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 delete.

As a first approximation, I count the numbers: 54 people (65%) advocate deletion and 29 people (35%) support keeping the article; a small number of editors supports some other outcome such as merging or redirecting.

A two thirds majority can pass for consensus for deleting the article. However, admins must weigh the arguments presented in the light of policies and guidelines. I count the following principal rationales for deletion and keeping (the counts overlap somewhat):

Delete
Keep

On this basis, I conclude that:

The article is therefore deleted, but all editors are free to recreate it from scratch in a way that avoids the deficiencies identified in this discussion. The deleted content may be userfied if it is any help in rewriting the article, but should not be restored to the history of the new article, if any is written.  Sandstein  07:50, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Economic history of the Jews

[edit]
AfDs related to this article:
Economic history of the Jews (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Essentially a POV content fork of Jewish history. Article originally titled "Jews and money". 28bytes (talk) 18:24, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Baron, Salo, Kahan, Arcadius; et al, Economic history of the Jews, Nachum Gross (Ed.), Schocken Books, 1975. Originally published as an article in Encyclopedia Judaica, 1972, vol 16, pp 1266-1326.
  • Dimont, Max I., Jews, God, and History, 1962, (reprinted Penguin, 2004)
  • Foxman, Abraham, Jews and Money: The Story of a Stereotype, Macmillan, 2010
  • Goldberg, J. J., Jewish Power. Addison Wesley, 1996.
  • Krefetz, Gerald, Jews and money: the myths and the reality, Ticknor & Fields, 1982
  • Marx, Karl, On the Jewish Question, 1843.
  • Mosse, Werner Eugen, Jews in the German Economy, Oxford: Clarenden Press, 1987.
  • Muller, Jerry, Capitalism and the Jews, Princeton University Press, 2010
  • Neusner, Jacob, The Economics of the Mishnah, University of Chicago Press, 1990
  • Penslar, Derek Jonathan, Shylock's children: economics and Jewish identity in modern Europe, University of California Press, 2001
  • Perry, Marvin, Antisemitism: myth and hate from antiquity to the present, Palgrave Macmillan, 2002 (chapter 4: "Homo Judaicus Economicus: the Jew as Shylock, Parasite, and Plutocrat"). online
  • Reuveni, Gideon, (Ed.)The Economy in Jewish History: New Perspectives on the Interrelationship Between Ethnicity and Economic Life, Berghahn Books, 2010.
  • Sombart, Werner, Die Juden und das Wirtschaftsleben, Duncker, 1911. Translated into English by M. Epstein: The Jews and Modern Capitalism, E.P. Dutton, 1913. English translation online here, and here, and Google version. (page numbers cited refer to the 1913 English translation)
  • Valdman, Edouard, Jews and money: towards a metaphysics of money, Schreiber, 2000

Of those, Penslar, Baron, Dimont, and Foxman are probably the broadest books; Marx and Sombart and the historically important ones. I understand that this topic has been a focus of much bigotry and antisemitism, but it is heavily commented upon, and is highly notable. If the topic is distasteful, the solution is to ensure the article is balanced and well-presented, not to delete it. --Noleander (talk) 18:32, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Noleander, FYI, WP was not created yesterday. If you wish to start an article about Jewish views on economics, that would fit into Category:Jewish views, then do so, but one cannot come up with titles for articles based on a hundred and one books, each with its author's own WP:POV, that is just an illogical and nonsensical mish-mash. IZAK (talk) 21:48, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting that the work by Marx is a book? Slrubenstein | Talk 18:50, 25 March 2011 (UTC) The problem is, you misrepresent their views, quote selectively and take things our of context, and thus create an article that can be corectly only by deleting every sentence and starting from scratch. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:24, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]


In response to your suggestion, I created Economic history of the Greek diaspora. A notable topic.I.Casaubon (talk) 14:10, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If numerous books have been written specifically on those topics, then yes, absolutely. Regarding my expertise, I don't believe that any level of expertise is needed to be able to see the vast weight of material specifically on the topic, and understand why that makes the subject notable. Rangoon11 (talk) 13:32, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually there is an article Athenian pederasty, as well as Pederasty in ancient Greece as well there should be. Like Jewish economic stereotypes, it is a valid object of academic study. We also have many individual groups in Category:Organized crime groups in Italy. Wnt (talk) 00:01, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't mentioned the title of the article. Rangoon11 (talk) 19:06, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't you mean "this article isn't"?·Maunus·ƛ· 20:45, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I corrected it, thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 11:24, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I make no claim for any knowledge of the topic, but even I am aware that many of the authors above are Jewish. Is it possible for Jews to be anti-semitic? That isn't a rhetorical question but a genuine one.Rangoon11 (talk) 19:09, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Jewish author's cited by the article are being misrepresented in the article. Their views are not being represented and quotes or statements are being taken out of context. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:24, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rangoon: Being BORN Jewish does not automatically make anyone into an "expert" on either Jews (as an ethnicity) and Judaism (the religion). That much should be obvious. each author has his own POV that only proves that there is NO one single "theory" about Jewish economics" or the "economic history" of the Jews. IZAK (talk) 21:59, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Jews played an important role in the dissemination of financial innovations such as mortgages, paper money, and bills of exchange. Bills of exchange (also called negotiable instruments) first appeared in Europe in the twelfth century in Italy, although the concept originated earlier in China and Islamic trading communities. Werner Sombart speculates that, because Jews played a role as intermediaries in Mediterranean trading, they were uniquely positioned to import Islamic financial techniques into Europe.[100] Sombart also analyzed historical evidence of Jewish participation in the establishment of early important banks in Europe (including the Bank of Amsterdam, the Bank of England, and the Bank of Hamburg) and concluded that Jews played an important role in the creation of important early banking concepts in Europe.[101] Sombart also suggested that Jews played an essential role in the creation of mortgage deeds[102] and "pay to bearer" negotiable instruments.[103]"
Seriously, everyone is going on and on about how this is a bunch of antisemitic racist conspiracy theory garbage, but what, precisely, is wrong with that paragraph? There are definitely parts of this article that need work with regard to WP:UNDUE, but there is plenty of okay content here as well. —Torchiest talkedits 02:46, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is that what you think this article is about? And how does this make it notweorthy? At any period in time when Jews were money-lenders, Gentiles were even bigger money-lenders. Do we have an article on Irish money-lenders, Italian money-lenders ... uh ... Swiss money-lenders? Slrubenstein | Talk 20:21, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, moneylending is a major topic that the sources discuss, probably more than any other topic, except the antisemitic canards. The reason this article is notable, and the "Italian moneylenders" article is not, is because this article has a HUGE number of significant sources. If the hypothetical topics had that many sources, they would also have articles, for instance Banking in Switzerland. But, it is important to note that the sources generally do not discuss moneylending alone: they usually address it in the context of a broader discussion, including additional topics (e.g. capitalism, etc) like those found in this article. --Noleander (talk) 20:24, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Huge number of significant sources? Do you really believe that all those books on tangentially related topics somehow undergird an article like this? I can't find a single book that's exactly about a topic like this. That seems a problem in my mind. Bulldog123 03:02, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Quite right. Looie496's comment sugests he has not read the sources and is not qualified to comment here. I could easily write an article on "Italian moneylenders" if I did what this article does - load it with lots of sources and quote selectively, take things our of content, misrepresent, and violate NOR. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:24, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bulldog: regarding your comment "I can't find a single book that's exactly about a topic like this": First, there is no WP requirement that an article must have a book exactly about its topic. Second, there are several books on this topic, listed in the Reference section of the article, including Jews and money (there are three (!) books with that title), Jews and capitalism, The Economy in Jewish History, Economic Structure and Life of the Jews, Jews, God, and History (contains this topic), Antisemitism: myth and hate from antiquity to the present (contains this topic), and the historically important ''The Jews and Modern Capitalism --Noleander (talk) 15:31, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify my view here: my keep !vote is in no way an endorsement of the current version of the article. I think that this article should discuss how economics are used as Anti-semitic canards and racist Stereotypes of Jews. I think that it does need to be re-written, but I don't think that it should be deleted. While I won't deny that it had POV issues, I don't believe that we should delete articles on notable topics solely because they have POV issues, even when the issues are severe. Qrsdogg (talk) 02:36, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
