Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ouze Merham

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.

Contents

[edit] Ouze Merham

The result was no consensus for deletion, default to keep.

AfD is a forum for establishing consensus about whether an article should be deleted or not. Just about the only certain thing that can be said about this discussion is that it has not produced a consensus for deletion. Also, no issues have been raised that would mandate deletion (as opposed to redirection or merging) in accordance any of our core policies (WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:NOR), irrespective of consensus. Accordingly, the article is kept. (I'm not calling it a "keep" consensus because of the substantial number of policy-based "delete" opinions, but that's just a matter of semantics.)

For the benefit of the less experienced contributors to this discussion, I would like to note that this outcome does not rule out any solution that does not require deletion, such as redirection or merging. However, editorial consensus is also needed for any such solution, and I don't think we have already established that, either. This would need to be done on the article talk page, or in another appropriate forum. Sandstein (talk) 21:33, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Ouze Merham (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

As the article has been substantially rewritten since I first nominated it for deletion or merging, I feel I need to update this rationale to reflect the current state of play. I've put the old rationale in the collapsed box above for ease of reference.

The article as it stands now concerns a disputed quotation said to have come from an individual who allegedly interviewed Ariel Sharon in the 1950s. The principal source for analysing that controversy is two articles by a pro-Israel advocacy group called CAMERA, quoted as citations 1 and 9 in the current version of the article. [1] The remainder of the article consists of a list of a series of occasions on which the quotation was used.

This raises questions of notability, NPOV and original research. The original research aspect is straightforward: the list of uses of the quotation has been compiled by individual editors trawling Google. Those uses are mostly not discussed by other sources. (There are two exceptions: a Chicago-Sun Times story which mentions the Daily Illini use of the quotation, and the very brief mention in an ABC interview of the Islamic Human Rights Commission's use of the quotation). The rest are primary sources which have not been analysed or discussed elsewhere and so fail a key requirement of Wikipedia:Original research: "Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors."

The question of notability is more complex. CAMERA itself is notable. As a source, however, it is not entirely reliable given that it is a self-acknowledged partisan advocacy group. Nor is everything it says notable; it is merely one player (not even the biggest one) in a very complex political dispute involving many thousands of actors. The fact that CAMERA has written an analysis of this disputed quotation is not in itself notable, and there is no indication that CAMERA's analysis has been picked up by external sources. Nobody has found any reliable sources that state something like "according to CAMERA, the Ouze Merham quotation is a notorious hoax..." CAMERA does assert that the hoax is "a staple of anti-Israel propaganda" but this assertion is not supported by any other source. This raises a red flag in terms of the neutral point of view policy, as it is a "surprising or apparently important claim not covered by mainstream sources". No mainstream source has discussed the quotation (as opposed to using it) in any detail and there is certainly no mainstream sourcing to support CAMERA's claim about the quotation's importance. The topic's notability therefore rests on a single, highly partisan source with an interest in exaggerating the importance of its claims. This seems to be both very unsatisfactory in terms of meeting notability requirements and also a breach of undue weight, given WP:NPOV's requirement (per Jimmy Wales) that "if viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not".

I therefore recommend that the article be deleted or merged to either of Media coverage of the Arab-Israeli conflict or Ariel Sharon. The closing admin should note that the current version of the article differs very substantially from the version originally nominated (see diff). Most of the editor comments below will relate to old versions of the article, so are not necessarily applicable to the current version. Given this, it might be worth re-listing the AfD to obtain views on the article as it now stands.

I appreciate that some editors may have strong opinions about the subject of this article. However, please remember that AfD is not a vote and confine any comments to the question of whether it meets Wikipedia's notability, neutrality and verifiability standards and any other standards that apply. Please do not make political arguments, as these cannot be taken into consideration by the closing admin. And please provide verifiable evidence for your recommendation. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:31, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

ChrisO's revised argument belongs at the bottom of the page, not the top. There's nothing wrong with leaving a note at this spot saying "I've revised my argument, please see below", but the new argument itself should be in a spot where rebuttals to it are easily accessable, otherwise it's that much more difficult for the closing admin to read this already messy page. ChrisO, you don't get a pass for this kind of thing just because you're the nominator. It's still bad form. I'll respond at the bottom. Noroton (talk) 16:00, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Inclusions

