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

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. For rationale see talk page. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 06:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stereotypes of Jews[edit]

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

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

  • Delete duh Sceptre (talk) 00:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC) Striking duplicate vote. 16:41, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep duh. There's an article on "Stereotypes of African Americans" that people seem to think has merit. Certainly, a similar article examining the stereotypes of Jews through the ages, in historical and sociological context, is useful. Currently the "article" is little more than a list -- a stub of sorts -- that requires expanding. But certainly not deletion. What's good for the goose.... deeceevoice (talk) 00:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment This user was blocked for disruption soon after making that comment. Enigma msg 07:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. —Juzhong (talk) 00:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete duh, based on the Stereotypes of African Americans article, which is a model for this article, or maybe Merge to Antisemitism when this article is deleted, I think this should be redirected to Antisemitism, which already has several examples of Jewish stereotypes. Terrible POV magnet, causing much untold grief. Delete and salt. travb (talk) 00:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, (edit conflict) but not based on the WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument the others have put. At least the current version of the article which describes Jews as "venal, money-grubbing or thrifty, enterprising" can be verifiable but just not verified as of yet (I also claim some common sense in this case). One need not go far to find scholarly sources analyzing Jewish stereotypes Google Scholar, for instance. MuZemike (talk) 01:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • You forgot the customary "Duh". I changed my vote from keep to merge, everything that was written here, is better and more thoroughly written on the Antisemitism page. I encourage the creator to add sourced content there. travb (talk) 01:17, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I disagree with your suggestion to merge. Yeah, I started the article as a list merely to get the ball rolling; it was totally stream-of-conscious and not intended to be an article. And, yes, I did it, in part, because "other crap exists." (Why the hell should Black folks be the only ones on Wikipedia with a separate article on stereotypes? I'm fed up with the disparity in treatment. Answer: They shouldn't.) Aside from that, the matter of Jewish stereotypes is certainly important enough to be treated at length in an article separate from one on anti-Semitism, which, although it may touch upon negative perceptions of Jews, is not the ideal venue for a thorough examination of the subject. One obvious reason to start a separate article is a practical one: article length. Some examination of these stereotypes/archetypes through the ages and how they have shaped public perception and impacted history could be fascinating, enlightening stuff -- if people are willing to do the work to produce a quality article. deeceevoice (talk) 02:05, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 01:24, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article has since been edited and the litany of unverified attributes removed, and replaced with a fine stub. My main concern was the list, that was a terrible excuse for an article. Since we clearly have sources for expansion, and the list has been replaced with a stub, I've no problem withdrawing the AfD should someone wish to do so. seresin ( ¡? )  01:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Check the article talk page. There's plenty of source material there for a good start on a decent article. (It was easy enough to come up with in just a few minutes by merely googling "Jewish stereotypes," "Jewish archetypes," "Satanic Jews," "Jewish stereotypes Nazi Germany," etc. Jeeze.) The subject is certainly worthy of a stand-alone piece.

      Oh, yeah. Duh. ;) deeceevoice (talk) 02:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      • Dee, wake up, he is willing to withdraw the AfD. Say thank you, tell him he is a great editor, and move on. I still think this article should be merged into antisemitism. travb (talk) 03:30, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There's probably a good article here, but what's on the page is rubbish. The article needs to be cited, and the citations need to be scholarly. As is stands, this reads like a really bad middle school essay. I would also just like to gently caution anyone about being overzealous in trying to save this article. Sensitivity is needed and sourcing needs to be done thoughtfully and carefully. Removing uncited assertions isn't censorship, it's being a good editor.` AniMatetalk 01:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's censorship when it's removed from the article talk space -- which is why I restored it. Save your "editing" for the article. deeceevoice (talk) 02:09, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Again Dee, I understand your frustration as a new editor having a page deleted. But you are making enemies here. Strike or remove your comment, and apologize. Not for the editor you are apologizing too, but for your own self interest. travb (talk) 02:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as contentless wiki-link farm. The article creator herself admits (in the article creation edit) to this being a case of WP:OTHERCRAP (and her choice of targets is bringing me back to 1984). To put it bluntly, I see nothing here worth saving. Perhaps a few of the wiki-links could be moved to the Antisemitism "see also". Regardless of whether or not this title could make for an encyclopedic article (and it may well make for one), I think we can all agree that this current "stub" is neither encyclopedic nor a critical "stepping-stone" foundation for a future encyclopedic article - so nothing of serious merit will be lost in its deletion. If the article is substantially re-written before close, I will happily re-visit my opinion. Badger Drink (talk) 02:33, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per POV, farming, non-encyclopedic. Yossiea (talk) 16:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From 3rd nomination[edit]

