Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 February 6
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus to delete, default to keep. This does not preclude a merger if consensus for one can be found. Sandstein 06:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Mel Gibson DUI incident
- – (View AfD)
These sorts of pages sugarcoat the issue and make it unnecessarily hard to navigate. This information, at its core, involves one man, really. Mel Gibson. None of the officers are notable, nor did they do notable things. The article involves only one notable person. All of it should be at Mel Gibson. After the consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Richards Laugh Factory incident it seemed a good time to gauge consensus here, following my attempt at a merge several months ago that didn't generate much debate-Mask 
07:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - clearly a major and controversial event that received widespread news coverage. The article is well-sourced and verified, and while I accept that coverage of news events has to be limited, there are plenty of news events that currently have their own articles. It's written in an encyclopedic style, and I can't see any reason to delete. Walton monarchist89 09:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- Point- its not a delete, really, just a merge. -Mask
- Then you should not have come here. This is Articles for deletion. Article merger does not involve deletion at any stage of the process. Only come to AFD if an administrator hitting a delete button is what you actually want. Uncle G 10:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC}
- Point- its not a delete, really, just a merge. -Mask
-
- Point. In order to point out how wrongheaded articles such as the "Mel Gibson DUI incident" and the "Michael Richards Laugh Factory incident" are, consider whether there should now be a Wikipedia article on the "Lisa Nowak attempted kidnapping incident." Of course there should not be any such article. But her incident is receiving a lot of news coverage. Her relation to her incident is in many ways the same as Michael Richards' and Mel Gibson's relationships to their incidents. She too has celebrity status. Bus stop 16:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, there should be such an article on the Nowak incident. There is an article, for instance, on 2006 North Korean nuclear test. Lots of other major news events are given their own article. So why not this one? If it were merged to Mel Gibson, that article would become ridiculously long, or else a lot of verified content and detail would be lost. Walton monarchist89 19:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- The nuclear test would be notable for any non-nuclear country. Would a guy blowing up during an arrest be notable if he were not a celebrity? this incident is notable solely for Gibson himself, and belongs at his article. -Mask
-
- Point. I don't think there should be an additional Lisa Nowak article, about her recent incident, and I don't think you think there should be one either. You haven't cited any reasons why you think there should be a separate article on the Lisa Nowak incident. What do you see in common between the North Korean nuclear test and Mel Gibson's arrest for drunken driving and his antisemitic comments? Mel Gibson is one individual. He is not a country. And I don't recognize the comparison between the antisemitic mumblings of a drunk and the very sobering fact of the detonation of a nuclear device. Bus stop 19:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- The nuclear test would be notable for any non-nuclear country. Would a guy blowing up during an arrest be notable if he were not a celebrity? this incident is notable solely for Gibson himself, and belongs at his article. -Mask
- Keep. This is a fairly well-known incident, the article itself seems comprehensive and well-referenced. fraggle 09:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- fraggle -- But it doesn't deserve an article of it's own. The details of the incident that is the subject of this article can be handled perfectly well on the Mel Gibson article page. In fact it already is thoroughly spelled out on the Mel Gibson article page. Therefore, the only question is, why this separate page? Bus stop 21:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- Keep without merging. The article contains way too much material for it to make sense to merge it into Mel Gibson, and most of it seems to be worth keeping. None of the officers or other related parties need to be notable to be covered in an article about the incident. (Their relative non-notability would only preclude individual articles about them). –Sommers (Talk) 09:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Sommers -- This is an article about a living person. And the person is not primarily know for anything nefarious. There is way too much negative material devoted to a minor incident in an otherwise productive and positive life. The reason he is notable enough to be in Wikipedia in the first place is that he has accomplished a lot and, of course, those accomplishments are well documented in verifiable, responsibly published material. You point out the quantity of material in this article -- but that is a big part of the problem. Wikipedia's guidelines for biographies of living people clearly say that we don't go overboard heaping negative implications on the subject of an article. This is a thoroughly negative article. It is about drunk driving and antisemitism. This can and probably should be noted in a general article about Mel Gibson. But it is entirely improper (according to Wikipedia guidelines on biographies of living people) to focus on negativity to the exclusion of all other ingredients of a positive nature in a person's life. The content of this article may not be acceptable in the main, Mel Gibson, article. But it is certainly not acceptable in this article. That is because this article is totally focused on the negative to the exclusion of the positive. Bus stop 21:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Delete This is not wikinews or wikitrivia or wikipeoplemagazine. The event is and can be more than amply covered in the main Mel Gibson article, and I see no need for every celebrity run-in with the law. Borrowing what User:Barno said in the Michael Richards Laugh Factory incident AfD, the parent article can more than amply accommodate what will likely be a matter of little lasting significance. If “incidents” associated with Lenny Bruce or Jim Morrison are covered well enough in the article on those individuals, the same goes for Mel Gibson or Stephen Colbert. Like the Michael Richards article, most of “well-sourced and verified” “comprehensive” material in this article is mostly just a pile-on of media reports. A judicious copy-edit when merging whatever is savageable can deal with the fact there is "too much material". Agent 86 10:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete "Well-sourced" (or "well-referenced") is not an argument to keep this article; it can and should be just as well-sourced in one article under Mel Gibson. "Too much" information is too much information whether in this article or in the Mel Gibson article; judicious trimming back would serve either article well. Mel Gibson was driving drunk. Mel Gibson muttered antisemitic statements. That is not the subject for a stand alone encyclopedia article. The correct perspective is to see the "Mel Gibson DUI incident" in the context of the life of Mel Gibson. The incorrect perspective is to see the life of Mel Gibson as an appendage to the "Mel Gibson DUI incident." Bus stop 13:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- Merge the essential information. No need to create entire articles everytime a "celebrity" does something. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 14:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- Keep without merging. Still a major event that continues to have ramifications and is still referenced whenever a celebrity flies off the handle (see Michael Richards, the guy from Grey's Anatomy, and I even heard watercooler chat comparing Governor Arnold's office tapes to it). If there's an issue with how the content is presented and any so-called "sugar coating" (though one must be careful to not mistake sugar coating for an attempt at NPOV and avoiding WP:BLP issues) that should be handled via WP:BOLD.23skidoo 16:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- Point. What "ramifications" does it continue to have? Bus stop 16:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- Keep This one incident did incredible damage to a very notable person's reputation. Nardman1 16:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- Point. Fine -- it did "incredible damage to a very notable person's reputation." Isn't the question: in what context that "damage" is to be seen? Is that damage to be seen in the context of this one-day incident? No. The correct context in which that "damage" is to be seen is within the context of the entire lifetime of Mel Gibson. Bus stop 16:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- Mel Gibson has hidden his true nature from the public his whole life. This incident fundamentally alters how the public views him. It changes the context of what is really known about his life. It reveals his previous history as a lie. Nardman1 16:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- Point. In point of fact Mel Gibson has long been considered by some to have antisemitic tendencies. But even if that were not so, I don't think biographies of living people should receive branch articles when some editors feel the subject of the article has reached a significantly different stage of life. I think we still have to respect the biological integrity of one person's life. Bus stop 17:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Any info needed can be used in his main article. We are here for overviews, not every little thing he's ever done. Is the Tom Cruise couch jumping incident gonna get it's own page then. Booshakla 17:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Sufficiently detailed and extensive enough to support a separate article although in general I am against separate articles for such incident's. TonyTheTiger 18:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete This incident can easily be incorporated into Mel Gibsons article, I cannot see any need for a separate article•CHILLDOUBT• 19:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Too big to merge, seen many other event articles; this is clearly notable, well written and sourced. Whilding87 19:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- Merge - Essential information can be merged into Mel Gibson article. Much of the other data, while potentially interesting, is not important enough to merit a separate article. Keeping this would set a bad precedent for separate articles for every celebrity divorce case, as well. John Carter 20:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- If such articles are properly sourced to indicate that the incident being discussed is notable on its own, and has sufficient independent published references, then why is it a "bad precedent" to allow those articles if their text is too large to incorporate in the main article? I generally have no issues with articles that are well sourced and on notable events. Dugwiki 21:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- Keep The article appears to be well referenced and sourced, and the article also seems to indicate the incident in and of its own right meets notability guidlines. So this article seems to be a perfectly acceptable and notable topic. Not a good candidate for deletion, just my opinion. Dugwiki 21:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Point. I think the primary questions involve context and perspective. Those are the things that shift whether the article receives it's own heading or whether the article is seen under the heading of an article on Mel Gibson. The incident written in this article does not stand alone, apart from Mel Gibson. It is firmly attached to the life of Mel Gibson. That is the proper heading. We should see this incident from the perspective of the life of Mel Gibson. Bus stop 21:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Mel Gibson is the central character in the event, but that does not mean that the event isn't notable enough on its own to warrant its own article. As an analogy, the article John F. Kennedy assassination is clearly an article that is squarely centered on John F. Kennedy (or, if you prefer, Lee Harvey Oswald). However clearly that doesn't necessarilly imply that the article about the event needs to be merged with the articles about the people associated with the event. I doubt anyone is seriously looking to merge that article into the JFK main article, for example.
-
- As another example, consider this from a reader's perspective. It certainly seems possible, I think, that a reader will be interested in searching for information about this incident without having much interest in reading about Mel Gibson himself or even caring much about Mel Gibson's career or biography. Since the amount of information about this event is large enough that it can fill its own article page, by splitting it off into a subarticle you are allowing readers to focus on reading about just the event without having to sift through everything else associated with Mel Gibson in his main article.
