Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jewish ethnocentrism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. It's currently protected with the message that it doesn't exist. dbenbenn | talk 23:55, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jewish ethnocentrism

The previous article and title were deleted according to Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Jewish ethnocentrism/previous, appended below, for easy reference.

New content:

Jewish etnhocentrism is a particular case of ethnocentrism. Some authors, notably Kevin B. MacDonald in his Culture of critique, claim that Jewish ethnocentrism played a significant role in survival of Jews as distinct people.

--- See also ---

I am posting the new version here, because a number of guys are speedily deleting the new version ignoring the policies and not responding to my concerns in this respect. I am not at all for this version. I am simply baffled with twisting my arms. See Talk:Jewish ethnocentrism Mikkalai 19:24, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Abstain. Mikkalai 22:03, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Aww! This page is HUGE. Anyway, keep the new content. Grue 17:43, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Do we really need to vote again to delete Trödel|talk 00:54, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. It has no content that isn't part of other articles, and the existence of this as a separate article is in itself (unpleasantly) PoV. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:56, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • VfD succeeded, VfU failed, all this month. There is no new vote. Jayjg (talk) 18:53, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

  • The previous VfD resulted in a clear vote for deletion (explicitly discussed and rejected was the suggestion that the page be kept and turned into a redirect). A motion for undeletion was almost unanimously rejected. Mikkalai has twice recreated the page, making it a redirect, and most recently gave it its own content, with links to other pages. What he refers to as speedy deletion is in fact the deletion of his redirect code, and later of his content, and the placing of a message explaining the situation. All of this has been explained to him at length at Talk:Jewish ethnocentrism. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:31, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
False. I did not recreate the page. Please vote against the new article, rather than twist the policy towards your wants. Mikkalai 19:46, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Mikkalai is simply trying to engineer a third vote here. The title and contents were deleted according to the vote at VfD, where only two users voted to redirect, and the decision was upheld at VfU. Mikkalai is making a mockery of that entire process. SlimVirgin 19:40, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)
    • There cannot be such a thing as deletion of article title Or can? If yes, please quote the policy. Mikkalai 19:46, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC).
    • I am trying to engineer following the policy. If you don't like my article, please vote against it. I swear, I will not attempt to "rectreate" my version (or any other). Mikkalai 19:49, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I don't know whether there's a policy. I know only that the vote was clear. People were at liberty to vote to redirect, as this was presented as an option, but only two voted in favor. You should quote the policy that allows you to distinguish between votes regarding content and votes regarding the title. Perhaps you'd do better explaining why you feel strongly about retaining it, because it seems to me that you're engaging in sophistry and acting like a vandal. SlimVirgin 19:52, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)
Thank you. Ignorance is not argument. What baffles me, is a series of violations of multiple policies in fighting me, see Talk:Jewish ethnocentrism. At the very beginning I stated that I was against the original artice. So I am not defending my POV. I am against doublespeak, in particular, against pretending that some words do not exist. Mikkalai 19:57, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • When people vote for deletion on VfD, they are voting on whether an article of that title should exist. In most cases, they are not voting about the current content of the article. If the content of the article is the issue, then they will typically vote Keep and Cleanup. (I admit sometimes when Cleanup would make the article a stub or sub-stub, people will vote to Delete without prejudice to the title because they believe a redlink is preferable to a sub-stub; however that was not the case in these votes.). If people want the title to exist, but think the title does not merit independent content, they will call for a Redirect, or a Merge/Redirect. Delete means "there should be no article of this title". That the article should be deleted was the overwhelming consensus of the VfD vote: that the article should be not be undeleted was the overwhelming consensus of the VfU vote The recreation of VfD-deleted article is one of the grounds for speedy deletion, by that policy. . Reinstating the article as a redirect flies in the face of this consensus and renders the votes meaningless, and those reinstatements are properly speedily-deleted. --BM 20:07, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete means "there should be no article of this title": This is your interpretation. If you believe it is correct, please suggest the policy update. "No article with this title" is way too strong, like capital punishment. Forbidding any words smacks really bad. Sorry for yuor democracy, guys. I am abandoning the issue; no more pissing against the wind. Good bye. Mikkalai 20:16, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I think you've misunderstood the VfD process. It's not simply a question of 50 for, 10 against. The admin reads the comments and tries to determine from those what the community consensus is. For example, there's a vote going on regarding Conscious Evolution, which was a pile of garbage. Most people have voted to delete, but many made the comment that
Conscious Evolution was a pile of garbage, and I voted against as well. But it does not preclude writing an article that in a NPOV way explains this kind of stuff. We have plenty of articles about various kinds of snake oil and kookery. Mikkalai 20:42, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
there's nothing wrong with having an article with that title, just not this article. Therefore, an editor decided to rewrite it to make the content acceptable. But with Jewish ethnocentrism, people did not comment that rewriting or redirecting was appropriate. They voted, with no hesitation or ambiguity, to delete the whole thing. Can't you see the difference? You are splitting hairs by demanding that there be an explicit policy (i.e. instruction creep) for every single decision the community makes and that's why I'm calling you a sophist. Also, I have a question for you. Did you use your admin powers to unprotect the article even though you're involved in editing it? SlimVirgin 20:23, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)
Deleting the "whole thing" which exists in cicrulation is Nineteen Eighty Four.
Yes, I did. The article was protected with violation: by an article's editor. All my actions are explained at the talk page. You will say that I am splitting hairs again, b ut the protection policy speaks about protection, not unprotection. Why is it always allowable to split hairs only in one direction? Mikkalai 20:32, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
You're not allowed to protect articles you're involved in editing. Also, is this a real VfD. Mel has said it isn't and that you just pasted the notice onto the page, whch is no longer there. Could you explain please? SlimVirgin 20:54, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)
Shortly after I pointed that out, he put the VfD through properly. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:31, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • "When people vote for deletion on VfD, they are voting on whether an article of that title should exist." Absolutely false. Votes are made for the article as it exists at the time. To claim otherwise is to allow for articles to be deleted according the results of VfDs for completely unrelated articles. The only votes for deletion that should be counted against articles of that name are votes that specifically vote for deletion based on the name and only on the name. (FTR, if there's actually going to be a vote for the new version, my vote is still delete.) -Sean Curtin 02:25, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

STOP deleting my comments! Have you done absolutely mad today? I am no longer going to debate this with you, as you are behaving like a vandal, wilfully refusing to understand what anyone says to you, deleting my comments, pasting pretend delete notices on articles, abusing your admin powers to unprotect articles, and creating material that's on the list not to be recreated. Enough already. Goodbye. SlimVirgin 21:01, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

Cool down. I am NOT deleting your comments. I was never put on record as vandal. If this happens, then this is a problem of wikipedia software. Mikkalai 21:45, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This is, and was, already resolved. Although racist ideas and racist individuals are freely discussed in an open society, neither this idea nor this crackpot are worthy of anything close to an encyclopedia article - and certainly not one with this title. Delete Again. -- RyanFreisling @ 02:07, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • After compiling together the logs, it appears that there has been some disagreement over Mikkalai's decision to make the article a redirect, his decision to create new content, and administrators deleting said redirects and new content without a VFD process or a RFD process. -- AllyUnion (talk) 21:04, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Jewish ethnocentrism/Logs Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Jewish ethnocentrism/Feb 2005

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.