Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Avraham Shmulevich
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. Angr/talk 22:54, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Avraham Shmulevich[edit]
Delete. I looked though his website and his livejournal (I am a Russian-speaker) and I came to the conclusion that this "rabbi" of unknown religious provenance is the leader of a non-notable gang of a small number "hyperzionist" hoodlums. Especially the moronic posters that his half-dozen protestors display at his "actions" leads me to believe that this is NN. Crzrussian 13:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Note that the website does have an English language section, so don't be afraid to visit. Not notable. Never in Knesset [1] and from the looks of the platform (something about the natural borders of Israel encompassing most of Syria and half of Iraq?) never will be. GRuban 15:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)See below.[reply]Weak delete- he is very active in Russian-language blogs and once got a moment of fame when Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs (apparently a secretary was reading blogs) made a point comparing Shnuleviches hyper-zionists with Hamas (conveniently forgetting that Hamas members are in hundred of thousands and Shmuleviches a less than 10 people. Still as a politician he is a zero and as a writer he is not-notable. abakharev 16:19, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]- Speedy delete CSD A7, no assertion of notability. Strongly censure article nom for violating WP:NPA, both here and in the PROD (which I removed on the grounds of WP:RPA.) Clean up your act; you make the deletion process look bad. -ikkyu2 (talk) 09:34, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- * Comment With all due respect, WP:NPA says "against another contributor" all over it. Avraham Shmulevich is not a contributor, but the subject of the article. So while article nom may be expressing his feelings rather strongly, I do not believe he is violating WP:NPA. GRuban 14:03, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Response: I did not attack the post, or the poster. I did not even attack Shmulevich himself. I called his followers "hoodlums", and their posters "moronic", not because I agree or disagree with their political position, but because I viewed the contents of the website and the pictures of their "actions". The degree of stupidity contained therein is directly relevant to B.A.'s notability as a political movement: the lamer, the less legitimate, the more deletable. As for expressing my feelings strongly, I am proud to have done so. I did nothing wrong. Crzrussian 15:20, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The fact that somebody is considered a "hoodlum" is not a reason for not having an entry. Nor is there a rule on the number of followers required for someone to be "notable," so far as I know (and quite how many followers he has is open to dispute). Shmulevich is intresting for two reasons (which is why I postd the entry in the first place, hoping that someone would expand it). Firstly, he is an associate of Alexander Dugin and a founding member of Dugin's Eurasia Movement. He is therefore relevant to the understanding of Dugin and his movement, which is why I put a page on him in my book *Against the Modern World* (Oxford UP, 2004). Secondly, he is an example of "Hyperzionism," a movement that does exist, even if it is pretty small. His public advocacy of a "Nile to Euphrates" State is in itself notable. The Israeli newspaper *Ediot Ahronot* thought him notable enoug to merit an articl (Natasha Mozgovaya, “The Red Army of the Hebron Rabbi,” July 18 2003). Frankly, I suspect that the main argument for deletion is simply that many people don't like the guy--which I understand, but I just don't think that should be a criterion.mjsedgwick 18:40, 8 March 2006 (GMT+2)
- Comment I think the author himself unintentionally makes the point for deletion. This is not about ideology (I am unfamiliar with A.S.'s ideology other than the ludicrous borders thing). This is about being marginal. A marginal crackpot with ludicrous views and few or no followers may be very entertaining, but is not a proper material for inclusion in wikipedia. (Incidentally, the author and I are having an interesting conversation about all these characters off wikipedia. There's no personal animus here). Crzrussian 17:05, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Response: True about the side discussion. Problem is that I'm going to have to abandon debate soon as it's late in my time zone and there are children to be put to bed! I'm probaly violating some policy by going off topic like this, but I'm rather struck by the fact that the result of my adding a stub for someone I thought interesting is that I end up wiriting more on this page than on the original entry. Lesson for future: don't post a stub, post a full article. Anyhow, back on topic: at least Crzrussian admits to "interesting" and "marginal"! How "marginal" is "marginal"? OK, no-one's about to put the guy on banknote, or elect him to the Knesset, but surely you don't have to be THAT notable for a Wikipedia entry. I'll repeat here my original logic. Alexander Dugin is certainly notable. Subject of dispute contributes to understanding of larger subject. Also relevant to second larger subject of HyperZionism/Neo-Zionism.mjsedgwick 19:20, 8 March 2006 (GMT+2)
