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. Strong opinions have been expressed on both sides, but there is no doubt where the consensus of this discussion lies. JohnCD (talk) 20:14, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish boycott of the Western Wall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete per WP:SYNTH and WP:NOR. The core content relates to the long-known cherem (ban) of the Satmar Rebbes and the Neturei Karta sect against their followers visiting the Western Wall. Satmar's position is already discussed and sourced in Satmar (Hasidic dynasty)#Satmar and the State of Israel. To call this a "Jewish boycott" is POV, and to try to build a "case" that other Jews should also boycott the Wall by adding the spurious opinion of an Israeli intellectual is moving into WP:COATRACK. Yoninah (talk) 00:27, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Yoninah (talk) 00:27, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 00:27, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete as per nom Sir Joseph ^(talk) 00:29, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why have neither of the "other" xxx-related deletion discussions been added by any of the above editors? Is this a POV nomination? Chesdovi (talk) 11:28, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. Chesdovi (talk) 11:28, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Chesdovi (talk) 11:28, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Why would a Jewish boycott on the Western Wall require a Palestine or Islam AFD notice? To do so is to admit that this article is a COATRACK. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 03:11, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sir Joseph, open any "Jewish" newspaper and tell me that Palestine and Islam have nothing to do with Jews and Israel. Frankly, I wish they didn't, but they have been unfortunately inextricably linked thanks to the Zionist – (you know, the Jewish national liberation movement) - conquest of Palestine against the will of its Muslim inhabitants… I often find this; many Jews like to link the two when it suits them ("Jews are the real Palestinians") or acknowledge a link to prove their POV ("the Wailing Wall was never a Muslim holy site"...) and then exclaim there is no connection between the two when it somehow offends their sensibilities… Are you insinuating that we are to ignore the link between this 57m length of masonry and the cycles of sectarian violence and killings it has ignited between Palestinian Muslims and Jewish Israelis who have rival claims to the site? That the entire site is termed the most contested piece of real estate in the world is now insignificant? Come on, Sir Joseph. This type of selective linking phenomena should also be documented on Wiki :-).... The listing on AFD Israel and Judaism alone, ignoring the "other side" in the ongoing regional conflict (to prevent input from editors with a non-Israeli/Jewish perspective?) smacks of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. (Not quite sure what you mean by COATRACK.) Chesdovi (talk) 13:54, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • yawn. You're basically putting words into my mouth. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:00, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not involved in this till I saw this AfD, but in my opinion, this comment suggests you have a bias in this topic and aren't capable of editing from a WP:NPOV. I apologize if I'm wrong to suggest this, but if you have an external relationship to some of the groups involved in the boycott, it may be preferable to avoid editing these pages. FuriouslySerene (talk) 16:46, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • You have a point. I will try and add views opposing the boycott. Chesdovi (talk) 16:58, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please also both note that both the Satmar rabbi and Leibowitz both mention that the Jewish control of the Wall is an affront to the Arabs, hence the link. Chesdovi (talk) 17:01, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Do you think anybody cares what the Satmar Rebbe holds about the Western Wall? He also held the Six Day War was the work of the Devil. That's not someone whose views on Zionism and the Western Wall we really need to include here, but if you wish, this whole article can become one little section in the Western Wall article, not a new article.
