Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Religious persecution by Jews: Difference between revisions

Religious persecution by Jews

A confused work of pure original research created for WP:POINT. 95% of it deals with actions of the ancient Israelite tribes over 3500 years ago; describing them as Jews is dubious at best, and the "historical source document" for the actions listed (the Old Testament) is considered even more dubious by most modern historians. As well, it throws in one sentence asserting that the Arab-Israeli conflict may (or may not be) an example of "religious persecution by Jews", ignoring the more obvious ethnic underpinnings of the conflict. No credible sources have been brought which assert that any of this is actually "religious persecution by Jews"; it seems to be another back-door attempt to revive the "Jewish ethnocentrism" topic using a novel approach; articles on that topic have already been deleted via two VfDs: [1] [2] Perhaps there is an article that could be written about this topic, though it's not clear exactly what it would be referring to, but this article certainly isn't it. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:09, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:09, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep This article, like the articles on Religious persecution by Muslims and Religious persecution by Christians covers a very real and very notable topic. These articles are intended to be the first three of a series of articles covering outgroup religious persecutions committed by members of the world's religious/spiritual groups. So far all the contributors to these pieces have shown themselves willing to withdraw or source material that others request be sourced. I agree, of course, that these articles are likely to attract POV warriors. But this is not grounds for preemptively destroying the articles. If you have particular complaints, please make them on the Talk pages so that they can be addressed. Don't just impulsively go a VfD. Also, I suggest that this might as well be a VfD on all three of them, and on the other planned additions to this series, since each of the articles in the series covers equivalent topics. I think it would be a shame if this new series were deleted out of wikicowardice and unwillingness to protect Wikipedia from the POV mosquitoes who will be attracted to these articles. Babajobu 18:14, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
  • You comments do not deal with any of the issues I raised. Please focus on them. Oh, and providing a source does not help at all with the Original Research problem, unless the source itself also asserts that the information provided is an example of Religious persecution by Jews. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:20, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm absolutely flummoxed by your claim that this is original research. Please help. I guess I'm slow. I quite literally do not understand what you mean when you say that it is original research to state that the Bible claims that Jews, qua Jews, committed acts of violence against non-Jews. Take a look at my Wikipedia edit history and see whether you think I am acting out of the anti-Jewish agenda you suspect has motivated this article. Babajobu 18:33, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Please review the Wikipedia:No original research article; the "Religious persecution by Jews" article asserts that there is such a phenomenon as "Religious persecution by Jews", and that actions by the ancient Israelite tribes constitute examples of the same. This is a novel thesis which needs to be supported by citeable sources. Considering that the Bible is not considered a particularly reliable historical source, and that the Bible nowhere says the incidents mentioned were done by Jews (but rather by Israelites), the whole article is questionable. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:26, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Oh incidentally, the Bible repeatedly describes these events as being committed by "Yehudim" (Yud-heh-dalet-mem), then and now the Hebrew word for "Jews". I think what you are trying to say is that the Torah (pentateuch) describes only Israelites, but the transition to "Jews" is made at some point in the Nevi'im. Not that any of this will influence any votes on the VfD, which is fueled by more, uh, primal concerns. Babajobu 22:14, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
    • I would posit that drawing a connection between ancient Israelites and modern day Jews is not a "novel thesis". Certainly members of every synagogue on the planet would be startled to learn that this is a novel thesis, as would anyone who has glanced at any primary or secondary source covering 2300 years of post-Tanakh Jewish theology or Jewish history. "Moses was a Jew" is not an outlandish assertion, though it certainly can stand for scholarly qualifications. Anyway, why did you not raise these concerns on the Talk Page? Why did you go straight to VfD? And yes, you did speculate on the motivations of the contributors, by speculating that the article was an attempt to revive some already deleted article that none of us had actually heard of. Babajobu 19:35, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
      • If it's not a "novel thesis", then please present a scholarly source which asserts that the alleged actions of the ancient Israelites are examples of "Religious persecution by Jews". I went straight to VfD because this article was an obvious candidate for deletion. And I did not speculate about motives, but rather about actions. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:50, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Also, please do your best to focus on the article rather than indulging in idle (and innacurate) speculation about the motives of the contributors. Thanks so much. Babajobu 18:38, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
  • I haven't speculated about any motivations at all. I've discussed apparent actions, not motivations. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:26, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, cleanup, and add some sort of "religious persecution series" template to every one of these RP pages. Or maybe just a Man's Inhumanity template? — RJH 18:31, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree that adding the template is vital. How does one create a template? Babajobu 18:36, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - I was unaware of those two previous VFD that Jayjg highlighted, but they are irrelevent anyway. This is one part of a proposed series on Religous Persecution, a series I did not start. As for them being Jewish, a quick look at the Jew article tells me "The word Jew (Hebrew: יהודי) is used in a wide number of ways, but generally refers to a follower of the Jewish faith...." This is the first time I've heard a Jewish person tell me that Moses was not a "Follower of the jewish faith", I woul have thought he wrote the book on the Jewish faith. In all honesty this VFD seems to me to be more about making a point than a genuine reason to delete the article, frankly I would have liked Jayjgs help with this piece. But Consensus is Consensus, and we'll see how this goes. --Irishpunktom\^talk 18:53, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • For what it's worth, yes, you did start the series. No series existed until you put your nose to the grindstone and willed into creation a series you clearly wanted to see. And I'm glad you did, I think it has the potential to be a fantastic series. Babajobu 18:57, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. POV personal essay full of original research with no sources. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:58, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • How can you guys regurgitate this tripe?? The article has an inline sourcing for every important assertion!!! "No sources"!!! Unbelievable! Babajobu 19:03, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

