Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antisemitic incidents during the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict (2nd nomination)


 * 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. After examining and weighing the various arguments presented, I've found there to be a clear consensus to keep the article. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  00:46, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Antisemitic incidents during the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict
AfDs for this article: Deletion review
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

In violation with all of the following: forking, not, and WP:SYN. Another 2 points:
 * 1) The article takes it for granted that those attacks are Antisemitic attacks (though not verified by the attacker); and
 * 2) The article suggests that those attacks are in response or related to 2008-2009 Israeli-Gaza conflict; while this might be the case, still, this is more like an original research. Yamanam (talk) 13:36, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete for the reasons mentioned above. Yamanam (talk) 13:43, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per the nominator. Also note that this was previously deleted at AFD, then overturned at DRV, very recently. However, as the close was "no consensus", anything about it being too soon isn't helpful or valid. Sceptre (talk) 14:55, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * In such short time, how is this second discussion going to close with a different conclusion ? Chesdovi (talk) 15:55, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Question to nominator: 1) Please list which attacks have not been verified as being antisemitic. 2) The article is called incidents which happened during the conflict. Please indicate where OR has been included in the article. 3) Also please clarify which article this forks; which not applies here, and where WP:SYN is exposed. Thanks! Chesdovi (talk) 15:13, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Answers to Chesdovi 1) Maybe u didn't get my point, what I meant that the attackers didn't say we are attacking you only because you are Jewish, moreover, this was not verified by a verifiable/reliable scholars/researches and so on. 2) The sources used here are mainly newspapers and those newspapers are used here in a way that they are more like a primary sources not a secondary sources, I mean, those attacks might be attacks that are seemingly related to Antisemitic and Gaza conflict, did anyone bother himself to check whether or not this assumption is correct? 3) forking: Any article in wikipedia stating that Jewish are persecuted and are always targeted by brutal attacks only because they are Jewish. U can find more articles than me, I believe - NOT Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought, Wikipedia is not a soapbox, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. - SYN all over the article, the article is not more than bits and pieces of news concerning attacks on Jews, connecting them to an international event, and coming up with a conclusion that those are Anti-Semitic attacks. Yamanam (talk) 09:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Answer rebuttal #1: 1) These attacks have been vetted and certified by reliable organisations as being antisemitic attacks. 2) This article not only deals with attacks which have been linked to the conflict, but also highlights that the abnormal "surge" happened during this period. 3) You state that the article compromises WP:FORK, but I am not sure from your answer whether you actually know what WP:FORK means. 4) Please highlight the "original thought" here; "Soapbox"?; "crystal ball"?! - There is no speculation here of scheduled or expected future attacks; "indiscriminate collection of information"?; You will note that the main Gaza-Israel conflict" page is also largely based on "bits and pieces of news". There is no need for purposeful connection here. Global attacks have been acknowleged as being in response to the conflict and are therfore automatically connected. Chesdovi (talk) 22:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 1)There is quite a good reason why the following artilce is named List of convicted war criminals not List of war criminals, because eventhough reputable organization has charged and convicted those people with war crimes, still we at wikipedia list them as being convicted not as being war criminals, same applies to your point, if the article's title is to be changed then I beleive the article might be accepted at wikipedia, but under the current title, I don't think so. 2) I am not sure what does this have to do with my answer. 3) WP:Forking, I do understand this policy and that is why I nominated this article to be deleted under this policy, since this policy requirements meet this article. 4) the "original thought" the title by it self is an original thought; "Soapbox": "Propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind, commercial, political, religious, or otherwise. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view. You might wish to start a blog or visit a forum if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views"; "crystal ball": "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation. All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred." At least the title of this article is an unverifiable speculation. And the article must be of sufficiently wide interest to merit an article; "indiscriminate collection of information" what we are mentioning here is merely statistics and news report, which is totaly not accepted. Mind you, "bits and pieces of news" that meet the above critiria are to be deleted and has no place at wikipedia, otherwise, they are welcome. Yamanam (talk) 17:18, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Answer rebuttal #2: Yamanam has failed to satisfy my questions fully and has also shown a shallow understanding of the polices he/she has used to nominate this page for deletion: The main problem I believe Yamanam has is that each and every attack needs to be verified as antisemitic according to his/her understanding of antisemitism, which I believe is divergent from mainstream understanding. WP:FORK is mentioned as a reason for delete, but there is no mention of which page this was forked off from; no mention of a case where contributors disagreed about the content of another page or why this article fails NPOV. Yamanam seems to think that any page discussing antisemitic phenomena are automatically POV Forks? I do quite follow this logic. OR is apparently the title which "suggests" that “antisemitic” incidents occurred. That these events did occur and that they were antisemitic in nature have been corroborated by various organisations and a plethora of international media. So I fail to see where exactly the OR is here. With regards to WP:SOAPBOX and the claim of propaganda: What is exactly being promoted here? That Jews are defenceless victims that need pity?! Who is being “recruited” and for what? The material here constitutes an objective article on the matter, nothing else. That WP:Crystal Ball is relevant here just evades me. These events have happened in the past and are verifiable. There is no speculation that these attacks indeed happened. What the speculation may be about is how closely they are linked to the conflict. The article mentions this point and it is not implied by the title. But this matter is not covered by WP:Crystal Ball. Is this "article of sufficiently wide interest to merit an article"? Why not take a look at the global reaction at governmental level to settle this query? This article provides more than mere statistical information and does not mirror a news report to me. Chesdovi (talk) 00:34, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I did fully satisfied your answers, but maybe u don't want to see that, and justified the using of each of the policies that were breached as a result of this article. The main problem I believe Chesdovi has is that he thinks all attacks against Jews are anti-semitic, even those Jewish who are punished for commiting crimes, their punishment would considered to Chesdovi as anti-semitic. This page is a forking of more than one article it is a forking of the idea that Jewish are always persecuted ONLY because they are Jewish - And no, not all anti-semitic articles are a fork, but articles like this one ARE forking. The OR is all over the article that I can't even NOT see it even if I wanted to, man an artilce that is titled Anti-semitic during a conflict period IS OR by itself bearing in mind that there are no academic studies that shows what are u refering to in the article, only "bits and peaces of news" published in newspapers - and leave aside the organization, well I showed u an example list of convicted war criminals not list of war criminals, this shows exactly what i mean, again, if the title to be changed (along with some paragraphs in the article) then I think the article might have place at wikipedia. Soapbox your answer here doesn't satisfy me comment/response. CrystalBall, concluding that those attacks are anti-semitc and are related to gaza conflict is speculation, and u agree on that. and once again, this artilce is more like statistics and news reports and concluding on those reports as being anti-semtitc and in relation to an international event! Yamanam (talk) 09:03, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No, Yamanam, you did NOT fully satisfy my questions! All you did was provide expansion on those policies you mentioned earlier. But you DID NOT connect them to any part of the article. All you DID do was mention twice that there is a problem with the title!!!! What is going on here? You should also know from my previous comment on AFD1 that I do not think that Jews who are punished for crimes are in fact anti-semitic actions! (It would not be anti-semitic for an ill-treated worker to punch his boss, who happened to be Jewish.) Your take on what exactly FORKING is baffles me; I really think you do not understand what FORKING is. You have to be much more specific with the claim of OR. Please stop mentioning the "title" all the time! That can be fixed if need be. Not every article needs to be based on academic papers. Whether or not any of these attacks have been proven in a court of law is not vital here. The article states "number of reported attacks". SOAPBOX: My answer doesn't satisfy your "comment"? Tell me what your comment was. You just pasted what is written under that policy as an answer to me?! CRYSTALBALL: I concede that your novice standard of English may be having an impact here. So let me tell you that the word "speculation" can also mean guessing the reason for something that has already happened. It is in this form that you are using it, therefore CRYSTALBALL does not apply here, because the speculation in the WP policy applies to guessing what may happen in the future. Chesdovi (talk) 23:45, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete due to lack of verifiable objective independent sources whihc establish these as antisemitic, as opposed to, for example, righteous anger against illegal occupation of sovereign territory of another nation. Guy (Help!) 16:13, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * keep because of these sources : Philippe Naughton, "Gaza conflict fuels anti-Semitic attacks across Europe", Times Online 06-01-2009 ; French Jews uneasy after spate of violent attacks: Concerns raised about resurgence of anti-Semitism after dozens of incidents sparked by Gaza offensive, Reuters (cited in the Toronto Star 12-02-2009) ; Human Rights First Condemns Antisemitic Backlash Attacks in Europe, humanrightsfirst.org 23-01-2009 ; Jewish Agency: Anti-Semitic acts in Jan. 2009 triple last year's records, Haaretz 25-01-2009 ; Worldwide Anti-Semitism At Alarming High, Post-Gaza, The Jewish Week, 28-01-2009. Ceedjee (talk) 16:16, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * So what, wikipedia is not news report nor statistics report it is not about the sources, it is about how they are used and what do they present and how all of that is reflected at wikipedia. Yamanam (talk) 17:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per nominator; who's to define the attacks as "antisemetic"? violates WP:NOR --Mhking (talk) 17:08, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * [some] "Incidents" (not "the attacks", see title) are defined as antisemitic and linked to the Gaza bombings in the 5 sources given just here above. Ceedjee (talk) 21:16, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - I don't think this is going to be sorted out in one AfD, but it raises something quite important.
