Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Religious persecution by Jews

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). As for vote count, my tally (which may be slightly inaccurate) places this at 34 keep (after Dv and Incognito have been discounted as possible sockpuppets, and LokiCT has also been discounted), 66 delete votes, 2 merge votes and one redirect vote. In other words a very close call, with a lot of comments. There are a lot of shouting matches with a load of people emphatically holding their positions. The main concern has the neutrality and verifiability of the article. I am in doubt here. Therefore I cannot delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:03, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Discuss this result on the talk page

[edit] Religious persecution by Jews

• A confused work of pure original research created for WP:POINT. 95% of it deals with actions of the ancient Israelite tribes over 3500 years ago; describing them as Jews is dubious at best, and the "historical source document" for the actions listed (the Old Testament) is considered even more dubious by most modern historians. As well, it throws in one sentence asserting that the Arab-Israeli conflict may (or may not be) an example of "religious persecution by Jews", ignoring the more obvious ethnic underpinnings of the conflict. No credible sources have been brought which assert that any of this is actually "religious persecution by Jews"; it seems to be another back-door attempt to revive the "Jewish ethnocentrism" topic using a novel approach; articles on that topic have already been deleted via two VfDs: [1] [2] Perhaps there is an article that could be written about this topic, though it's not clear exactly what it would be referring to, but this article certainly isn't it. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:09, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. BlankVerse ∅ 11:42, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:09, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep This article, like the articles on Religious persecution by Muslims and Religious persecution by Christians covers a very real and very notable topic. These articles are intended to be the first three of a series of articles covering outgroup religious persecutions committed by members of the world's religious/spiritual groups. So far all the contributors to these pieces have shown themselves willing to withdraw or source material that others request be sourced. I agree, of course, that these articles are likely to attract POV warriors. But this is not grounds for preemptively destroying the articles. If you have particular complaints, please make them on the Talk pages so that they can be addressed. Don't just impulsively go a VfD. Also, I suggest that this might as well be a VfD on all three of them, and on the other planned additions to this series, since each of the articles in the series covers equivalent topics. I think it would be a shame if this new series were deleted out of wikicowardice and unwillingness to protect Wikipedia from the POV mosquitoes who will be attracted to these articles. Babajobu 18:14, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
  • You comments do not deal with any of the issues I raised. Please focus on them. Oh, and providing a source does not help at all with the Original Research problem, unless the source itself also asserts that the information provided is an example of Religious persecution by Jews. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:20, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm absolutely flummoxed by your claim that this is original research. Please help. I guess I'm slow. I quite literally do not understand what you mean when you say that it is original research to state that the Bible claims that Jews, qua Jews, committed acts of violence against non-Jews. Take a look at my Wikipedia edit history and see whether you think I am acting out of the anti-Jewish agenda you suspect has motivated this article. Babajobu 18:33, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Please review the Wikipedia:No original research article; the "Religious persecution by Jews" article asserts that there is such a phenomenon as "Religious persecution by Jews", and that actions by the ancient Israelite tribes constitute examples of the same. This is a novel thesis which needs to be supported by citeable sources. Considering that the Bible is not considered a particularly reliable historical source, and that the Bible nowhere says the incidents mentioned were done by Jews (but rather by Israelites), the whole article is questionable. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:26, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Oh incidentally, the Bible repeatedly describes these events as being committed by "Yehudim" (Yud-heh-dalet-mem), then and now the Hebrew word for "Jews". I think what you are trying to say is that the Torah (pentateuch) describes only Israelites, but the transition to "Jews" is made at some point in the Nevi'im. Not that any of this will influence any votes on the VfD, which is fueled by more, uh, primal concerns. Babajobu 22:14, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
    • I would posit that drawing a connection between ancient Israelites and modern day Jews is not a "novel thesis". Certainly members of every synagogue on the planet would be startled to learn that this is a novel thesis, as would anyone who has glanced at any primary or secondary source covering 2300 years of post-Tanakh Jewish theology or Jewish history. "Moses was a Jew" is not an outlandish assertion, though it certainly can stand for scholarly qualifications. Anyway, why did you not raise these concerns on the Talk Page? Why did you go straight to VfD? And yes, you did speculate on the motivations of the contributors, by speculating that the article was an attempt to revive some already deleted article that none of us had actually heard of. Babajobu 19:35, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
      • If it's not a "novel thesis", then please present a scholarly source which asserts that the alleged actions of the ancient Israelites are examples of "Religious persecution by Jews". I went straight to VfD because this article was an obvious candidate for deletion. And I did not speculate about motives, but rather about actions. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:50, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Also, please do your best to focus on the article rather than indulging in idle (and innacurate) speculation about the motives of the contributors. Thanks so much. Babajobu 18:38, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
  • I haven't speculated about any motivations at all. I've discussed apparent actions, not motivations. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:26, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, cleanup, and add some sort of "religious persecution series" template to every one of these RP pages. Or maybe just a Man's Inhumanity template? — RJH 18:31, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree that adding the template is vital. How does one create a template? Babajobu 18:36, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - I was unaware of those two previous VFD that Jayjg highlighted, but they are irrelevent anyway. This is one part of a proposed series on Religous Persecution, a series I did not start. As for them being Jewish, a quick look at the Jew article tells me "The word Jew (Hebrew: יהודי) is used in a wide number of ways, but generally refers to a follower of the Jewish faith...." This is the first time I've heard a Jewish person tell me that Moses was not a "Follower of the jewish faith", I woul have thought he wrote the book on the Jewish faith. In all honesty this VFD seems to me to be more about making a point than a genuine reason to delete the article, frankly I would have liked Jayjgs help with this piece. But Consensus is Consensus, and we'll see how this goes. --Irishpunktom\^talk 18:53, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • For what it's worth, yes, you did start the series. No series existed until you put your nose to the grindstone and willed into creation a series you clearly wanted to see. And I'm glad you did, I think it has the potential to be a fantastic series. Babajobu 18:57, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. POV personal essay full of original research with no sources. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:58, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • How can you guys regurgitate this tripe?? The article has an inline sourcing for every important assertion!!! "No sources"!!! Unbelievable! Babajobu 19:03, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

    You can't rely on the Bible as your sole source. You'd need scholarly sources for an article like this. And please don't call people's comments "tripe." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:09, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

    • I agree that the great weakness of the Bible as a source must be prominently mentioned. But providing inline verbatim citation from the most frequently cited source in human history is not the same as providing "no sources"! I'm sorry for calling your comments "tripe". That was wrong. Babajobu 19:13, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

• (user has less than 50 edits, but who gives a flying fuck unless you're making ad hominem attacks) Strong Delete - Bad enough we deal with anti-Semitism in real life, this is pure nonsense and has no place in a decent encyclopedia.Existentializer 19:14, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
  • If the article's contributors have inadvertantly added spurious, malicious material that qualifies as anti-semitic, please help us purge it. If you find any Islamophobic material in the Religious persecution by Muslims article, which has the same contributors as this VfD'd article and which includes prominent discussion of Muslim massacres of Jews, please help us purge that material as well. Nobody is trying to offend anyone. Babajobu 19:19, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Sorry, but this article is irredeemable. The various editors who have "contributed" to it (most notably IrishPunkTom) have not seen it as a decent article but an excuse to engage in Jew-bashing. Leave it, and it will probably remain in the same state as any other article that is targeted by Wikipedia's Islamic population. No, I'd rather delete it and not give them the temptation. We've already got enough trouble with articles like Jihad and Islam to deal with.Existentializer 20:51, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
      • A targeted personal attack on me, and a whiff of Islamophobia, colour me surprised. --Irishpunktom\^talk 11:17, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No merits. The record in the Bible, even if correct, cannot be termed "religious persecution" - it certainly was not by the standard of those times. The Biblical record is not a "hard source" for most readers, and should not be used as such. As for modern-day Israel, the so-called "religious persecution" is not the result of the perpetrators being Jews but Israelis. JFW | T@lk 19:43, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Most "religious persecutions" cited as examples were military actions and were not perpetrated because of the recipients' religion. I removed those. JFW | T@lk 19:53, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Delete - for several reasons. 1) The evidence presented is very weak and makes the assumption that biblical literature can be used as historical sources, an assumption that would be met with harsh opposition if it were made anywhere else, e.g., the status of the West Bank and Gaza; 2) the title begs the question, namely that Jews (in some timeless sense) are guilty of religious persecution; 3) it makes a strained point that the Arab-Israeli conflict somehow is grounded in Jewish religious persecution. I certainly agree that point #2 also applies to articles about "Christian" and "Moslem" persecution as well, but this article - as often is the case in this area - appears to have a hidden agenda. If someone wants to make the point that societies in biblical times were religiously intolerant, that should make a separate article. --Leifern 19:44, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

