Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Haredi-secular conflict in Israel in winter of 2011-2012

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. The reasons for deletion invoked in the discussion are that the topic is not notable and/or can be called a topic at all only by engaging in (allegedly biased) synthesis, i.e., original research. Those who disagree say that the topic exists as such and is notable as shown by the sources that have been provided, and that any content deficiencies can be addressed through editing. After discounting the opinions of Yossiea (keep) and 85.64.234.248 as well as Northamerica1000 (delete), which do not address (most of) these issues, we have 11 opinions against and 7 for the retention of the article. Because these opinions all make arguments that are broadly defensible at first glance, I cannot find that one side clearly has the stronger argument, and therefore there is no consensus to delete the article at this point.  Sandstein  17:22, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Haredi-secular conflict in Israel in winter of 2011-2012

[edit]
Haredi-secular conflict in Israel in winter of 2011-2012 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Merge and redirect to Religion in Israel because this is a gross example of a WP:POVFORK and violation of WP:CONTENTFORKING, while the word "conflict" is clearly judgmental -- no killings have taken place so this is not a conflict but a mere heated cultural gap -- as well as being provocative and an obvious attempt at POV-pushing and hence a violation of WP:NPOV and of WP:NOTSOAPBOX. There are so many flaws here: This is NOT just about spats between Haredim and secular Jews because there have been spats between Haredim and Modern Orthodox Jews meaning it's very much an "Orthodox versus Orthodox" subject as well so that all this belongs in the Religion in Israel article where it's all covered and this can be a another addition there; The focus on the winter "season" (while it's "Winter" in the Northern Hemisphere -- it's "Summer" in the Southern Hemisphere making this confusing to a global encyclopedia) since this is a perennial ongoing phenomenon unique to Israel; The focus is entirely negative in the spirit of sensationalist journalism not befitting an encyclopedia. IZAK (talk) 19:35, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge and redirect to Religion in Israel per above. Minor incidents, and absolutely no violence/bloodshed, makes this seem like a huge over-exaggeration. IZAK (talk) 19:35, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've struck your comment - please don't vote more than once. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:02, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hi Rosc, please do not vandalize my comments in any way, feel free to comment instead. This was my one and only vote, the above is the nomination and it's usually not classed as a "vote" as such and is quite often overlooked and not counted as a "vote" by the closing admin, although one in a thousand editors comes along and mistakenly decides like you that it's "voting more than once" when obviously it is not. Feel free to point me to the right policy or procedure in how to post nominations and votes on AfD pages and the differences, if any, between them. Thank you. IZAK (talk) 20:21, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. IZAK (talk) 19:42, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. IZAK (talk) 19:42, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (Reverted back to "Keep" - I decided not to give up after all.) Obviously. If articles can exist about issues such as the Cottage cheese boycott, Nahal Zin fuel leak, or Welcome to Palestine, I do not see why this article cannot. If you have any comments about the naming or content, then try to improve it. Merging it into other articles is precisely the opposite of what is needed: this issue is much too big and complicated to be dealt with inside another article. It started as a subsection of Haredi Judaism, but since that page is already very large and confusing, I judged it would be better to create a separate article. As someone wrote in Haaretz: "it is not unreasonable to believe that their actions will bring about a change in the Israeli society."[1] Aside from this, I urge everyone to read my other arguments on the article's talk page. And the "winter" argument is ridiculous. It is winter in Israel, that's why. If you have a better name, please, do bring it - I specifically requested that on the article's talk page, since the name is most certainly not ideal. But arguing the name "winter" is wrong because it's summer in South Africa is ridiculous. Then maybe we shouldn't call the Winter Olympics the Winter Olympics any more, because whenever they are held anywhere in winter, it is summer elsewhere on earth?! And here is a proposal for a better name: let's name is "Social-religious tensions in Israel in 2011-2012". Let me know what you think. And let's bring some other sources: The Guardian, The Sydney Morning Herald, 8 separate items @ BBC, CNN, New York Times, Frankfurter Allgemeine, 4 separate articles in Le Monde: 1, 2, 3, 4, The Huffington Post, The Irish Times, Fox News, China TV, The Telegraph, Al Jazeera 1 and 2, Daily Mail, El Mundo, Corriere Della Sera, The Voice of Russia, Hurriyet, Milliyet, ... A debate