    You can't rely on the Bible as your sole source. You'd need scholarly sources for an article like this. And please don't call people's comments "tripe." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:09, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

    • I agree that the great weakness of the Bible as a source must be prominently mentioned. But providing inline verbatim citation from the most frequently cited source in human history is not the same as providing "no sources"! I'm sorry for calling your comments "tripe". That was wrong. Babajobu 19:13, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

• (user has less than 50 edits, but who gives a flying fuck unless you're making ad hominem attacks) Strong Delete - Bad enough we deal with anti-Semitism in real life, this is pure nonsense and has no place in a decent encyclopedia.Existentializer 19:14, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
  • If the article's contributors have inadvertantly added spurious, malicious material that qualifies as anti-semitic, please help us purge it. If you find any Islamophobic material in the Religious persecution by Muslims article, which has the same contributors as this VfD'd article and which includes prominent discussion of Muslim massacres of Jews, please help us purge that material as well. Nobody is trying to offend anyone. Babajobu 19:19, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Sorry, but this article is irredeemable. The various editors who have "contributed" to it (most notably IrishPunkTom) have not seen it as a decent article but an excuse to engage in Jew-bashing. Leave it, and it will probably remain in the same state as any other article that is targeted by Wikipedia's Islamic population. No, I'd rather delete it and not give them the temptation. We've already got enough trouble with articles like Jihad and Islam to deal with.Existentializer 20:51, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
      • A targeted personal attack on me, and a whiff of Islamophobia, colour me surprised. --Irishpunktom\^talk 11:17, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No merits. The record in the Bible, even if correct, cannot be termed "religious persecution" - it certainly was not by the standard of those times. The Biblical record is not a "hard source" for most readers, and should not be used as such. As for modern-day Israel, the so-called "religious persecution" is not the result of the perpetrators being Jews but Israelis. JFW | T@lk 19:43, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Most "religious persecutions" cited as examples were military actions and were not perpetrated because of the recipients' religion. I removed those. JFW | T@lk 19:53, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Delete - for several reasons. 1) The evidence presented is very weak and makes the assumption that biblical literature can be used as historical sources, an assumption that would be met with harsh opposition if it were made anywhere else, e.g., the status of the West Bank and Gaza; 2) the title begs the question, namely that Jews (in some timeless sense) are guilty of religious persecution; 3) it makes a strained point that the Arab-Israeli conflict somehow is grounded in Jewish religious persecution. I certainly agree that point #2 also applies to articles about "Christian" and "Moslem" persecution as well, but this article - as often is the case in this area - appears to have a hidden agenda. If someone wants to make the point that societies in biblical times were religiously intolerant, that should make a separate article. --Leifern 19:44, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

