The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was keep. — ξ ^xplicit 03:55, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Pass a Method/Christian POV on Wikipedia[edit]

This page is more harmful than useful. It constitutes race and religion baiting, serves to divide the community. We do not need a range of essays asserting pro- or anti- bias for every race, religion and culture. Moreover, Wikipedia is not a hosting provider, blogging platform or propaganda tool. If this is deleted so too should be the image File:North Korea can into finding of unicorn lair.png. Jehochman ^Talk 15:32, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The file was uploaded by a different editor and added to the essay by someone other than the main author of the essay. Its potential deletion should be considered separately at FFD. LadyofShalott 15:39, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is hosted at Commons so the discussion would have to take place there anyway. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 15:41, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nonono! Don't kill Mr. Sparkley pleeeease! He can into proving veracity of Pyongyang as capital city of Korea as well as Koguryo Kingdom! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:05, 8 December 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Keep This page has nothing to do with race. It is purely about religion and there are other similar articles about philosopical viewpoints (i.e. User:Lionelt/Countering liberal bias). I don't see hw it is hamrful and i am certainly not baiting anyone, many of my best friends are Christian or members of other Abrahamic religions, hence i dont see your point. Pass a Method talk 16:19, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete WP:BADIDEA / WP:POLEMIC / WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND / WP:OTHERCRAP etc. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:32, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see how suggesting another way of balancing POV is like putting beans in ones nose, or how it is creating a battlegroup for creating bias, nor how it is putting a non-notable article into namespace. (this is in userspace) ClaudeReigns (talk) 20:23, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's sad that the proposer sees this firstly as a race issue - it's patently got nothing to do with race - and that it serves to divide the community. The obvious goal is to remove the influence of a force that clearly divides the community, the imposition of one religious view on the encyclopaedia, to the exclusion of those who don't hold that view. THAT is divisive. I can only wonder what mindset leads to such an interpretation. HiLo48 (talk) 16:37, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't necessarily agree with all (he has some good points) but it is a page regarding the opinion of an editor on topic regarding the encyclopedia and how to build it, related to systemic bias. Correct usage of userspace. --Cyclopia ^talk 16:42, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (ec) - this essay points out a need for balance - within and among our articles - as perceived by its author. As countering systemic bias is an explicit goal, pointing out potential bias is incumbent upon editors who see it. (Can someone disagree with the perception? Sure, but that's not a reason to delete it.) LadyofShalott 16:45, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; the essay writer is quite wrong (just try reading pages on which mainstream science disagrees with these religions, for example), but that's no good reason to delete an essay. Essays basically need only to make sense (i.e. not gibberish) and to be written in good faith (no evidence that this is intentionally disruptive).Nyttend (talk) 18:21, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Are essays allowed to question Wikipedia policy? The essay criticizes "basing notability guidelines on adherence statistics". Now, I don't know what policy or guideline this is referring to exactly, but if the essay is suggesting that Wikipedia policy has a Christian POV, that goes far beyond pointing out systemic bias. Unless it's saying that the systemic bias runs so deep that the interest in how many people believe certain things stems from an obsession with numbers that is the result of a Christian POV. St Anselm (talk) 20:05, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No such policy exists, but some editors do interpret it that way. Pass a Method talk 20:15, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Are essays allowed to question Wikipedia policy?" Absolutely, especially in userspace: why shouldn't they? They're meant to represent viewpoints. --Cyclopia ^talk 20:19, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the obvious answer would be that for the good of the encyclopedia, criticism should be brought through the right channels - for example, on policy talk pages. St Anselm (talk) 05:21, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wikipedia is rightly concerned with avoiding systemic bias. Though I don't think the user has proven such a bias, the idea is worth being tossed around. We certainly should not suppress introspection. I think the fact that the user has opened up discussion demonstrates an openness to ideas. And that is what we're all about. ClaudeReigns (talk) 20:13, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Opportunities for commonality (version of 06:17, 7 December 2012) begins with these statements.

Wikipedia tries to find words that are common to all varieties of English. Insisting on a single term or a single usage as the only correct option does not serve the purposes of an international encyclopedia.

