Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jewish ethnocentrism/previous

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. -- AllyUnion (talk) 06:01, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Note: The vote has concluded and the article has been deleted. Please do not vote any more on this page.

This discussion thread has become very long and extremely difficult to sort out. In an effort to assist the admin who must eventually make this decision, I propose the use of a recap table. In addition to your vote and explanation below, please record your name in the table. Please remember that the comments have precedence over the recap table. The deciding admin is expected to review the comments and use them to weight his/her decision.

Reminder: For this to work, please keep all comments below. I've taken my best guess at the current opinions of the discussion participants. If I've listed anyone's vote incorrectly, please move it. Rossami (talk) 22:35, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Votes should go in the table and below (comments are to go below, not in table)Zantastik 18:38, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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. SlimVirgin 07:52, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

It is important for the deciding admin to keep in mind that votes w/o comments ought to be disregarded. Also please note Wikipedia_talk:Votes_for_deletion/Jewish_ethnocentrism#.5B.5BWikipedia:Deletion_policy.5D.5D. Sam Spade (talk · contribs) 13:06, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Actually it is "important" for the deciding admin to do no such thing, since votes without comments are not usually "disregarded". Jayjg ^(talk) 14:53, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Also, note this important 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) 15:02, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete and move material to Kevin B. MacDonald, Culture of Critique, or other pages if appropriate. SlimVirgin 09:25, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • If this actually gets deleted I think I'm going to buy one of those MacDonald books and see if he is on to something... Sam Spade (talk · contribs) 11:23, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm preplexed by the above comment El_C 12:10, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • excellent... Sam Spade (talk · contribs) 12:19, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Buy its companion piece as well, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion; that way you'll get the complete picture of exactly what those Jews have been up to all these centuries. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:36, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • This is odd, and worrying. First, is Sam Spade really saying that a successful VfD call on an article about the views of x is reason to think that x might be on to something? What's the connection? Secondly, what was the point of posting the comment to the discussion here? I can only think that it was meant to be some sort of moral blackmail ("keep the page or I might start believing MacDonald's theories..."). It reminds me of the attempted-lynching scene at the beginning of Blazing Saddles. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:03, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
        • Where all the white women at? Sorry, could'nt resist, and I do agree with your point, strongly. El_C 23:31, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
          • So do I, unlike El_C, you seem to have had little problem grasping my point. It was a joke, BTW, I have way too much going on to want to read some books telling me Jews are more successful, smarter, etc.. than I am. How could anybody be more successful than I am? And smarter? Yeah right! *Goes off to find a jew and compare I.Q.'s* ;) Sam Spade (talk · contribs) 07:52, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
            • Actually, I had trouble grasping whether SS was joking or puting forth a serious argument, to be clear. El_C

• Clean and move a lot of material to Kevin B. MacDonald, Culture of Critique, or other pages if appropriate. See my comments on SlimVirgin's talk page. El_C 09:50, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Wow... I was able to disprove the thesis of this VfD from information on User_talk:SlimVirgin#Jewish_ethnocentrism, which I placed @ Jewish_ethnocentrism#References. KEEP of course...

Sam Spade (talk · contribs) 10:03, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't see what has been disproved. Looking at the titles of the citations it is pretty clear to me that what those articles address is very different in substance from what this article addresses. Moreover, it doesn't look like any of those articles are making any unique claims about Jewish ethnocentrism -- they are all exactly what you would expect when an ethnic boundary coincides with political or economic inequality. In other words, there is no need for an article on "Jewish" ethnocentrism as if it were different in any significant way from any other ethnocentrism. All we need is one "ethnocentrism" article, and any reader can consult it, imagine the name of their favorite ethnic group before the title of the article, and they would know all they want to know about American ethnocentrism, Bolivian ethnocentrism, Canadian ethnocentrism (well, maybe not Canadian), Dutch ethnocentrism, English ethnocentrism, French ethnocentrism, German ethnocentrism, Hungarian ethnocentrism, Irish ethnocentrism, and yes, yes, Jewish ethnocentrism. Slrubenstein 23:55, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• • Note though that I made an error in the description of the first reference: Avner Falk could not have criticized MacDonald's theory (but rather, only "victim blaming") as MacDonald's thesis was posed two years after Falk's book was published. But this is somewhat of an aside. More importantly, I wish to add that Slim still puts forth an important argument, one which I agree with (hence my vote for clean rather than merely keep). El_C 10:36, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Thank you. Sam Spade (talk · contribs) 11:00, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• I can see nothing in the article to suggest that Jewish ethnocentrism is significantly different from any other ethnocentrism. The summary could have read: "Welsh ethnocentrism, a form of ethnocentrism, involves Welsh people being more interested in, or concerned about the welfare of, their own group than any other. Those who display aspects of ethnocentric beliefs may also believe their group to be superior to others." — or any other ethnic group you care to mention in place of the Welsh. The only distinctive feature seems to be that certain writers, and particularly MacDonald, have spent some time writing about it — in which case I see no reason not to move non-duplicating material to the MacDonald page (or possibly to other relevant pages) and turn this into a Redirect page. (This is independent of the issue of the existence of critical material; El C and Sam Spade are right there, it would seem.) Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:48, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  See below for a change of mind (and vote). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:53, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Del, recycle useful material elsewhere. It could be titled Welsh ethnocentrism but for some reason it's not, so why start with Jews? ←Humus sapiens←Talk 11:05, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Why do you say start, Humus sapiens? It is alphabetical, Afrocentrism starts, followed by, Americentrism, Anglocentrism, Germanocentrism, then Judeocentrism, Eurocentrism, Russocentrism, Japocentrism. Welsh ethnocentrism could (and should) be an article if the term is notable as such, no? El_C 11:14, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Erm, I am refering to how Jewish ethnocentrism is listed on the Ethnocentrism article's 'Examples of' (which should actually be a 'list of,' and can and should be expanded if that format is kept). El_C 11:21, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • Try again. Africa, America and Europe are continents. This article concentrates on the Jewish people and Judaism. No similar articles exist. The eternal question remains, why start with Jews? ←Humus sapiens←Talk 11:54, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
        • Give me some credit, please, I know they are continents. But there, Jewish ethnocentrism is preceded by Germanocentirsm on the list, that's all I was saying. As for why Jewish ethnocentrism is the first non-continental ethnocentism article to be written – good question. El_C 12:10, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
          • Jewish ethnocentrism is preceded by a heading to something called "Germanocentrism", a non-existent article, and a term itself which is rarely used, and even then often to attitudes of German Jews towards non-German Jews. The only other somewhat comparable article is Chinese ethnocentrism, though it refers to an alleged phenomenon involving one sixth of humanity. In any event, click on the Chinese ethnocentrism link to get a feeling for the kind of "quality" articles these topics tend to produce. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:37, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
            • Good grief, yes. It's now a redirect. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:53, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
              • Um, ok, but that makes it considerably more difficult for people to see my point. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:27, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
                • Sorry, you're right. The text was: "Chinese ethnocentrism is an alleged set of beliefs or practices based on the view that the Chinese people are the center of everything. In the opinion of those who accept the existence of Chinese ethnocentrism among some Chinese, it may entail the belief that the Chinese people are the most important and/or that some or all aspects of Chinese culture are superior to those of other groups." Nothing there except a definition of "ethnocentrism" with "Chinese" slotted in. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:49, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
                  • Sam Spade has just reinstated the (empty and poorly written) text, without explanation or any response to my comments on the Talk:Chinese ethnocentrism page. I've re-reverted, with a request that those who think that I'm wrong explain why before (or at least as well as) re-re-reverting. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:36, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
                    • Under what consensus was the page turned into a redirect? Just because there is consensus that an article is poorly written (or wrose), dosen't automatically translates into the term itself not being legitimate, and that it can be written to reflect that. Would you not agree? If there is consensus to redirect a legitimate subject, at least the possibility for it to be written through NPOV should remain available (as in the process of revert and re-rv you speak of now, but I mean as policy, precedence, etc. higlighting this openness). El_C 10:08, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
                    • I thought that the page (full text above) was empty of content, and had an unpleasant PoVish tone. While investigating the course of action I should take, I found (on the VfD information page) that what I should do in a case like this was merge the information with a relevant page and turn the current page into a redirect. There was in fact nothing on the page that wasn't already elsewhere, so I simply deleted the material. Whilst there's room for disagreement on Jewish ethnocentrism page, which at least has some content that could be merged with another page, I don't see any room for disagreement on the Chinese ethnocentrism page. I gave my reasons on the Talk page – something that Sam Spade didn't bother to do – and have since added an expanded argument, together with the original text in full. Could I suggest that those who disagree take the discussion there? This page is too long already. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:29, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• The probability that this will ever be a "good article", for any reasonable meaning of that phrase, is approximately 0.000001 and that state, if ever reached, will persist for about 1.3 microseconds. However, that is not one of the standard grounds for deletion. The argument put by the proposer about the use of the phrase "Jewish ethocentrism" is factually incorrect: actually the phrase appears all over the professional sociological literature. The argument that Welsh ethnocentrism is little different is not adequate either, as it would just point to the need for two articles (not for none). So, given that no valid grounds for deletion have been proposed, we are left with keep. --Zero 11:24, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Poignantly stated, Zero. I agree with everything that you said. I certainly have heard the term being used long before MacDonald published his thesis. El_C 11:49, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I completely disagree. If Zero can state that it will probably never be a good article after two years of people trying to figure out what to do with this, I think it is definitely time to delete it. We have deleted many articles for the same reason. Slrubenstein 16:41, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Ethnocentrism is a fairly common phenomenon, and some members of almost all ethnic groups have been subject to it, waxing and waning over time. I don't think we need an article on manifestations of ethnocentrism in each particular ethnic group. It is more NPOV and enlightening to treat it as a general phenomenon. Articles on ethnocentrism in particular groups are likely to become magnets for POV for and/or against the group. This is particularly true of an article about Jewish ethnocentrism, which is apt to become an opportunity to indulge in covert anti-Semitism, or perhaps not even all that covert. As Zero says, the chance that such an article will be "good" are practically zero. --BM 12:24, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually I think its pretty good now. Have you read it? Sam Spade (talk · contribs) 12:28, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