  • Keep -- It's a "meme" that has spread around in a number of ways during the last six years, at least (though not usually in the "mainstream media" of the English-speaking countries). All we have to do is verify that the alleged quote has been promulgated in various places, and that no one who has conducted any research on the matter has been able to factually verify the existence of any Israeli general named "Ouze Merham". Furthermore, I've seen coverage of the "Islamophobe of the year" etc. award several times (in contexts unconnected with Ouze Merham) in the on-line version of the English newspaper "The Guardian" (this is what I can turn up right now with a quick Google search: http://www.kenanmalik.com/essays/islamophobia_guardian.html ). 20:26, 22 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by AnonMoos (talk • contribs)
I'm afraid you've misunderstood the point I'm making above. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and as the page I just linked says, "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." There have been any number of hoaxes, frauds and scams throughout history. Some are clearly notable, having been the subject of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (cf. Wikipedia:Notability). We need to satisfy that criterion to pass the notability test. I'm afraid it's not good enough simply to assert that it's notable, without citing any sources to prove your point. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:19, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep independent notability is available [2] , [3] . but if fixing is needed then we may place a tag over it which should be sufficient .--Pearll's sun (talk) 20:48, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Those are both websites that mirror Wikipedia. You can't cite Wikipedia articles to validate other Wikipedia articles. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:19, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment it may be better retitled to something like Ouze Merham hoax. --Dhartung | Talk 21:38, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Possibly, but that's not relevant to the question of whether it's sufficiently notable to warrant an article. If it's not notable it's not notable whatever it's called. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:19, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete or Merge with Sharon/ Media coverage article. Interestingly, Hassan Nasrallah also has quotes attributed to him, quotes which seem to be fabrications, see this. Unlike the Merham "quotes" the Nasrallah "quotes" seem to be "alive and kicking." Regards, Huldra (talk) 22:50, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. I agree with the nom by ChrisO (talk · contribs), who laid out the delete rationale very very well. Also agree with previous comment by Huldra (talk · contribs). If consensus is not to delete, then Media coverage of the Arab-Israeli conflict might be the best place to merge to - but this article's topic fails the "significant coverage" of WP:NOTE quite obviously. There simply aren't enough WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources that significantly delve into this topic in enough detail/analysis to satisfy notability for an article on one quote/hoax. Cirt (talk) 03:56, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. per WP:BIAS. Lack of media coverage does not necessairily imply lack of notability, especially for a subject that naturally would have less western/english-language coverage. Even so, there are a couple legit sources, and it won an award from a legit organization. Unverified sections can be cleaned without deleting the article. Z00r (talk) 09:57, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Could you explain how WP:BIAS applies in this instance? I'm afraid you haven't really addressed the points I made above. As a source-based encyclopedia we have to rely on reliable sources, which in this instance is likely to mean media coverage, to corroborate the matter's notability. That's a canonical requirement: "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" (WP:V). If we aren't able to attest the topic's notability through reliable secondary sources, it doesn't meet the criteria for inclusion. If you know of any such sources please cite them. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:06, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Certainly. Sources are required to verify facts. Sources can demonstrate notability, but they are not required to do so. As you are probably aware, WP:N states, "If an article currently does not cite reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, that does not necessarily mean the topic is not notable." It appears that this is one of those articles that is notable, but not covered widely.
My point about bias is that this is a subject where the demographic and cultural group of english wikipedia editors is largely distinct from the demographic and cultural groups who would have knowledge or interest in this topic. We have to be extra careful not to delete something apparently "non-notable" to us but yet notable to lots of other people.
Additionally, if you take this article and compare it to a US-centric article of equal note, a-priori we would expect that the US-centric article would be covered by more sources. Thus the fact that there are only a few english sources is not as bit a hit against notability here as it would be for other articles.
Finally, I think that the 2 sources already in the article, combined with the award mentioned, establish notability by themselves anyways. Z00r (talk) 10:51, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I take your point about possible non-English language sources - it's quite possible that it's been discussed in the Israeli Hebrew-language media. Having said that, it's still only a hypothetical proposition; we can't act on the basis that information may exist, we can only use that information which we know does exist. As for the issue of notability, it's something that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information addresses: "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia... News coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, but not all events warrant an encyclopedia article of their own." What we have here are two independent incidents, five years ago, of negligible notability; there's no way either one of them would warrant an article of their own, and they don't somehow become notable by stitching the two together. That's effectively original research by synthesis, which isn't permitted. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:56, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, you and I appear to have different thresholds for notability. Nothing in policy explicitly excludes topics like this, but likewise nothing makes a slam-dunk case to include it either. I would ask that you carefully consider your own natural biases (we all have them), and also factor in the the award given to the topic in addition to the sources. [edit: avi's source-based argument for inclusion is pretty airtight]Z00r (talk) 21:47, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
First, why is the award notable? There appears to be no independent coverage of it other than one brief mention in that ABC interview. Second, why is it notable that ABC questioned the award? Your entire case rests on one sentence, spoken in one interview in one source, on one occasion. How is this notable? -- ChrisO (talk) 21:58, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Chris, you've just asked me not to respond to you any more. You can't have it both ways. Jayjg (talk) 22:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I asked you not to stir the pot concerning an entirely separate matter on an entirely separate page. That doesn't prevent you from responding to my questions here. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:06, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Either I respond to all of your statements, or none. You don't get to decide which I can or cannot respond to. It's up to you. Jayjg (talk) 22:21, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I am seriously not in the mood to play games with you, Jay. Cut it out, please. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:31, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Heh. Yes, Jayjg is always consistent. How often haven´t I been told that you cannot link to "private websites", specifically "geocities", over at Israel Shahak[4][5]. So that policy is also valid here, right? Oh, wait, strange: [6] Chris: some can have it both ways! Laughing, Huldra (talk) 03:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I didn't add that link to the article; as I recall, as part of re-formatting several references, I simply re-formatted that one too. I certainly didn't object when you removed it. Jayjg (talk) 02:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Nope, Jayjg; you didn´t only re-format it, you also reinserted the geocities-reference [7], and reinserted it again [8]. This while you -at the very same time -upheld a total ban on linking to geocities-pages which had Israel Shahak-material on it. Huldra (talk) 10:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Err, no, Huldra. That was an IP vandal who removed all of the article but the hoax quote itself, and stated that the interview was true. Reverting vandalism isn't the same as "reinserting a geocities reference". And please stick to discussing the deletion of the Ouze Merham article, rather than other editors - that's what this page is for. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 02:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Very well, if Jay doesn't want to answer User:ChrisO, which is perhaps understandable given what appears to be a difficult relationship, perhaps he will answer if I ask the same question? How does one sentence, spoken in one interview in one source, on one occasion, make this subject notable? Relata refero (talk) 08:18, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Please note, I said that they make it even more notable. The fact that one of the founders of the IHRC was challenged on this point by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation is just one of the things that makes it notable. That is also why merging it to the IHRC article wouldn't make sense, since only 3 of the 19 references in the current Ouze Merham article are actually about the IHRC award. Jayjg (talk) 00:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
No, Jay, that won't do. Other than the one tangential line in one interview on ABC, and one non-notable little series of events about a student newspaper covered in the CS-T, there's nothing. So you're just going around in circles here. You can't focus on one particular source and then say "but there are others" when that one is dissected. If this is not considered important enough for a real article in a reliable source on it, why should we have an entire article on it? Relata refero (talk) 07:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
"that won't do?" I don't think you get to decide that, actually. I consider the wide reproduction of the quote on the internet, the controversy and apology in the Daily Illini, the Chicago Sun-Times article, the CAMERA exposure of the hoax, the IHRC award to Sharon, and the ABC grilling of the IHRC on this point, to collectively meet Wikipedia's standards for WP:V (and the more controversial standards of notability, which some Wikipedia die-hard inclusionists still insist is not a Wikipedia requirement at all). I used to be much more of a deletionist; but after some rather bruising experiences, in which articles which I considered manifestly unsuitable for any serious encyclopedia were kept, I've come to realize that Wikipedia has standards that are mostly based on WP:V - and frankly, standards that are much lower than the ones you demand. There are probably several hundred thousand articles on Wikipedia that I would consider to be less significant than this one. Would there be an article in Britannica on this topic? No. But, of course, there wouldn't be a Britannica article on Poké Ball either. Jayjg (talk) 03:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
OK, I understand a little bit more now. It seems you're saying that you agree that this is not really encyclopaedic, but WP has lowered itself so many times, that not keeping this one would be unfair, or wrong, or something. OK. Relata refero (talk) 08:33, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
No, what I'm saying is that it more than meets Wikipedia's standards for verifiability and notability. Jayjg (talk) 02:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Multiple citations from six separate sources. CAMERA is as valid as site as CAIR when it comes to montioring the press of their ideological targets. We have used CAIR as a sources, IIRC, so CAMERA should be no different. CAMERA is not the only source, either, so we have multiple citations from multiple sources. This is as, if not more, notable than any porn actor or actress we have, as it was a hoax perpetrated by certain ideological groups to portray their “enemy” in as bad light as possible, similar to the anti-semitic cartoons of the blood-sucking sharon etc. I can see merit to adding "hoax" to the article, but I see no merit in its deletion. Also, the volume of results on Factiva are not measures of notability in wikipedia, multiple citations from multiple reliable sources are. As per WP:NOTE: "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" Presumed means that personal viewpoints must be checked at the door, so please leave any pro/anti Israel/Arab stuff out of this discussion. "Significant coverage" means that the subject is discussed directly in the sources. The daily illini quotations, the CAMERA quotations, the Australian Broadcasting Company, and the Jewish Press all serve to fill this criteria. "Reliable" is obvious, and the daily illini quotes and the Jewish press have been considered reliable numerous times in the past.As I said, CAMERA should have the same reliability that CAIR does, but even if you wish to follow that path (and that would mean a potential violation of the "Presumed" clause - for why would you otherwise differentiate between CAMERA and CAIR. Has one proven to have lied in the past?) The others more than suffice. "Sources" - we have multiple. "Independant of the subject" None of these sources are related to Ariel Sharon or the Arab papers that perpetrated the lie/hoax. So we have the textbook definition of notability. Not as notable as George Bush, perhaps, but as notable as Don Murphy in the grand scheme of things. Avi (talk) 22:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - I strongly disagree with the nominator's claim of lack of either notability or verifiability. There is no serious problem in either of these fields with the article, and if there are, they can be fixed. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 22:53, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Please bear in mind what I said in the nomination - "please provide verifiable evidence for your recommendation." A recommendation based on a personal assertion isn't much use. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:55, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge. This article relies heavily on a particular advocacy source and a letter to an editor in a student newspaper. In fact, other than that, its got nothing. Merge to Sharon#Media. A general article on anti-semitic tropes in coverage of Sharon would certainly be encyclopaedic, but this article is not. Relata refero (talk) 23:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable instance of prejudice. The malignant hoax is sufficiently notable. Some part of the article needs editing to clarify the nature of the "prize" , etc. NPOV editing, as usual, is the cure for articles as sensitive and liable to misinterpretation as thisDGG (talk) 23:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
As I said above, please bear in mind that you need to "provide verifiable evidence for your recommendation" (WP:AFD#AfD Wikietiquette). If you believe that it is notable, please provide evidence of its notability. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:46, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
DGG, what on earth does the nature of the prize have to do with anything? Relata refero (talk) 08:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - The article easily meets Wikipedia criteria for inclusion. The controversy over the use of the hoax by The Daily Illini is sourced to both the DI and the Chicago Sun Times, both reliable sources, one a mainstream newspaper. The controversy over the fact that a notable organization, the Islamic Human Rights Commission not only fell for the hoax, but awarded it a prize, was covered by a leading Australian TV station. I would not object to re-naming the article Ouze merham hoax, but I suggest the nominator re-familiarize himself with what WP:Notability says, and that the commentators claiming the article has nothing but a reference to a student newspaper actually read the article, before !voting. I am Dr. Drakken (talk) 23:56, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I read the article and the sources it cited. I don't consider CAMERA to be a reliable source and most of the sources cited are from them or rely on their report. The exceptions are Mariam Sobh's piece in the student newspaper and an interview with a representative of the Islamic Human Rights Commission in The Religion Report. Besides that there are no other sources establishing notability. (The piece you refer to in the Chicago Sun Times is not available for viewing, so I don't have an opinion on its content.) My concerns remain that the "hoax" is not notable and the name of the fictitious Ouze Merham doesn't deserve an entry at Wikipedia. The information is interesting, but can be covered in the articles I suggested above. Tiamuttalk 00:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  • If the articles you refer to really establish notability, then this article should be about the student, Mariam Sobh, not the fictitious general; the few news items that have been dug up for this focused on Sobh and her paper. My guess is that this article's promoters decided not to do that because it would mean being reigned in by WP:BLP, which can be a bit of a straitjacket on propaganda pieces like this. At any rate, if the notability of Mariam Sobh is a stretch, there is absolutely no indication whatsoever that "Ouze Merham" is a notable subject for an article. Hopefully the closing admin will understand the game being played here.--G-Dett (talk) 00:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
    • I believe what is notable here is the fact that the media was caught perpetrating a lie to defame the leader of a sovereign nation, which is why "Ouze Merham hoax" may be a better name, but Mariam Sobh is not, in my opinion, G-Dett. -- Avi (talk) 00:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Which media? The only one cited is one article in a student newspaper in the US. And I agree with your opinion that Mariam Sobh is not G-Dett. ;-) -- ChrisO (talk) 00:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
        • LOL. Whoops, that was too funny. Sheesh, for someone who likes to pretend a command of the English language, I do have this tendency to rudely remind myself of my own personal shortcomings. -- Avi (talk) 00:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
          • How about we make the article about G-Dett, I won't raise BLP objections and we'll call it a draw. Avi, your point is taken but this is still your read on the notability; the cited sources focus on Mariam and her paper. The Chicago Sun Times piece doesn't appear to mention Ouze Merham at all, and even the CAMERA article, which is obviously the muse, model, and mentor for ours, only mentions Ouze Merham only once – in the fourth paragraph of a 12-paragraph piece. Sobh, by contrast, is mentioned thirteen times.--G-Dett (talk) 01:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, it is interesting information. Merging and redirecting to Ariel Sharon may be an option, but even in this case the redirect should remain, so readers searching for Ouze Merham can find the information. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm getting a bit irritated at having to repeat this point: "interesting" is not a criterion, notability is. What evidence can you cite to support the proposition that it's sufficiently notable to warrant an article? -- ChrisO (talk) 01:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Move to Ouze Merham hoax. The References and External links combined easily establish notability through reliable sources. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  • There aren't any sources on the "Ouze Merham hoax" (google it – zero results). Rather, there are one or two sources with ephemeral back-page mentions of the student and her paper. A number of partisan bodies, including CAMERA and some Wikipedia editors, have tried to put legs on this story that mainstream media have taken a pass on.--G-Dett (talk) 03:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
No it doesn't. Aside from the fact that your assrtions that the quote has been used there is unsupported by a reference, the mere use of a misquote does not imply that an article on the hoax is encyclopaedic. If the paper had discussed the hoax, then it would have been encyclopaedic. Relata refero (talk) 08:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
> is unsupported by a reference
The link was missing due to a mishap, I added it now. How many do you need?
> If the paper had discussed the hoax, then it would have been encyclopaedic
The paper uses the hoax to make its climactic point:
"Sharon at present the darling of the White House is the greatest rogue cum terrorist going on this planet who has corroded the breast of humanity like not even a beast has ever done and this he has with great pride and pomp boasted about."
The Jew is corroding the breast of humanity like not even a beast has ever done, and Ouze Merham succinctly and extensively makes the case for it. Notable. --tickle me 09:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
How many do I need? Just a couple that actually discuss the hoax and its use. Not those that actually use it. I call this the "Jayjg on Lobbies" argument.
The "climactic point" does not address or use the hoax specifically. Relata refero (talk) 12:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep this notable hoax that has all the required sources and references. It's also an example of a notable updated blood libel against Jews. IZAK (talk) 09:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
A notable example of the blood libel would have a couple of notable sources making the claim that it was a notable example of the blood libel. I don't see that here. As I said before, it would be worthy of a mention in an article on anti-semitic tropes in the coverage of Sharon, which has received enough attention to be encyclopaedic. This particular article, however, is not, and repeating that it is notable without substantiation isn't going to help. Relata refero (talk) 12:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi Relata: I am clarifying here in case there is any doubt about the alarming nature underlying the hoax. Just read the words in Ouze Merham#The alleged quote: In the quote, Sharon allegedly says "...I vow that I’ll burn every Palestinian child (that) will be born in this area... I vow that if I was just an Israeli civilian and I met a Palestinian I would burn him and I would make him suffer before killing him. With one hit I've killed 750 Palestinians (in Rafah in 1956). I wanted to encourage my soldiers by raping Arabic girls as the Palestinian woman is a slave for Jews, and we do whatever we want to her..." By definition this is nothing but a blood-libel and as the article states: "The quote is still widely cited on anti-Israel and anti-Semitic websites." IZAK (talk) 12:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Izak, I completely agree that it is alarming, and I certainly think that there is a place on WP for debunking such quotes. That being said, I still don't think that we have in any way enough sources to write a complete article, or for it to justify having one, regardless of my personal feelings about such propaganda, and my agreement that its resonance with the blood libel is the reasons that it is widely disseminated in anti-Semitic circles. Relata refero (talk) 12:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep One look at the page makes it clear that the topic is obviously notable. The sources do seem accurate and reliable. Yahel Guhan 13:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Keep votes dont address concerns raised by nominator. Noor Aalam (talk) 13:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
    Noor, I believe I did address the nominator's concerns, and Chris and I seem to disagree on, as G-Dett puts it, a "reading" of notability. So while you may disagree with my concerns raised above, I believe it is fair to say that a number of the Keep votes did address the nominators concern, and the question is one of relative, rather than absolute, measure. -- Avi (talk) 14:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
    Avi, my point was that your "reading" of the notability of this subject does not appear to be supported by reliable sources. That is, you write that "I believe what is notable here is the fact that the media was caught perpetrating a lie to defame the leader of a sovereign nation, which is why 'Ouze Merham hoax' may be a better name," whereas in fact the few quality sources here (the Chicago Sun Times and the Australian Broadcasting Corporation) say nothing about lies, defamation, sovereign nations, etc., and they don't even mention the title subject of this article.--G-Dett (talk) 15:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per Avi and IZAK -- perhaps with the addition of "hoax" to the title. This is notable enough and adequately sourced. 6SJ7 (talk) 14:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Adding "hoax" to the title would certainly round out the Wikipedia hoax this article represents, a hoax wherein Wikipedia becomes a de facto arm of CAMERA.
  • Let's go through the actual reliable sources; it won't take long, as there are only two or three of them that have ever mentioned this episode (neither mentions the actual subject of this article at all). Stephen Crittenden of the Australian Broadcast Corporation said that the quote "comes from an interview that can’t be verified for its authenticity." The Chicago Sun Times, a Murdock-owned tabloid not known for stylistic restraint, would only say that "Jewish groups say there is no evidence Sharon ever made the statement." That's it. "Ouze Merham hoax" gets literally zero hits on Google. The only organization to come out and call this a hoax is also the only group promoting this episode as significant, the fringey propaganda oufit CAMERA; they do this in one of their own "research" reports and in an op-ed for The Jewish Press. CAMERA keeps saying this is (a) a proven hoax, and (b) a significant episode illustrating the range and penetration of Arab propaganda. The mainstream press isn't biting, or even taking notice of this cheap flashing lure. Nor are scholars. So Wikipedians are trying to get this in through the back door.--G-Dett (talk) 15:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  • G-Dett, the appropriate policy that covers these contentious topics, be it Ouze Merham or Palestinian people is verifiability, not truth. We have verifiable sourcing in multiple sources. You may not like the fact that CAMERA has discussed this hoax, I may not like the fact that the Arab media has perpetrated this hoax. Both feelings are irrelevant. Does this article pass WP:NOTE or not? I proposed above, in a step-by-step reading of the sentence that it has. You are saying that because it was not listed publications that you like, you feel it not notable. While you may not appreciate the Chicago Sun Times or the Jewish Press, the fact that they are both considered reliable sources is not challenged. Further, the CST says more than just "Jewish groups say there is no evidence Sharon ever made the statement" although that is sufficient to count as one of the two required sources, they also say "Wednesday, the paper's editors apologized for running the 'inaccurate information.' What's most disturbing, some said, is the same quote appeared in an opinion piece by student columnist Mariam Sobh last year. In the spring, Sobh admitted the quote was false and apologized." So the hoax itself has multiple discussions in reliable sources. As I said above, it is obviously not as notable as George Bush, but it does meet our minimum standards, which is all that is required here. -- Avi (talk) 16:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Hi Avi, thanks for your comments. Of course I'm aware the relevant policy is verifiability, not truth, but – with respect – I should be quoting that to you, not vice-versa. I don't think the interview is genuine, but the fact remains that the reliable sources have not come out and called it a hoax; rather, they've played it safe and presented it as unverified and hotly contested. The Chicago Sun Times, in the very quote you've provided, is careful to put the phrase "inaccurate information" in quotes. They attribute to various people the belief that the interview was false, while pointedly refusing to report it as an established hoax. What I find so confounding is that you want Wikipedia's standards of verifiability to be looser, lower, and laxer than those of a sensational tabloid; you want an encyclopedia to come out and state as fact what the Murdoch rag was careful to attribute as opinion.
  • I like The Jewish Press just fine, thank you, but the citation you refer to is a guest op-ed written by Ricki Hollander, "a senior research analyst at CAMERA." The Jewish Press did not report this as a hoax in its news pages. CAMERA's dubious credentials aside, Wikipedia does not present in its neutral encyclopedic voice material sourced to opinion pieces. Period.
  • Verifiability, not truth Avi.
  • A final point. While I appreciate your conciliatory tone, I don't appreciate your ideological assumptions. I don't believe in the veracity of this "interview," I think it was indeed a hoax, and I am dismayed by the bad faith and/or credulity of those disseminating it. We are together on that. And I understand why an organization like CAMERA, which is devoted to English-language public-relations work on behalf of the Israeli occupation, should wish to magnify the significance of every instance of perfidy on the part of critics of Israel. The problem is simply that as an encyclopedia Wikipedia has a different mandate from CAMERA's. Ouze Merham is an article on a non-notable subject (a subject not even mentioned by the Chicago Sun Times piece you and I have been discussing), and it relies on non-verifiable claims.
  • I would be happy to think that our disagreement is a principled one about so-called "inclusionism" and "exclusionism." You probably know that MEMRI (group that feeds pro-Israel information and stories to the media) has on several occasions provided material that was subsequently discredited (a transcript of a "phone interview" with Saddam Hussein, a "translation" of a militant's explanation of his support for suicide bombing, etc.). These "hoaxes" have received fleeting attention from the mainstream media but a good deal more from CAMERA's counterparts on the other side of the ideological divide (Counterpunch, Electronic Intifada, et al). I'll tell you right now I'm opposed to the creation of an article on MEMRI hoaxes. I trust that you'll now tell me you're in favor of it. And then we can continue our principled discussion of whether "scandals" ignored by the mainstream media but flogged by minor partisan online outlets should be given their own articles in Wikipedia. I think they shouldn't, you think they should; very well, I'm interested to hear why.--G-Dett (talk) 17:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Hi, G-Dett. Wow, and I thought I exhibited anti-compendiousness tendencies . To attempt to restore some of my own sanity, I'll try to be somewhat more succinct than I have been. Your points, if I am interpreting them correctly, can be reduced to three major ones:
      1. The phenomenon has not been called a "hoax".
        I can, and must, concede that point. However, all that implies is that we cannot title the article "Ouze Merham hoax", which while perhaps a better representation of the topic, would not be acceptable. However, it does not cast aspersions on the topic's own notability—merely the use of the term "hoax".
      2. Wikipedia does not present in its neutral encyclopedic voice material sourced to opinion pieces.
        This is not a "letter to the editor," this is a major US publication which saw fit to report on the greater phenomenon of media misrepresentation of various quotations, of which this was one, in a section called "Media Monitor". If you are suggesting that because Ricki Hollander works for CAMERA, she is unreliable as a source, would you be willing to extend such unreliability to Rashid Khalidi since he once worked for Wafa? Or Nihad Awad of CAIR? Personally, notwithstanding my own personal disagreements with their ideology, I would think that if a reputable third party source brought the aforementioned, as long as the quotation was in-line with WP:NPOV#Undue weight vis a vis the article in question, they would be allowed. In this case, we are sourcing an article from the Jewish Press, which is sufficient per WP:V and WP:RS. As you say I say that we all say "verifiability, not truth .
      3. "The problem is simply that as an encyclopedia Wikipedia has a different mandate from CAMERA's. Ouze Merham is an article on a non-notable subject…and it relies on non-verifiable claims."
        Firstly, I am appreciative of your agreement with me on the fundamental issues of any media outlet of any persuasion needing to guard themselves against allowing personal opinions get in the way of their duties to report accurately. I think we are both in agreement that articles begin as non-notable and must prove their bona fides. That has been a philosophy of mine from early on in wikipedia, although my staunch deletionism of my first few months has been mollified quite a bit, especially now that I have access to the delete buttons, I find myself more careful as one person's trash may be another's treasure. Furthermore, I wholeheartedly agree with you that the wikipedia project should, and must, have much stricter guidelines than CAMERA, as we cannot become and advocacy group for ANY opinion, else we are guaranteed to devolve into a hopeless morass of balkanized special interest groups. That is happening enough already, to my chagrin. Both of these reasons are exactly why we have guidelines and polices. And both of which are why we need to check our opinions at the door and apply them from a neutral perspective. Now neutral does not mean lobotomized, but it does mean that if other policies and guidelines allow an article, our opinions should not stand in its way, and if other policies and guidelines forbid an article, our opinions should not prevent its removal. I still maintain that the phenomenon of the "Ouze Merham" quotation has been quoted in multiple reliable sources, and discussion about its being a fabrication has also been quoted in multiple reliable sources, which (together with the other conditions, which I have addressed above, is all that is needed). In order to say that this topic fails notability, one of the following needs to be shown to exist: 1) The topic has not received significant [read multiple sources] coverage, 2) the sources are not reliable, 3) the sources are not independent of the subject, 4) the coverage requires further original research to support the article. I believe it demonstrates this, and you do not. I believe that the Jewish Press is reliable, and you feel that since the author of the article also works for CAMERA, that creates an unreliability. Now it is up to the rest of wikipedia to opine and a neutral admin to make a decision.
    • As for further articles on hoaxes of all types, I believe they should be approached on a case-by-case basis, or perhaps the phenomenon as a whole should be addressed, provided it passes the same standards applied to this, and every, article. Thank you for the stimulating conversation! -- Avi (talk) 18:44, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Yes, and thank you for the stimulating discussion. To your points. (1) You're right, the issue of sourcing for the "hoax" claim is different from the issue of notability. I do think however that the problem of what to call this article is symptomatic of a larger problem which connects these two issues. "Ouze Merham" is obviously a dubious choice, because many of the sources here (especially the better ones like the Chicago Sun Times and the Australian Broadcasting Corp) don't even mention this allegedly fictitious general. Naming it on the other hand after the student (Mariam Sobh) who wrote a sloppy piece in a student newspaper would create a cloud of BLP and UNDUE problems. Finally, we've seen and apparently are now agreed that Ouze Merham hoax fails because of sourcing issues around the "hoax" claim. Now, my experience is that when one doesn't know what the hell to name an article it's an indication that notability has not been crisply established; if three guys jamming together haven't figured out what to call their band it's probably not yet time for a WP article on their music. This is why I find MPerel's solution (redirect to Islamic Human Rights Commission#Award to Ariel Sharon for hoax interview) elegant and apt. (2) You say "This is not a 'letter to the editor,' this is a major US publication which saw fit to report on the greater phenomenon of media misrepresentation of various quotations." Hold on. There's something in between letters to the editor and news "reporting" – namely, op-eds, of which the Jewish Press piece in question is one. I am not saying that the fact that the op-ed's author works for CAMERA "creates an unreliability"; I'm saying that op-ed pieces – whether written by senior research analysts at CAMERA, or university professors like Khalidi – are appropriate sources for how we report views, not how we report facts. (3) Interesting points here, but I hope my clarifications to #1 and #2 obviate the need for a detailed response. I'll close by noting: how droll that you should be a deletionist by nature, and me an inclusionist! I do think anyone who hears of this episode ought to be able to locate information on it in Wikipedia, whether they type in "Ouze Merham" or "Mariam Sobh" or even the name of the student newspaper, so I think both Jossi and MPerel have made excellent suggestions about redirects. But organizations like CAMERA and Electronic Intifada (and off the Israel-Palestine beat, groups like Media Matters, FAIR, and so on) are constantly putting out reports on media distortions, fabrications, and credulousless. We don't and shouldn't create a separate article for every one of these. In this case, the section on the Sharon interview in the article on the Islamic Human Rights Commission will more than suffice.--G-Dett (talk) 19:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
        • I am somewhat concerned that merging it into the Islamic Human Rights Commission article may cause a loss of some of the information. Would you be willing to accept the this version of the IHRC as a redirect from Ouze Merham? -- Avi (talk) 20:44, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
          • I've revised that section here. I still have some questions about it, but in terms of tone and level of detail this is +/- what I think is appropriate.--G-Dett (talk) 21:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
OK, I still don't understand. I am glad to see that we are no longer relying on CAMERA. (Incidentally, I don't understand the repeated references to CAIR; is there an article based entirely on CAIR releases somewhere?) To look at the two examples you mean, the "Jewish Press" article is an op-ed from CAMERA; very well, perhaps if the Jewish Press considers it notable, it is a notable point. Not that I have any idea how notable the Jewish Press is - it calls itself the largest independent Jewish weekly, which means that there are just enough qualifiers in there for it to be meaningless. Anyway.
The CST have the two lines on the quote. Seriously. That's it. They quote the student newspaper's editors. Is this an article about this hoax? Apparently, its an article about antisemitism in U of I. (About which there is probably another op-ed somewhere, which would make Antisemitism at University of Illinois considerably more encyclopaedic by our standards than this article.)
So, to repeat, we have a couple of releases from a well-known advocacy source, an op-ed written by that source in a marginal weekly of unknown reliability, and two lines in an op=ed about the rampant antisemitism at the University of Illinois that report on a kerfuffle at a student newspaper. Am I correct about the levels of notabiity we are dealing with now? Relata refero (talk) 16:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Heh, please dont actually create that red-link. Apparently not as absurd as I thought it as - or at least CAMERA has enough time to collate material for us to dutifully regurgitate on WP about that as well. See here. Relata refero (talk) 16:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Did someone say redlink? . I will reiterate my position, Relato, with which you are invited to disagree. This phenomenon does not have to be Very notable, nor does it have to be somewhat notable. It needs to be minimally notable (thank goodness I stopped at three, I was running out of text decorations ;) ). Minimally means:

