Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blame Israel first: Difference between revisions

How about renaming it to Criticism of criticism of Israel :-)--Mbz1 (talk) 02:58, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Perceptive, and with more than an element of truth to it, but clearly violates WP:NPOV, WP:SYN etc. Sadly, I don't see any way a neutral article on the subject could be written. A more general article about the use of 'external enemies' to deflect internal criticism might work, if WP:RS is available, but this is just too specific, and likely to degenerate into yet another edit-war. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:46, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and merge salvageable information to one or more of anti-zionism, politics section of relevant countries, Criticism of Israel and perhaps propaganda. Mbz1 cites two sources above that use the phrase "Blame Israel first", one of them is Living in the times of the signs, where the next chapter is "Is the Islamic Messiah connected to the Antichrist" which goes on to offer evidence that this is in fact the case. These are not serious sources, they are invariably polemic and/or below the quality threshold of sources we should use for an encyclopedia. un☯mi 07:27, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Actually all those delete reasons are unjust, and only prove the name of the article "Blame Israel first". For example User:AndyTheGrump writes: " ...but clearly violates WP:NPOV, WP:SYN etc. Sadly, I don't see any way a neutral article on the subject could be written." Then what about that [...] Israel and the apartheid analogy. How this does not violate WP:NPOV, WP:SYN etc? How that is not biased? unomi complains about sources. I used many sources, and there are many more that could be used (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL).user:Sol Goldstone complains that the article is not supported by "secondary sources", but there are at least 70% of secondary sources used as the references in the article. Once again user:Jimbo Wales's opinion that "we have a problem with anti-Israeli bias" proves to be the case.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:13, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is a clear enough difference between this article and 'Israel and the apartheid analogy'. The latter is a topic that has been widely discussed in multiple sources, with the pro and anti positions getting serious attention from well-qualified commentators. This article essentially only presents one POV, and is on a 'topic' that has apparently received little scholarly attention as such. It is a polemic, rather than an encyclopaedic summary of an external debate or controversy. I happen to think, as I suggested earlier, that it actually illustrates a real enough phenomenon, but that in itself doesn't make it suitable as a topic for a Wikipedia article.

As for Jimbo Wales's opinion on this, I think that (a) I'd rather hear that from Jimbo himself, and (b) he'd quite likely also say that his opinion deserves no special weight, and AfDs should be decided on the merits of arguments, not on the notability of contributors. I'd also recommend people to look at what Jimbo actually wrote, rather than rely on your somewhat selective quotation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:20, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One is only left to wonder, if the user really looked at how many sources on the topic blaming Israel there are. So here they are yet another time Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. If so many reliable sources discuss the subject why unreliable wikipedia should not?--Mbz1 (talk) 19:35, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Using Google etc to find sources for a subject one thinks of oneself is WP:OR. Find sources that actually attempt to analyse the question, rather than mention it in passing, and maybe there will be grounds for an article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:44, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are many attempts to analyze the question. Here's one for example. I admit I have not read the book, but here's a review from which it is clear that the author does "analyze" the question, and this book description clearly states "For a surprising number of people, Israel has become a pariah state, a threat to world ... And how can a geographically tiny state of only 6.5 million people be thought to have such a profound effect on world politics? " I would rephrase the question, and ask how for so many wikipedia users Israel has become a pariah state, a threat to world--Mbz1 (talk) 20:05, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is that supposed to be a serious question? How do you know how many Wikipedia users consider Israel a 'pariah state'? Perhaps we need a Why do supporters of Israel think that everyone is against them article too. Meanwhile, I'd suggest you read the book first, and then tell us if it is relevant. This is generally considered the best procedure ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:13, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it is not only me who thinks so. Once again user:Jimbo Wales's opinion that "we have a problem with anti-Israeli bias". BTW Jimbo got scrutinized for stating his opinion.

