Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Religious persecution by Jews

Wacky idea
How about a series of articles describing remarkable acts of tolerance by various segments of humanity? Gzuckier 05:59, 22 July 2005 (UTC)


 * That was my suggestion! Wait.  Tolerance or intolerance?  :o  The only problem is that some acts are "evident" to some people as intolerance, and others can be misconstrued... Thorns Among Our Leaves 18:23, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Interesting...I wonder how the mudslingers would ruin that adventure... Tomer TALK  18:30, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * That would be boring, User:Gzuckier. --Zeno of Elea 14:54, 24 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Acts of tolerance - an excellent idea. While we are at it, why does WP have lists of disasters? shipwrecks? assinations? massacres? Why not list of rescues? Lets have something good to say for a change! Oh, I suppose that it would be 'boring', but could we try? --ClemMcGann 23:18, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
 * This series of articles would definitely have to be listed as a disaster, if not already, certainly within 2 weeks of surviving VfDs...Tomer TALK 03:34, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

VfD for collection
is there any way to set up a VfD page for the entire collection of articles "Religious persecution by X"?

If so, then this could at least separate those offended or worried about the content of a particular articles, and responses could be less ethnically-based. --jnothman talk 10:55, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I support that idea. Unfortunately, you will find a number of people who will genuinely argue the point that "religious persecution by..." is a good and fair topic when applied to most religious groups, but outrageous and racist when applied to their religious group. Plenty of people in each community who feel this way: in the Religious persecution by Jews VfD, see IZAK and BrianGotts for examples. Babajobu 11:08, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Nice. The racism card. That's productive. --Briangotts (talk) 19:59, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Briangotts, you are mistaken. I did not play the racism card. Rather, I accused you of playing the racism card. Unless, of course, you consider accusations of playing the racism card to be a form of playing the racism card; but then you're stuck, because then you, too, have just played the racism card (but for the second time, against my one time). Anyway, you never contributed to my new martyr complex stub, so you have no credibility. Babajobu 20:59, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I am unqualified to contribute substantively to a psychologically-oriented technical article on martyr complexes. I suggested the article to you because you seemed emminently qualified. --Briangotts (talk) 21:42, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * You have consistently misrepresented my position on this matter. The article is offensive not because the idea of Jews oppressing others makes it so but because you have failed to identify one credible instance of religious persecution. Those you and your fellow travelers have identified are stretching to the point of absurdity. The page was obviously created as a POV, retaliatory springboard.
 * On a personal note, I have no desire to continue trading snide remarks with you as I feel a)the amusement value both for ourselves and for other users is probably wearing thin at this point and b) I prefer to devote my time to more productive endeavors. Your incivility and condescending attitude with other users, and my substantive statements on the vfd page, speak for themselves. In the future, if I think a comment is worth responding to in a substantive manner, I will do so; otherwise I will ignore you with equanimity. --Briangotts (talk) 21:51, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I just looked at your user page. You've made a mindboggling number of high-quality contributions to Wikipedia. I absentmindedly added myself to your list of favorite Wikipedians; I apologize for that, that was vandalism and it won't happen again. Look, I'm not trading snide remarks with anyone. That's how I talk, and no snideness or condescension is intended. I certainly have no reason to suspect I'm in a position to condescend to any other Wikipedians--I know nothing about them. Nor have I attempted to misrepresent your views. The section on the displacement of Palestinians is cited to Benny Morris and other Israeli New Historians. Perfect sources? Of course not, but it's a start. Are there sources out there regarding the Hasmonean forced conversion of the Idumeans? Yes, in abundance. Are they in the article yet? No. The point is that it is a legitimate topic and the deficit in sourcing is a common problem in newish articles and can be remedied. But rushing the article off to VfD is an attempt to prevent the article's improvement by issuing a sort of Wikifatwa which declares the topic verboten, despite its potential. That's no good. And I'm afraid that when you support other such articles covering other religious groups-- though these articles, too, are in their embryonic stage--it looks like you have some sort of aversion to this particular treatment of this particular religious group. Babajobu 22:17, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I would also support that measure. All three of these articles were started simply for the purpose of riling up different members of WP. And Babajobu, look no further than User:HKT, for an example of a user who would die before allowing an article such as the one we're debating. LokiCT 15:22, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Please see User talk:LokiCT. Cheers, HKT talk 17:07, 26 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I prefer individual article VfDs. If you're concerned at the amount of effort put into discussion, just list them one at a time with, say, seven days in between listings.  If the articles were really disruptive they could be summarily deleted, but VfD is for articles that are in this gray area.