• • I wish people would stop with the panicky speculations about "hidden agendas". I don't want to reveal too much about my real world identity here, but suffice it to say that anyone who knows me would find comical (or just nonsensical) the idea that I had been tagged as having a sinister, anti-semitic agenda. Well, what can one do. The article, and the whole series, could have been very good. I contributed more to the Religious persecution by Muslims than to this one, but still I think they all had potential. But I don't want to waste my Wikipedia time contributing to articles that paranoid folks will preemptively VfD and dog with their unfounded anxieties. I'm giving up on the "religious persecution" articles. I'll stick to uncontroversial topics. Have your way with it, paranoid deletionists. Ciao. Babajobu 19:54, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep or move. The original nominator had problems with it being considered Jewish, but that's not a reason for deletion. And whether the bible is historical or not is irrelavent, the bible is still extrememly notable and hence information in it is by definition notable. Stick a {{NPOV}} is u like, but don't see any reason for deletion. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 19:57, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually, I had problems with it being pure original research; the fact that it uses the Bible as a historical source and equates the actions of ancient Israelites with Jews is a symptom of that problem. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:49, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Delete - I agree with most of the comments above by those urging deletion. The State of Israel is a haven of religious tolerance compared with neighbouring countries. RachelBrown 19:59, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
  • How in God's name does that justify a "delete"?? Compared to Saudi Arabia, Syria is a haven of religious tolerance. Does that mean that an article asserting that religious persecution takes place in Syria would warrant a deletion??? Of course not, Syria is rife with religious persecution just like every other country in the region!! I'm sorry, but the supporting arguments for the delete votes are absolute blather!! But you POV wolves can take the whole series and delete it to your POV hearts' content. Babajobu 20:33, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Kindly get off of your high horse:
      1. If you hit a bee hive, you will get stung. You hit one here.
      2. Most of what you wrote above is valid, but the part starting with "I'm sorry" is not needed.
      3. You have so far failed to produce a scolarly article on the topic. See my vote just below.
• Keep but cleanup, otherwise delete - The topic is valid, but the article as written is a poorly researched anti-semetic rant. Specific book-chapter-verse must be cited for biblical qoutes. Appropriate sources must also be cited for documenting the Arab exodus at the inception of Israel and why it is listed. Other incidents such as those noted in "A History of the Jews" are missing. Also, the use of terms like "ethnic cleansing" must be avoided. The facts can speak for themselves. We Jews have not been angels, but we have not been Nazis either. --EMS | Talk 20:48, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
  • EMS, in most other topics that were in this condition I'd probably agree with you that "keep and clean up" would be a good vote. Unfortunately, from my recent experiences and looking back at the history of articles like Jihad I'm pretty sure that this article cannot be redeemed. The moment anyone tries to do so, expect the POV warriors from those articles (and I'll note that one of the worst offenders, IrishPunkTom, frequents both) to come running for a chance to bash Jews.Existentializer 20:53, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Right, thanks for that Personal attack. You will of course note that I have edited the noted Jihad article less than once. --Irishpunktom\^talk 11:13, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes, I agree that putting terms like "ethnic cleansing" in these articles does nothing but fan POV flames, and should be avoided. I agree with you that cleanup and improved citations are needed. On the other hand, I disagree that, as it exists, it is either anti-semitic or a rant. The biblical quotes are cited "book-chapter-verse". I agree that the discussion of the dislocation of Palestinians must include other arguments and explanations for this dislocation, just as I have tried to solicit Muslim explanations for Muhammad's massacre of the Banu Qurayza at the Religious persecution by Muslims article. That article is no more Islamophobic than this article is antisemitic. Babajobu 20:58, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
      • The article on the book of joshua uses the word genocide, and I thought, perhaps unwisely, that Ethnic Cleansing was less POV-laden and more Flame-resistant than genocide. Also, it did originally cite specific Verse, Chapter and book but these were edited away by another--Irishpunktom\^talk 21:55, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
      • Babajobu wrote:

I disagree that, as it exists, it is either anti-semitic or a rant.

I do not believe that this was the intent, but it sure is the effect. For example, you use Ethnic cleansing as a header instead of Palestinian exodus and Biblical incidents. Compare this article with what you did for Religious persecution by Muslims, which is much more broad and where the headers have no inflamatory POV.

However, I repeat that your worst offense is that you do not know the material. Since we Jews have for most part had little opportunity to perseucte over the last 2500 years it is a somewhat sparse record, but it does exist and you have barely scratched its surface. For example, there was a forced conversion episode during the Maccabean period that is famous amongst Jewish scolars, but which you are apparently quite ignorant of. You need to settle down, do your research, and produce a product that is at least as concise and comprehensive as Religious persecution by Muslims is.

If this gets deleted, I encourage you to try again later, once you can produce a product on a par with Religious persecution by Muslims. Note that Religious persecution by Muslims has not been marked for deletion. Nor has Religious persecution by Christians, but that is stub anyway. --EMS | Talk 05:10, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

EMS, thanks for that comment, it was appreciated. I had only barely began the piece and my intention was to start at the prophets work my way through history and end up at Present-Day israel. The Palestinian Exodus was edited in, I had said that Critics of israel claim that the foundation of the state ofd Israel was an attempt at Ethnic Cleansing, And that is a point I've eard made many times over, I then noted that rougly One-Fifth of the current population is Arab, which substantially disproves that, I would have thought. I appealed for help from Jayjg_{See his talk page}, but he just VFD'ed it. I do, or rather did, need help with this, I don't claim to be an expert of the history of the jewish people throughout the lands, and if this article stays (Which looks unlikely) then I will still appeal for help. The more specificly Jewish editors involved hen the better, surely, this will be. If it gets removed I'll be requesting Religious persecution by Christians get taken off too. --Irishpunktom\^talk 11:32, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

I strongly counsel you to keep what you can. This is a valid topic. However it is also a sensitive topic. To do this properly, the article has to be thorough, well documented, well written, and with a genuinely neutral POV. It has to be a calm, collected, organized recitation of the relevant facts and incidents. As a found it yesterday, it was a hearsay filled diatribe screaming that Jews engage in "ethnic cleansing". Even with my edits, it still fails to do this topic justice in any way, shape or form. I repeat to you what I have said to Babajobu: Do the research and do the work needed to do this properly. In your case I also add in a strong warning: The offensive headings seem to be your doing. Keep that up and this topic will never survive a Vfd vote. --EMS | Talk 14:49, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, Thats fair enough, Your edits read well. The article was a Stub, it was no-where near complete I wanted more Editors involved on all the proposed series.. Oh well. I'm not going to touch another Jewish-Related subject again. --Irishpunktom\^talk 18:52, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

It sounds like it would be very nice if you made good that promise.
I thank you for liking my edits, but you do not seem to be very interested in defending them. Because of that lack my vote is now "strong delete".
I hope that someone will revive this article in the future, but it must be someone who can and will do a good job with it. There are a lot of votes to keep this article because it can be used for Jew-bashing and a lot of votes against it for the same reason. In the middle is a core vote that dislikes it because it is just plain a poor article. A good article will have the approval of that core and will therefore survive a Vfd effot. It's too bad that you could help to create such an article, or even be bothered to defend an improvement (however inadequate) of this one. --EMS | Talk 01:55, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

• New vote: Delete or reduce to a stub. This is a poor attempt to document a legitimate subject. The author shows that he can do better in Religious persecution by Muslims. This article needs and deserves at least that much better. --EMS | Talk 05:10, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Comment I updated the article last night, revising the headings but keeping the content. Those changes seem to be sticking. This article now looks and reads better, but still is an very inadequate treatment of a highly sensitive topic. I regretfully maintain my vote as listed just above. --EMS | Talk 14:31, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Final vote: Strong Delete. The edit war finally started over my revisions. None of the other editors cared to support them (although only one other editor opposed them). Without a community of editors dedicated to doing the truth in a NPOV manner and to defending both the truth and the NPOV, this cannot succeed. No such community exists at this time. It is time for this article to go, and to stay gone for a while. --EMS | Talk 01:42, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