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

Stereotypes of Jews[edit]
  • Delete Unsourced and highly negative article. As the previous AFD was withdrawn, I don't think it's eligible to be kept because of a pre-existing consensus, especially seeing as the list is currently under scrutiny at ANI. Sceptre (talk) 04:33, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I think it's a good topic for an article--it strikes me as highly encyclopaedic and I don't see this content as antisemitic.--S Marshall Talk/Cont 04:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC) -- my view changed on reading the altered article, see later comment.--S Marshall Talk/Cont 16:20, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Dance With The Devil (talk) 04:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment you need to say why.--S Marshall Talk/Cont 04:46, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would support a merge to anti-semitism, but a nomination within hours of the last one seems rather vexatious. Dance With The Devil (talk) 04:53, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nevermind, it would be best if this was deleted and a more serious attempt at coverage done elsewhere/some over time. Dance With The Devil (talk) 05:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - any meaningful content (which there is none here) could be placed in Antisemitism or Ethnic stereotype, but I can see no use whatsoever for having a topic here. --B (talk) 04:57, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I was going to say merge anything vaguely encyclopedic to either antisemitism or some form of cultural depiction section at Jew...but there is not text here. I hate seealso bits. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:05, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 05:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a WP:POINTy exercise in WP:OTHERCRAP. There is potentially a good article about this subject waiting to be written, but considering its history this isn't going to be it. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 05:26, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in its present form it refers to sufficiently notable topics with wp articles--in essence, a disam page or a list article. I think its tolerable. DGG (talk) 05:26, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete The old version was an obvious delete, the current one... is sketchy. Take away all the bad stuff and what you're left with doesn't really say much. This could be a well-researched and interesting topic, but in its current incarnation just seems to be more trouble than it's worth. l'aquatique |✡| talk 05:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There could be an article on this topic, but it would need to be properly sourced and comply with WP:NPOV rather than a mere stream of consciousness as this article has been.Rlendog (talk) 06:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Looks like a dicdef with another bit that would be more appropriate in another article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:55, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If someone wants to recreate this with actual sources they can. I can't help but feel any entry created from this would be tainted. AniMatetalk 07:30, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete POV fork. ScienceApologist (talk) 08:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per Sceptre (!) and due to general lack of helpful content. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 08:46, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm sure a scholarly article could be written on the subject. This isn't it. --Carnildo (talk) 09:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No sourceable content beyond a definition. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Apparently there is sourceable material on this subject, as per the expansion of the article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:50, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The above opinions generally fail to address the potential of the article, per our policies WP:IMPERFECT and WP:BEFORE. In particular, If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD. The main article Jew seems to have little to say about this topic and is already over 100K which is too large per WP:SIZE. There are several notable stereotypes of Jews - the intellectual, mother, userer, etc. - and it took me all of 10 seconds to find a book which is dedicated solely to this topic: From Shylock to Svengali: Jewish Stereotypes in English Fiction. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Articles that could be strongly POV need strong sources from the start. If this is going to stay it can only stay with proper citations and sources. Bring up Stereotypes of African Americans is excellent - that is a well structured, properly sourced robust article. This stub (and its predecessors) is hopeless. Unusual? Quite TalkQu 10:29, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have expanded the article from the source mentioned above. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, inherently original research and POV. Stifle (talk) 11:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We can do better than this. For almost any minority group you can find perfectly reasonable people asserting all manner of vective in their general direction. This doesn't make it encyclopedic and in a case like this actually harms the project and is a disservice tto all concerned; our editors, admins cleaning up one dramedy after the next and our readers who look to us for insightful sharing what reliable sources have reported - not a wp:coatrack of cultural slurs. -- Banjeboi 12:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have added a citation to the Encyclopædia Britannica to address your comment that the topic is not encyclopedic. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Antisemitism is certainly encyclopedic and I think this actually is a POV fork of that article. Stereotype articles can be useful, enlightening, etc. but this one simply isn't in that league. Sometimes articles are more trouble than they're worth - this one looks to be a POV magnet. -- Banjeboi 04:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article now has 3 sources which address the topic directly and in detail, and there are many more available. The article is fully cited to these sources, so concerns of original research and WP:COATRACKhood are unfounded. Currently it looks like a WP:LIST, which makes me uncomfortable but isn't grounds for deletion, and there are plenty of sources for discussing rather than merely listing stereotypes. Juzhong (talk) 12:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are several strong sources on the article talk page as well. deeceevoice (talk) 15:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • My current efforts have been to establish a good framework for the article. The job of hanging prose upon this skeleton is made difficult because of the hot-button nature of the topic which will require good citations for every sentence, I expect. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:41, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Topic sensitivity is no reason for censorship. deeceevoice (talk) 15:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Furthermore, the reopening of this AfD is purely punitive in the wake of a disagreement over User:travb/User: Inclusionist's (same user) determination to improperly edit/hide from view my talk page contributions and a threat on my talk page. See my comments here[1] First, he supports the article, then withdraws his support when he doesn't get his way. What? So, suddenly the article no longer has merit? Hogwash!deeceevoice (talk) 17:41, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep (changed from weak keep above as a result of revisions to the article). First, I agree with Deeceevoice that topic sensitivity is not grounds for censorship. Second, I agree with DGG that it serves as a potentially useful counterpoint to anti-semitism. Third, I share Dance With The Devil's concern that the repeated nominations in AfD may be vexatious rather than substantive; this could be a case of WP:KEEPLISTINGTILITGETSDELETED.--S Marshall Talk/Cont 16:20, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • STONG KEEP I'm in Thailand where Thai Chinese—particularly the Hakka—are often compared compared to Jews, either as a compliment or in disparagement, depending upon the bias of lecturer or audience. (So similar are they that the Chinese Jews have had difficulty in retaining their ethnic identity.) I'd like to see the present article grow so that a Chinese article could be cloned from it. And Gypsies and Indians and Persians in diaspora, too. The common thread that I see is ancestral ties going back to time immemorial, and shared behaviors in how in- and out-groups react in very similar ways to the resulting strictures. This in contrast with ethnic stereotypes that don't maintain comparable lineage memes.Pawyilee (talk) 13:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; it'll take some hard work to pull this together, but it can happen. I did a quick review of the sources and things are looking good. WP:NOT reminds us that Wikipedia isn't censored; any view expressed here in AfD along the lines of "we shouldn't have an article like this" conflicts with that core policy. I also think that there is a difference between "antisemitism" (i.e. fear or hatred of Jews) and simple stereotypes (i.e. Jews are often known for having big noses), so a merge between this article and antisemitism is unwarranted. Warren -talk- 18:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If someone wants to put the hard work in they can do it. Until then, I don't think we should be keeping articles around based on their potential. StonerDude420 (talk) 18:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your view is contrary to policy. And, FWIW, some hard work has been done on this article today. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:43, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed to Weak keep I was musing on this long and hard, and I conceivably could imagine an article which doesn't fall into antisemitism or the rather large jew article, if I think of such material as Leo Rosten's Joys of Yiddish and possibly some scholarly material on Shylock (Shakespeare) as well as some 20th century self-reflective material by jewish humorists and satirists themselves. As noted above, article quality is no reason for deleted, but it does need to be started from scratch. and has found some much-needed material - I'd delete uch of the seealso section though. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:35, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • PS: Note to closer - article has drastically changed since commencement of AfD. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • --Creator of article Canvassed two people to participate in this AfD: [2]"Your opinion/action is solicited" [3] travb (talk) 21:08, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Colonel Warden. Edison (talk) 21:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is garbage. No, it's just plain crap. There is a scholarly manner to present this type of information, but this is like a list of insults. It's poorly sourced. It has no context. And it's just anti-Semitism in its current form. I'm appalled by some of the comments in even this discussion. Someone actually said Jews have big noses. I just had my family here, all Jews (going back so many generations, it's ridiculous), and no one has a big nose. I just am appalled. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 21:33, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're talking about me, aren't you? Look, stereotypes are "generalized perceptions of first impressions"; they don't automatically apply to everybody within a group. If you're really coming into an AfD discussion and saying, "I'm a Jew and I'm personally offended by this article, therefore it should be deleted", remember that WP:COI and WP:NPOV remind us to leave our personal biases at the door when we come to Wikipedia. If that's going to be difficult for you, please recuse. Let's make decisions about articles based on Wikipedia's policies regarding inclusion criteria, not "I'm offended". Warren -talk- 21:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Quite the contrary. There will always be someone who is offended by any piece of information, even if it's "Gas is expensive in Alaska". But when you have a large number of established and respected users coming out and saying, "this is offensive" that's a pretty good sign that there's a serious problem with neutrality. l'aquatique |✡| talk 04:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually, that's not the contrary. Go back and read what Warren wrote and think long and hard, bearing what our policies actually are in mind. We do have to suppress personal biases in order to write neutrally. And whether an article's current content is non-neutral is not a criterion for deletion. Only whether it can be rendered non-neutral, by editing and expansion, is. The correct response to an article that is non-neutral because it is incomplete is to complete it. Several content-writing editors here opining to delete should take note of the good example given by Colonel Warden in this case, and consider themselves shamed by the one editor so far who has actually followed policy and attempted to transform a bad stub written purely with the intention to disrupt into a good stub that starts the treatment of an encyclopaedic and notable subject that has been specifically documented by scholars, with sources in hand. Uncle G (talk) 18:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't think this needs a comment. This is just not appropriate, period! I'm offended and I don't offend easily. --CrohnieGalTalk 21:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The subject is notable. If we don't like the present form , we should find WP:RS's and edit it to bring it up to speed. WP:DONTLIKEIT not a good reason to delete an article.Die4Dixie (talk) 22:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, redirect and delete We already have Antisemitism for a scholarly treatment of such material. Merge the (tiny) amount of useful information into that article and redirect, much as Polish Jokes redirects to Anti-Polish sentiment. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:18, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Antisemitism. The two subjects overlap to the point where this is pretty much a subset of Antisemitism. It makes sense to keep it all in one place. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:30, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • All stereotypes are not antisemitic. How is being clever at business antisemitic, and where would "being clever business men" belong in an article about antisemitism ? Die4Dixie (talk) 23:55, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's a way to reinforce a stereotype without being overtly insulting, like saying blacks have "natural rhythm." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:03, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have personally heard some African americans say whites can't dance/have no rythm, with the proud implication being that they indeed do. Where is the self hating insult (even occult if not "overt") that the Balcks are self directing?Die4Dixie (talk) 00:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Based on your user name, I'm guessing that you have the racial sensitivity of an amoeba. Just how many whites were gassed at Treblinka because they couldn't dance. I'm shaking with anger at your boneheaded statement. OrangeMarlin Talk•Contributions 04:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • I note the personal attack. A quick glance at the article assures me that "shaking" is an unfortunate choice of words given the stereotype here [[4]]. Are you trying to say because of the unfortunate events at Treblinka, that there are no stereotypes of Jews that are notable?Die4Dixie (talk) 07:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • What the fuck are you talking about? OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 07:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • Xe is talking about the fact that with your ad hominem argument based upon nothing but your own ideas of what xyr user name means, you have successfully de-railed what was until that point a quite civil discussion on a relevant point: whether the topic here can properly be considered to be a sub-topic of anti-semitism. The argument against that is quite convincing, not least because there are quite a lot of sources that note that not all generalizations of Jews are negative, and that indeed have studied and surveyed this. Although the subjects are closely interlinked, neither is in fact a proper sub-set of the other. Uncle G (talk) 18:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Dude, who asked you? Not I. Old southern charm there went with some very caustic anti-Semitic, baiting remarks. The comparison between anti-Semitism and his inability to dance is so laughable as to make me wet myself. Your comments are pointed in the wrong fucking direction. I'll accept your apologies on my user talk page. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 22:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                        • "Dude", the same person who asked you to start attacking me. Implying I'm an antisemite is over the top. You were never baited, you came into the discussion shaking, frothing at the mouth, and employing ad hominem attacks.. I hadn't directed a word to you on this project untill you personalized an academic discussion about antisemitism. If you can't discuss the subject in a civil manner, perhaps you should not be on pages that even touch on Jews. Just stop with the attacks already.Die4Dixie (talk) 04:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (or perhaps merge wit Antisemitism) Note: I am referring to this revision (most recent at time of commenting). We have antisemitism which could treat the subject within a wider context and examine "benign" and (whatever the opposite of benign is...malignant?) stereotypes. There is, additionally, no assertion of "stereotypes" -as separate from antisemitic stereotypes- being inherently notable. Since benign stereotypes can fall under the antisemitic umbrella: I see no reason for a separate article. Lastly, I fear this growing trend: first stereotypes of Jews, then: stereotypes of Sephardi Jews, then: stereotypes of Hasidism, and so on. I have seen the three "stereotypes of" (blacks, jews, white people) articles; none