Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/False Moshe Ya'alon quotation

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

The result was no consensus. NW (Talk) 20:16, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Post-closing note. Subsequent to the closing of this AfD the editor LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was found to be a sockpuppet of indefinitely blocked editor NoCal100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Wikidemon (talk) 21:12, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

False Moshe Ya'alon quotation

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
False Moshe Ya'alon quotation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An article on this same topic was already deleted once; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alleged Ya'alon quotation. Although this article does cite two reliable sources (Columbia Journalism Review and the Toronto Star), it still constitutes undue weight. Why does this quotation need an article of its own? Note that the article also heavily relies upon a citation to CAMERA, an unreliable right-wing pressure group that has engaged in POV-pushing on Wikipedia as confirmed by the Arbitration Committee. The creation of this article was designed to skew the debate and engage in what could be termed POV by volume. As Eleland noted in the past deletion discussion, "The article is not intended to enlighten anyone, but rather to appear in Google results." The article creator, Historicist, has said that "This needs a page of its own so that it will be in the public record" (see Talk:False Moshe Ya'alon quotation) and is attempting to use this as part of a POV-pushing, BLP-violating campaign against Rashid Khalidi. This needs to be stopped now. *** Crotalus *** 13:47, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Contrary to the nominator's claim, the previous article was not deleted - it was merged and redirected to Moshe Ya'alon. Since then, new material has come to light - specifically - a lengthy report in the 'Toronto Star' covered the incident, and numerous publications which carried the original hoax have retracted and apologized. Having the highly respected Columbia Journalism Review dedicate a lengthy article to this bogus quote establishes notability in itself, as do the other sources. CAMERA, according to the Toronto Star, played a key part in exposing the hoax, so it is quite appropriate to cite them on this matter. Alleging bad faith on the part of the editor who created the article is not a very convincing, nor relevant argument. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 13:59, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The documentation of this incident cannot be squeezed into the Moshe Ya'alon article. Moreover, it is a quite a major incident in that this was an instance in which someone actually invented a quite aggressive statement for a leading public figure. Ya'alon deserves to have all of the details laid out in full. It is at least as significant that academic figures like Saree Makdisi and Rashid Khalidi are publishing academic books using citations to sources that they have not read. The attempt to airbrush this matter by deleting the article is reprehensible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamilton23 (talk • contribs) 14:33, 19 August 2009 (UTC) — Hamilton23 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Indef blocked sockpuppet nableezy - 16:35, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep in mind WP:Good Faith. Yes, I am one of the editors suggesting the article should be merged into others. But one of the reasons I have stayed out of editing I/P articles for the most part is that I'm pretty sure I may have a pro-Israel POV. So I don't think it's fair to brush editors who disagree with you as "attempt[ing] to airbrush this matter". Singularity42 (talk) 14:53, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, although with considerable concern given the occasionally tumultous history of articles in this area. The references do show the subject is sufficiently notable that deletion is not appropriate. Apart from that, merger into the subject's article would appear to make a lot of sense, however, I don't want to offer a "drive-by" opinion since I do not know the full history of the articles in this area. It is enough to note that a keep decision here in no way precludes subsequent editors from obtaining consensus and deciding to merge, rename or the like. As an aside, I added the normal talk page templates to this article, including a reference to the general sanctions that all Arab-Israeli article are subject to per ARBCOM. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 14:37, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - There's just nothing justifying keeping this issue as a stand-alone article. It's currently covered in Moshe Ya'alon, and could be added to other bio articles if necessary. If there's a strong enough need, the paragraph in the Ya'alon article could be expanded to its own section for easy reference and distinguishment. Right now, the stand-alone just narrating the Toronto Star article, with a couple extra references thrown in here or there. There have been essentially two arguments made to justify the existence of a stand-alone article (I'm paraphrasing the two arguments, by the way):
  • "It's important to have a stand-alone article to make sure there is a proper public record. People could remove the entry from the other articles, like Moshe Ya'alon." Well, (a) it is still part of a public record if it's part of another article and not a stand-alone article. In fact, I would think that someone worried about Ya'alon's reputation would want the info in Ya'alon's article, not in a seperate article; (b) yes, someone might remove the info from the other articles. If it's done as vandalism, it is easily fixed. If it is done for other reasons, and is controversial, there are a number of remedies, including dispute resolution. A stand-alone article doesn't fix that.