Similarly, the question of naming narratives that some people believe to be myths provides opportunities for commonality in article titles and in article text. The titles "Genesis creation narrative" and "Genesis flood narrative" are neutral in regard to whether the narratives are true or false. The same naming convention can be applied to beliefs of followers of any religion, without any disadvantage to believers in those two narratives.

The categories Category:Creation myths and Category:Flood myths can be Category:Creation narratives and Category:Flood narratives, without any disadvantage to anyone, and readers can decide what to believe and what to disbelieve.

See Matthew 7:12 and 1 Corinthians 9:20, 21, 22, 23.

—Wavelength (talk) 22:12, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to even look at what those links point to. The Bible is simply not a reliable source for anything. HiLo48 (talk) 22:30, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LOL Hilo. Pass a Method talk 22:49, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't really mean that as a joke. It's a serious point. There are two aspects. Firstly, Wikipedia cannot use the Bible as a source to support metaphysical and spiritual elements of its story, and secondly, the fact that there are so many different interpretations means that we cannot simply accept one of them. HiLo48 (talk) 23:02, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, especially in their own userspace. (If this were in the Wikipedia namespace it might be a problem.) Besides, it was only created like yesterday, and will probably become more refined with time.
On a separate note, I'm uncertain of the benefits of having redirects to this user page in the Wikipedia namespace. See WP:ABRAHAMICPOV, WP:CHRISTIANPOV, and WP:CPOV. These could potentially be misused to confuse newcomers who don't know the difference between a Wikipedia policy, guideline, essay, and a userspace essay. ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:33, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the WP: redirects being inappropriate. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:42, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Add Wikipedia:ADHERENCESTATS to the list of redirects. ~Adjwilley (talk) 02:04, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I would support the deletion of that as well. St Anselm (talk) 05:22, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Point of order Can this please be closed right now as not having a snowball's chance in hell of succeeding? It will only generate more heat rather than shine any light on potential improvements to Wikipedia. HiLo48 (talk) 22:37, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This essay is no more divisive than the general essay on systemic bias. Also, the associated image is hosted on commons, so any deletion request should be placed there. I am especially interested to hear how this essay is "race baiting", because this statement is totally incomprehensible to me. Shrigley (talk) 23:14, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is relevant to the project and has constructive objectives. To MfD it is essentially to stifle a policy debate. I don't see enough effort made to solve the problem through discussion. I also don't see much evidence of problems caused by the existance of the essay. Please use it's talk page, and escalated to an RfC if required. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:23, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is an essay voicing the thoughts of a user, and tries to illuminate upon what the user thinks is a pressing and important issue on Wikipedia. I don't agree with the logic behind the deletion discussion, because the essay doesn't appear to try to divide people's thoughts further than they already are. I can understand the sentiment that is trying to be interpreted with the phrases "race and religion baiting" and "essays asserting bias for... ever race, religion, and culture", because the nominatior is trying to speak in general terms; however, since the essay doesn't concern race, the rhetoric was askew for that reason. Therefore, since this essay is expressing valid points from the user in a reasonable fashion, and is not inherently trying to cause division or be detrimental to any one individual, group, practice, or institution, it should be kept. Backtable ^{Speak to me}_{concerning my deeds.} 23:30, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep For much of the same reasons as Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Lionelt/Countering_liberal_bias. For better or worse, there is current consensus that controversial or poor advice is allowed in userspace. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:41, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think that this is simply an issue that has to be worked out among editors at the Religion article. Why would one think we need a project-wide policy (OK—essay) on this matter? Yes, it comes up in various incarnations elsewhere. But we also have in my opinion a problem with instruction creep. True, it is only an essay, but if we create it, it will be referenced by editors. I don't think that's a good thing. I think issues such as this should be resolved close to where they arise. We have alternative resources that may be underused such as Requests for comment and Third opinion. Bus stop (talk) 00:12, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why should opinions on this matter be restricted to those almost exclusively religious people who play at the Religion article? That view effectively highlights the problem. HiLo48 (talk) 01:16, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to User:Pass a Method/Abrahamic religions POV on Wikipedia. Both the examples currently on the page (Genesis creation narrative and marginalisation of certain religions) apply to Judaism as well. Delete the redirects. St Anselm (talk) 00:29, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The page is in userspace, and does not contain any explicit personal attacks, copyright violations, gratuitous self-promotion, or similar problems, which so far as I understand are about the only reasons to delete pages in userspace. Having sait that, there is little if any rational basis for there to be redirects to a userspace page in other namespaces of wikipedia, and any and all of such probably should be deleted. John Carter (talk) 16:01, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The essay is a perfectly acceptable opinion/guideline piece on correcting a common problem with POV. On the other hand, the image is a daft bit of polemic. The latter should go, as it isn't conducive to building an encyclopedia. The former is fine, because it is. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:59, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The image? Or the caption I used with it? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:16, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Argh. I'd assumed the author was responsible. I don't think the comic is conducive to the essay, and it's on Commons anyway, so it should just be edited out. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 17:49, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Really that's an editorial decision that can be discussed on the talk page of the essay itself, rather than at AfD. (I'd also give a little more weight to the author of the essay in any such discussion, since it's their userspace that it's in.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:00, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why the last box of the cartoon says: "…go build more long-range missiles and burn the house". Bus stop (talk) 19:53, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hence my "argh". Let's just pretend I didn't opine on the comic. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 20:09, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bus Stop... I don't understand why reliable sources in the west reported in all seriousness that the North Korean News Service had claimed to have found the lair of a real (formerly) live unicorn. Makes you think, eh? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:47, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Serves to demonstrate through humor how marginalized viewpoints sometimes react to ridicule. Totally on topic and I could demonstrate how this applies to Wikipedia. However, I concur with Demiurge1000 as to giving weight to the opinion of the author. Let's not burn the house. ClaudeReigns (talk) 16:55, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As called for above, I closed this discussion as a snow keep. That was the right decision, but the issue of the redirects remains. I don't have a problem with them, but some editors do, so I'll encourage the closing administrator to consider that issue when the time comes. --BDD (talk) 00:05, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. User essays have considerable latitude, and this one has the noble goal of naming Christian biases on Wikipedia, though it begins and ends with the "narrative" versus "myth" issue, which makes it underwhelming. However, the cartoon might qualify as some sort of "advocacy"; I would compare it negatively with the silly Polandball (deleted article)-related cartoons that caused consternation in various places. I would very much like to see users have much wider rights to say what they think on their userpages, including material like this, and in any case I don't see it as a serious issue, but under current rules arguably someone could cut the cartoon as advocacy and tell him not to re-add it. Wnt (talk) 01:37, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The cartoon was added with the edit summary "add possibly relevant image - feel free to rmv it if it misses, or does not enhance, the point". The essay clearly says "Any editors are welcome to contribute to this piece", and yet no-one has seen fit to remove the cartoon, although a couple of editors have questioned it here. St Anselm (talk) 05:17, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't agree with it, not least because there are several non-Abrahamic religions with more adherents than all but the two largest Abrahamic religions. But deleting opinions that you disagree with is an ineffective way to dissent from them. Ϣere SpielChequers 15:03, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I specifically mentioned the demographics in english speaking countries where for instance in the US the top 3 largest religions are Abrahamic. Pass a Method talk 16:38, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A perfectly acceptable opinion on systemic bias in Wikipedia. Nothing offensive here, though the section on how to depict doctrines could use some work. Dimadick (talk) 16:29, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete biased against unicorns. Jehochman ^Talk 13:13, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're not supposed to !vote on your own deletion discussion (yep, I see it's ironic, still it is confusing). --Cyclopia ^talk 13:56, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry! Jehochman ^Talk 12:43, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It may be poor advice and the opposite position taken by the media and the general public that say's Wikipedia is written by atheist - Wikipedia is pro-atheist, anti-Catholic - but its not offensive - just someones opinion.Moxy (talk) 18:34, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting point about perceived bias, although we do not generally use forums as a reliable source. Can you back up your statement with something more substantial? If you can back up your statement, I might be forced to gleefully change my mind. My whole position rests on doing the best job WP can do to achieve a perception that we have done all we can to attain our neutrality goal. I am an atheist. ClaudeReigns (talk) 18:48, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The so called "liberal atheists" bias is a very old position and one of the reasons Conservapedia was made..There are many examples of bias in Wikipedia because it is edited primarily by liberal atheists who lack basic understanding of logic - Houston Chronicle March 18, 2007.Moxy (talk) 