Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of Judaism (2nd nomination)

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 keep. The headcount shows that roughly three out of four contributors want to keep the article, so I could find a consensus for deletion only if the "delete" arguments are so strong as to mandate deletion without regard to any other arguments (such as, e.g., in the case of copyright violations). That is not the case. Most "delete" arguments concern the content of the article, including its neutrality and the selection of topics which it covers. This is a class of problems that can be resolved by judicious consensus-based editing rather than deletion.  Sandstein  07:25, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of Judaism[edit]

__
AfDs for this article:
Criticism of Judaism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Completing nomination for IP that went I wish to nominate this page for deletion as it is clearly Original Research and entirely unencyclopedic. If a registered editor or admin can please complete the AfD process I would be grateful. Thank you. 71.235.101.111 (talk) 05:02, 6 May 2010 (UTC) Spartaz Humbug! 05:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Leaning delete - as far as I can tell (and I am no expert and a complete outsider), the individual criticisms or discussions are quite disparate - Rejection of concept of a personal God could be applied to many monotheistic religions (hence nonspecific), Rejection of concept of Chosen People is more of a discussion which can live in the parent article, ditto Christian-Jewish disputations which are historical, etc. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:01, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am receptive to the idea of a rename to Reactions to Judaism as outlined below, to try and forge some way forward. I haven't looked at many of the other 'criticism of' articles, but suspect that many of them will have the same problem as this in that they misrepresent diverse and at times unrelated reactions as some coherent criticism. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:14, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. --  -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 06:42, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Criticism of Judaism is not notable or encyclopedic. This is just a hatchery of point of view and original research. Mike Allen 07:28, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete clarifying my own position as my completing the nomination was a procedureal action for an ip who could not do it themselves. I can't see how this article can ever discuss criticism in context or avoid issues of original research by synthesis WP:SYNTH. This is always going to be a subject where criticism is plagued by having a POV and lacking a balanced view and I think it would be impossible to write a balanced neutral article that relies exclusively on balanced sources. Spartaz Humbug! 07:46, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep It has not been explained above why the article is not considered notable, as I clearly see numerous sources and the fact that the article correctly lists types of criticism of Judaism, which fits under the subject. I do not see original research in the article, as the references very clearly define where the information in the article is taken from. POV problems (and OR problems for that matter anyways) are not criteria for deletion. I view the article more as a list proper, just with information for understanding. The subject headings all fit under the subject of the article properly and the sources show that the article clearly passes WP:N. There are numerous other articles on Criticism of religion (even a Criticism of Religion article), so I believe the subject is notable. Per WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, my showing of these other articles provides consistency for this article and should not be dismissed offhand. I also believe this section on the talk page properly explains away other assumed problems with the article. SilverserenC 10:58, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article never addresses "criticism of Judaism." "Criticism of Judaism" is like a precipice that the editors contributing material to this article refuse to approach. Judaism is a religion with some big sweeping themes. Those big sweeping themes represent valid areas for criticism, but this article concentrates on carping about minor themes and unfortunately gives the reader the impression that those petty complaints represent real criticism of the actual entity of Judaism. Bus stop (talk) 16:20, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - AfD is not for cleanup. The subject is notable, and has enough potential depth to warrant a standalone article. The fact that the material currently in the article may be original research or synthesis is something that can be addressed through normal editing. Similar articles (Criticism of Christianity and Criticism of Islam) provide some (mixed) evidence as to the viability and usefulness of this kind of article. Delete votes above essentially amount to "this is a difficult and controversial topic which will likely suffer continual vandalism and POV pushing". This is true, but is not currently a valid reason for deletion under deletion policy, for good reason. - DustFormsWords (talk) 10:59, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- utterly notable. Criticism of Judaism has been a quite significant and notable part of Judaism's existence in the world (even apart from Anti-semitism and Anti-Judaism); there is no reason to eliminate the article simply because it lends itself to problems like WP:OR. Savant1984 (talk) 11:24, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, because the article is much too large to be merged into Judaism and because deleting this article would upset the balance of neutrality with respect to other major religions that have separate "Criticism of..." articles (see Criticism of Islam, Criticism of Christianity, Criticism of Buddhism, Criticism of Mormonism, and many others, all of which are viewable at Template:Criticism of religion). I don't see any problems with original research in this article; synthesis is arguable, but because of the list-like structure of this article (and the other ciriticism articles) I don't believe the claims of synthesis are valid either. If they are, they can surely be solved without deleting the article. Also, with respect to Spartaz's claim that the sources used in this article are not balanced, I'm not aware of a rule in WP:NPOV that states that sources used to verify claims but themselves conform to WP:NPOV, only that their use in the article must. If we did have to reject POV sources, sentences in the WP:NPOV page such as Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. would seem to not make sense. —Soap— 11:33, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The argument that this article ought to exist so as not to "upset the balance of neutrality with respect to other major religions" articles" is off-base. There is no "balance of neutrality" called for in Wikipedia policy — not in relation to different articles. This article is and has always been a dumping ground for any petty so-called criticism of Judaism. Most interestingly, no criticism of the big themes of Judaism are ever encountered in this article. The article fails ever to rise to the occasion and criticize Judaism for being for instance monotheistic or for instance based on halacha. What that indicates is that this article is not ever being used for criticism of Judaism itself, but rather for the noting of any petty reference to Judaism that can be found. The article is a hopeless cause. I've tried for weeks to get the involved editors to consider picking criteria to guide what should be included here. There has been no inclination to arrive at any such criteria. But there has been huge interest in reinserting marginal material that at best carps about topics that are not at all major themes in Judaism. Bus stop (talk) 22:41, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is exactly an "other crap exists" argument and for that reason invalid.--Scott Mac 14:10, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Remember that "OTHERCRAP is part of an essay; it is not some sort of bright-line policy that all such arguments are invalid or forbidden. I see no logical rationale for allowing a criticism article on one of the world's major religions to disappear while leaving intact articles on other major religions. If we wish to tackle the subject of "Critical of Religion X" itself in the same manner we have cut down on "Criticism of Person X" articles, then I am all for it. But AfD'ing one of the lot is not the proper way to go. Hell, batch delete the lot of em, but I think that will bring far more heat than light to the situation. Tarc (talk) 14:38, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Judaism is Judaism. It has nothing to do with Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism. (I don't know if atheism is a religion.) The reasons for the failure of this article are not necessarily related to factors found at those other articles, which superficially may seem similar, but in fact are different from this one. It is sign of the weakness of the argument for the "Keep" of this article that reference to these other articles seems necessary. The problem here was the failure to criticize Judaism in the big picture. That may not be a problem encountered at the articles referred to. For whatever reason, editors have been hesitant to criticize Judaism for what it represents in its giant themes. That could be done. That would make this a good article, at least potentially it would. But working with editors for a few weeks has led me to conclude that a real criticism of Judaism is never going to be attempted. I tried to get editors to discuss criteria that would be applicable to this article, but the editors I've encountered seemed committed to using this article to concentrate on only lesser issues. That isn't going to change by sending this article back into working space. More of the same will prevail. The article will continue to be used in a petty manner to document petty offenses that never ever rise to the level of an actual criticism of Judaism. Deleting the article seems a good way to free up people's energy to move on to other work. Bus stop (talk) 19:25, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In a word; bullshit. Tarc (talk) 19:31, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you are not focussing on this article if you are only preoccupied with the existence of other articles that may be superficially similar. Bus stop (talk) 19:52, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support for Judaism is a word game — we don't have Supportive approaches for Hamlet, but Critical approaches to Hamlet exists. The name for all these articles should be better, to avoid POV forking: I want something like Outside reactions to Judaism, except not so stupid sounding. Wnt (talk) 00:49, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep only if cleaned up and clear criteria provided, otherwise delete due to numerous violations There exists criticism of Judaism as a religion. However, the way certain, seemingly partisan, editors have been treating this article, it has turned into a dumping ground of unrelated inappropriate coatracky-type sections whose only connection is some negative comment about Jewish people, Jewish law, Jewish texts, and mostly not even the religion perse. If the POV-pushing information was removed, or placed in its own articles for the few real criticisms (e.g. Shechita issues belong in Shechita - a religino is not defined by any one of its traditions) then I would vote to keep the article. Which is why I an d many other editors have been combing through this article trying to seperate the valid and appropriate points from the mess it was. However, if there is no way to develop a CLEAR set of criteria for what belongs in this article, and it keeps on being a magnet for partisan editors, then the violations to wikipedia policy and guideline outweigh the benefits of the article and it must be deleted. Avi (talk) 14:54, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete As Jay describes elowuently below, basically every entry in the article more properly belongs in other articles, and for the most--if not all--part they are already there! To lump together various discussions based on the ephemeral connection of the Bible, through the concept of a G-d (not even restricted to monotheism for that matter), or through the fact that some adherents of a political philosophy happen to be Jewish, appears to be a WP:SYNTH, WP:OR, and WP:NPOV which I do not see being surmountable. -- Avi (talk) 04:15, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Poor excuse for an article. Major disconnect between title and contents. The title implies that the whole religion of Judaism is being criticized. In fact only petty fault-finding that never addresses the whole religion of Judaism is the norm. The editors that apparently want to "criticize Judaism" also apparently don't want to do their homework and find "criticism" that actually addresses the whole religion of Judaism. This article is a title waiting for content to materialize. The trouble is that apparently someone came up with an idea for the subject for an article, but they didn't have any idea, in the specifics, what to put into it. And that is how it remains to this day: an empty repository for indiscriminately badmouthing Judaism. Not a very noble concept for an article. And living up to its title is something that is not likely to happen. I've made numerous suggestions. I suggested we arrive at criteria for inclusion based on what Judaism actually is. Most editors didn't like that idea. It seems they prefer an article that has no standards, that can serve as a convenient place for digging up the dirt on Judaism, even if in point of fact that "dirt" is not even necessarily related to the actual religion in its major themes. Bus stop (talk) 15:55, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural keep: AFD is not clean-up. Article needs big changes. But there is a ton of reliable research on this topic, as there is on criticisms of Islam, Christianity, and Atheism. If clean-up proves to be a problem, take it to RFC, or request mediation. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:01, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if there is a "ton of reliable research on this topic" but there is some material relevant to the topic. How do you explain that up until now no one has put on-topic material into this article? Bus stop (talk) 16:09, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snowball keep Pulling together information on the same topic from different sources is not WP:OR. Only when claims made in the article are not supported by the sources is it WP:OR, which is not the case here. Further, every other religion and large organization has a criticism article, including people (though these are now called "cultural and political image of..."). The article needs more good faith editors, not deletion. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 17:31, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not original research, as it's based on sources. Not improper synthesis, as sources that discuss criticism of aspects of Judaism can reasonably be construed to be part of the wider topic of "Criticism of Judaism". Remember, this article is about the topic of Criticism of Judaism, it exists to summarise the coverage of this topic in secondary sources, not to endorse such criticism, and I don't think it does this. The topic is plainly notable, hundreds of books have discussed it and notable philosophers such as Hegel and Nietzsche have made criticisms of Judaism.[1] This nomination and support for deletion seems to be part of a trend whereby anything negative about Judaism must be excised from Wikipedia, which is not a trend we should continue. Fences&Windows 17:35, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge elsewhere. The content looks reasonable, but we don't need to fork it. If we do, we might as well have Praise of Judaism to keep the balance. Aiken ♫ 17:50, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you can find significant coverage in reliable sources discussing Praise of Judaism, and if it's not able to be easily covered in an existing article, then go ahead and make it. - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:39, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What both Aiken and DustFormsWords are saying (above) is interesting. The logical solution is to have one article incorporating both approaches. I have suggested this on the article Talk page. Why not have one article entitled "Critique of Judaism"? In such an article both positive criticism and negative criticism could be permitted. (The present article, "Criticism of Judaism," only allows for negative criticism. I have asked if I could put positive criticism into this article and I was told that no, I could not.) This article does allow for a response that is supposed to counterbalance the negative criticism, I guess as some sort of token amount of WP:NPOV, but this article clearly places the emphasis on the negative. An article that would make sense would be an article constructed on a level playing field, so to speak. An article named Critique of Judaism could also have as one of its guiding principles that only the major themes of the religion get critiqued; minor themes would not merit inclusion. That could be a dignified article. Bus stop (talk) 00:49, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentTo the person who quoted "wp:snowball" I'd like to point out that Judaism doesnt believe in hell (and therefore the snowball that might have a chance there) ;) Camelbinky (talk) 17:56, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Each subsection has a "see also" or "main article" all each to a different article, it isnt that this is just a long subsection of one article that needed to be split off for length purposes... this is just section and section and section from different Jewish-related articles put all together in one place for the purpose of criticizing a religion for believing in something different than other religions, and it brings in criticisms about different brands of Judaism and of things Judaism doesnt even do anymore. Article has no encyclopedic value. It is a magnet for ant-semites and that's not what we want to encourage. Everything covered in the article can be found in other places that normal people would be more likely to be looking at anyways.Camelbinky (talk) 17:56, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, then after we delete this article we should go delete World War 2 because every subsection contains a "see also" or "main article". Lol. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 19:28, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per OR, SYNTH and WP:COATRACK. AzureFury: I think that the writers of this article have been very careful to include claims that are based on sources; the only problem is that the selection of these sources is limited, haphazard, and gives undue weight to minor "scholars" as to major. I do not understand the purpose of any of these Category:Criticism of religion articles, as they seem to be a dumping ground for religious slurs, rabble-rousing and anti-(name your religion) digs. Yoninah (talk) 20:16, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you have the knowledge to make the claim that "the selection of sources is limited, haphazard, and gives undue weight to minor scholars," then you have the knowledge to balance the article. Why are you voting delete? If you don't know what sources should be included to improve the article, then you don't know that the sources included in the article are selective. If you do know what sources should be included in the article, you should be including them, rather than trying to censor the whole thing. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 21:52, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have a question for those users voting delete. Is it because of the organization of this article not being as fluid as the other criticism articles and including minority topics? If so, these are things that should be fixed, but the topic itself shouldn't be deleted. For those that are saying that this is just a way to bash religion, consider that there is a criticism of atheism article. It seems to me that there is nothing wrong with these articles, so long as they correctly utilize their sources. Wikipedia isn't bashing religion with these articles, it is explaining viewpoints by notable scholars and critics across the world. If you feel, like this article, is biased, then it needs to be fixed, not deleted. SilverserenC 20:27, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The reason for deleting this article is its failure to criticize Judaism. The criticizing of Judaism would first entail the defining of Judaism. What is Judaism? Judaism is a monotheistic religion. Does anyone not find it curious that this article fails to criticize Jewish monotheism? Instead it opts for criticizing lesser themes. That is petty. Judaism is also a religion that is strongly defined by its reliance on Halacha. Where is the criticism of Judaism's heavy reliance on Halacha? Why the shying away from the big themes in favor of petty themes? This article is a flop because all the editors that wish to add material to this article fail to recognize the need to recognize big themes. They are myopically focussing on petty issues that are not deserving of the title of this article.
The article is misleading because the article gives the misimpression that the topics it covers represent Judaism. Only in the most minimal sense is this true. And totally absent is what the title indicates the article is about. Bus stop (talk) 20:38, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then that means that the article itself needs a major overhaul. I agree with the points you just made, but that doesn't lessen the notability of the subject at all, it just means that it needs to be rewritten or, at the very least, include the criticisms you're talking about and feature them prominantly, with the current stuff beneath that. SilverserenC 20:48, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it will never happen. Just look at the history of the article and Talk page for the past few weeks. The "current stuff" does not belong in it. The topics covered are misleading in that they convey the notion that they are criticism of Judaism but the upshot is just petty carping, never rising to the level of actually critiquing Judaism, as the article's title would suggest. Bus stop (talk) 20:53, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep I incorporate the reasoning of Tarc, Soap and DustFormsWords as my own. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:42, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The topic is notable, and would be too long to merge into the parent article. There may be problems with it, but that's not what AFD is for. Buddy431 (talk) 21:00, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The topic? What is the topic? That is the one of the main problems — there is no topic. This article was conceived as a space for complaining. About what? That is anyone's guess. Bus stop (talk) 21:05, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ICANTHEARYOU. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 21:56, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
AzureFury — since this article is only being used for petty criticism, I think it should be deleted. Bus stop (talk) 22:54, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ad nauseam. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 23:36, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per Tarc, Soap and DustFormsWords. This is an obvious keep, article needs work - but those discussions are for the article talk page. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:22, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep per Tarc, Soap. Why should one religion be singled out, and have no "Criticism"-article? Huldra (talk) 01:43, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Needs cleanup/improvement, but core topic appears notable and the article cites many sources. --Cybercobra (talk) 02:20, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename and rework into Reactions to Judaism or something similar. I appreciate the arguments made by Dustformswords et al, and I agree that this topic is notable. Furthermore, while this article clearly needs some work, I do not believe it would be beneficial to simply remove all this content by deleting the article. However this article's title (and thus subject) necessarily restricts it to a point of view that is critical of Judaism. I cannot see how an article that necessarily violates the neutral point of view policy should be retained in that form. If there were an article called Reactions to Judaism, and the criticisms section became so long that a fork called Criticism of Judaism grew organically out of it, I would definitely !vote keep, but as far as I can tell, this is not a content fork of any article. Most of the article that link to it do so from the Series on Judaism template, so it appears to be existing in a vacuum. -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 02:51, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Saying it's inherently NPOV is a misunderstanding of the nature of criticism. Criticism is the result of critique and it's not inherently negative any more than movie critics give only negative reviews. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:03, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • So then it is your understanding that this article is as open to positive criticism as negative criticism? As it stands right now positive criticism is only allowable as rebuttal to negative criticism, but only negative criticism is allowable as the initiator of a topic. This is discussed at length on the article Talk page, such as in this section. Bus stop (talk) 03:41, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please read this, #7. SilverserenC 03:47, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, well that is a one-sided conversation. See link above for a discussion involving two sides, at least. Bus stop (talk) 04:00, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter what the current article content is; that's a matter for clean-up. All that's relevant is that this article subject does not meet any of the reasons for deletion. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:04, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I read the section you linked and it appears to me that you constantly and consistently ignored everything that Noleander brought up, instead trying to redirect the conversation back to the fact that you think the article should be deleted. As AzureFury stated above, you have continued to raise that point ad nauseum. SilverserenC 04:09, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, I pointed out to Noleander, in that section of the Talk page, that the article may be in violation of WP:NPOV. Bus stop (talk) 04:16, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Which, regardless, is not a reason for deletion. SilverserenC 04:26, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If the article is inherently in violation of WP:NPOV I think that would argue for deletion. If the article only allows for negative criticism that hardly seems consistent with WP:NPOV. An article can be created replacing this article allowing for both a positive and a negative critiquing of Judaism. Bus stop (talk) 04:35, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you are that concerned with there needing to be positive criticism in the article, which I am not entirely sure is necessary beyond balancing positive information directly with the topics at hand, then that information should be added. The negative information shouldn't all just be deleted. SilverserenC 04:45, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Silverseren — you said you read the section I linked to. Did you see where I asked if I could initiate positive criticism? I was basically told "no." And if positive criticism is allowable, I think the article should be named something like Critique of Judaism. Bus stop (talk) 05:03, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, that is not what happened. Noleander pointed out that the other Criticism articles didn't have fully positive sections because it was redundant in terms of the articles on the religion themselves. However, positive criticism that offsets the subjects already included in the article was pointed out by him/her that it was fine and encouraged you to do so. Please do not try and twist what happened on the talk page, we can all read it rather easily ourselves and see what was really said. As for renaming, no, following the style guide, "Criticism" is the correct terminology for a title, which is why all of the articles are titled as such. SilverserenC 05:14, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Critique of Judaism in this context is bad English; it's the difference between "Books about Judaism" and "A book about Judaism"; and in any case AfD isn't for page moves. Also "I have trouble working with the other editors on this article" is yet ANOTHER thing that isn't a valid reason for deletion. The valid reasons for deletion are at WP:DEL#REASONS and the only ones that have been raised are "content fork" and "unencyclopedic content", both of which I argue don't apply here. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:15, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
