Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Media coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


This page is an archive of the discussion surrounding the proposed deletion of the page entitled Media coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

This page is kept as an historic record.

The result of the debates was to keep the article.

(added at 19:42, May 19, 2004 by User:Maroux)


June 2004

From VfD

  • A blatant editorial. For shame. Viajero 22:21, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. The last failed attempt to VFD it was in May 2004. Note, the argument doesn't go further than accusations in POV or that the article simply "stinks". The facts must be analyzed in an encyclopedic manner. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 22:37, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • I have removed the table of myths that caused the controversy. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 03:39, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • No way to be NPOV on this one. Delete. Danny 23:39, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • In my opinion there are a few traces of an NPOV article in here, sandwiched between huge globs of irredeemable POV. I vote delete, because otherwise I'll feel compelled to try trimming out the POV and no doubt get embroiled in endless argument over the drastic cuts I feel that would require. Bryan 00:03, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Changing vote to keep, since someone else has kindly done the hard work for me. :) Bryan 03:00, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • I agree with Bryan that the article has a few salvagable pieces of useful content; however most of it is unworthy trash, especially the "Myths/Examined" table, which is just laughable (it reminds me of the old Myths over the GDR article, only with better formatting). has been removed, thank you Humus Sapiens. Delete or rewrite top-to-bottom. (Any volunteers for the latter action? Being on summer vacation, I'm sharing a dial-up connection with seven others and can't reach my university's library at all.) —No-One Jones 00:17, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep - I'd like to see this become a real article about news coverage of the conflict. I'm not ready to abandon the baby with the bath water. We don't normally delete articles because of conflict. - Tεxτurε 03:33, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Everyking 06:18, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wildly, irredeemably POV. The few residual facts to be found belong within whatever article we have on the Palestine-Israel conflict itself.--Gene_poole 06:49, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. It must be one of the worst articles in the encyclopedia, with not even a whiff of NPOV. Yes, the topic could in principle be the subject of a good article but it wouldn't have a single sentence in common with this one and could be created afresh if someone came along willing to put in the work. --Zero 07:33, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Oh, dear. Judging from the title, I thought at first the article would be an irredeemable flamefest. However, a closer inspection reveals salvageable nuggets of information (e.g. media outlets conflicted on what terminologies to use—this is a significant enough phenomenon to have been covered by the Economist and the Washington Post). I agree that it needs either a major rewrite or trimming with extreme prejudice, however. I would trim everything except the sections "Agencies and News Outlets" and "Terminology." The rest is better left to external links. Wikisux 07:38, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep and...well, I certainly think this article needs a lot of improvement. It's quite POV indeed, but I think it's a valid subject. As Texture said, let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater. Oh, and for the record, I started this article. It's not the stub it was when I last saw it, but this isn't exactly the direction I expected the article to take. There are nuggets of useful info, though - as Wikisux says, the terminologies alone are quite interesting and valid. So, again, keep. Johnleemk | Talk 09:26, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. The phenomenon and the role of the press are well recognised. Add Palestinean POV, smooth out Israeli Media Watchdog POV. Lots of TLC, in other words. JFW | T@lk 10:16, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Couldn't sleep, so I rewrote the whole article. I think it has a future as a decent NPOV reference, provided someone can add some more info from a Palestinian perspective. Wikisux 11:58, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Deep breath. I think it's best to perservere with this one. It has a long history and has replaced at least one with a POV name, the current name was I think first suggested on VfD in fact. Not an easy call, but some good progress being made IMO which swings it for me. Andrewa 01:39, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • DELETE. Article cannot be anything else than POV. Wyllium 20:58, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Of course it's POV, but that's the entire point. Jxg 18:28, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - although better, it's still not an encyclopedia article, and never will be. john k 18:53, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

July 2004

The page with neutral name Media coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been renamed and turned into festival of bigotry, full of unencyclopedic one-sided links such as http://www.freemedia.at/intifada.htm. Any attempt to discuss or revert the changes were met with denial or ad-hom attacks. If it is impossible to rename the article back to neutral title, then delete it. We at Wikipedia do not single out any nation (even if it is Jewish) for scrutiny, only policies or govts. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 22:34, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

