Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zionist Revisionism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

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

[edit] Votes

This page is just another attempt of Alberuni to spread his political bias on Wikipedia. You do not, for example, see a page on Palestinian Revisionism. During any conflict, there is a tendency for people to "cover up" things they percieve to be harmful to their case.--Josiah 00:20, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Please note: due to some complications, we have a few articles that are duplicated. Please comment on User talk:Ta bu shi da yu/Revisionism in the Israel-Palestine Conflict.
  • Delete. No such belief exists. Someone has rewritten the article on Holocaust denial, and attributed these beliefs to Jewish people. It is not appropriate for fictitious material to be accepted in a peer-reviewed encyclopedia. To whom can one appeal? I now know that anyone can contribute, but who are the reviewers who check for this sort of thing? I would like to contact them, by regular mail or e-mail. Previously I identified myself as Been to New Jersey, and knowing what I am missing, and not missing it., but perhaps I should add that I have Been to Columbia, and knowing what I am missing, and not missing it..
  • Invalid listing. Bias is not a reason for deletion, as set forth in Wikipedia:Deletion policy, and pages are not required to be balanced by other pages. User:Yoshiah ap hasn't listed any other valid reasons (his main objection seems to be that it's written by Alberuni), so I contend this VfD listing is invalid. --style 12:55, 2004 Oct 26 (UTC)
    • Bias is not a reason for deletion - however "inherent bias" (i.e. articles irretrievably on the wrong side of NPOV) is. Chris 01:36, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, or alternatively Redirect following Mirv's suggestion. Highly POV and appears to be original research. Also, author appears to be resisting any attempts to NPOV it or make it useful. Jayjg 02:30, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Please see Wikipedia:Deletion policy. You will find that bias is not a valid reason to delete a page. As for your claim this article is original research: How? Alberuni lists two sources, more than most articles. --style 12:55, 2004 Oct 26 (UTC)
      • The Wikipedia:Deletion policy is not exhaustive, merely illustrative. And the idea that the examples represent "Zionist Revisionism" is original research on Alberuni's part; for it not to be original research, rather than presenting his own thesis, he would have to present the work of others who describe the examples given as "Zionist Revisionism". Jayjg 17:31, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Abstain. The topic certainly exists. Just as Josiah pointed out, it happens in any conflict. I agree that the article is highly POV. It would probably be better to redo from scratch, with some more distant, concrete examples of revisionism. jericho4.0 02:52, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Agree with Jericho4.0, but vote for Keep. Cleanup needs to occur, but topic is valid and not, I don't think, coverable in any less of a POV title.. except perhaps "Claims of Zionist Revisionism"? Hmm. Covering the other side(s) is, of course, welcome as well, as the Palestinians certainly produce their share (perhaps greater) of propogandic, ahistorical nonsense. --Improv 08:02, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • Redirect to the page mentioned by Ta Bu Shi Da Yuu. --Improv 08:04, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete or Redirect to the article mentioned by Mirv. I forgot to mention my vote. My reason is that we do not create a page for the "revisionism" done by people in every conflict, now do we? Additionally, there is no Palestinian equivalent, and as Jayjg said, it appears to be original research.--Josiah 02:14, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Just because there is no article Palestinian revisionism bears no relation to whether this article should be removed. If you Josiah beleives there is such a thing, then I would urge him to start the article. I also beleive this is a valid topic, as in the article specific examples are cited. The article badly needs NPOVing however, though this has never been a reason to delete an article. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:50, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • REDIRECT to Israeli-Palestinian history denial, which is respectable. Doesn't look like there's anything worth salvaging in this article though. —No-One Jones (m) 05:03, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Ditto TBSDY's points. --style 07:03, 2004 Oct 26 (UTC)