I will of course eventually read the book, but reading the reviews on Amazon, and the author's summary are good enough for me to know it is a very relevant to the subject. BTW I will really appreciate, if it is possible for you to do, to avoid adding my user name to every edit summary you write. --Mbz1 (talk) 20:37, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What does the phrase "if anything" mean in this: "...I think a cursory look at dozens of articles suggest that, if anything, we have a problem with anti-Israeli bias, not the other way around."? (forgot to sign) 21:33, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Ha-ha-ha, great edit summary :) BTW you were so preoccupied with writing the edit summary :-) that you forgot to sign. What Jimbo said is the sad truth. I just added a new section to the article about a book written by an Italian journalist. In this article the author is described as one of non-Jewish intellectual, who's horrified by the amount of blames and hater Israel gets. The article says the number of those non-Jewish intellectual could be counted on fingers. And wikipedia is a very good mirror of a real world's opinion. Anyway I believe we should end the discussion now because a closing admin would have a very hard time reading it over. If you'd like to discuss it more, let's do it at my talk page please. --Mbz1 (talk) 21:28, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I should have been more precise. The secondary sources aren't parsing the phrase, analyzing it's usage, or why this particular term is notable. The Israel and apartheid analogy has all of that; RS employing the term, analyzing its claims, refuting it, condoning it, etc. The sources here use the phrase, in varying forms, and I get the general aim of the article but it looks like it's built around a phrase that's received usage but not coverage, if that makes sense. The various underlying motives(new anti-Semitism/xenophobia/nationalism etc.) are notable and perhaps some of the material should be incorporated there. There's certainly a push by various political forces to demonize Israel (or India, China, Russia, the U.S., Sparta, etc.) and use it as a scapegoat for their domestic issues. The balance problems are daunting but that's a different issue. Sol (talk) 05:27, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe we should follow due process, which is to allow 7 days for comments on an AfD before closing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:33, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:SYNTHESIS, NPOV. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 22:32, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notability is reflecting in the ample sourcing. Balanced -- I don't see a pov issue here. There is no synth that is at the level of a delete !vote; any such issue, if it exists, can be addressed in normal talk page discussion and editing.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:43, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Strongest possible delete. So radically fails NPOV as to come far closer to propaganda than we can possibly allow; this kind of thing has no legitimate place on Wikipedia, regardless of whose cause it was designed to champion. I predict that if it had been written to support the opposite side in the I/P battles here that the howl for its deletion would be overwhelming and that suggestions would be made to sanction its creator... It would really be refreshing if, just once in a while, editors who write so prolificly on one side of the I/P conflict or the other would occasionaly contribute an article that focuses on the humanity and legitimate predicament of the other side.  – OhioStandard (talk) 11:28, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment What an oppose with threatening me with the sanctions! There's no NPOV issue in the article. All sides presented in the article, and the facts simply speak for themselves. This is not an attack article. This is a defense article, an article that analyzes a phenomena why Israel is always to blame. And about writing "occasionaly contribute an article that focuses on the humanity and legitimate predicament of the other side", guess what? I did: The Mountain of Israeli-Palestinian Friendship;Yoni Jesner and Ahmed Khatib;Arab rescue efforts during the Holocaust and others.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:04, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Late annotation: It should be noted that Mbz1 has since removed the ref to the book Living in the Times of the Signs, whose "The Antichrist Dimension of Islam" chapter I linked to below. Discovery of problematic nature of source courtesy of Unomi, first provided above.  – OhioStandard (talk) 18:40, 29 January 2011 (UTC) )[reply]