• • I wish people would stop with the panicky speculations about "hidden agendas". I don't want to reveal too much about my real world identity here, but suffice it to say that anyone who knows me would find comical (or just nonsensical) the idea that I had been tagged as having a sinister, anti-semitic agenda. Well, what can one do. The article, and the whole series, could have been very good. I contributed more to the Religious persecution by Muslims than to this one, but still I think they all had potential. But I don't want to waste my Wikipedia time contributing to articles that paranoid folks will preemptively VfD and dog with their unfounded anxieties. I'm giving up on the "religious persecution" articles. I'll stick to uncontroversial topics. Have your way with it, paranoid deletionists. Ciao. Babajobu 19:54, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep or move. The original nominator had problems with it being considered Jewish, but that's not a reason for deletion. And whether the bible is historical or not is irrelavent, the bible is still extrememly notable and hence information in it is by definition notable. Stick a {{NPOV}} is u like, but don't see any reason for deletion. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 19:57, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually, I had problems with it being pure original research; the fact that it uses the Bible as a historical source and equates the actions of ancient Israelites with Jews is a symptom of that problem. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:49, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Delete - I agree with most of the comments above by those urging deletion. The State of Israel is a haven of religious tolerance compared with neighbouring countries. RachelBrown 19:59, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
  • How in God's name does that justify a "delete"?? Compared to Saudi Arabia, Syria is a haven of religious tolerance. Does that mean that an article asserting that religious persecution takes place in Syria would warrant a deletion??? Of course not, Syria is rife with religious persecution just like every other country in the region!! I'm sorry, but the supporting arguments for the delete votes are absolute blather!! But you POV wolves can take the whole series and delete it to your POV hearts' content. Babajobu 20:33, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Kindly get off of your high horse:
      1. If you hit a bee hive, you will get stung. You hit one here.
      2. Most of what you wrote above is valid, but the part starting with "I'm sorry" is not needed.
      3. You have so far failed to produce a scolarly article on the topic. See my vote just below.
• Keep but cleanup, otherwise delete - The topic is valid, but the article as written is a poorly researched anti-semetic rant. Specific book-chapter-verse must be cited for biblical qoutes. Appropriate sources must also be cited for documenting the Arab exodus at the inception of Israel and why it is listed. Other incidents such as those noted in "A History of the Jews" are missing. Also, the use of terms like "ethnic cleansing" must be avoided. The facts can speak for themselves. We Jews have not been angels, but we have not been Nazis either. --EMS | Talk 20:48, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
  • EMS, in most other topics that were in this condition I'd probably agree with you that "keep and clean up" would be a good vote. Unfortunately, from my recent experiences and looking back at the history of articles like Jihad I'm pretty sure that this article cannot be redeemed. The moment anyone tries to do so, expect the POV warriors from those articles (and I'll note that one of the worst offenders, IrishPunkTom, frequents both) to come running for a chance to bash Jews.Existentializer 20:53, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Right, thanks for that Personal attack. You will of course note that I have edited the noted Jihad article less than once. --Irishpunktom\^talk 11:13, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

• • • Yes, I agree that putting terms like "ethnic cleansing" in these articles does nothing but fan POV flames, and should be avoided. I agree with you that cleanup and improved citations are needed. On the other hand, I disagree that, as it exists, it is either anti-semitic or a rant. The biblical quotes are cited "book-chapter-verse". I agree that the discussion of the dislocation of Palestinians must include other arguments and explanations for this dislocation, just as I have tried to solicit Muslim explanations for Muhammad's massacre of the Banu Qurayza at the Religious persecution by Muslims article. That article is no more Islamophobic than this article is antisemitic. Babajobu 20:58, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
      • The article on the book of joshua uses the word genocide, and I thought, perhaps unwisely, that Ethnic Cleansing was less POV-laden and more Flame-resistant than genocide. Also, it did originally cite specific Verse, Chapter and book but these were edited away by another--Irishpunktom\^talk 21:55, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
      • Babajobu wrote:

I disagree that, as it exists, it is either anti-semitic or a rant.

I do not believe that this was the intent, but it sure is the effect. For example, you use Ethnic cleansing as a header instead of Palestinian exodus and Biblical incidents. Compare this article with what you did for Religious persecution by Muslims, which is much more broad and where the headers have no inflamatory POV.