In what way is it good? Half the content belongs on the Kevin MacDonald page, and half on the anti-Semitism page. Nothing is left! Slrubenstein 16:41, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• But, as BM says, unless there's something about Jewish ethnocentrism that marks it as different from other ethnocentrism, it's surely redundant (at best; PoV at worst) to give it a separate article. The fact that it's talked about by people like MacDonald, unlike most other ethnocentrism, isn't an internal but an external feature.
     Take Sam Spade's property of being thought about by me; when I stop thinking about him, he'll have lost that property, but he won't actually have changed, because the property is external. I'll have changed, because thinking about Sam Spade is an internal property of me.
     Writing about Jewish ethnocentrism is an internal feature of MacDonald, so has a place in an encyclopaedia article about him, but it's only an external feature of Jewish ethocentrism, so (I argue) has no such place.
     I also concur with BM's point about such articles being "magnets for POV for and/or against" Jews.
     As for whether the article's good, that depends on the criteria you're using. I'd say that, even setting aside everything I say above, it's much longer and more detailed than its subject warrants (exhausting more than exhaustive). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:52, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sam, yes I have read the article. I maintain the view that almost all groups have members who say chauvinistic things about their own group and stupid, hateful things about other groups. The Jews have not been immune to this. But having a series of articles which are no more than litanies of ethnocentric views from members of specific ethnic groups is not encyclopedic and the articles will be inherently POV. Furthermore, having an article about Jewish ethnocentrism, when there are few other articles about the ethnocentrism of particular groups, implies that Jews are especially ethnocentric, and I see no reason to believe that this is true, beyond the obvious fact that they have needed to be particulary cohesive in order to survive as a widely-dispersed, and often despised, minority group for more than two thousand years, and ethnocentrism may to some extent be the flip side of ethnic cohesiveness. But these issues can be discussed in the Ethnocentrism article, and I don't think someone's suspect interest in writing about Jewish ethnocentrism, in particular, or for that matter the ethnocentrism of any specified group, trumps the NPOV goals of the Wikipedia.

Keep the article. This article has a troubled history.. It has a troubled history because of the number of ethnocentric people seeking to disrupt it. It's been a surreal experience to watch the intense, prolonged effort they've have put into denying a phenomenon whose existence is proved by their own behaviour. Is Wikipedia meant to be a comprehensive encyclopedia or a propaganda vehicle for special-interest groups? If the article is deleted, it will be the latter. P.S. There is also a need for a comprehensive article on Chinese ethnocentrism, and if one is created a similar campaign of disruption may be waged against it. And can anyone guess what ethnicity the campaigners would be? Jacquerie27 13:41, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid that the breathtaking assumption that those arguing against retention of the article are Jewish says more about Jacquerie27 than about the issue at hand. I'm not Jewish; some of the others might be, I don't know. I don't see that it matters. Focussing on the ethnic origins (real or falsely assumed) of those involved while ignoring the arguments they present is, I'm sorry to say, one of the main aspects of racism.
Reviewing the article's Talk page, I see that Jacquerie27's contributions have included the following comment on someone with the surname Cohen, who explains his Presbyterian and Communist family background, and points out that there hasn't been a Jewish member of his family for 100 years: "He doesn't consciously regard himself as Jewish, but one of MacDonald's points is that self-deception plays an important part in Jewish ethnocentrism (and in human behaviour in general)". It's pretty clear that we have here someone who is a strong supporter of MacDonald's viewpoint, and whose interjections are far from disinterested. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:16, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

None of my great-grandparents were Jewish, either, and further back than that I do not know. Moreover, I'm very critical of Israeli policies and treatment of the Palestineans. So to dismiss my opinion about this article on the basis that it is Jewish bias is just flat out wrong. I agree with Mel that Jacquerie27's comment is very much to his/her discredit in this argument. --BM 14:22, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Please tell me where I dismiss your opinion or accuse you of Jewish bias. I hadn't even noticed your user-name or your opinion till you appeared just above (egocentrism at work, perhaps?). There's also no "breathtaking assumption" at all: read what I wrote again carefully. I was not referring to the opinions expressed here but to the people who have been most disruptive on the article (User:Jayg, User:Slrubenstein, User:AndyL). Focussing on the ethnic origins (real or falsely assumed) of those involved while ignoring the arguments they present is, I'm sorry to say, one of the main aspects of racism. Focusing on the motives (real or falsely assumed) of those involved while ignoring the arguments they present is, I'm sorry to say, one of the main aspects of censorship. It's pretty clear that we have here someone who is far from disinterested: the use of "MacDonald's viewpoint" is proof of that. Jacquerie27 14:50, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Your comment on censorship, mimicking my own comment on racism, is peculiar and false, not to say irrelevant. The notion that merely referring to "MacDonald's viewpoint" demonstrates partiality is also bizarre.
It's true that, when you posted a comment to this page I (and BM) assumed that you were talking about this page. If you have reasoned responses (that don't depend upon references to the ethnicity of those against whom you're arguing, Jewish or Chinese or whatever) to any of the arguments offered here, I'm sure that everyone would be glad to read and think about them. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:20, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I have been "disruptive on the page"? I've barely edited it (or related) pages. If continually stating on the Talk: pages, to both supporters and detractors of this idea, that they have to follow Wikipedia policy, primarily "No original research", is "disruptive", then all attempts to follow Wikipedia policy are disruptive. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:44, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Definite extreme what-the-hell-are you thinking KEEEEEEP!!! with also extraordinary tendencies to clean-up. Afrocentrism, Eurocentrism, Americentrism get their own spin offs from ethnocentrism. Deletion of this page would be stupid, anti-Wikipedia and just give morons ammunition. The phenomena is quite more than just a couple of crack-pots' views, and hardly belongs being merged into those articles.--ZayZayEM 14:33, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This type of hysterical reaction to the prospect of the article's deletion rather underlines what this article is all about, doesn't it? --BM 15:01, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and see you all again in a few months. Consensus to delete? But seriously, folks... Andrewa 15:14, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I understand what you mean. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:20, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

delete or put into ethnocentrism, along with other examples. make sure to point out how the phenomenon increases in proportion to the need for it, across all groups --trust me i'm right (posted by IP 67.80.8.96)

?? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:20, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Carrp 15:51, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete As a legitimate topic, "Jewish ethnocentrism" is no different from any other ethnocentrism. But this article is not actually about cases of Jewish ethnocentrism, it is just a forum for anti-Semites to giove air to one of the justifications they think they have for being anti-Semitic. Why is it that in the racism article, racist propaganda takes up perhaps 5% of the article, whereas here anti-Semitic propaganda (or arguments against anti-Semitism, which still have nothing to do with ethnocentrism) takes up 100%. Slrubenstein 16:41, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete this article; all relevant information is already in Kevin B. MacDonald and Culture of Critique. The rest appears to consist solely of original research; those supporting the theory bring their original research in favour of the idea, then those against bring more original research trying to rebut it. Wikipedia articles should not be places where partisans conduct online debates under the guise of "NPOVing" encyclopedia articles, but rather places where significant and relevant already existing research is summarized. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:23, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Concur; possible redirect to Kevin B. MacDonald or Culture of Critique. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:19, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
    • So can we assume that is a delete vote? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:08, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, obviously. GRider\^talk 19:16, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that "obviously" is going to convince anyone; could you explain your reasons for your vote? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:29, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

He always votes "keep, obviously". It is a way of needling the "deletionists", and doesn't really mean anything. --BM 20:16, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Not true. If something is patent nonsense or an extreme case of vanity I will always vote to delete it and have demonstrably done so in the past. I do not, however, generally buy into this entire notion of "notability for inclusion" and other trademark phrases used by, as you put, deletionists. This article is well written and deserves to be kept, hence the "obviously". For further reading on Jewish ethnocentrism refer to http://www.e-paranoids.com/j/je/jewish_ethnocentrism.html GRider\^talk 20:32, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That e-paranoids website info is taken from the Wikipedia, which strengthens the argument to delete articles like this because they get picked up, spread around, then used as independent sources. It's a hall of mirrors, the exact opposite of scholarship or critical thinking. SlimVirgin 00:47, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

I sympathise with much of your position (and there's something distasteful about the sight of a mob of non-notables insisting that the subject of an article isn't notable enough for inclusion). Here, though, I don't see that the subject matter is sufficiently distinct from the general topic of Ethnocentrism to warrant a separate article; that seems to give this particular ethnocentrism special status (and it does seem as though some of its proponents want to do exactly that). I'd be happy with the important material being merged with the Ethnocentrism article (as long as that didn't similarly overbalance it in). (I'm not denying, incidentally, that there's such a thing as Jewish ethnocentrism — I've encountered it, along with ethnocentrisms of many other ethnicities, including my own.) Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:46, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

GRider, you're obviously just pointing to a mirror of Wikipedia, with an older version of the article. In this case, the version from March 1, 2004 [1]. Claiming something is notable because it has a Wikipedia article on it is circular, at best, and runs directly counter to Wikipedia's No original research policy. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:01, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete We now have three pages with almost identical content.Ultramarine 20:42, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Isn't playing the Anti-Semitism card getting a bit old? What next? Protocols of Zion? The Holocaust? Blood libel? - XED.talk 20:55, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Perhaps, and as a sometimes-critic of Israel's policies, I get exasperated by this sometimes myself. But just because the charge of anti-Semitism is sometimes a rhetorical excess does not mean that it always is, or even that it usually is. Anti-Semitism is pretty unmistakable when you see it, and in my opinion this is one of those cases. --BM 21:47, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • No older than the systemic bias card. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:03, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • actually, i see a few of those cards have been played! the voting patterns here are a good enough argument to keep this article. - XED.talk
    • Actually, from what I can see, the predictable voting pattern (and history) of one voter in particular is an irrefutable argument for deleting. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:46, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • take a breather jay. it's only an encyclopaedia on the internet. - XED.talk 22:08, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
        • And one of the most popular Internet sites, so this rubbish gets spread around. SlimVirgin 23:09, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't see that voting patterns are a reason to do anything; an article doesn't magically become appropriate or inappropriate because people vote against or for it for the wrong reasons. I suspect Jacquerie27's motives, but that has nothing to do with my position or my vote; indeed, my reasons for voting against it are largely unconnected with accusations of anti-semitism, though I see the point of those who make such accusations. I'd argue just as strongly against including articles on Greek-Cypriot ethnocentrism, Walloon ethnocentrism, Manx ethnocentrism, etc. Unless they add anything to the general articles on Ethnocentrism and Kevin B. MacDonald they're redundant and a waste of space. I don't see that this article adds anything useful to them. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:14, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. The title is POV, and the material can easily be merged with Jews as a chosen people without becoming an exclusive forum of Kevin B. MacDonaldites. Much of MacDonald's work can be summarised in a few lines as it is extreme pseudoscience. Oh, and isn't vitually every ethnicity ethnocentric? Where is our Bantu ethnocentrism and our Kossack ethnocentrism page? JFW | T@lk 21:11, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. There's nothing distinct about it from any other variety of ethnocentrism; the material already exists in other articles; and like BM said above, these kind of articles are just POV magnets for/against a particular ethnic group. --MPerel^{( talk | contrib)} 21:16, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. The article is by definition POV and encyclopaedically useless. Some contents could be moved to relevant articles, like anti-Semitism etc. -- Olve 22:32, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

See Samy Smooha (Univ. of Haifa) "Jewish and Arab Ethnocentrism in Israel." Ethnic and Racial Studies 10, 1 (January 1987): 1-26. Reprinted in Hofman, John (ed.). Arab-Jewish Relations in Israel. (Wyndham Hall Press, Bristol, Ind., 1988) pp. 175-216. Sorry, in haste. El_C 23:27, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Why? See with regard to what? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:31, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

With regards to a discussion of Jewish and Arab Ethnocentrism in Israel, to quote you, "a country with a number of different ethnicities" El_C 00:26, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I've just noticed this. The article isn't about Israel (though many comments on this page seem to assume that it is). Judaism isn't a country, with or without different ethnicities. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:20, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Another article which is somewhat similar is Ethnic issues in Japan. Without passing judgment on whether it is a bad article or a bad article, the topic is perfectly legitimate just like Jewish ethnocentrism is a perfectly legitimate topic. And no, different types of ethnocentrism are not the same. They all have their unique features and deserve their own articles. --Zero 23:38, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • But it isn't relevantly similar; Japan is a country with a number of different native ethnicities, as well as foreign residents. An article on ethnic issues in an ethnically diverse country can meet the conditions that I, for one, suggested while one on ethnocentricity fails them. As for the last point: "different homosexuals are not all the same. They have their unique features and deserve their own articles." What do you see as the difference between your claim and this one? They surely have the same logical as well as merely linguistic structure, so should the article on homosexuality be supplemented by one on every individual homosexual? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:49, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You don't understand Japan, clearly, but that is off-topic. Meanwhile, I stand by my point. --Zero 00:16, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

As per individual homosexuals, they're not all the same (and actually, like everyhuman being are absolutely unique), but their homosexuality is, likewise for hetero, bi, etc., yours is a strawman that ignores the most basic taxonomy conventions. Zero is correct, each form of ethnocentrism that is encycloepdically notable has to, by necessity of the former prerequisite, posess particularities (events, practices, concepts, debates, etc.) unique to it and worthy of an encyclopedic exposition. El_C 00:26, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that you mean "straw man", but anyway, you've simply made the assumptions that I was challenging. To the extent that different ethnocentrisms are different, so different homosexuals are different. Only if the differences are significant to the ethnocentrism would they warrant a separate article. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:35, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• But this article doesn't do that, El C, and I don't see how it could, were it to rely on reputable sources. It's a shabby article, with shabby talk pages consisting of arguments about how people can be unconsciously Jewish, even when they think they're not Jewish, because Jews are prone to self-deception, and a comment that: "The Nazi's were not attempting to wipe out the entire Jewish population of Europe; rather they were attempting to enact Martin Luther's seven recommendations when dealing with Jews, particularly the concept of forcing them to work in order to repay previous misdeeds." There were attacks on the Kwanzaa page not long ago, about how supposedly fraudulent it is, and though a couple of the points might have been worth keeping if expressed differently, it was clear that the anonymous author was a racist, and the intention of his edits was to promote his racism, so the edits were reverted without delay. Does authorial intention matter? I would say it does, though I know it's a can of worms. The intentions behind this article were not good, so the authors do not come to this debate with clean hands. SlimVirgin 00:43, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