in the Knesset with comments from PM Netanyahu [2], and much more. --Piz d'Es-Cha (talk) 20:02, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Satisfies WP:N via significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources, and not just from news sources of one ethnicity or political point of view. More than just an event or news story, since it is an ongoing controversy of some duration. "Conflict" is appropriate for the level of physical altercation which has occurred. Edison (talk) 20:18, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indeed, I really do not understand IZAK's conclusion of "no violence". We have numerous injured police officers, media crews attacked with their equipment destroyed, riots for which hundreds of riot police had to be brougt in, people being beaten up and threatened with death... and IZAK concludes "absolutely no violence"? I find that extremely awkward. IZAK - what is your definition of violence? --Piz d'Es-Cha (talk) 20:24, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • To Edison: Regardless, it is a violation of WP:POVFORK. It is no less or more important than anything discussed in Religion in Israel. IZAK (talk) 20:39, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • To Piz: The so-called "violence" here is no worse than regular Football hooliganism while your article would make it appear this is akin to an "Intifada" -- in Israel Haredim throw stones, smash windows, and hurl diapers with feces in them at people they don't like not just now, in "the winter of 2011-12," but all the time since that is just "normal" behavior for them in that part of the world. There has been no bloodshed, while "threats" are made by everyone all the time that would not merit an encyclopedic article of its own. IZAK (talk) 20:39, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sure, that is true - the level of violence is no different, and in fact much less, than during the demonstrations against the gay pride parade in January 2006. The difference is that this time it has grabbed everyone's attention and is turning into a much larger debate with a lot more media coverage from different angles, and still ongoing issues. Never before did the incitement between seculars and Haredim go this far. Can you name any comparable occasions? I can't. This time, a number of separate events all came together, leading a large portion of the Israeli public (well, its politicians and journalists, at least) to say "STOP". That is what makes this different, and that is why it warrants extensive coverage in Wikipedia.
However, there is one misunderstanding. I didn't create an article because it warrants an article - but because the entire issue kept growing and exploding and the amount of things going on that would need to be covered in order to keep the coverage full, relevant and NPOV would simply be too large to include it in an existing article (such as Haredi Judaism or Religion in Israel). If the public consensus would be to take the article and dump it right in the middle of either of those articles, fine. I just think it would be a huge mess and really wouldn't look right. It should simply be referred to on thos articles in a short subsection with a "main" pointer to this article, as I did on Haredim. --Piz d'Es-Cha (talk) 20:51, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Piz, here's how I would have summed up this whole storm in a tea pot: "As 2011 drew to a close a number of incidents in Israel, mainly in the greater Jerusalem area, involving disputes between various Jewish religious and secular factions arose that created controversy and caught the attention of the media, politicians and public opinion in various sectors. These incidents included and were triggered when some women refused to step to the back of some public buses with Haredi male passengers on them, spitting on Modern Orthodox children by Haredim in their neighborhoods, and protests by Haredim against what they perceived as state biases against them. At times the police were summoned and various rabbis and politicians have called for calm." Add all your citations and newslinks to that and it about sums it up. But to create a full-blown article presupposes something of far greater magnitude not warranted at this time. IZAK (talk) 21:03, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete.Clear content fork.Also there are WP:SYNTH and WP:POV problem that I tried to fix but were introduced back to the article.--Shrike (talk) 20:54, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Name your issues and let's discuss them one by one. I, on the other hand, consider your edits to be POV issues: it seems that you wanted to minimize the issue of Haredim being ostracized and demonized by secular Israeli politicians and journalists in recent days, which led to the Saturday night demonstration of people including children wearing yellow stars. Why? So that readers would think, "why do these crazy Haredim do that without any real cause?"