- Comment Until now this has been civil and divorced from ideology. A few minutes ago I removed the following passage from the article: Th[e] control [from the Nile to the Euphrates] need not be military: the techniques of economic and social control suggested in the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion would do equally well. OMG! The reference to the Protocols, a pathetic antisemitic hoax, which makes my blood boil, instantly casts doubt on the entire article and the intention of the writer! Is this article meant to castigate its subject? I am profoundly unhappy. Crzrussian 19:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC) I am having trouble being cool as a cucumber. Crzrussian 19:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Response: True about the side discussion. Problem is that I'm going to have to abandon debate soon as it's late in my time zone and there are children to be put to bed! I'm probaly violating some policy by going off topic like this, but I'm rather struck by the fact that the result of my adding a stub for someone I thought interesting is that I end up wiriting more on this page than on the original entry. Lesson for future: don't post a stub, post a full article. Anyhow, back on topic: at least Crzrussian admits to "interesting" and "marginal"! How "marginal" is "marginal"? OK, no-one's about to put the guy on banknote, or elect him to the Knesset, but surely you don't have to be THAT notable for a Wikipedia entry. I'll repeat here my original logic. Alexander Dugin is certainly notable. Subject of dispute contributes to understanding of larger subject. Also relevant to second larger subject of HyperZionism/Neo-Zionism.mjsedgwick 19:20, 8 March 2006 (GMT+2)
- Response Well, that's what comes of saying we're having an amicable and interesting discussion! A sentence "instantly casts doubt on the entire article and the intention of the writer!" Since I'm the writer, I think that means doubt is being cast on my intentions? Does that mean that it's OK for me to consider the intentions of Crzrussian? "I am profoundly unhappy" describes a state of mind, which might be relevant to intention. "A pathetic antisemitic hoax, which makes my blood boil"--well, let's see. Hoax, yes. Antisemitic, yes. Pathetic? Well, I wish! One of the most successful hoaxes in history, I'd say. Just look at the number of editions and translations... But anyhow, whether or not that particular hoax makes one's blood boil is not the point. The question is whether or not the subject of the article did make that rather extraordinary assertion [and he did]. One might then speculate as to why. Well, put it together with the "Nile to Euphrates" definition, and a possibility starts to become clear. That definition too is a hoax, and a very successful one. The majority of Arabs are convinced that the State of Israel has designs on Egypt and Iraq, even though this is not the case. What Shmulevich is doing, I think, is being as provocative as possible by taking the two greatest antisemitic/anti-Israeli hoax ideas around, and endorsing them. And it seems to work, no? Anyhow, the reason I'm replying at such length is partly to defend myself against the charge that seems to have been brought against me, and partly because I think this exchange illustrates my earlier thesis that the real objection to an entry on Shmulevich is not that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information but that people don't like the guy. To which I would reply: Wikipedia is not censored. Despite which, I am accepting censorship on this occasion, and have not reversed the deletion. mjsedgwick 13:49, 11 March 2006 (GMT+2)
- I give up Keep the article if you want to. I am removing myself from this debate, but remain convinced that Professor Sedgwick invidiously compared Shmulevich's actions with the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, which was quite anti-semitic and unprofessorly of him. See ya. Crzrussian 02:24, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, I see! Crzrussian thought that it was me who had made the comparison with the Protocols. I can see now why he got upset. If the original (now deleted) sentence is read more carefully and in context (and in cold blood), I trust it will be clear that I did not make this comparison at all (it would never occurr to me to make such a comparison, which is why I didn't realize what Crzrussian was getting at). I was reporting what Shmulevich said (or wrote, actually). It is Shmulevich who provocatively refers to the Protocols, partly as a way of gaining people' attention and making them react--which certainly seems to have happened on this occasion! mjsedgwick 19:45, 12 March 2006 (GMT+2)