Well said! El_C 00:58, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Hard working editors have recently disentangled this material from the MacDonald biography, merged it with duplicate material in Jewish ethnocentrism, and now have found a logical article to hold it (even if the title The Culture of Critique isn't ideal). Now that the MacDonald-specific material is in its own article there isn't much left in Jewish ethnocentrism. What is left can be merged to relevent articles. It might remain as a redirect to The Culture of Critique (or whatever that article ends up being named). In the case of this material, too much time has been spent by spent trying to prove or disprove MacDonald's theories, rather than simply describing them, NPOV. We're not there to decide what is true, just to summarize what is easily verifiable. PS The various editors, while holding different opinions sometimes quite strongly, should be commended for keeping a civil tone. Thanks to everyone working on this project. Cheers, -Willmcw 00:29, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I am not disputing any of that. I am only arguing that the term itself is encylopedically notable enough to be included on the article (or if cleaning fails, redirect) namespace. Do you not agree that my very prelimnary research as to this yesterday demonstrate that the term is employed in professional scholarship? El_C 00:54, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

But the term is nothing more than "ethnocentrism" modified by a word referring to a particular ethnic group. Unless the meaning of the resulting phrase was different from the mere syntax would suggest, you wouldn't even find it in a dictionary, let alone an encyclopaedia. Anyone who knows what "Jewish" and "ethnocentrism" mean will know what "Jewish ethnocentrism" means. The term isn't notable. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:29, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. This topic is no more controversial than Holocaust denial. Just because the term is POV doesn't mean that the article has to be POV. Even if all that can be written about this topic is a thorough debunk, the term is significant enough to warrant a wikipedia article. I count 1900 1400 non-wikipedia Google hits, plus a few hundred more for Judeocentrism. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 00:31, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

But look at this [2] There are hundreds of sites that don't mention Wikipedia. org, but have taken their material from the Wikipedia, and possibly others who take it without any attribution. It would be interesting to know how many of these Google references are not (a) to Wikipedia, (b) to Wikipedia mirror sites, attributed or otherwise, (c) to Kevin MacDonald discussion sites, or (d) to neo-Nazi sites. A rapidly dwindling number, no doubt. SlimVirgin 00:57, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

Noted: I have adjusted my estimate. However, I feel that your (c) and (d) are still relevant with regards to notability. "We also serve to debunk." A classic argument used by anti-semites should be discussed in a NPOV way. Note the now excellent article on Sollog, which was started with some highly-POV material. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 01:24, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I reject your comparison to Holocaust denial, which is controversial for a different reason. HD is controversial because it contains some hateful views some non-Jews have about Jews and their history. This is comparable to the article on Anti-semitism which covers similar, but broader material. And I would never suggest deleting these two articles. BUT if Jewish ethnocentrism is like those other two articles, it is in a different way because this article purports to discuss the views of Jews. The only comparison to this case would be if the article on "Jews" was mostly about what anti-semites think about Jews. Slrubenstein 23:48, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. An attempt to whitewash (heh) anti-Semitism. RickK 01:02, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • I am not disputing that it does this, but as pressing as that may be, it is an aside to the encyclopedic notability of the term itself, also (and especially), with respect to its use outside of the MacDonald or Neo-Nazi, etc. sources/debates (particularly by Israeli social scientists). None of the sources I provided mention or deal with MacDonald, they are all professional scholars, mostly from Israel. And that is a very partial list based on a 2 minute search. I wish editors would place greater emphasis on this distinction. I would, if requested to do so by any editor here except SS, double or triple this reference list. El_C 01:34, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• I'd be interested to know what you have, El C. SlimVirgin 01:36, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

• Roger that. I would have plenty if I was at the library of any major Israeli university, but otherwise, I'll note those on your talk page as before. El_C 01:41, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• I've just done a Google search for "jewish ethnocentrism" minus the following words, which I know to be associated with neo-Nazi or otherwise anti-Semitic websites: holywar, stormfront, macdonald, vanguard, and then also subtracting: wikipedia, encyclopedia, dictionary, which should get rid of some mirror sites. The result is 802 [3], but most of these are repetitive. Of the 802, only 108 are separate sites. And included in this 108 are sites like Surch.co.uk and several others, which have copied their material from Wikipedia. If I have time, I might go through the remaining 108 to find the truly non-Wikipedia, non-anti-Semitic sites. It's quite a leap from the 1400 cited above and it shows how much harm Wikipedia can do (and how much good it can do too). SlimVirgin 01:36, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

• I disagree with your analysis. It is POV to ignore material just because it is distasteful. Why shouldn't we debunk notable anti-Semitic material in Wikipedia? Just as Sollog wanted to remove his article from Wikipedia once it became NPOV, isn't it anti-Semitic to remove a potential debunk article of anti-Semetism from Wikipedia? GeorgeStepanek\^talk 01:49, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• It isn't notable, that's the problem, and it's not our job to debunk theories; we can only report on other people's de-bunking, and there doesn't seem to be much bunking or debunking from authoritative sources. Maybe El C will track some decent material down that is genuinely relevant. I don't mind exploring material that is distasteful but I mind when it's not intelligent. It isn't censorship to get rid of material like that. It's called editing. SlimVirgin 02:13, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

• I don't know if I can beyond fragments that illustrate it existing as a notable concept (it seems that myself and Zero are the only one here who have known it to be used in professional scholarship) since I don't really have much more access to this area of scholarship than you do. At any rate, please have a look at my (somewhat pitiful) findings. El_C 03:31, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• We can and do debunk by NPOV discussion of controversial topics, even if the only available sources are POV. Moreover, notability is not a measure of intelligence, decency or academic recognition. Ashlee Simpson has none of these, but is widely known and appears on Wikipedia nonetheless. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 03:33, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Heh! Thank you, George. Nonetheless I vote Weak delete because so little of the topic's available material is encyclopedic, generally discussed, or verifiable as anything besides "somebody ranted; somebody else counter-ranted". Far more likely to become grist for ongoing edit/flame wars than to remain as civil as most existing editors have behaved. Barno 14:30, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Jews do not use these words of "ethnocentrism" and "Jewish ethnocentrism" is not part of mainstream academia either, so who needs it? IZAK 02:10, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. "Gibberish" is the appropriate term. Evidence for the hypothesis is anecdotal and speculative; there is nothing to persuade anyone but the most prejudiced reader that this is a unique form of ethnocentrism; and the whole article begs the question. --Leifern 02:44, 2005 Feb 1 (UTC)
• Keep, cleanup and expand. Megan1967 03:07, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Expand? You want it to be more anti-Semitic? RickK 05:11, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
    • No, no, no, no. (Not more knee-jerk reactions, please.) Can you not see what an anti-Anti-Semitic article could be made from this? For example: "Jewish ethnocentrism is sometimes used as a justification for anti-semitism. While all cultural groups experience ethnocentrism to some extent, Jewish ethnocentrism is no more significant that Moslem ethnocentrism, Arab ethnocentrism or Christian ethnocentrism because of X, Y and Z." GeorgeStepanek\^talk 07:23, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Rick, that's why I said cleanup, not just expand. Megan1967 00:54, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Ambi 04:31, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Masterhomer 04:32, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Abstain. Though I have carefully avoided looking at this article until now, I merely note that the article Ethnocentrism offers a list of numerous links to other "-centrism" articles. This kind of thing is rarely done well at Wikipedia, however, and I'm sure this article is no exception among all the others. --Wetman 07:45, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• I'll be more precise about my position. (1) The existing article is appalling with scarcely a redeeming feature. (1.5) It isn't worse than Arabs and anti-Semitism, for example, but that's not an excuse. (2) Problems with contents go to RfC, not VfD. (3) Many people here think that "ethnocentrism" is a synonym for "racism". They are wrong, at least as the word is used by sociologists and historians. (3) There is a very large literature on the subject of Jewish ethnocentrism, with hundreds of journal articles and books. It is a completely respectable area of study, covering the subject all the way from biblical times to the present. (4) Most such literature is the work of Jewish scholars. Two examples that I read in the past year are Stern, Jewish identity in early rabbinic writings (largely on the subject) and Novak, The Holocaust in American life (partly on it), (but I don't necessarily agree with them on anything). (5) An example of a scholarly (but dated) article on the subject is the Jewish Encyclopedia article on gentiles (6) MacDonald's writings are peripheral to the area and far from representative. (7) There shall be no item 7! (8) People who claim it is the realm of anti-semites don't know what the *&^%^ they are talking about. (9) Maybe (we can dream) one day someone competent in this difficult field will come along and write us a nice article on it. --Zero 09:49, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Zero, I respect your comments concerning studies by Jewish scholars of Jewish ethnocentrism. But a scholar's books on "Jewish identity in rabbinic writings" aren't necessarily about "Jewish ethnocentrism". I read the Jewish Encyclopedia article on Gentiles, and it also does not refer to "Jewish ethnocentrism". Perhaps you have other examples, but so far the ones you have adduced are not very convincing. Meanwhile it seems to me undeniable that the term "Jewish ethnocentrism" has become a code-phrase in anti-Semitism. For example, a Google search on "Jewish Ethnocentrism", produces the following results in the following order.