• Not someone we really need to include here? Two quotes from the above thread: 1. "Do you think anybody cares what the Satmar Rebbe holds about the Western Wall?" 2. "This comment suggests you have a bias in this topic and aren't capable of editing from a WP:NPOV." Sir Joseph: Are Rabbi Teitelbaum's views so abhorrent they can not be included in this delightful encyclopedia? Compare Did Six Million Really Die? Chesdovi (talk) 17:29, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  His views are fringe, and certainly not worthy of an article. If you feel it's worthy, then include it in the Western Wall article, as pointed out by Debresser, I think it's already mentioned in the Satmar article. How many more times do you need to push your anti-Zionist POV? We get it, but what you are doing is POV. There is no JEWISH boycott of the Western Wall, that is the whole point of this AFD. I of course have no idea what you refer to by your link to Zundell's book. Unless you are referring to Teitelbaum's getting rescued by the Zionists and then showing himself as an ingrate? I honestly don't know what you did with bringing that book into the mix. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:34, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  I mentioned Did Six Million Really Die? to demonstrate that fringe views are incorporated into Wiki. My "pushing of anti-Zionist POV" may be the only antidote to your pushing of Zionist POV. How many Israel orientated pages exist on Wiki? Too many to count. Anyhow, whether you like it or not, there is a Jewish boycott of the Wall. And not only is it Jews who obediently observe this boycott, all the reasons advanced for a boycott are rooted in traditional Jewish values. Chesdovi (talk) 18:46, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  (P.S. Sorry to bring up the Holocaust again, but I recently saw I Met Adolf Eichmann. Testimonial was given by a Dutch Jewish lady who Eichmann saved from certain death "because of her legs". Do you think she was ever grateful to the Nazis for saving her life? As a matter of fact, she was not. They were evil and remain evil. And the Zionist's had no active part in saving Teitelbaum's life. On the contrary, some generally preferred, understandably, that all anti-Zionists perish in the gas chambers. In an attempt to defend the way you see the world, you seem to want this article to go up in smoke too. Chesdovi (talk) 18:46, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yoninah, please can you point out where WP:SYNTH/WP:NOR has been violated? There are sources which clearly refer to this boycott. I also don't see what you mean by "trying to build a case". This is about documenting this notable phenomena deserving of its own dedicated page, not trying to persuade people not to visit the site! It is titled "Jewish" because the boycotters are Jews, not all of whom are affiliated to the Satmar community. Chesdovi (talk) 11:28, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding of WP:SYNTH is when you gather together information that is not related and use it as examples to "prove" a subject's veracity. Lumping Satmar's views with Neturei Karta's approach to say there is an "issue" called Jewish boycott of the Western Wall is SYNTH. The Israeli intellectual's opinion has no place in this discussion at all; certain groups are boycotting it for their interpretation of religious law, and then you throw in this guy who thinks the Kotel is more like a disco, and wants all Jews to boycott it. Honestly, all these disparate threads point to OR. Finally, the choice of title is too universal – if there would be such an article, which editors below have termed a FORK, then it should be called Satmar boycott of the Western Wall. When you say Nazi boycott of Jewish businesses, you understand that "Nazi" refers to a specific group. Nazis in Germany and Nazis in Austria are the same thing. A "Jewish" boycott also sounds like a specific group: all Jews. But that is not true; the boycott only applies to certain groups within Judaism. To imply through the title that other Jews would also gladly boycott the Kotel is POV. Yoninah (talk) 18:37, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There may an issue with the page title, but I still do not see how this contravenes SYN. This page will document Jews who boycott the wall for various reasons. Chesdovi (talk) 12:07, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could it be similar to Jewish resistance in German-occupied Europe? Not all Jews resisted. Could I suggest: Jewish resistance to visiting the Western Wall in Israeli-occupied Palestine... Chesdovi (talk) 14:24, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete For three reasons. 1. This is already discussed at Satmar (Hasidic dynasty)#Satmar and the State of Israel, so this is a WP:FORK. 2. In continuation of #1: Giving this subject a whole article is WP:UNDUE, because this is a very minor and not so notable minority and point of view. 3. The term "boycott of the Western Wall" is a description, not a term. Debresser (talk) 11:55, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1. It is not "discussed"; it is mentioned in passing in one line, as it should be on that page. Secondly, it is not only Satmar who observe this boycott.

