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. First, to dismiss several off-point opinions: The sanctions violation is not grounds for deletion by itself because WP:ARBPIA3's remedy reads "This prohibition may be enforced by reverts, page protections, blocks, the use of pending changes, and appropriate edit filters" - i.e., not by deletion, so I can't follow Epson Salts's "delete" opinion and delete this as an arbitration enforcement action. Peterkingiron's "keep" is just insubstantial.

The remaining opinions are divided about whether this is either an unsourced hoax or a notable topic of discussion in geopolitics. Sadly, editors divide largely along predictable lines, insofar as I recognize the usernames. That being said, Nishidani's sources show convincingly, and so far uncontestedly, that this idea, associated with one Mr. Yinon, has been the topic of substantial discussion in reliable sources. This makes many of the earlier "delete" opinions less convincing - but it does not render them obsolete, as their contention that the current content is of poor quality and based on at best questionable sources is, in turn, not substantially contested.

So, while we don't have formal consensus on the "delete"/"keep" question, I consider this discussion to have established that there is a good case to be made for covering this topic in some shape or form, but that the current content urgently needs cleanup and that a later renomination for deletion might be successful if editors don't address this problem.  Sandstein  10:18, 1 October 2016 (UTC) reply

Yinon Plan

Yinon Plan (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

In it's current for it's libelous, because there is no actual fact Oded Yinon ever existed and this looks like modern version of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Arthistorian1977 ( talk) 21:57, 23 September 2016 (UTC) reply

