Alberuni 03:23, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Looking for evidence of consensus

But all I see are the usual Zionist lies and revisionism. What a surprise. --Alberuni 05:29, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Alberuni, you know perfectly well we are talking about the Vfd. If there's anything I dislike is grownups playing innocent like 3 year olds. Gady 05:31, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

According to Jayjg, consensus means everyone agrees. I don't agree with this redirect. The VfD failed. The redirect is an attempt at backdoor censorship. More Zionist revisionism. --Alberuni 05:34, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Nobody is censoring you. Take these earth shattering accusations and put them in Israeli-Palestinian history denial. This page has got to go. Gady 05:38, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No, the VfD failed. It's not going anywhere. --Alberuni 05:46, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

VfD doesn't require consensus, just a reasonably large majority. Jayjg 15:01, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] There is no consenus to delete or redirect

Read the VfD you partsian Zionist bullies. "Zionist Revisionism was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was no consensus. Although redirects plus deletes do form a rough consensus, there is no consensus (as per wikipedia policy) that this means anything. Any attempt to resolve this VfD by newly-formed policy would not seem to be legitimate, especially because partisans in this dispute dominate talk for the new policy.

The VfD tally suggests that many wikipedian's would be in favor of redirecting this, but this should be brought up on the talk page of this article. I'm removing VfD from this article. Please discuss possible redirects or moves on the talk page. Cool Hand Luke 23:49, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)" --Alberuni 05:48, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Not to say that to redirect to an article with totally different content is inadmissible. Mikkalai

Mikkalai, I explained the reasons for that on your talk page. Gady 12:58, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for taking your time. Please keep discusions at article talk pages whenever it is relevant. My points: the redirect is to a page with totally different contet. What is more, when you change of the order of words, you have a totally different meaning. Even with my feeble command of English I remember that. Still more, blanking the aricle ithout moving the content elsewhere is also inadmissible. Finally, the "merge" clause in the article clearly states which article content is closest to the curret one.

My opinion is that merge action in this case is inappropriate, since the topicsa ar easily separable into Israeli revisionism and Palestitian revisionism, since they do not seem to overlap (at least in the current versions). I must also admit that it is hard to present the issue in a neutal way. But the action of simply blanking the page is short of being a solution in any of the three directions: merging/splitting/making neutal. Thank you. Mikkalai 16:28, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes, anything can be done to articles through consensus, but I believe an unrelated redirect doesn't make much sense for a page titled rather specificatlly "Zionist revisionism in Israeli-Palestinian conflict." It would have made much more sense to redirect from "Zionist Revisionism," and I support such a redirect for that title. I wish these pages had not been moved without discussion because we now have three cut-and-paste copies with three talk pages. If I wasn't so tired, I think I would link all three to a survey to remerge all the histories, probably at the original title to avoid fighting, even though two copies are now protected. Three talk pages it too nightmarish. Cool Hand Luke 08:11, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Luke, these discussion are from before the page was renamed. They pertain to Zionist Revisionism. This page should be redirected to Israeli-Palestinian history denial, and I think there is a consensus on that. Gady 11:38, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Merging different things into single article is an option, when they are somehow related, e.g., gentically, but separate topics to small to deserve an article. In this case both topics are big enough and different enough to have their own, separate, articles. The issue of bad titles is another issue. Mikkalai 15:54, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The topics themselves are related, which is what various sides view as "revisionism" in the conflict. I suppose one can always find a finer and finer granularity to distinguish them, and therefore insist that separate articles are required. However, in practice what happens then is that different sub-topics become POV pieces expressing an opinion, all context is lost, and any general articles on the subject become unreadable link repositories. Noticing this, editors then attempt to add detail to the link repositories, which inevitably conflict with the links they refer to (since those have been thoroughly POVd), resulting in a mess and more edit wars. What we need is one article in which to work out all the POVs, retain context, and provide an article actually readable and worth reading. Jayjg 16:23, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

what is wrong with "finer and finer granularity"? It is a policy ow wikipedia to split pages when they grow. One can always write a common, summary-like article, with details in additional pages. All what is common for both sides will fit perfectly well in this summary page. Mikkalai 21:48, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think there's consensus on this too, but it's not a consensus some are willing to recognize, so this is very much a live issue. As an aside: I'm opposed to partisan granularity (the proposal below is unspeakably undesirable). Cool Hand Luke 19:17, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Renaming proposal

I suggest to make two articles with unambiguous titles,

"History denial by Israel opponents"

and

"History denial by Palestine opponents"

A reasonable extension: make the Israeli-Palestinian history denial a summary article that discusses things common to both sides and refers to separate pages for details.

And for several reasons, most important being that IMO not only palestinians deny israeli history and not only zionists deny palestinian hisory and facts. What is more, not all israeli deny palestinians (I don't know about palestine in this resiprocity). Mikkalai 15:54, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

My only problem with this suggestion is that this would lead to the following situation: Israel opponents would work on the first. Palestine opponents would work on the second. Both would be POV beyond recognition. The notion of putting them in a single article, artificial as it may look, has led to more balanced pages. See for example List of massacres committed during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war, and many other pages. Gady 16:03, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This problem is easily solvable: cross-reference them. Both sides will readily grab an opportunity to edit the opponent's. Mikkalai 21:40, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The list of massacres has an immediately seen benefit: transparent chronology. Mikkalai 21:44, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I moved this discussion to Talk:Israeli-Palestinian history denial. Gady 00:33, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] What the...?

Erm, I just realized I edited a page called "An Editorial by Alberuni", thinking I was editing something else. I take it this is someone's idea of a joke. While Alberuni may be a <insert insulting verb> <insert insulting noun>, this is ridiculous. Grow up please, whoever made this page.--Josiah 00:54, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes, it was a bit of a knee-jerk reaction, I agree. Gady 01:30, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)