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 delete. this is difficult one. However, it seems that this article inherently breaches the core neutrality policy. An article on UN attitudes to Jews might be OK, but a pastiche of allegations is always going to be original research with an agenda. Do we end up with an article on "allegations of pro-Jewish bias at the UN" to list the counter claims? The debate is moot, NPOV is non-negotiable. (Happy to undelete or userfy to facilitate a merger of anything useable). Scott Mac 19:32, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations of antisemitism in the United Nations[edit]

Allegations of antisemitism in the United Nations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article appears to be a POV fork of Israel, Palestine, and the United Nations and is written in such a way to suggest that the United Nations is antisemitic. At the very least the article should be rewritten so that it reviews the United Nations stances against antisemtism as well as the accusations by some that it is or has been antisemitic. Be in Nepean (talk) 18:15, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added comment Since the title of the article has been reverted to "Allegations of antisemitism in the United Nations" it's necessary to point out that this title narrows the scope of the article to such an extent that it essentially begs the question of whether the UN is anti-Semitic. This narrow scope means the role of the UN in assisting Jewish refugees through the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration cannot be mentioned. Also, the section on the 1940s now focuses on the case of a single delegate who was allegedly anti-Semitic. Why was she anti-Semitic? Because she lobbied against the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine which means the fact that the state of Israel was created by a United Nations resolution is not mentioned as evidence that the UN assisted Jews but the fact that one individual opposed it somehow becomes evidence that the UN itself is anti-Semitic. Also not mentioned are various UN statements against anti-Semitism because that doesn't fit into the scope of the article. Also, the article assumes as a given that opposition to Israel is ipso facto anti-Semitic when in fact the anti-Zionism = anti-Semitism syllogism is heavily contested. The article appears to be part of an ideological campaign to delegitimize the UN because of criticisms the body has made of Israel. Be in Nepean (talk) 20:31, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless heavily rewritten. As it is, the article is a POV fork and seems to be irretrievably biased against the UN. It could theoretically be made into an NPOV discussion of the UN's stances on antisemitism, though. Even that might still fit better as a section of Israel, Palestine, and the United Nations. Bart133 ^{t c @} 18:56, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Certain titles cannot ever become encyclopedic, no matter what's in the article, unless they are titles of art or science written about something else. I expect 9/11 never happened and Bavaria and domestic violence to be redlinks until someone writes a bestseller with that title. This also applies in this case. Changed to No opinion after the title was improved; I still don't like the article and believe it is biased but this might be sorted out with editing. Thanks to Be in Nepean for notifying me about the new development, and self-whack for not checking the article's history before making above comment. --Pgallert (talk) 19:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Object to AfD process The nominator changede the article title, mangled its scope and contents, and then took it to AfD. I have restored the article to its former scope. Any discussion about renaming it or revising its scope should be discussed first, and shouldn't be done in an effort to delete the article (obviously). Nominator has also been canvassing editors whose editing history has been hostile to subjects about Israel and anti-semitism such as user:Bali ultimate. Freakshownerd (talk) 21:26, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Frankly, the grounds for deleting the article are even stronger under the title you've changed it back to. I changed it initially in hopes the article would be salvagable but quickly realized it wasn't. Also, I contacted one editor (not editors), Bali, in hopes he'd be able to help clean the article up. The reasons for deleting this article, as stated in the opening, stand regardless of what it's called and are even stronger given the reversion to the old, POV title. Be in Nepean (talk) 22:15, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article is a content fork from Israel, Palestine, and the United Nations. To be NPOV, it should present both the allegations and the counter-arguments, however that is a content issue so not relevant at AfD. This article is just as permissable as Israel and the apartheid analogy, which is a content fork from Human rights in Israel. Neither is a POV fork, they're both drilling down on a specific content issues. The relevant guideline in both cases is notability. Are the subjects sufficiently notable, independently of their parents, to warrant their own articles? How many high-quality reliable sources are there dealing with the subject of allegations of antisemitism in the UN in depth? At a glance, there seem to be enough, but I could perhaps be convinced otherwise by a breakdown of the sources. It's certainly a notable enough subject that I have heard about it in mainstream news articles relating to meetings like Durban, without having sought out such articles. I'm not sure whether the title is correct, if a title can be found that is more even-handed or specific (given that there are also allegations that the UN, especially the security council, is pro-Israel) then a move to such a name might be preferable. But the subject appears notable, and renaming doesn't require AfD. Ryan Paddy (talk) 22:27, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• The article is a mess essentially the logic for retention would argue for dozens (if not hundreds of articles) in the form of Antisemitism and XXX where x has been accused of "anti-semitism" by advocacy organizations, usually for Israel (the old equation of criticism of Israel with "anti-semitism.") This subject should be handled in Israel, Palestine, and the United Nations from which this is a POV fork. There will be more eyes on that article, there's more space to examine a range of views, and it doesn't have an immediately prejuidical title (really, there should be no Allegations of X forks. Imagine of the array of US Presidency articles alone this would spawn Allegations that Obama is a socialist Allegations that Bush is a fascist and on and on it would go. I was asked to take a look at this -- just don't have the time (or i suppose, the inclination) to attempt to fix this myself at the moment (which would involve a redirect, examining the state of the "Israel, Palestine..." and seeing what, if anything, needed to be placed there)`.Bali ultimate (talk) 12:40, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Not a fork from Israel, Palestine, and the United Nations. Antisemitism has existed long before the the UN and the modern state of Israel were established. Article needs some cleaning up, but that's not what AFD is for. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 14:07, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is clearly a fork from that article, the only argument is whether it's a content fork or a POV fork. Content forks are legitimate, POV forks are not. That article has a section titled "Claims that the UN is antisemitic" that summarises this topic, with this article listed as the "main article" (i.e. content fork) for it. If the article is a content fork, and on an sufficiently independently notable subject, then it should be kept. In my opinion, the title "The United Nations and antisemitism" would be preferable for this article, as it doesn't prejudge the subject matter and includes all POVs in its scope. Ryan Paddy (talk) 23:28, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. as per User:Brewcrewer Im going to make some improvements now.AMuseo (talk) 14:17, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep per Brewcaster.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:33, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Allegations of the UN being impartial through Israel, serving as tribune for anti semitic and racist spokers like the Iranian president and the Malaysian prime minister and taking decisions which are to be seen as anti semitics, are being made all the time. The article is therefore, not a fork.--Gilisa (talk) 16:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment By removing sourced material on anti-Jewish State activities at the U.N. in 1948 from the article I do not believe that User:Be in Nepean is playing a positive role in this discussion.AMuseo (talk) 15:51, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment By adding questionable material during the discussion and inferring something about the UN based on one delegate you are making the article worse. Be in Nepean (talk) 15:53, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Improving an article by adding scholarly material during an AFD is standard procedure. The material I added is about an organized movement. See Committee for Justice and Peace in the Holy Land. and the notes to the section.AMuseo (talk) 17:39, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An organized anti-semitic movement? You're POV-pushing. You also ignore the fact that they were lobbying against the UN's Partition Plan for Palestine ie if they are anti-semitic this is not an example of the UN being anti-semitic but of anti-semites opposing the UN. Be in Nepean (talk) 19:16, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Dealt with far better at Israel, Palestine, and the United Nations#Claims that the UN is anti-Israel. Given its size that article does need splitting, but clearly this soapboxy povfork won't help on that front. Misarxist (talk) 17:51, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Besides the soapbox and pov fork, this is the sort of group that gets coatracky very quickly. And gathering together reports of unrelated incidents withthe implication they're related is synthesis, and we don't want that either. PhGustaf (talk) 20:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Nearly all of the material here is about opposition to Zionism or Israel, not to antisemitism. The small amount that relates to directly anti-Jewish statements or acts is barely encyclopaedic, and if necessary should be included in the parent article. I get the very strong impression that this article is a pointy response to the article Israel and the apartheid analogy (formerly Allegations of Israeli apartheid). RolandR (talk) 18:52, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How much hate towards Israel and Zionism is in rolandr comment!--Mbz1 (talk) 20:48, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. You tell me how much. RolandR (talk) 20:52, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing in the Universe as big as your hater towards Israel. I believe that the users, who display at their user pages hate propaganda images such as crossed out Flag of Israel with the sign "No Israel" beneath it should be topic banned indefinitely because their hater prevents them from improving encyclopedia, and has just the opposite effect.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:03, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mb1 do you believe that criticism of Israel equals antisemitism? RomaC ^TALK 01:17, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Many of the sources explicitly allege antisemitism. To say that some of them are not actually alleged antisemitism because their allegations relate to Israel or zionism would be an original research reinterpretation of their explicit statements. The same poor argument could indeed be made about Israel and the apartheid analogy by saying that the sources aren't actually about apartheid, they're about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I don't see why these allegations about the UN, which are regularly reported in the press, should be treated any differently to allegations about Israel. That's not editing to make a point, it's editing with even-handedness. Ryan Paddy (talk) 19:21, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep per all this above me. It is a very notable subject in Israel, that has been discussed extensively in the Media. Broccoli (talk) 20:56, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep It is a notable subject that has been discussed numerous times at various forums in various contexts.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 21:43, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep a well-defined and documented subject with an article backed by ample reliable and verifiable sources. Alansohn (talk) 22:31, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as POV fork, worthy content covered in Israel, Palestine, and the United Nations. RomaC ^TALK 01:14, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. POV problems can be better resolved if keep them in this sub-article and remove the corresponding segment of text from main article, Israel, Palestine, and the United Nations. This also will improve readability.Biophys (talk) 02:22, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Unambiguous Delete - Extreme WP:POV & WP:COATRACK concerns make this needless fork a dangerous standalone target. Eusebeus (talk) 13:58, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - POV-laden content fork. Carrite (talk) 22:31, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge back to Israel, Palestine, and the United Nations. POV forking is not an approved method of dealing with content disputes. This is not a keep vote. Stifle (talk) 13:01, 27 July 2010 (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.