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

• 10 people who supported deletion (Ynhockey, IZAK, AniMate, PopularMax, Dfass, Dave Dial, Wikifan12345, Regent of the Seatopians, TFD, I.Casaubon) are of the opinion that, for various reasons, no article on this topic can or should be written at all. I assign less weight to these opinions because they do not address the issue of whether an article about this topic should exist in terms of the applicable guideline, WP:N, which says that a topic is appropriate for an article if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources. Many arguments are made that this requirement is met in this case, which these editors do not address.
• 26 people who supported deletion did so because they consider that the content suffers from WP:POV (in the form of antisemitic prejudice) and WP:SYNTH issues. This is, in principle, a valid argument for deletion if the content is so bad that the article needs a full rewrite (as the editors counted below argue explicitly).
• 17 people who supported deletion did so because they believe that the topic is notable but that the current content is without merit for the reasons mentioned above and that the article would therefore need to be rewritten from scratch. This, as I said above, is a valid argument for deletion.
• 12 people who supported deletion made no argument or an unconvincing argument for deletion ("per nom", etc, or personal attacks on the article creator). I discount these arguments when assessing consensus.

Keep

• Almost all of the 29 "keep" opinions argue that the topic is notable, having received plenty of coverage, and that any improvement should therefore occur by editing, not deletion. That is a valid argument in terms of our guidelines and policies.
• 11 "keep" opinions, moreover, say that they agree that the article is deficient, but that this is not a reason for deletion, but for rewriting or stubbing it.
• 3 "keep" opinions are discounted as making no valid or understandable argument.

On this basis, I conclude that:

• There is consensus that the current content (at least as it was at the time of the AfD; it has been worked on since) is deficient and ought not to be part of Wikipedia.
• There is consensus that an article about this topic can and should be written, but that the current article is not it.
• There are circa 40 valid "delete" opinions and 26 valid "keep" opinions. This is narrowly sufficient to determine consensus, understood as a strong majority of policy-based arguments, for deleting the article outright as a means to effect the removal of the content that is deemed deficient.

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 | 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]

• Delete per nom --Steven J. Anderson (tlk) 18:29, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - There are quite a few sources on this topic, listed in the References section of the article. Some of the more notable, broader sources are:

• 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]

• Keep - I'm not going to deny there are POV issues with this article, and it's quite possible it was created for not-entirely-NPOV reasons. However, it would be strange to argue this isn't a notable topic; 'economic history of the Jews' is a legitimate topic, and there is in fact a great deal to say about the historical contributions of Jews to business and banking. The fact that 'Jewish bankers' is a popular theme among anti-Semites doesn't stop it from being a notable topic; in fact, it's part of the reason this is a notable topic. The article needs to be improved to keep it neutral, but that doesn't make it a POVFORK; I'm not aware of any other article on this precise topic that it duplicates. Robofish (talk) 18:34, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep there is a big difference between notability and content neutrality. The former seems to me to be undeniable in this case, looking at the mass of citations in the article. Regarding the latter, I am personally not familiar enough with the topic to make a definitive comment. I can understand that this is a topic which arouses strong feelings among some but am personally very concerned about censorship creeping into this project.Rangoon11 (talk) 18:34, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you are not familiar enough with the topic or the sources, how can you make an informed comment here? Would you vote to keep articles on:
  • The Italians and crime
  • The Irish and alchohol
  • The Greeks and pedophilia
  • Anyone could easilyt put together an article with LOTS of reliable sources. Would any of them be encyclopedic? Not as presented. Ditto with this article. 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]

• • Replying to both of the above: we don't keep articles around simply because they have neutral titles. AfD is not solely about whether an FA-class article could be written with the title of the nominated page. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 19:02, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't mentioned the title of the article. Rangoon11 (talk) 19:06, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • Robofish's argument explicitly invoked the title. Yours, which somehow managed to be weaker, apparently consisted of skimming the article for reference tags and opining for a keep without actually following any of them up. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 23:08, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Slrubenstein; I only know those first two topics in any depth (never having heard of the third, so ignoring it) but, yes, it should be possible to write an article about those topics. I haven't checked but I am absolutely certain that we will have the makings of the first in existence (Italian crime syndicates being one of those topics that attracts interest), and the stereotype of the Irish and alcohol will be dealt with somewhere I am sure. Of course; any article that insinuated or suggested that all Italians are criminals or perhaps pre-disposed to crime would be shot down carefully in flames. As with the topic of (as you crudely put it) "Italians and crime", Judaism has a rich history intertwined with the history of finance, money lending and economy. On top of which there are anti-semitic and nasty canards which twist that history into something terrible. The amount of scholarly literature on both these topics should be sufficient for a standalone article (hence I argue Keep and give a good going over) --Errant ^(chat!) 20:59, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. This article is not an article on the economic history of the Jews. The author just changed the name to make it sound less anti-Semitic. The contents is a series of canards, and cites books on anti-Semitism only to repeat the anti-Semitic claims, not to provide any analysis at all of anti-Semitism. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:49, 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]

• • Si: Are you saying the topic is notable, but the problem is that the article does not yet have sufficient "analysis"? Or are you saying the article's topic is not notable? --Noleander (talk) 18:59, 25 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]

