Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-work attitudes in Haredi Judaism


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

The result was   delete. As DGG notes, this may well be a notable subject, but the consensus is that the WP:TNT is needed. The Bushranger One ping only 01:01, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Anti-work attitudes in Haredi Judaism

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions.  Cliff  Smith 17:53, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions.  Cliff  Smith 17:53, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

POV article, inflammatory by its very name. Totally inappropriate and extremely offensive. While the issues raised certainly warrant mentioning, this should be as part of the larger article on Haredi Judaism and it should be in a neutral manner, which this article most definintely is not. --Piz d&#39;Es-Cha (talk) 15:26, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete since the article title is inherently non-neutral and the content belongs in Haredi Judaism.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  15:45, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Update I slightly edited the article (more like, I completely re-wrote it), attempting to turn the content into something more neutral. For reference, this is the previous person, the way it was when I opened the AfD. --Piz d&#39;Es-Cha (talk) 15:48, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. Compliments to Piz d&#39;Es-Cha for xis constructive efforts to improve this. The subject matter here is a bona fide issue of controversy in Israel, at least, and maybe elsewhere.  A properly NPOV discussion of the topic should have a home somewhere--maybe at Haredi Judaism, but probably there could be (and perhaps there already is), enough to justify a spinoff article.  If we do end up keeping the separate article, it should have a more NPOV title -- something like Haredi Judaism and secular employment, though I'm sure someone can come up with a better one. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:57, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Article is written quite fairly. While the article states that there are some Haredi Jews who are opposed to working, it also mentions that other Haredi Jews are opposed to these attitudes, and that many Haredi Jews themselves are trying to change this. It lifts the information straight from the sources, which themselves, are mostly quite fair. Wikipedia does not whitewash its subjects. I am Jewish myself, and I do not believe in whitewashing the people of my own faith. The sources provided come from a variety of publications that tell it exactly as it is. Xyz7890 (talk) 17:59, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. It is clear from the sources (those cited and others available) that the phenomenon of ultra-Orthodox in Israel (and possibly elsewhere) not working is notable. Perceived POV issues with the title or with parts of the article can be resolved through moves and edits, not deletion. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 19:16, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete (or Rename and Drastically Rewrite)  The title of the article is a tremendous POV problem that is by far the biggest problem and is contradicted by the content of the article. Imagine an article titled Anti-work attitudes in American pre-teens that stated "About 99% of children ages 6-10 in the United States presently voluntarily do not participate in the secular labor market in order to pursue full-time education and are supported almost entirely through income generated by their parents and government grants given exclusively to those under the age of 18." Another article, titled Anti-work attitudes in American college students might state that "About 80% of college students in the United States presently voluntarily do not participate in the secular labor market in order to pursue full-time education and are supported almost entirely through funds provided by their parents, through charitable contributions made to colleges and universities and with the assistance of heavily subsidized loan programs that cover the cost of their studies, even though they are eligible and capable of obtaining employment and earning income on their own without being a drain on public resources." Sure both are true, but it's written from an entirely slanted perspective which presupposes that these pre-teens shouldn't be in school and should be working, which sounds blindingly obvious in a Western society that believes that children should absolutely not be working and should absolutely be in school and that is of the opinion that time spent by young adults in college is an overall benefit to society. From the perspective of many Haredi Jews, they too believe that Torah study is a goal that justifies their actions. Haredi Jews are not shirking work; what they are doing is failing to fulfill an expectation of secular Western society that education ends by the time someone reaches their mid to late 20s (or beyond in some extreme cases) and that biased POV suffuses the entire article. Without an entirely different title and without a near-complete rewrite, the POV issues presented here are insurmountable. Alansohn (talk) 21:07, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete SYNTH and OR and ignorant WP:HATE. This article is unrecoverable since it is disgustingly one sided, out of context, and false. What more? The sources are from the media, not anything deeply close to rabbinical reliable sources. --Shuki (talk) 22:05, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete The article title is inherently non-neutral and lacks academic sourcing, a prerequisite for such kinds of articles ' Ankh '. Morpork  23:39, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM, starting with Rename, then fixing content POV issues. The sources are out there, giving the topic a neutral treatment is probably possible. Darryl from Mars (talk) 00:47, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * There is nothing to fix. WP does not tolerate articles like this. There is no article about Anti-work attitudes in Spain, or Anti-paying taxes in Islam. --Shuki (talk) 18:14, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If there isn't, it's because a) that's a poor name b) There aren't sources for it and/or c) no one has written it. This does appear to be an actual topic of discussion though, so there is the possibility of neutrally reporting the relevant viewpoints. If WP:TNT is necessary though, I won't be opposed. Darryl from Mars (talk) 03:13, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge and Redirect whatever is salient to Haredi