Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antisemitic boycotts

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. Tone 12:36, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Antisemitic boycotts (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)

The article tries to find a common thread among a group of historical boycotts against Jewish business and boycotts of Israel. But all the sources, except from the Jewish Virtual Library one, deal with specific anti-Jewish boycotts or other incidents. So it seems to me that the article suffers from WP:SYNTH. I can't find any scholarly sources on the topic "anti-Semitic boycotts" either, so I'm not sure how the article should be saved. ImTheIP (talk) 02:42, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. ImTheIP (talk) 02:42, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:52, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:52, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:52, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:52, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Here is the whole book that deals with the issue [1] and here is another books that discuss the issue [2]--Shrike (talk) 10:19, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I found those books too when I researched the subject. The first book, Boycotts Past and Present From the American Revolution to the Campaign to Boycott Israel, is about boycotting in general. The discussion in the second book is specific to the BDS movement and anti-Zionism. It's not about anti-Semitic boycotts afaict. ImTheIP (talk) 19:49, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Covered by many sources, for instance The Definition of Anti-Semitism, Conclusion chapter, page 205 ties between the Arab boycott and previous Nazi propaganda, saying the Arab boycott echoes the 1933 Nazi boycott and that both are antisemitic.--Hippeus (talk) 12:39, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Get rid Even the article title is synth. Selfstudier (talk) 14:19, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Blatantly notable, its not "synth" to collect into on the history of something just because not every source mentions all other events.★Trekker (talk) 00:18, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I agree that this is WP:SYNTH, plus a POV fork of several existing articles on individual boycotts. The keeps above miss the point: yes, some sources make links between various boycotts and antisemitism, but that doesn't mean that "antisemitic boycotts" is in itself a notable topic. For that we would need to see significant coverage that treats these boycotts together as a coherent topic, distinct from other forms of antisemitism, and under the common name of "antisemitic boycotts". Apart from the one JVL source[3] the nominator mentions, that coverage doesn't appear to exist. The historic boycotts are either discussed as independent events or as manifestations of antisemitism more broadly. The disputed position that links historic antisemitic boycotts to contemporary boycotts of Israel is already covered in a more balanced way at Boycotts of Israel. – Joe (talk) 08:16, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Encyclopaedia Judaica has an entry on "Boycott, anti-Jewish": [4]. Anti-Jewish boyocotts were a fixture within extremist Catholic circles in the late 19th and early 20th century, with examples in Ireland, Austo-Hungary, Poland[5], and elsewhere. This also became Nazi policy in 1933.--Geshem Bracha (talk) 11:25, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's the same article as the Jewish Virtual Library mentioned above, which still only leaves us with one source. – Joe (talk) 12:49, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I gave several, not one. Here's another: The Oxford Handbook of Political Consumerism has an index entry for "anti-Jewish boycotts" which are covered in pages 626,628-630,665,705-712 (13 pages). Page 628 begins a section title "Anti-Jewish Boycotts" and after an introductory paragraph on minority discrimination, goes on to state: "As early as the 1880s, the flourishing of anti-Semitism inspired economic boycotts against the Jews in several European countries or regions. In the Austro-Hungarian Empire.... During the interwar period, anti-Jewish boycotts were attempted in many countries but most notably in Nazi Germany". Extensive coverage that ties several different antisemitic boycotts.--Geshem Bracha (talk) 13:10, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The other sources in your first comment are about individual boycotts. Nobody is disputing that sources exist about these (we have articles on most), what is at issue is whether we should have an article about them together. The section from the Oxford Handbook is more the kind of thing we need, thanks, but I still think two sources falls short of significant coverage. – Joe (talk) 14:38, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note that JVL is now deprecated as a source in any case.Selfstudier (talk) 14:29, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The source is an Encyclopedia Judaica.JVL is just a convenience link --Shrike (talk) 18:11, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is NOT WP:SYNTH--Cts499m (talk) 19:40, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is a coherent subject which unifies Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions, Nazi boycott of Jewish businesses and other things like that. My very best wishes (talk) 21:36, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- This is a useful compilation, but I think some restructuring might be useful, emphasising (1) Russian etc pogroms of the late 19th century (2) Nazi and Nazi-inspired pogroms of the 1930s-1945 (3) any others. Ideally we should exclude actions directed at Israel, which are a result of the Palestinian question, rather than specifically anti-Jewish. I suspect we will have articles elsewhere, dealing with anti-Jewish sentiment, deriving from bad Christian theology over the crucifixion of Jesus. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:26, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it relisted? Isn't the consensus to keep? ImTheIP (talk) 11:27, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Indeed. The reasons for relisting were not met -- insufficient comment or a lack of policy-based argument. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:04, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The nomination makes a vague wave to WP:SYNTH but fails to explain what the supposed synthetic proposition is. But, as explained by WP:NOTSYNTH, "SYNTH is not mere juxtaposition". What we have here is a list of various historical boycotts. As there are sources describing these in a general way, the page therefore passes WP:LISTN. It might also be considered to pass WP:BROAD – "Where the primary topic of a term is a general topic that can be divided into subtopics, such as chronologically (e.g., History of France) or geographically (e.g., Rugby union in the British Isles), the unqualified title should contain an article about the general topic...". Andrew🐉(talk) 10:04, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This article needs restructuring, but it is sourced and reliable. --- FULBERT (talk) 13:37, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Agree regarding restructuring, but is a good start and important subject in an era where discrimination and bigotry is attempting a comeback.TruthLover123 (talk) 20:17, 8 September 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TruthLover123 (talk • contribs) 20:04, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Lots of sources talking about many aspects of the topic; being comprehensive does not equal WP:SYNTH. — Toughpigs (talk) 15:16, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Well-sourced, reliable, notable, coherent and clearly not WP:SYNTH. — Knowitall369 (talk) 17:32, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: as per nomination, as SYNTH. We have here anything from Kosher slaughter to numerus clausus. Little RS cited to prove these are examples of boycott. WP:OR and WEASEL: "which could be seen as antisemitic, ..." The See Also section is also telling. Zezen (talk) 09:46, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The scope and breadth of reliable and verifiable sources provided in the article demonstrates that the notability standard is satisfied. Alansohn (talk) 19:07, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Sources are good, the topic is notable, and WP:SYNTH has been refuted above. Still, if someone wants to point out a WP:MERGE target, I'm certainly willing to look into this option. I did look for one but found no clear candidate. Maybe I missed something? Just saying WP:FORK without any specifics has the appearance of an WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument! gidonb (talk) 00:48, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, this would be a good interwiki discussion between the English and Hebrew wikipedias. I think a group of editors from both Wikipedias should be asked to talk it out and reach a consensus that all parties find acceptable. It is implicit in the understanding of the modern boycotts that there is an underlying unspoken antisemitism beneath the political veneer of the Palestinian cause. This assertion requires careful investigation but not outright dismissal just because the people doing the labeling take a vanguard approach to the controversy. An interwiki committee would be able to unturn these stones to see if this is indeed the case.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 03:30, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Notable, and cited to high quality sources. Trying to reconnect (talk) 03:09, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:SIGCOV in books, laws, and scholarship. Bearian (talk) 11:44, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.