• Keep Extremely well-sourced and passes WP:GNG with no trouble. I suggest some editors !voting delete actually read some of the article before going with a gut reaction, a reaction to which I am sympathetic in theory, but which is not borne out by the contents of the article. There is plenty of material in it that follows WP:NPOV policy just fine. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 19:12, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Substitute "read" for "skim" and you'd be entirely accurate, in that a superficial evaluation (i.e. length, number of references, general wikistyle) indicates an appropriate treatment of the subject. Spend two minutes reading any given sectiojn and a rather different picture emerges. Were the article gradually developed from some smaller kernel it could theoretically be rescued by rolling back to that, but it was created in its present form. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 23:08, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see a problem with a section like this:

"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 ^talk_edits 02:46, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep VERY well sourced, passes GNG, etc. LiteralKa (talk) 19:12, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - That the topic meets WP:Notability guidelines is beyond dispute. From reading the Delete comments above, I suspect that the problem the Delete editors are describing is that the article presents some antisemitic canards, but it does not present them with enough context, and/or does not refute the canards clearly enough. Is that the major problem? If so, it should be an easy matter to remedy that by adding balancing/refutation material where necessary. --Noleander (talk) 19:24, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes indeed, the way this article needs to be redone as to fit in with others like it in Category:Jewish views, so that this article should have been about Jewish views on economics and not a random collection of views about Jews from a hundred and one points of view that do not add up. IZAK (talk) 21:59, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep For hundreds of years Jews played a very important role as moneylenders. I don't see why Wikipedia should be forbidden to present that fact and explain the issues that go along with it. Looie496 (talk) 19:53, 25 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]

• Keep The fact that there have been a number of books written on the topic indicates its notability quite clearly, IMHO. We really can't go around deleting every article that suffers from POV problems. Qrsdogg (talk) 20:10, 25 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]

• Delete as synth/and POV-fork or merge into Anti-semitic canard or "Stereotypes of Jews" which better describe the contents of the article.·Maunus·ƛ· 20:47, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The title was Jews and money until a hour or so ago. It's 12,000 words of anti-Semitic memes, cherry-picking from sources to repeat anti-Semitic material, with no secondary sources framing the issue; a personal essay. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 20:52, 25 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]

• Comment I believe that the stereotype of covetous or rich Jew is significant and widespread enough to warrant an article or at least a prominent section in some other article on views on Jews. Of course, this requires very much attention so it won't start to market the stereotype as a fact, but treat it as any other unfounded stereotype - well-known, used in jokes and comedy (South Park for example has used this stereotype several times) but ultimately false. I'm not going to raise hell about this or even be upset if you disagree, but I'd like you to consider this. Zakhalesh (talk) 20:56, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per SV and Maunus. The title is not reflected in the article. The first named reference is presumably a balanced book that could provide excellent content for an article of this recently dreamed up name. It has scarcely been used to write the article, and then only in a superificial way (for a short list of pre-twentieth century professions). Mathsci (talk) 21:01, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment A decent article could be written from scratch with this title. On 1 April 2011, the book Les Juifs le monde et l'argent: Histoire économique du peuple juif by the French economist and government advisor Jacques Attali will be published in English translation as The economic history of the Jewish people. So it's not a problem of sources, just how they are used (or misused). Mathsci (talk) 09:28, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Subject may be notable, but we would have to start all over again to create a legit article. As has been mentioned at all the previous ANI's, the subtle and civil agenda-pushing on these topics has long been a problem with the creator of this article, who as outlined above has unfortunately not changed his problematic editing.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:22, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per SV. The title was changed to make it more "pleasant", but it is clearly an anti-Semitic article. It's offensive on so many levels. I wonder if we create an article called "Protestant Murderers", how long would it last? It's sad that an obvious bigoted article has even any support. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:24, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Per Slrubenstein, SV, and Brewcrewer. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:27, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - It is a dumb, ugly, and racist lie, but "Jews control the money" is quote a notable one. "Delete because it isn't true" is, quite frankly, a rather asinine reason to get rid of an article, not to mention being a violation of a very basic Wikipedia policy.. Tarc (talk) 23:54, 25 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]

• Keep. I agree with Noleander. There are more than enough useful sources. The article needs to be managed carefully to avoid racism.  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 00:23, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There are sufficient books on the subject to make it notable. That there is a special relationship between either Jewish religion or culture and some aspects of money-making is something that has frequently been said, and not always by those hostile to the Jews. It's been used in offensive ways, but the topic is not inherently anti-semitic. NPOV is more important than the current notions of political correctness. DGG ( talk ) 01:05, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree, NPOV is critical. In fact, NPOV, or specifically the article's lack of it, is why I nominated this for deletion. If I thought it could be salvaged and made NPOV without a wholesale rewrite I would not have nominated it. 28bytes (talk) 02:56, 26 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]

• Delete per SV and OrangeMarlin, both of whom phrased the problem well. It's just one anti-Semitic meme after the other. I don't often agree with SV, but this time she has banged the nail on the head. ScottyBerg (talk) 02:13, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete antisemitic, racist article from the title creator gave to it to the every letter. Should have never been written. I moved it to Economic history of the Jews (antisemetic and conspiracy theories) because it is where it belongs to. --Mbz1 (talk) 02:20, 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]

