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. The arguments given for deletion were stronger and more policy-based than the reasons for retention. Moreover, there is no way to ascertain where to move due to a lack of consensus of where to move to, plus the concerns given on the deletion side as far as POV and synthesis are concerned. –MuZemike 22:58, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zionist editing on Wikipedia

[edit]

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

Article is basically a restatement of one source, with no evidence that the information within that source is particularly relevent outside of itself (i.e. independent coverage). A single news editorial uses the phrase "Zionist editing on Wikipedia" and someone appears to be trying to build an article about it. In addition, this is navel gazing of the worst kind, and really has no place in Wikipedia as an article. Jayron32 05:55, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - self-reference, no chance of being neutral.--Commander Keane (talk) 06:40, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is an article on it in the Guardian, too, but yeah, this is marginal. Plus shouldn't the title be the name of the course or something? ErikHaugen (talk) 06:45, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Huh, I see this really is the name of the course, or at least a translation of it? I think wp:N is satisfied for this course, if barely. ErikHaugen (talk) 18:49, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The course booklet on the article page gives the name as merely "Wikipedia". The addition of "Zionist editing" is by the various media outlets who reported about it, and they too were using scare quotes. Poliocretes (talk) 19:07, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - this page contains something like "zionist editing" as part of the title, doesn't it? I don't read Hebrew, someone please tell me if I'm wrong, I think this is the crux of this debate given wp:N is satisfied. If the title of this article is made up by the original author and not the title of the course, then I would potentially support a merge (not redirect). ErikHaugen (talk) 20:47, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment The title of the article was taken from the Haaretz articel which generated the first draft of this. (I wrote it.) I have been slammed for not using 'scare quotes' and I'd be happy for these to be inserted if that will satisfy people. Aa42john (talk) 20:51, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well, if that is the name of the course, and the article is about the course, then it would be weird to put scare quotes around it. ErikHaugen (talk) 20:52, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        But the only source that gives it that name is "Yesha News" (your link above), which is unsigned and hardly a WP:RS. Besides, the first sentence of the article is "Zionist editing on Wikipedia ... is a phenomenon which some ...", so the article is hardly about a course, is it? It borrows from this single event (whose title is disputed at best) to supposedly describe something far wider. The title is completely inappropriate, a blatant WP:POV. Poliocretes (talk) 21:08, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A separate article is not what's required here. Move the material (and sources) concerning Zionist editing to the appropriate article, Yesha Council (according to the Grauniad), since this is the organisation reportedly engaged in this activity (Israel Sheli is also mentioned, but a redlink suggests it may not be notable). Further, I can't tell from those in the current article because I don't read Hebrew, but some sources from the organisation(s) involved might be useful. It doesn't sound (again from the Grauniad) like they're embarrassed or coy about importing POV into WP. --PLUMBAGO 08:02, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - if we delete, then this may prove the point raised by the article. (I think the general issue is important - as you will know if you have tried to edit articles referring to e.g. Jerusalem's status or Israel's boundaries or attacks on Gaza: or even this one - see its 'history'.) The article needs expanding so it covers more examples than the current one. --Aa42john (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:52, 19 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Comment - The sources describe a deliberate and open (if misguided) attempt to shape the content of WP - are there, as you suggest, really more examples of this in reliable sources? Or are you referring to the more loosely organised efforts of either individuals or small groups of editors? If you mean the latter, this probably the case for most contentious issues in WP, so is unremarkable. --PLUMBAGO 11:17, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Self reference. Plus a course with 100 students is not notable for it's own article. Should be merged into Yesha Council. Marokwitz (talk)

Comment - To be fair, the story has been picked up and published by at least one notable newspaper in the UK, so it goes a little beyond "self reference". --PLUMBAGO 11:17, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I proposed to merge the content into Yesha Council and not delete it altogether. Marokwitz (talk) 12:05, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Criticism of Wikipedia. Not notable by it self, but can be mentioned as one instance of politically motivated editing. Yesha Council is an option.Sjö (talk) 12:56, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - First the CAMERA invasion and now this, it's honestly only a matter of time before this becomes notable as a standalone topic, IMO. But personal opinions shouldn't drive editing, and unless/until sources are found that examine the whole of the topic, we ourselves can't stitch together separate events and call it "Zionist editing on Wikipedia" due to WP:OR and WP:SYNTH policy. Tarc (talk) 13:15, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not only that it is completely non-encyclopedic, this article isn't true whatsoever. Broccoli (talk) 17:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What you think is "the truth" is irrelevant. Per WP:V; "verifiability, not truth". Tarc (talk) 19:07, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

