Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The neo-lachrymose conception of Jewish-Arab 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. BozMo talk 07:45, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

The neo-lachrymose conception of Jewish-Arab history

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

The article is about a phrase invented and used by one author; most of it is an original research "background" section, the rest a quote. Jayjg (talk) 17:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Jayjg (talk) 17:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think the nominator for deletion votes himself, or i may be wrong. --Aminz 22:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Nominators vote all the time. ←Humus sapiens ну? 00:04, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - per nom. Seems to be something someone made up for their book. Moreschi Talk 17:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually not. It is a much discussed topic. It is about the general Jewish histography of the Jewish-Arab history. It is notable from an academic point of view.--Aminz 23:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes. You've produced a couple of people vaguely mentioning the term Cohen used and some ingenious original synthesis to suppose that this term has any sort of encyclopedic notability/is used by anyone else other than Cohen. Moreschi Talk 08:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete It is the name of an article by Mark Cohen, published in 1991 in Tikkun, Vol. 6 Nr. 3, page 55-60. It has been little used or quoted by others . Some of the content may be moved to the article on Mark Cohen. gidonb 18:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I have tried to show that many famous academic publication has refered to this. --Aminz 23:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Aminz. Yes, you have made a real effort to explain you case. Thank you for notifying me about this effort both here and on my talk page! I think it is still far too little to justify a separate article and would like to encourage you to think about improving existing articles in cases such as these. Best regards, gidonb 21:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. We do not write articles about magazine articles. -- Olve 18:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I am sorry but it is not "magazine articles". Magazine articles are written for public whereas this one is about a serious academic discussion. --Aminz 23:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You may be as sorry as you like, but Tikkun is in fact a magazine. An intellectual magazine? By all means, yes. But not a peer-reviewed journal whose articles might have automatically merited an article here if that were Wikipedia’s policy. Which it isn’t anyway, to the best of my knowledge. -- Olve 18:33, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete I agree. Weird.--Mantanmoreland 18:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I am sorry but how weirdness is an argument for deletion. There are many weird things in the world which in fact are true. I have many examples in math.--Aminz 23:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete what the ... ? Kuratowski&#39;s Ghost 18:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you please explain your argument. Thanks --Aminz 23:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete as incomprehensible nonsense.  6SJ7 19:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * My english is not good. Maybe you can help. I can send you the original academic sources. --Aminz 23:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete or possibly merge (in considerably reduced form) with Mark Cohen. This is one author's WP:NEO and therefore does not warrant an article... it does not play a pivotal rôle in Cohen's work, however, and therefore should not be a central focus of the article about him, to avoid violating WP:WEIGHT.  The article The neo-lachrymose conception of Jewish-Arab history presently isn't even linked to from Mark Cohen...and that's how it should stay...  Perhaps deserves mention, in passing (not in depth), in an article about Jewish-Arab history (I'm sure there already is such an article, I just don't know the name of it off-hand...).  Also, although it's a reason to move rather than merge, the article has a bizarre name that clashes with several conventions in WP:NAME.  Tom e rtalk  20:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I have tried to show that it is not something Cohen came up with. Bernard Lewis for example says: ''"The golden age of equal rights was a myth, and belief in it was a result, more than a cause, of Jewish sympathy for Islam. The myth was invented by Jews in nineteenth-century Europe as a reproach to Christians - and taken up by Muslims in our own time as a reproach to Jews."- This is refering to the first myth created by 19th century Jewish historians. This was politically used by many Muslims of our time in Arab-Israel conversations. The next myth was created by writers like Bat Ye'or which who said that the rule under Islam was no better if not worst that life under Christian rule(in response to Muslims in political conversations). --Aminz 23:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Aminz does some pretty odd stuff sometimes.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 19:29, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think it is odd stuff... --Aminz 23:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete, invented phrase by one author does not warrant an article in WP. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It is more than that. It is about the current general Jewish histography of the Jewish-Arab history.--Aminz 23:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per above GabrielF 20:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I have responded to it. --Aminz 23:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * My opinion has not changed.GabrielF 15:26, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete unpleasant POV essay per all of the above. Arrow740 21:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep This article was just created yesterday so it is still very young article but is by no means WP:OR. Everything is sourced to the most reliable academic sources. My argument is based on the notability of this. The term refers to a new type of Jewish histography emerged recently; a dramatic shift from the previous Jewish histography. The topic by itself is very notable. This article explains and provides backgrounds for this shift. I start with some academic sources that mention the term: "The neo-lachrymose conception of Jewish-Arab history" (almost all of these are academic sources):
 * 1) The Oxford Handbook of Jewish Studies - Page 328
 * 2) Under Crescent and Cross: The Jews in the Middle Ages - Princeton University Press- Page 9
 * 3) The Jews of Medieval Islam: Community, Society and Identity.- Brill Academic Publishers - page 146
 * 4) The Dispersion of Egyptian Jewry: Culture, Politics, and the Formation of a Modern Diaspora - University of California Press- p.14
 * 5) Islam and Dhimmitude: Where Civilizations Collide - Fairleigh Dickinson Univ Press- page 347
 * 6) A History of Jewish Gynaecological Texts in the Middle Ages- Brill Academic Publishers - page 49
 * 7) Memories of Our Future: Selected Essays, 1982-1999 - City Lights Books - page 9
 * 8) Jews and Other Differences - University of Minnesota Press - page 343
 * 9) Israel and Ishmael: Studies in Muslim-Jewish Relations - Palgrave Macmillan - page 12
 * 10) Struggle and Survival in the Modern Middle East - University of California Press -page 45
 * 11) Power in the Portrayal: Representations of Jews and Muslims in Eleventh- and Twelfth-century- Princeton University Press- page 168
 * 12) The Culture of Islam: Changing Aspects of Contemporary Muslim Life- University of Chicago Press - page 214
 * 13) Making Jews Modern: The Yiddish and Ladino Press in the Russian and Ottoman Empires- Indiana University Press - page 279
 * 14) Islam and Dhimmitude: Where Civilizations Collide - Fairleigh Dickinson Univ Press - Page 528