2. "Minor and not so notable minority and point of view" - that means that we would not give this excessive coverage in an article about, let's say the Western Wall. But as this page is dedicated to this point of view, it is perfectly in order to document this boycott.

3. "A description, not a term" - what is the WP policy here? Is Nazi boycott of Jewish businesses also up for deletion? Chesdovi (talk) 14:31, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1. Since this point of view is accepted in Satmar, and is part and parcel of their general ideology, as opposed to other groups, it is fitting that the Satmar article should mention it. Likewise a mention of this point of view would be justified for professor Yeshayahu Leibowitz.
2. That does not detract from the fact that this point of view is fringe, and as such should not be dealt with at length, and for sure should not have its own article.
3. The difference being that the Nazi boycott of Jewish businesses is notable, while this is not.

Add argument number 4, that I am not sure the term "boycott" should be used for refusal to visit a place. Usually the word implies a refusal to buy products, not to visit. E.g., I don't boycott churches, I just don't visit them (for religious reasons). Debresser (talk) 23:25, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as WP:CONTENTFORK of Satmar (Hasidic dynasty)#Satmar and the State of Israel. Also a clearly mistitled article. FuriouslySerene (talk) 20:46, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and it is WP:CONTENTFORK of Satmar (Hasidic dynasty)#Satmar and the State of Israel.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:27, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a content fork be use the boycott is advocated by ooher groups beside from Satmar. Chesdovi (talk) 22:04, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article says, "The boycott is maintained chiefly by Jews affiliated to the Satmar hasidic community and Neturei Karta.[3]" That's in the lead, the one other source that you bring that is not Satmar is Liebowitz and even he talks only about extensive prayer and overall veneration. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 03:14, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Then the lead will have to be changed to indicate that the boycott is observed by various communities. NK endorsed a boycott befotre the Satmar Rebbe introduced his own ban. Toldos Aharon also maintain it. And I was most surprised to learn that Rabbi Wosber also upheld the boycott. I wonder how many of his followers also refrain from visiting the site. And the sources say Leibowitz actually was against people visiting the sit. Chesdovi (talk) 12:07, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per WP:SYNTH, WP:NOR, and WP:COATRACK, also as per arguments made by Nom. Before I get to the reasons for deletion, I want to ask editors to consider how it is possible for an editor acting in good faith to research an entire article on the Western Wall featuring a sentence of such profound ignorance as: "The Western Wall... forms the only surviving section of the retaining wall of the Second Temple in Jerusalem." (Four visible retaining walls survive from the Second Temple: Eastern, Southern, Northern, and Western).

That said, it is an enormous leap from citing an opinion of Yeshayahu Leibowitz, a distinguished scholar who openly acknowledged his own penchant for advocating opinions held by no or few others, and extrapolating form it a boycott movement. There is no evidence that any person or groups abstain form visiting the Wall because of the opinion of Yeshayahu Leibowitz.

What is a fact is that secular Israelis rarely visit the wall; just as secular Europeans rarely make the pilgrimage to Lourdes, but we do not have articles about French boycott of Lourdes.

It is also true that since the creation of the State of Israel, Satmer Rebbes have instructed their followers not to visit the Wall, their opposition is understood as part of a doctrinal conviction that no Israeli government should exist until the Messiah arrives. This arcane position is appropriately covered at: Anti-Zionism, Satmar (Hasidic dynasty), Joel Teitelbaum, Zalman Teitelbaum, and Aaron Teitelbaum making this a WP:POVFORK. Leaping form the position of a circumscribed sect like Satmar to Jewish is very like writing an article about the Christian boycott of electricity and sourcing it it to the Amish.

Frankly this article is bizarre. It is so blatantly in violation of WP:POV and WP:UNDUE (not to mention Cherry picking,) that it is hard to believe that it was written by an experienced editor, all of which makes me wonder if it is in fact some sort of WP:POINTY, with the creator acting out his ire over some unknown grievance.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:22, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1. The Western Wall "is the only surviving reminder of the massive building work undertaken by Herod the Great." (Six Religions in the Twenty-first Century, pg. 201) The other three flanks are all later additions, obviously. Trust me, I helped get the Western Wall its Good article status :-).

Whoa. This is an egregious example of the kind of cherrypicked evidence central to Chesdovi's POV and FACTUALLY WRONG editing on this topic.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:05, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You can't deny the facts. Don't dispute them and save your honour! Chesdovi (talk) 17:10, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Except he's correct and you're wrong. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:14, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And the proof? That E.M.Gregory's last post was in bold? Chesdovi (talk) 17:34, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've been there, I've seen the tours, done the archeological digs, etc. Your statement is not true. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:45, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What? You went in defiance of the boycott?! And what about the Midrash which says only the Western Wall of the temple remains intact? You remind me of Nahmanides who, upon arriving in Jerusalem, saw with his "own eyes" that the Tomb of rachel was "in fact" situated outside Bethlehem and not north of Jerusalem as he had previously derived from his understanding of scripture. Well, post-1967 Israeli digs may have revealed a few ashlar stones on the South-Western tip (part of the Western flank, no doubt) and a smattering of Herodian stones on the South-Eastern tip, but E.M.Gregory's claim that "four visible retaining walls survive from the Second Temple" is a fabrication of the highest order! For most part, and you will attest to this, all the flanks consist of layers of stone added in later centuries. Even only the first seven visible layers of the Western Wall remain from the Temple era. While many sources state that the Western Wall is the only surviving section, I concur that the wording can be improved somewhat in light of your visitations. How about: "The Western Wall is considered a sacred spot for Jews as it forms the only surviving section of the retaining wall of the Second Temple in Jerusalem located closest to the site of the Holy of Holies"? Chesdovi (talk) 18:21, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Chesdovi, perhaps you need to change the Southern Wall article too, which begins: The Southern Wall is a wall at the southern end of the Temple Mount and the former southern side of the Second Temple (also called Herod's Temple) in Jerusalem. It was built during King Herod's expansion of the Temple Mount platform southward on to the Ophel. Yoninah (talk) 20:41, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2. This page does not document a "movement" - there is no such movement. It is merely a phenomena and if the page name does not accurately depict this, it will have to be changed.