• • EMS, I agree with everything you say about this being a sensitive subject and requiring copious documentation and meticulous wording. I disagree that I'm ignorant of this material: see my talkpage discussion with Eliezer on the debate within the Gemarrah on dealing with female POWs. And my knowledge of Jewish history is pretty solid. Anyway, I appreciate your efforts to get the article going, and apologize for not, as it turns out, having the time to work on these articles, as I'd hoped to. Hopefully in the future we can give it another go. Babajobu 13:27, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete the Bible is not a historical source. If the crimes alleged to have been committed by the Israelites are true, I doubt it had much to do with religion other than land or resources. Revolución 21:39, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Jayjg . --TheMidnighters 22:16, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Shalom l'koolam. Why don't all the delete voters help me out with my new Adi Barkan article. Why not spend more time showing off the clean laundry, and less time trying to bury the dirty laundry? Babajobu 22:23, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I get the feeling some deletes are politically, rather than empirically, motivated. Themindset 22:44, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
  • And I get the feeling that some keeps are politically motivated. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 08:57, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Per reason stated above and because this article have little in common, if any, with religious persecution. MathKnight 22:56, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless solid sources can be provided. Capitalistroadster 23:54, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Discussion of religious persecution should go in the religious persecution article. Allowing separate articles making allegations against specific ethnic or religious groups is inherently POV. Kaibabsquirrel 00:49, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Delete. Per Jayjg and MathKnight.--Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 01:29, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unless substantially revised with historical citations. Appears to be original research to support both antisemitic and anti-Zionist views. (Note, the two are not the same -- but this particular instance favors both.) To be acceptable, this article needs to be revised on the basis of citations from works of history; works of political advocacy need not apply. --FOo 01:35, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Low content, no reputable sources. humblefool®Have you voted in the CSD poll yet? 02:11, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I'm delighted to learn that Moses was not Jewish. I'm not so delighted that some editors simply want to suppress any and all articles that discuss Jews and or Israelis with less than fulsome praise. Grace Note 04:16, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
  • "less than fulsome praise"? You must be kidding. WP is full of articles and everyday attempts to blame "the Jews". Need examples? ←Humus sapiens←Talk 08:57, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. WP:NOR, WP:CITE, WP:NPOV, and I could just go on and on.... func(talk) 04:39, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Expand. Provides NPOV by other articles at links. Peter Ellis 05:00, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and Cleanup Current article is fairly useless, topic is valid. There may be meta-objections to the "Persecution by..." series (POV magnet, etc.), but one VfD is not the place to raise them. Xoloz 05:41, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, in the sense of merge with Anti-semitism (and then rename to something suitable). Definitely needs cleanup and expanding though. ~~~~ 07:19, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Could you explain your vote please? I don't get how and why persecutions by Jews be merged with persecutions of Jews. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 08:57, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Basically religious persecution, as a title, is noteworthy and NPOV. But neither of the above articles are. ~~~~ 19:55, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
      • So why do you vote to Keep this one, and Delete the other? Jayjg ^(talk) 17:36, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
  • I note with some interest that you've voted to delete Religious persecution by Muslims article; in fact, you nominated it for deletion. Could you possibly explain this seeming inconsistency? Jayjg ^(talk) 14:42, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unless substantially revised with historiographical citations. El_C 07:26, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per User:Xoloz. JamesBurns 08:06, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: just as the article on Anti-Semitism does not list Pharaoh, Haman, Amalekites, etc., so we should not base allegations of "religious persecutions by Jews" based solely on Biblical account: this is not a Biblepedia. The inclusion of today's Israel is especially insidious and clearly show someone's political agenda. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 08:44, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Original research. --Viriditas | Talk 09:45, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, as per Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Religious persecution by Muslims. Axon 10:21, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Strong delete, WP:NOR, WP:POV. Radiant_>|< 12:14, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Strong delete - I can conceive of no reason for this article other than to stir up trouble. And for the benefit of the sarcastic person who didn't realise Moses wasn't Jewish, of course he wasn't - the concept of Jews at that time (as opposed to Israelites) is an anachronism. Poetlister 12:44, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• (user has less than 50 edits) Strong delete - I was actually going to cast an "ambivalent" vote until I took a look at the page's history. It's obvious this page was not created in good faith and is instead being used as an excuse for Jew-bashing.Ni-ju-Ichi 13:01, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Ni-ju-Ichi, are you really a Sock-Puppet of Enviroknot, or is that some sort of Joke I don't Get? - Anyway, how, and please be exact, from viewing the history of this piece did you arrive at the conclusion that "this page was not created in good faith" ? --Irishpunktom\^talk;; 13:59, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
    • That'll be enough of that, IrishPunkTom. Going around making needless accusations of sockpuppetry is ridiculous. I have not seen any evidence of any sockpuppets around here, save perhaps for the theory that YOU might be the anonymous IP vandal who plagued the Jihad] article yesterday. As far as evidence, I'd say that your creation of the piece is strong enough evidence at the start that the article wasn't intended to be here for any other reason than Jew-bashing, because you've got a long history of doing just that. The continual attempts by editors (both yourself and others) to insert Jew-bashing comments into the article is all the confirmation I need, and I'm not the only one who thinks that way about this article as evidenced by the numerous deletion comments stating exactly that. Existentializer 14:45, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
      • Firstly, if you viewed Ni-ju-Ichi's User page you would know what i was talking about; The comment was directed their way. Your "Theory" that I'm vandalising an article I've never edited borders on the paranoid. I don't even know you, why the constant tirade of personal abuse directed at me. Aside from this I don't recall ever editing any article which you have also edited. What gives? --Irishpunktom\^talk 19:35, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete As it stands, there is no religious persecution actually cited in the article; as is alluded to but insufficiently thought through, what is in the article are two examples of ethnic cleansing, i.e., persecution on the basis of national origin, rather than religion. (See also the unending discussions of Jewish nationality vs. Jewish religion). Specifically, examples of ethnic cleansing in the Old Testament by the Hebrews (AFAIK, Jews derives from the tribe of Judah, and thus is only relevant after the division into two kingdoms), and examples of ethnic cleansing by the state of Israel (since there is no evidence of any sort of intervention by Israel and/or Jews into the worship practices of the inhabitants, and any such persecution is based on their Arabic nationality rather than their religion, and, as a thought experiment, a Jew who converted to Islam would not be subject to any such hypothetical persecution). Gzuckier 14:17, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Jayjg . Dcarrano 14:36, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, there're similar articles on other religions, why's this one not alright? That "it was not created in good faith" is irrelevant, this should be voted upon empirically. Shem^(talk) 14:57, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Delete. The article is a misnomer as it cites no act of religious persecution by Jews. It cites a Biblical account of "what would today be considered ethnic cleansing" committed by pre-monarchic Israelites. It skips over the next thirty two hundred years to discuss a current ongoing political dispute, casting it in a religious light. This article was clearly created as a POV ranting board for people with an ax to grind, and has no place in Wikipedia. --Briangotts 15:59, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Err.. it was part of a series on Religious Descrimination by... It was not only about Jews, but thus Far contained articles about Muslims (Also up for VFD) and Christians. It was, and is, at it's embryonic stage, with intentions to Chronicle from the Biblical age to the Modern Day. The defeiniton of a jew was to include all definitions as defined by the Jew article. This article simply was not "created as a POV ranting board for people with an ax to grind" --Irishpunktom\^talk 16:11, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
    • So Sayth the Creator of the Article, Yea Verily, even though his own history and talk page indicate a definite bias.Existentializer 16:42, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
      • After a doublecheck, confirming: it appears that the article Religious persecution by Muslims was created by Germen, who happens to be one of IrishPunkTom's main opponents/targets, and that Religious persecution by Christians and Religious persecution by Jews were created largely out of spite. See the original states of the articles here and here. Add to this the fact that IrishPunkTom added links to still-not-yet-created articles like Religious persecution by Hindus, Religious persecution by Sikhs, Religious persecution by Mormons, Religious persecution by Zorostrians, Religious persecution by atheists, and Religious persecution by pagans, and I feel it is readily apparent that IrishPunkTom's creation of a "series" was merely a smokescreen for his creation of playgrounds for religious hate speech.

The article Religious Persecution by Muslims might also fit into this mold, were it not for the fact that its statements are legitimate, have relevance, and are well researched and properly sourced. See the original state of THAT article here. Existentializer 16:51, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

This kind of "tit for tat" article creation is usually called WP:POINT. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:23, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Thats A personal attack, and it does not assume Good faith. Existentializer, whats with the constant attacks on me.. I barely even know who you are. --Irishpunktom\^talk 18:44, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No personal attacks is all fine and good but it requires a few things. "Of course, there's a difference between assuming good faith and ignoring bad actions." You are a user who has a noted history of personal attacks and violations of NPOV, including a presence in constant reverting. I have read your comments throughout this talk page and your first instinct overall was not to assume good faith, but to attack those who voted for deletion. You made unfounded accusations of sockpuppetry against another user on this page, a user who appears to be operating in good faith. And then there is the highly POV and un-encyclopedic content of this article and the Religious persecution by Christians article, which were OBVIOUSLY created in violation of WP:POINT.

Assume good faith does not require that I disregard common sense, and common sense tells me that you are NOT acting in good faith. If you want to claim that my statement that I, personally, believe you are not acting in good faith is a "personal attack" then you are free to do so but it is not, and I invite you to look back on the history of your own edits. It should be readily apparent from your own history why a neutral observer would have cause to question whether or not you were acting in good faith. Existentializer 18:57, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

No personal attacks doesn't really require too much aside from, you know, No personal attacks. The articles were not created for any "Jew-Bashing" purposes, it was created to be part of a series which was to chronicle the Religious persecution by the various major World religions and Non-religions. The one on Christians, Muslims and Jews were only the First three. The main article to which I would have contributed would have been in the Zorostrianism one. What exactly do you mean by "You made unfounded accusations of sockpuppetry against another user". If you are referring to Ni-ju-Ichi then you will note that his user page contains a Sock-pupetry tag "It is believed that this user may be a sockpuppet of Enviroknot"; It is hardly an "unfounded accusation of sockpuppetry" to ask them if this statement was true. i don't think it's true, because the evidence is missing from the tag, but the user hasn't removed it, I thought maybe it was some sort of odd joke. Indeed, I didn't even make an accusation, I asked for clarification.. indeed, seeing this as such an accusation could be seen as further evidence of you acting in bad Faith. Your point, insidiously made, that my edit history presents a Picture of anti-Semetism, or "Jew-bashing", is either inherently incorrect or another Personal attack on me, But I'm going to assume good faith and preseume that you have made a mistake. I have no hatred of either the Jewish or Christian faiths, far from it. I do have a sever prejudice against the Orange order, Loyalist]s in Northern Ireland, the Democratic Unionist Party, etc, and that is exactly why I have never, not once, edited them. --Irishpunktom\^talk 20:08, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Look, moron, one of your toadies (probably the "Envirofuck" vandal) vandalizes any page that isn't a toady of Islam and seems to love to add that tag to people's pages.. I don't buy it, and I've removed that fucking vandalism from Ni-ju-Ichi's page. Cut the crap and start acting in good faith.Existentializer 16:22, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