* I will fight the cynical "not truth" platitude launched by Messrs. Sanger and Wales to my dying breath. VERACITY + VERIFIABILITY + NPOV. Carrite (talk) 01:41, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A POV extravaganza. Don't let this happen to you. Carrite (talk) 18:56, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm surprised this wasn't speedied as self-referential. The article Yesha Council already has a section about this, so this article is a WP:POVFORK given its name, particularly since the Haaretz article used as the primary source has the phrase "Zionist editing" in scare quotes, indicating that its usage is not generally accepted. --Martin (talk) 06:14, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, obviously. Non-notable event that generated little media attention blown up out of proportion by Wikipedians who want to highlight it. Among other thing, the article is against WP:1E, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:SYNTH and WP:BLP (the line that mentions living persons without a reliable source). —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 08:30, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
comment - as one of the two wikipedians that gave the lecture - the article is grossly misrepresenting the event, starting from misspelling my name and mistaking my title and experience and ending with a clear NPOV violation of putting me and Amichai interests on the same line with My Israel's ones. We went there to give a lecture and a crash course about how to edit on Wikipedia, talking about half the time about NPOV, notability issues etc. The course's point was to teach people how to join the Wikipedia community as important contributors - not as political ones. Havelock (talk) 11:07, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete according to WP:NOT#NEWS. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 16:05, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep very notable article that can be expanded by many reliable sources.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:07, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in anything like form at inititation of this afd For what is there currently, than Yesha Council is probably the appropriate place and there is something said there already. There is the like of the CAMERA incident which means that something could be constructed looking at how multiple groups have sought to recruit Wikipedia editors. However, until this is sufficiently developed to justify a WP:Summary style-type split then in should be lumped with other Hasbara in that article. If there is enough about stuff targeted at Wikipedia specifically to justify an article on Zionist efforts against us, then there needs to be care to avoid WP:SYN in connecting several incidents to build a pattern that is not specifiically described in the sources. I can't helping feeling that there must be some academic sources on the trend of political groups wanting to use Wikipedia to advance their ideas and this might justify a broader article on the whole issue not just covering Zionist efforts.--Peter cohen (talk) 17:19, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:28, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:28, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Havelock Avi (talk) 17:32, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Yesha Council, following the CAMERA precedent. One swallow does not a summer make; some in the press love to speculate and generalize this incident to "Zionist editing on Wikipedia" in general, but Wikipedia itself should not succumb to suspicion and intuition over reliable sources. Quigley (talk) 17:46, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - if anything, add a few of the sources to Criticism of Wikipedia. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 18:24, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Undecided~~ For now, we have a number of sources on the Yesha Council issue, we also have sources on the CAMERA affair, there may be others that I am not aware of. The self-reference argument does not seem applicable as the article uses independent sources exclusively. u n☯mi 18:26, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Quigley. Aside from that the name is simply awful. At least the Haaretz article put 'Zionit editing' between quotes. None of this here. Cower before the evil Zionists, puny mortals! Poliocretes (talk) 19:29, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Move and rewrite as Organised political editing on Wikipedia including this, CAMERA, the EEML stuff, and any other occurrences I'm unaware of. --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 20:35, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The key difference between CAMERA and EEML is that CAMERA was an external group that entered Wikipedia, while EEML was an internal group of existing wikipedians who decided to communicate externally.The EEML was not news worthy, so WP:1E applies to some degree. --Martin (talk) 22:10, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The organizer of EEML entered Wikipedia the day after the Bronze Nights, so an argument can be made that it was political from the start. Sourcing may however be insufficient to write about EEML. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 18:16, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The EEML included Romanian, Ukrainian, Russian, Latvian, Estonian and Polish editors who were all Wikipedians before they joined the EEML, so I don't see any real correlation between the events of the Bronze Nights that occurred in 2007 and the creation of the EEML in 2009. However some say that external organisations like SAFKA do have people editing Wikipedia according to the organisation's published political manifesto, thus there is an argument that SAFKA has more in common with CAMERA, than EEML does. So certainly SAFKA could be added to an article about political groups editing Wikipedia given the right sourcing. --Martin (talk) 20:24, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Both SAFKA, CAMERA and EEML fit well under Organised political editing on Wikipedia. There are no published sources for EEML, though. I do know of a couple published sources on organized politically motivated editing in German Wikipedia. After all, that's what some want to introduce here, too. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 13:46, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that the EEML fits. Unlike the EEML, both SAFKA and CAMERA are organised committees with a formal published charter or manifesto, CAMERA being legally incorporation as a Non-profit organization for tax reasons, while SAFKA's status as a tax entity appears to be more nebulous; they probably have some source of funds to maintain its activities. At the very least SAFKA members self fund their public protest actions. EEML on the other hand, had no organisational structure, no charter, and no funds. In fact you could probably put 3 EEMLers in to a room and get 4 opinions. it was simply a maillist a disparate group of Wikipedians joined in order to bitch about other Wikipedians and canvas AfD's. --Martin (talk) 20:14, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Per Andrensath above. u n☯mi 20:44, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Per Andrensath above. The current title makes me cringe; even if it's kept perfectly neutral I can't shake the connotations of "The vast Zionist conspiracy to steal our wikis!" and it would be source of conflict. Organised political editing on Wikipedia is a good, neutral title and there is enough material/incidents on it for an article. Sol Goldstone (talk) 21:59, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can you cite some usable examples of non-Zionist organised political editing on Wikipedia? (EEML was rejected above as receiving no commentary outside of Wiki) It wouldn't be very neutral to have an article with that title that only included Zionist examples.