  • Delete. Else redirect, per Mirv's idea. Ambi 07:06, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Redirect to something appropriate, so it doesn't end up being created again. —siroχo 08:30, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)
  • Redirect or Delete. IZAK 09:46, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, and Ban User for continuous and blatant disregard for Wiki's NPOV rules. Terrapin 14:06, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • First option: Delete. Second option: Redirect. This applies to both the original and the moved page. The original page might be best redirected to the (unrelated) Revisionist Zionism. Banning Alberuni is not a bad idea at all, but not the purpose of this page. Gadykozma 14:18, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Radman1 17:11, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, for incurable revert war bait. I agree that POV in and of itself is not deletable, but incurable POV and or edit war bait is. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. -Vina 18:43, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep and improve. Although Alberuni is a notorious thought criminal who enrages Zionist bigots with his expressions of political opposition to Israel and Zionism on Talk pages, the page Zionist Revisionism is a valid entry related to Revisionist history, Negationism, Hasbara, etc. --Alberuni 19:30, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Just delete it. Everyking 01:46, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. NeoJustin 03:48, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Israeli-Palestinian history denial or other appropriate article, or Delete. Creating a new name for the same subject to increase personal control over content is inappropriate. -- WOT 16:07, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • KEEP. As we have many of Zionist Revisionists right here (hello, Josiah, Gadykozma, Ambi, and the rest of "hasbara" troops) the subject is worth exploring. The title is clearly NPOV (more NPOV than the lumping of revisionists and deniers together under Holocaust denial.) POV complaints about contents should be made at the article Talk. HistoryBuffEr 00:47, 2004 Oct 29 (UTC)
  • Redirect. An article with topics this sensitive needs both sides represented equally — both accusations and rebuttals on all issues. As a non-Zionist (but not pro-Zionist nor anti-Zionist), both pro-Zionist and anti-Zionist views must be portrayed in equal mutual balance, or it will be an endless can of worms with more VfDs. Both pro-Zionism and anti-Zionism have publishable arguments as well as their share of occasional vitriol. Let's maintain a spirit of mutual respect and cooperation, because (in my opinion) nihilism is caustic and only catalyzes more nihilism. There is a difference between calm argument and screaming matches, and the latter need never exist, no matter how angry someone is. Ever. And keeping the issues in separate articles just invites confusion and screaming. So, you have my vote. It is emphatically final. Period. Get on with your lives. - Gilgamesh 02:36, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • KEEP. This is actually an important phenomenon in it's own right and includes myths such as: Palestine doesn't exist, there are no Palestinians, Jordan is Palestine, Palestinians were not expelled by Israel, Palestinians are economic migrants from neighbouring countries, Arabs didn't exist prior to the 6thC etc. John Ball 12:14 29 Oct 2004.
  • Redirect or Delete. --Viriditas 13:49, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Rename or merge to Revisionism in the Israel-Palistine Conflict. Wikipedia should explore all claims in an NPOV manner, and in this case, that can only be done in a balanced article. However, deleting would be better than it remaining in its current location. --L33tminion 18:10, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Original research and POV. Gamaliel 22:01, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. The statement that there is no "balancing" article is insufficient to delete/redirect this article. If you have a problem with the article's content: create a "counter" article, so to speak, or balance out this article. The options are there: feel free to use them. --Cwgannon 22:04, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Vote Tally

