Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jericho massacre

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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--JForget 00:46, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jericho massacre

Jericho massacre (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

POV fork from Joshua, check creator's history. Avi 02:03, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete Clarifying opinion above Avi 02:05, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete POV with questionable source, it hardly will be attributed. If someone find WP:RS for it, merge back to Joshua. Carlosguitar 03:12, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Y (talk • contribs) 04:05, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - POV. Tiptoety 04:44, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep This article has tremendous potential to become the subject of an edit war concerning the indiscriminate slaughter of the ancestors of the Palestinians by the ancestors of the Israelis, who were no doubt aided by the ancestors of the Americans. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 04:59, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Great Chief Powhatan was there for sure :) -- Y not? 05:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment: I appreciate your irony Malik. I am angry about discussion of this topic because the politics of it are the real issue. For goodness sake, death is horrible, not accademic. However, reporting it is part of encyclopedic work. Let's help one another to report politically sensitive topics fairly, not knock them on the head from inception. But in this case, I agree, Battle of Jericho is the page for it to be covered. Alastair Haines 02:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
        • Comment: I agree: if there is serious literature concerning the Biblical siege and destruction of Jericho, discussion of it belongs in Battle of Jericho. That article already discusses what archaeology and biblical criticism have to say about the subject. Additional information about other modern views, including polemical use of the battle as a metaphor for Israeli-Palestinian relations (if it is, in fact, used that way), also should be considered. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 00:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete: Highly subjective, no sources cited, poorly written, and anything that might be valid can go into the articles for Joshua or Canaan. Gh5046 06:01, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - POV fork. Spawn Man 06:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as POV fork with no content. 23skidoo 06:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete POV fork. Compare the article to Jericho#Walls of Jericho which gives a fairly good scholar account of the event. Jon513 06:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • delete per Jon513. Pete.Hurd 07:01, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. The use of the term 'massacre' is an anachronistic (an probably incorrect) bit of original research, besides the POV problem. HG | Talk 07:29, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Do some research, people - the POV fork is from Battle of Jericho, so that is the potential merger target. - Fayenatic (talk) 14:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per POV and OR. רח"ק | Talk | Contribs 16:41, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. I'm not sure how this article could be salvaged, given the degree of OR and POV. ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 15:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, there are lots of masacres of Israelites/Jews in the Hebrew Bible but they don't get articles of their own (even when they should) so this is obviously meant to be a POV magnet/fork to stir up trouble for the Israelites/Jews, but it fails so miserably. As User:Fayenatic states, any information about this should probably go into Battle of Jericho. IZAK 09:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom , WP:POVFORK. --Shirahadasha 14:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep if we keep out all motives here from users i fail to see why this article must be deleted.--יודל 22:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge. I agree with Fayenatic. A lot of people are expressing opinions here without research. This is definitely an encyclopedic topic on its own. Dozens of books have been written about this specific topic. My impression is people are rushing to sit in judgement of other users, rather than considering objectively what Wiki should do. In this case, people are probably correct about both matters, however I am concerned at the way people are quick to post judgements without actually making a verifiable case. If enough people know to say OR, POV, blah, blah it looks decisive. However, there is no POV or OR in the article. There's not enough there! It refers to a documented fact that has been covered in thousands of Bible commentaries. My impression of the Wiki process here is that ignorant people line up to censor the activity of other users. Look into your hearts! And admin, do something about this! Alastair Haines 02:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  • (long) Comment I'm probably not as familiar with the topic as I could be, granted. However, from my standpoint, I see two lines about one people massacring another. It's POV, in that the massacring nation would term it much differently. An NPOV lede would be something along the lines of "The battle of Jericho was fought in the Somethingth-century BC between the people of Canaan and the tribes of Israel. The battle was won by the Israelites, and resulted in the destruction of the city and the death of much of its population." It was an event, it occured in a given time and place, involving given sets of people, and it is notable because of X. That would be a neutral POV. The historicity controversy acknowledges a contrary view - that the event is myth rather than fact - but doesn't discuss the position at all other than to acknowledge that it exists. Again, favoring one viewpoint (the massacre happened) versus another (It didn't). Further, the source for the controversy (source two) appears to be a blog of some sort, published by the author of the piece. Who is this person, and why is he a reliable soruce? That's where I see Original Research - there aren't reliable sources to back a claim. With all respect, I know there are scholarly sources out there that could flesh this topic out to a proper article length. However, in its current form, with the current title, I do not believe the article to be salvageable. An expansion of material on the Battle of Jericho might work under the Joshua article, or as an NPOV article under that title (Battle of Jericho) - but there just isn't anything here to merge. Best, ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 03:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Great work and thank you ZZ. I agree with you on all points. It might seem tedious to spell out all the issues, but that's part of being fair imo. We try to present all options fairly in articles. We should do so in considering noms for deletion. Delete the namespace because it's not required, delete the content, rather than merge, because it's not a serious attempt to address the issue. As regards issues related to the contributer, I would feel more comfortable were these handled in a separate forum. I'm not really interested in this article or discussion so much as us conflating dealing with text, and dealing with contributers. I'm sure others understand the point and can monitor and act on it. I genuinely have confidence you will. Peace. Alastair Haines 07:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm, PS Jericho, according to archaeology has thousands of years of history prior to any biblical account, including a long period of not being occupied. There is every reason to imagine a second millenium genocide would not have been the first, if in fact it did occur. In case I was unclear, the facts I'm refering to are the documented claims that the genocide was theologically justifiable, whether one agrees, disagrees or considers such things irrelevant. Alastair Haines 07:10, 3 October 2007 (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.