Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stereotypes of Jews (2nd nomination)

Add links
Source: 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. For rationale see talk page. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 06:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stereotypes of Jews

AfDs for this article:
Stereotypes of Jews (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Completely unverified article full of original research. seresin ( ¡? )  23:29, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From 3rd nomination

[See talk page for why these nominations are being merged] travb (talk) 08:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stereotypes of Jews
  • Delete (or perhaps merge wit Antisemitism) Note: I am referring to this revision (most recent at time of commenting). We have antisemitism which could treat the subject within a wider context and examine "benign" and (whatever the opposite of benign is...malignant?) stereotypes. There is, additionally, no assertion of "stereotypes" -as separate from antisemitic stereotypes- being inherently notable. Since benign stereotypes can fall under the antisemitic umbrella: I see no reason for a separate article. Lastly, I fear this growing trend: first stereotypes of Jews, then: stereotypes of Sephardi Jews, then: stereotypes of Hasidism, and so on. I have seen the three "stereotypes of" (blacks, jews, white people) articles; none indicate to me any independent notability, freedom from NPOV, or dedication to sourcing from reliable, secondary sources. The subject should be treated witin the requisite parent articles. Lazulilasher (talk) 01:30, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Side note: although the article has footnotes, I am unable to verify most of the information due to the lack of page numbers (specifically: Rosenberg and Goodman/Miyazawa). This is not a criteria for deletion, but hints at the difficulty at keeping the article as assidously verifiable and NPOV as possible. Lazulilasher (talk) 01:30, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I didn't put page numbers for the Rosenberg source because it is used to verify multiple stereotypes and its structure is to have a chapter for each stereotype. Its contents page and introduction are adequate for the information currently in the article. More complex, multi-level citations might be used as the article develops. Colonel Warden (talk) 01:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, I see where you're going with that; generally, I would not have issue with this. In this case, however, I feel that the topic at hand (i.e. stereotypes) is in inherently controversial as to require direct citations. Further: I feel that the article should still be understood within the wider "antisemitism" paradigm. Kindly, Lazulilasher (talk) 02:09, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unencyclopedic fork of antisemitism. Mathsci (talk) 03:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom User:Yossiea. Avi (talk) 03:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While the topic certainly makes us uncomfortable, this is a sourced list that provides links to a variety of different topics surrounding the issue. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 07:35, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete for the lot The entire string of Stereotypes of (whomever) articles bring discredit on the project, though this is a particularly bad example. They all boil down to "(group) has been characterized as (list of insults)" where the insults never are based in fact even if a WP:RS can be found to record that the insult has been used. Why promulgate this crap?LeadSongDog (talk) 08:09, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, the subject does not boil down to that if one consults sources rather than one's own preconceptions. (One part of the neutral point of view is leaving one's prejudices at the door, and writing for the Enemy.) There's actually rather a lot of source material, written by psychologists, sociologists, historians, and other scholars dealing with this subject, much of it under this specific title even.

      Expecting that to have been compiled and written up in 4 days by editors, who have simultaneously had to deal with the somewhat hysterical reactions of other editors on several discussion fora, including "I'm insulted by stereotypes!" and "Stereotypes are untrue!" (neither of which are relevant to whether a subject can be covered in an encyclopaedia), in addition to the disruptive tactics of the article's creator (who has explicitly stated the point that xe wants to make using disruption), is quite unrealistic.

      Stubs are imperfect and almost by definition not comprehensive treatments of a subject. And this 4-day-old article is a stub. There's one aspect of this subject, for example, that is currently dealt with in this current article in a single sentence, that I know actually occupies an entire book, written by a professor of literature at the

      University of Illinois and a professor of history at a college in Kyoto. That one sentence alone has scope for massive expansion from reliable sources. Uncle G (talk) 18:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
      ]