After checking up on this discussion, I noticed Noleander's name was mentioned. I'd like to point out for everyone that Noleander has gotten in "trouble" with the community on several occasions for work on, and creation of, Jewish-related articles of a POV nature that deal with negative information against Judaism, and at least two of those POV anti-Jewish articles were deleted. I wouldnt go around using what he says as a defence and I'm disheartened to hear he continues to edit on Jewish related articles as MANY editors and admins "encouraged" him to stay away from such articles almost to the point of an actual topic-ban being put on him.Camelbinky (talk) 05:40, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of his past actions, his explanations on the talk page were rather complete, concise, understandable, and backed by policy. It did and does not seem like he is pushing a POV on this article, as he stated that he was completely open to adding positive information on the topics therein. SilverserenC 05:43, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This article is a great example of WP:SYNTH. The article is inventing, rather than citing, argumentation; "X, however Y" is a juxtaposition created by the editors of the article, rather than drawn from other authors' comparisons of X and Y. --jpgordon::==( o ) 05:41, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can you give specific examples? SilverserenC 05:43, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. The section entitled "Rejection of concept of Chosen People". The section entitled "Criticism from Islam". The section entitled "Violence". The section entitled "Historical accuracy of religious texts". The section entitled "Discrimination against non-Jews". The section entitled "Divorce and agunah". The section entitled "Niddah (menstruation laws)". "Homosexuality". "Brit milah (covenant of circumcision)". There are sometimes more, depending on the state of the eternal edit war there. --jpgordon::==( o ) 14:20, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the closest article we have is Criticism of Hinduism, a similar religion/ethnic grouping/cultural grouping, as judaism is not a religion of creed so much as a modernized indigenous lifeway (well, my opinion anyway), so the other crap that exists really does support this article staying. if this specific article is biased, fix it. no matter how much it is trimmed back or altered, there will always be an article with this title, or, if people want to bother, a whole series of articles on criticisms of various religions under some other name (problems with..., arguments against..., internal inconsistencies within..., controversies surrounding..., critical commentaries on... etc), as all of these religions have had numerous criticisms of them published, both cogent and insane, with many of them extremely notable. really a snow keep.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:17, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are many books and news sources out there, showing criticism of Judaism, so its a notable topic to have. Just don't give any undue weight to crazed conspiracy nuts and hate mongers, and it'll be a fine topic. Dream Focus 10:56, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a valid topic at all. Antisemitism exists in abundance. The "books and news sources" you mention can also be vectors of antisemitism. The article's structure is oddball. In its conceptualization it is not neutral. Most articles have subjects. This article, by dint of its oddball conceptualization, has a blank slate for painting Judaism in a negative light. It would not occur to anyone to write an article from the point of view of Philo-Semitism for the overly simple reason that it would be oddball. It should be obvious that the conceptualization of an article influences the eventual form it takes. Formulate an article on a faulty basis and you have an article that will always gravitate to the problematic leaning built in at its inception. This article is in violation of WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND, which reads: "Wikipedia is not a place to hold grudges, import personal conflicts, or nurture prejudice, hatred, or fear." That is inbuilt from this article's inception. Numerous solutions have been suggested for remedying this. Deleting the article would be one of those solutions but not the only one. Bus stop (talk) 13:39, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing surprising about the playing of the "OMG antisemitism!" victim card in this debate is that it didn't happen until Day 2. Tarc (talk) 14:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I said more than that in the above. "Criticism of Judaism" is not in the form of most Wikipedia articles. It contains no structure. It is not an articulated realm. I think I said in my above statement that it was "oddball." It is an undefined receptacle that would lend itself to antisemitism. I'm not going to go out on a limb and try to prognosticate the likelihood of this article containing antisemitism this month, last year, or a year from now, but I will contend that the article has the natural leaning in that direction, and that is a factor of its conception. Bus stop (talk) 14:16, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - the subject matter is certainly worthy of it's own article, it's just the current content of the article that is lacking. The article needs to be tagged for a re-write and/or cleanup, not removed entirely. --Pumpmeup 14:28, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I read the article to see what the fuss is about. I agree this article contains way too much original research, and is very one sided. If kept this article would need a significant overhaul. Marokwitz (talk) 15:03, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- Since, if my understanding of policy is correct, an article needs consensus to be deleted, it seems that at the moment there is a snowball's chance in Gehenna of it being deleted. There is a lot of discussion here at the moment. Much of the content (and perspective of editors) in this discussion, though, could be very important; may I suggest that we direct our attentions to the article talk page to channel this energy into improving the article, (since it seems it will indeed remain with us)? Savant1984 (talk) 15:07, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A cogent reason was given for deleting this article. It was given by me. At WP:DEL we find that: "Reasons for deletion" include: "content not suitable for an encyclopedia." At content not suitable for an encyclopedia we find: WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND, which states: "Wikipedia is not a place to hold grudges, import personal conflicts, or nurture prejudice, hatred, or fear." This article, "Criticism of Judaism," is in violation of the injunction against using Wikipedia to "nurture prejudice, hatred, or fear." Policy opposes this article. It is an article for nurturing prejudice, hatred and fear. Wikipedia doesn't have to lend itself to unencyclopedic purposes, and policy tries to steer this encyclopedia away from being used for such purposes. There are many ways of incorporating everyone's goals into the process of writing an encyclopedia, only limited by creativity. This article is just one dead-end that, for the creative, can point the way forward. But policy, as I think I've demonstrated clearly, blocks this particular article from wasting anyone's additional time. Bus stop (talk) 15:50, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I understand and respect that you think that, Bus stop. My point was merely that since there is no consensus in agreement with you to delete, having this conversation here rather than there seems pointless. Savant1984 (talk) 16:04, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Being a battleground is not a valid reason to delete an article, and it does not "nurture prejudice, hatred, or fear" to have an article on a contentious subject. Controversial topics should be covered neutrally, and not by advancing or supporting said controversy as fact (see WP:TIGER). If there are combatants who cannot get along, then subject to WP:ARBPIA they can be easily topic-banned. Tarc (talk) 17:42, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Being a battleground" is a valid reason to delete. According to WP:DEL a valid reason for deleting an article is "Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia," at which we find WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND.
I disagree with your other point: the article does "nurture prejudice, hatred, or fear." Whatever content this article could hold, could just as well be held in an article that critiqued Judaism on a level playing field — allowing for the free input of positive criticism as well as negative criticism. Judaism is not, after all, a despised system that has racked up immeasurable harm. It is a belief system that enjoys considerable stature among such word-wide human organizing principles.
Thanks for the link to WP:TIGER. It is new to me. It's nice when people take time to write to other people as if they were real people, which of course they are. Bus stop (talk) 19:34, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. As already noted, there has been no convincing case made that the page fails sourcing requirements for notability. Issues of POV and SYNTH can, and are, being addressed through normal editing, and do not require page deletion. Opinions that editors will never fix these things are assumptions of bad faith. It seems that any page that deals with criticism of anything having to do with any religion will, sooner or later, and often perennially, find its way to AfD. I am sure that this is because some editors find such criticism offensive. But Wikipedia isn't censored to avoid offending people, and IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason for AfD. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:29, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If this is kept, who is going to volunteer to remove the original research and POV? It's been like this for four years (2006) and still no improvement. Mike Allen 21:03, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you find OR and POV in the article - Please remove it, to be discussed on the talk page. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 21:07, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We have been removing it; certain editors insist on restoring inappropriate information. As I said above, if we can get clear criteria and clean out all of the coat-rack POV sections, the article should be kept. But there are months of history indicating that this is problematic. -- Avi (talk) 22:15, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you are having conflicts in editing with other users, then take it to the appropriate noticeboard. If any incidents develop, take it to ANI. SilverserenC 22:17, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Avi, if you find the talk page is not helping, please try ANI - this AFD is not the place for such discussions. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:25, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Silver, you know I respect you, but you have to understand that if we bring this to AN/I we will get told "editing conflict, this isnt the forum" and roundrobin we go. These articles like this one are a magnet for the wrong type of editor and they are more stuborn than good editors and game the system. Avi and others who have commented are right, this article is just things pulled from other articles into one spot where those with an agenda can manipulate the information out of sight because in the original articles they'd be out numbered, but when they manipulate the title and game the system than can have their way on selected articles like this one.Camelbinky (talk) 00:15, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I begin this comment by noting that I have a lot of respect for many of the editors who are arguing for deletion. Although I don't work on this particular page, I do know from experience how frustrating it can be to deal with editors who appear to have an agenda and who have bottomless reserves of energy for pushing their POV. But, at its core, Judaism, like all the major religions, is a major part of world culture, and, as such, is subject to notable criticism. Deleting this page is the wrong solution to a problem. If you find that when you go to ANI you are told that it is a content dispute, that should tell you that it is likely that uninvolved users think those editors with whom you disagree are acting within policy, whether they be right or wrong on the merits of the content. The right way to deal with content issues isn't ANI. Call an RfC and get more editors to look at the issue where you disagree. Call another, and keep plugging at it until you feel that you have been heard. And if you have been heard, and find that the community just does not agree with your arguments, you may have to accept that, and consider that you may have been wrong. Deleting the page is the wrong way to handle it. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:36, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tryptofish — policy is saying the article should be deleted, yet you are saying, "Deleting the page is the wrong way to handle it." Religious intolerance is ubiquitous in the world. Does Wikipedia have to contribute to it? There has been no explanation in any of the above for what purpose this article serves. Why would one need one-stop-shopping for negative views on Judaism? Policy clearly is in place to stop this sort of thing. Yet for fun and games (and no other articulated reason) some seem to want Wikipedia to participate in the act of badmouthing Judaism.
WP:COATRACK subsection Attack Article says that "Wikipedia policy specifically prohibits articles whose primary purpose is to disparage a particular person or topic. Articles about a particular person or topic should not primarily consist of criticisms of that person or topic."