3. There is not yet evidence that Leibowitz influenced a large segment of Jewry, but his views do seem to have some effect: "…At the time there was enormous problems about the Western Wall, there was all the confusion that followed the liberation. Leibowitz called it then the "Disco Wall." Rabbi Getz did not accept Leibowitz's view, "But there was a lot of truth in what he said." In principle he rejects any ceremony at the Western Wall, "...of any kind. I might give in to the paratroopers because I have special feelings for them… On the other hand I might say "No" even to them – there should be no ceremony at the Wall….." (JPRS Report: Near East & South Asia, Foreign Broadcast Information Service. 1991. p. 4.) Military ceremonies at the wall were put into question, partly because of Leibowitz.

4. The fact that people simply don't visit certain sites is one thing. But not to do so intentionally is referred to as a boycott. They want to go, but intentionally refuse to do so.

5. It's not only Satmar. How do you suggest referring to the groups of Jews who boycott the Wall for various reasons?

6. I can't see how this article is WP:UNDUE. I understand that UNDUE applies to a fringe view within an article's subject matter, e.g. Flat Earth...?

7. Please explain the POV violation here. This page does not exist to document the adulation most other Jews have for the site.

8. Why I am accused of having a "grievance"? --- Chesdovi (talk) 13:16, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How many Jews are there in the word? How many Jews boycott the Western Wall? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:08, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How many Jews boycott the Western Wall? I don't know to be precise. Possibly around the same %age of how many Jews there are in the world in relation to the non-Jewish population? But probably more than were involved in the 2004 attempt to revive the Sanhedrin. How many people believe in the Flat Earth theory? Does it matter? Chesdovi (talk) 16:48, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notice the article wasn't entitled Jewish attempt to revive the Sanhedrin. If 10,000 Jews "boycott" something, you can't call that a Jewish Boycott. That is a 10,000 Boycott, if it is a boycott at all. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:58, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that would not make much sense: Jewish attempt to revive the Jewish council. The reason why I titled the page "Jewish" is because that is what I felt made it notable: Jews boycotting a Jewish religious site. Just because an page is called, let's say, Muslim support for Israel, does not imply all Muslims support Israel. Chesdovi (talk) 17:08, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLUDGEON.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:44, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to closing editor. This is a new article, which the creator immediately proposed or DYK, where an objection was immediately made that "it is wholly unverified (that cannot be in a DYK), and it isn't even remotely neutral." Nom has been supported by 5 experienced editors, the sole editor arguing for keep is the article creator.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:10, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as none of my arguments above have been sufficiently refuted. Two editors feel this is a fork, which it is not. Another editor seems to be driven by an opposing POV. The nominator is the experienced editor, but I feel on this occasion she has not really explained why the use of "Jewish" here is unacceptable. Chesdovi (talk) 14:35, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unrefuted argument, as Nom stated, is WP:SYNTH, WP:NOR. There is no discussion of a "Jewish boycott of the Weester Wall" Here: [1] is a search on the phrase article creator appears to have invented as he built this WP:COATRACK, which contains examples of isolated Jewish intellectuals and sects that, for a variety of reasons, but not because they participate in boycott, do not pray at the Western Wall.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:15, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I still stand by my statement that this is OR, as you are creating an issue called "Jewish boycott" when in fact these are disparate and minority groups avoiding the Kosel, each for a different reason; and SYNTH and COATRACK, as you are lumping together apples and oranges (the Satmar Rebbe and Yeshayahu Leibowitz? Come on) to prove a point; now I see that we have the POV opinion of Rabbi Samuel David Munk of Haifa to round out the article (who is he? He doesn't even have a Wikipedia article to show notability). Yes, they are all Jews, but no, they do not represent all Jews. It would be more accurate and less inflammatory to say Boycott of the Western Wall. But these are all disparate and minority groups and opinions. There is no issue here. Yoninah (talk) 18:10, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That "they do not represent all Jews" is not an issue here. Something can be called "Jewish" without meaning all Jews. I am also at odds to know why you view this as "inflammatory". That is your personal POV not liking the view taken by other Jews viz-a-viz the Wall. Chesdovi (talk) 12:04, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Why was this relisted? We had a discussion and we have a clear consensus to delete. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 02:11, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, @Sandstein: why are you relisting it? There were 5 deletes to 1 keep. Yoninah (talk) 13:08, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• There's been animated discussion, the article looks better than those we usually delete, and several "delete" opinions strike me as a bit ... odd, in terms of how vehemently they are expressed. I wanted to see what people who are not regular editors of Israel / Palestine-related articles think. I don't have an opinion on the merits of the deletion request, though.  