  • "Two respectable publishers have written an article about the issue." Fantastic! Good for them! How does that justify the creation of a stand-alone article? Articles are written about all kinds of issues and events, and usually in multiple newspapers. That doesn't mean it's noteable enough for a stand-alone article. See WP:News articles. As you can see from this edit, I do think that having those sources is enough for Wikipedia to say in any article that the quote was falsly attributed to Ya'alon, and I think it is highly relevant to his bio article. But it still doesn't justify a stand-alone article. Singularity42 (talk) 14:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the arguments in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alleged Ya'alon quotation. The material is already in other articles (see here) and there is no reason at all to have a standalone article. This, as the previous article, is only here to appear in google. There is no substantial difference between this article and this, which was redirected to CAMERA by consensus. I see no reason why that should be changed now and the slight change in the name of the article doesn't change that either, it was only a way to get around the prior discussion and make us go through this again. nableezy - 16:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. I'm an inclusionist, and I believe the article can be written in a neutral fashion. It is a newsworthy event, and it's about an event (a journalistic inaccuracy) that occurred over a span of years, so it's not just a single news item. Although Wikipedia does not elevate many quotations at all to article status, much less misquotes, there are a few and they can be encyclopedic and instructive to the reader. This probably won't remain stable, but in this version[1] I've just edited out of it all the synthesis, original research, and opinion I could find. The article is probably a magnet for POV, BLP violations, Israeli-Palestinian edit squabbles, and who knows what else, but that alone is not grounds for deletion. Troubled articles deserve attention, not removal. My main problem is lack of sourcing. We have only two reliable sources to date, the Toronto Star and the Columbia Journalism Review pieces, and each of them are just short "commentary on the news process" type pieces. The article in its present state milks them for about all they are worth, repeating the majority of facts from each article. So it can't get much better than it is, unless other sources come out. Do two news stories about a quotation make enough fodder for an article? I'm not sure. Anyway, if this is deleted it should not be merged, because there is no article where it would not be a major WP:WEIGHT violation to include a large chunk of this text. The articles about CAMERA and Ya'alon already contain due mention, and there are some BLP and POV problems with adding this to the litany of articles about every last journalist who has repeated the material, something that off Wikipedia is being done for partisan purposes to discredit individuals perceived as being anti-Israel. Wikidemon (talk) 16:45, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all information. No point in having a double article. If it isn't a double article then keep Dr. Blofeld White cat 17:04, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am staying neutral on this subject, but just commenting that the nominator is proposing to delete the article, not merge it, as implied by your post. Did I misunderstand your words? —Ynhockey (Talk) 17:24, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But that doesn't answer the question posed since LOTRQ posted the first set of comments. How does the existence of two newspaper articles justify enough notability for it's own stand-alone article in WP. That can't be criteria, and there is some consensus about what role the existence of newspaper articles corresponds to the need for a WP article - i.e. WP:News articles (I accidentially used WP:New article in my previous comments, which I have now fixed...). Singularity42 (talk) 18:27, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The question has been answered, in my comments. I will clarify them, since it apparently was not clear enough: Unlike WP:News articles, which is a personal essay and does not reflect any consensus nor wiki policy, WP:Notability is a guideline. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow. WP:Notability states that 'A topic is presumed to be notable enough to merit an article if it meets the general notability guidelines below.' The general notability guidelines state that "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." The 2 lengthy articles in the Toronto Star and the Columbia Journalism Review satisfy the requirement of having significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject -> the topic satisfies the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 02:06, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The essay helps clarify what would otherwise be an inconsisent policy. Also from WP:Notability: "However, Wikipedia is not a news source: it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute sufficient evidence of notability..." Let me be absolutely clear about my position: I am in no way suggesting the issue isn't noteable. It's just that it's not noteable enough for it's own article. It make much more sense for the issue to be described where it already is. Singularity42 (talk) 02:44, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The essay is, once again, one person's opinion. It does not clarify anything - it is one person's take on policy. What is policy, on the other hand, is WP:Notability. You are suggesting that the topic is "not noteable enough for it's own article" - but that suggestion is clearly incorrect according to the very clear language of WP:Notability which states that "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article.". LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 04:59, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In practice, our inclusion requirements are stricter than that. Policy is determined by what we actually do, not what is written on a page somewhere. Articles are often deleted on the grounds of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:ONEEVENT, for example, even if they have "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." *** Crotalus *** 14:03, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that in practice the requirements are stricter, and you have not shown that they are, or why they should be in this case. WP:NOTNEWS says 'Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article' - but this is hardly what this topic is about, and the fact that this event spans several years would also make the invocation of WP:NOTNEWS inappropriate. As to WP:ONEEVENT - you simply do not understand what it says, or have not read it - it is about 'Articles about people notable only for one event' - not the event itself. Every event is a singular event. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 14:13, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I think the subject does pass the formal notability criteria by a nose - two independent major sources giving detailed treatment. Thus, I think per notability guidelines this event could have an article. The question for me is whether it should have an article. Not everything that's notable has its own article - we'd have 50 million articles, not just 3, if that were the case. For me it's not completely clear that these two sources together give enough information. There are so many more questions here that they don't answer, but may be answered by original research on the primary sources: why did Henry Siegman write that sentence, and what was he getting at? Did Ya'alon use the phrase "seared deep", as Siegman claimed? Who was the first person to attribute Siegman's words to Ya'alon, and who plagiarized it from them? It is interesting and encyclopedic to trace the history of a misquote, if only more sources thought it notable enough to discuss. Ya'alon is a very important political figure, apparently, so a famous misquote is a not insignificant event. I wonder if there are any sources in Hebrew. Wikidemon (talk) 17:42, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the subject passes the notability criteria, and I'm not that interested in a discussion of whether it passes "by a nose" or "by a length". It passes. Wikipedia is not paper, and if there are 50 million articles that pass the notability guideline - all the better. I haven't seen that the project's goal is limited to 3 million or 10 million articles. I also agree with you that the article is not complete, and that the current sources do not address all we'd like to know about the topic - all the more reason to keep the article and expand it, through the addition of sources that perhaps do have these answers. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 04:02, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - What new information has been presented on the topic? Has anything regarding the "false quote" changed substantially since the first AfD that resulted in a merge? The difference between this article and the version before redirect in January seems to largely consist of expanded prose, not expanded sources or justification. It is still quote reported --> quote quoted --> quote debunked, and nothing else. It is mentioned already in Moshe Ya'alon. Redirect if that is preferable, though IMO the it is an implausible search term, and deletion would be preferable. Tarc (talk) 19:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, lets be fair here. There is a difference between the old article and the new article, in the sense that there is now an impartial, reliable secondary source that has reported the quote was false - which wasn't the case with the old article. I still don't think the issue merits its own WP article, but I do agree with the other editors that the situation before is different from the situation as of August 8, 2009. Singularity42 (talk) 20:27, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But it was already known it was false in the first article. Did another source commenting on it matter make it any more false? Tarc (talk) 21:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It did not make the quote more false, but it made the topic more notable. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 02:06, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another source can't hurt for citations in another article, but it doesn't warrant one of its own. Tarc (talk) 14:11, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what the general notability guideline says. It says if multiple RS's significantly covered a topic - it warrants its own article. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 14:15, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It also has that "...presumed to satisfy..." part, which most seem to overlook. I just don't see the need for a separate article for a quote, and a false one at that. We're not exactly in Ich bin ein Berliner or Read my lips: no new taxes territory here for widespread notability or coverage. Tarc (talk) 14:28, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When something is "...presumed to satisfy..." , then the onus is on those arguing for deletion to come up with some VERY good reasons why the presumption does not stand. Simply stating "I just don't see the need for a separate article", which is a variant of WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not such a reason. As for notability and coverage - this has been addressed - 2 lengthy articles in highly respected reliable sources, one of them dedicated to journalism review, satisfy the notability requirement stated in WP:NOTABILITY. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 14:35, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And those reasons have been given, none of which come remotely close to "don'tlikeit" territory which you spuriously claim. Nothing has changed with the situation to make it any more notable than the last AfD discussion; 1 more source does not tip the scales to inclusion. There's really nothing more to say on this tangent, so I'll just sit back and see what the closing admin has to say in a few days. Tarc (talk) 15:13, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The reasons you give above are "I just don't see the need for a separate article for a quote"- which is extremely close to "I don't like it", and "We're not exactly in Ich bin ein Berliner or Read my lips: no new taxes territory here for widespread notability or coverage." - which has been addressed by pointing out to significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, as required by the general notability guideline. If you have no other policy-based argument for deletion, it is indeed wise for you to sit back. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 15:41, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I was "sitting back" due to tiring from your pedantry. My point all along, which you have been either unable or unwilling to understand, is that nothing significant has changed in regards to this issue from the first AfD. One new citation does not get this issue into "significant coverage in multiple reliable sources" territory, not by a long shot. Tarc (talk) 17:06, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry to see that you consider responding to your arguments (such as they are...) 'Pedantry'. Your claim that "nothing significant has changed in regards to this issue from the first AfD" is simply false. Since the first AfD, 2 lengthy articles which directly address the topic have been published, in reliable sources of the highest order. It is not "One new citation", but exactly what our general notability guideline requires - 'significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject'. If you fail to see how the additon of these two new lengthy articles which directly address the topic are a material change, you need to review the relevant policies. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 03:57, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Says the "new" user with 700 edits to the admin with 7000. nableezy - 00:24, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The admin with 7000 got it wrong. There's no shame in that, we all make careless mistakes. You made this mistake as well, despite having 7,000+ edits, when you originally nominated this article for a Speedy. Luckily, we had an Admin with over 25,000 edits who came in, and declined the speedy, stating "WP:CSD#G4 applies to deleted material, whereas this was redirected. More importantly, G4 only applies to "sufficiently identical and unimproved" recreations of deleted material. In this case, it appears that the content and sourcing have been changed significantly since the AfD version. Since this recreation is not "substantially identical" to the redirected version, it is explicitly excluded from G4." Your response at the time was "fair enough", yet here you are agian, repeating this speedy argument which has been reviewed and declined. Makes one wonder... LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 00:55, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The main point in the speedy decline was it was the declining admin felt that this was not sufficiently identical. I still do and so does Jon513 apparently. There is no need to argue with every single !vote. nableezy - 01:27, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The very first thing the declining admin wrote was "WP:CSD#G4 applies to deleted material, whereas this was redirected." - which is exactly what I wrote to Jon513. Both you and Jon513 are wrong to invoke CSD#G4 here. Feel free to make other policy-based arguments. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 01:53, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't really mater what you think about other people's opinion to be honest, and no one's opinion is "wrong". I too feel that the speedy would have been appropriate, as this version is materially the same as the redirected one...and that it was technically a redirect and not a delete is really an irrelevant point and smacks of wiki-lawyering every time you bring it up. Tarc (talk) 02:15, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am sure MastCell, the admin who rejected the Speedy on this "technicality" would be happy to hear that you think he is wikilawyering. Why don't you post a note on his talk page? LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 03:32, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No need. :) Most speedy deletions are judgment calls. This was one. I can see the arguments on both sides - that is, I can see a reasonable argument to propose it as a G4, and a reasonable argument to oppose speedy deletion on grounds of material differences from earlier versions. My judgment was that the latter argument was more convincing and more in line with WP:CSD, but that doesn't make my judgment infallible. Another admin might have perused the same issue and, completely reasonably, come to a different decision.

In this case, the major factors in declining the speedy were 1) the addition of another significant source and the restructuring of the article convinced me that it was "materially different" from the earlier version, and 2) given that this is a gray area, it's better handled with wide discussion at AfD rather than as a judgment call of a single admin. I think that the redirect vs. delete issue is technical and relatively minor; I mentioned it for completeness, but I wouldn't have declined the speedy on those grounds alone. The speedy criteria are intentionally restrictive, and borderline or controversial cases are better handled at AfD with wider community input (in my opinion). As a final comment, it's fine to question or disagree with a decision of mine, particularly one in a gray area like this one. Sorry for the interruption, but my ears were burning... :) MastCell Talk 19:24, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete, obviously. Has there ever been a more WP:POINT or WP:SOAP article than this? OK, there are hundreds of them, what kind of idiot am I? Anyway, all we have is an alleged misquote, of the sort that happens all the time in the real world of academia and/or journalism, however terrible that might be. As has been pointed out, a couple of mentions of it in a couple of news reports does not a WP article make. Or should not, at least. Has anyone done a Google search of this term? Not an absolute clincher I know, but zero hits, absolutely none whatsoever, other than the WP stuff. A previous version of this article has already been deleted, and this one should go too - it absolutely does not need a page all of its own. And yes, I know I'm not allowed to comment on this sort of thing, but at least I make sense when I do - User:Jaakobou can take it to WP:AE if he likes. Even if my comment is ignored on that basis, can we at least have admin closure on the basis of policy, rather than a vote-count of partisan editors who tell us very loudly that they like this article just fine the way it is? --Nickhh (talk) 23:09, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • It is not 'a couple of mentions of it in a couple of news reports', but several full length articles which discuss the topic in detail, precisely as the general notability guideline requires. Contrary to your claim, Googling for 'Moshe Ya'alon quote' brings up close to 10,000 related ghits. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 00:14, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you stop arguing with everybody? I am pretty sure Nickhh meant googling the title of the article. nableezy - 00:23, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is supposed to be a debate, not a vote. And debating is exactly what I am doing. I am not sure what he meant, but even Googling for the title of this article yields close to 3000 ghits LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 00:55, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is why google hits are a generally unreliable argument to make in most cases, and even it it was acceptable, 3,000 is a pittance. Tarc (talk) 02:17, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was Nickhh who brought up the Google results, not me. I just corrected his misrepresentation of those results. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 03:32, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Misrepresentation? Are you out of your mind? Do you know what quotation marks are and what they are used for in search queries? Did you see the link with the search with the title in quotes return exactly 2 results, both WP pages? nableezy - 17:24, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you can't interact with other editors in a civil way, this is perhaps not the best place for you to be spending time. If you edit the above remark to something resembling civil discourse, I'll provide a response. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 17:44, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good luck with that. nableezy - 18:12, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As long as WP:Be civil is a Wikipedia policy, please refrain from such non-arguments as Are you out of your mind? and Says the "new" user with 700 edits to the admin with 7000. --Chriswaterguy talk 18:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/False_Moshe_Ya%27alon_quotation&oldid=1254987039"