Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AKFD/merge

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

Hold it, ladies & gentlemen. Aren't we supposed to enter any page we'd like to see deleted in the Wikipedia:Votes for deletion page and wait for one week? KF 22:49 Feb 24, 2003 (UTC)

There was no deletion. I moved the content to hate speech. An anonymous user restored it for reasons unknown to me. Now it's redundant. --Eloquence

I think the content is perfectly fine, but should be incorporated in hate speech (as I did) or another similar article; phrases should usually not have their own articles but be mentioned where appropriate, as people are unlikely to search for a specific phrase or link to it (but the redirect can stay). --Eloquence 22:49 Feb 24, 2003 (UTC)

If you just redirect it to hate speech you are exercising judgement and failing to be neutral, specifically you are making an editorial decision that this is hate speech. Instead, let the reader decide for themself. If the only two "significant" times this phrase has been used have been related to Sebastian Bach and the Westboro Baptist Church, then why not just quote the phrase on those pages, and let the reader judge for themselves what the motivation of the person who used the phrase was? (anon)

It is not possible to write anything at all on any subject whatsoever without "exercising judgement". The phrase is undoubtedly offensive, does not offer any prospect of becoming an enclycopedic topic, and the content belongs, if it belongs anywhere, in the entries on hate speech or particular prominent figures (if they are indeed prominent) who used it. Tannin

Well, even if I disagree as to where this info should go, I agree that it doesn't need to have a page of its own.

Yes, it should have a page of its own because, as I just pointed out, it will be easier to find that way. Haven't you all become victims of the use-mention fallacy? KF 23:25 Feb 24, 2003 (UTC)

If it is deemed that a redirect rather than a link to hate speech helps the reader in any way, then fine, but the information from this article needs then to be added to that article. It took me a while to research, I find it interesting, and it is NPOV. Alternatively, suggest a better title for an article to hold this information. AxelBoldt 23:19 Feb 24, 2003 (UTC)

I've reverted the Hate Speech page to the version produced by Eloquence which included the information formerly contained on this article page. So the information is there, unless our anonymous contributor decided to revert that again (and this page) to return it here. (In which case, all of us busy reverting both pages will have to do re-reverts again, I suppose.) JTD 23:39 Feb 24, 2003 (UTC)

I see two separate issues here:

1: Some people think this deserves an entry of its own. 2: Other people think it should be merged somewhere else. 2a: Some prefer merging it with hate speech. 2b: Some prefer merging it with Sebastian Bach or Westboro Baptist Church.

I am in am camp 2b.

Well, I'm still in camp 1, since the article is related to at least: Sebastian Bach, hate speech, Matthew Shepard, LC Johnson, RAID, Fred Phelps and Westboro Baptist Church. All these articles need to link to the article covering the phrase, and this is unnecessarily complicated if the information is arbitrarily added to one of them. Simply put quotes around it and be done with it. We don't even have quotes around fuck, even though our article is about the word and not the act. AxelBoldt 01:23 Feb 25, 2003 (UTC)

Ironic it is, that you, Axel point to several "articles", at least three of which are empty,... WBC might barely qualify as a stub... hate speech.... RAID refers to a way to link hard drives... Need I go on? Indeed, your valid service of dropping stone in pond- has long since been done, and dealt with. -'Vert

RAID is an insecticide that gave rise to the phrase; I didn't claim that all the articles exist, I only claimed that they "need to link to the article", which is correct. AxelBoldt 02:08 Feb 25, 2003 (UTC)

This should not redirect to "hate speech". There's no guarantee that the hate speech entry will discuss the specifics of this phrase in the future. Therefore it is inadvisable to redirect this phrase to that entry. --The Cunctator

Why does that possibility exist? Are you trying to say that hate speech directed at homosexuals will be removed from the article? -- Zoe

No, I'm saying what I'm trying to say. I'm saying that the specific discussion of this phrase may be removed from the hate speech entry. --The Cunctator

