Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Contemporary persecution of non-Jews by Jews

See Talk:Contemporary persecution of non-Jews by Jews for arguments regarding the unsuitability of this topic that seems to aim to accomplish a POV cynical goal more suited to the Anti-Zionism article. There is already an article about Zionism and racism in any case, so this article seems suspiciously placed to portray Jews as "villains" -- more of a "blame the victim" syndrome routine, than a work of unbiased scholarship. What a shame that it has been here so long. IZAK 06:14, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete--Rachack 16:24, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete IZAK 06:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I'm switching as Status of religious freedom in Israel seems to be dealt with in Religion in Israel, including the stuff that was in this article and seemed germane.--T. Anthony 07:52, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - what's the argument for deleting the article? --Candide, or Optimism 06:55, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Candide: Simple, it's full of garbage, not worthy of an encyclopedia. IZAK 09:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• I'm open to discussion here, but my instinct would be to refactor any well-cited material that is not elsewhere, and delete this, along with other articles like Historical persecution by Muslims, Historical persecution by Atheists, and Historical persecution by Christians. All of these seem to me to rely on muddled categories: they pick out a broad religious affiliation, and then seek out persecutors who happen to be of that affiliation. And "persecution" is such a loaded word all around, especially when applied (as it is here) to a private citizen spitting at someone. I could imagine a useful article on human rights of non-Jews in Israel (which seems the real thrust of this), but not one focused primarily on violations of those rights. If violations are prevalent, that would come out in such an article; if not, so would that. More drastically, on a related article, even in a contemporary context, any coverage of "Muslims" ranges from Indonesia to Saudi Arabia. It's hard for me to imagine that any meaningful pattern of persecution ranges over such divergent societies. All worthwhile material here should be regrouped in ways that don't lend themselves to one-sided articles, whether this is organized by time-period, or on some other principle. I don't usually monitor AFD these days (although I'll watchlist this page), but if someone wants to nominate any of these related articles for deletion, you may feel free to contact me via my talk page, and I will cast essentially the same vote on any of them. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:24, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

:::And if I want to read about Muslim, Christian, or Jewish persecution of other people, where would I go? --Candide, or Optimism 19:20, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

:::Kafir (Islam), Islamism, :Category:Inquisition, :Category:Religious persecution, Witch trial, Amalekites, etc should all indicate who's doing the persecution in least in the article.--T. Anthony 00:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

::If you want to go for deleting all these "persecution by" articles I could go for that too. I created the one on atheists as there were all these others already, but all of them gone is okay by me too.--T. Anthony 07:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

:::Note that these "Religious persecution" articles have been brought up for deletion before. I'd be more than happy to vote to keep them again, because the topic is an important subject in human history. :) — RJH 17:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete "The vast majority of Jews believe" is nonsense alone. Most of the rest of the article is unsupported and vague, but is also contained in other articles, making this one redundant. And I agree with Jmabel. jnothman ^talk 07:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete this. I thought we'd already gotten rid of this tripe. Tomer^talk 07:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: consider Persecution of non-blondes by blondes instead. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 08:13, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• We'd prolly have more luck with Persecution of blondes by non-blondes...perhaps we should just make that a redirect to blonde jokes tho... :-p Tomer^talk 17:07, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: Word. Let's hurry up and get this over with. It's nearing Shabbat and I'd like to enjoy my time and relax, and specifically not worry about bickering of something so simple. --Hersch 12:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, the content (at least those parts that aren't grossly pov) are already covered elsewhere 70.48.174.244 08:17, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, very good explanations aboveKempler video 09:26, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete POV propaganda. Kuratowski's Ghost 09:03, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. All those articles in the "religious persecution" series seem a little suspect to me, maybe we need to take a look at all of those too (there are so many of them...) Grandmasterka 09:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete. We are writing an encyclopaedia, not a hate magazine. -- Olve 10:14, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Ches88 11:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Let me be bold: there's no need for an article that basically has nothing to cover. Jews might not be better than other people, but "religious persecution" seems not to be one of their flaws. I can see that the article itself admits that (at least in my interpretation?) but our tendency to try to write something educated about everything turns this acknowledgment into a pretty awkward text. Also, why do some people always have to mix everything in the same bag? — Hillel 12:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Spitting attacks are persecution? The fact that the State of Israel may be doing things that some would call persecution does not equate with "Jews", as these acts are not performed as a function of the state's "Jewish identity" but for political reasons. In other words: everything is POV, out of balance and will remain so whatever changes are made. JFW | T@lk 12:35, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• /me persecutes this article... Tomer^talk 13:04, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and I give my permission to copy this vote into any nominated "Persecution of ..." article's AfD entry. Confusing Manifestation 13:07, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per others gidonb 13:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment author(s) seem(s) utterly confused between Israelis and Jews. Also Law of return is not a treatment of non-Jews but rather of Jews and their immediate families. gidonb 19:49, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Merge appropriate information to appropriate article. Delete anything that is left. --StuffOfInterest 14:13, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - this is what is known as begging the question. --Leifern 14:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete very boring flavor. Klonimus 14:55, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete a good example of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. DLand 15:25, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 15:50, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. As the article itself points out, this is more about Jews as a nationality than as a religion; and there are no other nationality-based articles, about the right of return of Germans to Germany, for instance. The other persecution articles linked are religion based, and the best that can be cited here in that category is that sometimes orthodox Jews spit on nonJews, possibly as often as once a week? (apparently I wasn't logged in when I posted this originally)Gzuckier 16:40, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Full of POV Avi 16:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Eranb 17:10, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - garbage XYaAsehShalomX 17:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. per above. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 17:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Polemic, and most of it is already in Religion_in_Israel#Religious_tensions. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:48, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep under new name (Historical treatment of non-Jews by Jews). While all Jews are obviously different, this is a facet of Judaism that's absolutely substantial enough to write about by itself. Things it could note: Biblical commands to wipe out Amalekites, Canaanites, etc.; any findings on how those of other religions were treated under the Maccabean Kingdom and later; how apostates and non-Jews have historically been treated and are treated today (e.g., see if we can find news stories about tolerance toward and/or ostracism of those who "went off the path", and instructions from halachic authorities such as the Shulchan Aruch on how to deal with such heretics); non-Jews' status in Israel; and non-Jews' status under traditional, Conservative, Reform, and other variants of Jewish law. There's a great deal to discuss here, every bit encyclopedic, and it shouldn't be thrown away just because the current content is incomplete.

  For those who've noticed the remarkable prevalence of Jews here, I would like to note that User:IZAK e-mailed me to point out this page, which of course doesn't show up on his edit history. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 18:41, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

• I'm confused as to why you moved the article to that new title. The contents have little to do with the new title, and it doesn't seem to make sense to move articles while they're being discussed in AfD. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:53, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• (Put before IZAK's earlier comment to make the indentation less confusing:) The contents were a subset of the topic covered by the new title, since persecution of non-Jews by Jews is inherently a subset of the historical treatment of non-Jews by Jews. Articles should never present only one side of a story, and therefore I moved the article to a name that didn't inherently restrict the article to one side of a story. And since articles are routinely edited during AFDs, and regularly are kept due to their improvement over the course of the AFD, I see no problem with moving pages either. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 06:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
• I have reversed Simetrical's highly manipulative move there, which he should not have done as long as this vote is underway. Furthermore, Simetrical needs to apologize very quickly here and now for his highly offensive comment that "...For those who've noticed the remarkable prevalence of Jews here..." which is totally disgusting and out of line. What is he saying, that Jews should "shut up" ? This just reinforces the need to delete articles of this nature that are poisonous magnets that attract the wrong kind of misinformed and twisted debate and responses. IZAK 08:29, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Again, I would like to know why moving a page under AFD should be verboten any more than editing it. And I'm certainly not apologizing for commenting on there being a remarkable prevalence of Jews here, because there is. How on Earth is that offensive? Stop trying to suggest that anyone who disagrees with you is an anti-Semite—you've lost an RFAr on that already for good reason.

  I was pointing out that you were electioneering, nothing more. You deliberately attempted to skew the proportion of Jews to non-Jews here to well over normal levels, thereby making the vote unrepresentative, and you know it. Don't get upset where you're called out. Not that such electioneering is necessarily prohibited on Wikipedia, but it could be taken into account by the closing admin if the vote were closer than it is. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 06:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

• Simetrical: There is process and method and then there is meaning and intent. While there may be disagreement about what is the best process and method on Wikipedia, there is no disagreement about the meaning and intent of the phrase you used "...For those who've noticed the remarkable prevalence of Jews here..." which you now compound (for the worse) by saying "...You deliberately attempted to skew the proportion of Jews to non-Jews here to well over normal levels..." (implying that Wikipedia works with some sort of racial or religious "quota system", which it does not). Most impartial and knowledgeable people would say your comments are truly unfortunate and VERY nasty, to say the least. I have not and did not use the words "anti-Semite" here and I have not accused you of being one (so quit playing "victim" please). I merely brought your attention to the fact that you continue to make tasteless and disgusting slurs, considered insulting by many people -- not just Jews -- that would be deemed beneath contempt and not to be uttered in polite company, which you should apologize for, and not, as you continue to do, reinforce and self-righteously "justify". Furthermore, you make it sound that I am running for some sort of office by using the word "electioneering" which is all rather strange. Oh, and I am not getting upset, do you think I should be? IZAK 07:34, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
• I've responded to IZAK at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ancient persecution of non-Jews by Jews. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 00:37, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Unencyclopedic. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:56, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Eusebeus 20:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per SlimVirgin. -- Ynhockey 20:26, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per DLand -- Yid613 22:34, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete per IZAK and SlimVirgin. 172 22:50, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Merge anything that is worthy with other appropriate pages, get rid of the junk.
• Strong Delete per Izak et al. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 05:54, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per SlimVirgin. -- Nahum 06:00, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Evolver of Borg 10:30, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - the article is not so much an encyclopedia entry as an anti-Semitic diatribe. Yoninah 18:23, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Absolute useless tripe. SlimVirgin's answer says it best. --Michaelk 08:23, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete per IZAK and Jayjg. --maayan 15:38, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Stong Delete No comment.--196.206.213.71 20:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete --Revolución (talk) 02:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Though in most, if not all, groups there are those who are prejudiced against outsiders, and you could definitely dredge up a few incidents, most of the material in this article is at best tangential to the topic of contemporary persecution of non-Jews by Jews, concentrating on the State of Israel instead. Whoever wrote this article could have at least bothered to look up the views of the various Jewish groups and movements on the topic. If this article somehow is kept, someone please tell me, and I'll be happy to hack out the irrelevant trash. Hiergargo 03:16, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per above- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 05:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per everyone's comments; this article is complete garbage. If I had seen it when it was newly created, I probably would have added the {{nonsense}} tag to it. СПУТНИК^{ССС Р} 12:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• Merge anything factual and/or relevant, and delete the rest. Ingoolemo ^talk 19:37, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nonsense. If anything, it's the the Jews who have been repeatedly persecuted (have we forgotten The Holocaust already?!) Cyde Weys 05:25, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

:A group can be both persecutor and persecuted in different times or circumstances. I voted delete, but I don't think being victimized in the Holocaust makes a group incapable of being victimizers. Serbs were slaughtered by the Croat Ustase, but Serbs also slaughtered people in the civil war decades later.--T. Anthony 16:12, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, per above. --Mrfixter 00:32, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

: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.