Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Jewish ethnocentrism/previous

Please add new comments to the bottom of the page.

The table is unacceptable

Firstly users with few edits who vote "keep" are singled out for a special catagory, whilst those w few edits who vote delete are not. Secondly, as Carrp points out, the discussion is complex, and a table of this sort encourages ignorant votes to be placed within the table without a thourough reading of the page. Thirdly, where is the precedent for such a voting chart? Sam Spade (talk · contribs) 10:14, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

On this VfD, the users with fewer than 5 edits have about a 99% chance of being sockpuppets. It's obvious that someone is trying to influence the vote by creating users with the sole purpose of voting to "Keep". No users in the "first edit" category have ever made an edit outside of this VfD. These aren't users who have gone on to join the WP community. These are sockpuppets, plain and simple. If you find users with fewer than five edits (at the time of voting) who voted "Delete", I'd have no problem with creating a separate category. However, at this time I don't believe any votes fall into that category.

I don't believe a table increases (or decreases) the number of ignorant votes on the page. Ignorant voters will make ignorant votes whether there's a table or not. In addition, the table wasn't created until a large number of votes had already been cast. The keep/delete percentages haven't changed much since then.

As for precedent, I've seen several lengthy VfDs that have included lists of Keep and Delete votes in addition to the discussion. I don't believe the rules forbid such a table. To me, it's a good way of keeping track of the votes and doesn't seem to harm anyone. I'm not going to revert your removal, but I fully support putting the table back. Carrp 10:31, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

(I tried to save this, and found that Carrp had beaten me to it. There's thus some overlap)

First, I've already raised this with user:Jayjg (instead of simply deleting what I didn't like), and he/she (it's probably on his/her User page, but it doesn't matter for now) confirmed what I'd then started discovering — that there aren't any delete-voters who are first-time or very new editors. If you could point to someone whom we missed, then what would be wrong with adding a section to the table for them?

Secondly, many – the evidence is that it's most – people don't read through the long (though not in fact complex so much as baroquely repetitive) discussion before voting anyway.

Thirdly, why does it need a precedent? It's useful, especially to the person who has to count the votes.

Fourthly, it's been over five days now, so presumably voting and discussion is over, and a decision has to be made. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:39, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

See [1] and [2]. I'm sure their are more, but these two are the most obvious sockpuppets amongst the keep votes. Singling out one side is a sign of clear bias, and is intellectually dishonest, and suggestive of fraud. Sam Spade (talk · contribs) 10:42, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Take a look at the "Keep: users' first edit" category. None of these users have ever made an edit outside of this VfD. The majority have a total of one edit. The two users you linked to may be questionable, but not nearly as blatant as the "keep" sockpuppets. Carrp 10:50, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

(Carrp beat me to it again)

The second User had made seventeen edits, going back three or four days, before voting on this issue. I couldn't be bothered to count the twenty to thirty prior edits made by the first user, going back to August of last year. Someone throwing round hostile and insulting epithets while relying on that sort of evidence doesn't make an edifying sight.
(OK, I suppose that it could be argued that the sort of person arguing for Delete is more intelligent or foresighted than the sort of person arguing for Keep, hence the blatancy of the latters' attempts to cheat — but that's neither a pleasant nor a fair position to take, and you surely wouldn't want to adopt it.) Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:54, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

My name has come up so I figured I'd defend myself. I've made several minor edits (typos and such) over the last year or two, but I never had an account. Not sure how I would go about proving that though. Anyway, for various reasons I've become more interested in the project over the last couple weeks and have been reading up on policies and figuring out how things work around here. I've been on the irc channel as ningu, perhaps someone has seen me there. I have an interest in Judaism and added a number of such pages to my watchlist, among others, and I've made some edits to a few pages. When this VfD came up, someone who had noticed I was new and possibly interested in the topic let me know about it. Hence my vote. We have enough in the Delete column already that I don't really object if someone sees the need to remove mine, but it's still legitimate. And if you read my comment, you'll see that the point of view is not quite the same as most/all of the others. Anyway, my two cents, back into the woodwork. --Unamuno ^talk 12:13, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I have no idea what you think your talking about. I've made myself clear, and if your confused, your can re-read what I said. Sam Spade (talk · contribs) 11:15, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sam, if you have a problem with the table, you can raise it as an issue, but please don't simply delete it. It has been agreed with the admin who's overseeing the vote; in fact, he may have created it. As for the delete sockpuppets, they're very obvious. If you feel there are sockpuppets on the other side, outline your reasons for believing that, and the admin will take it into account. SlimVirgin 11:38, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting my revert, Mel. It's clearly one of those pages . . . ;-) SlimVirgin 11:51, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion policy

The page will also remain if it has been improved enough since the initial listing that the reason for the listing no longer applies. This requires a reason to be given initially when requesting that a page be deleted.

