Revision as of 19:49, 31 October 2024 editHemiauchenia (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users59,414 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 19:57, 31 October 2024 edit undoAndreJustAndre (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users40,365 edits →Synth topic?: ReplyTag: ReplyNext edit → | ||
Line 125: | Line 125: | ||
::Misplaced Pages and antisemitism is not a topic, Misplaced Pages and antisemitic bias might be, if sufficient sourcing can be found to back that up. This article is synth city atm. ] (]) 19:38, 31 October 2024 (UTC) | ::Misplaced Pages and antisemitism is not a topic, Misplaced Pages and antisemitic bias might be, if sufficient sourcing can be found to back that up. This article is synth city atm. ] (]) 19:38, 31 October 2024 (UTC) | ||
::{{u|Andrevan}} Can you link that article? I'm curious if it covers the I-P dispute. ''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 19:39, 31 October 2024 (UTC) | ::{{u|Andrevan}} Can you link that article? I'm curious if it covers the I-P dispute. ''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 19:39, 31 October 2024 (UTC) | ||
:::Something like this perhaps and no, those articles are about WWII not the I-P stuff. For that, something like this or this regarding the ADL stuff is relevant. Note that these are about ''Misplaced Pages and antisemitism'' in the sense that they are about coverage of antisemitism on Misplaced Pages, not that Misplaced Pages is antisemitic. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 19:57, 31 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
:For your question about RS sources, see my comment above at this diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Misplaced Pages%20and%20antisemitism&diff=1254534776&oldid=1254500739 ] (]) 19:45, 31 October 2024 (UTC) ] (]) 19:45, 31 October 2024 (UTC) | :For your question about RS sources, see my comment above at this diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Misplaced Pages%20and%20antisemitism&diff=1254534776&oldid=1254500739 ] (]) 19:45, 31 October 2024 (UTC) ] (]) 19:45, 31 October 2024 (UTC) |
Revision as of 19:57, 31 October 2024
This draft does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||
|
Proposal to merge to Criticism of Misplaced Pages
Overwhelming consensus to merge (non-admin closure). If anyone objects I will take the article to AfD. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:47, 31 October 2024 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
.While the creation of the article might have been well intentioned, I think it makes more sense as part of the broader Criticism of Misplaced Pages article, where it can be presented alongside similar topics like racism. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:16, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
- Nah, don’t merge. I am pretty sure that this page could warrant as its own article. It doesn’t need to be presented alongside similar topics. 2607:FEA8:FD04:8183:BC1F:FF73:8E47:AD (talk) 03:53, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support merge This is obviously just a WP:POVFORK by itself, particularly in its incredibly short stub version right now. This should be a section in Criticism of Misplaced Pages and, if it became long enough in the future, then that would be a reason to fork it, like other sub-sections currently in that article. Silverseren 04:04, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
- A POVFORK of what? Most articles begin as stubs; we don't normally delete or merge articles for being stubs especially mere hours after they're created. — xDanielx /C\ 16:57, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose merge: Short mention on Criticism of Misplaced Pages is fine, but this topic warrants a stub as even its content relates to Jewish history and goes beyond criticism of WP. I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 06:35, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support merge. As evidence that this stub is likely to become a POV fork, take the statement in the stub that Misplaced Pages's consensus decision to regard the ADL as unreliable on issues of anti-semitism
was viewed by Jewish community members as an attempt to delegitimise Jewish communal perspectives
. Expressed in wikivoice, that claim reflects the POV of writers who weaponize the charge of anti-semitism. There is no common view of the "Jewish community" or "Jewish communal perspectives". Jews, like other religious and ethnic groups, are sharply divided on many controversies, especially now on Israel's policies and actions, ranging from strong support to strong condemnation. That statement from the stub can itself be criticized as anti-semitic because it delegitimizes Jews who do not share the writer's POV, as if they're not really Jews or are "crappy Jews" (a term for Kamala Harris's husband coming from a Trump supporter and radio host). NightHeron (talk) 08:25, 26 October 2024 (UTC)- Why not treat this NPOV concern like any other content dispute, and handle it with WP:BRD? — xDanielx /C\ 17:26, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