The Cungcator is right about one thing: 'There are no guarantees."-&#35918&#30505

There's no guarantee that the hate speech article will mention this particular example of hate speech only in the same sense that there is no guarantee that the article will not be replaced by "fffdfdfdsfdfioj". I would hope that if a conscientious Wikipedian were to see a piece of factually correct, verifiable, NPOV information removed from an article, then they would just put it back in. (Or, if the article in question is not the right place for it, find a more appropriate article to put it in, and divert the redirect accordingly.) So there should never be a problem with the information on the phrase disappearing forever. -- Oliver P. 17:44 Mar 1, 2003 (UTC)

I agree that Cunctator's argument is not particularly strong, but how about this: the principle of least astonishment requires that somebody who clicks on AIDS Kills Fags Dead or maybe better 'AIDS Kills Fags Dead' phrase gets to an article which discusses the specifics of this phrase, certainly including a link to hate speech. Right now, these people are immediately redirected to hate speech and have to wade through two screenfuls of only marginally relevant discussion of academic hate speech codes before they find the information they're looking for, if they ever get that far down in the article. AxelBoldt 18:24 Mar 1, 2003 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm not convinced by any of the arguments about where the information should be; I'm not sure it matters whether this phrase gets an article all to itself or not. (But if it does, I think the phrase should definitely be put in quotes and labelled as a phrase, or - more precisely - a slogan.) A counterargument to what you're saying about linking would be that hardly anyone is ever going to link to such a phrase. If a different article wants to mention the phrase, it could always be reworded to say, "The phrase ... (an example of [[hate speech]])". -- Oliver P. 19:09 Mar 1, 2003 (UTC)

The articles on Skid Row, Matthew Shepard, and Fred Phelps currently link to this phrase; in the future, Sebastian Bach, Raid, and Westboro Baptist Church probably want to link to it as well.

Your suggestion "The phrase ... (an example of [[hate speech]])" is not good enough, since it doesn't tell the reader that hate speech has specific information about the phrase. AxelBoldt 19:21 Mar 1, 2003 (UTC)

Okay, good point. "... (discussed in the article on [[hate speech]])" might work, though. -- Oliver P. 19:46 Mar 1, 2003 (UTC)

A suggestion: replace the automatic redirect with See contents of [[hate speech]]. JtdIrL 19:58 Mar 1, 2003 (UTC)

Nooo... A ten-word sentence effectively just saying "go away" is just going to annoy everyone. Links should always take the reader to some useful content, and if they don't, we have to rearrange things so that they do. The page should either have some useful content, or it should be a redirect. Until this argument has been sorted out, I'll make it a redirect. -- Oliver P. 00:49 Mar 2, 2003 (UTC)

Well, then what exactly is the argument against making 'AIDS Kills Fags Dead' slogan, putting the material there, and linking from hate speech and all the other locations mentioned above? That way, every link works as expected without strange constructs as "discussed under hate speech". There's even a NPOV issue involved: apparently some people deny that hate speech even exists. AxelBoldt 01:15 Mar 2, 2003 (UTC)

I think the arguments are that:

Phrases shouldn't have their own articles. (Well, a detailed discussion of a single phrase might look out of place in a general article, so perhaps they should only be briefly mentioned in the general articles, and discussed in more depth in their own articles.)
People are unlikely to link to the phrase. (You have disproven this above.)
People are unlikely to search for the phrase. (Maybe true; maybe not. But they can still follow links to it.)
The "specificity is highly suspect" - perhaps a more general article on homophobic hate speech would be better. (Indeed so, but it needs to be written first...)