 * It takes an article on a racially-sensitive issue to highlight the problems of synthesis. Whereas there are at least a couple of other open AfDs where the problem is exactly the same. In short, a review of a subject is synthesis. A presentation of literature and sources about a notable topic, specifically about a topic that notably exists, is encyclopedic treatment.
 * It comes down to the selection of the scope of the topic.
 * Questions -
 * 1. Is the topic notable? That is, can reliable, independent 3rd party sources treating this as a topic be found?
 * 1a. Is a source from a Jewish news agency reliable and independent? Is The Times? Reuters?
 * 2. Is it relevant that the attacks happened during a conflict? How do we know? (see Q1)
 * 3. Should we ever be inferring what a notable topic is? That is, should we be making history, rather than documenting the history that Reliable Sources have already made?
 * 4. Insofar as they draw inferences, are the news agencies Reliable Sources of knowledge? Or only of facts? (See Q1)
 * Synthesis of new topics into new topics as new topics is (selectively) making history. It's something that should be addressed by Wikipedia as a whole, if it aspires to representing human knowledge rather than writing it.
 * - Ddawkins73 (talk) 17:01, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * To put the above in context, I suggest considering the difference between the article and one called "media coverage of attacks on Jews and Jewish institutions during the.. conflict" - Ddawkins73 (talk) 17:07, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The current sources of the article are not primary sources but secondary sources. In the current case, the primary sources are the acts themselves (and gathering them without reasons would be WP:OR) but here there are numerous newspaper articles treating the subject and these are secondary sources : the different acts have been analysed by journalist as meaning something and they linked this with antisemitism and the Gaza events.
 * That is exactly the same for the source of the article 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict. All sources are from newspaper. Not history book are academic book has not yet be written about that but it is not WP:OR to deal with that topic.
 * Ceedjee (talk) 21:09, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete as per nom. Is original research, and is WP:SYN LOTRrules   Talk   Contribs  17:03, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

"Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims" - Ddawkins73 (talk) 18:11, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Reading further into the guidelines, it is in fact covered by WP:NOR -
 * Edit - and also as per Guy re WP:V, and the nom re forking (I can see a good faith reason to fork the article: misguided enthusiasm for completeness).

-Ddawkins73 (talk) 22:29, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - the topic of the article ("Antisemitic incidents during the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict") has been widely reported in newspaper, not as isolated incidents but as a wave of attacks on Jewish citzens (for example, the Times with the title "Gaza conflict fuels anti-Semitic attacks across Europe"). Furthermore, as the section government reactions show, this has been acknowledged at least by several governments in their response. So this is a valid topic for an article, given the press coverage and the response of individual governments. Furthermore, given that most of the attacks mentioned in the article are directed against Jews and not against Israelis, the label Antisemitism is fair. In any case, most of the incidents have a soucre, and most of the source I checked clearly mentioned first a connection with similar attacks in other countries, a connection with the Gaza conflict and the antisemitic nature of these attacks. Delete all incidents where the sourcing is not good enough or where the line between antisemitism and protest against the state of Israel is not clear, but that is not a reason to delete the whole article. Afroghost (talk) 19:12, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I see that this is the second time Yamanam has nominated this article for deletion. I have a hard time assuming good faith here, especially has he or she did not even bother to mention this quite important fact in the nomination. Afds are not supposed to be repeated every few weeks, in the hope that one day the deletion nomination will be successfull. Afroghost (talk) 19:32, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Afroghost, as a matter of fact I mentioned that this is the 2nd nomination, u can easily note that by reading the pagetitle. Of course I am not aiming to keep nominating this article for deletion, but the thing is, I made some mistakes when I first nominated this article fro deletion, and when it was deleted (as per policies) the decision was reverted and the article came back, not because it is an encycopediac article rather because I didn't pinpoint the right reasons for this article to be deleted. Yamanam (talk) 09:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * As a matter of fact, page titles are automatically generated by the wikimedia software and you did not mention the quite important fact that this your second deletion nomination within a few days. And again, Afd's are not supposed to be repeated until you have the desired result, and your last sentence makes it clear that you do not understand this principle. Afroghost (talk) 13:23, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * So this is a valid topic for an article, given the press coverage
 * Well, no. See the NOR section I quoted. Wikipedia makes a clear distinction between primary and secondary sources. - Ddawkins73 (talk) 20:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That's what I said. There are several press articles cited in the article that do not report on an individual attack, but that report that there is a string of anti-semitic attacks in different countries. Just go the external link section, and you will find more articles of this kind at google news. There you have your secondary sources. Afroghost (talk) 20:18, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ddawkins73. The sources of this articles are secondary sources. The sources are not the facts themselves, gathered by a wp editor but the sources are the articles written by journalists. And it is their analysis to link some acts, antisemitism and Gaza bombing.
 * Ceedjee (talk) 21:08, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If the article were titled "Attacks on Jews and Jewish institutions". That is not the same as "Anti-Semitism". So the primary sources for that are the press articles. But that's a subtle point about scope and sources that can be over-examined. For, simply, newspapers are not reliable sources of knowledge. Their analysis is just that, yes. Interpretation. And so must be attributed. And cannot be chosen selectively. - Ddawkins73 (talk) 21:31, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The title of the article just reflects what is written in the sources provided.
 * If #1 - one newspaper could be considered not to be a wp:rs secondary source, the fact several of them reports the same idea, while no other claims the contrary and while there is opposition is more than enough. More, they are fully wp:rs. If you start claiming these are pov-ed, you can start deleting many information from wikipedia : Times, Reuters, Toronto Star, humanrightsfirst.org, Haaretz and The Jewish Week.
 * Ceedjee (talk) 07:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ceedjee (talk) 07:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: basically i would support the deletion proposal. beside the points yamanam has raised, there are some other problems with the article: several sources are not reliable; the tendency to create highly specialized (spin off) articles is questionable; as well as the try to reinforce the victimhood of a certain group. but: if we would delete the article, most of it's content would simply return to the "reactions to the gaza conflict" article (and would constantly be expanded then).--Severino (talk) 20:33, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete: Is original research and is propagandist.--Theosony (talk) 21:09, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Some of these sources are ridiculous. Is there any proof that some of these attacts are anti-semitic? I mean, they could be the day-to-day anti-whatever attacks that happen worldwide globally. Most of this is media spin!--Theosony (talk) 22:15, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * This is not wp:or. This is the analysis of the authors of these articles., as reported in the lede of the article :
 * Philippe Naughton, "Gaza conflict fuels anti-Semitic attacks across Europe", Times Online 06-01-2009 ;
 * French Jews uneasy after spate of violent attacks: Concerns raised about resurgence of anti-Semitism after dozens of incidents sparked by Gaza offensive, Reuters (cited in the Toronto Star 12-02-2009) ;
 * Human Rights First Condemns Antisemitic Backlash Attacks in Europe, humanrightsfirst.org 23-01-2009 ;
 * Jewish Agency: Anti-Semitic acts in Jan. 2009 triple last year's records, Haaretz 25-01-2009 ;
 * Worldwide Anti-Semitism At Alarming High, Post-Gaza, The Jewish Week, 28-01-2009.
 * Ceedjee (talk) 21:12, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This point is also supported by the fact that governments of several countries and several ngo's issued statements condeming anti-semitic attacks on their Jewish citzen during the Gaza conflict. Btw, a cursory Google news search gives many more news article similar to ones cited above. Afroghost (talk) 21:20, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The Jewish Week and Haaretz cannot be considered reliable in such a case due to their political inclinations. Time Online article is also an opinion piece. I don't want a silly Wikipedia article, I just want for this thing to be neutral. just because it is a newspaper or newspaper website does not mean it is notable.--Theosony (talk) 22:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Haartez is a reliable source, most definately in this case. Why would their reporting not be? All their political stance means is that these incidents are reported with more detail. Note for instance how Haaretz reported today regarding the attack at Israelite Association of Venezuela: Report: Caracas synagogue attack was simple robbery, not anti-Semitism Chesdovi (talk) 00:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Does appear to be a POV fork with some very bad synthesis but it can be cleaned up so according to policy that should happen rather than being deleted, there are multiple news articles about the subject. It's needs work on the neutrality. It's always going to be speculative at best to link certain incidents. Attribution of opinions is a must. --neon white talk 21:17, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Either Keep or Merge with 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict, but preferably Keep due to its length. The claim that these take for granted that these are anti-Semitic attacks is patently ridiculous and offensively applies a double standard to Jews.  Would Yamanam ask the Ku Klux Klan to verify that their lynchings were anti-black before labeling them as such? Secondly, the claim that connecting these attacks to the Gaza situation is OR is disingenuous since many (most?) of the sources themselves (and even the perpetrators in some cases) make the connection.  --GHcool (talk) 21:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Excuse me GHcool! KKK used to attack black people only because they are black not for any other reason, but in this case, Jews are attacked because of the brutal attack israel (which is deemed to be the homeland for all of the Jewish of the world) was carrying out on civilians, Palestinians civilians. Those attackers were merely responding or expressing there feelings to such a brutal government, in a wrong way though. The question should be, if an attack was carried out against a black man during the beginning of the 20th century only because he is black then this should be attributed to anti-black attacks, BUT if the attack was because his brother stole food from the grocery then should this attack be attributed to anti-black attacks? I believe no, it shouldn't (taking into consideration that this is not a justification to attack this black man nor the Jews that were attacked).Yamanam (talk) 10:31, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's not ridiculous at all. There's an ongoing war, so attacks certainly do not automatically imply racially/religiously-motivated abuse.
 * tbh, I wouldn't doubt personally that anti-semitism is a problem, or has risen in connection with the conflict, BUT: we cannot go ahead and assume it in the encyclopedia. - Ddawkins73 (talk) 21:56, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Encyclopedia being the primary word here.--Theosony (talk) 22:03, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * That's why we have sources for these claims in the article. It is not wiki editors who makes these claims, but reputable newspapers. Furthermore, all the incidents mentioned in the article are attacks on Jews or Jewish installations, not attacks on Israelis or Israeli installations. That is why there all these incidents imply a racially/religiously-motivated abuse. Afroghost (talk) 22:17, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * But you have to remember that newspapers that can be reputable in some articles, such as Haaretz and Times Online, cannot be considered reputable in other articles. The Times Online source emailed to me was an opinion piece, and Haaretz is always inclined to governmental claims over universal claims. How can we say that these aren't highlighted day-to-day crimes by the media as opposed to crimes that have arisen from the Israel-Gaza conflict?


 * The Times article linked in the external link section is not an opinion piece, and so are not similar articles in other reputable newspapers such as the Independent or the Guardian. All these articles clearly indicate that their is a wave of attacks in connection with the Gaza conflict, so at least according to the sources we cannot say that these are just day-to-day attacks. Afroghost (talk) 22:26, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Please read Ddawkins73 contributions to this page to try to understand what I'm talking about. Media spin is not reputable when they milk on phenomenal events. Official documents actually prove a rise or surge in incidents. This article is simply unrealistic and does not support public view or fact.--Theosony (talk) 22:31, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I think you don't know Ha'aretz.
 * See here an article where they condemn Gaza war. Ceedjee (talk) 07:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * We may add blaming the victim to Yamanam's laundry list of claims which must have arisen out of cognitive dissonance (I trust that Yamanam is too intelligent to really believe the claims he makes). "'The Jews were asking for it when their coreligionists thousands of miles away were engaging in a military operation that I disagreed with! Don't call me an anti-Semite. I could hardly be blamed for throwing a Molotov cocktail at a synagogue.  I saw a Jewish institution and it made me think about how mad I am at the Jews ... er um ... I mean the Israelis. It was their fault, not mine!'" --GHcool (talk) 20:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep This is a pretty straightforward article. Its subject is an important aspect of the 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict and it is covered by countless reliable sources. Like many other aspects of that conflict, it is too large for the main article, and, like them, has been spun out according to WP:SIZE and WP:SUMMARY. Some of the comments on the article's talk page and on the previous AfD, the speed with which the article was renominated for AfD, the generally low level of pro-deletion arguments here and on the previous AfD, as well as the stunning variety of different and sometimes contradictory reasons adduced by those who would delete it-- all these indicate that - without prejudice to any particular editor - we have a pattern of WP:IDONTLIKEIT on our hands. I will refute the pro-deletion arguments that have been raised, though this is a difficult job since most of them have not been developed enough to really understand.
 * WP:SYN and WP:OR: The argument that an entire article should be deleted because it violates these policies - "no need to even bother checking each statement vis-s-vis the sources, let's just dump the whole thing" - is usually reserved for badly sourced articles, articles where almost everything looks like it was invented by the editor. In this article on the other hand, every single statement is properly sourced, and usually worded as closely as possible to the wording of the source without constituting plagiarism. It is telling that those arguing for SYN and OR have not given a single example of a statement that is not made by the respective cited source.
 * Who says these incidents were antisemitic? Well, the cited reliable sources, for one. Most of the governments and NGOs who responded to them (quoted in the article), for another. But this argument lies on a misunderstanding of the word "antisemitic". For example, one participant seems to believe that if someone firebombed a synagogue because he was really justifiably angry at Israel's treatment of the Palestinians, not because he wants all Jews to die, the attack was political, not antisemitic. But "antisemitic" simply means "anti-Jewish", so even if all Jews were somehow connected to Israel's actions, which they aren't, and even if that connection made them morally culpable, which it wouldn't, and even if attacking culpable people were always justified, which it isn't, attacking Jews because of Israel's actions would still be antisemitic, since it would be anti-Jewish. In any case, this is really a non-issue, since we could solve the problem by changing the name to "Attacks against Jews...". This was in fact the original name, but user:Cerejota changed it to "Antisemitic incidents..." citing arguments similar to the ones I just raised. It is also worth noting that, contrary to what was implied by a keep supporter above, this article does not contain any anti-Israeli incidents (of which there were many), only anti-Jewish incidents.
 * Who says these attacks were caused by the conflict? The article doesn't say that every single incident was necessarily caused by the conflict; what it does say is that the wave of incidents as a whole was caused by the conflict. The cited sources overwhelmingly assert this (some were brought up as examples above).
 * WP:CFORK Content fork or POV fork? If the nom truly believes this is a content fork, he could help us all out by naming the article that this article is a fork of, and then we could all go together to improve that article while deleting this one. Is it a POV fork? POV forks are "deliberately created to avoid neutral point of view guidelines". No explanation was given as to how this article is not neutral. Also, WP:POVFORK says: " do not refer to forks as "POV" except in extreme cases of persistent disruptive editing. Instead, apply Wikipedia's policy that requires a neutral point of view". Which sources are given too much weight? Which are given too little? If someone really believes this is the case, let's work it out on the talk page.
 * WP:NOT I like this one the best. Did the nom read through WP:NOT and say: "hey, that antisemitism article is a violation of this! By golly, as a responsible editor I ought to go open an AfD for it"? If that was the case, care to tell us which section it violates? Do you believe this article is a game guide, a travel directory, perhaps a case study? Jalapenos do exist (talk) 22:19, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * "every single statement is properly sourced" - Extensive use of one-sided sources unattributed and uncountered is not 'properly sourced'.
 * Just take the first line and the verb "acknowledged". Is that right, do you think? The kind of encompassing descriptive and balanced viewpoint that Wikipedia is aiming for?
 * "Antisemitic simply means Anti-Jewish". It wholly means Anti-Jewish. Anti Jewish culture,religion and practices. Anti-semitism is discrimination on the grounds of Jewishness. Therefore, linking the conflict and Anti-semitism is highly problematic. As the title stands, it should be a description of the use of the term, not an assumption of the term's validity in this context.
 * The article starts with the assumption and goes on. That's the OR. It treats sources that should be attributed as uncontentious authorities.
 * Lord knows I wouldn't know where to start cleaning it up, or I would.
 * - Ddawkins73 (talk) 23:03, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Extensive use of one-sided sources unattributed and uncountered is not "properly sourced. Which source is one-sided? Reuters? The New York Times? BBC? When the article quotes sources not considered RS's in themselves, it attributes the quotes to them and cites to a reliable source. If you think the article uses too broad a definition of antisemitism, why not propose renaming to "incidents against Jews..."? The one thing you said that I agree with is that you wouldn't know where to start cleaning it up. That part is true. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 23:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Why can't you read the discussions on this full page without pointing out particular statements and making a joke out of them ridiculously. The fact is, the points you are ridiculing are valid, and this whole issue IS down to media spin, and certain editors are milking it in their state of bias rather than being proper editors and remaining neutral!!!--Theosony (talk) 23:31, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, the Reuters headline is predictably responsible: "...concerns raised about antisemitism..."
 * That's proper attribution.
 * I already proposed renaming the article. Two ways, even. Doesn't make what's there worth keeping as an article. There's always cut n paste if people want source text. As to why they might want something which isn't even a good GCSE standard precis as source text- I haven't the faintest.
 * - Ddawkins73 (talk) 03:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Interesting how selectively you cite. The headline is "Concerns raised about resurgence of anti-Semitism", and if there are any doubts, the first sentence in the article is "A spike in anti-Semitic attacks in France during Israel's Gaza offensive last month has left many Jews shaken even after warring parties agreed to an uneasy truce.". So clearly according to this source we have a wave of antisemitic incidents during the Gaza conflict. Afroghost (talk) 03:17, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * No. It isn't interesting.
 * But, yes, the article is more forthright, opening it.
 * Thinking about it, if someone daubs graffiti, that can well be anti-semitic.
 * But throwing stones, or an assault - that isn't necessarily anti-semitic. It's a subtle distinction, and I hope a wholly technical one purely about Wikipedia having no opinion at all, so attributing where necessary.
 * To be honest, I hadn't considered how some incidents would be verbal or written.
 * One thing is clear: I think the article needs to be written a lot more carefully.
 * - Ddawkins73 (talk) 04:36, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep and remove any attacks where no reliable sources link them with antisemitism. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 22:32, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This has nothing to do with reliability of sources, please revisit the nomination reasons. Yamanam (talk) 17:30, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * This has already been done. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 02:41, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * What sources can be considered reliable in this case though? That is one of the most difficult matters.Read the last few comments previous, fingers crossed that should put my view across, I might have done it rather badly.--Theosony (talk) 22:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If you meant that Israeli media (which is a small minority of the cited sources) is not reliable for this subject - it was already established in the main article that quality news sources, even Israeli and Arab ones, are reliable. This article cites some articles from Haaretz and Jerusalem Post, both of which are quality news sources. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 22:43, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No, not at all. I mean, Israeli and international media. You must be aware of the spin they are putting on every crime against someone who just happens to be Jewish. Most of these crimes, in my own understanding, are not anti-semitic, but day-to-day crimes that happen every single minute of every day. The media and victims of crime who are Jewish blame this on the anti-conflict public, but in fact it has just been blown up out of proportion. --Theosony (talk) 22:46, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If you think that the mainstream international media is unreliable regarding this topic, your problem is not with this article, but with Wikipedia's verifiability policy.


 * Ridiculous argument. You are saying that we should ignore all this reputable newspaper from different countries, and with different political orientations, because according to you it is just media spin. I'd rather go with reputable sources, than with your personal opinion. Please provide evidence for your outlandish statement. Afroghost (talk) 22:56, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Please, please calm down. I am simply saying that no official sources have claimed this outside of the Israeli state. We must also remember that individuals are biased and that no PROOF has been provided within these sources. Please behave maturely in order to resolve this issue. I have made a valid comment, and your previous comment has contributed nothing but personal feelings. It is important that we leave personal emotion and/or opinion out of this and write out of neutrality.--Theosony (talk) 23:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Again a ridiculous statement. So the government of Argentina, France, the Netherlands, Poland, Spain, the United Kingdom and Venezuela are not offical sources? Afroghost (talk) 23:05, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * They have not provided sources but replies to media. Please stop it with the bias and cool down so that we can deal with this issue swiftly. One problem I've had with Wikipedia is that some editors turn straight-forward issues into arguments when they needn't be.--Theosony (talk) 23:08, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Violates WP:NOT. We don't need to document every time someone says/does something mean about another race/ethnicity. -Atmoz (talk) 22:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * "Announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism" are given as examples of thigs that fall under NOTNEWS. This article deals with a significant phenomenon that received enormous coverage in the international media, drew responses from governments and NGOs worldwide, and literally affected the lives of millions of people. Do you disagree? If so, please state why. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 22:50, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I do disagree. Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events. In 10 or 20 years, as someone looks back at 2008-2009, will they be interested in an an article about antisemitism in 2008-9?&mdash;maybe. Will they be interested in an article on the Israel-Gaza conflict&mdash;maybe. Will they be interested in antisemitic incidents during the 2008-2009 Israel Gaza conflict?&mdash;I don't think so. There have have been antisemitic acts for probably as long as there have been Jews. IMO, it's not the purpose of an encyclopedia to document specific acts of antisemitism, as seen in this article. -Atmoz (talk) 23:20, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I meant, do you disagree with the statement that the article's subject was a significant phenomenon that received enormous coverage in the international media, drew responses from governments and NGOs worldwide, and literally affected the lives of millions of people? Re your comment, notability isn't a function of interest, otherwise Pokemon cruft would be more notable than Tiglath-Pileser IV. But as long as we're crystal-balling, I do think that in the future, books and academic papers written about this conflict will include the anti-Jewish backlash aspect. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 23:35, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The article's topic is not significant in an historical context. -Atmoz (talk) 23:43, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I take it you don't disagree then. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 02:48, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree 100%. If this happened, the size of Wikipedia would have doubled, and then some more.--Theosony (talk) 22:46, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia growing is generally considered a good thing. You may want to see WP:NOTPAPER. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 22:50, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You are purposely missing my point. I really don't want this to turn sour or immature the way you are turning it, please read my additions to this page so that is can be dealt with maturely and democratically.--Theosony (talk) 22:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Your conspiracy theories about media spin are not exactly mature. Afroghost (talk) 22:58, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Media spin is a fact. Within these articles there are no approved figures and no officially approved evidence. Your bias is not mature, so please, please, try to be neutral. It is important to this article that you remain so. I have no political feelings towards you, so please do not attack me imaturely over a straight-forward issue.--Theosony (talk) 23:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * There's no conspiracy theory. I hardly think The Jewish Chronicle or even The Times claim to be neutral.
 * - Ddawkins73 (talk) 23:17, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course you conveniently ignore the fact that there is not only the Jewish Chronicle and the conservative London Times, but many other newspaper such as the Independent, the Guardian, the New York Times reporting on the surge of anti-semitic attacks. So far absolutely no evidence has been provided that these sources are not reliable, apart from the conspiracy theory that all this newspapers spin their stories (at the same time and with the same results). Afroghost (talk) 23:38, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Listen, Google search Media hype and get some information for yourself. Your bias does not help matters but worsen them. At your age, is it not appropriate to be mature rather than purposely argumentative??--Theosony (talk) 23:49, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Obviously keep and speedy close. There was no consensus at the afd that ended a week ago so starting another one now is pointless and will result in the same lack of consensus. As for the substantive issue, there's no POV fork - this article is way too big to be merged into anything and nominator doesn't even say where this was forked from. not includes a huge number of policy rules. It would be prudent on the nominator to point out the specific policy in not this article violates. WP:SYNTH is inapplicable when this article just repeats exactly what is said in reliable sources. Furthermore, any OR problems should be resolved at the article talkpage, not at Afd. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 23:42, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Fist up, AfD is not a vote count, it is rather a discussion - The size of the article has nothing to do with it being a forking POV. I did above pinpoint the policies related her. Well, WP:SYNTH is exactly what u said: "repeats exactly what is said in reliable sources" but of course under certain conditions of repeating the sources the artilce would be in violation with WP:SYNTH which this article did, u can review my above responses to Chesdovi. I think that we can nominate an artilce if it all depended on OR. Yamanam (talk) 17:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep. Worldwide protests and rather violent attitudes being forced on worldly Jews as a result of this conflict is an interesting phenomenon. We can all agree that it isn't the best article and definitely needs a review, but deleting is not the wises solution IMO.  We can improve the article easily with collaboration and understanding but obsessing with deletion will only hinder progress. As Brew said, we should all be at talk instead of arguing here.  If and when it gets to a point where there is no way in hell this article is going to improve in the slightest, and roadblocks/stonewalling/bandwagoning breeds, then an afd would seem reasonable under those conditions. In regards to the afd, a comment such as: "No, not at all. I mean, Israeli and international media. You must be aware of the spin they are putting on every crime against someone who just happens to be Jewish." is clear evidence for what the real problem is.  This has nothing to do with actual quality and everything to do with promoting a sympathetic perspective of Jews.  It's this kind of mentality that needs to be weeded out before afds are initiated. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:27, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * You seem to confuse objectivity with personal opinion. You've certainly conflated some comments out of context into one thing no-one said. I'm actually not sure what the "real problem" is, as I'm not sure what has everything to do with promoting a sympathetic perspective of Jews. Certainly not Wikipedia. Nor an unsympathetic perspective. Or any perspective.


 * - Ddawkins73 (talk) 02:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Amateur strawman Richard. ; ) I quoted the comment in its exact form, not paragraph.  If something is out of context, feel free to point out the truth.  The point I made was that anything that remotely cast a white light on Jews is automatically a fork, opinion, violation, blah blah blah.  Lest we forget, the article is sufficiently sourced, carries a notable theme that has been repeated throughout world media and directly relates to one of the most widely publicized wars of this year.  Also, the rule-throwing above clearly does not apply, as proven by several users. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:21, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * My apologies. I thought you were conflating two things I said. I missed that comment you quoted originally. ugh. I disassociate myself from it.


 * Not trying to make a false argument, as all I care about is making sure the articles are balanced and considered. I was irritated by comments of another user implying I was "conveniently forgetting" something, and took yours in that context: thought that you were implying that my opinion was that anti-semitism doesn't exist. It certainly isn't. Whether I think an encyclopedia should declare the attacks as anti-semitic, without attribution, even if the papers did - that's another matter.


 * btw- I'm not Richard Dawkins. That's a coincidence :) - Ddawkins73 (talk) 04:06, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. Yeah I know, just a joke. Wikipedia can be too serious sometimes. :D Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. None of the claims for deleting this article were established. The subject is big enough to deserve its own article, hence forking is irrelevant here; so is WP:NOT, no section in this policy was pointed out as being violated by this article; the article is well referenced by reliable sources therefore WP:SYNTH is not applicable either. The short time this article is again in AfD after extensive discussions in a previous AfD and a deletion review, raises concerns regarding the good faith in bringing it up again for deletion. Noon (talk) 01:06, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * How come forking and NOT are irrelevant, I can't see that! I did point out several points u can review them up. Yamanam (talk) 17:51, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep There was no consensus at the last AfD a week ago to delete (per what Brewcrewer said above). The article is well sourced and I don't see how it goes against WP:NOT. Epson291 (talk) 03:23, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This nomination has nothing to do with an article to be well sourced. Yamanam (talk) 17:51, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes you claim it's because it's in violation of WP:NOT and WP:NOR but that is hardly the case. Epson291 (talk) 08:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Could u please explain more, how are my "claims" are not the case? Yamanam (talk) 09:51, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep there is ample evidence in the main stream press including instances where perpetrators have explicitly stated their attack is due to Gaza. This is issue was news worth and topical and efforts to raise the bar seem based mostly on "I don't like it" or article quality issues which can be fixed. There is a significant interest in this topic in the research community, it will just take 6 to 18 months before academic sources and report appear. To delete now when media evidence exists and scholarly evidence has not had time to form seems very wrong. Specially given the much lower standards in other similar areas. Oboler (talk) 03:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * But they didn't confirm that the attacks were anti-semitic, and not all news worth is accepted here (maybe this is the main problem). I think it is better to wait until the academic sources, we are not here to speculate. Yamanam (talk) 17:51, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep Widely reported phenomenon in reliable secondary sources. Calling it "antisemitism" is merely  calling  a spade a spade.  If these attacks were on Israeli embassies or Israelis only, then they could be considered "anti-Israel."  If a similar backlash was widely reported on any other ethnicity, race, or religious group, one would expect it would be widely reported.  If Arabs or Muslims the world over were being attacked and feeling a backlash reportedly due to this conflict, we would not bury it, but put it forward as relevant information.  Later editors can discuss name changing and improvements.  Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:00, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep We just had this. It was no consensus. Please, folks. IronDuke  05:04, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per above.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 05:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep and close/strong keep. - Speedy keep and close because this has just been restored after DRV - this is a misuse of process (sorry to the nom, but use common sense) - regardless of the value of the arguments regarding OR. The nom has not written in the article's talk page, nor has made any effort to fix the article - deletion is not a way to fix OR, discussion and sourcing is the way to fix OR. At the very least, we should allow some time to pass between AfDs. That said, since I doubt admins will hear that, I am for strong keep:


 * Essentially this article is a WP:SUMMARY of the oversized International reaction to the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict article, and its not OR for several reasons:


 * 1) Point one of the nom - Attacks on Jews as Jews are by definition "antisemitic". If you kill yourself, its a "suicide". It is not OR to use a word in the english language to call things. What might be OR is "attack", as it is a more ambigous word, that means different things. In which case we defer to what the RS say, and call it "incidents" as a bland, NPOV/WTA descriptor.
 * 2) Point two of the nom - Nom obviously didn't read the sources. In the article there are clearly reliable secondary sources making the connection. It is trivial to find secondary sources who directly mention a phenomenon of an increase of antisemitic attacks during this war, as compared to the same period this year - this establishes notability and lack of OR. Some of these sources are not in the article: APYNETNYT on attacks in Venezuela. There is clear coverage in secondary sources of both antisemitic attacks, and the distinction that they are connected to the events in Gaza.
 * 3) There are indeed some borderline OR things in the article, but these are to be fixed by editing, not deletion of the article. They are being actively discussed - and there has been material removed from the article for this reason.
 * 4) There is a real danger of WP:COATRACK and WP:POVFORK, and this article could become that if one is not watchful. So far the editing experience has been positive as a remark, and clear limits place on the topic (ie reliable sources identifying attacks as antisemitic, judicious use of primary sources only to elaborate the thesis put forth by secondary sources). For some reason, this article has been a somewhat of joy to edit, for an WP:ARBPIA article, its probably the rarest experience.
 * 5) In general, merging is prefered to deletion when the reason is OR, except the natural place to merge this information into already has serious WP:SIZE issues. Since the topic is notable and must be covered, this only leave us either with needing this article, or continue to have a huge article. Take your pick as to which alternative furthers encyclopedic value.

In the previous AfD I went with merge, but a good faith effort was made to improve this article and address the community concerns. It started as bad article, and has improved to the point it can be considered start or even C/B class. I strongly urge those who argued delete to examine the article on its merits, as it stands, and realize that both arguments of the nominator are patently false.--Cerejota (talk) 05:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * "Attacks on Jews as Jews are by definition "antisemitic"". This is a subject of debate, and there are plenty (like myself) who are of the opinion that only racially or religiously motivated incidents should be included in the definition. A politically motivated attack on a Jew is no more antisemitic than, say, a British soldier being attacked in Afghanistan is anti-European.  JulesH (talk) 08:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thats why I said "Jews as Jews". Obviously if you attack a political opponent who happens to be Jewish things are different. However this has a strawmanish flavor in this context, as the article we are discussing clearly doesn't cover attack on Jews for reasons other than being Jews, and content like that has been actively removed.--Cerejota (talk) 18:56, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you really mean that JulesH? I would call it a politically motivated antisemitic attack, for they are not directed against Israeli citizens. My question to you is have any british people in the UK been attacked because of the conflict in Afganistan? The article does not mention any attacks against Jews in Israel that have occured as a result of the conflict. Chesdovi (talk) 23:13, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions.   -- Cerejota (talk) 05:37, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions.   -- Cerejota (talk) 05:37, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions.   -- Cerejota (talk) 05:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.   -- Cerejota (talk) 05:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.   -- Cerejota (talk) 05:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions.   -- Cerejota (talk) 05:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per Brewcrewer. Jclemens (talk) 05:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per Brewcrewer and Jalapenos. I'll add that most of the sources I checked explicitly connect the incidents to the particular conflict, so I don't see a WP:SYNTH problem. I would not object to renaming it from "Antisemitic" to "Anti-Jewish", but that's an argument for WP:RM, not AFD. -- Nudve (talk) 06:18, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. It's too soon to have an article on this topic; news stories are not a suitable source for determining whether or not any of the incidents were antisemitic (i.e., racially or religiously motivated) or purely political (i.e., reprisals against actions taken by the state of Israel), and until there are academic texts on this subject we cannot really discuss it neutrally.  Newspapers are often too quick to jump to judgments about the motivations behind an incident, and are frequently wrong.  So lets wait for them to appear. JulesH (talk) 08:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This is true but that is the case for absolutely any topic related to a recent event. Concerning the distinction between a purely political goal and antisemitism, it depends on the definition we give to antisemitism. I understand your point and you consider that violence against Jewish people as individuals when motivated by Israeli actions is not antisemitism because potically motivated. If there is a consensus around that, the article could be moved to anti-Jewish etc. But, if I can understand your reasonning, I disagree. For me, attacking Jews, even if motivated by Israeli actions, is New antisemitism, the one due to the amalgame of Jews and Israel. But whatever, there are your and my opinions. Between you, I, wikipedia editors and journalists, wikipedia principles tell us to report the most wp:rs analysis ie, here : journalists's mind. If you disagree with them, the only solution is to find other journalists to claim the contrary. I must admit I didn't look for these. Ceedjee (talk) 09:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep because the article is to the point, and fulfills all the requirements of WP:RS, WP:CITE and WP:NPOV. Also kindly note: Don't demolish the house while it's still being built. IZAK (talk) 09:16, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, antisemitic incidents are notable in and of themselves, and if there is any connection between those and other events, this should be covered. --Leifern (talk) 09:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep article fulfills WP:RS & WP:CITE and WP:NPOV. I would also have to say it probably falls under WP:CSB as well. --Nsaum75 (talk) 11:10, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Document significant and notable condemnation pronto I mean Muslim Council, letters to the Guardian etc. This is one of the major problems. Due weight. Remove weasel words like acknowledge. Attribute


 * If I attack a wum because it's also a vug, am I anti-wum?
 * That's not straightforward - nor the implications as per RS - and is a major cause of debate here, imo, but too subtle to deal with here or maybe anywhere at Wikipedia. If a word is used to describe a crime perhaps we must report the word as the crime and a fact (As in "mugging" and Britain 1970s->). Removed my delete. Can't say Keep, pretty much as all deletes above. Too soon. WP:V issues. Anyhow, realistically, let's just sort the article out so it's not a stupid parody anymore.
 * - Ddawkins73 (talk) 12:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Antisemitism is discrimination, hostility or prejudice directed at Jews. Period. If that definition is disputed, we should still document the incidents targeted at Jews worldwide during the said conflict but change the article's name. It is not OR since all incidents are sourced. Also, please do not renominate articles for deletion so shortly after a previous AfD failed or was reverted. -- Nahum (talk) 12:10, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I can understand from your definition that Palestinians who used to fight back israeli forces during the last conflict were in fact carrying out antisemitic attacks! For God's sake! Yamanam (talk) 13:52, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Nahum, if people wanted to find out what antisemitism was they'd look up the article on that. Secondly, if there was a page that documented the rise of violence towards Northern Irish unionists during British offensives over the past few centuries, the page would be deleted. This is no different. You are clearly bias and comparing Palestinian-sympathisers to Antisemitic animals. Please take a good, mature look at the issue for God's sake!--Theosony (talk) 14:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yam - Show me one incident in the article which happened in Israel? If you lump all Jews and Israelis together, which you do, then any attack against a Jew, be it motivated by the Jew country Israel or not, is defined as anti-semitic. Chesdovi (talk) 18:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * First off, Please, I don't go with Yam, either Yaman or Yamanam you choose. So, if I was in Germany and I saw a woman that was about to be raped by a raper, then before attacking the him I should double check his religion, becuase if he was a Jewish, then I better don't or it would be anti-semitic, for god's sake! The point is, not all attacks against Jewish are anti-semitic. Yamanam (talk) 17:27, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Pleae read the article before making such silly comparisons. Incidents in the article reported were mostly vandalism at Jewish places, often with slogans that clearly showed the antisemitic nature of these attacks. Nowhere does the article talk about robberies, rapes or other common crime attacks on people who just happened to be Jews. Afroghost (talk) 17:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Afroghost, from where I come from and according to my culture and background to tell someone "silly comparisons" or "silly anything" is disrespectful. Anyways, I didn't say the article talk about robberies, rapes, or other common crime... I meant to tell u that there are some attacks on Jews that shouldn't be classified as anti-semitic, simply becasue the motive is not because the attacked is Jew. I have been repeating this idea all through this discussion for over than 10 times ;-) Yamanam (talk) 12:59, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry Yaman! I am afraid I am going to have to repeat what I wrote to you on the last AFD:
 * They are targeting Jews because of the conflict and because they are Jewish. They are targeting Jews because they believe all Jews are supportive of Israel and back its actions. All Jews therefore advocate the massacre of civilians. All Jews are greedy too. And because the massacre of civilians is evil, just as greed and arrogance is evil, all Jews are understandably attacked. It is not a gratuitous hate. There is always a perceived reason behind the anti-semitic prejudice, a motive for the attacks. It is not just because they were born Jewish, but because what Jews are associated with. It would not be anti-semitic for an ill-treated worker to punch his boss, who happened to be Jewish. But for him to punch another random Jew in the street as revenge against his boss, would be. “But I wasn’t punching him because he was Jewish”, he retorts. “It was because of the ill-treatment of my Jewish boss; and as all Jews share the same ethnicity, all must support the ill-treatment of workers. My assault therefore, cannot be classed anti-semitic.” Now did this worker ask the random Jew whether he supports ill treatment of workers before he punched him? No. He just perceived these two Jews were one and the same and both equally deserving of his retribution. Did any of the current anti-semitic attackers ask their victims whether they supported the Israeli action before they carried out their attack? Did the pakistani terrorist in Mumbai ask Leibish Teitelbaum whether he was an anti-Zionist before he shot him? No. They just attacked them because they were Jewish and because what those people associate all Jews with. These recent global attacks carried out against random Jews are indeed anti-semitic precisely because the attackers are perceiving all Jews to be collectively supportive and therefore culpable for, in this case, Israeli actions. Attacks against the Israeli embassy would not be called anti-semitic. Attacks against pro-Israel supporters would not be anti-semitic. The attack at the BICOM office is not classed anti-semitic. Attacks against random synagogues and random Jews are.
 * For me I still see the motive is the key factor, if the motive "because he is Jewish" then it is anti-semitic, if the motive "becuase israel (deemed to be his homeland) is brutal" this is not anti-semitic. Yamanam (talk) 12:59, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The conflict was a reason for antisemites to express their hatred of Jews. How many churchs in the UK were defaced at the height of the Iraq or Afgan war? Britain is christian country - why weren't christians attacked? Chesdovi (talk) 18:30, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Why would anyone with half a brain attack a church as a result of UK acts? is the UK the homeland for christians? NO, but israel is the homeland for Jewish. Yamanam (talk) 09:12, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * So the Jewish are the only ones who have a "homeland"? According to you, any attacks in the wake of Sept 11 are not Islamophobic attacks. They are just a protest against brutal terrorism carried out by muslims. Chesdovi (talk) 12:39, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I can't see how this point is relevant? If you think it is relevant please rephrase! Yamanam (talk) 13:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It means that just as attacks against Muslims because of anger of Muslim terrorism are labelled Islamophobic, so too are attacks against Jews labelled antisemitic, even though they were motivated by the brutal actions of other Jews. Why would anyone with half a brain attack a synagogue as a result of Israeli actions? Chesdovi (talk) 23:15, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * (Noting the surge of anti-semitic attacks in the UK during the Gaza conflict, it will be interesting to know whether any of the 150,000 British Sinhalese people have been attacked by any of the 120,000 British Sri Lankan Tamil people or their Hindus supporters anywhere in the UK in response to the Sri-Lankan’s armys “brutal attack” of Mullaitivu. 50,000 demonstrated against it today in London.) I don't believe there were any attacks against British Sinhalese. Explain this to me? Chesdovi (talk) 23:00, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Another good point, will there might be dozens of answers for your question, for me, maybe the reason that Arab-israeli/Jewish conflict's been on the international arena for more than 70-80 years and the Sri Lankan Civil War started only before 25 years... Another reason might be that israel is accused to be a terrorist state (attacking Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Jordan, and Egypt), even the basis that israel was found on is still a big controversial issue in the world... maybe another reason is how israel is blackmailing Europe for the holocuast and on the other hand is committing a holocause to the civilian Palestinians.... btw Chesdovi, imagine me creating an article for the reasons why British Sri Lankan Tamil people didn't attack Sinhalese people! this is exactly what's been done for our article... I mean all the reason I mentioned in this repsonse are correct, but how come I can conclude that they are the real reason! Yamanam (talk) 13:33, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * "[Israel] is committing a holocause to the civilian Palestinians". Thank you. We now know where you stand on the subject of antisemitism. As you have revealled your extreme POV in this matter, I no longer think this was a good faith nomination. I am loath to keep on answering you as long as you do not retract that antisemitic statement. Chesdovi (talk) 18:30, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep The article is adequately sourced and cannot be called OR. --Redaktor (talk) 13:12, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep. --Yoavd (talk) 13:49, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep The article is meticulously sourced. Why someone thinks it should be deleted is beyond me. Wikipedia has zillions of crappy articles about non-subjects that deserve to be deleted but this is not one of them. Having said that, I am not happy with the title.--Gilabrand (talk) 14:06, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep per Gilabrand and ditto his comment re: the title. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 14:27, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. The nom (and some of the other editors expressing delete opinions) seem to believe that "righteous anger" against Jews as an ethnic group is justified on the basis of a particular Israeli military operation. Putting aside for a moment any merits or problems there may be to this argument, such a discussion is irrelevant to Wikipedia. Consistent with WP:NPOV, all we are supposed to do here is document phenomena that occur in the world, offering no opinion on what that information means.
 * Consequently, the original AfD and this AfD seem to revolve around particular individuals wanting to expunge material from Wikipedia that they deem objectionable because they think that the "Antisemitic" behavior is an acceptable reaction, not because of the writing quality, citations or any real reason to delete. I would remind them that Wikipedia is not censored and that they should not disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point or game the system in order to enforce their point-of-view on the community.
 * I would likewise remind all parties that this discussion is about the article's merits and whether or not it is consistent with Wikipedia policy. If you are unable to be fair and objective because you have a strong point of view about the conflict, you should not be participating in this AfD. Kari Hazzard  ( T  |  C ) 14:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * But the article's merits are very limited. Look at the amount of sources such as The Jewish Chronicle and its sensationalist headlines being considered valid. It is important that these remarks are noted as sensationalist and that it is pointed out that the numbers aren't as great as some editors would like to believe. Any attack on a Jewish person, or any person, is wrong - there is no justification, but to call them ALL anti-semitic is ridiculous!! And that is precisely what is being done!--Theosony (talk) 14:53, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, your comment is also hypocritical in that you have strong bias towards one community, whether you want a two-state solution or not!--Theosony (talk) 14:55, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If you feel that there are some sources being cited that are bad, be bold and remove them and request additional verification. A lot (most?) of the citations are from sources (e.g. BBC, Reuters, The Times, etc.) that are generally regarded as good. I'd also like to note that your comment that I am "hypocritical" is an ad hominem and therefore fallacious. Kari Hazzard  ( T  |  C ) 15:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Theosony: "but to call them ALL anti-semitic is ridiculous!!" Are you not aware that the figures are taken from the CST and other organisations which vet each attack to know whether it was antisemitic? These figures can be relied upon and are not "sensationalist" claims. Chesdovi (talk) 18:13, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep the article has merit, is not OR and just passed an AFD last week. My nom is as per cerejota and Izak. This topic is certainly notable in itself, and is certainly worthy of being among the many spinoffs of the main article. Yossiea (talk) 14:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Concern that the anti-semitism is speculative can be resolved through proper sourcing. An important article.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 15:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep If it fits in with policies (and it seems to) then it should be kept. I'm not sure if I even understand which piece of Wikipedia policy would give a reason for this article to be deleted. There is so much cited material (in accordance with WP:CITE there are over 80 refereneces) which documents a real subject!. If there are problems with the article, then it needs work, not deletion. --yonkeltron (talk) 17:13, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Sloppily-constructed, originally-researched content fork. Lumping together disparate elements into a grand unified theory of antisemitism also runs afoul of WP:SYNTH, perhaps the greatest transgression here of all.  Most of the Keep votes amount to WP:ILIKEIT and "it is reliably sourced so it must be kept!", which completely misses the point of violating the aforementioned three policies. Tarc (talk) 17:43, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Except in this case the "grand unified theory of antisemitism" is fully from ultra-reliable sources: AP, The Times, NYT, etc. If the sources say it, we must cover it. Simple, really. --Cerejota (talk) 19:00, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It is a bit intellectually dishonest to suggest that a source's headline warrants an article's existence. We report the facts about opinions here; not the opinions as fact.  This should have ever evolved into a stand-alone article.  Simple, really. Tarc (talk) 19:48, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Except the article from which this is a WP:SUMMARY has serious WP:SIZE issues... WP:SUMMARY is a legitimate way to handle WP:SIZE issues. That said, the RS are not using headlines - you obviously haven't read them - but actually describing the phenomenon. You have made it much more complicated than it is, really.--Cerejota (talk) 23:36, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, you have over-simplified it. And yes, I have read them, so please, keep your snide comments to yourself. Tarc (talk) 03:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * DeleteIt doesn't seem to be a common practice to list incidents of backlash. For example, there is no 9/11-related Anti-Muslim incidents list. BTW the article has a strange title. The use of during suggests that these attacks occurred in the duration of the 'conflict' rather than as a result of it. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 20:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * There is not such list, but this is not because it is not worthy of coverage Aftermath_of_the_September_11_attacks. Perhaps a similary well-sourced exploration of the topic is needed Hate crimes after the September 11 attacks or some such. This quid pro quo is not an argument for deletion, WP:OTHERSTUFF.--Cerejota (talk) 23:36, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * See my response to karihazzard. It is not a tit for tat thing. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 04:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Remember not to disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point. Yes, there is no dedicated article to Anti-Muslim happenings after 9/11. It's a topic that's probably useful to cover, so go write one. Kari Hazzard  ( T  |  C ) 02:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments such as that do not have a place here, please assume good faith. Remember this is not a vote, it is a discussion so even if people here overwhelmingly voted delete, the article can still be kept based on the points made in the discussion. I will reiterate my point for you, listing of backlash incidents is not common Wikipedia practice. I pointed out the example of the anti-Muslim backlash linked to 9/11 because it was of greater severity, duration, and notability and it is a recent occurrence that I am more familiar with. But we all know violent backlash against those who are simply associated with the belligerents by race, religion, nationality, etc. has occurred from the beginning of civilization. Do we have compilation of incidents in all/most/some of those cases? Another example would be incidents of anti-German and anti-Italian backlash in the U.S. during World War II, as you will notice there are no lists. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 04:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I do assume good faith. Assuming good faith does not mean I have to agree with other opinions, though. We have articles (note: plural) on the Anti-Japanese backlash during and after World War II at Japanese American internment and Japanese Canadian internment, an an article about the Expulsion of Germans after World War II. Why is it OK to have articles about Japanese people or Germans who were the victims of ethnic backlash related to a war but no OK to have articles about the Jews? Kari Hazzard  ( T  |  C ) 21:00, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The examples that you presented of state-sponsored ethnic cleansing and internment of ethnic groups are not comparable. Furthermore, as you will notice antisemitic-related articles are abundant on Wikipedia so needless to say it is always been "OK to have articles about the Jews." If this article was written in the same format as the examples you provided, then it be too short and would need to be merged into international reactions. The listing of all the reported antisemitic incidents occurring during the conflict is just bulk, a way to justify the need for a separate article. It doesn't work like that on Wikipedia. Wikipedia would be taking on the role of anti-discrimination organizations with these lists of incidents. For example, why write a list of anti-Muslim incidents after 9/11 here at Wikipedia when organizations like the ADC and CAIR have 50+ page reports. The ADL has a list of antisemitic attacks during the offensive on Gaza
 * BTW when you say to an editor to not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point because they simply disagree with you, then that is not assuming good faith. Also this: "AfD seem to revolve around particular individuals wanting to expunge material from Wikipedia that they deem objectionable because they think that the "Antisemitic" behavior is an acceptable reaction" is inflammatory and not assuming good faith.--Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 20:19, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Good point Karimarie, but please note that Japanese American internment, Japanese Canadian internment, and Expulsion of Germans after World War II were acts that carried out by governments and those governemtns declared and authorized the internment, while the attacks of this artilce was done through individuals and no one declared the attacks nor authorized them. Another point, a quick glance at the resources in those article shows u that secondary sources are heavily used there, while in this article only primary sources are used. There is quite a big difference between an organized ethnic cleansing of a certain region and conducting several unrelated attacks by individuals. Yamanam (talk) 09:41, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep, nom and delete arguments fail to demonstrate how article is violation of forking, not, and WP:SYN. There are 83 sources cited, very specifically addressing the topic of this article. -- M P er el  20:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per Brewcrewer. Bhaktivinode (talk) 00:51, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination. All the news-report sourcing in the world doesn't obscure that fact that the very premise is original research, and the piling-on is undue weight that inflates its importance. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 01:44, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * keep article cites several references which specifically identify antisemitic incidents and link them to the gaza situation, and begins by citing "a rise in antisemitic incidents has been reported throughout the worldwide press" (giving citations for worldwide press articles which do indeed report such, linking them to the gaza incursions); how in hell can these possibly be called original research? other references are prima facie; shouting "Jews out" is ipso facto antisemtic, and doing so while at a rally protesting the gaza incursion cannot not be seen as linked to the gaza incursion, can  it? Gzuckier (talk) 06:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The 84 references are convincing, almost every sentence is referenced. Squash Racket (talk) 10:41, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. I don't think WP:SYNTH is a concern here; gathering multiple sources and sourcing each fact to one of those sources is not original research, but research. SYNTH is when a statement is made which is not by supported by any of the sources, but rather relies on a bridge between sources. All of the sources relate to the article's topic, and none of the sources fail verifiability. The most weighty concern against the article relates to NOTNEWS, but if the issue is global, and lasting over time, it has risen above a mere news story and become an encyclopedic notable topic. Sjakkalle (Check!)  14:38, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Regretly, most of those voting for this article to be kept are missing the point; this article was nominated to be deleted not for lack of resources, rather becuase of the use of those resources was a primary resource use, in addition, wikipedia is no the suitable place for such articles no matter how many resources are there. Please reread the nomination reasons before your vote. It is about wiki general policies. Yamanam (talk) 17:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, you seem to miss the point, there is an abundance of secondary sources (read reputable newspaper of all political orientations from a wide range of countries) that report on the topic matter of the article, and not only on isolated incidents. Afroghost (talk) 17:21, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Afroghost, I think u r missing the definition of the primary sources and seconday sources, FYI newspapers r considered primary sources and should be used at wikipedia with extreme caution. Yamanam (talk) 11:55, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Read WP:PRIMARY to understand the difference between primary and secondary sources and stop making up such a misleading nonsense. Afroghost (talk) 13:11, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well Afroghost, u got me there, I really thought that I had the wrong understanding of what primary and secondary sources are! but to my surprise, I have the correct understanding. I am having doubts concerning your understanding to the subject matter. Yamanam (talk) 14:09, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Move Perhaps move to 'Antisemitism and the 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict'; this means it can be discussed in the article whether things were antisemitic, antizionist etc. The role of antisemitism in this conflict gained lots of media attention and therefore reaches WP:N. This isn't news, but could be an academic article on the role of antisemitism. Computerjoe 's talk 17:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete per the nominator. An article of this nature is clearly a propaganda and is an attempt to use WP as a SOAPBOX ZencvLets discuss 21:28, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Or in your words : "Welcome to Judeopedia and have fun." That's what you really mean, right? Afroghost (talk) 22:00, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * How would that discredit the case of the original nomination for the deletion of this article, which clearly doesn't belong to an encyclopedia? ZencvLets discuss 23:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No, this kind of comment only discredits you. And btw, given that many good arguments both for and against inclusion of this article have been mentioned on this page, it only shows that nothing is really clear. But I guess it to you it only shows that this is "Judeopedia". Afroghost (talk) 23:20, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Here we are discussing whether article deserves to be in the project, not about comment which I as an editor had made in a talk page. My point is it clearly it does not(if you care to browse the history of this article, youd find that I had mentioned my rationale in the first round of deletion proposal). I'm not gonna browse the edit history of many of the editors who had disagreed with me here to make my case for the deletion of the article, as that is basically illogical. ZencvLets discuss 23:32, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Then discuss why the article does not belong here. You did not do that, you were just throwing around accussations of propaganda and soapboxing, without explaining why this might be the case. Only your comment about a "Judeopedia" on the article talk page makes clear what you really mean by propaganda, i.e. you are afraid that Wikipedia will be too Jewish. Afroghost (talk) 23:38, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It had been well discussed(I had clearly mentioned in my last comment - browse history if you have time as I am short of the same). My points would be well undesrstood by an experienced editor. Btw, your fixation on what an editor wrote in a talk page and bringing it to make a case here will not bring you any respect. 'Talk about edits, not about editor' is a basic thing ZencvLets discuss