• Delete - The topic is notable. The content is original research of the bad sort. Meaning POV-laden crap... Blow the mother up and start over. Carrite (talk) 02:33, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Unsure - the opening seems alright, but these sorts of things can be tricky, since there are ways to use language so that someone unfamiliar will automatically correct it to a reasonable argument, but the racists (and those that know the racism) will see the more concealed meaning. Notably, it fails to state the reason Jews went into moneylending: because anti-Semitism blocked off other professions from them. It may be salvageable, but I'm not sure. Perhaps suspend this a week, then reevaluate? If it hasn't gotten rid of the problems by then, Delete. Ugh, that just seems wrong, though. Yeah, Delete per Carrite. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 02:41, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per Carrite. A reasonable article can be written on this topic, but this ain't it - this is an carefully crafted antisemitic screed, disguised as well researched and footnoted neutral treatment. I'll give just one example: A common antisemitic canard is that Jewish bankers used their wealth to underwrite wars, thereby profiteering form human misery. Sure enough, this canard appears in the article , neutrally stated as " Jewish banking firms often preferred to lend to governments, in particular, for financing armies and wars." This is cited to pages 6-7 of Cameron, which actually says no such thing, instead giving prominence to Jews lending to government for post-war rebuilding efforts in France, etc... It woudl take hours to go through all the rest of this crap. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 02:50, 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]

• Delete per Maunas. Boatloads of WP:SYNTH and some WP:OR. If anything is salvageable, merge it. Bulldog123 03:00, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• uuurgh - in two minds here. Article quality isn't a prerequisite for deletion, but the original name of this article, and osome of the sections in it are truly cringeworthy - the Financial_scandals has some pretty incredible one-liners in it that I'd have to say are misrepresentative as stated because of lack of context: "Gerald Krefetz comments that Jews are particularly prone to push the boundaries of morality in law in the realm of international banking" - just...wow...there are large amounts of synthesis here. I do acknowledge the stereotype is notable, but if aspects of it are a fallacy, and the proportions are in fact (eg facts like reticence to discuss money...duh! Um..that is most folks I know regardless of religion/race/skin colour/shoe size/star sign etc. -then much of this article is really not notable. To sum up, needs to be pruned massively, and restrict to secondary sources to avoid synthesis..and even then there are problems. Given the practicalities on this, I suppose in an ideal world this'd be a keeper for me, but with the pragmatic reality and chance of decent cleanup are low, I think I'd not be unhappy to see it deleted due to misinformation in its current form. And I am an inclusionist Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:36, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It's unsalvageable nonsense consisting of cherry picked SYNTH. Johnuniq (talk) 03:41, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per WP:DEL#REASON WP:POVFORK. Alternatively, redirect to Jewish history JoeSperrazza (talk) 04:05, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The ideas presented in the article are no doubt notable, this article is also neither SYNTH nor a POVFORK, so I see no reason to delete it. The article does seem to have some POV problems so I suggest this article is either gone through by a group of editors immediately to fix POV or the article is userfied until its content is more acceptable. Passionless -Talk 04:40, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• This sort of topic is notable, but I would certainly suggest having a clearer focus for the article and naming it something like Rich Jew stereotype (as suggested on ANI.) Grandmasterka 06:04, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep with cleanup. This article appears to have POV problems, but when an article on a clearly notable topic violates NPOV, the solution is to improve it, not delete it. If everyone who’s campaigning for deletion were to instead devote themselves to cleaning up the article, it might be possible to fix most of its POV problems even before the AFD is closed.

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]

• Keep It is a very well referenced article, the references of which relate directly to the topic and, almost all of them are entirely about the topic at hand. If there are POV issues, which I didn't see from a quick scan through, then that can be fixed by editing the article. However, you can't say that there are POV issues just because it is discussing such a topic, I think that in and of itself is being racist. Or, at least, culturally biased. If you look at the article neutrally, it's quite clear that it is a subject that is notable and has been extensively discussed throughout history by a vast number of scholars. I'm personally glad that the sources used are all rather recent ones, since that makes them less likely to have POV issues themselves and also makes them able to give a more complete understanding of the history of the subject. Silverseren^C 06:51, 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]

• Keep Jewish history is too large a topic to be complaining abut forks. This article is 129K and so should be split down further rather than merged. Also, it is our policy that Wikipedia is not censored. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:49, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • So POV forks are allowed now so long as the subject is long and complicated? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 11:40, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Please see WP:SPLIT and WP:SIZERULE which explain the relevance of size. Also note the guidance of WP:POVFORK, "do not refer to forks as "POV" except in extreme cases of persistent disruptive editing.". Colonel Warden (talk) 12:36, 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]