If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable.

– Wikipedia:Notability

As I described above, I believe the topic discussed in this article meets the <blink>bare minimum</blink> of each of the requirements listed in our guidelines, and therefore may not be deleted for notability reasons. I am all too happy to admit that outside of various Islamic publications, and the Gulf News of December 4, 2004 (Yes, G-Dett, I can access factiva too, but a subset of the entire database, I am afraid :( ), most news sources were wise enough not to quote the original hoax, that would require correction, as I would firmly hope that future such lies, if they should ever occur, will be soundly ignored, if not repudiated, by honest people, and any future such lies would hopefully be immediately relegated to the vast circular in-box, but, unfortunately, this phenomenon was picked up in publications and websites that we accept for wikipedia, and as it demonstrates passage of our notability standards, even in a minimal fashion, it cannot be deleted as "lacking notability". (And I claim first-prize in the annual "worst use of a run-on sentence in wikipedia" for the previous statement") -- Avi (talk) 16:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Excellent idea.--G-Dett (talk) 17:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, per the excellent arguments put forth by the nominator, Huldra and Cirt. At best it can be merged, and even then fairly carefully. I am not convinced that the sourcing is adequate or that it meets our notability requirements. I'm also concerned about the meatpuppeting going on here, but I guess that's something I'll have to live with. -- Naerii 18:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
    Hi, Naerii. Haven't seen you much around either . Accusations of meatpuppetry are serious. I would appreciate it if you could expand on them so I and others can look into the situation. Of course, I presume you are taking the fact that this AfD was cross posted on five separate noticeboards into account? -- Avi (talk) 19:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
    Even more interesting, Naerii, is your accusations. You have barely 1000 edits (1028 as of now to be exact) and started on wiki as of October 2007, or a scant few months ago. Wheras I have been around for, say, 30+ months with 22K+ edits. Furthermore, you have very few Israel/Palestine/Arab/Jewish related edits under your belt. How did you come across this AfD, may I ask ? Can you point specifically to those editors you feel are meatpuppets, because according to my quick skimming of the page, you are the most-likely meatpuppet, and we both know that is absurd, is it not? -- Avi (talk) 19:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
    Hiya, I suggest you re read my user page. It's interesting that you're tying to debase my opinions by pointing out my tenure here. As for the accusations, pretty much everyone's aware by now that you're part of Jayjg's mailing list since he accidentally sent that hilarious email to the English Wikipedia mailing list. -- Naerii 23:18, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
    P.S. I found this via Wikipedia Review. -- Naerii 23:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Naerii, I suggest you read what I wrote below. Reading an entire conversation usually helps. Furthermore, I believe your comments above construe a personal attack and would request that you review our core polices, but I'd be glad to take that to your talk page. -- Avi (talk) 00:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
    I'd like to clarify that I am not accusing you of meatpuppetry, even though I may have gotten carried away with my overestimation of my own wit in the previous edit summary, but instead am trying to point out to you that I believe your accusation/raising the topic of meatpuppetry here is incorrect. -- Avi (talk) 19:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
    Avi, if you had taken the time to look at Naerii's userpage as well as her contributions list, you would have the answer to your question. And there are an awful lot of us who remember Jayjg's accidental post to wiki-en-L. Now...can everyone cut out the meatpuppetry smears please? Risker (talk) 21:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
    Au contraire Risker. As I said, I was not accusing Naerii of meatpuppetry, but pointing out how her unsupported allegation could be easily turned against her. I obviously did take the time to analyze her contributions, did I not? -- Avi (talk) 21:15, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Furthermore, Risker, can you please tell me the relationship between the enwiki e-mail and this AfD? Because if you cannot, that does imply you are treading very close to a personal attack on JayJg, which is completely against any policy we have, is it not? -- Avi (talk) 21:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
      • And further, Risker, she admitted to being canvassed off-wiki. Interesting, no? -- Avi (talk) 01:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Ah, Avi - I was simply pointing out how easily even a fine, upstanding member of the community such as yourself can be susceptible to the meatpuppetry accusation. I am sure that one day someone will accuse me of being someone's meatpuppet; it just seems to go with the territory around here anymore. As to Naerii, I've noticed an unusually high number of people have been using the "you haven't been around long enough" argument to discount his/her opinions in various on-wiki venues, despite the clear claim of prior editing experience on the userpage. I find that very odd - nobody seems to have a problem identifying other users who have changed their names. Naerii has not admitted to being canvassed, but to being made aware of this debate through Wikipedia Review. I caught it because the userpage of one of the editors involved in this discussion is on my watchlist. Up at the top of the page, there's a whole list of Wikiprojects who've been notified. People wind up at AfDs like this through all kinds of different routes. Risker (talk) 04:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Thanks, Risker. As I said, I was not accusing anyone of meatpuppetry; rather, I was pointing out how such accusations are just as credible if reversed, so it is likely that there is no such evidence. Thanks! -- Avi (talk) 14:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
    • It's not a personal attack to point out that leopard's do not easily change their spots. -- Naerii 23:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
      • You mean "leopards...spots'" as the apostrophe belongs on the plural possessive (spots belonging to leopards). But more to the point, as I said, for someone who admitted to off-wiki canvassing to make such an accusation is somewhat....interesting, no? -- Avi (talk) 00:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Either delete per the nominator's arguments, or smerge and redirect to Islamic Human Rights Commission#Award to Ariel Sharon for hoax interview, per Mperel. A straight keep would give this undue weight. ++Lar: t/c 20:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Lar, I appreciate your concerns, but I'd like to ask you why you believe there is an undue weight issue here. The policy says:

      NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all. For example, the article on the Earth does not mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, a view of a distinct minority.