What are you even talking about? Are you even capable of giving a civil reply? Referring to someone as a "Moron" and claiming, for whatever reason, that I have "Toadies", while amusingly stupid, is hardly "acting in good faith", and is also yet another addition to the commpendium of your Personal Attacks. Does it make you feel big when you swear ? --Irishpunktom\^talk 08:55, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep If there's one for Christians and Muslims, then there has to be one for Jews as well. Unless people are honestly claiming that Jews have never religiously persecuted people before...Heraclius 17:43, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Ok, but doesn't it have to have actual instances of religious persecution by Jews in it? (see my previous discussion) Gzuckier 18:06, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep This won't get a fair trial. Any time that there is an article like this which discusses factual examples of Jewish negativity, it goes for VFD because people blanket label it some Nazi POV and if not that, an Islamic POV that nobody will take seriously. Now for me, I have had many offhanded bad experiences with Jews and their attitudes but this could be because they lived in the city or because of their culture and I'm about to say it's a bit of both. There are no people on this planet with a blank check for how much damage they can do without return criticism. Those who believe the Jewish people are unable to be guilty for any significant charges, are just as wrong as any Nazi who tries to paint the White race as unfailing in kindness and decency. For instance, Jews in the media(yes, I checked names) believe it is all right to paint White culture and history in a negative light and you will only ever see Jewish culture expressed negatively by Jews. Then again, the Jews don't mind if Whites hate on themselves and speak against their people, even for the sake of propping other races up on their shoulders instead. Fox news is probably the only station that I see which steps away from the chronic anti-Gentile bias which plagues most of the other media conglomerates, but you'll probably meet a Nazi who disagrees with me on that. There is no justification for institutional prejudice by Jews and Judeophiles, any more than there is for Whites and Blacks. Of course, most here would be loathe to act bold and decisively where there is a case of potential ego dropping for the people who shove the Holocaust on Whites. For me, I find a problem with the outspoken Jews who rail on about that Holocaust as if it was all about them and not other people, with their complete sense of innocence in comparison to carving a plot of land out where the Palestinians live because the British said they could. Jews rewrite White history with Jamestown and the Wild West, while Whites cannot criticise the Mid-East conflict. It's almost like using the word Nigger/Nigga, or that only Whites owned slaves. While the Jews in the Bush administration went after Iraq for WMDs, they neglected to mention that their famous scientists invented them in the Manhattan Project and that there was pogrom of Japan. Henry Kissinger, anybody? Can we please, get NPOV in all these persecution-related articles? TheUnforgiven 18:21, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that's good; "While the Jews in the Bush administration went after Iraq for WMDs, they neglected to mention that their famous scientists invented them in the Manhattan Project and that there was pogrom of Japan." You should definitely put that in the article as an example of religious persecution by Jews. Gzuckier 19:01, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

After plowing through that mess of horrid grammar and racist ramblings by User:TheUnforgiven, I can only say this: what a pile of racist crap. Existentializer 18:37, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Among other things, why does he say "The Jews" and "The Whites" as though they are two different entities? Aren't a high proportion of Jews white? RachelBrown 19:44, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

That's what they'd like you to believe. Gzuckier 19:47, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. While it is currently in a very bad shape, I do believe that it has the potential to become a valid article. -Dv 20:01, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Dv (talk · contribs) has a very low edit count (48 edits, to date), yet has been a user for several months. This user pops up occasionally, and has voted "Keep" on the "GNA" VfD. All these traits are shared by Incognito (talk · contribs), who voted "Keep" on this VfD, as well. HKT ^talk 18:13, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete The name of the article is not encyclopedic. Something like: “Religious persecution in Israel” could get an entry, but for sure not this. It is simply a generalization of an ethnic group, and the support of a POV, the POV being that, an ethnic group is more than a social construct, all this, in the articles name alone. I think there should be appropriate rules here in Wikipedia, on what is an encyclopedic entry, this will spare us all the trouble of having to vote the deletion of articles that should not exist in the first place. This sort of article will only get answered by similar articles(I just hope they don't already exist), which the subject, and probably the aim, will be generalization. There is a distinction between directly criticizing a group of people, and criticizing an aspect... If I write an article like: “Religious persecution under king David's reign” or something such, I could write an encyclopedic article. I could of course, as well, write something like: “Religious persecution under Judaism.” While this seems to be about the same thing as the article voted for deletion, it is not. In the same token, I could write an article, like; “Religious persecution under Islam.” This will be an encyclopedic name, but not: “Religious persecutions by Muslims,” or even more direct: “Religious persecution by Arabs” (I'm making the comparison, because being a “Jew,” is not only being part of a religion, but as includes the ethnic group.) But I could write: “Religious persecutions under Arabic regimes.” It is permitted to write about an aspect, or a system, etc. but not to generalize directly. Guilt by association is simply not encyclopedic. One way of knowing if a name for an article like this is encyclopedic, is to wonder if when using the name to criticize, it would be considered as a generalization. Having said all this, I think that the problem is not only with the name, but what the name could permit to write in the article, in this cases. We can not write with such a subject(the name of the article/subject), a real NPOV article, so it will be unwiki, and it's existence will inevitably lead to failure. Fadix ^{(My Talk)} 20:16, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
  • I would like more information on how "Religous persecution under Judaism" and "Religous persecution by Jews" differ, and why the former is better. Also, I for one do not see why this requires a delete instead a move of the existing article. (I support deleting the article, but that is because it is a lousy article on the subject.) I also cannot support your view of their being a lot of smaller articles. In that case, the larger scale article is still needed to pull it all together.
    I also disagree that such an article is inherently POV, but to be NPOV it has to be dry recitation of the facts, something which most of the current editors seem to be struggling with (when they are trying for it at all). --EMS | Talk 20:37, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

“Religious persecution under Judaism” report persecutions under a system, while the second directly point a finger on a group of people. If I say that Jews are idiots, it is a generalization, I directly point a finger on a group of people. On the other hand, if I say, Judaism is idiotic, I criticize a system. Jews may be offended, but I criticize one aspect of their being, rather than criticizing them as a whole, because I am criticizing an aspect of their being, rather then directly and entirely criticizing them. And also, by this statement, I am not saying in anyway that Jews are idiots. From the same logic, when I say religion is stupid, I am not necessarily saying that those that practice a religion are stupid. An encyclopedic article, to maintain an objective tone, should as much as possible, not point a finger. It should be “encyclopedicaly” correct(in allusion to politically correct).

Secondly, I did not mean to include many smaller articles, I just gave examples, to show the differences.

Thirdly, it is true that one can just change the title of the article. But just read the article, it points to some Israelite crime taken from scriptures, and then Palestine, neither of those two can stick there to find the appropriate name to include both. The first one is from an Israelite system, taken from scripture(which BTW, doesn't present the critic of it), the second one is from the Israeli regime.

Lastly, an article to respect its name in this cases, it can't be otherwise than POV. How you make that NPOV, you write “what is called religious persecution by Jews, is the persecutions by Jews against other people adhering to other religions?” Don't you see anything wrong here? The articles aim is to directly point a finger on a group of people, and not report, in a cold encyclopedic fashion the persecutions by a regime, a system etc. If you neutralize such article, you somehow disconnect it from its name. Fadix ^{(My Talk)} 21:08, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I accept your argument on the semantics of the article name. However, I retain my position on NPOV. I admit that a finger is being pointed when writing on a subject such as this, but if the facts are there and properly documented, then that finger deserves to pointed. In other words, the article can be neutral without being neutralized, and need not be comfortable for the subject group while still being NPOV.
It is unfortunate that those who most wish to write on this subject are the least capable of producing an article with NPOV. As a practical matter, that is more of an issue than whether an NPOV treatment of this issue can be done.

• • • His point escapes me also. I guess this is what you get when you allow anyone to vote (except me, because I have too few edits apparently). -Dv 20:54, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

What you propose, a dictatorial regime, in which, there is no votes prior a decision? Fadix ^{(My Talk)} 21:08, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

• Yikes! Delete as soon as possible. It is clearly original research and shows no knowledge of a huge amount of historical research, about both Jewish history and about the composition of the Bible. Its use of the word "religion" itself is anachronistic. Israeli policy on the occupied territories is something worth analyzing, in all of its complexities (which does not mean "defending" it). But that policy is not religiously motivated or about religion (the Israeli State that occupied the West Bank and the Gaza Strip in 1967 was secular, and Fatah, the major militant wing of the PLO, was/is secular). And then to conflat it with stuff reported in a document writtehn 2500 years ago about stuff that may have happened 3000+ years ago — well it is just baffling. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:47, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete : Looks like nothing but an escuse for Jew-bashing.--Revas 23:46, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The Tanakh and thereby the Bible do not mention the Jews by this name for most of this period. This article is crystal clear anti-Jewish POV. Also, it is original research (and not very good at that either). This article is totally against our guidelines. gidonb 00:31, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. WP:NOR: According to the biblical account, Joshua's war was one of land conquest, historically similar in that regard to most other wars. Additionally, the opposing armies and tribes were given the option of withdrawing peacefully. In many cases, specifically involving tribes dwelling east of the Jordan River, the biblical account details that the Israelites were not threatening opponents with conquest. Several tribes (such as the Emorite and Bashan) initiated hostilities by attacking first when offered complete peace. There is no basis for allegations of "beating" or "unwarranted arrest." This appears to be an exercise in the desire to show that every group is equally guilty historically of every offense as every other group, despite evidence to the contrary. The Indians aren't guilty of the slaughter of Armenians, and the Turks aren't guilty of employing the Hindu caste system. History isn't a monolith. HKT ^talk 01:11, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
  • HKT, by no means was this series an attempt to show that each group is equally guilty of everything. It was an attempt to document those instances in which each group had committed acts of religious persecution. My God, I've never seen a series of articles so relentlessly scoured for some nonexistent "agenda". Babajobu 09:28, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
    • "...by no means was this series an attempt to show that each group is equally guilty of everything." You know, from the looks of that "religious persecution" template, it sure seems like an attempt to show that each religious group is equally guilty of everything! HKT ^talk 19:42, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Handle persecution according to the religion of the victims, because it's more salient than the religion of the perpetrating regime. Grouping by persecutors is problematic because their motivations are not necessarily religious (the regime may not have an organized religion) and those responsible may actually be a more diverse body of powerful individuals, both in terms of religious and other interests. --Michael Snow 03:10, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Anti-semitic POV trash, original research. --Mrfixter 09:15, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. POV original research. Postdlf 09:48, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Historically relevant. --malathion ^talk 11:58, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete It took me a while to decide on this (and to be sure that my response was not POV), but the entire section seems to be unnecessary nonsense. Most groups of some identifiable type, religious, racial, sexual, etc, have committed some form of organised persecution or crime. It is simply difficult to justify the need or purpose of an entire section in this vein except to feed arguments to those against particular groups, often ascribing to modern groups (note the site does not consider extinct religious sects) the actions of their predecessors. And on that note, I agree with jayg that it would be problematic to academically ascribe the acts of ancient Israel (even Yehudim) as those of Jews, and to further consider them factual, even if many Jews would happily claim both of these statements as true (on that basis the article would be POV!). And then there may also be similar problems in ascribing the acts of the State of Israel as those of Jews, even if the Christian acts article included those done by Christian countries in the name of their Lord and Saviour. Again, this idea that it is an act of persecution of the group as a whole would be difficult to defend. --jnothman ^talk 12:14, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This is perhaps a noble idea, but these articles are already POV OR disasters. WP editors have enough problems dealing with prickly subjects as it is, without making up new ones. Any religious persecution by or of religious groups should be discussed in the articles that concern each religious group. Making up this series does not serve any purpose I can see, except to stir up animosities. If this series is kept, I foresee recriminations and accusations and the like leading to a dozen RfArs within a month. Tomer ^TALK 16:47, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

