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. There is no consensus to salt; some favor recreation, which would presumably make a redirect from this title appropriate. This content is deleted for massive original research and apparent POV issues. It should not be reposted. If, as some suggest, users would like to recreate this article, please start from scratch without the OR and advocacy that has marred this page. Cool Hand Luke 02:05, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jews against zionism (2nd nomination)[edit]

Jews against zionism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

WP:POV neologism. One cannot just take a phrase and lump together a bunch of tangentially related items and claim that it is an article. The term was only used in the past for a website that was deemed not notable, see both Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jews Against Zionism and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jews against zionism, not to mention Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jews Against Zionism (disambiguation). To me, it appears we have a person desperately trying to circumvent accepted policy, by any means necessary, to push a fringe POV and/or original research-based synthesis and neologism. If anything, there is grounds for calling for a Speedy Delete in this case. Avi 00:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete G4, then redirect per the previous AFD, then protect the redirect. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:10, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. This is also a case violating WP:POINT, WP:NOT#SOAPBOX, and WP:REICHSTAG. IZAK 01:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. IZAK 01:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and Semi-Protect delete per nom. also since this is the second nomination and it was already deleted once, I say Semi-Protect it.--NightRider63 01:42, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and WP:SALT it... Actually speedy under G4 too. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:33, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Avi and IZAK. 6SJ7 06:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and IZAK. That this crap has remained on WP for nearly a month is a disgrace to the project. I fully recognize that there are probably 350k articles that are even more attrociously uncyclopaedic, but destroying this one is as good a place as any. Make this rubbish disappear. Tomer^talk 07:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  To clarify my viewpoint...there is room for much of this material in Wikipedia, but this article is without question, not the place for it. The article in question violates the "synthesis" clause of WP:NOR to its core. Anyone who can seriously pretend to defend an article covering a "phenomenon" that counts among its supporters Noam Chomsky and R' Teitelbaum is, disgracefully, grasping at straws. That said, should anyone fail to grasp what I'm saying, getting rid of the list of "anti-Zionist" rabanim turns the article into an irrelevant discussion among a few academics, who by happenstance are Jewish, and who oppose the Jewish state. Not noteworthy. Study the two academicians listed as "Jews against zionism" (forget for a moment the incorrect capitalization of the article's name)... neither of the two prominently listed academic "Jews against Zionism" are ever, anywhere, noted for their strong identification with Jews--they simply happen to be Jews. Nor are either of them even remotely observant of Judaism--in fact both have made unabashèd statements about Judaism that quite clearly indicate their alienation from Judaism, if not outright hatred of Judaism. Beyond that, neither of them are anti-Zionist, but rather, very specifically anti-Israel...an important, but oft-overlooked distinction--especially among people who, rather than channelling their energies into the betterment of humanity, instead prefer to waste the world's time by blithering on about random Jews whose ill-considered remarks so often provide fodder for all manner of troublemakers. Remove the academics (seriously tho, the fact that the two academics brought forward in support of this pseudophenomenon are Chomsky and his disgraced erstwhile lackey Finkelstein, speaks to the intellectual bankruptcy of the article's pretense of premise) and the article of necessity becomes an intra-Jewish polemic over whether or not Zionism can be a legitimate outcome of the prayers observant Jews say every day--prayers that plead with God to establish Jews in the ancient land of God's promise...an argument that is uncannily difficult, intentionally, one could argue, to tack down, but evenso, still not encyclopaedia fodder. Large portions of this article may well fit elsewhere, such as in Zionism, but there is already a section there, at Zionism#Anti-Zionism and post-Zionism, which links to articles for both the aforementioned phenomena—, well covered already in the Anti-Zionism and Post-Zionism articles. This article seems to be primarily the product of a single-issue editor intent on presenting Wikipedia articles of interest to him according to hiw own views (a position the editor himself has previously expressed in no uncertain terms), unfortunately. Tomer^talk 07:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a religious Jew it does indeed bother me to see secular heretics in one article with religious rabbis, and i would make this in 2 different articles, also i think u r mistaken that the liberal anti Zionism isn't a Jewish thing, see the article itself that this is indeed seen by them as a Jewish cause. They may be misguided but it is out there, this wikipedia article only brings you the sources. It does not make this case.--יודל 20:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spectacular. So your !vote then is actually to delete this pathetic excuse for an "article", correct? Tomer^talk 05:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