    • Lar, here the article is about the hoax, Undue weight refers to the weight given to various aspects about an article within that article. The issue here is notability, but if the article is notable, to talk about it is no more undue weight than talking about Flat Earth is in the Flat Earth article! -- Avi (talk) 20:18, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Quoting policy like this, in fancy boxes and indenting, etc, tends to make these pages bigger than they need to be... it's my view that while this hoax no doubt happened, that to give it an entire article gives the hoax undue weight in the grand scheme of things. It's a minor footnote (the sources are "slight" that it is much of anything big) in the overall Ariel Sharon story, not one of the 2.5M (or even 10M, or 100M) most important things the world has ever seen that need writing about in their own articles. Merging it to Ariel's article seems the best thing for now. When we are at 100M articles, then maybe. ++Lar: t/c 20:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Which means to say your concern is that of notability, which is eminently understandable. However, while ancy indentation and boxes may take up extra serer space, I do prefer precision in the application of policy and guidelines,especially on contentious topics, as any loosening of the precision will, in my opinion, lead to a poor combination of misunderstandings and misapplications—situations that we cannot afford with 1M OR 100M articles. -- Avi (talk) 21:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
      • No on all counts. as I replied to you on my talk page. Why are you arguing this point with me in two places? It seems wasteful of my time and yours to repeat yourself. Repeating what I said there, and please don't respond there any more if you respoid here:
Well, no, I actually meant undue weight, which is why I said it rather than saying notability... The WP:UNDUE policy may speak to the way an article is written but to my way of thinking, the intent of the policy, the spirit, in accordance with practice, should also apply to a collection of articles. In the category of Ariel Sharon articles, this topic now has more weight than it should. Ditto for the category of blood libel, the category of islamophobia, etc. It's bigger than it should be.
As for your use of boxes, it's giving your words more weight than the words of others by doing that. Say lots, sure, but don't make your words stand out. We don't normally use boxes to make points, and we don't normally use red blinking text to make points either. Note well that I just now violated that principle in the Brandt DRV... ++Lar: t/c 21:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Note: I reverted Avi's removal of my remarks here. Avi, the place for this discussion is here, not on my talk page. Feel free to review your comments and move anything you said from there to here, as needed but do not remove my remarks from this discussion, please. ++Lar: t/c 21:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
No problem, as you wish, Lar. I reiterate that I believe that your conflation of the policies of WP:NOTE and WP:UNDUE (a subset of WP:NPOV to be precise) will lead to greater ambiguity and potential misunderstandings and misapplications of either or both of those policies in the future, but your point should be clear enough to the closing admin. As for boxes, we will have to agree to disagree. I agree not to reformat your text into blinking red Comic Sans if you agree not to slap Courier (typeface) on everything I type . -- Avi (talk) 21:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm in kinda a belligerent mood today so... boxes? no. I've half a mind to do what Tony used to do to signatures... remove the formatting but leave the words, because really, there is no reason you should get to use big fancy boxes... talk about undue weight. I suggest you do it yourself, instead. ++Lar: t/c 22:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge to Islamic Human Rights Commission##Award to Ariel Sharon. The notability of the subject is adequate but somewhat weak independently from the award. Since the principle notability appears to come from the award, and there isn't a huge amount to say beyond it, a merge appears to be a reasonable outcome. --Shirahadasha (talk) 16:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable per sources. Doright (talk) 23:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep (No merge) - Notable by itself even if fictional. Would anyone suggest we delete Harry Potter ? . off course this article has less sources on it than those who discuss Harry Potter but that is to be expected as this fiction never took off to become the world top best seller. still it is notable and the issues around it (including fake use of the quote) are sourced. Zeq (talk) 14:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't believe anyone partipating thinks that's strictly relevant, and we all agree that fiction if, notable belongs on the pedia. In fact, we have a board on it. I am uncertain whether to award this !vote the Most Irrelevant Hyperbole of the Week award. 15:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC) Note: the post I am responding to has since been edited.Relata refero (talk)

[edit] convenience break

  • Keep For reasons on different levels, all valid:
  1. The practical, real-world argument: This encyclopedia performs one of its most profound functions in debunking widespread hoaxes, and although we shouldn't have articles on non-notable hoaxes, we should lean in favor of including articles on them. Please see the fifth comment down and then the one just above it at this Web site for a Dutch newspaper with 300,000 circulation. One person posts the quote, the next person posts a link to the ENGLISH Wikipedia article (this page I'm linking to is Google translated). If that doesn't make you a little prouder to be associated with this encyclopedia you should do some self-reflection. We should want articles that help our readers get closer to the truth of a matter.
  2. The technical, Wikipedia "rules that aren't really rules" argument: Chris O's argument relies in large part on calling CAMERA an unreliable source. The Wikipedia page he points to in order to justify that determination does not justify it at all. Those in favor of deletion have the burden of proof in calling it an unreliable source. It seems to me that while CAMERA (and every other source) might get some facts wrong, it's generally reliable. We're not citing them in detail on all sorts of minor points but rather simply and directly on one major point, which they are much less likely to get wrong. Wikipedia:Reliable sources does not forbid or even discourage sources that themselves have an opinion, so whatever CAMERA's agenda, that doesn't rule them out as a source (although we should be careful, and we have been careful as mentioned in the previous sentence). WP:Notability does not actually require more than one source that treats the subject with non-trivial coverage, as WP:N defines "trivial": The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred. WP:N also states up top that it is a guideline and therefore should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception. Common sense tells you that the rabid commentators who have been using the quote are spreading a lie and that CAMERA is fighting a lie (simply look at what else the commentators say and consider their use of facts). We're not required as Wikipedians to drop off our common sense at the door but to keep it and use it. I don't see concerns in this discussion so far that CAMERA is actually inaccurate. What I see is a strong adherence to rigid standards that are not so rigid when you actually go back to WP:N and WP:RS, and not at all to their spirit. It sounds like a case of wikilawyering (definitions 2,3 & 4).
  3. It's merely news coverage: The quote has been used from 2001 to at least 2007, as is sourced in the article. This is ongoing, not passing.
  4. Merge this into some other article: I worry that if that happens this won't be covered with the detail it deserves. It's a bit too long now for a section and there is at least a bit more I want to add to it.
  5. This is original research/synthesis Oh, come on. The point of the sourcing is to say that the quote has been used and the quote has been called a hoax. Sources that mention the Illinois controversy or the award from the London group are talking about the same subject as CAMERA is, and that's the subject of the article.
Conclusion: CAMERA is a reliable source as far as this article uses it; WP:N and WP:RS have not been violated; even if you believe the case is marginal (I don't), then it's a justifiable exception well within the competence of this forum to implement because this article is a good, encyclopedic subject; we are supposed to use our common sense. Noroton (talk) 21:18, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete / Merge per nom. This article is a stitching-together of various and sundry nonreliable websites; it is essentially a recapitulation of an old "action alert" by a questionable activist source. In my estimation, it greatly exaggerates the importance and impact of this highly obscure bit of cyberpropaganda. <eleland/talkedits> 21:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Al Hayat is obscure? The Daily Star of Beirut is obscure? The Nation newspaper in Pakistan is obscure? What they print on their opinion pages is obscure? Noroton (talk) 21:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
      • The Daily Star is certainly not obscure, but did they print this? I can't find any Daily-Star cite in the article.--G-Dett (talk) 22:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
        • Here's the link. I'll look again. I thought I added it. I got it from Google News Archives. Noroton (talk) 22:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
          • Whoa, looks like it's in Bangladesh. Wrong Daily Star. Noroton (talk) 22:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
            • Yes, different Daily Star :). The Beirut Daily Star is edited by Rami Khouri, has some excellent journalists and columnists of international renown (Nicholas Blandford, Michael Young), and is partnered with the International Herald Tribune. I'd be very surprised indeed if they ran this quote. You make some excellent and eloquent points above, but I do think we need a better sense of proportion here. If the article is a good indication of the scope of this, the "interview" has been taken at face value by the IHRC, two Arabic-language websites, a Pakistani op-ed, an op-ed in a London-based Arabic newspaper, and two columnists in student newspapers in the U.S. Over the course of six years. The mainstream Western media, in other words, was neither (a) snookered by this sorry hoax, nor (b) interested in the meager success and/or supposed "controversy" of this sorry hoax. This is what everyone means when they say it's not notable. CAMERA's flogged this but the mainstream media, never having fallen for the thing in the first place, hasn't found sloppy fact-checking on the part of two student op-ed columnists to be a compelling or significant story in its own right. CAMERA is fine for sourcing views; it's less good for sourcing facts (it and other partisan media pressure groups have come up on the RS noticeboard, and this is generally the upshot); and it's terrible for sourcing the general weight and significance of a thing. You write that "Common sense tells you that the rabid commentators who have been using the quote are spreading a lie and that CAMERA is fighting a lie." I disagree. There are many lies and myths about the I-P conflict and this one never spread very far. In fact those in the West who have heard about the Sharon "interview" probably heard about it because of CAMERA. CAMERA is not so much fighting the spread of a viral lie as it is exploiting an obscure backwater rumor in order to propound its own agit-prop message (about Arab dishonesty and Western credulousness). Ample redirects (the fictitious general's name, the name of the student newspaper, etc.) can route to the article about the IHRC, and Wikipedia can keep on myth-busting (for those who float in here from backwater rumor channels) without simply supplying CAMERA with an on-Wiki bulletin-board for its action alerts.--G-Dett (talk) 23:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
              • (It's taking me a little longer to respond because when G-Dett and Relata Refero are on the other side, I have to be more cautious. ;) ) I'd like to see some proof that CAMERA is unreliable. If someone can point me to something, I'd consider it. CAMERA is fine for sourcing views That might actually be the better approach here, because it would eliminate any possible WP:RS concerns. Rather than Wikipedia calling it a hoax, we should say that the matter is controversial and that CAMERA calls it a hoax, that the Australian TV network questions it, that the Chicago Sun-Times has reported on a local controversy involving it. That's three sources, with CAMERA and (it seems) the Sun Times offering substantial coverage. Every publication that printed an op-ed that took the quote at face value thereby asserted, in effect, that it was true, and they all lend more support to notability (WP:N recognizes additional sourcing as strengthening notability). CAMERA is not so much fighting the spread of a viral lie as it is exploiting an obscure backwater rumor in order to propound its own agit-prop message Two points on that: If we simply report what CAMERA said as if it were merely CAMERA's opinion, then we don't care about it's so-called "agit-prop message". CAMERA has its objectives, we have ours. And again, it really is not possible to believe that Sharon would have said this (52 years ago!) without major Western and Israeli media reporting it, so the WP:RS aspect is essentially a technicality (that we've overcome). Second, you're calling Al Hayat and The Nation "backwater" publications? The frontline of the terror war is Pakistan (a/k/a Corporate Headquarters for Terrorism Inc.) and the Arab world in general. The Nation is an influential newspaper in Pakistan, and Al Hayat is one of the most influential newspapers in the Arab world. Back in '97, the New York Times reported (I hope this isn't behind their subscription wall): By world standards, Al Hayat is a newspaper of modest circulation. Printing in London, Frankfurt, Bahrain, Cairo and New York, it has a distribution that does not exceed 200,000 copies a day at most. But it is regarded as by far and away the best and most intensely read Arab newspaper. G-Dett, we are the backwater, they are the frontlines. What they put on their op-ed pages is important. Noroton (talk) 01:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

KEEP - The story got pretty wide play. The article is well sources. And it is an interesting example of how easily a fake fact can enter mainstream conversations.

