Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hasbara

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. Stifle (talk) 09:28, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hasbara

This article should be deleted because it is a neologism, and belongs in a dictionary. It is not a broad enough concept for an article. It does not have enough reliable sources to justify notability either. POV pushing too. CdC—Chuleta de Chancho (talk) 00:15, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 01:34, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 01:34, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The word "hasbara" is not a neologism. It's a Hebrew word not yet fully integrated into the English language, where it refers to the public relations activity of the Israeli government and its supporters. The article itself goes beyond a pure definition and provides additional sources. 2,770 Google News Archive hits, 199 Google Books hits and 77 Google Scholar hits suggest to me that this word is far from a neologism. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:31, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it is not fully integrated into the English language it is a neologism in English.CdC—Chuleta de Chancho (talk) 03:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is clearly not a simple dictionary definition: it is detailed, and has a few sources. It is a bit concerning that upon cursory examination it seems non-WP:NPOV, but this can surely be fixed by editing it. VG ☎ 10:29, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless I can be convinced otherwise. Somewhat of a local neoligism. While propaganda is perceived as negative, and not necessarily limited to telling the truth at all, hasbara is perceived as a more PR oriented 'lite' version of the effort to try and simply get the Israeli/Jewish side out that is simply ignored or might not covered in the mass media. It can be an organized effort by governments or organizations, or it might involve a lone person taking up the effort on his own initiative - which might be a unique part of this effort. --Shuki (talk) 12:19, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you can be convinced otherwise? --Leifern (talk) 23:20, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The subject is simply apologetics and propaganda and public relations. Is there a reason this nation's efforts, and these nationals efforts, are broken out, given a name, and listed? I cannot see any legitimacy. Utgard Loki (talk) 13:16, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - in Israel, hasbara means public relations (usually in the context of govnerment). It is a simple Hebrew word with no individual notability. Certain elements (mostly non-Israeli) have tried to put a POV spin on this word, but that doesn't change the above facts. Therefore, this article clearly fails WP:POVFORK. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 17:30, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Article contains reputable references. Word used extensively in the US by both sides in article's context.--Kitrus (talk) 05:11, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment, what sides?CdC—Chuleta de Chancho (talk) 18:58, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unsourced POV. Many nations have organisations like the British Council, the Instituto Cervantes, or the Goethe-Institut to promote their interests. The Israeli equivalent would be the Hasbara Fellowships, which has its WP article. That Hasbara has a particular meaning in the sense of "state sponsored propaganda" is insinuated by the article, but not sourced at all, much less authoritatively. Apart from that it's a Hebrew word and a dictionary entry as such. --tickle me 00:20, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It doesn't matter whether it is a neologism or not. The important thing is that we have reliable English-language sources devoted to the topic that use the word. These include The Jewish Week, The Jerusalem Post, The Jewish Chronicle. —Ashley Y 02:23, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, they are not "devoted" to the topic. The Jewish Week uses it exactly once, citing "American Jews" that "are always complaining that Israel does a lousy job of hasbara (public relations/propaganda)." The Jewish Chronicle uses it 4 times, translating it with "public information" and "public relations". The Jerusalem Post uses it more often (748). That's no sign of conspiracy - it's just customary in Israeli English language publications to use Hebrew words - sabra is used 1,120 times, likud is used 6,790 times. Where jpost.com bothers to translate, it does as "public diplomacy" or "public relations".

> It doesn't matter whether it is a neologism or not

Indeed, it doesn't. With dictionary entries, which are not encyclopedic by definition, the type of a word doesn't matter. --tickle me 15:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And, indeed, we have articles Likud and Sabra (person). —Ashley Y 19:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing wrong with that: contrary to hasbara, they are no dictionary entries - you're engaging me in an eristic argument.

Again: hasbara is a Hebrew word that is translated as explanation, public relations, public diplomacy, or propaganda. Some organisations, Israeli, Zionist, or of other provenience engage in said actions for Israel, some of which have their WP entry. Hasbara, instead, is a hatchet job that purports hasbara to be a devious Jewish scheme.

--tickle me 22:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality issues are not a reason to delete. The article is well-sourced, with English-language sources that use the word "hasbara". That's enough to keep the article. Neologism and neutrality issues are irrelevant. —Ashley Y 22:54, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - so far, none of the arguments for deleting it are grounded in policy. It is not relevant whether it is a neologism or not (per nomination and Shuki), novel translation (Ynhockey), home-grown definitions of what the concept means (nomination, Shuki), and complaints about POV (nomination, Utgard Loki, Ynhockey, and Tickle_me). Clearly, the term refers to a specific phenomenon that can be defined and delineated; it is used in English; has received plenty of treatment in mainstream sources; and is a notable phenomenon. --Leifern (talk) 23:20, 23 September 2008 (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.