- Thus I disagree with the assertion that an otherwise well sourced and sufficiently large article about an event that received extended international media coverage needs to be deleted, nor do I find any part of policy or in the guidelines that suggests it. Dugwiki 22:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Point. Dugwiki -- The reader would not have to "sift through everything else" to find information about the DUI incident in the main article because it would all be found in one area. For what reason would the facts of that incident not be in contiguous paragraphs within the main article on Mel Gibson? The assassination of John F. Kennedy by Lee Harvey Oswald does not compare with Mel Gibson's drunken driving incident, even with the utterances of antisemitic sentiments. It is an incident of a totally different order. One is the president of the United States. The other is not. One is still alive. The other's life is not over. Bus stop 00:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Counterpoint Bus Stop - I was not implying DUI = Assassination. I was saying that by your prior reasoning we shouldn't have the JFK assassination article either. I see no problem, though, either in policy or guidelines, with seperating a large verified section regarding a notable event of a main article into a subarticle when the subarticle contains sufficient verifiable references. In the case when there is enough seperate published verifiable information about an event that it can fill its own article in length, and the incident appears to have received multiple notable coverage, then it makes sense to split that incident off as a subarticle from the person's main article. So unless you're claiming that this article would comfortably fit in the Mel Gibson article, I remain unconvinced there is a non-WP:IDONTLIKEIT reason to delete. Dugwiki 17:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Delete WP:NOT specifically discourages the creation of articles on current events which may eventually become obsolete. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a supplement to the National Enquirer. Thousands of people are arrested for DUI every year, and I would suspect that many of them get upset and say inappropriate things to the arresting officers. There is nothing NOTABLE about this type of incident. The only thing which is notable in this event is Mel Gibson. By giving this incident its own seperate article, Wikipedia is giving an undue amount of WEIGHT to a negative incident in this living person's life, which runs contrary to WP:BLP. Unlike other celebrity bios on Wikipedia which frequently contain ONE "Controversy" section; Gibson's bio is over run with sections which seem to push the POV that he is a homophobe, a racist, anti-semetic,a drug addict and an alcoholic. As IF that isn't bad enough - there is ALSO this free-standing article, which has provided an additional platform for editors to label him an anti-semite. The excessive amount of space that Wikipedia has dedicated to this type of material about this LIVING PERSON constitutes attempted defamation of character in my opinion. Clearly, more than 75% of Wikipedia's editorial "space" dedicated to Mel Gibson paints him in a very negative light and, therefore, cannot be considered NUETRAL and OBJECTIVE. This article's very existence creates a weight issue that runs contrary to Wikipedia's own policy on WP:BLP Cleo123 21:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- To reply, WP:NOT only talks about not writing opinions on current affiars that might quickly become obsolete. The policy, however, does not talk about the actual information and facts of a news event becoming obsolete. So while you shouldn't write an opinion piece about whether or not Mel Gibson behaved badly, for example, you can write an article about a news event involving Mel Gibson provided it has sufficient sourcing and is large enough and has enough detail to warrant being split from the main article. I also do not agree with the assertion that the article's existence in principle somehow "gives undue weight" to a possible negative aspect of Mel Gibson's character. So long as the article refers to the actual facts of the event, as reported by verifiable published sources, and doesn't delve into personal editorial opinion, there is no issue here in regards to undue negative impact. Dugwiki 22:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
- I think you are missing my point. The article should not have been created in the first place and it has become a platform for opinions, including those of a blogger for goodness sake! Of course, the article is detailed and well-sourced, I'm sure there has been considerable edit warring in its creation. I think Wikipedia should be steering clear of this type of article in general. It is not encyclopedic material. Thousands of people are arrested for DUI each year, why not write articles about them? Surely, there are reliable sources to be found in local newspapers. Just because there are sources to be found, it doesn't make the incident worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. Is this current event continuing to receive media attention? No, it isn't, because it doesn't have lasting significance. Why doesn't Wikipedia have a Zsa Zsa Gabor slap incident article? Or a Brandy car accident incident? By singling out this one celebrity in particular Wikipedia is demonstrating an editorial BIAS against him. Cleo123 23:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
- The above argument assumes incorrectly that the thousands of DUI arrests actually receive sufficient, reliable, multiple notable published coverage in news publications. Clearly the coverage of this DUI incident is much greater than a normal DUI incident. So noone is arguing that all DUI incidents should have their own article. I'm arguing that this DUI incident should. Dugwiki 23:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Why? Because he made racist remarks? Cleo123 23:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Point. I think that just judging by two articles of this sort, namely the Michael Richards article and the Mel Gibson article, it seems to me that the reason for both of those articles as separate, "breakaway" articles, to focus on one negative incident, is to heap a special dose of shame on these people. I feel that articles of this sort are motivated, perhaps unconsciously, by deeply held sentiments concerning what is right and what is wrong. I can't prove that. But I am cynical of alternate explanations. Many people are outraged by the things said by Michael Richards and Mel Gibson about certain groups within the larger society. It is not too far fetched a hypothesis that people are motivated to set things right by highlighting such shameful speech in a separate article. But Wikipedia should resist this. Bus stop 00:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Reply. I must disagree. Perhaps the extended news coverage was motivated by this, but the WP article should have been created (regardless of the actual reasons held by its creator) because the topic meets WP:Notability--due to the extended news and othre coverage. Black Falcon 16:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Point. Black Falcon -- Setting up a separate article on Wikipedia highlights whatever that article is about. It is a judgement call on the part of editors. Whatever motivation you are attributing to "extended news coverage" infects Wikipedia as well. Wikipedia has readily available solution to this problem. The DUI incident can be put in the context of Mel Gibson's life. That is where it belongs. Bus stop 16:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- Reply - in that case, you are proposing a WP:MERGE, in which case this article should not have been nominated for AfD. Whether the article should be merged is a matter for the talk page, not AfD. So, for now, I will continue to argue keeping the article and may indeed support a merge to the Mel Gibson article later (as you do make a good, even if debatable, argument). Black Falcon 17:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Comment My question above was a serious one, and I'm not at all surprised to see that it has gone unanswered. To answer this question is to be completely honest about what motivated the creation of this stand alone article in the first place. My question hits at the very core of this matter. The article is not about someone being arrested for DUI, it is an excuse for editors to elaborate on the theme that Gibson is a racist. By giving undue weight to such material, Wikipedia is not only defaming Gibson's character but aggrevating race relations by serving as a forum for debate among editors whereby individuals can be labelled racists. Cleo123 02:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- It was a serious one and it has gone unanswered until now. But please, the reason that it was left unanswered is probably more that people went to sleep rather than that they could not give an honest article. No, the content of his remarks is not significant. It's the fact that it gathered so much news coverage (multiple, non-trivial, over an extended period of time)! It doesn't matter if he called for the destruction of the UN or expressed a desire to be sent into space upon his death. As long as it had received the same media coverage, it would pass WP:Notability. Yes, the article is about what he said rather than the DUI itself, because that is what the media coverage was mostly about. If there are any unsourced/defamatory statements there, by all means please remove them pre WP:BLP. Black Falcon 16:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- Point. Black Falcon -- Yes, the DWI incident is perfectly notable, in the context of a Mel Gibson article. We should not be setting up billboards of shame. In most instances, what happens in a person's life should be seen in the context of that person's life, in my opinion. The assassination of John F. Kennedy by Lee Harvey Oswald is an example of an exception to this. The difference (among others) is that John F. Kennedy is a figure of far greater prominence than Mel Gibson. We don't set up freestanding articles to showcase an incident despite the fact that we feel that the behavior depicted is deserving of condemnation. Bus stop 16:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- Thank you for your reasoned and specific arguments (I am a bit frustrated over the many "delete - awful article" and "keep - perfect article" comments that should up on AfD). In response to your comment: this is a billboard of shame only if it is NPOV (making claims without sourcing or making unbalanced claims). You are making a value-judgment (which I share) that anti-Semitism is a bad thing, but such value-judgments are not relevant to whether content is encyclopedic (which means passing WP:Notability). Although I agree that JFK is a more prominent figure than Gibson, that is still a value-judgment which others may or may not share. I personally like Mel Gibson as an actor and director (I can't say as a person, because I don't know him as a person). You say that "we feel that the behavior depicted is deserving of condemnation", but it is quite likely that someone who is an anti-Semite contributed to this article and/or thinks it should be kept. It shouldn't matter what we feel (although I'm realist enough to admit that it does) as long as the subject passes WP:Notability. Also, a possible merger to the Mel Gibson article is a matter for the talk page (an idea for which a strong case can be made, in my opinion), not AfD. Black Falcon 17:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- Keep - The article is well-sourced (WP:V), WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, and passes WP:Notability based on the multiple instances of non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. I see no valid reason for deletion. Also note, please, that the nominator actually intended WP:MERGE of this article. However, I don't think it ought to be merged as the subject-matter passes WP:Notability on its own (the sources are about the incident itself, not just about Mel Gibson generally). Black Falcon 22:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Point. Black Falcon -- How can a source be about the "Mel Gibson DUI incident" without being about "Mel Gibson?" Bus stop 05:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Please note that I said "not about Mel Gibson generally". What I meant was that the sources don't talk about his life overall and mention the DUI incident in one passing sentence. They are about the incident itself. I hope this clarifies my meaning. Black Falcon 16:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Merge. Merge the main content to Mel Gibson (though most of it is already there), and the rest to Wikinews. There can be a link in Mel Gibson to the Wikinews article. The incident is not, on its own, notable enough that anyone will see it as major news in 2016. Argyriou (talk) 02:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per Agent 86 and Nescio. Merge just the main facts to the main article.--William Thweatt Talk | Contribs 03:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Major notable incident that had international notoriety. And citing the deletion of one article, besides looking like a reverse-WP:POKEMAN, does not establish precendent. --Oakshade 05:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete WP:NOT. and all the arguments for delete. --MaNeMeBasat 05:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, does not need a separate article, merge to Mel Gibson. --Vsion 05:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- Strong keep, quite notable incident, definitely more to say about this than could be reasonably covered in the main bio article. Everyking 05:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. It is true that the article isn't about someone being arrested for DUI, in the sense that another famous person arrested might not get a similar article. However, that doesn't mean it's just being used to call him a racist. People find the incident notable because they connect it to racism. But that's their business; Wikipedia only has the article because people find the incident notable, and should not say "some people find this article notable for an unacceptable reason". If it's notable, it's notable. Ken Arromdee 06:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- Point. Ken Arromdee The primary reason for an article such as this is to highlight a shameful incident in a person's life, and I don't think Wikipedia should be used this way. Bus stop 06:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- That seems like a clear WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument that ignores notability criteria. --Oakshade 06:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- Point. Ken Arromdee The primary reason for an article such as this is to highlight a shameful incident in a person's life, and I don't think Wikipedia should be used this way. Bus stop 06:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- Point. Ken Arromdee It is not just "their business." Wikipedia is highlighting a "racist" incident. It is Wikipedia's responsibility to be balanced in reporting this. Having an unnecessary article to highlight this is tantamount to erecting a billboard for this purpose. It's purpose is to heap more shame on the individual than the single article could accomplish. The reasoning that there is too much material on the DUI incident to fit into the main article is roundabout thinking. Such reasoning justifies not only putting unnecessary information into an article but also providing that unnecessary material with a special showcase in the form of a freestanding article about one unfortunate and shameful incident. That is vindictive. In my opinion it is a test of whether such material is worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia if it can fit logically into a general biography. Exceptions can be found for reasons such as prominence. But Mel Gibson is not as prominent as I would feel a person would need to be to warrant an article solely about a drunk driving incident. Indeed the editors should be wrestling with how to include this DUI incident into a generalized Mel Gibson article. They should not be affording themselves the luxury of going on endlessly, as they are prone to do in an article such as this one. Bus stop 13:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- Point. -- Oakshade -- Not at all. The editorial decisions as to what should stay and what should be excised from this article should be made in the context of the main article, which concerns itself with the entirety of the life of the person named Mel Gibson. The perspective in this article is all wrong. It is not the content that I "don't like." It is the context that I take exception to. I never said it was not "notable." It is notable in the context of the main article. That is the preferable perspective, in my opinion. Bus stop 07:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- I actually agree that it's unfortunate that a shameful event in someone's life is highlighted, but again, that would be a WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguement to delete. As WP:NOTE states "...the primary notability criterion is a way to determine whether 'the world' has judged a topic to be notable." When there are multiple published works primarily about a topic, "the world" deemed that topic notable whether we think its sad or not. And there's too much subject-specific information in this article to be included in the Mel Gibson article. --Oakshade 07:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- Point. -- Oakshade -- Not at all. The editorial decisions as to what should stay and what should be excised from this article should be made in the context of the main article, which concerns itself with the entirety of the life of the person named Mel Gibson. The perspective in this article is all wrong. It is not the content that I "don't like." It is the context that I take exception to. I never said it was not "notable." It is notable in the context of the main article. That is the preferable perspective, in my opinion. Bus stop 07:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- Point. -- Oakshade -- It is not "unfortunate that a shameful event in someone's life is highlighted." The highlighting of the shameful event is deliberate. Deliberate and unfortunate are two different things. It is the freestanding article that accomplishes the "highlighting." You say there is "subject-specific information." Yes, I agree, and the subject is: Mel Gibson. Bus stop 14:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Counterpoint I am going to disagree and say that this is not a deliberate attempt at shaming. It is, rather, a deliberate attempt to organize a large amount of information about a noteworthy event into a single article. The article's purpose is not to defame or shame Mel Gibson, but to report the facts of the event in an encyclopedic form. The fact that you might be uncomfortable with those facts doesn't alter the purpose of the article, nor does being uncomfortable constitute legitimate grounds for deletion of an otherwise well sourced article. Dugwiki 17:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