Here is the quote from The Oxford Handbook of Jewish Studies: "The glorified view of a medieval Islamic-Jewish symbiosis was no countered until the 1960s, when popular and scholarly writers began to espouse what Mark Cohen has trenchantly labeled 'The neo-lachrymose conception of Jewish-Arab history'. According to this view, the achievements of the Golden Age were realized only a narrow elite and, for the vast majority of Jews living under the rule of Islam, life was consistently gloomy, marked by anti-Semitism, disenfranchisement, and persecution. This new view of Islamic-Jewish history has permeated both popular and scholarly sources, among them Martin Gilber’s cartographic survery of Jewish life in the lands of Islam and the popularized studies of Egyption Jewish history penned by Bat Ye’or (the pseudonym of Giselle Littmann). (An extended discussion of the 'The neo-lachrymose conception of Jewish-Arab history' by Cohen and a critical response by Norman Stillamn may be found in Tikkun …) Cohen’s musings contribute to a new generation of scholarship, much of it focusing on the medieval period, that aspires to reconsider the history of Jews living under the rule of Islam without falling prey to either the Sepharidic Mystique or to the 'The neo-lachrymose conception of Jewish-Arab history'."

Another reason for notability: Joel Beinin, a Professor of Middle Eastern History writes writes that: "Bat Ye'or is an Egyption Jew ... and a leading exponent of what Mark Cohen has termed "The neo-lachrymose conception of Jewish-Arab history": a gloomy representation of Jewish life in the lands of Islam that emphasizes the continuity of oppression and persecution from the time of Muhammad until the demise of most Arab Jewish communities in the aftermath of the 1948 Arab-Israeli war... this historical vision has won broad acceptance among both scholars and the general public in Israel and the West"

Saying that it has won broad acceptance among both scholars and the general public in Israel and the West means that it is notable.

Other authors that refer to this conception without naming it:

Bernard Lewis, Professor Emeritus of Near Eastern Studies at Princeton University, states that

"If we look at the considerable literature available about the position of Jews in the Islamic world, we find two well-established myths. One is the story of a golden age of equality, of mutual respect and cooperation, especially but not exclusively in Moorish Spain; the other is of “dhimmi”-tude(a term developed by Bat Ye'or), of subservience and persecution and ill treatment. Both are myths. Like many myths, both contain significant elements of truth, and the historic truth is in its usual place, somewhere in the middle between the extremes."

According to Lewis, this is a well-established Jewish histography. Why "The neo-lachrymose conception of Jewish-Arab history" is refering to the story of "Dhimmitude"? Well, I'll try to explain that: First of all, Bat Ye'or who developed the concept of “dhimmi”-tude is a leading exponent of what Mark Cohen has termed "The neo-lachrymose conception of Jewish-Arab history". Lewis is here talking about the two well-established myths: these two are mentioned in this section: The_neo-lachrymose_conception_of_Jewish-Arab_history.