• Very strong keep because religious intolerance is a real and important phenomenon, both past and present. It cannot be properly studied just focusing on victims, because then you lose sight of its causes. Moreover, the dynamics of religious persecution (with its ultimate aim of forced conversion) has nothing to do with etnicity, and is already touched upon, very briefily, in the article on Coercion. So the article must be properly expanded, not deleted,This applies to the whole series of "persecution by" articles: --Mario 17:04, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
  • I wholeheatedly agree with you. For Judaism this article can be part of its conscience. However: Are you willing to help expand this article and its series? Are you willing to defend it against POV warriers? I myself tried to defend are more neutral POV for this article, and I was the only one doing so. Unless there is a community dedicated to this project and to doing it right, it cannot succeed, as much as I would like it to succeed. --EMS | Talk 17:59, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Babajobu has done some good updates, showing more of what this article can be. So people may want to look again. However, my insecurity that this article can be kept as comprehensive and neutral as Babajobu left it remains. Between that and this article still being a pale shadow of what it should be, I retain my above vote of "strong delete". --EMS | Talk 17:11, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually, all it's done is show exactly why this article should be deleted. Babajobu has still failed to provide a single scholarly resource which describes any of these things as "Religious persecution by Jews". It is 100% original research, and no amount of qualifiers can get around that. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:45, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Original research is where the person is presenting and/or justifying a novel thesis. There is nothing novel about this. I therefore reject the label of original research. Also, the article now names scolarly sources for the Modern State of Isreal section even if there is not an explicit References section yet. My complaint is that this article is still inadequately researched, missing important incidents that can easily be gleaned from authoratative sources while retaining lesser content that is only weakly justified. That is also grounds for deletion, but is not the same thing as it leaves open to door to new, improved article at a later time. --EMS | Talk 19:34, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
      • EMS, Jayjg's tourretes-ish blurting out of "original research! original research!" is his way of avoiding the entire issue. There are plenty of citations in there. We could put a Harvard citation after every word and he'd still be muttering the same b.s. Babajobu 20:37, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
        • Of couse Jayjg is calling this "original research" to avoid dealing with the issue. So what? I suspect that his opinion is so biased that the sysops will discount it for just that reason. However, you still lack the support of people like me who approve of the topic, but not the article. That is what is going to get it deleted. --EMS | Talk 01:28, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
          • I don't understand the concept of approving of a topic, but voting for deletion because you dislike the article. My understanding was that the wiki way is to improve poor articles on legitimate topics, rather than delete them. Babajobu 01:51, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
  • This article is getting more ludicrous as it is expanded. Babajobu has essentially made a list of any situation he could think of in which Jews held any kind of power or autonomy. Anyone familiar with the Khazar kingdom's history will know that not only did the various religious groups in the Khaganate enjoy complete religious freedom, but that its supreme court included Christians, Jews, Muslims and pagans. The one incident that even comes close to persecution is the execution of a muzzein (reported only in Muslim sources) and the destruction of a minnaret in retaliation for persecution of Jews in Persia. Likewise, he has listed Birobidzhan despite his inability to recall its name. That province, of course, was settled by a few totally secular Jews who never held any real political power or composed more than a small fraction of the oblast's population. It's more clear to me now that this article was from its inception intended purely as a platform for Jew-bashing. --Briangotts (talk) 19:42, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Briangotts, yes, I suggested a section on the Russian oblast, and yet, for shame, could not remember its name. I was hoping that people who had more knowledge of it might contribute to that section. I forgot that such people were more likely to sit around on the VfD page trying to snowjob the whole topic rather than contribute their knowledge. Viva la Wikipedia! Brian, do me a favor on run over to the VfD on Religious persecution by Muslims (to which I contributed more than I did to the Jewish article), and show the same disgust and dismay that such a topic should be tackled. I'll be holding my breath. Babajobu 20:35, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
      • Don't hold it too long, as I wouldn't want to be the cause of any asphyxiation. The difference between that article and this is that one, however flawed it might be, documents numerous examples of a centuries old, ongoing phenomenon for which one could come up with thousands of examples. The proponents of this article have yet to produce a genuine example of religious persecution that did not take place in a single, 3500 year old source, and certain proponents (not naming names) then proceeded to list every single instance they could come up with (not many of those exist) in which Jews had any kind of power over others. --Briangotts (talk) 21:03, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
        • Yes, I listed the few instances in which Jews held power in between the displacement from Judea and the Yishuv. Why, perchance would I have made such a list, other than the virulent antisemitism that you assume motivated this article (and presumably somehow also the persecution by Christians and Muslims articles)? Is it conceivable that I made that list because this series of articles was intended to describe how dominant religious groups misuse their power? And as such, that it made sense to explore those rare situations when Jews, though in exile, wielded some power? No, no, it must just have been my virulent antisemitism acting up again, like a troublesome canker sore. Oh, and as is clear to everyone but you, your explanation for why Religious persecution by Muslims is a legitimate topic but Religious persecution by Jews is illegitimate and offensive, is a bunch of pungent ethnocentric bullshit. Babajobu 21:14, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
          • Hmmmm... well, I guess I'm going to go ahead and sort of disagree with you there. --Briangotts (talk) 22:04, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
            • Thanks for the pointer, made a few corrections to the Office Space article. Babajobu 22:13, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
              • Would that you spent more time working on that article, and less time attacking people with whose vote you disagree with profanity-laced invective. --Briangotts (talk) 00:14, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
                • This is really the first time I've ventured into a sensitive topic on Wikipedia. I'd say 99% of my edits have been in articles more like Office Space than Religious persecution by Muslims. The whole experience has left me so disgusted with Wikipedia, and with all this rampant ethnocentric autoeroticism, that I think I'll leave the touchy stuff to the flag wavers and return to Office Space-style material. As far as my profane invective, I'd say my invective was no saucier than yours, and while "bullshit" may be a very mildly profane word, "pungent ethnocentric bullshit" has the charm of being both evocative and accurate. So I figured it was worth it. Babajobu 00:30, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
                  • Hey, you may wish to check this article out too: Martyr complex. Perhaps, given your obvious expertise, you can flesh it out.
                • Oh, lord! Martyr complex redirects to Inferiority complex. Utterly unrelated concepts! I started to copyedit and wikify inferiority complex, but gave up after one minor edit. The article's such a mess! I was remarking to someone the other day that calling someone a "martyr" sounds rather different in these days of "martyrdom operations". The long-suffering saint is no longer the first thing that comes to mind. Did I mention that I thought your earlier posts were pungent ethnocentric bullshit? Babajobu 01:24, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
                  • You know, I think you might have. It's hard to remember as I try to pay as little attention to your attacks as possible. I'm off to more productive things. Feel free to drop in the last word.--Briangotts (talk) 13:41, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
                    • I removed the incorrect redirect, and created a rather inadequate stub for martyr complex. Please go work on it. Babajobu 15:19, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Ooh! Ooh! Idea. Let's make a new article about religious intolerance, with everyone's side being told. Umm. How many ways can we do this without being POV? The titles of this "series" is so POV.  :( I agree, it's history, especially that of Christianity (anyone remember The Spanish Inquisition? So I guess that goes under comment. Thorns Among Our Leaves 18:57, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete The idea might have some vague encyclopedic reason to exist, but this article is atrociously written and pretty much unredeemable as it exists.
  Guy Montag 19:31, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Hello? This is a Wikipedia. If it exists wrongly in its current form, but does have encyclopedic merit, try the "edit" button. Shem^(talk) 19:40, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Shem, what a novel idea!!! But no, no. I like the present way of doing things. When an article appears on a sensitive topic, just attack it in its original form, demand that it be deleted, and never contribute a single edit to making it better. Yeah. I prefer that. Babajobu 20:40, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
      • When a piece of trash article like this is created by a POV warrior in violation of WP:POINT it should be deleted as speedily as possible, and the only thing stopping it from happening in this case is that the creator's particular anti-Semitic POV happens to have support from a number of editors who are also racists.Existentializer 21:31, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
      • I'm an anti-Semite? That's the best laughter I've had all day; I suppose "Shem" is a German name, yeah? Nevermind that I've also voted "Keep" on this article's partner VfD's for Islam and Christianity. What worthless, trite playing of the race card on your part, Existentializer. For shame, really. Shem^(talk) 00:04, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
        • Shem, don't you get it?? We're surrounded by anti-semites!! They're everywhere!! The Hebrew names give them away!! So does their consistent voting in matters applying to different religious groups! Unless they show Jewish ethnocentric bias, they are antisemites!Babajobu 00:09, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
        • Who do you think is an antisemitic POV warrior?? Me? The only remotely Jewish-related article I'd worked on before this was one I created about an Israeli photographer I like named Adi Barkan. Get over your paranoia! BTW, I hoped you voiced the same outrage on the VfD for Religious persecution by Muslims, which I worked on much more than I did this one. I'm sure your indignation is at the nature of the topic, and not just on the particular ethnic group focused on here. </sarcasm> Babajobu 21:44, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
          • I'm guessing Existentializer is having a go at me again. He's been on at me a good bit, and I don't know why I've never crossed his path till this VFD.. unless of course he is someone else... --Irishpunktom\^talk 22:30, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
            • A quick look at your edit history was all I needed to see, "Punk". You're as obvious as they come. Watching you claim not to be a biased POV warrior is like watching an old Southern plantation owner complain "I'm not racist some of my best friends are niggers." Existentializer 22:32, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
              • I'd appreciate it if you could mind your language when making groundless personal attacks, ok? --Irishpunktom\^talk 22:34, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
                • I'd appreciated it if you'd cut the bullcrap; I was simply being honest.Existentializer 22:36, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
                  • Existentializer, you're all class. You and the other people here and in the Muslim version's VfD who claim that "the other versions are dandy, it's just the one that discusses my ethnic group that is outrageous and offensive"...all of you, you're all class. I think your last statement channeled the spirit of the whole ethnocentric lot of you. Babajobu 22:40, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Concurring with Guy Montag. The concept might have some encyclopedic reason to exist, but this article is atrociously written and pretty much unredeemable as it exists. Also this sort of article tends to decend into a POV warring playground for anti-semites.Klonimus 23:23, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
  • can you be specific? --Irishpunktom\^talk 23:55, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
    • If it's atrociously written then you'll have no trouble looking it over with your wonderfully practiced eye and cleaning it up. That's how wikis are supposed to work. (If, on the other hand, your objection is just a matter of ethnocentric wagon-circling, then of course you'll have no interest in cleaning it up. No prizes for guessing which one is the case.) Babajobu 00:03, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
    • I will be "more speific". When I first found this article, one of the main headings was "Ethnic Cleansing". Need I name the person who above admited being responsible for that?
      One of the nice things about Wikipedia is that a dedicated group a defenders can keep an article like this from being a "POV playground". However, I do not see that group in existance for this article at this time. --EMS | Talk 03:17, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• second opinion: Merge with Jewish views of religious pluralism? - maybe some of this content should go somewhere, but as more be discussed in an article Jewish attitudes to other religions and people, rather than their acts of supposed persecution. The other religion as persecutor articles should similarly be merged with articles on the attitudes of that religion to others, rather than lists of their persecutory acts alone. In such articles, this information has context. --jnothman ^talk 00:07, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this filth. Neutrality^talk 00:31, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • At last! Someone who is unafraid to pull punches, someone who calls a thing by its true name! Neutrality, thank heavens you're here. You'll notice that there is also a VfD on the filth over at Religious persecution by Muslims. Go bring that same unshakable integrity you've shown us here and go demand they delete that Islamophobic filth! Look forward to seeing your vote! Babajobu 00:44, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm resisting the temptation to use a very rude phrase here... --Neutrality^talk 04:10, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
      • Certain proponents of this article (not naming names) have basically admitted that this is basically a soapbox from which to attack the article Religious persecution by Muslims. --Briangotts (talk) 12:40, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
        • Don't know if you were alluding to me; if so, I'll just point out that I've worked on both articles, and support keeping both articles. Neither is an attempt to attack the other. I've simply pointed out that demanding that one be deleted while the other retained is PEB. Babajobu
• Delete, along with the other "Religious persecution by x" articles, all of which appear to be anti-religious editorial rants rather than being encyclopedic. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 00:54, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, yes. Especially the one on "Religious persecution by atheists" (French Revolution, communist countries), which was already being discussed before this whole VfD fiasco derailed it. That would have been the most shamelessly anti-religious of all. You know what, I think the people who wrote these articles just hate people. Yep. They're people haters. Babajobu 01:00, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
    • All these groups (atheists included) are too large and diverse to be lumped into some monolithic label as perpetrators of persecution. It would be more appropriate to address various persecutions that have occured in history in the relevant articles that discuss their more specific contexts. In fact, most of the content in all three of these up for vfd already seems to be handled in a less provocative way within other more balanced articles. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 01:30, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
      • The groups are not too monolithic to be covered as such in numerous other articles, so I don't see why this one should be different. And you cannot honestly tell me that there is a more balanced description of the displacement of Palestinians anywhere on Wikipedia than is in this article. My guess is that the Hebrew wikipedia covers it with less sympathy to the traditional Israeli perspective. More thorough, perhaps, but not more balanced. Babajobu 01:40, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
        • Unfortunately, I think it's a common (xenophobic) human problem to project monolithic (particularly negative) behaviors, beliefs, intentions, attributes onto *other* people who are different than *us*. Reality is that people are individuals, influenced by all sorts of complicated unique variables that shape each person's outlook. As far as balance RE Palestinians... if we get more editors like Ramallite highly qualified to represent the Palestinian perspective [ multi-faceted of course :-) ], I'm sure there will be vast improvement. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 02:28, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Merge all three (Religious persecution by Christians, Religious persecution by Muslims, Religious persecution by Jews) into a single article titled Faith-based persecution. -- BD2412 ^talk 01:02, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep all three and cleanup. ElBenevolente 02:48, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Encyclopedic. Almafeta 03:14, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Delete all three, the template, and everything else related to this project. It's just a bad idea, destined to piss off everyone at the same time. In wiki articles describing specific, documented historical events, I would support having a "religion X persecuted group Y" kind of analysis. But trying to create a general "people persecuted by religion X" topic is the wrong way of doing it, and extending it to all religions and atheism, while it may seem neutral in theory, will only serve to attract the ire of everyone at once. This topic will turn into an endless edit-war and flame-war, with each side claiming to be absolutely right and the only one backed by historical evidence; a little like what happened with the Armenian Genocide page. Furthermore, like Michael Snow pointed out, making a "persecution by religion X" topic implies that religion X is a harmonious monolithic group with a single clear agenda; there is no religion on Earth for which that is true. Trying to group all actions of all sects and sub-groups of religion X over millenia under a single "things done by religion X" topic is a gross oversimplification of a very complex situation. Ritchy 22 July 2005
• Delete Just a plainly biased article which will upset readers of the encyclopedia. I suggest that the articles on Muslims, Christians and other religions are also deleted and any worthwhile content reorganized for specific event pages. We know that wars on religous issues were common, pointing it out is just plain anti-Religion (specific to case). Evolver of Borg 22 July 2005
• Delete - for the content (being dubious and loosely tied), and especially for the very idea. I'm sure many Jews persecuted and are persecuting others on religious grounds or otherwise, but such a subject for an article implies Jews as a collective are responsible for this. What's next - famous Jewish rapists?--Doron 07:27, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but persecution should be limited to religiously motivated persecution. --Germen 11:02, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete crazyeddie 08:59, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per User:Babajobu --Ttyre 15:31, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete deliberately POV article with distorted presentation of information. Kuratowski's Ghost 16:00, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep if sources are provided (preferably academic publications, books and external links would also be useful). Otherwise, delete. Does seem to fit into Template:Religious persecution, but should be 'judaism' instead of 'jews', I think. Whether there is enough info for an article or just a short section would depend on amount of material provided by contributors. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:08, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Agree with Briangotts. If someone actually writes something encyclopaedic, I'll change my vote. --Zantastik talk 17:05, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. - Incognito 17:08, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