20:43, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At no point did i contrast Christianity with atheism. I'm only saying that Judeo-Christian faiths are treated differently than other religions. For example many religions have criticism in the lede of the article. This is not so for the main Abrahamic religions; nor at any point in their article history. Pass a Method talk 19:08, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We should follow precedent if set by sources. If sources treat some cultural entities in one way and treat other cultural entities in other ways, it is our obligation as an encyclopedia to try to adhere to the way in which these cultural entities are represented in the majority of good quality sources. Our role is to reflect what already exists outside of Wikipedia in the best quality sources that we can find, while allowing for mention of views that receive lesser representation in perhaps sources of lesser prominence. Our role is not to right great wrongs. Bus stop (talk) 20:18, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The point is surely that the sources will, at least in quantity, display exactly the same systemic bias. HiLo48 (talk) 20:45, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@ Bus stop, although you have a point about sources, there is still the issue about how wikipedians measure coverage in sources or how wikipedians interpret policy. Then there is the additional problem of conflicting sources.

@ Moxy, by that same logic one could mention that the Christian POV is one of the reasons Rationalwiki was created. Pass a Method talk 21:50, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You got it - no side of a real world debate is always happy with Wikipedia. This is the reason I believe both User:Pass a Method/Christian POV on Wikipedia and User:Lionelt/Countering liberal bias are fine to have.Moxy (talk) 22:04, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would be better to remove both, as well as any others in the same vein. We don't need general criticisms. Instead, make a specific list of articles and state what is wrong with each. I think actionable commentary is fine, but nebulous whinging is just a source of trouble. Jehochman ^Talk 12:45, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, in large part, I agree with Jehochman here, that both the Lionelt page and this page, and any similar, are to a degree really of dubious use here, and I wouldn't at all mind seeing a group nomination for any and all such pages. But I can't see selectively removing just one page of a number of related pages of this kind. John Carter (talk) 22:02, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sorry, I don't see any "race and religion baiting" here. It may be a bit overwrought but it's a reasonable opinion about the building of Wikipedia expressed in user space. —Tom Morris (talk) 02:03, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Deleting a page that raises the question of whether certain views are discouraged or encouraged here is a Very Poor Idea. In the RW, we'd call it an attempt at censorship. (I am not saying NOT CENSORED applies to WP space or User Space--I am saying a more general concept, that we, of all the possible groups in the world, as a group making an especially important and visible contribution to bringing freedom of expression into real applicability, ought to be especially tolerant of minority views about ourselves. DGG ( talk )
"CENSORSHIP!!" is not the right argument. Wikipedia is not a public space for free expression of any idea. The focus of Wikipedia is to write an encyclopedia, not a forum to Right Great Wrongs, nor is it a blogging platform. Wikipedia has NO religious POV whatsoever. If any articles are in poor condition because of religious POV, WP:SOFIXIT. The general commentary is not productive. If each religion's adherents make arguments that we're biased against them, that will just create a battlefield atmosphere. These discussions should be removed as irrelevant bickering, and the people participating in them should be politely asked to take such discussions to another website. Jehochman ^Talk 12:42, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that its preferable to fix problems with an article rather than prolonged dialogues. However, the problem is that when you do try fix a bias there is a horde of Christian editors opposing you. They are near impossible to overcome because they tend to have numbers on their side. It has reached the point where i've even had a Christian administrator on my back ever since I had a content dispute with him. I have seen similar friction accross many articles and accross various wikiprojects and this essay in my opinion shines light on the situation. Pass a Method talk 14:23, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Censorship is the argument. User space in WP is for any polite discussion or presentation of material that contributes to the making of the encyclopedia. (the wording of WP:USER is that "battleground[s] for unrelated matters are usually considered outside this criterion" -- thus a polemic on the superiority of one particular religion is inappropriate; a complaint of religious persecution in the RW is inappropriate--but a discussion of possible religious or political editing at WP is not inappropriate ) It's a very proper place for comments on current practices or tendencies. I use mine all the time both for statements of what I think our practices are, and what they should be--though I haven't made essay subpages, I've moved some of my talk archives into topical pages. I've made extended comments there about various biases at WP, and if I wanted to collect them into a formal essay, I might do so. If there is an overall bias, it probably needs to be discussed as a whole, not repeatedly on every individual article talk p. The are biases in WP. Some of them happen to agree with my own biases, some of them do not. I might even think some biases are necessary, just as arb com thought a bias towards a scientific POV in medical & scientific matters is necessary, I would expect a statement of them to get disagreement from people who do not hold them or think they do not exist.