At WP:ATTACK we find: "An attack page is a Wikipedia article, page, template, category, redirect or image that was created primarily to disparage its subject. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, these pages are subject to being deleted by any administrator at any time."
As has already been pointed out by me, at WP:DEL we find that: "Reasons for deletion" include: "content not suitable for an encyclopedia." At content not suitable for an encyclopedia we find: WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND, which states "Wikipedia is not a place to hold grudges, import personal conflicts, or nurture prejudice, hatred, or fear."
Let somebody explain why such junk is needed on Wikipedia or delete it. I created the Wheelie bin urinal article and I think it is a far higher quality article than this one. The surprising thing is that the "Criticism of Judaism" article hasn't been deleted yet. Bus stop (talk) 18:05, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How is this article different in its potential for excellence or abuse from the following articles, found at the alphabetical listing of all WP articles (poorly formatted, but you get the idea):

Criticism of adventist hospitals Criticism of anarchism Criticism of anarcho-capitalism Criticism of anarchy Criticism of atheism Criticism of awarding of Nobel Peace Prize to Barack Obama Criticism of bible Criticism of bill o'reilly Criticism of buddhism Criticism of capitalism Criticism of child pornography laws Criticism of chiropractic care Criticism of christianity Criticism of college and university rankings Criticism of college and university rankings (2007 United States) Criticism of college and university rankings (North America) Criticism of communism Criticism of communist party rule Criticism of debt Criticism of democracy Criticism of eBay Criticism of en.wikipedia.org Criticism of evolution Criticism of fair trade Criticism of falun gong Criticism of falungong Criticism of family guyCriticism of fdr Criticism of financialization Criticism of fractional-reserve banking Criticism of george w bush Criticism of globalization Criticism of google Criticism of government Criticism of government response to Hurricane Katrina Criticism of hinduism Criticism of info-gap decision theory Criticism of intellectual property Criticism of islam Criticism of jainism Criticism of java Criticism of kemalism Criticism of laws regarding child pornography Criticism of lds Criticism of libertarianism Criticism of linux Criticism of marriage Criticism of microsoft Criticism of monotheism Criticism of mormonism Criticism of mormons Criticism of muhammad Criticism of multiculturalism Criticism of music Criticism of non-standard analysis Criticism of nonstandard analysis Criticism of objectivism Criticism of organized naturism and nudism Criticism of organized religion Criticism of parapsychology Criticism of patent Criticism of patent law Criticism of patent laws Criticism of patent protection Criticism of patent system Criticism of patent systems Criticism of patents Criticism of patents policy Criticism of postmodernism Criticism of prem rawat Criticism of recycling Criticism of religion Criticism of royalty Criticism of science Criticism of social nudity Criticism of socialism Criticism of sport utility vehicles Criticism of suvs Criticism of tesco Criticism of the 9/11 Commission Criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report Criticism of the APL programming language Criticism of the Anti-Defamation League Criticism of the BBC Criticism of the Bible Criticism of the Book of Abraham Criticism of the Book of Mormon Criticism of the C programming language Criticism of the Catholic Church Criticism of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Criticism of the Council on American-Islamic Relations Criticism of the DSM-IV Criticism of the European Union Criticism of the FBI Method of Classification of Serial Murderers Criticism of the FDA Criticism of the FRA law Criticism of the Falun Gong cult Criticism of the Fed Criticism of the Federal Reserve Criticism of the Food and Drug Administration Criticism of the IPCC Criticism of the IPCC AR4 Criticism of the IPCC AR4 report Criticism of the International Space Station Criticism of the Iraq War Criticism of the Kantian Philosophy Criticism of the Kantian Philosophy (Schopenhauer) Criticism of the Kyoto Protocol Criticism of the Latter-day Saint movement Criticism of the Latter Day Saint movement Criticism of the Muslim Population growth and immigration theory Criticism of the NHS Criticism of the National Health Service Criticism of the No Child Left Behind Act Criticism of the Parents Television Council Criticism of the Pledge of Allegiance Criticism of the Qur'an Criticism of the Quran Criticism of the Roman Catholic Church Criticism of the Security Council Criticism of the Seventh-day Adventist Church Criticism of the Space Shuttle Program Criticism of the Space Shuttle program Criticism of the Talmud Criticism of the UN Criticism of the Unification Church Criticism of the United Nations Criticism of the United States Criticism of the Universal Church of the Kingdom of God Criticism of the WTO Criticism of the War on Terror Criticism of the War on Terrorism Criticism of the Winter Soldier Investigation Criticism of the World Trade Organization Criticism of the bible Criticism of the book of mormon Criticism of the catholic church Criticism of the clothes free movement Criticism of the government response to Hurricane Katrina Criticism of the koran Criticism of the marketplace of ideas theory Criticism of the quran Criticism of the term Latino Criticism of the war on terrorism Criticism of the wikipedia Criticism of transhumanism Criticism of ubuntu Criticism of walmart Criticism of welfare states Criticism of wikipedia Criticism of windows vista

An attack page is different from a "criticism of" page. each of these subjects has been notable criticized, often vehemently, and thus deserves an article, with the concern being that the criticism be on an appropriate scale compared to the main article. an attack page typically contains unsourced criticisms written as original opinion a by the editor. this is not an attack article/page. and if the criticism article is of undue weight, that doesnt mean we delete it, but that we work on it. Think it through: if we allow all articles which are at times overwhelmed with POV editing to be deleted, what would we have left? maybe some math articles (except for 13, 23 and 666). I of course understand the feelings of people offended by undue or inappropriate criticism, but that cant be helped, it will occur in the process of editing here (and hopefully diligently removed). However, if anyone wants to fight consensus and propose that many or all of the above articles be reviewed for potential offensiveness, be my guest. I assume that the other criticism of religions pages listed here are potentially equally offensive.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 19:07, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mercurywoodrose: Even scholarly "criticism" is often an attack in disguise, and you can be sure this applies 100% to Criticism of Judaism. Antisemitism has pervaded all strata of academia, rendering our "reliable sources" questionable. I think Bus stop has made a cogent case for deleting this article based on the Wikipedia policy pages which he cited. I leave it to you and the rest of this community to take the message to heart and delete the rest of these "criticism" pages. Yoninah (talk) 19:32, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mercury- yes, other things exist... that has no relevance for this AfD nor is it a legitimate or recognized reason for keep and must be ignored. I have yet to see one reason for keep that is accepted by our policies as a reason for keep. Yet there are three at least that fall under acceptable reasons for delete. If you want to have in one place all the criticism of Judaism I'm sure you can find them at Anti-semitism.Camelbinky (talk) 19:38, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All criticism of Judaism is anti-semitic? That's special pleading beyond reason. Libelling all academics who have written critiques of Judaism is a low tactic. Fences&Windows 21:13, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fences&Windows — Yoninah did not say that all criticism of Judaism is antisemitic. Bus stop (talk) 21:40, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I made my previous comment saying, in the edit summary, that I hoped it would help. Well, we can see how that worked out. It's a pity to see editors just shouting at one another without listening (that's some editors, not all). I really do not think those clamoring for deletion are listening to the comments from the other side. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:47, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is voluminous, exhaustive commentary for at least the last 2000 years, of criticisms of various aspects of Judaism, both from within the culture/religion and from without, a significant portion of which cannot be considered anti-semitic. Early Christianity itself is a form of criticism of Judaism in some of its aspects, again discounting the anti-semitism sometimes found there. I do not agree that having many articles featuring criticism of other religions has no relevance here. i know "other stuff exists". i am stating quite clearly the criteria for this article to exist. if someone wants to show that there is in fact NO criticism of Judaism of any note, outside of anti-semitic circles, i welcome that effort, but i sincerely doubt it can be shown. I know for a fact that not all scholarly criticism of judaism is an attack in disguise, as many notable jewish scholars and intellectuals have criticized various aspects of judaism, and received extensive commentary on their critiques. I would seriously consider deleting some of the "criticisms" articles i listed, if it turns out that there really is not enough sourced commentary to justify an article. As to whether they should be deleted because they are offensive to the community being criticised, or because one can assume that ALL criticism of any group or movement MUST be based purely on irrational bias, and thus doesnt deserve to be given an article separate from the articles on the hatred of such groups, i would say that is simply not tenable. Many notable people have commented on the considerable, reasonable, or justified critiques of some aspects of judaism, and some jews have acknowledged this fact. Reform judaism is to some degree a response to social changes brought on by more modern protestant movements in the late 19th c., and the rabbinical response to the social pressure (mostly from the congregations) to change. I do admit that judaism, with its history of anti-semitic attacks against it, makes it somewhat unusual, though we do have the phrase "anti-catholicism" which is also separate from "criticism of the catholic church". I am trying to read the arguments for deletion here, to see if there is any logic to be found. i cant find any, sorry to say.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:42, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is just another COATRACK. I have one of those at home, don't need another. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 00:03, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • COATRACK is an essay. Do you have a reason based in policy, rather than a VAGUEWAVE at an essay? Fences&Windows 21:13, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • LOL at your VAGUEWAVE attempt to discredit my comment. This page violates 8 other policies and guidelines as well. Perhaps you should take a look at this sorry attempt for an article. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 13:49, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete, consider Speedy Deletion This article is a perfect example of WP:SYNTH, WP:COAT and WP:OR. I strongly urge it's deletion, even considering a speedy deletion. Basket of Puppies 18:51, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Friends, I want to point out that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is an essay which does not and cannot supersede our policy of WP:NPOV. Deleting this article will necessarily put us in clear violation of NPOV: the only rational conclusion to draw from the existence of all our other "Criticism of. . ." articles is that Judaism is somehow privileged from it. See also the sections on precedent and inherent notability in the WP:OTHERSTUFF essay. WP:POINT aside, deleting this article would require the deletion of the other "Criticism of . . ." articles on NPOV grounds, plain and simple, as far as I can tell. Savant1984 (talk) 20:01, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Savant1984 — WP:NPOV is a policy that applies "intra-article." Or, have you seen that it has "inter-article" applicability? Bus stop (talk) 21:50, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Savant, the application of policy is on a case-by-case basis with no black and white application across the board. Because we decide one thing here does not in any way mean that we must apply policy on other articles. Policy is not set in stone as a law that must be applied everywhere equally by the letter. To the editor who thinks the deletionists havent been listening- I see it the other way around. Perhaps the keepers need to start listening. This article simply needs to go.Camelbinky (talk) 21:56, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I want to promise you that I have been reading everything said here, and thinking about it carefully, all along. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:19, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Would you mind explaining what makes Judaism different from the other religions with Criticism of articles? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 22:04, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sentence 2 from WP:NPOV:

All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources.

