Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zionism and racism allegations

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was KEEP. None of the Delete arguments really seem to stick. The fact of the article's existence since 2003 tends to militate against it being a POV fork. The article itself seems pretty evenhanded and anodyne, at least as much as can be expected for such a fraught subject. There's some sourcing, not to say it couldn't use more. Is it original research? I would say no, not quite. It's not a marginal subject, and bringing together existing material is appropriate, I think. Herostratus 14:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Zionism and racism allegations

Zionism and racism allegations (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Clear POV fork, no sources. This page attempts to prove that zionism is a form of racism, which is a clear anti-Israel POV. Also the entire page is origional research. Sefringle 19:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep Your two main reasons (POV fork, and no sources) for deletion are incorrect: #1. It's not a POV fork as the article has existed since August 2003. #2. There are many sources in the article, but they are not using the <ref>...</ref> notation and thus you likely missed them. There are a lot of allegations that Zionism is racism and the article is a controversial one because of the pro- and con- arguments are going to be heated. I think that Wikipedia has space for controversial articles even if they are difficult to write. --Abnn 19:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment There are plenty of articles that lasted a long while that are POV forks. Time the article exists doesn't change whether or not it is a POV fork. I have no problems with controversial articles. Unsourced POV forks is different, as they are inherently POV, and this article is one of those. And second, the vast majority of the content, however is unsourced.--Sefringle 19:51, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment thus if I am reading this correctly, you are saying that the article is in massive need of clean-up and if that was achieved it would make sense to keep it. I must admit that I see a significant parallel between this article, Zionism and racism allegations, and the article Islam and antisemitism. --Abnn 19:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment it may be that this article has been superceded by Allegations of Israeli apartheid. --Abnn 20:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Redirect to Allegations of Israeli apartheid although I might change my mind depending on what others think. --Abnn 20:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC) Switched back to original keep above based on comments below. --Abnn 18:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
This article documents extra-Israeli racism, so I'm not sure if that is a good idea.Bless sins 21:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
The current article state is admittedly horrible. I would not be prejudicial against its recreation in the future with better sourcing. --Abnn 21:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom; this is a very poor article.--Runcorn 21:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom; the article is not what its title purports in any event; and why do we have "allegations" articles? Carlossuarez46 02:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Because article names as "Zionism and racism" aren't very popular... // Liftarn
    • Presumably an NPOV article "Zionism and racism" would also include how racism against Jews in Europe contributed to the foundation and popularity of Zionism amongst Jews there. Maybe that's not the part of the story that people who want to use the 2 in the same title want told. Carlossuarez46 20:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, per absurdity of nom, which is wrong on every point. Sefringle doesn't even seem to have read the article, which was clearly written primarily by editors unsympathetic to to the allegation that Zionism is racism. In addition to a large number of inline cites and refs, many of the statements in the articles are supported by wikilink, so what Sefringle means by "no sources" is unintelligible. As are the allegations of "origional(sic) research" and "POV fork". Fork from what article? To insert what POV? ... This is a meta-article on a broader subject, but encompassing, Zionology, the Israeli-Apartheid analogy, UN General Assembly resolutions 3379 and 4686, etc. None of its sub-articles can or does encompass its subject. Certainly not Allegations of Israeli apartheid, where the subject is an analogy whose most recent prominent abuser (Jimmy Carter) denies it contains an allegation of racism. Andyvphil 02:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Per Malik below, I would like to rename the article to "Allegations that Zionism is racism", as that is much clearer. Andyvphil 23:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete it's just as much unsupported POV if it is aimed in one direction as if it is aimed in the other. DGG 04:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. The nomination seems to have been done based on incorrect information. The article looks well sourced and well written. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not an argument for deletion. // Liftarn
  • REDIRECT to UN General Assembly Resolution 3379 where this whole hullabaloo took place, and where it was eventually revoked. IZAK 08:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
So, allegations that Zionism is racism passed into history on 16 December 1991??? Andyvphil 09:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Andy: The UN is a (the?) international legal body, so why not? Israel was cleared of the smear engineered by the Soviet block and backed by the Arabs and the Third World members (no saints in the racism department) with the revocation. IZAK 05:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, if Zionism and racism allegations ended with the repeal of UNGAR 3379 in 1991, what is one to make of the 2001 World Conference against Racism? Andyvphil 15:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Conferences are a dime a dozen. How about the International Conference to Review the Global Vision of the Holocaust to deny the Holocaust by the Iranian antisemites, now that is racism in action when an entire nation wants to whitewash Nazi Germany's genocidal policies against the Jews. But the UN General Assembly is where the drama of the allegations were played out and died after the UN recanted. Of course the antisemites don't give up, they never will, so they look here and there to keep the case alive. IZAK 05:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment Both UN General Assembly Resolution 3379 and UN General Assembly Resolution 46/86 have their own articles and while it is relates it is not about the same subject. If it should be merged it should be merged into either zionism or racism (possibly both). // Liftarn