I agree with only some parts of the views Pass a Method has on issues here. I agree that there is a slight Christian bias to our coverage of Christianity in contrast to other religions, though a good deal of this to do with the availability of RSs to the editors on work on this WP. Some of haas to do with our rules for RSs not being congruent with the normal manner of communication in some instances, such as a religion that does not use the western manner of formal publishing or relies upon oral tradition. I've argued for being flexible in our view of RSs in such cases, & I think it appropriate to do so on individual articles (which is whee I personally prefer to argue), but also in general discussions, and to have somewhere a statement of my own position on our current practices. But I do not in the least agree that there is a pro-Christian bias in any other respects. I think there is a distinct bias towards a vague form of religious disbelief, that in many cases amounts to definite atheism, and I think this bias is what affects our articles on religious topics--that the Christian or Islamic or Jewish POVs need to be expressed more fully, rather than treated as some have wanted to treat them, as fringe. As an example, belief in the reliability of the Gospels may be fringe in the liberal US/UK academic community, but not in the world in general; it's probably a minority position outside the US, but not to the extent of fringe, & it is certainly not fringe in the US. (Some people may think people should generally reject it and regard it as fringe, but that's their own religious advocacy) I have my own view of the matter, which I think I have been careful not to state here, but regardless of what it might be, in terms of editing, I edit to correct the bias in WP and have so argued at many AfDs & other discussions on individual articles, & could equally well do it generally or in a statement. I would probably therefore directly oppose Pass's position on many articles. (It is not uncommon for the advocates of one position to think things biased against them: the liberals in the US think the general US media too conservative; the conservatives think it too liberal.) To use one of Pass's examples, , I always argue for inclusion of material presenting and explaining a religious text on its own terms, before discussing its accuracy or validity:, for we cannot rationally criticize what we do not understand.

I similarly generally argue for inclusion of material or articles about small religious (or political) groups, with the purpose of providing information about the diversity of human thought, which is another place I agree with Pass. I'll look forward to discussing all these issues with him, but not here, of course. I only include this to illustrate the basis for my position, and that it is not related to any RW religious ideology. It is related to a bias I do openly express on my user page, "an extremely strong opinion that the uninhibited free play of ideas is essential to a free society and to humanity in general." This applies within an organization also, There are some distinctions: an organization normally has an explicit purpose, and the ideas discussed within it can be limited to matters related to that purpose--considering the purpose in as broad terms as possible; and an organization is by definition people working together more closely than they do in the world at large, and therefore can and usually should restrict the manner of discussion accordingly. There's the additional distinction that an organization needs to prevent itself from disruption -- and I am very wary of this, for it is the argument political societies always use for censorship--and such prevention needs to be done only against actual and dangerous disruption, not disruption that is trivial, or vague and speculative.

