Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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: delete. The consensus of the discussion is that this essay took a WP:BATTLEGROUND approach that is inappropriate for Wikipedia essays. There was some support for re-using the title as a redirect elsewhere, but not a clear consensus, so I leave that for editors to pursue if they wish. RL0919 ( talk) 05:37, 1 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia:No bigots

Wikipedia:No bigots ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)​

Requested by User:IZAK at the talk page of the essay, which does not seem to be the proper avenue for a deletion request. tgeorgescu ( talk) 12:58, 24 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Bigot is an uncivil word, this essay should be deleted
  • Delete since WP at Wiktionary [1] defines bigot in English as a noun meaning: "1. One who is narrow-mindedly devoted to one's own ideas and groups, and intolerant of (people of) differing ideas, races, genders, religions, politics, etc. 2. (obsolete) One who is overly pious in matters of religion, often hypocritically or else superstitiously so." as it can apply to ANY type of person or POV not just "religious" bigots. There are thus ideological bigots, racial bigots, gender bigots, and not just religious bigots. Thus, for example, definitely a Marxist, Freudian or Darwinian fanatic can easily be as big a bigot as a religious bigot, and therefore this essay written by tgeorgescu's who has an anti-religion POV aiming his attacks at any religion, its texts, personalities and ideas fails WP:NPOV, WP:CIVIL, WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND, and he fails the WP:SPIDERMAN test! As he likes to say, he can spout his views on his own personal blog, but he should not be allowed to create controversial essays using insulting words on WP and then use them in the guise of so-called fixed WP "policies" to bludgeon away in WP:IDONTLIKE fashion at opponents holding differing POVs to his. Thank you, IZAK ( talk) 04:16, 24 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. 04:44, 24 August 2021 (UTC) IZAK ( talk) 04:44, 24 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. 04:48, 24 August 2021 (UTC) IZAK ( talk) 04:48, 24 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. 04:54, 24 August 2021 (UTC) IZAK ( talk) 04:54, 24 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. 04:57, 24 August 2021 (UTC) IZAK ( talk) 04:57, 24 August 2021 (UTC) reply
And User:Claritas. tgeorgescu ( talk) 07:36, 24 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Standing by what one has said previously does not equate to endorsement of this after-the-fact essay. — C.Fred ( talk) 17:21, 24 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete the language in the essay comes off as uncivil and is non neutral with a certain POV. Plus the essay is just way too long and hard to navigate through.
Not to mention it relies too much on quoting other users instead of trying to make its point.
Also if we should have a essay about criticism towards religion or explain to religious editors about our policy on religion. We should probably have write in a way that uses more formal language. CycoMa ( talk) 05:27, 24 August 2021 (UTC) reply
    • Again, bigots are being treated harshly here at Wikipedia. But this is certainly not something I have invented, but merely described. I called a spade a spade, that's my only fault. As Thomas Szasz stated in The Second Sin, speaking clearly was the second major sin of mankind: some people cannot bear clear and straightforward explanations of long-standing practice. There is nothing uncivil in stating that people who deface articles in religious history are unwelcome around here. They are unwelcome regardless of what I say and do. tgeorgescu ( talk) 06:39, 24 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Tgeorgescu I’m sensing some WP:BLUD going on here. CycoMa ( talk) 06:39, 24 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Wait tgeorgescu: 1 did you just WP:PING EIGHTEEN (count them!) other editors? that's a clear case of WP:CANVASSING! Or don't these rules apply to you when you feel like it. 2 You know tgeorgescu with all your essays you are overstepping WP:NOTFORUM for your POV, which I respect, but honestly now, we all got the point already with your famous essay Wikipedia:Academic bias with it's favorite part WP:CHOPSY starting in 2013! 3 Now you are branching out to clobber more religious enemies (mainly, you pick almost exclusively on Hebrew Bible topics that WP:IDONTLIKEIT, I hardly ever see you picking on Muslim Koran or Hindu Vedas ones!?) with this essay ( Wikipedia:No bigots) that you launched in 2019 and have added to until this very time (2021). I have not been through your editorial history, but there may be more essays that I have not seen yet, but I am sure they all say the same thing: Down with religion, down with its texts, down with its heroes etc etc etc. 4 You know, what you are trying to do is squeeze 20 years of pretty normal functioning on Wikipedia and trying to distill and DICTATE to everyone within earshot that "This is an essay on the role of Wikipedia"! in one fell swoop abrogating for yourself the role of who, what, where, how, and why WP is all about? In Yiddish we call this Chutzpa! You set up for yourself what is NPOV in WP: "This is an essay on the neutral point of view policy" in Wikipedia:Academic bias, WHY? Is the tried, true and tested WP:NPOV that has worked so well in need of "repairs"? 5 Why do you have to re-combobulate what Wikipedia is with grand statements like "This is an essay on the role of Wikipedia" you are thus taking on yourself to assert that Wikipedia:Five pillars' "is not enough" because you have a WP:WAR to fight! FIVE PILLARS is not enough for you, no, we must have six pillars, seven pillars, eight pillars, as many as the emperor can squeeze out of his prolific pen when in fact wherever you show up you make your own POV very clear and you quite ably edit in the way you see fit, which is your right. But it is not your God-given right to set yourself up as the WP "law-giver" of your own agenda. 6 You then use your essays to back YOURSELF up when in conflict with editors who disagree with your POV and you make it seem like your are "quoting policy" when it's just an essay or two that you have been driven to write up to back yourself up when in a bind. 7 Think it over and Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass to quote an old funny essay, your are resorting to overkill, especially when you violate civil discourse by saying you are crushing people you disagree with "like ants run over by a bulldozer" or constantly kicking people out of WP by "showing people the door" or taking pride in trampling on the personal religious beliefs of other editors in violation of WP:CIVIL. 8 That is why I first suggested cutting this essay down by 3/4 but now it just shows WP is an exclusive elite as if to say: No wise people allowed from other religions or systems of thought is the message you send out to potential editors (with the WP:CHOPSY clause as well and as mush as you love it, it is sheer snobbery from your Ivory tower and gilded cage). So let's leave the golden policies of WP:NPOV and WP: Five pillars alone, they don't need improvement or fixing! Sincerely, IZAK ( talk) 08:39, 24 August 2021 (UTC) reply
    • Canvassing spoke the man who has e-mailed Debresser about this deletion request. You want to delete the statements of 18 other editors, don't you think they have the right to know about it? The burden of proof is upon you that they have recanted their statements.
The statement about only needing the five pillars does apply to all essays about the role of Wikipedia or just to mine?
You purposefully misconstrue how I defined the term bigot in this essay: not only being an enemy of higher criticism, but also trolling/defacing religious history articles (yes, both requirements have to apply, according to this essay).
So, what do I mean by that word? I mean people who write stuff like The whole topic is POV. It should be re-written from scratch if you want it to be NPOV. "YKVKism" is not a real religion. It should be under an article called "Blblical criticism theory". If you act like it's fact, then all Anti-Bible stuff should be off of article on Biblical books. Nazi Hitlerist theories can get on their pages and Jewish theology can get its own page. Separate but equal if you believe in segregation. tgeorgescu ( talk) 14:13, 24 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • In my opinion, if the concerns that have been raised, and with which I agree (as I wrote in these edits above), will not be dealt with, and I guess that is not going to happen, then this essay should be deleted or moved to userspace. Debresser ( talk) 08:55, 24 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Polemic, uncivil, wall of text clusterfuck bad duplicate of Wikipedia:Don't be a WikiBigot. MarshallKe ( talk)
  • Delete or (second choice) Userfy. I expected to see a variant of WP:NONAZIS but instead it's claiming that Wikipedia calls all religious believers who dispute academic work on religion (e.g. scholarly criticism) bigots? Da heck? I'm honestly not sure if this is meant ironically or unironically. Regardless, it doesn't have a place in Wikipedia space. It's possible that material in this essay could be used for an even handed essay (if drastically cut down, and the point made plainly and simply rather than cloaked in not-sure-it's-ironic phrasing), but such an essay probably wouldn't be called "No bigots". It should be "Wikipedia should take religious viewpoints more seriously" or "NPOV means putting experts centrally in articles, even ones on religion" or the like depending on what the actual point being made is. SnowFire ( talk) 16:16, 24 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. This essay does not belong in WP-space, and IMO, it does not belong on Wikipedia anywhere. First, Christianity is not the only religion where this is an issue; I know it comes up a lot with Islam, I've seen it happen with Hinduism, and it probably comes up in every religion up to and including Pastafarianism. There are times, like MOS:LDS and MOS:PBUH, where it's a style issue and is handled in the MOS for project consistency, but that's not the case here. Second, if we're going to set up some kind of guideline, it would best be addressed within WP:RS and clarifying when primary religious texts can be used as sources, and the (probably longer) list of times when they cannot. Finally, anything in WP should be in the broader voice of the project, and I read a lot of this essay as addressing a particular interaction between the primary contributor and another party. — C.Fred ( talk) 17:35, 24 August 2021 (UTC) reply
    • You may rephrase the essay as you wish, but of course there is a ban on fundamentalist POV-pushing. Some editors are afraid of writing it in plain speak. And of course it isn't a new rule. tgeorgescu ( talk) 18:55, 25 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete POV anti-religious rant by an editor who arguably meets the definition quoted at the top rather well: "One who is narrow-mindedly devoted to one's own ideas and groups, and intolerant of (people of) differing ideas...". Johnbod ( talk) 17:56, 24 August 2021 (UTC) reply
I have never stated that every faithful believer is a bigot. tgeorgescu ( talk) 11:10, 25 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Tgeorgescu buddy you been here for like 19 years. You should know about neutral point of view. Sure fringe ideas shouldn’t be treated as legit arguments. But your essay comes off biting newbies. CycoMa ( talk) 14:04, 25 August 2021 (UTC) reply
See? The IP who wrote that got blocked for two weeks. So regardless of this essay, admins already act for a long time like they believe bigots should be blocked from editing. tgeorgescu ( talk) 14:07, 25 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Can you link to that? Also I’m not sure having bigoted beliefs in itself is blockable. CycoMa ( talk) 14:10, 25 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Special:Contributions/96.245.77.253. My critics display a poor reading comprehension of the way wherein I defined what a bigot means for Wikipedia: I do not mean faithful believers, I mean fundamentalists who troll and deface religious history articles.