Sandstein  22:01, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• If a Catholic high school teacher in some small town says the pope isn't Catholic, is that notable enough then to include in his Wikipedia entry? That's what we have here. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 23:38, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The page "looks" good because the creator has been aggressively appending sources that do not actually support his argument, but, rather, merely contain key words that appear to do so. If I and others sound vehement, it is because this article is a blatant abuse of Wikipedia by an editor attempting to create boycott that does not exist in the real world. E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:41, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source: "There are certainly many hundreds of families in Mea Shearim who boycott the Western Wall, vestige of the Second Temple and holiest shrine in Judaism, on the grounds that it is 'occupied by the Zionists'." Chesdovi (talk) 12:04, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's probably Neturei Karta and Toldos Aharon. "Hundreds" in a population of hundreds of thousands is a minority opinion. Put it on the latter pages and stop this campaign for a COATRACK article, please. Yoninah (talk) 12:24, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neturei Karta and Toldos Aharon. How do you know? Because they are citied in this amazing and informative article?! I am sure there are other sects, Mishkenos Haroim, etc. And I can not fathom why social minority trends are not to be granted recognition on Wikipedia. I don't see COATRACK here. All sources deal exclusively with boycott and the rational behind it. Chesdovi (talk) 15:04, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Looks to me like there are plenty of non-Satmar people mentioned in this article. I looked at the Satmar article and there was little to no mention about the wall. There was a brief, small mention that Teitelbaum had banned it in 1967. I'd recommend just renaming this article. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 04:14, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @Mr. Magoo and McBarker: that is not the reason for this AFD. The article lumps together all kinds of minority groups and opinions to develop a thesis that there is something called a boycott of the Western Wall. No source makes this contention, just the article creator. That is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Yoninah (talk) 13:29, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So what would one call this phenomena? Why can this page not just list Jews who observe a boycott? There isn't just "something" called a boycott of the Western Wall, there is a boycott of the Western Wall, meaning there are Jews who intentionally do not visit the wall for various reason rooted ion Jewish theology. Chesdovi (talk) 12:04, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Bringing in fringe people, I took a look at some of the new people the COI POV pusher is using in the article and it is laughable. The name dropping is like saying the a catholic in Tuscaloosa is against the Pope therefore an article against the Pope is a valid and notable article for Wikipedia. Furthermore, some of the people he is using, has no issue with the Wall, just using the Wall as as "idol" of sorts, certainly not as a boycott. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 04:28, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source: "In the aftermath of the capture of East Jerusalem by Israeli troops, Leibowitz proposed that worship at the Wailing Wall be forbidden..." Chesdovi (talk) 12:04, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Even he never said boycott and two, he's not such an important figure, you're only using him because he agrees with your pov. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 12:45, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1. He does not need to use the word "boycott" for him to "boycott the wall! 2. Who is an important figure for you? Mahatma Gandhi - or will he also not suffice because he was an anti-Zionist whose views were not in accordance with your POV? 3. Of course this article cites Leibowitz. That's because he held the POV which advocates a boycott!!! We would not add Shlomo Goren's support of Jewish presence at the Western Wall here unless we can find a source in which he mentions his opinion about Jewish opposition to Jewish visits to the Wall. Chesdovi (talk) 14:24, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Firstly many groups mentioned in this article would object to usage of the loaded term 'boycott' to describe their abstention from visiting the Western Wall that they still have affinity for. The fact that Satmar and other Jewish groups do not visit the WW is already mentioned in the Western Wall entry, which makes this page rather bizarre and random Shackwelllane (talk) 13:58, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is that your personal take on the matter? I could just as well claim they are "proud" and feel "privileged" to observe the cherem. Do we have sources? You may feel "boycott" is a loaded term (no doubt linked to your POV regarding Boycotts of Israel and a subconscious instinct to view the word negatively, with connotations of a biased and unfair attack against a just cause - would you care if the only boycott that existed in the world was the Chinese boycotts of Japanese products?), but I prefer to retain the neutral usage of the accurate term and WP:SPADE. Chesdovi (talk) 14:24, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • See this