To legitimize your title phrase and thesis you cite one book that includes the phrase exactly once, in passing, and another that does just the same, but also includes a chapter on The Antichrist Dimensions of Islam, which advises, "When considering the spirit of the antichrist, one must begin with Muhammed." I really dislike having to say so, but that is simply irresponsible. I'll admit I'm probably reacting much more strongly to this than I otherwise would, though, if I hadn't spent hours reviewing the sources you offered for a previous, now-deleted article, which tried to show that Richard Wagner's first deep love was a Jewess, where you relied in very large part on a completely unreferenced 1896 article in a Jewish home/family publication akin to our modern Readers Digest which neglected to mention that Wagner was 12 or 13 at the time of the relationship it alleged, and that he didn't even reside during those years in the same city where the relationship was supposed to have taken place. Ostensible "sourcing" like this is just extremely discouraging to me... Good on you, though, for the articles you mention that document acts of cooperation and kindness between Jews and Palestinians. It's that kind of cooperation that can end the I/P conflict, if anything can, rather than each side constantly trying to document how they've been wronged and to decry the evil on the opposing side.  – OhioStandard (talk) 15:12, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what Wagner has to do with that, but if you call this source written by Ferdinand Praeger, who is listed in Music_encyclopedia_topics "a completely unreferenced 1896 article in a Jewish home/family publication" I've nothing else to add to the Wagner's subject. About the article in question, you may want to look at the least of external links alone to see the justification of the title.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:30, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't referring to Praeger's 1892 book, which was rife with invention and has long since been discredited. I was referring to your reliance on this ostensible source, from an 1896 edition of The American Hebrew magazine, and apparently taken via translation from some earlier unidentified editon of Allegemeine Zeitung des Judenthums. But you're right that Wagner himself has nothing to do with this present article. Your habit of introducing sources like this has everything to do with it, however, and it's this habit that prompted my comments above.  – OhioStandard (talk) 16:55, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I see, you never bothered to look over the sources presented in this article, but you made your comment because of "my habit"? How about at least trying to assume good faith. If I found a book at google books how should I have known it got discredited? And why in your opinion Jewish sources should not be taken into account? BTW the reference you complained about for this article was removed. It is will be nice, if you at least strike out your comment.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:02, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It'd be much easier for me to assume good faith if I weren't puzzled as to how it is that you don't recall having been presented with just this same information before, on the now-deleted talk page for your Richard Wagner's first love article and in its AfD discussion, at length, and by multiple editors - including a genuine Wagner scholar - and I do recall it. And really? Really? You're going to try to twist my objection to the crap sources you've introduced into allegations of objections to Jewish sources in general? I'm sorry, but I don't know how to have an AGF discussion with someone whose giggle test seems so impaired. Get that looked at, and if you still feel inclined to make ugly suggestions then you're welcome to do so at my talk page. All the best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 18:40, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I wrote 63 articles, and I possibly cannot remember all the sources I used. If I wrote a few articles, or none as somebody did not, then I might have remembered.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:49, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"As somebody did not" would make me all teary if I thought more of those 63 articles; as it stands I'd rather have my article-creation history than yours. You know what, though? I enjoy spirited discussion, but I don't especially like to fight when there's any real rancor involved. Besides, it's hard to want to growl at anyone who can take such breathtaking pictures. Want to kiss and make up at my talk page?  – OhioStandard (talk) 03:25, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear this is the Jesner and Khatib article you created, where you later fought for retaining this wording:

Zakaria Zubeidi,who at that time was a leader of Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades, helped to carry Ahmed's coffin. He acknowledged "...that giving life might be a better way of winning Israeli understanding for the Palestinians' plight than blowing up children on buses."

and fought, threatening with withdrawing the DYK to keep out:

At Ahmed's funeral, Zakaria Zubeidi, then the leader of Al-Aqsa Martyr's Brigades, helped carry the coffin. Of the organ donations, Zubeidi said:"When we heard Ahmed's father decided to donate the organs, we blessed the step ... Despite Jenin's reputation for the suicide bomber and the bomb belt, the people of Jenin camp love life and granted life to five or six children and didn't distinguish whether they were Jewish or Muslim or Christian because our problem is not with the Jewish people as the Jewish people, but with the occupation."