^{Incognito (talk · contribs) has a very low edit count (33 edits, to date), yet has been a user for several months. This user pops up occasionally, and has voted "Keep" on the "GNA" VfD. All these traits are shared by Dv (talk · contribs), who voted "Keep" on this VfD, as well. HKT talk} 18:13, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete delete this page and all of the "persecution by (blank)" until a NPOV article on faith-centered persecution can be made. EdwinHJ | Talk 17:23, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Since I commented eariler (see "Ooh ooh!" in bold), I've rethought my decision... Delete this series and possibly merge if we can write an all-encompassing article without it being POV, which I feel is nearly impossible, since this is likely to be inherently POV. Again, delete until further notice. Thorns Among Our Leaves 18:26, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• #REDIRECT all these Persecution by . . . articles to homo homini lupus est or delete them all. Persecution is by necessity an action by the powerful against the powerless, and while religion may sometimes provide a reason, it just as often provides an excuse, and equally often has nothing to do with anything. Delete them all. —Charles P. (Mirv) 19:19, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The Bible is not a reliable source for historical information, and there are no other sources. -Willmcw 19:27, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Strong delete, together with the other all-in-one stereotyping articles like Religious persecution by Muslims and Religious persecution by Christians. -- Olve 20:09, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Too true. For the same reason we should VfD articles Christianity, Judaism, Islam and atheism, as each attempts to treat diffuse and diverse phenomena as some sort of discrete entity. When will the needless stereotyping end?? Babajobu 21:01, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete This work, besides being original research and holding that the documents used to show religious persecution are both unusable but usable enough to write such an article, also contains facts about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict for which there is already an article in existance for (and such matter is not nessicarily religious either). Many of the padding is simply the writing of other articles to soften the presence of this article. This article simply doesn't serve any purpose beyond aggrivation and recycling select informatino. SF2K1 22:04, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. As long as we have articles concerning Christians and Muslims, we should probably have one including Jews. But if we get rid of one, we should get rid of all of them. LokiCT 22:47, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

