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. Consensus is that this is a WP:CFORK of Legitimacy of the State of Israel, which is about the same topic, and has other problems. Sandstein 14:35, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arab rejectionism[edit]

Arab rejectionism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

The article has been nominated by Pincrete I have messaged the editor to complete the AfD Lightburst (talk) 19:08, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have completed the AfD posting. No opinion on the substance of the proposal, but editors can judge for themselves. BD2412 T 23:43, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 19:08, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 19:09, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nominators rationale The article is little more than half-a-dozen random examples of use of a term which - while it may be regularly used in the Isr-Pal context - is not the subject of study in its own right and therefore not suitable as a WP topic. There are many word conjunctions, which are vaguely critical, used by one side to characterise the position of the other, Russian intransigence, European bureauocracy, Turkish sabre-rattling, American aggression may also be simarly used terms in particular contexts. The definition in the lead appears to be WP:OR, and necessarily so since I could not find any source defining the term. It is not even very neutral OR, since the term appears to be largely used by pro-Israel sources to negatively characterise the Arab non-recognition of Israel. The term might well be apt to be used within one of the Isr-Pal articles, but does not justify its own article IMO. Pincrete (talk) 09:24, 16 September 2020 (UTC) Apologies for messing up the initial nomination and thanks to Lightburst. [reply]

I am reluctant to get drawn into the time-sink of articles on this conflict, but surely this topic is covered in better context and in a more neutral way elsewhere? Phil Bridger (talk) 09:07, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: While there are a lot of resources on this topic - and this Youtube video gives a brilliant summary of the history from the Balfour Declaration of 1917, this article does not do that, nor does it have any particular depth or substance on this topic. It is simply WP:CHERRYPICKING ... -- Whiteguru (talk) 11:46, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Whiteguru: the video you linked to is packed with anti-Palestinian propaganda, presenting an out-of-context narrative and a number of straight fabrications. Onceinawhile (talk) 15:05, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the article is a combination of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. The article's starter was E.M.Gregory, an editor who was blocked as a sockpuppet. Around the same time, an editor who often edited in tandem with Gregory was perma-blocked by the WMF. I reflect on all of the AfDs which were compromised by E.M.Gregory and his sockmaster's involvement. But I digress. Lightburst (talk) 12:45, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Meet WP:GNG like Whiteguru said there is a lot of sources on the topic and the WP:DELETIONISNOTCLEANUP --Shrike (talk) 13:43, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  What is the difference between the topic of this article and that of "Legitimacy of the State of Israel", apart from this one having a rather pejorative word in its title? Phil Bridger (talk) 16:49, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Phil Bridger, Some would consider the to question the "Legitimacy of the State of Israel" a pejorative too. Its really depends on your POV Shrike (talk) 13:12, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  But there's nothing pejorative, or prejudging the issue, about the title "Legitimacy of the State of Israel". It is a perfectly neutral title that does not depend at all on your POV. If the title was "Illegitimacy of the State of Israel" then of course it would not be a neutral title. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:53, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not at all notable, in fact doubtful whether it even exists as an independent thing, to the extent it does then it can be covered in other articles. If I put up an article called "Jewish (put something negative sounding here)", what do you think would happen?Selfstudier (talk) 16:59, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Daniel Pipes is a fringe theorist, so any discussion of the notability of this topic ought to disregard (or, at least, seriously discount) his views on the matter, which are currently reproduced in the article. No comment on notability in general. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 23:28, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Palestinian ([1], [2],[3]) / Arab ([4] [5], [6], [7]) is a long standing concept and field of study. The Arab/Palestinian rejection of compromise dates back to the earliest phases and persists to this day in some Arab regimes (e.g. Syria) that reject even the existence of Israel. Vici Vidi (talk) 06:42, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