Almost all Many of the articles you create pertaining to A-I crawl through AfD with a large number of issues raised by a variety of editors and invariably they have to be fixed by others. un☯mi 14:12, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are lying and trolling as usually. From 63 articles I created 5 or 6 were nominated on deletion. Only one that had nothing to do with A/I conflict was deleted. I recommend you collapse your comment because it is absolutely irrelevant and has nothing to do with this DR. If you have issues with me, file AE.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:32, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Partisan hackery by someone that should have been removed from the topic area long, long ago. A Wikipedia article is not a platform from which to whine about how one personally feels about the treatment of Jews, supporting one's sentiments by stitching together a hode-podge of quotes of others. Srsly, go blog about it. Tarc (talk) 13:35, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy as essay Seems the prudent and reasonable course. If the user can mark it up into a real article, that is one thing, but it does not appear to meet that criterion at this point. Collect (talk) 13:40, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is a notable topic, and the article is well-referenced to reliable sources. Potential problems with respect to non-neutral point-of-view and perhaps synthesis/original research can be fixed with prudent editing; deletion therefore is unnecessary. Peacock (talk) 15:42, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or merge. Synthesis in current form. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:22, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - POV, Attack nonsense from the same editor that gave us this shenanigans. NickCT (talk) 17:05, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are mistaking. The attack articles are Israel and the apartheid analogy; Judaism and violence and a few dozen more [....] like those. This article is a defense article, not an attack. BTW so called "shenanigans" was kept and read by about 9,000 people on DYK--Mbz1 (talk) 17:13, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It would help if you could quit BAWWWing about other articles that your side of the playing field cannot tolerate. Go ahead and try to AfD either of those if you think your case is strong enough. Tarc (talk) 02:54, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep if "Blame Israel" is discussed as a meme used by Israel's defenders instead of being presented as a factual explanation that discredits any particular critic of Israel. betsythedevine (talk) 17:28, 30 January 2011 (UTC)Delete or Merge to Criticism of Israel. Do many critics of Israel have bad motives? Yes. Can one find examples of stupid or hypocritical criticisms of Israel? Yes. It is still a long jump from these facts to this article's claim that Blame Israel First "is a tendency that prevails in the Arab World, and is prevalent as well among the Western and Israeli far left and at the United Nations." Comparing this article to Self-hating Jew or New anti-semitism, other criticisms of critics of Israel, this article looks even more like a WP:COATRACK display of polemics that favor one side of a question, with examples that support those polemics. To people who say that the article just needs clean-up and should be kept, OK, please clean it up then. We are not doing an AfD for a hypothetical article that could be written with the same article name (although "Israel derangement syndrome" is a more common name for this particular meme based on g-hits), this is an AfD for this article as it exists. betsythedevine (talk) 17:37, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was even worrying, that it took you so long to show up here, and I guess now I could expect to be taking to RFC/U after that trolling of yours. Once again I wrote the article you did not like. But could you at least try to be fair? Where did I compare this article to Self-hating Jew and/or New anti-semitism? I did provide very well sourced opinion pieces that "blame Israel first" mentality might have something to do with antisemitism, but I have never compared this article to New anti-semitism. The article is based on facts. I am far from saying that Israel is always right. She is not, but if Israel was the only country that could not take her turn in sitting in UN security council for human rights, there something wrong with UN, not with Israel. If Obama, while giving the speech in Indonesia blames Israel for new homes built in Jerusalem, while completely ignoring that Indonesia does not allow Israeli citizens to visit the country there's something wrong with Obama, not Israel, If wikipedia could host such articles as Israel and the apartheid analogy there's something wrong with wikipedia not with Israel, if Israel is blamed for ..., but that's enough. No reason to go on. And over all most of "delete" reasons prove the subject of the article --Mbz1 (talk) 18:09, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If you actually want this article to survive AfD, you might do better to demonstrate your ability to write with a NPOV by not making personal attacks on everyone who comments negatively on it, Mbz1. Frankly, everything you've written so far in 'support' of your article has done little other than demonstrate why if any article on the subject could ever be written, it needs to be done by someone with less emotional involvement. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:21, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I mentioned Self-hating Jew and New anti-semitism only as examples to show that, as Jimbo says below, a neutral article can be written on a similar topic. New anti-semitism, for example, discusses the usage and history of that meme--it does not WP:COATRACK a bunch of examples of writers who think new anti-semitism is a valid meme, followed by some examples where criticisms of Israel were demonstrably motivated by anti-semitism. betsythedevine (talk) 19:27, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, Fast POV Pushing and biased article. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 18:44, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - This has nothing to do with me. WP:AAJ and all that. Having said that, I do have some hopefully useful thoughts. First, it is entirely possible, as a general rule, to write a neutral article on topics of the sort covered by this article. Whether this article is that or not, I'm not in a position to say, having only cursorily reviewed it. But deletion is not usually the correct answer to an article that isn't as good as it could be. Second, I see a fair number of problems in this discussion with other irrelevant arguments: for example, the various attacks on Mbz1's alleged partisanship seem mostly false and highly partisan themselves. Let's focus on the article, not the author. Let's focus on the arguments and facts, not the personalities.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:53, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Peacock. Plot Spoiler (talk) 00:00, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per brew and Peacock. Obviously notable and reliably sourced topic. Any NPOV and/or SYNTH issues should be dealt with on the talk page, not by deleting the article. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:19, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete it's a POV screed (whoever wrote it) not treated by any academic work (or non-opinion journalism in serious publications) anywhere as a topic. It's also a fork of the many articles on antisemitism, and suffers from rather glaring OR and SYNTH problems.Bali ultimate (talk) 00:25, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I'm pretty sure we don't have articles like that. Heck, I'm having a hard time coming up with a summary of what the article is about in the first place, it certainly isn't about a phrase. I also find it the two images rather disturbing. How blatant can POV-pushing get around here? --Conti|✉ 14:18, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Out of all the POV debacles in this area, this pretty much takes the cake. Shoplifter (talk) 14:34, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Putting emotions aside let's see what is POV according to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view