my vote is delete only one excuse and make it a keep for 2 excuses for 2 different articles, one for the religious traditional Jewish view against Zionism, and one for the secular modern Jewish view against Zionism, although they are both Jewish i understand it hurts u to see them recognized on the same page as Jewish so why not divide it?--יודל 12:13, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It does not in any way hurt me, what it does is violate WP:OR, a core Wikipedia policy, by pretending something exists that, except in some editors' fantasy world perhaps, does not. The only thing that should be discussed in this article, once it is correctly capitalized, is the group (or groups, if notable) that go by this name. The rest of the philosophy embraced by such groups is already covered in other articles already. Tomer^talk 13:33, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So now u say it does not exist? on this u wrong it does exist, and how is it original research that everything is sources with many references? Also u r the one who said that every word in this article is true and appears in other wikipedia article, your concern initially was only that the name isn't good and on that we can find agreement--יודל 14:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Either you're just talking crap now, or you're intentionally and obnoxiously misinterpreting what I said. You have shown previously, despite your sometimes poor English, that you're not stupid, so saying you misunderstood is not an option. The name is fine, but not for what this article covers. What this article covers does not exist as a philosophy of the sort the article purports, through synthesis, to describe. Tomer^talk 15:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since this above editor has the Chutspah to deny his own words and than shouts that i am talking crap... I would like to ask him if he remembers who wrote this?: Large portions of this article may well fit elsewhere, such as in Zionism, but there is already a section there, at Zionism#Anti-Zionism and post-Zionism, which links to articles for both the aforementioned phenomena—, well covered already in the Anti-Zionism and Post-Zionism articles or There are Jews opposed to Zionism (and there are already articles covering that subject in great depth).--יודל 15:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, I was right. Intentionally and obnoxiously misinterpreting what I said. Anyone who reads what I actually wrote will see right through your crap as well as your chutzpedik claim that it is I who has exercised chutzpa. Tomer^talk 20:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep - Since 2 years have passed allot of reliable and third party independent sources have been established to basically translate here its notability, and now I recreated the article as a new one with a old talk page that all the concerns from 2 years ago [1] are now void and corrected. This is a legitimate issue of Jews who oppose Zionism, nothing here is OR as Tomer above says this is all written down in other wikipedia articles. Yes some may question my Judaism, some may even question Chomsky's and Finkelstein's Judaism, but that's their POV, those people are real Jews in the worlds media and in all other encyclopedias articles suddenly when their Judaism is in relation with their Anti-Zionism we have to deny their identity. Are most Jews Zionists? I don't know. Are there Jews against Zionism, yes but since we are a fringe group in the eyes of some Jewish editors, we do not exist, and i thought we are supposed to be Neutral.--יודל 11:41, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and Salt Yossiea ^(talk) 14:20, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - several groups of people operate under this name (or, confusingly, can be described in this way) and one of these is operating a high-quality web-site and organisation of some significance, with quite a public profile. JAZ.com sell books, pay for major newspaper ads and appear to organise demonstrations with dozens (maybe 1000s) of people. Entering "Jew" into Google brings them up in position #12 from 37.5 million - we can throw out any suggestion they're not notable enough to warrant an entry.

There is another JAZ a small British group. It must be notable, because some 160 280 sock-puppets have attacked one of its prominent members participating here. There is JewsNotZionists, the Neturei Karta - claiming to speak for some of the Satmars, the community of the JAZ.com people. Two groups are fighting for just one small part of the soul of this movement - we need to document more, not less. There is a Yahoo group of that name and a blogspot for JAZ (though the latter is squatted?!). There is even Zionism on the web, which opposes these groups - surelyi proof positive these movements have a sizeable footprint.

From the encyclopedia point of view, we need a place that brings together all these groups - what else, "Jews Against Zionism (groups)"?. Importantly, we provide a "neutral" location for credible allegations of cheating or other allegations against them, a vital function of the encyclopedia.

