This one looks like it is going to be deleted, but I thought it was worth a look and discussion before the whole text is gone forever.

Article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_persecution_by_Jews

AFD: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Art...d_nomination%29

1st AFD: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Art...ecution_by_Jews (was deleted)

1st 1st AFD under a different title: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vot...ecution_by_Jews

Deletion Review entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=21210130

1st Deletion Review entry (because some people still wanted it wiped): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vot...ecution_by_Jews

Should this article exist? I mean, realistically, Jews have persecuted people. It is a bit similar to the whole allegations of state terrorism against the United States issue. If they delete this issue, then they are pretending that Jewish people have never done anything wrong. The reality is that they have, and there's evidence of it. If this doesn't exist, then any counter-articles should be deleted too, or else its evidence of bias.

What do you guys think about it?

One thing is that it refers and links to a rather lengthy secondary article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_o...ans_by_the_Jews

That one isn't up for deletion. Are they trying to delete the parent, then going after the child article?

It's a question of balance. Is it a topic worthy of two articles, as opposed to a paragraph in another article? No doubt it happened, and it shouldn't be ignored, but it's scarcely been on the scale of Hindu persecution of Moslems (and vice versa) or however many combinations you can think of. Actually, I suspect that the largest-scale problem has been Christian persecution of Christians. Do all of these have articles?

I don't know.

You are probably right that the biggest problems have been within a religion.

Protestant vs Catholic (Christian)

Sunni vs Shi'ite (Moslems)

They have far more bitter battles than between religions.

And the big battles between religions have been when a new religion has broken off from another.

e.g. Christians vs Moslems (Crusades)
Jews vs Christians (this article)
Christians vs Pagans (Witch hunts)

I believe that there were similarly large battles between Hindus and Buddhists, although I am only vaguely aware of them. When I went to Indonesia there was some hint of it.

I thought in Indonesia they converted from Buddhism to Islam? Or did they convert to Hinduism in between?

Bali is Hindu. I'm not quite sure how it all works. I am pretty confident that they had a big fight over it though.

Funny. The persecution by Christians article is now at AfD, with overwhelming keep.

If WP was a coherent encyclopedic project capable of making reasonable editorial decisions it would make a policy that articles motivated by or intended to inflame communal passions or base identity politics would not be permitted. WP is not such an entity. It is a collection of warlording cabals working in a dysfunctional social networking/role playing game environment.

It seems to me that prior to the creation of a Jewish state with regional military superiority, overall Jewish people have been pretty much an oppressed people throughout much of history (diaspora, Inquisitions, pogroms, Holocaust.) Such an article does not need to exist.

But haven't all religions been guilty of some kind of persecution? I mean if you have one, you have to have them all, don't you?

Of course, if you looked at a real encyclopaedia, I doubt that you'd find any lists of persecutions by any religion, full stop.

So its more of the argument that "Since Wikipedia already has such atrocious articles on this, then this equally atrocious article should remain".

Every articles which collect history of persecution by..., should be deleted. There is no any editor who could creat such an article in good faith. Do create particular cases of mistreatment by Jews lets say against the Palestinians, but to collect every events which the Jews were involved in to creat a mega article, this is not encyclopedic.

Good point there. It really encourages racial hatred. But should this one be deleted, and others be allowed to remain?

I think that articles about individual incidents, which mention the incident by name, and all factual details, are reasonable. If there was then a linking article that did nothing more than to list these incidents, then that would be reasonable.

But it is a tough one. I think that the biggest issue is that they have articles about the same thing elsewhere.

Oh, by the way, Grace Note has decided that because I made this post, its even more evidence that I'm a holocaust denier. Not that that really matters to anything.

I don't think a wrong justifies others. I personally separated from the Armenian genocide article different events because it was leading to a ''Turkish crime in history'' which would be unacceptable. I would personally visit those articles divide each events start an article about them and delete the main. Those who creat such articles have bad judgements and are certainly not editing in good faith. You will find no article in any other encyclopedia's which does this. It takes editorial judgement to edit articles and over half of those who edit have none. They creat those articles flame the situation and are protected from the AGF.

Also one other reason why such articles are created, is that they give the opportunity to some members to add events which are not well covered or can not be discussed about how poorelly they are documented. If you creat an article on that particular event you would have hard time to say much about it. But when you start a jumbo article like this one, you can use it when listing different events which will inevitablly lead to an out of proportion coverage. Lets not fool ourself the intent in creating such an article is exactly this.

On other cases, it is the contrary, people will creat various pages as way of POV pushing, like it is happening in the Armenia Azerbaijan cases, those two country were at war and there was was atrocities from both sides, insteed of covering them in the main covering the war, both sides have started creating articles for each atrocities, when this is not necessary. Like I said, it takes editorial judgement to edit articles and know what should be done when the occasion presents itself, many don't have it.

Here lies WP problem number 2.0. Der Jimbo's grand folly doesn't allow for "editorial judgement". If anyone shows such individual wisdom, they are attacked by roaming goons spouting "WP:NPOV!/NOR!/V!/RS!"... blah blah blah. And anyone else who happens to be walking past the page is allowed to get a few digs in as well. Meanwhile the water just gets cloudier and cloudier, until articles make virtually no sense at all.

This is especially true because editorial judgment requires restraint. This is an attribute that the <embarrassing correction>WR WP </embarrassing correction>community completely lacks.

Compleatly agree here!

WP:POINT, too. The hivemind tosses around WP:POINT accusations like George W. Bush and Colon Powell tossing around WMD accusations before the invasion of Iraq.

Freudian slip much?

Freudian implies sexual. Are you suggesting that WR wants sex? Or did you make your own error while correcting someone else's error?

Opps. Prior to spell check and word processors I had a professor who asserted that my spelling was motivated by some dark purpose. Mostly I don't spell well. WP of course. I'll fix above.

I don't think that Freudian slip necessarily has that overtone.

Yeah.

Also, Freud's theory of basing everything around boys wanting and being unable to have sex with their mothers (hey, that's what the wikipedia article says!) is completely flawed. What about incest families where the boys do? Personality still develops.

A Freudian slip is when you say what's on your mind instead of what you meant to say.

That's what I thought it meant as well. When I saw the comment about it meaning sex, I was thinking 'Hey, wait a minute, that's not it'...

Wikipedia's article agrees with me: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freudian_slip

You're not calling Wikipedia inaccurate are you?