So, as I said above, I'm not convinced by any of the arguments. Any others to be added to the list, anyone? -- Oliver P. 02:32 Mar 2, 2003 (UTC)

Oliver says: "a more general article on homophobic hate speech would be better." Yes. Good idea. Tannin 02:34 Mar 2, 2003 (UTC)

So it seems argument 4 is still standing. I don't quite understand it though "perhaps a more general article on homophobic hate speech would be better". What would that article contain, and it what sense would it be better? We would have precisely the same situation as now: several places link to the phrase, and people would be redirected to an article that discusses a general topic and then at the end gives an example pertaining to the phrase. Wouldn't it make more sense to have homophobic hate speech link to 'AIDS Kills Fags Dead' slogan as an example? Also, the new article title would still prejudice the question if the phrase is indeed hate speech, which is apparently contested by some, as is the whole concept of hate speech. AxelBoldt 18:02 Mar 2, 2003 (UTC)

It is not. This page should be deleted. It violates our policy of offensiveness. Second, its a question of proportion: The notion that this should be an article about a slogan, would (once again) depend on the merits of the material - does this slogan warrant a serarate article? I dont think so, and my lack using expletives should not be seen as compliance or complacence but as the slightest degree of politeness; perhaps developing into respect should such respect be warranted. -&#35918&#30505

Our policy on offensiveness regards usernames, not entries. Noone would be allowed to have this entry's title as a username. --The Cunctator

There are a lot of entries on wikipedia that are short and stubby. Also, we have an article on fuck so your argument about offensiveness doesn't get you far.

Be as subjective as you want - we have a nigger article as well, as well as a fag article... Encyclpedically written... but this is beyond the boundaries, and y'all know it. Either you're trying to make some kind of lame, propagandist hate speech message with this, or your just trying to be a pain in the butt (Which is, ironically, the basis of a psychological theory about why...:) Thats what I think, I could be wrong. As far as stubs - they either seed a larger article, or are cut and incorporated into larger articles, like this one was. The argument you make about stubs is, essentially, based on a static concept of the Wikipedia: Its completely disigenuous if you understand, at all, the elementary notion that Wikipedia is not static. -&#35918&#30505

I agree with Stevertigo. I think it is nothing short of outrageous and disgraceful to have this 'article' here. If it belongs anywhere, it should be in a hate speech page, Under no circumstances, even simply described as a 'slogan', should this be given an article under this heading. It is in no way comparable with a page like fuck. Fuck is a non-specific word, with a literal meaning that can in different contexts can be used 'deliberately' as an expletive or in some cases as method in particular contexts to add emphasis, as in 'it was fucking brilliant'. But this phrase is specifically targeted at one group in a naked expression of hatred. Calling it a slogan is questionable. But also a legal point. In many counties, using this phrase would actually amount to a criminal offence, as incitement to hatred. What is wiki's position if printing this so-called slogan as an ARTICLE TITLE actually breaks the law in many countries, by being seen as incitment to hatred? JtdIrL 21:01 Mar 2, 2003 (UTC)

Well-meaning bullshit, but still bullshit. I'm queer myself and don't find the article offensive; I find Sebastian Bach's attitude offensive. If I believed we should remove this article on the basis of Bach's attitude's offensiveness, then that would leade me to the conclusion we should also expunge all text from slavery and Holocaust.

Lets get this straight - no offense: You think that what some aging prettyboy lead singer of a cheezy 80's hair band once wore - constitutes valid material for an article? LOL... And whoever You are, hehe, (assuming the story in the article is about You) Im sorry you lost tenure, man, but you shouldnt have been so unprofessional, given the environment. Clearly your loss of tenure came as a result of other factors as well, namely a big ego...-&#35918&#30505

yes, it was very controversial at the time. Don't let your personal scorn for him get in the way of your writing, that's not NPOV. And what are you talking about in terms of tenure? No, the story in the article is not about me, and you shouldn't try to discredit me personally just because you disagree with what I'm saying. That's not logical, though I'm sure it makes you feel better to have someone to patronize.