It seems to me that the way this particular "fake fact" is entering "mainstream conversations" is through CAMERA and now through Wikipedia. The Western mainstream media never touched the stuff. I can't even find evidence that the mainstream Arabic media ever touched the stuff. Google gets a couple thousand hits, the first few of which are mirror sites for the Wikipedia article. Did Al-Jazeera drink the Koolaid? What about Abu Dhabi? How about Al Arabiya? If this whole thing were a cocktail, its recipe would be:
  1. 1 part obscure internet rumor
  2. 1 part poor fact-checking by three or four obscure op-ed columnists
  3. 1 part ill-advised spoof award
  4. 10 parts hyperventilations by CAMERA "senior research analysts"
  5. 10,000 parts Koolaid
Shake and stir for six years, and serve to the gullible.--G-Dett (talk) 23:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Agree with ChrisO's rationale. By the way, has any off-wiki canvassing occurred here? Just wondering because some of the participants in this discussion have been caught doing it before. Cla68 (talk) 23:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Obviously nothing could ever be proven. -- Naerii 23:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Well, Naerii herself admitted to being canvassed off wiki Does this mean that we should repudiate Naerii's opinion and all those who concur with her? -- Avi (talk) 01:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
      • I think you're possibly confusing notification of something happening, without a particular advocacy that a particular position be taken, with "can you watch my back". ++Lar: t/c 01:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
        • That's not canvassing; that's commentary from the peanut gallery, who aren't very well informed as usual. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
          • I'm sure they would disagree with you, Chris. Regardless, I am not for treating Naerii's opinion any differently than your own, outside the fact that you brought valid arguments that required a rebuttal and she merely voiced a support, which is perfectly legitimate. My point is that unfounded accusations of meatpuppetry of any kind do not belong in this discussion, which should continue on its merits, no more, no less. -- Avi (talk) 01:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
            • How about founded accusations of meatpuppetry? (<--- am I the only person who finds these annoying and distracting? Why are these necessary? Undue weight, I think.) ++Lar: t/c 02:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
              • Do you have any founded accusations, Lar? I'm sorry you find them annoying, I find them helpful in conveying information that is normally conveyed by body language. Feel free to ignore them ;) (<-- See just for you, an ASCII version) -- Avi (talk) 02:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep but no objection to merging to Islamic Human Rights Commission##Award to Ariel Sharon for hoax interview. It's verifiable information, so no point in losing it. Merging into a mainstream article like Ariel Sharon or one of the main conflict articles would certainly breach WP:WEIGHT. Sometimes less notable things about very notable people are better having their own articles rather than being detailed (or mentioned) in places where they would not be particularly significant.--Docg 01:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Doc, given that only 3 2 of the 19 17 references used in the article are actually relevant to the IHRC, what would you propose doing with the other 80% of the material? Jayjg (talk) 02:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
      • The idea that we start with a clutch of "references" and then try to figure out how to accommodate them all is silly and back-assward, of course. Rather, we go to sources to find information on notable subjects. But anyway: there are in fact 18, not 19 references, and of those only 12 even mention the nominal subject of this article. These twelve do not include the better sources (such as the Chicago Sun Times, the Financial Times, or the Australian Broadcasting Corporation) among this rather dismal lot. They consist rather of seven obscure op-eds used as primary sources, the IHRC website used as a primary source, and three CAMERA pieces along with a fourth CAMERA op-ed. Not a single hard-news article covering this "Ouze Merham." Make no mistake about it, Ouze Merham is a CAMERA article imported into Wikipedia, with a bunch of primary-source-based original research supplementing it. Using fewer of these "references" will be an improvement, as we move salvageable material to its appropriate place.--G-Dett (talk) 03:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
        • Good, then we both agree that the "idea that we start with a clutch of "references" and then try to figure out how to accommodate them all is silly and back-assward". I'm glad we've found common ground. Now, the actual issue, that the actual topic of the article (a false and inflammatory quote attributed to Ariel Sharon) isn't covered by the proposed re-direct, is indeed a serious issue. For example, the Daily Illini incident and apology, duly reported by the Chicago Sun-Times (among others), doesn't really have a place in the IHRC article. That's why the re-direct can't work. P.S. I count 17 references at the bottom of the article, but the number does keep changing, not long ago it was 19. Jayjg (talk) 04:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
No, Jay, if a weeklong controversy at a student newspaper is not included in our compendium of knowledge for the ages then we shouldnt be upset about it. That is not really a good enough reason why a redirect won't work.
About the 17 "references", do note, by your well-known and extremely useful "lobby argument", only three of them actually discuss the hoax, the remainder use them, and so aren't really relevant. Relata refero (talk) 07:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I count 6 references that discuss the hoax. Also, the Ouze Merham article isn't about a term, so I'm not sure how closely the analogy holds. Jayjg (talk) 02:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I suppose if you count the four CAMERA pages separately, but then you have to be trying really hard...
"About a term"? Jay, make up your mind and don't quibble like this. Can you give me a single reason why it should be different for a "misquote" and a "term"? Thought not. (in fact, since a "newly formed expression" is a neologism, and a "deliberately created misquote" is by definition a "newly formed expression"...) Relata refero (talk) 08:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
RR, if you're going to ask me questions, and then answer them for me, then there's little point in my responding, is there? Please carry on having that conversation with yourself. Jayjg (talk) 02:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Jay, you may be right that the Chicago Sun-Times piece "doesn't really have a place in the IHRC article," but it doesn't have a place here either, since it doesn't mention "Ouze Merham" even once. You keep presenting the problem of what to name this article as if it were an incidental quirk – "If you can think of a better name for the article, I'm all for it" – whereas in fact the naming problem is a symptom of the fatal notability problem. There is no such thing as the "Ouze Merham hoax," and there is no proper name for this precisely because it never got legs and became a story. That's a notability problem. As I said above, if your three friends who get together and jam on the weekend haven't figured out what to call their band, that's one indication that they're not ready for a Wikipedia article on their music. You don't just sort of pick one guy randomly – let's say the bassist, one Kelsey Crookshanks – and then write an article called the "Kelsey Crookshanks Trio," and then when challenged on notability issues stemming from the fact that the sources don't even mention this entity, respond by saying "if you can think of a better name for the article, I'm all for it."--G-Dett (talk) 10:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
See Name change ideas at 15:50, 25 March, below. Noroton (talk) 17:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
As has been noted several times, the title of this article might not be the best; however, the actual topic of this article is the hoax quote, which the Chicago Sun-Times article does indeed discuss. When the Daily Illini publishes an article about the "Kelsey Crookshanks Trio," and then is forced to apologize for it, when the Chicago Sun-Times, the Islamic Human Right Commission, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, and CAMERA all discuss the group, and when the songs of the group are reproduced in major international news sources, then your analogy might fit better. Jayjg (talk) 03:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
You might have better luck convincing editors of the notability of this subject if you could begin by properly naming it. Noroton has some good suggestions below. I continue to maintain that the difficulty of naming this is a symptom of its lack of independent notability. That does not mean the information gathered here is non-notable or non-encyclopedic. On the contrary, the Daily Illini flap might merit a mention in Media coverage of the Arab-Israeli conflict#Accusations_of_Bias, and the ABC/IHRC exchange certainly merits a mention in the IHRC article. The question is whether this deserves an independent article, and the fact that you're at a complete loss what to name such an article is telling. As for the Kelsey Crookshanks Trio, that may have been something of an anamorphic analogy but I think you've missed the point. The "Kelsey Crookshanks Trio" equals the "Ouze Merham hoax" in that it's purely a Wikipedian's coinage, with zero google hits. As for Kelsey/Ouze himself, neither Chicago Sun-Times nor the Australian Broadcasting Corporation has even mentioned him.--G-Dett (talk) 12:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
P.S. The hoax has not been repeated by "major international news sources"; that notion is itself a minor hoax. It appeared rather in a handful of op-eds run by hokey online outlets that appear to be the international equivalent of WorldNetDaily, and two crappy student newspapers. The "major international news sources" have fact-checking, remember. They were neither snookered by the original fake quote, nor by CAMERA's attempt to magnify the success and significance of it; hence no coverage, hence your notability problem.--G-Dett (talk) 13:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
The name of the article isn't outrageously bad; it's informative enough anyway, you can tell from the name exactly what the article will be addressing, since "Ouze Merham" only exists in the context of the hoax quote - he's an otherwise fictitious character, and not mentioned anywhere except in relation to the hoax quote. I suppose Ouze Merham interview or Ouze Merham quote might work a bit better. Jayjg (talk) 02:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Is there a reason why you don't want this article's name to reflect what you call its "actual subject"?--G-Dett (talk) 13:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Mu. Jayjg (talk) 23:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, Jay, somehow I missed the last sentence of your last post. I guess I still don't get why you prefer "Ouze Merham interview" to Noroton's suggestions, given that many if not most secondary sources ignore the fictitious general's name altogether.--G-Dett (talk) 00:04, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Compromise attempt