The claims of WP:COATRACK and WP:OR are completely unfounded and frankly, insulting. What in the article is NOT a criticism of Judaism? What in the article is not stated by the sources? I've heard there were Israel related POV issues on Wikipedia. This discussion is making is very obvious the rumors were true. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 22:04, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Israel related POV issues on Wikipedia. This discussion is making is very obvious the rumors were true." AzureFury, you need to back it up and strike that out because your coming awfully close to blatant anti-semitism. This article has nothing to do with Israel and none of the commentators on this AfD to my knowledge are from Israel (at least not personally, though many of us are Jewish and therefore go far enough back...). I will apply AGF in that you werent using "Israel related POV issues" as code for "Jews throwing their weight around" (as LESS than 2 percent of the US population and the ONLY minority that is actually shrinking in absolute numbers I dont see that being possible anyways). Basically in my view all your statements are tainted for me now.Camelbinky (talk) 04:32, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's rich. You know not too long ago I had an Iranian calling me a racist? It's pathetic if this is the way you try to get your way on Wikipedia. I couldn't care less what you think. This AFD is a joke, it's nothing more than a game. Deletionist arguments are made out of rage, not backed by policy. You haven't even been able to give an example of a supposed coat or instance of original research, but instead chose to waste your comment flinging around accusations of prejudice. It's sad and transparent. In disgust, AzureFury (talk | contribs) 05:53, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Camelbinky, as much as I hate to invoke it, I think that this is a matter of common sense. Of course as a rule we needn't and oughtn't mechanically apply an invocation of policy across the board. But that doesn't mean that what I said isn't true: having a "Criticism of every religion and belief system imaginable" except Judaism has pretty blatant non-NPOV implications. Bus stop: "All . . . encyclopedic content must be written from a NPOV" -- that this applies here again, seems to me to be common sense. Savant1984 (talk) 22:14, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Other things existing has no relevance to an AfD no matter WHAT. Nor is it legitimate reason for keep. Any closing out of this AfD using "other things existing" is not possible and would be against our policy.Camelbinky (talk) 04:32, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:OTHERSTUFF, "Comparisons can be highly subjective, and so it is better to look at the debates in question and see what policies were cited and make an argument based on how they apply to the current debate than just say "x was kept so this should be too". However such an argument may be perfectly valid if such can be demonstrated in the same way as one might demonstrate justification for an article's creation. It would be ridiculous to consider deleting an article on Yoda or Mace Windu, for instance. If someone were, as part of their reasoning for keep, to say that every other main character in Star Wars has an article, this may well be a valid point. In this manner, using an "Other Stuff Exists" angle provides for consistency." SilverserenC 06:17, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is this article indefensible? I asked above, what is the purpose of this article? Does its existence serve any good purpose? Does it perhaps fill a niche that other articles don't cover adequately? Why do people want it to exist?
I don't think anyone entertains any doubts that this article is antisemitic. Wiki policy calls for the deletion of such articles. Wiki policy states that "Wikipedia is not a place to hold grudges, import personal conflicts, or nurture prejudice, hatred, or fear." And Wiki policy articulates that "Wikipedia policy specifically prohibits articles whose primary purpose is to disparage a particular person or topic. Articles about a particular person or topic should not primarily consist of criticisms of that person or topic." And Wiki policy also conveys that "Wikipedia is not a place to hold grudges, import personal conflicts, or nurture prejudice, hatred, or fear."
If no one has any countervailing opinions of this article than it is clear that it should be deleted. Why don't some of its supporters come forth and explain its virtues? Does it have any virtues that anyone can point to? Bus stop (talk) 13:14, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article certainly serves a purpose: to present information about criticisms leveled at Judaism. Ideally, this article would be a neutral discussion of such critisisms, their history, origins and significance, rather than simply an essay actually levelling the criticisms, which is what I gather you're objecting to. I share this concern, that rather than being about the Criticisms themselves, this article simply presents them. However, the fact that the article has room to improve is not grounds for deletion, its grounds for improvement. -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 13:28, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lear's Fool — Who says that it is "information about criticisms leveled at Judaism" and who holds that view? You are articulating a view held by only you. You say that this article is an "essay." This article will always be an essay. It can never be anything other than an essay. All parameters of this article are poorly defined. It is not clear what "Judaism" is. We have an editor on this page saying Judaism is a "lifeway," whatever that is. We have another editor on this page articulating that early Christianity is "criticism" of Judaism. The scope of this article is so poorly defined that not only essays, but books, and libraries, could be written under the subject heading of "Criticism of Judaism." Someone can put on their thinking cap and try to create a new article that will perhaps address some related topic, but this article does not correctly conceptualize an area for an article on Wikipedia. It is not clear what "criticism of Judaism" is. Judaism is called a culture. (I would simply call Judaism a religion, but my opinion is as irrelevant as your opinion, above, that this article is about "information about criticisms leveled at Judaism".) An article can only stand if in its conceptualization it is on solid ground. No criteria or scope or parameters have ever been articulated for this article because it would be impossible to do so. The notion of a crisply articulated article on the criticisms of Judaism is a ludicrous notion. There is no article here. That should be affirmed by getting rid of (deleting) the apparition masquerading under the title of "Criticism of Judaism." Bus stop (talk) 14:06, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)I see where you're coming from, but I'm not entirely sure it's so difficult to conceive what the parameters of this article are: I don't think they're so nebulous that it shouldn't exist. Judaism can be defined as either a culture, a religion, or both, and then criticisms of whatever you've defined "Judaism" to be are presented in the article, with each of these things being determined by consensus on the talkpage.
Essentially I'm trying to look at this from the perspective of a reader. It's not inconceivable for a reader to want to find a summary of criticisms that have been levelled at Judaism (or Islam, or Christianity, Windows Vista etc.), and a little about their history. They type in "Criticisms of Judaism", and get pretty much what they're looking for. Why, then should this article be deleted for being too poorly defined in scope, where there are plenty of conceivable situations where readers will look it up and find exactly the topic their looking for (even if, granted, it's not done very well)? -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 14:22, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And just to clarify, that last bit was a genuine question, it wasn't a retorical one. I'm trying to get a feel for where you're coming from. -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 14:26, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Not done very well" is a problem, in this instance. Not done very well may be indistinguishable from antisemitism, in this instance. Wikipedia should not be indulging the needs of those who feed on antisemitism. That is what policy points to: if a page primarily consists of criticism of a subject, it is a candidate for deletion. If a page dwells upon hatred, prejudice, and fear, in relation to a subject, it should be deleted. "Not done very well" is problematic in other ways as well. It points to unfulfilled areas of Wikipedia that need work — either in other (preexisting) articles, or articles yet to be created. If you are satisfying yourself with "not done very well" then you are depriving yourself of "done well." Editors can go to the antisemitism article and work on that article, if for instance they feel it is doing an inadequate job of listing the "criticisms of Judaism." In point of fact that article contains much of the material that might be in this article. That article also contains a "See also" area. Each of the areas covered in this article can probably be linked to from the "See also" area of the antisemitism article. If individual articles do not yet exist for all of the topics that an editor may want to see covered, they can be created, initially just as stub articles.