Quigley (talk) 23:32, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add more as I find them :Scientology,Wikiscanner covers Congress and the CIA, there's the Israeli Foreign Ministry(haven't seen anything except from EI on this so extra verification is probably a good call)Sol Goldstone (talk) 00:25, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's always the JIDF but most of their organised efforts on Wikipedia have been just concerned with the article about themselves and its not absolutely clear whether its just one guy and his socks doing the work or whether there's a bunch of meatpuppets involved who only become active when they receive alerts.--Peter cohen (talk) 13:58, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand it if possible. This is a very interesting perspective about organized ideological and/or political editing of Wikipedia articles (it happened before by CIA, corporations etc). Besides, the article is pretty well referenced.--Tussna (talk) 22:45, 20 August 2010 (UTC) — Tussna (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Correct me if I'm mistaken, but aren't you referring to the cases of WikiScanner finding that individual IPs belonging to corporations, government agencies, etc. made edits for which they would have a conflict of interest? Those are not examples of organised if political editing. Quigley (talk) 23:32, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(another) comment - you're talking about merging the article or renaming it to something of the likes of 'organized editing' etc. but can some one please show me where does it says that this is an organized editing effort? The course was only an organized seminar about how to edit Wikipedia. Are there any evidence that there is an attempt (never mind actual execution) to organize and\or coordinate the actual editing? All I showed them was how to edit - the decisions regarding how, when, what and where (not to mention whether they like to edit) is every person's own to make. This is not an organized editing effort. Havelock (talk) 09:50, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To quote the Haaretz article on this: 'The organizers' aim was twofold: to affect Israeli public opinion by having people who share their ideological viewpoint take part in writing and editing for the Hebrew version, and to write in English so Israel's image can be bolstered abroad.' Combined with the hot-air balloon trip prize mentioned by both Haaretz and the Grauniad, which implies a degree of WP:Outing, in that there has to be some way to prove which meatspace individual made certain edits for the prize to be awarded, this certainly is an organised editing effort. --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 13:09, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'The organizers' refers to the convention, and there is no indication that after the convention there is any attempt to organize or coordinate the contributions. Even with the contest it's a leap - much more logical to think that it will conform to the standard way of wiki contests (at least at Hebrew Wikipedia) where entrants need to submit their articles to judgement by their selected wikipedian peers. To imply that some one is organizing the actual editing is original research, at the very least until any rules of the contest are to be published (after all for now all we have is a deceleration that such a contest will come to pass, but no date or specifics). Havelock (talk) 15:57, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand it if possible. Important topic that needs article of it's own. Tec15 (talk) 14:40, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there is an article on this in The Guardian, suggesting notability (precedent dictates that media coverage constitutes notability), furthermore this is a fairly reliable source from which to reference the article. Regards, Mtaylor848 (talk) 16:45, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, the article could do with expanding, but that shouldn't be too difficult. Mtaylor848 (talk) 16:47, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ANTICIPATION. A course on how to edit Wikipedia is not inherently notable, and most such courses (there have been college courses teaching students to edit; a course for folks at the NIH on how to edit wikipedia; a course at the NY public library to teach library patrons how to become editors) do not have wikipedia articles. Mention of this course belongs, if anywhere, at Yesha Council, where there's already a section on this topic. If there turns out to be persistent media coverage that would make this course independently notable, it would be easier to rewrite the thing from scratch than to work with what's there already, because the current article is absolutely horrendous and a crime against WP:NPOV. Cordelia Vorkosigan (talk) 18:05, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's now made the New York Times. Dramedy Tonight (talk) 21:31, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rename A NYT article ^^ adds even further to reasons to keep it. -184.32.65.142 (talk) 02:51, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: is that NYT link a blog or article?--Commander Keane (talk) 03:39, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a blog named "The Lede" by Robert Mackey; it's for breaking news. Quigley (talk) 17:12, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Wikipedia article, with Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America story and any other organize attempts to influence which have sufficient WP:RS. Merge to Criticism of Wikipedia if there's too much resistance in main article. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:12, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a non-story. As emerged during the CAMERA issue, there are also Palestinian groups (inside and outside Wikipedia) who have been doing this for some time. Further, I've yet to see any evidence that theey did any more than teach a bunch of people how to edit Wikipedia. If that is the case, then will we open a page every time a school uses wikipedia in class and teaches students how to edit? I thought we were encouraging that? There is an assumption of bad faith here about the activity itself - which is worrying. The attempt to have a page on it actually feeds into political activism from the other direction. Oboler (talk) 10:30, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oboler, could you dig up any of these articles on Palestinian groups? That would really help balance an article on "Organized Partisan Wikipedia Editing", if such a thing ends up existing. Sol Goldstone (talk) 17:50, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or delete - this is all about Yesha Council, a page which has a section on this already. Keep the redirect for steering silly people - David Gerard (talk) 11:18, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article, keep the name of the article and expand the article with the CAMERA case. The topic is important. --202.75.49.141 (talk) 15:21, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete It's not intersting and encouraging vandalism to make wikipedia not NPOV. Basically the article fails notability and encourages malicious behaviour --Lookingthrough (talk) 23:29, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Coverage is not significant enough to warrant a separate article.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 00:26, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NOTNEWS, WP:SYNTH, WP:NAVEL. Really bad idea for an article. Robofish (talk) 00:47, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: "Zionist editing on Wikipedia" gets 4 130 hits on Google. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