Final Tally (after 5 days per VfD rules, at 00:40, 2004 Oct 30 (UTC))

Total votes = 23

  • Keep = 7/23 = 30%.
  • Delete = 12/23 = 52% (includes double votes "Delete or Redirect")
  • Redirect = 12/23 = 52% (includes double votes "Delete or Redirect")

Conclusion: No consensus, thus Keep. Someone please remove this VfD.

    • Incorrect, "HistoryBuffEr", who yet again did not sign his name. The majority voted for Redirect, which is all that is required for a redirect.--Josiah 05:50, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • You're mistaken, VfD decisions need consensus, which is more than simple majority. HistoryBuffEr 17:17, 2004 Oct 31 (UTC)
        • The Wikipedia Deletion policy says "Redirect does not require a rough consensus — a regular majority is enough to apply this decision."--Josiah 18:26, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
          • Very cute, Gadykozma adds his opinion on how Redirects should be handled to the VfD policy page and then you cite that as the actual policy. Gadykozma's personal opinion has been removed from the VfD policy. HistoryBuffEr 18:42, 2004 Oct 31 (UTC)
            • What are you talking about???--Josiah 01:07, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
              • Can't you read? What you quoted about Redirects needing only a majority is just Gadykozma's personal opinion, not official VfD policy (VfD and its policy are about DELETE only, not Redirect.) HistoryBuffEr 03:40, 2004 Nov 1 (UTC)
                • Again, I ask, what the heck are you talking about? I went to the VfD policy page and directly quoted it.--Josiah 03:52, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

HistoryBuffEr is talking about the fact that the paragraph you quoted was added to the policy by me, and quite recently at that (BTW, HistoryBuffEr, Josiah was probably not aware of this fact and you really should explain it before attacking him). Therefore HB is right in that quoting the policy may be inappropriate here. However, HB is wrong in assuming I changed the policy somehow — I merely clarified what was the de-facto policy before. Gadykozma 16:09, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This "final tally" was done by HistoryBuffEr who has a tendency to forget to sign and to forget that redirect does not require special majority. Gadykozma 02:11, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
How amusing, Gadykozma. I forgot to sign for (probably) the first time in WP and tally is not supposed to be signed, but now I "have a tendency to forget"? As for the tally, I have already included your gang's votes twice (even though we should use the "one person, one vote" rule) and you still complain. Tough luck: There is no rule that would allow any action to be taken without consensus. But keep dreaming. HistoryBuffEr 02:32, 2004 Oct 30 (UTC)
HistoryBuffEr's erroneous claim that is posted without attribution (as if it was authoritative) is striken by Viriditas. HistoryBuffEr has been repeatedly told that the tally does not end after five days. --Viriditas 05:04, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
You've been repeatedly told that the tally does not end after five days, so why do you keep claiming that it does? --Viriditas 05:00, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
You did not "forget" to sign for the first time. You did the exact same thing on VfD/Occupation of Palestine, and you didn't sign your name in order to make it look authoritative, which it wasn't. You've been repeatedly told that the tally does not end after five days, so why do you keep claiming that it does? --Viriditas 05:00, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Voting for Deletion does end after 5 days, per wikipedia policy at:Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Decision_Policy--Josiah 05:51, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The deletion policy doesn't say that. It says that after five days an admistrator may act on the consensus decision -- if it has been reached. It says nothing about the cessation of voting. This is an informal vote, after all. --Viriditas 12:12, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Votes

Keep

  1. Alberuni
  2. HistoryBuffEr
  3. NeoJustin
  4. Radman1
  5. Style
  6. Ta bu shi da yu
  7. John Ball

Delete

  1. Everyking
  2. Terrapin
  3. Vina
  4. Gamaliel

Delete or Redirect

  1. Ambi
  2. Gadykozma
  3. Jayjg
  4. Yoshiah ap
  5. WOT
  6. IZAK
  7. Viriditas
  8. L33tminion

Redirect

  1. Gilgamesh
  2. Mirv
  3. Improv(Pgunn)
  4. Siroxo

No Vote: Chriscf, Jericho4.0

[edit] Comments

Comment: it appears that this was moved to Revisionism in the Israel-Palestine Conflict, but then a copy and paste move was done. There are now two articles, with only one listed on VfD. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:53, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Correct. I had moved the page and edited it in an attempt to make it NPOV, but the redirect was deleted and the edits undone by user Alberuni.--Josiah 07:12, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Ok, so what do we do now? This is now complicated by the fact there is a similar article called Israeli-Palestinian history denial. I have half a mind to take this entry off VfD temporarily, attempt a merge and then relist. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:44, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I redirected it to the article mentioned by Mirv--Josiah 19:32, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

User:HistoryBuffEr deleted comments by User:Viriditas, which were restored by Jayjg, in the vote tally area. I was under the impression that was against the rules - was I wrong?--Josiah 02:36, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Wrong claim, check history: the Viriditas comments were merely moved from Tally Total to comments below. HistoryBuffEr 17:15, 2004 Oct 31 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.