Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moses as symbol in American history


 * 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. An article about the Feiler book, as suggested, may be possible, but it would be very different from this. JohnCD (talk) 20:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Moses as symbol in American history

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )
 * (by title)
 * (by subject)

This article is, as someone on the talk page said, a how-to manual on creating a wikipedia article filled with original research, synthesis and amateur scholarship. This is not really an encyclopedic topic. Moses hasn't been used as a special kind of symbol in American history (beyond the way he's used as a symbol of law giving and liberation in Africa, Europe, the Middle East and Asia). The article itself is filled with primary sources that recount the use of a moses metaphor at various points in time, then a whole bunch of synthesis by the primary author (who i'm sure will be along shortly) trying to "prove" the special symbolic meaning. There also appears to be some POV-pushing here having to do with a belief that the constitution of the United States is modeled after the 13 tribes of israel or something(yes, you may be asking yourself what such bizarre claims are doing with an article of this title; i asked myself the same question).Bali ultimate (talk) 11:48, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * This came to my attention when the author moved on to the Ten Commandments, claiming that they were the source of democracy in the USA and using the same primary sources as in this article. There are strains of such revisionist history in this article too. I don't have a problem with the role Moses has played in liberation struggles (such as the Confederacy fighting off the yoke of Yankee Oppression (which somehow seems to be missing from this article!) or in the Civil Rights movement, but as Bali said, I doubt there's much that's specific to the US in this regard. Anything worth keeping can probably be merged into a revamped Moses (which suffers from similar lopsided claims), or if it's too much there, in an article on the symbolic role of Moses in X era of history. kwami (talk) 12:19, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Lots of sources doesn't always equate to good article. What I see here is a list of instances where a wide variety of people in American history has been compared to Moses, usually by people who compared themselves to members of a persecuted race being led from slavery, through a wilderness, and to a promised land.  Some of the Book of Exodus references are to other aspects of Moses (as foster child or as giver of laws), but most are to a leader of the downtrodden, described by reference to a story that most Christians and Jews were familiar with.  In that respect, there's nothing uniquely American about that comparison.  There's the basis for a good article here about Moses as a modern-day metaphor, but I don't see anything that would be described as a "symbol" of anything that might be considered uniquely American.  As an analogy, I'd offer that Judas Iscariot is a metaphor for betrayal throughout history, but I don't see that Judas would be considered a symbol of America's enemies.  Mandsford (talk) 14:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. WP:OR, WP:COATRACK and WP:POVFORK. How does a British author calling Walt Whitman an "American Moses", some reverend once describing George Washington as a combination of Moses and Joshua, or another clergyman mentioning the alleged prophet during Lincoln's eulogy translate into Moses being a notable symbol in American political history? If I recall the Bible correctly, Moses may as well be one of the most important characters of the Old Testament. In a country with a large Christian population, it's rather natural to expect that his name will pop up from time to time. But this claim that he somehow played a key role in American political events is a synthesis of published material for advancing a position not explicitly stated by any of the sources.


 * In American political discourse, people often feel the urge to liken their political leaders to notable historical and biblical figures in order to make their point. Political activists, for example, have a nasty habit of comparing American presidents to Adolf Hitler. Just look at these Google News results:, . Socrates, Sampson, Scrooge, Judas, Hitler, Stalin, Paris Hilton... Just because ABC News' Jake Tapper once compared President Obama to the Star Trek character Spock, does it mean that we need Spock as symbol in American history as well?