? That's what it felt like to me. That is what the initial edit about this issue on Haredi Judaism was like: see here. --Piz d'Es-Cha (talk) 21:12, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is more than a one time event. This is comparable to the Arab Spring. This is THE event that is going to change the way things run in Israel. Yossiea (talk) 21:09, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indeed, that is what it feels like to me as well. This episode might (will, I think) lead to the Supreme Court abolishing the Mehadrin buses after the current 1 year trial period, for example, which will have serious consequences (giant demonstrations and much more violence). --Piz d'Es-Cha (talk) 21:12, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep—significant event in Israel and like the Immanuel Beit Yaakov controversy, is shaping Haredi – everyone else relations in the country, especially secular–Haredi relations. Ample sources have been provided and the event is ongoing so it's too early to judge the long-term effect. —Ynhockey (Talk) 21:14, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whoa, that article needs cleaning up. I'll put it on my watchlist. I'm quite sure that controversy is going to surface again as well. In fact it's still going on - it was recently in the news again. The article should perhaps be turned into a general article covering Ashkenazi vs Mizrachi Haredi conflict, which is a regularly recurring major topic, and which that event was simply one small part of. The same could be said of the article under discussion - in which case it could warrant creating (ie, turning this into) an article on secular vs Haredi tensions in Israel altogether, throughout the years, with the current events being one section with numerous subsections. For the record, this could be a solution. Let me know, everyone, if you agree. --Piz d'Es-Cha (talk) 21:18, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Even the title tries to do too much. The WP:SYNTH / WP:POVFORK issues raised above are best demonstrated by the description in the article as to how a number of unconnected "incidents merged into a single major debate with Haredim on one side and the secular world on the other side". There has been ongoing conflict between religious and secular Jews in Israel for decades and the collection of events piled into here as a single article is the synthesis of the article's author. Alansohn (talk) 21:28, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete explicit WP:SYNTH, WP:RECENTISM The massive hype around this issue in Israel started with an article in the Washington Post, through a peculiar mention by Hillary Clinton, issues concerning the New Israel Fund funding recent anti-religion protests, to a massive and misproportionate campaign by the tabloid Israeli media which is about to dissipate. The mehadrin buses have been around for over twenty years, the signs about some separate sidewalks have rust on them showing their age, and a few instances of violence do not warrant a WP article at this time, especially seeing this same information in 6-7 other articles. --Shuki (talk) 22:14, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:N#TEMP. While I understand the desire of the page creator to keep tabs on these separate incidents in order to build a story when it really explodes, it has not really exploded, and all these incidents do not add up to a news item of lasting significance. I also question the total reliance for references on The Jerusalem Post and Haaretz, neither of which are partial to Haredim. For example, the alleged harrassment on the 451 bus was reported by the media solely from the point of view of the female provocateur; in fact, no Haredi man held up the bus and it was the driver who called the police because she was trying to aggravate everyone's religious sensibilities and then film their responses. Let's have some neutrality, please. Yoninah (talk) 22:27, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am a Haredi, Edah HaChareidis-adherent, shtreimel-wearing chassidishe person. I davka (intentionally) used those sources to prevent anyone from being able to say the article was POV (as in pro-Haredi). --Piz d'Es-Cha (talk) 22:32, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I am also Haredi, but I am also a Wikipedian, and I believe you need to show both sides of every story. Have you been reading the Yated Ne'eman or Hamodia lately? Yoninah (talk) 22:37, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I follow several sources. (I don't live in Israel any more, by the way.) Let me just repeat what I wrote to Shrike (this doesn't apply to you - I'm just not sure whether you saw it): it seems that you wanted to minimize the issue of Haredim being ostracized and demonized by secular Israeli politicians and journalists in recent days, which led to the Saturday night demonstration of people including children wearing yellow stars. Why? So that readers would think, "why do these crazy Haredim do that without any real cause?"