Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:37, 16 March 2009

Administrator instructions

15 March 2009

Barack Obama/Criticism of Barack Obama

Barack Obama/Criticism of Barack Obama (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Closing admin suggested Deltion review if there was a disagreement with his closing. For one, the article was underconstruction and the Afd dialogue was ongoing. This article, an evolving article, was not even given a chance. There are many criticism articles on Misplaced Pages. To start with, the Speedy delete tag really defied AGF. Misplaced Pages articles about critism are non uncommon, and we should AGF that they are evolving towards constructive and informative articles. An example is Criticism of Bill O'Reilly (political commentator). There are many articles about criticisms, this one has not even been given a chance - it was deleted in the middle of construction. Criticisms are not inherently negative, they are critiques from differing perspectives - and many of these perspectives are notable. I would continue to work on the article, edit it, and make it more presentable - but it has been speedy deleted. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 20:32, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion - creation was disruption by User:Stevertigo. The Criticism of Barack Obama article has been deleted five times recently for G10, no reason why the sixth was different (and it wasn't). Sceptre 20:49, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
• Userfy and reconsider when there's a reasonably complete page to look at. I think there is a place on Misplaced Pages for "Criticism of" articles but they have to be handled carefully on a case-by-case basis.—S Marshall /_Cont 20:54, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

  Policy doesn't suggest userfication as an option on a page which is created with a disparaging slant, and I'm guessing the reason for~ that is that userpages are indexed, which means the defamatory material would immediately wind up on search engines and mirrors. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk)

  (ec) Well, Dan, that's why I added the "Noindex" magic word to the article the moment I saw it. I'm totally with you that we can't have unsourced defamatory material about a living person on Misplaced Pages anywhere where it might be indexed. That strikes me as a complete no-brainer.

  Equally, though, it's not unreasonable for established editors to be working on this article in an unindexed space.—S Marshall /_Cont 21:06, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

  I have asked that the article be userfied so that I may edit out POV issues and develop the article in general - which I was in the middle of doing when the article got speedied. To date, there has yet to be any detail of what was POV in the article I was working on - if they do exist, they can be noted (on the talk page) and removed. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 21:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

• To quote WP:BLP: "Summary deletion in part or whole is relevant when the page contains unsourced negative material or is disparaging and written non-neutrally, and when this cannot readily be repaired or replaced to an acceptable standard." To quote WP:Attack page: "An attack page is a Misplaced Pages article, page, template, category, redirect or image that exists primarily to disparage its subject. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, these pages are subject to being deleted by any administrator at any time." I have speedily deleted this page, and since it's already been speedily deleted under this and another name 6 times now, I have salted it (protected against recreation) for 1 month. I don't make the rules, I just enforce them. This is perhaps the one policy that the Wikimedia Foundation feels the most strongly about, since Misplaced Pages is subject to the same laws on defamation that everyone else in the U.S. is.
• That's the policy; now a personal note. I know that it's easy to feel "slapped down" when someone comes along and deletes an article you've put some work into. I didn't delete the article because there's anything wrong with your work, and Misplaced Pages does sometimes divide up biographical articles among separate pages, and some of the pages will slant in one direction while other pages slant in another direction. Keeping everything balanced is hard work, and I wish you the best of luck with making the points you'd like to make. But our policy is to delete pages which exist to disparage their subjects immediately; you can then continue your discussion in the obvious place, the talk page of Barack Obama, and if you can gain consensus to divide up the information among separate pages in the way you like, then you can proceed. Happy editing. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 20:52, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion per Sceptre. Brothejr (talk) 21:00, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
• Object to Deletion decision and Userfy. The article wasn't ready for mainspace, but there's no reason to destroy work that can be fixed in the long run, and a neutral article on the subject is overdue. Of course, we don't need a DRV to userfy something: all that takes is a single admin. The cache version provides absolutely no basis for Speedy Deletion. THF (talk) 21:05, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
• Permit restoration and editing in userspace The material as deleted had no obvious BLP violations (though I may have overlooked some); the argument would have to be that a criticism page was inherently a BLP violation, which I think nonsense. I would argue that BLP violations of a major politician can only apply to unsourced gossip or malicious abuse, though nPOV violation can occur due to to lack of balance. It was deleted it apparently on the basis of previous edits, not its own merits. It is appropriate to have such an article for major figures--and is no more a magnet for abuse than the main article. The article as deleted was clearly an outline under construction. DGG (talk) 21:16, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