Between User:G-Dett and myself, we have merged what we believe is the pertinent information into this paragraph. Would having Ouze Merham redirect to this paragraph, as it stands above (hard-linked oldid) be an acceptable compromise? -- Avi (talk) 01:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that paragraph gives nearly as much information as necessary to adequately cover the subject, but let consensus rule.Noroton (talk) 02:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Rewrite attempt: I've rewritten parts of the article to remove statements to the effect of Wikipedia calling this a hoax and simply reporting that CAMERA calls it a hoax. I don't think the sourcing is strong enough to simply state it's a hoax, no matter how hard it is to believe that the quotes are in any way accurate. Without stronger sourcing, we simply are left with having to call it an opinion that Sharon didn't say it. Noroton (talk) 01:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
ChrisO has also made some changes to make the article more neutral, all of which I support. Noroton (talk) 02:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Very nice work everyone. This is succint, NPOV, and does not seem WP:UNDUE. Kudos on working to find a compromise solution! Tiamuttalk 02:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Tiamut, are you referring to Chris and Noroton's re-write of Ouze Merham or the redirect into Islamic_Human_Rights_Commission? -- Avi (talk) 02:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for the confusion, I was referring to the redirect you linked to above. I will however check out the article again now and consider the (many) options we now have. Thanks for alerting me to the difference between those two proposals (I missed it the first time around.) Tiamuttalk 02:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
A pleasure -- Avi (talk) 03:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, I've read it and it reads much better than it did before. But the problem remains that Ouze Merham is not a real person and the "hoax" phenomenon remains rather limited and non-notable (despite the addition of a few more sources who erroneously reprinted the material as is). I think the redirect to the IHRC article is still the best option for now. Tiamuttalk 03:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
The problem with a re-direct would be two-fold; one, the current consensus is to Keep the article, not re-direct, and two, the vast majority of the article doesn't belong in the IHRC article. As pointed out several times, only 2 of the 17 footnotes in the (current) article are actually relevant to the IHRC. One cannot re-direct an article to another article that doesn't actually cover the topic. Jayjg (talk) 03:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Only about 2/3 of the footnoted sources even mention the nominal subject of this article, and the vast majority of those 2/3 do so only once and passingly. References are what you gather for information about notable subjects; they're not some precious resource you carve out articles to preserve and showcase. See my comment stamped 03:26, 25 March 2008 above.--G-Dett (talk) 03:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but that "nominal subject of the article" isn't a particularly relevant objection, since all of the sources are about the actual subject of the article, the hoax quote attributed to Ariel Sharon. If you can think of a better name for the article, I'm all for it, but re-directing it to an article that doesn't actually cover the topic isn't helpful. Jayjg (talk) 03:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Which is why I've suggested Sharon#media as a better redirect. Thanks for agreeing, Jay.
Note: as endlessly pointed out all the sources are not "about" the "actual" subject of the article. Nearly all of them merely use, in one form or another, a particular quote that CAMERA wishes to demonstrate is invented. That is not the same as "reliable, independent articles about the subject." Jay, you really need to stop making this argument now, it has been endlessly corrected.Relata refero (talk) 07:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
The actual subject of the article is the hoax quotation falsely attributed to Sharon, is it not? Jayjg (talk) 00:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, not as titled. And please note that a crushing majority of the references are not about the hoax quotation falsely attributed to Sharon. Relata refero (talk) 08:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Ouze Merham interview might work better, or Ouze Merham quote. I currently count 8 references in the article that are about the quote, most of the rest seem to be examples of its use. Of course, the article seems to be changing fairly quickly right now, your numbers may vary. Jayjg (talk) 02:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Didn't Jayjg argue the opposite in WP:ORN#Providing examples of use of a term? I quote (note the bit I've bolded):
"A number of editors on an article are searching the internet for specific uses of a term, and then using them as primary sources to advance arguments about the term. I have cited the rather clearly stated argument from WP:NEO: An editor's personal observations and research (e.g. finding blogs and books that use the term) are insufficient to support use of (or articles on) neologisms because this is analysis and synthesis of primary source material (which is explicitly prohibited by the original research policy). I have pointed out that the original research argument is true whether or not the term in question is a neologism. They, however, insist that if a term is used by reliable sources, and is not (in their view) a neologism, then this point no longer applies, and they can search for any number of uses of the term they wish in order to support their thesis."
I agree with Jayjg's position there, by the way, but the fact that he's arguing the other way here seems like a double standard to me. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Err, no, I haven't argued the opposite here. I specifically referred to the Daily Illini incident and apology as material that was relevant to the actual subject of this article, but not to the IHRC article. Also, I don't recall adding any of the sources that just reproduce the false quote to the Ouze Merham article. I would point out, however, that Ouze Merham article is not about a term. Jayjg (talk) 00:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
And that's splitting hairs that aren't even there. See above.
And if the only reason to keep this article is to preserve a mention in this encyclopaedia of an incident with student newspaper that only appeared in reliable sources as an aside in an article about something else, we are, with all due respect, done here, I think. Relata refero (talk) 08:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
No, it's actually a significant distinction, and the quote, the award, the Illini incident, the MIFTAH accusation, etc. all combine to make the topic notable, significant, and verifiable. Jayjg (talk) 02:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually, Jay, as I'm sure you know well the principle set out in WP:NEO comes straight from WP:OR and is thus generally applicable. Let me recast the first sentence that I quoted from your earlier post: "A number of editors on an article are searching the internet for specific [things], and then using them as primary sources to advance arguments about the [thing]." It's original research if the arguments about the [thing], whatever it is - a neologism, a hoax or whatever - have not been published by reliable sources. That leads on to the second consideration, which is whether the publication of that argument is itself notable. Reliable sources publish all sorts of arguments and statements, but many of them - probably most of them - are of no particular historical significance. I note that the article has now been rewritten as, effectively, a commentary on claims by CAMERA, but we have no secondary reliable source to verify the underlying assumption that CAMERA's claims are significant. Don't forget that WP:V requires third party sources. CAMERA is a primary source. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
That's a neat trick; claim the article is actually about the CAMERA reaction to the quote, and not the quote itself, in order to then claim that CAMERA is a primary source. However, in reality, the article is about the hoax quote, and CAMERA is a secondary source. The sources that actually reproduce the quote are primary sources, the sources that discuss it, or the controversy surrounding it, are secondary sources. Jayjg (talk) 02:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand. The article, you claim, is about the hoax and its rebuttal. Given that, all sources taken in by the hoax are primary sources, as is the single source that is leading the campaign for its rebuttal. Or are you denying that CAMERA is "very close" to the issue being discussed? That would be a big leap even for one with your superpowers. :) Relata refero (talk) 08:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
That's another neat trick. I say "in reality, the article is about the hoax quote" and you respond "The article, you claim, is about the hoax and its rebuttal." No, as I said, the article is about the hoax quote, and sources like CAMERA which discuss the hoax quote are secondary sources. Full marks, though, for your attempt to convert secondary sources into primary. Jayjg (talk) 23:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Jay, read the article again. None of it is about how the quote came into being, it is about occasions when people have been called out for using it. So the article is about the hoax, and even more, about the campaign against it. So the organisation leading the campaign ("close to the origin" of the campaign against it), closely identified with most of the instances, etc., is obviously a primary source.
Precisely. Not that we need other secondary sources, but we have them in, first, the Islamic Human Rights Commission: When confronted with the fact that their award was based on a hoax, the IHRC put this statement on its website: Whilst this quotation can be found on several reputable sites, we could not independently verify its authenticity. If you know the source please do let us know. (this IHRC quote is now in the article). Note that the statement looks at the subject as a whole and by responding to it, IHRC at this point becomes a secondary source. The matter has also been part of testimony before a European Union committee (see the footnote related to Hanan Ashrawi in the article). The EU written testimony comes from NGO Monitor, a secondary source. The subject itself is not something concocted on Wikipedia, so there is no WP:OR violation. No matter how partisan the sources may be, they are certainly reliable enough when they clearly identify the subject of the article. All three of these secondary sources agree with each other on what the subject is, no matter that they disagree on everything else.Noroton (talk) 03:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
See above. IHRC's testimony, as a source taken in by the hoax, is a primary source. What the relationship is between NGO Monitor and CAMERA is I am not sure, though I do note that they have nicely complementary missions, and apparently share many of the same donors. The more I see of the "references" being dredged up, the more I am convinced that we are beginning to serve as free web hosting for these spamlords. Wikipedia is not a soapbox in which people can endlessly drum up indignation about the level of duplicity of their political enemies. Our Google power is such that if the quote was in any article, along with the name and a couple of details, it would be at the top of a Google search, being debunked. If that's the only reason, we don't need a separate article. No, the reason is to document in detail who has fallen for the hoax, and how CAMERA bravely exposed it. That little story is utterly and completely non-notable and unencyclopaedic. Compare some truly notable misquotes - say Lenin and his "overripe fruit" one, which various people starting with the John Birch Society and ending with Reagan repeated, and which significantly shaped policy responses in the world's most powerful country. That has got extensive secondary sources, mentions in books of misquotes, long articles in several reputable newspapers/magazines, and so on. (Of course, no Wikipedia article.) Compare this one and the feeble, feeble synthesis and use of primary sources required to argue for its inclusion. Dammit, are we running an encyclopaedia here or someone's propaganda project? Relata refero (talk) 08:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
This is why I hate being on the other side of a debate with Relata refero or G-Dett. I took another look at how WP:OR describes secondary sources and, as Relata points out in the first two sentences above are correct: the other sources I mentioned are not secondary, so I'm striking all that. But the comments above on the focus of the article are inapt: The true subject here should be reflected in what should be the title: Alleged 1956 statement of Ariel Sharon, and that makes CAMERA a secondary source which comments on the use of this quote. It is the consensus on this page that our use of CAMERA's statements are consistent with WP:V, WP:OR, WP:N, WP:RS and WP:NPOV. Every single one of these policies and guidelines is to be used with common sense and an appreciation of the complexities that come with individual articles/situations, as is stated in the policies themselves (and not just at the top). The consensus believes that we're using information from CAMERA responsibly (that CAMERA is reliable for the purposes we're using it for). I left the IHRC quote alone in my statement above. It clearly supports the CAMERA contention that the quote is unsourced, despite the fact that the quote continues to spread in notable publications and online. That is the big-picture, encyclopedic, serious matter, and it remains more important than all the concerns expressed on this page. And we can keep the article without bending a single Wikipedia policy or guideline. Noroton (talk) 18:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - Clearly notable. The article has numerous sources independent of the subject. The hoax was covered in considerable detail in mainstream media and other reliable sources including the Chicago Sun-Times and teh Jewsih Press. The award by a notable Islamic human rights group caused controversy that was covered by a major Australian TV station. Canadian Monkey (talk) 23:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merge ?

  • Some people suggested to merge the article here but overthere, there is some summary of the article and there is already a link directing to it... We should conclude that the article we are discussing here is already sufficiently expanded to deserve to exist by itself. It gathers complementary information to the other one and the information it contains could be used also in other articles about propaganda, Ariel Sharon, wars of words in the I-P conflict, ... So keep the article. Ceedjee (talk) 12:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  • KEEP - NO MERGE This is a well-sourced article about a small but surely not trivial falsehood perpetrated on a major political figure (hate him or admire him, Sharon was a major figure) this falsehood, moreover, appeared in a significant number of reputable publications and was apparently widely disseminated on the web and widely bleieved. Thomas Babbington (talk) 12:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)Thomas Babbington
  • Keep as stand-alone article. This article should remain as is for the simple reason that people will continue to come across the old Ouze Merhamquote and want to know who Ouze Merham is/was. Keeping the article makes it simple for people to discover that simple fact. I think that sometimes the most dedicated editors get too caught up in the debate, and forget that Wikipedia is about making information available to people . American Clio (talk) 13:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)American Clio
Keeping Ouze Merham as a redirect leading to a brief write-up of the section at the Islamic Human Rights Commission page would suffice in providing readers with the information they require on the subject. A stand-alone article remains unwarranted due to the non-notability of the subject. Tiamuttalk 14:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
With all due respect Thomas Babbington, this was not a notable "hoax", even at the time it enjoyed its heyday. It's also rather sad that you would assume bad faith about the many editors who have challenged the appropriateness of this article, using well-reasoned policy-based arguments, rather than succumbing to emotional appeals, hyperbole or speculation. The fact remains that Ouze Merham is not a notable subject. Evidence that he even existed is lacking, the so-called "interview" he conducted with Ariel Sharon has been scantily re-published in mainstream sources, even by those who believed it to be a real interview. Many of the sources used in the article do not even use the name "Ouze Merham", focusing instead of the student who published the interview (Mariam Sobh) or the Islamic Human Rights Commission's award to Ariel Sharon for Islamophobia based on their perception that the interview was real. Also, of those sources that do use the name "Ouze Merham", many are primary sources, who are quoting the interview as fact. While I appreciate that people want to retain the article so as to allow those searching for information on the subject to be made aware of the controversy surrounding it, this can be done by retaining Ouze Merham as a redirect to either the Islamic Human Rights Commission section of the subject and/or to a section discussing it in Ariel Sharon's article. The subject is related to both topics and both articles could use some expansion. Retaining an article on a man those who few people in the world are familiar with believe doesn't even exist, seems rather ridiculous. Tiamuttalk 08:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Tiamust makes a good point, Merham is not a real person. The opening of the srticle should probably be rewritten to reflect this.Susan Sowerby (talk)Susan Sowerby
  • KEEP - still relevent. I just typed Ouse Merham into google blogs. There are 2008 entries using it as a valid quote. I bleieve that Wikipedia performs a useful service in making it bery easy for an honest blogger to check this sort of information and prevent him/herself from looking foolish by using a bogus quote.Thomas Babbington (talk) 14:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)Thomas Babbington
TB, please don't !vote "Keep" more than once -- you're just going to confuse the closing admin. Noroton (talk) 15:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC
  • Name change ideas At several points here the point has been made that the name of the article doesn't quite match the subject, and that promotes a lot of confusion in this discussion. The article is about the use of a quote supposedly of Ariel Sharon that has been called a fabrication. The name Ouze Merham has been useful in that it's distinctive and searching for that name on the Worldwide Web points to absolutely nothing else but this quote and versions of it. A good name should get to the point and cover the breadth of the subject. I suggest Controversy over an alleged 1956 Sharon statement or Alleged 1956 Sharon statement or replace "statement" with "quotation". The "1956" element should separate this from any other controversial statment attributed to Sharon and eliminate confusion. Since Ouze Merham's name needs to be in the article, the search engines should pick it up. Sound good? Noroton (talk) 15:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Excellent idea. I think this can be done without long discussion if the final decision is keep. Ceedjee (talk) 16:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not so sure. I think Ouze Merham needs to be in the title, since people are still citing him as though he was a real person.

Moreover, I have a problem with the word alleged. No evidence has been produced that Sharon every issued this statement. I mean nothing. This is not a case where a journalist or some other witness says that a person said something. It is just a quote that first appears decades after the purported date of utterance, and it is internally suspece (I mean this in that the quote itself makes little sense, using the term Palestinian in an anachronistic manner, and the rest of the language - burning babies, enslaving women - would be reallly wierd for a young israeli officer to use.) Merham, moeover, is certainly bogus because Israeli generals don't just disappear from the historical record without a trace. If he existed, we could find him.

So, I could go for something like Ouze Mersham / Ariel Sharon 1956 bogus quotation.

TB, please sign your post with four tildes. We're not allowed to come to that conclusion since the sourcing isn't strong enough for us to say which is the majority view or minority view on the subject, which we'd need to do on a controversial topic, as per WP:NPOV. We're not allowed to use just our common sense to take sides if we're not forced to -- unlike the way we're allowed to use our common sense to judge whether sourcing is strong enough to meet the notability test. Noroton (talk) 17:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  • No merge - current version doesn't cover the entire topic. Most importantly, it doesn't provide information on why it's probably a hoax like the individual article did (namely, it's unclear why a general would interview a major, and that there was never a general named Ouze Merham). The current version states that it was 'thought by many to be a hoax', although a careful read determines that the paragraph doesn't actually provide any meaningful evidence to the hoax claim, therefore the quote could very well be true (this is especially apparent with the part about the IHRC's defense). If the paragraph is re-written, I may change my vote. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 17:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Ynhockey, you already voted "Keep" above, which is essentially the same as "No merge". Also, you are welcome to make the changes you feel need to be made to discuss the subject more thoroughly in the IHRC article, or to add whatever you think needs to be added about it to Ariel Sharon's article. Tiamuttalk 08:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
This is a different section and therefore a different vote. Some users who voted 'keep' above might still vote 'merge' (or vice versa) in this section due to an acceptable compromise in their opinion. In any case, if the article is merged, I will attempt to make the necessary changes, but for now it doesn't look like it's going to be merged, so I won't waste my time. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 19:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  • No Merge - a fabrication this widely cited deserves an article of its own. Evidence-based (talk) 20:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)Evidence-based
  • Keep - Do Not Merge Merging it would swamp the Islamic_Human_Rights_Commission article. I think the short paragraph that exists there combined with the full article more or less as it now stands is reasonable.Susan Sowerby (talk) 14:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)Susan Sowerby
  • No Merge KEEP I have read through this discussion page and confess to being puzzled. This fake quote obviously caused something of a stir, it slandera a major political figure, and, since the fake quote and fake General Merham are still out there orbiting in cyberspace, it seems reasonable to shoot them down by posting on wikipedia this article so that an honest student journalist will not be snookered into using a fake quote at soe point in the future. (these things do not die, they need constant refutation. There are poeple who cite the Portocols of the elders of Zion as an authentic document, for Pete's sake.) Putting real information up is a useful service. We're not short of space. What's the big deal? You leave a solid page up. I really don't understand the opposition to doing so. You want to have solid refutations of canards of this kind readily available and easily discovered by google searches. Roger Warren (talk) 18:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC)Roger Warren
Roger, there's a pretty strong consensus here that Wikipedia should include a solid refutation of this canard. The question is whether to do so with an independent article or whether to do so in relevant places like Ariel Sharon, Islamic Human Rights Commission, and Media coverage of the Arab-Israeli conflict, all with ample redirects so that anyone who comes here to find out about "Ouze Merham" (or any other search term key to the fake interview) will find the canard refuted. The ease, rapidity, and clarity with which the reader is disabused is not greater in one or the other of these solutions. The only difference will be in how significant, notable, and influential the reader comes away imagining the canard to have been in the first place. The problem with a separate article is that the only media outlet to give this "story" independent coverage is CAMERA, which is a highly partisan media pressure group with a vested interest in creating the impression that this was a significant, notable, and influential canard. In fact, even saying that CAMERA gives it independent coverage is a stretch; they discussed it twice as part of a larger pattern of alleged distortions and fabrications, and twice as part of a story on allegedly pervasive antisemitism in an Illinois school newspaper; never as a story in itself, which is what we are doing. No other reliable source anywhere has found it worthy of more than a passing mention, and even these can be counted on a single, badly injured hand. We are following CAMERA's lead as to the significance of this, and in fact going much further than they do. With respect, your post is an excellent example of why we should delete this article. You write that "this fake quote obviously caused something of a stir" and you compare it to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. In other words, not to put too fine a point on it, you have been snookered by CAMERA and by this Wikipedia article, which includes statements like the following:

The quotation has been part of anti-Israel commentary in influential publications with readers in Arab and other Muslim nations, including The Nation,[2] Pakistan's most quoted newspaper,[3] and IslamOnline,[4] one of the two most visited Islam-related websites on the Internet.[5]

.
The first claim, that The Nation is Pakistan's most quoted newspaper, comes from that hokey outlet's own promotional blurb, which also boasts of its "firm and constructive views," its "huge network of correspondents at home and abroad," and its "special Log On section for those interested in IT, whether rank new beginners or hardcore professionals." I have written to Jenna Jameson and Ron Jeremy to ask them how they like the special Log On section, and will let you know when they reply; in the meantime if you know any rank new beginners you could get their views, which I hope are firm and constructive. Grain of salt or will you be needing a bucket? As for IslamOnline being "one of the two most visited Islam-related websites on the Internet," the source given is simply the home page of www.alexa.com, which says nothing of the sort. The fact-checking at Ouze Merham, I'm sorry to say, rivals that of the outlets we purport to be debunking.
You might fairly ask at this point, bad fact-checking on Wikipedia calls for editorial intervention, not article deletion. Yes, in principle, but remember that in this case the bogus "facts" are precisely what's being cited as evidence of notability. Take away the bogus assertion that "major international news sources" reproduced the bogus quotation, and all you're left with is CAMERA trying to make a mountain out of a molehill, and Wikipedia supplying the manpower, bandwidth, and search-results-rankings to complete the job.
By way of conclusion, the following should give you a sense of perspective about The Nation's appraisal of its own enormous influence. WorldNetDaily (the U.S.-based online outlet that maintains that global warming is a hoax and homosexuality is caused by soybeans – no, I'm not kidding) describes itself as "a leading Internet newssite in both traffic and influence, which has broken some of the biggest, most significant and most notable investigative and enterprising stories in recent years." It goes on to claim that:

WorldNetDaily.com consistently ranks as the "stickiest" newssite on the Internet, meaning readers spent more time on it than on any other - including giants CNN, MSNBC and ESPN.

WorldNetDaily.com often ranks at the top of the news pack in number of pageviews per user and minutes per page - two other important categories measured by Internet ratings agencies.

It is a Top 500 website, according to Alexa.com, the search and ratings agency affiliate of Amazon.com, and the No. 1 independent newssite.

When Jayjg and others claim that the fake quote was "reproduced in major international news sources," they don't mean the BBC, the New York Times, the International Herald Tribune, Al-Jazeera, Al Arabiya, Abu Dhabi TV, or anything even remotely like that. They mean the overseas equivalents of WorldNetDaily.
Wikipedia should not debunk one hoax by promoting another.--G-Dett (talk) 21:00, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
In reality, however, there is only one hoax, a fake interview attributed to an Ouze Merham, of Ariel Sharon, and reproduced in all sorts of places, including the MIFTAH website, Al Hayat, The Nation, the IHRC website (where it was the basis for an Islamophobe of the Year award for Sharon, The Daily Illini, etc. The fake quote is the hoax, and the fact that it is a fake quote is not a hoax. Jayjg (talk) 23:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I think you don't understand (why would you, you weren't there) what a big deal this was at Champaign-Urbana when the Mariam Sobh articles ran in the Daily Illini. It was a big deal. The columnist did not apolgize immediately. she first wrote a new column claiming that her sources for the quote were good. The alumni were up in arms. The editors defended her and her bogus quote, published a couple of other virulently anti-Semitc pieces, and even maintained in public forua that this sort of language waa plausible for an Israeli leader. The administration finally had to sit down with the paper's editors and I seem to recall a seminar of some sourt with J-school professors about fact-checking and journalistic standards. Finally, after months of this, there was a half-assed apology. The nastiness of the incient was unforgettable to those of us who were present. It was not a minor incident at Illinois.

I am no wikipedia expert. I do feel that the article ought to be strengthened. to make clear the bogus nature of both the quote and the generalRoger Warren (talk) 22:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)Roger Warren.

GDett, your continued trashing of the importance of some of these publications that have used the quote just doesn't hold up on examination. An article in The New York Times said Al-Hayat "is regarded as by far and away the best and most intensely read Arab newspaper" (I just rewrote our article on Al-Hayat and included the quote there). The UK government Trade & Investment office listed The Nation second when that office said on its Web site: "The principal English newspapers are Dawn, The Nation, The News, The Muslim, The Frontier Post, Financial Post and The Business Recorder." Pakistan is important. It's commonly thought to be where Al Qaeda leadership is hiding and it's the only Islamic nation with nukes. The Nation is not a high-circulation newspaper, but it appears to have some influence. It is unquestionable that Al-Hayat is very influential. This is the English language Wikipedia and these are English-language publications (and yet, they're influential in the Islamic world). Influence does not necessarily equal quality, and your bringing up the unrelated World Net Daily website is simply distracting. I get the impression from your comments that the fact that CAMERA has flogged this is crucial in your opposition to WP having this article. I haven't seen proof that CAMERA is unreliable, and the points CAMERA makes that we mention in the article seem pretty strong. Anyone who reads the quote should consider whether, if it were true, we wouldn't see something in the Israeli media about it. Has the Western or Israeli media been particularly protective of Ariel Sharon? Somehow, I don't get that impression. And yet influential publications in the Islamic world print this quote. To me, this fact deserves to be covered by WP with the 12K of space this article gives it. (The Media coverage of the Arab-Israeli conflict is already above 42K.) Noroton (talk) 01:34, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
That CAMERA has flogged this is not crucial to my opposition to a separate article on this; that CAMERA exclusively has flogged this, however, is. The fact is this has been ignored by the mainstream media because the mainstream media (having regular fact-checking mechanisms) never fell for the bogus quote in the first place. No, I don't think mainstream Western and Arab media outlets have been protective of Ariel Sharon, which is precisely why I think it's significant that none of these outlets ever printed this incredibly incendiary quotation in their news pages. Pretty big deal – pretty newsworthy – if a sitting prime minister said these things, and yet, kinda like with WorldNetDaily's tofu-homo scoop, no one significant went with it. Do you not see the danger of Wikipedia exaggerating the significance of a hoax that resulted in a handful of badly fact-checked op-eds in obscure news outlets? Do you not see that CAMERA has an agenda of their own, beyond correcting the record? Let me put this in more familiar terms. I am an Obama supporter, but I don't imagine that Obama surrogates flogging Hillary's Tuzla exaggerations are merely 'correcting the record'. And while I would support adding a sentence or two about the flap surrounding those exaggerations to the Hillary Clinton article, I would not support an article devoted to the Tuzla business, especially if its secondary sources consisted entirely of opinion pieces written by Obama surrogates.
Have you ever heard Nasrallah quoted as saying ""if they (Jews) all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide" ? Well, Alan Dershowitz has. CAMERA has. A couple thousand other blogs and news sources have. Guess what: the quote has never been independently verified, and is thought to be a fabrication. It was printed in the Lebanese Daily Star, and not corroborated by any of the other major (Lebanese or otherwise) newspapers covering Nasrallah's speech. The Daily Star's managing editor has said he has "faith in neither the accuracy of the translation [from Arabic to English] nor the agenda of the translator" (Badih Chayban), and the Daily Star's editor-in-chief and publisher has said Chayban was "a reporter and briefly local desk sub and certainly did not interview Nasrallah or anyone else." Chayban subsequently left Beirut and the Daily Star for a job in Washington.
That episode is mentioned in the Hezbollah article. I know because I added it a year or so ago. I did not create an independent article about it, and if anyone else does, I will argue for its deletion. People who take at face value factual claims by discredited student columnists, obscure bloggers, "IslamOnline" or Alan Dershowitz do so at their own risk. Wikipedia can and should help such benighted readers by debunking nonsense, but there is a difference between debunking an obscure rumor on the one hand, and magnifying and exploiting it for the purposes of spin on the other.--G-Dett (talk) 03:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
While we're at it, we don't need an article about the Nasrallah pseudoquote encouraging Palestinians to "take their suicide bombings worldwide - and don't be shy about it" (or words to that effect,) which appeared in the Washington Times, led to a Candian government decision to ban aid to Hezbollah, and was promptly debunked by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. The reporter Paul Martin, previously best known for discovering anti-Christian pogroms in Bethlehem that nobody in the city seemed to be aware of, admitted that he got it from a Maronite activist in the States, not from al-Manar TV as he'd implied in the story. I'm not aware of "Ouze Merham" having had any influence on a government policy, but this little tidbit did. If the people arguing for an "Ouze Merham" article can explain why it's more notable than a "Don't be shy about it" article, I'd be interested to hear it. <eleland/talkedits> 04:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
The Chicago Sun Times and the Chicago Jewish newspapers, (print weeklies which do not have online archives) covered the story of the Daily Illini running this quote, and the reaction of the university administration.

Re: CAMERA. Yes, they are partisan, but, they are also well-known for accurate fact checking and they are a very large organization, respected for accuracy even by those who hate their politics.. Moreover, CAMERA was hardly the only organization that took notice of this fake quote. There were , at least, the Jewish Federation of Chicago, a very stogy mainstream organization, Front Page Magazine, The Jewish Press in New York, the chicago Jewish weeklies, Scholars for Peace in the Middle East, Daniel Pipes in his syndicated column.Roger Warren (talk) 12:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)Roger Warren

G-Dett, eleland, the Nasrallah quotes, even if erroneous, are not out of character given this Commons page, where he's quoted supporting suicide bombings and the destruction of Israel, whereas the Sharon quote is out of character for Sharon. It would also be out of character for the Israeli and Western media not to have picked up on the statement if any reliable sourcing for it existed, especially after Sharon became Prime Minister. No one in this discussion has suggested that the quote is correct or that, in fact, it isn't ridiculous to believe it's correct. Therefore criticizing the article as weak on sourcing is an argument that relies heavily on a technicality of a Wikipedia guideline -- a technicality we are empowered to override with our common sense. Sources often are considered reliable for some things but not others. The CAMERA citation relies on that group's authority as being reliable enough for the very reasonable point that the interviewer-general Ouze Merham doesn't seem to exist and the quote can't be found in any reliable source. No one can argue that Al-Hayat is not very influential in this important part of the world. The Nation likewise appears to be influential in Pakistan. The Bangladesh statement mentioned in the article was written by a retired Bangladeshi brigidier general. The elites of these countries (who speak English almost as their mother tongue) are reading these accusations in widely respected publications, and a Google search will show that they keep being repeated around the world. Noroton (talk) 16:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
That I put little stock of any sort in CAMERA's reliability (because of their habit of mendacious "corrections" and disseminating flimsy "quotations" of their own) is a secondary matter; I, like everyone here, agree with you that the Sharon quote is almost certainly a hoax. The question is not whether the quotation is false or whether Wikipedia should let the reader know that; the question is simply one of weight and proportion, to wit: how big a deal should the reader come away imagining this to have been? Do we want him to think, like Roger thinks, that this was comparable to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion? We are the first information entity to give this matter exclusive attention in an article. Period. Not even CAMERA has done that.
You were very eloquent and persuasive about Wikipedia's role in debunking nonsense, but I have yet to hear you concede that a sense of weight and proportion is relevant in carrying out this duty. That the line between the public-service impulse to debunk a hoax on the one hand, and the partisan impulse to hype its significance on the other, is a line worth maintaining.--G-Dett (talk) 00:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
P.S. I've been intending to say for several posts now, you are quite right that Al Hayat, one of the news outlets that published an opinion piece citing the interview, is indeed a relevant and influential paper. I wonder if they ever published a correction or an acknowledgment that the quote is disputed.--G-Dett (talk) 00:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I did not say and do not believe that this is on a level with the notorious Portocols. My point was that even a book that has been debunked as thoroughly as the Protocols has huge numbers of believers. Type Ouze Merham into google blogs and you find people still citing this as a real quote. Leaving the page up will make it easy for honest people to discover that it is a hoaxRoger Warren (talk) 00:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)Roger Warren
Thank you for the clarification. You do realize that the solution I and others have proposed – multiple redirects to relevant sections of articles on the IHRC, Sharon, and media coverage of the I/P conflict – will lead readers just as quickly and easily to a debunking of the quotation? The reader types in "Ouze Merham" (or any of several related search terms) and is taken directly to a paragraph explaining the dubious quote. The principal difference being that he doesn't come away with the impression, courtesy of CAMERA and no one else, that this was a major episode in the history of Israel-Palestine media wars.--G-Dett (talk) 00:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
G-Dett, my previous post supported the idea that this was worthy of the space an article affords, consensus here also thinks so, and no policy or guideline disallows it. If at some point in the future we find too many Mideast-hoax-debunking articles that are no longer relevant, we can revisit this (at some point in the future, I'm sure we will), but the quote keeps coming up year after year in influential publications (never mind the 1,000+ ghits). So far, this is of continuing value and we have no idea how long this Merham meme will last. Wikipedia is disproportionate in its coverage in so many ways, that proportion in coverage has been called a deletion-argument fallacy. Your argument about proportion is close to WP:ALLORNOTHING or WP:OTHERSTUFF, although neither quite captures it. It isn't our duty to debunk all nonsense, but pernicious, dangerous nonsense that's also notable and touches on a profound subject -- Arab public opinion and how it's formed -- is one helluva valuable topic for a Wikipedia article. Opinions are like ah, bellybuttons but IMHO this is Wikipedia in its glory. Noroton (talk) 02:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
It's exactly our current way of framing this as an "Arab public opinion" issue rather than a two-sided propaganda issue that will need to be addressed, and addressed aggressively, tenaciously, and uncompromisingly by honest and well-informed editors; I do however realize this is a larger problem than a single deletion debate.--G-Dett (talk) 02:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
"If at sometime in the future we find..." - no, Noroton, the problem is that we have to stop the takeover of the pedia by the paid POV-pushers now. Look at this page. Look at WP:COIN#Edit warring on CAMERA sourced to CAMERA's office. This has all the hallmarks of an effort to use this project to push an agenda, to bend and warp our standards until every minor issue that people want to push can be hosted for free with tons of traffic on this project, which will eventually bring this project into so much disrepute that articles will be written on "Wikipedia and Geocities: What's the Difference?". Frankly, we are either strict about notability especially for things that have organised campaigns behind them, or we just give up and focus on the Pokemon articles. Relata refero (talk) 07:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
This is interesting, Relata, and possibly worth looking into. Partly in response to this AfD, I've been looking into CAMERA's pattern of fake "corrections," its organized rhetorical strategies and general tactics of propaganda dissemination, and the dovetailing of these with propaganda strategies on Wikipedia is striking enough to merit a preliminary COI inquiry.--G-Dett (talk) 14:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
That COIN case is troubling, Relata. By itself it doesn't overthrow the reasons for keeping the article. Also, we shouldn't be bending the content of the encyclopedia against those who are trying to influence it. All of our decisions should be to adhere to NPOV in as straight a line as we can, ignoring all illegitimate pressures. We need to deal with this in non-content decisions on non-content pages.Noroton (talk) 18:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  • keep First, there isn't any NOTNEW issue here. This got coverage in a variety of sources such as the Chicago Sun Times. I agree that CAMERA is not by itself a reliable source but this has been covered elsewhere, so that's more of an NPOV than a notability concern. The primary proposed merge target Islamic Human Rights Commission is not persuasive since they were not the only organization taken in by this and adding additional information unrelated to the IHRC award on their page would place undue emphasis on events that the IHRC is only somewhat connected to. This apparently is a hoax that became notable by its surrounding coverage. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment All arguments not based on policy should be ignored. Jtrainor (talk) 04:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