Im not patronizing, Im clarifying... If you, yourself are 'Sebastian Bach' - or (sadly) were limited in inspiration to his music - and now are trying to enter the world of literacy late in life... you will not get discouragement from me... But your characterization that it was "very controversial" is suspect if not smelly. -&#35918&#30505

Both of you please stop the personal attacks. --mav

Apologies, Axel - I missed that you had agreed with my "argument 4" as "standing" - In keeping with what seems to be a decent compromise, I moved this to a more general, but not overly general title...Hugs and smooches.-&#35918&#30505

Nice page rename. Now that the ugly Two16 thing is over I'm respecting your judgement more and more each day Steve. :) --mav

editorial note - I think this page move was homophobic hate speech

Since the one example given took up much more space than the rest of the material here, I moved it to its own page. That way, linking becomes more precise: people who want to read specifically about the phrase end up where they want to be and don't have to read general discussion of anti-gay slogans. AxelBoldt 02:55 Mar 14, 2003 (UTC)

HOW many times do we have to keep redeciding this before Axel stops trying to ignore the consensus view and put back his own pet page? STÓD/ÉÍRE 02:59 Mar 14, 2003 (UTC)

Please provide specific reference to the "at least three" decisions that "we" have made regarding this issue, as you claimed in your latest edit summary. You probably do not want to mention this one. Then stop referring to "consensus" where there is none. Then answer my arguments above. AxelBoldt 03:38 Mar 14, 2003 (UTC)

This has been discussed to death. It has been here and accepted by readers, users & contributors. That IS a decision. If people wanted it moved, there would have been (yet) another debate. But yet again you have decided unilaterally that you are doing to put it where you want. If you think it should be moved, begin a debate here again with people and let them discuss it. Whatever decision they take is fine by me. Don't simply treat this like your prize possession that whenever the mood takes you you can simply move around. It isn't. If you want to move it, talk to people first. Or put on a summary message saying you think it should be moved and get some response, not wait until you think no-one is looking and do what you want. STÓD/ÉÍRE

STÓD/ÉÍRE, please don't accuse everyone who disagrees with you of making "unilateral decisions" and ignoring "consensus". There was originally an article specifically about the slogan, and there was no consensus to remove it in the first place; putting it back is just restoring things to the way things were. Several people said that there shouldn't be a separate article, but several people said there should. Witness the following:-

Jimbo said on the mailing list that he thought an article on the slogan was okay: "Is the topic important enough to deserve it's own article? I think yes, it is, especially in conjunction with a more general article on homophobic hate speech."
Susan Mason said, "We can't have it in hate speech because its too limited and it needs its own page".
I said above, "the information is probably too specific to be comfortably absorbed into any more general article". I stand by this, since the article on anti-gay slogans looks very unbalanced with such a large proportion of it devoted to just one single slogan.
AxelBoldt still thinks the slogan should have its own article.

So where's the consensus of which you speak, STÓD/ÉÍRE...? -- Oliver P. 10:46 Mar 14, 2003 (UTC)

So discuss moving it, how it would be restructed, etc. Axel yet again did one of his 'unilateral' moves without seeking agreement or telling anyone. Sv and I reverted it and if he tries unilaterally changing it without giving prior notice and asking opinions it will be reverted again. Jimbo didn't say there should be an article, he said there was no problem with an article. As for Susan, well . . . typical Susan. STÓD/ÉÍRE 10:51 Mar 14, 2003 (UTC)

I notice that you didn't answer my challenge from above, so I will repeat it here for reference.

Please provide specific reference to the "at least three" decisions that "we" have made regarding this issue, as you claimed in your latest edit summary. Then stop referring to "consensus" where there is none. Then answer my arguments above.

You keep repeating that there was some decision by "readers, users & contributors"; the only consensus I can discern here is the one among you and Stevertigo. I will note too that the article was moved from 'AIDS Kills Fags Dead' slogan to Anti-gay slogan by Stevertigo without any discussion or justification, except "(Removed text.. this just doesnt belong here.... sorry Homophobes....)" in the edit summary. As you rightly point out, Jimbo saw nothing wrong with the original article title, so Stevertigo's action required more justification than this, while my restoring the status quo did not; nevertheless I did justify it here.