- I discussed this particular case of POV-pushing in wikivoice as evidence of a broader problem, namely, creating a POV-fork, that is, the article attracts POV-pushers and not enough editors would be watchlisting it to fix it every time. That can't be fixed by BRD, and is a good reason to support a merge into an article that editors closely watch. NightHeron (talk) 07:02, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
- I don't believe topics can inherently violate neutrality (though titles can). Topics can be provocative, but there's no policy basis for avoiding provocative topics that are notable, and we have many of them: Category:Criticisms, Category:Accusations, Category:Pejorative terms, etc. With divisive articles, normally editors on both sides will watchlist it and participate in disputes. That might not be happening yet since there's little incentive to improve content during an effort to remove it. — xDanielx /C\ 18:29, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
- FWIW, I think there is incentive to improve an article during a Merge or AfD discussion, because Notability could be reinforced by finding, say, academic articles that cover antisemitism (as a whole) and Misplaced Pages. ProfGray (talk) 00:40, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
- I don't believe topics can inherently violate neutrality (though titles can). Topics can be provocative, but there's no policy basis for avoiding provocative topics that are notable, and we have many of them: Category:Criticisms, Category:Accusations, Category:Pejorative terms, etc. With divisive articles, normally editors on both sides will watchlist it and participate in disputes. That might not be happening yet since there's little incentive to improve content during an effort to remove it. — xDanielx /C\ 18:29, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
- I discussed this particular case of POV-pushing in wikivoice as evidence of a broader problem, namely, creating a POV-fork, that is, the article attracts POV-pushers and not enough editors would be watchlisting it to fix it every time. That can't be fixed by BRD, and is a good reason to support a merge into an article that editors closely watch. NightHeron (talk) 07:02, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
- Why not treat this NPOV concern like any other content dispute, and handle it with WP:BRD? — xDanielx /C\ 17:26, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support merge. There is no need for a specific page on this. We could have dozens of pages on "wikipedia and x", and that would be pointless naval gazing.--Boynamedsue (talk) 11:48, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
- We do have quite a few such articles - Misplaced Pages and the COVID-19 pandemic, Misplaced Pages and the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Misplaced Pages and the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, Misplaced Pages coverage of American politics, etc. Normally we include them if they pass WP:GNG, I don't see why we would treat them any differently. — xDanielx /C\ 17:21, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
- I would say that this doesn't really merit an article of its own as it stands. It's an essay compiling largely unrelated incidents relating to Jews/Israel/antisemitism synthed together. For example, the presence of antisemitic usernames mentioned in a 2010 article not primarily about antisemitism is squashed together in the same sentence as an article mentioning attempts to minimise the significance of the labour antisemitism media frenzy of 2017. Also, some of the above might not either in my view, but other things exist.--Boynamedsue (talk) 17:42, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support merge If we're going to have an article about the portrayal of Jews in Misplaced Pages it definitely should not be titled like this one. This article seems to me to be an instance of Weaponization of antisemitism. NadVolum (talk) 13:50, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
- Comment - There is a case to be made either way as to whether this should be a stand-alone article. There certainly needs to be balance added if it is kept, since this seems to be a POV piece in intent. There is an international effort to discredit Misplaced Pages on this topic, I note, and this topic fits quite neatly with that political narrative. Carrite (talk) 16:38, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
- ...international or (((international)))?
- I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 23:17, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
- Please keep your anti-Semitism -- or aspersions of anti-Semitism --- off this site. If this is an attempt at a joke, please make better ones in the future. Carrite (talk) 17:34, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
- What evidence of "
an international effort to discredit Misplaced Pages on this topic
" is found in any reliable sources? This comment reads as if directed at the motivations (aka good faith) of the editor(s) involved, especially since the topic (article title) itself is NPOV. As such, the comment is inappropriate for this thread, right? ProfGray (talk) 23:18, 30 October 2024 (UTC)- Thank you for taking to time to explain this so clearly for the benefit of the editors in this discussion.
