- 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 keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:44, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
The Ashkenazi Jews/Khazarian origins theory
- The Ashkenazi Jews/Khazarian origins theory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- A fringe POV fork. This myth is already covered thoroughly in two extremely long sections in the article Khazars, in 1)Khazars#Judaism and 2)Khazar#Ashkenazi-Khazar'. The article's content can be found there and therefore the it is pointless. If this article isn't deleted for some reason, then these sections will have to be.
- Important notes: The article which was created recently and is about a widely spreading theory often regarded as anti-Semitic and used for anti-Semitic purposes. This belief (that Ashkenazi Jews are "fake Jews") has been spread in other places, even in articles that have absolutely no connection to it. When I added some criticism about this theory in the Khazars article, it was removed and eventually moved to this page, however information promoting the theory was not moved or touched. So as I said, if this article isn't deleted, these two sections discussing it will have to be cut from the Khazars article and pasted here instead. Thanks, Shalom11111 (talk) 20:21, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions.
- KEEP.
- The proposer’s argument has no merit because he is totally confused, WP:AGF is violated, and he makes accusations that raise serious doubts about his editorial integrity. His assertions about how this page was created are deceptive.
Extended content
|
---|
|
- Keep - I haven't a clue how the theory could be used by anti-Semites, but such vile misuse should be dealt with directly, not by suppressing discussion of the questionable validity of an interesting theory, about which Arthur Koestler wrote a whole book. The two articles about Khazars mentioned concentrate on Khazars, not European Jews, so it is a very different emphasis. cwmacdougall 0:45, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
- Keep - This is not a fork. It does have titling problems. Extensive coverage of the topic shown in footnotes. Carrite (talk) 03:34, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
- Keep – Proposer's argument is absurd and offensive. However, somewhere (not on this AFD board), the future of the article needs discussing. We don't normally make subarticles so it ought to be moved to the top level if the content is going to remain separate. Zerotalk 07:02, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
- Comment. Both the Ashkenazi Jews and Khazar article have been consistently destabilized by POV-editing on the issue of origins (by editors who appear to be disinterested in both topics. Controversy seduces. User:Shalom11111 (and User:Tritomex) want each page to 'prove' that 'science' knows all Ashkenazi are direct descendents of the Israelites. That is why a main page on the topic was created: they, others, and indeed myself, can examine and document every nook and cranny of this minor theory (much stability was created for Shakespeare articles by getting the proponents of Edward de Vere, Oxfordian theory to work specific pages). I calculate at a minimum that a fair survey of the history, its exponents, and the documentation (genetics) would run to 60/70kb. I'll certaintly get round to doing much of this. I am surprised that Shalom11111, who started this by creating a section headed 'Expansion needed', refuses to work the page now that he has all the room imaginable to thicken the text here.Nishidani (talk) 09:28, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
- Delete I did not "went there" to prove anything but to try to create an objective article from the POV pushing carried out there by Nishidani who is censoring all scientific and reliable sources which he believes could question the "Khazarian theory" (which btw do not have even a scientifically established name.)He also added (or participated in addition) of this theory in at least fore other articles: Genetic studies on Jews, Shlomo Sand, Invention of Jewish people and Ashkenazi Jews --Tritomex (talk) 12:35, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
- Comment. I have just taken Shalom11111 to A/I for making false and injurious accusations. I suggest you either document these absurd charges or strike them out. In all the articles mentioned, I added relevant scholarly input, irrespective of the POV pushing, and have never removed, on principle, any good RS from wikipedia. I only add academic works to such articles, and you, Tritomex, consistently remove them, whatever their standing as reliable sources. That is the difference. Wikipedia is obligatorily bound to cover all relevant views. It does not promote a preferred slant on anything. That's policy. Read it.Nishidani (talk) 15:19, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
- Link: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive826#User:Shalom11111:Incivility, slurs and accusations of antisemitism --Guy Macon (talk) 17:41, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
- Comment. I have just taken Shalom11111 to A/I for making false and injurious accusations. I suggest you either document these absurd charges or strike them out. In all the articles mentioned, I added relevant scholarly input, irrespective of the POV pushing, and have never removed, on principle, any good RS from wikipedia. I only add academic works to such articles, and you, Tritomex, consistently remove them, whatever their standing as reliable sources. That is the difference. Wikipedia is obligatorily bound to cover all relevant views. It does not promote a preferred slant on anything. That's policy. Read it.Nishidani (talk) 15:19, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
- Keep It's a notable theory and should have an own article. If it's about how antisemites and others can view an article, then we would have to remove articles such as Genetic studies on Arabs who only talk about genetic diseases in Arabs. --IRISZOOM (talk) 17:06, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
- Speedy keep - It's a theory that should have its own article. Although it's terribly made, that has more to do with your effort to delete it rather than improve it. This article is a great idea considering how peaceful the Khazars page is compared to before. On another note, Shalom11111 should understand how crucial it is to keep POV-pushers such as himself from the Khazars article. As long as he lurks there, that page will never be a good/featured article. Khazar (talk) 04:04, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- Keep - this is a very clearly notable theory. I'm surprised it has taken so long to have its own "stand alone" article. The subject has been widely debated ever since the publication of Koestler's book The Thirteenth Tribe. Has this theory been used by antisemites? Yes, but usually in the context of Biblical-literalist claims that Jews have a "right" to Israel by descent from Abraham (and thus no 'right' if they aren't his descendents). Koestler's own intention was to prove that Jews are not a "race", but a religious community, and thus to undermine antisemitism. But all this is beside the point. Wikipedia policy is clear. It is undeniably a notable topic, widely discussed in reliable sources. Paul B (talk) 11:22, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- Keep With papers being published fairly recently in succession by noted scholars, some supporting some refuting the theory, it obviously meets the notability criteria.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 13:09, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- Keep per cwmacdougall, Carrite, Paul B., et al. If we deleted everything that the haters could use, there would be little left here. We have lots of articles at WP:ODD and as allowed by WP:FRINGE. I think the article does a fairly good job of neutrality. Bearian (talk) 19:10, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- Keep This theory is not inherently anti-semitic, therefore no reason to delete. Concur with Bearian. Bensci54 (talk) 03:53, 16 January 2014 (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.