Regarding the "discussion to death" you mention, I cannot find any cogent argument from Stevertigo, and the two arguments you have presented are

the title 'AIDS Kills Fags Dead' slogan is offensive
the title 'AIDS Kills Fags Dead' slogan may be illegal

Regarding the first: I am admittedly a poor judge, since I don't know the feeling of being offended. However, I don't see how the quoted phrase can be offensive in the title but not in the article body. I would even argue that quotes cannot be offensive at all.

Regarding the second: Hate speech is legal in the U.S., and reporting about hate speech in a neutral way is legal everywhere.

So discuss moving it, how it would be restructed, etc.

I don't understand what you want here, but I'll give it a shot anyway. The article is to be returned to its original title which presicely describes its contents, so that links to the phrase, of which there are now 5 all over Wikipedia, only link to the phrase and not to material only marginally related, like a general discussion of homophobic hate speech or anti-gay slogans. There is not going to be any restructuring; the article that was under 'AIDS Kills Fags Dead' slogan is to be restored, the material from anti-gay slogan is to be removed and replaced with a link. AxelBoldt 18:41 Mar 14, 2003 (UTC)

Later discussion (redirect deletion era)

In addition, I vote for merging the material in this article into "anti-gay slogan". The Anome, me too, jimfbleak. Me three, Tannin, me four, Someone else.

Outrageous! There's plenty of material specific to this slogan on this page now. It's disgusting to see the number of attempts at bowdlerising Wikipedia that have come along in the past few months. -- Toby Bartels 18:55 1 Jul 2003 (UTC)

It's not an attempt at bowdlerisation, it's for the same reason we don't have separate articles about each and every Simpsons character any more. There's very little in "anti-gay slogan", AKFD is the most famous anti-gay slogan, there are other less well-known ones which also belong in the same article. Then make "Slogan:AKFD" point to the "anti-gay slogan" article. -- The Anome 13:40 2 Jul 2003 (UTC)

By that logic, we'd make Leni Riefenstahl a redirect to propaganda film. Koyaanis Qatsi 17:35 2 Jul 2003 (UTC)

No: the slogans actually belong together, with appropriate redirects. Together, they provide an insight into the homophobic world-view. Otherwise, they are mostly little bits of unintended PR for Phelps and Co. -- The Anome 17:45 2 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Interesting point. I'm not sure I agree with it entirely, if at all, simply because most of the people on this page seem to be reacting to emotion and not logic, but whatever. I still think that one could make similar arguments about combining e.g. foley artist and stand in into terms about film or somesuch, which I would oppose as well. As far as I'm concerned, if it's more than a sentence or two, and certainly if it's as long as this article, it should be a separate article. But I'm not going to start an edit war over it, I just think this specific merge is probably irrational, and the general sense I get in reading this page is that people are not thinking past their own offense. Koyaanis Qatsi 17:59 2 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Actually, as a person who almost never gets "offended", I think the merge is pretty much OK. In general I prefer long articles to shorter ones that have little potential to grow. (There's been a long mailing discussion about that, I shall one day formulate the results of that discussion into a position paper.) --Eloquence 18:07 2 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I'd be interested in seeing that summary. The "ideal" length of articles has been an issue at least since I joined wikipedia in Apr 2001. But bear in mind that notions of "ideal" article length will shift over time. :-) Koyaanis Qatsi

If someone showed me a meaningful and well-organised merge that made Wikipedia a better encyclopedia (rather than merely a less offensive one), then I could be convinced. That's what really matters, I think. Martin 20:11 1 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I have made a start on an attempt at this. It's remarkable how much of this seems to be an echo-chamber for Fred Phelps and his supporters, who are referred to in most of the news reports on this topic. There's a lot of duplication here. -- The Anome 17:43 2 Jul 2003 (UTC)

This should not be merged. --The Cunctator

I like your confidence, Cunctator :)

As a temporary compromise, perhaps Anome&co could edit anti-gay slogan to demonstrate how they think it could be merged to become a beautiful article, but we could leave this article (Slogan 'AIDS Kills Fags Dead') as a standalone article. After a week or two, I think it'd become obvious which was the better route to follow.

