-
Allegations of antisemitism in the United Nations (
talk|
|
history|
logs|
links|
watch) (
XfD|
restore)
The closing admin disregarded the discussion, and, indeed, does not appear to have read it. The closing statement did not contain any review of the discussion or an assessment of its outcome, but a statement of the admin's own concern regarding the article. Disturbingly, the admin did not address the arguments of one of the discussion's participants (
user:Ryan Paddy), who expressed essentially the same concern as the admin, but nevertheless advocated keeping the article. The only acknowledgement by the admin that there even was a debate was in his statement "The debate is moot. NPOV is non-negotiable." Frankly, this is pretty insulting to the debate's participants, especially the slight majority who advocated keeping the article, who were presumably aware of Wikipedia's NPOV policy yet did not think that the debate was moot.
Even more disturbingly, the admin stated after the close that he "hate[s] such articles [as this and
Criticism of the United Nations] as simply an indiscriminate list of one-sided attacks"
[1]. If the idea of AfD being a community decision is to mean anything at all, admins with pre-set positions on a particular type of article should not close discussions on articles of that type, certainly not while openly ignoring the discussion, and should be reprimanded when they do.
Finally, I suppose its worth noting - if only because this DR will inevitably and improperly set off a new discussion on the merits of the article - that a procedural problem with the AfD alleged by
user:Freakshownerd was never substantially addressed; and that some of the arguments for deletion, such as the nom's main contention that the article confused between anti-Zionism and antisemitism, were based on assumptions that can easily be shown to be false.
Jalapenos do exist (
talk) 20:07, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Closer's remarks. This DRV begins by assuming bad faith, and calling me a liar. Not encouraging. I've already told the appellant, that I considered the debate and the discussion carefully, and the close was not an easy one. Not least because however one closed this, given the strong POVs held on such issues, it was almost inevitably going to come to DRV - and the closer was almost certain to be bad-mouthed. That in itself says something about the problem with this type of article.
- Afd isn't a vote - particularly when a core policy is at stake. The key part of the nomination was "POV fork of Israel, Palestine, and the United Nations and is written in such a way to suggest that the United Nations is antisemitic". The question only is can such a POV be "cured" by better content, or is it inherent in the article itself. Being a POV fork is beside the point - the question is no "how did the article arise?" The question is "can the article be fixed to comply with NPOV?."
-
user:Ryan Paddy (who's articulate views I considered at length) suggested it was a POV fork, but rightly (imo) saw that as irrelevant. However, he then stated the article should "present both the allegations and the counter-arguments, however that is a content issue so not relevant at AfD". I viewed that as mistaken. An article about "The UN and Jews" might be able to neutrally account for BOTH sides of the argument - recording alleged biases in both directions. However, this article simply invites participants to list allegations of anti-Jewish bias. The suggestion that it can be balanced by providing "counter arguments" for each allegation is misplaced, because the article's format inherently rules out all discusison that isn't a response to allegations of bias in one direction.
- OK, cut to the chase, does anyone think Wikipedia will ever have a balanced article with a title like this?
- NPOV is not negotiable. An article which intrinsically will never be neutral (and, incidently, will always be trouble) must be deleted. It is as simple as that. I am happy to undelete the content to allow an article with a proper, balanced, scope.--
Scott Mac 20:40, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Eh? I certainly didn't call you a liar, and I don't believe you are. I am inclined to think, based on your comments and until seeing some evidence to the contrary, that your close was heavily influenced by your pre-set position regarding this type of article; I don't see this as bad faith, but as a serious mistake made in good faith. Your new comments reinforce my contention that you closed the AfD based on your own opinion of the article and not on the result of the discussion. (I'd be happy to debate your argument that an article like this is inherently incompatible with WP:NPOV, but this isn't the appropriate place. Why don't you join the next AfD discussion as a participant?) I'm glad that you've responded to my tentative suggestion of turning the article into
The UN and Jews, which I proposed on your talk page. I think if that suggestion is to be implemented, the first step would be to restore the article, but I should state for the record that I for one don't think at present that this is the ideal solution.