Liftarn: Why is it not "the same subject" when it's exactly the subject? Anyhow, by now the Zionism and Racism articles are too big for "allegations." The Racism article must focus on real racism like Nazism (against the Jews), segregation (against Blacks in the USA), Apartheid against Blacks in South Africa. The Zionism article must focus on its uniquely Jewish history and nature that is not rooted in any "racism" because Zionism is both a modern nationalist movement of the Jews to regain their historical homeland in Judea/Israel (from Turks/British/Arabs -- as they fought against the Babylonians/Greeks/Romans in ancient times) as well as a known and documented (in Jewish religious literature) continuation of Judaism and beliefs wherein Jews prayed and hoped to return to Zion from the time of their first exile during the Babylonian captivity. Just as one cannot say that Judaism is racism one cannot allege that Zionism is racism either. It's that simple. IZAK 05:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Zionism can be racistic just like the white supremacists that want a "white homeland". Same ideas, different packaging. // Liftarn
Liftarn: So then any national movement is "racistic" according to that POV. Every nation has it's homeland, doesn't yours, and it should have rights for minorities as well. Israel grants rights to Arabs to be citizens, what rights did or do Arab states give to Jews, they are the biggest "racistic" countries because they hate everyone not just Jews, but also Christians Buddhists, Hindus, you name it. So while picking on Israel and its Jews may seem like a fun hobby for some people it all boils down to classical antisemitism. People who don't see that are blind, and unfortunately "eye transplants" have not been invented yet. IZAK 09:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
All forms of nationalism do have an element of racism in them, but this is nationalism based on ethnicity (or "race" if you prefer that term). There are groups that want a Sweden only for ethnic Swedes (Bevara Sverige Svenskt for instance) and they are indeed racistic. // Liftarn
Liftarn: Anything taken to an extreme is not good, all normal people agree to that, but to somehow stress only one negative feature over others in Zionism is open antisemitism. After all, Zionism has done a lot of good for the Jews and the world. Or don't you agree. Would you like the Israeli Jews to be moved to Europe like the mad Iranian leader wants? IZAK 05:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and one more thing - if anyone thinks that this article has been 'superceded' by the Israeli Apartheid, or Allegations Thereof, article, then they need a refresher course in the differences between racism, the concept, and apartheid, the application. In any case IA is a current-y article and Z&R is mainly historical. Hornplease 08:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep — This page needs better documentation, but the discussion of Zionism and racism is much broader than the UN resolution. It can encompass the philosophy of "Jewish labor" embraced by Labor Zionists in the late 19th/early 20th centuries, racism by the Israeli government (dominated by Ashkenazi Jews) toward the Mizrachi Jews who were rescued during the late 1940s and 1950s, and other topics. The appropriate approach should be to improve this article, not delete it. — Malik Shabazz | Talk 13:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Further Comment — I think the page should be renamed "Allegations that Zionism is racism", which is a much better description of its content. I also think it's time to stop the double-standard: Articles that reflect poorly on Israel are titled "allegations" (e.g., Zionism and racism allegations, Allegations of Israeli apartheid), while other articles are titled as facts (e.g., Islam and antisemitism), most egregiously New antisemitism, which includes a lengthy debate questioning whether the phenomenon exists at all. — Malik Shabazz | Talk 17:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect per IZAK and Humus sapiens. The concept is notable in connection with the U.N. resolution(s) but most of what is in the article (other than the resolutions themselves) is background to passage of the first resolution, plus a lot of OR that shouldn't be anywhere. 6SJ7 21:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect per IZAK and Humus sapiens. I don't anticipate ...and racism articles for Pan Arabism or Arab nationalism, or any other ethnic-related or other national movements. Many of the topics suggested above are already dealt with at Allegations of Israeli apartheid or Anti-Zionism, or the various "Israel" sub-articles, and I don't see the benefit to forking this criticism to yet another suggestively titled entry instead of dealing with it in an NPOV manner within existing locations. TewfikTalk 04:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  • KEEP - This article may need work, but it addresses a real and valid topic that belongs in an encylopedia. Padishah5000 06:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. This article has existed for a significant period of time, and accusations that 'zionism is racism' have formed a significant part of international debate, especially as regards the Arab-Israeli conflict and Israel's relationship with the UN. Yes, it has had some edits which have introduced unacceptably POV material, but if we deleted articles on that basis then we would have to delete every article in Category:Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Arguments that an article which includes Haaretz (an Israeli newspaper) among its cited sources are irretrievable anti-Israeli POV are somewhat difficult to sustain. Cynical 23:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment There is no governmental control over the press in Israel and Israeli newspapers enjoy freedom of speech. Closer to the subject: it was the the UNGA Res 3379 that brought the allegation into the mainstream and since UNGA Res 4686, when the allegation was revoked, this allegation disappeared from the mainstream discourse. These two resolutions are the only documents dealing with the concept and therefore (IMHO) it doesn't deserve its own article, especially as cumbersome as this one. ←Humus sapiens ну? 11:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment Israel's chief military censor has the ability to silence a broadcaster, block information and put journalists in jail.[1] Not exactly what I would call "no governmental control", but your mileage may vary... // Liftarn
  • Delete -no way can a NPOV article ever be written here - so let's no try.Docg 11:25, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete This article is ridiculous. Anything salvagable, should be merged per Humus Sapiens, but this article should be nuked in the face. Wikipedia is not a battleground for anti-zionism. Not to mention that an article based on "allegations" is very much likely to be extremely POV and improper for the encyclopedia. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 07:17, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge per Humus, Izak and others. Zeq 21:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC) 21:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom or possibly merge. Amoruso 13:10, 21 May 2007 (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.