This article has a troubled history. It started as "Semitism," then was changed to "Jewish ethnocentrism," though the term is used largely by neo-Nazis to refer to the work of Kevin B. MacDonald, a controversial psychologist. Because the term is barely used, no criticism of it exists, which means we either have to leave the article unbalanced or add original research in order to provide criticism. There are already two articles on MacDonald: his bio and Culture of Critique about his research. The Jewish ethnocentrism material that isn't original research could be merged into one of those. There is also Ethnocentrism and Particularism; some of the material might fit in there. (original reasoning for placement on VfD, made 31 Jan)

See Jewish_ethnocentrism#References, where references regarding the copious usage of the term outside the sphere of Kevin B. MacDonald were provided 31 Jan. I would also point out that arguments like

"Because the term is barely used, no criticism of it exists, which means we either have to leave the article unbalanced or add original research in order to provide criticism"

are of absolutely no value here.

Sam Spade (talk · contribs) 13:47, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Protestations that the article has been improved enough to keep from the "keep" side are hardly credible. The content is no better than before, and suffers from all the same flaws that were used to vote to delete it. Moreoever, no significant content has been included from the "References". Jayjg ^(talk) 14:43, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"the reason for the listing no longer applies". Sam Spade (talk · contribs) 14:58, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yep, it still does. Article has the same flaws it always did. Also, note this important and more relevant information from Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators Administrators necessarily must use their best judgement, attempting to be as impartial as is possible for a fallible human, to determine when rough consensus has been reached. For example, administrators can disregard votes and comments if they feel that there is strong evidence that they were not made in good faith. Such "bad faith" votes include those being made by sock puppets, being made anonymously, or being made using a new userid whose only edits are to the article in question and the voting on that article. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:03, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sam if anyone had been able to find decent references and was prepared to use those to improve or rewrite the article, it would have happened by now. You could have done it yourself in the time this vote has been going on. But it hasn't happened and won't happen because this is not a legitimate subject. Note also the interest from Stormfront. I'd have thought you might want to dissociate yourself from them. SlimVirgin 21:01, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

I agree that Sam Spade isn't behaving reasonably over this, but it's not fair to suggest that he should change his position just because it's shared by unpleasant people. I've little doubt that some of those who have voted delete have done so because they have views that are just as blinkered and bigoted as the Stormfronters (I've looked at some of their contribution-histories), but that doesn't make their conclusions wrong in this case, nor does it make me want to change my vote. It's possible to reach a true conclusion from false premises, by using invalid reasoning, after all. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:15, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yet it is. But you're taking a consequentialist position if you're arguing that the "truth" of the conclusion is all that matters; and if you're taking a consequentialist position, then you'll agree that Sam ought to take into account the consequences of the promotion of his beliefs - namely, given that his position is shared by neo-Nazis, that he risks promoting, or appearing to promote, the views of neo-Nazis by supporting the beliefs espoused by them. That consequence ought to carry some weight with him, yet it appears not to. On a side note, I doubt there's anyone in the delete column who holds views as bigoted as Stormfront's. SlimVirgin 23:07, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

Though I should add that Sam may not yet know about Stormfront's interest in this vote. SlimVirgin 23:10, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

Frankly, the only editor who made a compelling argument to keep the article was Zero0000, and El C and Charles/Mirv made reasonable arguments to clean up and re-direct. The rest of the keep arguments? Well, the less said the better. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:53, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks a lot, Andy L., I'm gone for less than two days and there goes my VfD drama! 'More than ten edits,' these fascists are insidious, but (also to their discredit) they are not especially bright as they just went ahead and, for now, sealed the fate of this article. As for myself, and my references (which, incidentally, SS seems fond of employing –this not being the first time– for purposes which are very much against the reasons I research for these, not to mention what these studies actually discuss), will not appear to support the encylopedicity of the term in the forthcoming VfU. No, I will take a more prgmatic, tactical position on this. One day, I may write a draft for JE and will submitt it to a VfU (or will support any such draft written by another editor which has merit), until then, my opposition to deletion ends with Stormfront's aforementioned political agitation. Actually, it isn't that crucial whether they are slightly more clever nextimearound in attempting to mask their identities and aims, because it would be evident enough in the sort of editors they prove to be (even if, somehow, they learn to mimic more reasonable editors.). As Jayjg said, the less said the better on the explanations provided by many of those voting keep, or to cite myself, prior to this SF discovery: these new users are highly suspect. I am calling to question their motives, outright. El_C 04:20, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, El C, and well said! SlimVirgin 04:59, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