This vote is LokiCT (talk · contribs)'s 13th edit, made 30 minutes after the user's first edit. Also voted on related VfD's. So far, this user has removed this notice once. HKT ^talk 18:13, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

He has now removed it twice. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 06:18, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to know why the two of you seem to have nothing to do other than to follow me around attempting to discredit my edits on every page I touch. LokiCT 14:38, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Please see User talk:LokiCT for an answer to that question. HKT ^talk 16:32, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep I'm not supporting the article as it stands, however we all have an 'edit this page' button--ClemMcGann 23:48, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete together with Religious persecution by Muslims and Religious persecution by Christians, as unsalvageable POV magnet. These topics could in principle be valid, if not entirely encyclopedic, subjects for articles, but realistically we all know they'll become a permanent hotbed of POV feuds and requests for comment. But they should really get voted on as a group rather than individually; having some "persecution by" articles survive but not others would be scandalous. - Mustafaa 23:57, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. As noted, it's clearer when handled under the oppressed party, and is highly prone to POV insertion. Also, it's a bit ad hominem. While a whole group may be persecuted, it is hardly ever the case that a whole group is persecuting. Same for all "persecution by" articles.--DNicholls 02:18, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Though controversial, it's a necessary article, and could be quite informative if expanded, and watched closely for POV. Volatile 02:22, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and delete the others in the series. These will be magnets for POV, but that is not the reason to delete. The real issue here is the precision of the term - "Religious persecution by ____" does that mean persecution by members of that religion against anyone? By the religion itself (and under what interpretations)? By any member of the religion against another religion as a whole? Is all of history covered? Is nationalistic persecution the same thing? Would the Jedwabne massacre be religious persecution by Christians against Jews, or a case of anti-semitism? Would Baruch Goldstein's murderous rampage be religious persecution by Jews against Muslims? The articles do not have a clear mandate, and are likely to be disasters that are not informative. --Goodoldpolonius2 02:34, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Polonius, I agree that the title is ambiguous and has caused problems. In my contributions to the articles in this series I've understood "religious persecution by..." to mean persecution of a minority religious group by a majority religious group, irrespective of whether the motivation for the persecution may have included economic, political, cultural, nationalist or other considerations. Thus the Jedwabne massacre would definitely apply. Babajobu 13:14, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Babajobu, but that is the problem - it basically means that anytime anybody persecutes anyone else of a different religion, in any way, that it is religious persecution. This would mean that almost every war since Martin Luther in Europe would be religious persecution of some group or another, and every incident by an Israeli against an Arab in Israel would be religious persecution, as would any incident against the Jews from 140 CE to 1948 CE, anywhere in the world. I don't buy it, and it seems like a mess. --Goodoldpolonius2 05:16, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Or delete all other Religious persecution articles as well. -- Toytoy 04:02, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I didn't go through the whole history, but the current version I just read doesn't mention religion at all. There is no discussion of different religions, heresy, restrictions on religious practices etc. The article makes no mention of any aspect of Judaism. A real article on 'Religious persecution by Jews' could definitely be written, but this sadly is not it.--Pharos 07:12, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per User:Babajobu--Witkacy 07:37, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Gilgamesh he 13:00, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep all articles on persecution by and of particular groups as long as they are factually accurate and verified. The desire not to offend any groups shouldn't stop us from deleting these. The fact that we can have articles on "taboo" and otherwise censored topics is one of the things that makes Wikipedia great. Note: This exact same vote has been made at all similar deletion pages. AndyCapp 17:54, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Jayjg, with the rest of the 'religious persecution by' articles.Palmiro 19:09, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, needs rewriting, and its controversial, but the topic is important Salsb 00:06, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
• delete This article is written by a Mohammedian to deflect attention from the atrocities commited by the Mohammedian sects.--CltFn 14:29, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep There are objections about "Mohemedian" influence on the article. Those concerns may be legitimate, this is an important part of an important coherent series about religious persecution. I don't claim to be non-partisan, as in fact I sympathize with the Zionist cause, but I'm neither Jewish nor Muslim. --Zeno of Elea 14:51, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. In its present form, the article contains no actual information about "religious persecution" which is what it is supposedly about. Xtra 05:43, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -asx- 05:55, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep This article is as valid as any other addressing the issue of religous persecution. Ezeu 06:13, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
• I return from the dead, to have this obliterated. This link is Broken 20:25, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. No idea why this and the others were listed for deletion. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 03:45, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this totallly pathetic "attempt" to smear Jews. What will they think of next? "Jews as the founders of roach extermination?" What a joke this would all be except that in the sick minds of Jew-haters this is taken as "gospel truth". Tut tut, what morons, or as they say meshuga in kop! IZAK 06:54, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

What race-card-playing tripe. I trust you'll vote the same at this VfD's partner articles concerning Islam and Christianity, IZAK? 'Cause you know, I must be a "Muslim-hater" and "Christian-hater" too, supporting that these be kept and made encyclopedic. Shem^(talk) 07:07, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Tripe, tripe, you say?? Aha, yes, it is tripe to assume that a very puny Jewish population's acts (of about 13 million Jews) is equal to the havoc that has been caused by about two billion Christians and about a billion and a half Moslems over the span of the last 1500-2000 years. Get real, who has persecuted who around here in history? It's pretty sad when all the article can do is cite the Hebrew Bible...how about the other parts of that Hebrew Bible that affirm the Jews as God's chosen people? You can't have it both ways, either all of the Hebrew Bible is accurate or none of it. This is not about "race" (what a weird thought!) this is about pure facts and logic. Wikipedia is not in the business of setting up the "relativity of religions" and such like. The fact remains, Christians and Moslems have killed millions of Jews over the last 1500-2000 years, and not the reverse...and now, to "hide behind the mommy's skirt" of the Jews' own Hebrew Bible is a mental distortion worthy of the Nazi hate machine. Or don't you get that either? IZAK 08:04, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

IZAK, over the past several thousand years there have been significantly more than Thirteen Millions Jewish people. This article should not, and does not blame present generations for what people of their religion did hundreds and thousands of years ago, that would be stupid and ridiculous, it just records them. However, to pretend it did not happen is to whitewash history. Clearly, like the Zorostrians, the Jewish people, being a minority, have for most of their history been those oppressed, however, like the Zorostrians, when they have been in the Majority there have been instances of Oppression of those who do not share the faith. I don't see why this, along with instances of oppression by all the major Religions, should not be documented --Irishpunktom\^talk 09:30, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

"This is not about race," yet those who support all of these articles are "Jew-haters." "A part of the Nazi hate machine," too? Sure thing, IZAK, I'll remember that one. Shem^(talk) 08:07, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I am only voting here because the facts of history are being twisted here completely. I am not voting on other articles. (Nowhere are their "rules" that one must vote on the votes here of what religions do as the "mean guys".) I wish you would realize that from from your line of reasoning you show that you know little about Jews, Judaism, and Jewish history and that you would do yourself a great favor by staying out of this discussion as a mark of self-respect. IZAK 08:17, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I wish you would realize that from from your line of reasoning you show that you know little about Jews, Judaism, and Jewish history and that you would do yourself a great favor by staying out of this discussion as a mark of self-respect. IZAK, keep ramming that foot down your throat. I'm enjoying it. Shem^(talk) 08:53, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

IZAK, Shem's making a heck of a lot more sense than you are. I don't know whether you're meshuga in kop, but you've sure got a lot of nonsense in your kop. Please, dear sir, show me where the account in this article of the dislocation of the Palestinians is "twisted completely". The irony here is that the article as presently written is extremely sympathetic to Jews, and very much partial to the traditional Israeli account of the War. But the hasbarah brigades are too conditioned to even notice! If it says "Jews", it's got to be antisemitic "filth", as another luminary commented earlier! Babajobu 08:40, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Babajobu, you are writing in an extremely patronising and offensive tone. Please refrain from it. Xtra 08:46, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Rubbish, he's being no more patronising or offensive than IZAK here was from his first sentence, and certainly less so than IZAK's most recent response. Shem^(talk) 08:53, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Hello Baba: Now what are you saying here, that this is about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? There are so many articles about that already! Are you claiming that the Israelis (as Jews?) are RELIGIOUSLY "persecuting" the poor Palestinians??? Now you know that that is a load of crap! Israel is the most religiously tolerant country in the Middle East! (Errrr: How free are Jews in Iran or Libya or Saudi Arabi to practice Judaism?) No-one in Israel is stopping anyone from practicing any religion (plenty of mosques and such like to prove it), but Israelis do have a right to capture or kill TERRORISTS who want to kill Israeli citizens. (Ever heard of Self defense?) That issue has no relevance to "Religious persecution by Jews". What is Shem saying? That we must also excuse Christian and Moslem violence against Jews over the last 1500-2000 years if this article is to be deleted? Is that good logic based on facts or is it a meshugane POV? IZAK 09:00, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