indicate to me any independent notability, freedom from NPOV, or dedication to sourcing from reliable, secondary sources. The subject should be treated witin the requisite parent articles. Lazulilasher (talk) 01:30, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Side note: although the article has footnotes, I am unable to verify most of the information due to the lack of page numbers (specifically: Rosenberg and Goodman/Miyazawa). This is not a criteria for deletion, but hints at the difficulty at keeping the article as assidously verifiable and NPOV as possible. Lazulilasher (talk) 01:30, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I didn't put page numbers for the Rosenberg source because it is used to verify multiple stereotypes and its structure is to have a chapter for each stereotype. Its contents page and introduction are adequate for the information currently in the article. More complex, multi-level citations might be used as the article develops. Colonel Warden (talk) 01:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, I see where you're going with that; generally, I would not have issue with this. In this case, however, I feel that the topic at hand (i.e. stereotypes) is in inherently controversial as to require direct citations. Further: I feel that the article should still be understood within the wider "antisemitism" paradigm. Kindly, Lazulilasher (talk) 02:09, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unencyclopedic fork of antisemitism. Mathsci (talk) 03:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom User:Yossiea. Avi (talk) 03:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While the topic certainly makes us uncomfortable, this is a sourced list that provides links to a variety of different topics surrounding the issue. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 07:35, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete for the lot The entire string of Stereotypes of (whomever) articles bring discredit on the project, though this is a particularly bad example. They all boil down to "(group) has been characterized as (list of insults)" where the insults never are based in fact even if a WP:RS can be found to record that the insult has been used. Why promulgate this crap?LeadSongDog (talk) 08:09, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, the subject does not boil down to that if one consults sources rather than one's own preconceptions. (One part of the neutral point of view is leaving one's prejudices at the door, and writing for the Enemy.) There's actually rather a lot of source material, written by psychologists, sociologists, historians, and other scholars dealing with this subject, much of it under this specific title even.

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

      Stubs are imperfect and almost by definition not comprehensive treatments of a subject. And this 4-day-old article is a stub. There's one aspect of this subject, for example, that is currently dealt with in this current article in a single sentence, that I know actually occupies an entire book, written by a professor of literature at the University of Illinois and a professor of history at a college in Kyoto. That one sentence alone has scope for massive expansion from reliable sources. Uncle G (talk) 18:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - and probably the lot, as LeadSongDog says. We already have Antisemitism, we don't need a list of insults (even if there are some compliments). dougweller (talk) 09:50, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article is certainly in bad shape, but giving editors some time to make improvements -- in response to criticisms made here -- seems justified. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • If there is any serious consideration of merging as an option, rather than merging with the Antisemitism article (which is already very large), the Stereotype article might be the better choice, particularly since there is a Jewish stereotypes section [5]. I would be willing to support that as an option. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:20, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom Shot info (talk) 12:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - a clearly notable and well-formed subject, distinct from related subjects (e.g. antisemitism, or actual non-stereotypical generalizations about Jews), easily passes notability guidelines given that there are entire books about the subject. The article is very rudimentary and sloppy, but as trimmed to eliminate original research it is simply a very early stub/start class article in need of expansion. Ther article has been a magnet for trolls and bigots, and may require continued monioring, but we can't let that dissuade us from creating an encyclopedia.Wikidemon (talk) 15:26, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. "List of stereotypes of Jews" is a plausible article (which would have to be permanently protected, to prevent obvious vandalism), but this is not the start of such an article. Arbitrary list of stereotypes, mostly sourced to the references stating the stereotypes, rather than referring to their prevalence. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Yes, the article needs a lot of work. But that is not by itself a reason to delete it. Given the massive history of stereotyping of Jews (with such prominent literary examples as Shakespeare and Charles Dickens) there's more than enough material to have a decent article on this topic. The fact that stereotypes exist is not antisemtic nor is it POV. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete - this does not treat the subject in a scholarly or intelligent manner. Rather, it seems to start with a preconceived set of stereotypes then adds some hastily added citations from which there are no supporting commentary. Nothing in this article furthers the understanding of stereotypes or, in this case, anti-Semiticism and only serves to thinly veil bad jokes. It is offensive in form and presentation and content. Nothing that is presented here couldn't be covered in Anti-Semitism. Wildhartlivie (talk) 18:21, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and drastically improve. Yes, the article is ugly and embarrassing to the encyclopedia as it stands, but the subject is clearly notable and (sadly) it can be verified that these allegations have been made. Jews have been a minority people for most of their existance and as such its no suprize that stereotypes have popped up over time and these have been well recorded and written about. The subject easily passes WP:N and WP:V. Themfromspace (talk) 19:54, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would suggest that the closing administrator disregard all comments that support deletion per nom, since I'm the nom, and I already withdrew this nomination and therefore my argument above, as it no longer applies to this article. I nominated the article to get rid of the list that was the earliest incarnation of this article, which is what my nomination statement addresses. The list is gone, so I'm happy. It clearly can be made into a good article. I certainly won't, but we're allowed to keep a substandard article because someone might. So I support keeping the article. (And making sure that list doesn't come back.) seresin ( ¡? )  22:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, just because you withdrawl your arguement and don't support it anymore, doesn't actually mean that others don't have to follow. Personally I agree with your nomination for AfD and disagree with your withdrawl of the nomination. So for what it's worth you cannot strike a bunch of deletes in this manner. Shot info (talk) 22:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are suggesting that delete votes on the basis that this is still a "Completely unverified article full of original research" are not votespam junk? Juzhong (talk) 23:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Worse than a POV fork, it's a POV garbage can; anything here is better covered in more general articles. In addition it is an embarrassing hate-magnet, and its creation seems to have been an act of retaliation for having another equally-offensive article somewhere else. Anyone capable of holding their nose that long could merge anything useful into the stereotype article (rather than burdening the antisemitism article with the additional load). Antandrus (talk) 23:20, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm back after a 24-hour block for insisting that a list I authored remain on the article talk page. It's back. And it's annotated -- as an aid to others who wish to actually write an article/flesh it out further. Those of you who who are voting for deletion because the article as it stands is sketchy should take note. The article was just begun yesterday. And the information in the article, the list of sources I presented earlier, plus the (despised), annotated list, and the sources added by User: Colonel Warden (I may be wrong, but he and I seem to be just about the only ones -- plus User: Juzhong, maybe -- who've actually been working at producing something encyclopedic) provide more than enough credible, scholarly sources to frame a useful article. And those of you who've charged me with "racism," or "anti-Semitism," or whatever other preposterous notion you can come up with -- hey, I couldn't care less what you think about me. The issue here is the project. The article has merit, is encyclopedic with more than enough material to merit a separate entry -- and it should stand. deeceevoice (talk) 01:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article has no encyclopedic value. The research and presentation can charitably be called a mess. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a POV fork. If any of it is salvageable, it can be merged into Antisemitism. Enigma msg 06:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is a difference between antisemitism and jewish stereotypes. Merging the two articles is inappropriate because they cover two separate concepts. Read antisemitism and stereotype, give it some proper adult thinking time, then come on back and propose something more sensible. Warren -talk- 13:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • See also:　current version of　Stereotypes of white people [6] . Juzhong (talk) 09:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Clearly the beliefs detailed in the article exist. As do stereotypical beliefs about negroes, asiatics, muslims and many other ethnic/racial/religious groupings. But they are still baseless beliefs, are statements of points of view, and hence not appropriate for the encyclopedia. And gathering them together as one article merely makes the points raised POV once removed. But still POV. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 12:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to antisemitism and ethnic stereotype when reliable sources exist. The poor quality sources should be discarded, and are generally going to be racism anyway. The scholarly discussions are going to be reflections on the origins and current impacts, and could do with the broader context of the parent articles. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 15:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - I can't understand why the sensitivity of a subject can be seriously considered grounds for censorship. A merge with Antisemitism would be wholly inappropriate as stereotypes are not necessarily negative in nature. As a Jewish Wikipedian I'm far more offended by the attempt at censorship than by anything in this article. Raitchison (talk) 16:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as part of the series of articles on ethnic stereotypes; see the infobox which has even been made for this series of articles:

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

