Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Herzl's Mauschel and Zionist antisemitism

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. L Faraone 22:24, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Herzl's Mauschel and Zionist antisemitism[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a newly-created POVFORK of Theodor Herzl. While some of the claims about Herzl having antisemitic views (about some Jews) are accurate and should be discussed somewhere on Wikipedia, as a whole the article is a polemic thoroughly unsuited for mainspace. Walt Yoder (talk) 20:14, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, AfD is not cleanup and the topic does appear to have significant coverage (spanning many decades) distinct from general coverage of Herzl. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:25, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is not a POVFORK. The word 'polemic' is misguided. The article sums up extensive (mainstream) scholarship on Herzl's article, its contexts in Herzl's life, Vienna and the broader contemporary world of antisemitism. If such a range of scholars dwell on the topic, there is no reason why wikipedia should not cover it, except for WP:IDONTLIKEIT.Nishidani (talk) 20:45, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see how this isn't a POVFORK. You made clear this article isn't about Mauschel specifically, but Herzl. So we have one article (Theodor Herzl) where he is a Jewish hero, and another article (this one) where he is an antisemitic antisemite. Walt Yoder (talk) 21:00, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I told you to read what I actually write in reply to that contention of yours, and not screw up the sentence by misreading it (reading half and ignoring the rest) to make out I was saying something I never said. By the way 'antisemitic antisemite' gives one no confidence in the quality of your objections here. That stands out as a very unusual examnple of what in rhetoric is called a pleonastic tautology.Nishidani (talk) 21:06, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see no other way of describing the content of this article other than that it is repeating, repetitively and at great length, the claim that Herzl was anti-semitic. Walt Yoder (talk) 21:10, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have 600 edits to your credit, so it's understandable, not grasping that when scholarship puts out dozens of books and articles which either directly or indirectly analyse or refer to a topic, coverage on wikipedia will, if it is scrupulous and not lazy, obligatorily go through all of the relevant RS and paraphrase all of the angles. That is not repetition, unless voluminous scholarly discussion of a theme/topic is itself by its nature repetitive. If you actually read the article, you will observe to the contrary that it is quite nuanced. Now let others express their opinions.Nishidani (talk) 21:18, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This very clearly is not a duplication of the topic of Theodor Herzl, it is a specific sub-topic related to him. It should also be in his biography, but this would overwhelm the biography to cover it in the depth that we have here, which makes this a child article not a POVFORK. Not liking something being covered is not cause for deletion, sorry. nableezy - 21:14, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Discrimination and History. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:34, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - obviously so, sources clearly demonstrate a notable topic. Not liking that you had a contested moved reverted is not cause for AFD, what counts is that sources treat this as a topic. You don’t like the title? Propose a move, not retaliate with a a bad faith nomination because your undiscussed move was reverted. nableezy - 21:02, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has significant coverage, Huldra (talk) 23:59, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up as needed. OP clearly misunderstands what a WP:POVFORK is. A new article expanding on a limited aspect of a topic is not a fork at all. As the extensive list of scholarly sources indicates, this is not a fringe topic either. Not liking it counts for nothing. Zero^talk 02:29, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Impressive academic undertaking here but textbook violation of Wikipedia:No original research. Practically none of the sources presented here explicitly address "Zionist antisemitism". Merge material as appropriate to Theodor Herzl and other relevant pages. Loksmythe (talk) 22:31, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on your superb speed-reading abilities. You managed to examine 70 sources, about 1,500 pages, in just one day to assure yourself that none spoke of 'Zionist antisemitism'. Did you just search for "Zionist antisemitism"? I ask because all of the texts on Herzl and Mauschel, and many others, specifically discuss it and the antisemitic character of what Herzl, the founder of Zionism, wrote. I.e., you would delete a fair coverage of a significant field of scholarship that does discuss what the title refers to, on the basis of a disingenuous equivocation that would legitimate an extremely sophisticated 'technical' objection. I don't do original research on wiki (if only I were allowed to, this would be a very different article!). Nishidani (talk) 22:13, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:SYNTH: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source." I'm sure much of this material could be appropriately merged into Theodor Herzl and other related articles. Cheers. Loksmythe (talk) 22:22, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You voted delete, not merge. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:27, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've appended a merge element, thanks. Loksmythe (talk) 22:31, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you can show examples of my writing anything here that combines multiple sources to reach a conclusion not explicit in any source, please indicate them. I for one would be alarmed at this kind of lapse were it to exist, and would of course, if your examples and your analysis of each case were cogent, intervene and fix such passages. I dislike a lot of what I write on wiki precisely because I have trained myself not to synthesize sources, and the result tends to be, to my academic eye, stylistically uneven, awkward. But that is the rule: go through all sources, closely summarize each, and arrange the results in thematic sections. I hew to it rigorously (as far as I am aware).Nishidani (talk) 22:35, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please advise which of the sources provided explicitly mention both "Mauschel" and "Zionist antisemitism", per the title of this Wikipedia article. Loksmythe (talk) 22:39, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No. I wasted three weeks of my time writing this. I worked. I expect people who make wild charges to roll up their sleeves at least for a few hours, rather than brandishing red flags and expecting me to chase it up. You made the claim, so the burden is on you. By the way, I see you just reverted the link to this article which I had added to Theodor Herzl. That is contradictory. You press, on advice, a merge of this with that article, and, simultaneously, expunge any mention of it on that article.Nishidani (talk) 22:44, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, the burden is on you to abide by Wikipedia's core policies and not violate WP:SYNTH. Please add whatever material you would like to Herzl, just follow core policies like providing corresponding references (WP:VERIFIABILITY) and making sure that material is WP:DUE. Cheers. Loksmythe (talk) 22:49, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Don't apologize. You made an accusation, which I take seriously. I find no evidence to justify the accusation, so I called on your to provide it. Nothing. You dodge the point. I write difficult articles on subjects that many editors won't touch, and I do so by comprehensively reading and paraphrasing the scholarly state of the art. This article has been written up in exactly the same way that I wrote up Birkat haMinim. Despite the delicacy of the subject matter, no editor there ever objected. No wiki editor complained of WP:Synth there, because there is none, because I know after 90,000 edits what that rule obliges us to avoid. The only impression I have here is that either you have superhuman reading powers to read in one day what takes normal people months to read (the scholarship) or you just scrolled through, saw a lot of scholarship summarized, and tossed up an objection working on a hunch, - this Nishidunny guy must be cheating-by waving a red flag whose pertinence you refuse to document.Nishidani (talk) 22:59, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your undue hostility and aggression is noted. I will await other members of the Wikipedia community to assess and comment. Loksmythe (talk) 23:06, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I shall do that too, but I feel obliged to note one point,

