This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete. Hedley 5 July 2005 20:53 (UTC)

This project is intrinsicaly not NPOV, since it does not address Pro-Jewish Bias. It is entirely one sided, even in its title, and much of its talk page, and therefore is beyond redemption. ~~~~ 21:03, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete ~~~~ 21:03, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• We already have a project to deal with systemic bias at Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias. I think this should be redirected there. -- Francs2000 | 21:13, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Does VfD really have the power to disrupt an ongoing WikiProject? If so, then Merge or Redirect as per Francs2000. And if not, then it doesn't matter how we vote anyway! — P Ingerson (talk) 21:32, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I suppose not, but looking at the edit history this is not an ongoing WikiProject. It was created last october, and both the main page and the talk page have seen about twenty edits since then. Radiant_>|< 09:02, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. NPOV applies to article-space. If somebody wants a WikiProject, let them get on with it. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:57, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Are you saying that it is acceptable for there to be a WikiProject (not necessarily the above named) dedicated to creating bias? ~~~~ 22:44, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No, I'm saying it's possible for WikiProjects to define their own aims and objectives within the broader aims and objectives of Wikipedia. Reducing bias against Jewish people is compatible with the aims of objectives of Wikipedia. THis would apply to any similar project aimed at identifying and reducing systemic bias against any reasonably well defined group of people. Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Scots, Maoris, Canadians, Nazis, Black Americans, Welsh Lesbian Feminist Poets. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:04, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It is only compatable with Wikipedia policy if it simultaneously aims to reduce bias towards Jewish people. If it seeks only to reduce the bias against them, then its actions are one sided, and thus not NPOV, and if successful, without a counter-project, would result in a situation where only pro-Jewish bias remains. It cannot, under any understanding of the meaning of the term, be neutral, if it requires a counter-project in order to result in a NPOV outcome. ~~~~ 18:34, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This is a very odd counter-argument. No, a project in Wikipedia is not bound by NPOV, whether the actual policy or the odd version of it that you promulgate here. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 5 July 2005 04:24 (UTC)

How is a project not bound by NPOV? Article space is subject to NPOV, and the sole purpose of projects is to modify/add/remove content in article space. IF it is allowed to be non-NPOV, then this is saying that activities which produce non-NPOV edits to article space are acceptable, which they are not. ~~~~ 5 July 2005 08:10 (UTC)

Projects don't make edits, editors do. They are bound by NPOV in article space. Nobody's suggesting that WikiProjects would be engines for the production of POV edits except you. As far as I've been able to ascertain, this is a straw man. A person encountering a bias in an article and removing it would in your view, it appears to me, be leaving behind a biased article unless he or someone else removed an equal and opposite bias in the other direction. This is obviously wrong, bias does not occur nearly in equal and opposite pairs. Removing bias in one direction does not add it in another. The target is balance. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 5 July 2005 14:15 (UTC)

Projects are a collection of editors for a purpose, i.e. to make edits. ~~~~ 5 July 2005 17:56 (UTC)

Any edit which removes bias is, by definition, a good thing. Jayjg ^(talk) 5 July 2005 18:54 (UTC)

• Delete. There is already a wiki-project to address bias; this will just act as an unnecessary controversy-magnet. -- BD2412 ^talk 22:29, 2005 Jun 21 (UTC)
• Delete. I can't imagine this ever being more than another box of matches for the flamewar de jour. If people believe that there is Anti-Semitism on Wikipedia, they would be better served using non-Wiki software (say blog s/w), which could be vandalized into uselessness within hours. -- llywrch 23:08, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Tony. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 23:30, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Looking back at the initial edits (the current version was nearly blanked by someone), the project seems to be devoted to POV. We already have far too much POV injection on Wikipedia, and whatever the intents of the project maintainers, I fear that this will only lead to more. Firebug 02:53, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• NPOV applies to articles specifically; is there any indication one way or the other as to whether or not it can be applied to Wikipedia: namespace pages in general, and to Wikiprojects in particular? If the consensus is to delete this, the best solution might instead be to userfy it. -Sean Curtin 06:31, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per User:BD2412. JamesBurns 07:00, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, the talk page is full of flame material against any subject the editors perceive to be anti-Jewish. "Why does the article on Adolf Hitler make him out to be such a hero?" is complete nonsense. It's trying to be NPOV not make him a hero, but not bashing him either. If they want more Jewish stuff on Wikipedia, they can work on the WikiProject Judaism. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:47, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