  • I am copying a comment somebody wrote half a lifetime ago and half a page up:

This phenomenon does not have to be Very notable, nor does it have to be somewhat notable. It needs to be minimally notable. Minimally means: If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable. So, can we keep the article and close this interminable discussion? Susan Sowerby (talk) 19:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)Susan Sowerby

Half a lifetime? I'm not that old :D -- Avi (talk) 19:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
The subject of this article is a false quotation. The only vaguely reliable source which has gone into any detail on the false quotation is the activist group CAMERA; they devoted one section of a brief article entitled "Exposing False Zionist Quotes." People, that is it. That's the only coverage, and not even in a truly reliable source. None of the supposed coverage is actually coverage of the quote or the hoax; it's just lazy editorial writers using the false quote. Well, I can find scores of examples of much more significant sources using the quotes "You see what I did there" or "The goggles do nothing" or "no matter where you go, there you are" or "make you an offer you can't refuse" or "pass the bong." None of those quotes are notable, regardless of their use, because there is no significant coverage of the quotes themselves in reliable sources. <eleland/talkedits> 21:37, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Er, the Chicago Sun and a number of other sources have covered this quote being false and the resulting fall out from some uses. Thats ben dealt with already. Incidentally, if you can get enough good sourcing to write an article on The goggles do nothing I don't think many people will object to that. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Just a minor correction – the Chicago Sun-Times covered the quote being disputed; Australian TV covered it being unverified. Only CAMERA has called it outright a fabrication, and only CAMERA has gone into any detail about it, as Eleland correctly says. I tend to agree that there won't likely be objections to The goggles do nothing, but many of the editors here probably will object to freestanding on articles on MEMRI hoax translation and Fabricated Nasrallah quote.--G-Dett (talk) 23:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Eleland, you mention "reliable source" but your argument is really about notability. Nowhere in this long discussion have I seen anyone express concern that CAMERA might actually be wrong here. We all seem to believe its assertion and for good reasons that boil down to common sense. Who outside Wikipedia has disputed CAMERA's contention that the quote is a fabrication? Really, CAMERA's assertion is a lot closer to 2+2=4 than to some contentious political claim, which is what makes it reasonable to use CAMERA as a reliable source. WP:RS is concerned with reliability so that the encyclopedia is correct. WP:N wants enough proper sourcing to ensure notability, but it allows use of a single secondary source giving substantial coverage combined with use of other secondary sources that provide more than "trivial" coverage (the Chicago Sun Times, the Australian TV source fit the bill). So we have a very credible claim that the quote is a fabrication and we have solid proof that it gets used in influential publications in the Islamic world for year after year. The subject itself is serious, not frivolous like the examples you bring up. You don't like CAMERA? I'm not too fond of it either for what it appears to be trying to do on Wikipedia, but all that is secondary to the encyclopedia's mission. Noroton (talk) 01:16, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Noroton, none of us really doubt CAMERA is right here, because what they are rebutting is so outlandish. However, I think that in general its reliability is questionable. What this mean is that we have a generally unreliable advocacy source pushing a the rebuttal of a particularly outlandish quote. The rebuttal of a quote belongs on here somewhere; the long disquisition on the perfidy of quote-inventors sourced to CAMERA, and the OR performed by editors bringing other examples of the quotes use, does not. Relata refero (talk) 08:17, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
If we focus on the purpose of this discussion, then what matters is whether CAMERA is a reliable source for the specific information we attribute to it in this article, and it is. We don't splash "Hey Wikipedians, use your common sense!" in a little box on top of all our policies and guidelines for nothing. Common sense + consensus = a powerful way to interpret the application of a policy, in this case the WP:NPOV WP:N guideline for what is an acceptable level of sourcing. As WP:OR explicitly states, it isn't original research to add instances when the quote was used by primary sources, that's just research unless we were using that string of examples to draw our own conclusion within the article. We can't use those primary sources to support our argument in favor of WP:NPOV WP:N either. But we can use it to bolster our argument on this page that CAMERA is, for this, a reliable source. The Islamic Human Rights Commission's response to the fabrication charge is particularly helpful here. The confirmation now in the article that the quote was used in influential newspapers is also helpful because the very outlandishness of the quote tends to make us want to say it's not notable (since many of us would doubt it would be used by influential publications). I'll take another look at the article, but a long disquisition on the perfidy of the quote inventors isn't what we need here, just sufficient space to present the relevant information as we would in any other article. Noroton (talk) 15:51, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitrary break

Response to ChrisO's revised argument at top: Actually, my 15:51 March 29 response to Relate just above pretty well answers ChrisO's argument as well. The article can and does cover the subject without a WP:OR-violating synthesis. The existence of primary sources in the article does not mean they are used wrongly. Of course a red flag should be waved for CAMERA, but that starts discussion, it doesn't stop it (that would be a checkered flag). CAMERA's own notability is irrelevant, only it's reliability in relation to the subject at hand is relevant, which is the case with all reliable sources. Scientific American for instance, is not a reliable source for Misty Poets, or if it were, a case would have to be made for it, in just the way that a case has been made here for it that uses common sense and consensus. The use of CAMERA in this article has been as a secondary source addressing the usage of the quote elsewhere. ChrisO is wikilawyering when he links CAMERA's coverage to the WP:NPOV WP:REDFLAG passage "surprising or apparently important claim not covered by mainstream sources". The purpose of the WP:NPOV cautionary statement is to be careful about a fringe claim. There is no fringe claim here that the quote exists and is used (the primary sources prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt and no one here doubts it). The claim that the quote is fraudulent is a claim that the article covers, not a claim essential to the existence of the Wikipedia article. WP:NPOV is therefore a matter for that article's talk page, not AfD. ChrisO states, No mainstream source has discussed the quotation (as opposed to using it) in any detail and there is certainly no mainstream sourcing to support CAMERA's claim about the quotation's importance. ChrisO should reread WP:N and reread the parts of this discussion where that has been laid out: We need one source only to address the subject in detail in order to meet the minimum WP:N requirement. We need other secondary sources to round it out, but their coverage simply needs to be more than what you'd find in a phone book listing. The Sun-Times and Australian TV report give us that. Calling CAMERA's treatment of this quote as a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority is ridiculous. Somehow everyone commenting on this page agrees with CAMERA's "vastly limited" minority viewpoint. As Relata refero says a couple of posts above (08:17, March 29) none of us really doubt CAMERA is right here. Noroton (talk) 16:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Noroton, what Chris and Relata and I and others are saying is not that CAMERA is wrong about the validity of the quote, but rather that CAMERA does not constitute a solid RS-basis for the notability of this apparent hoax. An article on Hillary Clinton's misstatements would be a bad idea if sourced almost entirely to www.barackobama.com, coupled with one or two equivocal passing mentions in non-partisan secondary sources and a smattering of primary sources (googled up by Wikipedians) where the apparent misstatements were repeated as fact. This would be a bad idea even if www.barackobama.com was probably correct about each of the misstatements. The relevant violations would be WP:NPOV, WP:N, and WP:NOR, exactly as in this case. Again, speaking as an Obama girl.--G-Dett (talk) 17:47, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Dance and sing all you want Obama girl, WP:N does require reliable sources, but you can't dance around the fact that at Wikipedia:Reliable Sources#Reliability of specific source types It Is Stated: Sources should be appropriate to the claims made. The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context, which is a matter of common sense and editorial judgment. Thus Sayeth the Guideline, and it can be used to exclude or include a source. It is the common sense editorial judgment of the consensus on this page, and that includes your opinion, that In CAMERA We Trust On What We've Cited Here. We don't even have to endorse what CAMERA says, we just have to believe it's reliable on this subject. CAMERA doesn't receive the attention of the Obama campaign, so it's difficult to draw the same common sense conclusion about lack of coverage in other sources. For the Obama/Clinton example you give, we would still have to rely on a consensus of editors using their common sense if the matter turned on reasonable interpretations of policy and guidelines, since the appropriateness of any source always depends on the context ..." Noroton (talk) 18:56, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
This isn't about whether CAMERA is right or wrong. As Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information says, "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia... News coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, but not all events warrant an encyclopedia article of their own." We only have one source - CAMERA - to support the assertion that the Merham story is "a staple of anti-Israel propaganda." If that's so, how come no mainstream sources have documented it? There are plenty of other pro-Israel advocacy groups out there; how come none of them seem to have mentioned it? The bottom line is that something is not notable simply because CAMERA says that it is notable; that's why I referred to the red flag of a ""surprising or apparently important claim not covered by mainstream sources." If it is notable, how come CAMERA is the only source to have devoted any time to debunking it, and then only in the form of one article about it and another one mentioning it in brief? The viewpoint being promoted here is that the controversy is important or significant, and the very limited sourcing indicates that this viewpoint is indeed "held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority" of our reliable sources. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:11, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
1. The passage you cite in WP:NOT#INFO distinguishes between newsiness of passing events and historical notability. The Merham quote has been used for years, going beyond news-outlet sourcing of mere passing events. That's the context of that part of policy, so it doesn't apply to this case. 2. You complain that we only have one source covering the subject in depth. Welcome to WP:N, where that amount of sourcing is allowed if we have other secondary sources giving more than trivial telephone-directory-like coverage but not necessarily in-depth coverage (and we do). Is this the 16th or the 17th time I've repeated this same point? 3. With WP:N only requiring a rivulet of sources, you won't always have a mainstream. "Mainstream" in context is meant to remove fringe sources. We don't have a basis for calling this a fringe source in this context. 4. Other pro-Israeli groups have mentioned it. Please consult the footnote where Hanan Ashrawi is mentioned in the article. I didn't think it was worth explaining in the article, but follow the link to Google Books for that. 5. Red flags, by definition, are not bottom lines, but I repeat myself. 5. The viewpoint being promoted here is that the controversy is important or significant, Well if "here" means the AfD discussion, that would be true for every single AfD where WP:N comes up and there is a single Keep vote. If "here" means the article, that would be true, implicitly, for every article. If "here" means CAMERA, then the point is irrelevant because we're not editing an encyclopedia to support or oppose CAMERA but to cover what we believe for our own reasons is notable as WP:N defines "notable", not the different definitions of individual editors. Noroton (talk) 19:48, 29 March 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.