If one is not a POV-pusher, they are not a bigot in the meaning of this essay. tgeorgescu ( talk) 14:19, 25 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Tgeorgescu in the essay you said stuff like this. Fundamentalist POV-pushers are a problem in religion articles and somebody has to tell them clearly that they do not belong here.
If proclaiming your true believer's POV in hard-core encyclopedias like Britannica, Iranica and Judaica stands the chances of a snowball in hell, then your POV is not welcome here. Mind your own business and go to Conservapedia, New World Encyclopedia or OrthodoxWiki.
Judging by these statements you are clearly trying to push some editors away. Have you ever considered that these editors are new and don’t know how Wikipedia runs. Please read in on WP:BITE. If new users are giving you issues maybe ask for help or something instead of pushing people away. CycoMa ( talk) 14:32, 25 August 2021 (UTC) reply
When I was new to Wikipedia I remember you sending me a link to this essay. I was in my teens do you really think an essay like this is okay for a new user or a teenager. CycoMa ( talk) 14:40, 25 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This essay is here only to be used by one particular user to bludgeon well-meaning but inexperienced editors who are learning the ropes of editing Wikipedia. Enough is enough. Rusdo ( talk) 00:00, 25 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Userfy - An interesting personal viewpoint that doesn't need to be expunged. Robert McClenon ( talk) 02:11, 25 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND- Wikipedia isn't the place to vent personal grudges. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 14:31, 25 August 2021 (UTC) reply
    • Battleground? Admins already behave like they bought into my essay. If one wants to use other words to explain their behavior, that is okay with me. But bigots still need to be told what to expect from admins. tgeorgescu ( talk) 14:42, 25 August 2021 (UTC) reply
WP:BLUD CycoMa ( talk) 14:45, 25 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The elephant in the room is that Wikipedia admins were never tolerant of bigoted POV-pushing. tgeorgescu ( talk) 14:51, 25 August 2021 (UTC) reply
I’m pretty sure they aren’t tolerant of experienced users trying to push away new and inexperienced editors away either. CycoMa ( talk) 14:52, 25 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Well, if one abstains from bigoted POV-pushing, I welcome them back to the Community. However, due to ingrained personally traits, in the real world very few bigots recant from pushing bigoted POVs. E.g. Karma1998 had an unexpected change of mind, and I did not bother them since. But deconversions like that rarely happen. tgeorgescu ( talk) 15:01, 25 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Buddy you don’t own Wikipedia nor are you an admin. You don’t just say “I welcome back into the community”
Also I don’t think you understand what a bigot even is. Being a religious POV pusher isn’t okay on Wikipedia but, it’s not bigoted. Stop with distorting language to justify your made up rules. CycoMa ( talk) 15:06, 25 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The whole point which I tried to explain over and over: I am not advocating for new rules. tgeorgescu ( talk) 15:07, 25 August 2021 (UTC) reply
You keep saying stuff like how you will welcome certain users back into the community. Unless your an admin or own Wikipedia you have no power over who is welcomed here or not. You act like you are the owner of all religion articles. Please read WP:OWN. CycoMa ( talk) 15:12, 25 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is an Omnipticon: everybody oversees everybody else; admins have been simply empowered to solve problems which are usually reported by ordinary users. tgeorgescu ( talk) 15:15, 25 August 2021 (UTC) reply
You are NOT obligated to report anyone to admins (see WP:IGNOREALLRULES), you can deal with problems yourself. In all my years on WP I don't think I have ever run to any type of ANI admin noticeboard to report another problematic editor, and believe me I have faced many problem editors on WP! Yes, I have nominated articles for deletion, as I am doing now, but unlike you I am a WP Inclusionist, see this on Metawiki and I welcome input from all editors and I do not subject them to a politically correct litmus test. Also, take note of WP:NOTBURO where it says, inter alia, "While Wikipedia has many elements of a bureaucracy, it is not governed by statute: it is not a quasi-judicial body, and rules are not the purpose of the community." So your "job" as an editor is not to act as if you are in charge of WP's "ideology" nor to "report" bad editors to the "police"/admins for judgement/"execution"! Just contribute good content to the encyclopedia with following the golden WP rules of WP:RS and WP:NOR. IZAK ( talk) 19:54, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete this essay, written in unencyclopedic and accusatory language, does not have anything to do with Wikipedia. It is simply a personal revenge of @ Tgeorgescu: toward those who disagree with him and openly privileges some scholars (Ehrman, Spong) to others, dismissing all the opponents of the formers as "fundamentalists", despite the fact that both have received criticism from mainstream scholarship as well. I would like to point out to everyone that this is not RationalWiki, nor Vridar, nor Richard Carrier's personal blog. This is an encyclopedia that deals with scholars, including evangelical scholars if they are considered mainstream (like Craig A. Evans): we don't refuse someone's opinion only because of its religion or faith. Therefore, I vote for deletion.-- Karma1998 ( talk) 15:56, 25 August 2021 (UTC) reply

    • Ask anyone who edits in this area: scholars following a non-mainstream, fundamentalist view are regularly removed from Wikipedia. -- Ermenrich ( talk) 00:53, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Quoted by tgeorgescu ( talk) 18:08, 25 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Umm tgeorgescu, you and Ermenrich don't get it, editors are NOT removed from Wikipedia for their own POV's, because only violating the rules and policies of WP is a reason to be sanctioned or blocked. You, and Ermenrich, are again conflating YOUR own specific very strict POV with WP's policies when they are NOT the same thing. IZAK ( talk) 20:08, 25 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Again: I am not advocating for new rules. tgeorgescu ( talk) 20:11, 25 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Hello! That's the problem, you don't get what you are doing! You have somehow conflated what you personally think with what WP is really all about, just read the comments of those above. IZAK ( talk) 20:14, 25 August 2021 (UTC) reply
It might surprize you: WP:NOBIGOTS and WP:CHOPSY are not about new rules. Nowhere therein it is stated Let's adopt a whole new policy/guideline. tgeorgescu ( talk) 20:16, 25 August 2021 (UTC) reply
WP:CHOPSY (although it comes off as snobby and shoots itself in the foot by excluding great scholars from non-universities) I can see the logic of as it's needed to protect WP from a lot of nutty theories. But WP:NOBIGOTS is just a spiteful piece of nonsense. We already have WP:NOTFREESPEECH (as it says there: "The fact that Wikipedia is an open, self-governing project does not mean that any part of its purpose is to explore the viability of anarchist communities. Our purpose is to build an encyclopedia, not to test the limits of anarchism.") And WP:NOTOPINION (as it says there: "content hosted in Wikipedia is not for: Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, scientific, religious, national, sports-related, or otherwise.") Furthermore, WP:NOTFORUM (as it says there: "do not use Wikipedia for any of the following: Primary (original) research, such as proposing theories and solutions, original ideas, defining terms, coining new words, etc") and many such examples of tried and true meaningful WP policies that are more than sufficient to fight bigots and and other misfits. So your essay is not adding anything and you should rather look to how you can apply existing WP policies that are very effective to do just what you think "needs fixing". IZAK ( talk) 20:29, 25 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Your contention that these essays are aimed at fixing policies and guidelines is pulled out of thin air. The text does not claim anywhere that the policies and guidelines need fixing. You don't realize that these essays aim at explaining existing rules rather than at creating new rules.