• Keep Per comments by Rangoon11 who I consider has expressed the same view I would have on the subject. --Domer48_'fenian' 09:05, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Keep and fix It's thinly veiled antisemitic tripe. If you vote to keep, I hope you're also volunteering to clean it up. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:03, 26 March 2011 (UTC) Plenty of dedicated work being done on it now. Hope it continues. 14:59, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete Clear anti-Semitic air about the article - given the previous title of the article - and largely unfixed POV issues. —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 11:27pm • 12:27, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It should be returned to user sandbox and the people that voted for keep should NPOV it like user:Anthonyhcole suggested.--Shrike (talk) 12:49, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There is certainly a valuable article that could be written on this topic. For comparison, compare eg the article on Banking and Bankers from Encyclopedia Judaica (2nd ed), licensed by the Jewish Virtual Library; and the article Banking from the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia. A lot of interesting academic work has been done on eg the da Pisa family, who became arguably the most important bankers in Italy in the 1400s (our article on Jehiel da Pisa is from the 1906 encyclopedia, and could use a lot of update); as well as eg the Jewish banking in England in the 1200s, which appears to have been extraordinarily lucrative, despite the arbitrary and capricious taxes applied (the king kept taking all their money every few years; yet despite this they seemed to be able to re-generate their assets almost regardless). On the one side, from the point of view of Jewish history, this is a recognised, important, relevant and well-defined topic. From the other direction, from the point of view of financial history, the specifically Jewish angle is a distinctive, interesting and significant. The history of how the Rothschilds, Montagus, Goldsmids and Mocattas came to such prominence in the London bullion markets, and what particular shared factors caused those families to emerge, and to become with others the so-called "Cousinhood", is as interesting and significant (and, importantly for us, as written about in such terms) as the factors behind what became the celebrated phenomenon of Quaker businesses such as the Cadburys, Terrys, Rowntrees and Frys just in chocolate. So there is certainly an interesting topic here. Possibly it would be named History of Jews in Banking -- compare our various articles on "History of the Jews in XYZ place/country/city". On the other hand, there is a clear gap between the present article currently up for AFD as against for example the approach and coverage of the EJ article; so if the decision is going to be to keep the present article, there is a lot of work that is going to be needed to bring it into line with what we probably should be looking for. Jheald (talk) 13:00, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nobody (with the exception of straw men spun together by those opposed to its removal) is arguing that it is not possible to create a neutral article on the subject of the economic history of the Jewish people. The question is whether a 100k+-treatment of that subject (or, more specifically, "Jews and banking") which evidently does not constitute a neutral article is befitting our encyclopedia when dumped here in its entirety by a user who has a history of creating works with similar problems, and whether leaving it in place is likely to positively or negatively impact Wikipedia's reputation for neutrality and accuracy. I don't believe anyone would be opposed to this article being started afresh post-deletion and worked on in an iterative, collaborative manner to ensure that it does not unduly advance certain concepts to the detriment of its neutrality. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 13:11, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with these comments. One could write a good article on economic history, and there is a Wikiproject on Jewish history that might be a source of expertise on this (although Jheald seems also to have some expertise) (and a real economic history article would probably limit itself to Jews in Europe and a second article on Jews in Arab Caliphates, because the sources and laws were so different). But this article was not written as an "Economic history of the Jews" and the article shows no comprehension of the sources it cites on Jewish history, Jewish law, or European history, or economic history. I voted to delete this article because it was written as part of a long tradition of articles written by Noleander that use sources in ideosyncratic ways and that consistently misrepresent the views presented in the sources, and ignore mainstream scholarship on the topics. I also voted to delete it because in order to write the good article Jheald suggests one would first have to delete the contents of this article. Let's delete this, and wait until people who really are knowledgable in economic history have the time to write even a reasonable stub, rather than an embarassment to the whole project. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:40, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete—article is WP:SYNTH of random sources, only vaguely related to the topic. For example, the part about the Bible. In any case, economic history articles can be written about political entities (sovereign states or other territories), not about nations. How about an "Economic history of the Persians" article? Such a topic is inherently unencyclopedic; certain Jewish (or Persian) individuals might have done something significant related to the economy of France for example, does that warrant inclusion in the article? How do we determine something like that? —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 13:28, 26 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]

• Keep but stubify. This clearly a valid encyclopedic topic, but I share the concerns many of the expressed about whether this particular article provides encyclopedic coverage of the topic, and I suggest that it would best to reduce it to a stub and rebuild it. I am not persuaded that it is necessary for this page to be deleted rather than rewritten, and I am concerned that doing so will lose many valuable references which could be used in the construction of a better article. However, if it is deleted please can this be done without prejudice to the creation of a new article which genuinely tries to tell the economic history, rather than simply listing antisemitic canards? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:08, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and stub or delete - I agree that there are several sources which clearly indicate the subject in general is notable, but also agree that a great deal of the content is seriously questionable. "Jews and Money" was a very dubious title - "Economic history of the Jews" is a much more defensible one, given their status as, for much of history, a rather separate socio-political group. Unfortunatly, much of the content is at best dubiously related to that title. So either remove all the dubious material, keeping the title and the NPOV content only, or delete outright and allow an article on the current title to be started from scratch. John Carter (talk) 15:23, 26 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]

• Keep Content disputes are rarely solved at AfD, and the problem here is that the topic is clearly notable. The original title is not relevant to the AfD - all that matters is that there is nothing here for AfD - the issues should be dealt with on the article talk page as a content matter. I do not "like" the article, but that is not grounds for deletion. Collect (talk) 15:55, 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]

• Delete this article is a combination of unrelated topics. It's just isn't it. Broccolo (talk) 17:39, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator. Content fork and SYNTH. -- nsaum75 ^{!Dígame¡‎} 19:17, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The contents of the article have changed radically since this AfD began. I believe a lot of the contentious material has been removed at this point, and since this has really been a content dispute all along, I think that makes an even stronger case for keeping the article, as it remains a notable subject with good sourcing. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 19:34, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you think the bad stuff has been removed and what is left is okay, I would say that this is actually even more reason to delete it, because even after having removed what you thought was most offensive, we are still left with the POINT and COATRACK problems. An article that goes from the Talmud (600 CE) to the Tanakch (200 CE) to the rise of socialism (19th century) to the Middle Ages is obviously NOT an article on history, it cannot even follow a historical arc. Moreover, an article that claims that "Immanuel Kant, Karl Marx, Max Weber, Werner Sombart, and Georg Hegel" conclude that Jews are less moral than Christians is yup still definitely NOT economic history, not even history and youp, still anti-Semitic. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:47, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I suppose I'm biased, since I think Capitalism is great, and find nothing wrong with being associated with it. Negative remarks from the people you listed is a positive thing, in my opinion. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 01:18, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Article quality can usually be improved, but not when the article is a coatrack and a mess of synth in the first place. This can go away. Jtrainor (talk) 19:50, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note Most of the problematic material has now been edited out, and the current state should be examined by editors. Collect (talk) 20:52, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Maybe not. See User:Mathsci/example for an analysis of an example still remaining in the entry.Griswaldo (talk) 21:05, 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]