 * It may be as some people say that they were created "simply for the purpose of riling up different members of WP", but since to me they seem all of them to be quite unexceptional and uncontentious, I have no way of verifying the author's intent, and in any case it is the end result that is more important to me. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:34, 26 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I also think it unlikely that the collection was developed to rile up members of WP, but I'm not sure they're articles that should be made, as you will see in some of my remarks around here. In particular, I am of the view that this section should be replaced with "Attitudes of X to others", rather than directly their acts of religious persecution which is very hard to define in terms of the group as a whole or their creed, but often in terms of sub-groups. --jnothman talk 06:41, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Sjakkalle's dictatorial move
Hi Sjak: Kindly explain your math please at Votes for deletion/Religious persecution by Jews: 34 "keeps" is better than 66 "deletes"...the "deletes" had almost DOUBLE the votes and you decide against them? This makes no sense! I will call on others to object to your dictatorial move! IZAK 10:59, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I would just like to point out that Sjakkalle, who was dealing with several VfD's today, also closed and Kept Religious persecution by Muslims and Religious persecution by Christians (as well as performing his duties on several other VfDs. I hardly think he was being dictatorial, and I think his explanation for his decision makes sense. It was extremely close, just barely missed the proportion usually required for "consensus to Delete", and he didn't feel able to give it "that extra push" and delete it. Babajobu 12:40, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * And I happen to think it was beyond silly: there WAS a clear consensus of what was wanted.Existentializer 19:36, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
 * How many VfDs have you closed? When has such substantial opposition ever been ignored in a VfD? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:12, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Yawwnnn. "Substantial" opposition would have involved the article not being a blatant racist violation of WP:POINT.Existentializer 20:21, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
 * To clarify, by "substantial opposition" I mean the large number of keep votes. I'm not sure what you mean by your accusation about the article, and how  it relates, if at all, to my comment about substantial opposition.  Also I think you should probably refrain from using expressions like "Yawwnnn" because it's a breach of our policy of civility. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 05:43, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Reopening the VfD

 * Hi, User:Danny has called for the VfD to be re-opened. See Talk:Religious persecution by Jews, please voice your opinion. Thanks, and be well. IZAK 12:29, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Neutrality's objections
This is copied from the project page. First is a copy of Sjakkalle's closing comments, and then Neutrality's objection. Please do not edit the closed VfD pages; talk pages are for discussion. --Tony Sidaway Talk 19:07, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). As for vote count, my tally (which may be slightly inaccurate) places this at 34 keep (after Dv and Incognito have been discounted as possible sockpuppets, and LokiCT has also been discounted), 66 delete votes, 2 merge votes and one redirect vote. In other words a very close call, with a lot of comments. There are a lot of shouting matches with a load of people emphatically holding their positions. The main concern has the neutrality and verifiability of the article. I am in doubt here. Therefore I cannot delete. Sjakkalle (Check!)  10:03, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I disagree with the above decision. 34:66:2 as a keep/delete/merge vote in no way constitutes a rough consensus of the group; one-third of users should not be able to override this supermajority. Therefore, I must delete this article, and request that further discussion should take place on votes for undeletion. Neutralitytalk 18:02, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

I would add that Neutrality has now twice deleted the article and its talk page. On both occasions a separate administrator restored them both.


 * 18:33, 8 August 2005 Kim Bruning restored "Historical persecution by Jews"
 * 14:59, 8 August 2005 Neutrality deleted "Historical persecution by Jews" (Re-deleting. There was an obvious two-thirds consensus on VfD to delete. This is "broad consensus." A small minority of users will no be allowed to override the broad consensus. Take it to VfU if you must.)
 * 10:03, 8 August 2005 Tony Sidaway restored "Historical persecution by Jews"
 * 19:47, 7 August 2005 Neutrality deleted "Historical persecution by Jews" (VfD debate had an overwhelming vote to delete (at least 2:1).)

I encourage Neutrality to list this article for deletion again after a reasonable period if he doesn't like the way the last discussion was closed. The result of the recent RfC Requests for comment/Tony Sidaway suggests that there is a strong consensus for administrator discretion in closing. I, for instance, use a sliding scale for consensus between 70% and 80%. I wouldn't touch a 2/3 vote with a bargepole. But my response to the RfC has been endorsed by 23 24 25 people. --Tony Sidaway Talk 19:07, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

There is no rule allowing a validly closed "no consensus" VFD debate to be overruled. If you want this deleted, renominate the article for deletion. Sjakkalle (Check!)  09:04, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
 * No decision is final. Any admin can review a decision and take action allowed by the deletion policies.  An incorrect decision can be reviewed if properly documented.  Process allows for a review that deletes in this situation to be take to VfU. -  T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  14:57, 9 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree. However Neutrality's stated objection is apparently that he personally considers 2:1 to be a rough consensus.  This is simply a disagreement between parties that have different but reasonable (well, I consider the 2:1 standard to be just about defensible, though I would never use it myself) criteria for rough consensus.  We can't go around tearing one another's legitimate closes down simply because our standards of consensus are different--surely there has to be some evidence of an illegitimate assumption or decision being made by the closer. --Tony Sidaway Talk  15:20, 9 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I can agree with that. I guess I am more focused on closures that say no consensus when there are no keep votes.  This is not the case for this VfD. -  T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  17:06, 9 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Well as a result of the RfC I've rethought calling no consensus. In future I'm emphasizing the binary nature of the decision by calling a keep unless there is a consensus to delete. The "no consensus" was really just a modifier, like the "not proven" verdict in Scottish law, and as such is easily misread as "not sure." If I call keep it's unambiguously because and only because there isn't a consensus to delete. --Tony Sidaway Talk  17:17, 9 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Now you've lost me. You think that is a positive response to the RfC?  Or is it a spiteful response?  (Honest question.)  I supported you in the RfC because your decisions were well documented and reasonable - with rare exceptions that I disagreed with but could understand.  I'm not following your view on this "binary" decision.  If there are 5 delete votes and 4 keep votes then you can accurately call it "no consensus" but not "keep". -  T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  18:14, 9 August 2005 (UTC)