SlimVirgin: A few questions: Do you think the topic is notable? or not? Have you read the sources? Why do you say there are no secondary soruces framing the issue: 100% of the material is from secondary sources, and it follows the secondary sources very closely in wording, tone, phrasing, and balance. You say there is "cherry picking" ... can you give a specific example? --Noleander (talk) 20:58, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the topic is notable. The topic of Jew Suss is notable too. But that doesn't change the fact that this article is anti-Semitic. In Wiki-speak, this is a POV fork. ScottyBerg (talk) 02:28, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No delete because it's racist. For example, the article, Jews in England is written in a more historical style and discusses how King Edward threw the Jews out of the country, quite possibly to cancel his debts. The article does not promulgate racial or religious stereotypes. Again, where are the other articles on races or religions that are there to push a racist POV? Please name one? Let me start an article about Negro dick size, and we'll see how long it lasts. Oh, and to make it more palatable, I'll change the article's name to African American sexual appendage measurements. This inclusionist viewpoint is frustrating. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 00:48, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my. Tellya what; go to the WP:ARS talkpage and link them to your post here where you call me an "inclusionist". It'll make their day. Tarc (talk) 01:09, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't realize that "inclusionist" has some pejorative meaning around Wikipedia. I meant it strictly that you, and only you, stated that it is "dumb, ugly and racist lie" yet you want to include it in the encyclopedia. Frustrating viewpoint. Now I know that inclusionist means something different than I thought.OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 01:13, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the ARS are the actual inclusionists and tarc is generally considered a deletionist by them.·Maunus·ƛ· 01:30, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I just read about. Please accept my apologies Tarc for even implying you were an inclusionist. Still. I think you're wrong here. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 01:35, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is, we have that pesky verifiability, not truth thing. I mean, is Obama really a secret Kenyan Marxist Muslim? Are the Moon landings fake ? This is a prolific slur propagated over, centuries...millennia, even. Why not discuss who has made it, why, and display how thoroughly absurd the civilized world takes it? Tarc (talk) 02:07, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is, The Kenyan Marxist Muslim article is actually called Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories, and Moon landings fake is called Moon landing conspiracy theories. This article is called Economic history of the Jews - do you not see a problem with that? JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 02:26, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Mr. JungerMan has it right. There are tons of articles that drive me crazy. There's one on Astrology that I watch and edit. Right at the top it says that it's pseudoscience and is totally unsupported by any scientific evidence. The same for a whole bun of other crazy articles. If this article was entitled "The Myth of Jews and Money" or something, and it was actually written without an anti-semitic POV, it wouldn't even matter slightly to me. And there is a giant elephant in the room about the author of the article. This is like the fifth time an article of his/hers has caused huge drama. I know, the blame can be laid on both sides of the discussion, but still....there's that old "where there's smoke" metaphor.OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 04:23, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. Redlink Newbie there may have it technically right, but it is a fairly worthless point, and not a very good one to base a delete on. If the name is problematic, then change it. "Conspiracy theories regarding Jews and money" ? I dunno, I';m sure something can be hashed out. The point is, we're dealing with the subject matter here; the title is an editorial decision. Tarc (talk) 14:13, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I think that's backwards. The title is the only thing which isn't problematic. We can certainly have an article with the current title, but it would bear so little resemblance to this article that deletion is the better option. Meanwhile, the only title which would accurately portray the content of this article would set off klaxons in the heads of even the most knee-jerk inclusionists (which was, presumably, why it was moved). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 14:18, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We have an article human penis size, though I think what all races have in common is that their penis size is not enough to require a whole separate article. The article currently addresses many races but is afraid to discuss those of African descent. An older version from 2008 [1] was not afraid to discuss the issue at length, namely a whole lot of nothing. With censors taking out information like this (not to mention the article's colorful illustrations) one might be well advised to rely first and foremost on Google[2] or some other more reliable online encyclopedic resource. In time, Wikipedia's deletionists will persuade contributors that participating in open access collaborations is a sacrifice not only of profit, but of their time - which is what I absolutely believe has been their goal from the first day. With "help" like that, and some well-designed brain control implants, I'm sure the copyright system will prove sustainable in the long term. Wnt (talk) 00:14, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Moving pages during an AfD is frowned upon. Carrite (talk) 02:34, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, and "anti-Semitic" is misspelled in the new title as "antisemetic." ScottyBerg (talk) 02:45, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, let's please leave the title alone until the AfD concludes to avoid unnecessary confusion. 28bytes (talk) 02:49, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it would be a good idea to split this article into Jewish View of Economics and Jewish Economic Conspiracy Theories to sort out the confusion. Qrsdogg (talk) 02:52, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cameron on page 6 does discuss the topic: "Shortly afterward, the youngest son, James, established a branch in Paris where, under the nose of Napoleon, he cooperated with the other branches in financing the allies [during the wars]." That is just one source among dozens of other secondary sources (not cited) that discuss the key role that the families played in war financing. The secondary sources make that point repeatedly, I did not fabricate it. Please read the sources more carefully. --Noleander (talk) 15:21, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Other than the POV problems, the other main argument for deletion appears to be that controlling the world’s money is a negative stereotype of Jews. This argument is a red herring, because whether it’s a negative stereotype or not has nothing to do whether the economic history of Jews is a notable topic. A good analogy is that being criminals is a negative stereotype of black people, but we still have the articles Race and crime, Race and crime in the United States, and Race and crime in the United Kingdom, in addition to an article about the Criminal black man stereotype. The reason is because both for that topic and this one, in addition to racist stereotyping, there is also a large body of scholarly literature discussing the topic.