However, I repeat that your worst offense is that you do not know the material. Since we Jews have for most part had little opportunity to perseucte over the last 2500 years it is a somewhat sparse record, but it does exist and you have barely scratched its surface. For example, there was a forced conversion episode during the Maccabean period that is famous amongst Jewish scolars, but which you are apparently quite ignorant of. You need to settle down, do your research, and produce a product that is at least as concise and comprehensive as Religious persecution by Muslims is.

If this gets deleted, I encourage you to try again later, once you can produce a product on a par with Religious persecution by Muslims. Note that Religious persecution by Muslims has not been marked for deletion. Nor has Religious persecution by Christians, but that is stub anyway. --EMS | Talk 05:10, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

EMS, thanks for that comment, it was appreciated. I had only barely began the piece and my intention was to start at the prophets work my way through history and end up at Present-Day israel. The Palestinian Exodus was edited in, I had said that Critics of israel claim that the foundation of the state ofd Israel was an attempt at Ethnic Cleansing, And that is a point I've eard made many times over, I then noted that rougly One-Fifth of the current population is Arab, which substantially disproves that, I would have thought. I appealed for help from Jayjg_{See his talk page}, but he just VFD'ed it. I do, or rather did, need help with this, I don't claim to be an expert of the history of the jewish people throughout the lands, and if this article stays (Which looks unlikely) then I will still appeal for help. The more specificly Jewish editors involved hen the better, surely, this will be. If it gets removed I'll be requesting Religious persecution by Christians get taken off too. --Irishpunktom\^talk 11:32, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

I strongly counsel you to keep what you can. This is a valid topic. However it is also a sensitive topic. To do this properly, the article has to be thorough, well documented, well written, and with a genuinely neutral POV. It has to be a calm, collected, organized recitation of the relevant facts and incidents. As a found it yesterday, it was a hearsay filled diatribe screaming that Jews engage in "ethnic cleansing". Even with my edits, it still fails to do this topic justice in any way, shape or form. I repeat to you what I have said to Babajobu: Do the research and do the work needed to do this properly. In your case I also add in a strong warning: The offensive headings seem to be your doing. Keep that up and this topic will never survive a Vfd vote. --EMS | Talk 14:49, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, Thats fair enough, Your edits read well. The article was a Stub, it was no-where near complete I wanted more Editors involved on all the proposed series.. Oh well. I'm not going to touch another Jewish-Related subject again. --Irishpunktom\^talk 18:52, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