The reader should not be afforded the ability to "type in "Criticisms of Judaism", and get pretty much what they're looking for." Just because something is possible does not mean it should be facilitated. There are logics to how an encyclopedia should operate. It is a false premise that there are "criticisms" of Judaism. Yes, the general concept exists. But they (the criticisms) can't be succinctly arranged. It would take volumes of commentary to begin to shed light on "criticism of Judaism," and it would be misleading to suggest to a reader that the following bullet points represent the criticisms of Judaism. There exists no neat array of criticism of Judaism to be found in any literature that I am aware of. If such literature exists then the logical thing would be to create an article based on that literature, much as books serve as the topics for some articles. Doing something along those lines would stand a much better chance of resulting in an article with a defined area. The present article ("Criticism of Judaism") does not have such a defined area. Bus stop (talk) 15:03, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Equating criticism with antisemitism? I think dialog in this AFD has officially broken down, I'm ready to close this. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 15:41, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
AzureFury — No one equated criticism in general with antisemitism. The point I was making is that providing safe harbor for antisemitism is against Wikipedia policy. Setting aside an area in the form of a poorly defined article for in general coming up with negative things to say about Judaism, and Jews, loosely related to sources, is basically providing safe harbor for a type of material that policy says should not be allowed to stand on Wikipedia. The point is twofold: as an area for exploration "criticism of Judaism" is too poorly defined. And the second point is that Wikipedia policy has some language in place that seems to argue against the use of article space to basically concentrate on disparaging a subject. Such disparagement is a problem. I don't think any of that is all that difficult to see. Bus stop (talk) 16:00, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is part of the problem. Noleander goes and pretty much unilaterally restores a number of sections that many experts in the field believe are inappropriate, out-of-scope, and possible original synthesis. As I said above, I beleieve the article should be kept, but only it can be cleaned up and not used to push improper POV's and original theories and synthesis. Continued edits such as Noleander's makes it difficult for the article to be focused solely on legitimate criticism of Judaism as a religion (and not of Jewish people, specific legal dictums, Zionism, etc.) -- Avi (talk) 16:04, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is you justifying deletion with original research. Noleander's edits are not unilateral. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 16:15, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The deletions have been performed by a bunch of editors, the restorations just by you and Noleander. Of those discussing the article over the past few months, Noleander has been the lone voice, with you joining him now, whereas Bus Stop, Debresser, myself, and others are all extremely concerned about the impropriety, POV pushing, SYNTH, and COAT-RACK-ness of much of the additions. Valid criticism should remain in the article; theory and unrelated tangents should not. Your actions are making it very difficult for the article to remain. -- Avi (talk) 17:23, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are deciding based on your understanding of what Judaism is what is and is not a valid criticism. Your decisions have nothing to do with the number and reliability of the sources. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 19:39, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Being that the article is ostensibly about criticism of Judaism, it stands to reason that what Judaism is (a religious belief) is pertinent. The fact that uncontrolled computer-based flash trading caused a near 350 point drop in the Dow Jones Industrial Average is a valid criticism too, but is irrelevant to the Criticism of Judaism article. -- Avi (talk) 22:34, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Avi: what you are missing is that our opinions, as editors, dont count. We need to look to academics, scholars, and religious leaders to determine what is a criticism of Judaism. If scholars document a particular criticism, that makes it worthy of inclusion in the article, even if editors such as yourself disagree with the scholar. If you believe that a particular criticism is not valid, you should be able to find sources that support your contention, and those can be included to balance out what those other reliable secondary sources are saying. But that remedy involves adding content to the article, not removing it. --Noleander (talk) 22:47, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I understand the coatrack concerns, and the existence of the WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS vector. Nevertheless, the existence of an article like this goes to a much larger question of practice. The argument could be made that these invented topics formed around a collection of items with a common theme, and usually the result of a split from another article, aren't actual encyclopedia topics. But they are, according to our current practice. Coatrack concerns are an argument especially to delete any "criticism of" article -- but we have like a hundred of those (completely rough estimate... but there are alot; Criticism of Christianity is one). Now aside from my possibly OTHERCRAP-worthy argument, I personally think articles like this are valuable for research purposes, even if they're magnets for this and that; On Wikipedia you need to check the sources to find out what's accurate and what's not; this is nothing new, and if you want it to be accurate, perhaps clean it up. Or don't... but don't demand that it be deleted. I try to stay away from things that get me angry, which helps me be more accepting of things like criticisms of popular religions, yes even if they contain inaccuracies. But if I were writing a thesis whose topic was to refute known criticisms of Judaism, I think I'd be glad this was here. Just saying. Equazcion (talk) 23:35, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the second argument you make is very persuasive, though it still doesnt change my !vote. However, what now stops a new article from being created called Criticism of Jews being solely sourced to Hitler's Mein Kampf and other such published sources, which arent RS except for the opinion of critics of Jews, so perfectly legit in that article. Now the question isnt criticism of a religion, its blatant racism. Of all the criticism articles I have seen (and you are right there are alot) they have one thing in common- none on a race. What sets Judaism apart is that it is a religion tied to a race more closely than any other religion alive today. Even Hinduism has a huge percentage of followers outside Indian culture/race much more than the percentage of non-Jews following the Jewish religion (even counting Kabbalah followers in Hollywood ;)). So do you think Criticism of Jews is a legit topic for an article, and if not, what is the cut-off line between the two?Camelbinky (talk) 23:55, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:FRINGE. Further, we do cover that material in Mein Kampf. Additionally, "Judaism" according to Judaism is "the religion, philosophy, and way of life of the Jewish people." So assuming one is considered a Jew if and only if that one adheres to at least one of the Jewish religion, Jewish philosophy, or Jewish way of life, the material appropriate for "Criticism of Jews" would be exactly the same material appropriate for Criticism of Judaism. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 02:13, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It's bad enough critics of Judaism like Gilad Atzmon are trashed on talk pages and smeared in violation of WP:BLPpolicies in their articles. Let's not delete the topic as well. The patriarchal religions are not sacrosant and wikipedia should not act as if they - or one of them - are. CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:01, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Proposal to rewrite and permanently protect This is without doubt one of the worst articles on Wikipedia. It probably has to stay, since the topic is significant. However, as presently written, every section starting with the first is problematic, almost all are unuanced and poorly sourced, in some, the misinformation is so vile that it would be worthy of Joseph Goebbels if it were better written. There are problems with the articles on criticism of Islam and Christianity, but I have just looked at both and they are better and more balanced than this by several orders of magnitude. Furthermore, the history and discussion sections demonstrate that volunteering to keep this article honest would be a labor of Sisyphus. Therefore, I propose that because of the problematic edits that this article attracts, it be dealt with in a special manner. 1) A committee of editors of known reputation be put together. 2) university scholars who do not routinely edit on wikipedia could be consulted 3) the article be permanently protected 4) new material would have to be posted on the discussion page and approved by a standing committee of some sort. Without some sort of system like the one I propose, the article will simply be an ongoing disgrace to the encyclopedia.OldShul (talk) 01:55, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment While i think this article is fairly good (it needs better sourcing for who exactly is critiquing), i have tried to consider the strong concern others have. perhaps the name of article implies that this is an overall, global critique of Judaism, which is most certainly not what the article content is. The actual article, as well as most of the "criticism" articles here, are really "critiques of xxx" articles, summaries of the notable critiques offered on specific aspects of, in this case, Judaism. While i do believe our article is not original research or synthesis, because notable authors have produced books and articles with multiple critiques, or summaries of others critiques, i do see how the title may be misleading. I would suggest that this, and the other articles eventually, be renamed "Critiques of Judaism" (similar to a comment above). This scans better, i think. we could even go so far as to rename it "Critiques of aspects of Judaism", though that is probably too specific a title. I honestly dont see this current article having wildly propagandistic material, a la Goebbels. i see a lot of critiques that are often directed at Judaism from Jews.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:09, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Topic is notable. The article itself, however, may need a major overhaul. --TorriTorri(Talk to me!) 02:20, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article is antisemitic. WP:ATTACK says that "An attack page is a Wikipedia article, page, template, category, redirect or image that was created primarily to disparage its subject. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, these pages are subject to being deleted by any administrator at any time."
It certainly is not my claim that the material in this article is antisemitic. The material has a rightful place in the encyclopedia. But this article is antisemitic. It is set up to disparage Judaism. The material exists on an "attack page," to use preexisting Wiki policy language. The article is problematic because its sole purpose is badmouthing Judaism. Bus stop (talk) 02:30, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ATTACK applies to BLP's. This is clearly not a BLP. An article that is properly sourced can exist that is disparaging about an idea or belief. Religions are beliefs and can be criticized without it being considered an attack. SilverserenC 02:36, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you see any language at WP:ATTACK indicating that it is only applicable to BLP's, because I don't. Bus stop (talk) 02:48, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
May I also point out that "Criticism of" articles do not mean that they are disparaging of the subject. Criticism is not inherently disparaging remarks, but criticism of specific actions of beliefs about the subject. This is far different than making comments that directly insult the subject. Criticism is allowed in all articles (so long as it is reliably sourced), because criticism is not an attack. SilverserenC 02:57, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Silver, if the article would restrict itself to criticisms of Judaism as a religion, and not criticisms of Jews, criticisms of particular laws, criticisms of certain texts, criticisms of religions in general, and antisemtic canards (such as the Jews killed Jesus canard) I think we would all agree that there is a place for this article in wikipedia. As I've said a number of times, I'd like to keep this article, just not as the garbage-magnet that it has become. Not every criticism is notable, not every criticism is sourced, and not every criticism is of Judaism. Articles such as this need a lot of care, which is not always being shown. -- Avi (talk) 03:15, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article should be deleted because it is flawed in its conception. There is no Wikipedia-worthy article to be written under the heading "Criticism of Judaism." What "criticism of Judaism" means is anyone's guess. The title suggests an undefined area for any slight against Judaism. A subject area for an article must be understood to have a definition before editors set out to write it, or it is akin to creative writing — the editors can take the article wherever they want to. And the big fracas ensues when other editors show up to try to rein in the runaway writing.