- GassyGuy is correct. You are confusing news worthiness with notability. This event has no lasting significance. Although there will be more biographies published about Gibson, I sincerely doubt that any books will be written on the DUI incident. Regardless, no author would dedicate 75% of a biography on Gibson to the incident. Why should Wikipedia? The incident has no lasting notability or impact on anyone other than Gibson, possibly, and does not belong as a seperate article in any legitimate encyclopedia. Cleo123 07:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- It doesn't matter if this event isn't "lasting". Please see WP:Notability is Generally Permanent. And many would argue that is is much more than about soley Mel Gibson but a very notable and high profile case of modern anti-semitism that's coming from an extremely influential individual. But putting that aside, this still easily passes WP:NOTE. --Oakshade 08:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- I think you're really reaching. If I were to follow your logic, we should create a seperate article on the Paris Exposed.com story or any other news item that receives global news coverage, based upon your interpretation of notability. I appreciate your honesty in saying that you see it as a case of modern anti-semitism. I think, however, that you defeat your own argument with your candor. Wikipedia reports facts. It is not a repository for cataloging the racial opinions of the well known. It is a misuse of Wikipedia, for ethnic groups to use it as a tool to label and catalogue racists and anti- semites. Potential damage and defamation to the character of living people outweighs any legitimate "need" for this sort of article. Cleo123 08:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- I'm not sure what sort of "damage" you're talking about here. If the article is objectively stating the verifiable published facts, then it is not a tool for slander or libel. If there is a specific part of the article that you feel is original research or original editorial opinion, then feel free to dispute or remove that part of the article. But that would not earn the deletion of the entire article if most of it is factually accurate and objective. Dugwiki 17:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- Now the argument to delete is the article is defamation of character??? When an article is very well sourced following strict WP:BLP guidelines such as this one is, there is nothing slanderous. Unless you can show a case that the Los Angeles Times, BBC News, Associated Press, ABC News etc. have all printed unfactual slanderous material, the case that this article is "defamation to the character" is outright nonsense. --Oakshade 17:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- Delete per Agent 86. I don't understand why everyone wants Wikipedia to do the job of Wikinews. Newsworthiness is not notability and this is covered in the article about Mel Gibson. GassyGuy 06:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. The existence of this article makes a fine example of systemic bias: we tend to fix too much our attention to what happens just now, to famous, mostly American, people. This incident is very important in the life of Mel Gibson, and perhaps in the life of people especially liking or resenting him. As for the world at large, it is just one of millions of similar accidents happening every day, affecting just the life of the people involved. So, this is an event pertaining to Gibson, and as such should be covered in the article about him. --Goochelaar 09:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- I always compare this logic to pulling up the first plants that sprout, because for the sake of symmetry they all must sprout at the very same time. You don't counter systemic bias by deleting what people have already written; you counter it by writing more in underdeveloped areas. Everyking 10:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- The simile about sprouts is nice and useful, but not relevant to my opinion (which probably did not transpire in what I wrote): I am not saying, for instance, "Delete the article about Mel Gibson because there is not an article about (obscure 15th century icelandic poet)". This would be plain wrong, of course. I am just saying that by some kind of optical illusion due to living here and now we might tend to consider as notable events which are not, and in my opinion this is the case for the DUI incident. --Goochelaar 10:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- Although it is "one of millions of similar accidents happening every day", it is one that happened to be noted in hundreds of non-trivial papers, news channels, and other sources over the course of several weeks. Plenty of other celebrities have had DUIs, but none of them have articles about it because they didn't get so much coverage. Black Falcon 16:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- I have to agree with Black Falcon. There might be millions of accidents a day, but the vast bulk of them don't receive nearly as much international attention as this incident over a wide spread of time. I would not support articles about a random DUI which received only a momentary blurb in a paper, but I do support this article about this DUI. Dugwiki 17:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- Although it is "one of millions of similar accidents happening every day", it is one that happened to be noted in hundreds of non-trivial papers, news channels, and other sources over the course of several weeks. Plenty of other celebrities have had DUIs, but none of them have articles about it because they didn't get so much coverage. Black Falcon 16:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- The simile about sprouts is nice and useful, but not relevant to my opinion (which probably did not transpire in what I wrote): I am not saying, for instance, "Delete the article about Mel Gibson because there is not an article about (obscure 15th century icelandic poet)". This would be plain wrong, of course. I am just saying that by some kind of optical illusion due to living here and now we might tend to consider as notable events which are not, and in my opinion this is the case for the DUI incident. --Goochelaar 10:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- I always compare this logic to pulling up the first plants that sprout, because for the sake of symmetry they all must sprout at the very same time. You don't counter systemic bias by deleting what people have already written; you counter it by writing more in underdeveloped areas. Everyking 10:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Point. Black Falcon -- No one is claiming it is not notable. But Mel Gibson already has a page devoted to his life. He is not so prominent, nor is this incident so prominent, to warrant a separate article devoted to it. His DUI incident is properly seen in the context of his life, where his accomplishments can balance his missteps. That, in my opinion, is consistent with our intention of maintaining a neutral point of view -- not by providing a less than flattering incident with it's own freestanding article. Editors need to debate what is worthy of inclusion and what should be discarded, on the page that is the article about Mel Gibson. In my opinion this freestanding article gives editors the green light to include too much. Wikipedia editors should be disciplined enough to write a concise article about Mel Gibson that covers the DUI incident with the inclusion of appropriate information. Bus stop 17:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- You make a strong case, but as I have noted above, this is a matter for the talk page. I personally don't think this incident is as notable as, say, the Japanese invasion of Manchuria "incident", but that is my personal opinion. If the article can be reasonably merged into Mel Gibson (by reasonable I mean so that the whole biography is not dominated by this DUI), then by all means either build consensus for such an action or be WP:BOLD and do it. But wanting to merge an article is not a reason to request its deletion. Black Falcon 17:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Comment There is an attempt to sort out the problem of news items on wikipedia at Wikipedia talk:Notability (news). I'd recommend delete on this article as it isn't encyclopedic, it should be a footnote to an article on the notable Mel Gibson. MLA 11:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- The above Comment would appear to be a Delete Cleo123 02:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- To say that something is or is not encyclopedic without reference to WP:Notability amounts to WP:ILIKEIT or WP:IDONTLIKEIT. What one person doesn't finds interesting, others may be fascinated with. Black Falcon 17:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Comment thanks for pointing that out. Might I suggest that you engage with the discussion at wp:notability (news) as my comment is in relation to minor items such as this failing to be sufficiently covered in WP:Notability and so an unencyclopedic news item such as this is not sufficiently covered by current guidelines so reference to them is not appropriate given that they do not address this particular issue. MLA 18:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- My comments regarding the proposed guideline are at Wikipedia:Notability (news)#Please consider the following (changes). I would support the guideline if my suggested criterion was added--otherwise it's just too restrictive and would exclude many featured articles as well as hundreds/thousands of historical events for years/decades. Black Falcon 18:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I think that the discussion referenced above clearly establishes that WP:Notability is not a valid argument for keeping this free standing article. The current policy proposal speaks directly to this issue in saying: "News items that do not meet the above criteria but involve notable subjects should be included in the article of the subject, if such an addition is considered noteworthy to the article concerned." Cleo123 02:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, the discussion referenced is, as you noted, a proposal only, and would (if accepted) be a guideline and not a policy. WP:Notability, on the other hand, is an accepted guideline, and according to it, the content of this article should stay (although personally I think a strong argument can be made for merging into Mel Gibson--I don't think a good one can be/has been made for deletion). Black Falcon 03:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- Comment My understanding is that the current proposal is intended to specifically address unencyclopedic news items such as this one, that really aren't specifically addressed in the current guidelines and not covered by Wikipedia:Notability. There are already four paragraphs in Gibson's bio discussing the DUI incident. I suspect that if this article is deleted, some of the discarded info will undoubtedly find its way back into his bio. In this case, I believe a merger would be improper and unmaageable. There is far too much detail in this article. Cleo123 04:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- To say that "the current proposal is intended to specifically address unencyclopedic news items such as this one" seems like trying to create a guideline based on a prior personal (subjective) conception of what is and is not "encyclopedic". WP:Notability, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:NOT already establish which articles are and are not encyclopedic, allowing WP:Consensus to make a final decision in controversial cases. If this article is "not covered by Wikipedia:Notability", as you note, then that means it is by default encyclopedic. I support the idea of creating a specific notability guideline for news items, but I do not favor one that automatically assumes exclusion to be the default--I think this is an elitist notion that goes against the principles on which WP operates (my suggestion for an additional criterion is in the "Please consider the following (changes)" section of Wikipedia talk:Notability (news)--if you are willing to read it, as it is a bit lengthy, I would appreciate your comments). If an article passes the 5 policies and guidelines listed above, the burden of proof is on those who want to eliminate the article. If it does not, the burden of proof is on those who wish to keep the article. Noting that, a merger is still an acceptable solution for me as long as significant (in quality, not quantity) is not lost--of course, in this case I think it would be prudent to discuss it on the talk page. Also, a merger does not have to be full-content, it can be selective (if a full-content merge was performed, the DUI incident would overwhelm Gibson's biography). Cheers, Black Falcon 06:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- Black Falcon, please do not misunderstand my remarks. I am not trying to create anything based upon my own subjective opinions. I was simply providing cursory summary of statements made by Edison & others on the project discussion page, as to their objective. Unfortunately, I'm working a deadline right now so I haven't had the time to read through the entire discussion, yet. When I finish what I'm working on, I look forward to reading your remarks and joining in this valuable discussion. Whatever consensus is reached will surely be helpful in providing clearer guidelines for this type of AFD discussion. I am not adverse to some content being merged back into the main article. I understand that editors have worked very hard on this. My objection is to a free standing article. Cheers! Cleo123 07:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- My apologies, then, for the misunderstanding. Yes, this article would be deleted by the standards of the proposed guideline, but I still maintain it meets WP:Notability. My concern regarding a possible merge was not the contributions of various editors (although perhaps that should have been part of my consideration as well), as I did not even know this article existed before this AfD, but rather the loss of content that even on its own passess WP:Notability. I would not mind seeing this article being selectively merged into Mel Gibson, but I do not think that should be done based on this AfD discussion--rather, as part of a consensus on the talk page (consensus on whether the merge ought to be performed and, if so, what content should be transferred). I am generally of the opinion that some kind of news guideline would be useful and intend to contribute to (or at least comment on) its creation. Best of luck with meeting the deadline, Black Falcon 08:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- Black Falcon, please do not misunderstand my remarks. I am not trying to create anything based upon my own subjective opinions. I was simply providing cursory summary of statements made by Edison & others on the project discussion page, as to their objective. Unfortunately, I'm working a deadline right now so I haven't had the time to read through the entire discussion, yet. When I finish what I'm working on, I look forward to reading your remarks and joining in this valuable discussion. Whatever consensus is reached will surely be helpful in providing clearer guidelines for this type of AFD discussion. I am not adverse to some content being merged back into the main article. I understand that editors have worked very hard on this. My objection is to a free standing article. Cheers! Cleo123 07:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- To say that "the current proposal is intended to specifically address unencyclopedic news items such as this one" seems like trying to create a guideline based on a prior personal (subjective) conception of what is and is not "encyclopedic". WP:Notability, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:NOT already establish which articles are and are not encyclopedic, allowing WP:Consensus to make a final decision in controversial cases. If this article is "not covered by Wikipedia:Notability", as you note, then that means it is by default encyclopedic. I support the idea of creating a specific notability guideline for news items, but I do not favor one that automatically assumes exclusion to be the default--I think this is an elitist notion that goes against the principles on which WP operates (my suggestion for an additional criterion is in the "Please consider the following (changes)" section of Wikipedia talk:Notability (news)--if you are willing to read it, as it is a bit lengthy, I would appreciate your comments). If an article passes the 5 policies and guidelines listed above, the burden of proof is on those who want to eliminate the article. If it does not, the burden of proof is on those who wish to keep the article. Noting that, a merger is still an acceptable solution for me as long as significant (in quality, not quantity) is not lost--of course, in this case I think it would be prudent to discuss it on the talk page. Also, a merger does not have to be full-content, it can be selective (if a full-content merge was performed, the DUI incident would overwhelm Gibson's biography). Cheers, Black Falcon 06:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- Comment My understanding is that the current proposal is intended to specifically address unencyclopedic news items such as this one, that really aren't specifically addressed in the current guidelines and not covered by Wikipedia:Notability. There are already four paragraphs in Gibson's bio discussing the DUI incident. I suspect that if this article is deleted, some of the discarded info will undoubtedly find its way back into his bio. In this case, I believe a merger would be improper and unmaageable. There is far too much detail in this article. Cleo123 04:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, the discussion referenced is, as you noted, a proposal only, and would (if accepted) be a guideline and not a policy. WP:Notability, on the other hand, is an accepted guideline, and according to it, the content of this article should stay (although personally I think a strong argument can be made for merging into Mel Gibson--I don't think a good one can be/has been made for deletion). Black Falcon 03:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I think that the discussion referenced above clearly establishes that WP:Notability is not a valid argument for keeping this free standing article. The current policy proposal speaks directly to this issue in saying: "News items that do not meet the above criteria but involve notable subjects should be included in the article of the subject, if such an addition is considered noteworthy to the article concerned." Cleo123 02:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- My comments regarding the proposed guideline are at Wikipedia:Notability (news)#Please consider the following (changes). I would support the guideline if my suggested criterion was added--otherwise it's just too restrictive and would exclude many featured articles as well as hundreds/thousands of historical events for years/decades. Black Falcon 18:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- Comment thanks for pointing that out. Might I suggest that you engage with the discussion at wp:notability (news) as my comment is in relation to minor items such as this failing to be sufficiently covered in WP:Notability and so an unencyclopedic news item such as this is not sufficiently covered by current guidelines so reference to them is not appropriate given that they do not address this particular issue. MLA 18:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Point. It is improper to lift one incident from Mel Gibson's life and display it for the world to see. This is an abuse of Wikipedia. The facts in the "Mel Gibson DUI incident" article may be notable, but the article is not notable. It is not the province of Wikipedia to hold people up for special shame; that is the opposite of neutral point of view, and it is an abuse of the power vested in the hands of the editors of Wikipedia. The incident is far too inconsequential to deserve an article of it's own. If the editors lack the discipline to hack the facts down to a form that reflects the DUI incident's proportional relationship to the entire lifetime of Mel Gibson, that is a separate and different problem. But the article is primarily improper. The Mel Gibson article already covers the DUI incident. Therefore this article is redundant, and should be deleted. Bus stop 08:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- Counter-Point. Bus stop, the media lifted this "one incident from Mel Gibson's life and display[ed] it for the world to see" before this article was created at WP. This article is simply a response to the great volume of media coverage. You say that "It is not the province of Wikipedia to hold people up for special shame", yet you are making a prior subjective judgment that what he did was shameful (I agree, but that is irrelevant). The article does not condemn Gibson--it only notes the facts as they occurred. If you wish to see a merger of this article into Mel Gibson, then by all means go ahead and propose it with {{mergeto}}. Cheers, Black Falcon 18:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- Point. Black Falcon -- There is no "subjective judgement" that drunk driving and antisemitism are shameful. They are fully frowned upon by most people. With qualifications, these behaviors are unlawful. You say that the article "does not condemn Gibson." But that is not necessary, since the focus of the article is 1) drunk driving and 2) antisemitism. Those behaviors, in and of themselves, are normally associated with condemnation. The DUI incident was already covered in the Mel Gibson article before this article was created. This article was created by a cut and paste from the Mel Gibson article. There are presently four paragraphs on the DUI incident in the Mel Gibson article. No article on Wikipedia is ever "finished." Whether this article is deleted or not the editors of the Mel Gibson article will continue modifying that article, including their coverage of the DUI incident. I see little reason to propose a merger of this article to the Mel Gibson article. I find this article offensive and I'm not inclined to start a process that will take longer than the delete process that is presently underway. The end result is the same, anyway. Bus stop 19:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- Reply. Bus stop, actually, any judgment that something is or is not shameful is subjective (even if most people consider them as such). Legality has no bearing on the shamefulness of an act (remember, slavery, apartheid, witch trials were all legal at some time in some place). You write that it is not necessary for the article to explicitly condemn Gibson as drunk driving and anti-Semitism are already condemnable. Notwithstanding my point above, I believe the murder of over 800,000 persons is a condemnable act, but Rwandan Genocide is and should be a separate article from History of Rwanda. Our role at WP is not to judge whether particular facts (as long as they meet WP:BLP) are beneficial or harmful to the reputations of various individuals. The fact that there was so much media coverage means this passes WP:Notability--and thus, so long as the information is reported in an NOR and NPOV manner, it is encyclopedic. Your finding the article "offensive" is no reason to delete it (see WP:IDONTLIKEIT). A neo-Nazi might find the Holocaust article offensive, but that is no reason to delete (and please don't interpret this as me accusing you of neo-Nazism). And the merge will not have the same outcome as deleting the article as deleting means all of the content is lost, while a selective merge implies cutting out extraneous/repetitive parts. Black Falcon 21:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- Point. Black Falcon -- Rwandan genocide should be a separate article from History of rwanda. Agreed. But should Mel Gibson DWI incident be a separate article from Mel Gibson? Bus stop 01:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- Reply. Bus stop, my point was that the fact that a particular incident harms the reputation of a person or country (you wrote that the article only adds "special shame" to Gibson) is no reason to delete an article on that incident. As for the question you pose, I will answer somewhat long-windedly. The DWI incident certainly can be a separate article as it passes WP:Notability. Whether it ought to be a separate article is a different judgment and involves personal preferences on style. If you do not think it ought to be a separate article (as you clearly do not), propose that it be merged to Mel Gibson. I might support a merge if valid reasons (including stylistic ones such as user-friendliness, compactness, etc.) were given on the article's talk page. However, even if the article were to be turned into a redirect, AfD is not the appropriate venue for accomplishing this. Black Falcon 01:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- Point. Black Falcon -- The Mel Gibson DWI incident article serves no other purpose than to harm Mel Gibson. For what other purpose does it exist? Mel Gibson is not a country containing millions of citizens. Notability, in this instance, means worthy of being included in the Mel Gibson article. Notability does not mean provision with a showcase to facilitate better display. What purpose does the stand alone article serve for a merely notable incident in the life of an individual such as Mel Gibson for whom there already is an article on Wikipedia? Bus stop 02:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- Reply - It does serve a purpose, but that is not to disparage Gibson. Rather, it is to document an incident which has generated a great amount of media coverage. The reason why I think the DWI incident article can stand on its own is this: the incident has received extended non-trivial coverage from multiple reliable sources. The news reports sourced in the Mel Gibson DWI incident article are primarily about the incident itself and not Mel Gibson himself (i.e., his life, family, history, etc.). Thus, the incident is by itself the primary subject of the news coverage. If Gibson was not a celebrity, then of course this would not have gotten this much coverage. That, however, is irrelevant as Gibson is a celebrity and the incident has received a great amount of news coverage. Black Falcon 02:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- Point. Black Falcon -- Mel Gibson is not an appendage to the Mel Gibson DWI incident. The Mel Gibson DWI incident is an appendage to the life of Mel Gibson. How can the news reports be "primarily about the incident itself and not Mel Gibson himself?" Do the news reports refer to him as the unidentified person? The name serves as the representative for the person. If you mention the name "Mel Gibson" you are referring to "Mel Gibson himself." Can you tell me how "Mel Gibson" does not imply Mel Gibson? Bus stop 04:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Reply - when I wrote that the articles are about the DWI incident itself, I meant that they are about what Gibson did, what he said, what other said, what happend to him, etc during (and in relation to) the incident. They are not about when Gibson was born, what movies he's starred in/directed (these are mentioned trivially), his family, etc. The articles are about the Mel Gibson DWI incident--they are not biographies of Mel Gibson's life. I am not saying that the sources don't mention Gibson--they do, of course (after all, it's the Mel Gibson DUI incident)--however, they mention him in the context of the DWI. Black Falcon 04:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Point. Black Falcon -- Of course there is no explanation of the wider details of Mel Gibson's life in the news reports of the drunk driving incident. That is unremarkable. I don't think that supports a rationale for the existence of a separate article for a DWI incident. What you are describing is simply the normal way in which news reporting agencies cover news events. They do not write entire biographies. They only mention what is pertinent to the immediate event. Bus stop 15:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Reply. Bus stop, you wrote that "They only mention what is pertinent to the immediate event". Individual events in a person's life usually do not receive this much attention (sure, movies Gibson has directed/starred in have, and they have their own articles). But this one has! Thus, the subject of this article, because of the amount of coverage it has received, passes WP:Notability. Black Falcon 17:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Point. Black Falcon -- Mel Gibson's celebrity is not really relevant here, I don't think. What matters, as you have been pointing out, is notability. Notability qualifies the material to be on Wikipedia. It would be acceptable to extract certain facets of Mel Gibson's life for separate articles, but such extraction can not be indiscriminate. The discrimination called for, I think, concerns whether or not we find wider influence. The question one has to ask oneself is: Does this aspect of Mel Gibson's life have influence beyond his life? Mel Gibson's movies take on a life of their own. His acting role in a movie can be propounded upon because it takes on a life of it's own. It becomes a part of the popular culture. But drunk driving and the particular form of antisemitism displayed by Mel Gibson in the July 2006 incident, are core issues in his life. When one expounds upon those issues one runs the risk of distorting Mel Gibson's life. This is because these issues do not have wider influence beyond the core identity of Mel Gibson. And what I am of course further saying is that a separate article devoted to issues that do not have influence extending beyond the person's life certainly would have the tendency to place undue emphasis on those issues. Bus stop 20:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Reply. Bus stop -- I do agree that extracting certain parts of an individual's life should not be done indiscriminately. As you have noted, one criterion (and in my opinion the superior criterion) is whether an event has influence beyond that person's life. Another criterion (inferior to the first but still valid) is whether it receives non-trivial coverage from multiple sources over an extended period of time, where such coverage discusses the individual primarily in context of the event (as opposed to in context of the person's life overall). As I have noted previously, I am not opposed to a selective merge if someone is willing to do it (whether through consensus or by being WP:BOLD--although, in the latter case, I suspect the merge might be quickly reverted). I do, however, oppose simply deleting the content of this article. Black Falcon 00:56, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Point. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. That something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE Bus stop 09:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Counterpoint WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE does not refer to news articles at all. It is, rather, a section that describes certain specific types of information and articles that Wikipedia tends to discriminate against. See the talk page for WP:NOT for a discussion on that topic. The only portion of WP:NOT that discusses news events is WP:NOT#OR, and it only discusses them in the context of Wikipedia not being a primary, firsthand source for news reports. Since this article is not acting as a primary source, that section does not apply either. Dugwiki 16:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Point. Dugwiki -- While you are correct that "WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE does not refer to news articles," it does say at that page that "there is a continuing debate about the encyclopedic merits of several classes of entries." I think this leaves open the possibility that there are other classes of "indiscriminate collection(s) of information." I think this may be such a case. The Mel Gibson DUI incident article is an indiscriminate collection of information. Discrimination, in this instance, means fitting these facts into an appropriate context. The appropriate context I think is the life of Mel Gibson. Without that context, I think it can be argued, the facts are an "indiscriminate collection of information." Bus stop 20:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- Reply Bus stop - I'm going to partially agree with you and say that, yes, the treatment of news event related articles is one of those "up for debate" areas that hasn't yet received strong consensus one way or another. WP:NOTNEWS, for example, is a current attempt at a proposed guideline to help editors deal with exactly this sort of debate on a broader level. Unfortunately, in the meantime, that still means we can't simply refer to WP:NOT#IINFO and say "well, I think it should apply to news events too, so it does." That's not how the policies work. The policy says "here are the areas where we have strong consensus", and intentionally leave open the question of whether other things should be added down the road. Perhaps this type of article should be discriminated against? Maybe, maybe not, but at the moment WP:NOT doesn't handle it. Dugwiki 17:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- Point. Dugwiki -- One can't choose to be ignorant of the existence of another article. There already exists the Mel Gibson article. The question is not whether the material is sufficiently notable to deserve an article of it's own. The question is whether there should be an additional article covering similar material, but with a different emphasis. I say there is not. I find that the July 28, 2006 DWI incident, and the antisemitic comments, are all a part of Mel Gibson's life. To separate out that negative incident is to highlight it. The more recent article provides a showcase for that one incident. My argument is that it fits in with the entire life of Mel Gibson. To set up an article to focus on a negative incident is to give undue emphasis. I find that the recent DWI incident, including the utterances of antisemitic comments, has no further implications beyond those things which pertain only to Mel Gibson's life. Therefore I see no reason to project that incident out into the additional literary space of a separate article. Bus stop 18:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- Keep: This article was created because the original section that this article stemmed from outgrew the the main article and its existence there had become an example of undue weight relative to the rest of the article. This event was particularly notable given Mel Gibson's stature as an internationally recognized media force. If this article was based solely on Gibson being arrested for DUI then I would agree with others that it should be merged back into the main article. However, an event where an individual of such a stature is making antisemitic comments that recieves such worldwide coverage (and continued citation) merits having a standalone article about it. (→Netscott) 22:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- Point. (→Netscott) -- The very existence of the "Mel Gibson DUI incident" article gives undue weight to this incident. This incident only exists in the context of Mel Gibson's life. There are no extensions of this incident outside of Mel Gibson's life. There were no individuals harmed. There were no pedestrians run over by his drunkenly driven car. There were no children irreparably harmed by hearing his antisemitic comments. There were no laws changed in California as a result of this incident. The highway patrol in California has not set up a task force to deal with drunk driving antisemitic film directors. The swallows have not decided to boycott Capistrano. This incident had no repercussions beyond and outside of the life of Mel Gibson. If this incident is of such great importance in Mel Gibson's life then it should be allotted more space in the Mel Gibson article. By your reasoning we would have to assume the DUI incident is presently being given insufficient weight in the Mel Gibson article. All weight issues only exist in relation to the life of Mel Gibson, because this incident affected nothing outside of the life of Mel Gibson. Bus stop 23:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- If everything significant in the life of Mel Gibson received as detailed treatment as this, would it be undue weight then? I mean, are you saying the coverage is disproportionate to the rest of our coverage on him, or are you saying it doesn't deserve this level of coverage regardless of anything else? As someone who would like to see everything significant pertaining to him receive a detailed level of coverage, it seems very unrealistic to delete this and expect people to develop the content at the same rate all around. Everyking 07:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- Point. (→Netscott) -- The very existence of the "Mel Gibson DUI incident" article gives undue weight to this incident. This incident only exists in the context of Mel Gibson's life. There are no extensions of this incident outside of Mel Gibson's life. There were no individuals harmed. There were no pedestrians run over by his drunkenly driven car. There were no children irreparably harmed by hearing his antisemitic comments. There were no laws changed in California as a result of this incident. The highway patrol in California has not set up a task force to deal with drunk driving antisemitic film directors. The swallows have not decided to boycott Capistrano. This incident had no repercussions beyond and outside of the life of Mel Gibson. If this incident is of such great importance in Mel Gibson's life then it should be allotted more space in the Mel Gibson article. By your reasoning we would