Jalapenos do exist (
talk) 21:13, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
reply
- When you came to my talk page, I informed you I took "some time considering the article, the debate, and the implications of our NPOV", yet you state I "disregarded the discussion, and, indeed, does not appear to have read it". I can't see that as anything but an assumption of bad faith. As for you accusation that "your close was heavily influenced by your pre-set position regarding this type of article", well, I could perhaps assert the same about you. Pre-set positions on Jewish/Israeli articles are part of the problem here, and why I predicted a DRV regardless of the close. And, yes, I have a pre-set opinion articles which inherently breach NPOV.--
Scott Mac 21:24, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
reply
- To be precise (correct me if I'm wrong), you have a pre-set opinion that all articles whose topic is "criticism of...", "allegations of...", etc. inherently breach WP:NPOV and should be deleted. Most of the participants in the AfD disagreed with this opinion, and Ryan Paddy elaborated on why. His comments were one of the things in the discussion which you could have referred to in closing, or at least acknowledged, but you referred to nothing. I didn't mean to say that you disregarded the discussion inside your own mind, but that you disregarded it in the action of closing. And again, I don't think this was in bad faith; even now you seem to be genuinely unaware (or unconvinced) that this is a problem.
Jalapenos do exist (
talk) 21:50, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Eh? Can we stick to the topic and not my views "pre-set" or otherwise? The question is, am I correct that this is inherently POV? If I am, then my close is the only possible conclusion.--
Scott Mac 21:58, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
reply
- No, you're not correct. Ryan Paddy elaborated on why. I'd be happy to elaborate myself in a more appropriate forum. In any case, that is not the question. The question is whether there was a consensus to delete the article. There clearly wasn't.
Jalapenos do exist (
talk) 22:16, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse The fact that no-one felt the need to address Freakshownerd's comment is more a case of it gaining no support/traction in the discussion rather then evidence of a flawed discussion. This is a troubling nomination because of basic assumptions of bad faith on the part of the closing admin. I see nothing wrong with this close.
Spartaz
Humbug! 21:01, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
reply
- There was no assumption of bad faith. If I said anything indicating such an assumption, please point it out and I will cross it out. Also, since Freakshownerd's comment is not the central issue here, do you have any comments on the list of problems I mentioned regarding the close?
Jalapenos do exist (
talk) 21:18, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
reply
- "The closing admin disregarded the discussion, and, indeed, does not appear to have read it..." is a blatant assumption of bad faith. As is "certainly not while openly ignoring the discussion..." —
The Hand That Feeds You:
Bite 17:15, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse. OR seems to be to be just as strong a reason to delete this as NPOV (it might be possible to have a neutral article that discusses the allegations in a fair and balanced way but this isn't it). I say OR because it brings a whole bunch of allegations from separate sources together rather than using any sources that discuss the actual subject of the article in a comprehensive way. In any case, admins have latitude when there are core policies at play and this close was within that latitude. --
Mkativerata (
talk) 22:08, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Who says that admins have that latitude, and in what AfD are "core policies" not at play?
WP:DEL states that "the deletion of a page based on a deletion discussion should only be done when there is consensus to do so." There was clearly no such consensus, so the page should not have been deleted. It's that simple.
Jalapenos do exist (
talk) 22:27, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
reply
- From the
deletion guidelines: "Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any). Arguments that contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted." NPOV and OR are policies (as opposed to our notability guidelines). --
Mkativerata (
talk) 22:30, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
reply
- *Sigh* Yes, and looking at the strength of the arguments and underlying policy, it's clear that there was no consensus to delete. Furthermore, there wasn't even an attempt to argue that there was. Zero analysis of the various arguments, zero "X's position was logically fallacious because...", nothing. Jesus, if this is what it's come to, why bother having AfDs. We should just say openly that the admins will decide the fate of articles by fiat, the inclusionist and deletionist admins can duke it out between themselves, and it would save the rest of us a lot of time.
Jalapenos do exist (
talk) 22:41, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
reply
- First of all, I feel this DrV was raised in good faith. The closer clearly stated their own opinions and didn't discuss the arguments themselves. Given the !vote count leaned toward keep, this seems like a real problem--the closer should address the arguments made, not provide their own reasons for deletion. At the same time I suspect there _was_ a closing statement that could have gotten us to delete and I think Stifle correctly identified the right thing to do here. None-the-less I'm going with overturn to NC as I think that was the result of the discussion even after weighing the strength of arguments (which frankly were largely weak on on the delete side). I'd also be happy with a third party reclosing this debate with a closing statement that addresses the actual debate.