    • Hi There Wasserman: Take a good look at the articles in this box of {{Ethnic stereotypes}} and you will that most of them are not about "stereotype" conjecturing as such, but are devoted to actual ethnicities and not so much how they are "stereotyped", and they may even be violations of WP:POVFORKING. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 09:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Stereotypes can be encyclopedic. Kingturtle (talk) 18:59, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - like most non-FA articles it could use improvement, but it is a notable topic for which we have some reliable sources, and for which there are numerous reliable sources that exist which could easily be added to the article if someone were interested in tackling the job. -- The Red Pen of Doom 01:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this (1) inevitable violation of WP:POVFORKING (of Stereotype) that's also clearly a (2) POV magnet that will allow wildfires of POV warring, (notice how Stereotypes of Italians and Italian Americans was already conveniently REDIRECTED to Stereotype rather than get into wars in great detail that they are viewed as they are "Fascists, Mafiosis and run drug cartels"). (3) Building articles around such nebulous, volatile and dangerous "themes" such as "stereotypes" pushes the limits of Jews and others "by profession or type" into ridiculus and very dangerous grounds, so that seemingly "encyclopedic" descriptions of Jews leads directly to to "encyclopedic" Der Stürmer-style content with stereotypes and caricturaizations demeaning Jews and (4) it opens up a pandora's box and cans of worms of thinly disguised racism and hate in violation of many other WP violations such as WP:NOTSOAPBOX; WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND; WP:NPA of all Jews and Jewish editors on Wikipedia, WP:CIVILity. (5) Note that Stereotypes of African Americans is also justifiably up for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stereotypes of African Americans because (6) these types of articles topics are attempts to duplicate in negative terms of main articles like Jew and African American, and the material can easily be included in Antisemitism, Racism and the whole range of Discrimination articles as found in the Discrimination template. (7) If there are positive, or negative things to be said, in an obviously careful scholarly and truly significant manner, then they can go into the main articles about Jews or African Americans. (8) Are we now to have Stereotypes of Germans that they are "Jew-haters, racists, Nazis and mass murderers" ands so on and so forth? when these points can be made and included in a a much heaalthier way in other more mainstream articles and these kinds of trivial and demeaning "Stereotypes of ____" articles can be redirected to the relevant articles about each ethnic group and its history. Otherwise, choose a word and it can be added to "Jews" or "African Americans" etc and presto you have a series of lame exdcuses for "articles" about anything that is really nothing notable. IZAK (talk) 09:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your thoughtful response. And it has merit -- except that particularly in cases where the stereotypes are myriad, where they have played a major role in terms of the way they've affected the relevant group, and in the way they've affected human history -- as certainly has been the case with Jews and Blacks -- then I think separate articles are warranted so as to provide sufficient space and opportunity for thorough examination of the subject matter. Certainly, such articles can become troll magnets. But my experience with Wikipedia has been that any article on virtually any particularly despised/stereotyped group or controversial subject can become a troll magnet. Witness the article on Kwanzaa, for example. Speaking from personal experience, if we let the probability that an article would attract attention from racist or otherwise intolerant a**holes prevent its creation, then, speaking from personal experience, then there wouldn't be an article on anything even remotely related to African-Americans here on Wikipedia -- including an article on watermelon. (If you doubt me, check the edit history. Pretty appalling stuff.) That should not be a concern. deeceevoice (talk) 12:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do either of you not see the potential for a useful and informative/encyclopedic article on the subject as I've suggested above? Or, are you simply opposed to the notion of an article on Jewish stereotypes altogether? deeceevoice (talk) 15:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC) 13:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, not really. Either as Stereotypes of Jews or as Stereotyping of Jews, it's never going to be more than a subsection of Antisemitism. There is no potential for an informative/encyclopedic article specifically on the subject of Jewish stereotypes. -LisaLiel (talk) 14:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you do not understand that there is a rather large antisemitism template, with many articles therein. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jewish stereotypes aren't a form of antisemitism. It's extremely unlikely that when Lewis Black gets on a stage and cracks jokes about how his mother, adhering to a Jewish cliche, wanted him to be a doctor, is somehow an expression of, or derivation of antisemitism. It's not. Read the article on stereotype, and you'll see that it's a different concept altogether. Warren -talk- 14:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So do an article on Positive Stereotypes of Jews with a note saying "For negative stereotypes of Jews, see Antisemitism. -LisaLiel (talk) 16:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment after perusing the above, the most interesting factor to me is the huge disjunction between the treatment of "Stereotypes of African Americans" and that of " Stereotypes of Italians and Italian Americans ". this is another case where lack of consensus on an overall policy has been allowed to fester, and crops up as problems elsewhere. the fate of the article in question here should not be addressed in isolation, rather as part of this bigger question, since there could potentially be an article about "stereotypes of X" where X is an infinite number of human characteristics. Gzuckier (talk) 15:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The content is encyclopedic in nature and Wikipedia is an encyclopedia! Besides, there are tons of other articles pertaining to stereotypes, bigotry along with other types of prejudice both historical and contemporary. --yonkeltron (talk) 15:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Rewrite Wiki articles are sometimes determined by the first editor rather than the merit of the article. The topic is a topic fitting for an encyclopedia and there is such an entry in many encyclopedias. However the version in encyclopedias are usually written as history dividing stereotypes based the history of antisemitism (a fork from an antisemtism article) or from a social science perspective on the history of discrimination and prejudice. Unfortunately, this article was