http://www.truetorahjews.org/images/hakosel.pdf for example, it is not the WW per se that they have anything against, far from it. They say they are halachically prevented from visiting, and they bemoan the calamity that befell the Jewish nation when the WW fell into in the hands of Israel. True, they say they also oppose the WW's transformation into a place of historical and national significance from the place of worship that it supposedly exclusively was. But "A boycott is an act of voluntarily abstaining from using, buying, or dealing with a person, organization, or country as an expression of protest, usually for social or political reasons." The word protest is not mentioned once in this entire document - they claim there is a halachic prohibition on visiting in the current circumstances - the word boycott is simply not appropriate. They write in Hebrew: "The temptation to visit the WW itself is greater than that of a child to visit its mother." There is no cherem on visiting the WW.Shackwelllane (talk) 16:37, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Put simply: Some Jews boycott the Wall. Chesdovi (talk) 19:38, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I would like to express my strong agreement with E.M.Gregory's reply to  Sandstein 's remark that "the article looks better than those we usually delete", that this is due to the fact that Chesdovi has a long history of cherrypicking sources and individual statements from those sources to put together an article that looks well-sourced, while in reality it is his synthesis which builds the article about what is in reality non-subject. A good case in point is his recent article Palestinian wine, which is actually quite a ludicrous term, if you think it over a little. Debresser (talk) 23:16, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In addition please notice that I have replied above to Chesdovi's reply to my "delete" with arguments to refute his objections. I have also added a fourth reason there why I think this article should be deleted. Debresser (talk) 23:26, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Despite all the noise above, there are actually very few relevant arguments presented. (1) Problems with the title have never been valid reasons for deletion; the correct approach is to think of a better title and open a move discussion. (2) The argument that the opinion is only that of a small group is also irrelevant. We have tons of articles on small groups and fringe opinions. What you have to do is make a case for non-notability using the guidelines there. The guideline WP:FRINGE might help, though it's mostly concerned with fringe theories rather than fringe opinions. Sandstein is correct to be wary of opinions expressed with particular vehemence. I'm not sure so I'm not voting. Zero^talk 09:54, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Your argument might justify separate articles on the individual authors and groups who refuse or abstain from praying at the Western Wall for a variety of reasons. It does not support keeping this article since there is not sourced support for grouping or linking these stances.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:53, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Search and ye shall find. Chesdovi (talk) 12:17, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Note This week a major change in the way space is allocated for prayer near the Western Wall was announced - there were headlines and news coverage worldwide - but I cannot find a single mention of this alleged "boycott" in any of those stories (I ran a series of word searches), probably because This article is a blatant violation of WP:NOR.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:04, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well maybe you should try reading the local news. [2]. Chesdovi (talk) 12:14, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Here is a news search on "Boycott of the Western Wall" [3] It reads: No results found for "Boycott of the Western Wall" Here is a google search on "Boycott of the Western Wall" - nothing [4] Google books: [5] nothing. Search in JSTOR: [6] nothing. Search in Haaretz.com [7] nothing. WP:NOR.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:36, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here is a news search on "Druze attack on Safed" [8] It should read: No results found for "Druze attack on Safed" Here is a google search on "Druze attack on Safed" - nothing [9] (except pages generated by the Wikipedia article itself) Google books: [10] nothing. Search in JSTOR: [11] nothing. Search in Haaretz.com [12] nothing. WP:NOR? Chesdovi (talk) 14:35, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My point is not only that the title of the page violates WP:NOR because you invented it, but that no such boycott exists in the real world, in other words, you invented not merely the title, but the concept that there is such a "boycott", addusing cherrypicked sources that use the words "boycott" and "Western Wall" without supporting your WP:SYNTH assertion that such a boycott exists.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:24, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment So it's been two weeks and strong consensus is to delete this? Can someone delete this? Sandstein?? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:02, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• An admin will attend to it when it turns up at WP:AFD/Old.  Sandstein  16:19, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this fable. gidonb (talk) 03:36, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is an article about religious Jews opposing the occupation, not Jewish boycott of the Western Wall.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 10:53, 6 February 2016 (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.