- I give up Keep the article if you want to. I am removing myself from this debate, but remain convinced that Professor Sedgwick invidiously compared Shmulevich's actions with the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, which was quite anti-semitic and unprofessorly of him. See ya. Crzrussian 02:24, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Response Well, that's what comes of saying we're having an amicable and interesting discussion! A sentence "instantly casts doubt on the entire article and the intention of the writer!" Since I'm the writer, I think that means doubt is being cast on my intentions? Does that mean that it's OK for me to consider the intentions of Crzrussian? "I am profoundly unhappy" describes a state of mind, which might be relevant to intention. "A pathetic antisemitic hoax, which makes my blood boil"--well, let's see. Hoax, yes. Antisemitic, yes. Pathetic? Well, I wish! One of the most successful hoaxes in history, I'd say. Just look at the number of editions and translations... But anyhow, whether or not that particular hoax makes one's blood boil is not the point. The question is whether or not the subject of the article did make that rather extraordinary assertion [and he did]. One might then speculate as to why. Well, put it together with the "Nile to Euphrates" definition, and a possibility starts to become clear. That definition too is a hoax, and a very successful one. The majority of Arabs are convinced that the State of Israel has designs on Egypt and Iraq, even though this is not the case. What Shmulevich is doing, I think, is being as provocative as possible by taking the two greatest antisemitic/anti-Israeli hoax ideas around, and endorsing them. And it seems to work, no? Anyhow, the reason I'm replying at such length is partly to defend myself against the charge that seems to have been brought against me, and partly because I think this exchange illustrates my earlier thesis that the real objection to an entry on Shmulevich is not that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information but that people don't like the guy. To which I would reply: Wikipedia is not censored. Despite which, I am accepting censorship on this occasion, and have not reversed the deletion. mjsedgwick 13:49, 11 March 2006 (GMT+2)
- Final plea for keeping. I've taken my own advice and expanded the stub. Take a look now and see whether the guy is worthy of an entry or not. mjsedgwick 19:55, 8 March 2006 (GMT+2)
- It's a good article now, but can we have a reference besides his own website, and his own posts on blogs? Otherwise, we've got a nasty precedent that everyone who spends a few days on the net... Hmmm. I did a bit of searching, and found this [2] which claims that there are two movies and a chapter in a book that are dedicated to the movement. That's something. Keep. Side note, the author of the book is ... right. OK, then. Hi. GRuban 18:27, 9 March 2006 (UTC) I added the references to the article itself. GRuban 18:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment all materials were either produced by members, or are of a curiosity value, not a question of scholarship. If I come out and yell something vile and racist in Times Square with 10 of my buddies, I might make the news too, but that does not make me notable.Crzrussian 19:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Response If Crzrussian and 10 of his buddies goes out in Times Square and yells something vile and racist, and if he and his buddies are the local expression of a movement that is of growing significance in another country, then yes, I think he and his buddies would be in some sense notable. For the record, I would like to stress that I personally do no suppot the goals, methods, or logic of Neo-Eurasianism. I am simply a researcher trying to make the results of my research available to the public, and adopting the famous neutral point of view. mjsedgwick 13:59, 11 March 2006 (GMT+2)
- Comment all materials were either produced by members, or are of a curiosity value, not a question of scholarship. If I come out and yell something vile and racist in Times Square with 10 of my buddies, I might make the news too, but that does not make me notable.Crzrussian 19:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep - changed my mind from weak delete to weak keep. The article evolutioned into a balanced one, worth to keep abakharev 23:14, 9 March 2006 (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.