I therefore use the word censorship, for thinking the discussion or presentation of the ideas harmful to the WP is excessive precaution--they have not caused disruption, let alone disruption dangerous to the encyclopedia , nor are they about to do so. Guarding against perceived threats like this is analogous to political censorship. DGG ( talk ) 18:01, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
David, thank you for your multifaceted and thoughtful views. What would be more valuable than the essay in present form would be a thoughtful essay identifying possible causes of religious bias and what to do about them, including specific examples. That would be constructive criticism. Perhaps the essay should incorporate some of your comments so that it moves in a more productive direction. Simply writing an inditement of Wikipedia and it's editors, with a virtual call to arms, is definitely unhelpful. I believe a discussion such as the one on this page can lead to a more nuanced result than merely delete or keep. The consensus I see emerging here seems to be no need to delete, but this essay could take a better approach. Jehochman ^Talk 20:40, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A major test for WP:UP#NOT is whether the user page content relates to Wikipedia or is unrelated to Wikipedia. This page relates to Wikipedia. Those proposing to delete the page avoid this fact in their arguments because they know their WP:UP arguments are weak once you consider that the page content relates to Wikipedia. The page also meets Wikipedia:Wikipedia essays as a user essay, which are "often authored by only one person, and may represent a strictly personal viewpoint about Wikipedia". I think the essay is wrong because Wikipedia articles merely reflect the reliable sources and English language reliable sources have a Judeo-Christian/Abrahamic bias. Wikipedia articles are here to provide a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature. If a representative survey of the relevant literature shows that the relevant literature has a bias, then WP:NPOV requires Wikipedia to reflect that bias in the Wikipedia article. If the problem were a systemic Judeo-Christian/Abrahamic WP:NPOV bias on many Wikipedia articles, then that should be addressed. However, the essay's proposal to fix "the systemic Judeo-Christian/Abrahamic bias on many Wikipedia articles" is a proposal to go against WP:NPOV, making the page a strictly personal viewpoint about Wikipedia. Since the page meets WP:UP and user essay, keep. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:38, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree with your conclusion, I don't agree with your argument. If the English-language reliable resources have a particular bias, then we need to get other language reliable sources to reduce the bias, not to advance a POV. LadyofShalott 14:52, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I posted the argument, "If a representative survey of the relevant literature shows that the relevant literature has a bias, then WP:NPOV requires Wikipedia to reflect that bias in the Wikipedia article." You presented a different position, "If the English-language reliable resources have a particular bias, then we need to advance a POV." You then disagreeded with that different position and then concluded that you do not agree with my argument. See strawman 101. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 16:38, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You did in fact focus on English-language sources: "I think the essay is wrong because Wikipedia articles merely reflect the reliable sources and English language reliable sources have a Judeo-Christian/Abrahamic bias." LadyofShalott 16:48, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to disagree with the last comment above, at least in part. There have been some very notable works which have been described in independent reliable sources as being not written with a Judeo-Christian bias. Both the Eliade/Jones Encyclopedia of Religion, and I think, the Brill Religion Past and Present had both article selection and author selection handled by multiple editors in an editorial board, and, although I cannot be sure of this having not checked, I am not sure that those included in those boards were Judeo-Christian, or, even, if they themselves came from Western countries. I also note that at least the first of those two has received high commendations in reviews for its lack of Judeo-Christian "bias." I do think that trying to find such sources which are highly regarded for neutrality in these matters, as well as any sources which specifically deal solely with groups outside of the Judeo-Christian context, would be a very good idea. I am, off an on, working on doing that myself, but, well, I regret to say that time constraints probably make most of us much less productive than we would likely want to be in all of our fields of interests. John Carter (talk) 21:08, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can draw many similarities between my essay and other essays: User:Antandrus/observations on Wikipedia behavior also mentions user bias, User:Animum/WikiAtheism mentions religion, User:Deacon of Pndapetzim/How to win a revert war mentions biases in a humorous way (like my image), User:Heimstern/Wikipedia is going to suck sometimes mentions POV-pushers getting the upperhand etc. Feedback here should look at other essays too Pass a Method talk 16:45, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia is culturally biased, but in an atheist/agnostic direction. The NPOV policy does work towards this, and this is a direct attempt to subvert the NPOV policy - but at least it's in the open. Pass a method puts a light on to this sort of maneuvering and gaming, better than the mailing lists that are going around. Also some of it's (unintentionally) funny. For example an argument that "neopagan" religions are older than Christianity or Islam. Of course the definition of neo is... JASpencer (talk) 20:33, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Witless, hmm i think thats another way of saying "you're unintelligent". Pass a Method talk 21:30, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.