  The point I made in the AFD is that even if we can have a neutral "criticism of..." article, it would be a duplicate of already-existing articles. Sceptre 21:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, it would mainly be people's opinions of the president, some might have reliable sources, most would not. Plus, as argued before, it would quickly become a honey pot for any editor who may not like the president and might even become a platform for editors to push their opinions into other articles. Finally, such an article would be hard to keep from violating NPOV and BLP. Brothejr (talk) 21:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion POV fork of Bill Ayers presidential election controversy, Jeremiah Wright controversy, and others. Looking at the deleted material...I can't really see what we are going to get from it that isn't already in those two articles. Protonk (talk) 21:34, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

With respect, I think that's a judgment it's hard to make without seeing more final content.—S Marshall /_Cont 21:44, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion as a POV fork and NPOV/BLP concerns. Grsz 22:23, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
• permit restoration and editing in userspace I have not seen the content of the article. The content itself was probably worthy of removal. However, to say that this subject is unacceptable content for wikipedia yet Criticism of George W. Bush is acceptable is blatant bias. We should work on creating a well sourced and compiled account of common criticisms of Barack Obama. -Drdisque (talk) 22:34, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

  Which, if you haven't noticed, is up for merging into Public perception of George W. Bush. Sceptre 22:42, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: It's hard for me to follow the discussion above. The first question is: should the article have been speedily deleted? Mike Godwin (the WMF attorney), Jimbo, the WMF board, and the entire Wikipedian community have weighed in on this question many times, and the relevant policy can be found at WP:Attack page and WP:BLP. The answer, to comply with U.S. defamation laws, is: shoot first, ask questions later. If a page is created to disparage, which means to make people think less of, its subject, it should be deleted on sight per WP:Attack page, unless there's a quick way to improve the page, a way that will last and will work. Does anyone think that "Criticism of Barack Obama" was created to give a neutral and balanced impression of Barack Obama? The key is the word "created"; in just a few cases, biographies have been split into pages that take various positions, after much heated discussion on the talk page. But that's after the discussion, not before. The second question is whether there should eventually be a page called "Criticism of Barack Obama", after discussions at Talk:Barack Obama; I have no position on this. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 22:38, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
• Userfy and bring back here before allowing mainpage creation- A legit NPOV article can be made from this topic, but the article as it was, wasn't it. I'd like to see a draft in userspace before considering allowing it. Umbralcorax (talk) 23:03, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
• userfy more or less per Umbral. Also note that while there are certainly BLP concerns if the main point of BLP is to do no harm than having draft articles about Obama in userspace are extremely unlikely to do any harm. Let's not forget that Obama is the president of the United States. Harm of that sort might occur to people of marginal notability. Harm is extremely unlikely in this sort of circumstance. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:25, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

  But it could affect re-election. We need to be careful with BLPs for sitting politicians and candidates, as we've got an obligation to be neutral, especially as we're a top ten site. If people see a negative article on Misplaced Pages, they may not vote for that candidate. Sceptre 23:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

  • • Everything can effect anything. Reelection is 4 years from now. Misplaced Pages is influential but if you think Misplaced Pages will substantially alter who votes for whom that much... Moreover, if we write a neutral, well-sourced article then fine. All our articles can effect people. Criticism in an article could make someone vote against him also. The worry is unjustified harm. Finally, note that userspace is now NOINDEX so the probability of someone finding this article is very small. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:03, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
• Also see Mike Godwin's reply. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 23:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Oh do. And read my retort too; its not long, but it is a fairly complete summary of the deletionist argument. -Stevertigo 02:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
• Permit restoration and editing in userspace per comments by DGG. His comments are some of the most constructive, practical, and rational in the discussion above. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

This is potentially high-profile stuff. I've never set foot in the US and have no personal political axe to grind, but what concerns me about this is that we could wake up to a newspaper article about "Misplaced Pages deletes 'Criticisms of Barack Obama' after leaving 'Criticisms of George Bush' active for years." Things like that have happened before.