I could describe the life from Communist Romania; it does not mean that I have invented Communism. The inventor of the CHOPSY-based encyclopedia is Jimmy Wales, not me. I only explained what he invented. tgeorgescu ( talk) 20:34, 25 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Again with the same problem, you keep conflating yourself with Jimmy Wales, who by the way did not invent all the policies of WP as you well know, they were incrementally over the years by balanced and knowledgeable editors. IZAK ( talk) 20:47, 25 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Tgeorgescu even if you weren’t inventing new rules there are still tons of more issues me and other editors are having.
Like one other user in this discussion mentioned how you how you are calling religious editors who disagree with academia bigots. Calling those people bigots is wrong and uncivil. Especially if those were newbies.
How you worded your essay is extremely unwelcoming to people who aren’t aware how Wikipedia works. I have seen you link this essay to newbies I mean you even linked it to me when I was new to this website.
I mean how do you expect new editors to change their ways if you say things like fundamentalists don’t belong here or go to conservatipedia. CycoMa ( talk) 20:42, 25 August 2021 (UTC) reply
What you don't realize: CHOPSY and NOBIGOTS are the de facto standard of Wikipedia. Would you tell about it to new editors in plain speak or hide it under the carpet? tgeorgescu ( talk) 20:44, 25 August 2021 (UTC) reply
I'm not conflating myself with Wales. Do you agree that the de facto standard of Wikipedia is that fundamentalist POV-pushing is banned? Yes or no? tgeorgescu ( talk) 20:51, 25 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Does Jimmy Wales even know you made that essay? Also what gives you the idea that you and your essays are de facto? You are just a typical editor just like me and everyone in this discussion.
Also didn’t IZAK mention something about how you want to set up more pillars. You saying NOBIGOTS is a de facto gives off the impression you are trying to create more pillars to make Wikipedia articles align more with your views. CycoMa ( talk) 21:03, 25 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Hello, so now you downgrading your essays to " de facto' status, good line! As I said, WP:CHOPSY is useful in keeping fringe theories out of WP (not mainstream Christian and Jewish religious thought that you like to gratuitously and obsessively attack in violation of WP:OWN), however WP:NOBIGOTS is just one big stick to knock down editors, especially the newbies that are complaining that you violate Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers with it. But bottom line, get it out of your head that you are either a "de facto" or "de jure" "spokesperson" for WP. You need to step back and just see yourself as a regular plain editor who only represents himself, nothing more and nothing less. IZAK ( talk) 20:55, 25 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Did you read what C.Fred wrote above? They do not even try to deny that fundamentalist POV-pushing is a real problem, for various religions. tgeorgescu ( talk) 20:58, 25 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Reality check: Are you even reading what others are saying here? Or are you stuck in some twilight zone suffering from momentary cognitive dissonance. You have over-reached with this personal essay of yours. I have already pointed out the various strict policies within Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not that should discourage and remove ANY bigots, be they religious or irreligious. IZAK ( talk) 21:06, 25 August 2021 (UTC) reply
So you do agree that fundamentalist POV-pushing is banned. Then why don't you write an essay to that extent? Of course, you would not be creating any new rule. tgeorgescu ( talk) 21:09, 25 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Depends how you define "fundamentalist" -- I know how YOU do: ANYTHING from Christian and Jewish traditional Bible study is "fundamentalist" while you don't see how your own POV Wikipedia:Edit warring does not help WP. For example, you never battle Hindu texts or Muslim texts the way you battle Christian and Jewish religious texts, you are are focused on destroying ideas that (you) WP:IDONTLIKE that creates an atmosphere of WP:BATTLEGROUND whenever you are around editing those subjects you focus on. This bellicose and pugnacious. i.e. WP:UNCIVIL sense, intention, feeling, tone comes through loud and clear in your WP:NOBIGOTS personal essay and that is why it unsuitable as some kind of representation of WP's "voice" as you like to put it. IZAK ( talk) 21:24, 25 August 2021 (UTC) reply
C.Fred said this Standing by what one has said previously does not equate to endorsement of this after-the-fact essay. CycoMa ( talk) 21:12, 25 August 2021 (UTC) reply
You also stated that as a newbie you did not know that fundamentalist POV-pushing is banned. But the general agreement seems to be that it is banned. Don't like the essay? Rewrite it with gentler words instead of deleting it. tgeorgescu ( talk) 21:14, 25 August 2021 (UTC) reply
POV pushing in itself is ban-able. Also I never once said I didn’t know it wasn’t.
Also how do you expect us to rewrite an essay that’s too broken. Even if I replaced harsh language with gentler language there is more issues with it. The name of the essay is odd, it’s full of walls of text, it’s hard to navigate through, and tons more. It would probably be best to rewrite the whole thing and start over. CycoMa ( talk) 21:20, 25 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Traditional religion is neither modernist, nor fundamentalist. Fundamentalism in an answer to (rejection of) modernity. So, we may only speak of fundamentalism after the beginning of modernity. E.g. fundamentalist Islam considers that pictures of Muhammad are banned, but that's not what traditional Islam considered. The rejection of such pictures happened only after the modernity began. tgeorgescu ( talk) 17:35, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Actually that typically sweeping statement is a good deal more untrue than true - see Aniconism in Islam. Johnbod ( talk) 19:12, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The discourse is far more complex but modernity had a clear role to play: Christiane Gruber has fascinating scholarship on this locus. TrangaBellam ( talk) 14:20, 27 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Yes, and she doesn't say anything like what he said. The main impact of modernity was that wealthy Muslims stopped commissioning illuminated manuscripts, always the almost exclusive location of such images. So production reduced almost to nothing. Johnbod ( talk) 15:08, 27 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Close this MfD with keep I've killed my darlings. There is now just a short statement that fundamentalist POV-pushing is banned and three shortcuts to what POV-pushing means. tgeorgescu ( talk) 21:22, 25 August 2021 (UTC) reply
    • This MfD hasn't even been open for one week, you are jumping the gun and your an interested party with a WP:COI. IZAK ( talk) 21:27, 25 August 2021 (UTC) reply
He blanked much of the essay on NOBIGOTS. CycoMa ( talk) 21:29, 25 August 2021 (UTC) reply
He's not allowed to do that in the middle of a deletion discussion!!! He must await the WP:CONSENSUS of this MfD. What does the closing admin say? Very troubling! IZAK ( talk) 21:31, 25 August 2021 (UTC) reply
You accused me of over-reach, now over-reach is gone. If admins do not trust me, they should protect the essay from being edited. tgeorgescu ( talk) 21:32, 25 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The content of the essay already revealed its purpose, reducing it in size does not solve the problem it only makes it worse, because now it can be cited by you and you will then pile on with the material you edited out as its "explanation" the word "bigots" itself is not WP:CIVIL and as I have pointed out WP:NOT is comprehensive and clear enough to keep out any type of bigot in any case. IZAK ( talk) 21:39, 25 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Neither me nor you decide this matter. That's something for the admin who closes this discussion. tgeorgescu ( talk) 21:45, 25 August 2021 (UTC) reply
You blanked the page before the deletion discussion was closed, which is a big no-no since there are rules governing Wikipedia:Blanking before a final decision was made. I suggest you revert yourself to the full version of WP:NOBIGOTS so the closing admin can see what other editors here are talking about. You cannot set yourself up as the " judge, jury and executioner" of yourself as if you are a "de facto" admin! IZAK ( talk) 22:55, 25 August 2021 (UTC) reply
I do not have the power to delete the editing history of the essay. Your criticism is now that I took your criticism to the heart...
And that's all I found about it: Repeated, unnecessary page blanking may get a user blocked indefinitely.
I don't know why you think that I have engaged in repeated blanking.
It also wasn't unnecessary blanking, but a sincere answer to criticism.
