Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Racial antisemitism


 * 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 snowball keep. Although I still stand that the article in its current shape is hopeless. `'mikka 22:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Racial antisemitism

 * — (View AfD)

Del POV fork of anti-Semitism. E.g. who told that pogroms or Dreyfus Affair or lots of other things copycatted here were specifically racial? In the case of Russia, this is plain false. `'mikka 09:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep how's this a POV fork? It is a common knowledge that antisemitism went through religious and racial phases. The Dreyfus Affair was one case of racial AS, The Holocaust was a culmination of racial AS. Those who perpetrated the pogroms or fought rootless cosmopolitans did not make any difference between Hasidim, Mitnagdim or Atheist Jews. They were "saving Russia". ←Humus sapiens ну? 09:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Whatever anti-Semitism was, I am saying the article is a POV fork, erroneous, too. How come pogroms were racial in Russia? They made no distinction simply because there is no difference in their distinction from "true" religion of Russian ORtodoxy. "Rootless cosmopolitans" here is deep confusion altogether. Not all Jews were "rootless cosmo". But this page is not place for discussion. Why Dreyfus Affair was specifically racial? It makes sense to separate anti-Judaism, but anti-Semitism in general is inseparable mixture of racial anti-Semitism, religious anti-Semitism, economical anti-Semitism, anti-Zionism, and xenophobic anti-Semitsm (did I miss something?). I see that the whole topic slowly converts in a mess of heavily overlapping essays. `'mikka 09:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Your considerations, mikka, are ill-informed original research. Racial antisemitism was one of the stages of antisemitism, which originated in Germany in the 19th century (even though it had a precursor in limpieza de sangre) and found most supporters in Germany and Austria. Please do at least some research on the topic before making bizarre nominations. Beit Or 11:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. I agree with mikka above that these topics may be too inexorably intertwined for this kind of binary race/religion article split.  Indeed, the article in question seems to do a poor job at staying within the lines, as it were.  However, I don't think that deletion is a good solution.  The content is not the problem, per se; the presentation is the problem.  Because of the nature and sensitivity of the topic in general, I suggest taking the issue to the main anti-Semitism talk page (or to a topic RFC if that goes poorly) to determine how best to split off subtopics (which is necessary to keep a readable length). Serpent&#39;s Choice 10:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Does this answer your question: "Modern European antisemitism has its origin in 19th century theories—now mostly considered as pseudo-scientific—that said that the Semitic peoples, including the Jews, are entirely different from the Aryan, or Indo-European, populations, and that they can never be amalgamated with them. In this view, Jews are not opposed on account of their religion, but on account of their supposed hereditary or genetic racial characteristics: greed, a special aptitude for money-making, aversion to hard work, clannishness and obtrusiveness, lack of social tact, low cunning, and especially lack of patriotism." ←Humus sapiens ну? 10:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Not really. I'm quite aware of the concept of racial anti-Semitism.  I know some of its origins, and even a little about its history, although I wouldn't pretend I could write a quality article about the topic without a lot of library time.  However, the current article we do have doesn't seem to focus on the topic either.  The article makes no assertion that the Dreyfus Affair was motivated by race rather than religion (I'd like to see some supporting citations here in particular, as it contradicts the Dreyfuss affair article rather directly).  Our article on the pogroms includes a substantial quote from the Occidental Quarterly that indicates an economic, rather than racial, motivation.  And the closing conspiracy theory section also makes no real distinction; Protocols is arguably religious anti-Semitism (see especially Protocols 14, 17, 23) or anti-Zionism, rather than being motivated by race.  In general, the article does little to demonstrate (rather than state) that the topics discussed involve differences between racial and religious anti-Semitism.  Again, though, I'm not suggesting deletion is the answer here ... but this article needs a lot of work to support what its trying to say, and so the nominator's position is understandable.  Serpent&#39;s Choice 11:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep per Humus. Mikka, pick a random scholarly text on antisemitism to find out what racial antisemitism was. Beit Or 10:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't you think I didn't run google for the phrases "racial anti-semitism" and "racial antisemitism"? My nomination is based on the content of the article, which I see as POV fork. And I can name quite a few wikipedia editors that may vouch that I am not an anti-semite or holocaust denier or else. Of course I may be mistaken. And all of you to, by the way. `'mikka 16:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per above.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg
 * Keep per Humus. Concept seems legitimately separate. -Toptomcat 12:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep This article discusses a well-known phenomenon. If anything, the nominator here is PoV, maybe pushing a point. -- Chabuk [ T • C ] 14:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am pusthing a point. And there is nothing wrong with it as long as I don't edit/write an aritcle. PLease learn to understand this important distintion. We all are entitled to our POV. If a person does not have a POV, he is in a BIG trouble. Now, my POV is that the article arbitrarily conflates events under one cliche. In fact, it significantly duplicates non-religious parts of old article, therefore I recognized it a fork. `'mikka 16:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Humus GabrielF 15:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Paradoxically, I see this dissection into separate kinds of anti-Semitism as dilution of the unique phenomenon which anti-Semitism is. I am surprised that adult people fail to keep in mind that if you meld several things together, you get something unique that cannot be described as a sum of of the components. Even racial anti-Semitism of Hitler was rooted in economical/"class" anti-Semitim. At best, the article could have sense if it were written in the style "racist aspects of anti-Semitism". Let me give you an analogy. A magnet has its north pole and south pole. But there is no such thing as "north magnet" or south magnet" (yes, I know people are looking for monopole and yes I know all analogies are false; I am presenting it not as a proof of something, but as a demonstration that inseparable issues do exist, and they must be treated with clear awareness of their inseparability). `'mikka 17:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't oppose renaming it into Racist aspects of antisemitism. The article Antisemitism grew too long and it was broken (not by me) into subarticles. Let's discuss at talk how to improve the entire series, but IMHO, AFD is a wrong way to go. ←Humus sapiens ну? 21:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect If there's anything of value in this article, then it can be merged with the main article on anti-Semitism.  I don't see any valid reason to have a separate article based on a semantic quibble.  Isn't "racial anti-Semitism" still "anti-Semitism"?  --Lee Vonce 17:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. The distinction between religious, racial ("modern" or "classic"), and ideological (or "new") antisemitism is one that many scholars adhere to. We have one article that explores antisemitism in general, and other articles that explore the variants cited by academics. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:04, 8 January 2007 (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.