Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:16, 5 November 2024

Misplaced Pages and antisemitism

New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Misplaced Pages and antisemitism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A consensus to merge exists at the talk page, this AfD to confirm that it should be carried out. Selfstudier (talk) 19:39, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

• Support merge While I respect and appreciate the efforts to improve the article and make it more neutral, I don't feel the article has the coherence to exist on its own. I don't feel many/any sources deal with the topic as a whole so as to give it notability so WP:COATRACK is a problem here, to quote the essay An article about some phenomenon might include multiple subsections, each of which is supposedly an example of the article's subject. If there is good sourcing that unifies all of these examples under one general topic, then that can be appropriate. I don't see the good sourcing unifying these examples, so would recommend inclusion in other articles such as Criticism of wikipedia or Misplaced Pages and the Israeli–Palestinian conflict.

In addition, the Holocaust Related Bias section, gives extremely extensive coverage to two papers which are actually not about antisemitism, but instead focus on the use of the holocaust by modern wikipedians of different nationalities. This is really interesting, but is not about antisemitism, it is about the way antisemitic atrocities of the past are framed to fit political agendas in Poland, Israel, Ukraine and Russia. Is this really within the scope of an article on antisemitism in wikipedia?Boynamedsue (talk) 20:11, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

As far as I know, that essay's idea of needing sources to unify examples doesn't have a basis in policy. It mentions WP:SYNTH, but that applies to statements, not compilations of statements. It also seems like most of Category:Criticisms would fail that essay's standard.

I'll need to look into that Holocaust content, but it sounds like an argument for trimming some content which isn't that central to the article. — xDanielx /_C\ 20:28, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

I think the point is that in this case we are doing quite a lot of legwork to editorially select what might constitute antisemitism. I really think the whole Israel section doesn't belong for example. The criticism of wikipedia article is quite clear on what should go in it, so we can be fairly safe in adding it, but the title here is not.

The stuff in the two framing articles is mostly unbiased, but it would fit better in the article on Ideological bias in Misplaced Pages.Boynamedsue (talk) 20:51, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

FWIW I would support trimming any content that sources do not link to claims of antisemitism. Some of that has already been done but there may be a bit more trimming to do. — xDanielx /_C\ 21:01, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

• Keep or draftify - it clearly meets WP:GNG, but the article is young, its scope is still evolving, there's an open naming discussion, and there are various issues which are being worked on. The proposer and closer of the merge had agreed to allow a bit more time before an AfD. I'd prefer even more time, so draftification might be appropriate. That would avoid sniping the article before it has a chance to develop, while also avoiding unfixed issues in mainspace. — xDanielx /_C\ 20:17, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
• Procedural close This is out of process. The move discussion on the page is also out of process. Just close the merge discussion and then let's see where it goes. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:42, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

The merge discussion was on the wrong page, but I don't think that's enough to throw away a strong consensus and say "do it all again".Boynamedsue (talk) 20:57, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

No the merge discussion is fine. It is the move discussion, started today despite an extant merge discussion, that is out of process. I'll post to AN and see if we can get an admin to close the merge. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:11, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

• Procedural close: Articles for Deletion is not for merger discussions. If there is consensus on the talk page, then an uninvolved editor should close the discussion and carry out the merge. C F A 💬 21:27, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  It's admittedly a messy situation, but my request to the closer would be to treat this as a deletion request -

  • I argued for a conversion from a merge to AfD, based on the practical effect of the action.
  • The merge proposer & closer later agreed to switch to AfD. They planned to file tomorrow, but were preempted with this unusual "merge AfD".
  • ProfGray already added summary content in the proposed destination, so the status quo is essentially a parent-child setup. We can't really fit more content there (already borderline WP:TOOBIG), so a merge probably wouldn't result in any actual merging. Effectively we're just deciding on deletion now.