What do y'all think? Martin 19:40 2 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Considering that we went through this two months ago, I see no reason to repeat the experiment. It's quite evident what people's opinions are on this topic, and that at least some of those involved will never change their opinion. --The Cunctator

Sure, but IIRC, last time we mostly had a revert war and some shouting till everyone got tired - I was thinking that this time we could try a different, more experimental, approach.

Anyway, my two cents, and enough spent already. Martin 20:15 2 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I think Cunctator should be ignored until he presents any arguments for his position. --Eloquence 19:45 2 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I think Eloquence should be ignored until he reads the archived discussion at Talk:AKFD/Archive 1, the discussion at Talk:anti-gay slogan, and the discussion on the mailing list. Axel Boldt in particular clearly explicated reasons for not merging the entry. --The Cunctator 20:04 2 Jul 2003 (UTC)

If you think the arguments have already been dealt with and are applicable, you should have said so. You did not; you merely said "this should not be merged." Comments like this, without even a reference to an argument, are simply noise. As for past arguments, Axel Boldt's argument focuses on the linkability of the slogan, using a merged article "hate speech" as an example. This argument is valid; linkability should be retained. However, in all of the articles that currently link to AIDS Kills Fags Dead, a link to anti-gay slogan would be perfectly appropriate (e.g. ".. used the anti-gay slogan Aids Kills Fags Dead" or "invented the slogan Aids Kills Fags Dead (see anti-gay slogan)". Locating the correct section within that article is trivial since it focuses on a very narrowly defined subject, and it will be even easier with my automatically generated table of contents feature. In addition, a redirect is already in place. Lastly, it is quite likely that direct linking to individual sections will soon be possible. --Eloquence 20:47 2 Jul 2003 (UTC)

So The Cunctator is all worked up about the merging. Again. *sigh*. And I still have heard him offer any logical argument put to justify his 'issue' here. Just yet more unilateralism again. Is it at all possible that sometime this decade The Cunctator could say more than 'this article should not be merged' and then go ahead unilaterally to demerge them? But then as was often said in the endless arguments the last time (and the time before, and the time before etc etc) The Cunctator will just go ahead and do what he wants anyhow. Why are we even wasting our time voting on it? Cunc will just do his own thing anyway. FearÉIREANN 00:49 4 Jul 2003 (UTC)

The merging is really a seperate issue to the "surplus" redirects, so I don't see that we need to conflate the two. Martin 15:03 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)

BTW, I vote for deleting this article and merging it with anti-gay slogan. -- Axon I second. FearÉIREANN

By deleting, do you mean simply removing its content and redirecting it? Or actually deleting? Seeking clarity... Martin 23:38 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I mean removing its content and redirecting it... there is nowhere near enough content to justify its own article. Cannot speak for FearÉIREANN. -- Axon

I've been neglecting this discussion. Shame on me! Two points, one on each side:

This is not analogous to the Simpsons characters. There, each character was a small article, so that content was put into a general Simpsons article and the character redirected there. When a character gets a lot of content (like Bart Simpson), they get their own page. Here, AKFD has a lot of content, so it should get its own page. That Anti-gay slogan has little content isn't relevant, since most of AKFD is too specific for that page. The proper action is to expand Anti-gay slogan and live with its being short until that's done.
Point on redirect moved to Talk:AKFD/redirect

These two points actually share something in common -- they're about not giving much credence to pages that were created only in the midst of the great edit/move war. Anti-gay slogan, like the various "slogan" redirects, was created only in a silly attempt to avoid offence -- ironic that the various redirects now cause it! -- Toby Bartels 12:13 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)