To answer your accusation: yes, I may use wise words written by other editors, regardless of whether the essay is kept or deleted. So keeping the essay will have absolutely no effect thereupon. tgeorgescu ( talk) 23:58, 25 August 2021 (UTC) reply
I was NOT accusing you of "repeated blanking" as I know that you do abide by the rules of WP (you have summoned plenty of editors to various types of ANI complaint forums to get your way and you usually do) but this time you did something that is almost never done during a deletion discussion, and there are often-times deletion-discussion templates that include advice not to blank a page that is up for a deletion review. And it is fortunate that you do not have the power to delete the edit history of the subject, so that leaves a record of what you wrote in the edit history. Furthermore, what is to stop you one day down the line to decide all on your own to revert yourself back to the full version of the essay when you feel like? And as I have explained to you the word "bigots" is too abrasive and quite unnecessary as WP has enough policy to deal with all sorts of misfits and miscreants already. And, in what sense does a one-line sentence an "essay" make? A Sentence (linguistics) doth not an essay make. IZAK ( talk) 02:54, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Because I asked nicely that the essay be protected from editing, indefinitely? tgeorgescu ( talk) 09:26, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Where did you ask this? I'm not sure what you are talking about. IZAK ( talk) 19:38, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • NOTE TO CLOSING ADMIN: please see the full essay here [2] and please see introductory discussion that led up to this MfD at Wikipedia talk:No bigots#Suggestion; Cut this essay down by 3/4 at least where its author tgeorgescu was requested to trim down the essay to reasonable length, that he adamantly refused alleging all sorts of reasons to keep it at its full unabridged length. Now, following the onset of this MfD discussion that tgeorgescu sees is not going his way, without any warning he chops it down to ONE SENTENCE with his main goal to brand ONLY "fundamentalist" [3] i.e. agreeing that religious [4] POV editors that he does not like as: "The general agreement is that religious POV-pushing is banned. POV-pushing is defined at WP:NPOV, WP:ACTIVIST, and WP:ADVOCACY." First of all, one sentence is not an "essay"! Otherwise everyone will start putting up their pet slogan as an "essay" as a rider to or even as a possible future "policy". Second of all, the sentence tgeorgescu has saved contains in it the already existing and effective longstanding WP policy of WP:NPOV, and the good essays: WP:ACTIVIST, and WP:ADVOCACY that are just fine in fighting potential "bigots" of all stripes, so there no point in adding one-sentence repetition that targets just one class of bigots, the religious ones, placing religious bigots on a higher negative "order" than racial bigots, ideological bigots, anti-Semitic bigots etc, and if allowed to stand then it will spawn silly one-sentence "essays" like: "The general agreement is that RACIST POV-pushing is banned. POV-pushing is defined at WP:NPOV, WP:ACTIVIST, and WP:ADVOCACY." Or "The general agreement is that POLITICAL POV-pushing is banned. POV-pushing is defined at WP:NPOV, WP:ACTIVIST, and WP:ADVOCACY. Or "The general agreement is that ANTISEMITIC POV-pushing is banned. POV-pushing is defined at WP:NPOV, WP:ACTIVIST, and WP:ADVOCACY." etc. Finally,tgeorgescu can't have his way all the time, meaning having it both ways: He gets to decide that his longer essay version must stay and then change his mind in the middle of this MfD and say his minuscule sentence must stay, when neither are any good at this point by the WP:CONSENSUS here thus far. Thank you, IZAK ( talk) 02:54, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Userfy. or Rename. I would've said to delete since it was pretty reaching for projectspace, but I'm more fine with the contents as it stands now. Regardless, the title should be changed to something more neutral sounding. – MJL  ‐Talk‐ ☖ 02:52, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Note that tgeorgescu has chopped the essay down to a single sentence and CycoMa has made an edit [5] (their only edit to this page) changing "fundamentalist" to "religious". While I still support redirect to Wikipedia:Don't be a WikiBigot or second choice delete for reasons stated above, I would advise everyone involved in this discussion to take a chill pill MarshallKe ( talk) 12:02, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
    • @ MarshallKe: Thanks for pointing out Wikipedia:Don't be a WikiBigot written very well and in good English and it's very clear: "on bigotry, the state of mind of a bigot: someone who, as a result of their prejudices, treats or views other people with fear, distrust, hatred, contempt, or intolerance on the basis of a person's opinion, ethnicity, race, religion, national origin, sex, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, age, disability, socioeconomic status, or other characteristics." and it warns: "Be careful linking other editors to this essay as direct accusations of bigotry can be interpreted as hostile, even when justified. An unfounded or speculative accusation of WikiBigotry is aspersion-casting and could be considered a WP:Personal attack." Your suggestion of a REDIRECT is a great one! IZAK ( talk) 20:07, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • @ IZAK: It isn't that big of a deal that tgeorgescu cut the essay down so much. They originally wrote it almost two years ago, and it's only been seriously challenged this week. I really don't think that tgeorgescu has acted so unreasonably to actually try and respond to criticisms given here. I agree with MarshallKe; let's lower the temperature a bit.
    @MarshallKe: Btw, you !voted twice by bolding your comments a second time. – MJL  ‐Talk‐ ☖ 16:17, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
      • @ MJL: Thanks for your feedback. I think by now we are waiting for an uninvolved admin to close so everyone is calm. I will be glad to correct any errors in voting if you can be more specific about where the problem is. Basically, tgeorgescu by blanking his entire essay in the middle of this MfD discussion jumps the gun, while at the same time it is in fact an honest admission that the essay should in fact be deleted. The surviving sentence he left is worthless and embarrassing as the word "bigots" is part of the problem. I will give him the benefit of the doubt that his first language is Romanian and even though he is pretty handy with English he fails to see the negative nuances in the word "bigot" as directed against only "fundamentalist/religious" editors and not at other types of "fundamentalist" editors who have nothing to do with religion, although he does admit to being blunt and non-diplomatic with his language at times. WP policies while being strict are couched in polite English and all WP essays should be like that. Thanks again, IZAK ( talk) 19:21, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
        • I must admit I keep forgetting that his first language is Romanian.
        • I can’t speak for everyone but, where I am from calling someone a bigot is mostly used towards people who have prejudice towards a certain group of people. I guess when he was using the term bigot he probably means a person who is obstinately or unreasonably attached to a belief.
        • So yeah I’m probably gonna give him the benefit of the doubt too. CycoMa ( talk) 15:10, 27 August 2021 (UTC) reply
      • P.S. I just noticed that in fact tgeorgescu voted twice to "keep": Once when he states above, in bold, "Speedy keep" and then again below when he states below, in bold, "Close this MfD with keep"! IZAK ( talk) 19:35, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I read the full version of the essay, prior to its drastic trimming; it was indeed quite strongly opinionated, and it was hard for me to understand what the argument was. However, in the {{ essay}} template itself, you can see that an essay "contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors [...] Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints". Maybe it is stupid; essays are not deleted for being stupid. jp× g 01:21, 27 August 2021 (UTC) reply
    • They're moved out of Wikipedia space if they're pointlessly incendiary, though. An essay called "no bigots" should be about not allowing bigots, not Some Other Group The Writer Doesn't Like. If there was an essay called "No bigots" that instead stated that "Pro-Irish POV pushing is banned on Wikipedia" that would also be deleted, even though the statement is technically true. (The revised form does not help because the writer casts such a wide net for what they consider "religious-POV pushing".) An entirely different essay in user space that discussed the proper usage of various types of sources would be fine, but it would essentially be a new essay with nothing from the old version - an essay that was so unconvincing I genuinely thought it was potentially a parody made from a religious POV about how they're treated on Wikipedia. That's a bad sign! SnowFire ( talk) 01:58, 27 August 2021 (UTC) reply
      • Yup, irony and self-irony were not absent from the previous version. People should read it more attentively (i.e. one who isn't pushing POVs did not get defined as a bigot) and with a sense of humor. tgeorgescu ( talk) 17:37, 27 August 2021 (UTC) reply
        • @ Tgeorgescu: I don't think you understand. I'm not sure how much blunter I can be. Since it seems from your writings you genuinely do support inclusion of academic analysis of religion and careful attribution of claims that might be biased (which I agree with, as does Wikipedia policy), your essay was a complete failure. It is as if it was written by someone who disagrees with you on everything and was writing a mockery / straw man of the opposing argument as they saw it. It wasn't funny or ironic. It was and is counterproductive. If you genuinely want to propound such views (which, again, I agree with, but don't want seen done so shabbily), then you will do best by just {{ db-author}}ing this and starting from scratch. (And, if you did try again, not calling anyone who disagrees with you a "bigot", which is incorrect, against Wikipedia collegiality of assuming good faith, and ensures your target audience won't be convinced since you just insulted them.) SnowFire ( talk) 18:21, 27 August 2021 (UTC) reply
          • @ SnowFire: I'm apparently not good at that. I did ask others to rewrite the essay, because everyone seems to agree that fundamentalist/religious POV-pushing is banned. And I have an extra problem understanding you: about 40% of the text was mine, the rest of 60% are quotes from other people. tgeorgescu ( talk) 18:51, 27 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Userfy the current essay without a redirect, redirect title to NONAZIS I saw the subheader ("'bIgOt' iS uNcIVil!") and thought this would be a title dispute like the WP:ROPE discussion above, but looking at the original version it seems like something Guy Macon would (within his rights in userspace) say, which means this is better in userspace.  –  John M Wolfson ( talk •  contribs) 20:33, 27 August 2021 (UTC) reply
    I support redirection to Wikipedia:Don't be a WikiBigot which seems to be to be a closer match and more helpful. MarshallKe ( talk) 13:23, 28 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Polemical piece. Redefines the word "bigot." Acceptable for a blog post, not on a wiki 65.94.98.111 ( talk) 21:00, 27 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. the material, change the title. From the title, one would expect much more comprehensive and wide-ranging coverage of multiple forms of bigotry--to focus on religious fundamentalism as the principal meaning of the term is absurd. Ye s I think Fundamentalist POV pushing is barred, so is atheistic POV pushing, or anything in between. So is POV pushing to oppose a fundamentalist positionin any religion. DGG ( talk ) 22:47, 28 August 2021 (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.


Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:No_bigots&oldid=1041735458"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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: delete. The consensus of the discussion is that this essay took a WP:BATTLEGROUND approach that is inappropriate for Wikipedia essays. There was some support for re-using the title as a redirect elsewhere, but not a clear consensus, so I leave that for editors to pursue if they wish. RL0919 ( talk) 05:37, 1 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia:No bigots

Wikipedia:No bigots ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)​

Requested by User:IZAK at the talk page of the essay, which does not seem to be the proper avenue for a deletion request. tgeorgescu ( talk) 12:58, 24 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Bigot is an uncivil word, this essay should be deleted
  • Delete since WP at Wiktionary [1] defines bigot in English as a noun meaning: "1. One who is narrow-mindedly devoted to one's own ideas and groups, and intolerant of (people of) differing ideas, races, genders, religions, politics, etc. 2. (obsolete) One who is overly pious in matters of religion, often hypocritically or else superstitiously so." as it can apply to ANY type of person or POV not just "religious" bigots. There are thus ideological bigots, racial bigots, gender bigots, and not just religious bigots. Thus, for example, definitely a Marxist, Freudian or Darwinian fanatic can easily be as big a bigot as a religious bigot, and therefore this essay written by tgeorgescu's who has an anti-religion POV aiming his attacks at any religion, its texts, personalities and ideas fails WP:NPOV, WP:CIVIL, WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND, and he fails the WP:SPIDERMAN test! As he likes to say, he can spout his views on his own personal blog, but he should not be allowed to create controversial essays using insulting words on WP and then use them in the guise of so-called fixed WP "policies" to bludgeon away in WP:IDONTLIKE fashion at opponents holding differing POVs to his. Thank you, IZAK ( talk) 04:16, 24 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. 04:44, 24 August 2021 (UTC) IZAK ( talk) 04:44, 24 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. 04:48, 24 August 2021 (UTC) IZAK ( talk) 04:48, 24 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. 04:54, 24 August 2021 (UTC) IZAK ( talk) 04:54, 24 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. 04:57, 24 August 2021 (UTC) IZAK ( talk) 04:57, 24 August 2021 (UTC) reply
And User:Claritas. tgeorgescu ( talk) 07:36, 24 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Standing by what one has said previously does not equate to endorsement of this after-the-fact essay. — C.Fred ( talk) 17:21, 24 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete the language in the essay comes off as uncivil and is non neutral with a certain POV. Plus the essay is just way too long and hard to navigate through.
Not to mention it relies too much on quoting other users instead of trying to make its point.
Also if we should have a essay about criticism towards religion or explain to religious editors about our policy on religion. We should probably have write in a way that uses more formal language. CycoMa ( talk) 05:27, 24 August 2021 (UTC) reply
    • Again, bigots are being treated harshly here at Wikipedia. But this is certainly not something I have invented, but merely described. I called a spade a spade, that's my only fault. As Thomas Szasz stated in The Second Sin, speaking clearly was the second major sin of mankind: some people cannot bear clear and straightforward explanations of long-standing practice. There is nothing uncivil in stating that people who deface articles in religious history are unwelcome around here. They are unwelcome regardless of what I say and do. tgeorgescu ( talk) 06:39, 24 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Tgeorgescu I’m sensing some WP:BLUD going on here. CycoMa ( talk) 06:39, 24 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Wait tgeorgescu: 1 did you just WP:PING EIGHTEEN (count them!) other editors? that's a clear case of WP:CANVASSING! Or don't these rules apply to you when you feel like it. 2 You know tgeorgescu with all your essays you are overstepping WP:NOTFORUM for your POV, which I respect, but honestly now, we all got the point already with your famous essay Wikipedia:Academic bias with it's favorite part WP:CHOPSY starting in 2013! 3 Now you are branching out to clobber more religious enemies (mainly, you pick almost exclusively on Hebrew Bible topics that WP:IDONTLIKEIT, I hardly ever see you picking on Muslim Koran or Hindu Vedas ones!?) with this essay ( Wikipedia:No bigots) that you launched in 2019 and have added to until this very time (2021). I have not been through your editorial history, but there may be more essays that I have not seen yet, but I am sure they all say the same thing: Down with religion, down with its texts, down with its heroes etc etc etc. 4 You know, what you are trying to do is squeeze 20 years of pretty normal functioning on Wikipedia and trying to distill and DICTATE to everyone within earshot that "This is an essay on the role of Wikipedia"! in one fell swoop abrogating for yourself the role of who, what, where, how, and why WP is all about? In Yiddish we call this Chutzpa! You set up for yourself what is NPOV in WP: "This is an essay on the neutral point of view policy" in Wikipedia:Academic bias, WHY? Is the tried, true and tested WP:NPOV that has worked so well in need of "repairs"? 5 Why do you have to re-combobulate what Wikipedia is with grand statements like "This is an essay on the role of Wikipedia" you are thus taking on yourself to assert that Wikipedia:Five pillars' "is not enough" because you have a WP:WAR to fight! FIVE PILLARS is not enough for you, no, we must have six pillars, seven pillars, eight pillars, as many as the emperor can squeeze out of his prolific pen when in fact wherever you show up you make your own POV very clear and you quite ably edit in the way you see fit, which is your right. But it is not your God-given right to set yourself up as the WP "law-giver" of your own agenda. 6 You then use your essays to back YOURSELF up when in conflict with editors who disagree with your POV and you make it seem like your are "quoting policy" when it's just an essay or two that you have been driven to write up to back yourself up when in a bind. 7 Think it over and Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass to quote an old funny essay, your are resorting to overkill, especially when you violate civil discourse by saying you are crushing people you disagree with "like ants run over by a bulldozer" or constantly kicking people out of WP by "showing people the door" or taking pride in trampling on the personal religious beliefs of other editors in violation of WP:CIVIL. 8 That is why I first suggested cutting this essay down by 3/4 but now it just shows WP is an exclusive elite as if to say: No wise people allowed from other religions or systems of thought is the message you send out to potential editors (with the WP:CHOPSY clause as well and as mush as you love it, it is sheer snobbery from your Ivory tower and gilded cage). So let's leave the golden policies of WP:NPOV and WP: Five pillars alone, they don't need improvement or fixing! Sincerely, IZAK ( talk) 08:39, 24 August 2021 (UTC) reply
    • Canvassing spoke the man who has e-mailed Debresser about this deletion request. You want to delete the statements of 18 other editors, don't you think they have the right to know about it? The burden of proof is upon you that they have recanted their statements.
The statement about only needing the five pillars does apply to all essays about the role of Wikipedia or just to mine?
You purposefully misconstrue how I defined the term bigot in this essay: not only being an enemy of higher criticism, but also trolling/defacing religious history articles (yes, both requirements have to apply, according to this essay).
So, what do I mean by that word? I mean people who write stuff like The whole topic is POV. It should be re-written from scratch if you want it to be NPOV. "YKVKism" is not a real religion. It should be under an article called "Blblical criticism theory". If you act like it's fact, then all Anti-Bible stuff should be off of article on Biblical books. Nazi Hitlerist theories can get on their pages and Jewish theology can get its own page. Separate but equal if you believe in segregation. tgeorgescu ( talk) 14:13, 24 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • In my opinion, if the concerns that have been raised, and with which I agree (as I wrote in these edits above), will not be dealt with, and I guess that is not going to happen, then this essay should be deleted or moved to userspace. Debresser ( talk) 08:55, 24 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Polemic, uncivil, wall of text clusterfuck bad duplicate of Wikipedia:Don't be a WikiBigot. MarshallKe ( talk)
  • Delete or (second choice) Userfy. I expected to see a variant of WP:NONAZIS but instead it's claiming that Wikipedia calls all religious believers who dispute academic work on religion (e.g. scholarly criticism) bigots? Da heck? I'm honestly not sure if this is meant ironically or unironically. Regardless, it doesn't have a place in Wikipedia space. It's possible that material in this essay could be used for an even handed essay (if drastically cut down, and the point made plainly and simply rather than cloaked in not-sure-it's-ironic phrasing), but such an essay probably wouldn't be called "No bigots". It should be "Wikipedia should take religious viewpoints more seriously" or "NPOV means putting experts centrally in articles, even ones on religion" or the like depending on what the actual point being made is. SnowFire ( talk) 16:16, 24 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. This essay does not belong in WP-space, and IMO, it does not belong on Wikipedia anywhere. First, Christianity is not the only religion where this is an issue; I know it comes up a lot with Islam, I've seen it happen with Hinduism, and it probably comes up in every religion up to and including Pastafarianism. There are times, like MOS:LDS and MOS:PBUH, where it's a style issue and is handled in the MOS for project consistency, but that's not the case here. Second, if we're going to set up some kind of guideline, it would best be addressed within WP:RS and clarifying when primary religious texts can be used as sources, and the (probably longer) list of times when they cannot. Finally, anything in WP should be in the broader voice of the project, and I read a lot of this essay as addressing a particular interaction between the primary contributor and another party. — C.Fred ( talk) 17:35, 24 August 2021 (UTC) reply
    • You may rephrase the essay as you wish, but of course there is a ban on fundamentalist POV-pushing. Some editors are afraid of writing it in plain speak. And of course it isn't a new rule. tgeorgescu ( talk) 18:55, 25 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete POV anti-religious rant by an editor who arguably meets the definition quoted at the top rather well: "One who is narrow-mindedly devoted to one's own ideas and groups, and intolerant of (people of) differing ideas...". Johnbod ( talk) 17:56, 24 August 2021 (UTC) reply
I have never stated that every faithful believer is a bigot. tgeorgescu ( talk) 11:10, 25 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Tgeorgescu buddy you been here for like 19 years. You should know about neutral point of view. Sure fringe ideas shouldn’t be treated as legit arguments. But your essay comes off biting newbies. CycoMa ( talk) 14:04, 25 August 2021 (UTC) reply
See? The IP who wrote that got blocked for two weeks. So regardless of this essay, admins already act for a long time like they believe bigots should be blocked from editing. tgeorgescu ( talk) 14:07, 25 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Can you link to that? Also I’m not sure having bigoted beliefs in itself is blockable. CycoMa ( talk) 14:10, 25 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Special:Contributions/96.245.77.253. My critics display a poor reading comprehension of the way wherein I defined what a bigot means for Wikipedia: I do not mean faithful believers, I mean fundamentalists who troll and deface religious history articles.