Whatever is written under the heading "Criticism of Judaism" is going to be an "attack page," because it is going to consist of unrelieved complaints lodged against Judaism. The policy at WP:ATTACK is saying that an article cannot be "created primarily to disparage its subject." Bus stop (talk) 03:57, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As you can see by Bus Stop's reply above mine here, s/he doesn't exactly share your viewpoint, Avi. As for me, I agree with you that the article needs to constrict itself to subject headings that are specifically about Judaism. That is, however, being discussed on the talk page. But, regardless, the subject of the article is notable, it is just the text that needs to be worked out. Bus Stop clearly does not share that viewpoint and that is why I was refuting the WP:ATTACK allegations. SilverserenC 04:10, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bus stop, if the article entitled and about Judaism were nothing but criticisms of Judaisms, that would be an attack page. "Criticism of Judaism", OTOH, is a page about criticism of Judaism, which certainly exists, and should explain it both in terms of its supporters and its opponents (i.e., supporters of Judaism). To say that an article on "Criticism of Judaism" is inherently nothing other than a Judaism-attack page is to say that the articles "Marxism" or "Socialism" are just attack pages against capitalism, or that the article "Republicanism" is an attack page against hereditary monarchy. Savant1984 (talk) 13:05, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, unlike this page ("Criticism of Judaism"), Marxism aims for and probably succeeds in providing evenhanded treatment of Marxism. And there is a fine, almost indistinguishable distinction between "about criticism" and "criticism" itself. I think it would take a great deal of finesse to always be speaking about criticism without it ever seeming like criticism itself. Bus stop (talk) 14:04, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bus Stop makes the common error that discussion of a criticism is the same as advocacy of said criticism. This along ith the charges of antisemitism made by him and several other editors so far during this discussion is what causes acrimoney here; not the topic itself. Tarc (talk) 13:59, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tarc — the article is in violation of numerous fundamental Wikipedia principles. And the acrimony you refer to is built into the article. I don't think there is anyone here who entertains any doubt that the article is antisemitic, but Wikipedia is not censored, so it is to other basic Wikipedia principles that one must appeal. And there are no shortage of other problems with this article, some of which can lead to deletion. WP:DELETE lists "Reasons for deletion," one of which is "…content not suitable for an encyclopedia." That links to WP:NOT, where probably two adequate reasons for deletion can be found, one of which is WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND. (The other is WP:INDISCRIMINATE.) I read "Wikipedia is not a place to hold grudges, import personal conflicts, carry on ideological battles, or nurture prejudice, hatred, or fear" at WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND. I think that constitutes one of several reasons that this article could be deleted. Bus stop (talk) 14:26, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you continue to call other editors antisemites, you will be taken before WP:ANI in a heartbeat. Stop being disruptive, stop the personal attacks; address the subject matter, not the editors themselves. But unfortunately there, your reasons for deletion are without merit as well. As I noted earlier, if there are editors who are making an article into a battleground, then then they should be topic banned from the article. Being a battleground is not a reason to delete a article, as no matter how dickish editors can be, it does not invalidate subject material. The "grudge" angle is just built on your antisemitic BS, so that is dismissed. So what else are you left with? One heaping pile of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, in my opinion. Tarc (talk) 14:43, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tarc — I find this edit summary problematic. No one called "other editors antisemites." I have called the article "antisemitic." It is an attack article on Judaism. Its sole purpose is to disparage Judaism. I feel that is antisemitism, in fact I think it easily fits the description of what antisemitism is. And that it (criticism) is all gathered together in one place falsely depicts a religion as something to be hated, which in turn conceivably leads to religious intolerance. If you wish to level accusations against me (or anyone else) please use some type of proper procedure. I don't think edit summaries are supposed to be used this way. Bus stop (talk) 14:46, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do "antisemitic articles" just pop magically out of a vaccuum? Someone would have to be behind the creation of such a nefarious article, right? Your insinuation against other editors is abundantly clear. Don't tapdance around semantics, it won't fly. Tarc (talk) 14:51, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tarc — Please don't get carried away. Please don't depict me as insinuating something against other editors. Please don't read into anything I said to reach your own conclusions. I should not have to defend myself against something I never said in the first place. The article can be antisemitic without any editor being antisemitic. And I believe that is the way it is. For whatever reason this problematic article has come to this point at which deletion is probably called for. Calm down and discuss the AfD. I don't think any editor is guilty of anything problematic whatsoever. Bus stop (talk) 15:24, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So, if we accept for a moment that you do not believe the editors are antisemites, but the article is. Do we infer from that that the subject matter itself is inherently antisemitic? You are moving from one indefensible position to the next, I'm afraid. Tarc (talk) 17:12, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely not, you should not be inferring anything of the sort. I think I have clarified that before. The material in this article is not antisemitic — in many cases it belongs somewhere in this encyclopedia. But it belongs elsewhere. The article is the problem.
Please note my post, above, at 02:30, 11 May 2010 (UTC) , in which I say, "It certainly is not my claim that the material in this article is antisemitic. The material has a rightful place in the encyclopedia."
I am not sure where to place the problem with this article, there are so many places. But a good start is with notability, because I don't think "criticism of Judaism" stakes out a notable area for cogent article-writing. Bus stop (talk) 17:27, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Protip; when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging;

  • "I don't think anyone entertains any doubts that this article is antisemitic"
  • "It is not a valid topic at all. Antisemitism exists in abundance. The "books and news sources" you mention can also be vectors of antisemitism"
  • "Even scholarly "criticism" is often an attack in disguise, and you can be sure this applies 100% to Criticism of Judaism. Antisemitism has pervaded all strata of academia, rendering our "reliable sources" questionable" - Yoninah
  • "Not done very well may be indistinguishable from antisemitism, in this instance. Wikipedia should not be indulging the needs of those who feed on antisemitism."
  • "...providing safe harbor for antisemitism is against Wikipedia policy"
  • You're tripping all over your own quotes trying to sell this "the material isn't antisemitic but the article is" lunacy, Bus Stop. There's nothing else to say to someone who contradicts himself post after post. I'm unwatching this, and will check back in on the 13th when a close is expected. Good luck. Tarc (talk) 17:44, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are those all quotes from me? OMG — I can't believe I said all those things. Please accept all of my deepest apologies. I must have been sleep walking, or sleep typing — or something. Bus stop (talk) 17:48, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bus stop, your claim was that "Whatever is written under the heading 'Criticism of Judaism' is going to be an 'attack page,' because it is going to consist of unrelieved complaints lodged against Judaism." (emphasis mine.) That's what I was differing from. Savant1984 (talk) 14:14, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Savant1984 — This article is in violation of numerous policies. It probably does not pass notability requirements. Not, that is, unless violations of wp:synthesis are overlooked. Sources used to support material put in this article have in many cases been sources supporting just the straightforward material itself — not the depiction of that material as criticism. The construing of that material as criticism has involved reading into that material to reach the conclusion that the source intended it as criticism. I believe this has already been noted by other editors.
Also, this article would be in violation of wp:indiscriminate because of the amorphous ground covered by its title. No one really knows whether it is the religion being criticized or something else. And if the religion — at what level? My contention would be that this article's subject matter would be unassailably valid if it addressed the big themes in Judaism. Questions have been raised by others as to whether smaller issues are also valid. Do they represent the whole religion? The area of coverage is too large. It encompasses so much ground that for all intents and purposes it is almost indiscriminate.
Getting back to notability, we read that "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." But the topic of "criticism of Judaism" has actually received only sparse coverage. Only by violating wp:synthesis has much of this material been construed as constituting "criticism." I don't think I am the only one saying this. Bus stop (talk) 15:49, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Have you heard of gaming the system? Because that is what you're doing right now. SilverserenC 18:09, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm gaming the system? In what way am I gaming the system? Please try to be specific. Bus stop (talk) 20:02, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's obviously a very notable subject, and WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason for deletion. Certainly the article could use some work, but that's also an invalid reason for deletion. Torchiest (talk | contribs) 17:03, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment has anyone stating that this is not a notable subject done any searches to determine it? While the phrase "criticism of Judaism" is not the only way to search for this, i did find this, showing emmanuel kant critiquing judaism, with a notable jewish intellectual sympathizing with his critique, all this included in an OUP book on jews in the modern world. examples like this show this is notable. We have this search, with over 600 uses of the phrase in google books, and this search, over 150 uses found through google scholar. i know search results dont automatically justify an article, but this is strong objective evidence for notability. The article just needs work, and occasional protection, like many articles on WP that dont have precise boundaries (say, articles on individual species, or people, or geographic features).Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:40, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Torchiset, Huldra, Noleander, et al. We have a "criticism of X religion/philosophy" on many religions and ideas, and the ongoing consensus has been to keep these after discussions. As long as we keep out the blatant anti-semitism and non-notable fringe theories, I really do not see the problems. There is some synthesis, but little in the way of original thought, and lots of valid citations. Bearian (talk) 20:49, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blank and rewrite. This article needs to be built from scratch from proper dispassionate secondary sources, not from the criticism itself (which is potentially endless and not necessarily notable). JFW | T@lk 22:31, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Explicit contradiction of policy, well inline with the rest of the deletionist arguments. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 23:34, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm against "critism of x" articles in general, but if you think these articles are acceptable in Wikipedia, then surely the criticism of a major religion such as Judaism is a notable subject. In other words, the notablity argument for deletion is a weak argument; the "clean or delete" argument is even weaker, IMO. Sole Soul (talk) 23:46, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Do we have a "WikiProject Criticism of"? I'm being facetious, of course. "Criticism of…" articles are articles starting with the same two words. I think each Wikipedia article should be considered on its own merits. As concerns this AfD, those supporting keeping this article, tirelessly point to other articles beginning with "Criticism of…" And on the other hand some of us who are in favor of deleting this article seem to focus on this article as we formulate our reasoning. Bus stop (talk) 00:11, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It depends on the reason you are citing for deletion. If you are citing the notability of the critisim, or the issues of the article then you are right in focusing narrowly on this article. But if you are for deleting this article only because you think there should not be a seperate article about critisism, then others have a point in pointing to other articles. This is not an WP:OTHERCRAP argument, it is a "there is consensus against your opinion shown by the existent of other articles" argument. Sole Soul (talk) 01:12, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reply You have stated - "some of us who are in favor of deleting this article seem to focus on this article as we formulate our reasoning," - well, which version of the article do you refer to? It is changing by the day, and there are many editions, what aspects in particular do you refer to? Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 01:18, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Sole soul, I think you expressed very succinctly what i was trying to say. i also dont like "criticism of" articles, the name doesnt seem right, but the content of the articles is notable, and until someone comes up with a better name, your arguments here make a lot of sense to me.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:27, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reply I agree, Sole Soul's arguements make the most sense. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 01:35, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It only list major debates, which have their own Wikipedia articles dedicated to them, with plenty of legitimate reliable sources. Dream Focus 05:12, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dream Focus — But it should be pointed out that that is decidedly not the case right now. Topics are not just listed — they are written up as paragraphs. And the topics covered are not just topics that have Wikipedia articles devoted to them.
I think all of the arguments for "keep" would be satisfied if that were the case, and I don't think this AfD would be necessary — if topics were just listed, with links to Wikipedia articles devoted to that topic.
The above is just my personal opinion. I hope others weigh in on what I think is a good suggestion.