  • I have made some changes to remove any libelous element and make it more about the article than the person. However, it should be noted that the author self-identifies as Oded Yinon in a respected journal which no-one has challenged. If it were a pseudonym, then it is still OK to call it the Yinon Plan, but we would remain in the dark about who it is. If is is a pseudonym, then clearly we are no longer talking about a living person but a fictitious one and you cannot libel an non-person! If it is a pseudonym, it does not alter the fact that this article has been published in a genuine journal and deleting it would mean that Wikipedia was missing information on something that truly exists which would make it less of an encyclopedia (albeit by just 1 small article).
I have also changed the reference to the Protocols and it is clear that it is not a modern version of it. Firstly, the article has been categorically published in a real journal which no-one disputes. Secondly, my article does not claim it is an official policy but that the article has been written, and that there are those who see that the events in the middle east since 1982 could be following this plan either by coincidence and opportunism or deliberately. I do not make a judgement about this as it is and will always be purely speculative.
I have also taken out some repetition and added a section with a summary of the actions set out in the plan which makes it easier for others to add more details there if they want to.
I strongly believe this article adds something that is missing on Wikipedia and would be hugely disappointed if the page were deleted. Martyn.Preller ( talk) 16:40, 24 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - The editor who created this article and is practically the only contributor to it is not allowed to edit anything related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, per WP:ARBPIA3. This may even qualify for speedy deletion because of that, but I am not versed enough in speedy deletion policy to say for sure. Epson Salts ( talk) 18:33, 24 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep If, as Arthistorian1977 states, there is no such person as Oded Yinon, then the article cannot possibly libel him. As it happens, there is indeed such a person, and the article does not libel him. The original text appeared in Kivunim, a publication of the World Zionist Organisation. It was translated into English by Israel Shahak, published by the Association of Arab-American University Graduates, and was available on Amazon. [1] I have a copy on my shelves. The subject is notable, and at the time of its publication (1982) was widely discussed in the context of Israel's attack on Lebanon. Many books cited the plan, and Shahak's translation. This is a valid and important topic, it is a significant oversight that an article did not previously exist, and we should certainly keep it regardless of who initially created the article. RolandR ( talk) 22:58, 24 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment This book (p94) appears to be a reliable source by an author who has seen the original and checked up on "Oded Yinon". He is described as a "senior Israeli Foreign Affairs Official and journalist for the Jerusalem Post". He also published an academic article in the same year (which provides no more personal information about him). The reasons for proposing deletion are not valid, but the article is very poor at the moment and I'd like to see suggestions for improving it before voting. Zero talk 00:16, 25 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Delete I am changing my vote from noncommittal to delete with some reluctance, as most of the delete arguments presented on this page are unconvincing. To mention some: (1) Oded Yinon never existed (dirt easy to disprove), (2) Yinon's article never existed (likewise false), (3) Yinon's article is antisemitic (huh?), (4) our article is antisemitic (so fix it), (5) Yinon was non-notable (irrelevant — many important works even have unknown authors), (6) Shahak was <insert favorite nasty words> (the old shoot-the-messenger technique, nah). Having read several other of Yinon's articles, I don't have the least doubt that he wrote much as in Shahak's translation; it would have been perfectly in character. So here is why I am voting to delete: Yinon's article's only lasting notability is that it is presented as some sort of official blueprint for Israeli policy, but nobody has come up with a reliable source that Yinon had any influence on policy. As far as we can show with reliable sources, it was just some ephemeral article appearing in a magazine. Nor do I see enough sources to sustain a narrative about the reception and reaction to the article. I could change my mind if someone came up with a better source than I've seen so far. Zero talk 12:40, 30 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 04:03, 25 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 04:03, 25 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 04:03, 25 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment What is the argument for deletion here? Arthistorian1977 raised the issue of libel, but that is easily dealt with by removing the offending material, which has apparently been done. Epson Salts says it was created in contravention of WP:ARBPIA3, but according to that page it is supposed to be enforced by "reverts, page protections, blocks, the use of pending changes, and appropriate edit filters", not page deletions (or, to put it less legalistically – the ARBCOM's intention appears to be to prevent new editors from making further edits, rather than removing their good-faith contributions after the fact).
It seems to me that if this is a modern-day version of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, then it's probably notable and something we should cover appropriately (i.e. in line with WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE). From some quick research it looks like it is indeed widely cited by anti-Zionists/conspiracists, but I'm hesitant to commit to a keep !vote on an area I don't know much about. Joe Roe ( talk) 12:24, 25 September 2016 (UTC) reply
So, you think Arbcom's intent was to prevent such users from adding any new material (good faith or not) in existing articles, but it was fine with letting them create new articles? I'm sorry, but that sounds like wikilawyering of the worst kind, that doesn't make any sense. But I'll ask for clarification. Epson Salts ( talk) 14:51, 25 September 2016 (UTC) reply
No, I think ARBCOM perhaps did not foresee deleting decent content purely because it was created by a new editor. I'm willing to be convinced this particular article isn't decent or salvageable. But I don't think your accusation of "wikilawyering of the worst kind" is particularly warranted, given that I've abstained from !voting and explicitly said I wasn't sure about any of it. Please remember that AfD is a venue for discussion, not a battleground. Joe Roe ( talk) 16:32, 25 September 2016 (UTC) reply
The article is still not supported by any reliable sources. For example, statements like this "the ideas set out in this article were largely taken by successive Israeli governments since 1982" are quite bold and require verifiable source. Arthistorian1977 ( talk) 13:16, 25 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Quite true, but again an argument for cleanup rather than deletion. I'd invite you to either source or remove the statement you've identified as problematic. Joe Roe ( talk) 16:32, 25 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Possible keep I do not see what is wrong with this article. However, I am not qualified to judge its accuracy. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:14, 25 September 2016 (
  • Delete: This article does not contain a single reliable source. Not a one. Nothing points to the notability of the subject of this article. conspiracywatch.info? Seriously? No More Mr Nice Guy ( talk) 01:19, 26 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep This article is compliant with the general notability guideline. The article should be further improved, but there is no good reason to delete it. The fact that the article was created by a new editor (who was not aware that new editors are not permitted to create new articles in the I/P topic area), does not imply we should delete good-quality content that passes the notability bar. Ijon Tichy ( talk) 18:56, 27 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep As per Ijon Tichy. If the sticking point is that the creator is not allowed to edit in the IP area (which they were in good faith unaware of) move it to the userspace of someone who is, let them have a look over it, and they can then take responsibility, but I dont think this is necessary. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 15:03, 28 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • note that the "translator" of this purported article, the late Israel Shahak, was notorious for aggressively anti-Semitic interpretations of Jewish and Israeli texts widely cited by the anti-Semitic fringe. Here: [2] is an article on Shahak by Werner Cohn. Here is a typical Shahak "fact": "both before and after a meal, a pious Jew ritually washes his hands....On one of these two occasions he is worshiping God... but on the other he is worshiping Satan..." [3]. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 21:38, 28 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Note on sources
  • source # 1. globalresearch.ca the website of Canadian conspiracy theorist Michel Chossudovsky
  • # 2.Conspiracy Watch, a website with which I am not familiar
  • # 3. Hani Ramadan a radical Islamist
  • # 4. Roger Garaudy a notorious Holocaust denier
  • # 5. self-sorurced to Israel Shahak
  • # 6. a purported copy of this purported plan by the conspiracy theorist who brought you source # 1. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 21:48, 28 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as an antiIsrael hoax hoax. I have tagged this page as a hoax. Zero reliable sources have been found for the existence of this alleged article, none are on the page. The sources on the page are conspiracy theorists and notorious anti-Semites and anti-Israel activists. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 21:56, 28 September 2016 (UTC) reply
I removed your tag. The article is not a hoax. Above I posted a reliable source that gives the full citation including the Hebrew title. There was also at least one review in an academic journal. The aspect of Yinon's article that historians can argue about is the extent to which it matched Israeli policy rather that being just one journalist's opinion. There is no reason at all to believe that the article didn't exist. I found several later articles of Yinon in the Jerusalem Post that show a consistent attitude, though nothing so wide-ranging as this. So far I see nothing to convince me to change my non-vote here. Zero talk 00:10, 29 September 2016 (UTC) reply
I also found a letter of Oded Yinon in Commentary (Dec 1986) which is entirely consistent. After calling the "territory-for-peace" concept a "folly" and a "myth" that is "now dead", he ends mysteriously with "In the coming years, however, we are going to see a totally different Israeli policy..." (ellipsis in original). Zero talk 02:34, 30 September 2016 (UTC) reply
30 September 2016 (UTC)Card1&Daf=2 Here is proof that the article existed. Zero talk 08:54, 30 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Note that Oded Yinon was deleted as non-notable. Non-notable persons generally write non-notable things. Extraneous, WP:BLUDGEON material discourages editors from joining AFD discussions. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 09:19, 30 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Although this is not the right forum, I'll also note that if you want to know what Shahak wrote about anything you have to read his words and not trust the reviews written by his enemies. While Cohn might want us to think that Shahak said that Jews worship Satan, what Shahak actually wrote is that the prayer is intended to confuse Satan so that he is distracted from his evil ways for a moment. I have no idea whether this has any basis in fact, but I do know that the idea of confusing Satan occurs in many religions. Zero talk 00:59, 29 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Note that Werner Cohn cites the Satan comment as an exact quotation from Shahak's book. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 21:34, 29 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Yes, but Cohn removed the remainder of the sentence, which is "who likes Jewish prayers and ritual acts so much that when he is offered a few of them it keeps him busy for a while and he forgets to pester the divine Daughter". He is discussing a kabbalistic interpretation and by "daughter" he refers to this. Zero talk 00:43, 30 September 2016 (UTC) reply
In other words, you admit that Shahak did write that "both before and after a meal, a pious Jew.... is worshiping Satan..." but Shakak qualifies this by stipulating that such worship effectively appeases Satan. This is a falsehood, an anti-Semitic falsehood. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 09:11, 30 September 2016 (UTC) reply
It may indeed be a hoax in the sense that Shahak's misleading mis-translations and malicious, often bizarre, misinterpretations of Hebrew texts are described as falsehoods or as libel by RS. At most, this was a minor flurry created by an unreliable man notorious for his hatred of Israel and Judaism. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 14:06, 29 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Note that no one appears to have taken the trouble to make a second (that is, a reliable) translation of this allegedly notable article. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 14:09, 29 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Congratulations on learning how to use wikilinks. Zero talk 00:50, 30 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Comment. Technically, as Epson Salts argued, this could be deleted since the editor, in good faith, brokeARBPIA500#30. There is, in short, a formal flaw. The rest of the objections here are neither here nor there, except for Zero's point that it was ephemeral. Well, it apparently has had an impact throughout the Arab world, though at the time largely in Lebanon, and a good many publications cite it and comment on various aspects in the context of Israeli and neocon policy debates as they later developed. E.M. Gregory has created large numbers of articles on terror events, by showing they are mentioned over a week or a month and thus satisfy multiple sourcing and notability. By that criterion, he should vote for its retention, to be coherent policy wise. This article has been mentioned for three decades in numerous sources, eg.