- I found my more terse remark (and likely, it's cynicism is ill-placed in this discussion) necessary given the absolute irony that someone who sees a new article with the words "Misplaced Pages" and "antisemitism" would immediately jump to proclaim that international conspiracy is threatening to sully the reputation of this wonderful project of human knowledge. I initially waited to see if anyone else would call this out. But once I saw that this was ignored it was simply too difficult to pass up on this very gentle jab at the (probable) unconcious anti-Jewish bias being expressed in the name of neutrality. It was certainly not a joke but a terse, honest critique of that person's bias. I thought those three words ("intl. or intl.") should suffice (...a bit like the Trotsky-Stalin telegram joke...). I didn't think any additional discussion was required. Those who understood would not need any clarification. And those who did not understand would probably find better things to do. But since then I see a few editors insist on having all things explained. So here you have it. No hard feelings. We all have unconscious biases (whether it be antisemitic, pro-Jewish, or otherwise) and I am satisfied with the direction of this broader discussion and I will happily accept the outcome. I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 08:26, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support merge - Upon further review, the lead sets up a POV essay and the shout out to Hebrew Misplaced Pages for its sound coverage is beyond the pale, so to speak. This is a POV fork that should be a subtopic of the larger article. Carrite (talk) 16:43, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose merge for now - this is premature. The article was created hours ago, let's give it a chance to be flushed out before deciding that there isn't enough content for a standalone article. Any POV concerns should be addressed by improving the article; the same reasoning and precedent from Misplaced Pages:NPOV deletion applies to merges as well. — xDanielx /C\ 17:11, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support merge as POVFORK. Then nominate all "Criticism of" articles for deletion for the same reason. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:56, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
- That'd be quite a lot, some examples at Category:Criticisms by ideology and Category:Criticisms of companies. And of course Category:Criticism of Misplaced Pages. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:21, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support merge. I think it's actually premature to decide that this, by itself, should be a standalone topic. It's fine to treat it as a subtopic of Criticism of Misplaced Pages, but a page based on "X and Y" can be tricky when it's about a controversial topic. Misplaced Pages and racism, for example, is a red link, whereas Gender bias on Misplaced Pages is a topic with a more substantial history. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:52, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
- Comment - It has additionally been pointed out on Wikipediocracy that Misplaced Pages and the Israeli–Palestinian conflict exists, making this even more of a POV fork. Carrite (talk) 20:31, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
- In what may be a first for me, I should disclose that I came to this discussion by way of WPO. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:53, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support merge. Seems to be a POV fork. As it stands, the article is clearly non-neutral, and I cannot see any realistic chance of it ever being otherwise. An inherently divisive topic, hosted on a website that itself is inevitably going to struggle to cover subject matter concerning itself with any degree of neutrality. Misplaced Pages in general, and its coverage of specific topics both absolutely merit in-depth scrutiny, but such topics should be left to those working beyond the confines of the project. There will no doubt be many views on this particular subject, but Misplaced Pages itself has to be about the worst place to try to arrive at a neutral summary. Or to convince its readers that it can do so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:25, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose merge for now per xDanielx and WP:DEMOLISH. Recent discussion of this topic in RS and reliable research about the Holocaust and concentration camp debacle should be enough notability and significant coverage for a standalone article. I might support a move/rename of this article, such as "Antisemitism on/in Misplaced Pages" as I think that's clearer. While there is a risk of navel-gazing here, that isn't a reason not to have an article at a notable topic, nor is OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST. Andre🚐 23:06, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
- Concerns that support merge. I'm checking the sources here. On the one hand, here's an academic study about a massacre of Jews (i.e., a specific case of antisemitism) that "compared English, Russian, and Ukrainian articles on Babi Yar. So this source is fine. On the other hand, there are many RS and concomitant notability problems:
- this source (currently fn 2) is merely about access to Misplaced Pages's articles about antisemitism: Tausch, Arno. "The political geography of Shoah knowledge and awareness, estimated from the analysis of global library catalogues and Misplaced Pages user statistics." Jewish Political Studies Review 31, no. 1/2 (2020): 7-123.
