Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Circumcision and Anti-semitism

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – AB CD 01:36, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Circumcision and Anti-semitism[edit]

So... this page was created by a rather angry user after a dispute at Anti-semitism over citations and such. The article essentially says nothing and I doubt there is sufficient material for it to stand alone rather than just as a sub-part of the primary anti-semitism page (I'm willing to be proven wrong here, but I doubt I will be). Also appears to be in violation of the proposed Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point policy (which, while still merely proposed claims to have support of AbCom members). See the edit history, especially the first post, to see this. In short, this article isn't doing Wikipedia any good. Suggest we merge it's contents with anti-semitism and then delete this page. -SocratesJedi | Talk 00:43, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Delete. POV fork, no potential to become encyclopedic, WP:POINT. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:49, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete.--Eliezer 01:07, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
merge - I forsaw this vote and I hope that a decision to merge is respected by the permanent inclusion of this information in the anti-semitism article. I am really angry not so that I created the article, but at the reaction that this article has received or the idea that this article is just to prove a point and that it is not about a real phenoma. I think its sick and sad that people would rather be ignorant to face up to a real phenomon which is very likely at the heart of the whole anti-semitism issue. In fact I am so disenchanted that I may delete my wikipedia account permanently. I feel that I have been treated worse than a vandal for my contribution and research that I did as a favour to this community and is totally unappreciated. Don't expect me to shed any tears of the Jews or other groups come to suffer because they choose to turn a blind eye to the real value of this article that I wrote very much for their benefit on many levels. Sirkumsize 01:51, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comment:If this is a real phenomenon and as you say "very likely at the heart of the whole anti-semitism issue" then there should be an abundance of citations you could provide for people expressing this view which is all the community requested of you to begin with. I see that you have now provided a link on this page up for deletion, but the thoughts of just one speaker do not show evidence for your case that it is at the heart of the issue. Does a discussion of this merit inclusion? Probably, yes, but with appropriate citation. The proper way to work with other editors is to discuss controvertial edits in talk and come to consensus, not to create new pages with disputed content because it was rejected by other editors on an established page. That the other editors disagreed that there was sufficient evidence to present your views on the subject as factual does not mean that they are persecuting you as if you were a vandal, just that they are doing what they think best to preserve the factual integrity of Wikipedia. Again: Should Wikipedia say "Some people think Antisemitism has to do with circumsision" with some links to several people and groups that claim that? Yes. Should it state that or any other greater claim without evidence? No. Learn to work with the community, not to create POV-based forks because you're upset over other editor's views on the evidentiary-support of your claim. -SocratesJedi | Talk 02:30, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Merge with Anti-Semitism or Genital Integrity and Delete. See talk page for comments. Why is this VfD not listed on the VfD pages for April 1, anyways? Jim^Collaborator ^«talk» 02:01, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