 * P.S. If you have any doubts about the views and intentions of the page's sole author, please take a look the first revision of the page: . — Rankiri (talk) 15:15, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Per WP:AGF, "it is usually best to address the conduct without mentioning motives" --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:16, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The article's editing history is pertinent to nature of this discussion and I only mentioned your views in regard to this particular article. Please see WP:DUCK. — Rankiri (talk) 18:54, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - per Rankiri. An original research essay, most of which barely even seems to reference its own topic. Gatoclass (talk) 15:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per COATRACK. I tried to get the wikiwatcher (the creator of the article) to explain the purpose of the article, but instead got a series complaints about removal of sourced material and 'inappropriate' POV tags.  I then added a section about Mormonism, mostly as a test to see what he would do (since that seems to go against the fundamentalist christian slant of the rest of the article).  as I expected he first deleted and then tried to minimize that section.  I  could speculate on the political agenda that lies behind the article, but I won't; let's leave it that I don't see a lot of encyclopedic value to it.  -- Ludwigs 2  17:12, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Per your comment: "I then added a section about Mormonism, mostly as a test to see what he would do," is that included in the WP:AGF policy? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:12, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * no. but it is effective.  -- Ludwigs 2  22:42, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Personal essay totally lacking in focus. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 18:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep "Religious symbols appear so often that it takes Christian Heritage Tours three days to show visitors all the biblical references on buildings ranging from the Library of Congress to the Capitol itself." --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:24, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Are we discussing Moses in architecture now? See United States Supreme Court Building. — Rankiri (talk) 18:36, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Great Logic! I'll get started on the "Trees as symbol in American history" and "The color red as symbol in American history" right away.  Nefariousski (talk) 22:47, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * not to mention America as a symbol in world history... -- Ludwigs 2  23:02, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete This article is great if you are turning in a paper for your history class. For a WP article, it's WP:OR and doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Angryapathy (talk) 18:38, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete blatantly obvious personal essay, typical WP:COATRACK styled article.  JBsupreme  ( talk ) 18:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete Coatrack, synth, orig research etc... Wish I had some sort of comment that hadn't already been made. It looks like a seminary student posted a research assignment.  Nefariousski (talk) 21:55, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. Original research / synthesis.   --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 02:42, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete and Salt(WP:SALT). This article is plain WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, WP:CFORK. Similes linking Moses to various figures of the American history are not evidence of notability.--MaxEspinho (talk) 11:47, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as OR and synthesis. Sole Soul (talk) 17:16, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete OR and synth. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 05:36, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comments and questions at Talk:Moses as symbol in American history --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 23:10, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Alternative to deletion: replacement
Alternative suggestion: How about a replacement article on Bruce Feiler's book, America's Prophet: Moses and the American Story.
 * (excluded some publishers & vendors)

Notability is evident, with articles, interviews, TV appearances, and reviews in publications such as Huffington Post, Washington Post, New York Times (best-seller list), Fox News, Atlanta History Center, Glenn Beck, USA Today, and many more. As his book covers the same subject, and includes many more cites with a larger bibliography, there would be overlapping material. He also covers other topics not included in this article, such as the Constitution, Liberty Bell, Statue of Liberty, Supreme Court statues and cases relating to the display of the Ten Commandments. I was not planning on adding those additional subjects as I felt the article was long enough as it is, but an article on the book would likely cover many of those. If this article is deleted, being that no one has made suggestions on making it more acceptable, is there any obvious problem with starting a new one on the book? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 01:36, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Addendum: the article on the book would likely make reference to the symbolic aspects also: Since there were some questions about whether "symbol" was a relevant term, commentors should note its use. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 01:47, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment If the book itself is notable (looks like it from the sources you refer to), then an article about it is appropriate. After that, the content of the article can be edited by anybody (put another way, what's there on one day can be taken out the next day).  In any article about a book, it's important not to violate copyright.  Mandsford (talk) 13:28, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. First, it's not that clear that the book would pass WP:BK. The Washington Post and the Huffington Post articles were written by Feiler and NYT's coverage of the book is extremely trivial.