? That's what it felt like to me. That is what the initial edit about this issue on Haredi Judaism was like: see here. This was my objective: to make sure the other side would be heard as well. I tried to portray the entire chain of events in a neutral light - at the end, most importantly, explaining why that Saturday night demonstration with the yellow stars was held. That was what angered me about that initial edit to Haredi Judaism, and that is why I started expanding the section, when it quickly grew into a much too large section to be maintained inside an existing article, thus leading me to decide to put it in a separate article. --Piz d'Es-Cha (talk) 22:41, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Piz, please note WP:NOTFACEBOOK because by stating your alleged personal details "I am a Haredi, Edah HaChareidis-adherent, shtreimel-wearing chassidishe person" you do not do yourself any credit or favors, on the contrary, it only increases concerns that you have an agenda here, in violation of WP:NOTSOAPBOX, and you are engaging in Wikipedia:Wikilawyering to somehow achieve your POV ends, with a flurry of controversial edits in various connected articles on this theme of "Haredi Jews/Judaism" as either "the victors or the victims or the vindicated" (my phrase, I just coined it!) that have aroused lots of opposition and counter-editing from editors who do not share your POV, such as at Mishpacha (magazine); Haredi Judaism; Zionism; Neturei Karta and many more like this that prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that you have a Haredist anti-Zionist POV that promotes a rejection of anything to do with "secular or religious Zionism" that you seek to convey only in a negative light. Your editorial stance and venturing into obviously controversial terrain furthermore borders on violation of WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND and more seriously Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. How you can hope to claim to be "objective" here, in spite of all your one-sided "citations" is beyond any reasonable credibility given your own descriptions about yourself and the way you go about editing and creating articles to promote your own narrow POV. You would be well-advised to consider WP:SPIDERMAN my friend. IZAK (talk) 23:09, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is each and every editor's right to choose which edits he makes. Pro-Palestinian editors make particularly edits to issues related to Palestine, generally focusing on those areas where they feel the Palestinian narrative is not sufficiently heard. Pro-Israeli editors generally edit issues related to Israel, and focus on areas where they feel needed material is lacking or incorrect. Christian editors edit articles about Christianity, and Swedish editors edit articles about Sweden. So what's the big deal about a Haredi anti-Zionist Jew editing articles about Haredim, anti-Zionism and Judaism? You are assuming bad faith by assuming I have an agenda. I don't. I merely edit primarily relating to topics that interest me. None of my edits include anything that would cause an article to become one-sided. 1) The Mishpacha edit was completely justified by all means, since all leading Haredi rabbis in Israel have denounced this Haredi newspaper/magazine. 2) What is wrong with that edit? All I did was restore the Edah HaChareidis to its proper position. You consider "Toldos Yeshurun" (which I have never heard of) to be notable enough, but the Edah HaChareidis, which has tens of thousands of adherents, not notable? 3) That edit remained in, it was sourced and justified. 4) That addition actually clarified that NK are less extreme than most people think. Most people think the guys who go to Iran and Gaza are NK - and that's it. Few people know that NK is not one group with one unified opinion, but actually a group consisting of two known (and I believe more, less known) factions. I am disappointed at your assumption of bad faith. You are showing that you yourself have an agenda here. My agenda only consists of making sure the truth is found on Wikipedia about areas about which I have extensive knowledge, and all of my edits are completely unbiased and neutral. I feel insulted by your remarks. --Piz d'Es-Cha (talk) 00:26, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. After looking at this article and making some edits in an attempt to salvage it, I no longer think such a thing is possible. It's mostly unsourced/sourced to op-eds/sourced to poor sources/sourced to individual incidents that don't discuss a larger conflict, and it's clearly written with the intent of promoting a poor-persecuted-Haredim point of view rather than accurately representing a conflict. It's also synth in that it attempts to create a narrative where sources don't indicate one, and in that it engages in original analysis of sources (some with the potential to violate BLP - seriously, you can't just describe a writer's piece as incitement to violence because you personally don't like it). I think it would be possible to write about conflicts between the Haredim and Israeli society at large (if, y'know, you treated it as a longstanding issue and wrote about what Haredim did as well, instead of as a recent event that was all about how persecuted Haredim are, and also used reliable sources), but there's not really anything worth saving here. Blow it up. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:15, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per Roscelese. Article is poorly sourced, obviously violates NPOV, and presents no reliable sources actually verifying the existence of a "Haredi-secular conflict". Individual examples are not sufficient to establish the existence of a notable topic, there must be reliable sources defining the topic. Marokwitz (talk) 08:17, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note I have removed from the article material dealing entirely with internal violence between Haredi groups in Bet Shemesh, since it is off topic. The title of the article is "Haredi secular conflict". Furthermore I removed some material which was sourced to op-eds. Marokwitz (talk) 08:47, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK people, I give up. I'm out of here. I've had enough of this. There are plenty of sources. Marokwitz' claim that this is "Haredi against Haredi" conflict (now the "Orot Banot" school is HAREDI?!) and Roscelese apparently has big trouble reading if he fails to read all links provided documenting this. Against people like you I haven't got a chance. I quit. Delete it. I'm not going to allow my blood pressure to be raised any further over this. --Piz d'Es-Cha (talk) 09:01, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I meant "internal violence between religious groups in Bet Shemesh" conflict. Orot Banot is a religious school, not a "secular" school, therefore off topic in an article alleging there is a "winter 2011-2012 secular Haredi" conflict. Marokwitz (talk) 09:08, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Getting the article in shape and turning it into an article of general interest would be a major effort, indeed (e.g. see my edits here). The lemma itself makes it imo impossible to cover the issue: What's “Haredi”? Presumably those ultra religious Jews who are known as ultra-Orthodox Jews outside Israel, but who exactly is a secular Jew in Israel? And of course, under the present lemma, the event which caused all the fuss, the Beit Shemesh spitting incident, is not included, as the school in question and the pupils and their parents are Orthodox Jews. If anything it's ultra-Orthodox against non-ultra Orthodox Jews, but what kind of conflict is that? Ajnem (talk) 13:51, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That is blatantly untrue. The initial Beit Shemesh incident was between "Modern Orthodox" and Haredi *"Ultra Orthodox) Jews - however the ensuing social, political, media debate is almost entirely a secular vs Haredi one. Besides, in the eyes of the Haredim, these people are like seculars - and as a fact, they stand much closer to the secular world than to the Haredi world in most ways (Zionism, working, IDF, living mostly in mixed secular-MO neighborhoods). And the ensuing attacks on Haredim in the media, and the physical attacks on Haredim on the streets, were all perpetrated by secular people - not a single incident has occurred of MO people attacking Haredim in the streets, but numerous have occurred of seculars attacking Haredim. --Piz d'Es-Cha (talk) 08:03, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It should have been “That is blatantly true” not “That is blatantly untrue”, dear Piz d'Es-Cha, you are proving my point, thank you. And since I have seen that the article is currently under the heading Socio-religious tensions in Israel, I should like to repeat my vote for deletion. No good will imo come out of mixing issues in this manner, even though personally I'm not excluding the possibility that it actually is a socioeconomic conflict between poor ultra-Orthodox vs. middle class Orthodox and secular Jews, and has nothing to do with religious issues, and it could just as well be a conflict between uneducated and educated and so on, but that's just my personal view, and I don't see any reliable sources for it. On the other hand, there is a reliable source in favor of deletion of the article: “The scandal of the week will quickly die down. The trendy word ‘exclusion’ will return to its obscurity, Beit Shemesh will go back to being remote and anonymous, and the moment in the spotlight of the temporary heroes will end - the girl who was spat at and the woman who sat in the front of the bus. The signs next to the Toldot Aharon Synagogue will return to their place on Chazon Ish Street, the ultra-Orthodox woman will return to her usual lifestyle, which seems dark and dismal to most people, and we'll all be preoccupied with the next scandal.” [3] Ajnem (talk) 10:42, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And someone else in the exact same newspaper said: "it is not unreasonable to believe that their actions will bring about a change in the Israeli society."[4] By the way, I find your suggestion that maybe it is a dispute between "educated and uneducated" highly offensive and it proves your lack of NPOV. The fact that some people have a different worldview and a different education from you and the mainstream doesn't mean that they are "uneducated" while you are "educated". Are you now the ultimate judge in determining who is "educated" and who is "uneducated"? --Piz d'Es-Cha (talk) 11:19, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again for proving my point. Here is the fuller quote: "Both the price tag fanatics and the Haredi fanatics are minorities, but nevertheless it is not unreasonable to believe that their actions will bring about a change in the Israeli society. And that is because the actions of these groups demand an actual solution that will deconstruct The Denial. Containing the denial means moving forward with negotiations with the Palestinian Authority, and separating religion from state, in the spirit of properly run countries in the West. So long as these two issues, both of which exact quite a heavy price, are not dealt with and continue to be repressed, matters will merely grow worse".