IZAK, please refrain from calling contributors with whom you disagree "insane". Xtra has a very gentle nature, and is no doubt profoundly upset by this insulting characterization. Unless, of course, Xtra's umbrage was politically and selectively motivated, in which case he probably won't ask you to refrain from insulting people. As for the points you made: no, this article is not exclusively about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but some of the events which occured in that conflict will naturally be relevant. I don't necessarily deny that Israel is the most religiously tolerant country in the region (see earlier comments on this issue). I think Shem was making the commonsense point that even groups which are ordinarily on the receiving end of persecution can themselves occasionally act as persecutors, and if we are to reject the very idea of an article on religious persecution by Jews, then we really have to reject such "persecution by" articles generally. That's not meshugas, in fact it's just plainly true. Babajobu 09:11, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Now you are making personal attacks against me. Calling someone a "meshuga in kop" is insulting. And saying "If it says "Jews", it's got to be antisemitic "filth"" is just a common way that people who defend anti-semetism counter allegations of anti-semetism as it is just political spin. As such, that is also offensive. Xtra 09:41, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Xtra, I agree that calling someone "meshuga in kop" is insulting. Please note that I did not call anyone meshuga in kop; rather, it was IZAK who called people meshuga in kop. Please redirect your comments toward him. Looking forward to seeing that. Thanks. Babajobu 09:51, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Isn't that kind of backwards? "We cannot reject a priori the concept of religious persecution by Jews, therefore we should start the article and see if we can find some". I'm not impugning your motives or anything, just questioning the plan. It still reads to me like an article on ethnic cleansing and nation building; the modern Israel part is entirely such, I think unavoidably because the conflict is national-based, not religious, at least from the Jewish side. Israel was originally intended to be secular, Islam is still freely practiced along with pretty much every religion known to man. The Biblical part might be put into a religious persecution context in that it's in the "God told us to kill them" vein, but religion was pretty much indistinguishable from nationality at the time and my feeling is that in such a case, religion is subservient to nationality, much as is diet, clothing, language, etc. You wouldn't characterize Biblical conflict as persecution by people who don't eat milk with meat, for instance, but it's the same population whether you're defining them by nationality, religion, or diet. Gzuckier 14:00, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Gzuckier, I don't think there is any way you can entirely disentangle religious persecution from nationalist, economic, ethnic, cultural, et cetera. The Republic of Ireland has been virtually emptied of Protestants since the state's founding. Was that due to religious persecution, or nationalistic persecution because of their association with Britain? Muhammad massacred the males of the Jewish tribe of Banu Qurayza...was that religious persecution, or just an act of particular barbarity during an intercommunal struggle over power, resources, et cetera? Trying to come up with a single monocausal explanation for these examples and others is a fool's errand: there were lots of contributing factors, the motivation was complex. So for the purposes of these articles I've considered "religious persecution" to be persecution of a minority religious group by a majority religious group, rather than restricting it to cases in which motivation could be proven to be exclusively religious. No real-life cases exist of such perfect and idealized "persecutions for exclusively religious reasons". And yet persecution of religious minorities is a real and important phenomenon. Babajobu 15:10, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

But writing an article on "religious persecution by Jews of Palestinian Arabic Muslims and Palestinian Arabic Christians but not of Lebanese Christians or European Christians or Bedouin Muslims or Muslimish Druze" is a bit like writing an article on "the color which is exhibited by objects which are blue before Jan. 1 1005 but after that date is exhibited by objects which are green". Gzuckier 18:16, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

"The color which is exhibited by objects which are blue before Jan. 1 1005 but after that date is exhibited by objects which are green", surely that article, too, is worthy of a stub. Remember, I'm an inclusionist (See the tramautic-for-all-involved events that unfolded below in response to Ambi's post). Regardless, I think that if the article on Religious persecution by Jews survives the VfD, it should certainly be expanded to include any instances of persecution of the other groups you mention. I don't think that's quite so jarring or arbitrary as the switch from one color to another that your new stub adopts at the change of millenium. I think they all fit neatly under "Religious persecution by Jews", just as persecuted Sudanese animists in the 20th century and persecuted Yathribi Jews in the 8th century both fit under Religious persecution by Muslims Babajobu 21:18, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - as I have stated on the other two VfDs I believe this should either be deleted or link to Jewish groups. Jews as a whole have not persecuted in any coherent manner but various groups of Jews have no doubt. Therefore the scope of this article should be much more limitted to avoid massive "Jews do this" generalizations that creept into articles like this. gren 16:36, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. per Grenavitar. Ambi 16:54, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Holy mackrel!!! The high priest of Deletionism has graced this VfD with his presence! Quick, somebody VfD London and see if hu votes for it!! Babajobu 17:19, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Folks, I'm a regular dues-paying member of the Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians, and since Ambi is the prophet and founder of the Association of Deletionist Wikipedians, I thought it not outside the norms of decent society to make a gentle jibe at his expense. I've since been contacted by a wikifunctionary and informed that such behavior poses an existential threat to Wikipedia, and reflects very poorly on myself. I don't know what to say except that I am so, so, so deeply ashamed of what I've done, and the harm and discombobulation that I've caused, both within the larger Wikisphere and to Ambi huself. Don't despise so much as pity me: to do something like that I must surely be a deeply, profoundly unhappy person. Please work on either martyr complex, Hashem or Abdullahi Ahmed An-Na'im, three of this week's Babajobu collaborations. Babajobu 17:59, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. ChanochGruenman

• Delete. I think this question is really about the validity of the series as a whole. There's no doubt that there've been persecutions by Christians and by Muslims. The question is whether there has been sufficient persecution conducted by Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, etc. etc. to justfy articles on each one of these faiths. IMO, the article on Jews provides no good evidence that there has been a history of religious persecution by Jews – persecution, maybe, but not religious persecution. Like Babajobu, I am an Inclusionist, but I don't think this article makes the case that its title implies. Change it to Historical persecutions by Jews, but don't pretend that it is part of a "neutral" series on religious persecution that inclues all faiths. That's hypocricy designed to conceal the fact that some faiths have a history of persecution and that others don't. Paul B 22:20, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree that Historical persecutions by Jews would have been a better title for this article. Not perfect, but definitely better. I don't know what the perfect title would have been. Babajobu 22:40, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

The Historical Persecutions title isn't perfect, true. Part of the problem is the "by Jews" bit. Individual Jews may have been responsible for persecutions, just as individual Christians, Atheists or whatever may have been, but it would be absurd to list all persecutions by by individual Jews or groups of Jews. But "Judaism" is no better, since the belief system itself does not do the persecuting. Part of the problem lies in the fact that Jewishness as a belief and as an ethnic identity can't be clearly distinguished. There isn't really the same difficulty with most other faiths. Paul B 08:15, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sujre about that; I think the "universal" faiths are more of an exception than a rule. Christianity and Islam, of course, and Buddhism I guess. But even then individual subgroups are tied to different nations. Coptic Christianity, Druze version of Islam, etc. and in the ancient world, I think distinct religions for each nation was pretty much the rule. Judaism has a funny spot, as it posits a universal God who everyone should believe in, but doesn't require adherence to the faith itself for anyone other than Jews. This of course is interpreted as some sort of superiority complex by.... here it comes..... get ready..... antisemites. Gzuckier 14:16, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. POV magnet. --Vsion 04:16, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• 'Keep POV debates and discussions will cause trouble but will enlighten even more . Delete on condition that it is moved to Historical persecution by Jews.--Jondel 06:12, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
  • 'Historical persecution by Jews', which is what this article is really about as written, is an unencyclopedic topic, which is why I voted to delete. I would support an article actually about 'Religious persecution by Jews'.--Pharos 06:24, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep (my final decision ) --Jondel 06:46, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep All religous groups persecute others. If you have persecutions by Christians and by Muslims then why not Jews. I thenk expand but keep NPOV --Jcw69 06:32, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

All religious groups persecute others? I look forward to your Religious persecution by Buddhists article. Paul B 08:19, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I breathlessly await Religious persecution by Discordians, then. It should be quite entertaining. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 10:17, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I've wondered (but done no research into) whether there might be instances of Religious persecution by Buddhists in Myanmar to form the basis of such an article. Is Vietnam majority Buddhist? If so, has it been smooth sailing all along for religious minorities there? On the other hand, worshippers of the Invisible Pink Unicorn have an absolutely spotless record in these matters (though atheists do not). Babajobu 10:29, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I think some Tamils in Sri Lanka have made the complaint that they are vicimised as non-Buddhists, and it's been suggested that the 1596 ban on Christianity and execution of Christians in Japan was influenced by Buddhist institutions, but these are all rather weak examples, since there is no unambiguous link between the established religious institutions and the persecutions, as there is with Christianity and Islam. Paul B 11:01, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

When's that Religious Persecution by Bahai going to be done? Gzuckier 14:03, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Bön practitioners (claim they) were persecuted to near extintion by Buddhists [3]--Ezeu 00:29, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. As distasteful as religious persection by one or another religion happens, the fact is that it happens, no matter what the religion is. Lionizing one religion and/or another as "perfect and clean" isn't a reality, no matter what your religious beliefs (or if you have any at all) are.--Mitsukai 14:10, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Similarly, just because you haven't actually committed any felonies is no reason we shouldn't list your felony convictions. After all, you're not perfect. (using you in the generic sense, I don't mean you) Gzuckier 14:20, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: I would have no problem with an article on the topic, if it were done sensibly, and cases were cited. However, to start citing biblical figures (Abraham, Moses, Joshua), who are claimed by all three monotheistic religions (Ibrahim, Musa, etc.) solely as Jews for the purposes of this article is biased, and to account for semi-mythological wars between neighboring tribes and clans in the ancient Near East as examples of religious persecution in the modern sense of the term is utterly anachronistic and unhistorical. Danny 11:03, 28 July 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.