  If you or Nyttend have opinions regarding deletion (as if this were a standard AfD), it might be useful to know, in the event that the closer does end up evaluating this as a deletion request. — xDanielx /_C\ 01:42, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Discrimination, Judaism, and Internet. Spiderone 21:33, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
• Procedural background. The proposer closed the Merge discussion on Oct 30th. I requested that the Merge be kept open and more time be given for improvements. On Oct 31, the proposer agreed in the edit summary: "Unclosing discussion. I will AfD the article in 4 days." Those four days would end tomorrow, Monday, at 22:38 pm Eastern. Fwiw, the original merge discussion had most comments before Oct 31. Since that time, there have been ~ 145 edits by 12 users, including substantive additions based on added reliable sources. ProfGray (talk) 21:59, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable topic. Nonwithstanding possible rename options which are OK. Andre🚐 22:34, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  There is already agreement on the talk page that the current title is not even a topic. There is no agreement on an alternative title and no agreement on the article scope, never mind any other problems. Selfstudier (talk) 23:02, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Keep aside from possible orignial research, I believe the article demonstrated enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. I have no comment regarding the proposed merge; that should be dealt on its substituent talk page. Takipoint123 (talk) 22:54, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete or merge. If merging, it should only be parts of the page, not the whole thing. The issue really isn't notability, so much as whether it is encyclopedic as a standalone page. There is way too much WP:SYNTH and some very serious problems with WP:NPOV and WP:COATRACK, intersecting with edit warring over the merge. And now, a bot has flagged the page as even having WP:COPYVIO problems. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:28, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  The diff the bot flagged was this one (see the CopyPatrol report) because of the quote in the reference, which is valid under fair use. There is no copyright violation. No comment on the other issues. C F A 💬 23:34, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

• Procedural keep. The nomination isn't asking for deletion, there's overlap with a merge discussion at the talk page, and nobody here has advocated only deletion. All these factors combine to make a procedural muddle. Wait until the merge discussion is closed, and if there's no consensus for a merge, someone's free to propose deletion. Nyttend (talk) 23:44, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
• Keep - There's no need to separate the article. Ahri Boy (talk) 02:47, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
• Keep as standalone per WP:GNG given significant coverage of topic, both in academic and media reliable sources. Please see my full comment in the Merge discussion. ProfGray (talk) 18:12, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
• Keep - as standalone per WP:GNG given significant coverage of the topic, both in academic and media reliable sources. Furthermore, an attempt by the Misplaced Pages community to downplay the topic, which is a criticism of Misplaced Pages, would look like self-serving. Why should this be treated differently than Misplaced Pages coverage of American politics? Vegan416 (talk) 11:52, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
• Keep - I see significant coverage of this topic in reliable sources, more than enough to warrant an independent article. Misplaced Pages is an important worldwide phenomenon, and we must judge this topic by the same criteria as any other article, such as Antisemitism on social media. Whizkin (talk) 12:06, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

  Re: Antisemitism on social media, perhaps there could a brief summary there and then a link to this as the Main article. But then would there be a big to-do by folks arguing that WP is not a "social media" or social networking site, even though it's often treated as such in scholarship? ProfGray (talk) 13:19, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

• Keep. Clearly a notable topic and amply sourced. Coretheapple (talk) 14:44, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
• Merge - I think we should follow the original merge proposal to Criticism of Misplaced Pages. I know the original closer said they'd allow a follow up for a AfD, but I don't think this is necessary, we should stick to the original proposal's results. There seemed to be a pretty clear consensus on the article's talk page, so it seems wrong to then ignore that & try again here. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 15:10, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Keep

It doesn’t look good for an editor specifically named by journalists as an alleged participant in a co-ordinated attempt to systematically introduce bias into articles on Misplaced Pages about Israel and Palestine to have any input whatsoever into these sorts of decisions.

Said editor should at minimum recuse themselves from this process, with Admin enforcement if they are not forthcoming.

Otherwise it could lead to a perception that such editors might be wielding their authority in order to protect themselves against such claims by burying independent articles further down much longer and vaguer articles.

I make no judgement about the veracity of the claims. Presumption of innocence is important. Merely that such a user should recuse themselves from any involvement in making decisions about an article which cites allegations against them specifically, in order to avoid any possible perception of a conflict of interest or bias.

https://www.piratewires.com/p/how-wikipedia-s-pro-hamas-editors-hijacked-the-israel-palestine-narrative KronosAlight (talk) 17:14, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

• AfD debates (Indiscernible or unclassifiable topic)
• AfD debates