Shorter version.

(A) This is flawed. Some core brickwork fails to comply with normative measurements.

(B) Point out the flaws. If they exist, which I doubt, I'll fix them.

(A) No. The burden of proving this is not flawed is your responsibility.

(B) How do I know if, as you assert, I am guilty of flawed labour practices?

(A) The building code says that kind of brickwork can't be done

(B) I agree, and I don't use that kind of brick

(A) I think you do. The building code says you mustn't do that.

(B) I agree, to my knowledge no such coursework exists here.

(A) Prove that you lay no irregular brickwork, otherwise the building must be condemned

(B) You mean, the burden of proof of innocence lies on the accused, not the prosecutor?

(A) Your attitude is problematical (and that is banned also, per WP:AGF) for you are treating me hostilely and aggressively-

(B) Asking someone to prove a damaging claim against oneself is not aggressive. It is an exercise of a civil right, without which anyone could say anything and not be hauled to account, creating a disparity between the power of accusation and the right of defence in favour of the former.

TLDR version. I feel obliged to note one point, your personalization of this, as consisting of my undue hostility and aggression (hostility and aggression are always 'undue', that connotation is already present in the terms. One could argue that logical systems are hostile and aggressive in themselves, ergo avoid logic. In the great dialogue, the Gorgias, when Socrates pursues Callicles by insisting that he put his claims about oligarchy in logical terms, Callicles, who cannot give a syllogistic defense for his beliefs, gets angry in the end and walks off abruptly, in a huff. I'm not Socrates and you are not Callicles. But the analogy is heuristic for much of what happens here unless we bring ourselves to book and honour an obligation to account for our assertions. Put it less formally (avoiding the harassment of a syllogistic reduction, though it would make the same point):

A asserts some piece of composition is inferential, in synthesizing propositions that are not in the ashlar material which we use to build articles, He further states this putative building defect inside the structure observed breaks the guild's basic rule of construction, that we add, standard lego piece by lego, bits and pieces without sneaking in lego bits we secretly fabricated at home or in our private workplace.

The mason (B) responsible, perhaps miffed by the charge he has fiddled with a fundamental principle of architecture, will defend his integrity by a counter-claim to the passing foreman:'Please single out the brick work you say I moulded to suit my personal tastes, while cunningly hiding their deformity to deceive the relevant control authorities ('control authority' happens to be a phrase Herzl uses in his letters).

If the critic, A, refuses to point out parts of the wall, where this shoddy masonry putatively exists, but replies that it is the mason's duty to demonstrate, every brick in the edifice conforms to regulations, faute de mieux, the structure must be demolished, B will justifiably challenge A to demonstrate that his insinuation is grounded on verifiable facts, or forever hold his silence. If unknown to B, some vagrant coursework here and there can be shown to come from an unauthorized factory, B states that he will roll up his sleeves, remove the unsound and unstable bricks, and replace them with those that have the guild's approval, but he cannot do so until the original complaint is backed by evidence.

Were this not the case, and were any passing A allowed to raise technical objections without providing examples of defective work that would validate his claim, all workplaces would collapse. A would be invested with a right to raise suspicions, and B would be deprived of a right of appeal, a right to ask that the serious claim he has abused guild rules be shown to have an empirical basis, otherwise B's reputation as a craftsman would be sullied by a cloud of gossip, rather than being vindicated or condemned by due process. B is not being 'hostile' or 'aggressive'. B would simply be asserting his right to work without unproved imputations being thrown his way. Nishidani (talk) 07:14, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep An encyclopedic article on an encyclopedic topic. Tom Reedy (talk) 19:53, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment article is more than adequately sourced, but it's rather wordy and I'm not seeing the need for it, as it gets too far down in the weeds. I'd merge some of it back into the main article from which it was forked. I can't understand most of it, so won't !vote. Oaktree b (talk) 18:08, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I will certainly undertake to make it more readable, when this settles, but the priority in a short few weeks, was to organize and summarize the pertinent scholarship. I don't think any of this could be merged into the Herzl article, which has its own problems, particularly its neglect of several major biographies of Herzl, in favour of googled reviews, short essays and pieces of 'stuff' one googles off the web. (For example, given Herzl's abiding obsession with finance, esp. Jewish finance, there is no mention in that article of the important formative facts of the ruin his father suffered in the great early 1870s financial collapse, as documented in Ernst Pawel's fine bio, The Labyrinth of Exile: A Life of Theodor Herzl.). In short, given the importance of Herzl, he deserves a GA/FA quality article, not the mess we have there, which a merge from this would only complicate. And of course editors are extremely protective of that article, and I have no time for editwarring).Nishidani (talk) 20:22, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As to 'weeds', they are seeded into footnotes, which are absolutely necessary because most people would, I suspect, think many of the remarks in the article are odd. The weedy footnotes simply supply those curious enough to want more detailed information to see the textual bases for the article's more straightforward prose. No one is obliged to read them, and those who might suspect this is original research can, without any time-consuming search in a library, verify the sources referred to. Nishidani (talk) 20:30, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a very informative article about a significant subject. Inclusion in the main article about Theodor Herzl would significantly unbalance that article, so a separate, linked, is the better solution. A brief summary of this article should be included in the biography. RolandR (talk) 18:02, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.