|

Hitler is being described in terms that would normally be considered praise. If there is an article describing him in a way that could bring people to want to emulate him, then that is a serious problem. Since there is nothing praiseworthy about a man whose philosophy and actions brought about the death of so many innocent people, there is obviously something wrong when that impression can be had from a "neutral" article. --Ezra Wax 05:08, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. Many editors are referring to WikiProject Countering Systemic Bias. This is a erroneous comparison, as WP:CSB aims to counter systemic bias; bias on a meta-level so to say (see the project page for more info). The WikiProject we're voting on here seeks to adress a wholly different kind of bias, something that has got nothing to do with countering systemic bias. In short: Countering Systemic Bias is not the NPOV police, so please don't vote 'merge' and/or 'redirect'; it makes no sense. — mark ✎ 08:50, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree with what Mark said, also the Wikiproject in question seems to have a brief period of activity in 2004 and nothing since, Is there any policy wrt deletion of inactive wikiprojects?--nixie 08:59, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, project seems to fall foul of WP:POINT. Radiant_>|< 09:02, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete defunct project, nothing to do with the wikiproject countering systemic bias. (Vote above struck out) -- Francs2000 | 09:36, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Changed my mind too. The comments above, especially Mark and Mgm, have persuaded me there's nothing worth merging and nowhere to merge it to anyway. Delete. — P Ingerson (talk) 12:09, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, inactive for almost a year. — mark ✎ 12:17, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: I don't think inactivity is a reason for deletion, as projects can be revived at any time. Besides, Wikipedia:WikiProject doesn't say anything about inactive projects running the risk of deletion. Please don't use inactivity as a reason to delete. - Mgm|^(talk) 07:57, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: I'm the one that started the project, and it was only to get the stuff out of the Judaism wikiproject, because I didn't think I could delete it straight out without it getting reverted. So I personally don't care what happens to it. --Ezra Wax 04:51, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: I find the recent conduct of ~~~~ vis-à-vis the article in question disturbing. The VfD notice (posted by ~~~~) states explicitly that, while editing an article on VfD is OK, blanking is not. Within the space of two hours, ~~~~ posted the VfD notice, posted his rationale for it on the project page, and blanked all of the project text except for the reservations of User:Jfdwolff and User:Jayjg. In fact, he used the year-old reservations as justification (in the edit summaries) for blanking (see the history of this article and the successive diffs for specifics). Additionally, ~~~~ responded to several very old posts in a provocative manner, an ostensibly pointless gesture. As a side point, POV is endemic to project pages (especially nationality ones), and I don't see why this one should be singled out for POV. I think that Tony Sidaway's contentions display an apt understanding of Wikipedia policy, yet ~~~~ believes that a project dedicated towards making articles more neutral by targeting specific types of biases inappropriately inserted in those articles amounts to severe violation of Wikipedia policy. Much more appropriate reasons for deletion, I would think, are the following:

A.) This project is not the product of consensus.

B.) This project appears static; it's a one-time posting of someone's suggestions vis-à-vis editing conduct (which basically said, before it was recently blanked, that Jewish editors should follow Wikipedia's civility guidelines and not feel provoked by apparent hostility).

Both these reasons are weak, anyway. It seems to me that this VfD (and related editing) is the product of someone who feels uncomfortable with the existence of a page on Wikipedia that suggests anti-Jewish sentiments among some Wikipedia editors. This editor would, apparently, only be satisfied with the deletion of this page or the creation of a project page suggesting equivalent Pro-Jewish Bias. ~~~~ says that the existence of this project page should be dependant on the existence of its counterpart. While I wouldn't otherwise care about the preservation of this page (when I first saw it, I thought it was a bit strange), I wouldn't contribute to an effort to officially confirm the idea that anti-Jewish bias is either absent from all of Wikipedia (I've witnessed many explicit and obscene anti-Semitic vandal attacks over the past several weeks, BTW) or perfectly balanced by pro-Jewish bias (I've seen no explicit or obscene pro-Jewish vandal attacks, except on the user pages of Jewish editors in an effort to "expose" the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and the like). While bias and POV certainly go both ways, there is no need to obsess about pin-point equivalence between anti and pro-Jewish sentiments. This very VfD crusade by ~~~~, to borrow a phrase from Radiant_>|<, "seems to fall foul of WP:POINT." HKT 05:30, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Firstly, I don't mind if you refer to me as -Ril- rather than ~~~~, but that is your choice entirely.