As I said above, I agree that no-one should retreat from her view of what's right and wrong just because it's shared by people who have different and indefensible reasons. Having said that, the “intellectual dishonesty” is inappropriate, just as it was inappropriate when you first used it. The difference between voters with no or fewer than five previous edits, stretching back one or two days, and voters with fifteen or more edits stretching back over weeks or months, is clear and incontrovertible. (Even the white supremacists were only aiming for ten edits before voting.)
I note, incidentally, that someone (after the voting's over and the page has been deleted) has made a special “anonymous” category for one(!) delete-voter, even though a quick check demonstrates that that voter has a reasonable and stable edit history, and a user page with a comment about the lack of an account name. It's worrying that there's so much desperation on the keep side. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:27, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Mel, there is no hard and fast rule about how many edits an editor should have. Someone whose account was opened *after* the VfD started is suspect as an account created for the purpose of influencing the decision, a so-called "sock-puppet", although this can be masked by doing many edits over the course of a couple of days before actually voting. The VfD does last several days. A sysop might discount all votes from accounts created after the VfD started, no matter how many edits it has, although this might well discount valid new users. An old account that was created long ago that suddenly pops back into activity for a VfD is suspect too. An account created shortly before the VfD vote but with only a few edits is less suspect as a "sock-puppet", but one can still wonder whether such a new person sufficiently understands the policies on which VfD is based to have his comments/vote given full weight. In a close vote, a sysop could look at all these things and decide to discount a vote, perhaps entirely. It is actually a misnomer to call it a "vote". It is an attempt to establish consensus and the comments are as important as the so-called "votes". The final decision is actually made by the sysop who processes the "vote". --BM 13:20, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This VfD is a perfect example of what is wrong w the wikipedia: Cliques of biased users hovering around controversial pages no one else is much interested in, and enforcing intellectual dishonesty. In the past I removed everything from my watchlist relating to homosexuals due to that phenomena, I may have to do the same w articles relating to Jews. The idea that Jewish Ethnocentrism is nonexistent is hilarious. Sam Spade (talk · contribs) 12:33, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

BM: but my point was that, of all the delete-voters that I checked, only one had registered after the VfD was posted (as I recall it was the same day, possibly the day after). It would be odd, given how many people register, that a VfD – especially one attracting a lot of attention – shouldn't attract one or two recently registered Users. The point, of course, was that a large proportion of keep-voters were very recently registered, and had made no or fewer than five minor edits before voting. I don't see that one can bring in the person's understanding; an admin certainly shouldn't start guessing at how well a voter understands the issues (that might invalidate most of the votes on both sides...); using the comments makes sense, of course, but that's a different matter.

I think the clearest criterion would be simply be: if the account was not created before the VfD was started, the vote shouldn't count, and if it was, then it should be given full weight. However, these kind of rules fly in the face of how the VfD process is described in the policy. It isn't actually a vote; the sysop who handles the VfD nomination is the one who makes the decision, although he is supposed to base the decision on the "consensus" expressed in the VfD comments. It is only a matter of custom that consensus means two-thirds of the "votes". Likewise the notion that sock-puppets shouldn't be "counted" is convention, since the policy doesn't require any "tallying" of votes at all as the means of determining consensus. In some (perhaps most) cases, the admins do seem to mechanically tally the "votes" and see if they come to two-thirds, sometimes with dumb results, but that is simply a matter of how the particular admin goes about it. --BM 16:50, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sam Spade: there were indeed two groups, each containing a high proportion of people whose edit-histories (those who had them) suggested that they were voting on principle rather than from careful thought about the status of the article. I hold no brief for such people on either side. The keep-voters seemed to include a lot of people who were happy to cheat, manipulate the process, and accuse those with whom they disagreed of dishonesty. I despise that attitude, and the claim that such dishonesty was forced onto people by the actions of others.