• Delete. Standard fare from Noleander - a coatrack with thinly veiled attempts to concentrate odious ideas. JFW | T@lk 21:03, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I find it hilarious that all of the users voting delete are hiding behind the word antisemitic like it means something and ignoring the sources used. The delete voters have yet to actually put forth a valid rationale that proves the topic is non-notable, they have yet to prove that the sources listed at the top of this page don't deal with the subject. All they do is go on and on about content issues, things that AfD is not for. Furthermore, it is extremely worrisome that Jewish users on Wikipedia are banding together to try to get Noleander sanctioned for his incredibly well-referenced articles. Can anyone actually say that the economic history of the Jews (Or even Jews and Money, which is the title of a number of the references) is a non-notable topic and actually prove that statement? Silverseren^C 21:08, 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]

• • • You've just told us yourself that the article has several high quality sources. This is not a FA or GA review and so the detail of what is currently done with these sources is not significant. Our editing policy tells us to welcome imperfect early drafts as they may be improved by further editing. AFD is not cleanup. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:44, 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]

• • • Again, you are completely diverting away from what I said. Looking over that, I see that, yes, it needs to be rewritten, but that doesn't change the fact that it is a notable topic supported by very reliable sources. Rewriting an article is also not for AfD. It sounds to me that this is something you should have worked on with Noleander on the talk page instead of this campaign against him. Silverseren^C 21:46, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:SYNTH and possible WP:COATRACK. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 22:33, 26 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]

• Delete This is a tough one. I have read this entire debate, and agree with many editors that a good article can and should be written on this topic, but it will take exceptional care and a high degree of expertise to do the job right. I conclude that the present article can't be salvaged. I find the arguments of Slrubenstein, Slim Virgin, brewcrewer and MathSci to be especially persuasive. Cullen328 (talk) 03:45, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete--MONGO 04:22, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Since this is a discussion, not a vote, the above input should be ignored by the closer. *** Crotalus *** 20:17, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Not quite sure what discussion Crot is referring to. But we do operate, of course, by consensus, and the expression of consensus here is rather apparent.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:10, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Crotalus is correct here, wikipedia is not a wp:democracy, the number of votes does not matter which is why editors call them notvotes(!vote), this is suppose to be a discussion to reach a consensus. Passionless -Talk 21:42, 28 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]

• Keep - I have to agree with the Keep sayers here. I see no apparent reason for deletion of this material.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:49, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOREASON Slrubenstein | Talk 19:07, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, SV, JFW, etc. Avi (talk) 12:55, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete clearly an anti-Semitic content fork. I can see nothing worth saving here - it's a badly written, random coat-racky assembly of facts. In general we should avoid any articles of the form "X and Y", where Y is an ethnic, cultural or religious group. Just to take one example, in their early history, Quakers in England were also barred from the universities and professions, and started many banks and other successful businesses, and that is not a reason for denigrating Quakers any more than it is for denigrating Jews. --NSH001 (talk) 13:42, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• So what of the article Judaism and Christianity which User:Slrubenstein boasts on his user page? That is a juxtaposition which is at the root of much anti-semitism. Are we to delete that too or is this censorship more selective? Colonel Warden (talk) 20:10, 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]

• Delete. Not any easy conclusion, and one I've pondered for some days. But here is my thinking. The old title -- not a proper/notable topic. The new title -- not reflective of the content, though if it were we would have something to work with. The content -- clearly deserving of the above aspersions. If this were deleted but for clearly appropriate content, I would vote keep, but as it is overwhelmingly and at great length inappropriate in its current form, delete is preferable. If someone then wants to create a proper article, I would be supportive of that effort.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:22, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Jewish history, taking anything salvageable (not much I suspect) to that article, where an NPOV section can be developed and maybe spun out again in time. Southend sofa (talk) 18:13, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, slrubenstein, brewcrewer, Carrite, Cullen328, SV, JFW, Mathsci, and Epeefleche. The content doesn't reflect the title, and is not representative of the proper literature on the title, but instead is cherry-picked OR used to support an antisemitic stereotype. And because of the documented abuse of the sources it actually uses, none of it can be trusted or re-used anywhere. Also, all those votes stating "well sourced" or "I see no reason to delete" have not in any way addressed the reasons for deletion, and are therefore effectively meaningless. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:07, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete because 1. it's a violation of WP:CONTENTFORKING of History of the Jews. 2. What next? Sociological history of the Jews, Anthropological history of the Jews, Psychological history of the Jews, etc etc etc just because someone has written a few books, not everything is worthy to be included in a respectable encyclopedia. 3. A lot of the stuff in this article is fallacious and pure WP:OR. 4. This article allows antisemitism to ooze in, in violation of WP:SOAPBOX. No one seems to be bothered to write about the Economic history of the Christians, or Economic history of the Muslims, or Economic history of the Hindus, or Economic history of the Buddhists, or Economic history of the atheists, or Economic history of Native Americans, or Economic history of the Africans etc etc etc, so why the Jews all of a sudden? Mein Kampf and Das Kapital have plenty to say about so-called "Jewish economics" but they should not be the background inspirations for such articles. 5. For legitimate areas that revolve around countries see Category:Economic history. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 19:26, 27 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]

• Please see Economic history of the United Kingdom, Protestant work ethic, Prosperity theology, Islamic economics, Islamic economics in the world, Buddhist economics, Economy of the Iroquois, &c. The idea that there aren't articles about the economics of other peoples or religions is false. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:11, 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]

• Then shouldn't we be voting for a rewrite rather than deletion? Silverseren^C 22:24, 27 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]

• You are wrong Maunus, because the correct WP article would read Jewish views on economics like all the other articles in Category:Jewish views. IZAK (talk) 21:38, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment How can WP have articles such as Criticism of Islam, Islamic terrorism, Muslim attitudes towards terrorism and Islamic economics in the world and then not allow this to stay? I say that as someone who is neither Jewish nor Muslim but is a passionate opponent of censorship. Rangoon11 (talk) 19:38, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• answer Because presumably those articles aren't made up of misrepresentations of sources and presentations of racist stereotypes as fact from top to bottom?·Maunus·ƛ· 20:01, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Presumably ... but not actually. I just had a look at Islamic terrorism and it gives a platform to Islamophobic views of Islam as being intrinsically suited for terrorism. Yet that's neither here nor there, since it has nothing to do with this article.Griswaldo (talk) 20:19, 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]

• Delete - This article is too tainted to be salvaged at this state. I would suggest recreating two separate articles after the hub bub dies down. 1) "Jewish economic history" (or something similar) for the serious history of economics and a legitimate content fork of "Jewish history", and 2) "Stereotypes of Jews and wealth" (or something similar) to cover the various negative stereotypes and canards and as a legitimate content fork of "antisemitism".Griswaldo (talk) 20:19, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This article is hopelessly compromised. There's a lot of synthesis here and am frankly unsure that an article on a topic this potentially hurtful to others really needs to exist. AniMate 22:40, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Deelete This article is a POV fork of the Jewish history article and has WP:SYNTH issues. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 22:50, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. 69.242.93.58 (talk) 22:51, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy or Stubfy. Regardless of how much work would be required to edit, rewrite, and make this article NPOV and meet Wikipedia's standards, some of the material in it may be useful as the basis for a high-quality NPOV article. However, as it stands, it is unfit for Wikipedia's main namespace as it damages its reputation. Not a single phrase in it can be trusted, since it has been demonstrated to contain deliberate falsifications and misrepresentations of its sources. Moving it to User space or reducing it to a Stub (keeping deleted material in Page History, available as reference for future edits) seems to me a reasonable compromise. Nahum (talk) 01:49, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Motion for speedy deletion A few users indicated the article as it is now damages Wikipedia reputation, and it sure does. It should be speedy deleted now. If the creator wants to get it to it user space, it could be done later, but now this article should be deleted from the main space ASAP.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:56, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Article was conceived of in a way that makes it fundamentally unsuitable for an encyclopedia. A decent article can be made, but not as a derivative work of this. -- ۩ Mask 02:42, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The fact that this is the only "Economic history" article of any group of people on Wikipedia, rather than any country, indicates that the premise of this article is based on a strong underlying stereotype that a priori sets it up for all kinds of violations of the worst kind. PopularMax (talk) 03:39, 28 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. Silverseren^C 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]

• Comment. We all played this game with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Judaism and violence and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Judaism and bus stops. Are articles of this type WP:SYNTH/WP:OR or not? This AfD just seems to be a higher stakes rehashing of the question. Joe407 (talk) 08:27, 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]

• Delete: There are fundamental problems with this article, not only the fact that it reads like a 4th-grader's last-minute term paper. Most of the material here should appear under other articles. Quotes about money from the Talmud or Torah are certainly interesting and can appear under articles dealing with those bodies of work, where they can be compared and contrasted with ancient views from other religions. Discussion of Jewish roles in money-lending can be discussed in articles relating to banking, commerce, or particular time periods, if these roles are deemed noteworthy in that context. The current article, a hodgepodge of Biblical and Talmudic quoations and cherry-picked mentions of Jewish money-lending is, as it stands, just the same stinking brew that is always passed off by anti-semites as "the real history of the Jews," so it has no place here. Of course there is an economic history of the Jewish people, just as there is an economic history of every people. But such a topic is far too broad to be useful, and will necessarily be reduced to simple stereotyping, as the current article amply shows. Matters of commerce and trade pertaining to various peoples at various times should be treated under the topics that most closely address the relevant places or time periods. For example, the article History of Ireland (800–1169) would be the right place to address matters of medieval commerce by Irish people. Likewise, History of the Jews in Spain would be the right place to address matters of commerce among Spanish Jews. And so on. —Dfass (talk) 09:53, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you looking for Economic history of Ireland? Silverseren^C 14:35, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: The article may have sources, but it does not provide a thorough enough presentation of the subject matter. Leaving it as it stands would be misleading. How can there be a mere 4 short paragraphs on “Rabbinic and Talmudic guidance”. Business and Economic Law takes up a vast chunk of Judaic and Talmudic law. The article ignores the main economic occupation of Jews in the Talmudic era, it being agriculturally based. The current "summarisation" is embarrassing. How can “A Talmudic discussion of interest and usury is in Bava Metzia portion of the Talmud” suffice, when the Talmud discusses a plethora of business related concerns. Why the focus on Usury? The original name “Jews and money” reeks of Jew stereotyping. There is little hope of "ensuring the article is balanced and well-presented" as long as the creator refuses to spend as much time on presenting real economic history of Jews rather than filling the bulk of space with material relating to anti-Semitic canards. Chesdovi (talk) 11:54, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This article has turned into just what I hoped in vain Communist genocide could become; it shows the circumstances that led to misunderstanding, making consequent errors in definition visible, allowing the reader to debunk a great prejudice. Anarchangel (talk) 13:02, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per DGG. The article has been reduced in size to a fourth of what it was when nominated. If it still isn't neutral, then stub it and work in a sandbox to write a worthwhile article. --JN466 14:01, 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]

• Delete-- There is nothing in this article that isn't or can't be placed in another article(and in most cases is). The original title describes exactly what was intended, and there is nothing there worth keeping. Dave Dial (talk) 15:25, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I agree to a very large extent with the "keep" comments of DGG and Collect, and I am troubled by the passionate tone of the "delete" arguments here. This is a complicated call, more complex than a simple "keep" or "delete", because there are very legitimate concerns on both sides of the issue: Wikipedia must not present hurtful stereotypes as encyclopedic fact, but Wikipedia must also be careful not to give in to the tendency to object strongly to material that paints any religion or religious group in terms that they find unflattering. There is clearly sourcing. However, I think that there are pragmatic reasons to merge the material into other pages, which can be done without making them overly long: Jewish history, as noted above, and, I would also suggest, History of anti-semitism. It would be entirely encyclopedic and appropriate to include material of this sort in some depth in each of those pages, whereas I do not see a compelling reason to retain such material under its present page title. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:58, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:Blow it up and start over. It reads more like a blog post than a neutral article. Interesting in places, but mountains of synth and opinion. Many free blog hosting sites exist. Wikipedia is not one of them. If a new article is written with the same title, then after the new article has reached a reasonable state of completion (not while its main development is still going on), maybe the history of the old article can be restored. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 19:16, 28 March 2011 (UTC) Added: I also mostly agree with the various CFORK rationales that have been posted. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 18:23, 29 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]

• Keep. I see nothing here that can't be fixed with the normal editing process, and the topic is clearly notable and verifiable by Wikipedia standards. Noleander's subjective motivations in creating the page are not relevant. *** Crotalus *** 20:15, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Poorly-written article on a clearly notable subject. The solution is to clean up through the regular editing process, not to Kill It With Fire. TotientDragooned (talk) 21:48, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nominated. This is a content fork designed to push a particularly unpleasant POV. There are also issues relating to synthesis. Whilst this subject may have potential with respect to notability, it will not be found in this version. Lovetinkle (talk) 22:39, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Robofish. This is clearly a notable topic and can not be viewed as a content fork due to the large amount of reliable published material on the subject, and the fact that the article does not appear to duplicate any other article on the English wiki. Not one rationale from Wikipedia:Deletion policy can be applied in this case and the article should therefore be kept. AFD is not the place to solve POV problems and this nomination is therefore a waist of everyone's time. Solve the POV issues on the article's talk page, and if needed, get a neutral arbritator involved to help with the process.4meter4 (talk) 02:40, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note to the closing administrator. Please remember the WP:NOTAVOTE policy when closing this AFD. The many editors urging for deletion in this case seem to have either not read wikipedia deletion policy or have forgotten it. Deleting an article for POV, original synthesis, or missing content is not supported by deletion policy. To delete an article for any of these reasons would set a bad precedent at AFD. If such a ruling is made here, I will bring this to deletion review. AFD is not a place to get rid of poorly developed articles, but a place to get rid of non-notable ones. 4meter4 (talk) 05:03, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 4meter4, admins (and most others participating here) understand policy perfectly well, and they know that applying policy to a particular situation is a matter of interpretation, which is why we have these discussions instead of having a bot make the decision. See for example WP:NOTSTATUTE, which says basically says policy documents what comes out of consensus discussions like this one--it does not legislate them. If there's consensus to delete the article when some policy page is in conflict, you might want to go update the policy page to reflect what happened. Basically NPOV problems usually are addressed by editing, but editors are also entitled to decide, for example, that an NPOV problem serious enough to bring the project into disrepute should result in deletion. At the end of the day, NPOV, V, BLP, C, etc. all take priority over notability (and that doesn't even mention the CFORK argument). 75.57.242.120 (talk) 10:48, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Um that's total crap. Please read Wikipedia:Deletion policy and also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not.4meter4 (talk) 17:25, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete I can't detect an ounce of encyclopedic merit in this article. Grouping the Jewish people into an article about "economics" ($$$$$$$$) is a slippery slope. As far as I can tell, the article has little to do with the "economic history of the Jews" and more about Jews and money. Individuals and financial history should be moved to History of the Jews. Also, "the Jews" is somewhat pejorative. I suggest a re-title to "Economic history of Jews]]. Also, this AFD is out of control and needs to be answered soon. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:44, 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]

• Keep Believe it or not, pulling down the window shade does not stop the oncoming train! These "memes" are widely distributed in Western societies, whether we like it or not. Wikipedia can either abdicate its mission of covering them in an encyclopedic way, or else people can tackle the article and fix what is actually wrong with it. I do think that some SYNTH can be found, but it's no excuse for deletion. The article as it stands is a substantial beginning for a notable topic. Wnt (talk) 08:00, 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]