Yes, I know about WP:OTHERSTUFF, but I think we still have to be careful of blatant double standards in sensitive political BLP matters; this could actually be very damaging to Misplaced Pages.

If that's Mike's legal opinion then we can expect to see some office actions. If it's his view as an editor then I respectfully disagree with him.

I suggest a closer who's not from the US should handle this.—S Marshall /_Cont 00:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

A merge has already been suggested for one of the Bush subpages, but even if that doesn't go through: you're suggesting that it's difficult to understand the difference between splitting the content of an article on Bush into two articles vs. creating an article for the purpose of disparaging the subject without any prior consensus, which has always been prohibited by our WP:Attack page and WP:BLP policies quoted above. Maybe I'm not seeing this clearly; I'll watchlist those two policy pages just to see if our policy changes, but I don't think it will. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 01:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not from lack of trying that the Dubya article still exists, either. The notability reflex at AfD makes it impossible to enforce NPOV sometimes. Sceptre 01:28, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse close. There's nothing to restore but attacks and vague notes. If the originator wants to write an article in userspace, he should do so.Bali ultimate (talk) 01:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Endorse restoration It's hypocritical to have a page of criticisms for one controversial politician but not another. Anyone suggesting that fair criticisms of Barack Obama cannot be found are foolish; hundreds of articles can be found by notable, varied news sources. It is editor bias that prevents this point of neutrality. Ejnogarb (talk) 01:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

This isn't hypocrisy. This is enforcement of our policies before creation makes it impossible. Sceptre 01:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• Restore - a few points:

1. "Delete it before it actually gets a chance to develop" is in fact a violation of policy, not an enforcement of.
2. Changing an AFD tag to speedy tag is a violation of policy.
3. Speedy deleting when an AFD is in discussion and is about 50/50 in favor/opposed to deletion is also against policy.
4. Closing a new and ongoing AFD discussion based on a POV claim of "attack page" is a violation of policy.
5. A POV partisan (Sceptre) speedy-closing an ongoing AFD discussion is a violation of policy.

• This one also pissed me off: I was in the middle of writing a detailed point by point refutation of the deletion arguments. I understand how my opponents seriously hate my point-by-points though. I make them look stupid, and sometimes take some enjoyment in it.

• Scepter said: "This is enforcement of our policies before creation makes it impossible" - how does "creation make it impossible?" Ive heard this concept expressed several times, both on Talk:Obama and the AFD page (now, temporarily closed), and its logic essentially says something like: "Misplaced Pages can't possibly control all the anti-Obama POV trolls to allow such a thing to exist." Its really a baseless and irrational argument. Things get handled: if anything, the criticism page gets protected, and stays that way, and nobody cares, as long as its written neutrally. -Stevertigo 01:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

You create an article and put a source in it, people will defend it at AfD because "it's notable". Otherwise, we'd be rid of the Dubya article too. And no, speedy deletion of attack pages isn't violation of any policy. If you keep saying it is just so you can push a POV, I will seek to have you topic banned. Sceptre 01:51, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone honestly believe that any criticism article was written without an intent to disparage? It's a criticism page. There certainly isn't anything positive or neutral in such articles, or they wouldn't be "criticisms". Either a criticism page for Obama should be created or every such article should be deleted. This is a double standard. Ejnogarb (talk) 02:05, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

The only course of action, therefore, is deletion of other criticism articles, as you can't write an article to disparage something. Also, you're wrong about criticism being inherently negative: what do you say Roger Ebert is when he gives a film a good review? Sceptre 02:12, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Ridiculous. What percentage of articles beginning with "criticism of..." are actually positive? Ejnogarb (talk) 02:21, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Outside the arts articles? I say a single digit percentage. If that. Sceptre 02:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Ejno, that's not accurate. People often make criticism pages because they say "Hey! We've got a lot of well-sourced criticism of this guy. It can't all fit in the article. Let's make a neutral child article discussing the criticism." JoshuaZ (talk) 02:14, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey! We've got a lot of well-sourced criticism of Barack Obama. It can't all fit in his article. Let's make a neutral article discussing the criticism! Ejnogarb (talk) 02:15, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