If one is not a POV-pusher, they are not a bigot in the meaning of this essay. tgeorgescu ( talk) 14:19, 25 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Tgeorgescu in the essay you said stuff like this. Fundamentalist POV-pushers are a problem in religion articles and somebody has to tell them clearly that they do not belong here.
If proclaiming your true believer's POV in hard-core encyclopedias like Britannica, Iranica and Judaica stands the chances of a snowball in hell, then your POV is not welcome here. Mind your own business and go to Conservapedia, New World Encyclopedia or OrthodoxWiki.
Judging by these statements you are clearly trying to push some editors away. Have you ever considered that these editors are new and don’t know how Wikipedia runs. Please read in on WP:BITE. If new users are giving you issues maybe ask for help or something instead of pushing people away. CycoMa ( talk) 14:32, 25 August 2021 (UTC) reply
When I was new to Wikipedia I remember you sending me a link to this essay. I was in my teens do you really think an essay like this is okay for a new user or a teenager. CycoMa ( talk) 14:40, 25 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This essay is here only to be used by one particular user to bludgeon well-meaning but inexperienced editors who are learning the ropes of editing Wikipedia. Enough is enough. Rusdo ( talk) 00:00, 25 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Userfy - An interesting personal viewpoint that doesn't need to be expunged. Robert McClenon ( talk) 02:11, 25 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND- Wikipedia isn't the place to vent personal grudges. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 14:31, 25 August 2021 (UTC) reply
    • Battleground? Admins already behave like they bought into my essay. If one wants to use other words to explain their behavior, that is okay with me. But bigots still need to be told what to expect from admins. tgeorgescu ( talk) 14:42, 25 August 2021 (UTC) reply
WP:BLUD CycoMa ( talk) 14:45, 25 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The elephant in the room is that Wikipedia admins were never tolerant of bigoted POV-pushing. tgeorgescu ( talk) 14:51, 25 August 2021 (UTC) reply
I’m pretty sure they aren’t tolerant of experienced users trying to push away new and inexperienced editors away either. CycoMa ( talk) 14:52, 25 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Well, if one abstains from bigoted POV-pushing, I welcome them back to the Community. However, due to ingrained personally traits, in the real world very few bigots recant from pushing bigoted POVs. E.g. Karma1998 had an unexpected change of mind, and I did not bother them since. But deconversions like that rarely happen. tgeorgescu ( talk) 15:01, 25 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Buddy you don’t own Wikipedia nor are you an admin. You don’t just say “I welcome back into the community”
Also I don’t think you understand what a bigot even is. Being a religious POV pusher isn’t okay on Wikipedia but, it’s not bigoted. Stop with distorting language to justify your made up rules. CycoMa ( talk) 15:06, 25 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The whole point which I tried to explain over and over: I am not advocating for new rules. tgeorgescu ( talk) 15:07, 25 August 2021 (UTC) reply
You keep saying stuff like how you will welcome certain users back into the community. Unless your an admin or own Wikipedia you have no power over who is welcomed here or not. You act like you are the owner of all religion articles. Please read WP:OWN. CycoMa ( talk) 15:12, 25 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is an Omnipticon: everybody oversees everybody else; admins have been simply empowered to solve problems which are usually reported by ordinary users. tgeorgescu ( talk) 15:15, 25 August 2021 (UTC) reply
You are NOT obligated to report anyone to admins (see WP:IGNOREALLRULES), you can deal with problems yourself. In all my years on WP I don't think I have ever run to any type of ANI admin noticeboard to report another problematic editor, and believe me I have faced many problem editors on WP! Yes, I have nominated articles for deletion, as I am doing now, but unlike you I am a WP Inclusionist, see this on Metawiki and I welcome input from all editors and I do not subject them to a politically correct litmus test. Also, take note of WP:NOTBURO where it says, inter alia, "While Wikipedia has many elements of a bureaucracy, it is not governed by statute: it is not a quasi-judicial body, and rules are not the purpose of the community." So your "job" as an editor is not to act as if you are in charge of WP's "ideology" nor to "report" bad editors to the "police"/admins for judgement/"execution"! Just contribute good content to the encyclopedia with following the golden WP rules of WP:RS and WP:NOR. IZAK ( talk) 19:54, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete this essay, written in unencyclopedic and accusatory language, does not have anything to do with Wikipedia. It is simply a personal revenge of @ Tgeorgescu: toward those who disagree with him and openly privileges some scholars (Ehrman, Spong) to others, dismissing all the opponents of the formers as "fundamentalists", despite the fact that both have received criticism from mainstream scholarship as well. I would like to point out to everyone that this is not RationalWiki, nor Vridar, nor Richard Carrier's personal blog. This is an encyclopedia that deals with scholars, including evangelical scholars if they are considered mainstream (like Craig A. Evans): we don't refuse someone's opinion only because of its religion or faith. Therefore, I vote for deletion.-- Karma1998 ( talk) 15:56, 25 August 2021 (UTC) reply

    • Ask anyone who edits in this area: scholars following a non-mainstream, fundamentalist view are regularly removed from Wikipedia. -- Ermenrich ( talk) 00:53, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Quoted by tgeorgescu ( talk) 18:08, 25 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Umm tgeorgescu, you and Ermenrich don't get it, editors are NOT removed from Wikipedia for their own POV's, because only violating the rules and policies of WP is a reason to be sanctioned or blocked. You, and Ermenrich, are again conflating YOUR own specific very strict POV with WP's policies when they are NOT the same thing. IZAK ( talk) 20:08, 25 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Again: I am not advocating for new rules. tgeorgescu ( talk) 20:11, 25 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Hello! That's the problem, you don't get what you are doing! You have somehow conflated what you personally think with what WP is really all about, just read the comments of those above. IZAK ( talk) 20:14, 25 August 2021 (UTC) reply
It might surprize you: WP:NOBIGOTS and WP:CHOPSY are not about new rules. Nowhere therein it is stated Let's adopt a whole new policy/guideline. tgeorgescu ( talk) 20:16, 25 August 2021 (UTC) reply
WP:CHOPSY (although it comes off as snobby and shoots itself in the foot by excluding great scholars from non-universities) I can see the logic of as it's needed to protect WP from a lot of nutty theories. But WP:NOBIGOTS is just a spiteful piece of nonsense. We already have WP:NOTFREESPEECH (as it says there: "The fact that Wikipedia is an open, self-governing project does not mean that any part of its purpose is to explore the viability of anarchist communities. Our purpose is to build an encyclopedia, not to test the limits of anarchism.") And WP:NOTOPINION (as it says there: "content hosted in Wikipedia is not for: Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, scientific, religious, national, sports-related, or otherwise.") Furthermore, WP:NOTFORUM (as it says there: "do not use Wikipedia for any of the following: Primary (original) research, such as proposing theories and solutions, original ideas, defining terms, coining new words, etc") and many such examples of tried and true meaningful WP policies that are more than sufficient to fight bigots and and other misfits. So your essay is not adding anything and you should rather look to how you can apply existing WP policies that are very effective to do just what you think "needs fixing". IZAK ( talk) 20:29, 25 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Your contention that these essays are aimed at fixing policies and guidelines is pulled out of thin air. The text does not claim anywhere that the policies and guidelines need fixing. You don't realize that these essays aim at explaining existing rules rather than at creating new rules.