To avoid POV one must:

1. Avoid stating opinions as facts. No opinion listed in the article is stated as fact.
2. Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. There is no seriously contested assertions listed in the article stated as fact.
3. Avoid presenting uncontested assertions as mere opinion. All assertions, if any, are all directly stated to the source.
4. Prefer non-judgmental language. All language used in the article is neutral.I am not talking about quoted and directly stated to the sources opinions.
5. Accurately indicate the relative prominence of opposing views. This is an interesting one. What could be opposite views in this particular article? That all the blames Israel gets are justified? But who is to state such a view? Instead of stating it, Israel simply gets blamed. So, here's the paradox of this article: the blames themselves that are well represented in the article, and the opinions that contradict those blames make the article neutral.

So in accordance with wikipedia policy there is POV in the article.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:46, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the 'opposing point of view' to the premise that Israel gets blamed for everything would be the premise that it doesn't. The article is cherry-picking multiple sources to suggest 'blame Israel' is a normal response in the Middle East etc, without providing evidence (from WP:RS) as to how common this is. Yes, I'm sure it happens, but asserting that it is "an attitude found not only in Arab countries, but also in Israel itself, and across the world" seems rather stretching things. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:09, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Like a lot of us, I became aware of this article from a post on Jimbo Wales' talk page, so I paid close attention to Jimbo's comment above that this article should be salvageable. I don't think it is possible at this time, unless there is a major change in the title and framing of the article. For example, it could be titled Allegations of Israel's demonization, perhaps. "Blame Israel first" is a nonstarter. Then you have to be balanced in the lead and be sure to provide a balanced perspective in the text. Otherwise the article will come across as POV synthesis. I suggest that people interested in salvaging the article work toward that goal. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:56, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• The article name has been changed, and now it is simply Blame Israel. The word "Allegations" in the title will not work out. "Blaming Israel" is fact, not allegations. Just above I explained why the article is not POV, but I am very much open to all suggestions and all the help for improving the article except removing well sourced, directly stated to the reliable sources opinions.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:08, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that "Blame Israel" is too clipped to be useful. You need a more explicit title. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:09, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Would you like Criticism of criticism of Israel better?--Mbz1 (talk) 16:13, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Only if we're going to have Criticism of criticism of criticism of Israel. --Conti|✉ 16:15, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • (ed) I'd seriously consider my initial suggestion. Remember that critics of Israel do not view criticism or singling out of Israel as demonization. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:16, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • The word "allegations" in the name you proposed does not work out for me. How about Criticism of Israel:facts and opinions--Mbz1 (talk) 16:32, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • That sounds like the title of an essay and not an encyclopedia article, which is precisely why this should be deleted. --Conti|✉ 18:11, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment In my opinion, the article's neutrality would be improved by describing "Blame Israel" as a meme or slogan used by defenders of Israel instead of showcasing it as the uncontestedly accurate way to describe the motivation behind criticism of Israel. betsythedevine (talk) 17:13, 30 January 2011 (UTC) I made that change to the article's lede and assuming it is accepted, I will change my !Vote above to Keep. betsythedevine (talk) 17:28, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Merge to Criticism of Israel....no more POV than the preponderance of 9/11 conspiracy theory advocacy pages like 9/11 conspiracy theories, September 11 attacks advance-knowledge debate, United States government operations and exercises on September 11, 2001, World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories, 9/11 Truth movement...etc, ad nauseum...all of which are riddled with SYNTH issues far worse than this article has.--MONGO 17:34, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article has nothing to do with 9/11 or conspiracies. Phearson (talk) 17:40, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course the article has nothing to do with 9/11 except Israel was blamed for 9/11 too. User:MONGO simply provided examples of a few other articles, in which "SYNTH issues far worse than this article has".