Judaism, otherwise it's just a tendentious violation of WP:POVFORK and WP:NOTSOAPBOX. Haredim are NOT "anti-work" as that would verge on an anti-semitic libel. In the USA and the West Haredim work. In Israel they have issues with going to the army that hinders them from getting jobs (see: Refusal to serve in the Israeli military) while there is a positive Torah-study culture, but they are not "anti-work" which makes them sound retarded and they are most definitely not that. IZAK (talk) 02:48, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NPOV and WP:NOTSOAPBOX. Starting from the anti-POV title, the article comes at the topic with a strong bias, making the lead read like a back-and-forth apology for "anti-work attitudes". The body of the article is a superficial treatment of a complicated subject and does not have proper referencing. Any reliable sources should be incorporated into the subject already covered in Haredi Judaism. Yoninah (talk) 08:42, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:FORK, WP:TNT, Yoninah's arguments, and WP:SOAP. What a mess, filled with weasel words.  It may be true, but for this inflamatory article, we need much better sourcing. Bearian (talk) 19:45, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Just renamed it to Views of work in Haredi Judaism to be more neutral. Xyz7890 (talk) 01:23, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The weasel wording makes the title different, but the inherent bias / POV remains. Where are the articles for Views of work in Presbyterianism, Views of work in Buddhism or Views of work in Santeria? OK, there is an article for Protestant work ethic, but that's a concept with a far more genuine pedigree in scholarly literature. The inherent point of the article -- even with the new title -- is that many Haredi Jews devote their lives to the study of Torah when by all rights they should be working and earning a living, rather than accepting government aid and charity, and that there is something inherently wrong with that life choice. The article is irredeemably biased and should be deleted. It is clear that a rename and rewrite will never solve the inherent bias here. Alansohn (talk) 02:40, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, it may seem silly to have an article about the views of work in every religion. But the general notability guideline matters a lot. The topic of working among Haredi Jews has been the subject of many reliable sources over the course of many years as some Haredi Jews have either made the choice not to work or otherwise been forced not to, and other Haredi Jews and other Jewish groups altogether have opinions supporting their employment. In most other religions, you will not find such articles, so the GNG cannot be met with them. Xyz7890 (talk) 02:46, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * NOTE: The creator of the article is User who has just renamed it to the euphemistic "nicer sounding" "Views of work in Haredi Judaism", since he sees that his article is facing a lot of flack. It is highly unusual and probably wrong for the creator of any article to move and change a name of an article while it faces an AfD. It is intellectually dishonest and moves the goal posts and makes it hard to keep comments in an AfD focused. Improving an existing article is fine, but moving its name around in an attempt to camouflage its original offensive and misleading title is not acceptable. The article should be moved back to its original name. Even under its new title, the article is clearly a violation of WP:POVFORK and anything that is worth it can go to the main Haredi Judaism article as a couple of sentences. IZAK (talk) 05:41, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Double Note The above note is not strictly correct. Fixing problems highlighted in the AfD discussion is encouraged, and changing the title, while it may cause confusion, can be done, so long as it's made appropriately clear that has happened, consider Guide_to_deletion. In fact, anyone here can work to improve the article even as this discussion is ongoing, many articles are saved in this manner. Darryl from Mars (talk) 07:36, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note 2.5 Additionally, if you want to move some of the content to another article instead of rewriting, I'd recommend calling for a merge, makes things easier. Darryl from Mars (talk) 07:39, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I do think that the new title was legitimately intended to address concerns raised here. On the other hand, WP:AFDEQ states that "While there is no prohibition against moving an article while an AfD discussion is in progress, editors considering doing so should realize such a move can confuse the discussion greatly, can preempt a closing decision, and can make the discussion difficult to track." Alansohn (talk) 11:59, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete This is a propagandistic article to the extent of G11. The title change helps, but the negative implications of the wording remain.  After first stating correctly that this does not apply to the majority of Haredi, and that it applies even in Israeli to only a little over half of the group, the article continues as if it does apply to all. The paragraph contrasting the situation in Israel with that elsewhere seems designed to cast a negative light upon the attitudes in Israel, by emphasising  the variety of occupations undertaken elsewhere. The article discusses not just the employment situation, but the funding sources of the movement, the exemption from military service, & political participation. I especially noticed the sentence  " Some believe this could lead to an economic collapse". The source is actually one individual,  not "some".
 * I have repeatedly argued here that articles about features of traditional Judaism that are in conflict with most contemporary attitudes should be rewritten, not deleted, although I am aware such articles have sometimes been written with the purpose of denigrating the religion and the culture. This particular topic is real, and should be covered, & I am not even going to say that I disagree with some of the views in the quoted sources.  But this article is hopelessly contaminated.  DGG ( talk ) 19:09, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Sources show this is notable issue. Article does not a lot of cleanup. AfD is not cleanup. Stedrick (talk) 15:01, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * What is your comment, Stedrick? "Article does need a lot of cleanup"? Or "Article does not need a lot of cleanup"? Yoninah (talk) 13:48, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 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.