Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:33, 25 September 2016

Yinon Plan

Yinon Plan (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)

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)

• 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages and would be hugely disappointed if the page were deleted. Martyn.Preller (talk) 16:40, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

• 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)
• 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. 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)
• 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 00:16, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:03, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:03, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:03, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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 (

• AfD debates (Society topics)
• AfD debates