[5]. Cheers, Ajnem (talk) 16:59, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rename to "religious tensions in Israel in 2011-2012". These tensions are real, notable and widely covered. The article has many issues (choice of title included), but NPOV and sourcing issues are arguments for improvement, not deletion. Rami R 14:04, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a reliable source showing that the religious tensions in 2011-2012 are a distinct and notable topic for its own article? 2011-2012 is simply an arbitrary date range. Why this arbitrary time period rather than not religious tensions in, say, 2006-2012? Or 1999-2002? Arbitrarily choosing the scope to be last couple of years sounds like a case of wp:recentism. Religious tensions in Israel are nothing new. The controversy and violence related to segregated bus lines are an ongoing topic, at least since 2006. A serious encyclopedia should not be misguided by systemic bias and media-blown controversies. We have the redirect page Religious tensions in Israel, and possibly we can branch this out to an independent, widely scoped article. Marokwitz (talk) 14:30, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Article is renamed. Now can we get on with it and cooperate on building a useful, neutral and factual article here? --Piz d'Es-Cha (talk) 11:20, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Stop acting silly and using "tricks" to avoid this fair and square AfD. DO NOT MOVE while in the middle of AfD! Please do not change the title or move the original article while it is in the middle of an AfD as it creates mass confusion. Feel free to edit, but no moving and no changing of name until AfD is resolved and closed. Thank you! IZAK (talk) 04:29, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete that one too. Do not relist or delay. Save it to sandbox and come back in a few weeks to see if anyone even remembers this was a 'major event'. --Shuki (talk) 23:11, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This article is ludicrously focussed on a brief period of time. There is insufficient justification in sources for the special focus given to the period of time covered in the article. Socially different points of view are normal. A series of vignettes of the manifestations of differing points of view over several months in Israeli society would only warrant a free-standing article if sources to a fair degree recognized the span of time and the incidents depicted as constituting something noteworthy. Note has been taken by sources of the series of social confrontations, but not to the degree that would warrant a free-standing article. Moving what would be reasonable material for inclusion in articles on a more general scope to its own standalone article is advocacy and would be in violation of for instance WP:Soapbox. Is social unrest depicted by reliable sources running as high as an article such as this would suggest? I think there is a degree of synthesis and interpretation here that takes us outside of the realm of what an encyclopedia should be and into the realm of advocacy, which is something an encyclopedia should obviously not be involved in. Objectivity requires the context of material to be appropriate. This material properly belongs in articles covering a wider and more general scope. Bus stop (talk) 14:38, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I vote for Delete. I don't like what it says, and it shouldn't be publicized. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.64.234.248 (talk) 11:26, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. POV fork, WP:NOTNEWS. This is still unfolding and each individual incident is only of marginal notability. In a little while there might be secondary sources placing the whole thing into context. JFW | T@lk 11:15, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is nothing in this article specific to winter 2011-2012 that is different than what has happened at any other time in the past 15 to 20 years. The only thing that has changed recently is the increased media coverage. --PiMaster3 talk 05:47, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: an encyclopedia is not the forum for this issue.— Preceding unsigned comment added by An American jew (talk • contribs) [6]
  • Keep: And rename to something with a better POV.Although the article itself may be NPOV, the recent rash of Sikrikim violence and the resulting anti-Haredi incitement, and the Haredi demonstrations resulting from that, should have an article of its own, even though individual reports don't always tie them together. Yserbius (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:23, 9 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep A significant topic , as shown by the sources. The claim that only the two major English language newspapers from Israel (which , as it happens, are both non-Haredi) has been used should be dealt with by adding other sources. The argument that the individual incidents are not separately notable, while correct for most of them, is no reason for not having a article covering them all. I do not see this article as violating NPOV--it is simple straightforward reporting. Perhaps the time span covered will need adjustment, but that's another matter. I see nothing wrong with "winter" as the events described are in the Northern hemisphere. DGG ( talk ) 02:30, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Haredi-secular_conflict_in_Israel_in_winter_of_2011-2012&oldid=1137899482"