Hobit (
talk) 05:06, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse - Bad-faith assumptions made of the closing admin, and all this amounts to is an "I don't like the result". No missteps or wrongdoing on the closer's part, policy was cited correctly to support the deletion. Case closed.
Tarc (
talk) 13:43, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse. I've split my comments into sections given the length of them.
- Procedural irregularities. I don't agree with the argument that this AfD had procedural problems. Changes to an article are allowed during an AfD and although the changes made may have been more extreme than normal they were reverted before the vast majority of the !votes so cannot have impacted them. Messaging one person in an attempt to improve an article and/or to get a second opinion is most definitely not canvassing, asking several editors may be, but asking one edit who a user thinks may be able to help out is a legitimate attempt to improve an article.
- Keep votes. Three keep votes were all based on brewcaster's argument, unfortunately however they do not explain why they think this is not a POV fork and give no reason why the article should be kept, merely trying to discount some possible deletion reasons. Therefore I think it necessary to give little weight to these !votes. Ryan Paddy while giving a good, well-reasoned argument also admits that they've not had a chance to study the sources properly, while Gilisa and Jiujitsuguy appear to be appealing to a notability argument without discussing sources or explaining properly how it meets the notability requirements (e.g. by stating who such comments are by and where they appear). Broccli just appeals to the arguments already given and as I've just explained I find none of them compelling. I struggled to understand Biophys as I fail to see how having this in a seperate article is less NPOV than having it in a more overarching article that gives context and possibly counter-views. Alansohn gives a good argument based on our guidelines.
- Delete/Merge votes. All of the delete !votes appeal to NPOV and that the current article cannot be saved with some suggesting that this topic is best dealt with in another article so as to maintain NPOV. One !vote specifically states that a fork from that article is unnecessary.
- Summary. I find that delete was a reasonable close for this discussion. One reasoned keep !vote (that of Biophys), that does not rely on notability, is countered by several of the delete votes. Therefore essentially the argument appears to come down to whether the notability arguments outweigh the NPOV arguments (both of which have similar number of supporters). I think the NPOV clearly outweigh notability given that the former is a policy while the later is only a guideline and that many of the notability arguments are quite weak (being little more than "I think it's notable"). I feel a merge closure would also have been reasonable but the closer has specifically said they'd undelete for this purpose. Given the NPOV argument I find their decision to delete this article until such time as it can be properly merged to be quite reasonable.
Dpmuk (
talk) 14:36, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Additional comment. I do however think the closer could have worded their close better. They do seem to give their personal opinion and the "The debate is moot, NPOV is non-negotiable" comment is particularly worrying as part of the point of as AfD is to get a consensus on whether a policy has been breached (as this is a decision for the community not a single admin). That said from the first two sentences of the close and their comments here I believe this to be a case of bad wording rather than a bad close.
Dpmuk (
talk) 18:06, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Overturn. Admin closed the afd inconsistent with the discussion therein, based on analysis not put forth by any of the commentators. He should have !voted instead of closing it under his personal rationale. --
brew
crewer
(yada, yada) 17:55, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse- I agree entirely with Dpmuk's lengthy and well-reasoned analysis. I also agree with Tarc that there don't seem to have been any procedural mistakes. Good close.
Reyk
YO! 19:54, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse-I'm not sure I agree with the idea that the debate was "moot", but the close was correct. Most of the keeps seem to center on the idea that the subject is itself notable. That may be, but this article covers it very poorly. As it is (or rather, was when deleted), the article is so one-sided as to be simply unsalvageable. Neutrality is an editorial issue, I grant, not normally something calling for deletion. In this case, though, the article is so far gone that it simply can't be brought into line with
WP:NPOV without being almost completely rewritten. However, if this were to take place in a userspace draft, and the new version was NPOV-complaint, I'd not oppose recreation with that version.--
Fyre2387 (
talk •
contribs) 23:28, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse Dpmuk's arguments are sound. And we need to be very, very, careful about articles like this, which just beg for
WP:COATRACK contributions.
PhGustaf (
talk) 23:37, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse, although I !voted for merger, Scott Mac's closure was in line with policy as well as the argument.
Stifle (
talk) 08:30, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
reply
|