You can't have a neutral criticism article outside the Arts pages, as they don't allow (or rather, people won't allow) positive opinions in them. The correct method of spinning out opinions is to spin them all out into a child article, not just one side. I don't see how people find that concept so difficult to understand. Sceptre 02:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree (with Ejnogarb). Does anyone here have a problem dealing with this issue at a policy level? Deletionists here have been quoting this nonexistent anti-criticism articles policy for days now, and that argument really needs to get slapped down once and for all. Whether the people pushing such a specious argument would likewise feel slapped down is their own personal business. And Josh, are you saying that newspaper reports of Senate level criticism is not "well sourced?" Or are you saying that the person who starts such an article must make sure its developed before its actually on the wiki (where other people can maybe edit it)-Stevertigo 02:17, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't claiming anything about the level of criticism in this situation. Simply observing that Edjo's claim that people inherently make criticism articles to be negative is inaccurate. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Not only does anti-criticism article policy exist, it's also a fundamental cornerstone of Misplaced Pages. Sceptre 02:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• Sceptre, all that NPOV says on this topic is "Sometimes the article title itself may be a source of contention and polarization. This is especially true for descriptive titles that suggest a viewpoint either "for" or "against" any given issue. A neutral article title is very important because it ensures that the article topic is placed in the proper context. Therefore, encyclopedic article titles are expected to exhibit the highest degree of neutrality. The article might cover the same material but with less emotive words, or might cover broader material which helps ensure a neutral view (for example, renaming "Criticisms of drugs" to "Societal views on drugs"). Neutral titles encourage multiple viewpoints and responsible article writing." How you get from there to no criticism articles isn't at all clear to me. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

  WP:UNDUE. Take Putin, for example? He's got an approval rating at around 75-80%. So why do we have a "criticism" article put not a "praise" article? Sceptre 02:36, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Seemingly because he's not a liberal. Ejnogarb (talk) 02:39, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

So is Noam Chomsky. Wait... Sceptre 02:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

So, did Sceptre just quote NPOV as the basis for his criticism of criticism sections? When NPOV in fact says nothing on criticism sections or articles? Did he also just switch from pointing to NPOV to pointing to UNDUE? Way to stand up for NPOV, Sceptre. We now see that your point is not actually based on policy either. WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT maybe. -Stevertigo 02:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

"Undue weight" is a sub-section of NPOV. Sceptre 02:49, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I don't see how that says no criticism articles either. Could you explain this please? JoshuaZ (talk) 03:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

It effectively prohibits criticism articles (outside the arts) because they don't provide a "balanced view of the subject" (the subject being the parent article). What do you think would happen if Praise of Barack Obama was created? Of course, if the criticism itself is notable (for example, Schopenhauer's criticism of the Kantian philosophy), and the criticism isn't simply a synthesis of sources, then that may be acceptable. But that's the only one I can see out of the hundred or so articles. Sceptre 03:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not seeing the argument here. How does undue weight effectively prohibit criticism articles? If the subject of an article is criticism of X then that's balanced. I'd have no problem with article spinoffs of the form "Praise of X" although since humans are naturally critical and praise is generally boring you'll have trouble in general getting enough material for such an article. But if you did there wouldn't be any essential problem. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

The subject of a spun out article is the parent article. The daughter article can limit the content in any way it wishes as long as it affect the balance of its parent article: for example European Theater of World War II can limit its content to the war in Europe, but it can't limit viewpoints of the war itself. If an article has balance problems, it's shaky ground to split articles out before fixing the balance. In non-Criticism articles, however, this is rarely an issue. Sceptre 03:49, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Sceptre's valid point

• Sceptre summed up the deletionist argument quite nicely: "But it could affect re-election!" I love it. -Stevertigo 02:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

