Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/In Praise of Talmud


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

The result was   delete. There is insufficient support for merging. The argument that WP:NPOV prohibits an article at this title is well-taken. T. Canens (talk) 09:01, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

In Praise of Talmud

 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

Non-neutral fork of Talmud. In responding to the proposed deletion of this article, the author hinted that this article was written in reaction against the Criticism of the Talmud article. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:19, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-neutral fork of Talmud. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 22:49, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Clearly POV. Any useful information can be merged into the main article. Kuguar03 (talk) 02:59, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge and Redirect to the main Talmud article because this contains new information that meets WP:RS and WP:VERIFY. Divining the editor's motives, in violation of WP:AGF, is not a sufficient excuse to delete this article entirely. IZAK (talk) 10:01, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - Merging's good, but we can't redirect as a non-neutral title like "In Praise of Talmud" violates wikipedia naming conventions. See Neutral_point_of_view. Kuguar03 (talk) 20:27, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Silly suggestion Why not merge it with Criticism of the Talmud under a new title that's neutral - say Opinions on the Talmud? (I did say it was silly... Peridon (talk) 21:55, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * To Kuguar03: Obviously what I meant was merge the CONTENTS but REDIRECT the title. The contents of this article are valuable and the title can easily be changed to a NPOV name such as Defense of the Talmud (in case the article is kept) which then versus and counter-balances Criticism of the Talmud logically, because there cannot be a "criticism" if a "defense" is not allowed. User:Peridon's suggestion is actually excellent because then both the criticism and the defense can be placed under one well-balanced NPOV article that cites opposing positions. IZAK (talk) 08:14, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I know what you meant. Whether the page is kept, deleted, or merged, the title "In Praise of Talmud" needs to go away, as it's not neutral and an unlikely search term. Kuguar03 (talk) 01:10, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename to Ethics in the Talmud, which would have to include documentation all all views on the matter. Chesdovi (talk) 14:58, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment The article, as it stood at the time of this nomination, was not an article about ethics in the Talmud, but about all the reasons the Talmud is a good book. Its morality section was but one section of many.  A standalone article about the ethical teachings of the Talmud might be useful, but it would end up being an entirely different article than the one that existed at the time of this nomination.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 16:07, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment 1) No tangible reason was provided for deletion. 2) The Non-neutral rather is by one pushing to delete it. 3) This material was compiled long before I even noticed oabout "criticism" of Talmud, my only point to Dan was why he isn't pushing to delete Criticsiom of the Talmud which is 100% Non-neutral fork but he only does so for this page, if neutrality is his reason.Supperteecee (talk) 18:56, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * :Keep Long overdue for this material, of this ancient notorious book of wisdom and guidance., citing notable personalities are certainly not POV.
 * Reply I'm not sure what a "tangible" reason would be -- tangible objects are objects that can be physically touched and no "reason" will ever be tangible. A valid reason was supplied -- the article violates the neutrality policy of Wikipedia.  Other editors have already agreed with this assessment (see their comments above).  The article Criticism of Talmud presents a fair and balanced presentation of the various criticisms that have been written by established and notable sources about the Talmud whereas the article In Praise of Talmud relied on strictly partisan sources or on passing comments by some notable people.  I don't believe an impartial observer would find the two articles comparable. Further, I would like to inform  that modifying other users' comments in an AFD discussion, as he did with this edit, is strongly discouraged.  You may have your own say, but do not change what others have said.