I agree with the sentiment that DGG expressed here, in that if the article gets deleted because its topic relates to a negative stereotype, it will be a victory for people who want Wikipedia to avoid dealing with topics that can be found offensive. I’m Ashkenazi Jewish by ancestry, so I’m someone who ought to be offended by this stereotype. But in this case I don’t care: for Wikipedia to cover a notable topic is more important than that. --Captain Occam (talk) 06:46, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It doesn't read POV to me, it reads anti-Semitic, which is not a "point of view." It is racist, and unless racism is now legal on Wikipedia, then your comments about not seeing them is strange.OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 16:14, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • One more item. Have you actually read the references? I can write an article on just about anything, quote mine from some pretty good books, and prove that the Holocaust didn't happen. Oh wait, people do that. The author appears to have mined the information that supports anti-semitism. Slrubenstein makes better points about that below. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 16:17, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you check the relevant ANI thread, there's a pretty good case this is part of persistent disruptive editing. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:31, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For most of their history the Jewish people have not had a state/land of their own, and have been nomadic so are something of a special case and certainly are not analagous to Persians. A more relevant comparator might be the Kurds. Rangoon11 (talk) 13:41, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A fortiori then. An article on the economic history of a diasporic people would be too long and complex when you have Jews living under very different legal regimes in different countries with very different political systems and economies - the economy of Feudal Europe for example was quite different from the economy of the Islamic Caliphates or the Byzantine Empire. The point is, this article is not about the economic history of the Jews. When it was first written it did not have that title, the title was changed because the original title so clearly reflected the unencyclopedic nature of the article, which is a mishmash of anti-Semitic stereotypes of Jews that emerged in Europe in the late 19th century, with anachronistic uses of other sources to support the stereotype. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:01, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
By that, if I may say, somewhat curious, logic there should be no articles on the Jews as a people at all.Rangoon11 (talk) 14:14, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the article title, the new title seems to fit the content very well indeed. However I have no idea why the title was changed, since it actually mirrored the exact title of a number of books on the topic, including by Jewish authors.Rangoon11 (talk) 14:17, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is, the article systematically misrepresents these sources. I will give one example:
According to Penslar, rabbinic commentator Maimonides, in his work Mishneh Torah - a fundamental treatise on Judaism - treated the rule that Jews may charge interest to non-Jews (Deut 23:19-21) as a "positive commandment" or obligation, and that the purpose of the commandment was (he quotes Maimonides) "not to help him [the non-Jew], nor to deal graciously with him, but rather to harm him".
This is all Noleander writes concerning Penslar's treatment of the rule from Deuteronomy. Problems: first, general ignorance - this is about a Medieval interpretation of the Bible, but instead of being in the section on the bible or Medeival Judaism, it is in the section on the Talmud. Second, it misrepresents Penslar's analysis of Maimonides; according to Penslar, Maimonides was incorporating into his thought a Christian notion that developed out of the concept of "just war," in which economic relations between different nations were a peaceful form of war, and that it was equally just for Gentiles to charge Jews exhorbitant interest rates. Third, it misrepresents medieval Jewish thought: after bringing up Maimonides as an example of the influence of Christian practices on Jews, Penslar goes on to discuss how other Medieval sages rejected Mainmonides' views as a misinterpretation of the Bible. Now, I could do the same with every example in the argument, and it would take up scores of paragraphs, which is why I limit myself to just one example. The point is, Rangoon keeps praising the article for using such great sources, yet Rangoon is either being disingenuous in not pointing out all the errors and misrepresentations ... or perhaps Rangoon has never read any of these sources, and is just too ignorant to be able to judge just how reliable the article's use of sources is. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:06, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, I stated early on in this discussion that I am not an expert on the topic. I am also not Jewish. However I don't belive either fact precludes me from this discussion. The specific example which you have just given may well demonstrate a specific factual mistake in the article. Many Wikipedia articles have factual errors. However, with much of the content and sources there will be a great deal of scope for debate and discussion about content, tone, interpretation etc. This is the case with most articles but especially with one such as this. Different editors will have different views, but through the usual process of discussion, debate and consensus a better, more comprehensive and neutral article can develop. The article at present does not strike me as being anti-semitic, but I do feel strongly that it would benefit by editors such as yourself, who clearly have very different interpretations of the sources than Noleander (and are obviously highly knowledgable on the subject), adding their perspective to it. Why not engage in that process of article improvement rather than seeking deletion?Rangoon11 (talk) 16:28, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While being an expert is never required to edit articles, where a matter hinges significantly on the nature of sources presented to establish something it is obviously important to be able to comprehend the sources to the extend of being able to argue over them. I am neither Jewish nor do I consider the study of history of Jewish culture to be areas of expertise, but I am easily able to run a cursory eye over the sources given and verify the legitimacy of the arguments raised in favour of the article's removal. I cannot understand why you have not attempted to do so yourself. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 16:43, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fully agreed in terms of debating fine points of source interpretation, and for that very reason I wouldn't attempt to get involved in closely editing this article. However I have read the article, and to my inexpert - and let me stress non anti-semitic - eye the article does not appear - judged purely on the words written rather than the motivations for them having been written - to be a work of anti-semitism. I don't belive that one has to be an expert to have a view on this. Yes it covers issues of anti-semitism and yes it could certainly benefit from the contributions of additional editors who have other interpretations of the sources, but that does not make it a work of anti-semitism. To make that judgement based on the text of the article one would, in my view, need to be able to look into the mind of the author. Rangoon11 (talk) 17:00, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Or, you could look at the author's editing history. This is an author who has already been brought up a number of times for writing articles which independent editors have considered to have significant negative undertones along similar lines to this one: contrary to previous assertions on this discussion, at least one of which (Controversies related to prevalence of Jews in leadership roles in Hollywood) had been deleted. Indeed, the author has apparently promised to avoid such controversy in the past. In this case I believe actions speak louder than words. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 17:13, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rangoon, you write, "The article at present does not strike me as being anti-semitic," but are you not aware that one of the most common anti-Semitic slur against Jews is that they are money-grubbing userers who exploit Gentiles? If you were adding content to this article, and you read a page - just one page - of a book by Penslar that quotes Maimonides as saying Jews have an obligation to practice usury against gentiles, that it seems likely that he adopted this position from Christions who held an analogous position, and that contemporary Jewish legal scholars argued that he was wrong and then added to the article that according to Penslar Maimonides said Jews have an obligation to practice usury against Gentiles ... ... ... and did not add the rest of what Penslar said, that this is not simply a "factual error" but rather a deliberate distortion that has the effect of promoting an anti-Semitic stereotype? Who cares what her motives are, the point is, she made a choice to include the prejudicial material as if it were Penslar's point and not to include what Penslar actually says is the point based on the context? Rangoon, I want to assume good faith on your part, but if you cannot tell the difference, they sorry, friend, but you simply lack good judgment. IN any event, you were making a positive claim, that we should keep this particle because it is based on reliable sources. It is reasonable to expect anyone who makes such a claim to have based the claim on a knowledge of the sources being used. If you do not know these sources, how can you claim that the article is worth keeping because of the sources it uses - with any integrity? Or do you think we can make a decision about keeping or deleting an article based on flippant opinions that are not based on any evidence?Slrubenstein | Talk
There are a number of separate issues here which in my view are getting conflated. 1. Is the topic notable? 2. Is the article a work of anti-semitism? 3. Is the interpretation of sources in the article correct?