• New vote: Delete or reduce to a stub. This is a poor attempt to document a legitimate subject. The author shows that he can do better in Religious persecution by Muslims. This article needs and deserves at least that much better. --EMS | Talk 05:10, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Comment I updated the article last night, revising the headings but keeping the content. Those changes seem to be sticking. This article now looks and reads better, but still is an very inadequate treatment of a highly sensitive topic. I regretfully maintain my vote as listed just above. --EMS | Talk 14:31, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete the Bible is not a historical source. If the crimes alleged to have been committed by the Israelites are true, I doubt it had much to do with religion other than land or resources. Revolución 21:39, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Jayjg . --TheMidnighters 22:16, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Shalom l'koolam. Why don't all the delete voters help me out with my new Adi Barkan article. Why not spend more time showing off the clean laundry, and less time trying to bury the dirty laundry? Babajobu 22:23, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I get the feeling some deletes are politically, rather than empirically, motivated. Themindset 22:44, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
  • And I get the feeling that some keeps are politically motivated. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 08:57, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Per reason stated above and because this article have little in common, if any, with religious persecution. MathKnight 22:56, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless solid sources can be provided. Capitalistroadster 23:54, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Discussion of religious persecution should go in the religious persecution article. Allowing separate articles making allegations against specific ethnic or religious groups is inherently POV. Kaibabsquirrel 00:49, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Delete. Per Jayjg and MathKnight.--Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 01:29, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unless substantially revised with historical citations. Appears to be original research to support both antisemitic and anti-Zionist views. (Note, the two are not the same -- but this particular instance favors both.) To be acceptable, this article needs to be revised on the basis of citations from works of history; works of political advocacy need not apply. --FOo 01:35, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Low content, no reputable sources. humblefool®Have you voted in the CSD poll yet? 02:11, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I'm delighted to learn that Moses was not Jewish. I'm not so delighted that some editors simply want to suppress any and all articles that discuss Jews and or Israelis with less than fulsome praise. Grace Note 04:16, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
  • "less than fulsome praise"? You must be kidding. WP is full of articles and everyday attempts to blame "the Jews". Need examples? ←Humus sapiens←Talk 08:57, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. WP:NOR, WP:CITE, WP:NPOV, and I could just go on and on.... func(talk) 04:39, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Expand. Provides NPOV by other articles at links. Peter Ellis 05:00, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and Cleanup Current article is fairly useless, topic is valid. There may be meta-objections to the "Persecution by..." series (POV magnet, etc.), but one VfD is not the the place to raise them. Xoloz 05:41, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, in the sense of merge with Anti-semitism (and then rename to something suitable). Definitely needs cleanup and expanding though. ~~~~ 07:19, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Could you explain your vote please? I don't get how and why persecutions by Jews be merged with persecutions of Jews. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 08:57, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Basically religious persecution, as a title, is noteworthy and NPOV. But neither of the above articles are. ~~~~ 19:55, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
  • I note with some interest that you've voted to delete Religious persecution by Muslims article; in fact, you nominated it for deletion. Could you possibly explain this seeming inconsistency? Jayjg ^(talk) 14:42, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unless substantially revised with historiographical citations. El_C 07:26, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per User:Xoloz. JamesBurns 08:06, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: just as the article on Anti-Semitism does not list Pharaoh, Haman, Amalekites, etc., so we should not base allegations of "religious persecutions by Jews" based solely on Biblical account: this is not a Biblepedia. The inclusion of today's Israel is especially insidious and clearly show someone's political agenda. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 08:44, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Original research. --Viriditas | Talk 09:45, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, as per Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Religious persecution by Muslims. Axon 10:21, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Strong delete, WP:NOR, WP:POV. Radiant_>|< 12:14, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Strong delete - I can conceive of no reason for this article other than to stir up trouble. And for the benefit of the sarcastic person who didn't realise Moses wasn't Jewish, of course he wasn't - the concept of Jews at that time (as opposed to Israelites) is an anachronism. Poetlister 12:44, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• (user has less than 50 edits) Strong delete - I was actually going to cast an "ambivalent" vote until I took a look at the page's history. It's obvious this page was not created in good faith and is instead being used as an excuse for Jew-bashing.Ni-ju-Ichi 13:01, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Ni-ju-Ichi, are you really a Sock-Puppet of Enviroknot, or is that some sort of Joke I don't Get? - Anyway, how, and please be exact, from viewing the history of this piece did you arrive at the conclusion that "this page was not created in good faith" ? --Irishpunktom\^talk 13:59, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
    • That'll be enough of that, IrishPunkTom. Going around making needless accusations of sockpuppetry is ridiculous. I have not seen any evidence of any sockpuppets around here, save perhaps for the theory that YOU might be the anonymous IP vandal who plagued the Jihad] article yesterday. As far as evidence, I'd say that your creation of the piece is strong enough evidence at the start that the article wasn't intended to be here for any other reason than Jew-bashing, because you've got a long history of doing just that. The continual attempts by editors (both yourself and others) to insert Jew-bashing comments into the article is all the confirmation I need, and I'm not the only one who thinks that way about this article as evidenced by the numerous deletion comments stating exactly that. Existentializer 14:45, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
      • Firstly, if you viewed Ni-ju-Ichi's User page you would know what i was talking about; The comment was directed their way. Your "Theory" that I'm vandalising an article I've never edited borders on the paranoid. I don't even know you, why the constant tirade of personal abuse directed at me. Aside from this I don't recall ever editing any article which you have also edited. What gives? --Irishpunktom\^talk 19:35, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete As it stands, there is no religious persecution actually cited in the article; as is alluded to but insufficiently thought through, what is in the article are two examples of ethnic cleansing, i.e., persecution on the basis of national origin, rather than religion. (See also the unending discussions of Jewish nationality vs. Jewish religion). Specifically, examples of ethnic cleansing in the Old Testament by the Hebrews (AFAIK, Jews derives from the tribe of Judah, and thus is only relevant after the division into two kingdoms), and examples of ethnic cleansing by the state of Israel (since there is no evidence of any sort of intervention by Israel and/or Jews into the worship practices of the inhabitants, and any such persecution is based on their Arabic nationality rather than their religion, and, as a thought experiment, a Jew who converted to Islam would not be subject to any such hypothetical persecution). Gzuckier 14:17, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Jayjg . Dcarrano 14:36, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, there're similar articles on other religions, why's this one not alright? That "it was not created in good faith" is irrelevant, this should be voted upon empirically. Shem^(talk) 14:57, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Delete. The article is a misnomer as it cites no act of religious persecution by Jews. It cites a Biblical account of "what would today be considered ethnic cleansing" committed by pre-monarchic Israelites. It skips over the next thirty two hundred years to discuss a current ongoing political dispute, casting it in a religious light. This article was clearly created as a POV ranting board for people with an ax to grind, and has no place in Wikipedia. --Briangotts 15:59, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Err.. it was part of a series on Religious Descrimination by... It was not only about Jews, but thus Far contained articles about Muslims (Also up for VFD) and Christians. It was, and is, at it's embryonic stage, with intentions to Chronicle from the Biblical age to the Modern Day. The defeiniton of a jew was to include all definitions as defined by the Jew article. This article simply was not "created as a POV ranting board for people with an ax to grind" --Irishpunktom\^talk 16:11, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
    • So Sayth the Creator of the Article, Yea Verily, even though his own history and talk page indicate a definite bias.Existentializer 16:42, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
      • After a doublecheck, confirming: it appears that the article Religious persecution by Muslims was created by Germen, who happens to be one of IrishPunkTom's main opponents/targets, and that Religious persecution by Christians and Religious persecution by Jews were created largely out of spite. See the original states of the articles here and here. Add to this the fact that IrishPunkTom added links to still-not-yet-created articles like Religious persecution by Hindus, Religious persecution by Sikhs, Religious persecution by Mormons, Religious persecution by Zorostrians, Religious persecution by atheists, and Religious persecution by pagans, and I feel it is readily apparent that IrishPunkTom's creation of a "series" was merely a smokescreen for his creation of playgrounds for religious hate speech.