Anti-Zionism amongst followers of Judaism is hardly "fringe" JAZ.com claim there are 1 million non-Zionist Jews, of whom 150,000 are anti-Zionist (I'm not sure if they're talking about "active practitioners of Judaism", or secular "followers" of the same religion - if the former, then they'd be a major viewpoint). Many followers of these groups are restricted as to what they can do on the web, and some seem to have language problems participating here, however, they are members of English-speaking societies.

Historically they're not "fringe" either - for 2000 years, they were the main-stream. This situation only changed in 1948 (or was it 1967?) - 60 years (or 40) in 2000 is hardly the default situation (particularily not to anyone watching emigration from Israel).

And the objection that the main flag-carrier (JAZ.com) is "anonymous" or "a blog" does not stand up either - it's a highly 'professional' site with all the characteristics of a second-level "Reliable Source" (the fact that it's "campaigning" doesn't mean it cheats). It specialises in quotes from Rabbis, some of which are significant to articles here. There's every indication it's careful and its contributors really know their subject. Russel Waxman is the editor, Reuven Waxman, Jacob Dershowitz, Leizer Fishberg, Hersh Lowenthal are making detailed contributions, more or less speaking for the the "organisation".

Nor do I understand the significance of "anonymous registration", many people participate anonymously on the web (including most of us). JAZ.com call themselves the "True Torah Jews Against Zionism", and list 11 Rabbis, from LA to Brisk, Eastern Europe with the somewhat dubious "gave their endorsements to various books published by Jews Against Zionism. Their endorsements do not necessarily mean that they approve of everything published on this website". (It's wishy-washy but it's also proof this is not a blog.)

Having said which, the article itself needs improvement, I've started on it. The disambiguation page is also up for deletion when the lesser JAZ groups also need documenting and linking to.

If we were to delete this article, then an entire movement, quite well-known, will have no representation in the project. Much smaller (and much less interesting/controversial) groups than this have their own article.