 * However, if the book has received significant coverage by reliable sources, you'll still need to make sure the article won't violate WP:UNDUE, WP:FRINGE, WP:SOAPBOX and WP:MOSFICT. If the author's personal views are repudiated by most "mainstream" historians, please make sure to mention it in the article. — Rankiri (talk) 14:56, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Rankiri; I'd like to add that creating an article about Feiler's book is a completely different beast than this article. That article should be nothing like this one, since it would only be about Feiler's book. And it would be much shorter, as it is consensus that WP does not rehash all information from a book, and should focus more on its impact than its plot and contents. So if someone wants to create the "America's Prophet" article, I would personally start from scratch; otherwise, you'll get more WP:OR and WP:SYN comments leading to another AfD. Angryapathy (talk) 15:35, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The irony of starting an article about the book, at least from my perspective, is that it almost requires adding material that by its nature is a "synthesis" of the author's "original research." That's what books are. But note that the existing article does not mention the words "prophet" as an "American story," the title of his book. While the book was briefly cited, it was my intention to focus on the most neutral, and easily provable, topic of "symbol."  The least WP:OR or WP:POV way I saw to do that was simply adding primary WP:V sources supporting the "symbolic" aspect, as opposed to others making that assertion themselves. But calling someone a modern-day "prophet" could lead to more divisive editors adding their own sources and maybe some heated warring, something I don't like to see. So needless to say, the sudden conflagration from my simply starting an article on Moses as a "symbol," surprised me.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:05, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The author is free to do any original research. If that original research becomes notable, then it gets added to WP. What is prohibited is a WP editor adding extra material to the article, thus preventing the original research of the Wikipedia editor. The sources used in that article should refer to the book, not the subject of the book. So if you are writing an article about Feiler's book, then you can breifly paraphrase what is said in the book, and use sources that describe impact of the book itself. It is not allowed to add sources that are similar (i.e. mention Moses in relation to America) but do not mention the book itself. That type of research and addition is fine for academia or perhaps Google's Knol project, but not for Wikipedia. Angryapathy (talk) 19:59, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This article will be just a large chunk of WP:SYNTH, WP:FRINGE and WP:PROMOTION--MaxEspinho (talk) 19:31, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If an article on a fiction book, such as Atlas Shrugged is OK, even warranting an entire article on it's symbolism, this one with a myriad of hard facts should meet all requirements. How does one avoid words engraved on the Liberty Bell?--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:51, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Literary critics have chosen Atlas Shrugged as a topic to write about, and chose the symbolism in the novel as another topic to write about. The vast majority of sources provided in this article tangentially mention Moses in relation to America. Now if you had as many books like Feiler's that discuss Moses/America as we do that discuss Atlas Shrugged, then there would be no question as to whether an article should exist about it. As it stands, however, very few sources actually 'discuss Moses as a symbol in American history. Comparing a situation or a person to the exodus or Moses does not qualify as discussion. Angryapathy (talk) 20:09, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, but Feiler's book has only been out about 4 months, where Atlas Shrugged is over 50 years old. In the current article, there are direct citations, i.e. Pilgrim John Carver being called "the Moses of the Pilgrims," and "a symbol of America." Other sources and quotes refer to the "symbolic" aspect through usage and by implication. It's not necessary to keep repeating the word "symbol" when something is being used as such by definition:
 * "Something that represents or suggests something else. Symbols often take the form of words, visual images, or gestures that are used to convey ideas and beliefs. All human cultures use symbols to express the underlying structure of their social systems, to represent ideal cultural characteristics, such as beauty, and to ensure that the culture is passed on to new generations. Symbolic relationships are learned rather than biologically or naturally determined, and each culture has its own symbols." The American Heritage New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:40, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You are still ignoring the fact that there are literary critiques of Atlas Shrugged that focus on the symbolism or certain aspects of symbolism. However, there is very little literature that actually has "Moses as a symbol in American history" as its actual subject. The fact that a writer uses a simile between a person and Moses hardly qualifies as a discussion of the subject like the literature for Atlas Shrugged. Angryapathy (talk) 22:21, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) It seems that in a work of fiction like Atlas Shrugged, finding "symbolism" becomes a game for scholars and theorists. But in a new non-fiction book entitled America's Prophet I'd call defining "prophet" more of a "thesis." Some of the articles I've seen debate that thesis, for obvious reasons, but few of them debate the "symbolism" behind the biblical figure. Some say it had little impact in U.S. history, while others say it was important. The searches show hundreds of references to "Moses as a symbol" throughout American history. Personally, I doubt whether there can ever be proof or agreement that Moses was a "prophet" in relation to U.S. history. But the general qualifier of "symbol" is nowhere debated that I found (i.e. it's everywhere.) How does one debate the fact that since the Pilgrims, various leaders in America have been called a "Moses" of their people? He was a symbol to many, not all.

Again, that's why I avoided the term American prophet in the article, and stuck to primary sources where he was used as a "symbol" only. It seemed to be a fairly neutral term at first. I honestly don't relish starting an article based on a political-religious thesis, even if it's a best-selling book, but I, and I expect others, will find opposing viewpoints and cite them (a "thesis" will always have opposing views.) Would someone else like to start it?--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 23:39, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - I think there may be enough to justify an article on the book. As well as the Wapo article (written by Feiler himself, true, but the Wapo is an independent publisher), there are 7 or 8 reviews at Google Books - none of them from national papers, it appears, but enough perhaps for it to squeak past WP:BK. Gatoclass (talk) 06:47, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not so sure. I see no indication that this book has gained anything like academic acceptance (so it won't pass muster as a scholarly theory), nor is it a hugely popular text (which might pass muster on simple notability grounds).  maybe in 20 years, but as of now it seems to fall in the 'minor pundit lit' category, which doesn't have a whole lot of oomph. -- Ludwigs 2  07:10, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Certainly I think it would be marginal. I'm really not an expert on what qualifies for WP:BK, and if I had my druthers a book with such thin coverage probably wouldn't get in, but technically I think it might qualify. Gatoclass (talk) 09:07, 24 February 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.