The sources used in the article are high quality - they are books devoted entirely to the topic, and a number have precisely the same title as the article prior to its recent renaming - and many are by Jewish authors. The article topic is clearly highly notable. Have sources been cherry-picked to present a certain perspective on the topic which does not reflect well on the Jewish people? This cannot be answered definitely and I don't discount the possibility, but do I feel unable to make a clear judgment based on the article text and I don't honestly feel that even my reading all of the books in question and becoming an expert on Jewish history and culture would enable me to make such a judgement, since I would have my own interpretations of the sources which would be no more or less correct than those of Noleander. Rangoon11 (talk) 17:34, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I once joked that if President Bush said that the Earth was flat, the headlines of news articles would read, "Opinions Differ on Shape of the Earth." Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 17:40, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rangoon writes, "The sources used in the article are high quality" - are you kidding? Dimont is not a historian and not a credible historical source. Baron and Sacher were important in their day but are no longer considered authoritative, as their work has been superceded by more recent scholars on every front. Foxman is not a historian, he is an advocate against anti-Semitism but not a scholar and no authority on Jewish economic history. Krefetz was a popular writer of books on finance and wrote his opinions on Jewish history but this does not make him an economic historian or even a historian, he is not a credible authority on Jewish economic history. Ditto Marvin Perry and JJ Goldberg, neither of them are credible historians. Sombart was a notable economic historian - in 1911. Historians now consider his work anti-Semitic, and his scholarship is generally rejected by economists. Marx of course is an important thinker, but his essay "on the jewish Question" is not about Jewish economic history, it is an argument about Hegelian and post-Hegelian theories of "freedom" and not even relevant to this article. Edouard Valdman is a journalist, not a historin, and his book is not economic history. The real economic historians - Reuveni, Mosse, and Muller, are hardly used at all in the article, anything from them is an isolated quote on how Jews love money, taken out of context and not representing these scholars' views. How can you say these are high wuality sources on the topic? Slrubenstein | Talk 20:41, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that you forgot three vital words at the start of your post: 'In my opinion'.Rangoon11 (talk) 23:35, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, to write encyclopedia article one must be able to assess proper sources. If you cannot do it, don't bother. If you cannot provide any counter arguments, don't bother. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:49, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
John: could you give an example or two of the "dubious" material? And do you mean dubious as in "the material is wrong and not sourced" or "the material doesnt fit within the Economic history rubric? --Noleander (talk) 15:35, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You have a section titled "Why were Jews so influential in the rise of capitalism?" The question assumes that they were inspite of the many historians and sociologists that say the contrary. The section doesn't mention any of the much more widely credited theories of the rise of capitalism that have to do with either the protestant work ethic (weber) or the heritage colonialism turning mercantilism into capitalism. This is a clear breach of WP:UNDUE and shows very poor editorial judgment at the very least. The problem of not putting Jewish economic history into the general perspective of economic history persists throughout the article.·Maunus·ƛ· 15:40, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct, there are other alternative theories, and in fact the article already includes the statement: "Philosopher Max Weber was of the latter [Jews not very involved] mindset, and he suggested that the Reformation and Protestantism, not Jews, were the primary causes of the rise of capitalism.". I concur with your point that that information could be more prominently stated. However, it is also true that the "Why were Jews so influential in the rise of capitalism?" section is an accurate summary of what many notable scholars have discussed, using their exact terminology. --Noleander (talk) 17:28, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And, as per your own comments above, the heading in question is representative of only one side in an apparently disputed question. As such, it fairly clearly qualifies as non-neutral, and rather obviously so. Given that you have in effect acknowledged that the heading is non-neutral, but apparently believe it should be kept anyway, I think there are reasonable questions what else might qualify. If, as Slrubinstein says, someone were willing and able to go through the article and remove all the acknowledged and unacknowledged POV issues quickly, it might qualify for being kept. Otherwise, I agree with Slrubinstein that deleting the article, and starting over with content which presumably would not have these flaws from the beginning, is probably the better way to go, particularly given the short history of the extant article. John Carter (talk) 17:38, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
POV forks are routinely deleted or merged here. Just as everyone here agrees that a legitimate article could be written about this topic, everyone also agrees that the vast bulk of this article would have to be deleted to conform with NPOV. It is clearly the easiest process to delete it completely and rewrite from scratch. Will you take on the job of sorting the few kernels of wheat from the huge mass of chaff that this article includes? ·Maunus·ƛ· 15:59, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Collect, if this really is your reason - and I have never had cause to question your sincerity - then I urge you to change your conclusion. Our AFD policy states that these pages are for the discussion not only of deletion but of other options: "the page may be kept, merged or redirected, transwikied (copied to another Wikimedia project), renamed/moved to another title, userfied to a user subpage, or deleted per the deletion policy." If this page could simply be improved by editing, in a reasonable period of time, I would vote to keep also. But as it stands all contents either promotes an anti-Semitic stereotype or misrepresents the sources used. See my example to Rangoon, just above. Now, I di dnot create this article and I do not have the time to delete evey sentence and rewrite it to represent the sources accurately. Do you know that there are people who will do this? Otherwise, WP will have an article that will systematically mislead anyone who reads it. Think of the high school or college students, or just anyone in the general public right now may be reading this article ... and drawing from it facts that are false, views that are misrepresented, information that is inaccurate. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:14, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you know I greatly respect you and your opinions. In this case, however, it is my belief that Wikipedia is better served by having editors actively improve an article on what appears to be a notable topic than to use AfD for removal of the topic (I am assuming here that there is no place to obviously merge the information into, as I generally have !voted "merge" where such appeared viable). I believe that you would find my opinions concerning NPOV to be very much in accord with yours in any article talk page discussion, as the content certainly does appear to present an "interesting" point of view. Collect (talk) 17:26, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Collect, my point is that an article that in every paragraph misrepresents the sources and the views in those sources, and that also has a systematic bias to including any "information" (quotation marks because the information is usually information taken from sources that are either presented in an incomplete or out-of-context form) cannot be made public to the world-wide readership of the largest on-line encyclopedia. If I agreed ith you thn the solution would be to delete the content and keep this as a stub, and invite people who actually are knowledgable about economic history and Jewish history (and who also are committed to NPOV and NOR) to turn it into an article. As Adam Cuerdan has tried - yet, other editors insist on our keeping an article that presents anti-semitic portrayals of Jews as facts, and misrepresents all its sources. Why? Slrubenstein | Talk 17:38, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken the liberty of stubifying it, but keeping the references section. Any anti-Semitic tracts in it will need to be marked as such, however, because, well, I'm not an expert on anti-Semitism, so have no way of knowing if any are, outside of the really famous ones like the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. I've attempted to reduce it to a neutral statement of the topic, please forgive me if any ignorance seeped through; this is not a subject I'm expert on, at all. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:30, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind, any attempts in that line are being reverted. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:49, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think that was the right idea though, good try. Qrsdogg (talk) 17:29, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Our AFD Policy states emphatically that "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD." It is therefore not appropriate to bring content disputes of this sort here. The idea that we should delete imperfect articles in order to recreate them is refuted by our editing policy. Retention of any part of the aarticle during this process would violate our licensing policy and so make editing difficult. Deletion as a deliberate step in improvement would therefore be quite improper. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:24, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's supposed to address articles which merely lack quality, rather than those written to fundamentally distort the subject matter. But that's a nice bag of wikilaws you've got there nonetheless. Gold star for effort, in attempting to retain an article broadly perceived as antisemitic because of your position on notability. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 17:33, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Where is your evidence that this article is antisemitic? Or about the intentions of the principal author?Rangoon11 (talk) 19:32, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I rather thought I had made substantial edits. If there is more to remove, kindly do so. I was more concerned that some might feel my edits were too substantial. Collect (talk) 22:48, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
CommentYou are joking, right? You really think we should be publishing antisemitic articles? Why? As for sources, who is hiding anything, except you? User:Mathsci/example is a careful study of one example. Here is another:
According to Penslar, rabbinic commentator Maimonides, in his work Mishneh Torah - a fundamental treatise on Judaism - treated the rule that Jews may charge interest to non-Jews (Deut 23:19-21) as a "positive commandment" or obligation, and that the purpose of the commandment was (he quotes Maimonides) "not to help him [the non-Jew], nor to deal graciously with him, but rather to harm him".