How can Misplaced Pages simultaneously have an anti-criticism policy and hundreds of criticism pages? Are you suggesting that such pages contain no criticisms? Or that they are balanced with an equal number of "positive criticisms"? Ejnogarb (talk) 02:28, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Simply? Because people are too idealistic at AfD. They see only non-notability as a reason to delete an article, and everything else is "fixable". Specifically, NPOV is seen as an editorial problem, rather than a reason for deletion (foolishly, in my opinion), so no-one will delete it for that reason. Sceptre 02:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Hypocrisy? Oh no! Note that Sceptre has hinted above that he personally will correct that problem too. Let's be encouraging to him; he appears to like quoting NPOV, let's see how he will convince hundreds of Wikipudlians that our common conventional way of handling/encapsulating notable criticism for years is wrong, and people have been less than NPOV (his concept) for doing so. Sceptre, go forth and stand on your principles. We will, in spirit anyway, support your noble efforts. -Stevertigo 02:36, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Steve, cool down a bit ok? This isn't helpful. Sceptre, that is however what our deletion policy says. Unless there's something fundamentally wrong with an article we do let people edit it and see if the they can fix it. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Fundamental NPOV problems still aren't seen as deleteable. Sceptre 03:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• Userfy-- Articles about "criticism" are not uncommon on Misplaced Pages (Criticism of Franklin D. Roosevelt). I suggest to start a centralized discussion about policy. Not allowing "Criticism of Barack Obama" to be userfy without deleting others similar articles is bias and gives the wrong impression. --J.Mundo (talk) 05:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

  {sigh} It's not about bias. It's about killing a weed before it roots itself into the ground. How many times must I say this? Sceptre 08:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, subpages aren't allowed in the mainspace. At a first look there seems to be some non-BLP-violating material there, and if someone's prepared to wade through and pick it out, I'd be happy with that being userfied. Stifle (talk) 09:08, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, I agree with Sceptre and OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an arguement I'm going to take into account. "Criticism of" articles are fundamentally slanted in that they will always only contain a critical view (gives UNDUE weight to the critical view). Since userfication is requested, do so with an index blocker so it doesn't come up in search and a Template:Userpage at the top. However, if the article is to be reinstated, it should be done at Public perception of Barack Obama. And yes, I think that would be a good move for the vast majority of non arts "Criticism of" pages. ] (] · ]) 11:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

  We already have Public image of Barack Obama, which includes things like the fact people (esp. McCain and Clinton) criticised him for a lack of experience. Sceptre 12:13, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, and Endorse deletion and Endorse salting of any page titled "Criticism of..." particularly when a living person is involved. "Public reception..." is dubious but reasonable. "Controversies involving..." has similar potential problems but also doesn't poison the well. "Criticism of..." is an invitation to soapboxing, content forking, and all sorts of other problems. Editors love these articles because they're an accepted way to force their gripes about a topic into what would otherwise be a respected source of information, but criticism pages violate about 75% of the things that Misplaced Pages is not (i.e. soapbox, battleground, indiscriminate collection, original thought, webhost, etc...). SDY (talk) 11:56, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse recreation until such time as the deletion of all "Criticism of..." articles are deleted as per a suitable policy. In the meantime, it seems to me that those users who endorse deletion, such as Sceptre for example, are unable to express their point of view without going OTT or starting an argument in breach of WP:CIVIL. C.U.T.K.D 12:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Non-imposition

Non-imposition (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

I feel that this article was wrongfully deleted. It contains a legitimate definition from game theory that doesn't seem to exist anywhere else on wikipedia. The definition itself is short, so the article doesn't contain much text, but it still has value for people trying to understand the subject, for example someone reading Arrow's Impossibility Theorem, which links to this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ostracize (talk • contribs) 12:46, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment speedy deleted under WP:CSD#G1. If anything above is true, the article does not qualify for CSD, at least not G1. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord 14:22, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn this article, whilst not very clear to a non-specialist reader, was definitely not nonsense and should not have been speedily deleted. Hut 8.5 16:22, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn Definitely not G1. I also doubt that A1 applies either. Ruslik (talk) 17:40, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn That it was judged nonsense was apparently to the unfamiliarity of both the editor and the admin involved.DGG (talk) 21:02, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
• Restore. G1 does not apply and neither does A1 (though it's perhaps closer). Since this is just a definition, it is likely to be deleted under WP:NOT#DICTIONARY or perhpas merged, but speedy deletion was not appropriate. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:21, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn and list at AFD. Doesn't qualify for speedy deletion. Stifle (talk) 09:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

"The Above Ground Sound" of Jake Holmes

"The Above Ground Sound" of Jake Holmes (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Deletion was entirely unreasonable. WP:MUSIC says that albums by notable artists may be notable. This article was around for a few years before nominator claimed it was unnotable. The final vote was 4 to keep, 7 to delete, which is not a concensus.SPNic (talk) 00:53, 15 March 2009 (UTC)