have to assume the DUI incident is presently being given insufficient weight in the Mel Gibson article. All weight issues only exist in relation to the life of Mel Gibson, because this incident affected nothing outside of the life of Mel Gibson. Bus stop 23:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- Point. Everyking -- Can you tell me why there are presently two Mel Gibson articles? One is a general article on the life of Mel Gibson. The other focuses on the DWI incident of July 28, 2006. Is there a logical reason for the existence of the one that focuses on the DWI incident? If not, then the existence of the article on the DWI incident is giving undue weight to the DWI incident and consequently Mel Gibson's antisemitic utterances. It is my contention that the DWI incident can be covered adequately in the general Mel Gibson article. Bus stop 17:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Try to think about a lot of people in the past or in present, who are notable for our development, art, ... And they have been mentioned in several encyclopedias, but with very poor articles in Wikipedia. I can see that in this discussion quite a lot of people are capable to write long descriptions why, what for and so. But the whole story is a kind of yellow paper story, and every movement or act of some so called famous person (famous person now!!) is not important, I think. I can be sarcastic, too, but I don't want to, it's not the proper place for that. --MaNeMeBasat 14:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- Point. MaNeMeBasat -- We should just have one article on Mel Gibson, not two articles on him. Bus stop 15:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- Reply I think where we're disagreeing here is that you feel it's a duplicate article about Mel Gibson, while I see it as one article about Mel Gibson and another about a notable DUI incident. Theroretically, you could delete the Mel Gibson article entirely and the DUI incident would still be notable enough to have an article (and vice versa, of course). Both articles appear to be capable of supporting themselves without the other. Dugwiki 17:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- Point. Dugwiki -- Allegations of Mel Gibson's excessive consumption of alcohol and of his antisemitic tendencies were already noted in the Mel Gibson article prior to the July 28, 2006 incident. How is the more recent article's existence justified? Bus stop 17:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- Comment to Dugwiki: how could the incident be notable in itself if it protagonist were not? It is not as if it caused a war or a new law or something... --Goochelaar 17:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- The incident is notable (irrespective of whether the person involved was Gibson or John Doe) because it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, reliable published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself (quoted from WP:Notability). Black Falcon 18:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- Thanks, I know that bit, as everyone here. But of course it would have not been the subject etc. etc. if a notable person were not involved. On the other hand, and more to the point, every marriage, childbirth, injury etc. involving famous people is object yaddah yaddah: every newspaper, magazine and tv channel in the world covers it. But I presume nobody is suggesting we have an article for each such event. --Goochelaar 18:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- Comment This AfD would be much more readable if User:Bus stop would quite replying to every single delete !vote with the same damn Point.. Argyriou (talk) 21:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- Bus stop is responding to every "keep" vote with the same point (not to mention adding the readability-distorting boldface to the word "Point" every time). --Oakshade 05:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- Point. Oakshade -- I don't think the boldfaced word "Point" does any damage to "readability." Do you confuse the word "Point" with either the word "Delete" or the word "Keep?" How does the boldfaced word "Point" cause a deterioration in "readability, in your opinion? I'm surprised that you are getting so petty, but I guess there may be validity to your criticism, and I will try to keep an open mind. Bus stop 05:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. This is news and belongs in his article where there is already an entire section devoted to this topic. We should also not lose sight of WP:NOT. What happens the next time he gets arrested? Do we have a second article? If the decision here is to keep, one must assume that anyone who has an article on this wiki and gets arrested for a similar charge should also get their own article. This is simply not someplace we want to go. If the article needs to be split, then a whole section. or two, should be split out and not just one incident. In the end, we really need to look at this from the position of editors writing an encyclopedia. Does an article of this size, or detailed coverage of a single incident really need to be here? I think not. Vegaswikian 03:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- 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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-10 23:52Z
[edit] Path To Nowhere and Shannon Holliday
- – (View AfD)
not notable, no references, haven't released an album MsHyde 07:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - non notable, future events, even those somewhat confirmed, are Crystal Ball-ery and unacceptable. Add Shannon Holliday to the deletion as well. -Mask 07:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - the creator seems to be a member of the band - I agree that Shannon Holliday needs deleting too. fraggle 09:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Two year away? Xiner (talk, email) 21:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
(UTC)
- Do Not Delete its not like the band is not big , its a big Australian band that most Americans havernt heard of , thats why its on this site, its the free encylopedia. Shazzza101 05:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC) Shazzza101 (talk, email) 16:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Won't release the album for another two years (assuming the unsourced information is correct), fails WP:MUSIC. ShadowHalo 00:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- 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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Just a promotional article in my opinion.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. I read this entire discussion. I read Robert Baden-Powell's sexual orientation. I read Robert Baden-Powell, 1st Baron Baden-Powell. I read the all of the referred to discussions on Talk:Robert Baden-Powell, 1st Baron Baden-Powell and Talk:Robert Baden-Powell, 1st Baron Baden-Powell/ArchiveTo30March2006. I examined the all of the relevant policies at WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:N. I went through and tried to measure the various arguments against these policies. In short, I gave it my best effort to find a consensus supported by policy and am left to close this as no consensus.
However, I will note the following from my review:
- Contrary to some of the arguments here, I did not find a consensus in the talk page and talk page archives supporting the basis for this article. What consensus I did find from the talk page discussions was that undue weight was given to this subject in the Robert Baden-Powell, 1st Baron Baden-Powell article and therefore the bulk of the content in this article does not belong in Robert Baden-Powell, 1st Baron Baden-Powell.
- The Robert Baden-Powell's sexual orientation article needs some work—enough that it made this a close call between no consensus and delete. The article needs to describe the theories of Baden-Powell's sexual identity instead of presenting the theories. Quite possibly the article needs to be moved to Theories on Robert Baden-Powell's sexual orientation in order to maintain a neutral point of view. Reporting on the theories requires reliable sources that have examined the theories, which the article does include in the intro and briefly references in the first paragraph under the "On his interest in males" section. The theories themselves are a primary source, and per WP:V, the article should be reporting the analysis of reliable secondary sources that have reported on these theories. Most of the rest of the article past the third paragraph becomes a presentation of a single work and needs to be rewritten.
- The article slips from describing the theories to adopting them and needs the language cleaned up. The following examples either need to be recast or sourced to primary facts, not secondary theories by the Jeal: "There is no reason to suspect that either Tod or Powell's relations were anything but chaste", "Despite his appreciation for the beauty of boys", "From the physical view he regarded the body as the best example of the beauty of nature, and with that of God, the creator", "Their relationship held hints of masculine attraction as well"
This closing of no consensus is without prejudice for any future AfD. —Doug Bell talk 09:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Robert Baden-Powell's sexual orientation
- – (View AfD)
Let's see if we can pry this one loose. Reasons for deletion include:
- We don't have articles on "Hillary Clinton's sexual orientation" or "Condolezza Rice's sexual orientation" even though you hear plenty speculation about them. (In fact, as far as I know we don't have any articles on "_______'s sexual orientation" except this one.
- We don't have articles speculating on the inner life of historical personages. We don't have articles on "What _______ secretly thought about _______".
- In particular, we don't have articles speculating on, specifically, the sexual persona of people whose sexuality is not germane to their notability. For t.A.T.u. or David Bowie, fine; for Baden-Powell, no thanks.
- This is way too detailed a level of information for an encyclopedia article.
- Reality check: this whole article is an exercise in making a WP:POINT. Anyone surprised? Does anyone think that the editors responsible for this article were casting about a way to improve the encyclopedia by adding additional material on Baden-Powell, mooted a treatise on his tactics at the siege of Mafeking, but decided on this article instead? 'Nuf said. The article was created by User:Haiduc, who is a fine editor and very erudite in his field (pederasty) but is also the Energizer bunny of pederasty-normalizaton here. The Wikipedia is not for hijacking to lend authority to anyone's personal agenda.
- Finally, and for what it's worth, and recognizing that this is not really a deletion criteria: the entire thrust of the article is not only incorrect but also insulting to the human spirit and socially toxic. I resent the implication that, because one can (for instance) appreciate the coiled muscular power and grace of The Discus Thrower, or has close male friends, or enjoys mentoring youth, etc. one is perforce gay, and I think the people who make this connection are psychologically retarded at best.
That is all. Ride forth, and fear no evil. Herostratus 18:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC) N.B.: the previous AfD for this article was closed as No Consensus, discussion here.
- Well, looking at the article purely on its own merits, without attempting to analyze the motives of its author, certainly it fails to meet Wikipedia's stated policy: "Wikipedia articles are supposed to represent all views, instead of supporting one over another...".
- This article quotes only two sources to advance the hypothesis that Baden-Powell's sexual orientation was deviant, whilst ignoring the many other published credible sources which consistently portray him as a paragon of virtue. It also fails to mention that his writings, in the context of Edwardian times, are not at all unusual or evidence of prurient interest. How, then, can this article be said to be truly "representing all views"?
- As an encyclopedia article, it should endeavour to compare and contrast the divergent interpretations of past events in the context of the times. Instead, all we have here is simply a glorified book report which leads the reader to the conclusion that the Article is POV, not history.
Agree it should be deleted, unless someone wishes to undertake a major re-write more worthy of Wikipedia. JGHowes 19:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- Comment FWIW, we have other articles on the sexual orientation of noted individuals. See Jesus Christ's sexuality, Sexuality of Abraham Lincoln, and Sexuality of William Shakespeare. -Will Beback · † · 21:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- observation, based on those articles, there should probably be done some renames for uniformity sake-Sexuality of x or x's Sexuality. Chris 03:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. There's consensus at Talk:Robert Baden-Powell for the existence of this article, and it already survived one AfD. The nominator doesn't seem to be saying anything that wasn't already said in those debates--except for his points 5 and 6, which are ad hominem arguments. If JGHowes is correct in saying that the article has NPOV problems, the article should be expanded to include the views of additional sources--but I see no reason to delete this article. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- But note that the previous AfD was closed as No Consensus. It's still an open issue. Herostratus 17:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- Deleate. Unless we want to open the flood gates of there being an article about the sexual interests of every major historical figure since the dawn of time this needs to be done away with. Bragragger 01:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC) 6 February 2007 (UTC
-
- Note: The above comment was Bragragger's second edit on Wikipedia. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- Note: The above comment was by --Akhilleus who does not agree with me on this topic. Bragragger 01:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Consensus on talk page as per --Akhilleus above, and second time at AfD. Shall we just keep on proposing articles for deletion until eventually it get's through?? More germane, I found the article via todays main page article on Scouting and specificaly then looked for information on Bayden Powell's sexuality. Not through any form of titilation, but I remember considerable debate and controversy in the UK about 20 years ago (maybe more). In short as a hum drum reader of the encyclopedia if I am interested and also disinterested it stands to reason that others will be too. Article does need a rewrite though, but that's no reason to delete. Pedro1999a | Talk 14:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 15:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- First of all, we keep hearing that this article has already survived and AfD. But the AfD was closed as No Consensus, and that was a year ago. So that is a very weak argument indeed, and yes, we can review articles periodically until we get a consensus. And yes I understand that there are a few editors at Baden-Powell's talk page who are eager for this article to survive, but that does not really bear on this discussion. Herostratus 17:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Agreed, but perhaps you would do me the courtesy of reading beyond the opening lines of my support. As I am disinterested[33]the value of the article is that there has been debate in the wider world beyond wikipedia. Therefore it is encyclopedic to include articles about such debate. Indeed if we have issues about a "smear" then I will happily re-write the article to include the historical context as this is noticeably lacking. However I think any rewrite before close of AfD would not be proper.Pedro | Talk 21:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Delete. As per nom, and further these random smear campagins are useless, besides in the article it is well referenced that he in fact never had any activity of the sort, and supported flogging of those who did. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.70.128.18 (talk) 16:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC).
- Keep but in passing, the whole thing has only two references. I'm in favour of applying WP:BLP to articles about any person dead or alive, so we should be bold and trim out the unverifiable portions. Flyingtoaster1337 17:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. I hate to go with the sock patrol on this one, but this is a clear-cut case of undue weight. Much of it is unsourced, and the bulk of it is sourced to one single biography. (The other cited source isn't cited anywhere but at the end of the article.) This would be bad sourcing for a single paragraph in Robert Baden-Powell; for an entire article that seems to be a soapbox piece, this is inexcusably bad sourcing. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete For many reasons stated above. As for other similar articles mentioned, well let's be honest this guy is not William Shakespeare or Abraham Lincoln. The level of study of his sexuality doesn't seem to be anywhere near as deep, varied, or longstanding.--T. Anthony 18:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - there appears to be at least a minimally adequate level of sourcing for the article and it's a reasonable topic of encyclopedic interest. Frankly, I find the nomination to be a little suspect, what with its throwing around phrases like "socially toxic" and "psychologically retarded." And I take great exception to the false characterization of this sort of scholarship as "smear campaigns." Otto4711 18:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, Wikipedia is not the place to advance one's own agenda and there's not one shred of proof that Gen. Baden-Powell was deviant. Where are the eyewitnesses? Recorded events as evidence? There are none - this is entirely speculation invented out of whole cloth. An article like this would never pass muster for a living person, you know it and I know it. - C. Watkins
- First off, referring to gay people as "deviant" pushes the boundary of WP:CIVIL, so I suggest you refresh yourself on that and be a bit more selective in your word choice next time. Second, whether this article would pass muster about a living person is irrelevant. Otto4711 19:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- The article indicates he had pederastic tendencies, not simple homosexuality. I believe the above poster is stating that pederasty is deviant. Although a few Wikipedians may even disagree with that the idea that pederasty is deviant is basically the mainstream view.--T. Anthony 04:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, what kind of fucking crap is this - a fucking hatchet job! Fucking delete it now. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.6.207.111 20:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC).