I'd only add that few comments that I read denied the existence of Jewish ethnocentrism, though some denied that the term was in common or in respectable academic use. My main argument, and that of others, was that there was nothing in the article that didn't belong elsewhere (mostly in ethnocentrism), and that picking out just Jewish ethnocentricity was at best unnecessary, at worst a symptom of racism. (One editor's attempt to sidestep this criticism by adding a vacuous and hastily written paragraph and calling it Chinese ethnocentrism was notable, and wholly against Wikipedia principles.) Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:24, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Just to point out, for those who were unaware, that Sam Spade has put this article to Votes for undeletion. He's not attracting much sympathy, perhaps partly because he ranted rather than trying to make a case. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:15, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't call that a rant, it was pretty eloquent if I do say so myself. The mailing list is far more likely the culprit, I wasn't aware that Jimbo had decreed these shenanigans from on high, or I likely wouldn't have made the VfU in the first place. Sam Spade (talk · contribs) 21:50, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What I think is unacceptable is how many of the people on the side to delete Jewish Ethnocentrism go out of their way to make sure that areas on wikipedia that are jewish oriented are tame, unbalanced, biased and lacking in neutrality, and when you point this out these same emotionally and biased people spew childish insults shouting nazi, white supremacist, stormfront, blah blah blah. I think what this Jewish Ethnocentrism section shows is that the people who vote to delete it should be closely monitored on wikipedia with microscopes as too many of them delete and censor valid links and contributions. Wikipedia is very much suffering due to this fact.

I also like the fact that I have over 100 contributions, but I get lumped into the fewer than 5 section so as to dilute the Keep vote. What a bunch of biased and pathetic jewish supremacists we have here.

Keep a close eye on all of them.

Dnagod 23:23, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Your vote at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Jewish ethnocentrism [3] was your third edit at Wikipedia. older≠wiser 23:39, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure that it's worth responding to someone with Dnagod's views, given mental level they imply, but I'll just point out that I've been involved in only two arguments on Jewish-related pages. On this one I voted to delete a page whose only purpose seemed to be to spread as much anti-Semitism as possible from a very small pot labelled MacDonald; on the other one I argued equally vehemently against people who wanted to delete an anti-Israeli cartoon for what seemed to me to be equally dubious reasons. Some of the same people were involved in both debates, and I was arguing with them in one case and against them in the other. I argue on the merits of the case, and I try to do what's right. I wonder if you've ever had that sort of experience? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:43, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Does my vote not count in that at the time I made it, I had less than 5 contributions? Even though now I have made more than 5 contributions at this point? If a person votes when they only have 1 contribution - as an example - but after voting make dozens of contributions, is their vote still invalid? Even though they still believe and support their vote? I am Curious 2 know.

Dnagod 21:20, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes, your vote is considered a very likely sockpuppet. Your behavior after the vote is irrelevant to the vote. I mean no offense with this. -- RyanFreisling @ 21:45, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

A sockpuppet of who, might I ask? I think its pretty obvious that he's not a sock puppet, but rather is somebody from the stormfront mailing list. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 21:55, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I am speaking about the 'banal' use of the term, a sockpuppet being an individual who comes from outside (in your explanation, the white separatist site 'Stormfront') to the wikipedia to vote, not to contribute and edit according to the WikiWay, as per your description. Was that clearer? -- RyanFreisling @ 21:58, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It's easy for someone trying to influence the vote from outside to stay on afterwards (whether simply to create an edit history, or because they want to get involved, for whatever reason). It's rather more difficult to stay on before voting.
Incidentally Dnagit, have you thought of adding something more on your User page about how much you earn? I'm sure that lots of Wikipedians really want to know, and you only mention it twice. (Oh, and I think that you mean “cabal”, not “cable”.) Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:05, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What the heck?

This page is linked from VfD. I can't tell if there is a live vote going on here or what. (I suspect not.) Can someone please put a short note at the top of the page clarifying its present status? Thanks. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:16, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

The page itself does not currently exist, as a result of prior VfD and failed VfU quite recently. So at the moment there isn't a vote going on. -- Curps 18:26, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

TNX. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:04, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

The table is unacceptable

Wikipedia:Deletion policy

See also:

What the heck?