would this formulation change your mind?--brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:07, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your formalation would not change my mind, any more than this formulation: "Michael Jackson" -Michael -Jackson -- Petri Krohn (talk) 18:07, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a more relevant search if you wish to exclude references on Wikipedia. The count now is over 12,000: not that this justifies anything but at least it refutes the point made above by Brewcrewer. ::Aa42john (talk) 20:58, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Ynhockey. Number of google hits is not a justification to create a Wikipedia article. "Supreme Deliciousness" has 2,030 hits on google. Maybe we should start an article. I wonder what would be written there. 174.112.83.21 (talk) 01:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: wp:GHITS has the standard retort to this, but to add to that I think in this case you wouldn't expect a lot of results for "zionist editing on wikipedia," since that isn't the official name for any particular thing. It's not like the class had that title, is it? It's just a description of the phenomenon, you could describe it with a different phrase and it would be the same thing. (I think this is sort of part of the problem, but that is a separate issue.) ErikHaugen (talk) 02:11, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I wasn't surprised by the amount of hits. If you'll look at what they lead to, it's mostly pro-Palestinian blogs and frothing-at-the-mouth discussion forums like Stormfront, who will conjure up Zionist conspiracies on Wikipedia or off it. Hardly a fountain of reliable sources from which one could write a verifiable article. Quigley (talk) 02:17, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Yesha Council for now. Alternative is to merge with Church of Scientology editing on Wikipedia and Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America#CAMERA campaign in Wikipedia. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 02:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is too specific, is WP:NAVEL. It belongs at best as one or two paragraphs in Criticism of Wikipedia or something like that. Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:52, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe move/rewrite - Organised political editing on Wikipedia makes some sense to me. Criticism of Wikipedia is very long and the wider theme of political editing would be a reasonable spin-off (it's a topic that has got e.g. press and - if I recall correctly - research attention) but the subtopic of "Zionist" editing is too narrow. TheGrappler (talk) 03:04, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is this a joke? Let's start articles on "Palestinian editing on Wikipedia" or "Nazi editing on Wikipedia" or "Peta editing on Wikipedia." The title is offensive because it uses "Zionist" as a pejorative, and virtually all of the content is either irrelevant to the topic or *maybe* belongs in their pertinent articles. I won't be shocked when reactionary editors decide to respond with "Anti-Zionists editing on Wikipedia." Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:52, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Antisemitism on Wikipedia. Who here wants to click that red link and make it red? ;) Magog the Ogre (talk) 09:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The title "Zionist editing ...." was used because that was the headline of the Haaretz article that first initiated this page. I resent the accusation of antisemitism. (It was I who started the article.) If it is a poor heading, I attribute it to Haaretz! Aa42john (talk) 10:47, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