In terms of pure policy, it probably should be deleted per Epson Salts. In terms of the fact that it has reverberations, being cited at the time by the Wall Street Journal, being echoed by Joseph Kraft, perhaps reflecting or influencing Ariel Sharon's approach to the region, and references to it perdures in the scholarly literature, I agree with Roland's estimation that we need an article on it. Nishidani ( talk) 17:09, 30 September 2016 (UTC) reply

  • Comment: I don't think it is practical to delete the article per WP:ARBPIA3#50/300, because the topic it self is notable and someone will just recreate the article. I assume the creator now understands that he can no longer edit this article until he reaches the 30/500 requirement. One might say, that this is not a complete violation, beucase he only mainly translated the article
With that said, I think the current state of the article is awfull. The article was translated from the French Wikipedia, but there are some problems with the French article. As it seems, the French article was created by an IP user, but expanded by an alledged pro-Palestinian, who wrote many sections, with no sources, except for one source he added, referring to an anti-Zionist radical Islamist preacher in Switzerland. The unsourced sections he added seem to have a lot of support for the theory and as mentioned before, mostly unsourced. While sources were added to this article, still there are many unsourced sentences, which seems to display a very strong POV here and makes it look more like an essay rather than an encycloped article. The article should be completely re-written and all of its POV and unsourced content should be removed immidiately.-- Bolter21 ( talk to me) 22:51, 30 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Point taken. If no one objects, I will rewrite it this afternoon according to a dozen different sources and show how it would look were it wikified. It should only take an hour, and then people can judge whether it's irretrievable or not. Nishidani ( talk) 07:05, 1 October 2016 (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/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Yinon_Plan&oldid=1069196187"