--Aminz 22:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Searching books.google.com is great, isn't it? However, almost all of those "references" are in fact Cohen quoting himself (e.g. Under Crescent and Cross, The Jews of Medieval Islam) or people referring to Cohen's article in a footnote. Yes, Cohen wrote an article, and others have used it in a footnote. So? As for your original research about Lewis, um... Jayjg (talk) 22:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I am trying to show the notability of Mark Cohen's thesis. In order to do that, I need to show that it has been widely discussed. In order to do that, I need to refer to other academic writings that mention this. It is not improper to search for that.
 * I have explained the connections and would add more information soon. --Aminz 22:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge into Mark Cohen. It is interesting, but it doesn't at the moment have enough to stand as a separate article.  I could also see some of it being merged into an article dealing with the history of Arab-Jewish relations (is there such an article yet?  I can imagine such an article being of great interest, but also difficult to get right as it may end up being contentious.)  --64.230.121.213 23:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Let me say clearly, I think this is interesting and that eventually it will find a proper home in Wikipedia. At the moment, it isn't backed up enough to exist as a standalone article, but a version of this should find a home in at least Mark Cohen's article if not elsewhere.  --64.230.121.213 23:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * omg! -- Y not? 23:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Is this a Delete or Keep? ←Humus sapiens ну? 00:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not a vote you know. But I am struck by the applicability of the Reliable sources and undue weight essay to this article. -- Y not? 03:15, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Self-referential by Cohen, and requires original synthesis by AMinz just to get people to think Lewis is talking about it. Cohen = Lachrymose= dhmiitude somehow = bat yeor = lewis?!!? If this develops into a theory in the next decade or so, fine, but as of now, it's OR and basically non-notable neologism. Avi 23:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Avi, no. Please read the article and the quotes I have provided. The_neo-lachrymose_conception_of_Jewish-Arab_history is "a gloomy representation of Jewish life in the lands of Islam that emphasizes the continuity of oppression and persecution from the time of Muhammad until the demise of most Arab Jewish communities in the aftermath of the 1948 Arab-Israeli war"
 * One author, Bat Ye'or used the term Dhimmitude to refer to the story of subservience and persecution and ill treatment of Jews under Islam. It is more specific than the general The_neo-lachrymose_conception_of_Jewish-Arab_history --Aminz 23:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete and move useful content to Mark Cohen.Proabivouac 23:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge salvageable content into Mark Cohen. ←Humus sapiens ну? 23:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * On the 2nd thought, delete this mistitled OR. ←Humus sapiens ну? 00:04, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep or else merge text into Israeli-Palestinian history denial as this is a notable part of it that generalizes from Palestinians in particular to Arabs in general. But I think it deserves its own separate article due to its much broader non-Palestinian elements. Mothra 23:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete and move useful content to Mark Cohen. Tying Lewis to that quote is OR. The "neo-lachrymose" stuff is a polemic against Bat Ye'Or - possibly warranted, but that's not what articles are made of. --tickle me 02:13, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Pov fork--Sefringle 03:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I am sorry. But POV fork of which article? --Aminz 07:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete This is a disparaging neologism, not a theory. Beit Or 03:17, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak delete pending quotations from the sources listed above, said to be where the term was used. The concept is probably N, as it has been written about in several scholarly works, and the general question of the differing environments has been a major theme for a very long time.   The article is in any case too limited, being based on a single article.  Whether the term applies as the standard expression for it--that remains to be seen. In general such revisionist proposals are referred to by such phrases as "The X hypothesis" after the name of the proposer. DGG 03:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I am sorry, my english is not good. Do you want me to provide quotations from the above mentioned sources? --Aminz 07:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * DGG, I added a quote here . Thanks. --Aminz 07:13, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, the key part of the quote reads: "... writers began to espouse what Mark Cohen has trenchantly labeled 'The neo-lachrymose conception of Jewish-Arab history'. According to this view,...."
 * The quote uses this term only as a description of MC's work--it says that it is the distinctive phrase that he used, and thus implies it is not the usual wording for the concepts. The other quotes provided earlier use the phrase in quotation marks, which is also an indication of it being a neologism adopted by MC and nobody else. The concept remains N and, if not already taken into account in the articles in the subject, should be. DGG 17:23, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge to Cohen: Notability is the criteria for something having its own article. This doesnt seem the case here. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 14:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge to Cohen's article. Johnbod 14:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Neologism. It is usual that the titles of encyclopedia articles are neutral-sounding, and this one is jarring. There would need to be a strong case for the notability of the phrase (which I don't see) to even consider such a thing. It is like making a quotation into the title for an article. The closest analog I've come across elsewhere is Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution, which is actually the title of a published essay by Theodosius Dobzhansky, but that one is much less jarring. Speaking of notability, the Google Scholar search for the name of this article gets a total of nine hits, surely a feeble result. By comparison, the title of Dobzhansky's essay gets 26,000 hits in Google Scholar. EdJohnston 15:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per above. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 19:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Insufficiently notable for an independent article. At any rate, Cohen is hardly alone in his views. JFW | T@lk  21:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete or userfy it User:Aminz (as the only contributor). As a separate article it gives weight to a POV held by a few. John Vandenberg 01:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete this lark! IZAK 06:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete -- thesis still too obscure to be notable, Aminz can summarize for Cohen bio —The preceding unsigned comment was added by HG (talk • contribs) 07:43, 6 May 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.