-
- Well, that's solved that then. Delete as per 86.6.207.111. The informed and persuasive logic of the argument is without compare.....Pedro | Talk 21:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Keep - there seems to be a tendency at the moment for controversial material to be deleted even when it is sourced. This may be a democratic form of censorship, but it's still censorship. If there are outrageous facts about a historical figure they should not be airbrushed out.--Simon Speed 20:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete There's no "censorship" to it. If the issue is germane, no one is saying it can't be included in the main Baden-Powel article. From my look at this article, there is no reason why it needs to be a separate article. We don't need a separate article on every habit, belief, incident, or action of an encyclopedic person. A well-written article can always accomodate information like this if it is relevant to the biography. Agent 86 20:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- The issue with this specific article, as I see it, is not really censorship of unpleasant facts at all. Indeed, the article cites no facts, which is one of the main reasons why it should be deleted. Secondly, the article is seriously flawed and unencyclopedic, as follows:
-
-
-
- + It relies solely on one book, T. Jeal's biography. All other sources are ignored.
-
-
-
- + Since Jeal's work is the only source for this article, what are his credentials? He is not a psychoanalyst, nor has expertise in psychology or psychiatry.
-
-
-
- + The entire field of psychohistory (which is what Jeal is practicing in the chapter on B-P's sexuality) has been subject to serious debate. Psychohistory is not very well accepted.JGHowes 21:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- Strong Keep. I will not repeat ad infinitum arguments made before, I will simply mention that the reason I seem to be hitting people over the head right and left with pederasty is simply because most other editors have a distaste of the subject, and I am left working at it largely alone. But, if I may point out a minor matter, the permanence of the large majority of my contributions despite the controversial nature of the material is at least suggestive of their validity. And don't for a second imagine that I have been free to impose on the Wikipedia some personal agenda. Other editors have been watching like hawks to make sure that I do not turn the documentation of relations between men and boys into a boy love polemic. Which is as it should be. Pederasty has much to be blamed for. But to jump from that to presumptious arguments that to mention a notable personage's attraction to boys is an "attack" is the very essence of imposing an agenda. I would like to leave you with a quote from a recent work on Uranian poetry by Michael Kaylor: "[C]urrent scholarship employs four strategies that blatantly attempt to quell any meaningful consideration of ‘the paederastic’, strategies that attempt to forestall a ‘Uranian approach’: scholarship engages in absolute avoidance of this form of love, intimacy, and/or eroticism; claims its anachronism; heightens its ‘homosocial’ aspects; or disguises it as ‘homosexual’." (Secreted Desires, 2006; p.xxvi) We do not have to fall into any of those pitfalls, not with Baden-Powell nor with any other topic. Haiduc 00:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- (N.B.: The above comment is by the creator of the article.) Haiduc, I already conceded in the nomination that you are a good and erudite editor. However, in this case you're way overreaching. Also, it'd be disingenuous of you to claim that you don't have an agenda: the peppering of the encyclopedia with material tending to glorify and normalize pederasty. I know that you don't see it as an attack to claim the Baden-Powell was a closet pederast. However, most people do see it as an attack - Baden-Powell certainly would have, and I daresay his sucessors in scouting would also - and also a direct attack on scouting itself. If Baden-Powell was alive, this article would be deleted under WP:BLP in a heartbeat. Haiduc, the quote you included in your comment is painfully opaque, but serves to make this point: this is an encyclopedia and as such is, ultimately, a general work designed to be accesable to a general readership. It is not possible to understand that quotation without a extensive background in whatever the hell he's saying, therefore it is not possible to refute his argument without possessing a greater depth of knowledge that the typical user has or can reasonably be expected to easily attain. You follow me? The Wikipedia is not a scholarly academic journal and there's a limit to how deep we can go. And it's all very well for a couple of academics to say well such-and-such and isn't that rather fascinating to speculate on, but here in the real world there's no way that calling Baden-Powell a closeted pederast - and on "evidence" such that he was friends with a younger man and so forth - isn't a scurrilous attack. Herostratus
-
-
-
- Herostratus, the danger of calling another's work "agenda driven" is that one is exposed to the selfsame criticism. Often such accusations are also inadvertently humorous, since the person doing the attacking appears convinced of his or her neutrality, a neutrality less than apparent to other observers. A close reading of the article that the Scout portal editors and I developed with no small expense of effort will make it amply clear that B-P was a deeply ethical man who deeply loved boys. I do not know what sort of individual condemns and fears an ethical and loving lifestyle but I certainly do not think we should cater to that mentality.
-
-
-
-
-
- Finally, I take exception to your suggestion that Kaylor's words, which I quoted above are opaque. For anyone unfamiliar with Uranian poetry a small side trip to that article would have resolved any questions. The opacity, if any, lies not in the quote, or in the articles I write but in the reader. And if there is anything I reject more forcefully than attempts to censor discussions of pederasty, it is attempts to dumb down experience any further. I am sure I do not have to explain - just look around at the world we live in.
-
-
-
-
-
- In closing, however, I do want to give credit where credit is due. You are right, I do have an agenda. It is to approach the subject of pederasty in a scrupulously neutral fashion, documenting its negative, neutral and positive aspects with an even hand. And if I might refrain from poking fun at you for a moment, I understand completely your objections. This kind of an activity, from the perspective of a culture which has evolved into a position where pederasty is seen as universally negative, must seem peculiar, slanted and suspicious. That is why we are here now, having this debate. Let's hope it will serve a useful purpose. Regards, Haiduc 14:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Comment. I really don't think it's appropriate to make ad hominem arguments in an AfD. Haiduc's motives in writing the article should have nothing to do with this discussion.
-
-
-
- As for Herostratus' other points, I don't know of any WP policy that limits how much detail an article should cover. Nor can I agree with the idea that the article is a "scurrilous attack"--it's based on Tim Jeal's biography, which meets WP:RS as far as I can tell, and also refers to Rosenthal's biography. Reporting the views of reliable sources is not an attack. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- Delete I couldnt care less if he enjoyed shagging bears in the wood, it has NOTHING to do with what he's famous for. Frankly is it any of our damn business what lit his fire?! What next, Sexuality of Queen Elizabeth II? Jcuk 01:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- WP:IDONTLIKEIT is far from a persuasive argument. Otto4711 01:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- I quite agree, however as I didn't use WP:IDONTLIKEIT your comment is irrelevant. I said his sexuality has nothing whatsoever to do with what he's famous for. Jcuk 23:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete/Merge Anything salvageable from the article (ie, well-referenced statements from reliable sources) can be made into a section in Robert Baden-Powell, the rest can be dumped into the bit-bucket. Just because the folks at Talk:Robert Baden-Powell don't like it isn't an excuse to spin off a separate article when there's so little there. Argyriou (talk) 02:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- Comment anything "salvageable" is already there.Rlevse 03:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- Comment This material already was in the original article, and was split off from it. It has been reduced to what can be asserted based on the existing scholarship, which is not for editors here to criticize as no one here has adequate credentials, to the best of my knowledge. So returning the material where it came from is not a solution, and reducing it further is not appropriate since what remains is properly documented. And the only arguments for deletions (and I select the cream of the crop so as not to say worse) have been spontaneous opinions or attacks on bona fide scholars by anonymous nobodies, which is not the stuff academic arguments are made of. Any other ideas? Haiduc 03:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete/Merge Just because it was previously part of the main article and later split is no bar to returning it. Neither is the fact that some editors of the main article don't want it. I don't advocate censorship, but also don't see why this particular aspect of his history needs its own article. Matchups 04:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- Comment This material already was in the original article, and was split off from it. It has been reduced to what can be asserted based on the existing scholarship, which is not for editors here to criticize as no one here has adequate credentials, to the best of my knowledge. So returning the material where it came from is not a solution, and reducing it further is not appropriate since what remains is properly documented. And the only arguments for deletions (and I select the cream of the crop so as not to say worse) have been spontaneous opinions or attacks on bona fide scholars by anonymous nobodies, which is not the stuff academic arguments are made of. Any other ideas? Haiduc 03:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- Comment anything "salvageable" is already there.Rlevse 03:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- Merge what's worthwhile and then delete. Baden-Powel's sexuality is by no means a notable topic on its own, although it may be of interest in his main article, nor is the Baden-Bown article long enough to mandate splitting (although this article seems a bit more like a POV fork if you ask me...) AmiDaniel (talk) 04:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete not suffcient material for article subject.-MsHyde 04:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete somewhat trivial, and anything that can be covered here should be on the main article instead. -Mask
- Comment - You know, I've always found that a good informal bar for notability for a controversial claim is whether anyone has ever felt the need to attempt to refute that claim. So is there any publication anywhere that states, "For such-and-such reasons, Baden-Powell was not a pederast or homosexual"? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, notable subject, enough to say that it's worth being split off. Everyking 06:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- Keep AFD's such as this one proliferate themselves ad maximum nausium. There are quite a few things going on in this one, though. One is a general dislike for the subject or a desire to wear blinders while confronted with it. This is, of course, not a reason for deletion. Some assert that the article is not NPOV. Whether or not this is true, it is not a reason for deletion. (You do not delete articles you feel are POV, you edit them to make them NPOV). If they take the time to consider the context, nobody can assert that the topic is not notable. (There is strong evidence that the founder of the largest and possibly the most influential boy's youth organization in the world, which currently proselytizes against same sex attraction, might have had pederastic attractions...and we can assert non-notability HOW?). There are several ad hominum attacks that claim that Haiduc is somehow trying to usurp article space in wikipedia in order to advance his agenda of brainwashing all those who so much as LOOK at one of his articles into being pederasts (insert evil laugh here?). Thrown in here is also a condemnation of academic language (by the nominator, no less) and with it academic notability and expertise (because wikipedia should be accessible to a 'general' audience, which means we should talk down to those humble little peons who will just never understand our academic 'lingo'. Sources in an article, after all, are only there to give some sort of arbitrary idol of 'proof' to its content, not to actually provide a pathway to research and, oh i dunno, learning something). And while I jest a good amount here, I think it's pretty clear that the inclusion of articles like this are crucial to the wiki project, and that most of those poo-pooing it have a historical vested interest in its deletion. CaveatLectorTalk 06:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- So, where are the sources claiming that Baden-Powell wasn't a pederast? There's no potential for a NPOV article if there's only one person who has commented on the subject, with their one opinion. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete this pyscho-bio-crap. Existing mention in the Baden-Powell article is sufficient. Edeans 06:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as redundant to the brief mention the topic actually merits in Baden-Powell's article. This is excessive detail. GassyGuy 06:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- keep as expansion of that subject in the B-P article. In this case it seems quite possible that sexuality was related to his career in rather obvious ways. If there is enough material for an objective discussion, there can be an article--and it seems there is. The WP article is not making judgements about people's psyche --it just reports on the work of others using appropriate quotations. DGG 06:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete for undue weight as noted above. Also, how is this subject in and of itself notable enough for an article? No publications specifically about it are cited. A brief, well-sourced paragraph in the main article will do. Sandstein 07:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Much is made above about there being only two references. It does not appear to be realised that these two books are the only two biographies of Baden-Powell that get close to what we call NPOV. They do indeed look at all sides of the man. The earlier biograpies were written by people strongly associated with Scouting to praise the founder of Scouting after his death. They allow no criticism, while Jeal and Rosenthal have written well researched notable biographies. The topic is important because it often appears in criticism of Scouting. The section in the main article on Baden-Powell was getting too large so it was agreed to spin off an article for this topic. I personally think that more material from these two books needs to be added to WP articles on Baden-Powell, but the sections refered to in this article are notable and important in understanding the man. --Bduke 07:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- Comment: Bduke eruditely and succinctly hits the nail on the head. Pedro | Talk 08:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I agree with most of this, but the conclusion where I differ is that spinning this off and giving it a full article was the proper move. Rather, it should have been pared down to its barest and most necessary facts so as to give a proper overview within the context of the Baden-Powell article. GassyGuy 08:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- It's only acceptable to "pare it down to its barest and most necessary facts" if you're moving the rest of the detail to a subarticle. Wikipedia embraces information and does not strive to limit the information available to the reader. Everyking 09:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- Alternately, it's necessary to pare it down if undue weight is being given to a minority idea. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- It's only acceptable to "pare it down to its barest and most necessary facts" if you're moving the rest of the detail to a subarticle. Wikipedia embraces information and does not strive to limit the information available to the reader. Everyking 09:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- Alternately, they're the only sources to advance a fairly radical idea. How are we to know the difference? The answer is that we cannot, and we should give ideas not widely discussed or brought up due weight, by mentioning them as minor details in a larger context. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- Wait, the fact that no one's bringing up sources that disagree with Jeal and Rosenthal are evidence of an NPOV problem? That doesn't make any sense to me. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- Strong keep for all the reasons in the first afd plus what Bduke says here. Rlevse 10:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. Further up you ask "So, where are the sources claiming that Baden-Powell wasn't a pederast?". Well, actually, Jeal, as well as zillions of scouting sources. Jeal's views are more nuanced about his sexuality. Other points:- It has been pared down for the main article on BP, but there is, as folks just above say, more to talk about. Also, someone above says about Scouting "which currently proselytizes against same sex attraction". Only the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) do. The Scout Association (UK), Scouts Canada, Scouts Australia, most Scout organisations in Europe, and many others do not. However the fact that BSA does makes this article to be about an important topic. --Bduke 11:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- Briefly Sorry about that, I was only aware of BSA policy. CaveatLectorTalk 14:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- Merge if verifiable sources can be found for the statements currently flagged as unsourced. If this can be done, I would recommend cutting down the text, and merging it back into a main article - OR, start cutting down the bio article on Lord Baden-Powell into sub-articles (early life, military career, scouting career), so that the whole thing isn't overly long. If sources cannot be found (and give people some time for heaven's sake, we have lives you know :) - then DELETE. I don't agree that this material deserves its own article, but I also don't agree that it shouldn't be mentioned, somewhere. --JohnDBuell 15:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- Merge with the main BP article and take out false information, such as the Juliet Low bit at the bottom which I am 99.9% certain is false. We don't have articles on other peoples' sexuality, make a section for it in the article if you feel it is that needed. Darthgriz98 15:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Isn't this already a sub article?Rlevse 15:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Making my points afresh. 1) Delete doesn't make sense: There does seem to be potential encyclopedic content. This has been hashed many a time. 2) Should we merge? I don't think so. While that is an option, this is sort of grown into its own controversy. It's a fine distinction, but this article is not so much about him but about the research movement regarding this topic. So, the research and writing itself is a separate topic. One could imagine an article "Examining the Monica Lewinsky affair" that should be separate from and article on Monica Lewinsky. If anything, this article needs to focus more on the controversy or the research but not be merged. --NThurston 15:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- 1-Name me an encyclopedia that has an article solely about an individual's sexuality. I mean any individual including Alexander the Great or Abraham Lincoln. 2-The parent article is a bit long, but barely longer than this discussion.--T. Anthony 15:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- Wikipedia--See Jesus Christ's sexuality, Sexuality of Abraham Lincoln, and Sexuality of William Shakespeare. There are also articles on such topics as a pundit's speech at a press dinner, which IMHO is even more of a stretch than this an that article is an FA. It's not like he made the Gettysburg Address or anything.Rlevse 15:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- I meant another encyclopedia, not this one. You can justify almost anything based on what's in Wikipedia as it's huge and anyone can edit. The first point is still not addressed as far as I'm concerned.--T. Anthony 16:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- Even going by Wikipedia standards the sexuality of the most important figures in history is going to be more notable than normal. Do you really rank Robert Baden-Powell up there with Shakespeare or Jesus? Or think that the level of scholarship on him is at that kind of level? Personally I'm not sure any "sexuality of" article is encyclopedic, but I can maybe see it if it's limited to the most notable people to have their sexuality thoroughly debated. If we start doing it with anyone who founds a major organization or movement we could have "Sexuality of Henry Dunant", "Sexuality of Syed Ahmed Khan", "Sexuality of Bernard Kouchner", etc.--T. Anthony 17:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- There's also Alexander the Great's personal relationships. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- I meant another encyclopedia, not this one. You can justify almost anything based on what's in Wikipedia as it's huge and anyone can edit. The first point is still not addressed as far as I'm concerned.--T. Anthony 16:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- Keep The subject is notable, and because of his interest in boys leading to the founding of scouts, his reported sexual interest in men and boys is a fair subject for an article. The article is not original research or a synthesis. It is not trying to telepathically look at his inner thoughts, but it does look at his words and actions. It presents several reliable sources which have substantial coverage of the topic of his sexual orientation, possible pederasty, and interest in nude photos of boys taken by his lifelong friend, who was nicknamed "boy." Completely appropriate, and the objections seem to be of the "IDONTLIKEIT" variety. Wikipedia is not censored. Edison 16:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- How about it has several unsourced statements, it's mostly based on a biography by a novelist (sorry I'm in academia, that would be a "interesting, but don't use it"), and the person's sexuality is not yet so notable it's of solid historic interest.--T. Anthony 16:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- Do you mean Jeal? Do you have any evidence to support this "put down". He has written other biographies, including a very well received one on David Livingstone which is source for that article. As I indicate above, both references are very well researched biographies that have been well received and reviewed. They are miles better than the earlier biographies of Baden Powell. They are perfectly good sources (and I'm an academic too). --Bduke 22:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- Hoo boy. OK, going from the top: There's a place for a well-sourced and neutral article on this topic, given the controversy surrounding Scouting's policies regarding homosexuality, as explicated at Scouting_controversy_and_conflict#Exclusion_of_individuals_from_membership. However, this article has serious problems, as much of the material is poorly sourced and the presentation doesn't adhere to a neutral point of view. As such, I'd be inclined to basically burn this article to the ground and re-create a version that's a more even treatment of the subject, in the manner in which some BLP violations have been handled in recent days. More commonly, I guess that's a Delete, with no bias against the re-creation of a better version. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 18:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Comment: Fair comments but please see the deletion policy, specificaly "article needs improvement". I can't see "delete and then re-create" helps at all. Surely there are three options. Delete, Merge or Improve. The point of this discussion is to ascertain which of these is the community's consensus. I'm afraid that "delete and bring it back later if you like, but slightly better" doesn't seem the way forward. Pedro | Talk 20:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- I'd be inclined to try to radically re-work the article, but I'm disturbed by the idea of some of the unsourced material remaining in the article's history, since it's potentially defamatory. As such, I think the article's needs go beyond simple cleanup, in favor of more radical measures. If we were to cut out all the bits that aren't adequately supported, there wouldn't be much left beyond a stub anyway, so I don't think there's much difference in this case between a de facto deletion and a de jure one. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 21:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- Forgive me, but I'm having trouble understanding why you think most of the article isn't sourced. Most of the article seems to be based on Jeal's biography. The article shifts from footnotes to parenthetical references after the fourth paragraph; paragraphs 5-8 are based on Jeal, to judge from the parenthetical notes at the end of paragraphs 5, 7, and 8; after that, the article isn't referenced. But it seems to me that most of the article indicates its source. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- There are parenthetical citations to some portions, but it seems that many potentially controversial statements are currently unsourced. For example, consider the following passage near the beginning: "The most intense relationship of Baden-Powell's life is widely believed to have been with a younger man, Kenneth McLaren, a boyish looking British Army officer whom Baden-Powell had grown fond of when they first served together in India. Baden-Powell nicknamed McLaren affectionately "The Boy," and remained close to him throughout his life, until his friend chose to marry — against Baden-Powell's advice — a woman below his station. Their friendship was the cause of intense jealousy on the part of Baden-Powell's wife." The phrase "is widely believed to have been" contains so-called weasel words, which compromise the integrity of the passage. If something really IS widely believed, multiple sources should be relatively easy to find. The potentially controversial allegation that McLaren's wife was below his station is unsourced, and the source attached to the claimed jealousy of Baden-Powell's wife does not match the passage, rendering that section unsourced as well. It's also questionable to use a summary from a book review as source material, rather than the source itself. For an example of the type of sourcing that is needed for potentially controversial material of this nature, please see the article on Ron Jeremy. At a casual count, I found 30 citations from 23 different sources for an article with a length of 28 sentences. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 22:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for that detailed reply. In general, I agree with your analysis of this paragraph, but these seem like problems that call for a rewrite, not a deletion. (I'm not quite sure where your comment about the book review is coming from, though, because the editor who wrote the article definitely read Jeal's work.) --Akhilleus (talk) 22:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- My objection to the usage of the book review within that context is that it's not the best available source at hand for the material. Since the review's summary is drawing its information solely from Jeal's book, it would be better to directly cite the relevant part of that work, which is already cited elsewhere in the article. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 22:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- Ah. I didn't realize the footnote mark was for the review, rather than the book. Of course, I agree the citation should be to the relevant part of the book. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- I have edited the article a bit to address some of Hit bull, win steak's concerns. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- There's some improvement, but I'd say that at least 60% of the article is still uncited. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 03:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- I think your percentage is on the pessimistic side, but I agree that further improvements can be made. (Someone just removed some of the material with "fact" tags, so that helps also.) I'm not going to tinker with the article very much until the AfD closes, because I'd rather not spend too much of my time on work that might get deleted. But I hope this demonstrates that the article's citation problems can be addressed through cooperative editing, and that any problems of undue weight can be addressed, if people will be specific about whose views aren't being heard. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- There's some improvement, but I'd say that at least 60% of the article is still uncited. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 03:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- My objection to the usage of the book review within that context is that it's not the best available source at hand for the material. Since the review's summary is drawing its information solely from Jeal's book, it would be better to directly cite the relevant part of that work, which is already cited elsewhere in the article. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 22:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- Forgive me, but I'm having trouble understanding why you think most of the article isn't sourced. Most of the article seems to be based on Jeal's biography. The article shifts from footnotes to parenthetical references after the fourth paragraph; paragraphs 5-8 are based on Jeal, to judge from the parenthetical notes at the end of paragraphs 5, 7, and 8; after that, the article isn't referenced. But it seems to me that most of the article indicates its source. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- Comment - Book Review maybe this article should morph into a review of the whole book, not just 5% of the book.Rlevse 22:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- We already have this - Baden-Powell (book). --Bduke 21:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- comment If it gets deleted, someone will undoubtedly try to put it back in the main article again in full, where it was before. It was a POV fork, and had far undue weight in the B-P article than the topic itself is worth. If it is deleted, is there any way to keep that vast volume out of the B-P article? As it read previously, you would think the only thing to the guy was his sexuality, it was written to far outweigh his military history or youth work. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kintetsubuffalo (talk • contribs) 22:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC).
-
- Comment To re-focus on why this article should be deleted, apart from the rather irrelevant "I don't like it" or "censorship" variety, WP:NPOV specifically disallows forks to advance an author's POV, undue weight to one side only, and not citing sources espousing the contrary view. Indeed, WP:NPOV goes so far as to say that, even by consensus in a Discussion group, an Article cannot depart from this Wikipedia pillar.
The issue for deletion is: does this article meet all of the above? If not, WP:NPOV says it should and must go JGHowes 00:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- Comment As usual the attack on this article comes from people pushing the POV notion that it is "defamatory." But that only reveals the bias of those observers, who are attempting to impose their view of what is or is not defamatory on the rest of us. So far no one has been able to point to any crime committed by B-P, nor to any indecent sexual activity, or anything that caused harm to a boy in any way whatsoever. What are we left with? On one hand, an attempt by the squeamish to objectify their biases. On the other, a rationalization that an article which does not have footnotes at every sentence should be thrown into the garbage, even though the material clearly has been sourced to a given work. As for the notion that all sources should be given equal weight, presumably we should apply that approach to cosmology as well, and give Copernicus equal weight to that given to Einstein, so as not to appear "POV." History, even as science, moves on, and some sources are more authoritative than others. To be neutral does not mean to be morons. People feeling that other points of view need to be represented are free to add them, as they have been all along, but not to abuse their editorial powers by using the alleged dearth of opposing viewpoints as a cloak for their puritanical sensibilities. Haiduc 01:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Comment Don't be ridiculous, this is not a "Flat Earth" issue. No matter what level of sophistry, bomb-throwing, or obfuscation you care to inject here, Robert Baden-Powell's sexual orientation is obviously a controversial subject. As such WP:NPOV requires that, "the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a verifiable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." You have chosen only a source supporting your POV, and not cited or mentioned in the Article the many other sources available which paint a different picture of Baden-Powell and present a view different than your own. Your are obliged by WP:NPOV to "present a neutral, balanced article by citing sources on both sides of a controversial issue, even when they differ with your own". Including in the article the published criticisms of Jeal's book, for example, is standard for Wikipedia, read WP:NPOV JGHowes 18:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
- I am obliged to do no such thing. It is expected that an article should evolve to that ideal state, and I certainly do what I can to maintain an even keel. But I, unlike you, am not omniscient, and am unable to provide all points of view - that's what other editors are for, and there have been many who have worked on this article, including a whole bunch from the Scouting community, who presumably have an interest to present an accurate picture of their founder, an interest tempered only by their intellectual integrity - a quality that all of us here would find profitable to cultivate. Your novel doctrine presumes that each article should be born full-fledged from the editor's pen, which is patent nonsense, and part and parcel of the smokescreen of propaganda thrown up by those who prefer to destroy rather than to build. Haiduc 19:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Such preposterous sarcasm as your "omniscience" rant really is misplaced. Your quarrel is not with "my novel doctrine", as you call it, but rather what is Wikipedia policy found at WP:NPOV, which is what I directly quoted. Where does WP:NPOV say that the creator of an article on a controversial subject may contribute a POV article and just leave it up to others to provide balance? We are obliged to make a good faith effort to present both sides of a controversial issue in a neutral tone: if you disagree with that, then all I can say is your disagreement is with one of the Three Principals of Wikipedia stated at WP:NPOV.