--Mbz1 (talk) 18:15, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Info The lead was re-written, the new proposed name is Blame Israel (Meme), which is fine IMO. So, if there are no other opinions I will move the article to Blame Israel (Meme), and let's please close this DR as "speedy kept" :-)--Mbz1 (talk) 18:15, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The content is still not encyclopedic in the slightest. --Conti|✉ 18:33, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • That would be the proverbial lipstick on the pig. Tarc (talk) 19:19, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even with the recent changes, my delete vote stands. This is a collection of quotes and sources on a theme. That doesn't meet WP:GNG and COATRACK-ing it can't cover the initial OR deficiencies. If this is the standard for what's allowed as an article, editors could create all sorts of POV-pushing coatracks by assembling thematically related quotes and calling it a "meme" (ie, "Obama as socialist meme", "UN as New World Order meme", whatever). Sol (talk) 20:10, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is also the issue of whether this 'meme' (horrible word) actually exists, rather than an 'Israelis (and their supporters) always thinking that the Arabs (etc) blame everything on Israel' meme. The article contains plenty of (cherry-picked) evidence of what supporters of Israel think, but little evidence that the supposed 'blame Israel meme' itself is anything like as common as the article makes out. Until WP:RS can be found that actually discusses this, there are actually no grounds for treating the 'meme' as a real phenomenon at all. If anything, the logic behind the article is that of the conspiracy theory, rather than of a description of observable fact. As I've said before, there is probably some truth to the article's premise, but that doesn't alter the fact that it is OR based on a particular POV. Unless a properly-researched neutral source discussing the subject (the 'meme' as a meme) can be found, this is simply not a fit subject for an encyclopaedia. It needs to be deleted. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:29, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, let me please rephrase your own comment made about different article: We are not reporting the Blame Israel (meme) as fact, and nor are we attempting to asses its validity. All we should reporting is the fact that the issue has been raised in notable places. There are facts, blames and opinions presented together in the article. It should be kept. --Mbz1 (talk) 20:46, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - given the failure to allow this article to develop by the nominator and that the topic meets WP:GNG and WP:NOT. Blame Israel can be broken down to (i) reliable sources describing acts of blaming Israel and (ii) reliable sources describing the topic "blame Israel." This was the same issue in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baby Jesus theft. If you look at the source table here, you can see a division between the two approaches used by the reliable sources. The column "Article Title cont." allows you to sort the news article titles to see what Israel in fact is being blamed for (over time) and to make it easier to locate reliable sources describing the topic "blame Israel." The topic meets meets WP:GNG and WP:NOT and any issues can be resolved over time, given an appropriate amount of time. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 18:40, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Info The article was renamed to Blame Israel (Meme).--Mbz1 (talk) 20:27, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep The article is well sourced and well written. The subject very important and very noteworthy. Scientists, journalist, politicians are all referenced.

--Bobbyd2011 (talk) 10:34, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Does this appelation apply to any other country, "Blame Cambodia", for instance? Chesdovi (talk) 13:20, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we do have Blame Canada, but that's about a song. Qrsdogg (talk) 16:25, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, Chesdovi, but not in the direction you apparently intended: "Accusations of anti-Semitism are a tool used to silence anyone who criticizes Israeli policies. But would any one criticizing the policy of Iran be labeled as anti-Muslim or anti-Persian? Are critics of the Chinese Government routinely described as anti-Chinese? Is condemning the Saudi Arabian government anti-Arab? Surely aggression, military occupation and violations of human and political rights should not be put beyond criticism?"¹ Substitute "anti-Israeli sentiment" for "anti-Semitism" and the same argument applies.  – OhioStandard (talk) 17:01, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above quote is by Palestinian Arab from Gaza (the government of which shells Israel with rockets) Alaa Kullab. He now lives in Sweden, a country with a constantly increasing numbers of antisemitic incidents.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:45, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]