Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hebrew thought

Hebrew thought
And there is a companion page Greek thought, also nominated below for VfD for the same reasons.

Non-encyclopedic. Original research. Essay. Nonsense. Pseudo-science.


 * Possibly, the Hebrew thought and Greek thought pages could be combined to a summary of Boman's book, as discussed in Talk:Hebrew thought. But I would not want a high-school student to find either Hebrew thought or Greek thought in the undefined, unreferenced, and unexamined form that they are now.  The curent page does not represent even Boman's writing--and does not present the writing of the critics that say that Boman's distinctions of "thought" are bogus.  ---Rednblu 20:00, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Nothing wrong with the title, it is the article itself which doesn't make the grade. In it we have opinion, opinion and more opinion masquerading as documentation. Delete. Fire Star 20:15, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * POV articles representing a solitary intepretation of the old "Hebraism and Helenism" argument (see Matthew Arnold, e.g., and R.W. Emerson). It was once de rigeur to make this kind of comparison, and I suppose some intellectual historians still attempt it.  This is secondary thought that is not NPOV and critical to a fine point.  Suppose I wrote a #Themes section for Hamlet and presented only a psychoanalytic criticism?  It wouldn't be original research, but it would be highly POV.  Therefore, while these are valid arguments, they're POV, and we have to delete them.  (BTW, I'd say that the Hebrews understood the same pre-Socratic arguments about motion and time as the Greeks did, and there's a lot of evidence for that, but that's another matter.)  Geogre 20:29, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete Delete Delete. POV, bad science, etc etc. --Improv 22:20, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. A Google search of "Hebrew thought" turns up 3,740 sites that discuss "Hebrew thought". The claim that it is pseudo science is laughable and POV on the part of Rednblu. This is NOT original research, rather secondary, using an acquired definition. This article is linked to from at least two other articles in wikipedia. User MZ said there is a second definition for the term, which he planned to add in a couple of weeks. This is NOT science, but history and philosophy. In his original call for claiming this article was in "need of attention" user Rednblu claimed that this was some sort of "weird Christian" view, which is laughable in that the authoritive book on the subject was written, as far as I can tell, by someone who is not a Christian. It does not fit Jewish philosophy as it predates anything mentioned in that article by close to a millennium, if not more and it is based on a completely different thought method as the Jewish philosophers mentioned all used Greek thought. Another argument for keeping is that several sites unrelated to wikipedia have downloaded this definition to use as their definition, as can be tracked by Google. The offer is still open if there is another definition for "Hebrew thought" the offer is still open to add it to the definition. Well? Where is it? Finally, I will restore this article and the links I know to it because this is a valid concept and I would prefer to work with people who know the subject to improve the article (leave out Rednblu, he's a fool) so that it can provide a full description of what philosophers call "Hebrew thought". This is a valid subject, it is used by many and is at the heart of public policy disputes (follow the links), just how is best to present it as an encyclopedia article? Melamed
 * Merge into a Hebraism and Hellenism article along with Greek thought. It's a valid comparison, historically notable. The current article is an essay, though. The merged text should make reference to the comparison as a historical phenomenon. Wile E. Heresiarch 02:31, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Recreate as redirect to Jewish philosophy.--Samuel J. Howard 02:34, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. "Hebrew thought" is often simply an expression used interchangeably according to context with "Hebrew scriptures", "medieval rabbis" and so forth without reference to Boman's ideas (and is often sloppy usage). I have no objection to some of the content being merged with something as Wile E. Heresiarch suggests, provided this is done with indications that these are the ideas of one thinker. But I don't believe that Boman's ideas, save when obvious and not especially Bowman's, have gained much of a following and statements that make sense in a comparision and contrast between Greek thought and Hebrew thought do not make the same sense when expressed alone. As presented this is hideously POV, Boman's thought alone presented as true, without attribution in the text itself. That misrepresents the case badly. Jallan 16:14, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Additionally, it's a really difficult topos for contemporary historians of ideas, because of the poisoning of the well done by some. Nietzsche, for example, treats this old comparison in Thus Spake Zarathustra, and we all know what he thought of Hebraic thought.  For the most part, the contrast has been used to bash Hebraism to elevate Hellenism.  Still, a report on the theme itself and some of the many, many contrasts that people have drawn would be good stuff...if there were someone scholarly enough to do it. This is actually a dissertation topic at a good university, I'd say.  Geogre 18:27, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * It is a hobby of mine to study the usually unfriendly interaction and exchange of Hellenistic/Hebraic cultures from say 1400BC (many think the Philistines may have originally been Greek) until the Arab conquest. Both hebrew and greek culture changed quite a bit in that time frame, as well. Much could be written on the contrasts between them to shed light on their situation if such factors are taken into account. Fire Star


 * Delete   – Quadell (talk) (help)   04:17, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)