- this source only has one sentence about antisemitism with no evidence IINM (currently fn 9): Tripodi, Francesca. "Ms. Categorized: Gender, notability, and inequality on Misplaced Pages." New media & society 25, no. 7 (2023): 1687-1707.
- this source doesn't seem to mention Jews or antisemitism at all (currently fn 12): Bao, Patti, Brent Hecht, Samuel Carton, Mahmood Quaderi, Michael Horn, and Darren Gergle. "Omnipedia: bridging the wikipedia language gap." In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 1075-1084. 2012.
- this source (current fn 3) is about I/P and belongs in Misplaced Pages and the Israeli–Palestinian conflict: Oboler, Andre, Gerald Steinberg, and Rephael Stern. "The framing of political NGOs in Misplaced Pages through criticism elimination." Journal of Information Technology & Politics 7, no. 4 (2010): 284-299.
- more sources for Misplaced Pages and the Israeli–Palestinian conflict include current footnotes 16,17,18,19 -- this is about alleged anti-Israel bias, even though some refer to it as antisemitism, too
- There's already coverage of some specific Poland - Holocaust editing, e.g., the 2023 charges mentioned in Grabowski Klein (currently fn 6) are in: List of Misplaced Pages controversies and List of edit wars on Misplaced Pages. See also current fn 7 and 8 and 22. Put in Criticism of Misplaced Pages or similar articles?
- If there isn't even one Reliable Source with its main topic as Misplaced Pages and antisemitism (in general), how much synthesis is involved here?
- Therefore, please carefully check the sources before assuming that it's a notable topic for an article. ProfGray (talk) 01:39, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
- I would agree, there is a hell of a lot of synthesis in this article as it stands. There are quite a lot of articles relating to specific incidents which relate to antisemitism, but I don't see anything that relates specifically to antisemitism as a whole. The Polish incident seems particularly well-covered.--Boynamedsue (talk) 06:34, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support merge a WP:POVFORK based on WP:SYNTH; much better care needs to be taken to avoid such misconstructions. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:16, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
- If I may ask, POVFORK from what existing article? Upon further analysis, I'm seeing reliable sources that cover this topic and not seeing the content elsewhere. Fwiw, I agree that the neutrality of the writing should be improved. ProfGray (talk) 14:02, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support merge Might be better just to AfD it as POVFORK in order to speed things up, a merge discussion can drag on even when it is clear that is what should be done.Selfstudier (talk) 18:34, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
- A deletion discussions will still take a week. If the consensus is clear in a few days time I will go ahead and merge the articles myself. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:31, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Hemiauchenia: What do you think? If you think there is a consensus to merge, we can do that and if not, I am quite happy to AfD it. Selfstudier (talk) 13:36, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
- A deletion discussions will still take a week. If the consensus is clear in a few days time I will go ahead and merge the articles myself. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:31, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
- Merge what is salvageable but there is actually little is this one-sided mash of SYNTH that is salvageable. Zero 11:09, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
- Comment - Notice how the extensive recent editing has made the article into a full-fledged POV-fork, expressing the Zionist POV in wikivoice. For example, throughout the first section after the Overview, Community Perspectives, the writing is based on the false premise that the Jewish community is a monolith with agreed-upon "Jewish community perspectives" on Israel and the Palestinians. (For example, in wikivoice:
was viewed by Jewish community members as
.) As many commentators have noted, this allows them to weaponize the charge of antisemitism and call any opposition to the Zionist agenda "antisemitic". They then regard the many Jews who disagree with them and condemn Israeli genocide in Gaza as not really Jewish or as "crappy Jews" (in the words of a MAGA radio host, referring to Kamala Harris's Jewish husband). This POV-fork is what several of us who voted for the merge wanted to prevent. NightHeron (talk) 09:06, 30 October 2024 (UTC)- This comment criticizes the edit that includes, in wikivoice:
was viewed by Jewish community members as
. However, isn't it crucial to check the sources for this edit? The sources include info about dozens of major American Jewish organizations that present themselves as speaking for the Jewish community. While the Jewish community is not monolithic, the sources either support or help explain the edit, right? - By the way, I myself have serious concerns with this article (as seen from my main comment here) but it is still important that comments address the merits of the article and not speculate about the intent of the editor(s) involved. ProfGray (talk) 00:39, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
- This comment criticizes the edit that includes, in wikivoice:
- The edit in question did not say that "according to several Jewish organizations that claim to speak for the entire Jewish community,...". If it had, that would have been an attributed statement, not wikivoice. Rather, the editor took the organizations' claim as fact. But the only way the claim could be correct is if the vast number of Jews who vehemently disagree with the POV of those organizations are classified as non-Jews or as a lower category of Jews who should not be counted as part of the Jewish community, even if they've been observant Jews their whole life. NightHeron (talk) 01:05, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
- 'Merge discussions go on the target page's talk page, not the talk page of the article to be merged. Also, the logical target, if there's going to be a merge, is ideological bias on Misplaced Pages -- a terrible coatrack of an article, but one which has managed to stick around, and where this would fit in. — Rhododendrites \\ 16:38, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
- Hi there. I added a Antisemitic bias subsection to the Criticism of Misplaced Pages article. Doesn't that seem like a suitable location? Also, not sure that antisemitism is always treated in sources as an ideology itself. ProfGray (talk) 14:06, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
- Merge whatever little is salvageable. TrangaBellam (talk) 08:27, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
- Sources that suggest Notability. Although 5 days ago I raised concerns (above) with the sources in an earlier version, the following solid sources appear to demonstrate the independent notability of this topic:
- 2010 analysis that includes antisemitic bias: Oboler, Andre, Gerald Steinberg, and Rephael Stern. "The framing of political NGOs in Misplaced Pages through criticism elimination." Journal of Information Technology & Politics 7, no. 4 (2010): 284-299.
- Research across different language Wikipedias on coverage of Holocaust: Makhortykh, Mykola. "Framing the Holocaust online: memory of the Babi Yar massacres on Misplaced Pages." Studies in Russian, Eurasian and Central European New Media 18 (2017): 67-94. Also: Wolniewicz-Slomka, D. (2016). Framing the Holocaust in popular knowledge: 3 articles about the Holocaust in English, Hebrew and Polish Misplaced Pages. Adeptus, (8), 29-49.
- Academic critique of WP coverage of Holocaust and Poland: Grabowski, Jan, and Shira Klein. "Misplaced Pages’s Intentional Distortion of the History of the Holocaust." The Journal of Holocaust Research 37, no. 2 (2023): 133-190. Followed by a rebuttal by a Wikipedian, including a (paywall) academic article cited by Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2023-02-20/In the media. An ArbCom review has been covered by news media.
- ADL case. Major Jewish groups say their defense against antisemitism is weakened by Misplaced Pages's handling of ADL as a reliable source, as covered by Jewish media. US special envoy on antisemitism also weighed in briefly. CNN and USA Today about media coverage over ADL. Given this coverage, and that ADL itself is focused on antisemitism, the antisemitic bias allegations are noteworthy.
- Finally, in the past year, conservative and centrist Jewish organizations and journalists have argued that Misplaced Pages's coverage of ongoing war is not only anti-Israel, it also shows antisemitic bias. Coverage noted at: Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2024-08-14/In the media and has grown since then. Whether "True" or not, their arguments are about Misplaced Pages and antisemitism, cannot simply be put into Misplaced Pages and the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, right?