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:22, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi WikiDan: Just for your information, the highly POV Criticism of the Talmud article relies on even worse classical canards, specious and tendentious pseudo-scholarship, and even antisemitic sources, yet it floats on, while an article offering a straightforward juxtaposition to that POV is nominated for deletion, why so? Many articles need help with NPOV, that is what writing articles on WP is all about and it gets solved thousands of times every day by helpful editors. If there are problems with getting an article to adhere to NPOV then the first and correct road to take is to (a) try to make the article itself into a NPOV one, (b) start a discussion on the article's talk page about reaching NPOV, (c) contacting the main creators of the article and searching for common ground to attain NPOV, or (d) going to WP:JUDAISM and starting a discussion and asking for input from veteran Judaic editors who know something about this topic, and the (e) the best approach, is to do all of the above, (a) to (d) to help the article by means of WP:AGF, WP:CONSENSUS and not falling victim to WP:BITE and WP:DONOTDEMOLISH. And NOT by jumping to an unfounded AfD that will create animosity and friction. IZAK (talk) 09:51, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If the Criticism of the Talmud article is problematic, that is a matter for a different discussion. This discussion is about In Praise of Talmud.  (See WP:OTHERSTUFF.)  Many articles on "Criticism of..." exist on Wikipedia.  Such articles can be written in a neutral tone as just about any philosophy has been subjected to criticism, and a neutral assessment of those criticisms is possible.  However, an article titled "In praise of..." is, by its very nature, biased in favor of the philosophy under discussion.  I think the Reasonability Rule comes into effect here: If an average uninvolved observer would find a particular article biased, then that article should be fixed.  In this case, we can't fix the neutrality problem if the very title of the article calls for it to be a praise of a particular philosophy.  One editor has chosen to rewrite the article as Ethics in the Talmud.  That would be fine except that there is already an article on Jewish ethics.  I don't believe it is wrong to have a section in the Talmud article that lists the positive responses people have had to Talmudic teachings over the ages; I just feel it gives undue weight to the topic to split this article from the main article.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:56, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi WikiDan: If the main problem are the words "In Praise of" then it's not enough of a reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater and lose the valid information in this article. Therefore, as has been said a number of times above, either: (a) a more suitable NPOV article name can and should be chosen, such as Defense of the Talmud to match/counterpoise Criticism of the Talmud, or (b) merge the content and redirect the article to the main Talmud article because it would be a big shame to lose the valuable information contained in this article. IZAK (talk) 04:25, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete This is an assortment of material--anything not in any other article should be merged there, but I suspect we'd find it all somewhere or other here already. As Izak says, an article on Defense of the Talmud would be appropriate, but that's not the contents of the present article. There might also possibly be place for an article on Non-Jewish citation of the Talmud.    DGG ( talk ) 20:39, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep A 100% illogical suggestion to delete a good page, the material is sourceful and cites notable personalities. As chesdovi says the pov page is the Criticism of the Talmud a clearly attack page!!! and as far it can be from balanced as WikiDan61 attempts to suggest.Xcff ggre233 (talk) 07:34, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep although looking quite ghastly at present, there is enough material out there to turn this page into a comprhensive article documenting the ethics contained in the Talmud. This would be a good balance providing documentation about what is "good" in the Talmud, as opposed to what is contained at the criticsm article. Chesdovi (talk) 12:06, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment As I have stated earlier: one could easily write an article on Ethics in the Talmud, although such an article would likely duplicate much of the material at Jewish ethics. But when an article titled "In Praise of Talmud" is written, and is full of laudatory comments about the Talmud from various sources, that article does not meet Wikipedia standards and should be deleted.  Suggesting that the article should be rewritten as "Ethics in the Talmud" is somewhat ridiculous.  That was never the topic of the article in the first place.  I might just as well write an aritcle on "Early Hebrew writings".  Surely I could find source material for that too, but it would have nothing to do with this original article.  Delete this one and move on to create whatever other content you feel is appropriate.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:15, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment of course this meets wikipedia criteria, unless the following notorious people like: Dalai Lama's, Barack Obama and Albert Einstein do not meet wikipedia's standard, and it's illogical what wikidan61 repeats himself again. the nomination for deletion doesn't assure unbiased.Xcff ggre233 (talk) 23:01, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Selective merge of some of the sourced content to Criticism of the Talmud. Criticism is not limited to negative opinions. We don't need to copy general laudatory opinions, though (all major holy books will have many of those) or randon quotations. Failing that outcome, delete as indiscriminate collection of information.  Sandstein   08:37, 5 December 2010 (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.