What you are presenting is a conceptualization for this article that reins in the previous conceptualization — the one presently in place. I think you are presenting a good idea. Bus stop (talk) 11:54, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
paragraphs summarizing things should be there as well as the links to those articles. Is there anything there that doesn't have links proving that it is mentioned in reliable sources? Dream Focus 12:51, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think paragraphs or any other commentary should be a part of this article, if it is to be kept. If it is to be kept, it should be a list, with links to well-vetted Wikipedia articles. Wikipedia has fairly high standards in individual articles. One way of characterizing the problem with this article is that it is not in the standard Wikipedia format. I think the standard for Wikipedia articles is the sort of article that has a well-defined subject. Linking from this article to articles with well-defined subjects could represent an enhancement in Wikipedia usability. Bus stop (talk) 13:20, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The Criticism of Judaism article should not be deleted as there are articles on Criticism of Christianity, Criticism of Islam, Criticism of Hinduism, and Criticism of Buddhism. It is not neutral and WP:NPOV to have criticism articles on some religions while not on others. It would be incredibly biased and would never be accepted. Either there are criticism articles on all religions or no criticism articles on any religions with all criticism of religion as a whole covered in the Criticism of religion article. Articles should not be deleted merely due to content dispute. That is infantile and is not constructive work on Wikipedia. Articles should not be deleted because WP:IDONTLIKEIT otherwise many important but controversial articles would disappear from Wikipedia. This whole debate stinks of an attempt by some to censor Wikipedia, to censor criticism of a certain religion. WP:Wikipedia is not censored, it's a fundamental part of Wikipedia to be neutral and not censored. Wikipedia cannot work if is censored and biased. Censorship is bias. Space25689 (talk) 18:17, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. I agree there should be a "critisism of Judaism" article, but this is not it. The article "Anti-Judaism" is the correct article to either redirect to, or to be renamed, as the complement to the existing critisism articles for other religions. Anti-Judaism is critisism by "persons who accept a competing system of beliefs and practices and consider certain genuine Judaic beliefs and practices as inferior". That is the only encylopedic form of critisism. Oboler (talk) 20:06, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If the Criticism of Judaism article should be renamed as "Anti-Judaism" then the articles Criticism of Christianity, Criticism of Islam, Criticism of Hinduism, and Criticism of Buddhism should also be renamed as "Anti-Christianity", "Anti-Islam", "Anti-Hinduism", and "Anti-Buddhism" respectively in order to remain neutral and unbiased. Note, I'm not in favour or against a certain level of criticism of religions on Wikipedia, however I am against bias and Judiasm must not be afforded any privilage over other religions. All religions must be dealt an equal hand on Wikipedia, lest there be never ending edit warring. None can be devoid of criticism, that is censorship. Space25689 (talk) 20:38, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Space25689 — I don't think it would matter one iota what parallels anyone may wish to bring between separate articles — because they are separate. Each article on Wikipedia is an individual article. Multiple articles are not tied to one another in any way I'm aware of. I don't believe any article's existence is dependent on another article's existence. And I don't believe any article's existence creates a requirement that another article exist in order to "balance it out." If you know of instances contradicting this, please bring them to our attention.
Furthermore, I believe WP:NPOV is not applicable across articles. NPOV operates within an individual article. Can you show me language indicating that Wikipedia's policy of NPOV is applicable in the way that you are suggesting? If I understand you correctly, you are suggesting that one article must "balance out" another article, in the sense that the principle of NPOV has as its aim the achieving of a neutral point of view within an article. But I do not believe that NPOV has applicability across articles as you seem to suggest, but please show me language indicating that if you can find such language. Bus stop (talk) 22:35, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stubify and Keep. An article in this space is essentially demanded by the other "Criticism of ..." religion articles. If there's a problem with the content, cut the content out and start over. Problem solved. Heather (talk) 23:06, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If "Criticism of religion" articles are to exist, why not have them exist as pure lists, with links to articles on each individual topic of criticism? The argument made by those in favor of "keeping" these articles is that they are a useful resource for those researching the sub-headings in these "Criticism of religion" articles. If that is the case then a click takes the researcher to the article of their choice. And another click brings them back to begin the process again. The virtue of this is that each of those articles on individual topics of criticism are likely to be articles well-vetted by a general population of Wikipedians. Articles such as this one suffer from the passions of a limited few editors laboring in relative isolation. It would be my contention that the sort of subject matter that can be contained in an article like this would benefit from a degree of of decentralization and a bit of Wikipedia fresh air. I would argue that this article be replaced with a pure list, linking to individual articles on each topic of criticism. Bus stop (talk) 00:22, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Those who wish for the article to be deleted should make it clear whether they wish all criticism of religion articles to be deleted or only the Criticism of Judaism article to be deleted. If they wish only the Criticism of Judaism article to be deleted then perhaps they should explain why it is only the Criticism of Judaism article should be deleted and not the others, why the reasons for deleting Criticism of Judaism don't apply to deleting the criticism articles of other religions and why the reasons for maintaining the criticism articles of other religions don't apply to maintaining the Criticism of Judiasm article? In my view all religions are subject to criticisms, and it would be wrong for Wikipedia not to cover those criticisms due a demand from a few users to censor such criticisms, especially if only the criticisms of a particular religion are censored. Censorship has no place on Wikipedia, and neutrality, especially when concerning an important and controversial subject such as religion, is a must if Wikipedia is to work. I, as I am sure most on Wikipedia are, am not for or against religion, or for or against any particular religion, however I am for neutrality and against censorship, and removing the criticisms of a particular religion from Wikipedia is both censorship and bias, something I think most on Wikipedia are against. Space25689 (talk) 00:53, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Space25689 — no articles are tied to other articles. This is the AfD for the associated article. Decisions about other articles aren't made here. A resource you may want to consider is the VillagePump, where I think you can raise issues such as the ones you've voiced here, especially concerning your opinion that the existence of "Article A" requires the existence of "Article B" in order to balance out "Article A." I don't think Wikipedia policy supports that. Bus stop (talk) 00:54, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
User:Bus_stop are you implying I am not entitled to voice my opinion on this page or the talk page on the Criticism of Judaism article, that instead I had better go disappear off to the Village pump article and leave you to it? I think this sums up the opinion of some here that opinions, such as those on religions, ought to silienced and sent away. Space25689 (talk) 01:01, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent argument identifying the issues in this article[edit]

I am going to copy Jay's excellent response to Noleander on Criticism of Judaism verbatim. He says it more eloquently than I have. To reiterate, every one of the discussions listed by Noleander does have a place in the encyclopedia, in their respective articles. Moreover, they are all extant, to the best of my knowledge, in their respective articles. Collecting disparate issues that are barely tangentially related through the Bible, through the concept of a G-d (not even restricted to monotheism for that matter), or through the fact that some adherents of a political philosophy happen to be Jewish is synthesizing a relationship and a violation of wiki's policies and guidelines. -- Avi (talk) 04:12, 13 May 2010 (UTC):[reply]

 

  1. The God postulated by Judaism does not exist - this is the same God of other faiths, including (for example), Islam. Is this, then, a criticism of Islam? No, this is actually a criticism of the concept of God, and belongs in the God (or related) article.
  2. Judaism is rooted in false stories about Moses, the Exodus, and conversations with God - these same stories are part of Christian belief, and often (in modified form) part of Muslim belief. Is this, then, a criticism of Christianity/Islam? No, this is actually a criticism of the Bible/Qur'an, and belongs in the Biblical criticism/Criticism of the Qur'an (or related) articles.
  3. God did not single out Jews as the chosen people - these idea is part of Christian belief, and (in modified form) part of Muslim belief. Is this, then, a criticism of Christianity/Islam? No, this is actually a criticism of the Bible/Qur'an, and belongs in the Biblical criticism/Criticism of the Qur'an (or related) articles.
  4. Judaism's religious texts endorse slavery (and were used to justify slavery in recent times) - this religious text is shared with Christianity. Is this, then, a criticism of Christianity? No, this is actually a criticism of the Bible, and belongs in the Biblical criticism, Judaism and slavery (or related) articles.
  5. Judaism's religious texts endorse violence and genocide (in an ancient context) - this religious text is shared with Christianity. Is this, then, a criticism of Christianity? No, this is actually a criticism of the Bible, and belongs in the Biblical criticism (or related) articles.
  6. Judaism's modern religious leaders endorse violence based on religious principles - Judaism has many thousands of "modern religious leaders", none of whom have any authority over any others. Many of these religious leaders disagree completely with the other religious leaders, despite them all practicing Judaism. Is this, then, a criticism of Judaism? No, this is actually a criticism of specific religious leaders, and belongs in the articles on those leaders.
  7. Judaism's laws treat homosexuals unfairly - Judaism's streams have hugely differing ways of treating homosexuals from welcoming acceptance to strong disapproval; a criticism of one stream would be irrelevant to another. Is this, then, a criticism of Judaism? No, it can't possibly be, since Judaism does not have monolithic views on this, and the material belongs in LGBT topics and Judaism.
  8. Judaism treats women unfairly in the areas of divorce, menstruation taboos, responsibilities - Judaism's streams have hugely differing ways of treating women; a criticism of one stream would be irrelevant to another. Is this, then, a criticism of Judaism? No, it can't possibly be, since Judaism does not have monolithic views on this, and the material belongs in Jewish feminism/Gender and Judaism or related articles.
  9. Judaism's religious texts contain disparaging references to Jesus - do they? Or do they not even refer to Jesus at all? There is considerable academic debate about this. Given the complete lack of consensus regarding this, any material on this belongs in the article that actually discusses the topic, Yeshu.
  10. Judaism's dietary laws lead to cruel treatment of animals when slaughtered - Judaism's streams have widely different views on this; a criticism of one stream would be irrelevant to another. Given the lack of consensus regarding this, any material on this belongs in the article that actually discusses the topic, Shechita.
  11. Judaism's ritual of circumcision is painful and unnecessary - the vast majority of children who are ritually circumcised are Muslim, not Jewish. Is this then a criticism of Islam? No, this is actually a criticism of Circumcision, and belongs in that (or related) articles.

The topics listed here are not about Judaism, but about various practices/beliefs/texts/laws that are not uniformly practiced/believed/followed within Judaism itself, and are often shared with much larger groups. Thus they are not "criticisms of Judaism", but criticisms of these practices/beliefs/texts/laws, and belong in the articles about these practices/beliefs/texts/laws. Indeed, taking all these disparate and unrelated topics, and ripping them from their context to dump them in this article is a fundamental violation of WP:NPOV (because they are out of the context of their actual subjects) and WP:NOR (because they are randomly jumbled together here). No-one is saying that "Judaism", or any one of these practices/beliefs/texts/laws cannot be criticized; rather, they are insisting that this be done in a way that complies with policy - i.e., in the relevant articles.

— Jayjg (talk) 03:28, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Criticism_of_Judaism_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1137744695"