- Does Misplaced Pages have an actual antisemitic bias? That's not our question. Our question is how much the topic is addressed by reliable sources. Perhaps all this content should be merged into Criticism of Misplaced Pages. For that purpose, that article now has an Antisemitic bias subsection. If this article is kept as a main article (child-parent) to the Criticism article, then this article should be renamed Antisemitic bias on Misplaced Pages to be consistent with comparable gender and racial bias articles. ProfGray (talk) 13:29, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
- The first 3 sources call for an article like Coverage of the Holocaust on Misplaced Pages. RS don't seem to connect W's coverage of Holocaust to W's coverage of the I-P conflict. VR (Please ping on reply) 19:29, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
- Rename and improve. I am generally opposed to "and" titled topics, which typically refer to non-topics and almost always turn out to be non-NPOV personal essays (same reason I opposed Zionism, race, and genetics, a non-NPOV essay that eventually became Racial conceptions of Jewish identity in Zionism). And in its current state it seems to be something of a POV fork. However, per ProfGray, there are a number of quality sources which clearly see something like Antisemitism in Misplaced Pages as a topic. And merging into the already baggy Criticism of Misplaced Pages article would make that unwieldier. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:11, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose merge I don't see this as a POVFORK. I agree with xDanielx's reasoning here. Should all of that be merged? Bitspectator ⛩️ 18:48, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
Too big?
WP:NOMERGE tells us to avoid merging if the resulting article would be too long or "clunky"
. Criticism of Misplaced Pages is already at 9,356 words (per prosesize), in the range where WP:SIZERULE says it Probably should be divided or trimmed
. Merging would put it over 10k words.
While I don't see why a merge is needed (most arguments for it are not a standard WP:MERGEREASON), if we must merge this somewhere, Misplaced Pages and the Israeli–Palestinian conflict might be suitable (it's a slightly different scope but most content could fit either) and doesn't have a size issue. — xDanielx /C\ 02:32, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
- I sympathise with the question of length, but some articles do need to be longer than our guidelines. I would disagree strongly on the location. Suggesting all forms of antisemitism are relevant to Israel/Palestine is not a defensible position.Boynamedsue (talk) 08:30, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
- The reason length is not a problem is that lots of this article is irrelevant or synth and doesn't need to go anywhere. Zero 11:09, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
- If the idea is to delete the bulk of the content (for reasons other than redundancy), then this doesn't really seem like a merge in spirit, and I would argue that this isn't the right venue or process. — xDanielx /C\ 17:25, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
- The material from this page that might end up being merged into another article need not necessarily be the entirety of it, as in a copy-paste. One could merge revised and shortened content into another page, without changing the premise of the ongoing merge discussion. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:52, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
- Merges with massive amounts of deletion are quite frequent.Boynamedsue (talk) 07:43, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
- Sort of, but that's usually either
- an AfD where the subject isn't notable, so the alternative is deletion,
- or a merge that results in lots of redundant material being deduplicated.
- Here neither applies, and most arguments for merging aren't standard WP:MERGEREASONs, so it feels like a backdoor to deletion without the policy rigor of AfD. — xDanielx /C\ 20:40, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
- I had the impression that avoiding a POV-fork was a pretty standard reason for arguing for a merge. NightHeron (talk) 20:47, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
- I think it would fall under the duplicate/overlap reasons, but here there isn't much overlap with anything (as far as I know), so it's not actually a POV fork in my opinion. — xDanielx /C\ 20:52, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
- I had the impression that avoiding a POV-fork was a pretty standard reason for arguing for a merge. NightHeron (talk) 20:47, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
- Sort of, but that's usually either
- If the idea is to delete the bulk of the content (for reasons other than redundancy), then this doesn't really seem like a merge in spirit, and I would argue that this isn't the right venue or process. — xDanielx /C\ 17:25, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support merge. This article is too small to warrant a fork, a section on Criticism of Misplaced Pages would do just fine. Misplaced Pages receives a lot of criticism from multiple sources regading a lot of different topics, the bar for creating a stand-alone article about each of these topics should be very high. Badbluebus (talk) 19:13, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
Proposal to merge to Antisemitism
MERGE Procedural close. It is not possible to open a second merge discussion predicated on a consensus for the first merge. If there is consensus to merge, this discussion is obviated and the merge proceeds. If there is no consensus to merge, a new discussion may be started. Alternative targets may be discussed in a merge discussion and do not require a parallel process. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:39, 30 October 2024 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This is an alternative merge proposal to be considered in the event that the above discussion results in the decision to merge the page. If the editors here insist on a merge, let the page be merged to antisemitism as the content here covers more than just criticism of WP. I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 23:19, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Antisemitism is over 12,000 words, 50% over the recommended size limit. Also Misplaced Pages feels too specific for such a broad overview article, especially when "Antisemitism on the internet" seems barely discussed in the article to begin with.
- Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:00, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
- Putting merge destination aside, I think editors need to figure out whether to go for a full merge or a selective merge, before a closer swoops in. — hako9 (talk) 00:56, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
- I think a rough consensus exists that the article needs a full rewrite, containing a lot of WP:SYNTH so a minimalist selective merge would be necessary.Boynamedsue (talk) 08:32, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
- As an aside, has anyone here verified the journal sources with the claims made? — hako9 (talk) 23:47, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
- see my comment in the previous section, with 6 concerns about the use of sources ProfGray (talk) 02:26, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
- As an aside, has anyone here verified the journal sources with the claims made? — hako9 (talk) 23:47, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
- I think a rough consensus exists that the article needs a full rewrite, containing a lot of WP:SYNTH so a minimalist selective merge would be necessary.Boynamedsue (talk) 08:32, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
Recommended edits if article is kept
To better assess the viability of this article, let's discuss edits that might improve it. How about restructring the headings to cover the different subtopics of antisemitic bias?
- Explicit antisemitic conduct. This could include media coverage of swastika vandalism and antisemitic user names.
- Bias in coverage of the Holocaust.
- Bias in articles on the Israel-Palestine conflict. This would be a child-parent subsection to the main article on Misplaced Pages and the Israel-Palestine conflict.
- Systemic bias. This could include terminology bias. Also, suppression of accusations of antisemitic bias, as argued by: Oboler, Andre, Gerald Steinberg, and Rephael Stern. "The framing of political NGOs in Misplaced Pages through criticism elimination." Journal of Information Technology & Politics 7, no. 4 (2010): 284-299.
- Efforts to address antisemitic bias
The current article also mentions concerns with bias in Arabic Misplaced Pages, treatment of Jewish biographies, etc. Under what heading would we place the antisemitic bias concerns with the ADL case? ProfGray (talk) 13:55, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.Synth topic?
Are there high quality RS that treat antisemitism and wikipedia as a coherent topic? We seem to have good RS talking about certain instances of antisemitism and wikipedia, but we can't WP:synthesize individual incidents to make a topic.VR (Please ping on reply) 19:24, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
- I disagree that this topic is synthetic. There are a number of articles, primarily about the Holocaust fake concentration camp debacle, that do treat this as a topic. Andre🚐 19:27, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages and antisemitism is not a topic, Misplaced Pages and antisemitic bias might be, if sufficient sourcing can be found to back that up. This article is synth city atm. Selfstudier (talk) 19:38, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
- Andrevan Can you link that article? I'm curious if it covers the I-P dispute. VR (Please ping on reply) 19:39, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
- Something like this perhaps and no, those articles are about WWII not the I-P stuff. For that, something like this or this regarding the ADL stuff is relevant. Note that these are about Misplaced Pages and antisemitism in the sense that they are about coverage of antisemitism on Misplaced Pages, not that Misplaced Pages is antisemitic. Andre🚐 19:57, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
- For your question about RS sources, see my comment above at this diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Misplaced Pages%20and%20antisemitism&diff=1254534776&oldid=1254500739 ProfGray (talk) 19:45, 31 October 2024 (UTC) ProfGray (talk) 19:45, 31 October 2024 (UTC)