- Please refrain from mis-representing my position. Tim Jeal's exhaustive biography of Baden-Powell is certainly a scholarly work and well-researched for the most part. What I am saying, though, is that this Wiki article, by relying solely on Jeal and ignoring the rest, makes no attempt at NPOV and thus merits Deletion. A prime example is the complete omission of Hillcourt's opposing view biography, Baden-Powell: The 2 Lives of a Hero, written in collaboration with Olave, Baden-Powell's wife. JGHowes 01:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- I am very sorry you are upset. It is easy to take these things too seriously. Or not seriously enough. If I read you right, you have found an article which you deem incomplete, you appear to see a way towards completing it (this book which you suggest, which I am not at all familiar with) and your response instead of buckling down and doing some serious editing is to come here and blame me and the other editors for not doing what you seem to know needs doing. And in the mean time, your "solution" is to delete the part of the article which has already been built. Bravo. Two things I will say in response to your insinuation of irresponsibility on my part. In the first place, as I mentioned before, I was unfamiliar with other materials, and, frankly, unfamiliar with a lot about Wikipedia culture. I am a slow learner, and I am still learning. In the second place, a lot of other people had a great deal to do with this material, it was debated at length, and this is the best we were able to come up with. We put a lot of work into it, and it seemed to us to be a good piece, and one which had reached consensus between people with very different outlooks on life and on history. If that is not good faith, I do not know what is. Haiduc 03:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Hillcourt's biography was published in 1965, Jeal's in 1989; they may differ in their views, but Hillcourt certainly didn't write in response to Jeal. In fact, I haven't seen any criticism of Jeal's approach in a published, reliable source, so I can't really see where the "controversy" is.
- By the way, maybe I'm reading the deletion policy incorrectly, but I think the usual answer to NPOV problems is {{sofixit}}, not deletion. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- In a thread on ANI earlier today, I ran across a messager by Jimbo that seems to serve as a pretty good rebuttal to your post. There's nothing wrong with asking that controversial information, particularly that of a speculative nature, be sourced in accord with policies and guidelines. Your accusations of bias are unhelpful, and they do you no credit. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 01:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. The article doesn't seem like a POV fork to me; it's an article spinout, with a summary in the main article. See WP:SUMMARY for the relevant guideline.
- It would be helpful if the editors who see an NPOV problem would explain which prominent views are left out of the article, and direct us to sources where those views may be found. If there are such sources, then their views should be reported in the article. If there aren't such sources, I have trouble taking the NPOV complaint seriously. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- I think that the article has serious issues with undue weight, since the bulk of the text concerns speculation about Baden-Powell's alleged homosexual desires, even though he was outwardly a heterosexual who married a woman and had three children with her. Even if the article isn't intended to be a POV fork, the distribution of its focus certainly gives that impression. There's plenty of material available about his marriage and heterosexual relationships, which could be added to the article to address this concern. Also, as previously noted, there are numerous unsourced statements of a potentially controversial nature, both about Baden-Powell and the other people in his life. I think there's a way to deal with the material in a responsible fashion, but when you start throwing around words like pederasty, it pays to be extra-thorough on your sourcing. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 01:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Your presumption of indirectly criticizing Jeal by criticizing an article based on his research is nothing but original research which does not belong here any more than in an article, to say nothing about the poor quality of the reasoning employed, which evinces no understanding of LGBT issues. And while I have no intention of engaging a mudslinging match, I will point out that you have compromised yourself repeatedly by your disparaging allusions to B-P's alleged chaste attraction to boys, and you will not succeed in laundering yourself by blaming me for pointing out your obvious bias. Haiduc 02:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- I have absolutely no idea what this means. Seriously, absolutely none. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 03:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- Your presumption of indirectly criticizing Jeal by criticizing an article based on his research is nothing but original research which does not belong here any more than in an article, to say nothing about the poor quality of the reasoning employed, which evinces no understanding of LGBT issues. And while I have no intention of engaging a mudslinging match, I will point out that you have compromised yourself repeatedly by your disparaging allusions to B-P's alleged chaste attraction to boys, and you will not succeed in laundering yourself by blaming me for pointing out your obvious bias. Haiduc 02:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- The first sentence of WP:NPOV#Undue_weight reads "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a verifiable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." Jeal's biography seems to be regarded as the best bio of B-P available, so I'd say it's a prominent, reliable source. What other major sources are we missing? --Akhilleus (talk) 02:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not an expert on the subject by any means, but there have been a number of other biographies written about Baden-Powell, including one by his daughter, and to the best of my knowledge none of these present him as anything other than a conventional heterosexual. As such, it would seem odd that this perspective is represented in such a minute fashion in the article. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 03:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- The first sentence of WP:NPOV#Undue_weight reads "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a verifiable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." Jeal's biography seems to be regarded as the best bio of B-P available, so I'd say it's a prominent, reliable source. What other major sources are we missing? --Akhilleus (talk) 02:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Comment. Upon re-reading the nominator's points 5 and 6, it seems to me that they could be considered a personal attack upon the creator of the article. I'd like to ask the nominator to consider rephrasing them, especially since he admits that point 6 is not a criterion for deletion anyway. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - ludicrous. I read the NYT article cited in the article. It is a book review of a book by Tim Jeal. The short version is that BP wasn't married and was a Boy Scout leader, therefore he must have ben gay. The sources given in the article are all book reviews of the Jeal book, so there's nothing independant. At BEST, this should be an article about the book itself. --BigDT 13:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- This is incorrect. There are several parenthetical references to Jeal's book in the article; perhaps I'll convert them to footnotes, so people won't miss them. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, the article about the book is here: Baden-Powell (book). Wim van Dorst (Talk) 21:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC).
- comment then if the article is not kept, the info should be routed into Baden-Powell (book) instead of into Robert Baden-Powell, 1st Baron Baden-Powell. Chris 22:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- Emphatically disagree. The information is about the man, not the book. Haiduc 03:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I would not have much problem with the content of the book being described in the book's article. The huge section in Baden-Powell's article is giving a minor aspect of his person far more coverage than it merits (because this really isn't a large part of the reason why he's notable...) However, the book's content is certainly a valid aspect of an article about a book. GassyGuy 23:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- I can't help but openly wonder at how several people have talked about this as a 'minor' personality trait... CaveatLectorTalk 23:55, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- Just what the hey is that supposed to mean? Herostratus 01:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- Perhaps CaveatLector is wondering how minor this could have been when it is claimed to have figured in all the important aspects of his life, including what is considered to have been his life work and greatest achievment. Haiduc 03:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- Your use of the word "claimed" is precisely why it should go into the book article and not the bio article, thanks for putting the fine point on it! :) Chris 04:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- Historians and other scholars do not live in the world of black and white certainties shared by undergraduates and some others. They understand that knowledge is always provisional, and they nuance their statements as appropriate. The proper response to information that makes one uncomfortable is not to shove it under a literary rug, but to investigate and document it more fully. Haiduc 17:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- Your use of the word "claimed" is precisely why it should go into the book article and not the bio article, thanks for putting the fine point on it! :) Chris 04:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- Perhaps CaveatLector is wondering how minor this could have been when it is claimed to have figured in all the important aspects of his life, including what is considered to have been his life work and greatest achievment. Haiduc 03:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- Just what the hey is that supposed to mean? Herostratus 01:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- Emphatically disagree. The information is about the man, not the book. Haiduc 03:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - original research. Most of the article presumes connections between sexuality and other things (like nudity). 4.250.168.163 03:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC) (WAS 4.250)
- Can someone with more standing than I clean out the one-timers and the anons from this page? Haiduc 03:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, I think this last IP is identifying as User:WAS 4.250, an editor of long standing. However, I think his argument is incorrect--most of the article is sourced to Jeal's biography. A quote from Jeal (p. 346) may help clarify things a bit: "In Chapter Three I examined in detail a wide variety of evidence suggesting that Baden-Powell found men physically attractive and was sexually indifferent to women. There is, however, nothing extraordinary about his desire to marry. Since contemporary medical opinion-in the wake of the Wilde trials-maintained that homosexuality was an illness bordering on insanity, most 'sufferers' inevitably fought their desires through sublimation or marriage." If the article "presumes" that B-P was a repressed homosexual based on his appreciation for the male body, it is because Jeal's biography, presumably a reliable source, makes that argument. (However, the paragraph that begins "However most of the arguments comes from Baden-Powell's admiration of the male body..." doesn't have a citation and doesn't appear to be closely based on Jeal. That paragraph may well be OR, and I'm placing a "fact" tag on it.) --Akhilleus (talk) 04:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- "Actually, I think this last IP is identifying as User:WAS 4.250, an editor of long standing." Correct. My editing habits are such that I sometimes edit while not logged in. In cases where my identity as WAS 4.250 is important, I add that that's who I am. In case of any question, one can always ask on my user page and when I log in I can answer such questions. Thinking about homosexuality and sexual attraction to children (and animals and images and shoes and ...) varies widely across cultures and generations and it is an original research problem to to take things from one culture or time period and present them as relevant. Something as simple as quoting a centuries past author as admitting to "intercourse" with a child is original research because "intercourse" did not come to be a euphamism for "sexual intercourse" (but instead could mean talking or commerce (intercourse between nations)) until it displaced the orininal sense of the word. This article has a lot of drawing conclusions by suggestion and association - wink - wink - about it that need to be specifically addressed by independent reliable modern sources for it to properly belong here. 4.250.132.20 19:23, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- WAS, thanks for the response, but I have to say I don't understand your argument. The main source for the article is Tim Jeal's biography of Baden-Powell, first published in 1989. I'd say this book is an independent reliable modern source. And really, almost the entire article reproduces arguments from Jeal's book--I could add footnotes citing Jeal to almost every single sentence, but I think that would be verging on WP:POINT. Since most of the article is based on a WP:RS I'm having trouble seeing an OR concern here, except in those places that have the "citation needed" tag. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- It is very disappointing that these arguments keep on popping up ad infinitum, as if no one is reading the article with attention. WAS, while, you are certainly right in everything you say, none of it has any bearing on the article, since, as Akhilleus properly pointed out, these are not OUR arguments, these are JEAL'S arguments. Thus your debate is with Jeal, and while intellectually valid it is of no use here since it is precisely that which it denounces - it is all a bunch of original research. Are we expected to include it in the article? "WAS, however, refutes Jeal, properly pointing out that blah blah blah..." Haiduc 20:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, I think this last IP is identifying as User:WAS 4.250, an editor of long standing. However, I think his argument is incorrect--most of the article is sourced to Jeal's biography. A quote from Jeal (p. 346) may help clarify things a bit: "In Chapter Three I examined in detail a wide variety of evidence suggesting that Baden-Powell found men physically attractive and was sexually indifferent to women. There is, however, nothing extraordinary about his desire to marry. Since contemporary medical opinion-in the wake of the Wilde trials-maintained that homosexuality was an illness bordering on insanity, most 'sufferers' inevitably fought their desires through sublimation or marriage." If the article "presumes" that B-P was a repressed homosexual based on his appreciation for the male body, it is because Jeal's biography, presumably a reliable source, makes that argument. (However, the paragraph that begins "However most of the arguments comes from Baden-Powell's admiration of the male body..." doesn't have a citation and doesn't appear to be closely based on Jeal. That paragraph may well be OR, and I'm placing a "fact" tag on it.) --Akhilleus (talk) 04:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- Can someone with more standing than I clean out the one-timers and the anons from this page? Haiduc 03:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- 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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