    • Humus sayeth:"If it is impossible to rename the article back to neutral title, then delete it." I agree with this - I saw no point in adding Israel to the title. It gives the appearance of imbalance, and is three words longer than the original. -Stevertigo 04:29, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep - it's useful and informative - but move back to its original title. Deletion is not an appropriate response to POV issues. - Mustafaa 22:35, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. The article was renamed because it grew to include material not directly related to the Palestinian conflict, namely the media coverage of Vannanu and the nuke issue. -- Viajero 23:13, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • It didn't just "grow": Viajero has added it, as well as the most of anti-Israel contents. When caught red-handed (Mordechai Vanunu and the alleged Israeli nukes issue have nothing to do with the IPC), he renamed the article, reverting all attempts to NPOV it. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 01:45, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • Well, to be fair, though Im not familiar with the articles in question, its hard to argue that there's any part of controversial life in Israel and Palestine that has "nothing to do with the IPC"- and within the context of analysing media coverage, the use of Vanunu as a kind of watershed event to analyse 'how the media treats that versus this,' etc, is not entirely invalid, is it? "NPOV" was never meant to be a rule of exclusion of material, as long as it wasnt entirely based on an interpretation. That said, the renaming of the article to widen the scope seems a bit hokey though again, Im not familiar with specifics.-Stevertigo
  • Keep, agree with Mustafaa. Needs work to be balanced back out, but deletion would be too drastic. Everyking 00:21, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: Unsure. While I agree that deletion is not a good solution, I'm also quite sure that the current article does not belong in an encyclopedia. It's a jumble of various POVs, few of of them identified as to their sources. The facts that are presented are presented more as evidence supporting these POVs than as information. I think it's up to those who want to keep it to demonstrate that it can be fixed. Andrewa 01:39, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • It's a jumble of various POVs, few of of them identified as to their sources.—Are you sure? It may have POV problems (it is an article about the Middle East, after all) but nearly everything in there is carefully referenced. —No-One Jones 22:06, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • Comment: Yes, I had another look and I stick by this. I think I can tell by the phrasing of many of the sentences the views of the contributor. The fact that they then quote a justification (and they do) doesn't fix that. But there's a lot of good work there too. Difficult. Still no vote. Andrewa 19:52, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, although I have no problem with moving the article back to its original title. The article itself is well referenced and contains links to actual studies, rather than more political rhetoric. I'm not sure where Humus gathered that he was personally attacked; or that media coverage in other nations is not allowed; or that the links are one-sided - there are links to incredibly bigoted organisations like CAMERA; or that discussion was denied; in fact, all these points and more have been discussed extensively at the article's Talk page and at the Talk archive, which everyone can look at. I don't understand what the VfD is for. The only palpable reason seems to be more axe-grinding from the same parties that slander people with cries of anti-Semitism at every hint of criticism of Israel, and distort all subsequent exchanges. Why come here and waste everybody's time - why not create your own website? -- Simonides 03:39, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • It's ironic that this comment is coming from someone who removed this Dershowitz' quote as "irrelevant": [1]. Note, WP does not have articles on the Media coverage of North Korea, Media coverage of Sudan or Media coverage of Iran. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 08:28, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • Yes, there's irony here, and it is that in "defending" your position you prove me right once again. Is it really so hard, Humus, to provide context - available at Talk:Modern_anti-Semitism - rather than make all discussion appear like a personal attack on you? As a bit of advice, if you are out to convince everyone of your righteousness, antics and exaggeration will not garner you support. -- Simonides 10:24, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • This is a spurious argument. We have an article on the media coverage of Israel simply because a) various users voted not to delete an earlier incarnation, and b) there is more ongoining global media coverage of Israel than any other country in the world, as is indicated in the introduction to the article. I personally don't think it should be the subject an encylopedia article; it lends itself more to a journalistic treatment. That being said, the current text could indeed also serve as model for other such articles, such US Media coverage of the Gulf War or Media in Russia, for example. I don't object to restoring the article's previous title, but I'd like to keep the Vannunu material as it is an important example of how the media works in Israel. Alternatively, the article can be renamed Media coverage of the Israeli-Arab conflict, but this IMO is not so satisfactory, since the article is primarily about the Occupied Territories. -- Viajero 11:22, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Problem users are grounds to take an article to RfC, Cleanup, or Peer Review - not to VfD. That said, this article could use all of these. Snowspinner 04:02, Jul 6, 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: Just to summarise my position: Rename the article back, and allow the use of extra-topical cases (Vanunu is still media related, right?) to the article. So, I agree with both Humus and Viajero. They are both right. Why then are they fighting? -Stevertigo 04:32, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Everything that's in the news is "media related". Vanunu has nothing to do with the Palestinians and WP has a separate article on him. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 08:28, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • Well, that seems to be your position, but youre being unnecessarily terse and repetitive, and that's often a sign of being incommunicado. Your argument that "everthing in the news is media related" is overly general, and doesnt consider that Vanunu and IPC at both at least "international interest" stories. It would be irrelevant to look at how the media might run "Spider Man 2" movie stories versus "conflict" stories, because one can reasonably say that they are unrelated, and any comparison belongs in a general category. This isnt about Israeli media and the IPC - its about Media and the IPC. That said, it would then depend on the questions/assertions being presented to determine bias, and then deleting is not an answer. Viajero wrote: "When I encountered it about a month ago, I listed it on VfD, which may have not been the ideal response." Sounds like a concession, eh? Both you and Viajero seem to be accusing each other's position and methodology of bias, and while I may simply say that "you are both right," it bears reminding that polarization over specifics like this exaggerates bias: each side tends to be escalatory in their efforts to 'cleanse' the article of "bias," and this in turn is perceived as activism toward a "bias." Im now of a mind that only in rarest cases should we make an accusation of "bias," because the accusation alone causes a biasing effect. This may be an OK course for individuals interested in disruption, but that just wont stand here, and then burnout starts to set in. So, if Humus, you and Viajero need to talk this over one on one, my talk page is wide open. -Stevertigo 16:16, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep - move to cleanup - Wasn't this listed recently? - Tεxτurε 17:20, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, of course. (And I find it interesting that the article's most ardent defender in the previous VFD debates is now listing it for deletion. :) —No-One Jones 22:06, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. -Stevertigo 17:18, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Comment:This is a very inappropriate misuse of VFD. 2. The article should be renamed, and the main culprits (Viajero and Humus) despite their posturing, have both expressed their demand (H) and tacit (V) for renaming it. The real issue is simply the inclusion of apparently outside material, and I have yet to see a good reason for it. Humus was wrong to list it here. Viajero (et al) were wrong to rename it, just to enlarge the scope of the article. 'Nuff said. 8 votes to keep, versus 1 (Humus, apparently) to delete... This is enough of a consensus to stop its outright deletion, as if that was the point at all. I will rename it, and then the article itself can be dealt with.-Stevertigo 17:18, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Move back to Media coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Media coverage of Israel specifically should go to media coverage of Israel if the contributors feel it necessary to include that here. -Sean Curtin 22:07, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Shouldn't be deleted, but really needs to be more balanced. Or at least show both sides separtely in the article. Eskrima 03:58, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)


end moved discussion

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Media_coverage_of_the_Israeli-Palestinian_conflict&oldid=1167215351"