  • Delete - and probably the lot, as LeadSongDog says. We already have
    talk) 09:50, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep. The article is certainly in bad shape, but giving editors some time to make improvements -- in response to criticisms made here -- seems justified. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, just because you withdrawl your arguement and don't support it anymore, doesn't actually mean that others don't have to follow. Personally I agree with your nomination for AfD and disagree with your withdrawl of the nomination. So for what it's worth you cannot strike a bunch of deletes in this manner. Shot info (talk) 22:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are suggesting that delete votes on the basis that this is still a "Completely unverified article full of original research" are not votespam junk? Juzhong (talk) 23:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Worse than a POV fork, it's a POV garbage can; anything here is better covered in more general articles. In addition it is an embarrassing hate-magnet, and its creation seems to have been an act of retaliation for having another equally-offensive article somewhere else. Anyone capable of holding their nose that long could merge anything useful into the stereotype article (rather than burdening the antisemitism article with the additional load). Antandrus (talk) 23:20, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm back after a 24-hour block for insisting that a list I authored remain on the article talk page. It's back. And it's annotated -- as an aid to others who wish to actually write an article/flesh it out further. Those of you who who are voting for deletion because the article as it stands is sketchy should take note. The article was just begun yesterday. And the information in the article, the list of sources I presented earlier, plus the (despised), annotated list, and the sources added by User: Colonel Warden (I may be wrong, but he and I seem to be just about the only ones -- plus User: Juzhong, maybe -- who've actually been working at producing something encyclopedic) provide more than enough credible, scholarly sources to frame a useful article. And those of you who've charged me with "racism," or "anti-Semitism," or whatever other preposterous notion you can come up with -- hey, I couldn't care less what you think about me. The issue here is the project. The article has merit, is encyclopedic with more than enough material to merit a separate entry -- and it should stand. deeceevoice (talk) 01:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{Ethnic stereotypes}} --Wassermann (talk) 18:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Stereotypes can be encyclopedic. Kingturtle (talk) 18:59, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - like most non-FA articles it could use improvement, but it is a notable topic for which we have some reliable sources, and for which there are numerous reliable sources that exist which could easily be added to the article if someone were interested in tackling the job. -- The Red Pen of Doom 01:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this (1) inevitable violation of
    African Americans. (8) Are we now to have Stereotypes of Germans that they are "Jew-haters, racists, Nazis and mass murderers" ands so on and so forth? when these points can be made and included in a a much heaalthier way in other more mainstream articles and these kinds of trivial and demeaning "Stereotypes of ____" articles can be redirected to the relevant articles about each ethnic group and its history. Otherwise, choose a word and it can be added to "Jews" or "African Americans" etc and presto you have a series of lame exdcuses for "articles" about anything that is really nothing notable. IZAK (talk) 09:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
I appreciate your thoughtful response. And it has merit -- except that particularly in cases where the stereotypes are myriad, where they have played a major role in terms of the way they've affected the relevant group, and in the way they've affected human history -- as certainly has been the case with Jews and Blacks -- then I think separate articles are warranted so as to provide sufficient space and opportunity for thorough examination of the subject matter. Certainly, such articles can become troll magnets. But my experience with Wikipedia has been that any article on virtually any particularly despised/stereotyped group or controversial subject can become a troll magnet. Witness the article on Kwanzaa, for example. Speaking from personal experience, if we let the probability that an article would attract attention from racist or otherwise intolerant a**holes prevent its creation, then, speaking from personal experience, then there wouldn't be an article on anything even remotely related to African-Americans here on Wikipedia -- including an article on watermelon. (If you doubt me, check the edit history. Pretty appalling stuff.) That should not be a concern. deeceevoice (talk) 12:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do either of you not see the potential for a useful and informative/encyclopedic article on the subject as I've suggested above? Or, are you simply opposed to the notion of an article on Jewish stereotypes altogether? deeceevoice (talk) 15:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC) 13:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, not really. Either as Stereotypes of Jews or as Stereotyping of Jews, it's never going to be more than a subsection of Antisemitism. There is no potential for an informative/encyclopedic article specifically on the subject of Jewish stereotypes. -