I note that this AfD is apparently being swarmed with people apparently quite bitter that we dare to have this article/suite of articles. I trust the discussion will be allowed to continue for the usual 5 days before any decision is taken. PR^talk 14:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The information in question is already all over Wikipedia. The article Anti-Zionism has a whole section on religious opposition to Zionism, there is a whole article on Haredim and Zionism and there are articles on Neturei Karta and some of the other groups. I see that some of these articles have various tags on them so there are apparently controversies over the quality, neutrality etc. of those articles -- which I take no position on because I have not read them carefully -- but the articles are there. There may be other articles that I am not aware of. The problem arises when some or all of this information is clumped together in this article with a title that does not match the name used by the majority (if any) of the groups in question. That is OR. 6SJ7 17:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear friend, i have now addressed your concern that the term is not original research, indeed every respected newspaper in the world uses this. a simple Google search would provide you with this term as very very popular and used as its real name. Thanks very much for bringing it up--יודל 18:21, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:6SJ7 - I think you make my point for me - JAZ.com is far, far more significant to the general public than the Haredim (who then get a second bite of the cherry, the "Haredim and Zionism" article). I've never entered "Haredim" into Google, I don't suppose many people have. Whereas I've regularily entered "Jews Against Zionism" since I first came across it 10 years ago. In addition, I see nothing in the encyclopedia about the organisation(s) that carries on the religious "anti-Zionism" web-campaign (whereas I can find mountains on features and sub-divisions of Judaism). JAZ.com (the major user of this name) is also speaking for some quite considerable community, making them still more significant than their hit-rate implies (which, of itself, must be pretty high to get to their position on Google). The more I look at this case, the more I think this article belongs. "Jews Against Zionism" get 47,000 Google hits, that's far more than the titles of other articles I can think of. PR^talk 18:42, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 16:08, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, apples and oranges are being lumped together in an OR manner. I could support the disambig page that sorts out the couple of organizations that get lumped under the name, but this page is original research. --MPerel 16:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the problems are that it is 2 kinds of Jews i agree to make it into 2 articles, is it ok with you?--יודל 16:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think 6SJ7 brings up a good point in that articles already exist which incorporate this information. In the Antizionism article there is a section on Jewish anti-Zionism with two sections, one for political opposition and another for religious opposition, the latter being expanded even further in Haredim and Zionism. --MPerel 18:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For your concern i have a solution make it into 2 separate articles for 6sj7 i would address his point i would reference the term with proper sourcing, just see how many Google reslts use this term, so many people aren't all a single OR.--יודל 18:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete / Recreate with a proper title Poorly titled article, and currently not very valuable, but the subject of Jewish opposition to Zionism is surely notable. Up until ~1945 anti-Zionism was actually the majority Jewish position, and there remain hundreds of thousands of Jews who reject Zionism for religious reasons, plus an unknown number who reject it on humanitarian or nationalistic grounds. I think it would be useful to summarize these various POVs, in more detail than we currently have in Anti-Zionism. But I can't really argue that this article is an unsalvageable mess. <eleland/talkedits> 20:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the nomination and add (kosher) salt. Burntsauce 21:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per PR and rename to a less POV title. Carbon Monoxide 23:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and Recreate Delete for all the good reasons described above, and create a new article about the notable British group Jews Against Zionism (mentioned by PR above and discussed by RolandR here). — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 06:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question - why do you suggest this article be deleted, although you'd like to see the other proposed JAZ article created? There is considerable information on those behind the Brooklyn JAZ, even though they're a bit shy and their community is wary of the web. PR^talk 16:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Anti-Zionism without prejudice to re-splitting the Anti-Zionism article into multiple ones if space considerations call for it. The author should attempt to avoid WP:POVFORK and have this point of view represented in the Anti-Zionism article. --Shirahadasha 16:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • • If you consider that the name Jewish anti-Zionism is indeed less Notable and less established then the title Jews against Zionism, the issue about WP:POVFORK would be void. But i do thank u for your advice.--יודל 20:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article now appears to be on the general topic of Jewish opposition to Zionism rather than on a single specific group. Because this topic is notable whether or not the article's current name and content is appropriate, the only issues I see here are WP:POVFORK, duplication of content, and appropriateness of name. --Shirahadasha 16:24, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, rename to the suggested title Jewish opposition to Zionism, and remove heavy original research ("The Holocaust and Communism established Zionism in the mainstream" ROTFLMAO, or is it true?). The topic is valid. Mukadderat 04:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Not Communism, but the one-two punch of the Holocaust and the establishment of the State of Israel turned most of the world's surviving Jews into Zionists, or at least supporters of Israel. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 04:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually, my interpretation was with respect to the Sharanskys of the world, who, disillusioned and betrayed by the heirs of the Revolution, turned against Communism to Zionism (of a somewhat different brand than Herzl's), albeit somewhat late. Tomer^talk 06:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I don't vote, so no opinion need be infered from this comment. The book of the same name was reviewed in a journal article by [Robert Rockaway] International Journal of Middle East Studies 24 (1992): 334-335. Alastair Haines 06:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC). See also Middle Eastern studies.[reply]

• Delete Way too much original research and a host of other reasons. : Danny Weintraub : Albion moonlight 08:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and recreate, per the arguments raised by others. The current article is garbage; the subject matter is worthy of an article. CJCurrie 18:40, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  While I am normally on the opposite "side" of whatever CJCurrie argues in favor of, I think hir statement here quite concisely sums up my sentiments w/ respect to this article. There are Jews opposed to Zionism (and there are already articles covering that subject in great depth), but the JaZ folks have made enough of a splash on the intarweb that they do warrant an article, replete with "See also" links to the aforementioned relevant articles that cover other aspects of this subject. This article, however, glosses over that in favor of bringing together a wide and disparate range of viewpoints and, through synthesis (making an incredibly shoddy article in the process) seeks to make a wide-ranging phenomenon of it, giving undue weight to the groups that have adopted this name, through inclusion of every group that has not. OK, enough of my blithering. Tomer^talk 05:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the blithering it helps understand the issue, i think there may be consensus in your favor to divide the secular opposition from the religious traditional opposition.--יודל 12:13, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There already is at least one article (which I cited above) that deals with both secular and religious Jewish anti-Zionism together. That article is already there, and has a reasonably neutral title, so we really don't need this one, which does not have a neutral title. Whether it is technically a POV fork, I am not sure; but the duplication of what is in other articles is one of the reasons why it should be deleted. 6SJ7 17:22, 16 October 2007 (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.