1. the Wikipedia article on the subject from January 25, 2005. The fact that this article is ranked first on Google underscores the responsibility we have as editors of the Wikipedia.
2. the Wikipedia article on Kevin MacDonald.
3. a sciforums.com thread titled History of Jewish Zionism discussing Kevin MacDonald's books
4. a link to the website "When Victims Rule: a Critique of Jewish Pre-eminence in America".
5. a link to a Free Speech Network thread with several extracts from Kevin MacDonald articles and books.
6. a link to an article "Jewish Ethnocentrism, Jewish Racism, and Resistance to Assimilation" on the Jewish Tribal Review website, described as "a compilation of links to online articles largely from the mainstream media sources about Jewish and Zionist influence in popular culture, Jewish ethnocentrism, Jewish power, Jewish wealth, American Judeocentrism, and Jewish political lobbying".
7. a link to a page on e-paranoids.com covering Jewish ethnocentrism, Semitism, and Judeocentrism.
8. a page on theoccidentalquarterly.com website awarding the "2004 Jack London Prize" to Kevin MacDonald.
9. a link to a mail.wikipedia.org archive of the WikiEN-I mailing list. The mailing list thread relates to the edit war in the Jewish ethnocentrism article. The specific message that is linked to from Google is someone complaining about Jimmy Wales banning him from Wikipedia on Feb 23. 2003.
10. a link to a site mirroring the Wikipedia article on "Jewish view of marriage". The phrase "Jewish ethnocentrism" does not appear.

These are just the first ten results. It is clear from these results that (1) Jewish ethnocentrism has primarily come to refer to the views of Kevin MacDonald; (2) it is a codeword used on anti-Semitic web sites; and (3) Wikipedia is playing a prominent role in propagating this usage of the term and the views of Kevin MacDonald. --BM 14:47, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Please note, the e-paranoids.com page is a Wikipedia mirror from last March. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:42, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, I thought it might be. It rather looks that way. But it wasn't clear to me, and I didn't want to guess. --BM 16:05, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Here's the source, in case you were wondering: [4] Jayjg ^(talk) 18:10, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks again. Although that version is not ideal, it seems quite a bit better than the current version. --BM 19:17, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• It is also worth noting that a Google search on "Ethnocentrism" yields the Wikipedia article by that title at Rank #2, and the Wikipedia article on Jewish Ethnocentrism at Rank #3. It is the only example of ethnocentrism related to a specific ethnic group on the first page of Google results. Anybody doing a Google search on Ethnocentrism is going to see "Jewish Enthnocentrism" as the preeminent example of ethnocentrism. Who wants to take responsibility for that? --BM 16:18, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Neutrality^talk 16:20, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Significantly clean: Move MacDonald stuff to his pages, reorganize to reflect the NPOV standards the other ethnocentrism articles have. Barring the possibility of cleaning, delete it and redirect to ethnocentrism. - UtherSRG 16:39, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, redirect to ethnocentrism, put content in Kevin B. MacDonald. AndyL 18:02, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Since so many people (Zero being a notable and creditable exception) are ignoring the sources I provided, primarily featuring works by professional Israeli scholars on the subject translated into English, I suppose it would be futile of me to note those ones which were not. It is surprising, though, that google.com is featured so prominently in this discussion, but the (granted, highly imprefect) google.co.il (אתנוצנטריות) is not. Incidentally, I did not see MacDonald being mentioned once in that search, or in any Israeli scholarship. Oh well, on deaf ears. El_C 21:20, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • "Deafened ears" is more like it. ;) -Willmcw 21:55, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • I don't know that I understand the grammatical meaning of your pun. Sorry, English isn't my native tongue and I have difficulties with some nuances. El_C 22:19, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • So where is this list of sources, El_C?
    • No, forget it, I'm not going to tell you, Anon, because you evidently did not read this VfD very closely (hint: start from the beginning of this discussion, it should take you less than ~10 seconds to find it). El_C
    • The "anon" was me. I just forgot to sign. I can't find it, except for a reference to something you posted on somebody's Talk page. Surely that isn't where this list of sources is? --BM 22:04, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Peculiarly, yes, it is. It's a bibliography that would probably be useful to someone with easy acces to an academic library with a specialist section on Israeli/Jewis studies. Given that it's irrelevant to my reasons for voting against retention, I haven't looked at it very closely. (Besides, if this area is anything like philosophy, plagued by the academic imperative to publish regardless of quality, and suffering the consequent explosion into print of countless tenth-rate papers, one would have to read the cited papers carefully in order to be sure that they constituted a genuinely respectable academic corpus.)
        (I was writing this while the following message from ElC was posted. ElC — I don't understand your first two sentences, but I imagine that the reason that BM is surprised is that, if the list is relevant to this debate on this page, one would have expected you to have posted it on this page. Expecting someone to read through what has become a very long (and mostly not exactly riveting or rewarding) series of messages in order to track down the list is... well, let's say &ldqu;optimistic“. Mel Etitis (ΜελΕτητης) 22:35, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • • No sir/madam, as stated, my vote is the second one, so if one starts from the beginning it isn't an unreasonable expectation (considering that's how most people start reading a piece of writing, notwithstanding whether it is rivetting or not). The point you make on the list (which is valid), incidentally, is something I have already alluded to and qualified here in terms of my own and Zero's position. But this VfD is too lengthy, so I'm not surprised it has been overlooked. On that note, perhaps it is time for me to step out of this discussion. I don't seem to be accomplishing anything productive here, but it has been a learning experience (which unfortunately does not inspire confidence in the VfD process). El_C 23:00, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Oh, I know you (or of you: your userpage is on my watchlist for reasons I cannot recall). Why do you call me surely? Do you like Gladiator movies? Really, that "somebody's talk page" is the author of this VfD, and there are nearly 20 sources cited. Where would you have liked me to have listed these, and why do you view the location, as opposed to its contents, so crucially. I am genuinely puzzled by your response. El_C 22:19, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • I don't get your comment about surely. Adverb of sure. Not surly. As in, I'm surprised that you'd post a list of sources on someone else's Talk page and then act all dejected and aggrieved when people don't read it. Isn't someone's Talk page a place to send him/her messages? But anyway now that I know where they are I'll look at them. --BM 22:28, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • Huh, with all due respect, mine is the second vote in this VfD, I somewhat expected voters to read —at the very least— the few couple of votes in this VfD as a metter of convention, and I am surprised this is not something you yourself practice rather judiciously. Oh, and for surely, or however that's spelled, just a dose of humor from Airplane! ( Nielsen's character would respond: 'I am serious, and don't call me Shirley'. "...and don't call me Shirley" has entered the language as an all-purpose, nonplussed response.) How's that for relevance! El_C 22:37, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • OK, well, I read the bibliography. I don't want to make a lot more of this, and I really don't mean to be argumentative; but I think you are asking a lot for me (or anyone else) to have picked up an allusion to something that you posted on another user's Talk page in a 50KB VfD discussion. Anyway, it is hard to know what to say about your bibliography as I haven't read the materials, only your very short extracts. It doesn't surprise me that Israeli scholars would use the term "Jewish ethnocentrism". Ethnocentrism is a well-known, documented phenomenon, and I don't doubt that it is a term used by sociologists and other scholars, including Jewish ones. As a lay-person, it is term I've heard, off an on, for over thirty-five years. And, of course, scholars use the term for manifestations of it in various groups, including their own group -- or perhaps especially their own. Hence, "Jewish" ethnocentrism. That isn't the point. The point is whether Jewish ethnocentrism -- in particular -- is a large enough topic on its own to warrant an article in the Wikipedia, when (a) there are almost no other articles about ethnocentrism as applied to particular groups; (b) the predominant popular use of the phrase, at least in the United States, is to refer to the views of MacDonald and people who are clearly anti-Semites; and (c) the combination of these two things has resulted in an embarassing article that has been fought over for two years and which is still being fought over, with no real prospect of it becoming persistently "good". (In the last day or so, it just took a turn for the better; but I have no confidence that this will persist.) I don't see how the unsurprising fact that the phrase is used by Jewish sociologists about various phenomena they observe amongst Jewish youth, kibutzniks, etc, is relevant to this question. --BM 22:56, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
          • Again, it was the second vote. It's relevant for it being a notable term, because the Israeli scholarly community is relatively active for its size, with many works translated into English. I am not —nor have I ever– disputed any of your other arguments, and neither would Zero, I strongly suspect. On the contrary, I/we argued the same thing on that front. El_C
• Delete. It is no doubt true that (1) Jewish ethnocentrism is a complex subject like any other and worthy of research, and that (2) there are those, like MacDonald, who have made up theories on it specifically as opposed to ethnocentrism in general. Jewish attitudes towards themselves and others are an interesting subject, but the material fits in one of the articles on Jewish history or culture. If a standalone article were written on the subject it should certainly not have the title Jewish ethnocentrism for the reasons given by many people in this discussion -- ethnocentrism is ethnocentrism no matter what the ethnic group is, and it easily leads to abuses like the crypto-antisemitism discussed here. If we want to talk about Jewish attitudes towards themselves we'd better include a heck of a lot more views than MacDonald's. --Unamuno 00:51, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete 172 01:11, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete A neutral discussion of MacDonald's views is fine, but this article seems to signal Jews out for treatment that other ethnic groups do not receive. The very concept of "Jewish Ethnocentrism" is not found outside the writings of one extremely controversial psychologist, for heaven's sake. Let's do the responsible thing -- delete the article and deal with some of these topics in other, more appropriate fora (and more intelligently).Zantastik 02:33, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and rename. If we have Christianity and anti-Semitism, I don't see why we can't have Judaism and ethnocentrism. Bacchiad 08:07, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Every national\religious\ethnic has some degree of ethnocentrism (it is called "self-survival" or "healthy-selfishness") and I don't see a need to single-out Jews for that, a specially when most of the article is based upon contraversial reviews of Kevin B. MacDonald. MathKnight 10:54, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Thinly-veiled anti-Semitic crap. -- uriber 19:07, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The very title of this article is POV, so it's hard to see how an article with this title can ever be made NPOV. -- Curps 21:02, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Comments here and on a related VfD page have persuaded me that even a redirect page is unnecessary and undesirable. Any important material material should be merged with the appropriate article, and this page deleted. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:53, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Proteus (Talk) 00:13, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Delete. Another racist article. --Jewbacca 00:34, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, no redirect. This looks like a plain-vanilla "ethnocentrism* page with Kevin B. MacDonald and his views crowbarred into it. --Calton 00:45, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• This is very unlikely to ever have an article that isn't a hideous eyesore, but if that were a reason for deletion then we'd have to wipe out the large swathes of the encyclopedia that are perpetual magnets for POV warriors. Redirect to ethnocentrism now that the material on MacDonald's theories has been moved to the appropriate articles. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 07:41, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Another racist article that is un fair and needs to be redirected or I strongly hope it will be deleted . ChanochGruenman 17:32, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Run-of-the-mill Jew-hatred; I'm sure it would have been appropriate to publish in Der StÙrmer. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:51, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. I note the sockpuppets have started arriving in force. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:09, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and Merge as anything relevant to ethnocentrism, Kevin B. MacDonald and Jews as a chosen people if necessary. — Asbestos | Talk 00:36, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep because among ethnocentrisms Jewish ethnocentrism has some obviously unique aspects that are too important to be absorbed into the ethnocentrism article and have been too widely discussed to be absorbed by particular authors.Jim Bowery 01:34, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Obviously unique? Like what? Slrubenstein 15:43, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Jews are by far the longest-continuous ethnicity living in diaspora. This means its ethnocentrism has a very different evolutionary history from indigenous ethnocentrisms. Moreover there is every reason to believe an ethnicity in diaspora that manages to maintain its identity has particularly intense ethnocentric adaptations, whether these be consciously engineered or simply evolved. If there are other diaspora ethnicities with a longer history of continuity they might be similar to Jews in many respect and I'll retract my statement about Jewish uniqueness but then assert that an article on ethnocentrism among diaspora peoples is appropriate with whatever residuals about Jewish ethnocentrism relegated to this article.Jim Bowery 01:19, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that argument is a logical fallacy:

• All cultures possess ethnocentrism.
• Jewish culture has been uniquely in diaspora.
• Therefore Jewish culture possesses unique ethnocentrism.

Your argument is illogical - without a proven relationship between diaspora and ethnocentrism it is, by definition, prejudicial (judgment before fact). -- RyanFreisling @ 01:59, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Not only is it illogical, it is just unfounded speculation. Find historical proof and you may have a claim. Certainly the Talmud does not create strong barriers to conversion, and Dio Cassus refers to members of the "Jewish race" who were born to another nation (and converted); the Hebrew Bible provides evidence of intermarriage in the Diaspora (in Esther); Jews in the first thousand years of their diaspora were not especially exclusive. Slrubenstein 02:59, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Hopelessly POV, actual content is one New York Times quote and a lot about Kevin B. MacDonald. Gamaliel 01:38, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep it, with other forms of ethnocentrism represented, Jewish ethnocentrism is due an entry as well, and not merely merged with MacDonald's entries, as the term is not exclusive to him; I feel that the significance of Jewish ethnocentrism above other, relatively uninfluential forms of enthocentrism, is self evident due to the reaped benefits; as well as the extreme taboo connected with positing it; therefore I vote to keep, the fact that it is 'noncontinental', notwithstanding..Kurgan5000yearsbc

User's first edit. --BM 03:42, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Keep it, to preserve the free discussion of ideas, no matter what we think of them.
• Abstain —Ashley Y 06:43, 2005 Feb 4 (UTC)
• Delete. -Sean Curtin 07:12, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep it, relevant and accurate. Nack 08:23, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • User's first edit — these new users are highly suspect. I am calling to question their motives, outright. El_C 08:49, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Do you know how we can check to see if they are sock-puppets? Slrubenstein 15:43, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Keep because Judaism is a uniquely influential religious meme intrinsically tied to ethnic supremacism and deserves special discussion Pinlighter 09:06, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

User's 4th edit. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:33, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Only one percent of Jayjg's posts are not pro-Israel / pro-Jewish propaganda - XED.talk 18:47, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Come on, Xed. It doesn't matter whether Jayjg is 50%, 90% or 100% pro-Israel, by the rules everyone gets one vote. However, these sockpuppets are attemping to circumvent the rules. It's important to separate the bad faith votes from the good (as Jayjg was doing). In the case of this VfD, there are a significant number of sockpuppets trying to influence the vote. Adding the same comment about one user multiple times is hardly helpful. Carrp 19:01, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Just pointing out the facts. As of Dec 2004, only 0.8% of Jayjg's posts are not about Israel/Judaism, and of those that are, virtually all are pro. - XED.talk 19:11, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm not even going to ask how much time you spent calculating Jayjg's post distribution. You pointed out the same fact about the same user four or five times on this page. Jayjg has one vote, same as you or me. For the purpose of this VfD, it doesn't matter that he's very pro-Israel. Carrp 19:17, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No time at all- it was someone elses research. I know Jayjg has one vote. I was simply pointing out facts. - XED.talk 19:24, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This is an anti-Semitic slur Slrubenstein 15:43, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hoekomsa keep as important discussion for discussion as shown above.