This is all Noleander writes concerning Penslar's treatment of the rule from Deuteronomy. Problems: first, general ignorance - this is about a Medieval interpretation of the Bible, but instead of being in the section on the bible or Medeival Judaism, it is in the section on the Talmud. Second, it misrepresents Penslar's analysis of Maimonides; according to Penslar, Maimonides was incorporating into his thought a Christian notion that developed out of the concept of "just war," in which economic relations between different nations were a peaceful form of war, and that it was equally just for Gentiles to charge Jews exhorbitant interest rates. Third, it misrepresents medieval Jewish thought: after bringing up Maimonides as an example of the influence of Christian practices on Jews, Penslar goes on to discuss how other Medieval sages rejected Mainmonides' views as a misinterpretation of the Bible. Now, I could do the same with every example in the argument, and it would take up scores of paragraphs, which is why I limit myself to just one example. The point is, Rangoon keeps praising the article for using such great sources, yet Rangoon is either being disingenuous in not pointing out all the errors and misrepresentations ... or perhaps Rangoon has never read any of these sources, and is just too ignorant to be able to judge just how reliable the article's use of sources is.
Dimont is not a historian and not a credible historical source. Baron and Sacher were important in their day but are no longer considered authoritative, as their work has been superceded by more recent scholars on every front. Foxman is not a historian, he is an advocate against anti-Semitism but not a scholar and no authority on Jewish economic history. Krefetz was a popular writer of books on finance and wrote his opinions on Jewish history but this does not make him an economic historian or even a historian, he is not a credible authority on Jewish economic history. Ditto Marvin Perry and JJ Goldberg, neither of them are credible historians. Sombart was a notable economic historian - in 1911. Historians now consider his work anti-Semitic, and his scholarship is generally rejected by economists. Marx of course is an important thinker, but his essay "on the jewish Question" is not about Jewish economic history, it is an argument about Hegelian and post-Hegelian theories of "freedom" and not even relevant to this article. Edouard Valdman is a journalist, not a historin, and his book is not economic history. The real economic historians - Reuveni, Mosse, and Muller, are hardly used at all in the article, anything from them is an isolated quote on how Jews love money, taken out of context and not representing these scholars' views. How can you say these are high quality sources on the topic?Slrubenstein | Talk 21:24, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What I mean is, if we remove from the article everything that violates NOR or NPOV, SYNTH or COATRACK right now, we would be left with nothing. One can write an article on the economic history of the Jews in Europe (one could write a separate article on the Economic history of Jews in the Muslim world, and if one use sources not mentioned in this article, one could write an article on the Economic history of the Jews in Ancient Israel) - but one would have to start from scratch. Slrubenstein | Talk 04:20, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:VAGUEWAVE. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:37, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, Colonel, it's a valid point. I'll try to explain. My initial impression is that the topic is not encyclopedic. An article can be written about a common characteristic of a group of people; economic activity of Jewish people through the history is too diverse to justify such an interpolation. We are talking about variety of epochs, countries, economies, cultures and conditions so wide, that any generalization seems unreasonable. Additionally, the current discussion of the author's contribution at WP:AN/I, makes me think this article is a part of ongoing WP:COATRACK attempt. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 23:15, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes ... which it has done ... which is reflected in what the editors have said. Sometimes voluntary agreement of all interested editors proves impossible to achieve, and a majority decision must be taken. More than a simple numerical majority is generally required for major changes. And here we have, as indicated, far more than a simple numerical majority discussing their preference that the article be deleted.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:03, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOREASON Slrubenstein | Talk 19:07, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He said '"X and Y", where Y is an ethnic, cultural or religious group', not "Y1 and Y2." Ian.thomson (talk) 20:31, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • So you're saying that it is mixing economics and religion which is intrinsically horrifying? Supposing I start an article about the remarkable success of Quakers in business, based upon sources such as Quaker competitive advantage which state "Quakers were thirty or forty times more likely than the general population (and three or four times more likely than Jews) to be members of the business elite." Is there supposed to be something wrong with this? Please cite the applicable policy as we require policy-based argument here. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:49, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • CW, I can't speak for Ian, but just to clarify, I was making an opposite point, namely that there is nothing necessarily wrong in being a religious group and at the same time successful in business, but rather that this was merely a pretext for antisemitic attacks on Jews, since the same applied to Quakers, who were spared that type of hatred. On the question of your hypothetical article, I think that topic is better addressed as part of the History of the Quakers article. Similarly, the better references in this article could be used as part of the History of the Jews, taking care to avoid a content fork. --NSH001 (talk) 10:05, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thank you. Is it against policy to hug other users? Ian.thomson (talk) 20:31, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • HI Colonel Warden: NONE of the examples you cite are named or are like the article in question which is titled "Economic history of the JEWS" when there is no single "theory" that could EVER be made up about what economic "theories" JEWS have had in in their 3,300 year old history when they are not classifiable in ANY one way. Jews have been both slaves and capitalists, Holocaust victims (their bodies were turned into slave labor and soap for Germany's economy) and millionaires, they have been like the Rothchilds and like the Trotskys, there is no one plausible coherent "economic history" about them! Jesus was a Jew. Marx was a Jew. Trotsky was a Jew. Einstein was a Jew. Rickover was a Jew. Ben Gurion was a Jew etc etc etc. And it proves NOTHING, just that Jews can be Christians, Communists, Scientists, Zionists etc etc etc. Look up the Jews article, it will tell you that the term "Jews" refers to an ethnicity! On the other hand there are MANY articles about "JEWISH views (meaning JUDAISM's views) on ____" -- Judaism is defined as a religion, and NOT all Jews, in fact very few, practice Judaism today. It's obvious that Noleander has no clue about how either Jews or Judaism are different notions or do or don't inter-act. Thus while there can be articles such as Jewish views on marriage; Jewish views on evolution; Jewish views on homosexuality etc etc etc, it is absurd to write about the total economic history of "the Jews" as would a grandiose Marx or a megalomaniacal Hitler, that have nothing to do with writing an encyclopedia and everything to do with propaganda and a venue for antisemitism. Thanks for understanding, IZAK (talk) 21:38, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Colonel Warden is right that it is not a good argument to suggest that economics and religion for some reason can't be discussed together. It can, and the many publications and WP articles show that they have been which is all that matters for notability purposes. The problem here is however that the article pretends to be something that it is not, namely a historical article while it is in fact just a collection of misrepresentations of sources and rehashings of racist stereotypes.·Maunus·ƛ· 22:22, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Maunus: The article is about JEWS, and not about a religion. The Colonel got it wrong and should read the heading of the article and what he wrote again, they are NOT the same thing. Read my comments comments above. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 21:38, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"No, because the article as it is now is not salvageable except by deletion and a complete rewrite. Letting it stand as is for more than the duration of this AfD represents a liability for wikipedia's reputation. Anything that can be salvaged could be merged into either Stereotypes of Jews or Anti-semitic canard or Jewish history.·Maunus·ƛ· 22:32, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Islamic terrorism shows us what a proper POV-pushing hatchet job is, and makes this article, even pre its recent butchering, look positively flattering towards its subject. Rangoon11 (talk) 20:39, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's an excellent argument, Rangoon11. In future, I'll be sure to argue that any articles less biased than your example should be kept as they are comparatively tame. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 22:29, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question: The prevailing attitude here seems to be that the subject of this article is notable (as demonstrated by the large number of sources that are devoted exclusively to its topic) but that the article has severe POV problems and can't remain in its current state. I think this is probably an accurate assessment. What I'd like to ask is, is there a policy that supports deleting an article for this reason? Earlier in this discussion a few people have quoted aspects of the deletion policy which suggest that in this situation the appropriate outcome would be to stub the article and/or rewrite it, not delete it.