• Delete Total junk with no encyclopedic value. And which Jews is this article about? The Sephardic Jews of North Africa and the Middle East? The Ethiopian Jews? The Jews of India and Central Asia? The Jewish diaspora is not homogenous, and slapping miserable European stereotypes on a global population is offensive. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 02:19, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, stubify and move salvageable text elsewhere - I'm not enthusiastic about the title Economic history of the Jews. That's a lame description of what the original article text was covering. I have proposed two new articles: Jews and banking and Role of Jews in the development of capitalism. (Proposed initial drafts can be found at User:Pseudo-Richard/Jews and banking and User:Pseudo-Richard/Role of Jews in the development of capitalism It will be difficult to hit the right NPOV stance on these articles but that challenge should not cause us to delete encyclopedic content. See my proposal in the section below titled "Can parts of this article be salvaged by creating articles on specific encyclopedic subtopics?" --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 02:21, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (without prejudice to recreation by a competent editor who knows the subject) You could write an article on the "Economic history of the Jews" but I'm afraid the current article is hopelessly flawed. At the moment the reader would come away with the impression that the only economic activity Jews have ever engaged in is money-lending/high finance. In other words, whether it was the author's intention or not, it reinforces the traditional "money-grubbing" stereotype dear to anti-Semites. Apparently there have never been any Jewish craftsmen, farmers, factory workers, doctors etc. --Folantin (talk) 10:16, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, slrubenstein, brewcrewer, Carrite, Cullen328, SV, JFW, Mathsci, and Epeefleche. --Yoavd (talk) 10:46, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Folantin. There's no 'Economic history' of any real Jewish community in the article, no real depth, merely a synth meant to give academic respectability to prejudice. Poliocretes (talk) 12:46, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, per SV, Jayjg and others. Stereotypically anti-Semitic undertones and in your face overtones don't cut it...Modernist (talk) 16:05, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Per BrownHairedGirl. Notable topic, just needs to be written neutrall with no agenda. Bit vague though, Jews of which region?♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:05, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Whatever the contents of the current article, the topic is a.) notable and b.) can support an encyclopedia entry. Rewrite if need be, but it shouldn't be deleted. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 20:14, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The list of reliable sources at the top of this AfD clearly shows that the topic is discrete and notable and is not, in and of itself, a synthesis. From what the sources appear to be saying, the relationship between Jews and their community economies appears to be a significant part of that people's history. If I wanted to learn more about the topic, Wikipedia would be one of the fist places I would look. If the article has POV problems, that is not the fault of the topic, but of the editors who have been involved with it. I suggest that interested editors, perhaps including WP:ISRAEL, put the article on their to do list for improvement. With the large amount of quality sources available, there is no reason why this article couldn't become a Featured Article. Cla68 (talk) 23:37, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• See related AfDs: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Economic history of the Muslims and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Economic history of the Christians. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 01:53, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Folantin et al. The article is little more than a coatrack and an example of original research by synthesis. Prioryman (talk) 08:16, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment How about Jews and nose form to complement Jews and money? Chesdovi (talk) 11:27, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A fantastically insightful and well-sourced article on a very interesting topic. In my opinion, it is very neutral, and provides the reader with the information he/she did not have before.--Therexbanner (talk) 11:36, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Wikipedia has a very similar article, Economic history of the Greek diaspora.I.Casaubon (talk) 14:16, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • That you created two hours ago in response to this AfD. Let's not mislead people here. 28bytes (talk) 15:23, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The article is based on books about anti-Semitism. No evidence that the topic exists outside anti-Semitic studies. TFD (talk) 15:19, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even if we grant your assertion that the topic does not "exist outside anti-Semitic studies", does that mean that the topic is not encyclopedic? If antisemitism is encyclopedic, is this topic encyclopedic as a subtopic of antisemitism? Is the article based on "antisemitic books" or is it based on "books about antiSemitism"? If the books are about antisemitism (rather than being antisemitic) and are reliable sources, how is that an argument for deletion? --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 15:29, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Article has no correct focus. AFolkSingersBeard (talk) 15:53, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• — AFolkSingersBeard (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Keep, notable with notable refs, well referenced, reasonably neutral, but less than fully comprehensive. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 16:38, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete it is not possible to write an article on the Economic history of the Jews. An encyclopedia, perhaps. But not an article. Most of the material is better placed in smaller articles on, for example, banking at particulr periods and regions, or on the activities of Jews at particular places and times. such as Jews in the Middle Ages, Golden age of Jewish culture in the Iberian Peninsula, Jews in the Italian Middle Ages, Jews in the French Middle Ages, Jews in the German Middle Ages. Wikipedia is entirely too open to highly political articles. We have, for example, Jews and the slave trade, although Jews played an extremely minor role in that particular line of business. It is, not incidentally, by the author of this article. But there are no articles on Jews in the needle trades, Jews and the Labor Movement, Jews and the American civil Rights Movement or Jews and the industrial revolution in Hungary, all serious topics that would make useful, manageable articles. Unlike this.I.Casaubon (talk) 20:37, 31 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]

• Delete - it's entirely WP:OR and SYNTH. It's also historically illiterate - and quite bizarre - e.g. why a section on Karl Marx - who wasn't even Jewish (except ethnically)? Avaya1 (talk) 04:00, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Huh?? Because he wrote On the Jewish Question, just maybe!!! DeCausa (talk) 23:20, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep & improve. I have sampled an alleged improper use of antisemitic sources in this article, which was presented to ArbCom. Based on that, I don't think the article is so out line with NPOV as to require deletion, and the question of WP:OR/WP:SYNTH does not hold water. Plenty of WP:RSes discuss the topic, and plenty of wp:secondary ones provide commentary; a fair attempt has been made to use them. There is definitely room for improvement though. Tijfo098 (talk) 08:34, 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.