None of the sources given say WHAT it is. That the term is used, usually by those who wish to characterise the Arab position as unreasonable, as do some of these examples, is not doubted by me. That it is a subject in its own right, independent of issues such as the legitimacy of Israel, or history of attempts at diplomatic settlement, I DO doubt. The present article does not even attempt to be what you claim - a history of Arab rejection of compromise proposals - it simply quotes 5 random uses of the term, most of which coincidentally point to the speaker effectively saying "it's their own fault". I might find 100s of examples of Brexiteers speaking of "European intransigence", that would not make "European intransigence" a topic. Pincrete (talk) 08:26, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, some countries reject the existence of Israel. That is covered in the article that I asked Shrike about above, "Legitimacy of the State of Israel". Why do we need a second article about the same subject, but just devoted to one of the points of view? Phil Bridger (talk) 17:48, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arab rejectionism predates (1920 or even further back) the creation (1948) of the state of Israel by a few decades. It is also wider than just denying the existence of Israel, encompassing also a rejection of compromises that don't involve the recognition of Israel. Vici Vidi (talk) 06:49, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What people appear to be arguing, is that 'Arab rejectionism' is the pro-Israeli term for Arab attitudes to both the possibility in the past, or actuality since 1948 of a Jewish state of Israel - the Arabs don't want it at all under any circumstances, which is hardly news to anyone, but apparently needs a term to characterise it. But no source provides any definition either of the term, nor who uses it (exclusively non-Arabs AFAI can see). That the term is used as a mildly perjorative, mildly dismissive term is not in doubt. If it exists as an area of study at all - which I doubt - the current article certainly isn't it, which has an WP:OR'd definition and 5 or 6 random examples of use.Pincrete (talk) 08:43, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pincrete, Here for example source that specifically discuss the term https://books.google.com/books?id=HRttDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT110 Shrike (talk) 09:31, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, it does not discuss the term, but uses it for the concept of non-recognition of Israel, which is covered by the article that I have already linked several times. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:16, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Concur that the source neither discusses nor defines the term - it uses it to characterise what the pro-Israel source sees as the non-constructive Arab attitude to Judea and Samaria, which the source claims simply cannot by definition be 'occupied'. If the article were about the term, it might make sense, if it were about the history of non-negotiation by Arab entities, it would be merely a 'loaded' and perjoratively titled article which largely reproduced the content of better articles, but what we have is 5 or 6 random examples of use of a term, supported by a non-neutral and WP:OR definition. Pincrete (talk) 11:49, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, a notable concept with extensive sourcing. I find Benny Morris writing The Rejection in New Republic as particularly convincing.--Hippeus (talk) 11:21, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  There still hasn't been an answer to my question about why we should have two articles on the same topic. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:53, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  See above. Vici Vidi (talk) 06:49, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  See what above? The only thing I see that's even bearing on the possibility is one keep proponent's dislike of the other article's title, and that's a complete non-starter: Wikipedia does not maintain multiple copies of articles on controversial subjects, each tailored to one faction or another's prejudices. Ravenswing 22:36, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - as per Lightburst the article violates OR and SYNTH and is more of a POV-pushing essay than anything else. Sowny (talk) 11:08, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The article clearly violates OR and SYNTH as others have already stated. Plus, it's already covered in the other that people have cited. A brief mention that the idea pre-dates the creation of Israel is perfectly fine. You don't need a separate article for it. That said, I see no evidence it predates Israel anyway. Especially with quotes in the article like "Daniel Pipes regards the question "Should Israel exist?" as the "core issue" of the Arab–Israeli conflict. According to Pipes, "most Arabs at most times have emphatically replied with a "no." This attitude—what I call rejectionism—stubbornly holds that the Jewish state must be destroyed, with its inhabitants either subjugated, exiled or killed." Although, I do acknowledge that someone else in the article says "Arab rejectionism is responsible for having made the murder of Jewish civilians into a persistent feature of Arab policy that has been ongoing since the 1920 Nebi Musa riots", but from what it sounds like it is a 100% personal reading of whoever wrote that to call the murder of Jewish civilians in the 20s "Arab rejectionism", and it's meant more in the general way of "Arab's reject Jews." Compared post creation of Israel where it seems to be more of an actual idea, that's specifically put forth by Arabs as one. So, like I said, mentioning it in the other article is perfectly fine. It's not like articles about states or ideas don't have brief mentions of things that predate or influenced them anyway and I see zero reason not to do so here. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:41, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: (a) "The article is little more than half-a-dozen random examples" says it right there; and (b) I'm waiting for any keep proponent to explain why it is necessary to keep this article when it's been made plain that there is already another article on the same damn subject. Ravenswing 13:22, 24 September 2020 (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.