Secondly, I deleted the content of the front page, as two editors, including at least one who was Jewish, on that said front page, suggested it be deleted. That was almost 1 year ago, and no objections to them had been obviously raised in that time, so I went ahead and did it - 1 year is enough time to see if there are any objections. N.b. I explicitely stated that it was me who deleted the content on the page itself, so it is not as if this was anything secretive.

Thirdly, the counter-project I suggested is necessary to retain a semblence of NPOV, to say that we can only address "Anti-Jewish bias", but must ignore "Pro-Jewish bias", is extremely non-NPOV. The necessity for this counter-project for NPOV is what demonstrates that the project itself is inherently in violation of WP:NPOV, since, without it, there will only be a biased situation (as Pro-Jewish bias would remain but without any balancing Anti-Jewish bias).

Fourthly, you have the events in the wrong order. I left an NPOV dispute comment on the talk page first. Then, realising the extent of the violation of NPOV, and how much it was inherent, decided that it belonged on VfD rather than just as a dispute, so added it here.

Fifthly a VfD is not a disruption of Wikipedia, but standard procedure, so it cannot fall foul of WP:POINT.

~~~~

Ril, those editors you mention never suggested that the page be blanked, and they certainly didn't suggest blanking during VfD. They mentioned that the material was inappropriately placed. I don't really think that blanking during a VfD is helpful for anyone. Furthermore, the lack of response to those editors' comments was probably due to lack of interest, not agreement, and that hardly amounts to consensus. Consensus is what is being reached here, and you already read my reservations about the circumstances.

If you think that an Addressing pro-Jewish Bias project would be helpful then you have the prerogative to start one and see how the Wikipedia community takes it. While you also have the prerogative of placing this on VfD, following guidelines can still be a violation of WP:POINT. I think this is a case in point, as I detailed above, and the NPOV tag doesn't change things much.

I think that the "project" in question has potential and could develop if attention was paid it (which it probably would be, by now); it could be turned from a sermon into an actual project focusing on balancing polarizing articles (which I am still ambivalent about voting for, as I'm undecided about whether this project is redundant: One the one hand, it's already technically encompassed by the Countering Systemic Bias project; on the other hand, perhaps it's enough of an issue to justify special attention). True that it would be a POV project in the sense that it would target specific types of articles for NPOVing. However, this type of POV motivates much of Wikipedia's growth and is a valuable asset. That is what projects are for: Being narrow-scoped on an individual basis for the sake of a broad-scoped, balanced encyclopedia as a whole. It is surprising that anyone could miss the intro to WP:NPOV, which states that the NPOV policy only applies to "articles"! P.S. I didn't mean to accuse you of being secretive; I meant to point out your activities regarding the project. HKT 18:35, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - too POV. Halibutt 06:26, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - Anti-(x) bias and pro-(x) bias are not equivalent issues. The kind of issues that are taken as inspiration by various parties for war and harm are, in my opinion, a very grave matter. I differentiate between "pro-Jewish", for example, and "anti-Palestinian". I would happily vote in support of a project page devoted to the problem of anti-Palestinian bias, for example. What is "pro-Jewish", as separate from "anti-" anything? I can only imagine it involves an enjoyment of potato latkes. A. J. Luxton 06:57, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Anti (x) and pro (x) are equivalent, because pro (x) is anti (y) where y is the situation that is the aim of anti (x). So one situation is anti(x) and the other anti(y). Pro-Jewish bias is bias supports whatever situation it is that Jews, particularly extremists (whatever this may mean) prefer, e.g. "Jews have a fundamental right to 100% of the Gaza Strip and West Bank" (not necessarily true, but for the purposes of an example). I agree that this is not necessarily the same as anti-palestinian, but that is an irrelevant argument, since it is still a bias. ~~~~ 10:32, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - appears to be some sort of bizarre supremacist tract ("Jews hold and continue to hold the basis of virtually all morals of humanity. It is very difficult to argue against morals. Morals are good and even people who hate morals can see this. So the only way to combat moral is to combat the source, the Jews.") - Xed 07:58, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • How remarkable, Xed coming out the woodwork at odd moments. JFW | T@lk 09:12, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • I believe personal attacks are prohibited in Wikipedia. ~~~~ 10:38, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. If Xed's brainchild of addressing systemic bias may exist, then so does this. JFW | T@lk 09:09, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias is not the same as Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering anti-systemic bias or Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering pro-systemic bias. Either of these two would be biased as they address only one side. Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias is about addressing whatever bias exists due to the nature of the editors, and would include addressing anti-Jewish bias, if (and only if) that was a systemic feature. Wheras WP:NPOV is about addressing any bias introduced by editors biased more than just as a result of their systemic situation. These two features cover any anti- or pro- Jewish bias that would exist, and therefore not only is the project addressed in this VfD unnecessary, but inherently biased. ~~~~ 10:26, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think you're conflating systemic and systematic bias here. As far as I can tell, this project is all about systematic bias, and suggests that people are going round deliberately introducing an anti-Jewish bias into Wikipedia. WikiProject Countering systemic bias just says that because we have more Star Trek fans contributing to Wikipedia than we do experts on African politics, it might be a nice idea to coordinate activities to try and write articles about under-represented topics. Apart from the similar names, the two projects have almost nothing in common. — Trilobite (Talk) 1 July 2005 12:42 (UTC)

• Delete. Whilst addressing bias against any group on the Wikipedia is necessary, anti-Jewish bias on the vast majority of articles is quickly addressed by the hard work of a variety of contributors, both Jewish and otherwise. On the contrary, this project can only serve to inflame things as it will undoubtedly serve as a POV magnet which is more likely to attract anti-Jewish contributors and conspiracy nuts rather than combat them. The material about Jews being 'naturally moral' has no place on Wikipedia, constituting as it does both religious activism and (in the reasoning employed) original research.illWill 13:53, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. How anti-Jewish bias is different from all others? --Ttyre 14:11, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Reluctant delete. I think some of the scope of what this WikiProject intends is commendable, but to single out anti-Jewish bias this way seems wrong, and (given that I have not seen a tendency for articles on the Jews to be more often biased one way than the other) seems like it may effectively be an incitement to a pro-Jewish bias, or (more precisely) a pro-Jewish-establishment bias. I would suggest though, that rather than abandon this project entirely, it might be more appropriate to broaden it to a project on eliminating ethnic and religious bias generally, rather than (as this is in part) a call for "Jewish pride". I'm all for "Jewish pride", but not at the expense of the pride of any other people. Even the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai Brith understands that, in the United States, its work must encompass combatting prejudice against African Americans as much as prejudice against Jews. Now if only they would also be equally concerned with prejudice against Arabs... -- Jmabel | Talk 21:18, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, although somewhat reluctantly. David | Talk 21:22, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Ruy Lopez 1 July 2005 15:40 (UTC)
• Delete Agree with Jmabel - this runs a real dangewr of turning Wikipedia into a pro-Jewish-Bias site, given that no other examples like this exist which are based entirely on ethnicity. 62.253.64.15 2 July 2005 00:06 (UTC)
• Comment. While I have been dubious of the project from the start (as my comments there from a year ago have shown), I must say I find a number of the delete rationales here to be troubling. I think HKT's comments are right on the mark; suggestions that the project can only stay if there is a project addressing "Pro-Jewish" bias, or that it should be deleted because it is defunct, or that addressing systemic bias also addresses specific bias, are based on fundamental misunderstandings of NPOV, Wikipedia policy, and the meaning of "systemic bias". Jayjg ^(talk) 5 July 2005 03:42 (UTC)

• Delete Isn’t this a biased sentence as well? When Jews are poor (as per Polish and Russian Jews) they were hated. Jews being rich and/or powerful is an excuse for anti-Semitism.--SylwiaS 5 July 2005 18:56 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.