Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jewish slave trade

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 Keep and the article will be moved as well. --JForget 00:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jewish slave trade

Jewish slave trade (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This article has no prior versions that are free of POV pushing. It was created by a single edit account, and it has become a coat rack. I believe that there is insufficient NPOV content to support a separate article. Any useful content can be merged into Slavery or one of it's sub-articles. If this discussion results in keeping the article, then it must be moved to an NPOV title such as Judaism and slavery. We already have Islam and Slavery, and Christianity and slavery so we should follow that convention. Jehochman ^Talk 15:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC) (Amended 19:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC))

• Keep - This article is prone to POV edits in one direction or another, and as a result should be rewritten. Atari400 15:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

  Being "prone to POV edits" is not a valid reason for deletion if the subject matter passes notability and reliability guidelines. Tarc (talk) 16:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

You raise a good point. Atari400 16:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• I don't really have a vote one way or the other in terms of deletion. But, while I agree with Tarc's comment about how "being prone to POV edits" is not valid for deletion, I think that this should follow the convention of the other two major religions as stated by Jehochman. Tanthalas39 (talk) 16:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, but move to Judaism and slavery. There is the potential for an encyclopaedic article here, despite its status as a magnet for POV pushers, but the current title does not seem neutral and is potentially inflammatory. 'X and slavery' seems to be the approach used for other religions, so should be used here. Terraxos (talk) 16:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I do note that we have Arab slave trade under a similar name, but that article is somewhat better referenced than this one, and anyway I can't think of a better name for it (Arabs and slavery seems even worse). Terraxos (talk) 16:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Worse, perhaps, but logically more correct. After all, it was not Arabs that were being traded, for the most part, such as the case with the African Slave Trade. Atari400 16:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Notice that those are sub-articles of History of slavery. There is almost new mention of Jews in that article. I suggest merging NPOV content from the present Jewish slave trade into History of slavery. When there is enough content for more than a short section, per manual of style's summary style guidelines, we can create a sub article for Judaism and slavery, as we have for the other, larger religions. Jehochman ^Talk 16:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, the fundamental problem is that many of these pages, at least at the time of their creation or through further edits, become not just highly POV, but actual attack pages. This particular article is not unique in that regard. Personally, I think the article should be renamed and rewritten to reflect current scholarly views of the matter(mostly debunking the notion, but in a historical context). Failing that, it probably should be deleted. Unfortunately, that is unlikely to happen, as too many editors wish to inject their own personal feelings into the matter. I learned that the hard way, just trying to rename another article into something more academic. Also, you seem to think I am the one who actually created this page, which I do find amusing. Atari400 17:05, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, change title, as above: I wasnt sure about this but then references 1, 2 and 3 do suggest there's a sort of relationship between Jews/Judaism and slavery. Also see this, so I support Jehochman's title Judaism and Slavery. Atari400 has been move warring here. Also, slavery is such an old concept, I'm not surprised that it was found almost everywhere so this article didn't come as a shock to me. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 16:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and Move for the above reasons, and Judaism and Slavery is a good name, unless Allegations of Jewish Slave trade gains traction. :) Tarc (talk) 16:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment (EDIT CONFLICT) This article is prone to POV issues but so is almost every article involving a religious viewpoint or history. I think personally that the best thing here would be to rename the article per the previous suggestion and to keep vigilant watchover it in the interest of neutrality. This all of course, depends on the availability on substantially verifiable sources and information--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 17:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

  We should also add a summaries and links to History of slavery and Religion and slavery. Jehochman ^Talk 17:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• Strong keep no valid reason for deletion, though plenty of reasons for merge/move. Thinboy00 @794, i.e. 18:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
• Move and/or split There really seem to be two vaugely related smaller articles in this one, one regarding Jews as slaves and the other of Jews as slaveholders. The chronological pieces seem so disjoined as to appear to more properly be pieces of other articles.Naraht (talk) 18:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Response - Renaming/moving the article to Judaism and slavery, might be a good option then as it should, as long as the article was cleaned up, cover the scope of both topis fairly well.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 19:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: the third name mentioned, Abraham ibn Yakub, has a stub here: Abraham ben Jacob. The article would be better with more information about the scholar debates, not just link few names events together. There's almost no mention of slavery outside medieval Europe. If kept and the text doesn't get better within a year I suggest to propose it for delete again. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 20:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The current name "Jewish slave trade" is fine, but "Jews and slave trade" is good as well. "Judaism and slave trade" is not appropriate because the article discusses Jews historically, and does not make any references to the Torah or other Jewish scriptures.Bless sins (talk) 22:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 00:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
• Rename As suggested per NPOV. Lawrence Cohen 04:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and see IZAK below, no need to rename for reasons below. Culturalrevival (talk) 23:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, but rename to Judaism and slavery as suggested above. Springnuts (talk) 22:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
• Rename to Judaism and slavery. The article should be titled in parallel form to Christianity and slavery and Islam and slavery (per naming guidelines). Furthermore, much of the article is not about "slave trade" that is Jewish but rather on: Jewish laws on slavery, Jews who were slaves, Christian restrictions on Jewish slave ownership, etc. Thanks. HG | Talk 04:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and do not rename because the Jewish slave trade and Judaism and slavery are two entirely different subjects, although as with most Jewish/Judaic subjects there is some inevitable overlap, but not enough to force a move of the contents from this article to Judaism and slavery (which would deal with the Torah's view and Jewish law's views of this subject, of which there are many.) This article cites enough reliable historical and academic sources, one of which is from the Jewish Encyclopedia, from which there are almost verbatim cut and pastes here, see and compare this [1]. So the conclusion has to be, indeed edit and monitor for NPOV issues and problems, but there is no running away from the fact that all people in positions of economic and political power in the olden days, and not just Jews, but also including Jews as citizens and sometimes as slaves themselves were involved in the Old World's economy of slavery (they did not have reliable machines in those days so slaves were needed and bought by those who had the means), which it should be noted, in those days, and until fairly recently, actually until the rise of Abolitionism was not considered a crime and was practiced by all nations and cultures. Historically, the ancient economic systems based on slavery and the Feudal System, were brought to a final stop by two historical upheavals, the Industrial Revolution of the 18th and 19th centuries and finally by the American Civil War of the 1860s that put the final historical nail into the coffin of international slavery. IZAK (talk) 13:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep because Jews did own slaves in antiquity, and Jewish halakha discusses slavery extensively. However, rename to Judaism and slavery as suggested by Jehochman. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 22:21, 30 December 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.