User's first edit. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:33, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Keep because specifically Jewish ethnocentrism is controlling domestic and foreign affairs to such an excessive degree that its biases, strategies and outcomes need to be understood and moderated for the greater good. Lelia Lelia 13:28, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

User's first edit. Jayjg ^(talk)

My comment was my second edit, this is my third--my first, to the JE definition, didn't get counted. Lelia 66.31.7.30 20:30, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I can't see an unsigned edit there that might have been yours; are you sure that it was saved properly? You might need to redo it. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:58, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This is an anti-Semitic slur. Slrubenstein 15:43, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Spider69a 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

User's first edit. Jayjg ^(talk)

• Keep, it is absurd to suggest the term is unique to the works of MacDonald and the hated "neo-Nazis", or that possible abuse of the term ought to warrant deletion. Other 'centrisms' are prone to similar abuse, most notably Afro and Eurocentrism. Furthermore that the latter two's root words refer to continents does not preclude them from use in the ethno-cultural sense, which is indeed their intended function however conglomerated. Yipperson

User's 5th edit. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:33, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete POV trash. --Mrfixter 16:05, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Absurd nonsense about ethnocentric jews with substantiating, one-sided research from academia's number-one kook, Kevin B. MacDonald. --Viriditas | Talk 21:34, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Standard anti-Semitic fare. NPOV does not mean elevating outright racism to the status of 'one side of the story'. This article should, at most, be a section of a document on anti-Semitism. -- RyanFreisling @ 22:28, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep the article, as it is a real thing, just edit out the crap.

Posted by IP address 24.165.165.69; new editor. SlimVirgin 22:45, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

Slightly more cunning; given the publicity concerning sockpuppets with fewer than five edits under their belts, this one crammed in five small edits (on three pages) in under two hours before posting this comment here. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:42, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Keep It does not fit into any of the catagories for deletion and a case could be made that this attempt to remove it is a case study in Jewish ethnocentrism. AnthonySmith

User's first edit. SlimVirgin 00:35, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

• • This vote could be interpreted as a case study in anti-Semitism. RickK 00:44, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

MacDonald's writings are not anti-Semitic, or pro-Semitic, but I think are looking for ways to "borrow" the success of a highly racially homogenous, financially successful and culturally coherent ethnic group. I would however suggest you move these ideas to "Jewish Nationalism" or "Zionism," both concepts that anyone, whether leftist or National Socialist, should support. Prozak 03:50, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• "highly racially homogenous"? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:19, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Except of course for Ashkenazy, Sephardic, African and Asian Jewry. Good Lord, some folks just don't let go of false stereotypes. The verbiage "racially homogenous" (not to mention "financially successful") when used in an anti-Semitic way as above makes me wanna call the ADL. -- RyanFreisling @ 06:08, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Keep: The topic is certainly encyclopedia material, I don't think anyone can or has so far denied that Judeocentrism exists. From that, it is not so far to realise that Judeocentrism has certain characheristics that are not present in other ethnocentrisms. Notably the words "goy" and "gentile" which I don't know what they mean, but I doubt they have any equivalents in other languages. I also think it is unfair to accuse VFD voters of anti-Semitism. Currently the article is not so good, but I trust someone to fix it. Palestine-info 11:26, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Many if not most languages have words or common phrases that refer to people outside the national, cultural, or religious group: aliens, foreigners, heathens, barbarians, infidels, gaijin, etc. The word gentile comes from the Latin, in fact, and is used by many religious groups (especially Mormons) to denote those of other or no religion, Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:54, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Of the words you mention, only gaijin fits the requirement of identifying a non-member of the group in the same way that goy does. Words like "alien" do not: I am an alien in your country but not in mine, but I am a gaijin everywhere and no matter who is speaking. There is also a Rom (gypsy) word payo which is similar. Some years ago, an Israeli friend asked a lot of language experts for other examples but none other than goy, gaijin and payo were found (but that's no guarantee there aren't any). --Zero 10:55, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It is laughable that Palestine-info admits that s/he doesn't know what these words mean, and then makes a decision based on ignorance! "Goy" does not mean "a non-member of one's group." "Goy" is the Hebrew word for "nation." It is a regular word often used (to mean nation) in common speech. As a matter of fact, the word is at times used to refer to Jews (there is a prayer celebrating Jewish unity -- note, not Jewish superiority, but Jewish unity, obviously important in the Diaspora -- in which Jews declare themselves "goy achad" meaning "one nation" (the US pledge of allegiance uses the same phrase, in English of course, to celebrate American unity). In Exodus 19:6 God says that the Children of Israel will be "a kingdom of priests and a holy nation." The Hebrew for "holy nation" is "goy kadosh." It is true that Jews use "Goy to describe non-Jews, but obviously (since the word means "nation"), not in the sense of "everyone but us." The assumption is that all human beings belong to some nation. When the word "goy" is used in the plural ("goyim") it means "the nations" and it is in this sense that it is used to refer to non-Jews, meaning "people of other nations." There is nothing at all pejorative in this phrase. The latin word "Gentile" is simply the latin translation of "goy." "Gens" in Latin means "nation" and "Gentiles" are people of other nations. So when Jews started using the word "Gentile" they were just translating their own word into Latin. So what people wrote above is just wrong -- if a non-Jew is speaking in Hebrew and wants to say "nations" he or she will say "goyim" and can certainly apply the word "goy" to Jews. Moreover, I question the knowledge of your friends linguistic experts. I think most tourists, wherever they travel, think of people not like them as "foreigners;" if they do not, it is only because they are not lumping everyone together (so they will say "fucking Americans" or Fucking French" or "Fucking Germans" or whatever). Also, many native American languages have general words for non-members of their group. The Shuar, of the Ecuadorian Amazon, have the word for themselves, then a word for Ecuadorians (including other Indians) who are not Shuar, and another word for everyone else. And I know many Latinos who, in the US, still consider non-Latinos "gringos." Slrubenstein 15:35, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Where did I say that I made my decision based on my (mis)understanding of two words? I used Google as always. "-- note, not Jewish superiority, but Jewish unity" <-- Not a nice thing to note. Goyim can refer to "the nations," or "other nations" but it can also refer to more things and less. Foreigner is not a good translation - an English Jew would call an English non-Jew goy but he wouldn't be a foreigner. Basically, if my next-door neighbour was a Buddhist monk, there is no precise word he would use to label me with because of my non-Buddhistness. And what is the English word for an English woman marrying a non-English man? Palestine-info 11:35, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Where did you say you based your decision on your ignorance? When you invoked "goy" and "gentile" to illustrate what is unique about Jewish ethnocentrism, and then wrote "which I don't know what they mean." This is an argument based on ignorance. As for foreign, I meant foreign to the Jewish nation, I thought that was obvious. Iroquois or Crow or Sioux consider me foreign to their nation, even though we all live in the USA. So foreigner is a reasonable translation. But you miss my main point: I do not doubt that there are Jews who use the word "goy" ethnocentricly, just as there are Blacks who use the word "honkey" ethnocentricly, and Hispanics who use the word "gringo" ethnocentricly. But these do not make these words intrinsically ethnocentric; what makes them ethnocentric is how people use them. And Virtually every society has words that, whatever their denotation, are used ethnocentricly. That Jews have done the same thing does not make them unique in their ethnocentrism. Slrubenstein 17:24, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Keep: I am against censorship especially when it's racially based. Jewish ethnocentrism does exist. It may be not a problem. It may be beneficial to the world. It may not be adopted by too many Jews. Nevertheless, since "Jewish ethnocentrism" does exist in one form or another, it deserves an article to introduce it. You may even say, "Jewish ethnocentrism is nearly non-existant. Jews around the world respect other people. They live with other people (including Arabs) happily and peacefully. Jewish ethnocentrism only occurs to a handful people occassionally." But you cannot delete it and pretent it does not exist. -- Toytoy 13:49, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