 * Then please explain why the article is propaganda. A very strong claim, quite an insult to all those who worked hard on this article. You did not provide an explanation so far, and so I am very much inclined to believe your fear of a Jewish dominated Wikipedia (the "Judeopedia") is the explanation. But I hope I am wrong, but who can I know. Afroghost (talk) 00:15, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Discuss to convince who? Given the unconstructive way in which you are engaging in talk pages and also here, I don't feel any obligation to convince you, as it is abundantly clear that you had made up your mind whether article should stay here or not. If you had kept an open mind, you could have found abundant arguments in this discussion to support my arguments. ZencvLets discuss 21:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Calm down, there is no need to be so aggressive. All I asked for is for you to provide some evidence for your claim that this article is propaganda. Above I acknowledged that some good arguments against inclusion have been mentioned on this talk page, so I am little bit puzzled by your claim that I am not open to new arguments. But I am sorry if I am not convinced when someone only shouts propaganda or "Judeopedia". Afroghost (talk) 22:23, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I was not being aggressive(sincerely sorry, if I sounded so). Having said that, my point was that bringing here again and again some comments made by me at a certain context in the talk page, to make a point in this discussion will not bring you any respect, as by doing so, you are diverting the current discussion and not assuming good faith of my arguments for deletion here ZencvLets discuss 19:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. This article is factual and well-sourced. It is a sub-article, which is an entirely different thing than a fork. It refers to its provided secondary sources in a way appropriate for an encyclopaedia &mdash; no OR about that. As for the reasoning “The article takes it for granted that those attacks are Antisemitic attacks (though not verified by the attacker)”, I ask (but only rhetorically) the nominator if this should be the normal standard? In that case, we’ll have to remove a lot of materials about discrimination of Afro-Americans, Africans and Arabs, since we don’t have access to each individual perpetrator’s inner life. -- Olve Utne (talk) 00:25, 18 February 2009 (UTC)  (added some elements.) Olve Utne (talk) 00:57, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Olve, Im not sure whether you would find "lot of materials", let alone forked articles about racist attacks against Arabs, blacks, Australian aborigines etc. ZencvLets discuss 22:03, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Finally someone is raising a good point of view, well what I can say that u r correct, but the only difference between what u have said and what is mentioned here that those last attacks are in response to the israeli brutal attack on civilian Palestinians, and for this very same reason we shouldn't call those attacks anti-semetic attacks, because those who are attacked were not attacked ONLY because they are Jewish rather as a respone to israel brutality (the country deemed to be the homeland of Jewish). Motive is the key word here, the motive behind the attacks, this covers big portion of my point. Yamanam (talk) 11:34, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * So how would you describe these attacks, if not antisemitic? Chesdovi (talk) 12:49, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Do we have to describe ALL attacks that are taking place on this earth? What do u call the attacks agains Palestinian? does it have a name? no, each attack is named after a certain declared name or is named after a month, number of days, reason for the conflict, but not all have a name. Yamanam (talk) 13:57, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * So even you say that they were attacked solely for them being Jewish. Afroghost (talk) 13:06, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I am not saying that, and I will never say that, maybe my poor English gave u the wrong impression, but no, they were not attacked becasue they are ONLY Jewish. Yamanam (talk) 13:57, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * We don't have articles for ALL attacks. Only where they are notable, as in this case. Chesdovi (talk) 18:30, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * In what way are they notable though? It's a big fat bloated article of fluff.--Theosony (talk) 18:32, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Most of the reported incidents probably weren't anti-semitic. Even the victims of violence haven't claimed that the attacks were anti-semitic. It's basically just a media and police spotlight on attacks on Jewish people, a bit like the UK stabbings. Although it doesn't happen that often, with media etc. you'd believe it happened every day. We need to be careful what we call anti-semitic. This article is coverage of coverage rather than an article with evidence and standing; especially in an encyclopedia.--Theosony (talk) 18:32, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That is correct Theosony. Yamanam (talk) 09:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * We go with what reliable sources say, not with your personal opinion, which is completely irrelevant. Afroghost (talk) 18:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Afroghost. what u said is not totally correct, we have restrictions here, we need not only reliable sources, we need secondary sources as well (which are not that much used in this article), we need to state the facts only not speculations about why those attacks happened and as a result for what they happened. as someone suggested, if u want to call the article blackash in Europre during dec 08 and Jan 09 then go ahead and keep the same material inside. at that point your reliable sources might be used. Yamanam (talk) 09:19, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Organisations involved here vet each incident, making sure that they were indeed anti-semitic in nature, before releasing their figures. I for one know from personal experience that the police question apects of an attack which help them clarify whether it was a hate crime or not. It is precisly because the number of attacks are abnormal as they do not occur in such volumes often, that this is notable. I hope you have read the article. It does mention that the attacks signalled the biggest rise in a quarter of a century. Chesdovi (talk) 19:00, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Your personal experience aside, the police investigate based on reasonable suspicions that crimes have been committed. However, in the United States at least, an accused is considered innocent until proven guilty. That's why media organizations included that little words, "allegedly" when they write about possible crimes that were just committed. Labeling someone affirmatively as a criminal before they are convicted of the crime is libelous. Similarly, the police investigate suspected crimes but it is the courts that determine whether a crime has actually been committed. Of course, criminal activity is different from instances of anti-Semitism. But I think before we start labeling people as being anti-Semites we need to be able to back up our words with incontrovertible facts (like an admission of anti-Semitism). If we can't do that we need to attribute that label to a specific source and make it clear that it is that source's opinion, not an objective fact. It wouldn't be hard. We would just start using the word "allegedly" a lot more.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 19:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That's what the article does. At this point most of the statements in the article are well-sourced. Where crimes are described they are described in neutral terms and according to what the sources say. Where perpetrators are mentioned the word alleged is used (i.e. Rowan Laxton and Fatima Hajaig). Claims of antisemitism are backed up by reliable sources or are attributed to those who made these claims. If we would mention the perpretators I would agree that we should say alleged as long as they are not convicted, but as we mostly mention only the crimes we do not need to say alleged as long as there is no reasonable doubt that the crime occured. Afroghost (talk) 19:42, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * but the title of the page doesn't say that? the title is misleading big time here. Yamanam (talk) 09:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * First of all Afroghost, whether you are an administrator or not, I will report you if you attack me again. You are both removing fact from an article and your edits to my contributions are borderline victicious. The article does not state a balanced view on these attacks, most of which have not been confirmed to being anti-semitic. Bias and personal attacks will not get us anywhere with this issue. Also, your statement that the page is neutral is absolutely false!--Theosony (talk) 20:09, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yawn. Afroghost (talk) 20:27, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you in theory Cdogsimmons. However, the fact that not every attack will make it into a court of law does not diminish this issue. That's why the article states "The rise in reported incidents", not convictions. A person who has been stabbed does not need a court to determine the fact. When I was called a "f***ing Jew" because "that thing on your head is the problem", I know I was victim to an antisemitic attack. When bus stops are sprayed with the words “Kill Jews”, it is quite clear that the perpetrator was not just seeing whether spray paint looked good on a bus stop. Chesdovi (talk) 22:26, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I fully empathize, and I am for keep, but we should keep emotional arguments like this out of the discussion. Antisemitism, racism, xenophobia, islamophobia, antiarabism, etc, all are scrouges of the earth, and they are hurtful. But how our particular victimizations (I am of mixed heritage, so I have been victimized by family!) are relevant to writing an encyclopedia is beyond me. --Cerejota (talk) 23:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Accepted. I brought this instance to demonstrate my point. Chesdovi (talk) 23:14, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep This is a perfectly reasonable section as part of the Gaza conflict article, but clearly too large to be completely merged. A sub-article is not suddenly a POV fork. Joshdboz (talk) 11:23, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Even if it is not a POV fork, u didn't say how? and moreover, u didn't try refute the other 4 reasons for deleting this article. Yamanam (talk) 14:23, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yamanam, can you briefly summarize all 5 points you are trying to make about the article? gidonb (talk) 19:47, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment? Yamanam, learn to spell. Elm-39 - T/C 14:26, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment? Elm-39, don't attack people. Some users and editors aren't native English speakers or don't write English as well as others. Have some respect and stop breaking rules in order to be narrow minded.--Theosony (talk) 14:34, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well Elm-39, Everybody makes mistakes, spelling or other type of mistakes, and I think by reading my contributions u can easily tell that my English is not that good, and unfortunately, wikipedia doesn't support spell check... English is a language that I've been using during the last 5 years of my life. Yamanam (talk) 14:37, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I am quite sure that Elm-39 was more referring to the use of childish abbrevations such as u instead of you and 4 instead of four. No need to pick up a fight talk. And Yamanam please use a writing style that is more appropriate for an encyclopedia. And both calm down. Afroghost (talk) 16:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Some people's English typing isn't as good as others and it can be harder. Give it a break and get try to get back to topic rather than defending an obvious rude and out of place comment.--Theosony (talk) 17:00, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Has nothing to do with typing skills, more with having respect for those having to read it. This is not a fanboy forum for computer games or whatever but a discussion page for an encyclopedia. And no need for you to pick up a fight over a good-humoured comment. So as I said calm down. Afroghost (talk) 17:11, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sure it's causing you no sight difficulties, so you calm down and show others some respect.--Theosony (talk) 20:49, 19 February 2009 (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.