talk) 14:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Perhaps you do not understand that there is a rather large antisemitism template, with many articles therein. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jewish stereotypes aren't a form of antisemitism. It's extremely unlikely that when Lewis Black gets on a stage and cracks jokes about how his mother, adhering to a Jewish cliche, wanted him to be a doctor, is somehow an expression of, or derivation of antisemitism. It's not. Read the article on stereotype, and you'll see that it's a different concept altogether. Warren -talk- 14:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So do an article on
talk) 16:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
  • comment after perusing the above, the most interesting factor to me is the huge disjunction between the treatment of "
    Stereotypes of Italians and Italian Americans ". this is another case where lack of consensus on an overall policy has been allowed to fester, and crops up as problems elsewhere. the fate of the article in question here should not be addressed in isolation, rather as part of this bigger question, since there could potentially be an article about "stereotypes of X" where X is an infinite number of human characteristics. Gzuckier (talk) 15:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Strong Rewrite Wiki articles are sometimes determined by the first editor rather than the merit of the article. The topic is a topic fitting for an encyclopedia and there is such an entry in many encyclopedias. However the version in encyclopedias are usually written as history dividing stereotypes based the history of antisemitism (a fork from an antisemtism article) or from a social science perspective on the history of discrimination and prejudice. Unfortunately, this article was started as a non-encyclopedia list with a sense of OR and likely to become a place for contemporary vandals to hang out. Instead of all this energy on 3 nominations for deletion, if someone would take a book like The Devil And The Jews by Joshua Trachtenberg or the Encyclopedia Judaica article on antisemitism, then there would be a good non OR article. If someone wants to do it from a social science point of view then start with these articles http://www.adl.org/antisemitism_survey/survey_ii.asp. As it stands this article has problems with OR and the section divisions and the tone. But as a group, instead of arguing we could probably make this into a useful article in a week. --Jayrav (talk) 16:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Trachtenberg piece sounds like a good source -- and one similar to one on my now improperly expunged (again) list. Please feel free to add these and other sources you deem useful to framing an encyclopedic article on the talk page. Thanks. deeceevoice (talk) 17:36, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
if you are going to rewrite it then also beware of OR:Synthesis. even if everything has a ref, if there are new conclusions or the reverse if there are only certain selected it is OR:Synthesis.if you are going the Devil and the Jews, then it should be a medieval section, separate than the information on late antiquity in Judeophobia by Princeton Scholar Peter Schaffer, and separate from the racial stereotypes of the 19th and early 20th century. There would also need to be sections for urbane ethnic humor- stereotypes. JAP jokes told by Jews are not explicitly part of Antisemitism. As someone said above stereotypes include humor, folklore, and prejudice. I will comment on the talk page once we decide to Keep or delete. --Jayrav (talk) 18:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you Google the name Sandor Gilman you will find lots of material, he is currently the expert on Jewish stereotypes. --Jayrav (talk) 18:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, guys. I've already listed a very good source (or two or three) about stereotypes of Jews as satanic consorts or demons, treating the Middle Ages in the context of Christianity) -- in the (despised, removed) list. I'm going to reinstate the list -- again -- at some point. If it's deleted again, I'll simply have to take the matter back here. It seems hardly worth all the hassle -- particularly since it's quite clear the list is neither OR nor uncited and its deletion is contrary to Wiki policy. (The ironic thing is it's not all negative, either.) When I do, I'll be sure to look up the sources you've cited and add them. I'm glad someone is being constructive to the framing of the article. And I'm already on the business of stereotypes perpetuated by Jews -- particularly in Jewish comedy. The JAP is one, then -- of course -- Jewish mothers and comedians like Jerry Jerry Lewis, Howie Mandell and Michael Richards who portray(ed) spazzes/nerds/geeks. My interest at Wikipedia is in subjects related to Black people, so I actually hadn't intended to write this thing -- just to address the issue of systemic bias. But I may end up working on it after all.... deeceevoice (talk) 21:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Pretending that stereotypes don't exist won't help anyone. Nobody is saying that these stereotypes should be presented as the truth - the truth involved is that these are stereotypes that have been held. If the article was called
    Phil Bridger (talk) 23:32, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Stereotypes_of_Jews_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1186664101"