If the article is deleted, I'm concerned that this will be a deletion which isn't supported by policy, and that it will set a bad precedent for how situations like this are handled in the future. To go with an example of how this could be a problem, suppose that at some point in the future the Auschwitz article became dominated by holocaust denial material. Would we delete that article also, or just rewrite it? --Captain Occam (talk) 04:59, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In a case like this and that, AfD would never be the way to go. There would be discussion on the talk page, which would lead to consensus, and subsequent stubbing of the article. Of course, in this case, there was never even an attempt at discussion. SilverserenC 05:05, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's fruit of a poisoned tree. The history of the article is largely read by the community as antisemitic, and unsuitable for the encyclopedia. This is not the article on Auschwitz with an extensive history. WP:BUROwould support this deletion, if the material is unsuitable for the encyclopedia, and the history is essentially entirely contaminated the sensible solution is just to wipe them clean and if someone wants to give it another try, go for it. One of our Five Pillars tells you that if a rule leads to an obviously absurd result do something else. If the letter of the deletion rules require us to keep antisemitic nonsense kicking around when its a fresh article that could be wiped and recreated (if desired) without the derivatives of antisemitic nonsense, that is an obviously absurd result. -- ۩ Mask 09:02, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How common is it for WP:IAR to be invoked as justification for deleting an article? (Which seems like it would have to be the justification in this case, according to your comment.) We see it invoked fairly often in the opposite direction, as a justification for closing an AFD early as keep per WP:SNOW. But I've been under the impression that for outcomes that are in some way destructive, such as deleting an article or blocking a user, these things are only done if there's a policy to support them.
Incidentally, I don't think the "delete because it's antisemitic" argument really holds water. There aren't any viewpoints that are banned at Wikipedia; we simply present the viewpoints that exist in the source material. What really matters in this case is that the article doesn't contain the same balance of viewpoints that exists in the source material, and there are apparently some parts of it where the source material is actually misrepresented. That's a problem, but it will have to be up to the closing admin to determine whether it's grounds for deletion. --Captain Occam (talk) 10:19, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I dont know overall how common, but the only other XfD I participated in this week used it. -- ۩ Mask 10:25, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t think that’s the same. If I’m interpreting the deletion summary there correctly, the only way in which IAR was invoked in that deletion is that the userbox was deleted without following the usual process. In this case the process we’re using (an AFD) is the standard one, and the way IAR would be invoked is that the article would be deleted even though it doesn’t fit the normal criteria for deletion. In other words, in this case it wouldn’t just be the process which is outside of policy, it would be the results. Deleting in this situation is sure to be more controversial: at Wikipedia, the results always matter a lot more than the process does. --Captain Occam (talk) 11:05, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It had been restored for the week-long duration of the review before being deleted once more. Look again at your first statement, the part where you say 'How common is it for WP:IAR to be invoked as justification for deleting an article?' and 'But I've been under the impression that for outcomes that are in some way destructive, such as deleting an article or blocking a user', and then read your follow-up comment 'the only way in which IAR was invoked in that deletion is that the userbox was deleted without following the usual process'. That's committing a logical fallacy known as moving the goalposts. -- ۩ Mask 14:26, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The results DO matter more then the process, thank you for finally seeing this. A bunch of antisemitic crap in the history that could be wiped out and a new article created in two minutes with no loss of usable content. Thats an ideal solution and if for some reason someone's personal view of the rules doesn't allow that, that's a clearly absurd situation where the rules are preventing someone from doing an act to improve the encyclopedia. In that situation it is the rules that are in error.-- ۩ Mask 14:31, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Does anyone really think it’s original research or synthesis to have an article on this topic? A large portion of its sources are specifically discussing Jewish history in the context of finance, and some of them are devoted exclusively to this topic. It isn’t synthesis to combine two topics when there’s a significant body of source material discussing the two topics together.
I think the question whose answer will decide the outcome of the AFD is whether an article with POV issues as severe as the ones this one has is capable of being rescued, or whether it’s necessary to delete it and get someone to recreate it at a later point. --Captain Occam (talk) 10:03, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are you looking for Economic history of Ireland? SilverserenC 14:35, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As the same problems exist at a quarter the size, it is perhaps somewhat irrelevant how much it was reduced. The same points made in the delete !votes above apply. Deleting but allowing a proper article to be created in its place has the same impact as the approach that you favor in your closing remark. I note that at this point roughly 2/3 of the !voters have suggested the article be deleted, but also note with interest that a number of the keep !voters make the same suggestion that you make ... which as I say has the same impact as a delete. It is heartening that, with so many editors participating, we at least seem to have a consensus.--Epeefleche (talk) 14:14, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please also note that many of the delete voters actually think an entry by this name should exist, but that the current entry is too tainted to remain. I think there is broad scale agreement actually to have an entry with this title, and perhaps another about specific antisemitic canards related to wealth. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 14:24, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While I am one of those editors whom Gris refers to in his first clause, its not as clear to me that there is consensus on that agreeing with my point of view. Certainly not along the lines of the 2/3 or more editors who favor deletion of the article. But in any event, that's not the real issue here, as all that is properly and directly before us is the question of whether to delete the article as it stands.--Epeefleche (talk) 14:28, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I personally see this as a good example of WP:JUNK - a potentially notable topic, but with a completely worthless article, and with Keep voters insisting that someone else do the work to fix the problems (or, since this isn't a perfect example of WP:JUNK, witjhout the knowledge to see how flawed it is). Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:45, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone who’s familiar with the sources being used in this article go through the article again and see what examples there still are of sources being misrepresented? When I referred to there being a problem with this, I was basing it on the state the article was in at the beginning of the AFD, but as far as I can tell all of the specific examples of this that were pointed out have now been removed from the article. It may be that worst problems with the article have been fixed now. --Captain Occam (talk) 16:31, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is a highly unrealistic request. To tell if sources are misrepresented you have to check every single sourced sentence against its source, which means you have to physically get your hands on the sources (e.g. through interlibrary loan in the case of more obscure sources). I'm sure you can understand what a pain that is. Really, all we can do after finding enough serious misrepresentations in an author's corpus of editing is trash everything the author has written, like happened with Jagged 85 and (in a different way) with Darius Dhlomo. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 17:52, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So in other words, you’re saying you can’t be bothered to examine whether there’s actually anything still wrong with the article, and you think it should be deleted just because we assume that Noleander is incapable of producing anything of value? Noleander has not even been sanctioned in the AN/I thread about him; he might end up being sanctioned by ArbCom, but ArbCom won’t be making a decision about that until after this AFD is closed. So although Noleander is currently a user in good standing, you think we should still assume bad faith about everything he produces, regardless of whether we can actually find anything wrong with it. Do you not see the problem with this attitude? --Captain Occam (talk) 06:02, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
An article which has been demonstrated to have been written in bad faith, must, of necessity, be mistrusted. Without passing general judgment on Noleander, in the context of this article under this AfD I see no problem with this attitude. The attitude of assume bad faith towards the article is entirely justified. You cannot expect anyone else to check all the sources, especially if not all of them are available online. Nahum (talk) 09:42, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Where has it been demonstrated that this article was created in bad faith? The only thing that’s been demonstrated is that it used to have sourcing and POV problems. The AN/I thread about Noleander did not reach a consensus that these problems were intentional, and the Arbitration case about him has only just been opened. --Captain Occam (talk) 12:27, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The essay you quote does not suggest articles be deleted because of their poor quality, only that the content is blanked and re-wrote from the start, so that essay actually argues for the keep side. Passionless -Talk 19:45, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I didn't read the essay that way. I don't see anything in it about blanking. It does say "[i]f you can repair the article in a timely manner, then you've neatly refuted that the article is irreparable." But I don't see any hope of timely repair. Of course you're free to try to prove otherwise, by repairing the article before the afd closes. Good luck. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 01:17, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see article has now shrunk from 130k to 28k which is good. I'm not adamant about actual deletion (history removal); the important thing is that we should never present stuff like the earlier version as a published article in mainspace or even let it influence the new version too much. An earlier attempt[3] to stub the article leaving the references was reverted 6 minutes later, but I guess the current trimming is holding up for now. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 10:10, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I find it utterrly bizarre that editors on here are stating that the topic 'Jews and money' is not a notable and encyclopedic one, in view of the multiple books which have been written precisely on that very topic, including many by Jewish authors. That argument is completely against fundamental policy of this project. Rangoon11 (talk) 13:22, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well then provide some books which are indeed about "Jews and Money". There are only two above whose rasion d'etre is to document the subject which forms a anti-Semitic canard, (namely Jews and Money: The Story of a Stereotype and Jews and money: the myths and the reality), it not forming a subject matter unto itself. Even Valdmans book was written to dispell "a common accusation against the Jews. Material about this Jews and money accusation should be moved elsewhere. Chesdovi (talk) 13:44, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your view, my view or the view of those authors on the topic is irrelevant. From a WP policy persective the only question is does such a topic exist, and does it have proper coverage. The answer in this case is unquestionably yes. A search on Google books shows very considerable coverage of this topic: [4] A search on Google News shows even more: [5] From a policy perspective it is not, of course, necessary that whole books have been written on a topic. The fact that in this case they have just emphasises the point. Rangoon11 (talk) 14:05, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And there are, of course, a vast amount more sources which are on the topic or address it in detail but do not use that precise wording. A few recent examples of books include: [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]. Rangoon11 (talk) 15:18, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are missing something. Both google links you provide refer to the Jews and money canard, already covered elsewhere on wiki. The other links are a selection of self help books and other non-scholarly sources. Jews and money has as much credence as a notable subject matter as does Judaism and bus stops. There is no intrinsic link between the two that deserves an article by this name. Chesdovi (talk) 16:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
1. Counter-factual - the overwhelming majority of sources linked to above from the first two links, in fact over 99% - are not self-help books but articles, history books and other sources. 'Scholarly' is a purely subjective description and irrelevant from a policy perspective. If 'scholarly' coverage were needed then most WP articles would have to go. 2. There is actually nothing in policy which says that self-help books are not capable of demonstrating topic notability. Rangoon11 (talk) 16:39, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article reads like a mutation of Jewish history and borderline antisemitic tropes. There is a reason why a lot of editors are edging towards delete. The article has been built by editor Noleander. In this discussion an editor points out Noleander clearly used information not found in the source. Sources he has compiled all on his own. This whole situation just seems fishy and suspect to me. Wikifan12345 (talk) 08:49, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article was not written through the normal wiki process (collaborative incremental editing with many hands at every stage of development), it was written in user space over time by one person and then plopped into article space as a fait accompli. Expecting us to keep publishing such content while everyone else stops what they're doing and checks every single source and sentence and studies the secondary literature not cited (there's no other way to know what parts of the article are neutral) gives a tremendous first-mover advantage to tendentious editors with their hands on a lot of sources. Actual deletion isn't so important (there's not outright libel etc in it) but get the thing out of article space until other editors have all had as much time to make their own changes to the content, as the author originally spent creating it. They should not be expected to clean it up bit by bit after it is dumped on them in one heap. Right now big swaths are being wiped, which is at least an improvement over gradual changes. We probably should rethink the article creation process for contentious topics in general. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 10:48, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Usually editors have been encouraged to develop articles in user space to avoid AfD. There are a lot of eyes on the article - you can slap some disputed/POV/OR type templates if you want, and look it over for bias. A problem with the content does not mean deletion. Wnt (talk) 14:49, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's nonsense. Does WP:NPOV have any meaning? If it does, then we cannot keep articles that have no value, simply because a completely different article could be written on the same subject and fulfil NPOV. As it is, we have an article that we know abused sources, is misleading, and has severe, fundamental problems which would require rewriting from scratch to get around - because we cannot trust any of the content.
On Wikipedia, you have no write to insist that an editor makes an article for you on a subject. I don't think that you have the right to do that by stealth by insisting an article shoyuld be kept - and that the people who have shown it's fundamentally broken must write a new article for you on the subject to replace it. Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:46, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But that basically is what policy means in implementation Adam. We can't delete an article on a notable subject for simple NPOV problems. It's simply against policy. We already have other system's in place to help with the editing process in contentious articles. You can request a neutral arbitrator to assist with the editing process. If problem continue you can go to RFC or the BLP noticeboard, or ANI if appropriate. AFD is not the place to sort out NPOV issues, unless the topic itself does not mean wikipedia's notability guidelines. As it stands, this topic is clearly notable per wikipedia's policy and therefore the article can not be reasonably deleted. If you or any other editor is really oncerned about this article then wikipedia assumes that you will take it upon yourelf to spend time to make it better. AFD is not meant to be used as a tool to weed out poorly written articles.4meter4 (talk) 17:22, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, 4meter4, you are clearly misinterpreting policy. If someone creates (for example) an article on African-Americans and heart disease that happens to be an attack page against black people, it can and will be deleted under policy, regardless of whether a neutral, encyclopedic article on the possibly notable topic of African-Americans and heart disease could be written. You appear to be basing your !vote entirely on whether the title of the article suggests a notable topic, not on the actual contents of the article. 28bytes (talk) 17:30, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
28bytes, if you agree that this is a notable topic, why not just stubify the article? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:33, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Other editors have stubified it and been reverted. Regardless, I don't necessarily agree it's a notable topic – any more than Black people and money would be. I don't believe that Jews have a "special relationship" with money that other ethnic groups and religions don't. That anti-Semitic canards exist saying otherwise does not make it so. But even if consensus is otherwise, that doesn't mean that we have an obligation to host unencyclopedic recitations of "observations" about Jews and money that various anti-semites have made over the course of history. 28bytes (talk) 17:49, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article is no longer called "Jews and money", and while I would be very surprised if such a topic could be anything other than an attack page, it's not what we we are discussing here. The article is now on the topic of the economic history of Jewish people. Are you really really saying that the economic history of a people who were prevented from owning land in the days when it was the main source of livelihood is not a notable topic? Seriously? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:07, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure American-Americans were prevented from owning land for quite some time too. Thus my point above. Like I said, that it could be possible to write an encyclopedic treatment of the topic doesn't mean that we have to keep a POV-pushing, source-misrepresenting, unencyclopedic article with a notable-sounding title. 28bytes (talk) 18:17, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
28bytes that is a severe distortion of policy. If an entry qualifies as an "attack page" it also qualifies for speedy deletion, per G10. An article discussed at AfD, which may or may not have POV issues, and perhaps content within it that disparages someone or some group is not in that realm. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 17:39, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly and agree with Brownhairedgirl. The red pen can and should be judicously wielded here. No one is suggesting the POV issues shouldn't be addressed. It's just that deletion is a bad idea and bringing this topic to AFD was not the right thing to do. Remove the crap now by all means.4meter4 (talk) 17:46, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm quite familiar with G10. I G10 articles all the time on new page patrol. The main difference between those articles and this one is that this one had a lot of references (granted, not all of them honest). If this did get speedy deleted as an attack page, I would not object. 28bytes (talk) 17:49, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are already articles that contain this antisemitic canard. Why in the world would we want to make a huge article called "Jews and Money", and misrepresent multiple sources? And then try to argue that it's not a POV Fork? There are already articles such as Accusations of usury and profiteering, Antisemitism in Europe, Antisemitism, Stereotypes of Jews. So rather than expand on any of these articles or sections in articles, we have an editor(or now, a group of editors) who wish to make an article that takes this stereotype, and pretends it's not. Dave Dial (talk) 18:11, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wnt, yeah, I know userspace development usually works fine; in this instance (and some others involving the same author) it seems to be at the root of a lot of the drama and various participants have pointed to it directly. I was a little bit surprised when I figured that out. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 18:20, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How about Arab oil money. There's lot's to say about that. Good sources too. Funds royal elites, and terrorism, and holds the west to ransom, etc... Chesdovi (talk) 18:50, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely, there's more than enough sources for that, too: [12]. Islam and domestic violence, Race and intelligence, Nations and intelligence, Height and intelligence, Race and crime in the United Kingdom, Gender and crime are presumably all articles that you would like to delete? Rangoon11 (talk) 19:12, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know the topic, so I took a random stab looking through the original author's last history version, regarding his statement that Maimonides had recommended the charging of usury in order to harm the Gentiles. The original source [13] put this into a context of Jewish and Christian communities with hostile sentiments looking for ways to exempt one another from moral protection. And it is clear that that interpretation was a rather fringe viewpoint.[14] So I won't say that the original author was actually being impartial, even about representing his own sources. Nonetheless, the current draft of the article has lost that and many other remarkable claims - though it still has an atrocious organization, which confounds perceptions, philosophy, and actual facts about Jewish economic history. I think that the editing it has received has improved it and that further editing will bring it to a condition of neutrality, provided people can argue about it claim by claim and not as a keep-or-delete, trust-or-dismiss situation. Disproving false claims is infinitely better than deleting them, just as a vaccination for a viral agent is better than its mere absence.
The fact that many articles discuss Jewish economic issues is proof that one or a few central articles should organize and illuminate their overall content.
Nor does deletion by AfD mean that the original bias is dispelled - see Role of Jews in the development of capitalism, which was recently created.
Come on - just fix this article, and you'll claim your objective for the forces of enlightenment in the long term. Wnt (talk) 21:49, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All three or four articles should be locked. IF this AFD is successfully then those should be next. A lot of editing hours are being wasted here. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:19, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Somewhat amazed to just find this jewel as well: Christianity and domestic violence. I should add that I strong favour keeping the article.Rangoon11 (talk) 23:25, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hear hear. Userspace drafting is not a suidice pact. 100k+ article are evidently not crafted solely in userspace because the author thinks they'll be deleted due to notablility problems. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 14:00, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Moved to the talk page
 – Four articles have been created in response to this article and/or the AfD. Discussion about those articles has been moved to the talk page. 28bytes (talk) 19:16, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why don't you write some of those articles then? I see that despite creating a similar article about the Greek diaspora earlier, Economic history of the Greek diaspora, you maintain that this one should be deleted. Now I also believe it should be deleted, and said as much above, but this disruptive nonsense about creating other similar articles needs to stop.Griswaldo (talk) 20:51, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that what needs to stop is the discreditably practice of creating articles like Economic history of the Jews. And the discreditable behavior of people who defend them. The wording of the article about the Economic history of the Greek diaspora, by the by, is lifted directly from Economic history of the Jews, with easily available material about Greek moneylending and economic enterprise interspersed. Attack articles are easy to create, as User:Noleander has amply demonstrated. The question is why Wikipedians defend them?I.Casaubon (talk) 21:10, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The wording of the article about the Economic history of the Greek diaspora, by the by, is lifted directly from Economic history of the Jews ... Wonderful so you are making a WP:POINT violation as well. Wording a new article in a manner you admit you think is wrong. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 21:20, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am waiting to see you or some other administrator stop the creation of anti-Semitic and anti Mormon articles.I.Casaubon (talk) 21:42, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not an administrator, but there is an ongoing Arbitration about Noleander's edits in this area. People are clearly trying to sort this all out. What we don't need is the petty, pointy disruption. What we need is clear and level headed dialog. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 21:45, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Huh?? Because he wrote On the Jewish Question, just maybe!!! DeCausa (talk) 23:20, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That evidence was provided and discussed on this page several days ago. Why are you mingling the ArbCom case with this AfD? That doesn't seem helpful. User:Mathsci/example has been discussed here by multiple editors so you should probably read this page more carefully to see what they have said. But to go back to the one sentence I analysed at random, why did Noleander refer to one author when in fact there were two (Perry and Schweitzer)? Mathsci (talk) 10:05, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? Who cares? Ok, he forgot to cite one of a pair of authors... WP:SOFIXIT TotientDragooned (talk) 17:41, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mathsci, I heave read it, and replied at the ArbCom page. In summary, the info (from that source) that you crave for is presented later in the wiki article. Your example only proves you haven't read the rest of the article. And thanks for the patronizing remarks. Tijfo098 (talk) 20:25, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately the article is not in a fixed state. The second paragraph of my evidence is mostly about how a good article could be written starting from the English version of Jacques Attali's 800 page book (as an example of a good source). It is not directly a commentary on Noleander's article (March 25 version). The more dispassionate discussion users have, the better. It is far too personalised at the moment. Mathsci (talk) 21:54, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KeepNotable subject - reasonably well researched article. This is just a witchhunt. DeCausa (talk) 23:20, 1 April 2011 (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.
More