Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jewish-Arab conflict

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 of the debate was delete, extra weight being given to a delete vote by a notorious inclusionist, and subtracted from several weak/conditional keep votes. Prepetual cleanup tagging is also a factor. See you on WP:DRV, or better yet, go to the sandbox and re-write this as a good article. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 11:03, Dec. 25, 2005

[edit] Jewish-Arab conflict

I beleive this should be deleted as this is not a distinct recognised "event", and that the (single) author has a NPOV agenda. Jgritz 06:03, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

There's only a single reference on google to the 623-627 timespan from a single article replicated throughtout various sites. The article is here - http://www.cooper.edu/humanities/core/hss3/kuntzel.html Jgritz 06:03, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete for now, unless someone can make a compelling case that this is not OR. -- JJay 06:10, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment while this appears to be OR to the untrained eye, the addition of a few citations would improve matters Savidan 06:09, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Maybe. Seems fairly absurd to me though. -- JJay 06:20, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Not to delete, there is even a parallel article in the Hebrew Wikipedia. Toya 06:23, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - valid argument. Needs references though. It is very encyclopaedic, and, per Toya, there is already an article in the Hebrew Wikipedia. Can easily be written to conform to WP:NPOV, although I am not convinced that the current article is overly biased anyway. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 07:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per Zordrac. Movementarian 11:37, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep appears to be enciclopedical enough, but needs cleanup,categories and of course references since it is a controversial subject abakharev 11:43, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete or at least move or re-name the Mizrahi were both Jews and Arabs from the era. Read Coopers (Not that Dodgy Uni, but the Irish Encyclopaedia makers!) for more Info... really interesting stuff! --Irishpunktom\talk 15:40, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I've tried to clean it up. its still fairly terrible.. a Mish-mash of jumbled ideas of the History of Muhammad and the spread of Islam.. not really worthy of a keep. --Irishpunktom\talk 16:20, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep just about, but if it's not cleaned up with vigour I'll be voting delete if it comes back. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 16:56, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. Whenever I use my AdministrativePower® on an article involving Islam, the author invariably contacts me about it, asking questions about the content, and I have to reply that I'm just the janitor. But this article seems like it should be mostly valid. — JIP | Talk 18:34, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep but revise. The concerns cited here are valid, but there is a need for an article about this (there are elements of the Jewish-Arab conflict which are distinct from the Arab-Israeli conflict, most notably events before the creation of Israel). Savidan 06:07, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment There is no relationship between the events of the time of Muhammad, which was not a "Jewish-Arab", but a Jewish-Muslim conflict in which both sides were Arabs by most definitions (including according to this article), and the conflict between Zionists and local Arabs in Palestine that began some 1200 years later. This article inaccurately characterises them both as "Jewish-Arab" conflict and then tries to draw an ahistorical link between them, which is original research. Palmiro | Talk 15:43, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep but requires a lot of work. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 09:10, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
    Qualifying my vote: the topic deserves to be described in an encylopedic and NPOV way. AFAIR, POV is not a reson for deletion. As the tags already say, this article needs to be reworked and possibly renamed/merged. Suggestions to what/where are welcome. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 05:54, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep but need improvement. AucamanTalk 22:01, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • delete not notable. There have been so many two bob tribal wars in history - why is this one notable? Unbehagen 00:47, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong delete as original research which also verges on patent nonsense (the Jewish-Arab conflict was a conflict between Arab Jewish tribes and Arab Muslim tribes? ah come on, that´s not only ludicrous given the article title but entirely inaccurate). This is ahistorical crap and allowing it to stay on Wikipedia can only harm WP's reputation. The worst piece of idiocy I have seen here in a long time. Palmiro | Talk 15:29, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I agree 100%. This article is total crap. Can anyone find any evidence which can even say that this ever happened? On that note, has anyone here ever even heard of this? Tobyk777 04:08, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per palmiro. Also clearly this article is being used to add POV information and links that can't be added on other articles. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 15:44, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -- surrealistically revisionist original research. I hear Columbus had a prescient grudge against the Foxwoods casino, too. Better cover that in Italian-Native American Conflict. BYT 19:23, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete this current incarnation. If someone wants to write a proper article on the 7th century events, that would be fine, but this isn't it. It's just an embarrassingly inept attempt to link something then to something now. --Zero 01:33, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete lol. German-France conflict. X-Y conflict. --Striver 01:51, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. POV original research. Jayjg (talk) 07:28, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - I can't believe that this article is going to be deleted. People, there is article about that in the Hebrew Wikipedia - הסכסוך היהודי ערבי, and no one deleted this article! Come on, you can't delete this article! Toya 10:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Could you translate it for us so we can compare? Jgritz 11:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I'd quite like to see that as well. Palmiro | Talk 13:31, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
The first version of the Jewish-Arab conflict article was pretty much translation of part of the Hebrew article. Toya 14:55, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, if that is the case, I guess I'll be discounting remarks along the lines of "it's in the Hebrew WP" in future. I just hope someone sorts it out there. Palmiro | Talk 18:23, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
So? Go and vfd that to. I wonder why nobody vfd'd the one in Hebrew Wikipedia? --Striver 11:26, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
I've heard that the Hebrew version is inherently biased against Islam and Muslims and especially Arabs, however, not being fluent there was no way of commenting on it. I guess this proves it. --Irishpunktom\talk 17:47, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
How does this prove a bias? -- JJay 20:01, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
The existence of one bad article is hardly sufficient grounds for inferring "inherent bias against Islam and Muslims", I feel! Palmiro | Talk 02:51, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
I speak Hebrew, but not very well, so I am unable to fully comprehend the Hebrew version of the article, so I can't comment. But, think logicaly for a minute. The conflcit is between Israel and the Arab world. The only country in the world which speaks Hebrew as their national language is Israel. Wouldn't it make sense that people involved in the conflict would write with a bias? However, I personaly have a pro-Israel bias, but that's irelavent. This article isn't about the Israeli Palestinian conflict, it's about a fictional event which apparently no one here has ever heard of except for the author. Almost every keep on this discussion has been becuase they didn't know about the subject, and learned from the article. But this article is totaly wrong. Can anyone here honostly say they can confirm anything this article says? Tobyk777 04:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Tobyk777 04:04, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Marvelous piece of original research, starting with "Proponents of this view see the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the Arab-Israeli conflict as a "reincarnation" of the Jewish-Arab conflict" onwards. Ramallite (talk) 16:11, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as above. --Ian Pitchford 17:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Very interesting piece of information--Astriolok 20:57, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - It's embarassing for WP that people would want to keep this. I'm not against the article title so much as this line "The Jewish-Arab conflict is the name given by some people to a series of conflicts from the years 623 to 627". Who are "some people". No-one except for some bloke called Küntzel who studies at a place funded by Vidal Sassoon (yes the hairdresser!) has even mentioned this period according to google. Maybe there's something wrong with the translation of the title from the Hebrew version. If the article is kept, then it has to be rewritten as a an observation of the conflict over a lot longer period, without any emphasis on it being a "reincarnation". Jgritz 21:23, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete One could imagine a serious entry with this title, but this isn't it.--Sjsilverman 22:51, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, original research as noted by the regular editors who represent various Jewish/Arab perspectives. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 01:57, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Misleading article. The title and the content do not match! It is called J-A conflict (ethnic) while the content talks about a religious one. Cheers -- Svest 12:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)  Wiki me up™
  • Delete Yuber(talk) 04:06, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - inaccurate and misnamed. -- nae'blis (talk) 21:25, 23 December 2005 (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.