Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jewish-muslim war

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. - Mailer Diablo 10:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jewish-muslim war

Jewish-muslim war (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

The stub is a tendentious and unencyclopedic POV on the Arab-Israeli conflict, an explosive subject for sure, but not a war in the usual sense of the word, and is not a religious conflict (of course the conflict has some religious overtones, but Judaism and Islam have a long and complex history together - the current title is a classic case of throwing the proverbial baby away with the bathwater ←Humus sapiens ну? 01:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Del as nominator. ←Humus sapiens ну? 01:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete nn term. I was just about to nominate this myself. TewfikTalk 01:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable and also a possible POV fork. 6SJ7 18:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC) Added comment, it is also a neologism, in fact it is so "neo" that it doesn't even qualify as a neologism (yet).
  • Keep as author. I would respond that this is an article whose "subject is a Pov" and therefore is a legitimate article.

Humas Sapiens argument is with the political accuracy of the term Jewish-Muslim War. Sapien writes "not a war in the usual sense of the word, and is not a religious conflict (of course the conflict has some religious overtones, but Judaism and Islam have a long and complex history together." Sapiens statement itself supports the separate political meaning of the term.

Jewish Muslim war definately has meaning as a political statement whether one agrees with the statement or not. To delete this phrase is to delete it's powerful political meaning, certainly a gross violation of NPV.

As far as the phrase's significance, to devote two small paragraphs for a phrase used in a speech by the leading opposition leader of the largest and most powerful Mulsim countries in the world would seem fair.Live Free or Die 00:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per those advocating same. There's no indication that, outside of Baykal's particular speech, this term has caught on. Politicians routinely try to coin phrases - and the vast majority never catch on. It's also misleading for the reasons stated. There's a very slight case to merge this into the article on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict somewhere, but I'm not convinced that's a great course of action. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete A different, seldom used name for events and information we have far better articles on already. --Tefalstar 13:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)Tefalstar
  • Delete or, if the author can gather enough verifiable sources, merge into Arab-Israeli conflict. On it's own, I can't see this article developing as anything other than a POV Fork. -- simxp (talk) 21:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Rebuttal by Author* Does the term add value to Wikipedia? If Nancy Pelosi (arguably the leader of the U.S opposition party) had used the term to define her party’s position on the Arab Israeli conflict, I have little doubt the term would have itself a page--much like George Bush’s “War on Terror” has a page, there would be no talk of a POV fork or duplication. Granted, Baykal is no Nancy Pelosi; but his status is official. That’s what make Wikepedia so valuable, it contains those little tidbits of info that you just can’t find anywhere else so easily.Live Free or Die 03:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
    • If Pelosi had used the term, I can guarantee an article would have been written, yes. However, the article (and the term) would have been subject to precisely the same criteria that this article (and the term as used by Baykal) is. The "War on Terror" has been, for better or worse, used by any number of people on both sides of politics and both sides of the war. At the moment, this phrase hasn't - and in that case it doesn't matter whether Deniz Baykal, Nancy Pelosi or my barber said it. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 03:47, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
    • BigHaz, ok, I'm sure there would be challenges to a page existing if Pelosi had used the term (probably from Republicans), but are you saying the page would be deleted if Pelosi had used the term to define the Democrat Party's position on a major policy speech on the arab-israeli conflict?Live Free or Die 11:32, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
      • I'm saying that, in an ideal world where everyone followed policy, such an article shouldn't be created until the term has been picked up by multiple independent reliable sources in a non-trivial manner. Even then, I would not suggest that an article which simply says "Nancy Pelosi called the Arab-Israeli conflict the 'Jewish-muslim war'" would be a good thing to have - such information would more than likely get merged into the article on the conflict (if that). The fact would remain that there's already a name for the conflict, no matter what Pelosi wanted to call it. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:45, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
      • So if someone is researching the term for whatever reason, and that term had once been focal point of the Democratic party's position, the researcher would be more informed by not ever knowing (at least through Wikipedia) the true history of the term? Sounds like Wikipedia's loss to me. By the way, Baykal does have his own Wikipedia article, and to think that term used by him on so powerful an issue has no legitimate existence in Turkish politics probably reflects a Western bias.Live Free or Die 14:59, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
        • Firstly, there's no indication anywhere that this term has been the focal point of any party (US Democrats, Turkish CHP, anyone else)'s position. If there were such evidence, we would be a lot less likely to be having this discussion in the first place. Secondly, if there were evidence that the term is the focal point of any party's position, that would strengthen the case to at least merge our hypothetical article with the one on the conflict itself. One could write that "The American Democratic party has argued that the conflict is a 'Jewish-muslim war'". There'd be no need to create a separate article, since pretty much everyone else still calls it the Israel-Palestine conflict (in much the same way, if a political party were to call the War on Terror the "Let's get Bin Laden Operation", that wouldn't justify a separate article unless that term became more widely used than "War on Terror"). I know that Baykal has his own article and that he's an important political figure. However, just because he is important doesn't mean that every word which he says is important. There are not articles on every single phrase which the current American President has coined, and neither should there be unless they attract independent non-trivial reliable coverage. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:24, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Let's say a regular Joe Blow (me) wakes up one morning and realizes that "jewish-muslim war" totally summarizes this craziness that I've seen my whole life on the news. He wants to know what the history of the term is. Does it exist or did he make it up? He doesn't care about the Wikipedian consensus on the Arab-Israeli conflict. He has his own opinion, thank you. He does a search on Wikipedia... nothing. He searches google. He gets lucky on his 3rd attempt. The best article pops to the top. He doesn't have to wade thru professor blogs and porno sites. The term has a real history, not a big one, but a real one...The Turkish Press Review...The Nancy Pelosi of Turkey. That's all I wanted to know. You're talking as if some poor encyclopedia salesman has to carry this thing from door to door. He doesn't. That's what makes Wikepedia, Wikipedia!Live Free or Die 00:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
        • All well and good, but it doesn't in fact address the issue. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and as an encyclopedia has a given series of criteria for what gets included and what doesn't get included. It's a vote of confidence that you came here first rather than jumping on Google, but the fact that an article on this particular term (for something which, as I say, the wider world knows under a different name) doesn't exist doesn't necessarily mean that it must be created straight away. I'm not denying that Baykal said it. I'm not denying that Baykal is an important man. I'm not denying that Turkey is an important country - at least regionally. What I am denying, though, is that just because a term has "a real history" it must have an article. There are any number of local bands and high school athletes who patently exist but don't qualify for articles at present. That which passes the criteria can be included. That which does not shouldn't be. If the criteria change or the previously-ineligible subject suddenly passes them, the article can be re-created. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:14, 10 June 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.