However Haaretz placed the phrase "Zionist editing" in scare quotes. I think without the scare quotes the phrase gives the title a different meaning to that intended by the Haaretz article. --Martin (talk) 02:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, calm down, nobody accused you of antisemitism. And I call all involved parties in this debate to assume good faith, avoid inflammatory language and act with restraint. Marokwitz (talk) 10:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was accusing no one of anything. It was a joke. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:34, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, until someone can make a case for Organised political editing on Wikipedia or another similar name per TheGrappler. I'm curious to see how watered down

this issue gets when we see what else like this is happening in the world. --Shuki (talk) 15:09, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Important topic. Reliable sources. --Playmobilonhishorse (talk) 03:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No proof of notability. We're not about to have an article about every ~fifty people having a one-day course, even if it teaches how to write in Wikipedia. ליאור • Lior (talk) 09:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plenty of reliable sources discuss these multiple, ongoing efforts, and that establishes notability. – OhioStandard (talk) 09:41, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think political campaigns to instill POV into WP are WP:NOTABLE, and a number of reliable news outlets would agree. NickCT (talk) 18:16, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per Carrite. Also, blown up out of proportion by the Usual Suspects™. There's definitely room to mention noteworthy events in more generic articles though, as was mentioned above. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:24, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge per arguments above. The current title most definitely cannot stay. Or, going by the first sentence of the article (oh, oh, sarcasm coming) - "a phenomenon which some say exists" - I say move it to Yeti (Zionist).radek (talk) 21:10, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunatly someone have added that sentence you mentioned above and removed other relevant info, I will try to fix it in a couple of days.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:42, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per above. Basket of Puppies 03:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Zionist(?!) editing on Wikipedia"? Is 'Zionist' a disease or something? Should I take a medicine? Should we move Israel article to "Zionist entity"? In short, the title is offensive and non neutral; we should be cautious in creating self referencing articles and create such articles in very rare and outstanding cases only; the subject is not notable outside wikipedia even if it was referenced in reliable sources; the incident itself is 'much ado about nothing'; it may be mentioned in a more generic article such as political editing on Wikipedia but it cannot stand alone as it is. Noon (talk) 04:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. This article currently has four reliable sources. There are other articles in Wikipedia that exist with fewer sources than that. That being said, a merge with Yesha Council with a redirect from this article would probably work for now also. One more mention of this topic in another major newspaper or similar source would seem to me to establish clear notability. Cla68 (talk) 06:28, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. NY Times reporter Robert Mackey's August 23rd edition of his blog, The Lede, includes some updated information on this story, along with a disturbing graphic created by myisrael.org, that will anger any editor who cares about neutrality here, regardless of their overall position on I/P issues. – OhioStandard (talk) 07:23, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They've been doing that stuff for a while now.~--brew crewer (yada, yada) 21:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The image I called attention to with the Israeli flag superimposed on the Wikipedia's logo implies an organization's desire to take over Wikipedia on behalf of Israel, and that image was created by that organization itself, viz. "My Israel". The image you called attention to is certainly ugly and offensive as well, but it's not analogous. It would have been analogous if it had been created by Muslims about Muslim political aims, e.g. if it had used a Star and Crescent instead of a Star of David. – OhioStandard (talk) 22:35, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename - to Organised political editing on Wikipedia, per Andrensath above. This particular incident is not notable enough for its own article, but collected with Scientology, CAMERA, Jewish Internet Defense Force, etc, it would be notable. --Noleander (talk) 21:52, 26 August 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.