I could describe the life from Communist Romania; it does not mean that I have invented Communism. The inventor of the CHOPSY-based encyclopedia is Jimmy Wales, not me. I only explained what he invented. tgeorgescu ( talk) 20:34, 25 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Again with the same problem, you keep conflating yourself with Jimmy Wales, who by the way did not invent all the policies of WP as you well know, they were incrementally over the years by balanced and knowledgeable editors. IZAK ( talk) 20:47, 25 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Tgeorgescu even if you weren’t inventing new rules there are still tons of more issues me and other editors are having.
Like one other user in this discussion mentioned how you how you are calling religious editors who disagree with academia bigots. Calling those people bigots is wrong and uncivil. Especially if those were newbies.
How you worded your essay is extremely unwelcoming to people who aren’t aware how Wikipedia works. I have seen you link this essay to newbies I mean you even linked it to me when I was new to this website.
I mean how do you expect new editors to change their ways if you say things like fundamentalists don’t belong here or go to conservatipedia. CycoMa ( talk) 20:42, 25 August 2021 (UTC) reply
What you don't realize: CHOPSY and NOBIGOTS are the de facto standard of Wikipedia. Would you tell about it to new editors in plain speak or hide it under the carpet? tgeorgescu ( talk) 20:44, 25 August 2021 (UTC) reply
I'm not conflating myself with Wales. Do you agree that the de facto standard of Wikipedia is that fundamentalist POV-pushing is banned? Yes or no? tgeorgescu ( talk) 20:51, 25 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Does Jimmy Wales even know you made that essay? Also what gives you the idea that you and your essays are de facto? You are just a typical editor just like me and everyone in this discussion.
Also didn’t IZAK mention something about how you want to set up more pillars. You saying NOBIGOTS is a de facto gives off the impression you are trying to create more pillars to make Wikipedia articles align more with your views. CycoMa ( talk) 21:03, 25 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Hello, so now you downgrading your essays to " de facto' status, good line! As I said, WP:CHOPSY is useful in keeping fringe theories out of WP (not mainstream Christian and Jewish religious thought that you like to gratuitously and obsessively attack in violation of WP:OWN), however WP:NOBIGOTS is just one big stick to knock down editors, especially the newbies that are complaining that you violate Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers with it. But bottom line, get it out of your head that you are either a "de facto" or "de jure" "spokesperson" for WP. You need to step back and just see yourself as a regular plain editor who only represents himself, nothing more and nothing less. IZAK ( talk) 20:55, 25 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Did you read what C.Fred wrote above? They do not even try to deny that fundamentalist POV-pushing is a real problem, for various religions. tgeorgescu ( talk) 20:58, 25 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Reality check: Are you even reading what others are saying here? Or are you stuck in some twilight zone suffering from momentary cognitive dissonance. You have over-reached with this personal essay of yours. I have already pointed out the various strict policies within Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not that should discourage and remove ANY bigots, be they religious or irreligious. IZAK ( talk) 21:06, 25 August 2021 (UTC) reply
So you do agree that fundamentalist POV-pushing is banned. Then why don't you write an essay to that extent? Of course, you would not be creating any new rule. tgeorgescu ( talk) 21:09, 25 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Depends how you define "fundamentalist" -- I know how YOU do: ANYTHING from Christian and Jewish traditional Bible study is "fundamentalist" while you don't see how your own POV Wikipedia:Edit warring does not help WP. For example, you never battle Hindu texts or Muslim texts the way you battle Christian and Jewish religious texts, you are are focused on destroying ideas that (you) WP:IDONTLIKE that creates an atmosphere of WP:BATTLEGROUND whenever you are around editing those subjects you focus on. This bellicose and pugnacious. i.e. WP:UNCIVIL sense, intention, feeling, tone comes through loud and clear in your WP:NOBIGOTS personal essay and that is why it unsuitable as some kind of representation of WP's "voice" as you like to put it. IZAK ( talk) 21:24, 25 August 2021 (UTC) reply
C.Fred said this Standing by what one has said previously does not equate to endorsement of this after-the-fact essay. CycoMa ( talk) 21:12, 25 August 2021 (UTC) reply
You also stated that as a newbie you did not know that fundamentalist POV-pushing is banned. But the general agreement seems to be that it is banned. Don't like the essay? Rewrite it with gentler words instead of deleting it. tgeorgescu ( talk) 21:14, 25 August 2021 (UTC) reply
POV pushing in itself is ban-able. Also I never once said I didn’t know it wasn’t.
Also how do you expect us to rewrite an essay that’s too broken. Even if I replaced harsh language with gentler language there is more issues with it. The name of the essay is odd, it’s full of walls of text, it’s hard to navigate through, and tons more. It would probably be best to rewrite the whole thing and start over. CycoMa ( talk) 21:20, 25 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Traditional religion is neither modernist, nor fundamentalist. Fundamentalism in an answer to (rejection of) modernity. So, we may only speak of fundamentalism after the beginning of modernity. E.g. fundamentalist Islam considers that pictures of Muhammad are banned, but that's not what traditional Islam considered. The rejection of such pictures happened only after the modernity began. tgeorgescu ( talk) 17:35, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Actually that typically sweeping statement is a good deal more untrue than true - see Aniconism in Islam. Johnbod ( talk) 19:12, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The discourse is far more complex but modernity had a clear role to play: Christiane Gruber has fascinating scholarship on this locus. TrangaBellam ( talk) 14:20, 27 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Yes, and she doesn't say anything like what he said. The main impact of modernity was that wealthy Muslims stopped commissioning illuminated manuscripts, always the almost exclusive location of such images. So production reduced almost to nothing. Johnbod ( talk) 15:08, 27 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Close this MfD with keep I've killed my darlings. There is now just a short statement that fundamentalist POV-pushing is banned and three shortcuts to what POV-pushing means. tgeorgescu ( talk) 21:22, 25 August 2021 (UTC) reply
    • This MfD hasn't even been open for one week, you are jumping the gun and your an interested party with a WP:COI. IZAK ( talk) 21:27, 25 August 2021 (UTC) reply
He blanked much of the essay on NOBIGOTS. CycoMa ( talk) 21:29, 25 August 2021 (UTC) reply
He's not allowed to do that in the middle of a deletion discussion!!! He must await the WP:CONSENSUS of this MfD. What does the closing admin say? Very troubling! IZAK ( talk) 21:31, 25 August 2021 (UTC) reply
You accused me of over-reach, now over-reach is gone. If admins do not trust me, they should protect the essay from being edited. tgeorgescu ( talk) 21:32, 25 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The content of the essay already revealed its purpose, reducing it in size does not solve the problem it only makes it worse, because now it can be cited by you and you will then pile on with the material you edited out as its "explanation" the word "bigots" itself is not WP:CIVIL and as I have pointed out WP:NOT is comprehensive and clear enough to keep out any type of bigot in any case. IZAK ( talk) 21:39, 25 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Neither me nor you decide this matter. That's something for the admin who closes this discussion. tgeorgescu ( talk) 21:45, 25 August 2021 (UTC) reply
You blanked the page before the deletion discussion was closed, which is a big no-no since there are rules governing Wikipedia:Blanking before a final decision was made. I suggest you revert yourself to the full version of WP:NOBIGOTS so the closing admin can see what other editors here are talking about. You cannot set yourself up as the " judge, jury and executioner" of yourself as if you are a "de facto" admin! IZAK ( talk) 22:55, 25 August 2021 (UTC) reply
I do not have the power to delete the editing history of the essay. Your criticism is now that I took your criticism to the heart...
And that's all I found about it: Repeated, unnecessary page blanking may get a user blocked indefinitely.
I don't know why you think that I have engaged in repeated blanking.
It also wasn't unnecessary blanking, but a sincere answer to criticism.