The article Religious Persecution by Muslims might also fit into this mold, were it not for the fact that its statements are legitimate, have relevance, and are well researched and properly sourced. See the original state of THAT article here. Existentializer 16:51, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

This kind of "tit for tat" article creation is usually called WP:POINT. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:23, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Thats A personal attack, and it does not assume Good faith. Existentializer, whats with the constant attacks on me.. I barely even know who you are. --Irishpunktom\^talk 18:44, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No personal attacks is all fine and good but it requires a few things. "Of course, there's a difference between assuming good faith and ignoring bad actions." You are a user who has a noted history of personal attacks and violations of NPOV, including a presence in constant reverting. I have read your comments throughout this talk page and your first instinct overall was not to assume good faith, but to attack those who voted for deletion. You made unfounded accusations of sockpuppetry against another user on this page, a user who appears to be operating in good faith. And then there is the highly POV and un-encyclopedic content of this article and the Religious persecution by Christians article, which were OBVIOUSLY created in violation of WP:POINT.

Assume good faith does not require that I disregard common sense, and common sense tells me that you are NOT acting in good faith. If you want to claim that my statement that I, personally, believe you are not acting in good faith is a "personal attack" then you are free to do so but it is not, and I invite you to look back on the history of your own edits. It should be readily apparent from your own history why a neutral observer would have cause to question whether or not you were acting in good faith. Existentializer 18:57, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

No personal attacks doesn't really require too much aside from, you know, No personal attacks. The articles were not created for any "Jew-Bashing" purposes, it was created to be part of a series which was to chronicle the Religious persecution by the various major World religions and Non-religions. The one on Christians, Muslims and Jews were only the First three. The main article to which I would have contributed would have been in the Zorostrianism one. What exactly do you mean by "You made unfounded accusations of sockpuppetry against another user". If you are referring to Ni-ju-Ichi then you will note that his user page contains a Sock-pupetry tag "It is believed that this user may be a sockpuppet of Enviroknot"; It is hardly an "unfounded accusation of sockpuppetry" to ask them if this statement was true. i don't think it's true, because the evidence is missing from the tag, but the user hasn't removed it, I thought maybe it was some sort of odd joke. Indeed, I didn't even make an accusation, I asked for clarification.. indeed, seeing this as such an accusation could be seen as further evidence of you acting in bad Faith. Your point, insidiously made, that my edit history presents a Picture of anti-Semetism, or "Jew-bashing", is either inherently incorrect or another Personal attack on me, But I'm going to assume good faith and preseume that you have made a mistake. I have no hatred of either the Jewish or Christian faiths, far from it. I do have a sever prejudice against the Orange order, Loyalist]s in Northern Ireland, the Democratic Unionist Party, etc, and that is exactly why I have never, not once, edited them. --Irishpunktom\^talk 20:08, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep If there's one for Christians and Muslims, then there has to be one for Jews as well. Unless people are honestly claiming that Jews have never religiously persecuted people before...Heraclius 17:43, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Ok, but doesn't it have to have actual instances of religious persecution by Jews in it? (see my previous discussion) Gzuckier 18:06, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep This won't get a fair trial. Any time that there is an article like this which discusses factual examples of Jewish negativity, it goes for VFD because people blanket label it some Nazi POV and if not that, an Islamic POV that nobody will take seriously. Now for me, I have had many offhanded bad experiences with Jews and their attitudes but this could be because they lived in the city or because of their culture and I'm about to say it's a bit of both. There are no people on this planet with a blank check for how much damage they can do without return criticism. Those who believe the Jewish people are unable to be guilty for any significant charges, are just as wrong as any Nazi who tries to paint the White race as unfailing in kindness and decency. For instance, Jews in the media(yes, I checked names) believe it is all right to paint White culture and history in a negative light and you will only ever see Jewish culture expressed negatively by Jews. Then again, the Jews don't mind if Whites hate on themselves and speak against their people, even for the sake of propping other races up on their shoulders instead. Fox news is probably the only station that I see which steps away from the chronic anti-Gentile bias which plagues most of the other media conglomerates, but you'll probably meet a Nazi who disagrees with me on that. There is no justification for institutional prejudice by Jews and Judeophiles, any more than there is for Whites and Blacks. Of course, most here would be loathe to act bold and decisively where there is a case of potential ego dropping for the people who shove the Holocaust on Whites. For me, I find a problem with the outspoken Jews who rail on about that Holocaust as if it was all about them and not other people, with their complete sense of innocence in comparison to carving a plot of land out where the Palestinians live because the British said they could. Jews rewrite White history with Jamestown and the Wild West, while Whites cannot criticise the Mid-East conflict. It's almost like using the word Nigger/Nigga, or that only Whites owned slaves. While the Jews in the Bush administration went after Iraq for WMDs, they neglected to mention that their famous scientists invented them in the Manhattan Project and that there was pogrom of Japan. Henry Kissinger, anybody? Can we please, get NPOV in all these persecution-related articles? TheUnforgiven 18:21, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that's good; "While the Jews in the Bush administration went after Iraq for WMDs, they neglected to mention that their famous scientists invented them in the Manhattan Project and that there was pogrom of Japan." You should definitely put that in the article as an example of religious persecution by Jews. Gzuckier 19:01, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

After plowing through that mess of horrid grammar and racist ramblings by User:TheUnforgiven, I can only say this: what a pile of racist crap. Existentializer 18:37, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Among other things, why does he say "The Jews" and "The Whites" as though they are two different entities? Aren't a high proportion of Jews white? RachelBrown 19:44, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

That's what they'd like you to believe. Gzuckier 19:47, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. While it is currently in a very bad shape, I do believe that it has the potential to become a valid article. -Dv 20:01, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete The name of the article is not encyclopedic. Something like: “Religious persecution in Israel” could get an entry, but for sure not this. It is simply a generalization of an ethnic group, and the support of a POV, the POV being that, an ethnic group is more than a social construct, all this, in the articles name alone. I think there should be appropriate rules here in Wikipedia, on what is an encyclopedic entry, this will spare us all the trouble of having to vote the deletion of articles that should not exist in the first place. This sort of article will only get answered by similar articles(I just hope they don't already exist), which the subject, and probably the aim, will be generalization. There is a distinction between directly criticizing a group of people, and criticizing an aspect... If I write an article like: “Religious persecution under king David's reign” or something such, I could write an encyclopedic article. I could of course, as well, write something like: “Religious persecution under Judaism.” While this seems to be about the same thing as the article voted for deletion, it is not. In the same token, I could write an article, like; “Religious persecution under Islam.” This will be an encyclopedic name, but not: “Religious persecutions by Muslims,” or even more direct: “Religious persecution by Arabs” (I'm making the comparison, because being a “Jew,” is not only being part of a religion, but as includes the ethnic group.) But I could write: “Religious persecutions under Arabic regimes.” It is permitted to write about an aspect, or a system, etc. but not to generalize directly. Guilt by association is simply not encyclopedic. One way of knowing if a name for an article like this is encyclopedic, is to wonder if when using the name to criticize, it would be considered as a generalization. Having said all this, I think that the problem is not only with the name, but what the name could permit to write in the article, in this cases. We can not write with such a subject(the name of the article/subject), a real NPOV article, so it will be unwiki, and it's existence will inevitably lead to failure. Fadix ^{(My Talk)} 20:16, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
  • I would like more information on how "Religous persecution under Judaism" and "Religous persecution by Jews" differ, and why the former is better. Also, I for one do not see why this requires a delete instead a move of the existing article. (I support deleting the article, but that is because it is a lousy article on the subject.) I also cannot support your view of their being a lot of smaller articles. In that case, the larger scale article is still needed to pull it all together.
    I also disagree that such an article is inherently POV, but to be NPOV it has to be dry recitation of the facts, something which most of the current editors seem to be struggling with (when they are trying for it at all). --EMS | Talk 20:37, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

“Religious persecution under Judaism” report persecutions under a system, while the second directly point a finger on a group of people. If I say that Jews are idiots, it is a generalization, I directly point a finger on a group of people. On the other hand, if I say, Judaism is idiotic, I criticize a system. Jews may be offended, but I criticize one aspect of their being, rather than criticizing them as a whole, because I am criticizing an aspect of their being, rather then directly and entirely criticizing them. And also, by this statement, I am not saying in anyway that Jews are idiots. From the same logic, when I say religion is stupid, I am not necessarily saying that those that practice a religion are stupid. An encyclopedic article, to maintain an objective tone, should as much as possible, not point a finger. It should be “encyclopedicaly” correct(in allusion to politically correct).

Secondly, I did not mean to include many smaller articles, I just gave examples, to show the differences.

Thirdly, it is true that one can just change the title of the article. But just read the article, it points to some Israelite crime taken from scriptures, and then Palestine, neither of those two can stick there to find the appropriate name to include both. The first one is from an Israelite system, taken from scripture(which BTW, doesn't present the critic of it), the second one is from the Israeli regime.

Lastly, an article to respect its name in this cases, it can't be otherwise than POV. How you make that NPOV, you write “what is called religious persecution by Jews, is the persecutions by Jews against other people adhering to other religions?” Don't you see anything wrong here? The articles aim is to directly point a finger on a group of people, and not report, in a cold encyclopedic fashion the persecutions by a regime, a system etc. If you neutralize such article, you somehow disconnect it from its name. Fadix ^{(My Talk)} 21:08, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I accept your argument on the semantics of the article name. However, I retain my position on NPOV. I admit that a finger is being pointed when writing on a subject such as this, but if the facts are there and properly documented, then that finger deserves to pointed. In other words, the article can be neutral without being neutralized, and need not be comfortable for the subject group while still being NPOV.
It is unfortunate that those who most wish to write on this subject are the least capable of producing an article with NPOV. As a practical matter, that is more of an issue than whether an NPOV treatment of this issue can be done.

• • • His point escapes me also. I guess this is what you get when you allow anyone to vote (except me, because I have too few edits apparently). -Dv 20:54, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

What you propose, a dictatorial regime, in which, there is no votes prior a decision? Fadix ^{(My Talk)} 21:08, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

• Yikes! Delete as soon as possible. It is clearly original research and shows no knowledge of a huge amount of historical research, about both Jewish history and about the composition of the Bible. Its use of the word "religion" itself is anachronistic. Israeli policy on the occupied territories is something worth analyzing, in all of its complexities (which does not mean "defending" it). But that policy is not religiously motivated or about religion (the Israeli State that occupied the West Bank and the Gaza Strip in 1967 was secular, and Fatah, the major militant wing of the PLO, was/is secular). And then to conflat it with stuff reported in a document writtehn 2500 years ago about stuff that may have happened 3000+ years ago — well it is just baffling. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:47, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete : Looks like nothing but an escuse for Jew-bashing.--Revas 23:46, 20 July 2005 (UTC)