 * First, recall that 24 people in addition to me *endorsed* my response to the RfC. You are one of 4 who added your signatures to an outside view by Robert_McClenon to the effect that I would not be abusing my authority as an admin if I refrained from closing VfDs. There's a difference there (though confusingly at least half dissented from Robert's central suggestion that I refrain from closing).  So no I'm not being spiteful, I can afford to be magnanimous.


 * No, the problem is that policy is not clearly understood. Central to VfD closing policy is this: the article is kept where there is no consensus.  Also the only important action performed by an administrator is to determine whether or not the article should be deleted (hence this is a binary decision.)  Deletion (and acts involving deletion such as history merging) is the only action that can't be performed, or reversed, by an ordinary editor.


 * If a VFD discussion yields no consensus, the decision defaults to keep the article. Note that this does not preclude editing, renaming or merging the article, as those actions do not require a deletion vote.


 * If six people voted delete and six voted to merge, there is not a consensus to merge any more than there is a consensus to delete. I'll happily close the discussion saying "keep" (or, formerly, "no consensus") because that is what we do when there is no consensus.  The fact that nobody voted to keep is supremely irrelevant--people thought it shouldn't be kept but they couldn't agree what to do, so I won't pretend that they did.  If somebody else wants to do the merge, that's fine with me--it has nothing to do with me. --Tony Sidaway Talk  20:52, 9 August 2005 (UTC)


 * This response, and your decision, sound very spiteful. I had initially respected your "no consensus" because it was your honest opionion.  This "binary" approach is a spite against your detractors.  I understand what you are doing now and my last advice to you is to read WP:POINT. -  T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  21:07, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm, looks like we'll have to agree to differ. To me it's obvious that the only way to clarity is my current path--to call a keep a keep, especially when it is explicitly prescribed as a keep by policy. It is, in fact, my only defense against further attacks on me, to be absolutely clear that my actions are unequivocally directly derived from policy. --Tony Sidaway Talk 21:37, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

We are not discussing whether merge/delete results should be called keep or merge. We are discussing this debate, where the result was actually a quite clean divide with 34 keep and 66 delete. In addition there were 2 merge votes and 1 redirect vote. If I place the merge votes in the "keep" column and the redirect vote in the "delete" column (since redirect usually means that the content is discardable) we are left with 67-36. This is below the 2:1 delete majority which Neutrality claims. I cannot understand why people think it is okay for a participant in the VFD debate to overrule a decision which he disagrees with. Sjakkalle (Check!)  07:16, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't think many do think it is okay. --Tony Sidaway Talk

Let's get back on topic. I oppose the method which Neutrality used to perform his "re-count". First, let's remember that despite the name, "Votes for deletion" has nothing to do with "voting". We use "votes" as a very rough proxy for measuring the degree to which concensus has been reached. But the comments - the facts, evidence and logical arguments - that go with a "vote" are always more important that the mere "vote". This means that the closing admin will always have to exercise his/her discretion when closing a vote. That is a good thing! We select admins for their judgment. We should trust them to exercise it well.

That is not to say that every admin will make every decision correctly. We do have the ability to review and correct "bad" decisions. Our processes have evolved over time but they are quite effective. If an article was incorrectly deleted, it gets discussed again on Votes for undeletion. By long precedent, if an article is incorrectly kept, if gets discussed again in a new deletion discussion thread. The new discussion should link to the old one but it should definitely be a community decision, not the decision of a single dissenting admin. We've never needed to write that precedent down before but that has been established practice for at least the several years I've been here.

I will support Neutrality's right to open a new VfD debate over this article. There are some serious issues which have not been resolved. However, I oppose the attempt to re-write the closing decision of the existing debate. Rossami (talk) 13:16, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

New: Vote for UNdeletion
See the latest vote and discussions at Votes for undeletion. Thank you. IZAK 12:05, 10 August 2005 (UTC)


 * And what is the point of voting for the undeletion of an article that has not been deleted? When, as is almost inevitable, you don't get a 2:1 majority to undelete, will that be used as "proof" that it should now be deleted? If this is what does happen, IMO that would be a total perversion of the spirit of the Wikipedia. Paul B 21:01 10 August 2005 (UTC)