Comment:*It is now. Sorry. I forgot to click submit to the VfD mainpage. -SocratesJedi | Talk 07:15, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Perhaps merge some links with a mention of this theory into Genital Integrity. There isn't a convincing argument made that circumcision is a significant causative factor behind anti-Semitism, or a notable group presented who hold that view. Fire Star 02:05, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete. POV, unverified claims made in article. android↔talk 03:23, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
Merge Very relevent hot topic within ancient and modern history of Judaism. Merge with Circumcision or anti-semitism with improved citation. Paradiso 03:42, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete. POV fork. --Kitch 03:52, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete. There has been plenty of time and opportunity for this article to develop. It is likely to remain a stub of dubious pov forever. get rif of it and let the authors add the info elsewhere if they are so inclined. -Casito 04:47, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Editing Change. I edited the article to accurately reflect available sources. However, I still vote for a Merge and Delete. Jim^Collaborator ^«talk» 06:08, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. POV fork. Any NPOV content (if there is any) can be added to Anti-semitism. - Jakew 12:16, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete I have posted two long comments on the article talk page, going over two different versions of the article in detail, and explaining why every single sentence should be deleted. The article is really a personal essay by a contributor who explicitly wants to use Wikipedia as a soapbox, and it comes dangerously close to being anti-Semitic (the contributor's justification for the article is anti-Semitic). It addresses something that is at best a minor interest of a small number of people, and it has no scholarly sources (for scholarly claims) and no scholarly validity. On this very page the creator of this so-called article writes "Don't expect me to shed any tears of the Jews or other groups come to suffer because they choose to turn a blind eye to the real value of this article that I wrote very much for their benefit" — the kind of sentence, simultaneously patronizing, contemptuous, and threatening, that exemplifies a major form of anti-Semitism. It is arrogant for someone who is fundamentally ignorant to think that an entire race of people needs his help, and the veiled threat that Jews will suffer for ignoring him only reveals the hatred at the core of his heart. It is offensive. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:29, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Okay, lets go with the hypothesis that I am anti-semitic? Does this beg an interesting question? Why? Can you give me a non-religious answer to this question does that not involve the Jews and other groups insistence on circumcision as the source of this hatred? If circumcision has made me anti-semitic as you suggest than expalin how it can be that there is no need for this article? And if I am anti-semitic for a non-circumcision related reason, how can it be that I am focused on the circumcision issue when the result of this communities analysis of this issue is that "real" anti-semits do not use this argument: If they did, another good reason for this article. So how can it be that I am antisemitic? And how is the wish to help a race of people arrogant and in what way am I ignorant? Is it not you that is ignorant to the fact that circumcision is sexual assualt? Is it not you that is the blind to the fact that it is causing greif to this society in so many ways? Is it not you that are discouraging anyone from doing any real work on the anti-semitism issue by giving very hurting accusations? And why is it my responsibility to not be patronizing, contemptuous or threatening when that all I recieve from other people. I cannot give what I haven't receieved? Do you think I was somehow born with hatred in my heart? Is that the best explaination you can give for me? You don't know me and you don't know what you are talking about. Not one person has every acknowledged that I am part of a whole society, culture and religious ideology that promotes sexual anorexia and as a result I am a victim of sexual abuse. What right do you have to say those things about me? Sirkumsize 03:53, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've explained gently to the original author why such an article is offensive; "simultaneously patronizing, contemptuous, and threatening" as you say, but that explanation unfortunately didn't seem to register. The good news is that the VfD seems likely to result in the demise of the article. Fire Star 22:07, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, Fire Star. Sirkumsize -- I never daid that you were anti-Semitic because of circumicision. I have given no reason for "why" you are anti-Semitic. I do not care. That you are anti-Semitic is your problem, and not mine. If you do not want to be anti-Semitic, then you are the one who must figure out why and how you became that way. But I can give you this piece of advice -- if the reason you became anti-Semitic has anything to do with Jews or Jewish practice, then you have not discovered the reason (for the reason lies within you), you have only reenforced your own anti-Semitism. Circumcision is not sexual abuse. You do not understand why Jews circumcise their sons. If you want to know why, I suggest you read Carnal Israel by Daniel Boyarin. But even if after learning why Jews circumcise themselves, you still think it is wrong -- well, who cares? We think it is right, and that is all that matters. You write "why is it my responsibility to not be patronizing, contemptuous or threatening?" But I never said it is your responsibility not to be these things. All I said is that you are, which is indication of your anti-Semitism. Whether it is your responsibility to change is entirely up to you. As to your own victimization -- I cannot speak to that. I do not know you or anything about you, and Wikipedia is not dedicated to exploring individuals' personal trauma -- it is an encyclopedia, not a computerized psychoanalyst. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:00, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Once again a person that charges me with arrogants thinks they know more about me than I know about myself. I am not anti-semitic. If you read my last message you will see that I say let go with the "hypothesis" that I am. Only I know what I am. As for the reasons that Jews circumcise it does not matter to me anymore than whether or not Jews advocate circumcising Christians. I see circumcision as abuse and I do not want it to happen to anyone, Muslim, Christian, Hindu, Jew. It is about the rights of the child. If I have to live in a society where I can spend my life in prison for having a photograph of a 10 year old playing naked on the beach, I don't want to live in that society along with people that commit serious sexual abuse with impunity. I have to live with laws that I may not like because they are the majority rule. Why is it fair to me if the Jews do not have to live up to the same standard - or the Muslims, or any other group. The direction that my research for this site is very disturbing. I'm running across article after article implying academic bias in favour of circumcision because of professionals and organizations that fear the accusation of anti-semitism or bias against other circumcising cultures. How can parents make informed decisions on behalf of their children if this information is distorted? By deleting this article all of you endorse this bias and its your sons that will have to pay the price. Thanks for letting me speak. Sirkumsize 18:41, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have to agree with Fire Star, and tried a different approach with the original author. It should be noted that I am the sole author (not Sirkumsize) of the current version, which I rewrote because the then-current version didn't even accurately reflect its cited sources. Even though I wrote it, though, it's still not worth keeping. At best, a sentence should be added to the Genital Integrity page reflecting the insistence of anti-circ folk that they are opposing the procedure and not anti-Semitic. From what I could gather though, it's not even worth mentioning on anti-Semitism because the anti-Semites don't even use it that much to attack Jews and Judaism. The thought that circumcision actually causes or even increases anti-Semitic sentiment is totally baseless. Jim^Collaborator ^«talk» 23:45, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Sirkumsize, please stop creating these throw-away articles. Rhobite 05:08, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Even if there is something to be said about this bizarre idea, it's not being said here. - Mustafaa 05:18, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete —Christiaan 09:06, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Zero potential to become encyclopedic --Mrfixter 14:10, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep or Merge. Can't see a reason to delete. Piece does need to be expanded, but it is already interesting and NPOV to read. --Irishpunktom\^talk 14:52, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
Delete; this borders on crackpottery. —Psychonaut 01:59, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- LOL. The difference between bordering on crackpottery and being crackpottery is the difference between belonging on wikipedia and belong on the deletion queue. I think this article is shaping up despite the criticism. Sirkumsize 02:04, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete POV fork, not encyclopedic. Kaldari 04:00, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete. POV fork. El_C 06:08, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete Not Encyclopedia material Whatcanbrowndo 17:31, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.