started as a non-encyclopedia list with a sense of OR and likely to become a place for contemporary vandals to hang out. Instead of all this energy on 3 nominations for deletion, if someone would take a book like The Devil And The Jews by Joshua Trachtenberg or the Encyclopedia Judaica article on antisemitism, then there would be a good non OR article. If someone wants to do it from a social science point of view then start with these articles http://www.adl.org/antisemitism_survey/survey_ii.asp. As it stands this article has problems with OR and the section divisions and the tone. But as a group, instead of arguing we could probably make this into a useful article in a week. --Jayrav (talk) 16:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Trachtenberg piece sounds like a good source -- and one similar to one on my now improperly expunged (again) list. Please feel free to add these and other sources you deem useful to framing an encyclopedic article on the talk page. Thanks. deeceevoice (talk) 17:36, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
if you are going to rewrite it then also beware of OR:Synthesis. even if everything has a ref, if there are new conclusions or the reverse if there are only certain selected it is OR:Synthesis.if you are going the Devil and the Jews, then it should be a medieval section, separate than the information on late antiquity in Judeophobia by Princeton Scholar Peter Schaffer, and separate from the racial stereotypes of the 19th and early 20th century. There would also need to be sections for urbane ethnic humor- stereotypes. JAP jokes told by Jews are not explicitly part of Antisemitism. As someone said above stereotypes include humor, folklore, and prejudice. I will comment on the talk page once we decide to Keep or delete. --Jayrav (talk) 18:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you Google the name Sandor Gilman you will find lots of material, he is currently the expert on Jewish stereotypes. --Jayrav (talk) 18:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, guys. I've already listed a very good source (or two or three) about stereotypes of Jews as satanic consorts or demons, treating the Middle Ages in the context of Christianity) -- in the (despised, removed) list. I'm going to reinstate the list -- again -- at some point. If it's deleted again, I'll simply have to take the matter back here. It seems hardly worth all the hassle -- particularly since it's quite clear the list is neither OR nor uncited and its deletion is contrary to Wiki policy. (The ironic thing is it's not all negative, either.) When I do, I'll be sure to look up the sources you've cited and add them. I'm glad someone is being constructive to the framing of the article. And I'm already on the business of stereotypes perpetuated by Jews -- particularly in Jewish comedy. The JAP is one, then -- of course -- Jewish mothers and comedians like Jerry Jerry Lewis, Howie Mandell and Michael Richards who portray(ed) spazzes/nerds/geeks. My interest at Wikipedia is in subjects related to Black people, so I actually hadn't intended to write this thing -- just to address the issue of systemic bias. But I may end up working on it after all.... deeceevoice (talk) 21:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Total crap. Doesn't even merit a comment--Gilabrand (talk) 18:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Doomed. Integrate useful content with Antisemitism, bin the rest. JFW | T@lk 20:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I really can't believe the amount of support for deletion. Are people really saying that that this is not a subject that has has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources? Of course it has - that has already been well demonstrated above. The inclusion of this article in Wikipedia is in no way an endorsement of the truth of the stereotypes described, but simply a description of them. Also this is not the same as anti-semitism. Many stereotypes are positive or neutral (the expert cooker of chicken soup; the studious intellectual...) rather than negative. Even if those stereotypes are not true they are notable as stereotypes, so should be included in Wikipedia, as long as they are described as stereotypes and not facts about Jews in general. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. All ethnoracial stereotypes are false generalizations. Period. The only "fact" involved is that members of some group has been erroneously catagorized as homogenous. What encyclopedic value is added by listing them even if a RS has done so? Will they help the reader better understand members of the group? Or do you really think we should be telling readers that all Jews make better chicken soup than Vietnamese do, that all Moslems are teatotallers and that all Indians are vegans? Just saying its a stereotype doesn't remove the harm from the repetition. Freedom of speech is the freedom to speak the truth, not the freedom to slander or libel without consequence. If we allow WP to become a repository of hate the goodwill the project has built up will be squandered.LeadSongDog (talk) 22:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Pretending that stereotypes don't exist won't help anyone. Nobody is saying that these stereotypes should be presented as the truth - the truth involved is that these are stereotypes that have been held. If the article was called Facts about Jews rather than Stereotypes of Jews then your criticism would be valid, but these are, in the article title, clearly presented as stereotypes (i.e., as you say, false generalisations), rather than facts. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:32, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revert back a few days before it got pared down to nothing. This isn't notable? I'm going to say the same thing I said on the "Sterotypes of white people" AFD; are we going to delete all "Stereotypes of X" articles? Sounds like WP:IDONTLIKEIT at work. Squidfryerchef (talk) 00:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Do not redirect to "anti-semitism", because not all stereotypes are negative, and not everyone who believes or jokes about the stereotypes is an anti-Semite. They are separate concepts. Squidfryerchef (talk) 00:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Stereotypes_of_Jews_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1186664101"