• On the basis of that rationale, I look forward to your extensive article on 'Midget lacrosse teams'. -- RyanFreisling @ 18:15, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• delete Gilgamesh he 17:11, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• delete Mozzerati 12:43, 2005 Feb 6 (UTC)
• Delete Not encyclopedic Nasrallah 13:21, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete This article deals with a contrived alleged phenomenon not recognized in the academic world. The adherents of every religion hold their views to be correct, indeed they would not follow that particular religion if they did not consider it correct above others, why single out Jews? The concept does not accurately describe the thinking of right wing Jews whether secular or religious. Quoting rash statements by rightwingers in highly emotional situations involving armed conflict proves nothing. Kuratowski's Ghost 16:59, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Too much material is simply reproduced from other, far better written articles. Pointless duplication and too much potential for attracting POV-warriors anxious to start an edit war - see AndyL's comment below r.e. Stormfront's poll-stacking attempt. Arkady Rose 20:58, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Also note, some people are voting directly in this rather convenient table. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:25, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Do votes without comments count? Bacchiad 17:09, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't believe the rules mention anything about having to justify your vote, so yes they do count. Carrp 17:18, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm... It used to be explicitly stated in the header of the VfD page that you should "explain your vote even if you think it is obvious". I don't know when or why that language was edited out. It is still in Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Commenting on a listing for deletion and is still the rule. Generally, votes without explanation are considered but they may be weighted lower based solely on the deciding admin's discretion. Rossami (talk) 23:49, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty to distinguish between those keep votes of users with only one edit in the table's format, because I think it is noteworthy. Take into account that I have, arguably more than any other editor here, been arguing that the term is encyclopedic and should be, barring an extensive rewrite, be retained (as a redirect). El_C 09:28, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I noticed that the sockpuppets were getting smarter and making 2-3 edits before voting so I created a section for keep votes with less than 5 edits (at the time the vote was made). Carrp 15:21, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It's not significant in terms of the vote-count, but it's intriguing to look at the contribution-histories of some of the people voting here. I was looking at one, out of idle curiosity, and was astonished to find myself scrolling through literally hundreds of VfD entries — she(he?)'d made virtually no other contributions. Is there a Wikipedia name for that sort of thing? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:32, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hey. Most of my contributions are spelling or translation corrections, sometimes grammatical, punctuation or syntax corrections. In fact, many such edits are made to pages I myself started or edited heavily. Indeed, I'd make a lot more of them if I had the time to wait for wikipedia pages to load. (Why does it take so long for the pages to load nowadays anyways?) TShilo12 09:29, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Mel, I don't think it is very significant. If you participate in VfD for a few weeks, you will quickly have hundreds of entries, since each vote or comment is an entry. VfD is an important place on Wikipedia for those interested in the overall structure and mission of the encyclopedia, and in my opinion time spent here is well-spent. But the edit count does go up fast, since each one is quick, and you can make quite a few in a hour. For example, I have somewhere around 1200 entries in my contribution history, since registering in December, and I bet at least half of them are VfD votes and comments. Oops, just added another one. --BM 16:09, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I can see that, yes; but in this case it was pretty well a hundred per cent, and one or two others come close. (I've just panicked and checked my own list, but VfDs amount to a few per cent.) Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:15, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm curious to know why someone would vote in a VfD only to abstain. ;-) SlimVirgin 02:02, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep: because the article has truth and should not be censored because some people don't like it. A 5 year old could tell you this violates free speech. Class316
  • Then the five year old needs to be told that private web entities don't have to grant anybody free speech. RickK 08:49, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
    • This "private web entity" is supposed to be unbiased and offer information as is, not have a double standard and "pick and choose". Either grant everyone the free speech in a place that's supposed to be unbiased or don't let anyone have free speech and change the purpose of the site. Class316
      • Just what do you think the purpose of this site is? It's to produce an encyclopedia, not to give anybody and everybody a forum to spout their prejudices. And your edits at Zionism reveal yours. RickK 09:03, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It would make an excellent series. Every ethnicity has a tradition of ethnocentrism to some degree, and an in-depth exploration for each ethnicity would be well worth reading. - Mustafaa 00:10, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps, but this article wasn't that. In any event, the vote closed yesterday and it was deleted. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:23, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

There is an attempt at the neo-nazi Stormfront website to mobilise vote stacking on this poll. See http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?p=1630126

Given the large majority in favour of deleting this article and the attempt to manipulate the vote in the other direction I am going to go ahead and delete. AndyL 20:41, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I concur. →Raul654 20:48, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

• First, it's true that the web-site is trying to corrupt the voting process (for those who don't want to dirty their minds with the site, it includes this: “We need about 50 people from this forum to sign up to wikipedia.com and make more than 10 contributions to wikipedia.com before voting to keep Jewish Ethnocentrism on wikipedia. This will take a good amount of effort to get this kind of help“)
• However, secondly, the one response that I saw, after a clear account of how to vote, was essentially: “Duh, how do you vote?” — I mean, if I had a pound for every I.Q. point of the average white supremacists, I could just about afford a haircut.
• Thirdly, though, this isn't good enough grounds for deleting the page. You shouldn't let an outside organisation dictate which Wikipedia pages are kept and which deleted (whether directly or indirectly), and in any case it will just be reverted. Wait until the vote is officially counted, and a decision taken. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:57, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If there wasn't a lopsided majority in favour of deletion I wouldn't have deleted it. The question is why now rather than in a week or so and the answer is that it's necessary for wikipedia to show that we have no time for this sort of attempt at vote manipulation and that it will not be tolerated. Best to nip it in the bud before it can gain steam. Anyway, the deletion can be reversed if the powers that be deem it necessary but I think it's prudent, in the face of this attempt to subvert the system, to act now and sort it out later if necessary rather than wait until Stormfront's rolling stone gathers momentum. AndyL 21:25, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Mel, the time set for the VfD is basically up anyway; its just that nobody has scrolled this day's votes off to the archives, yet. So AndyL is not jumping the gun, or if he is, only by a little. Its the correct decision; a sysop would have to count all the sockpuppets not to find a pretty clear consensus to delete this. --BM 21:43, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• More: actually I see that the vote has already scrolled off the page. The vote was over. Normally, it would wait its turn to be processed by an admin, but in this case, I see no cause to object to its being processed early. --BM 21:48, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, since I voted to delete the following can be taken for whatever it's worth, but the VfD HAD passed the 5 day point, so I support Andy's decision. Of course, I'm sure somebody will put it up on VfU soon. RickK 21:52, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

I'm the person who posted the "get out the vote" message on Stormfront and I did so in the belief that it is legitimate for anyone to participate in Wikipedia. If there are rules this violates, I'd like to see them. It's one thing to have contempt for a POV, its another thing to say that POV should not be represented in the Wikipedia community. Jim Bowery 01:33, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Simply ridiculous. Ask yourself what a vote on Wikipedia might be intended to accomplish. Here's a hint: importing voters from offsite to stack results is not on the list. silsor 01:52, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

Its less ridiculous than most activism in any democratic processes. The problem with limiting the "democracy" here to active Wikipedians is particularly egregious since by the very nature of an encyclopedia we are dealing with the classic problem of holding the accountants to account. Since Jews have historically been the most specialized ethnicity in account-keeping vocations stretching back at least to the Babylonian era, any attempt at such record keeping is going to have a distinct Jewish bias to it. To have a vote on whether to keep or discard the topic of Jewish ethnocentrism is therefore inherently imbalanced and to be neutral requires some countervailing points of view. You think this is "stacking the vote". I think Wikipedia is already stacked with Jewish bias and that therefore what I did is attempting -- perhaps futilely -- to provide some balance to an egregiously biased situation. This bias on Wikipedia is, of course, no worse than almost any other aspect of civilization where Jewish ethnocentricity biasing accounting is not kept in check with so-called "anti-semitism" but it is an obscenity neverheless.Jim Bowery 04:46, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Unbelievable . . . SlimVirgin 05:08, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

Believe it, believe it. Perhaps, though, the fascists can begin to grasp that in order for them to have decisive influence over the (directed at the general public) encyclopedia, they would need to be in power; they would need power over the instruments and organs of the State, over the armed forces, education system, media, etc. And if and/or when it ever gets to the point where they can seriously attempt to claim that power, we will meet on the battlefront once more. El_C 06:39, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You know, my father left a Quaker church, renouncing his option to avoid military service, and he did it before Pearl Harbor to volunteer to fight the Germans. He never saw combat because he was tested as having the aptitude to keep the B-24s in shape to fly out of England. He didn't raise me to hate anyone. If I "hate" it was you who taught me. You call me a fascist in hopes that you can replay your WW II movies over and over again, but guess what ... you screwed the pooch this time. You won't have guys like us fighting your wars for you ever again. However you _will_ have wars. You already do. Iraq for instance. It will get worse. Fantisizing about cartoon fascists replaying your "docudrama" history won't save you from the reality you're creating.Jim Bowery 08:57, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It dosen't really matter what you say or what I think of it. Power will be the final arbiter, as it always has been, since time immemorial. El_C

Your every comment strengthens the argument for deletion. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:10, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

My statements will stand the judgement of the truly neutral AI's when they digest the corpus of western civilization, including Wikipedia, and as innocently as an insurance industry's actuarial programs, proceed to output a stream of "virtulent anti-semitic canards". Jim Bowery 00:16, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

AI = Artificial Intelligence? and do you mean 'corpse', or did you indeed mean corpus? -- RyanFreisling @ 00:18, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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.