Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jews in USA

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Zain engineer (talk | contribs) at 02:25, 24 January 2005. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Jews in USA

This page has no useful information that isn't contained in pages such as Jew, Jewish population, Jews by country or History of the Jews in the United States. It was created by User:Zain engineer, who may have created this page simply as a disruption. This page may be a candidate for speedy deletion. Carrp 01:58, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. Title is NPOV. Content is NPOV. The article doesn't even have an POV banner. Encyclopedic and 'disturbance' issues are discussed below Zain 02:34, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, duplicates content. Wyss 07:30, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
If you think I have 'ever' did any thing incorrect. I'll highly encourage you for a request for explanation. I'll love to see one. That's why I 'never' use sock puppets! :))))
Plus If I don't make some body else will make it is a very encyclopedic subjects. 36,000+ Google Hits So a lot of people are making such 'disturbance' too.
You might say they are anti-Semitic, So here it is on jewishvirtuallibrary Page Titled 'Jews in America' on jewishvirtuallibrary.org. There are full fledged books on this topic http://www.ereads.com/book.asp?bookid=511. Let me quote about the author.
"Max I. Dimont’s JEWS, GOD AND HISTORY, with more than a million and half copies in print, has been acclaimed the “best popular history of the Jews written in the English language.""
Probably People at jewishvirtuallibrary and Max I. Dimont are anti-semitic to use such 'disturbing' titles.
You might continue to track my edits. I am least bothered by them, in fact I like it. So I am not planning to use any sock puppet in near future. :)) Zain 02:34, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Zain 02:34, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Simply being NPOV does not mean that an article is merited. If I created an article called Items on Carrp's Desk, it could be completely NPOV, yet certainly doesn't merit mention in WP. Why couldn't the information in Jews in USA be included on one of the many other pages that discusses Jews? In fact your information is already included in WP and appears to have been copied verbatim from Jewish American's population section. Carrp 02:45, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
You ignored the google hit argument and books and articles on jewishvirtual library. I have added relevant information from jewishvirtuallibrary. i think now your complaints are gone. Any other complaints? Zain 03:12, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
We'll let users vote on this. I personally think an article with 100% pasted content from a website should be deleted. If you believe WP is missing information in the Jewish American article, why not add it there? If you really like the "Jews in USA" title, make it a re-direct. We have different opinions on this page and I'm going to let the VfD process proceed. Carrp 03:18, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Your thought about copying is 100% correct. (by the way I also mentioned it in edit comment). it is bcoz the vfd was called without much discussion. So ofcourse now we have to NPOV the claims of Jewish virtual library. I'll really love if you lend a hand in it. So a lot of work is left in that article that's why I labeled it as a stub. but your demand of proving 'uniqueness' of the article required quick adding of data. So if you think it shouldn't be copied as it is. You should edit it. Plus the jewish virtual library data is in public domain. Wikipedia is also public domain. and its policy says that we can copy paste text from public domain sources whenever applicable.
Now about Jewish American that article is generally about individuals and this is more about community interactions. These two are different things. One is about individuals other is their collective influence. you can understand this difference when u read jewishvirtuallibrary. 'American Jews' are treated different then 'jews in america' both topics are given different treatments. So is here. Now your objections gone? Zain 03:29, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Several paprgraphs have been directly cut and pasted into wikipedia from [1] copyrighted source, list it as a copyvio--nixie 03:44, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • It is not copy righted source. I mentioned it in my edit comment it is from public domain source. let me copy from Jewish Encyclopedia
"The Jewish Encyclopedia was an encyclopedia originally published between 1901 and 1906 by Funk and Wagnalls. It contained over 15,000 articles in 12 volumes on the history and then-current state of Judaism and the Jews as of 1901. It is now a public domain resource"
Zain 03:53, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The Jewish Encyclopedia was published between 1901 and 1906. The text on Jews in USA mention events from the 1940s, 1960s and even 1980s. How can the article text be from the Jewish Encyclopedia? Am I missing something? Carrp 03:57, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Yep you are missing some thing. you are missing the word 'orignally'. The statement is
"The Jewish Encyclopedia was an encyclopedia originally published between 1901 and 1906 by Funk and Wagnalls."
It is public domain like wikipedia. Like after 100 years we will be saying wikipedia start in ... and it will have articles of 2100! Zain 04:01, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The main page [2] of the Jewish Encyclopedia has this notice:
This online version contains the unedited contents of the original encyclopedia. Since the original work was completed almost 100 years ago, it does not cover a significant portion of modern Jewish History (e.g., the creation of Israel, the Holocaust, etc.). However, it does contain an incredible amount of information that is remarkably relevant today.
The introductory page seems to clearly state that the site contains the original unedited encyclopedia which was published in 1901-1906. Could you please provide a link to the source for the text on Jews in USA? Carrp 04:16, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I think copyright problem is not main problem for vfd here. so remove whatever you see as copyrighted. Or you might reuse the information in any other way. Which it might seem fit. You might use some extracts that this source claim this. I think this is somewhat ok. And you can find other resources too. on same topics. Main thing is topic exists and it is encylopedic. it is NPOV. convert it back to stub. Zain 04:23, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)


Any way I think if any body thinks any part is copyright voilation he can remove it. I won't object on it. And he might replace it with more public domained content. Plus any body is welcomed to add the content in an encylopedic manner. That's why i prefered the method of creating stub. But i was asked to prove the difference. You might remove the information if it is against copyright. Zain 04:09, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)


Confused

Rather than this being a vote for deletion or not, I would like an explaination. Having worked on History of the Jews in the United States and Jewish American, both would seem to be good places for material on Jews and politics. In fact, I have already writen a lot of material on these subjects in History of the Jews in the United States. Why not add material there? It already talks about Jews and socialism, Jewish support for Israel after 1967, and Jews and civil rights. Or, add it to Jewish American, which is not about individuals at all if you read the article. Please justify the article (not the title, which is fine, but could be a redirect) and why it needs to be seperate. --Goodoldpolonius2 06:37, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I did a little more search work for it and I found [3] It probably suggests that we can reprint (reproduce the work) if we put link to jewish virtual library. Similar to GFDL I think. Only one constraint that if the content is not orignal work of jewishvirtuallibrary but it is a borrowed work. Then we have to get permission to orignal source too. The content which I copied was not a third party work.
Now American Jew refers to individuals. While this one is about community. I found neglect of this topic when I used to view jew article. There was a section of jew world wide in that we had sub-sections of jew in Europe etc but had no section of jews in USA. So It is normally difficult to put some content directly in jew article. So I prefer making a seperate article then by vfd get a merge vote.

Zain 22:44, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

(Also, Zain, the information for Jewish Virtual Library is copyrighted, or it would be a useful source. The Jewish Encyclopedia for 1906 is not, but is obviously not current)


  • Delete or, if there is any useful content and the edit history should be retained, merge and redirect. Duplicates/overlaps topics that already exist in the Wikipedia. --BM 14:10, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. No useful content to merge with many better articles. Jayjg | (Talk) 01:38, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, unnecessary article duplication. Megan1967 01:39, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to Jewish American and/or History of the Jews in the United States. -Sean Curtin 01:59, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm totally confused. This has both a copyvio notice and further content. I thought that was never supposed to happen: if the copyvio notice is there, any rewrite should be at Jews in USA/Temp. Given this, I have no idea what we are voting on. I will check back later. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:17, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)
I am also not sure. I think first copy problem should be solved after that we should continue voting process. If the copy problem is solved positively. Then the argument of duplication goes. I think copy problem should be solved first and after that it should be again put for vfd Zain 02:25, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jews_in_USA&oldid=9601425"