To answer your accusation: yes, I may use wise words written by other editors, regardless of whether the essay is kept or deleted. So keeping the essay will have absolutely no effect thereupon. tgeorgescu ( talk) 23:58, 25 August 2021 (UTC) reply
I was NOT accusing you of "repeated blanking" as I know that you do abide by the rules of WP (you have summoned plenty of editors to various types of ANI complaint forums to get your way and you usually do) but this time you did something that is almost never done during a deletion discussion, and there are often-times deletion-discussion templates that include advice not to blank a page that is up for a deletion review. And it is fortunate that you do not have the power to delete the edit history of the subject, so that leaves a record of what you wrote in the edit history. Furthermore, what is to stop you one day down the line to decide all on your own to revert yourself back to the full version of the essay when you feel like? And as I have explained to you the word "bigots" is too abrasive and quite unnecessary as WP has enough policy to deal with all sorts of misfits and miscreants already. And, in what sense does a one-line sentence an "essay" make? A Sentence (linguistics) doth not an essay make. IZAK ( talk) 02:54, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Because I asked nicely that the essay be protected from editing, indefinitely? tgeorgescu ( talk) 09:26, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Where did you ask this? I'm not sure what you are talking about. IZAK ( talk) 19:38, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • NOTE TO CLOSING ADMIN: please see the full essay here [2] and please see introductory discussion that led up to this MfD at Wikipedia talk:No bigots#Suggestion; Cut this essay down by 3/4 at least where its author tgeorgescu was requested to trim down the essay to reasonable length, that he adamantly refused alleging all sorts of reasons to keep it at its full unabridged length. Now, following the onset of this MfD discussion that tgeorgescu sees is not going his way, without any warning he chops it down to ONE SENTENCE with his main goal to brand ONLY "fundamentalist" [3] i.e. agreeing that religious [4] POV editors that he does not like as: "The general agreement is that religious POV-pushing is banned. POV-pushing is defined at WP:NPOV, WP:ACTIVIST, and WP:ADVOCACY." First of all, one sentence is not an "essay"! Otherwise everyone will start putting up their pet slogan as an "essay" as a rider to or even as a possible future "policy". Second of all, the sentence tgeorgescu has saved contains in it the already existing and effective longstanding WP policy of WP:NPOV, and the good essays: WP:ACTIVIST, and WP:ADVOCACY that are just fine in fighting potential "bigots" of all stripes, so there no point in adding one-sentence repetition that targets just one class of bigots, the religious ones, placing religious bigots on a higher negative "order" than racial bigots, ideological bigots, anti-Semitic bigots etc, and if allowed to stand then it will spawn silly one-sentence "essays" like: "The general agreement is that RACIST POV-pushing is banned. POV-pushing is defined at WP:NPOV, WP:ACTIVIST, and WP:ADVOCACY." Or "The general agreement is that POLITICAL POV-pushing is banned. POV-pushing is defined at WP:NPOV, WP:ACTIVIST, and WP:ADVOCACY. Or "The general agreement is that ANTISEMITIC POV-pushing is banned. POV-pushing is defined at WP:NPOV, WP:ACTIVIST, and WP:ADVOCACY." etc. Finally,tgeorgescu can't have his way all the time, meaning having it both ways: He gets to decide that his longer essay version must stay and then change his mind in the middle of this MfD and say his minuscule sentence must stay, when neither are any good at this point by the WP:CONSENSUS here thus far. Thank you, IZAK ( talk) 02:54, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Userfy. or Rename. I would've said to delete since it was pretty reaching for projectspace, but I'm more fine with the contents as it stands now. Regardless, the title should be changed to something more neutral sounding. – MJL  ‐Talk‐ ☖ 02:52, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Note that tgeorgescu has chopped the essay down to a single sentence and CycoMa has made an edit [5] (their only edit to this page) changing "fundamentalist" to "religious". While I still support redirect to Wikipedia:Don't be a WikiBigot or second choice delete for reasons stated above, I would advise everyone involved in this discussion to take a chill pill MarshallKe ( talk) 12:02, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
    • @ MarshallKe: Thanks for pointing out Wikipedia:Don't be a WikiBigot written very well and in good English and it's very clear: "on bigotry, the state of mind of a bigot: someone who, as a result of their prejudices, treats or views other people with fear, distrust, hatred, contempt, or intolerance on the basis of a person's opinion, ethnicity, race, religion, national origin, sex, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, age, disability, socioeconomic status, or other characteristics." and it warns: "Be careful linking other editors to this essay as direct accusations of bigotry can be interpreted as hostile, even when justified. An unfounded or speculative accusation of WikiBigotry is aspersion-casting and could be considered a WP:Personal attack." Your suggestion of a REDIRECT is a great one! IZAK ( talk) 20:07, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • @ IZAK: It isn't that big of a deal that tgeorgescu cut the essay down so much. They originally wrote it almost two years ago, and it's only been seriously challenged this week. I really don't think that tgeorgescu has acted so unreasonably to actually try and respond to criticisms given here. I agree with MarshallKe; let's lower the temperature a bit.
    @MarshallKe: Btw, you !voted twice by bolding your comments a second time. – MJL  ‐Talk‐ ☖ 16:17, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
      • @ MJL: Thanks for your feedback. I think by now we are waiting for an uninvolved admin to close so everyone is calm. I will be glad to correct any errors in voting if you can be more specific about where the problem is. Basically, tgeorgescu by blanking his entire essay in the middle of this MfD discussion jumps the gun, while at the same time it is in fact an honest admission that the essay should in fact be deleted. The surviving sentence he left is worthless and embarrassing as the word "bigots" is part of the problem. I will give him the benefit of the doubt that his first language is Romanian and even though he is pretty handy with English he fails to see the negative nuances in the word "bigot" as directed against only "fundamentalist/religious" editors and not at other types of "fundamentalist" editors who have nothing to do with religion, although he does admit to being blunt and non-diplomatic with his language at times. WP policies while being strict are couched in polite English and all WP essays should be like that. Thanks again, IZAK ( talk) 19:21, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
        • I must admit I keep forgetting that his first language is Romanian.
        • I can’t speak for everyone but, where I am from calling someone a bigot is mostly used towards people who have prejudice towards a certain group of people. I guess when he was using the term bigot he probably means a person who is obstinately or unreasonably attached to a belief.
        • So yeah I’m probably gonna give him the benefit of the doubt too. CycoMa ( talk) 15:10, 27 August 2021 (UTC) reply
      • P.S. I just noticed that in fact tgeorgescu voted twice to "keep": Once when he states above, in bold, "Speedy keep" and then again below when he states below, in bold, "Close this MfD with keep"! IZAK ( talk) 19:35, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I read the full version of the essay, prior to its drastic trimming; it was indeed quite strongly opinionated, and it was hard for me to understand what the argument was. However, in the {{ essay}} template itself, you can see that an essay "contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors [...] Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints". Maybe it is stupid; essays are not deleted for being stupid. jp× g 01:21, 27 August 2021 (UTC) reply
    • They're moved out of Wikipedia space if they're pointlessly incendiary, though. An essay called "no bigots" should be about not allowing bigots, not Some Other Group The Writer Doesn't Like. If there was an essay called "No bigots" that instead stated that "Pro-Irish POV pushing is banned on Wikipedia" that would also be deleted, even though the statement is technically true. (The revised form does not help because the writer casts such a wide net for what they consider "religious-POV pushing".) An entirely different essay in user space that discussed the proper usage of various types of sources would be fine, but it would essentially be a new essay with nothing from the old version - an essay that was so unconvincing I genuinely thought it was potentially a parody made from a religious POV about how they're treated on Wikipedia. That's a bad sign! SnowFire ( talk) 01:58, 27 August 2021 (UTC) reply
      • Yup, irony and self-irony were not absent from the previous version. People should read it more attentively (i.e. one who isn't pushing POVs did not get defined as a bigot) and with a sense of humor. tgeorgescu ( talk) 17:37, 27 August 2021 (UTC) reply
        • @ Tgeorgescu: I don't think you understand. I'm not sure how much blunter I can be. Since it seems from your writings you genuinely do support inclusion of academic analysis of religion and careful attribution of claims that might be biased (which I agree with, as does Wikipedia policy), your essay was a complete failure. It is as if it was written by someone who disagrees with you on everything and was writing a mockery / straw man of the opposing argument as they saw it. It wasn't funny or ironic. It was and is counterproductive. If you genuinely want to propound such views (which, again, I agree with, but don't want seen done so shabbily), then you will do best by just {{ db-author}}ing this and starting from scratch. (And, if you did try again, not calling anyone who disagrees with you a "bigot", which is incorrect, against Wikipedia collegiality of assuming good faith, and ensures your target audience won't be convinced since you just insulted them.) SnowFire ( talk) 18:21, 27 August 2021 (UTC) reply
          • @ SnowFire: I'm apparently not good at that. I did ask others to rewrite the essay, because everyone seems to agree that fundamentalist/religious POV-pushing is banned. And I have an extra problem understanding you: about 40% of the text was mine, the rest of 60% are quotes from other people. tgeorgescu ( talk) 18:51, 27 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Userfy the current essay without a redirect, redirect title to NONAZIS I saw the subheader ("'bIgOt' iS uNcIVil!") and thought this would be a title dispute like the WP:ROPE discussion above, but looking at the original version it seems like something Guy Macon would (within his rights in userspace) say, which means this is better in userspace.  –  John M Wolfson ( talk •  contribs) 20:33, 27 August 2021 (UTC) reply
    I support redirection to Wikipedia:Don't be a WikiBigot which seems to be to be a closer match and more helpful. MarshallKe ( talk) 13:23, 28 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Polemical piece. Redefines the word "bigot." Acceptable for a blog post, not on a wiki 65.94.98.111 ( talk) 21:00, 27 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. the material, change the title. From the title, one would expect much more comprehensive and wide-ranging coverage of multiple forms of bigotry--to focus on religious fundamentalism as the principal meaning of the term is absurd. Ye s I think Fundamentalist POV pushing is barred, so is atheistic POV pushing, or anything in between. So is POV pushing to oppose a fundamentalist positionin any religion. DGG ( talk ) 22:47, 28 August 2021 (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.


Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:No_bigots&oldid=1041735458"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE